What does historicism hold the Great Tribulation to be?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
1. Where in church history do historicist hold that the Great Tribulation took/takes place?
2. Given that the abomination of desolation causes the Great Tribulation, when did that happen?
2a. Was it Titus in Jerusalem?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
Per the historicist view, the narrative of Revelation is assumed to be in exact chronological order. The early chapters (e.g., Revelation 2, 3, and 6) relate to events in the first few centuries, the middle chapters (Revelation 13) relate to events of the Reformation, and the later chapters (Revelation 18, 19) relate to events immediately before the Second Coming. The beast represents the Pope in Reformation times.

Then again, I have seen the harlot Babylon in Revelation 17 is the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy, and the Beast from the sea in Revelation 13 with the rise of Islam.

See also:
http://historicism.com/
http://www.historicism.com/menu/timecharts.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicist_interpretations_of_the_Book_of_Revelation
http://www.npa519.com/web/fourviews.htm

I would have to dig out Gregg's Four Views volume (preterist, idealist, futurist and historicist) for more details. I do wish that would be made available in eBook format someday.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Per the historicist view, the narrative of Revelation is assumed to be in exact chronological order. The early chapters (e.g., Revelation 2, 3, and 6) relate to events in the first few centuries, the middle chapters (Revelation 13) relate to events of the Reformation, and the later chapters (Revelation 18, 19) relate to events immediately before the Second Coming. The beast represents the Pope in Reformation times.

Then again, I have seen the harlot Babylon in Revelation 17 is the Roman Catholic Church and the papacy, and the Beast from the sea in Revelation 13 with the rise of Islam.

See also:
http://historicism.com/
http://www.historicism.com/menu/timecharts.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicist_interpretations_of_the_Book_of_Revelation
http://www.npa519.com/web/fourviews.htm

I would have to dig out Gregg's Four Views volume (preterist, idealist, futurist and historicist) for more details. I do wish that would be made available in eBook format someday.
That view holds that the 7 churches described were definite periods in church history, correct?
1. Where in church history do historicist hold that the Great Tribulation took/takes place?
2. Given that the abomination of desolation causes the Great Tribulation, when did that happen?
2a. Was it Titus in Jerusalem?
Wouldn't they see that as being in 70 AD?
 

Megs

Puritan Board Freshman
A couple posts from my blog may help answer your questions:

Two views of the Great Tribulation in the historicist camp: https://theantipaschronicles.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/has-the-great-tribulation-already-happened/

FN Lee's view of the Abomination/Tribulation:
https://theantipaschronicles.wordpr...matthew-23-and-24-with-added-notes-from-gill/

Rand Windburn explaining the second view of the tribulation as mentioned in the first post above, with lots of quotes from the reformers: http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/catalogue/abomination_of_desolation.pdf

Wilhelmus a Brakel on the 7 churches representing typical churches in all ages (This would be consistent with FN Lee's John's Revelation Unveiled): https://theantipaschronicles.wordpr...epresent-churches-not-ages-revelation-111-19/

Gregg's Revelation: Four Views describes the 7 churches as church ages, I believe.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
A couple posts from my blog may help answer your questions:

Two views of the Great Tribulation in the historicist camp: https://theantipaschronicles.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/has-the-great-tribulation-already-happened/

FN Lee's view of the Abomination/Tribulation:
https://theantipaschronicles.wordpr...matthew-23-and-24-with-added-notes-from-gill/

Rand Windburn explaining the second view of the tribulation as mentioned in the first post above, with lots of quotes from the reformers: http://www.iconbusters.com/iconbusters/htm/catalogue/abomination_of_desolation.pdf

Wilhelmus a Brakel on the 7 churches representing typical churches in all ages (This would be consistent with FN Lee's John's Revelation Unveiled): https://theantipaschronicles.wordpr...epresent-churches-not-ages-revelation-111-19/

Gregg's Revelation: Four Views describes the 7 churches as church ages, I believe.

That was very helpful. I'm specifically interested in their take of the Olivet Discourse
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
That was very helpful. I'm specifically interested in their take of the Olivet Discourse
"We repeat then, that the Lord’s purpose in this discourse was not at all to give His people signs of His coming again, but to warn that generation of believers of the approaching destruction of Jerusalem, and to give to them a sure sign whereby they might, and whereby in fact His own people did, secure their safety by fleeing the land and city. "

More:
http://www.historicism.com/Mauro/MauroII-13.htm

From THE SEVENTY WEEKS AND THE GREAT TRIBULATION
A Study of the Last Two Visions of Daniel and the Olivet Discourse of the Lord Jesus Christ

(REVISED EDITION)
by Philip Mauro

at:
http://www.historicism.com/Mauro/Mauro70.htm
 

Megs

Puritan Board Freshman
My understanding is that the historicist position is similar or identical to the partial preterist position (depending on who you're reading). Some see the Discourse as being all about AD 70 and others about AD 70 and beyond. The historicists in the Windburn article seem to see the Discourse as mixed, with the "abomination of desolation" continuing into our time.

I'm not sure I would describe FN Lee as a preterist with respect to Matthew rather than a consistent historicist, especially since he advised the Historicism Research Foundation and included his work on the Olivet Discourse in that website. But either way, you get to the same interpretation from him whichever label you use.

I still have to read Mauro's work. There is just so much information to wade through!
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
My understanding is that the historicist position is similar or identical to the partial preterist position (depending on who you're reading). Some see the Discourse as being all about AD 70 and others about AD 70 and beyond. The historicists in the Windburn article seem to see the Discourse as mixed, with the "abomination of desolation" continuing into our time.

I'm not sure I would describe FN Lee as a preterist with respect to Matthew rather than a consistent historicist, especially since he advised the Historicism Research Foundation and included his work on the Olivet Discourse in that website. But either way, you get to the same interpretation from him whichever label you use.

I still have to read Mauro's work. There is just so much information to wade through!

That seems to line up with what I've read of other historicists: The abomination of desolation causes the Great Tribulation.

My follow up question: when did the Great Tribulation end?
 

Megs

Puritan Board Freshman
TBH, I am still trying to wrap my head around the arguments for each view but again it depends on which view you take. I know the existence of differing views is a criticism of historicism but it's kind of like how some preterists take Revelation as all about AD 70 and others take it as being about AD 70 and the fall of Rome. But here is what I understand:

If the Great Tribulation was only AD 70, then it ended then. Simple and tidy.

If the Great Tribulation started in AD 70, then it continues today (kind of like how historicists take the time marker in Revelation 1 - "things which must shortly come to pass" - as indicating the beginning of something, not the entire event in and of itself). It will continue until at least Antichrist (the Papacy with her allies) is taken out of the way and the Millennium has started (speaking from a postmillennial perspective; that is the view I came to historicism from so I started there and I'm not able to speak as well to other millennial views - yet). I say at least because it could include the post-Antichrist "mopping up" operation before the Millennium technically begins.

So right now, we would be somewhere around the 6th vial, where there is an attempt to build a one world government, religion, economy (this is where there is some overlap with Futurism) - basically a worldwide attempt to stamp out true religion even in formerly "Christian" countries. There are also two views on how this could go down: FN Lee's is that it will be like the Tower of Babel, where the project will get so far and then God will pull the plug on it before it is complete. The other is that there will be a worldwide tyrannical government, but it will be short-lived, I think the maximum I've seen predicted is 10 years If I recall correctly. Here is Jonathan Edwards, quoted in FN Lee's John's Revelation Unveiled, page 217 of the pdf copy of the book, on what would be expected in our time:

Comments Jonathan Edwards: "In this last great opposition which shall be made against the Church to defend the kingdom of Satan  all the forces of Antichrist, and Mahometanism, and Heathenism, will be united...through[out] the Whole World.... It is said that 'spirits of Devils shall go forth unto the Kings of the Earth and of the whole World, to gather them together to the battle of the great day of God Almighty'....

"These spirits are said to come out of the mouth of the Dragon, and out
of the mouth of the Beast, and out of the mouth of the False-Prophet.... There shall be the spirit of Popery, and the spirit of Mahometanism, and the spirit of Heathenism  all united. By the Beast, is meant Antichrist.... By the False-Prophet...an eye seems to be had to Mahomet, whom his followers call the 'Great Prophet'.... Christ and His Church shall in this battle obtain a complete and entire victory over their enemies.They shall be totally routed and overthrown....​

The overthrow hasn't happened yet from a historicist point of view and so the Tribulation would still be ongoing in what one minister called the "death rattle of the papacy" or the last rally of the antichristian forces. So on the second view, the abomination and tribulation both continue into our time and on the first view, it was millennia ago.

Sorry about the essay. Hope this helps!

P.S. I should add this insightful comment from Robert Fleming, which should be something we all hope for:

“If they ask, But when will the tide turn for the Protestant Church? I answer, When they turn more universally to God, and no sooner.”

~Robert Fleming, The Rise and Fall of the Papacy
 

Megs

Puritan Board Freshman
One more point of interest. The second view seems to depend on an idea of "double fulfillment" of prophecy, sort of like how the gospel writers attributed certain prophecies to Christ in a certain way that might not have initially seemed to apply to him.

Here is what Rand Windburn said in "The Abomination of Desolation: Past, Present, or Future" (page 17):

"It is at this time we bring forth a line of witnesses corroborating our thesis that the abomination of desolation has double fulfillment, pointing especially to the Papacy in our day"

and John Cassian (Pages 41-42):

Testimony of John Cassian

OF THE DOUBLE SENSE IN WHICH HOLY SCRIPTURE MAY BE TAKEN

"Wherefore on those passages which are brought forward with a clear
explanation we also can constantly lay down the meaning and boldly state our
own opinions. But those which the Holy Spirit, reserving for our meditation and exercise, has inserted in holy Scripture with veiled meaning, wishing some of them to be gathered from various proofs and conjectures, ought to be step by step and carefully brought together, so that their assertions and proofs may be arranged by the discretion of the man who is arguing or supporting them. For sometimes when a difference of opinion is expressed on one and the same subject, either view may be considered reasonable and be held without injury to the faith either firmly, or doubtfully, i.e., in such a way that neither is full belief nor absolute rejection accorded to it, and the second view need not interfere with the former, if neither of them is found to be opposed to the faith: as in this case: where Elias came in the person of John, and is again to be the precursor of the Lord’s Advent: and in the matter of the Abomination of desolation which stood in the holy place, by means of that idol of Jupiter which, as we read, was placed in the temple in Jerusalem, and which is again to stand in the Church through the coming of Antichrist, and all those things which follow in the gospel, which we take as having been fulfilled before the captivity of Jerusalem and still to be fulfilled at the end of this world. In which matters neither view is opposed to the other, nor does the first interpretation interfere with the second."

I don't know much about a doctrine of "double fulfillment" but I would like to research this more. If you have any layman-friendly information you could point me to on that, it would be greatly appreciated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top