Correct...so if you don't bring your preterist presuppositions to the text in Luke...there is nothing in the passage/context to suggest a preterist interpretation. Christ is lamenting that there will be little faith when He returns at His second coming. See Riddlebarger, page 281.
Col 1:20 and Postmillennialism
- Thread starter Beards
- Start date
Beards
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you!I concur with Steve Rafalsky's answers (and highly recommend Riddlebarger's works on eschatology as well, including his addressing the "optimistic amil" term in his book, A Case for Amillenialism).
While I don't find it compelling at all to read into Colossians 1:20 (even with verse 16 preceding it) a Postmil eschatology for a number of other reasons, it occurred to me that this verse may be relevant to consider in relation to it (similar to John 3:16 with "the world") in terms of what it's really about more generally and completely at Christ's consummation of His Kingdom on the Last Great Day (when there will no doubt be one world government under Christ with a willing people serving Him forever--Revelation 11:15, and the cosmos will "sigh a breath of relief" to no longer be darkened under the hold of the prince of this world and his minions in their various "reigns" over parts of the earth):
Rom. 8:19-23: For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
While Calvin allows for this with a passing acknowledgment and goes into a long discussion of it relating to angels and men, the IVP-NB Commentary notes in part:
The climax of the paragraph comes with the references to reconciliation and peacemaking through Christ’s death. The opening words of the paragraph had stated that all things had been created in, through and for Christ. He is their Lord in creation. What is not spelled out, however, is what has happened to all things since creation: the unity and harmony of the cosmos have suffered a serious breach, needing reconciliation (cf. Gn. 3). It was God’s good pleasure to reconcile all things through Christ (2 Cor. 5:19). Heaven and earth have been brought back to the order for which God made them. The universe is under its Lord, and cosmic peace has been restored. Reconciliation and making peace (which includes the idea of pacification, i.e. overthrowing evil) are used synonymously to describe the mighty work which Christ achieved in history through his death on the cross as a sacrifice (Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 11:25; Eph. 1:7).
The commentary later also notes (I think relevant to the question and context as the impetus of this post):
Further, it cannot be assumed from this verse that all sinful men and women have freely accepted the peace achieved through Christ’s death. Although all things will finally unite to bow in the name of Jesus and to acknowledge him as Lord (Phil. 2:10-11), it is not to be supposed that this will be done gladly by all, and to suggest that v 20 points to a universal reconciliation in which every person will finally enjoy the blessings of salvation is unwarranted.
Lastly, I gotta give a nod to your user name, Colin!
Also sorry y’all, I didn’t know I got this many replies! I hadn’t been checking it, so I’ve been out of the discussion. Thank you though to everyone. This is a good discussion.
Beards
Puritan Board Freshman
One thing I notice after a cursory reading:
I don’t think the amill position is inconsistent at all with the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer. I believe, with many amill brothers I know, that God’s kingdom is being advanced through the preaching of the gospel and that God is winning. We don’t lose down here, we just don’t win in the way we as humans usually want to win. The Church will be established and the ends of the earth will be blessed through the salvation of a countless number, greater than the stars. You and I are proof of that. I’m a Christian in the state of Oregon right now (which is pretty much to the ends of the earth from the Middle East), worshipping with a group of many Christians every Lord’s day who have been blessed by the seed of Abraham, and are a blessing as the Church multiplies. That is a miracle, and that is by no means “losing down here.”
Yet none of that presupposes a kind of victory of earthly glory where the earth is full of righteousness and the nations submit to Christ- where the world is Christian. Just as Christ’s victory at the cross was hidden, clothed with weakness and shame, and was, by every human reckoning, losing, so too the Church triumphs in this age as we await the resurrection.
One can believe and pray the second petition without being postmillenial. Christ’s victory is not on our terms and His kingdom advances in the midst of His enemies.
I don’t think the amill position is inconsistent at all with the second petition of the Lord’s Prayer. I believe, with many amill brothers I know, that God’s kingdom is being advanced through the preaching of the gospel and that God is winning. We don’t lose down here, we just don’t win in the way we as humans usually want to win. The Church will be established and the ends of the earth will be blessed through the salvation of a countless number, greater than the stars. You and I are proof of that. I’m a Christian in the state of Oregon right now (which is pretty much to the ends of the earth from the Middle East), worshipping with a group of many Christians every Lord’s day who have been blessed by the seed of Abraham, and are a blessing as the Church multiplies. That is a miracle, and that is by no means “losing down here.”
Yet none of that presupposes a kind of victory of earthly glory where the earth is full of righteousness and the nations submit to Christ- where the world is Christian. Just as Christ’s victory at the cross was hidden, clothed with weakness and shame, and was, by every human reckoning, losing, so too the Church triumphs in this age as we await the resurrection.
One can believe and pray the second petition without being postmillenial. Christ’s victory is not on our terms and His kingdom advances in the midst of His enemies.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
This works against you as well. The preterist interpretation ought to be the default one, that the prophecy was something of relevance to His immediate audience unless there's good reason to believe otherwise. I suggest that you lean toward the non-preterist interpretation because of the "little faith" reference at the end.
I don't agree that it is a valid rule of interpretation to always assume the preterist interpretation as the default one. However, I understand that this is your default interpretation and that preterists tend to view everything through that grid.
I'm curious...why do you think Jesus would lament that there would be little to no faith on earth in 70 AD? Wasn't the church growing at that time, parts of Scripture still being written, some of the apostles still living, some Christians being martyred for their faith, etc.? It seems he would have found much faith around the time of 70 AD.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
The focus should be on the two things that had to happen before His return, the apostasy and the revealing of the man of sin, who is destroyed by Christ by the glory of His second coming, the parousia (2 Thess 2:8). That is, it was written before 70 AD, but of events that would happen after 70 AD, at the end of time.
Last edited:
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Dan, you said (in post 53) re 1 Corinthians 15:25, "No. In fact, I think it usually entails His enemies achieving a certain level of power and then being exposed as frauds." That is very weird. . ."as frauds"? The next verse says, "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death (1 Cor 15:26)" The enemies are destroyed, not merely exposed as frauds. Is this not what is termed, eisegesis?
Unless you come up with something substantial — i.e., not eisegetic — I think I'll bow out of this discussion.
Unless you come up with something substantial — i.e., not eisegetic — I think I'll bow out of this discussion.
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
How did Elijah destroy Baal? How did Boniface destroy the pagan Germanic gods?
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
The Destroyer spoken of in 1 Cor 15:25, 26 is the Lord of lords, Jesus Christ, not Elijah, not Boniface!
DanSSwing
Puritan Board Sophomore
“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." - John 14:12
Of course, Jesus is really the one doing the work. Everyone here knows that. If you are going to interpret everything I type in the worst possible light, then please just don't respond to my posts at all.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
You're doing more than I to discredit postmil, Dan.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Dan, I do appreciate your worth as a godly brother, your labors in the gospel, and general acuity of thought – though in this one area, eschatology, your thinking is not as substantial, and fidelity to doctrine requires me to play hardball in this very serious field. Sorry, I do not mean to offend you.
Last edited: