Part 34
g. The church, and parents are to blame for our divorce problems today among Christians. We have not been teaching proper ideas of marriage, and when trouble comes we are not teaching a Biblical concept of divorce and adultery that follows.
2. Notes of interest:
a. Leviticus 21:7; 22:13 show that associating with divorcees does not defile you. However, beware of their possible negative influence on your own spiritual life and marriage.
b. A priests daughter can be divorced without bringing change to the priests status of holiness or position.
We need to apply this to the parents of today. A pastor or layman that has a divorced daughter need not have his status in the church changed. The divorce was an adult decision by the daughter and does not affect the father.
c. Jeremiah 3:1-8: God put up with generations of adultery with Israel. This is not permission to people to remarry, but is an illustration of God's longsuffering. Indeed, it shows that the spouse of a longtime adulterous partner can have the grace to look toward a reconciliation.
d. If God puts a couple together how can man do anything to tear it apart? The thought is foolishness. God put it together and there is nothing short of death that can change that fact.
3. The present tense indicates the adultery is of a continuing nature and not a one time act at the time of the remarriage. Matthew 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18.
Some say these usages are a special use of the present tense which means that it was a one time adultery. I have asked several Greek scholars if there was a grammatical basis for saying this, and they said there is not.
4. The idea of the adulterous woman in John 8 is of interest. She was continuing in sin and was told to go and sin no more. She was forgiven of the past sin, but told to stop.
5. If the adultery of the divorcee is viewed as a one time sin, then all succeeding sexual relations are of no consequence. This seems to be illogical. The person that is married and has activity outside of his marriage is considered to be in adultery at each occurance. Adultery is an intimate relation of a married person with a person not their spouse.
6. Some suggest that if a person was divorced and remarried before they were saved that they are not held accountable for what they did before they were saved. Let's think about that for a moment. If you murdered before you were saved are you not still a murderer after you are saved. Are you not liable for all consequences of the murder before you were saved? Salvation does not change our marital status nor does it negate the consequences of past sins.
7. Some ask what the person is to do. They suggest that a second divorce is wrong. The second divorce would be correcting the sin of the remarriage and is the only logical answer to the situation.
Indeed, is the second divorce a wrong. There is no second marriage in God's eyes, so the second divorce would be a legal tool to return to the situation that God wants them in. One that is divorced and remarried before salvation has this option open to them and should consider it. Yes, it would be very difficult. Yes, there would be hardship. But the Scriptures mention the consequences and hard ship that follows our sins.
The business man that is saved Cannot just break contracts on bad deals because he becomes a Christian. The alcoholic that is saved is forgiven, but he has a life long problem facing alcoholism.
8. The problem we have today is twofold.
a. We have divorcees and people that have remarried in our churches. We must deal with these people as believers that need to be ministered to. We must attempt to minister to their needs. We do not have to condone their past actions, nor do we set aside the clear teaching of Scripture just to use them in the church. Timothy's clear command from Paul was that the elders were to be one woman type men, and that does not allow for divorcees and remarrieds.
b. The second problem is that we still aren't teaching our children and church people what proper marriage is, nor are we speaking out against divorce and remarriage.
We must minister the Word and allow people to be confronted with it even if they don't like it. God has spoken — that is what they will have to dislike.
9. How do we handle the already divorced and remarried?
a. Do not allow them to condemn themselves. God still loves them. Teach them the proper principles of marriage/divorce and allow the Holy Spirit to lead them to the correct conclusion.
b. Help them to understand that any restriction on their usability is not the leadership's fault but that it is the leaders responsibility from the Word.
c. Remember Abraham, David, Solomon and others. bigamy is in the end, adultery and they were used greatly by God, however they did not have the indwelling Spirit of God as we do. Their short comings are more understandable. We will be held to a higher accountability due to our further revelation and the Holy Spirit's ministry to us.
10. It is a very hard subject for our day. There are multitudes of situations that are seen by some to be "special" or "different," but the fact remains that the Scriptures have made some very specific demands of the believer.
It is our responsibility to look at the Scriptures and then in light of them, view every situation.
11. Divorce is not the best course, nor is it desired, but may be the legal protection a spouse needs to protect themselves from high bills and problems. The divorce in this case is only a legal tool and cannot be viewed as changing the marriage bonds in any way. God has set the standard, not man.
The most liberal view that has any basis in scripture would be that divorce and remarriage is okay in view of adultery. Even if you ignored the above pages of proof against that position and believed it was okay, then you are still faced with the key thought of God waiting generations for his people to return from their adultery (That by the way is idolatry or leaving God for other gods.) and always desiring to have them come back to Him.
12. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is a verse to consider.
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Just how does this relate to our problem? A reading of vv 9-11 will show that Paul is listing types of unsaved people. He uses this to contrast the proper living of the believer, or at least the hoped for living of the believer.
13. Perhaps some questions and answers would help to put some of this information into perspective.
Question: What is adultery? Adultery is a married person having relations with other than their spouse. In our society a single person having relations with a married person would also be considered in adultery, I would suspect, however the single person, Biblically, would probably be guilty of fornication.
Question: When is adultery adultery? Every time the sexual relations occur.
Question: Is adultery pre-salvation forgiven after the person is saved? Yes.
Question: Is adultery post-salvation forgiven because of the pre-salvation forgiveness? No. This sin can, and will be forgiven any time the person uses 1 John 1:9. Any blanket forgiveness post-salvation is not a Scriptural concept.
Question: How can adultery be considered as a one time act in the remarriage situation, but not continuing in the case of a man cheating on His wife? It cannot. Both MUST be the same. Both are ongoing.
Question: Can a continuing sin which stems from a pre-salvation remarriage be forgiven once for all because of the cross? No.
Question: Does not everything belong under the blood? This question is of recent consideration. I have not seen, read or heard it until recent years.
All sins — pre and post salvation — are or can be forgiven, however on a different basis. Pre-salvation sin is automatic in the acceptance/redemption process. Post-salvation sin is cared for only as the person seeks forgiveness, and attempts to rectify their improper action. If postsalvation sin were automatically cared for then license would be the result in our lives.
Question: Is there any indication that adultery is not sin each time sexual relations occur? No. Adultery of the mind is a one time act (aorist tense), yet it can be repeated and would be adultery each time as would actual relations.
Question: Is there a difference between continuing in the same sin week after week and being a person that has a different sin each week? Are not both people the same — in sin?
In God's eyes, yes, sin is sin, however there is a difference and I believe that God views the two people differently. The one that continues in the same sin is not changing as the idea of repentance and confession imply. The person that is in different types of sin is a person that deals with this weeks sin and puts it behind them. When they find themselves in another sin they need to deal with it. This person is progressing in their spiritual
life, whereas the other person is continuing in their sin with no attempt to correct their lives.
Question: If I am in a divorce/remarried situation, what are my alternatives?
1. Abstinence: This should be on the basis of mutual consent according to 1 Corinthians 7:5, however this will be a very hard alternative. This may sound terrible, and it would be a serious strain on the relationship, however many couples have continued through their life in marriages where one partner was unable to have sexual relations due to physical limitations.
2. If the remarriage has not yet occurred, then wait until the first spouse is dead. Many people that have found themselves divorced by their spouse have remained single until the spouse died.
3. Separation or divorce. This would be the step which corrected the problem. Again, a very hard alternative.
4. If you find yourself divorced, then do not allow yourself to enter into friendships that might lead to a desire to get married.
5. Continue in your present situation. This is not a recommendation, but is a very real solution of many believers around the world. It can be observed that God continues to use the divorced/remarried person. The question is, just how much more the Lord could use them if they were not in this situation.
One item of information that has not been discussed in this paper and that I have never heard brought into the divorce/remarriage discussion is the item of vows. The wedding vows are promises that the people make to one another before man and God. A brief word study in the Old Testament concerning vows and God's view of them would be good for anyone considering divorce.
This paper is not designed to give all the answers to all the questions that might arise in the readers mind. It is, I trust an honest look at the Scripture as it relates to the topic.
To reject the conclusions of this paper cannot be a simple mental rejection of the conclusions. To reject you must find different conclusions based on the texts given. You must not fall into the temptation to spiritualize or allegorize. We believe in literal, plain, easy interpretation of Scripture and must practice it in ALL studies we do in the Word.
You must deal with the present tense verbs that the Gospel writers use. You must deal with the Malachi passage that tells us that God hates divorce and treachery. You must deal with the teaching of the Lord concerning the subject.
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION
ON RELATED WORDS
ADULTERY
The Greek word "moichos" is the noun form of the word. It means according to Vine, "...denotes one who has unlawful intercourse with the spouse of another...." "moichalis" is the term for the woman, "an adulteress" according to Vine. ("moicheia" is the adjective form, "moichao" and "moicheuo" are the verb forms.) See complete word study in divorce/remarriage file.
FORNICATION
We need to consider for a moment the thought of fornication in the Gospels. Most, I have read and heard consider this to be adultery within the marriage. The Greek words are as follows: Noun forms, "porneia" and "pornos", Verb forms, "porneuo" and "ekporneuo."
VINE ON THE WORD
"pornia": "...of illicit sexual intercourse...." It is also used metaphorically of idolatry. Vine mentions that it includes adultery but can be distinguished from adultery. (Matthew 15:19)
"pornos": "...denotes a man who indulges in fornication, a fornicator...."
"poneuo": "...to commit fornication...."
"ekporneuo": "...a strengthened form of No. I...to give oneself up to fornication, implying excessive indulgence...."
So fornication can be adultery, but may be other things as well.
Matthew 15:19 states, "For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemeies:" The text goes on to state "These are the things which defile a man...." Not an activity that a believer ought to be involved in once, much less on an ongoing basis.
Adultery in the Matthew text is the Greek word "moicheia."
Fornication in the Matthew text is the Greek word "porneia."
References that contain the term with some comments: 2 Chronicles 21:11; Isaiah 23:17; Ezekiel 16:29; Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9; John 8:41; Acts 15:20; Acts 15:29; Acts 21:25; Romans 1:29; Romans 7:2-3 This is an illustration of the persons relation to the law. Under the law, it has dominion over you for life. Thus in marriage the vow has dominion over you all your life. Paul's clear statement is that the person that remarries while the spouse lives is an adulterer. His other clear statement is that death breaks that bond and that the person is free to remarry. In essence, because Christ died and fulfilled the law we are free to take Christ since the old bonds and dominion of the law are broken; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Corinthians 6:13; 1 Corinthians 6:18; 1 Corinthians 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:10ff This is a series of orders. vs 10 the wife shouldn't leave husband/vs 11 the wife if leaves remains unmarried or reconciles/the husband is not to send her away/vs 15 if there is an unbelieving mate that leaves then let them go but live in peace. They are free from the need to keep the marriage together. Ezra 10 may relate to this. vs 39 the wife is bound to the husband as long as he is alive/free to marry when he dies --"In The Lord". However, Paul mentions she may be happier alone and not remarried. It is of interest that this may have been written before Matthew If this is true then was Paul not very remiss in not mentioning the exception clause if indeed it exists? The term bondage is never used in relation to divorce in the New Testament. Remarriage in the case of abandonment is not found in this text. The text is clear that marriage is for life; 1 Corinthians 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Ephesians 5:21-33 The
marriage relationship is used to illustrate the relationship of Christ to the church. If the marriage bond is separable then the bond between Christ the head and the church His body is also separable and this is unacceptable. Both bonds are permanent; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 1:7; Revelation 2:14; Revelation 2:20; Revelation 9:21; Revelation 14:8; Revelation 17:2; Revelation 17:4; Revelation 18:3; Revelation 18:9; Revelation 19:2.
The term is not well defined by the passages. The fact that it is used allegorically of nations or kings fornicating with the great whore could lead us to believe that it is illicit relations, but whether it is among singles, or among a married and an unknown, is not clear.
It would seem easiest to understand the word to refer to literally, any improper sexual activity, and allegorically any improper relationship with those you should not be having relationships with.
Since the Gospel texts are in the context of married partners and new married partners, it would seem that fornication is adultery. Adultery would cover any improper activity outside of the marriage, which also fits into the definition and usage of fornication.
Two other Greek words that need to be mentioned:
Both of these terms are related to divorce. "apoluo" which is a term used in secular Greek for dismissal from the army, or from jail. It also is used of setting a debtor free. (From Wayne A. Detzler's book, "New Testament Words In Today's Language"; Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986, p 124.) This is the term translated "put away" in the Gospels.
"apostasion" which is used of the bill of divorcement. The Septuigent writers used this tern to translate the word in Deuteronomy 24:3. This is used in Matthew 5:31; 19:7; Mark 10:4. This is also the term the Septuigent writers used in Jeremiah 3:8 for bill of divorcement.
VOLUME TEN
ESCHATOLOGY
PREFACE TO THE STUDY OF ESCHATOLOGY
Having just finished the study on Ecclesiology, I am very excited to look into the future for the Church. The study of the Church was exciting and fulfilling, but as we looked at the Word for that study we must do the same for this study. The Church was exciting, and we know it to be the same in our experience in local assemblies, however that is a portion of what God has planned for us as we assemble in eternity as the Universal Church to enjoy our wonderful Savior and Head, Jesus Christ.
God has created for us here on earth the temporal church to minister to our needs and problems, but in Eschatology we will see that not only is He tying up all the prophetic loose ends, but He is laying out the future eternal habitation for those of us that have decided to follow His Son.
As this study begins, a few explanations are in order. First these thoughts are not my thoughts alone. The Lord has led me through the theology courses of four colleges and seminaries, so you can imagine that much of what I relate to you is coming from many other men, and many books that I have had the privilege of reading. As I have worked through this information, I have evaluated and adapted it to my own thinking and theological system. There are more complete works on the subject of future things, but I trust this will be the most practical of these books. Eschatology should, if nothing else demand that we change our manner of living. We say we believe that Christ could come at any minute, yet we are amassing temporal things by the truck load as though He has revealed to us that He will not appear in our life time. Future things should definitely affect our present life as well as give us great hope and joy as we look forward to that day when we will be with the Lord.
The study will be divided into topics and as the topics are discussed they will be related to the other areas of discussion.
I trust that the reader will gain an overall view of the subject.
I trust that not only will the reader gain a proper understanding of what the Bible presents, but a general understanding of some of the false teachings in the area of future things. I also desire that the facts will motivate the life to changes that the Lord might direct in individual lives.
At the end of the book is a series of appendixes which contain some miscellaneous information that may be of help to the reader. There is a test to see just how much you really know about Eschatology, as well as other information. You should browse through these to acquaint yourself with the items.
One that might be of great assistance is a listing of authors/books and their approximate theological positions.
OVERVIEW OF THE FUTURE
It is recommended that the reader take the test found in appendix one to see where they are in their knowledge of the future. This will give you some idea of how you are in your eschatological prowess.
This section is designed to give the reader a quick over view of all that we will be looking at as we move through the study.
Don't get worried if you become a little overwhelmed or confused in this section. You can come back to this section as you read the other topical studies and refresh yourself concerning the topic and where it belongs in the big picture.
We will cover items of interest in chronological order beginning with God before He created.
GOD
Before there was time, Lucifer, man, earth or anything else the Trinity conceived of a plan to bring glory to themselves. The plan was complete in its totality. This is important to the position that will be presented. It becomes important when Christ comes to earth as the Messiah of the Old Testament and was rejected by His people the Jews. Some view the events that follow the cross as something new and unique. This study will submit a position that states the church is a continuation of God's continuing program and not a new program.
I will submit to you that it was not a new program, but rather a continuation of that original plan that was set by the Trinity in eternity past. The church was an integrated part of that plan from the beginning.
THE CREATION
At a point in eternity past, God specified that creation would occur. He created through the Son and by the power of the Spirit. Creation began with the angels and beings of the heavenly scene. Lucifer and his followers fell in this period before the creation of the heavens.
THE FALL OF MAN
God created heaven and earth for the next step in His overall program. On the earth He placed Adam and Eve who soon after their creation fell into sin. The sin separated them from their creator.
Over time God worked with different men and women. These people followed the revelation that they had from God and found favor with God through a sacrificial system that is depicted in the early part of the book of Genesis and later in the law.
ABRAHAM
God made a covenant with a man by the name of Abraham and made several promises to him. These promises were not conditional on Abraham's obedience. Abraham followed God's program through his life by faith in what God had told him. Abraham was the basis upon which God built the people of Israel. Israel was blessed through their father Abraham until the nation turned against Him in the time of the kings.
KING SAUL
After many years of God dealing with His through the priestly system and leaders like Moses and Joshua, the Jewish people decided they needed a king to rule over them. This was because everyone else was doing it. All the nations around them had rulers so they decided they must have one also. God allowed Saul to be named king over Israel.
KING DAVID
Saul's successor was David. David was not a prime example of purity in his life, yet he pleased God. God blessed David's ministry to His people.
KING SOLOMON
David's son became king and ruled for many years. Under his reign the people become dissatisfied and ultimately his two sons became the kings of the divided kingdom. The ten tribes of the north went their direction, and the tribes of Judah and Benjamin went theirs.
The two peoples had a series of kings that ultimately brought the peoples to destruction. The northern tribes were taken captive by the Assyrians and the southern tribes fell into the hands of the Babylonians later.
THE PROPHETS
Prior to the fall of these two peoples God sent messengers to His people to warn them of coming tragedies if they did not change their ways. He gave them fair warning to turn back to Godly ways or reap the consequences. These men preached their message until the fall of the peoples. Even after the captivities God chose to speak to his people through prophets.
Throughout the Old Testament the thought of a savior or Messiah is given. These prophets proclaimed the Messiah and the kingdom that He would set up here on earth. That kingdom was the desire of the Jewish people.
THE BIRTH OF CHRIST
When we move into the New Testament John the Baptist is on the scene preaching repentance for the kingdom of heaven is near. The kingdom that he was preaching about was that Old Testament kingdom that the Jews were awaiting for.
Christ began preaching the same kingdom when He started His ministry. The message was not acceptable to the Jews and as a result they rejected their Messiah.
THE DEATH OF CHRIST
Ultimately the Jews killed Christ on the cross. This was not a mistake or a glitch in the plan of God, but rather something that the Trinity had planned beforehand. Some theologians suggest that the fall of man was a surprise party for God and that He dreamed up the plan of salvation to salvage something from His creation. This is not true in any manner. All that has gone on in time is according to the plan that was set before the foundation of the world.
THE PLACE OF DEPARTED SPIRITS
In the Old Testament period when a person died they were transported to the place of departed spirits, called Sheol.
This place is mentioned and defined in Luke sixteen in the account of the rich man and Lazarus. In short it was a two compartment area with a great chasm between that no one can cross. There has been much confusion as to why this place of departed spirits existed. Why would God send the saints there and then transfer them to heaven? What is the place for? Is this hell?
It seems that the best explanation of all this is that before the cross there could be no regeneration, thus no salvation as such. Yes, the Old Testament saints could please God by faith. Yes, they were eternally saved, however the provision was not made as yet. In God's eyes they would be in eternity with Him, yet there was the need of the death of Christ to make the provision. At the time of the cross all departed spirits were in Sheol. The lost were in the side of torments and the saved were in the side with Abraham. This place was temporary for the righteous until their salvation could be completed by Christ.
This was accomplished through His death on the cross for their sin. The Old Testament saints sins were covered so there was fellowship with God, but they needed Christ's blood to cleanse those sins.
After Christ died, He ascended to the heavenly tabernacle, according to Hebrews, and offered His blood once for all. He then proceeded to Sheol to empty it of the believing saints, to take them to be with the Father until the culmination of time.
At the time of the Great White Throne judgment the departed lost in Sheol will be brought forth to face their judgment and then they well be cast into the lake of fire for eternity. (Revelation 20:11-15)
THE CHURCH
The church is God's people in this age or dispensation. We are not something new and special, we are just a continuation of God's program and kingdom. The church is the gathering of all of God's people in this age, as Israel was God's people in the age of the Law.
THE RAPTURE
At the end of the church age the Lord will remove His people from the world and prepare the earth and Israel for the final stages of prophecy, the tribulation and the events that will follow.
THE TRIBULATION
The tribulation is a seven year period of great destruction and judgment upon the earth and the lost. During the tribulation Israel will turn to God nationally ending the great separation between God and His nation. The tribulation will be a time of preparation for the kingdom which is the next event in God's timetable.
THE RESURRECTION OF OLD TESTAMENT SAINTS
At the end of the tribulation the Old Testament and Tribulation saints will be raised from the dead, and will enter the Millennial kingdom.
THE MILLENNIAL KINGDOM
The saints of the kingdom will live for one thousand years with Christ ruling on the throne of David in Jerusalem. During the kingdom the Lord will rule the entire earth, and Satan will be bound. There will be peace in the kingdom until near the end, when Satan is released and will gather his forces for one final rebellion.
THE GREAT WHITE THRONE
The final preeternity act of God concerning his creation will be the Great White Throne. This will be the time when all the lost will appear before God for their final judgment.
THE LAKE OF FIRE
The lake of fire is the final abode for all the lost, the Devil and all of his coworkers. This is not a time when they are destroyed, as in annihilation. They will be in eternal permanent torment which will not have end.
ETERNITY
Eternal life, or eternal existence with the Trinity is the future of the believer. This existence will take place in the abode that He has prepared for the believers.
The overview that we have just had is called the pretribulational view of eschatolgy. We need to look at some terms that will become commonplace in our discussion.
PRETRIBULATIONALISM
Pretribulationalism teaches that the church will be raptured or taken out of the world before the tribulation. There is no reason for God to allow His people to go through a time of judgment so will remove them to the heavenlies. During this time the judgment seat of Christ will take place. This is when the believers works not their souls will be judged. The marriage feast of the Lamb will probably take place at this time, though we have no text which really tells us this. Some feel that the marriage feast would fit well in the Millennial kingdom when the Old Testament saints are present, and others place it at the beginning of eternity when all the lost are taken care of and all believers are eternally with their Lord.
Where you place this occasion depends on your view of who the bride it. Most theologians follow the traditional thought that the bride is the church, while a few theologians suggest that the bride is Israel. Does that suggest a good topic of study for you? I trust that some of these suggested topics of study will tweek your interest and that you will dive into these areas as you have time.
MIDTRIBULATIONALISM
This teaching holds that the church will go through part of the tribulation sees the church raptured at the middle of the tribulation, just before the Great Tribulation begins. There is indication that the first half of the tribulation will be bad, but the last half will be Great. The Great tribulation will be much worse than the first half.
There is a similar teaching called partial rapture which sees the righteous believers taken out before the tribulation, however the not so righteous are
left to go through part of the tribulation for purification. Those purified are either taken out all at once during the tribulation, or they are removed individually as their time of purification ends.
POSTTRIBULATIONALSIM
Some feel that the church will go through the entire tribulation and will be raptured out at the end.
PREMILLENNIALISM
The next item to consider is the teaching that we have given in this brief overview. Premillennialism teaches that the rapture and tribulation are before the Millennial kingdom.
POSTMILLENNIALISM
Postmillennialism would teach that the rapture and/or the tribulation will occur after the Millennial kingdom.
AMMILLENNIALISM
Ammillennialism teaches there is nor literal, real 1000 year kingdom. This teaching holds there is either no kingdom at all, or that the kingdom is going on at this time. The Devil is bound in this age and this age is not confined to a specific time limit.
COVENANT THEOLOGY
Those holding to covenant theology believe that God has and will operate with man through the Old Testament covenants. The covenants were set, and we are still under them. Sometime in the future the Lord will tie all things together.
People holding to this position mix all the teachings and promises of Scripture and apply them to believers in this age. In other words there is no difference between Israel and the church. All believers of all times are the same, and the promise to one is the promise to all.
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION
The method of interpreting Scripture that is called allegorical sees all of Scripture as a series of information that really has no valid meaning as it is, but we must look into the "real" message of the passage. The Scripture text itself is only a vehicle to carry the real message of God. Nothing in Scripture can be taken for face, literal value. You must find the spiritual meaning. Some view a text in more than one level of information. The recorded level which was for the man that recorded it and then there is the level that has the "real" spiritual message for us.
LITERAL INTERPRETATION
The other method of interpretation is called literal because that is how you interpret. The passage means what it means in plain, easy, literal reading. There is no "hidden" or "spiritual" message behind the literal message. We will look into interpretation as we go along in the study.
KINGDOM THEOLOGY
Kingdom theology is a newer system of thought which appears in many different forms. The common thread of these new lines of thinking is that the church has the responsibility for getting the world back into a condition that would be conducive to the Lord's return. In short, Christ cannot come back until we get a specific job done.
This thinking is seen in some of the modern missions efforts. The thought of reaching the world by a certain date is based on the need to evangelize the world so the Lord can return.
DISPENSATIONALSIM
The system of eschatology that is opposite to Covenant Theology is dispensationalism. Dispensationalism sees a difference between Israel and the Church. The premillennialist will be a dispensationalist.
Dispensationalism teaches that God deals with man in different ways in different periods of time. We will look into this teaching in more detail later, however to prove that God deals differently in different periods of time is seen in the fact that the Old Testament saint was required to bring
animal sacrifices for his sin, while we in the church age only have to confess and repent.
The dispensationalist will not apply the promises given to Israel to the church age saint. This system comes out of the literal interpretation of Scripture.
In thinking of many of these terms a list might help to solidify things in your mind. Normally if the person is premillennialist he will be those things listed below, and if a person is an ammillennialist he will be those things listed below that position.
PREMILLENNIALISTS AMMILLENNIALISTS
LITERAL INTERPRETATION
ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION
DISPENSATIONALIST COVENANT THEOLOGIAN
ISRAEL AND THE
BLEND ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH
CHURCH DIFFER
We trust that this overview will be helpful in placing the following studies into some perspective. It is similar to writing. If you have an outline to follow you know where you have been and where you are going. The information coming in can be placed where it belongs in time.
Reviewing this overview from time to time might be helpful for the newcomer to eschatology. It also might help the old timer to review what he has forgotten.
Perhaps a time line would be of value to the reader.
God
Creation
Fall
Abraham
Saul
David
Solomon
Prophets
Christ born
Church Age
Tribulation
Old Testament Saints Raised
Kingdom
Great White Throne
Eternity
If you reproduce this layout on a separate piece of paper, you can then make notes as you go through your study.
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
OF ESCHATOLOGY
The doctrine of the end times is not a subject that has been given the amount of study that some of the other sections of theology have been given.
The doctrine of Christology, for example went through many hashings and rehashings over the first few centuries, and we still aren't completely done. We haven't changed anything major in many years, yet sharpen the doctrine a bit from time to time.
Eschatology has not undergone that process. In recent years many have been doing some study, and many positions have been drawn. These positions are being redefined and revamped all the time. There are new positions coming along from time to time, because some have found systems that have a better basis than some of the old thoughts.
Eschatology has been viewed as an extension of Soteriology at times. It is the final step in the overall program of salvation.
Others have just tacked it on to the end of their theology, because they know it needs covering, yet they don't know where to put it. In recent times it has become a section of theology by itself.
Erickson mentions some possible reasons for the rise in interest in eschatology in recent times. I have adapted and added to his thoughts in case his volume is not available to you. (Erickson, Millard J., "CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985, P 1149ff)
1. The other divisions of theology are fairly well set, and the area of end times is fairly open to new study and development.
2. The entire western world is interested in the future. Corporations are into futurism studies and predications so they can plan and market accordingly. Their continued existence is based on knowing what to do in the future. Indeed churches are realizing that they should be doing this so
they can minister adequately in the future. The interest in the future will naturally create an interest in the far future. Many unsaved people have read Lindsay's books on the future just because they were interested in the future.
3. In the non-western world there is gloom and doom and nothing to look forward to in this life, thus many are interested in what the future may hold. There is a hope that things will become better. The third world church, is interested in the future times to know what is about to happen. It is a growing church and for the most part the end times information is new to them and their people.
4. The Socialism and Communism of our own day that predicts a take over of the world by their system of government may have been part of the reason for American interest in end times studies. This reason may be a historic reason soon with the seeming decline in Communism.
5. The threat of nuclear extinction, of winter scenarios, etc., that see the earth being destroyed by man, would naturally move some to look into the end times teachings of the Word.
6. Pastors want answers to the questions that their people are bringing to them. The alarmists that they read and see on the television are creating doubt and questions in the minds of people.
There are all varieties of interest in end times. Some people are real nuts and give all their efforts over to this study, while others could care less about the subject.
I had an employer that was a Lutheran. He asked me one day about the millennium and when it would be. I explained to him what I believed and gave him some charts. I warned him that I was sure his church would not teach this and that he might want to talk with his pastor about it. He asked his pastor one evening about what he thought about the millennium. His pastor replied, "We're all going to be dead and gone anyway, so why worry about it." That was the total information that he had to share.
Somewhere we must find some middle ground to live on. We need to know what is coming and how it affects our lives, but there are many other things in Scripture that we also need to know.
Erickson also mentions in his book that he knows of college and seminary professors that conveniently never get to the prophetic books in survey classes, and others that teach theology that never get to section on eschatology. This is sad, for there is a lot of information in the Word that is prophetic and yet unfulfilled. It is information that we should be dealing with.
I will warn you up front that some schools are not teaching any school of thought. They give you all the ideas and allow you to sort through the information Many years ago in a sermon one of the prominent Bible college presidents made the comment that he made it a habit to ask any graduate he meets, where they stand eschatologically. He stated that very few from one of our leading seminaries know where they stand. They can give you a run down on all positions, but they have not settled on anything in particular.
We will see that the different views of eschatology will generally vary in certain directions.
1. There are some that see the prophetic information as present and others see it as future.
The amillennialist and postmillennialist see things as going on at this time rather than in the future as the premillennialist views it.
2. There is either an optimistic view or pessimistic view of the years to come. The amillennialist and post millennialist see the future as getting brighter and brighter till all is completed. On the other hand the premillennialist sees the future as becoming worse and worse till the Lord comes.
3. The end of things will either come from man, his becoming better and better, and his bringing about all good on earth, or as the premillennialist states, God will bring all things to pass in His own time.
4. The Old Testament promises are in the process of being
fulfilled or, as the premillennialist sees it, they are yet future and will only come to pass in the end time.
5. Is it the church that will finally be uplifted and honored in the end, or is Israel going to be the focus of the end time activities? The premillennialist sees Israel being the only focus of the end times while others view it as God working with the church through to the end.
A chart should help to visualize these differences.
Topic Premillennialist Ammillennialism
Prophetic Texts Future Time Present Time
View Of Coming
Pessimistic Optimistic
Years
Ultimate Good From God Man's Efforts
Prophetic Promises Yet Future Fulfilled Now
Ultimate Prophetic
Israel Lifted Up Church Lifted Up
Result
There has been over the years some changes of thinking concerning the end times. If you are interested in further study concerning liberal thought you might try Erickson p 1154 ff. He gives some of their thinking.
With this introduction we need to move on into our study. We will look briefly into the purpose of Christ's first coming.
In Mark's gospel he recorded the Lord's words, "...The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe the gospel." Mark 1:15
Christ told his listener two things in this verse that are closely related, indeed the two are inseparable. First of all He mentioned that a time had been fulfilled, which He states is the reason the kingdom of God is at hand. The kingdom is on their doorstep and it is because a period of time has been fulfilled.
Just what time was the Lord speaking of? In Daniel nine there is a text that we want to introduce to you. We won't go into great detail because others have covered this topic many times in good detail.
Daniel in 9:24-17 mentions some prophetic information which Christ used in Mark 1:15. Let us take a look at Daniel.
"Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
"Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah, the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.
"And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the end of it shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined."
We want to notice some items in this passage.
The portion that states, "going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem...." relates to the edict of Ezra 1 which allowed the return of Jews to Jerusalem. They returned specifically to begin the rebuilding of the city. This was in 445 B.C. (See Note At The End Of The File)
The statement, "the street shall be built again, and the wall" relates to the fact that the construction was completed. This event is recorded in Nehemiah 6:15 and 12:27 This completes one week of prophetic time which is seven years.
Another period of time is mentioned when Daniel records, "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off" which speaks of Christ being crucified. The threescore and two weeks works out to be the exact amount of time between the completion of the walls and the time when Christ speaks of the Jews "day" (Luke 19:42) on the occasion of His weeping over Jerusalem. He has entered Jerusalem on the donkey knowing
that the nation has rejected Him, His message, and His salvation. Within hours of this time He tells the disciples that it is time for Him to be crucified.
Dr. Pentacost in "Things To Come" works through this timing in detail if you care to do further study on the subject.
The time is fulfilled — the kingdom is at hand — "If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace." (Lu 19:42) Christ knew that He was fulfilling Daniel nine, but He also knew that His people had rejected Him — their day had come and gone without their reacting properly.
The point of all this is to show that Christ was offering the Old Testament kingdom to the Jews at that time, but because of their rejection He did not set it up. Indeed there is one week of prophetic time left in Daniel nine that we will see later is the seven year tribulation when the Jews DO turn to their God and the Millennium then is set up for the Jewish people at the end of the tribulation.
There are other phrases in Daniel nine that are of importance also. "bring in everlasting righteousness" — Look at Matthew 3:15; "to anoint the most Holy" — Look at Matthew 3:16.
All was set to continue on with the last week of Daniel's prophecy, but things were placed on hold for a time. This created the Church Age in which we are now living in. I would like to repeat what you have read before, that this was not a surprise party for God — He had all of this planned out in advance.
A pastor in Denver pointed out a problem in what is said in this file.
I state in this file, "....relates to the edict of Ezra 1 which allowed the return of Jews to Jerusalem. They returned specifically to begin the rebuilding of the city. This was 445 B.C."
Technically this is incorrect. The Ezra 1 edict is not 455 B.C., but rather 538 B.C. The 455 date is the correct date for the beginning of the prophetic weeks of Daniel, but the edict should not have been the Ezra 1 edict. SORRY.
Some info to clarify the chronology of this topic:
Time Line:
This is a compilation of several sources.
538 BC
First Return under Zerubbabel (have seen 536 BC also)
One author shows a return in 538 and Zerub. leaving in 537.
Ezra 1.14; 6.3-5; 2 Chronicles 36.22-23
516 BC
Temple completed. Ezra 6.16
458 BC
Second Return under Ezra. Ezra 7-10. (I've seen 459 on this as well.)
445 BC
Third Return Under Nehemiah. Nehemiah 1-13.
Dr. Prewitt suggests the following dates for the kings of this era:
521 BC Darius I
486 BC Xerxes I
465 BC Artaxerxes I
425 BC Xerxes II (Some List This Man As 424-423)
425 BC Sogdianuus
405 BC Artaxerxes II
359 BC Artaxerxes III
338 BC Arses
336 BC Darius III
MISC INFO GATHERED FROM READING
Walvoord in Daniel The Key To Prophetic Revelation suggests four decrees.
1. Cyrus for the building of the temple/II Chron. 36.22-23; Ezra 1.1-4
2. Darius confirmed Cyrus decree/Ezra 6.6-12 (Leupold suggests 517 BC)
3. Artaxerxes/Ezra 7.11-26 (Leupold suggests 458 BC)
4. Artaxerxes for the city/Neh 2.1-8 (Leupold suggests 445 BC)
Leupold in Exposition Of Daniel held that Cyrus had the city in mind when he set his decree. The temple was the focal point of the decree, but that the city was assumed as part of the temple project. (The number of people involved would have required the building of many houses for people to live in while the temple was built.
"decree of Cyrus mentions the temple and implies the city; the passage in Daniel mentions the city and implies the eternal temple." (P 419)
He agrees with the 538 BC year for the decree of Cyrus.
He suggests that the final command recorded in Nehemiah 2.7-8 is just a lumber order, so to speak, to fulfill the work that had been in progress for years.
Pentecost in Things To Come p 244 mentions, "When we turn to the decree of Artaxerxes, made in his twentieth year, recorded in Nehemiah 2:1-8, for the first time is permission granted to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. This then becomes the beginning of the prophetic time appointed by God in this prophecy." This is in the context of stating that none of the other decrees specify the city to be rebuilt.
He mentions that from secular history we can date this as the month of Nisan BC 445. He also shows with comments from Sir Robert Anderson in The Coming Prince that the 483 years fits perfectly with the triumphal entry of the Lord into Jerusalem to proclaim His Messiahship. (p 246)
To recap. I goofed, I was wrong, I was not correct. Actually, I included this mistake on purpose so that I could one day prove that I am not perfect. HA.
Thanks for pointing out my problem Dave.
ISRAEL AND THE CHURCH
We need to understand that God has one overall program designed to bring glory to Himself, while within that context He deals with different subprograms. Two of these sub-programs are Israel and the church.
God did not create the heavens and the earth and then create Israel. Israel came along much later in history. He had dealings with man long before He made His promises to Abraham which resulted in Israel. Then generations later the church came into being.
The basis of dispensationalism is the difference between Israel and the church. There is a difference and that difference must be maintained as you read and interpret the Bible. If the distinction is not maintained, it will result in confusion and error.
I must admit that most denominations and groups follow the practical aspect of distinguishing between Israel and the church. None of them bring blood sacrifices. They would reject the thought that Israel and the church are separate however.
May I remind you of the three parts to the "sine qua non" of Dispensationalism? Sine qua non is Latin for "without which not," or something that is indispensable to a belief or item. For example liquid is a sine qua non for a cake. There are three items which the dispensationalist will believe if he is going to be a dispensationalist. First, the dispensationalist holds to a difference between Israel and the church. Second, the dispensationalist holds to a plain, easy interpretation of Scripture. Finally the dispensationalist holds that God's overall program for all ages is the bringing of glory to Himself. (Salvation is one of the manifestations of that overall program of glory.)
TOPIC ISRAEL CHURCH
BIRTH PHYSICAL (BORN A JEW)
SPIRITUAL (BORN AGAIN)
PROMISE LITERAL (LIVING) SPIRITUAL
POSITION IN THE KINGDOM
DEAD — RULING LIVING — RULED
RULING
POSITION
GOD'S PEOPLE GOD'S CHILDREN
TODAY
(SET ASIDE)
SEED OF ABRAHAM
PHYSICAL SPIRITUAL
ABRAHAM HEAD OF ISRAEL SPIRITUAL
FATHER
LAND PHYSICAL RULING GLORIFIED
BODIES
NATIONALITY JEWISH NATION FROM ALL
NATIONS
SALVATION LOOKING TOWARD CHRIST
UNDER CHRIST'S
BLOOD
GOD'S DEALINGS
AS A NATION AS INDIVIDUALS
GOD'S GOVERNING
MOSAIC LAW GRACE
SYSTEM
TRIBULATION WILL GO THROUGH
TAKEN OUT
BEFORE
HOLY SPIRIT HELPING BELIEVERS AT
INDWELLING AT
ALL TIMES
TIMES
STANDING UNDER PROMISE UNDER GRACE
GOD'S MEANING
ALMIGHTY GOD GOD THE
TO THE BELIEVER
FATHER
CHRIST KING OF ISRAEL HEAD OF CHURCH
DIVINE POWER NONE SPIRIT EMPOWERED
CHRIST'S
IN POWER AND
QUIETLY TO
RETURN
GLORY
RECEIVE US
INTERCESSION PRIESTHOOD PRIESTHOOD
OF ALL BELIEVERS
We've seen multiple items which show that the church and kingdom are different and separate. The kingdom for all practical purposes is Israel.
From this we can apply our study of contrasts to our interpretation of scripture. They, Israel and the church, are different and should be treated as such. The promises of the kingdom or to Israel are not ours to claim. We are in the church and should seek those promises aimed at the church for use in our daily life.
It could be easily observed that the bulk of Scripture is directly aimed at Israel, though we can find much application in that majority for use in the church age. We cannot, however, take each promise of God to Israel for ourselves.
Some texts to consider:
Acts 3:12 shows that Peter viewed the church people as separate from Israel.
Acts 4:8,10 show distinction between the people of the church and Israel.
Acts 5:21 shows a difference between some in the church and the children of Israel.
Romans 9:3,4 shows that Paul felt there was a difference between himself, a Jew, and his fellow Jews.
1 Corinthians 10:32 shows the distinction very nicely.
INTERPRETATION
When I move into a study of interpretation, I am reminded of a cartoon I saw once. The picture is of a little wimpy person who is standing by a huge strapping motorcycle person, with a skull and crossbones on his leather jacket. The little person says something to the effect that he is sorry but he will have to interpret the other man's last remark as a compliment.
Interpretation has always been a little subject to the context. In the late 1900's most believers find that their context allows them to sidestep the Bible's command to greet one another with an holy kiss. We relegate that portion to only the apostolic time, or any time other than ours.
There are different methods of interpretation. The technical name for these systems of interpretation is Hermenutics. The purpose of any of these systems is to learn the meaning of the Word of God. The types of hermenutics vary, however the main two are literal and allegorical. We will look at these two types.
We need to understand that your eschatological system will probably be determined by which system of hermeneutics you chose. The allegorical method leads to Amillennialism and Postmillennialism, while the literal method leads to Premillennialism.
May I illustrate why the method you use is important? Turn to Revelation 1:14-16 and interpret it.
Using the allegorical method I would say it is a sword swallowing albino with sunburned feet, dressed in his bahai robe. A former student of mine claimed that it was an old time bath tub with brass feet in which the water is running. Neither of these interpretations can be proven correct, so we have a very serious problem in interpretation. Whose interpretation do we follow? Indeed, your interpretation might well be completely different that the two mentioned.
As a sidelight, it might be mentioned that when literal interpreters enter the book of Revelation, they usually leave all principles of interpretation
behind. They usually end up using the allegorical method rather than the literal method. Just one brief example. I read a commentary on Revelation written during World War II and the creatures coming from the abyss were identified as the bombers of that war. A more modern commentary lists these creatures as the Huey helicopters of the Viet-Nam era. When a person leaves literal interpretation they leave themselves open for all sorts of discussion and confusion.
1. THE ALLEGORICAL METHOD OF INTERPRETATION
Ramm defines this system as follows: "Allegorism is the method of interpreting a literary text that regards the literal sense as the vehicle for a secondary, more spiritual and more profound sense." (Ramm, Bernard; "Protestant Biblical Interpretation"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970, p 21)
In this method the historical and literal sense of a text is ignored, while the interpreter goes on to some deeper meaning. The use of this method allows for easy proof of different religious views and systems of thought.
Pentecost makes a statement that on the surface may be a little strong however it is worth considering. "It would seem that the purpose of the allegorical method is not to interpret Scripture, but to pervert the true meaning of Scripture, albeit under the guise of seeking a deeper or more spiritual meaning." (Taken from the book, Things To Come by J. Dwight Pentecost. Copyright 1958 by Dunham Publishing. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. p 5)
This method sees very little historical importance to the text. The method may even ignore the original words and meaning entirely, while looking only to the message that those words convey. The method would see the words of scripture as the vehicle that carries the deeper spiritual truth. They seem to feel that scripture is a dump truck that is carrying the load of spiritual information to you the reader, and interpreter.
There are some dangers with the allegorical method. I will quote from Pentecost for our headings in the first three items (p 5-6) and add a fourth. (Taken from the book, Things To Come by J. Dwight Pentecost.
Copyright 1958 by Dunham Publishing. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.)
1. "it does not interpret Scripture."
Terry states: "...it will be noticed at once that its habit is too disregard the common signification of words and give wing to all manner of fanciful speculation. It does not draw out the legitimate meaning of an author's language, but foists into it whatever the whim or fancy of an interpreter may desire. As a system, therefore, it puts itself beyond all well-defined principles and laws." (Terry, Milton S.; "Biblical Hermeneutics"; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, no copy right, p 224)
If the authors of Scripture had thoughts to convey, would they cloud these thoughts in a menagerie of words? NO.
2. "the basic authority in interpretation ceases to be the Scriptures, but the mind of the interpreter."
If the man decides what the meaning is then the Scripture, and the authors of Scripture can give the man nothing by which he may interpret. He is on his own to do as he would please with the Word.
To think that some men are setting the Word of God aside for the Preferred Thoughts Of Man.
3. "...one is left without any means by which the conclusions of the interpreter may be tested."
Who is correct? Who determines if I am correct, or if you are correct?
I sat in a study group in a fundamental church one evening. There were about 25 present. The leader read one of the Beatitudes and asked what it meant. Almost everyone had some thought about the meaning of the text. The study ended when the leader said, "Well I'm not sure which of these ideas is the correct meaning, but I'm sure one of them is." There can never be any proven valid interpretation.
If God wanted to communicate with man through the Word and could do no better than that, then He is not a God with which we should desire communication.
4. It perverts Scripture.
Example: One author, when interpreting a passage concerning Joseph fleeing from Potifer's wife, surmised that Joseph had many mental hang ups concerning sex, and that his attitudes toward sex were very mixed up.
Allis (an amillennialist I believe) is quoted in "Things To Come." His thoughts are recorded in relation to the idea that the system is in danger of doing damage to the meaning of the Scripture. "Whether the figurative or "spiritual" interpretation of a given passage is justified or not depends solely upon whether it gives the true meaning. If it is used to empty words of their plain and obvious meaning, to read out of them what is clearly intended by them, then allegorizing or spiritualizing is a term of reproach which is well merited." (Pentecost, J. Dwight; "Things To Come"; Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958, p 6 quoting from "Prophecy And The Church" By Allis, Oswald T. p 17)
Let us look at some further examples of allegorical interpretation.
Isaiah 11:6-9 mentions that the lamb and wolf will be together. An alogorist could say that this was Paul and Barnabus, and that Barnabus is trying to get along with the wolf Paul. Someone prove that this interpretation is incorrect.
Ezekiel 37:16-18 speaks of two sticks with two names on them. One of the names is Joseph and of course the Mormon Church mentions that the Joseph is Joseph Smith. This is their basis for bringing all of his false teachings into a Biblical context. In truth the text speaks of Israel and Judah being reunited. (See vs. 19-22)
The allogorist believes that Israel in the Old Testament is the church now, and that all the promises for Israel are being fulfilled in the church today.
If that is true, then God promised me a chunk of the promised land. I want the corner of Tel'Aviv and Jericho for my mansion. That is in the upper middle class section of Jerusalem, mind you.
Luke 10:30-37 the account of the good Samaritan might be interpreted like this:
The man is Adam; The robbers illustrate the Devil; The priest depicts the Law; The Levite represents the Prophets; The Good man would probably be Christ; The Beast would be the physical body of Christ; The Inn is the Church and the 2 pence could be Christ and the Father. I think that you are beginning to get the picture.
2. THE LITERAL METHOD OF INTERPRETATION
A. Defined
Literal interpretation is giving to the words the same meaning they had when they were originally spoken or recorded. This demands that we attempt to determine how the term was used in the time when it was used. This would be the definition as well as the way in which it was used.
The system is known as the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. This is due to the fact that both the grammar and historical setting are important to the proper interpretation.
Ramm states:
"The customary, socially-acknowledged designation of a word is the literal meaning of the word.
"The 'literal' meaning of a word is the basic, customary, social designation of that word. The spiritual, or mystical meaning of a word or expression is one that arises after the literal designation and is dependent upon it for its existence.
"To interpret literally means nothing more or less than to interpret in terms of normal, usual, designation. When the manuscript alters its designation the interpreter immediately shifts his method of interpreting." (Ramm, Bernard; "Protestant Biblical Interpretation"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970, p 64)
B. Evidence Of The Literal Method:
Pentecost summarizes Ramm's comments on literal interpretation. (Taken from the book, All The Doctrines Of The Bible by Herbert Lockyer. Copyright 1964 by Zondervan Publishing House. Used by permission. p 10.) Ramm's comments are located on p 123ff in his tenth printing of
"Protestant Biblical Interpretation"; Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970, if you would like to study further. We will use these comments as a basis for further comments.
1. "That the literal meaning of sentences is the normal approach in all languages."
There is no known society that communicates in allegories. When a person says something, it is interpreted literally. Indeed, a society could not function if everyone was interpreting what others said to their own allegorical desire.
2. "That all secondary meanings of documents, parables, types, allegories, and symbols, depend for their very existence on the previous literal meaning of the terms..."
We cannot understand allegories unless we understand the text in which they appear in a literal sense.
Parables often are interpreted within their context so we can KNOW their meaning from the text instead of our imagination.
3. "That the greater part of the Bible makes adequate sense when interpreted literally."
Even the book of Revelation can be viewed in a literal sense unless the context states that some other mode of view is to be used. For example, a phrase such as "it was like unto" would alert the reader that the item to be described is "like," not an exact replica.
4. "That the literalistic approach does not blindly rule out figures of speech, symbols, allegories, and types; but if the nature of the sentence so demands, it readily yields to the second sense."
In John 1:29, "Behold the Lamb of God" we see a figure of speech. John the Baptist did not mean a little woolly animal that came to be baptized. He was depicting Christ as the Lamb that would die for the sins of the world. Psalm 98:8 mentions, "Let the floods clap their hands...." This is obviously not literal. You might look up Isaiah 55: 12 for another example.
Let me give you a modern illustration: "John is black." Please interpret that for me. The allegorically method might suggest that John has
psychological problems, and that he has a very dark personality. The literal method on the other hand would submit that he is a Negro. This is from our view today, however this literal interpretation may change with a number of items.
Historical Setting: He may have been a chimney sweep in past days.
Geographically: He may be a coal miner if he's in the south.
Contextually: John is black since he fell into the vat of ink.
Do you get the point? The historical setting, the geographical setting and the contextual settings may well vary your interpretation of a certain statement.
5. "That this method is the only sane and safe check on the imaginations of man."
When we remind ourselves of the suggested interpretations of John's vision of Christ in Revelation 1"14-16, we must admit that insanity would reign if we interpreted allegorically.
6. "That this method is the only one consonant with the nature of inspiration. The plenary inspiration of the Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit guided men into truth and away from error. In this process the Spirit of God used language, and the units of language (as meaning, not as sound) are words and thoughts. The thought is the thread that strings the words together. Therefore, our very exegesis must commence with a study of words and grammar, the two fundamentals of all meaningful speech."
The idea is this, if the Bible we hold is to be the message from God to man then the logical method of knowing what it means is to assume that God communicated it to man in a manner that would be consistent with his understanding, and not in a cloaked form that we cannot immediately understand.
Probably one of the prime examples of literal interpretation and fulfillment would be the prophecy against Tyre in Ezekiel 26. A study of history will show that this prophecy was fulfilled very precisely and very literally.
Within the literal camp we realize there are some methods of writing that the authors of scripture used which can alter how we view a particular text. We will take a brief look at these.
1. Hyperbole: To use exaggeration to draw attention to a point. For example: "I'm going to die if I don't get a coke." A Biblical example of this is seen in Psalm 6:6, "All the night make I my bed to swim: I water my couch with my tears" See also Psalm 78:27; 107:26.
2. Anthropomorphism: This is the practice of assigning some body part to God to show one of His attributes. Psalm 31:2, "Bow down thine ear to me" We know that God has no ears, for He is a spiritual being, yet we know that He hears us when we pray. Also see Psalm 11:4; 18:15; 32:8.
3. Implication: The use of an item that illustrates the feeling you want to convey. In Psalm 22:16, "For dogs have compassed me" we see that the enemy has surrounded the psalmist and his view of these enemies is one of fear that he might have from a pack of dogs. (Jeremiah 4:7; Matthew 15:13 also.)
4. Metaphor: This is a comparison of two things where one is said to be the other. Psalm 84:11, "For the Lord God is a sun and shield" This implies that God is light and protection. John 10:9, "I am the door" — Christ declares with this phrase that He is 7ê3 çäthe entrance through which man must approach God and not that He is wood and hinges. Hosea 7:8, "Ephraim is a cake not turned" He is half baked. NO. Ephraim is a man — not flour and water. (Psalm 23:1; 84:11; 91:4 also.)
5. Metonymy: The using of one noun in place of another to describe a similarity between the two. Psalm 73:9, "Their tongue walketh through the earth" This implies that wrong speech is heard everywhere. (Psalm 5:9; 18:2; 57:9)
6. Zoomorphism: A zoomorphism is the ascribing of an animal part to God so the reader can understand some concept about God. Psalm 17:8, "Hide me under the shadow of thy wings" This depicts the protection offered to the believer by God. (Psalm 36:7; 63:7; 91:4)
7. Rhetorical Question: The use of a question that requires the reader to accept or reject a fact. Psalm 106:2, "Who can utter the mighty acts of the
Lord? Who can shew forth all his praise?" The implication is, that no one can do either. (Psalm 35:10; 56:7; 94:6)