العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolDAY-YEAR PRINCIPLE
The 'day-year principle', 'year-day principle' or 'year-for-a-day principle' is a method of interpretation of Bible prophecy in which a ''day'' in apocalyptic prophecy is sometimes understood to represent a ''year'' of actual time. It is unique to the historicist school of prophetic interpretation. It is not popular among contemporary scholars, but was held by some Protestant Reformers, and is retained by groups such as the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Jehovah's Witnesses today.
The 'day-year principle' was first used in Christian exposition in 380 AD by Tychonius, who interpreted the three and a half days of Revelation 11:9 as three and a half years, writing 'three days and a half; that is, three years and six months' ('dies tres et dimidium; id est annos tres et menses sex'). In the 5th century Faustus gave the same interpretation of Revelation 11:9, writing 'three and a half days which correspond to three years and six months' ('Tres et dimidius dies tribus annis et sex mensibus respondent), and in c. 550 AD Primasius also gave the same interpretation, writing 'it is possible to understand the three days and a half as three years and six months' ('Tres dies et dimidium possumus intelligere tres annos et sex menses'.[1]
Primasius appears to have been the first to appeal directly to previous Biblical passages in order to substantiate the principle, referring to Numbers 14:34 ('More Scripturae loquentis utentes, quod dictium legius de quadraginta diebus quibus exploratores terram Channan circuierunt, anus pro die reputabitur; ut hic, versa vice, dies pro anno positus agnoscatur').[1]
The same interpretation was given by the later Christian expositors Bede (730 AD), as well as Anspert, Arethas, Haymo, and Berengaud (all of the ninth century).[3]
Very few of the Early Fathers actually commented on the three and a half days of Revelation 11. They are not expounded by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Cyprian, Jerome, or Augustine, even though these were the most prolific eschatological commentators among the Early Fathers (it is uncertain, but it seems Victorinus interpreted them as literal days). But of the three who did expound this time duration explicitly, all understood the three and a half days here to represent three and a half years.
The 'day-year principle' was first used in Jewish exposition in the ninth century by the Jewish Karaite scholar Benjamin Nahawandi, who interpreted the time periods of Daniel as pointing to the coming of the Messiah in AD 1010. The principle was subsequently adopted by other Jewish thinkers, and then by medieval Catholic theologians. The Joachimites pointed to the end of the Christian era in AD 1260 on the basis of the principle. Many of the Protestant Reformers accepted the day-year principle, but it has since fallen into disfavour among most Catholics and Protestants.
Proponents of the principle claim that it has three primary precedents in Scripture:
# . The Israelites will wander for 40 years in the wilderness, one year for every day spent by the spies in Canaan.
# . The prophet Ezekiel is commanded to lie on his left side for 390 days, followed by his right side for 40 days, to symbolize the equivalent number of years of punishment on Israel and Judah respectively.
# . This is known as the 70 weeks prophecy. The majority of scholars understand these 70 weeks to represent 70 weeks of years, thus being compatible with the day-year principle. However it must be pointed out that most of these scholars do not see the day-year principle as being necessary for this interpretation.
Also there is parallelism in the Hebrew Old Testament between the words ''day'' and ''year''. Supporters also use some other lines of evidence to establish the case for the method.
Historicist interpreters understand the 'three and a half days' of as three and a half years. They are usually understood to have taken place during the era of the French Revolution, between the years 1789 and 1796.
Historicist interpreters understand the time periods of "time, times and half a time", "3½ years", "1260 days" and "42 months" mentioned in Daniel and Revelation to be identical. They stand for 1260 years, which were fulfilled in the Middle and Dark Ages. (Seventh-day Adventists believe the prophecy stretches from 538AD to 1798AD).
These time periods occur precisely seven times in scripture, in , , , , , and .
The distinctly Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment, based on the 2300 day prophecy of , relies on the day-year principle. The 2300 days are understood to represent 2300 years stretching from 457BC, the starting date of the 70 weeks prophecy, to 1844AD, when the investigative judgment began.
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the "seven times" of Daniel 4:25 represents 2520 years (7 × 360) terminating in 1914, when Jesus became king in heaven, and began his rule amidst his enemies, invisible from Earth. (See Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses).
The day-year principle is used by descendants of the Adventist movement, as well as by Christadelphians (who developed independently of the Adventist movement); however it has very few supporters within mainstream evangelical Christianity and institutional Christian churches such as the Anglicans, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. Most theologians from the mainstream Christian denominations do not regard the principle as valid. In addition, there are a considerable number of people within the Seventh-day Adventist church who have questioned the validity of the day-year principle. Most notably, Desmond Ford challenged the use of the day-year principle in his critique of the investigative judgment doctrine.
Critics argue that Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:5, 6 do not satisfactorily establish the day-year principle. These verses give no indication that the words "day" or "year" are meant to be taken symbolically, nor do they indicate that a rule is being established to be used elsewhere in Scripture. The use of Daniel 9 to support the day-year principle is also criticised. The prophecy literally refers to seventy "sevens", rather than seventy "weeks", and the word "day" is not found in the passage.
It is pointed out that Adventists do not apply the day-year principle consistently. That is, there are other contexts, besides the 1260 and 2300 day prophecies, where the principle is not applied and references to time are taken literally. For example, the millennium of Revelation 20 is believed to be a literal millennium, rather than 365,000 years. The decision when to use the principle thus appears arbitrary.
A major criticism is that the Adventist application of the day-year principle to prophetic periods makes it impossible for Christ to have returned prior to the year 1798, when in fact the New Testament church believed themselves to be living in the "last days" () and expected the second coming of Christ to occur at any moment (Revelation 22:20). Christ himself is noted to have suggested to his followers that his coming could be within their lifetimes ().
However not all Adventists who believe in the day-year principle limit Jesus' second coming to a late date such as above. Instead, they emphasize the conditional nature of prophecy. In fact this point was debated during the writing of the ''Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary'', when associate editor Raymond Cottrell originally wrote that all prophecies are possibly conditional, whereas editor-in-chief F. D. Nichol modified the statement by adding a qualifier that the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are not conditional.[4]
Raymond Cottrell wrote about challenges presented to him as the associate editor of the ''Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary'',
:"What should an editor do with 'proof texts' that inherently do not prove what is traditionally attributed to them—as, for example, and ; and ; ; and ; and most of the texts usually cited with respect to 'the law'? In most of these and a number of other passages, pastoral concern led us to conclude that the ''Commentary'' was not the place to make an issue of the Bible versus the traditional interpretation, much as this disappointed us as Bible scholars and would be a disappointment to our scholarly friends who know better."[5]
The "us" Cottrell is referring to are the "[m]embers of the editorial team".[6] (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 are classic texts used to argue for the day-year principle.)
Besides Adventists, few others have been able to substantiate the interpretation that the 1260 days represents 1260 years spanning AD 538 and 1798. Secular historians generally do not regard this period of time as being particularly significant. Preterists interpret the 1260 days as a literal 3½ year period that was relevant to the original recipients of the prophecies, while futurists believe it is a literal 3½ year period in the Great Tribulation at the end of time (corresponding to the final "week" of Daniel 9 that is divided in half). Idealists note that 3½ is half of 7, the symbolic number for completeness, and therefore regard the prophecy as meaning that the powers of evil will operate for a limited time.
Critics of the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation point out that the word "day" does not appear in the Hebrew of Daniel 8:14; instead the phrase "evenings and mornings" is used, indicating that literal days, not symbolic ones, are in view. Virtually all non-Adventist exegetes of Daniel, and some Adventist exegetes (such as Desmond Ford and Raymond Cottrell), believe that the 2300-day period refers to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
★ Bible prophecy
★ Historicism (Christian eschatology), the school of prophetic interpretation which uses the day-year principle
★ Summary of Christian eschatological differences
★ Seventh-day Adventist theology
1. EB Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume III, page 280, fifth edition, 1862
2. EB Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume III, page 280, fifth edition, 1862
3. The Early Fathers - Times And Seasons
4. The Untold Story of the Bible Commentary by Raymond Cottrell in ''Spectrum'' 16:3 (August 1985), p.42
5. "The Untold Story of the Bible Commentary" by Raymond Cottrell in ''Spectrum'' 16:3 (August 1985), p. 35–51 (this quote from p. 43–44)
6. ibid., 43
★ William H. Shea, "Year-Day Principle, Part I," in ''Selected Studies in Prophetic Interpretation'' Review and Herald, 1982, page 56 (supporting)
★ ''Daniel and Revelation Committee Series'' contains two chapters defending the day-year principle
★ An appendix to ''Daniel'' by Desmond Ford (supporting). Note that the author has since changed his position, as in Comments on Lesson Nine: Day-Year Principle (refuting)
★ "Year Day Principle" by Lawrence R. Kellie (supporting)
★ "The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days" by Jerry Moon (supporting)
★ 1260 and 1290 as Both Days and Years in Biblical History by Dean Coombs (supports both views as complementary)
★ "A Linguist Examines the 'Year-Day Principle'" by Eduard Hanganu (refuting)
| Contents |
| History |
| Biblical basis |
| Applications |
| Three and a half day prophecy |
| 1260 day prophecy |
| 2300 day prophecy |
| Seven times |
| Criticism |
| 1260 day prophecy |
| 2300 day prophecy |
| See also |
| References |
| Resources |
History
The 'day-year principle' was first used in Christian exposition in 380 AD by Tychonius, who interpreted the three and a half days of Revelation 11:9 as three and a half years, writing 'three days and a half; that is, three years and six months' ('dies tres et dimidium; id est annos tres et menses sex'). In the 5th century Faustus gave the same interpretation of Revelation 11:9, writing 'three and a half days which correspond to three years and six months' ('Tres et dimidius dies tribus annis et sex mensibus respondent), and in c. 550 AD Primasius also gave the same interpretation, writing 'it is possible to understand the three days and a half as three years and six months' ('Tres dies et dimidium possumus intelligere tres annos et sex menses'.[1]
Primasius appears to have been the first to appeal directly to previous Biblical passages in order to substantiate the principle, referring to Numbers 14:34 ('More Scripturae loquentis utentes, quod dictium legius de quadraginta diebus quibus exploratores terram Channan circuierunt, anus pro die reputabitur; ut hic, versa vice, dies pro anno positus agnoscatur').[1]
The same interpretation was given by the later Christian expositors Bede (730 AD), as well as Anspert, Arethas, Haymo, and Berengaud (all of the ninth century).[3]
Very few of the Early Fathers actually commented on the three and a half days of Revelation 11. They are not expounded by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Cyprian, Jerome, or Augustine, even though these were the most prolific eschatological commentators among the Early Fathers (it is uncertain, but it seems Victorinus interpreted them as literal days). But of the three who did expound this time duration explicitly, all understood the three and a half days here to represent three and a half years.
The 'day-year principle' was first used in Jewish exposition in the ninth century by the Jewish Karaite scholar Benjamin Nahawandi, who interpreted the time periods of Daniel as pointing to the coming of the Messiah in AD 1010. The principle was subsequently adopted by other Jewish thinkers, and then by medieval Catholic theologians. The Joachimites pointed to the end of the Christian era in AD 1260 on the basis of the principle. Many of the Protestant Reformers accepted the day-year principle, but it has since fallen into disfavour among most Catholics and Protestants.
Biblical basis
Proponents of the principle claim that it has three primary precedents in Scripture:
# . The Israelites will wander for 40 years in the wilderness, one year for every day spent by the spies in Canaan.
# . The prophet Ezekiel is commanded to lie on his left side for 390 days, followed by his right side for 40 days, to symbolize the equivalent number of years of punishment on Israel and Judah respectively.
# . This is known as the 70 weeks prophecy. The majority of scholars understand these 70 weeks to represent 70 weeks of years, thus being compatible with the day-year principle. However it must be pointed out that most of these scholars do not see the day-year principle as being necessary for this interpretation.
Also there is parallelism in the Hebrew Old Testament between the words ''day'' and ''year''. Supporters also use some other lines of evidence to establish the case for the method.
Applications
Three and a half day prophecy
Historicist interpreters understand the 'three and a half days' of as three and a half years. They are usually understood to have taken place during the era of the French Revolution, between the years 1789 and 1796.
1260 day prophecy
Historicist interpreters understand the time periods of "time, times and half a time", "3½ years", "1260 days" and "42 months" mentioned in Daniel and Revelation to be identical. They stand for 1260 years, which were fulfilled in the Middle and Dark Ages. (Seventh-day Adventists believe the prophecy stretches from 538AD to 1798AD).
These time periods occur precisely seven times in scripture, in , , , , , and .
2300 day prophecy
The distinctly Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the investigative judgment, based on the 2300 day prophecy of , relies on the day-year principle. The 2300 days are understood to represent 2300 years stretching from 457BC, the starting date of the 70 weeks prophecy, to 1844AD, when the investigative judgment began.
Seven times
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the "seven times" of Daniel 4:25 represents 2520 years (7 × 360) terminating in 1914, when Jesus became king in heaven, and began his rule amidst his enemies, invisible from Earth. (See Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Criticism
The day-year principle is used by descendants of the Adventist movement, as well as by Christadelphians (who developed independently of the Adventist movement); however it has very few supporters within mainstream evangelical Christianity and institutional Christian churches such as the Anglicans, Orthodox, and Roman Catholics. Most theologians from the mainstream Christian denominations do not regard the principle as valid. In addition, there are a considerable number of people within the Seventh-day Adventist church who have questioned the validity of the day-year principle. Most notably, Desmond Ford challenged the use of the day-year principle in his critique of the investigative judgment doctrine.
Critics argue that Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:5, 6 do not satisfactorily establish the day-year principle. These verses give no indication that the words "day" or "year" are meant to be taken symbolically, nor do they indicate that a rule is being established to be used elsewhere in Scripture. The use of Daniel 9 to support the day-year principle is also criticised. The prophecy literally refers to seventy "sevens", rather than seventy "weeks", and the word "day" is not found in the passage.
It is pointed out that Adventists do not apply the day-year principle consistently. That is, there are other contexts, besides the 1260 and 2300 day prophecies, where the principle is not applied and references to time are taken literally. For example, the millennium of Revelation 20 is believed to be a literal millennium, rather than 365,000 years. The decision when to use the principle thus appears arbitrary.
A major criticism is that the Adventist application of the day-year principle to prophetic periods makes it impossible for Christ to have returned prior to the year 1798, when in fact the New Testament church believed themselves to be living in the "last days" () and expected the second coming of Christ to occur at any moment (Revelation 22:20). Christ himself is noted to have suggested to his followers that his coming could be within their lifetimes ().
However not all Adventists who believe in the day-year principle limit Jesus' second coming to a late date such as above. Instead, they emphasize the conditional nature of prophecy. In fact this point was debated during the writing of the ''Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary'', when associate editor Raymond Cottrell originally wrote that all prophecies are possibly conditional, whereas editor-in-chief F. D. Nichol modified the statement by adding a qualifier that the apocalyptic prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are not conditional.[4]
Raymond Cottrell wrote about challenges presented to him as the associate editor of the ''Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary'',
:"What should an editor do with 'proof texts' that inherently do not prove what is traditionally attributed to them—as, for example, and ; and ; ; and ; and most of the texts usually cited with respect to 'the law'? In most of these and a number of other passages, pastoral concern led us to conclude that the ''Commentary'' was not the place to make an issue of the Bible versus the traditional interpretation, much as this disappointed us as Bible scholars and would be a disappointment to our scholarly friends who know better."[5]
The "us" Cottrell is referring to are the "[m]embers of the editorial team".[6] (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 are classic texts used to argue for the day-year principle.)
1260 day prophecy
Besides Adventists, few others have been able to substantiate the interpretation that the 1260 days represents 1260 years spanning AD 538 and 1798. Secular historians generally do not regard this period of time as being particularly significant. Preterists interpret the 1260 days as a literal 3½ year period that was relevant to the original recipients of the prophecies, while futurists believe it is a literal 3½ year period in the Great Tribulation at the end of time (corresponding to the final "week" of Daniel 9 that is divided in half). Idealists note that 3½ is half of 7, the symbolic number for completeness, and therefore regard the prophecy as meaning that the powers of evil will operate for a limited time.
2300 day prophecy
Critics of the traditional Seventh-day Adventist interpretation point out that the word "day" does not appear in the Hebrew of Daniel 8:14; instead the phrase "evenings and mornings" is used, indicating that literal days, not symbolic ones, are in view. Virtually all non-Adventist exegetes of Daniel, and some Adventist exegetes (such as Desmond Ford and Raymond Cottrell), believe that the 2300-day period refers to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.
See also
★ Bible prophecy
★ Historicism (Christian eschatology), the school of prophetic interpretation which uses the day-year principle
★ Summary of Christian eschatological differences
★ Seventh-day Adventist theology
References
1. EB Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume III, page 280, fifth edition, 1862
2. EB Elliott, 'Horae Apocalypticae', volume III, page 280, fifth edition, 1862
3. The Early Fathers - Times And Seasons
4. The Untold Story of the Bible Commentary by Raymond Cottrell in ''Spectrum'' 16:3 (August 1985), p.42
5. "The Untold Story of the Bible Commentary" by Raymond Cottrell in ''Spectrum'' 16:3 (August 1985), p. 35–51 (this quote from p. 43–44)
6. ibid., 43
Resources
★ William H. Shea, "Year-Day Principle, Part I," in ''Selected Studies in Prophetic Interpretation'' Review and Herald, 1982, page 56 (supporting)
★ ''Daniel and Revelation Committee Series'' contains two chapters defending the day-year principle
★ An appendix to ''Daniel'' by Desmond Ford (supporting). Note that the author has since changed his position, as in Comments on Lesson Nine: Day-Year Principle (refuting)
★ "Year Day Principle" by Lawrence R. Kellie (supporting)
★ "The Year-Day Principle and the 2300 Days" by Jerry Moon (supporting)
★ 1260 and 1290 as Both Days and Years in Biblical History by Dean Coombs (supports both views as complementary)
★ "A Linguist Examines the 'Year-Day Principle'" by Eduard Hanganu (refuting)
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
