Companion book now available!
Your one-stop
resource for accurate information
on the wild and
wooly world of modern religious groups and teachers.
|
If this is
your first visit to the Field Guide you will find it important to read
the material in the Introduction section
before continuing your explorations here.
|
Lions and Leopards and Bears... OH MY!
(This is the second installment of this article. Click here to go to the beginning of the article.)
4
Prove all things. Hold fast that which is good.
IThes. 5:21 [KJV]
It is particularly significant that this admonition of Paul is located in his letter to the Thessalonians, rather than just any of his letters. For, as Luke recorded in the book of Acts:
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Acts 17:11
Paul was encouraging the Thessalonians in his letter to be more like the Bereans! It is also significant to note that both letters to the Thessalonians deal with aspects of what we might include in the study of the "End Times." It is likely that Paul was including teachings about prophecy as being among those things that we should "prove."
But just what does it mean to "prove" something? There is a lot of "fuzzy" thinking and reasoning that passes for "proof," even among many sincere students and teachers of the Bible. If you have a favorite prophecy teacher, no doubt he has challenged you to "prove" his interpretations of prophecy by looking in the scriptures yourself. Perhaps you have diligently done just that- at least at the beginning of your studies! Perhaps you are absolutely convinced that you have seen the "proof" in the scriptures for what you now believe about prophecy. You have compared passages in the prophetic books that speak of the "End Time" and are SURE your teacher's scenario is the only one possible. As some people have said to me about the teaching they had embraced, "What other explanation could there possibly be?!"
Before exploring the answer to that question, we need to consider a few concepts about the nature of "proof," whether it be in the realm of Bible prophecy, scientific studies, political propaganda, or any other area of life. When someone is attempting to sway our opinion about something, they may present their case and then ask confidently, "Now isn't that logical?" And, if we are forced to admit that what they have said is perfectly logical, we may feel forced to admit they are right in their opinion, even if we STILL have a "gut feeling" that they are wrong! We may use the word "logical" ourselves, without realizing the full implication of it.
There is a formal study in academics which is called "logic." You can take courses in college called "Symbolic Logic." Many students in such courses are surprised to learn that their "gut feelings" may have been right all along. But you don't need a full semester in such a college course to clear up one of the most common errors in accepting someone else's "proof" for prophetic interpretations. You only need to understand the critical difference between the words "VALID" and "TRUE."
Consider the conclusion reached in this formal "logical argument":
Statement 1: All poodles belong to the dog family.
Statement 2: This animal in my lap is a poodle.
Conclusion: Therefore this animal is in the dog family.
If you can see that the animal is, indeed a poodle, even your "gut reaction" will likely tell you the conclusion above is a TRUE statement. However, in addition, symbolic logic would also state that it is a VALID conclusion. Does "VALID" then mean "TRUE ." NO!! Consider the conclusion reached in this "logical argument."
Statement 1: All men are male chauvinist pigs.
Statement 2: Joe is a man.
Conclusion: Therefore Joe is a male chauvinist pig.
The statement that "Joe is a male chauvinist pig" may be true. It may be false. But that says nothing about the LOGIC used to reach it! Does it surprise you to learn that the conclusion "Joe is a male chauvinist pig" IS a VALID conclusion to the above argument? Does that mean it is, therefore, logically TRUE? NO!!
Because the word "VALID" is not a synonym for "TRUE"!!
"VALID" refers to the PROCESS by which the CONCLUSION was reached, not the accuracy of the two statements used to reach that conclusion. In other words, IF we could all agree that statements #1 and #2 were absolutely TRUE, we would all HAVE to agree that the conclusion is logically TRUE. IF all men ARE chauvinists, Joe MUST logically be one too!
A conclusion that is FORCED by the logic used to reach it is a VALID conclusion.
But it is only then TRUE if, also, all of the statements leading to it are complete and true.
Consider this example:
Statement 1: Hens are the only things that lay eggs.
Statement 2: This animal in front of me lays eggs.
Conclusion: Therefore this animal in front of me is a hen.
What if the animal actually is a female alligator!? Obviously then the concluding statement isn't TRUE. But Statement 2 would be true- alligators do lay eggs. And the conclusion is VALID. That is, IF we could all agree that only hens lay eggs, we would be FORCED to the conclusion.
The kinds of statements I have used in these examples are properly termed "ASSUMPTIONS." An assumption is a statement we propose as being TRUE without a doubt, without need for "proving" it first before using it in a logical argument. "Hens lay eggs" is such a statement. It would be acceptable to most people to use such a statement in an argument without having to back it up with scientific data- it is commonly agreed to be true. I COULD use the statement "Only hens lay eggs" in an argument. But anyone could then challenge my logic by showing that that is not an assumption on which everyone would agree!
"What on earth does all that have to do with prophecy!?" you may well ask? Just this- If you have studied the interpretations of a prophetic teacher and his conclusions seem to be VALID- forced by the statements he uses to come to those conclusions- it is VERY EASY for someone whose concepts of logic are fuzzy to accept that those conclusions MUST, therefore, be TRUE.
Many- perhaps most- Bible students may not realize that they must go back to a teacher's basic ASSUMPTIONS in order to effectively evaluate the TRUTH of his conclusions.
I doubt that you have ever studied under a prophecy teacher who presents all of his prophetic interpretations in a "logical format" display, such as the simple examples above. This is understandable. I'm sure in most cases they are not thus trying to "hide" the true nature of their arguments. It would be very cumbersome to try to so outline every argument, and not nearly as effective in capturing the interest of readers as is a "literary" approach. But there are two pitfalls for the student when a teacher DOESN'T lay out his logic in such a detailed way:
(1) Not being trained in logic, many readers may not even notice that certain statements- which are vital to the truth of the conclusions- are being presented as assumptions, with no supporting proof. A dynamic teacher can easily present statements so enthusiastically, and rush right on to the next statement so quickly, that the reader or listener never thinks to question the assumptions made. It doesn't take long for a student to so admire his teacher that he only requires "proof" for a statement when the teacher slows down and OFFERS proof for some part of his teaching.
Allowing someone ELSE to decide what needs proof can leave YOU with erroneous conclusions!
(2) Even more of a problem is the fact that most teachers don't even STATE many of the assumptions necessary for their arguments. They use what might be labelled "unstated assumptions." Not being trained in logic, many students may not even notice that conclusions are being drawn without enough stated information to draw VALID conclusions, let alone establish TRUTH. Consider this argument:
Statement 1: There are three feet in one yard.
Statement 2: This object is 36 inches long.
Conclusion: Therefore this object is one yard long.
If the object really is 36 inches long, is the concluding statement true? Yes, from your past experience you KNOW that a yard-long object is 36 inches long. But look at the LOGIC of the argument. The first statement is true. It is an assumption we could all agree on from past knowledge. But statements one and two DON'T force the conclusion! There is an "unstated assumption" we would have to state before this is a VALID conclusion. That is that one yard equals 36 inches. In fact, Statement 1 is basically irrelevant to the argument! It talks about yards, just like the conclusion does. But it still doesn't give us the information we REALLY need to complete the valid argument.
In this simple argument, there is no big deal about the assumption being unstated. But when you start dealing in much less "scientific" territories, unstated assumptions can be much more critical! What if one of the "unstated" assumptions in some woman's argument IS that "All men are chauvinist pigs"? Others who agree with that assumption will have no problem- her logic WOULD be acceptable even if she stated her assumption! But other listeners who hadn't "picked up" that she was working from that unstated assumption might be misled in accepting her conclusions as either valid OR true.
The same confusion can result when the topic is Bible Prophecy. Prophecy teachers commonly string together isolated short proofs and weave them verbally into what looks like a complete, longer proof but which is, when examined closely, an incomplete proof. They may be, in their own minds, adding unstated assumptions which they feel are so "obvious" they don't need stating. But- what IF those assumptions are NOT true? Or what IF, by clearly stating them, the student would find that they change the argument in subtle ways that no longer lead to the same "forced" conclusions?
Is it possible that YOUR favorite prophecy teacher has stated some assumptions you never thought to question? Is it possible he has left some of his assumptions unstated? Could this affect his conclusions? A prophecy teacher I once admired commented, "Sometimes we may not get the right answers because we don't ask the right questions!" He was right. I once thought his answers were (almost!) infallibly right. But I have begun examining old assumptions about prophecy and have come up with some new questions. I now know I hadn't REALLY "proven all things." Are you sure you have?
5
DEFINITION: "Eschatology": The Doctrine of "Last things"
Many Christian churches have an official academic approach to "eschatology," but place very little emphasis on it in their public teachings. There are likely people in many denominations who have attended church services weekly for their entire lives without ever hearing a sermon about "End Time" prophecy. They may have no opinion on whether the Rapture is pre-mid-or post Tribulation- or even an opinion on whether there will BE such a thing as the "Tribulation." It would certainly be understandable for such people to ask, "What's all the fuss?!" They might well wonder why anyone would want to argue such issues as the identification of the "beasts" of the book of Daniel or the calculation of the number 666 for the Beast of Revelation. If it's just an intellectual proposition one way or the other, surely it's not necessary to engage in heated debate among Christians- sometimes to the point of excommunication and shunning in some sects for those who disagree with the official teaching of their religious organization. Before proceeding in this paper, it might be well to consider this very thing. Why the fuss?
The answer is that eschatology is NOT just an academic study for many individuals and groups. Nor are their conclusions in this area stated as just "theories," but as dogma. ("Dogma" implies the kind of "belief" that is "required" for an individual to receive full acceptance into fellowship by others in a religious group.) This dogma can have as much impact on the life of the individual church member as what he believes about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus!
Before we consider some of the scriptures in the light of the concepts of logic discussed in the previous section, it would be good to consider just what impact believing strongly in one specific "End Time" scenario CAN have in the lives of students of prophecy teachers.
1. An absolute conviction about one scenario can lead to life plan choices- good and bad- that may even be irrevocable.
Raymond Franz, author of CRISIS OF CONSCIENCE, was in the Jehovah's Witness organization for over 40 years, and was a member of their headquarters "Governing Body" before being excommunicated in 1981. At the age of 16 in 1938, he heard top Witness leader Judge Joseph Rutherford speak about the nearness of the Battle of Armageddon. Addressing the issue of marriage for young people in light of the prophetic scenario he dogmatically taught, Rutherford said:
Would it be scripturally proper for them to now marry and to begin to rear children? No, is the answer, which is supported by the Scriptures... It will be far better to be unhampered and without burdens, that they may do the Lord's will now, as the Lord commands, and also be without hindrance during Armageddon.
p.10
What was Franz's response at the time?
Joseph Rutherford spoke forcefully and with a distinctive cadence of great finality. These were FACTS, solid truths on which to build life's most serious plans. I was deeply impressed with the importance of the organization as essential to salvation, also that the work of witnessing must take precedence over, or at least mitigate against, such personal interests as marriage and childbearing.
p.11
Obviously the end did not come, but many made irrevocable life plans based on Rutherford's teachings. Franz himself postponed consideration of marriage for many years. When Witness doctrine on this issue changed later, he married at age 37. But by the time it was acceptable to consider having children, his wife was past her childbearing years, and they are now left in their old age with no children or grandchildren.
2. Some people may make choices that affect their "life style" based on the dogmatic scenario of a prophecy teacher.
Several prophetic ministries over the years have advised a "survivalist" life-style because of their conviction that the "End" is near and that people should prepare for it physically as well as spiritually. For some this has only meant making room in the basement (as my family did in the early 1970's) for a six-month supply of freeze-dried food, several large water containers, and related short-term "survival" items. For others it has meant more drastic measures- training in survival tactics such as foraging for food and hand-to-hand combat, or even moving to isolated survival camps. Those who bought this prophetic scenario may have been in a "holding pattern" for the last 20 years or more in anticipation of an "imminent" Great Tribulation!
3. Dogmatic teachings about prophecy can erect walls between groups and individuals.
Authoritarian groups may excommunicate those who question their scenario, and some such groups enforce "shunning" such former members- even to the extent of insisting that family members shun them also. Even if a group is not so authoritarian, the practical outcome of disagreements among church "brethren" about prophecy scenarios that both take very seriously can estrange them from one another. And unseen walls are erected between groups that have differing scenarios.
If prophecy understanding is viewed as evidence of "wisdom" from God, the inevitable result is "elitism," the "in-group, out-group" syndrome. Christians who might agree on almost everything else- and especially on matters of true Christian love and salvation- are kept from fellowshipping and working effectively with one another to reach unbelievers for Christ by their undue emphasis on the significance of prophecy.
4. A dogmatic view of prophecy can influence strongly the choice individuals make on what religious group they affiliate with- which affects every aspect of their religious life, beyond just prophecy.
Many Bible students who become strongly influenced by a national prophecy teacher may look to him for advice about where to affiliate. And most such teachers have strong opinions about that issue! If students follow such advice, based primarily on what they believe about the FUTURE, it can affect NOW, at least on the "corporate" level, WHERE they worship, WHEN they worship, HOW they worship, and WITH WHOM they worship.
5. On an even more mundane level, a strong belief in the interpretations of one prophecy teacher can affect the pocketbooks/purses of his students!
A dogmatic view of prophecy can lead to a strong sense of urgency to share that view to warn others. That is why, as mentioned in an earlier section, the most dogmatic teachers can often gather around themselves the most financially generous supporters. A sense of Biblical "legal obligation" to tithe can induce people to give that ten percent to an organization. But it is the true "zealots" who will sacrifice the most financially and give their time most selflessly to an organization with a "warning message" to spread.
***As you can see, beliefs about prophecy can be much more than just an intellectual exercise for serious students. If YOU take your beliefs about prophecy seriously, if they affect your life or the lives of your friends or family in tangible ways such as those listed above, then you should certainly want to know that you have truly "proven all things."
6
The NIV Study Bible published by the Zondervan Publishing Company includes the following footnote regarding Nebuchadnezzar's vision of the giant statue:
The gold head represents the Neo-Babylonian Empire...the silver chest and arms, the Medo-Persian Empire...the bronze belly and thighs, the Greek Empire...the iron legs and feet, the Roman Empire. The toes...are understood by some to represent a later confederation of states occupying the territory formerly controlled by the Roman empire. The diminishing value of the metals from gold...to iron represents the decreasing power and grandeur...of the rulers of the successive empires...
That is all very interesting. However, except for the Babylonian Empire, the authors of this footnote give NO indication how they arrived at these designations. They do not cite scripture references that might help to establish this interpretation, nor do they indicate someone, some time, received this interpretation from the Lord. The authors do the same thing for the passage in Daniel 7 that speaks of Daniel's vision of the four beasts that rise out of the water. And, to make sure that these interpretations are all very clear in the reader's mind, they include the chart reproduced here:
Perhaps the unstated assumption is that "history has CLEARLY shown that these kingdoms are OBVIOUSLY linked to all the characteristics of the prophecies of Daniel 2 and Daniel 7."
One problem with that assumption is that some EARLIER commentaries have stated equally emphatically that the four kingdoms represented by the statue are the Babylonian Kingdom, the Median Kingdom, the Persian Kingdom, and the Greek Empire. With this interpretation, some have established that all the prophecies were fulfilled ultimately by the time of Christ's first coming, and were not meant to be carried on to a distant FUTURE fulfillment.
Another problem in assuming that the interpretation given by the Study Bible is "obvious" from history is that the "details" of the visions such as a variety of metals or the qualities of wild beasts are NOT all that CLEARLY related to human political powers. One might even wonder if many interpreters decide FIRST the identification of the kingdoms, then pick and choose "evidence" from the few details given in the Bible. Consider these comments from the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown COMMENTARY ON THE WHOLE BIBLE (which accepts the same prophetic interpretation of the Daniel passages):
..."eagle's wings"- denoting a widespread and rapidly acquired empire..."bear"- symbolizing the austere life of the Persians in their mountains, also their cruelty..."leopard"- the various spots denote the various nations incorporated into his empire...
If you read carefully the book of Daniel you will see that NONE of the connections these authors make are verified in ANY way by the scriptures involved.
EITHER they were revealed to the authors of the COMMENTARY directly by God (which they do not claim) or they are the products of their own reasoning. It seems to me that that reasoning is VERY strained! They attribute "eagle's wings" to Babylon. But it was, in fact, not a very widespread empire- as you will see on maps later in this article, it was not nearly as large as any of the subsequent empires. And, as for "rapidly acquired" empire, that certainly fits Alexander the Great much more aptly.
As for the bear, does it have a reputation for "cruelty" surpassing the other animals? And, were the Persian kings (such as Cyrus who let the Jews go back to rebuild Jerusalem, and who God calls "my shepherd" in Isaiah 44:28) notoriously more cruel than the leaders of other empires, such as Nero?
And as for "spots" on a leopard symbolizing various nations being incorporated into a new empire, that is how ALL empires grow! A similarly "strained" interpretation was that in the NIV STUDY BIBLE quoted above that said that the successive rulers had "decreasing power." Subjects under the Roman emperors in the first century might wonder how more absolutely despotic a ruler of Persia could have been than a Nero or Domitian! (Can you begin to see a pattern of "unstated assumptions" with commentators?) These kinds of "analogies" certainly can't be used to ESTABLISH prophetic interpretations.
The scenario outlined above in the NIV STUDY BIBLE notes on Daniel is a widespread belief among prophecy teachers and students. In addition to the details noted, most also believe that the "Beast" of Revelation 13:1-10, which arises out of the sea and has seven heads and ten horns is a "resurrection" of the fourth beast of Daniel 7, a "revived Roman Empire" that will be in Europe. Teachers do disagree on many of the details of the rest of prophecy that fits around these identifications. But the platform on which most begin building their "End Times" teachings is the identification of the empires in Daniel 2 and Daniel 7, and their connection with the seven-headed Beast of Revelation. As many teachers have put it, "Daniel is the Key to Revelation."
QUESTION: Given what was discussed earlier about "proof," WHAT IF the assumptions of all these teachers about Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 were NOT TRUE?
Remember- a VALID argument is one in which the conclusion is FORCED by the assumptions. But a VALID argument can lead to a FALSE conclusion if the assumptions are not true. Teachings about the book of Revelation can be expressed as VALID arguments- but if they are based on false or unprovable ASSUMPTIONS about visions and dreams in the Book of Daniel, they may not be TRUE conclusions.
If your favorite prophecy teacher uses assumptions about prophecies in Daniel to establish his End Time scenario, when is the last time you examined those assumptions? Have you EVER asked any questions about how the assumptions were established? Has your teacher ever claimed he got the assumptions by a direct vision, dream, or hearing the voice of God or an angel (as did Daniel), or did he come to his conclusions based on human reason? If he based them on human reason, you should be able to trace the logical arguments he used. Have you done that- including looking for "unstated assumptions" and unproven assumptions? That may seem like a lot of effort. But if you are affiliated with a group or a teacher partly because of your belief in a particular End-Time scenario, if you contribute financially to support the spread of a particular prophetic teaching, then, as Paul admonished, you should be sure you have "proven all things."
The problem with trying to go back and read the scriptures with an eye toward examining assumptions is that those very assumptions color what you read! You can read the books of Daniel and Revelation over and over and can have the feeling it would be impossible to see anything "new" you might have overlooked. That is how I felt for many years. But recently when I read these books, some passages "stood out" from the others in a way they never did before, and gave me questions I never considered before! Perhaps they are questions you might want to ask.
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE ARTICLE
Unless otherwise noted, all original material on this Field Guide website
is © 2001-2006 by Pam Dewey.Careful effort has been made to give credit as clearly as possible to any specific material quoted or ideas extensively adapted from any one resource. Corrections and clarifications regarding citations for any source material are welcome, and will be promptly added to any sections which are found to be inadequately documented as to source.
Pam Dewey
Pam Dewey
Pam Dewey
