"How should the church respond to new interpretations of prophecy?

[Challenger]

The following quote was taken from Friday 4/11/25 study, second question.

"How should the church respond to new interpretations of prophecy? Though we know that there is always more to learn, how do we discern whether the new light is essential or just a fad, or even error?"

How will you the reader respond to the following statement: Is it new light, or an error in interpretation?

"Many people make the mistake of thinking the horn in Daniel 8 and the little horn in Daniel 7 are one and the same. There are several reasons why this is not possible. First, this prophecy completely “leapfrogs” the time periods of the fourth beast (168 B.C. - A.D. 476) and the little horn (538 -1798). The fourth empire in Daniel 7 (Rome) is not mentioned in this prophecy because the horn in Daniel 8 is not attached to any beast. This horn does not rise out of a world empire. It appears from out of nowhere, “out of the four winds,” specifically, out of the north. The north is prophetically important because it is often said in Scripture that divine wrath comes out of the north.  Second, within the context of this vision, a beast is a symbol of an empire and a horn is a symbol of a king. The mighty horn on the goat (verse 21) represents the first king of Greecia (Alexander the Great). Similarly, the horn that just appears out of the north represents “a stern-faced king” that will appear and overtake the world “when rebels have become completely wick- ed” (verse 23). Third, Gabriel told Daniel (verses 17 and 19) that this vision concerns the appointed time of the end which occurs after the 2,300 day/years expire in 1844. In other words, the horn in this vision will appear on Earth after 1844 – at the appointed time of the end. Prophecies 8 and 11 will further explain why this horn represents the physical appearing of Lucifer, the dreaded Antichrist."

 

 

[Kevin H]

The first step is to try (if possible) to see how the prophecy would have had a local application, at least not too far into the future. Second (and sadly often we have to start with this step) is to see how the prophecy has been applied over history by the church. Third, look at the principles. Fourth, besure we are using the principles of historism and not some new idea such as dispensationalism. 

From this we can grow and continue as we learn more.  Before I look at the horn in Daniel 8, let me get to an excellent book in the Bible that answers the question of this thread. The book of Amos. 

Now, yes, I know that some of our General Conference leaders are pushing for a hermanutic that avoids editing and even teaches that while there is evidence that editing occured, that we should treat the text as if the final version IS the ORIGINAL version. Ok, we can debate this, but one place where this principle hurts Adventism is in the book of Amos. 

According to linguists, there are two very, very different writing styles in the book; althought translators try to smooth it over. If you divide up the two styles, one style does not list Judah in the going in cycles around the area, and the seventh-nation to be criticized is Israel. The entire writing style is focused on what Israel was about to face with Assyria if they did not repent (and the rejection by a priest made the "if" a lot less probable.)

The second writing style breaks the traditional stucture by making it against 8 nations than the routine structure of focusing on the number 7. It places Israel in #8 and places Judah in the 7th position. The whole writing style applies the principles of the first style from talking about Israel with Assyria to Judah with Babylon and events that were occuring about a hundred years after Amos went to Israel. The one writing style is the immediate context, the second writing style is someone using the method of historism to apply the living word of God over history through historical analogy. 

Now, let's look at the horn of Daniel 8. The above posts gives a good question noticing that it seems to leapfrog so how can it be the same little horn as in Daniel 7.  So far, so good. However, this interpretation misses step 1, the local application; but jumps to an application over history (that whether we know it or not) comes out of the original setting. The ancient world thought in forms of cycles. For example, to ancient Egypt a day was equivalant to the cycle of the sun, or the annual flooding of the Nile. If we lived in ancient Egypt and I borrowed money from you and said that I'd pay you back the next day, you would expect the money within 24 hours, or within the year from the flooding of the Nile and you would be fine. 

The Hebrew cycles are given in Leviticus 23, 25 and here and there in Deuteronomy. Leviticus talks about the Hebrew weekly cycles of 6 days and the Sabbath, 6 months and Passover/Yom Kippur, 6 years and the Sabbatical year and 6 Sabbatical years and the Jubilee. Now Deuteronomy does not have the Jubilee and all that is done in the Jubilee in Leviticus is done in the Sabbatical year in Deuteronomy. Thus the Hebrew day cycle = a literal day, a month, a year, and in Leviticus but NOT Deuteronomy, a Sabbatical year. 

In Christian history, St. Augustine replaced historism with some other ways of understanding prophecy. Also, in the early centuries of Christianity historism began to decrease, especially by people prefering allogory. Eventually Histroical analogy/historism had been lost. Also, much of the original context had also been lost. Then came Joachin of Fiore, who restored the church to use historism. Sadly, he was pressured to push for a crucade that he really had no light on but wanted to help the church leaders. It was a disaster, and when he got home he started to focus more on where he believed he did have light and now to spread the gospel in his day and how the Lord could have come soon after his time. However, one thing that he picked up in the crucade was the eastern cyclic thought, but he only learned about the day=year connection (not the entire day=day=month=year and in Leviticus=Sabbatical year.) But the day=year was the one that the church at and after his time needed and from which we get 1844. 

1844 was the LAST date (since Daniel is based on Deuteronomy) to fulfill the prophecy. What our pioneers did not know was that 2300 literal days from Daniel getting the vision would bring us to the year (we are not told what day within the third year of Belshazzar the vision was given) where Medio-Persia was at Babylon's gate, Belshazzar's feast, and the start of the Medio-Persia Empire at the fall of Babylon. 

Getting with the more original setting, we have Medio-Persia, Greece with the one horn, breaks into 4 horns going to the four winds of heaven. Then we have Daniel 8th little horn comeing, yes, from the North, but NOT ONLY from the North but specifically North-West of Israel, traveling to the south east. This is just what ROME did. While Daniel 7 has different parts of Rome, of which the little horn is only a part of; in Daniel 8 the little horn is the entirety of Rome, from pagan to papal through out history to the second coming, including Satan's counterfeit of Jesus coming. 

I hope this helps.

 

[Gustave]

Hi Challenger, wasn't descent from what the SDA Pioneers affirmed (that was authenticated by Ellen White) anathematized by Ellen White? If that holds wouldn't SDA's be at liberty to interpret prophecy any way they like provided it doesn't move one of the SDA pillars in existence during the life of Ellen White? 

Ellen White / 1SM 161; CW 32; The Early Elmshaven Years 426
We are NOT to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. . . . And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, IF such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God

So, WHILE the Scriptures are considered to be God's Word and should be respected, they better not disagree with anything Ellen White confirmed through the Holy Spirit. I would guess the question is a matter of 'does the new interpretation move one pillar from what God told you through the Pioneers that Ellen White confirmed'?  

 

[Challenger]

Kevin, appreciate your response.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.  Are the four steps you listed in your first paragraph, the hermeneutics of which “Historical” expositors have used in centuries past to produce the interpretation which “ Historicist” promote to this day, or are they rules that you think are appropriate for interpreting apocalyptic prophecy?

I ask the question because I have not been able to find a standard set of hermeneutics used by “Historicists” through the past ages.  The following quote taken from our SDA Bible Commentaries, vol 7, pg. 130 seems to support my conclusion.

“IN Conclusion. Obviously, this discussion of the history of prophetic interpretation is brief all to brief to do full justice to the subject. It has not been possible to turn aside to consider those basic principles of interpretation that must serve as the criterion of the worth of the variant views of the Apocalypse that have been held by different expositors through the centuries. Nevertheless, the simple recital of those views, which reveals an ever-enlarging understanding of the meaning of the apocalyptic symbols of the Revelation, can prove of help in the interpretation …”

This statement would be akin to a first grade teacher teaching on the subject of math. Class, when it comes to math, I am not going to bother teaching you the laws that govern math, addition, multiplication, subtraction and division, instead I will just teach you the answers to math problems.

Any individual who desires to understand apocalyptic prophecy must first understand the hermeneutic or lack of any, (a private interpretation) on which that interpretation is built.

In the quote from our commentaries, none is given, and I suspect their were none recognized or proven to be true based on fulfilled prophecy of the past. Instead it is stated a simple recital of those views prove of help in the interpretation of Revelation. But what is those view were never correct to start with. No concrete hermeneutics are given for one to prove, wether they are correct or not.

Am I making sense here?

[Kevin H]

Hi Challenger: I could not follow it all, but it seems to make sense. We have a basic Bible principle, however, much of history; especially over the dark a, the history and cultural context that we are to build upon were lost. Thus even in historism we find a few applications that cover the test of time, but many that do not. It was a principle seen to be in the Bible, but much of it's use has been developed into traditions that we need to grow out of. Some of these traditions are good and while not perfect, have done excellent jobs and still do excellent jobs: such as the idea of type and antitype. 

I understand this to be a part of what we call "The Investigative Judgment." In the late 1820s the Rosetta Stone was deciphered. In the late 1830s a scholar, Edward Robinson, made his first visit to the holy land. His trips were the first serious scientific study of Bible geography. This trip lead to seeing how the geography affected the Bible story, instead of just making pilgrimages to and venerating the spot and at times covering what the geography can teach us with a building. Robinson's study eventually lead to archaeology on the tells (the remains of the old cities), the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the discovery of other ancient writings, and the work on the Rosetta Stone lead to unlocking the reading of these ancient documents and thus learning more about the history, culture and linguistics. 

In 1844 a bunch of events, such as the telegraph, and the break through of ancient languages that grew out of deciphering the Rosetta Stone, and Robinson's book and subsequent trips and studies built on that first one are three of the major events, and there are more that I can't think about right now. But these and what grew out of these open the door to make historism more accurate. As we learn more about what the text was pointing to in it's immediate context, we can thus like the unknown prophet who when Judah was facing Babylon was able to pull out the writings of Amos to the Northern Kingdom and make it more meaningful and a prophecy of what Judah was facing. Or like Matthew with Isaiah. The "Emanuel" prophecy in Isaiah 7 was Ahaz, the King of Judah did not trust in God. He was worried about two Kings planning to attack him. Isaiah was trying to encourage King Ahaz to trust in God and predicted that a young woman (and yes the word simply means young woman, a virgin or not, but certainly includes the idea of virgin) will have a child as a reminder that God is with us [does not indicate of God would be with us for good or bad, it is implied that whichever one depends upon our choice.] and that before the child knows right from wrong these two kings will no longer be a threat. 

Too often we take this context to mean that Isaiah was specifically predicting Jesus, just as Matthew points out, but that this prophecy is no more and no less. If this was it what kind of sense does the context make? "King Ahaz, don't worry, in about 750 years or so a child will be born and before this child knows right from wrong these two kings you are worried about will no longer be a problem. so don't give up hope, just hang on for the next 750 years and you won't have to worry any longer."

In the immediate context of Isaiah, Isaiah's wife had a baby and before that baby could tell right from wrong, the two kings were no longer a threat. But there is a universal principle in the promised son. It starts with Genesis 3:15-16 (We tend to stop with vs. 15, but the "He" of verse 16 is the same "He" that we find in verse 15. He, the promised seed is to rule over us.) A promised seed to Abraham, a promised seed to David, a promised seed, Isaiah's promise, but all these promised seeds indicating that in one way or another God will be with us, was ultamately met in Jesus.  Matthew took that wider principle and saw that he could apply the principle of the child who is the ultamate promised seed.

As we learn more about the original settings, we can make better understandings on whether or not to reapply the principle to specific situations that we will face. 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

*  The word of God is always true.  Sometime, it is partial and incomplete.  In addition, we may not correctly understand it.  

*  God used Ellen White in the development of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.

*  God used Ellene White to urge people to turn to what we commonly call the Bible as the source of ultimate authority as to what God wanted us to know.

*  Ellen White, in her humanity was imperfect.  Her spirituality grew, and changed, over the years of her life.  She probably never fully understood what God was communicating to her.

*  It is clear to me that that modern Adventists of today, often misunderstand what she said, and often mis-use her writings.

* Her writings were often sensitive to the time, culture and the circumstances of the person to whom she was writing.  With that in mind, one cannot always apply what she said to one person in that same manner to someone today.

None of this detracts from her leadership and the value of her ministry to us in our development.

 

 

[Challenger]

Kevin, I feel your back ground information here is diverging from my simple questions. 

One- Are the first four steps in your first post on this thread, hermeneutics that you personally deem important. Yes or No?

Two- Or, are they the same hermeneutics taught by Historicists for centuries?

[Challenger]

Gregory, I could not agree with you more on your last post. Thank You.

[Challenger]

Kevin

 A few comments on the four rules you listed. 

"The first step is to try (if possible) to see how the prophecy would have had a local application, at least not too far into the future. Second (and sadly often we have to start with this step) is to see how the prophecy has been applied over history by the church. Third, look at the principles. Fourth, be sure we are using the principles of historicism and not some new idea such as dispensationalism."

Your first rule. "Would have had a local application," This implies the prophecy has been fulfilled. However, there are several prophecies yet future concerning closing events. "Not to far into the Future." From what point in time, the first event listed in the prophecy, the time the prophet was given the vision, from the time an expositor endeavors to interpret it? 

2nd rule: "applied over history by the church." What church, Baptist, LDS, Catholic?  All have different interpretations. Which proves we can't put our trust in what any church teaches, but rather we must study the prophecies for ourselves, and make the Bible it's own expositor.

3rd. "Look at the principles." Please reveal the principles one should be aware of in Dan. 7?

4th. "be sure we are using the principles of historicism." Kevin, I've asked you to state what they are exactly, and you have not responded. I can only assume at this point your not sure.

 I'll share the hermeneutics that I believe God built into apocalyptic prophecy and were sealed up until the time of the end (Dan. 12:4&9) They could only be discovered after the five prophecies of Daniel where nearly fulfilled. Because an individual had to search for repetitive consistency in each to confirm a natural law was being played out. God the author of apocalyptic prophecy and all of creation, built into it all His natural laws which govern their behavior. 

These are His natural laws that govern the interpretation of apocalyptic prophecy.

Rule One: Each apocalyptic prophecy has a beginning point and an ending point in time and the events within each prophecy occur in the order they are given.

Rule Two: A prophecy or prophetic element within a prophecy is not fulfilled until all of the specifications are met. This includes the order of the events given within the prophecy. 

Rule Three: Apocalyptic language can be literal, symbolic, or analogous. To reach the intended meaning of a passage, the student must consider (a) the context, (b) the use of parallel language in the Bible, and (c) a relevant text that defines the symbol if an element is thought to be symbolic. (Language)

Rule Four: The presence or absence of the Jubilee Calendar determines how God measures time. If a prophetic time period occurs during the operation of the Jubilee Calendar (1437 B.C. - 1994), time is translated as a day for a year; otherwise, translation is not permitted.

Kevin, note that these laws deal with chronology, what actually is a fulfillment, langue types, and the proper interpretation of time elements. Yours do not address these issues, so one is left up to their own bias to interpret them. Valid rules on the other hand allow the prophecies to speak for themselves, overriding ones bias, which should be the objective of all who desire to understand what God is revealing to us.

What are your thoughts?