 |
| C. I. SCOFIELD |
It's important to point out that John's view of Revelation chapters 2-3 is essentially the view set forth by Dr. C. I. Scofield in his Scofield Reference Bible. But notice how Wallace responds; he quickly brushes John's view aside (as if it had no credibility) by saying: "John, the church age view [i.e. the dispensational view] of Revelation 2-3 is certainly a minority view among [modern-day] exegetes. I am aware of only one professor who actually holds to it. One of the biggest problems with it is simply that no matter how people have tried to construct church history, the seven ages never seem to fit. [Editor's note: They actually fit perfectly for those who "rightly divide the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15, KJV)!] They have to procrusteanize ["to stretch or contract according to some rule or standard"] these chapters into church history! Another major problem is that this view would be meaningless to anyone in the first century – in fact, meaningless to anyone until the 'Laodicean' age. I would have to reject it as thoroughly implausible."[2]
I responded to Wallace's comment with one of my own, in which I wrote the following: Just a thought on Dr. Wallace's previous comment (from 09-27-10), Dr. Scofield in his Reference Bible (and elsewhere) teaches that Revelation chapters 2-3 does indeed outline church history. Of course, all the editors of the Scofield Reference Bible would agree, no doubt. So right there, we have more than a handful of respected and reputable Bible "professors" who hold to that view (the view that Wallace is critiquing). Wallace may have been referring to the present-day, but if that is true then it might actually highlight a doctrinal shift over the past century away from the truth of God's Word: thus in effect providing a real-life example of the Laodicean church that is spoken about in Revelation chapter 3, and therefore supporting Scofield's church history view of Revelation 2-3! But more than this, it is not accurate to say that a "major problem is that this view [i.e. Scofield's view of Revelation chapters 2-3] would be meaningless to anyone in the first century – in fact, meaningless to anyone until the 'Laodicean' age." (So says Wallace.) But how would it be meaningless? Does Wallace think that unfulfilled prophecy (which is exactly what most of Revelation chapters 2-3 would be to anyone in the first century) is meaningless until it is fulfilled? That would be like saying that all the (yet unfulfilled) prophetic portions of Revelation are meaningless to us! Which of course is absurd! Who would ever say such a thing? Yet this is Wallace's reasoning in regards to Revelation chapters 2-3, when it comes to Scofield's view of it. But it should be obvious that just because a prophecy is unfulfilled, doesn't mean it's meaningless. That would be like saying the Second Coming of Christ is meaningless, because it hasn't happened yet. But of course as Bible-believing Christians, we don't say that. Yet this is Wallace's reasoning in regards to "the church age view of Revelation 2-3" to those living in the first century. It is actually Wallace's view of Revelation chapters 2-3 that I find "thoroughly implausible"! Furthermore, this leads to the obvious question: is something in the Bible untrue simply because people don't understand it? By no means! For example, Jesus said: "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given" (Matt. 13:11; cf. Lk. 8:10). Another example is when the Bible says of the disciples, that "as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead" (Jn. 20:9). Was the resurrection of Christ untrue because it was a prophecy that people did not yet understand? Of course not.
Wallace's view is the typical Calvinistic/Reformed viewpoint, but the church history view of Revelation 2-3 (i.e. the dispensational view) is wonderfully set forth by Dr. J. Vernon McGee in his commentary on the passage. McGee writes the following succinct summary: “These seven letters [in Revelation chapters 2-3] have a threefold interpretation and application:
1. Contemporary—they had a direct message to the local churches of John’s day. I intend to take you to the location of these seven churches in these next two chapters. I have visited the sites of these churches several times, and I want to visit them again and again, because it is such a thrill and because it brings me closer to the Bible. You can get closer to the bible by visiting these seven churches than you can by walking through the land of Israel. The ruins have an obvious message. John was writing to churches that he knew all about. In The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia Sir William Ramsay said, ‘The man who wrote these seven letters to the seven churches had been there, and he knew the local conditions.’
2. Composite—each one is a composite picture of the church. There is something that is applicable to all churches in all ages in each message to each individual church. In other words, when you read the message to the church in Pergamum, there is a message for your church and a message for you personally.
3. Chronological—the panoramic history of the church is given in these seven letters, from Pentecost to the Parousia, from the Upper Room to the upper air. There are seven distinct periods of church history. Ephesus represents the apostolic church; Laodicea represents the apostate church. This prophetic picture is largely fulfilled and is now church history, which makes these chapters extremely remarkable.”[3]
References:
[1] John, comment dated "2010-09-27," under the post "Inviting Jesus into your Heart," Parchment and Pen blog.
[2] Daniel B. Wallace, comment dated "2010-09-27," under the post "Inviting Jesus into your Heart," Parchment and Pen blog.
[3] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible, vol. 5: 1 Corinthians—Revelation, p. 898. See under the heading: "INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTERS 2 AND 3".
No comments:
Post a Comment