Category: Eschatology

I have written a few comments in the past about some general frustration I have concerning the predominant Amillenial position in the Presbyterian Church of America. My constant exposure to godly Amillennarians like Dr. Simon Kistemaker (whom I love dearly as a professor and friend) and Professor Chuck Hill (whom I have grown to admire) has led me to be more humble in my assessment of their theological presuppositions. Nevertheless, the position held by these men falls short of a truly victorious gospel.

When Scriptures declare the “discipling of the nations” (Matthew 28:18-20) what shall we think? Is this a commandment expressing a unfulfilled desire or a future reality in history? When Christ says that all things–including his enemies– will be placed under his feet (I Cor. 15:24-26) before the end comes, are we to think that these enemies are immaterial beings? When God says that the nations will be given to the Son (Psalm 110), are we to think that these nations are not in space and in time, but rather a consummative promise? It is all non-sensical in my estimation. Postmillennialism is the ONLY eschatology that places heaven and earth at the feet of King Jesus and furthermore, destroys these detestable dichotomies of earth and heaven, flesh and spirit, things visible and things invisible and for the record, law vs. gospel. We MUST see these as unifying perspectives into one reality. God’s kingdom comes to manifest its glory on earth as it is in heaven; to transform flesh and spirit, things physical and things spiritual.

The common assumption is that Postmillennialists do not see “suffering” as a central motif in their eschatology and therefore it does not do justice to the New Testament. I have a fairly long response to this absurd accusation, but David Field has answered this question in a Q&A format that I highly recommend anyone read (click here).

Some years ago Dr. Kenneth Gentry debated Dr. Richard Gaffin. Gentry defending the Postmillennial view and Dick Gaffin defending the traditional Dutch Amillenialism. Though the debate was long and perhaps not the most revealing (since both speakers didn’t interact as much as I expected), one statement summarized Amillennialism best. Professor Richard Gaffin said: “The church wins by losing.” By this he means Christ manifests His glory through the church as she suffers for the cause of Christ. It is undeniable that the church suffers, but that is not the same as losing. Now winning is not losing and losing is not winning. This is standard logical procedure, but the paradoxical, Already/Not Yet, Vosian, Tension-Driven, World-is-becoming-worse scenario leaves me wondering how is that ever connected with “The gates of Hell shall not prevail.”

Dominion is an essential aspect of Biblical faith. Losing to this present world is NOT a victory. Christ demands and commands that His church be triumphant and victorious and the necessary ingredient to this victory is the proclamation of Christ’s Lordship in every area of life. His invisible kingdom is being made visible though eyes cannot see nor ears hear as clearly as some would desire. His church is conquering Asia, His gospel is being heard, and Christ is being glorified from sea to sea. All Glory and honor and power to the One exalted Lord Christ who rules now and forever. Amen.

Dee Dee Warren, a qualified apologist for Preterism has established the most thorough Website on Preterism (Orthodox) available on the web. Please visit.

John Hagee

It was Gary Demar who long ago delivered me from the oppressive system called Dispensationalism. Demar’s book entitled Last Days Madness was well researched and presented a strong exegetical case refuting modern eschatological hysteria. But recently even Catholics, Wesleyans, and others are coming to a realization that modern day TV prophets are not what they seem. The madness on any “christian” television station over the Middle East is remarkably pathetic. In one channel John Hagee is warning of an immediate attack of Northern armies into Israel, Russia’s involvement in the crisis, and the any-moment coming of Christ to rapture his church. This is the same John Hagee who said that those who held to Covenant Theoloy were condemned to hell. One wonders if he really believes 1850 years of Church History is in hell. But there is hope. In a recent article in the Toledoblade.com website there was mention of some scholars who actually disagree. You wouldn’t know there were alternate positions by listening to Jack Van Impe. Believe or not, not all Christain writers believe this rubbish. The article mentions the following:
Not all Bible scholars believe that the words of ancient prophets apply to today’s citizens.

The Rev. Kenneth Mormon, a Toledo Catholic priest teaching at Mount St. Mary Seminary in Cincinnati, said according to Catholic doctrine, the messages of Isaiah, Amos, and other prophets were intended for the people of their own time.

“Usually when we’re talking about Bible prophecy, we’re talking about apocalyptic works. But the messages are directed to their own contemporaries,” Father Mormon said.

“When God inspires an author to write for his people, he chooses a form — a letter, a parable, a drama, a short story, whatever it is. Apocalyptic writing is a kind of literature. If a prophet uses apocalyptic writing, he phrases the message in terms of a vision, a seer, with the symbolism explained to him by a heavenly messenger,” he said.

But although the message was intended for people living thousands of years ago, the Bible is always relevant and modern readers will still get something out of it, only in a different way than the prophet’s contemporaries, Father Mormon said.

Gary DeMar, an Atlanta-based author who has written several books on the End Times, also believes that many people are taking the prophets’ writings out of context.

“People who claim to interpret the Bible literally are very selective in terms of what they interpret,” Mr. DeMar said in an interview. “In Ezekiel 38 and 39, it obviously is about an ancient battle, the people are on horseback, they have shields, the loot they want is cattle, and this really has nothing to do with our time.”

Mr. DeMar, author of Last Days Madness, said it doesn’t make sense that prophecy watchers are always looking to verses in the Old Testament, while the New Testament is rarely cited.

“The New Testament is kind of an update of the Old Testament. It’s the new covenant. Yet they have to continue to go back to the Old Testament,” he said.

True exegesis concerns itself with time-texts, audience, language, genre, and so on. This is nowhere found in the Rapture craze so-called “preachers.” My opinion is that only Orthodox Preterism answers these questions. Preterism sees most prophecies in light of their audience expectations and not future illusions. This interpretative madness however will continue until the Middle East crisis is over and then they will find something else to consume their time. Trust me!

The partial-preterist view of eschatology is exploding across denominational lines. From the Southern Baptists and Presbyterians to the Church of Christ and the Wesleyans. American Vision is pleased to introduce this new partial-preterist/ victorious commentary on the book of Revelation by Vic Reasoner.

This is my last post on these various subjects for the time being. I shall conclude with some final observations on Hoekema and his criticism of Postmillennialist interpretation of Revelation 20.

There is little to disagree with in Hoekema’s writings regarding Revelation 20. I say little because Hoekema barely attempts to criticize Postmillennialism. His main critique of Postmillennialism has to do with the fact that modern Postmillenial thinkers such as Norman Shepherd (and I would add Gentry, Demar, and Dr. Greg Bahnsen) have come to adopt a traditionally Amillenial view of Revelation 20. Due to this agreement, Hoekema sees that one cannot establish a postmillennial paradigm from Revelation 20. Fortunately, the Postmillennialist has never solely depended on Revelation 20 to establish postmillenial precedents. The Prophetic literature is replete with images of victory on earth. Hoekema describes portions of Revelation 20 as heavenly in nature, but as Kik has demonstrated, the imagery is almost entirely earthly. The saints do reign with Christ now and will continue to reign until the end of the ages. Augustine’s understanding of the leadership of the church judging the saints as the ones seated on the thrones is fairly plausible, though I would more comfortably side with Kik who states that the saints are the ones reigning this present earth. We are, as Paul states, inheritors of the earth. The world belongs to the saints, not the opposite.

One final disagreement with Hoekema is due to his futuristic understanding of essentially every passage that deals with the triumph of the church on earth. He poses the question: “ Why cannot these passages be references to the New Earth?” The simplest answer is that the gospel of Christ makes promises that are to be fulfilled. They are not merely suggestive in nature. Secondly, to suggest all these passages (Psalm 2, 72, 110) are referring to the New Earth is to deny the clearly earthly language of prophetic literature. It is undeniable that the New Heavens and New Earth provides blessings beyond human imagination, but the prophetic passages about a time of prosperity refer to an earthly prosperity. If the texts wanted to refer to our eternal home it would indicate a sense of completion as in Revelation 22:5 which states that in the eternal home “they will reign with him forever and ever.” Notice that the language of Revelation twenty is limited by a number (1,000 years), which indicates limit. It is inescapable that all of the language used throughout Scriptures has present earthly language attached to it. For instance, in Isaiah, the prophet describes a time of unprecedented health where “infants will no longer live but a few days and man will live to be over a hundred (Isaiah 65:20-21). As Keith Mathison has pointed out, this great age, which will come upon the earth, will be a foretaste of the New Heavens and the New Earth. If Isaiah had in mind the ultimate estate of the saints he would not have used language that indicates time.

Postmillennialism is not a position that is held simply because of one’s joyful disposition towards the future of the world, but because it is untenable to hold to any other position without doing harm to the text. Postmillennialism is cogent, harmonious, and entirely Scriptural in its presentation.

Part V 

Revelation chapter 20 is replete with apocalyptic language and is distinct from the previous chapters. Furthermore, if one were to follow a strict chronology, then this chapter breaks that pattern clearly. Why? Because Satan being bound is clearly a recapitulation of the gospel narrative (see Matthew 12:22-29; Colossians 2:15).

There are a few other key elements in the text that have been given attention in at least two very influential books:
1) An Eschatology of Hope by J. Marcellus Kik
2) Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathison

Marcellus Kik’s masterful treatment of the judging of the saints sets the tone for the triumph of the church. His main argument is that the entire scene of Revelation 20 is upon the earth since the “saints who reign are beset by Gog and Magog” (223). In other words, any form of opposition cannot take on a heavenly orientation (v.8), for in heaven there is no opposition.

Keith Mathison deals wisely with the symbolic nature of a thousand years. Premillenialists at large avoid the symbolic language of Revelation, which often leads to a bizarre scheme including flying objects and cobra helicopters. Unfortunately, the same line of interpretation is applied to the numerology of Revelation in the premillenial scenario. However, a proper approach to Revelation 20 sees the thousand-year reign as a sign of completeness or fullness in quantity and therefore should not be taken literally (just as one would not accept a physical chain to bind a spiritual being, Satan). Consequently, the interpreter can be confident that the 1,000 years mentioned in Revelation 20 is symbolic for a large period of time. Mathison writes that the “millennium is the present age between the two advents of Christ” (155).

This passage affirms the greatness of Christ’s kingdom. Unlike Premillennialism, the Reformed thinker sees the coming of Christ as a coming in triumph. He has indeed established his kingdom on earth and the church awaits and works vigorously for the manifestation of the glories of this present age through Christ’s authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). Further, we not only await the glories of a Christianized culture, but we also wait in expectation for the final display of humiliation of the devil. When he is loosed for a short time, he will gather his remnant of rebels and seek to proselytize more to his army. Then, as in a dramatic turn of events (such as in the Old Covenant where the devil was loose and tragically deceived the nations through idolatry), the nations under the Lordship of Christ will mock the evil one and Christ will crush him and send him to everlasting torment.

Part IV