 |
| FREE DOWNLOAD |
I was making a Bible presentation one Sabbath afternoon on
The Contradistinction between the Seal of God and Mark of the Beast. It was a
rather animated discussion due the difference of opinion from
the perspective that I was putting forward. The main school
of thought that seem to be dominant among the bretheren is the idea that both
the seal of God and the mark of the beast are not literal
but are symbols of the character of the Father and that of
the beast.
The rationale for this conclusion stems from the notion that
name represents character. Since the name of the Father is the seal of God and
the mark of the beast involves the name of the beast, then the 'name' that John refers to in Revelation 13:17 and 14:1
is a symbol of character of both.
Immediately after I heard that, the obvious questions begin
to pop up in my mind. How do we know that this notion is supposed to be used as
a rule for the interpretation of a symbol? How can we be sure that the 'name' that is referred to in the respective prophecies
is supposed to be treated as a symbol that requires interpretation?
It is a fact that names in the Bible signifies character. But
even so it does not intend that the name be substituted for character. In other
words, the fact that a name signifies character does not deny the reality of a literal name. Jacob's name signifying 'deceiver
and supplanter' does not mean that when Rebecca, his mother, was calling him
she says, "deceiver and suplanter, come here", instead of saying,
"Jacob, come here!" And when his name was changed to Israel, the
prince of God and overcomer (Gen. 5:10), his family calls him by his name,
Israel, and not by its definition.
I am raising this matter because it perfectly illustrates my concern
about the flawed way in which we attempt to supply interpretations where the
Bible is silent. The act of 'stretching' a biblical precedent and treating it
as a rule of interpretation only leads us to treat as a symbol that which the
scriptures intend to be taken for its obvious meaning. This is a common problem
among prophecy students who are not discerning enough to recognize when the
Bible treats an element as a symbol and when it does not. And because of this
they tend to conjecture and speculate on what the scriptures have made plain.
Whenever God intends that a particular element in a prophecy
be treated as a symbol to be interpreted He usually makes it very plain in His
word. One prime example of this is found in Revelation 17:18 where it is stated
thus: “And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.” This is a clear suggestion that this woman is a symbol of a city. From the notion that woman as a
biblical symbol also represents a church (Jer. 6:3) we can also say that this woman
is also a church organization.
Because this church system is represented under the symbol of
a great whore, we can easily deduce that this church is an apostate church imposing
her false religious philosophy upon the world. This harlot woman, being both a
city and a church, can be likened to apostate Jerusalem of whom the prophet Isaiah
thus declared: “How is the faithful city
become an harlot! ...” Isa. 1:21
This is how the Lord treats an element in Bible prophecy as a
symbol and we need to follow His instructions closely. Anything besides a
chapter-and-verse extraction of biblical solutions to symbolic prophecy will
amount to mere conjectures and outright speculations.
No comments:
Post a Comment