This dissertation seeks to determine which of the three methods of interpretation mentioned in the title is the most appropriate hermeneutical method to interpret apocalyptic prophecy. To do so, Stander has developed an analysis model whereby the three schools of interpretation are critically evaluated. He develops the analysis model in chapter 2. In chapters 3, 4, and 5 he critically analyzes preterism, futurism, and historicism. In chapter 6 he summarizes his findings and presents his conclusions.

In his introduction Stander briefly defines preterism as the view that sees “the fulfillment of Revelation’s prophecies as having occurred already, in what is now the ancient past.” Futurism views apocalyptic prophecies “as fulfilled in the far future during the biblical end times—far removed from the original writer’s day.” Historicism views prophecy as “fulfilled throughout history, from the original writer’s day to the climax of the biblical end times” (p. 8). In the introduction he also identifies himself as a Seventh-day Adventist who interprets apocalyptic prophecy with the historicist approach, thus seeing the apocalypse as the unfolding of history.

Method of Analysis

Stander’s analysis model to evaluate the different schools of interpretation consists of five tiers:

1. The christological analysis asks the following questions: Is the interpretation revealing Christ as prophet and King? Is it revealing the resurrected Christ, the coming Christ, and the victorious Christ?

2. An apocalyptic analysis looks for a cosmic sweep, an eschatological emphasis, and the use of symbolism. It looks for an eschatology from outside of history, that has its origin in the divine sovereignty and includes unconditionality.

3. The prophetic image analysis asks: Is the symbol recognized as fluid, representative, and may it vary in different contexts? Are the reasons for the symbol used understood? Is the symbol considered within its immediate and literary context?

4. The exegetical analysis explores two key doctrines—namely, the coming of Christ and the coming of the antichrist. It asks the following questions: Does this interpretation view the coming of the antichrist to be literal, real, and observable and view the parousia as destroying the antichrist? Does this interpretation view God as being in control of end-time events?

5. The practical relevance analysis asks: Does this interpretation offer hope in one’s situation, help one make sense of life, and impart motivation to spirituality?

Findings

Applying the five-tier analysis model to preterism in chapter 3, Stander firstly finds that preterism is not sufficiently christological, which removes the very essence and goal of prophecy. Secondly, preterism is not in line with the character of apocalyptic—the very literature it claims to interpret. Thirdly, preterism is vulnerable on exegetical grounds. Lastly, preterism is not relevant or practically applicable to a Christian’s life in the present, as Revelation is not prophetically applicable to us or our time (pp. 118–119).

Applying the five-tier analysis model to futurism in chapter 4, Stander believes it to be christological. However, he finds that futurism ironically does not recognize the Apocalypse as apocalyptic, and thus interprets its prophecies literalistically. In addition, he finds that futurism cannot be exegetically substantiated. Yet in the practical relevance analysis, futurism can provide much-needed hope and sense to people’s present situation (p. 188).

Applying the five-tier analysis model to historicism in chapter 5, Stander finds that historicism is, at its core, christological. It recognizes the Apocalypse as apocalyptic and interprets it in a manner true to apocalyptic principles. Historicism passes the prophetic image analysis, proves to be exegetically sound, and is found to be relevant and practically applicable to a Christian’s life in the present (p. 265).

Considering that the author is a Seventh-day Adventist, it is not surprising that in his conclusion he says that historicism has not only made positive contributions to the doctrine of last things, but is the only adequate hermeneutic for apocalyptic prophecies because it takes apocalyptic and history seriously. It consistently applies the cosmic sweep of apocalyptic throughout history to the coming eschaton and builds faith in God through fulfilled prophecies. Furthermore, historicism is inherent in the texts of both Daniel and Revelation (pp. 272–273).

Evaluation

In his introduction the author quotes several scholars concerning the meaning of the terms “eschatology,” “apocalypse,” “apocalyptic,” and “apocalypticism,” but it is not clear what these terms mean for him. In the section “Definitions of Key Terms,” these words do not appear. He only provides explanations for the terms “preterism,” “futurism,” and “historicism” that are the focus of the dissertation. As far as the other terms are concerned, he seems to side with Ralph Tate, who differentiates between eschatology and apocalyptic prophecy as follows: “Eschatology is concerned exclusively with the doctrine of the end of the age; apocalypse refers to a revelation and a particular type of writing that discloses that revelation” (p. 3).

However, “eschatology,” the doctrine concerning the end, can describe a radical break in the course of history, not just the end of history. Such breaks in history we find in the prophecies concerning Israel and Judah’s end; this is sometimes called historical or national eschatology. “Apocalyptic,” or apocalyptic eschatology, on the other hand, always describes the end of history, the end of the world, when this present age will be followed by God’s eternal kingdom.

The author provides a lot of valuable information on the various schools of interpretation. His evaluation of the various schools is thorough and important, but he only deals with preterism within evangelicalism. This is what I call “historic preterism”—that is, preterism that accepts the inspiration of Scripture. It considers the book of Daniel as a revelation from God, but generally limits the fulfillment of its prophecies to the time between Daniel in the sixth century BC and the first coming of Christ, following the demise of the fourth kingdom in Daniel 2 and 7. The book of Revelation is applied to the first century of the Christian era, in which the “man of sin” (2 Thess 2:3) appeared in the person of the Roman Emperor Nero and the second coming took place in the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70, at which time the Old Testament dispensation came to a close and a new order of things began.

This dissertation ignores completely the historical-critical or modern-preterist school, which encompasses probably 90% or more of preterist interpreters. The roots of this school go back to Porphyry, a philosopher in the third century AD, who taught that the book of Daniel was written by an unknown Jew in the second century BC, and that Daniel’s prophecies, therefore, are vaticinia ex eventu (“prophecies written after the event”). Historical-critical scholars, who deny the inspiration and authority of Scripture and, therefore, also the existence of true prophecy, see the book of Daniel as a reflection of the political and religious situation of the Jewish people under the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who persecuted the Jews. They believe that the prophecies of the book of Revelation refer to historical events in the time of the Roman Empire during the first century AD.

An evaluation of the historical-critical or modern preterist school of interpretation would have enhanced the value of this dissertation for Seventh-day Adventist scholars, who frequently must deal with the arguments of historical-critical scholars. Nevertheless, this dissertation is a valuable addition to the library of Adventist schoars. Applying the fivetier analysis model to futurism in chapter 4, Stander believes it to be christological. However, he finds that futurism ironically does not recognize the Apocalypse as apocalyptic, and thus interprets its prophecies literalistically. In addition, he finds that futurism cannot be exegetically substantiated. Yet in the practical relevance analysis, futurism can provide much-needed hope and sense to people’s present situation (p. 188).