# Question for historicists



## JeddyB1689 (Sep 24, 2014)

Good Afternoon,

This is actually my first post on the Puritan Board, so I am looking forward to this interaction.

For several years, I have held to a partial-preterist postmillennialism. However, I am rethinking this position and considering Historicism. My question is can you (historicists) give me evidence from Scripture that we ought to approach the book of Revelation with a Historicist paradigm? That has been one of my main hangups with the system, but I am very attracted to it. I think it has a great historical pedigree and would explain a lot of eschatalogical questions I have. Not to mention the fact that I just plain like this view!

Please help!

Thanks.


----------



## jandrusk (Sep 24, 2014)

I think the Book of Daniel is very much attached to the Book of Revelation and is a good reference point for taking a historic view of Revelation. You have to remember also that the Bible in addition to being the inspired, infallible Word of God is a series of historical books. For me it came down to a couple of things; one was the kingdoms that Daniel predicted (Babylon, Greece, Medes/Persians, and Rome), the splitting of the temple veil. The splitting of the temple veil was the end of the Old Covenant epoch and the beginning of the New Covenant period. Both of which were the Covenant of Grace under two different administrations. The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 was I think another key historical fact in understanding Revelation.


----------



## Timotheos (Sep 24, 2014)

JeddyB1689 said:


> Good Afternoon,
> 
> This is actually my first post on the Puritan Board, so I am looking forward to this interaction.
> 
> ...


I just finished a PhD class and my ThM thesis on Rev (from SEBTS). Huge fan of studying this book.

Prelim question: to what are you referring when you say "historicist"? I have seen the term applied in various ways.


----------



## JeddyB1689 (Sep 24, 2014)

jandrusk said:


> I think the Book of Daniel is very much attached to the Book of Revelation and is a good reference point for taking a historic view of Revelation. You have to remember also that the Bible in addition to being the inspired, infallible Word of God is a series of historical books. For me it came down to a couple of things; one was the kingdoms that Daniel predicted (Babylon, Greece, Medes/Persians, and Rome), the splitting of the temple veil. The splitting of the temple veil was the end of the Old Covenant epoch and the beginning of the New Covenant period. Both of which were the Covenant of Grace under two different administrations. The fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 was I think another key historical fact in understanding Revelation.




Appreciate the thoughts brother. However, I can agree with everything you just said in a partial-preterist paradigm. What is it that makes you believe that Daniel and Revelation are speaking _beyond_ the destruction of the Temple and speak of all church history???


----------



## JeddyB1689 (Sep 24, 2014)

Timotheos said:


> JeddyB1689 said:
> 
> 
> > Good Afternoon,
> ...



"Historicist" meaning that the entire book of Revelation is a panorama of all of church history. Similar to 'idealism' in the sense that it covers the whole church age, but contra 'idealism' in the sense that it deals with _specific_ historical events (i.e. the beast = the papacy). Also, Historicism sees that Rev. 20 speaks of a 'golden age' of great Gospel victory and prosperity on earth prior to the second coming (as opposed to partial-preterism postmill which sees the millennium as the whole church age; but contra amill, the church age is a _gradual_ period of Gospel victory over time.).


----------



## Timotheos (Sep 24, 2014)

JeddyB1689 said:


> Timotheos said:
> 
> 
> > JeddyB1689 said:
> ...


That helps, and that is how I have understood the term to mean (typically). 

Personally, I'm an eclectic idealist when it comes to Rev (see Beale's description in his commentary). So I can't be much help for you. I find the genre of futurism, preterism, or historicism (both a form of futurism) to miss the point of the apocalyptic genre which Rev clearly is one of many. Idealism comes closest to fitting the genre of apocalyptic.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 25, 2014)

Some partial preterists push things further anyway. E.g. Bahnsen saw the destruction of Babylon as the destruction of Rome.

Does the scroll of redemptive history which the Lamb unseals - presumably in the first century, before the destruction of Jerusalem In my humble opinion - does that scroll cover only the first few centuries of the present era?

What about historical markers like e.g. the wounding of the Beast's head? Did the conversion of pagan Rome to Christianity lead to the end of beastly civil government and the ungodly world system? No. Therefore the destruction of the Beast awaits a future time (Rev 19).

What about the fact that the Church is represented at successive stages - Jerusalem the OT Church, the Woman in the wilderness, Babylon the Whore ( the apostate Church), and the New Jerusalem the Bride (the Lamb's Wife). There is a general chronological pattern without the idealist perspective losing importance.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW (Sep 25, 2014)

Peairtach said:


> What about the fact that the Church is represented at successive stages - Jerusalem the OT Church, the Woman in the wilderness, Babylon the Whore ( the apostate Church), and the New Jerusalem the Bride (the Lamb's Wife). There is a general chronological pattern without the idealist perspective losing importance.



That is where recapitulation and progressive parallelism are to be considered in connection with the idealism. If one parallels the references to the great war, for example, it becomes apparent that this climax never arrives because of the destruction of the forces which threatened the war. These appear to be chronological but they are just a recapitulation from another perspective -- a common literary feature which appears even in historical accounts.

Revelation in one sense is de-eschatological, because it is showing that what was expected in terms of Jewish Messianism has in fact come to pass through "the revelation of Jesus Christ." So futurism, historicism, and preterism only serve to resurrect an eschatology which Revelation considers to be dead and buried.


----------



## David_A_Reed (Oct 1, 2014)

JeddyB1689 said:


> My question is can you (historicists) give me evidence from Scripture that we ought to approach the book of Revelation with a Historicist paradigm?



Probably the best evidence from Scripture would be to look at the Old Testament passages that provide much of the symbolism in Revelation.

For example, Daniel saw in vision a beast “like a lion” with wings, “a second beast, which looked like a bear,” “another beast, one that looked like a leopard” and “a fourth beast—terrifying and frightening, and very powerful” with “ten horns.” (Dan. 7:2-6 NIV) Naming the very same animals, John saw “a beast” with “ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion.”—Revelation 13:1-2 NIV

An angel gave Daniel “the interpretation of these things,” namely that “The four great beasts are four kingdoms that will rise from the earth.” (Dan. 7:16-17 NIV) John likewise described the composite beast he saw as having governmental “power” and a “throne and great authority.” (Rev. 13:2 NIV) Daniel’s four beasts were four separate successive kingdoms or empires that ruled over much of the earth; the composite beast of Revelation chapter 13 “was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.” (Rev. 13:7 NIV)

Reformed Bible commentators have long agreed that Daniel’s four beasts are the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman empires. The Apostle John’s later vision rolls the four beasts into one. So, it does not make sense to re-interpret Revelation's "Beast" into a single man, like the Nicolae Carpathia AntiChrist character of the LEFT BEHIND novels, ruling during a future 7-year period -- the dispensational futurist view. Rather, an historicist would look for an understanding that spans the reigns of those empires and their modern successors. 

A good starting point would be the comments that Luther, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Isaac Newton and others made about the Islamic empire that took over the Bible lands after the fall of Rome.

David


----------

