Customer Reviews

Four Views on the Book of Revelation

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This book is actually a combination of four short booklets, each written by a different author. My rating is for the book as a whole, though my rating for each individual writer would differ. As an editor, Pate makes a commendable effort to be fair and open-minded with the views differing from his own position. If Pate had requested each author to respond to the criticism voiced by the others, this book would have been much more helpful.

The first writer is Kenneth Gentry, representing the Preterist view. His work is the best presented of the four positions, worthy of five stars. If anyone wants an very good explanation of the Preterist view in a nutshell, Gentry offers it here.

The second writer is Sam Hamstra, representing the Idealist view. He is a bit wordy in his presentation, and comes across as rather dull. I give him three stars.

The third writer is Marvin Pate, representing the Progressive Dispensationalist view. Ironically, his argument is the weakest and most difficult to understand of the four. He appears to be seeking an interpretation that will have something for everyone, but sacrifices substance and clarity in the process. What seems to be a combination of a preterist/futurist position is not appealing in the least. I give him two stars.

The fourth writer is Robert Thomas, representing the Classic Dispensationalist view. Thomas voices the usual mantra for this camp, claiming that his dispensational view is the only position that interprets Revelation literally. He then proceeds to explain the "actual meaning" of the various "symbols" described by the Apostle John! Still, he does a commendable job of presenting a very brief summary of this very complicated viewpoint. I give him four stars.

In summary, this book is more suitable for the college classroom than for the church congregation. I would recommend it to a fellow pastor or theologian, but not to a layman. Overall, it serves to refresh the memory of a person who has already determined his viewpoint, rather than to persuade the mind of a person who is still undecided.

The book of Revelation is one of the most difficult books in the Bible. This fact is evidenced in there being so many approaches to Revelation. This work by Pate introduces and summarizes four of those approaches: preterism (the best argued in the book), dispensationalism (the most popular view in American fundamentalism), progressive dispensationalism (a mix of all the other views while trying to maintain some semblance of dispensationalism), and idealism (the most confusing and least attractive view).

Revelation is also one of the most facinating to Christians. The chapter on preterism was the most interesting to me, and the most convincing. The author basically gives a short commentary on Revelation, which provides a nice overview while presenting the preterist outlook. The preterist sees Revelation as pointing to the looming destruction of Jerusalem, as Christianity separates from Judaism.

The reason for preterism is found in two of the first three verses in Revelation: Rev. 1:1, 3. There John tells us that the events he is prophesying will "soon" take place because (in his view) "the time is at hand." I don't know how I had missed that introduction in my reading of Revelation. I don't see anyway around this problem for the other views.

Presenting two dispensational views was an odd feature of the book. Why two very different interpretations from the same school of thought? However, when all is said and done, at least the reader can see that dispensationalism is changing with the times (which is actually good news).

The idealist view seemed a bit abstract and unnatural. I don't hear of too many idealists. And maybe this chapter is helpful in understanding why the view is not making much headway.

I wish the authors had been given an opportunity to critique each others' chapters. They do allude to the positions of the others from time to time, but they were not given the chance to actually engage the others' leading arguments.

One funny thing in the book is that the dispensationalist Robert Thomas urges readers to use the grammatical-historical approach to all biblical interpretation. He says that this will lead the reader of Revelation to a dispensational understanding of the book. Then he sets forth Milton Terry as the best author to write a book on how to interpret Scripture in that way. But the preterist author (Kenneth Gentry) uses Milton Terry's work to support his own view! Milton Terry himself is a preterist. I wonder if the dispensationalist author even knew that.

I recommend this book as an introduction to the various approaches to Revelation. I think readers will be impressed with the case for preterism, even if they are not fully and finally convinced by the author.

Is there a harder book in the Bible to understand than Revelation? This Four Views volume offers four of the main approaches to interpreting the book -- in a somewhat brief format (232 pages), the entire book of Revelation is summarized according to four differing viewpoints. Unfortunately a fifth position, the "Historicist" view, is given only a passing glance as a view that has (apparently) fallen out of favor (despite the fact that this view used to be, and still may be, very popular among some). Also some of the views that *are* defended in the book are not the "pure" forms of those positions: the preterist (which locates all prophetic fulfillments in the 1st cent., A.D.) and idealist (which sees all prophecies as recurring in time, rather than pointing to single events) both see in Rev. 20 a brief reference to Christ's final, definitive triumph that is still in the future. The overall presentation by each of the authors is a good one, though; if you're confused about how to interpret Revelation, this book should clear up some of the fog.

As other reviews have noted, the main disappointment here is that this book summarily dismisses historicism, which is a mainstay on any scholarly list of the four systems of interpretation.

Although it is true that historicism is no longer a popular view, it deserves full treatment for three reasons. First, historicism was the predominant protestant view for three or more centuries and should be include for completeness. Second, historicist are producing many books in response to the futurism of "Left Behind", making readers curious to know how these views fit in. Finally, it is not inconceivable that the ultimate truth will include some elements from each of the four camps, so one should be well-versed in all four views.

I certainly hope that the next version includes historicism, as well as the counter-point format.

One of the best features in most of the Counterpoints volumes is the debate format. After each paper the other authors are allowed to critique it, and (in some Counterpoints volumes) sometimes the main author is allowed to respond to the critiques.

I was disappointed that this volume did not incorporate the debate format. Each author presents his paper, and that is that. There is very little interaction with the other authors.

The strength of the individual papers varied. Gentry did a good job defending the preterist approach. Hamstra did a good job convincing me that the idealist view is less a hermeneutical approach than it is an application of the text. Pate needed to explain exactly what it is that makes the progressive dispensationalist view distinctive. Thomas didn't say anything new in his presentation of the classical dispensationalist view.

The book would have been far better if it had presented the four views that have been predominant historically: the Futurist, Preterist, Historicist and Idealist views. They ignored the historicist view altogether and instead presented two slightly different futurist views.

In my opinion the senior editor at Zoindervan needs to call for some kind of consistency in the Counterpoints series. Either include responses in all the volumes, or don't.

This book, edited by a professor at a school where, to the best of my knowledge you must believe the futurist view to attend, is densely loaded with information. The historian view, historically held by many, was not included because "it hasn't been able to predict the Second Coming"--as if any person can! Although I do not support the Preterist view, this book had a convincing argument for that view. The essay on the classic dispensationalist view put me to sleep.

This was a very helpful work that compares four scholarly approaches to the Book of Revelation. Given the page constraints I was amazed at the penetrating insights into Revelation that were given.

I especially enjoyed the chapter on the preterist view by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. I could not believe that a 50 page commentary (which is what his chapter is) could teach so much and so persuasively. I think this chapter ought to be printed by itself as an introduction to Revelation.

The other views by Thomas and Pate were helpful. But mostly in showing that dispensationalism is coming apart at the seams. Both of these scholars are dispensationalists but give quite diverse approaches to Revelation. This is helpful to see the state of current dispenstional confusion.

Get the book for eye-opening insights into Revelation. Then tell me: Wasn't Gentry's chapter the most interesting short commentary on Revelation that you have read!

I'm going to apply this commentary for the entire Counterpoint Series published by Zondervan Publishing Company. My compliments to that company for creating this series. I initially purchased "Four Views on the Book of Revelation" but soon realized it was only one in a series. I got so much out of that volume, that I decided to purchase the entire set to study and keep for reference. My spiritual growth has been remarkable as a result. Seminary students and professionals would probably enjoy this series, which seems geared for them. But this series is also excellent for those college-educated laypeople who feel inclined to enhance their understanding of Christian theology. That is, with one caveat: Buy a decent theological dictionary to refer to at first. It probably won't get used much after about the third book you choose to read, but initially you will be need it to be confident of some of the terms used among advanced theologians. Then, the Counterpoint series will give you a full understanding of many different concepts and concerns of the Christian faith which have been applicable from early on until the present. I've learned a lot, and the only way I think I could do better is if I were enrolled in Seminary. A list of all the titles I am aware of from this series is:

Are Miraculous Gifts for Today?
Five Views on Law and Gospel
Five Views on Sanctification
Four Views on Hell
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World
Four Views on the Book of Revelation
Three Views on Creation and Evolution
Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond
Three Views on the Rapture
Two Views on Women in Ministry

Gentry's presentation convinced me here of partial preterism... this is in part due to Robert Thomas' contribuation that is really not fun. Thomas is overly assertive without warrant and dogmatic without the evidence! Herein lies a convincing essay for Preterism...unfortuantly the rest are not worth reading. The book seems to turn into a showdown between Gentry and Thomas; Pate and Hamstra really do not hold much weight here. Marvin Pate's view is actually quite amusing. Thomas can not handle Gentry theologically although I will concede Thomas the victor of a great number of points. Kenneth Gentry puts Revelation in its original context and it all flows from this standpoint. Winner Kenneth Gentry...

The Book of Revelation, attributed to the apostle John, has mystified Christians ever since it was first written. This volume contains contributions from four Protestants, each defending a different interpretation of the book.

Unfortunately, only two of the articles are readable: Kenneth Gentry's defence of Preterism (or Partial Preterism) and Sam Hamstra's argument for Idealism. Robert Thomas' text on "Classical" Dispensationalism (actually a 19th century novelty) is barely readable, and C. Marvin Pate's article on Progressive Dispensationalism is incomprehensible. Weirdly, Pate is both a contributor and the editor of this volume. In all fairness, it should be noted that all contributions are heavy reading unless you already have a working knowledge of Revelation. Within those parameters, however, Gentry and Hamstra did the better job expounding their respective positions.

Gentry's and Hamstra's articles are also the most interesting. Everyone "knows" that Revelation is supposed to be about future events. Non-believers see it as a failed prophecy about the future. The large number of fundamentalists and cults which spin weird, apocalyptic scenarios based on Revelation certainly add to this impression. It may therefore surprise people that some conservative Christians deny that Revelation is about events in our future.

Gentry argues that Revelation was written already during the reign of Nero and predicts events in John's future but our past. Thus, most of the prophecies in Revelation have already been fulfilled. Gentry believes that Revelation, in allegorical form, deals with the Jewish War and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. The "return" of Jesus was actually a spiritual return, whereby the heavenly Christ punished the unrepentant Jews with war, pestilence, famine and eventual dispersion. (Note the anti-Semitic overtones.) Gentry never argues for his early dating of Revelation. Interested readers should consult his book "Before Jerusalem Fell".

Hamstra believes that Revelation isn't about any specific period in history at all. Rather, it depicts the constant struggles of Christians against persecution in every age. It's also a message of hope to Christians in every age. Hamstra doesn't deny the future second coming of Christ. However, he doesn't believe that Revelation sets a timetable or deals with any specific historical period. In that sense, the book is symbolic.

Personally, I don't think the question of what Revelation "really" means will ever be settled. The real meaning of the book (probably written in the reign of Domitian around AD 95) seems to have been quietly forgotten already at an early stage. Papias (early 2nd century) seems unsure whether the apostle John really wrote all works attributed to him. Justin Martyr (mid 2nd century) admits that Revelation was interpreted differently by different Christians during his lifetime. The Church Father Irenaeus (late 2nd century) claimed to know the correct interpretation of Revelation from Polycarp, supposedly a disciple of John. But not even Irenaeus knew the meaning of the mysterious number 666. Thus, the knowledge of Revelation (or even its authorship) was lost during the second century. Yet, John supposedly didn't die until AD 100 and his disciple Polycarp not until AD 150 - 160! My guess is that Revelation was an obscure work which might not even have been written by John, but which survived because it was wrongly attributed to him. Then, various Christian writers projected their pet theological notions onto the text (some even rejected it), and the rest is history. As for Irenaues, he was only a small boy when he met Polycarp, ruling out more advanced teachings being imparted to him by the old man.

"Four views on the Book of Revelation" might give theology students an overview of the most common interpretations within American Protestant fundamentalism, but it really says very little about Revelation itself.