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...