J.C. Ryle (1816-1900). A Anglican beloved in his day who was the first archbishop of Liverpool and a man of God.
Concerning the vital subject of the destiny of Israel in Scripture he wrote:
1) Take up the subject because of the importance which it occupies in Scripture. Cultivate the habit of reading prophecy with a single eye to the literal meaning of its proper names. Cast aside the old traditional idea that Jacob, and Israel, and Judah, and Jerusalem, and Zion must always mean the Gentile Church, and that predictions about the Second Advent are to be taken spiritually, and first Advent predictions literally. Be just, and honest, and fair. If you expect the Jews to take the 53rd of Isaiah literally, be sure you take the 54th and 60th and 62nd literally also. The Protestant Reformers were not perfect. On one point, I venture to say, were they so much in the wrong as in rthe interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. Even our venerable Authorized Version of the Bible has many "tables of contents" which are sadly calculated to mislead, in the prophetical books. When the Revised Version comes out, I trust we shall see a great improvement in this respect.
Me: One thing that has helped me in trying to sort out what's what in prophecy is Brother Ryle's advice to keep in mind the literal meaning of the proper names one encounters in the Old Testament and prophecy. For so long I read and a understanding of sorts would come to me yet the real meaning still remained sort of ambigious to me. What was really being said? If prophecy referred to the Christian and Gentile church and not Israel proper then hey, what could be wrong with that? Wasn't that where things were headed anyway? Well yes, but within a certain context. Reading of Jacob and Israel and Judah and Jerusalem and Zion and seeing them as allegories for something other than they meant helped keep it vague and ambigious to me even though I didn't realize what was going on at the time. This way of interpreting even destroyed the meaning of the intended context of prophecy to be fulfilled in regard to national Israel. In many interpretation Israel returning to the land in the last days is allegorically seen as each individual returning to the faith. When you were young etc. you may have kept the faith of your father and mother but then you wandered but later returned to the faith so that is Judah or Israel returning to the land. That will preach of course in a allegorical manner but it is not what the original prophecies mean in regard to a return to the land in the latter days. It has even been passed down that the lion lying down with the lamb etc. is a metaphor for men's harsh temperments being tamed and some go so far as to suggest that it means Jew and Gentile learning to lie down and cooperate with one another at some time in the future. It comes from trying to replace the original meaning of prophetic language. So it has gone with the proper names - Jacob, Isarel, Judah, Jerusalem, Zion - and their "proper" interpretation." It's a keen observation in my opinion that if we insist on the literalness of Isaiah chapter 53 then why have chapters 54, 60, and 62 been spiritualized? What's good for one should be good for the other. I think that's part of what Ryle meant by spiritualizing things regarding the second advent since many of the things in places such as Isaiah chapters 54, 6o, and 62 will occur at the second Advent and they regard national Israel restored. Seeing prophecy literally has been a major help to me in getting away from a ambigious non clarity when reading prophecy. Why can't a literal fulfillment be the most spiritual fulfillment? Amen Mr. Ryle.
