"I will reluctantly tell about visions and revelations from the Lord. I was caught up to the third heaven..." Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 12. "I'm not going to [boast about] it. I will boast only about my weaknesses." How often do we hear modern preachers boast about their strength of their relationship with the Lord that enables them to provide prophetic words for the nation, for the congregation, for an individual? How much can we rely on these visions and revelations that people have?
Or about their interpretation? Many have commented on Paul's use of 'third heaven'. But do they have it right? I think we build our hermeneutics on sand when we venture into visions, dreams and other prophecies about the future.
Take Daniel's visions and interpretations. In chapter 2, he interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream about four kingdoms. Many scholars say the last empire is the Roman empire. Does it fit the godly description of kingdom built on iron, mixed with clay, which Daniel is weakened because of intermarriages. This sounds more like Europe through 19th century. If that's so, then the rock that destroys this kingdom isn't the coming of Christ but something else. And all the kingdoms are crushed into nothingness (Daniel 2.44 NLT), which means they won't exist after the rock comes. After Christ appeared, the Roman empire still existed. It existed even after Christianity became the official Roman religion.
Similar observations can be made about his vision of four beasts in chapter 7. Some interpret the fourth beast as portraying Antiochus Epiphanes. Others say it's the papacy or Catholic church. However, after the Lord comes in judgment, three beasts lose their authority but live. Some think this means there are descendants of those kingdoms. With finality, the fourth beast is destroyed by the Lord. There would be no descendants. Is the fourth beast Rome, the Catholic Church, papacy that has survived beyond the supposed 'time, times and half a time'? What are we to make of the holy interpretation that the fourth beast is different from the others? How much different was Rome from earlier kingdoms, or Antiochus, or the Catholic church (say from the Jewish religion)? The beast is supposed to be so different that it frightened Daniel, who has already suffered conquest, enslavement, and exile at the hands of a foreign government.
Daniel has a vision alongside a river in chapter 8 in which he sees two animals--a ram and a goat--representing (more or the same) kingdoms. If they are the same kingdoms as shown to Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel earlier, why is God being so redundant? Of course, the visions are spread over several years. However, Daniel seems to have remembered them quite vividly. Does he really need to get another one? With this last one, Gabriel helps him out with an interpretation saying the first animal represents Media-Persia and the second Greece. Some claim the second animal represents Antiochus who tormented Israel for 1150 or 2300 days as the prophecy says. The Grecian empire is supposed to attack the Prince of princes and be destroyed, but not by human hands. Who is the Prince of princes? God himself--the King of kings? Others have the Prince of princes as the same as the commander of God's army (v. 11). This person is shown in Joshua 5, which many think is Christ. The Prince is probably not an archangel to whom we should not be offering sacrifices anyway. If the Prince is Christ and the goat is Antiochus, he was gone 200 years or so before Christ, and defeated by the Maccabeean rebellion. The Maccabeean rebellion did not end Grecian control of the world, nor of Israel nor end any occupying force from entering Jerusalem. There were 23 other Seleucid rulers after Antiochus Epiphanes. Gabriel also says this wicked ruler, 'a master of intrigue' (v. 23 NLT) would be successful in every endeavor. Antiochus failed to defeat Egypt. It is supposed that he rampaged over Israel as a tantrum for failing in his conquest further south.
Daniel's vision seems to imply that God is finally triumphant. If the Prince of princes is Christ, then perhaps the Media-Persian and Grecian kingdoms are metaphorical and not literal.
Regardless, Daniel was sick for days about this vision. He didn't understand it even after Gabriel explained it. Daniel was not anxious about opposing the king's rule over what he was supposed to eat. Nor especially troubled over explaining the dreams to Nebuchadnezzar (although he was sorry to deliver bad news to the king in chapter 4), who wasn't a friendly, approachable kind of leader. The question remains: for a man who has witnessed so much destruction and barbarity, what terrified him so much in that vision that we moderns have recorded for us in history? Or is there some terror yet to come that is worse than we've ever read about?
We are on dangerous ground, shifting sand when we try to interpret someone else's visions and prophetic words about the future. There are hardly any past occurrences that accurately and completely fit God's word. So is God's word inaccurate or are we incomplete in our understanding? More likely, our comprehension is lacking. As Paul said about his own vision, "Whether I was in my body or out of my body--I don't know--only God knows" (2 Corinthians 12.2). With regard to a lot of these things, only God knows. Let us not boast on what we 'know' about what's going to happen, we might just be wrong.
