Scriptures, for only in this way can they be allowed to mean what they say. We believe that, in His Word, God

means what He says and has a meaning for everything He says. The literal method of interpretation gives to each

word the same basic meaning it would have in normal, ordinary customary usage, whether employed in writing,

speaking, or thinking. If this is not so, how could God convey to man His thoughts or instruct him? If the Lord uses

words in an entirely different way from normal usage, then it is absolutely impossible for any human being to

receive or understand what He intends to convey to them. When we speak of a literal method of interpretation we

do not mean that figures of speech and symbols are not used in the Scriptures, nor that spiritual application cannot

be made from its contents. It is one thing to make a spiritual application of a passage from Holy Writ (and this can

only be done after the basic interpretation has been made). It is quite another to adopt spiritualisation or allegory as

a system of interpretation for the whole of the Bible. F.W. Farrar well says:

`... when once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and

books of Scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to the

*

caprice of the interpreter'. The Principles of Interpretation p.238.

This is impossible with the grammatical-historical method of Biblical study, which not only lets words mean

what they say, but links them with the context in which they are found, thus exerting a sure and safe check on the

imagination of both writer and reader, thereby delivering from fallible human opinion.

With regard to the interpretation of prophecy, we see no valid reason for departing from the above, providing

symbols and figures of speech are recognised and the literality underlying them is found. Another point must be

constantly borne in mind. Some prophecies have only had a partial fulfilment, leaving the complete fulfilment to a

later time. Failure to distinguish this can only lead to wrong conclusions.

To interpret literally means to interpret in terms of normal designation which is the usual approach in all

languages and this is the method we shall seek to employ in our study of the great theme of The Kingdom of God as

we search the Scriptures.

At the commencement we must be very careful that we start in the right place. Many expositors commence with the

New Testament and ignore the testimony of the Old Testament. This is a fundamental mistake, for God's conception

of His kingdom had already been made known in the history and prophecy of the Old Testament. As a matter of

fact, in type, it began with the first man, Adam, who, as we have seen, was in reality a king, having been given by

God complete dominion over the whole earth and its inhabitants, foreshadowing the future dominion of The King of

kings and Lord of lords. From the very beginning, God has manifested His sovereignty in His rule over creation and

this is at the very heart of the stupendous plan of the ages centred in the Lord Jesus Christ (Eph. 3:8-11). Sometimes

He has used mediators in the carrying out of His divine rule, for the astonishing fact which permeates the whole

Bible is that God, while able to accomplish everything by His wisdom and almightiness alone, yet desires to use

created beings as channels to accomplish His will. The more we think about this and realise our own sinfulness and

inadequacy, the more wonderful it becomes.

God's conception of perfect rule is the rule of one mind, not the governance of committees nor of the many along

democratic lines. It goes without saying that this one ruler must be absolutely perfect and righteous, for past history

gives a vivid account of what happens when unlimited power is put into failing human hands. `All power corrupts,

and absolute power corrupts absolutely' is a dictum that cannot be gainsaid. Democracy is the safest and best form

of human rule to minimise this, but it certainly cannot prevent corruption from occurring and ruining the realm over

which human rule is exercised.

There is no doubt whatsoever that God's rule is that of a supreme king and therefore His kingdom can be

designated as theocratic. G. N. H. Peters, in his great work, The Theocratic Kingdom (1:216) says:

*

Obtainable from The Berean Publishing Trust, 52A Wilson St. London EC2A 2ER.