MILLENNIALISM

When I was around twelve years old I was told that if I wanted to know how history was going to come to an end, I should read the Book of Revelation. I did, and I was terrified. The book’s imagery was not only beyond strange, it was downright disturbing. Scorpion-tailed grasshoppers, seven-horned-seven-eyed sheep, and men with swords coming out of their mouths were just a few of the visions that made it difficult for me to sleep at night.

My next real encounter with Revelation came in college, when I read a historical-critical analysis of the book which interpreted it as being an encoded message to First Century Christians encouraging them to keep a stiff upper lip during a persecution by the Roman Emperor Nero. According to the analysis Nero was the Beast, and the Number of the Beast (either 666 or 616 depending on what manuscript you were reading) was the numerological value of Nero’s name.  Revelation therefore had no relevance whatsoever for modern times because all its prophecies were about what was going to happen to the Roman Empire.

The impending release of the Left Behind movie has rekindled my interest in the subject of the end time and the interpretation of the Book of Revelation, so I’ve recently done some study on the subject. Here’s what I think I have learned.

Various groups of Christians subscribe to one of three basic interpretations of the end times:

1.       Premillennialism;

2.       Postmillennialism; and

3.       Amillennialism.

Let’s start with what (almost) everyone agrees upon: There is going to be a Second Coming of Christ, and there is going to be a Final Judgment of the just and unjust. Things begin to get complicated when we get past those two points.

Premillennialism is divided into two types. All Premillennialists believe in a Second Coming of Christ, a Tribulation, a Millennium (thousand year reign of Christ) and a Final Judgment. Where they differ is on the timing of those events. The Tribulation is supposed to be a disastrous time of suffering which precedes the Millennium. (This is the part of the Book of Revelation which frightened me so when I was a child). The two types of Premillennialists are pre-Tribulation Premillennialists (better known as Dispensational Premillennialists) and post-Tribulation Premillennialists.

The post-Tribulation timeline goes 1. Tribulation; 2. Second Coming; 3. Millennium; 4. Final Judgment.  

The pre-Tribulation timeline is somewhat different: 1. First Second Coming (which is more or less secret) and Rapture (when all good Christians simply disappear from the face of the Earth and go to meet Jesus in the sky); 2. Tribulation; 3. Second Second Coming; 4. Millennium; 5. Final Judgment. This is the timeline adopted by the popular Left Behind series.

Postmillennialists predict a somewhat different timeline: 1. Millennium; 2. Second Coming and Final Judgment.

Amillennialists believe that if there is a thousand year reign, Christ instituted it with his first coming (with the number one thousand being symbolic rather than literal). The Amillennialist timeline goes either 1. Millennium; 2. Second Coming and Final Judgment; or simply 1. Second Coming and Final Judgment.

 

Amillennialists who believe in a Millennium sometimes call themselves Nunc Millennialists. We won’t even discuss the difference between Preterist Amillennialists and Partial Preterist Amillennialists.

So which timeline is correct? I vote for none of the above. The more circumstantial a description of the end time becomes, the more I recall Jesus’s words on the Mount of Olives: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.” Matthew 24:36 (KJV).

YAHOO NEWS IS STUNNED BY YOUTH'S DISPLAY OF RELIGIOUS PRINCIPLES

Yahoo News has just reported what it calls "one of the strangest cases of purported religious beliefs intersecting with athletic performance." A young girl competing in a cross-country race became upset because she had been assigned the number 666 to wear. She asked for, and was denied, permission to run with another number. She refused to run with the number, and forfeited a chance to compete in the Kentucky state championships, a goal she had been working toward for three years. The article said that the girl's decision "stunned" everyone at the meet except her coach. You can read the story by following this hyperlink.

Here's what I think is strange about the story:

1. That anyone would think it was strange for a person to refuse to wear a symbol which was deeply offensive to that person's religious beliefs.

2. That anyone would be "stunned" because someone valued their religious beliefs above success in an athletic competition.

3. That the author of the article would characterize the girl's religious belief as "purported."

4. That the authorities who denied her request to change numbers would disingenuously claim that she never said she wanted to change numbers because of her religious beliefs.

I salute Cody Thacker. She stood up for what she believed in and willingly suffered the consequences. Instead of being ridiculed, she should be admired.

It has not been that long ago that instead of being "stunned" by "strange" refusals to violate "purported religious beliefs," we celebrated them. A similar incident occurred in the 1924 Olympics, when the British sprinter Eric Liddel refused to run the 100 meter dash because it was contested on Sunday. He refused in the face of the strong insistence of the British Olympic Committee and the Prince of Wales. To make a long story short, Liddel became admired as a hero and was mourned by an entire nation when he died during World War II. The 1981 movie Chariots of Fire told his story, and the story of his Jewish teammate, Harold Abrahams, who won gold when he ran in Liddel's place. The movie grossed $58,972,904 in the United States--and a dollar went much farther back in those days. 

Why, in 1981, did the American media celebrate Liddel as a hero when today it wonders at Cody Thacker's "odd" behavior? The last time I checked, the First Amendment still guaranteed freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. To question a young girl's principled stand based on her religious beliefs is reprehensible.