In 2 Peter 1:19 we are told that we possess a "more sure word of prophecy." This is generally understood to mean that the prophetic word is "more sure" than the senses of sight and hearing. Weymouth's translation, "more permanent," suggests the thought that the word of prophecy is contrasted with the transitory nature of the transfiguration scene. But the original Greek and the more modern translations seem to favor the thought that prophecy is made more sure by its fulfillment in actual historical event or events. The Greek word bebaioo means to "make steadfast." Moffatt translates the clause, "And thus we have gained fresh confirmation of the prophetic word."
This is an important principle in the interpretation of prophecy. The transfiguration was the fulfillment and confirmation of Old Testament prophecies concerning the glory of the Messiah. And the following statement of Peter strengthens this position: "No prophetic scripture allows a man to interpret it by himself." 2 Peter 1:2o, Moffatt. The Greek is literally, "As belonging to oneself." The Century Bible puts it : "No prophecy is its own interpretation, but can only be understood by its fulfillment."
Another important principle is that of keeping in mind the context of the passage under consideration. See "The Great Controversy," page 521, where Mrs. White warns against violating this principle of interpretation. It has been well said that "a text wrested from its context becomes a mere pretext." For example, many people believe that the fig tree of Matthew 24:32 is a prediction of Jewish restoration. But the parallel passage in Luke 21:29 shows "all the trees" to refer to indications of the approaching spring, not of national aspirations, as some have contended.
We are sorely tempted today to assume a knowledge of the details of present-day events which we cannot possibly possess. Many predictions regarding the turn events may take have been sadly discredited. It is well to remember the words of Lord Bacon: "A lame man on the right road will come to his journey's end sooner than the fleetest runner on a wrong one."
It has been pointed out by Goode that prophecy was not intended to supply us with "the precise knowledge" of future events. Apart from time prophecies, which may be, and have been, calculated with amazing accuracy, we are not in a position to predict with certainty the details or outcome of the present involved conflict that is raging in Europe and Asia. We know the broad outline of coming events as presented in the Scriptures and in the writings of the Spirit of prophecy. But these are content with presenting the broad outline only.
If we compare Genesis 15:13-16 with the time when its fulfillment "drew nigh," we will see that the actors on the stage were not blessed with precise knowledge of the actual fulfillment. (See Ex. 2:23; 5:19-21.) Again, the Lord promised deliverance from captivity. (See Jer. 27:22.) But Daniel did not understand the details. He knew the time, but not the method. (See Dan. 9:2.) We may well ponder the words of Jesus in Luke 21 :20, 21. But how could Christ's followers flee when Jerusalem was "beset with armies"? History answered that question and removed the perplexity. So it may well be again in our day. There are points which may appear perplexing, but time and the purpose of God will make these clear.
We have such a citadel of prophetic data that we do not need to strengthen our case by an appeal to the cheaply sensational. Nay, by such appeal we weaken an otherwise unassailable position. Jesus did not arm the apostles with detailed predictions of the future, but assured them that "when it is come to pass," not before, they would fully understand and believe. ( John 14:29.)
Our exposition of Daniel 2 stands unaltered amidst the welter of conflicting armies in Europe today. It surely cannot be discredited now when it has stood the test of millenniums. But some may have been guilty of giving it too narrow an interpretation. It does not predict that no dictator would ever temporarily rule over the ten kingdoms. Rather it infers such attempts by the expression, "The shall mingle." But "they shall not cleave" is just as true today as it was one hundred years ago.
On the question of the general interpretation of Daniel's prophecies, we have the following suggestive hints : "In the Revelation all the books of the Bible meet and end. Here is the complement of the book of Daniel. One is a prophecy ; the other a revelation."—"Acts of the Apostles," p. 585. Again, in "Testimonies to Ministers," we read, "Revelation following Daniel, as giving fuller light on the subjects dealt with in Daniel. . . . They both relate to the same subjects."—Page 117.
In conclusion I would like to stress the point that prophecy must not be identified with fortunetelling. Yet if we descend to plotting the smallest details of coming events, that is what we are doing. We need to meditate on the clear distinction drawn in Daniel 2 between the astrologers and prognosticators of Babylon, and the simple, clear-visioned outline of the Hebrew prophet.
The grand purpose of all prophecy is to proclaim the first and second advents. (See I Peter I :to.) If we would bring the people to acknowledge Christ in His "sufferings, . . and the glory that should follow," we must ever keep prophecy away from the mere foretelling of future political turns and twists. Let us not drag prophetic interpretation from its high and noble elevation down into the mire of petty, human speculation. Our Lord curbed the idle curiosity of the apostles by saying: "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons. . . . But ye shall . . . be witnesses unto Me." Acts I :7, 8. That remains the supreme task of the Christian ministry. May God give us grace and wisdom to follow this admonition.
(See also "Acts of the Apostles," pp. 584, 585; "Testimonies," Vol. VI, p. 17; "Education," pp. 125, 126; "The Great Controversy," p. 521.)
