Part 1
Part 2

8) On page 34 of Man of Sin you note, "As dispensationalists see things, both the rapture of the church and the revelation of the Antichrist are inextricably tied to Israel's future. Because of this, dispensationalists are now avid political participants and critical to the evangelical voting block..." This approach by dispensationalists assumes a certain view of religion and politics that often rubs people the wrong way. How do the political implications of amillennialism differ?

Most Reformed amillennarians believe that whatever role the re-establishment of national Israel plays in the providence of God (and yes, it is a remarkable thing) the return of Israel to the land of Canaan is not a fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant.  We know this to be true because Joshua told us that when Israel possessed the land, that promise was already fulfilled (Joshua 23:14 ff), but under the terms of the Sinaitic covenant, it became an open question as to whether Israel would remain in the land.  In fact, when the apostle Paul treats this matter in Romans, it is he–not the amillennarian who supposedly “spiritualizes the Bible”–who universalizes the land promise (which is everlasting) to extend to the whole earth (Romans 4:13)!

In a political sense, this means that there is no sacred nation on earth during the New Covenant era–including Israel.  Israel’s existence, however, is clearly an act of divine providence.  How we respond to Israel becomes a matter of how we (as Christians) and our nation relate to our democratic allies throughout the world (i.e., the UK, Australia, etc.).  To insist that America conduct its foreign policy to serve dispensational expectations regarding Israel is a serious mistake.  The degree to which we do this, is the degree we will make serious foreign policy mistakes with grave consequences for the prospects of peace in the Middle East.

9) In the Introduction to Man of Sin, you note that "throughout this study I speak of preterism in the generic sense of those who tie the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding Antichrist directly to the events of AD 70." In essence, you conflate hyper-preterism (which is heretical) with all forms of partial-preterism (which you acknowledge is held by many Reformed Christians) throughout the book. Then on page 35 you claim that "preterists go to the opposite extreme and push all biblical prophecy back into the past." (emphasis added) While this is true of hyper-preterism, it's not true of partial-preterism by definition. Doesn't this conflation of preterist positions lead to misunderstanding?

This is a question which requires a fair bit of explanation in order to answer.  Preterism has become very difficult to define (the same is also true for futurism) because there are so many varieties of preterists these days.  In that chapter I used the generic definitions for the sake of clarity.  I did not want too spend much time cataloguing the entire range of carefully nuanced positions that fall all along a wide spectrum.  The reality is that if you went into all of the various preterist writers and their particular views, you’d lose the reader, and rapidly exceed the publisher’s page limit! 

To avoid doing that I used the generic definition of preterism widely used throughout the literature until recently–before rise of a resurgent heretical hyper-preterism.  Preterists tend to see the events of A.D. 70 as fulfilling much of the New Testament’s prophetic expectations, futurists don’t.  We can say that much in broad terms.

Let me give you an example from personal experience of how complex this can be.  Some have called me a preterist because I believe that Jesus is speaking of Israel and Jerusalem in the Olivet Discourse–that is until Jesus switches to a discussion of cosmic signs when he telegraphs ahead to the time of the end.  But since I do not believe that Jesus returned in judgment on Israel in A. D. 70, I really don’t fit in the partial preterist camp.  Furthermore, because I do believe that the events in the first century associated with the beast and the antichrist will continue to be ever-present enemies facing Christ’s church until the time of the end, when these things intensify greatly, some have called me a futurist!  If I am a futurist, I am certainly not the same kind of futurist as is a dispensationalist.  All of that is to say, you either have to speak in broad and generic terms (and miss a few exceptional cases), or else you have to catalogue all those who don’t neatly fit with the terms as used historically–such as an amillennial preterist.  Jay Adams was one.  B. B. Warfield may have been, but Reformed amillennarians tend not to be.

I do see the events of A. D. 70 as marking that time when Israel became desolate which led to Israel’s diaspora into the nations (Matthew 23:37-39).  As I understand it, all forms of preterism (whether that be the heretical hyper-preterists who deny the bodily resurrection and Christ’s second advent, or the orthodox partial-preterists who affirm the bodily resurrection and Christ’s second advent) tend to agree in terms of seeing the end of the age as occurring in 70 A.D., as well as believing that Jesus truly returned in the heavens at that time.  Many of these writers also reject the distinction between the two ages (as Reformed amillennarians would define it) along with the distinction between the already and the not yet.
 
Furthermore, some partial preterists–someone like Ken Gentry, for example–sees the beast as tied to Nero and to events contemporary with the writing of the New Testament.  For them, all that remains of the beast motif is for the church to face false teachers (antichrists) within the church.  This is what I mean when I state that preterists tend to push eschatological events back into the past, while futurists tend to push them off to the time of the end.  I’m arguing for a third option of sorts.  What begins in the New Testament era (the presence of the Roman beast and a series of antichrists within the church) will continue to be an on-going threat to the people of God until the time of the end, where we see a furious and final climax before the Lord returns to judge the world, raise the dead and make all things new.  Where does that fit on the preterist-futurist scale?

10) In both of your books you assume an exclusive division between preterism and amillennialism, yet I know a number of people who claim to be both. What conflict(s) do you see between these two positions?

As I mentioned, there have been a few preterists who are amillennial–and by preterist here, I mean those who see a real Parousia of Jesus associated with the events of A.D. 70 and who tie the beast and Paul’s man of sin exclusively to Nero or some other pre-A.D. 70 Roman emperor.  That said, there is a reason why preterists today are almost ways postmillennial.  Postmillennarians are looking for a golden-age on the earth.  If, as I argue, a series of beasts will be empowered by the dragon and will rise continually throughout the course of this age, and if I am correct that John is warning us about a series of antichrists, who will arise within the church before culminating in a final Antichrist, such would seem to fly in the face of a golden age for the church upon the earth.

It makes perfect sense and strengthens the postmillennial case greatly, if it could be demonstrated that Nero is the beast spoken of by John, and that he has already come and gone!  That’s what I was getting at when I stated that the preterist impulse is to push things back into the period before the fall of Jerusalem.

11) Last time we talked you mentioned that you're working on another book. Can you share with us what we will be looking forward to?

I’ve got several books in the pipeline.  I’m working on a more comprehensive eschatology text (wherein I can deal a bit more thoroughly with the nuances of the varieties of preterists, progressive dispensationalism, etc.).  I’d like to publish my dissertation on B. B. Warfield.  I’ve got an exposition on Romans nearly done, along with a commentary on the Belgic Confession. 

Part 1 of the interview can be found here. The final question in this section moves on to Kim's second book, Man of Sin, so I provided a link to the book here. We will explore issues related to both books in Part 3 of the interview. 4) There are at least two concepts crucial to understanding amillennialism that I think are often misunderstood, one being "the analogy of faith" hermeneutic. Could you explain why this is so important?

Great question.  The analogy of faith means that we interpret a difficult passage dealing with the millennium in Revelation 20:1-10, in light of clearer passages which teach that when Jesus returns he raises the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12-57; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11) judges the world (Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 20:11-15), and renews all things (2 Peter 3:3-15).  Since these things are true (from “clear” texts) this means that when we look at Revelation 20, we already know that elsewhere Scripture teaches that when Jesus returns, all men and women are judged (this means there can be no people on earth in natural bodies to re-populate the earth, as taught in Luke 20:34-38), and that the earth and cosmos are completely renewed.  In the light of these clear texts, how can there be people on earth in natural bodies after Christ comes back (there can’t) and living on a half-way renewed earth (when Peter depicts the complete renewal of all things)?

5) The other concept we should address is the tension between ages of the "already" and the "not yet. " Especially for those not from a Reformed background, this can be a confusing concept. What are the two ages and how do they inform amillennial eschatology?

Understanding the two ages is essential to understanding the eschatology of the New Testament.  Neither Jesus or Paul are millennarians (“pre” or “post”).  Rather, they speak of things in terms of “this age” (always a reference to things temporal) and “the age to come” (always a reference to things eternal).  While I don’t have the space to unpack the biblical evidence here, I do deal with this extensively in both my books, A Case for Amillennialism, and The Man of Sin.  I think this is a huge point and exegetically fatal to all forms of millennialism.

The same holds true for the “already” and the “not yet.”  One example of this can be found in Ephesians 2, where Paul speaks of believers struggling in this age as already seated and raised with Christ in the heavenlies.  This means that I am to live my life now in light of that truth, because in one sense, I have already been raised with Christ and now I need to act like it.  The same holds true throughout Romans 8 (especially vv. 9-17).  We live in the already (that which Paul calls “this present evil age” in Galatians 1:4), but we do so in light of the not-yet (Ephesians 1:14).  This gives us an eternal perspective on our present suffering.

6) On page 82, you claim that "the age to come is already a present reality for believers in Jesus Christ." Given this belief, what does it mean for Christians to "live in light of two ages?"

As I mentioned above, this simply means that I am to live my life now in light of eternity.  By understanding the basic eschatology of the New Testament, we have the box top to the jig-saw puzzle, so to speak.  We are given the big picture.  God’s purposes will be realized.  My present sufferings do, in fact, make sense in light of my future glorification.  The world and the issues we face truly matter because this is the place where God is working out all of his eternal purposes.  As a Christian, I already know that the story has a great and happy ending.  Despite what happens all around me, I know who wins in the end, and that even now, I am raised with Christ and seated with him in the heavenlies. To live in light of the two eschatological ages is like putting a jig-saw puzzle together while being able to look closely at the box top.  The big picture helps us make sense of the details.

7) Your more recent book deals with a very specific aspect of eschatology: the Antichrist. When you signed my copy of The Man of Sin, you claimed "its not George Steinbrenner!" While I may beg to differ, I think it highlights an interesting issue... Why do you think Christians are so interested in identifying Antichrists all around us?

If there is a “baseball antichrist,” he’s more likely to be found in the commissioner’s office, or on the congressional panel investigating performance enhancing drugs, than in Tampa (where the Steinbrenners live).

In The Man of Sin, I set forth my case that Scripture points us in two directions here–heresy within the church (John’s epistles, 2 Thessalonians 2), and state-sponsored persecution of the church (Revelation).  In Revelation 13, for example, John is dealing with the manifestation of the beast in the days of imperial Rome, when Christian were persecuted for not worshiping the emperor because of their confession “Caesar is Lord.”  If it is true that in his first epistle and in the Book of Revelation that John is warning Christians throughout all ages that false teaching will be ever-present, and that the dragon will empower the beast (the state) to persecute the church, then we should expect to face difficult and perilous times.  In the light of the proceeding, then, of course, there is every temptation to identify who the next antichrist figure (heretic or persecutor) will be. 

On the one hand, this fear of internal enemies and potential “beasts” is healthy and normal.  Christians need to know that Satan will seek to destroy the church from within, as well as through external means, such as the persecution of the church by the state (or its leader).  We need to be on guard for such things.  But any attempt to identify such a current foe always needs to be conducted with a fair bit of restraint.  God has warned us not to set dates and how many times have we seen even the greatest of minds make the worst of mistakes in predicting the end.

We must never get into the business of reading the Bible through the lens of current events–as do so many of our contemporaries.  I am with Geerhardus Vos on this one.  We’ll know it when we see it.

Over the next few days I’ll be posting a three-part interview I recently conducting with Dr. Kim Riddlebarger on eschatology. Kim is the senior pastor at Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, CA, visiting professor at Westminster Seminary California, and a regular co-host of the White Horse Inn radio program. (Read his full bio here) The first book we discussed was A Case for Amillennialism. You can read my review of that book here.

1) You've referred to eschatology as a personal hobby, but many people seem to view it as a fundamental issue that determines salvation. What does a healthy Christian understanding of eschatology look like? How much of our time and study should we devote to it?

Well, eschatology is not so much a hobby for me as a professional interest–an interest I've had for some time, however.  No, one's eschatology does not determine where they will spend eternity–their relationship to Jesus Christ does.  But since the Bible (especially the New Testament) says a great deal about eschatology, I tend not to be very sympathetic toward those who call themselves "pan-millennarians" and who adopt no particular eschatological position, lamely claiming that "things will pan out in the end."  Of course, things will work out according to God's plan and purpose, but since eschatology is an important part of biblical teaching, Christians are obligated to make some effort to read and study eschatological matters, just as they should do in other areas of Christian doctrine.  Yes, eschatology can be a complicated, confusing, and difficult subject.  But sloth or indifference toward the subject are not options! 

So, while our millennial position does not determine our salvation, identifying the underlying hermeneutic we use to interpret Scripture and then realizing how this hermeneutic will impact our reading of the Bible is a very important matter.  Not only does our hermeneutic color how understand those passages which deal with end-times, our hermeneutic also influences how we understand and work out the ramifications of matters related to our salvation.  There is a certain inter-connectedness here. 

We all have hermeneutical assumptions, which we need to identify and continually re-evaluate in the light of Scripture.  Things get dicey when people assume that their eschatological views just jump out from the pages of Scripture, as though the Bible taught dispensationalism or covenant theology, just as we find it taught among our contemporaries.  What I'm getting at is that if you are a dispensationalist, you need to identify your operating assumptions–two redemptive purposes, one for national Israel, one for believing Gentiles, and the so-called "literal" interpretation of the Bible.  On the amillennial side, we believe that covenant theology is Scripture's own internal architecture and that the authors of the New Testament tell us that Jesus Christ (not Israel) is the hermeneutical center of all of Scripture.  Unless we keep these presuppositions before us, and unless we are willing to continually evaluate them in the light of Scripture, as well as in light of the arguments raised against us by those who happen to disagree, all we can do is shout at each other or extend pointless anathemas.

We need to be clear that our eschatology does have an impact on a number of doctrines.  Take for example the kingship of Christ (part of his three-fold office as prophet, priest and king).  Dispensationalists tell us that the kingdom offer was withdrawn when Jesus appeared in Israel and was rejected by the Jews, and that his kingdom will not be fully manifest until the millennial age.  But Reformed amillennarians (such as myself) see Christ' kingdom as a present reality (through word and sacrament) and that Christ's kingship (his present rule before the final consummation) not only ensures the victory of his kingdom in this present evil age, but his present rule (through the indwelling Holy Spirit) is one of the primary factors in my sanctification as Christ's rule breaks the power of sin which one held sway over his people (mortification and vivification).  That's why you'll see Reformed amillennarians speak often of eschatology (although not in the ways in which dispensationalists do), since we tend not to push things off into the future.  Rather, we see much of the New Testament's teaching on eschatology as a present reality and as having a direct impact upon many aspects of the Christian life.  

2)  So far, you've published two books on eschatology, the first being A Case for Amillennialism. I remember first hearing about this view (in my less-educated dispensational days) and being told it meant there is no millennium. Could you clarify in a nutshell what amillennialism is for those who may have similar misunderstandings?

Amillennialism is simply the view that what is depicted in Revelation 20:1-10 is a description of the period of time between the first coming of Christ (and his binding of Satan) and his second coming (when the beast and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire).  The scene in the first 6 verses of Revelation 20 take place in heaven and not on earth (that's where the thrones are).  The thousand years are a figurative period of time–numbers in Revelation are always used symbolically.  The first resurrection is a believer's conversion (John 5:24-25), and those who experience the first resurrection need not fear the second death.  When we speak of amillennialism, we really mean "present millennialism."  We do not "spiritualize" the Bible as dispensationalists claim.  Neither do we hold to "replacement theology," but that is another discussion for another time.

3) Since you brought it up, I'm always baffled when the "replacement theology" charge is made against covenant theology. We hold that God has always had one way of saving his people, yet dispensationalists believe God has had at least two different plans for redemption. Doesn't that make dispensationalism the real "replacement theology"?

I too am baffled by the charge, because I don’t know of any current amillennial writers who speak of the church as “replacing Israel.”  As you point out, God will save his elect.  There is only one gospel throughout both testaments--Romans 4 comes to mind here.
 
In the Old Testament, the elect (those who are truly members of the covenant of grace–who believed the promise as did Abraham) were almost exclusively Israelites.  But you also have people like Melchizadek, who is a type of Christ, and to whom Abraham pays tithes.  When Jonah preaches in Nineveh, we read that many repented (Jonah 3:6-10).  When Israel entered Canaan, the Gibeonites tricked Joshua so as to be included in the covenant with YHWH (Joshua 9).  Presumably there were elect believers in Nineveh and among the Gibeonites, who were outside the boundary of national Israel and who somehow believed YHWH would save them from their sins.  It is important to notice that as the gospel spreads from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8), the focus dramatically shifts to elect Gentiles coming to faith.  That said, I do believe that in Romans 9-11, Paul teaches that immediately before the end of the age vast numbers of ethnic Jews will come to faith in Christ and join Christ’s church.

When Jesus began his messianic ministry, he started with twelve disciples and a few additional followers.  By the time of his death and resurrection, there are still relatively few believers in Israel outside the apostolic circle (Nicodemus, comes to mind).  After Pentecost, thousands more come to faith–primarily Jews initially, but then we see an increasing number of Gentiles embracing Israel’s Messiah.  So, it is not as though the church “replaces” Israel.  Rather, Christ is the true Israel, and when he comes, he adds a gazillion Gentiles (who are elect) to his church.  To speak of amillennialism as though we reject Israel on some sort of racial basis–thereby opening the door to anti-Semitism–is a sad case of a straw-man argument.  A while back, I responded to a recent lecture given by John MacArthur on this very subject.  Your readers might find it helpful.  http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/

And yes, you are absolutely right.  It is ironic that the dispensationalists divide what Christ has joined together (Ephesians 2:11-22) by emphasizing different redemptive programs for Jew and Gentile.  This “replaces” the one gospel which has one purpose (to make Jew and Gentile one), with one gospel with two purposes (one for Jew and one for Gentile).  Ironically, this separates the very people (Jew and Gentile) Christ came to join together into one body.  

On more than one occasion in the past year I've heard the sentiment (mostly from pastors) that we should have church on the grass and give all of what would otherwise be the "building fund" money to the poor.  People who say things like this generally tell glowing stories about members of their congregation who do "radical" things like sell most of their worldly possessions and move to the mission field.  In one such story, a young man sold most of his stuff and was now living in his car. 

Now, just so we're clear up front, I think that's pretty awesome.  I really admire that kid (the one living in his car because he took Jesus' command to care for the poor seriously), and there are times when I pray for that kind of courage.  But when I hear things like, "Let's give away the building money and have church on the grass", one of my first thoughts is, "So, should God live in his car?"

That may sound a tad bit cynical, but think about it.  All things considered, which is easier, selling your church building or selling your own house?  It seems to me that it's actually very easy to say, "Oh, we should give all the building money to the poor" because that won't affect you at all.  You were already giving that money to the building fund, and when your church is gone, you'll still have all of your worldly possessions, only now you'll feel really good about having taken part in giving millions of dollars (if you're a big church) to the poor. 

My bigger problem with this sentiment, however, is its attitude toward God.  Whenever it comes to things like dressing nice for church, we're very quick to throw out platitudes about how God is only concerned with our hearts and not our outward appearance.  "God doesn't care what I wear to church" they will say.  To which I respond, "No, but you should."

It's almost as if we're saying, "God doesn't need us to build a special place for us to meet Him and fellowship with Him.  He doesn't care where we have church."  Perhaps not, but we should. 

In 2 Samuel 7:1-2, we read:

Even though God would turn David down (and give the project to his son, Solomon), David's heart is in the right place.  He sees that his own palace is greater than the place where God's very presence on Earth was supposed to dwell, and he's upset by this. 

The church is meant to be the meeting place of God and His people.  What the church looks like, what kind of art decorates it, its size and shape; all these things communicate something to the people in the church.  The building itself is a theological statement.  What statement are we making if we have none at all?