Daniels's Prophecies - "Dispensationalism's Key To Prophetic Revelation" - Or Achilles Heel?by Alan Nairne An Examination Of Dr. J Walvoord's Exposition Of Daniel - The Key to Prophetic Revelation Contents: Part 1 The Critique I. The Case Stated II. Walvoord's "Key"
Part 2 I Submit That.... III. Fulfilment
Correspondences to Nero
Epilogue and concluding exhortation Appendix A - Some Hermeneutic Principles
Appendix B - The "Latter Days" Followed Christ's Redemptive Work Appendix C -O.T. Prophecy Includes The Church Appendix D - The NT Clearly Excludes Any Unique And Separate Endtime Future For Israel Appendix E - The True Value Of An Accurate Hermeneutic Bibliography * * * * * * * Daniels's Prophecies - "Dispensationalism's Key To Prophetic Revelation" - Or Achilles Heel?An Examination Of Dr. J Walvoord's Exposition Of Daniel - The Key to Prophetic Revelation Part 1 The CritiqueI. The Case Stated Because there is so much literature examining Dispensationalism on the market, I had not thought, prior to this study, of applying pen to paper on this subject. Why then this offering? The Key to Prophetic Revelation in my title echoes Dispensationalist writer Dr John Walvoord's amazing assertion in the subtitle of his exposition of Daniel that Daniel's prophecies are the "key to prophetic revelation". I had come across the idea before, but until his book came to hand I had no original source. If any readers are aware of other Dispensational writers taking the same approach, I would be glad to hear from them. As critiques of Dispensationalism have been produced ad nauseam I want to assure my readers that I will not be examining in detail their distinctive approaches to scripture -
Many of these themes have been shown to be so patently unbiblical that some recent progressive Dispensational writers have abandoned some of them. So much so that Mathison in his Dispensationalism - Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Appendix A p.135) says that certain authors ought no longer to use the Dispensational label. Walvoord's work dates from 1958. The copy I am referring to was reprinted in 1998, with no claim to modification, so I assume that his understanding of prophecy broadly follows the traditional lines given above. I referred to Walvoord's subtitle as amazing. Amazing to all but Dispensationalists, that is, because his claims for Daniel to be the key to the understanding of eschatological prophecy turns on their heads the traditional canons of sound hermeneutics. Having said that, I must in fairness also say that it is a well written, persuasive, scholarly work with much soundness in the non-eschatological chapters. My case in support of what I have just stated will be in Part 1 to examine Walvoord's principles of interpretation and, in Part 2, to set out what I believe to be the correct interpretation of Daniel's prophecies. To finalise, there are appendices and a bibliography. For the sake of keeping this paper of manageable length I shall examine Walvoord's treatment of chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel in this paper, reserving, for those who are still with me(!) chapters 9 and onward to a second paper. These earlier chapters are used by Walvoord to establish his futurism. I must also say that I am aware of the old adage that "men do not live by error that is uprooted, but by truth that is planted". As I have indicated, I will try to plant truth in the later section of this paper. Yet, my readers will understand that I can only give, within the space of this paper, kernels of truth; I cannot exhaustively treat the subject. It is not therefore written for those readers who simply want to stand in their corner and fight for what they already know. Or even for those who will peruse it, yet are not willing to further "buy the truth" (Pro.23:23). But it is written for those readers who, with John Robinson, on the occasion of the departure of the "Speedwell" from Delft, conveying the Pilgrim Fathers to the New World, "was verily persuaded the Lord has more truth yet to break forth out of His holy Word". I trust that this exercise, when used with its bibliography, will prove a key to unlocking some of that truth. May we all exhibit the same spirit of enquiry. John Sproul, at least, in his The Last Days According to Jesus, which is an evaluation of works by J Stuart Russell and Dr. Kenneth Gentry, finds that the interpretation which I espouse in Part 2 of this paper has considerable credibility. So what exactly does Walvoord have to say to support this amazing assertion? II. Walvoord's "Key" He states his most important canon of interpretation, which governs his understanding of much of Daniel's prophecy, as fulfilment in history. In the general introduction on p.25 of his book, he states,
No one could take exception to this where the prophecy is a prediction in literal language of an events or events which have already had their fulfilment. This canon is sound enough where Scripture clearly predicts the future, as in the non-symbolic language of Daniel chapter 9 - the prophecy of the "seventy sevens", and chapter 11 which foretells in detail the histories of the empires of chapter eight of Daniel, (those of Medo-Persia and Greece), down to the rising of the four kings who followed the death of Alexander the Great (8:8). Then from verse 6 [about 250 BC] in this chapter we have in remarkable detail history down to Antiochus IV Epiphanes and the Maccabees [about 169 BC]. The
But to apply this same principle of "fulfilment in history" is dangerous when applied to the symbolic visions of chapters 2 and 7 of Daniel, and we shall see that Walvoord repeatedly does this, and, because he sees no literal fulfilment on the page of history, defers them to the end of the age. To find precise historic fulfilment of symbolism is a contradiction of ideas. Precise historic fulfilment can only be achieved from a plain language prophecy, and even then not always. The correct canon of interpretation for symbolism is primarily to let Scripture interpret Scripture. But Walvoord uses his extreme literalism - his "no Church in view" and, particularly, his historic fulfilment criteria to secure his futurism even with symbolic language. Some examples are as follows. i.) Take the simple symbolism of The stone. (2:34,45). Historically, the Church has understood the stone to be Christ at his first coming, and the Church as the manifestation of His Kingship and kingdom. Young, in his The Prophecy of Daniel tells us
But what does Walvoord say?
So there we have it. He applies his "history of fulfilment" criteria to the symbolic visions of chapters 2 and 7. Acknowledging the power and influence of the Roman Catholic church he tells us
I do not follow Walwoord's connection of the R.C. Church with the fourth kingdom. But even if the connection is with the fifth kingdom, it illustrates his extreme literalism. Walvoord sees the "key" to the interpretation of Daniel's visions, and in consequence all eschatology to be located only in a true "historical fulfilment."
Interestingly, he sees the significance of the stone, not in the person of Christ as has been traditionally understood by the Church, but as representing a) "...a symbolic picture of political sovereignty" (p.76). Of course, this is correct, as far as it goes. But it is curious that he avoids mention of the stone signifying Christ as representative of His kingdom, yet he acknowledges Nebuchadnezzar as representative of his kingdom! He obviously wishes to avoid any "spiritual" interpretation, in favour of a non-existent "historical fulfilment" in the setting up of an earthly kingdom, analogous to the earthly empires of chapter 2. Finding none, he relegates it to the future! Similarly b) in relation to the smashing action of the stone - (p.75), because he does not see this happening in the political realm, again, he projects it into the future.
To "beg the question" means to assume as true what has not yet been proved to be so. The above reasoning is a prime example of "begging the question." If you have the hide of a rhinocerous, it certainly makes for an easy Dispensational life! ii.) Then we have the ten horns. Moving into chapter 7 of Daniel, which adds further detail to that of chapter 2, we notice that the fourth kingdom develops into what is described as a "ten horn "phase (7:7), which represents "ten kings" (7:24) out of which emerges a "little horn" which uproots three, and waxes more eminent than the others (7:7,8,20). We are told that this personage made war on the people of God and prevailed. Walvoord applies his principle of an essential historic fulfilment to the significance of the "ten kings" represented by the ten horns of the Roman beast in chapter 7 of Daniel. He writes,
Again,
This is all wonderfully consistent as part of the futurist picture. And, although I agree with the time frame identity of Daniel and Revelation, as we shall see, it is not necessary to relegate the scene to the yet future. Walvoord's criticism of the inability of expositor's to agree the identity of the ten kings is rather rich considering the times Dispensational expositors have abandoned successive guesses at, for example, the identity of the "man of sin," or Antichrist in contemporary history! The trouble is that they understand prophecy as "pre-written history," and, (I'm being a little facetious!), would be satisfied only with a named list of the ten kings. Whilst it is not unreasonable to look to see if there is a political fulfilment, it is blindly doctrinaire to insist upon it when the vision is symbolic. He considers "spiritual" interpretations as unacceptable. Likewise he overlooks a literal fulfilment in the past, which, if he looked at closely enough, does have "correspondence...to the history of Rome," as we shall see. His conclusion is,
And, since it is yet future, who can prove him wrong? But I shall offer, I believe, a more satisfying interpretation. iii.) The "little horn." Another reason Walvoord projects the vision of the ten horns, with the outcrop of the "little horn" into the future, is that he associates this symbolism with that of Revelation chapter 13:1; 17:12 (p.175). The "little horn" is also associated with Paul's "man of sin" in II Thess. 2. As I have said in the last section, this is legitimate, for there is clearly a connection between the two. I deny its futurity for reasons I shall later set out. In addition his futurist scheme is supported by further identification with the book of Revelation.
Again, according to my understanding of the time frames built into Scripture, the three and one-half year historical fulfilment took place in apostolic times, and, as we shall see, there is no need to postpone the scenes to the end of history. His conclusion concerning chapter 7 of Daniel is,
Walvoord's reference to the present movement of history in relation to the Middle East and Israel is interesting. The Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin who is editor of the Chalcedon Journal posted an article on their web site (www.chalcedon.edu dated Dec. 2001) entitled Those Long-lived Last Days in which he went so far as to state that,
Is it the insatiable appetite of human nature to peer into the future by the examination of contemporary history which explains the persistence with which individual theologians, if not seminaries, still seek to defend the indefensible? There certainly is mega-bucks involved whether for popular novelists or for theologians. Part 2 I Submit That.....The time has come, at last, when I can set out something positive, and which I believe will lead us to a more correct understanding of the significance of the prophecies of Daniel. Firstly, I find it incredible that the Dispensationalists, who preach literalism, skate so easily over the plain time-frame statements of Scripture. Of course, if they gave to these Scriptures the full measure of consideration merited, it would put paid to their futurism. But first, as briefly as possible, what is Walvoord's approach to time frames?
If he observed this definition all would be in order. After discussion he continues,
which definition, as used in his commentary, effectively sees the second coming as the terminus of all prophecy. Thus,
So we have, yet again, instead of painstaking investigation, the same old "cut-and-paste" handling of Scripture. I believe the time frames of Scripture to be clear if allowed their proper (that is, their literal!) significance. III. Fulfilment i). The "latter days." Daniel tells us that Nebuchadnezzar's dream concerns "what shall be in the latter days."(2:28). Daniel's prophetic foreview is fixed by the smashing of the stone on the feet of the image which takes place during the days of the fourth empire - Rome. This period must, therefore, be during the period described as the "latter days" and will be, if we are looking for a historical fulfilment, up to and including the period of the demise of the Roman empire. THAT is the prophet's foreview. This time-frame, though symbolic, is fixed by the context. It is necessary to say that it is erroneous hermeneutic to consider that the fulfilment of the prophecy can be deferred beyond the time of the existence of the Roman empire. THAT empire disintegrated in the fifth century AD, and the nations now or in the future which occupy the same territory cannot be considered as part of a continuing Roman empire. In just the same way it is futile to claim that, to fulfil OT prophecy, Edom, Babylon, Rome and other nations which have long ceased to exist, must be reconstituted, notwithstanding the fantasies of Saddam Hussein or any other Middle Eastern ruler. Despite its futility, Walvoord cannot avoid looking for a revived Roman Empire.
How impregnable is his claim to "an accurate and detailed interpretation of this prophecy" - particularly as, being in the future, there is no way of checking it out! This, however, is standard Dispensational interpretation, and it is a fiction, but is, nevertheless, a main plank of Walvoord's "key", which he believes is honouring to God and the truth of Scripture. ii). "In the days of those kings" (2:44). The time frame for the establishment of the fifth kingdom is clearly given - "in the days of those kings" (v.44). There is a sense in which, at the time of the destruction of those world powers, they were existing - they are consecutive, and there is a continuum of spiritual and moral principle. This would be a fact concerning these consecutive empires. To stretch this principle to cover "reconstituted" nations, separated from each other in every essential for over two thousand years from the original, is unacceptable to those who value sound principles of interpretation. Moreover, this kingdom which is set up "in the days of those kings" cannot be a millennial kingdom, for that allegedly lasts only 1,000 years, while this is eternal (2:44 cf. 7:13,14,18,27). Notice, also, that the vision of chapter 7 shows the son of man approaching the Ancient of Days and being presented with the kingdom (7:13), not leaving for his second coming. The scene is identical to that of Revelation chapters 4-6ff. iii.) "Judgement was given unto the saints of the most High" (7:22). Does this mean that the saints were to be the judges, or that judgement was given on their behalf? Using Driver as an authority, Walvoord helps us here, though he will project the scene to the end of time.
To place it in its correct time frame, we must look at the great persecutor, Nero and his death, followed by the retributive judgement of God upon Jerusalem in 70 AD as being rendered on behalf of the people of God for both his and the Jews persecution of the Church. iv) The "ten horns" (7:7ff) We are told that out of the ten horns arose the "little horn" etc., until he (the latter) was judged during the same period in which the overthrow of the other kingdoms took place, and in the same period as the kingdom was given by the Son of Man to the saints of the Most High. That is, during the period following the investiture of Christ as pictured in Revelation chapter 5. The events commence, therefore, following the ascension and investiture of Christ. The "little horn" arises from the ten. I shall identity this personage later. That this investiture took place following the resurrection and ascension of Christ should be clear, for we are told that the Lamb had been "freshly slain" - for that is the sense, which again, puts the scene following Christ's sacrifice on Calvary. We have already seen how Walvoord denies that the "ten kings" which arise within the fourth empire have any correspondence with the history of the Roman empire. So, for his sake, at least, it is important for us to seek to identify the "ten kings." F W Farrar, in his The Early Days of Christianity (1882) identifies them with Rome's ten imperial provinces. He gives them as Italy, Achaia, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Africa, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Germany (p.352), as quoted by Chilton in The Days of Vengeance (Dominion Press Tyler Texas p.437 commenting upon Rev.17:12). Perhaps this will suffice for those for whom a literal interpretation is important? But commentators who are not bound by literalism are inclined to see the number ten as symbolic of totality (cf. Chilton p.437, Fairbairn The Interpretation of Prophecy p.439) associated with the horn as a symbol of power (Young The Prophecy of Daniel p.147). I believe that we have firmly fixed the time frame of the "ten kings" as within the apostolic age. Before identifying the "little horn" I need to flesh out what is meant by the smashing of the kingdoms and their replacement by the all consuming stone. v.) The "stone" (2:34,45). We have already seen how that, historically, the Church has understood the stone to be Christ at his first coming, and the Church as the manifestation of His Kingship and kingdom. Young, in his The Prophecy of Daniel tells us
Using The Message of Daniel in The Bible Speaks Today series as typical of conservative commentators, Wallace points out regarding the smashing activity of the stone that we are not to look for this in specific events upon the page of human history, but recognise that all upheavals are the result of the kingdom of Christ pressing powerfully, and even devastatingly upon human society. It is a symbolic picture of the establishment of Church and Kingdom, in the displacement of successive opposing societies, until eventually all will be made subject to Christ.
Again,
This, surely, is honouring to Christ and His Word, - not referring it to the future? The Church and Kingdom of God is surely the greatest global force today. Alas, our Dispensational friends would deny this and, by implication, award the crown to the Devil as the "god of this world. " But a little research will surely inform us that today, even if our Western Christianity is moribund, the Church is expanding exponentially in many third world countries, particularly in South America, Africa and Asia, despite persecution in many of these areas I can only say, if you are unaware of this, you need to extend the range of your Christian reading. One has only also to think of the difference in the world between the times of the New Testament and today. Taking this long view of remembering the sort of world it was to which Christ came, outside Israel it was almost entirely given over to a licentious, bestial idolatry. Even among the tribes of the West, human sacrifice and cannibalism were endemic. (Christianity and Society Vol.1 nos. 1 & 2 Jan. and Apr. 2000). It is to the truths of the Reformation that the Western civilisation we now know owes its very existence. Its present apostasy from these formative truths is probably a temporary hiccup. We ought not, moreover, ignore those Protestant/evangelical/charismatic churches which are expanding in the West. vi.) The "little horn" We saw in the section above that it is entirely reasonable to see the fulfilment of the destruction of the empires as a result of the redemptive activity of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross, and his ascension to the right hand of the Father, played out in the apostolic age. Who then is this audacious, rapacious, persecuting "little horn?" It must be remembered that in the apostolic age persecution of Christians arose chiefly as a result of Jewish opposition harnessing the resources of Rome. Christianity was not, per se, an illicit religion. Until AD 62 it was seen as a sect of Judaism, for even then Paul could appeal to Caesar Nero and be acquitted. But history clearly shows that the first violent persecution initiated against Christians, because they were Christians, came from the Emperor Nero in AD 64. Having reminded us of the identity of the first three kingdoms (Babylon, Medo/Persia and Greece Wallace continues,
Consider the following correspondences of the "little horn" with Nero. a) He will "wear out the saints of the Most High" Daniel tells us that the "little horn" will "wear out the saints of the Most High" (7:25). Quoting from Dr. Kenneth Gentry The Beast of Revelation (second printing with corrections 1994) pp.48-49),
Secular history recognises Nero as being one of the most evil men who have ever lived. Milton Terry in his 19th C Principles of Biblical Hermeneutics identified the "man of sin" with this personage (p.460 ff.) and those readers who have access to the reprint of this volume are invited to consult it. It is more convenient, though, for me to refer to and quote from the above study by Gentry. The book is a scholarly, though popular examination of the whole subject. For those who wish to examine the subject in greater depth, Dr. Gentry's doctoral dissertation is reproduced in the volume entitled Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation 1989 and is available, together with the synopsis mentioned above, from the Institute of Christian Economics, Tyler, Texas. Church historian Phillip Schaff (History of the Christian Church 3rd. ed., 7 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910 I:386) tells us that the Neronian persecution was
We have already seen that Daniel's "little horn" has been identified as Paul's "man of sin" (II Thess. 2:3 ff.). This identification also gives us a clue as to the "restraining power" that Paul speaks of in the same Scripture (v.7) "until he be taken out of the way." b) The "restraining power" Says Terry, (p.461),
This is a very credible suggestion. But, if other suggestions have been made, does this negate its validity, and warrant adopting futurism; deferring it all for two-plus millennia? c) "Time, times and a half a time." This "wearing out of the saints" spoken of by Daniel, is to be for a period of "time and times and half a time." (v.25). Most expositors would agree that this period represents the three and one half years, or 42 months or 1260 days of the book of Revelation. It is most remarkable, as Gentry points out (p.53), that Nero's persecution began in November AD. 64 soon after the burning of Rome, and ended with the death of Nero in June AD. 68 - almost exactly 42 months! (Gentry p.53). For our Dispensational friends, how much more literal than that can one get? d) The "number of the beast" Revelation 13:18 contains information that has fascinated biblical expositors for generations. The verse challenges us,
This cipher is called a cryptogram, that is, since ancient alphabets serve for numerals also, using numbers to codify a name. It is true that by using the numerical equivalents of Hebrew many names have been made to reproduce the mysterious number 666, but it is most significant that Nero's qualifies. The numerical equivalents of the Hebrew letters (which I do not reproduce!) spelling Nrwn Qsr (Nero Caesar) give a total of 666. Thus
The above table is taken from R C Sproul's treatment of the matter in The Last Days According to Jesus p.188. A fuller treatment can be found in Gentry ibid. p.29ff. e). "...he shall speak great words against the Most High." (7:25). Paul speaks of this "man of sin.. who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped..." It was from the time of Julius Caesar that the cult of emperor worship was established. Yet, Gentry tells us (p.59), that Rome's second emperor, Augustus, forbade divine honours to himself in Rome, but not elsewhere. But Nero supremely enhanced for himself the cult of the worship of himself. Gentry continues (p.64),
He fulfils the Word of God in this matter also. f). "five [kings] are fallen, and one is..." (Rev.17:10) This chapter of the book of Revelation tells us concerning the beast that is ridden by the woman. This beast, we are told, has seven heads which represent seven kings, and the sixth king "is." Meaning, of course, that he is presently reigning. Consider the following,
Again, the criterion is met. Sproul (p.147) and Gentry (p.102ff.) can be consulted, both fully discussing the issues raised by the context of this Scripture. These six correspondences of the identity of Nero with the symbolism of the "little horn "persuade me that it is totally unnecessary to look to the end of the age for a future manifestation of the "man of sin." It is only the requirements of the futurist scheme which require such. I believe that I have written sufficient to seriously challenge, indeed, to make untenable, the whole concept of futurism as it is set out by Dr. Walvoord in his work on Daniel. May I commend to you the study of Dr. Gentry's volumes, and that by R C Sproul? Details are given in the Bibliography. A further paper will follow examining Dr. Walvoord's treatment of Daniel chapter 9 - the prophecy of the 70 weeks, and the other eschatological sections of Daniel's book. If you still have stomach to pursue the subject, you may wish to tackle the material in the Appendices. Epilogue and concluding exhortation The Apostles wrote much of the NT Scripture to ensure spiritual health in the Body of Christ, and we do well to encourage each other similarly. The words of Milton Terry are helpful to those of us who seek to be teachers of sound doctrine,
To which he adds a footnote from Van Oosterzee,
Yet, may the Lord preserve us from the cold mechanical, dogmatic, investigation of Scripture truth. Here again, Milton Terry quotes some salutary words for us,
Finally, I can only say that if there a few believers who are dissatisfied with their negative view of the Church in the world, and in their powerlessness want to be pointed toward a more biblical and powerful understanding of the things of God, if they are pointed toward this through these pages, I shall be amply rewarded. Appendix A - Some Hermeneutic Principles The method traditionally favoured by evangelicals has been described as the (a) "grammatico-historical" principle. This has been defined as,
Most expositors, including Dispensationalists, would agree that this is sweet reasonableness, but perhaps an oversimplification. Various expositors have since sought to supplement this method (L Berkhof Principles of Biblical Interpretation p.37), but it is a good foundation from which to start. Another canon of interpretation is that (b) the NT must govern our understanding of OT. This principle dates from the early Christian Church. As O T Allis in his Prophecy and the Church (p.49) says,
Walvoord's subtitle, in keeping with the vital contrary Dispensational principle, contradicts this canon of interpretation. (c) Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture. Milton Terry (p.222) describes the rules relating to this principle of interpretation,
This principle is particularly important when interpreting symbolic language, which, again, we have seen Walvoord violates by his "historical fulfilment" principle. In fact, he baldly states
Whilst the outworking will be played out upon the stage of human history, invariably the interpretation must await the fulfilment. To attempt otherwise seems about as certain as a game of Russian roulette. Another canon of interpretation long recognised is that (d) non-literal Scripture generally has one meaning only.
Milton Terry entitles chapter XXVII of his treatise "No double sense in prophecy " (pp.493-499) which will repay study by Dispensationalists whose hermeneutic often transgresses this principle. The Scriptures generally given this treatment do not appear in the book of Daniel, so we shall not have occasion to examine this feature, but it is mentioned to encourage further study. A brief extract from Milton Terry's chapter serves to illustrate what he has in mind,
No one would pretend that the interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures is simple. If it is, why so many variations among commentators? Even the apostle Peter acknowledged that there are some things in Paul's epistles that are "hard to be understood" II Peter 3:16. But it is only the "unlearned and unstable" which "wrest ...Scriptures...to their own destruction." We need to remind ourselves that "ALL Scripture...is PROFITABLE...." II Tim.3:16. Certainly, the Dispensational principle that all Scripture should be taken in a literal sense unless absurd appeals because of its simplicity. Naturally, if a literal sense yields absurdity, then it is obviously incorrect. But a little thought as to how the NT writers use the OT will reveal that sometimes, although a literal sense made perfect sense, they chose to interpret it spiritually. As an example, think of the disciple's reference to Elijah's coming. Jesus confirmed that he will truly come in the person of John the Baptist! (Matt.17:10-13). Most important, the apostles saw in the histories and prophecies of David, not the establishment of a literal earthly throne as did their unbelieving contemporaries, but the fulfilment of them all in the resurrection and enthronement of the Christ!! (Acts 2:22 ff., 13:32 ff.). This should provide a caution to our Dispensational friends in their use of their "literal, unless absurd" principle. We also have the Dispensationalists simple, and homely picture of the prophets' foreview seeing the mountain range of the first coming of Messiah and on to the next range of his second coming, but not seeing the "Church valley" between. To support this Walvoord adduces one example (Isaiah 61:1-2 with Luke 4:18-19). But one example cannot establish a universal principle of interpretation in the face of the testimony of the NT, which is to the contrary. (In any case, I dispute that the "day of vengeance" does not occur until the second coming of Christ. It was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and dispersion of the Jewish nation in AD70. This subject will be dealt with at length in the next paper, in which we shall look at Daniel chapter 9 and the later chapters.) So Walvoord, while necessarily incorporating these appealing and traditional Dispensational features into his understanding of Daniel, as we have seen also propounds his capstone "key to the understanding of eschatology, - historic fulfilment," and it is just as deceptively simple. Nevertheless, I have sought to show the utter fallacy of this principle. I plan in the second paper to provide studies on "the latter days" and dating the book of Revelation, Matthew chapter 24 and parallels, the use of the term "parousia," and the second coming according to Paul. I ought to say that, in keeping with the historic creeds of the Christian Church, I emphatically hold to the future bodily, personal, visible coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, with our bodily resurrection and final judgement. I now leave my reader to research further for him or herself. You may find the bibliography of help. Gentry's work is very comprehensive, and is recommended for further study. Appendix B - The "Latter Days" Followed Christ's Redemptive Work A fuller study of the term "latter days" will be given in my next paper, but it will be convenient at this stage to remind ourselves from a few Scriptures that the focus of OT prophecy is not just upon the first coming of Messiah but upon the days that immediately follow,
Appendix C - O.T. Prophecy Includes The Church The contrary dogma, that OT prophecy SKIPS the Church age, we have already seen, is a major plank in Dispensational interpretation. Walvoord quotes, having broadly reviewed the textual usage (p.59 ff.) from Culver's Daniel and the Latter Days p.107,
This is in accord with a traditional interpretation. Culver, on his next page includes the period of time between the two advents. But Walvoord, being a Dispensationalist cannot stomach this. We already know that his "prophetic foreview", and "times of Messiah" cannot include the Church age. So he has to say,
But Culver is not "going beyond the New Testament revelation." If the prophecy does include the second coming, that is fine. For Walvoord, however, OT prophecy includes it per se. Therefore we need to remind ourselves that, notwithstanding Walvoord's objection, the burden of OT prophecy is the first coming of Christ, and the days which follow as we saw from Appendix B. The testimony of Scripture is so powerful on this point that Walvoord has to vigorously reject it. Culver, dealing specifically with Daniel, is now more to his liking, -
But we have seen, conclusively I believe, that the prophet had in mind no other foreview than the first coming of Christ and the days following. Appendix D - The N.T. Clearly Excludes Any Unique And Separate Endtime Future For Israel Walvoord's "key" is intended to establish the very opposite of this dogma. In the final paragraphs of his introduction to the theology of the book of Daniel he says,
The separate future of Israel is the main thrust and object of Walvoord's prophetic interpretation, and is achieved by a crassly literal interpretation of Scripture. If this principle is, as it should rightly be, rejected, and our traditional principle (Appendix A (b)), that the NT interprets the OT be allowed, I believe that it will be clearly understood that the true Messianic people are those who receive him - whether Jew or Gentile- the body of people now known as the Church. I have sought to cover this subject in depth in my paper Does the nation of Israel have a distinct and separate future from the Church in the Kingdom of God? available on this website. I have sought to demonstrate that it does not. If this is the true (and traditional) understanding of the prophetic Scriptures, as I believe it is, this fact alone indicates that Walvoord's end time Israel-dominated futurism is an error. May I invite my readers who may not be clear on this point to consider the contents of that paper? Appendix E - The True Value Of An Accurate Hermeneutic Some of my readers may ask the question, "Does it really matter which scheme of prophecy is adopted?" My answer is that it is more than just a question of sound hermeneutics. To be taught that the power, authority and glory of the Kingdom of God is not for the Church when the Bible clearly teaches that it is (e.g. cf. Acts 28:23,24 and 31), is damaging. It is damaging to be taught that the world is going to get worse and worse, and a powerless Church will be restricted and besieged, and only delivered from destruction by a rapture. It is destructive of its ministry in the world. We have only to look at our Western culture to see the truth of this. If we are to relegate vast tracts of Old and New Testament Scripture to a hypothetical end-time, how can we avoid being unable to carry out the apostolic precept which assures us that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Tim.3:16) and reap the reward of being unbalanced and, inevitably, unhealthy believers? To say this may well displease many of my readers, but when the effect of Dispensationalism is to deny Christians the invaluable, and thoroughly biblical use of the spiritual gifts of I Corinthians 12-14, I have to press the point. Again, if there are Christians who are open to the whole of Scripture being available for them today, they may wish to consider my paper, also on this website, entitled The spiritual gifts of the Holy Spirit - are they for today? Bibliography
Alan Nairne July 2002 * * * * * * * |