Which is the Oldest Approach to Interpreting Revelation? Part 1
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.