*

Let us consider the Old Testament foreview of the events centring around the Crucifixion; there were at least

fourteen prophecies fulfilled at this time.

(1) The Lord's disciples were to forsake Him (Zech. 13:7; Mark 14:27);

(2) He was to be dumb before His accusers (Isa. 53:7; Matt. 27:12-14);

(3) He was to be wounded and bruised (Isa. 53:5; Matt. 27:26,30);

(4) His hands and feet were to be pierced (Psa. 22:16; Luke 23:33);

(5) Yet none of His bones would be broken (Exod. 12:46; John 19:31-36);

(6) He was to be crucified with thieves (Isa. 53:12; Mark 15:27,28);

(7) He was to pray for His persecutors (Isa. 53:12; Luke 23:34);

(8) The people were to ridicule Him (Psa. 22:7,8; Matt. 27:41-43);

(9) His garments were to be parted and lots cast for His vesture (Psa. 22:18; John 19:23,24);

(10) The cry from the cross (Psa. 22:1; Matt. 27:46);

(11) They were to give Him gall and vinegar to drink (Psa. 69:21; Matt. 27:34);

(12) His body was to be pierced (Zech. 12:10; John 19:34-37);

(13) His heart was to be broken (Psa. 22:14; John 19:34);

(14) He was to be buried in a rich man's grave (Isa. 53:9; Matt. 27:57-60).

If any spiritualisers existed when these Old Testament Scriptures were written, we can well imagine that they

would have dubbed any literal fulfilment as `unspiritual or carnal', but they would have been wrong, for every one of

these fourteen prophecies was definitely and literally fulfilled within twenty-four hours. To these we can add others,

such as the prediction of Bethlehem as Messiah's birthplace (Micah 5:2; Matt. 2:4-6), His virgin birth (Isa. 7:14;

Matt. 1:23), and His riding into Jerusalem on a colt (Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:4,5). The meaning of these would have been

completely missed had any attempt been made to spiritualise them. Is there not a lesson that we can learn regarding

prophetic interpretation from all this? We believe there is. If so many prophecies concerning the Lord's first

coming were fulfilled literally, is not God teaching us that this is the way we should seek to interpret the yet future

prophecies of His second coming?

By what sound system of interpretation are we to regard prophecies relating to His first Advent as literal, but the

second Advent as spiritual? If the principles of historico-grammatical interpretation cannot be applied to prophecy,

then a large portion of the Bible must be exempted, for prophecy extends from Genesis to Revelation, and if so, of

what use can such a principle be? We therefore believe as a guiding principle, prophecy should be interpreted

literally, unless the plain teaching of the New Testament in dealing with the passage or material in question is

against this. Davidson, in his Old Testament Prophecy, writes:

`I consider the first principle in prophetic interpretation is to assume that the literal meaning is his (the writer's)

meaning - that he is moving among realities, not symbols, among concrete things like people, not among

abstractions like our church, world, etc.'.

He reprimands expositors who make Zion the church; the Canaanite the enemy of the church, the land of Canaan the

promises to the church, and so on. There is no doubt that to the Jew, to whom much of prophecy was first given,

Jerusalem meant Jerusalem and Canaan the literal Canaan. Once this is departed from, the door is wide open to

human opinion and error. If God does not mean what He says when He inspires prophecy, how can it be a light to

guide us in the darkness and how can we ever understand it?

*

This is treated in the authorØs The Unfolding Purpose of God

(chapter 1).