Tag: literal

Reformation Gems 3: William Greenhill on the Conversion of the Jews and Ezekiel’s Temple

~ Bob Hayton

Reformation Gems are excerpts from selections contained in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, a new commentary series from IVP which gathers the best Reformation-era comments on the text together all in one set. The volumes in this commentary series resurrect long-forgotten voices from the Reformation age and in so doing they recover the piety and vivacity of that era. I hope that by sharing some excerpts from this series, I will edify my readers and promote this important commentary series.
 _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _ 

Today’s selection comes from the Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Volume XII (Ezekiel, Daniel). In perusing the comments on Ezekiel, I was surprised to see quite a bit about the prophesied conversion of the Jews and their return to the Promised Land. Most of the comments in that vein came from William Greenhill or Matthew Meade (one of his fellow non-conformist ministers). While many today herald the formation of the modern nation of Israel in 1948 as evidence that God has kept this promise, most still hold to a future conversion of Jewish people to Christianity. Many Reformed theologians, amillennialists and the like, understand the return to the land to be fulfilled already historically, and ultimately that it points to Christ and the greater inheritance that His Church experiences. In this vein, see my “Understanding the Land Promise” series. But I found it insightful to see this same question wrestled with in the 1600s soon after the Reformation by Greenhill, Matthew Meade and others.

Here are some excerpts from Greenhill’s comments, as well as evidence that he wouldn’t quite fit the mold of a standard dispensationalist, when it comes to his thoughts on other aspects of Ezekiel’s prophecy. He takes a literal view of the land in some passages, and in others, he sees a spiritual fulfillment:

Literal interpretation of a future “conversion of the Jews” and “return to the land.”

Ezekiel 37:21-22
…The conversion of the Jews we may with warrant expect and pray for. God has promised to gather the children of Israel and to bring them to David their king, that is, Christ…. Seeing God has promised to do it, we may believe and pray for the same. (pg. 185)

Ezekiel 37:26-27
Some look on this promise of David to be king over the Jews as accomplished in the reign of Christ the Messiah when here on earth because he gave out his commands then and required obedience to them…. Others are of a different judgment and believe that this great promise made here to the two houses of Judah and Israel remains yet to be performed: (1) Because the two houses are not yet united into one…. (2) Because the Jews do not own Christ; neither one house nor the other do it; neither Judah nor Israel acknowledged Christ to be the Messiah…. (3) The Jews have been, and are still, under many kings and shepherds…. (4) They shall then walk in the ways of Christ, not the ways of Moses….

From Ezekiel 37:26-27 I shall only give you this observation that there are great and precious promises that concern the Jews, yet unperformed. The everlasting covenant of peace, Christ being their king and temple, with many others, the Jews expect the fulfilling of. And so may we, for God is faithful and will make good his word. (pg. 187)

Ezekiel 39:25-29
God hid his face seventy years from them in Babylon; and since their crucifying of Christ, he has hid it from them sixteen hundred years. But he has a time to let them see his face again, and never more to hide it from them. They shall have his favor, his counsel, his help and protection. They shall not be under severe judgments but enjoy sweet mercies. (pg. 193)

Spiritual interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple.

Ezekiel 41:1-7
“Of the signification of this temple.” Some make the court belonging to it to represent the world and the temple to represent heaven. It may be considered whether the porch does not point out the common professor of the faith, the temple, the true saints, who are temples of the Spirit, and the holy of holies, the saints in glory, the condition of those made perfect. The true representation of this temple, I take it, is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ; both his body natural and his body mystical, namely, the church. (pg. 207)

Ezekiel 45:1-6
Having laid down the platform and measures of the temple, he comes now to the division and measuring of the land, wherein things are dark, difficult and deep, not to be attempted by human strength but by the help of Christ’s Spirit, which makes dark things, light, difficult things easy and sounds the greatest depths.

…There was a distinction of the land of Canaan in Moses’ and Joshua’s days (Num 34, 35; Josh 13, 21). But this division differs much from the same, and when the Jews returned from Babylon, there was no such division made of the land. Had it been, Ezra or Nehemiah would have made mention of it. This division, therefore, is not to be understood literally but spiritually, and the completing of it to be looked for in the church of Christ, not in the Jewish state or temple. Here, then, seems to be a spiritual lotting, and bringing people out of Judaism and heathenism into the kingdom of Christ and fellowship of the gospel…. The work of grace, and bringing of people into the church, is free; nothing in people, or from people, procures it. (pg. 220)

Ezekiel 47:13-23
Having given you the literal sense of the words… now let us see what may be the spiritual sense of them. Indeed, according to the letter, they were not fulfilled after the return from Babylon, but mystically under the gospel they were.

1. Then here is held out to us the great extent and largeness of the church under Christ and the gospel. The land mentioned signifies the church’s state; and the bordering of it out, north, east, south, west, the extent of it into all parts. The Christian church is larger than the Jewish, that was shut up in one nation; now it reaches to all nations (Mt 28:19), neither Asia, Africa, Europe or America is excluded (Mt 24:14; Lk 24:47; Rev 15:4). The church under the gospel is universal and invisible.

2. Those who are subjects or members of this church are not hypocrites but Israelites. Those who were not Israelites, and true Israelites, were not to be in this church…. true Israelites, such as Nathaniel was (Jn 1:47); of Jews inwardly, such as are circumcised in heart and spirit (Rom 2:29); of such as are enrolled in heaven (Heb 12:23); of sealed ones (Rev 7), and these stood with the Lamb on Mount Zion (Rev 14:1). These made up the church and body of Christ. (pg. 227-228)

About the Reformation-era author: William Greenhill (1591-1671). English nonconformist clergyman. Greenhill attended and worked at Magdalen College. He ministered in the diocese of Norwich but soon left for London, where he preached at Stepney. Greenhill was a member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines and was appointed the parliament chaplain by the children of Charles I. Oliver Cromwell included him among the preachers who helped draw up the Savoy Declaration. Greenhill was evicted from his post following the Restoration, after which he pastored independently. Among Greenhill’s most significant contributions to church history was his Exposition of the Prophet of Ezekiel. (pg. 434-435)

Learn more about this commentary series at the Reformation Commentary page at IVPress.com, or check out this sampler (PDF). You can pick up a copy of Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Volume XII (Ezekiel, Daniel) at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble or direct from IVP. You may want to consider becoming a member with IVP and getting the entire series on a subscription discount of more than 40% per volume.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by IVP. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

On Approaching Revelation Literally

~ Bob Hayton

I’ve been thinking about the relative merits of approaching the book of Revelation with the aim of taking all the visions and judgments literally as opposed to symbolicly. Rev. 1:1 does say that John has a message for us to know, but it says more than this. This message was “signified” to John (this is the alternate reading in the footnote of the NASB, the main text has “communicated”). The word for “signified” is semaino, which means to “communicate by symbols.” So John in effect is answering our question: he is telling us his book communicates via symbolism.

For more help on the question of how to approach Revelation I turned to Invitation to Biblical Interpretation by Andreas J. Köstenberger and Richard D. Patterson for help. Their book is endorsed by a wide assortment of conservative evangelical scholars and is the best work on hermeneutics I’ve ever read. (Read my reiew here.) I found their comments on this question insightful.

What could be wrong with interpreting apocalyptic literature such as Revelation literally? The main problem with such an approach is that it inadequately considers that the literary genre of a given text establishes the rules for how it should be interpreted. Meaning is intrinsically bound up with genre.119 It follows that genre provides a context assigned by the author to communicate meaning. We have already shown that the genre of Revelation is prophetic-apocalyptic. The apocalyptic genre, by definition, is highly symbolic and not intended to be interpreted in a literal manner. For this reason, a rigid literal interpretation or literalism may actually obscure the author’s intended meaning rather than expose it. Kevin Vanhoozer correctly poses a distinction between the literal sense and literalism.120 If the interpreter is concerned with authorial intention, the literal sense must not be reduced merely to letters, langue, or locutions. Vanhoozer contends that “literalistic reading is less than fully ‘literal’–that it is insufficiently and only ‘thinly’ literal–insofar as it ignores the role of authorial intentions and communicative acts.”121 What Vanhoozer means by this is that the literal–but not the “literalistic”–sense is what the author intended to convey by a given text; this, in turn, is especially true for figurative and symbolic language. In other words, if Revelation is prophetic-apocalyptic in nature, ascribing literalism to its numbers, proper nouns, and other images may actually prevent a proper understanding of John’s intended meaning.122 A more profitable hermeneutical approach is to reverse the interpretive order by placing the symbolic in the foreground while shifting the literal into the background. Thus, rather than positing the dictum “When the literal makes sense, seek no other sense,” we suggest that a better maxim in interpreting apocalyptic is “Start out with the assumption that a given statement or image is figurative rather than literal.”

G.K. Beale makes a strong case for the primacy of the symbolic over straight one-to-one literal correspondence.123 He argues that semaino in Revelation 1:1 conveys the idea of “communication by symbols,”124 noting that the normal usage of semaino in Scripture implies some type of “symbolic communication.”125 Since Revelation is a symbolic means of communication, the literal approach for interpreting the “plain sense” of the image may actually distort the intended meaning of the text. Beale maintains, “Of course, some parts are not symbolic, but the essence of the book is figurative. Where there is lack of clarity about whether something is symbolic, the scales of judgement should be tilted in the direction of a nonliteral analysis.”126 For reasons such as these, the symbolic plane should be considered primary while care should be taken not to reduce the meaning of symbols to something exclusively spiritual.

(pg. 550-551)

Footnotes
119 Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation, 236.
120 Vanhoozer, Is There a Meaning in This Text?, 310.
121 Ibid, 311.
122 Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 90.
123 Beale, Book of Revelation, 50-55.
124 Ibid, 52.
125 Ibid, 51. See the discussion of the allusion to Daniel 2:28-30 (LXX) in Revelation 1:1.
126 Ibid, 52.

The authors go on in their book to explain how Revelation itself, through John’s extensive use of the Old Testament (quoting and alluding to OT Scripture, as well as making use of well known OT symbols), helps us when it comes to discerning when and where symbolism exists and how to interpret it.

For my part, knowing that the author intended his book to “communicate by symbols” (Rev. 1:1) as an apocalyptic book, requires me to take this into account as I approach this great book.

John Sailhamer’s Messianic Interpretation of the Song of Solomon

~ Bob Hayton ~ 8 Comments

I came across the NIV Compact Bible Commentary and was delighted to find that John Sailhamer was its author. I’ve so enjoyed his The Meaning of the Pentateuch, that I picked up his commentary on the Pentateuch. I’m going to have to pick up this compact Bible commentary of his as well.

I was able to read the section on the Song of Solomon and was fascinated by Sailhamer’s insights, which I plan to share here. The following quotes are from his treatment of the book on pages 359-361 in the NIV Compact Bible Commentary (Zondervan, 1994), emphasis added.

Sailhamer begins by briefly recounting the traditional figurative interpretations of the book and the quite literal modern interpretations.

Although it is, on the face of it, just that–an ode to human love–one must ask whether it was originally intended to be read as such by its first audience. There are some indications within the book itself that suggest it was not…. There is no question that the book is a poetic drama of a lover’s longing for his beloved and of her willing complicity. To suggest, however, that this drama of two lovers is, in fact, the intent of the book is to confuse the poetic imagery with the purpose of the poem.

He is careful to say that this does not “justify the wholesale allegorizations of the poem that have characterized much of its history.” He admits the picture of the relationship of God/Christ with Israel/the Church, is a wonderful picture, but avers “there are no clues within the book itself to support such a reading. In the last analysis, one’s interpretation should come from within the book itself, and preferably from the clues given by the author himself.”

Sailhamer goes on to uncover several clues which do confirm that there is more to the Song than may meet the natural eye, however. He first points out from the overall structure of the book, that “the ‘reflections of love’ of the lover and the beloved do not progress and build in intensity in the course of the poem itself.” This is no average love story. He also argues that “though the poetic imagery comes close at times to suggesting the lover and his beloved have in fact come together and joined themselves in that union that they so longingly describe, the structure of the book itself suggests that has not yet happened.” Rather, the “lovers’ quest is an ideal, a longed-for desire that lies beyond their own grasp.”

Setting aside these preliminary observations for the moment, we come to Sailhamer’s focus on the “larger structural movement given to the poem by the author.” The repeated refrain throughout the book reads, “Do not arouse or awaken love until she [NIV, it] so desires” (2:7b; 3:5b; 8:4b). The meaning of this refrain comes from its connection to 8:5b where the author links it with the last statements made by the beloved (the woman): “Under the apple tree I roused you; there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth.” In this connection, Sailhamer sees an allusion to two other key biblical texts: the prologue of Proverbs (chapters 1-9), and the account of the Fall in Genesis 3.

If an illusion [sic] is intended to these passages, it suggests that “the beloved” in the Song of Solomon is intended to be understood as a personification of “wisdom” and Solomon, or “the lover,” is intended as a picture of the “promised seed” of Ge 3:15, i.e., the Messiah.

He goes on:

What appears to have happened in the composition of the Song of Songs is that the author has seen in this love-song the possibility of a portrait of Israel’s long-awaited messianic king. Solomon, the son of David (cf. 2Sa 7:16), whose quest for wisdom characterizes the central core of the book of Proverbs, speaks in the prologue of that book of binding wisdom to himself and on his heart (Pr 3:3; 7:1-3) in the same way that in this book [Song of Solomon] the beloved says, “Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm” (8:6). Moreover, in Proverbs Solomon says, “Say to wisdom, ‘You are my sister'” (Pr 7:4), just as here the beloved says, “If only you were to me like a brother” (8:1). An extended comparison of these two books suggests that these are not mere coincidental similarities of words and phrases, but rather a deliberate “inter-textuality,” or allusion of one text to another. Such verbal links and allusions between the personified Dame Wisdom in the book of Proverbs and the young beloved in the Song of Songs invite our attempts to see a larger purpose behind this love song. I have suggested that such a purpose is to be found in the growing messianic hope found in these sections [i.e. the Wisdom Literature] of the OT.

Thus far then, Sailhamer has shown “the Song of Songs is intended as a portrait of the promised Messiah’s love for divine wisdom.” He goes on:

The Messiah is here pictured by Solomon, and “wisdom” is personified by the young and beautiful beloved. Throughout the poem the notion of love is idealized by the fact that its obtainment lies in the future. The quest for wisdom was aroused “under the apple tree” (8:4a), probably an allusion to the time of the Garden of Eden when the first woman “saw that the fruit of the tree was…desirable for gaining wisdom [and] she took some and ate it” (Ge 3:6). The obtainment of wisdom, however, will come only when one like Solomon comes to claim his beloved.

Sailhamer also sees the reference to “there your mother conceived you, there she who was in labor gave you birth” (8:5b) as suggesting that the author of the Song of Solomon “also understood both the promised ‘seed’ in Ge 3:15 and the reference to Eve as ‘the mother of all living’ (Ge 3:20) messianically.”

The result of these inter-textual links, “if… intended by the author of this book” then,

…would place this song on a quite different level than that of an ode to human love. It would, in fact, give credence to the traditional attempts to see more in this poem than meets the eye. It would also provide some guidelines along which the symbolism of the book is to be read.

One final argument supports Sailhamer’s conclusions:

Finally, such a reading of the book would also provide needed insight into the underlying justification for the book’s inclusion into the OT. There is general recognition today that the time of the formation of the OT canon coincided with a significant surge in the hope of the imminent return of the messianic king. This book was included in the canon, one might say, because it was intended as a picture of the Messiah.

I am not one to discount seeing the Divine Author’s hand behind the human book as intentionally foreshadowing future covenant realities. I would see no problem in taking Sailhamer’s lead and affirming that this authorial intent was expanded in the wisdom of God, to allow the book as we have it in our Bible to suggest analogies between Christ and the Church. Think of the many songs that have been written culling from the poetic imagery of this Song of Songs.

Still, I had never seen Sailhamer’s reasoning for seeing a human authorial intent behind the Song of Solomon including an explicit Messianic connection. I’d be interested to know, if any of my readers knows whether Sailhamer has written more explicitly of this connection. The section on the Song is only a few pages long in the NIV Compact Bible Commentary. Along these lines, I’d also love to know what you think of this. Does this ring true to you? Or do you think Sailhamer is off base?

You can pick up a copy of this little book at Amazon.com or direct from Zondervan.

Quotes to Note 19: John Gerstner on Literal Interpretation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 18 Comments

A while back I was reading through Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 updated edition]) and came across some profound insights he shared regarding the role “literal interpretation” plays in dispensationalism. Many on both sides of the dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology debate think the issue of a literal, or “overly-literal” hermeneutic determines the debate. If you use the “proper hermeneutic”, from dispensationalism’s perspective, you will interpret the Bible like dispensationalists do.

Gerstner argues that this is not the case. The literal method employed by dispensationalists stems from their pre-conceived over-arching views of prophecy and the Scripture, not the other way around. In pointing this out, I think he helps both sides to see that the argument isn’t as all-pervasive and wholistic as some make it out to be. Listen to Dr. Gerstner below, as I really think he hits on something very important for all to consider, when it comes to our interpretation of Scripture.

…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.

Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theological. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (pg. 80)

Gerstner proceeds to show how in prophecy even dispensationalists find figures of speech and don’t interpret literally across the board. He talks of O.T. Allis’ “point(ing) out that they [i.e. dispensationalists] tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, Canaan must mean Canaan. On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbol.” (ibid, pg. 81)

He then goes on to cite a non-controversial (at least to the participants of this intramural debate) example which highlights how the “literal method” is quite powerless to settle this theological debate.

The real point of divergence is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.

Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.

At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee on one side or liberal/postmodern theology on the other).

*Note: bolded emphasis is mine, I standardized the italicization of individual words where appropriate, too.