“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment