What do you think?
Rate this book
Spectrum Multiview
The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views
Christ is coming again. Since the first century, Christians have agreed that Christ will return. But since that time there have also been many disagreements. How will Christ return? When will he return? What sort of kingdom will he establish? What is the meaning of the millennium? These questions persist today. Four major views on the millennium have had both a long history and a host of Christian adherents. In this book Robert G. Clouse brings together proponents of each view: George Eldon Ladd on historic premillenniallism, Herman A. Hoyt on dispensational premillennialism, Loraine Boettner on post-millennialism and Anthony A. Hoekema on amillennialism. After each view is presented, proponents of the three competing views respond from their own perspectives. Here you'll encounter a lively and productive debate among respected Christian scholars that will help you gain clearer and deeper understanding of the different ways the church approaches the meaning of the millennium.
224 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 1977
64 people are currently reading
411 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews
October 31, 2018
The various flavors of "views" or "perspectives" books are so hit and miss that I didn't have high expectations for this one, but I was hopeful seeing Ladd, Boettner, and Hoekema attached to this one. Clouse did a great job in giving the four views the priority in this volume, giving only a brief introduction and even more terse final word.
Ladd begins the book as the historic premillenialist position. Like the other authors, he focuses his attention on Revelation 20:1-6. But it is clear that the varying understandings of the context of this passage leads to very different interpretations of these six verses.
Ladd is careful to distinguish his position from dispensational premillenialism, which he refutes quite capably. Ladd argues that "the theme of Revelation is the return of the Lord to consummate his redemptive work," and by so doing he excludes any other interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 which then must fit into his interpretive grid. He then uses a prooftext that a postmillennialist would use in a different way. So it goes with books like these—the scope of the book is simply too narrow to deal with all the texts. Yet this book is still quite profitable—perhaps the best of this genre that I've read.
Hoyt argues the dispensationalist position and represents his position well. He is a confident and articulate writer, but his woodenly literal hermeneutic is simplistic over-emphasizes the need to take God’s Word literally in order to take it seriously. But that is akin to limiting yourself to one tool in your workshop—it fails you whenever the text demands more of the reader than a simple literal interpretation—which breaks under the stress of prophetic literature.
Hoyt’s principal problem, and surely of other dispensationalists is they fail to understand the prophecies of the Old Testament and then push their fulfillment into the New Covenant age which then makes a mess of the New Testament.
Boettner makes a fascinating and exciting case for postmillennialism, but his argument is primarily historical and biblically at a very high-level biblical-theological level that leaves his interlocutors with little to critique exegetically.
Hoekema’s case for amillennialism is by far the most interesting and compelling exegetically. He decimates the premillennial position, and in fact does a better job of articulating much of the postmillennial position than Boettner does in his essay. But he fails to reckon with the relentless optimism of the Bible, though he does state that amillenialists should be optimistic because “Christ is now on the throne” that means “we live in hope—a hope built on faith and that expresses itself in love.” p. 187
This book doesn’t really settle anything, which would, in fact, be miraculous for a two hundred page book on one aspect of eschatology. But it does help develop and articulate some interpretive principles that are necessary in approaching the rest of Scripture and then inform a doctrine of the millennium. I found this volume helpful and would absolutely recommend it for those studying eschatology.
Ladd begins the book as the historic premillenialist position. Like the other authors, he focuses his attention on Revelation 20:1-6. But it is clear that the varying understandings of the context of this passage leads to very different interpretations of these six verses.
Ladd is careful to distinguish his position from dispensational premillenialism, which he refutes quite capably. Ladd argues that "the theme of Revelation is the return of the Lord to consummate his redemptive work," and by so doing he excludes any other interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 which then must fit into his interpretive grid. He then uses a prooftext that a postmillennialist would use in a different way. So it goes with books like these—the scope of the book is simply too narrow to deal with all the texts. Yet this book is still quite profitable—perhaps the best of this genre that I've read.
Hoyt argues the dispensationalist position and represents his position well. He is a confident and articulate writer, but his woodenly literal hermeneutic is simplistic over-emphasizes the need to take God’s Word literally in order to take it seriously. But that is akin to limiting yourself to one tool in your workshop—it fails you whenever the text demands more of the reader than a simple literal interpretation—which breaks under the stress of prophetic literature.
Hoyt’s principal problem, and surely of other dispensationalists is they fail to understand the prophecies of the Old Testament and then push their fulfillment into the New Covenant age which then makes a mess of the New Testament.
Boettner makes a fascinating and exciting case for postmillennialism, but his argument is primarily historical and biblically at a very high-level biblical-theological level that leaves his interlocutors with little to critique exegetically.
Hoekema’s case for amillennialism is by far the most interesting and compelling exegetically. He decimates the premillennial position, and in fact does a better job of articulating much of the postmillennial position than Boettner does in his essay. But he fails to reckon with the relentless optimism of the Bible, though he does state that amillenialists should be optimistic because “Christ is now on the throne” that means “we live in hope—a hope built on faith and that expresses itself in love.” p. 187
This book doesn’t really settle anything, which would, in fact, be miraculous for a two hundred page book on one aspect of eschatology. But it does help develop and articulate some interpretive principles that are necessary in approaching the rest of Scripture and then inform a doctrine of the millennium. I found this volume helpful and would absolutely recommend it for those studying eschatology.
September 1, 2020
Poor representative for Postmil views. Hoekema does a good job for amillennialism. Not gonna lie, I didn't bother with the others. Not becoming a premie anytime soon.
February 17, 2015
I was hoping to see a good case for Postmillennialism, but Boettner's chapter was not what I expected.
The premillennial position did also make an interesting case, but mostly using Old Testament Scripture and demanding eternal blessings to be actualized on this earth rather the new Earth.
I am kinda biased, because I found Hoekema's position the strongest, as I had previously read his case for Amillennialism in The Bible and the Future. I was convinced of Amillennialism by Sam Storms' Kingdom Come.
I found it an interesting read, though I think I would have not mind if it was some longer.
---------------
Read the ebook.
The premillennial position did also make an interesting case, but mostly using Old Testament Scripture and demanding eternal blessings to be actualized on this earth rather the new Earth.
I am kinda biased, because I found Hoekema's position the strongest, as I had previously read his case for Amillennialism in The Bible and the Future. I was convinced of Amillennialism by Sam Storms' Kingdom Come.
I found it an interesting read, though I think I would have not mind if it was some longer.
---------------
Read the ebook.
May 27, 2020
Excelente livro introdutório para o assunto. Pra mim, que nunca tinha lido praticamente nada (exceto um artigo ou outro) sobre, foi um ótimo início!
O livro tem 4 capítulos, cada um separado para cada visão do milênio pelo seu defensor e ao final as críticas pelos outros escritores.
Seguem breves comentários de cada capítulo:
1) Pré-milenismo histórico:
Ladd o define como "A doutrina que afirma que após a 2ª vinda de Cristo, ele reinará por mil anos sobre a terra antes da consumação final do propósito redentivo de Deus nos novos céus e nova terra na era vindoura." Ladd não é nem de longe um literalista como os dispensacionalistas. Ele é muito didático em apresentar seu pensamento. Logicamente sua interpretação de Ap 20.1-6 é literal pois ele diz ser a que melhor se encaixa ao texto. Além disso ele também diz que Paulo em Rm 11.26 fala do Israel literal, e que de alguma forma a nação de Israel será salva no final. Mas ele é bem contundente em suas posições e bastante bíblico.
2) Pré-milenismo dispensacionalista:
Uma visão completamente literalista da Bíblia. Foi uma viagem só quando ele começou a interpretar as profecias do AT de maneira literal. Ele diz que no NT Cristo tentou estabelecer o reino previsto pelos profetas, mas foi rejeitado, e por isso "procurou preparar os apóstolos para esse evento". Além disso a posição da nação de Israel no fim do mundo será super elevada, haverá um vai e volta de Cristo, mais de um julgamento e vários momentos de ressurreições enquanto o milênio chega, acaba e só depois acaba tudo de vez.
3) Pós-milenismo:
Esse foi o capítulo mais decepcionante pra mim. O autor define o pós-milenismo como "a concepção das últimas coisas que sustenta que o reino de Deus está sendo estendido agora no mundo pela pregação do evangelho e a obra salvadora do Espírito Santo, que o mundo irá finalmente ser cristianizado e que a volta de Cristo ocorrerá no final de um longo período de retidão e paz comumente chamado de milênio". Eu fiquei animado pra ler e ver como o autor defenderia sua posição, pois ela é bastante atraente, mas foi um balde de água fria. O autor fala muito de fatos históricos que mostram o mundo em um grande progresso cristão, e faz suposições de como esse progresso continuará no futuro até a vinda definitiva de Cristo. Mas ele praticamente não utiliza a Bíblia, e nem tenta mostrar sua interpretação dos textos que aparentemente demonstram o contrário.
4) Amilenismo:
Pra mim, o melhor capítulo. Hoekema define que "os amilenistas creem que o milênio de Ap 20 não é exclusivamente futuro, mas está hoje em processo de realização". Hoekema é bastante didático. Ele primeiro demonstra sua forma de interpretação de Apocalipse (pelo paralelismo progressivo), depois faz uma exegese bem definida de Ap 20.1-6 (o único texto que cita o milênio), depois trata um pouco das questões hermenêuticas (interpretações literais e simbólicas) e finaliza com um baita resumo da escatologia amilenista. Além da didática é extremamente bíblico e objetivo.
Pra quem é leigo no assunto, vale super a pena começar por este livro. Recomendo.
O livro tem 4 capítulos, cada um separado para cada visão do milênio pelo seu defensor e ao final as críticas pelos outros escritores.
Seguem breves comentários de cada capítulo:
1) Pré-milenismo histórico:
Ladd o define como "A doutrina que afirma que após a 2ª vinda de Cristo, ele reinará por mil anos sobre a terra antes da consumação final do propósito redentivo de Deus nos novos céus e nova terra na era vindoura." Ladd não é nem de longe um literalista como os dispensacionalistas. Ele é muito didático em apresentar seu pensamento. Logicamente sua interpretação de Ap 20.1-6 é literal pois ele diz ser a que melhor se encaixa ao texto. Além disso ele também diz que Paulo em Rm 11.26 fala do Israel literal, e que de alguma forma a nação de Israel será salva no final. Mas ele é bem contundente em suas posições e bastante bíblico.
2) Pré-milenismo dispensacionalista:
Uma visão completamente literalista da Bíblia. Foi uma viagem só quando ele começou a interpretar as profecias do AT de maneira literal. Ele diz que no NT Cristo tentou estabelecer o reino previsto pelos profetas, mas foi rejeitado, e por isso "procurou preparar os apóstolos para esse evento". Além disso a posição da nação de Israel no fim do mundo será super elevada, haverá um vai e volta de Cristo, mais de um julgamento e vários momentos de ressurreições enquanto o milênio chega, acaba e só depois acaba tudo de vez.
3) Pós-milenismo:
Esse foi o capítulo mais decepcionante pra mim. O autor define o pós-milenismo como "a concepção das últimas coisas que sustenta que o reino de Deus está sendo estendido agora no mundo pela pregação do evangelho e a obra salvadora do Espírito Santo, que o mundo irá finalmente ser cristianizado e que a volta de Cristo ocorrerá no final de um longo período de retidão e paz comumente chamado de milênio". Eu fiquei animado pra ler e ver como o autor defenderia sua posição, pois ela é bastante atraente, mas foi um balde de água fria. O autor fala muito de fatos históricos que mostram o mundo em um grande progresso cristão, e faz suposições de como esse progresso continuará no futuro até a vinda definitiva de Cristo. Mas ele praticamente não utiliza a Bíblia, e nem tenta mostrar sua interpretação dos textos que aparentemente demonstram o contrário.
4) Amilenismo:
Pra mim, o melhor capítulo. Hoekema define que "os amilenistas creem que o milênio de Ap 20 não é exclusivamente futuro, mas está hoje em processo de realização". Hoekema é bastante didático. Ele primeiro demonstra sua forma de interpretação de Apocalipse (pelo paralelismo progressivo), depois faz uma exegese bem definida de Ap 20.1-6 (o único texto que cita o milênio), depois trata um pouco das questões hermenêuticas (interpretações literais e simbólicas) e finaliza com um baita resumo da escatologia amilenista. Além da didática é extremamente bíblico e objetivo.
Pra quem é leigo no assunto, vale super a pena começar por este livro. Recomendo.
July 18, 2024
I really appreciated the format of those book, yet I found some of the authors hard to read. Their arguments were disorganized, in my opinion. Overall, though, it was a good book for learning about different views of this topic.
September 5, 2024
The original printing of this may be the ugliest book cover I’ve ever seen.
I felt like the engagement between the various contributors was quite weak here. Two of the primary essays failed to exegete Rev 20:1-6 meaningfully, which seems insane in a book on the millennium.
Hoekema and Ladd’s essays are the best out of the 4.
I felt like the engagement between the various contributors was quite weak here. Two of the primary essays failed to exegete Rev 20:1-6 meaningfully, which seems insane in a book on the millennium.
Hoekema and Ladd’s essays are the best out of the 4.
July 14, 2012
It was okay. None of the arguments were all that convincing overall (though some were stronger than others). Although space clearly will limit the depth any of the authors can go, I think they all could have made better points with their respective chapters.
Chapter 1: Historic (i.e. non-dispensational) Premillenialism; George Eldon Ladd:
Discusses how not all Old Testament prophecies are to be taken literally in every detail (in contrast to dispensationalism). Thought-provoking, but he takes it too far, going a far as saying that the Old Testament not only was vague in speaking of the Messiah, but that it never was literally speaking of him in Isaiah 53, meaning (as he interprets), the whole suffering servant element of Jesus was unknown to the Old Testament. Takes "progressive revelation" a bit too far in my opinion. It's one thing to say that we should use using clear interpretations and statements in the New Testament to shed light on the Old Testament where it is less clear, but he seems to argue that the New should interpret the Old and that is that. He also makes no distinction between actual prophetic predictions of the future, and instances where the NT "fulfills" things written in the Old. He is right that many instances where prophecies are "fulfilled" in the NT are not literally fulfilling the prediction made, but as fellow-contributor Herman Hoyt points out, the fact that previously fulfilled prophecies have secondary fulfillment in New Testament doesn't change what was actually predicted. For example, when Matthew says that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Jesus' virgin birth, despite the fact that Isaiah was specifically speaking of something to happen in his own time, Matthew wasn't revealing that Isaiah's prophecy was figurative for something other than what the text of Isaiah literally says. Isaiah's prediction, the birth of a child, the coming of the king of Assyria, that all did happen in Isaiah's time as he predicted. That wasn't a prophecy that was figurative for Jesus. It was a literal prophecy that God, being the ultimate author of scripture, infused with a deeper, secondary allusion to His Son.
As far as his proof of an earthly kingdom ruled by Christ and His followers for a millennium after His return, it all hinged more or less on Revelation 20:1-6.
Chapter 2: Dispensational Premillenialism; Herman Hoyt:
Presented the standard dispensational view; Israel and the Church are eternally separate, and the Bible, with few exceptions (such as when it goes against dispensationalism) is to be taken literally. Not a very strong presentation, as it did little to address serious objections to dispensationalism.
Chapter 3: Postmillenialism; Loraine Boettner:
Being an amillenialist myself, I am more sympathetic to this view, although most of the case Boettner set out revolved more on the arguments that humanity has gotten better since the first coming of Christ, and so it should get better and better until it is near perfect by the time Jesus returns. For those not familiar with postmillennialism, it is essentially amillennialism (denying a millennial kingdom to follow the coming of Christ), but it makes a point that humanity will become soChristianized and godly that by the time Christ returns, it will be as if a millennium of Christ ruling on earth had occurred prior to His coming. In other words, He returns post-millennium. The exegetical argument for this view of humanity improving prior to Christ's coming hinged almost entirely, on the great commission. Since the apostles were told to make disciple of all nations, all nations, in almost their entirety, are to eventually become Christianized. Not much was given for why the we should deny that the 1,000 years spoken of in Revelation 20 is not in fact a 1,000 year period that follows Christ's physical return and precedes final judgment. I am not sure if this was a shortcoming on the part of Boettner, or simply an editorial decision. Because Anthony Hoekema in Part 4 addresses this passage in that way, it would, after all, have been redundant for two contributors to argue the same point from largely the same texts.
Chapter 4 - Amillenialism; Anthony Hoekema:
As an amillenialist myself, I should have loved this part, but I thought Hoekema fell a little short. Much of what he said was assumption (which others, in the responses, accurately pointed out). He did make good points here and there, however. For example, Jesus comes in fire and flames in Revelation 1:7-9, and takes vengeance on the unsaved and condemns them to eternal destruction. Unlike a lot of the passages Hoekema pointed to, that passage actually does appear to bring the second coming and final judgment together in one event, which makes a millennium in between impossible. Still, gems like that were hidden in assumptions, and occasional arguments that were just bad. For example, he argued that in Revelation 20, when it says the martyrs came to life in verse 4, it was referring to spiritual life, not the resurrection. He also argues that it must mean the same thing in Verse 5. The problem is, he then argues that those in Verse 5 are the unsaved and never "come to life." Problem is, Verse 5 says, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed." In other words, the others do "come to life;” they just didn’t do it until the 1,000 years passed (which did happen in John’s vision). Hoekema says that this is not actually implied in Verse 5, but his only argument is that it would have made a clear statement to that effect if it were the case that the others came to life. But, it did make a clear statement to that effect...Considering that this is THE millennium passage, the explanation was a little disappointing.
Responses
After each chapter, the other 3 were given a chance to make brief responses to the other cases. I found that Loraine Boettner (postmillennialism) had the strongest rebuttals, focusing like a laser on specific problems with the arguments given. George Eldon Ladd's responses were the weakest. They were the shortest, and often were not very substantive.
Overall
Like a lot of these books that present multiple views on a topic, it was more useful than not reading anything, but there just isn't enough space for any view to be well represented and defended. I didn't find any of the cases very compelling. The highlight for me was Loraine Boettner's responses, which is kind of like going to a formal banquet where the highlight is the salad. It's not a terrible book; it’s just nothing special.
Oh, and Loraine Boettner’s a man, which I only discovered after I started reading this XD
Chapter 1: Historic (i.e. non-dispensational) Premillenialism; George Eldon Ladd:
Discusses how not all Old Testament prophecies are to be taken literally in every detail (in contrast to dispensationalism). Thought-provoking, but he takes it too far, going a far as saying that the Old Testament not only was vague in speaking of the Messiah, but that it never was literally speaking of him in Isaiah 53, meaning (as he interprets), the whole suffering servant element of Jesus was unknown to the Old Testament. Takes "progressive revelation" a bit too far in my opinion. It's one thing to say that we should use using clear interpretations and statements in the New Testament to shed light on the Old Testament where it is less clear, but he seems to argue that the New should interpret the Old and that is that. He also makes no distinction between actual prophetic predictions of the future, and instances where the NT "fulfills" things written in the Old. He is right that many instances where prophecies are "fulfilled" in the NT are not literally fulfilling the prediction made, but as fellow-contributor Herman Hoyt points out, the fact that previously fulfilled prophecies have secondary fulfillment in New Testament doesn't change what was actually predicted. For example, when Matthew says that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Jesus' virgin birth, despite the fact that Isaiah was specifically speaking of something to happen in his own time, Matthew wasn't revealing that Isaiah's prophecy was figurative for something other than what the text of Isaiah literally says. Isaiah's prediction, the birth of a child, the coming of the king of Assyria, that all did happen in Isaiah's time as he predicted. That wasn't a prophecy that was figurative for Jesus. It was a literal prophecy that God, being the ultimate author of scripture, infused with a deeper, secondary allusion to His Son.
As far as his proof of an earthly kingdom ruled by Christ and His followers for a millennium after His return, it all hinged more or less on Revelation 20:1-6.
Chapter 2: Dispensational Premillenialism; Herman Hoyt:
Presented the standard dispensational view; Israel and the Church are eternally separate, and the Bible, with few exceptions (such as when it goes against dispensationalism) is to be taken literally. Not a very strong presentation, as it did little to address serious objections to dispensationalism.
Chapter 3: Postmillenialism; Loraine Boettner:
Being an amillenialist myself, I am more sympathetic to this view, although most of the case Boettner set out revolved more on the arguments that humanity has gotten better since the first coming of Christ, and so it should get better and better until it is near perfect by the time Jesus returns. For those not familiar with postmillennialism, it is essentially amillennialism (denying a millennial kingdom to follow the coming of Christ), but it makes a point that humanity will become soChristianized and godly that by the time Christ returns, it will be as if a millennium of Christ ruling on earth had occurred prior to His coming. In other words, He returns post-millennium. The exegetical argument for this view of humanity improving prior to Christ's coming hinged almost entirely, on the great commission. Since the apostles were told to make disciple of all nations, all nations, in almost their entirety, are to eventually become Christianized. Not much was given for why the we should deny that the 1,000 years spoken of in Revelation 20 is not in fact a 1,000 year period that follows Christ's physical return and precedes final judgment. I am not sure if this was a shortcoming on the part of Boettner, or simply an editorial decision. Because Anthony Hoekema in Part 4 addresses this passage in that way, it would, after all, have been redundant for two contributors to argue the same point from largely the same texts.
Chapter 4 - Amillenialism; Anthony Hoekema:
As an amillenialist myself, I should have loved this part, but I thought Hoekema fell a little short. Much of what he said was assumption (which others, in the responses, accurately pointed out). He did make good points here and there, however. For example, Jesus comes in fire and flames in Revelation 1:7-9, and takes vengeance on the unsaved and condemns them to eternal destruction. Unlike a lot of the passages Hoekema pointed to, that passage actually does appear to bring the second coming and final judgment together in one event, which makes a millennium in between impossible. Still, gems like that were hidden in assumptions, and occasional arguments that were just bad. For example, he argued that in Revelation 20, when it says the martyrs came to life in verse 4, it was referring to spiritual life, not the resurrection. He also argues that it must mean the same thing in Verse 5. The problem is, he then argues that those in Verse 5 are the unsaved and never "come to life." Problem is, Verse 5 says, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed." In other words, the others do "come to life;” they just didn’t do it until the 1,000 years passed (which did happen in John’s vision). Hoekema says that this is not actually implied in Verse 5, but his only argument is that it would have made a clear statement to that effect if it were the case that the others came to life. But, it did make a clear statement to that effect...Considering that this is THE millennium passage, the explanation was a little disappointing.
Responses
After each chapter, the other 3 were given a chance to make brief responses to the other cases. I found that Loraine Boettner (postmillennialism) had the strongest rebuttals, focusing like a laser on specific problems with the arguments given. George Eldon Ladd's responses were the weakest. They were the shortest, and often were not very substantive.
Overall
Like a lot of these books that present multiple views on a topic, it was more useful than not reading anything, but there just isn't enough space for any view to be well represented and defended. I didn't find any of the cases very compelling. The highlight for me was Loraine Boettner's responses, which is kind of like going to a formal banquet where the highlight is the salad. It's not a terrible book; it’s just nothing special.
Oh, and Loraine Boettner’s a man, which I only discovered after I started reading this XD
May 5, 2021
I've always been weak in eschatology. I suppose I still am. Other than trying to put as much distance between me and dispensationalism as I can, it doesn't excite or really interest me all that much. I do see the importance of working through the issues.
This book is a mixed bag. Ladd (Historic Premill) and Hoekema's (Amill) essays where the best. They are also the only two positions I'm sympathetic towards. Boettner's Postmill essay was extremely disappointing and contained very little exegetical argument at all. Overall, the book isn't edited very well. The essays and responses are uneven and feel incomplete. There is a difference in defending your position and simply discussing your position. Clouse did very little to frame the debate and with a few exceptions, the responses weren't very stimulating. All of the authors tend to drift back towards interacting with classical dispensationalism, even when it wasn't the topic of discussion.
I grew up with the dispensational premill view which I have totally rejected.
For the last ten years I've claimed the historic premil position (with a whisper) and have had a growing sympathy towards amillennialism.
Now, I've flipped to a humble amillennialism (with a slightly louder whisper) with a sympathy towards historic premill.
For those of you who have sorted this out, I'd be interested to hear what books have helped you.
This book is a mixed bag. Ladd (Historic Premill) and Hoekema's (Amill) essays where the best. They are also the only two positions I'm sympathetic towards. Boettner's Postmill essay was extremely disappointing and contained very little exegetical argument at all. Overall, the book isn't edited very well. The essays and responses are uneven and feel incomplete. There is a difference in defending your position and simply discussing your position. Clouse did very little to frame the debate and with a few exceptions, the responses weren't very stimulating. All of the authors tend to drift back towards interacting with classical dispensationalism, even when it wasn't the topic of discussion.
I grew up with the dispensational premill view which I have totally rejected.
For the last ten years I've claimed the historic premil position (with a whisper) and have had a growing sympathy towards amillennialism.
Now, I've flipped to a humble amillennialism (with a slightly louder whisper) with a sympathy towards historic premill.
For those of you who have sorted this out, I'd be interested to hear what books have helped you.
September 14, 2024
As I continue a deep dive into the various eschatological views I am finding many similarities at least in the core teaching biblical. We agree (at least with the main systems) that the Lord is going to return and there will be a resurrection of the dead, and judgment upon the wicked.
This book is a compilation of four systems, Historic Premillennialism, Dispensational Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism. Each view considered is presented from a scriptural standpoint and then a counterpoint (s) is given.
The book itself was not meant to go deep on the various eschatological views more or less a debate between each proponent presenting "their" side and with follow-ups from the other viewpoints.
I wouldn't say that this book will bring a sweeping change in your eschatological viewpoint, but it will raise some questions and perhaps encourage you to look at your position from a different perspective.
It is a short read with just over 200 pages. It is an easy read as well. I would recommend this book for those who may not be buying into the "theology" packed movie and book series.
This book is a compilation of four systems, Historic Premillennialism, Dispensational Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Amillennialism. Each view considered is presented from a scriptural standpoint and then a counterpoint (s) is given.
The book itself was not meant to go deep on the various eschatological views more or less a debate between each proponent presenting "their" side and with follow-ups from the other viewpoints.
I wouldn't say that this book will bring a sweeping change in your eschatological viewpoint, but it will raise some questions and perhaps encourage you to look at your position from a different perspective.
It is a short read with just over 200 pages. It is an easy read as well. I would recommend this book for those who may not be buying into the "theology" packed movie and book series.
November 1, 2022
It is a little dated, but still a good intro. I read this in a few days just to refresh myself before teaching on the Millennium for a Sunday school. Four basic takes on the Millennium (historic pre, dispensational pre, amill, and post), with interactions with the other views after each chapter.
The best chapters by far were Ladd's (historic pre) and Hoekema (amillennial). Surprisingly, the other two by Herman Hoyt (dispensational) and Lorraine Boettner (post) barely interacted with Revelation 20 at all and provided fairly (in my estimation) weak arguments. Boettner's chapter was particularly disappointing. I was really looking for a more robust defense of his view, but he spent the majority of his time arguing from social statistics that the world was really getting better and better. Not a terribly convincing form of argument.
The best chapters by far were Ladd's (historic pre) and Hoekema (amillennial). Surprisingly, the other two by Herman Hoyt (dispensational) and Lorraine Boettner (post) barely interacted with Revelation 20 at all and provided fairly (in my estimation) weak arguments. Boettner's chapter was particularly disappointing. I was really looking for a more robust defense of his view, but he spent the majority of his time arguing from social statistics that the world was really getting better and better. Not a terribly convincing form of argument.
July 3, 2024
I like the way this book was structured. One author would make a case for the position he held and all the others would respond with their criticisms. The dispensational argument was lacking in clarity and the post millennial argument was built mostly on extra biblical ideas. So, I’m not sure the best arguments were made for these positions. The amillennial and historic pre millennial positions I thought were conveyed well. Whether it be the original argument or the responses, the book helped me understand each position better. I would give an edge to the amillennial position in general and this book further solidified me in that position. This book is more of an introduction to each of the different views and would be a great resource for someone who is curious about the basic similarities and differences between the viewpoints.
May 29, 2020
This was a great book and helped me learn some of the basics of eschatology. I wanted a book that would teach me all 4 sides so that I could make up my own mind on where I stand, and this book did just that.
The arguments for the premil sides, (especially the dispensational side) were somewhat weak and there was little scriptural evidence to back up the writer’s claims for those particular sections.
The postmil side was decently argued, but I found it still somewhat unconvincing.
My favorite section was the amil section. It was very well written, backed up with scripture, and truly convincing.
So, as of now, I think I’m an amillennialist but I look forward to reading more about eschatology so that I can further explore each side.
4/5 stars! ⭐️
The arguments for the premil sides, (especially the dispensational side) were somewhat weak and there was little scriptural evidence to back up the writer’s claims for those particular sections.
The postmil side was decently argued, but I found it still somewhat unconvincing.
My favorite section was the amil section. It was very well written, backed up with scripture, and truly convincing.
So, as of now, I think I’m an amillennialist but I look forward to reading more about eschatology so that I can further explore each side.
4/5 stars! ⭐️
March 17, 2021
I really love the "four views" format. This particular book confirmed me in my amillennial beliefs, but it didn't really enlighten me on postmillennialism, which was my main reason for buying the book. That's perhaps because the Loraine Boettner school of postmillennialism seems to have largely given way to other views, which are not described in this older (1977) work.
I did gain an understanding of the fact that dispensational premillennialism interprets the New Testament in the light of the Old, while amillennialism interprets the Old Testament in the light of the New. Also that none of the views are "optimistic" or "pessimistic" per se, but rather that they are optimistic and pessimistic about different things.
I did gain an understanding of the fact that dispensational premillennialism interprets the New Testament in the light of the Old, while amillennialism interprets the Old Testament in the light of the New. Also that none of the views are "optimistic" or "pessimistic" per se, but rather that they are optimistic and pessimistic about different things.
April 1, 2018
I can not imagine caring about any of this.
February 9, 2024
This book is almost 50 years old now, so one wonders how dated it is; yet the topic is timeless. Still, when the book was published, the dispensational pre-millennial view reigned supreme in evangelicalism. Since that time the preterist view has gained in popularity, so an update of the book would likely need to address that trend. Nevertheless, the book includes the amillennial and post-millennial views, which both relate to preterism, so perhaps that view is addressed even though it isn't mentioned by name.
The Meaning of the Millennium is a book about eschatology, and specifically that aspect of eschatology referred to as the millennium. As the subtitle says, the book provides a helpful sketch and comparison of 4 common views. The idea of the millennium comes from Revelation 20, which seems to describe a future period in which the activity of Satan will be bound and Christ and his glorified followers will rule the world for a thousand years (hence the term "millennium"). The 4 views discussed here are (with the author of each section in parentheses):
1) dispensational premillennialism (Herman A. Hoyt)
2) historic premillennialism (George Eldon Ladd)
3) postmillennialism (Loraine Boettner)
4) amillennialism (Anthony A. Hoekema)
After each author shares their view, the others provide a brief response according to their preferred viewpoint.
While the interpretation of Revelation 20 might seem straightforward, there are actually multiple ways in which it has been understood. The 4 common views discussed in the book can be divided roughly into two types: Those which interpret biblical language about Christ's thousand-year reign literally, and those which interpret such language more figuratively.
Taken literally Revelation 20 seems to describe a future period in which Satan will be bound and Christ and his resurrected followers will rule the world. The two premillennial viewpoints are those which subscribe to this more literal reading. Amillennialism and post-millennialism interpret the language about a thousand-year reign more figuratively. The difference hinges on how these scholars understand the Book of Revelation as a whole. Hoekema (amillennialism) and Boettner (post-millennialism) break Revelation down into 7 sections which they see as parallel to one another. They claim that each of these 7 segments deal with the same subject matter from 7 different angles. They say that each section describes events that are happening simultaneously in heaven and on earth during the last days.
Though Hoekema and Boettner differ on how the language about the 1000-year reign in chapter 20 should be interpreted, overall they're in agreement about this scheme for interpreting the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the premillennialists, Ladd and Hoyt, see Revelation as an ongoing sequence of events that unfold more or less in the order they're described. However, these scholars may have different views about what the specific portions of the book mean.
Ladd and Hoyt, the premillennialists, see Revelation 19-20 as a single unit describing: 1] the coming of Christ at the end of the age (ch. 19:11-21) followed by 2] the 1000-year reign (the millennium - ch. 20). Hoekema and Boettner, on the other hand, see chapters 19 and 20 as not directly related. These scholars see ch. 19 as part of a section consisting of ch. 17-19, while ch. 20 is part of a different segment that includes ch. 20-22. So in their view, rather than comprising a progression of events, chapters 19 and 20 describe different aspects of the same events.
Another factor which plays an important role in the interpretation of the millennium is the way in which Old Testament prophecies are understood. On this topic, three of the scholars are in agreement and one, the dispensationalist, has views which are unique to his viewpoint. The matter in question is whether Old Testament prophecies are to be interpreted literally or figuratively. More will be explained about this topic below.
Before we go any further perhaps a quick summary of terms will be helpful:
1) "Pre-millennialism" is the view that Revelation 20 predicts a literal 1000-year reign by Christ and his resurrected followers on the earth, which is ushered in by and follows the second coming of Christ. Pre-millennialism typically holds a negative view of culture, believing human culture naturally opposes God and can only be transformed by the second coming of Christ. The book describes two different forms of premillennialism, which will be enlarged on below.
2) "Post-millennialism" does not interpret Revelation 20 as speaking of a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth. Instead, post-millennialism is the view that Christianity will continue to spread throughout the earth through the preaching of the gospel until one day virtually all people will be Christians, causing cultures throughout the world to adopt Christian values, until the world is transformed into the Kingdom of God, at which time Christ will return bodily and take his place as king of the earth. Post-millennialism, thus, is optimistic about the future success of Christianity in the world, and about Christianity's power to transform human culture to take on the values of the kingdom of God.
3) Amillennialism also interprets the millennial language in Revelation 20 figuratively. Unlike post-millennialism, though, amillennialism doesn't expect a millennial reign of Christ apart from that of the new heaven and the new earth; or else amillennialism sees the millennium as having begun with Christ's first coming and lasting an indeterminant amount of time until his second coming. Also unlike post-millennialism, and like pre-millennialism, the amillennial view expects an intense struggle against the forces of evil before Christ returns to abolish the current order and set up the new heaven and earth. As opposed to being optimistic or pessimistic about the prospects of transforming the world prior to Christ's return, I would call the amillennial response to culture one of realism.
As noted above, two different pre-millennial views are presented in the book: So-called Historic Pre-millennialism, and the Dispensationalist Pre-millennial view. George Eldon Ladd claims the Historic Pre-millennial view is dubbed that because it's the view held by most of the early church fathers up till the time of Augustine, who formulated the amillennial view, which subsequently became the predominant view for centuries. Herman Hoyt, the proponent of the dispensational view, takes issue with this account, though, claiming the premillennial viewpoint held by the early fathers was the dispensational view. However, it's generally agreed by non-dispensationalist church historians that dispensationalist premillennialism was first articulated by John Nelson Darby in the 19th century. I will now seek to explain the primary differences between the two premillennial viewpoints.
The dispensationalist premillennial method of biblical interpretation (presented by Hoyt) is to interpret Scripture as literally as possible unless the context clearly shows the text is meant figuratively. Therefore, in dispensationalism all prophecies about Israel are to expect a literal fulfillment, so if an Old Testament prophecy about Israel hasn't been literally fulfilled yet, that means it still awaits a literal fulfillment sometime in the future.
On the surface this sounds great to an evangelical, doesn't it? After all, we evangelicals are all about taking the Bible literally, right? Not so fast, respond the other three scholars--all of whom identify as evangelicals themselves. As Ladd says in his chapter (and both Boettner and Hoekema agree), we should take our cues about Old Testament interpretation from the New Testament; and the fact is, the New Testament interprets a lot of the Old Testament figuratively rather than literally. All three of the non-dispensationalist scholars offer examples of Old Testament prophecies that are interpreted figuratively in the New Testament rather than literally. Much of what is physical and temporal in the Old Testament becomes spiritual in the New Testament, requiring Old Testament prophecies to be understood in a manner different than was expected based on a literal interpretation. The three non-dispensational authors claim that it was precisely because the Jews were stuck on literal interpretations of Old Testament prophecies that they failed to recognize Jesus as their Messiah.
One of the interpretive moves the dispensationalist insistence on a literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecies leads to is the conclusion that Israel and the church are entirely and permanently distinct in Scripture. Dispensationalists uniquely hold the belief that God has one future in mind for the nation of Israel and an entirely different future for the church. The other three viewpoints all agree that the promises made to and about Israel in the Old Testament are applied to the church in the New. The three non-dispensationalist scholars point out that Jesus prophesied that the kingdom of God was going to be taken away from Israel, due to their disobedience, and given to others (Matthew 21:43). Likewise, they observe that historically the Jews lost their nation when they rebelled against the Romans in AD 67-70, a fact which the New Testament seems to cast as a judgment against Israel for rejecting Christ as their Messiah.
The two premillennialist scholars (Ladd and Hoyt) agree that Romans 11 seems to prophecy a future for the nation of Israel (Romans 11:25 says that once the "full number of the Gentiles have come in...all Israel will be saved"). Where historic premillennialism and dispensationalist premillennialism diverge, though, is on the matter of Old Testament prophecy. Dispensationalists believe that every Old Testament prophecy which hasn't yet been literally fulfilled will be fulfilled during the future millennial reign of Christ. Therefore dispensationalism sees much Old Testament prophecy as being about the millennium. The other three viewpoints, including historic premillennialism, disagree with dispensationalists on this point. Post-millennialists and amillennialists believe that if an Old Testament prophecy wasn't literally fulfilled prior to Christ's first coming, then we should look to see how it has already been fulfilled symbolically in the person and work of Christ. And while historic pre-millennialism does believe Romans 11:25 predicts a future role for the nation of Israel in some sense, nevertheless historic pre-millennialism agrees with the post-millennial and amillennial views that much Old Testament prophecy was figuratively or symbolically fulfilled in the work of Christ and in the church. So historic pre-millennialists believe the Bible isn't clear about any future for the nation of Israel, and they are OK with the uncertainty of that; they believe it will be revealed through the working of God in history.
This brings me to another way in which Dispensational Premillennialism differs from the other 3 views. Dispensationalism is by far the most tightly structured of the 4 views, which may help explain its popularity. Dispensationalists have fashioned the Old and New Testament material they believe speaks about the end times into a very clear structure and progression of events. They feel they know with certainty how the prophecies fit together into a very specific timeline. They're convinced they know which prophecies pertain to the future of Israel and which ones pertain to the future of the church. They believe unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled in the millennium and that therefore the reconstituted nation of Israel and converted Jews will play a crucial role during the millennium.
The other three viewpoints assert that the primary purpose of Old Testament prophecy was to point to Christ, and that therefore many seemingly temporal Old Testament prophecies were actually intended to prefigure the Messiah and therefore have their complete fulfillment in Christ. Adherents of these viewpoints don't expect a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in the future. George Ladd, the historic premillennialist, says instead we must allow the New Testament to show us how Old Testament prophecies are to be correctly interpreted, and we must look to the New Testament alone to tell us what to expect in the future.
Because the three non-dispensationalist viewpoints believe Old Testament prophecies have already been fulfilled in Christ; and because the post-millennialist and amillennialist views don't believe in a literal millennium; these three viewpoints don't try to establish a very specific timeline of future events. Rather, they look more generally to the signs of the times as described in the New Testament as a guide to predicting future events.
I will now share my thoughts about the 4 views and the presentation of them in the book.
I should begin by disclosing that upon reading this book I realized that the viewpoint I have long subscribed to most closely aligns with historic premillennialism. That said, reading The Meaning of the Millennium persuaded me to see each of the other views in a new light, and to find features I appreciate about each one.
I will say I found Herman Hoyt's explanation of the dispensationalist view and Anthony Hoekema's explication of amillennialism to be the most thorough and well-presented. George Ladd did a fair job of presenting the historic premillennial view. Since I already agreed with him, I found his presentation engaging and agreeable; however, if I hadn't already held to that view I'm not sure his presentation would have persuaded me. His explanation wasn't as detailed as some of the others. While I found Loraine Boettner's post-millennial view the most appealing, I felt his explanation was by far the most lacking. Though Boettner's chapter was long, he did very little to support his opinions with Scripture. He didn't even explicate Revelation 20.
I will admit that reading Hoyt's chapter helped me finally make some sense of the dispensationalist view, which I have never understood or found convincing. He cited the Bible the most broadly, drawing from the whole of Scripture, though this is what I would expect of a viewpoint that sees the majority of Old Testament prophecy as applying to the future millennium. But he did a good job of explaining how it all fits together in his view. And I will confess I found it more persuasive than I ever have--that is, until I read the dissenting responses, which highlight some of the flaws. George Ladd also contended that Hoyt's account of dispensationalist premillennialism isn't the usual explanation, which led me to wonder how representative each of the scholars in the book actually are of their preferred view. It also taught me that there may be more than one explanation of any of the given views.
As I said above, I found Boettner's account of post-millennialism most appealing, though not very persuasive from a Scriptural standpoint. But of the 4, this is the one I would most like to be true. Boettner's view is very optimistic; he sees the world as getting better and better (though he wrote in the 1970s, not foreseeing the massive cultural changes that have happened in the last half-century, in which the supremacy of Judeo-Christian theism has given way to a revival of paganism and atheism). He expects the church to be ultimately triumphant in evangelism, causing more and more people and cultures to become increasingly Christian, until finally Christianity becomes the dominant force in the world, ushering in the Kingdom of God on earth. He acknowledges that throughout history every advance of Christianity has been followed by a setback or regression in which it appears Christianity is losing ground; but he believes in the long view the losses are always temporary and ultimately outpaced by the gains. However, Boettner's chapter suffers greatly from a lack of biblical support. He just doesn't cite much Scripture to substantiate his claims. Rather, he just states them as a foregone conclusion.
Anthony Hoekema's chapter on amillennialism is the most thorough and well-organized presentation in the book. While I didn't find his interpretive method for Revelation convincing, I appreciated the fact that he went to some pains to carefully explain what he believes and why, and he spent considerable time explaining how he interprets Old Testament prophecy and Revelation, and chapter 20 specifically. One key issue that makes a difference in one's view of the end times is how one sees the kingdom of God--in what sense is Christ's kingdom already present in the world, and in what ways is it to be more completely realized in the future. Both Hoekema and Hoyt, the dispensationalist, gave detailed explanations of how the kingdom of God fits into their viewpoints, which I appreciated.
To conclude, reading The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views really helped me understand the different millennial theologies for the first time--to grasp and appreciate their similarities and differences. It was interesting and encouraging to see these 4 scholars engaging and debating one another in a respectful fashion. Because the book is now so old it could use an update, or perhaps a completely new edition with new chapters written by 4 of today's scholars representing these 4 views. If such an update were done I think two topics could be added to the book to enhance it. One would be a deeper exploration of the rapture. The second would be to address the topic of preterism, which has become much more popular since the book was originally published.
The Meaning of the Millennium is a book about eschatology, and specifically that aspect of eschatology referred to as the millennium. As the subtitle says, the book provides a helpful sketch and comparison of 4 common views. The idea of the millennium comes from Revelation 20, which seems to describe a future period in which the activity of Satan will be bound and Christ and his glorified followers will rule the world for a thousand years (hence the term "millennium"). The 4 views discussed here are (with the author of each section in parentheses):
1) dispensational premillennialism (Herman A. Hoyt)
2) historic premillennialism (George Eldon Ladd)
3) postmillennialism (Loraine Boettner)
4) amillennialism (Anthony A. Hoekema)
After each author shares their view, the others provide a brief response according to their preferred viewpoint.
While the interpretation of Revelation 20 might seem straightforward, there are actually multiple ways in which it has been understood. The 4 common views discussed in the book can be divided roughly into two types: Those which interpret biblical language about Christ's thousand-year reign literally, and those which interpret such language more figuratively.
Taken literally Revelation 20 seems to describe a future period in which Satan will be bound and Christ and his resurrected followers will rule the world. The two premillennial viewpoints are those which subscribe to this more literal reading. Amillennialism and post-millennialism interpret the language about a thousand-year reign more figuratively. The difference hinges on how these scholars understand the Book of Revelation as a whole. Hoekema (amillennialism) and Boettner (post-millennialism) break Revelation down into 7 sections which they see as parallel to one another. They claim that each of these 7 segments deal with the same subject matter from 7 different angles. They say that each section describes events that are happening simultaneously in heaven and on earth during the last days.
Though Hoekema and Boettner differ on how the language about the 1000-year reign in chapter 20 should be interpreted, overall they're in agreement about this scheme for interpreting the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the premillennialists, Ladd and Hoyt, see Revelation as an ongoing sequence of events that unfold more or less in the order they're described. However, these scholars may have different views about what the specific portions of the book mean.
Ladd and Hoyt, the premillennialists, see Revelation 19-20 as a single unit describing: 1] the coming of Christ at the end of the age (ch. 19:11-21) followed by 2] the 1000-year reign (the millennium - ch. 20). Hoekema and Boettner, on the other hand, see chapters 19 and 20 as not directly related. These scholars see ch. 19 as part of a section consisting of ch. 17-19, while ch. 20 is part of a different segment that includes ch. 20-22. So in their view, rather than comprising a progression of events, chapters 19 and 20 describe different aspects of the same events.
Another factor which plays an important role in the interpretation of the millennium is the way in which Old Testament prophecies are understood. On this topic, three of the scholars are in agreement and one, the dispensationalist, has views which are unique to his viewpoint. The matter in question is whether Old Testament prophecies are to be interpreted literally or figuratively. More will be explained about this topic below.
Before we go any further perhaps a quick summary of terms will be helpful:
1) "Pre-millennialism" is the view that Revelation 20 predicts a literal 1000-year reign by Christ and his resurrected followers on the earth, which is ushered in by and follows the second coming of Christ. Pre-millennialism typically holds a negative view of culture, believing human culture naturally opposes God and can only be transformed by the second coming of Christ. The book describes two different forms of premillennialism, which will be enlarged on below.
2) "Post-millennialism" does not interpret Revelation 20 as speaking of a literal 1000-year reign of Christ on earth. Instead, post-millennialism is the view that Christianity will continue to spread throughout the earth through the preaching of the gospel until one day virtually all people will be Christians, causing cultures throughout the world to adopt Christian values, until the world is transformed into the Kingdom of God, at which time Christ will return bodily and take his place as king of the earth. Post-millennialism, thus, is optimistic about the future success of Christianity in the world, and about Christianity's power to transform human culture to take on the values of the kingdom of God.
3) Amillennialism also interprets the millennial language in Revelation 20 figuratively. Unlike post-millennialism, though, amillennialism doesn't expect a millennial reign of Christ apart from that of the new heaven and the new earth; or else amillennialism sees the millennium as having begun with Christ's first coming and lasting an indeterminant amount of time until his second coming. Also unlike post-millennialism, and like pre-millennialism, the amillennial view expects an intense struggle against the forces of evil before Christ returns to abolish the current order and set up the new heaven and earth. As opposed to being optimistic or pessimistic about the prospects of transforming the world prior to Christ's return, I would call the amillennial response to culture one of realism.
As noted above, two different pre-millennial views are presented in the book: So-called Historic Pre-millennialism, and the Dispensationalist Pre-millennial view. George Eldon Ladd claims the Historic Pre-millennial view is dubbed that because it's the view held by most of the early church fathers up till the time of Augustine, who formulated the amillennial view, which subsequently became the predominant view for centuries. Herman Hoyt, the proponent of the dispensational view, takes issue with this account, though, claiming the premillennial viewpoint held by the early fathers was the dispensational view. However, it's generally agreed by non-dispensationalist church historians that dispensationalist premillennialism was first articulated by John Nelson Darby in the 19th century. I will now seek to explain the primary differences between the two premillennial viewpoints.
The dispensationalist premillennial method of biblical interpretation (presented by Hoyt) is to interpret Scripture as literally as possible unless the context clearly shows the text is meant figuratively. Therefore, in dispensationalism all prophecies about Israel are to expect a literal fulfillment, so if an Old Testament prophecy about Israel hasn't been literally fulfilled yet, that means it still awaits a literal fulfillment sometime in the future.
On the surface this sounds great to an evangelical, doesn't it? After all, we evangelicals are all about taking the Bible literally, right? Not so fast, respond the other three scholars--all of whom identify as evangelicals themselves. As Ladd says in his chapter (and both Boettner and Hoekema agree), we should take our cues about Old Testament interpretation from the New Testament; and the fact is, the New Testament interprets a lot of the Old Testament figuratively rather than literally. All three of the non-dispensationalist scholars offer examples of Old Testament prophecies that are interpreted figuratively in the New Testament rather than literally. Much of what is physical and temporal in the Old Testament becomes spiritual in the New Testament, requiring Old Testament prophecies to be understood in a manner different than was expected based on a literal interpretation. The three non-dispensational authors claim that it was precisely because the Jews were stuck on literal interpretations of Old Testament prophecies that they failed to recognize Jesus as their Messiah.
One of the interpretive moves the dispensationalist insistence on a literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecies leads to is the conclusion that Israel and the church are entirely and permanently distinct in Scripture. Dispensationalists uniquely hold the belief that God has one future in mind for the nation of Israel and an entirely different future for the church. The other three viewpoints all agree that the promises made to and about Israel in the Old Testament are applied to the church in the New. The three non-dispensationalist scholars point out that Jesus prophesied that the kingdom of God was going to be taken away from Israel, due to their disobedience, and given to others (Matthew 21:43). Likewise, they observe that historically the Jews lost their nation when they rebelled against the Romans in AD 67-70, a fact which the New Testament seems to cast as a judgment against Israel for rejecting Christ as their Messiah.
The two premillennialist scholars (Ladd and Hoyt) agree that Romans 11 seems to prophecy a future for the nation of Israel (Romans 11:25 says that once the "full number of the Gentiles have come in...all Israel will be saved"). Where historic premillennialism and dispensationalist premillennialism diverge, though, is on the matter of Old Testament prophecy. Dispensationalists believe that every Old Testament prophecy which hasn't yet been literally fulfilled will be fulfilled during the future millennial reign of Christ. Therefore dispensationalism sees much Old Testament prophecy as being about the millennium. The other three viewpoints, including historic premillennialism, disagree with dispensationalists on this point. Post-millennialists and amillennialists believe that if an Old Testament prophecy wasn't literally fulfilled prior to Christ's first coming, then we should look to see how it has already been fulfilled symbolically in the person and work of Christ. And while historic pre-millennialism does believe Romans 11:25 predicts a future role for the nation of Israel in some sense, nevertheless historic pre-millennialism agrees with the post-millennial and amillennial views that much Old Testament prophecy was figuratively or symbolically fulfilled in the work of Christ and in the church. So historic pre-millennialists believe the Bible isn't clear about any future for the nation of Israel, and they are OK with the uncertainty of that; they believe it will be revealed through the working of God in history.
This brings me to another way in which Dispensational Premillennialism differs from the other 3 views. Dispensationalism is by far the most tightly structured of the 4 views, which may help explain its popularity. Dispensationalists have fashioned the Old and New Testament material they believe speaks about the end times into a very clear structure and progression of events. They feel they know with certainty how the prophecies fit together into a very specific timeline. They're convinced they know which prophecies pertain to the future of Israel and which ones pertain to the future of the church. They believe unfulfilled Old Testament prophecies will be fulfilled in the millennium and that therefore the reconstituted nation of Israel and converted Jews will play a crucial role during the millennium.
The other three viewpoints assert that the primary purpose of Old Testament prophecy was to point to Christ, and that therefore many seemingly temporal Old Testament prophecies were actually intended to prefigure the Messiah and therefore have their complete fulfillment in Christ. Adherents of these viewpoints don't expect a literal fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies in the future. George Ladd, the historic premillennialist, says instead we must allow the New Testament to show us how Old Testament prophecies are to be correctly interpreted, and we must look to the New Testament alone to tell us what to expect in the future.
Because the three non-dispensationalist viewpoints believe Old Testament prophecies have already been fulfilled in Christ; and because the post-millennialist and amillennialist views don't believe in a literal millennium; these three viewpoints don't try to establish a very specific timeline of future events. Rather, they look more generally to the signs of the times as described in the New Testament as a guide to predicting future events.
I will now share my thoughts about the 4 views and the presentation of them in the book.
I should begin by disclosing that upon reading this book I realized that the viewpoint I have long subscribed to most closely aligns with historic premillennialism. That said, reading The Meaning of the Millennium persuaded me to see each of the other views in a new light, and to find features I appreciate about each one.
I will say I found Herman Hoyt's explanation of the dispensationalist view and Anthony Hoekema's explication of amillennialism to be the most thorough and well-presented. George Ladd did a fair job of presenting the historic premillennial view. Since I already agreed with him, I found his presentation engaging and agreeable; however, if I hadn't already held to that view I'm not sure his presentation would have persuaded me. His explanation wasn't as detailed as some of the others. While I found Loraine Boettner's post-millennial view the most appealing, I felt his explanation was by far the most lacking. Though Boettner's chapter was long, he did very little to support his opinions with Scripture. He didn't even explicate Revelation 20.
I will admit that reading Hoyt's chapter helped me finally make some sense of the dispensationalist view, which I have never understood or found convincing. He cited the Bible the most broadly, drawing from the whole of Scripture, though this is what I would expect of a viewpoint that sees the majority of Old Testament prophecy as applying to the future millennium. But he did a good job of explaining how it all fits together in his view. And I will confess I found it more persuasive than I ever have--that is, until I read the dissenting responses, which highlight some of the flaws. George Ladd also contended that Hoyt's account of dispensationalist premillennialism isn't the usual explanation, which led me to wonder how representative each of the scholars in the book actually are of their preferred view. It also taught me that there may be more than one explanation of any of the given views.
As I said above, I found Boettner's account of post-millennialism most appealing, though not very persuasive from a Scriptural standpoint. But of the 4, this is the one I would most like to be true. Boettner's view is very optimistic; he sees the world as getting better and better (though he wrote in the 1970s, not foreseeing the massive cultural changes that have happened in the last half-century, in which the supremacy of Judeo-Christian theism has given way to a revival of paganism and atheism). He expects the church to be ultimately triumphant in evangelism, causing more and more people and cultures to become increasingly Christian, until finally Christianity becomes the dominant force in the world, ushering in the Kingdom of God on earth. He acknowledges that throughout history every advance of Christianity has been followed by a setback or regression in which it appears Christianity is losing ground; but he believes in the long view the losses are always temporary and ultimately outpaced by the gains. However, Boettner's chapter suffers greatly from a lack of biblical support. He just doesn't cite much Scripture to substantiate his claims. Rather, he just states them as a foregone conclusion.
Anthony Hoekema's chapter on amillennialism is the most thorough and well-organized presentation in the book. While I didn't find his interpretive method for Revelation convincing, I appreciated the fact that he went to some pains to carefully explain what he believes and why, and he spent considerable time explaining how he interprets Old Testament prophecy and Revelation, and chapter 20 specifically. One key issue that makes a difference in one's view of the end times is how one sees the kingdom of God--in what sense is Christ's kingdom already present in the world, and in what ways is it to be more completely realized in the future. Both Hoekema and Hoyt, the dispensationalist, gave detailed explanations of how the kingdom of God fits into their viewpoints, which I appreciated.
To conclude, reading The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views really helped me understand the different millennial theologies for the first time--to grasp and appreciate their similarities and differences. It was interesting and encouraging to see these 4 scholars engaging and debating one another in a respectful fashion. Because the book is now so old it could use an update, or perhaps a completely new edition with new chapters written by 4 of today's scholars representing these 4 views. If such an update were done I think two topics could be added to the book to enhance it. One would be a deeper exploration of the rapture. The second would be to address the topic of preterism, which has become much more popular since the book was originally published.
August 18, 2023
I expected better exegesis from George Ladd. In that area, Hoekema comes out on top.
July 7, 2023
Closer to 3 and 1/2 stars
Really useful book for giving a clear picture of the different views (with the exception of historical premillennialism: Ladd did not do a competent job of distinguishing his view from either the Amillennial or Dispensationalist views) and providing a basic framework for thinking about each one.
I really appreciated the opportunity for each author to respond to a given presentation. It helped to clarify distinctions and give a sense of how each view is defended, as well as strengths and weaknesses of each.
On the downside, there isn’t a lot of room for thorough (and therefore cogent) argumentation and, of course, there’s a lot of annoying condescension flung by each of the authors at each other. Hoekema seemed the most fair minded of the bunch however.
Really useful book for giving a clear picture of the different views (with the exception of historical premillennialism: Ladd did not do a competent job of distinguishing his view from either the Amillennial or Dispensationalist views) and providing a basic framework for thinking about each one.
I really appreciated the opportunity for each author to respond to a given presentation. It helped to clarify distinctions and give a sense of how each view is defended, as well as strengths and weaknesses of each.
On the downside, there isn’t a lot of room for thorough (and therefore cogent) argumentation and, of course, there’s a lot of annoying condescension flung by each of the authors at each other. Hoekema seemed the most fair minded of the bunch however.
January 18, 2016
This is a very helpful book with all four major millennium views represented. The two I am most favorable towards, postmillennial and amillennial, are well represented by Loraine Boettner and Anthony Hoekema respectively. However George Ladd does an admirable job representing the historic premillennial viewpoint as well. Perhaps it best to summarize with this quote from Loraine Boetner, "Evangelical post-, a- and premillennialists agree that the Bible is the word of God, fully inspired and authoritative. They differ not in regard to the nature of Scripture authority but in regard to what they understand Scripture to teach."
October 11, 2011
A good read to help understand the different positions on the subject of Christian eschatology. Each view is presented by an adherent to the view, followed by a response from the contributors on the differing views. This method allowed the views to be both presented and defended, as well as refuted by those who do not hold to them. It's a good read, although it may not do much to allure you to one view or the other.
December 8, 2018
Pretty good. I honestly thought Hoekema (amil) made the best case for his view; Ladd (historic premil) was not far behind. Both Hoyt and Boettner (dispensational premil and postmil, respectively) were confusing and did not interact with Scripture sufficiently.
June 3, 2014
Some essays a little tougher to get through than others. Good issues highlighted though. In my estimation, Hoekema wins.
October 9, 2021
This book explores four major eschatological views. I like the format; each view is explained in an essay by an adherent of that view, and each essay is followed by three responses (one from each adherent of the other views).
I felt the amil essay made the strongest case. The postmil essay cites little Scripture and instead relies heavily on stats to show that the world is improving in many ways. The essay was an abbreviated form of Boettner's book, The Millennium.
The four contributors are:
Historic premil: George Eldon Ladd
Dispensational premil: Herman A. Hoyt
Postmil: Loraine Boettner
Amil: Anthony A. Hoekema
I've heard of two of the contributors (Hoekema and Boettner), but I'm not familiar with any of the four to know how well they represent adherents to their views.
Intro
Premil was dominant in first three centuries. Amil became dominant in fourth century. Augustine held it. It was dominant in Middle Ages. Reformers were amil, but Luther and Calvin were cautious in interpretation. Postmil became popular in 18th century. Premil regained popularity in 19th century, when dispensational understanding came about.
Historic premil
New Testament shows Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in church. Matthew 2:15; 8:17; Acts 8:32-35; Romans 9:24-26.
Church as spiritual Israel shown in Romans 4:11, 16; 2:28-29, Gal 3:7, 19; Philippians 3:3, Hebrews 8:8-12.
Revelation 20:1-6 is only passage that speaks of millennium, but 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 may refer to a kingdom before the end.
Postmil response to historic premil
"The idea of a provisional kingdom in which glorified saints and mortal men mingle finds no support anywhere in Scripture."
"And so all Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11:26) doesn't refer to literal, ethnic Israel; it refers to God's people. Gal 3:7; 2:28-29; 6:16; Eph 2:14-16. Israel ceased to be God's special people (Matthew 21:43; 1 Thessalonians 2:16).
Historic premil response to dispensational premil
Restoration of bloody sacrifices conflicts with Hebrews 8:13.
Postmil response to dispensational premil
All promises made to Israel in Old Testament either were fulfilled, or forfeited through disobedience. Israel was repeatedly warned that apostasy would cancel promise of future blessings. Deuteronomy 28:13-25, 45-46; Jeremiah 18:9-10; 1 Sam 2:30.
When Christ comes again it won't be to establish an earthly kingdom. Kingdom came at Christ's first coming. Mark 9:1; Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:5-6.
Amil response to dispensational premil
Jesus isn't king of an earthly kingdom. John 18:36-37.
New Testament doesn't teach separate future for believing Israel and believing non-Israelites. Ephesians 2:14-16; Romans 11:17-24; 1 Peter 2:9.
Old Testament passages dispensationalists claim refer to millennium actually refer to new earth or final state of blessedness.
New Testament frequently gives figurative interpretation of Old Testament concepts of Zion, Jesus, Holy Land, Kingdom, seed of Abraham, sacrifices, temple. One example: Acts 15:14-17.
New Testament doesn't predict future restoration of Israel as a nation. Promises are fulfilled in Jesus' resurrection and forgiveness of sins. Acts 13:32-34, 38.
Postmil
Salvation is for an incredibly large number, not a small, select group. Psalm 47:2, 97:5, Zechariah 9:10, Revelation 7:9-10.
Heaven is pictured as large (the next world, a kingdom, a country, a city), while hell is pictured as comparatively small (prison, lake of fire, pit). Angels and saints are called hosts, myriads, innumerable multitude, ten thousand times ten thousand; no such language is used used for lost.
High moral and spiritual life of millennium will result in material prosperity. Matthew 6:33; 1 Timothy 4:8, Isaiah 35:1.
Millennium is result of long, slow process. Luke 17:20; Mark 4:28; Isaiah 28:10.
Amil response to postmil
Revelation 20:4-6 doesn't refer to ruling with Christ of believers who are still on Earth and haven't yet died, but to ruling with Christ of souls of believers who have died.
Luke 18:8 suggests that the number of true believers will be small when Christ returns.
Amil
Revelation 1-11 describes church on earth, persecuted by world. Revelation 12-20 gives spiritual background of this struggle, describing persecution by Satan and his helpers.
Revelation consists of 7 sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts church in world from Christ's first to second coming. Last section starts with Revelation 20, so Revelation 20:1-6 covers beginning of New Testament era. It can be see by Revelation 20 describing Satan's defeat and doom, which began with Christ's first coming, described in Revelation 12:7-9. Millennial reign of Revelation 20:4-6 occurs before second coming, seen by final judgment in verses 11-15 pictured as coming after millennium. Final judgment is associated with second coming in New Testament. Revelation 22:12; Matthew 16:27; 25:31-32, Jude 14-15; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
Thousand years isn't literal; multiple of 10 indicates completeness.
Structure of Revelation and Revelation 20:7-15 show this thousand years represents time between first and second coming.
Structure of Revelation and Revelation 20:1-3 represents Satan's activity being curbed, not place of final punishment (which is called "lake of fire.")
In Old Testament, at least after Abraham, nations were deceived by Satan and only Israel had special revelation. Satan was bound so Great Commission could succeed.
While bound, Satan can still do harm, he just can't prevent nations from learning about God as he did in Old Testament. Matthew 12:29; Luke 10:17-18; John 12:31-32 show Satan was bound at Christ's first coming.
Revelation 20:4-6 mention thrones, and all but 3 of the 47 mentions of thrones in Revelation refer to heaven, so verses 4-6 show heaven, whereas verses 1-3 show earth.
In Revelation 20:4-6 those on thrones are souls who've been beheaded, so they're not on earth.
"Those who had not worshipped the Beast" refers to Christians who resisted anti-Christian powers.
There will be only one bodily resurrection that includes believers and unbelievers (John 5:28-29; Acts 4:15). So v 4 can't refer to bodily resurrection. Those who "came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years" are souls in heaven (Revelation 3:21). This living and reigning continues throughout gospel era.
Nothing in Revelation 20:4-6 refers to earthly millennial reign. "Rest of the dead" in verse 5 refers to unbelievers.
"First resurrection" is transition from physical death to life in heaven.
Isaiah 11:6-9 (wolf shall dwell with lamb) is vision of new earth.
Isaiah 65:17-25 refers to new heavens and earth.
Kingdom of God is both present and future. Present: Matthew 12:28; Luke 17:20-21; Romans 14:17, 1 Corinthians 4:19-20; Colossians 1:13-14. Future: 1 Corinthians 6:9; Gal 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Tim 4:18.
"Last days" refers to entire era between Christ's first and second coming. New Testament writers said they were already in last days (Acts 2:16-17, 1 Corinthians 10:11; 1 John 2:18) but a final "last day" is yet future (John 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48).
Old Testament prophecies about Israel in Canaan predicted eternal dwelling of all God's people on new earth, of which Canaan was a type (Hebrews 4; Gal 3:29).
Historic premil response to amil
Revelation 20:1 says angel came down from heaven, and Revelation 20:4 refers to bodily resurrection, so Revelation 20:1-6 is on Earth.
Dispensational premil response to amil
Nothing in Revelation 20:1-6 indicates shift from earth to heaven. Rev 5:10 also seems to argue for reigning on earth.
Postmil response to amil
Matthew 28:18-20 (Great Commission) and Matthew 16:18 teach Christianization of world before end.
I felt the amil essay made the strongest case. The postmil essay cites little Scripture and instead relies heavily on stats to show that the world is improving in many ways. The essay was an abbreviated form of Boettner's book, The Millennium.
The four contributors are:
Historic premil: George Eldon Ladd
Dispensational premil: Herman A. Hoyt
Postmil: Loraine Boettner
Amil: Anthony A. Hoekema
I've heard of two of the contributors (Hoekema and Boettner), but I'm not familiar with any of the four to know how well they represent adherents to their views.
Intro
Premil was dominant in first three centuries. Amil became dominant in fourth century. Augustine held it. It was dominant in Middle Ages. Reformers were amil, but Luther and Calvin were cautious in interpretation. Postmil became popular in 18th century. Premil regained popularity in 19th century, when dispensational understanding came about.
Historic premil
New Testament shows Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in church. Matthew 2:15; 8:17; Acts 8:32-35; Romans 9:24-26.
Church as spiritual Israel shown in Romans 4:11, 16; 2:28-29, Gal 3:7, 19; Philippians 3:3, Hebrews 8:8-12.
Revelation 20:1-6 is only passage that speaks of millennium, but 1 Corinthians 15:23-26 may refer to a kingdom before the end.
Postmil response to historic premil
"The idea of a provisional kingdom in which glorified saints and mortal men mingle finds no support anywhere in Scripture."
"And so all Israel shall be saved" (Romans 11:26) doesn't refer to literal, ethnic Israel; it refers to God's people. Gal 3:7; 2:28-29; 6:16; Eph 2:14-16. Israel ceased to be God's special people (Matthew 21:43; 1 Thessalonians 2:16).
Historic premil response to dispensational premil
Restoration of bloody sacrifices conflicts with Hebrews 8:13.
Postmil response to dispensational premil
All promises made to Israel in Old Testament either were fulfilled, or forfeited through disobedience. Israel was repeatedly warned that apostasy would cancel promise of future blessings. Deuteronomy 28:13-25, 45-46; Jeremiah 18:9-10; 1 Sam 2:30.
When Christ comes again it won't be to establish an earthly kingdom. Kingdom came at Christ's first coming. Mark 9:1; Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:5-6.
Amil response to dispensational premil
Jesus isn't king of an earthly kingdom. John 18:36-37.
New Testament doesn't teach separate future for believing Israel and believing non-Israelites. Ephesians 2:14-16; Romans 11:17-24; 1 Peter 2:9.
Old Testament passages dispensationalists claim refer to millennium actually refer to new earth or final state of blessedness.
New Testament frequently gives figurative interpretation of Old Testament concepts of Zion, Jesus, Holy Land, Kingdom, seed of Abraham, sacrifices, temple. One example: Acts 15:14-17.
New Testament doesn't predict future restoration of Israel as a nation. Promises are fulfilled in Jesus' resurrection and forgiveness of sins. Acts 13:32-34, 38.
Postmil
Salvation is for an incredibly large number, not a small, select group. Psalm 47:2, 97:5, Zechariah 9:10, Revelation 7:9-10.
Heaven is pictured as large (the next world, a kingdom, a country, a city), while hell is pictured as comparatively small (prison, lake of fire, pit). Angels and saints are called hosts, myriads, innumerable multitude, ten thousand times ten thousand; no such language is used used for lost.
High moral and spiritual life of millennium will result in material prosperity. Matthew 6:33; 1 Timothy 4:8, Isaiah 35:1.
Millennium is result of long, slow process. Luke 17:20; Mark 4:28; Isaiah 28:10.
Amil response to postmil
Revelation 20:4-6 doesn't refer to ruling with Christ of believers who are still on Earth and haven't yet died, but to ruling with Christ of souls of believers who have died.
Luke 18:8 suggests that the number of true believers will be small when Christ returns.
Amil
Revelation 1-11 describes church on earth, persecuted by world. Revelation 12-20 gives spiritual background of this struggle, describing persecution by Satan and his helpers.
Revelation consists of 7 sections which run parallel to each other, each of which depicts church in world from Christ's first to second coming. Last section starts with Revelation 20, so Revelation 20:1-6 covers beginning of New Testament era. It can be see by Revelation 20 describing Satan's defeat and doom, which began with Christ's first coming, described in Revelation 12:7-9. Millennial reign of Revelation 20:4-6 occurs before second coming, seen by final judgment in verses 11-15 pictured as coming after millennium. Final judgment is associated with second coming in New Testament. Revelation 22:12; Matthew 16:27; 25:31-32, Jude 14-15; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10.
Thousand years isn't literal; multiple of 10 indicates completeness.
Structure of Revelation and Revelation 20:7-15 show this thousand years represents time between first and second coming.
Structure of Revelation and Revelation 20:1-3 represents Satan's activity being curbed, not place of final punishment (which is called "lake of fire.")
In Old Testament, at least after Abraham, nations were deceived by Satan and only Israel had special revelation. Satan was bound so Great Commission could succeed.
While bound, Satan can still do harm, he just can't prevent nations from learning about God as he did in Old Testament. Matthew 12:29; Luke 10:17-18; John 12:31-32 show Satan was bound at Christ's first coming.
Revelation 20:4-6 mention thrones, and all but 3 of the 47 mentions of thrones in Revelation refer to heaven, so verses 4-6 show heaven, whereas verses 1-3 show earth.
In Revelation 20:4-6 those on thrones are souls who've been beheaded, so they're not on earth.
"Those who had not worshipped the Beast" refers to Christians who resisted anti-Christian powers.
There will be only one bodily resurrection that includes believers and unbelievers (John 5:28-29; Acts 4:15). So v 4 can't refer to bodily resurrection. Those who "came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years" are souls in heaven (Revelation 3:21). This living and reigning continues throughout gospel era.
Nothing in Revelation 20:4-6 refers to earthly millennial reign. "Rest of the dead" in verse 5 refers to unbelievers.
"First resurrection" is transition from physical death to life in heaven.
Isaiah 11:6-9 (wolf shall dwell with lamb) is vision of new earth.
Isaiah 65:17-25 refers to new heavens and earth.
Kingdom of God is both present and future. Present: Matthew 12:28; Luke 17:20-21; Romans 14:17, 1 Corinthians 4:19-20; Colossians 1:13-14. Future: 1 Corinthians 6:9; Gal 5:21; Ephesians 5:5; 2 Tim 4:18.
"Last days" refers to entire era between Christ's first and second coming. New Testament writers said they were already in last days (Acts 2:16-17, 1 Corinthians 10:11; 1 John 2:18) but a final "last day" is yet future (John 6:39-40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48).
Old Testament prophecies about Israel in Canaan predicted eternal dwelling of all God's people on new earth, of which Canaan was a type (Hebrews 4; Gal 3:29).
Historic premil response to amil
Revelation 20:1 says angel came down from heaven, and Revelation 20:4 refers to bodily resurrection, so Revelation 20:1-6 is on Earth.
Dispensational premil response to amil
Nothing in Revelation 20:1-6 indicates shift from earth to heaven. Rev 5:10 also seems to argue for reigning on earth.
Postmil response to amil
Matthew 28:18-20 (Great Commission) and Matthew 16:18 teach Christianization of world before end.
July 21, 2020
It is interesting that a topic such as the millennium attracts such fervent debate, considering that there is really only one passage in the entire Bible that explicitly speaks of it. But it is not altogether surprising, as the millennium centers around the one event in which all Christians place their hope: Christ’s second coming. This book is a charitable but frank dialogue between proponents of four views on the millennium: historic premillennialism, dispensational premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism. Each author presents his own view, after which the others offer responses.
While the topic of this debate is the millennium, this is at heart a discussion about biblical interpretation. To a large extent, the authors’ positions flow out of the interpretive frameworks they already embrace. Herman Hoyt, the dispensational pre-millennialist, believes that Old Testament prophecies are to be taken literally, which means that they must be fulfilled for national Israel. The entire dispensational eschatological system flows out of this presupposition, including a literal 1,000 year reign with Israel at center stage. In other words, Hoyt uses the Old Testament to inform his understanding of the New. This is a position that the three others refute, arguing essentially the reverse, that the New Testament should inform our understanding of the Old. Because of this key difference, it becomes clear in this discussion that pre-millennialism has more in common with the post- and a- positions than it does its dispensational counterpart.
While it was right for principles of interpretation to receive so much focus, it is a shame that this major issue overshadowed actual exegesis on the primary passage in question, Rev. 20. Two of the authors (Hoyt and Boettner) fail to engage at all with the exegesis of this key text, a detail that the others were quick to point out. Hoekema did the best work in this regard, striking a nice balance between hermeneutical issues and exegesis of Rev. 20.
I was disappointed by a few of the response sections and their lack of engagement. Ladd, for example, dismissed Boettner’s argument with a half-page shrug. This format is supposed to encourage lively debate, but at times I felt like the authors (Ladd in particular) just weren’t interested in making the effort.
Still, this book helped me to better understand the issues at play in this complex debate and the primary differences between the major views. It brought out how our views on eschatology flow out of larger assumptions about how we interpret the Bible, and thanks to the editor, sketched some ways that our views on eschatology affect the way that Christians engage with the world around us in a very real way.
While the topic of this debate is the millennium, this is at heart a discussion about biblical interpretation. To a large extent, the authors’ positions flow out of the interpretive frameworks they already embrace. Herman Hoyt, the dispensational pre-millennialist, believes that Old Testament prophecies are to be taken literally, which means that they must be fulfilled for national Israel. The entire dispensational eschatological system flows out of this presupposition, including a literal 1,000 year reign with Israel at center stage. In other words, Hoyt uses the Old Testament to inform his understanding of the New. This is a position that the three others refute, arguing essentially the reverse, that the New Testament should inform our understanding of the Old. Because of this key difference, it becomes clear in this discussion that pre-millennialism has more in common with the post- and a- positions than it does its dispensational counterpart.
While it was right for principles of interpretation to receive so much focus, it is a shame that this major issue overshadowed actual exegesis on the primary passage in question, Rev. 20. Two of the authors (Hoyt and Boettner) fail to engage at all with the exegesis of this key text, a detail that the others were quick to point out. Hoekema did the best work in this regard, striking a nice balance between hermeneutical issues and exegesis of Rev. 20.
I was disappointed by a few of the response sections and their lack of engagement. Ladd, for example, dismissed Boettner’s argument with a half-page shrug. This format is supposed to encourage lively debate, but at times I felt like the authors (Ladd in particular) just weren’t interested in making the effort.
Still, this book helped me to better understand the issues at play in this complex debate and the primary differences between the major views. It brought out how our views on eschatology flow out of larger assumptions about how we interpret the Bible, and thanks to the editor, sketched some ways that our views on eschatology affect the way that Christians engage with the world around us in a very real way.
June 20, 2017
Good book, good general overview. Weakest presentation was Boettner's postmill material. Hoekema was excellent (amill), Ladd was good (historic pre), Hoyt pretty good (dispy premill).
Would like to see progressive disp represented, guess I'll have to re-read Blaising and Bock.
One gets the sense that there is a view of eschatology out there that has not yet been presented, that might be closer to the truth than any of these four views. Perhaps a combination of the best of amill scholarship and some sort of millennial position. While the argument continues to rage over hermeneutic method (literal, spiritual, etc), I wonder if that dispute has lost its usefulness and both sides are talking past one another, more in the sense of scoring points than moving the discussion forward. The charges and counter-charges are not helpful, on either side.
Boettner's presentation seemed pretty weak--I would have liked to have read a stronger proponent of postmill. It seems to me that Boettner's most serious problems are not primarily eschatological, but are rather focused in his doctrines of anthropology, hamartiology, and pneumatology. When one looks at even a very good Bible-believing church--or, even one's own heart--what kind of second-blessing theology must be necessary to produce Christians and churches capable of ushering in the golden era of which Boettner speaks? When even Christ-loving Christians still wrestle (and fail) with sin, it's just too hard to believe that any length of time will be sufficient to produce such an age.
Anyway, good book, well worth the time.
Would like to see progressive disp represented, guess I'll have to re-read Blaising and Bock.
One gets the sense that there is a view of eschatology out there that has not yet been presented, that might be closer to the truth than any of these four views. Perhaps a combination of the best of amill scholarship and some sort of millennial position. While the argument continues to rage over hermeneutic method (literal, spiritual, etc), I wonder if that dispute has lost its usefulness and both sides are talking past one another, more in the sense of scoring points than moving the discussion forward. The charges and counter-charges are not helpful, on either side.
Boettner's presentation seemed pretty weak--I would have liked to have read a stronger proponent of postmill. It seems to me that Boettner's most serious problems are not primarily eschatological, but are rather focused in his doctrines of anthropology, hamartiology, and pneumatology. When one looks at even a very good Bible-believing church--or, even one's own heart--what kind of second-blessing theology must be necessary to produce Christians and churches capable of ushering in the golden era of which Boettner speaks? When even Christ-loving Christians still wrestle (and fail) with sin, it's just too hard to believe that any length of time will be sufficient to produce such an age.
Anyway, good book, well worth the time.
June 14, 2021
This was my first four views book, and I really do like the format. I wanted to read this book because I want to feel competent to teach my family what the Bible teaches about the Millennium, and this book certainly helped me obtain a broad understand of the systems of eschatology that are out there. Husbands and fathers, I encourage you to pick this book up so that you can be ready to answer the questions that your wife and kids will ask you about the millennium. You don’t need to be a pastor or an academic to study this stuff.
Though I can’t say that I’ve fully developed my own eschatology, I do think that Hoekema (the amillennialist) had the most convincing and biblical arguments in the book. Post-millennialism is still an attractive system to me (because who wouldn’t want the whole world to become Christianized?), but I do not think that Boettner appealed to Scripture as much as I would have liked him to. His arguments were more based on historical developments in the world and on the growing population of Christians, meanwhile he never mentioned the one passage in the Bible that speaks explicitly on the Millennium (Rev. 20).
This book alone is not sufficient to fully develop one’s eschatological views, but should be used to gain a broad understanding of all of the systems of thought. I look forward to reading more books written by single authors to settle into my eschatological camp. If you have any recommendations, please let me know.
Though I can’t say that I’ve fully developed my own eschatology, I do think that Hoekema (the amillennialist) had the most convincing and biblical arguments in the book. Post-millennialism is still an attractive system to me (because who wouldn’t want the whole world to become Christianized?), but I do not think that Boettner appealed to Scripture as much as I would have liked him to. His arguments were more based on historical developments in the world and on the growing population of Christians, meanwhile he never mentioned the one passage in the Bible that speaks explicitly on the Millennium (Rev. 20).
This book alone is not sufficient to fully develop one’s eschatological views, but should be used to gain a broad understanding of all of the systems of thought. I look forward to reading more books written by single authors to settle into my eschatological camp. If you have any recommendations, please let me know.
January 4, 2021
An easy read on eschatology. The authors do a good job presenting their own views and interacting with the other viewpoints.
It’s rather interesting that 4 orthodox Christian viewpoints (rather “systems”) that have been disputed now for 2 millennia all revolve around a few of the most difficult verses in the most difficult book of the Bible (i.e. the “millennium” verses of Revelation 20).
Ladd (Hist. Premill), Boettner (post-) and Hoekema (a-) agree on quite a few eschatological points. Surprisingly, Hoyt (disp. Premillennialism) also was able to find points of agreement with himself and the other views.
For the most part, each author discusses hermeneutics. Hoekema was alone in his detailed exegesis or Rev 20 and setting it in the context of the whole book. Hoyt cites a ton of Scripture, but he does not exegete much. Ladd deals primarily with hermeneutics and how the OT cannot be used for a basis of describing the millennium. Boettner takes a 10,000 foot theological view combined with a few key texts to support his view.
In my mind, Hoekema wrote the best essay and the best counter points to each of the another authors. But I’m amil.... so i confess my bias.
It’s rather interesting that 4 orthodox Christian viewpoints (rather “systems”) that have been disputed now for 2 millennia all revolve around a few of the most difficult verses in the most difficult book of the Bible (i.e. the “millennium” verses of Revelation 20).
Ladd (Hist. Premill), Boettner (post-) and Hoekema (a-) agree on quite a few eschatological points. Surprisingly, Hoyt (disp. Premillennialism) also was able to find points of agreement with himself and the other views.
For the most part, each author discusses hermeneutics. Hoekema was alone in his detailed exegesis or Rev 20 and setting it in the context of the whole book. Hoyt cites a ton of Scripture, but he does not exegete much. Ladd deals primarily with hermeneutics and how the OT cannot be used for a basis of describing the millennium. Boettner takes a 10,000 foot theological view combined with a few key texts to support his view.
In my mind, Hoekema wrote the best essay and the best counter points to each of the another authors. But I’m amil.... so i confess my bias.
April 20, 2023
From this book at least, only the Historic Premil and Amil positions were presented in anything approaching a convincing manner. Both made interesting cases and offered actual exegesis of relevant passages. Hoekema (Amil) put forward “progressive parallelism”, and I imagine Ladd (Historic Premil) mostly agrees, as the proper interpretative model for Revelation. This seems to me like the only appropriate method, taking into account its genre, structure, and a broader typological view of protology, history, and eschatology.
Both the Dispensational and Post-mil presentations entirely lacked any exegetical reasoning for the position presented. They both essentially assumed their position and then presented a brief survey of Scripture from their view point. Entirely unconvincing.
The Postmil guy was also much too long winded for hardly saying anything.
The most cogent critique of any pre-mil view is how a glorified and returned Christ could reign with resurrected followers in a world still inhabited by sinners and filled with sin and death, even if mitigated.
Likewise, Ladd rebutted Hoekema’s assertion that the millennium occurs in heaven with a reference to 20:1.
Both the Dispensational and Post-mil presentations entirely lacked any exegetical reasoning for the position presented. They both essentially assumed their position and then presented a brief survey of Scripture from their view point. Entirely unconvincing.
The Postmil guy was also much too long winded for hardly saying anything.
The most cogent critique of any pre-mil view is how a glorified and returned Christ could reign with resurrected followers in a world still inhabited by sinners and filled with sin and death, even if mitigated.
Likewise, Ladd rebutted Hoekema’s assertion that the millennium occurs in heaven with a reference to 20:1.
January 24, 2025
An insightful and informative presentation of four views surrounding the millennium, each view presented by a proponent who holds it. Sadly, the chapters do not follow the same format, and are not of equal quality. Two of the chapters have strong and well articulated arguments for their view (historic premillennialism and amillennialism), while the other two offer weak or incomplete presentations of their view (dispensational premillennialism and postmillennialism). For anyone that desires a better understanding of the various interpretive views of the millennium, this is still a very valuable resource worthy of consultation.
April 19, 2022
This book read like an active debate. I was lent this book after I had questions on eschatology. I enjoyed it, but I was going into this book without a real grasp on what the various views were. This seems like it should be the perfect book for me to get some groundwork on the four different views. While I’m coming away with a better grasp on eschatology views then I began, I don’t know that each view was well represented. The postmil and amil views were the best laid out in my opinion. And of those two the amillenial view was the easiest to follow.
December 11, 2017
If you are entering this discussion, it's a decent place to start. I love the four views books as they allow each author to reply to each view. Three stars is due to the fact that Hoyt (dispensational pre-mill) and Boettner (post-mil) did such a poor job outlining their views. Ladd (historic pre-mill) and Hoekema (a-mill) both did excellent jobs outlining their views and I thought Hoekema was the most convincing overall.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 71 reviews