There have been three
great schools of Apocalyptic interpretation :- 1. The Pręterists, who regard
the book as having been mainly fulfilled. 2. The Futurists, who refer it to
events which are still wholly future. 3. The Continuous-Historical
Interpreters, who see in it an outline of Christian history from the days of
St. John down to the End of all things. The second of these schools -- the
Futurists -- has always been numerically small, and at present may be said to
be non-existent.
The school of
Historical Interpreters was founded by the Abbot Joachim early in the 13th
century, and was specially flourishing in the first fifty years of the present
century. [There are two school of the interpreters who make the Apocalypse a
prophecy of all Christian history. The school of
Bengel, Vitringo,
Elliott, &c., make
it mainly a history of the Church. Another school regards it more
generally, and less specifically, as an outline of Epochs of the History of
the world and the great forces which shape it into a Kingdom of God. To
this latter school belong
Hengstenberg,
Ebrard,
Auberlen, &c.]
The views of the
Pręterists have been adopted, with various shades of modification, by
Grotius,
Hammond, Le Clerc,
Bousset, Eichorn, Hug, Wetstein, Ewald, Herder, Zullig, Bleek, DeWette, Lucke,
Moses Stuart,
Davidson, Volkmar, Krenkel, Dusterdieck,
Renan, and almost
the whole school of modern German critics and interpreters. It has been usual
to say that the Spanish Jesuit Alcasar, in his Vestigatio arcani sensus in
Apocalpysi (1614), was the founder of the Pręterist School, and it
certainly seems as if to him must be assigned the credit of having first
clearly enunciated the natural view that the Apocalypse, like all other known
Apocalypses of the time, describes events nearly contemporaneous, and is meant
to shadow forth the triumph of the Church in the struggle first with Judaism
and then with Heathendom. But to me it seems that the founder of the
Pręterist School is none other than
St. John himself.
For he records the Christ as saying to him when he was in the Spirit, "Write
the things which thou sawest, and THE THINGS WHICH ARE, and the things which
are about to happen after these things." No language surely could more
clearly define the bearing of the Apocalypse. It is meant to describe the
contemporary state of things in the Church and the world, and the events which
were to follow in immediate sequence. If the Historical School can strain the
latter words into an indication that we are (contrary to all analogy) to have
a symbolic and unintelligible sketch of many centuries, the Pręterist School
may at any rate apply these words, "THE THINGS WHICH ARE," to vindicate the
application of a large part of the Apocalypse to events nearly contemporary,
while they also give the natural meaning to the subsequent clause by
understanding it of events which were then on the horizon. The Seer
emphatically says that the future events which he has to foreshadow will occur
speedily [Compare Tachu (Rev. 22. 5,16 ; iii.11; xi.14 ; xxii.20). It is
curious to see with what extraordinary ease commentators explain the perfect
simple and ambiguous expression "speedily" to mean any length of time which
they may choose to demand. The word "immediately," in Matt. xxiv.29,
has been subject to similar handling, in which indeed all Scripture exegesis
abounds. The failure to see that
the Fall of Jerusalem
and the end of the Mosaic Dispensation was a "Second Advent" -- and THE
Second Advent contemplated in many of the New Testament prophecies -- has
led to a multitude of errors..] and the recurrent burden of his whole book is
the nearness of the Advent. Language is simply meaningless if it is to be so
manipulated by every successive commentator as to make the words "speedily"
and "near" to imply any number of centuries of delay. The Pręterist method
of interpretation does not, however, interfere with that view of prophecy
which was so well defined by Dr. Arnold. This is the view of those who have
been called the "spiritual" interpreters. It admits of the analogical
application of prophecy to conditions which, in the cycles of history, bear a
close resemblance to each other. It applies to all times the principles
originally laid down with reference to events which were being then enacted,
and starts with the axiom of Bacon, that divine prophecies have steps and
grades of fulfillment through divers ages. [De Augment. Scient.
ii.11.] All that is really valuable in the works of the Historical
Interpreters may thus be retained. No importance can be attached to their
limitation of particular symbols, but the better part of their labours may be
accepted as an illustration of the manner in which the Apocalyptic symbols
convey moral lessons which are applicable to the conditions of later times.
But, apart from St.
John's own words, it cannot be conceded that the central conception of the
Pręterist exegesis is a mere novelty of the 17th century. On the contrary, we
can trace from very early days the application of various visions to the early
emperors of Pagan Rome. Thus
Justin Martyr
believed that the Antichrist would be a person who was close at hand, who
would reign three and a half years. [Dial. c. Tryph. p. 250] Irenaeus
also thought that Antichrist, as foreshadowed by the
Wild Beast, would
be a man ; and that "the
number of the Beast" represented
Lateinos, "a Latin," [Iren. Haer. v. 25]
Hippolytus compares
the action of the False Prophet giving life to the Beast's image, to Augustus
inspiring fresh force into the Roman Empire. [De Antichristo, p.6]
Later on, I shall furnish abundant evidence that a tradition of the ancient
Church identified
Nero with the
Antichrist, and expected his literal return, just as the Jews expected the
literal return of the Prophet Elijah.
St. Victorinus
(about A.D.303) counts the five dead emperors from Galba, and supposes that,
after Nerva, the Beast (whom he identifies with Nero) will be recalled to
life. ["Bestia de septem est quoniam ante ipsos reges Nero regnavit."] St.
Augustine mentions a similar opinion. [De Civ. Dei, xx.19] The Pseudo-Prochorus,
writing on Rev. xvii. 10, says that the "one which is" is meant for
Domition.
Bishop Andreas, in
the fifth century, applies Rev. vi.12 to the siege of Jerusalem, and considers
that Antichrist will be "as a king of the Romans."
Bishop Arethas, on
Rev. vii., implies that the Apocalypse was written before the Jewish War. The
fragments of ancient comment which we possess cannot be said to have much
intrinsic value ; but such as they are they suffice to prove that the tendency
of modern exegesis approaches quite as nearly to the earliest traditions as
that of the Historical School. It is a specially important fact that
St. Augustine, as
well as many others, recognized the partially retrogressive and iterative
character of the later visions, and thereby sanctioned one of the most
important principles of modern interpretation. [Id. ib. 17.]
The internal
evidence that the book was written before the Fall of Jerusalem has satisfied
not only many Christian commentators, who are invidiously stigmatised as
"rationalistic," but even such writers as Wetstein, Lucke,
Neander, Stier,
Auberlen, Ewald, Bleek, Gebhardt, Immer, Davidson, Dusterdieck,
Moses Stuart, F.D.
Maurice, the
author of "The Parousia,"
Dean Plumptree, the authors of the Protestanten-Bibel and multitudes of
others no less entitled to the respect of all Christians.
If, however, the reads
still looks with prejudice and suspicion on the only school of
Apocalyptic exegesis with unites the suffrages of the most learned recent
commentators in Germany, France, and England, I hardly know where he is to
turn. The reason why the early date and mainly contemporary explanation of
the book is daily winning fresh adherents among unbiased thinkers of every
Church and school, is partly because it rests on so simple and secure a basis,
and partly because no other can compete with it. It is indeed the only system
which is built on the plain and repeated statements and indications of the
Seer himself, and the corresponding events are so closely accordant with the
symbols as to make it certain that this scheme of interpretation is the only
one that can survive. A few specimens may suffice to show how completely
other systems float in the air.
Let us suppose that the
student has found out that in viii.13 the true reading is "a single eagle,"
not an angel ; but, whether eagle or angel, he wants to know what the symbol
means. He turns to the commentators, and finds that it is explained to be the
Holy Spirit j(Victorinus); or Pope Gregory the Great (Elliott); or St. John
himself (DeLyra); or St. Paul (Zeger); or Christ himself (Wordsworth). The
Pręterists mostly take it to be simply an eagle, as the Scriptural type of
carnage--the figure being suggested not by the resemblance of the word "woe!"
("ouai") to the eagle's screams, but by the use of the same symbol for
the same purpose by our Lord in His discourse about the things to come. [Matt.
xxiv.28.]
But this is nothing! The
student wishes to learn what is meant by the star fallen from heaven, in
ix.1. The Historical school will leave him to choose between an evil spirit
(Alford); a Christian heretic (Wordsworth); the Emperor Valens (DeLyra);
Mohammed (Elliott); and, among others, Napoleon (Hengstenberg)!
The confusion deepens as
we advance. The locusts are "heretics" (Bede); or Goths (Vitringa); or
Vandals (Aureolus); or Saracens (Mede); or the mendicant orders (Brightman);
or the Jesuits (Scherzer); or Protestants (Bellarmine).
The same endless and
aimless diversity reigns throughout the entire works of the Historical
interpreters ; none of them seems to satisfy any one but himself. The
elaborate anti-papal interpretation of Elliott--of which (to show that I am
far from prejudiced) I may mention, in passing, that I made a careful study
and a full abstract when I was seventeen years old-- is all but forgotten.
Mr. Faber admits that there is not the least agreement as to the first four
trumpets among writers of his school, and he rightly says that "so curious a
circumstance may well be deemed the opprobrium of Apocalyptic interpretation,
and may naturally lead us to suspect that the true key to the distinct
application of the first four trumpets has never yet been found."
Not that this school
leave us any better off when we come to the seven thunders. They are seven
unknown oracles (Mede); or events (Ebrard); or the seven crusades (Vitringa);
or the seven Protestant kingdoms (Dunbar); or the Papal Bull against Luther
(Elliott.
The two wings of the
great eagle in xii.14 are the two Testaments (Wordsworth); or the eastern and
western divisions of the empire (Mede, Auberlen); or the Emperor Theodosius
(Elliott).
The Number of the
Beast -- which may be now regarded as certainly intended to stand for
Nero -- has been made to server for Genseric, Benedict, Trajan, Paul V.,
Calvin, Luther, Mohammed, Napoleon -- not to
mention a host of other interpretations which no one has ever accepted except
their authors. [The majority of guesses which have the least seriousness in
them point to Rome, the Roman Empire, or the Roman Emperor.]
It is needless to
multiply further instances. They might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but
their multiplicity is not so decisive of the futility of the principles
on which they are selected, as is the diversity of results which are
wider than the poles asunder. What are we to say of methods which leave us to
choose between the applicability of a symbol to the Holy Spirit or to Pope
Gregory, to the Two Testaments or to the Emperor Theodosius? Anyone, on the
other hand, who accepts the Pręterist system finds a wide and increasing
consensus among competent enquirers of all nations, and can see an explanation
of the book which is simple, natural, and noble -- one which closely follows
its own indications, and accords with those to be found throughout the New
Testament. He sees that events, mainly contemporary, provide an
interpretation clear in its outlines, though necessarily uncertain in minor
details.
It he takes the view of
the Spiritualists, he may at his pleasure make the symbols mean anything in
general and nothing in particular.
If he is of the
Historical School he must let the currents of Gieseler or Gibbon sweep him
hither and thither at the will of the particular commentator in whom he for
the time may chance to confide.
But if he follows the
guidance of a more reasonable exegesis, he may advance with a sure step along
a path which becomes clearer with every fresh discovery.