The Superiority of the Amillennial/Postmillennial Hermeneutic

Inspired by the list that Bryan gave on his blog, I decided to expound a little on the Amillennial/Postmillennial approach to interpreting prophecy, as will be used often in my completion of Daniel.

1.) It is Christocentric. It makes Christ the center of all Biblical Covenants, not a piece of earthly real estate.
The entire Bible is a story of redemption in Jesus Christ. This includes the Covenants of the Old Testament. It was Christ alone who fulfilled the Adamic Covenant of works (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:17). It was Christ alone whose blood is a worthy atonement for man’s life in the Noahic Covenant (Hebrews 9:12). It was Christ and Christ alone who is the seed of Abraham by which all nations are blessed (Galatians 3:8, 14-16, 29). It was Christ alone who was “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29), and it is Christ alone who was resurrected from the dead to sit on the throne of David (Acts 2:29-35). Finally, there is only one new Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), of which Christ alone is the mediator. (Hebrews 8:8-12).

In contrast, those who hold to the self-anointed “literal hermeneutic” err in honoring Judaism, the vain attempt to keep the Old Covenant while rejecting Christ. There is no covenant without Christ, and there never has been. Even the Old Testament saints worshipped Christ (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

2.) It notes the universal scope of the Abrahamic Covenant (as key) to interpreting the rest of the biblical covenants. It sees salvation history oriented to a person (Christ), instead of a people (the nation of Israel).
The Abrahamic Covenant was not merely a promise of blessings to one nation, for God promised Abraham that he would “be the father of a multitude of nations.” (Genesis 17:4). It is the Christians of many nations who “are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:29). In contrast, those who rejected Christ do not belong to God or Abraham, but the Devil (John 8:39-44).

Those who hold to the “literal” interpretation have no understanding the mystery, “that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” (Ephesians 3:6). They insist on two separate covenants. In contrast, the Amillennial/Postmillennial Hermeneutic emphasizes continuity between the “people of God” (Israel and the Church are one in Christ (Ephesians 2:11). It does not assume a covenant with Christ-rejecters, not does it make God a respecter of race or DNA.

3.) It takes seriously the time frame references in Scripture, as well as the original audience, and does not seek to rip them from their historical context.
In the amillennial/postmillennial hermeneutic, it is unnecessary to explain away the time frame references in Scripture. We hold that all of the events of the Olivet Discourse took place within the Apostle’s generation, just like Christ said they would. (Matthew 24:34). We hold that the events of the Book of Revelation were to take place “shortly” (Revelation 1:1), were “near” (Revelation 1:3), and were “about to come upon the whole land” (Revelation 3:10).

We hold that the prophecies in the Bible actually meant something to those who heard or received them in the First Century. We don’t believe that Jesus told His disciples to flee Judea during a tribulation that would take place 2,000 years in the future (Matthew 24:16). We do not believe that Christ threatened to throw the church of Thyatira into a great tribulation that was still 2,000 years away (Revelation 2:22), nor do we believe that He promised to keep the church of Philadelphia from events that none of them would ever live to see (Revelation 3:10). Furthermore, we do not require arbitrary 2,000 year gaps between Old Testament prophecies, nor does it seek to “allegorize” the seven churches that John wrote to.

4.) It flows from a hermeneutic that takes seriously the literary character of the Scriptures (esp. the book of Revelation)
Other schools claim to hold to a more “literal” hermeneutic, but it is clear that their literalism is selectively and arbitrarily applied (as can be seen from Futurism’s view of Ezekiel 38-45, and well as Matthew 26:27-28 vs. Matthew 25:31). The truth of the matter is that there isn’t very much in the Book of Revelation that is to be taken “literally”. The question isn’t one of literal vs. symbolic, but rather how best to interpret the symbols. The symbols in Revelation are not arbitrary, but have clear and distinct meanings. Furthermore, these symbols were expected to be understood by those to whom the prophecy was given (Revelation 1:3). We hold that the apocalyptic language used in Scripture can be interpreted by other scriptures, and in doing so, the Book of Revelation can be understood. (It is entitled “Revelation”, not “Mystery”.)

5.) It takes seriously the authority of the New Testament in interpreting Old Testament prophecy.
It is amazing to me how many Christians will openly deny this point. They will claim that they refuse to use the New Testament to interpret Old Testament prophecy, which brings up the obvious question of what they do use. The Old Testament prophecies cannot be properly understood without the New Testament, for the New Testament was given so that “you can perceive my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to the sons of men in other generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit.” (Ephesians 3:4-5). Jesus warned the Judaist of His day, saying, “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40). To ignore what the New Testament says about Old Testament prophecy is nothing short of a denial of the authority of the New Testament.

Even this is selectively applied. All Christians, for example, use the New Testament to interpret Old Testament prophecies such as Micah 5:2-4 (see Matthew 2:6). So on what basis will they reject Peter’s fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (Acts 2:25-36), Paul’s fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant (Galatians 3:1-29), or the writer of Hebrews fulfillment of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:6-12)? So when they claim they a literal hermeneutic, applied consistently, always leads to premillennialism, don’t believe it. If followed consistently, it would lead to Judaism. (BTW: There is no mention of a millennium in the Old Testament, or anywhere outside of Revelation 20.)

Edit: The actual list that Bryan gave was from Bobby Grows post Amillennialism: Closer Than Ever.