101. Ibid., pp. 99-100.
102. Ibid., p. 109.
103. Ibid., P. 112.
104. Ibid., pp. 98-113.
105. He follows Warren Waggerby, The jubilee Cycles in Dan 8 and 9 (Loma Linda, CA: n.p., n.d.), referred to by Hauser, ibid., p. 106 n. 11.
106. Robert Hauser, "Seventy Sevens are Determined," (unpublished paper of April, 1990), 6.
107. Ibid., and Daniel, Revelation and the Final Generation, 113: "The jubilee tells us without doubt that we are at the end!"
108. Pentecost, p. 246.
109. McClain, p. 31, concludes in A.D. 32.
110. Gerhard F. Hasel, "Interpretations of the Chronology of the Seventy Weeks," Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and Nature of Prophecy, pp. 3-63.
111. Ernest L. Martin, The Birth of Christ Recalculated (2nd ed.; Pasadena, CA: Foundations for Biblical Research, 1980), discusses the issues relating to the birth date of Christ in a careful manner and concludes that he was most likely born in 3 B.C. In that case the year of his death in 33 or 34 A.D. is a major problem.
112. For a longer discussion and more details, see Hasel essay referred to in n. 120.
113. McClain, p. 35.
114. Pentecost, p. 242.
115. Ibid., p. 241.
116. McClain, p. 35 (underlining mine).
117. See also Allis, p. 116; LaRondelle, pp. 175-76; William H. Shea, "The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27," The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, pp. 75-118.
118. This is the more widely accepted designation among futurists, see Pentecost, p. 246, and many others.
119. H. A. Ironside, The Great Parenthesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1943).
120. R. Ludwigson, A Survey of Bible Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1973), pp. 46-47; John F. Walvoord, "Is Daniel's Seventieth Week Future?" Biobliotheca Sacra 101 (Jan 1944), 30-49.
Origins Of Futurism And Praeterism
Posted 03 December 2003 - 06:35 AM
Posted 03 December 2003 - 06:36 AM
121. Walvoord, "Is Daniel's Seventieth Week Future?", pp. 47-48.
122. Pentecost, p. 248.
124. Ludwigson, p. 47; McClain, pp. 39-40. 135.McClain, p. 40.
125. E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949), p. 215.
127. Allis, p. 115.
128. Already Tertullian took the "prince" in vs. 26 as a reference to Jesus Christ, see Franz Fraidl, Die Exegese der Siebzig Wochen Daniels in der alten und mittleren Zeit (Graz: Leuschner & Lubensky, 1883), pp. 38-39. Isodore of Pelusium (c. 360-c. 440) also took the "prince to come" as Jesus Christ (Fraidl, pp. 90-91) and so did Basil, bishop of Seleucia (c 448-458) (Fraidl, p. 93).
129. William H. Shea, "The Prophecy of Daniel 9:24-27," p. 93. 141.Ibid.
130. The Greek phrase used in Matthew is identical only with the LXX of Dan 12:11. Similar but not identical words are used in the LXX for Dan 11 :31 and 9:27. The Hebrew expressions in Dan 9:24; 11 :31 ; and 12:11 are similar but not identical. This , has caused some interpreters to be cautious as to whether the three expressions refer to the same thing or not.
131. John F. Walvoord, Daniel. The Key to Prophetic Revelation (Chicago: Moody, 1971 ), p. 236, holds that "the desolation of Daniel 9:27 . . . is going to continue until the consummation, There is nothing in Matt 24:15, Mark 13:14, or Luke 21:20 that warrants such a conclusion.
132. See Desmond Ford, Daniel (Nashville, TN: Southern Publ. Assoc. 1978), 49-50.
133. Desmond Ford, Crisis! Volume 1 : A Hermeneutic for Revelation (Newcastle, CA: n. p., 1982), 161.
134. Ibid., p. 164.
135. Gerhard F. Hasel, "Fulfillments of Prophecy," The Seventy Weeks, Leviticus, and the Nature of Prophecy, ed. Frank B. Holbrook (Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute of the General Conf. of SDA, 1986), 288-322.
136. Hauser, Daniel, Revelation and the Final Generation, xxi-xxxi. 149.Ibid., p. xxvii.
137. Ibid., p. xxx.
139. Ibid., p. 62.
140. Ibid., p. 112.
141. English translations have abbreviated the Hebrew expression here in Dan 10:2-3 to read simply "three weeks." But the distinction made in the Hebrew is of decisive importance.
142. Hasel, "Fulfillments of Prophecy," pp. 297-302.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:47 AM
TWO HUNDRED YEARS FROM LACUNZA: THE IMPACT OF HIS ESCHATOLOGICAL THOUGHT ON PROPHETIC STUDIES AND MODERN FUTURISM
DAVID PIO GULLON
River Plate University
Libertador San Martín, Argentina
The First International Jerusalem Bible Conference, June 1998 Introduction
The Jesuit priest Manuel de Lacunza y Díaz (1731-1801), was born in Santiago de Chile and died in Imola (Italy). He wrote a book under the pseudonym Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, posthumously published: La venida del Mesías en gloria y magestad. Observaciones de Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, hebreo-cristiano: dirigidas al sacerdote cristófilo.(1)
In 1791 he completed this famous work which he began around 1775. Lacunza's work had a great impact on the ferment of prophetic studies at the beginning of the nineteenth century, since his work spoke about the premillenial advent of Christ, and was studied by the British millenarians. His work was key to the introduction of futurism in the field of prophetic apocalypticism in the early nineteenth century. We will see his theological thought on several points, scattered through his work.(2)
Throughout his work, Lacunza called attention to the prophetic predictions of the Old Testament, Paul and John, and sounded out once again "the prophetic warning and appeal that had to long been silenced by force...and the light of the premillennial second advent broke upon him in all its impelling grandeur and simplicity."(3)
In the realm of the studies about the second coming and the millennium, we can't ignore Lacunza, the same way we can't ignore Kant's impact on modern philosophy. His voluminous treatise was investigated at the Albury Park Conferences, and at the Powerscourt house.
It may be interesting to know that the pen-name he choose, Juan Josaphat Ben Ezra, was not per se a fictitious name to conceal his true identity to make his writings more palatable to Protestant readers.(4) I presume it has some relation with the medieval rabbi Abraham ben Meier ben Ezra who was a biblical scholar and whose rabbinic exegesis was not allegorical or spiritual
Also it is an enigma why he doesn't say anything at all about the Protestants when he mentions the false religions, including Mohammedanism.(5)
Edited by Fortigurn, 05 December 2003 - 06:47 AM.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:48 AM
Historical Background to the Inroads of Futurism
Since futurism took root in the Protestant church about two centuries ago, first we need to have an overview of its development before the nineteenth century, when Lacunza's work became widely known in Latin America and Europe.(6)
We are living at the turn of the twentieth century and on the threshold of the third millennium, when futurism, the prevailing school of interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation plays a significant role in today's eschatological views.(7)
Two centuries ago, however, the historical school of interpretation was common to both amillennialism and premillennialism, since Roman Catholic futurism concerning the appearance of a future antichrist had not yet made an impact upon the Protestant prophetic interpretation, and almost all Protestant expositors on the prophecies of the books of Daniel and Revelation in the Reformation and post-Reformation era belonged to the historical school of interpretation, known as the Protestant school of interpretation.(8)
Furthermore, it has been found that futurism was not the original approach held by the early church, nor by the church of the Middle Ages and the Reformation. Research shows that the early Fathers were not futurists in the modern meaning of the word.
In a certain sense, the early church Fathers had futurist views because for them everything was future.(9) The early Christians were convinced that the final age of history had arrived; the new age had already dawned, and the end was imminent.(10)
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:49 AM
To quote one example, Hippolytus (160-233), who produced the most extensive treatise of biblical eschatology found among the Fathers, argued that the end of the world would come about A.D. 500. He dated Christ's birth in the year 5503 after creation, thus making a period of about 500 years between His first and second comings.(11)
In their writings, the early Fathers followed the historicist approach as the correct method to interpret the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.(12) Irenaeus and Hippolytus both used the historical approach in their interpretation of the coming antichrist.(13)
For them everything was future, and, consequently, they cannot with fairness be cited for the modern futuristic system that holds that most of the prophecies still are in the future, at the end of the Christian era.(14)
This rival eschatology, futurism, founded by Francisco de Ribera, whose posture constitutes the groundwork for the whole structure of Roman Catholic futurism concerning the Antichrist, had a tremendous impact on prophetic studies, and gradually became more prominent in the nineteenth century.
It is crystal-clear that the cradle for contemporary futurism was actually constructed by Catholic theologians to counteract the Reformers' historical method of interpretation.(15)
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:50 AM
Futurism and the Early Nineteenth Century
The spiritual tone of the eighteenth and the early nineteenth century was dominated by Whitby's postmillennialism that contributed to lessening the sense of expectancy of the coming of the Lord.(16) But in the early nineteenth century, the French Revolution stirred up a renewed interest in prophecy.
Since Lacunza's work was finished about 1791 and printed for the first time in Spanish around 1812, and in English in 1827,(17) it is meaningful to know what was happening in Europe at that time.
For our purposes, perhaps the most significant event was the French Revolution which began in 1789 and was directly responsible for the revival of prophetic concern. Lacunza, however, does not refer in his work to the French Revolution or to the dethronement and banishment to France of Pope Pious VI in 1798, and his death in the exile during the French Revolution.(18)
The prophetic expectations of the early nineteenth century in Europe reached a point of great agitation in the years following the French Revolution, an event that had a special influence for the student of prophecy.(19) It was possibly the greatest blossoming of premillennialism since the beginning of the Christian era and led to the Second Advent Awakening.
Many Bible scholars concluded that the end of all things and the commencement of the millennial kingdom were near.(20) Certainly the English translation of Lacunza gave a marked impetus "to the study of the second advent in Britain among those Protestants already awakened to the study of the prophecies of Daniel and the Revelation."(21)
In England, many renowned premillennialists took part in the Albury Park prophetic conferences held at the estate of Henry Drummond (1786-1860), from 1826-1830, that molded the British millenarian revival.(22) Premillennialism began to emerge,(23) and the British millenarian revival that was the forerunner of the prophetic conferences was characterized by three main aspects:
(1) a new zeal for the interpretation of prophetic studies at the beginning of the century;(24)
(2) a renewal of interest in the Jewish people, the restoration and return of the chosen people to Palestine, and
(3) the doctrine of the premillennial advent in contrast with the standard postmillennial eschatology.(25) These among others, were also the preoccupation of Lacunza in the last decades of the eighteenth century, and in his book he dwells upon these concerns.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:51 AM
Three factors gave grounds for prophetic speculation: the political chaos of the period; the instability of the years following Napoleon's defeat in 1815, and the political tensions of the period around 1830.(26)
In the nineteenth century, futurism entered premillennialism through the writings of and the Protestant scholars Samuel Roffey Maitland, William Burgh, and James H. Todd, among others.(27) Maitland, who had read the work of Lacunza,(28) and whose futuristic approach to Revelation had a great impact on premillennialism, introduced futurism into Protestantism(29)
The work of this Chilean theologian and biblical scholar, the Jesuit y Díaz, translated into English, had a great influence upon the incipient futurism of early nineteenth-century Protestantism.(30) Lacunza's prophetic interpretation was a mingling of futurism and historicism. In his analysis of the prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah, Lacunza avoided the method of allegorism and reached conclusions that in some aspects coincided with the exegesis of the historical school.
He took a futuristic view and argued that the book of the Revelation is a consecutive prophecy yet to be fulfilled and stated that the antichrist is a moral body composed of innumerable individuals and not a single man.
On the other hand, Lacunza maintained that the appearance of the antichrist and the two witnesses are still in the future, just before the coming of Christ,(31) and that all the prophecies concerning the antichrist will be fulfilled just prior to the coming of Christ.
The great tribulation during which the church will be persecuted by the antichrist will last 1260 literal days.(32) He did make, however, a strong case for the premillennial advent of Christ. In this way, Lacunza contributed to the revival of British millenarianism(33) and to the development of futurism in Protestantism, a view, as we have seen, first suggested by the Spanish Jesuit Francisco de Ribera.(34) Lacunza's work was studied at the Albury Park prophetic conferences.(35)
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:51 AM
Lacunza rejected the allegorization of the Millennium made by Tyconius, Augustine and Catholic exegesis.(36) His work was considered by Edward Irving as the master work of one of God's most gifted servants.(37) It was important for the development of futurism in Protestantism and we may say that nineteenth-century futurism was fueled by Lacunza's premillennial work.
Although the general approach to the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation at the Albury Park prophetic conferences which sparked the British millenarian revival, was historicist,(38) those attending took account of Lacunza's and Maitland's futurism.
Drummond argued that the opinions of Ben-Ezra, Samuel Maitland and others, who considered that the greater part of Revelation is yet to be fulfilled in a literal period of 1260 days at the end of the world, are not to be overlooked. He stated that these opinions were not opposed to the day-year principle, as may at first sight appear to be the case.(39)
Thus, Drummond thought he had reconciled the two approaches by a sort of double historical fulfillment of the prophetic time periods. The 1260 days of persecution by the antichrist are given a dual fulfillment: a prophetic application during the time of the Christian dispensation(40) and a more and fuller literal fulfillment in the days before the coming of the Lord.(41) Actually, it seems to be a threefold antichrist: the papacy;(42) Protestantism which renounced the truth of God;(43) and the future antichrist as proposed by Ribera, Lacunza, and Maitland.(44)
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:52 AM
Conclusions and Evaluation: Key Ideas in Lacunza
1. First of all, we agree with Froom, when he says that "Lacunza was a solitary voice just before the early dawn of the nineteenth-century revival of the advent hope and the beginning of the great second advent world movement."(136) Indisputably Lacunza has his own merits.
2. Lacunza holds to the literal interpretation of the Scriptures but his interpretation of the 1,000 years seems to be allegorical. He never affirms clearly that the one thousand years are 1,000 literal years. He goes on to say that "it can be 100,000 or one million years of justice and innocence,"(137) whereas when he speaks of the three and a half times or 1260, or 1290, or 1335 days he always interprets them as literal days.(138)
Consequently, a contradiction seems to exist in his exegetical method. His method is not consistent Lacunza, who analyzes and examines everything in detail, never gives any reason for this exegesis of the one thousand years, or, for that matter of the prophetic periods of time.
3. He does not explain why mortal people who enter the millennium will live so many years as he assumes, without first being changed. He claims that after the second coming of Christ, the promise of Isaiah 65:17-25 and 2 Peter 3:13, the new heaven and the new earth, the home of the righteous, will be fulfilled on this earth in the millennium, before the universal resurrection.(139)
4. Concerning the book of Revelation, he correctly says that it has many allusions to the Old Testament, and it is the true and unique key to all the prophets and must be decoded according tho the Old Testament.(140) Lacunza is right when he affirms that the Apocalypse has to be studied in the light of the Old Testament, but he is wrong when he claims that all its prophecies are in the future.
5. The determining key to his system is his interpretation of the stone in Daniel 2 as the second coming of Christ in glory and majesty and not as His first coming or as the Catholic church being the great mountain, and he is right. Lacunza maintains that the two advents of Christ are the center of all prophecy and the goal of all history.(141)
6. Concerning the interpretation of Daniel 7, Lacunza is whimsical, and destroys the parallelism with the rest of the prophecies in Daniel. In his exegesis of Daniel 2, he follows a certain historical continuity. in Daniel 7, he destroys this historical continuity when he argues that Mohammedanism is the second beast, and false Christianity the third. Moreover, if the beasts come up of the water one after another, and if the chapter has some historical sequence as he claims, then he is incorrect on all counts.(142)
7. Lacunza concluded his book during the French Revolution but he didn't understand the event of 1798 when the Pope was taken prisoner and died in French captivity. He says that the mystery of the mortal wound of the beast is something that occurs in the future because the Antichrist is in the future, and his explanation of this fact is confusing and vague.(143)
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:53 AM
8. Lacunza follows the hermeneutics of literalism and for this reason he contends that all Old Testament prophecies about the kingdom will be fulfilled literally in the millennium in a literal Israel.
Nevertheless, to explain why the Holy City, the New Jerusalem will come down out of heaven at the second coming, and not at the end of the one thousand years, he seems to apply the recapitulationist method of interpretation. He never uses the typological method to interpret the Old Testament prophecies concerning the kingdom. Lacunza never grasped the gospel principle that Abraham is the father of all believers, and his exegesis is not Christ centered.(144)
9. For Lacunza, the essential thing is the future, the kingdom, the new heaven and the new earth. Therefore, Lacunza doesn't interpret the centuries between the apostolic church and his own time. He almost bypasses the Christian era and acknowledges no signs of the coming of Christ, except the Antichrist and the conversion of the Jews.
He never brings into discussion the eschatological discourse of Jesus about the signs of the end of the age. There is no exegesis of Matthew 24 or Mark 13. His preoccupation seems to be with the Old Testament, the Jews, and the Antichrist, in the context of a somewhat allegorical millennium.
10. Even though he speaks of the harlot as papal Rome, nevertheless he never suggests that the papal institution could be the Antichrist. The Pope, Lacunza recognizes "is Christ's vicar on earth and head of the true church."(145)
11. In this same vein, Lacunza provides the first insight of modern ecumenism when he states that the Catholic church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, the incorruptible and faithful depositary of the truth, and the bishop of Rome, the Pope, is the true center of unity where all the spokes of the whole circumference of the Christian world must take the road.(146)
12. Concerning the existence of life in the cosmos, of rational creatures in other worlds, like us, Lacunza believes that it may be possible, because God is all-powerful, but no one knows for sure.
In any case, according to Lacunza, if there are creatures with body and soul, similar to us, they must belong to Jesus Christ. Lacunza ponders if before or after the death and resurrection of the man-God, they have had some divine mission by means of the ministry and work of the holy angels and of some illustrious righteous of every globe, like an Enoch, a Noah, an Abraham, a Moses, a David.
He also thinks if some or all of them have sinned. But in any case, declares Lacunza, all the countless worlds that we see and those that we can't see, is the eternal inheritance of the man-God, and therefore pertains to all of us, who are his youngest brothers, "heirs of God and coheirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17), particularly after the universal resurrection.(147)
13. Lacunza has a good principle of hermeneutics when he says that we must explain an unclear text through hundreds of clear, textual references and not the other way around.(148)
14. Concerning the existence of life in the cosmos, of rational creatures in other worlds, like us, Lacunza believes that it may be possible, because God is all-powerful, but no one knows for sure.
In any case, according to Lacunza, if there are creatures with body and soul, similar to us, they must belong to Jesus Christ. Lacunza ponders if before or after the death and resurrection of the man-God, they have had some divine mission by means of the ministry and work of the holy angels and of some illustrious righteous of every globe, like an Enoch, a Noah, an Abraham, a Moses, a David.
He also thinks if some or all of them have sinned. But in any case, declares Lacunza, all the countless worlds that we see and those that we can't see, is the eternal inheritance of the man-God, and therefore pertains to all of us, who are his youngest brothers, "heirs of God and coheirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17), particularly after the universal resurrection.(149)
15. Lacunza interprets the Old Testament Prophecies emphasizing the contents of the Jewish hope of a future restoration. He applies the messianic Old Testament prophecies to Jesus the Messiah who will reign over history after the restoration of the Davidic kingdom after his second coming. This is evident through his treatise.
On the other hand, when Lacunza contends that the 1,000 years could be 200,000 generations, he does not keep balance between the history as such and the millennial kingdom of Christ.
16. Another important consideration is that Lacunza never worries about the time of the second coming of Christ. He never gives any reason for the apparent delay. He never exegetes the famous texts of 1 Peter 3:8 or Psalms 90:4.
Consequently, he never asks himself the question that seems to preoccupy so many Christians today: when will this happen? (Matt. 24:3). He lived in the midst of the eschatological agitation of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe and America. He was apocalyptic, saw the imminence of the kingdom of God, and lived in a atmosphere of imminence.
Finally we must say that one essential contribution of Lacunza had been the recovery of the faith in the second coming of Christ, and to fill an objective empty space in the theology of the last part of the eighteenth century. His work was very timely to further the great awakening of the nineteenth century as well as to further futurism.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:54 AM
1. 1 For the bibliography, see footnote 17, below.
2. In this paper, all the quotations of La venida del Mesías are taken from the 1816 Wood's edition, in four volumes, and from the 1826 Ackermann's edition in three volumes, both printed in London. First, we will give the page numbering from the 1816 edition, and between brackets the page number from the 1826 edition. See also the footnote number 48.
3. LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers. 4 vols. (Washington D.C.: Review and Herald, 1946-1954), 3:303.
4. This is what Kimball says, but I can't agree with Kimball on this. Lacunza never speaks about Protestants in all his work, in spite of the fact that he was a jesuit. He chose this pen-name for other reasons as we can see when we read his work. See William R. Kimball, The Rapture: A Question of Time (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 32.
5. Abrahán ben Meir ben Ezra, or Ezra Ben Abraham Ben Mazhir was a rabbi and Jew exegete born in Toledo, Spain, around 1092, whom the Jews called the Wise, the Great, the Admirable. They consider him to be the true founder of rationalist exegesis. He was contemporary with Maimónides, and exegesis was one of his specialties. He was a Bible interpreter and wrote a commentary on the Old Testament in 24 books.
He open the way to the grammatical exegesis. He assumed the title of gaon, a formal title of the heads of Sura and Pumbedita in Babylonia. The geonim were recognized by the Jews as the highest authority of instruction from the end of the sixth century to the middle of the 11th. In the 12th and 13th centuries the title of gaon was also used by the heads of academies in Bagdad, Damascus, and Egipt. See Enciclopedia universal ilustrada Europeo-Americana (Barcelona: Hijos de J. Espasa) 1:309; Encyclopedia Judaica, 14 vols. (Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972), 7:314-324.
According to M. Góngora, Lacunza acknowledges that he has borrowed the name of Ben Ezra as a pseudonym of his book because he was "one of the more learned and judicious rabbis" and also because "he was Spanish and he wrote when he was in the exile". See, "Memorial del 12 de noviembre de 1788 al ministro español Antonio Porlier," published by M. Góngora, La revista chilena de historia y geografía 123 (1954-55): 247-251.
See Fredy Omar Parra Carrasco, Pensamiento teológico en Chile: contribución a su estudio. V. El reino que ha de venir: historia y esperanza en la obra de Manuel Lacunza (Santiago de Chile: Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, 1993), 47.
6. For a study of Lacunza and his work, see Daniel Hammerly Dupuy Defensores latinoamericanos de una gran esperanza (Florida, Buenos Aires: Casa Editora Sudamericana, 1954), 85-95; 108-114. For a detailed investigation of the editions of Lacunza's work, see the studies of the French scholar Alfred Vaucher, Une célébrité oubliée. Le P. Manuel de Lacunza y Díaz (1731-1801) de la Société de Jésus auteur de "La Venue du Messie en gloire et majesté." New rev. ed. (Collonges-sous-Salève: Imprimerie Fides, 1968); Lacunza, un heraldo de la segunda venida de Cristo (Mexico DF: Publicaciones Interamericanas, 1970); George E. Ladd, The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1956), 38-39.
7. Dispensationalism, a view that has become deeply rooted in many American Evangelical churches, follows the extreme futuristic interpretation of Daniel and Revelation. See, for instance, George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1974), 622-624; Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, seventh printing, 1990), 1154, 1162-1165; Ernest R. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism: British and American Millenarianism 1800-1930 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970), 36-39, 66-68, 81-83.
8. See Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 184-185; H. Grattan Guinness, History Unveiling Prophecy of Time as an Interpreter (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1905), 132-136; 169-196; Kimball, 30-32.
9. See, David P. Gullón, "An Investigation of Dispensational Premillennialism: An Analysis and Evaluation of the Eschatology of John F. Walvoord" (Ph.D. dissertation, Andrews University, 1992), 76-79; Kimball, 20-29.
10. See, for instance, Thomas N. Finger, Christian Theology: An Eschatological Approach, 2 vols. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1985-89), 1:101-102.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:55 AM
11. See David G. Dumbar, "Hippolytus of Rome and the Eschatological Exegesis of the Early Church" (Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 322-339: Roger T. Beckwith, "Daniel and the Date of the Messiah's Coming in Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation," Revue of Qumran 110 (1979-81): 539-541.
12. If they expected the Second Coming of Christ in a brief period of time, it was only natural that the reign of the antichrist was restricted to just a few years. See, for instance, Hippolytus's Treatise (ANF, 5:204-219); Irenaeus, Haer. 5.25-35 (ANF, 1:553-567).
13. See J. Barton Payne, The Imminent Appearing of Christ (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1962), 30. The futurist perspective of the early church cannot be equated with modern futurism.
14. While the early church "was generally futuristic in their eschatological beliefs, present day futurism is not synonymous with the earlier forms of futurism" (Kimball, 29).
15. See, Kimball, 30: Ladd, The Blessed Hope, 37-39. Ribera's posture constitutes the groundwork for the whole structure of Roman Catholic futurism, which was followed by Lacunza in spite that Lacunza never mentions Ribera. Lacunza alludes to Alcázar, the founder of preterism.
Francisco de Ribera (1537-1591), a Spanish Jesuit and theologian. From 1576 until his death, he was professor of Sacred Scripture at Salamanca. His commentary In Sacram Beati Johannis Apostoli et Evangelistae Apocalypsim Commentarii. Cum quinque indicibus (Salamanca, 1590), was published as a rebuttal to the Reformers. See Joseph Tanner, Daniel and Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place in It. A study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1898), 1-17; Gullón, 80-82.
Ribera refuted the protestant identification of the papacy with the antichrist, projecting the antichrist to the future as a persecutor of the church and whose reign would last for three and a half years. We find the seeds of futurism already in Augustine (354-430), who wrote about the future antichrist perhaps more than any previous interpreter.
No less than seven times Augustine speaks about the last persecution at the hands of the antichrist, and three times he says that it will last for three and a half years. See for instance, De Civ. Dei 16.24 (Fathers of the Church: A New Translation, edited by Thomas P. Halton, 84 vols. 1947-1991) 14:532; ibid., 18:52, 53 (FC 24:174-177); ibid., 20:13, 19, 23, 30 (FC 24:284, 298, 313, 338).
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:56 AM
16. Postmillennialism was a common view of the eighteenth-century England. Daniel Whitby (1638-1726), Salisbury rector, highlighted the eventual culmination of Christian history in the coming of a literal millennium before the second coming, and postmillennialism prevailed. See Daniel Whitby, A Treatise on the True Millennium, in, Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament. 2 vols. (Edinburgh: Lackington, Allen and Co., 1807), 2:679-705; Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 5.
17. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 17. The first Spanish edition was printed in Cádiz (Spain) around 1812. In 1816, a complete edition in Spanish of 1500 copies of Lacunza's work in four volumes was published in London by the Diplomatic Agent of the Argentinian Republic, Manuel Belgrano.
It has no author's name: La venida del Mesías en gloria y magestad. Observaciones de Juan Josaphat Ben-Ezra, hebreo-cristiano: dirigidas al sacerdote cristófilo, 4 vols. (Londres: Carlos Wood, 1816). There is another Spanish edition in three volumes (London: Ackermann, Strand, 1826). The work was translated into Italian, English and French.
The English version was translated by Edward Irving, The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty. By Juan Josaphat Ben-Ezra, a Converted Jew, 2 vols. (London: L. B. Seeley and Son, 1827). Irving's translation was published from the 1812 Cádiz printing, but checked with the 1826 Ackermann edition. See Froom, 3:313, 314. For versions in other languages, see Hammerly Dupuy, 85-95.
18. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 5. He also states that "to live through the decade of the 1790s in itself constituted an experience in apocalypticism for many of the British" (ibid.). See also ibid., 6-8. Lacunza never alludes to the dethronement and captivity of Pope Pious VI as the fulfillment of any time. period of Daniel on the Revelation.
19. Froom, 3:9-12; Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 5-8.
20. See, Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 5, 1-41 R. G. Clouse, "The New Christian Right, America and the Kingdom of God," Christian Scholar Review 12 (1983): 8.
21. Froom, 3:305. See also, Gullón, 84-86; Kimball, 32, 33.
22. See, Henry Drummond, Dialogues on Prophecy, 3 vols, (London: Nisbet, 1828-1829); Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 18-19; Ladd, The Blessed Hope, 36. For the British and American millenarian revival, see Sandeen, ibid., 1-102. Harold H. Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren, 1825-1850 (London: Pickering and Inglish, 1967), 16.
He says that these conferences "provided a forum for the discussion of prophetical interpretation, but failed to secure unanimity" (ibid., 16).
23. Ernest Sandeen holds that the millennial expectations "are vowen into the fabric of the early nineteenth century life in both Europe and America" ("Toward a Historical Interpretation of the Origins of Fundamentalism" in Church History 36 : 69.
24. As an example I mention the following works on prophecy: William Cuninghame, A Dissertation on the Seals and Trumpets, 2nd ed. rev. and enlarged. (London: T. Cadell and W. Davies, Strand, 1817); George Stanley Faber, A Dissertation on the Prophecies That Had Been Fulfilled or Are Now Fulfilling, or Will Hereafter Be Fulfilled Relative to the Great Period of 1260 Years, 2 vols. 4th ed. rev. and corrected (London: F. C. and J. Rivington, 1810) idem, The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy: or a Dissertation on the Prophecies which Treat the Grand Period of Seven Times, and Especially of Its Second Moiety or the Latter Three Times and a Half, 3 vols. (London: C. and J. Rivington, 1828).
25. See Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 8-14.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:57 AM
26. See Harold H. Rowdon, The Origins of the Brethren, 1825-1850, (London: Pickering and Inglish, 1967), 12-14; Deryck W. Lovegrove, Established Church, Sectarian People: Itinerancy and the Transformation of English Dissent 1780-1830. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 121-123.
27. See, for instance, Charles H. H. Wright, Daniel and His Prophecies (London: Williams and Norgate, 1906), xiv, xv. Wright names S. R. Maitland, J. H. Todd, W. Burgh, Dr. Pusey of Oxford, and many others. Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 38; Gullón, 81-91.
Sandeen remarks that "graduates of Trinity College, Dublin, for reasons that are not clear, were among the earliest and most able defenders of futurism."
28. Samuel Roffey Maitland, An Attempt to Elucidate the Prophecies Concerning Antichrist: With Remarks on Some Works of J. H. Frere, Esq. 2d ed. (London: Francis and John Rivington, 1853), 4-8. Maitland knew the work of Lacunza and agreed with Lacunza that the fourth empire of Dan 2 and 7 is not the Roman Empire.
The fourth empire, said Maitland, is the kingdom of antichrist (ibid., 9). Maitland was perhaps the first Protestant to make use of Lacunza, and his example was followed by Burgh and Todd.
29. Scholarly opinion points particularly to Maitland as the one responsible for the introduction of futurism into Protestantism. See, for instance, Payne, 30, 153; Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 37.
30. See Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 37-38, 106; Zens, 3; Duncan McDougall, The Rapture of the Saints, 1st rev. and annotated ed. (Blackwood, NJ: O.F.P.M. Publishers, 1970), 19-20; Wilmot, 251-252. John H. Newman and Henry E. Manning accepted the futuristic interpretation of the antichrist. Both entered the ranks of the Roman Catholic Church, and became cardinals. Oliver, Prophets and Millennialists, 144-149.
The influence of Roman Catholic futurism has been decisive on Protestant thought and was assimilated by the Fundamentalists. Lacunza "restricted the prophetic fulfillments of the Revelation to the very end of the age" (Kimball, 32). This new view among Protestants discarded the idea of a historical antichrist who operates during the whole Christian era until the second coming of Christ (Tanner, 17).
31. "El anticristo está todavía por venir" (La venida del Mesías, 1:128 [1:89]. See also Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 37.
32. The 1260 days, 42 months, and three years and a half are "the exact time during which the great tribulation of Antichrist among the Gentiles is to last" (ibid)., 3:152 [2:343].
33. Ibid., 1:152-178 [1:105-124]. See Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 17-22.
34. See Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 37-38. Irving, who did not agree with the futurism of Lacunza, unintentionally, perhaps, helped to lay the foundation of the Protestant futurism by means of his translation.
35. See Jon Zens, Dispensationalism: A Reformed Inquiry into Its Leading Figures and Features (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1978), 3.
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:58 AM
36. This is acknowledged by most scholars. See, Ray C. Petry, Christian Eschatology and Social Thought (New York: Abingdon Press, 1966), 316. Pelikan affirms that Augustine "set the standard for most Catholic exegesis in the West when he surrendered the millenarian interpretation of Rev 20."
See Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of the Doctrine. Vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 129.
37. The Coming of Messiah, 1:xx.
38. H. Drummond, 1:177; 3:ii-iii, 421. These meetings from 1826 to 1830 were attended by a wide section of Evangelicals. See Sandeen, The Roots of Fundamentalism, 18-20. Edward Irving, Lacunza's translator, attended these meetings. See The Coming of Messiah, 1:clxxxvi-ccxii.
39. Ladd affirms that in 1827, the book of Lacunza "and the millennial question became the main objects of study at the Albury Park conference" (The Blessed Hope, 36).
"For as all the prophecies of the Old Testament had an inchoate accomplishment first, and a more perfect fulfillment afterwards, so it is not impossible that this great prophecy of the New Testament may have had a partial application during the whole time of the Gentile dispensation, and will have a more full and literal completion in the days which accompany the coming of our Lord" (Drummond, Dialogues., 377).
40. Drummond, 1:177, 322, 324, 336; 2:17; 3:iii.
41. Ibid., 1:376-377.
42. Ibid., 1:266, 322-325; 3:421 "The false prophet is the little horn of Daniel, that Papal iniquity."
43. Ibid., 2:359-360. "And as Popery as a system buried the truth of God under ceremonies and traditions, so Protestantism as a system renounced the truth of God, in neglecting the ordinances by which that truth was to be preserved."
44. Ibid., 1:377. This opinion, says the Dialogues, is not to be overlooked (ibid). See also 2:42. It is interesting to note the almost allegorical reason for this dual fulfillment of the 1260 days.
As Christ's personal ministry at His first coming was 1260 days in which he fulfilled in His own person all the things which the church had performed personally, "it seems fair to conclude, that he will likewise fulfil (sic) in his own person, at the time of his second advent, all the things which the church shall have performed from the time of her first calling" (ibid., 377).
Posted 05 December 2003 - 06:59 AM
136. Froom, 3:207.
137. Ibid., 4:337 [3:248].
138. See for instance, ibid., 4:97 [3:70].
139. See, ibid., 4:63-65, 92-99, 259-276 [3:46-48, 66-72, 186-200].
140. 140 See for instance, ibid., 4:328 [3:239-240]. In his own words: "¿Cómo de ha de entender este Libro Divino, si los lugares más notables a los que alude frecuentísimamente, ya sea los libros de Moisés, ya de los Salmos, ya de los profetas; si estos lugares, digo, no se reciben, sino en cuanto pueden ser favorables?...El Apocalipsis, Señor mío, no es tan oscuro si se quiere atender a sus vivas y casi continuas allusiones...Toda su oscuridad pudiera pasar de la noche al día, si se estudiasen dichas alusiones" (ibid., 3:100 [2:305].
141. See for instance, ibid., 1:280-283 [1:195-197].
142. See for instance, ibid., 3:128-131 [2:326-329].
143. See ibid., 1:433-442 [1:303-308].
144. Ibid., 4:100-104 [3:73-76]. He acknowledges that this event appears in chapter 21, after the universal resurrection and judgment of chapter 20, but he contends that this is a casual circumstance and explains: "San Juan observa y sigue en este lugar el mismo orden, y método, que ha venido observando constantemente en toda su profecía: es a saber, cuando dos o tres o más misterios concurren en un mismo tiempo, los divide o los separa el uno del otro; habla del uno como si no hubiese otro, y este lo lleva hasta su fin: concluido este, vuelve cuatro pasos atrás, y tomando el otro, lo lleva del mismo modo hasta su fin...
Este órden y método del Apocalipsis desde el principio hasta el fin, es facilísimo, y sería convenientísimo observarlo bien: sin la cual observación, y conocimiento pleno, no concibo como pueda entenderse bien este libro divino, que comprende en tan pocos volúmen tantos y tan grandes misterios, pertenecientes todos, a lo menos desde el capitulo 4, a la revelación de Jesucristo, o lo que es lo mismo, a su segunda venida en gloria y majestad" (ibid., 4:102 [3:74]).
145. La venida del Mesías., 2:396 [2:162]. All the authority of this church "está y estará hasta que él venga, en sus legítimos sucesores, que son los obispos, y sobre todo en el sucesor del príncipe de los apóstoles, San Pedro, que es el obispo de Roma, al cual llamamos todos los católicos el papa, o padre común, o el sumo pontífice, y a quien reconocemos por vicario de Cristo en la tierra" (ibid.).
See also 3:243 [2:411].
146. Ibid., 2:394-396 [2:160-162] Says Lacunza: "Por consiguiente, reconocemos a este obispo de Roma por el verdadero centro de unidad, a donde deben encaminarse, y llegar, y comunicar con él, todas las líneas que parten de toda la circunferencia del orbe cristiano; y las que no se encamiaren a este centro, ni comunicaren con él, van cieramente desviadas, ni pertenecen a la unidad esencial, al cuerpo de Cristo, ni a la verdadera iglesia cristiana" (ibid., 2:396 [2:162].
147. Ibid., 4:405-412 [3:293-299].
148. Ibid., 4:89 [3:64]; see also 4:253-255 [3:183-184].
149. Ibid., 4:405-412 [3:293-299].
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users