Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 64:4 (Dec 2021)
Article: The Viability Of Premillennialism And The Text Of Revelation
Author: Eckhard J. Schnabel

JETS 64:4 (December 2021) p. 785

The Viability Of Premillennialism
And The Text Of Revelation

Eckhard J. Schnabel*

* Eckhard J. Schnabel is Mary F. Rockefeller Distinguished Professor of NT Studies at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, 130 Essex Street, South Hamilton, MA 01982.

Abstract: Any text needs to be read in its literary context before it is read in the context of larger hermeneutical and theological frameworks. This is true for Revelation 20:1–10 as well. Before placing the one Scriptural text that mentions a reign of one thousand years in the context of Jewish tradition or Christian tradition, we need to read the text first on its own terms. In the pursuit of this task, we seek answers to four questions: When does the period of a thousand years begin? Where is the location of the thousand-year period? Who is who in the text? What happens in connection with the thousand-year period?

Key words: millennium, new creation, reign of Jesus, rebellion, judgment, resurrection

It seems provocative to say that in discussions about eschatology among evangelicals, systems of theological thought have been more important than the biblical text. This should not be controversial, however, especially if one considers the role that the rapture plays in the eschatological program of some, seen in the light of a single NT passage from which this is derived (1 Thess 4:17) and evaluated in the light of the history of interpretation of 1 Thessalonians. While some authors have become wealthy when they wrote fictional accounts of the rapture and its aftermath,1 the dearth of consistent historical and philological exegesis becomes quickly evident if one reads publications by popular end-time writers.2 At the same time, it is dangerous to deplore, at the beginning of an essay on aspects of NT eschatology, the lack of sustained exegesis leading to suspect presentations of eschatological views, since such a lament may imply that the author arrogantly assumes he is right because he has done the exegetical work, while the views of others are problematic because they have not really read the biblical texts. Such an assumption would be ludicrous, obviously, particularly since some authors who have written about NT eschatology have indeed engaged in serious exegesis. Meanwhile, a call to re-read texts that have given rise, directly or indirectly, to diverging interpretations should always be welcome, as should be a call to re-examine one’s exegesis and one’s larger interpretive framework. Since Scripture is the norma normans of what the