How should we handle historicism?

Question

If there's one thing that drives me nuts about my fellow Christians, it's how we sometimes are so certain that some prophecy is associated with some historical event. It reminds me of the Midianite soldiers who dream about barley bread and say, "Surely this can be none other than the sword of Gideon!" (My paraphrase.) In the same way, someone might see something like the number of the beast and say, "Surely this can be none other than UPC bar codes!"

On the other hand, there's a long history of Historicism in Christian hermeneutics and it would be odd to say, "We welcome Jewish, Christian, Atheist and other viewpoints (but not those that say the Pope is the Antichrist)." Just because I don't like the answers other people give, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to give them.

Now, if a post makes no attempt to answer the question, that's one thing. We are not the place for geopolitical conspiracy speculation. But if an answer does address the question and makes an argument that some prophecy is to be identified with a current world event with sources, how should we respond?

(For the sake of argument, let's assume Jack's version of the FAQ is in effect.)

Answer 1

I agree with the existing answer by James. I would like to simplify it a bit.

Jon asked:

If an answer does address the question and makes an argument that some prophecy is to be identified with a current world event with sources, how should we respond?

I propose we treat Questions and Answers regarding prophecy the same as any other Q & A.

Questions:
1) Questions should be rooted in a particular text/prophecy. They should not be rooted in assumptions, doctrines, persuasions, preconceived notions as to events thought to fulfill prophecies.

2) Questions should seek to understand a specific passage/prophecy, element, or elements thereof. They should not seek to understand interpretations about the prophecy.

3) Questions should show some effort at attempting to understand the passage/prophecy:
-the historical context in which the prophecy was written.
-the language of the text
-the Scriptural context

Answers:
1) Answers should show their work. They must demonstrate step by step exactly how the go from the passage to their answer regarding an historical (or even contemporary event).

2) Answers should support all assertion by demonstrating exactly what particulars of an event, or events, line up with the particulars of the prophecy.

3) Answers should provide reputable/credible sources that confirm the specific elements of the event which are said to correspond or fulfill the prophecy, so others can confirm the information.

This creates room for all kinds of healthy Q & A in regard to prophecy.
It allows for open questions about what a passage, a symbol, or a whole prophecy means.
It allows users from various camps to weigh in.

Answer 2

I think the purpose of this site is to discuss hermeneutics and seek exegetical answers. Thus, questions about whether entity X is the true fulfillment of Prophecy Y are off-topic, unless the answer can be determined exegetically.

The distinction might be better demonstrated than articulated, so allow me to propose some representative examples for what is on-topic and what is off-topic:

Good questions: (These are the kind of questions we want more of.)

• How might one's hermeneutical approach influence their interpretation of the fourth beast of Daniel 7:7?

• What clues does Daniel 7 provide about the identity of the "little horn" of Dan. 7:8?

• What does "Son of Man" mean in Daniel 7:13?

Bad questions: (These are off-topic and should be closed.)

• Assuming the fourth beast of Daniel 7 was Rome, which ten "powers" did the ten horns of Daniel's vision refer to, and which three were "uprooted" by the Antichrist?

• Was the "little horn" Nero, or the coming Antichrist?

• Is "666" talking about barcodes?

Essentially, the "bad questions" ask for an identification that cannot be made from the text. To answer these, the interpreter must go beyond the text and decide that some entity from history did (or will) fit the bill well enough to conclude that this is the true interpretation of the prophecy. The problem is that these interpretations are so varied and depend so much on which hermeneutic you follow (and what your presuppositions are) that the answers can hardly be called exegetical.

I would suggest that there is another set of questions that are neither good nor bad; they are:

"Acceptable" questions: (These may deserve a down-vote, but probably not a close-vote.)

• Do the horns of the fourth beast in Daniel 7 definitely refer to "kings," or could they refer to "powers" (such as governors or popes)?

• Is there anything in the text of Daniel 7 that would prevent Nero from being a valid interpretation of the "little horn"?

• Could the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7:13 be referring to Jesus?

These "acceptable" questions are asking whether the exegesis of the text allows for a given interpretation. I think these are OK, though I would prefer "good questions" over these.

---

I have focused on questions here because an answer is merely judged by how well it satisfies the request of the OP. If the question is good and the answer is "666 = barcodes", chances are, the answer was off-topic.

Answer 3

Historicism is a popular interpretive method used in Protestant Christian eschatalogical hermeneutics. Questions seeking to identify a symbol in a text (especially in apocalyptic literature where the referent is unclear) as a later historical event outside the scope of the historical timeline in which the Bible was written (later from the frame of reference of the text) are off topic because they are seeking to apply the text in the terms of the belief and praxis of historic and contemporary faith communities.

Historicist interpretations are often inconsistent and consist largely of conjectures and speculations that cannot be drawn from the text. There is no agreement about various outlines of Christian church history, and historicist readings of the book of Revelation have been continually revised throughout history. It is best to avoid a bunch of speculation reading later geopolitical persons, places, and events back into biblical texts. There are too many theological and (often) anachronistic assumptions that must be brought to the text in order to support such interpretations that we would not tolerate in other types of posts.

Answer 4

Historicism is a fundamental hermeneutic equal in honor to the grammatical-historical or any any proposed hermeneutic. The entire Christian religion is based upon applying the historical events of the life of Jesus to various Hebrew prophecies spanning many generations. It is finding the meaning of a text from information outside the text in history. The Bible student must be a student of history if he is to properly apply sound exegetical analysis which must include comparing the text to events outside the text in order to arrive at the intended understanding. Questioning historicism is like questioning reason, we need not consider it a negative thing that needs 'handling' but a positive one that needs more work and discipline in using.

Of course the joke about misplaced confidence is a real one and applies to any exegetical attempt using any hermeneutic. Every foolish doctrine proposed from the Bible, which is after all nothing but the conclusions of our exegetical work according to our hermeneutic, is made with full confidence every day according to the endless foolishness of men. There is noway to handle foolishness we must just let it exists as it will anyway.