I believe that I can state the difference between the two primary eschatological views in the church today this way:
1. The biblical text determines one’s theology.
2. One’s theology determines one’s interpretation of the biblical text.
The first view results in what is (unfortunately) called dispensational premillennialism. The second results in a variety of other views, but the dominant one throughout church history is called amillennialism.
Today’s exhibit is Revelation 7. In this passage, John has two visions in which he sees two groups. Are these two visions of the same people or two different groups? Osborne gets to the heart of it: “Are they two distinct groups or one and the same? The answer depends on whether the tribes are interpreted literally of Jewish people brought to Christ during this period or symbolically of the church as the new Israel” (Revelation, BECNT, 302).
According to the text, the groups are very different.
- The first group consists of 144,000; the second group cannot be numbered.
- The first group is on earth (which is why they need the protective sealing); the second group is “standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb.”
- The first group comes from twelve different Jewish tribes; the second group comes from “every nation, tribe, people and language.” John doesn’t just say 12,000 from each tribe but he laboriously lists each one.
- The first group has not yet died; the second group have “come out of the tribulation” and are now in heaven, indicating that they have died.
These are not inconsequential differences. One group consists of a limited number of Jews living on earth. The second group is made up of innumerable believers from every nation worshipping God in heaven.
Osborne, a respected evangelical writer who rejects the literal interpretation, notes some objections to a literal reading. One is that the “ten tribes had been lost at the exile.” I can hardly believe that he would put this in print. Has he not heard of Saul of Benjamin or Anna of Asher? Were they lost? Has he not heard of the promises of God to restore “all Israel” (cf. Isa 11:13; Ezek 37:15-28)? Does he really doubt the power of God to preserve not only Judah but all of the other tribes for more than 2,000 years?
Another objection that he raises is that the literal view “would restrict God’s’sealing ‘ to Jews rather than Gentiles, and the atmosphere of the book is that the whole church was involved.” So here the “atmosphere” trumps what the text actually says. The next problem he is going to have is that the “atmosphere” of the non-literal interpretation of Revelation 7 is going to trump a literal interpretation of other passages in Revelation. You see where this goes. The meaning of the book is quickly detached from the words of the book. The result is not all that different from the allegorical method.
Essential to Osborne’s view (which I am picking on because it is typical and handy) is the chronology. It’s easiest to just quote him:
There are three scenes. Chronologically, they begin with 7:1–8, where the saints are sealed before the “great tribulation” (7:14) begins. Then in 6:9–11 we see God sealing the martyrs who are sacrificed for Christ during that time. Finally [in 7:9-17], we see the victorious believers in heaven after the battle has been won (317).
I see no problem with John going out of chronological order. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that Revelation is not always progressing in strict chronological fashion (e.g., chapter 12). But when the writer clearly indicates chronological progression by writing “after this I saw” (7:1) and “after this I looked” (7:9), we should not ignore or deny that.
If John had wanted to indicate that first this happened and then this happened and then this happened, how could he have done it? If he did it this way, then why are we rejecting what he is trying to communicate?
If John had wanted to indicate a group of living numbered Jews, how better could he have stated this, short of saying, “Group A is totally different than group B.”
The reason why Osborne and many others equate group A and group B is because of a pre-determined conclusion. They already know that there is no future for the Jewish people. They already know that God no longer distinguishes between Jew and Gentile. Thus when the text says something that clashes with their conclusion, they make the text say something else.
I recognize that there are some passages which seem to cut against the notion of a separate future for Israel and the church (e.g., Eph 2). I want to honor all of those. I don’t want to force anything. I want the texts (all of them) to form my conclusions. But those texts are not anything like the concrete wall that amillennialism runs into in Revelation 7. There really is no excuse for the way they treat that passage, denying every distinctive feature in it.
I believe this is a fair characterization of the hermeneutic of amillennialism: A select group of Scriptures is used to form a theological system which denies the literal meaning of many individual passages.