CHAPTER XIII.

ISRAEL.

THIS chapter must needs be of considerable length. The importance of the subject calls for it: for Israel's history, both past and future, occupies no narrow region, either in the purposes of God or in his written Word. Besides, the prophecies concerning Israel are the key to all the rest. True principles of interpretation in regard to them will aid us in disentangling and illustrating all prophecy together. False principles as to them will most thoroughly perplex and overcloud the whole Word of God. In addition to these reasons, however, there are others which need not be hidden. large class of expositors, both in America and Britain, are setting themselves against the literal application of the prophecies to Israel. Even some who preach the near advent of the Lord and hold fast literality, in so far as that is concerned, make no scruple to spiritualize all that the prophets have fore-spoken concerning the children of Abraham according to the flesh. In these circumstances a

T

A

minute and somewhat protracted examination of the whole subject, even at the risk of a slight apparent repetition, will not, I think, be judged either superfluous or misplaced.

No one maintains that all Scripture is literal, or that all is figurative. It is at once admitted by all that it contains numerous instances of both of these kinds of writing. Hence we see the weakness, as well as unfairness, of a method of arguing which has been practised by the disputers on both sides. I mean that of charging each other with the absurdities which would ensue if either of the systems were pressed to an extreme. The argument may sometimes be brought to bear with effect upon the interpretation of particular passages, but it ought to be set aside as a useless and often mischievous element in the discussion of the general question. If the literalist be entitled to say to his opponent, "What absurdities your principles would educe if carried through," his opponent is, on the other hand, perfectly entitled to point to the incongruities which would ensue from the literal system pressed to an extreme.

All admit that there is much that is literal, and much that is figurative in Scripture. From this admission, all reasoning on this matter ought to start. Proceeding from this, two great questions meet us: first, How are we to ascertain what is

literal and what is figurative? secondly, How are we to interpret what is ascertained to be figurative ? I do not mean to examine and answer these questions minutely; I content myself with a few general remarks for their solution.

According to the original formation of language, the figurative may be said to be the basis of the literal, as I have shown in another chapter; but, with language well moulded and matured, the opposite may be affirmed. The literal is the common and natural style employed in communicating with each other. The figurative is a departure from that style. This deviation is, of course, not adopted, save for special reasons, such as enforcing, illustrating, or even, it may be, in some prophecies, for veiling the subject. Thus, it is the literal that is the basis of the figurative,-the point from which we start in estimating the nature and extent of the figure employed; and, conversely, the figurative is interpreted by tracing it back to the literal, by observing how it rose out of and was grafted upon it. The literal, then, is the rule, and the figurative is the exception, and, of course, before an exception can be admitted, reasons must be given for departing from the rule. Even the Rationalists of Germany, who have no great liking to the literal understanding of Scripture, take this for granted. Ernesti, in his "In

stitutes," expressly says, "the natural meaning is not to be departed from without evident reason or necessity."* And Ammon, his annotator, a more thorough Neologian than himself, remarks, "We are not to quit the natural meaning unless it be frigid, ridiculous, or contradictory."†

In all cases, then, we are bound to adhere to the literal until we can show reasons for departing from it. These reasons ought to be well weighed and found sufficient before we venture to disturb the plain meaning of God's own words. For instance, the Unitarian departs from the literal meaning of those passages which speak of our Lord's incarnation and divinity because he cannot understand how such a sense is reconcileable with other Scripture statements respecting the unity of Godhead. But is that a valid reason for turning those passages into figures? The common sense of a man tells him that this is perverting, not expounding Scripture. If all strong expressions are to be set down as Orientalisms, which may be interpreted as we please, what becomes of inspiration?

But, I am told that the literal sense is often so

*Non sine evidenti causa aut necessitate proprietatem deserendam."

"A sensu proprio non recedendum est nisi extat frigidus, ridiculus aut contradictorius."

carnal that it must be departed from. Perhaps in some cases it may be so; but every passage must first be brought separately to the test. A literal fulfilment is often just as spiritual as any other, and it is a strange misapprehension of the true scope of Scripture to suppose that because some interpret literally, therefore they do not interpret spiritually. Besides, with the comparative value of the spiritual over the literal, we have, in the first instance, nothing to do in interpreting Scrip

ture.

We have simply to ascertain the real meaning of the words, whether that meaning be literal or spiritual. Take the prophecies regarding the incarnation of Christ. Before that event took place, there might be a controversy as to whether they were to be literally fulfilled or not. A Jew might have argued with much apparent force against a literal meaning. What! Is God to take upon himself the form of a man? Is Jehovah to become an infant of days, nay, to be born of a creature-to be a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief-to die and be buried, as men die and are buried? Impossible! the very idea is carnal beyond endurance. These prophecies cannot be interpreted in their literal sense; they must have some figurative, some spiritual meaning. So might a Jew have argued before Messiah came; and truly, when we think what it was that he had to believe regarding his Messiah, we could not