THE habit of spiritualizing Scripture, and especially the prophetic portions, has arisen, perhaps, in some minds, from not seeing God’s truth respecting the coming and millennial reign of Christ, restoration of the Jews, &c., and, therefore, not knowing how to interpret portions referring to these subjects: others have simply taken it for granted, because good men have so taught it, and have never been exercised about it. It is well, however, to know that the Scripture is the word of God, and written for out learning—a revelation of God’s mind to us; and, seeing how many of the fulfilled prophecies have had a literal accomplishment, should be a powerful reason for us so to understand the future.
Few, perhaps, think how the Jews are stumbled by this so-called spiritualizing of Scripture. Many instances might be related in proof of it. The following fact happened in London, after a sermon preached in the Strand. Amongst the hearers were two Jews. A discussion took place in the vestry, between them and the preacher, on the subject of a Psalm, which contained a prophecy referring to the restoration of the Jewish people. The preacher maintained that it could not be understood in the sense of a national restoration. The Jew who spoke answered him― “How, then, can you be surprised that we should deny what you call the Incarnation?” “What!” said the preacher, taking the Bible, “Is it not written, ‘And, behold, thou shalt conceive, and bring forth a son, and shall call His name Jesus. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His Father David: and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end’?” The Israelite then asked the preacher to take up again, with him, the different parts of the passage, which he did accordingly; and after having read the two or three first sentences, the Jews were convinced that they were to be interpreted literally; but when they came to these words,― “And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob,” &c., the preacher said. This signifies that He shall reign is the hearts of His people. “If it is thus,” replied the Jew― “if it is not in Jerusalem, where David had his throne―where he reigned, then I deny that Mary had a son―I affirm, for my part, that what is said on this subject signifies nothing else save that the Messiah was to be pure from His birth, and that this is the true meaning of these words, ‘a virgin having a son.’ You see, I only follow your mode of interpreting the end of the passage. I apply it to the beginning, and by this means I deny the Incarnation.” “But,” replied the preacher, “we admit the literal interpretation of this part of the passage, because the event has proved that it must be understood thus.” I shall never forget with what an air of disdain and contempt the Jew then said, “Oh! you believe this because it has happened; as for us, we believe what is written because God has said it.” We ought therefore to take heed in what manner we interpret prophecies; for, you see, if we deny the privileges promised to the Jewish nation, we shake thereby even the foundation of our faith.
I take occasion here to observe, that there is a great difference between figurative language and a system of spiritual interpretation, still too much in vogue. There are facts foretold in figurative language which have been, or which will be, fulfilled literally. I quote as an instance this perdition “Smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall he scattered.” We all know that this was fulfilled in the garden of Gethsemane; yet, literally, Jesus was not a Shepherd, neither were His disciples sheep; nevertheless, the fulfillment of this was literal. This prophecy shows clearly the difference there is between the figurative language of the oracle and a figurative accomplishment. Prophecies, describing the future glory of the Jewish people under the emblem of a mountain, raised above the hills, and to which all the nations shall resort, are quoted it’s all Catholic catechisms, as proofs of the infallibility of the Church of Rome, whose authority, they say, is to extend over all the world. They say, moreover, that the geographical position of Rome proves that these prophecies really apply to her. And truly, if Jerusalem, in the prophets, signifies the Church of God, it seems that these promises concern the Church of Rome, which alone on earth has raised these pretensions to infallibility, universality, and dominion. Whilst robbing the Jewish nation of those prophecies which belong to her, to apply them to the Church of God, Christian controversialists can with difficulty contest the pretensions of the Church of Rome. But Jerusalem never means the Church of God—it means Jerusalem; Judah means Judah; Ephraim means Ephraim, and not France or England. Let us call everything by its proper name. Then we shall understand better the grand, but yet unfinished work of our glorious God, ―that work which, relating to the Jews, among others, is not fulfilled. It is for Divine reasons that the Jews have been preserved in the midst of the nations, as a separate people, waiting for the King. This King, the last King of Israel, is still alive: He has been dead, but He is risen, and He is alive; the Jews are preserved for Him, and He is preserved in the heavens for the Jews, until the restoration of all things. And then the same Jesus, who was raised up into heaven from the Mount of Olives, shall come down again in like manner, that is to say, personally and visibly.”