Col 1:20 and Postmillennialism

[Beards]

Hello,

I recently came out of postmillennialism and became amillennial, but I have a friend who is still postmill that I’ve been having good conversations with. He brought up a verse that I was curious about as it relates to this issue. I’m curious how those who are amill on this forum would interpret this verse and respond to my friend.

Basically he argued amill can’t ultimately make sense of the reconciliation in heaven and earth, whether thrones or dominions, that Christ brings in Colossians 1:20. He says this makes perfect sense in his postmill eschatology of cultural transformation, because Christ does redeem all these things, including the earthly thrones and powers, over time in history. When I pointed out that I thought the most consistent reading in light of Paul’s eschatology is that this refers to Christ’s redeeming His Church, the creation, and subduing His enemies under Him, begun at the first coming and consummated at the second, he responded that it wasn’t enough. Enemies being subdued, he said, is not reconciliation, and so we were back again to how all things in heaven and earth, including powers and dominions, are reconciled by the blood of His cross. He’s convinced it teaches his view of gradual culture transformation and postmillenialism, and although I think he’s missing the boat, I still don’t fully understand how to view the passage myself completely.

Any thoughts?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Colin,

Here is William Hendriksen in his commentary on Col 1:20:

20. Now both in Col. 2:9, 10 and here in 1:19, 20 the fulness which dwells in Christ is mentioned with a practical purpose. It is a source of blessing. Thus here in Col. 1:19, 20 we are told that it was the good pleasure or delight of God the Father that in the Son of his love all the fulness should dwell and through him to reconcile all things to himself, having made peace through the blood of his cross; through him, whether the things on the earth or the things in the heavens. Not only were all things created “through him,” that is, through the Son of God’s love (verse 16), but all things are also (in a sense to be explained) reconciled “through him” (verse 20). In both cases all things has the same meaning: all creatures without any exception whatever. . . .​

​

It is all a matter of interpretation. Thus, it is true, indeed that heaven and earth are not now united, and are not going to be united, in the sense that all rational beings in the entire universe are now with gladness of heart submitting themselves, or will at some future date joyfully submit themselves, to the rule of God in Christ. This universalistic interpretation of Col. 1:20 is contrary to Scripture (Ps. 1; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 7:13, 14; 25:46; John 5:28, 29; Phil. 3:18–21; 2 Thess. 1:3–10; and a host of other passages). It was Origen who was probably the first Christian universalist. In his youthful work De Principiis he suggested this thought of universal, final restoration for all. In his later writings he seems to imply it here and there, but obscures it somewhat by the suggestion of a constant succession of fall and restoration. He has, however, had many followers, and among them some have expressed themselves far more bluntly. Some time ago a minister told his audience, “In the end everybody is going to be saved. I have hope even for the devil.”​

​

The real meaning of Col. 1:20 is probably as follows: Sin ruined the universe. It destroyed the harmony between one creature and the other, also between all creatures and their God. Through the blood of the cross (cf. Eph. 2:11–18), however, sin, in principle, has been conquered. The demand of the law has been satisfied, its curse born (Rom. 3:25; Gal. 3:13). Harmony, accordingly, has been restored. Peace was made. Through Christ and his cross the universe is brought back or restored to its proper relationship to God in the sense that as a just reward for his obedience Christ was exalted to the Father’s right hand, from which position of authority and power he rules the entire universe in the interest of the church and to the glory of God. This interpretation brings the present passage in harmony with the related ones written during this same imprisonment. Note the expression “the things on the earth or the things in the heavens” (or something very similar) not only here in Col. 1:20 but also in Eph. 1:10 and Phil. 2:10.​

​

There is, of course, a difference in the manner in which various creatures submit to Christ’s rule and are “reconciled to God.” Those who are and remain evil, whether men or angels, submit ruefully, unwillingly. In their case peace, harmony, is imposed, not welcomed. But not only are their evil designs constantly being over-ruled for good, but these evil beings themselves have been, in principle, stripped of their power (Col. 2:15). They are brought into subjection (1 Cor. 15:24–28; cf. Eph. 1:21, 22), and “the God of peace (!) will bruise Satan under your feet shortly” (Rom. 16:20). The good angels, on the other hand, submit joyfully, eagerly. So do also the redeemed among men. This group includes the members of the Colossian church as far as they are true believers, a thought to which Paul gives expression in the following verses.​

Other Reformed amil commentators will give you similar light on this verse. I hope this is helpful!

 

[DanSSwing]

Hello,

I recently came out of postmillennialism and became amillennial, but I have a friend who is still postmill that I’ve been having good conversations with. He brought up a verse that I was curious about as it relates to this issue. I’m curious how those who are amill on this forum would interpret this verse and respond to my friend.

Basically he argued amill can’t ultimately make sense of the reconciliation in heaven and earth, whether thrones or dominions, that Christ brings in Colossians 1:20. He says this makes perfect sense in his postmill eschatology of cultural transformation, because Christ does redeem all these things, including the earthly thrones and powers, over time in history. When I pointed out that I thought the most consistent reading in light of Paul’s eschatology is that this refers to Christ’s redeeming His Church, the creation, and subduing His enemies under Him, begun at the first coming and consummated at the second, he responded that it wasn’t enough. Enemies being subdued, he said, is not reconciliation, and so we were back again to how all things in heaven and earth, including powers and dominions, are reconciled by the blood of His cross. He’s convinced it teaches his view of gradual culture transformation and postmillenialism, and although I think he’s missing the boat, I still don’t fully understand how to view the passage myself completely.

Any thoughts?

Just last night I was reading chapter 11 of Robertson's "Christ of the Covenants" in which he compares covenant theology with dispensationalism and was pleasantly surprised (being post-mil myself) to find him criticize dispensationalism (p. 213) because it draws a "metaphysical or philosophical dichotomy between the material and the spiritual realms." He says this is the key difference between the frameworks. It is also one of the big reasons why I lean post-mil or optimistic amil. It's hard for me to envision Christ's work through the church failing in the physical realm in the light of prophecies of slowly growing (as opposed to sudden) conquest like Daniel 7, Psalm 110, and Jesus' "kingdom of heaven" parables.

 

[Polanus1561]

One thing we have to realize, gospel growth can grow alongside persecution.

 

[DanSSwing]

One thing we have to realize, gospel growth can grow alongside persecution.

I don't think that's under dispute. The question is whether the kingdom is limited to the gospel in people's hearts or if it extends to the Adamic mandate and apparently physical prophecies like Isaiah 65.

 

[Beards]

One thing we have to realize, gospel growth can grow alongside persecution.

I agree, but I don’t think that implies postmill.

Just last night I was reading chapter 11 of Robertson's "Christ of the Covenants" in which he compares covenant theology with dispensationalism and was pleasantly surprised (being post-mil myself) to find him criticize dispensationalism (p. 213) because it draws a "metaphysical or philosophical dichotomy between the material and the spiritual realms." He says this is the key difference between the frameworks. It is also one of the big reasons why I lean post-mil or optimistic amil. It's hard for me to envision Christ's work through the church failing in the physical realm in the light of prophecies of slowly growing (as opposed to sudden) conquest like Daniel 7, Psalm 110, and Jesus' "kingdom of heaven" parables.

Interesting. Yeah I don’t think Christ’s work fails in the physical realm, especially since at the second coming all the creation will be brought into the glory for which it groans (Romans 8). Both amill and postmill can agree on that. It’s more I don’t think His work implies the whole world becoming Christianized in a reign of righteousness now, but rather at the second coming (2 Peter 3, Rev 21). Nothing about creation being redeemed implies a future earthly glory, which the New Testament seems to be against, especially since we look to a city to come.

That’s at least how I understood postmill and believed it. Still studying the issue though, but I definitely identify as amill now. The Church grows and people from every nation are redeemed, but Babylon remains Babylon until Christ comes to put His enemies under His feet fully. Until then, our hope is in the parousia as we are pilgrims and sojourners.

 

[DanSSwing]

Interesting. Yeah I don’t think Christ’s work fails in the physical realm, especially since at the second coming all the creation will be brought into the glory for which it groans (Romans 8). Both amill and postmill can agree on that.

That's fair. But it's also why I'm specifically talking about Christ's work "through the church." "The gates of hell will not prevail against it," we are commanded to pray that "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," and John 14:12 (Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I am going to the Father), yet the church through the Holy Spirit ultimately fails to have earthly success, so Jesus has to return physically to achieve the work that the Holy Spirit through the church could not achieve. This is basically the reasoning that convinced me to go from premil to postmil.

My biggest problem with pessimistic amil is "When is Isaiah 65 fulfilled?" It can't be in the eternal state because death and age are specifically mentioned in v20.

 

[RamistThomist]

Col. 1:20 can as easily apply to the final judgment. That is the problem with these modern postmil defenses. They take necessary conditions and turn them into sufficient ones. In any case, regardless of one's eschatology, the verse likely parallels the New Jerusalem coming down to earth.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello brothers,

A couple of things: first, the verse itself, Col 1:20, "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven", should take into account the meaning and import of the word "reconcile", which is, "bring back to a state of harmony". Is this not accomplished by the casting of the wicked into the lake of fire at the end, and restoring the paradisical peace of His creation?

Second, I think the phrases, optimistic and pessimistic amil blur the clarity of the classic contemporary Amillennial position. There is no such thing — in truth — as pessimistic amil! Do we measure the efficacy and beauty of the gospel's success in terms of numbers? It was not so in ancient Israel; there was a remnant, often far smaller than the mass of professing "believers". Even so it is in the church age's spiritual and true Israel: Many are called but few are chosen (Matt 22:14; 20:16; 7:13,14).

Yes, there will be a great number of the redeemed in glory, but compared to the reprobate we do well to heed the Lord's sayings. We do not count the success of the gospel by large or small numbers, or by mere professions, but by those who endure to the end. And there is coming a time, if we are to believe Paul in 2 Thess 2:3, when there will be a great apostatizing from the church world-wide at the very end of the age — most likely due to the influence of the man of sin upon the professing church, turning multitudes away from faith in Christ and adherence to His church.

The beauty of Christ's persevering bride despite the furnace of affliction she is in — especially at the end — her God-given beauty of loyalty and love far transcends mere optimism and pessimism.

Dan, you said,

My biggest problem with pessimistic amil is "When is Isaiah 65 fulfilled?" It can't be in the eternal state because death and age are specifically mentioned in v20.

We have gone quite into this on Isaiah 65:20 previously; I think going into it again is beating an already long-dead horse. I do agree it is difficult, but has been exegetically well dealt with.
_____

In sum, Col 1:20 sheds no light at all for the post-mil.

 

[Beards]

Hello brothers,

A couple of things: first, the verse itself, Col 1:20, "And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven", should take into account the meaning and import of the word "reconcile", which is, "bring back to a state of harmony". Is this not accomplished by the casting of the wicked into the lake of fire at the end, and restoring the paradisical peace of His creation?

Second, I think the phrases, optimistic and pessimistic amil blur the clarity of the classic contemporary Amillennial position. There is no such thing — in truth — as pessimistic amil! Do we measure the efficacy and beauty of the gospel's success in terms of numbers? It was not so in ancient Israel; there was a remnant, often far smaller than the mass of professing "believers". Even so it is in the church age's spiritual and true Israel: Many are called but few are chosen (Matt 22:14; 20:16; 7:13,14).

Yes, there will be a great number of the redeemed in glory, but compared to the reprobate we do well to heed the Lord's sayings. We do not count the success of the gospel by large or small numbers, or by mere professions, but by those who endure to the end. And there is coming a time, if we are to believe Paul in 2 Thess 2:3, when there will be a great apostatizing from the church world-wide at the very end of the age — most likely due to the influence of the man of sin upon the professing church, turning multitudes away from faith in Christ and adherence to His church.

The beauty of Christ's persevering bride despite the furnace of affliction she is in — especially at the end — her God-given beauty of loyalty and love far transcends mere optimism and pessimism.

Dan, you said,

We have gone quite into this on Isaiah 65:20 previously; I think going into it again is beating an already long-dead horse. I do agree it is difficult, but has been exegetically well dealt with.
_____

In sum, Col 1:20 sheds no light at all for the post-mil.

Well said. The part about bringing everything into harmony is what I thought but I could never word it that well. Thank you for that.

 

[DanSSwing]

Dan, you said,

We have gone quite into this on Isaiah 65:20 previously; I think going into it again is beating an already long-dead horse. I do agree it is difficult, but has been exegetically well dealt with.
_____

In sum, Col 1:20 sheds no light at all for the post-mil.

I agree with you that Col 1:20 doesn't really favor any eschatological position. However, I think Isa 65:20 remains an insurmountable problem because it isn't a question of degree but rather category; whether after a long or short life, death still exists during the time being described. PS - "Beards" just joined the forum so he probably did not follow the previous discussion.

Speaking of problem passages, I think this speaker may have just solved one of the most difficult problems for post-mil, namely the supposed apostasy before Christ's final return. He argues that Christ wars, not against, apostates, but against...get this...an army of evil-dead zombies! And he says Gill, Warfield, and others held this position too. https://kaysercommentary.com/Sermons/New Testament/Revelation/Revelation 20/Revelation 20_7-10.md

The only thing I had a problem with was his geographical focus on where the bodies were buried. It doesn't help the army of the evil dead surround the saints if the saints are all over the earth, so I think he's being over literal here.

 

[DanSSwing]

PS - For Beards, just curious... what was it that convinced you for (I'm assuming pessimistic) amil as opposed to post-mil? Are/were you preterist, and was your post-mil early Puritan (i.e. a literal 1,000-year reign not yet begun) or modern post-mil (kingdom/reign began in 1st century AD)?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

To assert that the classic contemporary amil view is to be described as "pessimistic" is both false and misleading. I have spoken on this above. Refute that if you can, before you proceed, please.

Dan, you said just above, speaking of Phillip G. Kayser in his sermon, The Last Rebellion, "He argues that Christ wars, not against, apostates, but against...get this...an army of evil-dead zombies! And he says Gill, Warfield, and others held this position too". I think that misrepresents Gill and Warfield to the max. There may be some aspects of G & W that are similar, but certainly not that! How bizarre!

The aforementioned, The Last Rebellion, goes to show why studying the Apocalypse (John's Book of Revelation) is daunting to many — there being so many weird and unscriptural spins on the last prophecy of the Lord, the Climax of Prophecy as Richard Bauckham put it. Between the pre-mils (both Historic and Dispensational, though the Historic are more biblical and reasonable), and the Post-mils, the variety of preterists (partial and so forth), and then the historicists — must one have to slog through all that stuff to understand what the Lord is telling us?!

Were I new to the field I would probably be daunted too! Teaching my Nigerian brothers in our small congregation — and seeking to make eschatology clear and simple to minds not familiar with eschatological concepts — requires me to, not "dumb it down", but try to be clear yet with profound and applicable depth of reality our folks can relate to.

The larger world around them — what is going on in the West, the U.S., Canada, Europe, the U.K., down under, New Zealand, etc, and then Africa (much of which they know all too well), and Asia, etc — is darkening in ways they have no clue concerning. It is "the whole counsel of God" to have them exposed to sane eschatology, as well as the foundational truths of Creation as seen in Genesis, then Justification, Sanctification, and the panoply of riches and blessings to simply be found "in Christ".

I am accepting the reality of the unreality of eschatological awareness in the U.S. and U.K. It is a shame, but the Lord will remedy even this to His beloved people when the massive seismic judgments pound the nations and they realize this cannot but be a nearing of the very end, and give up the frauds that have been injected into the Christian body for so long.
_______

This silliness by pastor Phillip G. Kayser of zombies being the marauding hordes attacking the church at the end, well, it just goes to show what we are capable of. Is it not clear to Biblical students that the "living dead" are simply the unregenerate souls who will be the "undying damned" save they repent and turn to Christ? Those without eternal life are the children of satan and of wrath; they are not the lumbering grotesquely rotting creatures of film and book who desire to kill the living, but in fact are the unregenerate brilliant, beautiful, and physically swift and powerful normal humans without eternal life — the living dead.

 

[DanSSwing]

Apparently levity does not translate well in this forum. From the link I posted: "This sermon challenges the establishment view that Revelation 20:7-10 is describing a final apostasy of living nations and defends the view that the final rebellion is being engaged in by the non-elect who have just been released from Hades with Satan and resurrected. It all occurs on the last day of history." Nowhere does he say "zombies," and he would agree completely with your description.

As for "pessimistic," that's the distinction I have always heard (including from its adherents) because those a-millers believe the world will get worse and worse leading up to the final coming of Christ. It's pessimistic about the state of the world, not about anything pertaining to God. Even when I was pre-mil, I would have openly characterized my position as "pessimistic," so I'm unclear why you so strongly reject it. I'm sorry you don't like the term, but you're going to need to come up with a better alternative in distinguishing the position from optimistic a-mil.

I also believe 2 Thess was referring to the apostasy before Christ's coming at the end of the age of the Jews (70 AD) and not to His final coming, but that's another issue.

 

[Phil D.]

However, I think Isa 65:20 remains an insurmountable problem because it isn't a question of degree but rather category; whether after a long or short life, death still exists during the time being described.

Insurmountable? I think both the premillennialist and postmillennialist interpretation of what is described in Isaiah 65:17-25 suffer from some overly literalistic applications. Further, would they also insist that carnivorous animals will return to a strictly herbavorian nature prior to the Eternal State, as described in v. 25? And does not Revelation 21:1-8, which further explicates and unfolds this very passage, make its intention unmistakable?

The Amillennial view that the passage forms the central part of a chiasm, steeped in rare (and foreign to modern Western thinking) but uniquely rich poetical expression, is quite compelling, as Kim Riddlebarger shows.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Dan,

I suppose you are right about levity, as regards me in any case, when talking of life and death and God's word, and the seriousness of the Armageddon you talk about. Kayser would certainly NOT "agree completely with [my] description" of the living dead, Armageddon, and the resurrection; he has Gog and Magog being those armies comprised of once long-dead bodies resurrected to attack the people of God. I posit no such thing. Those hordes are but the unregenerate of the world whipped into a killing frenzy against the saints globally by antichrist.

The end is no joking matter. And when the Saviour returns, after He saves and comforts His wife from the assault, neither will His vengeance be.

 

[DanSSwing]

My levity is the result of relief that we will not be fighting against people we thought were brothers who have quickly apostatized but rather against pure evil.

This was your characterization, and I don't see what Kayser would not agree with in here (except that he would leave no room for them to repent and turn to Christ since they have already physically died; I assume you don't believe that, but it's hard to tell whether you are referring to them before or after they have their resurrected bodies--your last sentence suggests the latter):

Is it not clear to Biblical students that the "living dead" are simply the unregenerate souls who will be the "undying damned" save they repent and turn to Christ? Those without eternal life are the children of satan and of wrath; they are not the lumbering grotesquely rotting creatures of film and book who desire to kill the living, but in fact are the unregenerate brilliant, beautiful, and physically swift and powerful normal humans without eternal life — the living dead.

 

[DanSSwing]

Insurmountable? I think both the premillennialist and postmillennialist interpretation of what is described in Isaiah 65:17-25 suffer from some overly literalistic applications. Further, would they also insist that carnivorous animals will return to a strictly herbavorian nature prior to the Eternal State, as described in v. 25? And does not Revelation 21:1-8, which further explicates and unfolds this very passage, make its intention unmistakable?

The Amillennial view that the passage forms the central part of a chiasm, steeped in rare (and foreign to modern Western thinking) but uniquely rich poetical expression, is quite compelling, as Kim Riddlebarger shows.

Perhaps I'll change my mind when I get to seminary next year and actually study Hebrew. It just strikes me as extremely odd that the prophet would choose a lifespan far shorter than those of the patriarchs to illustrate eternal life, especially since there is no shortage of poetic metaphors to illustrate not dying at all.

I agree with the Revelation 21:1-8 comparison, but I would also note that the New Jerusalem is introduced as a bride, not as a wife, suggesting that what this passage describes begins before the eternal state.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

@Phil D. , thanks for the Riddlebarger piece — edifying!

Hello Dan, it seems you are assuming the correctness of Kayser's view that the evil dead are resurrected and continue to do evil on the earth! This interpretive lens distorts Biblical clarity grossly! When the wicked who have died are given bodies again it is to stand before the Judgment Seat and go from there to perdition.

About Rev 19:7 vis-à-vis Rev 21:2, the Greek γυνή gynē can be translated wife or bride, and νύμφη nymphē can also refer to a young married woman. Even in the pre-consummated state before the great wedding feast, we are the bride or wife of the Lamb.

 

[Beards]

PS - For Beards, just curious... what was it that convinced you for (I'm assuming pessimistic) amil as opposed to post-mil? Are/were you preterist, and was your post-mil early Puritan (i.e. a literal 1,000-year reign not yet begun) or modern post-mil (kingdom/reign began in 1st century AD)?

Sorry, didn’t see this for some reason until now.

I was a partial preterist and held to the modern view, mainly influenced by Jeff Durbin and Doug Wilson. What convinced me was 1) the Scriptural view does not picture these last days as ones where eventually righteousness will reign, Babylon will be completely converted, and Christians will reign. Instead, it pictures these days as ones of wilderness wandering, exile and sojourning in Babylon, increasing apostasy, and the days of Noah, NOT the conquest of Canaan. Far from expecting any earthly glory, the NT constantly points our hope to the second coming where Christ will crush His enemies and bring in the fullness of His Kingdom. Only there will righteousness dwell (2 Peter 3:13). The paradigm now is not one of glory but the cross; not the days of conquest but the days of Noah.

2) I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where the Church is tasked with changing the culture and winning the world. Instead she is tasked to make disciples, teach, and baptize until the Lord comes. At least in the type of postmillenialism I held to, this is not an understatement, though I’m not sure about other types. Practically speaking, I found the view fixed my eyes more on trying to turn Babylon into Jerusalem rather than living a quiet and godly life, sharing the gospel, and serving the Church.

3) I found postmillennial exegesis to be faulty at best. Many of the passages used as proof texts, the 1 Cor 15 one for example, were read into rather than really exegeted. I was resting on a few texts misinterpreted and read into while ignoring a massive amount of texts that postmill has to skip around.

4) Another big reason was that I was convicted by the fact that Reformed theology has historically been amill and not partial Preterist, instead postmill was condemned by both Calvin and the second Helvetic confession as a vain Jewish dream. I know some of the Puritans held to it, but I just don’t see how it is truly consistent with our Reformed heritage, especially a Preterist reading.

One of the resources that really helped was R. Scott Clark’s “As it was in the Days of Noah,” which solidified me further after I was already convinced. I also find Berkhof and Bavinck helpful on this point.

 

[DanSSwing]

Sorry, didn’t see this for some reason until now.

I was a partial preterist and held to the modern view, mainly influenced by Jeff Durbin and Doug Wilson. What convinced me was 1) the Scriptural view does not picture these last days as ones where eventually righteousness will reign, Babylon will be completely converted, and Christians will reign. Instead, it pictures these days as ones of wilderness wandering, exile and sojourning in Babylon, increasing apostasy, and the days of Noah, NOT the conquest of Canaan. Far from expecting any earthly glory, the NT constantly points our hope to the second coming where Christ will crush His enemies and bring in the fullness of His Kingdom. Only there will righteousness dwell (2 Peter 3:13). The paradigm now is not one of glory but the cross; not the days of conquest but the days of Noah.

Thanks, Beards. I agree there are Scriptures that talk about this, but the preterist can point to these referring to Jesus' coming in judgment, noting that they were all written before 70 AD. How do you get around the many warning of imminence, e.g. Matt 10:23, Rev 1:1-3, and pretty much all of Thess? I only came to believe in preterism in the last two years, but now that I've seen it, I find it impossible to unsee it. Now one CAN be both preterist and amil. I'd probably give up postmil before I gave up preterism.

2) I don’t see anywhere in Scripture where the Church is tasked with changing the culture and winning the world. Instead she is tasked to make disciples, teach, and baptize until the Lord comes. At least in the type of postmillenialism I held to, this is not an understatement, though I’m not sure about other types. Practically speaking, I found the view fixed my eyes more on trying to turn Babylon into Jerusalem rather than living a quiet and godly life, sharing the gospel, and serving the Church.

That's certainly a danger. The latter is the priority for sure. But even Paul informed the rulers that they are accountable to God. Whether we like it or not, we who live in democratic societies are responsible to vote for godly laws, policies, and rulers. We cannot be obsessed with the result, but we do need to be faithful. Even though I'm postmil, I'm a pessimist in the short-term and fully expect growing persecution through my lifetime just as Paul did. WE may lose down here, but our ?x-great-grandchildren do not.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

4) Another big reason was that I was convicted by the fact that Reformed theology has historically been amill and not partial Preterist, instead postmill was condemned by both Calvin and the second Helvetic confession as a vain Jewish dream. I know some of the Puritans held to it, but I just don’t see how it is truly consistent with our Reformed heritage, especially a Preterist reading.

@Charles Johnson debunked the myth that the Second Helvetic Confession condemns postmillennialism in this post. I had long thought that this part of the Second Helvetic Confession was being misrepresented by sectarian partisans, and Charles provides weighty primary source evidence in support of this thesis. For the record, however, I agree with you that partial preterism ought not to be slavishly followed as a system, as the only theory of antichrist truly consistent with our Reformed heritage is believing that the papacy is the man of sin.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Well, this is certainly going to be a contention! I do not see that Charles Johnson has "debunked the myth that the Second Helvetic Confession condemns postmillennialism", although he has brought some welcome nuance into Bullinger's views. That Bullinger has written against the Anabaptists and their dreams does not at all negate he also had in mind what he even gave the name "Jewish Dreams" to: the Jewish expectation that Messiah would come and subdue the Gentiles by force and fulfill the prophesies of a Messianic Kingdom upon the entire earth.

That Bullinger thought "the millennium is a literal thousand years of relative peace in the church, and that Christ would return sometime after it" is no closer to postmil than it is to amil, save the golden age bit of the postmil. The spirit of of the postmil view of a golden era of peace — extremely lengthy though it may well be — may be similar to Bullinger's literal 1000 years, but is certainly not such as to rightly claim Bullinger for the postmil camp.

The Second Helvetic Confession condemns a carnal dream of earthly glory, peace, and prosperity — be it Jewish or Anabaptistic — as the content or nature of the Millennial period, which the amil sees, per the New Testament vision of the figurative millennial period, as an entirely evil age (Gal 1:4) under the thrall of the evil one (1 John 5:19).

I'll attach a piece by David J. Engelsma — later published in Christ's Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism — which speaks to this, who Mr. Johnson possibly had in mind when writing his piece, as Engelsma is one of the very few who fervently defends Reformed Amillennialism, and references the Helvetic. (In the attached article, see this link concerning Confessions touching on this matter).

This is the Jewish Dreams article DJE published in 1995 issue of The Standard Bearer, early on in this "discussion".

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thoughts before hitting the sack: Why do I continue to speak into this issue? Eschatology is perhaps the only doctrinal issue among the Reformed that is still in flux, as the days near the end of the age, and we do not see prophecies being fulfilled save in hindsight. But at least we have that!

There is a combat — I would term it swordplay among friends — in this arena, for my opponents are genuine brothers and friends. Yet it is deadly serious stuff. Whether one calls it "Jewish Dreams" or Postmil, it remains that erroneous understanding in this matter can wreak havoc in the hearts of many.

It may be that events of such magnitude are required to convince some folks that we are in the very end of days, that anything less will not touch them, so firmly do they cling to their views. So be it.

And events of of said magnitude will come, and, if I see clearly, soon. But for those who hold to the simple fidelity to Scripture of the Amil school, their advantage is that they will prepare their hearts for the rushing tsunamis about to hit, both from Above in seismic judgments, and from Beneath in persecution.

This is not a mere academic discussion of eschatology; it is taking the word of our God seriously so as to prepare our little ones and constitutionally weaker dear ones to endure the fiery trials to come with courage and grit. We in the West are not used to severe fiery trials — such are anomalies to us in our sheltered lives — but they are at the doorsteps. Our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world are already in such furnaces.

If I do not speak clearly and firmly on these matters, I am a watchman who shall be reproved by the Lord, and that I do not want. I will not relent. As long as I breathe.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Well, this is certainly going to be a contention! I do not see that Charles Johnson has "debunked the myth that the Second Helvetic Confession condemns postmillennialism", although he has brought some welcome nuance into Bullinger's views. That Bullinger has written against the Anabaptists and their dreams does not at all negate he also had in mind what he even gave the name "Jewish Dreams" to: the Jewish expectation that Messiah would come and subdue the Gentiles by force and fulfill the prophesies of a Messianic Kingdom upon the entire earth.

That Bullinger thought "the millennium is a literal thousand years of relative peace in the church, and that Christ would return sometime after it" is no closer to postmil than it is to amil, save the golden age bit of the postmil. The spirit of of the postmil view of a golden era of peace — extremely lengthy though it may well be — may be similar to Bullinger's literal 1000 years, but is certainly not such as to rightly claim Bullinger for the postmil camp.

The Second Helvetic Confession condemns a carnal dream of earthly glory, peace, and prosperity — be it Jewish or Anabaptistic — as the content or nature of the Millennial period, which the amil sees, per the New Testament vision of the figurative millennial period, as an entirely evil age (Gal 1:4) under the thrall of the evil one (1 John 5:19).

I'll attach a piece by David J. Engelsma — later published in Christ's Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism — which speaks to this, who Mr. Johnson possibly had in mind when writing his piece, as Engelsma is one of the very few who fervently defends Reformed Amillennialism, and references the Helvetic. (In the attached article, see this link concerning Confessions touching on this matter).

This is the Jewish Dreams article DJE published in 1995 issue of The Standard Bearer, early on in this "discussion".

I don't think anyone here would countenance a "carnal golden age" like the chiliasts taught.
Antonius Walaeus, one of the fathers of the Synod of Dort, explains in his refutation of premillennialism exactly what they have in mind when rejecting a carnal golden age and Jewish dreams:
"For some esteemed that that kingdom would be so earthly that the Jews were to be restored to their land, and that, together with living believers, they would enjoy every kind of corporeal delight; and among these delights, they imagined a great quantity of wives, continual feasts and banquets, carnal enjoyments, etc. Also, the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem, and the restoration of the temple, and of other ceremonies and judicial laws. This opinion, taken from Jewish dreams, began to be insisted upon even among Christians already in the time of the Apostles by the heresiarch Cerinthus, as Eusebius testifies, bk. 3, hist. Eccles. ch. 25; bk. 7, ch. 24."
Now, to state the obvious, no post-mil Reformed believer on the board is going to describe the millennium that way. We would describe it like Bullinger: a time of relative peace and purity in the Church.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I haven't followed the thread. But just comment off of Charles's post to say, I was surprised in Wes Bredenhof's critque of the "bad" about Doug Wilson, that he began with Postmillennialism. However, he seems to focus on partial preterism and concedes today's orthodox reformed may hold to Postmillennialism. The optimistic Scottish Presbyterian view shares with modern postmillennialism (but not right to "call" it Postmillennialism*) a latter day glory of the church:

"beginning in the late-1580s and early-1590s, two distinct patterns of apocalyptic belief were established in the exegetical commentaries on Revelation published by James VI and John Napier which influenced Scottish apocalyptic thinking over the next century. James, as a reigning monarch, gave credibility to the view espoused by the majority of Protestant apocalyptic thinkers in the sixteenth century who believed that the forces of Satan would persecute the Church militant until Christ returned on Judgment Day to punish the wicked and gather the elect for the kingdom of heaven. This rather pessimistic understanding of the latter-days was shared by subsequent Scottish apocalyptic thinkers such as William Cowper, Robert Baillie, David Dickson, William Guild, and John Welsh. Conversely, notable Scots such as Patrick Forbes, George Gillespie, James Durham, John Welwood, and Richard Cameron followed Napier by anticipating a period of latter-day glory for the Church before the Last Judgment. Typically, these Scots believed this period would witness the destruction of Antichrist, a greater spread of the Gospel throughout the world, and the conversion of the Jews to Christianity." David Andrew Drinnon, “The Apocalyptic Tradition in Scotland, 1588–1688,” A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St. Andrews (2013). Cited in Preface to Sermons in London, 1643-45, Shorter Writings of George Gillespie, vol. 2, Naphtali Press Special Editions (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, 2022), p. 54.

*Both Crawford Gribben and David Drinnon advocate against the usefulness of imposing the modern terms of amillennial, postmillennial, and premillennial onto the views of seventeenth century Scottish writers. This of course pertains to the millennium and the interpreting of Revelation 20. The generally accepted Protestant hermeneutic of interpreting the whole Book of Revelation at the time was historicist in nature rather than idealist, preterist, or futurist (again, to use the modern terms). On the anachronistic use of millennial terms, see Crawford Gribben, The Puritan Millennium: Literature and Theology, 1550–1682 (Paternoster, repr. Wipf & Stock, 2008), preface to the revised edition, and David Andrew Drinnon, “The Apocalyptic Tradition in Scotland, 1588–1688,” A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of St. Andrews (2013). On the latter point and for a brief defense of Gillespie’s sermon and historicism, see Steven Dilday, The Eschatology of George Gillespie: An Introductory Analysis and Evaluation, ed. R. Andrew
Myers (Culpeper, Virginia: Master Poole Publishing, 2008). Ibid., p.52-53 n12.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Charles, you wrote, "For some esteemed that that kingdom would be so earthly that the Jews were to be restored to their land, and that, together with living believers, they would enjoy every kind of corporeal delight; and among these delights, they imagined a great quantity of wives, continual feasts and banquets, carnal enjoyments, etc....".

That kind of carnal [supposed kingdom of God] is almost laughable, were it not so gross and ungodly. The postmil golden age, where mosaic law is adhered to — and required of all — and the remainder of mankind apart from the genuine church is "Christianized", is nonetheless carnal, even though "religious".

Just because the JWs and Mormons are "religious" does not mean they are not obviously carnal.

When the Lord Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36), He made it very clear that in the Messianic age — the NT church age — His kingdom was a spiritual kingdom, into which the elect of all nations would be gathered into, a kingdom in the world but not of it.

Those who have the Old Testament prophecies bear the entire burden of their eschatological view of the kingdom in the New Testament age, do so because they cannot support it by the New Testament witness, which clearly says — how many times must it be repeated? — "this present age is evil" (Gal 1:4); while John says, "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in wickedness" (1 John 5:19).

For the writers of New Testament Scripture there were two ages (αἰών aiōn), this present evil age, and the coming eternal age. Both the pre-mil and the post-mil add a third age distinctly different, respectively, from this present age and the age to come. Two ages only? Matt 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34,35; Eph 1:21.

 

[DanSSwing]

Thoughts before hitting the sack: Why do I continue to speak into this issue? Eschatology is perhaps the only doctrinal issue among the Reformed that is still in flux, as the days near the end of the age, and we do not see prophecies being fulfilled save in hindsight. But at least we have that!

There is a combat — I would term it swordplay among friends — in this arena, for my opponents are genuine brothers and friends. Yet it is deadly serious stuff. Whether one calls it "Jewish Dreams" or Postmil, it remains that erroneous understanding in this matter can wreak havoc in the hearts of many.

It may be that events of such magnitude are required to convince some folks that we are in the very end of days, that anything less will not touch them, so firmly do they cling to their views. So be it.

And events of of said magnitude will come, and, if I see clearly, soon. But for those who hold to the simple fidelity to Scripture of the Amil school, their advantage is that they will prepare their hearts for the rushing tsunamis about to hit, both from Above in seismic judgments, and from Beneath in persecution.

This is not a mere academic discussion of eschatology; it is taking the word of our God seriously so as to prepare our little ones and constitutionally weaker dear ones to endure the fiery trials to come with courage and grit. We in the West are not used to severe fiery trials — such are anomalies to us in our sheltered lives — but they are at the doorsteps. Our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world are already in such furnaces.

If I do not speak clearly and firmly on these matters, I am a watchman who shall be reproved by the Lord, and that I do not want. I will not relent. As long as I breathe.

I agree with you on the tsunamis about to hit and that have already hit. (And I'll foot-stomp that the gender insanity is not merely the sin that brings judgment; it is the sin that IS PART OF the judgment.)

But after becoming Postmil, I became much more optimistic and better able to withstand persecution precisely BECAUSE I now believe God will win "down here." Perhaps there are some Postmil people who deny history and think that the world is supposed to get better in all places in a straight line with no hills and valleys, but that's certainly not the way I look at it, and I haven't yet many anyone who does. If you find them, by all means, continue to warn them that they should personally be prepared for persecution. I'm more concerned with those of the dispensational Premil mindset that the end of the world is at hand but we'll just get raptured out of it.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Dan,

We do agree on some important things. The so called "rapture" of the Dispensationals (and other premils) is a distortion of Scriptural reality. Which is not to say that the end of the world — immediately preceding the great and terrible Judgment — is not near. What Dispensationalists call the rapture is really the general resurrection of all the dead and those still living.

You are also right that some postmils see serious ups and downs before the world "gets better". If you do not see the global extent of great darkness — of a magnitude never seen before — and the technologies able to implement it to a maximum effectiveness of control, and what this portends for humanity, well, time will tell what the reality of things eschatological are.

The factor of increasing worldwide sorcery — the use of those agents used to enter the demonic realm and open the gateway for it to flood into the human collective consciousness — is not appreciated by many. Yet this demonic influence and presence is markedly present — and exponentially affecting the thinking of our time. We are being groomed for one to come whose desire is to be worshipped and to control.

And we are — as a church — asleep in the Jewish dreams of the postmils, or the grogginess of some amils. It will get to a point where it will become obvious what is real. When a great apostatizing and the revealing of one known as the man of sin occurs — who will himself precipitate the apostasy with his hatred of Christ, Christians, and the Bible — thinking himself a god, it will be impossible to stay asleep.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

The extreme wickedness of these days — growing darker and more violent by the week — does make the solidity of the Law of God established across the world very attractive. When we pray, "Thy kingdom come", it is the eternal state and its holiness we are longing for. There His word and will reign without opposition.

For when the New Covenant Scripture explicitly declares that this present age before the eternal age is going to be evil, and that growing in intensity, we yield to His infallible word. Knowing that the furnace of affliction is for our purifying. Baseless dreams do not sustain us. Seeing such dreams evaporate will put many in shock.