Answering the 95 Theses Against Dispensationalism (18) – Theses 71-74

71. Despite the dispensationalists’ claim that their so-called literalistic premillennialism is superior to the other evangelical millennial views because Revelation 20:1-6 is one text that clearly sets forth their system, this view imposes the literalistic system unjustifiably and inconsistently on the most symbolic book in all the Bible, a book containing references to scorpions with faces like men and teeth like lions (Rev 9:7), fire-breathing prophets (Rev 11:5), a seven-headed beast (Rev 13:1), and more.

Response: First, it is not “literalistic” premillennialism.  Dispensationalists recognize one can’t be literalistic in ones interpretation of anything, including daily conversations.  By “literal” we mean what everybody else means by it unless they are trying to give the term a spin it does not normally have in day to day usage.  We mean what the Nicene Council meant when they posted the 95 Theses and expected people to take their objections to dispensationalism at face value, believing that folks are smart enough to interpret any figures of speech correctly.  These objectors assert that, “dispensationalism has at least crippled the Church in her duty of proclaiming the gospel and discipling the nations” (Preface).  When they wrote that sentence, these brethren took it for granted that people could identify the metaphor in it and make a literal sense out of it.  That is, they assumed readers would know that “crippled” was not to be taken literalistically, but that it was functioning as a figure meaning, “harmed” or “impaired.”  Indeed, if they didn’t think others would be able to derive a literal sense to the metaphor they would not have used it!  They wish to be interpreted in a plain-sense manner, though not literalistically.  They do not wish us to place some fanciful midrash upon their words so as to distort the plain sense out of all recognition.  Well, this is how dispensationalists approach God’s Word.  They ask, “Can it be taken at face value? And if not, what are its parameters of meaning?”

This first question is crucial, for it is often not asked by Covenant theologians when they come up against prophetic texts.  That said, let us see if the rest of this objection holds water.

First off, notice that Rev. 20:1-6 (actually 1-7) “is one text which clearly sets forth their system.”  This is true to a degree.  It is one text.  There are very many others!  But this text does provide the duration of the future millennium.  All one has to do is to read it to find out what that is.  But can they?  What about all the symbolism in the Book?  Dispensationalists will ask the questions put above: The first is, “Can it be taken at face value?”  We answer, “Certainly!  why not?”  It is easy to interpret these verses literally.  As non-dispensationalist George E. Ladd said, “The language of the passage is quite clear and unambiguous…The passage makes perfectly good sense when interpreted literally.” (‘The Meaning of the Millennium‘ ed. Robert Clouse, 37).

The trouble is not the difficulty in a plain-sense interpretation, but in what to do with that interpretation once it is allowed to stand.  Amillennialists, for example, cannot allow it to stand as read.  It would explode their system.  They must make these verses mean something other than what they say.  The first thing to do is to complain that Revelation is symbolic (as if this goes unnoticed among premillennialists).  Then comes the pat objection that the numbers in Revelation are symbolic (this is usually done without any proof that they are to be so taken).  The numbers in Revelation are not symbolic and always produce clear meanings when taken literally (this is even more the case when the number is repeated six times in the context as “1,000” is here!).

From there the verb “ezesan” meaning “lived” or “came to life” is interpreted spiritually v. 4 and then literally in v.5.  This entails making “anastasis” (“resurrection”) in the context mean, not physical resurrection (of people who had been beheaded remember!), but “the new birth”! We demur.

So whatever one makes of the other passages in the Book of Revelation, chapter 20:1-6 means what it says.  Finally, it must be seen within its larger context which clearly begins with the Second Coming in Rev. 19:11f.  Again to cite Ladd: “Chapters 19-20 form a continuous narrative announcing the marriage of the Lamb, the victorious return of Christ, and his victory over his enemies.” (Ibid. 35).  Interpreted in its plain sense the passage proves premillennialism (though not necessarily in its dispensationalist form).

The Nicene Council are again employing what could be called a “hermeneutics of objection” whereby the plain teaching of a passage is disapproved of because it cuts across their theology.

72. Dispensationalism’s claim that Revelation 20:1-6 is a clear text that establishes literalistic premillennialism has an inconsistency that is overlooked:  it also precludes Christians who live in the dispensation of the Church from taking part in the millennium, since Revelation 20:4 limits the millennium to those who are beheaded and who resist the Beast, which are actions that occur (on their view) during the Great Tribulation, after the Church is raptured out of the world.

Response:While the passage in question does speak only to the martyrs of the Tribulation it does not assert that only they will experience the 1,000 year reign.  For example, if the church is taken out of the world prior to the Tribulation, it seems reasonable to infer that, as the Bride of Christ, its members will be with Christ in His earthly Millennial Kingdom.  It appears the disciples and the twelves tribes of Israel will be there (Matt. 19:28); and the disciples were in the church (Eph. 2:20).  This, then, is not a sound objection.

73. Despite the dispensationalists’ view of the glory of the millennium for Christ and his people, they teach, contrary to Scripture, that regenerated Gentile believers will be subservient to the Jews, as we see, for instance, in Herman Hoyt’s statement that “the redeemed living nation of Israel, regenerated and regathered to the land, will be head over all the nations of the earth…. So he exalts them above the Gentile nations…. On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations.”

Response: The quotation from Hoyt is to be found on page 81 of the book ‘The Meaning of the Millennium’ and the reader is advised to repair to it to see whether Hoyt cites Scripture for his view.  Just saying something is contrary to Scripture does not make it so.  What these brethren really mean to say is “contrary to our understanding of Scripture,” which is a very different thing.

Hoyt paints the Millennial hierarchy like this: 1. Christ the King. 2. What Hoyt calls “a spiritual nobility” comprising the church, the OT saints, and the tribulation martyrs. 3. The nation of Israel as head over all the other nations (Hoyt gives Deut. 28:1, 13; Isa. 41:8-16; 60:1-3, 12).  Then he says, “On the lowest level there are the saved, living, Gentile nations…”

Whether one agrees with every detail in Hoyt’s description (which not all dispensationalists would), or with all the verses he uses (certain of which some might dispute), there is nothing “unbiblical” in his presentation.  But this is beside the point of this particular objection, which seems to be contemptuous of the status of redeemed ethnic Israel in the future kingdom (a reading of Isa. 49, 55, 62 and Zech. 14 might help).  Since Israel has never been “the head and not the tail” (see Deut. 28:1-13 – interpreting Israel as Israel), and a new covenant involving redemption has been made with them (Jer. 31:31ff.), dispensationalists expect God to be as good as His word and bring this to pass regardless of the personal feelings of anyone about the advisability of it.

What we have called a “hermeneutics of objection” is all that stands behind these kinds of arguments.

74. Despite dispensationalism’s claim that the Jews will be dominant over all peoples in the eschatological future, the Scripture teaches that “In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrians will come into Egypt and the Egyptians into Assyria, and the Egyptians will worship with the Assyrians. In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth, whom the Lord of hosts has blessed, saying, ‘Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.’” (Isa. 19:23-25).

Response:We are glad to see an attempt to take a prophetic utterance at face value.  However, our friends ought to have noted verses 16-18 which describe a certain deference to Judah.  The passage does not deny the supremacy of Israel in the coming kingdom, it simply states that there will be some sort of spiritual and economic union between them.  The verse should be understood in light of the verses given above regarding Israel’s dominant role, although we must take care not to introduce these verses before we have fully exegeted this passage in its context.  Bringing in the “Analogy of Faith” (Scripture with Scripture) too soon is often the means of twisting an intransigent passage to accord with prior assumptions.

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. In Point 72 above Doesn’t Rev 20:4 say that he saw thrones for those who were given authority to judge AND he saw those beheaded who would reign with Christ. Dose the passage mandate that those thrones strictly belong to the trib saints or could those thrones belong to someone else like the church saints? Is there other passages that say the bride will rule with Christ in the millennium?

    1. The text might be construed as continuative of those described in vv.1-3. However v.5 coupled with the doom of those who are not within the first resurrection inclines me to see not just trib saints in v. 4 but church saints too. Of course, the passage could be concerned only with trib saints and not referring to church saints at all.

      That’s my thinking on it. Thanks.

      Your brother,

      Paul H

      1. I so much appreciate you helping me in these matters. I greatly value your input. I can’t promise not to bother you anymore, but for now i have one more question of clarification as I try to read Rev with a plain sense.

        I know what you said about Rev 2-3 not being indicative of specific ages in the church but with this discussion in mind, the Philadelphia church are rescued from the hour of trial in Rev 3:10 who become those saints being made pillars in the temple and never again leaving it until the new Jerusalem comes down. Where as I can see the Laodicea church being the “ones left behind” who might only thought that they were believers who become the ones promised to rule on the thrones with Christ according to Dan 7:25; Rev 6:9-11; 7:9-17 and Rev 20:4-6 in the Millennium. Unless Christs promise to his Jewish disciples to rule Israel includes us in the church.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s