Jay Rogers
Director:
Jay Rogers

Recent Posts

The Forerunner

Notes on Daniel: Calvin's View of Daniel Was Preterist

By Jay Rogers
Published April 27, 2008

In general, the Reformers were united in seeing the antichrist, the man of sin, the whore of Babylon and the Beast as one figure.

But they were not historicists, they were futurists in this regard. They were also hopelessly inconsistent, on one hand looking for a fulfillment of these prophecies in their days, and in other places sounding like modern day postmillennialists and preterists.

Martin Luther (1483-1546): “[The book of Revelation] is intended as a revelation of things that are to happen in the future, and especially of tribulations and disasters for the Church …” (Works of Martin Luther, VI, p. 481).

William Tyndale (1492-1536): “… antichrist preacheth not Peter’s doctrine (which is Christ’s gospel) … he compelleth all men with violence of sword” (Greenslade’s The Work of William Tindale, p. 127).

John Calvin (1509-1564): “… we ought to follow in our inquiries after Antichrist, especially where such pride proceeds to a public desolation of the church” (Institutes, Vol. 2, p. 411).

John Knox (1515-1572): “… the great love of God towards his Church, whom he pleased to forewarn of dangers to come, so many years before they come to pass … to wit, The man of sin, The Antichrist, The Whore of Babylon” (The History of the Reformation, I, p. 76).

Others have written that Calvin interpreted Daniel as a historicist document.

I would respond simply in two ways:

1. What is historicism to us today was futurism in the 16th century.

2. It depends on your interpretation of Calvin. When I read Calvin’s commentary on Daniel, he mostly agrees with the view I hold — preterism.

Calvin writes:

Why, therefore, does the Prophet say the little horn waged war with the saints? Antiochus certainly made war against the Church, and so did many others; the Egyptians, we know, often broke in and spoiled the Temple and the Romans too, before the monarchy of the Caesars. I reply, this is spoken comparatively, because no war was ever carried on so continuously and professedly against the Church, as those which occurred after the Caesars arose, and after Christ was made manifest to the world; for the devil was then more enraged, and God also relaxed the reins to prove the patience of his people. Lastly, it was natural for the bitterest conflicts to occur when the redemption of the world was carried out; and the event clearly showed this. We know first of all, by horrid examples, how Judea was laid waste, for never was such cruelty practiced against any other people. Nor was the calamity of short duration; we are well acquainted with their extreme obstinacy, which compelled their enemies to forget clemency altogether. For the Romans desired to spare them as far as possible, but so great was their obstinacy and the madness of their rage, that they provoked their enemies as if devoting themselves to destruction, until that dreadful slaughter happened, of which history has sufficiently informed us. When Titus, under the auspices of his father Vespasian, tools: and destroyed the city, the Jews were stabbed and slaughtered like cattle throughout the whole extent of Asia. Thus far, then, it concerns the Jews.

When God had inserted the body of the Gentiles into his Church, the cruelty of the Caesars embraced all Christians; thus the little horn waged war with the saints in a manner different from that of the former beasts, because the occasion was different, and the wrath of Satan was excited against all God’s children on account of the manifestation of Christ. This, then, is the best explanation of the little horn, waging war against the saints. Thus he says, It must prevail. For the Caesars and all who governed the provinces of the empire raged with such extreme violence against the Church, that it almost disappeared from the face of the earth. And thus it happened, that the little horn prevailed in appearance and in general opinion, as, for a short time, the safety of the Church was almost despaired of.

Obviously Calvin was a preterist when he dealt with Daniel. According to a preface by Calvin’s translators:

Our readers will remember, that as an expositor of prophecy, Calvin is a Praeterist, and that his general system of interpretation is as remote from the year-day theory of Birks, Faber, and others, as from the futurist speculations of Maitland, Tyso, and Todd. Notwithstanding the disagreement between these Lectures and the writings of Birks, we strongly recommend their perusal by every student who would become thoroughly proficient in the prophecies of Daniel. The first step towards progress, is to surrender all our preconceived notions, and to prepare for the possibility of their vanishing away before the force of sanctified reason and all-pervading truth.


Forerunner - Home » In The Days of These Kings ...

Your comments are welcome!

Textile Help
Share |

View CCNow Cart/Checkout
View CCNow Cart/Checkout

RSS
Subscribe to
The Forerunner

Have The Forerunner Weblog sent straight to your inbox!

Enter your email address:

YouTube
The Forerunner Channel on YouTube


Promote Your Page Too

Featured Product
If you like the articles on this website, you may also be interested in:

Featured Articles

Live Seminar!

Real Jesus
The Abortion Matrix DVD: Update

The Abortion Matrix:
Defeating Child Sacrifice and the Culture of Death

is a 195-minute presentation that traces the biblical roots of child sacrifice and then delves into the social, political and cultural fall-out that this sin against God has produced. You can order this series on DVD, read the complete script and view clips on-line...
continued ...


View My Stats