On my post about the amilllennial eschatology webcast, a commenter asked for my thoughts on amillennialism.  Really, that webcast was my first real exposure to hearing about amilliennialism from amilliennialists.  So my thoughts here are accordingly tentative.

First, I have never been amillennial.  The webcast helped me understand the position better; it was more beneficial than reading a pre-mill author’s critique of the amill system; yet, it wasn’t systematic, organized or teaching.  The speakers primarily answered questions from moderator and, in doing so, they did not teach a clear, thorough lecture on their eschatology; they merely commented on issues surrounding amillennialism.

I’m still not amillennial.  The biggest interpretational hurdle that I cannot see amillennialism (covenant theology) jumping is Israel’s future.  Jer. 31.35-37 has stood out to me as an unequivocal statement of Israel’s future.  There is, of course, an amillennial answer to this objection.  One Scripture that was repeatedly brought up in webcast was II Cor. 1.20: “For all the promises of God find their Yes in [Christ].”  The Jer. 31 promise then would be fulfilled not in national Israel, but in Christ himself.  Unfortunately, that misses the context of II Cor. 1.20, I believe.  Paul is not talking about eschatology, prophecy or even OT interpretation.  He’s defending himself against accusations of fickleness.  He is emphasizing the certainty of God’s words to his people.  Paul is not saying, “All the promises that were made in an awfully literal-sounding manner to Israel – by the way, those now apply spiritually to the Church – Israel’s unforeseen replacement.”  (If that’s an errant characterization of the amillennial position, I apologize – that’s what the essence of the teaching seems to be saying, in my limited experience.)  Such a characterization of God’s promises would not, in that context, do anything to bolster Paul’s defense against the accusations of dishonesty and fickleness!  The context appears to argue against the interpretation of II Cor. 1.20 as it was repeatedly stated during that web-conference.  Further, there are no indications in the context that verse 20 is a statement of OT hermeneutics.  Perhaps there’s a more convincing way around the promises God made to Israel that I haven’t heard yet.

That said, this isn’t the end of the world.  Covenant theologians are my brothers in Christ as they hold the truth of the Gospel (often with a more biblical soteriology than some dispensationalists, I’ve noticed), so while I differ on this point of eschatology, I differ with a smile, not a sneer.  And perhaps, in fairness, I’ll write in the future on dispensationalism as well.