plaisted@cs.unc.edu (David Plaisted) (06/09/90)
[edited] In <Jun.5.03.45.20.1990.18780@athos.rutgers.edu>, md89mch@cc.brunel.ac.uk (Martin Howe) asked about the meaning of the abomination of desolation in Matthew 24. The comment, (let the reader understand), seems to indicate that this prophecy was generally understood at the time, and that it was also a sensitive issue which had to be referred to indirectly. Also, the context indicates that the fulfillment of the prophecy is future. In general, there are three streams of prophetic interpretation: futurist, preterist, and historicist. The former places the fulfillments of Daniel and Revelation in the future, with a seven year reign of Antichrist or something similar. The next one places the fulfillments of these prophecies in the past, and refers to Antiochus Epiphanes as the antichrist. The historicist interpretation was universally adopted by the Protestant reformers. This interpretation places the fulfillment of Daniel and Revelation throughout history, from the time of Daniel through the Roman Empire to the second coming of Christ. This interpretation identifies the Papacy as the beast power of Daniel 7 and Revelation 13. In response to the use of the historicist approach by the Protestant reformers, the Pope commissioned two Jesuits, Ribera and Alcazar, to come up with alternate interepretations. They developed preterism and futurism. Since that time, the liberal Protestant churches have accepted preterism. The conservative ones have adopted futurism. The only denomination I know of that still holds to the historicist scheme is the Seventh-day Adventist church, and even there some have recently disputed it. It's interesting to note that the preterist view states that prophecy failed after Antiochus Epiphanes, since the kingdom of God should have been set up then. The futurist view inserts a 2000 year delay in places where it does not seem naturally to fit. The historicist view says that the abomination of desolation is the Roman power that would destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD, and that Christ was here referring to this. I have read that Christians, in response to this statement of Christ, fled Jerusalem when the Roman armies temporarily retreated, and saved their lives. However, I have not seen much in the way of original sources for this. Dave Plaisted plaisted@cs.unc.edu [This strikes me as basically an ad hominem attack. It implies that the Reformers view was correct, and that it is a Jesuit plot that has diverted Protestants from it. I think the truth is that the concept of the Pope as the anti-Christ was one that was understandable in the heat of the Reformation, but which has little to recommend it now. Identification of the Pope with the anti-Christ hardly seems to be a necessary part of the historicist view. --clh]