The Different Methods of Prophetic Interpretation
Introduction

The anti-Catholic identification of the 538-1798 period as the 1260 days of Daniel 7 is one interpretation of the literally hundreds that have been proposed. This particular view belongs to the category of "historicist" interpretation, in which there are of course, a multitude of divergend and contradictory views.
In actual fact, there are four different ways of interpreting the prophecies of the books of Daniel and Revelation. None of these methods have been condemned by the Church. This is not to say, of course, that many assertions made by proponents of these methods are not totally false. Specifically, in regard to the current focus of our attention, the 1260 years of Daniel, the historicist view has, through wild speculaton and wishful thinking, been abused by many groups to turn it againt the Catholic Faith. It is not the intention of this page to refute historicism, as historicism as a methodhas not been condemned by the Church. Rather, the various methods of prophetic interpretation will be set forward. Also it is noted that the historicist view suffers from appalling division, as will be mentioned below.

With this information in mind, we shall be better able to see the errors of the historicist anti-Catholic camp. (The futurist anti-Catholic camp will be dealt with another day, God willing.)

One further note in regard to futurism: it may not be believed that there will be a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth sometime in the future. This view is not compatible with the Catholic faith. Other aspects of futurism are, however, acceptable.

The four distinct interpretative methods may be summarised as follows:

1) Historicist : the Book of Revelation is a description of the two thousand years plus of Church history. It is this approach that the anti-Catholics use when describing the 538-1798 period as the time of Daniel 7. Note that other anti-Catholic groups are not historicist. In fact, many today are futurist (see below).
Historicism views Revelation as a symbolic picture of church history in the present Age between Christ's 1st and 2nd Coming. Its principal problem is that commentators are hopelessly divided as to the interpretation of past historic events in the light of Scripture, with many commentators trying to find contemporary events which fit the data, and so be in a position to announce the end times are upon us. (See the file "Conflicting Interpretations" for proof of this view.) Of course, these various conflicting interpretations, coming as they would from their own theological presuppositions, would have had absolutely no meaning to their original audience in Biblical times. Still, that does not stop these commentators churning out as many interpretations as they have heads. But it should serve as a warning in regard to the historicist view. The "Conflicts" section will list just some of these interpretations.
2) Preterist: this view says most of the Book of Revelation was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. The beast in this case would be Nero. This view can be subdivided into two main groups: full preterism, which says all prophecy has come to pass already (not a popular belief, as it denies the physical resurrection), and partial preterism, which says that most, but not all, prophecy has come to pass. In particular, partial preterism asserts that the last three chapters of the book of Revelation have yet to be fulfilled (including the Second Coming and the bodily resurrrection). This view has quite a bit of support in the Church Fathers. Scripturally, we read Revelation 1:1 which says these things will "soon take place." And the Eschatological Discourse of Matthew 24 and 25 which speak of "this generation" give support to the preterist view.
As noted, preterism requires that the Book of Revelation be written before 70A.D i.e. before the destruction of Jerusalem to whch it is supposed to point. There is divergent opinion on whether it was written before or after this date. Scott Hahn's book "The Lamb's Supper: The Mass as Heaven on Earth." describes these approaches four different approaches and shows they are not mutually exclusive. Hahn is a upporter of the view Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, so supports the (partial) preterist view (thugh not necessarily to the exclusion of the others). ·
3) Idealist: this view regards the Book of Revelation as a summary of the sppiritual struggles against the world and the flesh that each Christian endures during his/her pilgrimage on earth. St. Augustine of Hippo was a noted proponent of this view.
4) Futurist: this view has been much popularised among Evangelicals by sensationalist books like Protestant Hal Lindsey's "Late, Great, Planet Earth" which became the second best seller of the 1970s (after the Bible) with ideas such as the Soviet Union as the Beast and so on. Some prominent Protestant futurists include Edward Irving, Cyrus Scofield, John Nelson Darby, and Margaret MacDonald. But the most widely known currently is Tim LaHaye, thanks to the success of the theologically inept "Left Behind" series.

Now that we have seen the different methods of prophetic interpretation, the next step will be to look at some of the charges made by the anti-Catholic historicists (including the Seventh Day Adventists) in regard to futurism and preterism. Specifically, we shall examine the dubious claim that these two interpretative methods were dreamt up by the 16th century Jesuits as an effort to "smokescreen" the "truth" that the papal power was the fulfillment of the 1260 years. Please click on the "Jesuits" link to continue.

Introduction to the question Conflicting Interpretations Justinian's Code of 538 The Jesuits and Futurism
Conclusion and Summary

Return to Adventism Index