Eschatological schools

Following on from my prophetic principles, how do I see eschatology in general, and specifically Revelation? Revelation 1:1-7 mentions that the vision concerns the return of Christ. Verse 1 says the events are soon,

The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place.

Verse 7 mentions Jesus return,

Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.

Verse 19 adds,

Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.

This means that Revelation discusses things happening around the time it was written and in the future. It need not solely mean immediately, that is the first generation after Jesus' resurrection; nor end-times, the last generation before Jesus returns. It potentially covers affairs from the time of John's vision until Jesus' return.

Briefly classifying the 4 major schools:

• Preterism^*: Most of the prophecies of the Bible find their fulfilment in the first generation after Jesus' resurrection; that is, by 70 AD.
• Historicism: The prophecies of the Bible are fulfilled in various persons thru-out history until the return of Christ.
• Futurism: Most prophecies of the Bible find their fulfilment in the last generation before Jesus returns.
• Idealism: The symbols are predominately symbolic of ideas and most do not correspond to any specific event.

By most prophecies I mean those that were not fulfilled by the time of Jesus, I do not mean those that are acknowledged to have been fulfilled such as Jeremiah's prophecy of the return from exile, or Isaiah's prophecies of the first coming of the Messiah.

I think that preterism, historicism, and futurism all offer a potentially valid approach. Idealism may get us thinking more carefully about what the symbols refer to, but it fails to recognise and apply genuine prophecy.

Because I am not attached to any one particular option I read some passages with an immediate (preterist) fulfilment, and others with a distant (futurist) one.

There is agreement among the schools in some aspects. Most interpreters identify the churches in the early chapters as representing real churches that existed in the time Revelation was written. Antipas was a martyr. Jezebel was a false prophetess. The Nicolaitans were a false sect. These should all be understood as literal people from the first century. Likewise they agree that Jesus returning in the clouds has yet to happen (Acts 1:11).

Here are some examples where each school is probably correct. Other schools may not necessarily disagree with the interpretation here, but the interpretation is most in line with the approach of the particular school.

Preterism
In the Olivet discourse Jesus refers to those escaping when they saw Jerusalem surrounded.

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-24)

I think this is best interpreted as occurring at the time of the destruction of the temple 66–70 AD under Vespasian then Titus. Interestingly there was a break in the fighting when Vespasian returned to Rome to become Emperor before Titus took over the seige. At this time many Christians, remembering Jesus' words, fled Jerusalem.

Historicism
The best example of this school of interpretation is Daniel's visions. His vision of the 4 beasts in chapter 7, then the ram and the goat in chapter 8, then the kings in chapter 11 refer to events that occurred over the following decades and apply to specific kingdoms and people. The beasts are kingdoms

• Lion/ eagle: Babylon
• Bear: Media/ Persia
• Leopard/ bird: Greece
• Terrible beast: Rome

The ram and goat are the kings of Media/ Persia and Greece respectively (Daniel 8:20-21).

Futurism
The final defeat of Satan, the new heaven and Earth, the judgment of the nations are all events at the end of the age. They are best viewed as future events.

Here are some problems with the schools.

Preterism
Not all of the Olivet discourse was fulfilled in the first century. Antichrist(s) may be yet to appear.

Historicism
Though Daniel offers a good example of the Historicist view, I have not read convincing interpretations of Revelation along these lines. The rise of Islam, the Great Schism, the Catholic/ Protestant split; none of these are clearly seen. I am also not certain about the allegorical application of the letters to the 7 churches to the global church thru the ages. Even if true, it is not the primary meaning.

Futurism
Disagreement with the number of the beast applying to Nero. Forcing a strict chronology on Revelation. Not applying parts of the Olivet discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century.

As mentioned previously, I would apply aspects of each of these as I see them apply to a specific passage. Based on the specifics of the prophecy and how events have panned out I would say some events have already occurred, and some are yet to be. Some of the difficulty in recognising the Messiah in Isaiah may have related to seeing him as both a suffering servant and a conquering king. These do not seem compatible, yet we know they are. He came first to suffer and die for our sins. He was raised victorious over death. He is seated at the right hand of God, and will return again to enforce his dominion. Let us not make this mistake, failing to realise that some aspects of prophecy were fulfilled in the first generation after Jesus ascended, and others in the last generation before he returns, and perhaps even some in between these generations.

---

^*I am using preterism to mean partial preterism. I consider full preterism (hyper-preterism) with its claim that the return of Christ was in the first century and was therefore spiritual to be false.

Prophetic hermeneutics

SLW has written an interesting piece on Antipas. He refers to his prophetic hermeneutic which is interesting.

• If events have significance to God's plan of redemption, those events will be foretold by prophets.
• If the prophesied event occurred within the time frame during which biblical writing was inspired, its fulfillment will be recorded in the scriptures dealing with that period.
• If a prophecy interprets the past (as it certainly does in the Revelation) it's fulfillment in the past will be recorded in the scriptures dealing with that period. (Predictive) prophecy is difficult to interpret. It may imply now, or soon, or distant future, or perhaps have duel fulfilment.

He bases this on Amos 3:7. These premises are well worth considering though I am not going to interact with them directly.

The post lead to a discussion on the dating of the book of Revelation and various interpretations of Revelation.

Traditionally these are

• Preterism
• Historicism
• Futurism
• Idealism

Let may say at the beginning that I do not have strong eschatological views. My reading around the issue is not in-depth enough. I am also not sure that if I did have more certainty, I would find the issue evoking significant passion. It seems more important to have a right view of beginning-times than of end-times.

Had I labelled myself previously, perhaps it would have been a futurist. I find I have increasing sympathy for preterism. I would not say that I have abandoned futurism for preterism, it would better to say I have incorporated aspects of preterism.

Nevertheless, I do not think that Revelation needs to fit into a preterist, historicist or futurist interpretation; I am more concerned with what Scripture says and with consistency. As Douglas Wilson has written,

We must always allow the words of Scripture to speak to us, straight up, and not modify them for the sake of a theological system. Receive the Word as spoken, and let the system (which will form necessarily) take care of itself.

It may be that eschatology is best understood under the classification of futurism, or preterism, or idealism, or historicism; or they may each contribute aspects of the truth.

It seems that futurism has a slightly more literal approach to prophecy. Although I have sympathy with literal hermeneutics, there are aspects of prophecy that call this approach into question; or at least suggest modification.

My general hermeneutic is probably better described as more grammatical (straightforward interpretation) than literal. Much of the Bible is to be understood in a literal manner (especially history). Still, figures of speech, idioms, approximations, hyperbole, rhetoric are all features of Scripture and Scripture needs to be interpreted with this in mind.

So is predictive prophecy literal? Well it may point to literal events: Isaiah's prophecies of the Messiah meant that a real person was coming. Yet some fulfilments of prophecy seem to be more spiritual than physical.

There are aspects of prophecy that should make us question whether something is literal, or rather that a literal aspect may be fulfilled in a difficult to perceive way. A couple are hiddenness and scriptural interpretation of prophecy.

If we view prophecy in the broadest aspect: God speaking to people though his servants, it seems that clarity is attenuated by righteousness. What I mean by this is that our ability to understand is modified by our receptiveness to God. Those inclined toward God understand better than those opposed to God. Jesus spoke in parables for this reason. Isaiah says,

‘You will be ever hearing, but never understanding;/
you will be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’/
This people’s heart has become calloused;/
they hardly hear with their ears,/
and they have closed their eyes (Isaiah 6:9-10, Septuagint)

Thus there is an aspect of hiddenness to Scripture. Related to this hiddenness is the concept that prophecy is better understood after the event than before it. That is, its fulfilment clearly relates to the prophecy, but this is much harder to grasp before the event.

We also need to read how the authors of Scripture understood prophecy. For example Matthew's interpretation of prophecies is different than I would expect at times. Jesus indicates that some things should be understood as more spiritual than material. We need to learn from Jesus and the inspired authors.

We need to read Scripture (including eschatology) aright. Avoiding both hyperliteralism (phylacteries) and over-spiritualisation (Jesus has returned in the church; Jesus has risen in our hearts); and also rightly discerning which aspects are more literal and which are more spiritual.

Interpretative techniques

How we see the Bible affect how we interpret the Bible. I have several underlying themes that affect how I interpret the Bible.

Unity
I seek to find an interpretation that does justice to all the passages that touch on a topic. A related concept is that fuller revelation can expand on previous revelation but does not contradict it. The Bible is without error in any claim.

Context
The grammatical-historical hermeneutic says that the meaning is dictated by the underlying grammar and historical context. By historical context it is meaning what the writer intended based on his cultural setting. Concepts that we may hold based on the meanings of words may be irrelevant. This does not mean the ancients were ignorant, rather that they may have thought differently. One must guard against multiplying historical "settings" to justify an opinion, yet one must not ignore the fact. And there may be clues to this in the surrounding text.

Genre
Attention must be paid to literary genre, the type of text being read. For example a proverb is meant to be a general principle, poetry uses hyperbole and figurative language, apocalypse uses symbolism.

Divine authorship
Because God is the ultimate author, there may be truths that God intended yet the authors were not aware of. The Bible is infallible and legitimate conclusions come from its pages are true.

Perspicuity
The Bible is meant to be understood. The general meaning of the Bible is clear to any reader.

Hiddenness
I think this actually applies to God as well as the Bible and merits a post of its own. Briefly, the Bible is intentionally difficult in places. At least one reason for this is to hide meaning from the mocker and reveal meaning to the devout. There are concepts, difficulties, or apparent contradictions that allow a defiant man to scoff and dismiss, but on deeper investigation reveal unity and profound truth.

Prophecy may be a feature of this. Some prophecies seem to be difficult to understand before the fact but obvious afterwards.

Conclusion
Most of these relate to the usual use of language. Meaning is based on what the speaking is thinking. If he translates the thoughts to words well, and the hearer understands the words then he grasps what the speaker is thinking.

In conversation the context of a statement is important, think listening to one side of a telephone conversation; the genre is important, think telling a joke; perspicuity is important, we generally want others to understand what we are saying; and even hiddenness is used, consider talking in the presence of children using euphemisms or pig-Latin. Of the above items only divine authorship and unity do not are not grounded in the principles of language communication. Rather these are theological propositions.

Even if people agree on methodology, there is the scope for them to weight the issues differently, thus disagree on meaning. If others differ on their methodology it may be difficult to find any agreement. For example if one takes an essentially allegorical approach to all Scripture, or a private interpretation to verses.

That being said, I think the Bible has power thru virtue of it being God's word. For the pious reader, ongoing reading and desire to know God is likely to lead to growing in true knowledge, even if one's hermeneutic is substandard.

A defense of inerrancy

I heard mention of inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures in a sermon recently. The speaker was defending infallibility though he is not an inerrantist. It would appear that these terms seem synonymous so perhaps some definitions are in order.

Infallibility

Incapable of error in expounding doctrine on faith or morals.

Inability to err in teaching revealed truth.

Inerrancy

True in any claim of fact.

Without error, and free from all contradiction.

"Fallibility" in theology is describing reliability, "errancy" is describing error. Inerrancy encompasses infallibility, that is if the Bible is error free then it is also reliable. Inerrantists are infallibilists. However one can claim that the Bible is reliable and useful for faith yet claim it contains errors of fact. Infallibilists may or may not be inerrantists. I claim the latter position is difficult to defend logically and scripturally, but that is not the intent of this post.

During the sermon the position of inerrancy was dismissed in, what I consider, somewhat of a strawman manner. Inerrantists were portrayed as being somewhat simplistic and unthinking. The kind who say, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." While people of that persuasion undoubtedly exist, this is not the zenith of an inerrancy apologetic and one should should consider the best claims of his opponents, not the poorest.

I am an inerrantist because I think that is the position Scripture points to. The Bible does not appear to discriminate between facts of faith and facts of history. Conversely the Bible claims to be grounded in history. We can believe God about things we cannot know because he is reliable in the things we do know. The early Christians backed up the truth of Christianity by appeal to a fact of history: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now we can know much about the spiritual implications of Jesus' death and resurrection based on revelation by God, but this revelation is confirmed in our minds by the very fact that Jesus did indeed die and then rise from the dead! Many people make claims about spiritual truths but many are also unreliable. They cannot back up their claims with events that prove them trustworthy. If they are unreliable in earthly things why should we believe them about spiritual things.

But rather than an extensive defence of inerrancy at this stage, I want to describe what it is inerrantists claim.

Inerrantists believe the Bible to be true in every factual statement it affirms. Inerrantists can agree with the quote, "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," though preferably with qualification.

The last two clauses are relatively straightforward:

• I believe, or I affirm that what Scripture claims is true;
• The debate is settled on the side of Scriptural claims because God never errs.

The problem lies in the first clause. While true on the face of it, the debate is around what exactly did God say? The speaker is equating the Bible with God's words: written in the Bible = God said it. But Bible may not say what the speaker is claiming the Bible says. So while the inerrantist believes the Bible is true in everything it affirms, the careful inerrantist wants to know what exactly the Bible does affirm; nothing more, nothing less.

While people may disagree on specific meanings of texts, there are several relevant issues in understanding Scripture. I will address the literalism claim in more depth.

Inerrantists don't hold to a literal reading of every text. While they believe much of the Bible is to be taken literally (while errantists may not do so), probably the best descriptor of their hermeneutic is a "straightforward reading" of the text. So if the text is historical narrative then the claim of inerrantists is that what is written is a faithful history. The events really did happen in the way described. But this does not mean that every verse is to be read as literal. No one reads like this. Even the hyperliteralist sees metaphor in some passages. I am not aware that anyone claims the parables really happened. The literalist would rather defend that Jesus really spoke the parables.

So Scripture is to be interpreted according to genre.

Here are several beliefs that inerrantists can and do hold.

• Poetry uses symbolism and hyperbole.
• Proverbs are general truths and there may be specific examples of people who fail to follow the general rule.
• Fables and allegory illustrate an underlying reality.
• Analogies carry over an aspect common to 2 situations. They may carry over several aspects but they may carry over only 1 aspect and one should be careful about over reading them.
• People use approximations when giving information.
• Not all information about an event may be given.
• Early revelation is not overturned by later revelation though it may be clarified and/ or expanded upon.
• Only the original text is necessarily inerrant.
• Copists made errors. Extant manuscripts may contain error.
• Translation can introduce error. The original language is inerrant, other languages are inerrant in as much as they faithfully reproduce the original.
• The text may contain more than one meaning.
• A strict chronology may not be followed.
• The Bible may be (deliberately) vague in places.
• Prophecy is often difficult to understand, especially before the fact.

Here are some examples that an infallibilist may falsely challenge an inerrantist.

• The earth does not stand on pillars. (Job 9:6)
• Godly parents have rebellious children. (Proverbs 22:6)
• Some Bibles include the comma Johanneum. (1 John 5:7-8)

So where would an inerrantist and infallibilist possibly disagree?

• The numbers of returning exiles listed in Ezra and Nehemiah do not line up.
• Was the number of demoniacs 1 or 2?
• Jonah was not really swallowed by a sea creature.
• The chronology of the Israelite/ Judean kings is incorrect.
• Noah did not really live to 950.
• Paul did not write the pastoral epistles.

An infalliblist may claim that there is error in the Bible as evidenced by this list, but because they are not claims of faith we can still learn from the principles in the stories. The inerrantist would argue that the straightforward reading of the Bible claims are indeed true or that the apparent contradictions are resolvable. He would further argue that the lessons taught are dependant on the reality of the situation: God acting in real history.