About the time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who
will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist upon their
literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition.
-Sir Isaac Newton
Dr. John Walvoord was asked about a year ago "what do you
predict will be the most significant theological issues over the
next ten years?" His answer includes the following: "the
hermeneutical problem of not interpreting the Bible literally,
especially the prophetic areas. The church today is engulfed in
the idea that one cannot interpret prophecy literally."1
While millions of evangelicals still believe and practice literal
interpretation of the Bible, including prophecy, there is nevertheless,
a noticeable trend by some who are "engulfed in the idea
that one cannot interpret prophecy literally."
CLAMOR AND OPPOSITION
The last few years have witnessed the rise of a new growth industry
within evangelicalism relating to Bible prophecy. There has been
an ever- increasing wave of materials warning evangelicals against
the literal interpretation of Bible prophecy and perceived implications
that could follow from such practice. Increasingly, from outside
the church (and some from within), those who believe in the literal
interpretation of Bible prophecy are being pictured as a danger
and threat to the progress of modern society. In the past, those
who took Bible prophecy seriously were often ignored, since it
was believed that their views did not impact in any significant
way society at large. However, a reassessment by some secularists
appears to attach great significance and blame to such beliefs.
The recent assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin
has set off a new flurry of criticism in the media of conservative
religious beliefs that the Bible gives Israel a divine right to
the land. Since many evangelicals share this view, I expect some
will attempt to link this ungodly act with a literal belief in
Bible prophecy. The last decade has increasingly seen an attempt
by some to link a literal interpretation of the Bible to extremism.
Some critics have tried to blame such activities as the threats
of nuclear war, Islamic terrorism, American cult extremists, and
the bombing in Oklahoma City, as all identical in nature and inflamed
by a literal interpretation of the Bible. Such false linkage is
then presented as proof that beliefs of this kind are a dangerous
threat to society and that steps must be taken to control such
views and preempt supposed actions that might follow from them.
SECULAR PROPHECY PHOBIA
Since they reject the Bible as a whole, especially the supernatural
implication required for fulfillment, secularists have always
thought that belief in Bible prophecy was weird, In recent years
a number of books and articles have appeared attempting to explain
to secularists biblical prophecy beliefs in an attempt to assess
the impact of such beliefs on the thinking of society in general.
Some of the books include: Apocalypse: On the Psychology of
Fundamentalism in America by Charles Strozier; Naming the
Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession by Robert
Fuller; and the most widely-heralded When Time Shall Be No
More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture by Paul Boyer.2
Why, apart from pure academic exercises, would secularists (who
believe that life should be lived apart from religious influence)
be interested in the prophetic beliefs of biblical literalists?
Apparently some secularists believe that one is not properly enlightened
if he or she is ignorant of the prophetic beliefs of a large segment
of the common people. In this way, Robert Fuller speaks of "my
insistence that religion can and should be made the subject of
intellectual inquiry."3 Likewise, Paul Boyer contends that
"Much evidence (some direct, some inferential) suggests that,
despite gradual erosion in the twentieth century, prophetic belief
remains deeply rooted in the United States as the century ends."4
The December 19, 1994 issue of U.S. News & World Report
ran a cover-story on Bible prophecy. Interestingly,it was run
not in the religious section, but in the science and society section,
and entitled "Waiting for The Messiah: The new clash over
the Bible's millennial prophecies."5 This article reduces
belief in biblical prophecy as the fulfillment of a psychological
drive to find meaning in life, even though it is said to have
great "destructive potential" (p. 71). What is interesting
about the article is its focus on a departure by some evangelicals
from the literal interpretation of prophecy and a new openness
to less literal alternative approaches. The tone of the article
seems to be that finally, even some of those crazy literalists
are waking up and realizing that Bible prophecy cannot be taken
literally in these enlightened and modern times.
EVANGELICAL PHOBIA
Among evangelicals, who believe that the Bible is the inspired,
inerrant Word of God, a significant stream of criticism by those
who are withdrawing from a literal interpretation of Bible prophecy
has come forth. These criticisms can be divided into two camps;
1)those who disagree with the literal interpretation of prophecy
and 2) those who may agree to some extent with literal interpretation
but whose focus on prophecy often relates to warning against extremism.
Interpretative Differences
It is to be expected that those who do not interpret prophecy
literally would disagree with those of us who do. It can be proper
and honorable to sincerely disagree with another Christian on
the basis of interpretation. I believe that this should be done
on the basis of our differences in the understanding of the biblical
text and honest dialogue should focus on these issues of biblical
interpretation. However, some adopt ridicule and sarcasm, similar
to the mocking secularist, in an attempt to gain an advantage
in the disagreementor to win the approval of others listening
to the dialogue.
Within any system of belief there is always a spectrum of those
holding a viewpoint. This is true within our camp of literal interpreters.
I have written in the past about our own who I believe are wrongly
involved in date-setting and improper speculation. I have tried
to make the case that such approaches really conflict with the
principles of consistent literal interpretation of Bible prophecy.
I admit that we do have some who are vulnerable to criticism,
but this does not justify many of the false characterizations
of some of our opponents. Instead, they often work very hard in
taking examples of the extreme and making them out to be the norm
in representing our beliefs and their outworking. They often delight
in putting the worst face possible on our views and often wrongly
implicate with extremist views those within the mainstream of
our tradition.
Examples of such ridicule can be found in books by Reconstructionists
like Gary DeMar's Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern
Church and Gary North's Rapture Fever: Why Dispensationalism
is Paralyzed. Others attempt to smear the literal interpretation
of prophecy by saying it was derived from spurious historical
origins. Dave MacPherson has taken this approach in his many editions
of his booksThe Incredible Cover-Up, The Great Rapture
Hoax, and his latest The Rapture Plot. Others have
tried to paint the literal interpretation of prophecy as just
plain weird as in Robert L. Pierce's The Rapture Cult: Religious
Zeal and Political Conspiracy or John Noe's The Apocalypse
Conspiracy.
Internal Differences
There are some who say they believe in the literal interpretation
of prophecy, but yet it seems that the only time they write about
the subject is to warn against extremists. During the last year
many articles and editorials about prophecy have appeared in Christianity
Today . Regrettably, almost all of them have been warnings
of some kind focused on the potential abuses of extremism instead
of a positive presentation and application of the literal interpretation
of prophecy.
Along this same line, are recent books such as B. J. Oropeza's
99 Reasons Why No One Knows When Christ Will Return and
C. Marvin Pate and Calvin B. Haines' Doomsday Delusions: What's
Wrong with Predictions About the End of the World. Many literal
interpreters of prophecy agree with the overall thrust of these
books (it is wrong to date-set or speculate wildly), but I wonder
if their tone and approach does not have more in common with the
above mentioned prophecy nay-sayers.
HISTORY BEFORE IT HAPPENS
I believe that Bible prophecy is history written before it happens
(cf. Isa. 46:8-48:11). Just as it is right and necessary to interpret
the early chapters of Genesis literally in order to build a biblical
framework of origins, so it is right and necessary to interpret
prophecy literally in order to build a biblical framework of the
future. Just because a speculation based upon a literal interpretation
of Genesis may prove to be wrong is not a sufficient basis to
reject a literal interpretation of Genesis. So also, improper
speculation about the future is not a legitimate basis for the
rejection of the literal interpretation of prophecy. Thus, prophecy
should play an important role in the life of a Christian, since
it is a dominant subject throughout the Bible, especially in the
New Testament. As with the biblcal text in general, we should
endeavor to study and relate prophecy to our lives in a responsible
manner.
Prophecy has always played a central role in the life of the church
during her 2,000-year history. Prophetic study and speculation
have been a constant down through church history. What has changed
at times over the years is the rise and fall of various interpretative
approaches to prophecy. Few, if any, question the early church
focus on prophecy. I doubt if any modern emphasis on prophecy
could rival the impact upon the medieval church as a whole by
various prophetic interpreters and speculators such as Joachim
of Fiore. Only those with a surface knowledge of the Reformation
can question the central role that eschatology played in the minds
of such leaders as Martin Luther and John Knox. But something
is different in our day. Prophecy is seen by many in the church
as something that is non-essential. Many see it as a secondary
issue merely reflecting preferences that cannot be ultimately
resolved by Bible study. Yet, to think that about 25% of Scripture
can be viewed this way should be an unacceptable approach for
any evangelical. Since prophecy deals with real history, then
it is as important as any other portion of the Bible.
ENLIGHTENMENT INFLUENCE
Why would many evangelicals, who otherwise take literally other
portions of Scripture, be tempted to relegate secondary importance
to so much of the Bible? I think Paul Boyer has given us some
insight when he notes:
Down to the Enlightenment, biblical apocalyptic was read with
seriousness throughout Christendom, at all social and educational
levels, for the clues it offered to God's divine plan. But as
skepticism and rationalism gained ground in the eighteenth century,
the academic and popular views of these texts gradually diverged.
. . . At the popular level, particularly in America, the apocalyptic
texts remained what they had always been: a vital source of doctrine,
reassurance, and foreknowledge. Ordinary believers continued to
pore over their pages and to look expectantly for the events they
found predicted there.6
Marjorie Reeves, the leading historian of prophecy during the
later Middle Ages echoes Boyer's thoughts:
Today much decision is based on a type of prediction which is
being evolved under sets of rules deriving from scientific method.
. . . The medieval concept of prophecy presupposed a divine providence
working out its will in history, . . . Although obviously different
ways of looking at the future were forming in the sixteenth century,
they existed side by side with the old assumptions in the minds
of rulers, churchmen, and scholars. Only reluctantly in the seventeenth
century was prophecy as an attitude towards the future acknowledged
to be outmoded. . . .
But prophecy has now ceased to be of importance except on the
fringes of modern civilization. . . . Perhaps we might say that
only when intelligent and educated men ceased to take prophecy
seriously were the Middle Ages truly at an end. The contention
here is that this change hinges on a change in our whole attitude
to history and to our own participation in it.7
Just as many were influenced by Enlightenment thought and abandoned
a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis , it
appears that a similar dynamic has been at work in assaulting
prophcey or "future history." We know that secularists
disdain prophecy because it gives a person a clear and certain
view of the future, which clashes with the Enlightenment view
of science and knowledge. However, a proper view of science does
not clash with Scripture, just as the literal view of Bible prophecy
will not be at odds with history. Thus, we can take Bible prophecy
literally, develop a scenario of the future, and at the same time
interact responsibly with current events as they foreshadow and
lead up to a time when God will literally fulfill His Word. W
ENDNOTES
1 "An Interview: Dr. John F. Walvoord Looks at Dallas Seminary,"
Dallas Connection (Winter 1994, Vol. 1, No. 3), p. 4.
2 Charles Strozier, Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism
in America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1994). Robert Fuller, Naming
the Antichrist: The History of an American Obsession (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1995). Paul Boyer, When Time
Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture
(Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
1992).
3 Fuller, Naming the Antichrist, p. v.
4 Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, pp. 1-2.
5 "Waiting for The Messiah: The new clash over the Bible's
millennial prophecies," by Jeffery L. Sheler, U.S. News
& World Report (December 19, 1994), pp. 62-71.
6 Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More, p. 45.
7 Marjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Middle
Ages (London: Oxford University Press, 1969), pp. vii-viii,
508.
