- Jan 2, 2014
- 11,984
- 3,769
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
UnfulfilledIs knowledge of history necessary to an understanding of Prophecy?
In regards to the study of prophecy, especially in regards to the Apocalypse, it is appropriate that something be said with regard to the two schools or methods of interpretation, which are radically in conflict with the true method. These two schools are the Preterist and the Futurist. The one we understand to be the true one is called the Historical.
Concerning the Preterist it seems sufficient to say that it is very generally discarded at the present time as unworthy of credence. Its teaching is that many of the prophecies of the Bible and all the visions of the Apocalypse were completely fulfilled in the early centuries of the Church's history. The Futurist interpretation is that all its visions are yet to have their fulfillment after the Church has finished its course and has entered into its reward.
It will be well to note in this connection, the words of the great Teacher Himself, "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that when it is come to pass (i.e. when you see it fulfilled) ye might believe," this statement suggests a principle of interpretation important to be observed in the study of prophecy. It is obvious, then, that it would be impossible for any one to decide whether the predictions of the Apocalypse or for that matter any prophecy have or have not met their fulfillment either wholly or partially, without observing this divinely given principle. In other words, certain knowledge of the events of history is essential in order to determine to what extent the visions have met fulfillment.
Strange as it may seem, there are some who claim that the apocalyptic visions cannot have had a fulfillment in history, because, as they say, we are told to search the Scriptures, and are nowhere told to search the historians. God, they say, is His own interpreter. Such reasoning we believe is unsound. How could we ever know that the prophecies of Daniel have met their fulfillment without acquainting ourselves with the records of history especially Jewish history? Knowledge of history is absolutely essential to the intelligent understanding of prophecy.
We are not to compare prophecy with uninspired or profane history, say our futurist friends. According to this theory, then, there could not have been any prophetic light thrown on the period of four hundred years prior to the First Advent. The same also would be true of the last two thousand years. Such reasoning would lead us to very unsound conclusions.
When the Apostle exhorted that we do well to take heed to the more sure word of prophecy, he evidently intended that we should look to the events and occurrences recorded in history to see the fulfillment of what had been predicted by the Prophets; else how could we be profited by giving heed to the more sure word of prophecy?
Let us consider for instance the prophecy of Daniel. In the vision of chapter 7 a tenfold division of the Roman Empire was predicted to take place before the establishment of the Kingdom of God on the earth. We know from Bible history that the Roman Empire was existing in its undivided form up to about 60 AD, but we are dependent upon profane history for the knowledge that it was still existing as a universal empire when the apostle John was divinely used to close the canon of Scripture by having imparted to him the visions of the Apocalyptic prophecy, which repeats this very same prediction of Daniel. How do we know that this prediction of Daniel has or has not met its fulfillment, unless from profane history?
Profane history records the fact that just such a division of the Roman Empire occurred nearly eighteen hundred years ago. It is then an indisputable fact that our knowledge of the fulfillment of prophecy is dependent upon the faithful records of uninspired historians. The Savior's words, "And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe" (John 14:29), are sufficient to substantiate this line of reasoning.
Another unreasonable, indeed rash statement made by some Futurist interpreters is that the events connected with the history of the Church of this Gospel Age are not subjects of prophecy. Those who make such a statement seem not to see that knowledge of history is needful even to warrant such an assertion! How, we ask, without knowledge of the history of the Gospel Age, can it be known that the visions of John in the Apocalypse do not present a connected outline of the leading and important events of Church history?
The assertion is an entirely proper one that knowledge of what has actually taken place is as needful to justify a denial, as an assertion of the fact. We must know a person as well before we can pronounce that a certain portrait does not resemble him, as in order to assert that it does.
"Trustworthy historians record events which they neither invented nor caused, but what occurred under God's providential government; it was He who caused, or permitted these events; they are in one sense as Divine as prophecy; that is, both proceed from Him. Prophecy is God telling us beforehand what shall happen; authentic history is men telling us what has, in the providence of God, taken place. "We dare not for these reasons exclude the light afforded by history, in the endeavor to answer the questions:
Is the prophecy of the Apocalypse fulfilled or partly so, or is it still unfulfilled?