Date: March 2005 Series: - “I Want to be Left Behind” (V) Title: Interpreting Prophecy

       Continuing our discussion of prophecy and Bible interpretation, there is a good deal of confusion about "taking the Bible literally" as opposed to figuratively/symbolically.  Some time ago, David Reagan made a useful statement about this,

 "But Bible prophecy is full of symbolic language," people protest. Yes, it does contain a lot of symbolic language, but a symbol has a very specific meaning, otherwise it would not be a symbol. There is a literal reality or plain sense meaning behind every symbol.^[1]

While I would disagree with much in Reagan's eschatology, I agree with his comment here.  Symbols are not verbal "play-dough" that can be shaped to any configuration that fits our preconceived notions - symbols "symbolize" something specific and divinely intended.  Jesus noted His own use of both "figurative" and literal communication (John 16:25).  Apocalyptic (drawing aside the veil/curtain) literature employs symbols - things like "olive trees" to represent people (Zechariah 4:11-14), statue sections/beasts rising from the sea/rams and male goats to represent kingdoms (Daniel 2,7,8), lampstands to represent churches (Revelation 1:12,13,20), and a great "harlot" to represent a city known for killing the saints (Revelation 17:1-6,18).  However, rather than being generic symbols that can be applied to any similar-sounding item appearing in our newspapers from century to century, the symbols probably represent specific people, kingdoms, and cities and express a relationship between them and realities of history that readers should be able to recognize.  So, why don't we all see the same realities in the symbols?  Primarily, the problem lies in the fact that we begin with different assumptions and use different sources for interpreting the symbols.

       Careless Interpreters - We interpret symbols differently for the same reason that we believe in different scenarios for end-time events - we listen to different sources and pick up different pre-conceived ideas.  I believe that the Bible is its own best interpreter and after that, history will offer some help.  However, there are some self-proclaimed and popular "prophecy experts" that I think are just plain irresponsible with how they handle Scripture.  I have Jack van Impe on audio tape interpreting Nahum 2:4 as a prediction of automobiles in the streets of Jerusalem at the time of Jesus return, although the prophecy itself identifies the topic - the destruction of Assyria's capital, Nineveh (Nahum 1:1; 2:8; 3:7,18), that occurred in 612 B.C.  On another tape, van Impe quotes the first part of Revelation 12:7 "There was war in heaven" and then claims that this is a prediction of Russia and America preparing for satellite warfare near the time of Christ's return.  Ridiculous - and willfully disinterested in clearly defined Biblical context!

       There are folks around who claim to interpret as they do because they let the "plain sense" of the words dominate unless there is reason to take them otherwise.  Ok, so upon what basis do these "I take it just like God said it" folks justify inserting the entire church age between Daniel 2:43/44; 9:26/27; 11:35/36?  There is nothing in the text that suggests that you should insert a 2,000 year long "Church Age" gap between sections of a predicted 490 year span in order to "make sense" of the prophecy - if anything, such an approach probably does extreme violence to what is intended and shifts the emphasis from Christ's first coming to His Return.  With dispensational gaps inserted, Daniel 2 and 9 appear to focus on the 2^nd Coming, but without these suggested gaps/insertions, the prophecies point to the 1^st coming.  How shall we resolve such a dilemma?  What is the focus of the larger Biblical story - an earthly Israelite kingdom or the International blessing to come through the Messiah?  How did Jesus and the Apostles understand the First coming and prophecy?  How important was the first coming of Jesus in God's plan?

       And by what "literalistic/non-symbolic/non-allegorical" interpretation principle does John's personal invitation to "come up here" (Revelation 4:1) turn into another proof-text for the rapture of the entire church before a 7-year tribulation period?^[2]

       Why did Scofield respond to the apparent meaning of Jesus' words to Pilate - "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36,37) - with a note that said,

 "This verse has erroneously been taken to mean that Christ was disavowing that His kingdom would be established on earth."^[3]

        Why do some folks have so much trouble with Jesus' comment that His kingdom would be powerfully established within the lifetime of those listening to Him in the early first century (Mark 9:1) and instead teach a "postponed until the 2^nd Coming" doctrine?^[4]

       Simple - rather than really take Scripture in its plainest sense unless some good reason to do otherwise is present, these folks have already embraced a scenario that is built on the assumption that an earthly Jewish kingdom is required and then they "interpret" (or manhandle?) Scripture accordingly.  Although neither Jesus nor His apostles taught a "postponed kingdom" doctrine or anything that really points in such a direction, this notion has become almost "orthodoxy" itself in certain circles.  Be careful of the concepts you embrace, for they may force you to do all sorts of questionable things with Scripture passages that don't read like what you believe.  Properly interpreted, Scripture ought to determine what you believe, not be forced to "conform" to something you believe from other sources!

       Every interpreter (and that means every Bible reader) needs to do "exegesis" first (look for what the passage really says) and then topical studies for counter-balancing truth before you try to assemble any larger scenario - otherwise, rather than form the basis for creating a sound larger scenario, individual passages of Scripture become nothing more than literary "play dough" or "silly putty" that we press into our pre-conceived eschatological molds.  What is "prophecy" and how should we read it? (to be continued)