Essays

The Interpretation of Biblical Prophecy

By Dr. Oral Collins 

The article below is reproduced and shared with some revisions by the original author from the journal, Henceforth 3.1 (Fall, 1974) 23-31. 

"Blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written. . . ." (Rev. 1:3; cp. Luke. 11:28, John 12:47).  The verb "to hear" in this context means "to be informed," and implies understanding.  The crucial question for the earnest Christian reader of the book of Revelation is the question of hermeneutics—How do I hear? By what  approach and by what interpretive methods do I arrive at a useful understanding of such a strange and complex book? How can I chart my course among the multifari­ous interpretations offered for each aspect of the pro­phecy?  The serious student will want to study the bib­lical text and develop his personal understanding with some assurance.  To do this, it is absolutely necessary to know and to apply sound principles of biblical interpretation.

The difference between general hermeneutics, which apply to any literature ancient or modern, and biblical hermeneutics is not fundamentally a difference in principle.  The same gen­eral laws of language and communication apply to both.  Similarly, the difference between the interpretation of biblical prophecy and the interpretation of other parts of Scripture is not a fundamental difference in principle.  But prophecy is as different from histor­ical narration or from epis­tolary style as poetry is from prose.  Moreover, apo­calyptic is a still more specialized literary mold.  The peculiar difficulties of prophetic interpretation in­volve (1) an acquaintance with the common thought forms and structures of the ancient pro­phetic and apocalyptic li­teratures as distinctive li­terary types, (2) an understanding of the manner in which the original reader would have read such literature, and (3) an ac­quaintance with the special­ized vocabulary, especially the symbols, in which prophecy is expres­sed.

General Hermeneutics

Many serious errors in prophetic interpretation arise out of lack of regard for general principles.  These principles are inher­ent in language communica­tion and are generally agreed upon by those who are considered authorities on hermeneutics.  They may be summarized as follows:

Biblical Hermeneutics

Biblical hermeneutics is complicated by the fact that the Bible contains six­ty-six books written in three languages by many authors over a span of fif­teen hundred years.  The linguistic and cultural background as well as some understanding of the history of the period is pre­requisite to thorough study and exegesis of a biblical text.  Although it may of­ten prove helpful "to compare Scripture with Scrip­ture," where questions of interpretation are involved, this should be done with awareness of the relation­ships between the meaning of words and the context and background of each particular text.  It should not be assumed, for example, that the original readers of the Epistle of James (ca.  A.D.  45-50) had access to the Epistle to the Romans (A.D.  57-58) for clar­ification.

Our approach to bib­lical hermeneutics assumes a supernatural view of the Bible as holy Scripture—the divinely inspired and therefore true Word of God.  This presupposition of bib­lical hermeneutics is de­rived principally from the teachings of Jesus (Matt.  5:17, 18, John 10:35, et al.).  It is, as we should expect, reiterated by the Apostles (2 Tim.  3:16, 2 Pet.  1:21).  Rule one below results directly from this approach.  Rules two to four also follow from this Judeo-Christian concept of Scripture as Re­velation.

The Hermeneutics of Predictive Prophecy

The interpretation of prophecy is involved espe­cially with prediction of events which were future from the standpoint of the original composition.  Such predictions may have been fulfilled at some time now past or they may still await fulfillment.  Although the general meaning of unfulfilled prophecies may be determined from the text, the full meaning may not be evident until the event predicted has actually occurred.  It may be presupposed that the actual fulfillment of the prophecy in history will of­fer a correct alternative to previous misinterpretations.  For this reason, it is to be assumed that the process of interpretation of historical prophecies is necessarily dynamic and progressive, ev­ery generation being respon­sible to study the prophe­cies and to discern the signs of its own times (Matt. 16:3).1

Several principles for the study of prophecy re­quire particular consider­ation: 

The question of fulfillment presupposes that the student of prophecy must also be a student of history.  One cannot discover the fulfillment of Daniel 11 without learning in some de­tail about the wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies in the third and second centuries, B.C., and neither can he know which prophecies of the Apocalypse have been fulfilled without a study of the history of the church from the days of the Apostle John.  “The true Church of Christ has a perpetual interest in all the events of history; and if patiently and reverently followed, no study will more richly repay the devout disciple with spiritual profit and de­light" (Cachemaille, p.  11). 

The Special Hermeneutics of Apocalyptic Prophecy

Only a very naive approach to Daniel or to Revelation would attempt to take the symbols with concrete literalism.  Interpre­ters have little trouble with the beasts, but sometimes slip into hyper-literalism with more comfortable imagery, like the rider on the white horse in Reve­lation 19 or the falling of the stars in Revelation 6.  A study of the interpreted visions of Daniel is help­ful for developing our hermeneutic for Revelation. 

The Year-Day Principle for the Interpretation of Numerical Prophecies

One of the more contro­versial principles of pro­phetic interpretation is the “year-day” principle.  This is the principle whereby chron­ological designations such as “day,” “week,” or “month” are understood to be used symbolically.  This interpreta­tion presupposes that “day” or its derivative multiples used as symbols means “year” or corresponding multiples of years, so that one “day” means one year, one “week” means seven years, and so forth.  The year-day princi­ple is explicitly indicated in several old Testament texts (cited below), and is commonly applied to the “seventy weeks” prophecy of Dan­iel 9, but is often rejected in the interpretation of the Apocalypse.  The following evidence strongly supports a more general respect for the “year-day” principle than is often allowed. 

In all occurrences of the year-day symbolism, a period of judgment is pre­dicted, suggesting that Num 14:34 is the proto­type for subsequent usage.  In using the year-day principle it is important to distinguish between in­terpretation and applica­tion.  Interpretation is concerned with the "year" as a symbol in the text and utilizes a 360-day year.  Application applies the meaning of the text to history and involves real, 365¼-day years.6 

We have now concluded our brief summary of prin­ciples for the interpre­tation of biblical prophecy, in which we first introduced as presuppositional some guidelines for general her­meneutics, then offered special rules for inter­preting prophecy, followed by some of the more specialized requirements of apocalyptic literature.  The thought­ful student of biblical pro­phecy will raise other ques­tions requiring further in-depth study of interpretive method.  In no other aspect of biblical study will one’s method more largely predetermine the re­sults of one’s quest for bib­lical truth.

1 For an excellent reading on this, see H. Grattan Guinness, “Progressive Interpretation,” The Approaching End of the Age (New York:  A. C. Armstrong, 1884), pp. 79-138.2 “Interpretation of Prophecy," Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1967), p. 99. 3 E.g., A. E. Hatch, Handbook of Prophecy, (Mendo­ta, Ill.:  Western A. C. Publication Society, 1913), p. 80.4 The 390 years for the northern kingdom calculates from the Assyrian conquest in 721 B.C. The period would then have ended in 331 B.C., the time of Alexander's" conquest of Mesopotamia. The 40 years of Judah's punishment coincides with her captivity in Babylon after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. It extends to 547 B.C., a time when Judah was still captive in Babylon. The captivity of Judah did not terminate until sometime after 538, the date of Cyrus' decree permitting the return of the Jews to Jerusalem. H. L. Ellison suggests that the number forty may have been "chosen by God as being less than the total of Babylonian lordship, and being at the same time reminiscent of the 40 years in the wilderness" ([Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1956], p. 34.). Just how Alexander effected the destiny of the ten northern tribes is unknown. For a rather thorough discussion , see C. F. Keil and F. Delitzch, Commentary on the Old Testament: Ezekiel, Daniel (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrikson Publishers, 1989), p. 71-78.5 F. Brown, S. R. Driver, & C. A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1962), p. 989 (col. 1.2.).6 There is biblical and scientific evidence which suggests that some celestial occurrence effected a change in the length of the year about 747 B.C., at which time the Babylonians adopted a new calendar system with a solar year of 365 days (Era of Nabonassar; see The Velikovsky Affair, ed. by Alfred de Grazia (New I!yde Park; N.Y.: University Books, 1966), pp. 157-168.). The probable basis for the 360 day symbol is that earlier calendar, was in fact 360 days, as required by the Genesis account of the Flood. Since year-day symbolism is based upon the 360 day "year, a "month" is thirty days. The prophetic time periods should be calculated accordingly, while application of the time periods to actual history should be done on the basis of the regular calendar, the 365¼ day year. For readings on the year-day principle, see Albert Barnes, Notes on Revelation. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1949), pp. xi-xxviii; Basil F.C. Atkinson, The War with Satan (London: The Protestant Truth Society, n.d.), pp. 210-216; and C. H. Hewitt, The Seer of Babylon, unabridged ed. (Boston: Advent Christian Publications, Inc., 1948), pp. 413-420; .

The above article is reproduced and shared with some revisions by the original author from the journal Henceforth 3.1 (Fall, 1974) 23-31. 

Professor Collins taught biblical studies at Berkshire Christian College, 1951-1987 and since 1989 has served as Professor of Bible at The Berkshire Institute for Christian Studies.  He holds the Ph.D degree in Near Eastern and Judaic Studies from Brandeis University.

© Copyright 2001 by Oral E. Collins