One of the intellectual curiosities of the twentieth century is the
unwillingness of scholars and Christian leaders to admit the existence of
a major school of Biblical interpretation. Although postmillennialism has
a long history as a major, and perhaps the central, interpretation of
Biblical eschatology, it is summarily read out of court by many on
non-Biblical grounds. According to Unger, "This theory, largely
disproved by the progress of history, is practically a dead issue."
This note resounds in the critical literature, the appeal, not to
Scripture but to history to read postmillennialism out of court.
Note, for example, the comments of Adams, ostensibly a Reformed
scholar, when he touches briefly on the subject:
The advent of two World Wars not only transformed yesterday's
optimistic modernism into today's pessimistic Neo-orthodoxy, but virtually
rang the death knell upon conservative postmillennialism as well
.
Currently, postmillennialism is considered all but a dead issue. It is
spurned as highly unrealistic because it predicts a golden age around the
corner in a day in which the world nervously anticipates momentary
destruction by nuclear warfare.
Such comments are in principle modernistic, in that they assess
Scripture, not in terms of itself, but in terms of the times, the modern
age. In terms of this emphasis, Adams gives some attention to criticizing
premillennialism, which seems relevant, he recognizes, because of its
pessimism concerning history, and gives no attention to postmillennialism
because history, not exegesis, has virtually made it "a dead
issue" for him. This constitutes Biblical interpretation according to
the state of world affairs!
Not only are such newspaper exegetes neglectful of the primacy of
Scripture as its own interpreter, but they also seriously misrepresent the
facts. Witness the comment of Lindsey:
There used to be a group called "postmillennialists." They
believed that the Christians would root out the evil in the world, abolish
godless rulers, and convert the world through ever increasing evangelism
until they brought about the Kingdom of God on earth through their own
efforts. Then after 1000 years of the institutional church reigning on
earth with peace, equality, and righteousness, Christ would return and
time would end. These people rejected much of the Scripture as being
literal and believed in the inherent goodness of man. World War I greatly
disheartened this group and World War II virtually wiped out this
viewpoint. No self-respecting scholar who looks at the world conditions
and the accelerating decline of Christian influence today is a
"postmillennialist."
Here again we have an implicit modernism: The "self-respecting
scholar
looks at world conditions" rather that Scripture in order
to decide on his eschatology!
The errors in Lindsey's brief statement are many, but one will suffice in
this context. Which of the postmillennial scholars held to "the
inherent goodness of man"? Did Calvin, Alexander, Charles Hodge,
Warfield, or others? In our day, does this belief in the fallen man's
goodness characterize Kik, Boettner, or this writer? Such a statement as
Lindsey makes has no foundation in fact and maligns a great and growing
school of thought.
Postmillennial thought will flourish because it is Biblical and is
therefore the eschatology of victory, or of salvation in its full sense.
It takes seriously all of Scripture and the resurrection. Christ's victory
is in time and eternity, in the world of matter as well as in the realm of
the spirit. "The accelerating decline of Christian influence
today" of which Lindsey speaks is a product of Christian irrelevance.
It was not World War I which led to an eclipse of postmillennialism;
rather, the growing modernism and atheism led to a rejection by the
natural man of that faith which asserted the "Crown Rights of King
Jesus" over the world. False eschatologies, by surrendering history
to the devil, hastened the retreat of Christian influence and power. Any
true revival of Biblical faith will also be a revival of
postmillennialism.
The sources of the modern dilemma are in part Manichaean. Basic to
Manichaeanism is the belief that the world is divided into two realms, the
realm of spirit, light, goodness, and the good god, and the realm of
matter, darkness, evil, and the bad god. In terms of this faith, man's
mission is not a missionary conquest of all things but withdrawal from a
hopelessly evil and satanic world into the world of spirit and light.
Asceticism has been a major expression of neo-Manichaeanism thinking, and,
in the early and medieval church, exercised a major influence. In modern
Protestantism, neo-Manichaeanism manifests itself in eschatologies which
surrender the world to the devil.
During the course of the past few years, this writer has been told
repeatedly by persons dissenting with his postmillennialism that the world
is ruled by Satan, and therefore postmillennialism is impossible. In the
minds of church members, this conclusion that Satan is ruler of time,
matter, and history brings logical and radical conclusions. It means the
surrender of the world to the enemy, the denial of the possibility of
social reform, and a hostility to any note of victory in preaching.
("Victorious living" becomes a neo-Manichaean flight into the
realm of spirit.) A prominent premillennialist preacher has declared,
"You don't polish brass on a sinking ship," thereby denying the
validity of any involvement in history. Others have insisted that Satan
rules the world and history. The Christian hope has been turned into
flight and despair.
Postmillennialism will again prevail, however, because it is the truth
of God and His enscriptured word. As an eschatology of victory, it will
inspire men with the power of God, and, as with great saints of old, and
the Puritans of yesteryears, lead again and more enduringly to the triumph
of Christ in every area, bringing every sphere of thought and action into
captivity to Christ.
The writings of J. M. Kik give us that eschatology of victory which
Scripture sets forth.
Rousas John Rushdoony
March 4, 1971
Buy It Now!
Back To Top
Back To Featured Books
BooklistBack Cover
There is a great debate today over the meaning of Matthew 24 and
Revelation 20, two passages central to any discussion of eschatology. Does
Matthew 24 prophesy a coming Great Tribulation or a premillennial return of
Christ? Does Revelation 20 describe a millennial age on earth, or in heaven?
Will the nations be converted before the coming of Christ?
J. Marcellus Kik provides great insight into these passages and the
questions that surround them. He writes, "It is the habit of a few to read a
few chapters of a book on prophecy to see to which school of thought the
author belongs. Then if they do not agree with his particular school it is
cast aside and condemned. It is my hope that the reader will not use the
norm of any particular school of prophecy but will use the Scriptures. Does
the Word of God teach this or does it not?"
States Rousas J. Rushdoony in the Introduction,
"Postmillennial thought will flourish because it is Biblical and is
therefore the eschatology of victory, or of salvation in its full sense. It
takes seriously all of Scripture and the resurrection. Christ's victory is
in time and eternity, in the world of matter as well as the realm of the
spirit."
J. Marcellus Kid studied for the ministry at both Princeton and
Westminster Theological Seminaries. He pastored churches in Canada for
twenty years, and has pastored in the United States. For four years he
served as Associate Editor of Christianity Today.
Buy It Now!
Back To Top
Back To Featured Books
Booklist