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.
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]
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]
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]
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]
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 [ citation needed ]. 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]
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]
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]
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]
The publications are listed in order of date.
Christian eschatology, a major branch of study within Christian theology, deals with "last things". Such eschatology - the word derives from two Greek roots meaning "last" (ἔσχατος) and "study" (-λογία) - involves the study of "end things", whether of the end of an individual life, of the end of the age, of the end of the world or of the nature of the Kingdom of God. Broadly speaking, Christian eschatology focuses on the ultimate destiny of individual souls and of the entire created order, based primarily upon biblical texts within the Old and New Testaments.
Preterism, a Christian eschatological view, interprets some or all prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. This school of thought interprets the Book of Daniel as referring to events that happened from the 7th century BC until the first century AD, while seeing the prophecies of the Book of Revelation as events that happened in the first century AD. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
The Olivet Discourse or Olivet prophecy is a biblical passage found in the Synoptic Gospels in Matthew 24 and 25, Mark 13, and Luke 21. It is also known as the Little Apocalypse because it includes the use of apocalyptic language, and it includes Jesus' warning to his followers that they will suffer tribulation and persecution before the ultimate triumph of the Kingdom of God. The Olivet discourse is the last of the Five Discourses of Matthew and occurs just before the narrative of Jesus' passion beginning with the anointing of Jesus.
Vicarius Filii Dei is a phrase first used in the forged medieval Donation of Constantine to refer to Saint Peter, a leader of the Early Christian Church and regarded as the first Pope by the Catholic Church.
Futurism is a Christian eschatological view that interprets portions of the Book of Revelation, the Book of Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel as future events in a literal, physical, apocalyptic, and global context.
In the context of Christian eschatology, idealism involves an interpretation of the Book of Revelation that sees all of the imagery of the book as symbolic.
In Christian eschatology, Historicism is a method of interpretation of biblical prophecies which associates symbols with historical persons, nations or events. The main primary texts of interest to Christian historicists include apocalyptic literature, such as the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation. It sees the prophecies of Daniel as being fulfilled throughout history, extending from the past through the present to the future. It is sometimes called the continuous historical view. Commentators have also applied historicist methods to ancient Jewish history, to the Roman Empire, to Islam, to the Papacy, to the Modern era, and to the end time.
Manuel De Lacunza, S.J. was a Jesuit priest who used the pseudonym Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra in his main work on the interpretation of the prophecies of the Bible, which was entitled The Coming of the Messiah in Majesty and Glory.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church holds a unique system of eschatological beliefs. Adventist eschatology, which is based on a historicist interpretation of prophecy, is characterised principally by the premillennial Second Coming of Christ. Traditionally, the church has taught that the Second Coming will be preceded by a global crisis with the Sabbath as a central issue. At Jesus' return, the righteous will be taken to heaven for one thousand years. After the millennium the unsaved cease to exist as they will be punished by annihilation while the saved will live on a recreated Earth for eternity.
The day-year principle, year-day principle or year-for-a-day principle is a method of interpretation of Bible prophecy in which the word day in prophecy is considered to be symbolic of a year of actual time. It is used principally by the historicist school of prophetic interpretation. It is held by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Christadelphians. The day-year principle is also used by the Bahá'í Faith, as well as in an astrological predictive technique, known as "secondary progressions or day-for-a-year progressions," in which the astrologically effective positions of the planets ONE year after birth in relationship to the birth positions of the planets are found from the table of positions of the planets ONE day after birth, in which the astrologically effective positions of the planets TWO years after birth in relationship to the birth positions of the planets are found from the table of positions of the planets TWO days after birth, etc.
Daniel 7 tells of Daniel's vision of four world-kingdoms replaced by the kingdom of God. Four beasts come out of the sea, the Ancient of Days sits in judgement over them, and "one like a son of man" is given eternal kingship. An angelic guide interprets the beasts as kingdoms and kings, the last of whom will make war on the "holy ones" of God, but he will be destroyed and the "holy ones" will be given eternal dominion and power.
Daniel 8 tells of Daniel's vision of a two-horned ram destroyed by a one-horned goat, followed by the history of the "little horn", which is Daniel's code-word for the Greek king Antiochus Epiphanes.
Le Roy Edwin Froom was a Seventh-day Adventist minister and historian whose many writings have been recognized by his peers. He also was a central figure in the meetings with evangelicals that led to the producing of the Adventist theological book, Questions on Doctrine.
The four kingdoms of Daniel are four kingdoms which, according to the Book of Daniel, precede the "end-times" and the "Kingdom of God".
The Beast may refer to one of two beasts described in the Book of Revelation.
Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) was a Spanish Jesuit theologian, identified with the Futurist Christian eschatological view.
Chapters 10, 11 and 12 in the Book of Daniel make up Daniel's final vision, describing a series of conflicts between the unnamed "King of the North" and "King of the South" leading to the "time of the end", when Israel will be vindicated and the dead raised to shame or glory.
Historicism, a method of interpretation in Christian eschatology which associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events and identifies symbolic beings with historical persons or societies, has been applied to the Book of Revelation by many writers. The Historicist view follows a straight line of continuous fulfillment of prophecy which starts in Daniel's time and goes through John's writing of the Book of Revelation all the way to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
Historicism, a method of interpretation in Christian eschatology which associates biblical prophecies with actual historical events and identifies symbolic beings with historical persons or societies, has been applied to the Book of Daniel by many writers. The Historicist view follows a straight line of continuous fulfillment of prophecy which starts in Daniel's time and goes through John's writing of the Book of Revelation all the way to the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
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 Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) interpretation of Daniel's prophecies that would otherwise make the original article overly large.
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.
