What is Postmillennialism?
There are three competing eschatological views: premillennialism says Christ will return before setting up a literal kingdom on earth; amillennialism says the rule of Christ inside peoples’ hearts is what is meant by the kingdom; and postmillennialism says Christ will establish a kind of rulership on the earth over time through increasing success of the gospel.
Postmillennialism historically has been the least supported of the three eschatological views. It especially lost support after WWII when people became convinced the world was not becoming a better place. There is sufficient biblical and historical evidence to reject it.
Early Church’s Position
Historically, the early church held to premillennialism. Premillennialism is supported by the writings of Clement of Rome (c. 1st century), Ignatius (d. c. 110), Justin Martyr (c. 100-c. 165), Irenaeus (c. 125-c.202), Lactantius (c.240-c.320), the Didache (c. 120-150), Ephraem of Syria (c. 306-373) and even the early Augustine.1 We would expect earlier Christians, especially the Apostolic Fathers who knew the NT apostles personally and could get clarification, would be able to shed light on the proper biblical eschatological view. In this case, historic premillennialism wins to the peril of amillennialism and postmillennialism.2
Premillennialism: An Argument Against Postmillennialism
There is much biblical support for premillennialism. When the disciples asked Jesus at the end of his ministry, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6) they most certainly were thinking of a physical kingdom like all Jews of their day. Jesus did not rebuke them like other times (cf. Matt. 15:16,17; Mk. 8:17,18; 16:14; Lk. 24:25; Rev. 3:19) only to clarify that the kingdom was merely spiritual (amillennialism). Neither did Christ rebuke them and say the church replaces Israel and its increase over time would be the fulfillment of the OT promises (postmillennialism). Instead, Jesus simply answered, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.” (Acts 1:7). There is no indication that their expectation of a physical kingdom was wrong.
Of course, the disciples, like all Jews, were expecting a physical kingdom, in physical land because of the many promises given to them in the OT. God promised Abraham land and David a throne. Since “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29) it is proper to assume the promises of physical land and kingdom are yet to be fulfilled. Indeed, this was the expectation at the close of the OT (Isa. 9:6-7; Mal. 3:1) and this expectation continued through the time of Christ. It is true that Christ does rule today in the hearts of believers and this is a type of “kingdom” (Luke 17:21; cf., Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:27). Nevertheless, Bible students have good reason to believe that Christ will return physically and establish a real, physical kingdom in Jerusalem where he will rule the nations (see esp. Mic. 4:7; Zec. 14:8-9; Mat. 19:28). Peter, Paul and John all retain this OT expectation throughout their writings—Peter in Acts 3:19-21, 24-25 and 2 Pet. 3:10-13; Paul in 1 Cor. 15:23-26 and Rom. 11:25-26; and John in Rev. 20:1-6. Premillennialism is arguably the most biblically defensible position.
Nonetheless, the debate over eschatological views is intramural; all three views are within the realm of orthodoxy. Evangelical giants like B. B. Warfield and Charles Hodge held to postmillennialism.
__________
- Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Four: Church, Last Things (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2005), 567–571.
- Historic premillennialism differs from dispensational premillennialism in that it is post-tribulational. However, there is some pre-tribulational support from these early writers as well (cf. Ephraem of Syria).