Skip to main content

3 Reasons That I Am a Postmillenialist

    Eschatology (the study of last things) has been one of the most debated areas of Theology in the last two centuries of Christianity.  It is a confusing subject, with many differing interpretive grids and presuppositions.  Personally, the more I study the issue, the more questions and uncertainty I have. The ambiguity of this issue should lead to peaceful disagreements (you would hope), but the debates over the issue are often quite passionate.  My goal today is not to plumb the depths of the issue, nor do I wish to exegete Revelation 20.  My goal is simply to offer a few reasons that I am a Postmillennialist.

    Before I begin to list my reasons, let me give a brief introduction to the topic. Within orthodox circles one of the key issues is the placement (not to mention nature and existence) of the Millennium (the 1000 year period prophesied in Revelation 20).  The names of the different positions are based on when Christ will return in relation to the Millennium.  Though I don't have statistics to quote, I would guess that Premillennialism (particularly the Dispensational brand) is the most popular view in American Evangelicalism.  Premillennialism teaches, as implied by the name, that Jesus will return before the Millennium begins.  Conversely, Postmillennialism (the view I was taught growing up) teaches that Jesus will return after the Millennium.  Amillennialism, a view that is quite popular in conservative Presbyterian circles, is deceptively named, not, in fact, teaching that there is no Millennium, but that we are currently in the Millennium (Postmillennialists often believe the same thing, but with a better ending--the nature of the Millennium is our major point of contention).  Now, here are 3 reasons that, despite all my questions, I have retained the Postmillenial perspective.

    Firstly, I believe that Satan is already bound.  Revelation 20 describes Satan being released after 1000 years (I don't believe that it is referring to a literal period of 1000 years).  He will be loosed, only to be crushed when Christ returns. Premillennialists believe that Satan will be released after Christ's physical reign on Earth (which I don't believe is literal either).  Revelation 19 (which, you know, comes right before Revelation 20) describes the Marriage Supper of the Lamb and the Advent of the Rider on the white horse (that's Jesus).  The problem with this seemingly logical conclusion is that the book of Revelation is not strictly chronological. As much as we would like to, we simply cannot assume that something in Revelation 20 happens after Revelation 19.  The key to interpreting this passage is the binding of Satan.  Two passages shed light on this.  In Luke 10 we see the first evangelists of the Christian era sent out, returning with the report that they had power even over demons.  Verse 18 records Jesus reply to them.  He says, "I saw Satan falling from Heaven like lightning." Another passage is Matthew 12:22-32, which deals with the unforgivable sin.  Jesus, after being accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan, says, "Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man?"  Satan is the strong man.  Stealing his goods is the casting out of demons.  In order to do this, Jesus says, he (the "someone") must first bind Satan.  Bind him Jesus did.  Satan, you see, was defeated at Jesus's first Advent.  He is currently bound and will be released before the Second Coming.

    Secondly, I believe that the Earth is not an afterthought, nor is it the main objective.  Postmillennialism, in my eyes, is the only view that finds a balance between these two concepts. Amillennialism goes to far in belittling the role that the physical Earth has in the drama of Redemption and Christ's exaltation.  It teaches, basically, that Christ's Kingdom is the Church and that His reign is entirely spiritual.  Premillennialism (Dispensational varieties especially), on the other hand, teaches that Christ is actually going to sit on a throne in Jerusalem for 1000 years.  This, in my understanding of the Bible, is a digression.  Why would Christ come back to sit on the literal throne of David when Matthew 28:18 says that Jesus has already been given all authority in Heaven and on Earth?  Why would He go backwards?  And yet, I am not willing to concede that the Earth is nothing more to Christ than a ball of dirty flying through space.  Romans 8:18-22 tells us that Creation itself is waiting to be redeemed.  You see, the physical Earth is not really that important, but what is signifies is very important.  Jesus's salvation is a reversal of the Fall.  His salvation is not only spiritual, but physical as well.  Postmillennialism understands that Christ is reigning now and that His reign is more than just a throne in Jerusalem, but it also recognizes the importance of the Earth in God's plan. When I compare Romans 8 with all of the prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the Creation, I can't escape Postmillennial conclusions.  As Habakkuk 2:14 says, "...the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea."

    Thirdly and finally, I am a Postmillennialist because God wins.  I know, I know...everybody believes that God will win in the end.  I believe that God is winning now and will win before Christ returns.  One passage especially reinforces this in my mind.  Psalm 110:1 records a conversation between the Father and the Son.  The Father tells the Son, "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."  This is applied directly to Christ in the New Testament (Luke 20:43 and Acts 2:35).  The Premillennialist would say that this begins when Christ's Kingdom on Earth is inaugurated.  The Amillennialist would spiritualize it.  The Bible, however, teaches that Christ is already at the right hand of God the Father (Matthew 26:64; Acts 7:56).  The Son has been placed at the right hand of the Father and the Father is in the process of fulfilling this promise.  Our God, my friends, keeps all His promises!  Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Christ is Lord, and they will do so willingly.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

4 Reasons I Affirm Paedocommunion

If you have interacted with me on social media, you know that I have always been outspoken on the issue of Paedocommunion .  It is a theological position and a liturgical practice about which I am passionate.  Having been raised, and having raised my children, at the Table, I cannot imagine attending a church that didn't allow PC.  I hope that when I am old and gray, I will still be an advocate for bringing little children to the Sacrament. Throughout the 12 years that I have had this blog, I have written scattered thoughts on the topic, but it appears that I have never written a concise summary of my reasons for affirming PC.  I was thoroughly convinced that I had, but I can't seem to locate it, so I guess I never did.  So, to rectify the omission, here are four reasons I hold to PC. 1) Paedocommunion is Biblical.   Any discussion of the topic should start here, and I would hope that both sides of the debate would make this assertion.  However, l...

1 Corinthians, the Covenant Hermeneutic, & Paedocommunion

As an adherent to Paedocommunion  (hereafter PC), I have always found it painfully ironic that Credocommunionists use 1 Corinthians 11 to withhold children (among others) from the Table.  One can imagine St. Paul shaking his head as he watches theologians using his discussion of unity at the Table to divide the body at the Table.  You're missing the point! he would say in exasperation.  Not only does 1 Corinthians 11 not forbid PC; I would go so far as to say that there is no better defense of PC in the New Testament than the epistle of 1 Corinthians. Credocommunionist logic is pretty straightforward.  1 Corinthians 11:28 says, "Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup."  If, they argue, one is unable to fulfill the exhortation to examine himself, then he may not eat of the bread and drink of the cup.  This is a pretty logical deduction, right? Credobaptists would adamantly agree.  Acts 2:38 says, "Repe...

The Real Presence & Paedocommunion: A Deeper Rift Between Reformed Churches

You're going back to Rome! Theological disagreements within the Reformed world, especially those of the last half century, often devolve into these sorts of accusations.  As controversialists like Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart began to break away from the larger conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denominations, it became clear that the rift was deeper than semantics and systematic minutiae.  Much like the Reformation four centuries before, the Table was a primary point of conflict.   What does it mean?  Who may partake?  What do we call it?    These questions, along with a few more, divided Reformed brethren as the physical elements of our religion reflected deeper conflicts.  Good men began to understand that the problem wasn't just in our logos, but in our pathos and ethos, as well. Paedocommunion (hereafter PC) has been one of the hottest points of contention.  PC has always been normal to me as I grew up with it.  I underst...