Post-millennialism: The Church Reigning in the Millennium (that may or may not be 1000 years long)

I am really optimistic that I'll actually be able to tell you every specific about Bible prophecy when we are done. I'll be able to tell you what position is best, and you'll be happy too. You'll tell others, and then everyone will know how to interpret Revelation and that pesky Olivet Discourse without hassle. The knowledge will precede over the globe, and all other prophecy-hawkers, like Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsay, will be out of business.



...but, my positive attitude in the opening paragraph is similar to the positive attitude of post-millennialists regarding the Gospel and the future. Post-millennialists believe in the triumph of the Gospel and the Church over the earth. Christ will return to a near-converted earth. Christianity will triumph. Some believe in a final rebellion at the end of history, but a great many modern post-mil Bible scholars do not. Here is a chart to give you a comparison with the first two positions we covered: dispensational premillennialism and amillennialism:



Before I go too far, let me back up. Post-millennialism (as I mentioned in my earlier post) shares much in common with amillennialism. It is a response to the difficulty encountered in trying to understand the early church's general perception that Christ's coming was to be soon, when in fact, it didn't happen (or it didn't happen the way they envisioned). See my three reasons for amillennialism's development in the earlier post if you can't remember :)

Most modern post-mil scholars are positive about the victory of the church at the end of this age. This was the minority position of the church throughout history. Most scholars throughout history believed there would be a final rebellion--this is why I said post-millennialism is a first-cousin to amillennialism. Look at the charts again:





There is just not much difference. Amillennialism's scheme of history goes like this:

1-4: See my dispensationalism blog
5. The Kingdom of God was initiated with the history of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is the "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) encompassing Jew and Gentile.

6. The church age will last an indefinite period.
a. Some interpreters see an increase of evil at the end of this age; some don't.
b. Some interpreters see a personal anti-christ; others do not.
c. Some interpreters see Israel turn largely to God near the end; some don't.

7. Christ will return at the end of the church age, judge all, and initiate eternity.

Postmillennialism's scheme of history goes like this:

1-4: See my dispensationalism blog
5. The Kingdom of God was initiated with the history of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is the "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) encompassing Jew and Gentile.

6. The church age will last an indefinite period, during which the church will triumph, converting massive numbers of people.
a. Some interpreters see an increase of evil at the end of this age; some don't.
b. Some interpreters see a personal anti-christ; others do not.
c. Some interpreters see Israel turn largely to God near the end; some don't.

7. Christ will return at the end of the victorious church age, judge all, and initiate eternity.

I am oversimplifying, but the difference of the victorious church is first and foremost difference here. Its also good to bear in mind at this point that dispensationalism views the reign of Christ on earth as a literal 1000 years on earth, while amillennialism and postmillennialism view it as an indefinite period of time within the present church age. The weaknesses of postmillennialism mirror that of amillennialism.

That is not the interesting stuff about post-millennialism though. The interesting thing about this system is the two main ways in which its holders have the interpreted the victory of the church to come about. These two ways are "revivalist" and "Christian reconstructionist."

Many Puritans were revivalists and believed the Gospel, as preached in the Reformation, would go to the ends of the earth, and covert huge numbers in the world. One would think they were basing this assumption on the success of the Reformation and the triumph of the evangelical Gospel in various forms of Protestantism. I honestly do not know. That's another blog. The point is that this is a bottom-up approach to converting the world in this system.

Christian Reconstructionism has emerged in the last century or so, and it takes the opposite tack--namely that Christians must take over the government, the arts, education, and all walks of society. Christians, instructed by the law of God in the OT and NT are the most capable of logically building a society in God's world, and will eventually do so, taking over every facet by entering the darkened world and lighting and rebirthing its every activity rooted in the Law of God and the Gospel of Christ. This position is called "theonomy"--rule of God.

Which ever of these positions a postmillennialist takes, they will be hated by the world! For the world hates Gospel preachers and Christians meddling in society. It's interesting to think about the implications...

Next time...historical premillennialism!

PS Most postmillennialists are Presbyterians.

How Can Catholics Believe It?

Peter was married (Matt. 8:14-17; 1 Cor. 9:5). He was, according to Catholics, also the first Pope. If he was married why does the church enforce celibacy on priests?

New baby: Gabriel Aaron Dungan (click on picture to enlarge)

Bible Students: Have You Heard About Robert Crumb's "Genesis?"

If you don't know who Robert Crumb is, and aren't that familiar with comic books, just know that Crumb is the artist behind the lascivious "Fritz the Cat" cartoons and others. Here is a picture of Fritz:


Well, sorry, I didn't publish one because they are so often porno in nature. That's what Crumb is known for, anyways, in "Fritz" as well as his other comics. He is something of an underground phenomenon in US comic history, producing some X-rated stuff that is really bad--but...

Now he has taken on the book of Genesis from the Bible. And here is the amazing thing--he doesn't rake it through the mud of satire, he really tries to portray the text as it reads (with a feminist/liberal sensibility worked in very cleverly in some parts). This is really bizarre. Crumb doesn't believe the Bible, but he didn't think he could top the over-the-top stories of Genesis! To him, (even though the he doesn't believe the Bible is Truth) Truth is stranger than fiction! Here is a shot from his "Genesis."



If you know Ben Witherington (Asbury Seminary prof; contributor to Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ" (I think, might be "Case for Faith), he has this to say:

Now however this super-lapsed Catholic has decided to depict scenes from all 50 chapters of Genesis, with the emphasis on verbatim. Those of us who knew a bit about his snarky past were holding our collective breath, but Rabbi Simcha Weinstein, author of the well-titled book Up,Up, and Oi Vey (the history of how Jews had influence on the creation of fictional super-heroes) reassures us that Crumb has not given us a crumby treatment of Genesis. Of course the literal depiction of murder, incest, rape, and a host of the other things that go on in Genesis itself is enough to curdle one's milk and curl one's hair. Hide the babies and pack up the old ladies. But then alas, the Bible is hardly a G or PG book--- it tells it like it is, even when it comes to all our human falleness. It is thus not a surprise that in the 224 pages of this book (out today and published by W.W. Norton) some of these pen and ink drawings reflect the sensual and violent character of some of these stories. This is a comic book my Mom would not have let me read in the 9th grade! Indeed she would have said 'Exodus with this Genesis'.

I might order this book...well, not until investigating it some more!

The Last Word on the Last Days: Amillennialism (No-literal 1000 year Reign of Christ)

I laughed when I started this series as a personal response to the title I decided on. The title is preposterous. However unlikely, I might actually figure out which eschatology is right...not! What I can do is describe them for you and highlight their strengths and weaknesses. My research into Amillennialism is not extensive, and I'll give you my resources at the end. Let's get started.

This is a basic premillennial dispensational view of Bible history:



This is a basic amillenial view of Bible history:



Doesn't the amillenial picture look barren beside even this simplistic dispensational chart? That is deceptive. Amillennial views are complex (especially as their adherents attempt to prove them from scripture). The basic idea is not complex, but the scriptural exegesis is complex. The basic presuppositions are as follows:

1. Scripture pointed early Christians to a soon return of Christ in glory (see Matt. 10:23, 26:64; Rom. 13:11-12; I Cor. 7:31, 10:11; Phil. 4:5; James 5:8-9; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:18; Rev. 1:1,3,11, 22:6-7,10,12,20)(Sproul). This list doesn't include yet another text Sproul cites, namely Matthew 24:34, which seems to say that the generation of people standing there at Jesus' utterance would see Him return in glory (also in the other synoptic Gospels).

2. Christ did not come in that generation. Therefore, either the NT writers did not mean that His coming was soon, or they did and His coming was not the end of the world under the conditions we envision when we adopt the "Left Behind" mindset regarding the study of the end times. RC Sproul argues extensively for the latter option, that is, that many Christians have misunderstood the prophetic literature concerning Christ's Second Coming.

3. Therefore, all Scripture must be interpreted in the light of the early churches expectation of the soon return of Christ in glory, and how that coming might have been fulfilled in history, or not yet fulfilled in history.

OK, those are the basic ideas behind amillennialism--the assumptions that it starts with. People have held them since early in church history. At first, many believers where premillennial, then, when Christ did not come early in the first millennium, believers began to look for other ways to interpret the prophetic Scriptures and amillennialism was born. St. Augustine held this position, as did several of the Reformers, and many of the Puritans.

The scheme of events is as follows:

Numbers 1-4 coincide with the Dispensational View in the main.

5. The Kingdom of God was initiated with the history of Jesus Christ. The Kingdom is the "Israel of God" (Gal.6:16) encompassing Jew and Gentile.

6. The church age will last an indefinite period.
a. Some interpreters see an increase of evil at the end of this age; some don't.
b. Some interpreters see a personal anti-christ; others do not.
c. Some interpreters see Israel turn largely to God near the end; some don't.

7. Christ will return at the end of the church age, judge all, and initiate eternity.

Simple, right? Well, no...not when one begans to try to understand how this simple scheme comes from Scripture. Amillennialists are divided on their interpretations of the Olivet Discourse, the Epistles, and the Revelation. There is also significant divergence in their interpretation of the OT prophetic books. In fact, I will not address it here, but post-millennialism is an off-shoot of amillennialism! Probably the main control in their interpretation goes back to the presuppositions I told you about--the NT expected a soon coming of Christ, it didn't happen, therefore the Scriptures concerning it must be interpreted differently than in a literal historical manner. Some schemes of interpretation follow:

1. Plain amillennialism: All the scriptures on tribulation and the antichrist are fulfilled throughout church history. Revelation is a symbolic interpretation of God's judgments throughout the church age. As I mentioned before, there is much division in the amill camp over what Scriptures represent what historical trends. Therefore, most plain amillennialists view much of the prophetic Scripture through the lens of symbolism (ie the loosing of the Gospel as the binding of Satan throughout the Church Age (Matt. 12:29; Luke 10:17-20)). However, plain amillennialists get very literal when they come to interpreting scriptures concerning the final judgment and the eternal state (ie a bodily return of Christ, Christ defeats all His enemies, Christ literally raises all the bodies of the dead, unites soul and body, judges all people, and places people in eternal heaven or hell).

2. Moderate preterist amillennialism: The Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) is not symbolic in whole...it deals with the end of the Jewish Age. Jesus prediction of His coming in power was fulfilled in the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70AD (Sproul's view). This is proved by Luke's account of the Discourse in which invading armies are described as "desolation come near," which coincides with the "abomination of desolation" found in the other synoptic Gospels. Sproul with others also use Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, and Seutonius as historical sources to show the astronomical signs in Jesus Olivet teachings happened in or around 70AD. The NT letters and the Revelation refer to church history, but also to future events. This view gives more exact fulfillment to Jesus' words than the plain amill position.

3. Full-preterism: All the events in scriptural prophecy are already fulfilled in AD70. This view is the most problematic (with moderate preterism sharing some of these difficulties). Some problems are as follows: 1) The return of Christ as found in Matthew 24 and other texts seems not difficult to discern: "For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day." 2) The early church did not recognize 70AD as a fulfillment of the return of Christ in this way 3) Jesus resurrection being the pattern, it is hard to believe the spiritual resurrection of people in the new birth and the resurrection described in Matthew 24 and other scriptures are describing the same thing. 4) The Lord's Supper is described as an ordinance kept "until He comes."

The problems go on and on.

Some final thoughts...

1. Basic amillennialism is very appealing to many people. It has a long history, does not run into the problems of preterism, and basically gives the student of prophecy a lot of room for ignorance and wiggle room for interpretation with its highly symbolic view of Scripture. This means it also lacks precision and begs the question concerning how much credit it gives the writers of scripture when they reference seemingly literal events, time periods, etc.

2. All forms of preterism try to answer the problem of time references in the NT by relating 70AD to prophecy. We've already looked at the problems there. Enough said.

3. Compared to dispensationalism or premillennialism, which do convincingly relate prophecy to history in many ways, amillennialism seems a stretch with its resort to symbolism for most of NT prophecy. The best example is the millennium itself. It is obvious from the text of Revelation 20 that the millennium follows the defeat of Antichrist. Given that Antichrist appears to be a literal historical figure of immense proportion who has yet to arise (Paul's epistle to the Thessalonians), it seems unlikely to say that Antichrist has been defeated and the church is reigning in the millennium with Christ at the present. Furthermore, none of the world-wide phenomenon associated with Antichrist's reign appear to have been fulfilled.

That's it for amillennialism. It's a complicated system. It has its benefits, but it too suffers problems of interpretation and historical fulfillment. On to postmillenialism next time!

Soli Deo Gloria

Greg

Sources

"The Last Days According to Jesus" RC Sproul
John Stevenson Bible Study Page (http://www.angelfire.com/nt/theology/jts.html)
"Prophecy and the Church" Oswald T. Allis

PS

Amillennialists could be any denomination. From what I've read, its main adherents are Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Anglicans, and some Baptists (I'm sure I missed some).