The matter of the interpretation of prophecy
is a subject that has had the interest of Christians for centuries. There are
four major schools of prophetic interpretation.
1.
Modernistic,
progressive scholars follow by and large the historical-critical method[1] and do not see any significant predictive element
in Biblical prophecy.[2] The function of the prophet is not to predict
(foretelling) but to proclaim (forth telling). This view of modern liberalism
(here used as a descriptive not pejorative term) allows at best a kind of
prognostication that is based on the superior insights
of a Biblical writer. It is not a divinely given prophecy in the sense of a
prediction about the future.[3] It has to be admitted that the
historical-critical reinterpretation of prophecy does not take the Biblical
text at face value, but treats it from modern presuppositions of how a Biblical
writer/editor should be evaluated from current perspectives.[4]
2.
Preterism
is a method of prophetic interpretation that does not have a yet to be expected
future fulfillment. All prophecies have been essentially
fulfilled in the past. As regards the books of Daniel and Revelation the
Preterist school holds that these books found their
fulfillment in the New Testament period that reaches to the early history of
the Christian church.[5]
3.
The
school of historicism takes the Biblical picture of prophetic prediction, also
long-range prediction, at face value. It also understands the matter of
conditional prophecy. More will be said about it in
the following discussion.
4.
The
fourth school is that of futurism[6] which has became
a major part of modern Dispensationalism. It will have the major concern of our
investigation.
Adventists are the proud inheritors,
preservers and supporters of the historicist method of prophetic interpretation
of the Bible. The historicist method, also described as the continuous historical
method, is linked with the outline prophecies of
Daniel and Revelation. The outline prophecies of these books trace the history
of world empires and subsequent divisions in an uninterrupted chain of
historical events to the Second Coming of Christ and beyond. In historicism,
prophecies about
This time-honored method of interpretation
had predominance for Bible believers from the beginning of Christianity well
into the beginning of the twentieth century.[7]
Historicism, however, has been eclipsed by futurism in popularity in much of
evangelical Christianity around the world in the latter part of this century.
Futurism is "knocking at our door,"[8] urging to be received in order
to modify, challenge, and, if possible, to alter and replace the historicist
method of prophetic interpretation which has so profoundly shaped Protestantism
and the Advent movement.
Futurism is essentially rooted in the
Counter-Reformation through the Jesuit scholar Francisco Ribera
(died 1591) who put prophetic fulfillment into the future. "In 1590, Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a
counter interpretation to the prevailing [historicist] view among Protestants
which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera
applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end time rather than
to the history of the Church. Antichrist would be a single evil person who
would be received by the Jews and would rebuild
Present-day futurism sees the establishment
of the State of Israel as a direct fulfillment of prophecy.[10]
Leon J. Wood, a prominent futurist-dispensational writer states, "The
clearest sign of Christ's return is the modern state of
There is an expected rebuilding of a temple
in
In futurism, there is the widely anticipated
"secret rapture"[16] of all true Christians in the near future before
the great tribulation takes place.[17] In historicism, believers will go
through the tribulation of "the time of trouble" unharmed; in
futurism, believers will be raptured
into heaven at the beginning of the tribulation. Only unbelievers will
experience the great tribulation in the end of time.
In futurism the great fulfillments are
projected into the future and they center around
"Modern Dispensationalism"[21] is rooted in the teachings of
John N. Darby (1800-1882),[22] a trained lawyer who became a prolific writer
with more than 53 volumes, each averaging some 400 pages.[23] Darby was one of
the early leaders of the Plymouth Brethren Movement in England.[24] In 1845 he
broke away over the issues of ecclesiology and prophecy to form the
"Exclusive Brethren," also known as "Darbyists."
The second key impulse for Dispensationalism came from Cyrus Ingersol
Scofield (1843-1921 ), a
lawyer and legislator from
There are a number of other
key names that shaped Dispensationalism. Among them are Lewis Sperry Chafer,[25] and more
recently Arno C. Gaebelein,
H.A. Ironside, Charles Caldwell Ryrie, J. Dwight
Pentecost, Leon J. Wood and, of course, John F. Walvoord,
the President Emeritus of Dallas Theological Seminary, among others. These
individuals are also key figures in futurism today.
Modern
Dispensationalism
has been popularized since 1909 by the Scofield
Reference Bible.[26] In recent years Hal Lindsey, whose book, The Late
Great Planet Earth,[27] is claimed to have been translated into over 30
languages and has sold over 30 million copies in its first ten years of
publication,[28] has brought untold popularity to futurist-Dispensationalism.[29]
The majority of popular radio and TV preachers around the world belong to the
futurist camp of prophetic interpretation. The futurist-dispensationalist approach is dominant among many
conservative Christians of many different Protestant churches on all
continents.
In contrast to "historicism"[30]
"futurism" is based on the literalistic method of dispensationalist
interpretational.[31] It has to be clearly understood
that in futurism prophetic fulfillment is based on the concept that all
promises made to ancient
There are three essential pillars of Dispensationalism wed to futurism: (1) The radical
distinction between
The distinction between
In futurism (and
Dispensationalism),
Any adequate understanding of the under
girding foundations of futurism must give full attention to the relationship of
the Church to
A complete picture of the differentiation
between
It is claimed that
the Church is an entity of an essentially spiritual type and the promises made
to ancient
How does this key pillar of
futurist-dispensational hermeneutic fare in light of the total Biblical
message? If it should turn out that the OT and the NT will not sustain such a
distinction, then the very foundation of futurism seems to be
destroyed. It would mean that the projection of events to be fulfilled
through "natural
Our attention must first turn to the OT. The
first fact is that in the OT the designation "
First, "
Second, the
Third, God made a covenant with
Fourth,
In the book of Amos
the picture is the same. The "remnant of Joseph" of which Amos
prophesied (5:15) is a faithful remnant from
Let us summarize. The term "
How is the designation "
There are two issues. One issue is the
identification of the Church as the Israel of God and the other issue is the
Church's inheritance of all OT promises. With regard to the second issue, i.e.
the inheritance of the OT promises by the Church, Vern S. Poythress
raises several questions, "To which Old Testament promises is Christ heir?
Is he an Israelite? Is he the offspring of Abraham? Is he the heir of
David?"[67] He answers by quoting 2 Corinthians 1:20, "For as many as may be the promises of God,
in Him they are yes" (NASB). In Christ all the
promises of God find their focus and fulfillment.
The second question can now be asked,
"Now to which of these promises are Christians heir
in union with Christ?"[68] We follow here the excellent points made by
Vern Poythress who points to passages from Paul to
answer this second key question. In
Paul adds additional points in his argument.
Gal 3:29 affirms unambiguously, "If you belong to Christ, then you are
Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Since in Galatians
there is an emphasis that "there is neither Jew nor Greek" (Gal
3:26-28) and the distinction between both are done away with, then Abraham's
seed consists of both Jews and Gentiles who have accepted Christ as their Lord
and Savior. The seed of Abraham are those who belong
to Christ and not those who are "natural
In Ephesians the
apostle continues to maintain that there is an integration of the Gentiles into
the community of the faithful. Gentiles, who were once "separated from Christ, . . . and strangers to the covenants of
promise" (Eph 2:12), are "no longer strangers and sojourners, but . .
. fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God"
(vs. 19). In Eph 3:5-6 Paul reaffirms that Gentile and Israelite believers are
together heirs of the promises of God, "the Gentiles are fellow-heirs and
fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus
through the gospel" (vs. 6, NASB). This Pauline depiction does not support
the distinction of "natural
The famous section of Rom 9-11 which climaxes
with the picture of the olive tree and the famous sentence "all
We may summarize the NT picture. The
consistent convergence of the NT evidence points in a single direction. The
"Israel of God" is the Church as the community of believers which is
made up of both converted Jews and Gentiles.[77]
Together they are the inheritors through Christ of all the covenant promises
ever made. Together they are the body of Christ in total unity. There is no
dispensation of the Church age for Gentiles and a dispensation for Jews
subsequent to that one. In Christ all things are
united. The total and full body of Christ of which Christ is the head cannot be
split apart into sequential Church and Israelite bodies.[78] Christ has but one
body of believing Jews and Gentiles. In short, both OT and NT agree that the
true
We need to inquire, How
are the territorial promises made by God with regard to the
Futurists-dispensationalists clearly maintain
that all the promises given to
A brief consideration on the issue of the
pillar of futurist-dispensational literal fulfillment of OT prophecies is in
order. In Dispensationalism and its attendant
futurism "literal" and "literalism" is central. J. Dwight
Pentecost writes, ". . . the primary consideration in relation to the
interpretation of prophecy is that, like all other areas of Biblical
interpretation, it must be interpreted literally."[82] Charles Ryrie
maintains that "Dispensationalism is the only
system that practices the literal principle of interpretation consistently.[83] He continues, "The literal interpretation of
Scripture leads naturally to a second feature--the literal fulfillment of Old
Testament prophecies. This is the basic tenet of [futurist] premillennial
eschatology."[84]
It would go far beyond the
confines of our purposes to engage in a detailed discussion on the correctness
and adequacy of the hermeneutical principle of "consistent literal"
interpretation or consistent literalism."[85] That has been done by others already and need not
be elaborated on here.[86]
For our purpose it
is much more important to investigate or at least highlight key principles of
prophetic interpretation which the Bible itself uses. In 2 Pet 1:20-21 we are
told, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of
scripture is a matter of one's own [private, KJV; NKJV] interpretation, because
no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit
spoke from God" (RSV). Peter is not announcing a "consistent literal
interpretation" or "consistent literalism," but an
interpretation under the control of the Holy Spirit who is the giver of all of
Scripture. Thus one's "own" or "private" interests in
interpretation remain under the control of the Bible, which is its own interpreter.[87]
"Is the principle of 'consistent
literalism' the legitimate method of interpreting Biblical
prophecies?"[88] As Christian interpreters, we cannot interpret the OT as
if the NT does not exist. As responsible interpreters of the Bible in its
entirety we must look how the Bible interpreted prophecy, or better how the
Bible reveals the fulfillment of prophecy.[89]
"Consistent literalism" holds that
God's promise that Abraham would inherit "all the
Futurism's insistence on "consistent
literalism" forces a meaning on the text which the
Biblical text and context resist. There is no statement
anywhere in the OT that God would guarantee to literal, natural
The claim for a "consistent
literalism" is also made with regard to the
Davidic covenant. Here is a key statement of a futurist, "According to the
established principles of interpretation the Davidic covenant demands a literal
fulfillment. This means that Christ must reign on David's throne on the earth
over David's people forever."[98] Of course, the Davidic covenant is also understood to be unconditional. The
conclusion that the Davidic covenant is totally unconditional and has to be
literally fulfilled is based only on a one-sided reading of the OT, not to
speak of the NT. Certainly God had promised in the covenant to David that
"he will raise up your descendant after you" (2 Sam 7:12) and
"your throne shall be established forever" (vs. 16). This is repeated in several parts of the OT (2 Sam 23:5; Ps
89:3-4, 26-28, 34; cf. Isa 55:3-4). But in Ps
132:11-12 the Davidic covenant is seen to be dependent on the following
condition, "If your sons will keep my covenant, and My testimony which I
will teach them, their sons will also sit upon your throne forever" (vs.
12, NASB). The conditionality of the Davidic covenant is undeniable.[99] Considering the condition of faithfulness to God's
testimony the conclusion that "Christ must reign on David's throne on
earth over David's people forever" is hardly faithful to the Biblical
witness itself.
It seems harsh but it is unavoidable to have
to conclude that "consistent literalism" cannot be reconciled with
the internal testimony of the Bible. "Consistent literalism" is an external
system that is forced on the Bible and does not allow
the Bible to speak on its own terms. Therefore, futurism seems to be a system
that forces meanings of the Bible that are out of harmony with the simple and
plain meaning of the witness of the OT and the witness of the OT and NT.
How are the promises about the land to be fulfilled? Since both the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants are conditional and since
it is an established Biblical reality that Israel of old did not remain faithful
and that it also rejected Christ, is it to be concluded that the land promises
are null and void, or that they are to be literally fulfilled to the "new
Israel" of believing Jews and Gentiles?
In the Sermon on the Mount
Christ gives the Beatitude, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit
the earth" (Matt 5:5). Hans LaRondelle states
that two conclusions have to be drawn: (1) Jesus Christ assigns in this
Beatitude the whole earth to his spiritual followers and in another one the
kingdom of heaven ("Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
kingdom of heaven" (vs. 31). Thus the inheritance
of the faithful ones is both heaven and earth. (2) The original promise made to
faithful Abraham is expanded for the Church to include the earth made new.[100]
Already the Psalmist had stated in Ps 37:11, 29 that the "meek" and
the "righteous" would inherit the "land" ( 'erets). The term for "land" here as even in
the original promises made to Abraham in the Hebrew is 'erets
which aside from having the meaning "land" means frequently
"earth."[101] Thus Christ brings out the larger meaning inherent in
the term used in the OT.
In Christ the land promises are expanded to
include the whole earth, but not in a literalistic way for the present earth.
Already in the OT there is the ultimate view that
God's people will be inheritors of a recreated new heaven and a new earth (Isa 65:1719). The condition for receiving the "new
haven and the new earth" is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
The letter to the Hebrews and the writings of
Paul agree that from the days when Christ had come and literal
The new covenant
The best question to ask is, How did Abraham
understand the covenant promises made to him?[102]
Abraham sojourned "by faith . . . in the land of promise as in a foreign
country, . . . for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder
and maker is God" (Heb 11:9-10, NKJV). The city he was looking for was not
the
It is helpful also to consider Heb 12:22,
"But you have come to
The book of Revelation reveals that the
covenant promises given to Abraham will not be literally
fulfilled to Jews during the millennium. Since any believer has
prophetically come to Mount Zion and the heavenly Jerusalem as Heb 12:22
affirms--and thus there is no need to wait for a millennial fulfillment as
futurists hold--the final reality of the fulfillment in its completeness awaits
the believer according to Rev 21-22. It will be fulfilled in its finality when
there will be a new heaven and a new earth. "Since Christians share in
Abraham's inheritance of the heavenly city now, they will share in it then
also."[103]
There are not many passages
in the Bible that have had as profound an influence on believers as Dan
9:24-27. Historically it has been
understood to be the most direct, most extensive, most precise, and most
detailed Messianic prophecy in the entire TO.[104]
For futurist-dispensationalists, in the words
of Alva J. McClain, "the predictions of the Seventy Weeks, [give] . . . the
indispensable key to all New Testament prophecy."[105] In addition,
the gap or parenthesis hypothesis of futurists, which holds that the Church is
completely ignored in Biblical prophecy, is based on their interpretation of
Dan 9:24-27.[106] Furthermore, the 70th week is for futurists non-consecutive,
separated from the 69 weeks and to be placed in the future. In this gap hypothesis the 70th week will commence with the secret
rapture when the Church is translated. It will conclude seven years later. At
its beginning a Roman prince will make a covenant with
the Jews, but this covenant will be broken in the middle of the week, or 3 1/2
years later, when "the time of trouble" begins. The final 3 1/2 years
come to an end with a "major world
war."[107] Then Christ descends to the
A gap hypothesis is also posited by the SDA
physician, Dr. Robert Hauser in his publications.[109] He denies that the
"little horn" of Dan 8 has any past fulfillment in ecclesiastical
Rome or the papacy. The "little horn" of Dan 8:11-12 is no human
power but Satan himself[110] who used pagan
Let us continue to investigate the basic
claims of futurists in the larger evangelical community. Futurists begin their
chronology of the Seventy Weeks in either 445 or 444 B.C. They take 69 weeks of
prophetic years of 360 days each (or 69 x 7 x 360) and multiply them to reach a
total of 173,880 calendar days.[118] This period of
time is deducted from either 445 B.C. for the older futurists or from 444 B.C.
for more recent ones. It is said to reach to the Triumphal Entry of Christ in
A.D. 33 or 34.[119] It will not be necessary to
discuss in detail the chronological problems, because that has been done
elsewhere.[120]
In brief, the following chronological
problems should be mentioned: (1) The 490 year
prophecy is reduced to only 478 (444+33=478) or at a maximum 479 (445+34) years.
Even with the 7 years in the future it does not reach
490 normal years. (2) The Seventy Week prophecy is torn apart so that there is
only a 69 plus 1 week prophecy. The text, however,
speaks of seventy weeks (Dan 9:24). (3) Futurists have to insert unaccounted
days to reach the Triumphal Entry. They are thus inconsistent with their
emphasis on consistent literalism." (4) Futurists take as their starting
point the decree of Nehemiah which most of them date to 445 B.C., but is
correctly dated to 444 B.C. Regardless of which date is chosen, the death of
Christ has to be dated later than seems possible,[121] if Nehemiah's decree is
chosen as the beginning.[122]
Historicists and futurists agree over against
historical-critics that this is a Messianic prophecy. But
futurists have made two major interpretational changes in Dan 9:24-27: (1)
Futurists have an interval, or what they have called a gap and parenthesis
between the 69 weeks and the 70th week. (2) Futurists have claimed that the
events of Dan 9:24 are still future.
Let us turn our attention to the claim that
Dan 9:24 has to be still future. Alva J. McClain maintains, "The
fulfillment of the tremendous events in verse 24 cannot be found anywhere in
history."[123] J. Dwight Pentecost holds that "the
prophecy [in vs. 24] anticipates the whole work of the Messiah for Israel: He
will redeem and He will reign at the expiration of the time stipulated in the
prophecy"[124] What is meant is that the six statements made in vs. 24 are
not literally fulfilled in Christ's life, death, resurrection and installation
to heavenly ministry.
"Everlasting righteousness" has not
come and "can refer only to the millennial kingdom promised
Is it true that a "fulfillment of the
tremendous events in verse 24 [of Dan 9] cannot be found anywhere in known
history"? Did not Jesus Christ bring about these events in his ministry,
life, death, resurrection and inauguration as heavenly High Priest? The
transgression was finished by
Dan 9:24 is fulfilled by and in Jesus Christ.
There is no need to separate this text from its context and to project it to
the future either into the 70th week or into the millennium as is done in
futurism.[127]
Futurists argue that there
is a "gap"[128] or "parenthesis"[129] between the 69th week
during which the Messiah is cut off and the 70th week.[130] The arguments used
for such a gap are as follow: (1) There are gaps in many passages of Scripture
which makes the gap in Daniel not unique.[131] Does this prove that there must
be a gap between Dan 9:26 and 27? Hardly so. (2) "The events of Daniel
9:26 require a gap," because "the destruction of the city and temple
did not take place until 70 A.D., or about forty years after the termination of
the sixty-ninth week.[132] (3) The NT teaches that Israel has been set aside
(Matt 23:37-39), and since the church now is not Israel a gap is needed until
the time comes when God will deal with them again.[133] This position has been
dealt with above. It is out of harmony with the NT evidence. (4) Jesus
Christ refers in Matt 24:15 to the "abomination of desolation," which
means the one mentioned in Dan 9:27.[134] McClain states, "Daniel put it
exactly in the middle of the Seventieth Week, while our Lord placed it at 'the end,'
just before His second coming in glory. Therefore, the Seventieth Week must
also come at the end of the present age just prior to Christ's coming in glory."[135]
Two of these four arguments call for
particular attention. The first one claims a gap because the destruction of
The first part of Dan 9:26 reads, "Then
after sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and having nothing, and the
people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the
sanctuary." There is a clear affirmation in this text that the certain
things are to happen after 62 weeks. However, this text does not refer to the
exact point in time when these events are to take place, except after 62 weeks.
In vs. 27 the detailed information about the exact time of the cutting off of the Messiah is provided. "In the middle of the
week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering" (vs. 27, NKJV). The
time of the death of the Messiah is now clearly specified.
It is in the "middle" of the final week. Futurists must force another
interpretation on the text, because in their reckoning the death of Christ
would have to be dated to A.D. 36, a date totally
ruled out by the chronology of the life of Christ. And there is no hint in the
text that the events of vs. 27 are to take place after those of vs. 26.[136] To the contrary, vs. 27 is so linked to vs. 26 that
it is a further explanation and amplification of what is summarized in the
previous verse. This kind of approach it typical of
Dan 9:24-27 and of the book of Daniel as a whole.
To our surprise, no exact time specification
is made with regard to the destruction of the "city and the sanctuary."
Are we to think that this may therefore not fall within the 70-week period?
This is not to be ruled out. May be we should not
demand more than the text specifies. E.J. Young gives the following explanation
on the relationship of the destruction of
Another view also builds on the idea of the
consequences of the cutting off of the Messiah Jesus
Christ. This position was recently outlined by William H. Shea in a carefully argued article on Dan 9:24-27.
He points out correctly that the word for "prince" is the same in vss. 25 and 26. This suggests that the "prince"
of vs. 25 is also the "prince" in vs. 26. In both cases the
"prince" (nagŒd) would then be the
Messiah.[139] "It follows then that He should
also be the Prince of the people who were to destroy the city and the temple
(vs. 26b)."[140] The Jews who rejected the Messiah were
thereby also destroying the city and the temple in that they started a
"chain of events which ultimately led to the destruction of Jerusalem by
the Romans.[141] In other words, the actions of rejecting Christ on the part of
"the people of the prince to come" destroyed both their city and
their temple.
Jesus in Matt 24:15 refers to "the
abomination of desolation" (KJV, NASB, NKJV), or "the desolating
sacrilege" (RSV), "the abominable and destructive thing" (NAB),
"the disastrous abomination" (JB) as other versions render this
phrase,[142] referred to by Daniel the prophet. This is undoubtedly a reference to something that is still
in the future. It cannot possibly refer to the temple desecration of Anitochus IV Epiphanes in the
second century B.C. in the mind of Jesus. From his point of view
it is still in the future. Exegetes have on the basis of Luke 21:20, "But
when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that the desolation
is at hand" (NASB), and the use of the word "desolation," which
is identical in Greek with the one in Matt 24:15, concluded that the
destruction foretold in Dan 9:27 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.
70. If one follows this line of exegesis, then there is
nothing that would indicate that this "abomination of desolation," as
futurists hold, is placed just before the Second Coming of Christ.[143] If Matt
24:15 is understood to quote Dan 9:27 (which is not absolutely sure) and if
Matt 24:15 refers to the Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, it would simply mean
that the consequences of what Christ had accomplished and the consequences of
Israel's rejection of Christ are reaped in the visible destruction of the city
and the temple in A.D. 70. Christ died during the 70th week and thus the
validity of the sacrifices in the temple had come to an end
regardless of how long they were carried on beyond His death. In the same way
in which the meaning of the sacrifices had ceased, so the meaning of the city
had ceased and come to an end regardless of how long
the city continued to be in existence. The physical destruction of both city
and temple is but a consequence of the loss of their validity and legitimacy through what had been accomplished by Christ
within the 70th week.
In conclusion, ample Biblical evidence
indicates that the arguments for the gap hypothesis fall far short of being
compelling. The Messianic prophecy of Dan 9:24-27 was totally
fulfilled in the past by and with Christ at its center. No future Roman
prince or Satanic prince or whatever is yet to come.
Every detail of prophecy has been fulfilled within the
seventy weeks. A faithful, literal exegesis does not support the gap theory.
The specific fulfillment of every detail proves that the longer outline prophecies
of Daniel that reach into our own time and beyond to the second coming of
Christ will receive an equally detailed fulfillment in the final parts of the
prophecies that are still awaiting fulfillment.
Within recent years the issue of dual or
twofold and multiple fulfillments of the prophecies of Daniel (and Revelation) has been raised.
We do not need to belabor the point that the
so-called "apotelesmatic principle" of
"multiple fulfillment" has been invoked in recent years.[144] The view that "prophecy [is] apotelesmatic"[145]
means on the part of the interpreter of prophecy that he/she must
"practice eclecticism."[146]
This eclecticism means, of course, that the
detail of prophecy has to be sacrificed for the sake
of some kind of larger scheme or principle that is repetitive or there could be
no "multiple fulfillment." The "apotelesmatic
principle" with its multiple fulfillment seems to
rob each prophecy of its specificity with which the prophecy has been endowed.
The Reformation has done away with the fourfold sense of Scripture by insisting
that there is but one plain meaning of the Bible. The "multiple fulfillment" idea is in a significant sense falling
back to the multiple senses of Scripture of medieval Catholic scholastic
theology. In any case, it is best to follow what the Bible itself reveals about
fulfillments.[147] To this we shall return shortly.
The second issue of is that of dual
fulfillment. Among a few recent Adventist lay persons
the idea has been advanced that there is in Dan 7:25 and Rev 13:5 a single
prophecy with a "dual fulfillment"[148] or a "double
fulfillment."[149] This "dual
fulfillment" concept is not to be identified with the "apotelesmatic principle."[150] The
prophecy must have had a first literal fulfillment in the past and "a
last-day application [fulfillment] must fulfill each specification of the
prophecy precisely."[151] A dual fulfillment is also posited for Dan
8:11-12, but not for the other verses in Dan 8.[152] The same dual fulfillment
is held for the "six specifications of [Dan] 9:24" which on the basis
of "the time frame of seventy sevens interpreted jubilee cycles . . . must
therefore have a last-day fulfillment."[153]
What basis is there for such scheme of
"dual fulfillment" or multiple fulfillment based on the "apotelesmatic principle"? P Any reader of the Bible
wants to follow the principles laid down by the Bible itself. The most straight forward approach to answer these questions is to
take a careful and determined look at the book of Daniel. Do these prophecies
with their symbols lead us to follow a dual or multiple fulfillment scheme? To follow the book of Daniel as a guide is proper
because that is where recent interpreters first make the claim of dual or
multiple fulfillments.
We should observe to begin with that it is
strange or unusual to pick out some texts here and there for more than one
fulfillment. Why should not the entire vision of Dan 8:1-14,
for example, have a dual or multiple fulfillment? Or
the whole of Dan 9:24-27? Why are bits and pieces of vision
or some parts of a larger whole selected? May it be that there is no way
to fit the whole vision or all of Dan 9:24-27 or all of Dan 12 into more than a
single fulfillment? The book of Daniel itself has a different picture, if
allowed to speak for itself.
Since the book of Daniel provides its own
interpretation, we have to suggest that it is normative. It sets the rule for
the meaning of each part and its fulfillment. Daniel himself is the divinely
appointed interpreter for the symbols of Dan 2. In Dan 2:38 the interpretation
of the "head of gold" is provided: "You are the head of gold. " The symbol of the "head of gold" has but
one fulfillment. In Dan 8:20 the "ram" with the "two horns"
are the "kings of Media and
This pattern holds true also for the time
elements of the various prophecies. The first time prophecy provided in the
book of Daniel refers to "seven times" relating to Nebuchadnezzar in
Dan 4:16, 23, 25, 32. The word for "times" (
In short, the evidence in the book of Daniel
for the fulfillment of any symbol or prophecy points uniquely and persistently
in but one direction, a consistent single fulfillment. Any different
meaning is out of harmony with the internal testimony of the book. This is
equally true for the time prophecies in Daniel. It does not seem coincidental
that the once-for-all-time fulfillment in Daniel is in agreement with time
prophecies throughout the entire OT. Each one of them has also a
once-for-all-time fulfillment.[155] This total
Biblical evidence from the old and New Testament does not lend any support for
any suggestion of dual or multiple fulfillments.
1.
For
a supportive book, see Edgar Krentz, The
Historical-Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975). For critical
reactions and /or rejection of the historical-critical method, see Walter Wink,
The Bible in Human Transformation. Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973); Gerhard Maier, Das
Ende der historisch-kritischen Methode
(2nd ed.;
2.
3.
The
End of the Historical-Critical Method (
4.
Publishing
House, 1974); Gerhard F. Hasel, Biblical
Interpretation Today (Washington,D.C.:
Biblical Research Institute, 1985).
5.
For example, Robert P. Carrol,
When Prophecy Failed. Cognitive Dissonance in the Prophetic Traditions of the Old Testament
(New York: Seabury Press, 1979), 112-120; Joseph
Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1983), 19- 52; Robert R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society- in Ancient Israel
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980).
6.
This
is well stated by Klaus Koch, The Prophets. The
Babylonian and Persian Periods (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 2:73-80, and G.
Ernest Wright, Isaiah "The Layman's Bible Commentary" (London: SCM
Pres, 1964), 8: "The prophet had thus messages for his own people in his
own day. It would not be within the primary function of his office to address
another people in another time than his owns.
7.
John
J. Collins, Daniel, 1-2 Maccabees (Wilmington, DE:
Glazier, 1981), 11-12, writes about "the authenticity of Daniel's
prophecies" as follows: "The issue is not whether a divinely inspired
prophet could have foretold the events which took place . . . years before they
occurred. The question is whether this possibility carries any probability: is
it the most satisfactory way to explain what we find in Daniel? Modern
[historical]critical scholarship has held that it is
not" (italics his).
8.
Charles
C. Ryrie, Biblical Theology of the New Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1959),
346.
9.
See
George Eldon Ladd, The Blessed Hope. A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and
the Rapture (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1956),
35-60.
10.
See
L. E. Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers: The
Historical Development of Prophetic Interpretation. 4
vols. (Washington: Review and Herald Publ. Assoc.,
1946-54).
11.
See
the paper produced by the Biblical Research Institute and Ellen G. White Estate
entitled, "Critique of Give Glory to Him by Robert Hauser" (August
1984). See the publications by Robert Hauser, Give Glory to Him. The Sanctuary
in the Book of Revelation (Angwin, CA: Robert Hauser,
1983); idem, Daniel, Revelation and the Final Generation (Angwin,
CA: Morningstar Ministries, 1987); idem, Solving Seven Ministries of the Gospel
(Angwin, CA: Morningstar Ministries, 1987). See also
Charles Wheeling, 4 Horns, 4 Beasts, & 4 Winds,
published in Countdown, vol. 7 (Jemison, AL: Countdown Ministries, 1986).
12.
Ladd,
The Blessed Hope, 37-38.
13.
So among others John F. Walvoord,
The Nations,
14.
Leon
J. Wood, The Bible and Future Events: An Introductory
Survey of Last-Day Events (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1973), p. 18.
15.
Hal
Lindsey, The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1970), p. 54.
16.
For
example, C. F. Baker, A Dispensational Theolocty lgrand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1973), p. 606.
17.
So Thomas S. McCall, "Problems in Rebuilding_ the
18.
John
F. Walvoord,
19.
John
F. Walvoord, The Rapture
Question (Rev. ed.; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
1979). Samuele Bacchiocchi,
The Advent Hope for Human Hopelessness (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical
Perspectives, 1986), pp. 213-62, provides an evaluation and critique of
futurist Dispensationalism. His
arguments against the "rapture" theory include: (1) The terminology
for the Second Coming of Christ in such passages as 1 Thess
3:13; 2 Thess 2:8; 1 Cor
1:7; 1 Tim 6:14 and Matt 24:27, 37, 39 provide evidence for a single, one-stage
and not a two-stage Second Coming; (2) Paul in 1 Thess
4:15-17 describes the Lord as descending "from heaven with a cry of
command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of
God," which are paralleled in Matt 24:31 and 1 Cor
15:52, and demonstrated that there is no "secret rapture"; (3) In
Matt 24:31 the rapture is placed after the tribulation and not before and
protection is granted in the tribulation (Rev 3:10). (4) The book of
Revelation gives no evidence for a pretribulation
rapture, but a Posttribulation return of the Lord
(pp. 246-51).
20.
See
J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come: A Study in biblical Eschatology (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1969), pp. 156-217.
21.
See
Charles L. Feinberg,
22.
Walvoord, The Nations,
23.
Pentecost,
pp. 340-58, with earlier literature; Paul Lee Tan, The Interpretation of
Prophecy (Winona Lake, IN: BMH Books, 1974), p. 349; Hal Lindsey, The Rapture:
Truth or Consequences (New York, 1983).
24.
This
designation is used by Arnold D. Ehlert,
A Bibliographic History of Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1965), p. 5, who provides a bibliographical study of earlier writers who
depict a "history of the subject of ages and dispensations." Ehlert seeks to show that
Dispensationalism
is old indeed. Nevertheless, "modern Dispensationalism"
seems to be unique. Simply to find pre-Darby writers who have dispensations
does not make them into dispensationalists. See the incisive critique by Vern
S. Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalism (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), pp.
9-11.
25.
John
N. Darby, The Collected Writings of John Nelson Darby,
ed. W. Kelly. 34 vols. (reprint;
26.
W.
G. Turner, John Nelson Darby (London: Hammond, 1944), pp. 13-15; C. B. Bass,
Backgrounds to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1960), pp. 48-99.
27.
H.
Pickering, Chief Men Among the Brethren (2nd ed.;
28.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas: Dallas
Seminary Press, 1936); idem, Systematic Theology. 8 vols.
(Dallas Dallas Seminary Press, 1947); idem, Major
Bible Themes, rev. by John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1974).
29.
Published initially by Oxford University Press in 1909. The New Scofield
Reference Bible was revised and appeared in 1967.
30.
Published first in
31.
So
claimed by Hal Lindsay in hi s subsequent book, The
1980's: Countdown to Armageddon (Toronto/New York, 1981), 4, 11.
32.
For sober reactions and critiques of Lindsey's futurism, see
George C. Miladin, Is This Really the End? A Reformed Analysis of 'The Late
Great Planet Earth' (Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack Publ. Co.,
1972); T. Boersma, Is the Bible and Jigsaw Puzzle..... An Evaluation of Hal Lindsey's Writing (St.
Catherine's, Canada, 1978); Cornelius vanderwaal, Hal
Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (St. Catherine's, Canada, 1978); Samuele Bacchiocchi, Hal
Lindsey's Prophetic Jigsaw Puzzle. Five Predictions that
Failed (Berrien Springs, MI: Biblical Perspectives, 1985).
33.
See
particularly the definitions provided in the dissertations of Samuel Nunez,
"The Vision of Daniel 8: Interpretations from 1700-1900" (Ph. D. diss., Andrews University, 1987), 1 0-11
; Gerhard Pf andl, "The Latter Days and
the Time of the End in the Book of Daniel," (Ph. D. diss.,
Andrews University, 1990), 5-6.
34.
For
the purpose of this study it will not be necessary to distinguish between
"futurists" and "dispensationalists" (see Pfandl, 7-8), because the latter are futurist in outlook.
35.
Crutchfield,
p. 244, states, "The bulk of end-time events is
still ahead of us as it was future to- those of the Biblical period."
Darby, Writings, 2:Prophetic No. 1, p. 279 had himself stated, "The greater
part of the prophecies, and, in a certain sense, we may say, all the
prophecies, will have their accomplishment at the expiration of the
dispensation in which we are.11
36.
C.
C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), pp. 156-76.
37. The seven dispensations in their classical form are those of "innocence" (Gen 1:26-3:24), "conscience" (Gen 4:1-7:24), "human government" (Gen 8:1-11:26), "promise" (Gen 11 :27-Ex 18), flaw" (Ex 19:1-Acts 1:26), "grace (Acts 2:1-Rev 19:21) and "kingdom" (Rev 20:1-6) according to Larry V. Crutchfield, "The Doctrine