Amanda Middleton Theology Questions

1. Colossians
Colossians doesn’t seem to contain much on end times at first glance, but when digging a little deeper you can pull some things out. The overall theme of the book in relation to eschatology is that because of Jesus we will go to heaven and one day he will reappear and we will reappear with him. Through the sacrifice of Jesus, God has allowed us to “share in the inheritance of the saints… and delivered us from darkness (1:12-14).” Our inheritance is heaven, therefore that is where our hope is found (1:5). Jesus is “the firstborn of the dead (1:18)” meaning he was the first to rise from the dead and never die again. We know from the Gospels, after the resurrection, Jesus was on Earth with his disciples and then ascended into heaven and their he is “seated at the right hand of God (3:1)”. Colossians 3:3-4 says, “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ (who is your life) appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” From this scripture, we know that Jesus will appear again in the future at some unknown time and we will appear with him.

Another theme seen in Colossians is the idea of an already-not yet kingdom. We are already reconciled to Christ (1:20) and because of this we can be presented as holy and blameless (1:22), but this does not mean we are perfect. In Colossians 3, Paul says the wrath of God is coming because of our earthy desires. Therefore we must put off our old selves and its practices and put on the new self. Through sanctification, we are becoming more Christ-like but since the kingdom is not yet fully realized we will never be completely perfect. But when Christ reappears and heaven comes down to earth, the kingdom will be fully realized and we will all be able to put on our new selves completely with its practices (3:12-17).



2. What view of the millennium do you find the most persuasive and why?

I think I would side with amillennialism or pre-millennialism over post-millennialism. Post-milllennialism doesn't make a lot of sense to me because Christianity is not becoming more and more prevalent, if anything, the opposite is happening.
Amillennialism makes sense if you don't compare it to pre-millennialism. But I think pre-millennialism lines up with Scripture better. The argument that the millennial kingdom is the penultimate realization of the kingdom promise and the new heavens and earth is the ultimate realization of this promise was compelling to me; it doesn't appear that we are in this penultimate stage yet, so pre-millennialism fits our reality best.
I found it interesting that all three views don't necessarily believe that the millennium will last exactly 1,000 years. I never really thought about how the millennium not lasting one thousand years.

Amanda Middleton wrote:1. Colossians
Colossians doesn’t seem to contain much on end times at first glance, but when digging a little deeper you can pull some things out. The overall theme of the book in relation to eschatology is that because of Jesus we will go to heaven and one day he will reappear and we will reappear with him. Through the sacrifice of Jesus, God has allowed us to “share in the inheritance of the saints… and delivered us from darkness (1:12-14).” Our inheritance is heaven, therefore that is where our hope is found (1:5). Jesus is “the firstborn of the dead (1:18)” meaning he was the first to rise from the dead and never die again. We know from the Gospels, after the resurrection, Jesus was on Earth with his disciples and then ascended into heaven and their he is “seated at the right hand of God (3:1)”. Colossians 3:3-4 says, “For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ (who is your life) appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.” From this scripture, we know that Jesus will appear again in the future at some unknown time and we will appear with him.

Another theme seen in Colossians is the idea of an already-not yet kingdom. We are already reconciled to Christ (1:20) and because of this we can be presented as holy and blameless (1:22), but this does not mean we are perfect. In Colossians 3, Paul says the wrath of God is coming because of our earthy desires. Therefore we must put off our old selves and its practices and put on the new self. Through sanctification, we are becoming more Christ-like but since the kingdom is not yet fully realized we will never be completely perfect. But when Christ reappears and heaven comes down to earth, the kingdom will be fully realized and we will all be able to put on our new selves completely with its practices (3:12-17).



2. What view of the millennium do you find the most persuasive and why?

I think I would side with amillennialism or pre-millennialism over post-millennialism. Post-milllennialism doesn't make a lot of sense to me because Christianity is not becoming more and more prevalent, if anything, the opposite is happening.
Amillennialism makes sense if you don't compare it to pre-millennialism. But I think pre-millennialism lines up with Scripture better. The argument that the millennial kingdom is the penultimate realization of the kingdom promise and the new heavens and earth is the ultimate realization of this promise was compelling to me; it doesn't appear that we are in this penultimate stage yet, so pre-millennialism fits our reality best.
I found it interesting that all three views don't necessarily believe that the millennium will last exactly 1,000 years. I never really thought about how the millennium not lasting one thousand years.

I completely agree with Amanda. I think that pre-millenialism is the most compelling argument to believe. Although it is the most complicated, it lines up with what I have been taught, and the Scriptures lean that way as well. Additionally, when I look at the world, I don't see us in the tribulation or the millennium.
I've always been taught that the millennium was an exact thousand-year period. And if I remember correctly, AG teaches that the millennium will last 1000 years. So this was also news to me that most don't consider it to be literal in Scripture. Even as I read many of the arguments for it to be figurative, none seemed compelling.