There are certain types of mind, particularly the mystical and fanatical, which are prone to substitute fanciful concepts for spiritual interpretations. God’s Word requires to be handled with reverential fear, and with much prayer for discernment and guidance, lest we tread on holy ground with the shoes of carnal wisdom; or the novice, striving after originality, give rein to his imagination, instead of disciplining himself to adhere strictly to the Analogy of Faith. Every preacher needs to be constantly on his guard against substituting human ingenuity for the teaching of the Spirit. Satan has ever mimicked the operations of the Spirit, and counterfeited a spiritual opening up of the Scriptures by wild perversions thereof. An early instance of this is the Kabbala, which, though of great esteem among the Jews, abounds in the most absurd explanations of Holy Writ. The rash allegorizing of Origen is another example to be studiously avoided, for he twisted the plainest and simplest texts into the most grotesque shapes or meanings. The strange system of exegesis adopted by Swedenborg is yet another case in point. The imagination needs to be bridled by both a tender conscience and the spirit of a sound mind.

Just so far as we really value a spiritual interpretation of God’s Word will we abominate all counterfeits. Two extremes are to be guarded against, both by those who advance and those who receive some new explanation of a passage: a love of the fantastic and a prejudice against what is novel. There is a middle ground between hastily condemning or accepting, namely to weigh carefully and prayerfully what is presented, testing it by other passages and by our own experience. Doubtless most of us can recall some interpretations which were new, and which at first struck us as being "far-fetched," but which we now regard as sound and helpful. If the Holy Spirit had not informed us that Abraham’s two wives were figures of the two covenants (Gal. 4:24), and that the words of Moses in Deuteronomy 30:11-14, were to be understood spiritually of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 10:6-9), we had considered such interpretations ridiculous. Remember that God grants light to one minister which He does not to another. Even though his explanation commend not itself to you at the moment, beware of rashly calling it "a perversion of the Scriptures," lest the same is being blessed to some poor child of God whose heart is feeding on what your head rejects.

22. Double reference and meaning. It is ever to be borne in mind that there is a fullness, as well as a depth, in the words of God which pertains not to those of men, so that rarely will a single and brief definition adequately explain a scriptural term. For that reason we must constantly be on our guard against limiting the scope of any Divinely inspired statement, and saying that it means only so and so. Thus, when we are told that God made man in His own image and likeness, those words probably have at least a fourfold allusion. First, to the incarnation of the Son, for He is distinctly designated the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15). Second, to man’s being a tripartite creature, for "God said, Let us make man in our image" (Gen. 1:26)—a trinity in unity, consisting of "spirit and soul and body" (1 Thess. 5:23). Third, in His moral likeness, which man lost at the fall, but which is restored at regeneration (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10). Fourth, to the position assigned man and the authority with which he was invested: "let them have dominion over" (Gen. 1:26). Adam was a "god" or ruler, under the Lord, of all mundane creatures.

In view of what has been pointed out, it is evident that the favorite dictum of Dispensationalists—"application is manifold, interpretation but one"—is erroneous, for the above are not four interpretations of the "image of God" from which we may choose, but the actual fourfold meaning of the term itself. To say that "interpretation is but one" is also flatly contradicted by our Lord’s explanation of the parable of the sower, for when He defined its terms He gave three or four different significations to the "thorns"—compare Matthew 13:22; Mark 4:18, 19; Luke 8:14. We are in hearty accord with paragraph nine in the opening chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, when it says, "The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly," except that we dissent from the limitation mentioned in the parentheses. We much prefer to side with Joseph Caryl (one of the framers of the Westminster Confession), who, when commenting on a verse the words of which were susceptible of various meanings, and which had been diversely explained by expositors, said, "In a Scripture which may, without the impeachment of any truth, admit divers sense, I would not be so positive in one as to reject all others."

Even if it were true that the grammatical meaning of a verse be only one, nevertheless it may have a double reference, as is certainly the case with some of the prophecies in Holy writ, which possess a major and a minor fulfillment. In his introduction to the book of Revelation in Ellicott s commentary, when writing upon prophecy, its annotator said, "The words of God mean more than one man or one school of thought can compass. There are depths of Truth unexplored which lie beneath the simplest sentences. Just as we are wont to say that history repeats itself, so the predictions of the Bible are not exhausted in one or even many fulfillments. Each prophecy is a single key which unlocks many doors, and the grand and stately drama of the Apocalypse has been played out perchance in one age to be repeated in the next." We greatly fear that it is nothing but narrow-minded partisanship which has caused so many to disdain such a concept, and made them reject all other interpretations which accord not with their own particular system. David said, "Thy commandment is exceeding broad" (Ps. 119:96): let us see to it that we do not contract or limit the same.

The Father’s declaration concerning His Son "By His knowledge shall My righteous servant justify many" (Isa. 53:11) certainly has a double force: the "knowledge" He possesses and the knowledge which He imparts. As Manton pointed out, "it may be taken either way: actively, for the knowledge which He shall give out; passively, for our apprehension of Christ," for the former without the latter cannot justify us. "By His knowledge" can be regarded both subjectively and objectively. First, by His own personal knowledge of the Father (John 17:25), which was the ground of what He imparted unto men (John 3:11) for their salvation. Second, for our saving knowledge of Him—received from Him. Instead of quibbling as to whether or not Isaiah intended to include each of those meanings, let us be thankful that he was guided to use language which included both senses. Again, our Lord’s figurative expression when He declared that "the gates of hell" should not prevail against "His Church" (Matthew 16:19) admits of a double reference: death Isa. 38:10) and the power of evil. Death and the grave have prevailed over every human institution, but not so over Christ (Acts 2:27), or His Church (Ps. 72:17; Matthew 28:20), nor shall any weapon formed against her prosper (Isa. 54:17)—meanings so dissimilar are no more surprising than the symbolical application of the word "lion" to Satan (1 Pet. 5:8) and to Christ (Rev. 5:5).

"Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions" (Gal. 3:19). That answer admits of two different significations. First, the immediate purpose in the Law’s being formerly proclaimed and enforced subsequently to the promised inheritance to Abraham and his seed was to place a bridle upon the carnality of the Hebrews and check their sinning—by making known to them God’s will and the fearful penalty of flouting His authority. Second, its ultimate design was to prepare the way for Christ, by demonstrating their need of Him because of their awful guilt. The "because of transgressions" is intentionally general enough to include both: to suppress transgressions, to make manifest transgressors. So too the next verse has a dual meaning: "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one [party] but God is one." In view of the context (v. 10 onwards, especially 16-19), "God is one" signifies first, that His purpose is immutable. His design was the same in both the Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants—the Law being given with a gracious end in view, to pave the way for the Saviour: hence the question and answer in verse 21. Yet in view of the whole context it is equally clear, second, that "God is one" means that His method of salvation remains unaltered through all dispensations. "Is He the God of the Jews only? is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith" (Rom. 3:29, 30).

What has just been noticed leads us to point out that the terms "Israel," "Jew," and "seed of Abraham" all have a twofold allusion. The expression "Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:18) is obviously a discriminating one, and would be meaningless were there no Israel after the spirit, that is regenerated Israel, "the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16). The "Israel after the flesh" were the natural descendants of Abraham, whereas the spiritual Israel, whether Jews or Gentiles, are those who are born again and worship God in spirit and in truth. When the Psalmist declared "Truly God is good to Israel, even to such as are of a clean heart" (73:1), he certainly did not refer to the fleshly descendants of Jacob, for the greater part of them lacked "a clean heart"! When our Lord said of Nathanael, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile" (John 1:47), He obviously meant very much more than one who proceeded naturally from Jacob. His language was as distinguishing as when He said, "If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed" (John 8:31). "An Israelite indeed" connoted a genuine son of the spiritual Israel, a man of faith and prayer, holy and honest. "In whom is no guile" supplies further confirmation that a saved character was there in view (compare Ps. 32:1).

When Christ said, "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24), He could not intend the fleshly descendants of Jacob, for, as many Scriptures plainly show (Isa. 42:6; Rom. 15:8, 9), He was sent unto the Gentiles also. No, the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" there imported the whole election of grace. "And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16) could not possibly refer to the nation, for God’s wrath was on that—it is on the Israel chosen by the Father, redeemed by the Son and regenerated by the Spirit that Divine peace and mercy rest. "Not as though the word of God had taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9:6). The Jews erroneously imagined that the promises which God had made to Abraham and his seed pertained only to his natural descendants: hence their claim "we have Abraham to our father" (Matthew 3:9). But those promises were not made to men after the flesh, but to men after the spirit, the regenerate, they alone being the "children of the promise" (Rom. 9:8). God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were given to them as believers, and they are the spiritual property and food of believers, and none else (Rom. 4:13, 16). Until that fact be grasped, we shall be all at sea with the Old Testament promises (cf. 2 Cor. 1:20, and 7:1; 2 Pet. 1:4).

"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham" (Gal. 3:7). The children of Abraham are of two kinds, physical and spiritual: those who are his by nature, and those who are connected with him by grace. "To be the children of a person in a figurative sense is equivalent to ‘resemble him and to be involved in his fate,’ good or bad. To be ‘the children of God’ is to be like God, and also, as the apostle states, it is to be ‘heirs of God.’ To be ‘the children of Abraham’ is to resemble Abraham, to imitate his conduct and to share his blessedness" (John Brown). So to be "the children of the wicked one" (Matthew 13:38) is to be conformed to his vile image, both in character and in conduct (John 8:44), and to share his doom (Matthew 15:41). Christ said to the carnal Jews of His day, "If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham" (John 8:39). It is his spiritual children who "walk in the steps of that faith which he had" (Rom. 4:12) and who are "blessed with faithful Abraham" (Gal. 3:9). We must be united to Christ, who is "the Son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1), in order to enter into the blessings which God covenanted unto the patriarch. The double significance of the expression "children" or "seed of Abraham" was plainly intimated at the beginning, when God likened his seed to the stars of the heavens and the sand which is upon the sea shore (Gen. 22:17).

In like manner, the word "Jews" is applied to two very different classes of people, though few today would think so if they confined themselves to the ministry of a class who pride themselves on having more light than the majority of professing Christians. Nevertheless, such is unequivocally established by the declaration of Romans 2:28, 29: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Surely nothing could be plainer than that, and in the light of such a statement it seems passing strange that there are those—boasting loudly of their orthodoxy, and bitterly condemning all who differ from them—who insist that the term "Jew" pertains only to the natural descendants of Jacob, and ridicule the idea that there is any such thing as a spiritual Jew. But when God tells us, "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly," He manifestly means that the true "Jew," the antitypical one, is a regenerated person, who enjoys the "praise" or approbation of God.

It is not only childish, but misleading, to affirm that "Israel" means Israel and "Jew" means Jew, and that when God’s Word makes mention of Jerusalem or Zion nothing else is referred to than those actual places. Those who make such assertions are but deceiving themselves (and others who are gullible enough to heed them) by the mere sound of words. As well aver that "flesh" signifies nothing more than the physical body, that "water" (John 4:14) refers only to that material element, or that "death" (John 5:24) signifies nothing but physical dissolution. There is an end of all interpretation—bringing out the sense of Scripture—when such a foolish attitude be adopted. Each verse calls for careful and prayerful study, so that it may be fairly ascertained which the Spirit has in view: the carnal Israel or the spiritual, the literal seed of Abraham or the mystical, the natural Jew or the regenerate, the earthly Jerusalem or the heavenly, the typical Zion or the antitypical. God has not written His Word in such a way that the average reader is made independent of that help which He has designed to give through His accredited teachers.

We can well imagine those of our readers who have sat under the errors of Dispensationalism saying, "All of this seems very confusing, for we have been taught to distinguish sharply between Israel and the Church, the one being an earthly people and the other a heavenly." Of course, Israel was an "earthly people": so too were the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and all the other inhabitants of this world. This writer and his Christian readers are also an "earthly people," for neither their bodies nor their souls have yet been removed to heaven. In reply, the objector will say that it was Israel’s inheritance which was an earthly one. But we ask, was it? Was the inheritance of the patriarchs an earthly one? Hebrews 11:14-16, plainly shows otherwise, for there we are told "they seek a country," that after they had entered the land of Canaan "now they [Abraham, Isaac and Jacob] desire a better country, that is, an heavenly." Was the inheritance of Moses an earthly one? Let Hebrews 11:26, make answer: "Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward," namely the eternal one (cf. Col. 3:24)! Was David’s inheritance a mundane one? If so, how could he speak of himself as "a stranger in the earth" (Ps. 39:12; 119:119)? Psalm 73:25 shows what his heart was set upon.

It is not sufficient to affirm that Israel’s inheritance was an earthly one: which "Israel" must be definitely stated, and also what the inheritance adumbrated. As the portion which Jehovah appointed, promised, and gave to Abraham and his descendants, that land of Canaan has, throughout the Christian era, been rightly regarded as figuring the heavenly inheritance, to which the members of Christ are journeying as they pass through this scene of sin and trial. In order to obtain the complete typical picture of the varied spiritual experiences and exercises of God’s elect as they were so vividly foreshadowed of old, we have to take into account not only the history of the Hebrews in Egypt and their wilderness journeyings, but also what was demanded of them in order to make their entrance into and occupation of the land of Canaan. As we have so frequently pointed out in our articles on the life and times of Joshua, Canaan is also to be contemplated from two standpoints, natural and spiritual: spiritually, as portraying the heritage of regenerated Israelites, which heritage is to be appropriated and enjoyed now by faith and obedience, but which will not be fully entered into until t e Jordan of death has been crossed. Admittedly, great care has to be taken with the Analogy of Faith.

Though Canaan was a divine gift to the natural Israel, nevertheless their occupation thereof was the result of their own prowess. It was indeed bestowed upon them by free gift from God, yet it had to be conquered by them. Therein was accurately shadowed forth what is necessary in order to make an entrance into the heavenly Canaan. The book of Joshua not only displays the sovereign grace of God, exhibits His covenant faithfulness, and the mighty power which He puts forth on behalf of His people, but it also makes known what He required from them in the discharge of their responsibility, and shows that the Lord only fought for His people while they remained in entire dependence on and were in complete subjection to Him. There were formidable obstacles to be surmounted, fierce and powerful foes to be vanquished, a hard and protracted warfare to be waged, and only while they actively concurred did the Lord show Himself strong on their behalf. "For if ye shall diligently keep all these commandments which I command you, to do them, to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to cleave unto Him; then will the Lord drive out all these nations. . . . Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours" (Deut. 11:22-24). That was not the "if" of uncertainty, but had to do with their accountability—as the "if" of John 8:31, 51; Colossians 1:23 and Hebrews 3:6, 14 has to do with ours.

The Church’s inheritance is wholly of divine grace and mediatorial purchase, yet it is not entered into by the heirs of promise without arduous efforts on their part. There is the strait gate to be entered and the narrow way to be trodden (Matthew 6:13, 14). There is a race to be run which calls for temperance in all things (1 Cor. 9:24-26). There is a fight to be fought (1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 4:7), and in order to be successful therein we have to take unto us "the whole armor of God" (Eph. 6:13) and make daily use of the same. There is a ceaseless conflict with the flesh to be engaged in (al. 5:17), a Devil to be steadfastly resisted in the faith (1 Pet. 5:8, 9), an alluring and opposing world to be overcome (Jam.4:4; 1 John 5:4). While it is blessedly true that "we which have believed do enter into rest" (Heb. 4:3). Christ’s yoke is taken upon us, nevertheless the divine injunction remains, "let us labor therefore to enter into that rest" (Heb. 4:11) which awaits us on high, and of which the land flowing with milk and honey was the emblem.