The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views

Rating:
Summary: A Great Overview of the Four Main Eschatological Positions
Review: Clouse does a superior job of putting together 4 scholarly advocates of different millennial interpretations. Ladd, Hoekema, and Hoyt do an excellent job of presenting and defending their stances, while Boettner's essay on Postmillennialsim could have been better. Consequently, the rebuttals from each of the other essayists concerning this view were comparitively disappointing as well.
Overall, this book really is a must have for any person wanting exposure to the options in Christianity concerning the 1000 year reign of Christ as described in Rev. 20.

Rating:
Summary: Fairly good introduction--but inconsistent
Review: This books provides a basic understanding of the 4 contrasting views of the kingdom of God as seen through the lens of the millennium. It helps to have a basic knowledge of the doctrine of the millennium before you read the book as no one explains the basic views themselves.

Each of the contributors explains their view more or less competently, although Hoekema (amillennialism) has by far the most rigorous and well-organized essay. Ladd's essay is also quite good. Hoyt's essay is more about the dispesationalist scheme of Biblical interpretation, and he consistently confuses the concept of metaphorical or symbolic interpretation, arguing in his essay that such interpretation is "literalism" when any speaker of English would tell you that it is not.

Boettner's contribution (post-millennialism) was downright disappointing as he had no Biblical exegesis to back up his admittedly engaging presentation of his view. Some of the responses by each contributor to the other's position are fairly rude, in particular Ladd, but also Hoyt to an extent.

The editor's careless work decreased the value of the book. He did not require all the contributors to address their exegesis of key questions, like that of Rev. 20. He allowed Boettner to get away with a sloppy essay that proved nothing. And he allowed Hoyt to blather on and on in his essay and his responses about "literalism," when any dictionary would show that literalism is not what Hoyt says it is.

In summary, you can dig an understanding of the four views of the millennium out of this book, but the editor could have made it much easier.

Rating:
Summary: A thought provoking comparison
Review: This is a very useful book! It presents the four main eschatological positions in the words of accomplished theologians: G.E. Ladd on historic premillennialism, H.A. Hoyt on dispensational premillenialism, L. Boettner on postmillenialism, and A.A. Hoekema on amillenialism. Each chapter begins with one of these men stating their position on the "end times", followed by rebuttal from the other three. This dialogue format is excellent - much credit goes to the editor, R. Clouse.

Each chapter is very well-written, as one would expect from such prominent men, with the exception perhaps of postmillenialism. Boettner presents a basic statement of the postmillenial viewpoint, but his use of Scripture in explaining and supporting his argument is sparse, which weakens it somewhat. The other three men did a fine job.

If you are interested in this long-standing debate or if you simply wish to determine where you stand, this is a good book to start with because it addresses the four basic positions and because of its dialogue format. You probably won't have all your questions answered simply by reading this book, but you will certainly have your thoughts stirred!

Rating:
Summary: Accessible, Well-Written Introduction
Review: This is an accessible, well-written introduction to four views relating to the millennium of Revelation 20. The book is written in a debate-like format, with each contributor giving a defense of his millennial view followed by a response from the each of the other contributors.

All four contributors agree that one's millennial view follows from one's philosophy of biblical interpretation and each contributor defends their respective hermeneutic approach. In his defense of postmillennialism, Boettner succeeds primarily in showing that he does not even understand the interpretive principle at stake - no serious reader of the bible (even dispensational readers) question that the bible contains symbolic and figurative language. The hermeneutic debate is not a debate between a literal and a figurative interpretation of the Scriptures. Instead, the debate centers on whether Old Testament prophecies were and will be fulfilled literally, through national Israel, or rather, were and will be fulfilled spiritually, through the Church.

In his defense of dispensational premillennialism, Hoyt argues that biblical interpretation should operate on the expectation that Old Testament prophecies will be literally fulfilled with national Israel as their object. His primary justification for this hermeneutic principle is his belief that a literal interpretation is the simplest to understand and that God would certainly proceed in the way that is most accessible and understandable to the common folk. Hoyt's argument is weak considering that the New Testament interprets and applies key Old Testament prophecies in understandable and clear language.

In fact, the interpretive principles of Hoekema (Amillennialism) and Ladd (Historic Premillennialsm) follow along this line of argument: The New Testament provides the authoritative interpretation of Old Testament prophecies, largely arguing for a spiritual fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies through the Church. Hoekema and Ladd find much to agree upon and little to disagree upon. Their only difference relates to interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6. Both presentations are well written and convincing.

It is unclear why Boettner even cares what interpretive principle is adopted. His defense of Postmillennialism is almost completely free of biblical exegesis. In fact, in response to Boettner's essay, Ladd comments, "There is so little appeal to Scripture that I have little to criticize." Boettner does pose a worthwhile question: Wouldn't it be great if the vast majority of humanity were saved? This is the evangelical version of the equally appropriate question: Wouldn't it be great if everyone were saved? Evangelicals, of which I am one, would do good to remember that God "is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (II Peter 3:9).