Eschatology
Stanley Grenz on the purpose of prophecy
Among the ancient Hebrews, prophecy was a twofold activity. The prophet would foretell future events and “forthtell” the message of God. These two dimensions did not stand on equal footing, however, for the felt predictive component was subservient to the declarative. That is, the focus of the prophetic ministry lay in the proclamation of the message of God in the present, not in the prediction of the future. In fact, true prophets of God never foretold future events simply in order to tickle the imagination of Israel. Rather, their disclosure of the coming actions of God served always to form the basis for the issuance of a call to action and obedience in the present.
In its essence, then, prophecy is the utilization of a word concerning God’s future in order to speak God’s call (the word of God) to the present. The message of the prophet followed a familiar pattern: “Because God is going to do this, you must now respond to God in this way.”
In the same way the purpose of biblical eschatological declarations is not merely to speak about the details of the future. Rather, eschatology is the attempt to employ the truth concerning the future consummation in order to issue God’s call (the Word of God) in the present. As G.C. Berkouwer has rightly said, “Eschatology is not a projection into the distant future; it bursts forth into our present existence, and structures life today in the light of the last days.”
Pre-Millennial Hermeneutic
The biblical support for the doctrine of a thousand-year reign of Christ following his Second Coming arises from the combination of the many prophecies of a future era of peace and righteousness with the one text in which a thousand-year reign is explicitly mentioned. This text, Revelation 20:1-10, provides the chronological structure for the doctrine of the millennium. The prophecies add the content.
Revelation 19-22 forms the explicit biblical foundation for the position articulated by contemporary premillennialists. These scholars see in the closing chapters of the Apocalypse a vision of the events of the eschaton arranged in chronological order. Revelation 19:11-16 pictures the return of Christ as the conqueror coming to destroy his enemies. After dealing first with his human political opponent, the triumphant Lord turns his attention to the evil power that lay behind this wicked leader. According to what George Eldon Ladd calls “the most natural reading” of Revelation 20:1-10, the destruction of Satan occurs in two stages separated by the millennial era. Christ’s cosmic opponent is incarcerated for a thousand years, and then following the final eschatological battle that this archenemy inspires, Satan is banished to the lake of fire.
Central to the premillennial position is the interpretation of the two resurrections noted in Revelation 20, which sees both as physical, bodily events. All premillennialists are in agreement that a literalist hermeneutic must be employed in this case, and its use leads to a premillennial eschatology. Ladd offers a concise statement of the underlying principle. “Unless there is some reason intrinsic within the text itself which requires a symbolical interpretation, or unless there are other Scriptures which interpret a parallel prophecy in a symbolic sense, we are required to employ a natural, literal interpretation.”
On the basis of this principle, premillennial exegetes conclude that the author of Revelation 20 had two bodily resurrections in view. The linchpin of the argument rests on the use of the same Greek word, ezesan (“they came to life”), to refer to both resurrections. Does the “living” of the righteous souls mentioned in verse 4 refer to a physical resurrection, as in the case with the “living” of the “rest of the dead” mentioned in verse 5?
…
But the most significant confirmatory text is 1 Corinthians 15:23-26. Premillennialists see in Paul’s words an indication that Christ’s triumph over death comes in three stages. The first, Jesus’ own resurrection as “the firstfruits,” has already occurred (v. 23); two remain future. The resurrection of “those who belong to him” occurs “when he comes” (v. 23). A millennium later occurs the grant event of the end, “when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father” (v. 24). Premillennial apologists claim that the interjection of “then” between verses 23 and 24, which separates the apostle’s reference to the resurrection of the righteous from his mention of “the end,” indicates that Paul anticipated an interregnum of undefined duration between the parousia and the final consummation of history.
Post-Millennial Hermeneutic
In defense of a spiritualizing hermeneutic of Old Testament texts, post-millennialists offer a biblically based apologetic. They point out that many prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming were not fulfilled literally, but in some spiritualized manner (such as Gen 3:15; Mal 45; Is 40:3-5). In fact, it was their expectations of a literal earthly kingdom and political ruler that caused many Jews to fail to recognize Jesus as their Messiah at his first coming. Further, the New Testament itself finds in events surrounding the infant church the fulfillment to certain Old Testament anticipations concerning Israel’s future glory (such as Acts 2:16-21; 15:14- 18). Finally, a literal fulfilment of many prophecies would mean a restoration of Jewish national life in a way that would necessitate a return to the old covenant, which, according to the New Testament, has been replaced by the new covenant within the fellowship of the church. The Old Testament prophets, postmillennialists assert, rightly envisioned a glorious era. But because it was yet future, it could only be intelligently described by employing the thought-forms and the religious and political structures with which people of the day were familiar. They readily utilized the vocabulary of the old economy, which focused on the land of Palestine, the temple and the sacrificial system, and the kingship, to speak of the future messianic era they awaited. The prophets, therefore, could only imagine the future age, in which the whole world would worship Yahweh, in terms of the elevation of Jerusalem as the center of worldwide worship and the establishment of the ideal theocracy in Israel as the political center of the earth. In the light of the New Testament, however, we now know that these prophecies are fulfilled in the glorious victory of the church (for example, Heb 12:18-23). Such a heightened, nonliteral fulfillment is in keeping with the nature of prophecy as understood by postmillennialists. Prophecy is not “history written beforehand.” Rather, its primary purpose is, in the words of Boettner, “to inspire faith in those who see its fulfillment, and only secondarily to inform us of what is going to happen in the future.”? Although it is different from how many people view prophecy, Boettner’s understanding can claim New Testament precedence, Peter’ epistle declares that the prophets were not cognizant of the object of their vision of the sufferings and glory of Christ, for they were not serving themselves, but the church (1 Pet 1:10-12). In accordance with postmillennial hermeneutics, Boettner interprets Isaiah 2:2-3, for example, as fulfilled
in that the Gospel took its course out from Jerusalem as the disciples went under orders to evangelize all the world, with the Church over the centuries gradually coming into a position of world-wide prominence, gradually increasing in power and becoming more influential in the lives of men throughout the world until it stands out like a mountain on a plane.”
The same hermeneutical approach, however, leads John Jefferson Davis to give the text a yet future referent. To him it speaks of “the latter day spiritual exaltation of the Christian church,” at which time the “pervasive impact of the gospel in the life of the nations produces a state of affairs where warfare and the production of its implements cease.”89 In either case, postmillennialist exegesis moves from the principle that the church is in some sense the new Israel, “the true Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem.” Consequently, the expectations of a glorious future for the nation of Israel envisioned by seers under the old covenant find their fulfillment in the yet future golden age of the church that will culminate the present age of the new covenant (although some postmillennialists also hold out hope for a conversion of Jews in the future),” For this reason, setting forth on a spiritual plane an interpretation of prophecies that by the necessities of the day were limited to a material horizon, postmillennialists conclude, is the only way to understand correctly the intent of the Bible as a whole, of which these texts are a part. Like Augustine in the fifth century, modern postmillennialists argue that to read out of the visions of the Old Testament a literal, physical and political rule of Christ on the earth after the close of the church age, as premillennialists do, is to fall victim to the old tendency to “Judaize” Christianity.
Amillennial Hermeneutic
The amillennial hermeneutic arises out of a specific understanding of correct biblical interpretation. The amillennial hermeneutic includes two chief principles: the primacy of the New Testament over the Old and the primacy of clear texts over symbolic.
The first principle of amillennial hermeneutics gives interpretive priority to the New Testament rather than to the Old. Archibald Hughes speaks for all in declaring, “the New Testament is the foremost and final authority in any enquiry, and it is also the interpreter of the Old Testament.” The chief implication of this principle is the “spiritualizing” of many Old Testament prophecies, for such an approach is in keeping with the New Testament usage of the Old.
Floyd Hamilton’s description is typical: The literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy is to accepted, he notes, “unless (a) the passages contain obviously figurative language, or (b) unless the New Testament gives authority for interpreting them in other than a literal sense, or (c) unless a literal interpretation would produce a contradiction with truths, principles, or factual statements contained in nonsymbolic books of the New Testament.” Wyngaarden offers two questions for determining that the figurative rather than the literal interpretation is to be employed: Does the Scripture itself spiritualize the prophecy? Or does the prophecy fit in organically with the future of the church?
The New Testament offers many examples of the transference of Old Testament expectations for Israel to the church as the new people of God, amillennialists point out. For example, Zion’s tent is enlarged (Is 54:1-3) when the Gentiles accept Christ (Gal 4:27); those whom God termed “not my people” become “my people” (Hos 2:23) through the establishment of the church as the called from both Jew and Gentile (Rom 9:24-26); and the healing waters flow (Ezek 45: compare Is 44:3) through the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the church (Jn 7:37-39). Hendricksen explains the principle involved in the nonliteral nature of transferences such as these: “When a prophecy is destined to be fulfilled in the new dispensation it is fulfilled according to the spirit of that new era. Hence, the Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in the Spirit-filed church.”
The amillinnenial eschatology is built on a second hermeneutical assertion, namely, that the New Testament as a whole takes precedence over Revelation 20. Again Hamilton articulates the principle: “The clearest New Testament passages in nonsymbolic books are to be the norm for the interpretation of prophecy… In other words, we should accept the clear and plain parts of Scripture as a basis for getting the true meaning of the more difficult parts of Scripture.”
On the basis of this principle, amillennialists argue that we must understand the vision of the millennium in terms of the simple eschatological chronology they find clearly taught throughout the New Testament (such as 2 Pet 3:10-13). The present age will climax in the return of the Lord in triumph and judgement, followed immediately by the inauguration of the eternal state. Whatever conclusions are gleaned from Revelation 20, therefore, can neither contradict nor supersede but rather must be understood in light of this general New Testament eschatological position.
Amillennialists claim that we must understand the mention of a first resurrection prior to the thousand years of Revelation 20:4-5 in a manner that harmonizes with New Testament teaching of the one general resurrection. In fact, amillennialists are convinced that the vision of the seer is but a symbolic restatement of the eschatological expectations presented elsewhere in the New Testament.