THE NATURE AND PURPOSE OF PROPHECY
Also in
connection with the subject of interpretation something should be said about
the basic nature of prophecy. Premillennialists regard prophecy as history
written beforehand. We prefer to say, however, that the primary purpose of
prophecy is to inspire faith in those who see its fulfillment, and only
secondarily to inform us of what is going to happen in the future. At the
time of fulfillment the observer looks back to the author of the prophecy and
is led to acknowledge that he could have spoken only by inspiration, and that
his message therefore is authoritative and trustworthy. Prophecy thus comes
under the general category of miracle, and its primary purpose is to accredit
a message or a messenger. This was the purpose set forth when Jesus said: "I
have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye may
believe" (John 14:29); and again, "From henceforth I tell you before it come
to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye may believe that I am he" ( John
13:19). Here the primary purpose of prophecy, like that of a miracle in the
physical realm, is to inspire faith. It is in effect a delayed miracle.
As proof that
this is the correct principle we find that most of the Old Testament
prophecies concerning the First Coming of Christ were so vague and enigmatic
that they could not possibly have been understood until after their
fulfillment. While some were in language that was easy to understand, such as
that He would be born in Bethlehem, that He would be born of a virgin, and
that He would heal the sick and afflicted, the meaning of the more important
ones relating to the nature of His work of redemption and to the nature of the
Kingdom that He was to establish could not be understood until after their
accomplishment. As examples of the latter we may cite: the protevangelium,
given in Genesis 3:16, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and
between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise
his heel"; the extensive prophecy concerning the suffering of Messiah as found
in Isaiah 53; various prophecies concerning the nature of the Kingdom that was
to be established, as found in Isaiah, chapters 2, ll, 66; the nature of the
work of atonement as prefigured in the priesthood, ritual and sacrifices; and
the promise made to David that the throne of his kingdom was to be established
for ever, involving, as we see in the light of the New Testament, a long line
of merely human kings and then a transition to the Messiah who is the true
King of Israel. The manner in which the events connected with the crucifixion
of Christ as predicted in the Old Testament would be fulfilled could not have
been understood until their fulfillment, e.g., that His hands and feet would
be pierced (Ps. 22:16); that the soldiers would part His garments among them
and cast lots for His robe (Ps. 22:18; John 19:24); that not a bone of His
body would be broken (Ex. 12:46; John 19:36); His resurrection (Ps. 16:10;
Acts 2:27); and even the death and burial of His betrayer, Judas Iscariot (Ps.
69:25; 109:8; Acts 1:19,20). It was clearly impossible for any Old Testament
Jew to draw from these prophecies a plan of the life of the coming Messiah.
The promise
given to Abraham that his seed should be very numerous and that through his
seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed, finds its primary
fulfillment, not in the totality of his physical descendants as at first sight
would seem to have been indicated, nor even in the descendants through Jacob
who stood in a special relationship to God, but in those who are his spiritual
descendants (Gal. 3:7,29); and the seed through which all the nations of the
earth were to be blessed was not his descendants in general, but one
individual, which is Christ: "How to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to
his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy
seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). Who could have understood that before it
was fulfilled?
Concerning
this feature of predictive prophecy Campbell has well said:
"The
enigmatic form of prophecy precludes the possibility of the merely human
actors in the fulfillment being aware that they are participating in the
predicted event. It permits the prescience and power of God to appear, while
in no way encroaching on the free agency of man. The advent of Christ, His
character, ministry, sufferings, death, and enthronement in glory, are all
predicted in the Hebrew prophets in such a manner that no one living prior
to their fulfillment was able to read their meaning clearly; and yet the
diligent reader today who studies the ancient records in the light of the
fulfillment cannot fail to see that he has before his eyes clear testimony
to the importance and the supernatural origin of the records in which the
predictions appear. The disciples of Jesus probably knew well enough what
the prophets had spoken; but their familiarity with the written word did not
of itself enable them to see the nature or character of the kingdom over
which Messiah would reign. Not until they were compelled by contemporary
events did they lay aside their racial preconceptions and recognize the
glorious vision of all nations of men united in one universal brotherhood
under the risen and glorified Christ" (Israel and the New Covenant, p. 170).
It should be
further evident that as the Old Testament prophets used figures of speech with
which their people were familiar, that is, language borrowed from the
vocabulary of the old economy, such as the land, the temple, the sacrifices,
etc., to describe the glories of the Messianic era, so no doubt the New
Testament uses terms with which we are familiar to describe the future state
which we as yet are able to grasp only faintly. We are told enough to make
it clear that great and glorious events lie ahead; but the manner in which
those events are to be accomplished, and the details concerning the future
course of the Kingdom both on earth and in heaven are left largely
unexplained. In all probability the realities of the future state will be
as different from our ideas concerning them as the realities of the present
era have proved to be different from the ideas of the Old Testament Jews.
We must keep
in mind that it was the mechanical, literalistic method of interpreting
prophecy that led the Jews at the time of Christ to expect a Messiah who would
conquer their enemies and set up an earthly political kingdom in Jerusalem.
Fastening their eyes on the very letter of Scripture, they became tragically
blind to its real meaning and spirit, with the result that when Christ "came
unto his own," "they that were his own received him not" ( John 1: ll), but
rejected and crucified Him. This same literalistic principle can also have
tragic results in our day, in that it arouses hopes that are false and
disappointing. This is particularly true in regard to the view that the Jews
still are to be looked upon as God's favored people, that Palestine belongs to
them as a matter of Divine right, and that prophecy foretells a glorious
kingdom for them in Palestine. It is productive of even more serious results
in the Church when it is employed to teach that Christ is to set up a one
thousand year political kingdom in this world, and so to divert attention from
the real purpose of the Church, which is to evangelize the world
during this present age. Nearly a century ago Dr. Charles Hodge warned
against the unnatural insistence of Premillennialists on literalism as an
ignis fatuus, as he called it, a false or misleading fire which "leads
those who follow it, they know not whither." That method proved disastrous for
the Jews who tried to predict the details of Christ's First Coming. Most
likely it will not work any better for those who attempt to set forth in
detail the order of events for His Second Coming.
As a matter
of fact no Premillennialist can carry out the principle of literal
interpretation consistently. No one has yet devised a sure method for
distinguishing between the figurative and the literal. Many statements in
Scripture clearly are figurative, and the Premillennialist must spiritualize
them no matter how critical he may be of Post- or Amillennialism. No one can
take literally the statement that the saints in Paradise have "washed their
robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 7:14); or that the
victorious saint is to be made a "pillar" in the temple of God (Rev. 3:12); or
that the Devil, who is a spirit, can be bound with a chain and shut up in a
deep pit for a thousand years (Rev. 20:2,3). We do not take literally Christ's
words, "This is my body," and "This is my blood," although these two sentences
are composed of very plain, short, simple words. Roman Catholics do take those
words literally, and get their doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Mass.
It is inconsistent for Premillennialists to pick and choose in deciding
what statements they will take literally and what ones they will take
figuratively while at the same time criticizing Post- and Amillennialists for
accepting figurative or symbolical interpretations when those seem preferable.
If figurative or symbolical interpretation is wrong in principle it should not
be resorted to at all. Otherwise Premillennialists do precisely what they
accuse Post- and Amillennialists of doing,-- take Scripture literally where
that seems preferable, and spiritualize where that seems preferable.
Another
principle of interpretation is that when a prophecy or promise has been
fulfilled once, there is no valid reason why it must be fulfilled again, or
repeatedly. A present day condition involving this principle relates to
the State of Israel. Some tell us that since Palestine and the surrounding
lands were promised to Abraham and to the Children of Israel, and that since
those lands never were fully occupied, or because they later were lost, they
now rightfully belong to the Israelis. But in Joshua 21:43,45, we read:
"So Jehovah gave unto Israel all the land, which he sware to give unto their
fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. ... There failed not aught
of any good thing which Jehovah had spoken unto the house of Israel: all came
to pass." In I Kings 4:21 we read: "And Solomon ruled over all the
kingdoms from the River unto the land of the Philistines, and unto the border
of Egypt: they brought tribute, and served Solomon all the days of his life."
And II Chr. 9:26 tells us: "And he ( Solomon) ruled over all the kings from
the River unto the land of the Philistines, and to the border of Egypt."
Hence we conclude that those promises have been amply fulfilled, and that
they do not apply to the present day State of Israel.
-- END --
