Category Archives: Amillennialism

Waiting For Armageddon: An American Evangelical Theology

Posted on by

I was thinking about not writing this post on this blog, but my other one that I barely use (Jesus Confession). But I figured since this blog has an actual readership, that I might as well stick it out and write the post I am about to write right here. I thought about not writing this post here, because the subject matter is a little different from what I usually broach on this blog. But the reality is, when it comes right down to it, where this post should end up is spot on with the usual tenor of what I write about at this blog. So with this ground cleared a bit, let me get into what I want to discuss.

In the last few days I have watched a couple of documentaries (one of them was more of an exposé of sorts), and the subject matter has revolved around a largely American Evangelical theme and tradition of interpretation. I have addressed this interpretive tradition more than once in my blogging over the years, because, frankly, it is the interpretive tradition that I grew up with and formally studied biblical studies and theology from for many many years. By now many of you know exactly what I am referring to; yep, Dispensationalism. Now, I have had some scholarly friends wonder why I care to address this issue in my blogging; for these friends this issue is so far out there, that it seems a waste of time to try and outline, or refute (or even make people aware of). I think the reason I am still fascinated with this is because, well, this tradition had such a large say in my life for so long. Beyond that, I am still processing (in some ways) how it was, and what it was that I was shaped by for so long in my own theological/exegetical and spiritual development.

The first video I watched in the last few days, on this, was an exposé that highlights the origins of dispensationalism (pre-trib rapture theology), its exegetical foundations, and its social implications. Here it is just below (it is 24 minutes long, and a really good introductory piece for those of you who are still pre-trib rapture dispensationalists (or who currently sit under this teaching):

Wow, right?! I’d say for the most part this little video is pretty accurate; even though it is dealing in some generalities. One of the points that I would say is mis-accurate is the reference to Ann Coulter. As far as I know, she is not a pre-trib, dispensationally formed Evangelical Christian; and so referencing her in the way the video does seems somewhat pre-textual and thus out of context and unnecessary.

The next thing I watched (and I just did before I began writing this) was an actual documentary called: Waiting For Armageddon which you can watch for free if you have Netflix). This documentary follows just regular (and intelligent) Christian Evangelical couples and families who sit under this teaching (like I did for so many years), and who fully endorse it. Beyond these folks, this film also interviews and follows some Evangelical Dispensational scholars, and gets their take on this whole interpretive tradition. Interspersed, there are also some antagonists to Dispensationalism provided by a female Christian pastor, a Jewish Rabbi who is part of the Temple Institute in Jerusalem, and a Jewish author.

Basically this documentary (‘Waiting For Armageddon’) emphasizes the fact that Pre-trib Dispensational theology is an American phenomenon that offers an idiosyncratic reading of scripture that favors the American Evangelical church. Furthermore, this film shows how this kind of theology has shaped American foreign policy in regard to Israel, and how America engages with nations that are not friendly towards Israel. The basic sense that I came away with, as I finished this documentary was; “I can’t believe I used to believe this stuff!” This film shows how dispensational theology ultimately causes its adherents to get excited about blood shed, war, and carnage; particularly (and ironically) directed at the nation of Israel (during the Great Tribulation). The reason for the excitement is primarily because all of these things, according to dispensational theology, portend of Jesus’ coming; all of these kinds of things must happen before Jesus comes back.

Please understand, I am not making fun of people who hold to this kind of theology (I am intimately connected still to many folk who do hold to this kind of theology), but I am really just amazed that I held to this same kind of teaching for so long. These people love Jesus, but I think that their interpretive schema is totally misguided. I think this, now, because at a methodological level, dispensationalism places the nation of Israel at the center of prophetic history, and not Jesus Christ (which you will see if you are able to watch ‘Waiting For Armageddon’). I almost get an oppressed feeling when I hear this kind of stuff anymore; and in the film, it comes across in very ruthless tones (which might be a result of the editing too).

There are other implications that I could talk about in regard to American Dispensational theology; like in regard to its implications for a political theory, ethics, biblical exegesis and a whole host of other things (an ethic for voting). But I will hold off on that until a later post. I just wanted to highlight these two films, and underscore the fact, that for American Evangelicals, this system of interpretation still is very predominate.

Reinterpreting the Old Testament in light of the New Testament Fulfillment of Jesus Christ: Contra Dispensationalism

Posted on by

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.

Not All Amillennialists Are ‘Replacement Theologians’ contra Dispensational Claims

Posted on by

Here is a brief summary of how Thomas F. Torrance understood the continuing place of the nation of Israel within the economy of God’s redemptive-history for the nations. This summary is provided by Torrance’s nephew, Robert Walker; and it is a brief summary of how Torrance read Romans 9–11:

Rom. 11.11-12, cf. vv. 15, 25-26 — the continuing centrality of the Jews for Torrance (the church does not replace Israel but is grafted into its root) is fundamental to his theology and in his lectures he used to point to Paul’s argument that if the sin of Israel means salvation and ‘riches for the Gentiles’ (11.11-12) and ‘if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?’ (11.15), or as Torrance used to paraphrase it, ‘if Israel’s rejection means the reconciliation of the world, their acceptance would be an event so momentous that it means the resurrection of the dead?’ [Robert T. Walker in Thomas F. Torrance, Atonement, 348 fn. 41]

Torrance, by the way, was amillennialist. I think, especially in my sub-culture, it is instructive for those dispensationalists who claim that all amillennialists follow what they call ‘replacement theology’; meaning that amillennialists believe that the nation of Israel, and all the promises made to her, were “replaced” by the Church. Obviously this is not the case for all amillennialists, TF Torrance being an exemplar of this, and thus it would serve popular dispensationalists well to take this correction.

If you are interested in understanding further about T. F. Torrance’s understanding of how the nation of Israel, in salvation history, continues to serve as the medium of the Messiah for the nations (for the Church); then read his book: The Mediation of Christ.

How Do You Explain Israel?

Posted on by

If you are an amillennialist (and at the moment I am going to remain undeclared, at least on the blog here), what do you think about the fact that Israel came back to be a nation once again in 1948? This is a key piece of evidence touted by premillennial dispensationalists that their system of thought, and approach to understanding “Biblical” prophecy–using their literalist hermeneutic–is viable and sound. The way things are shaping up in that region, presently, do indeed look like the picture and scenario that dispensational premillennialists believe to be how the “end” will look, just prior to the second coming of Jesus.

Anyway, I am just curious to hear how amillennialists (in particular)–but anyone can respond–understand the nation of Israel’s existence (and the various miraculous wars [like the 1967 War]) relative to your own eschatological paradigm. I understand that many just don’t have any thoughts on this, but that’s not really good enough; that’s somewhat of a cop-out. Do you think there is any theological significance to the existence of the nation of Israel today? Why or Why not?

The Unfortunate Usage of ‘Replacement Theology’

Posted on by

I want to clarify something through providing a little nuance that I think could go a long way. Have you ever heard of the terminology Replacement Theology? This is a rhetorical device used by mostly classic Dispensationalists against amillennialists; it is really a caricature which is meant to convey the idea that all amillennialists believe that the church has replaced Israel, and the promises God made to His covenant ‘Nation’ of Israel. I was just watching two brothers, one, Dr. David Hocking (a bombastic, booming, Bible teaching brother who was one of my teachers while I attended Calvary Chapel Bible College back in 96-97), and then the other, Pastor Jack Hibbs (of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, CA); I watched them on this ‘HisChannel’ broadcast here. To be clear, I highly appreciate Hocking, love him as a brother in Christ, the Lord has used him mightily in my life in the past, and even recently David and his wife both personally prayed for me just prior to my cancer surgery back in May 2010. So by doing this post, or highlighting Hocking and Hibbs, I am not trying to bad-mouth or denigrate either; instead, as  a brother in Christ I simply want to provide an important clarification about how they (as representative of many others in their circles, and I mean pastor/teachers) mis-use the label of replacement theology — which unfortunately, then, ends up being caricature.


It is true that in the history of the church some amillennialists have engaged what has been crudely labeled as ‘replacement theology’; but this is not the case for all, and many Reformed amillennialists today are not replacement theologians whatsoever, they see a place for the remnant of ethnic Jews in God’s unfolding salvation history into the eschaton (per Romans 9–11). Here is what ‘replacement theologian’ (per the caricature that Hocking and Hibbs unfortunately engage) writes about the history of amillennialism on this point:

[A]millenarians disagree about whether Israel does have a role, while others say Israel will have no distinctive future. However neither camp sees this issue as ultimately determinative of one’s millennial view. Some postholocaust Jewish writers, as well as certain evangelicals, have argued that denying a future role for ethnic Israel and equating the church with Israel is at the root of contemporary anti-Semitism. It must be pointed out that even those Reformed amillenarians who do not see a distinct future for ethnic Israel have held out the likelihood of the conversion of large numbers of ethnic Jews before the return of Christ. [Kim Riddlebarger, “A Case For Amillennialism,” 180-81]

Riddlebarger helps to substantiate my above point about the divergence amongst amillennialists themselves on the future place of a remnant of ethnic Jews. One point, that is important to note, according to Riddlebarger, all amillenarians hold out that ethnic Jews will be being saved and coming to their Messiah right alongside the Gentiles (per Romans 9–11). The statement I just quoted from Riddlebarger is in the intoductory paragraphs of his chapter which represents his exegesis of Romans 9–11; this is how he concludes his chapter:

[I]s there a future for ethnic Israel? Paul’s answer was yes. And the presence of a believing remnant was proof. But the future salvation of Israel is not connected to a future millennial kingdom. It was connected to the end of the age. When all Israel is saved, the resurrection is at hand. [Riddlebarger, 194]

For Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, as a Reformed Covenant Amillennialist, he sees a progressive intensification of the salvation of ethnic Jews (the remnant in Romans) that crescendos just prior to the coming of Jesus the second time (and then the ‘Land’ promise is not referencing a literal 1000 year period, but instead the ‘Land’ promise is fulfilled in the New Heavens and Earth, the New Jerusalem, the ‘Heavenly Zion’, at which time both ethnic Jews and Gentiles will participate together as one people of God through the Son of David, true Israel, Jesus Christ as their head [cf. Eph. 2:11ff]). So at least for Riddlebarger, he bucks the caricature, used by both Hocking and Hibbs, of being into Replacement Theology. For many amillennialists it is not that the church replaced Israel, and the promises made to her; instead, it is that Jesus expanded Israel in Himself as the fulfillment and point of the Abrahamic Covenant (‘The Father of MANY Nations’).

I wish Hocking and Hibbs, and all those of like-mind, would be more careful in communicating this to those unsuspecting souls who listen to them. I have sent emails to Hocking on this, but so far no response (maybe I should try again). Unfortunately I have heard this taken to the extreme, by those in the same circles as Hocking and Hibbs; meaning that some of these teachers communicate that anyone who is an amillennialist (without qualification or even a post-trib premillennialist for that matter), and teaches ‘replacement theology’, that their salvation is highly suspect — I am not kidding!

Getting back to my original point: not all amillennialists are into ‘replacement theology’, and in fact it could be argued that most today are not at all! There are instances in the history of interpretation where this label might fit, but it is really un-Christian to characterize in the way that Hocking and Hibbs have done (and all of those they represent). And so I felt motivated to write this post, and provide a little clarification on the unfortunate usage of the language of Replacement Theology.