Setting the Stage: The Need for Cultural Involvement
“Freedom is the freedom to say two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”1 It was for these words that Winston Smith was arrested by the government and tortured into submission to Big Brother. Of course, George Orwell’s famous novel 1984 was a work of fiction, but the lessons that the book contains for every society are very much a reality.
As Winston sat, helplessly strapped into a chair enduring painful interrogation for daring to write ideas that violated government regulated thought crime, he uttered the words, “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.” His torturer callously responded, “Sometimes Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”2
The point of the correspondence; the point of the interrogation; as seen later in the book, was to brainwash Winston’s mind to become blind to the precious sight of objective truth. Winston was not to be allowed to see truth for himself, because truth could never be separated from what Big Brother declared it to be. For, if truth was separate from Big Brother, if there were some reality that existed apart from him, then Big Brother could never be God. Such is the consequence that follows from allowing a single objective fact to slip through the filter of a tyrant. But, if Big Brother is not God, then in actuality, he is no more than a subject himself. Thus, the truth is the worst nightmare for tyranny.
The very public relevance of truth is a fact that has been well acknowledged throughout history. Indeed, it is a fact that the Founders of the United States fully acknowledged in the formation of American liberty. The first president to the United States George Washington stated in his farewell address the bold proclamation,
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars… reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.3
Washington’s successor, John Adams also shared these sentiments, when he stated,
Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.4
Of course, in citing these quotations it becomes obvious that I am here equating truth to religion, and in particular Christianity. I do so, because the Lord Jesus Christ Himself made such an equation, when He declared, “I am the way, I am the truth, I am the life” (Jn. 14:6).
And thus, we come to the crux of the matter. Because there are those in this country today who do not feel so inclined to include the Lord Jesus in public affairs. There are those in our society who have made it their life’s work to segregate Christianity into the realm of the private, and increasingly, not even that.
Gone are the days of public prayer in our institutions of learning. Now, American public-school students are instructed from the elementary grades in the philosophy of evolutionism, naturalism, and Darwinism. Children are taught that it is nothing less than scientific to believe that they are an animal, and denying such reality is denying reason in order to step out upon a limb of faith.
Such people call for the explicit separation of “church and state,” demanding that any hint of God be banished from mentioning. While you may still possess the political freedom to make Jesus the king over your own personal piety, you may not suggest that He is to be king over culture or society. This is the liberal mindset. This is the mindset of Big Brother.
And yet, alongside Big Brother’s agenda to facilitate the expulsion of “religion” from the public square stands, quite shockingly, the conservative evangelical himself. Increasingly, Christian’s themselves are actually embracing the government’s own isolationist propaganda, which relegates Christianity to the private realm of the individual only. Sadly, this view is epitomized in perhaps no greater theological system than that of dispensationalism. According to Bruce A. Baker, on “The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics,”
Prior to 1973, there was nearly universal agreement among dispensationalists that political action was either outright forbidden or a choice left up to the individual believer. By all accounts, the believer’s responsibility to the political system, if such a responsibility existed at all, was a (far) distant second to the believer’s responsibility towards personal and global evangelism.5
Baker writes, “All [dispensationalists] agree that the Christian is not called upon to establish ‘kingdom ethics,”6 and, “it is only when Christ establishes His kingdom at the second coming that civilization will be made right.”7
The objective of Baker’s article was to examine what impact the political activism of two outspoken dispensational evangelicals, Jerry Falwell Sr. and Jerry Falwell Jr., has had upon the system of dispensationalism in regards to its classical position on such political matters. And yet, despite the Falwell’s alleged activism, it becomes quite clear that their views had little to do with bringing Christianity into the public arena. Bruce Baker cites a rather startling quote by Jerry Falwell Jr., in which he states,
It’s such a distortion of the teachings of Jesus to say that what he taught us to do personally — to love our neighbors as ourselves, help the poor — can somehow be imputed on a nation … Jesus never told Caesar how to run Rome … You almost have to believe that this is a theocracy to think that way, to think that public policy should be dictated by the teachings of Jesus.8
Such a statement ought to fall harshly upon the ears of the discerning Christian. Indeed, the Scriptures make it clear that it is the fear of the Lord that is the beginning of wisdom, and “the knowledge of the Holy one is understanding” (Pro. 9:10). The recurring theology of Proverbs teaches that those who reject God, and do not choose the fear of the Lord as their starting point in any endeavor are reduced to foolishness. This reality is summarized very simply, but ever profoundly by the Psalmist who declares, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 14:1).
Colossians 2:3 proclaims that in Christ are “hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” Of course, the gravity of Paul’s written proclamation in Colossians 2:3 is sadly not understood by most Christian’s today. Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen writes of this verse saying,
Note [Paul] says all wisdom and knowledge is deposited in the person of Christ- whether it be about the war of 1812, water’s chemical composition, the literature of Shakespeare, or the laws of logic! Every academic pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ, for Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. To avoid Christ in your thought at any point, then, is to be misled, untruthful, and spiritually dead.9
And yet, if all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are truly deposited in Christ then that includes especially the knowledge of how societies ought to be governed. If conversely, “public policy” is not to be “dictated by the teachings of Jesus,” who is the rock of all truth, then I ask by what other standard are they rightly governed? The vague and arbitrary sense of morality that fills the void is in keeping with Falwell’s father, Jerry Falwell Sr., who is noted for his political organization, “The Moral Majority.” While this organization may have advanced “conservative” principles, it was admittedly not created to advance Christianity itself. Rather, Falwell wished to create an organization that could incorporate peoples of all religious convictions, including unbelievers, who were in favor of “pro-American” political change;10 a mission which captures precisely the notion of most of the “conservative” movement in America today, who themselves would scoff at any notion of a Christianized government.
While Christian’s may at best pay lip service to the implementation of “moral” laws, they have all but abandoned the only real law that matters- the law of God! In so doing, they have lost all grounding in making any ethical assertions whatsoever within the context of the public realm. Thus, most Christians have nothing to say to the public at all, and use their theological system as an excuse for indifference.
The very prominent evangelical Dr. John MacArthur writes plainly,
God is simply not calling us to wage a culture war that would seek to transform our countries into “Christian nations.”11
Jeremiah Johnson, a contributor to MacArthur’s ministry “Grace to You,” writes in an article entitled, “The Futility of Political Change,” saying,
This world is not our home, and we shouldn’t waste time striving to make it more accommodating to our standards and morality…In fairness, how else should we expect unrepentant sinners to act?12
This isolationist mentality pervades modern evangelicalism, and I assert that the culture is paying the high price for the church’s lack of influence. The time is now to recall what it means to be Christians. If Christ is truly Lord, He may never be shoved into the closet, relegated only to private prayers in the dark. If He is truly Lord then He reigns over every area of human affairs. The personal lives of individuals are not to be governed by the Lord, while the governments of men be ruled by the court of public opinion.
Section 1: Weighing the Alternative: The Viability of Postmillennialism
In the previous section I made the claim that many Christians use their theological system to justify a hands-off, isolationist approach to culture. In particular, I cited dispensationalism as especially driving such a narrative, and made specific quotes from dispensationalists to support these claims. However, the particular theological factor that often sounds the cultural retreat may be widened to premillennialism more generally, whether it be of the historical or dispensational variety.
Indeed, theology matters, and in particular eschatology matters. No, there is perhaps no greater influencing factor on this topic, of Christianity’s role within society, than that of eschatology. What one views as being the future for the church will momentously impact what that one views as the role and mission of the church in the here and now. Those who justify isolationism from the culture often do so by appealing to the downward trend in the course of history that is predicted by the premillennial model. They reason that since society is to ultimately fail, resulting in a seven-year Great Tribulation upon the earth, it makes no sense that the church should concern itself with Christianizing, or better yet “moralizing,” society.
Thus, those who reject the common disposition of cultural retreatism; those who acknowledge the relevance of the general equity of the Old Testament law of God, and declare the Lord Jesus to be King over all matters of life, including the political matters; often wind up settling in the camp of postmillennialism. This view of eschatology is the exact opposite of its premillennial competitor. Rather than history being viewed through the lens of ultimate pessimism, predicting that the world will, in the end, take a downturn, plummeting into a Great Tribulation, postmillennialism teaches that the present age will be one characterized ultimately by great success for the gospel. Though there may be many hardships and great suffering along the way, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church (Matt. 16:18). Rather, the church will take the “gospel of the kingdom” into every nation and evangelize every culture (Matt. 24:14). The church’s success in doing so, will be due to the divine providence and decree of God; “The zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this” (Isa. 37:32).
Because of postmillennialism’s teaching in regards to its optimistic outlook of the future, postmillennialists well account for cultural involvement. They ultimately expect the gospel to produce great fruit within the public realm, not being relegated to personal, privatized religion. This way of thinking was in fact quite prevalent at the early formation of the United States and can be seen clearly in the prayer offered by Robert Hunt, pastor of Jamestown colony, just after the colonist’s arrival in 1607. Hunt said,
We do hereby Dedicate this Land, and ourselves, to reach the People within these shores with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to raise up Godly generations after us, and with these generations take the Kingdom of God to all the earth. May this Covenant of Dedication remain to all generations, as long as this earth remains, and may this Land, along with England, be Evangelist to the World.13
Though this paper is not the place to provide a full critique of postmillennial eschatology, it is important to point out that, even in light of the eschatology’s honorable endeavor to make Christ known throughout all the earth, and its quality of possessing a sort of optimistic beauty, described by Pastor Douglas Wilson as “lyrical theology,”14 it nevertheless contains some rather complicated Scriptural problems. These Scriptural problems are found in the area of hermeneutics, wherein postmillennialists are often found guilty of applying symbolism and figures of speech past the textual and contextual warrant of what the Scriptures allow.
There is perhaps no greater example of this than in their rendering of the book of Revelation. Though the book, being apocalyptic literature, admittedly uses many symbols and extraordinary figures of speech, it is important to note that it does so in order to communicate literal events. As such, there is an interplay between symbolic language and the event that it describes, which should be taken as literal. Roy B. Zuck writes,
Figurative speech…is a picturesque, out-of-the-ordinary way of presenting literal facts that might otherwise be stated in a normal, plain, ordinary way. Saying that “the argument does not hold water” is an unusual way of saying the more ordinary sentence “the argument is weak.” Both sentences convey a literal fact. One conveys it in a figurative fashion, the other in a non-figurative way.15
Zuck rightly argues that figurative speech is not contrary to literal interpretation. Therefore, though figurative language may be frequently used in Scripture, and particularly in the apocalyptic genre such as Revelation (refuting the possibility of applying a “wooden” interpretation), there are nevertheless limits to the interpretation of those figures. If this were not the case, then the interpretations of words could become subject to any number of fantastic interpretations, essentially making any objective quality of language meaningless, and opening the Scriptures up for rampant eisegesis. This is the danger of fanciful “allegorization.” As Dr. Andy Woods writes,
Allegorization is a highly subjective practice. One person can place one meaning on a text while another may have a different interpretation. Which allegorist is correct? There is no way to test which one is right, because once we start allegorizing, we can come up with an endless variety of potential meanings for any given text.16
However, when coming to the book of Revelation, the postmillennialist is forced to adopt a highly symbolic interpretive methodology which eminently borders and at times nearly crosses the threshold into this problem of allegorization, constructing a slippery-slope with the precedents they set. This symbolic interpretive methodology is seen very clearly in the highly prominent chapter twenty of Revelation; the chapter which is the theme verse of the doctrine of the “millennial kingdom.” In this chapter we read,
And I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was committed to them. Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands. And they lived and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. But the rest of the dead did not live again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years. (Rev. 20:4-6).
Here, the postmillennialists, teaching that the millennium is fulfilled in the current aeon, run into a rather difficult problem. Notice from these verses that the one thousand-years of Christ’s reign are preceded by a resurrection from the dead; particularly, those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and the word of God. And yet, postmillennialists classically teach that the kingdom is now. If that is so, then how does postmillennialism account for this resurrection event? When did this resurrection event occur?
So vital is this issue to the construct of postmillennialism (as well as to amillennialism), that the Reformation Study Bible, edited by Dr. R.C. Sproul, hangs the entire controversy over the millennial kingdom upon this very issue. The RSB reads, “If this resurrection means bodily resurrection, it coincides with the second coming of Christ…and the premillennialists are correct.” Yet, the RSB goes on to say, “The first and second resurrections may be preliminary and ultimate, respectively. The first is spiritual, the second is of the body”17 (Emphasis Added).
In other words, the postmillennialist is forced into disbelieving that Revelation twenty refers to physical resurrection. Pastor Douglas Wilson (a postmillennialist) comments on this resurrection event saying, “I believe the best explanation is that the first resurrection is the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and the second resurrection is the general resurrection of the dead at the end of all human history.”18
But does the text of Revelation twenty really allow for the first resurrection to be spiritual in nature? I submit here that it does not. Going back to the text, notice that those who are resurrected are those who have been physically beheaded. It is these martyrs that “live and reign with Christ for a thousand years” (v. 4), taking part in the first “resurrection,” a word that nearly always refers to physical resurrection (Matt. 22:23, 28, 30, 31, Jn. 5:29, Acts 1:22, 1 Cor. 15:12…).
Furthermore, those who are resurrected are contrasted with those who do not “live again” until the thousand years are finished (v. 5). Thus, the text does not indicate that the first resurrection is speaking of Jesus’ resurrection, or a spiritual resurrection that occurs at the time of conversion. If this physical interpretation is correct, then by the RSB’s own standards, premillennialism would have to be true. Postmillennialism would be false.
Going beyond the text of Revelation twenty, and applying the same hermeneutical critique, I submit that premillennialism, particularly dispensational premillennialism, further wins out in an examination of issues such as the 144,000 Israelites sealed in Revelation chapter seven, or the binding of Satan earlier in chapter twenty. Dispensational premillennialism also accounts more accurately for the prescribed conditions present during the millennial kingdom, particularly as it relates to a literal fulfillment of a restoration in the animal kingdom and an extended human life span (Isa. 11:6, 65:20).
This may sound rather perplexing, because in the previous section I leveled a stout criticism against the dispensational/premillennial system. Yet, in this section, I take sides with that very system in interpreting Biblical prophecy. So how is this juxtaposition to iron out? It is this question that I now turn to for the remainder of this work.
Section 2: Cultural Activism in light of Dispensational Premillennialism
Within the previous sections I have labored to introduce two points. Firstly, the cultural relevancy of Christianity; the cultural relevancy of the truth; is profound and unavoidable. The Lord Jesus Christ is Lord of all realms of human experience, including the political/public realm. Any attempt to segregate Christ from the public realm should be scorned by Christians.
Secondly, I have attempted to connect this issue of cultural relevancy to the subject of eschatology. It was my assertion that many Christians, sadly, use the doctrine of premillennialism to justify isolationism from the culture. Because of this, Christians who reject isolationism are often forced into the camp of postmillennialism. This led to a brief exegetical critique of postmillennialism, which found that the postmillennial interpretation of Revelation is, unfortunately, found wanting.
Now, in light of these two points, we are left with something of a peculiar tension. On one hand, the first point was made to establish cultural activism, but on the other hand, the second point was developed to show the exegetical inadequacy of the eschatology wherein most find a theological basis for making that cultural stand. Adding to this tension, I actually labored to defend the premillennial position; the same position that I claimed acted as an excuse for Christian’s isolationism from the culture.
This leaves open the question to which I will now attend: how is this tension to be resolved? In answering the question, it is my hope to justify and promote the much-needed zeal of Christian’s within the culture, but to do so from the perspective of dispensational premillennialism. It is my conviction that dispensationalism can actually account for the efforts made by the postmillennialist and the theonomist; there need not be enmity between the two camps. The issue need not be posed as cultural activism vs. premillennialism. It should rather be cultural activism and premillennialism. Thus, one could say that I am here attempting to inject the postmillennial zeal into premillennial eschatology.
To make this argument, I will first examine the ministry of the prophets. It is my intent to establish a Scriptural basis for cultural involvement, if the case has not already been argued. Secondly, I will tie this directly with the premillennial concept of a coming tribulation, refuting the notion that such judgement relieves the Christian of his/her cultural duty.
The Scriptural Basis for Cultural Involvement (From the Prophets)
The Old Testament Scriptures are generally divided into four to five different categories. These are the Pentateuch; the historical books; poetic and wisdom literature; and the prophets. Within these books we are given an account of history wherein God has chosen to reveal Himself to man. This history follows most centrally a people whom God consecrates for Himself, and enters into a covenant union with. The father of this people is named Abraham. To Abraham God promises vast land, and a great nation that will become a blessing to all the earth. These promises are then acted upon as the Lord leads this people out of slavery, gives unto them His sacred law, and grants them dominion over the land that He had promised.
Indeed, Israel does become a great nation. But, contrary to popular flannel graphs and cartoons, their story is not one for little children. Their notable peaks are connected by remarkably low valleys. The nation of Israel is commonly caught up throughout Old Testament history in rampant idolatry, sinful practices of every sort, and not surprisingly false doctrine and religious impurity.
It is in these conditions that the ministries of the prophets come into view most clearly. The classical prophets were great men of God, whom the Lord used to call the nations to repentance. Notice that I use “nations” in the plural form. Though Israel was usually the central concern of the prophets, they did not prophesy against Israel alone. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel proclaimed lengthy oracles against foreign nations including Egypt and Babylon. The prophet Obadiah prophesied against the nation of Edom. Jonah was called to preach repentance to the Assyrian city of Nineveh. Zephaniah prophesied against the nations of Philistia, Moab, and Ammon. Amos prophesied against Philistia, Moab, and Ammon as well, but also against Damascus, Tyre, and Edom. A central theme of the prophets was demonstrating God’s sovereignty over all nations, and in that sovereignty came the command to all nations everywhere to repent! Those nations that refused were subject to God’s judgement and wrath.
Furthermore, it is clear from their teachings that the prophets did not believe in privatized religion. They declared their message of repentance to all nations, and were particularly concerned about social injustice, and public sins.
The book of Isaiah opens with a scathing judgement upon Judah. In chapter one we read, “Alas, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!” (Isa. 1:4). Isaiah, speaking directly on behalf of the Lord, continues, “Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire; Strangers devour your land in your presence; And it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers.” (v. 7).
While individual hearts and minds may lie at the root of the cultural problems (v. 2), Isaiah levels this judgement against the public condition of the nation. Isaiah obviously sees a connection between a genuine fear of the Lord, and that sincere heart’s very public impact. A lack of genuine religiosity leads to an immoral society, and thus an immoral society is indicative of religiosity that is vain. This vain religiosity is the object of Isaiah’s next judgement. The Lord says, through the prophet,
“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?” Says the Lord. “I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs or goats… Bring no more futile sacrifices; incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies— I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood” (Isa. 1:11-15).
The judgment concludes with the direct command to, “Seek justice, rebuke the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow” (v. 17). The Lord calls His people to repentance, which leads one to seek justice and rebuke evil within society; that is the public realm. This obligation lands squarely upon the shoulders of those who are God’s people, and there is no exception for Christians today. Later on in the book, Isaiah uses strong language for Israel’s leaders who did not rebuke evil. He writes, “His watchmen are blind, they are all ignorant; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber” (56:10). The same sin continues on today, in the sin of silence from the Christian pulpit.19
As mentioned above, this judgement of sin did not fall solely upon Israel and Judah alone. The prophet Jonah was sent to call the Assyrian city of Nineveh to repentance. It is not of little note that the Assyrians were well known for their brutal tactics of execution including flaying the skin from their captives.20 In chapter one God says to Jonah, “Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it for their wickedness has come up before Me” (v. 2). In chapter three, Jonah enters the city of Nineveh and walks through its streets declaring, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!” (v. 4).
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel all wrote lengthy oracles against foreign nations. In Ezekiel chapter twenty-eight, the Lord declares judgement upon Tyre for the king’s arrogant pride. In Isaiah chapter thirteen, we read of the destruction that was to come upon Babylon saying, “Behold, the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with both wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate; and He will destroy its sinners from it” (v. 9).
In Jeremiah 25:12 God declares, “Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity.” In the following chapter, Jeremiah is instructed, “Take this wine cup of fury from My hand and cause all nations, to whom I send you, to drink it” (Jer. 26:15). The wine cup of fury is then directed against,
Pharoah king of Egypt, his servants, his princes, and all his people; all the mixed multitude, all the kings of the land of Uz, all the kings of the land of the Philistines… Edom, Moab, and the people of Ammon; all the kings of the coastlands which are across the sea…all who are in the farthest corners; all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the mixed multitude who dwell in the desert; all the kings of Zimri, all the kings of Elam, and all the kings of the Medes; all the kings of the north, far and near, one with another; and all the kingdoms of the world which are on the face of the earth (Jeremiah 26:17-26).
Many other examples could be brought to bear, but it is obvious that the call to repentance far transcended the Jewish people. It applied to all nations, and all nations were judged for continuing in their public display of sin. Yet, what does the modern Christian say?
“It’s such a distortion of the teachings of Jesus to say that what he taught us to do personally…can somehow be imputed on a nation…You almost have to believe this is a theocracy to think…that public policy should be dictated by the teachings of Jesus.”
And, “This world is not our home, and we shouldn’t waste time striving to make it more accommodating to our standards and morality…In fairness, how else should we expect unrepentant sinners to act?”
May the word of God be its own commentary upon such claims.
Reconciling Cultural Involvement with Premillennialism
As asserted in the previous subsection, it is my conviction that the ministry of the prophets makes clear the Christian’s duty to be culturally active, preaching the much-needed message of repentance to the nations to this very day. Our Lord Jesus did not overturn this obligation, but was rather a prophet Himself (Matt. 13:57). The New Testament compliments the Old, it does not negate it. The Lord’s great commission included going unto every nation to make disciples, teaching them everything that He commanded. Perhaps most famously, Christ said of the church, “You are the salt of the earth.” Yet, continuing on, Christ warned, “if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it (the earth) be seasoned? It is then good for nothing but to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by men” (Matt. 5:13). The failure on the part of pastors, elders, church leaders of every sort, and the congregation itself, to actively rebuke the evils of society and proclaim the law of God, from the pulpit of the Sunday service is committing that very sin that Christ warned of. The church has become the salt that has lost its savor.
But still, the question remains, if the nations of the world will continue to grow in wickedness and apostasy throughout the present age, and may eminently devolve into a Great Tribulation, why should Christians concern themselves with “evangelizing” the culture. Just as Bruce A. Baker wrote, “it is only when Christ establishes His kingdom at the second coming that civilization will be made right.” So, why bother with the public affairs of life? Aren’t Christians merely charged with preaching the gospel, and focusing on their own personal piety?
Firstly, it is vital to point out, that declaring the law of God and repentance to the nations is preaching the gospel! The apostles were not brutally murdered for preaching privatized religion, but rather for challenging the establishment by declaring Jesus to be Lord and Christ. Such a message was a direct threat to the Jewish authorities, and to Rome’s polytheistic practices. It was for this that they were persecuted and sentenced to death.
The answer as to why Christians are to call the nations to repentance even in light of an eschatology that predicts ultimate failure on the part of those nations to convert is perhaps a bit more complex. However, a large piece of this answer may be found in the prophets yet again. In Isaiah chapter six, we read of the extraordinary account of how the prophet was called into service by the Lord. Isaiah 6:1-4 recounts,
In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple. Above it stood seraphim; each one had six wings: with two he covered his face, with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one cried to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory!” And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke (Isa. 6:1-4).
Such an experience of being taken into the very presence of the Living God immediately causes Isaiah to exclaim,
“Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts” (v. 5).
Notice the great significance of Isaiah’s reaction, to the subject at hand. Being so humbled before the holy presence of God immediately causes him to reflect upon, not only his own personal sin, but the sin of his surrounding culture!
After this, the seraphim touches the lips of Isaiah with a “live coal” taken from the altar which was before the Lord, and says, “Behold this has touched your lips; your iniquity is taken away, and your sin purged” (v. 7). Then, the voice of the Lord asks, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” (v. 8). Isaiah’s redemptive encounter prompts him to reply, “Here am I! Send me” (v. 8b).
Yet, it is at this point that the Lord’s commission to Isaiah takes a surprising turn. The Lord bids Isaiah saying, “Go, and tell this people: Keep on hearing, but do not understand; keep on seeing, but do not perceive. Make the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes” (vv. 9-10). The commissioned prophet then responds, “Lord, how long?” (v. 11). And God answers,
“Until the cities are laid waste and without inhabitant, the houses are without a man, the land is utterly desolate, the Lord has removed men far away, and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land” (vv. 11-12).
Indeed, such a response is quite startling for the postmillennial perspective. Interestingly, the Lord does not commission Isaiah to preach to the culture so that the entire world might become evangelized, but until the exact opposite occurs! The prophet’s testimony was to serve as the judicial backdrop of God’s wrath and judgement upon the nation’s sin; not as the means by which the culture would be saved.
The prophet announced to the nation the error of its ways, but the nation would not turn back. Instead of heeding their warning, the prophets were often slain. Tradition holds that Isaiah was sawn in two.21 In Matthew 23:37, the Lord Jesus declares, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her.”
In terms of evangelistic success on a cultural level, the prophets did not succeed. Yet, I submit that this was not their intended goal. Rather, the purpose of their lives was to live out a faithful ministry, as a public testament to the truth; just as Christ said, “For this reason I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth” (Jn. 18:37). In this they did succeed and stand as a model for how Christians are to live in this world today. What is important to note, however, is that such a testimony lived out was a testimony to the nations and governments of men! Though the world may never be made right until Christ returns, this does not relieve the Christian of his duty to proclaim the law of God to society, just as the prophets of old rightly did.
It may be the case that, in so doing, the Lord uses your public testimony to the nations to elect others to salvation. Just as the men of Athens responded to the apostle Paul, so to will most mock and scorn. But as for others they will say, “we will hear you again” (Acts 17:32). Yet again, it may be that your testimony is used by God, just as Isaiah’s was- to harden the heart of the nation all the more. After all, the gospel is the savor of life unto life, and death unto death (2 Cor. 2:16).
Conclusion
Robert Charles Winthrop once said, “Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them or a power without them; either by the word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet.”22 Indeed, Winthrop’s observation is a fact well attested to by history. Every society must ultimately choose whose law they will embrace. They may either humble themselves before the living God and receive the implantation of His law upon their hearts; or they will choose to reject the Lord and His righteous law, making man the authority, and sentencing themselves to their assured destruction. “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap” (Gal. 6:7).
The main point of this treatise is to proclaim the sovereignty of God over every area of human affairs, and to call dispensational and premillennial churches to fulfill their cultural duty. If the Lord is truly sovereign, He must reign over every aspect life. God may not be fit into a narrow section of personal piety, while the public realm be run by the court of public opinion.
At the same time, we must hold fast to a faithful interpretation of His words. To step outside the bounds of proper exegesis is to bring upon the same judgement that the one who makes man the authority provokes. I hold that a proper exegesis of the Scriptures harmonizes both premillennial eschatology and cultural involvement. There need not be enmity between the cultural zeal of postmillennialist and the consistent literalism of the premillennialist. May it be that both sides can work together, to promote the sovereignty of Christ in the public square.
Wisdom calls aloud outside; she raises her voice in the public streets (Pro. 1:20).
Footnotes
1 George Orwell, 1984, (New York, New York; Signet Classics, 1961), 81.
2 Ibid, 250.
3 “Importance of Morality and Religion in Government,” Wall Builders, December 29, 2016, https://wallbuilders.com/importance-morality-religion-government/.
4 Ibid.
5 Bruce A. Baker, “Dispensationalism’s Evolving Theory of Political Action: How Roe V. Wade and Jerry Falwell Brought Dispensationalism from Rejecting Political Action to Embracing It,” Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, Sept. 16-17, 2020, https://dispensationalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Baker_Final2_Falwell-CDH-2020.pdf, 5.
6 Ibid, 6.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid, 4.
9 Greg L. Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Press, 1996), 4-5.
10 Baker, “Dispensationalism,” 16.
11 John MacArthur, Why Government Can’t Save You, (Nashville, TN: Word, 2000), 13.
12 Jeremiah Johnson, “The Futility of Political Change,” Grace to You, October 16, 2020, https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B160108.
13 David Barton, The Founder’s Bible, ed. Brad Cummings, and Lance Wubbels, (Newbury Park, CA: Shiloh Road Publishers, 2012), 35.
14 Douglas Wilson, Heaven Misplaced: Christ’s Kingdom on Earth (Moscow, ID; Canon Press, 2008), 11.
15 Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth, (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 1991), 147.
16 Dr. Andy Woods, Ever Reforming: Dispensational Theology and the Completion of the Protestant Reformation, (Taos, NM: Dispensational Publishing House, 2018), 23.
17 R.C. Sproul, ed., The Reformation Study Bible, (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2015), 2329.
18 Douglas Wilson, When the Man Comes Around: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation, (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2019), 233.
19 Shane Idleman, “The Sin of Silence in the Pulpit,” Christian Headlines, June 22, 2020, https://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/shane-idleman/the-sin-of-silence-in-the-pulpit.html?fbclid=IwAR2VL2JCAk6q5Z2MqVqJMKXmQJCYbcr8DUw1B2jWKXDgA8-G9928YOA2D28
20 Holman Study Bible: NKJV Edition, (Nashville, TN: Homan Bible Publishers, 2013), 1494.
21 Sproul, Reformation Study Bible, 1114.
22 Robert Charles Winthrop, in speech to Massachusetts Bible Society, May 28, 1849, https://libquotes.com/robert-charles-winthrop/quote/lbj4g6z
