Ray Summers. Worthy Is the Lamb: Interpreting the Book of Revelation In Its Historical Background. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1951.
Ray Summers was a professor of New Testament and Greek who taught at
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary, and Baylor University. A colleague of mine recommended this
book to me because I wanted to learn about partial preterism, which was
the view on the Book of Revelation that my colleague held. According to
partial preterism, as I understand it, much of the Book of Revelation
pertained to the first century C.E., and yet the second coming of Christ
that is talked about in the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles of Paul
will have a future fulfillment.
There are at least two strands of preterism with which I am
familiar. The first strand interprets the Book of Revelation in light
of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., and thus it dates
Revelation to around that time, which is roughly two decades prior to
when many scholars date it. The second strand interprets the Book of
Revelation primarily in reference to God’s judgment of pagan Rome in
history. Ray Summers adheres to this strand, and he dates the
composition of the book to the 90′s C.E.
There was a lot that was valuable in this book. There was Summers’
discussion of apocalyptic literature in general. I was particularly
interested in Summers’ assertion that the reason that much of
apocalyptic literature was pseudonymous and attributed to prominent
figures before or during the time of Moses was that the law had attained
prominence, and thus there was a feeling that revelation after the time of the Torah would not be as legitimate as revelation before or during
the time of the Torah’s revelation. I have questions about this, since
the prophetic writings in the Hebrew Bible came after the time of the
Torah and were considered (on some level) to be revelatory. But I do
agree with Summers that there is significance in the attribution of much
of apocalyptic literature to Moses or prominent biblical figures prior
to the time of Moses: perhaps it is that earlier was considered better,
or more authoritative.
Summers defends the idea that the apostle John wrote the Book of
Revelation. He appeals to the views of church fathers, and he attempts
to respond to arguments that have been advanced against Johannine
authorship. On the dramatic differences in writing styles between the
Gospel of John and the Book of Revelation, one argument that Summers
makes is that John may have had someone to put his thoughts into refined
language when he was writing the Gospel of John, but he did not have
such a person when he wrote the Book of Revelation. On the early
testimony that the John who wrote Revelation was John the Elder, Summers
contends that John the Elder could have been the apostle John. Whether
or not one agrees with Summers’ conclusions, his arguments deserve
thoughtful consideration.
Summers argues against some of the other Christian approaches to
Revelation that are out there, including the futuristic, premillennial
perspective, and the historicist interpretation that focuses on the
medieval Roman Catholic church and the Protestant Reformation. Summers
has at least two arguments against some of these approaches. One is
that they can be rather arbitrary, as they posit connections between
parts of the Book of Revelation and historical or (in the case of
strands of futurism) current events. The second argument, which appears
often throughout Summers’ book, is that these approaches violate the
purpose of the Book of Revelation, which was to comfort persecuted
Christians during the first century C.E. Summers wonders: How would
first century Christians be comforted by John telling them what would
happen in the Middle Ages or two-thousand-or-so years in the future?
Summers does not believe that they would have been.
Summers interprets much of the Book of Revelation in light of
realities of the first century C.E. He believes that the first horseman
of the apocalypse relates to Parthia, noting that the first horseman
resembles certain Parthian images. He contends that the Beast is the
emperor Domitian, who insisted on being worshiped and persecuted
Christians mercilessly. Summers believes that the story of the two
witnesses conveys the message that the church will survive,
notwithstanding persecution. According to Summers, the coming of Christ
in Revelation is not the same as the second coming of Christ in other
parts of the New Testament, but it is Christ coming in judgment against
pagan Rome, which came to pass in history. The binding of Satan, for
Summers, meant that Satan would no longer deceive people to engage in
emperor worship. Summers does acknowledge that there is an
eschatological element in Revelation: he interprets God’s judgment after
the second resurrection and the casting of the Beast and the false
prophet into hell to be things that will occur when Christ comes back in
the future. But, overall, Summers believes that Revelation pertains to
what historically happened to pagan Rome.
What about some of the fantastic events narrated in Revelation:
mountains going into the sea, vicious scorpions stinging people, etc.?
Summers interprets some of them in light of volcano eruptions and an
earthquake in the first century C.E., but often he regards the fantastic phenomena
as symbolic, noting that apocalyptic literature frequently uses symbolism.
I
am not entirely convinced by Summers' partial preterism. I agree with
Summers that much of Revelation can be associated with events in the
first century C.E., but I believe that the author of Revelation expected
for Christ to return, to defeat Rome, and to set up his kingdom in the
first century C.E., and that this was what he thought would give hope to
the suffering Christians. Revelation 11:15, after all, presents the
kingdoms of this world becoming the kingdom of Christ, and Christ
reigning forever and ever. That sounds to me like Revelation is
depicting Christ returning to rule the earth. Moreover, I think that
work should be done on determining when Revelation should be interpreted
literally, and when it should be interpreted symbolically. In my
opinion, it is not enough to say that Revelation is a symbolic book, and
thus we should interpret fantastic phenomena in Revelation as symbolic,
for what is to prevent symbolic exegesis from becoming as arbitrary as
the approaches that Summers critiques?
Overall, I found parts of Summers’ book to be deep and meaty, and
parts of it to be rather shallow. Summers is quite deep when he goes
into different interpretations of parts of Revelation, highlighting what
he considers to be their strengths and weaknesses and offering his own
opinion. Summers does not always do this in his exegesis, but he is
very impressive when he does. Also, there were times when I wished that
Summers provided documentation for some of his claims. Summers cites
sources for different opinions on Revelation, but not so much for first
century C.E. history. Summers’ book would have been better had it done
the latter.