Considering Postmillennialism

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.

Advertisement