From a personal and cultural perspective, I prefer the more literal and absolutist interpretation. It makes things quite simple and straight forward, but it is not typically how prophecy in Scripture is fulfilled. We must calibrate our preferred interpretation method with how Jesus and the Apostles interpreted Scripture.
Perhaps the most striking example can be found in Jesus’ explanation of John the Baptist.
John the Baptist himself denied that he was Elijah (John 1:21), but Jesus said John was Elijah (Matthew 11:13-15; Matthew 17:12; Mark 9:13). Clearly, there were different methods of interpretation at work. So which is it?
For a moment, let’s pretend we lived at the time of John the Baptist, and we were looking for Elijah as prophesied in Scripture. As you read these prophecies, if you did not have the benefit of faith in Christ, would you connect these prophecies as fulfilled by John?
A voice is calling, “Prepare the way for Yahweh in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. 4 Let every valley be lifted up, And every mountain and hill be made low; And let the rough ground become a plain, And the rugged terrain a broad valley; 5 Then the glory of Yahweh will be revealed, And all flesh will see it together; For the mouth of Yahweh has spoken.”
Isaiah 40:3-5
We might consider that John was Isaiah’s “the voice crying in the wilderness” because that’s what he literally did, and that’s what he claimed to be (John 1:23). But as for the rest of Isaiah’s prophecy, did we see valley’s lifted and mountains brought low? Not literally. And it’s difficult to say it happenned figuratively or symbolically. Did we see that everyone saw the glory of the Lord revealed? Not in the the way we probably expected. And so we might regard John as a godly man, but probably not the fulfillment of prophecy, despite John’s claim.
Behold, I am going to send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; and the messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight, behold, He is coming,” says Yahweh of hosts. 2 “But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a smelter’s fire and like fullers’ soap. 3 And He will sit as a smelter and purifier of silver, and He will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, so that they may present to Yahweh offerings in righteousness. 4 Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to Yahweh as in the ancient days and as in former years.
Malachi 3:1-4
We might speculate that John was the messenger of Malachi 3, but when everyone endured the day of Jesus’ coming we would probably just as easily dismiss John as a possible fulfillment. We certainly didn’t see the Levites being purified, nor the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem become pleasing.
“For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every worker of wickedness will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them aflame,” says Yahweh of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” 2 “But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. 3 And you will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says Yahweh of hosts. 4 “Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and judgments which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. 5 Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and awesome day of Yahweh. 6 And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land, devoting it to destruction.
Malachi 4:1-6
This brings us to the final prophecy of Elijah/John the Baptist. According to Malachi’s prophecy in chapter 4, Elijah will come before the awesome day of Yahweh. The Jews were expecting Elijah, which is why they asked him (which he denied) and why some speculated Jesus was Elijah (Matthew 16:14; Mark 8:28). But did we see John turn the hearts of the fathers to the children or children to the fathers? No. And since no great and awesome day of the Lord arrived we’d have reasonable grounds to dismiss this prophecy as being unfulfilled by John.
When asked who he was (John 1:20-24), John the Baptist claimed he was the Voice crying in the wilderness. His own father had also prophesied regarding him, “For you will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways, to give knowledge of salvation to His people by the remission of their sins” (Luke 1:76-77), which undoubtedly John heard many times growing up, and why he did not consider himself to be literally the Elijah that Jesus later said he was.
John the Baptist was a godly man, but even he didn’t recognise that he was the Elijah of the prophecy.
If you could not see fulfillment of these prophecies which we know were fulfilled, how confident are you you can correctly interpret other end-time prophecies? If these prophecies had not already been interpreted by Jesus to apply to John, we probably would never have recognised John as Elijah. The implications for prophetic interpretation are profound.
In each of these prophecies, almost the entire prophecy was not literal or symbolic, and in most cases, not even metaphorical, but pictorial. Time references to events are disjointed too. Many end-time prophecies appear clear and straight forward, but if the prophecies of John the Baptist vis-à-vis Elijah, are not so easily seen even in hindsight, how should we approach other prophecies of the end times?
Must I expect actual angelic beings flying through the heavens announcing messages (Revelation 14)? Must the ‘man of lawlessness’ actually sit/stand in the actual temple of God in Jerusalem (2 Thessalonians 2)? Must the angel from heaven in Revelation 18 be an actual angelic being? Must the message “Fallen fallen is Babylon” be literally the message? Looking at the message and method prophesied for John the Baptist, we must conclude the answer is almost certainly a resounding “No!”. And while we don’t preclude literal fulfillment, we recognise that it is at the very least possible and in fact likely many of these prophecies aren’t fulfilled literally or figuratively.
If you were waiting for the actual Elijah to appear based on this evidence and John’s testimony, you’d miss the Messiah.
How does this help us understand prophecy either future or fulfilled?
Firstly, even in parables, not every element is symbolic, but is simply there to complete the illustration.
Secondly, dramatic imagery is used often, not because events unfolded exactly as described, but to underscore the importance of things previously described. We’ve already seen the prophecies of John the Baptist using dramatic imagry that fails to be literally or figuratively fulfilled. Peter, in Acts 2, describing the out-pouring of the Spirit, quotes Joel saying that the “moon will turn to blood”. While many people will say this is yet future, Peter quotes this and says the outpouring of the Spirit is the fulfillment of the prophecy: “No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel.”
Thirdly, titles are often associated as relationship and are not in the way we would describe them today. Nebuchadnezzar is called God’s servant (Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6). In Jeremiah 27:6 God said that even the wild animals would serve Nebuchadnezzar. If that was said about the antichrist, many of us today would interpret that as the wild animals would obey, and when it isn’t seen, we assume the fulfilment is still future, missing the actual fulfilment, being like the Pharisees unable to discern the day we are living.
Fourthly, recognise that absolutist language does not convey intent. For example, Nebuchadnezzar was described by God as ruling the whole earth, but in reality, it was a relatively small empire, even compared to empires it fought (such as the Medo-Persian empire). Likewise, in several judgements where God said that their maidens would be killed, in reality, it was a small percentage of the population. As a result, we must not take language as literally absolutist .
Fifthly, descriptions and depictions must be understood in the language and understanding of the people at the time. For example, how would missiles be described? what about the talking heads on televisioni? vaccines? QR codes? masks? the internet?
Sixthly, we must not insert things that aren’t stated or unclear.
Thus, while I prefer to have a more literalistic understanding, I recognise that that’s not how infallible interpreters such as Jesus or the apostles, understood Old Testament prophecy. We seek to apply their approach and methodology to the books of Daniel and Revelation.
Understanding of the End times, will mostly come at the time of the end
Scripture tells me, that the understanding of certain prophecies will remain secret until the time of the end. So no matter how inspired the scholars are, they could not have the understanding of those passages. The closer we get to the fulfilment, the greater the illumination from the Holy Spirit we can expect.
But you, Daniel, keep these words secret and seal the book until the time of the end….Go on your way, Daniel, for the words are secret and sealed until the time of the end.
Daniel 12:4, 9
I should not expect therefore that early church writers would have clear insight into all of Daniel’s prophecies, nor the Reformers, nor saints from 100 years ago. I should expect as we are closer to the time, we get greater illumination.
I believe what I have written here is grounded solidly in interpretation consistent with the Apostles’ methods, and provable by history. I ask that you not cling so tightly to your favourite eschatology, but ask yourself two questions:
- Is this coherent with known historical facts?
- Is this internally consistent with accepted hermeneutics?
Physical fulfilment trumps allegorical fulfilment
You’re hard pressed to find any prophecy that we know the fulfilment of (i.e., Jesus or the Apostles told us), that is purely symbolic, spiritual, or allegorical. The promise of the Messiah was physical reality, not allegorical or spiritual. The return of Christ will be a physical reality according to the angels who told the disciples that Jesus would return in the same manner he had gone.
There are grand traditions, particularly of the reformers, who provided much of the allegorical, spiritual, or symbolic understanding of prophecy that exists today. While I greatly value their contribution, their insight was veiled because the time was not yet. Reformers had no knowledge of many things, such as the return of Israel (yes I know many don’t even believe that a physical Israel matters any longer). So in order to make sense of prophecy, they turned to allegory and spiritual explanations. We have the benefit of much historical knowledge that even the Reformers didn’t have access to.
Unnecessary spiritualisation or allegorisation leads to disbelief
Allegorical, figurative, and symbolic interpretation of prophesy, without clear Biblical precedence or justification, leads to disbelief. For example, if Israel is held to be the “suffering servant” of Isaiah, then Jesus is not the fulfilment. If belief that the second coming of Christ has already happened, it means we disbelieve when we’re told that he will return in the same manner we saw him leave. When we believe that the Abomination of Desolation may be “inside” us, if God intends it to be literal, we miss key signs of Jesus’ return and, in effect, disbelieve God’s word. Overly allegorising, or spiritualising prophecy is dangerous, and can lead to disbelief.
Of course, there is symbolism in prophecy, and figurative explanations. However, if there is a physical fulfillment, that meets the criteria, it is a sign of disbelief to disregard actual fulfilment.
Likewise, holding that there must be a literal fulfilment (as distinct from physical fulfilment), when there is a clear practical symbolic-yet-physical fulfilment, that may also cause you to miss the Messiah, Elijah before the Messiah, etc.
I believe that the most consistent way to interpret Scripture and prophecies for yet future events is to have a similar interpretive style as we have for prophecies that most Christians already agree have been fulfilled.
Some things are clearly symbolic, but usually have an interpretation either in the context or elsewhere.
Translations are not authoritative
English translations are not authoritative. I think it is axiomatic to say that what God actually said, not what translators think it meant, matters. Worse is when we hold onto a poor translation or even translator’s interpretation and take that as literal and insist that this prophecy must be fulfilled exactly as the bad translation of a prophetic text said it should. This is without negative judgement on the translators, I think they’ve tried to convey the text as they understood it; the fault is on our side, taking what they wrote as authoritative, not what God wrote.
In summary, I want to apply a mostly literal interpretation starting with some key events that we were told to watch for. This is not an exhaustive explanation, but a possible understanding of the fulfillment of prophecy, that I believe is critical to discuss as a Church.
Acknowledgements:
I would like to thank Ellis Skolfield. I read his works many, many years ago, and while I don’t always agree with his reasoning, it opened my eyes the the importance of understanding history. http://www.beholdthebeast.com/contents_tfp.htm and ellisskolfield.com
For understanding Islam, I would like to thank Daniel Scot for his ministry Ibrahim Ministries International, that helps Christians share the gospel with Muslims. http://imi.org.au
Other people who have unknowingly helped me:
Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch
Walid Shoebat
Millard Erikson, especially his small book “A Basic Guide to Eschactology”
Wayen Grudem