Welcome to Gaia! ::

Weaknesses of Postmillennialism



1. Postmillennialism minimizes one of the primary experiences that will characterize the church and all Christians throughout this present age: suffering with Christ.



E.g., consider 2 Corinthians 4:7-12. Here Paul "effectively distances himself from the (postmil-like) view that the (eschatological) life of (the risen and ascended) Jesus embodies a power/victory principle that progressively ameliorates and reduces the suffering of the church. . . . Until the resurrection of the body at his return Christ's resurrection-life finds expression in the church's sufferings (and . . . nowhere else--so far as the existence and calling of the church are concerned); the locus of Christ's ascension-power is the suffering church" (Richard Gaffin, "Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism," in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique [Zondervan, 1990], 212).



See also Romans 8:17-18. How long will this experience of suffering with Christ last? How long will the groaning under the weight of weakness last? According to vv. 19,21,23, it will last until the day of our redemption, the return of Christ. Says Gaffin:



"Until then, at Christ's return, the suffering/futility/decay principle in creation remains in force, undiminished (but sure to be overcome); it is an enervating factor that cuts across the church's existence, including its mission, in its entirety. The notion that this frustration factor will be demonstrable reduced, and the church's suffering service noticeably alleviated and even compensated, in a future era before Christ's return is not merely foreign to this passage; it trivializes as well as blurs both the present suffering and future hope/glory in view. Until his return, the church remains one step behind its exalted Lord; his exaltation means its (privileged) humiliation, his return (and not before), its exaltation" (214-15).



"as Paul reminds the church just a few verses after the Romans 8 passage considered above (v. 37), not 'beyond' or '[only] after' but 'in all these things' ('trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword,' v. 35), 'we are more than conquerors.' Until Jesus comes again, the church 'wins' by 'losing'" (216).



Gaffin concludes:



"Any outlook that tends to remove or obscure the (constitutive) dimension of suffering for the Gospel from the present triumph of the church is an illusion. The misplaced expectation, before Christ's return, of a 'golden age' in which, in contrast to the present, opposition to the church will have been reduced to a minimum and suffering will have receded to the periphery for an (at last) 'victorious' Christendom -- that misconception can only distort the church's understanding of its mission in the world. According to Jesus, the church will not have drained the shared cup of his sufffering until he returns. The church cannot afford to evade that point. It does so at the risk of jeopardizing its own identity" [217-18].



Kenneth Gentry responds to Gaffin by insisting that the “suffering” in view in these texts need not be generalized beyond the experience of the apostles and the first century church. He does not argue that suffering connected with indwelling sin and creaturely mortality will be eradicated, but he does insist that, as external opposition to the gospel progressively diminishes, suffering for the faith (i.e., persecution) will be reduced to negligible proportions.


2. Postmillennialism undermines the NT emphasis on the church's imminent expectation of Christ's return. That is to say, PostM undermines the element of watchfulness that is essential to the NT church. See 1 Cor. 16:22; Rom. 13:11-12; Phil. 4:5; Js. 5:8; 1 Pt. 4:7; 1 Jn. 2:18; Rev. 1:3; 22:20.



3. The OT identifies the "golden" age of consummate success and triumph with the New Heavens and New Earth which come only after the millennium of Rev. 20 (Rev. 21-22).



4. The NT seems to anticipate that the number of those saved when Christ returns will not be as great as the PostM suggests, and that conditions will be decidedly bad, not good. See Mt. 7:13-14; Lk. 18:8; 2 Thess. 2:3-4; 2 Tim. 3:1-5,12-13; 4:3-4. In the parable of the Tares in Mt. 13:36-43 "Jesus taught that evil people will continue to exist alongside of God's redeemed people until the time of harvest. The clear implication of this parable is that Satan's kingdom, if we may call it that, will continue to exist and grow as long as God's kingdom grows, until Christ comes again" (Hoekema).



5. PostM's interpretation of Rev. 19-20 seems forced and artificial. See the later lesson for an exegesis of these texts.



6. Scripture (esp. the NT) nowhere explicitly teaches the progressive and eventual wholesale reconstruction of society (arts, economics, politics, courts, education, etc.) according to Christian principles prior to Christ's return. Of course, there may be relative success in this regard in isolated instances.



Gary North contends that essential to any notion of Christians “reigning” in history is “Christians’ possession of the judicial authority to impose negative civil sanctions or the private economic power to impose both positive and negative cultural sanctions [in particular, those given in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28]” (Millennialism and Social Theory, 87).

Weaknesses of Amillennialism

If you are Amillennialist there are some important things you must reckon with:

You must necessarily must read New Testament prophecies of Jesus’ Second Coming the same way Jews read Old Testament prophecies of Jesus’ First Coming. This thought came from George Eldon Ladd:

From the Old Testament perspective, the church age is not seen…There are indeed prophecies which describe the coming of a Messianic personage in suffering and humility such as Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 9:9-10, other prophecies which describe the victorious King of the Davidic Line (Isaiah 9, 10), as well as a prophecy of the coming of a heavenly Son of Man in Daniel 7. But the Old Testament does not relate these several prophecies to one another, either theologically or chronologically. God will finally act to redeem his people, and different prophets describe this eschatological redemption in different terms. The Old Testament makes no effort to synthesize the prophecies; and the effort to decide which prophecies apply to the church age, which apply to the millennial era, and which belong to The Age to Come ignores this basic fact of the prophetic perspective. – George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, 37

What Ladd is saying is that in the Old Testament, the prophets and the prophetic message didn’t clearly articulate a space between the events of Jesus First Coming (the Suffering Servant) and those of his Second Coming (reigning Davidic King). The perspective of the Old Testament prophets was that those events appeared to happen at once. That is why the Apostles expected Jesus to “restore the kingdom to Israel” (Acts 1:6) before his ascension. They did not yet understand that there would be a time period between Christ’s two comings.

Non-millennialists do the same thing with the New Testament explanations of the events of Jesus Second Coming and the ushering in of the New Heavens and New Earth. Ladd again:

One would never discover this fact [of the Millennial reign of Christ] from most of the New Testament because it sees the future like a two-dimension canvas in terms of length and breadth without depth. The transition between the two ages is viewed as though it were one simple event, even as the Old Testament prophets looked forward to a single Day of the Lord. – George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, 38

And

From the New Testament perspective, the eschatological act of God is usually viewed as a single day which will introduce The Age to Come. However, the Revelation of John, as well as I Corinthians 15: 20-28, indicates that there are yet to be two eschatological stages in the accomplishment of the divine purpose and the establishment of God’s Kingdom. – George Eldon Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, 37

You must conflate what are clearly two separate resurrections into one. In Revelation 20:4 John says that he saw that “the souls of those who had been beheaded for the testimony of Jesus…came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.” In verse 13 the sea and Death and Hades give up the dead and they are judged. The Amillennialist must deal these two resurrections, separated by “a thousand” years, in such a way that there is only one resurrection at Christ’s return. Some Amillennialists have said that the first resurrection is speaking of regeneration, the new birth. Regeneration is passing from spiritual death to spiritual life. (Eph 2:5) But consider how those who were raised in Revelation 20 are described. It is those “who had been beheaded” who “had not worshiped the beast” or “received its mark”. They were not brought to life before they did these things in order that they might be able to do them, it was after they had done these things that they were brought to life. In other words, as John describes it they did regenerate things, were killed and then were brought to life.

If instead the Amillennialist says that this resurrection actually happens at the same time as the one in verse 13, then what does their reigning with Christ mean? They were raised and then reigned with Jesus. If they are raised at the time of the final judgment how do the reign with him? And why would John mention a specific interval of their reign if they are raised, judged and brought in to the New Heavens and New Earth in one event?

You must reconcile the present binding of Satan in order that he may not deceive the nations with verses in the New Testament that indicate that he is still actively deceiving people. One of the verses that bothered me enough to move me out of the Amillennialism was 2Co 4:4 “In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.” If Satan is currently bound as he is described to be in Revelation 20:1-3, then he should not be able to “blind the minds of unbelievers.”

That is not to say that at the cross Jesus didn’t in some sense bind Satan. Matthew 12:28-29 indicates that Jesus’ ministry and that of his followers of casting out demons was in essence binding the strong man and plundering his house. But that appears to be different than Satan’s binding where he is remove and bound more fully not so that demons can be cast out of people, but that his deceptive powers over humanity are removed. The non-millennialist usually equates the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 with the binding of the strong man in Matthew 12 and exegetically that appears to require some justification.

You must believe that the present earth will never be set free from its bondage under sin but will be destroyed and recreated. Under a non-millennial view, Jesus returns to earth, judges the living and in the dead and ushers in the final state in one cataclysmic event. According to 2Pt 3:10-12 on the Day of the Lord the creation will be dissolved and judgment will come. There is no deliverance of creation, only a day when it is replaced. But Romans 8 indicts that creation is waiting a day when it will be delivered from the futility it was subjected to at the fall. If there is not a time when peace reigns on the earth but there is only recreation, creation is not waiting for deliverance but destruction. It would be like a hostage waiting for friendly forces to come and shoot him rather than liberate him.

We experience rebirth before resurrection. There is a period for us when we are born again but are not glorified. We have redeemed hearts but unredeemed bodies. The non-millennialist must believe that this “now and not yet” does not apply to the rest of creation even though verses like those in Isaiah 11 describe a time when the earth is at peace with itself, not yet burned up and replaced.

You must see the reign of the promised Davidic King as only ever partial on this earth. The non-millennialist sees currently Jesus reigning from heaven, as he truly is, and must accept that as sufficient. Though he is promised to rule the nations with a rod of iron (Isa 11:4, Ps 2, Rev 2:25-27), he actually will only rule his church on this earth. We do not see Jesus rule this way yet (Heb 2:6-9) but there is a day coming when he will [1Co 15:24-28].

We do not see Jesus rule the nations in this manner now and for the non-millennial view, he never will. The nations rage under God’s sovereign control as they have all along (Dan 7). But what seems to be pictured in many verses is the significant, earthly reign of the Davidic King over the nations of the earth. As I mentioned above, the Apostles still had this hope when Jesus ascended to heaven. His answer to them did not sound particularly amillennial; “It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority.” (Acts 2:7) An amillennial answer might have been more along the lines of “Yes I shall as you receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” Instead Jesus tells them to not worry about when that will happen but that they will first be his witnesses to the nations under the hope of that coming day when Jesus will rule in that fashion.

Premillenialism hands down makes more sense. A government has to be overthrown by the Messiah, not that we fix the government and he comes back to an already existing paradise. His second-coming brings destruction to ungodly men according to 2 Peter 3. What is there to destroy if he comes back to a planet full of righteousness already? plus who are the rebellious people who refuse to repent while he's pouring out wrath (Revelation 9:20)? So anything but premillenialism doesn't make sense in that regard.

With this in mind...



...Matthew 25:31-46 cannot be referring to the "first resurrection" group, because that group completely avoids the lake of fire/the second death (according to Rev 20:4-6). Yet clearly, people in the "Matthew 25 group" are condemned to eternal punishment. So let's see: Yeshua comes back, first resurrection takes place, living believers at the time also get transformed, they meet him in the air, nonbelievers don't survive the wrath brought upon the earth, and they go to Hell (Hades, punishment) until the second resurrection. Yeshua reigns for 1000 years on his newly wiped planet. 1000 years are up, the second resurrection takes places, Satan is let loose, and these are the surrounding nations that come against Yeshua's kingdom (the masses of people who took part in the second resurrection). question

Looking at it that way, perhaps the "eternal punishment" reference in Matthew 25 actually means "punished for an age" or "deprived for an age" (aionios ["age-long"] kolasis ["chastisement, punishment, torment, perhaps with the idea of deprivation"]). They'll be killed, deprived of living in the millenial kingdom for the 1,000 years, and must wait until the end of the millenial reign to be resurrected. question The millenial kingdom doesn't seem to be on the New Heavens and New Earth because they have not been created yet; the Old Heavens and Old Earth disappear once the "Great White Throne" judgment /lake of fire time comes (and that's after the 1000 years according to Rev 20:11-15).

I dont quite understand why they see the existence of natural bodies at the end of the millenial reign as a weakness to the interpretation. Two resurrections take place (Rev 20:4-6); first resurrection happens upon his return and those believers get incorruptible bodies along with already living believers (1 Thess 4:15-17), I don't know what happens to non-believers' bodies. Assuming that they don't turn immortal like us, these nonbelievers will die when he comes back to destroy/deal out wrath, they'll go to Hades, then after the 1000 years they will be resurrected and face the Great White Throne judgment. So perhaps those at the end of the millenial reign, those who take part in the second resurrection, do not receive incorruptible bodies? That's why people with natural bodies will be around after the 1000 years and subsequently thrown into the lake of fire? But why are they assuming that they have natural bodies?

Addition to my previous comment:
There are also theological implications. Is it possible for someone born after the second coming (I am here commenting on those who believe that nations will grow around New Jerusalem made up of those who do not accept Jesus as their savior and eventually increase enormously in numbers, to then rebel against Jesus and march towards Jerusalem with an army more countless then the grain of sands on a beach?) to be saved? Is it fair of God to allow someone to be born during a time were it is impossible to be saved?

Romans 8:24
24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have?

My post may be a little confusing. I am indirectly saying that it makes more sense if he is ruling for a thousand years here on earth before Satan is let lose along with the disbelievers that rise from the dead during the second coming. That these disbelievers are then gathered by Satan for one last battle before they are thrown into the lake of fire. When you think of how long it takes to populate the earth, that a thousand years is not really that long and given that extremely large number of people that decide to make war against Jesus it appears to me like this number can only be the accumulated number of people on earth through earths history.