I confessed in my last article that, for most of my Christian life and most of my time in ministry, I had selected my end times views like I would a piece of pizza on a buffet — I went with what sounded best. I doubt I’m alone, and it’s something we can’t do for our end-time view isn’t just a fringe part of our Bible knowledge rather through it we filter many other Scriptures and our Christian walk. For that reason, I wanted to share some of the different available end-time views, a glance over the “pizza buffet” if you will.
There are multiple levels of end-time views. Once you decide on a view from one theological fork in the road, you’ll soon have another decision to make. The first fork in the road when it comes to end-time views is over the very nature of prophecy, especially the nature of the Book of Revelation. There are four main views or interpretative methods in modern Christianity regarding how Bible prophecy should be considered. If you’ve not seen some of these, they may be shocking.
Theological Fork in Road #1: The Nature of Prophecy
The first level of the end-time view selection party or the first interpretative fork in the road is on how one views the nature of Bible prophecy and especially the Book of Revelation.
First, there is the futuristic approach or view of the nature of prophecy and especially in Revelation. This view interprets prophetic passages that have yet to be fulfilled as future events that will be fulfilled. Again, if you have not dove into some of these other views, you probably feel like me and ask out loud, “Isn’t prophecy synonymous with future events?” Well, for the futurist yes, but not for those that are proponents of these other views.
A second view is that prophecy, and again especially Revelation, is merely symbolism for deeper spiritual truths. This view is referred to as the Symbolic or Spiritualized View. In this view, most or all prophecy is only a symbol for something spiritual. Under this view when a proponent reads about tribulation in Revelation, they likely view it as being only symbolic of the struggles Christian face.
A third view is one called preterism. The Preterist view interprets the bulk, if not all, of biblical prophecy to having been fulfilled during the first century and especially in 70 A.D. with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Under this view, there are little to no future events in prophecy. For preterists, the key verse is Matt. 24:34, which they understand to say that all the events given in the Olivet Discourse would occur in the lifetime of the disciples.
A fourth view is the Historicist View. This view is much like preterism, but rather than viewing all prophecy as having been fulfilled in the first century, proponents of this view place the interpretation at other points in history. One of the hallmarks of this view is that not every historicist proponent arrives at the same events as fulfillments.
So which view is right? I don’t doubt that someone from each camp will read this. So, how do you know if your view is correct? If you’ve never considered these other views and now I’ve sent you thinking, how will you arrive at the correct view? Again, as you look through that list, it’s not an actual pizza buffet for us to select our favorite. The truth must come from the overall thread of the Bible.
With that said, each view would have a list of verses a proponent could espouse to defend that view. Yet not every view can be right. How can we know which is right?
I believe we should look at it as a replay from college or NFL football. We should recognize that there is a clear ruling on the field which is the plain reading of Scripture in context — not just the immediate context, but the context of the overall narrative in Scripture. Secondly, history provides a ruling on the field. We have the history of the early church — the first followers of Christ. They held a view. And more importantly, we have the Jewish people in the time of Scripture who had a view. They had a narrative. The disciples expressed that narrative when they asked Jesus about the signs of the end of the age in Matthew 24. Jesus did not condemn their view either as He answered. There is a clear ruling on the field. We must hold to that unless there is ample evidence from Scripture that overturns that “ruling on the field.”
Unfortunately, since we often make a selection based on what sounds good to us or what our favorite pastor or author has said, we don’t start with the ruling on the field. Let’s start with that ruling which has two hurdles — the hermeneutical hurdle (plain reading of Scripture in context) and the historical hurdle (what the original audience believed).
I believe it’s important to add that Bible prophecy is addressed in the BMA Doctrinal Statement. In the “binding” part of the statement, a view is not mentioned though it does say, “Our risen Lord will return personally in bodily form to receive His redeemed unto Himself. His return is imminent (I Thess. 4:13-17; Rev. 22:20).” This is a stance that there is a future and real return of Jesus.
The topic is addressed in an “addendum” and has the disclaimer, “The following statements are not to be binding upon the churches already affiliated with this association, or to require adoption by churches petitioning this body for privilege of cooperation, or to be a test of fellowship between brethren or churches. However, they do express the preponderance of opinion among the churches of the Baptist Missionary Association of America.” Then there is a statement endorsing “premillennialism,” which is a futuristic stance. The starting point for our views doesn’t start at the BMA Doctrinal Statement, rather the Doctrinal Statement should be a reflection of what we interpret Scripture to say. I believe this addendum is listed because it is the ruling on the field.
Jake is the newest state missionary and would love to share about the work in Northwest Arkansas and encourage your church to stand firm. (standfirmministries.com)
