Biblical principles for Interpreting Apocalyptic prophecy by Oscar Mendoza Orbegoso

Biblical Principles for Interpreting Apocalyptic Prophecy Michigan Pastor’s Retreat Fall 2006 Richard M. Davidson Andrews University

Introduction In our previous study we looked at biblical principles for interpreting Old Testament classical prophecy (the major and minor Prophets excluding Daniel). Now we focus upon apocalyptic prophecy (Daniel and Revelation).1 The distinction between the two types of prophetic literature—classical and apocalyptic—is already suggested by their placement within the biblical canon of the Hebrew and Greek Testaments. In the final canonical arrangement of the Hebrew OT, the book of Daniel is not placed with the “Prophets” (nebî’îm) but in the third division of the canon, the “Writings” (ketûbîm). This is not because Daniel is a late production 1

I also include Jesus’ Olivet Discourse of Matt 24 as an apocalyptic prophecy. In Matt 23 we have recorded the Jewish leaders’ rejection of Jesus, the covenant curses (woes) pronounced against them (vv. 13–36), and the consequent withdrawal of geo-political Israel from the theocracy (vv. 37–39). (This does not mean that God has rejected Israel: see the previous study on classical prophecy for details.) Up until this time in Jesus’ ministry, He has been operating upon the plan of classical prophecy and the glorious destiny awaiting the geo-political entity of Israel (outlined in our previous study). But now, in Matt 24, Jesus moves from the mode of classical prophecy (what might have been for geo-political Israel) to apocalyptic (what will be), alluding to Daniel’s prophecy regarding Israel for the first time (v. 15). The movement of Matt 24 follows the basic apocalyptic pattern of the visions in Daniel, providing a historical sequence line from the time of Jesus to the end of the age (vv. 4–31), and then repeating the basic sequence in the further explanation and application of the sequence (vv. 32–44). For detailed treatment of Matt 24 as apocalyptic prophecy, see my study, “‘This Generation Shall Not Pass’ (Matt 24:34): Failed Or Fulfilled Prophecy?” in The Cosmic Battle for Planet Earth: Essays in Honor of Norman R. Gulley (ed. Ronald A. G. Du Preez and Jiøí Moskala; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, 2003), 307–319. 1

as critical scholars claim;2 rather, as we point out below, the book of Daniel has a different function than the classical prophets. Likewise, the book of Revelation is reserved for a separate position at the culmination of the NT witness. And the title of Revelation—Apocalypse—provides the name for this type of prophecy. I am convinced that one of the major mistakes of many Christian interpreters in general, and Seventh-day Adventists in particular, is the attempt to apply the principles for interpreting classical prophecy to apocalyptic prophecy, without understanding the unique characteristics of biblical apocalyptic that distinguish it from classical prophetic literature. This hermeneutical misstep is largely responsible for the misinterpretation of Dan 8:14 by those who reject the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine of the sanctuary,3 and the same mistake still underlies many of

For support of the early (sixth century B.C.) date of Daniel, and rejection of the Maccabean Hypothesis (which places the writing of Daniel in the second century B.C. at the time of Antiochus Epiphanes), see, e.g., Arthur J. Ferch, “Authorship, Theology, and Purpose of Daniel,” in Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies (ed. Frank B. Holbrook; Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 2; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1986), 3–83; and Gerhard F. Hasel, “Establishing a Date for the Book of Daniel,” in Symposium on Daniel: Introductory and Exegetical Studies (Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, 2; ed. Frank B. Holbrook; Washington, D.C.: Biblical Research Institute, General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 1986), 84–164. My colleague in the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University, Ji¡rí Moskala, wrote his doctoral dissertation at the Protestant Theological Faculty of Charles University in the Czech Republic critiquing the Maccabean Hypothesis, with the result that his major professor, once a staunch defender of the hypothesis, became convinced that it was no longer tenable in light of the evidence presented by Moskala. Moskala’s professor penned a glowing preface to the work and arranged for the dissertation to be published and distributed throughout the Czech Republic! (Unfortunately it has not yet been translated from the Czech language into English.) 3

See, e.g., Desmond Ford’s application of the “apotelesmatic principle” (multiple fulfillments) to Daniel, in his 991 page Glacier View manuscript of 1980, published as Daniel 8:14, The Day of Atonement, and the Investigative Judgment (Casselberry, Fla.: Euangelion Press, 1980). 2

the bizarre interpretations of Daniel and Revelation that I frequently encounter. Hence the need of carefully ascertaining the unique features of apocalyptic literature. Characteristics of Apocalyptic Literature 1. Primary focus upon the end-time. Whereas general, classical prophecy has as its primary focus local, national, contemporary scenes and events, the primary focus of apocalyptic is upon the universal sweep of history with an emphasis upon the end-time. It is true that in Daniel there are some narratives that describe contemporary events of Daniel’s day, with timeless application. But the visions of Daniel were not primarily recorded for the people of his day, as in classical prophecy. They were given for those who came later, who would be able to see that God was not taken by surprise, but knew which way Israel as a nation would choose to take with reference to His covenant. The book of Daniel makes this primary end-time focus explicit in Dan 12:4, where Daniel is instructed to seal up the entire book till the time of the end. In Rev 1–3 there are messages addressed to the seven local churches of Asia Minor, but even these messages depict the future sweep of history: “the things which are, and the things which will take place after this” (1:19).4 In Rev 4:1, John is invited to “come up” to see things that are to happen in the future, and the future sweep of history culminating in the end-time is the focus of the recapitulating visions of the remainder of the book. The book of Revelation presents

Adventist interpreters are divided over whether there is evidence for historical sequencing in the seven churches of Rev 2–3; I concur with those who see these not only as referring to the local situation in Asia Minor but also as predictive of the sweep of history. For internal textual indicators of sequencing in Rev 2–3, see, e.g., Jacques B. Doukhan, Secrets of Revelation: The Apocalypse through Hebrew Eyes (Hagerstown, Md.: Review and Herald, 2002), 25–50. 3

Daniel’s sealed book as open in the last days (Rev 10:1–2, 5–6; cf. Dan 12:7), and provides further revelation complementing the book of Daniel. 2. Eschatology from outside of history. In classical prophecy, eschatology and the windup of the Great Controversy is depicted as occurring largely from within history, utilizing God’s people, national, geo-political, ethnic Israel.5 But apocalyptic eschatology describes a final universal in-breaking of God from outside of history, bringing an end to human history as we know it and the final universal solution to the Great Controversy.6 This characteristic underscores once more the fundamentally different divine perspective between classical and apocalyptic literature. Classical literature reveals God’s original plan for the way the history of this world might unfold through his faithful covenant people. It shows us the heart of God longing for His plan to reach fulfillment through His people. It shows what might have been. But apocalyptic prophecy reveals that God has absolute foreknowledge and is not taken by surprise. He knows in detail what will happen, what the human choices will be. Daniel and Revelation were written to show what will be.7

See the previous presentation on classical prophecy for the synthesis of biblical evidence for God’s original plan for Israel as a geo-political entity. 6

See especially the climax of the various visions of Daniel and repetitive end-time scenes of Revelation: Dan 2:44–45; 7:13–14, 21–21, 26–27; 8:13–14, 25; 11:45; 12:1–4; Rev 1:7; 6:12–17; 11:15–18; 14:14–20; 16:1–21; 18:8–24; 19:2–3, 11–21; 20–22. 7

Some ask the question: what would have happened if the leaders of the covenant people had chosen differently; how would Daniel have been fulfilled, for example, in its prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Dan 9)? The answer is simple: if God in His foreknowledge saw beforehand that the leaders of the geo-political entity of Israel would have accepted the Messiah, and the geo-political nation of Israel would have enlarged their borders to encompass the world, then Daniel would not have been written! 4

3. Striking contrasts. While classical prophecy contains some contrasts (e.g., the two ways of the blessings and curses set before Israel, based upon Deut 27–28), apocalyptic contains striking contrasts which are sometimes called “dualism”. This is not Greek, Platonic dualism, which contrasts the transitory, inferior things of earthly matter with the eternal, sublime realm of timeless and spaceless spirit. Rather, apocalyptic has the “dualism” of biblical realism, contrasting good and evil, this age and the Age to Come (both within time), earth and heaven (both spatio-temporal realities), Christ and Satan, the righteous and the wicked, etc. These striking contrasts are apparent at every turn in both Daniel and Revelation. 4. Composite symbolism. A symbol is in itself a timeless representation of truth. Thus a lamb symbolizes innocence, a horn strength, etc. But symbols in Scripture often become the building blocks of prophecy and typology. Thus the sanctuary lamb symbolizes Christ the Lamb of God (John 1:29); the four horns and the little horn of Dan 7 represent specific political or religio-political powers. In classical prophecy there is limited amount of symbolism, mainly involving true-to-life symbols taken from the realm of nature (e.g., the unfruitful vineyard symbolizing unfaithful Israel in Isa 5, and majestic cedar representing exalted Judah in Ezek 17:22–24). In apocalyptic literature, however, there is a profusion of symbolism, often involving composite symbols of beasts with multiple heads and horns and features from several different animals (e.g., the lion with eagle’s wings in Dan 7:4 and the leopard with four wings and four heads in Dan 7:6). This kind of composite symbolism was common in the ancient Near Eastern countries such as Babylon and Medo-Persia, and thus God was using the type of language these nations would understand. God contextualizes in order to more effectively communicate His message. 5

Hence God employs a metal image when giving the sweep of history in a dream to Nebuchadnezzar because the king would clearly understand such symbolism. And He uses wild beasts in describing the same sweep of history in Daniel’s vision of ch. 7 (recorded in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Babylonian empire), since similar beasts decorated the Ishtar Gate of Babylon at the time of Daniel. But when God is addressing His own people in Dan 8 (in Hebrew), giving the same preview sweep of history, He uses symbolism of the sacrificial animals of the Israelite temple worship (in particular, the Day of Atonement!). He employs the most vivid way of communicating to the intended recipients, contextualizing without distorting. In the book of Revelation, the introduction (Rev 1:1) indicates that the entire book has been “signified” (sçmainô) by Christ to John, and is, like Daniel, filled with composite symbolism, often borrowed from the book of Daniel (e.g., the sea beast of Rev 13, with features of a leopard and bear and lion [v. 2], borrowed from Dan 7). In interpreting the symbols of apocalyptic, basic principles may be derived from Scripture’s own use of symbolism. As a practical guide, one may ask the following questions: a. Is the item under consideration in the passage clearly a symbol? (If the context is not figurative and/or the natural plain meaning makes sense, beware not to arbitrarily consider as symbolic what is meant to be taken literally. Remember also that some items are to be taken literally at the same time as they point symbolically beyond themselves; e.g. the heavenly sanctuary and its services portrayed in Daniel and Revelation are real, while also symbolizing the gospel realities centered in Jesus.) b. Is the interpretation of a given symbol provided in the immediate context of the symbol? (E.g., Dan 8:20–21; Rev 1:20; 4:5; 17:15.) 6

c. Is the meaning of the symbol given elsewhere in Scripture? (Use a concordance; see especially the symbols in Revelation derived from the Old Testament.) d. Does the symbol have more than one referent in different contexts? (E.g., “lion” refers to both Christ [Rev 5:5] and Satan [1 Pet 5:8].) e. Are there different symbols that may represent the same thing? (E.g., “lamb” and “lion” in Rev 5:5, 6 both refer to Christ.) f. Does the study of ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman symbolism shed light on the biblical symbol? (See commentaries on Daniel and Revelation for sources.) g. Which of the possible meanings of the symbol fits best within the immediate context of the passage under consideration? (Check for compatibility with the leading theme[s] developed in the passage and with the literary context and textual setting.) h. What contribution does this symbol make to the overall development of thought and structure in the passage? i. In the composite symbolism, what are the main points of the symbolic presentation? (Note that the symbol cannot be made to “stand on all fours.” Some details of the extended symbolism may simply round out the picture; a symbol is by nature a sign or figure that has fluidity and is only representative.) j. What is the historical fulfillment that exactly fits the predictive apocalyptic symbol? (Be careful to let the biblical picture be the controlling factor, not history; also do not “bend” the historical picture to fit the symbolism.)8 8

For further specific guidelines regarding the interpretation of apocalyptic symbols, see Kenneth Strand, “Foundational Principles of Interpretation,” in Symposium on Revelation— Book I (ed. Frank B. Holbrook; Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 6; Silver Spring, Md.: 7

5. Source of revelation in visions or dreams. In classical prophecy, the primary source of revelation is “the Word of the Lord” which is received by the inspired prophet. In the OT (outside of Daniel) there are about 1600 occurrences of four Hebrew words (in four different phrases with slight variations) which explicitly indicate that God has spoken: (1) “the utterance [ne’um] of Yahweh,” some 361 times; (2) “Thus says [’âmar] the Lord,” some 423 times; (3) “And God spoke [dibbçr],” some 422 times, and (4) the “word [dâbâr] of the Lord,” some 394 times. Numerous times are recorded the equivalency between the prophet’s message and the divine message: the prophet speaks for God (Exod 7:1,2; cf. Exod 4:15,16), God puts His words in the prophet’s mouth (Deut 18:18; Jer 1:9), the hand of the Lord is strong upon the prophet (Isa 8:11; Jer 15:17; Ezek 1:3; 3:22; 37:1), or the word of the Lord comes to him (Hos 1:1; Joel 1:1; Mic 1:1; etc.). Jeremiah (ch. 25) rebukes his audience for not listening to the prophets (v. 4), which is equated with not listening to the Lord (v. 7), and further equated with “His words” (v. 8). In the book of Daniel, instead of this language of “the word of the Lord,” one finds that the basis of apocalyptic revelation is usually the giving of visions or dreams (Dan 2, 7, 8), and is often accompanied by an angel interpreter (Dan 7:15–27; 8:15–26; 9:21–27; 10:10–21; 11:1–45; 12:1–4, 9–13). Regarding the entire book of Revelation, Jesus Christ “sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John” (1:1), and the book is largely composed of vision and audition

Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 22–27; Jon Paulien, “Interpreting Revelation’s Symbolism,” in Symposium on Revelation—Book I (ed. Frank B. Holbrook; Daniel and Revelation Committee Series 6; Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 73–97; and idem, “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic,” in Understanding Scripture: An Adventist Approach (ed. George W. Reid; Biblical Research Institute Studies 1; Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 2005), 255–258. 8

(e.g., Rev 1:10: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day”; Rev 4:1: “Come up here, and I will show you things which must take place after this”; and the numerous statements of John which structure much of the book: “And he showed me . . . ,” “And I saw . . . ,” “And I heard . . .”). 6. Divine sovereignty and unconditionality. In classical prophecy, conditionality is a fundamental feature, as two possible scenarios are delineated to the prophet’s own generation, the way of blessing or curse, dependent on the covenant response of the people (even though, as we saw in the previous presentation, the ultimate fulfillment of covenant promises to God’s faithful remnant is certain). In the predictive sections of both Daniel and Revelation there is a lack of the conditional element. In Daniel, God’s sovereignty and control over history are revealed as Daniel is shown not what might be for Israel and other nations, but (from the vantage point of God’s foreknowledge) what will be. There is no presentation of the alternatives of blessings and curses for obedience or rebellion. Rather, God reveals in unbroken succession the rise and fall of nations from Daniel’s day to the end of time. The same historical sweep of history from John’s day to the end is found in Revelation. Though Revelation does present calls for individuals to align themselves with the side of Christ in the cosmic struggle (see the appeals to the seven churches in Rev 2–3), at the same time the sequence of historical progression of the cosmic drama is presented as fixed and unalterable.9 9

This is not to say that God is deterministic in the sense that He violates human free will. The fact that God knows the future does not imply that he has forced humans against their free will. For a helpful discussion on the relationship of divine sovereignty and free will, see esp. William Lane Craig, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987). Hence I avoid the term “determinism” in this discussion. The solution offered by open theism, that God does not know the future, but works in history to make happen what He predicts, actually is no solution, since if God does not know 9

7. The full sweep of history from prophet’s time to the end. In classical prophecy, as we have noted in the previous presentation, there is often “prophetic telescoping,” in which the prophet jumps from the local, contemporary crisis to the eschatological Day of the Lord (e.g., Joel 2–3), or from one peak of the predictive fulfillment to another, without reference to the valley(s) in between them. By contrast, in apocalyptic literature, the visions given to the prophet often present the full sweep of history from the time of the prophet to the end of time, with no gap between the local setting and the final end, or between the different stages of the prophetic fulfillment. Thus there is no room for multiple fulfillments, or various stages of fulfillment (as in classical prophecy). This implies the historicist method of interpretation for these apocalyptic prophecies. The next section of this presentation looks more closely at the historicist method of interpretation, and critiques the other main methods set forth by scholars for interpreting apocalyptic literature. The Historicist Approach Vs. Other Schools of Prophetic Interpretation There are four major schools of interpretation for biblical apocalyptic literature. The consistent approach of the early church and all the Reformers was historicist, which recognized that the visions of Daniel and John span the entire period of history from the prophet’s day till the end of time and beyond. A second major approach, the preterist, arising in the time of the Catholic Counter-Reformation (traceable to the Jesuit scholar Alcazar, and now embraced by most mainline Protestants), insists that the apocalyptic prophecies focused mainly on the past

the future, then He must force, even manipulate history (and agents in human history) so that the sweep of successive empires fits His prediction. 10

(especially the time of Antiochus Epiphanes for Daniel and the Roman emperors for Revelation). A third approach, the futurist, also arising in the Counter-Reformation (traceable to the Jesuit scholar Ribera and now adopted by many dispensational interpreters), argues that the apocalyptic prophecies focus mainly on the future (especially the person of the Antichrist). Finally an idealist school maintains that Daniel and Revelation gives a generalized portrayal of struggle between good and evil but refuses to make application of the various symbols to specific historical fulfillments. The apocalyptic literature of Daniel and Revelation provides internal indicators that historicism is the appropriate method of prophetic interpretation. First, the angel interpreter in Daniel shows that the symbols of apocalyptic do have specific historical referents, not just idealized portraits as with the idealist school (see, e.g., Dan 8:18–26). Further, the apocalyptic visions of both Daniel and Revelation make clear that they present an unbroken sequence of history from the prophet’s day to the end of the world. Each major vision of Daniel (2, 7, 8, 11) and the historical half of Revelation (churches, seals, trumpets) recapitulates this sweep of history from different perspectives and with new details.10 Thus only the historicist school, and not the preterist (which claims the angel interpreter is often mistaken and acknowledges that prophecy fails in the prophet’s own day)11 or the futurist (who 10

For evidence of this sequencing (in the shifts of words, phrases, and tenses) in the apocalyptic visions, see Paulien, “The Hermeneutics of Biblical Apocalyptic,” 253–255. Paulien (154–155) also points to what he calls “character introductions” which form a prelude to some of the sequences in Revelation; John provides a general summary of the pedigree of a character before depicting the sequence of events and actions involving the character in the main vision (see, e.g., Rev 11:3–6; 12:1–2). 11

With regard to Daniel, preterist interpreters regularly separate the kingdoms of Media and Persia into two kingdoms, in order to make the sweep of prophecy end in the time of the 11

must posit a gap of nearly 2000 years in Dan 9, between the 69th and 70th week, when the text gives no hint of such), is able to do justice to this point. Another support for the historicist interpretation concerns the nature of the time prophecies. The time periods of apocalyptic are generally short—too short to be taken as actual time. They are also expressed in unusual Hebrew/Greek temporal terminology (2300 eveningsmornings; time, 2 times and half a time; 70 weeks; 42 months, 1290 days, 1335 days) that indicate their symbolical nature. Internal evidence within Daniel indicates that literal days in prophecy stand for longer periods of actual time (involving the day-year principle; Dan 8:1–13; 9:24–27; 11:6, 8, 13).12 This gives further support to the historicist interpretation, since the time prophecies cover virtually the whole sweep of history, not just brief periods in the past or future. See chart 1, “The Prophecies of Daniel,” for a summary of the contrasts between the historicist and other schools of prophetic interpretation for the book of Daniel.

Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes, whereas the angel interpreter makes clear that the MedoPersian Empire is to be taken together as one empire (Dan 8:20). Further, preterist interpreters see the recapitulating visions of Dan 2, 7, 8, and 11 climaxing in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, and thus must confess that the eternal kingdom that was predicted as coming immediately after this power never materialized, and hence the prophecies failed. 12

For twenty-three lines of biblical evidence supporting the year-day principle, most coming from the books of Daniel and Revelation, see esp. William Shea, Selected Studies on Prophetic Interpretation (Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, 1; Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald), 56–93. In the aftermath of the 1980 Glacier View Conference (at which time the validity of the year-day principle for apocalyptic prophecy was severely challenged), I personally had questions about the appropriateness of applying the passages traditionally used by Seventh-day Adventists to support the year-day principle—Num 14:34 and Ezek 4:6, both of which are found outside of apocalyptic prophecy. But after reading the evidence presented by William Shea, and examining this evidence for myself, I became more firmly convinced than ever of the validity of this biblical principle in interpreting the time prophecies of apocalyptic literature. Shea’s study is for me worth its weight in gold! 12

Chart 1: The Prophecies of Daniel

The Adventist historicist approach toward apocalyptic prophecy is clearly not a recent invention of the Millerites in the nineteenth century. It is the consistent view of the Protestant Reformers, and the Seventh-day Adventist church is virtually the only church left that holds aloft this biblically-based, Reformation torch on apocalyptic prophecy! The Mode of Fulfillment in the Apocalyptic Kingdom of God Prophecies Apocalyptic prophecy follows classical prophecy in the mode of fulfillment for prophecies related to the kingdom of Israel and its enemies, since both are interpreted against the backdrop of NT eschatology. As we pointed out in the previous study, the eschatology of the New Testament has three phases of fulfillment of the OT kingdom of God prophecies in the ”last days” (which begin with the first advent of Christ; Heb 1:1–2): (1) the literal, local phase of fulfillment at the time of Christ’s first coming; (2) the spiritual, universal phase of fulfillment in the time of the Christian church; and (3) the glorious, literal, universal, final phase of fulfillment at the second advent of Christ and beyond. The modality of fulfillment in each of the three phases is differentiated based on the physical and/or spiritual presence of Christ the King with regard to His kingdom. In Christ’s earthly ministry, when He was physically present, the fulfillment was literal and local, centered in Him. Since Christ ascended to heaven after His death and resurrection, He has been universally but only spiritually present (that is, through His Spirit), and thus during the time of the church the fulfillment is spiritual and universal. Finally, at the time of the second advent of Christ and beyond, when He physically returns and literally reunites the people of God to Himself, reunites the King with His kingdom, the fulfillment will be gloriously literal and universal.

In applying this Christ-centered principle of apocalyptic interpretation, one must determine to what phase of prophetic eschatology a given apocalyptic kingdom prophecy points, and then interpret that component in harmony with the mode of fulfillment of that stage. Thus before the cross, references to ethnic, geo-political Israel and her enemies are to be taken literally and locally. After the cross, in the time of the church, during the sweep of history the various elements regarding the kingdom of God (e.g., geographical and ethnic terms referring to Israel and her enemies) are to be interpreted spiritually and universally (e.g., Rev 2:9; 7:1–17; 17:1–6; 18); and at the culmination of history, with the literal second advent of Christ and after, the kingdom prophecy elements are interpreted literally and universally (literal 1000 years [no more year-day principle], literal descent of the New Jerusalem at the end of the millennium, literal and universal gathering of “Gog and Magog” [all God’s enemies] against the New Jerusalem, literal New Earth, etc., as depicted in Rev 20–22). Many of the major missteps in interpreting apocalyptic prophecy are taken when due regard for the appropriate mode of fulfillment is not given. For, example, those who take literally the geo-political references to Babylon and Jerusalem in their fulfillment during the time of the church, as applying, e.g., to modern-day Iraq or the State of Israel, fail to see that in this phase of eschatology the geo-political Israel-centered language is to be interpreted Christologically as references to a universal, spiritual warfare between the powers of good and evil, rather than to geographical localities. This was the mistake made by Uriah Smith when he interpreted the drying up of the Euphrates River in Rev 16:12 as a reference to the fall of modern-day Turkey, instead of recognizing the typology of the fall of literal Babylon in OT times (brought about by Cyrus’ diverting of the Euphrates River, the life-force of the city), to be fulfilled in antitype as 15

Jesus (the antitype of Cyrus) brings about the fall of spiritual Babylon and deliverance of God’s people.13 Although the mode of apocalyptic fulfillment of kingdom prophecy references is the same as classical, it must be underscored that unlike classical prophecy, specific apocalyptic passages refer to only one phase of fulfillment for each prophetic symbol, time element, or other feature. There is simply no room for several reapplications or stages of fulfillment of a given apocalyptic prediction, since there is an unbroken historical progression from the prophet’s day to the end of time.14 13

Uriah Smith’s view regarding the fall of Turkey was gently countered by Ellen White in the book Great Controversy. When she describes the seven plagues, she depicts the first five plagues in literal terms (see pp. 627–629 for plagues 1–4 and pp. 635–636 for the fifth plague), but in portraying the sixth plague, where one would expect reference to the drying up of the river Euphrates, instead of describing the fall of Turkey, she simply interpreted the language of Rev 16:12 in a Christ-centered way, as I have described above, in harmony with typology of the fall of Babylon in which the Euphrates was the river that supplied the life-blood to literal Babylon, represents the multitude who will give their life-support to spiritual Babylon (Rev 17:15) as it seeks to destroy the faithful remnant. The drying up of the river Euphrates is thus taking away (by the multitude) the life-support for Babylon, to make room for the kings from the East, which are the coming of Christ and His armies. In harmony with this typological interpretation, Ellen White simply wrote about the sixth plague: “The angry multitudes [represented by the “waters” of the Euphrates in Rev 17:15] are suddenly arrested. Their mocking cries die away. The objects of their murderous rage are forgotten” (GC 636). Then later on the next page she describes in literal terms the seventh plague, citing Rev 16:17–18. Instead of directly exposing Uriah Smith’s error on the sixth plague in a book filled with much truth, Ellen White supported the circulation of Smith’s book but quietly corrected this point of error. For discussion of this Christ-centered principle of interpretation, and its application to the sixth plague, see, esp., Louis Were, The Certainty of the Third Angel’s Message (Melbourne: Blackman, 1945; reprint Berrien Springs, Mich.: First Impression, 1979), idem, The Kings That Come from the Sunrising: A Survey, A Challenge, A Prophecy (Melbourne: Blackman, n.d.); and idem, The Fall of Babylon in Type and Antitype: Why Emphasised in God’s Last Day Message? (Melbourne: Blackman, 1952). 14

This does not mean that it is inappropriate to see the timeless moral principles represented in the apocalyptic prophecies that may be applicable at any time, such as the recognition of the basic principles of Babylon that may be found in various institutions or individuals down through history. This is the moral purpose of prophecy, as discussed in our 16

This point is underscored by the fact that the angel interpreter in apocalyptic literature consistently provides one, and only one, correct interpretation of each symbol and detail (see, e.g., Dan 8:18–26). Thus any dual application of the symbols or time periods of Daniel and Revelation, or reapplication to a future time for another (or multiple) fulfillment, is inappropriate. In light of this principle, one must reject the suggestion, for example, that the little horn of Dan 7 and 8 (= the antichrist of 2 Thess 2 and the sea beast mentioned in Rev 13) may refer both to the Papal system and to Islam. It is true that a few of the characteristics given to this power in Scripture may fit both the papacy and Islam. But as I have personally gone systematically through the biblical passages dealing with this power, I discovered more than 180 different characteristics given by the biblical writers! There is only one power that fits all of these characteristics, and that is the Papacy, not Islam. (See Appendix A for a listing of these characteristics.15) I do find the possibility of a role for Islam in apocalyptic prophecy at the endtime, with regard to the sixth trumpet of Revelation, but not as a dual fulfillment of prophecies pointing to the papacy.16 previous presentation. But the specific details of the apocalyptic prophecies are limited to one historical fulfillment, with no dual or multiple reapplication. 15

Appendix A lists 198 characteristics, but some are duplicates and some refer to the pagan phase of Rome and not the papal (these I have placed in brackets or parentheses). 16

For further evidence (beyond the classic treatment by Uriah Smith) that the sixth trumpet refers to Islamic judgment upon the papacy (especially during the time of the Ottoman Empire), see esp. Alberto R. Treiyer, The Seals and the Trumpets: Biblical and Historical Studies (n.p.: Distinctive Messages, 2005), 323–360. To this analysis, I add the observation that the seventh trumpet does not actually sound in Revelation until Rev 11:15, and this sounding seems to refer to the time of the Second Advent when “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever.” Ellen White interprets this verse in this way: “About His coming cluster the glories of that ‘restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.’ 17

Revelation 10:6 (in the context of vv. 9–11 and Rev 11:1) also indicates that there will be no more chronos (prophetic time) after the Great Disappointment and the start of the pre-Advent investigative judgment in 1844. Thus any setting of specific dates in the future is excluded by Scripture itself. For this reason, among many others, the time prophecies of Dan 12:7–12 are not to be interpreted as applying to future time periods or events after 1844, as some suggest. Rather, this section of Daniel is the conclusion or epilogue of the book, recapitulating and enlarging upon the visions of Daniel 7 and 8, and was fulfilled historically in the period of church history leading up to 1798 (the 3 ½ times and 1290 days) and 1844 (the 1335 days).17 See Appendix B, “The Time Relations of Daniel 12,” for summary of these points. Other Principles for Interpreting Apocalyptic Prophecy in Revelation

Acts 3:21. Then the long-continued rule of evil shall be broken; ‘the kingdoms of this world’ will become ‘the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever.’ Revelation 11:15" (GC 301). If the blowing of the seventh trumpet (and the third woe, Rev 11:14–15) refers to the second coming of Christ, then a case can be made that we are now still living in the time of the sixth trumpet (and the second woe), which does not come to an end till the great earthquake described in Rev 11:13 (see v. 14: “The second woe is past. Behold, the third woe is coming quickly.”) Even though the main time prophecy of the sixth trumpet, concerning the decline of the Islamic Ottoman Empire (Rev 9:15), was fulfilled ca. 1840 (or perhaps 1844, according to Treiyer, Seals and Trumpets, 340–342), the thrust of the sixth trumpet, i.e., Islam’s bringing of judgment upon apostate Christianity, could be still seen as applicable today. Note that Rev 10:7 speaks about “in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel” but a natural reading of the Greek implies (contra many commentaries) that the angel “is about to (Greek mello) sound” (as in the KJV) and has not actually yet sounded when the “mystery of God” is finished. Thus the last events on earth before the close of probation (the time we are living in now) seem to occur before the seventh trumpet is blown, during the continuation of the sixth trumpet, which may imply the ongoing power of Islam attacking apostate Christianity. This is only a tentative suggestion, that needs further study. 17

For discussion, see William Shea, Daniel 7–12 (The Abundant Life Bible Amplifier; Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1996), 217–223; and Gerhard Pfandl, The Time Prophecies in Daniel 12 (Biblical Research Institute Releases 5; Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 2005), 1–9. 18

Old Testament allusions and root prophecies. In the book of Revelation there are more than 630 allusions and verbal parallels to passages in the Old Testament.18 Out of 404 verses in the book of Revelation, at least 278 verses contain allusions (direct or indirect) to the Old Testament.19 Thus Revelation is a virtual mosaic of OT allusions. In order to rightly interpret the visions of Revelation, one must carefully identify the various allusions to the Old Testament that lie behind each scene.20 So, for example, the vision of Rev 4–5 is built upon the OT background of the coronation of Israel’s kings (Deut 17:18–20; 2 Kings 11:12); the seven seals of Rev 6:1–8:1 have as their OT background the covenant curses (Lev 26 and Deut 27–28); the sealing of the 144,000 in their foreheads (Rev 7:1–8), alludes to the mark placed upon the foreheads of God’s true people referring to the close of probation upon Judah (Ezek 9:4); John’s eating of the little book that was sweet as honey, before giving the message of an investigative judgment (Rev 10:8–11), harks back to Ezekiel’s eating of a scroll that tasted like honey, in the context of a message of investigative judgment (Ezek 3:1–3; cf. Ezek 3–8); the description of the 144,000 standing victoriously on the sea of glass in Rev 15:2–4 alludes to the Song of Moses sung after crossing the Red Sea (Exod 15); and, as we have seen above, the scene of the sixth

See The Greek New Testament, ed. Kurt Aland et al. (3rd ed.; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983), 901–911. 19

Henry B. Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John (New York: Macmillan, 1906; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1951), cxl–clviii, cited by Ranko Stefanovic, Revelation of Jesus Christ: Commentary on the Book of Revelation (Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 2002), 18. 20

For a helpful methodology to determine the degree of certainty that an OT allusion exists in any given passage of Revelation, see esp. Jon Paulien, Decoding Revelation’s Trumpets: Literary Allusions and the Interpretation of Revelation 8:7–12 (Andrews University Doctoral Dissertation Series 11; Berrien Springs, Mich.: Andrews University Press, 1988). 19

plague (drying up of the River Euphrates to make way for the kings from the East, Rev 16:12) is built upon the OT root prophecy (esp. Jer 50–51) of the conquering of Babylon (after diverting the River Euphrates) by Cyrus and the Medo-Persian armies. Sanctuary typology and the structure and flow of the book of Revelation. Literary analysis of Revelation has demonstrated the book’s basic chiastic literary arrangement,21 with paired halves of the book: historical (Rev 1–14) and eschatological (Rev 15–22), as well as chiastic matching of the corresponding subsections. Within this overall literary arrangement of Revelation, sanctuary typology plays a major role in providing structuring imagery for the book.22 There are seven introductory sanctuary scenes in Revelation which structure the seven sections of sevens in the book (see chart 2 below). The flow of these introductory sanctuary scenes highlights the progression of salvation history. The first three scenes (1:9–20; 4–5; 8:2–6) center in, or relate to, the holy place of the sanctuary, and thus serve to situate the temporal setting of the scenes within the time of Christ’s daily (tamîd) holy place ministry before 1844. This daily (tamîd) setting of Rev 1–8 is further substantiated as one finds striking parallels between the order of sanctuary allusions in Rev 1–8 and the description of the daily (tamîd) service described in the Mishnah.23

See, e.g., Kenneth Strand, Interpreting the Book of Revelation: Hermeneutical Guidelines to Literary Analysis (2nd ed.; Naples, Fla.: 1979), 43–52; C. Mervyn Maxwell, God Cares Vol. 2: The Message of Revelation for You and Your Family (Boise, Idaho: Pacific Press, 1985), 54–62. 22

For more detailed analysis of sanctuary typology in Revelation, see my study, “Sanctuary Typology,” in Symposium on Revelation—Book I (ed. Frank B. Holbrook; Daniel and Revelation Committee Series, 6; Silver Spring, Md.: Biblical Research Institute, 1992), 99–130. 23

See ibid., 113. 20

Within the basic linear plot highlighted by the introductory sanctuary scenes in the first half of Revelation, there is also a recapitulation schema similar to the visions of Daniel (2, 7, 8, 11). A historical progression follows each introductory sanctuary scene and moves in each major section through the sweep of the Christian era to terminate in a spotlight on last events and a description of the glorious climax.24 In Rev 11:19, the fourth introductory sanctuary scene, there is a shift of emphasis to the most holy place ministry and the Day of Atonement, and this Yom Kippur motif is sustained throughout the latter half of the book through chap. 20. The final sanctuary scene (Rev 21:1â&#x20AC;&#x201C;22:5) returns to earth at the windup of salvation history in the New Earth. Thus the introductory sanctuary scenes structure the book of Revelation and provide the keys for determining the temporal progression of the book. This structure may be summarized as follows:

See ibid., 115â&#x20AC;&#x201C;116; and Strand, Interpreting Revelation, 48. 21

Chart 2: The Seven Sanctuary Scenes And the Macro-Structure of the Book of Revelation

The linear plot of Revelation—with the historical half highlighting holy place ministry and the eschatological half highlighting most holy place ministry—is further supported by the sanctuary typology of the yearly cycle of Hebrew festivals. The overall structure of Revelation follows the sweep of salvation history as set forth in this OT festival typology. The first three introductory sanctuary scenes (and major sections of the book that follow them) place emphasis upon the three festivals leading up to Yom Kippur: Passover, Pentecost, and Trumpets, respectively. Beginning in Rev 11:19 and continuing on through Rev 20, as we have noted above, Day of Atonement themes predominate, including the investigative, review, and executive phases of final judgment. Then in Rev 21–22, “the tabernacle [skçnç] of God is with men” (21:3); Yom Kippur is over, and the eternal Feast of Tabernacles can commence! It is not an overstatement to conclude that the final book of the NT gathers all the major threads of OT sanctuary typology and weaves them into an intricate and beautiful tapestry to form the backdrop for the entire book. In the process, the prophet reveals the centrality and cruciality of the sanctuary motif for unlocking the structure, message, and meaning of the Apocalypse.25 Practical Steps for Interpretation As a practical guide for the interpretation of apocalyptic literature (Daniel and Revelation), ask the following: 1. What is the overall plan of the book (Daniel or Revelation)—the series of recapitulating visions—and where does the passage at hand fit into this big picture? Note that the four outline visions/interpretations of Dan 2, 7, 8, 11 recapitulate the same basic sweep of history from Daniel’s day to the end of time. The historical sections of Revelation (churches, seals, trumpets) likewise recap the 25

Davidson, “Sanctuary Typology,” 126. 23

sweep of history from John’s day to the end of time. The eschatological part of Revelation also has flashbacks to the sweep of history (e.g., the two witnesses of Revelation 11 and the persecution of the woman and her seed in Rev 12), but focuses mainly on the antitypical Day of Atonement, which Daniel pinpoints (Dan 8:14) as beginning in 1844. 2. What specific interpretation is given by the angel to the prophet concerning details in the passage? (See, e.g., the angel’s clear identification of the ram and he-goat in Dan 8.) 3. What features of parallel sweep-of-history visions in Daniel and Revelation assist in interpreting the passage at hand? (For example, Dan 2, 7, 8, and 11 must be studied together, beginning with Dan 2, and allowing the parallel sections to inform the interpretation. Likewise, the seven churches, seven seals, and seven trumpets must be studied in view of their interrelationship. Again, all the characteristics of the little horn in Dan 7 and the beast of Rev 13 must be taken into account identifying this power. 4. What features of the chiastic parallels in the books of Revelation illuminate each other? (For example, the “Church Militant” of Rev 1:10b–3:22 matches the “Church Triumphant” in Rev 21:5–22:7; the seven trumpets of Rev 8–11 match the seven plagues of Rev 15–16.) 5. What OT allusions are found in the passage? (For example, the drying up of the river Euphrates to prepare for the king from the East in Rev 16 alludes to the downfall of Babylon predicted in Jer 50–51.) OT allusions can illuminate the intended 24

meaning of the prophecy. Especially note the allusions to the sanctuary and the parallels between Daniel and Revelation. 6. What sanctuary typology (esp. in Revelation) illuminates the passage? Note the location of the passage in the flow of the introductory sanctuary scenes and festival typology (as discussed above). 7. What NT parallels to the passage at hand may illuminate the meaning of the prophecy (e.g., the apocalypse of Jesus in Matt 24 and of Paul in 2 Thess 2 are crucial backgrounds for the beast of Rev 13). 8. What meaning of the prophet’s language would have been intelligible to the readers in the prophets’ day? The interpretation must build upon this meaning and not the constructs of the modern interpreter. (Of course the interpretation may point to fulfillment beyond the original hearers’ awareness, but the control on the meaning of the language employed by the prophet must be what would have been the meaning intended by the prophet.) 9. What mode of fulfillment is to be expected in this passage? (Remember that here apocalyptic follows classical prophecy in universalizing the ethnic restrictions of terms: Israel and Babylon, God’s people and His enemies respectively. The fulfillment is also differentiated according to the spiritual or physical presence of Christ. Thus the descriptions of the sanctuary are literal with reference to the heavenly sanctuary where Christ is physically present but spiritual where referring to Christ’s walking among the earthly candlesticks [Rev 1] where He is only present by His Spirit. 25

10. What historical event provides an exact fit to all the details of the prophecy, seen in its larger context in the book? Only if every detail between prophecy and history fits can the interpretation be accepted. 11. Does the interpretation harmonize with that of other descriptions of the same event or issue elsewhere in Scripture? Does it harmonize with the basic outlines of events and issues as understood by careful historicist expositors? 12. What aspects of the prediction are clear beyond doubt, and what details are not absolutely certain and call for caution in interpretation? The main outlines of apocalyptic prophecy are clear, but there may be differences of opinion on certain details. Even some larger sections (such as Dan 11 and the seven trumpets of Revelation) are still viewed quite differently among historicist interpreters. Special caution is in order with regard to the details of unfulfilled prophecy (such as Dan 11:40â&#x20AC;&#x201C;45 and Rev 17); only when it comes to pass may we fully understand (John 14:29).

Appendix A: Characteristics of the Little Horn/Antichrist/Sea Beast26 1. 2.

7:8 7:8

3. 4. 5.

7:8 7:8 7:8

6. 7. 8. 9.

7:11 7:11 7:11 7:20

10. 11. 12.

7:21 7:21 7:22

13. 14. ( 15. 16.

7:24 7:24 7:24 7:25

17.

7:25

18. 19. 20. 21. 22.

7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:26

23.

7:26

24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

8:9 8:9 8:9 8:9 8:9 8:9

30.

8:10

31. 32.

8:10 8:10

[ [ [ [ [ [

Daniel little horn comes up among 10 horns 3 horns plucked up eyes like man mouth speaking pompous words beast slain body destroyed given to burning flame appearance greater than fellows make war vs. saints prevailing vs. them until Ancient of Days came and judgment arise after 10 kings different from first subdue 3 kings) = #3 speak words vs Most High Persecute saints of Most High intend to change times intend to change law saints given into his hand 3 Â˝ times court sit and take away his dominion consume and destroy it forever horn from littleness] came out of 4 winds] grew great] grew great toward south] grew great toward east] grew great toward glorious] grew up to host of heaven cast down some of host cast down some of stars

33. 34. 35.

8:10 8:10 8:11

36.

8:11

37.

8:11

38.

8:12

39. 40. 41.

8:12 8:12 8:24

42. 43. ( 44.

8:24 8:24 8:24

45. 46. 47.

8:25 8:25 8:25

48.

8:25

49.

9:27

50. 51.

11:30 11:30

52. ( 53. 54.

11:31 11:31 11:31

55.

11:32

56.

11:33

57.

11:35

to the ground trampled them exalted as high as Prince of host by him daily (tamid) taken away by him place of His sanctuary cast down host given over to him because of (their) transgression cast truth to ground did (this) and prospered power mighty, but not by his own power destroy, fearfully prosper and thrive destroy mighty and the holy people) = #17 cause deceit to prosper magnify self in his heart destroy many in their prosperity broken without human hand abomination making desolate till consummation rage vs. holy covenant regard for those who forsake holy covenant defile sanctuary fortress take away daily) = #36 place abomination of desolation pollute those who do wickedly vs. covenant (Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s people) fall by sword, flame, captivity, and plundering fallâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;refine, purge, make white

Please note that parentheses indicate a duplication of concepts, and brackets indicate a reference to pagan phase of little horn. 27

58.

11:36

59. 60.

11:36 11:36

61. 62.

11:37 11:37

63. 64. 65. 66.

11:37 11:38 11:39 11:39

67.

11:40

68.

11:40

69.

11:40

70. 71.

11:41 11:41

72. 73.

11:42 11:43

74.

11:43

75.

11:44

76.

11:44

77.

11:45

78. 79. 80.

11:45 11:46 12:7

81.

12:11

82.

12:12

exalt himself above every god do according to own will blasphemy vs. God of gods not regard God of fathers not regard desire of women not regard any god god of fortresses foreign god cause them to rule over many time of end: king of north came vs. king of south came with chariots, horses, ships enter countries and overwhelms and pass them enter Glorious Land some countries escape from his hand (Edom, Moab, Ammon) land of Egypt not escape power over treasures of gold, silver, all precious things of Egypt Libyans and Ethiopians at his heels new from east and north trouble him go with great fury to destroy and annihilate plant tents between seas and glorious holy mountain come to his end none will help him 3 ½ times—power of holy people completely shattered daily taken away and abomination of desolation set—1290 days blessed who wait 1335 days

83 84.

24:21 24:21

85.

24:22

86.

13:24

87.

21:24

88.

21:24

89. 90. 91. 92.

2:3 2:3 2:3 2:4

93. 94. 95. 96. 97.

98. 99. 100. 101. 102.

Matthew great tribulation such as never been, or will be days (of persecution) shortened Mark in those days, after persecution: sun be darkened Luke Jerusalem trampled by Gentiles (= Dan 8:10) till times of Gentiles be fulfilled (= Dan 7:25)

2 Thessalonians falling away man of sin revealed son of perdition oppose and exalts himself above all that is called God or worshiped 2:4 sits as God in temple of God 2:4 showing himself that he is God 2:7 mystery of lawlessness 2:7 restrained until “restrainer” is taken out of the way 2:8 lawless one revealed—Lord destroy with breath of mouth and consume with brightness of coming 2:9 according to working of Satan 2:9 all power, signs, lying wonders (cf. Acts 2:22) 2:10 unrighteous deception among those who perish 2:11 strong delusion—believe the lie! 2:12 not believe the truth 1 John

103. 104. 105.

2:18 2:22 4:3

( 106.

v. 7

107. 108.

2:14 2:14

109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. ( 115. 116. 117. ( 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130.

Antichrist denies Father and Son spirit of Antichrist—Jesus not come in flesh

131.

13:4

132.

13:4

133.

13:5

2 John spirit of Antichrist—Jesus not come in flesh) = #105

( 134.

13:5

135.

13:6

( 136.

13:7

137.

13:7

138.

13:8

139. 140. 141.

13:10 13:10 13:10

142.