Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #245938 in Books
• Published on: 1999-02
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 287 pages

Customer Reviews

The Kingdom of God has come
Until I undertook a study of Eschatology this past year, I was a Pre-Millennialist with a leaning towards a pre-trib rapture. However, this book presents a compelling case for Post-Millennialism. Mathison does a survey of the subject from Genesis through Revelation as well as a history of the church's view on the subject.

Mathison provides solid Biblical exegesis for his assertion of a post-millennial return of Christ. He deals with difficult passages and objections. If someone is wanting to understand post-Millennialism, this book is an outstanding resource.

Personally, I do not know if post-millennialism is right or not. But, I would rather live my life with the positive view of the expansion of the Kingdom of God in this world as opposed to the negative view of this world as held by Pre-Millennialists.

Poor job at refuting premillennialism
This book does fair job of laying out the case for Postmillennialism. I thought that the weakest part of the book was that it did not do a good job of convincing a Premillennialist like myself why he should "convert." Only four pages are given to refuting the Premillennial position and it was clear that the author does not understand the Premillennial position very well.

For example, he states several times that Premillennialism is built on one passage in Revelation 20. He states "...premillennialism relies almost entirely on a single passage of Scripture." And again, "And if this particular interpretation of Revelation 20 falls, then Premillennialism falls because it has no other possible scriptural basis." The problem here is that he ignores the fact that premillennialism is based on many, many OT and NT passages. Almost the entire scope of prophecy in the OT is concerned with the millennial hopes of Israel. For example, Zechariah chapters 12-14 give explicit details concerning the second coming and the millennium yet the author fails even to mention one single time this passage. This is a serious oversight. He has a page where he addresses the book of Zechariah but stops at chapter 9 without addressing the rest of the book where the case for Premillennialism is very strong. I can't help but think that he avoided it on purpose because it hurts the theology that he is trying to defend.

Another serious shortcoming is in the chapter dedicated to the book of Revelation. In this section he references each chapter of Revelation and gives a Postmillennial view. When he gets to chapter 12 (the woman with the sun, moon, and twelve stars who gives birth to the Messiah) he essentially dismisses the entire chapter by saying "The chapter is filled with symbolic language, but most of it either is explained or is understandable when parallel passages are examined." He then proceeds to reference a passage that is not parallel at all instead of referencing the truly parallel passage in Genesis 37:9 which clearly shows the woman to be Israel, not the church. Jesus gave birth to the church, not the church to Jesus; whereas, Israel gave birth to Jesus. Of course to admit this would be devastating to a postmillennial, partial preterist position.

Other weaknesses include the dating of the book of Revelation, and the alternate explanation of Daniel's seventy weeks when compared to the dispensational view. He even makes assertions about the dispensational view that are obviously wrong for any reader who is familiar with the passage.

The author then seems to rely heavily on one passage for his postmillennialism (a problem that he wrongly accuses Premillennialism of). Over and over he brings up 1 Corinthians 15:23-25. Verse 24 says "and then comes the end" after talking about Christ's coming. The implication is that the end occurs "immediately" after Christ's coming and so postmillennialism is true. The problem is that Paul identifies 3 stages (Christ's resurrection, the believer's resurrection, and then "the end") without any timeframe between them. Since more than 2,000 years have transpired between the first two stages, why should we assume that the third stage should occur immediately after the second instead of 1,000 years later? But, he seems to build his case for postmillennialism on this premise. Of course he fails to mention this, hoping the reader will follow along without thinking about it too hard.

I recommend that anyone seriously considering a millennial view read this book, but then compare it with "Footsteps of the Messiah" by Fruchtenbaum which lays out a far more convincing verse by verse comparison of the same passages from a Premillennial view.

I give it three stars for addressing the case for Postmillennialism (which for me is a rather weak case). I don't give it more stars for failing to address the critical passages mentioned above.

FOR THEIR MANY WORDS
For some years now there has been a serious need for a Biblical attempt at a refutation of a true, scriptural teaching that has been gaining adherents among the theologically reforming.

This is not it!

That teaching, commonly known as Preterism, proclaims that the Final Advent has been completely misunderstood by 99.9% of ALL theologians over the past 2000 years. We show from scripture that it is to be totally identified with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and hence there is NO future (we would say "third") coming of Christ.

Although advocates of this view enlist the names of men like Spurgeon, John Owen, and Philip Mauro into their ranks, the fact is, there are many more Bible scholars and theologians that have advocated the doctrines of Preterism as they are currently propagated. And for GOOD reason: this teaching spells the end of Pharisaical, unbiblical Christianity. This is one reason why Hypo-Preterism is in a doctrinal decay, with new eisegesis, ever more bizarre teachings, and heretofore unknown "discoveries" from the pages of Scripture.

Dr. Keith Mathison and Dr. Ken Gentry are to be condemned for their efforts at dividing Christians in order to keep their jobs as Pharisees and HIGH Priests of the obsolete Old Covenant.

Some of the finest Bible scholars and theologians in today's Reforming churches show quite clearly the serious problems with unorthodox Hypo-Preterism. Potential buyers should not be swayed by scurrilous attacks on the book and its authors by the Hypo-Preterists who have posted insulting and condescending reviews. They don't want you to read this book...which is all the more reason that you should. And so should they!