 |  |
By what sound system of interpretation are we to regard prophecies relating to His
first Advent as literal, but the second Advent as spiritual? If the principles of
historico-grammatical interpretation cannot be applied to prophecy, then a large portion
of the Bible must be exempted, for prophecy extends from Genesis to Revelation, and if
so, of what use can such a principle be? We therefore believe as a guiding principle,
prophecy should be interpreted literally, unless the plain teaching of the New Testament
in dealing with the passage or material in question is against this.
Davidson, in his Old Testament Prophecy, writes:
"I consider the first principle in prophetic interpretation is to assume that the literal
meaning is his (the writer's) meaning--that he is moving among realities, not symbols,
among concrete things like people, not among abstractions like our church, world, etc.".
He reprimands expositors who make Zion the church; the Canaanite the enemy of the
church, the land of Canaan the promises to the church, and so on. There is no doubt that
to the Jew, to whom much of prophecy was first given, Jerusalem meant Jerusalem and
Canaan the literal Canaan. Once this is departed from, the door is wide open to human
opinion and error. If God does not mean what He says when He inspires prophecy, how
can it be a light to guide us in the darkness and how can we ever understand it?
h.
We believe a comprehension of the Divine purpose for the nation of Israel to be
essential for the proper understanding of prophecy. If we err here, it is unlikely
that we shall ever grasp what the Divine plan for the future is, nor shall we ever get
the proper position of the Church, the Body of Christ, in this great plan. We must
get clearly in our minds the teaching of Romans chapters 9:-11:, relating to Israel
according to the flesh, and chapter 11: must not be interpreted or divorced from
chapters 9: and 10:, which are an integral part of this section. The "all Israel" of
11: 26, who are in the future to be saved, have already been explained by the "all
Israel" of 9: 6, 7, and in neither case can these refer to the Church, but are Paul's
"kinsmen according to the flesh" (9: 3-5).
The weighty statement of Rom. 11: 29 must ever be kept in mind, "For the gifts and
calling of God are without repentance (or change of mind)". This statement alone should
be sufficient to prevent us from making the mistake of many spiritualizers, namely that
Israel has been finally cast off by God, and the Church has inherited their blessings. If
this is true, then God has changed His mind and altered the thing that has gone out of
His lips, the very thing that He has stated He will never do (Psa. 89: 34-37;
Jer. 31: 35-37). If God has broken His Word regarding the nation of Israel, away goes
all Christian assurance, for how can we be sure that He will not do so in connection with
the Church? Moreover, the future restoration of Israel rests upon the New Covenant of
grace (Jer. 31: 31-37), and this has been sealed by the precious blood of Christ
(Matt. 26:28).
This restoration has no regard for personal merit or demerit. Israel are "enemies" of
God so far as the gospel is concerned, but they are "beloved" by God, in spite of this, "for
the fathers' sake" (Rom. 11: 28). Their present opposition, blindness and failure cannot
invalidate God's unconditional promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or alter His eternal