Thoughts on Eschatology

Eschatology. I am biased against the premillenial dispensational hermeneutic; not for hermeneutical reasons, but for applicational deficiencies. The only applications I see from that point of view are bad or distasteful. Am I being subjective? Yes. But I believe that I see the problem in a rather different light, and that my perspective can help further the discussion. However, I trap myself because I do not like discussion in this category. In fact one of the reason that I hate this category, that is eschatology, the study of end times, is that is frivolous discussion, and distracts us from why we're here. I don't care what it is, even if its true, if it distracts us from our purpose as humans, I'm against it. There I said it. I am already inconsistent because I am talking about it. Let's declare today National Honesty Day.
I have heard it argued explicitly by many premillenial dispensationalists that they are premillenial dispensationalists because the apply the literal grammatical hermeneutic to the Scripture consistently. In other words, if you truly apply the literal grammatical hermeneutic consitently, if you in essence put your interpretation of Scripture through the literal grammatical machine, you will automatically and always get premillenial dispensationalism. When asked how the literal grammatical hermeneutic applies to poetic language that uses figures of speech, they retort invariably that the literal grammatical hermeneutic means that you interpret every genre according to its genre. This is wise and acceptable. But when it comes to eschatology and prophecy which also makes grand use of hyperbole, metaphor, and what the NT calls mystery, they insist that things like the 1000 years be taken literally. They insist that the Abrahamic Covenant be literally referring to land, ignoring the fact that the writer of Hebrews makes clear that the new covenant is better than the old, whether it be the Abrahamic or Levitic, (the writer of Hebrews is talking about the Levitic) the principle applies, that the New Covenant is built on better promises. Paul compares covenants as well by pointing out that Abraham was saved not by faith in the law (the levitic covenant), but by faith in the Abrahamic promise, that is by employing faith in the best covenant at the time.
But that makes a different point. The point I was originally trying to make was this: If other things in Scripture are "obviously" figurative, why not prophetic and covenental language? How does the literal grammatical hermeneutic apply then? On top of this, as I was saying, applying the literal grammatical hermeneutic allows us to see that God rates his promises, keeps them, but not always the way we expect, "that not all who are Israel are Israel". There are two Israels? Isn't is the most logical course to assume that these two Israel's are spiritual and physical. If this is so which Israel is which in this case? Who is Israel? true Israel, a phrase Paul uses, is the covenant people of God. The nation of Israel however the receivers of the promise originally, and therefore are desired greatly by God to be part of the covenant. God wants Israel to be Israel.
What I really don't like about premillenialism though is that if you insist that the 1000 years are literally1000 years because the Bible says so. Isn't it unavoidable for you to say that people who deny the thousand years are twisting Scripture, and if so, how can they be Christians at all since, the Bible is the authoritative source of thier theology? A literal grammatical hermeneutic makes this a very serious issue. Working on the assumption that 1000 years must be taken literally, it makes it most imperative to figure out the timetable of the end times. To neglect to do so, would be in effect to ignore the word of God. This is why people become consumed with figuring out the timetable of the end times. Their commitment to rendering arbitrarily portions of prophecy to be taken literally is taken to its consistent end, and you have people spending their entire lives dedicated to figuring out something that perhaps was intended to remain a mystery, at least in the specifics, and their focus on detail, at the expense of the whole, causes them to miss the main point of all eschatological literature, which is that the nations may rage, and people may be deluded into thinking that either the world is chaotic, or they they can control it, (a painful irony), but that God is in control, and to understand this does not requre one to be able to understand a timetable. In fact, it allows the believer to relax, and makes the non-believer reconsider. And also allows the believer to be busy about doing the work of the Lord, knowing that justice is in God's hand, and so is he. Amen.