The Bible -- What it is, and how to interpret it, continued

ALL THIS WAS DONE THAT IT MIGHT BE FULFILLED WHICH WAS SPOKEN BY THE PROPHET, SAYING, ETC.

The event that fulfilled the prophecy was the event spoken of in the prophecy. So it is with all fulfilled prophecies. They came to pass exactly as the terms of the prediction, plainly and literally understood, would have led us to expect; that is, a certain thing was plainly predicted, and that thing came to pass. Is not this a rule for the understanding of unfulfilled prophecy?

But, it will be asked, is there no such thing as figure in the Scriptures? Is there no such thing as predicting events in language that will not bear a literal construction, such as describing the Messiah as "a stone," "a branch," "a shepherd," etc.? True, but this does not interfere with the literal understanding of prophecy. It is a separate element in the case co existing with the other without destroying it. Metaphor is one thing; literal speech is another. Both have their functions, and each is so distinct from the other, that ordinary discrimination can recognise and separate them, though mixed in the same sentence. This will be evident on a little reflection.

We use metaphor in common speech without causing obscurity. We are never at a loss to perceive the metaphor when it is employed, and to understand its meaning. We never fall into the mistake of confounding the metaphorical with the literal. The difference between them is too obvious for that. When we talk of tyrants "trampling the right* of their subjects under their feet," we mix the literal with high metaphor; but no one is in danger of supposing that rights are literal substances that can be crushed to pieces under the mechanical action of the feet. When we say, "he carries a high head," we do not mean a height that can be measured by the pocket rule: "a black look out" has nothing to do with colour, "hard times" cannot be broken with a hammer; so with "over head and ears in love," "heart melting," "corn dull," "beans heavy," "Oats brisk," etc. They are well understood metaphors, beyond the danger of misconstruction; but suppose we say, "The Polish nationality is to be restored." "A new kingdom has just been established in the interior of western Africa," etc., we use a style of language in which there is no metaphor. We speak plainly of literal things, and instinctively understand them in a literal sense.

Now with regard to the Bible, it will be found that in the main, this is the character of its composition. As a revelation to human beings, it is a revelation in human language. It is not a revelation of words but of ideas, and hence everything in its language is subordinated to the purpose of imparting the ideas. The peculiarities of human speech are conformed to in the various particulars already mentioned.

Metaphors, for example, find illustration in the following: -

A place of national affliction is likened to an iron furnace. Says Moses in the 4th chapter of Deuteronomy, 20th verse: -

"The Lord hath taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt."

The fact that Egypt is metaphorically spoken of as an "iron furnace," does not interfere with the fact that there is a literal country of Egypt.

Nations are said to occupy a position high or low, according to their political state. Thus in Deuteronomy 28v 13, Moses says to Israel: -

"The Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail: and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath."

So Jesus says of Capernaum (Matt. 11, 23): -

"And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell."

And Jeremiah, lamenting the prostration of Judah, says (Lam. 2v 1): -

"How hath the Lord covered the daughter of Zion with a cloud in his anger, and cast down from heaven unto the earth the beauty of Israel."

Then nations are likened to rivers and waters. In Isaiah 8v 7, we read: -

"The Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the King of Assyria, and all his glory."

And hence, in referring to the constant devastations to which Israel's land has been subject at the hands of invading armies, the words of the Spirit are, "Whose land the rivers have spoiled" (Isaiah 18v 2).

Instances might be multiplied; but these are sufficient to illustrate the metaphorical element in the language of the Scriptures. Metaphor there is, without doubt; but this is a very different thing from the gratuitous and indiscriminating rule of interpretation which, by a process called "spiritualizing," obliterates almost every original feature in the face of Scripture, making the word of God of none effect.

There is another style of divine communication which is neither literal nor metaphorical, but which is yet sufficiently distinctive in its character to prevent its being confounded with either; and also sufficiently definite and intelligible to admit of exact comprehension. This style is the symbolic style, which is largely employed in what may be called political prophecy. In this case, events are represented in hieroglyph. A beast is put for an empire, horns for kings, waters for people, rivers for nations, a woman for a governing city, &c.; but there is in this style no more countenance to the spiritualisation of orthodoxy than in the metaphorical. It is special in its character, can always be identified where it occurs, and is always explicable on certain rules supplied by the context. The literal is the basis; the elementary principles of divine truth are communicated literally; its recondite aspects are elaborated and illustrated metaphorically and symbolically. The one is the step to the other. No one is able to understand the symbolical who is unacquainted with the literal; and no one can understand the literal who goes to the Scriptures with his eyes blinded by the veil which the "spiritualising" process has cast over the eyes of the people. This must be got rid of first; the literal must be recognised and studied as the alphabet of spiritual things, and the mind, established on this immovable basis, will be prepared to ascend to the comprehension of those deeper things of God which are concealed in enigmas, for the study of those who delight to search out His mind.

There remains one other important matter to be considered. Not long ago, on the occasion of an address on a kindred subject, a person in the audience put several questions. In answering them, the writer quoted from the prophets; but was stopped by the remark, "Oh, but that's in the Old Testament; we have nothing to do with that, the New Testament is our standard, the Old has passed away."Now this sentiment is a common one with many religious people. It is an erroneous idea, and has done great mischief. It has a slight basis of fact. The "first covenant" dispensation of the law or the old constitution of Israel, has been abolished; but it is far from being true that what God communicated through the prophets has been annulled. The New Testament itself shows this clearly. As we have already seen, Paul says, "The Scriptures are able to make thee wise unto salvation" (II Tim. 3v 15). Now it must be remembered that this could only apply to the Old Testament. When Paul made the statement, the New Testament was not in existence. Consider then the import of the statement - the Scriptures of the Old Testament are able to make us WISE UNTO SALVATION. If this be true, how can it be correct to speak of the Old Testament having been done away?

And this statement of Paul's is by no means the only one to this effect. Hear what he said before Agrippa (Acts 26, 22): -

"Having therefore obtained help of God. I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying NONE OTHER THINGS than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come."

Now, if, in preaching the Christian faith, he said "none other things than those which Moses and the prophets did say should come," it is obvious that Moses and the prophets must contain the subject matter of that faith. This is undeniable. It is borne out by the interesting incident narrated in Acts 17v 11, where, speaking of the inhabitants of Berea, to whom Paul preached, it says: -

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica; and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so; therefore, many of them believed."

If the Bereans were satisfied by a searching of the Old Testament, which were the only Scriptures in existence at the time of their search, that what Paul said was true, is it not evident that what he said must in some form be contained in the Old Testament? Does it not follow that the Old Testament furnishes a basis for the things spoken by Paul? That Paul's faith as a Christian laid hold of the Old Testament, is evident from what he said before Felix the Roman Governor: -

"After the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24v 14).

In harmony with this individual attitude of Paul in the matter, we find that when he went to Thessalonica, he entered the synagogue, and "three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17v 2), that is, out of Moses and the prophets, for there were no other Scriptures for him to reason out of. And when he called together the Jews at Rome, it is testified that "he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses and out of the prophets, from morning till evening" (Acts 28v 23).

The same fact, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament are accessory to the teaching of Christ and his apostles, is apparent in several other statements to be found in the New Testament. Peter exhorts those to whom he wrote in his second epistle, chapter 3, verse 2 to "be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets?" and in the 19th verse of the first chap. of the same epistle, he says, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy, WHEREUNTO YE DO WELL THAT YE TAKE HEED" Does not this settle the question? Jesus puts this statement into the mouth of Abraham in a parable (Luke 16v 29, 31): -

"They have Moses and the prophets, LET THEM HEAR THEM - If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

And it is recorded of him that during an interview with his disciples, after his resurrection (Luke 24v 27), "Beginning at MOSES AND ALL THE PROPHETS, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." If the Saviour himself appealed to the Old Testament in exposition of the things concerning him, and exhorted us to "hear Moses and the prophets," what further need of argument?

It is obvious that those people fall into a great mistake who suppose that Christianity is something distinct from the Old Testament. So far from Christianity being distinct from the Old Testament, it will be found that Christianity is rooted in the Old Testament. The Old Testament lays the foundation of all that is involved in the New. The New Testament is simply an appendage to the Old, valuable beyond all price, and indispensable in the most absolute sense; but in itself, apart from the Old Testament, far from being sufficient to give us that perfection of Christian knowledge which constitutes a person "wise unto salvation." The two combined form the complete revelation of God to man, vouchsafed for his spiritual renovation in the present, and his constitutional perfection in the future. Divided, they are each inefficacious to "thoroughly furnish the man of God unto all good works."

We must request the reader to suspend his judgment on this point, and refrain from thinking too harshly of an idea which, though probably opposed to his dearest accustomed sentiments, is one that is sustained by the general teaching and emphatic declaration of the word of God, as will be shown in the succeeding lectures, to which, as a whole, the conscientious dissentient is referred for an answer to his objections.

Thus we bring the subject of the present lecture to a conclusion - "The Bible: what it is, and how to interpret it." It was necessary to go into these details by way of preliminary to the investigation which shall be entered into in subsequent lectures - clearing away errors and misconceptions, and laying a distinct and sure foundation for what is to follow.

It only now remains for us to bespeak your sympathy with the subjects, and your patience with the necessarily somewhat dry and tedious process essential to their thorough treatment. It is a vital question, and worthy of all the labour which you can bestow upon it. We cannot be too particular in trying the evidence upon which our faith relies. We ought not to be content to take it second hand. We ought not in a day like this to simply accept what we have been taught at home, in the church and chapel, without ever giving it a thought whether it is right or wrong, or reckoning upon the awful consequences of error.

Never mind if others do not consider it their business to study the Bible. Remember that the majority have always been in the wrong in all ages of the world. Look not at your neighbours, think not of your friends in this matter. They are in all probability like the world in general. They lack independence, and are subservient to their worldly interest. They cannot afford to deviate from orthodox sentiment and usage, and long conformity has deadened their power to judge of the evidence. With all their churchgoings and religious profession, the anxiety of the majority of people centres in the present evil world. Act for yourselves. Do as Peter told a Jewish assembly to do in Jerusalem: - "Save yourselves from this untoward generation."