Psalm 8 is a psalm of praise to the Lord whose name is majestic in all the earth who has set his glory above the heavens (v. 1). Verse 2 reads:

“Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.”

Jesus quotes this in Matthew 21.16 in relation to the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” and he says, in response to the indignation of the chief priests and scribes:

“And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?”

The might with which God defeats his enemies is the praise of Jesus by infants and nursing babies. The place of infants in God’s covenant people is not restricted to the Old Testament. Even with the coming of Christ, God regards children as an integral part of his believing, worshipping covenant people.

David considers the night sky, the moon and the stars which God has made and he stands in awe that God should care for and remember mere human beings and, more than that, set them a little lower than the heavenly beings, crown them with glory and honour, and give him power to rule over everything that God has made (vv. 3-8). These verses are quoted and expounded in Hebrews 2.5-9:

“For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.”

Hebrews 1 contrasts the angels with Christ, so it seems that the contrast in Hebrews 2.5-9 is also between angels and Christ, i.e. Christ is the man, the son of man, referred to in verse 6. God has not subjected the world to come to angels; now, in the present, God has crowned his Son with glory and honour and has put everything under his feet (‘For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him’), though as we look around at the world, we don’t yet see that. Because everything has been placed in subjection under Christ’s feet now, in the future we will see the world to come subject to Jesus, and not angels. Christ is reigning now. Everything is under his control now.

Verse 6 of Psalm 8 is also quoted in 1 Corinthians 15, in which the ’son of man’ is again identified as Jesus.

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” – 1 Corinthians 15.22-28

Christ has been raised from the dead, and when he returns to judge the world, those who belong to him will be raised from the dead as well. Then Christ will deliver the kingdom up to God the Father. Before that, Christ will have destroyed all his enemies. The last enemy that will be destroyed before the end comes is death. So before death is destroyed, all Christ’s other enemies  – all other rule and authority and power – will be subdued, will be placed under his feet. Christ is reigning now. God has put all things in subjection under his feet. Before Christ returns, we can expect to see all opposition to Christ cease, as all things, which already belong to Christ, are actually brought under his rule.

“O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!”

This week’s lecture is a round table discussion that John Piper moderated in October concerning  the end times, return of Christ and the  The Panel members are Doug Wilson, Sam Storms, and Jim Hamilton. Wilson takes the Postmillennial view, Storms the Amillennial and Hamilton the historic premillennial. Really thoughtful, loving discussion of Eschatology. Click here to download or listen.

_______________
_________
*

What is Amillennialism?

Amillennialism is the belief that there will not be a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on Earth.   Amillennialists teach that Christ is actually reigning right now  sitting on the Throne of David, and that satan is bound right now.

But does Amillennialism line up the with Bible?

Does the Bible teach us that there will be NO 1000-year Earthly reign of Christ?

Zechariah 14 teaches us –

3Then the Lord will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights in the day of battle. 4On that day his feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, and the Mount of Olives will be split in two from east to west, forming a great valley, with half of the mountain moving north and half moving south.  …  9The Lord will be king over the whole earth. On that day there will be one Lord, and his name the only name.  10The whole land, from Geba to Rimmon, south of Jerusalem, will become like the Arabah. But Jerusalem will be raised up and remain in its place, from the Benjamin Gate to the site of the First Gate, to the Corner Gate, and from the Tower of Hananel to the royal winepresses. 11It will be inhabited; never again will it be destroyed. Jerusalem will be secure. … 16Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles. 17If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, they will have no rain.

NOTE:   Well, according to these verses in Zechariah 14, there must indeed be an Earthly reign, for here Zechariah prophesies that Christ Himself arrives ON the Mount of Olives {vs 4} which is in Israel, and is on Earth by the way, and Zechariah 14 teaches  that Christ will be Lord and King over the entire Earth {vs 10}.   Zechariah goes on to teach / prophesy that Jerusalem will be secure, with safety and peace,  and that the inhabitants of the Earth during the reign of Christ, will travel up to Jerusalem to worship Christ the Ruler and King {vs 11, 16, 17}.

*

Does the Bible teach us that Christ is actually ruling and reigning right now?

Isaiah 11 teaches us –

1A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;  from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.  …  He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears;  4but with righteousness he will judge the needy,with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;  with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.  5Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist.   6The wolf will live with the lamb,  the leopard will lie down with the goat,  the calf and the lion and the yearling^a together;  and a little child will lead them.  7The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox.  8The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,  and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest.  9They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,  for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord

NOTE:  If Jesus Christ is ruling NOW from heaven, as Amillennialists teach, then where on Earth currently, are wolfs living peacefully with lambs?  How about leopards living peacefully with goats?  {vs 6}   Or where on Earth are the wicked  being struck down by Christ’s “rod of His mouth” {vs 4}?

No, the Bible does not teach that Christ is currently ruling and reigning from heaven, during this Present Age.   Christ is currently sitting at the right hand of God, in heaven, awaiting His time to return to the Earth to punish the wicked  {Revelation 19:11-15} and to see that the Earth is kept in peace as Isaiah 11 predicts, even as Acts 2 teaches us by stating  –

32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34 …   “‘The Lord said to my Lord:   “Sit at my right hand   35until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.”’^g

Note:  To be clear  I say again,  Acts 2 is teaching us that Christ is sitting at the right hand of God the Father, awaiting His appointed time to return to the Earth where all of Christ’s enemies will be made His footstool and Christ will rule the Earth as King.

Isaiah 65 also shows us  –

17“Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. 18But be glad and rejoice forever  in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight  and its people a joy.  19I will rejoice over Jerusalem  and take delight in my people;  the sound of weeping and of crying  will be heard in it no more.  20“Never again will there be in it  an infant who lives but a few days,  or an old man who does not live out his years;   he who dies at a hundred  will be thought a mere youth;  he who fails to reach^a a hundred  will be  considered accursed.  21They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.  22No longer will they build houses  and others live in them, or plant and others eat.   For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people;  my chosen ones will long enjoy  the  works of their hands.  23They will not toil in vain or bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the Lord, they and  their descendants with them.  24Before they call I will answer;  while they are still speaking I will hear. 25The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox,  but dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the LORD.

Note:  Again, these Scriptures  tell of a different quality of  life on the EARTH:   a New Heaven and a New Earth;   a time when former things won’t even be remembered;   a  life of peace and safety which the Earth has not seen since its creation, but will have once Jesus Christ is ruling and reigning, literally, on the Earth.   There  also will be no harm or destruction on Christ’s Holy Mountain … which is not currently happening  in Israel, but will only happen once Christ literally  sets foot on the Mount of Olives,  as clearly taught in Zecchariah 14.

But, let’s go on to another of the teachings of Amillennialism …..

*

Does the Bible teach us that  satan is bound NOW as Amillennialists teach?

Revelation 20 teaches us —

1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him FROM DECEIVING THE NATIONS  anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time.   … 7When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—to gather them for battle.

Revelation is teaching that satan will be BOUND, jailed, imprisoned and not loose to harrass the inhabitants or deceive the inhabitants of the earth during the millenial rule of Jeus.  And Amillennialism teaches that this is exactly the predicament of satan currently:  he is bound.  {Note:  Amillennialists also use John 12:21-32 to support their doctrine}.

However, Colossians 2 teaches us that Christ only  DISARMED satan and his demons for this current Age before Christ’s return –
15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.^d

Ephesians 6 teaches us that we still struggle and war against satan and his army –
11Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

And 2 Corinthians 4 teaches us that, indeed, satan is still deceiving and blinding mankind to the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ –
3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God

*

In just these very few  Scriptures, one can see that Amillennialism is not supported by Scripture when one puts together ALL Scriptures regarding their doctrines.

But how can one know if Amillennialism, or any other doctrine or teaching, is correct or not?

It is only by studying “ to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”  {2 Timoth 2:15}  ….  something that I encourage everyone to do,   especially as we see the Day of our Lord drawing closer.

____________

Conclusion:

All Biblical Prophecies regarding the first coming of Jesus Christ have been fulfilled LITERALLY.

Therefore, we can trust that God is providing us LITERAL Prophecies regarding the second coming of Jesus Christ.

And Premillennialism is the only Christian position that shows God’s End Time Prophecies as LITERAL.

*
_________
_______________

John Piper hosted a very exciting roundtable discussion with three of his friends looking at some issues of eschatology.  Those friends are Doug Wilson, Sam Storms, and Jim Hamilton, and each one represents one of three escatalogical viewpoints: Postmillenialism, Amillenialism and Premillenialism respectively.

This discussion will stretch your mind, if you are not familiar with the variety of millenial views.   Far from being a discouraging discussion, this is a very helpful and encouraging discussion, and shed light on the views that I personally do not hold.  We should be willing to delve into these deep waters rather than to avoid them due to the confusion that surrounds them.

An Evening of Eschatology >>>

I have an embarrassing confession to make: when I first started to take my faith seriously as a teenager, I began my theological journey with the likes of Grant R. Jeffrey and Tim LaHaye. My first non-children’s bible was a prophecy study bible. I ate up the stuff that Hagee, Van Impe, and various other dispy-premils were constantly selling. (What this might reveal about my personality or theology now I leave to the reader.)

When my reading in apologetics eventually led to me becoming Reformed, I eventually left the dispy-premil camp for the Reconstructionist camp. Since then, even after having left the Recons, I have retained their postmillennialism. At the same time, as I entered university eschatology in general started to matter less to me. It seemed for the most part to be an interesting but ultimately unimportant distraction from more significant theological matters.

But a number of things have led me to change my mind again. Firstly, the work of NT Wright, and later that of the group of writers associated with Biblical Horizons (James Jordan, Peter Leithart, Tim Gallant, among others) have taught me that eschatological matters are pervasive in scripture. Eschatology is the life-blood of the NT, in many ways, with its discussions of the “new covenant”, the “new creation”, and most directly, the “kingdom of God” or “the age to come”. Talk of “the already and the not-yet” should of course be included here.

Secondly, and very recently, I have begun to realize the importance that eschatology has to play not only in inner-Christian disputes, but perhaps more significantly, in disputes between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism. Basically all of the things that offended the Jews in Jesus’ message (his changes in the law about food, sabbath, and the place of Gentiles in the people of God) were directly related to his eschatology and the implications it had for practice (the one major exception being the Trinity/Christology). If one ever hopes to witness to Jews, one will have to tackle eschatology in a serious manner.

Thirdly, I have noticed that eschatology is something that comes up (at least implicitly) in debates between contemporary anabaptists and conservative evangelicals. One of the most central aspects of pacifist theology in those circles is the “minority status of the church”, which is basically the doctrine that the church will always be distinct from society and outside of power when it is being the church truly. But this is implicitly a premillennial, or at least pessimistic amillennial, view of the church age in eschatology. And this particular spin on those millennial views has obviously significant results in socio-political theory and practice.

Fourthly, I have learned that in many ways the modern worldview, in both its “liberal” and “Marxist” variants, is strongly based on a doctrine of progress, which some historians have connected (rightly, I think), with Christian eschatology, and in some ways a specifically postmillennial eschatology. It is impossible to honestly deal with these popular views of the world and not in some way get into eschatological issues.

So, I can no longer seriously say eschatology is unimportant. What it is, in all honesty, is complicated and difficult, but that is no excuse to ignore it. Life is difficult.

Revelation 6:9-11 reads

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

The Word of God for the elect people of God. Glory be to God.

For my premillennial dispensational brethren who believe in a pretribulation (or prewrath) rapture that spares the church from the time of sorrow, please explain this text. Who are those slain for the Word of God? Are they Christians? And when will these Christians be slain for their testimony? Does it refer to those believers slain in times past, whether in the Old Testament or at the time that Revelation was written? Or does it refer to believers slain during the great tribulation? (If so, how can any Christian stand under persecution, even martyrdom, without being emboldened by the Holy Spirit, which according to premillennial dispensational doctrine has to be taken from the earth along with the church? Please recall the difference between Peter and the apostles before the Comforter – cowering and fearful and running from their lives – and afterwards – bold and brave witnesses even unto death. As a matter of fact Peter himself went from being the worst – the one who denied Christ three times – to being the boldest. And how can anyone even be saved during the great tribulation without the work of the Holy Spirit? Recall: the Holy Spirit was indeed present during the time of the Old Testament saints. Indeed, the Bible states that the earth’s very existence cannot so much as even be sustained without the Spirit of God.) Or does it refer to believers slain during all ages, from the first (Abel) until the last before the return of Jesus Christ?

To interpret this passage with scripture, let us go to another one in Revelation that touches the martyrdom of the saints, which is Revelation 18:24. Please recall that this chapter refers to the fall of Babylon,  which since the Tower of Babel incident and particularly since the destruction of the temple in 586 has been used to symbolize people and systems that rebel against and oppose God and persecute His elect covenant people, and that Revelation extends this symbolism with personification, describing all that opposes God as a harlot (prostitute), which in this verse is called “her”:  And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth. Now as much as I love my King James Version, allow me to quibble with their translation of “kai” to “and” in the phrase “and of all that were slain upon the earth.” Many times, “kai” is just used for emphasis, as an amplifier of degree or a focus of attention. This text should probably read:

“And in her [Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and of saints, indeed all [prophets and saints] that were slain upon the earth.”

However, if you go with the King James Version, which granted carries much more weight and authority than my own, and all which follow its tradition on that text, then “and of all that were slain upon the earth” simply means that in Babylon was the blood of every person that has been murdered, all innocent blood that has been shed. This means that the prior clause “And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints” means that “the prophets and saints” (a  New Testament idiom which refers to old covenant and new covenant believers) which means that the blood of Stephen and all other Christian martyrs ever since is contained in Babylon. So with reference to the elect the meaning is the same: the blood of everyone killed because of their faith in God is in Babylon.

So, if we interpret Revelation 6:9-11 with Revelation 18:24, when the fifth seal was opened the martyred souls viewed under the altar should very likely be interpreted to include every Christian martyr since Stephen. This would support the idea of a church that has always been under continuous tribulation. Such an interpretation would be consistent with, indeed fulfill the words of Jesus Christ in John 15:18-20.

If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.

The Word of God for the people of God. Glory be to God.

Now one can hardly claim that those words were only aimed at the apostles. Those words are for all Christians for all time. So what basis is there for believing that there will be a rapture to save the church from a persecution that A) Jesus Christ said that we would face and B) Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit to empower us to withstand? Now this is not an endorsement of the historicist, preterist or amillennial position that there will be no seven year literal great tribulation. Instead, it is to say that if there will be such a seven year literal great tribulation, the church will be present for it just as it has been present for all other tribulations, the “lesser” tribulations.

Now the prewrath (and mid-wrath) rapture adherent does have Revelation 3:10, which reads “Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth”, in his favor. However, that could be fulfilled in a number of ways, including 1) a place of refuge (which ironically rapture believers commonly propose will exist for those who will saved during the great tribulation … again these people will have to be saved despite the absence of a church to preach the gospel or a Holy Spirit to perform regeneration) or 2) death. Do not let the “death” option astonish you, but instead study the scriptures, especially the Old Testament but also in the New Testament. It is a consistent theme that death is a way of being preserved, saved, spared from times of great evil … to be absent from the troubles of this world and present with God! Perhaps the best example of this is the death of Abijah, son of the wicked king Jeroboam, who died according to God’s will so that he would not be corrupted by Jeroboam and also not share in their judgment in 1 Kings 14. A New Testament example: at the time that he wrote Philippians 1:20-26, Paul viewed death as being removed from the extremely trying circumstances that he was living and exchanging it for a better fate. In that passage Paul stated “to die is gain”, but it appears that the rapture adherents have transformed it into “to be raptured is gain.”

So, the idea that there must be a rapture in order for Christians to be spared martyrdom seems to be inconsistent with Biblical revelation. It is also an idea that only makes sense for Christians living in the west. Practically everywhere else in the world, Christians face persecution: marginalization, poverty, disease, imprisonment, death. There are two doctrinal systems that have the effect of promoting the idea western Christians should have no part in what Christians in Indonesia, China, Iran, Palestine (and Israel!), India and Mexico (where Roman Catholic/pagan syncretists are persecuting Protestants) by simple right of geography of birth: pretribulation rapture and covenant theology. Pretribulation rapture teaches that Christians not currently under persecution now will never have to face it, because persecution will only come to “the good parts of the world” (i.e. “Christian nations” or “western nations” or “non-socialist nations” … you know, what Glenn Beck was referring to) when the anti-Christ (which 8% of New Jersey residents regard Obama to be) takes over it.

Now ask yourselves … why is it that Christians can be persecuted in some places (including Israel … and read this too!) now without the anti-Christ, but it requires the anti-Christ to happen in others (especially America)? Or that the saints in other places (and times, including in the west … remember the 30 Years War and the Anabaptists?) are not spared persecution, but only the modern American saints are? Only the idea that contemporary western (especially American and possibly British!) Christians are somehow better than Christians living in other times and places, and this fact would be due to America having some special status before God as a unique elect covenant nation, giving us special status within the Body of Christ. Of course, the Bible makes it clear in the Roman and Corinthian epistles that there is no special group or people with a special status, special favor, or special standing before God in the Body of Christ, but instead that we are one Body. Further, the Bible makes it clear that those who are accounted greater according to rank or authority (not standing or value) demonstrate this through being servant roles that cause us to A) serve those who are of lesser rank and authority and B) endure even greater persecution than those who are of lesser rank and authority. So, even if America did have some special standing before God, instead of our being wealthy decadent privileged Laodiceans, we would be poor, oppressed and serving everybody else! If you deny this, read the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ!

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Keep in mind, the version in Luke reads “Blessed are the POOR!”)
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

The Word of God for the people of God. Glory be to God.

Now earlier I mentioned the covenant theologians, from whom the modern concept of the “Christian nation” originated. Covenant theologians believe – or at least believed – that people in “Christian nations” would or should be spared persecution only because in a church-state Christians would control the government, economy, military, police, and religion in a theocracy after the manner of Old Testament Israel. That is why such extreme theonomists and reconstructionists as Gary North and Rousas John (R. J.) Rushdoony deny that the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount apply to Christians, instead stating that it only applied to Jews living in that time. (Curiously, hyperdispensationalists believe the same.) While I believe the covenant theology position to be in error, this statement is aimed primarily at premillennnial dispensationalists.

So if America were this special, Christian nation, it would be marked by our poverty and service, not by our decadent delusions of religious nobility which makes us believe that we are somehow exempt from the sufferings of Christians living in Belarus or Namibia, or for that matter the Christians of the early church. After all, when Paul wrote his statement insisting that those in the Body of Christ were equals, the statements were direct AGAINST two groups of people: the Jewish Christians in the Roman church and the wealthy Christians in the Corinthian church. The Jewish Christians regarded themselves to be superior to the Gentile Christians because of nationality, and the wealthy Corinthian Christians regarded themselves as superior to the poorer believers because of their riches. The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to tell both groups that they were wrong. So, then, how can we justify believing that a rapture will come and rescue us from the type of persecutions and deaths at the hands of Muslims that are going on all over the Middle East, Asia and Africa right now, such as the two million Christians that were killed in Sudan, many of whom were tortured, raped, doused with gasoline and set on fire, had their limbs chopped off, or were sold as slaves because they refused to renounce Christianity?

Ironically, the world, including the media, the activists, and the government of our own “Christian nation”, did their level best to ignore this genocide, choosing instead to focus on Muslims murdering other Muslims in Darfur. And let us not forget that the term for which the word genocide was originally invented and applied to, that of the Armenians by the Turks, is still not recognized as such by the U.N. or by the government of our “Christian nation.” It is still more ironic when you consider that the Armenian genocide happened in the same general area that the letters in Revelation were sent, in the Turkey region. That persecution kicked off what was the bloodiest period of Christian persecution in history, the 20th century, that saw 45.5 million Christians killed!

So if there were any geographical or political entity within the Body of Christ that had special status, it would be those Christians because of their poverty and persecution who would come first, not us . It is those to whom the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ were addressed, and premillennial dispensationalism completely rejects that truth for the belief that the rapture will save Christians not yet under persecution from ever having to experience it because the saints who have it easier are the ones who fulfill Revelation 3:10! Never mind that the rich church that was not facing persecution was Laodicea, and the church that Revelation 3:10 was addressed to was Philadelphia. Why was the promise of Revelation 3:10 given to the Philadelphians? It is in Revelation 3:8, which reads “I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.” The Philadelphia Christians were being persecuted, and similar to the Sudanese Christians, they refused to yield to the persecution by denying Jesus Christ. In other words, they refused to do the same as the apostle Peter did THREE TIMES before he was empowered by the Holy Spirit, yet dispensationalism teaches that this Holy Spirit will be taken away, and those converted during the great tribulation will have to face the greatest time of sorrows ever without it, and will yet somehow stand? How? Why? Because of their free will? Or because of their inherently good human nature untainted by original sin? Followers of Reformed/Calvinist believers in the rapture like John MacArthur and Albert Pendarvis (the latter’s bookstore sells the Scofield Reference Bible) have to answer these questions! In any event, those who claim that Revelation 3:10 refers to Christians being raptured to escape persecution have to deal with the fact that the text was in reference to a Philadelphia church that was enduring it!

Make no mistake. I believe in a bodily literal return of Jesus Christ which I believe will occur after a literal great tribulation which will include a literal and personal anti-Christ. However, I also believe that the church will endure this tribulation, and that we need to be preparing ourselves and those who will follow us in the faith for it in a manner that is consistent with scripture as opposed to believing that we – or our WESTERN descendants – will have an experience of escaping it that will be unique to Christians living in other times and places. At the very least, someone must explain why western Christians alone should enjoy this pleasure!

The Three Step Salvation Plan

Sometime in my second-last year of I high school I began to believe in Calvinism. Along with it, I picked up several political opinions that I thought were the consistent outworkings of Calvin’s doctrine of salvation. But now I’m a little skeptical.

Often thinkers have appealed to Calvin’s pessimistic view of human nature as a justification for conservative politics, in the sense of politics which try not to rock the boat too much, try to have many checks and balances, etc.

Now, there are good arguments for those things, but I’m not sure it follows necessarily from Calvin’s view of human nature. For starters, among all the post-Reformation denominations, Calvinism was certainly one of the most radical (alongside non-pacifistic anabaptism). The American revolution was known early on as the “Presbyterian Revolt”, for example. At least for some people, Calvinism meant not conservatism, but radicalism.

Further, the strong postmillennial strain (of which I consider myself a part) of Calvinism would push in the opposite direction: as many historians have suggested, the Enlightenment myth of progress was in many ways a secularized version of the postmillennial hope of the Puritans.

And apart from these things, there is also the much-discussed doctrine of “common grace”, the basic idea being God’s continual work in history outside of the church to restrain human beings from being as evil as they could be.

I think it would be fair to say, then, that Calvinism does not really require a conservative politics in the most literal sense of that term. Though Calvinism does say that, in itself, human nature after the fall is depraved and alienated from God, God’s activity in history, both inside and outside the church, makes it virtually impossible to deduce a political theory from that fact. No prediction can be made, like in Hobbes’ system, because unlike Hobbes’ system, Calvinism is all about God and what he is doing in this world. It can allow for broader thinking than a heel-dragging conservatism, and historically it has.

Eschatology is a hot topic in Christian literature as evidenced with the hugely popular Left Behind series. Much of the popularity of that series was due to the sensationalism of the particular eschatological viewpoint espoused in that series. That eschatological view is Dispensational Pre-Millennialism. It’s popularity comes from the fact that is makes for good drama (as the series revealed). Up until about nine months ago, it was an eschatological viewpoint I adhered to and defended. After interacting with others who didn’t hold this eschatological view, I decided to do some research into it. I began by reading Kim Riddlebarger’s A Case For Amillennialism which gave me enough reason to change my eschatological view. It also provided a good foundation to read The Promise of the Future by Dr. Cornelis P. Venema.

This book is easily the most comprehensive book on Christian eschatology I’ve ever read. It is so much more than a comparison of millennial views. It takes a scholarly look at all aspects of Christian eschatology. Dr. Venema, Professor of Doctrinal Studies and President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary in Dyer, IN, breaks down his investigation of eschatology into six sections. In section one (The Future is Now), Dr. Venema shows that Christianity is a religion of hope that is based in the word of God. The overall story of Scripture is one of Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained, and the first advent of Christ marked the beginning of the last days.

Section two of the book (The Future Between Death and Resurrection) looks at the doctrine of the intermediate state. Dr. Venema looks first at un-Biblical views of the intermediate state before presenting the Biblical case for that doctrine. He closes that section with a look at purgatory. Section three (The Future of Christ) addresses the second coming of Jesus. This is by far the most important doctrine of the NT as it is the centerpiece of Biblical expectation. It is not only the doctrine which forms the Christian hope, but it also provides the motivation for holy living in the here and now. One of the best parts of this section is Dr. Venema’s presentation of the return of Christ as a consummating event. This is an argument that is setting the stage for Dr. Venema’s critique of Dispensationalism. Far from being just one stage of the end times, the return of Christ is the consummating event of the NT age. He concludes this section by reinforcing the fact that no one knows when Christ will return.

Section four (The Future Marked by the Signs of the Times) covers three chapters and goes into great detail regarding the signs that herald the return of Christ. These signs are found in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24). Dr. Venema breaks these signs down into two categories: Signs of God’s grace and signs of opposition and judgment. Examples of the former are the gospel being preached to all nations and what that means as well as the salvation of “all Israel.” While the latter is evident in the tribulation, the apostasy, the antichrist and the judgment of God.

Section five (The Future of the Kingdom) forms the heart of the book. It encompasses five chapters and consumes nearly 200 pages. In this section, Dr. Venema discusses all of the major millennial views. He first does a dispassionate presentation of the different positions quoting primary sources for each, and then proceeds to evaluate these views based on a critical examination of the Scriptures. There is a whole chapter devoted to Revelation 20, the central text in the millennial debate. Dr. Venema conclude the book with a section discussing the future of all things, which goes over the events that occur at the return of Christ — e.g., the general resurrection, the final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth.

If I were to critique the book, it would be in three areas. The book is long (about 490 pages in length of just text). While this isn’t a problem for me, I can see how this might intimidate the casual reader. To the end, Dr. Venema has released an abridged version of this book for popular consumption titled Christ and the Future: The Bible’s Teaching About the Last Things. My second critique is that Dr. Venema doesn’t really provide a clear exposition on Daniel 9:24-27, which is one of the key texts from a Dispensational perspective in support of their view. This omission doesn’t weaken his argument, but it makes it less complete. Finally, I had a hard time with chapter 14 concerning the final judgment which goes into questions about the final judgment including degrees of reward in heaven. I had understood that believers do not undergo the final judgment and that we all receive the same reward. Dr. Venema challenged my thinking in this area. While that might not really qualify as a critique, it does serve as a reason for me to look into this matter further. If you were taught similarly to me, this might make you take notice too. I don’t refute Dr. Venema’s position because it may be more of my previous dispensationalism talking than clear, cogent reasoning.

As far as what this book has in its favor, the tops of the list is its comprehensiveness. As previously mentioned, this book weighs in at nearly 500 pages of text. If you want a clear and complete picture of eschatology, this is the book for you. This book contains a copious amount of footnotes too, which allow Dr. Venema to elaborate more on certain points. There is a lot of primary material cited as well; Dr. Venema wanted to make sure he was accurately portraying opposing views in their own words. The book is indexed by persons, Scripture and subjects. Finally there is an extensive bibliography. It’s main strength is its readability. I was surprised at how quickly I read through it; for a theological book, it was a ‘page turner.’

If you want a comprehensive work on eschatology from a Reformed Amillennial perspective, look no further than The Promise of the Future (4 out of 5 stars).

We pick up my dialogue with Keith Mathison about his book Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope.

Cavman: I guess this is where my defensiveness arises, to a degree.  I see spiritual change as real change.  If someone is really regenerate then they are being sanctified and having a positive influence in their family and community.  As the church in a region or nation grows, there are material benefits that overflow into the region and nation.  Many of these things may be common grace benefits, but are still an outflowing of the work of Christ.
For instance, where Christianity has become the dominant religion, there is usually an increase in material prosperity, health care, technological development and moral standards.  There also seems to be a decrease in things like political corruption.  As I ponder the influence of Islam on cultures, I see very advanced cultures being suffocated, increases in poverty etc.  It was Christians, for instance that put an end to slavery in the Western world.  Hopefully Christians will put an end to it in other parts of the world.

I don’t see this as making me postmillennialist.  Like Gary DeMarr, I suspect we think things are worse now because we know more about other parts of the world.  Worse things happened before, but people didn’t know about them and most things didn’t make the history books.

I get the impression that there is a similarity in the hermeneutics of premillennialism and postmillennialism toward literalism.  Many of the prophecies are in poetic sections of the prophets.  I don’t think I’m trying to spiritualize the texts away, but understand them properly rather then think they must be fulfilled in a particular way like the Pharisees did, thereby missing Messiah, and some premillennialists do.  ”All the nations” for instance.  I believe all nations will be represented among the elect (thinking temporally), but I don’t think this means there has to be a worldwide revival so that all the nations are coming at the same time.  I’d love to see a worldwide revival, and the conversion of most Jews- but I don’t see Scripture necessitating that.

I’d better think of a question, huh?  Sorry about the digressions.  You mentioned theonomy.  Perhaps some are uncomfortable with postmillennialism due to its connection with theonomy.  Not all postmillennialists are theonomists, but all theonomists are postmillennialists.  You’ve spent more time studying this than me, and have more relationships with theonomists than I do.  What is the bridge from your understanding of postmillennialism and yours?

KM: I don’t think there’s any need for defensiveness since I’m not arguing against what seems to be your main point here.  I heartily agree that spiritual change is real change.  The contrast I am drawing is not between spiritual and real.  That’s a false contrast that assumes or implies that the spiritual is not real.  Instead, I’m drawing a contrast between visible and invisible.  As I mentioned in the previous response: “What I object to is the idea that the growth of Christ’s kingdom is entirely invisible and confined to the spiritual dimension of existence and will have no visible manifestations in history.”  The words “entirely” and “confined” and “no” are key.  There are aspects to the growth of Christ’s kingdom that are invisible, that occur in the spiritual dimension of existence.  These are very real.  Regeneration is invisible but very real.  My point is that the effects of the growth of Christ’s kingdom should not be confined to only the invisible spiritual dimension of reality.  The effects of sin, of Satan’s kingdom, are not thus confined, and neither are the effects of redemption and the growth of Christ’s kingdom.

In connection with the impact of the church’s growth in various regions that you mention, you say you don’t see this as making you a postmillennialist.  This is part of the reason why I’m not nearly as concerned about the labels today as I might have been when I wrote that book.  As I mentioned in my response to your first question: “I think things get a bit fuzzier the closer you get to the middle of the spectrum.”  I think there is significant overlap between some contemporary versions of postmillennialism (such as mine) and some contemporary versions of amillennialism (such as Venema’s, for example).  You are also right about not wanting to confirm or deny either view based on looking around at the most recent newspaper headlines.  It’s very difficult, if not impossible, for us with our limited perspective to see current or local events within their broader context.

If there’s a point in your comments with which I disagree, it would be that there is a similarity between premillennial and postmillennial hermeneutics.  I think the premillennialists would object as well.  Amillennialism grew out of postmillennialism, and in one sense is simply a version of postmillennialism.  Amillennialists also believe that Christ will return after (post) the millennium.  I agree that we need to be careful not to be presumptuous about our interpretation of prophecies that use highly figurative language.  We don’t want to make the same mistakes the first century Jews made.  There’s a difference, however, between saying that “all nations” means “many nations” or “most nations” and saying “all nations” means “no nations.”  I’m not suggesting that you would interpret it in that way.  I’m simply using the type of prophecy you mentioned to make a point.  Perhaps, I can illustrate it better by referencing the Revelation 20 prophecy of a thousand year reign.  Premillennialists interpret the “thousand years” literally.  Both amillennialists and postmillennialists interpret it symbolically.  Both tend to generally agree that it symbolizes a very long but indefinite period of time.  But what if you run across someone who says that the “thousand years” stands for a three year period of time or a forty year period of time?  I’ve run across such folks myself.  Is that a plausible interpretation of that symbol?  I don’t think so.  It seems to me that a “thousand years” can plausibly symbolize a very long but indefinite period, but it violates the nature of biblical symbolism to make “thousand” mean “three” or “forty.”  I think something similar may be happening with those poetic Old Testament prophecies you mention.  I am not suggesting they must be interpreted as if they were historical prose.  I think the premillennialists are in error when they interpret such prophecies in such a manner.  It ignores the genre of the literature.  On the other hand, some amillennialists seem to me to do with those prophecies, what these folks I mentioned do with Revelation 20.  They suggest that “thousand” is a symbol for “three.”  Poetic language is similar in some ways to an impressionistic painting.  The details aren’t always clear, but if you step back, the big picture is visible.  That big picture is what comes across in the texts I discussed in the book.  The growth of a stone into a mountain that fills the earth, waters that cover the earth, a mustard seed that starts tiny and grows into a large tree, and so on.  None of these make it very clear exactly what the details will look like, but the big picture is a bit more obvious.  Whatever these poetic and symbolic pictures stand for, they don’t stand for the precise opposite of what they say, and that is what some ammillennialists I’ve read seem to be suggesting.

I guess I should address your main question regarding theonomy.  I should say first that I do not actually have a lot of relations with theonomists.  Gentry is the only one with whom I’ve corresponded with anything approaching regularity, and the subject of the correspondence has never been theonomy to the best of my recollection.  But what is it’s connection with postmillennialism?  Well, postmillennialism has existed in various forms for centuries.  Theonomy, is a relatively recent movement that embraced postmillennialism as one of its tenets.  They are much more confident than I am about what the growth of the kingdom will look like in practical, political terms.  If I understand them correctly, they believe postmillennialism entails a theonomic view.  I don’t.

Cavman: I don’t think any amils I know are trying to ’spiritualize’ things away.  The issue is more over how it is to be fulfilled: simultaneously or sequentially?  Many “kings” have come to the Father through faith in the Son, bringing tribute to Him.  Representatives from most nations and people groups have come as well.  This is fulfillment of those prophecies too.  But I don’t want to belabor that point.

I was a bit dissatisfied with your answer to one criticism of amillennialists that the wilderness (or even exile) is a paradigm for the church.  I would agree that it is not the only paradigm for the church, nor true of the church in each region at all times.  At times the church is part of the dominant culture, and can hardly be called “in exile” or “in the wilderness”.  But this seems an apt paradigm when the church suffers, as it often does and as much of it suffers today.
As I noted in my review, the Scriptures have more than one perspective on the Wilderness wanderings.  Yes, they were judgment upon the generation that refused to enter the Promised Land due to fear.  Yet the Wilderness was also experienced by those who were under 20 years of age at the time, and those who were not yet born.  For them, who would enter the Promised Land, the assessment of Deuteronomy 8 is important.  This is the aspect of the Wilderness amillennialists have in mind (for the generation which rejected Messiah when He came have been judged in AD 70).  It is to humble and test us, to see what is in our hearts and whether we will obey the Father and Son.  This would be part of the example for which this was written for us upon whom the end of the ages has come (1 Cor. 10), lest we too fall into idolatry and immorality.
So, Peter’s call to live as aliens and strangers expands beyond his original audience and is a mindset that should be in all the faithful until the consummation and renewal of creation.
Yes, I need to have a question here.  Earlier you acknowledged that though the decisive victory has been won by Jesus, there is still difficulty ahead.  Why does it seem that we “have” to go to the apparent extremes of pessimism and optimism (at least in theory and rhetoric) when comparing amillennialism and postmillennialism?  Can we find a ground where we acknowledge that “the gates of hell will not prevail”, and “it has been appointed to you not only to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, but to suffer for Him?”

KM: Personally, I think we can find that common ground.  As I’ve mentioned to several people in the last couple of years, I don’t even think the terms “amillennialism” and “postmillennialism” are all that helpful anymore.  Eschatology is “bigger” than one’s view of the millennium.  There is actually so much overlap that one prominent Reformed scholar told me he would describe my position as amillennial.  That’s fine.  The terms don’t mean that much to me.  I’m seeking to understand what Scripture says, regardless of what people want to label the views.  I think we can agree that the decisive victory has been won by Christ, but that there will also be intense fighting all the way until the consummation.  I think we can agree that although there will be ups and downs in the fight along the way, the gates of hell will not prevail.  I think we can agree that the weapons of our warfare in this fight are not carnal weapons.  And I think we can agree that what is key is the proclamation of the good news of our risen and ascended Lord Jesus in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses according to the riches of His grace.  Whatever we may think the visible outcome of the next battle in the long war may look like we are on the same side, in the same army, under the same Commander, fighting the same enemy.

Cavman: So, how does From Age to Age: the Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology differ from your book on Postmillennialism, & what is the next writing project about?

KM: When I began working on From Age to Age, the original idea was to write a book on eschatology that would first look at the development of the major eschatological themes of Scripture in context from Genesis to Revelation.  The plan was to follow this with a section on the development of eschatology through the history of the church.  This was to be followed by a systematic theological section treating the major topics that would appear in the last chapter of a typical systematic theology text.  I also considered adding a fourth section dealing with the practical and ethical implications of eschatology.

As I wrote, however, it soon became clear that the first section was going to be more extensive than anticipated.  After speaking with the publisher, we decided it would be a stand alone volume, with the other material perhaps to follow in the future.  From Age to Age, then differs from the earlier book in several ways.  First, it is basically a look at eschatology from a biblical theological perspective.  It is most comparable, then, to Parts Three and Four of the postmillennialism book.  There is one major difference, however.  In that book, because of space constraints, I only deal with select passages.  In the new book, I wanted to look at all of these passages and more within their broader context, within the narrative flow.  For example, in the section on Daniel in the postmillennialism book, I look only at two passages from Daniel 2 and 7.  In the new book, I look at the whole book of Daniel but focus in on the most important eschatological texts – such as those in chapters 2 and 7, but also many others.  In one way it reads like a commentary on the whole Bible with detailed attention given to those texts which are particularly significant for understanding the development of major eschatological themes – such as the covenants, the Messiah, the kingdom, etc. Several amillennialists, such as Mike Horton and Derek Thomas, read it prior to publication and gave me great feedback on it.

I’m not sure what the next writing project is.  I’d like to eventually finish the original plan for this book by writing the historical and systematic theology volumes, but I’d also like to take a break from eschatology.

Cavman: Thanks for your time, I know you’ve got a busy schedule.  Perhaps I’ll make it to the Ligonier Conference this time around.  Any time you want to drop me a review copy, go for it!

Here is the first part of my internet dialogue with Dr. Keith Mathison about his book Postmillennialism: An Eschatatology of Hope.  Keith and I worked together at the RTS Orlando Bookstore, and then at Ligonier Ministries.  After graduating from RTS, he received his Ph.D. from Whitefield Seminary.  He is the author of numerous books, including Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? which he wrote while in seminary.  I did such a great job proofing the book that I haven’t worked on one since.

KM:  Thanks for reviewing the book.  I saw it yesterday.  You didn’t say anything about the most persuasive part of the book – the yellow cover.  What’s up with that?!?

Cavman: It is a fine cover.  Kudos to the art department.  I only bought the book for the cover.  Okay …. At times the amillennialism you describe doesn’t seem to be the amillenialism I hold to.  Part of that may be because you were interchangeable arguing against both forms of premillennialism and amillennialism.  I put your book down thinking our differences are more about a matter of degree: how much the gospel will prosper as it covers the earth and converts the nations.  What would you say is the main distinction between these sibling eschatologies?

KM: I think you are correct to observe that at least some of the differences are a matter of degree.  I see the various expositions of amillennialism and postmillennialism lying along a spectrum.  There are extremely spiritualized and pessimistic forms of amillennialism that would be at one end and very this-worldly, perhaps naively optimistic forms of postmillennialism at the other end.  Closer to the middle would be more balanced (i.e. biblical) forms of amillennialism and postmillennialism.  I think, for example, that Cornelis Venema’s expression of amillennialism is closer to some forms of postmillennialism than the amillennialism of someone like David Engelsma.  And my expression of postmillennialism is closer to some forms of amillennialism than the postmillennialism of someone like Loraine Boettner.  I think things get a bit fuzzier the closer you get to the middle of the spectrum.

Unlike some older postmillennialists, who believed that the millennium would be the last 1000 or so years of the present age, I believe the millennium represents the entire present age between the first and second coming of Jesus.  So there’s no disagreement there.  Both amillennialists and postmillennialists say they believe that Christ’s kingdom is growing during this present age.  I think the main difference between the views boils down to how confident we are that the growth of Christ’s kingdom will manifest itself in some visible, tangible ways during this age and what it might look like.  In short, is this kingdom growth more or less behind the scenes?  I’m slightly more optimistic than most amillennialists I’ve read that the growth of Christ’s kingdom will have visible manifestations.  Unlike some theonomic postmillennialists, however, I am less confident about saying exactly what they might look like.

I also believe that the growth/advance of Christ’s kingdom will involve a bloody, difficult battle for the people of God.  Going back to the old D-Day/V-Day analogy, the decisive battle has been won, but the progress will not be easy.  It will involve awful, street to street fighting all the way to the final day.  But the victory is assured.

Cavman: As I read the book, a few things came to mind for me.  On a continuum (Pratt would be proud) I see premillennialism and postmillennial as the 2 extremes.  One pessimistic and under-realized, and the other overly optimistic and over-realized.  The dispensational premillennial position was born in persecution and pessimism, and puts some of the “already” into the “not yet”.  The posmillennial position, I think, sticks too much of the “not yet” into the already.  Obviously I’m biased toward amillennialism as having the best balance.  I have a point here, really.  ”Visible manifestations” is a phrase that you used.  I think I see such things now.  Please, spell out what you mean a little bit.  What “visible manifestations” do you have in mind?

KM: I see postmillennialism and amillennialism existing on a continuum because they share similar features.  Premillennialism seems to me to be in a separate category altogether.  Regarding “visible manifestations,” like I said, I’m hesitant to offer specifics.  When Scripture speaks of the growth of the kingdom it tends to use figurative language.  What specifically in the real world corresponds to the permeation of a lump of dough by leaven?  Or to the growth of a mustard seed?  The first type of growth is not particularly visible.  The second is.  In short, it isn’t as simple or as cut-and-dried as some would say.  We can’t, for example, measure the growth of the kingdom of Christ by watching the fortunes of our favorite political party or our own nation.  The kingdom of Christ is bigger than that.

What I object to is the idea that the growth of Christ’s kingdom is entirely invisible and confined to the spiritual dimension of existence and will have no visible manifestations in history.  That idea implies that there was nothing noticeably different about the world after the Fall.  Satan’s kingdom, however, has had clearly visible manifestations in the world throughout history beginning with the Fall.  Why would the redemptive kingdom of Christ not have any visible manifestations?  It involves the same world that was cursed as a result of our sin.  Sin did not affect merely the spiritual realm.  It affected the visible and physical as well.  Redemption also affects both.  What might it look like?  I think we have a fairly good idea of what the visible manifestations of Satan’s kingdom look like.  I expect that the growth of Christ’s kingdom will look a lot like the opposite of that.

more to come….

Books on postmillennialism are rare these days, because postmillennialists are relatively rare (though the number is growing).  200 years ago, a very large number of Christians were postmillennial.  I have friends who are postmillennialists, one of whom wrote a book.  I’ve finally read that book.  Keith Mathison wrote Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope because many people misunderstand this view, and he wants to persuade more Christians that this is the biblical eschatology.

Disclaimer: I probably should get my eschatalogical journey out on the table since this can often color how we view this subject.  As a young Christian, I read lots of books by Dispensationalists on eschatology (because, sadly, they seem to be the ones inundating the market with books).  So, from 1986-1990 or so I was a dispensational premillennialist. But I was finding that Scripture was disabusing me of this view.  By the time I went to seminary in 1991, I was an historic premillennialist without realizing what my view was called.  I was initially suspicious of amillennialism and postmillennialism.  By the time I left seminary I was an amillennialist, and have remained so for 15 years.

Hermeneutical Considerations This is where Keith starts, and for good reason.  He lays out some Presuppositions and Definitions.  He lays out his presuppositions about the existance of God, His willingness to communicate, the authority of His Word, our being made as image bearers and ability to receive that Word before hitting interpretive considerations.  He concisely lays out the necessity of faith, the need to let Scripture interpret Scripture, the role of community and tradition in intrepreting Scripture.  It is only after this that Keith defines the 4 most common eschatalogical views (quiz, I’ve named them all already- what are they?).

“The thesis of this book is simple: Postmillennialism is the system of eschatology that is most consistent with the relevant texts of Scripture, a covenantal approach to Scripture, and the nondisputed doctrines of Reformation theology.”

He just dropped a term he hadn’t mentioned: Covenant Theology.  In the second chapter he distinguishes between Covenant and Dispensational Theology.  He was a student at Dallas Theological Seminary before he went off the theological reservation and I met him at Reformed Theological Seminary.  This is a SHORT chapter, but he concisely defines & critiques Dispensational Theology and then explains Covenant Theology since most American Christians are essentially unfamiliar with Covenent Theology.

Historical Considerations What the church has believed on this issue is important.  It is not definitive or authoritative.  It is also a mixed bag as various theologies came into being and were clarified over time.  The last of these to come into being is Dispensational Premillennialism (though there have been premillennialists for quite some time).  He shows that the historical claims some have made for their positions just don’t hold water.  Postmillennialism was the main position during the time of the Puritans and into the early 20th century, however.

Biblical Considerations Texts from the Old and New Testament are examined to reveal God’s promises, and their fulfillment in Christ.  Keith is brief (at times too brief, but he didn’t want a 400 page book).  Here was when I started getting defensive.  While most often addressing how premillennialism misinterprets various texts, he makes comments about the ‘pessimism’ of amillennialism.  Yet, I found myself often affirming, as an amillennialist, many/most of the conclusions he made.  “Hey, amillennialists believe that too!”  I didn’t want to be lumped in with other views.  But I also saw that many of the issues that separate amillennialists and postmillenialists are largely semantic.  Technially, amillennialism is a variety of postmillennialism.  The difference is between how “complete” the progress of the gospel will be when Jesus returns.  I will explore most of these differences and some of the ways I’ve thought through this issue in an interview with Keith to appear soon.

The largest chapter in this section is on Revelation, the source of much of the controversy.  He addresses the 4 basic approaches to The Book of Revelation: Idealist, Historicist, Futurist and Preterist.  Which view you take matters tremendously.  I cheat- I see the Preterist (most of the book has been fulfilled) and Idealist working together.  I think this is a biblical view since books like Exodus actually occured, but then operate as a paradigm for future events (we see it used for the exile and the events of Revelation).  But this is besides the point.

Keith establishes a case for the preterist approach to Revelation.  Sadly, he often uses the phrase that something “would be beyond the scope of this” chapter or book.  So at times we are left to trust his prior study rather than see the evidence layed out.  In most of those instances I agree with his position anyway, but for others it would be off-putting to be referred to a hard-to-find tome by Kenneth Gentry.

Theological Considerations Keith moves into the final major section of the book.  Here his goal is not so much to argue against Dispensationalism as to defend postmillennialism from other Reformed theologians.  One analogy he uses is that of progressive sanctification.  Just as the Spirit makes progress against our flesh after conversion, so the Gospel makes progress against false gospels post-redemption.  Here the dispute is regarding the degree of that progress.  Amillennialists affirm that the gospel will result in people from every tribe, nation, tongue and language being coverted.  We see that the gospel has gone from 12 disciples to billions of disciples today.  Mathison repeatedly brings up statements by people like Richard Gaffin, that the kingdom of evil continues to grow as well.  It does- by sheer numbers as the population grows, but not percentage because the gospel is making progress.  So how we look at statistics can be important.  While many of us lament the waning of the gospel in the West, it is prospering greatly in South America, Asia and Africa (largely through the missionary efforts of the West).

“Postmillennialism maintains consistency between the application of redemption on an individual scale and the application of redemption of redemption on a cosmic scale.”

What separates postmillennialism from amillennialism is the expectation of a worldwide revival whereby most people will be converted, including most Jews.  This is the key difference- the degree to which the gospel subdues the nations prior to the return of Jesus.  The secondary issue is the role of suffering in the church.  Will the creational aspects of redemption lessen suffering or is suffering a mark of the church?  Keith reduces the nature of the wilderness wanderings to judgement.  As a result, he does not find this an apt understanding for the church.  A few considerations expose this as reductionistic.  Deuteronomy 8 address the generations that grew up in the wilderness.  Unlike the generation that came out of Egypt, they were not being judged but were being humbled, tested and disciplined.  This is the aspect of the wilderness that many amillennialists like myself are referring to as a paradigm of the church.  The visible church is humbled, tested and disciplined by the presence of either the persecuting beast or the seductive prostitute (see Revelation 13ff).

Objections to Postmillenialism Mathison does a good job defending postmillennialism from the many false characterizations made against it.  There are many who don’t understand it and attack it on the wrong grounds.  He, in my opinion, does not satisfactorily address the objects raised by amillennialists.  This does not mean that all objections raised by amillennialists have merit.

The various indexes contain some helpful information including an explanation and critique of Full Preterism, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and more.

Keith Mathison dost nearly persuade me to become a postmillennialist.  He does offer a good defense of biblical postmillennialism.  He does expose the shortcomings of premillennialism.  But I don’t think he acheives his goal, partially because the amillennialism he argues against isn’t the amillennialism I believe in.  Perhaps I have an erroneous understanding of amillennialism.  Overall Keith’s book is concise, well-thought out, and thorough.  At times he makes assumptions about his audience, and can be reductionistic.  I would recommend it for those seeking to understand postmillennialism.  It may not convince them of postmillennialism, but it will certainly challenge their own eschatalogical views.  And most of us need to challenged to think more biblically on these matters, understanding the presuppositions we’ve made and whether or not they are proper assumptions.

Lordship view:

Popular with Reformed and Calvinist churches. Jesus Christ is presented primarily as ruling sovereign king. Transcendence of Jesus Christ is emphasized. A main view of the effects of His incarnation was to sanctify creation with His presence, and the emphasis of His work on the cross is that of being the giver and head of the new covenant and to transfer dominion from Israel to the church. This emphasis on Jesus Christ – as Lord and King and head of the covenant – correlates to the aim of such bodies to view themselves as extensions and agents – the Body – of Jesus Christ’s kingship and rule on earth. Because Jesus Christ sanctified the earth with His presence, that increases the prominence of natural theology and general revelation as ways of knowing, understanding and having a relationship with God. Further, it makes it fitting and appropriate for Christians to seek to subdue and rule the earth by political, economic, cultural and military means as a way of worshiping and glorifying God. The Lordship of Jesus Christ is mediated through western culture and institutions which God through His providence used and created to improve worldly conditions, spread the gospel, and prepare the world for His coming. Jesus Christ’s Lordship, kingdom and influence are spread primarily through cultural, political and military means, and such things largely take the role of personal evangelism and missionary work in infant baptism cultures. Thus, attacks on western culture and institutions are seen as direct attacks on God’s kingdom, God’s plan to redeem the world, and ultimately on Jesus Christ Himself. Due to Jesus Christ’s being depicted as Lord and King and thus viewed in the context of European and other Gentile kings (remote, detached, very difficult or impossible to directly or personally know or relate to) worship is liturgical, sacramental, even mystical with preaching de-emphasized to the point where often reading the pastor’s sermon notes is a more productive activity than being present for the sermon’s oral delivery. Very little practical attention is given to God the Father or the Holy Spirit or Jesus Christ’s humanity. Eschatology: often amillennial or postmillennial.

Savior view:

Popular in free will evangelical and fundamentalist churches. Jesus Christ is presented primarily as Savior. Heavy emphasis on Jesus Christ’s humanity, particularly the very safe approachable nonthreatening imagery of a baby in a manger and other views emphasizing Jesus Christ’s immanence. Primary role of incarnation is to make Jesus Christ human in order to facilitate a personal relationship with Him: Jesus Christ as friend, buddy, confidante, parent (particularly as it relates to parents’ giving their children gifts, reassurance, and nurturing), “sounding board/venting object”, or even lover. Please note: the ability to accept or reject friendship and personal relationship with another human is always by personal discretion, and both humans have equal rights to set the relationship’s terms, including the depth and intensity of the relationship. Jesus Christ’s deity is depicted in context of His ability to work miracles and teach during His earthly ministry and His being an effective in His role in dying for sins, and His ability to live a sinless life. Jesus Christ’s role as Lord and King is practically limited to His headship of the Body of Christ and is only stated factually or doctrinally as the justification for congregational church polity. In practice, Jesus Christ’s actual rule or dominion is deferred until judgment day, the millennium, and in heaven. The role of the Holy Spirit is to comfort Christians, give Christians friendly but non-coercive and not truly binding moral advice, and to help Christians deepen their friendship and bond with Jesus Christ; to make a relationship that is in many respects little different from a one-sided self-serving relationship with another natural human into a spiritual relationship. Ultimately, friendship with Jesus Christ meets the need of the Christian, first to escape eternal damnation, and second to meet or fulfill personal or emotional needs during challenging, difficult and uncertain lives. Note: a high percentage of people adhering to this form of Christianity are children of divorced parents, people who were abused or neglected as children, low income people, and women. God the Father is depicted in terms of an ideal human father and His relationship with Jesus Christ depicted as the ideal relationship between a parent and son, which is a source of reassurance and comfort (and also a goal) of people whose lives have been affected by family dysfunction and failure to live up to the western middle class ideal family image, with the Body of Christ offering the promise of a true, real stable family that meets true and idealized emotional needs that will finally be fulfilled in heaven. Result is an outsized emphasis on good families as the solution to personal and spiritual needs, with some going so far as to claim that the family is a type of the Holy Trinity or that the Holy Trinity is the model for the family (see Wayne Grudem and James Dobson). Thus, a major goal is the creation and preservation of not only a church system but also a worldly culture (i.e. government, politics, economics, values) that is “family-friendly.” The role of worship is to meet human emotional needs, often meaning entertainment and cathartic release for lower income people and intellectual stimulation for higher income and more educated people. The goal is to relate to Jesus Christ on a personal or human level, often using the relationship with Jesus Christ  as a substitute for flawed human relationships with spouses, parents, children, friends etc. Heavy emphasis on personal evangelism and missionary work, but the driving force is often eschatological beliefs or a desire to “grow the Christian family” (meaning creating more people to enjoy relationships with) and generally rely on human initiative and methodology. Growing integration of psychology and psychiatry with Christianity to meet the emotional needs of church members. Also increasing emphasis on “personal spirituality”, to “worship God my own way” and an increasing conviction that God’s grace accommodates the desire to satisfy or fulfill personal and emotional needs, including giving license to engage in conduct forbidden by scripture. This trend includes – but is not limited to – the emergent church. Preaching  is often exhortary, entertaining or emotionally charged, with an emphasis on narratives that relate to the personal experiences and needs of the listeners that causes them to recognize their own traits – or the traits of loved ones – in the sermons. Eschatology: often dispensational.

Lord and Savior view:

Begins with the Trinity, as God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son work together to create, redeem and sustain a community of believers as the ultimate goal of accomplishing creation, and such things are done for the pleasure and glory of the Godhead as opposed to the benefit of believers, though believers do certainly benefit and are exceedingly grateful. Jesus Christ is Lord of all for times past, future and present and graciously took upon the role of Savior.  Jesus Christ’s present dominion is not extended to the political, economic, military or cultural systems of the world, but instead is limited to the church over which He is Head and whose dominion all members of the church must continually submit to. The goal of worship and praise is to glorify and honor Jesus Christ, and Christ rewards those who glorify and honor Him by using the Holy Spirit to give them joy and other gifts and fruits. Evangelism is a worship activity done to glorify Jesus Christ, to fulfill the mandates of scripture, to provide Jesus Christ with more servants, to act as God’s servants in carrying out His plan of salvation, and to give more people the benefits of salvation. Christians can appreciate general revelation and natural theology as part of their praise and worship of God, but can only know God through special revelation, which includes the Holy Scriptures and Holy Spirit illumination which reveals the Son who in turn reveals God the Father. A very personal relationship with Jesus Christ is possible, but only on Jesus Christ’s terms which cause the believer to respect Jesus Christ’s holiness and sovereignty. Thus the rules of engagement between Jesus Christ and the believer are not as equals with the focus on Jesus Christ’s meeting the believer’s needs as the believer asks (which is the believer taking the initiative) but rather a relationship where Jesus Christ takes the initiative and it is the responsibility of the believer to obediently respond. In this way, Jesus Christ is Lord and King, but not after the detached manner of human kings, but a King that one can truly know and relate with, a King who allows us to continually eat bread at His table not because He is deficient in any way and needs our company but because it is to His pleasure and glory that we accompany Him. Attacks on culture, governments and institutions are regrettable for such things are servants of God and act to restrain evil, but ultimately are not attacks on Jesus Christ Himself, whose current dominion is now spiritual over the church and whose realized dominion over the earth – one that He will exert with a rod of iron – is yet to come. Presently only attacks against believers are attacks against Jesus Christ. Relationships with other believers are based on shared beliefs, common membership in Jesus Christ’s Body, and exercise of spiritual gifts as opposed to values, family or culture. Emphasis of preaching is to inform people about God’s nature; to reveal God to hearers so that the hearers will respond to the revelation of God. Churches and pastors with this view of God are present within virtually any legitimate Protestant Christian denomination or movement, however such churches and pastors always represent a decided minority in whatever denomination or movement they are in. Eschatology: can be amillennial, postmillennial, dispensational or chiliast. Practically, eschatology is de-emphasized in favor of an emphasis on God’s eternal plan and nature.

Sometimes I have described my novel as the “Reformed alternative to Left Behind.” Upon further reflection, I realize such a description can easily be misunderstood.

I believe the kingdom of God will grow generation by generation until every area of human life and culture is transformed by the power of the gospel. When I say that The Discipling of Mytra is the Reformed alternative to Left Behind, what I really mean is that this ongoing process of kingdom development is story-worthy. It is worth writing about.

The setting of my novel is possible because Daniel 2 is true: the rock that struck the foot of the statue is indeed becoming a mountain that fills the whole earth (and galaxy). A greater percentage of the human race will be Christian in 3125 than today. This will radically alter human culture in ways we can scarcely imagine. 

So many new situations, conflicts and opportunities to write about – but only because Christianity is going to win!

We have just finished our first interview with Joel McDurmon. Joel was an excellent guest. He defended persuasively the Postmillennial view of eschatology. I am giving the links to some of the reference he referred to:

David Chilton’s excellent Revelation Commentary can be read for FREE HERE: Days of Vengeance

Ray Sutton’s: That You May Prosper (also for FREE)

American Vision’s On-Line Store

Please click on link to access document.

The Tribulation and the Millennium: Four Views

As Wayne wraps up his 5 year long series of lectures going through his excellent Systematic Theology, he looks at the varying views of the millennium, final judgment, hell, and the new heavens and new earth.

Wayne spends  little time on the Post-millennial view because it’s based on very few and very weak proof-texts.  Amillennalism takes more time since this is a very popular view in many reformed circles.  There is also a helpful discussion on Preterism and Dispensationalism. Wayne spends on entire message looking at premillennialism, which is the view he holds.

Final judgement and eternal punishment take up another lecture, followed by a look at the New Heavens and the New Earth.

Christian Essentials >>>

In the last post, I quoted Jim Jordan to the effect that amillennialism is racist, and pre- and postmillennialism have more in common with each other than they do with amillennialism.  I then noted that the ecclesiastical, organizational and confessional lines tend to be drawn the other way, lumping amillennialism and postmillennialism together on one side of the fence, with premillenniallism on the other.

Some people — I know a number — have fled to the premillennial side of the fence precisely because they were unable to make their peace with amillennialism.  Usually the point of serious discontent is the way amillennialism spiritualizes away the promise of kingdom victory over the evils of this world.

However, it has to be said that a great number have fled the other way, from premillennialism to postmillennialism, for very similar reasons.

Premillennial thought understands that Messiah’s kingdom only comes about when Messiah Himself is personally present to set it up.  Until then, human sinfulness presents an upper boundary to the world’s maturation.  That thought, taken by itself, lends itself to a story in which the world descends into the abyss until Messiah appears to save the day and set up His kingdom, and thence to a lifestyle not unlike the amillennial mentality Jordan skewered in last week’s post.  Hence the great number of dispensational premil folks who are “just hanging on until the Rapture.”  They don’t get involved in cultural endeavor because that’s “polishing the brass on a sinking ship.”

This breeds a defeatism, a sense that the gospel cannot have meaningful impact on a whole culture.  The depressive Christianity that comes of this drives people from the premillennial camp to postmillennialism, because they can’t believe that the gospel could be so ineffective.

They’re right to be repulsed; defeatist Christianity is biblically false, historically unsustainable, intellectually stultifying, morally bankrupt, and just plain nauseating.  You’d have to be a gnostic to find any encouragement in it at all…and hey! Guess what?  Most conservative American Protestants are closet gnostics, so there you go.

If the only choices were culturally vibrant postmillennial Christianity and defeatist premillennial gnosticism, I’d be a postmillennialist too.

But these are not the only choices.

Consider the mentality that gives rise to premillennial defeatism: “We’re not going to bring about the kingdom in any case, and Jesus will do it when He comes no matter what, so why invest in culture now?”  Suppose a Christian were to approach his personal sanctification the same way: “I’m not going to become perfect in this life anyway, and Jesus will make me perfect in the next in any case, so why struggle against sin now?”  The biblical answer, of course, is that we are supposed to anticipate and image the life to come in our lives now — and that answer applies at a cultural level as well as an individual level.

But is that compatible with premillennialism?

Sure — just as a sanctified life is.  Premillennial eschatology sees that Jesus’ presence on earth as king is necessary to setting up His earthly kingdom, and nothing less will suffice.  But it’s a far cry from that to saying that obedience to the dominion mandate now is worthless.  Jesus is Lord, and He knows far better than I what value my cultural contributions may have, so simple obedience is sufficient as a motive.  But beyond that, consider: what has been the impact of Christianity on Western culture?  Is Western culture measurably better than those cultures that have never had the benefit of 1500 years of Christian cultural hegemony?

It is.

Cultural endeavor is not polishing brass on a sinking ship after all; it’s continuing repair and improvement of a ship that will always need bilge pumps until the Lord returns.  Sometimes she floats pretty well; other times, she’s listing to starboard and the water line is two feet above the deck.

Presently, the ship of Western Christendom is a shattered ruin, and even what remains is slowly falling apart.  But Christendom gave us the neonatal respiratory ventilator, modern science, and an outpouring of philanthropy unparalleled in the history of the world.  God is pleased when those made in His image snatch the helpless from the jaws of death.  God is pleased when we cultivate the earth as He commanded.  God is pleased when we care for the poor, the weak, and the downtrodden.

But what if it all disappears?  What if the whole culture sinks beneath the chaotic sea as if it had never been? I mean, isn’t that what premillennial eschatology tells us?  I’m not certain that it is, necessarily, but let’s consider it as a worst-case scenario: Christendom 1.0 disappears as if it had never been, and “round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, the lone and level sands stretch far away.”  Then what?  What was the point?

Then we will know that the words Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes are true, that all our labor under the sun really is shepherding wind.

By the same token, we will know that to fear God and keep His commandments is man’s all, and we will be glad to have done it.

So let us labor as Solomon labored to build the temple, now long destroyed.  If it was worth doing then, it’s worth doing now.  We are the church of Jesus Christ; we believe in resurrection from the dead.  We live in light of eternity, and can afford to wait and see how God will resurrect all that has died to a brighter and yet more glorious future.

He is Risen!

I’ve never been sure that I bought all of that Second Coming stuff.  Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection I get, sort of.  For some reason a man rising from the dead has never seemed too far-fetched, which is silly, but it hasn’t.  What has seemed just a little crazy (maybe this is because I grew up reading Left Behind) is that someday Jesus will magically descend, riding on the clouds to save us all from this rotten ol’ world and take us to the big Disneyland in the sky so we can watch it burn from really, really, for away.

Of course, that’s not really what the Bible says, exactly.

What has helped is the power of narrative.  I think one of the unique and dynamic and beautiful things about Chrsitianity is that it provides this metanarrative with a beginning, a middle, and an end.  And I’m glad there’s an end, I really do.  But God would be a terrible writer if it happened sort of ex nihilo: things are getting worse and worse and the plot is thickening and getting more complicated and then: TA DA!  Wow, thanks Jesus!

Forgive my sarcasm.

It’s just that, in a good story, the characters work to make the plot resolve.  The decisions they make in the beginning affect those in the end; they matter and give the narrative shape and substance.  I suppose that what I’m suggesting, and I certainly wouldn’t be the first, is that maybe we’ll have to work to bring Jesus back.  Maybe He’s got stuff He wants done before He’s going to come back.

I think you call that postmillennial eschatology.  More or less.

If there’s one thing that evangelicals are totally boneheaded about (and it’s just SO hard to choose sometimes), it’s eschatology.  Seriously, how many times can you incorrectly identify the Antichrist and just keep on guessing like you could possibly have any idea?  It’s definitely Hitler.  Nope.  Lenin.  OK, Stalin.  No no, it was Gorbachev for sure.  Actually, it’s Obama.

Or maybe you’re just a tool of the neoconservative movement.  Did no one consider that possibility, or find it even slightly coincidental that the Antichrist has just happened to be the political leader of America’s enemy for the past 100 years?

That being said, talking about the resolution of plot and everything, I think that instead of being on alert for the apocalypse, maybe the Church should actually start working for it.

That’s all.

Whilst Keith Mathison has a new book out I thought I would briefly overview chapter six of his Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. This chapter deals with the Psalms, hence why I am posting it here, and looks at the foundation for a postmillennial eschatology within the Psalter. He discusses Pss. 2, 22, 47, 67, 72, 86, and 110.

He begins by pointing out, quoting John Jefferson Davis that throughout the Psalter we are presented with,

clear pictures of a great king, God’s Messiah, ruling over a vast kingdom that far transcends the boundaries of the nation Israel.

He then proceeds to discuss the following verses:

Psalm 2

I will proclaim the LORD’s decree:
He said to me, “You are my son;
today I have become your father.

Ask me,
and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.

You will break them with a rod of iron;
you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”

Psalm 22

All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.

Psalm 47

Sing praises to God, sing praises;
sing praises to our King, sing praises.
For God is the King of all the earth;
sing to him a psalm of praise.
God reigns over the nations;
God is seated on his holy throne.
The nobles of the nations assemble
as the people of the God of Abraham,
for the kings of the earth belong to God;
he is greatly exalted.

Psalm 67

May God be gracious to us and bless us
and make his face shine on us—
so that your ways may be known on earth,
your salvation among all nations.
May the peoples praise you, God;
may all the peoples praise you.
May the nations be glad and sing for joy,
for you rule the peoples with equity
and guide the nations of the earth.
May the peoples praise you, God;
may all the peoples praise you.
The land yields its harvest;
God, our God, blesses us.
May God bless us still,
so that all the ends of the earth will fear him.

Psalm 72

May he rule from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.
May the desert tribes bow before him
and his enemies lick the dust.
May the kings of Tarshish and of distant shores
bring tribute to him.
May the kings of Sheba and Seba
present him gifts.
May all kings bow down to him
and all nations serve him.
May his name endure forever;
may it continue as long as the sun.
Then all nations will be blessed through him,
and they will call him blessed.

Psalm 86

All the nations you have made
will come and worship before you, Lord;
they will bring glory to your name.
For you are great and do marvelous deeds;
you alone are God.

Psalm 110

The LORD says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet.”
The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion, saying,
“Rule in the midst of your enemies.”
Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy splendor,
your young men will come to you
like dew from the morning’s womb.
The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
“You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek.”

He concludes saying:

In each of the psalms we have examined, a different facet of the reign of the Messiah is brought to light:
1. Psalm 2. Christ is the rightful heir of all the nations.
2. Psalm 22. The same Christ who was crucified and is now exalted will fulfill the Abrahamic promise, and all the nations of the earth will remember and turn to God.
3. Psalm 47. All nations of the earth will be united to Christ and will become the one people of the God of Abraham.
4. Psalm 67. Although national Israel has failed, Christ will succeed as the mediator of the Abrahamic blessing to the nations of the earth.
5. Psalm 72. The people of God should faithfully pray for Christ to have worldwide dominion, to have all nations bow down before Him, and to have all nations call Him blessed.
6. Psalm 86. The same omnipotent God who made all the nations will convert all the nations.
7. Psalm 110. Christ will reign from the right hand of God until He has brought all His enemies into either willing or unwilling submission.

If you are interested in eschatology then you should check Mathison’s book out.

I’m  a premillennialist. It’s part of Prairie Tab’s statement of faith. I’ve wondered why some people hold to other eschatological positions.

I discuss it a few times a year when I teach a membership class and I walk through the statement of faith with candidates for membership. I find that there are usually people in the class who are unsure what premillennialism is, and others confuse it with pretribulationalism.

Recently I’ve come to see that there are some evangelicals far smarter than I who hold to amillennialism and I decided I wanted to understand why they hold to this position. So I looked around online and found Kim Riddlebarger’s A Case for Amillennialism to be a strongly recommended, recent defense of the position. I tried to find a strong argument, to read it with an open mind, and to understand the position.

Riddlebarger presents amillennialism as the middle position, with postmillennialism on one side and premillennialism on the other. He grew up in premillennial circles but later became convinced of amillennialism.

The book is divided into three sections:

Part 1 First Things First

Part 2 Biblical and Theological Concerns

Part 3 Exposition of the Critical Texts

The first section “First Things First” is helpful in defining terms and laying the groundwork for the discussion. If you want to understand the difference between premillennialism, postmillennialism, amillennialism, historic premillennialism, progressive dispensationalism, etc…, this is the section for you.

I found the second section “Biblical and Theological Concerns” to be long and tedious to get through, as it walked through some long theological arguments. The section is filled with Biblical references, and the arguments are primarily theological.

Key arguments include:

1. Covenant theology is an important theological framework for understanding the amillennial position.

2.The Bible talks about ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come’, leaving no room for a literal 1000 year millennium in between.

3. The final judgment happens when Christ returns, not 1000 years later

4. Other arguments are presented relating to the kingdom of God (some based around George Ladd’s ‘already’/'not yet’ understanding of the kingdom – Riddlebarger says that post mill is too much ‘already’, pre mill is too much ‘not yet’).

The final section, “Exposition of the Critical Texts”, was good reading as it did what the title suggested, exegeting the texts most relevant to the discussion. Riddlebarger looks in detail at Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Romans 11 and Revelation 20. While I did not agree with many parts of his exposition, I did find it helpful to understand where an amillennialist gets his theology! Also, I found it helpful to learn that some amillennialists do see a future for ethnic Israel (I had previously thought that all amillennialists saw no future for ethnic Israel). I found the exposition of Revelation 20:1-6 to be painful reading, because it seems to me that there are a lot of hoops an amillennialist has to jump through, which appear to avoid the plain meaning of the text.  For example, the text says that Satan is bound and put in the pit which is sealed over him for 1000 years. Amillennialsts believe the 1000 years refers to right now (the millennium being symbolic of an extended period of time between Christ’s ascension and his return). The problem is that Satan appears to be anything but bound and locked in a pit right now. So the amillennialist responds that Satan is like a wild animal tied to stake – he is bound, but still dangerous if you get close. This explanation just doesn’t do justice to the text of Revelation 20 which says Satan is bound and locked away, which suggests he could have no influence on earth. Another example is the explaining away of the two resurrections. Amillennialists are so committed to one resurrection only, that when they hit Revelation 20 which seems to plainly talk about two, one before the millennium and one after, they have to spiritualize one of them away to keep their theological system intact.

I found it frustrating that the exegesis of key Bible texts was left until the end of the book, after the theological discussion of part 2. I recently taught a hermeneutics (Biblical interpretation) course and two of the basic principles are 1. Revelation is progressive and 2. The Bible text gives you your theology, and your theology is not the grid that interprets the Bible text. It seems that by the time an amillennialist gets to Revelation 20, he has such a big theological system built that he cannot let the text read plainly. So when we have the latest piece of biblical revelation in Revelation 20 regarding the millennium, it is not allowed to speak, and is instead forced to fit with the theological system.

In conclusion, I found A Case for Amillennialism to be a helpful book in understanding the Amillennial position, and also for a better understanding of the postmillennial position. It is well written, but heavy reading, and while it is not overly technical, neither is it a popular treatment of the subject. I would recommend it for someone who wants to better understand the amillennial position. After reading this book, it firms up my premillennial position even more, as I did not find the arguments convincing, but it also gives me a better understanding of the position of fellow believers with whom I disagree.