“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment