E. WHITTAKER

INTEREST IN THE Signs of the Times can revive overnight at the sight of a startling news headline. A sensational happening in the Middle East can rouse God’s people with surprising suddenness out of a torpor of indifference into a state of excited anticipation. Yet when the word of prophecy is then consulted to determine what the new events portend, opinions will often vary. Some will rashly map out a new plan for the order of events leading up to the Lord’s coming; some will seek to accommodate the latest: developments to the traditional views; while others will prefer to remain undecided, content to wait in faith to see the outcome.

When he was warning the disciples what was about to happen to them and to himself, Jesus explained : “These things have I told you, that when the time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them” (Jn. 16:4; 13:19; 14:29). This might be taken to be an axiom that could apply to prophecies of the last days, suggesting that brethren who advocate a wait-and-see policy are on sound lines.

But the Lord used similar phrasing in the Mount Olivet prophecy to different purpose.

When foretelling the fall of Jerusalem, he said: “When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies then know that the desolation thereof is nigh” (Lk. 21:20). Similarly, with regard to the prophecies about his return, he explained: “When ye see these things come to pass (described under the symbolism of the sprouting fig tree) know ye that the Kingdom of God is nigh at hand” (21:31). In both cases, the disciples of Christ would need to be alert, since what they had to look for would give them warning that the terminal events of each particular prophecy were to follow shortly afterwards.

In fact, in the first case, indifference to the Lord’s precise words would have been fatal, because only by watching for the Lord’s sign of Roman legions surrounding the city could the disciples know when to flee to escape the horrors of the siege. And yet at the time it was given, the Lord’s instruction would seem to be ridiculously impossible to act on, if there was going to be “no way out” of the city. But when the crisis did actually come 40 years later, “his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them”, and took the opportunity afforded by a temporary withdrawal of the troops, recorded by Josephus, to escape.

The details of these two prophecies and the manner of their fulfilment are of less importance in the present study than the basic principles involved. In both prophecies Jesus was giving his disciples advance notice of the last link in the chain of events leading up to the promised climax, which was the fall of Jerusalem in one case, and the establishment of the Kingdom in the other. Evidently, the penultimate details were necessary, both as a final warning and as a spur to faith in the closing days of trial and of patient waiting.

All this may seem elementary and obvious, but it raises other issues. Since the warning signs in the Mount Olivet prophecy were given in considerable detail, the question arises as to whether or not God intends all prophecy to be analysed and interpreted minutely. The view is widely held that it is wise only to expound prophecy in general outline, to reduce the danger of falling into error that might cause grievous discouragement or loss of faith. And yet if the detail is there but is to be ignored, it is pertinent to ask why God should have included it in the first place.

These problems of approach can be resolved once it is realised that Scripture contains its own “code of practice” for interpreting prophecy, as indeed for all else within it. Mistakes have been made, and brethren have been greatly misled in the past, because Scripture’s own canon for interpreting prophecy has been either neglected or misapplied. In the remainder of the present article an attempt will be made to formulate a few rules as guidelines that may help to lead the student towards a more consistent way of handling prophecy, and in particular prophecy about Israel.

Bullinger in his Companion Bible has established beyond doubt that numerous passages of Scripture can be more clearly understood once their place in the literary structure of the context is recognised. He carried his method to bewildering excess, however, by artificially dissecting even the historical narratives.

Obviously, by reason of its irregular continuity, history cannot be confined within the devices of literary framework. But literary structure is certainly an important factor in the sound interpretation of prophecy. A few simple examples will confirm and illustrate this view:

1. The “blessings and curses” in Deuteronomy 28 have a definite structure which aids the reader’s understanding and helps avoid problems which would otherwise arise. The “blessings” extend from verses 2 to 14. But since Israel only enjoyed them for brief periods when they were faithful, attention may be concentrated on the “curses”.

The “curses” in verses 15 to 68 are divided into three historically progressive sections, thus :

2. The four prophecies of Balaam, which may begin to assume a new importance in the light of current developments in the Middle East, are structured to reveal four distinct and progressive phases in the fortunes of Israel, as follows :

3. Ezekiel’s vision of the Valley of Dry Bones (ch. 37) has been much discussed and written about, but little attention has been given to the textual layout of the dialogue between the attendant angel and the bewildered prophet.

Firstly, in the vision, Ezekiel is given a conducted tour around the valley full of bones; then follows the dialogue :

The nature of the action in the vision was plainly intended to teach that only when the prophetic words were actually pronounced, in two stages, over the politically dead Jewish people in the latter days, would the national resuscitation take place. Ezekiel was called “Son of Man” because he was a man of sign; and therefore a person or people in the last days answering to this title were to proclaim the words of the prophecy which was to be the signal for the Jewish nation to be politically revived. It is possible that the Christadelphian body (with others) has been performing this mission for the past century, all unaware that it was itself participating in the fulfilment of the prophecy of the Valley of Dry Bones! This insight does not become evident until the layout of the text of the vision has been analysed, but an exposition along these lines can readily be filled out by a closer study of other details of the vision.

God through His prophets took hold of immediate national situations in Israel to encourage, guide and admonish His people. But He also used those occasions to reveal His progressing purpose of redemption in the coming Messiah. Necessarily, the sublime revelations had to be couched in terms of the local situation if they were to be understood, however dimly, by the people to whom they were first given.

And so the local situation about which the prophet preached would provide the pattern for the revelation of the climactic events that were to be worked out on the larger Messianic scale in the Last Days.

It is essential therefore, before any attempt is made to understand a Messianic prophecy, that this basic axiom should be strictly applied: “What did the message mean to those to whom it was first given?”. This guiding principle is already being applied, albeit perhaps unconsciously in many cases, as, for example, to the Book of Haggai. The return from Babylon and the rebuilding of the Temple under Zerubbabel, a man of sign (Hagg. 2:23), form the backcloth for a striking Messianic message that is about to have a parallel fulfilment in these Last Days.

Regrettably, however, the principle has not been widely recognised and adopted. Instead, prophecies have been indiscriminately torn from their context with total disregard to historical background, and wildly erroneous conclusions have been the inevitable result. Before any attempt is made to interpret any prophecy, whether it be a complicated burden from Isaiah, the Gogian invasion of Ezekiel 38, the Apocalypse, or even the Song of Solomon, its meaning in terms of contemporary events should first be studied as the essential pattern for the latter-day fulfilment.

Necessarily the scope of the present article must be confined more to principles than to examples. But the axiom about historical background opens up other rules which may seem to be obvious, but which are in fact rarely applied.

Before any modern power can positively be identified in the word of prophecy, it must occupy the territories belonging at the time the prophecy was given to the power with which it is identified.

For example, if Communist Russia, apart from its allies in the prophecy, is fulfilling Ezekiel 38 (as is generally agreed), it must yet invade the lands that the Scythian tribes occupied in Ezekiel’s day for the identification to be proved conclusively (Ezek. 38:3-6; 32: 26; 27:10, etc.). This, in modern geographical terms, involves the occupation of the lands around the Black Sea, including the southern shores at present part of Turkey. Similarly, if the same latter-day aggressor is to be the King of the North of Daniel 11, Russia must occupy the territories of the ancient Seleucid empire (cf. Dan. 11:4,40,41), which was based in Syria, and which included Turkey and the lands of the Euphratean Valley as far south as the Persian Gulf. Again, if the prophecies of a latter-day Assyrian in Isaiah, as for example at chapter 30, are to be fulfilled by Russia, the conclusion will not be proved in history until that power invades the territory of Assyria as it existed at the time of Isaiah, which corresponds to the region occupied approximately by modern Iraq.

This line of reasoning opens up other basic principles governing interpretation of prophecy, but they must be left over for a fuller treatment on another occasion.

Special care needs to be taken not to confound prophecies that differ in subject and scope. Two simple examples must suffice.

1. Difficulty is often experienced in placing the mourning of the Jews (Zech. 12:10f.) in relation to the ministry of Elijah (Mal. 3:1-4; 4:5-6). Those who will “look on him whom they have pierced and mourn” are limited to “the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Zech. 12:10). Alongside this is to be set the fact that the Jewish residents of the land (12:12) at the time of the Lord’s return are designated “Judah and Jerusalem” (12:2, etc.). No Jews will be able to trace their tribal or family origins reliably until a prophet appears to reveal the information infallibly. Thus it would seem that, in the marvellous Providence of God, all Jews who have returned before the Lord’s advent will be found to be of the tribe of Judah apart from Levi (12:13) and possibly Benjamin, if “Judah” is used in the generic sense. “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you?”. And it is “for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem” only, that “there shall be a fountain opened... for sin and for uncleanness” (13:1).

The Jewish exiles remaining among the nations will return, and in another Exodus will be brought into “the wilderness of the peoples” (Ezek. 20:35 RV), where God will “purge out... the rebels” (v. 38). This “wilderness” (contrasted with “the wilderness . . . of Egypt”—v. 36) is the vast expanse that stretched between the Euphrates and the mountains of Gilead and Moab, east of Jordan, now called the Syrian Desert.

Since the original Elijah’s mission took him both to the ten tribes and to the two, and John the Baptist preached to those of “the cities of Judah” and the pilgrims of the Dispersion, it seems likely that the latter-day Elijah’s work will cover the same wide field.

This point, which could be amplified at greater length, can be drawn simply from a careful note of the distinction between the Jews referred to in Zechariah 12 and those in Ezekiel 20.

2. An appreciation of the significance of the prophecy of Hosea 3 depends on close attention to the detail of the text. On God’s instruction, Hosea bought back the harlot wife he dearly loved, but for “many days” refused to cohabit with her. God then foretold that this unusual form of reconciliation would be reproduced in His relations with Israel. Like Hosea’s wife, the nation also would “abide (or remain) many days” without the things of God or the things of heathenish harlotry; and the prophecy is couched in three contrasting couplets:

Because of their idolatry, Israel was punished by God with captivity. But as the marriage relations of Hosea with his wife graphically portrayed, the slavery was intended to purge the nation of its habitual weakness. And this is how, in the outworking of history, it proved to be; for once in captivity, Israel never again lapsed into idolatry. And ever since, they have been deprived of the things of both true worship and false.

But “afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David their King... in the latter days” (v. 5). Messiah is identified by the name of David because the ten tribes to which Hosea ministered had renounced the monarchy of David’s house.

Although there is space here for only these two illustrations of attention to detail, they are perhaps sufficient to underline that the importance of such detail cannot be overstressed in the sound interpretation of prophecy.

These suggestions about interpreting prophecies generally, and in particular those concerning Israel will, hopefully, help to foster a more critical and discriminating approach to the subject in our midst. If, as we believe, the time of the Lord’s coming is very near, an avid and feverish interest in the word of prophecy should be prevalent among us. But let it be a zeal which is “according to knowledge”!