Predictive Prophecy And Apocalypse Scientific, Moral And Practical

An address delivered at the Second World Conference on Christian Fundamentals, at the Moody Church Tabernacle, Chicago, Illinois.

There are two ideas that are struggling for the mastery in the thinking of the professing church at the present time. The conflict between them is becoming more acute every day and the real issue is becoming clearer as it progresses. All the life systems of thought are either unconsciously influenced or finally determined by the attitude men take towards these ideas. In the last analysis they both resolve themselves into what men think of God and His activities. They are popularly spoken of as supernaturalism and anti-supernaturalism. But a man’s attitude toward the supernatural in life is determined by his idea of God. Practically speaking, every acute question of criticism and interpretation before the church at this time has its roots in the heart of this circle.

I wish to illustrate this by a brief discussion of the questions of predictive prophecy and apocalypse which are at the heart of one of the bitterest controversies before the church today, and I choose them because they involve the interests, responsibilities and activities of Christians in a vital way. This is not made clear in the current discussions of these questions. They are considered in a round about way which men love to refer to as a practical and a common sense way. For example, some of the strongest and most popular attacks upon the idea of the second coming of Christ have been made from the standpoint that predictive prophecy and apocalypse are not scientific, moral or practical, and anything that is not scientific, moral and practical cannot be right. It is very much easier to get into the heart of the church and undermine the faith of men and women in the plain teachings of God’s Word in this roundabout way than it is to do so by frankly saying that God cannot do certain things and that Jesus and His apostles were mistaken in some of the things that they said about God and His plans. The great majority of professing Christians would not stand for a bald statement of that kind because they can readily see that it involves the very foundations of faith. Hence the more circuitous approach. Prof. Fullerton in his book “Prophecy and Authority” says that the church can no longer hold the idea of an infallible Bible containing predictive prophecy because “the facts of science and history conflict with it at every turn.” (P. XIII.) “When a scientific principle of exegesis is adopted the theory of predictive prophecy must be abandoned.” (P. XVIII.) “It cannot be too strongly insisted upon that predictive prophecy has always been immediately connected with a non-moral theory of inspiration. This connection is not accidental but essential (p. 190). “The millennial hope is an anachronism in modern life, and, like all anachronisms, its ultimate tendency is harmful and only harmful. It rapidly degenerates into hysteria and morbidness, which its adherents are apt to identify with supreme devotion, but which are only manifestations of mental disease....It refuses to believe in the highest spiritual and moral forces that operate in the development of the race, and pins its faith to a miracle in the baldest and most immoral form in which miracle has ever been conceived” (p. 204). These positions are set forth with passion and in various forms by men like Prof. Case and Dr. Shailer Matthews. Prof. Snowdon in his book on the subject, while he does not take the same attitude on the question of the supernatural and predictive prophecy as Prof. Fullerton, makes a great deal of the fact that apocalypse is not practical. If there is anything in these claims we ought to frankly face it and see what it amounts to.

Therefore, my purpose in this brief address is to point out in mere outline that predictive prophecy and apocalypse are scientific, moral and practical. As the time at my disposal is decidedly limited I will concentrate upon a single passage; but at the same time I shall endeavor to constantly hold in mind the whole background of Scripture thought and the complex elements entering into the interpretation of these subjects. Let me take a passage out of the heart of the teachings of Jesus which is not highly apocalyptic and which is not encompassed with a great number of critical questions of authenticity and authority.

The passage chosen is the parable of the tares and its interpretation in Matthew 13. The purpose is not an exhaustive study of the parable, but a consideration of it from the point of view of our subject, particularly holding in mind the question of the supernatural in the processes of history in this age and its consummation.

1. The parable is essentially predictive prophecy. It is an outline by Jesus Christ of the course of events in this age and its consummation. On Jesus’ own testimony this and all that He taught was given to Him by the Father. (John 14:10, 24; John 12:49). The Father revealed to Jesus what was going to take place in the future and Jesus told His disciples. That is predictive prophecy. From a scientific point of view it means fundamentally that one person can reveal to another what is in his mind. That is one of the most common things in our everyday experience, so there cannot be anything unscientific about it. If God is a person there is no fundamental reason why He may not communicate with other persons. The question as to whether He has done it is a historical question, and is a mere matter of evidence. With this phase of the subject we are not concerned at present. What we want to emphasize at this point is that it is not unnatural or unscientific for one person to reveal his mind to another. If a person can reveal his mind at all there is no scientific reason why he cannot reveal it on details as well as generalities and on what he knows of the future as well as on what concerns the past or the present. Hence if there is any basis of real communication between God and man, and if God knows anything about the future there is no fundamental reason why He should not be able to reveal that knowledge to other persons. That is the scientific basis for predictive prophecy.

At this point comes in the moral question. Prof. Fullerton and others claim that to tell people details concerning a future that is not yet experienced is non-moral because it is “psychologically unmediated.” That is, it is not moral to tell things that we have not experienced. Let us lift this principle into the heart of common everyday experience and see how much there is to it. An architect has a dream of a building such as has never been seen anywhere in the world before. It is radically different from anything that has ever been seen and away beyond the dream of ordinary man. The architect has dreamed it and thought it out, but has never experienced it in wood and stone. However, it is quite possible for him to give a detail plan of it and reveal sufficient of that plan to different people to make it possible for him to realize his dream. There is nothing either immoral or non-moral about that. Why should a thing that is scientific and perfectly moral in the relations between an architect and his workmen be considered unscientific and non-moral in God. Surely the great Architect of the universe and of the aeons is as free to reveal his plans for the building and consummating of His purposes as is the ordinary city planner or architect in the city of Chicago. Of course the plan must be based upon a common experience. The architect could not reveal his plans to men who could not think or imagine or had no idea of building. To assume that we have nothing in common with God is to deliberately ignore the fundamentals of life and history. Man is made in the image of God and has been in touch with Him from the beginning of history. We do not know of a man that has not shown some signs of consciousness of God. That is what men mean when they say that man is essentially religious. Granting that this idea of predictive prophecy is scientific and moral is it practical? Let me answer that question by asking another. If an engineer undertakes to do a great piece of constructive work is it practical for him to have a clear cut plan of what he is going to do and to make as much of it as he thinks necessary to the carrying of his plans, known to the workmen whom he associates with himself in the accomplishment of the task? It would be a tremendously strange thing if he did not do so. In fact the practical mind demands that he should do so. Suppose he were to call his workmen together and say to them. “Now I want a fine piece of work done that will be worthy of me and of you and of the community we are living in. I cannot tell you what it is because it is still in the future and nothing like it has ever been undertaken. I cannot give you any details because it would not be consistent in me to give details concerning something about which you know little or nothing. But plunge right in and find out the best you know how and some way grope your way into the accomplishment of this task.” It is only necessary to state the case to see how hopelessly unreasonable and impractical it would be. Is God less practical and less reasonable than an ordinary engineer? The engineer’s plan is a predictive prophecy and is essential to a practical endeavor to realize his purpose. Is the divine Architect who has undertaken to build a new heaven and a new Earth less practical than an ordinary engineer? Not only is predictive prophecy practical but it is absolutely essential to practical activities in the work of God. Here then is predictive prophecy and it is scientific, moral and practical.

1. This predictive prophecy involves apocalypse. Jesus taught that the sowing means a process that is consummated by a harvest. He said that He who sowed would also attend the reaping. He also declared that the harvest will be not the end of the world, but the consummation of the age. As the sowing involved a direct action, and special manifestation on the part of God in Christ so will the harvest. There is no question about the sowing involving this. The incarnation means God manifest in the flesh. That was an apocalypse, or unveiling of God. This unveiling meant a new grip upon the human race in the process and purpose of redemption. The harvest will mean another unveiling which will mean a creative action that will carry forward the redemptive purpose. If there has been a planting it is certainly scientific to expect a harvest. That is the nature of our world. If we sow we may expect to reap. As the grain does not sow itself neither does it reap itself. It is not scientific to expect the harvest to evolve into the garner house without the intervention of someone to put it there. To break in upon the field and thrust in the scythe is not to violate the processes of nature but to do the common sense thing when the harvest time has come. If this is scientific in the case of the farmer why should it be counted unscientific in the case of God and His harvest field? What happened 1900 years ago was not the birth of a new order in the ordinary processes of evolution as men use that term today, but an unveiling of God which meant a direct creative action in the process of redemption. The Sons of God—the sons of the kingdom are born “not of blood, nor the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” That is not a violation of God’s world and its laws, but a new manifestation of Divine life and power which was essential to the carrying out of the Divine purpose. It was no more a violation of nature than the sowing and reaping of grain are a violation of nature. It was a divine creative act but God’s creative acts are not a violation of nature, but in perfect harmony with the deepest meanings and possibilities of nature.

In the second place the harvestings of the harvest by an intelligent reaper is not immoral or non-moral but highly moral. It would be a very strange thing if a man sowed a field with grain and then bound himself so that it would be counted immoral for him to interfere by reaping it when the harvest was ripe. Surely God is as fee in his fields of worlds and ages as an ordinary farmer is on his farm. All this talk about God breaking in upon the order of the world and ignoring vital natural and spiritual forces is beside the mark. It would be just as reasonable to talk about the farmer breaking in upon the order of nature and interfering with natural and vital forces because he undertakes to cut and garner the grain while he weeds out the tares and burns them. The real question involved here is as to whether or not God is free to hasten processes or to conserve the results of processes when in His wisdom the time for action has come. If He is free we are sure of two things. (1) He will do what is necessary to carry out His purposes and (2) He will not think anything immoral or non-moral necessary. He cannot contradict His own nature. Did Jesus say that He was to intervene by a new manifestation of Himself in the day of harvest? If so, it must be necessary and it must be moral.

1. This is certainly practical. It certainly would not be practical to sow grain, and then leave it to grow ripe and perish in the field. The practical thing is to garner it. God must have made some provision for the harvest. Jesus says He has and He told us some of the things involved in that provision. He said that it means the manifestation of the Son in power and great glory and a ministry of angels. That means a direct divine action which shall be effective in consummating the processes and purposes of this age. To my mind that is the only practical and sufficient immediate hope held out to mankind today.

Enough has now been said to show that all this talk about predictive prophecy and apocalypse has its roots in men’s conception of God. If we have a God who is bound within His own creation so that He is not able to initiate anything new or to arrest any of the processes already started and cannot reveal Himself to His children, then predictive prophecy and apocalypse are full of scientific and practical difficulties. But on the other hand, if we had a God who is living and active, and is equal to the carrying out of His own purpose and plan, and free to use what He thinks necessary and wise in the accomplishment of this purpose, then there is no trouble with predictive prophecy and apocalypse as we have them in the Bible.

This is the heart of every problem with which the church is now confronted. Does Christian religion represent a living God who is now active in carrying out a purpose of redemption which conditions the world with its life interest and to whom we are so related that it makes a vital difference in the realization of this purpose as to whether or not we are responsive and obedient to His leadership? If we answer that question in the affirmative, a second question immediately presses up us. Without hesitancy or equivocation I now answer the question in the affirmative. God lives and is active. He is all powerful and has unlimited resources at His disposal for the realization of His plan. Why then the seeming weakness of the church? Why the tragic blundering and dismal failures? Why is it that our cry of anguish seems as though it wilted against a sky of brass? I answer in the words of the prophet of old. “His arm is not shortened that He cannot save; His ear is not heavy that He cannot hear.” Here is His challenge to us: “Incline your ear and come unto me; hear and your soul shall live....Behold, I have given Him for a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander to the peoples....Seek ye Jehovah, and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, and He will abundantly pardon.” Then follows the wonderful picture of the new order.

The trouble is our sins have made cowards of us, and we have not vitally accepted His leadership and men do not dare to obey His commands. We have not taken Him seriously as our leader and commander as well as our Saviour from the guilt of sin. Oh, that we might dare to do the unusual and launch out in response to His challenge!

Last summer I was back to the home and scenes of my boyhood—to the sparkling stream that has yielded many a thrill of joy and hour of rest during the years. I love its beautiful rippling waters, and I love to fish. For three days the rain poured down, and almost continuously the lightning flashed and the thunder rolled. I became nervous, restless, as day after day I stayed in the house. The skies were still overcast and a little drizzle of rain continued, but I got my rod and lines and began to get them ready for casting. My aunt said, “You will not get any fish today, John.” It was madness to try. All the traditions and books on trout fishing say that you cannot catch fish after an electrical storm and while the water is roily and disturbed, and the poorest time to try would be about noon. The storm had been heavy and prolonged. The stream was full and very dirty. It was towards noon. But in my eager restlessness I found my way to the stream, and to a favorite spring hole. It looked impossible. In my madness, contrary so all traditions, I began to cast. In less than one hour—that the noon hour—I landed twenty of the most beautiful speckled trout that I ever saw come out of that brook. “It is impossible” they all said. But I did it.

After telling that story to a company of leaders of the Methodist Church, one of the bishops got up and said, “Bishop Quayle says, ‘the only true fish story on record is, they toiled all night and caught nothing.’” I immediately reminded my brethren when they told me that that was no fish story at all. That being a Presbyterian, I knew that church fairly well, and that I was quite sure that we could find a great many fish stories like that in it. This is the fish story. After toiling all night and catching nothing, contrary to all fishing traditions and good common sense, at the command of Jesus they dared to cast the net and “they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fishes.”

The storm has been tremendous, the waters are disturbed, roily and dark—men’s hearts are failing them on every hand. The skies are still overcast and there seems to be a chilly drizzle in the churches everywhere. Jesus walks in the storm and He is calling upon the church to cast the net under His direction. Shall we recognize His leadership and move at His command? If we do we shall see the unusual—the miracle working power of Jesus Christ, and this is the final argument for predictive prophecy and apocalypse—a living God, active, doing the impossible and the unusual, which men call miracle, in the life of a people that dare to obey Him. That creates science, makes possible morality and the realization of the practical. If there is a God like that there must be predictive prophecy and apocalypse is but an incident in His creative and redemptive activities.

May God get us away from mere theory and get us to the place where at last we will recognize the legal claims of Jesus Christ upon us—where we will give ourselves to Him that He may have His way in us!