Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #17

I am now going to resume my critique of Zaspel's essay.

“The Resurrections

Then there is the issue of the resurrections (Rev.20:4-5). Amillennialists suggest that the first is spiritual (regeneration) and only the second is physical. But how can we know? Spiritual resurrection is clearly a reality for all who are Christ's (e.g., Jn.5:25). The question, however, is what the language of this passage (Rev.20:4-5) requires. Again we are at a loss to find any indication in the text itself that this "first resurrection" is a spiritual one. The Greek term here for "resurrection" ( anastasis, vv.5-6) is never used in a spiritual sense anywhere in the NT. Nor is there any interpretive clue, such as the "now is" in Jn.5:25, which would indicate spiritual resurrection. Nor is there definition given which would point us in this direction.”

As far as I can tell, Mr. Zaspel (along with his fellow New Covenant Theologians) is a Calvinist, so he must be aware of the importance of interpreting passages with a greater context than just the book or author in mind. We can see how a simple surface reading of many New Testament passages would lead one into an Arminian view of the extent of the atonement. But when one considers the whole, systematic understanding of atonement, and the implications of a universal extent of the propitiation of God’s wrath, he should surely have the evidence needed to question the conclusions drawn from a simple, surface reading of any group of texts. Likewise, here with his view of resurrections in Rev. 20, Zaspel (as other New Covenant Theologians) tends to develop a view of a possible biblical idea by resting on one or very few perceived occurrences of it in Scripture. Just as they try to give leverage to their view of the Law on the fulcrum of Matt. 5:17-38 alone, Zaspel here appears to be trying to force his conclusion regarding eschatological resurrections, derived from what I believe are fallacious hermeneutical principles, onto the scope of all Scripture.

To the contrary, these who are raised to life are "those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshipped the beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands" (v.4). The stated contrast is physical death, and the very obvious indication is that the resurrection is a physical one also.

The idea that the first resurrection is physical is “very obvious” is quite an overstatement. As a matter of fact, verse 6 describes the recipients of the first resurrection this way, “Over such the second death has no power”. Does Zaspel suggest that physical resurrection is the type of resurrection over which the second death has no power? Surely he is familiar with the New Testament picture of the new birth, regeneration being a type of resurrection…the parallel is easy to see.

Whether you believe that this vision takes place in Heaven or on the created Earth, your conclusions will be colored differently. In order for the mention of those beheaded to have any bearing on our conclusion about the first resurrection being physical or spiritual, one must believe that those persons are locate on earth at the time of the vision. If you assume that this vision is on Earth, after Christ’s return, then you might easily draw the conclusion that the first resurrection is physical or else, the beheaded group could not be on Earth prior to a physical resurrection. But the assumption that this takes place on Earth isn’t natural to the text either. The fact that they are referred to as “souls” is also curious and at least should cause question in the mind of the Pre-millennialist.

Font, Cup, Loaf, & Desk

Means of Grace or Means of Memorial; Sacraments or Ordinances.

The way in which you refer to the elements of the Lord's Supper, and Baptism may be rooted in a philosophy derived from your theology. The methods your church employs in the practice of these implements will reflect the theology that backs their practice in the first place. Both sides of the issue believe that God has ordained certain practices for our observance, but the question is, are these practices considered sacred.

The Ordinances as Memorial

Largely, I believe, the fruit of non-reformed theology (neither Calvinistic nor Covenantal) the memorialist view of the Lord's Supper at least, is an over-reaction on Ulrich Zwingli's part against the Roman Catholic doctrine of trans-substantiation. Granted, the Roman view of the Eucharistic meal was then and is now heretical however, the adoption of a memorialist view diminishes in the minds of the parishioners the sanctifying power of the Lord's Supper. If we see the Supper only as a way to remember what Christ has done in the atonement, then we will not receive the God ordained and gracious sanctification that He intends to deliver through this mean, and the frequency with which we partake of it together will be lessened.

Likewise with baptism. The debate over paedo or believer's baptism aside, if we view this only as an individual's identification with Christ, an outward sign of his belief and commitment to the Lordship of Christ only, then we may miss the larger picture of Christ redeeming an entire people for Himself, and our identification with the community of God in Christ can become overshadowed by our individualistic identity as a new creation in Christ.

The Sacred Desk

Another sacred element of our corporate worship is the desk. And by desk I mean the pulpit upon which the very Word of God is elevated above our heads to indicate His condescension. Different from the sacraments of the Supper and baptism, the right proclamation of the Word of God (therein contains the Law and Gospel) is the means of both, justifying and sanctifying grace, proceeding from the mouth of the shepherds of God and carried with force into the hearts of unsuspecting men by the Holy Spirit, it should be elevated in our hearts and considered all together sacred. thus it's physical place during the corporate worship of God's people is likely a symptom of the place it inhabits in our stated theologies.

The Sacraments as a Means of Grace

When we view the Lord's Supper and baptism as means of grace, we are not suggesting that these are a means to justifying grace; they do not confer the righteousness of Christ to us. What we mean is that God has ordained the practices of preaching, baptism and the Supper as means to the sanctification of His people and that the practice of them are so important that their absence in the life of a child of God will result in his eventual spiritual starvation. The grace that is conferred in the sacred meal and by the observance of baptism is the grace that renews our faith as often as they are practiced, thus the practice of baptism as often as one is (depending on one's view) either saved, or given the covenant sign, and the practice of eating the covenant meal with other believers perhaps as often as you gather, is as useful in the display and reception of God's sanctifying grace as His Word is useful in the proclamation of the grace that justifies.

Hermeneutical Presuppositions: Dispensational Operating Assumptions

In this article I will attempt to lay out several, but surely not all, of the operating assumptions through which Dispensationalism views the scriptures. As far as I can tell, this set of presuppositions and their implications are dependent one upon another in a hierarchal fashion as presented below.

Dispensational Hermeneutical Presuppositions

I. A "literalistic" Assumption.

• The primary guiding principle in Dispensational Theology is the view that states that, unless otherwise expressly told differently within the immediate context of a passage, the grammatical/historical understanding of a prophesy/promise given, is its only possible fulfillment; the object of promise and the object of fulfillment are always the same.
• Israel/Church Distinction--Spiritual Israel and the Church are now and always viewed as two separate peoples of God.
• The promises God made to Abraham and subsequently to ethnic Israel, are only ever meant to be fulfilled by ethnic, believing Israel in some future age and can never be applied to believers saved in the "Church Age".
• Millennial Israel and their future activity are the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophesies.
• Semiti-centric Eschatology--God's primary purpose in redemptive history is the salvation of His chosen people, Israel. And this people is the ethnic Jewish people He has sustained throughout the history of the world.
• Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven Contrast
• Two eternally distinct peoples of God--His earthly people, Israel, and His heavenly people, the Church.
• Jesus will be made King in the Millennium--Jesus has not yet assumed His Kingly office or duties.
  
• The Church is unknown prior to Pentecost--The concept of "Church" as a people is a mystery not spoken of prophetically at all in the Old testament.
  
• The Church Age is parenthetical to God's dealings with ethnic Israel--The "Church Age" is a result of Israel's rejection of Christ's offer of the Kingdom, now.
• Paul's Primary Apostolic Purpose--was to teach the "new age" of believer his distinction in redemptive history from the previous, old age believer, and the future Jewish believer
  

Hermeneutical Presuppositions: Covenantal Operating Assumptions

I'm interrupting my series on the critique of Zaspel's essay with a brief examination of the differences in the hermeneutical principles or operating assumptions employed by Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. I grant that this is a very broad distinction because of the nuances within each of those camps, but I will attempt to limit my inspection to the type of Covenant Theology as represented by men like, Kim Riddlebarger, Mike Horton, Anthony Hoekema, and Sam Waldron, and to limit my assessment of Dispensationalism to such a representation as would be made by Charles Ryrie, and John Walvood.

I will begin by listing my hermeneutical presuppositions, which I believe are shared by those Covenant Theologians I've listed above. This is not an exhaustive list.

Covenantal Hermeneutical Presuppositions


1. The "analogy of faith":

• Let easily interpreted passages guide our interpretation of difficult passages
• Let the interpretation of the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesies/promises found in the New Testament amplify/expand the grammatical/historical understanding of the prophesy when it was given.
• Let our understanding of the immediate context of a passage be interpreted under the larger umbrella of the entire context of Revelation; the "meta-narrative" or "big picture" perspective of redemptive history should be used to tailor our understanding of the immediate contexts of passages, such as the context provided by their human authorship, chronology in respect to other writings of Revelation, and literary genre.

2 Literary Genre

• Let the literary genre of a passage guide our understanding of symbols, types/shadows, parables, numbers, and prophesies (either their giving or fulfillment) i.e., historical narratives such as the gospel accounts of resurrection should be taken at fase value, but apocalyptic literature when it presents visions such as dragons, lampstands, 24 elders, etc, they may be symbols which represent something greater. The objects they represent either, could not have been understood if their future manifestation had been presented, or God has decided that the objects being represented are meant to be kept a mystery in part, until such a time when He sees fit to reveal their identity. Note that the object being symbolized is normally a literal and real object.

3 Qualitative Promise/Fulfillment Relationship.

• When a promise is made, the object of promise is always, to some degree, a shadow or type of the object of fulfillment; so if the fulfillment of a promise is limited to its "literal" or grammatical/historical manifestation, then it isn't as illustrative of God's goodness. But if the quality of the object of fulfillment is to be accurately represented by the object of promise, it cannot be limited to its grammatical/historical manifestation.
• Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the types and shadows pictured in the Old Testament, so in that way, all the Old Testament points forward to Christ and not to a future manifestation of Israel.
  

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #16

Below I continue with my critique of Zaspel's words:

“Now plainly, if both passages speak of the same age, we have a contradiction. But if Rev.12 speaks of this age and Rev.20 speaks of the age to come, the tension is resolved. Indeed, chapter 20 is most easily seen as the happy answer and conclusion of the events described in chapter 12. There is obvious contrast, not identity.”

I believe that I have demonstrated that it is neither plain nor obvious that these two passages speak exclusively of different ages or that they are a contrast instead of a comparison.

“Furthermore, when amillennialists ask us to equate the binding of Satan described in Rev.20 with descriptions of his defeat in places such as John 12:31 -- that is, that this be understood in a gospel sense, a work accomplished on the cross -- we must ask, Then in what sense will this binding be over at the end of the "thousand years"? The victory of Christ over Satan in His death and resurrection was final, once and for all. It is impossible to understand that as having only a thousand year duration, whatever may be symbolized by the numerical term.”

I’m not familiar with an Amillennialist who says that the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 is equal to his casting out spoken of by Jesus in John 12. Certainly, it seems reasonable to draw a comparison of some sort between John 12:31 and Rev. 20:3; and 12:12-13, I’m just not so sure that “defeat” is the way this event (or these events) should be presented. The defeat of Satan seems more accurately reserved a verse like Rev. 20:10. Thus, the binding and the eventual defeat of Satan, of course, were both made possible by Christ’s atonement, but just because Christ’s work on the cross is finished, that doesn’t mean that every aspect of that accomplishment has been applied.

It is no offense to the atonement to suggest that something accomplished by it has not yet taken place. Zaspel certainly would not demand that the application of the purchase and redemption of sinners occur immediately at the cross; it is understood that Christ’s work for the regeneration, sanctification, and glorification was a work accomplished on the cross, but I was a child of God’s wrath until He raised me to new life in time, even though in His mine I would eventually be His son.

Likewise, the binding, loosing and the defeat of Satan were a work accomplished on the cross, but had to await their application in time.

“Note again, the approach here does not rest on presuppositions, prior assumptions about literary genre, or the meanings of symbols in the passage. Nor does it import ideas from outside the text itself. Further, it must be admitted that if this observation is correct -- that Satan's inability to deceive the world in Rev.20 is a different time frame from that of his active deception in Rev.12 -- then we are left with premillennialism.”

On at least one other occasion, Zaspel has claimed that the premillennial conclusion does not require any presuppositions, but I guess he would say that it simply and clearly rises off the pages of Scripture. As I had pointed out in an earlier post in this series, the fact that he comes to this text with his own presuppositions is the thing that is quite clear. In fact, it is the kind of arrogance that causes one to assume that they have no presuppositions that will make them blind to the right interpretations of Scripture.

“Still there is more to be said on this point. Whatever symbolism is involved, Satan "bound" with a "chain," "shut up" and "sealed" in the abyss does not speak of a mere curtailing of his activity; it plainly represents its cessation. Satan is incarcerated; he is not on parole. It has often been said in jest that if Satan is bound now, he is on an awfully long chain! But plainly, the text does not allow for a long chain. His activity is brought to a halt: he is bound, and he is caged.

Satan's four titles are mentioned to emphasize this further: "He laid hold of the dragon, that old serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years" (v.2). That is to say, all the activities which these names imply will then be suppressed.”

Again, Zaspel’s presupposed Premillennialism colors his view.

“However, the NT everywhere pictures Satan in this present day as on a rampage, as does Rev.12:9 (above). He "walks about seeking whom he may devour" (1Pet.5:8). He "takes men captive at his will" (2Tim.2:26). Satan is the "god of this world" who "blinds the minds" of those who are lost (2Cor.4:4). Paul's own gospel enterprise was hindered by Satanic opposition (1Th.2:18). In this "mystery" stage of the kingdom Satan is permitted to snatch away the gospel seed that is sown, as a bird taking seed from the wayside (Mt.13:4, 19). It is a strange hermeneutic which allows statements such as these to fit within the picture presented in Rev.20:1-3. And it is fair to say in criticism that it does not appear that the motivation behind it is an exegetical one.”

It is difficult to take anyone’s criticism of your hermeneutic seriously when they will not admit that theirs is also partly a result of “operating assumptions”. When one assumes (as Zaspel does) that binding is incompatible with any of the scriptures he has quoted above, the natural conclusion that results is that the Amillennial hermeneutic is incorrect. By applying the principle of interpretation that suggests we try to understand the difficult passages in Scripture in light of the simpler ones, it is fairly easy to see that we should allow our understanding of the nature of Satan’s binding in light of those passages Zaspel has mentioned in the paragraph above. But instead, he must believe that the expressions and their contexts contained within apocalyptic literature as easily understood as those in a narrative format, thus principle of hyper-literalism once again trumps the principle of the analogy of faith.

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #15

In his third objection, Zaspel says this,

“In Rev.12 he frantically carries out a furious rampage over the earth, but in Rev.20 he is confined to the abyss.”

He, Satan, is claimed to be “frantically carrying out a furious rampage. The assumption that Satan is possessed by furiousness is not in question, but I believe in order give emphasis to the contrast Zaspel is trying to make between the nature of Satan’s activity in chapter 12 and his captivity in chapter 20, he flourishes his vocabulary in this explanation. The text in chapter 20 actually puts it this way, 4b “And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it.” And this, 12b “But woe to you, O earth and sea, for the devil has come down to you in great wrath, because he knows that his time is short!"”. Neither of these citations demands the report given to us by Zaspel in the objection above, nor do these verses rule out the parallel of their content with the description of Satan’s state in revelation 20:1-3. Observed in isolation, neither the comparison nor the contrast of these two passages can provide conclusive evidence that the one is recounting Satan’s freedom in one age and his captivity in another.

Likewise, in Zaspel’s use of the word “confined” to describe Satan’s state in chapter 20, he has prepared his reader to accept his interpretation with out first questioning the validity of the connotations the word confined carries (especially when contrasted with the phrase, “carries out a furious rampage over the earth”); those choice words couple together to confuse the reader into assuming a difference that may not be there.

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #14

Zaspel’s second objection to the parallel of Rev. 12:12 to 20:2 is that Rev. 12 and 20 are a contrast, not a comparison. He assumes the essential difference between the casting to Earth in 12:12 and the casting into the Abyss or bottomless pit of 20:1. As Zaspel is apparently jealous to do in order to gain his conclusions regarding chapter 20, his conclusion of their difference is not one that is explicitly proclaimed in the text itself. Given the apocalyptic nature of the book, I think that the reader’s working assumption should be to investigate meaning these types of terms together, and not necessarily determine that they speak of totally different persons places or things simply because they are referred to in different nomenclature throughout the book. The case may be that, after a close and careful look at these terms, we must conclude that they represent different things, but the assumption of their essential difference due to varied nomenclature is non necessarily helpful, but not surprising when one assumes the literal hermeneutic on apocalyptic literature.

One other passage that may help shed some light on Revelation 20 is 2 Peter 2:4 “For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment…”

I think the point of this quotation should be apparent, that Peter is describing the situation of the angels who sinned in like manner as John describes Satan bound in the first parts of chapter 20. We cannot say with great certainty when God cast the angels into Hell and bound them with chains to be kept until He has prepared their judgment, which presumably takes place between the occurrences of the events of Rev. 20:10-14, but we can say (and I think with a fair amount of certainty) that Satan and the angels that sinned and followed him were cast into Hell and committed to chains at the same time, to be held for judgment at the same time; I don’t think we have any real reason to believe differently. I think it is helpful to view Rev. 12:12; 20:1-3a, and 2 Peter 2:4 in close proximity.

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #13

Below I resume with my critique of Zaspel's essay.

"The Binding of Satan

First, the binding of Satan is said to have a specific purpose: "so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished" (v.3). That is, during this time Satan's activity is terminated. Now it has been suggested that this pictures this gospel age in which Christ's work proceeds more or less unhindered by the "strong man" who by Him is now "bound" (cf. Mat.12:28-29). Satan, so this theory goes, is not allowed today to successfully hinder the gospel. Further support is often gleaned from Rev.12:7ff where Satan is seen as "cast out" of heaven (v.9).

But the parallel is not as obvious as it might at first appear. Is the binding and fall of Satan in Mat.12 and Rev.12 the same as that of Rev.20? And how can we know? The text itself should provide some clues. Interestingly enough, a comparison of Rev.12 and Rev.20 demonstrates not a parallel but a contrast.

Most agree that Rev.12 speaks of this age, whether the church age as such or the tribulation period. Can Rev.20 be the same? Here is the data with which we must work toward our decision:

1) In Rev.12 Satan's time is "short" (v.12), but the time frame in Rev.20 is "a thousand years."

2) In Rev.12 he is cast from heaven to earth, but in Rev.20 he is cast from earth to the abyss.

3) In Rev.12 he frantically carries out a furious rampage over the earth, but in Rev.20 he is confined to the abyss.

4) Still more significantly, in Rev.12:9 Satan, on the loose, "deceives ( planao) the whole world"; but in Rev.20:3 it is precisely this deception ( planao) that is denied and disallowed (v.3)."

There are two competing assumptions here, 1) the Amillennialist assumes that chapter 20 occurs in Heaven and not on Earth; the millenarian (of basically any stripe I am aware) assumes just the opposite.

2) The Amillennialist assumes the binding of Satan, so as to keep him from deceiving the nations refers to the fact that the gospel is not hindered from going into all the nations.

Before, the gospel and the Law were localized on Earth; just as God’s presence among men, the Law and the gospel were “contained” in the Jewish temple. After the cross this hindrance was removed, thus the language of Satan’s “binding”. Zaspel’s assumption here (which is shared by the majority of Premillennialists) is revealed quickly, that the “binding” of Satan is paramount to the “termination” of his activity all together.

As it has been pointed out before, Satan, compared to a Lion or wild beast who roams to and fro (the premillennial assumption there is that “to and fro” means his ability to go wherever he pleases on Earth) in vicious, and just as an angry, feral dog tied to a tree (bound) is hindered in one respect, his anger is amplified and when he is approached, he would be all the more dangerous when in range.

So the idea of binding does not necessarily have to indicate the termination of activity. Below I have included a quote from the “The A Team” blog interview which is germane to this topic, from Kim Riddlebarger as he answers the question, “Could you clarify in a nutshell what amillennialism is for those who may have similar misunderstandings? [regarding the nomenclature of A-millennialism]."

"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.” - Riddlebarger

Zaspel’s objection to the parallel of Rev. 12:12 to 20:2 is that the 1000 years of 20:2 could not be represented as a “short time” as in 12:12.

I think what Zaspel misses in the context of 12:12 is that, the Devil knows his time is short, but this period of time how ever long, is short in relation to eternity. In other words, he knows he will not have enough time to accomplish his plans…it is too short.

What Do You Get When You Couple The "Bottom Line" Business Outlook With Pragmatism?

Well, you get a question kind of like this,

Who's gonna do it right when they can do it for less; but then again, less is right, right?

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #12

Below is my next installment of my critique of Fred Zaspel's essay promoting New Covenant Theology and its eschatology.

“The entire passage, so it seems at first glance at least, reads as one continuous narrative. In modern theological jargon, Christ's return here is premillennial. He comes and personally brings His kingdom to its consummation.

So we can see here how the hermeneutical principle of linear chronology has colored Zaspel’s view of the coming of Christ as represented in chapter 20.

“Many, however, have understood the events of chapter 20 as a "recapitulation," describing events actually prior to our Lord's return. These interpreters often take refuge in the fact that much of the book of Revelation is symbolic and not to be taken literally. But whatever the significance of the symbolic language employed, the chronological framework of the passage -- Christ's coming, Christ's Kingdom, the eternal state -- leaves us with premillennialism. “

Zaspel here has admitted that the principle of linear chronology takes precedence over the principle of allowing genre to dictate the order of mention. His conclusions are emphasized by his use of the word, “narrative” to describe the passage.

Such a descriptive word definitionally sets the genre in opposition to the category of symbolic apocalyptic literature.

“Moreover, explicit exegetical support for the recapitulation theory is sadly lacking; it is difficult to demonstrate any compelling reason which would make necessary such an inversion of the order of the events which John describes. It is a theological proposition, and it is one which at least appears to run against John's own chronological casting of the passage. It is a hermeneutical consideration placed upon the text; it is not derived from the text itself. And there is exegetical necessity for saying so.”

The simple fact is that Zaspel has allowed the immediate context to trump the canonical context. He goes on to condemn a non-linear chronology regarding the events mentioned in the passage by referring to it as a “hermeneutical consideration placed upon the text”, instead of being an interpretive tool that is a function of the text itself. So he assumes that the linear chronology is a result of exegesis rather than a “hermeneutical consideration placed upon the text”. And if we had no reasons from the rest of scripture to bring this chronology into question, then he would be right in assuming that it is the correct interpretation. But this is not the case. Though I will not address it in detail here, there is an abundance of evidence from the rest of scripture that would make the premillennial conclusions drawn from this text subject to suspicion; one doesn’t have to assume Amillennialism in order to call the Premillennialism of Revelation 20 into question.

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #11

Below I am continuing to critique Zaspel's essay,"The Kingdom, The Millennium, & The Escaton"

“In the context (19:11ff) our Lord is portrayed as coming to earth in triumphal glory and taking vengeance upon His enemies. That John intends for us to understand this millennium to be following this return seems evident from his repeated use of the chronological kai ("and") used throughout (cf. 19:11, 17, 19; 20:1, 4, etc.).

Whatever details and meanings are involved in the symbolism which John employs, the stated order of events is,

1) Return of Christ in victory (19:11-21)

2) Destruction of the evil triumvirate (the beast, the false

prophet, and Satan) in which Satan is deposed to the abyss

(19:19-20:3)

3) First resurrection (20:4)

4) 1,000 year kingdom ( ebasileusan . . . basileusousin, 20:4-6)

5) Release of Satan and a final rebellion (20:7-9) [I'm not entirely sure why #6 was left out of Zaspel's essay.]

7) Final destruction of Satan, who now is cast into the lake of

fire where the beast and false prophet have been (20:10)

8) Second resurrection & final judgment (20:11-15)”

There are several assumptions that Zaspel makes about these passages: the one which he admitted out front (that his hermeneutical principle of linear chronology is necessary to rightly interpret this passage), and two, that the description in Revelation 19:11-21, a) refers to the Parusia, b) that the armies of Heaven refer to the saints and not angelic beings, and c) that the wrath poured out here is the wrath at the end of the age. These may even be safe conclusions if the primary hermeneutical principle employed to arrive at them was the best one, but the case is that the hermeneutic of liner chronology causes one to jettison the greater principle of the analogy of faith, and to basically ignore (such as often occurs in the application of a dispensational premillennial hermeneutic to the apocryphal literature found in the Canon) the genre of chapter 20 of the Revelation of Christ to John. The former mistaken principle is faulty because it: 1) looses sight of the many texts of scripture which testify to the return of Christ (which is judgment for the wicked and deliverance for the righteous) seemingly being immediately followed by the eternal state, 2) imposes the theological difficulties of having glorified creatures and non-glorified creatures inhabiting the same place, 3) it forces either the judgment at the Parusia to be limited because of the presence of the living God among sinners, or God’s presence to be limited. The obvious problem with that is that the scriptures on a whole don’t allow for persons to be saved after Christ’s return and God is Holy and sin cannot exist in His presence, thus all those who enter the supposed literal 1000 year Earthly reign of Christ as unredeemed must remain unredeemed, un-glorified and sinful in nature. The later mistaken hermeneutical principle over-literalizes the passage by demanding that the 1000 year period represents a period of exactly that amount of time, as time is counted on Earth. On the surface this appears to be a conclusion resulting from a reasonable hermeneutic, but if one takes into account the other uses of numbers in the book, one could quickly see how the consistent application of that hermeneutic would be confusing; take these passages for example:

Rev. 4: “4 Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and seated on the thrones were twenty-four elders, clothed in white garments, with golden crowns on their heads.”

Rev. 7: “1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree… 4 And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:”

It seems to me that the hermeneutical principles of hyper-literalism and linear chronology are unwarranted, and serve only to confuse the would-be interpreter of Revelation 20 because they are used to trump the greater hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith.

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #10

Here is the continuation of my critique of Zaspel's essay.

“The question of this further manifestation of the kingdom prior to the eternal state, however, is a question not of hermeneutics but of exegesis. The basic framework given by our Lord could feasibly allow for either. What must be examined specifically are those passages which provide a chronological framework for the future. What is offered here are some miscellaneous thoughts from these passages. Perhaps more details will be taken up at a later time.”

Here Zaspel claims that a pure and undefiled exegesis of the text of Revelation 20 will produce a premillennial interpretation; that no preconceived hermeneutical construct is necessary to come to the right conclusion, in fact, he suggests that “a chronological framework for the future” be used to guide our understanding of the manifestation of the Kingdom prior to the eternal state. But what is this framework; may I ask, other than an articulation of a hermeneutical principle in itself? Zaspel said that “the basic framework by our Lord could feasibly allow for either [Premillennialism or Amillennialism]”. So, according to Zaspel’s first words, a right exegesis of the significant passages (Revelation 20 is at hand) must be used in addition, to determine the manifestation of the Kingdom (millennium). He then, immediately discredits his previous claim by suggesting the introduction of the architecture of chronology. I don’t necessarily disagree with some form of chronological construct integrated into our hermeneutical principles in order to rightly understand the specific manifestation (or nature) of the millennium.

“Revelation 20

Perhaps we should begin with Rev.20, the crux interpretum and focus of the most heated debate. This passage presents a period of time, designated as a thousand years (hence, millennium), during which Satan is bound and cast into the abyss and thus unable to deceive the nations (vv.1-3). At the beginning of this period is a "resurrection" of the faithful (vv.4-5). Following the thousand years is the release of Satan and a final rebellion (vv.7-9), the final destruction of Satan (v.10), and the second resurrection (vv.5-6; 13). These are the basic facts with which we must work.”

I believe here the difference between the New Covenant Theologian and the Covenant Amillennialist is in the definition of the phrase, “unable to deceive the nations”. While most Amillennialists would agree that the deception spoken of here is limited in degree such as would the danger of a lion chained to a post also be limited. The lion is not dead and he is not incapacitated but rather, his anger has been aggravated and, though Satan (the lion) no longer has free reign to “deceive the nations as he once did prior to Christ’s coming in the flesh, death, resurrection, and ascension, he has had his ability to deceive the nations as he once did prior to Christ’s coming, squelched or diminished; though he remains alive to deceive in a certain limited capacity, his influence of evil has been tamed to a length so desired by God’s sovereign hand.

More to come...

The Nature of the Kingdom as Described by Ladd

Below is a quote from GE Ladd.

"The central thesis of this book [The Presence of the Future] is that the Kingdom of God is the redemptive reign of God dramatically active to establish his rule among men, and that this Kingdom, which will appear as an apocalyptic act at the end of the age, has already come into human history in the person and mission of Jesus to overcome evil, to deliver men from its power, and to bring them into the blessings of God’s reign. The Kingdom of God involves two great moments: fulfillment within history, and consummation at the end of history."

Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #9

I am beginning a review of Fred Zaspel's, "The Kingdom, Millennium, and Eschaton". Below is a large portion of the first of his essay. "With this much most amillennialists and premillennialists would agree. There is both a present and a future aspect to Christ's kingdom, a present realization and a future manifestation. The point of disagreement concerns the way in which the fulfillment is brought about in the eschaton. Amillennialism sees in the eternal state the full manifestation of the promises; this is ushered in immediately upon the return of Jesus Christ. Premillennialists see the kingdom promises fulfilled in history upon the return of Jesus Christ; this "inter-regnum" period issues in to the eternal state. Both agree to the present realization of the kingdom; the difference lies in the understanding of its character in the eschaton.

More specifically, to state the issue in the form of a question, does the Scripture speak of the eschatological kingdom as fulfilled in history? Perhaps better: Does the eternal state follow directly upon the return of Jesus Christ? Or does a kingdom period intervene?

Approach

At the end of the discussion, the decision will have to rest not on hermeneutical presuppositions, an assumption which has for too long been the excuse for failure to complete the more difficult task of exegesis. We have already seen that our Lord has left us with a hermeneutic of considerable tension, and there have been interpretive errors made on both sides. There have been those who see virtually no fulfillment of the kingdom promises in this present age; for them, kingdom truth is wholly a concern of the future. Their's is an over-literalized eschatology. Others, however, ignoring the "not yet," have presented what we may rightly call an over-realized eschatology. For them, virtually all of prophecy is already fulfilled, and the Bible is all but silent on the future. But the hermeneutic which our Lord gave us is one of now and then."

The last few sentences in the paragraph above already show that Zaspel is not exactly shy about poisoning the well against a-millennialism. I don’t want to say that he has here misrepresented the position, just that he hasn’t said enough to provide the reader a clear view of a-millennialism. It is not true, on the whole, that a-millennialists “ignore” the “not yet”, nor do they claim that the bible is “all but silent on the future”. It is claims like these that may influence Zaspel’s readers emotionally without having heard proper argumentation which establishes and then proves his premises. He ends the paragraph by beginning the last sentence with the conjunction, “but”, insinuating a difference in the former views previously stated, and the view he is getting ready to present, and that is, that the hermeneutic given to us by Christ Himself was one of “already/not yet”. From the intro alone, one who is familiar with Anthony Hoekema’s “The Bible & the Future” would wonder if Zaspel has ever read it.

I will continue my analysis in later posts.