“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment