Problems of a purely exegetical approach to interpreting prophecies.
Thoughts taken from Dr. Alberto Treiyer review
former member of the Daniel and Revelation Committee,
Is it wise to throw the interpretative foundation of our church in prophetic matters under pretention, thinking we will "move forward" by casting of the anchor points, especially when there is no exegetical, theological or historical reason to do that?
Yet, we have a few well known Adventists who are seeking to do just that. They believe that Uriah Smith took from Barnes, a protestant interpreter of Revelation the idea of prophetic time in the formula "the hour, day, month and year" in Rev. 9:15 They believe, that modern exegesis has discarded that possibility, and that somehow Adventism needs to do the same. However, before Barnes, the majority of the Reformers of the last part of the Middle Ages and during the first part of the 19th century, understood that text in a prophetic dimension of day per year.
Under the influence of French enlightenment and succeeding Biblical critical movement, with the help of the counter Reformation, the historical approach was pushed aside and was eliminated by most of the interpreters of Revelation. On what basis? On no real foundation, because the exegetical criticism employed by those interpreters lacks foundation.
Sadly it seems the Adventist professors leaning away from the historicist approach didn't first read the Master thesis of Jon Stefansson, nor the two exegetical studies on Rev. 9:15 written by Dr. Tarsee Lee, a professor of theology, and many other historical studies under taken in the University of Andrews, prepared in the historical dimension and under the prophetic principles that characterize us as a people established on the divine inspiration traced through prophetic, historicistic dimension.
Stefinsson shows that if the apostle would have intended Rev. 9:15 to refer to a point in time and not to a period of time, he would have written simply that the powers were prepared "for the hour". Enlarging the time which only supposedly meant the hour it was to begin, without any clues as to the year, month or day in which that hour occurred, would be totally pointless.
Lee wrote an article of five pages entitled "Revelation 9"15 and the limits of Greek Syntax, (Journal of Adventist Theological Society 1997) He proves there is no exegetical foundation to deny a prophetic period of time by this expression , Hour, day, month, and year.
What is, then the presumption of those who consider themselves "exegetes" in our church, and who are trying to overthrow an interpretation that supports the Spirit of Prophecy?
In the confrontation that we had in 3 ABN on the trumpets, I could see my colleague Jon Paulien seated at my left hand, repeating again and again that we have to go to the Bible and remain in the Bible. This sounded good and even orthodox. But, in what context did he say this?
At any time when historical dates were introduced to confirm the prophetic fulfillment of the trumpets. It was stated that this was not in the Bible. They even criticized a lady who wrote "history has assigned a beginning date" (for the 70 years), and he add "not Scripture."
Now wait a minute: Where do we obtain the years 508, 538, and
1798 ? Those dates are given by history, not by Scripture.
This is the background of those who insist in spiritualizing the content of the trumpets. As a matter of fact, how will they convince others that they should not also spiritualize the apocalyptic beasts of Daniel and Revelation, and the other prophecies of Daniel and Revelation?
Are they prophesizing real events and real kingdoms or is it just an allegory?
May this kind of purely exegetical approach be considered historicist? No way! This is an empty idealism, because it does not make the heart to burn with the history of its fulfillment (see Luke 24:32).
Paulien wrote a seminar on Revelation that was published in Australia, but which did not work because, according to evangelists over there, people need to see in history how those prophecies were fulfilled.
History gives the evidence that prophecy is sure, it gets fulfilled, if this were not so, the apostles would not have been able to say like Jesus, "today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing" (Luke 4:21).
Problems of a purely exegetical approach.
Exegesis is good in its role of understanding meaning of words and symbols, it opens windows for more than one possibility that history has to fill. Yet at this point the other sciences need to be considered, namely, theology and history.
We need theology to give us the broader picture as to where things fit in the grand everlasting covenant of the gospel. A right theology offers biblical guidelines to find the purpose of the prophecy, and under what contextual history should its fulfillment be placed. For instance, Protestants rightly understood in former centuries that the trumpets came as judgments of God against Rome , because this was the last apocalyptic empire depicted by Daniel and Revelation.
They saw the trumpets as symbolic of real events, The symbolism found in the trumpets led them not to spiritualize their fulfillment, but to place it in the right time and understand the purpose as to why God sent, or allowed them to take place. While the first six trumpets were partial judgments (a third), only the last and seventh trumpet was expected to be definitive in connection with the coming of the Lord (Rev 11:18) when God's wrath would be outpoured in the seven plagues, 16:1)
.
Theology and history have to work together to determine what exegetical possibility is valuable. It is necessary to understand God's plan and purpose in the story of Redemption, and this is what systematic theology intends to do.
Historicism by itself can't stand alone, either, without understanding theology God can appear as vindictive, cruel, rather than working for the salvation of people.
.But if we do not resort to history, and base our interpretation purely on exegetical, chiastic, grammatical approach the interpretation goes nowhere in prophetic matters.
It leads to the interpretative chaos and uncertainty that we find in our church today in these
when it comes to prophecy.
So where is this all going?
We saw some of our scholars start with the decision to pull the trumpets out of the historicist method of interpretation to end the historicist interpretation for the trumpets..
But this leads to departing from historicism in the rest of the Bible. They do not realize, at the beginning, that in order to destroy the historicist interpretation of Rev 9, they resort to the same kind of arguments employed by others to destroy their historicist approach in the rest of the prophetic Biblical passages.
Once the foundational stones are ripped out from underneath a building, the whole building starts to totter.
This is why J?n Stef?nsson answers many criticisms against the historical dates of the trumpets realizing that the same methods used to destroy the historicist interpretation for the trumpets will also destroy the whole prophetic foundation in all of Daniel and Revelation.
Those who want to find historical and biblical proofs to deny the prophetic fulfillment, will find them. Those who want to find historical and biblical proofs to confirm the prophetic fulfillment, will also find them. Because the apocalyptic prophecies have a similar purpose of the parables, which many could understand, but others who hardened their hearts will not understand.(Matt 13:14-15).
Source
Counterfeit Prophecy