# Complimentary Hermeneutic



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 24, 2011)

What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## MLCOPE2 (Jan 24, 2011)

Let me google that for you


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 24, 2011)

That would work if I was asking what it was. I am asking for your opinion. I know the definition.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2011)

It sounds like a method calculated to salvage dispensational theology. That is, the Pharisees were exactly right, and they Messiah WAS coming to set up an earthly political kingdom, they just failed to back the true candidate for King (Jesus) when he showed up.

And SO, God authorizes (after this debacle) a new form of church-age "spiritualizing" of some prophetic texts. Hence, the NT appropriation of the OT. In other words,, today's church-interpretive perspective just "complements" the just-as-true nationalistic, flag-waving ethnocentric interpretation, which (in this view) _is just as true as it ever was,_ only it won't be realized until the millennium.

Personally, I find a circumstance-driven, ex-post-facto (or ad-hoc) justification for the NT's use of the OT to be the wrong answer. What Scripture gives us is a trajectory that moves (consistently) from earthly type to heavenly (not earthly) fulfillment. The Pharisees and all those who were (and are) looking for an earthly display of glory miss the point. The NT removes the last bit of excuse for continuing to look for an "earthly city."


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 24, 2011)

> Complimentary hermeneutics: The old claim that a consistent historical-grammatical method of interpretation will always produce traditional dispensationalists is demonstrably untrue. The NT doesn’t follow Charles Ryrie’s definition of “consistent literalism” in the way that it handles OT prophecy. The NT often expands upon the OT prophecies, without contradicting their original contexts. Implications are developed from words which were not developed in the OT. PD calls this a “complementary” hermeneutic: The NT adds onto the OT prophecies in a way complementary to their original context.



It should be "Compl*e*mentary Hermeneutic"

I wouldn't complement or compliment them on this hermeneutic.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 24, 2011)

Sorry for the wrong spelling.

Rev. Buchanan, 

It is interesting that you view this as Dispensational in nature. I was introduced to the term by DTS as a way of explaining CT. They claim we say that the NT complements the original OT prophetic meaning.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jan 24, 2011)

No, it's not CT. It's the name for the hermeneutics of progressive dispensationalism. You can read about it in the first chapter of Blaising's and Bock's _Progressive Dispensationalism_. It's a way of infusing texts with later meaning that they didn't have originally. However, their main example underscores the weakness. We CT'ers believe that Gen 3 contains the _protoevangelium_, the first promise of the gospel. They say, in effect, "Yes, looking back now, we can say that, but Adam and Eve wouldn't have caught all the messianic and soteriological teachings. They would have just known that they were cursed, and that mankind and creation are now at war." Seriously, read it for yourself.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Jan 24, 2011)

Oh I understand it is not CT. It was just more proof today that many Dispensationalists have no clue what CTs believe.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 24, 2011)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Rev. Buchanan,
> 
> It is interesting that you view this as Dispensational in nature. I was introduced to the term by DTS as a way of explaining CT. They claim we say that the NT complements the original OT prophetic meaning.



As Charlie says, the idea comes through the Prog.Disp. field, which should also be explanatory of its putative connection with Covenant Theology. In a sense, it represents the Prog.Disp. "read" on CT, an explanation for what is powerful and attractive about CT, without jettisoning certain tenets of dispensationalism. As I understand, Prog.Disp. has modified some "classic" dispensational views, in order to accommodate CT challenges (and the disp. need to make the numerous adjustments it has over the years). This trend hasn't always been favorably received in the staunchest corners of disp. hermeneutical defense.

Our point is not that the NT "complements" the OT prophetic meaning: but that it IS the OT prophetic meaning, it IS the fulfillment, in the fullest, most absolute sense, not to be superseded, but merely finished by the removal of every kingdom of this world, the melting of the elements with fervent heart, and the renovation of the whole at the 2nd Coming.

That we have new/more clarity now, superior understanding in some ways than even some of those prophets had, is not a strong argument in favor of their formerly "dim" insights being "properly viewed" from the standpoint of an Old Covenant Theocratic fulfillment. Without being able to see the changes that Messiah's Kingdom would initiate, they wrote of his coming in terms of the kingdom that they knew well, the one God had established through Moses and confirmed through David.

Plus, it also helps to understand what is the true "prophetic perspective." How did these characters "see" their visions? While the answer to that is probably variable in some sense, I can say that the "typical" understanding is quite mistaken: namely that the prophet "stood" as it were, higher that the rest, he had a good telescope, and he saw the future through his restricted lens and standpoint.

The "true" prophetic perspective is well-expressed by John (the Revelator), but has its obvious OT analogs in men like Elijah (1Ki.19:13) and Miciah (1Ki.22:19). The prophet does not occupy the viewpoint of _humanity_ toward the work of God (standing on a local hill, with his God-given binoculars), but _God's_ viewpoint on his own work--the eternal perspective, past, present, future--laid out in front of the prophet. It is the "high" view, the "panoramic" view, the God's Eye view of things. The prophet is taken to God's throne room, his audience chamber; he "comes up here" (Rev.4:1) to receive a vision no-one could ever have on earth.

Is it any wonder that they searched their own writings (1Pet.1:10-12) once their revelation was complete, trying to get a grip for themselves what they had seen and heard? If they were bound to their OT perspective, then its understandable that they might have been entitled to some OT-style realization of their expectations. But this I deny. They saw much more, more than they could express for their audience.


----------

