How to Interpret Biblical Prophecy
From a Historicist point of view
FYI: The term comes from the name of the Greek god Hermes, who was the interpreter of the gods.
Hermeneutics are the rules by which biblical interpretation is arrived at. It is often confused with exegesis, which is actually the explanation of the interpretation one arrives at after using the rules of hermeneutics.
Unfortunately, the study of hermeneutics, like any instruction manual, is about as thrilling a read as the paperwork that came with your refrigerator. However, if you don’t wipe down those seals once a year, they will fail, and the refrigerator will not last as long as it should. So it is with the study of the Bible: if you don’t pay attention to the rules, your relationship with God won’t last.
Caution
We all have preconceived notions. It is impossible to read anything, including the Bible, without preconceived notions affecting what we think we are reading, what it is about, and what it means.
Hermeneutics are the rules we use to identify those preconceived notions so that we can use or disregard them. It is impossible to lose them, but with great effort, one can change them. Our notions are built on our memories, life experiences, and general knowledge. Any gaps in those areas — particularly in biblical history — can produce serious errors in interpretation.
Some of the more important considerations are that none of the Bible was written recently, or in English. We were not the primary audience the human writers had in mind. These books are literally someone else’s mail. The intended audiences preserved them because they believed the information was of such importance that it should be passed on. Therefore, we must familiarize ourselves with the original audience’s culture, geography, and history.
General Rules for any Passage
The rules are common-sense rules. For the most part, we apply these rules without thinking. For instance, we know that poetry is to be understood differently than historical narrative. So it is with the Bible. Applied properly, hermeneutics will guide one into sound, rational, reasonable conclusions. However, no matter how logical one develops their argument, if their premise is illogical, there is no way to arrive at a sound conclusion. So invalid hermeneutics will lead to doctrine and dogmas that are not the Throne.
General Principles for understanding the Text:
The first two rules go back to the early church. They are in Latin:
- Sola Scriptura: i.e., Scripture alone is supreme, meaning the Bible is the final authority as to what the Bible means. There can be no conflicts between what one passage means and another. If one believes there is a disagreement, the fault is not with the text but with the interpreter.
2. Quod non est Biblicum, non est Theologicum: i.e., if it is not in the Bible, it is not theology. It might be doctrine or dogma, but it is not theology.
3. Context: Nothing is more important than context. The Bible as a whole is unified in its teachings. All passages must be read in their full context; any partial interpretation must be supported by the whole text. The text is never wrong. If an interpretation does not fit the whole, the interpretation must be reexamined. It comes down to common-sense questions: Who, what, where, when, why, and how? Who wrote the book? Who did they write it to? What was written? What did the original reader think was written? Where was it written? Where did the events happen? etc.
History and Geography:
One must understand what was written from the writer’s and/or his intended reader’s point of view. Cultural and religious contexts must be kept in mind. Is the passage pre- or post-exile, pre- or post-Second Temple? Who is king, emperor, or high priest? Is the passage about Judea, Galilee, Jerusalem, Rome, Babylon, etc.?
Having access to good historical maps and charts used to be expensive and time-consuming; now, with computers in everyone’s hands, there is no excuse for not looking it up.
Primarily, the Bible was written by and for a very agrarian culture. Understanding basic farming techniques and animal husbandry is imperative, or one might miss the point. For example, when the wheat crop is “white for harvest,” it does not mean the wheat is ready [John 4:35]. Because it is the inside of the husk that is white, it means the crop is dropping to the ground and being lost.
Principles of Basic Language:
The first thing one must determine about a passage is what type of literature we are dealing with. Is it poetry, historical narrative, or parable, and is the subject matter to be taken literally, symbolically, or typologically?
Parables:
Short, simple stories intended to illustrate a moral or religious lesson. They usually involve situations, local history, or agrarian themes familiar to the audience at the time. Many themes may have become unfamiliar to the postmodern reader. Remember, parables have only one main point; don’t get lost in the details.
Historical Narrative:
These documents are factual events in history. People’s names are given, places are named, and sometimes dates are given. This is the exact opposite of mythological tales, where the names and details change over time and from place to place.
Hebrew Poetry:
Hebrew poetry has forms and rules distinct from English poetry. English poetry seeks rhythm and rhyme, whereas Hebrew poetry uses wordplay, i.e., paronomasia. There are four basic kinds of parallelism: synonymous, climactic, antithetic, and synthetic, as well as acrostics.
Cultural Idioms and Euphemism:
The Bible was originally written in three different languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, all of which are quite different from English. Translators sometimes translate passages woodenly, and other times they will use their own understanding of the meaning. The puns and jokes never make it into translation. There is no rule or reason for the choices translators make. Just think how hard it would be to translate or explain the meaning in 1000 years of the idiom “hotter than a little red wagon.”
Typology:
There is an argument among scholars as to whether allegory, typology, and mystical interpretations are dissimilar or the same thing with different names. The answer is a matter of church history.
During the Dark Ages, the Church of Rome abused the allegorical or mystical method to such an extent that the Reformers tried very hard not to use the terms “allegorical” or “mystical.” Those interpretations were then tagged with the new pejorative titles of “improper” or “fanciful.” The Reformers needed a term to legitimize their interpretations, so they called them typological.
Typology is that which in the Old Testament shadows, prefigures, or elucidates something in the New Testament. In typology, there is the “type” and “antitype.” The “type” is what is written in the Old Testament as a historical event or instruction that prefigures the “antitype” in the New Testament. As such, it demonstrates the unity of both testaments.
examples:
Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac (type) and a prefigure of Messiah’s crucifixion (antitype). [Gen. 22]
Joseph, being rejected by his brothers (type), yet rules over them (antitype). [Gen. 37, 42]
The entire sacrificial code of the temple (type) of Messiah’s atonement (antitype).
The birth of Isaiah’s son (type) and the birth of Messiah (antitype). [Is 7:14]
The books of The Song of Songs and Hosea are both considered typological of God’s relationship with his people. One is the faithful bride, the other is the unfaithful whore.
Literary Devices:
All languages use such devices, including the Bible.
Similes:
A figure of speech comparing one thing to something of a different kind, often with as or like.
Metaphors:
A word or phrase denoting one kind of object or idea used in place of another, suggesting a likeness between the two.
Hyperbole:
An extravagant exaggeration for effect.
Symbolic:
That which stands for or represents something else — a visible sign of an idea or quality. A symbol, unlike a type, is usually not prefigurative but represents something that already exists.
Rhetoric:
A skillful or artistic use of speech.
Paradox:
An assertion seemingly contradictory to common sense, yet true in fact.
Interpretation Peculiar to Biblical Prophecy:
Biblical prophecy has a unique grammar all its own. It always boils down to how to deal with symbolic figurative language.
In all passages, but particularly in prophetic sections, one must give proper attention to the meanings of proper names, geography, customs, culture, flora and fauna, and climate.
Prophetic passages are full of symbolic language. Some symbols are repeated in many prophecies. Even though the Bible was written over 1,500 years in three languages, there is consistency in the use of prophetic terms. These symbolic terms are to be understood by the culmination of their uses. Other symbols appear only once and are usually explained in the text. In the end, some will only be understood in light of fulfillment.
When reading older theology books, one must look at how they use terms. The term literal to the Reformers meant a departure from the allegorical interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church. They could not have meant the hyper-literalism that Dispensationalists teach, which has only been around for the last 200 years. They have made it their stock-in-trade to turn the locusts into helicopters and the horses into tanks [Rev. 9]. They disregard that locusts and horses are used in Old Testament prophecies for invading armies — passages fulfilled long before modern military technologies. Then these hyper-literalists will turn on a dime and clearly understand that the Lamb is symbolic of Messiah and has nothing to do with a real lamb [Rev. 14]. All this makes their “literal” interpretation subject to private interpretation, leading to bizarre, ego-centric rules: “I know it’s true because it makes sense to me.” This is a departure from the historic grammatical exegesis that is the cornerstone of rational interpretation the Reformers left us.
We must return to basic rules: “The Bible is its own best commentary.” The best way to speculate on what an unfulfilled prophecy might mean is to look at fulfilled prophecies with similar language. Consider what was predicted, look up the history of what happened, and then extrapolate the rules of fulfillment.
Understanding Prophetic Language
When reading prophecy, we must remember that “the next historical event that occurs is most likely what fulfills the prophecy.” Prophecy has a specific meaning intended for the original reader. This meaning cannot always be understood without a thorough mastery of the language, culture, and history of the original readers. The prophecy is often hidden from the unsaved. See Jesus’ explanation of why He spoke in parables [Matt. 13:9-17]. Daniel is told in Daniel 12:10 that “none of the wicked shall understand.”
Apocalyptic language (such as in The Revelation) is known for its unusual word combinations and descriptions of unusual phenomena.
Hermeneutic Principles as Applied to Prophecy
Over the centuries, many theories about these passages have been offered. Some are certainly more valid than others. But they boil down to four principal schemes. These are called ESCHATOLOGICAL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.
The Four Main Prophetic Views
Over the centuries, many theories and ideas about these passages have been offered up for consideration. Some are certainly more valid than others. But when all is said and done, they boil down to just four principal schemes of hermeneutics or interpretation. In the theological world, there are four principal schemes or hermeneutics of interpretation regarding the book of The Revelation. These are called ESCHATOLOGICAL SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT.
FYI: Eschatology means the study of “Things to Come.”
1. The Spiritual – events described are only symbols of spiritual realities and struggles without any literal or historical application
2. The Preterit – everything has already been fulfilled
3. The Futurist – all predictions are in the future
4. The Historicist – the predictions are in the process of fulfillment.
These four views come from three hermeneutical schools: Covenant Theology, Dispensationalism, and Progressive Revelation.
It is always important to know where teachers get their ideas. Sometimes a hermeneutical view can be ruled invalid simply based on who and where it came from.
Covenant Theology
These people are largely in Presbyterian or Reformed churches; this would include some Methodists and Reformed Baptists. They interpret all Scripture from the viewpoint that there are only two covenants. This comes from their interpretation of Galatians 4:22-31. No matter what names individual authors use, there are only two: the Covenant of Law and the Covenant of Grace. This view spiritualizes nearly all prophecy. Revelation is about the Church’s struggle with apostasy. All promises God made to the Jews are for the Church, literally or figuratively. The doctrine of election is often emphasized. Among the growing Messianic Movement, some have renamed this as the “Two Houses.”
Under this hermeneutic one finds two prophetic schools:
A. Spiritualist
Says Revelation represents the battle between good and evil in which good ultimately vanquishes evil. Nothing is literal or historical. This interpretation takes a mystical or allegorical approach. Because of this spiritualization, it does not hold to a literal millennium. Early proponents were Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and later Augustine and Jerome. This interpretation fails to expound the book meaningfully and practically ignores its claims to prophetic nature [Rev. 1:3; 10:11; 22:7, 10, 18-19]. It fails to recognize the interpretive key of Revelation [Rev. 1:19].
B. Preterit
Preterists believe all or most of Revelation is fulfilled. Promulgated by a Spanish Jesuit monk named Alcazar around the close of the 16th century, this was a Roman Catholic view, with the Pope as Christ on earth. This makes the Dark Ages the Millennium. It maintains that prophecy was fulfilled with the defeat of the Jews. Nero is considered the Antichrist, with the last half of Revelation represented as vaguely future. From the 17th century on, preterists have held that the Church’s conflict with Judaism is in Rev. 4-11 and with paganism in chapters 12-19. This position ignores Rev. 1:19, “Write therefore the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this,” and provides arbitrary meanings to symbols.
Dispensationalism
This is the view most fundamental evangelicals are familiar with.
A. The Futurist
This modern interpretation views Scripture through seven dispensations corresponding to human history. A primary feature is that it views the redemption of Jews as distinctive from that of Gentiles. John Nelson Darby, Edward Irving, and C.I. Scofield promoted this tenet, but its foundations originated with a 16th-century Jesuit Priest, Ribera.
Ribera’s writings were part of the Counter-Reformation, a Roman Catholic rebuttal to the Reformers’ view of the Pope as Antichrist. There are many variations. Originally it spoke of a 3 1/2-year tribulation, but by the time it infiltrated Protestantism it had grown to 7 years. This view crept in after the ecstatic utterances of Margaret MacDonald in 1830, in Glasgow, Scotland.
Irving, originally a Presbyterian minister, translated Ribera’s futurist writings, adding the secret rapture from Margaret’s utterance. His preaching eventually led to his dismissal. John Darby, who helped start the Plymouth Brethren, was a chief proponent. One is not allowed to be a Plymouth Brethren and not believe in the Futurist view. Scofield used Darby’s notes in his Scofield Reference Bible. Pusey was a leading figure in the Oxford Movement to bring the Anglican church closer to Rome.
Dispensationalists hold to the following positions:
1. Covenantal promises that Israel will be restored, including a Temple to be built and animal sacrifices reinstated.
2. Jews are God’s chosen people; Gentiles are distinctive and experience redemption apart from Jews.
3. All Jews will be saved.
4. The Church Age is a gap (before the 70th week of Dan 9:24-27) occurring between Israel’s rejection of Christ and Israel’s national restoration.
5. Christ’s present Kingship has no relationship to the fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant and His Messianic rule; and the Church has no relationship to the Kingdom of God on earth, totally ignoring Matt 11:12.
6. Uneven application of hyper-literal interpretation of symbolism. This allows for little figure of speech, typology, or foreshadowing of the Church as “the mystery made manifest.” Because Futurists see nearly everything in the Revelation as being yet future, to be intellectually consistent, they have had to put gaps in the chronology of other scriptures. Because Futurists see nearly everything in the Revelation as being yet future, to be intellectually consistent, they have had to put gaps in the chronology of other scriptures.
- Many have a gap between verses one and two of Genesis.
- There is a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks of Daniel 9.
- Many groups have a gap of 3 1/2 or 7 years between the rapture and the Second Coming of Christ.
- There is a gap between chapters 3 and 4 of The Revelation, making the bulk of that book apply to a short period of 7 years at the end of this age.
Progressive Revelation
A. Historicist or the Historical Protestant Interpretation
We believe God reveals Himself to man in a series of Progressive Revelations. These revelations have been made through His work: Ps. 19:1, Rom 1:18-23, His Word: Jn 1:1-5, and His Son: Heb 1:1-4. A fourth revelation of God, His Glory, fuller and more perfect than any other, is yet to be revealed in Rev 22:4.
The entire Bible presents one grand underlying story: that the Messiah should suffer and rise again, and that this great act should be preached to the nations, bringing many to repentance and remission of sins.
Progressive revelation is like an artist painting a picture. He knows what His painting will look like when finished; the onlookers see the work as it progresses — one stroke at a time.
Examples of fulfilled revelation is in the Messianic prophecies:
Gen 3:15 Enmity between the woman’s Seed and the Serpent
Gen 9:25-27 Blessed be Shem
Gen 12:3 By you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves
Gen 49:10 The scepter will not depart from Judah
Duet 32:18 The Rock that begot You
Ps 118:22 The rejected Cornerstone
Is 7:14 Virgin Birth
Is 11:1 Coming from Jesse
Is 42:2-3 A Willing Sacrifice
Is 53:4-6 Our iniquity fell upon Him
Is 55:3-5 He will come from David
Is 59:20 He comes to Zion as Redeemer
Dan 9:24-27 Daniel reveals the timing of the Messiah
Hos 11:1 Messiah comes out of Egypt
Zech 9:9 Describes the triumphal entry into Jerusalem
Is it any wonder that in all of Israel, there were only two people — Simeon and Anna [Luke 2:25-38] — waiting in the Temple when Jesus arrived? If you only had these prophetic brushstrokes, could you have recognized the complete picture? This is how prophecy is given. It is vague and hard to understand by design.
The Historicist View of Prophecy
The Historical, Historicist, or Presentist view interprets the book of The Revelation as symbolic and in the process of fulfillment. We see the fulfillment of prophecies throughout the history of the church. Starting in John’s day through the present day. This view has been popular since the time of Berengaud (9th century) and Joachim (12th century). Wycliffe, Jon Huss, Luther, Joseph Mede, John Calvin, Sir Isaac Newton, Bengel, Barnes, and others also held to it. Most would agree that the Bishop of Rome is the “anti-christ” and that “Babylon the Great” is the Roman Catholic Church. Every commentator until the end of the sixteenth century held to this view.
We teach that Daniel and Revelation are being fulfilled progressively. Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a great metallic statue [Dan. 2] and Daniel’s dream of beasts [Dan. 7] symbolically portray four Gentile empires beginning with Babylon. Each successive empire gave way to the next without gaps. The majority of Revelation concentrates on the ten kingdoms, or toes or horns, the little horn out of Rome, and the Whore of Babylon. These Gentile empires are assigned a duration of seven times or 2,520 years [Lev. 26; Dan. 4] and are called the Full Times of the Gentiles. Where Daniel is told to seal up the scroll, John is presented with an unsealed scroll.
The Essential Points of Historicists
H. Grattan Guinness, “England’s foremost authority on prophecy,” stated in his Light for the Last Days page 40, what are the essential points of Historicist hermeneutics:
1 That in symbolic prophecy a “day” is the symbol of a year, and a “time” of 360 years.
2 That Daniel’s prophetic visions of the fourfold metallic image and of the four beasts have been fulfilled in the histories of the Babylonian, Persian, Grecian, and Roman empires.
3 That “Babylon the Great” in Rev 17 is the Roman Catholic Church.
4 That the little horn of Daniel 7 represents the Papal dynasty, and the little horn of chapter 8 is, as to its final form, the Mohammedan power,—the one arising out of the Roman empire, and ruling in western Europe; the other arising out of one of the divisions of the Greek empire, and ruling in eastern Europe and in Asia.
Messiah was a Historicist
The Jews had their preconceived notions that Messiah would come and destroy Rome and set up a Jewish kingdom. They felt so strongly about this that they missed the hour of their visitation.
Road to Emmaus
13 That very day two of them were going to a village named Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem, 14 and talking with each other about all these things that had happened. 15 While they were talking and discussing together, Jesus himself drew near and went with them. 16 But their eyes were kept from recognizing him. 17 And he said to them, “What is this conversation which you are holding with each other as you walk?” And they stood still, looking sad. 18 Then one of them, named Cleopas, answered him, “Are you the only visitor to Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?” 19 And he said to them, “What things?” And they said to him, “Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people, 20 and how our chief priests and rulers delivered him up to be condemned to death, and crucified him. 21 But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel. Yes, and besides all this, it is now the third day since this happened. 22 Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning 23 and did not find his body; and they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb, and found it just as the women had said; but him they did not see.” 25 And he said to them, “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
28 So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, 29 but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. 30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. 32 They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?” 33 And they rose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together and those who were with them, 34 who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. Luke 24:13-35
Open our eyes, Lord; we want to see Yeshua/Jesus.