Lions, Tigers and Bears; Oh My! (Isaiah 11): 1 of 5

I will not belabor giving another detailed verse by verse commentary on all of this. Many have already done so, and so I will defer my readers to much of that effort and work that has already been done in the works of such noted old commentators as: Joseph Addison Alexander, Matthew Poole, Albert Barnes, Matthew Henry, and John Gill---to name just a few.

Make a pot of coffee, or hot tea, relax, and sit down to begin to read what I believe is to be one of the most exciting, thorough, and biblically based analysis of Isaiah 11 that you will ever read. What you are about to read before you are no pithy arguments, absent of any detailed explanations as to how I came to the conclusions in which you are about to read. In light of all this, I have spread this article out into five parts (whew! I know) in order to make it easier for the reader to stop and go as he pleases. Hopefully, I will have made it well worth your while.

Below, you will find a broad and detailed analysis of the main portions of Isaiah 11 that most Bible students and theologians are concerned with, and have belabored over, searching diligently trying to understand at what time, and in what manner or place, that the prophet Isaiah is referring to.

Before preceding with that though, I felt it was necessary to show you how I came to what I believe are “biblical” conclusions based upon what the reformers called: The Analogy of Faith. You will find no highly imaginative presuppositions or “private interpretations” here. Everything that Isaiah wrote about is elsewhere affirmed for us in the holy Scriptures. We just have to dig it out. Scripture indeed is its own final arbiter and guide on all of these things. To the law and to the testimony we will go. But before we do, let’s find out how we are to reasonably get there. In other words, what guidelines are we to follow when trying to ascertain what the Spirit of God is telling us in the words that He uses to tell us these things with. After all, they are His words and, for which, He is the sole Interpreter. And for those of us who would seek out His mind and His thoughts regarding all of these things, there is a wealth of information to be mined.

The Analogy of Faith

As I stated, what I attempt to do in this article is to apply what the Reformers termed: “The Analogy of Faith.” Though not the only principle used in interpreting the Scriptures, the “analogy of faith” was a key principle of interpretation understood by the Reformers which teaches that Scriptures are normally sufficient within themselves to provide for us an understanding or “interpretation” of what God Himself has said to us on any given subject. When I say “normally,” what I mean is that sometimes history determines for us how something is to be interpreted, or understood, such as in the fulfillment of the prophecies of the four beasts in Daniel, and even in understanding all the details in his eleventh chapter. But the actual meanings and concepts behind the words used to depict these things are to be interpreted solely by God’s words alone. For example, when Daniel uses images of lions, bears, and leopards, Scripture elsewhere affirms to us that God uses such imagery to denote the ferociousness and hostility of certain kingdoms or peoples. And what better way to convey the fierceness of these people and kingdoms than by using such graphic images of these ferocious beasts to convey to our minds what God is trying to reveal to us. They strike terror and fear into all of those who would ever come near to such animals. These animals are more powerful than us, and we know very well that we are to keep our distance from them. So, when Isaiah 11 uses such ferocious beasts as lying all around together with other animals not of the same nature and all eating the same food —in light of all that has just been said—what do you think he (or I should really say, “God”) is trying to illustrate to us? Just hold that thought there for the moment. We will be getting back to that idea in just a little bit.

Clearly, God uses such images that are meant only for His people to understand; in order to comfort, encourage, and exhort us about what is to come upon us. To just come right out and say who or what these things actually were would probably be more damaging to God's people than good in many instances; thus this highly figurative language came to be understood as “apocalyptic” language. Such language and words were given by God with hidden meanings behind them that only certain people who were being led by His Spirit were able to understand. Just being a natural Jew or Israelite didn’t qualify one as being capable of understanding God’s word, only those who are given the ears to hear are able to comprehend God’s words.

By comparing Scripture with Scripture, and understanding in context the reality or truth that is being conveyed before us, we know that God is not referring to literal animals in Daniel, but only using such images as figurative expressions for what He is trying to tell us. God does this a lot in His Word. And I don’t say this mildly. He does it A LOT! And it was from using this principle of interpretation, of Scripture interpreting Scripture, that the statement “sola Scriptura” was coined. This principle of interpretation is stated in the Westminster Confession in this manner: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly” (1.9). I think Thomas Howe in an article online at C.R.I. headed up by Hank Hanegraaff has rightly stated about all of this,

There is a principle of biblical interpretation called the analogy of faith that is popularly understood to mean “Scripture interprets Scripture,” or “Scripture interprets itself.” This is actually a misunderstanding. Not every Scripture is interpreted by another Scripture….The analogy of faith is not the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture [solely], but that all Scripture is in agreement and will not contradict itself. It assumes the unity and harmony of teaching throughout the Bible. In other words, when multiple passages say something about a topic (either explicitly or implicitly), then what those passages say about that topic will be consistent and will not be contradictory….

This brings us to another aspect of the analogy of faith, that is, that we should interpret unclear passages in light of clear passages, not the other way around. Milton Terry says the expression analogy of faith "denotes that general harmony of fundamental doctrine which pervades the entire Scriptures.…No single statement or obscure passage of one book can be allowed to set aside a doctrine which is clearly established by many passages. The obscure texts must be interpreted in the light of those which are plain and positive." When a particular passage is unclear to us, we can and should go to other passages that address the same topic more clearly in order to help us understand the unclear passage. [1]

Such is the case with the present rule and reign of Christ in His kingdom. Using the “analogy of faith” in comparing the “clear” teachings of Christ and His apostles to other passages of Scripture that are not so clear or precise on this issue, one will not venture down highly speculative and imaginative paths, but stay within the bounds, or “ancient landmarks,” that have so clearly been laid out for us.

Literal vs. Spiritual Language

One person has rightfully said,

“When the plain sense doesn’t make sense, Scripture must be compared with Scripture, letting Scripture determine the meaning of the comparative language being used by the author. Once you learn how certain writers use certain metaphors, you will find that there is normally a consistent use of those metaphors throughout their writings…The Bible is also the best dictionary for explaining itself.”[2]

I couldn’t agree with this person any more. The person who made this statement is a pre-wrath rapture dispensational premillennialist, which I am not. Upon reflection of what he has just stated, you wouldn’t have thought he was a dispensational premillennialist. At first glance, and with no previous knowledge of who this person was, and being yourself a dispensationalist, maybe you would have probably thought that this person was attempting to make a case for understanding the Scriptures in a non-literal, figurative manner; but on the contrary, he doesn’t. In fact, there isn’t very much that a dispensationalist like himself would interpret figuratively, unless of course one of the inspired expositors of the Scriptures, such as John in his gospel, would have immediately done so upon the statement of something that wasn’t to be understood literally, such as in Jhn. 2:21 when Jesus said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up,” and for which John later interprets: “But the temple He had spoken of was His body.” This is about as far as a dispensationalist will pretty much go with figurative language, unless taken by the hand and led along as in the example of John here above.

On the other hand, many dispensationalists have ventured out into saying things which clearly illustrate to us that they do not follow their own advice of interpreting everything with a “literal, face-value hermeneutic,” as the above author had also stated elsewhere. Clearly, they do not practice what they preach, as we will soon come to see. The dispensational premillennial doctrine (and even premillennialism) are clearly doctrines of one's own making. They are “private interpretations” that cannot be discovered in the teachings of Christ and His apostles, without one reading into their words what one's own “natural” and, I might say, “carnal” and “unspiritual” presuppositions have caused them to believe. And it is just because of such a “literal, face-value” hermeneutic that they come to their own conclusions which the prophets, Christ, the apostles, and even the author of the book of Hebrews just do not endorse, obfuscating the truth of Christ’s gospel completely. And it is truly “another gospel” indeed!

The book of Hebrews, in and of itself, is one continuous and sustained argument for the finality, richness, and completeness of all that the Old Testament wrote about concerning the new covenant mediated by Christ. On the other hand, Dispensationalists sadly and ironically want to preserve these Old Testament arrangements. Dispensationalism represents a continued attachment to all the shadows and ceremonies of the old covenant with a clear failure on their part to appreciate all their finality and fulfillment in the new covenant. Their so-called “literal” hermeneutic is really not “literal” in the proper biblical sense of the term, for they read into the Bible a humanistic philosophy and reasoning of their own making with a total disregard for the spiritual applications and teachings of Christ and His apostles and how they "literally" understood everything to be fulfilled in a spiritual manner.

It is too bad that the person I mentioned above hasn’t paid attention to his own advice when attempting to understand prophecy, for in the prophets we find many examples of the use of such “metaphors throughout their writings.” And to quote this person's own words, “once you learn how certain writers use certain metaphors, you will find that there is normally a consistent use of those metaphors.” I couldn't agree more. And such is the case with Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Zechariah, and many of the prophets in their writings. And much of what they say “metaphorically” is couched or embedded right along with that which is also sometimes to be understood literally. And “when the plain sense doesn’t make sense, Scripture must be compared with Scripture, letting Scripture determine the meaning of the comparative language being used by the author.”

Such is the case with Isaiah chapter eleven. Plain natural sense just doesn’t make sense when reading this chapter. The things that are spoken of there are of a supernatural character. Right out of the gate God uses language that isn’t to be understood literally when He says, “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch will bear fruit” (v.1). The “shoot,” “stump,” “roots” and “branch” are all figurative language, while “Jesse” is an actual, literal person. And all this comes on the heels of God having just spoken about the Assyrians being felled like trees. God had just said in the previous chapter right up until and before chapter eleven that “the splendor of his forests and fertile fields will be completely destroyed...and the remaining trees of his forests will be few,” and that God would, “lop off the boughs with great power. The lofty trees will be felled, the tall ones will be brought low. He will cut down the forest thickets with an ax; Lebanon will fall before the Mighty One” (10:33-34; cp. w/Ezk. 31:3). Trees are just one of the figures or metaphors that God uses for both the godly and the ungodly. And God does this many times over in the writings of His prophets, just to let us know that He is talking about something beyond what is “naturally” to be understood, because “literally” speaking, God would be saying here in 11:1 that a “literal” shoot or branch was to grow out of one of Jesse’s fallen trees out in his garden or forest somewhere; or even that Assyria's literal trees in their forest would be felled. Now that would be understanding this “literally,” wouldn’t you agree? But the language that God uses here to accommodate us is used to describe things “not of this world” but of “another world” (Jhn. 18:36). Such is God's world, and the language He uses in which to describe it with! Even Christ Himself was of “another world,” as we all know very well. And it was just His world, kingdom, and dominion that the prophets said would occur when the Messiah was to appear on the scene, even using literal objects and ideas to convey it all to us. And Jesus repeatedly uses such literal objects and ideas to convey these spiritual truths of His kingdom. Things were not always as they sounded like or appeared to be. And Jesus (or God) is a master at this.

John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles preached and taught just such a “spiritual” kingdom. Dispensationalists, on the other hand, tell us that such things were not spoken of in the prophets (I kid you not!). But Paul said otherwise. He himself said that “my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long ages past” is “now revealed and made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, so that all nations might believe and obey Him…” (Rom. 16:25-26). Peter likewise affirmed, “Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days” (Acts 3:24). Jesus, likewise, “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets…explained…in all the Scriptures concerning Himself” (Lke. 24:27). What Paul basically says in Romans above is that this “mystery” was couched or “hidden” in “the prophetic writings” (all of them), but “now revealed and made known,” and it has been done so by the inspired interpreters of the Old Testament, which is Christ and His apostles. A dispensationalist does not see anything “revealed” or “made known” in the Old Testament about the good news or gospel about Christ’s church made up of both Jews and Gentiles. All the prophecies for many of them have to do with nothing but what was promised to the natural Jews alone. Sound remarkable? Just ask one of them who is really informed about such things. Christ’s establishment of the church was just an afterthought due to the Jews rejection of Him and His natural and worldly kingdom that He supposedly came to set up for them, and yet refused by them, only to be postponed until a later time when Christ will once again come back to gather these Christ rejectors in order to re-establish them in another rebuilt temple (that Christ will no less build), with literal circumcision (Ezk. 44:9), with a restored Levitical priesthood (Ezk. 44), the reinstitution of atoning animal sacrifices (Ezk. 45-46), and all as a “memorial” no less, in a literal, earthly millennial reign. The Church, on the other hand, will have their own city suspended in the sky over the one that the Jews will reside in here on earth. Two different plans for two different people. Sound remarkable? It’s the truth! The “dividing wall” has been re-erected by such brethren as these! When pressed to give you answers, this is what they will tell you. But many do not dare say such things over their pulpits for fear, I’m sure, that they will be discovered for what they really teach and believe. How many Christians do you think would stay in some of these Churches once they were told by the Pastor that it is God’s will to rebuild temples, reinstate atoning animal sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood, and even circumcision (Ezk. 44:9), all according to their "literal" analysis of what Ezekiel’s vision of the temple is all about? Many, on the other hand, naïvely could care less, not really understanding the ramifications of what is being preached over their pulpits. It is truly “another gospel” that should have the announcement of “anathema” pronounced over it, not our blessing. This is serious stuff we are talking about here brethren, and not to be taken lightly. And we should begin to stop “playing” church and rubbing shoulders with such brethren as Peter did, and rebuke them sharply. This is no laughing matter.

I kid you not! Such brethren are teaching Christ’s people that the literal temple with all of its attending sacrifices and priesthood is all coming back. The “once for all” sacrifice of Christ was not enough. The “shadows” will return in all their glory, making what is to be more glorious than these (which is Christ himself) dim in comparison, when it is really the other way around. And all such teaching like this is a result of their “literal, face-value” hermeneutic. It is a “heresy” of the highest magnitude, a leaven which needs to be purged from our midst. Such doctrines truly bring “despite to the Spirit of grace” (Heb. 10:29) and, in essence, treat the work of Christ as “of no value” (Gal. 5:2; Heb. 13:9), even subjecting Christ to “public disgrace” (Heb. 6:6). And to side with the Jews in encouraging and promoting such a kingdom and idealism is “crucifying the Son of God afresh,” because such people are “adding” to the gospel and the work of Christ that which Christ’s sacrifice has brought to an end. We are not to teach any of this “unto” salvation (or for our justification), and we are not to teach it "after" we are saved either. Either way, we will never be obligated to perform such rituals ever again. It was just such a “yoke of slavery” that Paul told the Galatians to free themselves from (5:1), even wishing that such brethren would even be “emasculated” entirely from God’s people (Gal. 5:12). Even Peter eating with the Jews, and not with the Gentiles, was an hypocrisy to be noted of by Paul. And Paul used something just as rudimentary as that as a springboard for all that he was trying to explain to the Galatians to steer clear of (2:11-14), even calling one who rebuilds and practices such things as making themselves out to be “transgressors” or “lawbreakers” (v. 18) of God's Law, if indeed we are to still do those things, when just the opposite is the case for those of us who do not say we are to "rebuild" what has been "destroyed." In all honesty, they are the transgressors who "rebuild" such things, not us. We are the ones who are now observing God's law lawfully, not those who promote and encourage others to return to the shadows! “Come out of her My people,” says the Lord, “and touch not the unclean thing…Depart, depart, go out from there. Come out from it and be pure, you who carry the vessels of the Lord.” For,

Thus says the Lord:
Heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool;
what is the house that you would build for Me,
and what is the place of My rest?
All these things My hand has made,
and so all these things came to be, declares the Lord.
But this is the one to whom I will look:
he who is humble and contrite in spirit
and trembles at My Word.
He who slaughters an ox is like one who kills a man;
he who sacrifices a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog’s neck;
he who presents a grain offering,
like one who offers pig’s blood;
he who makes a memorial offering of frankincense,
like one who blesses an idol.
These have chosen their own ways,
and their soul delights in their abominations;
I also will choose harsh treatment for them
and bring their fears upon them,
because when I called, no one answered,
when I spoke, they did not listen;
but they did what was evil in My eyes
and chose that in which I did not delight.
Hear the word of the Lord,
you who tremble at His word:
Your brothers who hate you
and cast you out for My name’s sake have said,
‘Let the Lord be glorified, that we may see your joy’;
but it is they who shall be put to shame
(Isa. 66:1-5, ESV).

Though by this time such people ought to be teachers, they need that someone teach them again about these elementary truths about Christ. But enough of this, let us go on to perfection. And this we will do “if God permits.”

Things Aren’t As They Seem

Every single natural thing used in the world takes on a new meaning and connotation in Christ’s kingdom. Over 20 times in the book of John alone, Christ used natural concepts and ideas to convey spiritual truths about a kingdom that was not to be a natural kingdom like the kingdoms of this world. Everything in the natural world is used in the Bible as a metaphor for spiritual truths and ideas. All is up for grabs: Jerusalem, the Temple, Zion, Babylon, Egypt and Sodom; the Euphrates, the Red Sea, floods, rivers, streams, deserts, springs and water; Elijah, Joshua, David, Israel, and even all the names of the twelve tribes of Israel; similarly many numbers; as well as swords, shields, helmets and even axes and clubs; lions, bears, leopards, wolves, lambs, scorpions and locusts; along with forests, and all sorts of trees, including thorns and briers; mountains and valleys with all the attending rocks, soil and land; and even the sun, moon, and stars of heaven. The list just goes on and on. Some things are plainly interpreted for us, while others are meant for us to mine and uncover through the retraining of our minds and by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

Jesus poignantly stated, “Don’t you understand this parable? How then will you understand any parable?” (Mk. 4:13). The point being, that if we do not understand simple spiritual concepts or ideas that have already been plainly explained to us, how then are we to understand anything else that is to be spiritually discerned of even a more grandeur nature? There has to come a time, unlike the dispensationalist, that we are no longer spoon-fed all along the way as in Jhn. 2:21 mentioned earlier, but are able to come to some kind of comprehension of what exactly Christ and His kingdom is truly all about. And when we do, when we truly understand the nature of His kingdom, we will not come to many of the natural man-made, carnal, and literal conclusions that the Jews and many of our own so-called “brethren” are coming to (and I am not just talking about the naive and ignorant, but those who with a high-hand and with full knowledge forcefully promote, teach, and prophesy such doctrines). To all such self-made prophets and teachers, this is God’s Word to them:

Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel who are now prophesying. Say to those who prophesy out of their own imagination: ‘Hear the word of the Lord! This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit and have seen nothing!…You have not gone up to the breaks in the wall to repair it for the house of Israel so that it will stand firm in the battle on the day of the Lord. Their visions are false and their divinations a lie. They say, ‘The Lord declares’, when the Lord has not sent them; yet they expect their words to be fulfilled (Ezk. 13:2-6).

If we are to unlearn such doctrines, then we have to start understanding things about Christ’s kingdom in a non-literal and spiritual manner. As one person described it, “We have to put on our Jesus eyeglasses.”

Many of these “hidden mysteries” that Paul referred to earlier are like jewels, gold, and silver that are all embedded and encrusted right in the middle of something that actually is literally to be understood. And only the trained mind, exercised of all its demons and carnal thinking, can then become one who is in their right mind and able to interpret the Scriptures properly.

Proverbs says,

Let the wise listen and add to their learning, and let the discerning get guidance—for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise….If you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the Lord and find the knowledge of God (2:4-5).

Once in a while we may see a truth just laying right out there in the open (as in Jhn. 2:21), but much of what we learn from God's Word comes from a deeper understanding of Himself and his ways and His words that He uses to describe things with. It is all given to those who are His sheep—who hear His voice—and who are able to understand the mysteries of His kingdom. The natural mind cannot begin to understand them. It is all foolishness to such a person. And, sadly, many Christians are still in such a state of mind today. They are still carnal and natural in their understanding and thinking concerning what Christ is truly all about. Their affections are not set on things that are above. And as said before, when it is time that they ought to be teachers, they have need that one teach them again about the elementary teachings concerning the doctrines of Christ as discovered in all of the Old Testament types and shadows. Such a one is need of milk and not strong meat. What is about to be said throughout this article doesn’t get any “stronger” than this. That is why we have so many “choking” and “stumbling” over all of these things in God’s word. They haven’t “matured” to a level of having their senses exercised beyond their “natural” thinking that will take them on into the ethereal, heavenly and spiritual things of Christ. They are all truly, in a sense, still “of this world.”

Let’s be honest, a lot of these sayings can make many of us shake our heads and almost walk away in disbelief at the things being told us, even as they did with Jesus’ words. But Jesus asks us, “Will you walk away also?” We must reply, “Only you Lord have the words of life.” Such wisdom is truly only justified of her children. We must sit at the feet of Jesus and unlearn all that is contrary to His kind of kingdom, life and reign. Temples, building stones and blocks, and even sacrifices, all take on a whole new meaning in the New Covenant of Christ. Paul said it this way: “That is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words” (I Cor. 2:13 NIV). This is the “key” to understanding the “mysteries” of the kingdom: when we truly begin to understand much of what the prophets spoke of as “mysteries” about “spiritual truths” couched “in spiritual words.”

This all sounds so subjective at first (which those who are unlearned accuse such people of), but to the trained mind this all becomes so absolutely real and natural, or I should say, “spiritual.” It is even more real than that which is natural. As Hanegraaff so aptly stated in his book The Apocalypse Code, it comes by understanding the literary style and syntax and genre of that day (similar to poetry). When our minds become accustomed to what God is trying to say to us, only then do we begin to truly evaluate how something is to be understood, and this is only to be done by the Holy Spirit illuminating us. We begin to faintly hear the sound thereof until eventually it becomes a loud clanging cymbal.

God's prophets often used such figures of speech when depicting what He was going to do in the future, even before Christ ever used such language. The disciples came to Jesus and asked Him,

Why do you speak to the people in parables? He replied, ‘The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’ But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear….With many similar parables Jesus spoke the word to them, as much as they could understand. He did not say anything to them without using a parable. But when He was alone with His own disciples, He explained everything (Mat. 13:10-16; Mk. 4:33-34).

Jesus made constant use of metaphors and parables that many could not on the surface understand simply for the reason that it was not given unto them to understand the things of His kingdom. And it is still that way to this day, with both believers and unbelievers alike. So if you are trying to convince an unbeliever or skeptic, forget it! Christ’s “sheep” were the ones that were to hear and understand His voice, but even they are sometimes "dull of hearing." But His words are for them, and for them alone to understand. To the rest, well, you heard what the Lord himself has just said. Figurative language was no novel idea to Christ, and neither was it to the prophets. It is the heavenly language of God and of Christ. In Jhn. 16:25, Jesus said to His disciples, “Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language, but will tell you plainly about My Father.” He then speaks plainly and His disciples respond, “Now You are speaking clearly and without figures of speech” (v. 29). But this didn’t change the fact that what He had already said was “figurative” (or spiritual), and not literally to be understood at all. Jesus who spoke these things is the same “God” who said such things in a similar manner many times over in the Old Testament. So have no reservations about it, God often and repeatedly uses such language, both in the Old and New Testaments; and many times doing so without even explaining Himself right away. It is only after Christ's death and resurrection that the inspired writers of the gospels and the epistles began to give many of the interpretations to the things He had said with a “spiritual” connotation to them that He before had never explained. He left many to walk away reasoning among themselves that He must have been talking about literal concepts and ideas. It is no different today! Welcome to the new Jew of today—the dispensationalist mindset of today!

Many times God clearly does not restrict His meaning of the things that He says to that which is earthly and literal. He means what He says, but does not fix a rigid literal limitation to the meaning of His words as Jesus clearly exemplified for us. He has chosen literal objects, events, and ideas that are intended to represent, reveal, and direct us to the spiritual and heavenly truths behind them. He uses earthly words, stories, and examples from historical events, and even illustrations from the tabernacle of Moses and the temple of Solomon, to convey heavenly spiritual meanings. He has met us where we are at, and where we live, and uses such means in order to help illustrate or point out to us His spiritual plans and purposes. Truly the Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, but it is revealed and given its deeper spiritual meaning through Christ and His apostles. The book of Hebrews attempts to belabor all of this for us. Yet, even with all of that people still just don’t get it! People are still promoting “another gospel” for another time for the Jews that returns to a literal observance again of all that was typical and spoke of Christ, not only as the Suffering Servant but also as the King of kings and Lord of lords; not concerning that which is to be carnal and of this world but of that which is supernatural and of another world.

Examples of the spiritualizing principle abound in the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Yet contentment with a spiritual meaning is met with harsh criticism today, even as it was by many of the Jews who just could not see the forest for the trees. They missed the “big picture” so-to-speak as to what, or whom, Christ was really all about. Their overly “literal” hermeneutic caused them to stumble over God’s words. History is repeating itself all over again. But everything centered around the Jews, even right down to their very name, was all a “copy” and “type” that went far beyond what their natural physical eyes and ears could both see, hear or understand. If spiritualization is unwarranted, then we shall find ourselves in danger of placing our Lord and His apostles, if such reasoning is consistently carried forward, under similar criticism from those among us today.

When Jesus warned His literalist disciples to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees, they could think only of "literal" leaven being overlooked in "literal" bread. These followers of His exposed themselves as still hardened literalists who could not accept the truth that Christ in His sacrificial ministry was to also be the spiritual sustenance and bread without “leaven” from which they were to eat from. They were to remain "unleavened" from the world and its ways (and that included bad doctrine); literal leaven was the furthest thing from Christ's mind. Yet this is how most of us think of what God (or Christ) is referring to when we read or hear of such things. It is what we are "naturally" inclined to believe. But we need to be renewed in the spirit of our minds to start thinking spiritually and not naturally.

The person who I mentioned earlier, who is a dispensationalist, had this to say about how we are to understand God's Word:

Paul instructed the church at Corinth that “we write nothing else to you than what you read and understand, and I hope you will understand until the end” (2Cor. 1:13). In other words, if they could read it, they could understand it. All a believer needs is [natural] eyes to read and [natural] ears to hear with. That is the fundamental hermeneutic every believer should employ, because that is God’s divinely revealed method for studying and understanding His divinely revealed truth….In essence the apostle was telling these believers that if they had [physical] eyes to read God’s Word or [physical] ears to hear it, they could understand it. God’s Word was written plainly and simply in order that plain and simple people like you and me, without theological degrees, can understand it (ibid, pp. 23, 32; words in brackets mine).

That’s it! All someone needs is natural eyes to see and physical ears to hear, and voila! they can completely understand God’s Word on any issue. This comes from a dispensationalist who holds strictly to a literal, face-value hermeneutic, who even states:

Because of my hermeneutic, there was but one meaning to the text and that was the meaning intended by the writer of the text, not the reader, plain and simple….In my opinion, any fulfillment of prophecy other than a face-value fulfillment is meaningless. If someone predicts that something is going to happen in a certain way, at a certain time, and then it doesn’t happen that way, he obviously is no prophet and his predictions are worthless…Only when predictions are fulfilled exactly as stated do we gain confidence in the one making the predictions… (ibid, p. 37).

I guess this rules out the prophecy of Malachi and the interpretation given by Christ that Elijah who was to come was John the Baptist (Mal. 4:5; Mat. 11:14-15; 17;11-12). By such standards used by this brother above, Malachi’s prophecy was “meaningless” and Jesus’ interpretation of it is “worthless,” and we should have “no confidence” in what Christ has told us. This sounds more like a human rationalist or natural Jew, rather than a true believer. You tell me!

To say that the literal meaning must always be the most plain, concrete, and obvious meaning is to prejudge and presuppose a meaning upon these texts based solely upon human rules that should be understood in order to understand the kind of language that is being employed by God.

Charles Ryrie, the dispensationalist out of Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas also writes:

If one does not use the plain, normal, or literal method of interpretation, all objectivity is lost. What check would there be on the variety of interpretations which man’s imagination could produce if there were not an objective standard which the literal principle provides? (Dispensationalism Today, p. 88).

In response to Ryrie, two things may be noted here: First of all, the “literal” method is no guarantee for a check on the imagination, for then one must ask, “How far is one to go with the literal”? On the other hand, what is the “objective standard” to which Ryrie refers? It is to be more of a philosophical rationalism that is imposed upon the Scriptures as ascertained from the reader’s own mind, but not from God’s?

Such a person will never be in a position to compare spiritual truths using spiritual words and ideas, because for him it is all literal unless clearly told otherwise in the immediate context. If what the previous dispensationalist I mentioned earlier before Ryrie knows by his literal hermeneutic is to be so clearly understood, then why is it that he stands in disagreement with other dispensationalists who hold to a pre-trib rapture as opposed to a pre-wrath rapture that he and Marvin Rosenthal believe in. Clearly their “literal hermeneutic” hasn’t helped them to come to a unified position on that matter either. And the dissimilarities don’t just end there. So how can we have any real “confidence” in them and their so-called "literal hermeneutic"?

When Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah who was prophesied to come, He concluded, “He who has ears, let him hear” (Mat. 14-15). Who having “physical” eyes to read or “natural” ears to hear can come to such a conclusion as this of Jesus? I sure wouldn’t have. And believe it or not, many today, based upon their literal hermeneutic still believe that this prophecy in Malachi is still going to be literally fulfilled in the physical return of Elijah someday. Some even affirm that it found a double fulfillment in John the Baptist and the appearance of Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration. Such “double fulfillment” theories are utter nonsense, for then we could never really know when a prophecy is to be actually fulfilled. God meant what He said, and Jesus (or God) said what God meant. Elijah to come was John the Baptist.

Another person online wrote with regards to this "double fulfillment" idea:

After seeing Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, the disciples asked Jesus about Elijah. “Was not Elijah to come first”? Jesus explained that John the Baptist was Elijah. Yet Jesus also said, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things” (Matt. 17:11). The phrase, “will restore all things” contains a future-tense verb. Elijah had already come, but had not restored all things. Yet Elijah will come, and will restore all things. There are two comings of Christ, and also two comings of Elijah.

But this person forgot to quote the rest of Jesus’ comment. This is a classic example of taking a text out of context in order to establish one's own pretext. When Malachi penned this prophecy it was future tense, and Jesus was clearly referring to it from that advantage point, but it was fulfilled in the person and work of John the Baptist. Jesus continued in verse 12, “But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way [i.e., like John the Baptist] the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” What is interesting here also is that Christ said they didn’t “recognize him.” Well, according to the person mentioned above, I thought all we had to do is “physically” be able to read and “physically” be able to hear and we will all know who or what God is referring to! Even having physical eyes could not help them, for such things could only be discerned spiritually. But even with all that Jesus said they could not “recognize” the fact that Elijah was John the Baptist and that he (Christ) would similarly suffer like John the Baptist. The “hearing” that Jesus was referring to here was not of the natural kind. Do you “see” (not "literally," mind you) how the literalist has again missed the point? This is exactly what I am talking about here. It was a problem for the Jews back then, and it is still a problem for many today. Again, wisdom will only be truly justified “of her children.”

Another dispensationalist online that I came across wrote,

The author of Revelation would have never picked words that have this natural interpretation, if his true meaning is in direct contradiction to the very natural meaning. Natural interpretation doesn't include complicated and hard-to-understand interpretations, given the knowledge of the reader.

Are you kidding me? That would be like saying, “Jesus would never have picked words that have a natural interpretation, if His true meaning is in direct contradiction to the very natural meaning of those words!” And furthermore, Jesus spoke using natural everyday language that was indeed with “complicated and hard-to-understand interpretations.” And if it weren’t for the apostles having given us the sense of what God or Christ has said, we would all still be in the dark scratching our heads.

Now Jesus had said that John the Baptist was Elijah who was to come, spiritually speaking. In other words, one similar to Elijah would come in the Spirit and power of Elijah. That is all that we can gather from this, and nothing more, as Zechariah even affirmed: “And he [John the Baptist] will go on before the Lord, in the Spirit and power of Elijah” (Lke. 1:17). So there you have it! Again, we have been led by the hand of another on this one. And as noted before, when Jesus was talking about having “ears to hear” He was not talking about “physically” hearing, but spiritually understanding what He was saying by the Spirit of God, “expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words” (1Cor. 2:13 NIV). Such a kind of “seeing” and “hearing” doesn’t just come automatically (or "naturally") to an individual just so long as “they had eyes to read God’s Word or ears to hear it, they could understand it.” True, one does not need “theological degrees” to understand God’s Word, but neither does understanding come "simply" by just reading or audibly hearing God’s Word. Jesus Himself said, “But the Counselor, or the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things…” (Jhn. 14:26). John likewise affirmed, “As for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as His anointing teaches you about all things…just as it has taught you, remain in Him” (1Jhn. 2:27). And Paul similarly said in 1Cor. 2:9-10,

“No eye has [physically] seen,
no ear has [physically] heard,
no mind has [physically] conceived…
but God has revealed it to us by His Spirit”

Does one really believe that as long as one has “physical” eyes to see and “natural” ears to hear, and that by following a literal hermeneutic Christ would have said the prophecy in Malachi about Elijah coming that it would be John the Baptist? Or, that the rebuilding of the fallen tabernacle of David in Amos 9:11 would have been the commencement and building of Christ’s kingdom through the Church and the inclusion of the Gentiles (Acts 15:16)? Or, that the temple is now us, all made up of “living” spiritual stones, and of whom it is said we are now the spiritual sacrifices to be offered up to God? (1Pet. 2:5, et al). Or what about even Paul figuratively speaking of Hagar and Sarah as the two covenants and two different cities of Jerusalem, one in bondage with her children here on earth (which speaks of natural Israel), the other free with her children who are from above (which speaks of spiritual Israel)?

But such is the Messiah’s city. Such is the Messiah’s tabernacle or temple. And the Holy Spirit is the Messiah’s Living water which flows from out of this temple. We are the Messiah’s building blocks and the Messiah’s sacrifices. And it is all spiritual, spiritual, spiritual! There is nothing natural, carnal, or worldly about our Messiah’s kingdom and His people who are in it. Our kingdom and our King are clearly of “another world,” and from “another place,” and we are to set our affections upon these things that are from above and heavenly, and not on that which is earthly or of this world (Col. 3:1-2). Our kingdom is a kingdom "of God" and "of heaven," which reveals both its origin and its originator. It is never to be a kingdom on earth made with men's hand. (click here for part 2)



Footnotes:

[1] (http://www.equip.org/articles/the-analogy-of-faith).

[2] Van Kampen, Robert: The Rapture Question Answered. Grand Rapids, MI: Revell div. of Baker Books, 1997, p. 28.