Not because I don’t understand them but because I think I do, emphasis on the word “think.” To explain. The prophecies in Daniel and Revelation both appear to be failed prophecies when interpreted in their context by scholars. Daniel seems to be about the events concerning Antiochus Epiphanes and Revelation seems to be a prophecy about the imminent fall of the city of Rome and the Roman Empire and the second coming of Christ. The prophecy in Daniel gets everything right about the history of Antiochus right up until about Daniel 11:35-45 where the history goes off the rails. It likewise predicts the ressurection in the time of Antiochus which is before Jesus even incarnated. The Book of Revelation appears to be a polemic against the Roman Empire predicting that Christ will return and destroy it and bring in the new heaven and new earth. That didn’t happen.
Now hear me out. Paul in 2 Thesselonians 2 interprets Daniel 11 futuristically, and Jesus predicts the abomination of desolation happening in the future also. Is it possible that just in this one case, the case of prophecy, the cultural context of these prophecies are not the deciding factors in how to interpret them, that the evangelical fundamentalists are right that most of these prophecies refer to the future? After all prophecies speak of the future, and if they have not come true yet they must lie in the future right, no matter what scholars say about them? Maybe the prophecies are using doubles where they talk about one thing that seems to be present in the cultural context but the imagery being symbolic actually refers to a future time using these past things as types.
After all Daniel refers to these events as the time of the end and the world did not end under Antiochus.
This brings to mind something learned in grad school about ANE and OT prophecy: when actually foretelling events, a given prophecy can be “multi-barrelled”, i.e. referring to multiple events that fit a single pattern. The NT writers recognize this on occasion, taking a prophecy spoken for an earlier time yet applying it also to Jesus (the most famous example being “a virgin shall conceive”).
When it comes to apocalyptic literature this occurs sometimes in the sense that a prophecy isn’t spoken about a particular event at all but paints a picture of a type of event that will be repeated (e.g. “wars and rumors of wars”). Such prophecies can come in bundles that are organized thematically without attention to order, which fits John’s Apocalypse well.
So Daniel’s prophecy could have played out in Antiochus, then again with the Roman general Titus, and may yet have another fulfillment.
Prophecies aren’t necessarily about the future; that’s a Western concept that doesn’t fit well with the ANE, including the OT – they can speak to the present, describing/revealing what God is up to in current events. The original title of John’s book reflects the matter well: “Apocalypse” means “(a) revealing”, i.e. a message giving insight into what is “behind the scenes”, showing the meaning in apparently mundane events, and that revealing can look at the future, or the present, or even the past. In this connection it is worth noting that in many different generations of the church various Christians have seen the prophecies of John’s Apocalypse describing their own times, starting with the generation in which it was written and the one following (a big reason that it got into the canon).
There are some interesting philosophical views of history and how it works on the cosmic/divine scale that can tie into this, at least one of them mandating that certain event types will keep on repeating until the purpose or meaning of an age is fulfilled, almost a though history is marching in place until certain conditions are met – an idea that gets tied in with the biblical idea of “the fulness of time”.
That is most definately not quite right…it very much depends on which scholars!
Thje are some very very in depth studies done on Daniel and Revelation…particulary Antiochus Epiphanes. Whilst many claim he is the fulfillment of the abomination of desolation in Daniel, there is excellent evidence showing that this is totally wrong.
The Des Ford saga in the SDA church back in the 1980’s produced some excellent work on this very topic (by both sides of the debate)…Dr Ford though he was on a winner but got himself absolutely demolished when put to the test by other scholars within our church.
I dont have time now to present the evidence…ill get it when i come back on these forums next. The research paper by Dr Ford and the rebuttal to it are extensive but well worth the read.
Interestingly enough the interpretation of Daniel I have come across is that it was retro-written during the time of the Maccabes and the statue etc refer to the 4 maim eras leading up to Rome rather than some distant future.
Whatever, I think that the apocalyptic writings are a minefield that is best avoided by the common believer. In many respects the only advice is to be ready as if it was today, in terms of our relationship with God, but plan as if it is never coming in our lifetime.
I’ve heard it said that John’s Apocalypse is not meant to tell the future because of how ANE prophecy works but I just don’t buy it.
Revelation 1:1 “The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,”
He says hes prophecying future events, and close events at that.
My guess is that whoever said that is thinking of telling the future as producing a calendar of coming events; that would be a correct understanding of ANE prophecy.
One of my favorite movie lines in theological terms comes from the show Romancing the Stone, where near the end of the movie one of the villains says to another that he’ll be back soon. The second villain asks, “How soon?” and the answer is “Very soon!” The theological point is that “soon” in prophetic terms is more about themes of history than about timelines – for example, Jesus has been “coming soon” for two millennia now.
But it is also due to that very nature of ANE prophecy as thematic that allows “soon” to be temporally soon and remain temporally soon even after events that fulfill the prophecy – an understanding of the future that is linked to the understanding of an “age”, which isn’t a specific or even approximate period of time but is tied instead to the nature of what a given age is for and thus an age lasts however long it takes for the purpose to be met.
Both Daniel and Revelation are difficult to understand, not least because they were written for different audiences. Hence why scholars disagree on a correct interpretation. In general, parts of Daniel seem to refer to events in the near future (relative to Daniel’s time) and the far off future, ie centuries and possibly longer. I think that is one reason why Daniel is told to seal up the prophecies because some of them would not be fulfilled until the far off future. In contrast I think the reason John was told not to seal up the words given to him was because most of them, apart from the very end, would be fulfilled in the 1st century or so.
For example Daniel was told the messiah would come and be killed in AD 33, centuries after the time of writing (I appreciate there are different opinions on how to calculate the time, but many scholars opt for some time in the 30s). In Revelation, John refers to the beast of 666 fame. This was clearly Nero, thus rooting Revelation firmly in the 1st century. The readers of Revelation, particularly those of a Jewish background, would have worked that out as John wrote that they should. This is a reminder that ‘prophetic’ does not necessarily mean future but rather God showing what has already happened or is happening.
Martin Luther’s approach to the apocalyptic II Esdras was to throw his copy into the Elbe. Can’t say I blame him.
Fundamentally, we need to be asking what the passage intends to convey, rather than imposing our expectations. As with creation issues, a common error is to misread the passages as modernistic [future] historical or scientific writing. Apocalyptic passages use imagery from then-current and past events, among other sources, to illustrate theological points. If we approach them as the magic guide to predicting current events, we’ll come up with wrong ideas like everyone who has predicted the second coming for a date prior to right now. But seeking the theological purpose will be more fruitful. For example, what happens to the nations in the eschatological future? There are multiple mutually conflicting pictures used - being a part of the new kingdom, still being drawn in, being excluded … Each one is conveying a particular aspect, e.g., salvation extending to all peoples, the need for each to respond to the offer of salvation, the exclusion of evil and danger, etc.
But it’s very clear in both Daniel and Revelation that the author is attempting to predict the future, whether the near future or far future because both texts say as much. Taking them strictly theologically doesn’t work and violates the purpose of the texts in context.
But Daniel is the prophecy that had much of what it predicted come true at a later date and John’s prophecy did not come true in the first century. The 70 AD date of Revelation is untenable for many reasons, but nothing really happened under Domition matching the book.
Richard, with the exception of the timing of Daniels writings, i agree with you on the basic implication.
Even though i take a deep interest in prophetic writings, i accept that Christs parable of the 10 virgins is paramount and that the immediate fulfillment of Danirels prophecy was for the Roman times…that has always been an SDA belief too. Just that we see a second application of the prophecy, that it also applies to the time of the end just before the second coming …because of the dreams of Nebuchadnezzars statue…the stone cut without hands goes further than just the introduction of Christianity…it also refers to the time of the second coming of Christ and the NEw earth (Revelation 21)
Having said the above, i do think we should be ready because even the most prepared still slumbered and slept.
I believe that we should also at least know where the wedding is, how to recognise the signs…stuff like that. Hence the importance of the writings of Daniel. I also believe that unless we do read Daniel and understand it well, we cannot appreciate or truly understand the book of Revelation…and a misreading of Revelation can lead to catastrophic religious beliefs about the second coming,such as the woefully inept theology JW’s have regarding Armageddon and the rapture.
The JW rapture and dual social levels model after armageddon is a truly despicable doctrine given Christs model given during his ministry. I mean the idea that the lower level of the memberhsip in JW church doctrine must run for their lives to avoid the asteroid bombardment of the earth by God…those who survive it are saved, those who die were not saved…that is absurd and not remotely biblical.
The abhorent JW heresy is a classic reason why we should have a good understanding of bible theology.
as promised here are the links…I do not have digital word processed versions of either and they are long and involved reading. For those who dont like long reads, you can use normal literary knowledge to pluck the eyes of of the papers (ie the summaries contained within the documents )
A. Here is the link to Des Fords paper on the Day of Atonement…he rebutts SDA traditional theology here…
B. This is the response written by SDA scholar William Shea on the subject of Des Fords criticism of the SDA Heavenly Sanctuary Doctrine
I should also ackknowledge that as a person looking back at the history of what happened to Des Ford, I deeply regret and 100% dissagree with the actions taken against him and the ongoing persecution he and his family received as a result of his convictions. The church even refused to allow a memorial service to be given at Avondale College church in Cooranbong NSW after his death…i found this unbelievable and it angers me to even think about what happened there. The man may well have been wrong in his convictions (and i believe he was wrong) however, Des was a well respected former Adventist scholar who lectured at Avondale College…even my own father wouldnt allow Des to actively participate in Dads local church services in QLD (which i also robustly dissagreed with)…anyway given he [Des] was once head of the Theology department at that institution…anyway…ill swear if i go on with this so ill leave it there for now.
This just reminds me of how grateful i am that people who run this forum are more inclusive than the witness of the SDA church…if only the SDA institution could take a leaf out of this forums membership and could dissagree on theology but remain united in Christ.
only if you assume the prophetic is only about the future. It is often about revealing what has happened or is happening, as well as future events. Revelation is a drawing back of the curtain. John is told ‘Write, therefore, what you have seen, what is now and what will take place later.’
Predicting the future, yes, but not the way moderns tend to expect. Both Daniel and Revelation were written to communities under foreign domination with bouts of persecution, not to people leisurely seeking intellectual puzzles. The point is not to provide a system to identify the date of the second coming, but to encourage perseverance, warning of trials and promising ultimate reward. For example, rather than trying to identify one’s favorite politician as THE antichrist, we shoult be alert to the ways in which any particular individual, and human politics in general, represent attempts to replace God.
So you do not believe Mark 13 is also referring to the second coming of Christ? You dont see the direct link between Daniel 8:13 and Mark 13:26?
You dont see that in Daniel 9.27, Christ is specifically talking about a Roman abomination of desolation…its not selucid king because rome is in power during christs day…so this means that the antiochus epiphanese only interpretation is highly problematic.
Daniel 8:9-12 is clearly fulfilled in AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and the temple at the hands of Vespasian…are you aware of a suitable earlier temple destruction? The only other one i know about was at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar about 586 B.C (which predates this prophecy)
Given Christ in Mark is talking about the Second Coming…wouldnt you also agree that the time of the end in Daniel is also prophetic for end times ie second coming.
I agree with this statement. Just a little correction as highlighted by St Roymond, Nero died in A.D 68,69…a year or so before the temple destruction in A.D 70.
Emporer during Johns incarceration on Patmos was Domitian (a tyrant who banned free speech. died AD 96 - killed by his own wife)
How you can state the first sentence, then attribute the claim about creation in the second…worries me.
There are significant literary differences between the creation account and Daniels prophecies. For starters, genesis 1 and 2 very obviously names specifics days, people… the prophecies in Daniel 8 and 9 do not read anything like that. Itis clear they have futuristic significance. Given Christs update in Mark 13, then the apostle John providing even more in Revelation…the difference is unmistakable. Moses is very clearly defining a specific creation event…he even goes into detail about what order things were created…it [creation] is all historical, Daniels visions are very different.
Your position does seem sensible, but if they’re not predicting the future in ways we moderns expect then in what way were they predicting the future? For example when John says that he’s prophecying what must soon take place, what in your view was he prophesying would take place? And did it?
1 John 2:18 seems to express the same attitude:
“Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.”
This verse seems to lift up two interesting points:
the word antichrist is not tied to one person, it is used from all those who act as an antichrist (anti- = opposed to, against);
the writer probably expected a rapid return of Jesus but the way how the expression ‘the last hour’ is used is interesting as it seems to point to a time period (era) that is much longer than an hour, day, month or year.
These points warn against a too narrow literal interpretation of what John and the others wrote.
)