Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 1

February 13, 2008 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009). Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (569)

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.  

Related posts:

1. Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 3
2. Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 2
3. Book Review: A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger
4. Understanding Dispensationalism by Poythress
5. Book Review: All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson
6. Book Review: God of Promise by Michael Horton

Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology