Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
In a recent thread I was presented with an unusual (actually anomalous) view of the Book of Revelation, which, as the title of this thread indicates, holds forth that Revelation is “a book which presents in a highly poetic and symbolic form the general principles that mark the Church's history in the world” but without any reference to events in time (Lectures on the Apocalypse, by Dr. William Milligan, pp 176). In other words, this portion of Scripture is reduced to the status of a mere poetic drama of symbols, albeit highly inspirational, so as to give comfort to the suffering, struggling church.
The modern proponent of this view is our own Rev. Matthew Winzer. In the most recent of three previous threads (2010, 2011, and 2012) where he and I have discussed this, Rev. Winzer has seemed to intimate a lack of godliness (or at least a sound view of Christ and His work) is involved in any other than the “absolute idealism” he holds, this despite Dr. Milligan’s askance view of Dispensationalism when “it regards as impiety every interpretation but its own” (Ibid., p 1). When “greater spirituality” arguments are used to justify unusual hermeneutical stances and their exegetical outcomes, this would seem to be a tactic to make them more difficult to challenge. As in, if you disagree with this, you have not attained to wisdom. I certainly would not attribute to you, Matthew, any ill motives, for I am assured of your godly character; yet, good intentions are no reason for me to accept invalid methodology. I know that cuts both ways, but I want to serve notice that I will be objecting strongly to “greater spirituality” arguments if a discussion with you ensues. Such assume an exegetical and doctrinal accuracy yet to be proven.
In the last discussion we had I was taken aback at the sheer strangeness of your type of idealism, and also at the tenor of your critique of my view. Since then I have had time to think, and to pray, and to study, and so I am returning to the fray refreshed.
On the one hand, you are a godly brother, Matthew, and of great use to the kingdom of Christ, as well far more theologically learned than I; on the other, this issue of the right exposition of the Revelation Jesus Christ gave to John is vitally important to the church in the days we are in, and neither friendship nor esteem ought intrude upon the unfettered shedding forth of God’s light by His word in the encroaching darkness of our times. I may not be theologically learned as you, yet I have the Spirit of God, and His word, and do not defer to what I perceive as clear error.
When giving an exposition of the thousand years in Revelation 20, Dr. Milligan says,
At that time – it was 1892 – the interpretations he mentioned as not finding “general acceptance” were the pre- and postmillennial. Now, some 120 years later, there is an interpretation that is finding general acceptance in a sector of the Reformed community: the amillennial school that takes upon itself the idealist name – albeit modified idealist – does hold to this modified view with general consensus, while denying the validity of Milligan’s “absolute idealism”. Here is a listing of the most well-known amillennial writers who hold this “modified” view (though there are many others):
G.K. Beale, New International Greek Testament Commentary: Revelation, and, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: 1-2 Thessalonians
Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb
Cornelius Venema, The Promise of the Future
William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors
Michael Wilcock, The Message of Revelation
Kim Riddlebarger, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist, and, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End times
David J. Engelsma, Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism (A shortened online version)
Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation To John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse
Vern Poythress, The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation
R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation
Samuel E. Waldron, The End Times Made Simple
Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Revelation
Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future
Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Revelation
Arturo Azurdia, An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (81 MP3 sermons)
William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today
Leon Morris, The Book of Revelation (Revised Edition)
I do not mean to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum – for a majority do not make a thing right – only to show the direction the amil scholarship of these times has taken. It is this scholarship, particularly studies in the Old Testament and its use in the New, most notably in the Book of Revelation, that has afforded new insight into the structure and meaning of this book. One of the leaders in this field of study is Dr. G.K. Beale (now at WTS East). Here is a review by Vern Poythress of Dr. Beale’s, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation, for those interested in the Daniel-Revelation connection.
I would like to mention at this point – an issue we will likely discuss more fully later – your assumption that your and Milligan’s “absolute idealism” is the only valid idealist stance, and that those who vary from its strict adherence to absolute trans-temporality are allegedly not “consistent idealists”. I must say that an “absolute idealism” is but a theoretical construct applied as a literary analysis, and may or may not reflect an appropriate hermeneutical approach to the genres comprising Revelation. In other words, it is just an idea applied as a literary-theological analytic tool of discernment. It is not a sacrosanct thing, such as the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ, but rather an unproven hermeneutic, and in the scholarship of these days, an unpopular one. Even so, you carry on as though it were indeed both proven and sacrosanct, and assert that those who do not adhere to it fail to attain to true wisdom. You really have come across like this!
In the previous thread discussing this matter (which is still active – and which I have linked to this thread), I referenced a number of contemporary amil scholars and you dismissed them all as mere inconsistent idealists who were self-contradictory and not true idealists at all. But that’s just throwing labels around and not interacting with other takes on an idealism seeking to do justice to the Biblical data of Revelation.
Cornelius Venema, author of The Promise of the Future (which work has replaced Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future as the standard seminary textbook on eschatology), has written on the newer idealism:
In our earlier discussion, Matthew, you said (here) that factors in Revelation itself gave a “very clear mandate provided in the book for its interpretation” – that is, the one you espouse. You continued by saying,
Now that sounds very spiritual, but is what you say in fact the intent of what John and the Lord meant for us understand and take from the book? Simply (that is, solely) “to raise our affections to Christ as the Lord of history”? Or may we look for additional purposes the Lord had in mind for us to apprehend in this prophetic work? That the visions, symbols, and the very language used refer us back to the book of Daniel – especially chapters 2 and 7 – as a source, and perhaps an interpretive foundation, brings other elements into play in seeking to understand. This is a growing consensus among amillennial scholars.
Speaking of Daniel, I noted something you said earlier,
Your mentor in idealism, Dr. Milligan, does not hold the same view with respect to Daniel:
In seeking to apply your brand of idealism to Daniel, you go against not only the general scholarship of the Reformed community, but also against the one person who holds to the sort of Absolute idealism as yourself.
Getting back to Revelation, the modified idealist view agrees that the visions within it, for the most part, recapitulate, that is, they deal with the same themes in parallel appearances, and they are not to be taken as though they were in chronological succession. They also hold that these recapitulated themes display indications of increasing intensity as the end draws near. They cover the same thematic material, but there is progression.
You call your view “consistent idealism”, and I would venture to say that it is indeed consistent – with only your own view, i.e., internally so. But that does not warrant that your brand of idealism accurately reflects idealism as it is in Revelation. The “consistency” of your type of idealism constricts it as though it were in a cage of abstract ideation. It is better to call what you hold to as “absolute idealism”, a position that denies a number of other valid approaches to understanding what Revelation is about.
The modern proponent of this view is our own Rev. Matthew Winzer. In the most recent of three previous threads (2010, 2011, and 2012) where he and I have discussed this, Rev. Winzer has seemed to intimate a lack of godliness (or at least a sound view of Christ and His work) is involved in any other than the “absolute idealism” he holds, this despite Dr. Milligan’s askance view of Dispensationalism when “it regards as impiety every interpretation but its own” (Ibid., p 1). When “greater spirituality” arguments are used to justify unusual hermeneutical stances and their exegetical outcomes, this would seem to be a tactic to make them more difficult to challenge. As in, if you disagree with this, you have not attained to wisdom. I certainly would not attribute to you, Matthew, any ill motives, for I am assured of your godly character; yet, good intentions are no reason for me to accept invalid methodology. I know that cuts both ways, but I want to serve notice that I will be objecting strongly to “greater spirituality” arguments if a discussion with you ensues. Such assume an exegetical and doctrinal accuracy yet to be proven.
In the last discussion we had I was taken aback at the sheer strangeness of your type of idealism, and also at the tenor of your critique of my view. Since then I have had time to think, and to pray, and to study, and so I am returning to the fray refreshed.
On the one hand, you are a godly brother, Matthew, and of great use to the kingdom of Christ, as well far more theologically learned than I; on the other, this issue of the right exposition of the Revelation Jesus Christ gave to John is vitally important to the church in the days we are in, and neither friendship nor esteem ought intrude upon the unfettered shedding forth of God’s light by His word in the encroaching darkness of our times. I may not be theologically learned as you, yet I have the Spirit of God, and His word, and do not defer to what I perceive as clear error.
When giving an exposition of the thousand years in Revelation 20, Dr. Milligan says,
“It is impossible to defend at length the interpretation of this difficult passage here proposed. One or two very brief remarks may be permitted. The writer would ask his readers to bear in mind in considering it, (1) that no interpretation hitherto proposed has succeeded in commending itself to anything like general acceptance” (Ibid., p 223).
At that time – it was 1892 – the interpretations he mentioned as not finding “general acceptance” were the pre- and postmillennial. Now, some 120 years later, there is an interpretation that is finding general acceptance in a sector of the Reformed community: the amillennial school that takes upon itself the idealist name – albeit modified idealist – does hold to this modified view with general consensus, while denying the validity of Milligan’s “absolute idealism”. Here is a listing of the most well-known amillennial writers who hold this “modified” view (though there are many others):
G.K. Beale, New International Greek Testament Commentary: Revelation, and, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: 1-2 Thessalonians
Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb
Cornelius Venema, The Promise of the Future
William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors
Michael Wilcock, The Message of Revelation
Kim Riddlebarger, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth About the Antichrist, and, A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End times
David J. Engelsma, Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism (A shortened online version)
Stephen S. Smalley, The Revelation To John: A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse
Vern Poythress, The Returning King: A Guide to the Book of Revelation
R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Revelation
Samuel E. Waldron, The End Times Made Simple
Leon Morris, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries: Revelation
Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future
Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Revelation
Arturo Azurdia, An Exposition of the Book of Revelation (81 MP3 sermons)
William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today
Leon Morris, The Book of Revelation (Revised Edition)
I do not mean to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad populum – for a majority do not make a thing right – only to show the direction the amil scholarship of these times has taken. It is this scholarship, particularly studies in the Old Testament and its use in the New, most notably in the Book of Revelation, that has afforded new insight into the structure and meaning of this book. One of the leaders in this field of study is Dr. G.K. Beale (now at WTS East). Here is a review by Vern Poythress of Dr. Beale’s, The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation, for those interested in the Daniel-Revelation connection.
I would like to mention at this point – an issue we will likely discuss more fully later – your assumption that your and Milligan’s “absolute idealism” is the only valid idealist stance, and that those who vary from its strict adherence to absolute trans-temporality are allegedly not “consistent idealists”. I must say that an “absolute idealism” is but a theoretical construct applied as a literary analysis, and may or may not reflect an appropriate hermeneutical approach to the genres comprising Revelation. In other words, it is just an idea applied as a literary-theological analytic tool of discernment. It is not a sacrosanct thing, such as the doctrine of the deity of Jesus Christ, but rather an unproven hermeneutic, and in the scholarship of these days, an unpopular one. Even so, you carry on as though it were indeed both proven and sacrosanct, and assert that those who do not adhere to it fail to attain to true wisdom. You really have come across like this!
In the previous thread discussing this matter (which is still active – and which I have linked to this thread), I referenced a number of contemporary amil scholars and you dismissed them all as mere inconsistent idealists who were self-contradictory and not true idealists at all. But that’s just throwing labels around and not interacting with other takes on an idealism seeking to do justice to the Biblical data of Revelation.
Cornelius Venema, author of The Promise of the Future (which work has replaced Hoekema’s The Bible and the Future as the standard seminary textbook on eschatology), has written on the newer idealism:
“As noted previously, a preterist reading of the book says that the events described in its language of vision and prophecy were events occurring or about to occur at the time the book was first written. These events are, from our vantage point, past events, things that have already occurred — hence the term. A futurist reading of the book says that the events described in its prophecy are events yet to occur in the future, primarily in the period just prior to Christ’s coming at the end of the age. An historicist reading of the book identifies the events in the visions of Revelation with historical developments throughout the history of the church. An idealist reading of the book says that the visions and prophecy of Revelation refer to events that typify the principles and forces at work in the entire period of history between Christ’s first and second comings. See G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, pp. 44-49. Following Beale, who argues for an eclecticism or ‘redemptive-historical form of modified idealism’, it is best to read the book of Revelation, not exclusively in terms of one of these approaches, but inclusively in terms of the insights of each. The book, though addressed originally to the circumstance of the church in the first century of the Christian era, certainly speaks of events that will occur prior to the return of Christ and as well of events that are typical of the entire period of history in which we now live.” (From the article, Revelation 20: Part II – The Millennium is Now)
In our earlier discussion, Matthew, you said (here) that factors in Revelation itself gave a “very clear mandate provided in the book for its interpretation” – that is, the one you espouse. You continued by saying,
“it is obvious that the two points from which and to which each vision is to be understood is the first and second coming of Christ. To suggest that there is any other event of significance is to raise principalities and powers to a temporal level with Christ and to defeat the overall thrust and message of the book.”
Now that sounds very spiritual, but is what you say in fact the intent of what John and the Lord meant for us understand and take from the book? Simply (that is, solely) “to raise our affections to Christ as the Lord of history”? Or may we look for additional purposes the Lord had in mind for us to apprehend in this prophetic work? That the visions, symbols, and the very language used refer us back to the book of Daniel – especially chapters 2 and 7 – as a source, and perhaps an interpretive foundation, brings other elements into play in seeking to understand. This is a growing consensus among amillennial scholars.
Speaking of Daniel, I noted something you said earlier,
“What is the problem with interpreting the different parts of the image as successive empires? First, exegetically, in both the dream and its interpretation the focus is upon the image as a single figure. The different parts of the image are regarded as standing and falling together. V. 35, "broken to pieces together." V. 44, "in the days of these kings." Secondly, historically, one must create facts in order to make Babylon the superior and Rome the inferior of these empires. Thirdly, theologically, it carnalises Christ's kingdom to teach that it comes to take the place of a political empire.
On the issue of fulfilment -- if one divides the visions according to their details then obviously Jesus cannot be the fulfilment of the visions. The visions of Daniel and Revelation, however, were never intended to be divided in this way. If they were understood in general terms -- as visions, like parables, are intended to be understood -- it would be obvious that Jesus is the only historically significant figure. That is the point of the visions.”
On the issue of fulfilment -- if one divides the visions according to their details then obviously Jesus cannot be the fulfilment of the visions. The visions of Daniel and Revelation, however, were never intended to be divided in this way. If they were understood in general terms -- as visions, like parables, are intended to be understood -- it would be obvious that Jesus is the only historically significant figure. That is the point of the visions.”
Your mentor in idealism, Dr. Milligan, does not hold the same view with respect to Daniel:
“Daniel (the Apocalyptist of the Old Testament) was, not less than Isaiah, a prophet in the first place for his own age. Take, for example, his visions of the Four World-Empires which were to usher in the establishment of the kingdom of God. These giant powers began in Daniel’s time. They were not only something new in world history; their rise involved of necessity a great change in the outward form of the Theocracy. With them in the field such a monarchy as David’s was impossible. Moreover, they had attractions of their own which might seduce men’s hearts from their true allegiance. They awed the imagination by their magnificence and pride; they gave to the nations peace, though at the expense of liberty. Under them even faithful souls might be tempted, on the one hand, to despair of the Theocracy; on the other hand, to ‘wander after’ them, and to worship their rulers as earthly deities. Daniel’s position as a high minister of state under the two first of those World-Empires—the Babylonian and the Persian—gave him an intimate knowledge of them. He was just the man, therefore, for his two-fold function, (1) to reveal the really brutal and earth-born character of these imposing powers (even the fairest of them—Alexander’s—he showed had the insatiableness, if it had also the beauty, of the panther); and (2) to promise that under them all Jerusalem should be preserved till the erection of an everlasting kingdom in the hands of a Son of man. It is indeed much more as unveiling the essential character of the world’s kingdoms and of Christ’s respectively than merely as seeming to fix beforehand the date of Christ’s appearing, that Daniel holds his high rank in the prophetic college. Commentators have estimated aright, or have undervalued, his importance precisely as they have disconnected him from, the position and the needs of Israel at the time when God raised him up.
In three respects the position of Daniel resembled that of St. John. Both stood at the beginning of long periods of anti-theocratic empire. Both had personal experience of persecution under these imperial foes of God’s kingdom. Both had revealed to them the inmost character (and out of that the fortunes) of the powers whose conflict they beheld.” (Lectures on the Apocalypse, by William Milligan, pp 19-20 fn 2)
In three respects the position of Daniel resembled that of St. John. Both stood at the beginning of long periods of anti-theocratic empire. Both had personal experience of persecution under these imperial foes of God’s kingdom. Both had revealed to them the inmost character (and out of that the fortunes) of the powers whose conflict they beheld.” (Lectures on the Apocalypse, by William Milligan, pp 19-20 fn 2)
In seeking to apply your brand of idealism to Daniel, you go against not only the general scholarship of the Reformed community, but also against the one person who holds to the sort of Absolute idealism as yourself.
Getting back to Revelation, the modified idealist view agrees that the visions within it, for the most part, recapitulate, that is, they deal with the same themes in parallel appearances, and they are not to be taken as though they were in chronological succession. They also hold that these recapitulated themes display indications of increasing intensity as the end draws near. They cover the same thematic material, but there is progression.
You call your view “consistent idealism”, and I would venture to say that it is indeed consistent – with only your own view, i.e., internally so. But that does not warrant that your brand of idealism accurately reflects idealism as it is in Revelation. The “consistency” of your type of idealism constricts it as though it were in a cage of abstract ideation. It is better to call what you hold to as “absolute idealism”, a position that denies a number of other valid approaches to understanding what Revelation is about.
Last edited: