Seventh-day Adventist eschatology (Revelation's prophecies)

Seventh-day Adventist eschatology is based on their interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel, Revelation and other prophecies in the Bible. While the original article contains a cursory and superficial overlook of the prophecies, this secondary article provides a vital, more comprehensive look at the SDA interpretation of Revelation's prophecies that would otherwise make the original article overly large.

Method of Interpretation

The Adventist Church believes that the Bible is true and accurate. It approaches Biblical prophecies as symbolic presentations of God's foreknowledge of the history of the world, as noted in Amos 3:7 – "Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets."[1][2][3] From its beginnings, the Seventh-day Adventist church has followed – like the Protestant Reformers[4] – the historicist method of prophetic interpretation to explain symbols and their meaning. Use of this method lead the Protestant reformers to be unanimous in their protest against Rome. Bible prophecy interpreted in this manner was the rallying point and the battle cry that made the Reformation seemingly unconquerable.[5] However, following the public humiliation of the October 22, 1844, Great Disappointment, there was widespread abandonment of historicism in eschatology among Protestant and Evangelical churches in favor of the new Dispensationalism. The Seventh-day Adventists are among the few larger groups that still adhere to a historicist interpretation of Bible prophecy.[6][7]

Historicism

The historicism method perceives the prophecies of Revelation as being fulfilled throughout history, ranging from the past, through the present, to the future. It is sometimes called the 'continuous historical' view.[8] "This is the most ancient system of interpretation in both Jewish and Christian traditions. So far it is the only one which respects the historical intention of the biblical author as such.[9]

Anti-Christian Porphyry's contrary method (c. 270 AD)

Porphyry (A.D. 233 – c. 304) was a Syrian sophist and Neoplatonic philosopher, born at Batanaea in Syria, and died at Rome. He studied under Plotinus, who developed the Neoplatonic system. Porphyry became a teacher of philosophy at Rome, then, while in Sicily he composed a treatise (A.D. c. 270) consisting of fifteen books entitled Adversus Christianos (Against the Christians). Books 12 and 13 were devoted to an examination of the prophecies of Daniel.[10] In his day, his work had no real influence and the view that (the historical) Daniel authored the Book of Daniel was pervasive during the Middle Ages. Christians and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, were in general agreement that the book was written in the sixth century B.C.[11]

Jerome (A.D. c. 347 – 420) believed that Porphyry attacked the prophecy of Daniel because Jews and Christians pointed to historical fulfillment of the prophecies as a persuasive argument against heathen positions. For Porphyry, Daniel must be disproved in order to block the strength of the predictions about Jesus, specifically those with ordered lists of kings and the time of His arrival, even to counting the years—a comment on the seventy-weeks prophecy. So, Porphyry proposed a unique invention that has become the only other method of interpretation of Daniel. All modern, non-historicist methods are based solidly on Porphyry's concept. He suggested that the book of Daniel was written by some unknown Jewish redactor who, during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, (d. 164 B.C.), collected the traditions of Daniel's life and wrote a history of current events but in the future tense, incorrectly dating them back to the 6th century BC. The general attack against the early date is focused primarily on chapter 11, which, it was broadly assumed, offers a elaborate description of the era of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Maccabean Wars.[12]

"Daniel did not predict so much future events as he narrated past ones. Finally what he had told up to Antiochus contained true history; if anything was guessed beyond that point it was false, for he had not known the future."

— Porphyry, Translated from Jerome, Commentaria in Danielem prologus, in Migne, PL, vol. 25, col. 491[10]

Thus Porphyry's scheme—the oldest as well as most impressive straightforward attack on Daniel—was founded on the purported falseness of Daniel's prophecies. He threw his full force against the book of Daniel, realizing that if this mainstay of faith were weakened, the entire makeup of prophecy could collapse, because the times and symbols of Daniel are found in the Revelation of the New Testament. Also, if the author was not Daniel, then he lied on a colossal scale, attributing to God prophecies never given, and claiming imaginary miracles. If Daniel's authorship could be shown to be false, then Jesus Himself would be guilty of supporting a pretender. (Matthew 24:15)[13]

Porphyry's Legacy

According to Froom, Porphyry's attack was so good he left his successors little to improve. After lying largely dormant for more than a thousand years, his argument concerning Anitochus Epiphanes was used against the Protestant Reformation.[14] The sixteenth-century Protestant historicist interpretations of Daniel and Revelation shook the Roman Catholic Church, and in response the Catholic Counter-Reformation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries promoted two different and mutually exclusive systems of prophetic interpretation: preterism and futurism, which had the effect of deflecting the timeline of prophecy from condemning the papal system.[8]

Preterism

Preterists and non-preterists have generally agreed that the Jesuit Luis de Alcasar (1554–1613) wrote the first systematic preterist exposition of prophecy – Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi (published in 1614) – during the Counter-Reformation. This view states that the book of Daniel was written by someone other than Daniel against the background of contemporary events during the oppression of Antiochus Epiphanes.[15] It repudiates the miracle of prediction and offers the "more reasonable" and "elegant" "vaticinium_ex_eventu". (i.e., foretelling what has already occurred). The book of Daniel is thus seen as a work of fiction written during the Maccabean period to encourage resistance against tyranny. All of Daniel's prophecies are "fulfilled" during the second century B.C. The book of Daniel is not expected to be historically accurate or true to the sixth century B.C. setting it describes.[15][16] It eschews the idea of a millennium entirely.[6]

The preterist methodology starts with chapter 11 and works backwards through the prophetic chapters. Chapter 11 thus becomes the yardstick by which to approach the previous prophecies. Most of chapter 11 is assumed to deal with Antiochus Epiphanes who ruled the Seleucid kingdom from approximately 175 to 164 B.C. He is then read back into the other prophecies of chapters 8, 7, and 2. Antiochus Epiphanes becomes the all-encompassing figure of Daniel's prophecies, and Papal Rome is removed from the interpretation .[17]

Futurism

The Futurist view was proposed by two Catholic Jesuit writers, Manuel Lacunza and Francisco Ribera during the Counter Reformation. Lacunza's "La venida del Mesías en gloria y majestad" was secretly printed in Cadiz in 1810 or 1811 under the Jewish pseudonym of Rabbi Juan Josaphat ben-Ezra. His work was banned by the Catholic Church. It grew in popularity in the 19th and 20th centuries.[18]

The futurist view considers much of Daniel's prophecies as still future and as yet unfulfilled. The futurist interpreters also begin in the past, starting Daniel's prophecies with the historical sequence. But they then jump over the entire Christian era and place the main fulfillment in the last seven years of earth's history. Again, Papal Rome is passed over in interpretation.[8]

This method is nearly the reverse of Preterism by projecting nearly all prophecies into the future. Especially concerning the 70 weeks of years. Daniel 9:24–27. A gap of about 20 centuries is inserted between the end of the 69th week at Christ's death and the final week moved to the time of the end.[9] It focuses on the tribulation period of the unrighteous left behind to be punished by suffering through the chronology of wars and famines laid out in Revelation.[6]

Dispensationalism

A classic example of using Futurism can be found in the "dispensationalist" system, as it deals with the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24–27. A gap of about 20 centuries is inserted between the end of the 69th week a Christ's death and the 70th week at the time of the end.[9]

Modern scholarship

In modern times Porphyry's thesis was raised again, introduced by Johann S. Semler (d. 1791) and Wilhelm A. Corrodi (d.1798).[11] It was adopted by Edward Gibbon and the English deist Anthony Collins. Modern criticism has imitated essentially the same contention projected by Porphyry.[19]  

Modern scholarship claims that no one but a contemporary of Antiochus Epiphanes, could present the true events of the era so accurately. The writer of the book of Daniel must have been well informed or one who desired to give courage to his people during Maccabean times. He must, they assert, have taken the fabled name Daniel as his pseudonym to give greater credence to persuade his readers.[11]

Additional credibility for this view has been asserted by the fact that the book of Daniel is not listed among the "prophets" in the Jewish canon; nor is Daniel mentioned in the book of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach, c. 190–170 B.C.) as of any importance. Thus the book of Daniel must have been written about 165 B.C.[11]

As modern scholarship came into its own, many scholars agreed to the late date for the book of Daniel. Criticism of Daniel is based on the supposition that religious ideas are but natural evolution in human thought. Under such a fundamental assumption the direct participation of a supernatural person who can disclose providential will as depicted in prophecy is impossible. According to modern scholarship, writings that contain prophetic objects are at best considered to be pious fiction, in which the writer deliberately mislead by using the future tense to pretend to foretell the future; while actually he is but recounting past and current events.[11]

The preterist approach makes the Bible lie, the futurist approach makes the Bible a work of science fiction; neither one seriously takes the historical data into account."[9] The vast majority of modern commentators and critical scholars take the position that God does not interfere in human affairs. The Adventist Church utterly rejects all these positions as having no value.[15]

Sources

The publications are listed in order of date.

• Newton, Thomas (1754). Dissertations on the Prophecies. I.
• Ferraris, Lucius (1772). "papa, II". Prompta Biblotheca. VI. Venice: Caspa Storti.
• Elliott, Edward Bishop (1847). Horae Apocalypticae. London: Seely, Burnside and Seely.
• White, Ellen (1 May 1947) [1868]. "Chapter 69 Rebellion". Testimony 9. 1 (4 ed.).
• White, Ellen (1911) [1888]. The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan. p. 678.
• Smith, Uriah (1944) [1897]. Daniel and the Revelation. Southern Publishing Association.
• White, Ellen (22 April 1899). "Manuscript 63: The work of Christian Physicians". Letters and Manuscripts. 14, paragraphs 30, 31. White Estate.
• Botsford, George Willis (1911). A history of the ancient World. New York: The Macmillan Company.
• Boutflower, Charles (1923). In and Around the Book of Daniel. London: The Macmillan Co.
• Froom, Le Roy Edwin (1946). PART I, Colonial and Early National American Exposition. PART II, Old World Nineteenth Century Advent Awakening. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation. 3. The Review and Herald Publishing Association. p. 802.
• Froom, Le Roy Edwin (1948). Pre-Reformation and Reformation Restoration, and Second Departure. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation. 2. The Review and Herald Publishing Association. p. 863.
• Froom, Le Roy Edwin (1950). Early Church Exposition, Subsequent Deflections, and Medieval Revival. The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers: The Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation. 1. The Review and Herald Publishing Association. p. 1006.
• Anderson, Roy Allan (1975) [1953]. Unfolding Daniel. Pacific Press Publishing Association.
• Previte-Orton, Charles William (1953). Shorter Cambridge Medieval History. 1. Cambridge: University Press.
• Eck, Johann (1978). Enchiridion of Commonplaces of John Eck against Luther and other enemies of the church. 8. Translated by Battles, F. L. (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids Michigan: Calvin Theological Seminary.
• Ford, Desmond (1978). Daniel. Southern Publishing Association.
• Maxwell, C. Mervyn (1981). God Cares: The Message of Daniel for You and Your Family. 1. Pacific Press Publishing Association.
• Shea, William H. (1986). "The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24–27". In Holbrook, Frank B. (ed.). The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy. Daniel & Revelation Committee Series. 3. Biblical Research Institute: Review and Herald Publishing Association. p. 557. ISBN 0-925675-01-6.
• Doukhan, Jacques B. (1987). Daniel: The Vision of the End. Andrews University Press.
• Arasola, Kai (1990). The End of Historicism: Millerite Hermeneutic of Time Prophecies in the Old Testament (Thesis). Uppsala: University of Uppsala.
• Shea, William H. (1996). "Daniel 7-12". Abundant Life Bible Amplifier. Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press Association.
• Knight, George (2000). A Search for Identity. Review and Herald Publishing Association.
• Goldstein, Clifford (2003). Graffiti in the Holy of Holies. Pacific Press Publishing Association.
• Paulien, Jon (Fall 2003). "The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apocalyptic – part 1". JATS. 14 (2): 15–43.
• Seow, Choon-Leong (2003). Daniel. Louisville KY: Westminister John Knox Press.
• Pfandl, Gehard (2004). Daniel: The Seer of Babylon. Review and Herald Publishing Association.
• LaRondelle, Hans Karl (September 2005). "The Heart of Historicism". Ministry. Vol. 77 no. 9. pp. 22–23, 25–27.
• Shea, William H. (2005). Daniel: A Reader's Guide. Pacific Press Publishing Association.
• Paulien, Jon (Spring 2006). "The End of Historicism? Reflections on the Adventist Approach to Biblical Apocalyptic – part 2". JATS. 17 (1): 180–208.
• Swearingen, Marc Alden (2006). Tidings out of the Northeast: A General Historical Survey of Daniel 11. Coldwater, MI: Remnant Publications. p. 272.
• Stefanovic, Zdravko (2007). Daniel: Wisdom to the wise, Commentary on the book of Daniel. Nampa, Idaho: Pacific Press Publishung Association.

References

1. Paulien 2003, pp. 15–43.
2. Paulien 2006, pp. 180–208.
3. LaRondelle 2005, pp. 22–23, 25–27.
4. Arasola 1990.
5. Froom 1948, pp. 243–244: This method lead to a twofold testimony – Christ and his salvation & Antichrist and his damnation. “The reformers were unanimous in its acceptance. And it was this interpretation of prophecy that lent emphasis to their reformatory action. It led them to protest against Rome with extraordinary strength and undaunted courage. ... This was the rallying point and the battle cry that made the Reformation unconquerable."
6. Barnard 2012, p. 63.
7. Barnard, John Richard (August 2012). The Millerite Movement and American Millenial Culture, 1830–1845 (Thesis). Southern Illinois University: Carbondale. p. 63. Another lasting legacy of the Millerite movement is the widespread abandonment of the method of prophetic interpretation used by Miller: historicism. The very public humiliation of October 22, 1844 greatly limited the use of historicism. Instead, new eschatological methods came to dominate American theology regarding the end times, most notably futurism, which focuses on the tribulation period of the unrighteous left behind to be punished by suffering through the chronology of wars and famines laid out in Revelation, and preterism, which eschews the idea of a millennium entirely.
8. Shea 2005, p. 130.
9. Doukhan 1987, p. 8.
10. Froom 1950, pp. 326–327.
11. Froom 1950, pp. 55–56.
12. Froom 1950, pp. 55–56, 324, 326.
13. Froom 1950, p. 328.
14. Froom 1950, p. 329.
15. Shea 2005, pp. 18, 130.
16. Doukhan 1987, pp. 7–8.
17. Shea 2005, p. 94.
18. "Futurism's incredible journey".
19. Froom 1950, pp. 327, 329.