The third area where there are valid differences of opinion concerns the basic time period covered by
the book (especially the body of the book: the visions in chapters 4-22).
Preterist View
It relies heavily, not so much on Revelation, but on Jesus' words in Matthew 24 (and parallels—the so-
called Little Apocalypse) predicting the destruction of the Temple within a short time frame (happened
in 70 AD). While in general, I feel that starting with the words of Christ and Paul is a preferred
approach to developing a theology of the future rather than starting with more ambiguous teachings in
the Bible such as Daniel or Revelation, in this case there is quite a controversy on how to understand
Matthew 24 and parallel passages. That chapter was covered in considerable detail in another post.
There are actually several variations within preterism.
A. Full, or hyper-, preterists (who sometimes call themselves consistent preterists) feel that all of the
predictions in the New Testament were already fulfilled in 70 AD when Jesus came again
spiritually to judge Israel for rejecting him. There will therefore be no future coming of Christ, no
bodily resurrection (just one in which the believers' spirits will go to be with God), and no Final
Judgment. For this view to be true, of course, Revelation must have been written before 70 AD
(unlikely according to most scholars).
B. A variation of this view does allow for some of the events in Revelation to be fulfilled by the fall of
Rome in 476 AD due to the recognized references to Rome in the book. Full preterism is really the
only view I will discuss that would probably be labeled a heresy by most Christian denominations.
C. Full preterism should not at all be confused with partial, or orthodox, preterism, a very common
view among many Christians who feel that although some biblical prophecies were fulfilled in 70AD,
the Second Coming and Last Judgment are still to come. Partial preterists have sometimes been
criticized by futurists as following a slippery slope that could lead to full preterism, a view that partial
preterists vehemently deny.
Preterism tends to be a history of individuals rather than a history of denominations:
Eusebius: Destruction of Temple in 70 AD was Jesus' predicted judgment on unbelieving Israel.
Luis de Alcasar (Counter Reformation) refuted Protestant references to the Catholic Church as the
Lawless One of 2 Thessalonians 2.
Hugo Grotius (1640), the first Protestant adherent. He tried to reduce tension between Protestants
and Catholics by agreeing that the coming of the Antichrist (1 & 2 John) was a past event so it could
not refer to the Pope.
Hall and Hammond (1645-50): They applied preterist thinking to the Book of Daniel. All events
were fulfilled by 1st cent. AD.
Grotius and Hammond (1650-53) the first partial preterist commentaries on Revelation (excepting
the last 3 chapters as still to come)
Firmin Abauzit (1730): noted French physicist and philosopher. Friend of Sir Isaac Newton, who
wrote more on the Book of Revelation than he did on physics. First full preterist commentary on the
Bible, written in French, included his belief that the Book of Revelation did not belong in the Bible at
all. When his English translator provided him with a detailed rebuttal, he later recanted his views and
refused to publish a second edition of his book.
Robert Townley (1845): First American full preterist writing. He later became a Universalist
preacher and recanted his view in his sermons.
Full preterism is not held by any major denomination.
Even though most commentators of all points of view recognize the hyperbolic and symbolic language
in Revelation, it is still hard to believe that all of the events there have already been fulfilled. If it does,
then the book has a somewhat limited applicability for us today except as an interesting historical
example of how God worked in a particular period in the past.
Historicist View– feels that the whole book covers the scope of church history from the First Century
AD up to the time of writing of each commentator. So the end is imminent. Views Revelation
chronologically and assigns major Church movements and historical characters to each series of
visions in the book. This was the general view of the Reformation leaders such as Luther and Calvin.
Even many Futurists subscribe to the idea that the seven churches in chapters 2-3 represent in order the
history of the Christian church up to the present time. The current popular scheme was first proposed
by a Baptist pastor Clarence Larkin in 1918 and publicized and visualized using a series of charts by
William Branham (Pentacostal healer: 1909-1965) .
Larkin and Branham assigned “angels, or messengers” to each of these ages so that, for example the
angel of Sardis was Martin Luther and the angel of Philadelphia was John Wesley. Branham hinted
strongly, without coming out and saying it, that he was the angel of Laodicea (and he is listed as such
in later editions of these charts, such as the one below). He also hinted strongly that he was the spotless
bride of Christ.
Most church historians are rather dismissive of this chronological scheme since the characteristics of
the various churches have little or no relation to the time periods they supposedly belong to. A prime
example is Sardis, a church that Christ said is dead and one of two churches which He has nothing
good to say about. That is supposed to represent the period of the Protestant Reformation.
Commentators from this school of thought throughout the ages disagree with one another since they all
assign the various time periods so that their own time is the Laodician Age, and this has happened ever
since a Puritan named Thomas Brightman, came up with the idea around the year 1600. The method is
generally discredited by the contradictory results for the present time and poor fit with past ages.
Historicism is the current view of the Seventh Day Adventists.
Futurist View This is the most popular current view by far. It says that the visions of Revelation are
concerned almost exclusively with end-time events (usually meaning events from the 20th century on)
and couldn't have been understood at all by its original audience or by anyone before relatively modern
times. We will talk about the various schools of futurism in another post. This view tends to
downplay or ignore the many references to first century life present in the book.
And then there is the Idealist View, which stresses general principles and ideas in the book, usually
expressed in symbols of good and evil forces, that are applicable to Christians living in any age.
(Which would explain why just about every generation since it was written has felt that it applied
particularly to their own time.) Critics of this view say that this refusal to pin down any historical
events as relating to the book leads to de-emphasizing the Second Coming as a concrete event. But, in
fact, many prominent and very devout Christian scholars have held to this view over the years without
in the least denying the Second Coming and Final Judgment. The main advantage to this view is that,
unlike many other views, it treats all of Revelation as applicable to us today.
Bruce Metzger's Breaking the Code (Abingdon Press, 1993) is a highly recommended book stressing
the general truths in Revelation (Idealist view) and historical explanations of the symbols present. It is
an easy read and also available on DVD with a study guide.
What does the Book of Revelation itself say about the time frame?
1:1 events which must soon take place This certainly poses a problem for those who think
that all of the book is about the distant future. However, futurists rightly point out that the
beginning or certainty of the fulfillment may be in mind, not necessarily the time of its
completion.
1:3 the time is near This is like John the Baptist's proclamation in Mark 1:15: “The time is
fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near.” But we all recognize that the kingdom of God in all
its fullness has not yet come.
1:19 is often viewed as a Table of Contents for the book: “write what you have seen (Chapter
1), what is (chapters 2-3), and what is to take place after this (chapters 4-22).” This is the most
popular understanding of the Futurist camp. But there are several problems that make this less
than a foolproof guide to outlining the time periods in the book:
It is better understood as referring to two time periods only: “write what you have
seen after you have seen it, that is, both what is and what is to take place.” If this
refers to the visions in chapters 4-22, which ones concern John's present day and
which ones concern the future?
2. The letters in Revelation 2-3 refer to past, present and future events not just the
present.
Even if the visions of chs. 4-22 concern the future only, how far into the future do
they go? A few years from the time of writing (preterist), up to the present day
(historicist), or mainly in our own future (futurist)?
The Eclectic View utilizes all of the above approaches as appropriate to given passages in Revelation.
It recognizes that historical situations and evens in the Roman Empire are addressed at times, sees
examples throughout history that fit the symbolism of Revelation, but holds strongly to a definite
future coming of Christ and concrete events associated with His coming.
The Book of Revelation by G. K. Beale, my personal favorite commentary on Revelation, is written
from an eclectic viewpoint. Before you rush out and buy it, I will caution you that it takes a scholarly
approach, is over 1,200 pages long, and is a commentary on the Greek text, not on any English
translation (so it is helpful to at least know the Greek alphabet).
This is a good time to again stress that we can all gain from looking at different views on Revelation.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments