What is a ‘Literal’ Interpretation of Scripture?
Aug 15th, 2007 by Nathan White
The question that heads this post may seem like a simple one, but I assure you that it is not as easy as it seems. There is much debate among Christians these days over what is a ‘literal’ interpretation of scripture, and this simple post is just the tip of the iceberg. At this time I have but a small contribution to make regarding this issue.
Clearly, the arena where this particular debate is prominent is in the discussion of eschatology. The use of symbolism is one of the main tenants of the prophetic writings in scripture, and so disagreements in eschatology are bound to lead to one side claiming to be more ‘literal’ than the other side.
Today, however, I just want you to consider what definition we can prescribe to the phrase ‘literal interpretation’. Consider a few words of Jesus:
“Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”
“If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away…And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.”
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
Now, I ask my friends, what is the ‘literal’ interpretation of these texts? If I argue that Jesus isn’t really teaching us to dismember ourselves in the case of sin, or that He isn’t really saying that we must physically eat His physical body, would I be labeled a ‘liberal’ or one who ‘spiritualizes’ the text? Obviously not.
However, we would be wrong to say that there isn’t a real, ‘literal’ interpretation of these texts. Take the first one as an example:
“Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
Upon Jesus first saying this to the disciples, they didn’t have a clue what He meant. But Jesus, aware of their misunderstanding, states:
“O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? Do you not yet perceive?… How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
You see, there was a real and ‘literal’ meaning to Jesus’ words, but that meaning was not found on purely mechanical or academic interpretation of His ‘literal’ words. What does Jesus point to as the reason why the disciples misunderstood? “Oh you of little FAITH”.
One more example will suffice for my argument. Consider Malachi 4:5:
“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes.”
Now consider the fulfillment of this prophecy, by the direct teaching of Jesus:
“And the disciples asked him, “Then why do the scribes say that first Elijah must come?” He answered, “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him…”
Earlier in the gospel of Matthew Jesus had said:
“For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John, and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
Notice a few things about these texts:
- A ‘literal’ interpretation of Malachi 4:5 caused the Jews to miss the fulfillment of that prophecy (and, I might add, a ‘literal’ interpretation of the OT prophecies caused the Jews to completely miss their Messiah).
- Jesus told the disciples that ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear’, which is a direct reference to the gift of wisdom that is given by God alone.
- Jesus says ‘if you are willing to accept it’, again, I believe, noting that belief in the fulfillment wasn’t a matter of ‘literal’ or ‘spiritual’ interpretation of a set of words, but a matter of faith, given of course to those with ears to hear.
Therefore, interpretation of scripture is a matter of faith and wisdom, just as much as it is a matter of words and sentences. Faith and wisdom, of course, are gifts from God and not something we possess naturally in our nature. Biblical interpretation is not entering a formula into a machine and having it automatically spit out the interpretation!
Does that mean we have a right to spiritualize the text? No! Do we have the right to force allegories wherever we deem necessary? Certainly not. Does that mean that when the scriptures speak with symbolism, that we have the right to interpret it just any way we please? Emphatically, no! But it does mean that taking a dictionary and defining the words, and then constructing the sentence with the proper rules of Greek grammar, does not promise that your interpretation will always be the right one!
Thus, lest I be misunderstood, I close with a few points of consideration:
- It should be a given fact that scripture interprets scripture, and that wisdom, given by the Spirit, aides us in understanding the depth of a book that is inexhaustible to our human minds.
- Even when words and sentences do not ‘literally’ or ‘at face value’ give the specific meaning of the text, they will never contradict the words themselves, the context, or more importantly, other scriptures.
- There is a real, ‘literal’ meaning behind each and every text of scripture, but that meaning isn’t always communicated by black words on white paper.
- We must be wise to determine when and where scripture uses symbols to communicate truth. I am prepared to argue that prophetic literature has a tendency to do this almost always.
- We must use other scripture as our chief method of interpretation when we suspect that symbolism is being used in a biblical text.
- We cannot ‘just decide’ the meaning of a symbolic text (I have in mind here the typical style of Revelation); we are chiefly bound to what the rest of scripture teaches in a particular area (and to other rules as well, of course).
Now, I can’t possibly leave this post without an example of prophetic literature, one that Sam Waldron recently used (and an excellent article I might add):
Revelation 13:1 - “And the dragon stood on the sand of the seashore. Then I saw a beast coming up out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads, and on his horns were ten diadems, and on his heads were blasphemous names.”
I believe that the Dispensationalist teachers who taught me the literal wherever possible view would have without exception understood this text symbolically. I suppose they must have argued that that such an assertion as is found in Revelation 13:1 is not literally possible. But today I have the sense (and perhaps the audacity) to ask, Why not? What is so impossible about taking this verse with strict literality? Is it not possible for God to create dragons and beasts with ten horns and seven heads? I think it is possible. Thus, the literal wherever possible hermeneutic does not satisfy the needs of this text or properly qualify literal interpretation.
Good post, Nathan!
OK, I will just come out and say it, “Literal” interpretation is not as easy as Dispensationalists think it is. Coming out of a Dispensational mindset, it is a struggle to keep myself from being too “wooden” in my interpretations.
Here’s a good verse along these lines:
2 Peter 1:20-21
“knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
This does make me wonder, though: if the Spirit inspires all saved believers and guides their interpretation, why are there so many divergent and contrary opinions on those interpretations? I would expect a certain degree of “infallibility”, the same sort of “knowing” that comes with “knowing” one is saved, yes?
2 Timothy 4:3-4
“3 For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, 4 and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”
1 Timothy 1:3-7:
“3 As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, 4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6 Certain persons, by swerving from these, have wandered away into vain discussion, 7 desiring to be teachers of the law, without understanding either what they are saying or the things about which they make confident assertions.”
I think that part of the problem is that the people of the church (mainly men who would qualify as elders according to 1 Timothy and Titus) who know sound doctrine do not do their part to defend and teach it to the congregation as we are urged to do. Nor do we do a great job of teaching people how to test what they hear to be sure that it is true according to scripture.
Dax,
In part you are correct. Too many of the overseers have bought into the peace at all costs mentality. It is believed that unity even in ignorance is better than division caused by assertion of truth. The defence of the Gospel, and that means not just offer of salvation, has become crass coversation in polite company.
The second part of what you said is true also, but it is lacking one point. Scripture says that a student is not above his teacher, but if he learns anything he is to share it with his teacher. Even where we have equipped our people with knowledge of the faith once and for all delivered to the saints, we often take the admonition to submit ourselves to the overseers of our souls and our honoring them too far. In some cases it is not a good thing for a child to remain silent, if you get my meaning. It is a difficult thing to rebuke an elder or a pastor or even attempt to correct their understanding of Scripture. We have to follow the guidelines, but this accountability thing cuts both ways. The man in the pew has every right to challenge authority when it is in error. Often, however, there is a sense of social propriety the keeps us silent.
Quetion. When Scripture says, “Out of Egypt I have called my Son.” How was it allowable interpretation? Or is this one of those being carried along by the HS things, in which the interpretation is provided outside of Scripture. Or, when the interpretation is given, “This was to fulfill that which was written….a virgin shall concieve….” when there is nothing in Scripture that would give warrant to such an interpretation. Both are, by the precedence doesn’t seem to be there. Maybe someone could give me help here.
That should read, “Both are true, but the precedence….
Thomas,
Regarding Hosea11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.
In those times it was understood that if you quoted one part of a verse that you were quoting the whole verse. Matthew was writing to Jews, not only that but from his writing one can deduce that it was to literate Jews. Professor Craig Keener writes
“Matthew builds almost every paragraph from the geneology to the Sermon on the Mount around at least one text in the Old Testament, explaining some event of Jesus’ life from Scripture.In context Hosea 11:1 refers plainly to the Israelites leaving Egypt in the exodus; Matthew applies this text to Jesus because Jesus epitomizes Israel’s history.’
Remember there are several parallels between Israel and Jesus.
for more study on this I would point you to the book Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus Volume Four by Michael L. Brown.
Magnus
Thanks, I have Brown’s Books and will check it out.
I am still curious, I know that post resurrection, the geneologies are used as an apologetic. But, the writers of the NT were inspired for their interpretation, in a way we are not. Still, when interpreting, we need the HS, and we could look at many parts of the OT to draw parallels between Israel and Christ. Where there is precedent and comparisons we can can draw conclusions, but in the case of the virgin birth, there is nothing that I know of that is comparable to it by way of messianic prophecy, is there? When it comes to eschatology, where we are dealing with all sorts of literature, how does one know what prior types go with which particular symbols?
This category of interpretation (endtimes) is different I admit, than the interpretation of Scripture concerning say, soteriology. Lately, I have spoken to some who believe that we will never arrive at the correct united interpretation of non-apocalyptic Scriptures. Doesn’t that leave us vulnerable to the accusation of personal interpretation and tradtions and beg the question non inspiration?
Just questions, not conclusions.
tt
Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
I realize that many people think that the word translated as “virgin” above should be translated as “woman” or “young woman”, however I don’t really think that matters so much. Not that Jesus was born from a virgin, that definitely matters, but about the prophecy using the word “young woman”. My immediate question to this prophecy would be “Which young woman?” Could it possibly be the one that gave birth as a virgin?
Besides…”the Lord himself will give you a sign”…some young woman giving birth, wow big sign, happens everyday…but a virgin giving birth, now that is a SIGN!
Is it possible that the nature of the birth of Christ is what led people to understand that Isaiah 7:14 was referring to a virgin?
What do you guys think?
Another thing we want to remember is maybe instead of focusing in on the virgin part, maybe we should spend some time with the latter part of the verse ” … and shall call his name Immanuel.”
just a thought.
magnus
I remember reading somewhere that a common hermeneutic of interpretation at the time of Christ’s birth was to interpret current affairs in light of Scripture. In other words, as with the birth of Christ and the inquiries made by the priests for Herrod, or with the high priest’s interpretation of the necessity of Christ’s being put to death, Scripture was brought to bear on the contemporary circumstances. This obviously bodes not well for modern interpretation of obscure passages. Those who like to look at the Mid-East and apply apocalyptic Scripture, are constantly doing this very thing. In the case of Matthew and Luke, however, it may well have been the opening to speak to Jews who might otherwise be closed to the Gospel. By using the Jews own rules the witnesses could use them as an apologetic to gain audience.
Thanks for the discussion guys. Good insights, all.
tt
Gentlemen,
Great discussion so far.
One passage I mentioned in my post was Malachi 4:5. Now, pertaining to the question on Hos 11:1 (and others), I believe this one is along the same lines. That is, what kind of ‘hermeneutic’ would lead to an interpretation of Mal 4:5 which sees anything other than OT Elijah returning?
So many who look down on Amillennialism as ’spiritualizing’ the text or not being ‘literal’ fail to convince me of how their hermeneutic does anything different when coming to Mal 4:5.
Thus, two things, one I’ve already mentioned:
1) Scripture interprets scripture: we go to other scriptures on the same subject when considering the potential symbolism of a certain text.
2) The OT prophets used terms/symbols which the people were familiar with in order to communicate future events (if Mal 4:5 would have said ‘I send John the Baptist’, OT people would have had no clue what was meant’.
And so for all of those who say that I don’t take scripture literally and yet still hold to non-millennialism, well, I beg to differ, if nothing else but on the basis that they haven’t proved themselves consistent either. Take Mal 4:5 literally, explain it, and then we’ll talk.
Do you think there is a difference between the New Testament writers using their current events to interpret OT prophecy and modern people using today’s current events in the middle east to do the same? The NT authors were properly exegating (I think that is a word) the text as they were writing the scripture that would interpret the OT prophecy. We can’t do the same thing with world events with out eisegating (again I think it’s a word) our own meaning into the text .
Here’s a thought, just a thought, it may be silly…we don’t interpret scripture, because when we try the only method we have is by applying our subjective experiences to it. Instead of trying to interpret scripture from our experiences, shouldn’t we try to interpret our experiences from scripture…or are the two activities one and the same?
Kind of the ruler and the string of unknown length illustration. You don’t try to measure the ruler with the string, it just doesn’t work that way.
sorry about the bad vocab…
I’ll take this as my springboard and address some of the questions asked along the way (to save quoting).
For starters, let’s be clear here: WE use the grammatical-historical method (GHM).
THEY often did not. That’s why we get different interpretations than THEY did using our methods.
But, considered within it’s own time, the methods they used were considered valid - and they were not at all “innovative.”
See here:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html#exegesis
and
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/baduseot.html#messy
WE use the GHM because it doesn’t prejudge the results. But the GHM is, by definition, conscious of the above realities. It takes them into account. We work from the text as it comes to us. It was written for us, not too us, as well, so some things require research.
Also, what’s important to us is that the original audience understood prophecies like the Messiah coming from Bethlehem to be proper. That’s not a uniquely Christian interpretation, for, in Matthew’s gospel, the Magi are told this not by Christians but by JEWS. So, we’re working from their understanding. It’s later Talumdic Judaism that was bent on countering Christianity that some of these ideas disappear. They purposefully did that, but why should the Rabbinic Judaism from AFTER the time of Christ and the Apostles provide the interpretive grid for the OT (as is common today in Jewish-Christian apologetics?).
It’s also important to note, along these lines, that the GHM is sensitive to intextuality. For example, strictly speaking, it’s NOT at all possible to get the resurrection out of text like Exodus 3:6.
However, that’s a shallow view of the GHM that asserts it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE to do so. That is a terribly naïve view of how the citation functions. For a citation may be used to trigger a set of associations. Indeed, the reference to the patriarchs in Exod 3:6 would be unintelligible apart from a knowledge of the patriarchs in the Book of Genesis. It was never intended to be understood in splendid isolation, for it would be incomprehensible in splendid isolation.
For the speaker to identify himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would, to a Jewish listener, immediately associate the speaker with the God of the Abrahamic covenant.
In addition, the Book of Genesis is full of loose ends. Promises are made to Abraham, and yet they are not all fulfilled within his lifetime. So we’re waiting for the coin to drop.
All of this is quite consistent with the GHM. For the GHM is very sensitive to intertextuality, to the narrative cycle and thematic developments. As one scholar explains:
“This description of Yahweh as the God of the patriarchs is very familiar from all over the OT…by identifying himself with these famous men, whose earthly life was finished centuries before he spoke to Moses, God implies that the relationship still holds good…the argument is based…on the nature of God’s relationship with his human followers: the covenant by which he binds himself to them is too strong to be terminated by their death. To be associated with the living God is to be taken beyond the temporary life on earth into a relationship which lasts as long as God lasts,” R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans 2007), 840.
ii) At a more general level, D. A. Carson has also discussed some of the ways in which NT writers are quite alert to the original context:
When Paul as a Christian and an apostle reads the same texts, he insists on preserving the significance of the historical sequence. Thus in Galatians 3, Abraham was justified by faith before the giving of the law, and the promise to him and to his seed similarly came before the giving of the law. That means that the law given by Moses has been relativized; one must now think afresh exactly why it was given, “added” to the promise. Again, in Romans 4 Paul analyzes the relation between faith and circumcision on the basis of which came first: it is the historical sequence that is determinative for his argument.
Nor is this approach exclusively Pauline. In Hebrews, for instance, the validity of Auctor’s argument in chap 7 turns on historical sequence. If Psalm 110, written after the establishment of the Levitical priesthood at Sinai, promises a priesthood that is not tied to the tribe of Levi but to the tribe of Judah, and is thus bringing together royal and priestly prerogatives in one person, then the Levitical priesthood has been declared obsolete in principle. Moreover, if this new king-priest is modelled on ancient Melchizedek, himself a priest-king, there is also an anticipation of this arrangement as far back as Genesis 14. In other words, where one pays attention to links that depend on historical sequencing, one has laid the groundwork for careful typology. The argument in Hebrews 3:7-4:13 similarly depends on reading the Old Testament texts in their historical sequence: the fact that Psalm 95, written after the people have entered the Promised Land, is still calling the covenant people to enter into God’s rest, demonstrates that entry into the land was not itself a final delivery of the promise to give them rest. Moreover, the reference to “God’s rest” triggers reflection on how God rested as far back as Genesis 1-2—and thus another typological line is set up, filled in with a variety of pieces along the historical trajectory.
See here
Eschatology is a bit large to tackle, so I’ll use another familiar text, the creation narrative. What is the “literal” intepretation? While I agree with Kurt Wise that it’s not allegorical, strictly speaking it’s not “literal.” Rather, the text is historical, but it contains typological elements. Rather than reading it in isolation, one has to read it as part of the whole Pentateuch to understand it. I’d add that liberals like James Barr don’t exegete the text much differently than a conservatives like Kurt Wise. The issue isn’t the content, that is, the result. The issue is the authority they give to the text.
What we have in Genesis is a seven day creation. I’m inclined to agree that these are seven literal days. However, the key to interpreting the text is not to read it in a vacuum. Genesis is very much a “catching up” book for the original audience, the wilderness generation.
They are poised to enter the land of Canaan, the land of promise. The point of the book is to tell them they have a divine right to that land, a right going all the way back to creation.
The key to understanding the narrative is, in part, in reading it in parallel with the narrative of the ark’s construction and the building of the Tabernacle. This often gets lost, if it is ever addressed at all, by many who say they are interpreting the text “literally.” The scope we have to consider is actually wider than Genesis 1 - 3 alone. As Steve Hays writes:
L
The Garden is depicted as a Tabernacle. God makes a covenant with Adam, the high priest, with Eve his assistant. They tend the Garden as the priesthood under Aaron cared for the Tabernacle. God meets with them as He met with Israel in the Tabernacle. The wilderness surrounds the Garden as the wilderness surrounds the Tabernacle. The two trees prefigure the Ark of the Covenant, with the Law beneath (knowledge of good and evil) and the mercy seat above (tree of life). The Tabernacle and Temple both reflect the Garden, particularly the Temple, which is decorated inside to represent it.
We understand the Fall to be literal, because Scripture, particularly Jesus and Paul say that is the case. For example, Paul draws an analogy between Jesus and Adam in Romans 5. Those represented by Adam fall in him and are imputed with his sin and guilt. Those represented by Jesus are justified by faith and imputed with His righteousness. If the latter is literal, so is the former.
To answer the earlier question about Isaiah 7, look here.
Also, I would point out that there is a literary reason that Matthew selected Isa. 7:14, related to “Immanuel.” Each gospel bookends a particular concept. In Matthew, that is “Immanuel.” The opening “Immanuel” (Isa. 7’s citation) corresponds to the Great Commission, where Jesus is with His people even to the end of the age, the one who saves His people from their sins.
Dax,
We do infer from our experiences what certain texts mean. That is why the Scripture forbides private interpretation. The writers of the OT and NT were indeed inspired in a way that we are not, yet we have the same HS, and by Him we are carried along in a similar fashion such that the Word admonishes us, that if we speak we are to speak as oracles of God, knowing that every idle word, that is every word that does not work, we will be held accountable for. We can see in the milieu around us, there are numerous interpretations which contradict one another. In the case of contradictions only one interpretation can be correct if anyone is correct at all. When an interpretation is put for, it must be put into the smelter of the Word of God, tested, and what comes out pure, is where we stand. The problems are always ours and not the Word of God. The smelting process is not necessarily easy or a short term process and from the evidence of history, there is much work still to be done before we all reach the unity of the faith, to the measure of maturity which is the true knowledge of the Son, the express image of all that man can know of God.
Nathan,
Mal 4:5-6 “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 6 And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”
I include both here. Because verse six cannot be excluded from the mission of Elijah, if we are to understand who the Elijah is in verse five. Jesus said that if “you can accept it, this is the Elijah to come.” So we must examine just what John was doing to determine what was meant. The following prophecy preceeds Malachi:
Deut 30:1-10
“And when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, and return to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. And the Lord your God will put all these curses on your foes and enemies who persecuted you. And you shall again obey the voice of the Lord and keep all his commandments that I command you today. The Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers, when you obey the voice of the Lord your God, to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law, when you turn to the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.” And is followed by a call to repentence: The Choice of Life or Death.
So who is Elijah? Moses, Joshua, John, Jesus? Is the prophet a unique, descrete individual, or a type. Jesus says: “Elijah does come, and he will restore all things. But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man will certainly suffer at their hands.” And it goes on, ” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.” It seems unequivocable then that “The Elijah,” is John. Scripture even tells us that he came preaching in wilderness after the likeness and in the power of Elijah, though no miracle is recorded that JTB is credited with, and he did not restore all things. The Jews would have been looking for these signs. Even the disciples asked Jesus if he was going to restore the kingdom at this time, which leads us to wonder if they might have thought Jesus to be a kind of Elijah.
The testimony of Scripture is that JTB was preparing the way for the one who comes. And, that would fulfill Malachi in part. The catch is in the next clause, “the awesome day of the Lord.” How are we to understand this? Since, it is Christ that John is announcing, but it is the eschaton that Malachi says the advent of Elijah would herald. Verse six divides between what is a quintessential “all” type phrase and the last phrase. It is clearly referring back to the last phrase of verse five. There is an utter destruction that is coming in the awesome day (all will be destroyed), yet some will be spared so that the destruction does not destroy the fulfillment of promise to the children of the fathers. In the case of JTB, he turns the hearts of the children to their fathers pointing to Jesus, in Malachi, Elijah turns the hearts of the children back (repentance) pointing to the final judgment. With the advent of JTB, there is a partial destruction of Jerusalem, a type of Israel, but it is not the “utter” destruction, a Jewish catch phrase for God destroying of his enemies to the utmost at the consumation of the Ages.
Other repentance Scriptures to consider are these: Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3, 8; 5:32; 24:47; Acts 5:31; 11:18; 13:24; 19:4; 20:21; Hebrews 6:1.
It appears that Matthew 28:16-20 a continuence of this theme in Scripture. Does it continue the type of Elijah passages of calling, sending, proclaimation of the Gospel and warnings of the pendinging Judgement of the OT? The writers of the Epistles and Christ Himself, all set forth this ministry to the nations.
Now, can we use the advent of JTB as a marker for determination of the doctrine of the millenium? For a long time I held to a pre-millennial postition until I began to notice certain things about the millennial passages in books like Zechariah that just did not keep consistency with the doctrines of Christ’s finish work, nor with the essential ideas of the issuing in of the new heavens and earth. There is a whole area of discriptive Scripture of the Second Advent of Christ and all that goes with it that just does not fit with a pre-millenial view, and I might say a ‘Dispensationalist,” millennialism, especially.
Having said that, the typical view of JTB as the Elijah, I think to be in error, if he is thought of as the last Elijah. The great commission is an Elijah commission. Similarly, Christ himself fulfilled the Elijah type. What I am saying is that an Elijah cannot be used as a marker for the beginning of the eschaton, or the millenium, whatever that means. Deuteronomy contains the sames proclaimation. Moses and Joshua fulfill Elijah’s ministry type, yet it did not establish a millenium’s beginning. And, though the kingdom reign issued after the time of the judges, it was before the time of the judgement and the sequencing is wrong. JTB was indeed sent before the Lord, and indeed, partial destruction of the Jews commenced shortly thereafter with a remnent preserved. But, the sending of the disciples from the mountain to fulfill the Elijah ministry is not one that has ended with the final marker being the “awesome day of the Lord.” At least not yet. Until that day, Elijah is to come, and has already come and will continue to be expressed in the commission.
This settles no disputes as to the millenium. And, I have yet to hear or read an irrevocable position on it, though without a doubt there is one. It does call out attention to the great difficulties that can be encountered in interpretation. The call to proclaim repentence unto Eternal Life makes us all Elijahs if we are doing so in the power of Elijah (that is by the Spirit), and if we are prclaiming the curse along with that Gospel. But, we are not the particular Elijah that Christ was speaking of.
We do have the testimony of Jesus that JTB was “the Elijah.” So, our hermenuetic is clear. The Jews would not have had that perspective, though. To proclaim Elijah had come, would carry with it the rest of Malachi- impending judgement. They might then have asked, “If JTB is Elijah, where’s the vengence of God on our enemies?” They did not expect judgement to fall on them, after all, their occupation by foreigners and previous punishments all fulfilled the chastening passages so that they might easily expect that the next thing was judgement upon the enemies of the children of God. If they were interpreting the current events and applying Scripture to them, it would make sense that they doubted that JTB was Elijah, since he was lacking the essential Elijah marker, calling down judgement from heaven. Although, in a way, the advent of Christ is just that. But, they did not see his crucifixion as judgement having come.
As to Hosea 11:1, we cannot assume that the Jews knew before the writing of the NT that “my Son,” referred to the Messiah, nor that it of necessity was referring to Jesus. First, the Hosea passage is imbedded in judgement passages. Instead of this being the Holy One Israel, it is the unfaithful, sin-filled Israel that is being singled out. Isaiah 44 with reference to all of Isaiah could be rendered this way, but not Hosea 11.1 without making the necessary inferrence of the dual natures of Jacob, something Jews like Nicodemus were ignorant of. Second, though some may have known, and spoken of Jesus’ journey to Egypt, we do not know that. And beside, the Jews seem blind to his full history, thinking merely that he came out of Nazareth, not Egypt, and indicate that from that origen nothing good comes forth. They also seem oblivious to his birth in Bethlehem.
I would be interested in seeing confirming Scripture that would make this Hosea passage Messianic. Even given the fact that Hosea is a Messianic text, this passage most clearly points away from Him, at least in context. I still think, that in this case and with the virginal passage, what we have is direct revelation to writers of the NT, and not interpretation.
Flashing forward to the book of Revelation and speaking about Elijah types again, the two witnesses fulfill his type, and to a greater extent, for they are said to call down curses on their enemies. I do not think this confirms the advocates of the reincarnations of Moses and Elijah in these two witnesses. My favored position is that they represent the Jewish and Gentile branches of the church universal on Earth prior to the “awesome day of the Lord,” carrying out the final and fullest expression of the Elijah type, preparing the way of the Lord.
Forgive my verbose attempt here, Nathan. It was a circuitous exercise. I hope I haven’t confused things.
Nathan,
These last couple of posts have been well thought out and presented. It is good work; may God bless it. I mean that literally.