Historicist Only The People of the Revelation

[Jerryhuerta]

There is no return to the Old Covenant people when Christ returns. Christ mediates over the people of the New Covenant, which affirms Revelation pertains to the Church, not the Old Covenant people. The contradictions of futurism continue in their view of Christ’s parables when Ice writes,

The course of this age is given to Christians primarily by Christ’s parables in Matthew 13 providing insight into the course of this dispensation. Since Matthew 13 surveys this present age in its relation to the postponement of the kingdom, the parables cover the period of time between Christ’s two advents—His first and second comings. This includes the tribulation, second coming, and final judgment, after the rapture, but nevertheless includes an important overview of our present era. Therefore, the items that relate to the end of the age in Matthew 13 do not apply to the church age, since our dispensation will end via the rapture, while the broader inter-advent age continues with the tribulation and Christ’s physical return to planet earth at the end of that seven-year period.[1]​

Ice, like all futurists, sees the scattering of Israel as undetermined; God did not predestine Israel’s response at the first advent. God did not foresee the Church in theological libertarianism. As a result, all apocalyptic prophecy pertains to Israel, not the Church in futurism and preterism. Even so, all the judgments in Revelation are by Christ; he ministers the New Covenant upon the Church, not the Old. Christ is not a Levite. The judgment between the good seed sown in the world and the tares is under the New Covenant. Revelation’s seven churches in Asia Minor vindicate Christ as judge over the Church. How could the good seeds be saved except by Christ in this Age?

The OT prophecies about Christ’s wounding and his return to gather Israel predicted our age between two advents. Ice’s view is unsustainable considering the numerous Old and NT passages about Christ’s wounding and Israel’s scattering, demonstrating divine foreknowledge that most of Israel would reject Christ as Zechariah prophesied. God’s prophets prophesied, and “it came to pass” (Deuteronomy 18:22). Ice preaches the sowing represents “two advents—His first and second comings,” but also teaches about a secret return in which hundreds of thousands of people disappear according to futurism. That’s three advents, not two! How is Christ’s return a secret when hundreds of thousands disappear? Ice also sees a third type of person when there are but two in the parable: the tares and the good seeds form “the kingdom of God.” The good seeds are harvested into the barn in the end. The saints are obviously “the good seeds,” and the tares are the lost. There is no third distinction in the parable.

---

[1] Thomas Ice, "Consistent Biblical Futurism (Part 4)," Pre-Trib Research Center, Consistent Biblical Futurism (Part 4) - by Thomas Ice - The Pre-Trib Research Center

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I disagree. Israel has indeed been an example of failure, and not just a prophecy of extension into the NT age.

The NT expansion of the Gospel to the nations does not mean that there is no prophecy of Israel's restoration. In acts 1 we have Jesus' apostles asking him when Israel will be restored as a nation? And Paul spends about 3 chapters' worth to explain why Israel's national salvation has been delayed.

I believe you aren't a historicist, so you shouldn't post here, and I will report you if you don't concede Daniel's little horn is the papacy, and in prophecy, temporal markers can be interpreted as a day for a year.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I am glad you tagged this thread "Historist only". It saves me a lot of typing. I am exiting the thread, now.

One must acknowledge Daniel's little horn is the papacy, and in prophecy, temporal markers can be interpreted as a day for a year to post on this thread.

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT



Folks, this thread is tagged Historicist Only. That means that only those who hold to the Historicist view of Revelation should post in this thread. If you are unaware of what the Historicist view is, then you are likely not an Historicist. Here is a source:

Historicist interpretations of the Book of Revelation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A small clean up was done.

​

 

[sparow]

There is no return to the Old Covenant people when Christ returns. Christ mediates over the people of the New Covenant, which affirms Revelation pertains to the Church, not the Old Covenant people. The contradictions of futurism continue in their view of Christ’s parables when Ice writes,

The course of this age is given to Christians primarily by Christ’s parables in Matthew 13 providing insight into the course of this dispensation. Since Matthew 13 surveys this present age in its relation to the postponement of the kingdom, the parables cover the period of time between Christ’s two advents—His first and second comings. This includes the tribulation, second coming, and final judgment, after the rapture, but nevertheless includes an important overview of our present era. Therefore, the items that relate to the end of the age in Matthew 13 do not apply to the church age, since our dispensation will end via the rapture, while the broader inter-advent age continues with the tribulation and Christ’s physical return to planet earth at the end of that seven-year period.[1]​

Ice, like all futurists, sees the scattering of Israel as undetermined; God did not predestine Israel’s response at the first advent. God did not foresee the Church in theological libertarianism. As a result, all apocalyptic prophecy pertains to Israel, not the Church in futurism and preterism. Even so, all the judgments in Revelation are by Christ; he ministers the New Covenant upon the Church, not the Old. Christ is not a Levite. The judgment between the good seed sown in the world and the tares is under the New Covenant. Revelation’s seven churches in Asia Minor vindicate Christ as judge over the Church. How could the good seeds be saved except by Christ in this Age?

The OT prophecies about Christ’s wounding and his return to gather Israel predicted our age between two advents. Ice’s view is unsustainable considering the numerous Old and NT passages about Christ’s wounding and Israel’s scattering, demonstrating divine foreknowledge that most of Israel would reject Christ as Zechariah prophesied. God’s prophets prophesied, and “it came to pass” (Deuteronomy 18:22). Ice preaches the sowing represents “two advents—His first and second comings,” but also teaches about a secret return in which hundreds of thousands of people disappear according to futurism. That’s three advents, not two! How is Christ’s return a secret when hundreds of thousands disappear? Ice also sees a third type of person when there are but two in the parable: the tares and the good seeds form “the kingdom of God.” The good seeds are harvested into the barn in the end. The saints are obviously “the good seeds,” and the tares are the lost. There is no third distinction in the parable.

---

[1] Thomas Ice, "Consistent Biblical Futurism (Part 4)," Pre-Trib Research Center, Consistent Biblical Futurism (Part 4) - by Thomas Ice - The Pre-Trib Research Center

I consider myself to be Historicist, in that I am not a Futurist, and not a Preterist; should Historicism be a doctrine of men I would not subscribe. I have always felt that Historicism was a default when a person or church was not Preterist or Futurist. But even among Historicists there is disagreement.


Ice seems to be a Dispensationalist. Dispensationalism uses Futurism as a core component. I believe about 30 years ago I read the Jesuit Ribera's thesis; all that I remember now is, that Daniel's seventieth week of confirming the covenant is taken from Christ, thrown down to the end of time and given to Satan to confirm.


I know what the word, “dispensationalism” means; I am nor aware of what teaching is contained in each dispensation, other than “doctrine of men” applies. I do not study doctrine I know to be false.


I have heard that dispensationalism requires a new Gospel, a new Kingdom and a new Bible, and indeed I believe it has these. At that time dispensationalism had 68 Gospels.


Not only do I disagree with dispensationalism but I disagree with what you are saying also. Israel, the lost sheep, went into dispersion/captivity, at least 100 years before Judah went into captivity in Babylon; The difference between Israel and Judah was Israel had abandoned God, to the point of Keeping Sunday; Judah was still in covenant even when in captivity, and when Jesus arrived all they had to do was repent and anoint the most high; it was Mary Madeleine who anointed Jesus and less than 200 repented

 

[Jerryhuerta]

One is not a historicist merely by claiming they aren’t futurists or preterists. There are some people here who make a fuss if you point out they believe as dispensationalists. Historicists may disagree, as do futurists and preterists, but they all hold that Revelation 13:5 represents years, not days. If you don’t, you’re not a historicist.

As to Israel, the OT affirms Christ came to punish the shepherds and scatter the sheep. In Ezekiel 34, prophecies of a coming time God will be angry with the shepherds for failing to care for the sheep, some of which are lost, driven away, and scattered. God is resolved to punish the shepherds and deliver the sheep from their negligence by placing ONE SHEPHERD, Christ, over them, his servant David, who makes a covenant with them and causes them to rest in safety even as they are scattered in the wilderness (Ezekiel 34:2, 9-10, 23-26).

No doubt, Ezekiel 34 prophesied the first advent, in agreement with Zechariah 13:7, 10:7-9; Jeremiah 31:1-2, 27-28; Isaiah 49:5-7, Hosea 2:14-23, and Matthew 13:24-30. The corollary to this argument is the issue of heredity.

We know more than less what happened to the Jews from the first century; their migrations were recorded. This is not the case with the northern tribes led captive centuries earlier. Consequently, the prophecy of Hosea 7:8 straightaway applies to the northern tribes who would become undistinguishable from the Gentiles in their scattered and lost condition. They would become indistinguishable but still produce heirs traceable to the sons of Jacob! This is not the history of the Jews from the first century.

Furthermore, the double portion of the firstborn and the promise of fecundity in Genesis 48 and 1 Chronicles 5:2 don’t fit the history of the Jews from the first century either; they procreated no greater than other people.

Continuing the argument on heredity, in Zechariah 11, the same “entity” whom the shepherds hate breaks the brotherhood between Ephraim (Israel) and Judah, which overtly pertains to Christ’s ministry. In essence, God still recognized the “heirs” of the northern tribes as distinct from Judah at the time. John 11:52 lends credence to this rendering.

 

[WilliamLhk]

Historicists may disagree, as do futurists and preterists, but they all hold that Revelation 13:5 represents years, not days. If you don’t, you’re not a historicist.

And some people believe both years and days apply.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

And some people believe both years and days apply.

Not Historicists. Years expose the papacy as the beast. Historicists hold the beast is as the papacy. If you don't you shouldn't be posting here. Do you agree the beast is the papacy?

 

[Jerryhuerta]

The seventy weeks in Daniel 9:24 are determined as an example of regarding events near but distant in cryptic language. The 42 months in Revelation 13:5 follow the same method of interpretation.

 

[sparow]

One is not a historicist merely by claiming they aren’t futurists or preterists. There are some people here who make a fuss if you point out they believe as dispensationalists. Historicists may disagree, as do futurists and preterists, but they all hold that Revelation 13:5 represents years, not days. If you don’t, you’re not a historicist.

As to Israel, the OT affirms Christ came to punish the shepherds and scatter the sheep. In Ezekiel 34, prophecies of a coming time God will be angry with the shepherds for failing to care for the sheep, some of which are lost, driven away, and scattered. God is resolved to punish the shepherds and deliver the sheep from their negligence by placing ONE SHEPHERD, Christ, over them, his servant David, who makes a covenant with them and causes them to rest in safety even as they are scattered in the wilderness (Ezekiel 34:2, 9-10, 23-26).

No doubt, Ezekiel 34 prophesied the first advent, in agreement with Zechariah 13:7, 10:7-9; Jeremiah 31:1-2, 27-28; Isaiah 49:5-7, Hosea 2:14-23, and Matthew 13:24-30. The corollary to this argument is the issue of heredity.

We know more than less what happened to the Jews from the first century; their migrations were recorded. This is not the case with the northern tribes led captive centuries earlier. Consequently, the prophecy of Hosea 7:8 straightaway applies to the northern tribes who would become undistinguishable from the Gentiles in their scattered and lost condition. They would become indistinguishable but still produce heirs traceable to the sons of Jacob! This is not the history of the Jews from the first century.

Furthermore, the double portion of the firstborn and the promise of fecundity in Genesis 48 and 1 Chronicles 5:2 don’t fit the history of the Jews from the first century either; they procreated no greater than other people.

Continuing the argument on heredity, in Zechariah 11, the same “entity” whom the shepherds hate breaks the brotherhood between Ephraim (Israel) and Judah, which overtly pertains to Christ’s ministry. In essence, God still recognized the “heirs” of the northern tribes as distinct from Judah at the time. John 11:52 lends credence to this rendering.

I believe Historicism is a tool coined and defined by the SDA , to do with placement of time, never to produce a precise interpretation of scripture, there is the concept and unlimited applications of it; futurism and preterism specifically places the anti-Christ in time, such a time that the Papacy could not be the anti-Christ.

A dictionary meaning for historic is imperfect.

While preterism is erroneous, futurism is blasphemy; futurism denies Christ and the power thereof; futurism rips from Christ His primary role of confirming the covenant and gives that role to Satan.

1260 years features frequently in the time of the end, or that great and terrible day of the Lord. 1260 years is the time that the Jerusalem church (not the Pauline churches) went into hiding, until the Spanish inquisitions, where keeping the seventh day Sabbath warranted the death penalty or worse, once again. 1260 years is the time from the first Muslim shrine on the temple mount until the six day war. 1260 years is the time from the formation of the Papacy, 490AD, when on the basis of forged will the Papacy inherited the Roman Empire, until Napoleon put the Pope in prison and confiscated the Roman Empire.

I do not have a problem with you treatment of the scripture you mention, but clearly your Biblical world view or narrative is different to mine which changes context.

As for the promise that Jacob brought from his elder brother for a plate of porridge; that promise has only been realised since Christ, primarily the industrial revolution. One can see who benefited.

The renewed covenant is renewed with the lost of the tribes of Israel and the lost of the tribes of Judah; the renewed covenant cannot be renewed with people not previously in covenant. But this is definitive of the covenant more so than the race. Very few of who benefited from the Promise would not be descendants of Israel, Issac, or Abraham, and be heirs.

Woe them who abrogate the Law of the great God.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I believe Historicism is a tool coined and defined by the SDA , to do with placement of time, never to produce a precise interpretation of scripture, there is the concept and unlimited applications of it; futurism and preterism specifically places the anti-Christ in time, such a time that the Papacy could not be the anti-Christ.

Historicism dates back to before the SDAs. The SDAs are in error over the cleansing of the sanctuary. Martin Luther interpreted Daniel's Little Horn as the papacy in the 16th century. Papal prelates invented futurism and preterism to thwart Protestant Historicism.

A dictionary meaning for historic is imperfect.

One doesn't need a dictionary and has only to study Church history to discover the meaning of Historicism.

While preterism is erroneous, futurism is blasphemy; futurism denies Christ and the power thereof; futurism rips from Christ His primary role of confirming the covenant and gives that role to Satan.

It is blasphemous to interpret the covenant in Daniel 9:27 as Satan's.

1260 years features frequently in the time of the end, or that great and terrible day of the Lord. 1260 years is the time that the Jerusalem church (not the Pauline churches) went into hiding, until the Spanish inquisitions, where keeping the seventh day Sabbath warranted the death penalty or worse, once again. 1260 years is the time from the first Muslim shrine on the temple mount until the six day war. 1260 years is the time from the formation of the Papacy, 490AD, when on the basis of forged will the Papacy inherited the Roman Empire, until Napoleon put the Pope in prison and confiscated the Roman Empire.

The prophetic 1260 years have one interpretation, a beginning, and an end, not several. In Revelation 12, it's the time the woman, representing the Church, is in the wilderness and parallels the same time the beast makes war with her seed. The wilderness helped her escape when the papacy came to power in 538 AD until Napoleon had the pope abducted in 1798 AD. I don't see the Muslims in prophecy.

I do not have a problem with you treatment of the scripture you mention, but clearly your Biblical world view or narrative is different to mine which changes context.

As for the promise that Jacob brought from his elder brother for a plate of porridge; that promise has only been realised since Christ, primarily the industrial revolution. One can see who benefited.

Your understanding of the birthright and the scepter is quite limited. We certainly can't have the rich merchants of the earth connected with Israel's birthright. It causes Christ to vomit them because they say they are rich and increased with goods.

The renewed covenant is renewed with the lost of the tribes of Israel and the lost of the tribes of Judah; the renewed covenant cannot be renewed with people not previously in covenant. But this is definitive of the covenant more so than the race. Very few of who benefited from the Promise would not be descendants of Israel, Issac, or Abraham, and be heirs.

Woe them who abrogate the Law of the great God.

The house of Judah is not lost except for the sense of rejecting Christ. Christ took the kingdom away from Judah and gave it to the nation that bears the fruit of the vineyard in this age, the house of Israel or Ephriam. Zechariah 13:7, 10:7-9; Jeremiah 31:1-2, 27-28; Isaiah 49:5-7, Hosea 2:14-23,

 

[sparow]

Historicism dates back to before the SDAs. The SDAs are in error over the cleansing of the sanctuary. Martin Luther interpreted Daniel's Little Horn as the papacy in the 16th century. Papal prelates invented futurism and preterism to thwart Protestant Historicism.


One doesn't need a dictionary and has only to study Church history to discover the meaning of Historicism.

It is blasphemous to interpret the covenant in Daniel 9:27 as Satan's.

The prophetic 1260 years have one interpretation, a beginning, and an end, not several. In Revelation 12, it's the time the woman, representing the Church, is in the wilderness and parallels the same time the beast makes war with her seed. The wilderness helped her escape when the papacy came to power in 538 AD until Napoleon had the pope abducted in 1798 AD. I don't see the Muslims in prophecy.

Your understanding of the birthright and the scepter is quite limited. We certainly can't have the rich merchants of the earth connected with Israel's birthright. It causes Christ to vomit them because they say they are rich and increased with goods.

The house of Judah is not lost except for the sense of rejecting Christ. Christ took the kingdom away from Judah and gave it to the nation that bears the fruit of the vineyard in this age, the house of Israel or Ephriam. Zechariah 13:7, 10:7-9; Jeremiah 31:1-2, 27-28; Isaiah 49:5-7, Hosea 2:14-23,

When it comes to Historicism, I think you are getting the subject confused with the predicate; in any case you have caused me to reread my post, I see no point in repeating myself..

Luther did something great, he broke the circle, he overcame; but not unto salvation, I believe Luther went from having the mark of the beast on his forehead to having the mark on his hand. The debate regarding salvation by faith verses salvation by works was/is an exercise in vanity. Even to day the Lutheran Church doctrines vary little from that of Catholicism, still based on the abrogation of the Law (covenant).

 

[Jerryhuerta]

When it comes to Historicism, I think you are getting the subject confused with the predicate; in any case you have caused me to reread my post, I see no point in repeating myself..

I think you're the one confused about historicism.

Luther did something great, he broke the circle, he overcame; but not unto salvation, I believe Luther went from having the mark of the beast on his forehead to having the mark on his hand. The debate regarding salvation by faith verses salvation by works was/is an exercise in vanity. Even to day the Lutheran Church doctrines vary little from that of Catholicism, still based on the abrogation of the Law (covenant

Luther lived hundreds of years before the rise of the beast from the earth. The mark is of our time, not his. You do have some untenable beliefs.

 

[sparow]

I think you're the one confused about historicism.

Luther lived hundreds of years before the rise of the beast from the earth. The mark is of our time, not his. You do have some untenable beliefs.

As I recall your definition of Historism comes from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is useful but compiled by people like yourself, hardly an authority.

Sunday: Historicism and Prophecy | Sabbath School Net

The foundational method that Seventh-day Adventists apply for studying Bible prophecies is called historicism. It’s the idea that many of the major prophecies in the Bible follow an unbroken linear flow of history, from past to present, and to future. It’s similar to how you might study history...

ssnet.org

The beast of Daniel was complete at the time of Christ, except for the feet and toes. Christ is the stone cut without hands that will destroy that beast; in the meantime, the beast of revelation and its image are the feet and toes developing. I believe the leopard like beast is history, today we have the scarlet-colored beast or image of the beast.

Since Christ, all are born again, live once and are judged; even them of the first century receive either the seal of God or the mark of the beast. Putting everything down at the time of the end is futurism, not Historicism.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

As I recall your definition of Historism comes from Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is useful but compiled by people like yourself, hardly an authority.

Sunday: Historicism and Prophecy | Sabbath School Net

The foundational method that Seventh-day Adventists apply for studying Bible prophecies is called historicism. It’s the idea that many of the major prophecies in the Bible follow an unbroken linear flow of history, from past to present, and to future. It’s similar to how you might study history...

ssnet.org

That was the moderator's definition. I held Revelation 13:5 as the qualifier.

The beast of Daniel was complete at the time of Christ, except for the feet and toes. Christ is the stone cut without hands that will destroy that beast; in the meantime, the beast of revelation and its image are the feet and toes developing. I believe the leopard like beast is history, today we have the scarlet-colored beast or image of the beast.

Since Christ, all are born again, live once and are judged; even them of the first century receive either the seal of God or the mark of the beast. Putting everything down at the time of the end is futurism, not Historicism.

The beast in Christ's time was Daniel's fourth beast, Rome. The little horn grows out of that beast and is the one that wars with Christ at his return. The little horn, the papacy, seduces Justinian to subdue the Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostroghoths, the three horns, allowing the sea beast to rise and war with the saints in 538 AD, after Rome the fourth beast had fallen. The Little Horn is the fifth kingdom. Revelation 13 makes it clear the sea beast is the one that is wounded during the time the beast rises from the earth like a lamb, which is America, the sixth kingdom. America is the kingdom that "is" in Revelation 17, while the papacy is wounded--"it was and is not." The Spirit takes John into the future in Revelation 17. The mark is of our time, not Luthers'.

 

[sparow]

That was the moderator's definition. I held Revelation 13:5 as the qualifier.

The beast in Christ's time was Daniel's fourth beast, Rome. The little horn grows out of that beast and is the one that wars with Christ at his return. The little horn, the papacy, seduces Justinian to subdue the Visigoths, Vandals, and Ostroghoths, the three horns, allowing the sea beast to rise and war with the saints in 538 AD, after Rome the fourth beast had fallen. The Little Horn is the fifth kingdom. Revelation 13 makes it clear the sea beast is the one that is wounded during the time the beast rises from the earth like a lamb, which is America, the sixth kingdom. America is the kingdom that "is" in Revelation 17, while the papacy is wounded--"it was and is not." The mark is of our time, not Luthers'.

Are you studying only every 10th page of Daniel; you must have heard of the Gold head, the silver chest, the brass belly and the iron legs. Rome is the historic iron legs. America is often considered to be the lamb like beast that came up out of the ground. If Luther does not have the mark of the beast he will have the seal of God; there are only two options.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Are you studying only every 10th page of Daniel; you must have heard of the Gold head, the silver chest, the brass belly and the iron legs. Rome is the historic iron legs. America is often considered to be the lamb like beast that came up out of the ground. If Luther does not have the mark of the beast he will have the seal of God; there are only two options.

He doesn't have to have either because the mark comes about during the time of the beast from the earth, America. No one has faced the decision as of yet. Americal hasn't made the image yet. The image is the seventh king. Five are fallen. You don't have a proper grasp of Daniel or Revelation.

 

[sparow]

He doesn't have to have either because the mark comes about during the time of the beast from the earth, America. No one has faced the decision as of yet. Americal hasn't made the image yet. The image is the seventh king. Five are fallen. You don't have a proper grasp of Daniel or Revelation.

I don't take symbolic language literally, as you seem to be doing. The image of the beast is described as "is but isn't" which suggests to me that the image is not physical as is the beast, more like a mindset, a political/religious movement, like the spirit of anti-Christ.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I don't take symbolic language literally, as you seem to be doing. The image of the beast is described as "is but isn't" which suggests to me that the image is not physical as is the beast, more like a mindset, a political/religious movement, like the spirit of anti-Christ.

The scarlet beast is described as "was, and is not, and yet is," which makes it one of the five that were fallen. It works out perfectly to those who grasp Daniel and John. The five that had fallen were Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the papacy from the future perspective John was shown. The six that "is" represents America, the beast that rises from the earth, which makes the image the short-lived seventh king. The "image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed," making it an entity with power, not a mere mindset. And a power described in our future as a king, not a mindset.

 

[sparow]

The scarlet beast is described as "was, and is not, and yet is," which makes it one of the five that were fallen. It works out perfectly to those who grasp Daniel and John. The five that had fallen were Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome, and the papacy from the future perspective John was shown. The six that "is" represents America, the beast that rises from the earth, which makes the image the short-lived seventh king. The "image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed," making it an entity with power, not a mere mindset. And a power described in our future as a king, not a mindset.

I rely on a failing memory; I am surprised to find Rev 17:8, identifies the actual beast and the chapter refers to the demise of the beast, not the image, and the demise of the woman that rides the beasts back. The woman is a Church and the beast is an institution. When I googled "was, and is not, and yet is" all google wanted to talk about was the word yet. The beast, the image and the false prophet are all present at the end.