The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Interpreting Revelation

I read Cornelis Venema short article in Tabletalk on the 5 approaches in interpreting Revelation. (Futurists, Preterist, Historicist, Idealist, & Eclectic).

I still cannot get a firm grasp between a historicist and an idealist. Will some flesh them out and the differences between the two? I think I would probably be one of the two, but maybe not.

Here is a link to the article that I believe you were referring to: Interpreting Revelation by Cornelis Venema

John,

Historicist: Venema didn't supply a label, but those who hold to this position are generally advocates of a subset of Postmillennialism. Francis Nigel Lee is one of the better known adherents.

Idealist: Again, no label is supplied, but in a general sense I think one could find Amillennialists in that group to one degree or another, although an Amillennialist, such as myself, would say that there would be a definite person, event, thing that the prophecies foretell at the end, aka: the 'already but not yet' principle; various fulfillments take place as types which all point to the one true fulfillment.

You might do well to read Venema's book, The Promise of the Future where he goes into depth analyzing each of the various 'systems' and then presents his view, which is Amillenialism.

I got the impression that this article is part of a series. IF that is true, then the next installment(s) should clarify in more detail these things.

The next article in Tabletalk is 'Understanding John's Prophecy'. It is written by Keith Mathieson (Matheison) and he takes the view that John wrote it between 64-70 AD instead of 95-96 AD. Doesn't that change how to understand the book dramatically. I haven't read that far into it, but he probably takes the preterist position (I mean partial preterist). Isn't the preterist position a relative new one as compared to the others?

Yes, I think Keith Mathieson is a (partial) Preterist Postmillenialist. And yes, dating the book of Revelation early does have significant implications on its interpretation. The historic date is c. 90 AD, which I still hold to. I find the evidence for the early date unconvincing.

I have Mathieson's book and you are correct he is a partial preterist postie (alliteration it is wonderful )

One can be a partial preterist but still be Amillenial too, just say'n.

Absolutely! And actually, a true Amillennialist must be a 'partial Preterist', although not necessarily to the same degree as a true partial Preterist because of one of the foundational understandings of prophecy being the "already but not yet" principle.

True but there is no alliteration if you are.