In this chapter we will first begin by finishing our citations from Dr. Pentecost, whom I have been citing from in the previous two chapters. After this we will look at new testament texts which affirm that an old testament prophecy has been fulfilled and see whether it was fulfilled literally. After that I will show that some prophecies are given in symbols and figures and yet the fulfillment was literal.
Pentecost in Chapter 4 of "Things To Come" (from which we have been citing) wrote:
"The problem that is of particular concern to the student of Eschatology is the problem of interpreting the prophetic portions of Scripture. Before considering the specific rules governing the interpretation of prophecy, it would be well to draw certain general observations concerning the nature of prophetic language."
Much of what is said in these words have been said in the previous citations from Pentecost in the preceding chapters. Indeed "the student of Eschatology," which all Christians should be, faces the problem of how to interpret "the prophetic portions" of the holy scriptures. He speaks of "specific rules governing the interpretation of prophecy." We have already stressed a few of these rules, such as the rule that says "if the literal (or 'plain') sense makes sense, seek no other sense." Another said that prophetic language should be understood literally unless the context or common sense dictates otherwise.
Also, several propositions have been proposed about the nature of divine prophecies. First, that though the prophecies often used metaphors, similes, figures and types, etc., it was in order to foretell of literal events. Evidence of this we will give in the next chapters. An illustration of this is when I say "it is going to rain cats and dogs tomorrow." Though I am using a figurative expression (or 'idiom'), i.e. "cats and dogs," I do not mean that it will literally rain cats and dogs and common sense tells us this. It is understood by those who are familiar with the idiom that what is meant is that the predicted rain is going to be a heavy rain and not a light shower. So, though figures of speech may be used in a prophecy, it is only a means to convey information about a coming literal rain of water. The words of the prediction cannot be made to mean something other than a heavy rain. Nor can it denote a figurative or non literal raining.
Pentecost writes:
"The law of double reference. Few laws are more important to observe in the interpretation of prophetic Scriptures than the law of double reference. Two events, widely separated as to the time of their fulfillment, may be brought together into the scope of one prophecy. This was done because the prophet had a message for his own day as well as for a future time. By bringing two widely separated events into the scope of the prophecy both purposes could be fulfilled."
I have written on "the law of double (or 'dual') fulfillment" several times over the years. It is a truth that is almost universally accepted among bible teachers that many prophecies of the coming of the Messiah in the old testament had things occurring in conjunction with it that were fulfilled in Christ's first coming and some that will not be fulfilled till his second coming, the idea of two comings of Messiah not being clearly revealed to them. (For instance see this posting here) We see this double fulfillment in the prophecy about both the rise and destruction of Babylon, which has both a past and a future fulfillment. We also see it in the prophecy of the coming of Elijah the prophet before the coming of the Lord, who came first in the person of John the Baptist but more fully in the person of one of the two witness prophets of Revelation chapter eleven, which is the actual coming again of Elijah. Many more examples could be given.
Pentecost writes further:
"In addition to the straightforward prophetic utterance, future events are revealed through types, symbols, parables, dreams, and prophetic ecstasy. Since there are attendant problems concerning the interpretation of such prophetic revelations, consideration must be given to each of these before considering the problem of the interpretation of prophecy as a whole, for there will be no understanding of prophecy apart from understanding its channels. The student must therefore familiarize himself with the language of prophecy—its figures and symbols as well as its method of communication."
This is such an important point for bible students to understand and to keep in mind. In the chapters following the present we will give examples of these affirmations by Pentecost and speak of the fact that symbols and figures are used in some prophecies, yet this does not mean that the literal events and things that the symbols stand for become non literal.
Pentecost writes further:
"The interpretation of the prophecies given through dreams or prophetic ecstasy will present no special problems of interpretation. Although the method of giving the prophecy may have been unique that which was given did not differ from a prophecy stated in clear language. In such a revelation the method differed, not the words, and so they may be interpreted without added problems."
This will be evident when we look at some of the prophecies in the old testament, especially those prophecies that came to the Babylonian king and to Daniel in the book of Daniel.
Pentecost writes under the sub heading "IIl. Rules for the Interpretation of Prophecy":
"The interpretation of prophecy requires attention to the same considerations in regard to words, context, grammar, and historical situations that are the accepted principles in respect to any field of interpretation."
True. The prophetic portions of scripture are to be interpreted in the same way the non prophetic portions are interpreted.
Pentecost writes further:
"Perhaps the primary consideration in relation to the interpretation of prophecy is that, like all other areas of Biblical interpretation, it must be interpreted literally. Regardless of the form through which the prophetic revelation is made, through that form some literal truth is revealed. It is the problem of the interpreter to discover that truth. Davidson affirms:
This I consider the first principle in prophetic interpretation—to read the prophet literally—to assume that the literal meaning is his meaning—that he is moving among realities, not symbols, among concrete things like peoples, not among abstractions like our Church, world, etc."
That is my view exactly. The words highlighted above in red are especially important. As we will see, though some prophecies are given in figures and symbols, they are used to predict literal events.
Pentecost writes further:
"Regardless of the form through which the prophetic revelation is made, through that form some literal truth is revealed."
So, though some figurative language is used in prophecies, yet they were intended to foretell a literal event. This will become evident as we give examples of it in the next few chapters.
Pentecost writes:
"The reason a non-literal method of interpretation is adopted is, almost without exception, because of a desire to avoid the obvious interpretation of the passage. The desire to bring the teaching of Scripture into harmony with some predetermined system of doctrine instead of bringing doctrine into harmony with the Scriptures has kept the method alive."
This needs little comment. It is absolutely true and needs to be said over and over again. What good would a prediction of a future event be if we could not understand its use of figures and symbols?
Pentecost writes:
"Without doubt the greatest confirmation of the literal method of interpreting prophecies comes from an observation of the method God has employed to fulfill the prophecies that have already been fulfilled, Masselink says:
We can therefore derive our method of interpretation for the unfulfilled prophecy from the fulfilled, because we may safely deduce the guiding principles for the unfulfilled prophecy from the fulfilled predictions which are recorded in the New Testament."
This argument has been emphasized by Pentecost, other scholars, and by me many times. I challenge any of the spiritual or allegorical interpreters to show us where a prophecy was fulfilled in a non literal way.
Pentecost writes
"From our vantage point in time prophecy is divided into that which has been fulfilled and that which is unfulfilled. From God's viewpoint prophecy is a unit, indivisible on the time basis. Since it is a unit, and therefore indivisible, that method used in those prophecies that are now fulfilled will also be the method used to fulfill those prophecies that await future fulfillment. In the field of fulfilled prophecy it is not possible to point to any prophecy that has been fulfilled in any way other than literally. The New Testament knows of no other method of fulfilling the Old. God has thus established His divine principle. Feinberg says:
"...in the interpretation of prophecy that has not yet been fulfilled, those prophecies which have been fulfilled are to form the pattern. The only way to know how God will fulfill prophecy in the future is to ascertain how He has done it in the past. All the prophecies of the suffering Messiah were literally fulfilled in the first advent of Christ. We have no reason to believe that the predictions of a glorified and reigning Messiah will be brought to pass in any other manner."
These words are so well stated, containing powerful arguments for the literal method, that they need little comment. Again, the challenge for the allegorical interpreter is to show where a prophecy was not literally fulfilled. We are to learn how to interpret prophecies by seeing how Christ and the new testament writers interpreted them.
Pentecost writes
"The conclusion must be that the New Testament literal method of fulfillment establishes the literal method as God's method in regard to unfilled prophecy."
Very true and anyone who wants to test this proposition or conclusion can do so by looking at every fulfilled prophecy and seeing whether it was literally fulfilled. And, if all was literally fulfilled, then there is no ground for failing to interpret unfulfilled prophecy in a non literal way.
Pentecost writes
"Observe the perspective of prophecy. Events which bear some relationship to one another and are parts of one program, or an event typical of another so that there is a double reference, may be brought together into one prophecy even though separated widely in fulfillment. Feinberg states:
"...in the interpretation of prophecy...due attention must be paid to perspective. Certain events of the future are seen grouped together in one circumscribed area of vision, although they are really at different distances. This is particularly true of the predictions of the so-called major prophets where many times prophecies concerning the Babylonian captivity, the events of the day of the Lord, the return from Babylon, the world wide dispersion of Israel, and their future regathering from all the corners of the earth, are grouped together seemingly almost indiscriminately."
Pentecost and I have already emphasized this point. But it needs to be repeated and stressed.
Pentecost writes:
"Observe the time relationships. As has previously been pointed out, events that are widely separated as to the time of their fulfillment may be treated within one prophecy. This is particularly true in the prophecies concerning Christ, where events of the first and second advents are spoken of together as though taking place at the same time. In like manner the second and third dispersions of the Jews are viewed in prophecy as taking place without interruption."
Again, I have emphasized this point many times in writings on eschatology. The old testament prophecies of the coming of Christ blended together both his comings, the prophets not seeing that there would be two comings of the Messiah and did not clearly see the valley between the mountain of his first coming and the mountain of his second coming. In other words, the church age was not clearly seen. The same thing is true of many prophecies where there are partial fulfillments and later complete fulfillments of prophecies.
Pentecost writes:
"Interpret according to the law of double reference. This has likewise been dealt with previously. It is sufficient to be reminded that oftentimes in a prophecy there may be a near view and far view. Of these the near view may have been fulfilled and the far view await fulfillment, or both may be in the realm of fulfilled prophecy. Again there may have been a double reference to two events of similar character, both of which were in the distant future. The fact that part of the prophecy has been fulfilled without the fulfillment of the rest of it does not argue for a figurative or non-literal method of fulfillment of that unfulfilled portion, but such a partial fulfillment does promise a complete, literal, future fulfillment of the whole."
Again, another repetition of what is needed to keep always in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment