I am undecided on several points of eschatology. Dispensationalism is off the table (including but not limited to a re-built temple), but what the millennium is and when it will come is beyond my reach, at this point. Pre? A? Post? I see good arguments for all three.
Another decision I’ve made is that it is not helpful to divide us into groups by how we believe the millennium sequentially relates to Christ’s return. There are other questions that need to be answered. Does “1000 years” point to a literal or figurative 1000 years? Is this millennium materially or spiritually manifested? One of the biggest decisions to make, that has ramifications on the entire discussion, is what relationship the church has with Old Testament Israel – that will even determine what your view of baptism should be. Sheesh.
We should study these matters and make a decision. This means getting our knees on the carpet and our eye-balls on the text. Also, this means comparing various exegetical traditions with the Word of God. I don’t expect every exegete to take Mormon eschatology seriously, but I do expect to see at least the major orthodox opinions (e.g. pre-, a-, post-) engaged.
And so, I have been very disappointed with most commentators, in the previous 75 years or so. Why? Because a major, veritable, eschatological opinion called “postmillennialism” has hardly been given the time of day. The excuse is usually, “No one really believes that anymore.” But my goodness, many people have! Augustine and Calvin, though often called amillennials, have clear sparks of postmillennial eschatology. Jonathan Edwards and most Puritans were postmillennials. Spurgeon, the Prince of Preachers, was a postmillennial-in-spirit (i.e. an optimistic premillennial), and the fathers of modern missions (e.g. William Carey, David Livingstone) were postmillennial. This does not make the opinion correct, and it does not mean that I myself am a postmillennial. It does mean, though, that you can’t simply dismiss this exegetical opinion as “lightweight.”
Particularly, because it is an exegetical opinion. These men did not advocate for postmillennialism because the world was spinning more evenly. They held their convictions on the basis of exegesis. Whether or not that exegesis is correct is another matter, but we can’t just dismiss it all with a wave of the “unpopular” hand.
I’m on a soap-box about this because I have truly been disappointed in men I look up to, who have at times discounted postmillennialism like the ugly duckling. I don’t mean guys like Steven Anderson, I mean theologians of Lloyd-Jones and Piper’s caliber. Lloyd-Jones (as Schreiner here) spends a remarkably less amount of time on the matter (see here). Piper, commenting on Isaiah 65, says he didn’t even read what postmillennials have to say about the passage (see 28:30 here). Why? Let’s be open to whatever the Bible teaches.