Guest Post by Rev. Ralph Smith
Jeremy Sexton, a fellow minister in the CREC and a man whom I count as a friend, has written an article titled “Postmillennialism: A Biblical Critique.”a Sexton’s work on another subject, Biblical chronology, is truly helpful, in my opinion.b However, what he offers as a “Biblical Critique” of postmillennialism, in my opinion, falls far short of his title. With respect to his eschatology, Sexton’s most basic problem, as I see it, is that he misses the forest for the trees. With scholarly attention, he concentrates on details — many of which seem less than relevant — while missing the big picture. I believe that only the postmillennial view does justice to the larger framework of the Drama of History in the Bible, fitting into the Biblical worldview.
In response to Sexton, three issues in particular are important. One, there is a “preterist mood” in the entire New Testament that is typically misunderstood and misinterpreted. Two, the Great Commission defines a program for this age, the age that began with Jesus’ resurrection and ascension and ends with His second coming. Three, 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 outlines the Biblical view of history — the metanarrative from Adam to the second coming of Christ that depends upon the vision defined by the Great Commission.
I. The Preterist Mood of the New Testament
The first book of the New Testament to be written was almost certainly the Gospel of Matthew and it was probably written in 30 AD. Following James Jordan,c I have argued for this in other places —— so I will not here repeat the arguments for that view.d But, in the essay footnoted, I argue that the fact that the Gospel of Matthew is very early, widely distributed, and profoundly influential in the apostolic church is one of the most important issues in understanding the apostolic era.
In Matthew’s Gospel, there are five discourses or sermons — the Sermon on the Mount (5-7), the Mission Discourse (10), Parables of the Kingdom (13), Instruction about the Church (18), the Olivet Discourse (23-25). There is very little parallel in Mark for the Sermon on the Mount and Luke’s Sermon on the Plain, though it has much material similar to the Sermon on the Mount, which was given at a different time and place.e The Mission Discourse and the parables of the kingdom find some parallel in Mark and Luke. The instruction about the church finds little parallel in Mark and Luke.
The Olivet Discourse, however, is largely repeated in Mark and Luke and all three synoptic Gospels include the important words: “Amen, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” (Matthew 24:34-35; Mark 13:30-31; Luke 21:32-33). Jesus spoke these words in AD 30. If the wilderness generation of Israelites provides us with a good Biblical model for understanding a “generation” — and I think it does — then Jesus was saying that “all these things” will “take place” by AD 70. In saying that the generation would not pass away, He did not define the year exactly, so there is some ambiguity about the timing, but the limit — this generation — is clear.
Thus, Jesus’ most well-known sermon set the eschatological “mood” for the first generation of Christians.f The apostolic church was the church of the Olivet Discourse, waiting for Jesus to come in judgment against Jerusalem and the temple. Ezekiel, the “son of man” prophetg before the coming of Nebuchadnezzar, denounced the evil of his generation and predicted the destruction of the temple in 586 BC. The Son of Man, Jesus, was a prophet like Ezekiel, exposing the sins of His generation and predicting God’s coming judgment on Jerusalem and the temple. Though heaven and earth would pass away, Jesus’ prophetic condemnation of His generation would not pass away. It was burned into the minds and hearts of the apostolic generation.
Therefore, New Testament epistles speak repeatedly of Jesus’ imminent coming. Paul, Peter, John and all the leaders of that day not only had Jesus’ words in mind, but taught their churches to watch and pray for the coming judgment on Jerusalem, warning the churches as Jesus Himself had warned the disciples that Christians would face tribulation and persecution so severe that the love of many would grow cold (Matthew 24:9-12). Though no one knew the day or hour, early Christians counting from 30 AD knew as the years went by that the end was approaching rapidly.
Peter’s two epistles, for example, were written specifically to strengthen Christians who would soon see the fulfillment of Jesus’ most concrete prophecy, a prophecy that publicly demonstrated His Messianic credentials.h Note: for us, the language Peter and others use may sound like “end-of-history” language but it is not. Though, yes — the end of the old covenant era was, in one sense, an end of history, the end of a long era of history “in Adam.” That is why Jesus and the apostles use language that sounds to us like they are speaking of the end of earth history. The end of any covenantal era is a major turning point in history and “an end” that typologically points to “the end,” This is most especially true of the judgment in AD 70, because it was the end of the old world in Adam. Thus, the New Testament atmosphere of eschatological anticipation was not anticipation of the final end of earth history. Rather it is anticipation of the fulfillment of Jesus’ words, Jesus’ imminent coming to judge Jerusalem and the temple, bringing a full end to the old covenant era, including its structures, symbols, and ordinances.
(more…)- All quotations from Sexton come from “Postmillennialism: A Biblical Critique” in Themelios 48.3 (2023): 552–72. (back)
- See: Jeremy Sexton, “Who Was Born When Enosh Was 90? A Semantic Reevaluation of William Henry Green’s Chronological Gaps” in WTJ vol. 77, (2015): pp. 193-218 and “Evangelicalism’s Search For Chronological Gaps in Genesis 5 and 11: A Historical, Hermeneutical, and Linguistic Critique” in JETS 61.1 (2018): pp. 5-25. (back)
- James B. Jordan, “Chronology of the Gospels” in Biblical Chronology Vol. 4, No. 12 December, 1992. (back)
- https://theopolisinstitute.com/dating-matthew-1/ https://theopolisinstitute.com/dating-matthew-2/. https://theopolisinstitute.com/matthew-the-tax-collector/ https://theopolisinstitute.com/conversations/rethinking-the-dates-of-the-new-testament/ (back)
- I agree with J. C. Ryle, who wrote: “The discourse of our Lord, which we have now begun, resembles, in many respects, His well-known Sermon on the Mount. The resemblance, in fact, is so striking, that many have concluded that St. Luke and St. Matthew are reporting one and the same discourse, and that St. Luke is giving us, in an abridged form, what St. Matthew reports at length. There seems no sufficient ground for this conclusion. The occasions on which the two discourses were delivered, were entirely different. Our Lord’s repetition of the same great lesson, in almost the same words, on two different occasions, is nothing extraordinary. It is unreasonable to suppose that none of His mighty teachings were ever delivered more than once.” J. C. Ryle, Luke Volume 1: Expository Thoughts on the Gospels. (back)
- For an extended commentary on the Olivet Discourse, see James B. Jordan, Matthew 23-25: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (Powder Springs, GA: The American Vision, Inc., 2022). (back)
- Ezekiel is called “son of man” over 90 times in his book. When Jesus calls himself “Son of Man,” He is clearly identifying Himself as a prophet like Ezekiel. Perhaps the disciples missed it when He was with them, but after Pentecost, reflecting back on the Olivet Discourse, they must have learned why He used that expression. (back)
- See Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004). (back)