Archive for hermeneutics
Scofield Ministries Shares My Testimony!
Dear Dr. Couch,
Thank you for your kind response to what I wrote last. I am fully convinced that Dispensationalism is the truth of Scripture, however, in the past I believed otherwise. I would attribute my acceptance of Preterism to one main factor: My ignorance of the prophetic Scriptures.
I did not have a very good handle on biblical truth at the time (which was between 2005-2006), and so was easily led away by false doctrine. It all started when I began studying the books about covenant theologians who continually spiritualized the Word of God. I read several books on Preterism that greatly influenced me. In my readings I moved farther and farther into Preterism until I began accepting their views as a valid theology. At best, I became a partial Preterist.
I read books by men who said Christ’s second coming took place in AD 70, but that His coming was still going on today. As I understand, the Preterist field is in confusion today, with some infighting between full and partial Preterists. I seriously doubt whether many of them are sure of what they believe.
That said, I appreciate the effort you have put into combating this doctrine. I remained a Preterist for about a year and a half and then saw the light! I have your book “Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics” and enjoyed it quite a bit. One of the chapters led me to acquire Dr. Paul Tan’s “The Interpretation of Prophecy.” This is one of the greatest books I’ve ever read! I also have “The Endtimes Controversy.” I look forward to more resources!
Blessings on your work,
Brian S.
http://scofieldministries.blogspot.com/2009/11/testimonial-regarding-dispensationalism.html
Maybe It Ain’t Quite Like They Thought It Was
Since I started this blog back in July of 2008, I’ve had lots of correspondence from people who endorse the Preterist view. Preterists basically believe that most, if not all, of Bible prophecy was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The view strongly relies on the support of liberal scholarship, and agrees with that perspective known as “Replacement Theology.” Preterists believe that the church is the “true Israel.” And thus Christians who look for the future restoration of Abraham’s natural descendants are branded as misguided and erroneous – sometimes even subversive.
But when one hears these views espoused, one really has to wonder whether or not proponents of Preterism have seriously studied their Old Testaments. For even after the fulfillment of the curses of Deut. 28 (which Preterists say happened in A.D. 70), a restoration is promised, during which the Lord will re-gather His scattered people and bring them into the land of their fathers (Deut. 30: 1-5). This will be accompanied by the regeneration of the remnant (Deut. 30: 6) and judgments upon the Gentiles (see Deut. 30: 7). According to the Old Testament prophets, the Gentile judgments are inextricably tied to the outcome of the Day of the Lord (see Zephaniah 3: 8; Micah 5: 15; Zech. 14: 3).
Nobody who studies the Old Testament according to its grammatical, lexical, and obvious sense, will fail to see that Israel’s predicted blessings will be realized at the Lord’s second coming.
Even prophecies which speak of the New Covenant look forward to a restoration of the literal city of Jerusalem (Jer. 31: 38-40). It is simply impossible to discount the many prophecies which speak of Israel’s ultimate salvation and restoration, without wilfully ignoring the entire meta-narrative of the Old Testament. And the New Testament doesn’t trump that, either. For Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15: 8). And Paul says that the “gifts and calling of God are without change of mind” (Romans 11: 29).
One of the reasons I am a Dispensationalist, is that I believe in the literal, historical fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ. The prophecies regarding Christ’s first advent were all fulfilled in what spiritualizers would probably consider a ridiculously literal fashion. And yet past realization forms the foundation and precedent for future fulfillment. Even Preterists utilize this working principle when they (wrongly) cite Old Testament passages in support of their allegorical reading of Matthew 24.
But the prophets speak in literal terms. Consider, for example, the New Testament fulfillment of Isaiah 53: 4, in which the prophet said: “Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.” Well, says the allegorizer, this must be restricted to something spiritual. No, says the New Testament! It involves physical healing of the sick (see Matt. 8: 16-17). We are not suggesting that the prophecy doesn’t also include spiritual healing (that is obvious from a literal reading of Isaiah). However, the New Testament record declares that the “fulfillment” of Isaiah 53: 4 was literal and historical in nature.
Now, since the Old Testament makes no distinction between the first and second advents of Christ, how are unfulfilled Messianic texts to be interpreted? They must not be carelessly relegated to Christ’s first advent, as some of the church fathers used to do. For if the Messiah’s work was totally fulfilled with His first advent, what need was there for a second coming? Neither should we relegate second advent prophecies to any A.D. 70 ‘judgment coming.’ For according to Preterists, that was not a personal coming of Christ. Yet the Old Testament Messianic prophecies deal with a literal, historical Jesus. Will Preterists be so bold as to claim that the Old Testament never refers to the second advent? If that is the case, then what Scriptures was Paul using when he taught Christ’s second coming? Ah, thou art beginning to see my point, young man!
The simple fact is, that the Old Testament predicts both advents of Christ, and the New Testament makes the distinction between the two, which allows us to go back to the O.T. and see which prophecies were fulfilled, and which remain future. Lest we be lost in confusion, all Messianic prophecies are to be interpreted according to the same “normative” hermeneutic. And once this principle is followed, it becomes clear that Israel will be saved and restored at Christ’s second advent. Paul says so (see Romans 11: 25-27).
Of course, I don’t have any personal complaint against those who endorse the Preterist view. I actually have friends who are Preterists! Nor do I have any personal problem with those who stand against Dispensational theology as a matter of principle – so long as no fines or anathemas are levied upon those (like myself) who respectfully disagree with them. My main complaint is against that straitened dogmatism which seeks to nullify the promises of God, and wipe Israel off the prophetic board. It is largely because of such views that this site exists. As long as Preterism remains an active theology on the internet, my business here is to point out the glaring possibility that perhaps — oh, just perhaps! — prophecy ain’t really like they thought it was. Maranatha!
Why Hyper-Preterism Teaches A “Different Gospel”
Within the past week or so, a debate has arisen regarding the question of whether or not Hyper-Preterism presents a “different Gospel” from that of Futurist orthodoxy. Quotes have been offered from both sides — the general consensus of Futurists being that H.P. does, in fact, teach a different Gospel; while Hyper-Preterists insist that their system is a viable expression of Christianity, which maintains the same Christ, the same salvation, and the same “good news.”
But is the Hyper-Preterist position tenable? My answer is that it is not. In fact, I believe it can be demonstrated that Hyper-Preterism presents a message diverse from anything endorsed throughout the history of the church, and that, ergo, it stands in a class of its own. When seen in its proper light, it is evident that Hyper-Preterism teaches a new Gospel. And Paul pronounces all such teachers as under the curse (Galatians 1: 8-9).
But while a hue and cry may be raised regarding my conclusions in this matter, I trust the reader will bear with me as I adduce a few reasons in support of my thesis that Hyper-Preterism promulgates a Gospel different from “that we have received.”
*************
Firstly, the concept of “salvation” endorsed by Hyper-Preterism is radically different from that which Futurists espouse. Historically, Christians have always believed that salvation involves redemption from the consequences of Adam’s fall. These include moral and physical death as well as indwelling sin. That is, we see the results of Adam’s fall as being not simply moral in nature, but physical and anthropological as well. Paul writes, again and again, that the “entire man” is covered by Christ’s redemptive plan (see 1 Thessalonians 5: 23; Romans 8: 11; 1 Corinthians 6: 13-20; Ephesians 1: 14).
On the other hand, Hyper-Preterists generally see Adam’s fall as having “covenantal” and “spiritual” implications alone. So the question naturally arises: do Futurists and Hyper-Preterists view “salvation” differently? Of course they do. Hyper-Preterists do not believe in the redemption of the physical body; and as they teach that Christ’s salvific work was fully consummated in A.D. 70, they deny (notwithstanding Paul’s expectation in Romans 7: 24) that the sin indwelling our members will ever be eradicated. This marks a sharp division between Hyper-Preterism and Futurism, which latter system holds that all of the physical, somatic, and anthropological effects of Adam’s fall will be eradicated at Christ’s second coming. Hyper-Preterists cannot possibly agree with this proposition, because they claim that Christ returned in A.D. 70, fulfilling all prophecy! From this it is obvious that Hyper-Preterists and Futurists define “salvation” differently. And so the substance of our respective “Gospels,” which reveal not only the fact of salvation, but what we are saved from, is fundamentally different.
Then, there is the matter of Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the Cross. Christians have historically held that Christ’s physical death on Calvary’s cross forms the basis of His atoning work (Colossians 1: 22; 1 Peter 2: 24). Because Christ paid the wages of sin (Romans 6: 23) on the Cross, becoming our substitute as the Second Adam (2 Corinthians 5: 21), Hyper-Preterists cannot possibly hold that those “wages” involve physical death — else their theological system would be invalidated. So they reject the notion that the physical death of Christ was substitutionary in nature. That of course, is consistent with their conviction that the body must die, and that there will be no future physical resurrection. The Hyper-Preterist concept of the atonement logically leads to the view that Christ’s physical death had no redemptive/theological significance beyond serving as a “sign” of some spiritual/covenantal transaction from which the atonement derives its real efficacy.
The third element I would like to point out, is the fact that Futurism bases its teachings on the assumed authority of the New Testament canon; whereas Hyper-Preterists propose to re-evaluate the canon in light of allegedly fulfilled events. H.P. therefore posits a set of teachings distinctly different from those delivered by Jesus Christ and His inspired apostles. The Hyper-Preterist conclusions are based on the application of a “critical-historical” hermeneutic, which essentially views the New Testament canon as having less authority those who seek to re-codify its teachings on the basis of “internal evidence” and deductive logic. Such a method is dangerous in the extreme, and reeks of German rationalism and Aristotelian chicanery. Dr. Paul Lee Tan was certainly correct when he wrote: “By misunderstanding the concept of Sitz im Lebem (life situation of the prophets), liberals eviscerate the practical relevance of the Scripture on the altar of the historical” (The Interpretation of Prophecy, pg. 103).
In consideration of these facts, it is therefore safe to allege that since the Hyper-Preterist concept of “salvation” comes from interpreting the Gospels in a non-canonical fashion, their teachings result in a Gospel distinctly foreign to that of Futurism, which interprets God’s message of salvation within the confines of canonical relevancy.
That said, there are many other disparities between Hyper-Preterism and Futurism which could be broached to good effect in demonstration of my thesis. However, I trust that the above points prove sufficiently to any rational enquirer, that Hyper-Preterists do, beyond any shadow of a doubt, teach “another Gospel.” Far from being anything like ours, it is founded on different plan of salvation, a different view of the atonement, and a different hermeneutic altogether. Let it be “anathema.”
Review Of Fred DeRuvo’s “Interpreting The Bible Literally Is Not As Confusing As It Sounds”
I recently had the pleasure of reading Fred DeRuvo’s new book entitled “Interpreting the Bible Literally Is Not As Confusing As It Sounds.” DeRuvo is a prolific Dispensational author with whom I did a podcast a few weeks back. He sent me copies of two of his books (one of which I’ve reviewed so far), and the .PDF of a third which is about to hit the press.
What makes DeRuvo’s work interesting is its down-to-earth approach — not to mention the author’s knack of taking complicated theological issues and making them easy to understand. In his book on literal interpretation, DeRuvo gives what I consider a fine presentation on the literal hermeneutic, which is really the foundation and “sine qua non” of any Dispensational theology.
DeRuvo starts off by examining the true definition of “literal,” in contradistinction to that mere ‘letterism’ which seeks to exclude figures of speech. The author shows that in many cases, we cannot understand language except we allow for use of figures. Such usage, however, does not override the literal truths which the Holy Spirit seeks to convey.
Like myself, DeRuvo is no relativist. He believes that through a proper understanding of the literal hermeneutic, Christians will arrive at the objective truths of God’s word. But let no reader suppose that the author is a shallow dogmatist.
DeRuvo writes:
“The important question is whether we can know the truth with certainty in the midst of all the various opinions regarding these doctrines. In most areas, the answer is yes, we can know the truth. In other areas, there is wiggle room” (pg. 42).
On subjects like the Abrahamic covenant, the Olivet Discourse, and the vital necessity of being “born again” (John 3: 3), DeRuvo believes that Dispensationalism, in its employment of a literal hermeneutic, arrives at the absolute truth of God’s word. Nevertheless, as he points out, Dispensationalism is often seen as an “enemy” by those who do not read the Bible according to its plain and natural sense.
DeRuvo observes:
“There exists a general belief that Dispensationalism negatively impacts the truth of God’s word. In fact, the charge of heresy is not uncommon to hear. This is due to the fact that people simply do not understand the true meaning of Dispensationalism, nor its use of the literal hermeneutic in the study of God’s word” (pg. 101).
Frankly, I couldn’t agree more. As DeRuvo points out, Replacement Theology is based on Roman Catholic hermeneutics which are traceable to the Origenistic school of thought. The Protestant Reformation only set the stage, however, for a return to apostolic teaching, and the application of a consistent literal method of interpretation. As it stands, Dispensationalism gives the most accurate presentation of Christian theology.
For those who wish to “get the goods” on the literal method, DeRuvo’s book is essential. It is purchaseable at Amazon; or one can get it directly through DeRuvo’s website. We thank the author for giving us the opportunity to read this monumental work, and look forward to reviewing more of his books, three of which of (as I understand it) are soon to be published.
Letters To The Editor: Post-Millennialist David Brown’s Denial Of The Physical Resurrection
(from The Quarterly Journal Of Prophecy, Vol. II, 1850)
Mr. Brown writes:
“Will you have the goodness to point out to me the page of paragraph, in which you find your warrant for saying that ‘I deny the applicability of Isaiah 25: 8 to the resurrection at all;’ and that I ‘eject the resurrection from the passage altogether’?”
“No doubt I see more in the prophecy than you do. Over and above the corporeal resurrection to which Paul refers, I see ‘life from the dead’ in every other sense in which Christ has purchased it, and makes it His people’s. You see nothing of the sort. You see just corporeal resurrection, and no more. Be it so, and let you be right and me wrong in my views. But what right have you to say that I deny the applicability of the prophecy to the resurrection at all? I defy any honest reader of my words to pick that sentiment out of them from beginning to end.”
Pre-Millennialist Responds:
“Now mark the course of my argument. It is this. The passage – Isaiah 25: 6-12 – is admitted to be a description of the millennial glory. But an event is announced of introducing that glory, of which event this brief description is given – ‘He will swallow up death in victory‘ (verse 8).
”Now the question is — what is the nature of the event thus described? You affirm that it is spiritual resurrection exclusively. Your words are these: ‘The ONE DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE OBJECT of the whole prediction is to announce the Gospel Church as shedding its varied blessings on all lands‘ (First Edition, pg. 206).
We affirm, on the contrary, that the apostle (1 Cor. 15: 54) has expressly said nay to this proposition, and declares the literal resurrection to be the direct and primary — in fact THE meaning of the words. [...] You do not eject it from the bare words, – of course, you cannot do that. But you do, as it very humbly appears to me, throw it out of the passage, – i.e., you cast it out of the scene which is there described. The Holy Spirit has given it a place there, and a very marked place. You give it no place at all [...].”
“Of course, you will see that I regard your treatment of other passages as similar – e.g., that (in Isaiah 65) about the new heavens and the new earth. For in the face of the quotation and definition of the passage given by Peter (2 Peter 3), you eject the literal sense here also from the passage – eject it in the sense just explained. No doubt, you must admit a literal sense here, too, to be in the words. But the literal has no place whatever (according to you) in the passage where it extends. That passage describes the millennium. But the Millennium is over, ere (on your view) there can be a literal new heavens and new earth.
“Your principles of interpretation seem to me fraught with the utmost peril to a sound theology. They are so unfixed, that you may make anything, or everything, or nothing, of any passage of the word. Sometimes the literal is the primary and direct object of prophecy; and at other times, the spiritual occupies the position. And the one of the other is selected, in each case, according to the necessities of a certain pre-conceived system. This is just the old Aristotelian method of dealing with God’s nature. And in what does it land its votaries? Why, in a ‘physics’ of man’s constructing, not in God’s.”
**************
Note the “Preteristic replay” in modern times.
J.L. Vaughn writes:
“I have yet to see a generally agreed definition of “orthodox preterism.” Without a definition, there is no such thing. The last twenty years has demonstrated that the so-called “orthodox preterists” are steadily becoming full.
“In 1993, Kenneth Gentry wrote that the resurrection of Dan. 12 is the general resurrection and to believe it was fulfilled is heresy.
“In 2009, Kenneth Gentry wrote that the resurrection of Dan. 12 was fulfilled in AD 70, and to believe it wasn’t is an error.
“Gentry can’t even agree with himself. He’s to busy accusing people of heresy for disagreeing with his ever changing opinion.”
William E. Blackstone — The Literal Interpretation Of Prophecy
(from Jesus Is Coming, 1908)
Perhaps you ask, “Are not these prophecies to be interpreted ’spiritually’? And does not this ‘coming’ mean our acceptance of Him at conversion, and the witness of the spirit? Or does it not mean His reign over the Church?” etc.
No! Not at all. Think a moment. Do you condemn the Jews for rejecting Christ, when He came in such literal fulfillment of prophecy, and yet reject the same literalness about his second coming? This is not consistent, and while we believe Luke 1 :31, to be literally true, let us believe likewise in regard to verses 32 and 33.
Luke 1 :31-33.
“31. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shall call his name Jesus. ”
“32. He shall be great, and shall.be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto HIm the throne of His Father, David.
“33. And He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end:”
The inconsistency of accepting literally verse 31, and ’spiritualizing’ 32 and 33, is clearly illustrated by the following account of a conversation between a Christian minister and a Jew:
“Taking a New Testament and opening it at Luke 1 :32, the Jew asked: ‘Do you believe that what is here written shall be literally accomplished, – The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His Father, David; and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever?”
‘I do not,’ answered the clergyman, ‘but rather take it to be figurative language, descriptive of Christ’s spiritual reign over the Church.’
“‘Then,’ replied the Jew, ‘neither do I believe literally the words preceding, which say that this Son of David should be born of a virgin; but take them to be merely a figurative manner of describing the remarkable character for purity of him who is the subject of the prophecy.’ ‘But why,’ continued the Jew, ‘do you refuse to believe literally verses 32 and 33, while you believe implicitly the far more incredible statement of verse 31?”
’I believe it,’ replied the clergyman, ‘because it is a fact.’
‘Ah!’ exclaimed the Jew, with an inexpressible air of scorn and triumph, ‘You believe Scripture because it is a fact, I believe it because it is the Word of God.’”
And now, dear reader, was not the argument of the Jew candid and forcible? There are symbols, figures or tropes, metaphors, etc., used in Scripture and there are, also, allegories.
But, unless they are so stated in the text, or plainly indicated in the context, we should hold only to the literal sense.
The words of Christ in John 7:38 we are told in the very next verse were spoken “of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.”
The allegory in Gal. 4 :24-31 in no possible manner detracts from the literal sense of Scripture, but on the contrary it confirms it. We know that both Hagar and Sarah had a literal physical existence. Mt. Sinai and Jerusalem are literal.
We have a literal Christ, the mediator of the New Covenant. And so we believe that the “Jerusalem which is above,” of which Sarah is typical-”the heavenly Jerusalem,” “the new Jerusalem which cometh down out of heaven from God,” is also literal, tangible and real. How then, are we authorized, from such examples as these (which are most prominent among those cited by Post-millennialists as authority for “spiritualizing“), to do away with the literal sense of Luke 1 :32-33, or of the multitude of passages which predict the restoration of Israel, the coming of Christ, or which describe His glorious Kingdom? There can be no warrant for it. It subverts the authority and power of the Word of God, and Post-millennialists, by so doing, open wide the door for skeptics and latitudinarians of all descriptions.
What is the purpose of language, if not to convey definite ideas? Surely the Holy Spirit could have chosen words to convey His thoughts correetly. Indeed it is all summed up in the inquiry of a little child, “If Jesus didn’t mean what He said, why didn’t He say what He meant?” But we believe that He did mean what He said, and that His words will “not pass away.” Mat. 24:35.
He said that He came “not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill,” and “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one title shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Mat. 5:17-18.
If He came and literally fulfilled the prophecies of a suffering Messiah, Psa. 22, Isa. 53, etc., will He not as surely come and likewise fulfill the prophecies of a glorified Messiah reigning in victory and majesty? Psa. 2; 72; Dan. 7: 13-14, Isa. 9: 11; 60, etc.
Dr. Randall Price– Interpreting Ezekiel’s Prophecies
The national and spiritual restoration envisioned by Ezekiel did not occur literally with the postexilic community. The returned Jewish remant did not even attempt to implement Ezekiel’s detailed plan for a new temple (Ezekiel 40-48) when they constructed the second temple. Therefore, critical scholars argue that a literal fulfillment was never expected. Rather, they say Ezekiel’s “prophetic” language was hyperbolic or exaggerated speech, common to the apocalyptic genre whose imagery served to create an inspirational fiction. Christian scholars accepting these prophecies of Ezekiel as apocalyptic (or as symbolic) have traditionally read Ezekiel’s prophecy of restoration (in chapters 40-48) in light of John’s vision of the church in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21: 9- 22: 5), claiming that just as the vision of the heavenly Jerusalem is largely symbolic, so is the vision of the earthly Jerusalem given in these chapters. However, Ezekiel complained that a symbolic understanding of his prophecies was the problem of the unbelieving constituency of his audience: “Then I said, Ah, Lord God! They are saying of me, Is he not just speaking in parables?” (Ezekiel 20: 49). Ezekiel himself gives the reader every impression that expected a literal fulfillment of his prophecies.
Furthermore, such interpretation does violence to the literary symmetry of Ezekiel’s prophecies by making the description of ruin literal and historical, but the corresponding description of restoration figurative and spiritual. Such could scarcely have been the hope of the Jewish exiles in Babylon, as the prayer of Daniel (a contemporary exile with Ezekiel) for a literal restoration of Jerusalem and a rebuilding of the temple reveals (Dan. 9: 2-19). Daniel’s prayer, in turn, was based on his understanding of the prophecy of Jeremiah (another exile), whose statements of geography and chronology (Jer. 25: 11-12) had to be interpreted literally in order to be the ground of Israel’s hope and Daniel’s petition of restoration.
Both divisions of Ezekiel’s prophecy were visionary. Therefore, it is unwarranted to treat the first division as historical (since fulfillment occurred historically with the destruction of the first temple and the exile), and the second division as symbolic (since fulfillment did not occur historically under the return and building of the second temple). From the historical perspective of Ezekiel’s audience (as well as that of Jeremiah and Daniel), the whole of the book was certainly to be understood literally (historically) as corresponding promises of the nation’s punishment and pardon. Just as the first was realized in their day, so the second would also be realized in a future day.
