Days of Vengeance - The Preterist Archive

INTRODUCTION
early churches had such an understanding. The Gospel
had been preached first to the Jews and Gentile
proselytes; often churches had been formed by
worshipers at synagogues, and this was true even of the
churches of Asia Minor (Acts 2:9; 13:14; 14:1; 16:4;
17:1-4, 10-12, 17; 18:4, 8, 19, 24-28; 19:1-10, 17).
Moreover, it is clear from Galatians 2:9 that the
Apostle John’s ministry was to Jews in particular.
Therefore, the first readers of the Revelation were
steeped in the Old Testament to a degree that most of
us today are not. The symbolism of the Revelation is
saturated with Biblical allusions which were commonly
understood by the early Church. Even in those rare
congregations that did not have some Hebrew
members, the Scriptures used in teaching and worship
were primarily from the Old Testament. The early
Christians possessed the authoritative and infallible
key to the meaning of St. John’s prophecies. Our
modern failure to appreciate this crucial fact is the
main cause of our inability to understand what he was
talking about.
For instance, let’s take a much-abused symbol from
Revelation and apply this principle. In Rev. 7, 9, 14
and 22, St. John sees God’s people sealed on their
foreheads with His name; and in Rev. 13 he writes of
the worshipers of the Beast, who are designated on
their right hands and foreheads with his mark. Many
fanciful interpretations have been made regarding
these marks – ranging from tattoos and amusementpark
validations to credit cards and Social Security
numbers – and all without the slightest notice of the
clear Biblical allusions. But what would the first readers
of these passages have thought? The symbols would
have made them think immediately of several Biblical
references: the “mark” of sweat on Adam’s forehead,
signifying God’s Curse on his disobedience (Gen. 3:19);
the forehead of the High Priest, marked with gold
letters proclaiming that he was now HOLY TO THE
LORD (Ex. 28:36); Deuteronomy 6:6-8 and Ezekiel
9:4-6, in which the servants of God are “marked” on
the hand and forehead with the law of God, and thus
receive blessing and protection in His name. The
followers of the Beast, on the other hand, receive his
mark of ownership: submission to ungodly, statist,
antichristian law. The mark in Revelation is not meant
to be taken literally. It is an allusion to an Old
Testament symbol that spoke of a man’s total obedience
to God, and it stands as a warning that our god –
whether it be the true God or the self-deified State –
demands complete obedience to his lordship.
That will be the principle of interpretation followed in
this commentary. The Revelation is a revelation: It was
meant to be understood. Benjamin Warfield wrote:
“John’s Apocalypse need not be other than easy: all its
symbols are either obvious natural ones, or else have
their roots planted in the Old Testament poets and
prophets and the figurative language of Jesus and his
apostles. No one who knows his Bible need despair of
reading this book with profit. Above all, he who can
understand our Lord’s great discourse concerning the
last things (Matt. 24), cannot fail to understand the
Apocalypse, which is founded on that discourse and
scarcely advances beyond it.” 68
The Primacy of Symbolism
How important is symbolism in the Bible? The great
Dutch theologian Herman Bavinck deals with the
subject extensively in his book The Doctrine of God. 69
Speaking of the Bible’s “symbolic” names for God, he
says: “Scripture does not merely contain a few
anthropomorphisms; on the contrary, all Scripture is
anthropomorphic . . . Hence, all the names with which
God names himself and by means of which he allows us
to address him are derived from earthly and human
relations.” 70 “In order to give us an idea of the majesty
and exalted character of God, names are derived from
every kind of creature, living and lifeless, organic and
inorganic.” 71 In fact, “it is altogether impossible to say
anything about God apart from the use of anthropomorphisms.
We do not see God as he is in himself. We
behold him in his works. We name him according to
the manner in which he has revealed himself in his
works. To see God face to face is for us impossible, at
least here on earth . . . Whosoever, therefore, objects to
anthropomorphisms, thereby in principle denies the
possibility of a revelation of God in his creatures.” 72
“For man there are only two alternatives: absolute
silence with reference to God, or speaking about him in
a human way; either agnosticism, i.e., theoretical
atheism, or anthropomorphism.” 73
Symbolism is thus inescapable: “Therefore, though we
call God by names derived from the creature, God
himself first established these names for the creature.
Indeed, although we first apply to the creature the
names which designate God because of the fact that we
know the creature before we know God; essentially they
apply first of all to God, then to the creature. All
virtues pertain first to God, then to the creature: God
possesses these virtues ‘in essence,’ the creature
‘through participation.’ As the temple was made
‘according to the pattern shown to Moses in the
mount,’ Heb. 8:5, even so every creature was first
conceived and afterward (in time) created. ‘Every
fatherhood’ is named from ‘the Father’ who created all
things – Eph. 3:15; cf. Matt. 23:9.” 74
Bavinck is making two very significant points: First, all
creation is primarily symbolic. All creatures reflect the
glory of God, and are images of some aspect or other of
His nature. God’s personality is imprinted on
everything He has made. The central value of anything
is that it is a symbol of God. All other values and
relationships are secondary. And, since man is God’s
68. Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Apocalypse,” in
Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield
(Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1973), vol. II, pp. 652f.
69. Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, William
Hendriksen, trans. (Edinburgh: The Banner of
Truth Trust, [1951] 1977).
70. Ibid., p. 86.
71. Ibid., p. 88.
72. Ibid., p. 91.
73. Ibid., p. 92.
26