Links to elsewhere on this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html /sermonettes.html /webmaster.html
For the home page, click here: /index.html
For the history page, click here: /newfile1.html
Why does God Allow Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why
Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm
May Christians work on Saturdays? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Protestant Rhetoric vs
Sabbath Refuted.htm
Should Christians obey the Old Testament
law? /doctrinalhtml/Does the New Covenant Abolish the OT Law.htm
Do you have an immortal soul? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Here and Hereafter.htm
Does the ministry have authority? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Is There an Ordained
Ministry vs Edwards.html
Is the United States the Beast? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Are We the Beast vs
Collins.htm
Should you give 10% of your income to
your church? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Does
the Argument from Silence Abolish the Old Testament Law of Tithing 0205 Mokarow
rebuttal.htm
Is Jesus God? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Is Jesus God.htm /Doctrinalpdf/More Evidence That Jesus
Is God 08.pdf
Will there be a third resurrection? Click here: /doctrinalhtml/Will There Be a Third
Resurrection.htm
Will the Real Millennium
Please Stand Up!
Post-Millennialism
Eric
Snow
What
is the millennium? What is the
difference between pre-millennialism, amillennialism, and
post-millennialism? Which one of these
fits the Bible’s teachings best? Let’s
first define and explain what the millennium is and what will happen during
it. That is the foundation for
beginning to understand pre-millennialism and post-millennialism. The Bible does teach in Revelation 20 that
for a period of 1000 years, between the first resurrection as Jesus returns and
the second resurrection, that His kingdom would rule. For example, notice verse 6:
"Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first
resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they [saved
Christians] will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a
thousand years." The more direct
translation of the key pronoun in this verse indicates that this kingdom will
rule directly over the earth today, just as man's governments do today: "And Thou hast made them to be a
kingdom and priests to our God; and they will reign upon the earth" (Rev.
5:10). The rock that hits the statue in
the Babylonian King's Nebuchadnezzar's dream shows God's kingdom will take over
the whole world in Daniel 2:44:
"And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a
kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for
another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms [of
humanity, the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman and their continuance in
principle to this day], but it will itself endure forever." Jesus was predicted to a born a king in the
prophecy in Isaiah 9:6-7. His kingdom
will be literal over the physical men and women of the world who live during
the millennium, not something metaphorical, allegorical, or only spiritual.
The
Bible teaches that Jesus would return.
For example, the angels who spoke to the apostles after Jesus' ascension
to heaven said: "'Men of Galilee,
why do you stand looking into the sky?
This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in
just the same way as you have watched Him to into heaven" (Acts
1:11). The apostles asked in verse 6 a
question that reflected their belief that Jesus would possibly set up a kingdom
on earth with Him being the ruler right then:
"Lord, is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to
Israel?" For the Jews in the first
century badly wanted national independence from the Roman Empire, and later
revolted three major times over the next century (twice in the Holy Land). But, much like the Pharisees, the apostles
at this point were still expecting Jesus possibly to be a Conquering Messiah,
not just a Mournful Messiah, even after the resurrection. Rev. 1:7 says that
Jesus will be seen by every eye and that He will come in the clouds. Jesus said to the Jewish leaders questioning
him (on the Sanhedrin) that He would come in the clouds of heaven also (Mark
14:61). When the disciples asked Jesus,
"Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your
coming, and of the end of the age?" (Matt. 24:3), the famous Olivet
prophecy that follows concerns the events leading up to His return (see verse
27, 30). See also Revelation 19:11-16;
I Thess. 4:13-17, II Thess. 1:7 for more about Jesus' return as being a Biblical
teaching.
When
Christ rules the earth there will be a great period of general peace and
prosperity for all the people then living on the earth and born during it. True, there will be a need to recover from
the terribly war that occurred during the Great Tribulation and the Day of the
Lord. There also would be a need to fix
things after the Holy Land is attacked by Gog and Magog, as described in
Ezekiel 38-39, which will occur perhaps one or two generations into the
millennium. This attack by Gog and
Magog is separate from the attack described in Revelation 20:8-9.
The
book of Isaiah is full of idyllic descriptions of life during this time of
spiritual and physical peace and prosperity after Christ returns. People on earth will be much happier on
average during this time period than they are today. One reason for the difference is because Satan and the demons
will be tied up during this time, and not be able to deceive the nations until
after it ends (see Revelation 20:1-3).
Christ would be the righteous ruler over all the earth (Isaiah
9:4-5). There would be so much harmony
that even the animals that preyed on others would get along with each other
instead. A lion would eat straw (or
hay) like an ox! A young child would
lead a lion and calf together. And,
most importantly, spiritual deception would end, since the knowledge of the
Lord would fill the world as the oceans do today (see Isaiah 9:6-9).
There
would be imposed peace on the whole earth by God's power, and His law would go
out to all the nations from Jerusalem.
Everyone would have the opportunity to learn of His ways. Now the United Nations was established by
mankind after World War II with the hope of turning swords into
plowshares. Well, this will actually
occur during the millennium, but by God's power, not by man's. (See Isaiah 2:1-4). People's general medical problems would be
divinely healed: The blind will see,
the deaf will hear, and the lame will leap (Isaiah 35:4-6). According to Amos 9:13, the agricultural
blessings would be so rate the plowman will overtake the reaper!
A
key job for the saints ruling with Christ (Revelation 5:10; 20:4, 6) would be
to prepare the world for when Satan will be unleashed at the end of the
millennium and when the vast majority of the world's pre-millennial population
would be resurrected at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20:5). People would need to be taught to resist
Satan's pull. They also would have to
be told it would be there duty to help prepare the world for the multiple
billions to be resurrected just after the thousand years ended. These billions of people will receive then
their first and only chance at salvation during an apparent one hundred year
period (Isaiah 65:17, 20) during which they'd have to make up their minds about
whether to go God's way or not.
An
important aspect of ultimate salvation, once we are glorified, is that what we
inherit or control under God is the earth initially, not heaven. Consider Jesus' well-known statement from
the Beatitudes that begin the Sermon in the Mount: "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the
earth" (Matt. 5:5). Saved,
glorified Christians will rule over the earth during the millennium (Rev.
5:10), even from the earth itself:
"And [You, the Lamb] have made us kings and priests to our God; and
we shall reign on the earth."
Notice that Jesus comes to and lands on the earth when He comes to fight
the nations after He returns: "Then
the Lord will go forth and fight against those nations, as He fights in the day
of battle. And in that day His feet
will stand on the Mount of Olives, which faces Jerusalem on the east, and the
Mount of Olives shall be split in two" (Zechariah 14:3-4). God's kingdom comes to earth, and fills it,
according to Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream: "And in the days of these kings, the
God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the
kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume
all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever" (Dan. 2:44).
Someone
may ask: Who will Christians rule over?
Obviously, the people left over from the rebellious nations that fought
against Jesus when He returns, and their future descendants during the 1000
year period of His reign. The earth
won't remain a wasteland for that whole period, but will be repaired and
beautified, and people will have great physical prosperity then, as well as
much greater spiritual knowledge, such as described in Isaiah 2:1-4, 11:6-9;
35:1-10. According to Daniel 7:14,
Jesus will be given rule over the physical nations: "Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be
destroyed." The kingdom of God
that Jesus often spoke of should be perceived as a literal kingdom or rule of
God on earth over the nations in its ultimate fulfillment. It's not just some nice sentimental,
ethereal something in men's hearts.
Also,
consider the interesting parables in which Jesus gives His servants minas or
pounds, and then when He returns, He rewards them according to their works will
so many cities (10, 5, 2) relative to the amount they did or believed in works
of faith as stewards with what He entrusted them with (Luke 19:11-27; Matt.
25:14-30). The cities aren't going to
be empty of people. These illustrations
or parables should be taken somewhat literally in this regard. During the future life, we as Christians
will be active and working, not stereotypically playing harps and floating
around in the clouds of heaven with little to do.
Now,
having explained the millennium some, what are pre-millennialism and
post-millennialism? Pre-millennialism
maintains that Jesus will come before the millennium starts. He will end the world’s terrible end-time
crisis by dramatically intervening in the world to save humanity from
destroying itself. By contrast,
post-millennialism maintains that Jesus will come at the end of the
millennium. The period of peace and
prosperity will occur before Jesus arrives, according to this view of
eschatology (end-time events).
Pre-millennialists expect the world to get worse before Jesus returns,
but post-millennialists believe it will become better. Jesus’ return is like a capstone ending a
successful, prosperous period from the post-millennialist viewpoint. Another common view is called
“amillennialism,” which takes the millennium non-literally. They interpret Revelation 20 simply as
teaching general spiritual truths.
Often this view maintains that the church is the kingdom of God and that
Christians are now living spiritually in that period since the Holy Spirit came
after Jesus’ ascension to heaven. They
believe there is only one general resurrection, not two. They don’t believe
there will be an actual literal reign or rule by Jesus Christ on earth. Now, the key issue is to figure out which
view does the Bible support? Should
Christians be pre-millennialist, amillennialist, or post-millennialist? Below the case will be generally made for
the pre-millennialist view as opposed to the post-millennialist teaching since
the Bible doesn’t teach any kind of optimistic view of end-time events before
the Messiah’s return to earth. Often
post-millennialists will use the system called “preterism,” which maintains the
events described in the Book of Revelation occurred in the first century Roman
Empire, as a means to escape how disastrous they would be if they were still to
be fulfilled in the future.
However,
pre-millennialists have to avoid certain traps even as their view of
eschatology is the most accurate. It is
wrong to set specific dates for Jesus' return, for He said nobody besides the
Father knew the date of His return (Matt. 24:36): "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels
of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." On the other hand, there is wisdom in looking for general
indications that His return may be close.
Consider the verses almost right before the one just quoted: "Now learn the parable from the fig
tree: when its branch has already
become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; even so
you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the
door. Truly I say to you, this
generation will not pass away until all these things take place" (verses
32-34). The issue would be what specific "generation" is Jesus
describing here that would experience the events just before His return. Mark 13:33-37 makes a point (see also Matt.
24:42-51) of telling Christians to be spiritually alert so they are ready when
Jesus returns. (See also the message
taught by the parable of the 10 virgins in Matt. 25:1-13). Notice, however, that Jesus did teach
general indicators about His return would appear also, as per the fig tree
analogy in Matt. 24. Learning about
Biblical chronology and eschatology (end-time events) is fine, so long as one
has balance about it and doesn't spend too much time on it relative to other
spiritual priorities (like those listed in I Cor. 13 and Matt. 23:23). But it would be wrong to set specific dates,
such as William Miller's movement did when they came up with 1843-44 (which helped
create the Seventh-day Adventist church), and the Jehovah's
Witnesses/Watchtower Bible and Tract Society did concerning 1914 and 1975.
Some
of the markers for His return generally speaking would be when certain texts
could only be fulfilled at a certain time, and not sensibly earlier. This is the best argument for the
pre-millennialist viewpoint when using historical evidence to help interpret
the Bible. For example, consider Matt.
24:14: "And this gospel of the
kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations,
and then the end shall come." It's
well worth some thought about when this became possible, even from a broad
general traditional Christian viewpoint, was only in the past two centuries or
so, for many areas like China, India, and Africa had had little or no Christian
witness. The definition is narrower
than that, since the "gospel of the kingdom" isn't only or even
primarily about salvation in Jesus, but that's a separate subject. Another text that can mark when Jesus
couldn't return until it could be possibly fulfilled is verse 22: "And unless those days had been cut
short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days
shall be cut short." Now, could
have all the weapons of all the world's armies literally killed everyone before
the invention of the atomic bomb in the 1940s?
The same goes for nerve gases that the Germans had developed or had made
ready, like tabun and sarin. So
"that generation" has to be the one that could hear the gospel of the
kingdom taught in their countries and also lived when everyone on earth could
be killed by mankind's weaponry.
Another indication concerning Jesus return is the regathering of the
Jews to the Middle East, such as described in Zechariah 12, which has to be
before Jesus returns, not afterwards.
Admittedly, a number of these texts about the Jews and/or all the tribes
of Israel returning to the Middle East are ambiguous or only about their return
after Jesus' return (such as Zephaniah 2:4-7; Jeremiah 30:3-11, 50:17-20). But one needs a certain critical mass of
Jews running their own nation are necessary to make Zechariah 12 possible; a
few scattered ones under Arab or Turkish Muslim rule wouldn't sensibly be
enough. Therefore, Jesus couldn't
return until after 1948, and the establishment of the modern state of Israel.
A
pre-millennialist’s basic approach would often be to see where Scripture's
description of general conditions and also certain individual texts would fit
in with what's presently going on in the world, as reported in the news media,
including newspaper headlines. These
can help supply us with background that shows where we are in the march of
events leading to the end time when Jesus will return. In the Olivet Prophecy, Christ mentioned we
should observe what's going on around us as indications in advance of His
return, which would include in today's world media sources: "Now learn the parable from the fig
tree; when its branch has already become tender, and puts forth its leaves, you
know that summer is near; even so you too, when you see all these things,
recognize that He is near, right at the door" (Matt. 24:32-33). When considering the Olivet Prophecy, where
could anyone fit in an optimistic post-millennialist viewpoint anyway? Where does it or Revelation talk about
humanity's actions in the world making the world's general conditions more
Godly, more spiritual, before Christ's return and the establishment of His
kingdom on earth (Daniel 2:44; 7:13-14)?
When
we examine both the Olivet Prophecy and the Book of Revelation, there's no
reason for optimism about future human history before Jesus returns. For example, the summary of the history of
the true church in Revelation 12 is one of persecution and flight into the wilderness,
not a triumphant takeover of the world's civilization before Jesus' personal return.
Likewise, the description of the Beasts of Daniel 7, which building upon
Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great statue in Daniel 2, simply allows no space
for a truly Godly civilization to develop.
Revelation 13, when interpreted in either a historicist or futurist
manner (HWA used both, as per his method of finding duality in fulfillments of
prophecies in Scripture), shows that oppression and evil will rule the world
before Jesus returns and, more or less, all the time before then. There's no optimistic, Godly interlude
possible when the last Beast of Daniel 7 keeps being resurrected and ruling
harshly. Presumably, post-millennialists
will resort to a preterist interpretation to escape this reality, by trying to
make all of these texts be fulfilled in the first century A.D., but that isn't
persuasive. The abomination of
desolation didn't occur then, for example.
Nor was the world world evangelized by 70 A.D., which a preterist
interpretation of Matt. 24:14 would necessitate. It's worth remembering in this context that the first horseman of
the apocalypse is one representing religious deception, an interpretation that
isn't unique to the Church of God.
(Billy Graham has the same view, which is derived by the same
interpretative method of correlating the Olivet Prophecy with the Four Horsemen
of Revelation). Furthermore, the
preterist method of interpreting
Revelation has a dubious historical origin: It was the result of Catholic scholars trying to escape stinging
Protestant accusations (such as Luther's) that the Catholic Church was
described in the Book of Revelation as the antichrist, Scarlet Woman, Beast,
etc. Satan has deceived the whole world
(Revelation 12:9), which is a religious condition certainly not compatible with
Reconstructionist triumphalism. To use
such texts as Ps. 110:1, which don't describe the general condition of the
world historically, to overturn the historical or even futurist school of
prophecy about these sections of Scripture, simply isn't persuasive. It's much too vague for this purpose. Jesus
can be the Father's "right-hand man" yet still wage war against His
enemies. It's hardly a text that says
Jesus has to be passive while the Father gets the world to obey His Son.
Where
are the "optimistic" texts from the Book of Revelation or Olivet
Prophecy that prophecy that the world will be converted to Christianity by
gradual means before Jesus' personal return to earth. The parable of the Ten Virgins and the condition of the last
church mentioned in Revelation 3, Laodicean, doesn't bode well for any
post-millennialist interpretation.
Jesus was indeed a pessimist about any worldwide Christian takeover when
He asked, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:8).
The
principal problem with post-millennialist would be that the world seems to be
getting worse by many moral measures, not better, such as concerning the
stability of family life and the general rise of irreligious viewpoints in the
Western world. Of course, although the
newspapers and media have long been full of bad news, there are reasons to
believe things really have been getting worse in certain regards overall in the
past two or three generations, for now humanity has the ability to destroy
itself (Matt. 24:21-22). And, if
anything, the general trends in the culture have been towards
de-Christianization over the past 250 years, with a rapid increase in the past
70. God has a plan that will
stand. He will push humanity along as
is necessary to accomplish it. But, He
also allows people free will such that it's a cooperative enterprise as that
interacts with the help given by the Holy Spirit in obeying Him better in their
personal lives. But I don't believe the
few true believers, or even the many sincere traditional Christians,
Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, are fundamentally going to change things in
the world as a whole for the better permanently before Jesus' arrival. No great improvement was prophesied for the
world's conditions before Jesus returns in His Olivet Prophecy, for example, or
in the Book of Revelation.
Fundamentally, post-millennial eschatology was buried in Flanders' mud
and further destroyed by the gas chambers of Auschwitz. True, not all the trends in American culture
are bad, for since about 1993 some improvement has occurred in (say) the
divorce, violent crime, and abortion rates, but we still aren't back to where
we were in (say) 1959 overall. Furthermore, although the Western world has
become less Christian, a large chunk of the Third World and even the Communist
(or former Communist) countries have become more Christian even as Western
Europe has become more secular.
If
"common grace" were indeed a sound concept, and post-millennialism
were indeed true, the general conditions of society should be getting better
and better, but that's hardly the case morally overall for the Western World
over the past century. The influence of
the two world wars as well as the Marxist/Communist movements have helped to
cause much of the de-Christianization of the (popular) Western culture through
their practical experiences with problem of evil and promoting a cynical,
instrumental view of religion's role in society as a tool of the upper class to
keep the lower class in line. The
baneful influence of Darwinism has reached down to average people over the past
two or three generations, helping make the masses made in God's image think
they are mere animals with no higher individual destiny than to reproduce
themselves before a permanent death overtakes them. Freudianism has piled to help justify an obsession with sex and
to cause criticisms of this obsession to be dismissed as "unhealthy"
or as "repression."
Consider
then the reality that such an atheistic/agnostic/pagan nation as Japan has
better rates of social statistics in certain crucial areas (divorce,
illegitimacy, and violent crime) than the (supposedly) "Christian"
USA. Consequently, one could conclude
that the "Christian" population isn't really Christian, isn't really
saved, since their faith isn't manifested by their works. (Here in this context John MacArthur's
"The Gospel According to Jesus" is worth some thought, and the whole
Lordship salvation controversy, that repentance is a condition to salvation). The Holy Spirit isn't obviously transforming
their individual lives, and therefore the culture as a whole as a
consequence. Here my view that God is
only presently working with a small flock is no doubt driving this analysis,
but there is serious evidence for it, as per Christ's explanation as to why He
spoke in parables and citation of Isaiah in Matthew 13:11-15: "'To you it has been granted to know
the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted . .
. . Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not
see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is
being fulfilled, which says, "You will keep on hearing, but will not
understand; and you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; for the heart
of this people has become dull, and with their ears they scarcely hear, and
they have closed their eyes lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with
their ears, and understand with their hears and return, and I should heal
them."'" Just as only a
relatively small number of Jews accepted Jesus as their Savior and Messiah in
the first century, it's the same today.
Now
a believer in post-millenialism could counter-attack this kind of analysis by
calling it "newspaper theology" or "newspaper
eschatology." That is,
premillennialists will cite present problems in society, and then say these are
signs of the end or at least that the church (broadly construed) isn't
triumphantly taking over the culture, as post-millennialists confidently
predict. Now, there is an obvious
tension here between the Reconstructionists' Calvinist theology of the innate
depravity of man and their confidence in such pathetically weak, sinful
creatures to transform totally the world by individual and collective action as
assisted by God's Holy Spirit. I also
don't see where in Scripture such beings with an evil human nature are
predicted to create such a perfect society largely on their own in some
cultural respite before Jesus returns.
The Olivet prophecy is a major challenge to optimistic
post-millennialism, especially when the first four signs (Matt. 24:4-7, using
the KJV/NKJV) are correlated with the first four horsemen of the apocalypse.
The preterist/post-millennialist move to confine Christ's predictions to the
period before A.D. 70 isn't persuasive, for remember Christ's disciples really
asked two or even three questions (Matt. 24:3): "Tell us, when will these things be, and will be the sign of
Your coming, and of the end of the age."
The dual nature of prophetic fulfillment destroys preterism’s
plausibility. Jesus' coming, and the
end of the age, wasn't fulfilled by the destruction of Jerusalem through
Titus's Roman legions. Does anyone
seriously think, for example, that this text was fulfilled by when the second
temple was destroyed (Matt. 24:14):
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole
world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come"? Likewise only since the development of
atomic, biological, and chemical warfare has the possible condition mentioned
in this text been theoretically fulfillable (Matt. 24:22): "And unless those days had been cut
sort, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days
shall be cut short." Sure, if
someone wants to put on the postmillennialist/amillennialist straight-jacket,
these texts can be reinterpreted to ("safely") confine them
exclusively to the first century A.D., but that isn’t persuasive or
natural. There's also the return of the
Jews en mass to the Middle East in their own self-governing entity (which is
another example of prophetic duality, by the way), which has to occur before
Jesus would return (Zech. 12:8-10; cf. Zeph. 2:7).
The
pre-millennialist believes that a better world is coming, but that it has to be
violently imposed from above, as per the rock of Christ hits and destroys
Nebuchadnezzar's image of the world's kingdoms (Dan. 2:44): "And in the days of those kings the God
of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom
will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these
kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever." The post-millennialist believes it will come from below, by the actions
of millions, even billions of sincere believers changing the world. That seems to be much too optimistic a
scenario. Furthermore, some trends in
the world today never have occurred before on such a broad scale in all of
human history, such as how science, technology, and science have transformed
the lives of the great mass of average people in broad swaths of the world,
thus lifting them out of subsistence agriculture and the raw ignorance caused
by mass illiteracy. We also see how
such trends, such as women being able to get good paying jobs outside the home,
has helped undermine the stability of the (nuclear) family unit, and thus
promoted a divorce and remarry lifestyle among the masses that (say) used to be
largely confined to the Roman Empire's elite.
So isn't worth some thought that with such a fundamental societal
transformation in progress over the past roughly 250 years that something
strategic is afoot, that for once when premillennialists think the end is near
that for once it isn't "crying wolf," or knowing the day and the
hour, but rather the parable of the fig tree (Matt. 24:32-34) applies instead?
How
can a post-millennialist escape the Book of Revelation's dire events, such as
the plagues inflicted by the Seven Trumpets and Seven Bowls? The Fourth Horsemen is given authority to
kill 14/th of the earth (Rev. 7:8).
When did that occur? The first
century A.D.? Why does God have to
inflict all these punishments on the world if the world is converted already
when Jesus arrives? Where does
Scripture describe a utopia on earth created by believers themselves as aided
by the Holy Spirit, without using force on unconverted nations (Rev.
2:26-27)? Packing all this dire stuff
described in the prophetic books to the first century and earlier simply is
unnatural to the texts involved, especially when we have so many more centuries
of history to gain more perspective than the prophets themselves often had
(Dan. 8:27; 12:8-9). Only by denying
the texts through re-interpreting them can the post-millennialist viewpoint
escape falsification. The First
Horseman was religious deception, a conclusion drawn by comparing the Four
Horsemen with the Olivet Prophecy. If
so, why should we think all or most people will be persuaded to accept the light
before Jesus returns when only a few are called & elected now? I think it’s completely futile to dream of
converting the Muslims, Hindus, and Chinese, those vast reservoirs of humanity,
without convincing miracles that their prior ways of thinking are demonstrably
wrong. Handing out a lot of copies of
books of C.S. Lewis, Henry Morris, Lee Stroble, and Josh McDowell isn't going
to do the trick, even when the Intelligent Design people seem to be making at
least some academics sweat.
So
then, turning to a related matter, consider the views found in Cal Thomas and
Ed Dobson "Blinded by Might: Can
the Religious Right Save America?"
They wouldn't agree with the total political disengagement views of the
Amish, Mennonites, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc., but they perceive the
ineffectiveness of using political power to change America's cultural
trajectory. Just how effective is
political action in changing people's hearts anyway? How much do state ways change folkways? Sure, it can help push things along, like the 1960's civil rights
laws have reduced racism some, but the man's law, even if based directly on
Scripture as implementing by believers, hardly can truly transform society by
itself. He who is forced against his
will is of the same opinion still. The history of Medieval Catholicism, with
the Inquisition and the Crusades, or even the Communists when trying to build
the "new Soviet man," should tell us such social engineering projects
from above are doomed to failure. Satan
is the god of this world (II Cor. 4:3-4), and has a continuing influence on our
human nature, including making it evil to begin with, why should we expect any
better results from forcibly imposing any kind of self-sacrifice or altruism or
correct belief on people? In practical
terms, how well would (say) imposing the seventh-day Sabbath or “Thou shalt not
commit adultery” on unregenerate people work?
We think Prohibition was a failure!
Hence, when thinking about America's destiny over the next few decades,
the premillennialists' pessimism is realism.
The
case of Noah refutes optimistic post-millennialism, if anything in Scripture
does. That is, God foretold to Noah
nothing about a gradual improvement in society, but instead about an abrupt
worldwide disaster was coming, for which Noah needed to prepare. Jesus cited this very case in the Olivet
prophecy, saying it was analogous to the time before His return (Matt.
24:37-39): "But as the days of
Noah were, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For as in the days before
the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage,
until the day Noah entered into the ark. And they did not know until the flood
came and took them all away. So also will be the coming of the Son of
man." Hence, there isn't going to be
any gradual improvement in society as sincere believers inspired by Biblical
ideals and Christian theology take over the government and society's
institutions. Instead, it will require
God's direct personal intervention by the visible return of the King of Kings
and Lord of Lords to change the world system, which is the pre-millennialist
viewpoint. Whether Christians believe in the post-millennialist scenario or the
pre-millennialist eschatology, they have to wait for those views to be
fulfilled in order to know by personal experience which is right. Of course, it may be we will die before
events confirming either edition of eschatology becomes clear. However, the present empirical evidence over
the past half century and generally over the past 250 years in the West
certainly favors the pre-millennialist viewpoint, since the Western world's
institutions and governments have become less and less Christian in their
worldview. Think of how the spread of
gay marriage even into poorer Third world countries indicates that governments
aren’t willing to uphold a Christian viewpoint and definition of marriage and
family.
The
weight of evil human nature, or the general depravity of man as influenced by
Satan and this evil world's civilization, is enough to make me question
optimistic post-millennialism. That
theology was enabled and supported by the Victorian era's optimism as the
fruits of industrialization started to lift up the masses of Europe from
mankind's ancient condition of living hand-to-mouth in the "La Belle
Epoch," that "Generation of Materialism" before World War I
(1914-1918) blew that ideology to bits.
Furthermore, it was a secularized version of Darwin's theory of
evolution, which emphasized slow gradual change of the species towards a
"higher" condition. In
addition, those believers who get involved in politics normally end up acting
the same as anyone else in politics and government, as the Catholic
Centre/Christian Democrat Parties of Europe demonstrate. Instead of Christians transforming the
world, the world transforms them instead.
The old corrupt union of Church and state under the ancien regimes of
Europe before the French Revolution (1789) is further evidence of this point: It's how the scarlet woman riding the Beast
committed fornication with the kings of the earth (Rev. 18:3), such as
demonstrated by king of France's influence over appointing who became bishops
(i.e., the sin of simony). So believers
have tried to do this before (i.e., in Medieval Europe, Christians controlled
the governments and all institutions of society), and it didn't work out very
well, did it? Indeed, the Medieval
union of church and state has permanently discredited traditional Christianity
in the minds of most intellectuals and many others in the West. So was the post-millennialist model of the
world already tried and failed during the late Medieval and early modern
periods?
Furthermore,
for post-millennialism to become true, something has to keep Pakistan, Iran,
North Korea, and any other future crackpot "Ruritanias" from blowing
up the world with atomic bombs. A few
misplaced nukes in the wrong (non-Christian) hands can easily nuke
post-millennialism. In the tinderbox
that's the Middle East, if Iran gets the bomb, the Sunni Arab nations will
build theirs too. The people who control many of those nukes have little or no
use for Christian theology: Witness how
hard it is for Muslims to convert to Christianity, especially since they
threaten their apostates with death. I
wouldn't hold my breath for any of these Muslim nations to convert to
Christianity in order to lift this kind of threat.
Furthermore,
Christians who believe in post-millennialism can't control the actions of
non-Christian nations and civilizations, such as what the Muslims, Hindus, and
Chinese do. Post-millennialism can
easily be literally "nuked" by non-Christian nations choosing to wage
war with weapons of mass destruction, made cheap and obtainable by modern
technology and the spread of wealth (by oil sales and industrialization)
outside the Western world. Do you
really want to reassure me that traditional Christians, of any stripe or
belief, can really prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and stop the
usage of nuclear weapons by non-Western nations? It's far more likely they will be used before those nations could
possibly be converted, which is astonishingly unlikely, when we consider how
tough-minded and zealous so many Muslims are.
Because
of the world's perilous condition concerning governmental and private debt (or
promises to pay through derivatives) and because of the spread of nuclear,
chemical, and/or bacterialogical weapons, there's no reason to believe that the
traditional Christian church (which is very much on the defensive culturally in
the developed world) is going to persuade governmental policy makers to make
better decisions, and fix this world's problems. It's much easier today for a few people to light the world on
fire than it used to be, which is a matter of what one writer called
"profusion." (Any number of
good events or developments can easily be wiped out by one or more big, bad
events, when the same scientific technological wizardy is used against human
survival). I wish to have my words
marked: Before a normal, natural
lifetime of mine would end, the current events of the world will prove the
premillennialist view to be true, and the Dominion theorists'
post-millennialist views to be false.
Post-millennialism should have already died in the mud of Flanders and
the gas chambers of Auschwitz : The
human race, whether motivated by its own human reason or by Christian theology,
is not going to fix the world's problems on its own. It will require God's direct and dramatic intervention to
overcome the weight of evil human nature, the influence of Satan and the
demons, and the weight of the world's civilization, to do that.
It’s
hard for post-millennialists to cite even two or three good clear texts that
prophesy that Christians will slowly improve the world by gradual means as they
take over the governments and institutions of the world before Christ's return
(i.e., that the world's conditions will improve before Jesus' return). We're warned to see the world system as the
enemy and as something to be lived in, endured, but not copied as a standard of
conduct (I John 2:15-17; John
17:15-18). The book of Revelation
prophesies a series of disasters that result in killing billions of people, if
it's taken in a reasonably literal manner (Rev. 6:8). It's hard to fit in post-millennialist or amillennalist optimism
with the Book of Revelation without allegorizing it completely. Do any texts clearly support
post-millennialist Reconstructionist optimism?
Post-millennialism
isn’t at all plausible because of the general de-Christianization of Western
Civilization over the past approximately 250 years. Post-millennialism simply isn't compatible with retrogression
since it predicts and prophesies a successful Christian conquest of the world
without clear divine intervention.
That's why citing the Christian culture of the USA at the time of the
American Revolution isn't a very convincing argument, which was over 200 years
ago now. Ironically, the origins of
post-millennialism are during the Enlightenment. According to H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice in "Dominion
Theology: Blessing or Curse? An Analysis of Christian
Reconstructionism" (pp. 206, 209) the origin of post-millennialism lies in
the writings of one Daniel Whitby (1638-1726) in what he wrote in a book
published in 1703, "Paraphrase and Commentary on the New
Testament." By itself, this very
late origin for this teaching makes suspicious when it builds upon obviously
vague texts, such as Ps. 110:1, for this purpose. Pre-millennialism was the eschatology of the Catholic Church in
the Roman Empire in the Pre-Constantine era (i.e., before the Edict of Milan
gave Christians legal toleration in 313 A.D.) That makes it much more likely to
have been the teaching of the apostles who knew Jesus than a theological system
first appearing over a millennium and a half after the time of the early
Catholic Church writers' views on about eschatology. True, the differences between amillennialism and
post-millennialism are much smaller than the differences of either with
pre-millennialism. So I suppose a post-millennialist
could claim Augustine as a forerunner for Whitby if he wishes.
Just
because some believers are so zealous, such as the Reconstructionists’
intellectual leaders, doesn't mean much when so many traditional Christians do
get involved in trying to change their governments and societies by political
action, which is why the behavior of the Centre/Christian Democrat parties of
Continental Europe is instructive. The
corruption of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages when the church and state
were united is utterly notorious.
There's a reason why there's a book entitled, "The Bad
Popes." Should Reconstructionists
really think that it would be any different in the future? Can we learn anything from past
history? One of the oldest conceits
about not learning from the past (such as investing on Wall Street) is,
"It is or will be different this time." After all, do we really think professing Protestant monarchs
really had a better record, such as the Hohenzollerns of Prussia/Germany? More recently, consider the great success
Abraham Kuyper had in Holland in taking over the country as a leader of
Reformed Protestants (in the general 1870-1920 period), yet today Holland is
one of the most obnoxiously socially liberal countries on earth. Consider the utter apostasy and corruption
by modernist forces of the Anglican Church in England, even by fundamentalist
Protestant standards.
Post-millennialists simply don't reckon with the power of the evil human
nature to make even professing traditional Christian people sin.
Medieval
Catholic Christian rulers lacked the transforming agency of the Holy
Spirit. That's why their historical
record was about as bad as ancient Israel's, a physical nation which almost
completely lacked the Holy Spirit as well. That's why the great church
committed fornication with the kings of the world (Revelation 18:3, 9; 17:2) by
compromising with the political forces of Medieval and early Modern Europe,
such as concerning the sin of simony, which often concerned appointing
spiritually unqualified men to church offices with political approval of
political rulers. The
Reconstructionists, who believe in post-millennialism, won't have any more
success than the Catholics and Protestants who actually did hold political power
had.
An
unpleasant reality is that what the world does inevitably affects the church,
true or not. The easy no-fault divorce
laws passed in the 1960s shouldn't have affected the divorce rate of
Christians, whether they are sincere Sunday keepers or in the Sabbath-keeping
church of God . But of course, they
have. The divorce rate, in my
perception, in the Saturday-observing Church of God is higher today than that
of USA (i.e., the world at large) in
the mid-1950s. My Peruvian wife has
been so disconcerted to see much more more common divorce is in America in the
Church of God as well as in the world than it is in her home country, which is
dominated by (generally non-observant) Catholics. We may claim, in the spirit of Christian separatism, "Hey,
how the world defines marriage shouldn't affect the lives of serious Christians
at all." The reality, as already
shown by the easy divorce laws, is very different. The law has a teaching function that can't be ignored: When it teaches and enshrines perversion, it
affects the true church's members as well.
They inevitably start to think that perversion isn't so bad and that
it's somewhat OK at some level.
The
influence of the world upon the church seems to overwhelm the influence of the
church on the world. For example, to
legalize gay “marriage” will eventually undermine average people’s commitment
to their vows since it puts the government’s official moral sanction on a
nearly empty definition of “marriage.”
One prominent liberal lawyer reasoned several years ago that legalizing
gay marriage hasn’t had any such ill effects yet in the jurisdictions that have
legalized it ignores what the long-term effects are on family stability from
redefining the word “marriage” to mean anything and everything. His reasoning here is like a liberal’s
claiming that since social democracy and the welfare state don’t effect
people’s sense of personal responsibility, financial incentives to work, and
willingness to take initiative in the short term, they won’t in the long term
either, which is manifestly false. The
no-fault divorce laws have already had similar effects, even on the socially
more conservative, who theoretically reject these values. These laws made average people take their
vows more lightly since getting rid of their husband or wife could be done so
much more easily legally. The law has a
teaching function that influences society as a whole, for good or for ill, that
liberal, libertarian, or fundamentalist Christian separatist theorizing simply
shouldn’t discount. It's further
evidence that the premillenialist view of eschatology is far more accurate than
the optimistic view of the post-millennialist Dominion theorists, as today's
society is increasingly more degenerate, not improving, like that of the time
before the great Deluge (Matt. 24:37-39). Since America’s illegitimacy rate
hovers near 40% and the divorce rate is nearly 50%, the last thing policy
makers concerned for the emotional, psychological, and physical well being of
children should do is implement policies that increase family instability. And legalizing gay marriage is certainly one
of them.
Furthermore,
once the state defines marriage to include gay relationships and polygamy
(that's coming too), inevitably the churches which refuse to perform them will
be persecuted by the intolerant, self-righteous gays. That's one key reason to keep the law as it has been, even if we
may want to say, it's none of the government's business. An expansive regulatory/welfare/secular
state never sees it that way, but it wants to reach into all the crooks and
crannies of people's lives, regardless of any pretenses to preserving human
freedom and autonomy otherwise. Doma
was one way to help put off that day.
But now we see that the law will no longer use crude basic Christian
values as its foundation. (Presumably
the Dominion theorists would favor that, as well as laws such as DOMA that
would promote such minimal Christian values).
The clock is being turned back to the time before the Edict of Milan in
313 A.D., when Constantine declared tolerance for the Christian faith from
pagan Roman persecution, and began the process of the union of church and state
that reached its apex in the Medieval era.
As bad as that often was, at least it maintained some crude Christian
values, such as marital heterosexual
monogamy. We now are beholding the real
end of that era, at least before the time the EU is transformed into the
Eurobeast and a future Pope starts calling down fire out of heaven in Rome.
So
the pre-millennialist view is much better backed by the words of Scripture and
the trend of events in the world over the past 300 years than the optimistic
post-millennialist viewpoint. Jesus’
personal rule on earth (Revelation 5:10) as King of Kings and Lord of Lords
will be necessary to fix the terrible mess that humanity, as influenced by
Satan and the demons, have made of the world and will make of this world.
Click here to access essays that defend
Christianity: /apologetics.html
Click
here to access essays that explain Christian teachings: /doctrinal.html
Click
here to access notes for sermonettes: /sermonettes.html
Does Islam cause terrorism? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Moral
Equivalency Applied Islamic History 0409.htm
Is
the Bible the Word of God? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Is
the Bible the Word of God.htm
Why
does God Allow Evil? Click here: /Apologeticshtml/Why
Does God Allow Evil 0908.htm
Is
Christian teaching from ancient paganism? /Bookhtml/Paganism influence issue article Journal
013003.htm
Which
is right?: Judaism or Christianity? /Apologeticshtml/Is
Christianity a Fraud vs Conder Round 1.htm
/Apologeticshtml/Is Christianity a Fraud vs Conder Round 2.htm
Should
the existence of God be proven? /Apologeticshtml/Should the Bible and God Be Proven
Fideism vs WCG.htm
Does
the Bible teach blind faith? Click
here: /doctrinalhtml/Gospel
of John Theory of Knowledge.htm
Links
to elsewhere on this Web site: /apologetics.html /book.html /doctrinal.html /essays.html /links.html /sermonettes.html /webmaster.html For
the home page, click here: /index.html
For the history page, click here: /newfile1.html