What is Postmillennialism

Dr. Thomas Ice

Postmillennialismis the belief that Christ will return after the millennium. Thus, the name "post" (after)millennial (1000). Allpostmillennialists believe that the current age is the kingdom, while somebelieve that the millennial phase of the kingdom is present and others holdthat it is yet future when the world has been Christianized. Postmillennialists also believe theChurch is the agent through which this return to Eden will be mediated by Christthe King from heaven. Mostpostmillennialist have stressed the preaching of the gospel, resulting in aconversion of most of mankind as the means for Christianization. However, the more recentReconstructionist version adds to evangelism obedience and faithfulness tobiblical law as a condition for victory. Some postmillennialist believe that the conversion of the world will bea very slow and gradual process, taking perhaps thousands of years more. On the other hand, others believe thatconversion could happen within a short period of time (about 10 years) as theresult of a great revival. Systematic postmillennialism was the last of the three majoreschatologies to develop. It wasfirst taught within the church in the seventeenth century.

Contemporary Reconstructionist,postmillennialist Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. gives the following sevencharacteristics of evangelical postmillennialism:

•First,postmillennialism "understands the Messianic kingdom to have been foundedupon the earth during the earthly ministry and through the redemptive labors ofthe Lord Jesus Christ. . . . the Church becomes the transformed Israel."

•Second,"the fundamental nature of that kingdom is essentially redemptive andspiritual . . . Christ rules His kingdom spiritually in and through His peoplein the world (representation), as well as by His universal providence."

•Third, Christ's"kingdom will exercise a transformational socio-cultural influence inhistory. This will occur as moreand more people are converted to Christ."

•Fourth,"postmillennialism, thus, expects the gradual, developmental expansion ofthe kingdom of Christ in time and on earth. . . . Christ's personal presence onearth is not needed for the expansion of His kingdom."

•Fifth,"postmillennialism confidently anticipates a time in earth history(continuous with the present) in which the very gospel already operative in theworld will have won the victory throughout the earth in fulfillment of theGreat Commission. . . . During that time the overwhelming majority of men andnations will be Christianized, righteousness will abound, wars will cease, andprosperity and safety will flourish."

•Sixth, there are"two types of postmillennialism today: pietistic and theonomic postmillennialism. . . . Pietisticpostmillennialism . . . denies that the postmillennial advance of the kingdominvolves the total transformation of culture through the application ofbiblical law. Theonomicpostmillennialism affirms this."

•Seventh,"possibly 'we can look forward to a great 'golden age' of spiritualprosperity continuing for centuries, or even for millenniums, . . .' After this . . . earth history will bedrawn to a close by the personal, visible, bodily return of Jesus Christ (accompaniedby a literal resurrection and a general judgment) to introduce His . . .consummative and eternal form of the kingdom."[1]

While many of thebasic elements of postmillennialism remain the same, distinction should be madebetween liberals who promote a postmillennialism through humanism (i.e., thesocial gospel of the past) and evangelical postmillennialism that promoteprogress through the church's preaching of the gospel and application of MosaicLaw. Both adhere to a gospelcombined with social change as the agency of change and progress. Thus, in a sense, evangelicalpostmillennialists believe that many nineteenth century postmills went astrayby adopting humanistic liberalism, instead they should have relied upon a moretraditional, conservative approach.

The historicalrise and development of postmillennialism has been the object of some dispute,partly because of some similarities between it and amillennialism. Amillennialism and postmillennialism,for example, would have Gentry's point one, two, and four in common. Thus, because of points of similarity,some have confused amillennialism and postmillennialism. Because of these similarities, it maybe difficult at times to clearly distinguish postmillennialism andamillennialism in history. It isthe differences that are significant, in spite of similarities. Both are clearly anti-premillennial.

It is generallythought that Daniel Whitby (1638-1725) developed systematic postmillennialism,as a clearly distinct form of millenarianism. This does not mean that elements of systematicpostmillennialism did not exist prior to Whitby, for they clearly did. However, it seems best to understandthe maturity of postmillennialism into a distinct system as post-Reformationaland in a sense an optimistic form of amillennialism. Thus, postmillennialism's development is dependent uponamillennialism.

Only a handful ofpartisan polemicists would attempt to argue that postmillennialism has apost-apostolic presence. "All seemto agree that postmillennialism is quite foreign to the apostolic church. There is no trace of anything in thechurch which could be classified as postmillennialism in the first two or threecenturies."[2]

The rise offigurative interpretation and Augustine's millennial interadvent theory beganto lay a foundation for the later development of postmillennialism. Augustine "held that the agebetween the first and second advents is the millennium of which the Scripturesspeak and that the second advent would occur at the end of the millennium. This is definitely a postmillennialviewpoint as it places the second advent after the millennium."[3] However, it is also at the same time anamillennial viewpoint. Augustineand his eschatology is best classified as amillennial because he lacked theoptimism required for a true postmillennial viewpoint, regardless of whateversimilarities they may have in common.

Anotherdevelopment that contributed to the development of systematic postmillennialismis the rise of Christendom and the merger of church and state withConstantine's declaration that Christianity was the new religion of the RomanEmpire (a.d. 313). Before Constantine it is estimated thatonly eight to ten per cent of the Empire was Christian. However, as the fourth century nearedits end, virtually all identified themselves as Christian. This development lead to a form ofvictory and optimism about the spread of Christianity and its ability toovercome even a hostile state, like the previously evil Roman Empire. However, such optimism was temperedwith the lost to Christendom of North Africa in the fifth century and the riseof militant Islam a few centuries later.

Joachim ofFloris' rise to prominence in the twelfth century certainly was a watershedevent in the development of eschatology. He not only laid the foundation for the historicist interpretation ofprophetic literature, but his optimism is seen by some as contributing to thedevelopment of postmillennialism. Whether or not he can be classified as a clear postmillennialist,[4]he certainly contributed to an optimistic view of history. E. Randolph Daniel notes,

the twelfth century wasoptimistic about history and the future. The Gregorian reformers certainly believed that they could dramaticallyreform and purify the Church on earth. Joachim, who was clearly Gregorian in his sympathies, believed thathistory was evolving toward the status of the Holy Spirit . . . when the Churchwould enjoy a historical era of peace and spiritual attainment that would farsurpass anything achieved in the past.[5]

While Joachimhelped prepare the way for the later development of postmillennialism, it isbest not to classify him as a millennialist.

Joachim's third status has often been described as chiliastic ormillennial, which implies that it constitutes a new beginning, the emergence ofa spiritual church that would replace the corrupt clerical church. Certainly the millennium as depicted inApocalypse 20 is a new beginning, but Joachim's status of the Holy Spirit isnot millennial in this sense. . . . Joachim's thinking is evolutionary, notrevolutionary. He was a reformer,not a millennialist.[6]

Joachim helpedprepare the way for postmillennialism by contributing an idea of optimism thatwas to be continuous with the course of the present age. His belief that it was to be an age ofthe Holy Spirit was often adopted by later postmillennialists.

The Reformationsprang out of an attitude of pessimism and despair. Marjorie Reeves notes, "E. L. Tuveson has argued thatthe classical attitude of Protestant reformers towards history was one ofpessimism: all things mustdecline; decay is the essential fact of history."[7] Robin Barnes says, "in the eyes ofmany Lutherans in the late sixteenth century, the entire social order appearedto be falling apart."[8]

John Calvin,while not reaching the depths of Luther's despair, cannot be claimed forpostmillennialism as some have done[9].just because he utters statements of optimism. Such statements need to be optimism within the context of apostmillennial creed. Calvin alsomade pessimistic statements: "There is no reason, therefore, why any person should expect theconversion of the world, for at length-when it will be too late, and will yieldthem no advantage."[10] Nevertheless, "despite Calvin's Augustinianavoidance of historically oriented eschatology, the hint of progressivism inhis thought left the way open for the frank meliorism and chiliasm of manylater Calvinist thinkers."[11]

It would be leftto the post-Reformation era for developments to spring forth into what canrightly be called postmillennialism. Joachim's idea of progress was recast into a "new interpretation ofthe Apocalypse and of the eschatological pattern which looked forward to somegreat transforming event rather than to inevitable decay."[12] Postmillennialism came into flower inthe 1600's as the "idea of novelty rather than return is seen in theexcited references to all the new manifestations of the age-the new lands, thenew learning, the new books, the new missionaries."[13] This was aided by the gains ofProtestantism over Catholicism in Europe as the new continued to gain over theold.

Thepostmillennialism of the seventeenth century consisted mainly of those whobelieved in the success of the preaching of the gospel and correspondingly theconversion of the Jews. The laterbelief was one held in common with premillennialism. Yet, even though there were a few prominentpostmillennialists in the seventeenth century, the position exploded intopopularity as a result of Whitby's "new interpretation" of Revelation20 at the dawn of the eighteenth century.

Contemporaryreconstructionist postmillennialists usually bristle at the reminder ofWhitby's key role in postmillennial history. Their defensiveness likely stems from the fact that Whitbywas a less than orthodox Unitarian. Nevertheless, it was as result of the efforts of Whitby who providedexegetical and theological definition for postmillennialism that the positionbegan to gain ground and become the dominate eschatology in Europe andeventually North America before its decline. Walvoord note the following concerning Whitby:

He was a liberal and afreethinker, untrammeled by traditions or previous conceptions of thechurch. His views on themillennium would probably have never been perpetuated if they had not been sowell keyed to the thinking of the times. The rising tide of intellectual freedom, science, and philosophy,coupled with humanism, had enlarged the concept of human progress and painted abright picture of the future. Whitby's view of a coming golden age for the church was just what peoplewanted to hear. It fitted thethinking of the times. It is notstrange that theologians scrambling for readjustment in a changing world shouldfind in Whitby just the key they needed. It was attractive to all kinds of theology. It provided for the conservative a seemingly more workableprinciple of interpreting the Scripture. . . . Man's increasing knowledge ofthe world and scientific improvements which were coming could fit into thispicture. On the other hand, theconcept was pleasing to the liberal and skeptic. If they did not believe the prophets, at least they believedthat man was now able to improve himself and his environment. They, too, believed a golden age wasahead.[14]

After gainingdominance in Europe and America among both conservatives and liberals,postmillennialism began a decline into near extinction. Fallout from the French Revolution inEurope dealt a severe blow to postmillennial optimism. Later, in the States, postmillennialdecline awaited the turn of the century and was dealt a near-fatal blow by WWIand WWII and identification with the Social Gospel and Liberalism. Only in the 1970's has postmillennialismbegan to reassert itself, primarily through the reconstructionistmovement. While postmillennialismhas made some gains in recent years, it is still a minor position in theoverall field of eschatology.

The greatestproblem with postmillennialism is the fact that the Bible just does not teachit. Where is a specific passagethat teaches the postmillennial concept? Not a passage that they think it their best, from which they attempt todevelop a postmillennial theology. I am asking for a passage that teaches the idea ofpostmillennialism. It is nowhereto be found in the Bible. Lack ofspecific biblical support is fatal to postmillennialism for any Bible believingChristian. This explains why theirnormal presentation approach is to first attack premillennialism and thenpresent broad theological concepts that one must adopt as a framework withwhich on needs to approach biblical texts.

Basic topostmillennialism failure to match up with Scripture is its lack of aconsistent hermeneutic. At keypoints, postmillennialism must abandon the literal hermeneutic of thehistorical, grammatical, and contextual approach for some degree ofspiritualization.

Nowhere does theNew Testament teach that the kingdom of God was brought into existence atChrist's first coming. The NewTestament does say that the kingdom was "near" during Christ's ministry, but itstops short of saying that it arrived during Christ's first coming. Furthermore, while personal redemptionis certainly an essential key to the kingdom, that fact should not be used tonegate equally clear teachings concerning the physical nature of this kingdom.

Thepostmillennial idea of progress is not found in any particular text of theBible. Rather, it appears to be anidea brought to the pages of Scripture. Postmillennialism is inconsistent with the biblical fact that thecataclysmic return of Christ brings in the kingdom (Rev. 19-20), not thepreaching of the gospel and gradual human progress. Gospel preaching in the current age is for the purpose of gatheringout the elect for the future kingdom. An increase in the number of Christian converts has not resulted in atransformational socio-cultural influence. Too often there has been cultural regression. Such thinking, by postmillennialists,falls far short of the Old Testament description of the actual conditions ofthe kingdom.

Postmillennialismconfuses Israel and the church. The postmillennial view requires the church to take over the fulfillmentof promises made to national Israel so that they may posit a presentkingdom. Modern postmillennialismneeds to posit replacement theology or supersessionism as a key plank in itstheology. Thus, it denies that themodern state of Israel could have any place in God's future propheticplan. Postmillennialism isanti-Zionist. The New Testamentnowhere teaches that Israel has been replaced by the church. Paul says to these things, "God has notrejected His people [Israel], has He? May it never be!" (Rom. 11:1) The church is certainly a partaken in the Abrahamic promises, but not ataker over of Israel's promises.

While it is truethat the Bible predicts an increasing spread of the proclamation of the gospelin the current age, this does not support the notion of postmillennialprogress. All millennial positions-pre,post, and amillennialism-believe in a global preaching and spread of the gospelduring the current age. Inaddition, the Bible speaks frequently in catastrophic and interventionistlanguage of Christ's return to earth as the cause of millennialconditions. Specific statements ofgradualism are lacking in the Bible. Postmillennialism also denies the New Testament teaching that Christcould return at any-moment, known as imminency. The Great Commission is being fulfilled, not by exercising acertain level of response to the gospel, but when the church is preaching thegospel and making disciples throughout all the nations. This is occurring in our own day.

Shifting frompietistic to theonomic will not make postmillennial sudden more effective inhistory. In fact, at leastpietistic postmillennialism was much more evangelistic than is the currentbrand of theonomic postmillennialism. If the church were looking to theonomic postmillennialism to show theway in the area of evangelism, then it would become extinct within ageneration.

If a viewpointtruly represents Scripture then it is not too much to ask it to be able tocorrespond to history. Postmillennialism teaches that this current age will be a time of steadyand upward growth. However, thisis impossible to defend from history. While the gospel frequently expands to new territories, at the same timeso many areas where the gospel has dominated society and culture there has beenregression and relapse, not progress. It appears that wherever Christianity has come to dominate the culture,and has lost that dominance, it has never been revived as a significantforce. This is not progress it isregression. At this point in time,history supports the premillennial notion of the global spread of the gospel,while at the same time the church becomes increasingly apostate.

Postmillennialismfails to account for the fact that if there is going to be a fulfillment ofmillennial conditions predicted in the Bible, it is going to be only as a resultof a revolutionary intervention of Jesus Christ at His second coming in orderto introduce new factors which are discontinuous with the present age. It will require the personal presenceof Jesus Christ Himself to role back the curse and to rule with a rod ofiron. Only the premillennial modelprovides the changes necessary to implement a millennial golden age.

Postmillennialismis taught nowhere in the Bible. The postmillennial model of historical expectations is alsofailing. It is therefore, morethan reasonable to conclude that postmillennialism is a deviant and unbiblicalaberration.

[1]Kenneth L.Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler,Tex.: Institute for ChristianEconomics, 1992), pp. 70-73.

[2]John F.Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1959), p. 19.

[3]Walvoord, MillennialKingdom, p. 19.

[4]D.H.Kromminga, The Millennium in the Church: Studies in the History of Christian Chiliasm (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1945), p. 20f.

[5]E. RandolphDaniel, "Joachim of Fiore: Patterns of History in the Apocalypse" in Richard K. Emmerson andBernard McGinn, editors, The Apocalypse in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), p. 73.

[6]Daniel,"Joachim," pp. 86, 87.

[7]MarjorieReeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle Ages: A Study of Joachimism (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), p. 501.

[8]Robin BruceBarnes, Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1988), p. 5.

[9]Gentry, HeShall Have Dominion, pp. 88-89.

[10]John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of theEvangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,n.d.) Vol. XVII, p. 147.

[11]Barnes, Prophecyand Gnosis, p. 33.

[12]Reeves, Influenceof Prophecy, p. 502.

[13]Reeves, Influence, pp. 502-03.

[14]Walvoord, MillennialKingdom, pp. 22-23.