The Differences in Eschatological Systems

Three Key Questions: Let me ask you three questions.
First, do you hope that your work on earth will leave a positive legacy to future generations, no matter how small the legacy is, even if no one in the future remembers who you were or what you did? Of course you do.
Second, does God’s Word return to Him void? No.
Third, as a covenant-keeper, can you legitimately expect that your good words and good deeds will have more impact in the future than your evil words and evil deeds? I am not speaking merely of building up treasures in heaven; I am speaking also of your legacy in history to earthly heirs. I am speaking of inheritance in the broadest sense. If you answer yes, I think you have the right attitude about yourself and your work in God’s kingdom. If you answer no, I think you are in need of professional Christian counseling. You are headed for a mental crisis. First, you have a problem with your lack of self-esteem (and covenant-keepers have a right to self-esteem as legally adopted sons of God: John 1:12). Second, you have a problem with your lack of confidence regarding God’s willingness to bless your work. You have neglected God’s promise: “Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me forever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed” (1 Sam. 2:30). The three questions I have asked here with respect to your legitimate expectations about the historical outcome of your personal efforts also need to be asked with respect to Christianity in general: the kingdom (civilization) of God. When we begin to seek Bible-based answers to these three questions regarding the kingdom of God in history, we have necessarily raised the issue of a biblical philosophy of history. Each of the major views of eschatology has a specific philosophy of history. This connection is not always discussed in public. In most cases, the implications of eschatology for a philosophy of history are implicit rather than explicit, since the defenders of the various positions tend not to discuss these implications. But there is no escape from those implications. There is no eschatological neutrality. This is one of the themes in He Shall Have Dominion.

Historic Premillennialism
Historic premillennialists are not dispensationalists. They do not believe in a coming secret “rapture” or the supposed seven year absence of the Church from the earth after the return of Jesus to “rapture” the Church into heaven. They believe that Jesus will come back to the earth to rule for a thousand years before the final judgment. They believe that the Great Tribulation is still in the future: it will precede the return of Christ to set up His kingdom. They are therefore post-tribulationists. There are not many historic premillennialists these days. Two centuries ago, there were far more people who held this position. In the late nineteenth century, the Baptist Calvinist Charles Had don Spurgeon was a well-known historic premillennialist, although his language was often very optimistic with respect to the spread of the gospel, and he believed in the familiar postmillennial doctrine of the future conversion of the Jews. He did not have much use for millennial theories. “I am not now going into millennial theories, or into any speculation as to dates. I do not know anything about such things, and I am not sure that I am called to spend my time in such researches. I am rather called to minister the gospel than to open prophecies. In our day, the most famous American historic premillennialist has been the Calvinist Presbyterian author Francis Schaeffer, although he rarely wrote about his Calvinism, his Presbyterianism, or his premillennialism. (It does present a problem for historic premillennialists when their most famous representatives prefer not to write about eschatology.) Historic premillennialist can appeal to recent books by George Eldon Ladd. But I am aware of no book that discusses the premillennial view of the era of the Church prior to Christ’s return to earth to set up His kingdom, i.e., no book on the premillennial philosophy of history. The focus of all historic premillennial works is on the Second Coming: the great future discontinuity that supposedly will inaugurate the judicially visible phase of Christ’s kingdom in history, when Jesus will reign in person to rule on earth. Only then does the idea of Christian civilization become significant in historic premillennialism. Christendom is ignored until after the Second Coming. Even with respect to this future era, there is never any detailed discussion of ethical cause and effect in history, i.e., a biblical philosophy of history. There is no detailed discussion of how Jesus Christ will rule on earth through His people. Will there still be politics? Will government be entirely bureaucratic? What laws will Jesus require governments to enforce? What penalties will be imposed? Will civil judges and juries still hand down sentences? How will appeals be conducted? Will the line of justice-seekers in front of Jesus’ headquarters be a thousand times longer than the line in front of Moses’ tent (Exe. 18:13)? We are not told - not by historic premillennialists or dispensational premillennialists.

Dispensationalism
The question facing historic premillennialism also faces dispensational premillennialism: What is the premillennial philosophy of history? What is the relationship between the faithful preaching of the gospel and the extension of Christ’s kingdom in history? What are the cultural effects of this extension of Christ’s kingdom in history, and why? This is another way of asking: What is the relationship between ethics and authority in history? Is there a predictable cause-and-effect relationship, long term, between personal righteousness and success, and personal unrighteousness and failure? What about corporate righteousness? What about corporate unrighteousness? In the spring of 1956, Alva J. McClain, the president of Grace Theological Seminary, wrote an essay for Bibliotheca Sacra, the journal published by Dallas Theological Seminary. Both schools were (and are) dispensational. The essay was titled, “The Premillennial Philosophy of History.” It was only five and a half pages long. Most of it was devoted to criticizing other views. When he had finished with them, he had only half a page remaining to present the premillennial view. He did not say what it is. All he said was this: “The Premillennial philosophy of history makes sense. It lays a Biblical and rational basis for a truly optimistic view of human history.” But he never explained what he meant by “history.” Since dispensationalism teaches that the Church will not succeed in converting large numbers of people to Christ in the “Church Age,” and that it will suffer increasing persecution until the rapture, McClain must have been defining history as the post-rapture millennial dispensation. But this totally new era will begin only after the rapture and after the seven-year Great Tribulation, meaning after every trace of the gospel effects in history will be blotted out. So, what legitimate optimism does dispensationalism offer to a Christian regarding the long-term historic effects of his life’s work? McClain did not say, but the answer is obvious: none. Dispensationalists can appeal to modern books on eschatology and the millennial kingdom written by McClain and John Walvoord, but the major presentation of their eschatological position is found in Things to Come (1958) by Dallas Seminary professor J. Dwight Pentecost. Unknown to most readers, he has significantly revised the book in a key area, and in doing so, he has abandoned the traditional dispensational case for the inevitable defeat of the Church in what the dispensationalists call the “Church Age.” In the original edition, he argued for the eventual triumph of unbelief in this, the “Church Age.” He wrote that Jesus’ parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32) points to the expansion of an evil tree in history, “a monstrosity. . . . The parable teaches that the enlarged sphere of profession has become inwardly corrupt. This is the characteristic of the age” (p. 147). In his exposition of the parable of the leaven, he argued: “This evidently refers to the work of a false religious system. . . . This figure is used in Scripture to portray that which is evil in character. . .“ (p. 148). Summarizing, he wrote: “The mustard seed refers to the perversion of God’s purpose in this age, while the leaven refers to a corruption of the divine agency, the Word, through which this purpose is realized” (p. 148). Pentecost’s focus here was ethics: the progressive triumph of evil through time, during the “Church Age.” This could at least serve as the foundation of a dispensational philosophy of history: the defeat of the saints. His book did not provide a developed philosophy of history it provided only a starting point. Three decades later, he abandoned even this, but very few of his followers are aware of the fact. The 1987 reprint is not a Foreword reprint but a strategically revised edition. It is nowhere identified as such. Dr. Pentecost had the typesetter carefully superimpose a crucial revised section. The switch is almost undetectable, yet it is a devastating admission for dispensationalism. Here is his revised exposition of Christ’s kingdom during the “Church Age.” Mustard Seed: “This part of the parable stresses the great growth of the kingdom when once it is introduced. The kingdom will grow from an insignificant beginning to great proportions” (p. 147). There is not a word about its ethical corruption. Leauen: “When leaven is used in Scripture it frequently connotes evil. . . . Its use in the sacrifices that represent the perfection of the person of Christ (Lev. 2:1-3) shows that it is not always so used. Here the emphasis is not on leaven as though to emphasize its character, but rather that the leaven has been hidden in the meal, thus stressing the way leaven works when once introduced into the meal” (p. 148). In short, there is now no focus on ethics: not one word about any evil effects of either the mustard seed or the leaven. Today his focus is on the growth of the kingdom of Christ in history – the postmillennial focus: “The parable of the mustard and the leaven in meal, then, stress the growth of the new form of the kingdom” (p. 148). If Christ’s kingdom is not being corrupted in our dispensation, then it is either ethically neutral (the kingdom of Christ as ethically neutral?!?) or positive. Pentecost’s theological problem is obvious: there can be no ethical neutrality. If the necessarily expanding kingdom of Christ is not being steadily undermined by theological and moral perversion, then it must be growing in righteousness. This interpretation is the postmillennial view of the kingdom of God: expansion over time. Matthew 13 is not discussing Satan’s kingdom; it is discussing Christ’s. Dr. Pentecost has very quietly overthrown the heart and soul of the traditional dispensational system’s account of the inevitable progress of evil in this, the “Church Age." Yet no one inside the dispensational camp has been willing to discuss in public the implications of this radical alteration by Pentecost, or explain exactly why it has not, if correct, overthrown the dispensational system. The dispensational system is in transition .(10)

Amillennialism
Amillennialism is the most widely held interpretation of prophecy, primarily because Roman Catholics generally hold it, although they rarely discuss eschatology. Lutherans also hold it. Episcopalians, like Roman Catholics, have rarely emphasized eschatology, so amillennialism has won by default. European Calvinists (today, this means mainly Dutch Calvinists) have held it for the last two centuries. They have been the major expositors of the amillennial system in the twentieth century. The amillennialist believes that “the next major eschatological event will be the Second Advent of Jesus Christ at the final judgment. The unified series of events which is called the rapture by dispensationalists is identified by the amillennialist as immediately preceding the final judgment. Like the premillennialist and the postmillennialist, he believes in the coming of Christ in the clouds, to whom the living and dead in Christ will be raised. Like the postmillennialist but unlike the premillennialist, he does not believe that this unified event will take place a thousand years before the final judgment. It will take place on the day of final judgment. That is to say, he denies that there will be any eschatological discontinuity between today and just before the Second Advent (final judgment). There will be historical continuity for the gospel. Unlike the postmillennialist but like the premillennialist, he insists that this is a continuity of cultural decline and defeat for Christianity until Jesus comes again. Arnillennialist authors have written short books that mix personal eschatology (death, resurrection, and final judgment) with cosmic eschatology (New Testament prophecy, the Church, the Second Advent, final judgment, and the world beyond). What is conspicuously absent in all of them is a detailed amillennial exposition of the New Testament era from the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 to the Second Advent. Anthony Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future (1979) attempts this, but not in any systematic or comprehensive exegetical fashion, and it is virtually alone in attempting even this much. This is not to say that amillennialists do not have a philosophy of history. They do, but it is rarely discussed and never developed in detail or used to develop a distinctly amillennial social theory. Let me offer an example of the amillennial approach to questions of the outcome of the gospel in history. There is a book by an amillennialist titled, A New Heaven and a New Earth The title is taken from a biblical eschatological phrase. This phrase appears twice in the New Testament (2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1) and twice in the Old Testament (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). The passage in Isaiah 65 prophesies of a coming era on earth and before the final judgment (since sinners will still be active) in which there will be great external blessings, including very long life spans. Here is the complete passage: For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying. There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that bath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and eat the fruit of them. They shall not build, and another inhabit; they shall not plant, and another eat: for as the days of a tree are the days of my people, and mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble; for they are the seed of the blessed of the LORD, and their offspring with them. (Isa. 65:17-23) A postmillennialist can interpret this passage literally: a coming era of extensive millennial blessings before Jesus returns in final judgment. So can a premillennialist: the era after Jesus returns to earth but before final judgment. But the amillennialist cannot admit the possibility of such an era of literal, culturewide blessings in history. His eschatology denies any literal, culture-wide triumph of Christianity in history. Therefore, he has to “spiritualize” or allegorize this passage. So, how did the author handle this passage? He didn’t. He simply ignored it. “It isn’t in my Bible,” he seems to be saying. In a 233-page book on the new heavens and the new earth, there is no discussion of Isaiah 65:17-23. The Scripture index refers the reader to pages 139 and 157. On page 139 there is a reference to Isaiah 65:17-25, but not one word of commentary. On page 157, there is neither a reference nor a comment. The book is filled with thousands of Bible references, but nowhere does the author comment on the one passage, more than any other passage in the Bible, that categorically refutes amillennialism. Yet this book is regarded by amillennial theologians as a scholarly presentation of their position. There are very few other books that present a detailed exegetical case for amillennialism. Most amillennial discussions of ethical cause and effect in history are limited to the unpleasant conclusion that evil men will get ever-more powerful culturally, while the righteous will become progressively weaker culturally. (12) In other words, the progressive sanctification of God’s people will lead to their progressive enslavement and isolation from culture. This means that the amillennial view of history rests on a view of ethical cause and effect in which right makes weakness and unrighteousness makes might. This conclusion is so unpleasant – and so despairing – that amillennialists prefer not to discuss it, which leaves them without a publicly articulated philosophy of history. About the only exception to this view is Meredith G. Kline’s 1978 essay, in which he argued that God’s sanctions in history are ethically random from the human point of view.(13) But since we live in an era in which the Church is on the defensive, there can be no legitimate hope on Kline’s basis of a comprehensive victory. He has been quite willing to admit this.

Historic Postmillennialism
In many respects, earlier defenses of postmillennialism also failed to present a case for ethical cause and effect in history. The future era of blessing was seen as the result of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, which it surely will be, but not the product also of ethical transformation. God’s law and God’s covenantal sanctions – blessing and cursing – were rarely discussed. This was especially true of the postmillennialism preached by Jonathan Edwards in the eighteenth century. Except in the writings of seventeenth-century Puritans prior to 1660, postmillennialism has long been stripped of any necessary connection between God’s Bible-revealed law and God’s corporate sanctions in history. This view of God’s predictable sanctions in history is an extension of the “no New Covenant back-up” argument regarding covenant lawsuits. This form of postmillennialism is inherently antinomian: denying the willingness of God to defend His covenant law through the imposition of historical sanctions. Consistent men ask: “If God will not apply sanctions, then how can Christians dare to apply them?” But if God’s judicial sanctions are not applied, then Satan’s judicial sanctions will be. There is no judicial neutrality in history. By refusing to acknowledge either God’s revealed law or God’s predictable corporate sanctions in history, defenders of postmillennialism have generally abandoned a philosophy of history. They have proclaimed a pietistic postmillennialism rather than covenantal postmillennialism. (14) They have proclaimed Christianity’s victory in history, but without specifying the legal foundations of the kingdom (civilization) of God.