The Purposes of Predictive Prophecy

Purposes of Predictive Prophecy (Part 3)

Layton Talbert

This column has been exploring why God has given us prophecy, and why so much. [See Part 1 and Part 2] We have explored that question with a view to understanding what we are to do with the prophecies that are yet future—how we are to interpret and apply them. The most definitive way to answer these questions is to explore what God Himself says are the purposes and effects of prophetic revelation.

Part 1 examined NT passages that reveal some of the purposes of prophecy. Part 2 turned to the OT, particularly Isaiah and Ezekiel. In spite of multiple passages that shed light on the purposes of prophecy, however, I posited that there is one that tends to be downplayed (sometimes even denigrated), especially by those of a nonpremillennial persuasion. The most fundamental function of prophecy, I posited, is to provide understandable information and certain knowledge about future events. All the other purposes are hollow without this. All the other purposes are meaningful only if God communicates reliable, understandable, precise, verifiable, and essentially clear predictions about the future.

Certainly prophecy is intended to have a present impact on the believer’s faith and practice. No one should dispute that. But some posit that viewing eschatological prophecy as a detailed prediction of specific events short-circuits the ethical intention of such prophecy. I am positing that God tells us about the future because He actually wants us to know what is going to happen and expects us to believe that it is going to happen just as He says. As I mentioned in the previous column, this may seem obvious, but it’s worth stating unambiguously because the emphasis in many works on interpreting prophecy tends to undermine this role of predictive prophecy. 

Many argue that prophecy doesn’t so much provide information about the future as it does highly symbolic, metaphorical pictures of the future. In the last column I cited the alarming assertion of Graeme Goldsworthy that “a method of interpretation that demands that the promises of the OT be literally fulfilled, so that there is exact correspondence between what is promised and what eventually comes to pass, does not fit the evidence of the Bible” (According to Plan, 65–66). Another hermeneutical text argues,

Prophecy has a notorious reputation for being difficult to interpret, and that reputation is justified because prophecy … tends to be expressed in highly metaphoric language. … But a great deal of the notoriety comes not from the difficulties of the symbolic language, but from misconceived notions about what kind of information prophecy is conveying. … Prophecy encourages us regarding the future not by giving us the news headlines in advance, but by pointing out our victorious God, who has already won the decisive heavenly battle (McCartney and Clayton, Let the Reader Understand: A Guide to Interpreting and Applying the Bible, 232–33).

One hermeneutics text is quite correct: “Fundamentally, prophecy is a biblical phenomenon by which God conveyed messages to his people through human speakers or writers. It assumes that God has something important he wants his people to understand—that he wishes to communicate not obfuscate . . .” (Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 371, emphasis added). Their agreement on this point is gratifying, even though some of their proposed prophetic fulfillments seem inconsistent with this assertion.

Matthew 24

In Jesus’ most detailed and extended prophetic discourse, He repeatedly states that one of the purposes of these details is to forewarn people how to react when prophesied events begin to unfold (see 24:15–20, 23–26).

Jesus then inserts a parable about the obvious, recognizable, unmistakable signs of spring. The analogy itself emphasizes that His purpose in giving this detailed predictive information is so that people will know what will happen, will be able to anticipate it, and will recognize when it happens (24:32–35)—even though the precise timing is withheld to constrain watchfulness (24:42; 25:13), readiness (24:44; 25:10), and faithfulness (24:46; 25:21, 23) in the meantime.

More...

Iran Readies Major Retaliatory Strike From Iraq 'In Coming Days': Israeli Officials

Iran Readies Major Retaliatory Strike From Iraq 'In Coming Days': Israeli Officials

 TYLER DURDEN

Axios is reporting Thursday that Iran is still preparing a major retaliation in response to the Israeli aerial attack of the overnight and early morning hours of last Saturday. Israel's strikes on missile and military facilities was itself a much anticipated response to the Oct.1st ballistic missile attack.

While most regional observers believe the tit-for-tat has cooled down, reflected in declining oil prices this week, the Axios report cites a pair of Israeli officials to say "Israeli intelligence suggests Iran is preparing to attack Israel from Iraqi territory in the coming days, possibly before the US presidential election."

This would involve large numbers of drones and ballistic missiles, they say. Throughout the Gaza war, there have been sporadic drones launched by Iran-backed paramilitary units in Iraq, but nothing on a major scale.

Israeli sources on Thursday have suggested Iran is actually moving ballistic missiles to prepare for such an attack.

Also, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Hossein Salami has been cited as saying that Iran's response will be "different from any scenario" Israel might expect.

CNN too has been reporting the fresh threats, on Wednesday writing the following based on Iranian military sources:

Israel’s recent attacks on Iran will be met with a “definitive and painful” response that will likely come before the US presidential vote, a high-ranking source told CNN on Wednesday.

The remarks signal a departure from Iran’s initial attempts to downplay the severity of the strikes carried out by Israel on October 25, which marked the first time Israel has openly acknowledged striking Iranian targets.

“The response of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the aggression of the Zionist regime will be definitive and painful,” the source, who is familiar with Iran’s deliberations, said.

Although the source did not provide an exact date for the attack, they said it “will probably take place before the day of the US presidential election.”

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government is seething over Israeli warplanes violating its airspace during last weekend's attack. It has lodged an official protest note with the United Nations about the illegal breach.

It appears the some one hundred Israeli jets reportedly used in the attack fired on Iran from over neighboring Iraqi airspace. Such a tactic has long been utilized by the Israeli Air Force in attacking Syria, as it typically fires from over undefended Lebanese airspace.

Currently US and Israeli negotiators say they are getting close to achieving a ceasefire with Hezbollah, but any new large-scale attack from the 'Iranian axis' would surely jeopardize such a potential deal.

'Election Threats Task Force' In Action

'Election Threats Task Force' Which Targets Online Content To Discredit Real Concerns About Election Integrity

Wendi Strauch Mahoney

The DOJ’s Election Threats Task Force has charged four individuals with threatening election officials in Colorado, Alabama, Florida, and Pennsylvania.  Although they are unrelated cases, all of them are related to the actions of a task force put in place in 2021.  The National Election Threats Task Force (ETTF) was charged with investigating individuals who “threaten violence in an effort to undermine our democratic institutions.”

Members of the ETTF first met in February 2019.  Much of their agenda was finalized pursuant to an OAG letter sent in August 2021 by Kate Heinzelman, who was officially confirmed general counsel of the CIA in 2022.

In January and July of 2021, the ETTF published two reports.  The reports were autopsies of the “crisis” brought about by the  2020 election with recommendations to ensure that such a crisis never occurs again.  At the top of the agenda was concern over alleged “election deniers.”  The Task Force was preoccupied with the “undermining of free and fair elections,” all propagated by “lies and conspiracy theories.”  Take a wild guess about the profiles of these so-called “election deniers.”

The group bills itself as “cross-partisan,” but a little research tells me it isn’t.  And although the aforementioned charges seem to be legitimate, many of the Task Force’s members and associates do not give off a non-partisan vibe.

Their membership includes members of progressive organizations like the Brennan Center for Justice, the notorious Center for Tech and Civic Life, and the Democracy Project.  The organization throws in a few conservatives for good measure, but many of them barely qualify.  Regardless, given the company they keep and the narratives they push, it is plausible that not all “threats to our elections” will be treated equally.

As an example of bias, the Task Force regularly references Protect Democracy messaging and projects on X.  According to Influence Watch, the group is a “left-of-center” organization.  Its X post on Oct. 22 references Part Two of its special series on “How election deniers create the impression of cheating.”  The entry is a part of Protect Democracy’s “Special Series” on “Subverting 2024.”

The first sentence in the series entry directly refers to the threat of “telling lies about the 2024 election” and then goes on to talk about the “mob” that “stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021” while “hopped up on lies about a ‘rigged’ election.”  Those are some pretty biased and inflammatory statements for a group that claims to be “cross-ideological.”

More...