As Scott Clark (Click here: Why There Are No “Golden Ages” « Heidelblog) and Mark Jones remind us (Click here: Seventeenth-Century Eschatology « Thomas Goodwin), some of our own forebears could get a bit carried away with eschatological speculation.

While Thomas Goodwin (1600-1680) interacted directly with Thomas Brightman and Joseph Mede--the cutting edge eschatological speculators of that age--we  can't be as sure about Franciscus Junius (1545-1602), a contempoary of Brightman and Mede, who produced his own Commentary on Revelation in 1592.  Junius, a noted Reformed (Huguenot) theologian, who studied at Geneva, and then labored at Heidelberg, sets forth a very interesting eschatological timeline in his commentary.

Here are some of the key dates from the timeline set forth by Junius in the preface to that work.

AD 67--the Church of the Jews is rescued into the wilderness for 3 1/2 years.

AD 70--When the Church of the Jews was overthrown, the dragon invaded the Catholic Church (the subject of Revelation 13).  The dragon is bound for a thousand years (Rev. 20).  The dragon raised up the beast with seven heads, and the beast with two heads, which brings havoc upon the Catholic Church for1260 years after the passion of Christ (Rev. 11, 12).

AD 97--The seven churches are admonished of things present from the time of Domitian, and are also forewarned of things to come under Trajan in ten years (chapters 2 & 3).  God, by word and signs provokes the world, and seals the godly (Rev. 6 & 7).

AD 1073--The dragon is released after the 1000 years when Gregory VII is Pope, and he then rages against Henry III, the emperor. 

AD 1217--The dragon vexes the world for 150 years, unto Gregory IX, who wrote the Decretals, and cruelly persecuted the emperor, Frederick II.  Through the two beasts, the dragon persecutes the church, putting the godly to death (Rev. 9).

AD 1295--The dragon kills the prophets after 1260 years, when Boniface VIII was Pope (and author of the sixth book of the Decretals).

AD 1300 -- Boniface celebrates his first Jubilee.

AD 1301 -- A great earthquake shook Rome.

AD 1305 -- Prophecy ceases for 3 1/2 years, and Christ defends his church in word and deed (Rev. 14). 

Afterward--Christ gives his church victory over the harlot (Rev. 17-18), the two beasts (Rev, 19) and over the dragon and death (Rev. 20), and the church is eventually glorified in heaven (Rev. 21-22).

_____________________________ 

All of this makes me appreciate the wise words of Geerhardus Vos--sometimes, the best interpreter of prophecy is its fulfilment. 

“John MacArthur on Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Israel and Hermeneutics: A Few Comments”

In April 2007, I made my way through Dr. MacArthur’s controversial lecture, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist” (given at the Shepherd’s Conference at Grace Community Church, on March 7, 2007). The lecture can be ordered here (Click here: MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing).

Regrettably, I am just now getting around to completing my response–my day job kept getting in the way.  Better late than never, perhaps?

As we have come to expect of him, Dr. MacArthur spoke with great passion, covered much ground quickly, and had a great deal to say. No question, Dr. MacArthur commands authority. One can easily see why Dr. MacArthur is so widely-respected. When it comes to the gospel, he’s on the side of the angels. When it comes to eschatology, however, I must beg to differ.

As a Reformed amillennarian (who was raised a dispensationalist) I had a powerful gut-level reaction to Dr. MacArthur’s lecture.  While this lecture was well-received by the friendly and largely dispensational home court audience to whom it was delivered, surely Dr. MacArthur knew that his words would amount to picking a fight with those Reformed amillennarians who may have been present. This was not the playful jab that conference speakers often take at one another at such events. No, this was a warning of sorts–a shot fired across the bow.

My take is that this was MacArthur’s attempt to go from being on defense to switching over to offense. Despite the self-assurance with which the lecture was delivered, in many ways, the lecture seemed like a rather desperate attempt to stem the rising tide of interest in Reformed amillennialism in the Reformed-evangelical conference circuit, where many are now openly rejecting MacArthur’s beloved dispensationalism. At least that’s how it seemed to me.

As I worked my way through the specific points raised by Dr. MacArthur, it was very hard not to become exasperated. The lecture seemed out of place at such a conference and would have been a much better fit at a conference devoted to dispensational eschatology. At least the audience would have known what was coming in advance.

More to the point, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Is a Premillennialist” was a rather strident attack upon something that I as a Reformed amillennarian don’t believe. In fact, it was hard to recognize my own position as Dr. MacArthur made his case. Sadly, this was clearly an attack upon something that Dr. MacArthur truly believes that Reformed amillennarians believe. The same circumstance was true, no doubt, for those historic premillennarians, who likewise embrace Calvinism and arrived at the “Shepherd’s Conference” only to be told that in order to be consistent to Scripture and God's sovereignty, they too must embrace MacArthur’s dispensationalism in addition to being premillennial.

That Dr. MacArthur is a premillennial dispensationalist comes as no surprise. He has every right to state and defend his position, especially before his home church. But I am sure that many in the audience gathered for the Shepherd’s Conference were taken aback by the fact that he picked this particular forum--especially when a number of Reformed amillennarians were present and when several well-known amillenarians were invited to speak at the conference–to make the point that unless you adopt the dispensational hermeneutic you are unable to understand much of the Bible (certainly the eschatological portions).

With a rather striking measure of audacity, Dr. MacArthur went on to argue that unless you are a dispensationalist, you cannot be a “consistent Calvinist.” Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that as soon as live-blogger Tim Challies posted his initial report about MacArthur’s lecture, emails began to fly and the blogosphere went nuts! “Did you hear what MacArthur said about Calvinism?” “Did you hear what MacArthur said about amillennialism?” “Did you hear what he said about Calvin?” Thankfully, things have now calmed down a bit and we can look at these matters more objectively.

Several of you have asked me about my take on Hank Hanegraaff's recent book, The Apocalypse Code (Click here: Amazon.com: The Apocalypse Code: Find Out What the Bible REALLY Says About the End Times . . . and Why It Matters).  So, here goes.

On the one hand, Hanegraaff does a very good job debunking the popular dispensational end-times scenarios set out by the likes of John Hagee and Tim LaHaye.  Hanegraaff exposes the embarrassing problem faced by dispensationalists who claim to interpret the Bible literally, and who cannot make good on that promise.  While John (Revelation 1:3; 22:10) tells us that the things recorded in his apocalyptic vision are soon to come to pass, dispensationalists are forced to tell us that "near" and "soon" don't really mean "near" and "soon."  Instead, dispensationalists tell us, these things don't come to pass until the end of the age--a rather embarrassing problem given their insistence that they take the Bible (especially prophecy) "literally."

Hanegraaff also does a very good job debunking the Israel-centered hermeneutic of popular dispensational writers.  Hanegraaff capably demonstrates that Jesus Christ is the true hermeneutical center of all of Scripture and that many of the things dispensationalists assign to the future and the end of the age (i.e., in the millennium), are already fulfilled in Christ!  This includes the land promise of the Abrahamic covenant, the fact that Christ is the true temple, and so on. Hanegraaff also effectively replies to the common dispensational rant that non-dispensationalists are intrinsically anti-Semitic. 

In all of these regards, Hanegraaff's book offers an effective rebuttal to dispensational claims.  Would that all those who read Lindsey, LaHaye, and Hagee, and think their stuff is gospel, would also read Hanegraaff and consider well the biblical evidence he adduces which undoes the dispensational system.

On the other hand, Hanegraaff's The Apocalypse Code, has several serious weaknesses.  I hate to criticize Hank personally, since he was so gracious to me when I was a guest on the Bible Answer Man several years ago.  Hank was still working through his position on these matters and gave me two full hours on national radio to make my case.  He had read my first book (A Case for Amillennialism) from cover to cover, was thoroughly conversant with all of the key issues and was very nice to my teenage son who went to the studio with me.  Dads remember such things and I am grateful.

That being said, here are what I see as the main problems with The Apocalypse Code, and which detract from its overall impact and import. 

First, the use of neo-logisms ("I coined the phrase Exegetical Eschatology -- e2", implying that dispensationalists don't do exegesis), the use of mnemonic devices (LIGHTS), and guilt by association arguments (LaHaye is juxtaposed with Bill Maher and Bill Clinton, among others) seriously undercuts the very point that Hanegraaff is trying to make--which is that LaHaye, Hagee, et al., can't be taken seriously.  Inventing your own self-designation ("Exegetical Eschatology") requires that you do serious exegesis, not stoop to the sensationalist genre of those whom you are endeavoring to refute. 

Refuting sensationalist eschatology with sensationalism might sell books, but this approach seriously detracts from Hanegraaff's overall case.  The result is, in my opinion, Hanegraaff's book has a "snotty," condescending and sensationalist tone to it.  This would make me reluctant to give The Apocalypse Code to a dispensational friend who was not yet at the point of re-thinking their entire eschatology.

Second, Hanegraaff adopts the partial preterist interpretation of the eschatological language of the New Testament.  That's fine by me, since I too believe that the Olivet Discourse is primarily aimed to the disciples and that the events predicted there (with the exception of the Second Advent), are largely fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70.  But Hanegraaff's "partial" preterism leads to the usual (and in my estimation, flawed) interpretation of a number of key points.

Preterists of all stripes are forced to argue for a pre-70 A.D. date for the Book of Revelation.  I think the internal evidence points strongly for a date much closer to 95 A.D--although the dating of Revelation ultimately does not effect my overall eschatological position, which is Reformed amillennialism.  I get the sense from writers like Hanegraaff (and Ken Gentry), that once you make the leap to some form of preterism, you've got to make the case for an early date for Revelation.  You now have to "prove" this early date, not objectively examine evidence as to when John might have been given his vision.

Because of this preterist presupposition demanding an early date for the apocalypse, you get all kinds of far-fetched interpretations from Hanegraaff:  Babylon (Revelation 17-18) is apostate Israel, not Rome; Nero and the current Roman Caesars fulfill in its entirety the beast motif (Revelation 13); and that the Jerusalem Temple was still standing when John was given his vision (based upon a misinterpretation of Revelation 11:1-3). 

It is also highly problematic to argue that Christ returned (in a some form of parousia) with the events of 70 A. D.  No doubt, the destruction of the temple marks the end of the Jewish era (not the end of "this age,") and it clearly led to the diaspora and the curse upon apostate Israel being tragically realized as foretold by Jesus in Matthew 23:37-39.  But such does not constitute a "coming of Jesus."  How many second comings are there?  One or two?  And isn't one of the criticisms of dispensationalists that they teach a "real coming" at the Rapture which no one sees?

Hanegraaff's The Apocalypse Code has enough weaknesses that I would be hesitant to give it to a dispensationalist who was not at the point of jettisoning their dispensationalism.  I would give it (and therefore recommend it) to someone who was widely-read in this field, had thought about these issues for some time, and who understood most of the nuances and differences associated with these issues.  The Apocalypse Code might just give that person the final shove they need.

Since this is my blog and I'm therefore entitled to make shameless appeals to those who read it, let me just say that I too have written a book which covers much of the same ground, and which I think is more exegetically based.  Reformed amillennialism (i.e., Horton, Vos, Kline, Hoekema, Venema, Johnson, Beale) is not only able to deal with the "time is near" language of the Book of Revelation, it also does not strip the New Testament of those eschatological events which are yet to be fulfilled in the future.

You can find more information about my book, The Man of Sin, here:  Click here: Riddleblog - Man of Sin - Uncovering the Truth About Antichrist

My recent Academy lecture (Friday, October 13) entitled "signs of the times" has been posted on the Christ Reformed info blog.  Click here: Christ Reformed Info - The Latest News - "Signs of the Times"

In this lecture, I set out the preliminary outline for my forthcoming book ("The Future") in which I deal with the relationship between things already fulfilled in biblical prophecy and things yet to be fulfilled.  I'll post more of this material as I complete it.

What's a Thousand Years Among Friends?

Why amillennialism makes a whole lot more sense than premillennialism

(A lecture given at Grace Evangelical Church, URCNA, in Torrance, CA, July 19, 2006--Click here: Grace Evangelical Church:  A Member of the United Reformed Churches in North America)

___________________________

Without a doubt, most American evangelicals are firmly committed to premillennialism–the belief that an earthly millennial age of one thousand year’s duration will begin immediately after our Lord Jesus Christ’s Second Advent. Since premillennialism is so dominant in American church circles, many who encounter Reformed theology for the first time are quite surprised when they discover that all of the Protestant Reformers, as well as virtually the entire Reformed and Lutheran traditions (along with their confessions), with a few notable exceptions, are amillennial. Amillennialism is that understanding of eschatology which sees the millennium as the present course of history between the first and second Advents of our Lord (the age of the church militant), and not as a future golden age upon the earth as is taught in premillennialism and postmillennialism. In the case of both "pre" and "post" millennialism, the millennium is thought to be the age of the church triumphant, not the age of the church militant.

I am convinced that the reason why so many people reject amillennialism is simply that they do not understand the basic end-times scenario taught throughout the New Testament. Part of the problem is that dispensational premillennial writers have completely dominated Christian media and publishing for the last fifty years. There are literally hundreds of books, churches, and parachurch ministries, all devoted to taking premillennialism, dispensationalism, and the so-called "pre-tribulation" rapture idea to the masses. Many of these teachers and ministries are very effective and compelling in their presentations. Look at the sales of Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth, which was the best-selling book in the USA in the 1980's. And then there is the Left Behind series of novels, and the accompanying videos, journals, games, and whatever else LaHaye and Jenkins have cranked out, which have cumulatively sold well over 50 million units.

I can only lament the fact that my own tradition has done so little to produce popular books introducing and defending amillennialism. It is my guess that a number of you have never heard the case for the classical position held by Reformed Christians regarding the return of Christ and the millennial age.

To read the rest of this lecture, click here