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.