2.26 - The Apocalypse of John
April 25, 2005 | Comments: 3Biblical Hermeneutics Part Second Chapter 26
Having traced the progress of biblical apocalyptic from Joel and the Old Testament prophets, through our Lord’s discourse in Matthew 24, and the apostle Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4.13-17, et al., Terry now completes his analysis with the capstone of all prophetic writing, the Apocalypse of John. He identifies the three systems of interpretation commonly applied to the book as Preterist, Continuous-Historical and Futurist. [Aside: These I understand to be essentially equivalent to the Postmillennial, Amillennial and Premillennial views, respectively] Rather than going through the pro and contra of each of these positions, Terry characteristically addresses himself directly to the text, employing sound hermeneutical principles like the historical position, scope and plan of the author. For this particular book, he pays particular heed to the relations of this text with the other apocalyptic scriptures, and the principles of symbolic language that can be gleaned from them.
In harmony with the other New Testament apocalyptics, e.g. Matthew 24.34, the Apocalypse of John explicitly states that its fulfillment is imminent (Revelation 1:3, 22:10,12), which by itself lends substantial weight to the preterist view. Moreover, the structure of the book follows the usual two-fold pattern for apocalyptic, with the first half centered on the revelation of Christ in judgment, and the second half focusing on the Bride of Christ coming to ultimate triumph. The two halves recount the same events from different perspectives, and nearly all of John’s symbolic language is found in Daniel, Ezekiel, Zechariah or other Old Testament prophets. Understanding this pervasive use of apocalyptic imagery and symbolism renders any kind of literalist, chiliastic interpretation to be forced and unreasonable.
Throughout this analysis Terry cogently shows the detailed correspondences of John’s revelation with the Old Testament apocalyptics, the eschatological teachings of our Lord and His apostle, and Josephus’ account of the historical events culminating in the siege and destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple. In so doing he effectively maintains a coherent preterist view, which is internally reasonable and consistent, as well as consonant with the whole corpus of apocalyptic Scripture.
Comments
Do you find any part of the text to point to a future event? If so, how does a preterist treat these? Do you find Terry, or others who are preterist, forcing bits of the text into a preterist perspective? Certainly the futurist perspective forces a good amount of the text, never considering for one moment that a significant historical event has already taken place. Does the continuous-historical try to moderate between the other two views? Would you please answer my questions in details so that I am not tempted to become a pan-millenialist. nathan.
Nathan on January 30, 2007 at 07:47 AM
Yes, I consider some of Revelation, and some of Matthew 24 for that matter, to be referring to future events, e.g. the personal return of the Lord, and the last judgment. Terry is far too reasonable to be a hyper-preterist, if may use that term, by which I mean those who see nothing in prophetic scripture beyond the sack of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Yes, I do believe that such as these do indeed force texts to fit their preterist commitments.
The continuous-historical, aka amillennial, approach does seem to be more reasonable and consistent with all of Scripture than either the pre-millennial or the hyper-preterist. But I believe that this approach generally fails to comprehend a biblically optimistic view of the progress of gospel through history. Fairbairn comes out as post-millennial, but he is not a hyper-preterist. In fact, he sees the millennium as yet future, a golden age of the Church.
I hope this helps a little in getting you out of the frying pan, but not into the fire.
Andrew on January 30, 2007 at 03:52 PM
well answered, Andrew. The biblically optimistic view of the progress of the gospel through history is beautiful and hopeful. nathan.
Nathan on January 30, 2007 at 04:17 PM
