Commentary Contributions

[Guest]

Mr. Greg, and all readers,

I am a new, first-time contributor. Please forgive this Email is long. If you like grab a sandwich and read on. I am pleased to be here and welcome replies to any and all questions or statements I may make as I am wanting always to learn the word more perfectly and have my blunders corrected if need be. I am thankful to have the chance to participate in this forum and hope I may make some new friends along the way, to God's glory and our edification, enrichment and exhortation in the word of God.

I am quite excited to hear of a new commentary setting forth the four, historic views of the apocalypse, those of the preterist, historical, idealist and futurist.

I write about commentary contributions because, I have over the course of the past years acquired a host of rare commentaries on Revelation, comprising one section of my theological antiquarian library.

I am blessed by God's grace to possess such works on the apocalypse by men such as George Croly, H.B. Swete, O.T. Allis, A. T. Atkinson, Thomas Coke, and others for comparative study in other schools of thought include such as A. C. Gaebelein, Fredk. A. Tatford, G. R. Crow, and Samuel Schor among others, James Meikle.

What I have noticed is that, almost overwhelmingly, the majority of writers it appears since the days of the Reformation, took a "historic" approach to the apocalypse's interpretation. This trend continued well into the 19th century at least until the Irvingites and Darby came on the scene. The 19th century is filled with writing on the apocalypse, as my library testifies.

Date-setting is something that apparently started happening long before the Reformation! But with all such activity comes the logical outcome which is failure.

I have recently from a friend heard that there was a 36 volume commentary, written from a pentecostal point of view, that is now out of print. But there are it seems few evangelicals that write the way the authors of the 19th and earlier centuries did. We are a fast-food generation and so consumption of more than a soundbite is not comfortable for many weaned on the internet now.

Men such as William Hendriksen and Atkinson in the past have taken the "idealist" view of Revelation. I have heard from older commentators as Dr. Adam Clarke of Methodist fame, that such a viewpoint can "spiritualize" away everything of prophetic utterance, which most of Revelation is in some form or fashion.

Now that we have the completed Revelation of God's book, and since much of what is written therein is already fulfilled, as a corrected understanding of both Jesus and Pauline eschatology will affirm, are Christians to understand that there was some kind of fulfillment of Revelation 21 and 22 also that is "spiritual" or "historic past" in nature?

I can abide the notion that much of Revelation is now already past. The commentators of the 19th and 18th centuries took the view that the Pope was the antichrist but, did Augustine or any saint when the Roman Sea was in infancy make any remark about Rome being antichrist?

From all I have been able to gather and read thus far, the pretribulationalist or dispensational premillennialist in eschatology must either be a futurist or an historicist in hermeneutical approach to to prophecy and Revelation in particular, apocalyptic prophecy.

Preterism was the position of Rome and the Reformation as well, but with a historical aspect included in the latter's understanding.

I have heard commentators say that NO one school of thought adequately answers the book and I have heard another say that it takes ALL the views to properly understand the book!

So, needless to say I am with others excited to read this new work by Steve Greg.

John Darby, the Brethren movement and the evangelical Church that grew out of that movement, by instrumentality of the promulgation of the Scofield Reference Bible, has invaded across-the-board many denominations in this nation with their "new-found" understanding of the end-times. With Darby and Edward Irving's works, we have with Scofield the beginnings of a major movement in this country that began in the early part of the 19th century.

I cannot, for my part, see how Revelation 21 and 22 may be fulfilled already but am open to hearing a new view. I could accept that Revelation 20 is not literal.

I am curious. Kliefoth rejected both Augustinian eschatology on the Millennium and the amillennial position. Why did he?

Is the Church to expect a literal second coming of Jesus? I think so. Mr. Greg excellently pointed out in Matthew the parable of the sheeps and goats and describes in it a picture of the final judgment.

The contributors of the past have helped me to understand that a great many God-fearing people have sought to have Revelation apply to their own time or approach unto it, in order to find affinity with current events and those described in symbol in Revelation, without realizing that those symbols, most of them, arise out of the Old Testament, and to those Scriptures we must attend if we are to arrive at a sensible understanding of the Book and take comfort from its pages.

The imagery makes the road to victory one with great trial. The popularity of the pretribulational viewpoint is almost infectious in its nature across the Church. And I agree with Mr. Greg that those seeking to get raptured out and avoid antichrist are missing the point. The martyrs shed their blood believing whole-livedly that they would rise again at the "last day" as Jesus had said. The early Church looked for the return of Christ and the resurrection and judgment not the antichrist and the seven-year tribulation, as neither Jesus, nor Paul nor John reference the millennial kingdom prior to the "final state" or "eternal state" of things, as Mr. Greg said today with Hank Hanegraaff.

The popularity of the 1000 year x 7 for a Week-Day expression of the Creative Week of God is a viewpoint that goes back beyond the Reformation. We assume that the Lord will give human history a "week" or 7 "1000 year days" before consummating history and ushering eternity in. I can easily see how the 1000 years of Revelation is not a literal number at all but rather an expression of the Gospel Age, as Mr. Greg's work has doubtlessly expressed, and a "recapitulation" of history.

And yet I would ask that is this so with those verses at the end of the 20th chapter?

Am I to take the fire upon Gog and Magog and Satan's hoards as the final judgment in symbolic form as this seems the view of the context to the end of the chapter?

If so then Revelation 21 and 22 would depict that metamorphosis Paul describes in I Cor. 15 and also in Rom 8 where the entire creation will also be restored, as I Pe 3 mentions as well.

Then those verses in Isaiah 65,66 would refer to Revelation 21 and 22! And the picture we have is of the "final state" rather than a "millennial" reign of Christ upon His glorious return. His return is so glorious that the "heavens and earth flee away" and therefore the final state is ushered in as the resurrection and judgment commence with the Master's mighty train with "all the holy angels."

Was not the destruction of Jerusalem foretold in the Gospels by Christ?
Is not this his reference to the apostles who admired the temple and while it would be finished in AD 64 a few short years before it was destroyed, Christ was in its halls when the structure was nearly completed then in AD 33. "Not one stone upon another shall be left," Christ said to them. He wept over Jerusalem and pronounced her house "desolate." The Mosque of Oman, where Islam feigns Mohammed ascended to heaven, is built on the site where the Temple would stand. Some say on the very site of the Holiest of all.

Was it wrong for the Reformers to consider the Pope the antichrist?

So, among all writers, the Church Fathers ascribed Nero or Domitian or some other emperor the title of antichrist and the Reformers ascribed this title to the Pope. Were both of the therefore right or is this a philosophic error and one only is correct?

Does the partial preterist view converge at all with the historic or idealist perspectives? How do they agree or disagree?

Who is the originator of the partial preterist position and when did this person live?

I cannot abide the futurist perspective from the dispensational or Roman point of view. The historic perspective has problems in that it identifies symbols with later events than the apostolic era and tries to extrapolate these into the reasons for phenomena or events occuring in their day.

Choosing a denomination therefore becomes somewhat of a chore. Baptists are traditionally premillennial and many are dispensational in outlook.

Does not one's eschatology have an influence on their other theological perspectives, including their view of the Church in ecclesiology, their view of Israel in their biblical anthropology, and their view of the prophecy?

The "any moment" doctrine that goes with the Church being a parenthesis mystery the OT saints did not know or speak to and the future millennium are all features of the dispensational point of view. So many Christians have accepted this viewpoint, many of them without ever seriously studying the various authors on this topic.

Why is this subject back in vogue? Could it have anything at all to do with our being now in the beginning of a new century? I would have to say that this buzz is nothing new and has been similarly expressed and rightly so, by the Church, since the first millennia. But since we would accept a more sober approach to this subject and believe that there are definite signs heralding our Master's return, which for the world will come upon them as swiftly and suddenly as Noah's deluge but for the Church we are not of the day or night that that day shall take us unawares.

We are supposed to see "signs" of his coming. Did those signs we are to expect only have significance to the Church then living when the revelation was distributed among the brethren in the different churches, for they all received it, even if some in the early Church did not, but it is documented most of the Fathers received it by the fourth century.

Were the "signs" indicating Christ's coming for judgment in the great, final conflagration only given to expectant first-century believers?

The Church is supposed to see the signs of Christ's return, is she not?

I have yet to acquire Lenski's commentary on Revelation in his series on the NT, which I hear is quite good.

I do have another question. If you are familiar with David Aune's 3 volume commentary on Revelation, what do you think of it, and from what perspective does he write from if you are knowledgeable?

I shall end my contribution up to this moment. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.

[Guest]

I wonder why nobody has responded to your posting. You've raised some very interesting questions...some which I myself have often wondered about. I am totally miffed by the pre-tribulation dispensational viewpoint (which most of my friends and family are) and simply do not understand how many get this with no views into any other stand. I'm equally puzzled by the absolute historic viewpoint as well as don't understand anyone who holds to any hard line absolute in any of these positions. I mean after all...many things have many meanings yet many things have absolute meanings and to confuse and combine that or to see with one eye while not seeing with the other eye one can become either nearsighted or far. My point is that I think all 4 views are essential in proper interpretation and when one holds firmly to one with no allowance of movement into another I think there is danger.

To take it very literally as a philosophical or poetic book proves that one has the capacity to at least "take" something literally. No not attribute something as having any literal meaning is almost like having a relative point of view to being literal. I mean after all...if one evening and one day is 24 hours then at which point does 24 hours cease to be one day? It is my understanding that unless it is otherwise stated to be so, the rules apply to a day or they apply to some sort of formula of what a day or time, times and half a time is etc.

I'ts obvious to me that many that participate in these discussions are much more intelligent than myself - and for that I seek to learn from you all. It also seems to me that though the Bible is a complex book it is also a "simple" book and there are many things in it that we are ill equipped to look into. I think that wherever there are finite minds seeking to understand infinite thoughts there is always a "veil" covering that gaze. It's not until God "reveals" this or that particular truth to us that we can actually exclaim...."I've got it".

Oh well. While being on mission overseas, usually there is little discussion or concern about these thingsm and they may even shrug it away even. They have much to concern themselves about aside from the daily struggle to survive. Heck, they don't even care usually if one is college educated in the "bible". They just want ready and able hands and feet to help them with the work of the moment. I think that here in America where there is so much that averts our attention from doing God's work...active minds that get bored easily have much time to wonder about things that "are not revealed". No insult intended in the slightest. I do it and have to keep myself active in service.

I do think though that todays culture as you put it....does not take the time to think along any length and so they do not explore every avenue of "thought". They just want the bottom line as quickly as possible. Try to get a young Christian to read any of Bonhoeffer or Tozer and they will easily get bored in favor of popular Christian books that take you "places you've never been before". We do not think anymore (as Ravi Zack. believes) and so we go to church and willingly ingest the pre-digested oatmeal that our pastor gives to us and do not know how to rightly divide the Word of Truth for ourselves....if ever the days come when someone or something would take our Bibles away from us....what en vogue Christian could even remember anything in it?

I'm rambling now. Thanks for your comments. I too am looking forward to reading Steves new book on the 4 views...though I'm sure my church will not be offering it

[Guest]

One reason I have not yet replied to Biblenut is that it is so long, I have not even been able to find the time to finish reading it. Also, it doesn't ask a question; it asks about twenty. This means I can't respond to any part of it until I have time to write a book-length response.

I intend to get around to this, but, for future reference, a post like this would be easier to respond to if it was sent in several smaller installments. I am teaching full-time in Canada right now, and may find time to address some of these questions in the coming week or so. However, there may be others who have time on their hands right now and can answer many of these questions.

Blessings!