The Coming of a Literal Christ.
WHAT we said in our first article about literality and a literal interpretation, scarcely needs any confirmation; yet it may be well to fortify the point in the minds of the readers by reference to Scripture examples. In John 1:41 are the following words: "We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ." Now we insist that "the Christ" is a literal interpretation of "the Messias." But according to the theory which we call in question, it cannot be a literal interpretation; for then it must be, "the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Messias." The mystical theory does not admit of any change of terms in a literal interpretation. A stone, as we have seen by that theory, is literally interpreted, a stone! And then the Messias should be literally interpreted the Messias. But that is no interpretation at all. Messiah is a Hebrew word, which, being interpreted into the Greek, is the Christ; literally, not figuratively, the Christ. And this, being again interpreted into the English, is the Anointed—as it is in the margin of our Bibles. And this, again, is literal. In the next verse (42), we find these words: "Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone." This is what he was to be called, and so he was. It cannot be objected here that he was not literally a stone, and therefore the interpretation is not literal. It does not say he should be a stone, but he should be called a stone. That was literally true. Again, in Heb. 7:1, 2, we read: "For this Melchisedec, King of Salem, . . . first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is King of peace." "Melchisedec" is composed of two Hebrew words, the first meaning king, and the second, righteousness. This again is a literal interpretation. Salem is also literally interpreted; it means peace. We will now notice a few texts of a somewhat different character, of which much needless misapprehension has existed. Eze. 37:1-10 contains the prophet's vision of the valley of dry bones, which were caused to come together; then by the prophet's word flesh came upon them, and breath came into them, and they stood upon their feet, a great army. This has been applied in the most fanciful manner, generally to a great revival of religion. But the Lord himself explains it in verses 11-14. He says that these bones are the house of Israel; that he will bring them up out of their graves, and cause them to live, and bring them into their own land. This was the promise to Abraham that he should possess the land forever, both he and his seed. Stephen said that he never did possess it (Acts 7:2-5); and Paul said that Abraham dwelt in the land of promise as in a strange country (Heb. 11:9); and he died in the faith of the promise (verse 39), which cannot be fulfilled except through a resurrection of the dead, as is shown in Eze. 37. We insist here that in Eze. 37:11-14 is given a literal interpretation of the vision of the first part of the chapter. But they who claim a mystical or "spiritual" interpretation of prophetic symbols say, "No; it does not mean the resurrection of the dead out of their graves; it is to be spiritually understood." But the Lord said it did mean the bringing of Israel up out of their graves. If this explanation or interpretation of Jehovah himself does not mean what it says—if his words need to be interpreted or explained—then we insist that he gave no interpretation at all; then his words are useless; for we could have given a mystical or imaginary meaning to the vision without his interpretation, as well as we can with his interpretation, if a mystical or imaginary meaning is to be given to it. But if we may not accept the Lord's interpretation, whose shall we accept? It is easy to see that they who spiritualize the words of the Lord which he has spoken in interpretation of the vision, make his words of no effect—of no signification—which is nothing short of an insult to the author of all revelation and inspiration. Once more, in Matt. 13:24-30 is the parable of the tares of the field. This, too, is very often mystified by suppository interpretations. According to the theory which we are calling in question, a literal interpretation would be to take the parable literally. The wheat means only wheat, and the tares mean only tares; for so the writer whom we have noticed takes Dan. 2:35. But that is not a literal interpretation; it is no interpretation at all. It is destroying the parable as a parable, and making it a literal narrative. But the Saviour was asked to "declare" unto them the parable, and he did so, and he gave a declaration or interpretation strictly literal in all its terms. The world, the children of the kingdom, the children of the wicked one, the Son of man, the devil, the angels, the end of the world or age, the separation of the wicked and the righteous, and rewarding each according to his work or character,—every term and every fact is strictly literal. If they are not literal, what do they mean? What is represented by the world? by the Son of man? by the angels? by the children of the kingdom and the children of the wicked one? If these are still to be interpreted, if they are not literal, then the Saviour declared nothing, he explained nothing, and his language is meaningless. We think it must be very evident to every one that the Saviour interpreted the parable by changing its figures into literal facts, which is a literal interpretation. But if not—if he only changed the figures into other figures—then both the parable and his declaration of it remain to be interpreted. And then who shall declare it? If we cannot believe his word, whose shall we believe? From all this we lay down the following rule:— If a parable or a symbol be taken literally, it is then no parable or symbol; but if the interpretation is not taken literally, it is then no interpretation. We may safely challenge any one to attempt to invalidate this proposition. But if this is true, then it forever settles the controversy as to the literal interpretation of prophetic symbols. We now return to the text under first consideration, and proceed to show the fallacy, the inconclusiveness of the arguments of the learned writer in the Interior. All admit that the several parts of the image which Nebuchadnezzar saw in his dream are symbols; they are not to be taken literally. The prophet said to the king: "We will tell the interpretation thereof before the king." Now if it were literal—if the stone meant a stone—then no interpretation was admissible; an interpretation of a literal statement is a mere pretense. But Daniel explained the several parts of the image to mean several kingdoms, according to their characteristics, beginning with that kingdom of which Nebuchadnezzar was the head and representative; and the stone he interpreted to mean the kingdom of the God of Heaven. To show the analogy, or the completeness of the interpretation, we will quote what is said of the stone in the dream, and what is said of the kingdom in the interpretation. "Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces. Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer thrashing-floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them; and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." In the interpretation the prophet said: "And in the days of these kings shall the God of Heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever." Inasmuch as the image begins with Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, and gives successively the kingdoms which succeeded his, we know, as all admit, that the gold, the silver, the brass, and the iron represented Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome. But the writer in the Interior, and with him all who deny the literal interpretation of the prophecy, said that because the stone is not to be taken literally—that is, the surface of the earth will not be covered with stone—therefore the kingdom which the God of Heaven will set up is not a literal kingdom! Never was a greater fallacy put forth. Are the gold, the silver, the brass, and the iron to be taken literally? No; no one, not even the writer in the Interior, would claim that; all admit that these metals are used as symbols, even as the stone is used as a symbol. Very well. Then we inquire: Were Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome, literal kingdoms? Not at all, replies the spiritualistic interpreter. The gold, silver, brass, and iron are not to be taken literally; therefore the kingdoms which they represented were not literal kingdoms! According to that argument, this conclusion is unavoidable. Not a literal kingdom has existed upon the face of the earth since the days of Daniel the prophet! They are all to be taken "spiritually," because they were all represented by symbols in the prophecy! No one can deny that our conclusion is just, if that theory is true. No one has any better right to spiritualize one part of the prophecy than we have to spiritualize every part. If the first four symbols—also the feet and toes—represent literal kingdoms, why may not the fifth symbol? Or, if the fifth kingdom is not literal because it was represented by a symbol, then the four kingdoms were not literal because they were represented by symbols. If this reasoning is not just, will some one give a reason why it is not? That cannot be done. But we now apply the rule, the justness of which we have demonstrated. If the interpretation is not literal, then there was no interpretation at all. Daniel spoke of a kingdom of which Nebuchadnezzar was the ruler; of another kingdom which was to succeed this; and another, and yet another, which was to bear rule over all the earth. This was his interpretation of certain symbols. And the interpretation was literal, because the kingdoms were literal; the prophet meant just what he said—neither more nor less. And he is presumptuous who attempts to correct the prophet,—who says he did not mean what he said, but something else. And we insist, and our claim cannot be denied, that the fifth kingdom is to be as literal as the other four. It breaks them in pieces; it destroys them; it occupies their place in the same territory. The stone was neither more nor less literal than the iron; the fifth kingdom is to be neither more nor less literal than the fourth. The prophet said nothing about "spiritual kingdoms" in his interpretation. Who has received authority to add to his words? He promised to interpret the dream to the king. But if his words need to be interpreted—if they cannot be understood without somebody correcting them and telling us what they mean—then he did not interpret the dream. But if he did interpret the777dream, then no explanation of his words is admissible. Were it not for the popularity of the spiritualizing system, were not that system so all-controlling in the theology of the day, we should feel like apologizing for dwelling upon this point at such length. But we are desirous that all should see this truth clearly, for we have yet to trace this subject further.
(To be continued.)