Postmillennialism and the seed of the serpent

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pslagle2012

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello,

I have what I would call a "tentative" postmillennial view of eschatology. I line up a lot with Ken Gentry. But one thing I came across lately was the seed of the woman and of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. The particular commentary I was reading argued that the term seed has both collective and individual meanings. On an individual level it was saying that the seed of the woman is Christ and the seed of the serpent is the antiChrist. This author came from a futurist perspective.

Would postmillennialists hold to the seed of the serpent being the antichrist and if so would that then refer to Nero? Or would they reject that interpretation altogether? I can't seem to find anything on this particular topic from a postmillennial perspective.
 
pslagle2012 said:
Hello,

I have what I would call a "tentative" postmillennial view of eschatology. I line up a lot with Ken Gentry. But one thing I came across lately was the seed of the woman and of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. The particular commentary I was reading argued that the term seed has both collective and individual meanings. On an individual level it was saying that the seed of the woman is Christ and the seed of the serpent is the antiChrist. This author came from a futurist perspective.

Would postmillennialists hold to the seed of the serpent being the antichrist and if so would that then refer to Nero? Or would they reject that interpretation altogether? I can't seem to find anything on this particular topic from a postmillennial perspective.
Click to expand...
Don't they hold o the church itself ushering in the Messianic Age here in a literal/physical sense upon the earth?
 
Dachaser said:
Don't they hold o the church itself ushering in the Messianic Age here in a literal/physical sense upon the earth?
Click to expand...

No. One doesn't *do* anything to usher in the messianic age. Rather, the church will be in a prominent place but will not "force the age," so to speak.

Note: I am not postmillennial.
 
ReformedReidian said:
Depends on "how" they do it. Will they do it by preaching the gospel? That's the argument. Will they do it by imposing a top-down theocracy? No.
Click to expand...
There seems to be 2 strands among them, as some holding to a reform vew seethe church doing it top down and reconstructing culture and society, while those holding to charasamatic views tend to see God making end day Church like in Acts, and take over with signs and wonders and power!
 
Dachaser said:
There seems to be 2 strands among them, as some holding to a reform vew seethe church doing it top down and reconstructing culture and society, while those holding to charasamatic views tend to see God making end day Church like in Acts, and take over with signs and wonders and power!
Click to expand...

Only a few Reconstructionists hold to a top-down model. I think the Recons are very wrong on most things, but they aren't claiming that.

Charismatics are generally premil of some sort or another. I know they use postmillennial language, but they are still premil.
 
ReformedReidian said:
Only a few Reconstructionists hold to a top-down model. I think the Recons are very wrong on most things, but they aren't claiming that.

Charismatics are generally premil of some sort or another. I know they use postmillennial language, but they are still premil.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I am wrong but aren't manner of the Latter Rain (almost wanted to say Latter Day...) postmills? Granted, no doubt most charismatics/pentecostals are Dispensational premills.
 
arapahoepark said:
Perhaps I am wrong but aren't manner of the Latter Rain (almost wanted to say Latter Day...) postmills? Granted, no doubt most charismatics/pentecostals are Dispensational premills.
Click to expand...

They could be, but the Mike Bickle types are emphatically historic premil. A few who "prophesy" dominion would be postmil if they thought about it.
 
arapahoepark said:
Perhaps I am wrong but aren't manner of the Latter Rain (almost wanted to say Latter Day...) postmills? Granted, no doubt most charismatics/pentecostals are Dispensational premills.
Click to expand...

Indeed they do, as they would see the Lord giving back to the Church all that was in Acts, so that the Church will manifest signs and wonders and taking over the earth to hand it back to Jesus at His Second Coming!
 
The anti-Christ in a historicist-post mil understanding is the papacy:

"the Pope of Rome ..is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God." (WCF 25.6)
 
Dachaser said:
There seems to be 2 strands among them, as some holding to a reform vew seethe church doing it top down and reconstructing culture and society,
Click to expand...

ReformedReidian said:
Only a few Reconstructionists hold to a top-down model. I think the Recons are very wrong on most things, but they aren't claiming that.
Click to expand...

I have met numerous Christian Reconstructionists, including some prominent leaders, and I can tell you that I have never heard anyone advocate for 'top down' change. They always strictly emphasis 'grass roots' change.

The only culture warriors that I have met or heard of that seem to encourage top down change are those who support socialism, or fundamentalist Baptists types who want to change America through placing a 'Christian' President in office - which I would consider top down change.

To answer the OP, I haven't entirely worked through everything, but in my studies I have moved back and forth between an optimistic Amil and Postmil. In what I have read most seem to believe that the seed of the serpent refers to all of Christ's enemies, not just to the anti-Christ.
 
pslagle2012 said:
Hello,

I have what I would call a "tentative" postmillennial view of eschatology. I line up a lot with Ken Gentry. But one thing I came across lately was the seed of the woman and of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. The particular commentary I was reading argued that the term seed has both collective and individual meanings. On an individual level it was saying that the seed of the woman is Christ and the seed of the serpent is the antiChrist. This author came from a futurist perspective.

Would postmillennialists hold to the seed of the serpent being the antichrist and if so would that then refer to Nero? Or would they reject that interpretation altogether? I can't seem to find anything on this particular topic from a postmillennial perspective.
Click to expand...


You've got a few issues conflated in your query.

1. We postmills are not monolithic with regard to a perspective on Revelation; some will be historicist, some might even be futurist etc. A person's postmillenialism might be tied to said perspective, but not necessarily so. Same can be said for pre or amill. I've known historicist amills, and I've known preterist amills; i've known many futurist premills, and I've known historicist premills. I'm postmill and was for many years a card carrying Recon, of the Rushdoony variety. At present my hermeneutical approach to Revelation is decidedly non-historicist, preterist, or futurist. I think it's safest to view it "allegorically", for lack of a better term. That allows for the presupposition that any Christian at any time period can rightly view the book as inherently relevant for their life at any given moment.

2. Regarding Gen. 3:15, the most important thing, in my view, is to realize that this verse is, in many ways, the master-key to interpreting the remainder of the Bible, and all of "secular" history. The gospel is first given to the evil one, and perpetual war between the people of God and the people of satan is declared. Personally I do hold to the individual/collective understanding of the Seed-lines. However, I take the individual aspect to be Christ and satan, and the collective to be as mentioned above.

3. Regarding Nero/antichrist, again, one's postmil position doesn't demand that we identify one with the other, or that we even have to identify "antichrist" at all.
 
zsmcd said:
I have met numerous Christian Reconstructionists, including some prominent leaders, and I can tell you that I have never heard anyone advocate for 'top down' change. They always strictly emphasis 'grass roots' change.

The only culture warriors that I have met or heard of that seem to encourage top down change are those who support socialism, or fundamentalist Baptists types who want to change America through placing a 'Christian' President in office - which I would consider top down change.

To answer the OP, I haven't entirely worked through everything, but in my studies I have moved back and forth between an optimistic Amil and Postmil. In what I have read most seem to believe that the seed of the serpent refers to all of Christ's enemies, not just to the anti-Christ.
Click to expand...
Many though in the Dominion/reconstruction movement would seem to be advocating though that through the church, we will take over cultures and establish almost a christian version of an Islamic state?
 
Dachaser said:
Many though in the Dominion/reconstruction movement would seem to be advocating though that through the church, we will take over cultures and establish almost a christian version of an Islamic state?
Click to expand...

They might sound like that, but they also say the taxes should not exceed 10%, which makes a top-down takeover difficult
 
zsmcd said:
I have met numerous Christian Reconstructionists, including some prominent leaders, and I can tell you that I have never heard anyone advocate for 'top down' change. They always strictly emphasis 'grass roots' change.

The only culture warriors that I have met or heard of that seem to encourage top down change are those who support socialism, or fundamentalist Baptists types who want to change America through placing a 'Christian' President in office - which I would consider top down change.

To answer the OP, I haven't entirely worked through everything, but in my studies I have moved back and forth between an optimistic Amil and Postmil. In what I have read most seem to believe that the seed of the serpent refers to all of Christ's enemies, not just to the anti-Christ.
Click to expand...
Clark-Tillian said:
You've got a few issues conflated in your query.

1. We postmills are not monolithic with regard to a perspective on Revelation; some will be historicist, some might even be futurist etc. A person's postmillenialism might be tied to said perspective, but not necessarily so. Same can be said for pre or amill. I've known historicist amills, and I've known preterist amills; i've known many futurist premills, and I've known historicist premills. I'm postmill and was for many years a card carrying Recon, of the Rushdoony variety. At present my hermeneutical approach to Revelation is decidedly non-historicist, preterist, or futurist. I think it's safest to view it "allegorically", for lack of a better term. That allows for the presupposition that any Christian at any time period can rightly view the book as inherently relevant for their life at any given moment.

2. Regarding Gen. 3:15, the most important thing, in my view, is to realize that this verse is, in many ways, the master-key to interpreting the remainder of the Bible, and all of "secular" history. The gospel is first given to the evil one, and perpetual war between the people of God and the people of Satan is declared. Personally I do hold to the individual/collective understanding of the Seed-lines. However, I take the individual aspect to be Christ and Satan, and the collective to be as mentioned above.

3. Regarding Nero/antichrist, again, one's postmil position doesn't demand that we identify one with the other, or that we even have to identify "antichrist" at all.
Click to expand...


Thank for this, it helped me sort it out a little better. My conclusion is I need to learn a little more.
 
Jesus told the leaders of the visible church in his day that they were of their father the devil. Unbelievers are the seed of the serpent, Nero is the beast not the antichrist.
 
Dachaser said:
Many though in the Dominion/reconstruction movement would seem to be advocating though that through the church, we will take over cultures and establish almost a christian version of an Islamic state?
Click to expand...

Dachaser said:
was the church ever given the mandate though by Jesus to do this dominating/reconstructing that both groups adhere with doing?
Click to expand...

My knowledge of the recon movement is limited However, this is how I understand the gist of it:

The Great Commission is Christ's sending his disciples out to disciple whole nations - not just individuals. If I am not mistaken, the text literally reads: "Go, therefore, and disciples all nations. . ." So the Church is on mission to disciple whole nations (made up of individuals) into faith/Gospel driven obedience to Christ's commands. The goal is not to "take over" in the violent sense. "My Kingdom is not of this world" does not imply that Christ's Kingdom is not in this world, but that his Kingdom does not come by means of "fighting" via fleshly weapons, but by means of the regeneration and conversion of individuals who will then obey Christ in every sphere of life (government, education, business, etc.). Thus, when multitudes of individuals in a given nation are converted, faith driven obedience would bring about societal change. So does the church "take over," sure - if by "take over" you mean trust and obey Christ in every sphere so as to effect societal change. But if by "take over" you mean something similar to the Handmaid's Tale than no.
 
Last edited:
zsmcd said:
My knowledge of the recon movement is limited However, this is how I understand the gist of it:

The Great Commission is Christ's sending his disciples out to disciple whole nations - not just individuals. If I am not mistaken, the text literally reads: "Go, therefore, and disciples all nations. . ." So the Church is on mission to disciple whole nations (made up of individuals) into faith/Gospel driven obedience to Christ's commands. The goal is not to "take over" in the violent sense. "My Kingdom is not of this world" does not imply that Christ's Kingdom is not in this world, but that his Kingdom does not come by means of "fighting" via fleshly weapons, but by means of the regeneration and conversion of individuals who will then obey Christ in every sphere of life (government, education, business, etc.). Thus, when multitudes of individuals in a given nation are converted, faith driven obedience would bring about societal change. So does the church "take over," sure - if by "take over" you mean trust and obey Christ in every sphere so as to effect societal change. But if by "take over" you mean something similar to the Handmaid's Tale than no.
Click to expand...
The 64.000 question though is do the scriptures themselves teach that the Church will be doing that in society on a worldwide basis before the Second Coming, as the scriptures seem to indicate will be getting worse, not better in society and culture as that Day comes near...
 
Dachaser said:
The 64.000 question though is do the scriptures themselves teach that the Church will be doing that in society on a worldwide basis before the Second Coming, as the scriptures seem to indicate will be getting worse, not better in society and culture as that Day comes near...
Click to expand...

Depends on which Scriptures. I actually lean Covenantal Premil, so I don't dispute the things' getting worse aspect. Recons do have a point, though, that many passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and elsewhere talk about nations coming to the Lord.

Here is another angle: large parts of the world (think the United Nations) could be getting worse but some countries could be Christianized. There isn't necessarily a contradiction between the two.
 
ReformedReidian said:
Depends on which Scriptures. I actually lean Covenantal Premil, so I don't dispute the things' getting worse aspect. Recons do have a point, though, that many passages in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and elsewhere talk about nations coming to the Lord.

Here is another angle: large parts of the world (think the United Nations) could be getting worse but some countries could be Christianized. There isn't necessarily a contradiction between the two.
Click to expand...
I always have seen those OT prophecies about nations coming to the Lord as being when the pre Mill Kingdom was set up at Second Coming though...
 
Dachaser said:
I always have seen those OT prophecies about nations coming to the Lord as being when the pre Mill Kingdom was set up at Second Coming though...
Click to expand...

Sure...and I'm probably close to that view. My point was that the postmil, rejecting the blessed millennial kingdom on earth, is going to see those Scriptures needing a fulfillment.
 
How are vaguely Mosaic values or principals supposed to germinate from grass roots with no ETHNIC homogeny? No shared heritage or time-honored myths (sports and movies not withstanding)? In a time when God is mocked, supposedly dead somewhere, and every snowflake's free to choose their own "mores"?

Are Reconstructionists about reproducing quicker than the liberals, Hispanics, blacks, and antinomians combined? If not, I can only assume their strategy is to flood churches with literature and cronies, then carve a path of heresy through an already fractured Church, thus their theonomy.

Sort of reminds me of that one forgettable congresswoman's disturbingly naive opinion that the DPRK's army will drop their guns and pray to Samsung when they see the sprawl of Seoul's wealth.

In all practice, the blessings of God over righteous politicians and businessmen could merely invigorate the envy of the poor, suspicions of the middle, and alienation by other well-to-do. Whether they grasp this or not, Reconstructionists depend on a train of political, capitol, religious, journalistic, enductional, technological, and cultural superiority long departed this or any other continent for the history books.
 
Last edited:
Dachaser said:
I always have seen those OT prophecies about nations coming to the Lord as being when the pre Mill Kingdom was set up at Second Coming though...
Click to expand...

It might be worth considering the deliberations in Acts 15 concerning the salvation of the Gentiles in fulfilment of these prophetic oracles. The tabernacle of David has been restored in Christ and the Gentiles are gathered in by faith in Jesus Christ.
 
MW said:
It might be worth considering the deliberations in Acts 15 concerning the salvation of the Gentiles in fulfilment of these prophetic oracles. The tabernacle of David has been restored in Christ and the Gentiles are gathered in by faith in Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...
That would be true, as there seems to be a partial fulfillment of yjr PT prophecies concerning messiah, or maybe better to see that His first Coming prophecies were fully fulfilled, but many of his Future Second Coming ones have not yet!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top