VI. German Rationalists Adopt the Preterist School

Deep shadows intermingle with the golden sunshine of the century. Along with the growth and spread of Pietism in Ger many, Rationalism began to take root and expand disturbingly. The nearer we approach the time of the French Revolution, the more the generation of rationalistic and higher critical expositors grows in influence, having adopted the Preterist School of interpretation. Their writings were characterized by much re search and philological learning, blended with a startling frankness in religious skepticism. It also broke out in other countries. In Bengel’s day FIRMIN ABAUZIT (1679-1767), of Geneva, ^{34Born in Uzes in Languedoc, he was, after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, placed in a Roman Catholic Seminary, from which his mother recovered him, and succeeded in bringing him to Geneva. There he received his education and spent his long life. He was considered to be one of the most learned men of his time, and was a friend of Newton, Rousseau, and Voltaire.} published a work, in 1730, titled Discours historique sur I’Apocalypse (Historic Discourse on the Apocalypse), which was the first, in this period, to attack the canonical authority of the Apocalypse. ^{35Elliott, op. cit., vol. 4, p. 524.}PFF2 706.3

Soon after the middle of the century the skeptical spirit broke forth sharply in Germany. In 1765 SEMLER ^{36JOHANN SALOMO SEMLER (1725-1791), called the father of German rationalism, was born at Saalfeld. Educated at the University of Halle, he became professor of theology there. In 1757 he succeeded to the directorship of the seminary. Semler did not adhere to the then-prevalent idea of verbal inspiration and attacked especially the Apocalypse, attributing it to a fanatical group of Jews in Alexandria, who wished to propagate the concept of the nearness of the end of the world. He points to the fourth book of Ezra and the book of Enoch as its sources. He asserts that the theory of the world’s lasting 6,000 years is purely apocryphal and the number 666 a childish play with figures and an insult to attribute such a fantasy to the apostle John. He propounds these ideas in his Neue Untersuchungen iiber Apocalypsin (New Investigation of the Apocalypse), pages 28, 29, 34, 35, 76.} published a work by Oeder, entitled Christliche freye Untersuchung iiber die so genannte Offenbarung Johannis (A Free Investigation Into the So-called Revelation by John), denying both its apostolicity and its literary beauty, and charging it with extravagances. This launched the Semlerian controversy, which lasted until 1785. Semler was answered by Reuss of Tubingen (1767), Knittel of Wolfenbüttel (1773), and Schmidt of Wittenberg (1775). The genuineness of the book of Daniel was also impugned by English Deism, French Skepticism, and German Rationalism. ^{37Carl August Auberlen, The Prophecies of Daniel and the Revelations of St. John (trans, by Saphir), pp. 9, 10.}PFF2 706.4

In 1786 HERNNSCHNEIDER published his commentary on the Apocalypse, explaining it as a poem limited to (1) the overturning of Judaism, (2) the overthrow of heathenism, and (3) the final universal triumph of the Christian church. This became the model of the celebrated work of JOHANN GOTTFRIED EICH-HORN (1752-1827), in 1791. ^{38Elliott, op. cit., vol. 4, pp. 525, 565.} The scheme is simple, as described by Johann Leonard Hug (1765-1846). ^{39Ibid., pp. 526-529.}PFF2 707.1

There are three cities in the Apocalypse: Sodom (or Egypt), Babylon, and the New Jerusalem. The seven trumpets refer to Sodom, or Old Jerusalem, and its destruction, where Christ was crucified. The seven vials pertain to the destruction of Babylon, or pagan Rome, of the seven hills on the Tiber. Consequently, Jerusalem and Rome are the two cities, or religions, that were to be destroyed. Thus the New Jerusalem, continues this smooth contention, can only stand for Christianity and its triumph, taking the place of the former two religions. Therefore the book of Revelation is devoted to the description of the dissolution of Judaism, the abolition of heathenism, and the dominion of the world by the doctrines of Jesus.PFF2 707.2

This subtle, modified Preterism, traceable back through Bossuet, Grotius, and Hammond, to Alcazar, came to be rather generally accepted. Later JOIIANN GOTTFRIED HERDER (1744-1803) came to emphasize the Jewish catastrophe, whereas GEORG HEINRICH AUGUST EWAID (1803-1875), FRIEDERICH BLEEK (1793-1859), and WILHELM MARTIN DE WETTE (1780-1849) stressed that of the heathen Rome-but included both catastrophes. ^{40Ibid., pp. 565, 566.} And the names of Corrodi, Bertholdt, von Lengerke, Schleiermacher, Knobel, and Lücke also belong in the later list, ^{41Auberlen, op. cit., pp. 9, 10.} as well as Moses Stuart (1780-1852) in America, ^{42In the early nineteenth century STUART inoculated the American ministry with anti Protestant Preterism, using this to combat the prophetic interpretations of William Miller and his associates-denying that Revelation 13 applies to the Papacy, and denying that the thousand years are still future.} and Samuel Davidson (1807-1898) of England, ^{43Similarly in England, DAVIDSON, in the interest of the same Preterist theory, assailed the Reformation view. He said, “Little do we believe that the Papacy is to be found in the Little Horn of Daniel’s Beast, in the Man of sin predicted by Paul, or the Antichrist of John.”(Introduction to the New Testament, vol. 3, p. 623.)} as will be noted in Volume III.PFF2 707.3

Then, ERNST WILHELM HENGSTENBERG (1802-1869), ^{44This conspicuous Lutheran leader was born in Frondenberg, Prussia, studied in Bonn, and in 1824 went to Berlin, and became a lecturer on theology at the university. By 1827 he became editor of the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung. He was author of several commentaries, notably Christologie des Alien Testaments (Christology of the Old Testament) (1829-1835).} typical of others before him, softened toward the Papacy because of his concern over German infidelity and Rationalism, while holding to much of the Historical School of interpretation. He joined with the Rationalists and Catholics in their efforts to subvert the Protestant application of the Apocalyptic symbols, and contended that if a definite era were to be fixed for the beginning of the thousand years scarcely any other would be so suitable as the first Christmas Eve of the year 800, the day of the inauguration of the Western Christian, or Holy Roman, Empire. ^{45Ernst W. Hengstenberg, The Revelation of St. John, vol. 2, p. 334; Auberlen, op. cit., p. 12.} Hengstenberg, commenting on Bengel, admitted that Chiliasm is the necessary consequence of the Protestant view, for the thousand years’ reign, according to the Apocalypse, begins only with the destruction of the Beast. ^{46Hengstenberg, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 351.} Serious inroads were made by these Rationalist teachings. We must not forget what Hengstenberg has done to defend the revelations of Christ in the Old Testament against Rationalism. His commentaries on the Gospels, as well as on the Apocalypse, will always be of the greatest benefit for all practical theologians.PFF2 708.1

Bengel likewise resisted this radical diversion of the twentieth chapter from its relation to the nineteenth. No one was able effectually to oppose him, though few Preterists had the courage to abandon the false view of the Papacy which had obtained increasing sanction. Let us note Bengel.PFF2 709.1