Introduction

The books of Daniel and Revelation are interpreted from the three methods of prophetic interpretation: Historicism, preterism, and futurism. The historicist approach, widely accepted by Reformers, the Early Church¹ and the Scripture², consider the Antichrist, the beast and the little horn as the Roman Catholic Church or as the papal system. However, since the Roman Catholic Church could not allow it to be marked as the Antichrist, at the beginning of the seventeenth century the Jesuit Luis Alcázar (1554-1613) gives shape to a new system of prophetic interpretation known as “preterist”, that conceives that the fulfillment of prophecies is realized in the past, ex eventu. In this way, the prophets simply wrote down what happened in the past. This approach is widely accepted in scholar circles which consider that the prophecies concerning the little horn, the Antichrist, the beast, etc., are fulfillment in Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who lived in the 2nd century BC.³

Another attempt to oppose the historicist approach was made with the formation of the school of futuristic interpretation, an approach whose origins come from the Church fathers and it found their heyday with the Jesuit Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), who is finally considered as the founder of this school. This approach considers that the prophecies concerning the Antichrist, the beast, the little horn, etc., will be fulfilled in the future, before the coming of Christ and, although it was founded by the Roman Catholic Church, today it has a great reception within the Christians Protestant and evangelical churches that accept the dispensationalism. In this context, how did futurism, which has been forged in the center of the Roman Catholic Church, manage to dominate the prophetic Protestant and evangelical interpretations? For an answer, we will reviewing the historical and theological process that marked the formation of the futuristic system of prophetic interpretation.

Origin and Development of Futurism: from Patristics to Reform

The roots of Futurism do not appear with the Christian church but with the Church fathers, and although there is no detailed reference to the futuristic concepts as they are known today, there are clear allusions of its postulates.⁴ Irenaeus (130-202 AD) bishop of Lyon, was the first to show a futuristic approach in his conception of the Antichrist. Thus, for example, he considered that the Antichrist would be an apostate Jew who would sit in the temple of Jerusalem, who would demand to be worshipped as god. This Antichrist would appear after the Roman Empire, at the end of the six thousand years and would reign for 1260 days, i.e. three years and six months, then the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the righteous who would initiate the millennial kingdom.⁵

The one who continued the work of Irenaeus was his pupil Hippolyte (170-236 AD), who served the church in Rome as an elder. He was a pioneer in the development of the futuristic vision, the long parenthesis found in the seventieth week of Daniel 9.⁶ He also believed that the Antichrist would be a Jew of the tribe of Dan (cf. Gen 49:9; Dt 33:22) who would be born in Babylon, would appear after the dissolution of the Roman Empire for a period of three and a half years of tribulation before Christ's return, would persecute the church, falsify the truth of Christ, persuade the Jews that he is the messiah, rebuild the temple of Jerusalem, and deceive the Christians who are symbolized by the two witnesses of Revelation 11 who preach against the Antichrist before they are killed.⁷

Later, thanks to the allegorical method of interpretation, also known as the “spiritualizing” method that was popularized by the works of Origen (185-254 A. D.),⁸ and Augustine (354-430 A. D.)⁹, the futurism continued to develop and profoundly influenced the understanding of prophecies and the pre-millennial concept. On the first hand, Origins believed that the Antichrist was simply a spiritual principle of Evil;¹⁰ he considered that the abomination of desolation was a false word that usurped the place of Scripture. On the other hand, Augustine believed that the Antichrist was simply a reflection of evil personalized in each of us,¹¹ as he also considered the existence of an Antichrist, an individual who would persecute the Church for a period of three and a half years in the final history of the world and who would be destroyed by the coming of Christ.¹²

These interpretations determined the official position of the church from the Middle Ages to the Reformation,¹³ however, some so-called renewal and reform movements used to make an identical association between the antichrist prophesied by Daniel, John and Paul and the Papal system. ¹⁴ Luther's criticism of the papacy best sums up this matter. Luther identifies the papacy with the man of sin (2 Thess 2:3-12) through whom the desolate abomination would be established in the holy place (Matt 24:15; cf. Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11).¹⁵ Even Luther calls the Pope the true antichrist. Luther thus identifies the pope as an agent of Satan, who tried to eliminate the priesthood of Christ and change his law in two attempts: the first by exalting the pope to such a degree that he is the true priest and not so, Christ; the second by teaching that the saints intercede in heaven for us and that God must be so lazy and allow the saints to work and act in his place.¹⁶

For these reasons, one of the tasks faced by Roman Catholicism in the 16th century was to answer these accusations. In this context, the Jesuits order became the most active instrument in Counter-Reform, not only in instigating massacres but also in its political and religious influence, especially in the field of prophetic interpretation.¹⁷ Among the Jesuits stands out Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) who in 1590 published a 500-page commentary on the Apocalypse developing a futuristic approach of the Church fathers, without taking into account the historicist perspective that they themselves developed.¹⁸

In this commentary, Ribera refutes the Protestant understanding of the papacy with the Antichrist and projects it to the last three and a half years before the second coming. To him, the Antichrist is a person who would persecute the church and govern in this period. This is based on the fact that the first three chapters of Revelation refer to ancient pagan Rome during the days of John and the following chapters (4-19) to the reign of the antichrist before the second coming.¹⁹ Ribera’s views were the basis for the entire structure of Catholic Futurism concerning the antichrist²⁰ and were followed by prominent Roman Catholic theologians, including Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino (1542-1621),²¹ Cornelius A. Lapide (1537-1637), Thomas Malvenda (1566- 1628) ²² and Blasius Viegas (1544-1599).²³ Although this position was refuted by a series of publications,²⁴ however, in the nineteenth century the futurism ended up defeating historicist approach.

In sum, the futuristic approach believes that the Antichrist would: (1) persecute and slander the saints of God; (2) rebuild the temple in Jerusalem; (3) abolish the Christian religion; (4) deny Jesus Christ; (5) be received by the Jews; (6) pretend to be God; (7) kill the two witnesses of God; and (8) conquer the world.²⁵

The link Between Futurism and Protestantism

Almost 200 years after the appearance of Riera and Bellarmino, Protestantism still remained faithful to its prophetic principles, defending the historicist method of prophetic interpretation, being premillennial and pointing to the papacy as the antichrist.²⁶ However, in the nineteenth century a substantial change was developed in such a way that the historicist method was discarded and the system of futuristic interpretation was embraced.

Due to the Lisbon earthquake of 1755,²⁷ the French Revolution and Pope Pius VI’s imprisonment by the French soldiers on February 15, 1798,²⁸ there was an awakening in the study of the prophecies of Daniel, Revelation and the final events, which caused the second great revival²⁹—from the 1790s to the early 1840s.³⁰ This prophetic revival witnessed the penetration of Roman Catholic futurism into the Protestantism.

One of the books that caused the greatest agitation in the study of prophecies—especially on the coming of Christ—was written by Manuel Lacunza (1731-1801).³¹ Lacunza was a former Chilean Catholic priest of the Jesuit order, who published under the pseudonym of Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, “The Coming of the Messiah in Glory and Majesty”. And although in his book he avoids the allegorical method of interpretation, he reaches conclusions that in some aspects coincide with the interpretation of the historicist method.³² However, the biggest mistake was to mix the futurist with the historicist approach.³³

Lacunza conceives the futuristic approach and accepts its postulates in most cases. He considers that from Revelation 4 are prophecies that have not yet been fulfilled, which is why he maintains that the appearance of the Antichrist and the two witnesses of Revelation 11 are still in the future. He also considers that the Antichrist is a moral corpus composed of countless individuals and not a simple man; he also believes, as Ribera did, that he will persecute the church for 1260 literal days, what is known as the great tribulation before the Coming of Christ, and that it will then begin the millennium.³⁴

The first Protestant to accept the futurism, after had red Lacunza’s book,³⁵ was Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792-1866).³⁶ He was a librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury who, in 1826, published a pamphlet entitled An Enquiry into the Ground on Which the Prophetic Period of Daniel and St John has Been Supposed to Consist of 1260 years, in which he attacks the year-day principle of the historicist interpretation, supporting the futuristic position on the appearance of the Antichrist in the literal 1260 days of tribulation before Christ’s return. Thus, he opposed the Pope’s historicist identification as the Antichrist, claiming that the prophecy of Daniel 7:25 referred to a future tribulation of three and a half literal years.

James H. Todd (1805-1869), professor of Hebrew at Dublin University, met Maitland and became his disciple.³⁷ In 1838, he wrote Discourses on the Prophecies Relating to Antichrist in the Writings of Daniel and St. Paul. This work was dedicated to Maitland where he shares his views and increases the futuristic position in affirming that the fourth kingdom of Daniel 7 was not the Roman Empire but that it would be established on earth in a future period, so he denied that the papacy was the Antichrist. He asserted that the Church of Rome is a true church.³⁸

Another important exponent of futurism was William Burgh (1800-1866). He wrote the first systematic treatise of prophetic events following the futuristic interpretation in his work Lectures on the Second Advent of Our Lord Jesus Christ (1835). He increased the previous perspective that was begun by the authors mentioned above, further maintaining that Israel would be restored at the end of the age when the seventh week of Dan 9 would come to its end.³⁹

The works of William Burgh and James H. Todd exerted a great influence on the incipient futurism in the early nineteenth century in Protestantism.⁴⁰ The concepts of both were the foundations of what became known as the Oxford Tractarian Movement in England that lasted from 1833 to 1845.⁴¹

Two important events for the combination of futurism and historicism were the annual Conferences for the study of prophecies in Albury Park (1826-1839) and the annual Conferences at Powerscourt House (1831-1833). In the first group of Conferences, in addition to the study of Bible prophecies, the Lacunza and Maitland’s works were analyzed, to which Henry Drummond said that the opinions of Lacunza, ⁴² Maitland⁴³ and others should not be overlooked, this in relation to the futuristic interpretation of the book of Revelation in where the most prophecies of this book would be fulfilled in a literal period of 1260 days in the end of the world.⁴⁴ In the second group of Conferences, the topics studied were ecclesiology and eschatology. In this group the futurism gets stronger. Among the attendees were three important people from the Plymouth Brethren: Edward Irving, John N. Darby, and Benjamin Wills Newton.⁴⁵ Darby’s participation, a leader in the area of prophetic interpretation, was essential in the teaching of a pretribulation rapture of the Church.⁴⁶

The teaching of the pretribulation rapture of the Church was developed by Plymouth Brethren. Tregelles, a former member of this brotherhood, mentions that Eduard Irving heard some mysterious words in an unfamiliar language, telling him that a secret rapture of the church would take place before the visible coming of Jesus. From this moment on, the belief in a Rapture began to be taught, and one of the main contributors was Darby, who is considered to be the father of dispensationalism.⁴⁷ Darby understood that prophecies should be interpreted literally, dividing the Scripture into two areas: one for Israel and one for the Church. With this was ready the methodological framework of dispensationalism⁴⁸ embracing the teaching of the Rapture, the dichotomy between Israel and the Church, the concept that the events of Revelation 4-19 apply to literal Israel on earth while the church is in heaven; also the restoration of the nation of Israel, the gap of the seventieth week of Daniel 9, the literal 1260 days of persecution of the Antichrist and the seven dispensations in history.⁴⁹

The climate in America, with reference to the Second Great Awakening, was important for Darby's futuristic ideas of dispensationalism to penetrate easily. Darby visited America up to six times between 1859 and 1874. He was warmly received and his interpreting approaches were avidly adopted.⁵⁰ In this way, the futurism was exported to the New World.

Among his followers,⁵¹ the most important was Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), who propagated the ideas of dispensationalism by incorporating them into a series of margins and cross references in the King James Bible, which was published in 1909 under the title of the Scolfield reference Bible, expanded in 1917 and revised in 1967.⁵²

Thus, in the nineteenth century, the futuristic approach not only spread but almost eliminated the historicist approach of prophetic interpretation. Over the years, it gradually became the dominant theological position. In addition, the influence of some futuristic concepts on Ribera, Ribera on Lacunza, Lacunza on Maitland, Maitland on Todd, and so on, were propagating and extending the futuristic approach. Gullón mentions that three factors played an active part in the insertion of futurism into Protestantism: Ribera’s commentaries on Revelation, Lacunza’s work translated into English and the Oxford movement (1833-1845), also called the Tractarian movement.⁵³ Thus, the progressive rejection of the historicist approach in favor of a premillennial futurism within Protestantism was one of the exceptional characteristics that distinguished this period.

The Link between the Futuristic Approach and Some Apocalyptic Interpretations within the Seventh-Day Adventist Church

Since its beginnings in the 19th century, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has been characterized by its emphasis on the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecies. The basis for this interpretation is taken from the historicist system of prophetic interpretation of the reformers, the Church fathers and the Bible. Thus, the prophetic periods of Daniel and Revelation are interpreted using the year-day principle.⁵⁴ Both the 2300 evenings and mornings of Daniel 8:14, the 1260 days of Daniel 7:25, the 1290 days of Daniel 12:11, and the 1335 days of Daniel 12:12 embrace periods that are to be interpreted as years.⁵⁵

In recent years, however, new futuristic interpretations have emerged within Adventism in relation to the periods of Dan 12 (1260, 1290 and 1335 days).⁵⁶ Following the futurist-dispensationalist approach, these new interpretations accept a literal approach of prophecies⁵⁷ and the dual fulfillment of them according to the apotelesmatic principle.⁵⁸

The literal approach is applies to the whole Bible.⁵⁹ Regarding Daniel 12, this approach interprets the time periods as literal days that beginning with a future Sunday law. Likewise, the apotelesmatic principle considers that the “abomination of desolation” and the “tamid” are closely related to the events of the “last days” of our world’s history.⁶⁰ In that sense, it is proposed that Daniel 12:11 predicts the time when the worship of God (tamid) on the Sabbath day will be changed to the Sunday which is it the symbol of papal authority. And from then on there will be 1290 days (Dn 12:1) and 1335 days (Dn 12:12) literally.⁶¹

As the futurists interpret the last week of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 into the future, these proposals take the last part of Daniel 12 in time before the second coming of Jesus. In other words, a similar methodology used. Dispensationalists do it to satisfy their understanding of Israel in the prophecy and Adventist futurists to satisfy their understanding of the final persecution.⁶²

Conclusion

The impact of futurism on traditional pre-millennial interpretation is staggering. Those who began with this approach never imagined that they would go so far, to the point that thanks to the work of Jesuit Ribera, futurism was taking shape until it became the predominant interpretation in the evangelical world. From an Adventist perspective, the apotelesmatic principle alleged by Price and Ford, along with literal interpretations of Daniel’s time prophecies, have been the key for the futurism penetrating the thinking of some Adventist theologians. Thus, the impact of futurism was to change the methodological hermeneutics of prophetic interpretation, from the historicist approach to the futurist approach; the latter, as has been observed, bases in a literal interpretation of Scripture and the apotelesmatic principle.

In addition, the change in hermeneutic methodology leads to: (1) varying the interpretation of the year-day principle; (2) reinterpreting all the times prophecies presented in Daniel and Revelation; (3) changing the interpretation of symbols, e.g., the little horn, the Antichrist, the beast, etc., to an individual who will appear in a distant future for 1260 days. (4) This methodology corrupts the understanding of doctrines, especially those related to eschatology. Thus, we no longer believe in the Second Coming of Christ as such, but in two second coming, one before the tribulation, which is called the Rapture, and another after the tribulation. (5) Finally, the incursion of futurism ended up fractured the pre-millennial approach into: (a) the pre-tribulational view,⁶³ which accept the coming of Christ on the occasion of the Rapture and believe that from then onwards it will begin the seventieth week of Daniel 9, the appearance of the antichrist and tribulation; (b) post- tribulational view, which consider the Coming of Christ after tribulation; (c) the mid-tribulational view, which believe that Jesus will come in the midst of the time of tribulation and that from then onwards the sacrifices and offerings are just finished; and (d) the classical or historical premillennial view. This view maintain the historicist interpretation of the Reformation and accept the year-day principle, to the Antichrist as a historical corpus since the days of Apostle Paul, that the beast of Revelation 13 as the little horn of Daniel 7 are the same entity and that there is a progressive historical interpretation of Daniel and Revelation.

In this manner, the futurist interpretation of has become the preferred approach of the evangelical world, to such an extent that it almost obscures the perspective of the historicist approach, which still remains as a methodological system of prophetic interpretation in the Seventh- day Adventist Church, the only movement that preserves it.