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.
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.