Dispensational hermeneutic

[CharlieJ]

Charlie, thank you. I've enjoyed our discussions in the past as well. Your observations in regard to truly understanding the OT mindset are sound. Obviously we all strive to do the best we can with what we have in this regard. As far as emulating the NT writers (or examples), I can see your point, but agree with the earlier assertion that they were inspired. In some instances, such as Peter's use of Joel in Acts 2, it would be impossible for us to have made that connection (at least it would have been for me). I probably have a lot to learn in regard to this. But I would also be concerned with taking example as mandate or instruction. This is the error of charismania, considering the practices of the first century church as normal for today. As you stated in regard to the OT saints, during the first century direct revelation was clearly taking places in churches all over for a period of time. This is understandable in light of the lack of new covenant writings at the time.

Thanks, Joe. You really are quite gracious on all these issues. I want to address this particular issue, of why the NT saints interpret the OT the way they do, a bit more thoroughly. The Thomas/Walton position seems to me to fail because of a skewed understanding of inspiration. Obviously, the Scripture came to us by many methods. However, the overwhelming majority of the NT is inspired through the consciousness and personality of the writers. It's not a lightning bolt from heaven. In other words, Paul didn't suddenly believe the doctrine of the book of Galatians after he wrote it or while he was writing it. He rationally understood the doctrine and so was able to write the book. If you asked him, "Why did you write this phrase here?" he would not respond, "I don't know; I was inspired, therefore I'm not really sure what happened."

So, I think we need to take the same approach to a text like Acts 15:13ff, where James equates the inclusion of the Gentiles into the Church with the rebuilding of the house of David. James didn't black out and utter ecstatic speech. He didn't get finished speaking and say, "Wow, what did that mean?" The statement is not presented as a prophetic utterance in the sense that God dictated words to him. If you had asked James afterward why he said that, he would have been able to give you a reason. This is the problem with the Thomas/Walton approach. They assume that (ironically, only in these instances) the divine element obliterates the human element so that we're not even allowed to ask why they used that text that way. When I ask why James made that connection, their only response is, "Inspiration!" Now, Joe, we don't treat any other part of Scripture that way. We proceed from inspiration to an explanation of the significance of the inspired text; we do not use the fact of inspiration to stymie investigation of that text.

Instead of Acts 15, I could have appealed to dozens of texts in the NT, all of which fall outside of what Dispensationalists would consider "historical-grammatical" interpretation. When there is clearly a pattern but no attempt is being made to understand the pattern or to incorporate it into ones theology, I can only conclude that evidence is being excluded rather than considered. Walton even has the gall to suggest that the apostles used their own "subjective hermeneutics" on the text. Much better, I think, to conclude that the apostles viewed the text in a certain way so as to give rise to their interpretations and applications. If we don't understand why they are saying those things, perhaps we don't see Scripture the way they did.

 

[Peairtach]

Regarding the First Advent of Christ some prophecies were fulfilled literally and physically, while others were fulfilled symbolically and spiritually. Others had both kinds of fulfillment.

E.g. the fact that not a bone of the Passover Lamb was to be broken, was a type that was fulfilled literally in Christ the antitype, in that the Roman soldiers didn't brake His bones, as interpreted under Divine inspiration by the Apostle John. I presume that it also meant at a symbolic and spiritual level, that Christ's holy integrity as the God-Man was not broken by what He suffered.

This will be a good book on the New Testament interpretation of Old Testament prophecy, although I've only dipped into it so far:-

Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament: Amazon.co.uk: G K Beale, D A Carson: Books

 

[Wannabee]

I'm not sure Ruben. I can't seem to make the connection you seem to be making. It might be relevant, but eludes me.

Charlie, you've thought this out well. It seems to me that we again see where we all draw lines in regard to how we handle texts. For instance, I read a historical account (Gospels and Acts) and see what happened, but have to weigh whether or not it is prescriptive. Generally speaking, the accounts are descriptive. You compared the writing of Paul, but this is prescriptive in nature, so I approach it much differently. We all do. It's a matter of how much differently, which I would submit to you is subjective based on the individual's teaching, background, experiences, etc. It's obvious that we all approach it differently and as descriptive to a certain degree because we simply do not emulate the behavior of the first century church (I'm assuming you don't speak in tongues, heal people, etc.).

Yes, God spoke through the experiences and personalities of these men. Yes, they were aware of what they meant when they said it. Yes, they likely were able to draw logical conclusions due to God illuminating the truth for them. But does a description of what they did, such as in Acts, give us license to do the same thing? Where do we draw the line in regard to this? We all draw it somewhere. As I've heard more about this approach to Scripture I have had to pause and consider that perhaps I am missing out on much by neglecting to study how such passages as Acts 15:13ff might teach me to handle other passages. However, even in making such considerations, I will take tiny and cautious steps for fear of overstepping what God prescribes and assuming too much in regard to what He describes in Scripture.

I don't think the historical-grammatical heremeneutic demands this sort of approach, but it does seem to lend itself to it (I think it is well defined in the second thread I referenced earlier).

Again you seem to point out something in regard to a dispensationalists inconsistency in how certain genres are handled, perhaps rightly. It may be that too much is lost in approaching historical Scripture this way. On the other side of the coin, it seems that covenantalists have arbitrarily decided that revelation, being apocalyptic, must be handled differently than other genres as well. I would propose that this leads to more differences in understanding than the restraint Dispensationalists place on themselves in regard to historical narratives. It's an interesting challenge that must be faced, on both sides of the discussion. Of course, it can't be faced with integrity unless each side truly attempts to understand the other. In this, I appreciate your humility and graciousness, Charlie. It's very conducive to reflection and self-examination.

It's rather interesting: I don't expect one side will change in response to this. I don't see it as an issue we can prove from Scripture. However, the greater understanding of the desires and reasoning behind the different approaches, as well as the realization that the lines each draws in regard to their hermeneutical approach aren't as diverse as many would perceive, certainly seem to lead to greater mutual respect. And I certainly appreciate being challenged in what I think is true in regard to hermeneutics.


Blessings,

 

[chbrooking]

Joe,
Thank you for the grace with which you conduct yourself in these discussions. Many of us on the PB could learn from you on this.

Your agreement with my last post gratifies, but befuddles me. If you agree, why do you continue to attach the adjective 'dispensational' to your approach? When it is consistent, dispensationalism will see the sufferings of Christ -- especially as they give rise to the church -- as an unforeseen lacuna (at worst) or a program ancillary (at best) to the central concern of the Old Testament, which they would regard as national promises and their fulfillment. You may consider that a broad brush -- if so, I apologize, but the term carries at least that connotation, if not (and I believe it includes) that denotation.

For the covenantalist, as you call us, the death/resurrection/ascension/pentecost complex of events is not ancillary but central to the Old Testament itself. I believe our Lord's hermeneutical instruction in Luke 24:44ff establishes that -- as does the apostolic example throughout the rest of the New Testament. That means that an Old Testament text does not have a meaning of its own (unless we want to either deny plenary inspiration or accept a reader-response hermeneutic). It has as its context the warp and woof of the history of redemption as that is set forth for us in the entire Old Testament. We don't read Christ into the Old Testament, we have been told by the author of Scripture that the whole of the Old Testament is about three things -- death, resurrection and church. So far from eisegeting, we are exegeting.

Now, and I believe this is one of your concerns as well, that excavation work, wherein we find Christ in the Old Testament, needs to be careful to avoid the fanciful and allegorical. We should, instead, understand the unfolding flow of redemptive history, and, having our redemptive-historical bearings at any point, we should be able to see how the text points us to Jesus. Some texts are easy -- either because the typology is obvious or because we are told explicitly that and how the text points to Jesus. Other texts are not so simple. The Judges, for instance, have feet of clay. Coupled with the refrain that there was, at that time, no king in Israel, and that everyone did what was right in their own eyes, we have a clear indication that the text is leaning forward, standing on tiptoe to see, as it were, the coming of the King for Israel, who would rule the hearts and minds of the people. Or, take Onan, for another example. Not wanting to cut his share of the inheritance from 2/3 to 1/4, he engaged in co*tus interruptus. His selfishness toward his brother's inheritance stands in stark contrast to Jesus, who cut us IN on the inheritance that was his and his alone by right. If we interpret either of these texts without reference to Christ, we have failed to declare the whole counsel of God in the matter.

I imagine that you would agree with me so far -- from what I've seen of our conversation -- so, again, I'm dying to know what is particularly dispensational about your approach? Do you accept, per Luke 24:44ff, our Lord's hermeneutical instruction? -- and therefore accept the centrality of Christ and the church to the Old Testament as a whole? If so, how on earth do you consider your approach to the text in any way dispensational? I don't see how you can without completely reinterpreting dispensationalism. And if you just reinterpret dispensationalism to include only a commitment to grammatical-(redemptive-)historical exegesis, how are you not also a 'covenantalist'?

Respectfully,

 

[py3ak]

I'm not sure Ruben. I can't seem to make the connection you seem to be making. It might be relevant, but eludes me.

I wasn't sure if you were drawing a similar distinction when you said that covenantalists tend to say "Reformed theology teaches" instead of "This passage of Scripture says". If that meant that it has to be the words rather than the meaning of Scripture that forms a basis for our theological deductions, then I think what you are saying would be very similar to what (it is reported) some of the early particular baptists said. Thinking about this reminds of James 4:5.

Yes, God spoke through the experiences and personalities of these men. Yes, they were aware of what they meant when they said it. Yes, they likely were able to draw logical conclusions due to God illuminating the truth for them. But does a description of what they did, such as in Acts, give us license to do the same thing? Where do we draw the line in regard to this? We all draw it somewhere. As I've heard more about this approach to Scripture I have had to pause and consider that perhaps I am missing out on much by neglecting to study how such passages as Acts 15:13ff might teach me to handle other passages. However, even in making such considerations, I will take tiny and cautious steps for fear of overstepping what God prescribes and assuming too much in regard to what He describes in Scripture.

I don't mean to pile on you - since you're gracious and calm it's easy to interact with you, but I don't want to make you feel like you're being buried. But there are a couple of points on the NT speakers and writers as hermeneutical models. One is that a somewhat similar model of interpretation can be seen in the book of Wisdom. The way I see it, Wisdom uses the right hermeneutic clumsily, and with some incorrect dogmatic commitments: the NT writers use the same hermeneutic, but with skill and with accurate dogma. That seems to me to indicate that their hermeneutic is not meant to be inimitable. Another point is that Scripture furnishes us for every good work; but interpreting and teaching Scripture rightly is a good work: therefore Scripture teaches us how to interpret Scripture. And how does it teach that? By laying down certain theological principles that orient our interpretations, yes, but also by example. Where do we draw the line in imitating them? This might be simplistic, but don't we imitate them in what is permanent, but not in what was transient? So we don't imitate them in confirming the word with signs following (not that we could anyway), because that wasn't meant to be perpetually ongoing; but in discipline, and administration of the sacraments, and preaching and teaching we do, because those are to be perpetual. Well, if teaching of Scripture is to be perpetual, so is its interpretation: and so therefore must be its right interpretation, or the legitimate hermeneutical methods.

 

[Wannabee]

Clark,

I had to look up "lacuna."

I would heartily disagree with your understanding here. The idea of a reactionary God is an unnecessary piece of baggage common among dispensationalists, but hardly necessary. In fact, it is inconsistent with the hermeneutic behind dispensationalism, but I would propose that few realize it. Furthermore, as I think I made clear in the second thread I referenced above, central to the dispensationalist's understanding of all of Scripture is God's glory. Obviously the fulfillment of His promises are a necessary aspect of this, but fulfilling promises is, for lack of a better expression, simply part of the plan. Not all dispensationalists agree with what I just stated, but, again, this does not define dispensationalism. It's a symptom of bad theology though not necessarily inherent in it any more than baptismal regeneration is inherent in covenantalism (though one can see where a non-covenantalist could perceive it as a necessary consequence).

One perception that seems to sweep the covenantalist's perspective of dispensationalism is the sensationalism of eschatology that such writers as LaHay and Lindsey have promoted. We must be very careful not to identify a whole group by the commercialism of a few. Admittedly, that can be difficult when such teaching is so visible. But, as I stated earlier, the root of the issue is in where we draw the lines.

Also, please understand that I only label myself as a dispensationalist because I embrace the hermeneutic and conclude that ethnic Israel does have a distinct role in eschatology. Rest assured that I do not see their role as outside the church, as many dispensationalists do. And I completely reject any idea of a reactionary God, as any who know me here can attest. I have friends who call me reformed with dispensational tendencies and others who see me as progressive. As you can see, I'm certainly sympathetic to much that covenantalism has to offer. As for the label, I don't really care. But, per the understanding of most (if not all) on this board, I cannot be a covenantalist. And I fit the simple definition of a dispensationalist.

• Grammatical historical method of interpretation
• Eschatological significance for ethnic Israel (some would claim that I break down here, because I do not make a necessary distinction between Israel and the church. However, many Dispensationalists do not, so I'm not sure how else to categorize this. You also might be interested to know that MacArthur sees no eschatological significance of what constitutes geopolitical Israel today.)
• Literal (simple) hermeneutic

That's the definition of a Dispensationalist, simply put. I don't need, abhor or covet the label. But I see no way around being one either.


Ruben, thanks for the interaction. In what your propose, which I think we're more similar than different, what distinction do you make between descriptive (historical narrative) and prescriptive (epistles) writings? In other words, just because we read that someone in the church lied in a historical sense doesn't mean we can lie. At what point do we take what apostles did in Acts and attempt to make that our norm? At what point do we restrain ourselves? There has to be a line somewhere. If I've misunderstood your intent, please forgive me. But this seems to continue to be a significant aspect of the different hermeneutics.


Blessings,

 

[py3ak]

Ruben, thanks for the interaction. In what your propose, which I think we're more similar than different, what distinction do you make between descriptive (historical narrative) and prescriptive (epistles) writings? In other words, just because we read that someone in the church lied in a historical sense doesn't mean we can lie. At what point do we take what apostles did in Acts and attempt to make that our norm? At what point do we restrain ourselves? There has to be a line somewhere. If I've misunderstood your intent, please forgive me. But this seems to continue to be a significant aspect of the different hermeneutics.

That seems like quite a big topic, but are you sure it is relevant here? For one thing, just because it is recorded in Acts as narrative, does not mean that the content of the sermon is not inspired (think, for instance, of Mary's pronouncement in Luke 1, or Paul's discourse in Athens). For another thing, you don't have to go to Acts or the Gospels; you can see the same hermeneutical model in Hebrews or 1 Peter. But finally, the apostolic interpretations follow the general guidelines laid down in express, didactic statements about Scripture, like Romans 15:4. Given those things, I'm not sure you have to lay down rules about what in narrative is imitable and what isn't before you conclude that the apostolic hermeneutic is the hermeneutic to employ. But if it was necessary, in order to know if something was imitable, you'd be looking for constantly repeated patterns, not linked to any temporary gift or office, where you have the record of important actions from approved figures, hopefully with some explanatory words, and in harmony with express statements of Scripture. Now I think you have all of those factors in the interpretations in Acts; but if that seems debatable, it should be considered that the apostles interpret Scripture the same way Christ did, and there is no more approved figure in Scripture than our Lord!

 

[Andrew Gordon]

amen!

 

[chbrooking]

Joe,
That definition of dispensationalism runs contrary to everything I've ever read or been taught about them. As Ryrie points out explicitly on p. 137 of Dispensationalism Today -- a work that is aware of the dramatic 'progressive' shift in Dispensationalism, the distinction between the church and Israel is basic to Dispensationalism. Can you corroborate your definition from some reputable work?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and you can call yourself anything you like, but it is a bit confusing. It's as if I said I were a baptist who believed in infant baptism or a presbyterian who holds to an independent polity. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Like I said, I'm not trying to argue. I'm just not sure about your definition. But I won't belabor the point any further. Again, thank you for the irenic conversation.

 

[Herald]

Joe,
That definition of dispensationalism runs contrary to everything I've ever read or been taught about them. As Ryrie points out explicitly on p. 137 of Dispensationalism Today -- a work that is aware of the dramatic 'progressive' shift in Dispensationalism, the distinction between the church and Israel is basic to Dispensationalism. Can you corroborate your definition from some reputable work?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and you can call yourself anything you like, but it is a bit confusing. It's as if I said I were a baptist who believed in infant baptism or a presbyterian who holds to an independent polity. It just doesn't make sense to me.
Like I said, I'm not trying to argue. I'm just not sure about your definition. But I won't belabor the point any further. Again, thank you for the irenic conversation.

Clark,

I think what you're seeing with Joe, is a man who's personal view of dispensationalism is not in keeping with either CD or PD. Maybe it's the influence the PB has had on him (nudge, nudge). But as a systematic theology, dispensationalism is well defined. Joe can't change the system, although he can personally morph within it. Having been a rabid dispensationalist for nearly 25 years, I can say with confidence that it's the system's limitations that lead to PD. It's the same reason why JM refers to himself as a "leaky dispensationalist." CD has run it's course. DTS recognizes this. So does the Masters Seminary. Liberty is a bit behind the times, but that's because it is still a fundamentalist school, and its seminary is run by Ergun Caner. What I'm trying to say is that CD's reached it's high water mark years ago. I'm not speaking for Joe, but I see him as somewhere in that nether world between PD and CT.

 

[Wannabee]

I see your point Ruben. You're speaking of the apostolic authority recorded in Acts as examples. I think it's been maintained that we will disagree in regard to how far we can emulate the apostolic example of interpretation. However, I also see much merit in embracing much of what you've stated. I am curious as to what distinctives you think this presents. Can you give an example that would lead you to come to a different conclusion because of these differences? Perhaps that would help me understand better.

Clark, the separation of Israel and the church is not well defined within dispensationalism. I've shared that I see a distinction, but it's obviously more along the progressive lines, if not beyond. Some go so far as to propose two methods of salvation. Obviously this is not necessary for dispensationalism.
I looked back into Dispensationalism by Ryrie to refresh myself as to what he says. It does seem that he misses the progressive nature of God's redemptive plan, which can be confusing. His "two purposes" statements make sense on a certain level, while seeming too rigid on another (p. 40). So, perhaps I am out of the camp.

With this in mind, perhaps Herald is more accurate in assessing my position than I am. I'm fine with that. Unlike him I wasn't rabid for more than perhaps a couple years. I quickly tired of the eschatological sensationalism though and began studying more about the Christian walk. My theological grid was largely in place before I went to TMS, and remained much the same throughout. My understanding of the church and Israel has sort of morphed a bit over the years though.

The "nether world"? Sounds so ominous. But I do often seem to defy definition.

Thanks guys. I don't know that we can go any further with this, but I'll peek in to see if someone things so.


Blessings

 

[py3ak]

I see your point Ruben. You're speaking of the apostolic authority recorded in Acts as examples. I think it's been maintained that we will disagree in regard to how far we can emulate the apostolic example of interpretation. However, I also see much merit in embracing much of what you've stated. I am curious as to what distinctives you think this presents. Can you give an example that would lead you to come to a different conclusion because of these differences? Perhaps that would help me understand better.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're saying. Why would we disagree on how far we can emulate apostolic interpretation?
The patterns of dominical and apostolic (and subapostolic? - Jude, Luke) occur in Scripture, which perfects the man of good, giving him a thorough furniture for his work. Since part of that work is, precisely, Scriptural interpretation, Scripture furnishes a hermeneutic. I haven't heard your interpretation of many passages, so it's hard to say where my interpretation might differ from yours. But Psalm 16 might be a handy example. Peter takes it that David foresaw the resurrection of Christ, even though David speaks in the first person. This tells you that the original audience often understood more than we sometimes give them credit for; it provides a hint, abundantly confirmed by other texts, that the true speaker in the Psalms is Christ as the Head of His mystical body; and sheds light on predictions like those in Ezekiel, where David's name is used, but we are to understand the Son of David as being the proper referent.

 

[Peairtach]

If Dispensationalists believe that "the distinction between the Church and Israel is basic", how do they fit those who are ethnic Jews and believers in Christ into their biblical interpretation?

The distinction between the Church and Israel is not so basic when you can be a member of the Church and ethnic Israel at the same time.

 

[Wannabee]

Ruben,

What hermeneutic principles can we emulate in regard to Peter's use of Joel in Acts? From where I sit you seem to have oversimplified it and assume a posture of what appears to be complete understanding of this apostolic hermeneutic. I don't intend that to be harsh, but your last post seems to take a very authoritative position in regard to this. Simply put, I restrict myself from assuming I can use the same principles due to the nature of direct revelation during the first century. Apostles are listed before prophets in what appears to be a list of priority in Ephesians 4. Can we assume a prophetic hermeneutic as well? I'm more than willing to learn, but I would submit that the case is not nearly so black and white as you attempt to make it. We all have lines drawn in our hermeneutics. It's a matter of being able to define where those lines are. What about Jude's use of Enoch? How do we emulate these? What principles restrict your answer?

 

[py3ak]

Once again, I'm afraid you'll have to excuse me, Joe. I'm not quite sure what you mean by over simplifying and taking an authoritative position, or making things black and white. Isn't it in the nature of an example that you choose something relatively clear and simple? I'm also not following the intent of some of your questions.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the apostolic hermeneutic is inimitable, because they had advantages that we don't. If so, I addressed that previously, noting the existence of a similar, though sometimes misapplied hermeneutic in the book of Wisdom, and by pointing out that Scripture furnishes us for the work of interpreting Scripture. But consider the implications of taking a contrary position.

If the Apostles used a distinctive hermeneutic, that was either good or bad. If bad, then the Spirit inscripturated the results of bad exegetical process as inspired, authoritative pronouncements. On the face of it, that seems wildly unacceptable. If it was good, then in imitating it we do well. But perhaps it was good, but distinctive; inspired, in fact, and beyond our grasp, and so we can't duplicate it. But that would lead to this curious result, that even when I know how an OT passage was correctly interpreted by Christ or one of His apostles, I can't interpret it the same way; and therefore I interpret it in a way which if it does not conflict, neither does it coincide, with the inspired, accurate interpretation already given to it!

I suppose you're maintaining that recipients of direct revelation had access to information we wouldn't without their mediation (hence the Jude/Enoch example) and this means that their interpretations might exceed our grasp. But I don't think the conclusion necessarily follows. John heard the seven thunders utter their voices, but didn't write what they said; so he heard some things which we can't be sure were revealed in any other part of Scripture. But unless the seven thunders were uttering hermeneutical rules, it really shouldn't make any difference to this part of the discussion. Whether I'm given a lot of information or a little, I'm going to interpret it by the same method; just as I'll adopt a similar approach to understanding a short story or a multi-volume epic. So if Peter says something, I take it that he's right. I try to follow him. If I can't, my first step will be to blame it on my own dullness. Thus I'm not sure where it was revealed to the OT prophets that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things which are now revealed unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; Peter may have had access to that information in ways I can't duplicate, or I may simply be woefully ignorant of the Scriptures. But now that he's passed it on, I'm free to let that information be fruitful as I come to study those OT prophets.

To answer the question I do understand, what can we learn from Peter's use of Joel? Well, many things, I suppose; but not least is a form of inaugurated eschatology. With Christ's resurrection and ascension, the last days have come upon us. Of course, John tells you that it is the last time; but from Peter's sermon you can see the hermeneutical implication that we can apply those texts regarding the last days to our time.

 

[ericknowsChrist]

Joe,
Do you accept, per Luke 24:44ff, our Lord's hermeneutical instruction? -- and therefore accept the centrality of Christ and the church to the Old Testament as a whole? If so, how on earth do you consider your approach to the text in any way dispensational? I don't see how you can without completely reinterpreting dispensationalism. And if you just reinterpret dispensationalism to include only a commitment to grammatical-(redemptive-)historical exegesis, how are you not also a 'covenantalist'?

Respectfully,

I would love to jump in here and say speaking for myself - I agree with Wannabee posts and for me - I say "yes" and "yes". Indeed Dispensationalism as introduced by Darby or Scofield is not the Progressive Dispensationalism of the past couple of decades.

What Wannabee is teaching is what I have been taught during my time in Dispensational churches, and what I hear taught when hear graduates of conservative Calvinistic baptist seminaries such as The Masters Seminary, The Southern Baptist Seminary, The Cornerstone Seminary and similar institutions.

Christ is at the center of every scripture and points to Christ. Dr. Chapell's Christ-Centered Preaching focuses on this issue, and this textbook is used in so-called Dispensational Seminaries such as The Cornerstone Seminary.

Wannabees comments here are so well put, and again representative of many dispensationalist - and the vast majority of conservative Christians (outside traditional Reformed camps) that I interact with.

Also, please understand that I only label myself as a dispensationalist because I embrace the hermeneutic and conclude that ethnic Israel does have a distinct role in eschatology. Rest assured that I do not see their role as outside the church, as many dispensationalists do. And I completely reject any idea of a reactionary God, as any who know me here can attest. I have friends who call me reformed with dispensational tendencies and others who see me as progressive. As you can see, I'm certainly sympathetic to much that covenantalism has to offer. As for the label, I don't really care. But, per the understanding of most (if not all) on this board, I cannot be a covenantalist. And I fit the simple definition of a dispensationalist.

• Grammatical historical method of interpretation
• Eschatological significance for ethnic Israel (some would claim that I break down here, because I do not make a necessary distinction between Israel and the church. However, many Dispensationalists do not, so I'm not sure how else to categorize this. You also might be interested to know that MacArthur sees no eschatological significance of what constitutes geopolitical Israel today.)
• Literal (simple) hermeneutic

That's the definition of a Dispensationalist, simply put. I don't need, abhor or covet the label. But I see no way around being one either.

Just last month I had dinner with three Pastors during the Shepherd's Conference who each echo Wannabes discourse on Biblical hermeneutic as described here. (Only one of the three was a TMS graduate.)

 

[chbrooking]

So Eric, ... How is taking a redemptive-historically sensitive interpretation which respects context, literary genre, syntax, etc. distinctively Dispensational? It's not the hermeneutic that is dispensational. The reason I can say this is that the definition Joe gave above could equally be given of a postmillennialist:

* Grammatical historical method of interpretation
* Eschatological significance for ethnic Israel
* Literal (simple) hermeneutic

The last point is unhelpful, because it doesn't really mean anything, as Vern Poythress has ably shown. Both sides could claim this, and both sides could be shown not to be engaging in it.

So if the same definition can be used of a covenant theologian who is postmil., how again is it dispensational? Isn't that A and non-A?

 

[Wannabee]

Gentlemen, thanks for keeping the discussion humble and edifying. I've been out of town, which is why my last post was brief and I've not interacted.

I don't think the hermeneutic of dispensationalism is that unique so much as that it does carry certain nuances that differ and the application of the analogy of faith, as a rule, is not applied as early as it would be for a covenantalist. Ruben and Clark, I think perhaps these quotes from one of the threads I referenced earlier may be helpful.

Define some terms:
Hermeneutics - a set of principles
Exegesis - implemenation of valid interpretive principles
Meaning - truth intention of the author
Interpretation - understanding of the truth intention of the author

I think we need to add application to our list. This is very important. (look at the definitions as I say this) We CANNOT apply until we've exegeted and interpreted. It's too dangerous, and forces meaning into a text that may not be there. This is poor hermeneutics. Furthermore, a common mistake is to confuse application with interpretation. They have to be held apart. Application is 100% dependent upon interpretation. Interpretation is 100% dependent upon the meaning. The meaning is 100% dependent upon exegesis. And proper exegesis is 100% dependent upon good valid hermeneutical principles.

And perhaps this post really helps us to understand a nuance of our approach to text that is telling on both sides. In this, I really think we could learn from one another, for we may be too reactionary in regard to the other.

Originally posted by Wannabee
What guidelines are used to keep one from eisegesis (I-see-Jesus ).

Bob's response
...or, what guidelines are used to keep one from eisenogesis (I-see-no-Jesus)

It's getting late, I'm getting silly, good night!

Ruben, in light of your post, it seems we're wrestling with the same thing. Apostles say something and we accept it as fact, even if we don't understand how they came to their conclusions. Your post seems to indicate that you too have to wrestle with how to properly and responsibly draw the lines in how you may approach a given text responsibly in light of apostolic example. I'm not sure that it really answers the question though. It could be that I'm tired from my trip and not thinking well, but from where I sit we're wrestling with much the same thing from different angles. Since we approach from a different angle we tend toward different, and often opposing, conclusions in regard to where to draw our exegetical lines in an effort to honor God in our understanding of Scripture. Perhaps my quotes above will help shed light on the difficulty we're having in connecting well.

Blessings,

 

[py3ak]

Ruben, in light of your post, it seems we're wrestling with the same thing. Apostles say something and we accept it as fact, even if we don't understand how they came to their conclusions. Your post seems to indicate that you too have to wrestle with how to properly and responsibly draw the lines in how you may approach a given text responsibly in light of apostolic example. I'm not sure that it really answers the question though. It could be that I'm tired from my trip and not thinking well, but from where I sit we're wrestling with much the same thing from different angles. Since we approach from a different angle we tend toward different, and often opposing, conclusions in regard to where to draw our exegetical lines in an effort to honor God in our understanding of Scripture. Perhaps my quotes above will help shed light on the difficulty we're having in connecting well.

I don't think I would put it quite like that. Direct revelation gave them access to some information I wouldn't have access to without them (and in the case of John and Paul, at least, arguable some additional information we don't have); but I don't think that information included any major hermeneutical principles, because in Scripture I have all the information that I need to live a godly life - including the information necessary for a godly use of Scripture. I'm not concerned about drawing lines in imitating dominical or apostolic or prophetic interpretations because I don't believe they left any bad or inimitable hermeneutical example behind; not claiming direct revelation, or inspiration, merely means that I limit my exegetical activity to the Bible, not that Peter's hermeneutics can't be learned and used.

 

[Wannabee]

Ruben,

I am confused in regard to where you've attempted to address the discussion. Perhaps we're talking around one another and simply not connecting. Perhaps I'm just not getting it. In some posts you seem to advocated an apostolic hermeneutic. In others you seem to deny the need to define it. So, in an effort to add clarity, I'm going to walk through some of my struggles with this discussion. I hope it's not too wordy and understand if further interaction becomes too tedious.

I thought this was a good statement.

The way I see it, Wisdom uses the right hermeneutic clumsily, and with some incorrect dogmatic commitments: the NT writers use the same hermeneutic, but with skill and with accurate dogma. That seems to me to indicate that their hermeneutic is not meant to be inimitable. Another point is that Scripture furnishes us for every good work; but interpreting and teaching Scripture rightly is a good work: therefore Scripture teaches us how to interpret Scripture. And how does it teach that? By laying down certain theological principles that orient our interpretations, yes, but also by example. Where do we draw the line in imitating them? This might be simplistic, but don't we imitate them in what is permanent, but not in what was transient? So we don't imitate them in confirming the word with signs following (not that we could anyway), because that wasn't meant to be perpetually ongoing; but in discipline, and administration of the sacraments, and preaching and teaching we do, because those are to be perpetual. Well, if teaching of Scripture is to be perpetual, so is its interpretation: and so therefore must be its right interpretation, or the legitimate hermeneutical methods.

However, it seems to lack definition. Again, how do we apply these "legitimate hermeneutical methods"? How do we restrict ourselves from over stepping? We all need principles that delineate our boundaries in regard to this, as I'll expand on below.

it should be considered that the apostles interpret Scripture the same way Christ did, and there is no more approved figure in Scripture than our Lord!

I would agree with this assertion as well. Christ helps us see the heart intent of the law, for instance. We know that hatred is murder and lust is adultery. But, other than what Christ has revealed, is there a principle that is shown us in His preaching that we can apply to arrive at conclusions that Scripture doesn't otherwise reveal? Some examples would be the Trinity, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Now, we agree on the Trinity, both claiming that it is a good, necessary and biblical understanding. On infant baptism we disagree based on different understandings both in regard to our theological (systamatics) and hermeneutical applications. A difference here is that it is impossible to come to the infant baptism conclusion with my hermeneutics. I would propose that this is a good thing and reveals the integrity of the principles I employ. You, and others, would submit just the opposite. Yet both of us would cringe at the idea of the third, baptismal regeneration, though, from my perspective, the principles that lend to the paedo conclusion would seem to embrace the idea of baptismal regeneration. Principles are employed by us all in an effort to handle God's Word responsibly. Lines are drawn. Again, they need to be defined or else we simply apply one principle here and another there so that we can build whatever theological grid suits our fancy. In such a situation we tend toward making Scripture fit our system rather than define it.

The patterns of dominical and apostolic (and subapostolic? - Jude, Luke) occur in Scripture, which perfects the man of good, giving him a thorough furniture for his work. Since part of that work is, precisely, Scriptural interpretation, Scripture furnishes a hermeneutic.

I don't know if I completely agree, but I see how such an assertion could be made. Now, what is that hermeneutic? How can it be defined? I've attempted to supply the principles of heremeneutics that I try to follow. These are in an effort to restrain me from departing from what God actually says. It's these principles that restrict me from considering speaking in tongues normative for every conversion. It's also these that keep me from thinking infant baptism is biblical. And, it is this same set of principles that makes me believe that the land promises that God made to Abraham are just that, and yet to be fulfilled. Now, you seem to assert the use of an apostolic hermeneutic, but it isn't defined as far as I know. The principles are not listed anywhere that I've seen. In light of your assertion, however, this confuses me.

To answer the question I do understand, what can we learn from Peter's use of Joel? Well, many things, I suppose; but not least is a form of inaugurated eschatology. With Christ's resurrection and ascension, the last days have come upon us. Of course, John tells you that it is the last time; but from Peter's sermon you can see the hermeneutical implication that we can apply those texts regarding the last days to our time.

It appears here that you are not advocating a hermeneutic so much as confirming that Peter's use of Joel is acceptable. I would submit that it is, of course. But I see no principles in Peter's use of Joel that I know how to emulate. In light of your previous statements and this following one, I'm really not sure what to make of your overall intent.

Direct revelation gave them access to some information I wouldn't have access to without them (and in the case of John and Paul, at least, arguable some additional information we don't have); but I don't think that information included any major hermeneutical principles, because in Scripture I have all the information that I need to live a godly life - including the information necessary for a godly use of Scripture. I'm not concerned about drawing lines in imitating dominical or apostolic or prophetic interpretations because I don't believe they left any bad or inimitable hermeneutical example behind; not claiming direct revelation, or inspiration, merely means that I limit my exegetical activity to the Bible, not that Peter's hermeneutics can't be learned and used.

In light of this, I'm really not sure what to make of your position. On one hand you seem to advocate this apostolic hermeneutic. On another you say that there are no hermeneutic principles and that it doesn't matter. And yet you state that they did not leave inimitable hermeneutics behind. And, in light of this, how does one understand a statement such as "I limit my exegetical activity to the Bible"? Can this be defined? Clarified?

I really do want to understand this because I think that I could learn something from the apostolic hermeneutic that is proposed by many reformed. However, from what I have seen, there is not definition for it. I have seen no set of principles that restrain me from going outside the bounds of Scripture. And statements such as "the Bible offers all the hermeneutic I need" are unhelpful because they defy definition. Nobody here advocates the free and "private" interpretation of Scripture.

Well, that was a bit wordy, as I promised. Hopefully not too much so.


Blessings,

 

[py3ak]

Ruben,

I am confused in regard to where you've attempted to address the discussion. Perhaps we're talking around one another and simply not connecting. Perhaps I'm just not getting it. In some posts you seem to advocated an apostolic hermeneutic. In others you seem to deny the need to define it. So, in an effort to add clarity, I'm going to walk through some of my struggles with this discussion. I hope it's not too wordy and understand if further interaction becomes too tedious.

1. This is an important topic, and worthy of attention. I will try to make myself clear, but I can't guarantee that I will succeed! To keep length down I'll try to target the exact portion I respond to, so I may miss something.

Again, how do we apply these "legitimate hermeneutical methods"? How do we restrict ourselves from over stepping? We all need principles that delineate our boundaries in regard to this, as I'll expand on below.

2. Wouldn't a full answer to the first question require a whole commentary on Scripture? Plainly in all interpretation there is a danger that we will import our own conceptions into the text, at the same as there is a danger that blinders of some kind will prevent us from seeing what (or at least all that) is in the text. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it almost seems like you are asking how we keep from becoming too apostolic - and that question doesn't compute for me!

I would agree with this assertion as well. Christ helps us see the heart intent of the law, for instance. We know that hatred is murder and lust is adultery. But, other than what Christ has revealed, is there a principle that is shown us in His preaching that we can apply to arrive at conclusions that Scripture doesn't otherwise reveal? Some examples would be the Trinity, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, etc. Now, we agree on the Trinity, both claiming that it is a good, necessary and biblical understanding. On infant baptism we disagree based on different understandings both in regard to our theological (systamatics) and hermeneutical applications. A difference here is that it is impossible to come to the infant baptism conclusion with my hermeneutics. I would propose that this is a good thing and reveals the integrity of the principles I employ. You, and others, would submit just the opposite. Yet both of us would cringe at the idea of the third, baptismal regeneration, though, from my perspective, the principles that lend to the paedo conclusion would seem to embrace the idea of baptismal regeneration. Principles are employed by us all in an effort to handle God's Word responsibly. Lines are drawn. Again, they need to be defined or else we simply apply one principle here and another there so that we can build whatever theological grid suits our fancy. In such a situation we tend toward making Scripture fit our system rather than define it.

3. Christ's example does teach us that it is valid to draw inferences from Scripture's teaching. I believe His answer to the Sadducees concerning the resurrection of the dead is often cited in that regard. So that the principle of good and necessary consequence does come to us with dominical authority.

I don't know if I completely agree, but I see how such an assertion could be made. Now, what is that hermeneutic? How can it be defined? I've attempted to supply the principles of heremeneutics that I try to follow. These are in an effort to restrain me from departing from what God actually says. It's these principles that restrict me from considering speaking in tongues normative for every conversion. It's also these that keep me from thinking infant baptism is biblical. And, it is this same set of principles that makes me believe that the land promises that God made to Abraham are just that, and yet to be fulfilled. Now, you seem to assert the use of an apostolic hermeneutic, but it isn't defined as far as I know. The principles are not listed anywhere that I've seen. In light of your assertion, however, this confuses me.

4. Are you looking for a listing of hermeneutical principles drawn from the apostolic literature? I don't know that such a handy reference exists, although it would be a good idea; but I'm not the person to draw up such a list with any pretense to scholarly exactitude or thoroughness. A good reference would be Beale and Carson's work on the NT use of the OT; and Fairbairn addresses the same question in his Typology of Scripture, and the OT use of the OT in an appendix to his work on Jonah. Perhaps any spectators who are more widely read could chime in if they know of something more like what you have in mind. For now, for me, it's something I keep in mind as I read, to try to be alert to how one text, whether in Isaiah or Romans, is using previous texts.

It appears here that you are not advocating a hermeneutic so much as confirming that Peter's use of Joel is acceptable. I would submit that it is, of course. But I see no principles in Peter's use of Joel that I know how to emulate. In light of your previous statements and this following one, I'm really not sure what to make of your overall intent.

5. Of course it's acceptable: but there is at least one principle there, which is that Peter's words give us reason to look for how other "latter days" texts have reference to our times: that this inference is confirmed by other texts of Scripture doesn't mean it's useless here.

In light of this, I'm really not sure what to make of your position. On one hand you seem to advocate this apostolic hermeneutic. On another you say that there are no hermeneutic principles and that it doesn't matter. And yet you state that they did not leave inimitable hermeneutics behind. And, in light of this, how does one understand a statement such as "I limit my exegetical activity to the Bible"? Can this be defined? Clarified?

6. Perhaps I'm attributing a concern to you that you don't have, and that made my words unclear. Some people have argued that we can't imitate the apostolic hermeneutic, precisely because they were inspired, and were only able to deliver such interpretations as they were "moved by the Holy Ghost". So what I'm concerned to deny is first, that the apostolic hermeneutic is undiscoverable, unattainable, or inimitable. We can discern it, and we can use it. And what that means is that I don't need to be inspired in order to interpret Scripture. So the visions that a certain man had when snatched up to the third heaven which he couldn't pass on to us - those visions didn't include hermeneutical principles that he could use, but I couldn't. Is that any clearer?

I really do want to understand this because I think that I could learn something from the apostolic hermeneutic that is proposed by many reformed. However, from what I have seen, there is not definition for it. I have seen no set of principles that restrain me from going outside the bounds of Scripture. And statements such as "the Bible offers all the hermeneutic I need" are unhelpful because they defy definition. Nobody here advocates the free and "private" interpretation of Scripture.

7. See paragraph 4, above. It would be quite handy to have a simple document to paste in, or a link to provide, but so far as I know, we are still cast upon discovering and applying Scriptural hermeneutics through the laborious process of reading Scripture with an eye to imitating its style of interpretation.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

It might be helpful to remember that hermeneutics is both Science and Art. There is a skill to handling the Word of Truth that is not reducible to an handy formula. There are technically proficient piano-players who would be both a burden to listen to, and an impossible teacher of the subject. Hence, a diploma in Greek proficiency, a few classes on the subject matter of the Bible and theology, and a few practice sermons, are not enough to justify a call to the ministry.

I think this issue is at least as much a part of Paul's injunction: that a man not be recognized as an elder if he is a "novice"--as his need for spiritual grounding and education. How can a man be truly prepared for service, until he is "long-familiar" with the Christ at the center of Scripture? That he may present him to the church, who comes to "feed on him" (Jn.6:48ff) weekly?

 

[Scott1]

It might be helpful to remember that hermeneutics is both Science and Art. There is a skill to handling the Word of Truth that is not reducible to an handy formula. There are technically proficient piano-players who would be both a burden to listen to, and an impossible teacher of the subject. Hence, a diploma in Greek proficiency, a few classes on the subject matter of the Bible and theology, and a few practice sermons, are not enough to justify a call to the ministry.

I think this issue is at least as much a part of Paul's injunction: that a man not be recognized as an elder if he is a "novice"--as his need for spiritual grounding and education. How can a man be truly prepared for service, until he is "long-familiar" with the Christ at the center of Scripture? That he may present him to the church, who comes to "feed on him" (Jn.6:48ff) weekly?

In this regard, it has been helpful me in understanding dispensationalism as a framework versus covenant theology-

That the former began emphasizing:

1) substantially different means of redemption at different time periods
2) two separate plans of redemption (one for those with some Jewish ancestry, another for the rest)
3) that the kingdom of God was a wholly future event

Covenant theology, on the other:

1) the same substance of redemption, by grace through faith in Christ alone, both Old and New Testaments
2) one plan of redemption in Christ for all His people
3) the present reality of the kingdom of God

The consequence of placing the former framework of interpretation on Scripture is that it leads to a discontinuous view of Scripture itself, and of God's plan, and His present rule and reign, all of which do not comport with the whole of God's special revelation.