We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.1

In the 1977 book The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, George Eldon Ladd responded with extreme brevity to Loraine Boettner’s case for postmillennialism, filling only half a page.2 Ladd’s opening sentence explained the terseness: “There is so little appeal to Scripture that I have little to criticize.” When that book was published, the postmillennial hope of Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) and William Carey (1761–1834) which burned bright in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, especially in the United States, had been extinguished, some say by a series of bloody conflicts reaching back to the American Civil War.3 Boettner’s unpersuasive argument marked the nadir of a languishing eschatological position, confirming to many its lack of scriptural support. The once popular view known for its optimistic outlook on the future was proclaimed dead.4 But a new postmillennialism would soon rise from the ashes.

A shorter but more momentous book on eschatology also appeared in 1977, titled God’s Plan for Victory: The Meaning of Postmillennialism, by R. J. Rushdoony, father of Christian Reconstruction. This 43-page lodestar is now in its third edition.5 In the glowing foreword, Martin Selbrede admits that the booklet “is not itself an exegetical work.”6 He writes elsewhere, “It’s actually a pretty poor exposition of postmillennialism, particularly from an exegetical standpoint.”7 Even so, it proved an inspiring tract, and many were “swept up in the train, writing, teaching, publishing, persuading, being either directly or indirectly influenced by Rushdoony’s (and Chalcedon’s) lead.”8

Also in 1977, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction published a “Symposium on the Millennium” comprising five essays in favor of postmillennialism by Norman Shepherd, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, James Jordan, and Rushdoony.9 North, the editor, confesses in the introduction that “this issue of The Journal of Christian Reconstruction is not deeply exegetical.”10 The task of this issue, he states, is “to remind contemporary Protestants, especially Calvinistic Protestants, of the heritage which they have lost. If we are successful in this task, then the exegetical work will follow.”11

During the remainder of the twentieth century, Rushdoony’s Reconstructionists took the lead in revitalizing postmillennialism with innovative biblical arguments. Although Christian Reconstruction began to wane in the 1990s, the postmillennialism that it revived in 1977 continues to wax.

This article critically examines the hermeneutical idiosyncrasies and exegetical fallacies displayed by leading proponents of postmillennialism. Postmillennialists routinely keep textual details out of focus or interpret them tendentiously, in service of the belief that the prophecies of worldwide righteousness and shalom will reach fulfillment on earth before rather than at the second coming.

1. Postmillennial Distinctives

Few (if any) postmillennialists still subscribe to the view of which Boettner was one of the final exponents—that the “thousand years” (χίλια ἔτη) mentioned six times in Revelation 20:2–7 will commence sometime in the future and continue until the second coming.12 Postmillennialism, during its late-twentieth-century resurgence, shed the belief that the millennium is a future subset of the interadvental period.13

Modern postmillennialism agrees with amillennialism that the thousand years extend from the first advent of Christ to the second, covering the entire interadvental era.14 It agrees with premillennialism that the prophecies of universal righteousness, worship, and shalom (e.g., Pss 22:27; 86:9; 102:15; 138:4–5; Isa 2:2–4; 9:7; 11:5–16; 25:8–9; 26:1–4; 65:17–25; Joel 3:16–21; Mic 4:1–4; Hab 2:14; Zeph 3:9–10) will find fulfillment during the millennium.15

Postmillennialism is unique in affirming that the prophecies of universal righteousness, worship, and shalom will reach fulfillment before Jesus returns. It is also alone in viewing depictions of the worldwide destruction of God-haters (e.g., Pss 2:1–9; 110:1–2, 5–6; Isa 11:4; 25:10–12; 63:1–6; 1 Cor 15:24–25, 27–28; Rev 19:11–21) as predictions of the Christianization of the nations.

2. Pillar Prooftexts

Accusations that postmillennialism relies on OT passages rather than NT evidence are largely unwarranted. In addition to marshaling the texts cited above, postmillennialists invoke the parables about kingdom growth (Matt 13:31–33; Mark 4:26–32; Luke 13:18–21), John’s teachings on Christ’s victory over Satan and the world (e.g., John 12:31–32; 16:33; 1 John 2:13–14; 3:8; 4:4, 14; 5:4–5), Peter’s proclamation of Christ’s lordship at Pentecost (esp. Acts 2:32–36), statements about the subjection of everything to Christ (e.g., Heb 1:8–9, 13; 2:5–9), and the vastness of the redeemed in John’s Apocalypse (e.g., Rev 7:9–10).16

None of these passages creates any unease for the hopeful non-postmillennialist. Affirming the decisive victory of the resurrected and reigning Christ over his enemies and the continuous expansion of his inaugurated kingdom to the end of the world is not peculiar to postmillennialism. In fact, all the texts cited in previous paragraphs (and below) appear without embarrassment in works advocating the other millennial positions. This suggests that fruitful evaluation must begin at the level of underlying hermeneutics and foundational assumptions.

The most basic methodological difference between postmillennialism and all other views boils down to a question of timing: When will earth experience the worldwide peace, piety, and prosperity anticipated in Scripture—before the second coming or after? Postmillennialism answers, “Before.” Every eschatological stance affirms that the kingdom of God will come on earth in fullness (Ps 72:8–11; Isa 11:6–9; 25:8; Hab 2:14; Zech 9:10; Matt 5:5; 6:10; Rev 21:1–5), but only postmillennialism expects a grand-scale earthly manifestation of the kingdom before Christ returns.17 Postmillennialists maintain that the coming of the kingdom “on earth as it is in heaven” will materialize substantially in this world, on the unregenerated earth.18 Their burden, then, is to show from Scripture that the promised time of universal godliness and well-being must come to fruition on earth before rather than at the parousia (second coming).

Postmillennialism’s expectations for the interadvental period rest mainly on distinctive readings of two NT passages: Matthew 28:18–20 (which purportedly guarantees a time before the parousia when most people on earth will give allegiance to Christ) and 1 Cor 15:24–28 (which purportedly foresees that Christ will vanquish all his enemies except death before the parousia). Let us consider whether these two pillars can bear the load that the postmillennialists in Rushdoony’s train have placed on them.

2.1. Matthew 28:18–20: The Greatness of the Great Commission

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.

Every eschatological view concurs with the previous paragraph. Still, postmillennialists insist that their eschatology alone does justice to the Great Commission’s greatness.19 Bahnsen writes, “The thing that distinguishes the biblical postmillennialist, then, from amillennialism and premillennialism is his belief that Scripture teaches the success of the great commission.”20 The postmillennialist believes that the Great Commission will have been a failure if the earth is not “full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Isa 11:9) before Christ returns. The argument centers on the supposed meaning of the imperative clause “disciple all the nations” (Matt 28:19). Postmillennialists hold that this phrase envisages the conversion of entire people groups, the Christianization of all nations as nations.

This construal enjoys prima facie plausibility. After all, “the nations” (τὰ ἔθνη) describes people groups.21 Moreover, “all the nations” (πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) follows the verb “disciple” (μαθητεύσατε) as its direct object. So, infer postmillennialists, Jesus does not merely command his church to disciple individuals within the nations; he more specifically directs us to disciple the nations qua nations.22 Says Bahnsen, “The church goes forth, not simply to battle (with periodic or spotted conversions from place to place), but to incredible victory (namely, the discipling of the nations as such).”23 And a nation whose Christian contingent composes only 50 percent of the population, for example, is not yet discipled. For the postmillennialist, Matthew 28:18–20 requires both nationwide and worldwide comprehensiveness: Jesus will convert the vast majority of every people group on earth before he returns.

However, neither the Great Commission as a whole nor the phrase “disciple all the nations” in particular supports the supposition that the prophecies of universal allegiance to Christ must be fulfilled before he returns.

First, “disciple all the nations” does not imply nationwide comprehensiveness. The same construction occurs in Acts 8:40, where the direct object “all the cities” (τὰς πόλεις πάσας) follows the verb “he preached the gospel to” (εὐηγγελίζετο) in the clause “he preached the gospel to all the cities.”24 Luke does not mean that Philip preached to the majority of citizens in each city during the course of his stay there. “Preached the gospel to all the cities” does not imply citywide comprehensiveness; it simply describes preaching to people in all the cities (AV: “he preached in all the cities”). Likewise, “disciple all the nations” does not imply nationwide comprehensiveness; it simply describes discipling people in or from all the nations.

Second, “all the nations” does not imply worldwide comprehensiveness. Postmillennialists recognize this intuitively in Matthew 24:14, which uses the same phrase: “This gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations [πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν].” Postmillennialists rightly understand that this prophecy was fulfilled during the generation of the apostles (24:34). However, they do not imagine that the gospel literally went to every nation in the world—and they certainly do not suggest that it was proclaimed throughout the totality of every nation—during the apostolic era. They ascribe neither worldwide nor nationwide comprehensiveness to the proclamation of the gospel to “all the nations” predicted in 24:14.

Third, Jesus did not command his followers to disciple the nations qua nations (the nations as such). The clause “disciple all the nations” implicitly contains a reference to individuals; it means “disciple individuals from all the nations.”25

Isaiah provides the framework for understanding the eschatological influx of “all the nations.” The prophet predicts in 2:2 that in the last days “all the nations” (כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם; LXX: πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) will stream to God’s high and holy mountain, and 66:18 uses the same Hebrew and Greek to speak of the ingathering of “all the nations.” Does Isaiah mean that the nations will come in as nations? No. His clarifying prophecy in 66:19–20 indicates that the nations themselves will stay put while individual converts “from all the nations” (מִכָּל־הַגּוֹיִם; LXX: ἐκ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν) flow out of the nations and into God’s holy mountain-city as the result of “missionary efforts.”26 Isaiah’s prophecies here have found fulfillment in the new covenant in the “vast multitude” of individual converts “from [ἐκ] every nation [παντὸς ἔθνους]” (Rev 7:9).27

In Matthew 28:19, Jesus uses Isaiah’s language of “all the nations” to mandate the fulfillment of the prophet’s missional vision. And the rest of the Great Commission confirms that the church’s disciple-making mission, like the one described in Isaiah 66:19–20, targets persons rather than political units. Immediately after our Lord issues his directive to “disciple all the nations,” he expands on what he means: “baptizing them … teaching them” (Matt 28:19–20). “Them” (αὐτούς) is a masculine personal pronoun that refers not to the nations as such, since ἔθνη (“nations”) is a neuter noun, but to individuals from the nations.28 If the author had wanted to describe “the collective conversion of national groups,” then “αὐτά, the neuter plural pronoun, would be expected rather than αὐτούς.”29 The antecedent of “them,” persons, is contained implicitly in the clause “disciple all the nations.”30 Indeed, the objects of the discipling that Jesus has in mind are persons qua persons, those who can be baptized into the Triune name and be taught to obey, for “baptism and instruction in obedience belong to discipleship.”31 A nation qua nation cannot experience the personal discipleship in view any more than it can receive Trinitarian baptism. The point is not that there can be no such thing as a genuinely Christian nation in this age. The point is that Matthew 28:18–20 envisions no such thing. The aim of the Great Commission, concludes Carson, “is to make disciples of all men everywhere, without distinction.”32

Fourth, the apostolic era saw the success of the Great Commission. When John wrote the Apocalypse, Christ had already “redeemed” “a vast multitude that no one could number” “from every [πάσης] tribe and language and people and nation [ἔθνους]” (Rev 5:9; 7:9). Moreover, the apostle to the gentiles declared toward the end of his life not only that the gospel had been “proclaimed in all creation” (Col 1:23) but also that “in all the world it is bearing fruit and increasing” (1:6).33 The gospel had “gone out to all the earth … to the ends of the world” (Rom 10:18), bearing the fruit of discipleship everywhere it went. Gaffin says, “Paul sees the spreading, worldwide triumph of the Gospel as already fulfilled in his own day.”34 Furthermore, Luke presents the same narrative in Acts, which “tells a complete story; it documents the actual realization of the sweeping promise of 1:8—the universal spread of the Gospel through the apostles … from Jerusalem (the Jews) to ‘the ends of the earth’ (Rome representing the world center of the Gentiles).”35 The antecedent of “you” in Acts 1:8 is “the apostles” in 1:2–3. Thus, the apostles themselves became “witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (1:8). “In other words,” Gaffin concludes, “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.”36

The Great Commission, together with the parables of the mustard seed and the leaven, engenders confidence that “the Kingdom of God increases, stage upon stage, to the end of the world.”37 But neither Matthew 28:18–20 nor any other Scripture stipulates the degree to which “the universal circumference of the Gospel’s triumph,” fully inscribed by the apostles, must be filled in before Jesus can return.

2.2. 1 Corinthians 15:24–28: The End

Gentry writes, “Along with the kingdom parables and the Great Commission, Paul’s resurrection discourse in 1 Corinthians 15 provides us with strong New Testament evidence for the postmillennial hope. Here Paul speaks forthrightly of Christ’s present enthronement and insists he is confidently ruling with a view to subordinating his enemies in history.”38 Seeing “evidence for the postmillennial hope” in 1 Corinthians 15 turns on an unconventional reading of vv. 24–28. Gentry, who has done the bulk of the interpretive heavy lifting for postmillennialists, argues that Christ will not return “until he conquers his earthly enemies (1Co 15:24). He will conquer his last enemy, death, at his return when we arise from the dead (1Co 15:26).”39 As for 15:25, he argues, “Clearly, Paul expects Christ’s conquering of all opposition before history ends. The last enemy he will subdue is death itself—at the eschatological resurrection. But the subduing of his other enemies occurs before this, before the resurrection and during the outworking of history.”40 Wilson concurs:

In the common assumption shared by many Christians, at the Lord’s return the first enemy to be destroyed is death. But the apostle here says that it is the last enemy to be destroyed. The Lord will rule from heaven, progressively subduing all His enemies through the power of the gospel, brought to the nations by His Church. And then, when it would be easy to believe that it just couldn’t get any better, the Lord will come and deliver the kingdom to His Father.41

If it did not figure so prominently in defenses of postmillennialism, 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 would undoubtedly belong in the section below on “Problem Passages,” for this text presents insuperable challenges to that system of eschatology.

2.2.1. The Destruction Happens at the End (1 Cor 15:24)

Verse 24 contains the first insurmountable obstacle for postmillennialism. Paul writes, “Then the end will come, when he shall deliver the kingdom to God the Father, when he shall destroy every rule and every authority and power” (εἶτα τὸ τέλος, ὅταν παραδιδῷ τὴν βασιλείαν τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, ὅταν καταργήσῃ πᾶσαν ἀρχὴν καὶ πᾶσαν ἐξουσίαν καὶ δύναμιν). The destruction of Christ’s enemies here occurs not “progressively” (Wilson) or “during the outworking of history” (Gentry) but all at once at “the end” (τὸ τέλος). I will address shortly the peculiar assumption that “destroy” in this verse refers to the converting grace of the gospel. For now, though, I will respond to the assertion that this verb describes an ongoing interadvental activity rather than a one-time event at the end.

Paul temporally locates the action of “he shall destroy” at “the end.” Note that τὸ τέλος (“the end”) is modified by two adjacent temporal clauses, each one beginning with ὅταν (“when”) followed by a subjunctive verb: ὅταν παραδιδῷ … ὅταν καταργήσῃ (“when he shall deliver … when he shall destroy”). Both actions of this double-sided event—the destruction of every rule, authority, and power and the delivery of the kingdom to the Father—will take place “when” “the end” arrives.42 The aorist subjunctive καταργήσῃ (“he shall destroy”), whose aspect is perfective, describes an event that will occur as a whole, in its entirety, from beginning to end, “when” “the end” comes.43 Note well the perfective aspect of the aorist verbs in 15:24–28.

Gentry defies the straightforward syntax in 15:24 with the critical help of a common grammatical fallacy related to the aorist tense.44 He posits that the subjunctive verb καταργήσῃ (“he shall destroy”), because it is in the aorist tense, refers to past time and thus describes an action that precedes the end. He declares, “Such a construction indicates that the action of the subordinate clause (‘he has destroyed’) precedes that of the main clause (‘the end will come’).”45 Gentry appears unaware that “tenses in the subjunctive … involve only aspect (kind of action), not time,” and therefore “time is not a feature of the aorist” in the subjunctive mood.46 One Greek grammar states that “subjunctive verbs do not inherently communicate time” and that “the indefinite nature of subjunctives usually places the possible action in the future.”47 Fee wisely notes that making time an inherent feature of the aorist subjunctive “runs aground grammatically.”48

Postmillennialism depends on deviating from standard grammatical accounts in the next verse as well.

2.2.2. The Subjugation and Subjections Happen at the End (1 Cor 15:25, 27–28)

Postmillennialists lean hard on v. 25, “For he must reign until the time when he shall put all his enemies under his feet” (δεῖ γὰρ αὐτὸν βασιλεύειν ἄχρι οὗ θῇ πάντας τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ), a paraphrase of Psalm 110:1. Postmillennialists conclude from this statement that Christ will subdue “all his enemies” except death during his interadvental reign. Recall Gentry’s earlier comment on 1 Corinthians 15:25: “Paul expects Christ’s conquering of all opposition before history ends.” Postmillennialists hear Paul saying in this verse, “For he must reign, gradually subduing his foes, until all his enemies are under his feet.” But the verse actually says that the subduing of all enemies will take place at the culmination of Christ’s reign and not before.

Paul’s Greek makes this unambiguous. The key phrase ἄχρι οὗ θῇ means “until [ἄχρι] the time when [οὗ] he shall put [θῇ, aorist subjunctive].”49 It refers to that future “time when” (οὗ) Jesus shall put all his enemies underfoot.50 The aorist verb θῇ (“he shall put [all his enemies under his feet]”) describes an action that will occur as a whole—in its entirety, from beginning to end (perfective aspect)—at a particular time indicated by the relative pronoun οὗ (“the point at which”). Christ must reign right up to (ἄχρι) that time when (οὗ) he will vanquish all his enemies. There is no indication in 15:25 that any of Christ’s enemies will be put underfoot before “the point when [οὗ]” all of them shall be. This future subjugation, portrayed as destruction in the previous verse, will happen all at once at the end (τὸ τέλος) of Christ’s reign.

The temporal clause ἄχρι οὗ θῇ (“until the time when he shall put”) in 15:25 falls under Wallace’s syntactic category “Subjunctive in Indefinite Temporal Clause” and so “indicates a future contingency from the perspective of the time of the main verb.”51 In other words, the action of the temporal clause (“until the time when he shall put all his enemies under his feet”) is a future event relative to the time of the main verb clause (“he must reign”). The future subduing to which Paul refers is the eschatological capstone of Christ’s reign.

Paul uses the same construction in 11:26, where he says that believers, whenever they practice the Lord’s Supper, proclaim the Lord’s death ἄχρι οὗ ἔλθῃ (“until he comes”).52 This temporal clause, which falls under the same syntactic category discussed in the previous paragraph, means “until [ἄχρι] the time when [οὗ] he shall come [ἔλθῃ, aorist subjunctive].” It refers to that future “time when” (οὗ) the Lord shall come. The grammatical similitude between 11:26 and 15:25 is instructive, especially since each verse is eschatologically charged. In 11:26, the church continues to proclaim the death of her Lord in anticipation of his coming, and then he comes. He does not come gradually while the church is proclaiming, but rather all at once at the end of the age. In 15:25, Jesus continues to reign in anticipation of putting all his enemies underfoot, and then he puts all of them underfoot. He does not put all of them underfoot gradually while he is reigning but rather all at once at the culmination of his reign.

In 1 Corinthians 15:25, Paul alludes to Psalm 110, which postmillennialists deem “one of the most significant eschatological passages in the Bible.”53 This psalm opens with the divine promise to make the enemies of Messiah his footstool. While postmillennialists believe this refers to a gradual interadvental process, the psalm tells a different story: “He will shatter kings on the day of his wrath” (110:5; cf. v. 3).

Paul paraphrases the end of Psalm 8:6 in 1 Corinthians 15:27 (“he [God] subjected all things under his [mankind’s] feet”). The apostle applies this OT text, which celebrates the subjection of all things to man at the beginning, to the subjection of all things to Christ at the end. In 1 Corinthians 15:28, Paul confirms that the subjection of all things to Christ will happen at the end, contemporaneously with the subjection of the Son to the Father: “When [ὅταν] all things shall be subjected to him, at that time [τότε] the Son himself will also be subjected to him who subjected all things to him.”54 The aorist verb translated “[all things] shall be subjected [to him]” (ὑποταγῇ) is perfective in aspect: it depicts the subjection of all things to Christ as occurring in its entirety, from beginning to end, at the time of the Son’s subjection to the Father.55 The two subjections in 15:28 will happen consecutively at the end (cf. the ὅταν … τότε statement in 15:54). To speak of all things being subjected to Christ is to speak of a one-time event that we will see in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5, 8a). In this world, “we do not yet see all things in subjection to him” (2:8b).

2.2.3. καταργέω Means Destroy (1 Cor 15:24, 26)

Postmillennialists hold that Yahweh’s promise to make Christ’s enemies into a footstool (Ps 110:1) is a commitment to save them. However, the psalm prophesies destruction, not salvation: “He will shatter kings on the day of his wrath. He will execute judgment among the nations, filling them with corpses; he will shatter the head [רֹאשׁ] over the whole earth” (110:5–6). The image in 110:1–6 of Messiah, with his willing people, crushing the nations’ kings and the earth’s head underfoot (cf. Gen 3:15; Josh 10:24–25; Ps 68:21; Rom 16:20) in battle on the day of Christ’s corpse-making power, wrath, and judgment (cf. Rom 2:5; Rev 19:11–21) is retributive, not redemptive.

Postmillennialists also cite Psalm 2:8–9 (“I will give the nations as your inheritance, and the ends of the earth as your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel”) as a prophecy of the conversion of the nations to Christ.56 But this text likewise predicts Messiah’s death-dealing destruction of the wicked. Psalm 2 nowhere prophesies redemption. Rather, it emphasizes the rage and vain plotting of the nations, peoples, kings, and rulers against the Messiah (2:1–3); anticipates Christ’s derision, wrath, fury, and shattering violence against them (2:4–9); and warns the impious to repent or “perish” (וְתֹאבְדוּ) (Ps 2:10–12). The Psalter sets up at its outset a contrast between the righteous and the wicked, the latter of whom “will perish” (תֹּאבֵד) (Ps 1:6; cf. 2:12) “in the judgment” (1:5) of “his wrath” (2:5, 12).57

The subduing judgment and wrath portrayed in Psalm 110 form the interpretive backdrop to the destruction and subjugation predicted in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28, undermining the presumption that καταργήσῃ (“he shall destroy”) in 15:24 refers to the conversion of every rule, authority, and power “through the power of the gospel” (Wilson). Furthermore, two fatal flaws afflict this assumption.

First, the terms Paul uses here—ἀρχή (“rule”), ἐξουσία (“authority”), and δύναμις (“power”)—appear elsewhere in his writings (e.g., Rom 8:38; Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15) as references to “malevolent, demonic powers” (cf. 1 Pet 3:22).58 To my knowledge, no lexicon, theological dictionary, commentary, or example from usage suggests that these terms can refer to future converts.

Second, καταργέω, the term Paul uses to describe the destruction of the rulers, authorities, and powers in 1 Corinthians 15:24, means “destroy, abolish, wipe out, bring to an end.”59 To my knowledge, no lexicon, theological dictionary, commentary, or example from usage suggests that this verb can refer to salvation, the opposite of its meaning. Two verses later, in 15:26, this verb describes the destruction of death: “The last enemy to be destroyed [καταργεῖται] is death” (cf. 2 Tim 1:10; Barn. 5.6). In 2 Thessalonians 2:8, it depicts the abolition of the man of lawlessness, “whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and will destroy [καταργήσει] by the appearance of his coming.” In Hebrews 2:14, it refers to Christ’s destruction of Satan: “that through death he might destroy [καταργήσῃ] him who has the power of death, that is, the devil.” The rulers, authorities, and powers mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:24 will no more convert to Christ than will death, the man of lawlessness, or the devil.

Wilson states, “This world, the one we live in now, will be put to rights, before the Second Coming, before the end of all things. The only enemy not destroyed through the advance of the gospel will be death itself (1 Cor. 15:26).”60 While this triumphalist sentiment increasingly finds purchase on hearts that long (not altogether unbiblically) for the upper hand, it gets no traction in the pages of Scripture.

3. More Problem Passages

The two main problem passages, both from Revelation, resemble the two ostensible pillar prooftexts. Revelation 20:7–10 (like Matt 28:18–20) features all the nations of the earth. Revelation 19:11–21 (like 1 Cor 15:24–28) pertains to eschatological judgment on God’s enemies.

3.1. Revelation 20:7–10: The Greatness of the Great Deception

Revelation 20:7–10 prophesies the devil’s deception of the nations at the end of the thousand years. When Satan is “released from his prison” (20:7) at the conclusion of the millennium, he will go out “to deceive the nations that are in the four corners of the earth [πλανῆσαι τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἐν ταῖς τέσσαρσιν γωνίαις τῆς γῆς] … whose number is like the sand of the sea” (20:8). Verses 9–10 confirm that the devil will succeed in his mission to deceive the nations. This means for postmillennialists that Satan will deceive the nations during the final part of the interadvental era, regaining his status as “the deceiver of the whole world” (12:9), so that Jesus will return to an earth that contains deceived (undiscipled) people groups in all four of its corners.

In his book Dominion and Common Grace, North acknowledges this predicament as “the exegetical dilemma for the postmillennialist” and “The Postmillennialist’s Problem.”61 North comes closer to recognizing the true nature of the problem caused by Revelation 20:7–10 than any other postmillennialist that I am aware of. In his aforementioned book, which is dedicated to this critical issue, he proffers an apologia for the large-scale rebellion at the end of the postmillennialist’s millennium. His counterintuitive premises are that “postmillennialism does not require that all or even most people be converts to Christ at that last day” and that “the camp of the saints can and will be filled with people who have the outward signs of faith but not the inward marks. In fact, this is the only way out of the exegetical dilemma for the postmillennialist.”62 North seeks to answer two challenging questions for fellow postmillennialists: “How can unbelievers possess so much power after generations of Christian dominion?” and “How can a world full of reprobates be considered a manifestation of the kingdom of God on earth?”63 His thesis is that during the interim between the two comings of Jesus, common grace will produce a nominally Christianized world (full of inwardly rebellious people who are “externally obedient to the terms of the covenant, meaning biblical law”) that will collapse in apostasy when Satan is released from prison.64 He concludes, “Their rebellion will grow from the inside out. This is the meaning of the release of Satan. There will be a sudden outworking of the internal covenantal rebellion of untold numbers of previously upright citizens—externally upright.”65 North’s refreshing candor on this point is unmatched by any other postmillennialist, but we are left doubting, for example, whether unregenerate law-keepers satisfy the discipleship envisioned in Matthew 28:18–20 and whether a world full of externally upright reprobates would genuinely fulfill prophecies like Isaiah 11:9 and Habakkuk 2:14. Does postmillennialism’s optimism go no deeper than culture and covenantal externals?66

Other postmillennialists simply gloss over the comprehensive force of the phrase “the nations that are in the four corners of the earth” and divert attention to the qualifier “whose number is like the sand of the sea” (Rev 20:8), pointing out that this qualifying expression by itself does not indicate a certain quantity.67 This is sheer handwaving. The qualifier intends to accentuate rather than minimize the innumerable vastness of the worldwide horde (cf. Gen 22:17–18; 32:12; Heb 11:12). Only with profound struggle can one deny “the note of universality” in the phrase “the nations that are in the four corners of the earth” (cf. Isa 11:12; Ezek 7:2).68

Since postmillennialists anticipate, on the basis of Matthew 28:18–20, a comprehensive discipling of the nations during the millennium, to be consistent they must also anticipate, on the basis of Revelation 20:7–10, a comprehensive deception of the nations at the end of the millennium. For the sake of consistency, they would need to hold that “to deceive the nations that are in the four corners of the earth” envisages the deception of all nations as such. After all, “the nations” (τὰ ἔθνη) describes people groups. Moreover, “the nations that are in the four corners of the earth” (τὰ ἔθνη τὰ ἐν ταῖς τέσσαρσιν γωνίαις τῆς γῆς) follows the verb “to deceive” (πλανῆσαι) as its direct object. If postmillennialists were to adopt the same method here that they use in Matthew 28:19, they would infer that Revelation 20:8 does not merely describe the deception of individuals within the nations; it more specifically predicts that Satan will deceive the nations qua nations. Furthermore, says the consistent postmillennialist, a nation whose non-Christian contingent composes only 50 percent of the population, for example, is not yet deceived.

Postmillennialists believe that the Great Deception will take place right before the second coming. Accordingly, Jesus will return to an earth that is in decline. When the Son of Man comes, he may not find much faith on the earth (Luke 18:8). At the very least, the earth will be littered with deceived nations and an uncountable number of rebels that he must subdue and destroy at his coming. This does not fit with the postmillennial tenet that Christ will subdue and destroy every rule, authority, and power during his heavenly reign, so that death is the only enemy left at his return.

Recall Wilson’s earlier statement that “when it would be easy to believe that it just couldn’t get any better, the Lord will come.” Rather, at best, according to postmillennialism’s placement of the millennium, when conditions on earth seem unimprovable, the devil will “deceive the nations that are in the four corners of the earth” and “gather them for battle” (Rev 20:8). Satan’s growing throng of God-haters will eventually have the saints “surrounded” (20:9a). Then the Lord will come to rescue his beleaguered people and consume the rebels with fire (20:9b). This smacks of the “pessimillennialism” of which postmillennialists accuse other views.69 Postmillennialism undoubtedly requires a gloomier end to the interadvental period than does either historic premillennialism or new-creation millennialism, each of which puts Satan’s grand-scale deception a thousand years after the parousia.70

3.2. Revelation 19:11–21: Judgment Day

The wide consensus among interpreters throughout the Christian era has been that Revelation 19:11–21 depicts an earth-wide battle in which Jesus, at his second coming, will demolish all unrepentant nations, peoples, kings, and armies in fierce judgment. This interpretation poses a problem to postmillennialists, who believe (Rev 20:7–10 notwithstanding) that the Lord will return to a Christianized earth where the only remaining enemy is death. Postmillennialists escape this difficulty in one of two ways: either they spiritualize the worldwide battle in 19:11–21 and turn it into a soteriological conquest that spans the time between the two advents of Christ (the idealist or allegorical approach) or they localize it to Jerusalem in AD 70 (the preterist approach). Chilton and Wilson represent each of these approaches respectively in their commentaries on Revelation.

3.2.1. Chilton’s Idealism

Near the beginning of his exposition of Revelation 19:11–21, Chilton asserts, “St. John is not describing the Second Coming at the end of the world. He is describing the progress of the Gospel throughout the world, the universal proclamation of the message of salvation, which follows the First Advent of Christ.”71 This idealist scheme must impose itself onto the text with great force, because the gruesome portrayals of judgment, warfare, blood, slaying, smiting, ruling with an iron rod, treading underfoot, fury, wrath, carnage, and scavenger birds eating their fill of flesh in these verses—particularly in their OT allusions—do not surrender easily to being soteriologized. This passage borrows extensively from OT images of punitive destruction (e.g., Ps 2:9; Isa 11:4; 63:1–6; Ezek 39:17–20; Hos 6:5) to describe the judgment of the wicked. John’s descriptions of retribution cannot function as predictions of conversion.

Crucial to Chilton’s thesis is the notion that the “sword” (ῥομφαία) of Jesus that proceeds “from his mouth” (ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ) so that “he should smite the nations with it” (Rev 19:15) is salvific. The sword’s smiting, according to Chilton, refers to “the conversion of the nations … as Christ sends his angels/ministers throughout the world to gather in the elect.”72 In Revelation 19:21, after the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire, the remaining unbelievers throughout the earth are “slain” by Jesus “with the sword” (ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ) that comes “from his mouth” (ἐκ τοῦ στόματος αὐτου). Chilton says this predicts “the message of the Gospel, the Word-sword of the Spirit,” which “goes out from Christ’s mouth and destroys His enemies by converting them.”73

Chilton’s allegorical interpretation contradicts the punitive purpose of the apocalyptic sword. In 2:16 (cf. 2:12; 1:16), Jesus says that if the heretics in Pergamum do not repent, “I will come soon and I will wage war against them with the sword from my mouth” (πολεμήσω μετ᾽ αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ ῥομφαίᾳ τοῦ στόματός μου). Chilton himself recognizes that this refers to “judgment” and “being destroyed.”74 In 19:15, the sword from Christ’s mouth executes the vengeance prophesied in Psalm 2:9 and Isaiah 11:4. In Revelation 19:21, the same sword slays all the worshipers of the antichrist, whose names are absent from the book of life (13:8; 17:8).75 Beale comments on Chilton’s interpretation:

To say that the “killing” of the Antichrist’s followers “by the sword proceeding from his [Christ’s] mouth” (19:21) refers to their conversion is to reverse the meaning of 19:11–19, of the punitive OT allusions therein, and especially of the Ps. 2:9 and Isa. 11:4 pictures, both in their original contexts and, above all, in their prior use in Rev. 1:16 and 2:12, 16.76

Furthermore, a form of the verb πολεμήσω (“I will wage war”) in Revelation 2:16 appears in 19:11 as one of the two verbs in the thematic statement summarizing Christ’s activity throughout the passage: “he judges” and “he wages war” (πολεμεῖ). On what basis does Chilton determine that the warfare in 19:11–21 is salvific rather than punitive? He already acknowledged the sword-wielding warfare threatened in 2:16 as judgment rather than salvation. None of the uses of πολεμέω (“wage war”) in Revelation signifies conversion (2:16; 12:7[2x]; 13:4; 17:14; 19:11). Nor does any instance of πόλεμος (“war”), the cognate noun (9:7, 9; 11:7; 12:7, 17; 13:7; 16:14; 19:19; 20:8).

Chilton forces arbitrary meanings onto words and prophetic pictures to buttress his eschatological edifice. One more example of this should suffice. In Revelation 19:13, Christ is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, an allusion to the bloody clothes of the divine judge of the nations in Isaiah 63:1–3: “crimson garments … red apparel … garments like those of the one who treads the winepress … their blood splattered on my garments.”77 The scene is one of gory vengeance. In his comments on Revelation 19:13, Chilton initially concedes that “the blood is, clearly, that of Christ’s enemies,” but then he immediately reverts to speculative allegorizing that crescendoes in postmillennial triumph:

There is a sense in which the bloody robe is stained by Christ’s own sacrifice of Himself as well. For the vision is truly an allegory of the Incarnation…. [W]e have not only an allegory of His Incarnation, but of His Atonement, Resurrection, Ascension, and Enthronement as well. This is not “only” the story of the outpouring of wrath on Israel. It is the story of Jesus Christ, the King of kings. We see here the Advent of the Son of Man: The heavens are opened, and He descends to earth to do battle with His enemies; stained with blood, He wins the victory.78

Chilton turns Revelation 19:13 into an allegory of salvation, even while stating that the language of this verse tells “the story of the outpouring of wrath.” His final sentence above would be accurate if he had not meant it allegorically. Verse 13 depicts an apocalyptic picture of eschatological vengeance.

3.2.2. Wilson’s Preterism

Wilson avoids the difficulties that plague the standard postmillennial interpretation of Revelation 19:11–21, but his preterist framework is equally untenable. He writes, “In this passage, Christ is coming to ‘judge and make war.’ It is commonly (and wrongly) assumed that this is a description of the Second Coming, but there are sound reasons for continuing to believe that this is His fierce judgment on Jerusalem in 70 A.D.”79 On the contrary, this is one of several passages that militate against the possibility that the book of Revelation concerns God’s judgment on Jerusalem in AD 70.

In the opening sentence of his exposition of 19:11–21, Wilson writes, somewhat perplexingly, “Few passages in Revelation enjoy virtually universal agreement from all interpreters—but this is one of them.”80 His assessment of interpretation history here is spot on. Yet by localizing (to Jerusalem) the worldwide warfare imaged in this passage, Wilson places himself firmly outside the longstanding consensus to which he refers.

Wilson overlooks the universal scope of the battle, in which the returning Jesus will smite “the nations” (19:15). Wilson fails to comment on 19:15, which demands his remark, so it remains unclear how τὰ ἔθνη (“the nations”) can refer to Jerusalem. Nor does he justify restricting the referent of “the kings of the earth and their armies” (19:19) to Jerusalem. “All” unbelievers on earth are slain in this battle (19:17–21), not merely those in Jerusalem. By all accounts, including Wilson’s, 16:14 describes the same battle, which involves “the kings of the whole world.” The Apocalypse unyieldingly precludes Wilson’s localization.

The OT passages alluded to in 19:11–21 also do Wilson’s interpretation no favors. Psalm 96:13 (echoed in Rev 19:11) speaks of judgment on “the earth,” “the world,” and “the peoples.”81 Wilson himself quotes, in successive blocks, Isaiah 11:4, Psalm 2:9, and Isaiah 63:1–6, where, he aptly observes, “this judgment [in Rev 19:11–21] is predicted.”82 True. But those OT predictions are irreducibly worldwide in nature. In Isaiah 11:4, Christ smites “the earth” with his iron rod.83 In Psalm 2:9, he dashes into pieces the raging “nations” (LXX: ἔθνη) at “the ends of the earth” (2:8). In Isaiah 63:1–6, he tramples “the peoples,” such as “Edom” and “Bozrah.”

Chilton appreciates the universal scope of this battle but erroneously spiritualizes or soteriologizes it and spreads it over the entire interadvental era. Wilson correctly identifies the macabre warfare as fierce judgment on God’s enemies but mistakenly localizes it to Jerusalem. Neither expositor attends judiciously or thoroughly to the text of Revelation.84

What do these strained interpretations of Revelation 19:11–21 achieve in light of the clear implications of 20:7–10? The universal deception prophesied in this latter passage, according to the postmillennial and amillennial placement of the millennium, will create a situation on earth in which Christ at his return will need to subdue a profusion of people who have come under Satan’s spell. A worldwide confrontation between Christ and his countless foes, like what we see in 19:11–21, will be in order at the parousia. In fact, in postmillennialism as well as amillennialism, 20:9 describes just such a worldwide conflict at the second coming.

4. This Unresurrected World Is Not My Home

We unreservedly agree with postmillennialists that death will not be swallowed up in victory until the second coming (1 Cor 15:54). Death will continue to sting until then (15:55). Christ’s destruction of death through the gospel (2 Tim 1:10) will remain preliminary and far from being finished in this age. There is a deep disparity between our “already” triumph over death in Christ (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12; 3:1) and the “not yet” absolute victory over death that we will experience at the resurrection.

Death’s inexorable persistence to the end of the age bears witness to the colossal ontological chasm that separates this world from the next one. This great divide not only separates the “already” destruction of death from its “not yet” defeat. It also equally separates the “already” disempowerment of the rulers, authorities, and powers through the cross (1 Cor 2:6) from their “not yet” abolition at the end (15:24). “All the enemies” (1 Cor 15:25) of Christ—that is, “every rule and every authority and power” (15:24) and “death” (15:26)—are in the same situation: they have been decisively wounded by the cross, but their total destruction, itself the outworking of that earlier decisive defeat, will not come in this world, not even close.

The ontological chasm between the present age and the one to come will always be as great as that between sinning pilgrims and perfected saints (Gal 5:17; Heb 12:23), between earth and heaven (1 Cor 15:47–49), between our lowly corruptible bodies and our glorious incorruptible ones (15:53; Phil 3:20–21), between mortality and immortality (1 Cor 15:54), between the former things of this groaning creation and the final things of the glorious new heaven and new earth, in which there will be no tears, death, mourning, or pain (Rom 8:19–23; Rev 21:4). The new creation broke into this world at the resurrection of Jesus, and it continues to infiltrate the old creation (2 Cor 5:17), but the present age will never approach the eternal weight of incomparable glory to be revealed on the last day (Rom 8:18; 2 Cor 4:17). No amount of kingdom expansion or cultural triumphs can narrow the chasm. Spiritual progress only gets us closer to the edge of the precipice, where we can see with greater clarity the immensity of the gulf and the intensity of the splendor on the other side, and where our longing for that incorruptible glory intensifies (Rom 5:2–5; 8:18–30; 2 Cor 4:14–18; 1 Pet 1:3–9).

Sin, suffering, death, and struggle against the rulers, authorities, and powers will characterize creation until God regenerates it and makes it incorruptible at the parousia. Ever since the fall, “the whole creation has been groaning and laboring together in birth pangs” (Rom 8:22). It has been “subjected to futility” (8:20). It is in “bondage to corruption [φθορᾶς]” (8:21; cf. 1 Cor 15:42, 50, 52–54). Such a corruptible creation cannot produce or “inherit” the kingdom of God, which is incorruptible. Indeed, “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Nor does corruption [φθορὰ] inherit incorruption [ἀφθαρσίαν]” (1 Cor 15:50). Our eschatological hope lies wholly beyond the timeline of this unresurrected world. Specifically, along with creation, we are “waiting expectantly for our adoption, the redemption of our bodies. For we were saved in this hope” and “we wait expectantly for it with patience” (Rom 8:23–25; cf. 2 Cor 5:1–5).

The expectation of a time in this corruptible world “when it would be easy to believe that it just couldn’t get any better” (Wilson) betrays a hope misplaced. Until Jesus returns, including the minute before he does so, it will be easy to believe that things could get orders of magnitude better. Groaning will endure until the resurrection (Rom 8:23; 2 Cor 5:2, 4). On this side of the second coming, God’s people will have tribulations (John 16:33) through which we conquer (Rev 2:9–11; 3:10–12) and enter the kingdom of God (Acts 14:22). We trust that the Lord will “bring [us] safely into his heavenly kingdom” (2 Tim 4:18) either at death (4:6) or when that heavenly kingdom descends to earth (4:1, 8; Rev 21:2). Neither we nor the rest of creation can inherit the kingdom before then.

5. When Comes the Kingdom?

The disciples wondered about the timing of the kingdom. They asked their risen Lord, “Will you at this time [χρόνῳ] restore [ἀποκαθιστάνεις] the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6). They were hopeful that Jesus was about to fulfill the words of the OT prophets by setting Israel over every “nation and kingdom” (Isa 60:12; cf. 14:2; 45:14–17, 25; 49:23–26; 60:3–17; 61:5–6, 9–11) and “high above all the nations in praise, fame, and honor” (Deut 26:19; cf. 28:1–3, 9–10, 13).85 The prophets spoke of a time when God and the Davidic king would rule all nations from Jerusalem in a spiritually and politically restored Israel (e.g., Pss 2:6–12; 72:8–11; 110:1–7; Isa 9:6–7; 11:1–16; 33:20–21; 62:1–2, 6–8; Jer 3:14–18; 23:5–8; Ezek 37:1–39:29; Hos 3:5; 14:4–7; Amos 9:11–15; Obad 15–21; Mic 4:1–5:15; Zech 1:12–17; 2:1–12; 3:2; 12:1–14:21) and in a new creation (Isa 65:17–25) that will have a new Jerusalem (65:18–19, 25). Jesus had said in Matthew 19:28 that creation’s “rebirth” or “regeneration” (παλιγγενεσία) will coincide with the kingdom’s restoration, “when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne” (in Jerusalem, it was assumed) and the apostles “will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”86 In Acts 1:6, the Jewish disciples were asking their resurrected Messiah when he planned to usher in the promised new creation in which he and they, while sitting on their thrones in a restored Jerusalem and Israel, will enjoy preeminence over all the nations and kingdoms.87

Jesus replied that it was not for them to know the “times [χρόνους] and seasons” of the restoration of the kingdom (Acts 1:7; cf. 1 Thess 5:1). Their task was to receive the Spirit of power and take the gospel to the end of the earth as they waited for the restoration (Acts 1:8). Then Christ ascended to heaven (1:9) and two angels assured the disciples that one day Jesus would return bodily to restore the kingdom on earth (1:10–11).

A short time later, while preaching in Solomon’s Portico, Peter made explicit that when God sends Israel’s Messiah back to earth, the promised restoration of the kingdom will accompany him. Speaking to Jews, Peter proclaimed, “Repent therefore and turn back, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Messiah appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the times [χρόνων] of the restoration [ἀποκαταστάσεως] of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” (Acts 3:19–21).88

In summary, the holy prophets foretold the restoration of the kingdom on earth, and Peter said that those prophecies will be fulfilled at the second coming (Acts 1:6, 11; 3:20–21; cf. Matt 19:28). Can postmillennialists identify the holy prophets that Peter had in mind? Which OT prophecies of kingdom restoration will come to fulfillment at Christ’s bodily return? Postmillennialism deprives itself of a ready answer, insisting as it does that the OT prophecies of a restored kingdom on earth will be fulfilled before the parousia rather than at it.

The heavenly kingdom will come to earth when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead (Rev 11:18), at which point the times of the restoration of all things will begin: the kingdom of this world shall become that of God and his Christ, who shall reign forever and ever (11:15).89 King Jesus, “the root and the descendant of David” (22:16), will rule over the new heaven and new earth from his throne in “New Jerusalem” (21:2), into which will stream “the glory and honor of the nations” (21:26).

6. Summary, Implications, and Conclusion

Postmillennialism lacks a biblical text to establish its assumption that “the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea” (Hab 2:14) before the restoration of the kingdom—that is, the restoration of all things—at Christ’s return (Matt 19:28; Acts 1:6–11; 3:20–21). Boettner and Kik tried to keep this view alive during the third quarter of the twentieth century, after the overextended interpretations of the Puritans and the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century postmillennialists had been deservedly marginalized, but the dearth of scriptural support for this position caused many to leave it for dead.90 In 1977, with rallying calls rather than exegesis, Rushdoony and fellow Reconstructionists revived postmillennialism, and since then some have propped it up with idiosyncratic and often novel arguments beset with methodological missteps. At every turn, postmillennialism runs aground exegetically. It routinely keeps textual details out of focus, or interprets them tendentiously and naively, in service of an appealing but biblically unwarranted “worldview.”

What, then, is the appeal of postmillennialism if it is biblically indefensible? It focuses on this world, to which our hearts are naturally drawn, rather than on the one to come. It promises triumph in this age, and modern postmillennial movement leaders (from Rushdoony to Wilson) inspire their followers to fight for that victory. Postmillennialism rejects retreatism and denounces defeatism, offering a more compelling narrative instead. Nevertheless, postmillennialism’s this-worldly conception of Christ’s kingdom lays the theological and spiritual seedbed for (1) a culture warriorism characterized by carnal warfare and worldly stratagems and (2) the nominal Christianity that North expects to develop worldwide during the interadvental period.91 The first of these, some form of which has become integral to the task of disciple-making for many postmillennialists, logically paves the way for the second. Cultural engagement, political resistance, and social activism that are deficient in humility, patience, and cruciform piety, and that rely on human ingenuity more so than the work of God’s Spirit (Zech 4:6), have been perennial lures for believers, particularly for those living in spiritually declining societies. But such fleshly endeavors, no matter how clever or empowering, are powerless to save souls, sanctify Christians, or transform cultures. All believers, perhaps postmillennialists especially, must resist the pull to become so earthly minded that we are of no heavenly good (2 Cor 4:18; Col 3:1–4).

The disciples experienced this pull. They wanted to conquer and reign with the Messiah on earth through conventional means, not by way of the cross (Matt 16:21–25; Mark 10:35–45). Peter’s earthly-minded triumphalism led him to “struggle against flesh and blood” (Eph 6:12) and to “wage war according to the flesh” (2 Cor 10:3) in his altercation with Malchus (John 18:10). This heartfelt but misguided engagement with the enemy did not set Peter up for spiritual victory later that night (18:17, 25–27). Nor did it advance Christ’s kingdom on earth. Peter doubtless figured that his mind was set “on things above,” on kingdom matters, but to his dismay it was actually fixed “on earthly things” (Col 3:2; cf. 2 Pet 1:3–11). His prayerlessness in the garden (Mark 14:32–42) led to misplaced zeal and from there naturally to denying Jesus—a cautionary tale for zealous believers who have not yet faced significant temptations to deny Christ (1 Cor 10:12). After Peter’s denials, Jesus told Pilate, “If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting” (John 18:36). This is a timely word for anyone tempted, as Peter was, to bring in the kingdom and “destroy strongholds” using carnal weapons of warfare (2 Cor 10:4) instead of God’s armor (Eph 6:10–18). There are, of course, times to fight, laugh, and feast.92 But there are also times to wait and weep (Esth 4:3), and God expands his kingdom while we sow and sleep (Mark 4:26–29). We fight, even as our Lord did, fundamentally through prayer and fasting (Matt 4:1–11; 6:13; 26:36–46; Mark 9:29; Luke 18:1–8; 22:31–32; Acts 12:5; Eph 6:18; Col 4:2–4; cf. 2 Chr 20:3–12; Ezra 8:21–23; Neh 1:4–11). A danger of the postmillennial vision, as we see it embraced today, is that it pushes the Christian and the church to a truncated set of strategies and an incomplete set of virtues.

In view of the exegetical implausibility, theological shortcomings, and spiritual hazards of postmillennialism, believers should eschew “Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment” (Second Helvetic Confession XI) and keep a lookout for Christ’s imminent second coming (Matt 24:36–25:13; Luke 12:40; Rom 13:12; Jas 5:8; 1 Pet 4:7; 2 Pet 3:12; 1 John 2:18; Rev 1:1, 3; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6–7, 10, 12, 20), knowing that our eschatological “salvation” is ever “ready to be revealed” (1 Pet 1:5). Triumphalist expectations about what must transpire on earth before Jesus comes back diminish the comfort and motivation to godliness that stem from loving and anticipating his near return (Mark 13:32–37; Phil 3:20; 4:5; 1 Thess 1:10; 4:15–18; 5:6–11; 2 Tim 4:8; Titus 2:11–13; Heb 10:24–25; Jas 5:9; 2 Pet 3:10–12; 1 John 3:2–3). As long as the Father continues to delay (Matt 24:48; 25:5, 19; 2 Pet 3:4) the paradoxically fixed day of the parousia (Matt 24:36; Acts 1:7; 17:31) to allow more time for repentance (2 Pet 3:8–9) and to complete the divinely preset amount of suffering and martyrdom assigned to the church (Col 1:24; Rev 6:11), we must hasten that final day by living godly lives (2 Pet 3:11–12).93 And we must use the borrowed time to deepen and widen the victory of the Great Commission achieved by the apostles, eagerly anticipating the redemption of our bodies and continually praying, “Come, Lord Jesus!” (Rev 22:20; cf. 1 Cor 16:22; Westminster Confession of Faith XXXIII.III).

---

[1] The Second Helvetic Confession, 1566, Chapter XI, in Arthur C. Cochrane, ed., Reformed Confessions of the Sixteenth Century (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2003), 245–46.

[2] George Eldon Ladd, “An Historic Premillennial Response,” in Robert G. Clouse, ed., The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), 143.

[3] Steven R. Pointer, “Seeing the Glory,” Christian History 61 (1999): 30.

[4] Robert R. Booth, “Editor’s Preface,” in Greg L. Bahnsen, Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism, 3rd ed. (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media, 2020), ix.

[5] R. J. Rushdoony, God’s Plan for Victory: The Meaning of Postmillennialism, 3rd ed. (Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 2022).

[6] Martin G. Selbrede, foreword to Rushdoony, God’s Plan for Victory, vi.

[7] Martin G. Selbrede, “Rushdoony’s Impact on Eschatology,” Faith for All of Life (2007): 27.

[8] Selbrede, foreword, vii–viii. Selbrede is the vice president of the Chalcedon Foundation, founded by Rushdoony in 1965.

[9] Gary North, ed., The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3 (1976–1977): 15–163.

[10] Gary North, “Editor’s Introduction,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3 (1976–1977): 12.

[11] North, “Editor’s Introduction,” 13.

[12] Loraine Boettner, The Millennium (Philadelphia: P&R Publishing, 1958), 59.

[13] J. Marcellus Kik sowed the seeds of this collective move in An Eschatology of Victory (Nutley, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1971), 17, cited in Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction 3 (1976–1977): 86.

[14] Some postmillennialists date the beginning of the millennium to ca. AD 70.

[15] See J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1973), xxi, 268, 286–87, 295–96, 299–300, 319, 411, 428, 439.

[16] Bahnsen, “Prima Facie Acceptability,” 77.

[17] Some postmillennialists suppose, on account of the temporal references to the sun and moon throughout Psalm 72 (e.g., in v. 5: “as long as the sun and moon endure”; cf. vv. 7, 17), that the prophecy of Messiah’s universal dominion in 72:8–11 must come to fulfillment on earth before the heavenly bodies of the first creation pass away (Isa 60:19; 2 Pet 3:10–12; Rev 21:1, 23; 22:5). But these poetic temporal references in Psalm 72 actually communicate eternality—notably, v. 17 puts “as long as the sun continues” in parallelism with “forever”—and therefore encompass Christ’s everlasting reign on the new earth, where all the prophecies of universal righteousness and peace in this song will be fully realized. See Derek Kidner, Psalms 1–72: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 15 (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), 274–75.

Some postmillennialists suggest that the universal peace prophesied in Isa 2:4 and Mic 4:3–4 must be fulfilled before the second coming, since these passages predict events that will occur “in the last days [בְּאַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים]” (Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1), a term that these interpreters tie strictly to the interadvental period. But Gary V. Smith (Isaiah 1–39, NAC 15A [Nashville: B&H, 2007], 129) rightly cautions against overreaching interpretations that closely identify this phrase “with the millennium or with the church age,” for “such concepts were not known to the prophet.” J. A. Motyer (The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction & Commentary [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996], 54) says this phrase “is also known as ‘the day of the Lord’ bringing both judgment (2:12–21) and victory leading to peace (9:1–7); the consummation and enjoyment of God’s rule (Ho. 3:5).” The scope of “the last days” encompasses the initial advent of Messiah and everything thereafter, including what later revelation calls his “second” appearance or coming (Heb 9:28).

A related argument revolves around the synonymous phrase “in that day [בַיּוֹם הַהוּא]” in Isa 11:10, a verse that began to be fulfilled at the first coming of Christ (Rom 15:12). Some postmillennialists limit the referent of “in that day” to the time before the second coming and then point out that this temporal reference applies to the preceding verses, Isa 11:6–9, “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb…. For the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” It is true that “in that day” applies to 11:6–9. However, limiting the referent of “in that day” to the time before the Lord’s return is arbitrary; it is certainly not required by Rom 15:12. Neither “the last days” nor “that day” excludes from its compass the concomitants of the second coming.

For a convincing rebuttal of the view, shared by postmillennialists and premillennialists, that Isa 65:17–25 speaks of a time when sin and death will still be present on earth, see G. K. Beale, “An Amillennial Response to a Premillennial View of Isaiah 65:20,” JETS 61 (2018): 461–92.

[18] See, e.g., Keith A. Mathison, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1999), 87–88.

[19] See, e.g., Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., The Greatness of the Great Commission: The Christian Enterprise in a Fallen World (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990).

[20] Bahnsen, “Prima Facie Acceptability,” 89 (emphasis original).

[21] BDAG 276 (s.v. “ἔθνος,” entry 1); Moisés Silva, “ἔθνος,” NIDNTTE 2:89–91.

[22] On 21 November 2022, Canon Press sent a promotional email whose subject line announced, “The Great Commission isn’t to make disciples.” It quoted Doug Wilson as saying, “Our task is to disciple China and Taiwan and Brazil and Germany and the United States.”

[23] Bahnsen, “Prima Facie Acceptability,” 97 (emphasis original).

[24] D. A. Carson, Matthew 13–28, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 596.

[25] Acts 8:40 is again illustrative. Philip did not preach to cities qua cities. The clause “he preached the gospel to all the cities” implicitly contains a reference to the individuals to whom Philip actually preached.

[26] Gary V. Smith (Isaiah 40–66, NAC 15B [Nashville: B&H, 2009], 750) writes, commenting on 66:20, “Because of these missionary efforts, ‘all nations will stream’ (2:2) to God in Zion. Those who go out to the distant foreign nations will return to Jerusalem, bringing with them many people from all over the world (cf. 60:3–11). These foreign people, who will become fellow ‘brothers’ in the faith, are described as an ‘offering to Yahweh.’” See also Motyer, Isaiah, 541–42.

[27] Ultimately, the nations of the earth, which are outside the beloved city of the saints, will be deceived by Satan and devoured by fire forever (Rev 20:7–10; cf. Isa 60:12; 66:24). See section 3.1 below.

[28] Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 719.

[29] Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14–28, WBC 33B (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995), 887.

[30] See the section on omitted antecedents in Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 339–442. Thanks to Greg Thornberg for this reference.

[31] W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 3 vols., ICC (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 3:686.

[32] Carson, Matthew 13–28, 596.

[33] Richard B. Gaffin Jr., “Theonomy and Eschatology: Reflections on Postmillennialism,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, eds. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 218.

[34] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology,” 218.

[35] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology,” 219 (emphasis original).

[36] Gaffin, “Theonomy and Eschatology,” 219.

[37] John Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark and Luke, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, trans. A. W. Morrison, Calvin’s New Testament Commentary 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), 208. I discovered this quote, translated differently (“the kingdom of God is continually growing and advancing to the end of the world”), in Iain H. Murray, The Puritan Hope: Revival and the Interpretation of Prophecy (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 1971), 90.

[38] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., “Postmillennialism,” in Darrell L. Bock, ed., Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, Counterpoints (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 48.

[39] Kenneth L. Gentry Jr., He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, 3rd ed. (Chesnee, SC: Victorious Hope, 2021), 523.

[40] Gentry, “Postmillennialism,” 50.

[41] Douglas Wilson, Heaven Misplaced: Christ’s Kingdom on Earth (Moscow, ID: Canon, 2008), 15.

[42] Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014), 833; Paul Gardner, 1 Corinthians, ZECNT (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2018), 678; Mark Taylor, 1 Corinthians, NAC 28 (Nashville: B&H, 2014), 388.

[43] Benjamin L. Merkle and Robert L. Plummer, Beginning with New Testament Greek: An Introductory Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament (Nashville: B&H, 2020), 118.

[44] See D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996), 67–70.

[45] Gentry, “Postmillennialism,” 49 (emphasis original).

[46] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 463, 555; cf. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 67. Gentry is led astray by outdated syntactic claims in BDAG 730 (s.v. “ὅταν,” entry 1.a), though the examples there do not support his claim of a discrete anterior timeframe for the action of an aorist subjunctive relative to that of the main verb.

[47] Merkle and Plummer, New Testament Greek, 254. They conclude, “In most cases, it is neither possible nor necessary to differentiate present subjunctives and aorist subjunctives in English translation” (p. 255).

A textual variant of 15:24 illustrates that those proficient in Greek did not attach past time to aorist subjunctives. The Majority Text of 15:24 carries the aorist subjunctive verb παραδῷ instead of the present subjunctive verb παραδιδῷ (each means “he shall deliver”). In the MT, then, each temporal clause contains an aorist subjunctive. If Gentry’s syntax were correct, it would render the author of παραδῷ incompetent, for 1 Cor 15:24 MT would predict not only that Christ will destroy every rule, authority, and power before the end but also that he will deliver the kingdom to the Father before the end. Moreover, the verse would begin by saying “Then the end [will come]” but then awkwardly proceed to describe two major events that precede rather than constitute the end.

Wilson subscribes to the Textus Receptus (Douglas Wilson, Mother Kirk: Essays and Forays in Practical Ecclesiology [Moscow, ID: Canon, 2001], 53–56). It, like the MT, carries the aorist subjunctive παραδῷ in 15:24. To uphold the coherence of the TR, Wilson must reject Gentry’s grammatical aberration. To do so, however, would force Wilson to admit that Christ will not destroy “every rule and every authority and power” until “the end,” which is also “when he shall deliver the kingdom to God the Father.”

[48] Fee, First Corinthians, 833. He is specifically critiquing the idea that the logical order of the two eschatological events (first the destruction of every rule, authority, and power and then the delivery of the kingdom to the Father—which is unquestionably the order in which they will occur at the end) is communicated inherently by the aorist subjunctive verb καταργήσῃ (“he shall destroy”). Fee’s critique applies a fortiori to Gentry’s additional claim that the destruction of every rule, authority, and power will precede the end. See the CSB for a translation of 15:24 that does not outrun the Greek.

[49] See Gardner, 1 Corinthians, 679.

[50] See Wallace, Greek Grammar, 339–442, for how οὗ functions here.

[51] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 479. This rule particularly applies to a subjunctive verb “used after a temporal adverb (or improper preposition) meaning until (e.g., ἕως, ἄχρι, μέχρι).”

[52] Timothy A. Brookins and Bruce W. Longenecker, 1 Corinthians 10–16: A Handbook on the Greek Text, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2016) 55, 157.

[53] Mathison, Postmillennialism, 79.

[54] “When all things shall be subjected to him” (15:28) is a new way of saying “when he shall destroy every rule and every authority and power” (15:24). Each clause refers to “the time when he shall put all his enemies under his feet” (15:25). Likewise, “at that time the Son himself will also be subjected to him who subjected all things to him” (15:28) is a new way of saying “when he shall deliver the kingdom to God the Father” (15:24). See Fee, First Corinthians, 841.

[55] The timing of ὑποταγῇ (“shall be subjected”), an aorist subjunctive, is dependent on the main verb, ὑποταγήσεται (“will [also] be subjected”), a future indicative. In the subjunctive, “the timing of the action is dependent on the main verb in the sentence” (Merkle and Plummer, New Testament Greek, 254).

[56] See, e.g., David Chilton, Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology of Dominion (Horn Lake, MS: Dominion Press, 2007), 67, 192.

[57] Cf. Isa 60:12, “The nation and kingdom that will not serve you will perish [יֹאבֵדוּ], and those nations will be utterly wasted.”

[58] Fee, First Corinthians, 835.

[59] BDAG 525–26 (s.v. “καταργέω,” entry 3); Moisés Silva, “καταργέω,” NIDNTTE 2:640–41.

[60] Wilson, Heaven Misplaced, 86 (emphasis original).

[61] Gary North, Dominion and Common Grace: The Biblical Basis of Progress (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1987), xiv–xv.

[62] North, Dominion and Common Grace, xiv–xv.

[63] North, Dominion and Common Grace, xiv–xv, 248.

[64] North, Dominion and Common Grace, xv, 249–50.

[65] North, Dominion and Common Grace, 250.

[66] One postmillennial interlocutor suggested to me that a nominally Christianized world at the end does not preclude a truly Christianized world at an earlier point. But this would mean that mankind, during its final generations, will gradually decline spiritually (from predominately regenerate to predominately unregenerate) until, at the end, humanity escalates and completes its downward spiral. This narrative strongly resembles the “pessimillennialism” that postmillennialists deride.

[67] See, e.g., Gentry, He Shall Have Dominion, 514–15; David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (Horn Lake, MS: Dominion Press, 2006), 519–24.

[68] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text, NIGTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 1022. All interpreters, including postmillennialists, attribute worldwide comprehensiveness to the phrase “the four winds” in Matt 24:31. In Rev 7:1, “the four winds of the earth” map onto “the four corners of the earth.”

[69] See, e.g., the chapter titled “Pessimillennialism” in Gary North, Millennialism and Social Theory (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 71–95.

[70] New-creation millennialism is a via media between amillennialism and historic premillennialism that temporally co-locates, at the second coming, the beginning of the millennium and the beginning of the consummated new creation. This hybrid view maintains (a) that the millennium (Rev 20:1–15) is simply the first epoch in the never-ending new heaven and new earth (21:1–22:5); (b) that no unbeliever will remain on the new earth during the millennium, since all unbelievers will be slain at the parousia (19:17–21) and no sinner can enter the new Jerusalem (21:27); and (c) that at the end of the thousand years all unbelievers will be raised from the dead, deceived, gathered for battle, judged before the great white throne, and cast into the lake of fire that comes down from heaven and consumes them (20:7–10 || 11–15). See J. Webb Mealy, After the Thousand Years: Resurrection and Judgment in Revelation 20, JSNTSup 70 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992); Mealy, New Creation Millennialism (Seattle: Amazon, 2019); Eckhard J. Schnabel, “The Viability of Premillennialism and the Text of Revelation,” JETS 64 (2021): 785–95; Thomas R. Schreiner, Revelation, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023).

[71] Chilton, Days of Vengeance, 481–82.

[72] Chilton, Days of Vengeance, 485.

[73] Chilton, Days of Vengeance, 491.

[74] Chilton, Days of Vengeance, 109.

[75] Thomas R. Schreiner, “Revelation,” in Hebrews–Revelation, ESVEC 12 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 670.

[76] Beale, Revelation, 971.

[77] Beale, Revelation, 957.

[78] Chilton, Days of Vengeance, 484.

[79] Douglas Wilson, When the Man Comes Around: A Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Moscow ID: Canon, 2019), 224.

[80] Wilson, When the Man Comes Around, 223.

[81] While הָאָרֶץ can mean “the land” or “the ground” in some contexts, its parallelism with תֵּבֵל (“the world”) corroborates that “the earth” is its meaning here.

[82] Wilson, When the Man Comes Around, 225.

[83] אֶרֶץ refers to the whole earth no less in Isa 11:4 than in 11:9.

[84] Peter J. Leithart (Revelation 12–22, ITC [New York: T&T Clark, 2018], 269–98) takes a preterist-idealist approach to Rev 19:11–21. He spiritualizes the warfare and is unable to pinpoint its historical referent with much “specificity, or confidence” (p. 293). He interprets the battle typologically as the “conquest” that follows the “exodus” of 18:4 (pp. 293–94). He temporally locates the battle somewhere between the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the millennium, whose beginning he dates roughly to the end of the first century. He summarizes, “Rev 19:11–21 is the church moving out from the ruins of Jerusalem and Judea to conquer the entire world” (p. 295). But long before Jerusalem’s fall to Rome in AD 70, the church had already moved out from Jerusalem and Judea and had taken the gospel to the entire world, in fulfillment of Matt 24:14, 28:19–20, and Acts 1:8 (see section 2.1 above). The cross, not Jerusalem’s destruction, launched the church’s victorious mission to the nations. By the time Jerusalem fell, the gospel had been “conquering the entire world,” so to speak, for a whole generation with astonishing success. The events of AD 70, however important otherwise, did not supply any impetus to the church’s missional trajectory, which was fully set at and propelled by the cross of Christ.

[85] Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, 210, 302.

[86] Payne, Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy, 530.

[87] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1–2:47 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 682–84.

[88] Craig S. Keener, Acts: An Exegetical Commentary: 3:1–14:28 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013), 1109–12.

[89] Beale (Revelation, 611–20) eliminates preterist interpretations of Rev 11:15–19.

[90] Murray (Puritan Hope, xviii) distinguishes Puritan eschatology from postmillennialism and critiques the exegetical methods of both.

[91] For an insider’s perspective on and critique of (1), see James B. Jordan, “The Dominion Trap,” Biblical Horizons 15 (1990), https://biblicalhorizons.com/biblical-horizons/no-15-the-dominion-trap/.

[92] I allude here to the postmillennial Fight, Laugh, Feast Network.

[93] Richard J. Bauckham, “The Delay of the Parousia,” TynBul 31 (1980): 3–36; David L. Mathewson, Where Is the Promise of His Coming? The Delay of the Parousia in the New Testament (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2018); Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC 37 (Nashville: B&H, 2003), 389–91.