Why aren't there any/many modern historicist scholars?

[Guest]

Steve,

I'm about half way through your book 'Revelation: 4 Views' and I'm very thankful for the work you've done on this subject.

I am 23 and grew up a futurist (in fact, I didn't know there was anything else). My pastor never really talked about eschatology....or the book of Revelation for that matter except for maybe a few sermons on the 7 churches. I guess my only real influence was Ray Stedman. I used to read his sermons online quite often. I grew a lot from reading his sermons and am thankful for his overall teaching. Later, the Left Behind series affirmed this futurist mindset (I made it through the first 7 and then gave up).

But at Bible college I started to question this futurist position. I came across the historicist position. Actually, Ray Stedman kinda seems like a mix bettween a futurist and a historicist to me. So I guess I started believing both (if that's possible). I still was not ever aware of the preterist position.

As I have been reading your book, I find myself with the following thoughts on each of the 4 views:

1. Historicists- They make a pretty solid case, pretty thorough
2. Preterist- I've learned a lot and now fall into this camp
3. Futurist- I'm less of a futurist every page
4. Spiritual- They seem to be avoiding the issue by restating bland truth, just my opinion

One comment you made early in your book was that there are practically no modern historicist scholars. Why do you think that is? It seems much more compelling than the futurist position in my opinion.

[Guest]

I'm glad you're doing so much of your own evaluating as you read through the book. I hope it encourages many others to think for themselves, as you are doing.

I think the reason that you don't find historicist scholars very often these days is because of their commitment to the day-for-a-year interpretive method. In some cases, this method yields impressive results, but when applied to the career of the beast, it fails in its predictions. Whether you calculate the rise of the papacy in the fourth or fifth centuries, or as late as 600, with Gregory the Great, in any case, 1260 years falls short of the actual time this institution has lasted. Until the mid 1800's, there was no reason to doubt that this method might be correct.

Also, there is no real exegetical basis to justify the adoption of this year-for-a-day principle. The example of Ezekiel 4:5-6 is only said to refer to that one prophecy, without any hint that this is to become a regular principle in other cases. The seventy weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 are not a clear example of this concept, since there is no mention in the passage of "days" or "years" there. We may understand the 70 "sevens" to refer to 490 years, but there is no correlation of those years with the same number of days. Also, the giving of Israel a year of wandering for every day the spies spent in the land does not hint at any procedure for interpreting prophetic passages.

The day-for-a-year method is not applied consistently, even within the system that embraces it. Though the "five months" (for example) are taken to be 150 days (that is, 150 years) in chapter nine, no one has broken the "1000 years" (Rev.20) into days and then taken a day for a year. There are other inconsistencies. Outside of Daniel and Revelation, the historicists generally don't apply this method to dates in other prophetic books.

There may be another factor that has caused the historicist view to fall out of favor in modern times. The historicist approach is very hard on the Catholic Church. In my opinion, the Medieval popes deserve every bit of negative press they can get, but we live in an age of ecumenism and tolerance, and modern Protestants are not as hostile toward Catholicism as they were in the days when historicism flourished.

There may be other reasons for the decline of historicism, but I think those that I have identified above are probably the major ones.

[Guest]

Thanks Steve. That makes sense.

I'm really enjoying the book. I'm sure I'll have a few more questions before I finish. I must admit though, the following line made me chuckle:

"Lindsey, for the first time up to this point, does not see an object that falls from heaven as a nuclear bomb." (pg. 175)

[Guest]

I am enjoynig this book as well - and I, too, am about half way through.

I remember reading a very interesting book by Ellis Skolfield called The False Prophet. He uses the day-for-a-year principle and counts about 1260 years from the time of Daniel's prophecy to the erection of the Dome of the Rock on the Temple mount - which he calls the Abomination of Desolation - around 700 AD (I don't recall the exact dates right off hand). Then he counts an additional 1260 years and comes up right about the time of the establishment of the modern state of Israel.

I am not saying I buy into it, in fact I consider the modern state of Israel to be nothing more than a secular political entity and not a fulfilment of any kind of prophecy. I do believe, however, that eventually both houses of Israel (believing Ephraim and believing Judah) will be restored under King Yeshua - not necessarily for a 1000 year reign, but for all eternity. But, that is an entirely different subject

Blessings,
-larry

[Guest]

Thanks for sharing that, Larry.

Blessings!