Postmillennialism: A Biblical Approach; A Response to Jeremy Sexton

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” prophet^g 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.

The Christians of the apostolic age knew that they were living in the “last days.” That realization filled them with hope. Jesus would be coming soon and He would be vindicated before all the world. So, when James says, “the coming of the Lord is at hand” (5:8) and Paul says, “the Lord is at hand” (Philippians 4:5), they are not talking about the end of world history, but the end of the old covenant era. John even wrote: “Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18). During the great tribulation from AD 64-70, Jesus came in judgment on unbelieving Jerusalem. The church joined Jesus in walking in the way of the cross, shedding blood in faithful testimony to the Savior. They loved not their lives unto death. 

The most emphatically preterist book in the New Testament is also profoundly difficult to interpret in detail: John’s Revelation. However, the framework is transparently stipulated. From the beginning, John himself defines his book as a prophecy about “things which must shortly take place” (1:1) and warns that “the timeis near” (1:3). The generation that killed Jesus will “see” Him. John alludes here and in many places to the book of Daniel — “Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him (1:7) — but the “coming” in Daniel is an ascension, a coming up to the ancient of days (Daniel 7:13-14). When Jesus’ prediction of the coming judgement on Jerusalem and the temple is fulfilled, His enemies will “see” that He is the Messiah — whether they repent and believe or not.ⁱ 

Just as John began his book with repeated assurances of its soon fulfillment, so he ends it also: “The Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place” (22:6); “Behold, I am coming quickly!” (22:7); “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.” (22:10); “behold, I am coming quickly, and My rewardis with Me, to give to every one according to his work.” (22:12); “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus!” (22:20). 

The letters to the seven individual churches in Revelation 2-3 presuppose that the churches knew — or should have known — that the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse were about to be fulfilled. The entire book of Revelation is a letter to those churches, preparing them for Christ’s soon coming in judgement. 

When Christian teachers in our day urge us to be like the apostolic church and be filled with eschatological anticipation, as if Jesus might come back any time now, they are mistaking much, if not most, of what the New Testament is teaching about Jesus’ “any-moment return.” It is true that our hope is to be fixed on Jesus and His return, that we hope for the resurrection of our bodies at the end of history and that we long for that day because of all that it will mean for each of us individually, for the church collectively, and especially because of what it will mean for Christ Himself. But that hope is not tied to an imminent appearance. Our hope is the consummation of history when Christ and His Bride together enter into eternal resurrection glory. 

II. The Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20)

Sexton asserts that postmillennial hope rests especially on the “distinctive readings” of two passages, one of which is Matthew 28:18-20. About Matthew 28:18-20, Sexton writes:

“In Matthew 28:19, Jesus commands his followers to ‘disciple all the nations’ (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη). The mission’s success is guaranteed both because the one giving the commission possesses all authority in heaven and on earth (28:18) and because he promises to be with his church to the end as she carries out her marching orders (28:20). King Jesus did not give his people an assignment they will fail to complete.”

And he adds that “Every eschatological view concurs with the previous paragraph.” 

Sexton claims, in other words, that amillennialists and premillennialists believe with postmillennialists that “King Jesus did not give His people an assignment they will fail to complete.” However, for Sexton, following Richard Gaffin, that success seems to be guaranteed by reducing the assignment. Gaffin writes:

“The overall message of the New Testament is that — given the death and resurrection of Christ, the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost, and the close of the apostolic era (including the destruction of Jerusalem), in their eschatological significance — the stage is set for Christ’s return; the only event still outstanding in the history of redemption, as far as biblical prophecy reveals, is that return with its concomitants (see, e.g., 2 Th 2:1-12). So, for instance, Paul sees the spreading, worldwide triumph of the Gospel as already fulfilled in his own day; through his own (apostolic) ministry, in part, “all over the world this gospel is bearing fruit and growing,” and “the gospel . . . has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven” (Col 1:6, 23). . . . In other words, the universal circumference of the Gospel’s triumph has been drawn by the ministry of the apostles. So far as God has revealed his purposes, the subsequent process of filling in that circle could have been and can be terminated at any time.”^j

Gaffin is sure of the success of Jesus’ Great Commission because he believes the assignment has already been completed! He does not mean we should quit preaching the Gospel, but in saying that “the universal circumference of the Gospel’s triumph has been drawn by the ministry of the apostles,” he has drastically reduced the commission. Sexton endorses this position and provides his own arguments for the position. 

First, Sexton suggests, “‘all the nations’ does not imply worldwide comprehensiveness.” His prooftext for this assertion is Matthew 24:14, which uses the same expression “all the nations,” but this was fulfilled in the days of the apostles and therefore the expression “all the nations” does not imply the kind of worldwide comprehensiveness asserted by postmillennialists. 

Though it is true that Matthew 24:14 uses the same expression “all the nations,” the context is clearly very different. The same expression used in a different context may not mean the same thing, may not refer to the same thing. When Jesus spoke of “all the nations” in the Olivet Discourse, He provided limits: 1) programmatic, 2) geographical, and 3) temporal. 1) When Jesus spoke of “all the nations” in Matthew 24:14, He did not command or speak of “discipling” the nations. He said that the Gospel of the Kingdom would be “proclaimed” — that only means an announcement. It does not involve the response or a program of reforming the nations. 2) Jesus’ statement in 24:14 is delimited by the word “οἰκουμένῃ” — which means the nations in the Roman empire. It is not a statement about the nations of the world. 3) Matthew 24:14 falls under the prophecies of what happens during the generation of Jesus’ day (24:34). In distinction from the Great Commission, this is not a statement about what will happen during the entire age from Jesus’ ascension to His return. 

Second, Sexton has another objection to the postmillennial understanding of the Great Commission. He says, “‘disciple all the nations’ does not imply nationwide comprehensiveness.” How do we know this? He refers to Acts 8:40 which says, “But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached the Gospel in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.” What is important for Sexton is that verb translated “preached the Gospel” is followed by the direct object translated “all the cities.” Sexton argues that preaching the Gospel to all the cities in Acts 8:40 does not imply “citywide comprehensiveness.” Likewise, therefore, “all the nations” in the Great Commission does not imply “nationwide comprehensiveness.” 

Once again, we are confronted with the problem of context. In Acts 8:40, Philip is merely “passing through,” he is not engaged in a program to “disciple” the cities that he visited. He is only making a proclamation. Again, the context makes it clear that this passage also is not particularly relevant for understanding the Great Commission.

Think about Gaffin’s and Sexton’s position that the Gospel had already triumphed through the ministry of the apostles. The apostle Paul, as a Roman educated in all the wisdom of Greece and Rome just as Moses was educated in all the wisdom of Egypt, knew very well that there were barbarian nations beyond the Roman empire, in Europe, in the areas north of what we call Turkey, in the areas south of Egypt. Paul knew of India and probably China, too. There is adequate evidence that ancient Rome traded with North America also, though whether Paul knew of it is another matter. At any rate, it is not reasonable to imagine that Paul himself thought that the Great Commission had been “fulfilled” in his own day. 

To imagine so would be to make the “Great” commission into a not-so-great commission. In Gaffin’s view there was no actual need for the Gospel to reach India, China, most of Africa or most of Europe — not to mention North and South America. A relatively small portion of the Roman empire was enough to full Jesus’ command! It was enough so that Jesus could have returned at any time. 

Therefore, Gaffin’s is a “not-so great commission.” Nothing like all the nations that had rebelled at Babel, nothing like all the nations that God promised would be blessed through Abraham. Gaffin’s not-so-great commission was “fulfilled” in Paul’s day — a view that I seriously doubt that either Jesus or Paul would agree with. 

So, then, why did Paul write what he wrote in Colossians 1:6, 23 and Romans 10:18? Paul’s statements are enthusiastic praise to God for what had been done, which Paul considers as a downpayment and foretaste of the good and better yet to come. In N. T. Wright’s words: “Paul does not, of course, mean that every square mile of the inhabited earth has been evangelized (see below, on 1:23). From his perspective as a converted Pharisee the important point was that the salvation promised in the Old Testament had now been unleashed upon the world irrespective of geographical or racial barriers. His own missionary activity was an embodiment of this truth, as Ephesians 2:11 – 3:13 indicates. It is in that sense that the individual churches are ‘representatives’ of the Gentile world as a whole. They were for Paul a sign and promise of the universal scope of God’s saving purposes and hence of still greater things to come.”^k

To see which millennial position best understands Jesus’ words, let’s consider exactly what Jesus said. 

Keep in mind, at least these two things: 1) Matthew’s Gospel begins with words: “the book of the genesis of Jesus Christ.” Davies and Allison think that Matthew intended multiple meanings here: “Fenton has put it this way: 1.1 is ‘telescopic: it can be extended to include more and more of what Matthew is beginning to write about. First, it can cover the genealogy which immediately follows it; then, it can refer to the account of the birth of Jesus … ; thirdly, it can mean “history” or “life story”; finally, it can refer to the whole new creation which begins at the conception of Jesus and will be completed at his second coming.’ Such a happy interpretation is not, we think, over subtle; and it has the two-fold advantage of harmonizing conflicting observations and of agreeing with what has been termed Matthew’s tendency to cater to different levels of comprehension at the same time.”^l  

2) Keep in mind also the importance of the Great Commission in the Gospel of Matthew: “Here, as promised, the risen Jesus appears to them. And here they receive their commission in the famous words that have become the hallmark of the Gospel of Matthew. For these words, perhaps more than any others, distill the outlook and various emphases of the Gospel . . . . O. Michel goes so far as to say, in italics, that “Matt. 28:18–20 is the key to the understanding of the whole book” (35; cf P. F. Ellis, Matthew: His Mind and His Message, 22–25). Here we find especially Christology and discipleship but also ecclesiology . . . and righteousness — emphases familiar from the earlier parts of the Gospel . . . . These final five verses not only conclude the passion-resurrection narrative of chaps 26–28 but also serve as the conclusion to the entire Gospel. According to Brooks this pericope is basic to the narrative framework of the entire Gospel since it stresses authority and teaching — emphases found in every section of the Gospel.”^m  

Let us look at the details, keeping in mind the introduction of Matthew’s Gospel and the profound significance of the commission itself. 

The Commission 1) begins with a declaration of Christ’s authority, 2) followed by specific orders that flow from that authority, 3) climaxed by a promise that guarantees the success of their labor, including a concluding “Amen!” 

First, appearing to the eleven on the mountain that He had appointed (28:16), Jesus announced: “To Me has been given all authority in heaven and on earth.” Though the announcement is prior to the actual ascension, He is referring to the authority that is His as the ascended Messiah, sitting at God’s right hand. For the first time in the history of the world, a Man is seated in the place of authority in heaven. Jesus’ ascension was the beginning of a wholly new era. It was, of course, an era that was set in motion from the time of the incarnation, so that the entire complex of events, beginning with Jesus’ birth and continuing to the destruction of Jerusalem should be understood as as unified set of events, inseparably interrelated, as we see in Daniel chapters 2 and 7.ⁿ

The vision of a stone cut without hands toppling the great image of gold, silver, bronze, and iron in Daniel 2:34-35 is explained in verses 44-45: “And in the days of these kings [ie. the days of Rome] the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever. Inasmuch as you saw that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it broke in pieces the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold — the great God has made known to the king what will come to pass after this. The dream is certain, and its interpretation is sure.” 

Daniel 7:1-28 gives a fuller picture, but the same essential historical prophecy — four empires followed by a fifth that is the empire of the Son of Man and the saints. One like the Son of Man comes to the Ancient of Days and “to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:14). 

Returning to Matthew 28:18-20, what we see is that in the days of the Roman Empire, a Man was raised from the dead — the stone that fell from heaven and the Son of Man who ascended to the Ancient of Days. To Him was given all authority in heaven — therefore He can issue an age-defining command, something which no man could have ever done before. “His promotion to universal authority serves as an eschatological marker inaugurating the beginning of his universal mission.”^o

The Man has all authority on earth as well, so His command will determine the direction of earth history. The Great Commission, which defines both the chronological limits of the age, as well as the character of the age — is the program for the new age in Jesus — the age that begins with His ascension and ends with His return to earth. To repeat: from the time that Jesus is given all authority in heaven and on earth until the end of the age at His return, His people are commanded to follow the agenda for the age. 

Second, Jesus gave one imperative connected to three participles that all flow logically from the declaration of authority: “Therefore,^pgoing, disciple (imperative verb) all the nations, baptizing . . . teaching . . .” Hagner explains: “The commission itself is given by means of one main imperative verb, μαθητεύσατε, ‘make disciples,’ together with three syntactically subordinate participles that take on an imperatival force . . . because of the main verb.”^q 

We may translate, then, “Therefore, Go . . .,” taking “go” as an imperative. Since the disciples are commanded to “disciple” (verb) all the nations, they will have to travel. In their first missionary journey, the twelve only traveled to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 10:6) — a limited scope, but a much more elaborate “commission” (10:1-42). Though the two commissions are certainly distinct, it is not too much to suggest that the first commission and its instruction stand behind the “Great Commission” to some degree.

The full significance of the command “go” is probably best understood from Jesus’ words in the Gospel of John: “As the Father has sent Me, I also send you” (John 20:21). The command is Jesus’ authoritative word, commissioning them as His representatives, just as He was sent by the Father on a special mission. “Go” suggests the urgency of the command and the dedication required to carry out the task. To disciple all the nations, the disciples, and others after them, will have to go to the nations.^r 

What does Jesus mean by “all the nations”? All expositors agree on one thing: what it does not mean — “nations” here does not mean political entities, “States.” Though it is true that if all the peoples of the world were discipled, political entities would be brought into submission to Jesus because States are run by magistrates, people in authority, and if the vast majority of the rulers in a State were Christians, the country would function in distinctly Christian ways. But Jesus’ command is aimed at “nations” as people groups, not political entities. The political implications are inescapable and profound, but they are not directly in view in the word “nations.”

How, then, are we to understand Jesus’ words “all the nations”? In the context of the Gospel of Matthew, two things stand out for understanding this expression in Matthew 28:19. First, Jesus has just proclaimed that He has all authority in heaven and on earth. Nothing can be more universal! “Therefore, go” indicates clearly that Jesus is thinking of the disciples working to make His authority known and followed on the entire earth, as it is in heaven — which is also what He taught His disciples to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).^s

The second important issue to remember is that the book of Matthew begins by pointing to Jesus as the Messiah who will fulfill the Davidic and Abrahamic covenants.^t The Great Commission at the end of the Gospel of Matthew forms an inclusio with the covenant allusions in 1:1 and Jesus being named Immanuel (God with us) in 1:23. It is abundantly clear that the background for understanding the Great Commission is the covenantal history of Israel, with special focus on the covenants with Abraham and David.^u

The first Messianic Psalm in the Psalter, Psalm 2, speaks of Yahweh’s Anointed inheriting the nations of the world (2:8). This expresses the covenant with David which qualifies and elaborates the covenant with Abraham — Yahweh’s gift of a new covenant after the judgment of the tower of Babel. Genesis 1-11 confronts us with two fundamental problems — the curse of Eden and the curse of Babel. Jesus the Messiah came to deliver men from both of these basic curses. The nations that the Anointed One will inherit are the nations that were cursed and divided by the judgment at Babel. God chose Abraham to bring blessing to all the families of the world, blessing that would reverse the curses of Eden and Babel. Jesus’ command to disciple the nations is His program for bringing all the nations to acknowledge Him as Lord and King. Those who do not will face covenantal judgment: “kiss the Son, lest He be angry!” Jesus speaks of “all the nations” because the disciples and the church in the generations after them are called to spread the Abrahamic blessing to all the families of the world. Precisely because Jesus’ command is so comprehensive, His authority, which is the basis for the command, must also be comprehensive: “all authority in heaven and on earth.” 

The Gospel that declares Jesus’ death for sinners, His resurrection and ascension to the right hand of God is a Gospel that brings individual salvation, in order for and with an aim to “collective salvation” — a new humanity. For the world to be saved, both the curse of the Garden and the curse of Babel must be overturned. First the cross and resurrection and then Pentecost constituted the beginning of a new humanity united in Christ.^v Leithart writes:

“Jesus died and rose again to condemn flesh and to open the flow of the Spirit to the nations, to justify human beings by the Spirit who raised him from the dead. In delivering Israel and then the nations from flesh, he delivered them from the elements of the ancient socioreligious cosmos. By his death and resurrection, he became a new kind of human being, a pneumatikos man, and by the gift of his Spirit he enables those who receive him to live the life of the Spirit while still in the flesh. By dying and rising to justify us from the flesh and from the elements, Jesus made possible the formation of ‘the one,’ the unified, harmonious humanity that Yahweh promised to Abraham.”^w 

Paul also speaks of the Abrahamic promise in Galatians. “The good news was not only to Gentiles, but good news about the Gentiles. The content of the gospel is not how-to-be-saved but ‘all nations shall be blessed in you’ (Gal 3:8). That is good news because the nations are in turmoil, filled with destructive violence, cursed, divided, far from God and separated from one another, dominated by sin and death because ruled by fleshly passions. The nations are formless, void and dark, but God promises to send out his hovering Spirit to nurture the world back to order and beauty. God promises to put the nations right when he pours out his Spirit on them, fulfilling his promise to Abraham. Referring to the beginning of Galatians 3, we can say that the perfection of the race depends on the Spirit, and since the Spirit’s coming depends on Abraham, the perfection of the human race — the maturation of the human race to full humanity — depends on Abraham. Foreseeing that he would pass his delivering judgment through the faithful work of Jesus, God promised Abraham that he would bless the Gentiles (in context, by giving the Spirit, the Spirit who raises the dead).”^x

Thus, the covenant promises that God gave to Abraham and David are as broad as the curses of Eden and Babel.^yThe Great Commission is a mandate for the church to declare the Good News of Jesus the Messiah in the power of the Spirit to bring into realization the kingdom of God that we pray for daily as we offer the Lord’s Prayer. It is to the glory of God that His wisdom is displayed in and through the foolishness of preaching. 

We have to ask, then, what does Jesus mean by the command “disciple”? In Greek, the imperative is a word that in English is usually only a noun, but I have been using the word “disciple” as a verb so that we can clearly see that the command has a direct object: “all the nations.” Older translations have “make disciples of” which might sound like “make some people of all the nations to be disciples,” a deep distortion of the original command.^``  But the idea that the nations are to be made Jesus’ disciples is correct. All the nations are to become like the twelve — people who confess faith in Jesus and seek to follow Him in all they think, say, and do. The Great Commission envisions all the nations of the world becoming followers of Jesus. 

In the context of the Gospel of Matthew — which specifically calls us to remember the covenants with Abraham and David — the command “disciple all the nations” can only mean that all the nations of Tower of Babel time must become self-conscious and dedicated followers of Jesus. Instead of a small following — Paul mentions 500 who saw the resurrected Christ — Jesus commanded that the Gospel must be taught so that the nations of the world will follow Him, be His disciples. Jesus’ command envisions world conquest. 

The Great Commission outlines something of how that can be brought about. It does not give us the entire picture, for we see in the book of Acts, for example, that those who proclaim the Gospel often — if not always — must themselves walk the way of the cross. Jesus does not mention this in the Great Commission, but in many other places Jesus spoke of the fact that His disciples must take up their cross. Making disciples is not a sales program: if I preach to 100 people, I can get at least 30 or so baptized.^aa  It does not work that way. The book of Acts shows us that Peter and Paul preached and baptized many, but they were also persecuted, and we know that they were finally martyred. The call to be a disciple means a call to pick up one’s cross and follow Jesus: “Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:24-25). 

The command to disciple the nations is defined in the most basic terms in the Great Commission. First, people must be baptized into the name (singular) of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The importance of the word “into” is often missed because of being translated as “in.” Carson explains it well: “Matthew, unlike some NT writers, apparently avoids the confusion of eis (strictly “into”) and en (strictly “in”; cf. Zerwick, Biblical Greek, para. 106) common in Hellenistic Greek; if so, the preposition “into” strongly suggests a coming-into-relationship-with or a coming-under-the-lordship-of . . . . It is a sign both of entrance into Messiah’s covenant community and of pledged submission to his lordship.”^bb 

We need to step back and ask ourselves why did Jesus begin the definition of discipleship by commanding a ceremony? The answer is that He is doing in the Great Commission exactly what He did when He commanded Abraham to circumcise. Circumcision was the covenant ceremony that defined who really was a son of Abraham. Baptism, too, is a covenantal ceremony, a ceremony that, like a wedding, establishes a new relationship. 

In other words, baptism constitutes the recipient as a disciple, redefining the recipient in terms of his relationship to the Triune God and the new community of disciples — which the Gospel of Matthew calls “the church” (Matthew 16:18; 18:17). We see in the book of Acts that the command to baptize was so central to becoming a disciple, that people were commonly baptized at the moment of professing faith. Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch in some water by the roadside as soon as he professed faith (Acts 8:36-38). Similarly, Paul baptized the Philippian jailor and his family in their home at midnight (Acts 16:30-34). 

The fuller meaning of Christian baptism is best understood through the baptism of Christ Himself, the paradigm for Christian baptism.^cc Based upon Leithart’s work on baptism, I have written a brief summary statement of the meaning of Christian baptism as following the pattern of Jesus’ baptism. “First, Jesus’ baptism initiated Him as a priest and Christian baptism initiates Christians as priests. Second, Jesus’ baptism confers the privileges and responsibilities of a specifically Melchizedekian priesthood and Christian baptism also confers the privileges and responsibilities of a specifically Melchizedekian priesthood. Third, Jesus’ baptism united Him with His people and Christian baptism unites Christians with Christ. Fourth, Jesus’ baptism is baptism unto death and resurrection and Christian baptism is also baptism unto death and resurrection. Fifth, Jesus’ baptism declares His priestly or royal status as a Son and Christian baptism confers priestly or royal status as sons. Sixth, Jesus’ baptism brings the gift of the Spirit to Him and Christian baptism brings the Spirit to Christians.”^dd  

Baptism constitutes the recipient as a disciple, but it is only the beginning of a process that will make the disciple to become what he truly is. That is where the second command comes in: “teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you.” The “all things” that Jesus commanded includes a new understanding of the Torah, as Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount: “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20). 

The Sermon on the Mount itself shows in part what it means that Jesus fulfilled the Torah. In all of His teaching and through His miracles also, Jesus taught His disciples to understand Torah in a new and deeper way. The rest of the New Testament builds on Jesus’ instruction and shows churches how to apply the Bible to their own circumstances. We cannot teach a disciple all that Jesus commanded if we confine ourselves to New Testament commandments. After His resurrection, the disciples learned that it was Yahweh the Son who gave Israel the commandments at Mount Sinai and all that He commanded Israel then and in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are still most profoundly relevant. We do not live in the land of Israel, nor do we have a tabernacle/temple or a Levitical priesthood and sacrifices, so it is obviously not possible for us to observe the ordinances of the Torah in their strict literal meaning, but if we decide that they are therefore no longer relevant, we would be denying that “All Scriptureis given by inspiration of God, andis profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). 

The whole Bible, therefore, is relevant for Christians and must be part of the “teaching” that Jesus commanded. How to actually apply many of the commandments may be difficult to understand. It requires wisdom, as the epistles of Paul, Peter, and John show. In fact, Christian teachers are themselves disciples that continue to seek to understand and obey all that Jesus taught. 

Though the Great Commission itself does not directly refer to it, one of Jesus’ most important commands concerned the memorial meal. From the beginning of her history, the church placed the Lord’s Supper at the center of her worship. Jesus commanded the disciples to remember Him with a meal: “do this as a memorial of Me” (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25). Thus, the importance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper for Christian mission cannot be overemphasized. 

In Leithart’s words:

“Baptism and the Supper effect the very restoration they proclaim. As people from every tribe and tongue and nation are baptized, they are united to one another in their union in the body of Jesus. Baptism is not a picture of the nations being reunited; baptism reunites the nations. The Supper is not a picture of nations feasting together in the presence of God; it is the feast of the nations in the presence of God. The eucharistic feast is political and ecumenical, or rather, political because ecumenical, since the baptized nations that share the eucharistic feast constitute the polis of God. The feast is an ‘engine’ for mission. Those who feast on the body and blood of Jesus are empowered by the Spirit as witnesses.”^ee 

All of the Ten Commandments, except number 4, are repeated in the New Testament epistles. The Sabbath is no longer incumbent on Christians. But there is a day of worship — the day of Jesus’ resurrection. The new covenant in Christ does not include details about the time and place of worship. Why not? In part, because the disciples were to go to all the world, which means that what they would be able to do and how they would be able to do things would vary. A missionary movement may have to work underground at first and for a long time.^ff  But the ideal Jesus’ disciples seek is one: worship of the Triune God on the day Jesus rose from the dead. 

To disciple the nations means to bring individuals, families, and eventually whole peoples to confess faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord, to baptize them, and to teach them to follow Jesus by obeying His commandments. Jesus commands the church to pursue a global mission, to seek to bring in the promise of the Abrahamic covenant by means of preaching the Gospel, baptizing, and teaching. This clearly puts the Great Commission into an ecclesial context: baptizing and teaching are the work of the church. 

Third, Jesus promises to be “with” His disciples “until the end of the age.” In the climactic verses of the Gospel of Matthew, the promise of His presence recalls His name “Immanuel,” which Matthew explains as “God with us” — a covenantal formula of promise that is repeated throughout the Old Testament (Genesis 26:3, 24, 28; 28:15, 20; 31:3; 39:2, 3, 21, 23; 48:21; Exodus 3:12; 10:10; 18:19; 20:20; Numbers 14:9; 16:3; 23:21; Deuteronomy 32:12; Joshua 1:5, 9, 17; 3:7; 6:27; 22:31; Judges 1:19, 22; 6:12, 13, 16; Ruth. 2:4; 1 Samuel 3:19; 10:7; 14:7; 16:18; 17:37; 18:12, 14, 28; 20:13; 2 Samuel 7:3; 14:17; 1 Kings 1:37; 8:57; 11:38; 2 Kings. 3:12; 10:15; 18:7; 1 Chronicles 9:20; 17:2; 22:11; 16; 28:20; 2 Chronicles. 1:1; 13:12; 15:2, 9; 17:3; 19:11; 20:17; 36:23; Ezra 1:3; Psalms 118:6, 7; Isaiah 8:10; 41:10; 43:2, 5; 45:14; Jeremiah 1:8, 19; 15:20; 20:11; 30:11; 42:11; 46:28; Zephaniah 3:17; Haggai 1:13; 2:4; Zechariah 8:23; 10:5). Jesus does not merely promise presence, but presence to bless and enable the disciples to fulfill the commission. 

The concluding Amen adds solemnity and assurance. 

This briefly sums up the Great Commission, but the reading here is not “distinctive.” In fact, though the premillennialist John Piper’s exposition differs, of course, still on the whole it is very much the same as a postmillennial interpretation!^gg  

III. 1 Corinthians 15:20-28: the Biblical metanarrative from Adam to the Second Coming of Christ

Sexton offers detailed exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:15-20, but here, too, I think he misses the forest for the trees. Even if one were to concede most of his exegetical points — which I do not — he leaves out of his view the most important word in verse 25, “reign”! What does it mean that Jesus is reigning now? What does Jesus’ reign mean in terms of the whole Biblical picture of history? What does His reign entail? Why does Paul here and in Ephesians 1:18-23 allude both to Psalm 8 and 110? Why does Peter connect Psalm 110 with the gift of the Spirit in Acts 2:32-35?

These and other connections, quotations, allusions, and echos point to the fact that Peter and Paul think in terms of a comprehensive covenantal metanarrative. 

The fact that the Bible is one story has been the focus of many books, and indeed it takes a whole book to expound it.^hh  For example, N. T. Wright sees a drama unfolding in five acts: “Among the detailed moves available within this model, which I shall explore and pursue elsewhere, is the possibility of seeing the five acts as follows: (1) Creation; (2) Fall; (3) Israel; (4) Jesus. The New Testament would then form the first scene in the fifth act, giving hints as well (Rom 8; 1 Car 15; parts of the Apocalypse) of how the play is supposed to end.”

Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen in The Drama of Scripture tell the story in six acts.ⁱⁱ  Christopher Wright refers to N. T. Wright and Bartholomew and Goheen but expands the drama to what he calls “a perfect seven acts.”^jj Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum offer a superior view of the drama in that they emphasize the covenants and the kingdom aim of God’s mission.^kk  

The best two books introducing the grand story of the Bible and what it means for a Biblical understanding of Jesus’ reign and the Great Commission are James B. Jordan’s Through New Eyes: Developing a Biblical View of the World and Peter J. Leithart’s Delivered From the Elements of the World: Atonement, Justification, Mission. Jordan offers an in depth survey of the covenantal development of history, including the symbolic system established in the creation and expanded throughout the Biblical covenants. Leithart shows how Christ’s death on the cross, resurrection and ascension fulfill the Old Testament covenantal symbolism and how it leads to the church’s mission as the body of Christ, bringing into fulfillment the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.

What is perhaps most surprising about Sexton and Gaffin, however, is that they completely miss the fact that Jesus’ Great Commission is part of the covenantal metanarrative that begins with the Dominion Mandate given to Adam (Genesis 1:26-28) and repeated in the covenant with Noah after the Flood (Genesis 9:1-7). The Last Adam died on the cross to take away the sin of the world and then rose from the dead and ascended to the place of universal dominion in order to do, in and through His body the church, what Adam and the old humanity failed to do.^ll 

The Second Adam, the Last Adam, must fulfill the mandate given to the first Adam.^mm Until He does, Biblical history cannot reach a Biblical conclusion. It is not true, as Gaffin asserts, that the history of the world could end anytime after the apostolic era, for that would leave the original commission to Adam, and repeated to Noah, unfulfilled. That mandate is fully relevant for us today and the Great Commission was given by Jesus, the Last Adam, with a view to leading a new humanity to fulfill the mandate God had given to the first Adam. Obviously, the command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth can only be fulfilled before Jesus’ return and the resurrection of His people. Jesus brought in a new era in which that original mandate can be fulfilled through His body.

Now, through the Spirit, the Last Adam exercises dominion — He reigns — through His body, the church. Indeed, the first formal act of the enthroned Man was to receive the Spirit from the Father and pour Him out on the church (Acts 2:32-33). The gift of the Spirit, moreover, was the first step in making His enemies His footstool (Acts 2:34-35). Remember: the crowd before him represented “enemies” (Acts 2:23, “you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death”) turned into friends by the Gospel. 

Paul prayed for the Ephesians that God would give them the Spirit of wisdom and knowledge so that they might know “the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seatedHim at His right hand in the heavenlyplaces, far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come. And He put allthings under His feet, and gave Himto be head over allthings to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” (Ephesians 1:19-23). 

On the one hand, Paul’s words here amaze us. Immeasurable power — resurrection power! — is now working in Christ’s body, the church! Christ is exalted far above all power, might, and dominion and all things have been put under His feet, while He Himself is the Head of His body the church — the fullness of Him who fills all in all! One might expect the kind of miracles that Paul did in Ephesus — passing out handkerchiefs that Paul touched for people to take home to heal the sick! (Acts 19:12) — to happen everyday everywhere and for the Roman Empire to be converted in a day, or at most in a week. 

However, on the other had, what we actually see in history — apostolic history and our history — is that Christ’s body, the church, does not appear to have such Spiritual power. She appears weak and is often sinful. The image of a victorious church is marred by her almost-infinite divisions and divisiveness, her sinfulness and compromise in the spiritual battles of the day, her weakness in the face of it all. How can a church like this grow, increase, and fill the world? How can a church like this which needs so much to be saved herself be the instrument of salvation to the world which mocks her impotence and ineptitude? 

There are no simple answers to questions about why the risen Jesus, the head of the church, His body, has allowed her to descend into her present degenerated state. Even when the apostles were still alive and performing miracles that public demonstrated the power of Jesus’ cross and resurrection, churches were plagued with problems of sin and error. But, in spite of her weakness, she continued to grow. Jesus did not discard her. He is still seated at the right hand of God and even now all authority in heaven on earth is His. His rule is mysterious in its outworking, but His resurrection and the promise He made to be with His church until the end must be the spectacles through which we view the world, waiting to see how He will lead His limping bride to her predestined glorious future. 

There can be no doubt, however, that the church is the body of Christ, through which He will accomplish His purposes in history. Though in the end, she will be more glorious than we can imagine, the church is now the outwardly weak body through which Christ fights against sin and for the salvation of the world. “In the resurrection, the Spirit will triumph at last, and the war will end with the Spirit’s utter victory. In the meantime, the Spirit’s desire wars against this fleshly desire, for the Spirit’s desire is the desire of Jesus, which is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham: the Spirit’s desire is to form ‘the one,’ the community of peace and justice. To live by the Spirit is to live a militant life, a life of warfare against flesh, having been enlisted into Yahweh’s millennia-long war.”ⁿⁿ

Christ’s present reign is a fight to fulfill the covenant promises that Yahweh gave to Abraham and David. The Great Commission begins with Jesus’ assertion of His all encompassing authority in order to assure the disciples that the impossible mandate will find historical realization, it ends with a promise which fits the beginning — Jesus will be with the church to the end. He will build His church, a church which will be the core of the universal kingdom which the Father sent the Son to build. 

Christ’s present reign is also the reign of the Last Adam who will fulfill the commission given to the first Adam in the Garden. Jesus will lead His people to be fruitful and fill the earth, to have dominion over all things to the glory of God. This commission also must be fulfilled in history before Jesus can return. 

But to return to 1 Corinthians 15:20-28, I believe that a premillennial or amillennial or postmillennial approach can be made to fit in with the passage. In other words, the details of the exegesis do not decisively determine the overall eschatological approach. If they did, the debate would have been decided long ago. The question would seem to be: which view best fits with the overall Biblical picture of history and how does that broader view fit in with Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians 15:20-28?

Christ is the firstfruits, which means that His resurrection guarantees the resurrection of those that are in Him (15:23). Here, Paul speaks of only two resurrections: “Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming.” 

Paul says, “Then comes the end,” which can mean, “at that time” — in other words, when Christ returns, “then comes the end.” The end comes when Christ returns and resurrects those who believe in Him. 

When Jesus returns, He will put an end to all other authorities and powers and deliver all to the Father. Paul adds that Jesus must reign — which the whole New Testament identifies as the present era — until He has “put all enemies under His feet” and that the last enemy to be destroyed is death. That means that the resurrection of those who believe in Jesus is the very last event in the history of the world that began with Adam and will continue until the final coming of Jesus to resurrect those in Him. 

My explanation is very simple, but it follows a legitimate exegesis of the Greek text. For example, Greek scholar Gordon Fee, pointing to the fact that there seem to be three issues here — 1) the firstfruits; 2) The Parousia; 3) the end — says the following: “Paul’s concern is singular: to demonstrate on the basis of Christ’s resurrection the necessity of the resurrection of the dead by tying that event to the final events of the End, particularly the defeat of death (cf. vv. 54–55).” Fee adds, “Although the third item is prefaced with another ‘then,’ it is unlikely that Paul intends by this yet another event in the sequence begun by Christ’s resurrection. The ‘order’ of resurrections is only two: Christ the firstfruits; the full harvest of those who are his at his Parousia. Paul shows no interest here in anything beyond these. The ‘then’ in this third instance is sequential to be sure, but in a more logical sense, meaning that following the resurrection of believers at the Parousia the final two ‘events’ transpire. With the resurrection of the dead, the end, or goal, has been reached; an ‘end’ that has two sides to it. On the one hand, the resurrection of the dead will mean that Christ has subjugated, and thereby destroyed, the final enemy death, expressed in this case in the terminology ‘every dominion’ and ‘every authority and power.’ That this destruction of the ‘powers’ refers to the defeat of death is made certain by the supporting argument from Scripture that follows. On the other hand, with the final defeat of the last enemy the subjugation of all things has taken place, so that Christ might turn over the ‘rule’ to God the Father. The rest of the argument spells out how this is so.”^oo

Paul’s opposition to the Corinthians’ false understanding of resurrection, stated so fully in chapter 15 of his epistle, may not require a postmillennial understanding of eschatology, but in the light of the overall Biblical story, it certainly seems to favor it. Gentry’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15:20-28 is not essential to postmillennialism. Postmillennialism is grounded in the Biblical metanarrative from Genesis to Revelation, not in the exegesis of a single passage by this or that scholar. 

A Problem Passage? 

Sexton sees Revelation 20:7-10 as a problem passage for postmillennialism and apparently Gary North did, too. Contrary to both of them, I do not. Imagine, if you will generations of Christians all over the world who are faithful to Christ and His word — I am not referring here to “common grace” — sincere Christians, some weaker, some stronger, some foolish, some wiser. Imagine these Christians fill the world for a few thousand years — the fulfillment of the Dominion Mandate and the Great Commission by the work of Christ through the Holy Spirit enabling His body to do what He promised. Imagine, then, a final generation that turns away from Christ and the Gospel, having been deceived by Satan. The apostasy of the last generation does not nullify the faith and blessing of the many generations that preceded it. The long generations of blessing fulfill both the dominion mandate and the great commission. 

So, what is the point of the great apostasy? 

In the light of the grand Biblical narrative, the story of the final apostasy is parallel to the apostasy at the beginning of the Biblical story. After Adam and the woman heard the words of Yahweh Elohim’s judgement on the serpent/dragon (Genesis 3:14-15), Adam named his wife “Eve” — the mother of all living (3:20), a confession of faith in the promise. But the story from that point is horrible. Cain kills Able and the descendants of Cain rule the world till the flood. The whole world of Adam ends in sin, rebellion, and judgment. 

Until the final resurrection, though salvation has come in Christ, this world is still also a world of “flesh,” still a world infected by the sin of Adam. The final apostasy is the final revelation of the depth of Adam’s sin, the death throes of the Adamic world, which continues until Jesus destroys all enemies at His Second Coming. It is necessary that the remaining rebellion of Adamic nature come to its full expression in a second attempt at the murder of Jesus — as Cain murdered Abel — in the attempted slaughter of Jesus’ people. 

The final apostasy brings to conclusion the history of sin that began with Adam and was magnified wth Cain. This history also has to come to a conclusion, together with the devil who inspired it. The story of Cain and Abel must come to a conclusion. This is not a problem for postmillennialism, but an argument for its validity as a picture of the Biblical whole.^pp 

Conclusion

Sexton’s argument fails, as I said at the beginning because he tends to miss the forest for the trees. From one perspective, the Biblical story is the story of man’s sin and failure overcome by God’s grace. Even more, however, everything — even from before the fall — was aimed at the incarnation of the Son of God and the building of His kingdom.^qq Sin introduced the necessity of the cross, but Jesus’ victory over sin and death on the cross and His resurrection bought in the new world that was planned from before the beginning. He sent His disciples to conquer the old Adamic world by the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. Or, rather, Jesus, as the Head of His Body the Church, conquers the old Adamic world in and through that Body as the Holy Spirit blesses and uses the Church. 

The victory of the Gospel is a victory through the Word, a victory often won paradoxically through humiliation and suffering, victory often with all the appearance of defeat. What is incumbent on Christians in our generation is faithfulness to Jesus and the Gospel, praying for the kingdom as Jesus taught us, living as obedient kingdom people worshiping the King, forgiving one another daily and eating and drinking the meal He gave us, and earnestly preaching the Gospel in all the world until all the nations bow down to Jesus in praise. 

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, the great Princeton theologian, summed up the postmillennial vision in his sermon on John 3:16 when he wrote: “You must not fancy, then, that God sits helplessly by while the world, which He has created for Himself, hurtles hopelessly to destruction, and He is able only to snatch with difficulty here and there a brand from the universal burning. The world does not govern Him in a single one of His acts: He governs it and leads it steadily onward to the end which, from the beginning, or ever a beam of it had been laid, He had determined for it. As it was created for His glory, so shall it show forth His praise: and this human race on which He has impressed His image shall reflect that image in the beauty of the holiness which is its supreme trait. The elect— they are not the residuum of the great conflagration, the ashes, so to speak, of the burnt-up world, gathered sadly together by the Creator, after the catastrophe is over, that He may make a new and perhaps better beginning with them and build from them, perchance, a new structure, to replace that which has been lost. Nay, they are themselves ‘the world’; not the world as it is in its sin, lying in the evil one; but the world in its promise and potency of renewed life. Through all the years one increasing purpose runs, one increasing purpose: the kingdoms of the earth become ever more and more the kingdom of our God and His Christ. The process may be slow; the progress may appear to our impatient eyes to lag. But it is God who is building: and under His hands the structure rises as steadily as it does slowly, and in due time the capstone shall be set into its place, and to our astonished eyes shall be revealed nothing less than a saved world.”^rr

Rev. Ralph Smith married Sylvia in 1976

Graduated from Grace Theological Seminary in 1978

Pastor of the Mitaka Evangelical Church from 1981-2024

Pastor Emeritus of Mitaka Evangelical Church 2024~

1.  All quotations from Sexton come from “Postmillennialism: A Biblical Critique” in Themelios 48.3 (2023): 552–72.  (back)
2.  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)
3.  James B. Jordan, “Chronology of the Gospels” in Biblical Chronology Vol. 4, No. 12 December, 1992.   (back)
4.  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)
5.  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)
6.  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)
7.  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)
8.  See Peter J. Leithart, The Promise of His Appearing: An Exposition of Second Peter (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2004).  (back)
9.  The Gospel of Matthew concludes with the record of Jesus’ resurrection and the Great Commission. In chapter 28, there is also the unbelievable, but true story of the guards who reported to the chief priests: “some of the guard came into the city and reported to the chief priests all the things that had happened” (Matthew 28:11). The “all things” that they reported must have included the angels testimony to Jesus’ resurrection and their terror before the angels. God did provide a resurrection witness to the leaders of the Jews, but instead of repenting, they found a way to lie about the resurrection. The hardness of heart displayed is almost unimaginable, but over the next years, it seems to have hardened even more despite apostolic testimony through word and authenticating miracles.  (back)
10.  Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., “Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism” in William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey ed., Theonomy: A Reformed Critique (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), pp. 357-416.  (back)
11.  N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, in Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Volume 12 (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015).  (back)
12.  W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, in Three Volumes, Volume 1:1-7 (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1988), p. 154.  (back)
13.  Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 4-28, vol. 3b in Word Biblical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), p. 881.  (back)
14.  For the book of Daniel, see Jordan’s massive commentary, The Handwriting on the Wall: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2007).  (back)
15.  Excerpt from D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Matthew.  (back)
16.  There are some Greek texts that do not have “therefore” but on balance, I think it should be retained. In any case, it is clearly implied, even if it were not explicit.  (back)
17.  Hagner, Ibid., p. 887.  (back)
18.  We must not forget that God did promise Abraham that kings would come from him (Gen 17:6, 16; 35:11), which suggests profound political implications for the Abrahamic covenant.  (back)
19.  Has the prayer that Jesus taught us to prayer been fully answered in the Apostolic age?  (back)
20.  Of the Great Commission Carson writes: “Matthew’s gospel is now, in its final verses, returning to the theme introduced in the very first verse (see comments at 1:1) — that the blessings promised to Abraham and through him to all peoples on earth (Ge 12:3) are now to be fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah. And when that covenant promise is reiterated in Genesis 18:18; 22:18, the LXX uses the same words found here: panta ta ethnē.” D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Matthew.  (back)
21.  See: Peter J. Leithart, The Gospel of Matthew Through New Eyes Volume One: Jesus as Israel (West Monroe, LA: Athanasius Press, 2018).  (back)
22.  “Though the Spirit is not mentioned in the Abrahamic narrative, Paul’s pneumatological reading makes sense in the larger biblical context. Abraham is called from Ur in the aftermath of the fall of the postdiluvian world at Babel (Gen 11). That rebellion leads to a fragmenting of the nations, a splintering of humanity linguistically and religiously, both in lip and by tongue. The call of Abraham begins Yahweh’s response. Instead of wiping out the nations as he did in the flood, Yahweh determines to bring the nations to himself by working from within. The call of Abraham is an “incarnational” move, an intervention into human flesh designed to redeem humanity. Ultimately, the curse of Babel is reversed by the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, where a miracle of language unites divided nations into one body. So while the Spirit is not mentioned in the Abrahamic narrative, the Abrahamic promise is only fulfilled when the Spirit is poured out. Post-Pentecost, Paul can know that Pentecost fulfills the promise to Abraham, which is the promise to bring blessing to nations.” Peter J. Leithart, Delivered From the Elements of the World: Atonement, Justification, Mission (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016), pp. 195-196.  (back)
23.  Leithart, Ibid., p. 217.  (back)
24.  Ibid., p. 198.  (back)
25.  “God promised that he [Abraham] would be the agent to extend God’s blessing to all the families of the earth, families divided from one another by language and worship. Through Abram and his seed, God would unify the scattered Babelic nations so that every tribe and nation shares in the blessing of the one God. In contemporary terms, the mission that grows from the Abrahamic covenant is both ecumenical and political: It is political because it is ecumenical, political because it will unify the nations in the blessing of God.” Leithart in: Four Views on the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017).  (back)
26.  I am borrowing the following from something else I have written, with the author’s permission: “I cannot resist making reference here to Hal Lindsey’s ‘exegesis’ of Jesus’ command, not just because it is an example of gross distortion of the text of Scripture by a man who majored in Greek at a well-known seminary, but more because it illustrates the way almost all modern evangelicals actually read the text. Lindsey wrote: ‘Go therefore and make disciples of [Greek = out of] all the nations. . . . We are told to make disciples from out of all the Gentiles. You don’t disciple nations, you disciple individuals, so the Greek word translated nations should be understood in its most frequently used sense—Gentiles.’ The irony here is deep. Jesus actually commanded us to do what Lindsey said cannot be done: ‘disciple all the nations.’ If we translate the word as ‘Gentiles,’ as Lindsey suggests, it really doesn’t change anything, for the command would then be, ‘disciple all Gentiles.’ What Lindsey needs for his approach, and what most evangelical assume, is the missing Greek word “out of” [Greek = out of]. The tragedy/irony for Lindsey’s exegesis is that the Greek simply does not say “make disciples of.” There is no “Greek = out of!” To repeat, “disciple” in the Greek is a verb with a direct object, “all the nations.” Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam Books, 1989), p. 49. See also my, The Baptism of Jesus the Christ (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock, 2010), pp. 197-98. Lindsey, in the interest of being Biblical inserts a Greek word that is not in the original text! He wants to refute a mistaken view of the Great Commission by revising Jesus’ words to fit his own interpretation. This is not, in my humble opinion, a good way to do exegesis.  (back)
27.  As a young Christian, I was introduced to an evangelistic methodology that promised something like that.  (back)
28.  Carson, Matthew (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary).  (back)
29.  See, Ralph Allan Smith, The Baptism of Jesus the Christ (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010).  (back)
30.  Ibid., p. 167. My work on baptism builds upon Peter Leithart’s book, The Priesthood of the Plebs: A Theology of Baptism (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003).  (back)
31.  Leithart in: Four Views on the Church’s Mission (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2017).  (back)
32.  Modern day India provides a clear example. I have read that it is against the law for a Hindu to convert to Christianity — though the Constitution guarantees “freedom of religion.” Those who are already Christians are subject to persecution, including persecution by police and authorities, as well as being restricted in what they are allowed to do.  (back)
33.  John Piper, What Jesus Demands from the World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2006), pp. 363-376. Piper’s exposition is “optimistic” and his recommendation of a postmillennial book raised the question: “Are you becoming a postmillennialist?” Piper answers in the negative, but he also says that, “I am becoming a more hope-filled pre-millennialist.” https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/are-you-becoming-a-post-millennialist  (back)
34.  I am not suggesting that the books referred to in the paragraph openly support postmillennialism; I refer to them because they see the whole Bible as a unified story, with which I agree. Only a postmillennial eschatology brings the unified story to a happy and Biblical conclusion.  (back)
35.  The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004). “Act 1 God Establishes His Kingdom: Creation Act 2 Rebellion in the Kingdom: Fall Act 3 The King Chooses Israel: Redemption Initiated Scene 1 A People for the King Scene 2 A Land for His People. Interlude A Kingdom Story Waiting for an Eriding: The Intertestamental Period Act 4 The Coming of the King: Redemption Accomplished Act 5 Spreading the News of the King: The Mission of the Church Scene 1 From Jerusalem to Rome Scene 2 And into All the World Act 6 The Return of the King: Redemption Completed.” p. 27.  (back)
36.  Christopher J. H. Wright, The Great Story and the Great Commission: Participating in the Biblical Drama of Mission (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2023). “1) Creation (God, humanity, earth); 2) Rebellion (the fall); 3) Promise (OT Israel); 4) Christ (Gospel); 5) Mission (N.T. Church); 6 Judgement (God puts all things right); 7) New Creation (God, Redeemed humanity, New Heaven, New Earth)” p. 12 ff. Wright has other books on mission as well. See especially, The Mission of God:Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative: “The covenants thus form an essential part of that Christian reading of the Old Testament Scriptures, which, as Jesus pointed out, must be both messianic (because they all lead ultimately to Christ) and missiological (because they lead to repentance and forgiveness being preached in the name of Christ to all nations). The mission of God is as integral to the sequence of the covenants as they are to the overarching grand narrative of the whole Bible.”  (back)
37.  Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012).  (back)
38.  My nephew, Christopher Kou, who read this paper for me, offered the following comment: “By his death he ‘bears much fruit’ (John 12:24) and makes his disciples fruitful as well (John 15:5-8), fulfilling the mandate to ‘be fruitful and multiply.’ So also the Kingdom ‘fills the whole earth,’ in fulfillment of the mandate.”  (back)
39.  “These books unfold Scripture’s metanarrative by highlighting major themes in the storyline, such as kingdom, covenant, temple, kingship and priesthood. They all agree that God’s mandate to Adam at creation functions as the pattern for redemption in the storyline. Adam is the Bible’s prototypical priest-king, and his assignment was to mediate the rule of heaven on earth. His pre-fall responsibility for establishing God’s rule over the earth sets the stage for the goal of redemption, which culminates in humanity’s final restoration – reigning with Christ as a kingdom and priests to God (Rev. 5:10; cf. Rev. 1:6). Interestingly, only Dempster mentions a connection between the messianic priest-king of Psalm 110 and Adam’s assignment in Genesis 1 – 2.” Matthew H. Emadi, The Royal Priest: Psalm 110 in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2022).  (back)
40.  Leithart, Delivered from the Elements, p. 224.  (back)
41.  Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014, revised edition).  (back)
42.  For a more detailed discussion, see Peter J. Leithart, Revelation 12-22 (London: Bloomsbury, T & T Clark, 2018) pp. 325-330.  (back)
43.  See: Edwin Chr. Van Driel, Incarnation Anyway: Arguments for a Supralapsarian Christology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).  (back)
44.  Benjamin B. Warfield, The Savior of the World. I have a pdf version with no page numbers, which can be downloaded for free: https://www.monergism.com/saviour-world-ebook  (back)