A Baptist Defends Postmillennialism

Introduction

Every locus of systematic theology raises questions which can only be answered by an understanding of biblical eschatology, for “eschatology is the crown and capstone of dogmatic theology.”(1)  The entire trajectory of biblical revelation and human history is resolved in eschatological conclusions. The Church lives in the time of Christ’s already inaugurated but not yet fully consummated Kingdom. Expectations regarding the nature and timeline of the Kingdom must be biblical, so that the Church may have a correct understanding of her purpose and direction as vicegerents in his Kingdom and members of his Body.

A central point of disagreement among evangelicals respecting the broader realm of eschatology is the “millennial debate” over the timing of Christ’s prophesied second advent. The debate is complex by nature, involving every loci of theology, hermeneutical prioritizing, higher criticism, diachronic and synchronic biblical theology, exegesis of prophetic and apocalyptic literature, theories of progressive revelation, and a philosophy of history. The discussion can be further complicated by the use of somewhat inadequate traditional terminology to delineate the different positions: dispensational premillennialism, historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism.(2)

Survey of Various Positions

In order to obediently fulfill the Great Commission of Christ the King it is necessary to understand the chronology and nature of his Kingdom; these two issues are also of use in distinguishing millennial views from each other.(3)  Briefly, the question of chronology has to do with the relationship between the timing of Christ’s second coming and the establishment of his Millennial Kingdom. Premillennialism holds that the second coming precedes the Millennium; post- and amillennialists believe the second coming succeeds the Millennium. The question of the nature of the Kingdom has to do with its historical character. If the Kingdom is expected to be characterized by radically pervasive righteousness then the position is either premillennial or postmillennial; if it is characterized by the nearly parallel growth of good and evil, it is amillennial.(4)

Dispensational Premillennialism

Premillenarians… insist that one general rule of interpretation should be applied to all areas of theology and that prophecy does not require spiritualization any more than other aspects of truth… History is history, not allegory. Facts are facts. Prophesied future events are just what they are prophesied.(5)

At the heart of classical dispensationalism is a hermeneutic of literal interpretation. Applying this hermeneutic to biblical prophecy leads invariably to the complex premillennial eschatological conclusions of the dispensational system. The cataclysmic culmination of history leads into a “Great Tribulation” period of seven years, which believers will narrowly escape when Christ returns part way to earth and raptures the Church.(6)  Christ then physically returns after the Tribulation with the saints to establish his millennial kingdom of righteousness, peace and prosperity on earth.(7)  This millennial period occupies the time between the two resurrections of Revelation 20, between the second coming of Christ and the final Day of Judgment.

Consistent literalism maintains that God’s two “projects” in history (Israel and the Church) remain entirely separate, Israel inheriting the OT promises of earthly, material blessing and the Church inheriting heavenly, spiritual blessing. The present age of the Church is a parenthesis in redemptive history. The coming of God’s Kingdom has been postponed due to its rejection by rebellious Israel; Gentiles have been allowed to receive God’s blessings, while awaiting the fulfillment of all promises to Israel and the Church in the millennium.(8)

Historic Premillennialism

The literalistic hermeneutic of classical dispensationalism has been challenged and attenuated by so-called “progressive dispensationalists” who have adopted an eschatological view more akin to historic premillennialism.(9)  Adherents of the historic position have often sought to distinguish themselves from dispensationalists,(10) adhering to a more holistic view of biblical revelation, while still maintaining a literal reading of Revelation 20 with the millennium intervening between two resurrections. The two premillennial positions actually hold little in common theologically; in fact,

…the only positive features that unify premillennial views ancient and modern are those that dispensational premillennialism affirms as well – a millennial kingdom in which Satan is bound, instituted after the visible coming of Christ, and a partial resurrection of the dead but prior to the Final Judgment.(11)

Historic premillennialists also maintain that the second coming of Christ will be preceded by a period of Great Tribulation on the earth, though without the controversial rapture debates of the dispensationalist framework.

Amillennialism

Amillennialism has been characterized as the “simplest”(12) of the millennial positions. Amillennialists maintain that the millennium of Revelation 20 is symbolic of the present Church Age and that all eschatological events not yet fulfilled will occur contemporaneously with Christ’s return at the end of this age. The millennium is characterized throughout by the parallel growth and struggle between good and evil, the kingdom of darkness and the kingdom of light. This struggle is expected to intensify in a period of persecution just prior to Christ’s Parousia.

Robert Reymond puts it succinctly:

The concept of a millennial reign per se is found only in Revelation 20, a book with extensive symbolism. It is most likely that this Johannine “millennium” should be construed symbolically either of the present spiritual reign of Christians with Christ… or of the present reign of the martyred saints in the intermediate state… or perhaps even both together, rather than be construed literally as an aspect of the Eschaton…(13)

Postmillennialism

Postmillennialism agrees with premillennialism regarding the nature of the millennial kingdom as a time of unprecedented historical glory and righteousness under the reign of King Jesus.(14)  Postmillennialism also agrees with amillennialism regarding the chronology of the millennium; the “thousand years” of Revelation 20 precedes the second coming of Christ.(15)

According to postmillennialism, the millennium is characterized by the gradual fulfillment of the Great Commission with the Holy Spirit drawing unprecedented multitudes to Christ through the faithful preaching of the gospel, transforming global society through discipleship; among those converted are the ethnic Israelites who have thus far rejected the Messiah.(16)  At the end of the present age there is a brief period of rebellion, after which Christ will return to consummate his Kingdom, there will be a general resurrection, and the final judgment of the just and the unjust will take place. Postmillennialism maintains a gospel-centered, missiologically-driven realistic optimism regarding the future of the present age under the reign of the ascended Christ.

Support for Position

It could be argued that a diachronic view of the corpus of Scripture provides a strong case for postmillennialism, from the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15) through the promises of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12, 15, 17) and the Messianic psalms (Ps 2, 22, 110), to the predictions of the Prophets (especially Is 9:6-7; Dan 2:31-35, 44; 7:13-27), as well as Christ’s Kingdom Parables (Matt 13:31-33), the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-20, with its allusion to Dan 7:13-14(17)), the role of ethnic Israel (Rom 9-11), and finally the perpetually controversial millennial passage in Revelation 20. Unfortunately, such an extensive undertaking is beyond the scope of this paper.(18)

Instead, this paper will present an exegetical defense of postmillennialism from 1 Corinthians 15:22-26. If the interpretation here is correct it should be sufficient to establish that only postmillennialism properly apprehends both the biblical chronology and nature of the eschatological millennial kingdom.

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.  But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.  Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.  For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.  The last enemy to be destroyed is death (1 Cor 15:22-26).(19)

The context of 1 Corinthians 15 is Paul’s response to the question of the validity of bodily resurrection (15:12). Paul provides an eschatological answer, moving from Christ’s resurrection to the telos (“end”).(20)  Resurrection is invariably intertwined with Christ’s kingdom reign, since death is an enemy (15:26). The origin of death was sin (“as in Adam all die”) and the deliverance from death is in the Messiah (“in Christ shall all be made alive”). He then gives the eschatological sequence (tagmati) of this deliverance: “each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.”  Christ was resurrected,(21) “then” (epeita) the resurrection “at his coming” of “those who belong to (him),” “then the end” (eita to telos). It is clear from the adverb usage (epeita, eita) that Paul is presenting a chronological sequence of eschatological events.(22)

Paul expands on the meaning of eita to telos by teaching that the “end” (telos) is “when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.”(23)  The “end” is when the kingdom is consummated, not initiated, and Christ reigns from his resurrection “until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” This demonstrates that the kingdom is a reality before it is delivered to God the Father (contradicting the premillennial view of millennial chronology), but it is also delivered after Christ’s reign has brought about the destruction of every rule, authority and power (contradicting the amillennial view of the equal progression of good and evil throughout the interadvental period).

When the connection between 15:24 and 15:25 is analyzed in relation to the remainder of the pericope, the postmillennial interpretation is established. The gar (“for”) of 15:25 “introduces an explanation,” namely, indicating that the kingdom actions of 15:24 are the result of Christ’s “current but ongoing rule.”(24)  The chronological key, then, is that Christ’s established reign persists “until he has put all his enemies under his feet” and “the last enemy… is death,” which is “swallowed up in victory” (15:54) at his “coming” (15:23).(25)  Christ’s reign is interadvental, because the last enemy defeated before “the end” is death; and his reign is characterized by progressively putting all his enemies under his feet through the fulfillment of the Great Commission, until he has destroyed every rule, authority and power, since this occurs before the kingdom is delivered to God the Father.(26)

The premillennialist will interject that the adverb usage of 15:23-24 allows for the possibility of an intervening period between the “coming” (parousia) of Christ and “the end” (to telos).(27)  The semantic range of the terms and grammatical possibility of the interpretation are admitted by all sides.(28)  However, Paul’s usage of the term telos precludes such a conclusion, recognizing that telos is never used to refer to an “end period.”(29)  Theological presuppositions appear to drive this interpretation, rather than syntactical analyses, since there is no positive exegetical evidence in the passage referring to an intervening period between the present interadvental age and the age to come.(30)

The premillennialist rightly recognizes the nature of the millennial kingdom, that Christ reigns in a kingdom of righteousness, but abstracts this “end period” from the present interadvental age in contradiction to the teaching of Paul in this passage of 1 Corinthians.

The amillennialist agrees with the postmillennial assessment of the premillennial interpretation above. In fact, “optimistic amillennialists”(31) aren’t presented with any difficulty by the above exegesis. Problems arise when some amillennialists insist that the destruction of Christ’s enemies is contemporaneous with the second coming.(32)  This clearly contradicts the proper sequential translation of the second o[tan clause in 15:24 and its explanatory link to 15:25, as discussed above. The amillennialist correctly apprehends the biblical chronology regarding the millennial kingdom, but not the biblical testimony regarding its nature.(33)

Objections to Position

Without 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… 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.(34)

Apart from the numerous straw men erected in the place of postmillennialism (referred to in the quote above) one of the most common objections to postmillennialism is the imputation of guilt by its historical associations with modern theological liberalism.(35)  Guilt-by-association and slippery slope arguments are fallacious and, as such, are unworthy of Christian discourse. It is no less fallacious to point out that premillennialism is invariably the eschatology of anti-Christian cults such as Islam, Mormonism, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, while amillennialism is the doctrine of Roman Catholicism and Neo-Orthodoxy. Such observations only muddy already turbid waters, rather than providing biblical clarity.

Having very briefly pointed out the mistaken or fallacious nature of the most common objections to postmillennialism,(36) we will look at two of the most substantial objections presented to the postmillennial position, one from each respective alternative position.

The majority of premillennial objections to the postmillennial thesis center on the proper interpretation of New Testament prophecies, particularly the parallel passages of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation 20.  If the catastrophic events depicted in these passages characterize the circumstances in the intervening period before Christ’s return, then it would appear to rule out the postmillennialist’s optimism regarding the progress of the gospel until the end of human history.(37)

More specifically, Revelation 20 depicts the binding of Satan for one thousand years (to prevent him from continuing to deceive the nations), during which the saints are resurrected and reign with Christ (20:1-6). Satan is then released from his prison and he deceives the nations into going to war with Christ and the saints, where the devil is defeated and cast into eternal torment (20:7-10). These events precede the Final Judgment (20:11-15). This all takes place subsequent to a period of great tribulation (12:1-19:5) and Christ’s intervention in history (19:6-21).

Using a literal, chronologically sequential reading of Revelation the premillennialist draws the conclusion that Christ’s return in Revelation 19 precedes his millennial reign in Revelation 20; hence, pre-millennial.(38)  Of particular significance in establishing a literal interpretation of Revelation 20:1-6 is the use of the term anastasis (“resurrection”), which is used to refer to “the elimination of the condition of physical death through bodily resurrection” in every instance of its use in the New Testament (with the single exception of Lk 2:34).(39)  Given that the only explicit discussion in Scripture regarding the Millennium is this passage, it would seem that the appropriate interpretation here should carry the most force in the millennial debate, establishing the premillennial position. If the premillennial interpretation of Revelation 20 is correct then postmillennialism is refuted.

As mentioned above, amillennial objections have shifted in recent history from arguments based on specific exegetical matters to general soteriological arguments.(40)  The general thrust of the argument is that the Church will suffer persecution on earth throughout her existence as an essential facet of her union with Christ in his sufferings. In effect, “inaugurated eschatology comes across as ‘victory now for the One (Christ) and not yet for the many (the church).’”(41)  The nature of the church age is that “over the interadvental period in its entirety, from beginning to end, a fundamental aspect of the church’s existence is ‘suffering with Christ’; nothing, the NT teaches, is more basic to its identity than that.”(42)

Arguments in favor of this view of Christ’s interadvental millennial reign generally appeal to two biblical themes for support: redemptive/retributive irony and perseverance as spiritual victory. From the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15), White presents the case for gospel irony (ultimate victory through apparent defeat) as the paradigm for understanding biblical eschatology:

…the eschatologically significant moral principles by which his enemies would defeat him would end up 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.(43)

Redemptive irony then entails defining the church’s victory in terms of perseverance through suffering, demonstrating that the church is characterized throughout by persecution, since perseverance through suffering is inherent in victory. As stated above, the church (ironically) overcomes through enduring persecution, just as Christ overcame sin through death. If the amillennialist is correct regarding the nature of the general soteriological principles at work during the kingdom reign of Christ then postmillennialism is refuted.

Defense of Position

B.B. Warfield once remarked (in reference to Revelation 20),

Nothing, indeed, seems to have been more common in all ages of the Church than to frame an eschatological scheme from this passage, imperfectly understood, and then to impose this scheme on the rest of Scripture vi et armis.(44)

The one point of agreement among scholars regarding the interpretation of Revelation appears to be the extreme difficulty of the task. Revelation is arguably the most figurative book in all of Scripture and it is the only place in all of Scripture which associates a “millennium” with the reign of Christ. Premillennialism rests its entire case regarding the chronology of the millennium on a literal interpretation of the most symbolic book in the New Testament.(45)

Significantly, Revelation contains clearly non-symbolic statements regarding the fulfillment of its own prophecies shortly after they have been given.(46)  This, when combined with other internal evidence, suggests the plausibility of a partial preterist understanding of Revelation, as well as a pre-70 A.D. date of authorship.(47)  The premillennialist’s futurism leaves these pressing time-frame indicator statements unfulfilled for centuries upon centuries. Also, as Luke 2:34 demonstrates, the semantic range of the term anastasij (“resurrection”) allows for its use in reference beyond “physical resurrection” alone.

The entire edifice of premillennialism appears to rest on an unjustified assertion of the necessity of a literal interpretation of an apocalyptically symbolic book. At the very least, the analogy of faith requires that the more complicated passage in Revelation 20 be understood in light of the much clearer statements of passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:22-26, so that a harmony may be found within Scripture. The premillennial eschatology is irreconcilable with Paul’s end time chronology in 1 Corinthians 15, though neither a partial preterist nor a recapitulatory interpretation of Revelation 20 presents any obstacle to finding a unity of New Testament interpretation.

The amillennialist has objected that union with Christ entails the essential, perpetual suffering of the Church. However, the amillennial position in this regard suffers from a subtle equivocation regarding the terms persecution and suffering; for not all suffering is reducible to persecution, and it is only the perpetuity of persecution which contradicts the postmillennial position. The postmillennialist agrees that suffering is central to the identity of the Church, but denies that persecutional suffering must necessarily persist until Christ’s second advent. If persecutional suffering is essential to the identity of the Church, then there has been no Church in North America for many years.

Postmillennialism affirms that any time the Church is persecuted she must persevere and that suffering is central to her identity; it simply denies that persecution is a necessary condition for spiritual victory, especially considering that there will be no persecution in heaven, the place of ultimate spiritual victory. Suffering may be the perpetual result of sin without being persecutional.

Also, the amillennialists cited above appear to use the redemptive irony theme in a selective manner, omitting important facets of gospel irony which can be seen to bolster the postmillennial thesis. The ironic victory of the gospel is also historical and gradually pervasive. Discussing these aspects of gospel irony, Gentry comments:

…the serpent sought to be like the most high, but was brought low – in history. The craftiest creature became the accursed creature – in history. The woman desired to rule her husband, but was ruled by him – in history. Man from the dust wanted to be like God, but 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 the man, but the man’s son, the Son of Man, subdued the serpent – in history.(48)

However, given the amillennial view of the nature of history it appears that the serpent attempts to destroy the greater part of the human race – and succeeds(!) since God only saves “a remnant” of mankind. This hardly appears to be the irony which God has in mind.(49)

The amillennial conclusions here are based on a rejection of the principle of the gradual pervasiveness of the gospel in history. One more point of gospel irony is that the tiny, severely persecuted Church of the first century will be the tool by which Christ will destroy every rule and authority and power, reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet (Matt 28:18-20; 1 Cor 15:24-25).

In fact, Matthew organizes the revelation of the kingdom in a surprising and ironic context: In Matthew 12:28 Christ proclaimed the presence of the kingdom (the kingdom is present); in 13:53-58 Matthew records Christ’s rejection (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).(50)

The amillennial objections to postmillennialism rest on an equivocation regarding the role of suffering and persecution in the life of the Church and a selective understanding of redemptive irony. While the postmillennialist agrees with the amillennial assessment of the importance of perseverance through suffering in the life of the Church, the postmillennialist sees no warrant for the amillennial view of the nature of the interadvental reign of Christ.

Before concluding, it may be of use to bring into focus a point which appears to have been “lost in the shuffle” of postmillennial polemics, but which may help advance the cause for an evangelical consensus regarding the millennial debate.

Specifically, postmillennialists believe there will be a Satan-led rebellion subsequent to the pervasive reign of Christ on earth (the millennium), but prior to Christ’s return (in accordance with Rev 20:7-8).(51)  In this respect, the “judgment coming” of Christ in destroying the Jerusalem temple in A. D. 70 may be viewed as a part of the continuing typological foreshadowing of the final, terrible Day of the Lord, which will only be completely fulfilled at Christ’s second coming. This creates a potential point of agreement on all sides regarding the “already-not yet” character of the interpretation of Revelation and the Olivet Discourse.

Postmillennialism agrees with premillennialism regarding the nature of the millennial kingdom of Christ and agrees with amillennialism regarding the chronology of Christ’s return. Some points of disagreement have been discussed and a case has been presented for viewing postmillennialism as the most biblical view in the millennial debate, combining tempered optimism regarding the future of world history, and an absolute optimism regarding the return of Christ and consummation of his Kingdom.

Notes:

¹ Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996), 665.

² "These categories, although helpful and widely accepted, are in certain respects unfortunate as the distinctions involve a great deal more than the time of Christ's return." Robert G. Clouse. “Introduction.” In The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 7.

³ This “eschatological sorting device” was adapted from: Jay E. Adams, The Time Is At Hand (Stanley: Timeless Texts, 2004), 8-11.

⁴ Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and The Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 174.

⁵ John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973), 129-130.

⁶ There is an intramural debate among dispensationalists regarding the timing of the rapture, whether it will be pre-tribulational, mid-tribulational or post-tribulational.  See Gleason L. Archer, Jr. et al., Three Views on the Rapture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996).  More recently some have also argued in favor of a “pre-wrath” rapture, occurring sometime between the middle and end of the Tribulation.  See Marvin J. Rosenthal, The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990).  Historically, most dispensationalists have favored a pre-tribulational perspective.

⁷ Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1112-1114.

⁸ Herman A. Hoyt, "Dispensational Premillennialism," in The Meaning of the Millennium, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977).

⁹ Russell D. Moore, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 25-80.

¹⁰ George Eldon Ladd, "Historic Premillennialism," in The Meaning of the Millennium, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 18-21.

¹¹ Craig A. Blaising, "Premillennialism," in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 187.

¹² Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 1109.

¹³ Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 1033.

¹⁴ "The 'reign' that Christ promises to His believers, furthermore, is not a 'spiritual' reign through the church.  It is instead a coercive rule over the cosmos (Rev. 5:10)...  It would seem therefore that a temporal millennial reign of Christ in the flow of this age's history is part of the messianic hope of Scripture." Russell D. Moore, The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 64-65.

¹⁵ Some postmillennialists maintain that the "thousand years" refers to a long period of global prosperity in the present age preceding Christ's return; others agree with amillennialists that it refers to the entire era between the two advents.

¹⁶ Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1999), 10.

¹⁷ Craig L. Blomberg, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. D.A. Carson, G.K. Beale (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 100.

¹⁸ For a more extensive treatment of relevant passages from a postmillennial perspective see Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant (Philadephia: P&R Publishing, 1954); Kenneth L. Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion (Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992).

¹⁹ The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 2002), 961.

²⁰ Paul, the archetypal apologist, argues his case evangelistically (15:1-2), scripturally (15:3-4), evidentially (15:5–7), experientially (15:8-11), logically (15:12-19), soteriologically (15:20-22), eschatologically (15:23-27, 51-54), via reductio ad absurdum (29-34), somatologically (15:35-49), and practically (15:58)!

²¹ It is possible that "firstfruits" refers to Christ or (given the nominative case of aparche) a group raised at the time of Christ’s resurrection (Mt 27:52-53).  Either interpretation comports with the argument presented in this paper.

²² Walter Bauer, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed, ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), 295, 361.

²³Note that in the ESV the second hotan of 15:24 with the subjunctive aorist (katargese) is correctly rendered “after,” in accord with BAGD p. 731 (“with the aorist subjunctive, when the action of the subordinate clause precedes that of the main clause”).

²⁴ Darrell L. Bock, "The Son of David and the Saints’ Task: The Hermeneutics of Initial Fulfillment," Bibliotheca Sacra 150, no. 600 (October 1993): 455.

²⁵ Paul's clear allusion to Ps 110 in 15:25 is important, but space limitations prevent a further investigation into the matter.  Suffice it to say that, given the pervasive use of Ps 110 by NT authors, a biblical view of the Messianic Kingdom cannot in any instance utterly divorce Ps 110's usage in the NT from Paul's eschatological usage here in 1 Corinthians 15.  If this interpretation is correct then the allusion to Ps 110 gives greater support prima facie to the earlier assertion regarding diachronic biblical support for postmillennialism.

²⁶ This view of Pauline eschatology coheres well with the NT eschatological teachings of Jesus and John.  See Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1999), 178-179.

²⁷ "Like the preceding epeita (v. 23), the temporal adverb eita most likely implies an interval of time between the coming of Christ and the end...  If epeita, a closely related word can mark an interval of 1900 years in the previous verse, may not eita allow for a 1,000-year interval in verse 24?...  Therefore, by "the end" Paul means an end period, which includes Christ's conquest of enemy powers followed by the handing over of the kingdom to the Father...  Thus the most probable meaning of eita and to telos in verse 24 lends evidence to a time gap between the coming of Christ and the end, which allows for a millennial reign of Christ, the very kingdom (ten basileian) mentioned in verse 24." D. Edmond Hiebert, "Evidence from 1 Corinthians 15," in A Case for Premillennialism, ed. Donald K. Campbell, Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1992), 230-231.

²⁸ Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1930), 243.

²⁹ Paul uses telos 12 other times, never to indicate an “end period” (Rom 6:21, 22; 10:4; 13:7; 1 Cor 1:8; 10:11; 2 Cor 1:13; 3:13; 11:15; Phil 3:19; 1Th 2:16; 1Tim 1:5).

³⁰ Wallis’ statement can be taken as representative, “Therefore, since there is a sequence clearly marked, the telos cannot be simultaneous with the Parousia.  Because the telos is preceded by the destruction of enemies, and the destruction of enemies cannot be put before the Parousia, the telos must stand beyond the Parousia and judgment.” Wilber B. Wallis, "The Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18, no. 4 (Fall 1975 ): 231.

The postmillennialist simply asks why the destruction of enemies cannot be put before the Parousia?  In context, Wallis gives no argument in support of his assertion. Yet this contradicts what seems to be the most straightforward reading of the passage.  In part, Wallis’ interpretation is due to a prior commitment to a pessimistic view of interadvental history which precludes following 1 Corinthians 15:22-26 to its clearest conclusion, while also permitting a particular interpretation of Revelation 20 to be the exegetical boundary marker on this passage, leading to the interjection of an extra millennial period which is entirely alien to the text under discussion.  Issues surrounding Revelation 20 will be discussed in the next two sections of this paper.

³¹ Or “nonquantitative postmillennialists.” See Vern S. Poythress, "Currents within Amillennialism," Presbyterion 26, no. 1 (2000): 21-25; "2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 4 (1995): 534.

³² Robert B. Strimple, "Amillennialism," in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 109-111; Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1993), 552-553.

³³ In the literature surveyed in researching this paper, it appeared that contemporary amillennialists believed there were sufficient general soteriological reasons for rejecting postmillennialism, without sufficient consideration of the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:22-26.  Those “general soteriological reasons” will be discussed in the next two sections of this paper; suffice it to say, however, if the interpretation above is correct, no general soteriological reasons will be sufficient to overturn Paul’s teaching in this regard.

³⁴ Keith A. Mathison, "A Summary Case for Postmillennialism," in Thine Is the Kingdom: Studies in the Postmillennial Hope, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry (Vallecito: Chalcedon Foundation, 2003), 1, 3.

³⁵ There can be no such thing as a "liberal postmillennialist," by definition.  Postmillennialism is the doctrine that Christ will return after the Millennium.  No liberal theologian believes in the bodily return of Christ at the close of human history.

³⁶ For a fuller response to common misrepresentations see Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism," The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, no. 2 (Winter 1976-77).

³⁷ Craig A. Blaising, "A Premillennial Response to Kenneth L. Gentry Jr," in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 73-78.

³⁸ Harold W. Hoehner, "Evidence from Revelation 20," in A Case for Premillenialism, ed. Donald K. Campbell, Jeffrey L. Townsend (Chicago: Moody Press, 1992), 245-250.

³⁹ Craig A. Blaising, "Premillennialism," in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 223-224.

⁴⁰ Richard B. Gaffin, Jr, "Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism," in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. Will S. Barker, W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 197-226; R. Fowler White, "Agony, Irony, and Victory in Inaugurated Eschatology: Reflections on the Current Amillennial-Postmillennial Debate," Westminster Theological Journal 62, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 161-176.

⁴¹ White, ibid., p. 167.

⁴² Gaffin, ibid., p. 211.

⁴³ White, ibid., p. 170.

⁴⁴ B. B. Warfield, "The Millennium and The Apocalypse," Princeton Theological Review 2 (October 1904): 3.

⁴⁵ John repeatedly interjects explanations for the meanings of various symbols throughout the book, severely undercutting literalistic interpretations, e.g. lampstands represent churches (1:20), eyes represent the Spirit (5:6), incense represents prayers (5:8), a serpent represents Satan (12:9), heads represent mountains (17:9), horns represent kings (17:12), waters represent people (17:15), etc.

⁴⁶ Rev 1:1, 3; 3:10; 22:6, 10.  Similar statements were made by Christ during the parallel passages in the Olivet Discourse, cf. Mt 24:34, Lk 21:32, Mk 13:30.

⁴⁷ Gentry, Jr., Kenneth L, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation (San Francisco: Christian Universities Press, 1997).  While the scope of this paper precludes further discussion of preterism and higher criticism regarding Revelation’s date of authorship, it is worth noting that a preterist, like the premillennialist, maintains a sequentialist interpretation of Rev 19-20; however, a recapitulatory reading of Rev 19-20 with a post-70 A.D. date of authorship (often held to by amillennialists) does not necessarily preclude the postmillennial view, especially when one considers the parallels between Ps 110 and Rev 19 in light of Ps 110’s use throughout the NT.  See: William O. Einwechter, "Psalm 110 and the Postmillennial Hope," in Thine Is the Kingdom: Studies in the Postmillennial Hope, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry (Vallecito: Chalcedon Foundation, 2003), 55-59.

⁴⁸ Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., "Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist," in Thine Is The Kingdom: Studies in the Postmillennial Hope, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr (Vallecito: Chalcedon Foundation, 2003), 98-99.

⁴⁹ The belief that only a remnant of mankind will ultimately be saved explicitly contradicts the definition of "redemptive irony" given by White, as quoted above; namely, "the actual results effected by God are the opposite or a greater degree of the results intended by his enemies."  If this is the case then "a greater degree" of mankind must be saved than lost.  The postmillennialist recognizes that the discipleship - in history - of the greater degree of mankind carries historical implications for society and culture.  See B. B. Warfield, "Jesus Christ the Propitiation for the Whole World," The Expositor 21 (1921): 241-253.

⁵⁰ Gentry, ibid., p. 98.

⁵¹ Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., "A Postmillennial Response to Craig L. Blaising" in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 237.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Adams, Jay E. The Time Is At Hand. Stanley: Timeless Texts, 2004.

Archer Jr., Gleason L, Stanley N. Gundry, Paul D. Feinberg, Douglas J. Moo, Richard R. Reiter. Three Views on the Rapture. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Bauer, Walter, W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, F.W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. Edited by Frederick William Danker. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996.

Blomberg, Craig L. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Edited by D.A. 

Carson, G.K. Beale. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Campbell, Roderick. Israel and the New Covenant. Philadephia: P&R Publishing, 1954.

Gentry, Jr., Kenneth L. Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation. San Francisco: Christian Universities Press, 1997.

_________. He Shall Have Dominion. Tyler: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and The Future. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1993.

Mathison, Keith A. Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 1999.

Moore, Russell D. The Kingdom of Christ: The New Evangelical Perspective. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

Rosenthal, Marvin J. The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. Wheaton: Good News Publishers, 2002.

Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1930.

Walvoord, John F. The Millennial Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1973.

Articles

Bahnsen, Greg L. "The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism." The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3, no. 2 (Winter 1976-77).

Blaising, Craig A. "Premillennialism." In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock, 187. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

_________. "A Premillennial Response to Kenneth L. Gentry Jr." In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock, 73-78. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Bock, Darrell L. "The Son of David and the Saints’ Task: The Hermeneutics of Initial Fulfillment." Bibliotheca Sacra 150, no. 600 (October 1993): 455.

Clouse, Robert G. “Introduction.” In The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse, 7. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Einwechter, William O. "Psalm 110 and the Postmillennial Hope." In Thine Is the Kingdom: Studies in the Postmillennial Hope, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry, 55-59. Vallecito: Chalcedon Foundation, 2003.

Gaffin, Richard B., Jr. "Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism." Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, ed. Will S. Barker, W. Robert Godfrey, 197-226. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990.

Gentry Jr., Kenneth L. "A Postmillennial Response to Craig L. Blaising." In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., 237. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

_________. "Agony, Irony, and the Postmillennialist." In Thine Is The Kingdom: Studies in the Postmillennial Hope, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr, 98-99. Vallecito: Chalcedon Foundation, 2003.

_________. "A Postmillennial Response to Craig L. Blaising." In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., 237. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Hiebert, D. Edmond. "Evidence from 1 Corinthians 15." In A Case for Premillennialism, ed. Donald K. 

Campbell, Jeffrey L. Townsend, 230-231. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1992.

Hoehner, Harold W. "Evidence from Revelation 20." In A Case for Premillenialism, ed. Donald K. 

Campbell, Jeffrey L. Townsend, 245-250. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.

Hoyt, Herman A. "Dispensational Premillennialism." In The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Ladd, George Eldon. "Historic Premillennialism." In The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Robert G. Clouse, 18-21. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Mathison, Keith A. "A Summary Case for Postmillennialism." In Thine Is the Kingdom: Studies in the Postmillennial Hope, ed. Kenneth L. Gentry, 1, 3. Vallecito: Chalcedon Foundation, 2003.

Poythress, Vern S. "Currents within Amillennialism." Presbyterion 26, no. 1 (2000): 21-25.

_________. "2 Thessalonians 1 Supports Amillennialism." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37, no. 4 (1995): 534.

Strimple, Robert B. "Amillennialism." In Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock, 109-111. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999.

Wallis, Wilber B. "The Problem of an Intermediate Kingdom in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 18, no. 4 (Fall 1975 ): 231.

Warfield, B. B. "The Millennium and The Apocalypse." Princeton Theological Review 2 (October 1904): 3.

_________. "Jesus Christ the Propitiation for the Whole World." The Expositor 21 (1921): 241-253.

White, R. Fowler. "Agony, Irony, and Victory in Inaugurated Eschatology: Reflections on the Current Amillennial-Postmillennial Debate." Westminster Theological Journal 62, no. 2 (Fall 2000): 161-176.