Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1140Apostolic Interpretation

Expand Messages
  • e_s_c_h_a_t_o_n
    Jan 13, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Today there is little agreement on exactly what the Apocalypse is saying. There are several major ideas that believers tend to cluster around such as preterism or futurism, premill or amill, pre-trib or post-trib, etc. Most modern views have been developed primarily in the last couple of hundred years, and are based on modern methods of interpretation. Historical/literal and historical/critical interpretations see the symbols of Revelation representing the historical existence and actions of kingdoms and rulers, or perhaps future rulers and nations.

      I see three periods of past influence on interpreting biblical prophecy that have contributed to today's diverse views.

      A. The pre-Christian teachings of Palestinian Jews
      B. The post-Constantine period of Christianity
      C. The post-reformation times until today

      Daniel is one of the OT books most Christians refer to in regards to understanding Revelation. It is interpreted in much the same kind of historical way as pre-Christian Palestinian Jews understood the book. Daniel's four empires found in chapters two and seven were interpreted as follows.

      1. Babylon
      2. Medo-Persia
      3. Macedonia (Greece, Alexander the Great)
      4. Ptolemies and Seleucids (Little Horn - Antiochus IV Epiphanes)

      Daniel's "abomination of desolation" is identified in the book of 1 Maccabees as the action of Antiochus Epiphanes.


      Pre-Christian Jews interpreted Daniel's symbols on a somewhat literal level. The author of Maccabees and the historian Josephus believed Daniel's beasts with horns and heads, along with the statue in chapter two, represented earthly kings and kingdoms. (Josephus - Antiquities of the Jews X 11.7 XI.8.5, XII.7.6)



      Josephus didn't explain exactly which section of Daniel referred to the Romans, and he didn't specify a "dual fulfillment." The twentieth century preterist author, Philip Mauro, asserted that Daniel 11:31 refers to Antiochus Epiphanes while 12:11 refers to the 70 AD desolation, even though 12:11 seems to refer back to 11:31.

      Is that the way Jesus and the apostles understood Daniel? When Jesus spoke of Daniel's prophecy He didn't mention Antiochus or any of the historical fulfillment, but simply referred to the abomination of desolation as future.

      >>Matt 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) <<(Mark 13:14)

      Neither did the apostolic father Barnabas refer to historical fulfillment when discussing Daniel's prophecy. Instead he warned of Jewish error and wrote about the Decalogue (Epistle of Barnabas IV). Second century father's, such as Justin Martyt and Irenaeus believed the abomination of desolation referred to a future antichrist. Irenaeus explained the number of the beast (Rev 13:18) in and allegorical way in one place (V.29), but later speculated on what the actual name might be.

      >>Then also Lateinos (Lateinos) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Heresies V.xxx.3<<

      Irenaeus argued against the early heretics, and claimed apostolic teaching was found in the church. However, he makes clear that speculation about the name of antichrist was his own and not something he learned from tradition. This is the first mention of the historical interpretation of Daniel in the writing of the Christian fathers, and is perhaps partially responsible for the later Christian general interpretation of Daniel's four empires.

      1. Babylon
      2. Medo-Persia
      3. Macedonia (including Ptolemies and Seleucids)
      4. Roman Empire

      Later fathers associated the future imminent break up of the Roman Empire with the appearance of Antichrist.

      As mentioned, neither Christ or Barnabas explain the historical fulfillment of Daniel. Paul claims that wisdom has nothing to do with earthly rulers (1 Cor 2:6). If so, then the beasts in Revelation probably shouldn't be interpreted as a conglomeration of earthly kings and kingdoms, because they call for wisdom to understand.



      Wisdom is about success and happiness that come from living in accordance with orderliness (Proverbs 22:17-24:22). It really begins with God and one's faith in Him as Lord and Savior (Proverbs 1:7), even though it involves observation and instruction.

      Jesus doesn't mention the historical interpretation of Daniel, and it isn't mentioned in the New Testament. Neither is it found among the church fathers until we reach Irenaeus, who makes it clear he considers it a coincidence.

      In relation to Daniel's prophecy, Barnabas recalls the covenant was broken even as Moses received the tablets. He warns of Jewish error, and calls on believers to be spiritual minded and to obey the Law.

      >>...Let us be spiritually-minded: let us be a perfect temple to God. As much as in us lies, let us meditate upon the fear of God, and let us keep His commandments, that we may rejoice in His ordinances... Barnabas IV<<

      Irenaeus gives a similar teaching in regards to Daniel.


      According to Irenaeus, God has prepared a fire for all apostasy, and God has "both given to us the spirit of life, and established a law adapted for all."

      It is said that the Jews seek miracles and the Greeks wisdom (1 Cor 1:22), but Christ came to both Jew and Greek with the power and wisdom of God (v24). Scripture sometimes calls for wisdom (Rev 13:18, 17:9). Paul spoke wisdom to the mature, but not about the rulers of this world (1 Cor 2:6).

      Wisdom is called for in identifying the beasts in Revelation (13:18, 17:9). The traditional interpretation uses the literal level of the pre-Christian Jews. The idea is that the beasts represent earthly kingdoms and rulers, but according to Paul the wisdom of God is not about earthly rulers or the literal level of scripture (1 Cor 2:6,7). This would seem to rule out the traditional interpretation of the horns and heads. The fact is Jesus and the apostles never directly confirmed the traditional Jewish interpretation of Daniel's prophecies. Indeed, Jesus seemed to contradict it (Mat 24:15, Mk 13:14).

      The Greeks used many ideas and symbols similar to those in the Bible, and Paul identifies a certain type of wisdom with the Greeks (1 Cor 1:22). In Plato's Republic a mythical many-headed beast is used to represent the image of a man's soul. Four ages of man are represented as gold, silver, bronze and iron, like Daniel's image in Daniel two. The rulers of Plato's Republic are referred to as philosopher kings. At one point in Book IX he says:

      >>I understand; you mean that he will be a ruler in the city of which we are the founders, and which exists in idea only; for I do not believe that there is such an one anywhere on earth?
      (Compare to Gal 4:26, Heb 8:5)<<

      The Garden of the Hesperides is Hera's orchard in Greek mythology, where a tree or a grove of immortality-giving golden apples grew. The guardian hundred headed serpent receives the name Ladon.

      The Jews who rejected Christ are said not to truly understanding the scriptures (2 Cor 3:13-16, Rom 10:2-3) and did not recognize their messiah (Luke 19:44).

      The New Testament talks more about correct belief and behavior than about earthly rulers and political empires. The earliest church fathers also decline to discuss the history based interpretation of Daniel, but instead associate those teachings with the spirit and the law. This leads me to believe it is the true apostolic teaching.

      Christian interpretation is clearly influenced by Jewish teachings by the third century, as can be seen in this excerpt from Clement of Alexandria.



      1. The historical interpretation was found among pre-Christian Jews.
      2. The Palestinian Jews didn't understand the scriptures in a manner that allowed them to recognize their Messiah, according to the NT.
      3. Neither the NT or the earliest Christian fathers mention the historical interpretation of Daniel's prophecies. Instead Jesus speaks of an abomination of desolation to come, while Barnabas and Irenaeus talk about the Spirit and the Law in relation to Daniel's prophecies. Barnabas warns of Jewish error.
      4. Later Christian writers show the influence of Josephus on their interpretation of Daniel.

      My conclusion is that the historical interpretation of Daniel is not the interpretation of the apostles or very early Christianity. Instead Daniel's prophecies are spiritual teachings of theological content concerning Law and Spirit (Romans 7-8). They concern biblical wisdom, perhaps similar to Greek wisdom in some ways.

      Paul and the other apostles probably saw the symbolism of the Garden of Eden representing wisdom and the Gospel.

      the tree: <<( Gal 3:13)

      The tree of life represent the cross. The tree of knowledge is the Law (Rom 3:20-22, Rom 6:21-23, Rom 7:5-7, 7:21) The wisdom isn't just Greek, it is biblical.

      Sir 19:20 The fear of the Lord is all wisdom; and in all wisdom is the performance of the law, and the knowledge of his omnipotency. <<

      The lamb in Revelation symbolizing Christ has seven horns and seven eyes (Rev 5:6) representing the spirits of God (2Ch 16:9 Zec 3:9 4:10). Anyone in Christ is considered a new creature

      >>2 Cor 2:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.<< (Gal 6:15 Heb 8:9-13 2Pe 3:10-13 Rev 21:1-5)

      Therefore the seven also represents the new creation in Christ, and the ten represents the Ten Commandments, the law and the Old Testament (Rev 13:18, 17:9). The Book of Revelation is an allegorical treatise concerning the tension between the Old and New covenants, much like the other books in the NT. It should be interpreted in a theological way rather than a historical/literal way because the wisdom is theological.

      Alan Fuller
    • Show all 43 messages in this topic