El propósito de esta presentación es identificar al Anticristo -revelado por Daniel, Pablo y Juan (en Apocalipsis). Sin lugar a dudas.
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Profecía. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Profecía. Mostrar todas las entradas
25 nov 2014
4 jun 2014
Adventist response to today’s world should arise from what is truly happening, not from what “could” or “will” happen.
Michael F. Younker
It is commonly understood that
Seventh-day Adventist theology expects the enactment of a Sunday law in homage
to Papal authority in the United States and other nations preceding the second
coming of Christ. Furthermore, despite its inevitability according to prophecy,
prior to such enactment, we are obligated to do what is reasonably possible to
delay it by uplifting the importance of religious liberty.
26 may 2014
19 may 2014
Challenges to established
doctrines and Adventist prophetic interpretation have to be expected. Probably
all Christian denominations and even non Christian world religions have to live
with the phenomenon that their tenets are being questioned by parts of their
own communities. To a certain degree this may be beneficial, because it is good
that people wrestle with theological issues and are not just indifferent or
accept established doctrines with blind “faith”.
2 may 2014
.bmp)
22 abr 2013
A inicios del siglo XXI, el adventismo dialogó informalmente con el catolicismo. En esta conversación, los representantes de nuestra iglesia defendieron la fe adventista. En este artículo encontrará el informe presentado por el Dr. Ángel Manuel Rodríguez, ex director del Instituto de Investigación Bíblica de la Asociación General.
1 abr 2013
Esta investigación se propone buscar un candidato para el símbolo de la segunda bestia de Apocalipsis 13 dentro de las diversas y conflictivas interpretaciones que se le ha dado por parte de las diferentes escuelas de interpretación (preteristas, futuristas, idealistas e historicistas) en cuanto a su identidad. Dentro de los historicistas al parecer no está muy claro la identidad de esta bestia, aunque tradicionalmente se ha dicho que representa a Estados Unidos (EE.UU.), no obstante, hay otros que dicen que las evidencias son muy limitadas y que aplicar una ley dominical solo a los EE.UU. es a todas luces inadecuada. En esta primera parte se tomará en cuenta el contexto y el análisis exegético del texto.
Artículo publicado en la revista bíblico- teológica Didajé 1, no. 1 (2012)
Existe una clara relación entre la visión de las tardes y mañanas de Daniel 8:13, 14 con la visión de las setenta semanas de Daniel 9:24-27. El decreto del rey Artajerjes I fue puesto en vigor en el otoño del año 457 AC por los reyes y sátrapas del otro lado del rio, luego que el pueblo celebrara las fiestas de otoño. El otoño del año 457 AC es el punto de partida de la profecía de las setenta semanas. La profecía de las setenta semanas no se cumplió en los días de Antíoco Epífanes, sino en los días de Cristo. La profecía de las 70 semanas marca el inicio de la profecía de tiempo más extensa e interesante de toda la Biblia: la profecía de las 2300 tardes y mañanas. Al final de este extenso período, Dios vindicará su santuario.
Artículo publicado en la Revista bíblico- teológica Didajé 1, no. 1 (2012).
11 mar 2013
The Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the biblical earthly and heavenly sanctuaries is compatible with evangelical theology up to a point, beyond which the Adventist view is unique. The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe the commonality, specify the point of departure, and explain the uniqueness.
29 nov 2012
Apocalipsis: Terremotos, maremotos, guerras, crisis… ¿Será que se acerca el fin?. Fernando L. Canale
Apocalipsis:
Terremotos, maremotos, guerras, crisis… ¿Será que se acerca el fin?
Fernando L. Canale
“Todo
—los pueblos y ciudades aplastadas por un torrente de barro y muerte— es
abrumador y casi incomprensible”.[1]
Con estas palabras Paul Theroux expresaba la impresión de millones frente a la
devastación del épico maremoto que recientemente arrasó a Japón. Pero eso no
era todo lo que sucedía en el mundo. En un artículo titulado, “Aumenta el caos
total: Catástrofes nucleares, revoluciones, y tensiones económicas”, la
periodista Tina Brown reflexionaba: “¿Se ha enloquecido el mundo?”.[2]
Sintetizando
los desastres que se sucedieron rápidamente durante los primeros meses de este
año, la portada de la revista Newsweek anunciaba ominosamente: “Llegó el
Apocalipsis: maremotos, terremotos, desastres nucleares, revoluciones,
economías al borde de la ruina. ¿Qué nos depara el futuro?”.[3]
A pesar de los extraordinarios avances de la ciencia y la tecnología, las
perspectivas no parecen alentadoras para la humanidad.
La
pregunta ¿qué nos depara el futuro? nos confronta con nuestro destino personal
y colectivo. Muchos suponen que pensar en el futuro no es posible ni importante
porque, de acuerdo con el dicho, “lo que será, será”; el futuro está fuera de
nuestras manos. Sin embargo, vivir implica anticipar el futuro.
Consecuentemente, todos tenemos algunas ideas acerca de lo que ocurrirá. Aunque
a simple vista nuestras expectativas parezcan meras opiniones personales para
compartir entre amigos, ellas determinan en gran manera lo que hacemos y
llegaremos a ser. Por lo tanto conviene que pensemos en lo que puede depararnos
el futuro.
Anticipando el futuro
La
ciencia, los horóscopos, y los médiums espiritistas son algunas de las maneras
en que los seres humanos intentan anticipar lo que sucederá. Pero la única
forma de hacerlo con seguridad es consultando a Aquel que por naturaleza es
dueño del futuro: Dios. Entonces, nuestra pregunta acerca de lo que nos depara
futuro debiera ser: ¿Qué nos dice Dios acerca de lo que ocurrirá con nuestro
planeta? Para poder contestar esta pregunta debemos considerar lo que nuestro
Señor Jesucristo dijo acerca del futuro a sus discípulos.
¿Temor o esperanza?
¿Debemos
temer las cosas que sobrevendrán a la tierra o podemos abrigar esperanza en un
mundo mejor? En nuestros días asociamos la palabra “Apocalipsis” con la
destrucción total del planeta Tierra, y por lo tanto la relacionamos con eventos
extremadamente destructivos.[4]
Una perspectiva tal solo puede generar temor y ansiedad acerca de las cosas que
sobrevendrán.
Sin
embargo, el mensaje del Apocalipsis no se centra en la destrucción del planeta
sino en su restauración total física y espiritual (Apocalipsis 21:1). Pero de
acuerdo con la Biblia, hay algo más importante en el futuro del planeta Tierra
que la renovación a su perfección original. El Cristo quien ascendió a los
cielos después de su muerte y resurrección prometió que retornaría en las nubes
(Hechos 1:11) para morar con los seres humanos (S. Juan 14:1-3; Apocalipsis
21:3). Estos acontecimientos monumentales solo pueden generar esperanza y una
visión altamente positiva del futuro de la humanidad.
La cercanía del futuro
que anhelamos
Pero
¿cómo se relaciona la multiplicación de hechos catastróficos con la venida de
Cristo y el futuro grandioso de nuestro planeta? Cuando sus discípulos le
preguntaron cuándo su reino sería instaurado, Jesús mencionó, entre otras
cosas, que antes de su retorno a la tierra habría guerras y rumores de guerras;
se levantaría nación contra nación, y reino contra reino; y habría pestes, y
hambres, y terremotos en diferentes lugares (S. Mateo 24:6–8). Estos acontecimientos
indicarían la cercanía de su venida, como los nuevos retoños de la higuera
indican que el verano está a las puertas (S. Mateo 24:32, 33). Desde la
perspectiva de la fe cristiana, entonces, las catástrofes se transforman en
signos de esperanza. Ellas anuncian el pronto regreso del Salvador del mundo y
la inauguración de su reinado eterno.
Accediendo al futuro
eterno
Desde
la perspectiva humana, las catástrofes que se suceden rápidamente y aumentan en
intensidad auguran un futuro incierto y desesperanzador. Pero el poder creador
y la fidelidad de Cristo garantizan el cumplimiento de su promesa de restaurar
nuestro planeta a su perfección original (Apocalipsis 21:5). Pero, ¿quiénes
participarán en el futuro glorioso de la humanidad cuando Cristo regrese?
Cristo dejó claro que solo aquellos quienes por fe acepten la primacía de su
voluntad y vivan permanentemente de acuerdo con ella participarán en su futuro
reino. Consecuentemente, Cristo recomendó a sus discípulos que estuvieran
preparados para el día de su venida (S. Mateo 24:42-44). La preparación es
necesaria porque el mismo Cristo la tomará en cuenta cuando juzgue quienes
participarán en su futuro reino y determine quienes serán excluidos de él para
siempre (S. Mateo 25:31-46).
El futuro hoy
¿Qué
preparación necesitamos para participar del futuro glorioso de la humanidad?
Necesitamos poseer fe y amor en Cristo (Santiago 2:5) que nazcan sinceramente
de lo profundo de nuestro corazón (Deuteronomio 6:5; S. Lucas 10:27). Tener fe
significa confiar plenamente en Dios como los niños confían en sus padres (S.
Mateo 18:3). Confiar en su voluntad, su ley y sus promesas expresadas en las
Sagradas Escrituras. Amar a Cristo significa abrirle el corazón completamente y
aceptar su consejo y dirección (ver Proverbios 23:26). Al depositar nuestra
confianza en Dios y amarlo, nos arrepentimos de los errores de nuestra vida
pasada y comenzamos una nueva manera de vivir bajo la dirección y compañía de
Cristo (S. Mateo 3:2, S. Juan 3:5). Esta transformación interna y externa nos
hace miembros del reino de Cristo ahora y nos asegura por su gracia una parte
en la asombrosa renovación del planeta que Cristo ejecutará antes de establecer
su reino eterno sobre la tierra.
Conclusión
Recientemente,
una secuencia de catástrofes impresionantes ha llamado la atención del mundo y
nos invita a pensar acerca del futuro. Al considerar estos hechos
catastróficos, la mayoría de los seres humanos percibimos solo proporciones
alarmantes de destrucción y desorden social. Nuestra aprensión crece cuando
advertimos que la ciencia y la tecnología humanas son impotentes para
anticiparlos, prevenirlos y evitarlos. No es de extrañar que la revista
Newsweek preguntara: “¿Qué nos depara el futuro?”
Desde
la perspectiva humana, el futuro parece ser una fuente inagotable de desastres
que amenazan la vida y estabilidad del planeta. La noción que un mega desastre
o una secuencia de ellos pueda destruir la vida en nuestro planeta parece ganar
credibilidad. Esta situación inevitablemente engendra temor e inseguridad que
solo pueden afectar nuestra existencia negativamente.
Pero
desde la perspectiva de la fe cristiana, los mismos acontecimientos no se ven
como heraldos de más calamidades y destrucción sino como señales de la pronta
llegada del futuro eterno deseado por todas las naciones. Nos dicen que la
historia como la conocemos se acerca a su final. La aurora de una nueva
historia de la humanidad se aproxima vertiginosamente. Querido lector, te animo
a considerar ambas perspectivas cuidadosamente. No olvides que el futuro eterno
está disponible para ti ahora en la persona de Jesucristo. ¿Depositarás tu fe y
amor en él? Lo que el futuro te deparará depende de la forma en que contestes a
esta pregunta.
Fernando L. Canale (Ph.D. Andrews University)
Profesor de Filosofía y Teología en Andrews University
Berring Spring,
Michigan, EE.UU.
[1]Paul Theroux, “Nightmare and Defiance”, Newsweek, 20 de marzo, 2011.
[2]Tina Brown, “The Mayhem Mounts: Meltdowns,
Revolts, and Economic Stress”, Newsweek, 20 de marzo, 2011.
[4]Véase por ejemplo “Apocalypse”, New Oxford American Dictionary, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
1 ago 2012
¿Se puede confiar en la
profecía bíblica?
La experiencia de Daniel[1]
William H. Shea
La
profecía es crucial para la fe y las creencias adventistas. Es sobre la base de
la profecía bíblica que se fundó el movimiento adventista, con la convicción de
que la historia llegará a su clímax en ocasión de la segunda venida de Cristo.
Hacia esa culminación gloriosa se dirige la historia que terminará en el
momento en que Dios destruya el pecado y a Satanás para siempre y abra las
puertas de la eternidad para los redimidos de todas las edades. La
interpretación adventista de los eventos de los últimos días se basa en las
profecías de Daniel y Apocalipsis, además de otras declaraciones proféticas de
la Biblia. Sin embargo, muchos cristianos y no cristianos han cuestionado la
autenticidad de la profecía bíblica y tienden a rechazar la interpretación
adventista como esencialmente especulativa.
Esta
acusación no debe aceptarse sin realizar un serio estudio teológico e histórico
de la profecía bíblica para constatar si es digno de creer, o no. Un breve
análisis al libro de Daniel muestra que su contenido profético es confiable
desde la historia y significativo desde la teología. Este artículo así lo
muestra.
El
libro de Daniel se divide claramente en dos mitades. La primera relata parte de
la historia neobabilónica, especialmente al incluir el relato de Daniel y sus
tres compañeros (caps. 1-6). La segunda parte presenta algunas profecías
altamente simbólicas y de largo alcance que son llamadas apocalípticas (caps.
7-12). La primera parte también contiene profecías que, con excepción del sueño
de Nabucodonosor del capítulo 2, involucran mayormente a personas, lugares y
eventos locales. Las profecías relacionadas con Nabucodonosor en el capítulo 4
y con Belsasar en el 5 se parecen más a las profecías “clásicas” que se
encuentran, por ejemplo, en Isaías y Jeremías.
Esta
gama cronológica de profecías nos brinda la oportunidad de relacionar estas
predicciones con el cumplimiento histórico en una escala que va desde el tiempo
cercano a Daniel hasta un período intermedio posterior a su vida y que alcanza
las profecías futuras de siglos después.
Una profecía cercana:
La caída de Belsasar
El
capítulo 5 de Daniel narra lo que sucedió en el palacio de Babilonia la noche
en que la ciudad cayó en poder de los medos y los persas. El rey, que es
identificado como Belsasar, invitó a sus nobles y funcionarios a un gran
banquete. Sin duda creía que los persas que sitiaban Babilonia no tenían
posibilidad de lograr su meta, debido a las extraordinarias y sólidas
fortificaciones de la ciudad.
En
el transcurso de la fiesta, apareció una escritura sobrenatural en la pared de
la cámara del palacio donde se llevaba a cabo el banquete. Las cuatro palabras
escritas allí eran tan misteriosas que ninguno de los sabios de Babilonia pudo
interpretarlas. Se llamó entonces a Daniel, que era recordado por un episodio
previo de interpretación. Él pudo leer la escritura y decirle al rey el
significado: había sido pesado en la balanza del juicio divino y había sido
hallado falto. Su reino le sería quitado y dado a los medos y persas.
Esta
profecía se cumplió esa misma noche cuando las fuerzas invasoras entraron en la
ciudad utilizando la estrategia de desviar el curso del río Éufrates. Babilonia
fue conquistada sin ninguna batalla. Belsasar fue muerto y su reino pasó a
manos de los medos y los persas.
En
primera instancia, se podría pensar que no hay forma de constatar mediante
fuentes históricas el cumplimiento de esta profecía. Si bien es verdad que
sería muy difícil demostrar que ésta fue dada la misma noche de su
cumplimiento, existen métodos indirectos para evaluar su contexto.
En
cierto momento, la existencia de Belsasar era desconocida. Su padre Nabonido
aparecía como el último rey del período neobabilónico. A partir de 1861 el
nombre de Belsasar, como príncipe heredero, comenzó a aparecer en tablillas
cuneiformes que se estaban traduciendo. Estas referencias se sucedieron hasta
que en 1929 se publicó una tablilla conocida como “El relato en verso de Nabonido”.
Esta importante tablilla indicaba que Nabonido había “confiado su autoridad” a
Belsasar cuando viajó por largo tiempo a Tema, en Arabia. De esta manera se
obtuvieron evidencias de que Belsasar fue algo así como con un corregente o
rey.
El
episodio descrito en Daniel 5 es específico. Indica que cuando Daniel ingresó a
la sala del trono para leer la escritura en la pared, el rey presente era
Belsasar, no Nabonido. Era de esperar que Nabonido estuviera a cargo de ese
banquete, pero él ni siquiera es mencionado en la narrativa, lo que implica que
ni siquiera estaba en el palacio esa noche. Si no estaba en el palacio, ¿dónde
estaba?
Un
texto babilónico conocido como “La crónica de Nabonido” nos dice que Babilonia
fue tomada sin lucha el 16 de Tishri del año 17 y último del reinado de
Nabonido. Esto puede equipararse con el 12 de octubre del año 539 a.C. En ese
momento, según la misma crónica, Nabonido se encontraba frente a una división
del ejército babilonio, peleando con Ciro y los persas en un paraje cercano a
la ciudad llamada Opis, sobre el río Tigris. De esta manera, se comprueba que
no se encontraba en Babilonia la noche de la caída.
Este
hubiera sido un punto en que Daniel muy fácilmente hubiera podido cometer un
error mencionado a Nabonido en la sala de banquetes esa noche, pero el escritor
sabía que el rey presente era Belsasar, el joven corregente, así como sabía que
no era Nabonido, el corregente mayor, ya que éste se encontraba en el campo de
batalla con el ejército babilonio.
¿Cómo
pudo haber tenido el escritor de este capítulo conocimientos tan exactos acerca
de quién estaba en la ciudad y quién no? La respuesta es: porque esa noche él
era un testigo ocular en el palacio. Si su conocimiento acerca de este hecho
central fue tan exacto, creo que podemos confiar en su registro relacionado con
la profecía de lo que sucedería esa misma noche.
Una profecía de
duración intermedia: El surgimiento de Alejandro
La
profecía de Daniel capítulo 8 comienza con una descripción de lo que lograría
el reino medopersa, por medio del símbolo del carnero airado. Este carnero es
identificado con Medo-Persia (Daniel 8:20). Lo sigue simbólicamente un macho
cabrío que representa a Grecia (Daniel 8:2-8, 21). Este macho cabrío tiene un
cuerno notable, como un unicornio que representa a su primer rey que inicia la
guerra contra el carnero persa.
Históricamente
sabemos que este “cuerno” es Alejandro Magno, que formó un ejército e invadió
el Cercano Oriente derrotando a los persas y conquistando todo el territorio en
una campaña relámpago que duró sólo tres años.
Algunos
críticos han sostenido que esto no fue profecía, sino historia escrita con
posterioridad, como si fuera profecía. Sin embargo, hay un relato interesante
en los escritos de Josefo que indica que esta profecía ya era conocida en el
siglo IV a.C., mucho antes del tiempo cuando, dicen los críticos, se escribió
el libro (siglo II a.C.).
El
relato habla de la campaña de Alejandro por la costa de Siria y Palestina. En
camino a Egipto, decidió apartarse de la ruta principal hacia el sur e ir a
Jerusalén. Cuando llegó a la ciudad, uno de los sacerdotes tomó el rollo de
Daniel y le mostró el lugar donde se lo mencionaba en la profecía como el
griego que derribaría el imperio persa. Impresionado por la referencia
profética de sí mismo, Alejandro preguntó a los líderes judíos qué podía hacer
por ellos. Éstos le pidieron que los libere de impuestos durante los años
sabáticos cuando dejaban los campos en barbecho y no realizaban la cosecha. Se
dice que Alejandro les otorgó lo solicitado. El pasaje de Josefo dice lo
siguiente:
“Y
cuando se le mostró el libro de Daniel, donde Daniel declaraba que uno de los
griegos destruiría el imperio de los persas, supuso que él era la persona
prevista; y al alegrarse entonces, despidió a la multitud por el momento, pero
al día siguiente los llamó, y les mandó que pidieran los favores que de él
quisiesen, a lo que el sumo sacerdote deseó que pudieran disfrutar de las leyes
de sus antepasados, y pudieran estar eximidos de tributo los séptimos años.
Alejandro les otorgó todo lo deseado, y cuando le solicitaron que permitiera a
los judíos de Babilonia y Media disfrutar también de sus propias leyes, de
buena gana prometió que de allí en más harían lo que desearan”.[2]
Si
el relato de Josefo es exacto, entonces la profecía de Daniel 8, incluyendo el
gran cuerno de Grecia que era Alejandro, ya existía en el siglo IV a.C. Esto no
sólo brinda evidencias de la composición temprana del libro de Daniel, sino que
también muestra de qué manera un elemento de esta profecía halló su
cumplimiento y fue reconocido al hacerse realidad.
No
es necesario decir que una vez más, los críticos de la naturaleza predictiva de
Daniel rechazan el relato como no histórico. En el relato mismo, sin embargo,
hay ciertas evidencias que testifican de la naturaleza histórica del encuentro
de Alejandro y los sacerdotes en Jerusalén. Esa evidencia proviene de una
referencia al año sabático en este contexto.
En
fuentes extrabíblicas, se han hallado alrededor de una docena de referencias a
años sabáticos. Estos textos e inscripciones dan los equivalentes de esos años
sabáticos en términos de otros calendarios. Es así que puede completarse una
tabla de años sabáticos. El año en que se produjo esta entrevista con Alejandro
fue el 331 a.C. Según la tabla de los años sabáticos, 331 fue de hecho un año
sabático. Ahora que Judea había sido tomada por el rey macedonio, los líderes
judíos podían ver el problema que deberían enfrentar cuando tuvieran que
rendirle tributos. No tendrían cosecha para pagarle los impuestos. De allí la
urgencia de su pedido.
Este
mínimo detalle, el pedido basado en el año sabático, es una prueba de que el
episodio realmente sucedió, y de que la transición histórica que se produjo
había sido en realidad profetizada por Daniel antes de que sucediera.[3]
Una profecía a largo
plazo: El surgimiento y la caída de Roma
En
Daniel capítulos 2 y 7 se presentan profecías paralelas acerca de cuatro
imperios del Mediterráneo y el Cercano Oriente. Daniel 2 relata los eventos que
se produjeron en torno a un sueño dado al rey Nabucodonosor que los sabios de
Babilonia no pudieron describir o interpretar. Sin embargo, Daniel pudo
describir con éxito el sueño e interpretarlo. Usando los símbolos de los cuatro
metales que conformaban la impresionante estatua de Daniel 2, el profeta
describió la sucesión de estos cuatro grandes imperios: Babilonia, Medo-Persia,
Grecia y Roma.
A
algunos no les agradan estas evidencias bien directas del conocimiento previo
de Dios en la profecía, y se han opuesto a esta postura afirmando que el autor
del libro de Daniel no vivió en el siglo VI a.C. cuando se dio la profecía.
Según ellos, vivió en el siglo II a.C. y utilizó el seudónimo de Daniel para
escribir acerca de los eventos que ya habían tenido lugar. De esta manera,
sostienen los críticos, Daniel es en realidad historia escrita como si fuera
profecía.
Puede
evaluarse este argumento, sin embargo, para ver cuán bien concuerda con los
datos. Si el autor de Daniel escribió en el siglo II a.C. y era sólo un
historiador, no un verdadero profeta, ¿qué clase de predicciones podría haber
hecho? Existen dos posibilidades. En primer lugar, podría haber dicho que el
cuarto reino, Roma, que era más poderoso que todos los anteriores, permanecería
para siempre. Esta era probablemente la postura más común respecto del futuro
en el siglo II a.C., ya que Roma había llegado a ser preeminente. (Eso creía
Flavio Josefo, el historiador judío del siglo I, cuando se ocupó de esta
porción del libro de Daniel, ya que no menciona las divisiones o el reinado de
la piedra que seguiría). Por otra parte, el escritor podría haber razonado que
si se habían sucedido cuatro grandes reinos mundiales, podría haber un quinto,
un sexto, un séptimo, y así sucesivamente. En otras palabras, la secuencia
debería continuar. Después de Roma, otro gran poder mundial aparecería, y así
sucesivamente.
Un
historiador que escribiera en el siglo II a.C. sin contar con el conocimiento
previo divino, habría tenido estas dos alternativas: o Roma permanecía para
siempre o la seguirían otros grandes poderes mundiales.
El
escritor del libro de Daniel no abrazó ninguna de estas dos posibilidades
lógicas. Al rechazar la idea de que habría otros poderes mundiales, dijo que el
cuarto poder sería quebrantado en partes y que esas partes continuarían y
lucharían entre sí hasta que Dios estableciera su reino. Asimismo, rechazó la
idea de que Roma continuaría para siempre; este cuarto reino sería quebrantado.
De hecho, eso es lo que pasó cuando las invasiones bárbaras asolaron Roma en
los siglos V y VI d.C.
¿Cómo
fue que el autor de Daniel sabía, con varios siglos de anticipación, que Roma
sería dividida en partes, que no permanecería para siempre ni sería reemplazada
por otro gran reino mundial? ¿Cómo es que eligió la posibilidad menos probable
para el futuro desde un punto de vista de la lógica humana? La respuesta es que
no se apoyaba en la lógica humana, sino en el conocimiento previo que Dios le
había dado.
Resumen
Hay
muchas profecías en la Biblia, cuyos escritores dicen que se cumplieron, aunque
los registros de estos cumplimientos se hallan solamente en la Biblia. En estos
casos no existen evidencias externas que confirmen el cumplimiento. Sin
embargo, en el caso de muchas profecías, las evidencias externas indican que se
cumplieron. Las expuestas más arriba lo demuestran.
Las
profecías bíblicas operan en varios niveles. Algunas fueron dirigidas a
individuos, otras a pueblos o ciudades y algunas a reinos o naciones. Sucede lo
mismo en términos de tiempo. Algunas profecías tenían que ver con
circunstancias inmediatas, otras se ocupaban de los eventos en un futuro
relativamente cercano y otras pueden ser clasificadas como predicciones a largo
plazo, que abarcan siglos. Lo tratado en este artículo cubre estas tres
posibilidades.
El
factor común en todos estos casos es que existen evidencias externas que
demuestran la exactitud de las predicciones, lo que brinda evidencias de que
las profecías han sido escritas sobre una base que trasciende las conjeturas humanas.
Dan testimonio de un Dios que brindó informaciones confidenciales a sus
siervos, los profetas. Esta es una buena razón adicional para creer en la existencia
del Dios de la Biblia.[4]
William H. Shea (M.D.,
Loma Linda University; Ph.D., University of Michigan)
Trabajó como médico misionero, profesor de teología y
director asociado del Instituto de Investigaciones Bíblicas de la Asociación
General de los Adventistas del Séptimo Día.
Este ensayo está basado en un estudio más extenso publicado
en The Big Argument: Does God Exist? editado por John Ashton y Michael
Westacott (Master Books, 2005).
Su email: Shea56080@aol.com
[2]Josephus,
Antiquities of the Jews, libro 11,
capítulo 8, párrafos 337, 338.
[3]Se
pueden consultar las tablas de los años sabáticos de los judíos en B. Z.
Wacholder, “The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the
Early Rabbinic Period” (El calendario de los ciclos sabáticos durante el
período del segundo templo) Hebrew Union
College Annual (1973), 153-196.
[4]Lecturas adicionales:
Por textos relacionados con
Belsasar y una síntesis de ellos, véase R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and
Belshazzar (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1929).
Por una colección muy útil
de textos cuneiformes traducidos, especialmente fuentes babilónicas
relacionadas con los temas de este artículo, véase J. B. Pritchard, ed.,
Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1955).
Por una revisión útil de la
historia babilónica, véase H. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness That Was Babylon
(Nueva York: Hawthorn Books, 1962).
18 jul 2012
Historicism, the Best Way to Interpret Prophecy*
William H. Shea
Why do Adventists interpret prophecies differently from others?
Through watching certain
protestant television preachers or by reading such books as the “Left Behind”
series, some Seventh-day Adventists have been attracted to the headline-driven
interpretations of Bible prophecy offered there. Other Adventists are exploring
other approaches which also differ from long-standing Adventist
interpretations. The differences are not minor but represent widely differing
methods of interpreting the prophecies. Which is right? How can we know?
Through
the ages several different methods of interpreting Daniel and Revelation have
been proposed. The historicist method sees these prophecies as being fulfilled
through the course of human history beginning at the time of the prophets who
wrote them. Preterism sees Daniel as focusing on the reign of Antiochus IV
Epiphanes, and it sees the book of Revelation as focusing especially on the
reign of the emperor Nero. Thus the preterist school focuses upon the past. In
contrast to this, the futurist school places the major emphasis of these two
books in the future, yet to be fulfilled. A specially prominent branch of
futurism is dispensationalism, which narrows this future fulfillment to the
last seven years of earth’s history.
Inherent Conflict.
These three methods have conflicted with each other since the time of the
Counter Reformation in the 16th century, and more specifically since the 18th
and 19th centuries with the resurgence of preterism in the 18th century and the
rise of dispensationalism in the early 19th century. No combination of these three
methods has ever been successful. A brief flirtation with such an attempt was
contemplated in the 1980s under the claim that “interpreters are correct in
what they advocate and wrong in what they deny,” but it did not work.
Here are reasons why the
methods cannot be combined. Dispensationalism, for example, holds that there is
a gap during the Christian dispensation, a prolonged period of time which prophecy
says nothing about. Then during the last seven years of earth’s history the
prophetic clock starts ticking again, and the great scheme of biblical prophecies
meets its fulfillment. Historicists, on the other hand, say that biblical
prophecy addresses the entire course of the Christian era.
One might say that
these two systems could be blended by accepting what historicists say was
fulfilled during the course of the Christian era and what the dispensationalists
advocate will be fulfilled at the end of the era. But there is a problem. Both
of these schools use the same prophecies but see their fulfillment in different
places. Dispensationalism sees a personal, individual Antichrist at the end of
time while historicism sees a corporate Antichrist, a church institution,
operating through the centuries. These suggested fulfillments are so very
different there is no way they can be combined. The same is true with
preterism. Preterism says, in effect, that the prophecies in Daniel ended in
the 2nd century B.C. and that the prophecies in Revelation were fulfilled
before the end of the 1st century A.D. Historicism and futurism claim that much
in these prophecies goes beyond those preterist endpoints, so there is no way
to combine these systems.
Enter Preterism. For
the first 130 years of its existence, the Seventh-day Adventist church belonged
solidly in the school of historicist interpreters. This picture began to change
in 1980 when some arose to offer alternatives. At the Glacier View Conference
in 1983 the church was offered preterism. Few lay members realize that this was
the central issue in that conference. Would the Seventh-day Adventist church
continue using the historicist method, or would it turn to preterism as the
central method by which to interpret apocalyptic prophecy?
At that conference and
in subsequent official and unofficial statements the church rejected preterism.
One of many reasons it did so is that preterism leads to an entirely different
application of the 2300 days of Daniel 8:14. Preterism takes the 2300 days as
literal time and applies it to the career of Antiochus Epiphanes, a weak Greek
king who ruled in Syria in the second century B.C. (More on Antiochus later.)
Another reason why
preterism has had little appeal to Adventists is that it is essentially based
upon an unbiblical principle. This is the idea that the book of Daniel is not
prophecy; it is really history written as if it were prophecy. The author,
according to preterism, was not Daniel but someone who called himself Daniel.
He didn’t live in Babylon some 500 years before Christ but in Jerusalem around
165 B.C. Most of what his book records had already happened.
And Futurism. Some
other Adventist innovators have turned to futurism, taking prophecies that we
have applied to the past and putting their fulfillment into the future. I met
with a study group of this persuasion on three occasions in the 1990s. One of
their thought leaders told me that he developed the idea as an antidote to the
preterism that the church was facing in the 1980s.
But the group applied
its methods arbitrarily. In the book of Daniel, for example, they accepted
standard interpretations (the four kingdoms and the 70 weeks) for Daniel 2, 7,
8, and 9. But the 1290 and 1335 days of Daniel 12:11, 12 they took as literal
time and put them in the future. This makes the use of the year-day principle
arbitrary, used in some places and not in others. These interpreters also
failed to notice that the first of the time periods in Daniel 12 was the 3 ½
times of verse 7, which comes out of Daniel 7:25. Anyone who accepts the
year-day principle in 7:25 should also accept it in 12:7. And accepting the
year-day principle in Daniel 12:7 requires accepting it also for 12:11, 12, or
one must admit to applying the principle arbitrarily.
The group’s
interpretations of the Book of Revelation also had problems. They advocated
that the 1260 days of Revelation 12:6 were symbolic and to be interpreted by
the year-day principle, but the 3 ½ times of 12:14, in the same chapter, should
be taken as literal and still in the future. Yet the two verses contain the
same actors (the woman as the church and Satan opposed to her), the same
actions (fleeing from persecution), and the same locations (the wilderness to
which the woman fled). Therefore, they should be seen as the same prophecy with
the same historical fulfillment. Actually, they form a bracket around the
central great controversy view in Revelation 12:7-9.
One point in favor of
futurists is that they believe in prophecy, and they feel that by taking the
futuristic view they make prophecies more real and bring the second coming of
Christ closer. This is a noble motive, but the method does not result in the
product they wish for. The treatment is worse than the disease.
While preterism and
futurism have not been accepted by the church at large, they remain theories
that some church members continue to agitate. That returns us to the question
of which method of interpreting the apocalyptic prophecies the Adventist church
should use.
Which method shall we use?
The interpreter has to
choose among these three methods. We intentionally neglect here a fourth
school, that of idealism. This school of thought holds that we should not make
any historical applications of these prophecies. We should just draw spiritual
lessons from the stories they tell. This is wholly unsatisfactory, and we will
say no more about it. We will weigh the first three methods against each other
from various points of view.
1. Philosophy of history
The writers of the
Bible were deeply interested in the way the plans and purposes of God worked
out, for good or ill, through the events of history. Thus the Old Testament
presents a specialized religious view of the history of mankind from the
creation of Adam and Eve to the time of Ezra, or let us say in round figures,
from 4000 B.C. to 400 B.C. Prophecy comes along at times to show the way
forward from God’s point of view.
Sometimes the people
respected the admonitions of the prophets, and sometimes they did not. Sadly,
we see the latter point illustrated in the fall of the northern kingdom of
Israel in 722 B.C. and the fall of the southern kingdom of Judah in 586 B.C.
The prophetic voice became especially intense after God permitted the people to
have their own king. The prophets came as a counterweight to apostate kings, of
which there was no shortage. Thus the Old Testament is, above all, a history
book, the history of the Mighty Acts of God.
At the heart of the New
Testament are five historical books, the Gospels and the Book of Acts. The
first four are the history of the acts of Jesus and the fifth is the history of
the earliest spread of Christianity through the Roman empire. But these five
historical books cover only a part of the first century of the Christian era.
Doesn’t God speak in the Christian era as He spoke to His people in Old
Testament times?
The historicist
interpreter answers, Yes, God speaks to His people now just as He did back
then. We hear His voice nowadays in the apocalyptic literature of Matthew 24,
25 and 2 Thessalonians, and especially in the ultimate apocalypse, the Book of
Revelation.
Thus it is no accident
that Revelation was the last book of the New Testament to be written and that
John wrote it at the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. From this
launching point the history of the Christian era was laid out in symbols
through the visions of Revelation. Thus what was given in historical writing of
the Old Testament addressing that era, was given in prophetic visions to cover
the Christian era. This is the view of the historicist interpreter.
How do the other two
schools of prophetic interpretation handle this view of history? By denial.
Preterism denies that any prophecy in either Daniel or Revelation applies to
the Christian era other than in general spiritual principles or indirect
analogy. The preterist denies that any of these prophecies extend through the
Christian era or that they speak to any portion of that history directly. What
do these two books say to us then? The Jews who were persecuted by Antiochus
Epiphanes bore up under his persecution and the Christians who were persecuted
by Nero bore up under that persecution. Thus we should learn to bear up under
whatever burden we may be called upon to bear, especially persecution. But
preterists deny that these books speak directly to any historical situation
during the last 1900 years. The preterist scheme has no view of history in the
Christian era corresponding to the one found in the Old Testament era.
The dispensationalist
does the same thing, with one exception. He packs all of this prophecy,
Revelation 4-19 for example, into the last seven years of earth’s history. In
the dispensationalist’s view, does either Daniel or Revelation address the history
of any of the Christian era? No, he holds, the Bible passes over all that
history until one gets to sometime still in the future.
So in terms of a
general view of the philosophy of history, the historicist view is that God is
speaking to people in all times through the Christian era by means of
apocalyptic prophecy. This view is the most satisfying and most in harmony with
the biblical view of history in the Old Testament. Both preterism and
dispensationalism deny this.
2. Philosophy of revelation
Historicism and
futurism divide sharply from preterism on their philosophy of revelation as
well. Evangelicals and marginal Adventists who flirt with preterism may not
fully realize that preterism is based upon an entirely different assumption
about prophecy. For preterism, the “prophecies” of Daniel and Revelation are
not true prophecies that predict the future. Rather, they are history written
up as if it were prophecy. In this view the “prophet” was writing after the
events in his “prophecy” had taken place, but he cast his story in a prophetic
mold to give it more credence and acceptance.
Thus, as already noted,
preterists say that the author of the prophecies of Daniel was not a Jewish
exile in Babylon in the 6th century B.C. but an unknown Jew living in or near
to Jerusalem around 165 B.C., about the time when the Maccabees were casting
off the yoke of Antiochus Epiphanes. The only true prophecy in the
book—forecasting something that had not yet happened—is Daniel 11:40-45. In
this case, preterists say, the “prophet” guessed wrong, because these events
did not happen to Antiochus Epiphanes.
Conservative writers
who accept the preterist position that Antiochus Epiphanes is central to the
prophecies of Daniel skirt this issue without fully addressing it. And there
are other questions difficult for preterists to answer. Did God really inspire a
Daniel living in Babylon during the 6th century B.C. with a line of prophecy
that extended only to the 2nd century B.C. and stop there? Or did God direct
this unknown writer in 165 B.C. to use this quasi-prophetic mold for His
history?
The latter position is
doubly awkward. In this case God not only told this writer to cast the history
as prophecy, which is already untrue, but he did it with a pseudonymous
author—one writing under a false name. Note that this is not an anonymous
author but a pseudonymous author, the only one known in the Bible. There are
anonymous books in the Bible, but no other is known to be pseudonymous, with an
author who claims to be Daniel in the 6th century when he really wasn’t.
I once participated in
joint Lutheran Adventist dialogues held near Geneva, Switzerland. I was
involved only in the last of those dialogues, the one that dealt especially
with the subject of prophecy.
In contrast to my
historicist paper on Daniel, the Lutheran paper adopted a standard preterist
view of Antiochus Epiphanes as the book’s central focus. In my paper I raised
ten or fifteen objections to that view, all of which the chairman and others in
the group responded to quite evenly. Then I mentioned that the preterist
interpretation required a pseudonymous author, the only such book in the Bible.
At this the writer of the preterist paper and the chairman of the group were
really irritated, which ended the discussion of Daniel.
Futurist interpreters
are in better shape on this point. They see the prophecies of Daniel as true
presentations of divine foreknowledge extending down to the time of Rome. But
then they insert the gap until they come to the final seven years of earth’s
history. I do not believe that this is what the prophecy ultimately points to,
but at least futurists do take this book as containing some true revelations of
the future.
3. Method
The historicist method
is the simplest and easiest to defend. Even a superficial reading of the
prophecy sees a rise and fall of earthly powers, in the case of Daniel, down to
the end of time when God will setup his kingdom. Thus merely identifying the
historical powers symbolized in Daniel already leads inevitably to the
historicist approach that sees this prophecy fulfilled through history.
How do the other
methods of interpretation deal with this problem?
Preterist interpreters start in Daniel
11. Because they find there what they consider to be an
extensive and detailed prophecy about Antiochus Epiphanes, they hold that he
must, therefore, also be involved in the prophecies of Daniel 9, 8 and 7. Thus
the method is to read an interpretation of Daniel 11 back into the preceding
prophecies. In Daniel 2, however, the preterist can only be general about
Seleucid kingdom, without the specific king Antiochus, because the chapter
mentions no specific king by name or indicates one by symbol.
So here we meet a clash
of methods. Historicist interpreters start in Daniel 2. After identifying the
kingdoms there, they go on to chapter 7 where more of the details of those
kingdoms are fleshed out and then on into chapter 8, finally ending in chapter
11. This method is logical because the initial prophecies deal only with
kingdoms, but Daniel 11 gets more specific, dealing with individual kings.
So which method is
preferable—starting in Daniel 2, the most general of the prophecies and ending
in Daniel 11, which is the most detailed; or starting in Daniel 11, the most
detailed and working back to Daniel 2, the most general? Logic says that one
should work from the general to the specific. If we cannot identify the
kingdoms in Daniel 2 and 7, then identifying the individual kings in chapter 11
should be an impossible task. In terms of method, the historicist approach is
far superior to the preterist.
How about a comparison
between the historicist method and the futurist method? The futurist
dispensationalists have inserted a “gap” into the lineup of prophetic symbols.
They put a gap of 2,000 years between the feet and toes of the image of Daniel
2, or a gap of 2,000 years between the lower legs and the feet, wherever one
wishes to place it. But the image is continuous, not disjointed at the ankle.
Thus the history should flow in the same way. The same is true of Daniel 7,
where the dispensationalists place a gap of 2,000 years between the fourth
beast and the ten horns that grow out of its head. But the horns come out of
the head and are in direct continuity with it, so the history of the horns
should be in direct continuity with the head. There is no symbolic room for a
gap here, or the horns would be free floating above and beyond the head. Nor is
there room for a 2,000-year gap between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel 9, or
one would have 2,490 years, not 490 years. Thus we must reject the gap that has
been inserted into this prophecy as something that does not naturally and
normally belong there.
Noting the flow of the
outline prophecies of Daniel and the seven segments of the seals and trumpets
of Revelation leads naturally and logically to the historicist view of these
prophecies, regardless of whether or not we understand all the details.
4. Symbolic time[1]
Should prophetic time
in Daniel and Revelation be treated as symbolic, standing for longer periods of
historical time, or should we take it as literal and historical time only? This
is a clear divide between the historicist school on one hand and the preterist
and futurist schools on the other hand. The preterist takes these statements of
prophetic time as literal and puts them in the past. The futurist takes them as
literal and locates them in the future. The historicist sees them as symbolic
and standing for longer periods of historical time which, from our viewpoint today,
stretch through both past and future. So the divide here is clear. The question
is, Should we see literal time or symbolic time?
The context favors the
historicist view, for these statements about time are embedded in symbolic
contexts. We see a series of symbolic beasts in Daniel 7, and then the little
horn out of the head of the fourth beast persecutes the saints for 3 ½ times.
If the beasts are symbolic, which they surely are, the times stated about them
should also be symbolic. Preterists and futurists agree that the beasts are
symbolic but take the times stated about them as literal. Thus they have
violated the symbolic context.
Another evidence that
the times are symbolic is that they are stated in symbolic numbers and units.
The “evening-mornings” of Daniel 8:14 is not a normal time-keeping unit in the
Old Testament; it is constructed from terms referring to the creation days of
Genesis 1. Nor would one talk about 2300 of them. If God meant literal time,
the 2300 days should have been stated as six years and four months. Thus, in
the symbolic context, the symbolic units and the symbolic numbers all together
point to these time units as symbolic in nature.
If they are symbolic,
how should we interpret them? According to the principle of a day for a year.
This is already evident in Daniel 9 where 70 “weeks” (Heb. shabuac, plural
shabucim) are referred to. In an effort to escape the symbolic time here, even
some translations have resorted to using the word “sevens.” This is
linguistically indefensible. The number seven is a different Hebrew word,
sheba’. The Hebrew word shabuac is never translated as “seven” anywhere else in
the Bible. The Feast of Weeks, not the Feast of Sevens, extended from Passover
to Pentecost because of the seven weeks that intervened between those two
festivals. The KJV is correct in translating this word as “weeks,” and modem
versions that translate “sevens” are in error. The RSV, which inserts the word
“years” here (”seventy weeks of years”), has no manuscript support for doing
so. The point is that these weeks are symbolic and they necessitate the
application of the year for-a-day principle. If the word really is “sevens”
then shabucim should be translated as “seventies,” not “sevens.”
The book of Daniel
itself teaches the year-day principle. In chapter 8 we have the
“evening-mornings” that span the time of the Persian kings and the Greek kings
and those who follow them. In chapter 11, which is the interpretation of
chapter 8, we have those kings acting in “years” (verses 6, 8, 13). Thus the
symbols of the ram and the goat in chapter 8 are interpreted as the kings of
those kingdoms in chapter 11, and the “evening-mornings” of chapter 8 are
interpreted as the “years” of chapter 11. The text of Daniel itself teaches
this principle.
Thus the prophetic
narratives of both Daniel 9 and 11 teach the year-day principle and support its
use by historicist interpreters. Yet both preterist and futurist interpreters
utilize literal historical time when the text itself calls for symbolic time.
5. Outline prophecies
The texts of Daniel 2,
7, 8 and 11 can all be called outline prophecies, because they give an outline
of history that extends from the time of the prophet to the time of the end.
The first two of these present a four-kingdom outline, represented by metals in
Daniel 2 and by wild beasts in chapter 7. The natural progression of these four
kingdoms is Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome. Unfortunately for preterist
interpreters, who don’t believe in predictive prophecy, this sequence goes one
kingdom too far. They would like to have it end in the Greek empire with
Antiochus Epiphanes, not in the Roman. In order to accomplish this they have
lengthened the first part of the outline to Babylon, Media, Persia and Greece,
holding that the symbolism represents Media and Persia as two independent
kingdoms.
This division of Media
from Persia is denied by the text of Daniel itself. In Daniel 5:28 Belshazzar
is told that his kingdom is to be divided and given to the Medes and the
Persians, showing that these kingdoms were simultaneous, contemporary and
related. History demonstrates this through the Nabonidus Chronicle, which shows
that an army of Medes (under Cyrus’s oders) conquered Babylon without a battle
while Cyrus the Persian was defeating Nabonidus at the city of Opis on the
Tigris River.
The Book of Daniel
bears out the same point by citing the “law of the Medes and the Persians”
which could not be changed to deliver Daniel from the lions’ den (Dan 6:12,
15). Prophecy carries this point on by showing the dual symbolism of the bear
in chapter 7 (one side of the bear was higher than the other) and the dual
symbolism of the ram in chapter 8 (one horn was higher than the other). In
8:20, Gabriel interpreted these animals as the Medes and the Persians combined.
Thus the text of Daniel does not allow for separating these two kingdoms, which
means that preterists have the wrong line-up of the kingdoms. Even Porphyry,
the pagan philosopher who started the preterist interpretation 1700 years ago,
recognized this difficulty. He tried to solve it by listing the kingdoms as
Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece I, and Greece II. Modern interpreters of this school
have to deny the outline established by the founder of their method, and they
have to deny the direct evidence of the text of Daniel itself.
Dispensational
futurists face a different sort of problem along this line: the seven-fold
sequences in the seals and trumpets in Revelation. The sixth seal obviously is
the Second Coming of Christ when the wicked call for the rocks and the
mountains to fall on them. The question then is, where does the sequence of the
seven seals start? It starts with the rider on the white horse going forth to
conquer. This fits best with the early church of the first and second centuries
as they went forth with the pure gospel to win the known world for Christ. If
this is put into the future, into the last seven years of earth’s history, we
have the last church doing the same thing the first church did. But the first
church was represented by a conquering rider on a white horse, so at the very
least we should have a conquering rider on a white horse for the last church,
but, as we have seen, we don’t. Instead we have people calling for rocks and
mountains to fall on them.
Here is another problem
that futurists face. In the sequence of the trumpets is found a time period of
five months in the fifth trumpet (Rev 9:5, 10). Since the use of the year-day
principle is valid for the time periods of apocalyptic prophecy in Daniel and
Revelation, these five months should span a period of 150 historical years, and
150 years cannot be compressed into the last seven years.
Just as the four-kingdom
outline spans the ages from the prophet’s time to the end of time, in the same
way we should interpret the seven-fold sequence of the seals and trumpets as
spanning the Christian era from the time of John to the end. Futurists thus
face the problem of utilizing the full outline of the nations in Daniel but
shortening the seven-fold sequence in Revelation. The historicist interpreter
has the best of both of these worlds by utilizing the whole sequence of the
kingdoms in Daniel and the whole sequences of the seals and trumpets in
Revelation.
6. Central focus
What element is central
to the interpretation of these three schools of prophetic interpretation? For
the preterist, in Daniel the focus is Antiochus Epiphanes in the 2nd century
B.C. But Antiochus was only a minor king who ruled but for a decade, 11 years
to be exact. During that time he was not the most powerful ruler on the scene
of action, either. During his second campaign into Egypt he was confronted, not
by the Roman army defending Egypt, but by a Roman ambassador.
When the ambassador
drew a line in the sand and challenged Antiochus to cross it under pain of the
wrath of Rome, Antiochus froze with fear. He ordered his troops to head back to
Antioch, and he never returned to Egypt. Why did he do this? Because he did not
want the full might and power of Rome to come down upon him. His father,
Antiochus Ill, had already lost a major battle with Rome and had had portions
of his kingdom cut off. He had also been required to pay a heavy indemnity.
It has long been noted
that Antiochus does not fit the comparative-to-superlative sequence in Daniel
8. Persia was to be very great, Greece was to be exceedingly great, and the
little horn was to be so great it would reach up to heaven to threaten God’s
Prince there. The natural sequence here is Persia to Greece to Rome, not Persia
to Greece to Antiochus Epiphanes. Nor do the time periods of Daniel 7 and 8 fit
the history of Antiochus, not the 1260 days (from the 3 ½ times) nor the 2300 days, regardless of
whether they are taken as the full 2300 literal days or 1150 days. (Some
interpreters suggest splitting 2300 in half according to the fact that there
were two sacrifices in the temple every day.)
Daniel 8:9 says that
the little horn power would be great toward the east, the south and the
glorious land, i.e., Judea. Antiochus had some success in the east and south,
but when he came to the throne, Judea already belonged to his kingdom. He was
the one responsible for losing it, by stirring up the Maccabean revolt.
In sum, Rome fits the
symbolic characteristics of the little horn in Daniel 7 and 8 very much better
than does Antiochus Epiphanes.
What about
dispensationalism’s central focus? As we have said, it is localized almost
exclusively on the seven last years of earth’s history, to the neglect of the
rest of the Christian era. To get there, dispensationalists must insert a gap
during the Christian era and ignore all its history. The question then is, how
valid is this gap? The gap is inserted, first of all, between the 69th and 70th
weeks of the prophecy of Daniel 9. Is there justifiable reason for inserting
this 2,000-year gap in that position?
The 70 weeks of Daniel
9:24-27, according to dispensationalists, are developed from the 70 years of
the Babylonian exile mentioned in Daniel 9:1, 2. But historically there is no
gap in those 70 years, or the Babylonian exile would have lasted longer than 70
years. In like manner, there is no justification for inserting the gap between
the 69th and 70th week, or the time period would have to last more than the 70
weeks or 490 years. Thus this interpretation is not that of the 70 weeks, it is
an interpretation of 2,490 years (490+2,000), and that is not what the prophecy
is talking about.
We can also see this by
adding up the sum of the parts to make the whole. Daniel 9:25, 26 lists 7 weeks
plus 62 weeks plus 1 week to make up the total of 70 weeks, and there is no
room for any more weeks beyond the total of 70. Just as the seven years of
Joseph’s famine followed directly after the seven years of plenty, both
prophetically and historically, so there is no room for any gap here. Daniel
9:27 tells of cutting off the sacrifices and offerings in the midst of the
final week. Christ accomplished this on the cross; it has not been reserved for
the final seven years of earth’s history. Emptied of meaning by the death of
Christ, those offerings physically ceased when the temple in Jerusalem was
destroyed in A.D. 70.
In this way preterism’s
central focus of Daniel upon Antiochus Epiphanes is denied by the history of
his own times. The gap necessary for the dispensationalist interpretation is
denied by its weak exegetical basis. But the historicist method focuses upon
all of the mighty acts of God from the time of the prophet to the end of time.
That is the most sound biblical focus. We stand in continuity with the saints
of all the ages.
7. History of interpretation
It is worthwhile seeing
where these alternative interpretations have come from, what their pedigree is.
Preterism began with Porphyry in the 3rd century A.D. He was not a Christian,
but a Neo-Platonist philosopher who attacked Christianity. He wrote various
books against Christianity, all of which have been lost. Only his attack upon
Daniel appears to have bothered the early church fathers; Christian authors preserved
his writings on this point to some extent by repeating his arguments in order
to refute them. Thus we know that he was the first one to hold that Daniel was
history written up as prophecy and the first to say that the prophecies of
Daniel focused upon Antiochus Epiphanes as their central figure.
This idea, and the
later futurism, became useful tools in the Catholic Counter Reformation. At
that time (around 1563 to 1600) Catholic interpreters went in both directions
to parry the thrust of the Reformers’ prophetic interpretations. The Spanish
Jesuit Alcazar developed preterism while cardinals Bellarmine and Ribera developed
futurism.
Protestantism did not
follow these paths until the 18th and 19th centuries. An English deist named
Collins published a commentary on Daniel in 1737 in which he took up the
preterist view of Daniel. His commentary gives credit to Porphyry for this
view. Dispensationalist futurism came along in the 1820s, developed by John
Darby. For that reason it is sometimes called Darbyism. Liberal academic
Protestantism has followed in the steps of Collins by accepting preterism,
while much of conservative Evangelical Protestantism has embraced
dispensationalism, especially as fostered by the Scofield Reference Bible and,
in America, by Dallas Theological Seminary.
Seventh-day Adventists
have been affected by these trends recently. What was offered to the denomination
at the Glacier View Conference in 1980 was essentially preterism. As a reaction
to that, some have gone to the other extreme by adopting futurism. Through its
representatives at the Glacier View Conference the denomination rejected
preterism. Today only a very small minority of members on the fringes of the
church advocate futurism, and there has not been any strong movement toward
either of these alternate views. In its published materials the denomination
remains strongly committed to the historicist interpretation of apocalyptic
prophecies.
From the Reformation to
the mid-19th century, the main Protestant method of interpretation was historicism.
In the Lutheran theologian’s paper I mentioned earlier, he started with Martin
Luther’s views on prophecy. It was obvious, even to him, that Luther was a
historicist. Then he went on to describe the present Lutheran view, which for
him was preterism. The glaring omission in his paper was that he did not tell
how his church moved from one position to the other.
The most massive survey
of interpretation on this point appears in the four volumes of L. E. Froom’s
The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Washington, D. C.: Review and Herald,
1946). In the first major chart of volume III (pp. 44-45, 252), Froom lists 78 historicist
interpreters from Colonial America through the Revolution, from 1600 to 1825.
For the Old World he lists 103 historicist interpreters from 1760 to 1860 (pp.
270-271, 743-44). Who, then, are the heirs of the Reformation in terms of
prophetic interpretation? It is clear that Seventh-day Adventist historicist
interpreters of apocalyptic prophecy fill that bill most directly.
8. Summary
We have reviewed and
contrasted three major schools of prophetic interpretation here. The
historicist interpretation comes closest to reflecting the biblical philosophy
of history, for the preterist view is foreshortened and the dispensationalist
view deletes prophetic attention from most of the Christian era. Both the
historicist view and the futurist view take a higher view of revelation and insiration
than do the interpreters of the preterist school. The historicist and futurist
method of studying Daniel from beginning to end is surely superior to the
preterist method of studying it from the end back to the beginning. The
preterist view also encounters difficulties trying to divert the major
four-kingdom outline away from its natural pattern of Babylon, Medo-Persia,
Greece and Rome. The futurist view encounters difficulties in transplanting the
sevenfold segments of the seals and trumpets down to the end of time. These
outlines lead logically to the historicist outline of prophecy, which sees
these kingdoms and sevenfold patterns extending from the time of the writer to
the end of time.
A major difference
among these three schools of thought is the way in which they use or do not use
prophetic time. Preterist and futurist schools use only literal and historical
time for certain key passages, while historicist interpreters take these
chronological elements as symbolically standing for longer periods of actual
historical time. Internal evidence in Daniel 9 and 11 supports the use of
symbolic time over literal.
When it comes to the
major focal points of these views, one cannot maintain that Antiochus Epiphanes
fits the characteristics of the little horn in Daniel when the features of his
reign are compared closely with the specifications of this prophecy. Nor is
there any legitimate reason for holding that there is a gap in the prophecy of
Daniel 9, or in any of the other prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. It is the
historicist view that gives the best, fairest and most equal attention to all
of the periods of prophecy as they apply to the Christian era.
In terms of heritage,
the historicist method has the highest pedigree. Preterism started with a
non-Christian philosopher who attacked Christianity. His views were taken up by
one branch of the Counter Reformation. Finally, an English deist popularized
this view to the modem Protestant church. Dispensational futurism was not
introduced into the thinking of the church until the early 19th century. In
contrast, historicism has been the main method of prophetic interpretation
since interest in prophecy revived in the Protestant Reformation. It remained the
main method of that stream of interpreters until the mid-19th century.
Who, then, are the
heirs of the Reformation? Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpreters are
the heirs of the historicist interpretation over those four centuries and down
to the present. The reason why this has been the most common method of
interpretation over that period of time is that it stems most directly from
Scripture itself. Today, with the coming of our Lord so near, let us not listen
to those who invite us to abandon it.
William H. Shea (M.D.,
Loma Linda University; Ph.D., University of Michigan)
He is retired associate
director for the Bible Research Institute and author of several books of his
specialty, Old Testament.
*Published
in the Journal Adventist Affirm 17/1
(2003), 22-34. A publication Affirming Seventh-day Adventist Beliefs.
[1]I have dealt with this subject extensively in volume 1 of the Daniel and
Revelation series entitled Selected Studies of Prophetic Interpretation
(Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute). Readers interested in more
details may consult that work. Here I will only touch upon the highlights.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
