Why Prophecy Matters (Part 1) - The 'Q' Conspiracy Connection

And he said, Behold, I will make thee know what shall be in the last end of the indignation: for at the time appointed the end shall be. (Daniel 8:19)

But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king what shall be in the latter days
(Daniel 2:28)

Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.(Daniel 10:14)

We are surely living through some strange and troubled times...

Earlier today I came across a Daily Beast article entitled "How a New Religion Could Rise From the Ashes of QAnon".  You can read the article here.

For those who don't know, the 'Q' conspiracy theory purported to have inside information that the Trump administration had a plan that would soon purge the world of a powerful evil cabal of flesh-eating, blood-drinking pedophiles who had gained  control of  the media, government, entertainment, etc.  Up until the very last moments of the Trump presidency the 'Q' true-believers remained confident that this 'plan' would not fail, even going so far as to believe that then president-elect Joe Biden would be arrested as he mounted the steps of the capitol before taking the oath of office.

Of course none of this came true, and a sense of disbelief and disillusionment began to come over those who truly believed that the 'Q' prophecy could not fail.

However, as someone who has studied and watched the development of,  and ultimate failure of many prophecies and conspiracy theories I've come to realize this:  For the die-hard true believers, a failed prophecy means nothing.  For a conspiracy theorist, any failure can be 'rationally' explained away as just another part of the conspiracy.

The writer of the Daily Beast article makes this point.  Just because the 'Q Plan' failed there is no reason to think that its true believers will simply shrug and go home.  In fact, if history teaches us anything, it's that it's much more likely that the conspiracy will simply morph into a new one. Some will reason that the 'plan' did not fail, it was those who believed in it and their failure to properly understand what's really going on who were to blame.

But then the author raises a point which, as a Christian, I found both interesting and troubling.  As an example of this type of conspiratorial thinking she raises the issue of the 'Great Disappoint' of 1844.  Prior to that year, William Miller, an Adventist preacher began teaching his followers that he had discerned from the  biblical book of Daniel the true date of Jesus' second coming.  It was said that this would occur between spring of 1843 and spring of 1844.  When Jesus failed to return on schedule Miller's followers were confused and disillusioned; Hence how it came to be known as the 'Great Disappointment'.

But Miller's true believers were not done, and soon a new date was set which also failed to deliver on their hopes and expectations.  After these disappointments Miller himself admitted defeat and renounced any attempt at further 'date-setting' for the return of Jesus.  Some of his followers, however, did not give up.  Eventually they came to a new conclusion:  That the date was right after all!  It was only the expectations of what was supposed  to happen on that date which were faulty.  Miller had taught that Jesus would return in 1844 to cleanse the earth.  What really happened, they reasoned, was that Jesus began to cleanse the heavenly sanctuary.  The prophecy did come true, only its true fulfillment was hidden to those on earth not enlightened enough to have discerned it.

Now, one may or may not agree that the 'Great Disappointment of 1844'  is a fitting example of what we might expect to happen among those feeling a sense of disillusionment and disappointment now that the 'Q' plan has failed.  We can only wait and see whether or not this particular conspiracy theory will fade away or morph into something else.  But the Daily Beast article does not stop there.  It goes on to make an attack on the veracity of the Bible, and in so doing appears to implicate all believers in a way that I find troubling to say the least.
​

Why Prophecy Matters
​

The writer of the article states:

"Ironically, the prophecies in Daniel that formed the basis for the Millerite (and many other!) prophecies about the end of the world were themselves the product of dashed expectations. Though it is set in the sixth century B.C., Daniel was written during the reign of the Seleucid king Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164 B.C.). At the time Judeans were wrestling with the Antiochus’s attempts to eradicate Jewish customs and traditions like Sabbath observance, circumcision, and dietary laws. As a response to this crisis the book contains a series of prophecies about what would happen at the end of time. The dates are very specific and, after the first date for the restoration of the Temple given in Dan. 8:12 passed without incident, a later author was forced to add a second prophecy (Daniel 12:11-12) to account for the mistake."

What she is here alleging is that not only was William Miller wrong in his interpretation of the Book of Daniel, but that the Book of Daniel itself is both a forgery and an example of failed prophecy!

She reasons as follows:  William Miller taught that he discerned the date of the second coming from Daniel chapter 8.  But, she says, Daniel chapter 8 is itself also a failed prophecy because, while the book purports to have been written in the 6th century BC, it was actually written in the 2nd century BC when the Jews were under severe persecution from the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BC).  She infers that the writer of Daniel 'guessed' at how the Jews might triumph over Antiochus and got it wrong!  Shen then goes even further stating her belief that yet another writer added Daniel chapter 12 in order to 'correct' the failed prophecy of chapter 8, and implies that he too got it wrong!

As Christians our first reaction might be to simply dismiss such reasoning as unbelieving nonsense (it is), but is that good enough?

The Book of Daniel contains some of the most detailed prophecies in all of scripture.  It tells of the rise and fall of kingdoms - of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome (chapters 2 and 7).  It details in prophetic language the rise of Alexander the Great, his untimely death, and the division of kingdom (chapter 8).  It details the rise of, and wars between the Seleucid Empire and Ptolemaic Egypt (chapter 11).

To critics of the book of Daniel this only proves that the text is a forgery which was written well after any of these events took place; It is, they say, a book of history pretending to be prophecy in order to encourage the Jews during a troublesome time and nothing more.  When it tried to predict anything future it was simply and utterly wrong.

Or was it?

And here is where our interpretation of prophecy matters. Christians may cite a host of conservative scholars who ably argue that the book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BC.  They may point out that Jesus himself quoted from, and obviously believed that Daniel was a genuine prophecy.  None of this matters to the unbeliever who can simply point to numerous other scholars who believe that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC.  To an unbelieving heart it will matter little whether or not Jesus quoted from the book; they will only take this as evidence that Jesus himself was also a fraud.

Perhaps no amount of proof, or no argument regardless of how strong will be enough to convince one who's heart is set on unbelief, but that is not my concern.  What I feel strongly is that Christians have unwittingly adopted a faulty interpretation of much of the book of Daniel which makes it far too easy for critics and unbelievers to get away with this nonsense and dismiss the book out of hand.

How so?

Critics argue that Daniel chapter 8 guessed at the fate of Antiochus Epiphanes and got it wrong.  They will equally argue that the second half of chapter 11 was also a guess and a failed prophecy regarding the fate of Antiochus. 

'Not so!', say most Christians, 'These are not failed prophecies about Antiochus at all! They are simply unfulfilled prophecies about a future coming Antichrist!'  While this type of reasoning may give some temporary comfort to a Christian looking for a way to answer the skeptics, in actuality it is wholly unconvincing and for a good reason.  

To a critic, this type of reasoning will appear to be ad-hoc and just a little too convenient.  The unbeliever will point to what they believe is a failed prophecy and the Christian will simply call it a future unfulfilled prophecy.  Nothing is gained, and no one is convinced.  In a book dealing with ancient historical events, the average Christian simply inserts a more than twenty-two century gap of time into the text where none exists in order to get out of what the unbeliever has pointed to as a very thorny problem.  Unbelievers will not be convinced by such reasoning, nor should they be.

But what if both the unbeliever and most believers have gotten the book of Daniel wrong?  What if Daniel chapters 8 and 11 are neither failed prophecies about Antiochus Epiphanes, nor are they unfulfilled future prophecies?  What if they are in fact fulfilled prophecies from history, but of events beyond the skeptic's asserted 2nd century BC date of writing?

If these things are true then the unbeliever is suddenly in the very awkward position of trying to explain how a supposed forgery was able to predict the future.  After all, it's one thing to claim that the book of Daniel was written later than it claims itself to have been written, but it is quite another to try and explain how that same book was able to accurately predict verifiable historic events which only came to pass after the later date you've proposed.

To the believer their faith would be strengthened and they could present solid evidence that the book of Daniel is exactly what it has always claimed to be; an inspired book of prophecy written in the 6th century BC.  Regardless of the date of writing, a book which has accurately predicted future events is not easily dismissed.

---

It is understandable that an unbeliever would get the book of Daniel so wrong; An unbelieving heart will always find a reason for unbelief.  That the Daily Beast writer should use the book of Daniel as an example of failed prophecy in comparison to the recent unhinged 'Q' nonsense is troubling but not shocking.

But that Christians should get the book of Daniel so wrong as to not have an adequate answer to such nonsense even when a much better defense exists... well... It shows why what we believe about prophecy matters.

In Part Two I'll explore why Christians seem so blind to a more satisfactory exposition of the book of Daniel and attempt to present a better way.