Premillennialism and amillennialism represent not only different conceptions of the kingdom promises of the Bible, they also rest upon entirely different views of redemptive history. Today, there are essentially two views of redemptive history among biblical conservatives “covenant theology” and “dispensationalism.” Both views as articulated systems of belief are relatively new, having their origins in the post-reformation period. In the middle ages there was little need for an intellectually defensible justification for amillennialism, the church simply declared it to be so, and as they say, “that was that.” However, in the post-reformation era, even before the re-emergence of premillennialism, it became obvious that amillennialism rested upon a precarious intellectual foundation. Heretofore, the dual interpretive system employed by Augustine provided no real intellectual justification for its highly selective allegorical interpretation of future prophecy. The bias of this type of interpretation in order to produce a predetermined theological outcome (amillennialism) was obvious. This would never do in the increasingly intellectual post-reformation era. Indeed, it would only have been a matter of time before amillennialism came under severe criticism unless some reasonable justification for its concept of the kingdom of God were formulated. Thus, amillennialism gave birth to covenant theology—essentially a view of redemptive history which allows the kingdom promises made to Israel to be applied directly to the Church—thus offering justification for the selective use of non-normal/non-literal interpretation needed to support amillennialism.
The central tenet of covenant theology is that all redemptive history, from the fall of man forward, is the outworking of a singular covenant referred to as the “covenant of grace.” While covenant theologians do not agree on the precise nature of this covenant (it is nowhere explicitly referred to in the Bible), it is generally conceived of as a covenant between God and elect sinners, promising redemption upon the exercise of true faith in God. Covenantalists refer to three covenants: 1) the “covenant of redemption,” made between the members of the Godhead in eternity past, in which the redemptive roles of the members of the Godhead were established; 2) the “covenant of works,” made between God and Adam in which God promised Adam eternal life, if he would obey Him; and 3) the “covenant of grace,” made between God and elect sinners after the fall, promising life upon the exercise of genuine faith in God. (If you attend carefully to this, you will see the connection between Calvinism’s doctrine of “particular redemption,” [i.e., “limited atonement”] and covenant theology.) This being the case, covenant theology associates redemptive history from the fall of man forward under one covenant—the covenant of grace (see Figure 3.1). If covenantalists want to argue for the implied existence of such covenants, that in itself is not problematic; however, what is problematic is that under this conception of redemptive history the distinctive dealings of God with specific individuals and groups is characteristically blurred (or simply ignored). The result is a view of history in which all believers share equally in all of the divine promises—since they are all saved under the same covenant and therefore (according to covenantal reasoning), comprise the same body (whether it happens to be called “Israel” or the “Church”). Thus, according to covenantalism the kingdom promises made to Abraham and to his descendants, Israel, can be directly applied to the Church (or as is usually the case, allegorized in such a way as can be “spiritually” applied to the Church).
Perhaps as a product of the time, or possibly as a reaction to the formalization of covenant theology, another view of redemptive history called “dispensationalism” arose. A dispensation is simply a distinct era in which a unique set of operative principles is in place that governs, among other things, divine-human relations. The manifestation of dispensational characteristics in redemptive history was recognized very early; the New Testament writers themselves were well aware of dispensational distinctives. On three occasions Paul made specific reference to particular dispensations [Gr. oikonomia = “economy”]. Those occasions are Ephesians 1:10, 3:9, and 1Timothy 1:4. The concept, however, was not limited to a particular vocabulary and was expressed in various forms in many New Testament passages (e.g., Gal. 3:19; 4:1-5; Heb. 3:1-6; 7:11-25; 8:6-7; 9:15-28; 10:1-18; Rev. 20:4; 21:1-22:5). It is important to point out that while each dispensation involves changes in man’s stewardship before God, this does not mean that dispensationalists believe there has been more than one way of salvation. They do not. There is only one means of salvation, it is by grace through faith; therefore, salvation is the same in all dispensations (though what the people who lived in those dispensations knew about God’s plan certainly varied according to progressive revelation).
What distinguished this emerging “dispensational” interpretation of Scripture was a commitment to interpret the Bible normally/literally, and in the light of its dispensational context; this was something that covenantalists had ignored in their efforts to justify amillennialism by bringing all redemptive history under the “umbrella” of the covenant of grace and thus making the Church merely an extension of Israel. One fundamental difference between covenantalism and dispensationalism is that dispensationalism recognizes that normal/literal interpretation leads to the conclusion that Israel and the Church are distinct entities; and therefore promises made to Israel must be fulfilled to Israel, they cannot be arbitrarily reassigned to the Church.
The contention of dispensationalism is that the Bible can only be properly understood when it is understood in its grammatical, historical, and dispensational context; and the covenantal conception of an overarching covenant of grace, if acknowledged at all, should not be allowed to obscure the dispensational context of a passage. When Scripture is interpreted normally/literally, in its dispensational context, without the imposition of covenantal assumptions regarding the supposed identity between the Church and Israel, the result is inevitably a premillennial conception of the future.
Copyright 2005, by Sam A. Smith
All rights reserved.
Published at: http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com
Adapted from What the Bible Says About the Future
Copyright 1995, 2004, by Sam A. Smith
All rights reserved.
Page-Formatted PDF version available at:
www.biblicalreader.com/books/future/future.html
See full copyright notice posted at:
http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com/copyright_info.htm
All Scripture taken from the New International
Version (NIV)
of the Bible unless otherwise indicated.