| Title | : | Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 0310201438 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780310201434 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 330 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1999 |
Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond Reviews
-
I have never wanted to throw a book across the room so bad in my entire life. Here is a review of each author:
Gentry- After reading this I can see why postmillennialism has basically been abandoned. All his chapters were so drawn out with little to no good exegesis to support his biblical theology.
Stimple- on the other hand is an excellent writer who gives good arguments for amillennialism. Though he tries to get to academic with all his greek and ends up muddying up his case.
Blaising- also did a good job at communicating his position clearly and was the most fun to read out of the three authors. He wrote the shortest retorts, which I very much appreciate, and was to the point.
I did learn a lot about eschatology from this book, though it was a pain to get through. -
Bock, Darrell. Ed. Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999.
I suppose this book is as good as you would expect it to be. No side delivers “the knockout punch.” Every author admits that much more could be written and so he will have to be brief. I don’t have much of an axe to grind in the debate. My own view at this point is that the revealing of Antichrist will begin the Great Tribulation. Blaising makes it clear, which sometimes the other authors don’t want to acknowledge, that the word “millennium” is irrelevant to his position.
Gentry. Argues his case on postmillennialism by structuring it around biblical covenants. That’s probably the strongest angle of his case. He notes God must be faithful to his promises within space and time. Even if true, the premillennialist makes the same argument. Strimple’s response seals the deal: when it comes to his theological case about the effective preaching of the Gospel, Gentry offers nothing that any Evangelical would reject. Moreover, his survey of covenant history at no point establishes “the specifics of the postmillennial vision.”
Responding to preterism: both Strimple and Blaising give good critiques of Gentry’s preterism. Blaising notes that “The Day of the Lord” functions typologically throughout biblical history. It manifests the final judgment. (Strimple’s argument is similar: the language Jesus uses in the Olivet Discourse has angels gathering the elect, and if Matthew 25 is read in conjunction with 24, the dead appearing before the throne. This can hardly be the destruction of Jerusalem).
Strimple’s rebuttal needs to be developed, but it promises some fascinating conclusions. If Nero is the Antichrist as Gentry claims, then he must be destroyed at the Battle of Armageddon. This means Jeruselm in 70 AD is the Battle of Armageddon. This can hardly suffice.
Strimple. He gives the standard covenantal amillennial view. His argument has two hinges: there is no future conversion of the Jews in Romans 11; and Revelation 20 denies a golden age. I do like how he points out that Christ, and not the church simpliciter, is the true Israel. It’s tempting for covenant theologians to simply assert “The Church Replaced Israel,” whereas biblical theology is far more nuanced.
In his take on Revelation 20 and the binding of Satan, he asks if such a binding contradicts what Jude says that the fallen angels are bound until the Judgment. Strimple’s worries are misplaced. That is not what Jude said. Jude said those angels (or Watchers) who fornicated in the manner of Sodom and left their own estate, are bound. That’s all. Jude doesn’t say anything about the nature of demons or whether they are bound or not.
My own response is that Strimple completely ignored “Isaiah’s Little Apocalypse” (24-26).
In response Blaising notes that “The Day of the Lord” is not always an instantaneous event. Further, while Strimple argues that the New Testament leaves no place for a future millennium in its “Two Age scheme,” Blaising points out that numerous epochs in biblical history are divided up:
God says “on the day I brought you out of Egypt and into the promised land…” That is not an instantaneous event. It took at least 40 years (Ex. 3:17).
Take Messiah’s birth. Part of Isaiah 11 refers to the Incarnation, but the rest of it, the ruling forever, is taking two thousand years. It’s not an instantaneous event.
Isaiah 24 speaks of “split punishments.”
1 Corinthians 15’s eita….epeita construction could read both ways, but Paul specifically emphasizes the “stages” of the Resurrection.
Blaising. Blaising begins with a survey of premillennialism. While not an exegetical argument, it should help amils and postmils to stop identifying premillennialism with Scofieldism.
He gives the standard premillennial take, though. He notes that the OT speaks of conditions of an exalted creation which still retains sin and death. Isaiah 65 is the most notable. This can’t simply be “Isaiah’s just trying to show us the heavenly state.” Isaiah knows how to communicate that people die. In chapter 25 he gives us a picture where there is no death. He didn’t just forget when he got to chapter 65. Ezekiel 14 has the descended Messiah judging those nations who refuse to submit to him.
Gentry’s response to Blaising falls short. Partly, Gentry critiques Blaising for not being a preterist. Secondly, Gentry imputes the problems of pre-tribulationism to all of premillennialism. Third, Gentry completely ignores the fact that Blaising has said that his millennial view isn’t isolated to Revelation 20. I will give Gentry credit on this: he faults Blaising for not dealing with Daniel 9 within the premillennial scheme. Fair enough. That would have been helpful.
Strimple’s response is worth noting. Strimple complains about the allegation that amillennialism is born out of a Platonic dualism. He points, rather, to the fine works by Bavinck, Hoekema, and Vos. I recommend all of them. That’s precisely Blaising’s argument. Modern day amillennialism is New Creation eschatology. Praise God. Medieval amillennialism is not. It is Platonic. The point was to float in eternity and think about the divine essence all day (well, maybe not day, since day is an indicator of time).
Whether Revelation 20 recapitulates 12 (something that the kai eidon construction makes difficult), Strimple didn't face up to the problem that if Satan is bound in Revelation 20 where he "can't deceive the nations," what exactly is he doing in Revelation 12? In Revelation 12 he is casts to the earth to trouble man. In Revelation 20 he is bound from the earth.
Strimple then complains that Blaising “considers the Bible apart from Revelation 20.” This is really bizarre. Usually, premillennialists are accused of ignoring the rest of the Bible. Now they are at fault for considering the rest of the bible. -
A very good overview of the three millennium positions. I appreciated the way the authors respected and affirmed one another and their positions. I think they would say that in their overall theology, they have more agreements than disagreements. In this one area, their differences are great (which is why they were chosen to contribute to this book), yet they handle those differences with grace and scholarship.
This volume alone isn't enough for one to come to a conclusion about the millennium, but it is a great companion to the study of the Bible on these matters. -
I think this is a good overview of all three perspectives views of the millennium. I lean towards postmillenial thought, but I need to read more on the amillennial perspective and how they answer some old testament passages to make my mind up on where I stand. Pre mil is the weakest, in my opinion, and have a hard time justifying their position from the rest of scripture apart from revelation 20.
-
This is an excellent book on what is fundamentally a very narrow question: is there an intermediate kingdom (a millennium) between the present age and the eternal state? The contributors chosen to represent their position (Kenneth Gentry for postmillennialism; Robert Strimple for amillennialism; Craig Blaising for premillennialism) are excellent scholars and skilled ambassadors of their particular take on the subject.
Each contributor outlines his position on the issue, followed by responses from the other two scholars. The postmill view goes first (along with the responses), the amill view is second, and the premill view (the longest section by far) wraps up the consideration. The overall tone is irenic and gracious--the book contributes light on the topic rather than heat--something I really appreciate.
Darrell Bock, the editor, writes an outstanding summary essay identifying the major interpretive issues that appeared repeatedly in the writing of the three contributors. This summary is excellent in its own right. In fact, I recommend reading the summary first, especially for those readers who are not very familiar with the debate. Bock does a good job of laying the issues out on the table and explaining their implications in a simple-to-understand format.
A recommendation: don't speedread this book. Read it slowly and carefully, looking up and thinking carefully about the Scriptures the writers cite. I forced myself to slow down and study the book carefully--as a result, I have gained a great deal more understanding about all three positions. And this even though I was already familiar with the issues, have studied the Bible for over 40 years, and have a graduate degree in Bible. Five stars, heartily recommended no matter what your starting position might be on the millennial question. -
"This book is written because each contributor is convinced that thinking theologically about the culmination of God's plan represents an important area of doctrine that should not be dismissed as irrelevant. It is worthwhile to engage one another on this topic and think through the nature of our differences about it. [...:] These essays reveal significant differences int he various views, yet they all affirm the ultimate victory of God--a victory that has fundamental significance for all Christians in expressing the hope that is part of the gospel."
An interesting and informative survey of the three dominant eschatological (end-times) positions in mainstream Christianity. Ultimately, none of the three contributors makes what I would call a conclusive argument. But they generally treat each other (and the other views) with respect and fairness. -
Yes after reading this book I literally have a thousand questions to ask…no wait, or is it figuratively a thousand questions to ask? Well that’s the question you’ll still be asking after reading this book—is it literal or is it figurative? I came to this book somewhat undecided about the whole millennial issue. I knew what most people believed that share my system of theology but that was not the system I grew up on. This book gave me my first opportunity sit down and think, “what do I believe?” after re-working my theology. When I read the section on Postmillennialism I though I was a postmillennialist. When I read the section on Amillenialism I thought I was an Amillenialist. When I read the section on Premillenialism I realized I wasn’t a premillenialist anymore. But the one thing I’ll probably never be about this subject is dogmatic. There were aspects of each position that I agreed with, some aspects I disagreed with, and other aspects that I didn’t ever even think about before.
Now when I mention that I realize that I am no longer a premillenialist please don’t infer that Dr. Blaising didn’t present his position in a cogent manner. Quit the contrary. In fact while reading his thesis I did find myself saying that if I still believed in his system of theology, dispensationalism, I would find myself agreeing with his position. And that is what makes this subject problematic—each position isn’t just an indicator of what millennial position the person holds but what hermeneutic and system of theology a person holds. On this issue Dr. Blaising gives a lengthy analysis of the bias theologians brought to this issue throughout the history of the church; a much too lengthy analysis for this book but necessary to consider nonetheless. Bias is something we all bring to the table when we sit down to interrupt the Bible. The question isn’t if we have a bias when but what bias is the best bias to be biased with? If the reader attempts to seek the answer to this question perhaps he/she will come to a better understanding of each authors positions and determine which one best fits in the puzzle. Further study will be required, as I have found out for myself, but at least now I have a reference and hopefully you will as well.
This book is part of Zondervan’s counterpoint series in which authors of each position write a positional paper, these positional papers are then given to the other authors for their reply and rebuttal. Since for this book we have three different views on the millennium this means we have three papers on each position taken: One positional paper and two replies. Each author did an excellent job of attempting to present their position within the limited pages they had although you will notice some issues are not given enough attention. Each author showed great erudition and exegesis of the subject so get ready for a good battle, within the pages and within yourself, while reading.
Dr. Gentry had the dubious distinction of leading the pack with his essay on Postmillennialism. Being a theonomist Dr. Gentry presents the theonomic postmillennial position that “sees the gradual return to biblical norms of civil justice as a consequence of widespread gospel success through preaching, evangelism, missions, and Christian education.” (p. 19) [emphasis authors]. As you can see this is a very optimistic position concerning the future of mankind. It is theonomic in that it sees the return of the law of God, not the sacrificial law but the moral law. It posits a period prior to the return of Christ, the Parousia, when their will be joy and prosperity under a mostly Christian like world. It has a preterist interpretation of the book of Revelation and other judgment passages of the New Testament. The preterist interpretation sees the end day prophecies as already being fulfilled, specifically around the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70. And the postmillennial position holds a strong view of the sovereignty of God and through this seeing “the vast majority of the world’s population to convert to Christ as a consequence of the Spirit-blessed proclamation of the gospel” (p.22).
Postmillennialism views this age that we are in the millennium as God works through His chosen people to restore His creation “back to its original purpose of bringing positive glory to Him” (p.23). A particular point of interest about this position is that they also see Christ being installed as King, ruling from God’s right hand and being given all authority and when all things are brought under His feet, then the end will come. Therefore postmillennialists see the millennium as being symbolic, not a literal thousand-year period at the end of which is the Parousia—the return of Christ.
Dr. Strimple presents the Amillennial position. The name itself implies no millennium however it’s a literal, earthly millennium their position is against. Amillenialism sees the millennium as being spiritual, that the new heaven and new earth are with Christ and us here on earth and in heaven. They posit that Christ is the true Israel and we, who are chosen by God, by being in Christ are the true Israel and therefore receive the blessings promised to Israel in the Old Testament. “We believers get in on the blessings promised to Israel only because by God’s grace we are in him who is God’s elect Israel, and by God’s grace those blessings are extended to those who are united to Christ by faith” (p.89). They view the Kingdom as having come but in the dialectic of the now and not yet. Life goes on here on earth. We experience the blessings of God spiritually here on earth while physically still experiencing the consequences of the fall, looking forward to the parouisa.
Amillenialism views the following events as being concurrent: “the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of believers (and the ‘change’ of living believers, 1 Cor. 15:51), the resurrection of the unjust, judgment for all, the end, the new heaven and new earth, and the inauguration of the final kingdom God, the blessed eternal state of the redeemed” (p.100). They see the end of Christ’s mediatorial reign at the end, when Christ hands over the kingdom to the Father and death is destroyed and therefore the beginning of His reign at His resurrection and exaltation.
Finally Dr. Blaising presents his position on Premillennialism. Dispensational Premillennialism to be exact which is what makes this part of the review difficult. It’s difficult because there are premillennialist who are not dispensational and who don’t hold the same distinction between Israel and the Church that dispensationalist’s do and even within dispensational Premillennialism we find various distinctions due to the spiritual vision model and the New Creation model of hermeneutics. But to summarize Dr. Blaising’s Premillennialism they believe in a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 in that there will be a literal 1,000-year kingdom, on earth, initiated at the return of Christ: “the only positive features that unify premillennial views ancient and modern are those that dispensational Premillennialism affirms as well—a millennial kingdom in which Satan is bound, instituted after the visible coming of Christ, and a partial resurrection of the dead but prior to the Final judgment” (p.187).
Because of the distinction premillennialist make between the Church and Israel various complicated interpretations of prophecy lead to a dualist millennialism where there’s a millennium in heaven for those who have passed on in Christ prior to the parouisa and a real millennium on earth for the Jews and others on the earth at the time of the parouisa: “classical dispensationalism maintains two different premillennialisms conjoined together. The church looks forward to a spiritual millennial experience…After the Millennium, the church would remain in haven for a final state, much as the spiritual vision model had traditionally predicted. During the same millennial period, however, Israel and Gentile nations would be on the earth, experiencing an earthly, physical, and political millennial kingdom that correlates with a literal interpretation of Old Testament eschatology. After the Millennium, these peoples would be brought into an eternal enjoyment of those blessings as the earth was being renewed” (p. 183-184).
To summarize the positions Dr. Bock, as general editor, offers three good questions to keep in mind when examining each position:
1. Is the end a gradual improvement where we will see the church usher in the victory with Christ (so Postmillennialism)?
2. Does the end involve an apocalyptic act of Christ moving us directly into eternity (so Amillennialism)?
3. Is the end a coming of victory on this earth through Christ in the completion of promises yet to be realized in the midst of catastrophic judgment and earthly rule (so Premillennialism)?
(p. 283)
While reading this book you will note a couple of major disputes arise and focusing on in detail. What is the nature and relationship of Israel and the Church? The other being how should Revelation 20 be interpreted?
Romans 11 is the focus of debate between the distinction of Israel and the Church. In Romans 9 Paul states, “For they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Romans 9:6) here using the word Israel twice but referring to two different meanings. There are natural Jews who are of the Nation of Israel but who are not elect and therefore not of the Body of Christ, the Church, the true Israel. Premillennialism’s arguments I don’t believe are cogent at this point where it argues that Paul, in this section of Romans, argues, “Israel as a whole has fallen from favor because of a partial hardening has set in” (p. 147-148). The distinction Paul is drawing out has a deeper significance than that, as already stated, and when all “Israel” will be saved is best interpreted as when all the elect Gentiles and Jews, who have been chosen by God, have entered into the body of Christ.
Revelation is a very symbolic book therefore I believe the obligation of Premillennialism to provide a cogent explanation of why Revelation 20:2 should be taken literally considering even the surrounding symbolic imagery presented in the chapter. Is there a literal bottomless pit that Satan is cast into? Does Satan look literally look like a dragon and serpent? If it is a literal bottomless pit and he is literally released how does he get out? Was he clinging to the sides of the pit? Now you make think this are silly questions and I grant they are but the point is there is symbolism to the left and to the right of the reference to the 1,000 years—why then should the 1,000 years be interpreted literally? Premillennialism doesn’t answer this question to my satisfaction and that is why I am not a premillennialist any longer. Maybe you will disagree and that’s okay because I can’t be dogmatic about the millennium and it will all pan out in the end anyway (I couldn’t resist!). -
A somewhat helpful yet underwhelming but collection of essays on the Bible's teaching about the millennium. It includes 1 essay each about postmillennialism, amillennialism, and premillennialism, with each followed by responses from the other 2 sides. It's like a debate in book form. The essays and responses are less persuasive than others I've read. The final essay by the editor highlights the "hermeneutical, theological, and exegetical issues."
I think the presentation of the amil position was the most biblically sound.
The postmil and amil authors are Reformed.
Notes
Postmillennialism
Both postmil and amil fit within Apostles' Creed and other ancient creeds.
Postmil: Eusebius, Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Samuel Rutherford, John Owen, Isaac Watts, Jonathan Edwards, John Calvin, Martin Bucer, Theodore Beza, William Carey, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, J.A. Alexander, Robert L. Dabney, William G.T. Shedd, A.A. Hodge, B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, John Murray, Loraine Boettner, J. Marcellus Kik, J. Ligon Duncan.
Preterism holds that prophecies of intense evil were fulfilled in 1st century, under 42-mo long Neronic persecution (Rev 13:5), 42-mo long Jewish war with Rome (Rev 11:1-2), destruction of temple (Matt 23:36 - 24:34). It holds that Great Tribulation (Mt 24:21) occurred in generation living when Christ spoke (Mt 24:34); Antichrist was was in 1st century (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7).
Messianic psalms (2; 22:7; 67:2, 7; 72; 86:9; 87:4; 102:15; 110:1) speak of Christ's victory over nations, and all nations worshiping Him.
Isa 2:2-4 (cf. Mic 4:1-3) says that during "last days" (between 1st and 2nd Coming) there will be global influence of Christianity, resulting in mass conversions, righteous living, international peace, prosperity.
Parable of yeast (Mt 13) speaks of Christ's kingdom spreading through and dominating entire world, so that Christ returns to wheat field, not weed field (13:30).In that day Christianity will be the rule rather than the exception; righteousness will prevail and evil will be reduced to negligible proportions. The world system will operate on a Christian ethico-redemptive basis. Christ’s providential application of his redemption will gradually bring in a time of universal worship, peace, and prosperity.
1 Cor 15:20-28 speaks of Christ subduing all enemies (except death) in time and on earth, prior to final resurrection.
1,000 years is symbolic. 1,000-year reign of Christ is only mentioned in Rev 20. If literal earthly millennium were so important, it should be mentioned in other places. Rev is most figurative book in Scripture. 1st event in Rev 20 vision is binding of Satan with a chain, which is not literal.
Satan was bound at Christ's 1st Coming (Mt 12:28-29), and will be bound until just before 2nd Coming (Rev 20:2-3, 7-9). Satan is restrained, not completely inactive. He can't prevent spread of Gospel to Gentiles. While he's bound, Christ rules and His redeemed people (dead and living) participate in that rule (Rev 20:4-6; Eph 2:6; 1 Cor 3:21-22; Col 3:1-2).
Amillennial Response to Postmillennialism
NT teaches that time of universal worship, peace, prosperity will come only at Christ's 2nd Coming (Heb 9:28).
Jesus never predicted a glorious future on earth before end of world. Church will suffer as He suffered. Only in age to come will Christians receive everything back (Mt 19:27-30; cf. 5:3-12; 8:19-20; 10:16-42; 16:24-27; Jn 16:2, 33; 17:14-15).
Paul wrote of suffering as characteristic of NT era (Rom 8:18, 36; Jn 16:33; Acts 14:22; 2 Cor 1:5-10; Phil 1:29; 3:10; 1 Pet 4:12-19).
NT compares NT era to strangers in desert, on way to Canaan (Heb 3:7-9; 11:13; 13:14).
Olivet Discourse describes destruction of temple as typological fulfillment of final judgment; final deliverance of elect will occur only at 2nd Coming (Mt 24:3), while tribulation, wars, famines, earthquakes are present until then.
Nero can't be "lawless one" whom Lord destroys when He comes (2 Thess 2:8), or beast of Revelation who will be defeated in Armageddon (Rev 19).
NT teaches that believer's hope is 2nd Coming, not golden age prior to it (1 Thess 1:9-10; Titus 2:12-13; Heb 9:28; Jas 5:7; 1 Pet 1:13; 2 Pet 3:11-12).
Not all theologians cited as premil earlier actually were. John Calvin wasn't; he and other leading Reformers agreed with Second Helvetic Confession, which in article 11 (cf. art 27) condemns idea of golden age on earth before Judgment Day, based on Mt 24-25; Lk 18; 2 Thess 2; 2 Tim 3-4.
Postmil isn't clearly, explicitly taught anywhere in Bible. It's based on inference and implication.
Golden age prior to 2nd Coming isn't mentioned in NT eschatological texts (Olivet Discourse; 1 Cor 15; 2 Pet 3; Rev), and NT doesn't apply any OT messianic psalms or prophecies to a golden age.
Premillennial Response to Postmillennialism
Pattern of judgment on unrepentant world describes world Jesus will return to (though destruction of Jerusalem may be partial fulfillment); NT presents 2nd Coming as into a hostile context.
There will be no lasting or permanent establishment of Christ's kingdom until He returns. Bible says our hope is on 2nd Coming (1 Pet 1:13; 2 Tim 4:1; Titus 2:13).
Amillennialism
Types (sacrifices, feasts, temple, land, etc.) passed away because they were fulfilled in Christ; they won't be restored in future (Mt 12:6; Jn 2:19-22).
Prophecies of restoration and renewal of earth are about new heaven and earth (Isa 65:17; 66:22; 2 Pet 3:13; Rev 21:1).
OT doesn't teach future millennial kingdom of Christ, but His everlasting kingdom and blessings. NT doesn't teach future millennial kingdom of Christ, and rules it out because it teaches concurrency of the following: 2nd Coming, resurrection of believers, resurrection of unbelievers, judgment of all, the end, new heaven and earth, final kingdom of God, blessed eternal state of believers.
Believers and unbelievers will be resurrected at same time (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15).
Believers and unbelievers will be judged at same time, at 2nd Coming (2 Thess 1:5-10; 4:15-18).
Universe will be renewed/restored (Rom 8:17-23; Mt 19:28; Acts 3:21), not annihilated. Universe has childbirth pains (Rom 8:22), not death pains. Peter compares final judgment to Flood, which didn't annihilate world (2 Pet 3:6). Paul speaks of "new man" and "new creation" as old being made new (Eph 4:25; Col 3:10; Gal 6:15).
2 Pet 3:3-14 speaks of both 2nd Coming and renewal of cosmos as what Christian is watching for, because they'll occur together.
Victory over death will occur at resurrection of believers (1 Cor 15:54), which is at 2nd Coming (v 23) which is "the end" (v 24-26).
Even if Rom 11 predicted mass conversion of ethnic Israel prior to 2nd Coming, that wouldn't prove any particular millennial position.
Rom 9-11 doesn't speak of return of Jews to Promised Land, Christ reigning in Jerusalem, or "golden age" prior to 2nd Coming.
Rom 11 isn't about predicting future, but about explaining Paul's motive for his ministry (note word "now" in v 30-31).
Rom 11:25 means that ethnic Israel's hardening will continue until full number of Gentiles has converted.
OT prophecies speak of earthly Canaan and Jerusalem, which aren't mentioned in Rev 20. OT prophecies speak of an everlasting kingdom, but Rev 20 speaks of a thousand-year kingdom.
End of Rev 19 goes to end of the age (2nd Coming, final battle, judgment on beast and false prophet). It doesn't necessarily follow that Rev 20 speaks of what will happen next; it may return to 1st Coming and present gospel age.
Rev 20:1-10 is figurative representation of Christ's victory over Satan at cross and 2nd Coming.
Satan was bound when Christ died on the cross, meaning Satan was no longer able to deceive nations, and Gentiles could be converted in large numbers (Acts 2:17; 26:17-18).
Rev 16:14; 19:19; 20:8 all speak of "the battle," the same battle.
Rev 20:4-6 shows Christians reigning with Christ between their death and the 2nd Coming.
"1st resurrection" (Rev 20:5-6) is when believer dies and enters Christ's presence. "2nd resurrection" is bodily resurrection at 2nd Coming.
1,000 years (Rev 20:6) is symbolic, contrasting 1) glorious state of martyrs after brief time of tribulation with 2) eternal life.
Postmillennial Response to Amillennialism
New heaven and earth in Isa 65 and Rev 21 speak of revolutionary world after 1st Coming; Isa 65:20 speaks of sin and death, and Rev 22:6 demands temporal nearness of new creation.
Premillennialism
Historicist premil primarily existed in 17th-19th centuries. It considered much of Daniel and Rev already fulfilled. It considered each day in biblical prophecy to equal a year of actual history.
Isa 65:17-25 describes "new world of the eschatological kingdom" but still contains death. Isa 25 predicts God's reign without death. Death won't be abolished until after millennium (Rev 20:12 - 21:4). Some passages predict eschatological kingdom in which sin is present, while others exclude it; this may point to 2 phases of kingdom, before and after final judgment.
Rev 20:4-6 speaks of believers raised from physical death to reign with Christ on earth (Rev 2:10, 26-27; 3:21; 5:10; 20:4).
Word "resurrection" in Bible always refers to bodily resurrection after physical death.
"Came to life" (Rev 20:4) can't mean spiritual life, otherwise everyone would receive spiritual life later (Rev 20:5).
Postmillennial Response to Premillennialism
Preteristic premil sees Isa 25, 65-66; Rev 21; Rom 8 as new heaven, earth, and Jerusalem in permanent establishment of Christianity in God's judgment on Israel when He destroyed Jewish order in AD 70. Great tribulation against temple (Matt 23:38 - 24:3, 14; Rev 11:1-2) in Judea (Mt 24:16; Rev 11:8) was to occur in "this generation."
Nothing in Rev suggests a rapture.
Why would rest of NT teach a single resurrection on last day (Jn 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24; 1 Cor 15:23-24, 52), then Rev teach 2 distantly separated resurrections?
Main point of Rev is to prophesy destruction of Jerusalem and temple in AD 70, expanding on Christ's teaching Mt 23-24.
If we're in "last days," how can more days follow in a whole new earthly era?
Premil teaches 1,000 yrs in which glorified, resurrected saints mingle on earth with mortal, fallen sinners who eventually attack the immortals (Rev 20:7-9).
Premil teaches a 2nd humiliation of Christ, when people rebel against Christ's earthly kingdom (Isa 66:1; Mt 5:35; Acts 7:49; Rev 20:7-9).
Premil teaches retrogression back to typological temple-sacrificial worship.
Amillennial Response to Premillennialism
2 Pet 3:13 and Rev 21:1 interpret Isa 65-66 as eternal dwelling place of God's people (New Jerusalem).
Summary Essay
Categories of prophecy and apocalyptic aren't mutually exclusive; apocalyptic is special form of prophetic declaration.
NT consummation texts "update" earthly language of OT consummation texts (taught by amil and premil).
Israel has been incorporated into church in NT; what's said of Israel in OT applies to church in NT (taught by postmil and amil).
OT worship contains types/patterns/shadows of NT realities, never to be resumed (Heb 8-10; Jn 2:18-22; Acts 7) (taught by postmil and amil). Ezek 40-48 is metaphor for worship in church or heaven, not about future earthly temple.
Rev may address present and also point to future. E.g., beast could be/include 1st century Rome and be type of future world power.
Imagery in Rev could be 1) John making his point with symbolic imagery to represent a described reality, or 2) John seeing a vision that he describes visually as best he can. Option 2 is problematic, because 1) it means no one in John's time or for centuries after could understand the message, 2) it assumes fulfillment will happen in our time, and 3) it ignores the genre of Rev. -
Eschatology is a challenging and controversial subject. Even among the main views, there are variants within each. There are also a number of aspects of eschatology that are significant for debate. This book focuses primarily on one of them - the nature and timing of the millennial kingdom described in Revelation (and what follows) - but addresses more broadly some of the general issues of eschatology as well to some degree.
The format involves an essay from each of the three primary views on the millennium (postmillennialism, amillennialism, and premillennialism) followed by a response or critique to each from the two alternate views.
Kenneth Gentry began with a relatively brief summary of postmillennial thought. I was probably least familiar with postmillennialism prior to reading this book, although my impression as I began the chapter was that postmillennialism was a view with essentially no Scriptural support. Unfortunately for Dr. Gentry, I finished the chapter without having my view changed.
If postmillennialism is the emperor, then Bruce Strimple and Craig Blaising demonstrated rather conclusively that he is decidedly unclothed. As they noted, none of the passages Gentry marshaled to his cause actually teach postmillennialism. At absolute best many of them *could* be understood that way if the teaching is explicit elsewhere. One might assume that place would be Revelation 20: The universally accepted passage that definitively refers to a millennial kingdom (regardless of how one might interpret it). That is why it was striking that Gentry was openly reluctant to talk about Revelation 20 at all.
In the end, as Gentry's colleagues observe, Gentry not only failed to demonstrate how any of the passages he referred to necessitate a postmillennial view, his vision of the millennial kingdom -- a period when the world is gradually won to Christ -- is one that is neither taught anywhere, or even logically cohesive. In the last two-thousand years, there has to be any evidence of this supposed advance of the kingdom, thus raising the obvious question: When will this kingdom start? Additionally, this millennial kingdom seems to have essentially no purpose.
Strimple quotes Gentry in this devastating evaluation of postmillennialism. "Later in the essay Gentry makes the startling statement that the 'redeemed world system in the future...[will operate] on the basis of righteousness as God originally intended it... Righteousness will prevail and evil will be reduced to negligible proportions'. Is God's original intention simply that evil should be 'reduced to negligible proportions'?! If this is 'the postmillennial hope', it contrasts poorly with the amillennial hope."
Next up, Strimple lays out his case for amillennialism. I was more familiar with amillennialism than postmillennialism entering the essay, but I was still hoping for a robust presentation of the view. And while parts of the study were instructive, I was dismayed at how much time Strimple took (of a very limited amount allotted to each writer) to address Romans 11 and, e.g. what is meant by 'and so, all Israel will be saved'. This stunned me, because even a number of amillennialists see no contradiction between a belief in the future mass salvation of Jews in the end times, nor is it a necessary position for premillennials (or, to my knowledge, postmillennials). To me, it seemed an absolute waste of precious time to devote significant space to an issue that, as far as I'm concerned, is tertiary to the larger millennial question. Did Strimple really have nothing better to write in his allotted space?
Sadly, Gentry spent far too much of his rebuttal time pointlessly refuting Strimple's position on Romans 11. This again was disappointing. Blaising's response was a bit more helpful, but he seemed to get sidetracked in a discussion of spiritual-vision eschatology vs. new creation eschatology. More on that in a moment.
In Blaising's case for premillennialism (which, incidentally, was significantly longer than either of his colleagues), he oddly chose to begin with a lengthy historical survey of philosophy and theology in the church and how it related to millennial thought. The purpose appeared to be demonstrating that other millennial positions were rooted in spiritual vision eschatology which itself was rooted in Platonist thought, whereas premillennialism was the natural view once one acknowledged the new creation view of eschatology. This would later prove to be at best a waste of time, and at worst inaccurate and unhelpful to the discussion.
Where Blaising shines is in his analysis of Revelation and the outline of it, and particularly his exegesis of Rev. 19-20. There were points raised here, and in regards to arguments against premillennialism that a millennial kingdom in the middle of 'the day of the Lord' was simply not possible. Blaising correctly notes that such an interpretation would be precisely what one reading the OT might think in regards to the Messianic coming. Such a division is not only possible in NT thought, it is most consistent with Revelation. Further, the critique that such a kingdom is only found explicitly (as both Blaising and Gentry point out, there are places in (e.g.) Isaiah which simply cannot refer to eternity because they describe a reality fundamentally unlike the present age but also include things (e.g. sin and death) that have no purpose in being there if they describe heaven as Strimple argues) in Revelation is not the problem that critics seem to believe.
Perhaps the best positive argument Blaising makes is in regards to the resurrection described in Rev. 20 and how incompatible it is with the amillennial view (it may be compatible with postmillennialism, but postmillennialism makes far less sense overall of Revelation (due to the difficulty of reading Preterism into a great deal of Revelation) and Scripture in general as noted). He also shows how faulty the recapitulation framework of Revelation is in regards to the resurrection and elsewhere.
While Gentry and Strimple score points in their rebuttals when they note they both hold to new creation eschatology and that Blaising's historical analysis seems suspect, they either ignore or are unable to refute his strongest points, leaving Blaising with the only position ultimately left standing in my judgment. Admittedly, having done a fair degree of personal study as I preached through many of the relevant passages, my own position has always been premillennial, so my own biases no doubt shade my reading of each position.
To me, the notion of recapitulation in Revelation (i.e. that the visions are largely cycling through the same story with differing imagery) is exceedingly poor hermeneutics. For one thing, while Gentry and Strimple plead that Revelation is simply too unclear to base any theology (particularly progressive revelation) off of. Unfortunately for them, Revelation follows a close pattern with Daniel, and in Daniel much of the prophecy has been fulfilled (e.g. regarding Alexander the Great in Daniel 8), giving us a pattern for how to interpret the rest of the prophecies in the book, as well as Revelation. Those who see Revelation as either essentially fulfilled (Preterist) or almost exclusively symbolic with little to no literal fulfillment (Idealist) find themselves with a nearly incomprehensible book, consistency of interpretation and agreement amont those who study it only being possible when one simply interprets the whole consistent with their own hermeneutical presuppositions. When taken relatively straightforwardly, the symbols are plain and overall interpretation is relatively simple and generally clear.
It seems to me also that amillennials fail to account for the overall clear narratival progression throughout the book (with occasional interruptions). What they miss is how the series of judgments necessarily lead into one another. The seventh seal is the seven trumpet judgments. The seventh trumpet is the seven bowl judgments. What we see in Revelation is not recapitulation, but, as elsewhere in the NT describes: The increasing pains of labor (1 Thess. 5:3, and especially Matt. 24:8) leading to the climax of joy at the birth - the resurrection of our bodies at Christ's return.
All in all, the book was a solid enough presentation of the three views, but each view ultimately struggled at times, which is unfortunate given the lack of time they had to present their view. Each view needed to be sharp, and none were to the degree they needed to be. Still, for any unclear and interested on how one should understand the millennium, it is a useful book on the whole, although one might be best starting with Bock's summary essay at the end in order to understand the differences and what issues are key. -
I have a hard time explaining why I dislike this book so much. I wholeheartedly enjoy reading books on Theology, and eschatology is no exception. I found all 3 authors immensely difficult to read, not because I didn't understand the words they were using but because of their awkward, unnatural sentence structures and the disjointed style they each had when unfolding their individual arguments.
I would say that 80% of the given arguments were fairly weak and inconclusive. They possibly would have served as interesting pieces of additional supporting evidence, but they made up the main core of each side's arguments.
Maybe it's just where I am now. Maybe I'm not smart enough now, although I do read a fair amount of dry scholarly books. Maybe eschatology is a branch of Theology that I'm not motivated enough to study right now. Maybe I pick this book up again in 5 years and find it immensely insightful and educational. But right now I have to say it's just plain frustrating. -
I read this and "The Meaning of the Millennium" (ed. Robert Clouse) back to back. If you're diving into this topic, both books are worth reading. Clouse's book is a little bit easier to read, while "Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond" (ed. Bock) is more academic. I thought the stand-out in Bock's book (this one) was Gentry, the advocate for the Postmillennial position, while I thought the standout in "The Meaning of the Millennium" was Hoekema for the Amillennial position.
I was surprised I preferred Blaising's Premillennial contribution in this book compared to it being broken into two (Historic and Dispensational Premillennial positions). Blaising is skillful in making the argument for the broader position and I thought much more persuasive than his counterparts in "The Meaning of the Millennium."
One quibble with both books: I wish that there was a clearer explanation of which church theologians were aligned with which camps. It appears that oftentimes, camps claim the same theologians as their forebearers.
For more reviews see thebeehive.live. -
Perhaps it is due to the complexity of the subject matter but I did not find this book to be helpful in clarifying much of anything.
One of my greatest critiques of the book, however, is the way the book is organized. I believe that the summary essay could have been split in two parts. If the discussion of preunderstandings and textual issues had been considered at the outset, I believe that would have been immensely clarifying for the new student. Instead, one must wade through each of the arguments and rebuttals, only to have the presuppositions of the authors clarified at the end of the book. If I had not studied much theology before, it would have helped me to have seen the apocalyptic, typological, etc. issues explained before diving into arguments. In that sense, I would have been prepared for what I was about to read. -
This book presents the three millennial positions (premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism) with vivid detail and in comprehensible language. This book is well recommended if millennial eschatology is of any interest to you (to which I would think that, as a Bible believer, it should most definitely be of interest to you!).
-
Solid resource for understanding 3 of the primary views of the Millennium. It is always helpful to read the "critiques" from the other authors at the end of each chapter. However, I think this book would have been more helpful with a chapter on dispensational premillennialism. Though I do not hold to it, it would be helpful to contrast it to the others.
-
Does not really answer any questions. But I did find it quite helpful to read cogent thinkers defend a variety of perspectives. Yet every one of the, had significant holes exposed by the critiques of the others.
-
If you are looking for a book to help clarify these positions, in an accessible way, this book may not be the best help. I had hoped for that, but felt it was thoroughly lengthy and difficult to stick with. That may just be me, but that is my experience.
-
Not top-notch, but a helpful overview of the three positions.
-
If you are looking for an introductory book regarding different views on Millennium, this is not the one I would recommend.
-
Over the past couple of months, I have sought to gain a better understanding of eschatological issues such as the rapture, the tribulation, the future of Israel, and the Millennium. This book provides a great starting point for those wanting to develop a better understanding of the complex issues that are involved in one's view of the end times. The three contributors do a great job of presenting their views in a scholarly manner without resorting to emotionally-driven arguments or extreme exaggerations of the others' views (i.e., no name-calling or accusations of being a theological liberal). I briefly want to touch on each author's contributions.
Kenneth Gentry's essay was well-written and helped me better understand the foundations of the postmillennial viewpoint. However, I found his arguments the least convincing. As Strimple pointed out in his response to Gentry, the entire postmil worldview is founded merely on implications and inferences from the text, not on any direct statements of Scripture. The Bible nowhere explicitly teaches that the church will gradually take over society and usher in a "Christianized" world. I also found his extreme preterism (i.e., that the events described in Revelation such as the tribulation, the coming of Christ, and the New Heavens and Earth have already taken place) somewhat disturbing as that seems to completely nullify the strong, universal language of Revelation.
Though I personally lean strongly towards premillennialism, I felt that Strimple made the best case for his view out of the three. Though I wish he would have given a history of his amil beliefs as the other two did for theirs, I appreciated his focus on the text of Scripture itself. Though I remained unconvinced of the amil viewpoint, I can't deny that Strimple made some strong arguments, particularly in his survey of texts that seem to teach that the coming of Christ is the "end-game" of world history (e.g. 1 Cor. 15 and 2 Pet. 3). His arguments about the New Testament's use of the Old Testament clearly disproved the hermeneutic of classical dispensationalism, but I still have a problem with his view that the New Testament is the ONLY authoritative standard by which to interpret the Old Testament. To me, this means that all principles of interpretation (except for that one) can be thrown out the window when it comes to reading the Old Testament, and it also seems to strip the OT of any definitive meaning about from the NT. I also found his interpretations of Romans 11 and Revelation 20 unconvincing, as he seemed to spend most of his time explaining away what those texts seem to be clearly teaching (that is, a future for Israel and an intermediate kingdom). Nevertheless, I appreciate Strimple's contribution as it has given me a much greater appreciation for the amil view.
Blaising's essay was interesting at several points, but I'm very disappointed at how he chose to use his space in the book. He was given a greater page limit to elaborate on and defend his view; yet the entire first half of his presentation was spent describing the history and variety of premillenial positions. He also spent an enormous amount of space giving an overview of the book of Revelation as a whole rather than focusing on chapter 20 and the surrounding context, which would have been enough to make his case. I wish he would have instead devoted more space to defending his method of interpreting the Old Testament or exegeting New Testament texts like the speeches of Acts or Romans 11. In a book where one is expected to "make a case" for their view, Blaising's essay was too bogged down with unnecessary information. However, he did still make some strong arguments for the premil view, such as the Old Testament expectations for a coming kingdom and a clear exegesis of Revelation 20.
Bock's essay summarizing the various issues in a study of eschatology and the millennium was very helpful and served as an example of the value of the book as a whole. The strength of this book is not that it presents the "definitive" case for each viewpoint. Rather, this is a book that will help one understand what factors inevitably shape one's view of the end times and provide a great starting-point for further eschatological studies. For someone wanting to begin a study of eschatology in order to come to some conclusion about these matters, I would highly recommend checking out this book. -
Helpful Overview
I enjoyed reading this book. Eschatology is the area of theology that I am probably weakest in. While I had a basic knowledge related to the three main positions in relation the the Millenium, I can now better understand the differing views. This book is also helpful, even if you've already made your choice on where you stand on this point, to better grasp why others believe what they believe. For those seeking to get a better handle on eschatology and the millennium I definitely recommend this read. It was a bit technical in some parts and I found myself getting a bit bogged down in places, which is why I gave it 4 stars, but in a book of this nature that could be unavoidable. -
I would give this 3.5 stars if I could. It was a good read, but like any debate-format book, it leaves you with more questions than answers. I thought the men did a good job of presenting their positions, but eschatology is one of those subjects that is so complex, it is hard to nail down in such a short volume. Thought provoking, however.
-
As opposed the "Four Views on Revelation" I found this book to be a bit easier to help me form my own opinion. End Times theology can be focused on far too often, but the back and forth between the Pre-Mil, Post-Mil, and A-Mil views helped me to see how important an eschatology really is.
-
I've never been satisfied with the most popular view of the day, premillennialism. This book gave a pretty good overview but the strength of each position as presented is wildly different. I hope that is just the skill of the presenters.
