Thoughts on Daniel & Revelation by Charles E. Wheeling

Recent events in and from the Middle East now stir the thinking of millions regarding
Bible Prophecy and the End Times. For obvious reasons, many are focusing special
attention upon the apocalyptic writings of Daniel and the Revelation. For some, reading
these prophetic writings in light of current events poses a challenge because they hold
preconceived opinions and interpretations.

To express the matter simply, these persons are at once confronted with the diffi culty of
holding onto past interpretations while, at the same time, considering Daniel and the
Revelation as new or present truth writings. For a variety of reasons, they believe many of the
prophecies contained in Daniel and the Revelation have already met fulfi llment. For some,
interpreting Daniel and Revelation as present or future truth borders upon heresy.

It seems most unreasonable to me that anyone could, after becoming acquainted with the
context of Daniel and Revelation, hold such an uncomfortable and untenable position.
Both of these ancient prophets wrote concerning the distant future, i.e., distant from their
day. Both Daniel and John were told in their visions that the things being shown to them
pertained to the time of the end. This is why both writings are considered to be apocalyptic
writings! Daniel, for example, was specifi cally commanded by a mighty angel to “seal up
his book until the time of the end.”

How then is it possible for anyone to claim fulfi llment of these apocalyptic writings before
the time of the end? Are we to believe, for example, that Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.)
has fulfi lled apocalyptic prophecy? Impossible! The only reasonable conclusion here is
that all previous attempts to interpret Daniel and Revelation with past history represent
applications, not fulfi llments! In truth, past applications are but shadows of a future
fulfi llment (fi lling to the full), not the inverse.

Dedicated students of Bible prophecy should be aware of some critical problems (scholarly
issues) associated with the two books, Daniel and Revelation. For example, many Bible
scholars do not consider the Book of Daniel to be older than 200-165 B.C. In plain English,
many Bible scholars believe the book of Daniel was written perhaps 150-200 years before
Christ was born. The diffi culty here of course is that the author of the book, Daniel,
claims to be living circa 600 B.C. This alleged contradiction, for some, makes suspect the
genuineness of the book, and thus casts doubt upon its end-time predictions.
Unless, or until, additional copies of the book of Daniel can be discovered pre-dating the
Dead Sea Scrolls, the historicity (historical authenticity) of the person (Daniel) and the
writing itself cannot be considered beyond scholarly dispute.

Similar scholarly issues surround the book of Revelation in the New Testament. The
great German Reformer, Martin Luther, considered the book of Revelation as unworthy
of Scripture. He did not believe the writing should have place in the Sacred Canon. Yet,
the author of Revelation claims to be John, the youngest, beloved disciple of Jesus and
claims to have received words and visions directly from Jesus Christ.

There is a simple solution to this “tempest in a teapot,” however, that I wish to offer. I
accept Jesus of Nazareth as being a genuine, historical person, even though archeological
evidence or extra-Biblical evidence regarding the man Jesus is rare. Nevertheless, I
personally believe He lived, died, was resurrected and is alive today in Heaven. For me,
this is a faith transaction. I accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Christ of Scripture, and He
accepted the person of Daniel and the book of Daniel as authentic! Jesus quoted from the
book of Daniel. Jesus spoke of “Daniel the prophet and,” and even more signifi cantly,
Jesus placed the context of Daniel’s visions at the time of the end!

Personally, I accept both apocalyptic writings, Daniel and Revelation, as valid, with the
same faith that I accept Jesus as the Christ. For me, this is the only reasonable position to
hold. I believe the book of Daniel in Old Testament Scripture and the book of Revelation
in New Testament Scripture contain apocalyptic prophecy, that is, having to do with the
end of time. I reject every claim to fi ll-full their visions at any other time in history than
at the time of the end.

I cannot believe that Alexander the Great fulfi lled Daniel’s second vision (Daniel, Chapter
8) or that Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c 175-163 B.C.) fulfi lled Daniel’s third and fourth
visions (Daniel, Chapters 9; 10-12). While it may be reasonable to take the position “history
repeats,” I cannot see that it is reasonable to propose multiple fulfi llments of prophecy.
Multiple applications, absolutely, but fulfi llment means to fi ll-in-full. To fi ll-in-full means
100%. What can one add to 100%? Though some events or persons in past history may
parallel or appear similar in some respects to apocalyptic predictions, the past is the past,
and past history is not the time of the end!