Clearing Up Confusion Over Distinctions #18

After a short hiatus from blogging, here is the next installment of my critique of Zaspel's essay.

“It is equated with the resurrection of "the rest of the dead" (v.5), which all sides admit is physical. There is exactly no evidence within the text itself which would indicate a change in the meaning of words, no hint at all that the two resurrections spoken of are of a different nature. Much to the contrary, to shift in mid-stream without express warrant from the text is exegetical chaos. Further, the term ezesan (v.4, "they lived, they came to life," ingressive aorist) elsewhere in the book of Revelation refers only to bodily resurrection (2:8; 13:14), and never is it used in a spiritualized sense. Moreover, the resurrection of these in verse 4 is said to follow, not precede, their faithfulness -- a consideration which allows only a physical resurrection. Once again, the amillennial interpretation, here, rests on presuppositions imported to the passage and that against the most natural reading of the text; it is not grounded in exegesis. And again, if it is wrong at this point, we are left with premillennialism.”

The first thing that should be said is that, it is right to look at the content of the text at hand and its immediate context when we begin to interpret a text. Soon after that, even if he has already come to some conclusions, the reader should look at the concentric contexts in which the passage finds itself: the context of the book or letter and its author, where in the progress of revelation was it given, and finally, the context of the entirety of revelation and the context of redemptive history. It seems to me that many times the dispensational Pre-millennialist in particular (and we all are guilty of this at times) tries to interpret the text in its immediate context alone, often ignoring the type of literature it is (the context of the book itself, and the purpose of the human author), and its place in redemptive history. So in a certain limited sense, this interpreter can claim that he is viewing the passage “in context”. But because of his operating assumptions (probably the exclusively grammatical/historical fulfillment of prophecy, or what is often referred to the “literal” interpretation of ALL prophecy, and that of the sharp distinction of spiritual Israel and the Church) he will not allow for the analogy of faith (to allow the principle of the right interpretation of simpler passages to interpret the more difficult to trump immediate context), or for the context of literary genre, or for the over-arching purposes of God in redemptive history to be his boundaries when interpreting prophesy. I think it is these things, perhaps among others, that help lead Zaspel to his interpretation of Revelation 20, and thus guide his understanding of resurrections in this chapter. This is why he can make a statement like, “There is exactly no evidence within the text itself which would indicate a change in the meaning of words, no hint at all that the two resurrections spoken of are of a different nature.”

He goes on to say this, “Much to the contrary, to shift in mid-stream without express warrant from the text is exegetical chaos.” Zaspel is looking for “express warrant” “from the text” alone to allow for the two resurrections spoken of to be different but in symphony. He has decided that it is chaotic to allow any other interpretive help outside the exegesis of this text alone to define the vocabulary of this text; in his mind, the immediate context alone has the authority to give definition to the words.

Lastly, Zaspel accuses Amillennialists of impressing their presuppositions on the text of Rev. 20 in order to spin out their notion of two types of resurrections there, the one being the resurrection of regeneration in this age, and the other being the resurrection of the physically dead to physical life. At the same time, he claims that he has no external hermeneutical principle that colors his view of the resurrections in the passage, that the plain reading of the text alone is enough to come to the conclusion he has. But I say that, when one assumes the premillennial position (especially if he does not think that it too derives from a set of hermeneutical assumptions) and refuses to have the immediate context of a particular passage checked by the greater context of redemptive history or to have his understanding of it filtered through the more easily understandable texts in the rest of scripture, then his interpretation in my opinion, can end up being isolated and individualistic instead of communal and confessional.