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.

I heard about a Christmas card that had this verse on it:

Revelation 11:10 — “Those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry; and they will send gifts to one another.”

This certainly seems like an appropriate verse for Christmas celebrations as long as you ignore the context.

The context is that during the tribulation God sends two prophets.  These guys are extraordinary in many ways.  Besides the fact that they can do miracles, they also carry out their ministry in Jerusalem for three and a half years without being killed.  But at God’s appointed timing, he allows the Antichrist to kill them.  For three and a half days, the world has a grand party, because they hated these prophets.  They hated what they said and they hated what they did.  But when they have been slain and the world sees their corpses lying in Zion Square on Ben Yehuda Street, it’s a happy day indeed.  So much so that “those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them and make merry; and they will send gifts to one another.”

You might pick another verse for your Christmas card.  I really liked one that was on a card we received yesterday.

Romans 15:12–13 — And again, Isaiah says, “The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him.” May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.

I’ve read most of I. Howard Marshall’s New Testament Theology in the last few months as I’ve done my NT arguments because I find his insights valuable.  He is a very good scholar and I certainly recommend the book to all students of Scripture.  I don’t agree with him on everything, but I’m not reading him to confirm what I believe.  But this statement in his section on Revelation 20 just confounds me:

A more or less literal interpretation of this millennium seems to be ruled out because of the problems of determining where the nations come from and because a temporary kingdom of Christ seems utterly pointless (558).

It is nice that he acknowledges that he is rejecting the literal interpretation.  Too many scholars pretend that their non-literal interpretation is just as literal as one that interprets the text according to history and grammar, as we do any other text.

But it is disappointing that he rules out a literal interpretation because of these two problems.  The other views that he is willing to entertain (later in the paragraph) have problems, as he admits.  But, he says:

it seems to me that the hypothesis of the temporary millennial kingdom is rather more problematic and should probably be dropped from the discussion (559).

I do have answers for each of his two problems that I think are rather simple, straightforward, and entirely in keeping with the message of the book of Revelation.

First, he cannot figure out where the nations come from because he says that “everybody has died and only God’s people have been resurrected with Christ” (558).  But clearly everyone has not died because the reason why the dragon is thrown into the Abyss is in order “to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore.”  Those who were killed in the battle in chapter 19 are Christ’s enemies, not his followers.  It is these followers who could potentially be deceived and thus are isolated from Satan.

Second, I have a three-word response to Marshall’s conclusion that a “temporary” (i.e., 1,000-year!) kingdom of Christ “seems utterly pointless”: the Old Testament.

Is it “utterly pointless” that Jesus reigns on the throne of David over the kingdom he was promised in order to pour out blessings upon Israel and the world?  Is it “utterly pointless” that God honor his word to his people?  Marshall might respond that there’s no need for this “temporary kingdom” because all of these promises can be fulfilled in the new heavens and new earth.  Why mess around with a 1,000-year-period when you can get straight to the good stuff?

I have two replies.  First, Revelation says that there is a period of 1,000 years.  I didn’t make this up nor did Darby or Scofield.  Why not let the text form our theology, even if it doesn’t seem logical to us?  Second, does Marshall (and the many who hold a similar view) believe that God’s promises are literally fulfilled in the eternal state?  If they did, I’d be less traumatized.  The fact is that they not only spiritualize away the millennial kingdom, but they spiritualize away all of God’s blessings to Israel.  I suppose when you have no promises left for Israel, then an earthly millennium is indeed “utterly pointless.”

If you want just one passage to read, look at Zechariah 14.  This chapter is not difficult to understand and it establishes that after the Lord (Jesus) returns and defeats his enemies, there are “survivors all from the nations” who go up to worship the King in Jerusalem, and if they do not they are afflicted with a plague.  This passage cannot be speaking about the present day, because I’ve been to Jerusalem before and Jesus is not king there.  And it can’t be speaking about the eternal state where every tear is wiped away if people are being afflicted by plagues.  It would seem to fit perfectly into a “temporary” period in between the two. 

You can follow Marshall and apply Wite-Out to the six mentions of the “thousand years” in Revelation 20, but if you do that, you ‘re going to need an Exacto knife to cut out Zechariah 14.  For that matter, if you plan to start poking around much in the OT, I recommend you just go ahead and invest in a paper cutter.