We are also informed that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own (natural, carnal) interpretation. All things conccerning the Word of God are revealed through the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:9-14). The revelation of the Spirrit will align perfectly with the Word of God - they are in complete harmony with each other - there is no difference between the Spirit and the Word - they agree as one.
There are a few simple rules we can apply to help in understanding prophecy. Firstly,there are general rules about interpreting scripure...
1. The rule of consistency - the correct interpretation of any text will not contradict any other statement of Scripture.
2.
A doctrine which appears in Scripture unambiguously only once
has equal authority to those which are frequently stated, being
equally the Word of God, and may not therefore be altered by
comparison with other texts.
3.
Since God has revealed his Word progressively in history, we
may expect that later texts may clarify or supplement those
which are earlier.
4. No later text should be understood as contradicting earlier texts.
5.
The illumination of the Holy Spirit, by means of which the
Word of God is received, should not be understood as
contraverting the mental processes (thereby avoiding in a
mystical fashion the general principles above), but rather as a
quickening or renewing of those faculties, so that they may function
as free from the normal presuppositions, prejudices, and other
encumbrances of sinful human nature (Rom. 12:2).
Interpreting Predictive Prophecy
The interpretation of prophecy is involved especially with prediction of events which were future from the standpoint of the original composition. Such predictions may have been fulfilled at some time now past or they may still await fulfillment. Although the general meaning of unfulfilled prophecies may be determined from the text, the full meaning may not be evident until the event predicted has actually occurred. It may be presupposed that the actual fulfillment of the prophecy in history will offer a correct alternative to previous misinterpretations. For this reason, it is to be assumed that the process of interpretation of historical prophecies is necessarily dynamic and progressive, every generation being responsible to study the prophecies and to discern the signs of its own times (Matt. 16:3).
Several principles for the study of prophecy require particular consideration:
1. It is necessary first to reiterate a fundamental general rule of interpretation. Prophecy must be allowed its ordinary, or common sense meaning. William LaSor states: “The literal interpretation of a prophecy is the only basis of objectivity. Without it, any interpreter, with his own system, can make any prophecy mean anything.” A literal interpretation in so far as possible accepts common figures of speech and symbols according to the manner in which they were likely to have been known and understood in the days of the writer. To the extent that certain prophecies may have been intentionally veiled, it is reasonable to suppose that they may have been intentionally veiled to the original reader, but intended to be understood at some future time when in the Divine providence the prophecy is unveiled.
2.
It is necessary to distinguish between conditional and
unconditional prophecy. A conditional prophecy, if the condition is
never met, will not be fulfilled. An example of such is Moses’
promise to Israel of God's blessings upon the nation pending
her obedience (Lev. 26:3-13). To determine whether a prophecy
is conditional, we are dependent upon the language of the
text. For example, Zech. 14:4, which states in terms
unqualified either by text or context, that one day the Lord
shall stand upon the Mount of Olives cannot rightly be discarded as a
conditional prophecy as some have done (see Ezek 36:22ff.).
3. It
is necessary to discover and give attention to biblical
interpretations of biblical prophecies. These must give
direction to any related prophetic exegesis. Some
interpretations are explicit, as Daniel’s interpretation of
Nebuchadnezzor’s dreams (Daniel 2, 4), or Jesus’ interpretation
of Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:18-21). Others consist only of allusive
references which must be searched out, such as Daniel's
quoting of Deuteronomy 32:34 (9:24) or Jesus' allusion to the
“days of vengeance” of Deuteronomy 32:35 (LXX; Lu. 21:22).
4.
It is necessary to study prophecy systematically throughout
the Scriptures. Prophecy is interwoven with redemptive history and
therefore is largely progressive and developmental by nature.
As Cachemaille well states, "We must begin at the beginning,
and work onwards; not at the ends to work backwards.”3 The
great prophecies of Moses in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28
are fundamental to an understanding of Daniel 9 or Matthew
24. Parallel prophecies must be searched out and compared, as
for example, those of Ezekiel 36-48 and Zechariah 9-14.
5. It
is necessary to distinguish between the message of the prophet
and the fulfillment. As a matter of procedure, the meaning
of the prophetic text should be determined first. Only after
this should the question of fulfillment considered. It is
true, however, that exegetical considerations which remain
obscure or ambiguous may be clarified immediately when the broad
outlines of the particular prophecy are recognized as fulfilled.
Nevertheless, the interpreter must resist the temptation to
wrongly identify the prophecy with a particular fulfillment in
order to accommodate it to a particular historical event or to
a particular prophetic system.
6.
It is necessary to recognize the first complete fulfillment
of a prophecy as the true fulfillment. Some prophecies are telescopic
with the result that fulfillment will occur partly at one time
and partly at
another.
An example of this is Joel 2-3, a partial fulfillment of which
occurred at Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21). This is commonly called
“double fulfillment,” a term which wrongly suggests double
meaning. The integrity of prophecy may be at stake in the
question of first fulfillment. See for example John the
Baptist’s question of Jesus, "Are you he who is to come, or
shall we look for another?" Jesus’ reply was to point up the
fact that He was indeed doing the works predicted of Messianic
times (see Isa 35:5, 6, 61:1; Matt 11:4).
The
question of fulfillment presupposes that the student of
prophecy must also be a student of history. One cannot
discover the fulfillment of Daniel 11 without learning in some
detail about the wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies
in the third and second centuries, B.C.,
and neither can he know which prophecies of the Apocalypse
have been fulfilled without a study of the history of the
church from the days of the Apostle John. “The true Church of
Christ has a perpetual interest in all the events of history;
and if patiently and reverently followed, no study will more richly
repay the devout disciple with spiritual profit and delight"
(Cachemaille, p. 11).
The Special Hermeneutics of Apocalyptic Prophecy
1. It is necessary to identify the literary type. The visions of Daniel and the vision of Revelation, for example, are expressions of the apocalyptic dream-vision format. (An early biblical model in some respects analogous is Joseph’s dream in Gen. 37:9-101. Several of Daniel’s visions, where the form is more extended, carry their own interpretations. In the classic dream-vision genre, future events are often portrayed as if experienced in symbolic representation, consecutively one after the other. These represent the progress of history from the time of the prophet (or from some other indicated time) and extend into the future, usually to the end time. (See in addition to Daniel and Revelation the extra-biblical IV Enoch 83-90; 93, 91:12-17; II Baruch 36-41; 53-74; IV Esdras 11-12.)
2. It
is necessary to recognize that the apocalyptic prophecies in
God’s Word are real prophecies, concerned with real temporal,
mundane future events which from the author's standpoint are
subject to future fulfillment. They are not to be understood
merely as a “philosophy of history”; that is, a disclosure of
principles which govern future events. This follows from the
manner in which the visions of Daniel are interpreted, as well
as from what is stated in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:1, 4:1).
3.
It is necessary to recognize the characteristic concern of
apocalyptic with the dualism of two world kingdoms, the rule of
God and the rule of Satan, Christ and Antichrist. Thus we are normally
and legitimately involved with such mundane matters as the
course of nations, world politics and human warfare (see, e.g.,
Daniel 11).
4.
It is necessary to distinguish between prophecies delivered
primarily to Israel as the covenant nation (Daniel) and those delivered
to the Church (Revelation), but at the same time to recognize
that the Gentile church is now "grafted in," that is, included
within the covenant framework and prophetic purview of
Israel.
5.
It is necessary to cope with the dramatic symbolism of
apocalyptic literature. Most of the symbols were derived from the
commonly known and understood language of the ancient
Orient. It has been learned recently from Vulgarity
literature that the seven-headed hydra or sea dragon is found
in Canaanite mythology. Others no doubt were originally
Babylonian or Persian. Some were astrological (as the sun, moon, and
stars of Joseph's dream), others heraldic (the four beasts of
Daniel 7). Greek mythology had similar composite monsters,
such as the sphinx (a lion-like creature with wings and human
head), the Chimera (a fire-breathing monster with a lion's
head, a goat's body, and the tail of a snake), or the Minotaur
(half-bull and half-human). All were enemies of mankind.
Numbers may be used as symbols, as for example, the number 666 (Rev.
13:18), where each figure has alphabetic value, or the "70
weeks" of Daniel 9, where the 70 "sevens" is traditionally
understood to mean 490 years.
Only
a very naive approach to Daniel or to Revelation would attempt
to take the symbols with concrete literalism. Interpreters
have little trouble with the beasts, but sometimes slip into
hyper-literalism with more comfortable imagery, like the rider
on the white horse in Revelation 19 or the falling of the
stars in Revelation 6. A study of the interpreted visions of Daniel
is helpful for developing our hermeneutic for Revelation.
The Year-Day Principle for the Interpretation of Numerical Prophecies
One
of the more controversial principles of prophetic
interpretation is the “year-day” principle. This is the
principle whereby chronological designations such as “day,”
“week,” or “month” are understood to be used symbolically.
This interpretation presupposes that “day” or its derivative
multiples used as symbols means “year” or corresponding
multiples of years, so that one “day” means one year, one
“week” means seven years, and so forth. The year-day
principle is explicitly indicated in several old Testament texts
(cited below), and is commonly applied to the “seventy weeks”
prophecy of Daniel 9, but is often rejected in the
interpretation of the Apocalypse. The following evidence
strongly supports a more general respect for the “year-day”
principle than is often allowed.
1.
The principle has the support of the nearly unanimous voice
of Protestant interpretation, especially with regard to the “70
weeks” of Daniel 9, from the Apostolic Church through the nineteenth
century. The current skepticism is characteristic of the
antisupernaturalistic attitude of our time. The negative
attitude of some conservatives appears to result both from a
somewhat simplistic and generalizing approach to prophetic
study and the tendency of some nineteenth-century historicists
to project dates for the return of Christ.
2.
The symbolic character of the Apocalyptic vision favors a
symbolic approach to the numerical chronologies which they contain.
Note also that the year-day formula is an appropriate mask for
the long periods of time involved. The 1000 years of
Revelation twenty may be literal since it occurs after the
second advent of Christ and therefore need not be veiled.
3.
The principle of counting years for days is clearly
established in non-apocalyptic portions of the Old Testament.
This provides a reasonable source for understanding the
numerical symbolism in the biblical apocalyptic. The relevant texts
are Num 14:34, "According to the number of days which you spied out
the land, forty days, for every day you shall bear your guilt a year,
even forty years, and you shall know My opposition," and Ezek
4:4-5, in which Ezekiel was to lie on his left side 390 days
for the Israel's punishment and on his right side 40 days for
the punishment of Judah, "for I have assigned you a number of
days corresponding to the years of their iniquity"
(NASB; emphasis mine). The obvious fulfillment of the Mosaic
prophecy was the forty years of Israel's wandering in the
wilderness. The rationale for the Ezekiel prophecy is less than clear,
but the principle of a year for each day is unambiguously
spelled out.
Note that in both of the above instances the year-day formula
is used in predictions of judgments against the covenant nation
of Israel.
4.
The principle is used in the “70 weeks” prophecy of Daniel
with regard to the appearance of the Messiah. This, though not
explicitly interpreted in the prophecy ("seventy sevens") is
accepted as standard usage (Hebrew shab‘uim = “heptad or seven [weeks] of years ”). The 490 year period thus extends from 458 B.C.-A.D. 33, B.C. 1 & A.D. 1, being the same year.
In
all occurrences of the year-day symbolism, a period of
judgment is predicted, suggesting that Num 14:34 is the
prototype for subsequent usage. In using the year-day
principle it is important to distinguish between interpretation and
application. Interpretation is concerned with the
"year" as a symbol in the text and utilizes a 360-day year.
Application applies the meaning of the text to history and involves real, 365¼-day years.
We
have now concluded our brief summary of principles for the
interpretation of biblical prophecy, in which we first introduced
as presuppositional some guidelines for general hermeneutics, then
offered
special rules for interpreting prophecy, followed by some of the more specialized requirements
of apocalyptic literature. The thoughtful student of
biblical prophecy will raise other questions requiring
further in-depth study of interpretive method. In no other
aspect of biblical study will one’s method more largely
predetermine the results of one’s quest for biblical truth.
(1) Literal
(2) Allegorical, Symbolic
There are 3 common approaches to interpreting REVELATION and DANIEL
(1) PRETERIST
(2) HISTORIST
(3) FUTURIST
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.