“I want to be like Doug Wilson when I grow up. My aim is to go full-Wilson in life. But to get there I must not go all-in Wilsonian…”

A guest post by Steven Opp

Doug Wilson is one of my heroes. I check his blog all the time, have read many of his books, and whenever a new interview or discussion with him appears on the internet, I tune in. When it comes to family living, cultural engagement, and politics he is probably the most influential person in my life. I love Doug Wilson and want to be like him when I grow up!

Wilson recently wrote a blog post titled “The Invisible Mainspring of Human Conflict.” It is a history of four major paradigm shifts in his theology over the years. They are:

1. Eschatology (he became postmillennial in 1985)
2. Soteriology (he became a Calvinist in 1988)
3. Covenant (he became a paedobaptist in 1993)
4. Girard (he became a partial-Girardian in 2006)

It was a fun read to see how the Lord has, over time, molded and sharpened Wilson’s views.

The article spends the most time on the fourth one on the list. The anthropologist/literary critic René Girard has a fascinating theory about the source of human conflict which Wilson says has helped him in understanding why clashes sometimes happen the way they do. He concludes, “Since I first read Girard, I have still gotten into conflicts. But I am not really mystified in the midst of them any more.”

While acknowledging Girard’s insights regarding desire and conflict as being extremely important in seeing what is really going on in the biblical text, Wilson also recognizes where Girard misses the mark. He says he finds Girard’s scriptural insights to be about 80% helpful, and where the good Frenchman falls short is mostly due to his views of the atonement.

Not only does Wilson only give Girard’s biblical analysis four out of five stars, he also warns of applying Girardian human conflict theory across the board lest it be abused. In other words, if you observe every motivation and discord through a Girardian lens you’ll miss the forest for the trees. Wilson explains, “perhaps you have absolutized the concept, which is another way of not grasping it. That is one of the reasons I don’t go all in with Girard—I find him too valuable, and don’t want to lose his insights. Going full Girardian means ceasing to be Girardian.”

I agree with everything Wilson says about Girardian theory, the fourth paradigm shift in his theological journey. What I would like to do in this essay is to show how in regards to Wilson’s other three paradigm shifts I am on board to a similar extent, about 80%. I find his views in these areas to be about 80% helpful. And where I believe he has gone 20% too far in each paradigm is where he loses its spirit. In other words, in these three areas going full Wilsonian means ceasing to be Wilsonian.

A Quick Stop in Narnia

Before doing this, let me first introduce a metaphor which I think will be useful in explaining what I mean.

In addition to reading much of what Wilson writes, I sometimes read what he recommends. One of the books he gives five out of five stars to in a review is Planet Narnia by Michael Ward. It is a very thorough and fascinating guide to seeing how C.S. Lewis intentionally themed each of his Chronicles of Narnia books after one of the “seven heavens,” the planets recognized by the medievals. I just finished Planet Narnia, thoroughly enjoyed it, and highly recommend it.

Ward explains how the first book in the series, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, takes place in the “world” of Jupiter. The themes and messages are all “jovial” (Jove is another name for Jupiter). Jupiter is the planet of merriment, royalty, and springtime. It is also the largest planet, and according to Lewis the most important, ruling the night skies. If you’ve read the stories, you know the first chronicle is about jolly Aslan bringing spring and enthroning the four children in Narnia.

The final book in the series, The Last Battle, has a Saturnine theme. Saturn, in contrast to Jupiter, is dark and cold. The positive word to describe the spirit of Saturn is “contemplative”. But Saturn is also regarded as the planet behind ugliness, old age, fate, irony, and death. All of these concepts are heavy in The Last Battle. An ugly old ape tricks the Narnians by covering a donkey in a lionskin in place of the real Aslan before one catastrophe follows another and eventually all the characters die.

Both Jupiter and Saturn are important and have their roles to play, but the contrast is sharp. Saturn is about contemplation. Jupiter is about play. Saturn is godly sorrow. Jupiter is godly joy. Saturn is Father Time. Jupiter is Father Christmas.¹Girard was born on Christmas Day and his middle name is Noël,  a fun foretaste of his wintery secularist anthropology in time converting and fleshing out so much of the Word of God. Girard’s work, which focuses on chronic envy, is ultimately a jovial gift.

The Last Battle, while being Saturnine, does not end with ultimate death. Rather, it ends with a beautiful eucatastrophe, Tolkien’s word for a surprise happy ending. Or, you might say, it ends with a Jupiter ending. The jovial tone of the final chapters of the story is more like the The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

The point Lewis makes is that though Saturn is big and important, he doesn’t get the final word. Rather Jupiter, king of the heavens, trumps gloomy Saturn and has the last laugh.

What I would like to do is to use Saturn and Jupiter to represent the difference between theology and the spirit of theology. Or, to put it another way, between the theology and the theologian.

Theology, like Saturn, is contemplative. When taken by itself, it is cold, dark ink on paper. Theology is important because ideas need to be presented in order to be understood. But for the words to truly be applied they must be transcended. They must be traced up to the spirit behind them, whether it be the deeper meaning or the character of the writer which the words fail to capture. This significance, the “take home”, is Jupiter above Saturn, what goes beyond the contemplation and has a life of its own.

Doug Wilson is a Jupiter. He is a jolly man. His theology is his Saturn, his contemplations. Where it is correct it is functioning in the appropriate Saturnine way, channeling truth and the character of Wilson himself in it so that others may jump on board. Where it is incorrect it morphs into things like oldness and fate and stillborn irony. Wrong theology is Saturn eclipsing Jupiter. Where I disagree with Wilson on his theology, the 20%, is where I see the contemplations becoming inflated and things going dark, hiding the real meaning and the real man. In other words, going full Saturn means ceasing to be Jupiter. Going full Wilsonian is ceasing to be Wilsonian.

I will now take you through Wilson’s first three paradigms and discuss where I see Saturn being contemplative and wise and where I see it hovering in the way of Jupiter’s spring.

Eschatology
Entering the Wardrobe

Wilson’s book Heaven Misplaced was the second book of his I ever read (after Persuasions) and it was like an oasis in the wilderness for me. It was also a big reason I started reading more of his work and began paying attention to what was going on in Moscow. The clear headed thinking in Heaven Misplaced that Jesus might not be back any time soon, and without any dream-killing disclaimers like “but no one really knows the day or hour so be ready (instead of going out and changing the world)” was wonderful to read.

In addition to learning about this positive eschatological outlook, I also saw it in action. Wilson’s church is full of people who believe in bringing Heaven to Earth in every capacity, and when I lived in Moscow I had the benefit of watching them do it, making schools, businesses, and families all with the kingdom building goals of dominion and legacy.

Too Much Chronicle and Not Enough Narnia

So why does Wilson’s postmillennial eschatology only get four and not five stars? Saturn refuses to give up his seat for Jupiter when the idea that the world won’t end soon extends into the assumption that it might not end for a very, very long time. I’ve heard Wilsonian postmillennialists use language like, “a hundred thousand years from now…” I find this to be irresponsible at best and unbiblical at worst.

First of all, it neglects to take nature into account. I understand that most environmental warnings today are hoaxes. But the oceans will fill with salt eventually, and the sun will one day burn out. To suggest that it won’t is making some of the same errors evolutionists make when they posit millions of years on the front end of things. This world is strong, but not invincible, and it cannot endure the beatings of Father Time for infinity in either direction.

From a more theological perspective, if the end comes when the world is discipled and the last enemy is death, to not put any sort of timeline on that limits the power of God. Just as atheists think they can hide the Creator Father behind a bunch of zeros when talking quantitatively about time past, so this sort of postmil thinking buries the Recreator Holy Spirit behind a bunch of zeros when talking about the future. God does not rush, but it will not take him a million years to wash the 10/40 Window (which is already much cleaner than it was twenty years ago), and we won’t be beaming to other colonies on other planets as we wait for peace in the Middle East. Syria will become Christian, Ceres will not.

Saturn has a Curfew

The spirit of postmillennial thought is wonderful. Let Christians be free and comfortable in this wonderful world. Let us faithfully endure death as we work to overcome all of the other enemies, building beautiful cities and cultures as we go. But let us not forget that Jove has the last laugh, and that Saturn’s old age will not define the future. Death must be with us for a time, but not for that long of a time.

Soteriology
Providence Picks a Picker

My friend David Salazar, now fifty, grew up a hard working kid filling baskets with the fruit that grew on the trees of central California. But when he wasn’t at work, he and his brothers did things their own way and his life was savage and base. One day when he was in his early twenties an evangelist came to his door and David bent the knee. The first book he read after that besides the Bible was Calvin’s Institutes, and it changed his life. He said that for the first time he understood what a loving father is, how he relates to his children, and that God himself is such a father.

My understanding is that this story of God’s grace and paternity encapsulates the “real Calvin”, so to speak. The Jupiter Calvin. The Calvin with no “ism” or “ist” attached. And when I think of Calvin, and reformed theology in general, I think of the sovereignty of God above all things, along with a rich and impactful church history.

Avoid all Isms Except for Prisms

Where I think Calvinists, Wilson included, fall short is in their “marketing,” so to speak. When the guy on the street hears “Calvinism,” he instinctually thinks of fatalism. He instinctually thinks of Saturn and not Jupiter. “But you don’t really understand Calvin” the Calvinist so often must explain. Well, is this a problem with the man on the street or with Calvinism itself? If the distinction is so important shouldn’t it be a bit easier to explain? A bit easier to understand?

One illustration Wilson uses to communicate the sovereignty of God is that God is writing history like Shakespeare would write a play. Can Hamlet challenge Shakespeare for how he wrote his part? Neither should man call out God for how he wrote his part. And the distance between God and man is infinitely greater than the distance between Shakespeare and Hamlet.

This is all true, but we also have to remember that the distance between God and man is infinitely smaller than between Shakespeare and Hamlet. Shakespeare never became one of the characters in his play. God did. To put it another way, as Mike Bull has tweeted, “Was Jesus a Calvinist or an Arminian? Both. The incarnation was the sovereignty of God and the will of Man united at last.”

Calvinism is helpful in emphasizing God’s sovereignty. But the Bible doesn’t speak in these sorts of terms much (predestination, reprobation, etc.) The Bible isn’t that Saturnine about it. But as long as they wear the label, the “ism”, Calvinists are being Saturnine about it, and those reformed beards start to look less like Calvin’s and more like the beard of Chronos. At a certain point this sort of contemplation bends towards fatalism and people don’t see the living Spirit of the Father in Calvin’s theology as Salazar did when he first read him. Rather, they just see a casket with tulips on top.

I Elect the Big Man

So I’m with Wilson 80% of the way on soteriology. But as for how to best communicate the mystery of the marriage of divine and human agency, I’ll fall for the gravitas of Chesterton every time. His cracks at Calvinism tickle my funny bone a little more than Wilson’s pokes at Arminianism. Jovial G.K., in this regard, takes the cake—and no one made him do it.

Covenant
Cair Paravel is for Real

Which came first, the king or his crown? Covenantal theology is wonderful because it emphatically says “Crown!” without any shame. Lewis’ goal in using planet imagery in Narnia was to emphasize that there are constant things going on beyond nature. You are born into something bigger than you.

Covenantal theology also makes sense of many other things as well, and is useful in debates regarding evolution, marriage, and politics, to name a few. It is very important for navigating one’s way in the world.

The fundamentals of the Federal Vision theology which Wilson agrees with affirm the connection between the sacraments and the covenant. This is important because it preserves the power of the sacraments. When someone is baptized into the kingdom of God, something objective happens. They are now enlisted, so to speak. And like a spouse in a marriage, they are in whether they like it or not. Union with Christ is real, and so are the means of entering into it.

Uncircumcised Application

So far so good. But when it comes to covenant theology administration, Wilson drives 100 where the speed limit is 80. And the lead (the Saturnine metal) in his foot is paedosacraments.

Wilson recently admitted on a podcast that at first glance at scripture the Baptists have a better argument when it comes to who to baptize than the paedobaptists do; you don’t see a bunch of babies being dunked, let alone sprinkled, in the New Testament. But, he argues, if you take the Bible as a whole you have a “juggernaut” of structural/typological evidence which supports paedosacraments.

Most Baptists can’t take down that juggernaut. They end up feeling outsmarted, shrug off the argument because they sense that paedobaptism is still weird, and go back to dunking converts. For me, I never wanted to be outsmarted so I took the paedobaptists’ conclusions on authority. But there was always a part inside of me that still thought it strange. It wasn’t until I started reading Mike Bull that I saw exactly why.

What appealed to me about Bull is that he didn’t try to fight the “covenant theology” juggernaut. He commandeered it. Standing on the shoulders of typological giants James Jordan, Peter Leithart, and Doug Wilson he actually took the juggernaut, figured out what a lot of the seemingly useless buttons and levers do, and showed how the paedobaptists had misinterpreted its trajectory. Furthermore, far from being the juggernaut itself, paedobaptism (what he calls “bapcision”, an ugly hybrid of baptism and circumcision) is in fact the rope tying the Federal Vision juggernaut to a stake and keeping it from being released and changing the world.

The main way Bull cuts the paedobaptistic cord is by acknowledging the similarities (covenantal juggernaut) between circumcision and baptism, but also the differences (Baptist horse sense). To understand these differences, you need to read more of Bull’s writing on baptism. You will need to immerse yourself in biblical symbols before it will begin to make sense but as you do, you’ll start to see how the pieces don’t just fit together, they fit in three dimensions.²See The Myth of Covenant Membership. As Bull says, “Bad theologians need to think in pictures. Good theologians need to think in moving pictures.” After reading Bull for a while, I started to see these moving pictures. And like Wilson says of Girard’s scriptural insights, “Once you see them there, you can never unsee them.”

Here is the main thing that those with a strong understanding of the covenant have a hard time wrapping their minds around because they still see it as flat: Every person on the planet, that includes Doug Wilson’s baptized grandchildren and the baby born to an ISIS leader, are born under the New Covenant. They are all born under the same King, Jesus Christ, and his circumcision, that is, his crucifixion, is the new blood boundary encompassing all people—not just Jews, and not just the baptized. Like the Jews under Mosaic Law, everyone within this boundary is under the same terms of faithfulness to the covenant: metanoeite and believe.³See Paranoia and Metanoia. To baptize a baby and say they are now in this covenant is therefore redundant. Christ is Lord of all, wet or dry, churched or unchurched.

So the covenant has to do with authority (the crown), and who wears it (Jesus Christ). But here’s the third dimension that makes paedobaptists go cross-eyed: to truly be baptized into Christ requires a confession. This confession is done in faith, which comes by hearing. It is not taken hold of by being born according to the flesh (Christian parents) but by being born according to the Spirit. It is not about being born into a Christian heritage (generations) but about being born again as a co-heir with Christ (regeneration). It is not about who your earthly father is, or your godfather, but who your Heavenly Father is, your Father God. Now you are not just under the New Covenant in Christ’s blood (like every child in the world since Jesus came), you are now an ambassador of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood, washed on the inside by it and adopted into His family. You aren’t just at the event. You wear the staff uniform. You don’t go from being outside of Christ’s realm to then being under the crown (complete with expectations to behave as a Christian, a new form of law) as “bapcision” would have you do. No, a biblical baptism takes from being merely under the crown to wearing a crown of your own.

Covenant theology that veers toward paedosacraments creates an add-on to the Gospel: Christ plus covenant (a word rarely used in the New Testament). But Christ is the New Covenant.⁴See Jesus and Covenant – Part 1. This is the key to truly understanding the covenant. Everyone is under him. But only those who have heard him and have seen him, who believe, who share His Spirit, are in him. You have to go to Narnia and meet Aslan before you are given a seat on a throne in the castle by the sea. You have to encounter Jesus. He is the Jupiter that outshines Saturn. And that impersonal extra 20% Saturnine paedosacramental covenant theology is covering the face of Jupiter, the face of the King.

I will make one final illustration about the bleakness of paedobaptism which goes undetected by those who practice it but is obvious to those on the outside who see a donkey tail poking out from under the lionskin. Saturn is the planet of irony, and that is good and necessary. But it can also fall flat when unchecked by Jupiter. Paedosacramentalists think they are revealing a cute irony in the gospel, that Christ saves us before we even realized we needed saving, that little children who have no knowledge are as valuable as the wise old sage, for God is no respector of persons. True as it is, the joke itself is in poor taste because the butt of it is still in diapers and isn’t playing along.

What makes a biblical baptism jovial is that the sinner who the joke is on is laughing along with Jesus as he or she intentionally follows Him in slipping on the banana peel of recognizing one’s own fallen humanity and voluntarily dying with Him in baptism in order to rejoice with Him when brought back out of the water as a royal (jovial) priest-king. Since confession is laughing at the ridiculousness of your own sinful rebellion because you’re a new person and on the other side of it, running this play on those who do not understand what is happening is cruel, dark, and leveling. Sending these little ones to the baptismal grave without their “getting it” is the kind of black comedy Saturn gravitates to when left to himself.

False baptisms create confusion and place a burden of law and accountability upon the shoulders of those who not only cannot bear it – like child soldiers or child brides – but also did not choose it. This is Father Time eating away at his kids with a spiritual responsibility they didn’t sign up for. Baptism is life to the “twice-born” but it is creeping death to the “once-born.” In dark seasons when children need comfort they are encouraged to look at a cold theological abstraction instead of their gifts, lest they become self-reliant. But “leaning” on a baptism you never chose, a rite which basically spiritualises everything natural, removes the opportunity to discover personally that the flesh isn’t enough. So an exhortation to “remember your baptism” is about as helpful as finding coal in your stocking. There’s nothing you can do with it. The true gospel paradox is that sinful children don’t need contemplation (law). They need Christmas.

Wilson (Not his Tamed Juggernaut) is on the Move

Doug Wilson is the jovial king of Christmas. He knows how to be merry. He knows how to enjoy the good things of life with a full heart. He has a tribe of joyful children and grandchildren to prove it. But this has nothing to do with paedobaptism and everything to do with faithful Christian parenting. It is a result of saturation love, not saturation water. It is of the gospel falling on soft ears, not water sprinkled on soft cranial tissue. It is a legacy of celebrating Christ’s birthday with gifts, not celebrating what family or church family you were born into by good fortune.

Of course, Wilson is not consciously boasting in his own blood or society, but his 20% counterfeit Saturnine covenantal theology is. Wilson’s children and grandchildren (the ones old enough to have spiritual eyes of faith) are believers not because they have looked in the mirror and seen a fake lion skin (bapcision) that some apish theology told them was Aslan. No, they believe because they have seen Aslan himself. And they have probably mostly seen Him not on but in and through their confessing father and mother who wear the royal robes of Christian witness.

Reaching for the Stars

Like I said, I want to be like Doug Wilson when I grow up. My aim is to go full-Wilson in life. I want to be a jolly and contemplative man with a grand and glorious legacy. I want five out of five stars! But to get there I must not go all-in Wilsonian. I find him too valuable and don’t want to lose his insights. So I will continue to follow him, staying close to the spirit of his work and the spirit of his person, but steering clear of those Saturnine traps of old age, fate, and flat irony which would cause me to miss out on the good faith of Jupiter: Christ in Wilson’s paradigms, the hope of glorious theology.

Here’s a great post from Doug Hayes’ blog, republished here with his permission.

When Rich Bledsoe was with us at Family Camp he mentioned a paper he wrote: Sex and the City, [PDF] which we have now placed on the RCC website. It is an interesting piece of  biblical social commentary worth thinking about.

Bledsoe contrasts the great ancient cities with the great city of God, the New Jerusalem and their respective sexual commitments and activities. At the base of his comments is the presupposition that it is important for us to think about cities because “the entire planet is ‘metropolizing.’ Everywhere, human  beings are leaving their rural roots and are moving into the city.”

He says that, biblically, cities are portrayed as and symbolized as women. “Both of the cities at the Bible’s end are feminine, and  both are symbolized by women… The first city [in Revelation] is Babylon the Great who becomes the Whore of  Babylon [metaphorically, Jerusalem]. The second is the new Jerusalem who becomes the Bride of Christ… The power of sexual relationship, and the fact of metropolis belong together. The city is the great trysting place, the place of renewal or destruction of relationship, the place where souls and bodies are  bought and sold, or where truth and fidelity create new life.”

What is so helpful in this article is the assertion that “the sexualization and exclusiveness of marriage was the gift of the Torah and  of Judaism… the model for both parenting and for marriage as found in the Old Testament is found in Jehovah’s relationship to Israel and Jerusalem as Father and finally as Husband. All peoples model themselves on their gods, and Israel likewise modeled herself on the God she belonged to.”

As post-Christian society has emerged in the West, corresponding Christian sexual morality has been receding as a foundation for cultural morality. Christian ethics is being replace by pagan “polymorphous sexuality” that is reflective of ancient worldviews and practices. And just as Christianity has always been intolerant of other religious and ethical systems, so too, modern society is increasingly hostile toward both Christ and Christian morality. Just as most ancient pagan cultures used sex as an expression of their religious commitments and cultus, so too, modern cultures use sex as an expression of liberation from Christianity. Again, Bledsoe:

Both of these cities (in Revelation: Babylon the Great and the New Jerusalem) are now active historical powers… Real cities in the real world partake of the reality of both of these cities right now… A city that worships like Babylon the Great, will be a city that models its sexual relationships after the harlot and the beast and the kinds. A city that worships as a part of the new Jerusalem will model its marital covenant after the Bride and her Husband. The question is which city will dominate in any given city in the world in which we live. One city is corrupt..and is under judgment…given to destruction. The other city is the city of the glory of God and the glorified humanity… where ultimately all human potentialities are fulfilled… The first city is marked by sexual debauchery… the second is marked by fidelity and love in the bonds of marriage.

He goes on to demonstrate that any culture that lacks sexual discipline and commitment to monogamous marriage will be unable to sustain their cultural energy and creativity, resulting in weakness and decline. True cultural greatness requires moral and intellectual discipline and focus that is undissipated by meaningless and distracting sexuality. Without a committed and future-oriented sexuality – no culture has any meaningful  future to anticipate.

Israel’s End-Times Gamble

“If you’re gonna play the game, boy, ya gotta learn to play it right. You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em, Know when to walk away and know when to run.”

Kenny Rogers’ “The Gambler” has sold millions of copies since its 1978 release and spawned five made-for-TV movies. But the song’s appeal is in its no-nonsense philosophy. When there is no way to win, it’s time to walk away from the game. The game is over for Israel. Let me explain. In Tim LaHaye’s pre-tribulational rapture novel The Remnant the Jews are in for a hellacious future. Two-thirds of the Jews living in Israel will be slaughtered. LaHaye is not alone in holding this noxious position.

John Hagee, a popular prophecy writer, states in a World Net Daily column:

Jerusalem today is a detonating device with no fail-safe system. It’s a loaded pistol at an international poker dispute with all players demanding control. It’s a driverless coach careening toward a blind curve—the collision of which will birth World War III.

You see, there’s nothing anyone can do about WW III. According to Hagee, it’s a prophetic inevitability. It’s this fatalistic futuristic perspective that has kept the heads of Jews on the chopping block for 2000 years since there’s still one more holocaust that Jews will have to go through.

Even so, evangelicals are spending millions of dollars to help Jews return to Israel. In so doing, says the Rev. James M. Hutchens, president of Israel/USA, “we believe we are fulfilling a divine calling . . . to assist the Jewish people in their physical return and restoration of the land of Israel.” Like Hagee and LaHaye, Hutchens maintains that “There will be no peace until the Messiah comes.”

The views of these men are alarming to some Jewish leaders, as they should be. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, asks, “To what extent will a theological view that calls for Armageddon in the Middle East lead [evangelicals] to support policies that may move in that direction, rather than toward stability and peaceful coexistence?” The most probable scenario is that prophetic futurists will sit back and do nothing as they see Israel go up in smoke. What can they do? The Bible predicts it. “There will be no peace until the Messiah comes.”

Given this inevitable scenario, what should Jews do? Leave Israel. Under the New Covenant, your land is meaningless. It has no more theological importance than Rhode Island. Under LaHaye, Hagee, and Hutchen’s prophetic model, odds are you’ll be dead if you stay. If not you, then certainly someone in your family will die. But if you leave, the Muslims won’t have a common enemy to unify them. Let them destroy one another. Remember, Iran’s war with Iraq and Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait? There is no unity among these Muslim nations with Israel gone.

Then what? Come to America! Maybe we can convince Congress and the President to carve out a parcel of land in one of our National Monuments for you to settle. America is the safest place on earth for you. Once the Muslims kill themselves off, if you still think your barren strip of land is important, then you can go back. So take a lesson from Kenny. If you’re gonna play the game, ya gotta learn to play it right. You got to know when to hold on to the land and when to run. It’s time to run.

____________________________________________
Gary DeMar is president of American Vision and author of End-Times Fiction, published by Thomas Nelson.

“To be postmillennial is to be committed to the claim that the state of creation, over time and in time, will be recognizably as the prophets predict…”

Peter Leithart gets down to the nuts and bolts of postmillennialism:

I am postmillennial, and postmils like to speculate about the long view. We like to ask questions like: What is the church and world going to be like after another several millennia of evangelism, baptism, teaching, discipline, Eucharistic merriment? What kind of political system will exist?  How will the church worship? What will the economy look like? What kinds of technological advances will be retained and which will be dispensed with as incompatible with God’s commandments?

To be postmillennial is to be committed to the claim that the state of creation, over time and in time, will be recognizably as the prophets predict: Zion will be raised as the chief of the mountains, nations will beat tanks into tractors, chemical weapons into fertilizers (napalm – a sign of millennial bliss?), peoples from the four corners will be eager to hear the instruction of Jesus, and will live by it.  Wildernesses will turn to gardens, wild animals – and bestial humans – will be pacified.

Yet, some qualifications are in order. My first instinct in answering the question, “what will the church and world look like in a thousand years?” is to say, “Who knows?” We can’t determine this with the infantile categories we’ve got now.  We’re only beginning to understand Scripture, or the world.  How can we possibly know in detail where it’s all going?

Read the full article here.

Since that time, the centre of true worship is in heaven. It is now impossible for Satan to corrupt or attack its centre because the new Jerusalem is above. We see this in Revelation 2-3. Not only is the menora now split into seven separate lampstands, the lampstands are in the holy place, seated with Christ.

So, when the Roman church became corrupt, God’s people came out. When protestantism becomes corrupt, God’s people come out. As Christianity declines in the west, it is booming in the southern hemisphere. Satan is bound from mounting an all-out worldwide attack on the church until he is released for a short time, and then only so he can be drawn out of Egypt like Pharaoh to be destroyed.

There is an institutional church, but in her visible form she is only ever local assemblies. The ‘city of God’ is in heaven, incorruptible, unassailable. If her earthly ‘branches’ leave the vine, they wither up. When they have only darkness to share, Jesus snuffs them out. They are no longer ‘the church’ regardless of whether the physical institutions remain.

Magisterially, the church governs from heaven. The new Jerusalem will descend at the end of history, but any attempt at a centralised, earthly city of God before then is doomed to failure, Roman Catholic or otherwise.

“God’s creation of Israel was like his creation of the world. The cosmos has an order that will someday be undone. Israel had an order that was undone. And so the un-creation of Israel is sometimes described in the analogous cosmic terms.

Jeremiah was the prophet on duty when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the temple was destroyed. Israel was de-created. No more son of David on the throne. No more temple in Jerusalem. No more people in the land. Jeremiah describes this coming cataclysm in terms of cosmic creation: 4:23 “I looked upon the earth and behold it was formless and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.”

Jeremiah is not the only prophet to talk like this. And unless we understand that this is part of the prophetic vocabulary, we will come to the book of Revelation and read about stars falling from heaven and other cosmic disasters, and we will not immediately think, “Oh, so Jerusalem and the temple are going to be destroyed and the people removed from the land again. Ah.”

(This is not a new thought here, at all. But American evangelicals have a very persistent misunderstanding in this matter.)”

Keith Ghormley, http://presbyteer.blogspot.com

An examination of the teachings of Jesus on eschatological issues. Also, a look at the dating and interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

by W.A. Young, Jr. Th.D. Covenant Theological Seminary www.trinityreformed.com

Nothing is more interesting than the study of what is referred to as the end-times.  Nothing sells books, tapes, or videos like future prophecy. Preoccupation with the future is what sells horoscopes, palm readings, and the like. We all face the fears and hopes of what the future may bring. People want to know what will happen in the end. 

The purpose of this paper is to review the nature of eschatology.  There has been a major shift in eschatological perspective that has swept through much of evangelicalism today.  This has occurred in the last one hundred to one hundred and fifty years.  It has both violated and permeated much of the church’s teachings concerning the end of this age.

My own journey, especially during the early formative years, was one of vacillation.  In the early days, I subscribed to the majority report among evangelicals, the dispensational view.  This view is characterized by Hal Lindsey and others. Dispensationalism came about  in the 1830′s and is built on the futurist system and supported by the Scofield Bible.  It dominates evangelical preaching, education, publishing, and broadcasting today. I suspect the reason is that Scofield presents such a systematic approach that an individual can easily subscribe because it is so easily laid out in his footnotes. As I have grown in my understanding of scriptures I have come to see that the moderate Preterist perspective best presents the biblical perspective. This view is what is under consideration in this paper.

What is Preterism? Preterism is the view that Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 are describing an approaching time when God will judge His people. The book of Revelation, as well, is written primarily to the first century Christians to encourage those who were about to witness the judgment of God upon His covenant breaking people. This view sees the book of Revelation representing the persecution of believers under Nero and the Jewish rebellion. The seven kings of Revelation 17:10 are the emperors Augustus through Galba. The number of the beast–666–is the total numerical value of Nero Caesar spelled in Hebrew letters–and so forth. [I follow Jordan's identification of this number with a "first century corrupt Solomon. MB] While Revelation has benefit for us today, it is written primarily to comfort the true believers of that time as they witnessed God bringing judgment to a nation that had crucified His Son and rejected His covenant. When the disciples were commissioned to deliver Christ’s message in the form of the New Testament, God sent the Edomites and the Roman armies to destroy the last remaining symbols of the Old Covenant: the Temple and the Holy city. Revelation is the finale to the drama of redemption.

One of the best known Preterists is Eusebius (A.D. 260-340), the “father of church history.” He details in his classic work Ecclesiastical History, the woes that await Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The focal point of Revelation, he says, is the destruction of Jerusalem.

Other historical figures who were Preterist in their thoughts were: Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons; Clement of Alexandria; Josephus, Jewish historian; Andreas of Cappadocia; and John Lightfoot (1601-1675). These are but a few of the more well known names in church history.

In more modern times we consider the writings of Milton Terry (1840-1914) as well. Philip Schaff (1819-1893) has taken a strong Preterist view in his classic work. The first five chapters of Revelation, Schaff writes, are a remainder of the impending judgment. The bulk of the prophecy (chapters 6-19) is a revelation of the judgment that is about to befall Israel, including symbolic descriptions of the Beast (Nero), the great harlot (Israel), and Babylon the Great (Jerusalem). In chapter 19, we see the victorious Christ going to war against His enemies (Ps. 110). In chapter 20, John describes the millennial reign of Christ, which began in the first century and will end with the final judgment. Chapters 21 and 22 describe visions of the new heaven and earth and the New Jerusalem, realities that have already been inaugurated but not yet fully consummated.

For our considerations, we should look at some “key” issues. An understanding of the unity of the Bible in addressing the “end-time” will help us to properly understand the day in which we live.

First, is the dating of the book of Revelation. A basic rule of hermeneutics is that a writing’s date of origin must be ascertained as exactly as possible. Louis Berkhof has noted in his hermeneutics manual: “The word of God originated in a historical way, and therefore, can be understood only in the light of history.” There are two views pertaining to the dating of the book of Revelation: the early date that is pre-A.D. 70 and the late date which is around 95 A.D. If the book was written before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. then what Revelation is referring to is not future but present, that is, for those who were reading the document. Revelation contains time indicators that point repeatedly to a first century fulfillment (Rev. 1:1,3; 3:10-11;22:6-7, 10, 12, 20). If it was written after 70 A.D. then the majority of the book is to be interpreted in the future sense. That 30 some years difference will make all the difference in the world. What do the scholars say? Church traditions rather than scholars have formed the belief that the dating was near the end of the first century. (Strange that all the remaining books of the New Testament were written before 70 A.D. Why would Revelation be the only book written after the Jewish rebellion?) External and internal evidence, contextual proofs, and the writings of the early church fathers point to a pre-70 A.D. writing. This is crucial to a proper understanding of our subject. I would suggest reading, “Before Jerusalem Fell, Dating the Book of Revelation” by Kenneth Gentry, Jr. for a concise presentation of this matter.

Second, is the need to consider what Jesus said in the Olivet discourse. This teaching, which is treated in detail by all three synoptic gospel writers, Matthew, Mark, and Luke speaks of three distinct future events. These events include (1) the destruction of the temple (2) the destruction of Jerusalem, and (3) His own “coming” in glory. Here Jesus clearly and accurately predicts three future events. These events were unthinkable to those who heard Him say this. There is no doubt that the temple and Jerusalem were destroyed in one of the most well documented events of history in the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman general, Titus. However, the prophetic passage is seen by critics as only two thirds fulfilled. If that be the case, two out of three predictions would qualify Jesus as a false prophet. The problem is found in His words, “This generation shall not pass away until all these things come to pass.” Some have said that this time frame did not begin until Israel regained its homeland in 1948, but this is wrong. It means the generation of Jews to whom Jesus was then speaking would see these things come to pass. Jesus was talking to a people who would see all three aspects of this prophecy come to pass in their lifetime. We have engaged ourselves with all kinds of exegetical gymnastics to escape this problem. He did come to that generation, in the righteous glory of His judgment. And that generation did see all the signs that He forewarned them that would happen. This “coming” is not to be confused with His second coming. His coming in glory or in the clouds is an Old Testament reference to judgment. He brought the New Covenant and the New Creation. As in Genesis 1, when God brought order out of disorder and creation out of chaos so Christ brings in a new creation.

Our third consideration is the term “great tribulation”. This comes from Luke 21 that is describing a time unparalleled in Israel’s history. In 70 A.D. that tribulation came. And the “old system” was destroyed once and for all. Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man”. He declares in Matthew 24 that “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken”. Surely these things have not been fulfilled. But they have! The language that He is using is commonly found in the Old Testament. Such passages as Exodus 11:6; Ezekiel 5:9; Daniel 9:12; 12: 1; and Joel 2: 2 are but a few. The cosmic problem introduced in Matthew 23 is answered in the Old Testament imagery in passages like Isaiah 13:10; 34: 4-5; Ezekiel 32:7; and Amos 8:9. In Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 7: 13-14), he speaks of the Son of Man coming up in clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days. In Daniel’s vision, the ascension of the Son of Man is connected with a judgment upon the nations during the time of the Roman Empire (Daniel 7: 9-12, 18, 22, 26-27). When we take into consideration the language, there is no doubt that Jesus was talking to a generation that by 70 A.D. would see in Jerusalem’s destruction, the fulfillment to His words.

Who was or is the man of sin? We find him alluded to in 2 Thessalonians 2 as the man who would precede the Day of the Lord. A great deal of difficulty surrounds the common assumption that it is referring to events that take place just before the second coming of Christ. But this, too, is wrong. In verse 6, Paul tells us that the man of sin is restrained at the time he is writing his letter. In verse 7, he tells us that “the mystery of lawlessness is already at work” and that the restrainer “now restrains” the man of sin.  If the man of sin was being restrained at the time Paul wrote this letter (51 to 52 A.D.), then Paul was not speaking of some person who would arise thousands of years later. The man of sin, who was alive at the time Paul wrote, was probably none other than Nero.  The language Paul uses to describe him, as one “who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God”, is identical language used by several Old Testament prophets to condemn certain political rulers (Isaiah 14: 4-21; Ezekiel 28: 2-19; Daniel 11:36). Only one man fits Paul’s description of the first century’s man of sin; Nero, who died in 68 A.D. during the Jewish War.

Eschatological expectation intensified as the war between Jerusalem and Rome came to a head. Many believed that the Messiah would return to deliver them. False prophets took advantage of this expectation and deceived many as foretold by Matthew. Signs and wonders occurred as Halley’s comet appeared in 66 A.D. Not long after that Nero committed suicide. Historians have linked the appearance of Halley’s comet not only with the death of Nero, but with the destruction of Jerusalem four years later. Josephus recounts that “there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.”

Josephus supports the biblical record when he reports, “And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God.”

The temple was gone. The Old Covenant people, Israel, was now replaced with a nation of Jews and Gentiles (Matthew 21:43). The Messiah came in the person of Jesus Christ. He is the Israel of God; the seed of Abraham. He is “the temple” (John 2:21); “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29); and He is the High Priest (Hebrews. 6:20). Jerusalem which is the city of the Old Covenant has now been replaced with the Jerusalem from above, the city of the living God (Hebrews. 12:22). Most of the predications in the Old Testament were fulfilled in the person of Jesus Christ. After all, what was the subject matter in the Old Testament? What did Jesus say about Himself in Luke 24: 27?

We love sensationalism and sensationalism sells! We have found that out in our present media frenzy with our unsatisfied appetite for juicy news.  There is no exception within the Christian community especially dealing with spiritual matters and, in particular, issues dealing with the end-time. A large amount of prophetic speculation could be avoided if we would begin to take the time-texts of Scripture seriously. There are texts that indicate first century fulfillment, and there are texts that indicate fulfillment at the end of the present age. The task of responsible interpretation is to discern the difference. Do these things really matter? Does truth matter, we should probably ask? But most importantly, why should we look for something in the future when, in fact, it has already happened? Our eschatology should not be one of confusion but of clarity. A great deal of our end-time predications have been false. Will someone please have the courage to challenge them! The beginning of this millennium saw the same problem. We need clarity of properly understanding Scripture to fulfill the purposes of God in our generation.
Here is a list of well written theological books and articles relating to this topic:

Dr. R.C.Sproul, “The Last Days According to Jesus”
Dr. Kenneth Gentry, “The Day Jerusalem Fell, Dating of the Book of Revelation”
J. Stuart Russell, “The Parousia”
David Chilton, “Days of Vengeance”
David E. Holwerda, “Jesus & Israel; One Covenant or Two?”