|
|
508, 538, 1798, 1843 Source Book (Preliminary)
William H. Shea, MD, Ph.D. Heidi Heiks has produced a most timely study on the historical/prophetic dimensions of these four years. In some respects it is an original contribution, anchoring with great scholarly precision the reliability of the significance of these four dates. It will be a great read, not only for fellow scholars across the academic landscape, but equally so for the thoughtful layperson that enjoys documentation that guarantees deeper assurance in critical biblical study. It surely will not compete with anything else on the market. Anyone familiar with historical research will be gratified with the author's care and devotion to unvarnished facts. Perhaps someone somewhere will take issue with some aspect of this research. But if so, he would have to demolish the brick-by-brick structure that the author has constructed and that seems to be an unlikely achievement. I was especially grateful for his writing style‚ his force, careful transitions, and absence of pretentiousness. This is an unexpected achievement in the world of scholarship. I predict that many teachers and pastors will use this small book as a basis for many church-sponsored study groups. I can't imagine an Adventist church that will overlook the power flowing through these pages. One of the most impressive features that makes this book so timely and relevant is the linkage of the historical facts with the biblical anchorage and Ellen White's commentary. I found this three-fold connection to be rewarding and gratifying‚ not because I had hoped to find it so, but to see how deep this linkage is. I find the author's treatment of Daniel 11:40-45 most interesting. Along with others, at this time at least, I will have to wait a little longer to see how prophecy blends into history. Many good men and women have supported the century-old interpretation that the "daily" refers to paganism, rather than the papacy. They have seen, for them, good reasons for this position. However, it seems to me that they will find this understanding worthy of further consideration. I am a wiser man after reading this book, not only for clearer reasons to see validity in 508, 538, 1798 and 1843, but also for the careful details describing the temporary demise of the papacy in 1798. Herbert Edgar Douglass, Th.D.
BOOK NOTES: Heidi Heiks, 508, 538, 1798, 1843 Source Book (Preliminary) (Knoxville, IL: Hope International, 2005). 120 pp. This small volume on prophetic times, according to H. Heiks a comprehensive book will follow, seeks to provide historical sources supporting the historicist (Seventh-dayAdventist) interpretation of the 1260, 1290, and 1335 day prophecies in the book of Daniel. In his preface Heiks claims, "All of the objections raised by those who have tried to move the 1260-, 1290- or 1335-year dates to some time in the future, or renounced them altogether instead of calculating the longest of the prophetic periods of Daniel to the autumn of 1844, can now by documentation be officially refuted." (p. x). By documentation he means primary sources like the Corpus Juris Civilis of emperor Justinian or the Lex Romana Visigothorum and quotations from reputable historians like Charles J. Hefele. Thus, the book is largely a collection of quotations from different sources with explanatory notes. The book has sixteen chapters, seven of which deal with the date 508, the beginning of the 1290 and 1335-year prophecy, which hitherto has been the most difficult date to substantiate historically. The importance of the date lies in the fact that in that year the amalgamation or union of church and state took place (pp. 25, 31) which in prophecy was the setting up of "the abomination that makes desolate" (p. 31). Heiks dates the conversion of Clovis to 508, historians, however, are divided on this. Most historians date his conversion to 496 rather than 508. Christian Pfister in the Cambridge Medieval History says the king allowed his children to be baptized but he did not make up his mind until after his first victory over the Alemanni. He "defeated his adversaries in a bloody battle (A.D. 496), but was unable to reduce them to subjection. He began to perceive at this time what strength he would gain by embracing Christianity.... It was doubtless from such considerations of policy, rather than from any profound conviction, that he decided to be baptized. The ceremony, to which numerous persons of note were invited, took place at Rheims, whatever some modern historians may say to the contrary. It was celebrated on Christmas day of the year 496" (2: 112). The ancient sources do not indicate in which year Clovis was baptized, they only mention that it happened in connection with his fight against the Alemanni. The main battle against the Alemanni was in 498, a smaller skirmish took place in 508. Then there is the question, would Clovis have led his army in a "holy war" against the Visigoths in 507 as a non-Christian? Whatever the case, the issue for the date 508 as the beginning of the 1290 and 1335-year prophecy is not the baptism of Clovis but the cooperation between the papacy and the Franks. i.e., the union of church and state. Traditionally, Seventh-day Adventists have stated that the 1260-year rule of the little horn in Daniel 7:25 began in 538 with the removal of the Ostrogothic kingdom, the third of the three horns uprooted by the little horn. Heiks correctly states that although a decisive battle was fought in 538, which broke the siege of Rome by the Ostrogoths, the Ostrogothic kingdom did not end until 553 (p. 43). Heiks, therefore, concludes that the fall of the three Arian kingdoms "is not the prophetic marker associated with A. D. 538" (p. 44). In its place he puts the Sunday law of the third council of Orleans in 538 as an expression oftherise of the little-horn power and the beginning of the 1260-year period (p. 48). The third Synod of Orleans, in A.D. 538, issued a Sunday law which concluded with the threat, "If anyone be found doing the works forbidden above, let him be punished, not as the civil authorities may direct, but as the ecclesiastical powers may determine" (p. 49). While Heiks claims that the Synod of Orleans was "not merely a provincial synod" (p. 48), there is no historical evidence that its decrees had any impact beyond the borders of the Frankish kingdom. In 1798 the "deadly wound" of Revelation 13:3 was inflicted on the papacy with the removal of the papacy from Rome by the army of Napoleon. This event is correctly seen as the terminal point of the 1260 and 1290-year prophecies. Adding 1335 years to 508 brings us to the year 1843 in which the Millerites expected the Second Advent and which, according to Heiks, indicates the commencement of the events of Revelation 10. "Without this prophecy of Revelation chapter ten, we, as a people, would be at a loss for a definitive date to identify the termination of the 1335-year prophecy and, in turn, the beginning of the prophetic fulfillment of the events in Revelation chapter ten" (p. 83). Heiks distinguishes between the fulfillment of the 1335-year prophecy in 1843 and the fulfillment of the 2300-year prophecy of Daniel 8:14 in 1844. In support he quotes (p. 83) from Leroy Froom's magnum opus The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers which says, "There were two major phases of the Millerite movement -the initial, or "1843," phase, and the later and larger "1844" phase, in Page 12 Reflections -A SRI Newsletter April 2008 which it reached its climax" (Le Roy E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1-4 [Washington: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1950], 4:445). Froom, however, ends the I335-year period in 1844 (see his chart in Prophetic Faith, 4:1128-1129), possibly because the last year of the 2300 year-prophecy extended from the fall of 1843 to the fall of 1844, overlapping the last year of the 1335-year prophecy. While the book provides some very interesting and important historical sources to bolster the historicist interpretation of the time prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, some items await further clarification. It is hoped that the comprehensive book, which Heiks has promised, will do just that. In the meantime, every Adventist interested in the historicist interpretation of the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation will do well to take note of this book. Gerhard Pfandl, Ph.D. — Biblical Research Institute of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists
|
||||
The "DAILY" Source Book- Revised -
“I read on and could find no other case in which it [the “daily”] was found, but in Daniel. I then took those words which stood in connection with it, ‘take away,’ He shall take away the daily, ‘from the time the daily shall be taken away,’ etc. I read on and, thought I should find no light on the text; finally I came to 2 Thess. 2:7, 8. ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work, only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way, and then shall that wicked be revealed,’ etc. And when I had come to that text, O how clear and glorious the truth appeared. There it is! That is ‘the daily!’ Well now what does Paul mean by ‘he who now letteth,’ or hindereth: By ‘the man of sin,’ and ‘the wicked,’ popery is meant. Well what is it which hinders popery from being revealed? Why it is paganism; well then ‘the daily’ must mean paganism.”—Miller, quoted in Signs of the Times, Nov. 16, 1842, p. 66, col. 3. However, Ellen White also quotes 2 Thess. 2:7–8 and clearly explains her definitive definition as such to be the Papacy that is to be “taken out of the way”: “‘The mystery of iniquity doth already work; only he who now letteth [hindereth] will let [hinder], until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.’ The prophet Daniel, de-scribing the same power, says, ‘He shall speak great words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High, and think to change times and laws.’ How strikingly have these prophecies been fulfilled by the Romish Church! . . . The mystery of iniquity, which had already begun to work in Paul’s day, will continue its work until it be taken out of the way at our Lord’s second coming.” Signs of the Times, June 12, 1893. Tired of all the Confusion on the "Daily"? Finally, a source that settles all these discrepancies and defines every conceivable issue and at the same time backs up every premise with full documentation. Included is an exposition on Daniel 8:9-14, 11:31 and 12:11 with rewards offered for evidence contrary to the evidence set forth in this book that enhances a deeper fortified study of God's word and much more. Having completed the promised research on the prophetic periods of Daniel now available in three volumes (Vol. 1, A.D. 508 Source Book, Vol. 2, A.D. 538 Source Book, and Vol. 3, A.D. 1798 1843 Source Book) from Teach Services, Brushton, New York, I have felt the need to supply the reader with the latest primary sources in this volume as well. Included in this revised edition the reader will also find a refined format with footnotes. The motivation for this book, the overall goal in mind, is a united front in the face of the enemy. To that end is my sincere prayer. “Brother Heiks has spelled out many aspects of this great truth in his sound linguistic, exegetical, contextual and historical work on these pages.” William H. Shea, MD, Ph.D. |
||||
King of the North Book
This failure led to the development of the second view, what may be called the spiritual or symbolic interpretation. By the end of World War II most Adventist interpreters had adopted this view. In this case the king of the south no longer refers to Egypt, but it is seen as a symbol for an end time spiritual or political power. Likewise the king of the north is no longer Syria, but an alternate opposing spiritual or political power. In this school of thought search is made for a fitting application for these symbols and several possibilities need to be considered. Brother Heiks stands squarely within the parameters of the symbolic approach and he has given careful and detailed consideration to the possibilities that need to be examined in carrying out his search for the correct application of these symbols. William H. Shea, MD, Ph.D. |
|||
Vol. 1, A.D. 508 Source Book
Brother Heiks has spent many years of research studying the primary documents of church and political history that surround the important developments towards the end of the fifth century A. D. and the beginning of the sixth century. This was a time of immense political changes and those political changes directly influenced the course of church history. The research done by Heiks has turned up new material not previously recognized from this period and there have also been major revisions in the history of the period by scholars studying the religious and political history of the times. Central to this period is the year 508 which has significance for students of prophetic history who follow the historicist view of interpretation, as this is a pivotal date for one of the time periods at the end of the book of Daniel, along with the other time periods closely related to it. We appreciate the fine work that Brother Heiks has done in collecting and analyzing much of this obscure material. Students of political, religious and prophetic history are in his debt for this very useful work. William H. Shea, MD, Ph.D. * * * * * * * Heidi Heiks has produced and completed as promised a most thorough and timely study on the historical/prophetic dimensions of these four years. In many respects it is an original contribution, anchoring with great scholarly precision the reliability of the significance of these four dates. It will be a great read, not only for fellow scholars across the academic landscape, but equally so for the thoughtful layperson that enjoys documentation that guarantees deeper assurance in critical biblical study. It surely will not compete with anything else on the market. Anyone familiar with historical research will be gratified with the author's care and devotion to unvarnished facts and his articulateness in translating from the original languages. Perhaps someone somewhere will take issue with some aspect of this research. But if so, he would have to demolish the brick-by-brick structure that the author has constructed—and that seems to be an unlikely achievement. I was especially grateful for his writing style—his force, careful transitions, and absence of pretentiousness. This is an unexpected achievement in the world of scholarship. I predict that many teachers and pastors will use these three volumes as a basis for many church-sponsored study groups. I can't imagine an Adventist church that will overlook the power flowing through these pages. One of the most impressive features that make these books so timely and relevant is the linkage of the historical facts with the biblical anchorage and Ellen White's commentary. I found this three-fold connection to be rewarding and gratifying—not because I had hoped to find it so, but to see how deep this linkage is. Many good men and women have supported the century-old interpretation that the "daily" refers to paganism, rather than Christ's ministry in heaven. They have seen, for them, good reasons for this position. However, it seems to me that they will find this understanding worthy of further consideration. I am a wiser man after reading these books, not only for clearer reasons to see validity in 508, 538, 1798 and 1843, but also for the careful details describing the temporary demise of the papacy in 1798. Herbert Edgar Douglass, Th.D. * * * * * * * The apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation have received a variety of interpretations throughout church history. Of the three major schools of interpretation, historicism, futurism and preterism, historicism is the oldest, and until the nineteenth century it was the dominant school of interpretation. It can be traced back to some of the church fathers like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Jerome. It was taught by Joachim of Floris (1130-1202) in the twelfth century and became the standard interpretation of expositors until the time of the Counter Reformation. Historicists believe in the divine inspiration of the book of Daniel, that it was written in the sixth century B.C., and that its main prophecies cover the period from the Babylonian Empire to the second coming of Christ. Historicists generally agree that the four empires of Daniel 2 and 7 represent the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, and that the Little Horn in Daniel 7 is the papacy. A third factor common to all is their use of the year-day principle in interpreting most, if not all, the time prophecies in Daniel? A last point on which there is general agreement among historicists is the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. All historicist commentators agree that the focus of this prophecy is Jesus Christ and that He fulfilled it in His incarnation. Because historicists believe that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are fulfilled throughout the history, and particularly throughout the history of the Christian church, historical sources confirming the fulfillment of these prophecies are extremely important to historicist interpreters. The three volumes by Heidi Heiks contain not only a large amount of primary source material illustrating how the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were fulfilled in history, they also provide important background information. The backbone for the interpretation of the time prophecies found in Daniel and Revelation (3 ½ times, 1260, 1290, 1335 days and 42 months) is the year-day principle. The main points in support of it can be summarized as follows: 1) Since the visions in Daniel 7 and 8 are largely symbolic, with a number of different beasts representing important historical empires (7:37; 8:35, 20-21), the time periods (7:25; 8:14) should also be seen as symbolic. 2) The fact that the visions deal with the rise and fall of known empires in history which existed for hundreds of years indicates that the prophetic time periods must also cover long time periods. 3) In Daniel 7 the four beasts which together account for a reign of at least one thousand years are followed by the little horn power. It is the focus of the vision since it is most directly in opposition to God. Three and a half literal years for the struggle between the little horn and the Most High are out of proportion to the comprehensive scope of salvation history portrayed in this vision. The same applies to Revelation 12:6 and 14 where the one thousand and two hundred and sixty prophetic days or three and a half times cover most of the history between the First and Second Advents. 4) According to the context, the expressions "time, times, and half a time" (Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 12:14), "forty-two months" (Rev 11:2; 13:5), and "one thousand two hundred and sixty days" (Rev 11:3; 12:6) all apply to the same time period, but the natural expression "three years and six months" is not used once. The Holy Spirit seems, in a manner, to exhaust all the phrases by which the interval could be expressed, excluding always that one form which would be used of course in ordinary writing, and is used invariably in Scripture on other occasions, to denote the literal period. This variation is most significant if we accept the year-day system, but quite inexplicable on the other view. 5) The prophecies in Daniel 7-8, and 10-12 lead up to the "time of the end" (8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9) which is followed by the resurrection (12:2) and the setting up of God's everlasting kingdom (7:27). Literal time periods of a few years are not capable of reaching anywhere near the time of the end. Therefore, these prophetic time periods should be seen as symbolic, standing for long periods of actual time. 6) In Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 God deliberately used the day for a year principle as a teaching device. 7) In Dan 9:24-27 the 70-week time prophecy met its fulfillment at the exact time, if we use the year-day principle to interpret it. Many interpreters, who in other apocalyptic texts do not use the year-day principle, recognize that the 70 weeks are in fact "weeks of years" reaching from the Persian period to the time of Christ. Thus the pragmatic test in Daniel 9 confirms the validity of the year-day principle. The historicist method of interpretation is used by the angel in Daniel 7 and 8, explaining the various beast symbols as representing a sequence of political powers in history. Hence, it rests on a solid biblical and historical foundation; and in spite of what some may claim, it is not an outdated method belonging to the past but a valid principle of interpreting apocalyptic prophecies today. Heidi Heiks has put together an impressive array of historical material. One may disagree with his comments and interpretations of the sources, but one can hardly argue with the historical material itself. Students of prophetic history will find an abundance of information to facilitate the interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Gerhard Pfandl Ph.D. |
|||
Vol. 2, A.D. 538 Source Book
The year A.D. 538 was a landmark year for the beginning of the fulfillment of an important time prophecy that spans the Middle Ages. It is essential, therefore, that those who follow the historicist method of interpreting prophecy establish this fixed point as firmly as possible. Brother Heiks has done precisely that with this present study of the important events that occurred and documents what were developed that year. His related studies of A.D. 508 and A.D. 1798 are also recommended to complete this trilogy of important historical-prophetic studies. William H. Shea, MD, Ph.D. * * * * * * * Heidi Heiks has produced and completed as promised a most thorough and timely study on the historical/prophetic dimensions of these four years. In many respects it is an original contribution, anchoring with great scholarly precision the reliability of the significance of these four dates. It will be a great read, not only for fellow scholars across the academic landscape, but equally so for the thoughtful layperson that enjoys documentation that guarantees deeper assurance in critical biblical study. It surely will not compete with anything else on the market. Anyone familiar with historical research will be gratified with the author's care and devotion to unvarnished facts and his articulateness in translating from the original languages. Perhaps someone somewhere will take issue with some aspect of this research. But if so, he would have to demolish the brick-by-brick structure that the author has constructed—and that seems to be an unlikely achievement. I was especially grateful for his writing style—his force, careful transitions, and absence of pretentiousness. This is an unexpected achievement in the world of scholarship. I predict that many teachers and pastors will use these three volumes as a basis for many church-sponsored study groups. I can't imagine an Adventist church that will overlook the power flowing through these pages. One of the most impressive features that make these books so timely and relevant is the linkage of the historical facts with the biblical anchorage and Ellen White's commentary. I found this three-fold connection to be rewarding and gratifying—not because I had hoped to find it so, but to see how deep this linkage is. Many good men and women have supported the century-old interpretation that the "daily" refers to paganism, rather than Christ's ministry in heaven. They have seen, for them, good reasons for this position. However, it seems to me that they will find this understanding worthy of further consideration. I am a wiser man after reading these books, not only for clearer reasons to see validity in 508, 538, 1798 and 1843, but also for the careful details describing the temporary demise of the papacy in 1798. Herbert Edgar Douglass, Th.D. * * * * * * * The apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation have received a variety of interpretations throughout church history. Of the three major schools of interpretation, historicism, futurism and preterism, historicism is the oldest, and until the nineteenth century it was the dominant school of interpretation. It can be traced back to some of the church fathers like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Jerome. It was taught by Joachim of Floris (1130-1202) in the twelfth century and became the standard interpretation of expositors until the time of the Counter Reformation. Historicists believe in the divine inspiration of the book of Daniel, that it was written in the sixth century B.C., and that its main prophecies cover the period from the Babylonian Empire to the second coming of Christ. Historicists generally agree that the four empires of Daniel 2 and 7 represent the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, and that the Little Horn in Daniel 7 is the papacy. A third factor common to all is their use of the year-day principle in interpreting most, if not all, the time prophecies in Daniel? A last point on which there is general agreement among historicists is the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. All historicist commentators agree that the focus of this prophecy is Jesus Christ and that He fulfilled it in His incarnation. Because historicists believe that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are fulfilled throughout the history, and particularly throughout the history of the Christian church, historical sources confirming the fulfillment of these prophecies are extremely important to historicist interpreters. The three volumes by Heidi Heiks contain not only a large amount of primary source material illustrating how the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were fulfilled in history, they also provide important background information. The backbone for the interpretation of the time prophecies found in Daniel and Revelation (3 ½ times, 1260, 1290, 1335 days and 42 months) is the year-day principle. The main points in support of it can be summarized as follows: 1) Since the visions in Daniel 7 and 8 are largely symbolic, with a number of different beasts representing important historical empires (7:37; 8:35, 20-21), the time periods (7:25; 8:14) should also be seen as symbolic. 3) In Daniel 7 the four beasts which together account for a reign of at least one thousand years are followed by the little horn power. It is the focus of the vision since it is most directly in opposition to God. Three and a half literal years for the struggle between the little horn and the Most High are out of proportion to the comprehensive scope of salvation history portrayed in this vision. The same applies to Revelation 12:6 and 14 where the one thousand and two hundred and sixty prophetic days or three and a half times cover most of the history between the First and Second Advents. 4) According to the context, the expressions "time, times, and half a time" (Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 12:14), "forty-two months" (Rev 11:2; 13:5), and "one thousand two hundred and sixty days" (Rev 11:3; 12:6) all apply to the same time period, but the natural expression "three years and six months" is not used once. The Holy Spirit seems, in a manner, to exhaust all the phrases by which the interval could be expressed, excluding always that one form which would be used of course in ordinary writing, and is used invariably in Scripture on other occasions, to denote the literal period. This variation is most significant if we accept the year-day system, but quite inexplicable on the other view. 5) The prophecies in Daniel 7-8, and 10-12 lead up to the "time of the end" (8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9) which is followed by the resurrection (12:2) and the setting up of God's everlasting kingdom (7:27). Literal time periods of a few years are not capable of reaching anywhere near the time of the end. Therefore, these prophetic time periods should be seen as symbolic, standing for long periods of actual time. 6) In Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 God deliberately used the day for a year principle as a teaching device. 7) In Dan 9:24-27 the 70-week time prophecy met its fulfillment at the exact time, if we use the year-day principle to interpret it. Many interpreters, who in other apocalyptic texts do not use the year-day principle, recognize that the 70 weeks are in fact "weeks of years" reaching from the Persian period to the time of Christ. Thus the pragmatic test in Daniel 9 confirms the validity of the year-day principle. The historicist method of interpretation is used by the angel in Daniel 7 and 8, explaining the various beast symbols as representing a sequence of political powers in history. Hence, it rests on a solid biblical and historical foundation; and in spite of what some may claim, it is not an outdated method belonging to the past but a valid principle of interpreting apocalyptic prophecies today. Heidi Heiks has put together an impressive array of historical material. One may disagree with his comments and interpretations of the sources, but one can hardly argue with the historical material itself. Students of prophetic history will find an abundance of information to facilitate the interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. Gerhard Pfandl Ph.D. |
|||
Vol. 3, A.D. 1798 1843 Source Book
The events of the year 1798 and what followed immediately afterward are of great interest to students of history and prophecy. In this collection of primary and secondary documents compiled shortly thereafter, Brother Heiks has filled out the events surrounding the captivity of Pope Pius VI and the setting up of the Roman Republic through the eyes of those who participated in those events at the time. One can follow this course of events in intimate detail through the witness of those who favored such a change and those who did not. All of this makes the importance of those events much more clear and Brother Heiks is to be congratulated for bringing together these remarkable sources that provide so much detail in their witness. William H. Shea, MD, Ph.D. * * * * * * * Heidi Heiks has produced and completed as promised a most thorough and timely study on the historical/prophetic dimensions of these four years. In many respects it is an original contribution, anchoring with great scholarly precision the reliability of the significance of these four dates. It will be a great read, not only for fellow scholars across the academic landscape, but equally so for the thoughtful layperson that enjoys documentation that guarantees deeper assurance in critical biblical study. It surely will not compete with anything else on the market. Anyone familiar with historical research will be gratified with the author's care and devotion to unvarnished facts and his articulateness in translating from the original languages. Perhaps someone somewhere will take issue with some aspect of this research. But if so, he would have to demolish the brick-by-brick structure that the author has constructed—and that seems to be an unlikely achievement. I was especially grateful for his writing style—his force, careful transitions, and absence of pretentiousness. This is an unexpected achievement in the world of scholarship. I predict that many teachers and pastors will use these three volumes as a basis for many church-sponsored study groups. I can't imagine an Adventist church that will overlook the power flowing through these pages. One of the most impressive features that make these books so timely and relevant is the linkage of the historical facts with the biblical anchorage and Ellen White's commentary. I found this three-fold connection to be rewarding and gratifying—not because I had hoped to find it so, but to see how deep this linkage is. Many good men and women have supported the century-old interpretation that the "daily" refers to paganism, rather than Christ's ministry in heaven. They have seen, for them, good reasons for this position. However, it seems to me that they will find this understanding worthy of further consideration. I am a wiser man after reading these books, not only for clearer reasons to see validity in 508, 538, 1798 and 1843, but also for the careful details describing the temporary demise of the papacy in 1798. Herbert Edgar Douglass, Th.D. * * * * * * * The apocalyptic books of Daniel and Revelation have received a variety of interpretations throughout church history. Of the three major schools of interpretation, historicism, futurism and preterism, historicism is the oldest, and until the nineteenth century it was the dominant school of interpretation. It can be traced back to some of the church fathers like Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Jerome. It was taught by Joachim of Floris (1130-1202) in the twelfth century and became the standard interpretation of expositors until the time of the Counter Reformation. Historicists believe in the divine inspiration of the book of Daniel, that it was written in the sixth century B.C., and that its main prophecies cover the period from the Babylonian Empire to the second coming of Christ. Historicists generally agree that the four empires of Daniel 2 and 7 represent the kingdoms of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome, and that the Little Horn in Daniel 7 is the papacy. A third factor common to all is their use of the year-day principle in interpreting most, if not all, the time prophecies in Daniel? A last point on which there is general agreement among historicists is the prophecy in Daniel 9:24-27. All historicist commentators agree that the focus of this prophecy is Jesus Christ and that He fulfilled it in His incarnation. Because historicists believe that the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are fulfilled throughout the history, and particularly throughout the history of the Christian church, historical sources confirming the fulfillment of these prophecies are extremely important to historicist interpreters. The three volumes by Heidi Heiks contain not only a large amount of primary source material illustrating how the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation were fulfilled in history, they also provide important background information. The backbone for the interpretation of the time prophecies found in Daniel and Revelation (3 ½ times, 1260, 1290, 1335 days and 42 months) is the year-day principle. The main points in support of it can be summarized as follows: 1) Since the visions in Daniel 7 and 8 are largely symbolic, with a number of different beasts representing important historical empires (7:37; 8:35, 20-21), the time periods (7:25; 8:14) should also be seen as symbolic. 2) The fact that the visions deal with the rise and fall of known empires in history which existed for hundreds of years indicates that the prophetic time periods must also cover long time periods. 3) In Daniel 7 the four beasts which together account for a reign of at least one thousand years are followed by the little horn power. It is the focus of the vision since it is most directly in opposition to God. Three and a half literal years for the struggle between the little horn and the Most High are out of proportion to the comprehensive scope of salvation history portrayed in this vision. The same applies to Revelation 12:6 and 14 where the one thousand and two hundred and sixty prophetic days or three and a half times cover most of the history between the First and Second Advents. 4) According to the context, the expressions "time, times, and half a time" (Dan 7:25; 12:7; Rev 12:14), "forty-two months" (Rev 11:2; 13:5), and "one thousand two hundred and sixty days" (Rev 11:3; 12:6) all apply to the same time period, but the natural expression "three years and six months" is not used once. The Holy Spirit seems, in a manner, to exhaust all the phrases by which the interval could be expressed, excluding always that one form which would be used of course in ordinary writing, and is used invariably in Scripture on other occasions, to denote the literal period. This variation is most significant if we accept the year-day system, but quite inexplicable on the other view. 5) The prophecies in Daniel 7-8, and 10-12 lead up to the "time of the end" (8:17; 11:35, 40; 12:4, 9) which is followed by the resurrection (12:2) and the setting up of God's everlasting kingdom (7:27). Literal time periods of a few years are not capable of reaching anywhere near the time of the end. Therefore, these prophetic time periods should be seen as symbolic, standing for long periods of actual time. 6) In Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 God deliberately used the day for a year principle as a teaching device. 7) In Dan 9:24-27 the 70-week time prophecy met its fulfillment at the exact time, if we use the year-day principle to interpret it. Many interpreters, who in other apocalyptic texts do not use the year-day principle, recognize that the 70 weeks are in fact "weeks of years" reaching from the Persian period to the time of Christ. Thus the pragmatic test in Daniel 9 confirms the validity of the year-day principle. The historicist method of interpretation is used by the angel in Daniel 7 and 8, explaining the various beast symbols as representing a sequence of political powers in history. Hence, it rests on a solid biblical and historical foundation; and in spite of what some may claim, it is not an outdated method belonging to the past but a valid principle of interpreting apocalyptic prophecies today. Heidi Heiks has put together an impressive array of historical material. One may disagree with his comments and interpretations of the sources, but one can hardly argue with the historical material itself. Students of prophetic history will find an abundance of information to facilitate the interpretation of the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation. ******* |
|||
Heidi Heiks - The Source |
Hits:
|
Heidi Heiks has supplied us an excellent survey of the historical resources that
relate to the prophetic dates for the start of the 1260/1290-day prophecies. He has
delved into the primary sources in a way that few have done before him. It should be of assistance to all who study the prophecies of Daniel and Revelation from the standpoint of the historicist interpretation.
FOREWORD
FOREWORD 
FOREWORD