Eschatology and Interpretive Frameworks: Amillennialism Highlighted

In a previous post the issue of eschatological and interpretive schemes came up, in that post I asserted that I hold to the Progressive Dispensational model; which as anyone who has followed me, over time, has been an issue under real re-consideration for me — in fact, to the point where in the past couple of years I had even claimed to be amil in orientation. I speak strong at points because I believe that if someone holds to a position they should do so with conviction; that does not mean that that same person cannot have a change of mind, and when they do they should do so with the same force they held their other position with. Having said, that let me quote myself on what I see as the strengths represented by amillennialism; the following is something I wrote a couple of years ago, and interestingly monergism.com has been using it as a caption for their “amil” category (which makes me feel good, in the sense that amillers think that I understand their position this well). Anyway here is what I wrote:

The Amillennialist affirms that the people of Israel have not been cast off or replaced, but rather, that the Gentiles have now been included among the Jews in God’s Covenantal promises. In other words, not replacement but expansion. God’s redemptive plan, as first promised to Abraham, was that “all nations” would be blessed through him. Israel is, and always has been, saved the same as any other nation: by the promises to the seed, Christ. Amillennialists, do not believe in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth after His second coming. Rather, they affirm that when Christ returns, the resurrection of both the righteous and wicked will take place simultaneously (see John 5), followed by judgment and the eternal state where heaven and earth merge and Christ reigns forever.

Strong points of Amillennialism

• It is highly Christocentric: it makes Christ the center of all the biblical covenants (even the “Land” covenant or Siniatic) notes the universal scope of the Abrahamic Covenant (as key) to interpreting the rest of the biblical covenants
• It sees salvation history oriented to a person (Christ), instead of a people (the nation of Israel)
• It emphasizes continuity between the “people of God” (Israel and the Church are one in Christ Eph. 2:11ff)
• It provides an ethic that is rooted in creation, and “re-creation” (continuity between God’s redemptive work now, carried over into the eternal state then)
• It emphasizes a trinitarian view of God as it elevates the “person”, Christ Jesus, the second person of the trinity as the point and mediator of all history
• It flows from a hermeneutic that takes seriously the literary character of the Scriptures (esp. the book of Revelation)

This is an issue I’m still thinking through, as I think though I am still claiming to be PD, so bear with me, the logical compromise to this is to hold to the historic or covenant premil position; since in reality this approach takes almost all of its interpretive cues from amil, except for the one that causes me the most problems within the amil interpretation of Revelation 20 and the thousand years (literal or not). My greatest concern is to adopt the approach that magnifies Jesus (throughout the Scriptures and methodologically) the most; while of course at the same time appropriating the approach that indeed captures the intent of scripture, but does not do so in a way that hybrids Scripture to its concerns and emphases. To be realistic, when approaching this issue, of eschatological/interpretive schemes, they are all going to err on one side or the other; which means that once one of these approaches is adopted it should always be kept in mind that these frameworks are “general” points of interpretive reference wherein there should be some elasticity and dynamism left for the interpreter to move and work within the emphases and expectations set by Scripture itself. In other words, whatever approach someone takes here, they should never sense a slavish commitment to maintaining the integrity of that system vis-’a-vis the confines set by Scripture; nevertheless, I still believe identifying with one of these frameworks will set the “general” tone and approach one takes to interpreting Scripture — which makes this a serious point of consideration for anyone interested in interpreting Scripture.