“It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.” Isaiah 49:6
The movement of Scripture seems to require a postmillennial eschatology. Think about it. The Old Covenant moves from the Universal to the Particular after the fall. After the fall God’s salvation design is eventually particularized to one people (Israel), though the purpose of that one people is to be a witness to the nations of how great a God they have. From there the failure of Israel, like the failure of mankind prior to the flood, means an even more progressive reduction moving to “the remnant” (Not all of Israel was ever all of Israel) and then finally God’s salvation design culminates in the election of Jesus Christ to be God’s representative for Redemption of His people.
However, with the resurrection of Christ we find a progressive advance of redemption. What had been, prior to the arrival of Christ, a redemptive movement of the many to the one, with the resurrection the redemptive energy reverses and is now from the one to the many. We are still looking at election and representation, but the further salvific development unfolds so that from the center reached in the resurrection of Christ the way no longer leads from the many to the One but rather, as seen in the incorporating of the Nations, the movement in Redemption is progressively advancing from the one to the many. Consistently traced out this pattern and trajectory requires a belief in postmillennialism.
To argue that the post-resurrection and ascension of Christ means a narrowing of the potency of the soteriological impact of God’s design of salvation is counter-intuitive to the eschatological flow communicated and demonstrated in revelation.
“Consistently traced out this pattern and trajectory requires a belief in postmillennialism”?
Not really. Everything still depends on God’s eternal decree of Election. Just as only Joshua and Caleb entered the promised land out of the million plus who left Egypt with Moses, it may be so again until the end. That would be my reading of Matthew 7:14 … AND many of the Puritans would agree. I think it was Jonathan Edwards who said he thought only a small percentage of his congregants were truly converted.
Yeah … really.
Of course everything depends upon God’s decree and Scripture tells us that God’s decree is that
23each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him. 24Then the end will come, when He hands over the kingdom to God the Father after He has destroyed all dominion, authority, and power. 25For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.
In 1 Corinthians 15:24 Paul makes a statement that rebuts the amillennial position: “then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.” Here he notes that when the end comes “He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father.” But he also observes that this end will not come until after he has “abolished all rule and all authority and power.”
The Greek here is important. The NASB translates the pertinent phrase as: “when he has abolished.” But the NIV and ESV offer better translations: “after he has abolished.” In the Greek text the hotan is followed by the aorist subjunctive, katargēsē. Such a construction indicates that the action of the subordinate clause precedes the action of the main clause.
Thus, the end will not come until after Christ abolishes all rule and authority. This is not only grammatically necessary, but contextually. The next verse continues: “For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor 15:25). That is, he is currently reigning and must continue to reign until all of his enemies are vanquished.
Caleb and Joshua doesn’t work since that is early in Redemptive history.
As far as Mt. 7:14
Obviously, for the evangelical Christian Scripture holds no contradictions. How, then, can we reconcile such seemingly contradictory passages? And more importantly, how does the postmillennialist deal with Matthew 7:13–14 in light of his optimistic expectations?
To resolve the matter we must realize, two important facts. First, this is a statement about current conditions when Christ speaks. That, in fact, was the situation: very few were coming to the Father in salvation; the vast world was going through the gate of destruction. This is not a prophecy of the future, but a statement of the present situation.
Second, as Warfield noted long ago: “our Lord’s purpose is rather ethical impression than prophetic disclosure.” That is, he is urging his disciples to consider the present situation they witness round about them. They are to look around them and see that many souls are presently perishing and so few men are seeking righteousness and salvation. What will they do about this sad predicament? Do they love him enough to seek its reversal? Christ’s challenge to them is ethical.
In John 4:35 Jesus urges the dim-eyed disciples to see how work must be done: “Do you not say, ‘There are still four months and then comes the harvest’? Behold, I say to you, lift up your eyes and look at the fields, for they are already white for harvest!” In Matthew 7 he warns against false prophets that will arise among the people (Mt 7:15–20). Then he warns that a man must hear and act upon his words (Mt 7:21–27). His disciples must feel the horror of the present vast numbers entering the broad way to destruction.
Certainly the gate to heaven is narrow: Christ is the only way, the only truth, and the only life (Jn 14:6). “There is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Ac 4:12). For “no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1Co 3:11). But the Lord’s statement in Matthew 7:13–14 does not imply that always and forever he will only save a few people in each era. In fact, Scripture frequently indicates that great multitudes will be saved, that all nations will be discipled, that the world as an organic system will experience the redeeming work of Christ, that all of his enemies will be subdued — to the “ends of the earth.”
As Warfield noted long ago: “our Lord’s purpose is rather ethical impression than prophetic disclosure.”
That sounds to me like pettifogging exposition designed to prop up a preconceived position. I think the context favors saying it was neither impression nor prophetic disclosure, but just a direct and unambiguous answer to the questioner. ‘Strive!’ Why? Because few there be that find it. That’s always been the case and will always be the case. If you’re going to limit it to just that time you’ll play right into the hands of those who are doing the same today with male headship.
I know we’re not going to agree on this. I ‘ll have to ask my pastor about your comment on 1 Cor. 15: 24-5. I know he’ll give me the Greek-English proper rendering of the Received Text which neither the NASB, ESV, or any other Yankee Bible would.
You think the context favors it. I don’t think the context favors it. I’ve given a brief reason why the context does not favor it. The fact that heaven is manned by 10K x 10K …. a number no man can count gives all the contextual heft I need.
No… I will not play into the egalitarian hands because there is no egalitarian passage that can either
1.) Fit the macro context
2.) Be able to navigate around the countless texts that teach social order hierarchy
Your Pastor can ruddy say whatever he wants …. and probably will but that doesn’t change the fact that mine is a long and time honored understanding — and that regardless of what version one uses.
I’ll ask my pastor about the Received Text rendering of 1 Cor. 15:24-5, but as I re-read your argument from it I don’t think it will matter whether it’s “when” or “after”. The abolishing of all rule and all authority and power can either take place over the whole course of church history (as you believe) or in one spectacular final act of judgment like in Rev. 20:9.
Referring to another of your articles on this subject, again I’ll be contrarian and say that I actually do hope that you’re right and that I’m wrong. I’ve never been an optimist and I hate being right.
Ron,
Do you like being right about your hating being right?
My pastor got back to me and I thought you’d appreciate reading his reply:
“The Greek text of the Received text and of the modern critical text are the same here. The issue is one of grammar and translation.
It is true that hotan with the aorist participle can indicate antecedent action, but it is not as definitive as Mr. McAtee suggests. The use of hotan indicates an indefinite temporal clause, and so all authorities that I consulted indicate a translation of “when” or “whenever.” I did not come across any who presented “after” as a possible translation. “After” is an interpretation more than a translation.
I think that your last statement is correct. 1 Cor. 15:24 certainly fits a postmillennial framework but does not prove it; nor does it disprove amillennialism which can be harmonized with Paul’s statement.”
Let’s call it a draw.
Well … sure … an Amil is not going to like a postmil interpretation.
Big news there.
You really think I am going to be dissuaded by a amill guy telling me that my interpretation is all wet?
Did you really think that I didn’t realize that non postmills would reject what the Greek can clearly point to?
If people didn’t have the wrong set of presuppositions to begin with they wouldn’t read the original languages as differently as they read them.
In the end, the Greek or Hebrew doesn’t by itself prove anything. The Languages are read however way they are read because of the presuppositions of those coming to the text.
Amills see Amill in the Scriptures. Premills see premill. Postmills see postmill. If it was just as simple as appealing to the languages there would be no disagreement on anything. This is primarily an systematics issue …. not a grammatical issue.
Send that to your Mr. whatever his last name is.
Let’s call this a win for Postmills.
Actually, my pastor is post-mil; but I thought he was being fair, balanced, gracious and open-minded in his response. He knows I incline to the a-mil position, but still gave me an honest and forthright answer.
“In the end, the Greek or Hebrew doesn’t by itself prove anything. The Languages are read however way they are read because of the presuppositions of those coming to the text.”
Frankly, I’m shocked to see you write this … knowing what I know of you from your other writings. It’s true that our systematic theology(s) are colored by our prejudices. None of us have finally sanctified minds. But, I’d like to hope that my opinions are not so entrenched and encrusted that I can’t have them modified or changed by new information. I’m still learning; and if I’m ever convinced I’ve been holding a wrong eschatological view, I hope I’ll admit it.
It just hasn’t happened yet.
How old are you Ron?
I’m 65 … it is not impossible, but it is pretty unlikely that I’m going to change much in my thinking at this age.
Both my pastor and I (we’re the same age) still have a few years on you, but I’m not sure that’s relevant. He’s preached from the pulpit that we’ll be learning throughout eternity, and I agree. I’ve (thankfully) had my mind changed over the years on some things … though admittedly I’ve always had a right wing bias. Here’s a quote from one of my favorite theologians that may be somewhat off point, but I wish I had his facility of expression:
“Though a man should think in ice, yet science tells us there is a latent heat in the cold icicle hanging from the eaves of a house; and all history testifies to the reserved power which lies in those silent men of thought, who at length burst from their quietude and like pyramids of fire set the world ablaze with their energy. What can be more solemn than the necessity which is upon us to think? And then, the equal necessity which is upon us to feel? And then, the logical compulsion which is upon us to act? Thoughts, affections, activities — all bearing a shadowy resemblance to the nature from which they spring, going up before us to the solemn judgment, and standing there the silent witnesses of what we have been, and of what we are! p. 345. God did not mean thought always to be silent. Man was intended for action … in that which is the concrete embodiment of thought, passion, desire, and will. … He is not placed upon an insulated stool with glass feet, to sever all connection with the earth upon which he stands. On the contrary, innumerable threadlike ties bind him to the race of which he forms a part; and in working out the problem of human history each must be an integer in the equation.” p. 346.
Benjamin Morgan Palmer, ‘Obedience, the Law of the Will’, (II).
That we will be learning throughout eternity doesn’t negate my observation about not likely to change much at this age in terms of my foundational presuppositions. There is tons I need to yet learn but it’s going to be attained through a Reformed Scriptural grid characterized by covenantal, postmi, theonomic, presuppositional, Weltanschaung, kinist, and agrarian givens (axioms).
I’ve also had my mind changed over the years. Started out a Dispie Arminian and Baptist. But that was over 40 years ago. I don’t suppose I’ll change back again. I’ve examined all the macro expressions of Christianity. I’ve examined the various world and life views (in the end there are only two) and while I still have much to learn (an eternity’s worth) I’ll not be leaving the rock of Scripture upon which my position’s stand.
I’m sure your clergy is a fine man. I just don’t agree with him about all this being a draw.
Great quote by Palmer. I have a large volume of his sermons that I have enjoyed reading.
My mother-in-law used to like to cite this quip;
“What you are at 20 you’re twice at 40, three times at 60, and four times at 80.”
People’s learning increases over time and will throughout eternity. No doubt about it.
Take care Ron …. give your minister my regard. Thanks for the conversation.