|
| |||||
|
|
The
Purpose and Meaning of Symbols Interpretation of Prophecy. No study of prophecy would
be complete without some reference to the symbolic language used
by some of the sacred writers. Two main schools of thought
approach this problem from opposite viewpoints. Those who
interpret everything in its natural sense are termed
"literalists." They maintain that a millennial day
will eventually come when the lion will eat straw like the ox
and the desert will blossom as the rose. Another view is taken
by those who believe the prophets intended for their words to be
taken in a "figurative" sense. They are convinced that
the language used was symbolic and that it was meant to convey a
message of spiritual significance. Able scholars expound both
these views and no one can question the sincerity of either one.
At the same time it is obvious that both cannot be right;
therefore, one is a mistaken view.
In searching for truth we must approach any problem with an
open mind, free from prejudice and preconceived ideas. We must
also be consistent in our conclusions. If we interpret a passage
in a literal sense in one place, we are obligated to do likewise
when dealing with similar subjects elsewhere. We know that some
gifted writers have always indulged in the use of imagery to
illustrate their thoughts, though this form of writing is much
more prevalent with Oriental people than is the case with our
prosaic Western mode of expression. Notwithstanding the risks
involved, it is possible to derive great spiritual benefits and
a clear and reasonable understanding of Bible symbols and types
if we adhere to the sound principles set forth in this study
namely, "That no prophecy of the Scripture is of any
private interpretation." 2 Pet. 1:20. In other words, every
Scripture in the Bible, must 'stand in the light' of every other
Scripture in the Bible!
While at first glance, it may seem compulsory to accept each
prophetic utterance of Scripture in the exact words in which it
is written, a careful examination of scores of examples will
prove that this destroys the meaning entirely. To illustrate
this point, let us turn to Gen. 49, where Jacob blessed his
sons. He said, "Judah is a lion's whelp." V. 9. We
assuredly know that Jacob intended for us to understand that
Judah had certain characteristics which resembled a lion's
whelp, but he said, Judah is a lion's whelp. Of Issachar, he
said, "Issachar is a strong ass couching between two
burdens." V.14. "Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an
adder in the path…" "Naphtali is a hind let
loose…" "Joseph is a fruitful bough…" vv.16,
21, 22. It is needless to mention again that in each of these
illustrations, the patriarch Jacob used a metaphor that was best
calculated to describe the nature of the son whom he was
blessing.
A passage that has perplexed many sincere students is found
in Is. 11:6-9, "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb,
and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and
the young lion and the fatling together; their young ones shall
lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And
the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the
weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice den. They
shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the
earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters
cover the sea." To this we should also quote from Is. 35:1,
5-7. "The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad
for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.
Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the
deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as a hart,
and the tongue of the dumb sing; for in the wilderness shall
waters break out, and streams in the desert. And the parched
ground shall become a pool…"
As stated before, literalists interpret this passage in its
natural sense. Children with their hands on lion's heads, and
beasts of prey living in docile harmony with reptiles and lambs,
they claim, will at some future day be a common sight on this
earth. We submit that there is a certain appeal to such a
prospect but, we cannot agree that the Bible teaches any such
thing at all. Isaiah is concerned with something of tremendous
spiritual significance as we can very easily demonstrate.
To illustrate our contention, we quote Is. 55:12, "For
ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace; the
mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into
singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their
hands." It is scarcely necessary to point out that Isaiah
had no idea of mountains indulging in vocal harmony, and the
trees do not have hands to clap in any case. Nevertheless, when
a person gets real Bible salvation it is common to hear them
testify that even nature looked different, and all the creation
burst into glad singing because of the new found joy in the
individual's heart. It is impossible to reconcile actual lions
and wolves in Is. 11 with Is. 35:9 where we read, "No lion
shall be there, nor any ravenous beast shall go up thereon, it
shall not be found there…"This glaring literal
contradiction can only be resolved by looking for a more
consistent interpretation of the text. This we shall proceed to
do.
Animals Characterize People. It would be highly
sensational to read in the papers that a pack of wolves had
attacked a church, but Paul wrote something to that effect,
"For I know this, that after my departure shall grievous
wolves enter in among you not sparing the flock." Acts
20:29. The Lord Jesus also told Peter, "Feed my lambs, and
feed my sheep." John 21:15, 16. Again in Matt. 7:15, He
said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in
sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
Continuing, in Matt. 10:16 we read, "Behold I send you out
as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore wise as
serpents, and harmless as doves." To pursue the
literalist's interpretation to its logical conclusion, one might
contend that no people will be at the Judgment at all, for
Christ said, "He shall set the sheep on his right hand, but
the goats on the left." Matt. 25:33. Now if the sheep,
goats, wolves and serpents mentioned by Christ symbolize people,
then it is obvious and also consistent to assume that Isaiah was
writing about people too. For instance, since the sheep obeyed
Christ's command and went out among the wolves, it is certain
that some of the wolves got converted like Saul of Tarsus, who
made havoc of the early church, and who became Paul the apostle.
His rapacious preying nature was changed to an ardent servant of
the faith he once destroyed. In his travels he probably laid
down with the lamb-like Barnabas, who because of his gracious
disposition was known as the son of consolation. These
"ravening and grievous wolves" referred to by Christ
and Paul, are the same "ravenous beasts" which Isaiah
had in mind when he wrote of the gospel age saying, "No
lion or any ravenous beast shall be there."
As we consider the other animals mentioned in Isaiah, we
discover characteristics of people in every one, which the bible
interprets as people elsewhere. Consider the cockatrice, which
is a serpent similar to the adder and the asp. In Is. 59:5, we
read, "They hatch cockatrice eggs." Isaiah does not
mean that these people hatched out literal snake's eggs, but
that ideas and plans were as dangerous as if they did. Paul
described people in Rom. 3:13-14, as follows, "The poison
of asps is under their lips, which mouth is full of cursing and
bitterness." What better metaphor could describe the tongue
of a cunning, deceitful person? And yet many with that kind of a
tongue have been a blessing to God's children.
Let us note some of the other places where the Bible uses
animals to characterize people. We read in Zech. 10:3,
"Mine anger was kindled against the shepherds, and I
punished the goats…"In Hosea 8:9, Israel is called
"a wild ass alone by himself." Special attention
should be given to Exek.19. There Israel's mother is called a
"lioness." After a brief reference to the sojourn in
Egypt and the captivity in Babylon, Ezekiel continues as
follows: "And now she is planted in the wilderness in the
dry and thirsty ground." V.13.
It is obvious that God is not particularly interested in
taming animals or irrigating deserts. His concern is redeeming
people. Although dogs are known as man's most faithful animal
friend, the Bible says, "without are dogs." Rev.
22:15. Why should dogs be left without if wolves are taken in?
And why should the lion and the ox have to feed on straw for a
thousand years when the ox at least would much prefer hay or
some other fodder?
We are not left in doubt about what Isaiah is teaching. When
John the Baptist was in prison, he wondered if Jesus were really
the Messiah, so he sent two of his disciples to inquire. Jesus
told them to return saying; "Go and show John again those
things which ye do hear and see; the blind receive their sight,
and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear,
the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached
unto them. And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in
me." Mat. 11:4-6. This is a direct quotation of Is. 35, and
it shows how it was fulfilled in the preaching of the gospel; in
fact, it proved to John that Jesus was the Christ.
The passage in Is.11 is interpreted with equal clarity if we
include the context, which follows: "And in that day there
shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the
people; to it shall the Gentiles seek; and his rest shall be
glorious." V.10. This verse is written by Paul in Rom.
15:12, and if we continue reading the context, it is
unmistakably applied to the gospel age. Numberless examples like
Augustine and George Mueller, who in their unsaved condition
were profligate and rapacious in the extreme, were converted and
their barren lives were changed into fruitful gardens by the
power of god, which their ravenous characteristics become
lamb-like. This is what Isaiah had reference to when writing of
the gospel age.
It is possible that some may wonder why the Bible uses
symbols instead of language that cannot be misinterpreted. There
are at least two reasons. One, of course, is that symbolic
language is more descriptive. To describe anyone as a snake, or
an ass, or a fox, sums up 'volumes' of what it would require to
explain those characteristics in other words. Jesus called Herod
Antipas a fox, because it described Herod's sly cunning nature.
There is no contradiction to Isaiah when he says, "The lion
will eat straw like the ox," and, "no lion will be
there," if by "lion" you mean people having such
a disposition. For when a person is converted, he loses the
nature to prey upon his fellowman, and he becomes a useful
servant. The lion disposition is but a memory, and the new
nature is more docile, like the ox.
Another reason why symbols are used is to convey truth in
such a way that it will not encounter unnecessary persecution.
Much of the Bible was written under governments that were
hostile to the propagation of its message. To be outspoken
against the power of Rome, for instance, would have incurred
certain death. For that, the early Christians spoke in symbols,
which they well knew the meaning of, but which did not actually
say the person or thing. Thus they spoke of pagan Rome as a
seven-headed dragon. The seven heads are identified as the seven
hills, on which Rome is built, (Rev. 17:9). The devilish
character of the heathen religion, which Rome upheld, could not
be better typified than by the horrible, devouring dragon
depicted in Revelation, which sought to destroy the early
church.
Paul recognized the wisdom of couching his words carefully as
the fires of persecution commenced to rage. In 2 Thess. 2:7, we
read, "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work; only
he who now letteth will let, until he be taken our of the
way." Paul was describing the advent of the Man of Sin, and
the events leading up to its full manifestation. Although some
teach that Paul was referring to the Holy Spirit in this
passage, such an inference is untenable. Paul never hesitated to
speak freely about the Holy Spirit, as even this chapter bears
witness. There was no offence in speaking freely of the Holy
Spirit. But with the power of Rome it was different. He had to
use discretion in speaking about the government, which he did.
As long as the Emperor remained in Rome the Papacy could not
come into its full measure of power. However, when the Emperor
of Rome removed the seat of government to Constantinople, the
Bishop of Rome became supreme. Then the Man of Sin was revealed.
As long as the Roman government remained in Rome, it restrained
the full exercise of the ecclesiastical authority, but when it
was gone, the Papacy became all-powerful. Paul used symbols to
convey this important truth, because he could do so in that
manner without incurring persecution. Symbolic language adds
greatly to the beauty of God's word, and if we interpret the
symbols consistently, they convey inspired truth in a most vivid
and convincing manner.
| ||||
