Last week I was asked what I thought of the doctrine of the millennium. I had to answer honestly, “I don’t know.” I explained that I see it mentioned in the Book of Revelation and it seems to lead toward the new heavens and the new earth. But I struggle with the vision of the Hebrew prophets who see a time when the earth will be ruled by God and how the Apostle Paul seems to see this as beginning with the eschaton, i.e. Rom. 8.18-23 and 1 Thess. 4.13-18.
It was pointed out to me that it may be that Paul saw a time when a millennium is in view as well as an ending (similar to Rev. 21). The passage would be 1 Cor. 15.26-28 which read,
“The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”
What do you think? Does Paul see an era post-Messianic Kingdom indicating he does believe in some sort of “millennium”? If so, what is his vision of the Messianic Kingdom and what does he see as coming when God is made “all in all”?
the archives near Emmaus 
If John sees a literal millennium, then I would say given the doctrine of inspiration and the principle of canonicity — e.g. the unity of message (so the principle of the so called “analogy of scripture” (or faith for Luther) — then most certainly Paul sees a literal millennium in view. To me this question is more a biblical theology (intertextual vs. just intratextual) concern, than an issue of trying to decipher a particular doctrine on this issue in Paul, per se.
I’m not sure we can discern, explicitly a teaching of millennium in Paul; but then, as you’re noting with I Cor 15, what Paul says does not preclude this notion either. I would suggest that as a 1st century Jew, trained as a Pharisee (in the Torah etc); that his expectations of an “earthly reign” of Christ would mimic those present in the general expectations present in the Jewish mind at the time — a mind saturated and shaped by the TaNaKh — which then would include all of the prophecies, the Davidic Cov. etc, that we find in Isaiah, Zechariah, Ezekiel, Samuel, etc. In other words, given what we find in Revelation, given Jewish expectations based upon the Hebrew Text; I think it is safe to conclude that Paul would have been expecting a literal “earthly” millennial “Messianic Age.” This idea, btw, is prevalent amongst many of the Patristics as well (such as Irenaeus et al).
Just my off the top take . . .
@Brian, no millennium is in Paul. It’s going to take incredible hermeneutical gymnastics to see such in Paul.
@Bobby, yeah, but the burden of proof is to see a literal millennium in John’s Apocalypse.
1 Cor. 10:11, of late, has become a key text in matters eschatological for me. 😉
That is the great NT eschatological question? Once again, let me recommend Charles Hill book: Regnum Caelorum, Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity. His position is that Christians were very early moving away from Jewish positions in the Millennial idea, but there seems to be historical information that cuts it both ways. But is eschatology always an internalizing affair? Which it has become since Origen. And what about the acceptance of a world-week chronology, which even Cyprian believed, with the imminency of Christ’s return and the setting up of the kingdom. Indeed always questions! This will it seems be an open question, till perhaps the very end itself!
Bobby, indeed this is a theological, hermeneutical question. And Irenaeus is a great early example of a literal but spiritual Chiliasm.
I should clarify that Cyprian did not expect an ‘any moment’ coming of Christ, but saw that Antichrist must be manifested first, but it was always close at hand with a universal deception and apostasy of the visible church.
TC,
We simply cannot do this for or against (the Millennium) without some kind of early church historical study! Note even Vos’s work here, which is Amill, btw.
@TCR,
Nice shifting the burden from whom it truly belongs. You’re the one negating — i.e. amillennial — from what is there; the burden is on your end, since the text asserts a 1000 year period of time. And waving your Apocalyptic magic genre wand won’t make it all better either 😉 . . . sorry (you’re allowed to be wrong on certain things as Christian 🙂 ).
@Robert,
That’s right! The history of interpretation on this a very important one for me. Stanley Grenz’s Millennial Maze is very elucidating on this subject. Also the book: A Case For Historical Premillennialism ed. by Blomberg and Chung also has some significant essays on the history of this issue (that’s not to mention even folks like Hoekma himself, although biased, still provides good coverage in his works on the history). The historical piece of most significance to me is “why” Augustine articulated TCR’s view 😉 , given the way some Christians were portraying the “earthly millennium.” I think that is massively important to understand in regards to the expectations and conditions that gave rise to the negating hermeneutic that amillennialism operates from.
@Bobby: I agree with you that there is an earthly reign of Christ. I don’t dispute this at all. It is obvious that the prophets saw a day when Christ would sit on the throne of David. The early church saw this as inaugurated, yet not fully consummated. I am wondering what it means for the Apostle Paul to see a day when “God may be all in all”.
It does not seem that this language presupposes this occurring at the Parousia. Neither does it fully exclude it. So while I am sympathetic to the canonical reading there is the question that we must answer, which T.C. noted: How do we read the millennium in Revelation?!
@ T.C. While it is true that there is no defined millennium it still is worth asking whether or not Paul saw there being an age after the Parousia when the reign of Christ fulfilled certain Abrahamic promises before leading to a final moment when “God may be all in all.” If there is such a hint in Paul, what is this era?
While 1. Cor. 10.11 is important I don’t think it settles the matter. I don’t think anyone disagrees that there is a post-Parousia “age”. What we wonder is whether or not there is any change in that age. Is there a thousand years leading to a final moment when God is all in all and the earth we have now is finally presented by Christ and his adopted siblings as completed (like Adam and Ever were asked to do) so that God can morph it into the final “new heavens and new earth”?
It is here that a study of Irenaeus of Gaul or Lyons is so necessary. He was simply the greatest theologian of the Second Century. Who himself said, that in his youth he had known Polcarp, who had known the apostles and been appointed by them as the bishop of the church of or in Smyrna. This so-called contact with the immediate successors of the aspostles was of great importance to Irenaeus, who later wrote in certain defence of the Christian faith and its history and theology. And like Christopher Smith I would call Irenaeus “a consistent creationist.” This earth matters, and the promises of God! Finally, how could not any real Jewish Covenantal theology not be bound to God’s creation here? And so a St. Paul and a St. John!
@Brian,
I read the millennium in Revelation as correlative to ideas that we see foreshadowed within the OT, relative to the Davidic Kingdom (which I do see as a now/not yet reality). I know TCR has just recently declared himself “amil” again, so I’m messin’ with him a bit 🙂 . As far as the “God may be all in all” Paulinism, I do think that that unfolds (as all of the history of redemption does) in stages (just like at a personal level with “our” salvation, which I think Rom 8 makes corollary as well). So in a sense, the “all in all” idea is present in a penultimate way now (always in-breaking on us by the Spirit, as through a glass darkly); but of course, then, I do think that Paul is probably referring to consummation that takes place at the resurrection (so the context of I Cor 15). And I take the “resurrection” to be Christ’s second advent; so if this is the case, then God being all in all would be in reference to that as well as (Rom 8) the regeneration of this earth (millennium), which will finally give way to the New Heavens and Earth (II Pet 3).
I like this question, though; I do think a case can be made for Paul’s view of salvation in “progressive” ways (linear), and that then, at least, this does not preclude a literal earthly kingdom that I think the Revelator John is referencing (echoing what the Prophets of old referred to). I know amillers like to argue that Paul didn’t ever mention a literal millennium in his writings (or even allude, so their ref. to Rom 9–11); but this simply, in my mind, amounts to nothing more than an argument from silence and thus a non-starter (relative to a Pauline theology on this issue). That’s why I appealed to the “unitive” principle in re. to filling out your question on Paul. Since Paul neither precludes or apparently requires a literal earthly millennium; this means, to me, that we need to be willing to allow other writers and contexts to shape the way we as “biblical theologians” might fill out or place the Apostle Paul’s theology in its broader canonical and intertextual context.
@Fr Robert,
And this is why, what you mention, I do place relative weight on someone like Ireanaeus (given his traditional relationship); since he is very close to the writer of Revelation himself (who I think knew exactly what he was saying i.e. I mean the Apostle John), through Polycarp. I just don’t think we can overlook this too easily. And I do agree, that Irenaeus was combating the Gnostic’s aversion to the “material” and thus a thought-process that precludes the very Jewish nature and importance of a “material” or “earthly” fulfillment of God’s promises. This was of crucial importance to Irenaeus’ arguments Against the Gnostics, and so I think, likewise should at least cause pause to those today who would want to deny an “this earthly” fulfillment of the seminal and unfolding nature of redemptive history (sure, “this earthly” could be “that earthly” in the sense that the eternal state will be “material” etc. — but given Rev 20, I do think we have a literal earthly millennium and I think Irenaeus theological points are quite substantial then from a number of different perspectives).
@Bobby: When we do Christian theology it does seem that the best approach is to let Paul be read in his canonical context. So if Paul says nothing directly about a millennium, but John does; or if Paul says nothing about how the earth is purged of evil, but Peter does, we can develop a canonical Christian eschatology that goes beyond Paul alone. In other words, church doctrine is not Pauline alone.
All these authors give us snap shots and together we develop a larger picture of the eschaton, though not the whole picture.
I agree, obviously, Brian; this is the way I like to read the Synpotics (as a complementing whole) as well.
Now go back and deal with Dan, he seems to be keeping you busy 😉 .
@Bobby: Busy indeed!
There was a good article in JSNT not long ago on this very topic.
@Mike: I am going to have to look for that. Do you remember if it is just something mentioned in an article or do you think the title will be enough for me to recognize it?