1) His discussion of 'make known' (σημαίνω) is entirely non-sequitur. Even the firmest dispensationalists pushing the "literal" interpretation have to concede that Revelation is symbolic. No dispensationalist would understand Rev 5:6 as meaning that Christ is a shape-shifter that can take the form of a sheep at will. On the contrary, John was seeing a vision, and the Lamb was representative (i.e., symbolic) of Christ. So, not only is the issue of σημαίνω non-sequirtir, its also presumptuous in the way it is being implemented. What Beale et al. are stating is that if σημαίνω refers to symbols, then the book must be understood in a sort of allegorical way, with no hard and fast interpretation, rather than just that John was shown visions which were symbolic in the sense that what he saw required an interpretation.
2) He skips over, as many (read: all) amillennialists do, John's use of γενέσθαι in the same verse (1:1), "what must happen." John uses the aorist of γίνομαι (to become) here. When γίνομαι is used in the aorist, it acts ingressively (the ingressive aorist). An ingressive verb functions by describing the entering into from one state into a different state. Something was once one way, now it is a different way. A good example of this is in John 1:3a, "πάντα δι᾿ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο," "all things became through him." The verse is talking about non-existence and existence. Those things that are were once not, and became through him; so, entering into the state of "being" from the state of "non-being." So when John says, "...to show his servants what must happen very soon (δεῖξαι τοῖς δούλοις αὐτοῦ ἃ δεῖ γενέσθαι ἐν τάχει)," what he is saying is that when these things happen, i.e., when the "end" begins, they will happen quickly. Usually the amil approach is to define τάχει as meaning "quickly," skipping over γενέσθαι, and say that these things must take place shortly after they were shown to John. Instead, if the aorist is taken ingressively (it must be), it is saying that when these things begin, i.e., the estate has changed, then they will proceed in rapid succession. The verse says nothing of *when* the estate will be entered into.
3) The biggest argument he poses is Augustine's recapitulation argument. He argues that ch20 is recapitulating ch19, that is, ch20 is a separate vision that is restating the events of ch 19. There is a very large hurdle he has to jump though, the position of Dr. Michael Svigel of DTS. In order for recapitulation to work, ch20 must be entirely divorced from ch19 grammatically. There can be no necessary grammatical subsequents of ch19 found in ch20, and there can be no necessary grammatical antecedents of ch20 in ch19. The problem is in 20:4, where John says, "I saw thrones and ἐκάθισαν..." There are two possible interpretations of ἐκάθισαν. The first is, "and seated on them were." This translation would mean that John saw the vision, and these ones to whom authority had been given were already sitting on the thrones when the vision occurred (so NET, NIV, ESV). The other interpretation is, "and they sat on them." This interpretation implies that when John saw the vision, no one was seated on the thrones, but as he was watching, then these people sat down (so NASB, KJV, ESV 1901, ASV). First off, the latter is to be preferred due to John's use of the aorist versus the participle, particularly with "to sit," (κάθημαι/καθίζω). When John wants to show someone already seated on something, he uses the participle as with the Four Riders in Rev 6 (see 6:2- καθήμενος). When he wants to show someone in the act of sitting (see 3:21, "cause him to sit," and "I sat"), he uses the aorist. The problem for amillennialists is that John's use of the aorist here requires an antecedent subject. We need to know who "they" is in the statement, "and they sat on them." The key is in the following statement, "καὶ κρίμα ἐδόθη αὐτοῖς," "and judgment was given to them." This phrase fits with Rev 2:26-27: "He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS; AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father..." The identity of the "they" should then be understood as those of 19:14-15, the armies of heaven, who are the Saints (note that the "rod of iron" is mentioned again also). So, the "they" is found in ch19, which means that 19 and 20 are concurrent and build on each other, not recapitulating. No amillennialist has ever answered this position, that I am aware of.
As for his three final points:
1) He cites Poythress' argument, which has some presuppositional problems. He is presupposing that those in the millennial kingdom are all saved, and cannot be deceived. While those who were alive prior to the defeat of Christ's enemies and enter into the millennial kingdom without dying are certainly saved, nothing is said of the offspring of those people, those who populate the earth. It seems though, that there will be nations during the millennium, over which Christ in Israel rules (Isa 14:1-2; 49:22-23; 61:5-9; and here in Rev 20:8). So while the blessings of Israel and the binding of Satan (not a long leash) will be cause for a time of complete peace via a previously unseen level of common grace, there is no reason to believe that as nations begin to repopulate the Earth all these individuals are elect.
Of course though, I answer as a dispensationalist. This argument, however, is significant against the post-tribulationists, and this blog after all, is directed at historic premillennialists. If all people at the end of the Great Tribulation are translated to the heavenly estate, then, (1) they cannot have children (Matt 22:30; Mark 12:25) and (2) they cannot die (Luke 20:36). With this, I agree with the author, that post-tribulationalism has unresolvable problems in regard to the population of the millennium, and this contention has been oft repeated.
2) This idea of "eschatological progression" is presumed. It is a presumption, and dare I say one in particular of Covenant Theology, that soteriology is the end-game. If the sole purpose of the eschaton was the salvation of an elect people, and nothing more, then this point stands. If however, there are other purposes, then this point fails. Here is where the dispensational premillennialist parts ways with other premillennialists in that we do not put as much emphasis on prophetic fulfillment at the Cross. This is explained in the "already/not yet" hermeneutic. The Covenant Theologian views the majority of kingdom prophecy as having been fulfilled at Christ's death and resurrection, the dispensationalist sees some fulfilled, and some remaining yet future. One of these things is fulfillment of Christ's position as the second Adam. The purpose of the release of Satan back onto the Earth, which is regression in the eyes of amillennialists, is for the purpose of Christ to defeat the Serpent in the Garden, as Adam should have (note the serpent imagery found in the NT only in Rev 12:9 and 20:2- ). Where Adam failed, Christ will conquer. So, this is not regression at all, but rather, fulfillment.
3) He cites Meredith Kline for his final point, where Kline argues that the millennium will not be an era of peace. In order to hold this position, Kline must divide contexts in 20:4. Kline mentions the "souls of those who had been beheaded," but does not state what will happen to them during this age: "and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years." First, Kline presupposes the recapitulation argument, refuted above. Second, as an amillennialist, he must presume that these ones are reigning with Christ now. Kline refers to the millennium of the premillennialists as a "millennial semi-glory kingdom." On the contrary- if this life, with all its woes and sin-wrought toil is what it looks like when Satan is bound and Christ and his saints are reigning- I have little hope for the future. This millennium, the one of the amillennialists that I am apparently currently living in, is the epitome of "semi-glory."
Grace and Peace,
Mike Senders
No comments:
Post a Comment