05. Application of Hermeneutics

5. Application of Hermeneutics

5.1 To Prophecy 5.1.1 The Problem 5.1.1.1 Allegorical or mixed views 5.1.1.2 Literal view 5.1.2 The Principles 5.1.2.1 Compare Scripture 5.1.2.2 Distinguish between interpretation and application 5.1.2.3 Observe time distinctions and time references 5.1.2.4 Watch fortwofoIdapplication 5.1.3 The purpose of prophecy is basically threefold:

5.1.3.1 To warn 5.1.3.2 To guard 5.1.3.3 To strengthen 5.1.4 The Bible is different.

5.1.5 The literal meaning 5.1.6 Common sense 5.1.7 Historical 5.1.8 No limitation 5.1.9 Double reference 5.1.10 Predictive or didactic 5.1.11 Past or future 5.1.12 In relation to Israel 5.1.13 Christ is central 5.1.14 Israel and the Church are separate 5.1.15 Preconceived interpretation of prophecy 5.1.16 New dimension

5.2 To Parables 5.2.1 The Problem (Zuck pp. 194-226, 198, 199, 200, 204-210) 5.2.1.1 Definition 5.2.1.2 Composition 5.2.1.3 Purpose (Zuck p. 197) 5.2.1.4 The results (Zuck pp. 204, 208-209) 5.3 To Types (Text pp. 169-193) 5.3.1 The Problem 5.3.1.1 Definition (person, event and thing) (Text pp. 172-175) 5.3.1.2 Kinds 5.3.2 The Principles 5.3.2.1 A type must be of divine origin 5.3.2.2 Observe the historical meaning 5.3.2.3 There must be a resemblance between the type and antitype 5.3.2.4 Be careful in the doctrinal use of types.

5.4 To Numbers 5.4.1 The Problem 5.4.2 The Principles 5.5 To Present Issues 5.5.1 The Problem 5.5.1.1 Jehovah’s Witnesses 5.5.1.2 Christian Science 5.5.1.3 Healing and ’seed-faith" - Oral Roberts 5.5.1.4 Roman Catholic 5.5.1.5 Charismatic Movement 5.5.1.6 Seventh Day Adventists

"And when Phillip had run up, he heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, ’Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ’Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?"’ (Act 8:30-31).

I can readily sympathize with the Ethiopian eunuch who could not understand what he was reading in the Book of Isaiah. How often I myself have wished that I might have a sure guide who would help me understand prophecy. The age in which we live has brought into sharp focus certain prophecies which generations before us either overlooked or misapplied. Of these were such prophecies as concerning the restoration of Israel, which have come to pass in part in our own time, namely, the regathering of the Jewish people to their ancient homeland Israel (Eze 36:16-24; Eze 37:10).

We of this generation have been privileged to be witnesses of the fulfillment of these prophecies. others wait for their consummation at their appointed times. It behooves us to be humble and not too rigid in the interpretation of certain predicted events, knowing that there are certain areas of divine rule and providence which God has reserved for Himself. "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law" (Deu 29:29).

Prophecy was not given in order to satisfy the morbid curiosity of some sensational-hungry people, but to be a guide and "a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (1Pe 1:19-21). The study of Bible prophecy, although made "more sure" (2Pe 1:19) by literal interpretation, remains nevertheless a most demanding one. There exists no short cut to true prophetic interpretation. The interpreter who wishes to enter into the study of God’s written revelation must diligently prepare himself for this sacred task. For one to be able to interpret Bible prophecy correctly, he must know something about the basic nature of prophecy, the principles of prophetic interpretation, and the language of prophecy.

There are certain principles by which most conservative scholars interpret general Scripture. These are called "the regular principles of hermeneutics." The question asked is whether these are sufficient for interpreting prophecy. Without being dogmatic, I think we say that they are not only insufficient but also dangerous if taken by themselves.

Because prophetic Scripture is a part of God’s written revelation and intended for comprehension, it must be interpreted according to rules governing regular literature. Terry observed that "While duly appreciating the peculiarities of prophecy, we nevertheless must employ in its interpretation essentially the same great principles as in the interpretation of other ancient writings" (Terry, pp. 396-97).

The problem is not so much in any change in style, grammar, etc. of Scripture but one’s answer to the simple question - does God literally mean what He says about the future? Some answer “yes” others “no” and still others, ‘sometimes” or “maybe”.

We will not waste time with those views that reject the fact of prophecy such as liberalism. The rejection of prophecy is humanism, not hermeneutics. The problem demanding attention is the disagreement seen in conservative Protestantism when prophetic passages are interpreted.

“The measure to which literal interpretation is to be followed in Old Testament interpretation is directly related to the problem of the restoration of Israel.” Ramm, 3rd,. p.255

Such a statement indicates that the real problem is not the rules of interpretation to be used with prophecy but the belief in the results those rules demand. Thus the degree of literalness accepted determines the position taken, premillennial, postmillennial or amillennial. premillennial - literal postmillennial - mixed amillennial - allegorical (mostly)

“It is generally agreed by all parties that one of the major differences between amillennialism and premillennialism lies in the use of the literal method of interpretation. Amillenarians, while admitting the need for literal interpretation of Scripture in general, have held from Augustine to the present time that prophecy is a special case requiring spiritualizing or non-literal interpretation. Premillennarians hold (why?), on the contrary, that the literal method applies to prophecy as well as other doctrinal areas, and therefore contend for a literal millennium. In a somewhat less degree the same hermeneutical difference is seen in the pretribulational positions. Pretribulationism is based upon a literal interpretation of key Scriptures posttribulationism tends toward spiritualization of the tribulation passages. This is seen principally in two aspects. Posttribulationists usually ignore the distinction between Israel and the Church...tendency is to minimize its (the tribulation) severity and avoid any detailed exegesis.” Walvoord, Rapture Question, pp.56-58 Also see Ryrie, Basis Of Premillennial Faith, pp. 38, 46-47

A few quotations will show the problem.

“Dispensationalists insist, however, upon a rigid application of an exact literal interpretation, particularly as it has to do with Israel and the church. They insist on an unconditional literal fulfillment of all prophetic promises, failing to realize that by its very nature prophetic utterances are sometimes allegorical or symbolic.” Bass, Backgrounds to Dispensationalists, p. 22

“since the canonization of the New Testament, a unitary view of the Bible has been the guiding principle of interpretation for the church. A continuity in the message of the Scriptures has been accepted as the basis for understanding it.” Bass, ibid, p. 38

“It is true, of course, that literal interpretation of obviously literal prophecy is to be preferred. But a system of hermeneutics which requires all prophecy to be interpreted with absolute literalism is committed to forced exegesis.” Ramm, p. 151

“May not the answer be found in the fact that the church is indeed the spiritual Israel; that the covenantal relations of God to Israel have indeed passed over to the church; that the promises to Abraham may be fulfilled in some measure in the church; that the kingdom offered by Christ was a spiritual kingdom which was instituted in the hearts of those who believe; that the church is neither a parenthesis nor an intercalation, but the cumulative display of God’s total redemptive plan; that the millennium is to be a personal reign of Christ over a spiritually oriented kingdom rather than a theocratic, Jewish oriented one; that the blessed hope is the return of Christ, rather than the rapture of the church...” Bass, p. 152

“One of the most marked features of Premillennialism in all its forms is the emphasis which it places on the literal interpretation of Scripture. It is the insistent claim of its advocate that only when interpreted literally is the Bible interpreted truly; and they denounce as ‘spiritualizers’ or ‘allegorizers’ those who do not interpret the Bible with the same degree of literalness as they do... the question of literal versus figurative interpretation is, therefore, one which has to be faced at the very outset.” Allis, Prophecy And Church, pp. 16-17

“While Dispensationalists are extreme literalists, they are very inconsistent ones. They are literalists in interpreting prophecy. But in the interpreting of history, they carry the principle of typical interpretation to an extreme which has rarely been exceeded even by the most ardent of allegorizers.” Allis, p. 21

Concerning a literal interpretation of prophecy he says, “This raises several questions...; the intelligibility of prophecy, the conditional element in prophecy, the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament, futurism, and the basic distinction between Israel and the Church.” Allis, p.25

“The parenthesis view of the Church is the inevitable result of the doctrine that Old Testament prophecy must be fulfilled literally to Israel and that the Church is a mystery first revealed to the Apostle Paul.” Allis, p. 54

“The limitations and peculiarities of Judaism have been done away. They have been done away not for the time being only, but for ever. They are never to be restored. There is a great and glorious future for the Jews. But that future is to be found in and through the Christian Church...there is no distinctively Jewish age for the Jew to look forward to...Whether the Jews are to return to the earthly Canaan is a matter of relatively little importance...Whether there is to be such a millennium is a question which must be decided in the light of Scripture.” Allis, pp. 258, 259, 261

Note application of this view, “Not until that task is accomplished may she confidently expect Him to come reckon with His servants.” Allis, p. 26

Prophecy is treated like all the rest of Scripture.

McClain answers the charge of Allis concerning types in history on page 141 of Greatness of the Kingdom...

Just because premils. recognize types in history does not mean that they do not take history as literal and use of types by premils. does not justify the allegorical view of prophecy that Allis holds. Application and interpretation are two different things, as will be seen in the next section of class notes.

Note how the literal method guided two 19th century writers. Blackstone writes concerning spiritualizing: “There can be no warrant for it. It subverts the authority and power of the Word of God, and Post-millennialists, by so doing, open wide the door for skeptics and latitudinarians of all descriptions...why! The same process of spiritualizing away the literal sense of these plain texts of Scripture will sap the foundation of every Christian doctrine and leave us to drift into absolute infidelity...What is the purpose of language, if not to convey definite ideas?...Surely, there is no symbolism in these plain prophecies, which gives us any authority to ‘spiritualize’ them. Rather let us expect that he will as literally fulfill these as He did the others at His first coming.” (1898) W.E. Blackstone, Jesus Is Coming, pp.22, 25

“Many deny the truth of the restoration and blessing of God’s ancient people, and spiritualize and explain away the numerous scriptures which refer to it, applying them often to the present blessing of the Church of God. Such would do well to ponder the eleventh chapter of Romans...” Chafer, Coming And Reign...(1880), p. 94

Some speak of a “special hermeneutics” due to the “exceptional character” of prophecy. Terry, p. 407 cf. p. 418 Some think that the symbols and figures of speech used in prophecy call for allegorical interpretation.

“To be thoroughly literal we would have to insist that a literal (actual) woman sat literally upon seven literal hills!” Ramm, 3rd, p. 268 Ramm is inconsistent here because he already defined literal as including types, symbols, etc. pp. 119-127 Surely fulfilled prophecy is a gauge which instructs us concerning how future prophecy will be fulfilled.

“Take for example, the words of Gabriel in the first chapter of Luke where he foretells the birth of Christ. According to the angel’s words, Mary literally conceived in her womb; literally brought forth a son; His name was literally called Jesus; He was literally great; and he was literally called the Son of the Highest. Will it not be as literally fulfilled that God will yet give to Christ the throne of His father David, that He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and that of His glorious kingdom there shall be no end?” Feinberg, Premil. or Amil.?, quoted Ryrie, Basis, p.44

Since theology is not to determine the hermeneutics used, the only consistent approach to prophecy is to use the same rules that are used for all Scripture - literal, grammatical, historical and contextual.

“These are not principles deduced from premillennial exegesis, but rather these are special rules growing out of the general rules of hermeneutics and the particular problem of prophecy upon which premillennial exegesis is based. If, then, these special principles which concern interpretation of prophecy are consistent with the basic law of hermeneutics, that is, literal interpretation, and if they point the way to a comprehensive, consistent, and harmonious system of Biblical interpretation, then premillennialism rests on an exceedingly firm basis in relation to hermeneutics.” Ryrie, Basis, p. 40 The following rules are thus aspects of literal interpretation that should be kept in mind when interpreting prophecy.

“Every prophecy is part of a wonderful scheme of revelation, and this entire scheme as well as the interrelationship between the parts must be kept in mind. No one prophet received the revelation of all the truth; rather, the Book unfolds little by little, without contradictions until we have a complete and perfect picture.” Ryrie, Basis, p. 41

Most symbols, figures, etc. are explained in the context of the book or elsewhere in the bible. Dan 2:31-35, Dan 2:36-45; Dan 7:1-10, Dan 7:17-26; Dan 8:1-9, Dan 8:20-23; Rev 13:1-5

“Interpretation is one; application is manifold.” Ryrie, Basis, p. 42

“This does not mean that the preacher may never take a prophecy concerning Israel and apply it to the Church. But he should always know what he is talking about, and make certain that his hearers know, so that there can be no possible confusion between the history and its typical application, or between a prophecy and any so-called “typical interpretation”.” McClain, p. 141 Interpretation - to Application - for See Scroggi, Guide to the Gospels,p. 552

A literal method demands certain time differences; before fall, after fall, after flood, Mosai, church, millennium and eternal state - at least.

Also notice the time words used in prophecy - Day of the Lord, that day, those days, latter days, then, afterward, Day of Christ, last days, etc.

This aspect of prophecy is called “double reference”, “telescopic character”, “compenetration”.

“All prophecy is complex, i.e., it sees together what history outrolls as separate; and all prophecy is apotelesmatic, i.e., it sees close behind the nearest-coming, epoch-making turn in history, the summit of the end.” In other words, somewhat as a picture lacks the dimension of time; events appear together on the screen of prophecy which in their fulfillment may be widely separated in time. Thus the student may find a prophecy having all the external marks of literary unity, yet referring to some event in the near future connected with the historical phase of the Kingdom and also to some far-off event connected with the Messiah and His Millennial Kingdom. When the first event arrives, it becomes the earnest and divine forecast of the more distant and final event...Such a view of prophecy does not mean any abandonment of its literality, as some have argued. The double prediction is literal, and is to be literally fulfilled.” McClain, p. 137

“Often a prophecy may have a double fulfillment, one being in the immediate circumstances and another in the distant future.” Ryrie, Basis, P. 45 With this in mind always observe the local fulfillment as well as the future prophecy. Isa 7:14-16; Isa 9:6-7 The subject of a prophecy and its relationship to later events will be determined by the context and other scriptures which speak of the same event. Many times the time for the fulfillment is indicated both for the local and future fulfillments.

“No prophecy of scripture is of its own solution; it is constructed so as not to be. To limit it to the past would be an oversight; to set aside the future would destroy the most momentous object God has in it. Thus if to deny the past be an error, to deny the future is a still great er one. The one would have cut off somewhat of interest and profit then; the other shuts out its permanent witness to God’s glory. In both respects divine wisdom is most apparent. He provided that which was a warning or encouragement to His people when the prophet was in view of the circumstances which surrounded him; but He pointed onward to a time that was not yet arrived, when the just results of what was in His own mind will be made good and manifest. Now those results can never be till the Kingdom of God come in power and glory. It is impossible that the Spirit of God could be satisfied with anything which either has been among men or is now.” Kelly, Minor Prophets, p. 62 See also Vine on Isaiah, p. 61 and Gaebelein on Ezekiel, p. 166

Two aspects:

    1. local and future prophecies written together i.e. same sentence, same verse, etc.

2. a single prophecy may have both a local, partial pre-fulfillment and a future, complete fulfillment. Isa 7:14; Zec 9:9-10; Isa 61:1-2; Luk 4:16-21

“From these considerations it will be also seen then, while duly appreciating the peculiarities of prophecy, we nevertheless must employ in its interpretation of other ancient writings. First we should ascertain the historical position of the prophet; next the scope and plan of his book, then the usage and import of his words and symbols, and finally, ample and discriminating comparison of the parallel Scriptures should be made.” Terry, p. 418 Also notice the conditional or unconditional nature of prophecy. Most future prophecy is unconditional.

Keep the purpose of prophecy in mind always: to motivate to Godly living (Joh 3:3; 1Co 15:58; 1Th 4:18).

Further quotes on interpretation and prophecy.

“It cannot be stated too often nor stressed too strongly that the basic and underlying difference between premillennialists and amillennialists is their respective principle of interpretation. Lehman has not overdrawn the case when he tells us: ‘Ultimately these differences (that is, in the matter of interpretation) affect evangelism and missions.’ The results are indeed far-reaching, and they extend into every phase of theological study.”

“Premillennialists recognize that the foundation principle of amillennialism is the allegorizing or spiritualizing method. Payne notes, ‘The cornerstone of amillennialism is its figurative approach to prophecy. By this it is not implied that all prophecy is given a nonliteral sense but that the spiritualizing principle is allowed as valid wherever content and context appear to warrant its use. This is a basic tenet of the system and crucial to its maintenance.’ Ladd correctly points out that, if the spiritualizers had their way consistently, then the second coming of Christ would have to be a spiritual coming instead of a literal one. Is this not precisely the conclusion and predicament of the liberals?”

“Interestingly enough, amillennialists themselves are prepared to admit the danger of allegorizing. Lehman states, ‘Allegorizing or spiritualizing Scripture is an entirely erroneous method of interpretation. This method regards unfigurative language as figurative. Its only limitation is the imagination of the interpreter.’ Berkhof maintains that ‘The Alexandrian school, and especially Origen, its most brilliant representative, undermined Chiliasm by means of its allegorizing interpretation of scripture.’ He shows further how Augustine’s view of the kingdom led unfortunately to the hierarchical conception of the Middle Ages. Rutgers reveals the disastrous results of this principle. Says he, ‘The whole Alexandrian School is tinged with Platonic idealism which tended to disparage the temporal and spacial. Indeed, this allegorical method made unreal the historic facts of Christianity.’ Yet he must acknowledge that the principles laid down in his (Augustine’s) theory of the millennium is that which coincides with the amillennial view, indorsed by the reformers and still held by those of reformed persuasion today.” Charles L. Feinberg, Premillennialism or Amillennialism? pp. 207-208

Again, Dr. Feinberg quotes Hospers saying, “Offense is often taken at Chiliasm because it gives the Jew such pre-eminence as if this trenches on the honor of believers. Granting this, who are we to say to God: What doest Thou? Least of any should the Calvinist take such offense. Who of us may complain of God because He did not bestow upon us the genius of a Kant? May some son of degraded parents accuse God because he was not born into a godly family? And why then should Gentiles imagine that there may not be a special function initiated by God with the Jews rather than with us? Let us fear to obtrude our sense of the fitness of things upon All-wise God. As the cross was an offense to the Jew, standing in the way of darling preconceptions, so Christians may seriously consider whether their aversion to the reinstatement of Israel does not arise from ‘high-mindedness’. There is a deep reason for the ‘economy’ (arrangement of God by which Israel is first singled out, then rejected, and then again put forward.”

“Among the preconceptions of amillennialists is their unduly low view of the character of the millennial reign of Christ. Hospers points this out in this manner: ‘But why cannot our Lord’s Millennial reign be another step in His exaltation? Is there anything unworthy about the idea of His reigning on the Throne of David, not with the present-day limitations of earthly kings, but in a way befitting the King of Kings? Why should not a Millennial reign round out in this world of sin the highest contact of the Redeemer with a fallen world, the last of its kind in preparation for the New Heaven and the New Earth, which will be a totally different order of things? The Amillenarian entertains an altogether too low estimate of the Millennium.’” Feinberg, pp. 328-329

Berkhof, a covenant theologian, states concerning the interpretation of prophecy: “Although the prophets often express themselves symbolically, it is erroneous to regard their language as symbolical throughout. They did not, as some writers on prophecy supposed, construct a sort of symbolical alphabet to which they habitually resorted in the expression of their thoughts. Even P. Fairbairn falls into this error when he says that “in the prophecies of the Old Testament and the Book of Revelation, nations are a common designation for worldly kingdoms, stars for ruling powers, roaring and troubled seas for tumultuous nations, trees for the higher, as grass for the lower grades of society, running streams for the means of life and refreshment, etc.” ...When the prophets do express themselves symbolically, the context will usually indicate it. Sometimes it is expressly stated, as it is in Dan 8:1-27 and Rev 17:1-18. As a rule the language of the prophets should be understood literally. Exceptions to this rule must be warranted by Scripture.”

“While it was but natural that prophecies referring to the near future should be realized in all particulars, it is by no means self-evident that this should also be the case with prophecies that point to some dispensation. The presumption is that, after the forms of life have undergone radical changes, no more can be expected than a realization of the essential central idea. In fact, the New Testament clearly proves that a literal fulfillment is not to be expected in all cases, and that in some important prophecies the dispensational form must be stripped off. Hence it is precarious to assume that a prophecy is not fulfilled as long as the outer details are not realized.” cf. Isa 11:10-16; Joe 3:18-21; Mic 5:5-8; Zec 12:11-14; Amo 9:11-12; Act 15:15-17.”

“In the interpretation of the symbolical actions of the prophets, the interpreter must proceed on the assumption of their reality, i.e., of their occurrence in actual life, unless the connection clearly proves the contrary. Some commentators have too hastily inferred from a supposed moral or physical impossibility, that they merely occur in a vision. Such a procedure does violence to the plain sense of the Bible.”

“Prophecies should be read in the light of their fulfillment, for this will often reveal depths that would otherwise have escaped the attention. The interpreter should bear in mind, however, that many of them do not refer to specific historical events, but enunciate some general principle that may be realized in a variety of ways. If he should simply ask, in such cases, to what event the prophet refers, he would be in danger of narrowing the scope of the prediction in an unwarranted manner. Moreover, he should not proceed on the assumption that prophecies are always fulfilled in the exact form in which they were uttered. The presumption is that, if they are fulfilled in a later dispensation, the dispensational form will be disregarded in the fulfillment.” L. Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, pp.150-151,153.

“The final refutation of early Premillennialism was given by the great theologian of the West, Augustine (died, 430, A.D.), and so thoroughly did he do his work that it did not again gain a prominent position until a thousand years later, following the Protestant Reformation.”

“Two really outstanding theologians of the period, Origen and Augustine, were strongly opposed to Premillennialism. As far as its presence in the early Church is concerned, surely it can be argued with as must reason that it was one of those immature and unscriptural beliefs that flourished before the Church had time to work out the true system of Theology as that its presence at that time is an indication of purity of faith. In any event, so thoroughly did Augustine do his work in refuting it that it practically disappeared for a thousand years as an organized system of thought, and was not seriously put forth again until the time of the Protestant Reformation. At that time it was advocated by numerous independent groups but was solidly opposed by the Reformers themselves. Since that time it has never been strong enough to be written into any of the principle church creeds.” L. Boettner, The Millennium, pp. 329,366

Dr. Boettner points out that each of these systems is consistently evangelical, that each has been held by many able and sincere men, and that the differences between them arise not because of the distinctive method employed by each in its interpretation of Scripture. Strange it is that Origen and Augustine are so highly praised in light of their almost total use of allegory! In a recent book entitled The Meaning of the Millennium, representatives of the four views present their arguments. Ladd, the historic premillennialist says, “Dispensational theory insists that many of the Old Testament prophecies predict the millennium and must be drawn in to construct the picture of Messiah’s millennial reign. This view is based upon the hermeneutic that the Old Testament prophecies must be interpreted literally.”

Boettner, the postmillennialist says, “It is generally agreed that if the prophecies are taken literally, they do foretell a restoration of the nation of Israel in the land of Palestine with the Jews having a prominent place in the kingdom.”

Earl Radmaucher in the “Christianity Today” review summarizes the problem in these words: “The crux of the problem then is literal interpretation (given the proper understanding of figurative language as a legitimate literary genre) as an exclusive or single hermeneutic as over against using literal interpretation normally but spiritualizing at times. It is this latter approach that brings Ladd into conflict with Hoekema and Boettner in Rev 20:1-15 and with Hoyt in the Old Testament. One wonders on what basis the tested and tried control of literal interpretation is set aside. Ladd responds that a “millennial doctrine cannot be based on Old Testament prophecies but should be based on the New Testament alone’”.

“Undoubtedly, many people will agree with Ladd, but Hoyt’s quotation of John Bright may cause others to reevaluate the legitimacy of building one’s doctrine of the millennium on the New Testament alone. Bright writes: “For the concept of the Kingdom of God involves, in a real sense, the total message of the Bible. Not only does it loom large in the teachings of Jesus; it is to be found in one form or another, through the length and breadth of the Bible...Old Testament and New Testament thus stand together as the two acts of a single drama. Act I points to its conclusion in Act II, and without it the play is an incomplete, unsatisfying thing. But Act II must be read in the light of Act I, else its meaning will be missed. For the play is organically one. The Bible is one book. Had we to give that book a title, we might with justice call it ‘The Book of the Coming Kingdom of God’.”

Much ignorance and disagreement abounds in Christianity over the doctrine of prophecy. The problem is not caused by any vagueness in Scripture but is due totally to the method of interpretation used. If believers took the Bible at face value and stopped reading it through the perverted glasses of Augustine and his followers, eschatological confusion would be cleared up. The believer does not have to be premillennial to go to heaven or even to fellowship with other saints, but no one can consistently apply the literal, normal method of interpretation to Scripture and not be premillennial.

To warn men against those sins that have brought judgment and sorrow upon Israel. "Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, and you stand only by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; for if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you" (Rom 11:20-21).

To guard against false doctrines and prophets (2Pe 2:1-22).

To strengthen our faith, and to comfort the believer that God will fulfill His promises of eternal redemption and the establishment of His kingdom (Isa 65:17-25; Isa 66:22; Rev 21:1-4).

The first and most important condition for the understanding of prophecy, and of Scripture in general, is to remember that the Bible differs from all other writings and literature known to man. Here God Himself speaks to man.

It is therefore essential that we approach the study of Scripture with reverence and humility, and with an ear attuned to the voice of God. Any other approach, be it ever so scholarly, will not reveal the deeper meaning of prophecy. Just as in order to understand music one must have an ear for the harmony, the beauty, and the message of music, and just as in order to understand any form of art one must have an eye which is capable of appreciating the form, the beauty, and the meaning of the work of art, so also it is essential that our inner ear and eye be adjusted to the prophetic message. Some people are physically blind; others suffer from color blindness. But there are multitudes who are afflicted with spiritual blindness. The psalmist prayed: "Open my eyes, that I may behold wonderful things from Thy law" (Psa 119:18). The knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, of archaeology, of history, and of the classics, while most useful, will never replace spiritual insight and comprehension. The Apostle Paul told us: "But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised" (1Co 2:14). The study of Scripture, to be fruitful, must be in a spirit of humility, not presuming to set ourselves up as judges of the Word of God, but rather as those who are willing to submit themselves to its judgment. The Apostle Peter wrote: "God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (1Pe 5:5).

Before proceeding with the interpretation of prophecy, it is essential to determine the literal meaning of the prophet’s message. One must ask himself the question, What did the prophet seek to convey to his listeners or to his readers? When we understand this, we have made the first step in understanding what the particular message means for us today.

We need to respect the sound principle of interpretation as noted in the "Golden Rule of Interpretation":

"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths, indicate clearly otherwise."

Bible readers (and teachers) have been known to get lost in the attractive alleys and mazes of prophetic speculation, because they have disregarded the above common sense rule of interpretation.

The historical circumstances under which the prophet lived and labored are important factors which help us understand his message. Places, persons, nations, and events to which the prophet referred set the stage for his activates and anchored them in the history of the age.

Although a specific historical situation usually was the occasion for the prophet’s utterance or action, he was by no means limited to that particular incident or event but may have made it an occasion for a pronouncement concerning events which were yet to happen, either in the near or distant future.

This leads us to the principle of double reference. A prophetic statement may refer to a currently existing situation and announce what God will do about it immediately. From there the prophetic may proceed to predict what God will eventually do in the distant future or even in the last days. Sometimes these prophecies blend into one vision, as when one scene in a film fades out and another is superimposed upon the first. The point of transition from one vision to another is not always clearly marked. For instance, in Isa 14:4-11, there is a taunting song against the king of Babylon and his coming downfall and destruction. However, in Isa 14:12-17 the taunt takes on a cosmic character, describing the archenemy of God, Lucifer. "How you have fallen from heaven, 0 star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations!" (Isa 14:12). A parallel situation is found in Eze 28:1-26 where in Eze 28:2-10 there is a prediction about the destruction of Tyre with all its pride and wisdom. From Eze 28:13-15 the oracle transcends any human being or earthly dominion and becomes a taunting song against Satan himself:

You were in Eden, the garden of God . . .

You were the anointed cherub . . .

You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created, Until unrighteousness was found in you.

Prophecy is either didactic or predictive and sometimes a mixture of both. Didactic prophecy (forthtelling) seeks to lay bare or correct the moral and spiritual shortcomings primarily of Israel. Jehovah is eternal and His character unchangeable; therefore, His judgment and His dealings with Israel are prophetic of His dealings with other nations consistent with His own righteousness and their knowledge of God. "’Behold, the days are coming,’ declares the Lord, ’that I will punish all who are circumcised and yet uncircumcised . . . for all the nations are circumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised of heart"’ (Jer 9:25-26). The Apostle Paul emphasized this fact when he wrote Rom 11:21.

In dealing with predictive prophecy it is necessary to distinguish between the prophecies which have already been fulfilled, and those which still await their consummation.

Thus the predictions of the Egyptian bondage, the Assyrian invasion, the Babylonian captivity, and subsequent return to the Holy Land were fulfilled.

Other prophecies were fulfilled in part and await their final consummation in the future. To this second type of predictions belong many of the Messianic prophecies. When the prophets Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others first uttered them, these were still future events, later fulfilled with the coming of the Messiah Jesus. However, their complete fulfillment awaits the return of Christ and the establishment of His kingdom.

We must bear in mind that the prophets were primarily God’s messengers to Israel, to teach, to rebuke, to console, to foretell His future plans for Israel. Where the prophets spoke concerning other nations, it was generally with regard to their relationship to Israel. In general it can be said that the Old Testament deals with the Church composed of Jews and Gentiles who believe in Christ as their Lord and Savior (Eph 2:1-22). The Church is a super national spiritual entity. Israel is a national entity" With a spiritual goal. It is therefore a mistake to confuse the Church with Israel as so many have done.

The point of convergence of prophecies which were of a national character and those of a universal nature is the person of the Messiah of Israel who is alone the savior of all men. In His person the kingdom of God and His salvation embraces all mankind. Within physical and national Israel there is a spiritual remnant, which is the true Israel, the Israel of God (Gal 6:16). This is one of the central themes of Old Testament prophecy and is continued in the New Testament. Out of this faithful remnant of Israel came Christ, His apostles, and the New Testament Church, the ecclesia. To this Church belong both believing Jews and Gentiles (Mat 28:19; Mar 16:15; Luk 24:47; Joh 10:16; Act 1:8; Rom 9:24; Gal 3:28; Eph 2:1-22).

Because the God of Israel is also the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ and of His Church, there are many spiritual similarities and parallels between Israel and the Church. Nevertheless, historical "Israel" and "the Church" are two distinct entities which live separate and distinct lives and should never be confused. The spiritual core of Israel, the faithful remnant, is not the Church, but a part of it (Eph 2:19-22). Conversely, the Church is not Israel nor "the New Israel" as erroneously taught for centuries by the Church of Rome and by many contemporary Protestant theologians. The Church consists of believing Jews and Gentiles. The confusion of the Church with Israel has had baneful consequences for the Church and for Israel, and has caused grave misinterpretation of the Scriptures. For centuries it has colored Christian thinking about the Jews. It left the Jews with all the dire threats and predictions of judgment and desolation and exclusively misappropriated for the Church all the promises of divine redemption and mercy. There are enough distinctive and glorious promises given specifically to the Church of Christ without misapplying those which were given to Israel (Rom 9:4-5).

In interpreting prophecy one must be aware of pitfalls. One of these is the forcing of historical events into the framework of our preconceived interpretation of prophecy. However, history often has a painful way of correcting our notions. When one reads biblical commentaries from the Napoleonic era, he may at times find Napoleon cast in the role of Antichrist. During World War II, a well-known Bible teacher in America taught that Mussolini was the Antichrist. Such examples could be multiplied ad infinitum.

Another dangerous pitfall is the setting of dates concerning the fulfillment of certain prophetic events, especially with regard to the second coming of Christ. This inclination has marred the reputation of some Bible teachers.

In interpreting prophecy we must remember that the prophets were guided by the Holy Spirit to foretell events, the full import of which they were not always fully aware themselves (1Pe 1:10-11), neither when or under what circumstances their prophecies would come to pass. They were permitted to see the future on a flat, two-dimensional canvas, not realizing fully the broad valleys, the rivers, and the mountain ranges existing between one predicted event and another. God Himself, who is the Lord of history, has a way of bringing into view prophecy which was unclear in former generations. It is easier for us, who look from the standpoint of the New Testament, to understand certain prophecies than it was in the times of the prophets. In the light of the New Testament, prophecy takes on for us a new dimension.

Although many would try to confuse the issue of parables by using the allegorical method, the real problem is not literal vs. allegorical but to what extent should one go in making every aspect of a parable have interpretive value?

“How much of them is to be taken as significant?” Trench, p.31

“After all has been urged on the one side and on the other, it must be confessed that no absolute rule can be laid down beforehand to guide the expositor how far he shall proceed.” Trench, Interpretation of Parables, p.36 To help solve the problem, we must understand what parables are and why they are used in Scripture.

“The word parable is derived from the Greek verb paraballo, to throw or place by the side of, and carries the idea of placing one thing by the side of another for the purpose of comparison.” Terry, Principles, p. 276 Trench refers to them as “apples of gold in network of silver.” p.31

Parables should be distinguished from fables, myths, proverbs, allegories, etc. See Ramm, p. 276, Trench, pp. 1-10, Terry pp. 276, 277 (Zuck pp. 211-223)

“The parable is commonly assumed to have three parts (Zuck pp. 198, 205-208) The occasion and scope The similitude, in the form of a real narrative The moral and religious lessons.” Terry, p. 281 Ramm comes up with four parts - pp. 278-279

Mat 13:10-17 gives the purpose.

- to reveal truth to believers - to conceal truth from unbelievers Those who want to know the truth will search it out but those who aren”t saved will hear the story but give no thought to its significance.

“Care should be taken in studying the parables to distinguish between interpretation and application. All the Bible is for us, but it is not all about us. Interpretation is limited by the original intent of the parable, and this intent is determined by occasion and circumstance; but application is not limited, for the way in which it can help us is its meaning for us. Interpretation is dispensational and prophetic. Application is moral and practical.” Scroggie, p. 552

“Much must be left to good sense, to spiritual tact, to that reverence for the Word of God, which will show itself sometimes in refusing curiosities of interpretation, no less than at other times in demanding a distinct spiritual meaning for the words which are before it.” Trench, p. 37

“Parables do teach doctrine, and the claim that they may not be used at all in doctrinal writing is improper. But in gleaning our doctrine from the parables we must be strict in our interpretation; we must check our results with the plain, evident teaching of our Lord, and with the rest of the New Testament.” Ramm, p. 285

“Once more: the parables may not be made first sources and seats of doctrine. Doctrines otherwise and already established may be illustrated, or indeed further confirmed by them; but it is not allowable to constitute doctrine first by their aid...This rule, however, has been often forgotten, and controversialists, looking round for arguments with which to sustain some weak position, one for which they can find no other support in Scripture, often invent for themselves supports in these.” Trench, pp. 40-41

“...they came, not to learn its language, but to see if they could not compel it to speak theirs; with no desire to draw out of Scripture its meaning, but only to thrust into Scripture their own. When they fall thus to picking and choosing what in it they might best turn to their ends, the parables naturally invite them almost more than any other portions of Scripture.” Trench, p. 42

The problem in typology is to determine what is a type and how far one should go in making types out of things not clearly stated to be such in Scripture. The early church fathers had no “well-defined principles to guide them in their interpretations of Old Testament Scripture, which could either enable them to determine between the fanciful and the true in typical applications, or guard them against the worst excesses of allegorical license.” Fairbairn, Typology, p. 7 In finding fault with the literal method of interpretation, Allis uses the excesses of some dispensationalists as evidence. His main argument is invalid but his warning is valid, “There may be serious danger in attaching ‘typical’ importance to Old Testament events and institutions which cannot be proved to have any such meaning.” Allis, Pro. Church, p.22

Some attempt to solve the problem by restricting types to those stated to be types in Scripture. Others argue that the stated types give the basis for finding types not called such in Scripture.

“A type is an illustration based on an Old Testament character, event, or institution which while having reality and purpose in Bible history, is also a divine foreshadowing of things to come.” Hauser, class notes See Ramm, pp. 227-228, also Terry, p. 336 and footnote p.337

Terry lists person, institutions, offices, events and actions as kinds of types. pp.338-340. Ramm adds things, pp.231-232

“The hermeneutical principles to be used in the interpretation of types are essentially the same as those used in the interpretation of parables and allegories.” Terry, p. 340

“There must be evidence that the type was designed and appointed by God to represent the thing typified.” Terry

It is “...a matter not to be left to the imagination of the expositor to discover, but resting on some solid proof from Scripture itself.” Terry, pp. 337-338 “The connection between type and antitype must not be accidental nor superficial but real and substantial.”

“A type is properly designated when either it is so stated to be one in the New Testament, or wherein the New Testament states a whole as typical (i.e., the Tabernacle, and the Wilderness Wanderings) and it is up to the exegetical ability of the interpreter to determine additional types in the parts of these wholes.” Ramm, p. 228

“The former must not only resemble the latter, but must have been designed to resemble the latter...in its original institution.” Angus, Green, p. 226

“The type is always something historical...” Terry, p.337

“The type may have its own place and meaning, independently of that which it prefigures...hence, it follows that the type may at the time have been unapprehended in its highest character.” Angus, p. 225

“...It is important to remember that the inspired writers never destroyed the historical sense of Scripture to establish the spiritual; nor did they find a hidden meaning in the words, but only in the facts of each passage; which meaning is easy, natural, and Scriptural;..Angus, p.227

The antitype must be greater than the type.

“Great care must be taken to lift out of the Old Testament items precisely that which is typical and no more. There are points of pronounced similarity and equally so, points of pronounced dissimilarity between Christ and Aaron or Christ and Moses. The typical truth is at the point of similarity.” Ramm, pp. 228-229

Some use the typology of the tabernacle to teach the whole Christian life. “...We must proceed with care and check the play of our imagination.” Ramm, p. 231

“Compare the history or type with the general truth, which both the type and antitype embody; expect agreement in several particulars, but not in all; and let the interpretation of each part harmonize with the design of the whole, and with the clear revelation of Divine doctrine given in other parts of the sacred volume.” Angus, p. 227 (Text pp. 1790180 – types)

Do numbers have a symbolic use in Scripture?

“Every observant reader of the Bible has had his attention arrested at times by what seemed a mystical or symbolical use of numbers.” Terry, p. 380

“Numerical symbolism, that is, the use of numbers not merely if at all, with their literal numerical value, or as round numbers, but with symbolic significance, sacred or otherwise, was widespread in the ancient East, especially in Babylonia and regions more or less influenced by Babylonian culture which included Canaan...the presence of this use of numbers in the Bible, and that on a large scale, cannot reasonably be doubted, although some writers have gone too far in their speculations on the subject. The numbers which are unmistakably used with more or less symbolic meaning are 7 and its multiples, and 3, 4, 10 and 12. By far the most prominent of these is the number 7...” ISBE, pp. 2159-2163

“Biblical symbolism is, in many respects, one of the most difficult subjects with which one must deal in the science of hermeneutics...The first question which must be discussed regards the actual existence of symbolic numbers in the bible...there is by no means unanimous opinion concerning the reality of symbolic numbers...” Davis, Biblical Numerology, p. 103

“There are, however, varying degrees of opinion with regard to which numbers are used symbolically and when they are used.” Davis, p. 104

Those who find much symbolism in numbers are almost “totally subjective” in their reasoning. “Unfortunately this viewpoint is that generally accepted by pastors and popular Bible teachers without question.” Davis, p.104

“...popular prophetic teachers who have a flair for the spectacular. Apparently ‘allegorical arithmetic’ has an appeal to many people.” Davis, p. 110

“...the only number used symbolically in the Scripture to any degree with discernible significance, is the number 7. The number seven occurs in one way or another in nearly six hundred passages of the Bible.” Davis, p. 117

Concerning the number 7 - “In all cases it seems that the idea conveyed is that of ‘completeness’.” Davis, p.118

“It should be pointed out that nowhere in Scripture is any number given any specific theological or mystical meaning!” “Whatever has been deduced on this subject has been pure speculation and the result of the subjective reasoning.” Davis, p. 119

“It appears that there are almost as many different interpretations of the number as there are interpreters. What has been observed with regard to the interpretation of the number three can be observed with the rest of the numbers.” Davis, p.121

    “It is rather interesting that not one New Testament writer ever pointed back to the significance of a symbolic number occurring in the Old Testament.” Davis, p. 122

Rev 13:18 has been often used to show gematria in the New Testament. A fascinating number of people have been made to fill the bill but a Biblical interpreter must do more than come up with religious comics! When the tribulation comes, the 666 of Rev 13:18 will be known. The symbolism of not only numbers but of colors and names should be approached very cautiously. There is more truth in the plain sense of scripture than the most diligent interpreter will ever dig out in a lifetime. So take your tools and dig the clearly exposed strata. The rich treasures of scripture are not found in the subjective extremities where unclean mixture is most likely, but in the center of the plain sense.

The problem is seen in the wide range of groups and doctrines that make up “Christendom” today.

Analyze the hermeneutics of the cults. Observe how hermeneutics plays a part in the doctrinal issues of the day. This is where an error starts.

Joh 1:1, Joh 8:58 cf. John 10:9, Col 1:15-17 Hell - rationalistic method

Note “hermeneutics” of ‘science and Health”

Baker - She’s subjective, but her followers take her literally.

What system of hermeneutics does he use?

Php 4:19; Luk 6:38; Php 4:6; Heb 6:14

Hermeneutics involved purgatory (church over scripture)

Correct hermeneutics should lead to correct emphasis. A huge structure built with little or no foundation and totally out of Biblical proportions is not Biblical. 1Co 12:13; 1Co 12:7, 1Co 12:11, 1Co 12:30 Note grammar, check Greek word “tongue” and addition of “unknown”1Co 14:1-40.

Dan 8:14 - “evenings and mornings”

What hermeneutical basis for changing days to years? Say there is no historical evidence it days but then try to say the evidence of Mat 24:1-51 has already been seen to support 1844!!

Daniel’s 70th week fulfilled in 34 A.D. Christ was killed in the middle of the week. cf. Dan 9:25-27 Sabbath - Exo 31:13, Exo 31:16; Neh 9:13-14; Col 2:16-17 Law - Rom 6:14 law principle