Beware of Taking Biblical End-Times Prophecies Too Literally
When confronted with biblical prophecies of the end-times, there are many Christians today who will insist on always trying to interpret them as literally as possible.
Of course, there are times when we should immediately rule out figurative interpretations of end-times prophecies. An example can be found in Acts 1:11. Here two angels tell the eleven apostles that Jesus will return to earth in the same way that they have watched Him ascend to heaven. Obviously, the angels' words should be taken literally. To 'spiritualise' them into something else would be a misinterpretation.
Despite the existence of prophecies like this that require a literal fulfillment, I am sure that many Christians are often too quick to rule out the possibility that a figurative interpretation of a prophecy might be the correct one.
I think this is often down to a kind of misguided zeal. Many believers seem to have the idea that as a general rule literal means faithful to the Bible, while figurative means compromising with the truth. This, however, simply does not square with what we find in Scripture itself. As always, the Bible is its own best interpreter. The following are three examples of biblical prophecies that have a non-literal fulfillment:
(1) In John 2:19, while in the temple courts in Jerusalem, Jesus prophesies: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'
The Jews listening to Him take His prophecy literally and pour scorn on His supposed claim to be able to build such a magnificent structure as the temple in three days (v. 20). As v. 21 makes clear, however, Jesus' prophecy was actually figurative and had to do with His body. By interpreting the prophecy literally, His hearers had misunderstood it.
It is true that Jesus' words may have some kind of secondary level of meaning that refers to the literal temple, and interpreters debate this. Nevertheless, even if there is a secondary level to the saying, the primary level of meaning is still figurative. Furthermore, any secondary reference to the literal temple is certainly not literal as far as being raised up in three days is concerned.
What is even more noteworthy about Jesus' prophecy here is that He gives it when He is at the literal temple in Jerusalem. The context, then, might seem to strongly suggest that His prophecy is referring first and foremost to the literal temple. But no. Even though He is at the literal temple at the time, His prophecy about the temple, at least at its primary level, has to do with something else.
(2) In Amos 9:11-12 a prophecy is given as follows:
11 ' "On that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, and I will repair its breaches and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, 12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name", declares the LORD who does this.'
In Acts 15:16-18 we find James the brother of the Lord pointing to the fulfillment of this prophecy in his own day, citing it in these words:
16 ' "After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17 so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name", 18 says the Lord who makes these things known from long ago.'
There are many complicated aspects to this prophecy and fulfillment, not least that the form of the prophecy in Acts differs considerably from the one found in Amos. Happily, this difference is not our concern here.
We are interested in how literally the prophecy is fulfilled, and we will stick to considering howAmos 9:11 is fulfilled in Acts 15:16, because Amos 9:12 is cited in such a different way in Acts 15:17 (although Acts 15:17 will come into the discussion below).
Importantly, James understands Amos 9:11 to be fulfilled in a very non-literal way.
The context in Acts (vv. 1-15) concerns the fact that Gentiles are becoming Christians, and James clearly believes that the words he quotes in v. 17 are being fulfilled in the Gentile mission of Paul and others.
We need to note that v. 17 is introduced by the words 'so that', which shows that the seeking of the Lord by the Gentiles in v. 17 is dependent on what is happening in v. 16. It seems clear that James understands the rebuilding and restoration of the tent of David in v. 16 (= Amos 9:11) to be fulfilled in the ministry of Christ (probably both His earthly and heavenly ministries). Nothing else would make sense in the context.
At first sight Amos 9:11, with its mention of raising up, repairing and rebuilding David's fallen booth, might have seemed to be prophesying the restoration of the Davidic monarchy in a succession of kings. However, this interpretation (which is in itself far from literal) would have been a misinterpretation. The real fulfillment was even less literal and actually concerned Jesus' ministry.
Nor does it seem possible that there were two levels of fulfillment of this prophecy, with the first referring to a succession of kings. That would not fit with Jewish history, in which there was no restoration of the Davidic monarchy after the exile. Apparently, the prophecy of Amos 9:11 was not fulfilled until the church's mission to the Gentiles. And importantly for our purposes, it was fulfilled in a highly figurative and non-literal way.
(3) In Jer 33:15 Jeremiah prophesies that God will cause an upright Branch of David to sprout, and the Branch is of course Jesus Christ.
In the next few verses some other things are prophesied as happening in the context of the sprouting of this Branch. Verse 18 is especially noteworthy. In it God states: '. . . the Levitical priests will never fail to have a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually'.
A literal reading of this prophecy would be to completely misunderstand it. The book of Hebrews makes clear how Jesus' once-and-never-again sacrifice of Himself on the cross has put an end to the sacrifices of the Levitical priests (esp. chs. 8-10), so it is impossible that Jer 33:18 can mean that Jewish priests will continue to offer literal sacrifices indefinitely after Jesus' appearance on the scene.
Furthermore, it is surely true that Jesus Himself fulfilled/fulfills the prophecy of v. 18 in His role as our high priest. No other interpretation seems plausible. However, when Jesus' high-priesthood is being described in Hebrews, the author stresses that He was not a high priest in the order of Aaron (i.e., a Levitical priest), but a high priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10; 6:20; 7:1-28).
The fulfillment of Jer 33:18, then, is strikingly non-literal.
These three examples - to which many others could be added - make it clear that there are times when biblical prophecies need to be taken figuratively and not literally. As I have already mentioned, there are also times when prophecies have to be understood literally. In fact, the Bible contains examples of prophecies that should be interpreted at all places on the spectrum from strictly literal to highly figurative.
When it comes to as yet unfulfilled end-times prophecies, then, we would expect the same to be true. Unless it is immediately obvious that we should interpret a given prophecy literally or figuratively, we should be cautious and open to either a literal or non-literal fulfillment. Any other approach does not do justice to what we find in Scripture itself.
Part of my motivation for writing this article is the deep concern I have about those Christians who think that the Bible prophesies the existence of another literal temple in Jerusalem, especially those who are encouraging the Jews to rebuild one. According to Scripture, the sacrificial system is right at the heart of how the Jerusalem temple is designed and what it is all about, so a future Jerusalem temple without sacrifices seems a contradiction in terms. However, we know that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross has rendered all temple sacrifices obsolete. What is more, the Bible describes both the individual Christian's body, and Christians corporately, as God's temple, the reason being that under the New Covenant in Christ's blood we are now God's dwelling place instead of the Jerusalem temple. Lastly, nothing in the Bible even hints that there has to be a rebuilt temple that is in some way opposed to God. It is for reasons like these that I find it virtually inconceivable that the Bible prophesies the existence of another literal temple in Jerusalem. Whether it might prophesy some sort of future figurative temple is another matter entirely.
I have been a Christian for over 25 years. I have a Ph.D. in New Testament Language, Literature and Theology from the University of Edinburgh. I am a UK national and I currently live in the south of Scotland.
When confronted with biblical prophecies of the end-times, there are many Christians today who will insist on always trying to interpret them as literally as possible.
Of course, there are times when we should immediately rule out figurative interpretations of end-times prophecies. An example can be found in Acts 1:11. Here two angels tell the eleven apostles that Jesus will return to earth in the same way that they have watched Him ascend to heaven. Obviously, the angels' words should be taken literally. To 'spiritualise' them into something else would be a misinterpretation.
Despite the existence of prophecies like this that require a literal fulfillment, I am sure that many Christians are often too quick to rule out the possibility that a figurative interpretation of a prophecy might be the correct one.
I think this is often down to a kind of misguided zeal. Many believers seem to have the idea that as a general rule literal means faithful to the Bible, while figurative means compromising with the truth. This, however, simply does not square with what we find in Scripture itself. As always, the Bible is its own best interpreter. The following are three examples of biblical prophecies that have a non-literal fulfillment:
(1) In John 2:19, while in the temple courts in Jerusalem, Jesus prophesies: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.'
The Jews listening to Him take His prophecy literally and pour scorn on His supposed claim to be able to build such a magnificent structure as the temple in three days (v. 20). As v. 21 makes clear, however, Jesus' prophecy was actually figurative and had to do with His body. By interpreting the prophecy literally, His hearers had misunderstood it.
It is true that Jesus' words may have some kind of secondary level of meaning that refers to the literal temple, and interpreters debate this. Nevertheless, even if there is a secondary level to the saying, the primary level of meaning is still figurative. Furthermore, any secondary reference to the literal temple is certainly not literal as far as being raised up in three days is concerned.
What is even more noteworthy about Jesus' prophecy here is that He gives it when He is at the literal temple in Jerusalem. The context, then, might seem to strongly suggest that His prophecy is referring first and foremost to the literal temple. But no. Even though He is at the literal temple at the time, His prophecy about the temple, at least at its primary level, has to do with something else.
(2) In Amos 9:11-12 a prophecy is given as follows:
11 ' "On that day I will raise up the fallen booth of David, and I will repair its breaches and raise up its ruins and rebuild it as in the days of old, 12 that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations who are called by My name", declares the LORD who does this.'
In Acts 15:16-18 we find James the brother of the Lord pointing to the fulfillment of this prophecy in his own day, citing it in these words:
16 ' "After these things I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen, and I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, 17 so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name", 18 says the Lord who makes these things known from long ago.'
There are many complicated aspects to this prophecy and fulfillment, not least that the form of the prophecy in Acts differs considerably from the one found in Amos. Happily, this difference is not our concern here.
We are interested in how literally the prophecy is fulfilled, and we will stick to considering howAmos 9:11 is fulfilled in Acts 15:16, because Amos 9:12 is cited in such a different way in Acts 15:17 (although Acts 15:17 will come into the discussion below).
Importantly, James understands Amos 9:11 to be fulfilled in a very non-literal way.
The context in Acts (vv. 1-15) concerns the fact that Gentiles are becoming Christians, and James clearly believes that the words he quotes in v. 17 are being fulfilled in the Gentile mission of Paul and others.
We need to note that v. 17 is introduced by the words 'so that', which shows that the seeking of the Lord by the Gentiles in v. 17 is dependent on what is happening in v. 16. It seems clear that James understands the rebuilding and restoration of the tent of David in v. 16 (= Amos 9:11) to be fulfilled in the ministry of Christ (probably both His earthly and heavenly ministries). Nothing else would make sense in the context.
At first sight Amos 9:11, with its mention of raising up, repairing and rebuilding David's fallen booth, might have seemed to be prophesying the restoration of the Davidic monarchy in a succession of kings. However, this interpretation (which is in itself far from literal) would have been a misinterpretation. The real fulfillment was even less literal and actually concerned Jesus' ministry.
Nor does it seem possible that there were two levels of fulfillment of this prophecy, with the first referring to a succession of kings. That would not fit with Jewish history, in which there was no restoration of the Davidic monarchy after the exile. Apparently, the prophecy of Amos 9:11 was not fulfilled until the church's mission to the Gentiles. And importantly for our purposes, it was fulfilled in a highly figurative and non-literal way.
(3) In Jer 33:15 Jeremiah prophesies that God will cause an upright Branch of David to sprout, and the Branch is of course Jesus Christ.
In the next few verses some other things are prophesied as happening in the context of the sprouting of this Branch. Verse 18 is especially noteworthy. In it God states: '. . . the Levitical priests will never fail to have a man before Me to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to prepare sacrifices continually'.
A literal reading of this prophecy would be to completely misunderstand it. The book of Hebrews makes clear how Jesus' once-and-never-again sacrifice of Himself on the cross has put an end to the sacrifices of the Levitical priests (esp. chs. 8-10), so it is impossible that Jer 33:18 can mean that Jewish priests will continue to offer literal sacrifices indefinitely after Jesus' appearance on the scene.
Furthermore, it is surely true that Jesus Himself fulfilled/fulfills the prophecy of v. 18 in His role as our high priest. No other interpretation seems plausible. However, when Jesus' high-priesthood is being described in Hebrews, the author stresses that He was not a high priest in the order of Aaron (i.e., a Levitical priest), but a high priest in the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10; 6:20; 7:1-28).
The fulfillment of Jer 33:18, then, is strikingly non-literal.
These three examples - to which many others could be added - make it clear that there are times when biblical prophecies need to be taken figuratively and not literally. As I have already mentioned, there are also times when prophecies have to be understood literally. In fact, the Bible contains examples of prophecies that should be interpreted at all places on the spectrum from strictly literal to highly figurative.
When it comes to as yet unfulfilled end-times prophecies, then, we would expect the same to be true. Unless it is immediately obvious that we should interpret a given prophecy literally or figuratively, we should be cautious and open to either a literal or non-literal fulfillment. Any other approach does not do justice to what we find in Scripture itself.
Part of my motivation for writing this article is the deep concern I have about those Christians who think that the Bible prophesies the existence of another literal temple in Jerusalem, especially those who are encouraging the Jews to rebuild one. According to Scripture, the sacrificial system is right at the heart of how the Jerusalem temple is designed and what it is all about, so a future Jerusalem temple without sacrifices seems a contradiction in terms. However, we know that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross has rendered all temple sacrifices obsolete. What is more, the Bible describes both the individual Christian's body, and Christians corporately, as God's temple, the reason being that under the New Covenant in Christ's blood we are now God's dwelling place instead of the Jerusalem temple. Lastly, nothing in the Bible even hints that there has to be a rebuilt temple that is in some way opposed to God. It is for reasons like these that I find it virtually inconceivable that the Bible prophesies the existence of another literal temple in Jerusalem. Whether it might prophesy some sort of future figurative temple is another matter entirely.
I have been a Christian for over 25 years. I have a Ph.D. in New Testament Language, Literature and Theology from the University of Edinburgh. I am a UK national and I currently live in the south of Scotland.
No comments:
Post a Comment