The tract stated that the usual understanding of the Revelation 20 passage was "an excessively wooden interpretation." I have encountered this phrase in other places, I have never quite understood what it means.
What is a "properly" wooden interpretation? A plastic interpretation? A hardwood versus softwood interpretation? Cloth? Iron?
Actually, this is an ad homenem attack on the people who believe it simply means what it seems to say. Ad homenem attacks usually mean the person doing it simply does not know any good arguments against a postion, so he resorts to name calling.
I don't know what a wooden interpretation is either. I suspect this person was preaching to those who already agreed with him.
On the other hand, taking a person from the other camp that is clearly inept at articulating their position and setting him forth as the champion of their cause strikes me as a bit of an ad homonym attack on them. There are, after all, those who can explain the issue in ways that the writer of this tract clearly incapable or unwilling to do.
This discussion reminds me of the movie
Galaxy Quest with Tim Allen. Allen played the captain of a space TV show that looked an awful lot like Star Trek. He and his aging crew ran into these space aliens. These aliens did not have the concept of fiction so they assumed that television shows such as
Star Trek and
Gilligan's Island were actually recorded historical records. As a result, based upon these "historical record", they built a ship much like the Star Ship Enterprise and wanted these washed-up actors to run the thing. The movie is worth a rent for a good laugh.
We moderns, who no longer write or read apocalyptic literature, look back at Revelation and assume that we read it like we would read a newspaper, a historical narrative, a doctrinal book or a brief. We, as you say, "assume that it is all historical unless there is something to indicate something might be a symbol".
It seems to me that the opposite would be true. Since apocalyptic genre is, by nature, symbolic, I would think that we would assume that it is all symbolic unless there is some overriding clue that something is to be taken as a literal, historical fact. If we read fiction, we assume it is all "made up" unless there is something in the story clueing us in that it is true. If we read poetry, we assume that it is imagery and word-picture unless the author gives us a clue they are talking about something literal. If we read apocalyptic literature, we assume that it is wildly symbolic giving encouragement, a general vision of being on the winning side, and hope for the future of the church - not necessarily a detailed historical blueprint. Unless, of course, we are like those space aliens who never heard of that type of literature and assume everything is historical.
I think what the author of the a-millenial paper is saying by "analogy of faith" (a term that I think is very poor) is that you base your doctrinal understanding about the end times upon propositional statements of epistles and the Lord's sermons. You use these propositional statements to interpret the symbolism of Revelation. He isn't just saying that we interpreter the book of Revelation based upon what we happen to want to believe.
One thing that I highly agree with you is that end-time interpretation requires grasping and understanding a great amount of detail. In short, it requires a mind I simply don't have. So, don't expect me to defend either the pre-millenial or the amillenial. I simply don't know enough to draw those conclusions.
