An animate creation of God. The first reference to a living creature is in Gen. 1:20, where God creates sea life en masse. In this way, living creatures are set apart from the inanimate and plant life. As with all living beings, the living creatures on the land were to reproduce with their own kind (1:24). Humankind belongs to the category of living being but is also distinct by virtue of being created in the image of God. This is evident in God’s more personal involvement in humanity’s creation and in the authority given to humans over the rest of the living beings (1:26–27; 2:19). After the flood, God makes a unique covenant, one that is with all “living creatures” and not just humankind (9:10–16). There are also references to strange “living creatures” who appear to be angels. This designation may indicate that the beings are part of God’s creation but were not part of the created order subjected to the categorization and authority of humankind (Ezek. 1:5–22; Rev. 6:1–7; 7:11).

An animate creation of God. The first reference to a living creature is in Gen. 1:20, where God creates sea life en masse. In this way, living creatures are set apart from the inanimate and plant life. As with all living beings, the living creatures on the land were to reproduce with their own kind (1:24). Humankind belongs to the category of living being but is also distinct by virtue of being created in the image of God. This is evident in God’s more personal involvement in humanity’s creation and in the authority given to humans over the rest of the living beings (1:26–27; 2:19). After the flood, God makes a unique covenant, one that is with all “living creatures” and not just humankind (9:10–16). There are also references to strange “living creatures” who appear to be angels. This designation may indicate that the beings are part of God’s creation but were not part of the created order subjected to the categorization and authority of humankind (Ezek. 1:5–22; Rev. 6:1–7; 7:11).

Many species are included under this general designation. The date palm tree often attains a height of eighty feet, but more commonly forty to fifty. It begins bearing fruit six to eight years after being planted and continues to be productive for a century. Its trunk is straight and tall and terminates in a crown of emerald green plumes. Its leaves are often about twenty feet long and whisper melodiously in the breeze. Jericho was the “City of Palms” (Judg. 1:16; 3:13 NIV mg.). The Greek word phoinikē (“Phoenicia” [Acts 11:19; 15:3]) probably is derived from the Greek word for “palm” (phoinix). In Ps. 92:12 the prosperity of the righteous is likened to the palm tree. The glorified saints will be dressed in white robes with palm branches in their hands as a sign of victory and peace (Rev. 7:9). See also Plants.

The NT conception of tribulation is perhaps best summarized in Paul’s pastoral reminder, “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). The Greek term used here for “hardship” is thlipsis.

In the NT, thlipsis may refer generally to the sufferings and afflictions that occur in the normal course of human living (John 16:21; Acts 7:11; 1 Cor. 7:28; James 1:27). In its more common and specific usage, “tribulation” relates directly to the experience of the people of God as a consequence of their faithful proclamation of the gospel. Thus, in the parable of the sower, “tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word” (Matt. 13:21; Mark 4:17 ESV).

One of the primary aspects of the biblical view of tribulation relates to the tribulation and suffering of Christ as the pattern for the church (Rev. 1:9). That his followers would suffer tribulation was made explicit by Jesus to his followers in the Farewell Discourse (John 14–17). There he informs them, “In the world you will have tribulation” (John 16:33 ESV).

Closely related to the impending tribulation that confronts all believers is the NT affirmation that the sufferings of Christ serve as the model for the tribulation of the people of God. Jesus thus warns the disciples, “If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first” (John 15:18; cf. 15:20). Paul continues this concept in Col. 1:24 (cf. 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10–12; Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). The tribulation that the people of God experience serves to equip them in a variety of ways. Most significantly, tribulation results in the transformation of the people of God into the likeness of Christ (Rom. 5:3–5; 2 Cor. 4:8–12).

The book of Acts records the fulfillment of Jesus’ warning to his followers: it was because of persecution that the church was scattered (Acts 8:1). Later, Paul notes that he has experienced tribulation (2 Cor. 1:8), as did the church in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 1:6) and the recipients of Hebrews (Heb. 10:33). The reality of “tribulation” is seen in the exhortation of John to the church in Smyrna (Rev. 2:9).

Another important aspect of the tribulations that await the people of God in the NT era is the relationship of tribulation to the kingdom of God (cf. Matt. 24:9–14; Rev. 1:9; 7:14). Many hold to the notion that there will be an intensification of tribulation immediately prior to the return of Christ (Matt. 24:31; Mark 13:24).

The “great tribulation” of Rev. 7:14 has been interpreted in a variety of ways. Some understand this as a future event limited to seven or three and one-half years. Many others, however, associate this event with the tribulation, suffering, and affliction of the people of God throughout the entire era from the resurrection to the second coming. The expression “great tribulation” alludes to Dan. 12:1. The Danielic context incorporates a time of persecution and suffering among the people of God. The use of “tribulation” in Revelation (Rev. 1:9; 2:9–10, 22; 7:14) corresponds with the persecution of the people of God. A comparison with Matt. 24:21 confirms this conclusion. Therefore, regardless of how one reads the “great tribulation” in Rev. 7:14, as present or future reality, it appears that this tribulation refers to the suffering of God’s people and not to an exemption from it (cf. John 17:15).

Water is mentioned extensively in the Bible due to its prevalence in creation and its association with life and purity. The cosmic waters of Gen. 1 are held back by the sky (Gen. 1:6–7; cf. Pss. 104:6, 13; 148:4). God is enthroned on these waters in his cosmic temple (Pss. 29:10; 104:3, 13; cf. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 78:69; Isa. 66:1). These same waters were released in the time of Noah (Gen. 7:10–12; Ps. 104:7–9).

Water is also an agent of life and fertility and is therefore associated with the presence of God. Both God himself and his temple are described as the source of life-giving water (Jer. 2:13; 17:13; Joel 3:18; cf. Isa. 12:2–3). Ezekiel envisions this water flowing from beneath the temple and streaming down into the Dead Sea, where it brings life and fecundity (Ezek. 47:1–12; cf. Zech. 14:8). The book of Revelation, employing the same image, describes “the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb” (22:1). This imagery is also illustrated in archaeological remains associated with temples. Cisterns are attested beneath the Dome of the Rock (presumably the location of the Jerusalem temple) and beneath the Judahite temple at Arad. Other temples, such as the Israelite high place at Tel Dan, are located close to freshwater springs. The Gihon Spring in the City of David may also be associated with the Jerusalem temple (Ps. 46:4; cf. Gen. 2:13).

This OT imagery forms the background for Jesus’ teaching regarding eternal life in the writings of the apostle John. Jesus claims to be the source of living water, and he offers it freely to everyone who thirsts (John 4:10–15; 7:37; Rev. 21:6; 22:17; cf. Rev. 7:17). This water, which produces “a spring of water welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14), is the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer (John 7:38–39).

Water is also described in the Bible as an agent of cleansing. It is extensively employed in purification rituals in the OT. In the NT, the ritual of water baptism signifies the purity and new life of the believer (Matt. 3:11, 16; Mark 1:8–10; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 31–33; 3:23; Acts 1:5; 8:36–39; 10:47; 11:16; 1 Pet. 3:20–21; cf. Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22).

Finally, the NT also reveals Jesus as the Lord of water. He walks on water (Matt. 14:28–29; John 6:19), turns water into wine (John 2:7–9; 4:46), and controls water creatures (Matt. 17:27; John 21:6). Most important, Jesus commands “the winds and the water, and they obey him” (Luke 8:25; cf. Ps. 29:3).

Typically associated with glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14) and purity (Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4), white is a color worn by both angels (Mark 16:2; John 20:12; Acts 1:10) and heavenly saints (Rev. 7:9). On skin, however, white is abnormal, indicating a skin disease (Exod. 4:6; Lev. 13:3–4). Snow is often used in similes or comparisons to depict the color white (Exod. 4:6; Num. 12:10; 2 Kings 5:27; Ps. 51:7; Isa. 1:18; Dan. 7:9; Matt. 28:3; Rev. 1:14). See also Colors.

Bathing was built into the very structure of the culture of the biblical world. Jewish ritual baths, miqwa’ot, were found throughout the Mediterranean world in both private homes and public places. Likewise, bathhouses were common in the Greco-Roman landscape of urban life. Ancient literary and archaeological sources attest to the traditions of curative bathing throughout the Mediterranean basin.

Homer wrote of bathing in warm water as a luxury and part of a hero’s welcome. Greek philosophers describe taking a hot bath as reserved for the aristocracy. In contrast, the Spartans bathed only in cold water. The Greeks incorporated full bathing facilities into their gymnasium programs. It was customary in the Roman Empire for men and women to bathe separately. Some of Rome’s extant public baths have inscriptions indicating separate spaces for the sexes. Some of the emperors, however, tolerated mixed bathing.

In the OT, bathing is often part of purification rituals. The Israelites had cleansing rituals that included bathing in running water (Lev. 15:13). In the NT, washing or bathing (baptizing) can be either literal or metaphorical (Luke 12:50; Rom. 6:3–4; 1 Cor. 10:2; 12:13; Col. 2:12; Rev. 7:14; 22:14). Baptizing is presented as a symbol of purification from sin (Acts 22:16) or spiritual pollution, and water baptism became the initiation rite for the early Christian community. Early Jewish Christian communities had a preference for using the Jewish ritual baths or pools for their baptisms because their water was channeled in from natural sources. See also Baptism.

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

There are several censuses in Scripture, and their concern is not simply to account for the number of people or the number of men available for military service; they also have a literary and theological function.

In the creation narrative in Gen. 1–11 the fulfillment of the creation mandate is accounted for through the genealogy of Adam (Gen. 5) and the genealogy of the sons of Noah (Gen. 9:18–19; 10:1–32), which serve as a type of census. The creation narrative has a universal scope; it attempts to account for the total human population on earth.

Census lists are given for the Abrahamic family (Abraham-Isaac-Jacob line) as it grows to become a nation in accordance with God’s promise to Abraham of a great nation and innumerable offspring (Gen. 12:1–3; 15:5). The total number of Jacob’s descendants who went to Egypt was seventy (Gen. 46:8–27; Exod. 1:1–4). This old generation of Israel passed, and a new generation was born that was fruitful, multiplied, and became exceedingly numerous (Exod. 1:6–7). The total number of men of at least twenty years of age who came out of Egypt was 603,550 (Num. 1:1–46; cf. Exod. 12:37–38), and of the new generation that stood on the verge of entering the Promised Land, 601,730 (Num. 26:1–51).

In the book of Numbers there are two census accounts (actually, military registrations). These are important to the structure and theme of the book. The theme of Numbers has to do with the judgment on the first generation (the object of the census in Num. 1) and the hope for the second generation, which will enter the Promised Land (the object of the second census).

David conducted a census to measure his military power, but this is condemned by God and regarded as satanic (2 Sam. 24:1–17; 1 Chron. 21:1–30). For the Chronicler, any attempt to account for the total number of Israelite men twenty years and older, similar to the census in the book of Numbers, is regarded as challenging God’s promise to make Israel as numerous as the stars (1 Chron. 29:23–26).

Ezra and Nehemiah contain census lists of the returnees from exile: under Zerubbabel, 42,360 men returned (Ezra 2:1–66; Neh. 7:4–73), and under Ezra, 1,496 men (Ezra 8:1–14).

In the NT, Jesus participates in the universal census that encompasses not only Israel but other nations as well—a census of the entire Roman world (Luke 2:1–7). The census motif reaches its fulfillment when a great multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language will stand before the throne and in front of the Lamb, symbolized by the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel, 12,000 from each tribe (Rev. 7:4–10).

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

Love for those who suffer. If we love others by denying ourselves for their sake, so that they might please God and live abundantly, we show them compassion by doing this when they are in pain. We respond with friendship, healing, and encouragement just when others might keep their distance. The compassionate person also turns sin-sick people away from evil, longing to see Christ formed in their character and life. Accordingly, compassion, like love in general, is an active force. It does not merely “feel someone’s pain”; it gets involved whenever and wherever possible.

Compassion Shown by God

The OT often refers to God’s compassion, especially toward those who, because of their sinfulness, deserve the opposite treatment. In Exod. 33:19 Yahweh takes pity on the Israelites after they have rebelled, making an idol for themselves and praising it for their deliverance. He renews his covenant with them, but he reminds them of his sovereignty in doing so: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (cf. Rom. 9:15). No one deserves God’s mercy, yet the people often receive it, even when suffering from deserved harm. In the book of Judges, Israel’s history cycles from sin and wrath to compassion and deliverance, thus emphasizing Yahweh’s patience and love. The people “wouldn’t listen to their judges; they prostituted themselves to other gods—worshiped them!” but God later “was moved to compassion when he heard their groaning because of those who afflicted and beat them” (2:17–18 MSG). David’s plea for mercy in Ps. 51 relies on Yahweh’s compassion for the self-destructive sinner: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions” (v. 1). In fact, God’s tendency to show mercy appalls Jonah, who complains, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? . . . I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity” (Jon. 4:2). Isaiah 40–66 dwells frequently on this aspect of God’s nature (e.g., 49:10–15; 54:7–10; 63:7, 15).

The NT points to God’s compassion at significant junctures in the Gospels and the Epistles. Jesus himself has compassion for the crowds who “were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). He takes pity on the crowds, healing their sick and feeding them miraculously (14:14–21; cf. 15:32). The same connection between compassion and healing occurs in Matt. 20:34; Mark 1:41, this time on an individual level. The apostle Paul underscores this attribute of God, raising it to a title of sorts. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is “the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort” (2 Cor. 1:3). James says that the Lord is “full of compassion and mercy” (5:11), and John depicts God as one who will wipe away every tear caused by persecution and trial (Rev. 7:17; 21:4). Because God is always dealing with broken sinners, his compassion for them coincides with his love (see Ps. 145:8); and this rescuing of the guilty sets an example for his people. They must go and do likewise, loving the unlovely, unwise, and even unrighteous.

Compassion Required by God

Because God loves the suffering person, even those with self-inflicted wounds, he calls upon his people to show similar compassion. Parents ought to show compassion toward their own children, as 1 Kings 3:26; Ps. 103:13 imply (cf. Ezek. 16:5). No one must keep a debtor’s garment in pledge, Yahweh says, “because that cloak is the only covering your neighbor has. What else can they sleep in? When they cry out to me, I will hear, for I am compassionate” (Exod. 22:27). According to Hos. 6:6, a familiar verse quoted by Jesus, God requires compassion: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (cf. Matt. 12:7). Micah 6:8 draws the same contrast between outward formalism and genuine righteousness, including displays of compassion: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” Given the OT emphasis on the compassion of God, we might have expected it to become Israel’s duty as well, though it is sometimes withheld in judgment (see Deut. 7:5–6; 13:8; 19:13; Ps. 109:12).

The NT also portrays mercy or compassion as a duty. Matthew 5:7 is a familiar example: “Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” Of course if Jesus demonstrates compassion toward those who suffer, we ought to do so as well. In 2 Cor. 1 the “Father of compassion” comforts us (v. 3) “so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (v. 4). Ephesians 4:32 is a direct command that associates compassion with mercy toward sinners: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” The comfort given to us by Christ sets the tone for each believer in Phil. 2: if there is any “tenderness and compassion” in him (v. 1), we must follow his example. Similarly, we must “clothe [ourselves] with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience” (Col. 3:12). Peter makes the same connection between humility and compassion: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble” (1 Pet. 3:8).

The Bible connects compassion and mercy with humility for understandable reasons, given the common association of distress and dishonor. We want always to keep up appearances, since others might be affected by our own troubles and the troubled company we keep. Suffering people are burdensome and sometimes unlovely. Their sins may provide a ready excuse to keep one’s distance, but just as God the Savior has shown us compassion, we must love others when they hurt.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

The Bible contains two kinds of statements related to proper conduct. Some of them describe the nature of God, the sort of world he created, and what he has done for particular groups of people. It also contains statements telling us what we ought to do, both as creatures of this God and, in some instances, as the unique beneficiaries of his redemptive activity. Consequently, the Bible sets forth a moral viewpoint or ethical system, supported by reasons that justify its content and urgency. The writers of Scripture were not moral philosophers, outlining their position in technical detail; nevertheless, they intended to reveal what pleases our God and Savior, so that the saints are “thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). The Bible, therefore, is the foundational resource for moral discernment, the definitive statement of what Christians must do and who they must become.

The Sources of Moral Knowledge

Scripture identifies two sources of moral knowledge. First, all human beings have the law of God “written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:15). We have a conscience, a God-given awareness of right and wrong that acquits or convicts us, depending on how we respond to it. The fall of humankind has damaged this source of knowledge, and our consciences can become “seared” through chronic disobedience and doctrinal treason (1 Tim. 4:2). We do not, therefore, see infallibly what our duties are. Nevertheless, the apostle Paul argues that every human being knows enough of God’s law—and indeed, enough about his nature as God—to eliminate every defense on judgment day (Rom. 1:18–20). No one will be able to say to God in that hour, “I had no idea who you were and no hint of what you expected of me.”

Second, as noted above, we have the Bible as a source of knowledge, this one being fully adequate and sufficiently clear to guide our choices. Knowing Scripture is necessary for Christian ethics because it offers a high-definition view of what conscience can (even in its best moments) scarcely grasp. The Bible proclaims not only what the church must do, often in straightforward, concrete terms, but also (at least, in many cases) why God’s will has its particular content and why obedience is an emergency, not a safely deferred, improvement project. The Bible does not, and really could not, answer every ethical question put to it in unambiguous detail. New technologies and cultural shifts have created dilemmas unimagined in the first century or any previous age. But the church can be assured that a faithful reading of and response to Scripture will, by the grace of God, please him even today, whatever our particular circumstances.

The Logic of Biblical Morality

The moral teaching of Scripture has an identifiable structure consisting of duties and final objectives. When we obey God’s commandments, which is our duty, his ultimate goals or objectives in creating us are realized. In this sense, biblical morality is complete and informative compared to systems derived from other worldviews. It explains what life is all about, but also what we must do from day to day. This entire picture emerges from Scripture because its theological statements are always practically applied and never presented with merely theoretical interest.

The objectives of biblical morality. The objectives of an ethical system are its final ends or purposes: the results that obedience is supposed to yield. In the Bible, two objectives have this ultimate significance, one being the anticipated side effect of the other.

To glorify God. The biblical writers proclaim the spectacular goodness of God. He is maximally excellent in all ways as the Creator, including wisdom, power, justice, and love. He is the holy God who, almost in spite of that fact, loves us and gave his Son, Jesus, to suffer for our sins so that we might live eternally in his presence. In these respects, God stands alone, not simply in experience but necessarily so. No one ever has, and no one ever could, be like him. Thus, the final objective of all human striving must be to glorify this God—to know him, to praise him, and to value what he values. Our actions must testify to his excellence, honoring him and encouraging others to do likewise. Obedience treasures what God treasures, shuns what he abhors, and allows his power to work in our lives, causing us to live in unity with our fellow believers. These patterns of behavior define what it means to glorify God.

To be happy in God’s presence. The second goal or objective of biblical morality is to be happy in ways that are proper for God’s creatures. In this sense, the Christian system of ethics differs from moral theories that either reject happiness altogether, viewing it as an unworthy goal, or else reduce it to a merely practical necessity—that is, we sinners need our incentives. On the contrary, the God of Scripture plainly desires our happiness and often presents himself as the final source of it when calling his people to obedience. This tendency follows from the perfect goodness of God and his freedom in creating all things. He did not have to make anything else, but he did so; and because he has no needs, his purposes must have been selfless rather than selfish. He created in order to give rather than to get, and the very best he desires for any of us is the happiness that results from our glorifying him together, as one body in Christ. Likewise, then, biblical morality differs from ethical systems that make human happiness an intrinsic good, so that any means to it is acceptable. God wants us to be happy, but our happiness must come from bringing him glory. All other forms of happiness are deceptive and transitory. The heavenly scenes of the book of Revelation show the church what happiness God has in store for them if they overcome the trials of this life (so, e.g., Rev. 4–5; 7; 21–22; cf. 1 Cor. 2:9; Heb. 12:2).

The means of biblical morality. Not surprisingly, the Bible also shows us how to glorify God—how to reflect his majesty in our daily lives, how to praise him, and how to value what he values. Within the whole of this teaching, several major themes can be discerned, five leading examples of which appear below, allowing some overlap between them.

Trusting in God’s promises. Biblical faith is the confidence that God will do for us what he has promised. We believe that he can and will meet our needs and not allow us to endure pointless suffering. When we trust him, we proclaim his greatness and acknowledge our own dependence upon him. Both Rom. 4 and Heb. 11 make this point in ways that reflect upon OT history with an application to the present Christian life. The gospel is a promise concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and faith assures us that God will reckon these events to our account. Conversely, we often violate God’s commandments because we doubt that he will give us what we need when we need it (so, e.g., Abraham’s capitulation to Sarah in Gen. 16, with its corresponding negative results).

Keeping holiness and impurity separated. God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect Creator of the universe. All things depend on him for their existence, and he is extreme both in his commitment to justice and his desire to love. Consequently, God’s creatures encounter him as “holy,” as the ominously transcendent or dangerously perfect deity. He stands alone, apart from everything else, and life in his presence cannot entail business as usual. The shorthand way of expressing this duty is to say that we ourselves must be holy, as he is holy, by shunning all forms of impurity. In this way, for example, the ancient Israelites prepared themselves to enter Yahweh’s presence and gave him public honor (Lev. 11:44; 19:2; Ps. 24:3–4; Isa. 6:1–5; cf. 1 Pet. 1:15–16).

In Scripture, the distinction between the pure and the impure, or the holy and the unholy, is sometimes intrinsic and sometimes pedagogical. Breaking any of the Ten Commandments makes one intrinsically impure. It is always evil, everywhere, for anyone to have other gods, make idols, and disrespect parents. It is evil to lie, steal, and murder. Even breaking the Sabbath is wrong if it expresses unbelief in God’s ability and willingness to provide. But some lines between purity and impurity—or, in other cases, just between the sacred and the common—seem to be drawn by God for instructional purposes only. They do not separate good from evil as such, but they compel the Israelites to “practice Yahweh’s presence” by honoring boundaries imposed on domestic life. It is not evil to eat pork, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and permitted in the NT (Lev. 11:7; Mark 7:19). It is not evil to wear blended cloth, but doing that is forbidden in the OT and passed over in the NT (Lev. 19:19). Therefore, as suggested, Levitical rules of this kind must have had some instrumental purpose, serving an objective beyond themselves. They impose the holiness of Yahweh on everyday choices, as the Holy Spirit now presses the claims of God upon his church. This separation of impurity and holiness is, in any case, a constant theme in the OT, and it carries over into the NT as well, where it informs the question “What must I do to be saved?” (cf. Acts 16:30).

Imitating God/Christ. The biblical writers also construe the moral life as an imitation of God and/or Christ, especially when the virtues of mercy, humility, and endurance are at stake. In the OT, Yahweh’s behavior toward people becomes the standard for Israel’s own conduct. So, for example, he says, “But let the one who boasts boast about this: that they have the understanding to know me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight” (Jer. 9:24). In the NT, similar inferences appear, as when Jesus says, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matt. 5:9), the son being one who follows in his father’s footsteps. We must love our enemies, so that we may be “children of (our) Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:44–45). We must “be perfect,” as he is perfect (Matt. 5:48). Jesus commands his disciples to wash one another’s feet, after his own example (John 13:14–15). They must love each other as he has loved them (John 15:12). The new commandment to love one another, following the Lord’s example, puts on display his character and their own relationship to him (13:34–35). Jesus prays that his disciples will be “one,” just as the Father and the Son are one (17:22). Paul’s hymn in Phil. 2:5–11 serves this purpose: we must imitate the humility that surrendered all, even to the point of crucifixion. Hebrews 12:1–2 holds up Christ as one who “for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame,” resulting in his glory.

Living out our unique identity. Scripture defines the moral ideal for all persons, whoever they are, because its perspective is not relativistic. Murder, idolatry, and lying are not wrong for some and right for others. Nevertheless, most of the Bible’s moral teaching has a target audience, so that it often contains inferences to this effect: “You shall do X (or doing X is urgent for you), either (a) because you belong to God in a special way or (b) because he has done this special thing for you.” In the OT, the target audience is Israel; in the NT, the corresponding group is the church. In both Testaments, however, the same ethical particularism operates, thereby giving the moral exhortations of Paul and Peter, to cite two clear examples, a recognizably “Jewish” structure or theme.

The linkage between gift and task, or supernatural identity and behavior, is the basic structure of the Sinai covenant itself. The text moves from prologue, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt,” to moral exhortation, beginning with, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:1–3; Deut. 5:6–7). Echoes of this prologue also occur frequently in the OT as motive clauses. God will say, in effect, “You shall do X, for I am the Lord your God,” or “You shall not do Y, for I am the Lord your God who brought you out of Egypt.” In some cases, the motive clause identifies the people themselves, as in, “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deut. 7:6). Or again, “You are the children of the Lord your God. Do not cut yourselves or shave the front of your heads for the dead, for you are a people holy to the Lord your God. Out of all the peoples on the face of the earth, the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured possession” (Deut. 14:1–2). In some cases, God refers to the people’s unique condition to shame them, as in, “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more they were called, the more they went away from me” (Hos. 11:1–2). Loyalty was especially urgent, given Israel’s experience of God’s particular love.

In the NT, the mandate to live out one’s special identity appears often, especially (though not exclusively) in the writings of Paul and Peter. In Rom. 6 those who have been emancipated from sin must resist its waning influence. In Rom. 8 those who are under the Holy Spirit’s new management must walk in accordance with him and shun the mind-set of the flesh. The Corinthians have become an unleavened batch of dough; therefore, they must “Get rid of the old yeast,” which tolerates extraordinary sin (1 Cor. 5). The members of Christ’s one body are to function as one new humanity (1 Cor. 12:12–31). If the Galatians live by the Spirit, they must also walk by the Spirit (Gal. 5:25). Peter tells his readers to love one another because they have been “born again” of “imperishable seed” (1 Pet. 1:22–23). They are a “chosen race,” a “royal priesthood,” and a “holy nation”; therefore, they must proclaim his excellence and abstain from carnal passions (1 Pet. 2:9–11). Jesus himself says that because he is the vine and we are the branches, we must abide in him (John 15:1–11). In all these cases, the target audience has a special relationship to God that imposes on them corresponding duties or priorities, so that they reflect his holiness, value what he values, and attain the goals that he has set before them.

Living in unity with one another. The first sin separated God from humankind and damaged all other relationships (Gen. 3). From that point onward, Adam and Eve would live in tension (Gen. 3:16), and their son Cain kills his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). Disunity results from sin; and in some cases, God scatters sinners as judgment on their wickedness (e.g., Gen. 11:1–9; 1 Kings 11). It is “good and pleasant” when “God’s people live together in unity” (Ps. 133:1), and obedience to OT teaching would make them do so. Nevertheless, sin stands between Yahweh and his people, and it stands between one Israelite and another. Disunity, in all these dimensions, is the unfinished business of the OT story.

The NT presents unity as both an effect and a duty (or a gift and a task) of the new life in Christ. We are one in Christ, and we must live in unity of fellowship with one another. Jews and Gentiles—indeed, people from all walks of life—become one body, a new kind of people, defined by relationships that are “thicker than blood,” so to speak, as blood is thicker than water. Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, enforces this theme throughout his letters, so that his exhortations concentrate on the church, in the first instance, rather than the individual. Christians must display the social virtues of love and humility, resisting selfish ambition and pride, both of which separate believer from believer and each from the head of the church, who is Christ. Romans and Ephesians make a positive case for Christian unity among Jews and Gentiles, while Philippians (perhaps, in a broader sense, also Galatians and Colossians) confronts a divisive tendency. The essential vice denounced in 1–2 Corinthians is arrogant grandstanding, which rejects Paul’s “message of the cross” (1 Cor. 1:18) and subdivides the church into cults of personality. Worldly forces are centrifugal, leading us away from one another and into competition for influence, wealth, and public honor. In contrast, the Holy Spirit’s force is centripetal, creating unity where no one would expect it and leading each person to self-sacrifice so that others in the body of Christ might be built up in him.

Famine was the most devastating catastrophe to an agrarian society. Caused by drought, crop failure, or siege (Ruth 1:1–2; 2 Kings 25), it often was accompanied by disease or war, which in turn brought adversity to many levels of society (Jer. 14:12; Matt. 24:7), including that of the animals (Job 38:41; Joel 1:20).

Dependence on rainfall caused some people to stockpile in anticipation of possible famine. In Egypt, Joseph implemented a grain ration that saved the people, supplied seed, and filled Pharaoh’s royal storehouses (Gen. 41:33–36; 47:23–24). Israel’s own temple contained storerooms (1 Chron. 26:15; Neh. 10:38–39). God used famine to encourage obedience from the Israelites (Deut. 11:17; 28:33) and as divine judgment upon them (Lev. 26:14–20; Jer. 29:17–18).

Famines had far-reaching results: price inflation, robbery, social exploitation, agricultural collapse, migration, and even cannibalism (Gen. 12:10; 26:1; Ruth 1; 2 Kings 6:24–29; Neh. 5:1–3; Lam. 2:20–21; 4:8–10). Therefore, faithfulness to God was a particularly vivid reality (Pss. 33:18–19; 37:19), and God’s blessings on the nation included its being free from famine (Ezek. 34:29; 36:29–30).

Joseph understood that God sent him ahead to Egypt to save his family from an international famine (Gen. 45:5–7). For forty years God tested the Israelites with hunger to rid them of self-reliance (Exod. 16:2–8; Deut. 8:2, 16). Moreover, God sent afflictions on Israel such as famine, drought, mildew, blight, and insects in order to arouse national repentance (Amos 4:6–12). This meant that sin and human suffering were tied to the land in interdependence (Lam. 4:3–4). Elijah’s contest with the Canaanite prophets of Baal vividly shows the theological implications of faith and food: Yahweh would prove that he was in control of nature’s forces (1 Kings 18:23–39; cf. Gen. 8:22). Even Elijah, however, required special divine care through this famine (1 Kings 17:1–6). For Amos, literal hunger funded his description of desperate spiritual hunger, “a famine . . . of hearing the words of the Lord” (Amos 8:11).

Jesus relived Israel’s experience in his own wilderness testing and rejected the bread that he could make for himself (Matt. 4:3–4; Deut. 8:3). His success showed that scarcity and hunger are intended to develop humility and trust in God, the divine provider (Matt. 4:2), something that Israel did not learn very well. Jesus fed a second manna to five thousand people to draw them to the bread of life (John 6:35), but the crowds followed Jesus more for the food than for him (6:26–27). Famines are mentioned in the NT (Luke 4:25; Acts 7:11 [historical]; 11:27–30 [contemporary]).

Jesus taught that famines would be a sign of his coming. Yet, without ignoring physical food, Jesus highlighted the spiritual hunger and thirst of people (Matt. 5:6; John 4:14, 34; 7:37–38). Because eating is a powerful part of fellowship, heaven will merely remove the desperation of hunger, not the use of food (Gen. 43:34; Luke 22:15–16; Rev. 19:9; cf. 1 Cor. 4:11; Rev. 7:16; 21:4).

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

The concept of a remnant or a “remnant theology” runs throughout Scripture. Although appearing in a wide variety of texts and contexts, the central idea of the remnant concept or remnant theology is that in the midst of seemingly total apostasy and the consequential terrible judgment and/or destruction, God always has a small, faithful group that he delivers and works through to bring blessing.

Old Testament

Early allusions to the idea of a remnant are introduced in the book of Genesis. Noah and his family (Gen. 6–9) are the remnant that is saved during the flood, when all other people are destroyed in judgment. Likewise, in Gen. 45:6–7 Joseph declares to his brothers, “For two years now there has been famine in the land, and for the next five years there will be no plowing and reaping. But God sent me ahead of you to preserve for you a remnant on earth and to save your lives by a great deliverance.”

The remnant theme surfaces in several other places in the OT. For example, when Elijah complains to God that he is the only faithful one left, God corrects him by pointing out that he has maintained a remnant of seven thousand faithful ones in the midst of national apostasy (1 Kings 19:10–18).

However, it is in the OT prophets that the remnant theme flowers into full blossom. The Hebrew words for “remnant” (she’ar, she’erit) occur over one hundred times in the prophetic books. The prophets proclaim that since Israel/Judah has broken the covenant and refuses to repent and turn back to God, judgment is coming. This judgment takes the form of terrible foreign invasions and destruction, followed by exile from the land. Thus, the northern kingdom, Israel, is destroyed and exiled by the Assyrians in 722 BC, and the southern kingdom, Judah, is destroyed and exiled by the Babylonians in 587/586 BC. Yet the prophets also prophesy hope and restoration beyond the judgment. They declare that many will be destroyed in the judgment, but not all. They prophesy that a remnant will survive, and that God will work through the remnant to bring blessings and restoration. Usually the remnant is identified as those who go into exile but who likewise hope to return to the land. The reestablishment of the remnant is often connected with the inauguration of the messianic age.

New Testament

The remnant theme continues into the NT, but it is not nearly as prominent in the NT as it is in the OT prophets. The term “remnant” does not occur in the Gospels, although the idea is implied in several texts. Thus, in Matt. 7:13–14 Jesus states, “For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Likewise, in Matt. 22:14 Jesus summarizes his preceding parable by stating, “Many are invited, but few are chosen.”

In Rom. 11 Paul is much more explicit. Not only does he use the term “remnant,” but also in Rom. 11:2–5 he connects his argument specifically to the remnant idea in 1 Kings 19:18 (“I have reserved for myself seven thousand”). Paul is pointing out the similarities between the apostasy in Israel in 1 Kings 19 and the parallel rejection of the Messiah by Israel during Paul’s day. In both cases the nation had rejected God’s word and his salvation plan. But in both situations, even though the nation as a whole has rejected God, God maintains a faithful remnant. Paul also underscores that the remnant is established by God’s grace. Thus, in Rom. 11:5 Paul explains, “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” In the early church, that remnant consisted of Jewish Christians like Paul himself. And to the degree that the church as a whole inherited the promises to Israel, it too could be included in the category of remnant (see again Rom. 11:11–24; cf. 1 Pet. 2:5–10; Rev. 7; 14). Indeed, Paul hopes that the conversion of Gentiles to Christ might make his Jewish compatriots jealous so that they may “take back” their Messiah (in Rom. 11, cf. vv. 11–12 with vv. 25–36). In that case, national Israel would become the spiritual remnant for the very first time in Israel’s history, because “all Israel” would be saved. That is, national Israel and spiritual Israel would be one.

Another way to grasp the idea of the remnant as it unfolds throughout the Bible is to use an hourglass illustration (i.e., wide, narrow, wide). Thus, God had created the world to have fellowship with him, only to have his creation spurn that offer. To rectify this problem, God calls Abraham out from paganism in order that he might make of him a new people, Israel, to worship God and declare him to the nations. Alas, however, Israel in time disobeys God’s law just as the nations of the world had disobeyed God by worshiping other gods. But the purpose of God is not thereby thwarted, for he raises up a remnant, a faithful few who remain true to Yahweh (e.g., Elijah and the later returnees to Israel). However, by the end of the OT the hopes of Israel now rest upon one individual, the Messiah, who will turn the hearts of Jews back to God and who will convert the nations of the earth to the one true God. As it turns out, then, Israel’s rejection of God throughout the OT actually carries along the plan of God as it narrows its focus, culminating in the expectation of the one Messiah. But with the advent of Jesus Christ, the focus of God now widens, beginning with the apostles (the beginnings of the remnant in the NT), expanding to include the church (the replacement of Israel, however temporary that may be), and one day encompassing the world (which will bring the revelation of God full circle).

Eschatology is the study of last things. The word “eschatology” comes from the Greek word eschatos, meaning “last.” From this same Greek word is derived the term “eschaton,” which is sometimes used to refer to the end times.

Eschatology deals with such future events as the end of the world, Jesus’ return, the resurrection, the final judgment, and the afterlife in heaven or hell. The tribulation and the millennium also belong to eschatology, but their timing and nature vary with different views. Although from one perspective human history entered its final phase in NT times so that people today are already living in the “last days,” eschatology normally focuses on the unfulfilled prophecies that remain still in the future for present-day believers.

Eschatology deals with questions regarding the future. Every religion and philosophy of life has offered answers to these questions. Plato taught about the immortality of the soul. Buddhism has its nirvana, Islam its sensual paradise, and Native Americans their happy hunting grounds. The belief that the soul survives death is widely held. Even atheists and materialists have their own views of eschatology. Yet only in Christianity does eschatology become the crown and capstone of everything else that God has been doing throughout history, when he will be perfectly glorified, Christ completely victorious, the power of sin entirely overcome, and the people of God given a complete salvation.

Yet it is difficult to find a topic on which Christians are more divided. Frequently, people studying eschatology fall into one of two opposite traps: unwarranted dogmatism or simple avoidance. Yet eschatology should be a source of comfort and hope to believers as well as an ongoing reminder of the lateness and urgency of the hour. Consequently, eschatology deserves most careful attention and should create a sense of excitement and anticipation.

Reasons for Controversy

Eschatology is by no means a simple discipline. The sheer magnitude of this topic is a significant challenge involving hundreds of different unfulfilled prophecies from virtually every book of the Bible. Difficulties in interpreting these prophecies with their figures of speech, apocalyptic language, and complicated symbolism create still greater complications. Then there is the challenge of organizing these individual prophecies together into a coherent timeline when each will be fulfilled. Discerning the period of fulfillment for some prophecies is relatively clear and easy, but for others it is much less certain.

Even the question of how many periods of future time remain in God’s timetable has often been the source of considerable debate. For example, will there be a future period of tribulation, or were these prophecies already fulfilled in AD 70, or perhaps more generally throughout church history, with its countless martyrs? Similar questions have been raised about the millennium: is this to be understood in a still future sense, as premillennialists assert, or is it already in the process of being fulfilled, as amillennialists and postmillennialists claim? The fact that there is no common agreement even on these fundamental questions virtually guarantees that believers will remain divided on this issue.

Then too there is the final step of trying to assign specific unfulfilled prophecies into this grid of prophetic time slots. For example, is the prophecy “The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox” (Isa. 65:25) a symbolic picture of God’s blessings in this present church age, in a future millennium, or in eternity itself? The vast majority of these unfulfilled prophecies contain few clues regarding the precise time of their fulfillment, and interpreters often are left with little to guide them. We should not be surprised that eschatology leaves believers more divided than do other areas of theology.

Jesus’ Return and the Tribulation

The fact of Jesus’ return is clear. When Jesus was taken up from his apostles at the end of his earthly ministry, two angels promised them, “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). Today believers look forward to Jesus’ second coming, as “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). The common understanding has always been that this return will be personal, visible, and bodily—just as real as his first coming two thousand years ago.

Christians, however, have been divided over the timing of Jesus’ return and the tribulation. Here there are five interrelated questions.

1. The first question is whether Jesus’ return is a single event or will occur in two stages. Dispensationalists distinguish two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture that removes the church from a period of intense tribulation involving Israel here on earth, and then a later public second coming in judgment at the end of the tribulation, when he will establish his kingdom. A number of recent “left behind” books and movies have popularized this approach. Yet this two-stage model is difficult to document in Scripture, and many understand Scripture to describe Jesus’ return as a single unified event.

2. How one answers this first question has implications for the second question of the timing of Jesus’ return relative to the tribulation. Here there are three popular options regarding the timing of Jesus’ return: pretribulational (before the tribulation), midtribulational (in the midst of the tribulation), and posttribulational (after the tribulation). Yet if Jesus’ return is pretribulational or midtribulational, logic would require that there be two phases to Jesus’ return: a secret rapture either before the tribulation (for pretribulationalism) or in the middle of it (for midtribulationalism), and then a separate public return at the conclusion of the tribulation to establish his kingdom. Thus, a two-stage return of Jesus goes hand in hand with pretribulationalism and midtribulationalism, and a single return with posttribulationalism.

3. A third question focuses on the nature of the tribulation period. There are three main views. Pretribulationalists assume that the tribulation will be a period (usually seven years) of great suffering such as this world has never seen. Midtribulationalists believe that Jesus will return after three and a half years of less intense tribulation, followed by a considerably more intense second period of three and a half years of wrath, from which believers will be spared. Posttribulationalists see this tribulation as the suffering and persecution of Christians at various times and places around the world, with possibly some intensification in the final days. Consequently, how one understands the intensity of the tribulation is another factor affecting the choice of one tribulational view or another.

4. A fourth interrelated question involves whether one believes that Jesus may return suddenly and unexpectedly at any moment (Matt. 24:42) or whether there are still unfulfilled prophecies that must take place first (initially including at least Peter’s death [John 21:19] and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem). Pretribulationalists pride themselves on how their view of a secret rapture allows for Jesus to return imminently without any intervening signs or other warnings. Midtribulationalists believe that the church will need to experience three and a half years of moderate tribulation, so there is less emphasis on an imminent return (although one could argue that the first period of tribulation is potentially more ambiguous in nature). Posttribulationalists are divided into two groups. Many have held that the tribulation will be a period of significant tribulation, so typically they have downplayed the idea of imminence. However, other posttribulationalists (sometimes called “pasttribulationalists” or “imminent posttribulationalists”) assume that the tribulation described in Scripture may already be fulfilled either at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 or more generally throughout church history, and therefore Jesus may return at any time.

5. The fifth question focuses on how literally or figuratively one should interpret the two key passages of Scripture related to the nature of the tribulation: the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24 pars.) and Rev. 6–19. Much of the Olivet Discourse focuses on the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and many have understood at least parts of Revelation as being fulfilled historically either in John’s own day or during church history. The more one assumes that at least portions of these prophecies were already fulfilled, the less one awaits a future fulfillment. A more literal approach to these prophecies will predispose one toward pretribulationalism or possibly midtribulationalism, and a more figurative approach toward posttribulationalism.

Hyperpreterism, or consistent preterism, has emerged in the last few decades with a still different approach to the timing of Jesus’ return. The driving force behind this movement is Jesus’ apparent promise to return within a generation of his death (Matt. 24:34). Consequently, hyperpreterism has assumed that all the future prophecies in the NT must have been fulfilled by the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, including Jesus’ return, the bodily resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heaven and new earth. The bottom line is that in order to take literally Jesus’ promise to return within a generation, everything else in eschatology needs to be reinterpreted as having been fulfilled in one way or another within that same generation. A more moderate preterism sees many, but not all, of these eschatological events fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus returned as the Son of Man in judgment against Israel in these first-century events, but the final judgment of all people and the new heaven and new earth await his second coming.

The Resurrection and the Final Judgment

The bodily resurrection takes place at the time of Jesus’ return. Although many other religions and philosophies have assumed the immortality of the soul, whereby the nonmaterial part of human nature survives death, Christianity is distinctive in its strong commitment to the idea of a bodily resurrection. Death marks the separation of the body from the soul and the time when believers are immediately ushered into God’s presence (Eccles. 12:7). Thus, Jesus was able to promise the thief on the cross, “Today you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43). However, people do not immediately receive new resurrection bodies at the time of death, but must wait until the time of Jesus’ return, when “the dead in Christ will rise first” (1 Thess. 4:16). This bodily resurrection is the precursor to the final judgment of the saved and the lost, when “all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28–29). At that time, Christ “will judge the living and the dead” (2 Tim. 4:1).

This theme of judgment is foundational to Christianity, although Christians remain divided about the exact number and character of these judgments. Yet the time will come when all people will be judged, both “the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42), when “we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:10), and “each of us will give an account of ourselves to God” (14:12). God himself will be the judge, and Christ will be given a special place in presiding over the final judgment and separate those who truly belong to him from those who do not. Even though this judgment will be “according to what they have done” (Matt. 16:27; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12), these deeds are simply an outward demonstration of whether a living faith is present, so there is no contradiction between justification by faith and the necessary place for a changed life in the believer. Yet, as Jesus warns, some will be surprised: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). God’s judgment will be both just and inescapable.

Christians remain divided about the number of resurrections. Premillennialists who are also pretribulationalists or midtribulationalists would conclude that there is a minimum of a resurrection of believers at the time of the rapture, when Jesus returns for his church; another resurrection when Jesus returns at the end of the tribulation for believers who came to faith and died during the tribulation; as well as another resurrection at the end of the millennium for “the rest of the dead” (Rev. 20:5). Premillennialists who are also posttribulationalists would conclude that there are as few as two resurrections: one at Jesus’ return and another at the end of the millennium. An amillennialist or a postmillennialist would assume that there may be only a single bodily resurrection when Jesus returns and establishes his kingdom.

There is one other aspect that completes this theme: God’s judgment also includes the destruction of the devil in the lake of fire (Rev. 20:10). Someday sin and evil will be forever removed from God’s creation.

The Millennium

The millennium is a thousand-year reign of Christ described most clearly in Rev. 20. Again, there are sharp differences of opinion regarding this topic.

Premillennialists believe that Jesus’ return will be “pre” (before) the millennium, and that this millennial kingdom will be a golden age of unprecedented glory and splendor. Dispensational premillennialists, with their emphasis on the distinction between Israel and the church, have focused on the fulfillment of all the remaining OT prophecies made to Israel. Historic premillennialists, on the other hand, lack this sharp distinction between Israel and the church and see themselves as being in continuity with the view of a future reign of Christ on earth found throughout church history. In recent years, premillennialism has become the leading view in American Christianity.

Postmillennialists believe that God will build his church for “a thousand years” and then Jesus will return “post” (after) this millennium. The millennium here is comparable to a silver age involving significant and unprecedented advances of the gospel throughout the world. Postmillennialists remain divided about how literal this thousand-year period might be and whether this period has already begun or not. Postmillennialism has had a significant following throughout most of church history but more recently has become a minority view.

Amillennialists believe in a different kind of millennium. Here there are two different varieties. Some believe that those reigning with Christ in Rev. 20 are simply believers living here in this present life experiencing the intimacy of Christ’s presence in their daily lives. Others see this period as involving departed believers, who are currently reigning with Christ in the intermediate state between death and his return. The millennium here is neither the golden age of the premillennialist nor the silver age of the postmillennialist; it is simply life today.

Again there are predisposing factors. Those who place more weight on potentially unfulfilled OT prophecies will tend to be premillennial, whereas those who place more weight on the words of Jesus and Paul will tend to be amillennial or possibly postmillennial. Those who see more of a distinction between Israel and the church will tend to be dispensational premillennialists, whereas those who emphasize the unity among God’s people throughout redemptive history will choose one of the other alternatives. Those who tend toward a more literal approach to interpreting Scripture will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who give more weight to symbolic and figurative language will choose one of the other options. Those who tend to be more pessimistic about the future and believe that things are getting worse will tend to be premillennialists, whereas those who are more optimistic about what God is doing in this world and who emphasize the transforming power of the gospel will tend to be postmillennialists. One’s eschatological convictions are the logical outgrowth of many other earlier commitments and persuasions.

Each of these millennial views also has implications for a number of other topics: the nature and intensity of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20, the number of different resurrections, and the number of different judgments. The ultimate question, again, is which approach does the best job of putting together all the prophecies of Scripture and consequently is most faithful to God’s word.

Heaven and Hell

God’s judgment inevitably leads either to final and permanent torment in hell or to untold blessings in the new heaven and new earth (Matt. 25:46).

The ultimate hope of believers involves the bodily resurrection and a new earth to go along with these glorified bodies. The glad time will come when God “will wipe every tear from their eyes” and “there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain” (Rev. 21:4). There will be the joys of physical bodies healed and restored, seeing friends and loved ones, but the greatest joy of all will be seeing the Lord himself in all his glory and majesty.

Hell will be the very opposite, experienced by those who deliberately rejected and avoided God during their earthly lives. They will find themselves rejected by God and cut off from his presence (and all the blessings that go along with his presence). Although there are various debates about how literal or figurative some of the biblical descriptions of hell are in terms of unquenchable fire and worms that do not die (Mark 9:48), it seems safe to say that hell will be the greatest of all possible tragedies and far worse than any of these descriptions suggest.

Annihilationism or conditional immortality, with its assumption that the souls of the lost will cease to exist at some point after death, represents an attempt to soften the explicit teachings of Scripture. Universalism—the belief that ultimately everyone will be saved—is another human strategy to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture. Ultimately, there is a heaven, and there is a hell, and human choices do make a difference for time and eternity.

The Benefits of Eschatology

Eschatology should give balance and perspective to life so that the affairs and accomplishments of this present life do not take on an inappropriate importance. Whenever people are caught up with materialism and a this-worldly perspective on life or become complacent about their lack of spiritual growth or the spiritual condition of others, the underlying cause is often a lack of attention to eschatology. Although many difficult and controversial questions surround the nature and timing of the return of Jesus Christ, Scripture is clear about the fact of his return and the final judgment. A new life with Christ that will last for all eternity is described in Scripture as the greatest of all possible blessings. At the same time, a life apart from God both in this life and in the life to come is described as the greatest possible tragedy in life. Perhaps even the spiritual deception and confusion around us, whereby many “will abandon the faith” (1 Tim. 4:1) and “not put up with sound doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:3), are a sign of the lateness of the hour. A proper appreciation of eschatology can be a means that God uses to change people’s lives.

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

The words “sacrifice” and “offering” often are used interchangeably, but “offering” refers to a gift more generally, while “sacrifice” indicates a gift consecrated for a divine being. In biblical Hebrew “sacrifice” is more narrowly equated with the peace offering. All other “sacrifices” are referred to as gifts. Sacrifices were offered to honor God, thanking him for his goodness. More important, they enabled persons to be made right with God by atoning for their sins. Whereas sin upset the fellowship God desired to have with people and kindled his wrath, sacrifice restored the relationship.

Old Testament

OT offerings included cereals (whether the grain was whole, ground into flour, or mixed with other elements), liquids (wine, oil, or water), and animals (or parts thereof, such as the blood and fat). Although the Bible acknowledges that other ancient Near Eastern people had their own sacrificial rites, it rejects them as unworthy of the God of Israel. The people of God therefore were instructed how to sacrifice properly while at Sinai. Even so, offerings and sacrifices are recorded as taking place before the law was given.

Prior to the law. Cain and Abel brought the earliest offerings. Contrary to a common interpretation, Cain’s offering was not rejected because it did not include blood; the Hebrew word for the brothers’ gifts, minkhah, usually denotes grain offerings. A better conclusion is that Cain only brought some of his produce (no mention of firstfruits), while Abel brought the best of the best (the fat portions from the firstborn of the flock).

Immediately after the flood, Noah built an altar and presented the first burnt offering mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 8:20). That this (and other sacrifices) was received as a “pleasing aroma” indicates that God approved of and accepted it. It is significant that immediately after the offering, God made a covenant with Noah, his descendants, and every living creature. Sacrifices are closely related to covenant relationships, as can be seen in the story of Abraham enacting a covenant ceremony in Gen. 15 and in Israel receiving many instructions about sacrifice while at Sinai (cf. Gen. 31:43–54).

Sacrificial laws in Leviticus. Sacrificial laws are found throughout the Pentateuch, the most being in Lev. 1–7. As Leviticus makes clear, Israel understood sacrifice to have a number of different purposes. It was a means to bring a gift to God, to express communion with him and others in the community, to consecrate something or someone for God’s use, and to deal with personal uncleanness or sin. These ideas are developed in the descriptions of the different sacrifices that Israel was required to bring to God. In general, the sacrifices were made of clean animals raised by the one making the offering or of grain or wine produced by the person. In some cases, the offering was connected with the person’s economic ability, a poorer person being allowed to present doves or even cereal if a lamb or goat was unaffordable for a sin offering (Lev. 5:6–13). In all cases, only the best—what was “without defect”—was to be offered.

Priest as mediator. Three parties were involved in the sacrifices: the worshiper, the priest, and God. The worshiper—the person who had sinned or become unclean in some way—brought an animal to God, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. Whether the animal’s death represents the death that the worshiper deserves due to sin or whether the sin is transferred to the animal that bears it instead is unclear. The priest served as a mediator who offered the blood of the sacrifice to God and, in many instances, burned all or part of the offering. In response to the offering, God, who had graciously given the sacrificial system so that those who had sinned could be restored to fellowship with him, forgave the person. Uniquely in the ancient world, Israelite sacrifices were not considered magical acts that could manipulate God to act on behalf of the worshiper. Presenting an improper sacrifice while exhibiting an improper attitude or motive resulted in rejection.

Types of sacrifices. Leviticus introduced five main sacrifices: the ’olah (1:1–17; 6:8–18), the minkhah (2:1–16; 6:14–23), the shelamim (3:1–17; 7:11–36), the khatta’t (4:1–5:13), and the ’asham (5:14–6:7). Most of these focused on uncleanness or sin. The worshiper who brought such an offering was not allowed to eat any of it, as it was wholly given to God. Even when priests were allowed to eat part of a sacrifice, their portion was “waved” before God, indicating that it belonged to him.

1. The ’olah, or burnt offering, is the basic OT sacrifice connected with atonement for sin (Lev. 1:4). When rightly offered, it was accepted as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.” The worshiper brought a male animal (young bull, sheep, goat, dove, or young pigeon) without blemish, laid a hand upon it, and then killed it. After the priest sprinkled some of the blood on the altar, the rest was burned up.

2. The minkhah is simply a gift or offering. The Hebrew word is often used for a present given to another person or tribute to a ruler. When used of sacrifice, it is usually rendered as “grain offering” or “meal offering.” A minkhah can, on occasion, include flesh or fat (Gen. 4:4; Judg. 6:18–21). Considered “an aroma pleasing to the Lord,” it consisted of unground grain or fine flour mixed with oil and incense and was presented either cooked or uncooked. Part of the offering was burned as a “memorial portion,” the rest being given to the priests (Lev. 2:1–3). It usually was accompanied by a drink offering—wine poured out on the altar. Grain offerings frequently complemented burnt offerings or fellowship offerings. The showbread may have been considered a grain offering.

3. The shelamim (NIV: “fellowship offering”) has traditionally been called the “peace offering,” as the term is related to shalom. This offering most likely indicated that the worshiper was at peace with God and others; all the worshiper’s relationships were whole. Classified into three types, it could be used to express thanksgiving, to signify the fulfillment of a vow, or simply to denote one’s desire to bring an offering to God out of free will. Only those who made a vow were required to offer a shelamim; the other forms were wholly optional. The worshiper brought a male or female animal (ox, sheep, or goat) without blemish, laid a hand on its head, and slaughtered it. The priest sprinkled its blood on the sides of the altar and burned the fat surrounding the major organs. It is described as “an aroma pleasing to the Lord.”

This offering significantly recognized the covenant relationship existing between those who shared in it. God received the fatty portions, the officiating priest received the right thigh, the other priests the breast, and the remainder was shared among members of a family, clan, tribe, or some other group. According to Leviticus, a thanksgiving offering was to be eaten on the day it was offered, and a vow or freewill offering could be eaten within two days. Anything not eaten in the prescribed time period was to be burned.

4. The khatta’t, or sin offering, atoned for the sin of an individual or of the nation and cleansed the sacred items in the tabernacle that had been corrupted by sin. Since a sin offering could purify ceremonial as well as moral uncleanness, people who were unclean due to childbirth, skin diseases, bodily discharges, and so forth also brought them (Lev. 12–15).

The kind of animal sacrificed and the sacrificial ritual varied with the offender and the offense. If a priest or the entire congregation sinned, a bull was sacrificed and its blood was sprinkled before the veil of the tabernacle and on the incense altar in the holy place. The rest was burned, leaving nothing to be eaten. Leaders who sinned sacrificed a male goat. Its blood was sprinkled on the bronze altar, and the remainder was given to the priest. A commoner brought and slaughtered a she-goat or lamb, the priest sprinkled its blood on the horns of the altar, and the fat was burned for God and the rest given to the priests. A poor person could bring two doves or pigeons, and the very poor could bring a grain offering. This differentiation apparently indicated that the sins of some members of the community had more serious consequences than others. Those in closest contact with the tabernacle contaminated it at a deeper level, requiring a more costly sacrifice. The poor were not required to bring more than they could afford.

5. The ’asham, or guilt offering, provided compensation for sins. A ram without blemish was sacrificed, its blood was sprinkled on the altar, and its fatty portions, kidneys, and liver were burned. The rest was given to the priest. In addition, the value of what was misappropriated plus one-fifth of its value was given to the person wronged or to the priests.

Altars. According to Leviticus, only the Aa-ron-ic priests could handle the blood or other parts of a sacrifice brought to the altar at the tabernacle. Even so, throughout Israel’s history other sacrificial altars were built. While some of these were illicitly used for syncretistic practices, others were constructed at God’s instruction (Josh. 8:30–35; Judg. 6:25–26). Some of these were used by priests making rounds so that people from different areas could sacrifice to God (1 Sam. 7:17). Others were used by individuals who were not priests yet desired to call upon the name of the Lord or sacrifice for communal meals. The solitary altars were mainly used for burnt offerings and peace offerings, although grain and drink offerings also were known. Sin and guilt offerings were offered only at the tabernacle or temple.

Times and purposes. The OT regulates a number of different occasions upon which regular sacrifices were to be made. Burnt offerings were presented every morning and evening (Exod. 29:38–41; Num. 28:1–8). Additional offerings were sacrificed on the Sabbath and the new moon (Num. 28:9–15). Special sacrifices were brought to celebrate the major festivals of the year (Num. 28:16–29:39), particularly the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). Sacrifices might also accompany requests for safety or deliverance or in response to God’s deliverance. Thus, burnt and fellowship offerings could be brought along with prayers that God would put an end to a plague (2 Sam. 24:18–25). King David brought burnt offerings and fellowship offerings when the ark of the covenant was returned after having been captured by the Philistines (2 Sam. 6:1–19).

Sacrifices could also be made to consecrate people or things for a special task. When the tabernacle was consecrated, special offerings were brought for twelve continuous days (Num. 7). Later, fellowship, burnt, and grain offerings were sacrificed when the temple was dedicated (1 Kings 8:62–64). Sin offerings were presented when a priest was ordained (Lev. 8–9). Those who completed a vow dedicating themselves as Naz-i-rites brought sacrifices to God so that they could again become a normal member of the congregation (Num. 6:9–21). Fellowship offerings often accompanied the announcement of or installation of a king (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 1 Kings 1:9, 25).

Although the sacrificial system was intended to bring the Israelites back into fellowship with God, at times their misuse of it separated them from him. When his people showed more interest in sacrificial ritual than in obeying God’s instructions, they were chastened (1 Sam. 15:13–22; Jer. 7:21–28). When the people of Israel were guilty of confusing the worship of Yahweh with Canaanite fertility cults, God sent prophets to warn them (Isa. 1:11–16; Amos 4:4–5). Prophetic statements denouncing sacrificial rites were aimed at the misuse of sacrifices rather than their existence. Jeremiah and Ezekiel were so positive about sacrificial worship that they looked forward to a time when it would be reestablished in its pure form (Jer. 17:26; Ezek. 43:18–27; 46:1–24).

New Testament

The NT indicates that the OT sacrificial system was still in place in the early first century AD. Following directions given in Leviticus, Mary brought a sacrifice to the temple in Jerusalem so that she could be purified after giving birth to Jesus (Luke 2:21–24; cf. Lev. 12:3, 8). Mary and Joseph would have sacrificed and eaten a Passover lamb during their annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem to celebrate the Feast of Passover. It is not recorded whether Jesus always went with them, but he did join them at the Passover celebration when he was twelve years old. It is safe to assume that at this time and after he grew up, Jesus took part in the sacrifices when he visited Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts.

Jesus’ disciples attend several feasts with him. In addition, after his resurrection they frequently went to the temple to pray at the time when sacrifices were made. Encouraged by the Jerusalem church leaders, Paul went to the temple to join in and pay for the purification rites of some men who had taken a vow, perhaps to serve as Nazirites (Acts 21:23–26). He later testified before Felix that he had returned to Jerusalem in order to bring gifts to the poor and present offerings in the temple (24:17). Although Gentile believers were exempt from these practices (15:1–29), early Jewish believers clearly saw no contradiction between believing the gospel of Jesus Christ and engaging in sacrificial rituals. They likely followed Jewish piety until the destruction of the temple in AD 70, when all sacrifices at the temple ceased.

Even so, Christians quickly came to understand Christ’s death as the final sacrifice that completed the OT system. Various NT authors consider the nature of Christ’s death and metaphorically relate it to OT sacrifices, but the writer of Hebrews develops this in the most detail. According to Hebrews, the sacrificial system was merely the shadow that pointed to Jesus. Although the blood of animals could not adequately deal with sins, Jesus’ sacrifice could (Heb. 10:1–10). Jesus is regularly identified as the sacrificial lamb whose blood purifies humanity from sin (John 1:29, 36; Rom. 8:3; 1 Cor. 5:7; Eph. 5:2; 1 Pet. 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Rev. 5:6, 12; 7:14; 12:11; 13:8). His sacrifice is considered a propitiation that turns away God’s wrath (Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2).

The end of the OT sacrificial system does not mean that those who come to God through Jesus Christ no longer bring sacrifices. Instead of animal and grain offerings, spiritual sacrifices are to be made (1 Pet. 2:5). Emulating their Savior, Christ’s followers should offer themselves as living sacrifices, devoted to God (Rom. 12:1). This implies that everything done in this life could be considered a sacrifice. Simply believing the gospel makes one an acceptable offering to God (Rom. 15:16). Labor for the sake of the gospel, or perhaps martyrdom, can be viewed as a drink offering (Phil. 2:17). The author of Hebrews identifies three types of sacrifices that believers should offer: praise, good deeds, and sharing with those in need (13:15–16). In line with the last of these points, Paul counts the gift sent by the Philippian church as a fragrant offering that pleases God (Phil. 4:18).

The Bible does not have a generic term for the idea of color, but it does use various colors for descriptive and symbolic purposes, and it also refers to different coloring processes. Items can be described as “dyed” (Exod. 25:5), “multicolored” (Ezek. 27:24), or “speckled” (Gen. 30:32) to indicate changes or variety of color.

Certain colors are commonly used in the Bible (listed below), while others occur rarely (e.g., brown and yellow) or not at all (e.g., orange), reflecting the range of colors and dyes available in the ancient Near East. Colors are most often used for two purposes: to describe luxury items indicating wealth and power, and to describe the earthly and heavenly dwelling places of God. Ordinary people and places are not usually described in terms of the colors of their appearance. Exceptions to this include Esau (Gen. 25:25), David (1 Sam. 17:42), and the male lover in Song of Songs (5:10–11).

The following colors have particular significance or symbolic meaning in the Bible:

White. Used to describe the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13:3–4), white much more commonly has a positive association, being the color of purity (Isa. 1:18; Rev. 3:4) and glory (Dan. 7:9; Matt. 17:2; Rev. 1:14). Angels appear white (Matt. 28:3) or are dressed in white (Mark 16:2; Acts 1:10). The multitude of worshipers in heaven will wear white robes (Rev. 7:9), having been washed in the blood of the Lamb.

Black. The female lover in the Song of Songs admires the raven black hair of her beloved (Song 5:11). However, black things usually have less positive connotations: storm clouds (1 Kings 18:45), diseased skin (Job 30:30), and the effects of the plague of locusts (Exod. 10:15). Blackness can also be a sign of judgment (Rev. 6:5, 12).

Red. Red is the color of the earth, the color of wine, and the color of blood. Red dyes could be made from crushed insects, plants, and minerals, giving a wide range of different shades (red, scarlet, and crimson are common in the Bible). Scarlet yarn and red-dyed animal skins were included in the offerings made for the construction of the tabernacle (Exod. 25:3–5). Red was used to symbolize sin (Isa. 1:18) and was also associated with warfare (Nah. 2:3; Rev. 6:4).

Blue. Blue tassels adorned every Hebrew garment as a reminder of God’s commandments (Num. 15:38). In the Persian court the royal colors were blue, white, and purple (Esther 1:6; 8:15), and blue garments were worn by the young Assyrian governors (Ezek. 23:6).

Purple. Purple dye was very expensive, so purple cloth was used as a sign of wealth (Prov. 31:22; Acts 16:14) and a sign of authority: the kings of Midian wore purple garments (Judg. 8:26); the wedding carriage of King Solomon was upholstered in purple (Song 3:10); the Babylonian king Belshazzar offered purple robes as a reward for service (Dan. 5:7). Purple robes were put on Jesus before his crucifixion in a mockery of his kingship (John 19:2–5).

Blue, purple, and scarlet were each separately associated with wealth and power, but when used together these three colors were the epitome of opulence and, as such, were associated with the divine presence. The tabernacle curtains were woven from blue, purple, and scarlet yarn (Exod. 26:1), as were the high-priestly garments (28:4–15, 33). The same colors were later used in the temple curtains (2 Chron. 3:14). Blue, purple, and red cloths were used for covering the Ark of the Covenant and its furnishings (Num. 4:6–12). Jeremiah describes idols adorned in blue and purple, an attempt to conceal their worthlessness (10:9).

Gray. Gray hair indicated old age and thus wisdom (Ps. 71:18; Prov. 16:31).

Green. Green is the color of plants and thus was associated with life-giving food and therefore God’s blessing. Green plants were given by God for food (Gen. 1:30), so their removal or destruction was a devastating judgment (Exod. 10:15; Ezek. 17:24; Rev. 8:7). People could be symbolized as green plants when they were fruitful and blessed (Ps. 92:14; Jer. 17:8) or when they were easily destroyed (2 Kings 19:26; Ps. 37:2).

Common and valuable for food, beans were cooked while green in the pods or after being dried. Dry beans were threshed and winnowed like cereals and other grains. Beans are mentioned twice in the NIV (2 Sam. 17:28; Ezek. 4:9).

Sons of Jacob

Genesis 29–30, 35 records the birth of the sons of Jacob, which provides a covenantal and family basis for the later confederation of a dozen independent tribes of Semitic peoples. They shared a common history, culture, religion, and set of traditions that served for a time to bind them together as a single nation. According to the family records, the tribes were named after their forebears, who were born in the following manner. Jacob’s first (and unloved) wife, Leah, bore Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, in that order. Then his beloved Rachel gave him her maid Bilhah, who bore Dan and Naphtali. Leah’s maid then bore Gad and Asher. Then Leah bore Issachar and Zebulun. Finally, Rachel bore Joseph and Benjamin. At root, the later history of the tribes is a family history, traceable to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, the story of the tribes begins in the early second millennium BC.

Genesis was written at a period considerably after the time of the patriarchs, and thus written with the awareness that the characterizations of the patriarchs reflected in some way the temperament of the individual tribes. The first story told about the actions of Jacob’s sons is how Simeon and Levi took terrible vengeance on the city of Shechem for the rape of their sister Dinah. This brought about Jacob’s rebuke. Jacob feared that this action would bring further retaliation upon his family (Gen. 34). The history of the patriarchs comes to its high point in the story of Joseph, an account that spans Gen. 37–50. Joseph was the brother revealed in dreams to be elected by God to rule. His brothers’ jealousy led them to seek to rid themselves of him. Reuben, the firstborn, is characterized as being the responsible one, wanting to do him no harm. But in Reuben’s absence, Judah led the others in selling Joseph into slavery. God was with Joseph, however, and through a series of events God made Joseph the leader of Egypt, fulfilling the prophetic dreams.

Genesis connects this family story with later tribal history. As prophetic dreams revealed Joseph’s destiny to rule over Egypt, Jacob’s blessing in Gen. 49 reveals the destiny of the later tribes. Reuben lost his double-portion inheritance of the firstborn due to his dishonoring his father (Gen. 35:22). This honor is tacitly conferred on Joseph in Gen. 48. Jacob said that Levi would be dispersed among Israel. As the priestly tribe, Levi inherited no land. Judah was predicted to be the tribe of kings.

Wilderness and Conquest

In the wilderness wanderings of Israel, the campsite was organized by tribe (Num. 2). At its center was the tabernacle. The tribe of Levi formed an inner circle that surrounded it. At the entrance to the tabernacle (facing east) were the priests, the sons of Aaron. The other divisions of Levi were the Merarites, the Gershonites, and the Kohathites. These together formed the inner circle that guarded the holy place. Levi was the holiest tribe of Israel, the only tribe allowed to maintain and service God’s dwelling place. The outer perimeter of the encampment was formed by twelve tribes (the tribe of Joseph counted as two). The eastern front was dominated by Judah and included Issachar and Zebulun. Dan, Asher, and Naphtali were to the north; Reuben, Simeon, and Gad to the south; and to the west were Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin.

When the people were on the move, the priests went in the front carrying the ark of the covenant, following the pillar of cloud. When it came to rest over a place, there the priests would set down the ark. Behind them followed Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun. After them came the Gershonites and the Merarites, carrying the bundled tabernacle, which they set up around the ark when the people made camp. Reuben, Simeon, and Gad took their places. Then came the Kohathites, who carried the furnishings and vessels for the tabernacle. Next followed Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) and Benjamin. Finally, as a rearguard, came Dan, accompanied by Asher and Naphtali (Num. 10:11–33).

Once their sojourn in the wilderness was over, the Israelites began to conquer the land of Canaan. Joshua allotted portions of land to each tribe (Josh. 13–21). The descendants of Joseph constituted two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim. Each of those two received an inheritance; thus, Joseph can be said to have received a double portion as though firstborn. The Jordan River formed a natural border down the middle of the land. To its east were parts of Manasseh, Gad, and Reuben. The other tribes were to the west. The southernmost tribe was Judah. Within Judah was Simeon, which over time was absorbed into Judah. Levi had no land for an inheritance, since Yahweh was Levi’s inheritance—fulfilling Jacob’s prophecy of Levi and Simeon being scattered throughout Israel. Immediately north of Judah were Dan and Benjamin. The remaining tribes were more northern still. So that they would not forget Yahweh, the tribes across the Jordan built an alternative altar, not for sacrifice but rather as a reminder of the true and living God (Josh. 22).

Judges

The history of the conquest underscores the fact that the tribes failed to drive out the inhabitants of the land completely. Many cities remained centers for non-Israelite culture and religion. “When Joshua had grown old, the Lord said to him, ‘You are now very old, and there are still very large areas of land to be taken over’” (Josh. 13:1). Judges 1 lists many peoples that continued to live alongside the Israelites.

Some of these peoples became incorporated into the mix of tribes. Rahab and her family from Jericho became integrated into the tribe of Judah (Josh. 2–6). The Gibeonites were a Canaanite people group who were incorporated into Israel (Josh. 9). Ruth the Moabite married into Judah (Ruth 4). Uriah the Hittite is an example of a Canaanite who was fully naturalized, to the extent that he kept himself ceremonially pure and fought in God’s holy wars for Israel (2 Sam. 11:11).

The book of Judges records the relative success or failure of each tribe to subdue and settle its own territory, and Judah consistently stands out as superior in this respect. Judges 1:2 puts Judah first. Judah provided leadership and support to Simeon, helping it to fulfill its own calling (1:17). After describing Judah’s success, Judg. 1 delineates the other tribes’ failures.

Two stories at the end of Judges illustrate the character of Judah in this period. Whenever Bethlehem and the other cities of Judah are the setting, sojourners and others are treated hospitably, have no fears, and prosper. This is true also of the book of Ruth. But when folk travel elsewhere—to Moab or north to Ephraim or Benjamin—they meet only trouble. Ephraim provided no protection to Micah when the lawless Danites overran his house (Judg. 18). Moab brought only famine, barrenness, and death (Ruth 1).

But the worst case of all is the Benjamite city of Gibeah (Judg. 19–20). There, the sin of Sodom was repeated as men surrounded the host’s house and demanded the sojourner. All Israel took up arms to destroy the wicked city and to punish the wicked tribe. As in the first two verses of Judges, God appointed Judah to the leadership position (Judg. 20:18). Judah then did to Benjamin what God had done to Sodom, almost wiping out the tribe.

United Kingdom

Nevertheless, when the tribes came together and demanded a king, the first king whom God gave them, Saul, was from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:17). Benjamin was situated midway between Judah of the south and the northern tribes. Saul was successful in leading the army of Israel, and for a time he enjoyed God’s blessing. But in the end, God rejected him and sent Samuel the prophet to anoint a Bethlehemite, David, to become the next king. However, upon Saul’s death, his son Ish-Bosheth (Ishbaal) claimed the throne (2 Sam. 2:8–9), around 1011 BC.

There followed a bitter civil war between the house of Saul, backed by the northern tribes, and the house of David, backed by Judah. After seven years, David had grown stronger and Ish-Bosheth weaker, until at Hebron David was finally acknowledged as king of all Israel (2 Sam. 5:3). David’s throne would last for centuries, until the destruction of Jerusalem. In the NT, David’s greater son Jesus inherited the throne. Thus, Jacob’s prophecy that the tribe of Judah would hold the scepter was fulfilled.

The northern tribes did not forget that they had once fought against David. David was caught in a scandal when his troops were in battle, and this may have further lessened their loyalty to him (2 Sam. 12). When his son Absalom rebelled and proclaimed himself king, the northern tribes once more allied themselves against David, and another civil war ensued. Although David won back his throne, the dissatisfaction of the northern tribes with the house of David continued (2 Sam. 15–19).

After David died, Solomon inherited his throne (971 BC). Throughout his reign, Solomon placed burdens on the tribes. He divided his kingdom into administrative districts that did not exactly correspond to the tribal territories. Dan and Zebulun were folded into other territories, and Asher seemed to have been ceded to Phoenicia (1 Kings 4). Thus, Solomon’s kingdom systematically weakened tribal identities. He laid a levy upon the tribes of Israel of thousands of men to provide a labor force for his building projects (1 Kings 5). Solomon built and consecrated the temple, and Jerusalem thus became both the political and religious center of the nation. The price for this, however, was the exacerbated discontent of the northern tribes.

Upon Solomon’s death, the tribes confronted his son Rehoboam with a demand to lighten Solomon’s “harsh labor and . . . heavy yoke” (1 Kings 12:4). Rehoboam foolishly replied, “My father made your yoke heavy; I will make it even heavier. My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions” (1 Kings 12:14). The northern tribes finally abandoned David’s house and thus became an independent political and religious state (931 BC).

Divided Kingdom

Throughout the period of the divided kingdom, tribal identities became less important, for their loyalties were now dominated by the reigning king of either nation. The border between the northern and the southern kingdoms was more or less a straight line, from Joppa on the west near the Mediterranean, to the upper tip of the Dead Sea. This cut through Dan, Ephraim, and Benjamin, leaving Simeon surrounded by Judah. Jerusalem was just south of the border. The first king of the north, Jeroboam, placed golden calves just north of the border, in Bethel, and also at the northern end of his kingdom, in the city of Dan. These served as cultic alternatives to the temple in Jerusalem for the duration of the northern kingdom. He also modified the law of Moses to allow for non-Levitical priests and a different liturgical calendar. The northern kingdom was called “Israel” (its capital was Samaria), and the southern kingdom was called “Judah” (1 Kings 12:25–33).

For half a century war ensued between the two kingdoms. The two formed an alliance during the reigns of Ahab and his sons. King Ahab of Israel gave his daughter Athaliah to be married to King Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram. Together the kingdoms fought against common enemies, such as Syria and Moab. They successfully turned back the superpower of the day, Assyria.

Under King Ahab and his wife Jezebel, Baal worship was aggressively promoted at the expense of traditional Yahwism. During this period Elijah and Elisha called the people back to the God of their ancestors, but with little success (1 Kings 17–2 Kings 13). A small group of faithful worshipers called the “sons of the prophets” did remain true to Yahweh, but most of Israel abandoned him. Hosea and Amos later also warned Israel, but their calls went unheeded. Ahab and Jezebel’s daughter Athaliah married Jehoram, and both of them promoted Baal worship in Judah just as in Israel. Thus, the people of Yahweh had become the people of Baal. Jezebel’s son Joram ruled Israel upon Ahab’s death, and Athaliah’s son Ahaziah ruled Judah upon Jehoram’s death.

Elisha secretly anointed one of Joram’s generals, Jehu, to bring the Omride dynasty to an end in Israel and to become the next king (2 Kings 9). Jehu killed both kings and Jezebel, and he destroyed all remnants of Ahab’s family. He also slaughtered the worshipers of Baal: “so Jehu destroyed Baal worship in Israel” (10:28). Upon the death of her son the king, Athaliah seized the throne and did to David’s house what Jehu had done to Ahab’s: she had every family member killed.

But one infant survived: Joash. He was secretly raised in the temple of Yahweh until he was seven years old. Then his supporters proclaimed him king. Athaliah cried out, “Treason! Treason!” (2 Kings 11:14), and the priest Jehoiada had her put to death. The place and objects of Baal worship were destroyed, ending state-sponsored Baalism in Judah (11:17–18).

Fall of Both Kingdoms

After both kingdoms’ period of infatuation with Baal (under the domination of the Omrides), their history as nations continued to their final fall. In Israel, the people never gave up Jeroboam’s perversion of the law of Moses. In Judah, kings varied widely in their regard for the law of Moses; sometimes they were faithful, sometimes very unfaithful. Meanwhile, Assyria was a constant threat. During the reign of the good king Hezekiah, Judah was overrun by the forces of the Assyrian king Sennacherib. God miraculously delivered Jerusalem (2 Kings 18). However, there was no such deliverance for Israel. Samaria was besieged for three years and finally taken (722 BC). Most of the population was deported (17:5–18). Other people groups were transplanted there who learned the law of Moses and feared Yahweh along with their own gods (17:24–41).

At this point in their history, only Judah remained as a political entity; the northern tribes of Israel were lost. After the faithful king Hezekiah, Judah’s next significant king was Manasseh. He is described in 2 Kings as the king most offensive to God. To categorize him, it was not enough to compare him unfavorably with David (see 2 Kings 14:3) or to equate him with Ahab and Jezebel (see 8:18). Rather, Manasseh was compared to the pagan nations that Joshua had driven out of the land, which were destroyed because of their wickedness. Manasseh was the last straw. Because of his complete abandonment to idolatry, God determined to make an end of Jerusalem (21:11–15).

Yet still the judgment was delayed. Two years after Manasseh’s death, Josiah reigned on the throne of David, and early in his career the Book of the Law was rediscovered in the temple. Josiah called for national repentance, and for a time Judah got rid of its idols and returned to God (2 Kings 23). But this repentance was relatively short-lived.

Josiah was the last good king of Judah. God sent Judah prophets such as Jeremiah, but they went unheeded. In the end, God sent King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon up against his own beloved city, Jerusalem. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, many of its people killed, and most of those who were left carried into exile to Babylon.

Exile and Restoration

The fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC essentially ended the existence of the tribes as independent political entities. For the remainder of their history they were, almost without exception, under the heel of great foreign powers. At this point, they were called “Jews.” Nebuchadnezzar conscripted some of the younger men to serve in his court (Dan. 1). The deportees remained in Babylon until its empire fell to the Medes and the Persians under Cyrus the Great in 539 BC.

Cyrus issued a decree at that time allowing the Jews to return to their ancestral land and rebuild the temple of Yahweh. They began to migrate back to the land of promise and began their efforts to rebuild the temple and the city of Jerusalem. These efforts continued under a succession of Persian kings. Although the Jews were home and able once again to worship God in the way he had specified in the law, Nehemiah lamented that they were little more than slaves, since they were subject to Persia (Neh. 9:36). Gone was the dynasty of David, gone were most of the tribes, and gone was the greatness of days past. The sins of their fathers had brought them to this sad situation.

In the return to the land, the genealogies of the returnees were very important. These preserved family and tribal identities so that their lineages would not be lost. The books that originated in the restoration period preserve these lists (see 1 Chron. 1–9).

Persia and the entire ancient world eventually were conquered by Alexander the Great. His successors divided the land after his death; two generals controlled Syria to the north and Egypt to the south of Palestine. They constantly squabbled over their borders, which included Palestine. Finally, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BC), king of Syria, decided to turn Jerusalem into a Greek city. He brought great pressure on the Jews to abandon their faith. Jews found with a copy of the law were killed, and circumcision of infants was forbidden. He ransacked the temple and placed an idol in it. Some Jews abandoned their faith, but others resisted. Finally, Antiochus died, and the Jews for a short time enjoyed independence. Over time, the Roman Empire engulfed Palestine. Herod the Great ruled as king of the Jews for Rome in the years 37–4 BC. Upon Herod’s death, his kingdom was divided among his sons.

New Testament

The Jews in Judea in Jesus’ day had learned to find their national, ethnic, and cultural identity in the law of Moses. They dutifully followed the purity laws, especially in keeping the Sabbath. Their religion was centered on the temple, and they kept Passover and the other prescribed obligations. Although the one remaining tribe, Judah, no longer could boast of a king on the throne of David or even independence, it was a nation whose people thought of themselves as Yahweh’s people. By Jesus’ time, they anticipated that a descendant of David, a Messiah, would arise to restore the lost kingdom of David.

Although the northern tribes were lost, there was some limited continuing awareness of tribal identity in this period. The book of Esther’s Mordecai is from the tribe of Benjamin, and there are a number of references to Benjamin in the intertestamental literature (e.g., 2 Macc. 3:4). Anna the prophetess was from the tribe of Asher (Luke 2:36). Paul knew himself to be from the tribe of Benjamin (Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5). He used his knowledge of this fact to help bolster his argument that he was truly a Jew. The Levites also survived the exile, and the priestly caste continued. The kingly and priestly tribes remained, with a few others.

Jesus is presented in Matt. 1 as a direct descendant of David through the line of kings. He is the promised Messiah (John 1:41), the “Lion of the tribe of Judah” (Rev. 5:5). Jesus promised his twelve disciples that some day they would rule over the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). In Christ, the definition of the tribes of Israel had changed. Gentiles were now grafted onto the olive tree of Israel (Rom. 11:17). Revelation 7:4–10 records the number from each tribe who bear the seal of the Lamb. After hearing this, John turned and saw them: they were revealed to be a vast company of the redeemed from every tribe on earth. Thus, the church had spiritually become the twelve tribes of Israel.

In AD 70 the temple was destroyed. Soon afterward, Israel was scattered, not to be a nation again in the promised land until 1948.

A “type” (from Gk. typos) can be defined as a biblical event, person, or institution that serves as an example or pattern for events, persons, or institutions in the later OT or in the NT. Typology is based on the assumption that there is a pattern in God’s work in the OT and in the NT that forms a promise-fulfillment relationship. In the OT there are shadows of things that will be more fully revealed in the NT. Thus, the OT flows into the NT as part of a continuous story of salvation history. What is promised in the OT is fulfilled in the NT. This can be accomplished through prophetic word or through prophetic action/event. The use of prophetic action/event to predict or foreshadow future actions/events involves typology. Typology is part of the promise-fulfillment scheme that connects the two Testaments.

A number of biblical interpreters note that three primary characteristics of types can be identified. First, there must be some notable point of resemblance or analogy between the type and its antitype. Second, there must be evidence that the type was appointed by God to represent the thing typified. Here one must avoid the two extremes of, on the one hand, saying that a type is a type only when the Scripture explicitly calls it such, and, on the other hand, of finding a type “behind every tree.” Third, a type should prefigure something in the future. Thus, antitypes in the NT must present truth more fully realized than in the OT.

Typological interpretation of the OT is different from allegorizing a text. The former restricts itself to the meaning intended by the original author, whereas the latter reads things into the OT passage (usually in connection with messianic prophecy) not initially intended. On the other hand, it should be noted that the OT authors may not always have fully comprehended the long-range fulfillment of their prophecies. Thus, for example, Ps. 22 reveals King David’s trials and tribulations that are later viewed by NT authors as applicable to the crucifixion of Christ (e.g., the quotation of Ps. 22:18 in John 19:24 regarding the soldiers casting lots for Jesus’ clothes). David probably did not envision his situation as predictive of the sufferings of the coming Christ. But the Holy Spirit did, and he allowed the Gospel authors to make the connection. Thus, typology is a special form of biblical prophecy, which Jesus seemed to use extensively. Hence, the type is found in the OT, and its antitype occurs in the NT.

More particularly, Jesus seemed to perceive himself as the antitype to all three of the aforementioned possible types. First, Jesus fulfilled in himself persons in the OT who were types. Thus, Jesus is the ultimate David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Jonah, the heavenly Son of Man of Dan. 7, and the Suffering Servant of Isa. 52:13–53:12. Second, with regard to famous OT events, Jesus reenacted the new exodus and passed the test in the new wilderness wanderings (Matt. 4:1–11 pars.), and then he proclaimed a new law from the mountain, as did Moses (Matt. 5–7). Third, Jesus revised or replaced OT institutions such as the sacrificial system and the feasts of Yahweh (most notably Passover) at his death, and at his resurrection he became the new temple of God.

The NT continues Jesus’ typological interpretation of the OT, seeing in him the supreme antitype of OT symbolism. Thus, for example, Paul sees Christ as the second Adam (Rom. 5:12–21), whose church is the new Israel, the eschatological people of God (1 Cor. 10:1–13). Matthew perceives Jesus to be the new Moses (Matt. 1–10). Note the following comparisons:

Moses, the Old Testament Type vs. Jesus, Matthew’s Antitype to Moses:

Moses was born to deliver his people. Jesus was born to save his people.

Pharoah tried to kill the infant Moses. Herod tried to kill the infant Jesus.

Moses was “baptized” in the exodus. Jesus was baptized in the new “exodus.”

Moses was tempted in the wilderness. Jesus was tempted in the wildnerness.

Moses performed ten plagues. Jesus performed ten miracles.

Moses received the law on the mount. Jesus gave a new law on the mount.

Luke understands Jesus to be the new David (Luke 1:32). Hebrews asserts that Jesus has inaugurated the new covenant (chap. 8), the true priesthood (chaps. 7–8; 10), whose death is the fulfillment and replacement of the sacrificial system of the OT (chaps. 9–10). But perhaps the most extensive usage of typology in the NT occurs in Rev. 21–22 (cf. Rev. 19), where the new creation is the antitype of the old creation of Gen. 1–3 (see table 10).

Table 10. New Creation Typology in Revelation 21–22

Sinful people are scattered (Gen. 1-3). God’s people unite to sing his praises (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:6-7).

The “marriage” of Adam and Eve takes place in the garden (Gen. 1-3). The marriage of the second Adam and his bride, the church has come (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:7, 21:2, 9).

God is abandoned by sinful people (Gen. 1-3). God’s people (new Jerusalem, bride of Christ) are made ready for God; marriage of the Lamb. (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:7-8, 21:2, 9-21).

Exclusion from bounty of Eden (Gen. 1-3). Invitation to marriage supper of Lamb (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:9).

Satan introduces sin into world (Gen. 1-3). Satan and sin are judged (Rev. 21-22; cf. 19:11-21, 20:7-10).

The serpent deceives humankind (Gen. 1-3). The ancient serpent is bound “to keep him from deceiving the nations (Rev. 21-22; cf. 20:2-3).

God gives humans dominion over the earth (Gen. 1-3). God’s people will reign with him forever (Rev. 21-22; cf. 20:4, 6, 22:5).

People rebel against the true God, resulting in physical and spiritual death (Gen. 1-3). God’s people risk death to worship the true God and thus experience life (Rev. 21-22; cf. 20:4-6).

Sinful people are sent away from life (Gen. 1-3). God’s people have their names written in the book of life (Rev. 20:4-6, 15; 21:6, 27).

Death enters the world (Gen. 1-3). Death is put to death (Rev. 20:14; 21:4).

God creates the first heaven and earth, eventually cursed by sin (Gen. 1-3). God creates a new heaven and earth, where sin is nowhere to be found (Rev. 21:1)/

Water symbolizes chaos (Gen. 1-3). There is no longer any sea (Rev. 21:1).

Sin brings pain and tears (Gen. 1-3). God comforts his people and removes crying and pain (Rev. 21:4).

Sinful humanity is cursed with wandering (exile) (Gen. 1-3). God’s people are given a permanent home (Rev. 21:3).

Community is forfeited (Gen. 1-3). Genuine community is experienced (Rev. 21-22; cf. 21:3, 7).

Sinful people are banished from the presence of God (Gen. 1-3). God lives among his people (Rev. 21:3, 7, 22; 22:4).

Creation begins to grow old and die (Gen. 1-3). All things are made new (Rev. 21:5).

Water is used to destroy wicked humanity (Gen. 1-3). God quenches thirst with water from the spring of life (Rev. 21:6; 22:1).

“In the beginning, God…” (Gen. 1-3). “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.” (Rev. 21:6).

Sinful humanity suffers a wandering exile in the land (Gen. 1-3). God gives his children an inheritance (Rev. 21:7).

Sin enters the world (Gen. 1-3). Sin is banished from God’s city (Rev. 21:8, 27; 22:15).

Sinful humanity is separated from the presence of the holy God (Gen. 1-3). God’s people experience God’s holiness (cubed city = holy of holies) (Rev. 21:15-21).

God creates light and separates it from darkness (Gen. 1-3). No more night or natural light; God himself is the source of light (Rev. 21:23; 22:5)

Languages of sinful humanity are confused (Gen. 1-3). God’s people is a multicultural people (Rev. 21:24, 26; 22:2).

Sinful people are sent away from the garden (Gen. 1-3). The new heaven/earth includes a garden (Rev. 22:2).

Sinful people are forbidden to eat from the tree of life (Gen. 1-3). God’s people may eat freely from the tree of life (Rev. 22:2, 14).

Sin results in spiritual sickness (Gen. 1-3). God heals the nations (Rev. 22:2).

Sinful people are cursed (Gen. 1-3). The curse is removed from redeemed humanity, and people become a blessing (Rev. 22:3).

Sinful people refuse to serve/obey God (Gen. 1-3). God’s people serve him (Rev. 22:3).

Sinful people are ashamed in God’s presence (Gen. 1-3). God’s people will “see his face” (Rev. 22:4).