I am sorry if you have a hard time appreciating this, but I grew up as an American Evangelical (and still am, but I have morphed more into a historic Evangelical and Evangelical Calvinist); and as such, true to form, I grew up under a certain mode of hermeneutics and theological interpretation, namely: premillennial, pretribulational, classic dispensational theology. Indeed, my undergrad degree and grad degree both come from a school which is historically in this interpretive tradition, and still is. Nevertheless, as a result of repentant thinking, and through hours of study, study and thought, I have become a full blown amillennialist, and operate through a depth dimension Christ conditioned hermeneutic; one that hearkens back to a premodern, pre-critical time bequeathed to us through the New Testament authors, the early Church, and the Church Fathers (many of them) [of course it should be known that chialism or premillennialism was also on offer in the early Church, Irenaeus being one of the most prominent advocates for this interpretive move; he being motivated to this, mostly, because of his arguments with the Gnostics, and against their kind of dualism.] So for the remainder of this post I want to give insight to the kinds of interpretive realities in the New Testament that finally led me to “convert” to amillennialism. In the process of this I will highlight a few components of what defines the dispensationalism that I have ultimately rejected.

Dispensationalism believes that God’s primary purpose for salvation history revolves around the nation of Israel. Dispensationalists hold that the reestablishment of the nation of Israel in 1948 is a fulfillment of prophecy, and that this reality then is able to reinforce their interpretive commitments given shape by the dispensational system. As a result of this, it is the belief of many American dispensationalists that if a government (like the U.S.), or nation turns against the nation of Israel, then God will turn against the nation (they cite the Abrahamic Covenant for this, cf. Gen. 12:1-3). But this is, for me, what is the fundamental problem with dispensationalism. The New Testament authors didn’t see the nation of Israel as the fulfillment of the promises made in the Old Testament of the ‘Servant King’ or Messiah; no, instead the New Testament authors reinterpreted all of these Old Testament promises not in light of the nation of Israel (as the point and purpose of salvation history), but in light of their true fulfillment in Jesus Christ. It was this belief that became the rule and control that shaped the hermeneutics of the Apostolic understanding deposited for us in the New Testament writings. To illustrate this, and with this I will close the post, let me provide a scant sampling that should suffice to underscore what I have been asserting heretofore; i.e. that the NT authors reinterpreted the OT promises in light of their fulfillment in Jesus Christ (not in light of the nation of Israel, which is how dispensationalists so often interpret scripture). I will highlight two passages in the New Testament that I believe substantiate the general thrust of this post.

1. Matthew 2:15 states: “He remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken of by the Lord, through the prophet: ‘OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON.” This is quoting Hosea 11:1, which states in its context of the nation of Israel: “When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called my Son.”

• We see in this instance, Matthew engaging in what has been called in Latin, sensus plenior, or ‘fuller meaning’. He reinterprets the passage in Hosea 11, which in context was originally referencing the nation of Israel, and now sees Jesus as the fulfillment of this passage (e.g. not the nation of Israel).

1. Galatians 3:16 argues: “Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as referring to many, but rather to one, ‘And to your seed,’ that is, Christ.” This passage is referencing Genesis 12:1-3, 7 etc., which states: “Now the LORD said to Abram, ‘Go forth from your country, and from your relatives and from your father’s house, to the land which I will show you; 2. And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great; and so you shall be a blessing; 3. And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed. 7. The LORD appeared to Abram and said , ‘To your descendants [literally translated SEED] I will give this land.’ So he built an altar there to the LORD who had appeared to him.” And then also, following this motif of ‘SEED’, literarily and intertextually as well as intratextually, relative to the Torah (the first 5 books, or the Book of Moses, that make up the Hebrew Bible or our Old Testament), we also have Genesis 3:15, which states: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall be bruise you on the head, and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

• Here we see the Apostle Paul reinterpreting what might appear as the nation of Israel (it does for the dispensationalist) being referred to in the Abrahamic Covenant (i.e. Gen. 12:1-3, 7), as really in reference to Jesus Christ, not the nation of Israel. This does not seem to require much argument, it really is just the straightforward read on this one that is clearly referring to Jesus as the fulfillment and not the nation of Israel. And so to apply this understanding the Abrahamic covenant; it would be anyone who curses Jesus will be cursed, and not primarily the nation of Israel (which is in keeping with other messianic texts such as Psalms 2).

There are many many more examples like this of how the New Testament authors reinterpreted passages that seemingly, in their original context, were in reference to the nation of Israel only to have the Christian reinterpretation to be understood as ultimately in reference to Jesus Christ. If this is the case, this seems to be the paradigm and hermeneutic that we should biblically theologically read all of the Old Testament through; through this kind of Christ conditioned, depth dimension hermeneutic that the New Testament does.

This seems absolutely devastating to the dispensational hermeneutic, and I am fully aware of the dispensational responses and argument to this (since I used to argue them vociferously quite frequently); and I simply cannot see how they can stand up to these simple but profound New Testament reinterpretations of the Old Testament in light of their fulfillment in Jesus Christ! If I believed that the dispensational hermeneutic could respond to the weight of this, I would obviously still be a dispensationalist.

Let me also say, though, that Jesus could not, or would not be Jesus without the nation of Israel. Thomas Torrance in his book The Mediation of Christ makes a grand argument for the centrality of the nation of Israel relative to mediating, concretely, the person of Jesus Christ; and this reality will always be the reality. Jesus will always be the Jew from Nazareth, the Son of David who is King of kings and Lord of lords over all peoples and nations. But clearly, Yahweh, as Isaiah makes clear, will share his glory with no one; not even the nation of Israel (which cuts against the emphasis of an dispensational hermeneutic). Instead he has invited all of us, all nations, through Christ to participate in his glorious life for all eternity wherein righteousness dwells. This is the exciting hope, and Christ is the key to salvation history (not without Israel of course), not the nation of Israel. Scripture is clear on this, and I hope we are now too.

I still see the nation, providentially (and according to Romans 9–11), as very important to God; and I still believe that the Jewish people have a special heritage with God (simply given their vocation as the people group chosen to mediate the Savior of the World to the world). But, that said, the only way they can realize that special and rich heritage is through their reception of Jesus Christ as their Messiah just like the rest of us who make up the world in all of the various nations.