A reader writes:
Are you familiar with a book by David Chilton called Days of Vengence: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation? If you have heard of it I was wondering if you had an opinion on it.
For those who may not be aware of it, Days of Vengeance is a book written in the postmillennialist Protestant tradition. In particular, it’s part of the neo-postmillennialism that has gained popularity in theonomic circles. It is probably the most popular commentary on Revelation from this perspective.
Catholic theology doesn’t infallibly reject postmillennialism (the belief that Christ will return at the conclusion of a future golden age of Christianity on earth), but it does strongly resist the idea (see CCC 673-677). The Catholic position is what in Protestant terms would be described as “amillennialism” (the belief that the present Church age is the millennium in which Christ and the saints reign from heaven and, thorugh the Church, on earth).
Days of Vengeance, when it comes down to the crunch-chapter of Revelation 20 (which deals with the millennium) suddenly starts extending olive branches to the amillennialist position, but most of the book is informed by the kind of arrogant postmillennialism that makes many theonomic writings simply insufferable. It also has loads of WAY speculative stuff in it that I can’t recommend.
That being said, the book can be useful if you’re willing to take it with several teaspoons of salt. It can provide help in seeing Revelation through a different set of eyes than Dispensationalists (the Left Behind crowd) see it through. If you’re willing to hold your nose when dealing with the theonomic attitude problem (Gary North’s intro to the book is particularly noxious in this regard) and exercise the critical thinking needed to cross-examine the book’s interpretations, then it can be helpful. You can download it here.
A few notes:
1) The author of the book–David Chilton–apparently later went nuts and embraced a view known as pantelism, which holds that ALL biblical prophecy (including the Second Coming of Christ) has already been fulfilled.
2) Days of Vengeance was written before Chilton became a pantelist, when he was only a preterist (a position that holds that most of the book of Revelation has already been fulfilled, but not the Second Coming).
3) One should NOT suppose, however, that Days of Vengeance is representative of preterism in general. There are other (and, in my view, better) preterist interpretations on many points than what Chilton presents, so I’d advise you to read more broadly in preterism rather than concluding that Chilton has said all that needs to be said.
4) Also, be aware that not everything that goes under the preterist name should do so. Many pantelists wish to be called preterists and so have been calling themselves this, though there is a marked difference between the two positions (pantelism, by relegating the Second Coming to the past, is heresy that is in conflict with the Nicene Creed, while preterism may well be true).
Hope this helps!
That helps a lot Jimmy, thanks for that!
Did you know there’s a Pantelism Web site?
http://www.pantelism.com/
Apparently, David Chilton died in 1997.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/gautier-joseph_p_02.html
You seem to agree that it’s okay to believe that the A.D. 70 event was “A” coming of Christ in judgement but not “The” Second Coming. In stating that Full preterists go against the creeds by saying the Second Coming is past, you fail to note that what you deem appropriate(the partial preterist viewpoint) also goes against the creeds by now creating MULTIPLE comings from the historical church position of only ONE second coming event. That reasoning is totally illogical much like the reasoning(???) that allows the partial preterist NOT to count that judgement coming as THE second coming but instead just ignore that count and skip to the REAL second coming somewhere out in our future! If we can just assert that A.D. 70 was “a” coming but yet there has to be another future “coming”, then what is to prevent one from saying that there ought to be two, three or even more(???) resurrection events. And it follows also that maybe there is going to be two, three or more Great White Throne judgement events. Why not just juice it up a bit and go the opposite direction while we’re at it? What say we just arbitrarily declare now that there has to be more sacrifices of Jesus on the Cross? more virgin births? more John the Baptists arrivals? Can’t we even be close to logical here? The partial preterist viewpoint is a hopelessly inconsistent theory. Where is the point that it’s okay to stop this total fabricating. The scriptures only speak of ONE event that was future to the men who lived in that first century setting…….not multiple events. The only reason that Partial Preterists cling to their claims of future events is because of creedal inconsistencies and their fear of being called childish names(heretic for example) by apologists who somehow have assumed the position of God’s total truthbearer(at least in their own minds). There is no way that they can maintain biblical support for these multiple events taking place. That is an impossible task for them because scriptures do NOT talk about multiple comings beyond the second coming, nor does it mention multiple resurrections or multiple judgements. In Daniel 9:24-27, the prophet foretold the destruction of Jerusalem and it’s holy temple and he associated those events with the annointing of the MOST HOLY one and the time that reconciliation for iniquity was to be accomplished. Daniel 12 speaks of the time of great tribulation, the resurrection and the judgement and emphatically declares that ALL THESE THINGS shall be finished when the power of the HOLY PEOPLE has been scattered. History tells us emphatically when that happened. It happened at the time that the Jewish economy was obliterated by the Roman empire. There is no way to separate these events and have your theory line up with a proper and consistent exegesis of scripture. II Timothy 4:1 also ties all these events into one grand finally….the second coming, the resurrection, the judgement and the consumation of the Kingdom of God. Why don’t we all just cease and desist in the NAME-CALLING and do what Jesus Christ commanded us to do which is to love our brothers in the Christ and then let us reason together like adults Jimmy?
God Bless ya
Just a quick thought. I have recently began to study “preterism” and “pantillism” and “partial preterism” … It would seem to me that the titles are still in development. Depending on which view each holds will determine what name is assigned to those we differ. Those who hold the traditional dispensational view seem to have the harshest names for those of the “3Ps”. Ammillinialists are more palatable because they don’t seem to take a stand. Partial preterests are all over the road as bi-return single ressurrection. It seems to me that they want creedal orthodoxy but that is in coflict with scripture as they read it. Perhaps we need to rethink our commitment to “tradition” and “orthodoxy” as we beat the heretics. Full preterists, preterists, pantelists don’t deny the resurrection or the 2nd comming just the timing of it and it’s interpretation. I am going to take a closer look. The last 2000 years the church has done little to emulate the life and power of the apostolic church. We still can’t agree over the nature of salvation. Perhaps the true church did get raptured @ 70 A.D. and thats why those left behind have been so confused? Blessed is he who God is his teacher!