Paradise Restored by David Chilton (Part 1)

In the foreword, Gary North calls Paradise Restored the best presentation of biblical eschatology and biblical expository style and a page-turner. I’m not well read enough to agree with the former statement, but I will definitely say that it is a page-turner.

This book helped explain so many Bible passages that I have read and heard since I was a kid but never understood. Not only do those passages make a whole lot more sense to me, the Bible as a whole makes more sense to me now, too. Instead of forcing my presuppositions on the Bible and trying to explain things away or just ignore them, it really feels like a light bulb came on after reading this book and I can see how everything works together.

In part one of Paradise Restored, Chilton introduces the eschatology of dominion, a “solid, confident, Bible-based assurance that, before the Second Coming of Christ, the gospel will be victorious throughout the entire world” (5). The Psalms are the hymnbook of dominion as they are “full of conquest, victory, and the dominion of the saints” (8). Chilton says that the abandonment of singing Psalms in worship coincides with the Church’s abandonment of dominion eschatology. Before being open-minded to postmillennialism, a lot of Psalms didn’t make any sense to me. I remember having discussions with other people at RUF in college about the Imprecatory Psalms (Psalms 35, 55, 59, 69, 79, 83, 94, 109, 140). Some said those psalms were no longer appropriate for worship and expressed discomfort at praying those Psalms to God. I really didn't know what to think of them.  Other Psalms that speak of victory were almost equally confusing. For example:

“All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord,
And all the families of the nations will worship before Thee.” (Ps. 22:27)

“All the kings of the earth will give thanks to Thee, O Lord,
When they have heard the words of Thy mouth.
And they will sing of the ways of the Lord;
For great is the glory of the Lord.” (Ps. 138:4-5)

(Other examples: Ps. 38:9-11; Ps. 46:8-10; Ps. 47:1-3; Ps. 66:4; Ps 72:8-11; Ps. 86:9; Ps. 149:5-9)

Will kings really give thanks to the Lord? How can things be getting worse and worse when all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord? What do these verses mean if they do not speak of a hope of mass transformation of individuals and nations by the gospel of Jesus Christ?

Chilton argues that the expectation of the Church’s failure contributes to its failure to make advances of God’s Kingdom on earth today. He writes:

“The fact is that you will not work for the transformation of society if you don’t believe society will be transformed. You will not try to build a Christian civilization if you do not believe that a Christian civilization is possible. It was the utter confidence in the victory of the Christian faith that gave courage to the early missionaries, who fearlessly strode into the farthest reaches of pagan Europe as if they were at the head of an army, preaching the gospel, driving out demons, smashing idols, converting whole kingdoms, bringing vast multitudes to their knees at the feet of Christ. They knew they would win. They could give up their lives in the struggle, certain that history was on their side, that Satan’s domains were being shattered daily, his illegitimate hold weakening and slipping with every advance of the Christian forces. They were not in the least bit pessimistic about the power of the gospel. God honored their faith in His promises, and enabled them to lay the groundwork for a Christendom which will someday embrace the entire world” (11).

Chilton likens the process of dominion to sanctification. The process is not automatic. It requires work on our part, and slowly we are transformed. In the same way, society will be transformed through the hard work of Christians in obeying God and discipling the nations.

I would like to look a little further into what has been the historic eschatology of the Church. In A Case for Amillennialism, Kim Riddlebarger asserts that amillennialism has been the main position among Reformed Christians in history. Yet, Chilton says that postmillennialism has been the historic faith of the Church. Riddlebarger also claims that the default position of postmillennialism is that there is a future Golden Age that has not yet started, while Chilton says that, excluding a handful of postmillennial theologians, postmillennialism holds that the millennium started at Christ’s resurrection/ascension, just as amillennialism teaches. When Riddlebarger quotes a postmillennial text that takes the position that the millennium started at Christ’s resurrection/ascension, he says that this postmillennialist has “borrowed” from amillennialism in that aspect. It makes me think that the traditional belief of the church has been that the millennium began at Christ’s resurrection/ascension, so Riddlebarger claims them as amillennialist. But really the only thing that you should look at is how they view the character of the millennium, since that is chiefly the difference between the two views.