In the Beginning

In the Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis
by Henri Blocher
Inter-Varsity Press

This is an excellent and scholarly work on the opening chapters of Genesis by the French Reformed theologian, Henri Blocher.

Although my main interest in reading the book was for Blocher's explanation of the framework hypothesis for Genesis chapter one, the book actually deals with most of Genesis 1-11. This is not a commentary, it is a theological exposition.

Blocher is not afraid to take both scientists and literalists to task for their approaches to creation, though he clearly has some sympathy with creationists, who at least take the Bible seriously.

Blocher is not afraid to see some non-literal elements in Genesis, not only in the creation week of chapter one, but also in the method of creating Eve in Genesis 2 and in the talking snake of Genesis 3. I think it fair to say Blocher does see elements of myth in these first three chapters of the Bible, but only in the sense that they convey historical events in non-historical ways.

I would not be as reluctant as Blocher to take some of the elements in Genesis 2 and 3 literally, but I think he does a good job of showing that believing in the truth and trustworthiness of the Bible is not tied to a strict literalist approach to Genesis.

Blocher is thorough in his explanation of why Genesis One should be read as a non-chronological framework, written with a polemical, didactic and doxological purpose. He notes the recurring patterns of the numbers 3, 7 and 10 for example, the parallelism of the days, and other elements and concludes that neither the original writer or his readers would have taken the narrative in the literal manner adopted by modern day creationists.

This book is thoroughly recommended to anyone who wants to gain a better understanding of the framework view of Genesis One. It is not an easy read however as it deals with a wide range of biblical scholarship including literalists like Morris and Whitcomb, and treating all with respect and openness to their point of view, even if he cannot accept it.

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope
by Keith A. Mathison
P & R Publishing

Most of the books I have read on eschatology have been written from the Reformed amillennial perspective that I agree with. It made a refreshing change to read a book from a different perspective. Postmillennialism by Keith A. Mathison is a well-written, clear and winsome defence of historic, evangelical postmillennialism.

The book is written in six parts. Firstly, Mathison deals with the key question of hermeneutics and establishes a few ground rules, including his conservative, Reformed and covenant theology credentials. Secondly, there is a historical review to show that postmillennialism has long been a respectable choice among Christian theologians. The third and fourth parts are the heart of book and deal in turn with a number of Old and New Testament passages. The discussion of the Psalms, Old Testament prophecies, gospel discourses and the Book of Revelation are essential reading, even if only to disagree with Mathison's exegesis. The fifth part tackles eschatology from a theological standpoint and includes criticisms of both premillennialism and amillennialism. The sixth and final part seeks to answer a number of objections that have been raised against postmillennialism.

Mathison defines postmillennialism not so much with regard to the literalism of the 1000 year period mentioned in Revelation 20. Although his approach allows for this, his position seems to favour the view that the 1000 years represent the whole of the church age from Christ's ascension till his second coming.

You might then ask, isn't that what amillennialists believe? And you would be right. So, what's the difference between Mathison's brand of postmillennialism and amillennialism? The answer is that, according to Mathison, postmillennialism is optimistic and amillennialism is pessimistic about the success of the gospel and Christ's reign on earth between now and the second coming.

Postmillennialists think that most or almost all the world will be Christians by the time Christ comes and it will be a golden age of peace and prosperity. Amillennialists think that though the number of Christians will continue to grow and Christ's kingdom will advance, there is no expectation that it will be as extensive as the postmillennialists claim. We also see in a number of biblical passages that there will also be increased opposition to Christ's kingdom and persecution of Christ's people.

The postmillennialist case hinges really on a system of biblical interpretation known as preterism. Preterism is the teaching that most or all the "negative" prophecies such as Matthew 24 that talk about apostasy, persecution and suffering for God's people relate to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple in AD 70 when Christ is said to have returned to earth in judgment on Israel. Such prophecies were future when written, but happened in our past. Mathison follows this approach consistently throughout the book.

This is a very handy hermeneutic. If a passage doesn't fit with postmillennialisms rosy picture of the future, it is simply dumped in a file labelled "fulfilled in AD 70". The book of Revelation is itself dated by postmillennialists as earlier than AD 70, to accommodate the preterist view, though this view is hotly debated by New Testament scholars.

It must be understood that Mathison is not an extreme preterist. He does understand there still to be some prophecies with a future fulfilment to come, especially Christ's triumphant return to earth.

Amillennialists interpret Scripture differently. We tend to see the persecution and apostasy prophecies as being yet future and the joyful prophecies of peace, prosperity and Christ's reign are either interpreted spiritually, as applying to the Church and Christ's people, or are regarded as prophecies to be fulfilled in the new heaven and earth to come after Christ returns.

Mathison's argument essentially stands or falls with preterism. If you accept that, then postmillennialism is a viable option. If you don't, then there are just too many prophecies at odds with it. For myself, I remain unconvinced.

I also reject the pessimistic label. Our objection to the postmillennialist vision of a golden age of peace prior to the end of this world is not based on lack of faith that God could bring this about, but upon loyalty to Scripture and what God has said will happen in this age. We are not only optimistic, we are certain that the gospel will triumph, indeed is triumphing now, and Christ will reign and does reign now, as king of the world and God's Messiah. We know God's purpose is being fulfilled perfectly in time to achieve his appointed ends. I see no reason for pessimism about any of that!

In the end, this is a good book defending a position I disagree with. That never makes it comfortable reading, but it is not enough to outweigh the arguments in favour of amillennialism. I cannot disagree with the Second Helvetic Confession's view in Chapter XI:

We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.

Indeed they do and I cannot accept the preterist view that all those chapters were fulfilled in AD 70.