Does Historicism Pass the Test?
There is a trichotomy in the world of biblical prophecy, with the primary methods of interpretation being futurism (the one I hold to), preterism, and historicism. There are other, less-known interpretive frameworks and mixtures, but these are the big three. I tolerate the preterist viewpoint as much as I tolerate disrespect, which is to say, not at all.
Preterism has far too many problems for it to be a viable interpretation of biblical prophecy, and I’ve also covered it here before, so I will not dive too far into it. To think that all biblical prophecy is in the past and that the new heavens and new Earth are here now is ridiculous on so many levels. I don’t believe in laughing at people derogatorily, but this viewpoint would bring me closest to doing so.
But I wanted to tackle historicism as an eschatological construct, since I have not combed through it the way I have preterism.
What Is Historicism?
Historicism is an eschatology realized through the notion that the events of Bible prophecy happen slowly over history, from the initial coming of the Messiah through His Second Coming just before the Millennium, if indeed they hold to a literal Millennium at all. The events of Revelation are a sequential or parenthetical set of events that take place over a large span of time, instead of futurist ideologies that the last days’ events take place in the, well, last days. I hold more respect for this view than I do for preterist fantasies, but this view is not without its own share of massive problems.
They rely far too much on strange ideas like a day equaling a year in prophecy and all sorts of fanciful thoughts to take their viewpoint without major scrutiny. Many historicists overlap with preterists on some of the biblical prophecies, though there are also many who don’t merge the two systems. I’m not a fan of forcing what one prophecy has as a thematic backdrop and placing it over all the other ones just because it fits my theory better.
The Antichrist Problem
Historicists have a unique view of the Antichrist, in that he is not one man at the end of the course of history, but a name for the successive generations of the papacy. They view the 1,260 days that the Antichrist is given to rule as a period of years until the year 1798 of the common era. Meaning the Antichrist is the Pope, essentially. But that is a strange idea, since the text of the Bible indicates the Antichrist rules a literal conglomerate of ten kings and fights Jesus Christ after the Great Tribulation.
The nations that the Antichrist seems to control are the Islamic nations of the Middle East, with the caveat that he may at one point rule the globe (I don’t subscribe to this, but it is a possibility).
When in history did the Pope rule the Middle Eastern nations with exactly the same framework as the ancient story of Atlantis (ten kings ruling at once)?
The answer is that they did not.
But they try to get around this by saying the ten kings are not contemporaneous with the Antichrist, even though Revelation 17 makes that impossible (they rule for one hour with the Beast). The historicist will say the ten kings are barbarian kingdoms like the Visigoths and Ostrogoths. But how in the world can that make any sense? The ten kings rule concurrently with the Antichrist and give him their royal authority. These are not subservient or conquered people over centuries.
The Bible also spells out the Antichrist ruling for 1,260 days, 42 months, and 3.5 years, so we can’t confuse it with anything other than a literal 42 months. But they’ll say it means 1,260 years. I don’t have more than one face, but that deserves a couple of hands to a couple of faces for how ridiculous the view truly is. I am saying this as a fellow believer in Christ, not to insult anyone. The Bible portrays the last days as occurring for one generation, with the final 3.5 years being the Great Tribulation. The generation that sees the birth pains of Matthew 24 and Revelation 6 is the same one that will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds.
For example, if the birth pains were happening now, then we would see Jesus by 2106 (and I’m not saying that is the case).
That is the timeframe we are given by Scripture, not a long-spanning course of events throughout history.
The Antichrist will be a literal human (or angelic being) who rules for a short time at the end of history. I can’t see Pope Leo performing miracles and being considered a king of fierce countenance, not to mention he’s not a king.
They failed this test immensely.
The Literalism Problem
My biggest issue with the historicist perspective on the last days is the idea that the trumpets and bowls of wrath are normal events in history and not the supernatural occurrences they are described to be. For example, they’ll say the first trumpet was some ancient time during the 390s when an invasion happened.
But let’s read what happens at the first trumpet, shall we?
“The first angel blew his trumpet, and there followed hail and fire, mixed with blood, and these were thrown upon the earth. And a third of the earth was burned up, and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up” (Revelation 8:7 [ESV]).
How in the world do you conclude that this signifies an ancient invasion? A supernatural being blows a supernatural trumpet, and some kind of meteor storm burns up a third of the Earth, not to mention all the green grass is burned up. This makes zero sense as some ancient battle.
I subscribe to what is commonly known as the post-tribulation, pre-wrath paradigm of the last days. Meaning I view the trumpets and bowls as part of God’s wrath after the Second Coming. An angel in plain view blowing a trumpet makes sense, since Jesus returns with many angels. This is not some secret code for a battle of times past. This is a literal, future event where an angel blows a trumpet and a supernatural disaster follows.
I don’t have to spiritualize, aphorize, or turn this into something it is not.
Historicists often say things like the cosmic disturbance language of the Bible referring to the Day of Yahweh is metaphorical for governments falling.
That’s odd, since all throughout the Bible it states that the Day of the Lord will be preceded by supernatural signs in the heavens. The sun goes dark; the moon turns to blood and darkens (I’m not sure if the moon will melt in some way that resembles blood or if it will be a terrifying event like an eclipse that we see in our everyday experience), and the stars no longer shine.
The very lights of the heavens are dimmed at the presence of Jesus and His angels. No light will shine other than Jesus and His angels. I’m not sure if this is because of His glory forcing creation to defer to Him, or if He just turns the lights off, but with the many times this is stated throughout the Bible, it seems to be quite literal.
Let’s examine how humanity reacts when the sixth seal is broken, setting the stage for the Second Coming of Christ.
“When He opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that was being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, for the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand” (Revelation 6:12-17 [ESV])?
Humanity reacts as though these events are literal events, meaning that they are not metaphors. I assume that at the time when the sun goes dark; the moon becomes blood, and the stars jostle out of their orbits and darken, humanity will be terrified. Are they terrified because of a metaphor for governments failing?
NO!
You’d have to be stupid or really forcing your viewpoint to think that.
Historicism fails the test of the biblical framework of how these events will play out. When you see the sun darken, the moon into blood, and the stars darkening, that’s Day of Yahweh language.
Yahweh controls the universe, so of course He can shut these things off at a whim.
Again, I’m not sure if it’s because the Creator of the Universe is returning to creation that these effects happen or if He’s turning things off supernaturally to make a point, but the events seem quite literal to this layman theologian.
Historicism Fails
The only theological paradigm that sees these events as fulfilled throughout history has some major problems, and I didn’t even touch on the other issues, as there are far too many to name. These issues I’ve raised should set off alarm bells that historicism makes little sense. Futurism is the only eschatological paradigm that does not have these major issues.
What does futurism teach?
· The last days play out over the course of a generation that will see all the events of the last days culminating in the Second Coming of Christ (Matthew 24).
· The Antichrist will be a literal king at the end of history that will fight Jesus Christ (Daniel 8, Revelation 13, 2 Thessalonians, Daniel 7, Daniel 11).
· A literal Temple in Jerusalem will be there when the Abomination of Desolation occurs (Daniel 11, Matthew 24).
· The cosmic disturbances of nature will not be metaphorical, but literal intervention by the Creator of said celestial lights (Joel 2, Zephaniah 1, Joel 3, Isaiah 13, Ezekiel 32, Matthew 24, Revelation 6).
· The trumpets and bowls are supernatural manifestations of God’s wrath on the last generation. They cannot be everyday events in metaphor because the language does not allow for that (see Revelation 16, for example).
· The Two Witnesses will be two literal prophets with literal miracles, just as the Antichrist and False Prophet will also have similar miracles. (Revelation 11, Revelation 13).
· The Bible should be taken as literally as possible and not spiritualized to fit an agenda (common sense).
· The Day of Yahweh comes to end history supernaturally and establish the rule of Christ in a literal, thousand-year kingdom (Revelation 20).
Let the Bible say what it wants to say, without spiritualizing everything. There is room for that, of course, but regarding sod-level interpretations, not events that only make sense literally.
That’s where I stand on historicism. I’m fonder of it than preterism, but not by much…
May you be blessed and live a life full of shalom this week!
