Historicism

[tomas1]

Which of the four methods do you feel is the best one for interrupting Bible prophecy? I see the options to be something like this.
1. Preterism leads very quickly to hyper preterism because it’s very hard to draw the line between What is to be fulfilled literally in the future instead of spiritually in the past. Also it treats the whole of the church age after the fall of Jerusalem as not important to God’s plan in history.
2. Futurism easily leads you to dispensationalism. It’s hard after insisting on the most literal possible interpretation to then say that some prophecies are to be taken spiritually. It also treats the last 2000 years as nothing more than a break in the action.
3. Idealism although helpful for devotional use is not the way that the New Testament authors usually interpret prophesies from the Old Testament. It also can lead you to conclude that the resurrection is not to be taken literally.
4. This leaves historicism. Although it has often been improperly used to set dates for Christ’s return I feel it is the best available method because it puts the Cross and the second coming in their proper places while still not overlooking the church age.
I’m not dogmatic about this and would very much like to hear any thoughts or opinions you might have.

[wildboar]

I believe there are several problems with the historicist interpretation. G. K. Beale writes in his commentary on Revelation:

There are many version of the historicist approach. Historicist interpreters generally see Revelation as predicting the major movemenst of Christian history, most of which have been fulfilled up to the time of the commentator. The mojority of these commentators have understood the seals, trumpets, and bowls as unfolding successive events of history in general chronological order. Christ's final coming is usually seen as very imminent. Typically this view identifies parts of the Apocalypse as prophecies of the invasions of the Christianized Roman Empire by the Goths and the Muslims. Further, the corruption of the medieval papacy, the reign of Charlemagne, the Protestant Reformation, and the destruction wrought by Napolean and Hitler have been seen as predicted by John.

This view tries to identify historical movements too specifically and limits the prophecies of the Apocalypse to Western church history, leaving aside the worldwide church. Proponents of this view living at different periods of church history cannot agree with one another, since they limit the meaning of the symbols only to specific historical referents contemporary with their own times.

Another weakness of this approach is that such a projection of future history would have had little relevance to the first-century readers of Revelation.

Certainly radical forms of idealism would have the problems you mentioned. Hoeksema, however created an idealist method of interpretation which worked overall. William Hendriksen greatly improved upon it and G. K. Beale has improved upon it even further. Beale refers to his method as "Eclecticism" or a "Redemptive-Historical Form of Modified Idealism". He would still be lumped into the idealist camp in alot of books but he avoids the pitfalls you mentioned. Beale writes further:

A more viable, modified version of the idealist perspective would acknowledge a final consummation in salvation and judgment. Perhaps it would be best to call this fifth view "eclecticism." Accordingly, no specific prophecied historical events are discerned in the book, except for the final coming of Christ to deliver and judge and to establish the final form of the kingdom in a cosummated new creation--though there are a few exceptions to this rule. The Apocalypse symbolically portrays even throughout history, which is understood to be under the sovereignty of the Lamb as a result of his death and resurrection. He will guide the events depicted until they finally issue in the last judgment and the definitive establishment of his kingdom. This means that specific events throughout the age extending from Christ's first coming to his second may be identified with one narrative or symbol. We may call this age innaugerated by Christ's first coming and concluded by the final appearance "the church age," "the interadventual age," or "the latter days." The majority of the symbols in the book are transtemporal in the sense that they are applicable to events throughout the "church age".

Therefore, the Historicists may sometimes be right in their precise historical identifications, but wrong in limiting the identification only to one historical reality. The same verdict may be passed on the preterist school of thought, especially the Roman version. And certainly there are prophecies of the future in Revelation. The crucial yet problamatic task of the interpreter is to identify through careful exegesis and against the original historical background those texts which pertain respectively to past, present, and future.

I believe that one of the key things which must be recognized is that the Bible is composed of various types of literature. An apocalyptic book like Revelation is not to be read in the same way a poetic book like Psalms is or an historic book like Acts. Everyone recognizes this to a certain degree in their interpretations, but consistency is the main problem.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

Which of the four methods do you feel is the best one for interrupting Bible prophecy?

for my NT intro class textbook (DA Carson et al) at seminary the statement was made that all four have some truth to them though they took the tact that a general futurist perspective best explained the book of Revelation. i also read other NT intros (one by Harrison and a NT Survey by Tenney) that said a similar thing, confessing that there is a bit of truth in them all. i don't think any one eschatological view can really do it justice.

[tomas1]

I agree that there are good points to all four methods. And when looking to find what God has to show me in my own personal life I usually study the text through the Idealist perspective. But I think when we are looking for the global meaning I feel that you cant beat Historicism. For example I am reasonably sure that the harlot riding the beast from Revelation 17 and 18 is the Roman Catholic Church. This fact doesn’t stop the text from warning me to stay away from organizations that play the harlot by mixing church and state.

[disciple]

I agree that there are good points to all four methods. And when looking to find what God has to show me in my own personal life I usually study the text through the Idealist perspective. But I think when we are looking for the global meaning I feel that you cant beat Historicism. For example I am reasonably sure that the harlot riding the beast from Revelation 17 and 18 is the Roman Catholic Church. This fact doesn’t stop the text from warning me to stay away from organizations that play the harlot by mixing church and state.

the important thing the intros pointed out is that it had a particular meaning to the original readers (meaning bound by the time of its original context) and it had future application for future readers (because it is Scripture and its teachings are timeless for His saints). prophecy was caste in their current situation though it may also have future application (this fits the overall type-antitype structure of Scripture).

we see this all over in the OT and from the NT authors quotations of it. for example the prophecy of Is 7:14 about the sign of a virgin/maiden being pregnant. it had a contemporary referent (for the original audience; read vv. 11-25; also in speaking to Ahaz we see that YHWH said, "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign...") and obviously a future referent quoted by matthew (mt 1:23) where he applies the prophecy or sign to Jesus (very much in line with the type-antitype, shadow-reality, promise-fulfillment structure of Scripture). but that doesn't mean God had a different and separate reference in mind for each and every generation from Isaiah to Jesus.

below are a couple of the notes from the NET bible:

It is very likely that Isaiah pointed to a woman who was present at the scene of the prophet’s interview with Ahaz. Isaiah’s address to the “house of David” and his use of second plural forms suggests other people were present, and his use of the second feminine singular verb form (“you will name”) later in the verse is best explained if addressed to a woman who is present.

Elsewhere the adjective hrh, when used predicatively, refers to a past pregnancy (from the narrator’s perspective, 1 Sam 4:19), to a present condition (Gen 16:11; 38:24; 2 Sam 11:5), and to a conception that is about to occur in the near future (Judg 13:5, 7). (There is some uncertainty about the interpretation of Judg 13:5, 7, however. See the notes to those verses.) In Isa 7:14 one could translate, “the young woman is pregnant.” In this case the woman is probably a member of the royal family. Another option, the one chosen in the translation above, takes the adjective in an imminent future sense, “the young woman is about to conceive.” In this case the woman could be a member of the royal family, or, more likely, the prophetess with whom Isaiah has sexual relations shortly after this (see 8:3).

[Robert R. Higby]

WB:
Therefore, the Historicists may sometimes be right in their precise historical identifications, but wrong in limiting the identification only to one historical reality.

While this may be literally true, it does not invalidate the historicist method. It is the only method that makes sense in interpreting the meaning of all history in light of Christ. Preterism focuses almost exclusively on the 1st century. Futurism focuses almost exclusively on events that have not yet occurred. Idealism limits prophecy to principle, rather than perceiving the ever-increasing significance of historical event as it moves toward the eschaton.

Three cheers for the right use of the historicist method (there is one)!

[disciple]

Three cheers for the right use of the historicist method (there is one)!

could you please explain Mt 1:23 (Is 7:14) with a historicist method?

[tomas1]

If I looked at this passage from a preterist perspective I would say that it was fulfilled in Isaiah’s time. A futurist would not expect a fulfillment until just before the end of time. An idealist would not look for a literal fulfillment at all. Only a Historicist would expect to see a virgin bear a son at a turning point in history but not expect the end to come just yet.

[Robert R. Higby]

That is a very good response, Tomas! I couldn't come up with a better one myself.

Ultimately, when we talk about the 3 methods, the correct interpretation of the man of lawlessness is the most critical issue. I subscribe that this man is historical and represents the kingdom of the great apostasy away from the gospel that started after the death of Paul. It spans the entire time period from Paul's death to the end of the age. Therefore, it is not limited to the Papacy only, though the Papacy is certainly a major part of it.

[disciple]

If I looked at this passage from a preterist perspective I would say that it was fulfilled in Isaiah’s time. A futurist would not expect a fulfillment until just before the end of time. An idealist would not look for a literal fulfillment at all. Only a Historicist would expect to see a virgin bear a son at a turning point in history but not expect the end to come just yet.

so a historicist would not look for a virgin birth in every era? i thought that's what was distinctive about historicism...that they saw in prophecy a fulfillment in every era. am i missing something?

in addition, all futurists do not see all prophecy as being an event that is not fulfilled until just before the end of time. for example, i am a futurist of sorts (partial futurist) but i see a type-antitype pattern in Scripture. i also see in the Scripture a usage of the mythos and of figurative language (especially eschatological language) by the Scripture writers to describe cataclysmic and other events (so they are not actual fulfillments only figures). so your descriptions are broadbrushes at best and caricatures at worst (and i understand that they weren't meant to be exhaustive descriptions of the range of all systems but i feel that the futurist description, in particular, was a caricature).

[wildboar]

Given the broad range of beliefs among various historicists, is there a particular one which you believe adequately applies their principles?

[tomas1]

Disciple:
Sorry if I painted with too broad a brush I only refeared to the different methods taken to their logical conclusions. I know that there are many shades to them all.
Here is a Good working definition of Historicism from the Historicism Research Foundation web site

Historicism teaches that biblical predictions are being fulfilled throughout history and continue to be fulfilled today. The Book of Revelation is a pre-written history of the Church from the time of its writing to the future Second Advent of Christ, which shall usher in the new heaven and new earth. Historicists agree on the following unique concepts:
· The "Year-Day" principle - In prophetic language, a day of symbolic time represents a year of actual, historic time.
· The "Time, Times and Half a time," "3 1/2 years," "1260 days", and "42 month" time period, which occurs seven times in Daniel and Revelation, is understood by Historicists to be fulfilled in history.
· All Historicists believe that the Papacy is that Anti-Christ, the Man of Sin of II Thessalonians 2, and a Beast of Revelation 13.
· Historicists generally agree the 5th trumpet (Rev. 9: 1-6) refers to the golden age of the Arabs with the emergence of Islam under Mohammed, and the 6th trumpet (Rev. 9: 13-15) refers to the Turks.
· All Historicists agree that the Book of Revelation prophesies the history of the Church from the Apostolic Era to the future Second Advent of Jesus Christ.



This is the way that most of the Reformers and Puritans Looked at Revelation but I don’t think it’s very popular today. I first learned of it by reading The Peoples New Testament by BW Johnson. A good modern example can be found at http://historicist.tripod.com/index.html

If you want to look at Revelation and compare the 4 methods on a chapter-by-chapter basis a here is a good place to start http://www.souldevice.org/revoutline.html

[disciple]

Sorry if I painted with too broad a brush I only refeared to the different methods taken to their logical conclusions. I know that there are many shades to them all.

i understand. i was mostly just being sensitive and playing the watchdog. almost nothing bothers me more than caricatures.

Here is a Good working definition of Historicism from the Historicism Research Foundation web site

Historicism teaches that biblical predictions are being fulfilled throughout history and continue to be fulfilled today. The Book of Revelation is a pre-written history of the Church from the time of its writing to the future Second Advent of Christ, which shall usher in the new heaven and new earth. Historicists agree on the following unique concepts:
· The "Year-Day" principle - In prophetic language, a day of symbolic time represents a year of actual, historic time.
· The "Time, Times and Half a time," "3 1/2 years," "1260 days", and "42 month" time period, which occurs seven times in Daniel and Revelation, is understood by Historicists to be fulfilled in history.
· All Historicists believe that the Papacy is that Anti-Christ, the Man of Sin of II Thessalonians 2, and a Beast of Revelation 13.
· Historicists generally agree the 5th trumpet (Rev. 9: 1-6) refers to the golden age of the Arabs with the emergence of Islam under Mohammed, and the 6th trumpet (Rev. 9: 13-15) refers to the Turks.
· All Historicists agree that the Book of Revelation prophesies the history of the Church from the Apostolic Era to the future Second Advent of Jesus Christ.

so am i to assume that this actually only applies to biblical eschatological prophecy or to prophecy in the book of revelation (therefore NT prophecy)? did OT prophecy work differently? how about prophecy concerning the Messiah or the New Covenant? are those being fulfilled throughout history and do they continue to be fulfilled today? this still doesn't answer my question as to how a historicist would understand Mt 1:23 (Is 7:14) et al.

therefore i presume that the historicist approach to biblical prophecy actually only applies to a view of the book of Revelation and nothing more. i am at a loss as to why we should see NT prophecy as different from any other. but ok, we'll go with that. i guess i realized that this term only applied to the book of Revelation and other NT prophecy but i would prefer to find an approach to prophecy that deals with all of prophecy and the manner in which it is fulfilled. i personally see more validity in a type-antitype approach with figurative usage of eschatological language and mythos (which are not fulfillments). it makes for a more holistic approach to the issue of prophecy in all of Scripture. then there is not all of this confusion in dividing and arbitrarily distinguishing between types of prophecy, prophetic books, etc.

[Skeuos Eleos]

i personally see more validity in a type-antitype approach with figurative usage of eschatological language and mythos (which are not fulfillments). it makes for a more holistic approach to the issue of prophecy in all of Scripture. then there is not all of this confusion in dividing and arbitrarily distinguishing between types of prophecy, prophetic books, etc.

I can see how you would say that about so many OT prophecies where we see their fullfillment as the anti-type in the NT but how would you apply a type-antitype approach to say Rev 17?

Martin

[wildboar]

The problem still remains of what the relevance of such information was to the first century reader. In many of the OT prophecies we find initial fulfillments and then final more complete fulfillments with general principles that applied at the time it was written as well as today.

Also, much like the modern futurist schools it appears that each group of historicists sees his own day as being the final one, yet he leaves no reason for the first century readers to expect the soon return of Christ.

Ultimately the purpose of Revelation was to comfort the believers as they are persecuted. The victory of Christ seems to be overshadowed in many historicist commentaries with a great focus upon the anti-christ and overly concerned with the situation of the western church with no concern for eastern Chrsitianity.

Generally historicists have been very militantly anti-papist, however I was amused to read this at one of the web sites posted:

Does this mean that to be the Pope is to be damned, cursed, etc.?

Of course not. A person cannot be automatically damned and cursed. They have to deserve it. The present Pope, John Paul II, is a nice person, and many Popes have been good Christians. But the majority of Popes during the centuries that the Papacy was the undisputed spiritual authority throughout most of Europe, during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, were evil, and the Church they were the heads of was characterized by worldliness, hypocrisy, ruthlessness and thirst for power. They were the ones that committed the blasphemies and abominations. And it is not surprising that the Lord knew about all these things before they happened, and warned us about them in this magnificent Prophecy.

[tomas1]

Disciple said:
so am i to assume that this actually only applies to biblical eschatological prophecy or to prophecy in the book of revelation (therefore NT prophecy)?

No one of the strongest points for me of this method as I understand it, is that it assumes that any prophecy (OT or NT) points to Christ and the Church age and not Israel unless the text itself warrants otherwise. So it seems to fit well with New Covenant Theology.

Wild Boar:
The problem still remains of what the relevance of such information was to the first century reader. In many of the OT prophecies we find initial fulfillments and then final more complete fulfillments with general principles that applied at the time it was written as well as today.

The first century reader would use the Idealist method when looking for personal incite just as I do today. He would also realize that God had big plans for the future.

By the way one of the reasons I brought this up here on this forum is because most of popular things written about prophecy are just plain goofy like that quote about the pope. I hope to hear some intelligent discussion

[wildboar]

tomas:

The first century reader would use the Idealist method when looking for personal incite just as I do today. He would also realize that God had big plans for the future.

So it seems you are not actually adopting a strict historicist stance but more of an eclectic method.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

No one of the strongest points for me of this method as I understand it, is that it assumes that any prophecy (OT or NT) points to Christ and the Church age and not Israel unless the text itself warrants otherwise. So it seems to fit well with New Covenant Theology.

but then that does not really fit the historicist hermeneutic does it? if any prophecy points to Christ and the Church, how were those prophecies fulfilled throughout history in their day and how do they continue to be fulfilled today? how does the virgin birth continue to be fulfilled today? how was it fulfilled from the time of its utterance until the time of Christ? this is exactly what i mean about not being a holistic approach to prophecy. as far as i can understand it, it just cannot work. there are too many holes.

[disciple]

I can see how you would say that about so many OT prophecies where we see their fullfillment as the anti-type in the NT but how would you apply a type-antitype approach to say Rev 17?

i'm not sure specifically what would be an issue/problem here. basically with revelation i would say that there was a contemporary figure or image that the initial reader could identify and then a future fulfillment of that figure or image. the added difficulty of books like ezekiel, daniel, and revelation is that they fit into the apocalyptic genre filled with visions and imagery (which were mostly to paint a vivid picture of coming events) making certainty about the referents to the images (especially in the future) very difficult. and the writings, although dealing with visions and figurative images, were couched in their contemporary situation so their first readers would have readily understood what was being spoken of (at least in their day). for example, the mark of the beast was probably a stamp that the early Roman citizens had to have to buy or sell. it was a 9cm (i think that was the size) red stamp imprint with the Roman emperor's name and date of reign that was affixed to all sales documents. you can read about this in deissman's "light from the ancient east" which is a treatment of the papyri, ostraca, and other archaeological finds in egypt starting in the late 19th century. but it also has a future meaning which is probably not literal (much to the chagrin of the "left behind" readers who will probably be disappointed here). in other words, we shouldn't be suspect of microchip implants, social security numbers, or credit cards. i hope this sort of answers your question.

nevertheless, like WB said, revelation was primarily written to encourage believers that Christ is the King and Savior who fights for us and He will win the battle and defeat all His and our foes (despite their current situation of undergoing persecution from the Roman state).

[Robert R. Higby]

There is a lot of immature historicism and I do not subscribe to any wild-eyed speculation like the year-day principle, etc.

The issue is whether the NT prophecies reaching past the apostolic era belong mainly to the 1st century, the last few years before Christ's final Advent, or the whole era in the times between. My conviction is that the primary focus is on the whole era in the times between--though certain aspects are indeed dealing with primarily the 1st century or the very last days.

We are to interpret all that we see in history as fruit of the growth of the kingdoms of both Christ and Antichrist. This is not mere recapitulation or an apotelesmatic principle. History does not simply repeat itself (idealism); the issues become clearer and more prominent as time moves forward.