Allan MacRae, Ezekiel, Lecture 15
All we can do is hit the most
important places as we tried to go into the first part of Ezekiel in more
detail in order to get a general idea of approach and method. Then we have had
to pass rather rapidly over a good many things. I believe I have mentioned to
you that the book of Ezekiel naturally divides into four parts. I think it is
good for us to have that in mind, that chapters 1-24 are the prophecies before
the exile, as you of course all know, 25-32 were during the exile, and 33 and
following were after the exile. The first part 1-24 is very largely a rebuke
for the sin of the people, but with very few passages what we would call
blessings that God had for the people. Chapters 25-32 are during the exile,
during the siege. As you remember, these chapters are all dealing with the
foreign nations, the aggressor nations, which God is going to punish. Then the
third section 33-39 is largely made up of comforting the people, giving
promises of future blessing.
This structure is more or less typical of the prophets as a whole. We
have two big sections, one largely of rebuke with some passages of blessing
followed by one largely of blessings with some passages of rebuke. Jeremiah,
for instance, and Isaiah to some extent, are apt to give you a passage of
rebuke for sin, but they see the godly among the people and realize they are
implicated in the sin of the nation, and that the terrible things predicted inevitably
are going to affect them. Then the prophets turn their attention from the whole
nation to the godly and give them wonderful promises of the blessings God will
give them later.
That quick alternation between rebuke and blessing we find
frequently in Jeremiah and Isaiah, but we do not see it so much in Ezekiel,
but we do have these first and third big sections. The first is largely rebuke
for sin, and the third section is largely blessings that God has for his
people. Then chapters 40-48 make a section by itself, which I hope to discuss
in some length in the later part of the present hour.
Now, for our next assignment I would
like you to write down 6 specific passages of blessing in the book. Most of
them we have already looked at, and some of them we have discussed rather
fully, but I think I would like you to glance at these at least before the
examination to refresh your memory on them.
The first is chapter 11, verses
17-20. The second is chapter 20:41-44; the third is chapter 28:25-26. The fourth
is chapter 36 verses 22-38. The fifth is chapter 37 verses 21-28. Those last
two I mentioned we looked at in considerable length a couple weeks ago; and
then, sixth, chapter 39, verses 25-28. We have seen that in these there are
wonderful promises of God’s future blessing among them. Perhaps the most
frequent is the promise of re-gathering of the exiled people. On the exam I
might ask for a couple of references dealing with the promise of re-gathering
or I might ask you for a couple promises of a new heart for God’s people. I
think that you could easily have those in mind so that you can find them in
your Bible and give the reference to them in case I might ask you for
that. I think it’s good for you to have those in mind because those are
very important portions of Ezekiel’s teaching.
There is a good possibility that I might ask a question about chapters 8-11, the trip that Ezekiel made to Jerusalem: whether he actually went to Jerusalem or whether this was merely a vision God gave him. I had mentioned in class, for instance, the fact that all these people were killed in the vision. It was very definitely a prophecy of the misery to come in the siege; it wasn’t a number of people killed right at that time. They were killed by this angel who went back and killed all those who didn’t have the mark on them. That was something he saw that was definitely a prediction of something future rather than something that happened then. So he couldn’t have seen that if he had been in Jerusalem. Of course, we notice how in the vision he cut a hole through the wall of the temple, and went into the certain part and saw something. If he had actually done that I’m sure they would have called the police out and it would have been called a disturbance by the authorities. There were certain evidences I mentioned--aside from the very fact of the mention of its being a vision--and I think it good for you to have them in mind.
Now, last time at the end of the hour we were speaking of this prophecy of Gog and Magog, which is in chapters 38 and 39. In that prophecy we notice that the second verse speaks of these people, Gog, and the land of Magog with the "chief prince" of Meshach and Tubal. Some people think "chief" as being the prince of Rosh and there’s a strong philological evidence for so doing, not conclusive but strong. Whether it’s the "prince of Rosh" or whether it’s the "chief prince" we can’t say, but I don’t believe we’re justified by saying "rosh" must be pointing to Russia.
But these
various peoples mentioned here are definitely north of Israel they are from
Asia Minor, which is north and west of Israel. There we can identify Meshach
and Tubal for which we have considerable definite referencing in the ancient
records that there were tribes with these names that were quite important at
about the time of Ezekiel and during the previous thousand years. So we know where
Meshach and Tubal were, and while some would say these names stand for Moscow
and Tubals, we have Meshach and Tubal mentioned in various records from Asia
Minor from that time, so I think Russia is definitely not what Ezekiel has in
mind. Now, that’s not to be saying that these names of these peoples that were
important in those days could not be used as a figure for future people to the north.
The invasion envisioned by Ezekiel might come from Russia; we can’t say it couldn’t,
but we cannot conclusively prove it will from this passage.
Student question: Is there any etymological relationship
between the words Moscow and Tubal and Meshach?
MacRae’s answer: Well, Moscow, of course, is an old Slavic
word. I don’t know the exact etymology of Meshach. It is the name of the tribe
of, well maybe more than a tribe, a large group of people that lived in the
Asia Minor at that time. I think it would be pretty hard for saying that places
so removed from each other had an etymological relationship. As they say, it
could stand for Russia, it could be a figure for it, but I don’t think it’s a
specific mention of it. I think that would be purely an inference as a possibility,
and as far as Tubal is concerned, Tubal is a comparably unimportant city in
Russia. So, if we say that Tubal is representing this comparatively unimportant
city, I would say the emphasis is against it.
Student Question: Does most evidence definitely say that
Meshach and Tubal are nations of the Asia Minor?
MacRae’s answer: Meshach and Tubal were nations that were
in Asia Minor that were important for about a thousand years but have
disappeared long ago. Now, is it possible that new nations could come bearing
those names. It’s possible that there could be remainders of those people that
we haven’t heard of for 1500 years that would again come into prominence. I
would think it’s more likely that they are a figurative representation of
peoples that will be at the time when this vision is fulfilled with probably
different names altogether.
So much then for who these peoples are. Now, when is this invasion?
This is very definitely a prediction of a great invasion. When does it come?
There are those who say chapters 40-48 are the picture of the millennium.
That’s possible, but it is questionable. But it is certain that in chapters 36
and 37 we have the picture of the millennium. There’s no question that these
chapters are a picture of the millennium. The millennium is a considerable
portion of those few chapters, but then chapter 40 and following form a
definite becoming one of the four main sections in the book. So it would seem
to me that if the position in the book is going to tell of its relation to the
millennium, the fact that this section is after chapters 36 and 37, which tell
of the millennium, it seems to me that would be a strong reason for thinking
that it probably represents something after the millennium rather than
something before the millennium.
When you look at the book of Revelation you find that in Revelation
there’s the great picture of the millennium, which is in Revelation 20.
This is the greatest New Testament picture of the millennium. The Old Testament
has many predictions of the millennium, but does not give a great idea of
exactly its relations with other events. These are put together in the temporal
order in the book of Revelation. There in the Revelation we have the return of
Christ very clearly presented in the last part of chapter 19, and then we have
the very clear picture of the millennium in the early part of chapter 20. And
then it says, “When the thousand years are over” (in verse 7), “Satan will be
released from his prison and go out to deceive the nations in the four corners
of the Earth. Gog and Magog together for battle. In number they are like the
sand on the seashore.” That seems to me to be a very definite statement by
John, the writer of Revelation, that after the millennium there will be a great
invasion by Gog and Magog, and it fits with the natural interpretation, though
not absolutely certain, the interpretation of Ezekiel taken by itself. So I
feel that the evidence is very strong that this is not pointing to something
that’s going to come anytime within the next few years; it is at least a thousand
years off. That is to say, if the millennium begins tomorrow, that it would be
a thousand years from now, and if the millennium should begin a thousand years
from now, of course, it would be two thousand years off.
But in this account of Gog and Magog there is a very interesting
statement where it says in chapter 38:11-12, “You will say, ‘I will invade a
land of unwalled villages, I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people all
of them living without walls and without gates and bars.’” Now, of course,
walls and gates and bars might stand for great fortifications or they might
conceivably stand for something similar such as we have now, that walls are no
longer as important as they were three hundred years ago. In either case, it describes
the situation that doesn’t describe any nation in the world today. I can’t imagine its describing any in
the next few centuries unless we have a tremendous change in the world, a time
when they're peaceful an unsuspecting living without walls and without gates
and bars. I think that idea fits much better with its being after a thousand
year absolute peace when there is total freedom from fear. It sounds much more
like that than for something to happen before the millennium. Before the
millennium the terrible forces of hatred and aggression that are all over the
world to date will reach a climax and things will get even worse than they are
today. Today is perhaps the most violent period the world has ever seen.
Another thing to mention in this connection is chapter 39 where it
speaks of the results of the attack of Gog and Magog. It says in verses 9 and
10, “Then those who live in the towns of Israel will go out and use the weapons
for fuel and burn them up. The small and large shields, the bows and arrows,
the war clubs and spears, for seven years they will use them for fuel.” Well,
if you had a big invasion today, and the invasion was defeated, I don’t think
you could take the remains of the tanks and the various instruments of war and
use them for fuel. They would be unusable for that purpose. Now of course there
is much in this prediction that is in figurative language, but yet this does
fit much better with a condition after the millennium when they have beaten
their swords into the plowshares and their spears into the pruning hooks, and
the nations have not learned war for a thousand years. Then a great invasion might
go back to using wooden armor, and wooden instruments. So that also fits with
this being after the millennium far better than in the period before.
Student Question: Would you say that maybe sometime in the
future we will be able to use weapons as a source of fuel?
MacRae’s answer: They will not have armaments; they will not
learn war anymore. They will have beaten their swords into the plowshares,
their spears into pruning hooks. For a thousand years there will be absolute
peace and therefore if people are to build up a big invasion, they will revert
to using very primitive weapons. Now that is rather hypothetical, but I think
it is a further evidence that the picture is of conditions at the end of the
millennium rather than the beginning. I would not be dogmatic on this point; I
just think these evidences are well worth considering and I think the reference
in Revelation makes it quite clear that Gog and Magog is after the millennium
than before.
Well now, so much for chapter 38 and 39, and then we have this big
section in chapters 40-48. We will not be able to look at this in detail, but
we want to say a few words about it. It starts in the 25th year of the exile. We
have had dates very frequently through the book. I believe the tenth year or
the eleventh year, or at least the twelfth, I forget the exact number--is the
highest number we’ve had before this except for the brief section about Egypt
that definitely was inserted later here because it would go with what was
already said about Egypt. But except for those few verses, Ezekiel is arranged
chronologically. Situations are set in a certain year for this and a certain
year for that, and so on. Then we’ve had a big break. There was a period of at
least ten years, maybe fifteen, from which we have no revelation from Ezekiel. Then
we have this, quite distinct, in the 25th year, “And on that day the hand of
the Lord was on me and he took me in visions of God. He took me to the land of
Israel and set me on a very high mountain.” (Ezek. 40:2). So, we have here
something that is similar to chapters 11-12: Ezekiel out there in exile being
taken in the visions of God to the land of Israel.
Now, God took him there and Ezekiel saw certain things, and the
things he saw were quite different from what he had seen the previous time. The
previous time he saw the land in misery, that was in rebellion against God with
idolatry and wickedness in it. He saw how God was going to punish Jerusalem and
destroy it, and he saw a vision of the Spirit of the Lord departing from the
city. Now he goes again in a vision, while he was then describing what was
actually happening at the time. He saw one man whom he gave the name of, who
died there, and I think there is no question that this was an actual thing that
occurred at that time when he was seeing the vision. And God caused that to
happen in order to give a further evidence to the people that Ezekiel was a
true prophet. When this man died in Jerusalem Ezekiel would be able to tell
them about it in Babylon, but they would not hear the news and they would hear it
from Jerusalem for a few weeks later after the message came across the desert.
And so, that vision in chapters 8-11 showed what had already happen then in Jerusalem.
Now, this vision very definitely does not show what is happening
then in Jerusalem. What is it a vision of? Well, there have been various
answers to it. I have to say that, as a whole from 40-48, that this is a great
vision which has many truths in it. Much of it is figurative and just exactly
what as a whole it means, I do not think we can be dogmatic about it. It may
be that a time will come when we will be able to see exactly how it fits, or it
may be sort of a figurative dream gathering together things from various
periods and more particular giving us a vision of great spiritual truths.
There are various ideas. The first idea that many have taken from
it is that it is an architectural drawing. It is a picture given Ezekiel to
tell the people how to rebuild their temple when they would return. It gives
the details of how they should rebuild the temple and of the wonderful life
that they would live after they return from exile.
There are many features of this vision that do not fit with the
temple that was actually built when the people returned, and there are some
features of it which are very difficult to imagine just how they would fit with
the geographical conditions as the land is today. So while some have said,
“This is an architect’s drawing for what they should do,” and others have said,
“No, it is a picture of what the Israelites ought to do when they get a chance
and they may still do sometime”—it is hard to fit that in because many of the
figures and pictures in it are doubtless figurative; they’re very hard to
imagine in literal form.
There are some who have said, “This is a picture of the actual
conditions in the millennium.” There again I have a great
hesitation. There are things in it which may very well describe some
specific details in the millennium. There are other matters that are very
hard to fit with the geography or with any situation, and that makes us feel
that much of the vision is figurative.
There are some who say, “It is a picture of great spiritual truth that
relates to the church of Christ”—which is, of course, the true believers, the
true Israel—from which the bulk of the natural Israel was, as Paul says, “was
grafted out, but will be grafted in again later.” Paul said, “They are
not all of Israel that are of Israel” (Romans 11:26). Now much of it can
be explained along that line, but there are other points where I feel there is
great difficulty in explaining it all together along that line. At
present then, I have to say that there may be truth in all these approaches to this
prophecy. There certainly are many spiritual truths in it: there is much in it
that is of great interest, but I believe that in general it is one of the hard
sections of the Scripture to explain in detail. Now that’s so much for
the general dealing with chapters 40-48.
Now there are three specific things in it that I find of particular
interest that I would like to call to your attention at this time. One of
them is the matter of the return of the glory of God. You remember that
in chapter 10 we read how Ezekiel in his vision saw the glory of God departing
from the temple. In chapter 10:15-16 and 18-19 we read, “Then the Cherubim
rose upward. These were the living creatures I had seen by the Kebar River.”
Moving onto 18, “Then the glory of the LORD departed from over the
threshold of the temple and stopped above the cherubim. While I watched,
the cherubim spread their wings and rose from the ground, and as they went, the
wheels went with them. They stopped at the entrance to the east gate of the
Lord’s house, and the glory of the God of Israel was above them.” Then in
the next chapter, chapter 11:22-27 we read: “Then the cherubim, with the wheels
beside them, spread their wings, and the glory of the God of Israel was above
them. The glory of the LORD went up from within the city and stopped
above the mountain east of it. The Spirit lifted me up and brought me to
the exiles in Babylonia in the vision given by the Spirit of God.” So we
have a picture of the Spirit of God departing, the glory of God departing from
the temple previous to the exile. In this section now in chapter 43, we find an
account of its returning. Chapter 43: “Then the man brought me to the
gate facing east, and I saw the glory of the God of Israel coming from the
east. His voice was like the roar of rushing waters, and the land was radiant
with his glory. The vision I saw was like the vision I had seen when he
came to destroy the city and like the visions I had seen by the Kebar River,
and I fell facedown. The glory of the LORD entered the temple through the
gate facing east.” So there is a picture here of the Lord’s glory, which
had departed in the other picture, returning to the temple. Of course,
this is not a physical leaving and returning. It’s quite obvious—it is a
figurative picture of God withdrawing His presence from those who have proven
faithless to Him and a picture of His returning. We can take it in a symbolic
sense of the person who turns away from God and the glory of God departing and
the glory returning to him when he turns his whole heart to the Lord. We
can take it as a picture of events that have happened at different times in the
history of the church. We can take it as a picture of the fact that God
was going to depart from the Israelites and that, as Paul said, they are to be
grafted in again as those who are truly the people of God. And so it’s very
interesting to note the picture and to note the spiritual truth that we can get
from it.
Now on chapter 44: in 1929 before there was much of a Jewish
settlement in Jerusalem—today it’s largely a Jewish city but there wasn’t much
of a Jewish settlement in Jerusalem in 1929--in 1929 I sat on the Mount of
Olives where some chairs were put out and there was a small group, well I guess
maybe 100 people were sitting there, and the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem gave
us a message at Easter time. As he spoke, we could look right down at the
valley and then at the hill beyond us where we could see on top of that hill
the great wall that surrounds the temple area. Within that area there is
the great Shrine of Omar and the great El Aksa mosque on the site where the
temple originally stood. But there’s the great wall of the city, and the
temple area is right next to that wall. The speakers read to us chapter
44 that begins, “Then the man brought me back to the outer gate of the
sanctuary, the one facing east”—that would be facing the Mount of Olives where
we were sitting. And he said, “And it was shut. The LORD said to
me, 'This gate is to remain shut. It must not be opened; no one may enter
through it. It is to remain shut because the LORD, the God of Israel, has
entered through it. The Prince himself is the only one who may sit inside the
gateway to eat in the presence of the Lord. He is to enter by way of the portico
of the gate and go out the same way:’” And then the speaker said, “There
right in front of you, you see that gate which is walled up?” – and he said, “it’s
very interesting how this prophesy of Ezekiel you can see fulfilled there to
the present day.” Well, I inquired later; I said, “How old is this
wall?” I was told that this wall was built in the 16th century. It
was built by a Turkish sultan in the 16th century. Why did he leave all
the surrounding part of the wall – of a gate – walled up so nobody could go
through it at that point? At all the other points there are the walls with
open gates through which the donkeys and the camels and the many people go in
and out, but this one is walled up. Does anybody know why Suleiman the Magnificent
made a representational walled gate at that point in the 16th century? The
best I was able to get was: well, there had been a previous wall there, which
had largely gone to pieces to quite an extent, and the sultan replaced it with
this wall, and perhaps the previous one was just like this, and that’s what led
him to put it in now. Well, of course, that’s the way with many
traditions, and it keeps on long after everybody forgets why it was while we
still keep doing it. It was very interesting to go and to read these words
in Ezekiel and to see that situation exactly like that now. Beyond that,
I’m afraid I don’t know anything further about it, and I rather doubt that
anybody else does at the present time.
I would say that it is altogether possible that something will be
built during the millennium that will be like a temple, and that will fit the
representation here. It is altogether possible but there are enough other
possibilities that I would not say it was at all certain.
Now I would like to call your attention to chapter 47 – a very
interesting picture here in this part of Ezekiel. In chapter 47 we read
in the first few verses: “The man brought me back to the entrance to the
temple, and I saw water coming out from under the threshold of the temple
toward the east, for the temple faced east.” Now today, of course, the Shrine
of Omar and the whole section is entered from the west. When I was there in 1929, no
Jew was allowed to enter at all into that whole high area there. A Christian
could enter it by paying $5, but of course any Moslem could enter in freely at
that time. I don’t know just what the situation is regarding that today, but I
understand that Jews are giving the Moslems entire authority over the old
temple area. Whether Moslems even let Jews go in today, I don’t
know. But I remember once I walked along that wall in the late evening
after dark. It was a full moon, and the view of the mosque and of the whole
city from there was extremely beautiful.
But here we read that: “The man brought me back to the entrance of
the temple, and I saw water coming out from under the threshold of the temple
toward the east, for the temple faced east. The water was coming down
from under the south side of the temple, south of the altar. He then
brought me out through the outside to the outer gate facing east and the water
was flowing from the south side. As the man went eastward with a
measuring line in his hand, he measured out a thousand cubits, then led me
through water that was ankle deep. He measured off another thousand
cubits and then led me through water that was knee deep. He measured off
another thousand, led me through water that was up to the waist. He
measured off another thousand, but now it was a river I could not cross because
the water had risen and was deep enough to swim in; a river that no one could
cross. He asked me, ‘Son of man, do you see this?’ Then he led me
back to the bank of the river. When I arrived there, I saw a great number
of trees on each side of the river. He said to me, ‘This water flows
toward the eastern region and goes down into the area where it enters the
sea.’” That would be the Dead Sea of course. The Dead Sea which is so
full of salt and other chemicals that when I went into it, it seemed I could
just lie on my back; I didn’t seem to sink at all. I tried to swim and
you just couldn’t swim. But a little water got into my eye and smarted like
everything with the chemicals that were in it.
Now, the man said, “When it empties into the sea, the water there
becomes fresh. Swarms of living creatures will live wherever the river
flows. There will be large numbers of fish because this water flows there and
makes the salt water fresh so where the river flows everything will live.
Fruit trees of all kinds will grow on both banks of the river. Their
leaves will not wither, nor will their fruit fail. Every month they will
bear because the water from the sanctuary flows to them. Their
fruit will serve for food and their leaves for healing.”
This is a very interesting picture which some say is impossible as
the topography is now, because the streams there would flow out toward the west
rather than to the east, and there’s no evidence to the present of any
possibility of an underground stream at that point. Now that does not
prove what might literally occur in the future. But certainly there’s a
beautiful figurative picture here of the river, of the water of life with the
trees of all kinds on both banks of the river, and their fruit will serve for
food and their leaves for healing.
We find the same picture in the book
of Revelation, where we read in chapter 22: “Then the angel showed me the
river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God
and of the Lamb down the middle of the great street of the city. On each
side of the river stood the tree of life bearing twelve crops of fruit,
yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the
healing of the nations.” A beautiful picture in Revelation using exactly the
same figures as there are here in Ezekiel. Whether it will ever stand for
a specific physical thing, nobody can be dogmatic one way or another. But
certainly it is a beautiful figure of God's grace and God's blessing.
It's interesting that we have exactly the same figure back in the first
psalm, where we read about the good man, in verse 2: “His delight is in the law
of the LORD and on his law he meditates day and night. He is like a tree
planted by streams of water, which yields its fruits in season and whose leaf
does not wither; whatever he does prospers.” So, I think it's very interesting
these three beautiful spiritual figures, whether there is something literal in
them, that they form a literal prediction of a physical thing. If it is
clearly a figurative picture of the great blessings that God brings us, I don’t
know. I don’t think we can speak dogmatically on that, but I have used it in a
sermon as a very important figure of the way that we should bring forth our
fruit, and each in season we should bear different kinds of fruit. We can only
bear our fruit as we keep up our closeness to the river of the water of God’s
grace and keep drawing from it. We not only are to bear many kinds of fruit
that are important, but also the leaf does not wither and the leaves are for
the healing of the nations. Both Revelation and Ezekiel say that the leaves are
to be medicine.
Now those who try to insist that there can be nothing physical or
literal in this picture in Ezekiel say that for various reasons, some of which
are certainly valid, others are questionable. One thing they say is that this
picture of the water that flows a thousand cubits--that would be about 500
yards--they say that for it to go 500 yards and then be just up to your ankles,
another 500 and just up to your knees, another 500 higher up and then another
500 and you’d have to swim in it, they say that’s impossible. That doesn’t
correspond to anything real. But it's very interesting that up in the northern
end of the land of Israel near Caesarea Philippi where Peter gave his great
confession, that there is a river which is just about exactly like that. It
starts in out of the ground with a little bit of water and then if you go about
500 yards and there is quite a bit more and then there is more and there is
more and then eventually it’s a big river there.
I would think that certainly is a part of its theme.
I would think that is perhaps as important a part as any for us in our present
situation in the world. Whether it represents a literal thing that will be
produced sometime in the future or not, it certainly has an important spiritual
meaning for us today. I would feel that God wants us to be aware of the river
of the water of life. He wants us to be like trees standing by that river to remember
constantly that we must draw our nourishment from the grace that God gives,
which He gives to very great extent through the study of his Word. We must
keep drawing from that; we cannot simply stay where we are, we have to keep
drawing from it. He wants us not to draw simply for ourselves, but he wants it
to be a blessing for others. He wants us to bring forth fruit, and not merely
one kind of fruit, but many kinds of fruit representing the various spiritual
blessings that Christians should be.
But then also there’s the leaves which offer the healing of the
nations, and he wants us very definitely, in addition to the main things which
is the spiritual blessing we should be to others, he wants us also to stand for
every good thing in the world in which we live, and to try to help.
This spiritual interpretation is not, I think, to the extent that
the modernists would take it. The modernists will twist anything in the Scripture.
I was shocked recently to hear of a man that claims to believe in inerrancy of
the Scripture but has written a commentary on Matthew in which he says that
when Matthew describes the coming of the magi, he is simply building a
beautiful picture based on the story of the shepherds that he found in Luke. The
author has all kinds of things like this, but he still insists that he believes
in inerrancy, and yet he wants to be regarded as a true evangelical. This
double-speak is very common in our day, and I think it is important we be aware
of it and be careful of it. Karl Barth, for instance, once said, “I believe in
the virgin birth and I believe in the bodily resurrection; I believe in the
bodily return of Christ,” but he said, “These aren’t just in the past, and have
nothing to do with the future; they’re the same thing, and they’re here today.”
Well, that reduces everything to nonsense. So we have to try to learn to draw
the line between that double-speak that reduces Scripture to nonsense--it is
completely evil. There are literal teachings in the Scripture and there also
are great spiritual lessons.
There is much that is figurative and we cannot always make complete
decisions, but as we go on studying the Scripture God enables us more and more
to understand it. You’ll find in any part, as you study it, you will find
problems; you will find questions you don’t understand, perhaps where you don’t
know the answer that is expected. But if you find these problems and you have
them in your mind, sometime when you are studying another part of Scripture you’ll
find the exact answer to that problem that you would have slid right over
without noticing if you hadn’t had that problem in mind. So as we study the Scripture,
we can always be learning new truths that God has for us. But we must be
careful not to jump to conclusions and be dogmatic about those conclusions.
I have tried very carefully to say what I feel is definite in the Scripture
and also identify what I feel are impossible interpretations on which we may
find evidence elsewhere to lead us to be sure of it or to find we were wrong. There
are problems that we don’t know the answers to. There may be a problem of great
importance to us at some time in our life, and God may give us the answer as we
study some other portion of the Scripture that fits in a way that we would not
have seen initially.
Edited and narrated by Dr. Perry Phillips
Initial editing by Ted Hildebrandt
Transcribers:
Rachael Nall (editor), Kenny Stirling, Daniel McKoy,
Craig Ramsey, Carly Geiman, Chelsea Revell, Alexandra
Nawoichik