Historicism

Historicism as World View

Typically, Adventists understand historicism as one of the approaches to the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy. Other approaches are, for instance, preterism, futurism, and idealism.

However, the term “historicism” is much broader and is used in different ways, in the field of theology as well as in other areas of research. Thiselton states: “Historicism is usually defined as the view that any event, person, culture, or situation is capable of explanation and understanding solely in terms of historical cause and effect.”¹ Another definition expands Thiselton’s statement:

Historicism is the idea of attributing meaningful significance to space and time, such as historical period, geographical place, and local culture. Historicism tends to be hermeneutical because it values cautious, rigorous, and contextualized interpretation of information; or relativist, because it rejects notions of universal, fundamental and immutable interpretations. Over time it [historicism] has developed different and somewhat divergent meanings.²

The hermeneutical aspect of historicism is presented in the historical-critical method and, in the meantime, in other hermeneutical methodologies. In her book Historicism: The Once and Future Challenge for Theology Sheila Greeve Davaney writes:

History has long been a concern of Western thinkers. . . However, it was only in the later modern period, from the late eighteenth century onward, that thinking about history was itself historicized; only in this era did historicism develop as a worldview, the critical historical method take determinative shape, and epistemological questions concerning the historical character of human thought itself come to the fore.
Historicism is a perspective or set of convictions that provides categories and ways of thinking about human existence. But it is also a movement that came into being at a particular time in human history, in response to a specific set of problems and circumstances.³

Therefore, religion was redefined and reason elevated “to be humanity’s only authority.”⁴

It was envisioned as the means to progress, peace, tolerance, and human freedom. Reason was to be autonomous, serving no master but reason alone, pursuing no goals but those dictated by rationality itself Reason was taken to be ahistorical or transhistorical, yielding universal, absolute, and timeless truths.⁵

In the twentieth century, contemporary historicism has developed.⁶ Davaney promotes what she calls “pragmatic historicism.” She describes it as follows:

It leads, as did earlier historicisms, to a view of religion without absolutes and of theology without certitude. It urges a resistance both to the desire to escape history and the lure of confessionalism and parochialism that inscribe new forms of historicized absolutism within religious traditions.”⁷

This approach to doing theology is opposed to timeless or absolute truth.⁸

The Historicist Interpretation of Apocalyptic Prophecy

Definitions

Apart from this broad sense of historicism as a worldview and—deriving from it—hermeneutical methods that exclude supernatural events and interventions in history and therefore also divine revelation and inspiration, treating basically all literature alike, there is a historicist approach to the interpretation of apocalyptic literature which differs substantially in its presuppositions and consequently in its results. Historicism as a worldview led to critical approaches to Scripture and consequently to a preterist interpretation of apocalyptic texts. On the other hand, the historicist approach to apocalyptic literature, which still some Christians and probably the majority of Adventists support, assumes that through His prophets God has spoken to humans in apocalyptic prophecy which therefore is inspired and is predictive in nature.

A Wikipedia definition of the historicist approach to the interpretation of the book of Revelation notes:

Historicism, a method of interpretation in Christian eschatology which associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events and identifies symbolic beings with historical persons or societies, has been applied to the Book of Revelation by many writers. The Historicist view follows a straight line of continuous fulfillment of prophecy which starts in Daniel's time and goes through John's writing of the Book of Revelation all the way to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.⁹

The “straight line of continuous fulfillment” may not exclude the existence of recapitulation but may emphasizes that historicists do not understand history to be cyclical without reaching a clear goal. Should, however, the phrase oppose recapitulation, we would not be able to identify with this definition.

Shea suggested: “The historicist method sees these prophecies [of Daniel and Revelation] as being fulfilled through the course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who wrote them.”¹⁰ Vetne’s definition states: “Historicism reads historical apocalyptic as prophecy intended by its ancient author to reveal information about real, in-history events in the time span between his day and the eschaton.”¹¹ The final report of the Daniel and Revelation Committee (DARCOM) contains a section on apocalyptic prophecy (Daniel/Revelation) stressing, for instance, its unconditional nature, a one-time fulfillment, the need to use the historicist method of interpretation, and the year day principle.¹²

It is unfortunate that the term “historicism” is used to describe hermeneutical approaches that are directly in opposition to each other. This requires Bible students to be very careful and not jump to quick conclusions without having checked out whether a critical or non-critical approach is being used. This may be especially difficult for church members to determine.

From now on in this paper, we will focus on the historicist approach to the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy in contradistinction to preterism and futurism. The terms “historicism” and “historicist” will only be used to indicate that a sequence of historical periods is intended in the respective literature.

Problems with Historicism

The historicist approach to apocalyptic prophecy has fallen in disrepute within scholarship and large circles of Christianity. While this has historical reasons, namely definite identifications of Christian movements as antichristian that are considered to be offensive, there are also other reasons for its rejection. In a scholarly article Christine Joy Tan critiqued idealism and historicism using the two witnesses of Revelation 11 as a test case. She states that the main group to support historicism consists of Seventh-day Adventists. In her opinion the historicist approach has “four major weaknesses: multiple interpretations, unnecessary allegorization, limited perspective, and erroneous results.”¹³ Elaborating on these four she points out that a multiplicity of historical identifications of characters in Revelation does not contribute to the credibility of historicism. To maintain the chain of events “far-fetched spiritualization” may be used. It may happen that no corresponding events can be found in history. The historical perspective may be too narrowly focused on the medieval ages and on Europe. False time calculations have done great harm and caused fanaticism.¹⁴

Whether her evaluation is correct in all points or not and whether it would—partially and at times equally—apply to preterism or futurism is not the point. Adventist scholars acknowledge that the historicist approach is not always used properly.¹⁵ Unfortunately, among Seventh-day Adventists one can find time setting for the second coming of Jesus Christ, arbitrary switching from symbolic to literal interpretations, multiple fulfillments of apocalyptic prophecy, different kinds of conspiracy theories, interpretations not derived from Scripture, identifications of historical events with the text of Revelation that do not match what the text and its context spell out, etc.

For instance, Connie O. has written a booklet on the seven thunders of Revelation 10 in which she comes to the conclusion: “We are promised Jesus will come before the winter of 2008 and not on Sabbath. At noon on or before September 24, 2008 we expect the words of God the Father to be true.”¹⁶

In a short document entitled “Look at What the Lord Has Recently Revealed to Me“ A. B. has defended time setting and—based on the Israelite festivals—came to the following conclusion:

Beside these examples of hard time setting there are numerous authors that favor a soft time setting.¹⁷ With regard to the sixth trumpet Toby J. holds: “In these verses possibly some military machines are described, and it seems that the wicked are destroying themselves.”¹⁸ Turning to the 1260 days that are mentioned in Revelation 11:3 and 12:6 Adam C. argues: “The multiple expressions for the same period of time alone shows that there could be a multiple meaning of it.”¹⁹ So h suggests that there are 1260 literal years but also 1260 days which correspond to three and a half literal years.

What can be observed in churches and among pastors is a superficial reading of the biblical texts, a lack of thorough exegesis and theological consideration, and a quick attempt to identify biblical symbols with current events. Driven by curiosity and discontent with our interpretation of Revelation, which does not seem to speak sufficiently to the turmoil in politics and economics and therefore seems to be irrelevant, constantly new, fancy, and irresponsible interpretations appear. They discredit historicism as does the attempt to combine historicism and futurism.²⁰

A Responsible Approach

“Any rebirth of historicist interpretation among scholars of faith, therefore, will need to avoid the minute details and ‘newspaper’ exegesis of previous interpretation, while taking seriously the plain meaning of the symbols in their original context,” writes Jon Paulien.²¹ It is not enough to claim a historicist approach based on that it has a long tradition in Christianity and was always used by Adventists. It must be shown from the text that such an approach is demanded by the biblical text.²²

Therefore, apocalyptic texts must be carefully exegeted and their theological embedment in the biblical book must be studied and shown. Exegesis and theology are not per se enemies of a historicist approach.²³ On the contrary, they allow us to do justice to the text and avoid historical associations of a prophecy under study that are arbitrary and are not supported by the data that the text furnishes.

A thorough exegesis of a passage includes, for instance, (1) determining the immediate context, the larger context, and the delimitation of a passage, (2) attempting to discover its structure, (3) studying the OT and NT backgrounds, (4) investigating the time frame and basic locations of the vision, (5) looking for major characters and major emphases, (6) observing syntactical, grammatical, and literary features, (7) determining what is symbolic and what not, and (8) dealing with the question of the literary genre. Is the passage under investigation apocalyptic prophecy that has to be understood historically or not?

The book of Daniel contains various genres of literature, including narrative, classical prophecy, and apocalyptic prophecy. The book of Revelation is similar to and yet different from Daniel, and its literary genres are perhaps more difficult to determine.²⁴ Although Revelation contains an epistolary frame, narrative units, prophecy, and apocalyptic, to track them with precision and clearly distinguish the genres can be quite difficult.²⁵ Still the task of the biblical scholar is to argue that the text demands a historicist approach and contains a sequence of historical events. Only after serious exegetical and theological study the interpreter may look at a possible historical event that fits the biblical text.

Again, it is not enough to assume that the historicist approach works. It is not enough that it was used by reformers and our pioneers. It is not even enough that in Adventist history texts were interpreted one way or the other. These interpretations are oftentimes correct and sometimes may be not. To discard them right away would be throwing out the baby with the bath water. To cling to them no matter what would merely be tradition. But in biblical interpretation, Adventists argue with the Word of God, not with tradition. Our interpretations must be true to the Word of God as best as that is possible with our human imperfections. Shortcuts are not permissible. Otherwise we will always have fanciful and irresponsible interpretations that discredit historicism.

In addition, a historicist approach has to be shown for each vision of Revelation separately, that is, on a one to one basis. If, for instance, the seven plagues affect only the last days of human history, a sequencing of the individual plagues from the time of the author to the final consummation is unwarranted. We would suggest that Revelation as a whole furnishes a development of salvation and the great controversy motives from the time of the author to the final consummation and that various visions in Revelation do the same, recapitulating that process.

Paulien has developed four criteria for identifying the genre of historical apocalyptic. “These are: 1) textual markers that indicate historical sequence, 2) consistent sequence of symbols and explanation, 3) a comprehensive sweep of events, and 4) parallels with clear examples of historical apocalyptic.”²⁶ I would suggest to add to the list the delimitation of a passage/vision suggested above. If a vision begins in the time of the prophet and reaches to the Parousia or beyond, it may be an additional indicator that it is historical apocalyptic. Having applied these principles to Revelation 12-14, Paulien comes to the conclusion that the central vision of Revelation is historical apocalyptic and needs to be interpreted with a historicist approach. The outcome would be as follows:

• 1) Stage Zero: Before the Time of the Vision (12:1-4)

• The original war in heaven (4)
  The dragon embodies the kingdoms of the earth (3)
  The woman represents God’s true people (1-2)

• 2) Stage One: The Time of Jesus and John (12:5, 7-12)

• The woman gives birth to the male child (5)
  He is snatched up to heaven (5)
  War in heaven (7-9)
  Enthronement and victory (10-11)
  Transition (12)

• 3) Stage Two: The Serpent Attacks the Woman (12:6, 13-16)

• The dragon pursues the woman (13)
  She flees into the desert and is protected 1260 days (6, 14)
  The serpent spews water to sweep her away (15)
  The earth helps the woman (16)

• 4) Stage Three: The Dragon and the Remnant (Rev 12:17, etc.)

• The dragon is angry and goes away to make war (12:17)
  He calls up allies for the conflict (13:1-7, 11)
  The unholy trinity deceives and persecutes (13:8-10, 12-18)²⁷

This is followed in chronological order by the response of the remnant (14:1-13) and the return of Jesus (14:14-20).

Here is another example for the historicist approach: The seal vision begins in heaven with the slaughtered but living Lamb (Rev5). Jesus was installed in His heavenly ministry and as a response poured out the Holy Spirit at Pentecost in A.D. 31. There is an allusion to Daniel 7 and a parallel in Acts 2:33. The seventh seal ends in heaven (Rev 8:1). The sixth seal describes essential signs of Jesus' return, as described by Jesus in Matthew 24 (Rev 6:12-17). According to Revelation 6:17, the sixth seal takes John’s audience to the great day of the wrath of God and the wrath of the Lamb. The time for the seals series extends from the first century A.D. beyond the Second Coming of Jesus. The fifth seal asks the question “How long?” (Rev 6:10) and thereby refers to Daniel 8:13. The answer is provided with Daniel 7 and 12 and the pre-advent judgement. So time markers, a broad sweep of events,²⁸ the periodization of the time between the beginning and end of the vision, and the reference to other historic apocalyptic material that has already been established as such, suggests that a historicist interpretation is the correct approach to this type of prophetic material.

Eschatology

We now turn to eschatology. Literally understood eschatology is the teaching of the last things. In some articles eschatology includes personal eschatology and may even give this aspect priority—the individual’s death, his or her state in death, judgment, and resurrection. For instance, in his article on eschatology in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology F. F. Bruce begins with a definition or description of eschatology and then immediately turns to “Individual Eschatology” before discussing “World Eschatology in the OT,” “NT Eschatology,” and various theological proposals of how to understood general eschatology.²⁹

Thiselton admits that “Eschatology is the doctrine of the ‘last things,’’ but he states: “In the Bible this refers not so much to individual death and resurrection as to the three great cosmic events: the parousia . . ., the resurrection of the dead, and the Last Judgment. Over time, however, other elements were added: the death of the individual, heaven and hell, the imminence of the end, hope, the intermediate state, the nature of eternity and the beatific vision.”³⁰

Similar to Thiselton, Paul A. Rainbow in his volume on Johannine theology sees the major eschatological events as the “second coming of Jesus Christ, the general resurrection, the last judgment and the commencement of God’s eternal kingdom. This simple scheme of events with Christ at its center, attested by the Fourth Gospel and First Epistle of John, forms the core eschatology behind the recapitulation visions of the book of Revelation.”³¹

Erickson discusses and critiques various views on eschatology. He calls them the liberal modernized eschatology, the demodernized eschatology (Albert Schweitzer), realized eschatology (C. H. Dodd), existential eschatology (Rudolf Bultmann), political eschatology (Jürgen Moltmann), and Dispensationalism’s eschatology.³² While most of them may contain elements of truth, not all of them seem to come close to the teachings of Scripture on eschatology. Due so certain emphases in Catholic and Protestant theology eschatology may have appeared like an addendum to Christian theology. This has dramatically changed with Karl Barth³³ and Jürgen Moltmann. In the words of Moltmann, “From first to last, and not merely in the epilogue, Christianity is eschatology, is hope, forward looking and forward moving, and therefore also revolutionizing and transforming the presence. The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but it is the medium of Christian faith as such . . .”³⁴

However, the question needs to be raised: What is it when we talk about eschatology as the doctrine of the last things? What are the last things? I guess, typically, Adventists think about future events associated with the final consummation. However, this is too limited. While looking to the future, which is important, we should not forget what has already happened and what is an integral part of eschatology. The “last days” and the time of the end is not future. It is present. And while we are aware of this, I think we need a reminder in order to maintain the dual NT focus:

On a personal level the same picture emerges:

But while the kingdom/reign of God has already come and has broken into our time and history, we still pray as Jesus has taught us: “Your kingdom come” (Matt 6:10). While we already are God’s children here and now, we are still waiting to see Him as He is (1John 3:2). While we are already saved, we eagerly await the final liberation from all corruption (Rom 8:14-25). F. F. Bruce states: “There is a tension between the ‘already’ and the ‘not yet’ of the Christian hope, but each is essential to the other. In the language of the seer of Patmos, the Lamb that was slain has by his death won the decisive victory (Rev 5:5), but its final outworking, in reward and judgment, lies in the future” (Rev 22:12).”³⁵ What has happened at Christ’s first coming has to be fulfilled with His Second Coming and all the events associated with it, including the establishment of a new creation. However, to desire and look forward with great joy to the Second Advent instead of dreading it, one must have experienced salvation already here and now. So this experience is foundational to an appreciation of future eschatology.

What the NT teaches about eschatology is that the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Christ were crucial. With Christ’s first advent a new era has dawned, not completely foreseen by the OT. While the OT prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus,³⁶ “what the OT did not foresee so clearly was the ironic reality that the kingdom and the tribulation could coexist, at the same time.”³⁷ Obviously, it did not indicate that the present evil age would overlaps with the kingdom of God until this kingdom would be transformed from the kingdom of grace to the kingdom of glory. The kingdom of God came and comes in two stages.³⁸

Beale states: “All that the OT foresaw would occur in the end times has begun already in the first century and continues on until the final coming of Christ.”³⁹ We need to understand and appreciate the First Advent and the cross deeply. If other Christians stress it strongly, there is no reason for Adventists to take it lightly and leave the discussion to these Christians. We have to develop an understanding of the First Advent as eschatology as we do that for the Second Advent. After all, we claim to teach Scripture and not only part of it. Crucial changes took place with Jesus’ first coming: salvation for sinners, victory over sin and Satan, the end of the OT earthly sanctuary system and the beginning of Jesus’ reign as king and high priest, the inauguration of a new covenant, and the beginning of NT eschatology, to name some. “. . . the apostles understood eschatology not merely as futurology but also as a mind set for understanding the present within the climaxing context of redemptive history.”⁴⁰

Eschatology is based on the work of the Godhead, especially on that of Jesus. Without Jesus no eschatology! Therefore, Forde states: “ . . . the future will come to us in Jesus . . .”⁴¹ That may mean that we need to focus more Jesus. The Second Coming is by its nature related to Jesus. But what about the Millennium and the judgment? Do we teach the Millennium just as a doctrine or do we relate it to Jesus? Should we explore if Jesus is the Judge on the great white throne as some scholars have suggested? What would be the implication if the Lamb would also be the final judge? What would that tell us theologically about the judgment? And when it comes to the new heaven and the new earth and the new Jerusalem, the new creation, are we talking about this subject anthropocentrically or christologically? Is the issue a life in ease and luxury for eternity or is it about seeing God and living in closest communion with Jesus?

To summarize: Eschatology has its origin in the Trinity and was addressed right after the Fall in the proto-gospel (Gen 3:15). When the predicted time was fulfilled God the Father sent His Son Jesus Christ in order to redeem and adopt us as His children (Gal 4:4-5) and advance His plan of salvation which will culminate in Jesus' glorious reign after His Parousia.

Jesus Christ with His life, death and resurrection is the center of our eschatological hope and the beginning of the end time, the last days, the last hour of world history. The main point in eschatology is not the details of events that may or will happen, not a precise timetable of future events. It is Jesus. The future kingdom is not all about us, although it is also about us, but it is about Jesus and God’s reign. Philippians 2:9: “God has highly exalted him [Jesus] and bestowed on him the name that is above every name.” Ephesians 1:23: He [Jesus] “fills all in all.” Col 1:16-18: “. . . all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together that in everything he might be preeminent.” Col 3:11: “Christ is all and in all.”

Eschatology is future-oriented—but only partially. It is rooted in the cross and the here and now looking for the final consummation.⁴² Through the Holy Spirit Christ makes known Himself, His ministry, and His message. Through Him Jesus speaks to unbelievers and to the church, affirming believers that they are God’s children and heirs, while they fervently wait for His Coming, engage in mission and in the welfare of humanity, and live a holy life. The Spirit teaches the believers to call out: “Amen. Come, Lord Jesus,” and he offers to all the water of life without cost. The study of eschatology encompasses many biblical doctrines. Therefore, “the truths of eschatology deserve careful, intense, and thorough attention and study.”⁴³

Historicism and Eschatology

Christ’s Comings and the Interim

After having addressed historicism and eschatology separately we have to bring the two together. The historicist interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy focuses mainly on Daniel and Revelation. Since we have addressed NT eschatology, we will concentrate on Revelation for a moment. How are historicism and eschatology connected?

I would suggest that there are three basic periods of NT time, that is, three periods of the time of the overlap of the present evil age and the new age of the kingdom of God. These three periods are

• the beginning of the occurrence of this overlap initiated by the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of the Messiah,

• the end of this overlap coming with the second advent of Christ, the Millennial judgment, and the new creation and

• the interim between First and Second Comings. The time of the interim may be further subdivided into different segments by apocalyptic prophecy.

By definition historicism reaches from the time of the prophet to the final consummation. Therefore, it covers the entire overlap and the time following it. It contains to a large extend the future reality of eschatology, the biblical hope alive in true believers. The different series of the historical part of Revelation (Rev 4-12), especially the sixth and seventh seals, the seventh trumpet, and the end of the vision on the satanic trinity focus on the Parousia and some even on events beyond the Parousia. Revelation 15-16 deals with the seven lasts plagues. Revelation 17-19 elaborates on the last two of these plagues, bringing us to the Second Advent. Revelation 20 deals with the final judgment and Revelation 21- 22a with the new creation. Thus the entire second part of the Apocalypse addresses the “not yet,” the future, not the present time.

But do we also find the “already,” the present reality of eschatology in Revelation as we do in the Gospel, Acts, and letters of the NT? Before answering this question, let us take a brief look at preterism and futurism.

In contrast to historicism futurism leaves a vast gap between the fulfillment of prophecy in the life and death of Jesus on the cross and the future eschatological activity of God. When it comes to preterism, Ryrie distinguishes between three forms. He suggests that (1) there is a mild form of preterism, holding “that the prophecies in Revelation were fulfilled in the first three centuries. (2) Extreme preterism includes all future prophecies having been fulfilled by 70, including those about the second coming of Christ and resurrections.”⁴⁴ These two forms of preterism do not, from our perspective, leave room for future eschatology. The third form of preterism he describes as follows: “(3) Moderate preterism sees the prophecies in Revelation 4-19 as fulfilled in 70 [A.D.], although some prophecies—like those related to Christ’s second coming and future resurrections—are yet to be fulfilled in the future.”⁴⁵ This moderate form of preterism would also leave a gap between the time shortly after the completion of the NT canon and future events such as the Second Coming, resurrections, judgment, and the creation of a new heaven and earth as futurism does. While God would be leading His people individually, there would be no predicted historical events and time prophecies marking off periods of salvation history in the interim between the first and second comings of Christ.

The “Already” in Revelation

Back to the question about the “already” in Revelation! The present aspect of eschatology, the “already” is also found in Revelation. It applies to the kingly rule of Christ and to individual believer:

The present aspect of eschatology is found in Revelation as the future aspect is also. Revelation follows the rest of NT literature by maintaining “the already and not yet.” If that is so, and if eschatology has been made possible through the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, than we are back to Jesus and need also to take a closer at Him in Revelation.

• The Apocalypse is the revelation of Jesus Christ.

• In chapter 1 He is the faithful witness (Rev 1:5), and the Book of Revelation is his witness, the testimony of Jesus (Rev 1:2), covering the entire period that we encounter as NT eschatology.

• Jesus is the firstborn of the dead (Rev 1:5). He was dead but now he is alive. The book of Revelation plays in the time when Jesus is the ever-living Lord after His death on the cross. He declares: I am “the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore” (Rev 1:18). Therefore, He also calls himself “the First and the Last” (Rev 1:17). Obviously, this designation is used synonymously with the expressions “Alpha and Omega” and “Beginning and End,” describing God the Father (Rev 1:8; 21:6) and Jesus Christ (Rev 22:13). In Greek thought “beginning and end” pointed to the eternal existence of God.⁴⁷ The titles are used seven times in the self-designations of God and Jesus. This may not be an accident in the light of the series of sevens in the Apocalypse.⁴⁸ And God the Father is the one who is and was and is to come (Rev 1:4 8; 4:8; and modified in 11:17), spanning all time and all eternity and therefore also every prophecy and every statement made in Revelation.

• Jesus is introduced as the Ruler of the kings of the earth (Rev 1:15). He is this in the first century A.D. He is this throughout the book of Revelation. Whenever someone reads or hears the book of Revelation and is blessed according to the promise in Revelation 1:3, that person encounters Jesus as Ruler and King. Jesus will be attacked as such in the final war (Rev 17:14) but proves to be victorious as King of kings and Lord of Lords (Rev 19:16). Because He is the King, He can make His people a kingdom, priests here and now and forever (Rev 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

So far the prologue of Revelation. How does Jesus fare with the three phases of NT eschatology in Revelation, suggested above?

• Jesus’ incarnation becomes evident in His birth (Rev 12:5). The end of His life on the cross is described with language of death (Rev 1:5, 18; 2:8), with language of a slaughtered Lamb (Rev 5:6, 9, 12), and with the term “to crucify” (Rev 11:8). His resurrection appears in Revelation 1:5 and in connection with language of life (Rev 1:18; 2:8). His ascension (Rev 12:5) and presence in the heavenly sanctuary (Rev 5) and His seating with the Father on the throne of God (Rev 3:21) round out the picture and mark the beginning of NT eschatology.

• Quite frequently Jesus’ second coming (Rev 1:7, 16:15) and even His soon coming (Rev 2:16; 3:11; 22:7,12,20) and the nearness of time (Rev 1:3; 22:10; cf. 1:1; 22:6) are emphasized in Revelation. The Parousia is also described with images such as a double harvest (Rev 14:14-20). In addition, Jesus judges the enemies at the end of time (Rev 6:16-17; 19:11). “The Lamb in Revelation is slain. If this Lamb does not rise and if he does not come again to establish his reign over the nations and the entire cosmos, the Creator’s rightful claim over the creation is nullified, and the creation remains captive to all evil purposes.”⁴⁹

• In Revelation, Jesus’ presence in the time between His Comings is indicated by His characterizations as spelled out above. His judgements do not only occur at the very end but also during human history (e.g., Rev 2:5; 2:22-23; 3:16). His love is not limited to the First and/or Second Comings only but can be experienced during historical time (Rev 1:6; 3:9). As High Priest in Revelation 1:13 Christ’s cares for His churches on earth.⁵⁰ As the angel of Revelation 8:3 He serves as humanity’s mediator in the interim.⁵¹ As mighty angel (Rev 10)⁵² He sees to it that time is not prolonged before the consummation of all things, that the Word of God is being internalized, and the gospel be preached.

Summary and Implications

Although Jesus seems to appears more frequently in the introductory and closing scenes to the visions than in the interim and progression from His first coming to His second, this is not the ful1 picture. Actually in the messages to the seven churches He addresses each church individually. With the seven seals the same pattern appears. The opening of each seal is dependent on Him. With the trumpets He dominates the expansion of the sixth trumpet, etc.

Thomas and Macchia, make two interesting statements which may summarize NT eschatology. Here is the first: “A lot is at stake in this battle for redemption in Revelation, for God is personally involved in its outcome. God and eschatology are therefore integrally connected in Revelation . . .” The second statement may be even more pointed: “Eschatology is determined by Christology. This is eschatological Christology, which enfolds as a drama in which the end is already foreshadowed in him but is still yet to be fulfilled throughout creation.”⁵³

This may be precisely reflected in Revelation’s prologue: “. . . Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come (present and future eschatology), and from the seven spirits who are before his throne (present eschatology), and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood 6 and made us a kingdom, priests to his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen—present eschatology. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen—future eschatology. ‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty’”—comprehensive eschatology (Rev 1:4-8).

If therefore NT eschatology comprises Christ’s first coming, the interim in which we now live, and the longed for second coming of our Savior and Lord, historicism may be the approach that does most justice to the perspective of apocalyptic literature, especially as found in Revelation.

Conclusion

Therefore we do not forget: “The eschatological vision of the book [of Revelation] is thus directed not only to the future but also to the present . . . There is no question that the book yearns for Christ’s coming . . . However, salvation is also a present reality to be experienced in the here and now.”⁵⁴ Only then will we truly long to see the Lord’s face (Rev 22:4).