Amillennialism - Bad Theology? Part III

Last night, my wife asked me why I was so interested in this subject. That's a fair question, a good question. And I'm not sure of the answer. I think people are naturally intrigued by end-times issues. I recall going to a Bible conference at my church not long after I became a Christian. The subject during one evening was eschatology, and the lecturer gave a dispensational premillennial presentation that would have made Chafer, Ryrie, and Scofield proud. The place was packed! It was by far the biggest crowd of the week-long event. Another reason is I'm so disturbed at MacArthur's misrepresentation of Amillenialism. It really pains me to say this - he is such a personal hero of mine, one of the giants in Evangelicalism in the present day, and has a tremendous church, college, and seminary, in addition to "Grace to You," his broadcast and publishing ministry. He's rock solid in every area of theology - except eschatology, and the wheels really come off. What disturbs me most of all is his attitude. I took the kids to Great Salt Plains state park today, and on the way, I began listening to his presentation again. He says over and over that Amillennialists believe God's promises to Israel have been junked, accusing amils of of attacking God's character. Amils don't believe that. We affirm there is a future role for ethnic Israel. Rom 11:26 is clear that there will be a huge revival among ethnic Jews in the future. They will be saved exactly the same way Jews have always been saved (Gentiles too, for that matter) - by faith in Jesus Christ alone. He mentions that John Stott was interviewed and asked what Biblical significance does the existence of the nation of Israel have, and Stott said none. Mac counters this by stating the very fact they still exist proves otherwise, and proceeds to name several people groups, such as the Hittites, Agagites, and others who no longer exist as if this proves his point. Of course, he doesn't mention the fact that the Egyptians, Syrians, and Ethiopians are still around. He continually beats Amils up with this alleged "spiritualizing" hermeneutic, as if the Amil's method of interpreting Scripture is willy-nilly, inconsistent, and random. It's not true. I'm not a scholar, and I understand the Amil method. I cannot fathom how a guy as educated and as brilliant as MacArthur can fail to understand it.

Mac and our other dispensational brethren insists Scripture must be interpreted plainly, that is, the obvious, plain meaning of a given text is what it means. They do this......unless it does violence to their system. An excellent example is Matt 24:34. For the dispy, "this generation" means just that everywhere in the NT..........except here, where it means some generation in the distant future. Where did they get that idea? Not from the Bible. The Greek word for generation is used 30 times in the NT, and always means the generation contemporary to Jesus, except here....and only if you're a dispensationalist. Why? Because their system drives the interpretation. They must interpret this way. If they interpret "this generation" to mean what it does everywhere else in the NT, the entire dispensational house of cards comes crashing down. Read Matt 24:1-34. Admittedly, some of the language is difficult, and you have to be well-schooled in OT prophetic and apocalyptic literature to understand. But why in the world would Jesus respond to questions from His disciples by describing something in the distant future? Compare MacArthur's book "The Second Coming" with Sproul's "The Last Days According to Jesus" and decide who makes a stronger Biblical case.

Interpreting Revelation provides a similar situation. Rev 1:1-3 is key. What do the phrases "must soon take place" and "for the time is near" mean? I say take them at face value, because there is every reason to do so, and no reason not to. Remember, this book was written to encourage Christians being severely persecuted. Everyone agrees about this. How then do you justify the futurist interpretation? How do events of the distant future provide encouragement for Christians being persecuted? No, only the preterist approach answers all these questions. This is something futurists (and dispensationalist are universally futurists) have not been able to answer to my satisfaction. Gentry's outstanding book "Before Jerusalem Fell" is the seminal work on the issue. It is a must read.