What is postmillennialism?

Question 10052.

Postmillennialism is the view that the gospel will gradually triumph across the world, ushering in a long golden age of righteousness and peace, after which Jesus finally returns at the end of that era. The name itself captures the timing neatly, since post means after, so the position places the return of Christ after the millennium, understood as a coming age of great gospel success upon the earth. I do not hold this view myself, but it has a genuinely honourable history and many thoughtful defenders, and I want to describe it fairly and generously before I go on to explain why, in the end, I cannot accept it.

At bottom postmillennialism is really a species of deep optimism about the course of human history. It believes that the great commission will succeed on a truly grand and global scale, that the nations really will be discipled, that Christian influence will steadily leaven whole societies like yeast in dough, and that the world will be substantially won to Christ before ever He comes. On that hopeful reading the millennium is not a period following the Second Coming at all, but rather a period that the church itself brings about through the ordinary appointed means of faithful preaching, patient teaching, and godly living.

What postmillennialism teaches

This view teaches that the kingdom, the basileia of God, advances progressively and unstoppably through the present age until it finally fills the whole earth. The parables of the tiny mustard seed and the hidden leaven are read as firm promises that the kingdom, however small and unpromising it looks now, will grow inexorably until it comes to dominate the entire world. On this reading the millennium is a future but thoroughly earthly golden age, produced by the sheer success of the gospel, during which righteousness prevails everywhere and the knowledge of God spreads to the very ends of the earth. Only after that long and glorious era of triumph does Jesus at last return to judge the world and usher in the eternal state.

So postmillennialism deliberately reverses the order that I myself hold to. Where I expect Christ to return first and only then establish His kingdom, this view expects the kingdom to be established through the church first and then crowned and completed by Christ’s return. It shares with premillennialism a real and warm belief in a coming age of righteousness on the earth, but it disagrees very sharply about how that age actually arrives, and about whether Christ is bodily present upon the earth to reign during it. That single difference in the order of events is the true crux of the whole long debate between us.

The case that is made for it

I genuinely want to give postmillennialism its full due here. It appeals directly to the great commission, where the risen Jesus claims all authority in heaven and on earth and then sends His people out to disciple the nations, and it takes that sweeping mandate with real and admirable seriousness. It points confidently to the growth parables, to the many prophecies of the whole earth being filled with the knowledge of the LORD, and to the undeniable historical spread of the gospel across whole continents over the centuries. Its defenders argue, not without force, that a gloomy and defeatist eschatology quietly saps the church’s zeal, while a confident one fuels bold mission and cultural courage.

There is genuinely something bracing and healthy in all of this. Postmillennialism flatly refuses to surrender the world to the enemy by default, and it insists loudly that the gospel is powerful enough to transform whole societies and cultures, and not only to rescue individual souls one by one. That robust confidence in the power of the gospel is a good and biblical instinct, and I would not want the church to lose it. Where I finally differ is not over the power of the gospel to save all who truly believe, but over whether Scripture actually promises the near-universal, pre-return, worldwide triumph that this position confidently expects.

Why I reject postmillennialism

My chief and abiding difficulty with postmillennialism is that the New Testament simply does not describe the end of this present age as a golden age at all. On the contrary, it describes increasing apostasy, deepening deception, and mounting tribulation as the return of Christ draws near. Paul warns plainly in 2 Timothy 3:1-5 that in the last days there will come times of real difficulty, with people being lovers of self and lovers of money rather than lovers of God. That whole downward trajectory is the very opposite of the steady, hopeful improvement that this position confidently expects, and I honestly cannot reconcile the two pictures.

Jesus Himself pointedly asks, in Luke 18:8, whether the Son of Man will even find faith on the earth when He at last comes, which is hardly the language you would expect of a world thoroughly won to the gospel. And the Olivet Discourse foretells wars, famines, fierce persecution, and a great tribulation before the very end, and not a slow and comfortable ascent into a fully Christianised age. When I read the New Testament straight through from beginning to end, its whole picture of the end runs firmly against postmillennialism, and that fact, more than any other single thing, is finally why I set the view aside despite its real attractions.

The view and the coming kingdom

Postmillennialism and my own premillennial view do both long together for a coming kingdom of righteousness upon the earth, and I take a real and genuine comfort in that shared and hopeful longing. The whole disagreement between us is really about how that kingdom finally comes. This position looks for the church to build it up gradually over the long centuries. I look instead for the King Himself to bring it suddenly and gloriously at His own return, as I explain in my study of premillennialism. The very kingdom that this view hopes the church will one day achieve is, I am convinced, the same kingdom that Christ Himself will establish when He comes.

This difference actually matters a great deal pastorally, and not just academically. If I truly expect the church to Christianise the entire world before Christ returns, then every downturn in the surrounding culture threatens to become a genuine crisis of faith, a worrying sign that the great plan is quietly failing. But if I expect the King to establish His own kingdom personally at His coming, then I am free to labour on faithfully without ever pinning my hope on visible cultural success. The millennium I await does not depend in the least on us winning the world first, and I find that a great and steadying relief rather than any discouragement.

Holding the difference with grace

As with amillennialism, I want to hold my rejection of postmillennialism with real and unfeigned charity toward those who embrace it. Godly believers right across the centuries have held this view warmly, and their sturdy confidence in the gospel and their tireless zeal for mission often puts more timid and fearful Christians thoroughly to shame. This is a family disagreement within the one orthodox faith, and never a dispute about the gospel itself, and I would not for a moment question a brother’s standing in Christ over his eschatology. We serve the very same Lord together, and we await together the very same glorious return.

So I gladly commend the postmillennialist’s boldness and his hope even as I question his particular timetable for the end. Let us out-preach and out-love one another for the glory of God, and then let the King Himself settle all our long debates when at last He comes. I remain firmly persuaded that Scripture points to tribulation before triumph, and to a kingdom brought in by Christ rather than built up by us, but I hold that settled conviction as a brother and never as a rival to those who read the matter differently than I do.

So, now what?

Whatever conclusion you finally reach about postmillennialism, do not for a moment let the debate itself become a substitute for genuine readiness of heart. The one great certainty running across every single view is that Jesus is surely coming, and that you personally must be found safely in Him when He does. A confident and well-argued eschatology is worth very little indeed if your own soul is not first secure in the Saviour Himself. So do make quite sure of that one thing first, before you ever move on to settle the finer and lesser points of the prophetic timetable.

If the gospel really is powerful enough to change the whole world, as this view rightly insists that it is, then it is surely powerful enough to change even you, and that is precisely where its saving power must always begin its work. So trust the Christ who is certainly coming, whether before or after any golden age you might imagine, and His return will then be your everlasting joy rather than your terror. Have you yet let the gospel do its full saving work within your own heart today?

Nevertheless, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on earth?

Luke 18:8 (ESV)