Historicist intepretation of Revelation

Montie_Claunch · Apr 17, 2007

I heard two people talking at school not all that long ago in passing and I heard something about a historicist intepretation of Revelation. I was on my way to class so I couldn’t stop and listen. Does anyone about this Historicistism? Thanks and God bless.

Contarini · Apr 17, 2007

This means that Revelation is an allegorical account of human history–particularly church history. The various plagues and judgments may be interpreted to be the rise of Islam, the French Revolution, Communism, etc.

There are Catholic forms of this, but the form I’m most familiar with is the old-fashioned Protestant view that the Papacy as an institution is Antichrist. This is used to interpret Revelation–for instance, Rev. 17 says that the beast on which the “Whore of Babylon” sits is going to turn on her. This was interpreted in the 19th century (and still is by a few) to refer to the rejection of Catholicism by modern secular nations starting with the French Revolution. And so on.

Most Protestants no longer hold this view. The majority of evangelicals, at least in the U.S., switched over to dispensationalism around 100 years ago. This can still be very anti-Catholic, but it puts the Antichrist in the future rather than seeing it as a historical institution. Many evangelical intellectuals, and many other Protestants today, prefer preterism–the view that the book of Revelation refers primarily to events of the first century. One may also be a futurist (as the dispensationalists generally are) without being a dispensationalist, and many more liberal Protestants would simply see Revelation as a bunch of poetic imagery making a vague point about the battle between good and evil. Historicism is only held by a small minority of conservative, non-dispensationalist Protestants.

In Christ,

Edwin

spauline · Apr 18, 2007

But there is a form of spiritual historicism that can be held by a Catholic, in the sense that Revelation describes, on one layer of meaning, the spiritual process of the Redemption of humanity, especially the age of the Church. It could include, for example, deep theology as regards ecclesiology, and the rifts therein that have bearing on the Redemption of humanity by Christ through the Catholic Church. I am an absolute nut about this and have extensive exploration of this layer of meaning on my website. I would be happy to share any of that with you if you are interested.

Montie_Claunch · Apr 18, 2007

I am very interested and would love to hear more.

spauline · Apr 19, 2007

well, I must apologize, I haven’t completely organized my material on the subject fully, so I’m not sure how much sense it’ll make. I suppose I could summarize the main points by saying that I believe there is a correlation between the common pattern or structure of the individual saint’s life and the life of the People of God, both the Jews and the Church.

More specifically, the Church discerns in her spirituality a three stage way of the saint:

The Purgative
The Illuminative
The Unitive

Here’s the article on the newadvent Catholic Encyl. website:

newadvent.org/cathen/14254a.htm

On this basis, I argue the Church must follow a similar walk, and one that seems also what the Jews went through as well.

Hence, after initial covenant, the Jews undergo “purgation”, that is, Egyptian Enslavement, from which they are delivered through Moses. Then ensues the age of the prophets, who “illuminate” the Jews understanding of the Law by developing it and applying it. but the prophets are challenged, culminating with the “dark night of the soul”, where, right before the Babylonian Exile, the prophets are scoffed at and regarded as dead. But the Exile vindicates the prophets’ witness, and the Jews are restored to their homeland for period of “unitive” relatioship with God.
Finally, the Jews endure “martyrdom” at the end of the unitive phase under the OT antichrist Antiochus, which was the last great historical event in the OT prior to Christ’s First Coming.

So, then I see a parallel in the Church: following initial Covenant, the Church goes through the purgation of pagan persecution (pagan Rome), and like the Jews, they are delivered into freedom, Catholic Christendom. During which commences the Magisteriums’ “illumination” on the Deposit of Faith through doctrinal development. And just as the Jews gradually resisted the illumination of the prophets, so the world progressivly has resisted the Church’s Illumination, culminating with a dark night of the soul, the minor apostasy. But presumably, the mystics predict a Church age minor chastisement similar to Babylon, which will vindicate the Church’s witness, restoring the Catholic faith throughout most of the world, for the unitive phase. Which ends with the associated NT martyrdom, the NT Antichrist and Second Coming of Christ.

but the point is, the book of Rev has a similar 3 stage structure, the Seven Seals, the Seven Trumpets, and the Seven Bowls, which I would then correlate with the three stages above: the purgative, the illuminative, and the unitive.

but of especial interest is the Trumpets that image the “illuminative phase”, so that the 144,000 who are “sealed in the forehead” are an image of the faithful Catholics who are spiritually protected from being “harmed” in their “intellect”, so that the Trumpets are a symbol not of physical woes but spiritual attacks on the Church’s illumination.

Anyway, given this basic introduction, you then might consider reading the following:

On the OT Typology Comparison of the Old and New Covs

On the Two Witnesses: Scripture and Tradition

On the Illumination Phase of the Trumpets and Ecclesiology

Oh, I almost forgot, there’s also an introductory essay on there that argues why spiritual historicism is most likely the most meaningful layer of the apoc as opposed to typical extremes of futurism and preterism:

Why both Futurists and Preterists miss the point

Anyway, sorry to flood you with so much, Montie, but I kind of needed to give the backdrop that isn’t on my site. Let me know if you need any further help or whatever.

Blessings!
scott

Vaclav · Apr 19, 2007

I would have had this completely wrong!

What is the name given for the belief that Revelations (The Apocalypse of John) is an example of Apocalyptic literature of the time and is basically a description of Second Century Eastern Mediterranean political and historical issues?

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

Well, no, you wouldn’t be wrong necessarily, as Scripture can have many layers of meaning and approach at the same time. I believe the view that you describe above is something like preterism, or at least “resistance literature” or “coded-comfort”. And it can be entirely legitimate in its own right as ONE layer of meaning. But again, there’s the issue that not all layers are the most useful, much less of which really lead to any significant depth in answering the more pertinent apocalyptic questions.

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

Well, no, you wouldn’t be wrong necessarily, as Scripture can have many layers of meaning and approach at the same time. I believe the view that you describe above is something like preterism, or at least “resistance literature” or “coded-comfort”. And it can be entirely legitimate in its own right as ONE layer of meaning. But again, there’s the issue that not all layers are the most useful, much less of which really lead to any significant depth in answering the more pertinent apocalyptic questions.

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

Well, no, you wouldn’t be wrong necessarily, as Scripture can have many layers of meaning and approach at the same time. I believe the view that you describe above is something like preterism, or at least “resistance literature” or “coded-comfort”. And it can be entirely legitimate in its own right as ONE layer of meaning. But again, there’s the issue that not all layers are the most useful, much less of which really lead to any significant depth in answering the more pertinent apocalyptic questions.

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

Well, no, you wouldn’t be wrong necessarily, as Scripture can have many layers of meaning and approach at the same time. I believe the view that you describe above is something like preterism, or at least “resistance literature” or “coded-comfort”. And it can be entirely legitimate in its own right as ONE layer of meaning. But again, there’s the issue that not all layers are the most useful, much less of which really lead to any significant depth in answering the more pertinent apocalyptic questions.

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

Well, no, you wouldn’t be wrong necessarily, as Scripture can have many layers of meaning and approach at the same time. I believe the view that you describe above is something like preterism, or at least “resistance literature” or “coded-comfort”. And it can be entirely legitimate in its own right as ONE layer of meaning. But again, there’s the issue that not all layers are the most useful, much less of which really lead to any significant depth in answering the more pertinent apocalyptic questions.

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

Well, no, you wouldn’t be wrong necessarily, as Scripture can have many layers of meaning and approach at the same time. I believe the view that you describe above is something like preterism, or at least “resistance literature” or “coded-comfort”. And it can be entirely legitimate in its own right as ONE layer of meaning. But again, there’s the issue that not all layers are the most useful, much less of which really lead to any significant depth in answering the more pertinent apocalyptic questions.

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

Well, no, you wouldn’t be wrong necessarily, as Scripture can have many layers of meaning and approach at the same time. I believe the view that you describe above is something like preterism, or at least “resistance literature” or “coded-comfort”. And it can be entirely legitimate in its own right as ONE layer of meaning. But again, there’s the issue that not all layers are the most useful, much less of which really lead to any significant depth in answering the more pertinent apocalyptic questions.

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

Well, no, you wouldn’t be wrong necessarily, as Scripture can have many layers of meaning and approach at the same time. I believe the view that you describe above is something like preterism, or at least “resistance literature” or “coded-comfort”. And it can be entirely legitimate in its own right as ONE layer of meaning. But again, there’s the issue that not all layers are the most useful, much less of which really lead to any significant depth in answering the more pertinent apocalyptic questions.

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

sorry, above was a duplicate. I was having trouble posting.

Vaclav · Apr 20, 2007

No problem, and thank you spauline.

I did not necessarily mean that I believe such an interpretation, but I should say that as a former Protestant I’ve heard Revelations used to a great extent to condemn the Church. I am a bit “gun shy” of the Apocalypse of John to be honest, though I am very open to Church-approved views on it.

As a history buff (who slopped his way into a B.A. degree, much to the chagrin of the history department head

back in my uni days) I do find the above interpretation fascinating.

Contarini · Apr 20, 2007

Preterism–at least that’s what I’d call it. It’s certainly the view held by most academics.

Edwin

Vaclav · Apr 20, 2007

Is there anything wrong with holding this view?

spauline · Apr 20, 2007

It’s not wrong in and of itself, but it can never, by itself, fully address the real apocalyptic questions.

Historicist intepretation of Revelation

Montie_Claunch

Guest

Contarini

Guest

spauline

Guest

Montie_Claunch

Guest

spauline

Guest

Vaclav

Guest

spauline

Guest

spauline

Guest

spauline

Guest

spauline

Guest

spauline

Guest

spauline

Guest

spauline

Guest

spauline

Guest

spauline

Guest

Vaclav

Guest

Contarini

Guest

Vaclav

Guest

spauline

Guest