# Idealism vs Historicism



## Fogetaboutit

Can somebody explain quickly the main differences between the Historic view and the Idealist view of Revelation when combined with Amillenialism, if this has already been discussed can you point me to the thread. 

Thanks,


----------



## Fogetaboutit

> Etienne, I'm not sure about all the details of how each view would combine with Amillenialism, but I do have some experience learning about both the Idealist and Historicist view of Revelation. I find it rather confusing how anyone would hold to the Idealist view, because the view essentially just spiritualizes/allegorizes all of Revelation, interpreting it as only general spiritual truths to comfort the Church through all ages until Christ's return...when Revelation is words of prophecy. So I think the Idealist view has a bad foundation from the get-go. However, the Historicist view was actually *the* Protestant view of those around the Reformation period -- that, in and of itself, should spur more interest in this view that seems to have been forgotten these days by the mainstream Reformed. Historicism looks for fulfillment of prophecy historically, since Revelation is viewed as a prophecy pertaining to the Church until Christ's return. (When most people think of Historicism, they think of the historicist view associating the AntiChrist/Man-of-Sin with the office of the papacy)



That is why I was a bit confused I thought I was primarily Historicist in view since I agree with most of he interpretation of the refomation I have read (papacy being AntiChrist/Man of Sin etc.) but I also see the book of revelation being mostly symbolic/spiritual althought I would not say allegoric. I believe that the view that Revelation is sectioned in 7 different part all describing the entire church age (millennium) from beginning to end but each section is describing different aspect of this era.

I guess my question is that if I do no necessarily map dates to specific event but accept the chronology as describe in each section, would that make me Historicist or Idealist? The problem I have with putting dates to specific event is that I believe that sometime event described in Revelation or the Olivet discourses might have litteral fullfilment but might also be a picture of something future in the spiritual sense. (ie: the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem pointing to the final destruction of the apostate church at Christ's return). I see an anology of the state of the Physical Temple in Jerusalem as being desolate therefore destroyed in the same way the church in general (execpt God's remnant) being desolate and destroyed a the end of this age. That is why I'm reluctant to accept any praeterist views (full or partial) since it renders some parts as irrelevant to us today.


----------



## MW

The idealist approach doesn't spiritualise/allegorise Revelation. If anything, the historicist approach allegorises Revelation by turning it into an extended series of events. All agree that Revelation ultilises the symbolic. The question is, how are the symbols to be interpreted? The historicist allows subsequent historical events to interpret the symbols; the idealist, on the other hand, follows the theological imagery of the Scriptures. The historicist, by virtue of his method, is bound to see the visions as chronological to a great degree. The idealist, holding to the theological significance of the imagery, is able to perceive the use of parallellism and recapitulation.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

> The idealist approach doesn't spiritualise/allegorise Revelation. If anything, the historicist approach allegorises Revelation by turning it into an extended series of events. All agree that Revelation ultilises the symbolic. The question is, how are the symbols to be interpreted? The historicist allows subsequent historical events to interpret the symbols; the idealist, on the other hand, follows the theological imagery of the Scriptures. The historicist, by virtue of his method, is bound to see the visions as chronological to a great degree. The idealist, holding to the theological significance of the imagery, is able to perceive the use of parallellism and recapitulation.



Thanks for this clarification, if I understand what you said I would probably be an Idealist. Is the Idealist view a recent developement or was it used in past centuries by puritans and reformers? Any suggested ressources on the subjet?


----------



## ADKing

The Reformers and Puritans were overwhelmingly historicists. Check out the helpful introduction in EB Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae on the plan of the book Horae apocalypticae: or a commentary ... - Edward Bishop Elliott - Google Books

The historicist does utilize the theological significance of biblical imagery (as can be seen in their commentaries). One key difference, in my opinion is that the idealist position makes Revelation unlike other biblical prophecy. Think of Daniel 2 and the statue there. Of course it is interpreted chronologically and historically. Try applying an idealist approach to Daniel 2 and we would all agree that it is inappropriate. Prophecy has actual historical fulfilment that is important to the nature of it.


----------



## JM

Good point Rev. King.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

> The Reformers and Puritans were overwhelmingly historicists. Check out the helpful introduction in EB Elliott's Horae Apocalypticae on the plan of the book Horae apocalypticae: or a commentary ... - Edward Bishop Elliott - Google Books



thanks for the recommendation



> Try applying an idealist approach to Daniel 2 and we would all agree that it is inappropriate. Prophecy has actual historical fulfilment that is important to the nature of it.



I agree with this Daniel 2 definitely has historical fulfillement but I'm not sure we can parallel the whole book of Revelation with this chapter alone. Let us also remember that Daniel had another vision in Chapter 7 which also describes the same thing as in chapter 2 but from a different perspective, we see the parallelism here also, chapter 7 is not chronologicaly fullfilled after chapter 2 but in paralell which would go hand in hand with the parallel interpreation of Revelation.

I believe those chapter have historical fulfillement but I also believe they are explaining the same thing from different perspective the same way I would interpret Revelation. I also accept that according to Daniel 2 the last "Kingdom" will be Rome that is why I believe the reformers were correct in calling the Papacy the Antichrist/Man of Sin since the Roman Catholic Church would be a continuity of Pagan Rome. Would Idealist also recognize Roman Catholicism as the continuity of Pagan Rome therefore still be the last Kingdom?


----------



## ADKing

The point was only that the method of interpreting prophecy in Daniel is the same as the method of interpreting prophecy in Revelation. Certainly this is a case in which historicists identify theological imagery (how heavily does Revelation draw on Daniel! Shouldn't this indicate something to us about method of interpretation?) If we have no problem identifying particular kingdoms, rulers etc in Daniel from our knowledge of how those prophecies were fulfilled, what is fundamentally different about Revelation that would keep us from doing the same thing? 

One significant difference between Daniel and Revelation, however, is that Daniel is not one sustained vision, but different visions revealed at different times interspersed with narrative. Revelation is unlike this in that in appears to have been revealed to John at once, when he was in the Spirit on the Lord's day (Revelation 1.10). This starts the book with a strong presumption of a progressive vision. Now theoretically, it may be possible to demonstrate exegetically that there are places in Revelation in which certain historical events are described in a "recapitulation" type way. In fact, some historicist interpreters (e.g. Elliott) will even concede that at certain places (He has an interesting interpretation of the fact that the scroll that the Lamb receives from God is written on front and on back which plays in to this interpretation). 

The key difference then is not that historicists cannot possibly admit of any places in Revelation where there may be some recapitulation--they do this in their commentaries on an exegetical basis. The key difference is the nature of how to interpret prophecy. It has specific historical references that can be discerned when they come to pass.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

So from a historicist perspective, would you say that the letter to the seven churches applies only to those churches at the time of John or would they also represent churches throughtout the church age? If so would they be chronological (first church would represent the universal church for a certain period of time than the second for a preceding period of time etc) or would you say that all warning to all churches apply to the universal church at any given time withing the church age (or "millennium" assuming that you are amil)? 

Althought I do recognize that there is some chronology in Revelation I would not be dogmatic in binding specific events and dates to specific portions of revelation therefore meaning it would already been fulfilled and no longer applicable. As an example I would not be dogmatic to say which of the horsemen have already past and which are still to come, or which of the plague describes have been fulfilled and which are still to come etc. How do historicists deal with this?


----------



## ADKing

Historicists usually see the letters as letters to seven churches contemporary with John (the things which are...Rev 1.19). They are epistles. Certainly the warnings apply to all churches just like the warnings in 1 Corinthians do. And I can say that as a convinced postmillennialist  As far as I know, the view that the letters were prophetic of various stages in the "church age" was more popular among dispensationalists. 

You seem to assume that fulfilment means that they are "no longer applicable". Why? Are portions of the Old Testament prophecies that are now fulfilled no longer applicable? Seeing them fulfilled doesn't make then inapplicable anymore than fulfilled OT prophecy is inapllicable to the church today. We don't look for things to happen in the future that have already happened, but that doesn't mean we cannot learn and profit from them.

I can sympathize with not wanting to be too dogmatic, but if they are prophecies with historical fulfilments then they have either happened or they have not happened. If we have good reason to conclude they have happened, why wouldn't we? We can do this with the kingdoms in Daniel. 

You might find this sermon helpful in answering some of your questions Commentary On Revelation, Part 3, Historicism, Preterism, Futurism, Idealism & Rev. 1 - SermonAudio.com


----------



## JM

Rev. Mencarow's (94) sermons are extremely helpful as well.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

> You seem to assume that fulfilment means that they are "no longer applicable". Why? Are portions of the Old Testament prophecies that are now fulfilled no longer applicable? Seeing them fulfilled doesn't make then inapplicable anymore than fulfilled OT prophecy is inapllicable to the church today. We don't look for things to happen in the future that have already happened, but that doesn't mean we cannot learn and profit from them.



I guess I should have been more specific, what I meant by "no longer applicable" was fulfilled/past therefore we should no longer expect it's future or present fulfillment, I wasn't refering to it's scriptural value for our understanding and edification. Basically if something has been fulfilled we no longer need to "watch" for it's fulfillement since it is past. 

Example: When would you say the red horseman has been (or will be) released? It represent wars, we always had wars, some period more than other but they was always wars. Same thing could be said for the Black horseman and the Pale Horseman etc. There are always presense of those elements in play (to different extent in different era and diffrent area around the world) throughtout the church age. I'm sure during the Dark Ages many could have interpreted many of the events happening during that time as being signs of the end.



> I can sympathize with not wanting to be too dogmatic, but if they are prophecies with historical fulfilments then they have either happened or they have not happened. If we have good reason to conclude they have happened, why wouldn't we? We can do this with the kingdoms in Daniel.



As I said I'm not against all chronology in Revelation (ex: I would agree that satan is being loosed near the end means just that), but I also see parallelism and some aspects of revelation spanning the entire new testament church era (ex: sealing of the saints in the forehead etc.)

We have to remember that Revelation only spans the last kingdom of Daniel since the previous ones are already past, the beast in revelation is the same as the last beast in Daniel 7. Althought Daniel speak of some of the aspect mentionned in Revelation (especially when he prophesy about the last kingdom) I don't think it means it has to be interpreted the exact same way. For example Genesis 2 is not interpreted in the same fashion as Genesis 1 even if there is an overlap. Genesis 1 is an overview of the creation week, and the second part of Genesis 2 focuses on Day 6 in more details, there's chronology in Genesis 2 but not on the same level/ratio as Genesis 1. I believe the same analogy could be use with Daniel and Revelation.


----------



## MW

In actual fact, the reference to Daniel 2 works against the historicist position. By all accounts Daniel 2 represents a complete period in itself. Subsequent visions fill out the same period; they do not follow in chronological sequence. Daniel supports recapitulation. Furthermore, the historicist interpretation of Daniel falls prey to many of the same problems which are characteristic of the historicist approach to Revelation. One must create referents (that is, invent the history), in order to make it fit the symbols. The idealist approach doesn't require one to read an uninspired historian in order to understand the book. Finally, the mention of "prophecy" works against the historicist position. The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. The theological referent is already established. Jesus fulfils prophecy, not Nero, Constantine, or Muhammad.


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> The idealist approach doesn't require one to read an uninspired historian in order to understand the book.



Good point.


----------



## MW

Fogetaboutit said:


> Thanks for this clarification, if I understand what you said I would probably be an Idealist. Is the Idealist view a recent developement or was it used in past centuries by puritans and reformers? Any suggested ressources on the subjet?



The idealist approach goes back at least to Augustine. The systematic interpretation of Revelation in idealist terms becomes prominent in the 19th century. A good modern introduction to recapitulation is William Hendriksen's More Than Conquerors. An expository treatment of the symbols is provided by William Milligan's Book of Revelation.

It has been claimed the Reformers and Puritans were all historicists. This suggests it was one school of thought. The historical facts demonstrate otherwise. There is a difference between interpretation and application. There were numerous attempts to apply Revelation to historical events. Many different schemes emerged.


----------



## JM

KMK said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idealist approach doesn't require one to read an uninspired historian in order to understand the book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point.
Click to expand...


One that can be applied to the Preterist dating of Revelation.

---------- Post added at 11:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 PM ----------

...just to add...

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/revelation-idealist-amil-approach-33106/


----------



## MW

JM said:


> One that can be applied to the Preterist dating of Revelation.



That is not possible. The unveiling includes such scenes as the war of the ages, the sealing of God's people, the glorified souls of the saints, and the glorious triumph of the Lamb.


----------



## JM

armourbearer said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> One that can be applied to the Preterist dating of Revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not possible. The unveiling includes such scenes as the war of the ages, the sealing of God's people, the glorified souls of the saints, and the glorious triumph of the Lamb.
Click to expand...


With respect I disagree. The internal evidence does not prove the dating, it doesn't t have to if you view Revelation idealisticly, it could have been written anytime without the idealism being affected.


----------



## MW

JM said:


> With respect I disagree. The internal evidence does not prove the dating, it doesn't t have to if you view Revelation idealisticly, it could have been written anytime without the idealism being affected.



The idealist approach relates to the visions. The markers in the book which identify the penman and his circumstances are historical, not symbolic. Moreover, the idealism of the book relates to the fulness and completion of revelation in Jesus Christ, so it "ideally" concludes the writing of the New Testament.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> It has been claimed the Reformers and Puritans were all historicists. This suggests it was one school of thought. The historical facts demonstrate otherwise. There is a difference between interpretation and application. There were numerous attempts to apply Revelation to historical events. Many different schemes emerged.


That's what I had always thought, but how does application differ so much from interpretation that the Puritans seem to write historistically, some even attempting to predict dates? For example, how can that "man of sin" be the papacy in application though not in interpretation? If that is so, does that not suggest there could be more than one "man of sin" in history? Don't other prophecies--including Daniel--function in intepretation as events that had not happened yet but occured in history (such as prophecies about the nation of Israel's exile and details of those prophecies apparently having occurred in history too)?


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> how does application differ so much from interpretation that the Puritans seem to write historistically, some even attempting to predict dates?



James Durham provides a good example: "though we be not clear to *apply* such passages to this or that particular time, or party, or person; Yet, seeing the scope *sets out*, in general, the enmity of special enemies of the Church; and it being clear who they are: we think they may be exponed not only according to the Analogy of Faith and sound Doctrine, but according to the scope of the place, though every thing hit not, yet nothing being contrary to it."


----------



## ADKing

I'm struggling to understand your post (#13), brother. If you read my posts above, you will see that my primary intent is not to argue about any recapitulation as much as to talk about the nature of prophecy as such. The reference to Daniel 2 was primarily to show that the symbols demanded specific, identifiable historic referents. I simply cannot figure out why you would say that we must "invent the history" or "create" referents in order to make it fit the symbols. What is invented or created in seeing the silver breast as the Persian empire and the brass belly and thighs as Greece? Surely you wouldn't deny the validity of this interpretation? Furthermore, to say that "Jesus fulfils prophecy, not Nero, Constantine or Muhammad" is confusing. Surely you don't intend to say that Jesus must be the referent in each symbol? I cannot believe that is what you mean. Taking Daniel 2 as an example again, of course Jesus "fulfils it". That rock cut without hands will fill the whole earth. The ultimate goal and point of the prophecy is to exalt Christ's victory over the kingdoms of this world. But that in no way negates the fact that in order to understand the passage in its fulness we see Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome as successive kingdoms. I suppose it would be possible to get the main idea of Christ's victory over the kingdoms of the world without reference to extra-biblical historical undestanding. But that would be to miss out on the fulness of detail that magnifies our sovereign God's control of history down to the details of the sequence and character of the succeeding kingdoms. Help me undertsand where I must be missing your point.


----------



## JM

I appreciate your posts Rev. Winzer, thank you.


----------



## MW

Dear Rev. King,

I apologise if I have failed to speak clearly on any point. Thankyou for the opportunity to clarify. This was originally a discussion concerning Revelation. You had sought to find a precedent in Daniel for historicism; I subsequently observed that recapitulation in Daniel would argue against historicism in Revelation. The historicist argument is that Revelation is sequential. There is no place for recapitulation for that would mean history literally repeats itself. Recapitulation is a distinctive of idealist interpretation.

What is the problem with interpreting the different parts of the image as successive empires? First, exegetically, in both the dream and its interpretation the focus is upon the image as a single figure. The different parts of the image are regarded as standing and falling together. V. 35, "broken to pieces together." V. 44, "in the days of these kings." Secondly, historically, one must create facts in order to make Babylon the superior and Rome the inferior of these empires. Thirdly, theologically, it carnalises Christ's kingdom to teach that it comes to take the place of a political empire.

On the issue of fulfilment -- if one divides the visions according to their details then obviously Jesus cannot be the fulfilment of the visions. The visions of Daniel and Revelation, however, were never intended to be divided in this way. If they were understood in general terms -- as visions, like parables, are intended to be understood -- it would be obvious that Jesus is the only historically significant figure. That is the point of the visions.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

armourbearer said:


> The idealist approach goes back at least to Augustine. The systematic interpretation of Revelation in idealist terms becomes prominent in the 19th century. A good modern introduction to recapitulation is William Hendriksen's More Than Conquerors. An expository treatment of the symbols is provided by William Milligan's Book of Revelation.



Thanks for the recommendation, and thanks for the clarifications.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

How do idealist reconcile the Olivet discourses with what is prophecied in Revelation. How do they see the end times (Christ Second coming)? Do they see increased apostacy near the end? Do they believe the releasing of Satan in Revelation 20 will happen near the end?


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> James Durham provides a good example: "though we be not clear to apply such passages to this or that particular time, or party, or person; Yet, seeing the scope sets out, in general, the enmity of special enemies of the Church; and it being clear who they are: we think they may be exponed not only according to the Analogy of Faith and sound Doctrine, but according to the scope of the place, though every thing hit not, yet nothing being contrary to it."


So just for some clarification, (1) Do idealists use this approach for all biblical prophecy, not just Revelation and Daniel? If so, what about one of the proofs usually given for Scripture's Divine authorship, namely, that it has prophecy that has come true (and not just prophecies about Christ but about Israel the nation in its exile and restoration)? Isaiah 48 for example uses telling the future as a demonstration of God's authority. Agabus's prophecy also was historic and specific.

(2) Is it possible for idealists to see multiple applications of prophecy throughout history? For example, is it theoretically possible for there to be more than one man of sin or Antichrist or "sea beast" throughout history?


Edit:


armourbearer said:


> There is no place for recapitulation for that would mean history literally repeats itself.


I don't know why it would be a problem for history to repeat itself--to a certain extent anyway. But I'm guessing you mean that the exact same events with the exact same people happen again, as if one went back in time and replayed events. I don't see how a historicist reading of Revelation requires that sort of literal repetition in history. In my unexpert opinion (and really, I probably should read more on this before speaking), it seems the historicist position only requires repetition of history of some sort (e.g., the pattern of Israel redeemed, Israel desert wandering, Israel promise land, Israel Babylonian exile, Israel restoration is something that seems to be repeated by Christ in history and perhaps the Church too--but the point being that going into "Babylonian exile" can happen in history on more than one occasion without a literal repetition, as can other events in history that--on the historicist position--are seen as being described in similar terms by Revelation and Daniel), unless I'm an idealist and I didn't know it.


----------



## MW

Fogetaboutit said:


> How do idealist reconcile the Olivet discourses with what is prophecied in Revelation. How do they see the end times (Christ Second coming)? Do they see increased apostacy near the end? Do they believe the releasing of Satan in Revelation 20 will happen near the end?



The Olivet discourse requires genre identification. As noted earlier, idealism applies to visions. Although some call the Olivet discourse a "little apocalypse" it doesn't present itself as a vision.

Some idealist interpreters of Revelation are able to see links between Rev. 6 and the beginning of sorrows in Matt. 24. As noted on the other thread, there has been a mixing of categories through the 20th century which has led to event-focussed interpretation mixing with pure idealism. There have been both amillennial and postmillennial advocates of an end time release of Satan but I would argue it is a carry over from premillennialism.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> (1) Do idealists use this approach for all biblical prophecy, not just Revelation and Daniel?



As noted earlier, it applies to visions.



Afterthought said:


> (2) Is it possible for idealists to see multiple applications of prophecy throughout history? For example, is it theoretically possible for there to be more than one man of sin or Antichrist or "sea beast" throughout history?



Yes and no. The "ideal" is a transcendent state of affairs through history, so it would be possible for an insightful person to observe periods when the ideal manifests itself more than other times. As long as this is limited to "application" it might even prove helpful. With regard to "the man of sin," again, this is not a vision but a didactic portion of Scripture, so it is not possible to have more than one without destroying the literal sense of Scripture.



Afterthought said:


> I don't see how a historicist reading of Revelation requires that sort of literal repetition in history.



The historicist approach doesn't require it. To put my original statement in context -- the historicist approach adopting recapitulation would result in a literal repetition of history. The historicist approach, by definition, ties the visions to historical events and recapitulation would require those historic events to happen again.


----------



## JM

> Some idealist interpreters of Revelation are able to see links between Rev. 6 and the beginning of sorrows in Matt. 24.



If I'm not mistaken, the PreWrath view would also agree that Rev. 6 and Matt. 24 are linked, interesting...


----------



## Afterthought

Thanks for the clarification, Rev. Winzer! I'm not sure how I missed the important qualifier of "visions" in your earlier statements, but thanks for catching that!


----------

