The revival of the Protestant Reformation came as a direct result of studying the stirring prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and the rediscovery of the historicist method of interpretation, derived from sola Scriptura. In fact, the internal way in which Daniel and John interpreted the prophecies became the key for Protestant Bible study. The historicist method views prophecy as a progressive and continuous fulfillment over time. This view led men such as Wycliffe, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, and others to identify the little horn in Daniel 7–8 and the beast that rises out of the sea, as depicted in Revelation 13, as the Roman Catholic Church, the papal power. The groundswell of reform had an enormous influence in Europe, as people came out of the Dark Ages. This groundswell was followed by the Inquisition and massive persecution. Many of the Reformers fled to the peaceful shores of the New World, where they were able to worship God in spirit and in truth (see Rev. 12:13–17).
Today the Bible remains unique when compared to other religious literature of the world in that 30 percent of its contents are prophetic in nature. Biblical prophecy provides an internal and external mechanism to confirm the accuracy of God’s Word. Prophecy pointing to the hope of the coming Messiah, the Second Coming, keeps the church looking forward with anticipation. It provides a sense and urgency of mission, for if Jesus is coming soon, it calls believers to prepare the world for His great Advent. This week we will study the pillars of historicist prophetic interpretation that provide the identity and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Part II: Commentary
Illustration
Far removed from the Inquisitors in Europe, American Protestants established the first major universities—Harvard, Yale, and Princeton—to train their ministers. For over a century and a half, the presidents and professors of these institutions produced major works outlining the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation from a historicist perspective. But Rome was not idle. Catholic scholars in the Counter Reformation reacted to the Protestants with new interpretations that deflected the attention away from the papacy.
Preterism was developed by the Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar (1554–1613), who interpreted prophecies in the Bible as simply communicating events that happened in the past. Preterists largely denied the possibility of predictive prophecy. De Alcazar projected the antichrist power into the past, identifying it with the Roman Emperor Nero.
Another Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537–1591), published a 500-page commentary on the book of Revelation, teaching that the majority of prophecy was to be fulfilled at the very end of time in a brief three-and-a-half-year period. Futurism went the opposite direction from that of de Alcazar, placing the emphasis of prophecy far into the future and leaving the papal church of the Middle Ages outside of the prophetic timeframe altogether.
Neither of these views had much influence at the beginning. Two developments changed this fortunate fact. The historical-critical approach to Scripture in the eighteenth century claimed to remove the possibility of predictive prophecy, adopting some tenets of the preterist position. This view is now the prevailing one, widely held by higher-critical scholars, both from Catholic and Protestant traditions. Meanwhile, more conservative Christians were heavily influenced by the Scofield Reference Bible (1906), leading a large majority today to accept a futurist (dispensationalist) view that envisions a secret rapture, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and a millennium before Christ’s second coming. Seventh-day Adventists alone remain a remnant among Protestants to uphold the historicist method. How did the prophets of Scripture use this method?
Scripture
Daniel interpreted the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 and the symbols of chapters 7 and 8 as a series of empires appearing one after another in a continuous sequence. He specifically told Nebuchadnezzar that he, as representing Babylon, was the head of gold (Dan. 2:38). The next three kingdoms occur in succession as parts of the body connected to each other. These parts are composed of various metals, which distinguish them from one another, but they are connected by the bodied image in descending order. The second and third kingdoms after Babylon are specifically identified by the angel Gabriel as “the kings of Media and Persia” (Dan. 8:20, NKJV) and the “kingdom of Greece” (Dan. 8:21, NKJV). Clearly, the legs of iron, which come next, are to be identified with Rome, as the course of history has demonstrated. The continuation of the iron into the toes, though mixed with clay, indicates the continuation of the Roman power. Each successive vision expands with greater detail those things to come “in the latter days” (Dan. 2:28). Daniel 7 and 8 place increasing focus on the little-horn power. The recapitulation, expansion, and enlargement of detail continues in Daniel 11, in which the papacy becomes the predominant focal point. This focus on the papacy is appropriate when we see that the major force to be reckoned with in the 1,260 day/year prophecy must be, and can only be, the papacy up until the deadly wound in 1798, and then beyond. This interpretation connects us with the powers that John spoke of prophetically in Revelation 12, 13, and 17.
In Revelation 13, the beast power that rises up out of the sea mirrors the actions of the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8. He reigns for the same period of forty-two months (Rev. 13:5) or 1260 years. He blasphemes God’s name and His tabernacle (Rev. 13:6). He kills by the sword and makes war with the saints (Rev. 13:10). He will be worshiped (Rev. 13:8). These descriptions are fulfilled in the papacy. But God protected the woman, His church, from the serpent-induced power of the beast that rises up out of the sea, and the earth “swallowed up the flood” (Rev. 12:16).
Preterism re-dates the prophet Daniel to the second century, after Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece come on the scene. Further, preterism reinterprets the little-horn power as a Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (Futurism also tends to interpret the little horn as Antiochus IV but then also suggests a future antichrist to appear at the end of time.) But this identification does not fit, for several reasons. (1) The Origin of the Little Horn. The little horn came “out of one of them” (Dan. 8:9). Preterists argue that the little horn came out of one of the four horns (the generals Lysimachus, Cassander, Ptolomy, and Seleucus and their successors as heads of the four Macedonian kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire was divided). But the grammatical, contextual, and syntactical evidence points to the conclusion that the little horn came out of one of “the four winds” or compass points, an expression that immediately precedes the phrase. (2) The Progression of Power in Kingdoms. The Medo-Persian ram “magnified himself” (Dan. 8:4, RSV), the Greek he-goat “magnified himself exceedingly” (Dan. 8:8, RSV), the little horn “magnified itself, even up to the Prince of the host” (Dan. 8:10, 11, RSV). But this magnification of power cannot be attributed to a single weak ruler such as Antiochus IV. (3) The Placement of Order. Antiochus IV ruled in the middle of the Seleucid dynasty, the seventh in a series of twenty-seven kings. The little-horn power appears “at the latter end of their rule” (Dan. 8:23, RSV). Rome appears at the latter part of the Greek Empire, but Antiochus IV does not. (4) The Direction of Conquest. The little-horn power was to conquer toward the east, the south and toward “the Beautiful Land” (Dan. 8:9, NASB); that is, from the direction of the west. But Antiochus IV was responsible for losing Judea, the “Beautiful Land,” not conquering it, and he had only limited success in the south (Egypt). (5) The Abomination of Desolation. Scholars believe that Antiochus IV caused the desolation of the sanctuary, but Jesus, quoting from Daniel, refers to this desolation as still in the future in His day (Matt. 24:15), and Antiochus IV had already been dead for two centuries. (6) The Evening/Morning “Days.” The 2,300 evening-mornings are interpreted as the sacrifices that ceased during Antiochus IV’s desecration of the temple. Thus, to accommodate the Antiochus interpretation, the number is reduced to 1,150 literal days. But the phrase ‘ereb bōqer is very similar to the designation used in Genesis 1 to refer to the 24-hour day. The morning and evening sacrifices associated with the earthly sanctuary are referred to in a different order, however; thus, the desolation mentioned in Daniel 8:13 does not refer to the stopping of the earthly sanctuary services during the time of Antiochus. (7) The Prophetic Close of the Prophecy. The close relation between Daniel 2 and 7 indicates that there is a glorious conclusion. But if Judas Maccabeus, the Jew, defeated Antiochus IV, how does Judas come in the clouds of heaven, like the Son of man (Dan. 7:13), and how is his kingdom eternal (Dan. 7:14)? (Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: The Church and the Last Things [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2016], pp. 713–17). Neither the preterist nor the futurist interpretation matches the criteria in the text or the testimony of Jesus. Thus, for these reasons, and others, the Antiochus interpretation for Daniel 8 is untenable. It is only the historicist interpretation of prophecy that identifies accurately the last 2,600 years of history in prophetic, sequential perspective.
Part III: Life Application
Why do these details matter to us in the 21st century? In examining some of the challenges posed to the historicist model of prophetic interpretation, we must admit that when we use Scripture to interpret Scripture and allow the prophets Daniel and John to speak on these matters, we must conclude with the Reformers that the little-horn power came out of the fourth beast (Daniel 7) from the western direction of the four winds (Daniel 8) and ruled for 1,260 years, shortly before Christ’s entering into the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary. John refers to this same power as the beast that rises up out of the sea (Rev. 13:1-10). There is only one entity that fits the criteria of Scripture and history: papal Rome. We must also recognize that the other two main methods of interpretation—preterism and futurism—originated in Rome with the primary objective to throw off the Protestant interpretation during the Counter Reformation. This fact raises serious questions about current mainline Protestant churches that have adopted these Catholic models. Certainly, this situation points to the fulfillment of our mission and message to proclaim the three angels’ messages, calling God’s people out of the confusion of Babylon while there is still time in earth’s history. Ask your class these questions:
1. How have the Protestant churches changed today? In what ways did the historicist position protect them from the errors taught by the Catholic Church, and how has that protection effectively been removed?
2. What are some ways that you can share the unique message of the “everlasting gospel” embodied in the three angels’ messages “to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people” (Rev. 14:6, 7, NKJV)?
Adjust My Preferences
Welcome! Please set your reading preferences below.
You can access this panel later by clicking the
preference icon
in the top right of the page.
Key Texts: Dan. 2:27–45, John 14:29, Num. 14:34, Dan. 7:1–25, Dan. 8:14, 1 Cor. 10:1–13.
Part I: Overview
The revival of the Protestant Reformation came as a direct result of studying the stirring prophecies of Daniel and Revelation and the rediscovery of the historicist method of interpretation, derived from sola Scriptura. In fact, the internal way in which Daniel and John interpreted the prophecies became the key for Protestant Bible study. The historicist method views prophecy as a progressive and continuous fulfillment over time. This view led men such as Wycliffe, Luther, Zwingli, Knox, and others to identify the little horn in Daniel 7–8 and the beast that rises out of the sea, as depicted in Revelation 13, as the Roman Catholic Church, the papal power. The groundswell of reform had an enormous influence in Europe, as people came out of the Dark Ages. This groundswell was followed by the Inquisition and massive persecution. Many of the Reformers fled to the peaceful shores of the New World, where they were able to worship God in spirit and in truth (see Rev. 12:13–17).
Today the Bible remains unique when compared to other religious literature of the world in that 30 percent of its contents are prophetic in nature. Biblical prophecy provides an internal and external mechanism to confirm the accuracy of God’s Word. Prophecy pointing to the hope of the coming Messiah, the Second Coming, keeps the church looking forward with anticipation. It provides a sense and urgency of mission, for if Jesus is coming soon, it calls believers to prepare the world for His great Advent. This week we will study the pillars of historicist prophetic interpretation that provide the identity and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Part II: Commentary
Illustration
Far removed from the Inquisitors in Europe, American Protestants established the first major universities—Harvard, Yale, and Princeton—to train their ministers. For over a century and a half, the presidents and professors of these institutions produced major works outlining the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation from a historicist perspective. But Rome was not idle. Catholic scholars in the Counter Reformation reacted to the Protestants with new interpretations that deflected the attention away from the papacy.
Preterism was developed by the Spanish Jesuit, Luis de Alcazar (1554–1613), who interpreted prophecies in the Bible as simply communicating events that happened in the past. Preterists largely denied the possibility of predictive prophecy. De Alcazar projected the antichrist power into the past, identifying it with the Roman Emperor Nero.
Another Spanish Jesuit, Francisco Ribera (1537–1591), published a 500-page commentary on the book of Revelation, teaching that the majority of prophecy was to be fulfilled at the very end of time in a brief three-and-a-half-year period. Futurism went the opposite direction from that of de Alcazar, placing the emphasis of prophecy far into the future and leaving the papal church of the Middle Ages outside of the prophetic timeframe altogether.
Neither of these views had much influence at the beginning. Two developments changed this fortunate fact. The historical-critical approach to Scripture in the eighteenth century claimed to remove the possibility of predictive prophecy, adopting some tenets of the preterist position. This view is now the prevailing one, widely held by higher-critical scholars, both from Catholic and Protestant traditions. Meanwhile, more conservative Christians were heavily influenced by the Scofield Reference Bible (1906), leading a large majority today to accept a futurist (dispensationalist) view that envisions a secret rapture, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, and a millennium before Christ’s second coming. Seventh-day Adventists alone remain a remnant among Protestants to uphold the historicist method. How did the prophets of Scripture use this method?
Scripture
Daniel interpreted the image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in chapter 2 and the symbols of chapters 7 and 8 as a series of empires appearing one after another in a continuous sequence. He specifically told Nebuchadnezzar that he, as representing Babylon, was the head of gold (Dan. 2:38). The next three kingdoms occur in succession as parts of the body connected to each other. These parts are composed of various metals, which distinguish them from one another, but they are connected by the bodied image in descending order. The second and third kingdoms after Babylon are specifically identified by the angel Gabriel as “the kings of Media and Persia” (Dan. 8:20, NKJV) and the “kingdom of Greece” (Dan. 8:21, NKJV). Clearly, the legs of iron, which come next, are to be identified with Rome, as the course of history has demonstrated. The continuation of the iron into the toes, though mixed with clay, indicates the continuation of the Roman power. Each successive vision expands with greater detail those things to come “in the latter days” (Dan. 2:28). Daniel 7 and 8 place increasing focus on the little-horn power. The recapitulation, expansion, and enlargement of detail continues in Daniel 11, in which the papacy becomes the predominant focal point. This focus on the papacy is appropriate when we see that the major force to be reckoned with in the 1,260 day/year prophecy must be, and can only be, the papacy up until the deadly wound in 1798, and then beyond. This interpretation connects us with the powers that John spoke of prophetically in Revelation 12, 13, and 17.
In Revelation 13, the beast power that rises up out of the sea mirrors the actions of the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8. He reigns for the same period of forty-two months (Rev. 13:5) or 1260 years. He blasphemes God’s name and His tabernacle (Rev. 13:6). He kills by the sword and makes war with the saints (Rev. 13:10). He will be worshiped (Rev. 13:8). These descriptions are fulfilled in the papacy. But God protected the woman, His church, from the serpent-induced power of the beast that rises up out of the sea, and the earth “swallowed up the flood” (Rev. 12:16).
Preterism re-dates the prophet Daniel to the second century, after Babylon, Medo-Persia, and Greece come on the scene. Further, preterism reinterprets the little-horn power as a Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. (Futurism also tends to interpret the little horn as Antiochus IV but then also suggests a future antichrist to appear at the end of time.) But this identification does not fit, for several reasons. (1) The Origin of the Little Horn. The little horn came “out of one of them” (Dan. 8:9). Preterists argue that the little horn came out of one of the four horns (the generals Lysimachus, Cassander, Ptolomy, and Seleucus and their successors as heads of the four Macedonian kingdoms into which Alexander’s empire was divided). But the grammatical, contextual, and syntactical evidence points to the conclusion that the little horn came out of one of “the four winds” or compass points, an expression that immediately precedes the phrase. (2) The Progression of Power in Kingdoms. The Medo-Persian ram “magnified himself” (Dan. 8:4, RSV), the Greek he-goat “magnified himself exceedingly” (Dan. 8:8, RSV), the little horn “magnified itself, even up to the Prince of the host” (Dan. 8:10, 11, RSV). But this magnification of power cannot be attributed to a single weak ruler such as Antiochus IV. (3) The Placement of Order. Antiochus IV ruled in the middle of the Seleucid dynasty, the seventh in a series of twenty-seven kings. The little-horn power appears “at the latter end of their rule” (Dan. 8:23, RSV). Rome appears at the latter part of the Greek Empire, but Antiochus IV does not. (4) The Direction of Conquest. The little-horn power was to conquer toward the east, the south and toward “the Beautiful Land” (Dan. 8:9, NASB); that is, from the direction of the west. But Antiochus IV was responsible for losing Judea, the “Beautiful Land,” not conquering it, and he had only limited success in the south (Egypt). (5) The Abomination of Desolation. Scholars believe that Antiochus IV caused the desolation of the sanctuary, but Jesus, quoting from Daniel, refers to this desolation as still in the future in His day (Matt. 24:15), and Antiochus IV had already been dead for two centuries. (6) The Evening/Morning “Days.” The 2,300 evening-mornings are interpreted as the sacrifices that ceased during Antiochus IV’s desecration of the temple. Thus, to accommodate the Antiochus interpretation, the number is reduced to 1,150 literal days. But the phrase ‘ereb bōqer is very similar to the designation used in Genesis 1 to refer to the 24-hour day. The morning and evening sacrifices associated with the earthly sanctuary are referred to in a different order, however; thus, the desolation mentioned in Daniel 8:13 does not refer to the stopping of the earthly sanctuary services during the time of Antiochus. (7) The Prophetic Close of the Prophecy. The close relation between Daniel 2 and 7 indicates that there is a glorious conclusion. But if Judas Maccabeus, the Jew, defeated Antiochus IV, how does Judas come in the clouds of heaven, like the Son of man (Dan. 7:13), and how is his kingdom eternal (Dan. 7:14)? (Norman R. Gulley, Systematic Theology: The Church and the Last Things [Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2016], pp. 713–17). Neither the preterist nor the futurist interpretation matches the criteria in the text or the testimony of Jesus. Thus, for these reasons, and others, the Antiochus interpretation for Daniel 8 is untenable. It is only the historicist interpretation of prophecy that identifies accurately the last 2,600 years of history in prophetic, sequential perspective.
Part III: Life Application
Why do these details matter to us in the 21st century? In examining some of the challenges posed to the historicist model of prophetic interpretation, we must admit that when we use Scripture to interpret Scripture and allow the prophets Daniel and John to speak on these matters, we must conclude with the Reformers that the little-horn power came out of the fourth beast (Daniel 7) from the western direction of the four winds (Daniel 8) and ruled for 1,260 years, shortly before Christ’s entering into the Most Holy Place of the sanctuary. John refers to this same power as the beast that rises up out of the sea (Rev. 13:1-10). There is only one entity that fits the criteria of Scripture and history: papal Rome. We must also recognize that the other two main methods of interpretation—preterism and futurism—originated in Rome with the primary objective to throw off the Protestant interpretation during the Counter Reformation. This fact raises serious questions about current mainline Protestant churches that have adopted these Catholic models. Certainly, this situation points to the fulfillment of our mission and message to proclaim the three angels’ messages, calling God’s people out of the confusion of Babylon while there is still time in earth’s history. Ask your class these questions:
1. How have the Protestant churches changed today? In what ways did the historicist position protect them from the errors taught by the Catholic Church, and how has that protection effectively been removed?
2. What are some ways that you can share the unique message of the “everlasting gospel” embodied in the three angels’ messages “to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people” (Rev. 14:6, 7, NKJV)?