61
T h e
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
February 1930
with a loud protest. He cannot permit such a “ funda mental assumption.” The secret is that he has one of his own which he prefers. He says: As a matter o f fact Christ was spiritually and providentially present at the destruction o f Jerusalem. As a matter o f fact, also, He has been present, not physically, but spiritually and providentially, at ev.ery visitation o f wrath upon men and nations from that day to this. Thus, at length, the real issue comes to the surface. Shall prophecy be approached with the presumption that, other things being equal, a literal interpretation is likely to be the right one, or shall the mind be so dominated by a theory concerning the progress of the Gospel in this age that it compels the spiritualizing of predictions of judg ment at the end of the age? It is an old argument, re vived with unusual heat in recent years. If the discussion must continue, why not counsel the partisans to stick to the text and not to substitute epithets for arguments ? As to “ chieftain Gray,” who comes in for a big share of the dishonor, or honor, that attaches to his views on the sub ject of prophecy, no defense is needed. He will carry his new title with his accustomed dignity. The many thou sands of Christian leaders at home and abroad who share his opinions will ask the privilege of also sharing with him the honor of being reproached. They will say, as the Rev. Canon Horsefield is quoted as saying recently, “ It is better to suffer derision than to suffer delusion.” Diffidence or Definiteness T HE Advent Witness reviews a pamphlet by a British author, which, they say, “ is really a plea for indefi niteness in the interpretation of prophecies of Christ’s second coming on the ground that the Jews misinterpreted the prophecies of the first coming.” The editor refuses to admit that there is any force in such an argument and plea. The answer to the argument is that the Jews were wholly wrong in their interpretation of Messianic proph ecy, because “ they made void the Word of God with their traditions.” That is, they refused a definite and literal interpretation of their Scriptures, and so when Jesus came they had a perverted idea of the kingdom, which it was difficult to dislodge. Even the disciples of Jesus were be clouded by the prevailing “ spiritualizing” method of in terpretation. It is recalled that after the resurrection, Jesus said to the two men at Emmaus, “ O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets had spoken . . . and beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he ex pounded unto them in all the scriptures the things con cerning himself” (Luke 24:25, 27). It is safe to presume that Jesus said many such things to the disciples when He was with them on occasions during the forty days, “ speak ing o f the things pertaining to the kingdom o f God.” At any rate, the New Testament writers somehow got the impression that prophetic statements of the Lord Jesus and of the Old Testament prophets called for a literal — o —
Fundamental Assumptions HE study of predictive prophecy has its delights and its perils. To the inquisitive and reverent mind the search after knowledge concerning things to come awakens interest and enthusiasm such as can scarcely be found in the pursuit of any other branch of knowledge. Who does not want to know the things that shall be hereafter? Per haps one of the greatest perils in the study of prophecy is that the mental bent may be determined in advance by fixed presuppositions. If these presuppositions or assump tions pervert the method of interpretation of the Scrip tures, there is no telling to what ridiculous extremes the student may be led. The author of a recent book on the Great Tribulation waxes eloquent, hot and sarcastic as he thinks of some other writers on this popular prophetic theme. The fol lowing is one of his milder paragraphs: Lately these writers are multiplying. Their name is legion. And they are so inexpressibly inane. Mussolini, for example, as a youngster, got down on his hands and knees and “pinched the bare legs of the other boys and girls” in school, and kissed a little girl once, “the prettiest in her class,” and using her two long braids for lines, played horse with her; therefore, forsooth he is the “little horn” with “eyes like the eyes of a man,” spoken of by Daniel the prophet! Furthermore, the legs of Nebuchad nezzar’s image were of iron, and Mussolini’s father was a blacksmith.— mirabile dictul If the author had stopped at this point, there would have been little room for argument with him. But he is not content. It is not only this type of juggler with the Scripture that he is pursuing, for he speedily enrolls in the class of “ the inexpressibly inane” all who believe that the Great Tribulation is yet future. Speaking of such teachers he writes: Of these latter we may take . . . as a typical example— There is no length to which he seems unwilling to go........... He would be at home with the Scofield Bible, W. E. Blackstone, and S. D. Gordon . . . . and doubtless also he would be ready to pay his salaams to Dr. James M. Gray, the chieftain o f the group, who, though more cautious and guarded than his fellows, yet builds on the same plot of sand. . . . These men all base their theories on the same fundamental assumptions. But what about “ fundamental assumptions” ? Do not both proponents and opponents of “ dispensationalism” have assumptions? All Christians will accept the first “ fundamental assumption” of Scripture, “ In the begin ning God.” On the other hand, they will reject the as sumption of the advanced liberal critics that the prophets spoke only to their own times, for this means the elimina tion of all predictive prophecy from the Bible. They refuse also the Modernist’s assumption that the historic facts of Christianity are not essential to Christian faith, for this compels the conclusion that Jesus Christ is never coming back to earth again. Where, then, is the issue? The “ dispensationalist” believes that such a phrase as “ the coming o f the Son of man” in the Olivet discourse means the literal and personal return of Christ. At this point, however, the author whose book is under discussion, rises
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs