Our contemporary debate about expressions of reverence may not be a question of interchangeable external gestures between different “styles” of music and expression. It may be because, as secular writer John McWhorter suggests, our entire culture is discarding the formal for the colloquial, the reverent for the casual. We’ve become, as a people, irreverent.
Resolving the debate over expressions of reverence is difficult. More than one reason could account for a clash in expressions of reverence between ethnicities, or even between generations of people belonging to the same ethnicity or culture.
First, there can simply be ethnolinguistic differences. Gestures, like words, function as signs and symbols of deeper realities. Different words that point to the same reality are not contradictory. They merely require translation. One culture might see standing as respectful, while the other sees remaining seated as respectful. While it is impossible to do both at the same time, translation would enable the two cultures to see that respect was the goal of the differing gestures. This difference in expression for the same meaning is not fundamentally problematic for reverence. The next two reasons, however, are.
Second, there can ignorance over meaning. Children are often rude, not out of a desire to offend, but because of ignorance of the forms and conventions that characterise polite company. This ignorance often continues in adults and their sub-cultures, who grow older in total ignorance of the meaning of respect, reverence, and of the forms that express it. This ignorance does not constitute total innocence on their part, for the pursuit of knowledge, wisdom, and self-understanding is an obligation laid upon every thinking man.
Imagine, for a moment, a biker gang that greets one another with an obscene hand gesture. They understand the offensiveness of the gesture in biker sub-culture, and delight in the very coarseness of making an insult into a greeting. By some strange machination of pop culture and mass media, this greeting finds its way into mainstream life, and after a few years, polite adults are now using this hand gesture to greet one another. Question: are the polite adults guilty of disrespect and coarseness? The answer is that they are, and they do not realise it. Their ignorance of the meaning of the gesture does not change its meaning; it only makes them foolish for adopting what they do not understand. This is true of musical forms, poetic forms, word connotations, slang, dress, body piercings or markings, hair, tone of voice and many other media of meaning. Now, it may be true that after many decades of use, the gesture is so widespread that its original obscene meaning fades altogether (assuming there was nothing obviously and intrinsically obscene in it). At this point, the culpability for using what was originally rude is no longer present. Except where the meaning is intrinsic, meaning does change with time.
Read More

The Regulative Principle of Worship has been a part of the worshiping community of the Lord from the beginning.  It defines our worship and regulates it to the glory and pleasure of God.  Traditionally, the principle identifies elements of worship that should be included in the Church’s offerings whether of the Old Covenant or the New.  It guides us so that we might offer the Lord His due…It covers the elements of the ministry of the Word of the Lord, prayer, offerings, music, etc. but might it also address our dress?

It was a few minutes before the start of our worship service and I was trying to personally greet as many people as I could.  A young man came in and took a seat.  He was a first-time visitor and I especially wanted to speak to him.  I found that he had recently moved to our city to take a position as a musician with our local symphony orchestra. What I remember most about him was the way he was dressed.  I don’t usually notice such things but his clothing was striking.  He was wearing pretty ratty denim shorts, a wrinkled t-shirt and flip flops.  I’m sure he was comfortable but I found myself being otherwise.  As the morning went along, I realized I was thinking about his clothing a lot and I was becoming more and more…perturbed.  I knew he didn’t, he couldn’t, dress that way for an orchestral performance that likely required him to wear a black-tie tuxedo.  Why, I thought, would he, then, dress so casually for church?  It was as though he intentionally, with forethought, dressed as slovenly as he could for worship.  He couldn’t have appeared more discourteous for coming into the presence of the Lord.  Why?  And why did it bother me so?
The Regulative Principle of Worship has been a part of the worshiping community of the Lord from the beginning.  It defines our worship and regulates it to the glory and pleasure of God.  Traditionally, the principle identifies elements of worship that should be included in the Church’s offerings whether of the Old Covenant or the New.  It guides us so that we might offer the Lord His due.  How else could we know how to worship except for God’s own direction and instruction.  But how far does such direction go?  It covers the elements of the ministry of the Word of the Lord, prayer, offerings, music, etc. but might it also address our dress?
God in His Scriptures tells us what the teaching and preaching of His Word should look like (Matt. 4:17; Acts 15:35; 2 Tim. 2:1-2; 4:1-4).  He teaches us how to pray to Him (Matt. 6:5-13; 1 Thess. 5:17-18), directs us how to give to Him (Matt. 6:2-4; 2 Cor. 8:1-5; 9:7), shows, even models for us how to sing His praises (Zeph. 3:17 NIV).  He regulates these but does He also regulate how we should be clothed before Him in worship?  Spiritually speaking, absolutely!
We can only appear in the presence of God clothed in the righteousness of Christ.  This is a cardinal truth of the gospel.  Our natural, spiritual condition is one of depravity, guilt and unrighteousness.  The Lord, however, dwells in holiness and possesses only purity and righteousness.  Never the twain shall meet!  But once we are in Christ by repentance and faith through the gospel of Jesus, we’re covered in His righteousness imputed and gifted to us in grace.  Notice the language the Bible uses for this.  “I will rejoice greatly in the Lord, my soul will exult in my God; for He has clothed me with garments of salvation, He has wrapped me with a robe of righteousness, as a bridegroom decks himself with a garland, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels” (Isa. 61:10). “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Gal. 3:27). “…and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth” (Eph. 4:24).  Clearly, we cannot enter into the presence of Him whose “eyes are too pure to approve evil [nor] look on wickedness with favor” (Hab. 1:13) without having our sin covered by the righteousness of Christ.
We must be clothed in Him under His gospel.  That’s the covering of the soul but what about the covering of the body?  Does worship before the Lord affect this covering?  Does the Scripture in any way regulate this?
This isn’t even a question often asked within broad evangelicalism but should it be?  Isn’t it a bit trivial?  Where would we go to even begin to find an answer?  Perhaps the worship found in Genesis 4 can give us a starting point.
Brothers Cain and Abel were involved in the first recorded act of worship in the Scripture presumably having been taught this by their father.  In verses four and five we’re told that the Lord found Abel’s worship acceptable but not Cain’s.  The difference in God’s response surely has to do with the distinction made concerning their respective sacrifices which was indicative of the spiritual condition of their hearts.  Cain is said to have brought an offering of the fruit of the ground with no further characterization made about it (v. 3).  On the other hand, Abel sacrificed to the Lord from his flock what was designated to be “of the firstlings…and of their fat portions” (v. 4).  The “firstlings” is simply the first from the flock; off the top as we could say.  The “fat portions” of the sacrifice under the Old Covenant were considered to be the best part of the animal that could be offered as an honor to the Lord  (See Gen. 45:18; Lev. 3:14-16; Ezek. 34:3).   Abel offered God the first and the best he had.  Shouldn’t this truth guide our worship of the Lord even today?  How would it work?
On a personal level, I have followed the monthly practice of making the first check I write be our tithe to the church.  My wife and I want to give the Lord from the first of His blessings to us right off the top.  Is this required?  No, but we desire to do it this way from hearts that are thankful to Him.  In our congregation some years ago, we changed the Sunday morning schedule from Sunday School first to corporate worship being first.  We found that people were a bit tired in worship after spending time in a study class and we wanted to offer the Lord in worship the first and the best of our time.  Don’t we all do this naturally in our churches?  In worship we use the best musicians from our congregations, we’re led by the elders who can best guide us to honor Christ, we have the best preaching available.  But what about how we dress?  Shouldn’t we come before the Lord in the best clothing we have?
For me that means a suit and tie; I don’t own anything better so that’s what I wear.  Doesn’t dressing in the best we have as we come into the Lord’s presence honor Him and show our respect by following Abel’s example of giving Him our first and best?  Then what about my young musician friend?  If his clothing that morning in church was the best he had to wear, I would have no problem with it.  None.  In fact, I would thank God that he had come to worship with the saints spiritually clothed in the righteousness of Christ and physically clothed in his best.
So, does the Bible require us to dress up when we go to church?  Not necessarily.  But why wouldn’t we?
Dr. Randy L. Steele is a Minister in the Bible Presbyterian Church and serves as Pastor of Providence BPC in Albuquerque, NM.
Related Posts:

The eschatological kingship of Christ begins already at his first coming culminating in his resurrection and ascension. Already at and dating from Christ’s exaltation, “God has placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church” (Eph. 1:22; cf. v. 20). This is a key eschatological pronouncement…. The entire period between his exaltation and return, not just some segment toward the close, is the period of Christ’s eschatological kingship, exercised undiminished throughout.

I am grateful to Doug Wilson for his amiable rejoinder to my critique of postmillennialism and for providing me with an opportunity to further address this topic.
Despite its promise to address seven critical points, Doug’s rejoinder leaves me searching for substantive engagement. Rather than grappling with the exegesis of any of my arguments, Doug selectively interacts with isolated sentences, entirely sidestepping the two challenges my article poses: (1) recovering postmillennialism’s pillar prooftexts and (2) addressing its problem passages.
A Bumper Car in a Demolition Derby
Doug astutely observes, and appears to lament, that discussions on eschatology often resemble “paradigm bumper cars,” lacking meaningful interaction and debate. This happens when we fail to discuss, as he puts it, “our root assumptions, how … we justify those assumptions, and who has the burden of proof,” creating conversations with no depth.
I provided an alternative to bumper-car discourse by writing a substantial critique rooted in the grammar and syntax of the very Scriptures that Doug has said are central to his eschatological assumptions. Why then did he show up at the demolition derby, to which I invited all postmillennialists, in his bumper car? To demonstrate that his paradigm is not simply bumping into the hard reality of the biblical text, he needed to show where my exegesis falls short.
Instead, Doug sought to establish his root assumptions elsewhere. Let’s examine his arguments to see if the foundations hold.
Unintended Universalism
Doug identifies my article’s thesis early on:
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 second coming.
In response, instead of trying to reclaim traditional prooftexts, Doug resigns himself to anchoring postmillennialism on John 3:16–17. He declares that postmillennialism’s foundation is “the love of God for the world as expressed in the cross of Christ,” concluding, “The love of God for this broken world is the bedrock. Everything else follows.”
While mining for postmillennialism’s elusive biblical bedrock in these parts, Doug tries to mix Arminianism and Calvinism, and thereby unwittingly makes a case for universalism:
I agree with the evangelical Arminians that the love of God as expressed in the atonement is a love that extends to the whole world (1 John 2:2). I also agree with evangelical Calvinists that the love of God as expressed in the cross of Christ is a love that secures the salvation of the object of that love (John 6:44). Put those two truths together and what you have is a robust and deep postmillennial foundation.
Actually, put those two statements together and what you have is universalism. Arminians believe the love of God as expressed in the atonement is a universally indiscriminate love that extends in the same way to every person without exception. Doug therefore affirms, by the time he finishes the second statement, that the love of God as expressed in the cross is a universally indiscriminate love that secures the salvation of its object, that is, the salvation of every person without exception.
In addition to Doug’s theological misstep, there are exegetical difficulties. For example, consider the key phrase “so that the world might be saved” in John 3:17. It does not imply that the majority of “the world” will be saved any more than the analogous phrase “so that you might be saved” in John 5:34 implies that the majority of Christ’s audience (“you”) would be saved. Both verses use the same construction: ἵνα (“so that”) + a passive aorist subjunctive of σῴζω (“might be saved”). In the second verse, the plural “you” refers to those who “were seeking all the more to kill him” (John 5:18; cf. 5:35–47). Consequently, John 3:17, in light of 5:34, actually challenges the belief that the majority of “the world” will be saved.
Passages referring to the salvation or Savior of the world (John 3:16–17; 12:47; 1 John 2:2; 4:14) do not imply that the majority of humanity will be saved. There is no need to explain away the straightforward meaning of texts like Matthew 7:13–14: “Wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it” (cf. 20:16; 22:14; Luke 13:23–24; 18:8).
God’s love for the world as expressed in the cross cannot support postmillennialism any more than it can universalism. I will grant that Doug is not a universalist, while reserving the right to question his clarity on definite atonement, if he concedes that he has not found in John 3:16–17 the sought-after text establishing his 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 resurrection of the righteous” (Luke 14:14).
Rightly Dividing the “Already” and “Not Yet”
According to Doug, non-postmillennialists insist that the future subjection of all things to the Second Man, the subjection that “we do not yet see” (Heb 2:8), “will never unfold.” He says, “To believe in it while also insisting that it will never unfold is hard for me to swallow.” Of course, no one believes “it will never unfold.” Non-postmillennialists simply recognize the subjection of all things to the Last Adam mentioned in Hebrews 2 as being “not yet” (Heb 2:8), as awaiting fulfillment in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5).
Doug appears similarly unaware of any paradigm but his own when he asserts, “It seems really odd to exult in a reign over the Lord’s enemies that His enemies never find out about.” Again, every Bible-believing Christian anticipates that all the enemies of Jesus will “find out about” his reign eventually. The only question is “When—before the second coming or at it?” Doug assumes that unless the enemies of Christ encounter his kingship in new and dramatic ways before the second coming, his interadvental reign will lack authentic victory.
Doug looks in the wrong direction for indications of Christ’s victorious inaugurated reign. The true indication lies in the past, not the future. The “already” subjection of all things to Christ fully unfolded when God “put all things under his feet” (Eph 1:22) in AD 30 (or 33). The exalted Christ has publicly triumphed over all his adversaries through the cross: “he disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them” (Col 2:15). He “has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him” (1 Pet 3:22). The fullness of inaugurated, interadvental victory was secured and realized when the resurrected Christ ascended to his heavenly throne.
Richard Gaffin writes in “Theonomy and Eschatology: Some Reflections on Postmillennialism,”
The eschatological kingship of Christ begins already at his first coming culminating in his resurrection and ascension. Already at and dating from Christ’s exaltation, “God has placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church” (Eph. 1:22; cf. v. 20). This is a key eschatological pronouncement…. The entire period between his exaltation and return, not just some segment toward the close, is the period of Christ’s eschatological kingship, exercised undiminished throughout.
The reign of Jesus stands resolutely victorious thus far. It remains fundamentally triumphant at every point on the interadvental timeline. No further subjugation of adversaries or conversion of nations is necessary to declare and experience the complete victory of the inaugurated kingdom. Nothing will (or even could) come under the feet of Christ at a future point in his inaugurated kingdom that was not already subjected to him at his inauguration: “all things” in Ephesians 1:22 encompasses everything. The subjugation of Christ’s enemies cannot unfold during the inaugurated kingdom any more than it already has.
The inaugurated reign of Christ certainly holds unrealized potential. Ultimate triumph lies on the horizon. Key passages, such as 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 and Hebrews 2:5–8, emphasize this “not yet” subjection of all things to Christ. Significantly, this future subjection will unfold at “the end” (1 Cor 15:24) in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5) and not before (see following sections).
Doug’s insistence that this future subjection will unfold in our present world contradicts these texts and wrongly divides the dual nature of NT eschatology—the “already” and “not yet.” In this framework, the “already” centers on the first coming of Christ while the “not yet” anticipates his second coming. Recognizing the robustness of the “already” subjection of all things to Christ within the context of this dual focus of eschatological fulfillment helps us appreciate two important truths: (1) there is no need for or even possibility of any further subjection of Christ’s enemies during the inaugurated kingdom (Eph 1:22), and (2) our eager anticipation should be directed exclusively toward the “not yet” subjection of all things to Christ in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5–8).
The New Jerusalem Is Not Yet
In “Can Kings Come in Too?” Doug suggests that the prophecy of kings bringing the glory and honor of the nations into the new Jerusalem (Rev 21:24, 26) will find fulfillment in this world. To make his case, he dons his preterist hat and identifies the new Jerusalem in Revelation 21 and 22 as the church on earth right now.
The preterist interpretation of the new heaven and new earth and new Jerusalem in Revelation 21:1–22:5 is surely one of the most implausible idiosyncrasies of any eschatological system. This passage only depicts the “not yet,” the world to come, for only then will death, mourning, crying, and pain be eradicated (21:4); only then will the unrepentant be thrown into the lake of fire, which is the second death (21:8); only then will the sun and moon be unneeded (21:23–24); only then will the curse be no more (22:3); and only then will people on earth see Jesus face to face (22:4; 1 Cor 13:12).
The new Jerusalem has not yet come down out of heaven (Rev 21:2, 10). When John envisages the kings of the earth bringing the glory and honor of the nations into the new Jerusalem (21:24, 26), in fulfillment of Isaiah 60, he foresees events that will take place in the world to come.
“The Point When” Is Not Yet
Doug continues to hear the following when he reads 1 Corinthians 15:25: “For he must reign, gradually subduing his foes, until all his enemies are under his feet.” He still assumes that the subduing of enemies in this verse describes an interadvental process rather than a definitive point at “the end” (1 Cor 15:24). He overlooks the grammatical evidence that precludes his reading.
In section 2.2.2 of my original article, I show extensively that “the verse actually says that the subduing of all enemies will take place at the culmination of Christ’s reign and not before.” I defend the following translation: “For he must reign until the point when he shall put all his enemies under his feet.” There is actually a Greek word (οὗ) meaning “the point when” in this verse, and the aorist subjunctive verb translated “he shall put [all his enemies underfoot]” describes an action that will occur—from beginning to end—at that point. Apart from any engagement with my analysis, Doug concludes that “it sounds like an argument that Christ will reign over His enemies until the day when He finally starts to reign over them. Which maketh little sense.”
In addition to ignoring the grammar, this critique misunderstands the NT’s portrayal of eschatological fulfillment. It is entirely consistent with biblical teaching to affirm that the inaugurated King is reigning over all his subjected foes (Eph 1:20–22; Col 2:15; 1 Pet 3:22) while also anticipating a definitive subjugation of those foes at “the end” (1 Cor 15:24–28) in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5–8). Doug’s rebuttal fails to address the exegesis directly, leaving the initial interpretation unchallenged.
Anticipating His Inheritance
In “Trashing His Inheritance?” Doug isolates and focuses on my statement that “Psalm 2 nowhere prophesies redemption.” He disagrees, countering that the prophecy of Messiah’s “inheritance” (Psa 2:8) finds fulfillment in the “inheritance in the saints” (Eph 1:18), which according to Doug belongs to Christ through “redemption” (Eph 1:7).
The insurmountable problem with this counterargument is that the “inheritance in the saints” (Eph 1:18) belongs to the Father, not Christ (see 1:19–20). Jesus will not receive the inheritance promised to him in Psalm 2:8–9 until he returns (Rev 19:15).
A culmination of inheritances will occur at the second coming: (1) the Father will claim his “possession” on the day of “redemption” as anticipated in Ephesians 1:14 (NASB, NIV, CSB, KJV), (2) believers will receive their “inheritance” when they experience the “salvation ready to be revealed in the last time” as mentioned in 1 Peter 1:4–5, and (3) Christ will obtain his “inheritance”—“the nations”—by means of “a sharp sword” and “an iron rod” on the day of “God’s wrath” as prophesied in Psalm 2:8–9 and Revelation 19:15.
My statement that Psalm 2 nowhere prophesies redemption is part of a broader argument demonstrating that this psalm predicts the rebellion and ultimate judgment of the nations, not their redemption or conversion. This interpretation is supported by Revelation 19:15, which aligns Psalm 2:8–9 with eschatological judgment.
Doug highlights the Second Psalm’s relevance to “studying how the New Testament instructs us in the reading of the Old.” He mentions (rightly, of course) that Acts 4:25–26 and 13:33 cite Psalm 2:1–2 and 2:7 respectively as prophecies of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Astonishingly, he fails to mention that Revelation 19:15 cites Psalm 2:8–9, which contains the prophecy of Messiah’s “inheritance.” Omitting this crucial discussion on Revelation 19:15 is significant, particularly since the near-universal consensus on Revelation 19:11–21 is that it prophesies the second coming.
In section 3.2, I argue that Revelation 19:11–21 depicts Christ’s return, as virtually all interpreters throughout history have concluded (Doug grants that this passage enjoys “virtually universal agreement from all interpreters” before going on in his commentary to place himself outside that longstanding consensus). Subsection 3.2.2 is even titled “Wilson’s Preterism.” Yet all of this remains unaddressed by Doug. Until he engages with these arguments, the prevailing interpretation stands: Psalm 2:8–9 foretells not the redemption but the decisive judgment of the nations at the kingdom’s culmination, at which point God will give the crucified and resurrected Christ his inheritance.
The exalted Christ already received what we might call the guarantee or downpayment of his future inheritance when the Father put “all things under his feet” (Eph 1:22). For God seated him “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come” (Eph 1:21).
The Success of the Great Commission
In “Can We Just Sit Tight Then?” Doug quotes one of my topic sentences (“Fourth, the apostolic era saw the success of the Great Commission”) and rejects it while disregarding the exegetical support (he also seems to think mistakenly that I use Matthew 24:14 here). Then he quotes Mark 16:15, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation,” concluding that “we are nowhere close to being done with that assigned task.”
We agree that the church’s task won’t be complete until Jesus returns; we mustn’t just sit tight. Nevertheless, three decades after the cross, the apostle to the gentiles declared that “the gospel” had been “preached to all creation” (Col 1:23) and had done its saving work “in all the world” (Col 1:6). Note how closely Paul’s language here mirrors Mark 16:15—there is nearly a word-for-word correspondence.
Paul affirms elsewhere that the gospel had “gone out to all the earth … to the ends of the world (Rom 10:18; cf. Acts 1:8) and had “been made known to all the nations,” where it was producing “the obedience of faith” (Rom 16:26; cf. 1:5), in fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise in Genesis 12:3 to bless all the nations (cf. Rev 5:9; 7:9). Remarkably, the advance of the gospel during the two millennia since Paul penned these words in Romans and Colossians is still not enough for postmillennialists to affirm the success of the Great Commission.
Christ’s prophecy that the gospel would be proclaimed “throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations” (Matt 24:14), according to Doug, “did happen, back in the first century.” He thus concedes that this did not necessarily include all global populations, such as the Mayans. In short, he acknowledges that “all the nations” does not imply comprehensive worldwide reach in Matthew 24:14. It’s unclear, then, on what basis Doug continues to infer that “all the nations” in 28:19 suggests a far more comprehensive scope than previously.
Consider the nations that did hear the gospel “back in the first century” in fulfillment of Matthew 24:14, such as the Macedonians. It would be unreasonable to assume that the majority of their populations were reached: “proclaimed … to all the nations” (24:14) does not imply that the majority of citizens in any nation heard the gospel. Similarly, “disciple all the nations” (28:19) does not imply that the majority of citizens in a discipled nation will be disciples.
The point is not that “proclaim” (24:14) and “disciple” (28:19) are synonymous. The point is that “all the nations” (24:14) and “all the nations” (28:19) are. These two verses do not necessarily describe the same activity, but they do share the same scope of activity when referring to “all the nations.” The phrase “disciple all the nations” communicates neither worldwide nor nationwide saturation. Doug’s counterargument needed to address this by engaging with the presented arguments.
Revisiting Doug’s Perspective
In “Heads or Tails,” Doug grants my argument in 2.2.3 that the verb “destroy” in 1 Corinthians 15:24 signifies the judgment of Christ’s enemies rather than their salvation. He claims I miss the point, though, which is that the salvation of God’s people is often the flip side of the coin: God saves his people by judging their enemies.
But that’s not how Doug argues on page 15 of Heaven Misplaced (which I quote in 2.2). There he interprets the destruction and subjugation of Christ’s enemies described in 1 Corinthians 15:24–25 as salvation (here is the quote again):
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.
Here Doug posits that Christ vanquishes his foes “through the power of the gospel.” Recall that the gospel’s power is “the power of God for salvation” (Rom 1:16). Doug even clarifies in the final clause that the subjugation in view does not refer to punitive measures but to the evangelistic efforts of the church. This perspective is the focus of my critique in 2.2.3. As I wrote there, “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.’ 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.”
In any case, the crux of the matter lies in the timing of the destruction. As I argue in sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, the definitive act variously described as destruction, subjugation, and subjection in 1 Corinthians 15:24–28 occurs solely at “the end” (1 Cor 15:24) in “the world to come” (Heb 2:5) “when all things shall be subjected to him” (1 Cor 15:28a; cf. Heb 2:5–8), “at which time the Son himself will also be subjected to him who subjected all things to him” (1 Cor 15:28b). Doug’s stance lacks scriptural support for a progressive salvation leading to a converted world prior to the second coming.
Doug’s Admission: The Core of Postmillennialism
Doug candidly confesses, “At the end of the day, if you ask me how I believe all this . . . I just do.” This underscores a critical point: eschatological convictions should be rooted in rigorous exegesis rather than one’s theological gut. The strength of one’s eschatology is measured by its scriptural foundation, not the depth of conviction.
The Superstore Remains Fully Stocked
Doug likens my comprehensive critique to a superstore brimming with arguments. He claims that his blog post—a mere shopping cart—is too small to address the breadth of content. He needs to get a bigger shopping cart. He owes readers a substantial response that avoids cherry-picking and engages in careful, methodologically disciplined grammatical-historical exegesis.
Jeremy Sexton is a pastor at Christ the King Church in Springfield, MO.
Related Posts: