Thine is the Kingdom: A Study of the Postmillennial Hope

        

        

    

   

Copyright © 2003 by Chalcedon Foundation All Rights Reserved.

Address all inquiries to: Chalcedon P. O. Box 158 Vallecito, CA 95251 U.S.A. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gentry, Jr., Kenneth L., Editor Thine is the Kingdom Studies in the Postmillennial Hope Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Editor Includes index ISBN 1-891375-22-9

Printed in the United States of America First Edition

             

 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Chapter 1

A Summary Case for Postmillennialism . . . . . . . . . . 1 Keith A. Mathison Chapter 2

Psalm 110 and the Postmillennial Hope . . . . . . . . . . 23 William O. Einwechter Chapter 3

Jesus Christ the Propitiation for the Whole World . . . 67 Benjamin B. Warfield Chapter 4

Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist . . . . . . . . . . 83 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Chapter 5

Victory Belongs to the Lord . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Chapter 6

The End is Not Yet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 J. A. Alexander Chapter 7

Practicing Postmillennial ism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Jefferey A. Ventrella





 the 1960s postmillennialism has been enjoying a robust revival. In the last quarter of

the twentieth century a flood of books offering positive presentations of this optimistic eschatology inundated the evangelica l landscape. Among these are: R. J. Rushdoony’ s Thy Kingd om Come (1970) and God’s Pla n for Victor y (1977), John J. Davis’ Christ’s Victorious Kingdom (1986, 1997), David Chilton’ s Paradise Restored (1987), Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth Gentry’s House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology (1989) , Kenneth Gentry’s Perilous Times (1998) and He Shall Have Dominion (1992), Gary North’s Millennialism and Social Theory (1990), Gary DeMar’s Last Days Madness (1991), Alexander McLeod ’s Governor of the Nations (reprinted 1993), Andrew Sandlin’s Postmillennial Primer (1997), Darrell L. Bock, ed., Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond (1999; which included my distinctly Reconstructionistic brand of postmillennialism), Keith Mathison’s Postmillennialism (1999), and Bahnsen’s Victory in Jesus (1999).

i

Thine is the Kingdom

As noted by Andrew Sandlin: No one in the modern era has been more vocally and visibly identified with postmillennialism than Rousas John Rushdoony.... It has been Rushdoony and his Chalcedon Foundation that have most prominently flown the postmillennial flag. He profoundly influenced an entire class of younger scholars and writers directly or indirectly associated with Chalcedon, all of whom are indebted chiefly to Rushdoony for their postmillennial eschatology (and much else). 1

The accuracy of this statement is evident when we realize that several of the authors in the precedin g paragraph are disciples of Rushdoony: Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, Andrew Sandlin, and David Chilton.

   As we release this new work perhaps we should briefly justify our continuing concern regarding the eschatological debate. On radio talk shows and at conferences I occasionally hear queries regarding the legitimacy of eschatology studies. Yet this doctrine does merit ongoing investigation and elaboration for the following reasons, which I will briefly summarize. First, eschatology is part of the Bible. Whatever else we may say about eschatology, we must confess that the Bible does speak about it. Indeed, the prophets of the old covenant economy held significant roles in the kingdom of God, whom Godcalled “my anointed ones” (I Chronicles 16:22; Psalm 105:5) and “my servants” (II Kings 9:7; Jeremiah 7:25; Ezekiel 38:17; Zechariah 1:6). What is more, Paul clearly informs us that “all

ii

Preface

Scripture is inspired of God and is profitable” (II Timothy 3:1 6a). Are we to ignore the “servants ” of God and their inspired portion s of God’s authoritative word? Second, eschatology is a large part of the Bible. Not only is prophecy found in God’s word, but it forms a significant portion of that divine revelation. The Old Testament contains an enormous amount of prophecy: in the three Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel), the twelve Minor Prophets (Hosea through Malachi), the prophecy of Daniel, many of the Psalms (the worship book of Israel), as well as numerous scattered prophecies appearing in the Pentateuch and elsewhere. In the New Testament many of Christ’s parables are eschatological and two of his five major discourses in Matthew are prophecies (the Kingdom Parables in Chapter 13 and the Olivet Discourse in Chapters 24 and 25). And we must not forget that two of Paul’s letters are largely focused on eschatological issues (I and II Thessalonians), that his famous Resurrection Chapter (I Corinthians 15) deals with eschatology in great detail, andthat the whole of John’s Revelation is prophetic. Third, eschatology embodies the Christian’s “blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). As such, we must “eagerly await” the Return of our Lord Jesus from heaven (Philippians 3:20). In fact, this eschatological hope distinguishes us from the unbeliever when we face death (I Thessalonians 4:13)—by providing us “hope in Christ” (I Corinthians 15:18-19). Fourth, eschatology is a major foundation stone of the Christian worldview . Christianity presents a

iii


holistic outlook on life: from creational beginning to consummational conclusion. Christ even calls himself “the Alpha and the Omega,” the beginning and end (Revelation 21:6; 22:13). Indeed, in the Old the Testament God distinguishes himself from the lifeless idols as a proper object of worship partly because he can (and does!) “declare the end from the beginning” (Isaiah 46:9-10; cp. vv. 1-9). Eschatology is so significant to the Christian doctrinal system that the ecumenical creeds establish key eschatological components as foundational doctrines. For instance, Apostles’ affirms “from thence shall hethe come to judgeCreed the quick and the dead” and “I believe in the resurrection of the body.” The Nicene Creed declares that “he shall come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead” and that “we look for the resurrection of the dead.” 2 Fifth, Israel’s confusion regarding eschatology destroyed her. When Christ “came to his own” they “did not receive him” (John 1:11). Why? Because despite the Old Testament they did not recognize him as the fulfillment of prophecy. Israel was judged because she did not know the time of her eschatological “visitation” (Luke 19:44). She should have searched the prophetic Scriptures, then would she have known that “they testify of me,” declared Christ (John 5:39). Even his own disciples were “foolish men and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” (Luke 24:25), though eventually the Spirit opened their eyes to see (Luke 24:31). Sixth, eschatology is necessary for apologetics. Albert Schweitzer taught that Jesus was “sadly mis-

iv

Preface

taken” when he expected his Second Coming to occur within a generation of his leaving this world. The famous atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell pointed to Jesus’ eschatological as defects in his teaching, indicating he wasstatements not God. Russell thought that Jesus taught that he would return to the world “in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time.”3 If we are to defend the truth, we must study and understand it. In this case, we must study the eschatological pronouncements of Jesus so that we might stand against charges that he was subject to error. Seventh, eschatology is important for the integrity of the faith. Many cultic aberrations are rooted in false eschatological constructs. Seventh-day Adventism grew up out of miscalculations of the Return of Christ in 1844 and 1845. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are known for their focus on the millennium, and even called their Bible translation “The New World Translation.” The Mormons are properly called: “The Church of Jesus Christ, Latter-Day Saints.” Furthermore, as Dwight Wilson has ably documented in his Armageddon Now! (1977), even evangelical Christians have made embarrassing calls for the end throughout the twentieth century. Hal Lindsey, one of the largest selling authors of the twentieth century, has misconstrued biblical eschatology by calling for the end in the 1980s and at 2000. See his: The 1980s: Countdown to Armageddon and Planet Earth 2000: Will Mankind Survive? A proper understanding of eschatology is necessary both to countering the heretical cultist as well as correcting the naive evangelical. 4

v


Eighth, eschatology is helpful for confronting theological error within evangelicalism. In addition to the two preceding points, we should be aware of the eschatological errors has inherent in Openness ogy. Clark Pinnock written: “For GodTheolto be omniscient means he knows everything any being could know.... The content of his knowledge changes as creatures in the world act in new ways.... God cannot know in advance always exactly what will happen.... Future free acts, by definition, cannot be known in every detail and for certain even by 5

God.” A major line of evidence he offers in this regard is from the field of eschatology: “Despite the Baptist, Jesus did not cast the wicked into the fire; contrary to Paul, the second coming was not just around the corner...; despite Jesus, in the destruction of the temple, some stones were left one on the other.” 6 We simply must understand the prophecies that trip up Pinnock, if we are to respond adequately to him, John Sanders, Gregory Boyd and others in this theological movement. 7 Ninth, eschatology is a factor in our Christian growth. Jesus prays for our sanctification, a sanctification that requires a knowledge of the truth of God’s word (which includes eschatology as a major feature): “Sanctify them through thy truth, thy word is truth” (John 17:17). We must “long for the pure milk of the word that we maygrow in respect to salvation” (I Peter 2:2). In fact, Paul’s famous statement in his letter to Timothy emphasizes that “all Scripture” (including its eschatological portions) is “profitable” for making the man of God “adequate, equipped for everygood work” (II Timothy 3:16-17).

vi

Preface

Tenth, eschatology provides us an important motive to labor. We are creatures with a future orientation and a vocational obligation to labor in the light of the future. Our our longlives: rangeShall expectations are essential for prioritizing we bear children into this world? Shall we invest in long term Christian education for our children? Shall we train them an d ourselves for impacting society and culture over the long term? In short, shall we be motivated by the fact that “our labor is not in vain in the Lord” (I Corinthians 15:58)? Our long range outlook will necessarily impact our God’s Plan for labors thisNorth world, as Rushdoony ( Social Theory) Victoryin ) and (Millennialism and have so ably argued.

      In this handy-sized book we provide a helpful introduction and defense of this eschatology of victory. This work should be quite helpful to anyone even mildly interested in understanding eschatological systems. Though it will not provide the depth and breadth of treatment of larger works (such as my He Shall Have Dominion and Mathison’s Postmillennialism), it will present sufficient material to sketch in the basic case for postmillennialism and to fend off certain common objections (especially from within the reformed tradition). In Chapter One Keith A. Mathison presents an accessible “Summary Case for Postmillennialism.” Mathison condenses material found in his much larger work (Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope ), surveying some of the key eschatological passages in both the Old and New Testaments. He traces and explains the developing hope of temporal victory

vii


beginning at Creation, working its way through the Abrahamic Covenant, on through the Psalms and the Prophets, and into the New Testament. In the New Testament he highlights suchCommission), important passages as Matthew 28:18-20 (the Great Romans 9-11 (the question of Israel’s future), I Corinthians 15 (the great Resurrection chapter), and ending in Revelation 20 (the millennium). This one chapter alone should provide the reader with sufficient biblical data to persuade him or her of the postmillennial hope. Following upon this introductory survey, Chapter Two furnishes the reader with William O. Einwechter ’s “Psalm 110 and the Postmillennial Hope,” which provides a careful, in-depth exposition of the New Testament’s most quoted Messianic psalm. This important passage serves as a cornerstone for the postmillennial hope. Einwechter not only presents a contextual exegesis of the passage, but traces its influence elsewhere in the Scriptures. The New Testament’s emphasis on Psalm 110 demonstrates the hope-filled expectation of Christ’s victory in history. Perhaps no other passage is as significant as Psalm 110 for understanding biblical eschatology and securing confidence in the postmillennial victory. In Chapter Three we reprint one of the more important eschatological writings of the famed Presbyterian theologian, Benjamin B. Warfield : “Christ the Propitiation for the World.” This much neglected article presents a valuable argument establishing not only the world-changing hope for the progress of the gospel, but the corporate nature and goal of salvation. In our day ofindividualism, psychological-needs oriented preaching, and seeker-sensitive

viii

Preface

churches, Warfield’s powerful exposition of I John 2:2 pours a flood of light on the prophetic expectations of Scripture. I have adopted and promoted Warfield’s 8

argument in my own works. a (As a sidetext benefit, brief chapter also explains favorite of this Arminianism in a thoroughly Calvinistic and remarkably insightful way—a much more satisfying exposition than Owen’s famous approach.) In Chapter Four Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.’s “Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist” takes up the challenge from amillennialists to give a postmillennial account of the biblical call to suffering. This chapter srcinally appeared in the Westminster Theological Journal. It provides a response to an increasingly common objection to postmillennialism’s “triumphalism” by contemporary reformed, amillennial theologians Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Fowler White, Robert B. Strimple, Cornelis Venema, and others. In this chapter I demonstrate that postmillennialists can easily account for the New Testament suffering passages—even on the amillennialist interpretation. I point out that the amillennialist too often looks at only one aspect of the call to suffer, thereby offering an insufficient obj ection to the postmillennial hope of world victory for the gospel. In the following chapter (Chapter Five), “Victory Belongs to the Lord,” also byKenneth L. Gentry, Jr. , responds particularlyto objections topostmillennialism by Westminster’s Theological Seminary’s Robert B. Strimple. This chapter responds to his published objections to postmillennialism as found in the Zondervan CounterPoints book: Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond. I answer the additional amillennial objections to postmillennialism that arise from the

ix


redemptive-historical system of Geerhardus Vos. Oftentimes the postmillennial system is misconstrued in such a way as to suggest that postmillennialists deny the eschatological nature of salvation, the two-age division of redemptive history, the actuality of the present kingship of Christ, the reality of the present victory of Christ, and the proper focus of Christian witness. I show that these arguments represent nothing more than misunderstandings of postmillennialism. A common charge against postmillennialists results from our denying the imminency of Christ’s Return. In Chapter Six “The End is Not Yet” by nineteenth century Presbyterian exegeteJ. A. Alexanderexplodes the argument for the imminent Return of Christ in his masterful analysis. This complaint against postmillennialism has both an exegetical dimension as well as a psychological one. Alexander disposes of both forms of objection by turning the arguments on the objector. The reader should carefully study Alexander’s argument in anticipation of this all too frequent emotional reflex to the long-term commitments of postmillennialism. Our Chapter Seven is titled: “Practicing Postmillennialism” by Jefferey A. Ventrella. It srcinally appeared in a slightly different form as a series in the Penpoint newsletter of the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. In this chapter he presses home the necessity of living out the implications of our eschatological expectations. In fact, Ventrella challenges postmillennialists themselves to commit anew to evangelism, missionary endeav ors, and other practical applications of our hope. And he urges us to engage the cultural influence of our hope with an appropriate,

x

Preface

God-honoring, Christ-glorifying humility.As an insider committed to theonomic postmillennialism, Ventrella calls upon fellow Reconstructionists to Christ-likeness in their pursuits, that too often our heavy-duty theology can leadnoting to heavy-handed treatment of others. I should note that the older articles by Warfield and Alexander have been slightly edited for easier reading. I tweaked their style to more contemporary standards. For instance, I divided a few unwieldy sentences into shorter ones, broke long paragraphs into more manageable lengths, added section headings as reader signposts along the way, and replaced Roman numerals in biblical addresses. I also add just a few footnotes for further elucidation and comment.

  As the editor of this book, I would like to express special thanks to three persons who greatly helped bring this book to fruition. I am thankful for the invitation from Mark Rushdoony for me to take up this project. Having recently lost his father, the indefatigable founder of Chalcedon and earnest champion of postmillennialism, Mark has committed himself to furthering his father’s ministry. The release of this book is just one more evidence of postmillennialism’s long term commitment and R. J. Rushdoony’s continuing eschatological influence. Though Dr. Rushdoony has passed to his eternal reward, his work continues on into the future to the glory of God. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Susan Burns of Chalcedon who diligently assisted me by scanning into editable computer files the chap-

xi


ters by Warfield and Alexander. I was determined to see these important contributions to the debate back in print, and Susan’s labor was immensely helpful to this only so, but all great alongskill the way end. with Not the production ofshe thisassisted book with and competence. I must also thank my son Stephen Gentry, too. Though he was living at home for only about six weeks between his graduating from the University of Tennessee graduate school and his taking an accounting position with Ernst and Young in Atlanta, he nevertheless interrupted his well-deserved rest by keying in many of my handwritten editorial notes for these articles. Stephen’s tedious labor (and keeneye for writing style) was enormously beneficial to my completing this project in a reasonable time. Now it is my prayer that the Lord would use this small book to encourage his children to faithfully engage their mundane vocations and ministerial labors by adopting and promoting this optimistic eschatology, knowing that their “labor is not in vain in the Lord” (I Corinthians 15:58). Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. Research Professor in Theology Christ College Lynchburg, Virginia

xii

Preface

1

Andrew Sandlin, A Postmillennial Primer (Vallecito, CA: Chalcedon, 1997), 1. 2

Rousas John Rushdoony, The Foundations of Social Order: Studies in the Creeds and Councils of the Early Church (Fairfax, VA: Thoburn, 1968). For their significance in eschatology, see my “The Historical Problem of Hyper-Preterism” in Hyper-Preterism: A Reformed Critique, a forthcoming book edited by Keith A. Mathison (P & R Publishing, 2003). 3 For further information on this objection to the faith, R. Did C. Sproul, The Days According to (Grand Jesus:see: When Jesus Say HeLast Would Return? Rapids: Baker, 1998). 4 A rather surprising example of eschatological naievete was uncovered in the April of 2002 debate between Thomas D. Ice and me. We were publicly debating the proper interpretation of Matthew 24. As I cross examined him, he stated that after the Rapture millions angels bodily transport Jewsiffrom all over the of world intowill Jerusalem. I asked him the angels would carry the Jews’ suitcases. He responded: “Yes.” See: Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. and Thomas D. Ice, Matthew 24: Past or Future?, Van Til Apologetics Conference debate (April, 2002). Video available from www.kennethgentry.com. 5 Clark Pinnock, “There Is Room for Us: A Reply to Bruce Ware,” in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45:2 (June 2002): 216. 6 Clark Pinnock, Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 551. 7 For a helpful debate on Openness Theology see: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 45:2 (June 2002).

xiii

Thine is the Kingdom 8

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (2nd. ed.: Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1998), 272-277. Gentry, The Greatness the Great The Christian Enterpri se in aofFallen WorldCommission: (Tyler, TX: Ins titute for Christian Economics, 1993), 53-55, 103-04.

xiv

 

        



 exaggeration postmillennialism is the



most often caricatured eschatological position within professing evangelical circles. From the numerous premature reports of its death, to grossly distorted definitions, the postmillennialism that one reads about in popular works of theology is hardly recognizable by those who consider themselves postmillennialists. Much of the distortion and misinformation has come

from the pens of popular dispensationalist authors. hn Jo F. Walvoord, forexample, claimsthat postmillennialism “has found it impossible to resist a trend toward liberalism.”2 It “lends itself to liberalism with only minor adjustments.”3 Charles Ryrie alleges that according to postmillennialism, “the idea of a world free from evil is envisioned as a result of man’s efforts.”4 These caricatures of postmillennialism seem to be little more than attempts to bias readers against the position. 5 Not only have dispensationalists made numerous false statements about what postmillennialists actually believe, but they have often been overly confident in their challenges. In 1948, for example, Lewis Sperry Chafer said of postmillennialism,

1


It exists only in the limited literature which it created and with no living voice to defend it. Doubtless the stress upon Bible study of the present century has served to uncover the unscriptural character of this system. Its advocates have not been able to meet the challenge made to them to produce one Scripture which teaches a millennium before the advent of Christ, or that teaches an advent of Christ after the millennium.6

This statement was not true when it was published in 1948, and it is certainly not true today. Postmillennialism can produce not just one passage of Scripture, but scores of passages from Genesis to Revelation. It can be and has been shown to be thematically woven through the Scriptures from beginning to end. Before presenting an outline of the biblical case for postmillennialism, it is necessary to correct some of the popular misconceptions by providing a brief definition of this eschatological view. Like amillennialism, postmillennialism teaches that the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 occurs prior to the Second Coming. Some postmillennialists teach that the millennial age is the entire period of time between Christ’s first and second advents, while others teach that it is the last thousand years of the present age. According to postmillennialism, in the present age the Holy Spirit will draw unprecedented multitudes to Christ through the faithful preaching of the gospel. Among the multitudes who will be converted are the ethnic Israelites who have thus far rejected their Messiah. At the end of the present age, Christ will return, there will be a general resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment will take place. 7

2

Chapter 1: A Summary Case for Postmillennialism

As Kenneth Gentry explains, postmillennialism is “the view that Christ will return to the earth after the Spiritblessed gospel has had overwhelming success in 8

bringing the world to the adoption of Christianity.” Postmillennialism is not liberalism, the social gospel, universalism, perfectionism, or some form of nationalism. Biblical postmillennialism teaches that the kingdom of Christ has been inaugurated and is redemptive, that its supernatural growth is progressive and will lead to worldwide conversion, and, finally, that it will be perfectly consummated only at the Second Coming of Christ.9 The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate that this teaching is biblical.

    Too often discussions of the biblical evidence for any millennial position begin and end with Revelation 19-20. Unfortunately, this approach fails to place those chapters in their overall biblical context. In order to gain a proper understanding of the goal towards which God’s plan of redemption is working, we must begin where his revelation begins—in the beginning. Space does not permit an exhaustive discussion ofeverything the Bible says touching on the evidence for postmillennialism. For this reason, I shall simply offer a brief examination of several of the most significant texts.10 As we proceed, it will become clear that the postmillennial hope has strong roots in the teaching of the Old and New Testaments.

    The earliest chapters of Genesis establish the foundations for a postmillennial eschatology. We learn, for

3


example, that God created man to exercise dominio n over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28) and to enjoy eternal union and communion with him (2:15-17). Understanding the reasons why God created profoundly impacts understanding of eschatol ogy.man Postmillennialism expectsour God to accomplish his srcinal revealed purpose for all of creation including man. And since God intended this purpose for history, postmillennialists expect it to be accomplished in history.11 Chapter 3 of Genesisreveals the tragic story ofman’s Fall from his srcinal state into sin and corruption. As a result of man’s sin, God curses the entire creation (Genesis 3:17-18; Romans 8:20-22). But the Fall did not permanently frustrate God’s srcinal plan for creation and man. In Genesis 3:15 we discover the first redemptive promise. God promises that the woman’s Seed will crush the serpent’s head, and withthis promise a “holy war” is declared. Unlike other declarations of war made by men and nations throughout history, however, God declares war with the finaloutcome absolutely certain. There is no question that victory will be achieved.

   The Abrahamic Covenant is of paramount importance in any study of eschatology. In Genesis, there are three covenantal encounters between God and Abraham (Genesis 12, 15, 17). Each encounter highlights different aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant. The command and promise God reveals to Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 are especially significant: Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; and I will

4


make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a great blessing; and I will bless those who bless you, and the one whoof curses you shall I willbecurse. And in you all the families the earth blessed.”

Several important promises structure this passage, but the one we must note is that Abrahamwould be a blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Genesis 12:3). Genesis 10 records the history of all “the families of the sons of Noah” (10:32). In Abraham God chose one ofall Noah’ descendants as thebearer of divine blessing to the sfamilies descending from Noah. Already at this early point in redemptive history God clearly announces his unbreakable covenant that will flow beyond the limits of the nation and families of Israel. God reveals that his intention is to bring salvation to all the families of the earth. 12 Whatever else may be involved in this promise, it is clear thatall the families of the earth does not mean a small minority of the families of the earth, not a mere remnant of men.

  A number of the Old Testament Psalms add to the foundation of postmillennialism seen in the Abrahamic Covenant. Psalm 2 is a coronation psalm frequently alluded to and quoted in the New Testament in connection with the person and work of Jesus Christ: Matthew 3:17; 17:5; Acts 13:33. These New Testament passages reveal that Jesus is the one to whom this Psalm ultimately refers. He is given the nations as his inheritance, the very ends of the earth as his possession (Psalm 2). We must note that the New Testament ties the fulfillment of this Psalm to the res-

5


urrection of Christ, not his second advent. Jesus Christ already has received the nations as his inheritance at his exaltation involving the resurrection, ascension, and seating at the right hand of the throne. Psalm 22 points to the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant promise to bless all the families of the earth. In verses 27-28 we read: “All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the ORD L , and all the families of the nations will worship before Thee. For the kingdo m is the LORD’S, and He rules over the nations.” Hebrews 2:12 connects the fulfillment of this Psalm toesus’ J resurrection and ascension, rather than his Second Coming. Psalm 110 is quoted or alluded to in the New Testament more than any other Old Testament text (e.g., Matthew 22:41-4 5; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-4 4; Acts 2:33-35; I Corinthians 15:25; Hebrews 1:13; 5:6; 7:17, 21; 10:13). It provides the Old Testament foundation for the apostolic doctrine of the ascension and present reign of Christ as the great Priest-King. Jesus Christ sits at the right hand of the Father beginning at his ascension. As emphatically as man rejected Him, God exalted him (Acts 5:36, 7:55-56; Philippians 2:9-11). He is now seated at the right hand of God with all authority (Acts 2:34-36; Ephesians 1:19-21). He reigns as Savior and Intercessor (Romans 8:34; Hebrews 4:14; I John 2:1). He is seated until the last surrender of the last enemy; he is seated until he has put all of his enemies under his feet (Hebrews 10:13; cf. I Corinthians 15:25f.; I Peter 3:22).

  The covenant relationship between God and his people established in the Pentateuch, described in the

6


historical books and employed as the basis of prayer in the Psalms is proclaimed by the prophets. When Israel sinned against God and violated the terms of the covenant, the prophets called theprophets nation toexplained repentance and to covenant renewal. The the reasons for God’s judgment, but when Israel hardened her heart, the prophets looked forward to a time when the covenant would be established to the fullest and the blessings of God would be poured out on all nations. Even the enemies of the Cross will be swept into the kingdom (Isaiah 19:25f.). The prophetic books provide rich sources of material pointing to the temporal and historical fulfillment of God’s promises of worldwide blessing under the reign of the Messiah. One of the most incredib le prophecies is found in Isaiah 9:6-7: For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over His kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will accomplish this.

This prophecy of the coming King builds on the prophecy found in Isaiah 7:14, which tells of a child who will be called Immanuel—“God with us.” The titles “Wonderful Counselor,” “Mighty God,” “Eternal Father,” and “Prince of Peace” point out that this coming child who will be King will also be God Himself. Of his reign Isaiah declares: “There will be no

7


end to the increase of His government or of peace.” Alec Motyer explains that this me ans “His kingdom will increase and occupy progressively all space until 13

he rules over all.” We must obs erve two funct ions of thi s prophecy. First, the nature of the King’s reign is one of “increase.” His reign unfolds progressively; it is not imposed catastrophically . In the premillennial vision no place exists for increase because Christ’s reign is instituted catastrophically and suddenly. It is established completely, once and for all at the Second Coming. Second, the one who accomplishes this is the Lord of Hosts. We can have firm assurance that this prophecy will be fulfilled because “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this.” Contrary to popular caricatures, postmillennialism does not assert that man “brings in” the kingdom. Postmillennialism teaches that the kingdom of Christ has already been inaugurated at Christ’s resurrection and ascension, that the increase of this kingdom will continue until all of Christ’s enemies have been placed under his feet, and will ultimately be consummated at the Second Coming. And God accomplishes all of this just as he promised. The book of Daniel includes some of the most important eschatological prophecies inScripture. We shall look briefly at two leading prophecies. Daniel 2 recounts the story of Nebuchad nezzar’s dream andDaniel’s interpretation of it. In the dream, Nebuchadnezzar sees a giant statue made of different metals that is struck on the feet by a stone cut without hands (Daniel 2:3135, 44). The stone is not a normal stone for “the stone that struck the great statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth” (v. 35).

8


In 2:36-45, Daniel interprets the dream and informs the king that the statue represents four kingdoms. Most evangelical commentators understand that the statue’s head gold represents Babylonian Empire, the breastofand arms of silverthe represent the Medo-Persian Empire, the belly and thighs of bronze represent the Greek Empire, and the legs of iron and feet of iron and clay represent the Roman Empire. The stone cut without hands represents the messianic kingdom of God. That the stone strikes the feet of the statue means that the messianic kingdom will be established during 14

the time of the last Empire. What are the characteristics of this messianic kingdom? First, it was established during the time of the fourth kingdom, the RomanEmpire, not thousands ofyears later. Second, Daniel says of this kingdo m that it “will never be destroyed” (Daniel 2:44). Third, it will overcome all opposing kingdoms and grow until it fills the whole earth. Fourth, this growth will be gradual and progressive. The messianic kingdom starts as a stone, but it does not remain a stone, and itis not crushed into pebbles. The stone grows into a mountain that fills the earth. Note the similar ity of this growth to other images of the kingdom’s progress in Ezekiel 17:47, Matthew 13, and Mark 4. The book of Daniel includes another important prophecy for our understanding of Christian eschatology. In Daniel 7:13-14 we read the following: I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven, One like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to Him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and

9


men of every language might serve Him. His dominio n is an everlasting dominion which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.

Premillennialists claim that this vision is a prophecy of the Second Coming of Christ, but the context makes such an interpretation impossible. In this chapter Daniel sees in a vision a succession of four beasts, which he interprets as four kingdoms (7:17). These four kingdoms parallel the four kingdoms described in Daniel 2.15 After the vision of the four beasts Daniel receives a glorious vision of the throne room of God (vv. 9-12). He sees God seated on his throne with books opened to pass judgment. Two reasons oppose applying this vision to the final judgment. In the first place verses 22 and 26 declare this to be a judgment against human kingdoms during the reign of the fourth beast. Second, the result of the judgment is that dominion and rule is taken from the fourth beast and given to the ascended Son of Man (vv. 12-14, 18, 22, 27). How does Daniel describe the events in therone th room immediately following this judgment? In verses 13-14 Daniel sees one like the Son of Man coming up with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of Days. This is not a scene of the Son of Man descending from the right hand of God down to earth. Daniel is viewing this from the perspective of the throne room of God, and the movement of the Son of Man is upward. This is a vision of the ascension of Christ, not his Second Coming (cf. Acts 2:30-31, 34-35). At his ascension Christ is given “dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve

10


Him” (Daniel 7:14). Daniel 7:13-14 explicitly contradicts the premillennial claim that his inheritance and possession of these things awaits his Second Coming.

    A strong foundation for postmillennial eschatolog y is established in the Old Testament. But the postmillennial argument is not confined toOld Testament revelation, as some amillennialopponents contend.Apostles buildupon this Old Testament foundation in h t e New Testament writings, which begin with the words: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (Matthew 1:1). In these few words, we see the first indication that the centuries old covenant promises given to Abraham and David are to be fulfilled in their descendant, Jesus of Nazareth.

   Two important parables from the Kingdom Parables of Christ areespecially significant for postmillennialism: Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, which is indeed the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches.” Another parable He spoke to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.” (Matthew 13:31-33)

Each of these two parables reveals a different yet similar aspect of the kingdom, and both parables elucidate one overarching theme.

11


The main point of the Mustard Seed parable is that despite unimpressive beginnings, the kingdom of the Messiah will progressively grow until it becomes the dominant feature onthe historical landscape. The main point of the Leaven parable is that the growth and influence of the messianic kingdom will be internally pervasive, restructuring all thatit contacts. R.T. France has provided a helpful summary of the overarching theme of both parables. He observes that both parables: focus on the paradox of insignificant or hidden beginnings and a triumphant climax. To them [the disciples], and to us today who may expect God to act dramatically and without delay, Jesus points out that the full growth is assured from the moment the seed is sown, however unpromising its appearance and whatever opposition it may meet in its development. The way of God 16 is not that of ostentation but of ultimate success.

In these parables Jesus clearly reveal s that the full manifestation of the messianic kingdom does not come about catastrophically as premillennialism teaches. Just as Daniel taught, Jesus teaches that the kingdom grows gradually, progressively , and pervasively to dominance.

   After his death on the cross (Matthew 27:32-56), burial (27:57-61), and glorious resurrection (28:1-10), Jesus gathers his disciples at Galilee and commissions them to fulfill the covenant promises designed to bless all the families of the earth. In Matthew 28:18-20 we read the following account: And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.

12


Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

In this commission Jesus reveals the instrumentalmeans through which he will fulfill all the great covenant al promises of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ declares that he has been given “all authority in heaven and on earth.” All of this powerful authority stands behind the command to disciple the nations and bring the covenant blessings to all the familiesof the earth. Israelfailed to mediate God’s blessings to the nations of the earth. Christ has now assumed this responsibility and delegated the means by which it will be accomplished to his Church. Israel failed, but the Messiah cannot and will not fail.

  In any study of eschatology Romans 9-11 cannot be overlooked. Despite numerous attempts to avoid the implications of Paul’s teaching, this passage of Scriptu re provides a very strong argument for postmillennialism. When chapters 9-11 are viewed in light of the preceding chapters in Romans, it becomes clear that the purpose of these chapters is to demonstrate that God’s promises have not failed despite Israel’s rejection of the gospel. In chapters 9-11 Paul gives a two-fold answer to the problem of Israel’s unbelief. He points out in these chapters that God’ s faithfulness is upheld because Israel’s rejection is not total ( e.g. , 9:6-13; 11:5, 7). He also points out that God’s faithfulness is upheld because Israel’s rejection is not final (e.g., 11:28-29).

13


Paul explains that salvation is never abirthright, even for the descendants of Abraham (9:6-29), and that ethnic Israel has been cast aside while Gentiles pour into the (9:30-10:21). he begins chapter 11 withkingdom a vital question and anThen emphatic answer: “I say then, God has not rejected his people, has He? May it never be!” He explains again that a remnant of Israel has been chosen by grace (vv. 2-6; cf. 9:6-13, 27). This chosen remnant has obtained salvation while the rest of ethnic Israel has been hardened (11:7-10). This alone would demonstrate that God is faithful and that his promises have failed, but Paulgreater continues explaining that thenot hardening of the part by of ethnic Israel has a purpose and is not permanent. In verse 11 Paul turns his attention back to the Jews who have rejected Christ and answers a second rhetorical question: “I say then, they didot n stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be!” (11:11a; cf. 9:32-33). For the remainder of this chapter the subject focuses on hardened ethnic Israel who has stumbled over Christ. Paul explains the purpose of her rejection and looks forward to their future acceptance. Several times in the remainder of chapter 11, Paul explains the purpose and future of ethnic Israel in terms of a threefold progression. In 11:11 he observes that Israel’s hardening occurred in order that salvation might come to the Gentiles and that the salvation of the Gentiles will make ethnic Israel jealous. In verse 12, Paul outlines the three main steps in the outworking of God’s purpose: (1) Israel stumbles in her transgression, (2) the Gentiles receive rich blessings of salvation, and (3) Israel returns to Christ in fullness leading to greater salvific riches. Paul re-

14


peats this threefold plan in verses 15, 20-23, 25b26, and 31. In 11:26 Paul says, “all Israel will be saved.” This verse has been the center of the longstanding controversy over this chapter. But once we grasp the context of these words, the interpretation becomes much clearer. Three leading interpretations of the words “all Israel” in verse 26 are that it refers to: (1) the entire community of the elect—Jew and Gentile, (2)the elect remnant within Israel throughout history, and (3) ethnic Israel. The last interpretation is the only interpretation that does justice to the context and flow of Paul’s argument in Romans. To begin analyzing this text we must first note the immediate context. Verse 26 is a continuation of a sentence that begins in verse 25. This sentence opens with: “a partial hardening has happened to Israel.” All agree that this cannot refer to the Church, and that the “Israel” in verse 25 must at least include a portion of ethnic Israel. The word “Israel” in verse 25 is without question a reference to hardened ethnic Israel, and nothing in the immediate context suggests that the word changes its meaning between the beginning of the sentence in verse 25 and the end of the sentence in verse 26. The word “Israel” in verse 26 continues the same meaning established in verse 25. The second major clue to the interpretation of verse 26 is the proximate context. In 11:11-32 Paul continually distinguishes between ethnic Israel and the Gentiles. This militates against the first interpretation. Contrary to the second interpretation, we must observe that the subject of 11:11-32 as a whole is the

15


ethnic Israel that has stumbled. The antecedent of the “they” in verse 11 is the hardened Israelites in verse 7, who are explicitly distinguished from the remnant. Over thirty times in theseThey, versesand Paul specifically to hardened Israel. notrefers the remnant, are the subject of these verses. Finally, the time reference in these verses indicates that the hardening of ethnic Israel is temporary. Her rejection is not permanent: it continues until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in, and then ethnic Israel will be restored (cf. 11:12, 15, 24, 25). This is indicated in verse 26. The word “thus” has to do with the manner of the salvation of “all Israel.” The manner includes the three historical and temporal stages that Paul has mentioned several times throughout this chapter. Furthermore, the acceptance of “all Israel” is spoken of in contrast to the situation as it existed in Paul’s day and as it exists in our day when ethnic Israel as a whole remains rejected. In addition, Paul states that the hardening of Israel will continueuntil the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. When Romans 9-11 is read as a whole, it clearly points to a future restoration of ethnic Israel to faith in God, to an acceptance of her Messiah, to a regrafting back into the Olive Tree. As her transgression resulted in blessing for the entire world, her fullness will result in unimaginable blessings.

   Another important eschatological passage in Paul appears in his famous resurrection chapter, I Corinthians 15. We find the crucial information in verses 24 and 25: “Then comes the end, when He de liv-

16


ers up the kingdom to God the Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.” The significance of this passage becomes clear when we understand that Christ was given the kingdom when he was exalted to the right hand of the Father at his ascension (cf. Acts 2:29-36; Ephesians 1:19-21; Philippians 2:9-10; I Peter 3:22; cf. Daniel 7:13-14). Paul teaches that the course of Christ’s kingdom will be exactly that which the prophets descri bed (cf. Psalm 110; Isaiah 9; Daniel 2, 7; Zechariah 9). During the course of his present reign Christ is gradually overcoming all opposition and is putting all of his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed will be death, and this will be brought about by the future resurrection of our bodies at the Second Coming (cf. I Corinthians 15:26, 51-56). Since the last enemy to be destroyed is death, and since the destruction of death will occur on the Last Day, all of the rest of Christ’s enemies must be put under his feet before the Last Day. The victory of Christ’s kingdom must occur before his Second Coming when he destroys death by raising his people from the grave.

  Many discussions of eschatology in general and the millennium in particular focus on Revelation 20 virtually to the exclusion of the remainder of Scripture. This is unfortunate because the book of Revelation is the culmination of God’s revelation; it cannot be properly understood without the teaching of the previous sixty-five books of Scripture. When it is read in light

17


of all that has come before it, Revelation 20 provides the capstone—not a foundation stone—to the Bible’s eschatological teaching concerning Christ’s reign. Revelation 20 describes a vision of the Millennium (vv. 1-10) and the Great White Throne Judgment (vv. 11-15). John describes three basic characteristics of the Millennium: (1) He tells us that at its inception and for most of its duration, Satan is “bound”; (2) Christ is reigning with all Christians; (3) at its conclusion Satan is briefly released. A comparison with the previous Scriptures reveals that this Millennium is the present age between the two advents of Christ. The New Testament repeatedly declares that Satan was decisively defeated and restrained at Christ’s first advent (Matthew 12:29; Luke 10:18; John 12:31; Colossians 2:15; I John 3:8). Hebrews 2:14 uses even stronger language than Revelation 20, saying that through his death on the cross, Christ rendered Satan “powerless.” The binding of Satan does not mean that his activity completely ceases (I Peter 5:8), but that he can no longer prevent the spread of the gospel to the nations (Revelation 20:3). The revelation that he will be briefly released at the end of the age di sallows any form of perfectionist utopianism. Satan, sin, and death will tno be completely destroyed until the Second Coming. Scripture also declares repeatedly that Christ was given his kingdom at his first advent (Daniel 2, 7; Matthew 2:2; Acts 2:30-31; 17:7; Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:5) and that Christians now reign with him (Romans 5:17; Ephesians 2:6; Revelation 1:6). Those who reign with Christ partake of the first resurrection, which is Christ’s resurrection (cf. ICorinthians 15:20-

18


23). Only those who are in Christ partake of this resurrection. Our participation in it is spoken of in the past tense in terms of our regeneration, or spiritual resurrection 2:5-6; Colossians 2:12), and in the future (Ephesians tense in terms of our bodily resurrection (Romans 6:5; I Corinthians 15:23, 52-56; I Thessalonians 4:16).All who havebeen raised spiritually will be raised bodily. John tells us that the second death, the lake of fire, has no power over those who have a part in the first resurrection (Revelation 20:6, 14). In Revelation 20:5 John describes a second resurrection of those who are not in Christ and wh o will be judged at the Great White Throne. This judgment is graph ically described in verses 11-15. John elsewhere refers to this second resurrection as a “resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29). This second resurrection is qualitatively distinct from the first resurrection because unbelievers never partake in the resurrection of Christ. They remain in a state of spiritual death and th ey will be raised to face the second death (Revelation 20:6, 14).

 Contrary to the assertions of Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie and a host of others, the covenant promises and prophecies of Scripture reveal a clear and consistent foundation for postmillennial eschatology. God’ s srcinal plans and purposes for his creation are now being accomplished through his Son Jesus Christ. Through him God is bringing and will continue bringing blessings to all the nations of the earth even as he subdues every enemy. Jesus was given his kingdom at his ascension, and during his present reign he is putting all of his enemies under his feet. He has commissioned his

19


Church to be the instrument by which he accomplishes these purposes of blessing and judgment. Through the Church’s faithful preaching of the gospel, his purposes will be done on earth as they are in heaven.

1

Keith A. Mathison, Ph.D., si Director of Curriculum Development and Assistant Editor ofTabletalk magazine at Ligonier Ministries. He is the author of four books, Dispensationalism: including two on eschatology: Rightly Dividing the People of God? and Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. 2 John F. Walvoord,The Millennial Kingdom(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 34. 3 Walvoord, Millennial Kingdom, 35. 4 Charles Ryrie,The Basis of the Premillennial Faith (Neptune, N. J.: Loizeaux, 1953), 13-14. 5 One has only to read the works of postmillennialists such as the Puritans Thomas Brightman, Thomas Goodwin, John Owen, and Jonathan Edwards as well as the works of such modern postmillennialists as Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, JamesHenley Thornwell, and B. B. Warfield to realize the complete inaccuracy of the dispensationalist descriptions of postmillennialism. 6 Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), 4:281. 7 Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, N. J.: P&R, 1999), 10. 8 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 2nd ed. (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 79.

20

Chapter 1: A Summary Case for Postmillennialism 9

Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 187–94. For a more thorough examination of the biblical evidence for postmillennialism, see Gentry, He Shall 10

Have Dominion ; John Jefferson Davis, The1996); Victory of Christ’s Kingdom (Moscow, Ida.: Canon, and Mathison, Postmillennialism. 11 See Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 182. 12 The remainder of the Pentateuch and the historical books reveal the further outworking of God’s covenantal work, his calling of Israel to be the chosen means through which he would bring blessing to the

nations. God reveals holy lawwould to Israel andblessing reveals that obedience to thehis covenant bring while disobedience would bring cursing(Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). Throughout the historical books, we see the truth of these promises and warnings in the history of Israel. 13 J. Alec Motyer,The Prophecy of Isaiah(Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 103. 14 E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), 78. 15 Young, Daniel, 143–50. 16 R. T. France, Matthew (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 228.

21


22

 

         



1

  evangelicals agree that the kingdom of

God will ultimately triumph over the kingdom of darkness, but they do not agree on the time or the circumstances of that victory. All orthodox Christians confess their faith in the blessed hope of Christ’s return, but they differ in their views concerning the present prospect (hope) of the kingdom of Christ during the inter-advent period. What does the Bible teach in regard to the progress of Christ’s kingdom during the present age that precedes his Second Coming in power and glory? That question has been answered in three basic ways: the premill ennial view, the amillennial view, and the postmillennial view. Pessimism pervades both the premillennial and amillennial views on the course of the kingdom of Christ during the inter-advent era, or the “Church age.” The premillennialist believes that the historical manifestation of Christ’s victory over his enemies will not take place until after his return and the establishment of his millennial kingdom. Thus, the premillennialist

23


does not look for any outward, large-scale manifestation of Christ’s kingdom during this age. In fact, they believe that evil will increase throughout history until the end of this age when Satan will triumph through the arising of the Antichrist imposing a worldwide geopolitical kingdom of darkness. H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice express the dispensational premillennial view by saying: “Common grace is on the decline, especially God’s restraint of evil. This accounts for the rising apostasy and the decline of Christianity.... In fact, one day God will remove the restrainer and hell on 2 earth be the order during the tribulation. It’s going towill get bad before it gets worse.” Premillennialists believe that although the gospel is preached to all nations, relatively few will be saved, that evil grows as the age progresses, and that there are no prospects of a golden age on earth prior to the Second Coming and the millennial reign of Christ on earth. 3

The amillennial view differs in many important respects from the premillennial view; nevertheless, it is also relatively pessimistic concerning the progress of history prior to his glorious return. The amillennialist, at best, sees good and evil growing together during this age. They see no definitive triumph of the kingdom of Christ in history. William Cox compares and contrasts amillennialism with premillennialism and postmillennialism, and in so doing expresses the pessimism of amillennialism: Is the world getting better or worse? Postmillenarians say it is getting better, and that the preaching of the gospel will eventually see most of the world converted, thus ushering in an earthly millennium before the second coming. Premillenarians believe the world is

24

Chapter 2: Psalm 110 and the Postmillennial Hope

growing increasingly worse, and that it will be at its very worst when Jesus returns. Amillenarians agree with premillenarians on this point. Although we believe the kingdom of Godlarger, beganwe as also a small mustard seed and grows steadily believe that evil grows proportionately faster. Good and evil will exist side by side until the very harvest, which Jesus said will be the end of the world (Matthew 13:39). We believe this growth will culminate with the appearance of the antichrist, which Paul called the manof sin, and which John referred to as Satan being loosed for a little season. This loosing will take place in the very endtime of the present historical church age.4

The only truly optimistic view on the prospects of Christ’s kingdom prior to his return is the postmillennial view. Gentry, a postmillennialist, defines this view as follows: Postmillennialism is that system of eschatology which understands the Messianic kingdom to have been founded upon the earth during the earthly ministry and through the redemptive labors of the Lord Jesus Christ in fulfillment of Old Testament prophetic expectation. The nature of that kingdom is essentially redemptive and spiritual and will exercise a transformational socio-cultural influence in history, as more and more people are converted to Christ. Postmillennialism confidently anticipates a time in earth history in which the gospel will have won the victory throughout the earth in fulfillment of the Great Commission. After an extended period of gospel prosperity, earth history will be drawn to a close by the personal, visible, bodily return of Jesus Christ (accompanied by a literal resurrection and a genera l judgment). 5

25


The postmillennial view o f the triumph of Christ’s kingdom prior to his return often is criticized as being without proper biblical support. For example, John Walvoord charges “reborn attacks any view thatthat differs with postmillennialism it, but the contenders for postmillennialism never set up their own view in a solid way. After all, the issue is whether postmillenni alism 6 is taught in the Bible.” He correctlynotes thatthe issue must be resolved in Scripture. So then, we must ask: Is postmillennialism taught inthe Bible andthus the correct view on the course of Christ’s kingdom in this age? This chapter aims to provide an answer to that question by a study of Psalm 110 and its usage in the New Testament. Psalm 110 is a significant passage in the debate between the three millennial positions. It is recognized by all as one of the most important of the messianic psalms. Certainly, the New Testament writers considered it so, for they quote and refer to it more than any other single Old Testament text. Thus, a proper interpretation of Psalm 110 and its New Testament usage is imperative for understanding the work of the Messiah and the course of his kingdom.

       The proper method for a Christian approach to the message of the Old Testament is to begin with the Old Testament text itself, seeking to understand it in its srcinal historical and theological contexts. As John Bright notes: “Interpretation of the Old Testament must begin, as all interpretation must, with a grammatico-historical exegesis of the text (with all that that entails) aimed at arriving at its precise verbal meaning.... But, again as elsewhere, exegesis must proceed in theological depth

26


...to discern behind the words of the text those theolo gical concerns, those facets of the Old Testament’s structure of faith, that express themselves in it.”7

    The heading in the Hebrew Bible to Psalm 110 states that it is “A Psalm of David,” thus indicating that David was the author of the Psalm.8 The content of the psalm also points to David as the writer. But in spite of this, some have disputed its authorship. However, for those who accept the authority of the New Testament question of authorshi p is not in doubt, fortestify both Jesus the (Matthew 22:43) and Peter (Acts 2:34-35) that David was indeed the inspired writer of Psalm 110. The heading to the psalm also indicates the nature of David’s composition. The Hebrew word for “Psalm” used in the heading refers to a song or poem of praise to God. The praise that David offers to God in Psalm 110 pertains to David’s Lord, i.e., the messianic King who will one day reign in power and glory at the right hand of the LORD.9 David, speaking “in theSpirit” (Matthew 22:43), praises God for the Messiah who will come in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant, rule the nations, and defeat all of the enemies of God (II Samuel 7:12-17; Psalm 89:3-4, 20-21, 34-37). David rejoices before God and his people as he prophesies of the future victorious reign of the Messiah. Regarding the time of composition or the historical setting of the psalm, neither the heading nor contents provide any definite clues. Nevertheless, it seems evident that David wrote Psalm 110 some time after he had received the promises of the Davidic Covenant through the prophet Nathan (I Chronicles 17:1-15).

27


As France observes, “The prophecy ofNathan to David (II Samuel 7:5-16), with its promise of a descendent who shall be called God’s son, and of an everlasting kingdom, and David’s own reflections onus that ecy (II Samuel 23:2-5), may encourage to prophsee in Psalm 110 David’s own description of the glory and triumph of the Messiah.”10 The prophetic revelation contained in Psalm 110 is not based on typology, but stands as a direct messianic prophecy. From beginning to end, David states the prophetic word that he had received concerning the Messiah. The prophecy is cast in poetic form and draws upon the images of David’s kingship, but, assuredly, it is a verbal prediction of the Messiah’s reign. Calvin, who argues that this psalm is a direct prophecy and not typology, says, “It is acknowledged that the kingdom of Christ is typified in the person of David, but it cannot be asserted of him, or any of his successors, that he should be a king whose dominion should be widely extended, and who, at the same time, was to be a priest, not according to the law, but according to the order of Melchizedek, and that for ever.”11 Concurring in this estimation, Franz Delitzsch states: “According to the New Testament Scriptures, David speaks inPsalm 110 not merely of Christ in so far as the Spirit of God has directed him to speak of the Anointed of Jahve in a typical form, but directly and objectively12 in a prophetical representation of the Future One.” The theme of Psalm 110 is the victorious reign of the Messiah at the right hand of God. Here the Messiah (the Christ) is “depicted as a conqueror, king, and priest, reigning in glory on the right hand of God.” 13

28


In this psalm David emphatically proclaims the victory of the Messiah over all of his enemies due to his exaltation to the right hand of God. Having been enthroned as “Lord,” he confidently forth in will the conflict with the promise that all ofgoes his enemies become his footstool. Anderson, the translator of Calvin’s commentary on the Psalms, comments in a footnote to Psalm 110: “[T]he psalm is thus, beyond all controversy, a very clear prediction of the divinity, priesthood, victories, and triumph of the Messiah.” 14 Psalm 110 is a majestic psalm that reveals the exaltation of the Christ and the comprehensive victory that will be his by divine decree. The structure of Psalm 110 is discerned by noting that David addresses himself first in a general manner to all (v. 1), then to the Messiah (vv. 2-4), and finally to the LORD (vv. 5-7). Each section of the psalm emphasizes the fact of the Messiah’s position of authority and his victorious warfare against his enemies. In verse 1 David repeats the word of the LORD, which enthrones the Messiah at God’s right hand and promises him victory over all his adversaries. The truth that is revealed in this verse forms the basis for the entire psalm. In verses 2-4 David speaks to the Messiah and prophesies of the Messiah’s authority over his enemies, his willing army of followers, and his priesthood. In verses 5-7 David addresses the LORD and declares that the “Lord at thy right hand” will go forth in victo ry, destroying the kings who stand against him and judging among the heathen .

    We must now carefully analyze the passage to determine its significance for the eschatological debate.

29


       The psalm begins with: “The L ORD said.” In the Hebrew text, “said” (Hebrew:na’ am) is the first word of the psalm. is not the that common for speaking, but itNa’ is aam special term refers word to a prophetic oracle. It is only used of prophetic communication, i.e., when a prophet is citing the divine word given to him (cf. I Samuel 2:30; Isaiah 1:24; 55:8). It is “used exclusively of divine speaking.... Hence its appearance calls special attention to the srcin and authority of what is said.” 15 Therefore, David, as a prophet (Acts 2:30), is giving the word of the L ORD as it was revealed to him. By opening with the word “said” David emphasizes the divine srcin and truth of what he writes. The oracle that David records concerns one whom he calls “my Lord.” David hears the LORD speak to his Lord (“The LORD said unto my Lord”). But who is David’s Lord? The Hebrew term that is here translated “Lord” means a master, owner, governor, or ruler . 16 In the context, this can only refer to the Messiah. Who else would David address as his Lord? David understood from the promises given to him in the Davidic Covenant (II Samuel 7:12-17; I Chronicles 17:1-15) that God would establish his kingdom forever through one of his descendan ts. From such passag es as Psalm 2 and II Samuel 23:1-7, evidently David knew that this descendent (the L ORD’s Anointed, Psalm 2:2) would be so great and glorious that he would be David ’s superior. David understood that even he must bow before the coming Messiah as his master and Lord. Therefore, from David’s own perspective Psalm 110 is a prophetic oracle concerning the coming messianic King.

30


Having established the srcin and authority for the psalm, David now gives the divine word concerning the Messiah. These are prophetic words, and, from David’s perspective, to a time in after the Messiah has comerefer in fulfillment of the the future ancient promises. In that day, the LORD will say to the Messiah, “Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Both parts of this oracle are extremely important, and careful attention must be given to each. In the phrase “sit thou at my right hand,” the verb “sit” (Hebrew: yashab) is in the imperative mode, and expresses in no uncertain terms the will of the LORD for the Messiah. It is not a mere invitation but a divine, unalterable decree—the Messiahwill one day sit at the right hand of God. The right hand is a place of honor and privilege, but in this context it means more than that. To understand the full import of what it means to sit at the right hand of God, we must consider the scriptural teaching on where God himself is seated. According to the Scriptures God is the “great king over all the earth,” he “reigns over the nations,” he “sits on his holy throne” (Psalm 47:2, 8), and his throne is in heaven (Psalm 2:4; 11:4; 103:19; Isaiah 66:1). God is sovereign over all, and he rules over all from his holy throne in heaven. Thus, the ORD L is giving to the Messiah the privilege and honor of joinin g him as he sits on the divine thronein heaven. By God’s appointment David ruled over the nation of Israel from Jerusalem. But David’s son, the Messiah, also by God’s appoint17 ment will rule over all the earth from the throne of God. Now we must ask: Could any mere man ever occupy such a position? Certainly not. Therefore, the Messiah is no ordinary man. In fact, to rule with God

31


from God’s throne in heaven implies that the Messiah himself is divine. As H. C. Leupold has commented: “No one less than the Lord God of Israel Himself (‘Yahweh’) had designated for the Messiah a position at His own right hand, making Him co-equal in rank and authority with Himself and so virtually declaring His divine character.”18 Also it should be noted that the summons to sit at the L ORD’s right handindicates that the Messiah will not occupy this position at first, but that there will come a time in his career when he will be officially enthroned at God’s side. The text here does not state the time or the circumstances of his exaltation. When the LORD appoints the Messiah to rule at his right hand, he states that this arrangement will continue “until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” The word translated “until” is used here of a limit of time. The Messiah’s reign will begin at his elevation to the throne of God and will continue “until” his enemies are his footstool. “Enemies” is a strong term that speaks of those who hate another, and here refers to those who despise the righteous kingdom of God and contest the Messiah’s reign. But the fate of these adversaries is that they will become the Messiah’s “footstool.” This “is a metaphor for the decisive defeat of enemies, srcinating in the custom of the victor placing his foot upon the neck of the conquered”19 (cf. Joshua 10:24; I Kings 5:3). Therefore, the distinct reign of the Messiah that is in view in Psalm 110 has both a beginning and an ending. It commences with his glorious exaltation to the LORD’s right hand and continues until the time when his enemies have been vanquished. Does this mean that the Messiah’s reign is not everlasting? Not necessarily, for the word “until” sometimes

32


expresses “a limit which is not absolute (terminating the preceding action), but only relative, beyond which the action or state described in the principle clause still continues” Genesis 20 112:8). “Until”(cf. in Psalm 110 26:13; does not49:10; mark Psalm the absolute close of the Messiah’s reign, but the end of an epoch, a turning point.21 His reign will continue on beyond the defeat of his enemies (his kingdom is forever and “his throne as the days of heaven,” Psalm 89:28-29, 34-37; Daniel 7:13-14; Isaiah 9:6-7). But it will undergo a change for it will no longer be a reign involving conflict with his enemies because they will all have been totally defeated.22 In verse 1 David repeats the divine oracle that he had received concerning his Lord the Messiah. This revelation states that the Messiah will be exalted to the right hand of God, and while seated on his heavenly throne, will achieve victory over his enemies. This verse sets the theme for the Psalm:the victorious reign of the Messiah. The place from which he will reign is the throne of God. His reign ( i.e., the portion of his eternal reign that is in view in Psalm 110) will begin at his enthronement and continue on until all his enemies are vanquished. His kingdom will, therefore, triumph over all the kingdoms of this world.

        Having delivered the divine oracle that he had received concerning his Lord, David, speaking in the Spirit, addresses the Messiah and declares the word of the LORD to him. This is a prophetic word that reveals the means whereby the Messiah shall reign victoriously.

33


You will triumph, says David, because “the L ORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion.” This indicates that the LORD will commission and empower the Messiah to crush those arrayed Thea word “rod” (Hebrew: matah ) refersagainst to the him. rod of king, i.e., his scepter (cf. Psalm 2:9). Thus, the “rod of thy strength” speaks of the kingly power and dominion given to the Messiah to rule the nations. “Send” (Hebrew: shalah) means to stretch out or to extend, and here is used to refer to the extension of the Messiah’s authority throughout all the earth. “Zion” is the center of the Messiah’s kingdom, and, in context (cf. verse 1 where the Messiah’s throne is at God’s right hand), it is used in a figurative sense of the place where God dwells (cf.Psalm 11:4; 103:19; 48:2; 99:1-3; Hebrews 12:22). David ruled from the earthly Zion, but his Lord will rule from the heavenly Zion. It is “out of Zion,” or “from Zion” that his kingdom will spread. It is from this center of power that the Messiah’s kingdom will extend to “the ends of the world” (Psalm 2:8; 22:27). Continuing in his address to the Messiah, David says “rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” The word “rule” (Hebrew: radah ) means, literally, to tread with the feet (e.g., as in a winepress, Joel 4:13), and in a figurative sense it means to subdue, rule over, take possession of, or dominate. Significantly, “rule” is in the imperative mode, and is used to indicate an emphatic prediction or promise of what will be fulfilled in the future.23 The divine word promises the Messiah that he will tread down his enemies and take dominion over them. Therefore, verse 2 reveals that the Messiah will not be passive at the right hand of God in the

34


conflict to defeat those who are set against him. In fact, he will be the active agent of the LORD in the conquest of God’s enemies. Having been enthroned at the hand ofwill Godgo and given all power authority, right the Messiah forth from Zion toand extend his dominion over the rebellious nations, and they will become his footstool. Significantly, we find many parallels between Psalm 2 and Psalm 110:1-2: Psalm 2:1-3:

Psalm 110:1:

Nations Psalm 2:1-3: and kings Nations are and “Enemies” kings are inconfront rebelin rebellion theand his theAnointed. Lord. lion againstagainst the LORD LORD and his Anointed. Psalm 110:1: “Enemies” confront the Lord. Psalm 2:4-6: Psalm 110:1-2: Psalm 2:4-6: The AnointedThe is enthroned the The Anointed is enMessiah on at the “holy hill Zion.” throned onofthe “holy L OR D ’s right goes hill of Zion.” forth “from Zion” to Psalm 110:1-2: The Messia at thehis LORD ’s right defeat enemies. goes forth “from Zion” to h defeat his enemies. Psalm 2:7-9: Psalm 110:1-2: Psalm 2:7-9: The LORD empowers Messiah to The L OR D empowThe Messiah is promput down the revolt and extend his dominion ers Messiah to put ised his enemies as a “to the uttermost parts of the earth.” down the revolt and footstool over which extend dominion he shall rule. Psalm his 110:1-2: The Messiah is promised his “to the uttermost enemies as a footstool over which he shallrule. parts of the earth.” Psalm 110:3 indicates that the Messiah will not be alone as he goes forth toconquer his enemies. Delitzsch states: “In order that he may rule victoriously, it is necessary that there should be a people and an army.”24

35


“Thy people” refers to those who belong to the Messiah, to those who are the citizens of his kingdom. His people shall be “willing,” i.e., they will freely offer themselves to do service)for their king. word “willing” (Hebrew: nedabah “connotes anThe uncompelled and free movement of the will unto divine service or sacrifice.”25 Thus, they present themselves as a “freewill offering” to their Lord (Exodus 35:29) “in the day” of his “power.” “In the day” can specify either a point in time or a period of time. The time in view here is the time of the Messiah’s “power,” which in context must refer to the power and authority conferred upon him at his enthronement at the right hand of God (v. 1). Therefore, “the day of thy power” is the era of the Messiah’s reign from the righthand of God; itis the time when he extends his dominion from Zion and treads down all his enemies. Throughout this period of conflict and kingdom expansion, h e will be served by a host of willing servants (soldiers) who follow him into battle. David describes the army of the Messiah with two highly poetic phrases. The first, “in the beauty of holiness” (Hebrew: hadar) is better translated as “in the ornaments of holiness.” Delitzsch notes that this phrase is used of “the vestment of the priest for performing divine service: the Levite singers went forth before the army in ‘holy attire’ in II Chronicles 20:21; here, however, the people without distinction wear holy festive garments.... It is a priestly people which he leads forth to holy battle.”26 The servants of the Lord are pictured as an army of priests, suggesting that this is no ordinary battle fought with spears and swords. The second phrase, “from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth,” is explained by Abraham

36


Cohen: “The dew falls at the dawn which is poetically called its mother. It is a metaphor of freshness and is beautifully applied to the young men of the kingdom 27

whodescription fill the ranks army.” followers: Leupold summarizes the of of thethe Messiah’s Nor shall He be alone in this warfare (v. 3). When He sets forth to give evidence of His power and control, there will be a great army of men in the prime of their youth who shall cheerfully volunteer their services and shall come fittingly equipped for holy warfare in holy garments, that is arrayed in true righteousness and holiness. As dew in unnumbered globules is born at each new dawn, so shall these warriors be, numberless and continually fresh. 28

As a holy king the Messiah has a holy army, and as the viceregent of the LORD he leads them to certain victory. Psalm 110:4 reveals that the Messiah will hold a second major office. Not only is he a king (vv .1-2), he is also a “priest forever.” By a solemn and irrevocable oath “the LORD hath sworn, and will not repent”: the Messiah is sovereignly appointed to serve as a priest. In the Ol d Testament , a priest was God’s authorized minister and served as a mediator between God and sinful man. The priest was appointed to offer up prayers and sacrifices to God on behalf of sinners (cf. Hebrews 5:1). Therefore, the Messiah is a priest appointed to serve as the mediator for his people. This aspect of the Messiah’s work is not developed in this psalm (cf. Isaiah 52:13-53:12). However, we must note the connection bet ween the Messiah and his people that is given in verses 3 and 4. The people he leads are an army of priests ar-

37


rayed in “holy garments.” The king who leads them is also a priest who acts as the mediator between them and God. Hence, it is through the Messiah’s priestly ministrys.that his followers have been clothed in righteousnes The LORD declares in his oath that the Messiah is a “priest forever.” The Hebrew word “forever” (Hebrew: olam) speaks of that which is hidden, specifically of time that is hidden because the beginning or endthereof is unknown or undefined; thus, it refers to a long period of time, eternity, or perpetuity.29 This suggests that the Messiah’s priesthood will be on a level far higher than any Levitical priest whose ministry to the people was always cut short by death. The Messiah’s priesthood is also “of the order of Melchizedek,” distinguishing it from the Levitical order. “Melchizedek” means “king of righteousness.” Melchizedek was the king of Salem and a priest of the “Most High God” who blessed Abraham as Abraham wasreturning from his victory over the kings who had defeated Sodom and taken Lot captive (Genesis 14:13-24). As Melchizedek held the offices of king and priest and was so great that he blessed the patriarch Abraham, so will the Messiah hold both offices and be so great that Abraham and David—indeed, all of his people— are blessed in him. In Old Testament Israel the offices of priest and king were kept distinct (cf. II Chronicles 26:16; I Samuel 13:8-13); priests were of the house of Levi, whi le kings were of the house of David. But in the Messiah both offices will be combined (cf. Zechariah 6:13). He will be both king and priest forever. The context of Psalm 110 implies that both offices are essential if the Mes-

38


siah is to conquer his enemies. Delitzsch observes: “David here hears that the king of the future exalted at the right hand of God, and whom he calls his Lord, is at theofsame an eternal And because he is both thesetime his battle itselfpriest. is a priestly royal work, and just on this account his people fighting with him also wear priestly garments.”30

       In this final section of the Psalm David addresses the LORD and praises him for the victory that the Messiah surely achieve. Speaking in the Spirit and through the will imagery of human warfare, David describes the Messiah’s triumph over his enemies. David begins praising God by setting forth the basis for the Messiah’s conquests. He says, “The Lord at thy right hand shall....” The word “Lord” refers to the Messiah. It is the same title that David used in verse 1 when he called the Messiah his “Lord.” The reason why the outcome of the conflict is not in doubt is because the Messiah sits at the right hand of God with all power and authority committed to him. David states, in effect: “LORD, I know that my Lord will triumph because you have enthroned him at your side and made him invincible.” The exaltation of the Messiah marks the commencement of his victorious reign and signals the beginning of the end for his foes. After praising the LORD for enthroning the Messiah at his right hand, David proceeds to depict the successful warfare of the Messiah in five statements. First, he states that the messianic priest-king will “strike through kings in the day of his wrath.” The word “strike” (Hebrew: matas) means to smite through or

39


to shatter. “Kings” are the objects of his wrath. These kings are, therefore, earthly rulers who reject the authority of God and of his chosen king, the Messiah. These the same kings who areasspoken ofrein Psalm must 2:2-3 be where they are described being in volt against the LORD and his Anointed. And as the Messiah is commanded in Psalm 2:9 to break them with a rod of iron, so here in Psalm 110:5-6 the Messiah is pictured as carrying out that command by striking through these kings and filling the battlefield with dead bodies. David says that the Lord will strike these rebellious kings “in the day of his wrath.” What “day” is this? Is it the judgment that will come at the last day? No, the context indicates that it is the judgment of the Lord that will fall upon rebellious kings and nations while the Messiah is enthroned at the right hand of God. It describes the wrath of the Messiah that is visited upon his enemies as he goes forth from Zion to make them his footstool. It is the same “wrath” that is spoken of in Psalm 2:10-12 where the kings and judges of the earth are exhorted to serve the LORD and do homage to his Son “lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.” In this place “his wrath” speaks of the judgment of God that falls upon rulers and nations during the course of history for refusing to repent of their wickedness and serve the Lord (cf. Jeremiah 18:7-10; Psalm 9:15-17; Deuteronomy 9:5). Hence, “the day of his wrath” is any day that the Lord comes in judgment upon those who despise his reign. Psalm 110:6 contains three further statements about the Messiah’s victorious warfare. In the phrase “he

40


shall judge among the heathen,” the word “judge” ^ ) according to Cohen, “does not imply (Hebrew: dun the hearing of a suit but of passing judgment in a case 31

which is decided.” nationsthe have been fowill und carry guilty of sin and rebellion;The therefore, Messiah out God’s judgment upon them. In so doing, “he will fill the places with dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.” Both statements picture the destruction of the enemies of God; both the armies and leaders of the heathen nations fall before the invincible power of the Messiah and his army. To depict the victory of the Messiah over his adversaries, Psalm 110:7 uses the image of a warrior who pauses to drink from a brook, and then arises refreshed to press the battle to a successful conclusion. As the cool drink renews the warrior, so will the Messiah be ever renewed and strengthened by the LORD as he goes forth to conquer. In God’s mighty power he will continue to fight until the victory is his. The heads of his enemies are smashed (Psalm 110:5-6; 2:9), but the Messiah’s head is lifted up as a victor and triumphant king. In its Old Testament context Psalm 110 is a prophecy of the coming Messiah. The emphasis of this Psalm is on the victorious reign of the Messiah from the right hand of God. He will be exalted to the throne of God and from that position he shall go forth with his people to fulfill the divine commission to rule in the midst of his enemies and extend his dominion to the four corners of the earth. The purpose of his reign will not be achieved until all of his enemies are his footstool. He must reign at the right hand of God until the victory is his. Thus, according to Psalm 110 the Messiah’s throne

41


is in heaven; his reign is mediatorial; 32 and his reign commences at his exaltation to his heavenly throne and continues on until his enemies are all subdued.

      Westminster Confession of Faith 1:9 states that “the infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” The application of that fundamental principle of hermeneutics leads us toconsider the New Testament’s use of Psalm 110. Christians are committed to the final authority of Jesus and his Apostles for understanding and applying the Old Testament Scriptures. Therefore, if Christians are to know the full meaning and true fulfillment of Psalm 110, they must look to the New Testament and consider how the New Testament interprets and applies this messianic psalm. Bright correctly observes that the Christian “has received the Old Testament from the hands of Christ, who is its fulfillment,” and therefore must bring the Old Testament text to the New Testament for the “verdict” on its interpretation.33 The New Testament refers to Psalm 110 either by direct quotation or verbal allusion more than any other single Old Testament text.34 This fact alone attests to the vital importance of Psalm 110 as a messianic prophecy. Psalm 110 is perhaps the single most important Old Testament text for understanding the person of Christ and the essential characteristics and sequence of his reign. The goal here is to survey the quotations and allusions to Psalm 110 found in the New Testament. We conduct this survey convinced that the New Testament indicatesthe precise way in which the teaching of Psalm 110 on the victorious reign of the Messiah is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

42


         I will consider the use of Psalm 110:1 in the New Testament under headings, which will illustrate its significance in five the New Testament.

       During Passion Week Jesus frequented the Temple in order to teach the people. His enemies, the Jewish leaders, were offended by him, and at various times during the week they came to challenge his authority and sought to entrap him with difficult questions (Matthew 21:23-22:46). However, all their attempts to catch Jesus in his words failed miserably. Having dealt with their trick questions, Jesus asked them a question of his own. But his purpose was not evil; he was not seeking to “test” them. Rather he was challenging their narrow concept of the Messiah. We find Jesus’ question to the Jewish leaders in each of the synoptic gospels (Matthew 22:41-45; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44). I will focus on the text of Matthew. Jesus begins by asking, “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?” (Matthew 22:42). This question would be so basic for a Jew that Jesus’ query suggests there is more to this question than was commonly assumed by Jesus’ contemporaries. The Pharisees give the expected answer: “The son of David.” This is a true answer in so far as it goes, but Jesus demonstrates that their answer is inadequate for a full understanding of the true nature and status of the Messiah. The problem was that the Jews were only thinking in terms of a political Messiah who would reestablish the throne of David in Jerusalem and lead Israel to military vic-

43


tory over her enemies (in particular, the Romans, cf. John 6:15). Having received their answer, Jesus uses Psalm 110:1 to show the Jews that their narrow view of the Messiah does not(Matthew agree with22:43-45). David’s own conception of the Messiah Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1 is introduced by the words: “How then doth David in the spirit call him Lord, saying....” Note how Jesus affirms David as the inspired author of Psalm 110:1. In fact, Jesus’ use of Psalm 110 here is entirely dependent upon Davidic authorship. Jesus also indicates that he believed that David’s “Lord” was the Messiah and the subject of David’s prophecy in Psalm 110. Jesus then proceeds to quote Psalm 110:1 to the Jews (Matthew 22:44). Following the quotation Jesus asks: “If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?” (Matthew 24:45). By this final question Jesus challenges them to view the Messiah as much more than David’s son. In truth, he is David’s Lord! Jesus’ point is that in Psalm 110:1, “the Messiah is represented as altogether superior, not merely to any other son of David, but to David himself. There the Messiah is recognized as having a unique relationship, not to David, but to God, whose sovereignty He shares.” 35 Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1 proves that the Jewish concept of the Messiah as a national deliverer and political king after the same manner as David is not compatible with Psalm 110. France insightfully summarizes Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1 in this encounter with the Jewish leaders: His argument sets aside the political notions which clustered around the title “Son of David” in favour of

44


a superior conception. What that conception is hedoes not explicitly state, but the content of Psalm 110 indicates that it involves a close relation to God himself, and includes office not only of and king, but of priest (verse 4). It isthe a position of victory dominion, but a victory and dominion conferred by the power of God. Thus in place of a political rule received by earthly heredity, Jesus sets a higher dominion at God’s right hand, conferred by God himself.... We may endorse the verdict of E. Lövestam: “Jesus’ question quite plainly involves an attack on every national-political interpretation of the promise to David. ”36

        Jesus referred to Psalm 110:1 in his trial before the Jewish authorities (Matthew 26:64; Mark 14:62; Luke 22:69). At this trial the Sanhedrin were seeking testimony against Jesus so that they might condemn him to death. But things did not progress satisfactorily, so the High Priest took matters into his own hands and demanded: “I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God” (Matthew 26:63). Jesus responded: “Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). In this response Jesus did claim to be the Messiah. The High Priest, clearly understanding this, condemned him to die on the charge of blasphemy (Matthew 26:6566). In his reply to the High Priest, Jesus uses Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 in supportof his messianic claim. Jesus says, in effect, “Yes, I am the Messiah, and though this may seem impossible to you because of your hard hearts and faulty notions of the Messiah, my claim will

45


soon be vindicated by God when I ascend to him in the clouds of heaven and take my appointed place at his right hand in fulfillment of the Scriptures.” Jesus is announcing that 110:1isand about to be fulfilled inPsalm him. This theDaniel sense 7:13 of theare word “hereafter” (ap arti; literally, “from now”) in Matthew 26:64. Now that he has been condemned to die, Jesus enters that time of suffering which will ultimately lead to his triumph over death and his exaltation to the right hand of God. It is important to recognize that Jesus brings together the messianic prophecies of Psalm 110:1 and Daniel 7:13 in Matthew 26:64. In Psalm 110:1 the L ORD enthrones the Messiah at his right hand and grants him authority to rule the nations and to extend his kingdom throughout the earth. In Daniel 7:13, the Son of Man (the Messiah) comes up to the “Ancient of Days” and is given “dominion, glory, and a kingdom.” According to Jesus, these two prophecies refer to the same event and are fulfilled by his ascension to the right hand of God. Therefore, Jesus’ use of Psalm 110:1 at his trial reveals that at the time of his ascension he received the messianic kingdom in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. Consequently, Jesus now rules the nations from his throne on high. The outcome of his reign will be that his enemies will become his “footstool” (Psalm 110:1), and that “all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him” (Daniel 7:14). Jesus’ usage of Psalm 110:1 in his controversy with the Jews and at his trial strikes agai nst the false Jewish ideas of a political Messiah who rules ov er Israel from the throne of David in Jerusalem. As Jesus di-

46


vulged, those conceptions contradict Psalm 110:1. These same misguided notions are still held by Christians who believe that fulfilling the Davidic Covenant demands that after Jesus returnsof henation will rule kingin over all nations from the throne al as Israel Jerusalem. But according to Jesus’ interpretation of Psalm 110:1, his messianic reign was inaugurated at his ascension; his throne is not on earth but is at the Father’s right hand; and his present authority extends over all nations.

 quotes  Psalm 110:1    Peter in full inhis sermon on the day of Pentecost. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit came with power upon the disciples of Jesus, and Peter’s sermon explains that coming in terms of Old Testament prophecy (Acts 2:1-36). Peter begins with the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32 concerning the outpouring of the Holy Spirit “in the last days,” and announces its fulfillment in what those assembled “see and hear.” The phrase “last days” is an Old Testament designation of the days, the time or era, of the Messiah and his reign. 37 By appealing to Joel 2:28-32 Peter declares that the “last days” are now here . Peter then proceeds to prove that Jesus is the Messiah by pointing to the resurrection and ascension of Jesus (Acts 2:22-36). Looking to Old Testament prophecy, Peter says that Jesus has been raised from the dead in fulfillment of Psalm 16:8-11, and has been exalted to the right hand of God in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. Significantly, Peter states that the resurrection of Jesus was based on the promise of the Davidic Covenant that God “would raise up Christ to sit on his throne” (Acts 2:30), and that

47


God fulfilled that promise when he raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him to his right hand (Acts 2:31-33). Therefore, according to Peter, the throne promised the Messiah in the Davidic Covenant (II Samuelto7:12-16) was the throne that David spoke of in Psalm 110:1, and that this exalted throne has been given to Jesus because he is “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36). J. Marcellus Kik states the significance of Peter’s interpretation of the messianic throne for the current eschatological debate: The premillennialist, however, maintains as a cardinal and fundamental tenet of his system of eschatology that the throne of glory is an earthly throne set up in the material city of Jerusalem. The temporal throne of David is to be reconstructed in Jerusalem. But David’s throne was only a type of Christ’s heavenly throne even as David was but a type of Christ. Surely the throne of David was of no more importance than David. The premillennialist by his peculiar interpretation mistakes the type for the antitype; he mistakes the shadow for the reality. David himself, though living in the Old Dispensation, beheld the superior and exalted throne and wrote of it in Psalm 110. The Apostle Peter refers to this Psalm 110 in his sermon on the day of Pentecost.... (Acts 2:33-35). Thus David revealed a better understanding of the signi ficance of Christ’s throne than do the premillenniali sts. As a matter of fact there is not one p assage in the New Testament which gives definite information of a personal reign of Christ upon a temporal throne in the material city of Jerusalem. 38

48


        Hebrews 1:13 contains a direct quotation of Psalm 110:1. The context of this quotation is the superiority of the the Sonexaltation to angels.ofAccording to the writer110:1 of Hebrews the Messiah in Psalm to the right hand of God proves the preeminence of the Son (the Messiah) to angels and raises him to a position of equality with God. An allusion to Psalm 110:1 appears in Hebrews 1:3. That verse states that after Christ had purged our sins he “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” Christ could assume such a position because he is “the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person,” i.e., the person of God. Thus the writer of Hebrews asserts that the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God is proof of his deity. No mere man, no mere son of David, no angel could ever occupy such a high and glorious position. Jesus Christ could because he is the Son of God. The New Testament writers make many clear allusions to Psalm 110:1 in their repeated and emphatic teaching that Jesus Christ is now seated at the right hand of God. At least eleven New Testament references mention the present exaltation ofChrist at God’s right hand (Mark 16:19; Acts 5:31; 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 12:2; 10:12; I Peter 3:22). All of these texts combine to emphasize the truth that God’s invitation to the Messiah to sit at his right hand has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. They confirm the fact that the ascension of Christ marked the time of his enthronement, and that he now rules over all as King and Lord of all (cf. Mark 16:19; Ephesians 1:20; I Peter 3:22). These allusions to Psalm 110:1 also establish a definite

49


connection between Christ’s atoning death and his present exaltation (cf. Acts 5:31; Hebrews 1:3; 12:2; also Philippians 2:6-11). Christ’s death is seen as an essential step in his exaltation. Furthermore, Testament texts teach that Christ not only these sits asNew a king at the Father’s right hand, but that it is from that position that he also ministers as a priest on behalf of his people (cf. Romans 8:34; Hebrews 8:1; 10:11-12).

         The apostle Paul makes an important allusion to Psalm 110:1 in15. hisIngreat thevigorously resurrection, I Corinthians this chapter chapter on Paul refutes the false teachers in Corinth who were denying the future bodily resurrection of the saints. He begins by asserting the certainty of Christ’s bodily resurrection, which is a cornerstone of the gospel and the Christian faith (I Corinthians 15:1-19). Paul then teaches that the bodily resurrection of Christ is the surety that all who believe in Christ will be raised at his return (vv. 20-28). In this section he explains the significance of Christ’s return in regard to the consummation, noting the closing of the mediatorial kingdom and the beginning of the eternal state. His point is that the believer’s resurrection is part of that grand event (i.e., the Second Coming) that consummates the victory of the messianic kingdom over the world. Paul specifically states that when Christ returns and raises his people from the dead, “then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” (I Corinthians 15:24). The word “then” (Gk., eita) indicates what follows the return of Christ. What follows is the “end” (Gk.,

50


telos) i.e., the close of history, the final events that conclude God’s plan to overthrow sin and restore righteousness in creation through the work of Christ. It is

at the Second Coming that Christ givesand back to had the Father what had been entrusted to him; what been entrusted to him was the “kingdom.” The word “kingdom” (Gk., basileia) can be used in the concrete sense of a kingdom—the territory and people over which a king rules; or it can be used in the abstract sense of sovereignty, royal power, dominion— the authority that a king possesses. The second sense is the meaning here. Therefore, Paul says that at the Second Coming Jesus Christ will deliver up to the Father his delegated sovereignty because he will have fulfilled the divine task entrusted to him. That is, he will have “put down” (Gk., katargeses), made powerless, put an end to, “all rule and all authority and power,” i.e., all those hostile powers—civil or religious, physical or intellectual—that are set against God and his kingdom. The Father has commissioned Christ to render powerless the enemies of God, and has granted him royal power and authority to fulfill that commission. Paul says that the Second Coming will mark the fulfillment of that commission.39 To prove his teaching that Christ’s commission will be fulfilled by the Second Coming, Paul refers to Psalm 110:1 (I Corinthians 15:25). According to Paul, Psalm 110:1 reveals that the exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the Father gave him sovereign authority, and that the purpose of that grant of authority was for the defeat of all the enemies of truth and righteousness. Furthermore, Paul teaches that Christ’s reign covers the period between Jesus’ ascension and his glorious

51


return at the end of the age. Finally, Paul saw in Psalm 110:1 the promise that the Messiah would triumphover all of his enemies prior to his return—Paul believed that the victorious Christ in Psalm 110 referred to thisreign age.40ofAs John predicted Davis explains: According to [I Corinthians 15] verse 24, then, we are to understand that the second coming occurs after Christ has destroyed “every rule and authority and power.” Christ is now reigning in heaven at theFather’s right hand and now is in the process of subduing his foes. This is the point of Paul’s quotation of Psalm 110:1 in verse 25: Christ rules from heaven until all foes but death itself are subdued; then at the second coming, the resurrection shows that even death itself is overthrown (v. 26, “the last enemy”). Onlythen does Christ hand over the kingdom to the Father.41

In Hebrews 10:12-13 appears another definite allusion to Psalm 110:1. The writer of Hebrews uses Psalm 110:1 in complete harmony with Jesus’, Peter’s, and Paul’s understanding of the verse, while further clarifying the proper interpretation of David’s prophecy. In Hebrews 10:12 Jesus takes his seat at the right hand of God in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1 “after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever.” This indicates that Christ’s exaltation to the Father’s right hand is closely connected to the crucifixion. It was through his death on the cross that Christ struck the fatal blow against sin and the kingdom of darkness. Because he was obedient unto death, the Father has exalted him to the throne of God, given him the name “Lord,” and commanded all to bow before his authority (cf. Ephesians 1:19-21; Philippians 2:6-11; Psalm 2:10-12). In addition, this text in Hebrews establishes that the victorious

52


reign prophesied in Psalm 110 is the inter-advent period, for Christ was raised to the Father’s right hand after the crucifixion, and he will remain there “expecting till his be made his(Gk., footstool” (Hebrews) 10:13). Theenemies word “expecting” ekdechomenos means to await, and refers to the eschatological expectation of the consummation that will come at Christ’s return. Thus, Jesus will not come to consummate his kingdom until his enemies lie prostrate at his feet. “Christ remains in heaven while his foes are being subdued and until that process is complete.” 42

         Psalm 110:2 teaches that the LORD will commission the Messiah to subdue his enemies and extend his dominion to the ends of the earth. This establishes a close connection between Psalm 110:2-3 and the Great Commission as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20. Christ begins his commission to his disciples by asserting his authority: “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth” (Matthew 28:18). This sovereign authority is his because of his exaltation to the right hand of God in fulfillment of Psalm110:1. Then, in accord with Psalm 110:2 promising the extension of his kingdom and calling him to “rule in the midst of thine enemies,” Christ commands his disciples to go into all the world and bring the nations to faith in him and obedience to all his commands. Psalm 110:2 will be fulfilled and Christ will “rule” (i.e., “tread down”) his enemies as the nations are conquered by the gospel. The Great Commission also alludes to Psalm 110:3 wherein the Messiah would have an army clothed in

53


priestly garments that would go forth with him into the battle to subdue his enemies and extend his kingdom. The Great Commission reveals that the Church is army. been by his andthat filled withHaving his Spirit, theredeemed Church goes intoblood the world to subdue the rebellious nations by preaching, baptizing, and teaching. Psalm 110:2- 3 shows that the church’s task is far more comprehensive than merely “winning souls” for Jesus. The Church is the agent of Christ in making his enemies his footstool, having a vital role in the fulfillment of Psalm 110. Davis states: “Christ’s heavenly reign is exercised and enlarged as the church on earth goes forth in the power of the Spirit to fulfill the Great Commission.” 43 The Church constitutes the Messiah’s people. They are his volunteers in the day of his power; and that day was announced by Jesus when he said to his disciples, “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Revelation 19:14 contains another allusion to Psalm 110:3. The text in Revelation states that “the armies which were in heaven ... clothed in fine linen, white and clean” follow the Lord Jesus as he goes forth to conquer his enemies. Revelation 19:7-8 identifies this army as the church, and the clothing of fine linen is said to be the righteous acts of the saints. The description of the army as clothed in “fine linen, white and clean” corresponds to Psalm 110:3 where the Messiah’s army is clothed in “garments of holiness.” This New Testament picture of an army of righteous people following Christ into battle is precisely the prophetic description of Psalm 110:2-3.

54


         Psalm 110:4 reveals that the Messiah would be “a priest forever after this the order not develop aspectofofMelchizedek.” the Messiah’sPsalm work, 110 but did the New Testament does.Hebrews refers extensively to Psalm 110:4 as the writer explains the redemptive workChrist of (Hebrews 5:6, 10; 6:2 0; 7:3, 11, 15, 17, 21). He brews presents the saving work of Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament sacrificial system . The animal sacrifices, the tabernacle, and the priesthood all pointed forward to Christ’s death on the cross. But as Psalm 110:4 reveals, Christ’s priesthood is not according to the order of Levi, but according to the order of Melchizedek. The writer of Hebrews interprets Psalm 110:4 and explains the nature of Christ’s priesthood. For Christ to be a priest according to the order of Melchizedek means that he was directly appointed by God (Hebrews 5:4-6, 10), and that his priesthood is superior to Aaron’s and the Levitical priests. Because Christ washoly, he offered the perfect sacrifice, and he has the power of an endless life (Hebrews 7:1-28). Acts 5:31 also alludes to Psalm 110:4 where Peter speaks of Christ: “Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.” When Peter speaks of Christ’s exaltation to God’s right hand to be a “Prince,” he is alludingto Psalm 110:1; when he adds “and Saviour,” he is referring to Psalm110:4. Therefore, to be a priest in accordance with Psalm 110:4 means that the Messiah is a “Saviour” who grants the forgiveness of sins . Thus, in Acts 5:31 Peter alludes to Psalm 110 and the messianic offices of king and priest, and also affirms that Christ fulfills both of these offices from the right hand of God.

55


The New Testament declares that Jesus fulfills the office of priest in Psalm 110:4 by hisdeath and endless life. It also affirms that Christ’s ministry as a priest is just as essential as his service as a king in the ultimate defeat of his enemies, for his death, resurrection, and ascension defeats his foes.

         Psalm 110:5-7 is a prophetic description of the Messiah’s victorious warfare. The New Testament nowhere directly quotes these verses.It appears, however, that Revelation 19:11-21 alludes to Psalm 110:5-7 because so many parallels link the two passages.

Psalm Psalm110:5: 110:5: The MessiahRevelation is inheaven19:11-16: at God’s The in Christ is in heaven rightMessiah hand as is king. heaven at God’s right and declared to be the Revelation is inofheaven hand as king.19:11-16: Christ “King kings.”and declared to be the “King of kings.” Psalm110:5-7: 110:5-7: The Messiah goes forth to15, Psalm Revelation 19:11, judge the nations. The Messiah goes 19: forth to judge the naChrist judges and Revelation 19:11, 15, 19: Christ judges and tions. strikes the nations. strikes the nations. Psalm 110:5: The Messiah judges and makes Psalm 110:5: Revelation 19:11, 15: war in the day of his wrath. The Messiah judges Christ judges and Revelation 19:11, 15: Christ judges treads and makes war in the treads theand winepress the of winepress of the wrathofofthe God. day his wrath. wrath of God.

56


Psalm Revelation 19:18-19: Psalm 110:5-6: 110:5-6: The kings of the earth fight The kings the The kings of the earth against the of Messiah. earth fight against against Christ. Revelation 19:18-19: Thefight kings of the earth the Messiah. fight against Christ. Psalm 19:17-21: Psalm110:6: 110:6: The MessiahRevelation fills the places with The Christ fills the ground deadMessiah bodies. fills the places with dead with dead bodies. Revelation 19:17-21: Christ fills the ground bodies. with dead bodies. Revelation 19:11Psalm Psalm 110:5-7: 110:5-7: The Messiah is completely 21: The Messiah is victorious. Christ is completely completely victorious. Revelation 19:11-21: Christ is completely victorious. victorious. Psalm 110:3: Revelation 19:14, 19: Psalm 110:3: Messiah’ s army is clothed in garMessiah’s army is Christ’s army is ments of holiness and follow him into battle. clothed in garments clothed in righteousRevelation 19:14, 19: Christ’s is clothed of holiness and follow ness army and follows him in righteousness into battle. him into battle. and follows intohim battle.

Revelation 19:11- 21 is describing the same messianic victory as Psalm 110:5-7. Therefore, as Psalm 110:5-7 is a symbolic description of the victorious warfare of the Messiah that takes place during his reign at the right hand of God, so does Revelation 19:11-21 depict the victorious warfare during this present age. Commenting on Revelation 19:11-21, B. B. Warfield st ates:

57


It is a vivid picture of a complete victory, an entire conquest that we have here; and all the imagery of war and battle is employed to give it life. This is the symbol. The thing obviously complete victory of thesymbolized Son of Godisover all thethe hosts of wickedness. Only a single hint of this signification is afforded by the language, but that is enough. On two occasions we are told that the sword by which the victory is won proceeds out of the mouth of the conqueror (verses 15 and 21). We are not to think, as we read, of any literal war or manual fighting, therefore; the conquest is wrought by the spoken word—in short, by the preaching of the gospel. In fine, we have before us here a picture of the victorious career of the gospel of Christ in the world. All the imagery of the dread battle and its hideous details are but to give us the impression of the completeness of the victory. Christ’s gospel is to conquer the earth: He is to overcome all His enemies.44

The New Testament usage of Psalm 110 indicates it is a messianic psalm of David that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Therefore, all the details of Ps alm 110 need to be applied to the person and work of Christ. Each part of the psalm speaks directly of Christ and his kingdom. The New Testament’s use and interpretationf oPsalm 110 provides the following explanation of Christ and his kingdom: • Christ is the messianic King who was raised to that position at his ascension (Matthew 26:64; Acts 2:30-36; 5:31; I Peter 3:22). • The messianic throne promised in the Davidic Covenant is not a temporal throne located in Jerusalem, but a heavenly throne located at the right hand of God45 (Matthew 26:64; Acts 2:30-36).

58


• The exaltation of Christ to the right hand of God the Father is proof of his deity, for no mere man or angel could ever occupy such a high and glorious (Matthew 22:42-45; Hebrewsin1:3, •position The messianic kingdom promised the 13). Old Testament began at Christ’s ascension and will continue until Christ’s Second Coming (Matthew 26:64; Acts 2:17, 30-36; I Corinthians 15:23-28). • The reign of Christ in this present dispensation will eventuate in the defeat of all his enemies, without his leaving his position at the right hand of God (i.e., return at the end of the age) before this victory is accomplished (I Corinthians 15:23-25; Hebrews 10:12-13; Revelation 19:11-21). • Christ is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek and the Savior of his people (Hebrews 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:11-28; Acts 5:31). • The Church is Christ’s army in the conflict with his foes, whom he sends by the Great Commission to subdue the nations to his lordship through the preaching of the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; Revelation 19:11-15).

 The purpose of this chapter has been to furnish an exposition of Psalm 110, and then to survey its use in the New Testament. The results of this study provide convincing biblical support for the postmillennial view of Christ’s kingdom. This great messianic psalm declares the victorious reign of Christ from the right hand of God. It instructs the Church to look for the triumph of Christ and his kingdom in this age, and challenges her to do her part in pressing forward the victory.

59


According to its usage in the New Testament, Psalm 110 fixes the time of Christ’s return as taking place after his enemies become his footstool. Christ and his kingdom therefore, history andexplicit before his returnwill, at the end of triumph the age.inThis is the teaching of Psalm 110, and this is the postmillennial view of Christ’s kingdom. Postmillennial critic John Walvoord wonders how postmillennialists can hold to this position and “read the newspapers with their accounts of increased crime and a decaying church ... and come up with the idea that Christianity is triumphant in the world.”46 The first answer to such wonderment is that postmillennialists do not necessarily believe that Christianity is triumphant in the world today, but they do believe that it will be triumphant in the world according to God’s time. And the second answer is that postmillennialists do not base their eschatology on the newspapers or the current state of the church; they base their eschatology on the word of God. The postmillennial hope in an expanding kingdom of Christ that will conquer the nations and cause the earth to be filled “with the knowledge of the glory of the L ORD, as the waters cover the sea” (Habakkuk 2:14) is based on Holy Scripture—especially such texts as Psalm 110.47 It is true that postmillennialism is not now the “majority report” among evangelicals. However, as R. J. Rushdoony has said: “Postmillenniali sm will again prevail ... because it is the truth of God and his enscripturated word. As an eschatology of victory , it will inspire men with the power of God, and, as with great saints of old, and the Puritans of yesteryears, it will lead again and more enduringly to the

60


triumph of Christ in every area, bringing every thought and action into captivity to Christ.”48 The time has come for the Church to reject the pessimistic eschatologies that have weighed her down and return to the eschatology of Scripture—the postmillennial eschatology of victory. It is time for the Church to hearken to the teaching of Psalm 110 and be inspired for service to the King of kings by this psalm’s proclamation of the victorious reign of Christ.

1

Reverend William O. Einwechter, Th.M., is an ordained minister and presently serves as a teaching elder at Immanuel Free Reformed Church (Ephrata, Pennsylvania) and as the editor ofThe Christian Statesman. He is the author of Ethics and God’s Law: An Introduction to Theonomy , and English Bible Translations: By What St andard? , and the editor of the book Explicitly Christian Politics. His essays and articles have been published in the Chalcedon Report , The Christian Statesman , Patriarch , and The Journal of Christian Reconstruction. 2 H. Wayne House and Thomas Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse?(Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 1988), 183. 3 John F. Walvoord,The Millennial Kingdom(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), 134. 4 William E. Cox, Amillennialism Tod ay , (Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R, 1966), 5. 5 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.,The Greatness of the Great Commission (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 140.

61


John F. Walvoord, “A Review of House Divided by Greg L. Bahnsen and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., in Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990): 370. 7

John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1967), 211. 8 These headings, which appear at the beginning of many of the Psalms, were not part of the srcinal composition of the Psalms. However, all the available evidence suggests that these headings are both early and reliable. See Gleason L. Archer, Jr.,A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Rev. ed.: Chicago: Moody, 1974),443-444. 9

This study will custom of the KJV by using “LORD ” for thefollow divinethe name “Yahweh.” 10 R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 168. 11 John Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, trans. James Anderson (rep.: Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), 296. 12 Franz Delitzsch, Psalms, trans. James Bolton, in Commentary on the Old Testament, by C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch (rep.: Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson, [188691] 2001), 692. 13 Roland K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), 1001. 14 Calvin, Commentary on the Book of Psalms, 296. 15 Lenoard J. Coppes, “na’am” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament , ed. R. Laird Harris (Chicago: Moody, 1980), 2:541. Hereinafter: TWOT. 16 Nearly all Christian interpreters foPsalm 110 agree upon this identification. Furthermore, Jesus believed that David’s Lord was the Messiah and so did his Jewish adversaries (Matthew 21:41-45). 17 David’s throne in Jerusalem was a mere type of the heavenly throne of the Messiah. Thus, ac-

62


cording to Psalm 110:1 the promise concerning the Christ that “the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David” (Luke 1:32), is not fulfilled by placing the Christ an earthlythrone throne(the (the type) but by seating him onon a heavenly anti-type). 18 H. C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1954), 771. 19 Abraham Cohen, The Psalms , in Soncino Books of the Bible , ed. A. Cohen (London: Soncino,1945), 371. 20 Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar F. Kautzch, H. W. Gesenius, ed. E. rev. A. E. Cowley, 2nd ed. (Oxford:, Oxford University Press, 1910), 503. 21 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, Charles Briggs, The New Brown, Driver, and Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Lafayette, Ind.: Associated Publishers and Authors, [1907] rep. 1981), 610. 22 See William Symington, Messiah the Prince, or the Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ (rep. Edmonton, Alb: Still Waters Revival, [1884] 1999), 333-40 for an extensive discussion of the everlasting nature of the Messiah’s reign. 23 Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, Ind: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 572. 24 Delitzsch,Psalms, 695. 25 Coppes, “nadab,” in TWOT, 2:554. 26 Delitzsch,Psalms, 696. 27 Cohen, The Psalms, 372. 28 Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms, 772. 29 Gesenius,Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, 612. 30 Delitzsch,Psalms, 698.

63


Cohen, The Psalms, 373. One of the most comprehensive studies on the mediatorial dominion of Christ is William Symington’s 32

Messiah the Prince , op. cit. of the Old Testament, 211. 33 Bright, The Authority For a theological justification of this exegetical method, see O. Palmer Robertson, “Hermeneutics of Continuity,” in John S. Feinberg, ed., Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1988), ch. 4. 34 th The “List of Old Testament Quotations and New Allusions” in the Nestle-Aland 26 edition of the Greek Testament concludesthat Psalm 110 is quoted in th e New Testament nine times and is alluded to inthe New Testament eighteen times. 35 Alfred Plummer,An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Matthew(rep.: Grand Rapids: Baker, [1909] 1982), 310. 36 France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 102. 37 For a discussion of the “last days” and its significance for understanding the fulfillment of Old Testament p rophecy in t he New Testament d ispensation see, William O. Einwechter, “The Latter Day Triumph of Christ and His Kingdom: A Biblical and Theological Exposition of Isaiah 2:2-4” in The Journal of Christian Reconstr uction , 15 (Winter, 1998): 115, 124-128. 38 J. Marcellus Kik, An Eschatology of Victory (Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R, 1971), 171. 39 See also Ephesians 1:10, Colossians 1:20, and Acts 3:21. 40 It would be hard to find any other single passage in the New Testament that is more damaging to the

64


premillennial view of Christ’s kingdom than I Corinthians 15:20-28. But this passage is also very problematic for the amillennialist. How is he to explain the prediction that the Second Coming Christ will have “put down” allby those who exercise their authority, powers, or rule in defiance of God’s truth and righteousness? 41 John Jefferson Davis,The Victory of Christ’s Kingdom (Moscow, Ida.: Canon, 1996), 57-58. 42 Davis, The Victory of Christ’s Kingdom, 33. 43 Davis, The Victory of Christ’s Kingdom. 44

Benjaminin B Biblical . Warfield, “The Millennium andOxthe Apocalypse,” Doctrines (New York: ford University Press, 1929), 647. 45 Mathison rightly observes in regard to Psalm 110: “Furthermore, this psalm emphatically demonstrates that it is not necessary, as premillennialism asserts, for Christ to be physically present on earth in order to conquer his enemies. He is perfectly able to accomplish this from the right hand of God.” Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology ofHope (Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R, 1999), 80. 46 Walvoord, “A Review of House Divided,” 372. 47 Some other crucial texts that supp ort the postmillennial view of Christ’s kingdom are Genesis 22:17; Psalm 2; Isaiah 2:2-4; 9:1-7; Daniel 2:35, 44; 7:9-14, 26-27 ; Matthew 13:31-33; 28:18-20; Acts 3:21; Romans 11:11-36; I Corinthians 15:20-28; Ephesians 1:10. 48 Rousas John Rushdoony, “Introduction” to Kik, An Eschatology of Victory, ix.

65


66

 

           

1

he isonly, the propitiation sins; and not“And for ours but also for for the our whole world.” I John 2:2



 a means of comforting Christians distressed

by their continued lapses into sin, John, in the opening words of the second chapter of his first Epistle, is led to assure them that “we have an Advocate with the Fathe r, Jesus Chris t, a Righteous One”; and by way of showing how prevailing his advocacy is, to add, “And he is himself a prop itiation for our sins.” There he might well have stopped. But, without obvious necessity for his immediate purpose, he adds this great declaration: “And not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” That by these words the propitiation wrought by Christ, of which we have continual need, and on which we continually draw in our need, is exalted by ascribing to it, in some sense, a universal efficacy , is clear enough. But the commentators, first and last, have not found it easy to make plain to themselves the precise nature of the universalism assigned therein to our Lord’s propitiatory sacrifice.

67








Readers of old John Cotton’s practical notes on First John, for example, will not fail to observe that he moves with a certain embarrassment in his exposition of this universalism. He has a number of things,in themselves of value, to say about it; but he appears to find most satisfaction in the suggestion that although Christ by his expiatory death has bought for his people some things—and these the most important things—which he has not bought for all men, yet there are some most desirable things also which he has bought for all men. This, however, is certainly not what John says. It admits of no doubt that John means to say that the Christians whom he was addressing, and with whom he identifies himself—they and he alike—enjoy no privilege with reference to the propitiation of Christ, which is not enjoyed by them in common with “the whole world.” They—and he with them—are not to be disheartened by their sins, he says, because these sins have been expiated by the blood of Christ; by which have been expiated indeed, not their sins only but also those of “the whole world.” The “whole world” is not made in some general and subsidiary sense a beneficiary of Christ’s atoning death, but in this specific and highest sense — the expiation of its sins. Its sins have been as really and fully expiated as those of the Christians John was addressing, and as his own. The most “modern” of modern expositors are as much at sea in the face of the universalism of this assertion as any of the older and presumably less instructed ones could be.2 Thus Otto Baumgarten simply declines to attempt its exposition. We do not know what John means, he says; we lack the necessary information to en-

68

Chapter 3: Jesus Christ the Propitiation for the Whole World

able us to understand him. It may sound ery v fine to say that John teaches here that no shadow is cast on God’s holiness by the exhibitio n of partiality on his part for individuals; thatreligiosity he rebukes who, in egotistic and sentimental , or inthose selfish anxiety for their own salvation, would draw apart from their fellows. But difficulties remain. Experience scarcely encourages us to think that all without exception are sharers in Christ’s salvation; it rather bears out our Lord’s declaration that the gate is narrow and the way straitened that leads to life and few there be that find it. And John! Is not the whole world to him a massa corrupta—a “darkness” which does not “apprehend” “the light”? How we can harmonize the three passages—John 1:29, which speaks of taking away the sin of the world; John 3:16, “God so loved the world”; and this, declaring that Christ has made propitiation for the sins of the world—with John’s sharp dualism of Light and Darkness, does not appear. Perhaps John is only repeating with thoughtless neglect of their inconsequence the elements of Paul’s doctrine of propitiation. Perhaps, mystical-speculative thinker that he is, he means to suggest that in Jesus’ purpose or general feeling his redemption was for the whole sinful world, but only those found in him an actual Redeemer or Intercessor to whom he has given power to become Children of the Light. Perhaps it is, on the other hand, themissionary instinct of the Church, which declares here that no limits are to be set to the spread of salvation over the whole world—in contrast to the Gnostic confinement of it to certain gifted individuals. We can form many conjectures; we can reach no assurance.

69


     The search for John’s meaning naturally begins with an attempt to ascertain what he intends by “the world.” He sets it in contrast with an “our” by which primarily his readers and himself are designated: “And he is himself a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the whole world.” John’s readers apparently are immediately certain Christian communities in Asia Minor; and it is possible to confine the “our” strictly to them. In that case it is not impossible to interpret “the whole world,” which is brought into contrast with the Christians specifically of Asia Minor, as referring to the whole body of Christians extended throughout the world. A certain measure of support for such an interpretation may be derived from such a passage as Colossians 1:6, where “the word of the truth of the gospel” is spoken of as “in all the world,” or as Colossians 1:23, where the gospel is said to have been “preached in all creation under heaven.” In these passages the world-wide gospel seems to be contrasted with the heresies which were troubling the Colossian Christians and which are thus branded as a merely local phenomenon. In something of the same way, the world-wide extension of the people of God may be thought to be brought into contrast by John with the local churches he is addressing; and his purpose may be supposed to be to remind these local churches that they have no monopoly of the gospel. The propitiatory efficiency of Christ’s blood is not confined to the sins of the Asian Christians, but is broad enough to meet the needs of all in like case with them throughout the whole world. Christ is no local Savior, and all,

70


everywhere, who confess their sins will find him their righteous advocate, whose expiatory blood cleanses them from every sin. On this interpretation we are brought to and much the of same point viewwho as that of Augustine Bede, Calvin andofBeza, understand by “the whole world” “the churches of the elect dispersed through the whole world”; and by the declaration that Jesus Christ is “a propitiation for the whole world,” that in his blood all the sins of all believers throughout the world are expiated. When the assumptions on which this view of the passage is founded are scrutinized, however, they cannot be said particularly to commend themselves. John is certainly addressing a specific body of readers, and no doubt has them quite distinctively in mind when he speaks to them in the tender words, “My little children, I am writing this to you, that ye sin not.” But the affirmations he makes do not seem to be affirmations applicable only to them, or to be intended to be understood as spoken only of them. This is already apparent from his identifying himself with them in these affirmations. “We have an Advocate,” he says; “he is a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only.” If it is not impossible that he means only “you and I,” “for your and my,” with the strictest confin ement of the “you” and “your” to those he was immediately addressing, it is nevertheless very unlikely that this is the case. He appears, on the contrary, to be reminding them of universal Christian privileges, in which they and he shared precisely for the reason that they were universally Christian. In that case the “we” and “our” refer to the whole Christian community—“we Christians” have “our, namely Christians’” sins; and “the whole

71


world” is brought in some way into contrast with the Christian body as a whole. The strength of the assertion of universality in the contrasted phrase—“but also for theshould wholethe world”—falls in such with this appearance. Why Apostle with emphasis—why should he at all— assure his readers that the privileges they enjoyed as Christians—in common with him because they were both Christians—were also enjoyed by all other Christians—by all other Christians throughout the whole world? Would it not be a matter of course, scarcely calling for such explicit assertion, that other Christians like themselves enjoyed the benefits of the expiatory death of their Lord? That was precisely what it was to be a Christian. It is not surprising accordingly that the greater number of the commentators agree that the “we” of our passage is the whole body of believers, with which “the whole world” is set in contrast. That carries with it, of course, that in some sense our Lord is declared to have made propitiation not only for the sins of believers, thought of by John as actually such, but also for mankind at large. If we do not attempt the impossible feat of emptying the conception of “propitiation” of its content, this means that in some sense what is called a “universal atonement” is taught in this passage. The expiatory efficiency of Christ ’s blood extends to the entire race of mankind. It may seem, then, the simplest thing just to recognize that John here represents Christ as by his atoning death expiating all the sins of all mankind—all of them without exception. This is the line of exposition which is taken, for instance, by Bernhard Weiss. “Precisely this passage shows plainly,” he writes, “that the whole body of the

72


world’s sin is covered in the sight of God, that is to say expiated, by the death of Christ.” That this method of expounding the passage is not so simple, however, as it might at first sight appear, is already made clear enough by the remainder of the sentence in which Weiss gives expression to it. It runs: “What brings unbelievers to death is no longer their sin (expiated in the death of Christ), but their rejection of the divinely appointed mediator of salvation.” From this it appears that the expiation of thesins of the world does not save the world. There still remain those who perish: and those who perish, as John contemplated them looking out from the bosom of the little flock of the Church, constituted the immensely greater part of mankind spread out to his view, in one word just “the world” of which he is in the act of declaring that its sins are expiated in the blood of Christ. John speaks of this expiation as a great benefit brought to the world by Christ, or, to put it in its true light, as the great benefit, in comparison with which no other benefit deserves consideration. Yet it would puzzle us to point out of what benefit it is to the world. The world, to all appearance, remains precisely as it was before. It is very clear that the world was not conceived by John as a redeemed world. We are not to love it, nor the things in it. We are rather to renounce it, as an inimical power. Nay, John declares roundly that the whole world—this whole world which we are invited to think of as having had all its sins expiated by the blood of Christ—“lieth in the evil one.” It is difficult to understand how a world all whose sins have been, and are continually as they emerge being—for that is the force

73


of the representation—washed away in the blood of Christ, can still be lying in the evil one; that is to say, as A. Plummer expounds this declaration, still “remains in the power” ofdone, the evil “has into not passed as Christians have outone, of death life; butover, abides in the evil one, who is its ruler, as the Christian abides in Christ.” What we are asked to believe is nothing less than that the John who places the world and Christian in directly contrary relations to Christ, nevertheless in our present passage places them inprecisely the same relation in Christ. Nor is it easy to understand what can be meant by saying that men, all whose sins, as they occasionally emerge (“and he is,” not was, “a propitiation”) are covered from the sight of God by the death of Christ, nevertheless perish; and that because of rejection of the divinely appointed mediator of salvation. Is not the rejection of Jesus as our propitiation a sin? And if it is a sin, is it not like other sins, covered by the death of Christ? If this great sin is excepted from the expiatory efficacy of Christ’s blood, why did not John tell us so, instead of declaring without qualification that Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the whole world? And surely it would be very odd if the sinof rejection of the Redeemer were the only condemning sin, ina world the vast majority of the dwellers in which have never heard of this Redeemer, and nevertheless perish. On what ground do they perish, all their sins having been expiated?

 





The expedient made use of by many commentators in their endeavor to escape from this maze of con-

74


tradictions is to distinguish between Christ as our “Advocate” and Christ as our “Propitiation,” and to connect actual salvation with him only in the former function. Thus Richard Rothe tells us that “the tiation in Christ concerns the whole world,” butpropi“only those in Christ have an advocate in Christ,” with the intimation that it is Christ’s advocacy which “makes the efficacy of his propitiation effective before God.” In this view the propitiation is conceived as merely laying a basis for actual forgiveness of sins, and is spoken of therefore rather as “sufficient” than efficacious—becoming efficacious only through the act of faith on the part of the believer by which he secures Christ as his Advocate. This is the view presented by B. F. Westcott also, according to whom Christ is advocate exclusively for Christians, while he is a propitiation for the whole world. His propitiatory death on earth was for all men; his advocacy in heaven is for those only who believe in him. Here, there is a universal atonement taught, with a limited application, contingent on actual faith: “the efficacy of his work for the individual depends upon fellowship with him.” It is obvious that such a view can be held only at the cost of emptying the conception of propitiation of its properly expiatory content, and shifting the really saving operation of Christ from his “atoning” death on earth to his “intercession” in heaven. Westcott carries out this whole program fully, and by a special doctrine of “sacrifice,” of “blood” and its efficacy, and of “the heavenly High Priesthood of Christ” systematizes this point of view into a definite scheme of doctrine. No support is given this elaborate construction by John; and our present passage is enough to shatter the foun-

75


dation on which it is built, in common with many other constructions sharing with it the general notion that the atonement is to be conceived as universal while its application particular, and world that we may therefore speak of the is sins of the whole as expiated while believers only enjoy the benefits of this expiation. The “advocacy” of our Lord is indeed based on his propitiation. But it is based on it not as if it bore merely an accidental relation to it, and might or might not, at will, follow on it; but as its natural and indeed necessary issue. John introduces the declaration that Christ is—not “was,” the propitiation is as continuous in its effect as the advocacy—our propitiation, in order to support his reference of sinning Christians to Christ as their Advocate with the Father, and give them confidence in the efficacy of his advocacy. The efficacy of the advocacy rests on that of the propitiation, not the efficacy of the propitiation on that of the advocacy. It was in the propitiatory death of Christ that John finds Christ’s saving work: the advocacy is only its continuation—its unceasing presentation in heaven. The propitiation accordingly not merely lays a foundation for a saving operation, to follow or not follow as circumstances may determine. It itself saves. And this saving work is common to Christians and “the whole world.” By it the sins of the one as of the other are expiated, that is to say, as Weiss wishes to express it in Old Testament forms of speech, are “covered in the sight of God.” They no longer exist for God—and are not they blessed whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered, to whom the Lord will not reckon sin? It is idle to talk of expounding this passage until we are ready to recognize that according to its express as-

76


sertion the “whole world” is saved. Its fundamental assumption is that all those for whose sins he is—is, not “was”—the propitiation have in him anAdvocate with the Father, prevailingly presenting “righteousness” to the Father and thereby securing his their salvation.

 





This is, of course, universalism. And it is in determining the precise nature of the universalism that it is, that we arrive at last at John’s real meaning. In declaring that Jesus Christ is a propitiation for the whole world, John certainly does not mean to assert that Christ has made expiation for all the sins of every individual man who has come or will come into being, from the beginning of the race in Adam to its end at the last day. Baumgarten-Crusius seems to stand almost alone in expressly emphasizing the protensive aspect of the “world”; and he does it in order to avoid admitting that John means to present Christ as the Savior of the whole world extensively considered. Johnmeans only, he says, that Christ is a Savior with abiding power for the whole human era; all through the ages he is mighty to save, though he saves only his own. It is much more common silently to assume that by “the whole world” John has in mind the whole race of mankind throughout the entire range of its existence in time: few have the hardihood openly to assert it. It is ordinarily taken for granted (Huther is one of the few who give it explicit expression) that “John was thinking directly of the ‘world’ as it existed in his time.” Huther indeed adds the words: “without however limiting the idea to it,” and thus suggests that John was thinking of the

77


“world” protensively as well as extensively, without explicitly saying so. Clearly in any event it would be impossible to attribute to John teaching to the effect that Christ’s work only those who happened to expiatory be living in his concerned own—or John’s—generation. This would yield a conception of the range of the propitiatory efficacy of our Lord’s death which can be looked upon only as grotesque. Yet there is nothing in John’s language to justify the attribution to him of a protensive conception of “the whole world” in the sense of the universalists. It seems quite clear that, by “the whole world,” he means primarily the world extensively conceived. It is equally clear, however, that he means neither to confine the efficacy of Christ’s blood to his own generation, nor to maintain that the entirety of contemporary humanity was saved. He knew of those not of his own time who were saved; he knew of children of the devil in his own day. There is a protensive element in his conception of the world. It is however of its protension in the future rather than in the past that he is thinking. He sees the world not only lying on every side of him in space, but very especially as stretching out before him in time. The contrast between it andthe little flock of Christians includes thus a contrast of times. The interpretation of our passage has suffered seriously from a mechanical treatment of its language. We must permit to John the flexibility customary among men in the handling of human speech. When he speaks of Christ as a propitiation “for the whole world,” we cannot either confine his language rigidly to the world of his own day, or expand it with equal rigidity to the extremest limit of the possible connotation of the

78


phrase. He is certainly intending to present Christ as a world-wide Savior by whom nothing less than the world is saved; but it does not follow that he means to affirm that therefore no He single man of allthinking who ever in the world is omitted. is obviously inlive the terms of the great phrase he is himself a little later to use, when he declares that the Father has sent the Son “as Savior of the world.” To him Jesus Christ is very expressly the Savior of the whole world: he had come into the world to save not individuals merely out of the world, but the world itself. It belongs therefore distinctly to his mission that he should take away the sin of the world. It is this great conception which John is reflecting in the phrase, “he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but for the whole world.” This must not be diluted into the notion that he came to offer salvation to the world, or to do his part toward the salvation of the world, or to lay such a basis for salvation that it is the world’s fault if it is not saved. John’s thinking does not run on such lines; and what he actually says is something very different, namely that Jesus Christ is a propitiation for the whole world, that he has expiated the whole world’s sins. He came into the world because of love of the world, in order that he might save the world, and he actually saves the world. Where the expositors have gone astray is in not perceiving that this salvation of the world was not conceived by John—any more than the salvation of the individual—accomplishing itself all at once. Jesus came to save the world, and the world will through him be saved; at the end of the day he will have a saved world to present to his father. John’s mind is running forward to the completion of his saving work;

79


and he is speaking of his Lord from the point of view of this completed work. From that point of view he is the Savior of the world. Conceptions like those embodied in the Parables of the Mustard Seed and the Leaven lay at the back of John’s mind. He perfectly understood that the Church as it was phenomenally present to his observation was but “a little flock.” He as perfectly understood that it was after a while to cover the whole world. And therefore he proclaims Jesus the Savior of the world and declares him a propitiation for the whole world. He is a universalist; he teaches the salvation of the whole world. But he is not an “each and every” universalist; he is an “eschatological” universalist. He teaches the salvation of the world through a process; it may be— it has proved to be—a long process; but it is a process which shall reach its goal.3 It is not then “our” sins only which Jesus has expiated—the sins of the “little flock,” now living within the range almost of John’s physical vision. He has expiated also the sins of “the whole world”; and at the end, therefore we shall be nothing less than a world saved by him. The contrast between the “our” and “the world” in John’s mind, therefore, is at bottom the contrast between the smallness of the beginnings and the greatness of the end of the Christian development. And what his declaration is, at its core, is thus only another of those numerous —prophecies, shall we say? or assertions?—which meet us throughout the apostolic teaching, of the ultimate conquest of the world by Christ. Christ, he tells his “little flock,” is the “propitiation for our sins”; in him “we” have found a full salvation. But he is not willing to stop there. His glad

80


eyes look out on a saved world. “And not for ours only,” he adds, “but also for the whole world.” We are a “little flock” now: tomorrow we shall be the world. We areend. butAnd the beginnings: salvation the Christ world is the it is not thisthe only, but that,ofthat has purchased with his precious blood. The light that is perceptible now only within the narrow limits of the “little flock” has in it a potency of illumination which no bounds can confine: it, “the real light,” is “already shining”—and before it John sees “the darkness” already “passing away.” It is not merely a world-wide gospel with which he knows himself entrusted: it is a world-wide salvation which he is called to proclaim. For Jesus Christ is the Savior not of a little flock merely, but of the world itself: and the end to which all things are working together is nothing other than a saved world. At the end of the day there will stand out in the sightof all a whole world, for the sins of which Christ’s blood has made effective expiation, and for which he stands as Advocate before the Father.4

1

Edited from The Expositor, 21 (1921): 241-253. Benjamin BreckinridgeWarfield (1851-1921)was Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Western Theological Seminary (1878-87), then Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary (1887-1921). He authored scores of articles and numerous books. J. E. Meeter, ed., The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield contains ten volumes of his selected writings.

81


Editor’s note: We should note that the problems inherent in this passage still plague evangelical commentators today. For instance, Colin G. Kruse expresses histhe despair: “While we can Jesus Christ being atoning sacrifice ‘forsay the what sins of the whole world’ does not mean, it is more difficult to say what it does mean, for the author gives us no clues.” Colin G. Kruse, The Letters of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 75. If only commentators would consult Warfield’s resolution to the problem! 3 Editor’s note: As a true postmillennialist, Warfield’s system includes a lengthy period of incremental advance by the kingdom of God in history. Consequently, he is opposed to the popular doctrine of the imminent return of Christ. Elsewhere he cites favorably,various authors who declare the modern Church as the Church still in her infancy: “A truth much too often forgotten, which has its application to our subject, too, is enunciated by William Temple, Foundations: A Statement of Christian Belief in Terms of Modern Thought (London: Macmillan, 1913), p. 340 note: ‘The earth will in all probability be habitable for myriads of years yet. If Christianity is the final religion, the church is still in its infancy. Two thousandyears are as twodays. The appeal to the “primitive church” is misleading; we are the “primitive church....”’ Cf. James Adderley, The Hibbert Journal, July, 1914 (12:4): 765: ‘Butwe must remember that Christianity is a very young relig ion and that we are only at the beginning of Christian history even n ow.’” 4 Editor’s note: For further elucidation of this passage from a Warfieldian perspective, seemy exposition in Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (2d. ed.: Tyler, Tex.,: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 272-77.

82

 

         

1







 eschatological debate betweenamillennialists

and postmillennialists in the reformed camp has been taking a new turn of late. Whereas amillennialists of the recent past (e.g., Hoekema and Berkouwer2 ) concentrated more on the formal eschatological (i.e., prophetic) statements of Scripture in rebutting postmillennialism, contemporary (e.g. Gaffin, Strimple, and White 3 ) areamillennialists pressing the basic soteriological revelation. Though both amillennialists and postmillennialists (largely) agree with Geerhardus Vos on the eschatological nature of salvation and the redemptive-historical structure of history,4 the differences between our visions remain. Amillennialists still maintain a decidedly pessimistic expectation for the church’shistoricalexperience before the second advent, whereas postmillennialists urge a robust optimism. As I indicate elsewhere5 the particular nature of this pessimism must be understood as presented in the debate. Obviously, all evangelical perspectives are ultimately optimistic: the righteous will be eternally

83


blessed and the wicked forever doomed on judgment day. Nevertheless, historical pessimism characterizes the amillennial outlook in holding that: Our Spirit-empowered labors never in worldwide revival, 6 gospel the forces of will Satan willresult always claim the majority of the human race,7 our promotion of God’s word will not effect a cosmic cultural renewal,8 and our future is destined to collapse into horror.9 Thus, amillennialism is pessimistic when looking at historical results and when compared to postmillennialism. The recent amillennial emphasis on Christian suffering in history underscores the postmillennialist’s pessimism charge in this regard. For instance, R. Fowler White’s important article in the Fall 2000 issue of The Westminster Theological Journal well illustrates the matter for us. He opens with scholarly citations highlighting the moral decline our culture is enduring. And he does so in order to reflect upon the perplexing question of “the victorious reign of Christ and his church” in light of such conditions—which conditions amillennialists deem a permanent and “ironic” feature of pre-consummational history. Before I engage the debate I must express my deep appreciation for White’s clear, fair, and perceptive article. Over all, he presents an accurate portrayal of my postmillennial writings and those of Bahnsen and North.10 In the process he makes some important advances on Gaffin and Strimple’s suffering argument. Their concern was to show that the church is called to suffer as a matter of her union with Christ; and so they explain and emphasize the reality of Christ’s present victorious reign despite our suffering. White suggests that the suffering argument needs to be “re-

84

Chapter 4: Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist

focused and elaborated” upon (White, 167) because it has been “insufficiently or inconsistently applied” (176), therefore requiring “a fresh elucidation” (White, 168). He urges more ofthat the church in considering addition to that ofclosely Christ.the He victory suggests the church victoriously reigns with Christ as she faithfully endures her earthly trials (White, 167, 168, 174). Highlighting the differences, White summarizes Strimple’s argument as teaching that “inaugurated eschatology comes across as ‘victory now for the One (Christ) and not yet for the many(the church)’” (White, 167). Over against Gaffin and Strimple, White insists “the church’s present victorious reign is not merely in principle” (White, 175). He does not discount Strimple or Gaffin, but transforms the negative argument into a positive one, while correcting some deficiencies in Strimple (White, 167, 168). Unfortunately, as this factor of the debate illustrates, postmillennialism is the easiest eschatological option to misconstrue.11 Too often faulty hidden presuppositions taint the arguments, even though the evangelical and reformed critics are seldom aware of these. In this regard I must note up front that postmillennialists do not assert: (1) universalism (not all will be saved at any point in history); (2) perfectionism (the saved are never perfect on earth); or (3) satisfactionism (we do not prefer earthly dominion over consummational glory). If the critics would do a “virus check” for these three latent errors, we could more accurately and fruitfully focus the debate. In this article I will take up White’s admirable concern that “discussion should continue” (White, 175) by briefly responding to the two-fold suffering argu-

85


ment: both Gaffin and Strimple’s “Christ’s Present Victory Despite Our Suffering” argument; and White’s “The Church’s Ongoing Victory Through Her Suffering” Of prohibit course, just White confessesand that spaceargument. constraints his as fuller interaction explication (White, 168, 171-72, 175), so must I. This is not only due to the broad theological implications of the debate, but also my fighting a battle on two fronts: the emphases of both Gaffin-Strimple and White. 12 I hope, however, to show that the postmillennialist largely accepts such a redemptivewhile maintaining eschatological the postmillennial methodology outlook—when the issues are better understood ( i.e. , both the expectations of postmillennialism and the broader nature of suffering).

      Gaffin and Strimple vigorously assert that th e suffering motif (which results because of our union with Christ) contradicts the postmillennial outlook. And in this the recent amillennial textbook by Cornelis Venema concurs. 13 Gaffin is fond of declaring: “the church ‘wins’ by ‘losing’” (Gaffin, 216). He argues that “over the interadvental period in its entirety, from beginning to end, a fundamental aspect of the church’s existence is (to be) ‘suffering with Christ’; nothing , the NT teaches, 14 is more basic to its identity than that.” Strimple boldly declares that Jesus “tells his disciples that in this present age they cannot expect anything other than oppression and persecution” (Strimple, 63).15 White speaks of an “amillennial hermeneutic of persecution” (White,

86


176) noting that the church’s perseverance “despite persecution is her present, indeed her perpetual, supracultural victory in history” (White 162, emphasis mine). Thus, this suffering argument suggests to the amillennialist the impossibility of the large scale elimination of suffering demanded in the postmillennial scheme. In fact, Gaffin denies that our “frustration factor will be demonstrably reduced, and the church’s suffering service noticeably alleviated” (Gaffin, 21415). Indeed, according to Strimple, the postmillennial vision of ameliorated suffering “is out of harmony with the New Testament revelation” (Strimple, 67). How shall the postmillennialist respond? I would urge the following for clarifying both our reformed interpretation of Scripture and our accurate understanding of postmillennialism. 1. Scripture is occasional and historical. That is, we must always recognize that it speaks to real people in their srcinal settings. For instance, may we argue that revelation and prophecy continue today because Paul strongly commands in Scripture: “Therefore, my brethren, desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues” (I Corinthians 14:39)? Is that a universal ecclesiastical expectati on for all times, or an occasional assertion for those times? Surely the latter. Historically, the early church to whom the apostles wrote found herself in the throes of a rapidly expanding and increasingly deepening persecution. Consequently, warnings of persecutional suffering apply to the srcinal recipients in a direct and relevant way. We misconstrue them if we universalize them so as to require the continued persecution of the church

87


until the second advent. Of course, on those occasions in which we are led by God through similar circumstances, the directives and/or princip les would certainly apply. 2. Persecution is serious external oppression. As we reflect on this point in the debate we must bear in mind a vitally important matter: The only kind of suffering that contradicts postmillennialism is suffering rooted in dangerous external threats and oppression (especially when designed to suppress or punish the Christian faith).16 The New Testament era Christians were indeed a suffering people seriously besieged by “threats and murder” (Acts 9:1-2), capital punishment (Acts 7:59; 12:1-2), and imprisonments and beatings (II Corinthians 11:23-25) while being made a “public spectacle” and having their “property seized” (Hebrews 10:32-34). And were these conditions to continue until the end, postmillennialism could not be true. If amillennialists claim the church is under persecutional suffering here in America, then we effectively discount the grievous nature of our early forefathers’ persecution, while exaggerating our own trials.17 And since the end has not yet come, what if our (imperfect but welcome) advantageous conditions were to spread throughout all the world? We know from our experience that Christianity can exist in a large-scale, long-lasting external peace from persecutional suffering. 3. Persecution does not always prevail. Remembering the form of persecution highlighted point in I. 2 above, I am always surprised to hear amillennialists overstate their case when arguing that we as disciples of Christ “cannot expect anything otherthan oppression and perse-

88


cution” (Strimple, 63). H. C. G. Moule well noted what we all know from history: “No attentive observer can doubt that many and many a loving and humble disciple, called tovale,’ lead a‘serves quiet life the Lord in the ‘sequestered hisbefore generation’ with faithful diligence, and passes at last to rest, encountering scarcely one perceptible collision on the way.”18 Strimple’s bold assertion is falsified by the facts of the condition in which he himself lives. Is Strimple suffering in a way proving his point? Are the publishers of The Westminster Theological Journal ? If persecutional suffering is the “fundamental aspect of the church’s existence” of which nothing “is more basic to its identity” (Gaffin, 210-11), then those of us living in America should not be identified with Christ as members of his church! 4. Corporate personality may account for some statements of persecutional suffering. The church is a corporate personality; the “body of Christ” is not “one member but many” (I Corinthians 12:14). The corpus Christi extends through time, so that early believers are our “fathers” (Romans 15:8; I Corinthians 10: 1), the very root of our existence (Romans 11:17). Their struggles should be remembered (e.g., Hebrews 11:32-40). Consequently, the early persecution of believers in antiquity (and the contemporary trials of our brothers in various foreign lands) in a real and important sense is our suffering, for “if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it” (I Corinthians 12:26). The persecutional suffering in muchof church history, then, is a persecution of the body of Christ and a source of sorrow even when the body finally comes to peace in

89


temporal history. The Coliseum is, as it were, our Wailing Wall. 5. Suffering is broader than external oppression and compatible with postmillennialism. As I indicated in my introduction, postmillennialists can affirm suffering-with-Christ as a basic element of our Christian experience even up to the end—when we carefully reflect on the biblical requirements of the suffering argument. 19

The error of the suffering argument as employed in the debate is akin to the Baptist error regarding baptismal mode: Baptists focus on one implication of baptism (death to sin in Romans 6) and then require that that one aspect establish the mode. Whereas baptism is fuller than that, in that it represents union with Christ in all that he does, not just his death and resurrection.20 Likewise persecutional suffering is only one aspect of the church’s suffering-with-Christ. But there

are others: (a) We suffer as fallen creatures enduring physical weakness in this age.In Romans 8:17 Paul argues that if we are his children, then we are “heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him in order that we may also be glorified with Him.” He explains this suffering in the next few verses when he reminds us that “the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope” and that “the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (8:20, 22). Paul is explaining why believers, though “free from the law of sin and of death” (8:2), still suffer “the whole range of the weakness which

90


characterize us in this life,”21 “the whole gamut of suffering, including things such as illness, bereavement, 22 hunger, financial reverses, and death itself.” How can this be? Our glory the future of the body (8:23) byawaits the Spirit of God“redemption” (8:11). We are even too weak to pray as we ought, so the Spirit (who resurrects) intercedes for us (8:26-27). Thus, Paul laments his being in a “mortal body” (Romans 6:12; 8:11), a body subject to corruption and decay (II Corinthians 4:16); he declares that ultimately this “mortality” must put on “immortality” (I Corinthians 15:53-57).23 We suffer in bodies that are mere “earthen vessels” (II Corinthians 4:7), subject to “bodily illness” (Galatians 4:13), “frequent infirmities” (I Timothy 5:23), “sickness to the point of death” (Philippians 1:27). Elders in the church must assist in prayers for healing (James 5:17) because sickness is painful and limiting (Galatians 4:13), “to the point of death” (Philippians 1:27) and may even cause death and its bereavement (John 11:33; Acts 9:36-37). Gaffin and other amillennialists even recognize that “Christian suffering ought not to be conceived of too narrowly,” for it “includes but is more than persecution and martyrdom” (Gaffin, 213). Gaffin speaks of the “breadth” of the Christian conception of suffering which includes the “frustration/ futility” principle and our “bondage to decay.” Indeed, “suffering is everything that pertains to creaturely experience of this death-principle.” “It is the totality of existence ‘in the mortal body’ and within ‘this world in its present form [that] is passing away’” (Gaffin, 214). “Christian suffering is literally all the ways in which this ‘weakness-existence’ (v. 26) is borne, by faith, in the

91


service of Christ—the mundane, ‘trivial’ but often so easily exasperating and unsettling frustrations of daily living, as well as monumental testing and glaring persecution” (Gaffin, 214). White urges us to understand that “the relationship between the church’s victory and suffering in Romans 8 reflects a theologically fundamental consideration” (White, 167). But when we properly analyze the suffering argument, postmillennialists are not confronted with an insurmountable wall. For postmillennialism does not expect the elimination of mortality this side of the resurrection. And so these sufferings due to mortality will continue even at the height of the advance of the gospel.24 These should be borneas Christians, not as “the rest who have no hope” (I Thessalonians 4:13; cf. Ephesians 2:12; James 1:2-4; Titus 2:7). (b) We suffer in a world with the principle of evil present. As regenerate, spiritually(semi-eschatological) resurrected believers, we abhor the sinful tendencies present in ourselves and in others. Paul was torn as he struggled to please God (Romans 7:21-23). He cried out in misery: “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?” (Romans 7:24). As Bruce puts it: “Paul himself knows what it means to be torn this way and that by the law of his mind which approves the will of God, and the law of sin and death which pulls the other way. The Christian, in fact, lives in two worlds simultaneously, and so long as this is so he lives in a state of tension.” 25 Even at the height of the kingdom’s (postmillennial) advance in the world we will suffer temptation due to “the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of riches”

92


(Matthew 13:22). We will always struggle against the “sin which so easily entangles us” (Hebrews 12:1), the “the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life” (I John 2:16). Due to our suffering the temptation to sin within, each Christian must follow after Paul, declaring: “I buffet my body and make it my slave” (I Corinthians 9:27; cp. Romans 8:13; Colossians 3:5). 6. Christ is an example of suffering for us. We discover further evidence of the broad nature of suffering in Christ, our model of suffering. His suffering was not limited to external oppression by rebellious man. Rather, his entire state of humiliation was by definition a state of suffering in which he endured mundane, creaturely pains and sorrows. “Since then the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise also partook of the same” (Hebrews 2:14); he existed in the “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7), in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). Because of his incarnation he was “tempted in what he suffered” (Hebrews 2:18), even being “tempted in all things as we are” (Hebrews 4:15). He wearied (John 4:6), hungered (Matthew 21:18), and sorrowed (John 11:35)—apart from persecution. Our union with Christ in his suffering involves all of these mundane things, not just matters of external assault and trial. And these forms of suffering are compatible with the postmillennial hope. 7. Suffering is contrasted with eternal glory. Even the very height of earthly, postmillennial glory pales in comparison to the “weight of glory” that is ours, and that stirs our deepest longings as sons of God (cf.

93


Philippians 1:23). As recipients of the mysteries of the kingdom of God, Christians experience “the heightened form which our desire for this future [resurrection] state assumes. For it is not to obtain a new body, but specifically to mere obtaindesire it as soon as possible” (cf. II Corinthians 5:1-10).26 What is more, we who know God’s saving mercies deeply desire “the state of immediate vision of and perfect communion with God and Christ” which “the future life alone can bring” with its “perfected sonship.”27 Anything short of perfected sonship is a form of suffering worthy be(Romans compared8:18). with28the glory that is to be“not revealed toto us” Indeed, our very state of mortality is suffering when compared to eternity, for the body is “sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural bod y, there is also a spiritual body” (II Corinthians 15:42-44). As Christians “we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from Go d, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven. While we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (II Corinthians 5:1-2, 4). We are motivated by the fact that Christ “will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory” (Philippians 3:21). Conclusion. Thus, the postmillennialist agrees that we are to “suffer with Christ” until he returns, for we

94


grieve over the sufferings of our forefathers, endure the pains and limitations consequent upon our fallen experience, bemoan our own indwelling sin as well as the sin of the unconverted, earnestly longoffor the eternal glory we will shareand in the presence God. Strimple even recognizes the suffering of Romans 8 involves “sin and all of its consequences,” “all the corrupting consequences of human sin,” not just persecution (Strimple, 61, 106). Earthly suffering involves times of prosperity as well as times of adversity. Even at the height of the kingdom’s earthly development we will always need struggle in order to “seek6:33), first His kingdom and Historighteousness” (Matthew always resisting the temptation to arrogantly declare: “my power and the strength of my hand made me this wealth” (Deuteronomy 8:17).

       I will now reflect briefly on White’s expansions on and enhancements of the amillennial suffering argument. The reader should be aware that by now I have dealt with much of the core concern in his suffering theology, his “hermeneutic of persecution” (White, 176). Nevertheless, his enhancements deserve additional contemplation. Before I begin I must quickly dispatch an erroneous charge he brings against thepostmillennialist. I would not agree that postmillennialists “basically dismiss... as irrelevant” the “church’s perseverance in persecution for understanding her victory” (White, 168), for: (1) How could any evangelical deem the necessity of “perseverance in persecution” as irrelevant? Much of

95


the church’s history has been spent under the grueling fire of persecution. This cannot possibly be dismissed as an irrelevancy. This charge is a sample of an all too frequent tendency affirm to argumentative overstatement. (2) Postmillennialists that anytime the church ispersecuted she must “endure to the end” (Matthew 24:13) for “the testing of [our] faith produces endurance” (James 1:3). We believe that the church must endure persecution when it comes, as an important aspect of “her victory,” as per White (168). But we do not believe that experiencing persecution in all times is a necessary condition her victory, or else cannot be victorious now in of America nor will she she be victorious in heaven . (3) Our apparent dismissal of the suffering motif is due to the point of conflict in the eschatological debate. Postmillennialists necessarily highlight this distinctive difference between our view and the other evangelical eschatological options: our expectation that external persecution must gradually fade away.29 Hence, our placing “at the center of recent interaction” the church’s “future cultural victory” (White, 162). We no more dismiss suffering by not emphasizing it in our writings than Paul dismisses the resurrection of the unbeliever by never mentioning it in his writings.30 Likewise Beale’s emphasis onChrist’s death surely does not effectively “dismiss” his interest in the resurrection (q. v., White, 172, 173). But now I will consider White’s two specific enhancements to the suffering argument: irony in redemption and perseverance as victory. 1. Redemptive Irony White reminds us of the startling means by which God effects his will and blesses his people: He does so by

96


the twin principles of redemptive and retributive irony (White, 170). For instance, Genesis 3:15 serves as a “biblical paradigm” which establishes for us that “the eschatologically moral byup which [God’s] enemies significant would defeat himprinciples would end being the very means by which he defeats them; in addition, the actual results effected by God are the opposite or a greater degree of the results intended by his enemies” (White, 170). In the eschatological debate Genesis 3:15 becomes a “crucial consideration” for demonstrating redemptive irony, i.e., ultimate victory through apparent defeat. In addition, Christ’s New Testament suffering confirms thisironic pattern of victory: “When it comes to our conception of the victory of the church, we see that it follows the ironic principles of Christ’s victory” (White, 175). Ultimately we must recognize that “God is seeing to it that the means by which Satan’s anti-kingdom intends to defeat Christ’s kingdom-church end up being the very means by which the latter defeats the former” (White, 176). The postmillennialist would respond to White’s observations as follows: a. Ironic victory is biblical. Postmillennialists recognize the redemptiveirony principle: Satan’s rebellion against God finally backfires. White has presented a clear, concise, and helpful summary of the principle which I as a postmillennialist appreciate. I agree with his argument—until he draws wrong conclusions. b. Ironic victory is postmillennial. In addition to White’s samples of redemptive irony, the postmillennialist urges an additional irony: the small, persecuted church of the first century shall one day

97


emerge as the universal, dominant church of the last century. We must not “despise the day of small things” (Zechariah 4:10). In fact, Matthew organizes the revelation kingdom in Christ a surprising and th ironic context:of In the Matthew 12:28 proclaimed e presence of the kingdom (the kingdom is present); in 13:53-58 Matthew records Christ’srejection (the kingdom appears to fail). Yet between these two kingdom data, the kingdom parables explain the irony of the kingdom’s method: it grows from a small seed to a great plant (13:31-32); it acts like a little yeast leavening the whole (13:33). The Jewish Messianic fervor expected a conquering Messiah to overthrow the pagan world (e.g., John 6:15; Luke 24:2131 ); the Messiah instead was slain by the pagan world—with a view to his transforming it (Luke 19:10; John 3:16-17; 12:31-32). Thus, Christ’s victory in the first century was “now and not yet,” an unfolding, developmental reality rather than a fullblown imposition; since then he is “waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet” (Hebrews 10:13) though (ironically) they are already subjugated (Ephesians 1:19-22; Colossians 2:15; I Peter 3:22). Though Christ is already the conqueror, “we do not yet see all things subjected to him” (Hebrews 2:8). Whereas in history Satan employs the sword against the church in history, the sword of the Spirit will win the victory—also in history. c. Ironic victory is historical. Each of the irony samples in the “biblical paradigm” from Genesis3:1419 provided by White are historical—except the one that marks the distinction between the postmillennial and amillennial camps (White, 170). Note that: the ser-

98


pent sought to be like the most high, but was brought low—in history. The craftiest creature became the accursed creature—in history. The woman desiredto rule her was to ruled by him—in Man fromhusband, the dust but wanted be like God, buthistory. was brought back to the dust—in history. The serpent sought the woman as his ally, but she became the mother of the righteous conqueror—in history. The serpent subdued man, but the man’s son, the Son of Man, subdued the serpent—in history. The one place this irony parallelism fails is seen in White’s words: “The serpent makes all the woman’s seed into children of the devil; but by the grace of redemptive judgment, God determines to make a division among the woman’s fallen seed, promising to convert a remnant into children of God” (White, 170-71). It appears that the serpent sought the destruction of the human race—and won! God only saves out a “remnant.” This startling failure is actually predicted in the application of White’s form of the irony argument : “the actual results effected by God are the opposite or a greater degree of the results intended by the serpent” (White, 171). Thus, we observe, Satan destroys the great mass of mankind, and God saves “the oppos ite”: a small remnant. Surely this is not the irony God intends. In addition, White argues that the culture impacting victory of God promised in the protoevangelium will not come about in this temporal realm, but awaits the consummational new earth: “[T]he earth will yet be ruled and filled by a righteous immortal seed of man to the glory of God” (White, 171). 32 Over against this interpretation the postmillennialist asserts that God does not give up on history.

99


d. Ironic victory is admitted. But ironically(!) all of this redemptive irony argumentation is admitted by White as irrelevant to resolving his debate with the postmillennialist . “This study makes that the church’s present victorious reign is not clear merely in principle. We can and must talk about the church’s victory in history, whether she ever emerges as the organon of world culture or not” (White, 175, emphasis mine). So then, White’s own analysis of the victory principle— which involves perseverance—may be maintained “whether...or not” the postmillennial scheme is true.

And after all, the postmillennialist asks why should we not expect Christian dominion since we possess “the eschatological, Pentecostal presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the church” (White, 165, citing Gaffin)? 2. Victorious Perseverance Fleshing out the implications of the amillennial “hermeneutic of persecution,” White argues in the final analysis: “through these principles of redemptive irony, then, it becomes clear that and how Christ’s church can be said to be perpetually victorious in history: following the example of Christ, she perseveres in faithfulness despite persecution” (White, 176). He agrees with Beale in urging “that John’s Apocalypse reveals the nature of the church’s present reign. Like Jesus’ initial kingship, the church’s kingship consists now in conquering by maintaining her faithful witness” through trials, overcoming evil powers, subduing sin in the church, and ruling “over death and Satan by identification with Jesus” so that the “church’s endurance, then, is part of the process of conquering” (White 175). Therefore, faithfully enduring in the worldis the exercise of our present victory in Christ.

100


In response I would note: a. Endurance is obvious in the trials of oppression. The postmillennialist wholeheartedly concurs with White that “a fully biblical inaugurated eschatology must recognize that perseverance in faith despite persecution is victory for the church in history” (White, 168). Those Christians who faithfully endured the persecutions of the first (and later) centuries were indeed victorious. For instance, Paul urged the Philippians to understand the inscrutable plan of God, for to them it was “granted” (Gk., echaristhe), “graciously given as a favor for Christ’s sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake” (Philippians 1:29). Paul taught this so that they would “in no way [be] alarmed by your [real, historical, contemporary] opponents” (v. 28) while they experienced “the same conflict” they saw in Paul (v. 30). Paul was quite aware “of his read33 ers’ present, very real, situation.” Truly may we assert that “just as Christ ruled in a eviled way through suffering, so do Christians” (White, 174). But, as I will show, this is not theonly way in which we exercise victory. b. Endurance is historical in the Book of Revelation. White establishes much of his argument (three full pages) on an analysis of Revelation, “the NT book in which the vocabulary and images of victory are the most prominent” (White, 172). And his presentation is almost totally based on G. K. Beale’s commentary. This is unfortunate in that it brings the whole thorny question of Revelation’s proper interpretation into the debate. I would argue that we must understand Revelation as an occasional epistle, a letter to historical churches

101


already “in tribulation” with John (Revelation 1:9).He is alerting them to the very important truth that Christian victory is not one-dimensional, that Christian victory and often does—and in their case will— require can victory through enduring fearsome persecution. Revelation is not a moving picture of all of Christian history, but a snapshot of its beginning; it does not prophesy a state of perpetual persecution, but ministers in a circumstance of particular tribulation (hence Revelation 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10). The early beleaguered, confused, and tempted Christians had to understand that though the kingdom of Almighty God was indeed present ( e.g., Revelation 1:9) and Christ was already “the ruler of the kings of the earth” (Revelation 1:5), the kingdom nevertheless required time for growth and expansion (Matthew 13:30-33; Mark 4:26-29), while Jesus was “waiting” for his enemies to be subdued in time and on earth (Hebrews 10:13). An important point of the Lord’s Parable of the Soils was to warn that trials will come to kingdom citizens, possibly leading to their discouragement and apostasy (Matthew 13:19-22). Revelation is steeling first century Christians for their very real trials, encouraging them to endurance as a form of earthly victory which leads to heavenly glory. c. Endurance is constant in the experiences of life. As I noted above (I. 5) we suffer many trials other than external persecution. Thus, perseverance is a constant obligation for the Christian in all of life’s vicissitudes. Just as it is true that “a fully biblical inaugurated eschatology must recognize that perseverance in faith despite persecution is victory for the church in history” (White, 162), so is it equally true

102


that “a fully biblical inaugurated eschatolog y must recognize that perseverance in faith” despite the temptations of mundane life is victory for the church. Persecution is notinthe only arena forworks” victory(White, . The church must “persevere faith and good 175) always and in every circumstance. Certainly her victorious perseverance is more obvious in the crucible of oppression, but it is not the more remarkable, for defeat lurks in every corner of life. White himself notes our struggle for victory even through the yawning visage of “temptations to compromise, and complacency” in addition to the scowling “face of persecution” (White, 174). He summarizes Beale’s observations noting that even Revelation speaks of overcomers outside the context of persecution, as when the church is “subduing sin in her members’ lives” (White, 175). Perhaps White is indicating an admission of broader victory than persecution when he speaks of persecutional suffering as involving “the church’s endurance” as “part [not the whole] of the process of conquering” (White, 175)? Such an understanding of victory-through-sufferingapart-from-persecution leaves the door open for postmillennialism, when the fires of persecution (cf. II. 1, 2) are extinguished and the choking smoke of oppression is dissipated. In fact, do we not enjoy victory through “successful preaching of the gospel to the nations,” as Strimple argues (see: White, 167)? d. Endurance is overstated in the discussion of eschatology. As glorious and necessary a factor of victory as is perseverance through persecution, the troubling fact is: amillennialists are prone to overstate

103


their case in the context of the eschatological debate. White approvingly cites Beale: “[T]he exercise of rule in this kingdom begins and continues only as one faithfully endures tribulation” (White, 174). “Only”? Doofwe not have victory when safely beyond the raging fires persecution? Are any American church communities living victoriously, though free fromthe lash of thepersecutor? Alternatively, was it not a “defeat” (Gk., ettema) rather than a “victory” for the Corinthians when they went to court against each other (I Corinthians 6:7)? Was it not a shameful failure for them to fall into sin, irrespective of the crush of oppression (I Corinthians 15:34)? Were not the Hebrews failing not only under persecutional trials but also in other more mundane struggles: failing to grow in their knowledge of Scripture (Hebrews 5:11), defiling the marriage bed (13:4-5), entertaining heresy (13:9)—indeed “every encumbrance” (12:1)?

 Perhaps it is true that postmillennialists have not fully engaged the discussion regarding suffering and perseverance (White, 162). But it certainly is not true that the biblical message of suffering and perseverance contradicts the postmillennial hope. Postmillennialists gladly affirm the redemptive irony of God’s victory over Satan. Postmillennialists wholeheartedly agree that the faithful church weathering the storms of persecution is victorious. Postmillennialists unashamedly confess the reality that our state prior to the resurrection is one of suffering. Wedo humbly affirm the “theology of the cross” (Gaffin, 216); but we also heartily rejoice in the “theology of the resurrection.”

104


1

Reprinted by permission and with slight emendation from Westminster Theological Journal 63:2 (Fall, 2001): Kenneth L.Church Gentry,in Jr.,America, Th.D., is and a minister in421-34. the Presbyterian is Research Professor in Theology at Christ College, Lynchburg, VA. He has authored fourteen books (includingBefore Jerusalem Fell, He Shall Have Dominion, and God Gave Wine) and contributed to six others (from publishers such as Zondervan, Greenhaven, and P & R). 2 G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ(Grand RapThe ids: 1972) and Anthony A. Hoekema, BibleEerdmans, and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979). 3 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism,” in Will S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, eds., Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 197-226. Robert B. Strimple, “Amillennialism,” in Darrell L. Bock, ed., Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 81-129 (see also: 58-71). R. Fowler White, “Agony, Irony, and Victory in Inaugurated Eschatology: Reflections on the Current Amillennial-Postmillennial Debate,” Westminster Theological Journal 62 (Fall, 2000): 16176. Hereinafter I will simply cite their last names with page references for documentation. 4 Postmillennialists do not “de-eschatologize” the present (Gaffin , “Theonomy and Eschatology,” 202) nor assume “three ages” (Strimple, 63n). See my chapter elsewhere in the present book. I was relieved to see that R. Fowler White does not bring such charges against postmillennialists (see note 5 in his article). 5 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Greatness of the Great Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen

105


World (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1993), ch. 12. 6 “The church will endure persecution, apostasy, and

the 167). be “The universal sway of the Antichrist” kingdom of(White, God cannot expected from missionary effort alone; it requires the eschatological interposition of God” (Strimple, 65). 7 God’s people will perpetually be a “remnant” (White 166, 169, 171). 8 “Prosperity and blessing for the church are reserved until Christ returns” (Gaffinas cited approvingly by White, 167). before “Jesus nowhere predicts a glorious future on earth the end of the world” (Strimple, 63.) 9 “The forces of evil [will] gather strength, especially toward the end” (White, 167). We should look for “persecution, apostasy, Antichrist...[as] essential elements in the New Testament picture of the last days ” (Strimple, 64). 10 The article does suffer from some slight imperfections which I will note below. 11 My chapter title (“Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist”) is designed as a double entente. As a postmillennialist I frequently find myself in agony over the widespread misinterpretations of my eschatological system. 12 Dr. Gaffin and I recently engaged in a public, formal debate in Elkton, Maryland (April 26, 2001). The video of the debate is available from me at www.kennethgentry.com. 13 Cornelis P. Venema,The Promise of the Future (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000). 14 Gaffin, 211. See my fuller response to Gaffin’s article: Gentry, “Whose Victory in History?,” in Gary

106


North, Theonomy: An Informed Response(Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), ch. 8. There I show that Gaffin’s argument was built on statements of Paul’s personal suffering, rather than on the prophetic outlook regarding the church. 15 Though in the srcinal context Jesus is addressing his first century disciples, Strimple must be apply ing this to us today for: (1) It would be pointless for him to limit the Lord’s statement to the first century in that he is debating me as a postmillennialist regarding the long-range outlook for the church. (2) We today still exist in “this age,” according to Strimple’s (and my) two age eschatological structure. 16 The postmillennialist would not limit such external dangers to a religious pogrom, for we also believe in the eventual cessation of war and the large scale reduction of criminal behavior. But in employing the suffering argument as they do, amillennialists are referring to persecutional suffering. 17 My statement must not be construed to mean that the American condition illustrates the height of the postmillennial glory, as if our condition were all that marvelous. Nor should it suggest my blindness to the genuine suffering of Christians in many places in the world still today. I urge participants to the debate to bear in mind the postmillennial definition: Nowhere does postmillennialism claim that by the year 2003 the full gospel glory shall have been won. Until history ends, postmillennialism cannot be disproved on an analysis of world conditions. In fact, most postmillennialists would agree with Warfield that “the church of the twentieth century [is] still the primitive church,” a church in its infancy. Benjamin B. W arfield, “Are They Few That be Saved?, in Biblical and Theo-

107


logical Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, rep. 1952), 347. See footnote 3 in Chapter 3. 18 H. C. G. Moule, Studies in II Timothy (Grand

Rapids: Kregel, rep. 1977 117.of my response 19 White is familiar with[n.d.]), the basics in this direction (White 168 ¶ 1) but does not interact with it except to express his disappointment in mylack of emphasis on the church’s persevering through persecution. Thus, his concern becomes a matter of emphasis while the essence of my remarks remains unanswered. 20 Christian Baptism John Murray, (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972), 31 (cf. 29-33). 21 John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans(NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965), 1:311. 22 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 511. 23 See also: Romans 8:10, 11, 13, 23; 12:1; I Corinthians 6:13, 15, 16, 20; II Corinthians 4:10; Philippians 1:20; 3:21; Colossians 2:11; and I Thessalonians 5:23. Murray, Romans, 1:220. 24 Although many of these will be lessened by the advances in science and medicine. As Gary North once commented: “If anyone ever speaks longingly to you of ‘the good old days,’ just respond with two words: ‘dentistry.’” 25 F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (TNTC) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963), 151. 26 Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation , ed. by Richard B. Gaffin, (Phillipsburg, N. J.: P & R, 1980), 46. 27 Vos, Redemptive History, 55. 28 The pros in the oukaxis/pros construction signifies comparison.

108

Chapter 4: Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist 29

White is aware that I and other postmillennialists are engaging the debate at the point of conflict, for he cites my statement referring to: “the distinctive postmillennial view of Christianity’s progressive tory, in time and in history [sic], into all of humanviclife and culture” (White, 162). I actually state: “in time and on earth.” 30 Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1930 [rep. 1991]), 216-217. 31 See the Jewish writings Pss Sol 17; 1QSa 2:14, 20; CD 12:23–13:1; 14:19; 4QMessApoc 1:1. See also: W. J. Heard, “Revolutionary Movements,” Michael B. Green, Scott McKnight, and I. Howardin Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1992), 689-91. 32 Postmillennialists do not, of course, deny the final, irrevocable, and absolute dominion associated with the eternal order of the new heavens and the new earth. Rather I would point out that on the amillennial analysis Satan wins the victory in history by destroying the human race, Christ in eternity by redeeming a small portion of it. 33 Gordon D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 170.

109


110

 

          

1





  I noted in the May 2001 edition of the

, postmillennialism is enjoyChalcedon Report ing a remarkable resurgence that has gained the attention of noteworthy evangelical theologians and major Christian publishers.2 Not even d ispensationalists can discount its presence in the eschatological debate any3

more. A sure signnumber of postmillennialism’s vigor is the increasing of rebuttals it renewed is enduring (multi-view debate books and single author responses 4 ). Evidence of its remarkable resilience appears from the shifting debate focus from formal eschatological texts to general soteriological ones.5 This change in strategy by postmillennialism’s detractors amounts to an unspoken concession to its strength. In this chapter I will be defending my presentation of postmillennialism which was published in the Zondervan debate book edited by Darrell L. Bock: Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond (1999). Particularly, I will be responding to Dr. Robert B. Strimple’s amillennial rebuttal in that book. In this

111


CounterPoints book each contributor is allowed a lengthy positive presentation of his position and abrief critique of each of the other contributors’ presentations. Thus, the rebuttals remainend unanswered. Of course, the debate must eventually and the book must be constrained within manageable proportions. But as it turns out, I believe that my arguments have been misunderstood in part and ineffectively responded to in whole by my friend Bob Strimple, Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary, Escondido, California. (To economize space I will be documenting citations from Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond by merely putting the page numbers in parentheses after the quotations.) Before I begin my response to Strimple, I must present two introductory issues essential to the debate. Their significance to my concerns should become obvious when I actually begin my surrejoinder to Strimple.

     Unfortunately, as the heat of the eschatological debate intensifies, too often the light from it diminishes. As I suggest in Chapter 4of this book, postmillennialism is the easiest eschatological position to mis understand in our era and therefore inadvertently to misrepresent. 6 Consequently, we must remind our brothers in the debate of postmillen nialism’s actual claims. In Chapter 4, I caution non-postmillennialists regarding three faulty assumptions that they must avoid when responding to our eschatological system.

112

Chapter 5: Victory Belongs to the Lord

And though few competent theologians would intentionally apply these conditions to postm illennialism, I fear that these sometimes lurk unrecognized in the subconscious. First, postmillennialism neither teaches nor implies universalism. Postmillennialists do not argue that at some point in temporal history each and every individual then living will be saved. Consequently, even at the very height of the postmillennial advance, unbelievers will remain among us, though in a minority status—some as false converts to the faith, others as openly unrepentant resisters. Jesus clearly teaches this in his Parable of the Tares among the Wheat (Matthew 13:30), just before declaring the enormous victory of the faith in all the world (Matthew 13:31-33). This is a part of the “mysteries of the kingdom” (Matthew 13:11): the glorious kingdom of God does not overwhelm the world catastrophically (but grows gradually like a mustard plant and penetrates little-by-little as does leaven) and it will not conquer the world absolutely (but grows to a majoritarian dominance like wheat in the field). Second, postmillennialism neither teaches nor implies perfectionism. Postmillennialists do not argue that at some point in temporal history Christians then living will be perfected. Despite the worldwide victory of the Christian faith, Christians will remain sinners— sanctified sinners, of course, but redeemed vessels of mercy suffering the complications of indwelling sin. Just as no current evangelical church is perfect, neither will an evangelical world be perfect. But if the majority of the human race were conducting themselves as the average church-going, born-again

113


Christian of today , the world would certainly be a differ ent and much better place—despite this lack of perfection. Third, postmillennialism neither teaches nor implies satisfactionism. Postmillennialists do not argue that Christ’s people should prefer temporal, earthly conquest through gospel dominion over eternal, heavenly victory in consummational glory. Any believer with even a modicum of spiritual sanctification and biblical understanding must recognize the surpassing glory that awaits him in the resurrected estate. Then—and only then—will we see God face-to-face, experience the transformation of our bodies from mortality to immortality, enjoy freedom from temptation and sin, live forever in blessed circumstances, and be reunited with our saved loved ones. The glory of Christian dominion in the earth pales in comparison to the glory of resurrection majesty in the new earth. In addition to these three clarifications, postmillennialists endure dissenters reminding us of present world conditions as evidence against our expectations. Consequently, we must insist that our eschatological system be properly defined: nowhere in the definition of postmillennialism do we declare that by the year 2003we will witness the glorious blessings of worldwide gospel conquest. Until the moment the Lord returns postmillennialism cannot be disproved by evidences from cultural decline and social chaos in the world. Who knows how long God will take to effect the glorious transformation? Just as Christians should not doubt the second coming of Christ because it has not occurred yet (II Peter 3:4), neither should evangelicals discount the cultural dominion of Christ

114


because it is not full now. All our system requires is that the world be Christianized before the Lord returns —and we do not know when that will be (Matthew 24:36; Acts 1:7).

      Almost invariably in theological debate we must build our doctrinal case piece-by-piece from the scattered data of Scripture. We must argue from the pieces to the system, from foundational premises to superstructural conclusions, linewho upon line, precept upontoprecept. For instance, anyone has ever attempted prove the case for paedo-baptism orthe doctrine of the Trinity understands the necessity of discursive argumentation. In a bumper sticker world of sound-bite theology this can be frustrating. (Perhaps in the day of the fuller advance of gospel victory, postmillennial prosperity will allow us to drive larger cars with more adequate bumper space.) This method of dogmatic argumentation is so common that I was surprised at the manner in which Strimple rebutted the first two points beginning my postmillennial argument in our CounterPoints book. In my first point I establish the “Theological Foundations of Postmillennialis m,” by notingGod’s “creational purpose,” “sovereign power,” and “blessed provision” (pp. 22-25). I am urging the reader to keep in mind God’s creational purpose for the world, his sovereign power in administering world affairs, and his bestowal of redemptive gifts upon the church in promoting his divine purpose. In my second step I briefly note “The Redemptive-Historical Flow of Postmillennialism” by

115


surveying the “Creation and Edenic Covenants,” the “Abrahamic Covenant,” and the “New Covenant” (pp. 25-31). In that section I “trace [postmillennialism’s] redemptive-historical flow in broad strokes” (p. 25) to show the covenantal nature of redemption and eschatology, as well as their inter-relationship. Strimple sweeps away my introductory notations by complaining that the first section “contributes nothing to the defense of postmillennialism’s fundamental specific contention” (p. 68) and that the second section “at no point establish[es] the specifics of the postmillennial vision” and is “irrelevant as an argument against amillennialism orpremillennialism” (p. 69). This cavalier dismissal is both disappointing and surprising for several reasons. First, in the chapter in which I make these brief observations I am not engaged in “an argument against amillennialism or premillennialism,” as Strimple complains. Rather I am building the positive case for postmillennialism—regardless of the other views. In so doing, I am heeding the srcinal directive of the editor, who informs the reader in his Introduction that “each contributor presents an essay surveying the rationale for his particular view” (p. 8). The editor continues explaining the structure of the book: “Each essay is followed by short responses to raise questions and issues the main essay raised. It is here that the reader will see the differences in readings and views articulated most directly” (p. 8, emphasis mine). Strimple mistakes the purpose of the book’s structure in general, and the flow of my essay in particular. Second, as Strimple admits (pp. 68, 69), I specifically observe in the presentation that “all of this does

116


not prove God wills to win the world through gospel victory” (p. 25)—which is, as Strimple puts it, “postmillennialism’s fundamental specific contention” (p. Why, then, do I bothernothin to provide this material that68). (allegedly) “contributes g” to my argument? As I specifically observe in the next sentence: “But it should dispel any premature, casual dismissals of postmillennialism as a viable evangelical option, thereby paving the way for reconsidering the case for our evangelistic hope” (p. 25). In other words, my first two points forbid any hasty dismissal of postmillennialism as theoretically impossible. And itthat simultaneously discourages the evangelical from arguing postmillennialism is latently liberal in its tendencies. This is an important tactic on my part. My conference and radio interview experience repeatedly confirms the wisdom of my approach, in that I often hear such dismissals. In fact, Strimple is aware of my desire in this direction when he writes in the second sentence of his response to me: “Surely he has laid to rest the charge (too often heard in the past) that the kind of evangelical postmillennialism he advocates rests on liberal, humanist, evolutionist presuppositions” (p. 58). I consider this an important concession in the debate. Therefore, my opening argument does not contribute “nothing” to the discussion. Third, by focusing on issues that neither he nor I deem fundamental, Strimple’s response is distracted from my main argument—and thereforewasted. I urge you, the reader, to note the irony of all of this. In both of these two opening arguments in my positive presentation (covering ten pages) I specifically note that this material is designed merely to “suggest the prima

117


facie plausibility of postmillennialism” (p.22). I comment in this same paragraph that I provide all of this “before actually providing positive exegetical evidence for theI postmillennial position” this statement am preparing the reader (p. for22). my By fundamental exegetical argument in the later section—the section specifically titled “Exegetical Evidence for Postmillennialism,” which consumes twenty-six pages (pp. 31-57) or 250% more space than th e first two points. But what is the “irony” in all of this? Just this: Strimple does not get to my main argument until page 67 of the book where he finally asks: “On what basis does Gentry put forward his postmillennial eschatology?” (p. 67). And his next sentence highlights the irony (and my disappointment): “Because there are so few pages left of the maximum number allotted for this response, my comments can only be sketchy pointers in certain directions” (p. 67). He has consumed almost all of his allotted space before he even gets to my main argument! Actually, here on page 67 he only begins considering my first two introductory points and does not engage my primary “exegetical argument” until page 69—just two pages before the conclusion of his “Response” on page 71. And to make matters worse, half of that material (pp. 70-71) is directed against my view of Revelation 20 of which Strimple himself admits: “Gentry says that he ‘would prefer to leave Revelation 20 out of [his] presentation,’ and he addresses this text only ‘reluctantly’” (p. 70). So then: he effectively deals with my primary, twenty-six page exegetical argument in only one-half page of material (p. 69). My guess is, though, that very few readers

118


will be aware of this problem—such is the attention span of the modern evangelical. Thus, I urge the reader to consider a proper understanding of my position and the discursive nature of theological argumentation. But before I can engage the fundamental issues, I must also briefly respond to some secondary matters embedded in Strimple’s rebuttal of my postmillennialism—the “rebuttal” in which he expends most of his argument (pp. 58-68) on issues other thanmy positive exegetical argument (which he treats on pp. 69-71). I do not consider the follow-

ing to be significant issues in Strimple’s presentation, but neither can I simply pass them bysince some readers might think they are significant.

  In this section I will focus on four issues presented by Strimple. I actually planned on dealing with sev eral others, but space constraints prohibited that. These should well illustrate the type of problems I faced in the debate.

     As the editor notes in his Introduction: “each [contributor] has also been asked to provide a brief history of his view” (p. 8). And though Strimple dismisses this editorial directive,7 I endeavor to give a brief history of postmillennialism from its nascent beginnings in antiquity to its full-blown development in the contemporary debate (pp. 14-22). I believe this is helpful in the modern context in which Christians have little or no appreciation for historical theology and are so enamored with contemporary fads ( e.g. , dispensational novelties).

119


When I arrive at the contemporary status of postmillennialism, I note the theonomically-inclined character of current postmillennial argumentation in 8

Christian Reconstructionism. Embedded in footnote 24 I observe in passing that “the Westminster Standards endorse the theonomic outlook” (p. 20). Strimple takes umbrage at this comment, disputing the theonomic character of the Standards for three pages (pp. 58-60). Although he and I both recognize that this is a side issue in the eschatological debate, 9 it is an important disagreement among the contemporary expressions of the eschatological schools. Consequently, I will make a few brief observations that the reader may find helpful. Strimple notes that WCF 19:4 speaks of the judicial laws as “expired together with the State of that people [Israel]” (p. 59). I would just quickly note: (1) We must determine what “expired” means in the Confessional context , especially given the Confession’s tendency to cite judicial case laws as proof-texts elsewhere. The theonomist believes that the divines were noting that the specific, literal directives have “expired,” that is, we no longer are obligedto stone people to death, provide cities of refuge, build fencing on our roofs, and so forth. After all, the Confession goes on to assert that “the general equity” continues (WCF 19:4). Therefore, the “general equity” of capital sanctions must continue to put murderers to death even though their death is administered in a way different from the old covenant administrative features. (2) Strimple’s citations of contemporary authorities on the matter include Sinclair Ferguson and Meredith Kline. Interestingly, he quotes Ferguson’s statement begin-

120


ning with these rather hesitant words: The statement in 19:4 “is not the natural way of expressing a theonomic view” (p. 59). And he is correct. But it is, nevertheless, one way of introducing a theonomic observation. In Strimple’ s first footnote (p.58) he approvingly cites Meredith G. Kline’s infamous article rebutting theonomy: “Comments on an Old/New Error.” In that article Kline himself admits that theonomy “is in fact a revival of certainteachings contained inthe Westminster Confession of Faith—at least in the Confessi on’s srcinal formulations.”10 (3) I urge the interested reader to consult myfestschrift lengthy chapter “Theonomy and Confession” in the honoring Greg L. Bahnsen. In that chapter I provide abundant evidence for thetheonomic perspective of the Westminster Confession. 11

     On page 61 Strimple warns against the postmillennial expectation of a future dominant influence for Christianity in all areas of human life and culture. He sees this postmillennial hope as diminishing the present victory of Christ (to which I also will turn shortly). He is concerned that all of this will “devalue the blessings Christ is pouring out on his church now by his Spirit” leading us to “fail to appreciate the eschatological nature of the kingdom already inaugurated by Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, and by the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit.” But then he ends this paragraph of concern with the following statement: “And as we do, we may find ourselves insisting that the consummation arrive before its time” (p. 61). Think of the emotional impact of this statement, the danger latent therein: postmillennialists are “insisting that the consummation arrive before its time.”

121


But what in the world does that mean? I have read Strimple’s alarm in its context dozens of times. For the life of me I cannot figure out what he is saying. Yet, it notWho sound dangerous? Are, points beingdoes scored? knows? But with thethen, emotional nature of much eschatological argument, this sort of alarm can seem damaging to postmillennialism. If only I knew what it meant.

     I mentioned above Strimple’s highlighting my Revelation 20 argument his response (p. 70), Idespite my considering it a in non-issue (pp. 50-51). must remind my reader as I broach this issue: I regard this question as a secondary issue (hence the heading of the present section: “Secondary Issues”). Consequently , I will be quite brief. But again, evangelical emotion exaggerates this “problem,” thereby requiring my saying something about it. For instance, see Blaising’s alarm at my (allegedly) “cavalier” treatment (p. 79—but then see my comments on page 240). Complaining that “the reader searches in vain for even one biblical text that explicitly sets forth the postmillennial vision of a golden age,” Strimple then is surprised that I “would prefer to leave Revelation 20 out” of the discussion, because, according to Strimple, it “might have been assumed that Revelation 20...is that text” (p. 70). In response, as I argue in the CounterPoints book (pp. 50-51, 236-55): I simply do not believe Revelation 20 is helpful for establishing an eschatological position. In fact, I believe it is the source of much

122


unnecessary confusion in the debate. Furthermore, postmillennialists are not the ones who created the notion of a “millennium,” so that we must refer to Revelation The discussion of the “millennium” is as old as the20. church itself. If Strimple “assumed that Revelation 20...is that text” which postmillennialism requires, he is simply mistaken. On page 71 Strimple continues highlighting the alleged problem for postmillennialism caused by Revelation 20. He notes (correctly) that I argue that the “millennium” encompasses the whole of the Christian era between the first and second advents. Then he thinks he has found a contradiction: If the “Millennium” in the Bible refers to the entire era between Christ’s first and second comings, on what biblical basis does Gentry use that word to refer to a separate and distinct “time in history prior to Christ’s return,” a time of unprecedented blessing and prosperity? If the “Millennium” in the Bible refers to the entire Christian era, the ‘millennial conditions’ that must prevail before Christ returns would seem to be those conditions that prevail now. (p. 71)

By way of response, please note that nowhere do I state that the millennium is a “separate and distinct ‘time in history prior to Christ’s return.’” Strimple picks up this expression (“time in history prior to Christ’s return”) from my definition of what the postmillennial system teaches (p. 13). Read it carefully. I simply do not speak of a separate and distinct millennium within church history; I believe the “millennium” of Revelation is functionally equivalent to the “kingdom” of the gospels and covers the whole Christian era.

123


In my next sentence, however, I comment that Christ returns “after an era of ‘millennial’ conditions” (p. 14). This is where Strimple thinks I stumble. But please note that I put the term “millennial” in quotation marks. Why? Because I am using it in its commonly accepted sense rather than in its formal meaning; I use it as a figure of felicitous conditions, not as a measure of time.12 My adjectival use of the word did not mean “conditions composing a separate age lasting one thousand years,” but rather, the glorious conditions commonly associated with the concept of the milleni.e. nium, , happiness, peace, prosperity.

     Strimple complains that I do not provide an exegetical argument for postmillennialism. Actually he criticizes my choice of terms in introducing my exegetical argument. On page 69 he writes: Gentry titles the final section of his essay “Exegetical Evidence for Postmillennialism.” Even this section, however, Gentry introduces as follows: “let me turn to some specific passages undergirding and illustrating the glorious expectation” (emphasis added). The reader is left looking in vain for the specific biblical passages that teach it, that prove it!

In response I would note that as expressed this is a semantic quibble. He does not like my use of “undergirding” and “illustrating.” I would gladly change the language by using words more acceptable to Strimple. But I do not see that my expressions are deficient. To “undergird” means “to form the basis or foundation of” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary). Thus, I am attempting to provide foundational

124


arguments for the glorious expectations of postmillennialism. And by “illustrating” them I am using this term’s fourth meaning in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate DictionaryObviously : IllustrateI means “topresent show clearly: demonstrate.” could not the whole formal argument for postmillennialism 13 ; I was constrained by space limitations. So I chose to lay the foundation for and clearly exhibit the position as best I could, given the editorially-impose d constraints. But I must ask: For what purpose did I labor? As I noted above, Strimple deals with my

exegetical argument in only one-half page, while spending the rest of his thirteen page “rebuttal” on other issues .

  Moving on from “Secondary Issues” I will now consider matters regarding inaccuracies in Strimple’s presentation. After this section I will concentrate on “Substantial Issues.”

     First, my comments on Revelation. Returning again to Revelation 20, Strimple argues that I suggest this passage portrays the postmillennial kingdom as “gradually being established on this present earth,” and that I do this “by simply inserting these thoughts, even though they appear nowhere in the text.” He complains that I argue that “the binding [of Satan] will ‘increasingly’ constrict Satan, who ‘ began losing his dominion over the Gentiles’” (p. 70). In frustration he ends his response: “I ask again: Where does this teaching appear in the text?” (p. 71).

125


But this is a wholly inaccurate and exasperating representation of my position as I clearly state it on page 52. Strimple is arguing against a straw man (probably through careless reading rather thanintentional design). He makes it sound as though I “simply insert” the idea of an “increasing” constriction of Satan in Revelation 20, despite the fact John actually presents the binding of Satan as a totally accomplished fact. How can I read Revelation 20 as presenting an “increasing” constraint? To put it simply: I do not . Strimple is mistaken. Note what I actually argue: (1) “In Revelation 20:1-3 John portrays the negative implications of Christ’s triumph over Satan, when ‘the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan’ (v. 2) is spiritually bound [Gk., deo]. This binding restricts him from successfully accomplishing his evil design in history” (p. 52). Where do I say that Revelation 20 presents his binding as “increasing”? Rather, I clearly state that Revelation 20:2 reports that Satan “is spiritually bound.” Period. (2) In the next paragraph I observe that “Christ accomplishes Satan’ s binding judicially in the first century” (p. 52). Note that I clearly st ate that Satan’s binding is accomplished judicially by Christ in the first cen tury. (3) But I then go on to explain the consequences of that judicial action (I am not exegeting Revelation 20:2 ): “the binding increasingly constricts Satan throughout the Christian era ( i.e., the ‘one thousand years’)” (p. 52). I do believe that Satan’s power in the world is being gradually thwarted by the spread of the gospel and as an effect of his judicial binding. But I do

126


not state that Revelation 20 asserts that. This increasing constriction is a consequence of the gradual growth of the kingdom of God throughout the world (e.g.,

Matthew 13:31-33). Were20), Satan legally by God (as per Revelation thisnot could notbound happen. However, Revelation 20 does lay the groundwork for this result by noting that Satan is bound for a particular purpose: “that he should not deceive the nations any longer” (Revelation 20:3). Since he is fully bound so that he cannot “deceive the nations,” the gospel gradually goes forth and secures the nations, thereby increasingly constricting Satan in what he can accomplish. Second, my comments on reduced evil. Strimple seriously misreads the comments I offer on pages 43 and 44 and draws an unwarranted inference that makes my statement appear laughable. He writes (pp. 61-62): Gentry makes the startling statement that the “redeemed world system in thefuture”...will operate “on the basis of righteousness as God srcinally intended it.... Righteousness will prevail and evil will be reduced to negligible proportions” (emphasis added). Is God’s srcinal intention for his creation simply that evil should be “reduced to negligible proportions”?!

Were this the postmille nnial view and I the amillenn ial debater, I would add a few dozen more question marks and exclamation points. But Strimple totally misreads me when he combines clips from my statements. As I indicate above, postmillennialism is neither universalistic nor perfectionistic. Strimple is correct to note that we look for a day in history in which evil will be “reduced to negligible proportions” (p. 44). The problem is that he misunderstands the meaning of my

127


earlier statement where I comment that postmillennialism expects “a world that operates on the basis of righteousness as God srcinally intended it” (p. 43). I would respond by noting my statement to mean “to the that sameStrimple degree,”reads which, if “as” true, would entail perfection. However, I did not mean “to the same degree” (i.e., perfectly) but rather “in like manner” (i.e., consulting the same “basis” of righteousness). That is, just as God created the world to operate on righteous principle (his will), so Christianity will eventually build up a Christian civilization employing that righteous principle (revealed in his law-word). It will be a day when the world system will gladly employ God’s word (the “basis of righteousness”) to all of life, though obviously not to perfection. The ethical basis on which the world operates right now is opposition to God’s will (i.e., on unrighteous principle); the way it will eventually operate (on the postmillennial expectation) will be on the basis of God’s will (i.e., on righteous principle). In addition, I would ask Strimple: “Would you say that Christians operate ‘on the basis of righteousness’ when they attempt to live by God’s word?” The basis of our walk is “righteousness” (the absolute righteousness of God) even though the result of our walk is tainted by sin.

     A more serious problem than Strimple’s misrepresenting my postmillennialism ishis misrepresentinghis own amillennialism. He either overstates his case, or he holds to an historically indefensible position. On page 63 Strimple boldly declares that Jesu s “tells his disciples that in this present age they cannot ex-

128


pect anything other than oppression and persecution.” Read this carefully: disciples of the Lord “cannot expect anything other than oppression and persecution.” Strimple is here speaking of Christians as such , not just the first century disciples, the Apostles. This is evident in that: (1) In the preceding paragraph (p. 62) Strimple is rebutting my postmillennialism: “Gentry writes that Christ ‘will be with [his people] through the many days until the end to oversee the successful completing of the task. This is the postmillennial hope.’” His concern involves my expectation for “his [Christ’s] people,” not just the Apostles. (2) His whole paragraph is presenting insights for “us” today. Two sentences before his overstatement he writes: “Think, for example, of what the Lord Jesus himself has taught us” (emphasis added). (3) In the very next sentence (the one immediately preceding the overstatement) he observes: “Our Lord knows of only two ages, the present age and the age to come.” And Strimple clearly states that Jesus “tells his disciples that in this present age they cannot expect anything other than oppression and persecution.” Thus, Strimple is commenting on “us,” i.e., we who are Christ’s disciples in “this present age.” But is it true that Christians during the entirety of “this present age” cannot expect anything other than persecution? Is Strimple being persecuted? Are you? I know I am not. We must remember that persecution is serious, life-and-death oppression by external forces, not mere teasing, ridicule, and such (see argument below). At least here in America Christians are not under persecution. His theological expectation is falsified by our historical experience.

129


    Due to my own space limitations I must write even more sparinglyofonthe these matters.besetting But theseStrimple’s are clearly symptomatic problems amillennial rebuttal of postmillennialism. First, Strimple complains that postmillennialism pales in comparison to amillennialism. In the last full paragraph on page 61 he provides a brief exposition of our eternal hope in the new heavens and earth. Then in the next paragraph he notes my postmillennial expectation of a “redeemed world system in the future” before Christ’s second coming, wherein “evil should be ‘reduced to negligible proportions.’” His very next sentence states: “If this is ‘the postmillennial hope,’ it contrasts poorly with the amillennial hope” (p. 62). This is astounding! Strimple knows full well that both amillennialists and postmillennialistsagree on the eternal glory that belongs to God’s people. He is comparing apples and oranges; he is contrasting the historical hope of postmillennialists before Christ comes with the eternal hope of amillennialists after Christ comes. And once this problem is rectified, his statement becomes absolutely false, for he argues that in our temporal future we “cannot expect anything other than oppression and persecution” (p. 63), whereas postmillennialists expect a future wherein “righteousness will prevail and evil will be reduced to negligible proportions” (p. 62; see my historical expectations on pp. 22, 48, 49). Now which outlook on our pre -consummational future “contrasts poorly” with the other? Ask any Christian on the street which he believes “contrasts poorly” with the

130


other: an earthly future of only oppression by the unrighteous; or an earthly future of holy dominion for the righteous. Second, Strimple again misunderstands postmillennialism when he argues against it that we “have no enduring city here but look for one to come” (p. 64). What postmillennialist believes that this world will endure forever and that there will be no everlasting glory to come? The very highest advance of Christian culture over all the earth is temporal—it will end with the second advent (see discussion below:“The Dismissal of Christian Suffering.”) Third, Strimple mocks one of my arguments with this parenthetical observation: “So much for literalism!” (p. 65, n33). This, too, astounds me for two reasons: (1) He decries my lack of literalism, but I never claim to be a literalist—at least since I left dispensationalism. (2) In this very book Strimple himself rebukes premillennialists for literalism, when he writes: “Premillennialists insist that such passages are to be taken ‘literally’” (p. 84). Which is it: Should we avoid literalism or endorse it? Strimple’s argument giveth and it taketh away.

     In places Strimple both misrepresents postmillennialism and contradicts himself in the process. For instance, on page 64 after citing II Timothy 3:12-13 he decries postmillennialism: “Persecution, apostasy , Antichrist— these find no place in the postmillennial vision, but they are essential elements in the New Testament picture of the last days.” This simply is not true—as Strimple admits in the very next sentence: “By means

131


of his preterist reading...Gentry tries to assure Christians that the worst days of persecution, apostasy, and the Antichrist are past (except for the brief Satan-led rebellion just before Christ’s secondascoming, which Revelation 20:7-9 seems to require an undigested surd in the postmillennial scheme).” Thus, postmillennialists do find a place for these features; but it happens to be at a different place than where amillennialists assign them. I believe all of the above issues seriously cripple Strimple’s rebuttal of my postmillennialism. But (though it may sound as if I have adopted amillennialism!) the worst is yet to come.

  Having discarded many of the errors in Strimple’s analysis, I now will survey a few of the more substantial issues he brings up in the debate. Some of these will receive fuller treatment, some lesser; this is partly due to some having more weighty implications and others being more easily disposed of.

      Amillennialists are fond of claiming the postmillennial argument is falsified by the New Testament evidence. After citing my definition of postmillennialism, Strimple states: “The New Testament, however, presents a different picture” (p. 60). A couple of paragraphs later he writes: “True, God has promised ‘a time of universal worship, peace, and prosperity’; but the consistent witness of the New Testament is that that time will come only when our Lord Jesus Christ himself has come ‘a second time...to bring salvation to those who

132


are waiting for him’ (Hebrews 9:28)” (p. 61). If the New Testament were opposed tothe postmillennial visionthis argument would certainly destroy it. But is it? In response to Strimple I would urge the following: First, except for my comments on Revelation 20, he does not interact with my New Testament exegesis. At one place he does mention my argument from the Great Commission (p. 62), but he dismisses it by declaring—notrebuttingor proving or counter-arguing— that “Gentry has failed to establish that making disciples of all nations, baptizing them, andteaching them require the fulfillment be in postmillennial terms” (p. 62). (I will treat thi s dismissal under the next heading below.) This is disappoi nting, for on pages 38 through 55 I argue at length from the New Testament material, analyzing Matthew 13 (pp. 38-40), John 12:31-32 (pp. 41-44), Matthew 28:18-20 (pp. 44-48), I Corinthians 15:20-28 (pp. 48-50), and Revelation 20 (pp. 50-55). But though Strimple provides his own analysis of other portions of the New Testament, he does not respond to my New Testament exegetical argument . This is disappointin g, as I said. And especially in that if you consult my Response to Strimple (pp. 130-142) you will note that I directly engage his positive presentation: (1) In my Response’s first section (“Commendations and Appreciation”) I note that I agree with much of Strimple’s theological understanding of eschatology, which he presents in his essay on pages 84-100. I write: “I was particularly impressed with his presentation of Christ as the fulfillment of the typology of Israel, the

133


land, Jerusalem, David, and thetemple.” Consequently, no rebuttal is called for on these matters of agreement. (2) In my Response’s second section (“General Differences and Shortcomings”) I briefly note of several of Strimple’s biblical arguments—his treatment of Isaiah 2, Psalm 2, and I Corinthians 15—that he stops short of the exegetical drift of these texts and that my fuller exegesis demonstrates these passages support postmillennialism (pp. 131-32). Therefore, I refer you to my essay which deals more fully with several of the texts he brings into the discussion. Notice the difference of our depth of discussion. (3) In his opening essay he arrives at his final, most important arguments, titling that section: “Two Passages Considered Crucial by Millennialists” (pp. 112-29). Those two passages are Romans 11 and Revelation 20. On pages 133-42 I provide an in-depth, point-for-point rebuttal to his six page exegesis of Romans 11 (which he gives on pages 112-18). And for a proper understanding of Revelation 20 I refer the reader to my own opening essay (pp. 50-55) and to my detailed reply to Blaising (pp. 236-54). In our theological battle, it seems, Strimple fires into the air while I fire at his advancing arguments. Second, Strimple’s Response offers New Testament passages which he deems contra-indicative to my postmillennialism, many of which deal with suffering. But as I will show later, these passages fit easily within the postmillennial framework— when properly interpreted. And if they fit well within our eschatological framework, they obviously do not harm the postmillennial argument. His method in countering the

134


postmillennial hope is somewhat like attempting to disprove the deity of Christ by pointing out verses that speak of his humanity,his mortal weaknesses, his death, and so forth, whilepositively omitting to a consideration of those passages pointing his deity. His argument is partial and inconclusive. Consequently, it appears largely to be wasted.

      On page 62 Strimple briefly alludes to my exposition of Matthew 28:18-20, which I believe forms a positive proof for the postmillennial hope. Unfortunately, he simply sweeps away my four page presentation by declaring: “Gentry has failed to establish that making disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them require the fulfillment be in postmillennial terms” ( p. 62). This sweeping assertion is remarkable both in that it so quickly dismisses one of my major exegetical arguments without even offering a contrary exegesis, and in that it does so in a self-destructive way. Let me explain. Postmillennialism notes that the Great Commission is given by the resurrected Lord on the basis of his redemptive victory, declaring that he now has “all authority in heaven and on earth.” Thus, the Commission is clothed with universal authority. The Commission also employs kingly authority in commanding us actually to make disciples ofall the nations, baptizing them and instructing them in all that Christ teaches. Then it closes with a promise of the very presence of the authoritative Lord with us to see that we successfully engage this commissioned program. Everything about the Great Commission breathes thearomatic fragrance

135


of universal victory and dominion: the authority for victory, the command to victory, and the presence of the Victor insure its accomplishment. Now notice how quickly Strimple dismisses all of this—and in a self-destructive way. Strimple writes that Gentry: ...implies that only the postmillennialist believes that the task given the church by her risen Lord will be successfully completed. Not so. Amillennialists (and premillennialists) certainly believe that this age will not end until the Lord’s purposes are fulfilled. But Gentry has failed to establish that making disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them require the fulfillment be in postmillennial terms. (p. 62)

Read his comments for yourself. He claims he believes “the task” of the Great Commission will be “successfully completed” and that “this age will not end until the Lord’s purposes are fulfilled.” If “the task” is “successfully completed” and “the Lord’ s purposes are fulfilled,” we must ask what is “the task” and what are the “purposes”? Strimple himself emphasizes our task as actually “making disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them” (p. 62). If the church is to successfully baptize and discipleall nations, why does this not prove postmillennialism, which expects just these results in distinction from amillennialism?

And when he complains that Gentry “has failed to establish that making disciples of all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them require the fulfillment be in postmillennial terms,” we must ask what are the amillennial terms for discipleship and baptism? If it is

136


anything less than the “successful” baptizing and discipling of all nations, then it is less than what Jesus commands. Does Strimple expect “all nations” to be baptized? Strimple stumbles, when he being effectively equates merely leavingIabelieve, “witness” with baptized and discipled (as per the Great Commission). For in this paragraph on page 62, immediately following remarks about “making disciples,” Strimple cites Matthew 24:14. But this verse only calls for preaching the “testimony” to the world. “Testifying” and “discipling” are two different activities: testifying is the point, when discipling the conclusion; testifying beginning is accomplished menhear ; discipling results when men respond ; a testimony is declared to those outside the church; “making disciples” is administered to those inside the church (for the discipled nations are “them” whom the church is “b aptizing,” Matthew 28:19).

    I come now to a set of major, inter-related issues that reformed amillennialists employ to discredit the postmillennial system and which add up to one thing: Our alleged failure to understand the various features of biblical eschatology . This failure resulting from ignorance of biblical eschatology is supposedly inherent in the postmillennial system, the system held by such competent theologians as Jonathan Edwards, Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, Albert Barnes, David Brown, Patrick Fairbairn, J. A. Alexander, J. H. Thornwell, Robert L. Dabney, William G. T. Shedd, A. A. Hodge, Augustus H. Strong, B. B. Warfield, O. T. Allis, and John Murray.

137


The errors charged are serious, for they directly and deeply impact the very nature of the New Testament’s eschatological focus. Strimple (and many amillennialists) charges that I (and postmillennialists): (1) do not take account of the eschatological nature of the New Testament revelation, (2) distort the two age structure of biblical revelation, (3) overlook Christ’s present kingship, and (4) discount his present victory in effect since the resurrection/ascension. These are effectively different facets of the one over-arching matter, i.e., that the New Testament brings in the victorious eschaton. If these charges are true, postmillennialism is false. If. Although these four items are really various ways of looking at the same problem, I will deal with them in a seriatim fashion, introducing each charge and immediately responding to it. By the nature of the case, however, they really form one problem. As I interact with Strimple on this problem, I will be correcting his misperceptions of postmillennialism—misperceptions I warn about in my Introduction above, when I write: “postmillennialism is the easiest eschatological position to mis understand in our era and therefore inadvertently to misrepresent.” First, postmillennialism allegedly does not take account of the eschatological nature of the New Testament. In his Rebuttal, Strimple expresses his concern that if postmillennialism speaks of victory in terms of gradually developing, wide-ranging cultural conquest, then “we may fail to appreciate the eschatological nature of the kingdom as already and fully inaugurated by Christ’s resurrection and exaltation” (p. 61).

138


My response: I believe Strimple errs in raising this issue in the present context of our debate book: (1) I specifically and vigorously argue for the fundamental

point of the present the eschatological kingdom and the arrivalreality of theofeschaton. Regarding I Corinthians 15, I state on page 48: “Here Paul speaks forthrightly of Christ’s present enthronement and insists he is confidently ruling.” Of I Corinthians 15:25 I assert: “Here the present infinitive for ‘reign’ (Gk., basileuein) indicates he is presently reigning. Christ is now actively ‘the ruler over the kings of the earth’ and ‘has us to be ahim kingdom of and priests to serve his God made and Father—to be glory power for ever and ever’ (Revelation 1:5-6).” (2) In fact, postmillennialism requires the presence of the eschatological kingdom, for with it comes the Spirit and the gifts which guarantee the historical success of the unfolding victory—as I argue on pages 23–25 under the heading “God’s Blessed Provision.” The whole point of the New Testament is to show Christ has come in fulfillment of Old Testament expectation, that he has effected redemption, and that he has established the kingdom—all of these being eschatological realities. And just because this is true, postmillennialism sees a brighter day developing in history. Indeed, the new creation has come in principle in Christ (II Corinthians 5:17; Galatians 6:15), actually beginning the process of ethically transforming the old creation, as I argue from Isaiah 65:17-20 in my Responses 14 to Strimple (p. 131) and Blaising (pp. 233–36). Second, postmillennialism allegedly distorts the two age structure of biblical revelation. Strimple argues against postmillennialism that “our Lord knows of only

139


two ages, the present age and the age to come” (p. 63). In his footnote he explains how this contradicts postmillennialism: “Postmillennialism seems to posit three ages: thedefinition present evil age, a future age (see Gentry’s reference to ‘a ‘golden’ time in history prior to Christ’s return in which...’), and the ‘age to come,’ of which the New Testament speaks” (p. 63, n 8). My response: (1) Actually, I wholeheartedly concur with the two age structure of biblical eschatology, as carefully outlined in Geerhardus Vos’ construction of redemptive history along these lines.15 In fact, I vigor-

ously urge this in my Response to Blaising’s premillennial essay where I outline some problems with the premillennial scheme, one of which is their expectation of a “future appearance of the fulnessof Christ’s kingdom in an age (dispensation) separate and distinct from the present era, despite this present era being the ‘last days’ (Acts 2:16-17, 2416 ), the ‘fulness of times’ (Galatians 4:4). If these are the ‘last days,’ how can more days follow in a whole new era?” (p. 255).

And Strimple should know this for I point it out in my opening essay in my exegesis of I Corinthians 15: “As Paul is then in the first century, so are we now in our day awaiting the eschatological coming of Christ and our resurrection.... At his second coming history is over in that the resurrection occurs at ‘the end’; there will be no millennial age on the present earth to follow” (p. 48). I do this on more than one occasion: “Isaiah indicates the ‘last days’ will be the era witnessing these things—not some eraafter the last days: ‘in the last days’ (v. 2) means ‘during.’ According to the New Testament the ‘last days’ begin with the coming of Christ in the first century. They cover the

140


remaining days of temporal history until the Second Coming of Christ, which will be ‘the end’ (I Corinthians 15:24; cp. Matthew 13:39-40, 49). Hence, they are the last days—with none to follow.” (p.age 36).that Thus, vigorously argue that we are now in an con-I tinues until Christ returns; there is no separate age wherein the millennial conditions await us. (2) Furthermore and oddly enough, I could turn Strimple’s argument upon him, were I to employ his argumentative methodology (which prefers seeking theological-implications from my presentation rather responding to my express-affirmations). Let me explain. Strimple strongly urges a two age structure of history. And only two ages. But he sees in the postmillennial expectation of cultural victory an implied third age. Remember, he argues that “Postmillennialism seems to posit three ages: the present evil age, a future ‘golden’ age..., and the ‘age to come’” (p. 63, n 8). I have already shown the charge that postmillennialism suggests a separate age is mistaken. But what if we turn the tables on Strimple and employ his methodology against him? I believe I can as easily demonstrate that he holds a three age view from hisown express-affirmations, as he can by implication from my eschatology. How so? Recalling what I state in the preceding paragraph, let us note what Strimple himselfbelieves.17 Strimple vigorously asserts: “our Lord knows of only two ages, the present age and the age to come” (p. 63). He continues in that same paragraph to note that “this age” is “thepresent age, thisevil age.” Thus, all of history is “the present age,” whereas Christ’s second coming establishes the second age,“the age to come” (as Strimple agrees, p. 63). But now

141


questions arise regarding this simple, two age structure. And when we raise them they can as easily imply more than two ages as does postmillennialism (allegedly) on Strimple’s theological critique. Consider the following theoretical charges against Strimple. (a) Strimple’s system theoretically implies that Christ’s first coming establishes another “age” distinct from that which prevails in the Old Testament and from that which will be established at his second coming. After all, does Christ’s coming to establish the eschatological kingdom effect any difference in the outworking of the historical order, as compared to the time (age?) before the coming of the kingdom? Surely it does. It establishes a remarkably different redemptivehistorical reality:Now the gospel is no longer confined to one nation but goes intoall the world;now Satan is cast down and Christ enthroned in triumphant victory. Remember that Strimple argues that postmillen nialism’s hope of a remarkable betterment of the world because of the progress of the gospel implies tahird age. Why does not Strimple recognize the sameimplicationin his own system, with the vast redemptive-historical differences between the old covenant era and the new covenant era? (b) Strimple’s system theoretically implies that Christ’s first coming initiates a distinct “age” known as “the last days.” Does he not believe that since New Testament days we are in a separate time period/age that he designates “the last days”? Does he not believe that these “last days” are distinguished from the former days in the Old Testament? He writes: “the last days began with the advent of Christ” (p. 64); and: “There is every reason to think that the Bible views ‘this age’ as having begun with the very beginning of history,

142


while from the New Testament perspective the ‘last days’ began with the advent of Christ” (p. 64). If he can then argue (rightly, I believe) that “the last days are lap of this present age” (p.the 64), why cannot the I as last a postmillennialist argue that full cultural victory and dominion of the gospel in history prior to the second advent is the “last lap of this present age,” and not a wholly separate age? (c) Strimple’s system theoretically implies that Christ’s frst coming establishes a unique “age” blending “the present age” and “the age to come.” Does not Strimple himself argue that at Christ’s rst coming“ the powers of the age to come have broken in now for those who are united to the risen Christ by faith” (p. 63)? Thus, the “age to come” is already present in some sense now since the rst advent. Consequently, this creates an “age” unlike that in the Old Testament. Consider that: in the Old Testament we have “the present age”; in eternity we have “the age to come”; but since Christ’s coming we are now living in a mixed age. This is an age that Strimple, Vos, and others (including me) deem a “now but not yet” experience. Strimple would, I am sure, afrm Vos’ chart illustrating this structure of history:18 THE WORLD TO COME Realized in principle

Future age fully realized

(in Heaven)

Resurrection of Christ

(on earth)

THIS AGE OR THIS WORLD

Return of Christ

143


Why cannot I charge that this by implication suggests another age in distinction from the pure “this age” experience in the Old Testament and the pure “age to come” in eternity? Notice that the ages overlapexperience in the present since Christ’ s coming. Intwo fact, Richard Gaffin19 writes of “the outlook basic not only to Paul but the entire New Testament that the Messiah’s coming is one (eschatological) coming which unfolds in two episodes, one already and one still to come, that the 20 ‘age-to-come’ is not only future but present.” (3) In the final analysis, the contemporary postmillennialist does not urge a separate and distinct “age” which comes with the cultural victory of the gospel. Rather we see thepresent eschatological kingdom as surely and firmly established inthe first century. But according to Christ’s own description this kingdom is to grow to maturity as a “mystery” (Mark 4:11; Matthew 13:11), imperceptibly by degrees. It grows like a seed of grain cast into the ground which eventually produces a mature grain (Mark 4:26-29), like a mustard seed in a garden that later becomes the tallest plant in the garden (Mark 4:30-32; Matthew 13:31-32), like leaven in three measures of meal that permeates the whole three bushels of meal (Matthew 13:33). By divine design it providentially blossoms in history gradually over time—it does not establish a new redemptive-historical age, but matures the present kingdom over time. Third, postmillennialism allegedly overlooks Christ’s present kingshi p . Strimple quotes my definition of postmillennialism which observes that “increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prio r to Christ’s return in which faith,

144


righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of people and of nations.” He responds by asserting: “Christ is King now! He is not waiting to (p.begin 60). exercising his dominion at some future day” My response: (1) Where do I even vaguely imply otherwise? I clearly assert Christ’s present kingship. For instance, note the following statement from my lead essay: • “Since the resurrection/ascension Christ has been installed as the King (Romans 1:4),ruling from God’s right hand.... The GreatCommission speaks of Christ’s being ‘given’ all authority—apparently at his resurrection” (pp. 34-35). • “He is formally enthroned as king following his resurrection/ascension (Acts 2:30ff.). From then on we hear of his being in a royal position at ‘the right hand of God.’ Because of this, first century Christians proclaim him king (Acts 5:31; 17:7; Revelation 1:5) with regal dignity, authority, and power (Ephesians 1:22; Philippians 2:9). Since that time Christ translates us into his kingdom at our conversion (Colossians 1:12,13; 4:11; I Thessalonians 2:12), organizes us as a kingdom (Revelation 1:6, 9; I Peter 2:9), and mystically seats us with Him in rulership (Ephesians 1:3; 2:6; Colossians 3:1; I Corinthians 3:21-22)” (p. 38). • “The resurrection, then, followed shortly by the ascension, establishes Christ as the King possessing ‘all authority.’ Acts 2:30-31 agrees that the resurrection of Christ is to kingly authority” (p. 45). • “Christ is now actively ‘the ruler over the kings of the earth’ and ‘has made us to be a kingdom of priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and

145


power for ever and ever’ (Revelation 1:5-6). Here in I Corinthians 15:25 we learn that he must continue to reign, he must continue to put his enemies under his feet” (p. 50).

(2) In fact, postmillennialism absolutely requires Christ’s present kingship beginning with his resurrection/ascension. After all, his kingdom is destined to enjoy growth over time because of his kingly rule. And that is why I myself cite Ephesians 1:20ff. on two occasions in my essay (pp. 25, 46). (3) Strimple’s form of argument can turned . against him by employing a reductio adbe absurdum Consider the following: Strimple reflects on my definition of postmillennialism which calls for the growth of gospel influence in the world. Then he responds to that definition by claiming “Christ is king now”— as if my mention of growing gospel conquest suggested otherwise. Now what if I were to employ Strimple’s interpretive method on Scripture itself? Note the following reductio: On page 60 Strimple points out the teaching of Paul in Ephesians 1:22. That text, which he cites, reads as follows: God “put [past tense] all things in subjection under His feet, and gave [past tense] Him as head over all things” (Ephesians 1:22). Thus, Strimple argues, “He is not waiting to begin exercising his dominion at some future day” (p. 60). Sounds great. But now the reductio. Scripture also teaches just as clearly that Christ is waiting for his enemies to be subjected: • “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (I Corinthtians 15:25).

146


• “Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in subjecting all things to him, He left nothing that is not subject to him. But now we do not yet see subjected to him” 2:8). • Heall isthings “waiting from that time (Hebrews onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet” (Hebrews 10:13).

Now which is it? Have Christ’s enemiesalreadybeen subjected so that Christ isnow ruling as king over them? Or is Christ waiting until all of his enemies are made his footstool? Using Strimple’s argument based on a partial reading of Scripture, we would be left with a contradiction in Scripture itself. The answer to “Which is it?” must be: “Both.” Legally Christ has already subdued his enemies (as per Strimple— and postmillennialism); historically, Christ is now putting his enemies under his feet (as per postmillennialism). This involves no contradiction, just differing perspectives—perspectives well exhibited in the postmillennial scheme. Consequently, I write with both perspectives in mind: “Christ is presently ruling until his rule subdues all of his enemies—in time and on earth” (p. 50). Fourth, postmillennialism allegedly discounts Christ’s present victory which has been in effect since the resurrection/ascension . Strimple’s complaint in this direction follows closely upon the heels of the preceding and is directly related to it. In the next paragraph he writes: “But what is the nature of Christ’s present kingdom? Because Gentry has defined the victory Christ seeks in the present age in terms of ‘the vast majority of human beings’...he must view Christ’s kingly reign as a failure so far—a failure for these now two thousand years since his ascension” (p. 61).

147


My response: (1) This is an absolutely erroneous implication, exposing once again the methodological problem in Strimple’s preferred line of argument. It is

an example a grossly sequitur form of argu-of ment. He hasof forgotten thenon postmillennial definition the kingdom: The kingdom is by divine design to enter the world “mysteriously” (Matthew 13:11)growing from a “seed” to a “mature plant,” from imperceptible, fragile-appearing beginnings to obvious, world-dominating fullness. The literary context of the Matthew’s record of the Kingdom Parables provides important insights that dispel Strimple’s charge. In the preceding context Matthew presents Christ as claiming his kingdom is powerfully present (Matthew 12:28), but in the following material he shows the King rejected by his own people (Matthew 13:53-58). How can this be? The Kingdom Parables explain this surprising reality. They show the divinely-ordained method of the kingdom: it begins in a “mystery” (Matthew 13:11), even being intentionally hidden at first (Matthew 13:13). Some of its seed does not grow and prosper (Matthe w 13:3-8); in fact, the first century Jews—though the Old Testament people of God—have the kingdom intentionally hidden from them (Matthew 13:14-17). But in the long run the kingdom will gradually develop to a place of dominance inhistory (Matthew13:30-33). Since these are Christ’s own explanations of his kingdom’s predestined expectations in history, how can its early stages be a failure because they are unlike its final stages? The kingdom rule of Christ is no more a “failure” than a seed is a “failure” because it is not a tree with edible fruit. The kingdom is not failing of its pur-

148


pose any more than a baby is failing because he lacks teeth, cannot walk, cannot talk, and so forth. Both the seed and the baby are successes when they operate according to their design, a design which promotes gradually developing maturity. Of course, they become “failures” (as it were) if they mutate and die. The kingdom will not mutate and die, though. Strimple is making the same mistake the Emmaus Road disciplesade m when they looked too narrowly at Christ’s crucifixion (Luke 24:17-21): “But we were hoping that it was He who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21a). They failed to divinely-ordained see the , developing big picture. (2) Actually Strimple frames his critique wrongly. He expresses his concerns about my view of “the nature of Christ’s present kingdom” (p. 61). The question, though, is not about its nature (we both agree it is by “nature” a spiritual, redemptive kingdom), but about its expectation, that is, its historical goal. Strimple forgets the context of my definition: I provide my definition in a debate book between three particular views of the millennium (i.e., kingdom). Consequently, I frame my definition in such a way as to highlight the contrast between postmillennialism andboth pre- and amillennialism. For a fuller, more basic definition the reader should consult my definition which covers three full pages in He Shall Have Dominion.21 Therefore, my definition is succinctly highlighting an important distinction from the other views.

And once again, Strimple’s method here can be rebutted by reductio ad absurdum. Strimple focuses on my definition presented in a debate book context, noting what he perceives as imperfections. What if we were to apply this method to Paul’s teaching on the

149


resurrection at the second advent? What if we were to argue that the lost will not be resurrected because nowhere in Paul’s writings does he teach anything other 22

thanin a resurrection saved? would be Scripture contradictionoftothe itself, for That the Lord clearly teaches the resurrection of the lost (John 5:25-29). As Paul narrowly focuses on thebeliever’sresurrection so I narrowly focus on thedebate definition of postmillennialism. Furthermore, the postmillennialist would argue that the kingdom has grown since the first century. It has not attained its full maturity,but it has definitely grown as predicted.23 After all, my definition highlights the “increasing gospel success” and its “gradually” producing its effect (p. 60). I much prefer sitting before my Gateway computer framing an eschatology debate for a large Christian publisher than sitting behind the gate in the Coliseum awaiting an agonizing death by a large carnivorous panther. Progress has been made; the kingdom is not failing.

     As a major evidence against the postmillennial hope the newer reformed amillennialists tend to highlight the Christian’s call to suffering in the present age. Gaffin, Strimple, Venema, and White concur inpromoting this as evidence contradicting the postmillennialism scheme.24 I have written elsewhere on the “suffering problem,” and have publically debated Gaffin on the matter.25 I believe that the biblical evidence on this matter is misconstrued and that the “problem of suffering” actually fits nicely within postmillennialism. Strimple observes over against my postmillennialism: “When the apostle Paul thinks of this present time, he

150


thinks of suffering as its characteristic mark (Romans 8:18, see also John 16:33; Acts 14:22; Romans 8:36; II Corinthians 1:5-10; Philippians 1:29; 3:10; I Peter 4:12-19)” fact, Christ himself “tellsexpect his disciples that(p. in63). thisInpresent age they cannot anything other than oppression and persecution and must forsake all things for his sake” (p. 63). He cites Venema’s anti-postmillennial statement that “the church in this present age [is] continually participating in the sufferings of Christ” (p. 66). Gaffin agrees: “Over the interadvental period in its entirety, from beginning to (to end,be) a fundamental aspect of thenothing, church’s existence is ‘suffering with Christ’; 26 the NT teaches, is more basic to its identity than that.” J. G. Child expresses the same concern, but in a more appreciative context when he writes ofthe Christian Reconstruction movement: “Eschatologically, the welcome emphasis on victory and dominion needs to incorporate a greater appreciation of the church’s suffering and weakness to be fully biblical.”27 Below I will provide a postmillennial understanding of the role of suffering in the New Testament record. This should both meet with the concern of Child and answer the objections of Strimple and others. First, Scripture is occasional and historical. We must never forget that the New Testament epistles were written to real people in their original settings. Consequently, many of the statements apply to them at that time. For instance, consider the clear Pauline directive “desire earnestly to prophesy, and do not forbid to speak in tongues” (I Corinthians 14:39). This directly applied to the situation in first century Corinth; it does not imply that we today should promote tongues-

151


speaking or prophetic utterances in the church today. This pronouncement was given prior to the cessation of such gifts. Neither should we expect the Lord’s own promise the apostles to prevail in they our day: “These signs willtofollow those who believe: will pick up serpents, drink poison” and so forth (Mark 16:16-17). This must be understood in terms of its srcinal redemptive-historical context. Likewise, many of the suffering statements provid ed apostolic counsel and encouragement for an historical church under siege. The apostles had to explain the dire circumstances of the kingdom community and call her to endurance in those circumstances. Their statements were not necessarily asserting that allChristians throughout all history “cannot expect anything other than oppression and persecution” (p. 63). Of course, when Christians enter similar situations at any time in history, the principles of patience and encouragement would certainly apply. Second, persecutional suffering is serious external oppression. We must also keep in mind that the kind of suffering that would contradict the postmillennial outlook is persecutional suffering. I fear that the amillennial statements are carelessly cast about in the debate, drawing forth more of an emotional response than anything else. The kind of suffering that would undermine postmillennialism is wide-scale external opposition against the Christian faith. If, for instance, American Christians claim we are under persecution here in our country today (so that we bear the “characteristic mark” of the church), then we diminish the very grievous persecution of the New

152


Testament saints.28 The suffering of New Testament Christians was often due to their being seriously besieged, as the following verses illustrate: • “Saul was breathing threats and murder against the disciples.... [He brought] both men and women bound to Jerusalem” (Acts 9:1-2). • “And they went on stoning Stephen as hecalled upon the Lord and said, ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!’” (Acts 7:59). • “I was in far more imprisonments, beaten times without number, often in danger of death. Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes. Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned” (II Corinthians 11:23-25). • “Remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great co nflict of sufferings, partly by being made a public spectacle through reproaches and tribulations.... [You] accepted joyfully the seizure of your property” (Hebrews 10:32-34).

Third, persecution does not always prevail. As I noted previously in this article, amillennialists frequently overstate their case: Strimple argues that Jesus “tells his disciples that in this present age they cannot expect anything other than oppression and persecution” (p. 63). Gaffin concurs: “Over the interadvental period in its entirety, from beginning to end, a fundamental aspect of the church’s existence is to be ‘suffering with Christ’; nothing, the NT teaches ismore basic to its identity than that.” 29 Once again I would ask the (American) reader: Are you under persecution? Are those publishing this Chris-

153


tian book? The owners of the Christian bookstores where you shop? The announcers on the Christian radio talk shows to which you listen? I certainly do not consider myself persecuted. I would Strimple, Gaffin, and Venema if they are underask persecution. Yet, are we not discip les of Christ (as p er Strimple)? Are we not members of the Church of our Lord (as per Gaffin)? 30 Fourth, suffering is broader than persecution and is compatible with postmillennialism.Suffering is one aspect of the Christian’s resurrection experience, but there are others. And when the others prevail and persecutional suffering diminishes, no harm is done to the resurrectional reality of the church’s existence. Consider the following types ofgenuine suffering— which are wholly compatible with postmillennialism. (1) We suffer fallen, creature weakness in this age. Even in quiet and peaceful circumstances Christians today (as well as those who will live during the fullest advance of the earthly manifestation of the kingdom) endure physical limitations and debilitations, including sickness, exhaustion, pain, and death. We are, after all, “earthen vessels” (II Corinthians 4:7). • “For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope.... We know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (Romans 8:20, 22). • “Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin asinstruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God

154


as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God” (Romans 6:12-13).

Consequently, we read in Scripture of Timothy’s “frequent infirmities” (I Timothy 5:23), Epaphroditus’ sickness nearly unto death, which brought sorrow upo n Paul (Philippians 2:27); righteous Tabitha’s untimely death (Acts 9:36-37)—even Paul’s own physical infirmities that had nothing to do with persecution (Galatians 4:13). James informs Christians how properly to handle sickness in the church (James 5:14). We struggle and suffer due to our existence in “mortal bodies” (Romans 8:10-11). Gaffin admits (in his recorded Reformed Theological Seminary lectures on eschatology) that Romans 8 involves “everything pertaining to our creaturely experience. Suffering is a function of the futility principle on all creation under the curse of God. Suffering with Christ is the totality of our existence in the mortal body.... Christian suffering involves all the ways our weakness-existence is borne in service of Christ: the mundane and the trivial.” On pages 213 and 214 in his “Theonomy” chapter he admi ts: “Chri stian s uffering ought not to be conceived of too narrowly. Suffering includes but is more than persecution and martyrdom.” He speaks of the “breadth” of the Christian conception of suffering as involving “frustration/ futility” and “bondage to decay.” He summarily states: “Suffering is everything that pertains to creaturely experience of this deathprinciple.” And: “It is the totality of existence ‘in the mortal body’ and within ‘this world in its present form that is passing away.”

155


In addition, Strimple himself recognizes this principle of suffering, as he discusses Romans 8: “The creation has been subjected to the fruitlessness, deterioration, and decay in the curse pronounced in Eden because of involved Adam’s sin (Genesis 3:17-18)” (p. 104). But this suffering can as much co-exist in a postmillennial world as it can in a given cong regation of God today. Yet if the vast majority of people in the world today conducted themselves as the average evangelical Christian, the world would be a much bet ter place.31 (2) We suffer in that we live in a world with the principle of evil present. Thisprinciple affects not only the world round about us, but our own walk before the Lord. We suffer the lust of the flesh and the pride of life. These temptations will never be finally “cured” until we enter glory. • “I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wishes to do good. For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind, and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in mymembers (Romans 7:21-23). • In the Parable of the Soils in Matthew 13 the Lord mentions the “cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches” (Matthew 13:22). • Paul laments temptations to sin in “this body of death” (Romans 7:24). • We are subject to sin that “so easily entangles us” (Hebrews 12:1).

The temptations are real and cause such deep suffering to those who love the Lord, that they require

156


constant vigilance. Paul had to buffet his body to keep it in subjection (I Corinthians 9:27). He saw his “thorn in the flesh” as a deterrent to his tendency to sinful boasting (II Corinthians 12:7). Fifth, suffering is contrasted with eternal glory.Our present mortal condition is a state of suffering when compared to eternity. We who read and understand the glory that awaits us in heaven are very much aware that our happiest times here on the earth pale when compared to our eternal condition. • The body is “sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body” (I Corinthians 15:42-44). • “We know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven. While we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed, but to be clothed, in order that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life” (II Corinthians 5:1-2, 4). • We must focus on him “who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself” (Philippians 3:21). • We must be encouraged appropriately: “Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day” (II Corinthians 4:16).

157


Ultimately, like Paul we must “consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For I consider thecompared sufferingswith of this time are not worthythat to be the present glory that is to be revealed to us. For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God” (Romans 8:18-19). Our current service of God is frustrated due to our inherent physical weakness, indwelling sin, and longing for glory. Sixth, suffering involves mundane, daily complications. At the height of the postmillennial advance, Christians will still endure trials of mundane things, suffering flat tires, computer down-time, stove fires, and the like. I wholeheartedly concur with Gaffin when he makes the followingobservation in hisRTS lectures: “However we respond to the common experiences of life in this present order of things is either a matter of Christian suffering or not. How do we bear these burdens? As believers to the glo ry of God? Or as unbelievers for selfish reasons?” On that tape a student asked him if the way a Christian responds tohe t death of a child was a good example of what he meant,Gaffin seized that and affirmed it as an excellent example. The postmillennial outlook grants this form of suffering. Seventh, Christ is an example of suffering for us. Certainly he suffered horribly under very real persecution and oppression. But he suffered even in his mundane, daily sufferings. He existed in the “likeness of men” (Philippians 2:7), in the “likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3). Christ was “tempted in what he

158


suffered” (Hebrews 2:18), being tempted in all points like we are (Hebrews 4:15) indicating the frailty of life: he wearied, thirsted, hungered, and felt pain— apart from persecutional oppression.

     Strimple notes that Gentry tries “by means of his preterist reading” of several texts “to assure Christians that the worst days of persecution, apostasy, and the Antichrist are past.” He laments that responding to preterism “would require a response chapter of its own” (which is a reasonable complaint), but then he attempts a very brief rebuttal (p. 64). Recognizing the editorial page constraints under which he labors, I would nevertheless point out the inadequacy of his three-fold rejoinder as given on pages 64-65. First, Strimple notes that in the Olivet Discourse “the destruction of the temple is viewed as a proleptic, typological fulfillment fothat final judgment of God; final deliverance of the elect will occur only at Christ’s [second] coming and the end of the age (Matthew 24:3), while tribulation, wars, famines, and earthquakes are ‘represented as characterizing the interadventual period as a whole’” (p. 64). My response: I wholeheartedly concur that A.D. 70 and the destruction of the temple is a “proleptic, typological fulfillment of the final judgment.” In my chapter in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, I write regarding Revelation 19: “Though the imagery of this passage suggests to many the second advent (and there certainly are many correspondences), it more likely refers to A.D.70 which is a distant adumbration of the

159


second advent.”32 In Perilous TimesI comment similarly on the relationship between A.D. 70 and the second advent, noting that A.D. 70 is “a temporal betokening 33

of the other, being a distant adumbration of it.” But if the temple’s destruction is a “typological fulfillment of that final judgment,” then what is the problem with Matthew 24:1-34 detailing A.D. 70? Are not types historical actions that serve as precursors to the antitype? “In typological interpretation history is essential.” 34 In Adam’s serving as a type of Christ (Romans 5:14), did he not have to historically act as a federal representative, be tempted to sin, and actually fail in the temptation in order to typify Christ who successfully undergoes corresponding circumstances though successfully passing the test? If the temple’s destruction is to serve as a type of the second advent, why not a full type with many historical implications? This is especially important to understand for two fundamental reasons: (1) Nowhere in Scripture are we expressly informed that A.D. 70 is a type. This is a (warranted) theological implication based (partly) on prior imagery rooted in the Old Testament “day of the Lord” episodes. It is also indicated by the several times A.D. 70 prophecies occur in conjunction with second advent material ( e.g. , Matthew 24:3-34/24:36ff.; II Thessalonians 1:7-10/2:1-10). (2) Furthermore, Matthew 24:1-34 is specifically and directly tied to A.D. 70: (a) Jesus denounces first century Jerusalem and its temple, then marches out of the temple in protest (Matthew 23:37-24:1a). The disciples respond by pointing out the beauty of that very temple to the Lord (Matthew 24:1b). (b) Jesus then prophesies that temple’s destruction (24:2), leading the disciples to

160


ask when this will be (24:3). He responds with a survey of various signs, then warns them to flee Judea when they see them coming to pass (24:16). (c) He then concludes this survey of judgment signsexpressly declaring that “all these things” just spoken of will occur in “this generation” (24:34). (d) Thereupon he uses this concluding statement as a jumping off point to deal with the distantly future second advent (which will occur at an unknown time and without precursory signs, 24:36).35 I challenge the reader to consult any exposition of the passage following Strimple’s (widely employed ) approach. You will be bewildered tryi ng to sort out what belongs to A.D. 70 and what refers to the second advent. Whereas, taking the preterist approach of Joh n Gill, Marcellus Kik, R. T . France and others, the transition verses (24:34-36) make it all very clear and understandable. 36 Furthermore, Strimple merely asserts his view; he does not prove it. And does he himself not complain against my presentation of postmillennialism that “the reader is left looking in vain for the specific biblical passages that teach it, that prove it!” (p. 69)? Thus, Strimple’s response to my approach to the Olivet Discourse fails on two accounts as a rebuttal: (1) I agree with his typological approach, while maintaining my preterism (which makes his complaint irrelevant); and (2) he merely claims his conclusion, rather than proving it (which makes his complaint inadequate). Second, Strimple declares that “Nero cannot be ‘the lawless one,’ whom the Lord Jesus will ‘destroy by the splendor of his coming’ (II Thessalonians 2:8).”

161


In an attached footnote he interacts with my “suggestion that Nero is the man of lawlessness of II Thessalonians 2 and the beast of Revelation” (p. 65). He states my position that the reference Lord’s “coming” in II Thessalonians 2:1 refersto tothe “Jesus’ coming in destruction on Jerusalem,” then declares: “So much for literalism!” I confess that I am dumbfounded over such a response. He provides a two-fold rebuttal: (1) He states on his own recognizance that my view “cannot” be true. (2) He decries it as being contrary to “literalism.” If the evangelical readership were as careful as they should be, he would have been better off altogetheromittinga response. Unfortunat ely, I well imagine many of our readers would wholeheartedly affirm Strimple’s “argument”: it simply “cannot” be! Interestingly, the reformed theolog ical giant, B. B. Warfield holds that the man of lawlessnessis the line of Roman emperors.37 I am not sure Warfield would have been cowed by the fact Strimple simply declared it “cannot ” be. As I argue in my Perilous Times there are several temporal indicators in the passage requiring that it find fulfillment in first century events: (1) Most commentators agree with Carson that the Olivet Discourse “is undoubtedly a source of the Thessalonian Epistles.”38 These tie II Thessalonians 2 to the same era of accomplishment: the late A.D. 60s up to A.D. 70 because Matthew 24:34 demands a first century fulfillment. (2) Paul relates a number of thes e actions to the Temple still standing in his day. (3) The present restraint of the Man of Lawlessness (2:6) indicates acontemporary relevance to Paul’ssrcinal audience ( e.g., II Thessalonians 2:2-3). (4) The knowledge of the Thessalonians regarding the

162


restrainer (2:6) suggests that they understand what is relatively obscure to us. (5) Paul speaks about the Man of Lawlessness’s present operation in mystery form during his day (2:7). Third, Strimple claims that “neither can Nero be the beast of Revelation, who will be destroyed only after his defeat by the rider on the white horse in the final battle, the battle of Armageddon (Revelation 19)” (p. 65). In his footnote hecites Charles E. Hill’s complaint that my argument that Nero is the beast was not even mentioned by Irenaeus 100 years after Revelation was written, and that Revelation “is not essentially about Israel. It is about Christ’s kingship andlordship over all.” Again,these are not exegeticalarguments. One is an interesting historical notation; the other anex cathedra assertion. And they run roughshod over Joh n’s own claim thatthe events are to occur soon (Revelation 1:1, 3; 22:6, 10).

     

Strimple charges postmillennialism with misdirecting the Christian hope by downplaying the second advent and focusing upon the church’s temporal conquest: “The New Testament everywhere makes clear that the focus of the believer’s hope is to be the second coming of Christ” (p. 65, emphasis his). He enthusiastically cites Venema who declares: “The golden age postmillennialist has his sights fixed upon the coming golden age rather than the return of Christ at the end of the age” (p. 66). This hope of historical progress for the church is (allegedly) spiritually dangerous, for “how can that hope not take our eyes off the ‘blessed hope’ of Christ’s appearing?” (p. 66).

163


My response: (1) I most vigorously deny this charge! It is simply not true ! I have never read any postmillennialist that discourages hope in the second

advent in deference the historical conquest of the kingdom. In fact, we to should note the following postmillennialist statements regar ding the second advent : • Charles Hodge calls the second advent “the great object of expectation and desire.” 39 • R. L. Dabney: “it is, next to heaven, the dearest and most glorious of the believer’s hopes: as bringing the epoch of his full deliverance from death, and full introduction into the society of his adored Saviour.”40 • David Brown: “The Redeemer’s second appearing is the very pole-star of the Church. That it is so held forth in the New Testament, is beyond dispute.” 41 • James Snowden: “His second coming is the sunrise of hope in the New Testament. This blessed hope of his return overarches the lengthening dayin which we live and work and is the golden link that binds his first with his second coming.”42 • Iain Murray: “However bright, comparatively, the world may become when the Church reaches her fullest development in history, the Advent of Christ will ever remain the pole-star of faith and hope. For earth, however blessed, will never begin to equal heaven.”43

In fact, on Strimple’ s analysis we might wonder if Jesus’ teaching that the kingdom will grow like a mustard seed (thereby encouraging us to expect such) itself detracts from his own second advent? The fact that our CounterPoints debate book has me bring up the issue of preterism may be explained not on the assumption that this is the spiritual focus of my life, but in that this is a matter of distinction

164


between the eschatological views that are being debated. It is an aspec t of New Testament th eology little understood today . Strimple has written numerous articles several books: Does How many of them focus on theand second advent? the relatively small place the return of Christ has in his published material indicate its small place in his theological outlook? Surely not. (2) Strimple presents his readers with a false antithesis: charging that we may not hold simultaneously to both the triumph of Christianity in the world and the glory of Christ’s advent to the world. Does one’s ultimate hope necessarily preclude any proximate hopes? Are ultimate and proximate hopesmutually exclusive? Why must we view our eternal hope and our temporal hopes as either/or? Why may we not hold both/and? Does Strimple’s saving money for his family and planning for retirement take his eyes off the blessed hope? Surely not. We can simultaneously look at our historical duty and expectations, while at the same time contemplating the glorious conclusion to temporal history at the second coming. After all, does not Strimple himself admit that the New Testament prophesies certain near-term events that serve as warnings for first century Christians? Do these discourage their focus on the second advent? Does the preterist’s recognition of these prophecies discourage our focus on the second advent? (3) Furthermore, Strimple’s false antithesis implies that Christianity is one-dimensional, and even otherworldly. We should not deny our historical calling in order to affirm our eternal destiny. For why then would the New Testament provide such a vast sum of mate-

165


rial unrelated to the second advent, if our “focus” should be on the Lord’s return? In Matthew 25:1-13 was it not the “foolish” virgins who kept their eyes exclusively onthe the“prudent” expectation of an who imminent second advent, unlike virgins kept the second advent in mind but also made practical preparations for the historical long run? Should the foolish virgins have initially rebuked the prudent for their taking their focus off the second advent? (4) Even on his own analysis I wonder what the actual practical difference is between his amillennialism and my postmillennialism in this regard—other than engaging in this debate. What is it that Strimple does that shows he focuses on the second advent in a practical way that I do not? Exactly how are Strimple and Venema “eagerly awaiting the return of the Lord” (p. 66)? Surely they do not sit and excitedly contemplate it day-by-day to the exclusion ofvarious practical obligations? And if they do from time-to-time reflect upon our glory that comes when the Lord returns, well then, so do I! The postmillennial view of suffering which I outline above, obviously encourages us also to look with anticipation to the second advent.

      Another matter relating to the hope of the second advent is its timing : Strimple complains that postmillennialism denies its imminency. Although he does not actually employ the word “imminent” in our CounterPoints book, he definitely urges that we must expect the return of Christ at any moment. He urges imminency in two ways: He rebuts postmillennialism’s long range historical expectations, which “looks forward

166


to...‘an extensive era’—in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail’” (p. 66). He also cites WCF 33:3—apparently focusing on its urging our being watchful, because [we] do against not know at what“always hour the Lord will come”—over postmillennialist David Chilton’s statement that “perhaps hundreds of thousands of years of increasing godliness” are ahead of us (p. 67). Imminency doctrine is widespread among amillennialists. Strimple’s associate, Richard B. Gaffin, argues that “postmillennialism deprives the church of the imminent expectation of Christ’s return and so undermines the quality of watchfulness that is incumbent on the church.”44 My response: (1) I am guilty as charged—because I believe this doctrine is unbiblical. I am, however, in good company in this denial. John Murray, cited approvingly several times by Strimple, 45 strongly disavows this doctrine: “Insistence that the advent is imminent is likewise without warrant and its falsity should have been demonstrated by events.”46 Warfield even muses: “is not this church of the twentieth century still the primitive church?” 47 This implies many years of maturity lie ahead of thechurch. Amillennialists Berkhof observes that “several important events must occur before the return of the Lord, and there48 fore it cannot be called imminent.” In fact, renowned reformed exegete and theologian O. T. Allis declares imminency as “one of the great fundamentals of dispensationalism.” 49 R. L. Dabney sees the popularity of imminence doctrine among “pre-Adventists” ( sc. premillennialist) as due to “the romance attaching to it.” 50

167


(2) Imminency arguments misconstrue the warnings in the New Testament. Those warnings speak of the unexpectedness of the Advent, not its nearness . It warns that he will comelike in “an do not expect” (Matthew 24:44), “a hour thiefyou in the night” (I Thessalonians 5:2). The word “watch” is gregoreo, which means “be awake, be alert”; it does not mean “believe it could happen at any minute.” The biblical exhortations entail that we should be working, be about our duties before God. In fact, I agree with amillennialist Berkouwer who declares “after all, 51

watchfulness implies delay.” (3) Imminency doctrine collides with several clear passages of Scripture. In Matthew 13:31-33 Jesus urges his followers to expect long-term growth of the kingdom. In his Olivet instruction he warns that “after a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them” (Matthew 25:19). In response to the question of restoring the kingdom “now” to Israel, the Lord cautions his disciples that “it is not for you to know times or epochs” (Acts 1:7). The “times or epochs” refer to long periods of time. Peter even instructs believers to expect the long delay to be used by Christ’s enemies as evidence against the validity of his return (II Peter 3:3-4, 8-9). The evidence is strong enough that amillennialist Venema holds to both its imminence and its delay.52 In such a position imminence has no meaning. (4) Imminence assumptions are rebuked in the New Testament as impatience. The foolish virgins expected only a short wait before the Lord’s return (Matthew 25:1-10). The Parable of the Pounds dissuaded disciples from expecting the kingdom should “immedi-

168


ately appear” (Luke 19:11-27). The Thessalonians wrongly expected the time of Christ’s return had come (II Thessalonians 2:1-3). (5) Imminency overlooks remaining prophecies and biblical expectations. As I argue in detail against Strimple, Paul’s prophecy in Romans 11 anticipates a time of worldwide revival and the calling of the Jews (pp. 133-42). Christ lays a task upon the Church that requires an enormous amount of time: the discipling of the nations (Matthew 28:19). In fact, the Westminster Standards—despite urging readiness for the Lord’s return—enumerate several long term prop hecies that are yet unfulfilled: “In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come)...we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in...and that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends” (Larger Catechism, 191). Of course, all the other postmillennial indicators in Scripture also require the passing of much time. (6) Imminence belief actually could discourage believers, rather than encourage them. As Allis perceptively noted: “If the any moment doctrine was needed by the Early Church to keep it from coldness and despair in view of the centuries of waiting still to come, of which it was ignorant, is not this doctrine likely to discourage rather than encourage the Church of today in view of the many centuries of waiting already past of which it does know?”53

169


 Interestingly, Strimple argues that “in a blessed sense the powers of the age to come have broken in now” (p. 63). The postmillennialist wholeheartedly concurs, then asks: “Why may we not then expect the visible, historical success of these new and divine powers”? If “the powers of the age to come have broken in,” and if the Lord has “put all things in subjection under His feet” (Ephesians 1:22), and if Christ commissions us on this basis to “make discip les of all the nations, baptizing them” in the name of the Triune God (Matthew 28:19), what prevents Christ’s duly commissioned church from applying this new covenantal power to historical vict ory over the forces of evil—a victory which Christ awaits from the right of God on high (Hebrews 10:12–13)?

1

I would like to thank my good friends Blake Davis and Steve Turley for their invaluable suggestions as I prepared this chapter. 2 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. “Recent Developments in the Eschatological Debate,” Chalcedon Report 430 (May 2001): 7-10. 3 See a history of this problem of hasty dismissal in Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (2d. ed.: Tyler, Tex.,: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 32-37. See also: Greg L. Bahnsen, Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism (Texarkana, Ark.: Covenant Media, 1999), ch. 4. 4 See for example: H. Wayne House and Thomas D. Ice, Dominion Theology: Blessing or Curse? (Port-

170


land, Ore.: Multnomah, 1988); Darrell L. Bock, ed., Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999); CornelisP. Venema,The Promise of the Future(Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2000). 5 Richard Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology:

Reflections on Postmillennialism,” in Will S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey, eds., Theonomy: An Informed Critique (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990); R. Fowler White, “Agony, Irony and Victory in Inaugurated Eschatology: Reflections on the Current AmillennialPostmillennial Debate,” in Westminster Theological Journal 62 (Fall, 2000): 161-76; Cornelis P. Venema, “Evaluating Post-millennialism (II),” The Outlook (January 1998), 22ff. 6 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., “Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist: A Response to Gaffin, Strimple, and White,” Westminster Theological Journal (the Westminster Theological Journalarticle was in the editorial review stage as I was writing this Chalcedon Symposium Series chapter). 7 Strimple writes on page 83: “[I]n this chapter we will concentrate not on church history but on the biblical considerations.” He reiterates this on page 257 in his response to Blaising: “In presenting the case for amillennialism, I chose not to survey the history of theology, but rather to concentrate on the biblical revelation.” Of course, with such a move Strimple effectively declares he prefers his own personal theological labors rather than those of the many saints who lived before him. 8 I do not suggest that Christian Reconstructionism is the only contemporary source of postmillennial advocacy. In fact, I list representatives from non-theonomic and other types of postmillennialism.

171


“But since the distinctives of theonomic postmillennialismare not emphasizedin Gentry’s essay, they will not be addressed in this respo nse” (p. 58). 10

Meredith G. Kline, “Comments on an Old-New Error: A Review Article,” Westminster Theological Journal 41:1 (Fall, 1978): 173. 11 Steve Schlissel, ed., The Standard Bearer: A Festschrift to Greg Bahnsen (Texarkana, Ark: Covenant Media, 2001). 12 See: Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.): “Millennium,” definition 1b: “a period of great happiness or human perfection.” This is ainderivative of 1a: “the thousand years mentioned Revelation 20 during which holiness is to prevail and Christ is to reign on earth.” The “thousand years” is a literal period; the “happiness” is a condition associated in the common mind with millennial thinking. In Webster’s Twentieth-Century New Unabridged Dictionary (2nd ed.) we read again of two definitions, one of a literal period, the other— by extension—of a happy condition. “Millennial” is defined: “1. pertaining to a millennium, or to a thousand years; as, a millennial period. 2. of, characteristic of, suggestive of, or fit for the millennium.” The Oxford English Dictionary follows suit, distinguishing between a literal period and a happy condition. The third definition of “millennium” reads: “fig. and in a figurative context: A period of happiness and benign government.” 13 My formal presentation of postmillennialism appears in my 560 page argument titled He Shall Have Dominion. And even that does not cover everything that could be said. 14 See also He Shall Have Dominion, 373-78; Gentry in C. Marvin Pate, ed., Four Views on the Book of

172


Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 88–89. See also John Calvin’s exposition of Isaiah 65:17-20. 15 Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology

(Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1930 [rep. and 1991]) and Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980). 16 Cf. also: I Corinthians 10:11; II Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 1:1-2; 9:26; I John 2:18; I Peter 1:20. 17 By the way, I also believe like Strimple regarding the of the whichtoI illustrate am highlighting. am construction only presenting thisages scenario the errorI in Strimple’s theological method of analysis. 18 Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, 38. 19 Gaffin is Strimple’s friend and colleague, and a fellow amillennialist who srcinally was contracted to co-write with Strimple the amillennial portions of the Three Views book. 20 Richard B. Gaffin, Jr.,Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul’s Soteriology(2d ed: Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 91. 21 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 72-74. 22 This familiar “problem” is dealt with by Geerhardus Vos in The Pauline Eschatology, ch. 9: “The Extent of the Resurrection.” 23 See my discussion in He Shall Have Dominion, 441-47. 24 Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology,” 197-226; Strimple, 63ff; White, “The Current AmillennialPostmillennial Debate,” 161-76; Venema, The Promise of the Future, 351-55. 25 Gentry, “Agony, Irony and the Postmillennialist,” WTJ, Fall: 2002. Reprinted as Chapter 4 in this book.

173


A video of the almost three hour Gentry-Gaffin debate is available from me at www.kennethgentry.com. 26 Gaffin, “Theonomy andEschatology: Reflections on 27 Postmillennialism,” 211. Child, “Christian Reconstruction Movement,” in David J. Atkinson, David F. Field, et al. New Dictionary of Christian Ethics & Pastoral Theology (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1995), 227. 28 This does not imply that America is an example of the dominant gospel victory which postmillennialism seeks. The church has much to do here before the earthly victory hope. attains a level commensurate with the postmillennial 29 Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology,” 210-11. 30 This, of course, does not in any way diminish the very real persecutional suffering of many Christians in China, the Sudan, Muslim-controlled nations, and other such places. But then, postmillennialism does not claim that the world has yet been won to the gospel. 31 I am not arguing here that the average Christian today is the quintessential example of postmillennial advance. I believe that levels of sanctification will grow as society becomes more Christianized, for our environment will be fundamentally Christian, which more greatly encourages righteous living (Matthew 5:16; Galatians 6:1; I Thessalonians 1:7; Hebrews 10:25). 32 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. in C. Marvin Pate, ed., Four Views on the Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 81. 33 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Perilous Times: A Study in Eschatological Evil (Texarkana, Ark.: Covenant Media, 1999), 100.

174

Chapter 5: Victory Belongs to the Lord 34

C. A. Evans, “Typology,” in Michael B. Green, Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, eds., Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1992), 862. 35 For a d etailed proof of this, see: Gentry, Perilous Times, 90-91. 36 For an easy to follow exposition of the passage, see Thomas Ice and Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), chs. 1 and 2. 37 Biblical and Theological Benjamin B. Warfield, Studies (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, rep. 1952), 472. Originally published in 1886. 38 D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary , 12 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 8:489. 39 Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology , 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rep. 1973), 3:795. 40 Robert L. Dabney, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, rep. 1972), 839. 41 David Brown, Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial? (Edmonston, Alb.: Still Waters Revival, rep. 1990 [1882]), 15. 42 James H. Snowden, The Coming of the Lord: Will It Be Premillennial? (New York: Macmillan, 1919), 1. 43 Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1971), 217-18. The reader should consult chapter 10 of thismarvelous book (“Christ’ s Second Coming: The Best Hope”) as a fuller rebuttal to Strimple. 44 Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology,” 218-19. 45 See pages 64, 67, 101, 104, 113, 118, 268.

175


John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 407. A very similar comment is made by Dabney: “stubborn facts have1800 proved that [the second advent] was not less than years distant”( Lectures in Systematic Theology, 841). 47 Warfield, Biblical and Theological Studies, 347. 48 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 696. 49 O. T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1945), 169. 50 Lectures in Systematic Theology 51 Dabney, , 841. G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 91. 52 Venema, The Promise of the Future , 97-109. Maybe this could be a clever way I could escape from the charge of denying imminence. I perhaps could begin holding that I believe Christ is returning at any moment while at the same time believing it may be thousands of years distant. 53 Allis, Prophecy and the Church, 172.

176

 

        

1



he prophetical discourse of subject which Matthew 24:6 forms a part has been the of conflicting explanation ever since it was srcinally uttered. The verse reads: “And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.”

    The grand difficulty lies in the appropriateness of its terms to two distinct and distant events: the end of the world and the destruction of Jerusalem. Some interpreters hold that the one catastrophe was meant to typify the other. Others that the discourse may be mechanically divided by assuming a transition, at a certain point, from one of these great subjects to the other. Still others, that it describes a sequence of events to be repeated more than once, a prediction to be verified, not once for all, nor yet by a continuous progressive series of events, but in stages and at intervals, like repeated flashes of lightning. But on either of these various suppositions it is still true that the primary fulfilment of the prophecy was in

177


the downfall of the Jewish state, with the previous or accompanying change of dispensations; and yet that it was so framed as to leave it doubtful, until the event, whether a still more terrible catastrophe wasseem not intended. However clear the contrary may now to us, there was nothing absurd in the opinion which so many entertained that the end of the world and of the old economy might be coincident. This ambiguity is not accidental, but designed, as in many other prophecies of Scripture. Another striking feature in the form of this discourse is the precision with which several stages or degrees of the fulfilment are disting uished from each other, each affording the occasion and the premonition of the next, until the close of the whole series. Of these successive periods or scenes of the great drama, each might, considered in itself have seemed to be the last. And no doubt each as it occurred was so regarded even by some who had been forewarned by Christ himself. To correct this error and prepare the minds of true believers for the whole that was to come upon them, he says at the close of the first scene, “See that ye be not troubled, for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet;” or, as Luke expresses it, “the end is not by-and-by”—that is, immediately.

     The need of this caution has not ceased. Men have ever since been and are still too much disposed to precipitate the fulfilment of God’s purposes and to confound “the beginning of sorrow” with “the end.” They are slow to learn the lesson that “the believer will not make haste,” that an important element of

178

Chapter 6: The End Is Not Yet

faith in the divine engagementsis a disposition to leave time and every other circumstance to God himself; a disposition perfectly consistent with intense desire and urgent importunity. There is something curiousin the difference of men’s feelings and opinions with respect to the life of individuals, and to that of the race or the continued existence of this present world. The great majority of men live as if they were to live for ever. The effect of this upon their character and lives affords a constant theme to moralists and preachers of the gospel. In all this there is only a misapplication or undue restriction of a principle inherent in our very constitution. Man is immortal, and was made for immortality. He cannot, if he would, look only at the present and the past. He must feel and act for the future also. And that not only for a definite or proximate futurity, but also for one more remote and undefined, the boundless field of what is yet to be. The practical error lies in confounding endless existence with an endless prolongation of the present life. The more profoundly men reflect the more they are brought off from this illusion. But so long as they are heedless and controlled by natural feeling, they expect to live for ever. But the most surprising fact of all is, that these views may co-exist with a strong disposition to expect a speedy termination of the whole system under which we live. The certainty of this fact is clear from the effect of those fanatical predictions which at different times have agitated Christendom. In all such cases the panic has had reference to the end of the world. Let this be quelled, and all fear is extinguished. It does not occur to the alarmist that however probable the near

179


approach of the event may be made by calculation or by reasoning, it never can be rendered half so certain as his own death in the course of nature at no distant period. Nay, thespeedily probability this inevitable change occurring even mustofalways transcend that of a speedy occurrence of the final consummation. Yet the oldest and the least prepared to die remain unmoved by this appalling certainty, although they would be terrified by any intimation that the world was to continue but a twelvemonth longer. It matters not that they may die tomorrow or today, if they can only be assured that the end of the world is not immediately at hand. In some cases it is easy to refer these very different effects to one and the same cause. The self-love which forbids some men to look upon themselves as mortal, makes them equally unwilling, when this truth is forced upon them, to allow a longer term to others. If they must die, let humanity die with them. Something of this selfish feeling no doubt enters into the strong disposition of some good men in all ages, to regard their own times as the last, and to fix the winding up of the great drama as near as may be to their own disappearance from the stage. As Herod the Great is said to have ordered a large number of distinguished persons to be massacred as soon as he was dead, in order that his death might not be wholly unaccompanied by mourning, so the class in question seem to look upon the end of the world as a necessary part of their own obsequies. The impression of approaching change and dissolution, which is perfectly appropriate to their own case, is transferred by a natural association to the scene which they are leaving, as if it were out of the question that the world can get along without them.

180


This pardonable vanity, if such it may be called, seeks, of course, to justify itself by the authority of Scripture. Hence the prophecies are tortured into confirmation theconstruction fact assumed, and every of the calculationofand is employed to art bring end of the world as near as may be into coincidence with that of the interpreter. Nor have these been barren and inoperative speculations. Their effect has been immense and sometimes long continued, both on individuals and whole communities. The most remarkable exemplification of the general statement, is afforded by the memorable panic which diffused itself through Christendom at the approach of the year 1000. The belief had been gradually gaining ground that the close of this millennium, or first period of a thousand years, was to be the final close of human history. As the fatal term drew near, the superstitious dread associated with it grew continually more intense and powerful in its effects.    

However improbable the actual recurrence of such scenes may now appear, the principle from which they sprung has been too often manifested to be looked upon as temporary or accidental. It continues to exist and to exert its power, not always with the same effect or to the same extent, but so far constantly and uniformly, as to make it an interesting subject of inquiry what we ought to think, and how we ought to feel and act in reference to it, as connected with our own times and circumstances. What I believe to be the true solution of this question may be reduced to these two propositions:

181


1. So far as we have any means of judging, the end is not yet. 2. So far as it remains a matter of doubt, it is better to assume that the end is not yet, than to assume the contrary. So far as we have any means of judging, the end is not yet. This may be argued negatively and positively. The negative argument is this, that there are no conclusive indications of a speedy end afforded either by the Word of God or the condition of the world. Such indications are indeed alleged, and that with confiden ce, but they have no conclusive force; because, in the first place, they rest upon gratuitous assumptions. It is assumed, for instance, that a certain form or pitch of moral depravation is incompatible with the continued existence of society. That there is or may be a degree of wickedness irreconcilable with any social organization, is too clear to be disputed. But it does not follow that the present condition of the world is such. Such a conclusion is not warranted bythe mere degree of actual corruption, however great, because we do not know ho w much is necessary to the end in question, and any attempt to determine it must rest on a gratuitous assumption. The same thing is true as to the real or supposed predictions of the final consummation in the Word of God. That these were meant, not merely to assert the general fact, and in some cases to describe the attendant circumstances, but to afford specific indications of the very time of its occurrence, so that it may be distinctly known beforehand: all this is assumed inthe usual reasoning on the subject, but assumed without proof. It is not more easy to affirm than to deny it.

182


Whatever plausibility there may be in the sense thus put upon the passage in question, there can be no certainty. It is not necessary to maintain that this cannot be the is enough know it may not be. Themeaning. position Ittaken is not to that the that proofs alleged are manifestly false, but that they are inconclusive; they prove nothing, because they rest upon gratuitous assumptions. This, by itself, would be enough to justify the negative position, that we have no sufficient reason to believe that the end is at hand. But the same thing is still clearer from experience. These signs have all been misapplied before. There is perhaps not a single indication now made use of for this purpose, that has not been so employed in former ages. Every striking coincidence, every verbal allusion, has been weighed already in this balance and found wanting. Nay, arithmetic itself, of which it has been said the figures cannot lie, has here misled its thousands. The most positive numerical specifications may be varied indefinitely by the variation of the term from which they are to be computed. The millennium of the Book of Revelation has by turns been proved to be present, past, and future. All this argues no defect or error in the Scriptures, but only something wrong in the interpretation. When anything can thus be made to mean anything, we have reason to believe that it was not intended to reveal so much as we imagine. We may reason in the same way, from experience, with respect to the condition of society and the degree of actual corruption. The extraordinary abounding of iniquity at any one time, in itself considered, might well lead us to believe that such depravation must be preparatory to the final dissolution of society. But when

183


we find analogous appearances insisted on, from age to age, with equal confidence, in proof of the same thing, and the proof as constantly annulled by theevent, we may not unreasonably resttests uponwhich such evidence in this case, and hesitate concludetothat have always led to false results before must be at least defective, and their testimony inconclusive. Whether we look, then, at the word of God or at the world around us, or compare the condition of the one with the predictions of the other, we have no satisfactory or adequate ground for the conclusion that “the end of all things is at hand” in this sense. Let us now look for a moment at the positive argument in favour of the same position, which may be conveniently reduced to this form, that the fulfilment of the Scriptures is still incomplete, and will require a long time for its completion. In support of this, we may appeal in general to the grand and comprehensive scale on which the divine purposes are projected in the Scriptures. The natural impression made, perhaps, on all unbiased readers is, that in the Bible there are vast beginnings, which require proportionate conclusions even in the present life. There are germs which were never meant to be developed in the stunted shrub, but in the spreading oak. There are springs, in tracing which we cannot stop short at the brook or even at the river, but are hurried on, as if against our will, to the lake, the estuary, and the ocean. Every such reader of the Bible feels that it conducts him to the threshold of a mighty pile, and opens many doors, through which he gets a distant glimpse of long-drawn aisles,vast halls, and endless passages; and how can he believe that this glimpse is

184


the last that he shall see, and that the edifice itself is to be razed before he steps across the threshold? This impression made by the very structure of the Scriptures is confirmed by theirpeculiar phraseology— the constant use of language pointing not to sudden, instantaneous revolutions, but to long-continued dilatory processes of change, decay, and restoration, dissolution and relapse, which have as yet buthad their beginning, and the full course of which can only be completed in a cycle of ages. And besides these general considerations, founded on the structure of the dialect of Scripture, we can specify particular changes which have scarcely yet become perceptible, but of which the Bible leads us to anticipate the end and the completion before “the end cometh.” One of these is the universal spread of the gospel. Without insisting on particular predictions of this great event, we may appeal to the general impression made upon all readers of the Bible, that it must and will take place before the end of the existing dispensation. Closely allied to this, as one of its conspicuous effects, is the regeneration of the race, thereconstruction of society—the realization of those glowing pictures of the earth and its inhabitants which can neither be explained as day-dreams of an imaginary golden age, nor as poetical anticipations of the joys of heaven. Nor do the Scriptures lead us to expect a mere restoration, but a continued exhibition of the race and of society in its normal state, contrasted with its previous corruptions and distortions. The sum of these considerations, negative and positive, appears to be, that there is noconclusive indication

185


of a speedy end; that, on the contrary, there are strong reasons for believing that it is remote; but that even these are insufficient to decide the question absolutely; so that, it is a doubtful Regarding it as such, weafter mayall, naturally hesitate point. between two courses. Shall we, on the one hand, follow the preponderating evidence in favour of a distant consummation? or shall we, on the other, take what seems to be the safer course of looking for that soon which may be still far distant, but which may be already at the very door? In other words, considering the case as doubtful, is it better to proceed upon the supposition that the end is near, or upon the supposition that the end is not yet? This is a question both of principle and practice, and the way in which it is decided may exert no feeble influence upon the character and life. The expectation of a speedy end seems naturally suited to enervate, nay, to paralyze exertion, while the opposite belief invigorates it. The other doctrine would seen to be safer as respects the zeal of Christian enterprise. The only practical advantage of the same kind which can well be claimed for the opposite opinion is, that it leads men to be always ready, as our Lord requires. This is, in fact, the grand recommendation of the theory, and that to which it owes its currency among some truly devout Christians. Yet it rests upon a fallacy, for it confounds the life of individuals with the existence of the race on earth. The readiness which Christ requires of us, is a personal readiness to leave the world and meet our God. This has existed in the case of thousands who had no such expectation as the one in question. The necessity of this individual preparation cannot justify the sacrifice of higher interests, or dis-

186


pense with the discharge of duties which we owe, not only to ourselves, but to our successors, to the Church, to society, to human kind. This preparation, too, for personal departure is not secured by a belief in the approach of the great final catastrophe. No such belief has ever wroughtit. Where it really exists, it is preceded by a due sense of the shortness and uncertainty of life, and the importance of the interests suspended on it, without any reference whatever to the subsequent continuation or destruction of the world. The strongest possible persuasion, that this world is yet to last for ages, may exist, because it has existed, in connection with the deepest sense of men’s mortality and need of constant preparation for the great change which awaits them all without exception. But if the two convictions are thus perfectly compatible, we cannot, of course, argue from the requisition of the one to the exclusion of the other. The duty of constant preparation for the end of our career may be truly and successfully performed by those who honestly believe that the existing state of things is to continue perhaps ages after they are themselves forgotten. It may still be urged, however, that this state of mind exposes those who entertain it to be taken by surprise. What, it is sometimes said, if, after all, the great event should be at hand, how fearful the surprise of those who fancy it to be still distant! Here, again, we may see traces of that same confusion of ideas which has been already mentioned. However great or sudden the surprise, it cannot be to them a fearful one. And if divested of this attribute, surprise is not an evil. Joy involves surprise as well as horror. Some of the most

187


exquisite sensations of delight which have ever been experienced have taken those who felt them by surprise. Nay, exclude all thought of danger, doubt, or fear from your conception ofinsurprise, andeven mosttomen would deliberately choose it, preference the fullest opportunity of calculation, measurement, and deliberate foresight. But whether this be so or not, we know that the catastrophe in question will take most men by surprise at last, and not only the unthinking and the reckless, but the sober, the considerate, the wise. If it be true, then, that the supposition of a distant end diverts the thoughts of menfrom this great change, it is only by transferring them to one still more momentous, because more closely connected with the loss or gain of personal salvation, because perfectly inevitable in reference to every individual of every generation but the last, and because, according to the most indulgent computation, “not far from every one of us.” Whether we look, then, at the absence of all certain indications that the end of the world is at hand, or at the existence of some striking proof that it is still far distant, or at the practical effect of both opinions, we may safely rest in the conclusion, that so far as we can judge at all, the end is not yet, and that so far as we are in doubt, it is better for ourselves and others to suppose that the end is not yet than to suppose the contrary.

      The practical conclusion to which these theoretical conclusions point is obvious enough. Let us first of all

188


prepare to die, and thus in the most effectual way prepare to live. This preparation is of course not to be made by needlessly anticipating cares which are appropriate to the time duty, of actual departure, butthat by the doing only of our present in reliance upon grace which provides for all emergencies, but seldom grants to one the aid appropriate to another. Having made this indispensable provision for the future, let us cease to look upon our own salvation as the final cause of all that God is doing. Let us look away from our minute concerns to that stupendous whole of which they form an indispensable though humble part. Instead of feeling and acting as if all must die with us, let us continue, until God shall teach us otherwise, to cherish the belief and expectation of a glorious work yet to be accomplished even here, of whichthe changes which we now behold are not the end, but the beginning. Let us not shrink even from the thought that unknown evils are yet to be experienced before the good can be finally triumphant. Through the clouds of such anticipations we may still discern the clear sky of better days to come; nay, even in the meantime, we may see the storm and sunshine striving for the mastery, and although we may be forced to say, as one disaster treads upon the heels of its forerunner, “These are but the beginning of sorrows,” we may still console ourselves by looking further off to still remoter changes, saying, “The end is not yet.” Let this not only solace but incite us. At every new stage of our course, when we are tempted to imagine our work done, let this word rouse us, “The end is not yet.” Let the same conviction follow through life. Whatever you may seem to have already suffered or

189


accomplished, still remember that the end is not yet; and from the midst of your trials, your perplexities, your errors, your temptations, yes, your doubts of God himself, still force yourselves to look evenend, on the ginning of sorrows as prophetic of their andbeto take refuge from the worst that can befall you, or the cause for which you live, for which you die, in the fixed persuasion that with reference both to labour and reward, “the end is not by and by.” The time, indeed, is coming when the same thing can no longer be said equally of both. Yes, the time is coming when these present light afflictions shall but be past, dream when one awaketh;” at noforgotten, point of “as youra history more truly than at that, will you be justified in saying, as you look forward to the glory that awaits you, “These are but the beginnings of an everlasting life. The end is not yet.”

1

This chapter is edited from a nineteenth century sermon on Matthew 24:6. Joseph Addison Alexander, D.D. (1809-61) was a renowned Presbyterian linguist who served as Adjunct Professor of Ancient Languages and Literatures (1830-33) and then Professor of Oriental and Biblical Literature (1834-1850) at Princeton, then Chair of Church History at Princeton Theological Seminary (1851-60). He wrote several commentaries: on the Psalms, Isaiah, Matthew, Mark, and Acts. His commentaries on the Psalms and Isaiah are classic postmillennial expositions.

190

 

     



1

 this chapter, I will addresses a vital, yet often overlooked topic: the ethics of eschatology.

Stated simply the pertinent question posed is: If theonomic postmillennialism is true—and it certainly is—then what differences here and now should this conviction make in the lives of Christians and their churches? What should be the character, and what should be theconduct of a professing postmillennialist? The answer to this question is multi-faceted. At least five ethical implications flow from postmillennial convictions. Theonomic postmillennialism—rightly conceived and practiced—demands our: Promoting Gospel Primacy; Demonstrating Evangelistic Zeal; Cultivating Christendomic Consciousness; Practicing Cultural Engagement; and Habituating Christian Humility.

   Paul addressed the church at Corinth with a singularly focused purpose: “For I determined not to know

191


anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (I Corinthians 2:2 2 ). The foundation for Paul’s instruction, exhortation and admonitionto these believers waspresents the Cross, the gospel of Christ. to In these this context Paul a victorious eschatology Christians: “For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet” (I Corinthians 15:25). Does a connection exist between these pronouncements regarding the Cross and eschatological victory? The postmillennialist believes it does. Paul expressed eschatological confidence precisely because he held the gos pel as primary. This is because he rightly acknowledged that the gospel is transformational in the very nature of the case: Indeed, the gospel of Christ “is the power of God to salvation” (Romans 1:16). Therefore, according to Scripture the cause of societal transformati on is the gospel—not political or familial reconstruction. Unfortunately , theonomic postmillennialism has been maligned and even slandered as promoting either some form of social gospel or a “Jewish dream.” Nevertheless, the expositors and defenders of this optimistic eschatology have ardently underscored the gospel’s predominance in advancing God’s postmillennial victory. Indeed, the gospel’s priority in postmillennial eschatology has been set 3

forth with utter and unmistakable clarity. Consider the following contemporary proponents of theonomic postmillennialism: Rousas J. Rushdoony: • “Evil men will not produce a good society. The key to social renewal is individual regeneration.” 4

192

Chapter 7: Practicing Postmillennialism

• “Clearly there is no hope for man except in regeneration.... The salvation of man includes his restoration into the image of God and the calling implicit in that image, to subdue the earth and to gospel exercisewas dominion. Hence, the proclamation of the also the proclamation of the kingdom of God, according to all the New Testament.”5 • “Without regenerating grace, man cannot keep God’s law and discharge his duties.”6 • “The fall of man has not altered this calling, although it has made its fulfilment impossible apart from Christ’s regenerating work.”7 • “In terms of God’s law, true reform begins with regeneration and then the submission of the believer to the whole law-word of God. The degenerate pretenders to reform want to reform the world by beginning with their opponents, with any and everyone save themselves.” 8 • “The source of peace is man’s regeneration in Christ; it is more than the cessation of hostilities: it is the growth of communion and it is personal fulfilment in Christ as well.”9

Greg L. Bahnsen: • “Postmillennialism maintains that the victorious advance of Christ’s kingdom in this world will take place in terms of the present peaceful and spiritual power of the gospel.” 10 • “Postmillennialism believes in the gradual growth and success of the kingdom of God by the power of the Holy Spirit working through the Church’s preaching of the gospel.”11 Kenneth L. Gentry. Jr.: • “That theonomists speak of God’s kingdom as a civi-

193


lization does not mean that they do not see this civilization as grounded in spiritual regeneration.” 12 • “This era of dominion will produce the worldwide transformation of society through thepositive preaching of the to gospel and individuals’ widespread response 13 the message of redemption—a continuity of dominion.” • “This is not accomplished by political imposition, but spiritual transformation.”14 • “Postmillennialists believe that evangelism is the absolute precondition to worldwide, postmillennial, theocratic success.... Thus, postmillennialism seeks the Christianization of the world by the spread of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Evangelism has priority in Christianization.”15

As these excerpts demonstrate, holding theonomic postmillennial convictions necessitates that the gospel occupy preeminence. And just as plainly these excerpts illustrate that those who would malign postmillennialism either are uninformed or willfully refuse to accurately characterize the position. Nevertheless, it is one thing to accurately profess postmillennialism; it is quite another topractice it, that is, to function in terms of its implications. To rightly practice postmillennialism requires that one promote the primacy of the gospel. The gospel is not to be treated as a “spare tire,” simply annexed to the SUV’s of our lives and then hastily grasped only during dire emergencies.16 Changing the metaphor, the gospel is not simply the “door” to a new home, something quickly left behind as one proceeds into the living quarters of the house. Rather, the gospel is life itself and it is something that needs to be preached to oneself, even (especially) after one “gets saved.”17

194


Far too often, those holding theonomic and postmillennial convictions have expended time and effort on society’s transformation, but have neglected the cause and foundation for that transformation: the gospel. They have focused on the desired effect, rather than cultivating the necessary cause.18 It is no coincidence that John Owen, the craftsman of the explicitly postmillennial Savoy Declaration, rightly warned: “He who has small thoughts of sin never has had great thoughts of God.” The gospel matters. Only a great God can transform a fallen society, a society overrun with sinful men. Yet the Lord has chosen to do just that—by the gospel. The gospel must therefore be primary, not only in theory but in practice. The Lord in this day has graciously rekindled the vision and hope of optimistic eschatology. This generation’s postmillennialists must therefore grasp the heart of that eschatology, the transformational gospel of Christ. By the power of God, through means of God’s grace is how the serious theonomic postmillennialist operates, therefore he must promote the primacy of the gospel. Absent that emphasis, priority, and passion, one is not a true postmillennialist; rather, he is simply a vain moralistic pretender. DEMONSTRATING EVANGELISTIC ZEAL

I have shown how true postmillennial zealpromotes the primacy of the gospel. The cross is foundational to God’s eschatological victory; in fact, the cross guarantees eschatological victory. Correlatively, theonomic postmillennialism also demands that one demonstrate evangelistic and missiological zealas

195


well. I will now explore this latter ethical implication of optimistic eschat ology. God’s word confidently describes the Lord’sexpanding reign: His name shall endure forever; His name shall continue as long as the sun. And men shall be blessed in Him; All nations shall call Him blessed. Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who only does wondrous things! And blessed be His glorious name forever! And let the whole earth be filled with His glory, Amen and Amen. (Psalm 72: 17-19)

Sadly, in reformed circles manyconfessevangelism’s necessity , but few practice it. An ethical gap exists between declaration and demonstration . James condemns such hypocrisy: “[B]ut be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves” (James 1:22). Reformed Christians must ponder just how the whole earth will “be filled with [God’ s] glory” and just how “all nations shall call Him blessed.” Are these phrases just nice sounding shibboleths? If not, then what conduct—here and now—is the Lord pleased to use in order to transform these proclamations into reality? As Calvinists, reformed Christians certainly know the academic answer to these questions: God uses “secondary causes” for effecting His Decree (see, e.g., WCF 3:1). But again, from an ethical standpoint demonstration must accompany declaration. It is humbling to see just how impoverished reformed missiology— indeed, evangelical missiology—is today.

196


On a global scale, consider the following sample data: Surveying the missionary output of Singapore, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, Sweden, The United States, United we Kingdom, Germany, Korea, The and Brazil, discover that onlyIndia, one ofJapan, them, Singapore, sends more than one missionary per Christian congregation. The cumulative average ratio of missionaries per congregation for these twelve nations is a deplorable 0.12.19 Thousands of congregations exist within these twelve countries and yet a covenantal and tangible commitment by the local churches to support personally-known missionaries is decidedly lacking. Reformed congregations fare no better. For example, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church includes scores of congregations, but supports only fifteen foreign missionaries.20 Money follows ministry. If a congregation’s (or denomination’s) heart promotes missiological zeal, then funding to effectuate that zeal will not be lacking. As someone once quipped: “God’s work, done God’s way, will never lack God’s funding.” The reformed faith is “Christianity come into its own,” according to B. B. Warfield. It alone provides the potent doctrinal foundation that both motivates and sustains missiological efforts. On paper, therefore, the reformed churches should have the “market cornered” in evangelism and missions. Sadly, they do not. Why? One reason the gospel is not promiscuously and zealously proclaimed stems from a heart problem: the fear of man.21 “We don’t want to be Arminian.” “Door to door knocking is outdated.” “God is sovereign; He will bring people to our [dead, lifeless, rote, un-

197


friendly, inhospitable, clann ish] church in His time, but in secret we hope He doesn’t.” 22 As the Scripture makes plain: “The fear of man lay s a snare, but whoever trusts the Lord is safe” 29:25 , ESV). Are we in more interested in (Proverbs “reformedness” than being faithful? 23 The reality is, however, as Calvinist Ernest Reisigner declared: “The church that does not evangelize will fossilize, that is, dry up and become useless to Christ and the world.”24 Evangelism and missiological efforts are not somehow antithetical to the robust Calvinism of the reformed faith. Just the opposite is true. And this is especially the case when Calvinism melds with an optimistic eschatology, as was done by the father of modern missions, William Carey and the Puritans before him.25 The vitality of the reformed faith instills great confidence in missiological efforts. The doctrines of grace ascribe to God the certainty of salvation, for the Calvinist believes that “as many as [are] were ordained to eternal life believed” (Acts 13:48, ASV). Reformed doctrine teaches—rightly—that evangelistic and missiological efforts cannot not succeed . Enter postmillennial eschatology. The Bible teaches that not only does God eternally elect, effectivelycall, sovereignlyregenerateindividuals whom he has appointed unto life, but also that he has purposed and willed, according to his good pleasure, to call many multitudes into his kingdom. Indeed, the prophet avers without hesitation or qualification: “The earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Isaiah 11:9). Conse-

198


quently, the doctrines of grace also provide the certai nty of kingdom expansion. Appropriately then, Christ is the “savior [soter] of the world” (I John 4:14).26 This eschatological certainty should fuel evangelistic and missiological zeal. Most self-conscious postmillennialists would “amen” this conclusion, but the ethical questions remain: Is this confession being demonstrated in one’s life? Does one practice what one professes? Here are a few simple, but effective “fog-clearing” diagnostic questions: • Do your family devotions contain not only instruction regarding, but also a passion for the lost? • Do your prayers beckon the Lord to open doors for his word—among theunconverted, or is “evangelism” directed predominantly to “converting” the non-reformed?27 • Does your mindautomatically conceive of “missions” as being an impersonal excursion to the African subcontinent while your own neighbors have never heard the gospel from your own lips? • Does your checkbook reflect not only commitment, but sacrifice for the gospel’s spread? • Do you routinely disparage the outreach efforts of other members of Christ’s Body merely because their theological acumen fails to meet your own private convictions or preconceived preferences? • Do your mission efforts embrace the antithesis or do you spend your efforts seeking to convert fellow covenant keepers?

When taken to heart, postmillennial convictions embrace evangelism and discipleship with gusto . If

199


the gospel is not primary and if one does not burn with a passion for converting and disciplining the nations, then his optimistic eschatological confession is suspect. Frankly , such confessionnothing. would be nothing more than sound and furya signifying Eschatology matters, and it matters on a personal ethical level. May God kindle a raging fire for evangelical and missiological zeal in his Church, especially among tho se who embrace the Scripture’s optimistic eschato logy.

   Theonomic postmillennialism also demands that one cultivate Christendomic consciousness . God has promised to redeem “a people” consecrated for his purposes. This coming reality will progress in history (“living stones” fitted together to form a “New Temple”) and will climax as an eschato logical collective (the Bride, the New Jerusalem, etc.). Accordingly therefore, to live consistently with these coming eschatological realities requires Christians intentionally to develop an awareness for God’s present Christendomic work in, among, with, and through his people. While it is true that God elects particular sinners for redemption, it is also true that the promise of the New Covenant is explicitly couched interms of God’s gathering of a collective people—loved by God and unified in thought and deed. It is this redeemed collective which grows intergenerationally under the Lord’sruling hand:

200


They shall be My people, and I will be their God: then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children afterwith them . And, will not make everlasting covenant them that II will runan away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me. Yes, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will assuredly plant them in the land, with all My heart and with all My soul. (Jeremiah 32:38-41, NKJV)

As God in history gathers his eschatological people, postmillennialism (and the Bible) teaches that this gathering will be incrementally yet unmistakably manifested over time—just as Jesus taught parabolically in the leaven and the mustard seed parables (Ma tthew 13:31-33). Crit ically, however, this manifestation occu rs along the lines of the Antithesis—that judicially instituted hostility and enmity existing between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the Serpent (Genesis 3:15). This concept demarcates on the one hand the battle between God’s people and His gathering them together, and on the other hand, the “darkness,” the “tares,” the “goats,” and the “dogs,” i.e., the covenant breakers.28 This enmity “plays out” in history and does so with communal dimensions as recognized early by the church fathers: Jerusalem versus Athens (Tertullian); the City of God versus the City of Man (Augustine).29 And, this communal expression of antithesis recurs throughout redemptive history as the Lord divides, delivers, and even destroys—all for the sake of expanding his kingdom to his glory alone. The Garden; Noah and the Flood, Lot and Sodom; the Tower of Babel; the lives of the Patriarchs; the Exodus—ineach

201


case, the Lord divides along the line of the antithesis, delivers His people, and then destroys the covenant breakers. The Lord God is an active God whose work continues eschatologically— thetical Christendomic lines. but does so along antiSadly, however, much of the American church has lost its Christendomic consciousness. That is, the modern church has lost the confident vision ofGod’s certain eschatological purpose to save a people, dwell with them, do good to them, and rejoice over them all for his own glory. Instead, God’s people do not really engage the culture antithetically, but rather spawn conflicts of Light v. Light; Wheat v. Wheat; and Sheep v. Sheep. Christians, including many reformed Christians, endlessly debate the footnotes in the City of God’s Zoning and Building Codes while the City of Man is quickly and incessantly stealing and/or poisoning the Christians’ water, power, and homesteads.30 Christ’s living waters have been converted into a stagnant evangelical quagmire. This should not be, and yet this occurs regularly because Christians fail toconduct their affairs in terms of Jeremiah’s eschatological promise: God is gatheringone people and he purposes to rejoice in them and do good to them. Christians must therefore recover a Christendomic Consciousness—that is, an eschatological understanding of God’s purpose to sanctify his people—imperfect as they now are. A postmillennial confession supplies the motive and the mandate for doing so. Recovering a Christendomic consciousness means among other things keeping the main thing, the main thing. The Scripture’s priorities must be recaptured— in both word and deed, faith and works, doctrine and

202


duty. 31 Many obstacles or constraints impair Christendomic Consciousness, even among those professing an optimistic eschatology.32 Here are some suggestions for remedying this situation: Being Long-Suffering with Our Brothers: Second Timothy 2:22-25 requires servants of the Lord to be gentle, patient, and humble. And the reality is that, according to Christ, love is the mark of the visible church (John 13:34, 35).33 While differences among brothers are important and ought to be resolved, they are differences among brothers, and should be considered accordingly.34 Negating the Cult of Personality: The reformed often critique aspects of Rome’s Papacy, and yet splintered Protestantism, including the reformed, seems nevertheless to function in terms of many Popes or other Pied Pipers. “I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, or Calvin, or Augustine, or Machen, or Clark, or Van Til,

or whomever”—with a bit of reflection, this list could be greatly extended.35 The reality is, however, that neither Calvin (nor any other great or not-so-great leader) died for anyone’s sins, and though Christians do and ought to learn with gratitude from those whom God has illumined, a divisive party-spirit has no place in the kingdom. One solution to the party-spirit is to intentionally foster Christendomic Consciousness. After all, loyalty is owed exclusively to Christ alone. Pursuing Biblical Peacemaking: Where schism exists, reconciliation in the gospel should be actively pursued. Jesus makes this point with utmost clarity and urgency: worship itself is secondary where brothers are estranged by personal offense (Matthew 5:23, 24).

203


To be conscious of the covenant requires reality in relationships, especially where conflict exists. Postmillennialism provides a biblically tenable basis for hope in God’s future grace. But we must not forget that God’s decree ordains both the end as well as the means.36 Christians must “work out their own salvation,” and this means ethical living by God’s holy standard, that is, theonomic living. But note: Paul’s command to do so (Philippians 2:12) is a conclusion he draws after admonishing Christians to embrace a Christendomic Consciousness: Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus. (Philippians 2:3-5, ESV)

Theonomic postmillennialism demands no less.

   Certainly God works “all things according to the counsel of his will,” but the Lord also “works in you, both to will and to do his good pleasure” (Ephesians 1:11; Philippians 2:13, ESV). The Creator of the universe has ordained that men, and especially redeemed men, should be agents for accomplishing his eschatological purpose. As morally responsible agents, men choose and men make critical (and not-so-critical) decisions. A postmillennial eschatology demands that, when choosing, men consciously practice courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement.

204


In the year 480 B.C. the Persian Army was advancing to war, one million troops strong. Xerexes purposed next to invade Greece with his war machine. As the foreign threat mounted, stood before the Grecians. On the one hand, choices they could simply acquiesce to foreign rule like so many other nations had done in the face of the overwhelming military odds. On the other hand, they could resist—and perhaps provide hope for future generations. The character of tomorrow’s culture stood in the balance. The gateway to the Hellenists was Sparta, via Thermopolis, the “Gates Fire.” Everyonetogether, knew it. The Grecian CityStates, of after counseling resolved to resist Xerxes’s Army and to do so at this point of entry. Knowing that death was certain, 300 Spartans prepared for battle in order to defend their homeland from the Persian juggernaut—a million man march. As anticipation grew, Sparta’s advance scouts reported that when the Persian archers launched their volleys, the multitude of their arrows darkened the sky by eclipsing the sun. Faced withthis reality, the Spartan Captain, Dienekes commented: “Good; today we shall battle in the shade.” As the initial battle line formed, the Persian emissaries exhorted the overwhelmingly out numbered Spartans to surrender their weapons for resistance would be futile. The emissaries demanded and yet pleaded: “Lay down your weapons.” Sparta’s King Leonidas responded laconically: Molon labe, “come and get them.” And so, the battle raged—300 Spartans against Persian’s million man military machine. The 300 Spartans fought fiercely for seven days; each of them died as everyone expected; there would

205


be no fairy tail ending, and certainly no rapture. Astonishingly, however, 20,000 Persians died. This battle, and more importantly, Sparta’s decision to resist, proved crucial to of the Western Civilization because onthe thedevelopment very day that last Spartan died, the Grecian navy soundly defeated the invading Persian navy at the Straits of Salamis, thereby turning back the advancing Byzantium tide. 37 The Spartans strategically counted the cost: enduring short term suffering in order to gain long term cultural victory. Christians know that all history serves God and his sovereign purposes, and that therefore, much can be gleaned from the past. The Battle of Thermopylae illustrates principles valuable to those engaged in the necessarily antithetical (and spiritually bellicose) cultural battle. Exactly why would 300 obviously outnumbered men leave family and home in order to exert themselves unto a certain death? The Persian army was large precisely because many of itsfoes simply were “absorbed” by surrendering into the larger organization; these foes apparently received an offer they could not refuse. Why did the Spartans choose otherwise; why did they choose sure death, instead of life as a member of the world’s greatest military machine? One answer lies in their eschatology: they understood very well that their culture, if it would survive, could not be melded into another, particularly by force. Accordingly, they rejected pragmatism—saving their skin today only to thereby forfeit their children’s tomorrow. Instead, they knew—as a matter of principle—what was ultimately at stake—the telos or eschaton—of the historic moment facing them: the very extinction of their culture. As a result, they confronted

206


the event strategically and courageously. As one man quipped: “Courage is the flower of conviction.”38 The courage to stand and battle in the face of certain short-term failure derives from the conviction of long-term success. For the Christian, however, especially the postmillennial Christian, this orientation should be more than psychological: The victory contemplated is not simply probable or highly probable; it is certain. A firm grasp and conviction of God’s certain triumph over all his enemies —progressively in history—will spawn the necessary courage for Christians to resist pragmatic cultural compromise, and instead will motivate Christians—from all callings— to engage the culture strategically. What does it mean to engage the culture strategically? Postmillennialism holdsthat God’s advancement of the kingdom is principled, that is, according to his standards (Matthew 6:33). And, it is incremental— not revolutionary (Mark 4:26-29). One must be intentional, and yet patient. Thus, to act strategically is to embrace a willingness and intention to swing a sharp well-placed sword for ten years rather than carelessly wield a dull blunt one for thirty. Action for action’s sake can create more problems (notorious “unintended consequences”) than srcinally anticipated. As a result, merely making the public square “more conservative” or “pluralistic” does not necessarily promote the kingdom. Again we need confidence in the future, as crafted and ordained by God Almighty, in order to resist the temptation simply to be pragmatic, or conversely, so idealistic so as to be devoid of meaningful cultural tactics.39 Here are two illustrations:

207


School Vouchers: Many engaged inthe cultural battle hold convictions that the State lacks any justifiable interest in funding education, the obvious exception

being the State’s discharge legitimate military training 40 and related education. Doesofthis conviction necessarily mean, however, that a Christian should categorically oppose all efforts designed to promote the establishment of a voucher system? To answer affirmatively betrays a decontextualized idealism, devoid of strategic and tactical considerations. A more principled approach should consider whether any tactical benefit can occur if vouchers are established. A Christian can, consistent with his convictions, still support a voucher system, if—and this is key—he is also at liberty (and sufficiently disciplined) to refuse to use vouchers once the system is in place. This approach fosters cultural renewal because it (1) breaks the public education monopoly; and (2) promotes parental authority over children. Gracious strategic thinking advances the kingdom. The Homosexual Legal Agenda in Corporate America: No right thinking Christian can support “gay rights” (as distinct from uniformly applicable civil rights). But, the tactical question centers on how to respond—in action—to corporate America’s rapidly advancing adoption of sexual orientation-based nondiscrimination policies, domestic partnership benefits, and “safe zones.”41 Often, for those Christians who are no longer content with silence,42 “boycotts” are encouraged. 43 While this may personally placate the consciences of some, the effectiveness of this tactic long term isdubious. In reality, a better strategic approach may well be to infiltrate publicly held companies (by stock purchases) and then tactically exercise voting rights and

208


other ownership privileges, in an effort to bring pressure 44 to bear upon corporate policy and practice. Many more examples of strategic choices—both positive and negative—could be cited: • How the failure to oppose in-vitro fertilization experimentation has spawned (no pun intended) today’s stem cell controversy; • How the uncritical acceptance of contraception as a “privacy right” fostered the removal of reproduction, and thus sexuality from the marital context, furthering the justification for abortion on demand; • How principled progress, through strategic effort, is occurring in the realm of First Amendment jurisprudence for the public promotion of the gospel: Mergens,45 Lamb’s Chapel,46 Rosenberger,47 Good News Club.48

As these decisions evidence, truly strategic choices must reflect the intention to patiently build cultural cathedrals—not “quick fix” tin shacks with stylized fish pasted somewhere on the doorposts in lieu of God’s law (Deuteronomy 6:9). If the Spartans possessed eschatological clarity to understand the long term significance of their present actions, how much more should Christians p onder their own courses of action. The ethics of optimistic eschatology demand that Christians live and choose actions that reflect courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement. What we do now indeed will echo in eternity. 49 We must choose today consistently with what God has purposed for tomorrow . We must choose ethically, and therefore, we must choose eschatologically . Any oth er result would be, in a word, antinomian.

209


   Thus far I have explored the ethical implications that should flow from consistently holding to theonomic postmillennialism. In doing so the doctrine (orthodoxy) of this eschatological position has been assumed in order to focus on the conduct (orthopraxis) that the teaching implies: Promoting the primacy of the gospel; demonstrating evangelistic and missiological zeal; cultivating Christendomic consciousness; and practicing courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement. However, this entire study would be incomplete without including a discussion of another perspective, one that could be called orthopathos—the proper motive and character of aconsistent postmillennialist: humility. Theonomic postmillennialism, properly conceived, should habituate humility.To live the Christian life is to embrace change: personally and culturally (Romans 12:1, 2). Postmillennialism—at its essence— extols gracious positive change. Change is intrinsic to postmillennial optimism—and so is humility. Postmillennialism demandshumility because thechange it promotes and advocates stems from God’s grace. How does change occur? To be sure, doctrinal precision is certainly an agent of change, for the truth sanctifies: “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17, ESV). Correct doctrinal belief (orthodoxy), therefore, is foundational to change. Yet, Scripture also makes it clear that mere mental assent to a set of correct propositions is insufficient for lead50 ing a God-glorifying life. As James demands, doctrine must be applied:

210


So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I that willGod showis you by my works. You believe one;my youfaith do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:17-26, ESV)

But, there is more. Because it is written on the hearts of the regenerate (Jeremiah 31:34; Deuteronomy 6:1, 6-9), God’s law requires more. The Christian life must be lived from the heart, that is, with the right motive and affections. As Jesus noted with a penetrating comment: “And he said to them, ‘Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me”’” (Mark 7:6 ESV). Here Jesus rebukes those known for doctrinal precision (orthodoxy) and rigorous “works of righteousness” (orthopraxis) (cf. Matthew 5:20). However, these religious persons lacked a heart for worship. In short, they lacked orthopathos. This crucial perspective51 is frequently ignored—often in inverse proportion to one’s doctrinal acumen and enthusiasm. Those greatly con-

211


cerned for correct doctrinal formulation sometimes deem heart issues to be irrelevant. And yet, this orth opathos is critical to a full-orbed Christian ethic, including postmille nnial eschatolo Again,iswhat is the essence of postmillennialism? Thegy. essence that the gospel of grace defeats all God’s enemies in history. Postmillennialism’s optimism, properlyunderstood, rests solely on the grace of the covenant Lord: For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end,no the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this. (Isaiah 9:6-7, ESV)

Note well: it is the Lord who accomplishes the unrelenting increase of the Son’s conquering righteous rule. Similarly, it is Christ whobuilds his Church which shall topple the gates of Hell (Matthew 16:18). It is Christ who reigns until he destroys all his enemies and puts them under his feet (I Corinthians 15:25). And he does these things for his own glory, which he shares with no one. This is why Paul could so emphatically direct the Christian’s boasting to the Lord—not man, not even a theonomic postmillennialist ( e.g. , I Corinthians 1:31; 3:20; II Corinthians 10:17; 11:30; 12:5, et al.). Postmillennialism demands humility by the nature of the case. Put bluntly, God is not impressed that someone has become an “epistemologically self-conscious

212


theonomic postmillennialist.” One is not “doing God a favor” by holding postmillennial convictions. Rarely are such thoughts so crassly articulated, of course. But in the heart, they do arise, even if they are carefully camouflaged. To live consistently with this eschatology, Christians must stop flattering themselves—they must reject ungodly pride. No Christian possesses anything that he has not first received, by grace, from God—including his optimistic eschatology: “For who sees anything different in you? What do you have that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if you did not receive it?” (I Corinthians 4:7, ESV). Humility is not optional; it is inherent to a Spirit-filled life. Christians, especially postmillennialists, must be humble. As reformed and postmillennial believers, we reject semi-Pelegianism, and instead cheer and affirm the necessity of monergistic regeneration: “You must be born again” (John 3:7, ESV). And as reformed and postmillennial believers, we reject the feel good, simplistic worship experience so commonly practiced today. Instead we guard our worship, understanding that those who come to God “must worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24, ESV). But, we tend to ignore another, yet critical, “must” from our Savior’s lips: “And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, ‘If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all’” (Mark 9:35, ESV). Scripture informs us that serving others is a function of humility, as a Pauline directive exhorts: “Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves” (Philippians 2:3, ESV).

213


Pride is antithetical to a biblical life, but it is especially noxious to an optimistic eschatology. One cannot with credibility proclaim the gospel’s gracious transformational power and while simultaneously walking in prideful arrogance contempt. Postmillenni alism’s banner could rightly be the Reformation’s Soli Deo Gloria—because the culture’s transformation is solely attributable to the sovereign God and his profiting of the gospel through his Son by his Spirit. Pride’s slogan, in contrast however, could beSoli ME-o Gloria.52 Man seeking to be appreciated, taking credit for events and cultural changes. Ironically, it is the prideful postmillennialist, absent repentance, who may be the one “left behind.” Truly embracing the orthodoxy of theonomic postmillennialism means deeply understanding and freshly marveling at the gracious sovereignty of God whose zeal alone will accomplish these things. This in turn necessarily means apprehending how pride is an enemy and an offense to a Holy God—the antithesis to faithful postmillennial conviction. A postmillennialist should be habituating humility if he truly embraces optimistic eschatology—not congratulating himself for his having adopted brilliant and unimpeachable eschatological formulations. Here is why. First, God hates pride: The fear of the LORD is hatred of evil. Pride and arrogance and the way of evil and perverted speech I hate. (Proverbs 8:13, ESV) When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with the humble is wisdom. (Proverbs 11:2, ESV)

214


Everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished. (Proverbs 16:5, ESV) Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18, ESV)

Make no mistake: God is provoked by a man’s pride, which leads to a second point: Pride is serious: “But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, ‘God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble’” (James 4:6, ESV). “Likewise, yo u who are younger , be subject theelders. yourselves, all of you, with humilitytotoward one Clothe another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble’” (I Peter 5:5, ESV). “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 14:11, ESV). Third, pride is deceptive: “The horror you inspire has deceived you, and the pride of your heart, you who live in the clefts of the rock, who hold the height of the hill. Though you make your nest as high as the eagle’s, I will bring you down from there, declares the LORD” (Jeremiah 49:16, ESV). “All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, but theLORD weighs the spirit” (Proverbs 16:2, ESV). In short, pride is serious, deceptive, and the object of God’s hatred. But, unfortunately, it gets worse. Pride is never static; it always produces fruit—very bad fruit. And this fruit often ripens in those possessing a doctrinaire bent—those who seek to honor God by having their lips eloquently articulate the most precise doctrinal formulations, but whose lives, relationships, and hearts, are actually far from him.

215


Where pride exists, God is not only distant, but he becomes the prideful man’s opponent. The Scripture does not teach dispensationalism, but God is not opposed to the dispensationalist (cf.does II Timothy 2:24-25). Onhumble the other hand, Scripture teach postmillennialism, but God is opposed to the postmillennialist who is arrogant and haughty. This reality should be sobering and should cause us to flee to the Cross of Grace. The prideful reader would probably declare a hearty “Amen!” to these conclusions, and that is exactly the trap. Being orthodox—that is, assenting to truthful propositions—is insufficient. Orthodoxy cannot stand alone in the Christian life; real orthodoxy is a perspective on the truth and will be accompanied by right conduct (ethics: orthopraxis) practiced with the proper motivation and passion (heartfelt orthopathos). In some cases, changes must be effected; and this must begin in the heart as repentance from pride. God does not want to hurt your pride; he wants to kill it. The remaining portion of this chapter will seek to provoke Cross-centered honest assessment of one’s orthopathos, especially as it relates to pride. Again, theonomic postmillennialism, properly conceived, should draw its adherents to habituate humility. Humility is intrinsic to this eschatological position, and therefore its proponents should increasingly manifest this evidence of grace in their lives. I call upon the reader to ponder the following descriptions; they are extended because the serious problem of pride runs deep and it is deceptive. Consid er whether the root of pride may be producing ungodly fruit in your life.

216


Question whether your life belies your “theologically correct” eschatological confessions. And remember: God stands opposed to the proud, and there is no exemption for the postmillennialist. As Brent Detweiler notes, the fruits of pride may take the following forms:53 1. I tend to be self-sufficient in the way I live. I do not live in a constant awareness that my every breath is dependent upon the will of God. I tend to think that I possess sufficient strength,ability, and wisdom to live and manage my life. 2. I am anxious about life and the future. My trust in God vacillates and I rarely experience his abiding and transcendent peace. 3. I am overly self-conscious. I tend to replay how I did, what I did, what I said, how others perceive me, etc. I am concerned about what people think about me. 4. I fear man more than God. I am concerned about how people will react to my words, my conduct and me. I seek the approval of man and not of God. 5. I feel insecure. I tend not to try new things or participate in uncomfortable situations due to a fear of failure or the possibility of looking foolish. 6. I regularly compare myself to others. I am performance oriented, and I feel “more accepted” by God when I do well. 7. I am self-critical. I tend to be a perfectionist. Even when little things go awry, it is difficult to forget them because they reflect poorly on me. 8. I desire to receive credit and recognition for what I do. I like people to see what I do and let me know that they noticed—and I feel offended when they do not. I

217


am overly concerned with my reputation and hate being misunderstood. 9. I want people to be impressed withme, and to make my known. 10. Iaccomplishments tend to be deceptive regarding myself. I find myself lying to preserve or enhance my reputation. 11. I am selfishly ambitious. I want to get ahead, and enjoy having a position or title of import and significance. 12. I am overly competitive. I always desire to win and it bothers me when I do not. 13. I enjoy being the center of attention and will conduct myself to draw attention to me. 14. I like to talk, especially about myse lf. I would rather speak than listen, and find it difficult to be succinct. 15. I am self-serving. When asked to participate or do something, I find myself asking, “How will doing this help me, or will I be inconvenienced?” 16. I am not excited about seeing others successful or making others successful. I tend to be envious, and/ or critical towards those who are doing well or being honored. 17. I feel superior because of what I have or do: my house, my job, my physical giftings, my intellectual giftings, my education and intellect, my spiritual or theological prowess. 18. I think highly of myself. In relation to others, I view myself as more mature and more gifted. I have more to offer others than they have to offer me. 19. I tend to give myself credit for who I am and what I accomplish. 20. I tend to be self-righteous. I think that I have something to offer to God, that he needs me in order to fulfill his plan. I regularly focus on the sins of others, and seldom credit God for any degree of holiness in my life.

218


21. I feel deserving. I think that I deserve what I have, and often believe that I should have more because of how I have lived and in light of what I have done. 22. I often express as ingratitude. tendlife. to grumble about God’s providence applied toImy 23. I find myself wallowing in self-pity. I often lament and complain about how I am being treated by God and others. I tend to feel mistreated and misunderstood. 24. I can be envious of others’ abilities, possessions, positions or accomplishments. I find it difficult to rejoice with others when they are blessed and I am not. 25. I am uncaring of others. I find difficulty in expressing compassion to others. 26. I have a know-it-all attitude. I am impressed with my own knowledge. I believe that I cannot learn much from others. 27. I find it difficult to listen to ordinary people. I listen better to those I respect or people with whom I want to leave a good impression 28. I like to reveal my own mind. I have an answer to every conversation and feel that I must provide balance to every context. 29. I interrupt people regularly. 30. I feel compelled to stop people if they begin to share something with me that I already know. 31. I find it hard to admit that I do not kn ow something. 32. I rarely “get much” from public teaching. I tend to evaluate the speaker rather than my own life. I grumble in my heart about hearing something a second (or third) time. 33. I listen to exhortative or corrective teaching with other people in mind. I constantly apply such teaching to others.

219


34. I am not open to input, let alone correction, in my life. I tend to be unteachable and slow to repent, and I certainly do not pursue correction in my life. correction for myprobe life negatively, tend Itoview resent it when people hearts issue and s or my motivations. 35. I find it difficult to admit error. I tend to cover or excuse my sins, and it is hard for me to confess sin and seek forgiveness. 36. I view correction as an intrusion into my privacy rather than as an instrument of the sovereign God for my welfare. 37. I resent people who try to correct me. I do not respond with gratefulness and appreciation for their concern. I tend to become bitter and withdraw. 38. When corrected, I become contentious and quarrelsome. I explain away their points or their method. 39. I am easily provoked, angered, or offended. I am bothered when others disagree with me or disregard my thinking. 40. I have “personality conflicts” with others. 41. I am self-willed and stubborn. Cooperation is difficult and I prefer doing things my own way. 42. I am independent and uncommitted. I am really not persuaded that I need other people and I regularly view meetings as a waste of time. 43. I am unaccountable. I do not ask others to hold me accountable, and I do not believe that I should be accountable to others for my words and actions. 44. I am unsubmissive. I do not like being under authority, and I do not view submission as something from God as a good and necessary provision for my life. It is difficult for me to serve those in authority over me; what is important is that my voice be heard.

220


45. I lack respect for other people. I do not view others highly and I find it difficult to encourage and honor others. 46. I am a slanderer. I find myself giving or receiving evil reports of others. 47. I am divisive. I tend to resist or resent authority. I tend to disregard and disavow people giving me orders or direction. 48. I tend to demean others. It is the “other guy” who needs correction, humility and to be put in place. 49. I tend to be critical of others. I find it far easier to evaluate, rather than encourage, some one else. 50. I view myself as being humble, a perfect mixture of orthodoxy, orthopraxis, and orthopathos.

God’s word has been given to sanctify, that is, to change the fallen creation. That change begins in the heart of sinful man and then—and only then—does it transform the culture. Certainly, what one believes matters, as well as what one does. But without humility spawned by the gospel, all the right credenda and all the right agenda will ultimately only serve theflesh. To hold an optimistic eschatology, however, should enervate fleshly pride because postmillennialism is not simply about the future; it is about the present. The certainty of God’s future transformation of fallen creation should precipitate a present ethic and a present pathos comporting with that telos. Theonomic postmillennialism demands, not merely a declaration, but a heartfelt intentional demonstration of the gospel’s fruit: Promoting the primacy of the gospel; demonstrating evangelistic and missiological zeal; cultivating Christendomic con-

221


sciousness; and practicing courageous, strategic, and principled cultural engagement. And, habituating humility. Only by having pride be left behind will “the ORD

earth becover filledthe with thePostmillennialism knowledge of the and L theasgosthe waters sea.” pel demand no less.

1

Jefferey J. Ventrella, J.D.,serves as Vice President

for Blackstone Strategic Planning at the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal ministry, www.alliancedefensefund.org. There he trains Christian attorneys and law students nationwide to strategically engage the culturefor Christ via principled constitutional jurisprudence. He has served as an ordained Ruling Elder, teaches ethics and apologetics as an Adjunct Faculty member with Bahnsen Theological Seminary, and regularly speaks at theological and legal conferences across the country and internationally. 2 Unless otherwise noted, all cited Scripture is taken from the NKJV translation. 3 Aside from the theological “drive by shootings” of certain dispensational writers such as Hal Lindsey, similar less than scholarly efforts have been directed by reformed writers as well. One of the most egregiously confused analyses of Christian social theory appears in the short booklet by Herman Hanko, The Christian’s Social Calling and the Second Coming of Christ (South Holland, Ill.: South Holland Protestant Reformed Church, 1970). Professor Hanko’s colleague, Professor David J. Englesma, writing editorially in The Standard Bearer , periodically presents an

222


equally fallacious and misleading treatment of optimistic eschatology. Englesma of the ProtestantReformed Churches has characterized postmillennialism as “doctrinal bent See, on promoting “Jewish dreams” and “falseerror” teachings.” e.g., The Standard Bearer,77:20 (Sept. 1, 2001):461. Despite regularly displaying this rhetorical bravado, Engelsma has refused to publicly debate this author regarding theonomic ethics and/or eschatology despite having received numerous invitations to do so over the years. 4 Rousas J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law 5 (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Craig, 1973), 122. Rushdoony, Institutes, 449. 6 Rushdoony, Institutes, 147. 7 Rushdoony, Institutes, 163. 8 Rushdoony, Institutes, 627. 9 Rushdoony, Institutes, 780. 10 Greg L. Bahnsen,Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism(Texarkana, Ark.: CMF, 1999), 42. 11 Bahnsen, Victory in Jesus, 43. 12 Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology(2d. ed.: Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997), 224, n.30 (emphasis added). 13 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 232. 14 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 245. 15 Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 259, 60 (emphasis added) 16 This metaphor derives from comments made by Roger Wagner, of BahnsenTheological Seminary, during a worldview conference conducted in August, 2000 with the author. 17 Nineteenth century revivalistic philosophy continues to influence American Christianity. This is

223


especially noticeable in two areas: (1) the disregard or even absence of ecclesiastical authority and (2) more pertinent here, the reduction and limitation of “salvation” to personalof conversion “fire insurance,” rather than conceiving salvation or biblically, as involving a comprehensive way oflife lived underChrist’s redeeming Kingship. For helpful insight concernin g the notion of “preaching the gospel to yourself,” see , Jerry Bridges, The Discipline of Grace: God’s Role and Our Role in the Pursuit of Holiness (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1994). 18

Query whether theto”reformed simplypaperback aped evangelicalism’s “how mentalityhave by issuing after paperback trumpeting the family, family government, courtship, child rearing, particular educational paradigms, “traditional” or “medieval” liturgical preferences, etc. Certainly these issues comprise important topics, but when does one’s infatuation and “band-wagoning” with them transmogrify Christianity into nothing more than a form of idolatrous monoth eistic Mormonism ? In short, where’ s the gospel in the Christian life? (cf. Galatians 3:3). The gospel must receive primary. 19 John Piper, The Pleasures of God (2d. ed.: Portland, Ore.: Multnomah, 2000), 114. 20 To somewhat balance this equation, it should also be noted that in the past decade the OPC’ s efforts in supporting church planting “home missionaries” has greatly increased resulting in the establishment of many new congregations. Currently, the OPC supports thirty-four such “Home mission” works, many of which involve my friends and acquaintances. But the central point remains: are these new congregations now expressing missiological and evangelistic zeal?

224

Chapter 7: Practicing Postmillennialism 21

For a trenchant analysis of the idolatry that fuels the fear of man, see, Edward T. Welch, When People Are Big and God Is Small: Overcoming Peer Pressure, Codependency, and the and FearReformed, of Man (Phillipsburg, N. J.: Presbyterian 1997). 22 Examples of similar, functional hyper-Calvinism could be multiplied. In fact, one supposedly reformed pastor actually expressed that he did not want the congregation to grow numerically because he (and his relatives) would lose control. The good news is

that Godthe frequently removes the candlestick, to change metaphor, the shepherd, from suchorauthoritarian churches. (See, Ezekial 34:1-10.) For a telling expose of churches that abuse authority , albeit from a non-reformed doctrinal perspective, see Mary Alice Chrnalogar, Twisted Scriptures:A Path to Freedom from Abusive Churches (2d. ed.: Chattanooga, Tenn.: Control T echniques, 200 0) (revised edition, 1998, 2000). 23 Certainly, the reformed faithis biblical faith,but sadly, even good things canbecome idols for a Christian’s fallen heart, and thus a delight for “being the most reformed” can replace a zeal for delighting in Christ. 24 Today’s Evangelism: Its Message and Methods, (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1982), p. xv. 25 Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1971). 26 See Warfield’s important article contained as Chapter 3 in this book. 27 This is not to deprecate the imp ortance of “sheep rescuing” as opposed to “sheep stealing.”

225


There is perhaps no more enduring explication of the Antithesis than Augustine’s The City of God. 29 Modern American evangelicalism, including many in theimpacted reformedbycommunity, continuesemito be negatively the individualistic Pelegianism of nineteenth century revivalism and Scofieldism and its progeny , and thus have lost the robust Christendomic consciousness generated by the Antithesis. Witness the remarkable publishing success of The Late Great Planet Earth and the Left Behind Series. 30

Professor John Frame lamentedenergy when facedAs with the seemingly endlessonce presbyterial expended upon “perfecting minutes”: “I often wished someone had asked seriously how high a priority God would have us place on the perfection of minutes!” John M. Frame, Evangelical Reunion: Denominations and the One Body of Christ (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1991), 123, n. 11. 31 These dialectics describe what the Scriptures rpincipally teach, as the Shorter Catechism summarizes in Question 3. 32 Paraphrasing Steve Schlissel: “Isn’t it a shame that the first thing two reformed people do when they first meet is to find out where they disagree?” 33 Why the Reformers omitted “love” as being a mark of the church is baffling. Bahnsen issued an insightful corrective to the traditional reformed position by arguing that biblical fellowship (as well as evangelistic effort) should be recognized as necessary features of a viable biblical church in addition to the three traditionally articulated marks. See, Ventrella, Ecclesiastic Consequences of Theonomic Presuppositionalism (1996).

226


As Bahnsen once quipped when reflecting upon the often-deplorable state of Christian scholarly debate: “Isn’t it too bad that quarrels interfere with good 35 arguments .” Consider the current evangelical appetite for “left behind” dispensationalism, or the enthusiastic promotion, embracing (and heralding by the secular media) of a self-conscious modalist as being “the next Billy Graham.” Or, more close to home, consider the various band-wagons beginning to circle in reformed communities, trumpeting educational, marriage or parenting modalities. Indeed, entire congregations are being founded on narrow trendy preferences relating to one version of practical theology for the family, a sort of monotheistic Mormonism, rather than biblical Christendomic consciousness. 36 See, e.g., WCF 3:1 and also LC 18. 37 For an engaging, yet historically accurate fictionalization of this great battle, see, Steven Pressfield, Gates of Fire: An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae (Thorndike, Me.: G. K. Hall,1998). 38 Thanks to my long time friend and co-laborer, Pastor Alfred J. Poirier, for this aphorism. 39 While postmillennialists rightly note that cultural retreatism often accompanies dispensational eschatology, the sad truth is that some postmillennialists, who gliblyproclaim Christ’s historical victory from some rustic enclave often fail to operationally understand that God’s victory only comes through purposeful strategic means to the promised eschatological telos. And thus, these men become the functional equivalent of cultural retreatists themselves, doing nothing more than “huckleberry picking for Jesus” while waiting for the golden age to come—in

227


spite of their rhetoric to the contrary. God ordains both the means as well as the end. 40 See, Machen, Education, Christianity, and the State 41 (Jefferson, MD: Trinity Foundation, 1987). Of the Fortune 500 companies, 297 have adopted non-discrimination polices that include “sexual orientation.” And 158 have extended employee benefits to “domestic partners.” See, www.hrc.org. 42 See, Tom Minnery, Why You Can’t Stay Silent : A Biblical Mandate to Shape Our Culture (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale, 2001) for a popular, yet instructive historical

account of several strategicillustrative Christian cultural culturalperiods. involvement throughout 43 Just how a Christian, in today’s secular society, could consistently support every advocated boycott and yet still live in this world seems never to be explained by the boycott advocates. 44 For an exploration of just this approach, consider Gary DeMar’s frank editorial regarding the announced policies of Home Depot. See: Biblical Worldview (July 2001). 45 Board of Education v. Mergens, 110 S.Ct. 2356 (1990) (equal access precedent). 46 Lamb’s Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist., 113 S.Ct. 231 (1993) (equal access to public school facilities by outside organizations). 47 Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 115 S. Ct. 2515 (1995) (public forum precedent). 48 Good News Club v. Millford Central Sch., 121 S.Ct. 2093 (2001) (equal access principle extended to elementary public schools). 49 Paraphrasing Maximus, as speaking in the film Gladiator.

228


See generally, WCF 1:7 noting that salvation includes knowledge, belief and obedience. 51 In rehearsing these perspectives, one is reminded of Frame’s(orthopraxis), perspectivalism: normative(orthopathos). (orthodoxy), situational and existential See generally, John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R, 1987), perspectivally dealing with epistemological questions. Compare, Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God’s Law Today (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), perspectivally dealing with ethical questions. Frameof and are effectively rehearsing the theology theBahnsen Westminster Confession of Faith (see: WCF 15:7). 52 Credit is due to Alan E. Sears, President and General Counsel of the Alliance Defense Fun d for crafting this clever, but effective turn of phrase. 53 This entire list stems from a paper delivered by Brent Detweiler, www.soverigngraceministries.org. It has been largely quoted and Detweiler’s text has only been slightly altered from the srcinal.

229


230

 Index compiled by Steve Turley who teaches theology and hermeneutics at Tall Oaks Classical School in Hokessin, Delaware, and classical guitar at Eastern University. He is a graduate of Peabody Institute of The Johns Hopkins University and is an accomplished, award winning classical guitarist with several CDs and music books to his credit. He is currently working on an M.A.R. with Reformed Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina.

 Abraham, 4-5, 38 Adam Christ and, 160 Alexander, Archibald, 137 Alexander, J. A., 137 Allis, O. T., 137, 167, 169 Amillennialism Suffering and, ix Ancient of Days, 10 Angels Christ’s superiority to, 49 Antichrist, 131-132, 159 Growth of evil and, 25 Premillennialism and, 24 Antithesis, 199, 201-202, 226 Armageddon, 163 Arminianism, ix Asia Minor, 70 Augustine, 71

231

 Babel, Tower of, 201 Babylonian Empire, 9 Bahnsen, Greg L., i, ii, 84, 121, 193 Baptism, 90, 115 Barnes, Albert, 137 Baumgarten, Otto, 68 Bede, The Venerable, 71 Berkhof, Louis, 167 Beza, 71 Bock, Darrell L., i BookBeast of Revelation of, 162, 163 Boyd, Gregory, vi Bright, John, 26 Brown, David, 137, 164

 Calvin, John, 28, 71 Calvinism Evangelism and, 198 Chafer, Lewis Sperry, 1 Child, J. G., 151 Chilton, David, i, ii, 167 Christ Advent (first), 18 Ascension, 6, 8, 10, 17, 47, 49, 58, 59, 138, 145, 146 Atonement, 50, 56, 73, 74, 75, 82 Authority, 13, 135, 145 Burial, 12 Crucifixion, 52, 55, 192 Death, 12 Dominion, 10, 45, 46, 114

232

Enemies defeated, 6, 8, 17, 19, 46, 50-52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 98, 146-147, 192, 212 Exaltation, 6, 17, 29, 46, 47-48, 49, 50, 52, 55, 121, 142 of suffering, 158-159 Example Fulfillment, 5, 6, 11, 25, 42, 45, 46, 47-48, 49, 55, 56, 58, 133 Imminency of return, x Intercessor, 6 Israel and, 133, 168 Jewish leaders and, 43-45 Kingship, x, 18, x50, 55, 100, 138, 145, 146, 147 Present victory, Priest-King, 6 Priesthood, 56 Priestly office, 45, 50, 55, 59, 75 Propitiation, viii, 71-79 Reign, 18, 42, 51-53, 54, 59, 61, 84, 102, 139 Resurrection, 5-6, 8, 12, 47, 50, 121, 138, 145, 146 Right hand of God, 6 Rule, 19, 53 Earthly, 24 Salvation, 69 Savior, 6, 77, 79, 81 Second advent, 59, 60 Son of David, 43 Son of God, 49, 58 Son of Man, 9-10, 45, 46, 99 Suffering of, 93 Universal propitiation, 67-81 Victory, 57, 58, 84, 97, 135, 147 Christendomic consciousness, 200-204 Christian Reconstruction(ist, ism), xi, 120, 171

233

Christianity Christian civilization, 128 Triumph of, 165 Triumph of liberalism, 3 Christian(s) Authority of Christ and, 42 Benefits, 71-72 Rule with Christ, 18 Church Body of Christ, 89 Bride, 200 Endurance 96, 101, 102, Instrument of, of dominion, 20, 103, 54 152 Israel and, 15 New Jerusalem, 200 Persecution of, 87-90, 96, 100, 102, 103, 129, 151, 152-154 Perseverance of, 95-96, 100, 103, 104 Suffering of, 84, 86-96, 101, 103, 104, 151, 155 Union with Christ, 86, 90 Victory of, 85, 96, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104 Visible, 203 Cohen, Abraham, 41 Consummation Final judgement, 18 Cotton, John, 68 Covenant(s) Abrahamic, viii, 4-5, 6, 11, 116 Blessing, 5, 7, 12-13, 21n Cursing, 21n Davidic, 11, 27, 30, 46, 47-48, 58 Edenic, 116 New, 116, 142 Noahic, 5

234

Old, 120, 142 Creation, viii, 90 Eschatology and, 4 Mandate, 4 Creeds Apostles’, iv Larger Catechism, 169, 227 Nicene, iv Shorter Catechism, 226 Westminster Confession of Faith, 42, 120-121, 167, 169, 196, 227, 229 CultsJehovah’s Witnesses, v Mormons (Latter-day Saints), v Curse, 4

 Dabney, Robert L., 137, 164, 167 David, 38 Person of, 48 Psalm 110 and, 27-40 Throne/kingdom, 48, 62-63n Davis, John J., i, 52, 54 Day of the Lord, 160 Death Destruction of, 17 Spiritual, 19 Delitzsch, Franz, 28, 35, 36 DeMar, Gary, i, ii Detweiler, Brent, 217ff Disciple(s), 12, 53, 129 Dominion, 4, 100, 131, 136, 151, 193, 194

235

 Edwards, Jonathan, 137 Eschatology Apologetics Bible and, iiiand, iv-v Biblical, 137 Christ and, iv Christian worldview and, iii Cultural engagement, 204, 207 Ethics and, 191-222 Evangelicalism and, vi Hope and, iiiof, ii-vii Importance Inaugurated, 85, 101, 102-103 Israel and, iv Kingdom and, 139 Optimistic, xii, 198, 200, 213, 221 Sanctification and, vi Two age structure, 140 Victory, 192, 195 Worldly labors and, vii Eternal hope, 165 Evil Growth, 24, 25 Presence of, 156 Exodus, 201



Faith, 211 Fairbairn, Patrick, 137 Fall of man, 4 Ferguson, Sinclair, 120 France, R. T., 161

236

 Gaffin, Richard B. Jr., ix, 83ff, 151, 153, 154, 155, 158, 167 Garden, 201 Gentry, Kenneth L. Jr., i, ii, 193 Gill, John, 161 God Creational purpose, 115, 128 Decree, 196, 204 Effectual calling, 198 Election, 198 Glory 60,212 196 Grace,of, 204, Power of, 195 Praise to, 27, 39 Provisions, 115 Reign of, 196 Right hand of, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34-35, 36, 39, 41, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 58, 59, 65, 145 Righteousness, 128 Rule, 7-8 Sovereignty, 31, 51, 115, 197, 214 Spirit of, 28 Throne, 31, 33, 48 Trinity, 115 Gospel Cultural transformation, 185, 214 Cultural victory, 144 Power of God, 195 Reconciliation, 203 Social transformation, 192, 195 Victory of, 3, 58 Worldwide success, 150

237

Gradualism, 12 Great Commission, viii, 137 Church’s mission, 59 Fulfillment of, 12-13, 54,135-137 133 Postmillennialism and,25, 133, Psalm 110 and, 53-54 Greek Empire, 9

 Heaven Blessed conditions, 114 Hope of, 157 Hermeneutics Eschatology and, 115 Literalism, 131, 162 New Testament, 42 Old Testament, 26-27, 42 “Of persecution”, 86, 95, 100 Temporal indicators, 162 Hill, Charles E., 163 Historical optimism Postmillennialism and, 25-26, 83-84 Historical pessimism Amillennialism and, 23-25, 83-84 Premillennialism and, 23-24 History Redemptive (salvation), 5 Hodge, A. A., 137 Hodge, Charles, 137, 164 Holiness, 36 Holy Spirit Church and, 100, 121 Intercession, 91 Outpouring, 47

238

Prophecy and, 28, 33, 39 Redemption of the body and, 91 Homosexual legal agenda, 208 Humility, 210

 Ice, Thomas D., xiii Israel Election, 21n Ethnic, 14-16 Failure of, 13 Future restoration Gentiles and, 14-16of, 16 National, 47 Rejection of, 13-14, 16 Remnant of, 14, 16 Israel (people) Prophets and, 7



Jerusalem City of, 31, 43, 46, 47, 48, 58 Destruction of, 177 Temple, 159, 162 Jews Kingdom and, 148 Judgement, 19, 25



Kik, J. Marcellus, 48, 161 Kingdom of God/Christ Authority, 51 Consummation, 8, 121 Established at first advent, 18, 25

239

Growth, 8, 9, 12, 17, 23, 82, 98, 102, 113, 127, 144, 146, 148, 150, 164, 199, 201 Inauguration, 8, 139 Inter-advent Messianic, 9,period, 12, 25,23 32, 33, 48, 59 Mystery of, 148 Prophecies, 28 Victory, 7-8, 9, 17, 23, 25, 28, 50, 59 Kline, Meredith G., 120, 121

 Last days,H. 47, Leupold, C.,64, 32140-141, 142-143 Levitical priesthood, 38, 55 Lindsey, Hal, v Lot, 201

 Man of lawlessness, 162, 163 Mathison, Keith, i, McLeod, Alexander, i Medo-Persian Empire, 9 Melchizedek, 28, 38, 55 Messiah, 7 Church and, 54 David and, 62n Divinity, 32 Dominion, 41, 53 Enemies defeated, 29, 32-35, 39-42, 52 Exaltation, 29, 30, 31, 32, 39, 41, 46, 49 Fulfillment, 27, 31 Holy army, 36-37, 41, 53-54 Jewish expectations, 98 Jewish leaders and, 43-45

240

Judgement during enthronement, 40 Priestly ministry, 37-39 Priestly office, 55 Prophecy 46 Prophetic and, expectation, 28 Reign, 28, 39, 47-48 Rule, 34 Son of David, 43-45 Throne, 41 Victory, 33, 39, 41 Messianic psalms, 27 Millennium, 183123 Christ and, Definition of, 172 “Millennial” conditions, 124 Postmillennialism and, 123 Revelation 20 and, 17-19 Missions, 197 Mormonism, 224, 227 Moule, H. C. G., 89 Murray, Iain, 164 Murray, John, 137, 167

 Nationalism, 3 Nations, 5-6, 7, 10 Nebuchadnezzar, 8 Nero, 161, 163 Noah, 5, 201 North, Gary, i, ii, vii, 84

 Olivet Discourse, iii, 159, 162, 168, 177 Openness Theology, vi

241

Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 197 Owen, John, 195



Parable(s) Kingdom, 148 Leaven, 12, 80, 113, 144, 201 Mustard seed, 11-12, 80, 98, 113, 144, 164, 201 Pounds, 168 Soils, 102, 156 Tares, 113 Virgins, Yeast, 98166, 168 Patriarchs, 201 Paul Teaching on Israel, 13-16 Teaching on resurrection, 50 Teaching on suffering, 90-91, 158 Pentateuch, 21n Pentecost, 47, 48 Perfectionism, 85, 113 Peter, 47, 48 Pinnock, Clark, vi Plummer, A., 74 Postmillennialism Definition of, 2, 25 Distortion of, 1-2, 8, 85, 112, 138, 222-223n Evangelism and, x, 191, 195-200 Gospel and, 192-194 Hope, 121, 130 Humility and, 203, 210-222 Liberalism and, 117 Missions and, x New Testment and, 11-19

242

Old Testament and, 3-11 Persecution and, 131-132 Prima facie plausibility, 117-118 Redemptive x, 115 Resurgence, history, i, 60, 111 Revelation 20 and, 122-124, 125-127 Salvation and, x Suffering and, ix, 90, 150-159 Theonomic, xi, 191, 192, 195, 200, 204,210, 212, 214, 216, 221 Three ages charge, 105, 140-144 Triumphalism, ix and, x Two-age division Preterism, 159, 161 Pride, 213, 214-221 Prophecy Psalm 110 and, 30, 41, 44 Prophet(s), 7 Public education, 208 Puritans, 60

 Rapture Matthew 24 and, xiii Redemption (salvation), 5 Extent, 99 Worldwide, 81 Redemptive irony, 97-100, 104 Regeneration, 19 Reisigner, Ernest, 198 Remnant, 99 Resurrection Blessed conditions, 114 General, 17, 19, 25, 50, 52, 150

243

Physical, 19, 94, 157 Spiritual, 18-19 Roman Empire, 9 Rothe, Richard, 75 J., i, ii, vii, 60, 192-193 Rushdoony, Rousas Russell, Bertrand, v Ryrie, Charles, 1

 Sanders, John, vi Sandlin, Andrew, i, ii SatanBinding/fall, 18, 125-127 Cast down, 142 Defeat of, 100 Kingdom 24 Loosing of, 18, 25 Satisfactionism, 85, 114 Savoy Declaration, 195 School vouchers, 208 Schweitzer, Albert, iv Scripture Final consummation and, 182 Occasional, 87, 101, 151 Unfulfilled prophecies, 184-186 Second advent, 3, 6, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 50-52 Consummation, 180 Destruction of temple and, 159-161 Glory of, 165 Hope of, 23, 163, 164, 165 Imminency, 166-169, 177-190 Postmillennial hope and, 130, 131 Postmillennialism and, 25 Satan-led rebellion, 132

244

Seed Woman’s, 4 Serpent, 4 Shedd, William G. T., 137 Sin Expiation, 68, 71, 73, 80 Presence of, 92-93, 95, 113, 128, 158 Resolution, 51-52 Snowden, James, 164 Social gospel, 3 Sodom, 201 Sproul, R.Robert C., xiiiB., ix, 83ff, 111ff, 154 Strimple, Strong, Augustus H., 137

 Theonomic living, 204 Theonomy, 120-121 Gospel and, 192-194 Thermopylae, Battle of, 205-206 Thornwell, J. H., 137 Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, 111 Tongues, 87, 151 Tribulation, 24

 Universalism, 3, 85, 113



Venema, Cornelis, ix, 86, 154, 168 Vos, Geerhardus, x, 83

 Walvoord, John, 26, 60

245

Warfield, B. B., 57, 137, 167, 197 Weiss, Bernhard, 72, 73 Westcott, B. F., 75 White, Fowler,v ix, 83ff Wilson,R. Dwight, World John’s meaning of, 70 Worship, 203, 211, 213

 Zion Earthly, 3434, 40 Heavenly,

246

    1:26-28 — 4 2:15-17 — 4 3—4 3:14-19 — 98 3:15 — 4, 97, 201 3:17-18 — 4, 156 10 — 5 10:32 —5 12 — 4 12:1-3 — 4-5 12:3 — 5 14:13-24 — 38 15 — 4 17 — 4 22:17 — 65 26:13 49:10 — — 33 33

 35:29 — 36

 26 — 21

 6:1 — 211 6:9 — 209 8:17 — 95 9:5 — 40 28 — 21

247

 10:24 — 32

2:30  — 30 13:8-13 — 38

  7:5-16 — 28 7:12-16 — 48 7:12-17 — 27, 30 23:1-7 23:2-5 — — 30 28

  5:3 — 32

  9:7 — ii

  16:22 — ii 17:1-15 — 27, 30

  20:21 — 36 26:16 — 38

 2 — 5, 30, 35, 65, 134 2:1-3 — 35 2:2 — 30 2:2-3 — 40 2:4 — 31

248

2:4-6 — 35 2:7-9 — 35 2:8 — 34 2:9 — 34, 2:10-12 —40, 40,41 52 9:15-17 — 40 11:4 — 31, 34 16:8-11 — 47 22 — 6 22:27 — 34 22:27-28 — 6 47:2, 8— 48:2 — 3431 72:17-19 — 196 89: 3-4 — 27 89:20-21 — 27 89:28-29 — 33 89:34-37 — 27, 33 99:1-3 — 34 103:19 — 31, 34 105:5 — ii 110 — viii, 6, 17, 26-61 110:1 — 29, 33-36, 39, 43-53, 63 110:1-2 — 35, 37 110:2 — 34, 53 110:2-3 — 53, 54 110:2-4 — 29, 33 110:3 — 35, 37, 53, 54, 57 110:4 — 37, 45, 55, 56 110:5 — 56 110:5-6 — 40, 41, 57 110:5-7 — 29, 39, 56, 57 110:6 — 40, 57 110:7 — 41

249

112:8 — 33

 8:13 11:2 — — 214 214 16:2 — 215 16:5 — 215 16:18 — 215 29:25 — 198

 1:24 — 30 2 — 134 2:2 — 140 2:2-4 — 64, 65 7:14 — 7 9 — 17 9:1-7 — 65 9:6-7 — 7, 33, 212 11:9 — 198 19:25f — 7 46:1-9 — iv 46:9-10 — iv 52:13-53:12 — 37 55:8 — 30 65:17-20 — 173 66:1 — 31

 7:25 — ii 18:7-10 — 40 31:34 — 211 32:38-41 — 201 49:16 — 215

250

 17:47 — 9 38:17 — ii

 2 — 8, 10 2, 7 — 17, 18 2:31-35 — 8 2:35, 44 — 65 2:36-45 — 9 2:44 — 8, 9 7:9-12 7:9-14 — — 10 65 7:12-14 — 10 7:13 — 45, 46 7:13-14 — 9, 10, 11, 17, 33 7:14 — 11, 46 7:17 — 10 7:18 — 10 7:22 — 10 7:26 — 10 7:26-27 — 65 7:27 — 10

 2:28-32 — 47 4:13 — 34

 2:14 — 60

 1:6 — ii 4:10 — 98

251

6:13 — 38 9 — 17

 1:1 — 11 2:2 — 18 3:17 — 5 5:16 — 174 5:20 — 211 5:23-24 — 203 6:33 — 95, 207 12:28 12:29 — — 98, 18 148 13 — iii, 9, 133 13:3-8 — 148 13:11 — 113, 144, 148 13:13 — 148 13:14-17 — 148 13:19-22 — 102 13:22 — 93, 156 13:30 — 113 13:30-33 — 102, 148 13:31-32 — 98, 144 13:31-33 — 11, 65, 113, 127, 168, 201 13:33 — 98, 144 13:39 — 25 13:39-40, 49 — 141 13:53-58 — 98, 148 16:18 — 212 17:5 — 5 21:18 — 93 21:23-22:46 — 43 21:41-45 — 62 22:41-45 — 6, 43

252

22:42 — 43 22:42-45 — 59 22:43 — 27 22:43-45 — 44 22:44 — 44 23:37-24:1a — 160 24-25 — iii 24:1b — 160 24:1-34 — 160 24:2 — 160 24:3 — 159, 161 24:3-34 — 160 24:6 — 177, 190 24:13 — 96 24:14 — 137 24:16 — 161 24:34 — 161, 162 24:34-36 — 161 24:36 — 115 24:36ff — 160 24:44 — 168 24:45 — 44 25:1-10 — 168 25:1-13 — 166 25:19 — 168 26:63 — 45 26:64 — 45, 46, 58, 59 26:65-66 — 45 27:32-56 — 12 27:57-61 — 12 28:1-10 — 12 28:18 — 53 28:18-20 — viii, 12, 53, 59, 65, 133, 135 28:19 — 137, 169, 170

253

 4—9 4:11 — 144 4:26-29 — 144 102, 144, 207 4:30-32 — 7:6 — 211 9:35 — 213 12:35-37 — 6, 43 14:62 — 45 16:16-17 — 152 16:19 — 49

 1:32 — 63 10:18 — 18 14:11 — 215 19:10 — 98 19:11-27 — 169 19:44 — iv 20:41-44 — 6, 43 22:69 — 45 24:17-21 — 149 24:21a — 149 24:21 — 98 24:25 — iv 24:31 — iv

1:11 — iv  1:29 — 69 3:7 — 213 3:16 — 69 3:16-17 — 98 4:6 — 93

254

4:24 — 213 5:25-29 — 150 5:28-29 — 19 5:39 6:15 — — iv 44, 98 11:33 — 91 11:35 — 93 12:31 — 18 12:31-32 — 98, 133 13:34-35 — 203 16:33 — 151 17:17 — vi, 210

 1:7 — 115, 168 2:1-36 — 47 2:16-17, 24 — 140 2:17, 30-36 — 59 2:22-36 — 47 2:29-36 — 17 2:30 — 30, 47 2:30ff — 145 2:30-31 — 10, 18, 145 2:30-36 — 58 2:31-33 — 48 2:33-35 — 6, 48 2:34-35 — 10, 27 2:34-36 — 6 2:36 — 48 3:21 — 64, 65 5:21 — 145 5:31 — 49, 50, 55, 58, 59 5:36 — 6 7:55-56 — 6, 49

255

7:59 — 88, 153 9:1-2 — 88, 153 9:36-37 — 91, 155 12:1-2 —588 13:33 — 13:48 — 198 14:22 — 151 17:7 — 18, 145

 1:4 — 145 1:16 5:14 — — 192 160 5:17 — 18 6 — 90 6:5 — 19 6:12 — 91 6:12-13 — 155 7:21-23 — 92, 156 7:24 — 92, 156 8 — 92, 95, 155, 156 8:2 — 90 8:3 — 93, 159 8:10-11 — 108, 155 8:11 — 91 8:13 — 93 8:13, 23 — 108 8:17 — 90 8:18 — 94, 151 8:18-19 — 158 8:20, 22 — 90, 154 8:20-22 — 4 8:23 — 91 8:26-27 — 91

256

8:34 — 6, 49, 50 8:36 — 151 9-11 — viii, 13, 16 9:6-13 9:27 —— 1413, 14 9:6-29 — 14 9:30-10:21 — 14 9:32-33 — 14 11 — 134, 169 11:2-6 — 14 11:5, 7 — 13 11:7 — 16 11:7-10 — 14 11:11 — 14, 16 11:11-32 — 15 11:11-36 — 65 11:12 — 14, 16 11:15 — 15, 16 11:17 — 89 11:20-23 — 15 11:24-25 — 16 11:25 — 15 11:25b-26 — 15 11:26 — 15, 16 11:28-29 — 13 11:31 — 15 12:1 — 108 12:1-2 — 210 15:8 — 89

  1:31 — 212 2:2 — 192 3:20 — 212

257

3:21-22 — 145 4:7 — 213 6:7 — 104 6:13, 6:16, 15 20 — — 108 108 9:27 — 93, 157 10:1 — 89 10:11 — 173 12:14 — 89 12:26 — 89 14:39 — 87, 151 15 — iii,— viii, 15:1-19 5016, 50, 134, 139, 140 15:18-19 — iii 15:20-23 — 18-19 15:20-28 — 50, 65, 133 15:23 — 19 15:23-25 — 59 15:23-28 — 59 15:24 — 50, 52, 141 15:24-25 — 16 15:25 — 6, 51, 52, 139, 146, 192, 212 15:26 — 17, 52 15:34 — 104 15:42-44— 157 15:51-56 — 17 15:52-56 — 19 15:53-57 — 91 15:58 — vii, xii

  1:5-10 — 151 4:7 — 91, 154 4:10 — 108

258

4:16 — 91, 157 5:1-2, 4 — 94, 157 5:1-10 — 94 5:17 10:17— —139 212 11:23-25 — 88, 153 11:30 — 212 12:5 — 212 12:7 — 157 15:42-44 — 94

 3:3 — 224 4:4 — 140 4:13 — 91, 155 6:1 — 174 6:15 — 139

 1:2ff — 146 1:3 — 145 1:10 — 64, 65 1:11 — 204 1:19-21 — 6, 17, 52 1:19-22 — 98 1:20 — 49 1:22 — 145, 146, 170 2:5-6 — 19 2:6 — 18, 145 2:12 — 92

 1:20 — 108 1:23 — 94

259

1:27 — 91 1:29 — 151 2:3 — 213 2:3-5 2:6-11— —204 50, 52 2:7 — 93, 158 2:9 — 145 2:9-10 — 17 2:9-11 — 6 2:12 — 204 2:13 — 204 2:27 3:10 — — 155 151 3:20 — iii 3:21 — 94, 108, 157

 1:6 — 70 1:12-13 — 145 1:13 — 18 1:20 — 64 1:23 — 70 2:11 — 108 2:12 — 19 2:15 — 18, 98 3:1 — 49, 145 3:5 — 93 4:11 — 145

  — iii 1:7 — 174 2:12 — 145 4:13 — iii, 92 4:16 — 19

260

5:2 — 168 5:23 — 108

— iii   1:7-10 — 160 2 — 162 2:1 — 162 2:1-3 — 169 2:1-10 — 160 2:2-3 — 162 2:6 — 163 2:7 2:8 — — 163 161

  5:23 — 91, 155

  2:22-25 — 203 2:24-25 — 216 3:1 — 173 3:12-13 — 131 3:16 — iii 3:16-17 — vi

 2:7 — 92 2:13 — iii

 1:1-2 — 173 1:3 — 49, 50 1:3, 13 — 59 1:13 — 6, 49

261

2:8 — 98, 147 2:12 — 6 2:14 — 18, 93 2:18 4:14 — — 93, 6 159 4:15 — 93, 159 5:1 — 37 5:4-6, 10 — 55 5:5-10 — 59 5:6 — 6 5:6, 10 — 55 5:11 — 55, 10459 6:20 — 7:1-28 — 55 7:3 — 55 7:11 — 55 7:11-28 — 59 7:15 — 55 7:17 — 6, 55 7:21 — 6, 55 8:1 — 49, 50 9:26 — 173 9:28 — 133 10:11-12 — 50 10:12 — 49, 52 10:12-13 — 52, 59, 170 10:13 — 6, 53, 98, 102, 147 10:25 — 174 10:32-34 — 88, 153 11:32-40 — 89 12:1 — 93, 104, 156 12:2 — 49, 50 12:22 — 34 13:4-5 — 104

262

13:9 — 104

 1:2-4 1:3 —— 9692 1:22 — 196 2:17-26 — 211 4:6 — 215 5:14 — 155 5:17 — 91

1:20  — 173 2:2 — vi 2:9 — 145 3:22 — 6, 17, 49, 58, 98 4:12-19 — 151 5:5 — 215 5:8 — 18   3:3-4 — 168 3:4 — 114 3:8-9 — 168

  2:1 — 6 2:2 — ix, 67 2:16 — 93 2:18 — 173 3:8 — 18 4:14 — 199

263

 1:1, 3 — 102, 163 1:5 — 18, 102, 145 1:5-6 1:6 —— 18139, 146 1:6, 9 — 145 1:9 — 102 19 — 159, 163 19:7-8 — 54 19:11 — 56 19:11-15 — 59 19:11-16 19:11-21 — — 56 56, 57, 59 19:14 — 54 19:14, 19 — 57 19:15 — 56 19:15, 21 — 58 19:17-21 — 57 19:18-19 — 57 19:19 — 56 19-20 — 3 20 — viii, 17, 18, 118, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 133, 134 20:1-3 — 126 20:1-10 — 18 20:2 — 126 20:3 — 18, 127 20:5 — 19 20:6, 14 — 19 20:7-9 — 132 20:11-15 — 18, 19 21:6 — iv 22:6, 10 — 102, 163 22:13 — iv

264

Thine is the Kingdom: A Study of the Postmillennial Hope

Recommend Documents