Month: March 2020

I remember this question when studying at yeshiva. Why the Sabbath? Well the Bible actually gives two reasons. One of the reasons is found in Deuteronomy 5:15. The Sabbath is given because the Lord liberated the Jews from Egypt, and were slaves. Therefore, they were given the Sabbath to rest.

The second reason is to make a connection to the creation account found in the early chapters of Genesis. The Lord created for six days, and then rested on the seventh day. This is clearly described in Exodus 20:11.

These are two different reasons for the Sabbath. What is interesting is the Bible never tries to join the reason together, but leaves each explanation standing alone. Since then, the rabbis have joined them together for the Sabbath celebration. For each Sabbath the following is said:

“And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. The heavens and the earth were finished, the whole host of them and on the seventh day God completed his work that he had done and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done and God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it because in it he had rested from all his work that God had created to do.” And further:

“Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe Who sanctified us with His commandments, and has been pleased with us. You have lovingly and willingly given us Your holy sabbath as an inheritance, in memory of creation because it was the first day of our holy assemblies, in memory of the exodus from Egypt because You have chosen us and made us holy from all peoples and have willingly and lovingly given us Your holy sabbath for an inheritance. Blessed are You, Who sanctifies sabbath.”

While the Bible may not have joined these reasons together originally, they are combined now. It’s celebrated as a joyous occasion in remembrance of creation, and for recovery from our labors, as we are no longer slaves.

Originally published by Discern the Meaning.

Conclusion

The much contested question of which approach to Revelation is the oldest, has long been settled among mainstream modern scholarship. It is widely agreed that the Historicist approach was the earliest, and that the first proper Futurist and Preterist interpretations did not appear until the sixteenth century. Although the antiquity of a particular approach to Revelation is not necessarily a guarantee of its validity, given the fact that when delivering the Revelation to John Christ explicitly “made it clear” (Revelation 1:1), we would expect its contents to be at least basically understood by the earliest expositors.Similarly, although every commentator on their book has their own biases (and many Historicist interpreters throughout the ages have had a particularly strong bias against the Catholic Church), and although the personal religious views of a particular commentator are not necessarily grounds on which to dismiss their view, we must nevertheless acknowledge that interpretations which emerged at specific times with the aim of promoting specific theological, ideological, or political causes, are more likely to be influenced by bias and should be treated with far greater caution. The fact that the Futurist and Preterist interpretations were invented by Jesuit scholars specifically to defend the Catholic Church from the criticisms of the Reformation, definitely gives us ground for considering them suspect.

Originally published by Discern the Meaning.

Modern scholarship is also in agreement on the origins of Preterism and Futurism. It is acknowledged that they were both products of the sixteenth century, Roman Catholic Counter-Reformation, invented as attempts to deflect criticism of the Catholic Church. Bigalke notes the sixteenth century Jesuit Francisco Ribera “is generally credited with the origin of the futurist view as a Catholic response to the historicism of the Reformers”,[1] and DeRoo says Futurism was “inaugurated by Francisco Ribera”.[2]Likewise, Gabalch says Preterism was the invention of Alcazar, “as a defense against the historicist views of Martin Luther and other Reformers”,[3] Collins says Preterism was “introduced by the Spanish Jesuit, Alcasar”,[4] and Bigalke identifies the sixteenth century Jesuit Alcazar as the author of “The first systematic presentation of the preterist viewpoint”.[5]

[1] Francisco Ribera of Salmanca, Spain, is generally credited with the origin of the futurist view as a Catholic response to the historicism of the Reformers.”, Ron J. Bigalke Jr., “The Revival of Futurist Interpretation Following the Reformation,” Journal of Dispensational Theology Volume 13 13, no. 38 (2009): 48.[2] Neal DeRoo, “Phenomenology as Eschatological Materialism,” The Journal of the Faculty of Religious Studies 39 (2011): 139–40.[3]“The initiation of this futurist view is credited to Spanish Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), who developed it as a defense against the historicist views of Martin Luther and other Reformers who strongly identified the papacy with the Antichrist.”, Wilfried E. Glabach, Reclaiming the Book of Revelation: A Suggestion of New Readings in the Local Church (Peter Lang, 2007), 12.[4] “As indicated above, the preterist school introduced by the Spanish Jesuit, Alcazar, was taken up by the German scholar, Hugo Grotius, and the German rationalists.”, Oral E. Collins, The Final Prophecy of Jesus: An Introduction, Analysis, and Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007), 483.[5] “The first systematic presentation of the preterist viewpoint originated in the early seventeenth century with Alcazar, a Jesuit friar, whose work was not free from controversial bias.”, Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1988), 136.

Originally published by Discern the Meaning.

Introduction

Proponents of Preterism, Futurism, and Historicism, typically all argue that their interpretive methodology is the oldest, and by implication the reading which was originally intended by Christ when he delivered the revelation to John. Since the Reformation, proponents of each view have attempted to demonstrate that theirs is not only the most accurate, but the longest held. This article examines the claims made by proponents of each view, and presents a combination of historical evidence and scholarly commentary to reach a conclusion on the question.

Emergence of a conflict

Ever since the interpretation of Revelation became a sectarian battleground during the pre-Reformation era, the question of which method of interpretation is correct has been contested hotly. As Preterist, Futurist, and Historicist views competed, supporters of these different approaches began to lay claim to historical authenticity, each claiming to be the earliest, and by implication the most accurate.

Modern scholarly commentary

Scholars today are virtually unanimous in agreeing that Historicism was the interpretive methodology of the earliest Christians. Desrosiers says it was “extremely popular in the early church”,[1] Grenz describes it as “One of the oldest and most widely held methods of interpreting the book of Revelation”,[2] Manser says “The early Church generally approached the book in this way”,[3] Collins note Historicism was “commonly assumed in the Early Church with one possible exception”,[4] and a book review in the Central Bible Quarterly notes that by the nineteenth century Historicism had been the dominant approach for 1500 years (dating the rise of Historicism to around the fourth century). [5]It is recognized that clear evidence for Historicism emerges as early as the second century; Alter and Kermode cite “Major Christian writers of the second century, such as Justin and Irenaeus”, [6] and Grenz concurs that “early church leaders such as Irenaeus and Justin read Revelation in the historicist manner”.[7] By the end of the third century, Historicist and allegorical approaches were the dominant methods of interpretation.[8] Historicism is also represented in the exposition of Victorinus of Pettau of the fourth century, who wrote the first full scale systematic commentary on Revelation, [9] which is why scholars such as Couch date Historicism to this period.[10] The dominance of Historicism throughout Christian history is widely acknowledged, thanks in large part to the exhaustive research of the Seventh Day Adventist scholar LeRoy Edwin Froom. In an article defending Futurism, Ron J Bigalke Jr. acknowledged that Froom’s work proved that the Historicist approach “certainly has been represented throughout the entirety of church history”.[11] Historicism is also acknowledged as “the dominant approach of the Reformers and their heirs”.[12]

[1] “This view was extremely popular in the early church and reached its apex during the period of the Reformation in the sixteenth century.”, Gilbert Desrosiers, An Introduction to Revelation: A Pathway to Interpretation (London: Continuum, 2000), 32.[2] “One of the oldest and most widely held methods of interpreting the book of Revelation is the historicist view.”, Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 178.[3] Martin H. Manser, Critical Companion to the Bible (Infobase Publishing, 2009), 326.[4] “Historicists also hold that the events forecast in Rev 4:1-22:15 begin to occur soon after the publication of the book of Revelation near the end of the first Christian century. This principle was commonly assumed in the Early Church, with one possible exception, that is, Hippolytus, bishop of Portus (ca. A.D. 170-236).”, Oral E. Collins, The Final Prophecy of Jesus: An Introduction, Analysis, and Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2007), 478.[5] “For nearly 1500 years prophetic thinking had been dominated by the historicist approach (i.e. prophecy is fulfilled in church history).”, Central Bible Quarterly 22, no. 4 (1979): 28.[6] “Major Christian writers of the second century, such as Justin and Irenaeus, read Revelation historically and interpreted literally its images of things to come, especially the reign of Christ and the saints;”, Robert Alter and Frank Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible(Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999), 529.[7] “In a sense, the early church leaders such as Irenaeus and Justin read Revelation in the historicist manner.”, Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 178.[8] Andrew Cain, Noel Lenski, and Biennial Conference on Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, The Power of Religion in Late Antiquity (Farnham; Burlington: Ashgate, 2009).[9] “One of the very first commentators on Revelation, Victorinus of Pettau (c. 300), was a proponent of this method.”, “His [Victorinus] reading was historicist in the sense that he held that the images and symbols of the book could be tied to specific historical events.”, Gilbert Desrosiers, An Introduction to Revelation: A Pathway to Interpretation (London: Continuum, 2000), 32; Roberto Rusconi, “Opere di Gioacchino da Fiore: testi e strumenti,” Storia e Figure Dell’Apocalisse Fra ‘500 e ‘600: Atti Del 4. (Centro Internazionale di Studi Gioachimiti S. Giovanni in Fiore, 14-17 Settembre 1994), 12.[10]“Early forms of Historicism surfaced around the fourth century when some interpreters began to see current events as fulfilling biblical prophecy.”, Mal Couch, Dictionary Of Premillennial Theology (Kregel Publications, 1997), 369.[11] “The historicist interpretation of biblical prophecies certainly has been represented throughout the entirety of church history. Adventist scholar LeRoy Edwin Froom traced the view through such prominent church figures as Hippolytus (ca. 170-236) in early church history, Joachim of Fiore (ca. 1135-1202) and John Wycliffe (ca. 1329-84) in the Middle Ages, Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Knox (1817-92) during the Reformation, and Isaac Newton (1642-1727) and John Wesley (1703-91) of prior centuries, and into contemporary Christianity.”, Ron J. Bigalke Jr., “The Revival of Futurist Interpretation Following the Reformation,” Journal of Dispensational Theology Volume 13 13, no. 38 (2009): 45.[12] “The historicist view was likewise the dominant approach of the Reformers and their heirs.”, Stanley J. Grenz, The Millennial Maze (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 178.