Distinctives of Dispensationalism

Transcript

GRM 1138
05/24/2015
Distinctives of Dispensationalism
Selected verses Ephesians 3:1-3
Gil Rugh

Looking at the differences between what we have referred to as reformed theology or covenantal theology and dispensational theology and I’ll read you some of the writings of those who are covenantal and opposed to dispensationalism. Basically we come down to two major issues when we talk about what is the difference between covenant theology and dispensational theology.

Number one, foundational to everything, is the hermeneutics that we use and dispensationalists follow what we could call consistent, literal hermeneutics. Some don’t like that expression but I think it is valid and fits. In other words, we interpret the Bible literally and the issue comes as we have seen regarding future prophecy. Should that be interpreted literally?

Which comes secondly, the distinction between Israel and the church. I put them in that order because it is the literal hermeneutics that lead you to see a clear distinction between Israel and the church. Those two things are crucial. There are other things that can be brought in but those are the foundational things that mark us off as different.

If you would put up the chart on the resurrections, I will use that as a basis for some comments here. You are probably so familiar with this chart. It is a dispensational chart. We sometimes refer to it as pre-tribulational, pre-millennialism. Now it is pre-millennial because we believe the Lord comes before the millennium but we are also pre-tribulational. We believe that He will come for the church before the 70th week of Daniel and that comes from our interpreting the book of Daniel as well as other Old Testament prophecies, literally understanding that the 70 weeks of Daniel including this last seven year period of that 490 years is for Israel. And there are other reasons why we believe in a pre-tribulational rapture of the church, rapture before the tribulation. We have looked at those in other studies but understanding dispensationalism and we will talk more about that, why we have that term. This is where they are. We believe the Lord will come for the church, then we will have the 70th week of Daniel and then He will come to earth to establish the kingdom. So we are not only pre-millennial but we are pre-tribulational as well. We see two phases in the return of Christ.

Now in covenantal theology they really have three basic positions on future prophecy and I will just use this chart to lay them out. There is a-millennialism. A-millennialism, the millennium with an ‘a’ on the front means no, that negates it, no millennium. A-millennialists, while they sometimes don’t like that title because they say they do believe in a millennium but they think it is a spiritualized millennium, not a literal 1,000 years, not an earthly kingdom. Most of the reformers were a-millennial because they came out of Roman Catholicism which was a-millennial.

Some of you come out of Lutheran backgrounds, a-millennial; Presbyterian backgrounds, a-millennial. What they believe is when Christ came at His first coming He established the kingdom. It is not a physical earthly kingdom. It is kingdom which resides in the hearts of believers and He rules. Roman Catholic church so you have the Pope as the Vicar, the representative of Christ on the earth administering if you will as Christ’s representative in that spiritual kingdom. Then they believe Christ will come back and we will just go into eternity. So again, a-millennialists; no literal earthly kingdom. So you might meet an a-millennialist and say, hey I don’t like you, that’s not true. I believe in a kingdom but they are millennial in the sense they don’t believe in a literal earthly kingdom and not of a thousand years. That is within the covenantal or reformed views.

There is post-millennialism which was popular in the 1800’s. Many of the major theologies written then are post-millennial. That means basically we live through here and things will get better and better and the kingdom will come in and then after that Christ will return. So He doesn’t come to establish the kingdom, the kingdom is brought in by the activity of men.

When I was a Bible college student we would joke that with only one living post-millennialist that anybody knew of and that was Loraine Boettner who lived down here in Missouri and has written a number of books. Some of you have read some of his books but because what happened with World War I and World War II who thought the world was getting better and better. So post-millennialism died out but it has been revived and there have been some major writings promoting post-millennialism sometimes called reconstructionalism and there are variations within it. Some say we ought to be implementing the Mosaic Law in society and that is key to bringing God’s work into the world and it will get better and better until we go into the kingdom. So naturally in that kind of movement there is a strong emphasis in trying to influence society, bring God’s rule into society and so on. So we have seen a revival of that. I won’t bother mentioning the names because you are not going to read them anyway but that is post-millennialism, after the millennium. So the world will get better and better and that is this whole period of time here and it is going to get better and better and we will just come into the kingdom. Christ won’t return here, He will return after. The kingdom is not brought in by the return of Christ; the kingdom is brought in by the activity of God’s people progressively changing the world. That is also a reformed or covenantal view.

And then there is covenantal, pre-millennialism. So you have three basic views. We are limiting it to two. Covenantal pre-millennialism is Christ will return here to earth. There is no rapture. The church will be caught up to meet Christ in the air and turn around and come back down with Him but in covenantal pre-millennialism there is no real future for Israel as a nation. There are variations within it and some see a future for the nation Israel as it is incorporated into the church but for just our basic broad view this is sometimes called historic pre-millennialism because they say that was the historic view of the church, not in the New Testament they would argue that, but we would say no, but in earlier church history. So they call it historic pre-millennialism or covenantal pre-millennialism.

So those really have three views, major views. We are going to get into that in the reformed or covenantal view and I am using those terms interchangeably because reformed theology is basically covenantal theology.

Sometime back I went over the covenants of covenantal theology. They govern their interpretation of Scripture by three covenants that they agree are not called covenants in Scripture but they think are valid covenants. It involves a non-literal interpretation of future prophecy. So just keep those distinctions in mind because we think well, reformed theology, what is their view of future things? Well they are open and if you read their writings they are comfortable. They think they can get along with post-millennialists, a-millennialists, can get along with covenantal pre-millennialists but they all agree you can’t get along with dispensationalists. They all take a non-literal view and when you take a non-literal view of future things you are all over the place and the only things they disagree with is dispensationalists, those who would take a literal view of future things which is what we is.

Alright, I have a chart for you, the dispensations so maybe we can put that up. And I have rounded these off if you will look. Some would put breaking at verses. I’ve just put the general Scripture references. We get the name dispensations, a Greek word that is a combination of two words, oikonomia. Oikos is the word ‘house’, nomia, or nomos is the word ‘law.’ House of law and it is basically administering a household or something like that and so it comes to be used of how God is administering and overseeing His creation.

These things are not necessarily distinct to dispensationalism but I mention it because we talk about why do we use the term dispensational in the beginning development of this and will often divide the Scripture into different dispensations which is just the progressive revelation but if you read the writing some of those that I read to you from last week, those men say we hold the dispensations also in that sense. We recognize the difference between the law and that period of time and animal sacrifices and so on then today. So they would agree with some broader like these so I don’t see these are necessary. That’s why I said the key distinction is between Israel and the church. The covenantalists would not recognize that but they might say, “Yes, I would recognize a dispensation of government but a dispensation of innocence in that sense just for example because what we have really done is when Adam and Eve were in the garden before the fall obviously that was a different time and they had the revelation that God had given up to that point and they were living in a state of innocence sometimes called untried holiness. That is going to change when they are removed from the Garden of Eden.

So it is just a way of recognizing that with the moving on of time God’s revelation is given and there are changes in man’s responsibility. After they are removed from the garden they no longer live in a state of innocence. They no longer live in the Garden of Eden and certain things have come to pass and some distinctions are made about the revelation given and the judgment that brings about the change but like I say, since they are not essential to dispensationalism, I am just mentioning this so you know.

So we pick up the word. Turn in your Bible to Ephesians. I will just pick up this one reference. I’m not going to go through the Scripture in each of these but for example in Ephesians chapter 3 Paul begins: “For this reason I, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles, if indeed you have heard of the stewardship of God’s grace.” That word ‘stewardship’ is that word ‘oikonomia’ that I mentioned; the dispensation of God’s grace which was given to me for you. So that term picked up and it’s used by non-dispensationalists. As you are aware of that you can read of covenantalists who will talk about the dispensation of grace but he is not a dispensationalist as we are talking about because he does not believe in a literal interpretation of Scripture and the distinction between Israel and the church but he recognizes Paul and in the church there was revelation given unique to this period of time and Paul says he’s had the stewardship that administration of what God had revealed during that time so you get where the word comes from.

And we move from innocence to conscience in that there is no specific revelation talked about here for man that is governing him although we know there was revelation because Enoch, the seventh from Adam in Genesis 5 we are told prophesied the book of Jude concerning the coming of the Lord with thousands of His saints to bring judgment on the ungodly but you know generally we don’t have anything here, man living in light of what God has made known to that point is often called conscience. I don’t have any axe to grind over whether you mark these out separately or you want to combine some of them.

We call this human government because after the flood Noah is given instruction with the Noahic Covenant which you remember is a universal covenant made with mankind and there certain governing principles like capital punishment says so we talk about this for government. We have this promise because the promise was given to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant operating there and then you come to Exodus 19 and from Exodus 19 to Acts 2 with the beginning of the church the Mosaic Law is in force. Then you have the church from Acts 2, Revelation 3 because then with Revelation 4 we go to the throne room scene and then in Revelation 6 to 19 we have the seven year tribulation unfolded, Revelation 19, the return of Christ. So you have the tribulation.

Now you note here you can break these down because from Genesis 12 to Acts 2 God is really dealing with the nation Israel and this seven year tribulation completed that 70th week of Daniel so that in a real sense you could say, “Well, these two areas and this one all tie together in that God is dealing with the nation Israel as a nation. And this is the focal point of His salvation work in the world.” And you could carry it even into the kingdom. That is primarily what was promised to Israel in the Old Testament. We have seen the church will have a role but this is the kingdom promised to the nation Israel. So don’t get confused on these break downs have to do with revelation that was given and there is progressive revelation.

Distinct now we are going to be talking about this again. The covenantalists would take Revelation coming up to this point basically literally but then they change their principles of interpreting. That is why I say all that they talk about, well you can’t interpret Scripture literally, that is a confusing term. There are a lot of things going into it but it’s basically smoke and mirrors because they admit we interpret the Bible literally.

I read to you one of the men criticizing dispensationalists with their literalism but he says, “I believe in literalism and I interpret the Bible literally.” But as several of them said, “But future prophecy is not to be interpreted literally.” I think that is an arbitrary, indefensible position.

So they would say, “Up until here we interpret the Bible literally but now the church is Israel” because they believe the coming of Christ and His death on the cross changes everything. We interpret the Bible literally and we think progressive revelation adds and clarifies maybe what God has said earlier but doesn’t change it. They say with the coming of Christ here, we put it here with the cross, now we re-interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament so we go back and read the New Testament into the Old and we find out that the church has become Israel. So we find out now we really interpret prophecies literally back here and you have to say they were all fulfilled literally. We went through the book of Daniel and when Daniel saw coming nations they were the nations. Started with Babylon, went to Medo-Persia, went to Greece, went to Rome and it was exactly as he said, literally but then you get to the kingdom Christ will establish on earth, we are not going to do that basically the same way except covenantal pre-millennialists would do that but it’s not focused on Israel.

Sometimes on Sunday morning especially, I say we are dispensationalists and I am thinking I wonder how many people here wonder what is that. It is not a term we use a lot. It is what we are but what is really indicates is we hold to what we would say is consistent, literal interpretation of Scripture. In other words, just the way we interpret the Bible all along here and all the prophecies that took place within here. I mean here we are at Exodus 19 because what? God had told Abraham your descendants will go down to a foreign land. Be there for 400 years then come out and go into the land I promised, exactly as God said, literally and 400 years meant 400 years, a foreign land was a foreign land, going into the Egypt. The land of promise was the land that Abraham walked around. Nobody can debate that was actually as God said it and on it goes. We have used other examples of the captivity of the northern kingdom, exactly as God said. In 722 BC Assyria carried the northern ten tribes, the prophets said and it was exactly as they said, literally, normally and the same ended up with the southern kingdom. On it goes down to the coming of Christ. He was born at Bethlehem.

So you have to say that some of the prophecies concerning Christ were literal. That is what he says, “Some of them.” You know, just arbitrarily decide because you can’t argue the ones that were fulfilled, have been fulfilled that way, we just don’t think the rest of them will.

So this is where we get dispensation. So when we talk about we are dispensationalists that is where they get the term but it’s not just characteristic of dispensationalists but the distinction using literal interpretation for future prophecy and seeing a distinction between Israel and the church and this kind of unfolding, progressive revelation became identified more with dispensationalism. But if you wanted to combine several of them it wouldn’t change dispensationalism. The key is the distinction between Israel and the church based on literal interpretation.

I want to read you a couple things. I appreciated your patience last week but on this where we are and how we get to where we are. Covenantalists are comfortable because they say since we don’t interpret future prophecy literally, this is not exactly the way they say it, we can’t be sure and I may read you a comment that basically says that. So we don’t think you should be dogmatic. That is why they are okay if you are a-millennial, if your post-millennial, if you are covenantal pre-millennial but they are not okay if you are pre-tribulational, pre-millennialists because that is too specific. You can’t interpret the Bible literally.

A book was recommended to me several years ago by someone who used to come to Indian Hills and had changed his view on hermeneutics and moved to a covenantal view so I read it. It’s Gospel Centered Hermeneutics by Graham Goldsworthy. He is from Australia but he gets referenced quite a bit. He is a well-recognized scholar. He is a-millennial. He starts his book out by saying he is a-millennial and Gospel Centered Hermeneutics gives you an idea. What does it mean? We interpret the whole Bible through the coming of Christ. That is why it is the Gospel Centered Hermeneutics. It’s the truth concerning Christ. So this becomes our hermeneutical principle.

Let me read you this. “The Gospels also present Jesus as the definitive interpretation of the Old Testament.” Not that Jesus definitively interprets the Old Testament; “Jesus is the definitive interpretation of the Old Testament.” “This is summed up in Luke chapter 24.”

Why don’t you turn to Luke chapter 24? When you are coming to Luke 24, listen: “These are key passages because they highlight the dynamic of hermeneutics that carries meaning beyond the original and literal meaning to the person and work of Jesus, the fulfiller.” So it is this passage that tells us we can reinterpret the Old Testament in a non-literal way. There is no disagreement. The Jews understood it literally. That is the problem, Jewish literalism. That is why they had trouble with Jesus. They were trying to interpret what the Old Testament said about Him literally and the kingdom literally.

But look at Luke 2 and the verse he specified, verse 27. Now this is after the resurrection, Christ meeting with some of His followers and He says in verse 27: “Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets He explained to them the things concerning Him in all the Scriptures.” Okay, I don’t have any problem with that, do you? Then you come down he says to verse 44. “Now He said to them, ‘these are My Words which I spoke to you while I was still with you that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled. He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures and said, ‘Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day.’”

Now this man is very intelligent. I clipped out the different theological journals I get, the book reviews. Dallas Seminary gave it a very good review so every pastor ought to read this. I am scratching my head. As you read this, where do you get in here that this means we should not interpret the Bible literally? I get just the opposite out of this, that what the prophets wrestled with, remember what Peter said? They couldn’t put together how the Messiah could rule and reign in glory and suffer and die on the cross. His disciples didn’t understand that either and even with this explanation they’re still not going to be able to know what the unfolding plan of God is because in Acts chapter 1, verse 6 what is their question? “Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” They’re still looking for a little kingdom that He would establish. A logical question. Alright, “You have shown us from the Scripture that the Messiah must suffer and die.” A literal interpretation of Israel 53 would lead you to that as well as other passages as Peter preached in his first sermon on the Day of Pentecost.

I sometimes find it hard to track the thinking. This is the difficulty. That is why covenant theology, reformed theology appeals to scholarly people because you are getting a lot more than just what the normal person gets. I fail to understand. “These are key passages because they highlight the dynamic of hermeneutics that carries meaning beyond the original and literal meaning to the person and work of Christ, the fulfiller.” I don’t see anything that says here that He was changing anything in the Old Testament. They had to understand the Scriptures that Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations beginning at Jerusalem. I see no new interpretation.

Alright, he’s got a chapter on The Eclipse of the Gospel in Evangelicalism, the eclipse of the Gospel. This is a negative thing that has happened to the Gospel. He is going to give different hermeneutical views that really undermine the Gospel. “Now I want to highlight some evangelical (quotes here) evangelical hermeneutical perspectives which I believe are not consistent with the Gospel. And yet with which we could all be capable of adopting.”

Here’s a danger to evangelicalism. You will take a position on Bible interpretation that is not consistent with the Gospel. I read you some quotes from covenantalists who believe dispensationalists undermine the Gospel and one of these views is literalism which he says is also evangelical Zionism.

Now he starts out, “It seems to make sense to say we must interpret the Bible literally” and here we go. “But if we believe that literalism is the way to go just what do we mean by it? Some evangelical literalists use what is sometimes referred to as the slippery slope” and to summarize what he goes on to say is if you stopped interpreting the Bible literally you are going to keep downhill and you will interpret less and less and less of the Bible literally and I will read you something on that in a moment.

“Literalism raises all the questions about the hermeneutics of text, questions about ways key words can be used, literary genres, how language operates, the focus of meaning” and so on. “It is often assumed that the literal meaning of a text is self-evident yet the term ‘dies the death of a thousand qualifications’ once we address the matter of imagery, poetic forms, metaphor typology and all the other non-linguistic devices.” The problem is when you look at other portions of Scripture, when you look at what the Bible says about the Gospel he is adamant it has to be interpreted literally but if I am going to do that I say “How in the world do you know it means literally?” Karl Barth said you don’t need a literal interpretation of the resurrection. You need a resurrection experience with Jesus Christ. And we have supra-revelation that takes us beyond the physical. I mean this is why I say this is smoke and mirrors because he does take the Bible literally. He believes in the literal virgin birth of Jesus Christ in the literal town on Bethlehem. He literally walked this earth. He literally died on the cross. He was literally, physically, bodily raised from the dead. But it is a slippery slope. Karl Barth is accepted among some evangelicals but he did not believe a literal, bodily resurrection was necessary.

“The literalists claim to take the promises concerning the restoration of Israel, Jerusalem and the temple at their literal face value.” What can be wrong with that? And I read what he said, “it dies a thousand deaths.” Let’s start out determining what the literal meaning is can be problematic, only if you don’t want to accept what it says. Israel is going to get the land. Israel is going to build the temple. What’s the problem? Now remember he says this is not consistent with the Gospel. “The New Testament clearly does not support such a simplistic hermeneutic as literal fulfillment of prophecy. That the Old Testament Scriptures are as Christ said, ‘about Him.’” Remember “you search the Scriptures for in them you think you will have eternal life and they are those which testify of Me?” He references John here and I am not taking the time for that.

“When He says the Scriptures are about Him this must seriously qualify literalism since Jesus is not literally in the Old Testament.” Now I read this a dozen times. The Old Testament Scriptures are as He says, ‘about Him.’ This must seriously qualify literalism since Jesus is not literally in the Old Testament.” I mean, what do you mean? He is prophesied in the Old Testament isn’t He? I mean aren’t the details of His death, burial with a rich man in Isaiah 53 and resurrection from the dead but to say He is not literally, I don’t even know what to make of that. How could He be bodily on the pages? I don’t know. I am not intelligent enough to be a covenantalist. I admit it.

He goes on. “The literalists, (now get this) the literalists must become a futurist since a literalistic fulfillment of all Old Testament prophecy has not taken place.” Appreciate him admitting that. The issue is will you interpret the future prophecies literally? If you do, you must be a futurist. You must believe there is a future for the nation Israel. You must believe that there will be an earthly kingdom established. What I want you to note on that is he believes that that is not consistent with the Gospel. Now how does that get connected? You can be a post-millennialist and be consistent with the Gospel. You can be an a-millennialist and be consistent with the Gospel. You can be a covenantal pre-millennialist and be consistent with the Gospel but you can’t take a literal interpretation of future prophecy and be consistent with the Gospel. We need to make clear here the Gospel is focused on the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now why does taking a literal view of prophecy make you one who is eclipsing the Gospel and undermining it? Reformed people are adamant on this.

Let me read you another, one more before I read one more. This is The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll and I reviewed this with you when it came out, I think it was in 1994. Mark Noll at the time when he wrote this was I think McMannis professor of history or something like that at Wheaton College and it made a splash in the evangelical world. “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind is fundamentalist, dispensational interpretation of Scripture. The literal interpretation of Scripture has destroyed the evangelical mind.”

He says, and I am just reading excerpts from it so I am not going to tell you I am skipping or whatever. “One of the additional consequences from the dogmatic kind of Biblical literalism that gained increasing strength among evangelicals toward the end of the nineteenth century was reduced space for academic debate, intellectual experimentation and nuance discriminations between shades of opinions.” See this is what gets him as a scholar. Biblical literalism, when you take the Bible literally there is not much room for academic debate. Intellectual experimentation, well since when has the Bible been about intellectual experimentation?

Nuance discrimination between shades of opinion. “This situation also had an anti-intellectual affect by driving out a fundamentalism at least some intellectuals who though entirely content with classical Christian orthodoxy found the modes of fundamentalism a disgrace.” So some of these who would have been content with classical Christian orthodoxy, in other words, they didn’t take the Bible literally. What boggles my mind, you know, historians and Mark Noll is a well-renowned historian. Marsin is another. You have to be careful. These historians can be very helpful as they report history. Their interpretation of history is not necessarily reliable. He reads in here that literally interpreting the Bible that came out of that Baconian period of time in our country’s history and you know you are looking for a certainty and all of this. This man, these people, these intellectuals and you know the two he mentions that leave, would have been content to stay in? Well one of them was John Henry Newman. He moved to be a high church Anglican and from there he went to Roman Catholicism. The other was his brother, Francis Newman who left evangelicalism and became an agnostic. See what literally interpreting the Bible does? It drives these intellectuals out of evangelicalism. They never were evangelicals when you have left the Gospel. I mean this is what he puts in here.

“This situation also had an anti-intellectually effect by driving out a fundamentalism. At least some intellectuals who though entirely content with classical Christian orthodoxy found the modes of fundamentalism a disgrace.” And then in the extensive quote here in the footnote he is writing about men like John Henry Newman who went to Catholicism and his brother Francis who went to agnosticism. Literally interpreting the Bible causes you to abandon the Gospel totally? That is what he thinks. That certainty just drives intellectuals crazy.

Can I say this without offending you? Just a Christian with an average mind where most of us are. I mean there are not many mighty, not many wise, not and on and on we go. It doesn’t mean there aren’t any. Thank God for godly men who have great and exceptional minds but the Bible is not written for their exclusive domain. He says, “this quality of infallibility in this interpreting the Bible literally so you can be sure what it means was calculated to attract the uneasy and comparatively illiterate in Biblical lore but holy, unimpressive to one looking for genuine scholarship.” And this kind of statement that he is referring to captured something important about the intellectual style of fundamentalist leaders.

He goes on to say “if intellectual life involves a certain amount of self-awareness about alternative interpretations or a certain amount of tentativeness and exploring the connection between evidence and conclusion you don’t find any encouragement for the intellectual life in the self-assured dogmatism of fundamentalism.” And for him fundamentalism, the literal interpretation of the Bible, dispensationalism, they are all referring to the same thing. Sometimes he will refer to dispensational fundamentalism, sometimes dispensational and sometimes fundamentalism, sometimes literalistic interpretation but he is always talking about the same thing.

Let me read you a couple more. We are going to the slippery slope. Here we go. “Literal reading of Genesis 1 – 3 find their counterpart in literal readings of Revelation 20 with its description of the thousand year reign of Christ. Eschatologies, in other words, implicate their holders in a wide range of stances including views of human origins. If you take a literal interpretation of Biblical prophecy you will end up taking a literal interpretation of the opening chapters of Genesis.” I think he is saying what Goldsworthy says that is not a valid argument; it is not a slippery slope. I think it is a slippery slope because if you don’t take the end of the Bible literally you don’t take the beginning of the Bible literally what makes you think the middle is literal? If Adam wasn’t a literal person what does that do to the analogy in Romans 5 between the first Adam and Christ? Well, the point is the same whether Adam is literal or not.
“Evangelicals make much of their ability to read the Bible in a simple, literal or natural fashion.” And that’s when he says, “That’s the Baconian way.” I think he’s right what he says, I don’t think that came out of Baconian thinking. “In actual fact evangelical hermeneutics as illustrated in creationism is dictated by a very specific assumption that dominated Western, intellectual life from 1650 to 1850. Before and after that time many Christians and other thinkers have recognized that no observations are simple and no texts yield to uncritically literal readings.” Where does that leave us with our Bible? Maybe Karl Barth was right. Maybe it’s not the literal resurrection of Christ. It is a resurrection experience with Christ and those kinds of things.

That’s way dispensationalists, fundamentalists, literal interpreters of the Bible; they are stuck in a bygone age. They are basically uneducated, uninformed. There’s what he says, “If the consensus of modern scientist who devote their lives to looking at the data of the physical world is that humans have existed on the planet for a very long time it is foolish for Biblical interpreters to say that the Bible teaches the recent creation of human beings.” In other words, we wait for the scientist to tell us. The Bible, we don’t understand it on its own. But what about the scientist to say that miracles are not a possibility, that the bodily resurrection of a man who has been in the grave for three days and three nights is not a possibility? Well how long are you going to go and hold on to these unscientific, religious beliefs? That’s what he says. We have to wait and see what scientist say about the opening chapters.

Bruce Walkey, in the early 70’s when I was here. So many people were listening to Bruce Walkey Tapes. He was professor of Old Testament at Dallas Seminary, brilliant man. He was doing good stuff. In those days Dallas Seminary was a dispensational school. He began to change. You know your intellect can get in your way if you are not careful. Again, not anti-intellectual but the Bible isn’t subject to a priesthoods interpretation like the Roman Catholic nor is it subject to the scholars determination. Bruce Walkey wandered and moved more and more to covenantalism then he began to move away from the literal interpretation of Genesis. The last I read about him in a magazine article where he was interviewed he said, “If science showed there was no literal Adam and Eve it won’t bother me a bit.” Where do we go? I mean what is left with our Bibles? I think literal interpretation is a watershed. I am not saying these men as far as I can tell, Graham Goldsworthy was clear on the Gospel but his denial of literal interpretation is a slippery slope.

Let me read a little bit more from him and then I will wrap it up with someone I like. “It is neither possible nor desirable to try to return to so called pre-critical times. Living in the modern and post-modern world means that we often have to ask different questions of Scripture from those of our forbearers.” I think he is attacking the Gospel. I need different questions than Paul did and Peter did? Boy, we are now in a world of confusion. Then he goes on to attack “Dispensationalists because of their prophetic literalism.” He understands all that smoke about how we don’t know what literalism is and it’s so, he understands. “Dispensationalists because of their prophetic literalism expect the future fulfillment of the hopes of Israel for a national restoration and salvation.” So we know what literalism means. All that about all that is so confusing and we can never be sure. When he gets down to it he is sure. There is no confusion if you take prophecy literally you will end up seeing a distinction between Israel and the church.

Let me just give you an example of how he interprets. He’s got some charts in the back of his hermeneutics book on what the Old Testament says, what the eschatology involved is and then how it is fulfilled in Christ and this is what Gospel centered hermeneutics is, the promise of a land, a people, great name, blessing to the nation. He says” as prophetic eschatology, the people of God will return to the promised land and be great. The nations will come to share in the kingdom of Zion.” Here’s the fulfillment in Christ: “The land is to be the new Eden, the dwelling of the people with God. Jesus is that place as well as being God and the people. He is the light to the nation.” Doesn’t that help clarify things? “The land is to be the new Eden, the dwelling of the people with God. Jesus is that place.” He is the new Eden, He is the land. That is what he is saying and He is God and He’s the people. I am sure this is clear. “He is the light to the nation.”

He goes on in another place, The Old Testament in History, entering possession of the land. “Prophetic eschatology, the people of God will return from the nations to the land of promise, fulfillment in Christ. Jesus gains entry through His resurrection and ascension into the inheritance of the people of God. He conquers all the powers that resist the coming of the kingdom of God by being the place where God meets His people. He fulfills the meaning of the land.” So now we go back. “Abraham, you walk around the land, all the land where your soles touch I will give it to you and your descendants” and we went through in past studies how many times that is repeated. Now you understand what they were really talking about is God meeting with His people. Where does God meet with His people? In Jesus, therefore Jesus is the land.

One of the reviews in a theological journal said, “He doesn’t really mean Jesus is the land does he?” I mean that’s where it comes to. Jesus is the people so there is no future prophecy for Israel because all of that is fulfilled in one people, Jesus Christ. He is the people and He is the kingdom and He is the place where God meets with His people because He is God and since God was going to meet with His people in the land and dwell with them in the land and Jesus is the people and is the land he meets with His people in Jesus and there we are. Isn’t that so helpful? How long would you have had to study? You see you just go back on all those promises we could wipe them out, any literal fulfillment of future things. This is a serious matter.

I am going to read you one thing and then we will be done. I promise next week I won’t read to you, (maybe.) Since I have no control over the future I can’t be sure of what I will do. I was going to walk you through some passages of Scripture but I used my time. Let me just read you one example before I read you what I wanted to read you. I took this out of Grudem’s Theology. He is professor at Trinity Seminary. He is a covenantal pre-millennialist. But here like going through the Scriptures, James, the book of James and it starts out: “James is writing to the twelve tribes in the diaspora, the dispersion.” Even has a footnote: “The dispersion was a term to refer to the Jewish people scattered aboard from the land of Israel” and he is writing to the twelve tribes of the dispersion. “This indicates that he is evidently viewing New Testament Christians as the successor to and fulfillment of the twelve tribes of Israel.” Now he is a professor, he is intelligent. “If James is writing to the twelve tribes of the dispersion that is another evidence that the church has replaced Israel.” Do you see the connection? I don’t. It seems to me James says, “I am writing to the twelve tribes of the diaspora.” Well he says he is writing to churches so he just decides James isn’t writing to the twelve tribes of the diaspora he is writing to churches. So much for what James said. I mean James said he is writing to, he does the same thing with I Peter because Peter writes he is writing to the “elect sojourners of the diaspora.” I kind of think it is crazy because he puts the footnote that the dispersion was a term used to refer to the Jewish people scattered abroad from the land of Israel. But here it refers to the church. So the church is the new Israel. And we just go through passages like this. “These are the passages” and then he concludes this section, “what further statement could be needed in order for us to say with assurance that the church has now become the true Israel of God and will receive all blessing promised to Israel in the Old Testament?” I say you haven’t demonstrated anything to me. I think the twelve tribes of the diaspora are referring to believing Jews scattered outside the land of Palestine. You will have to give me more proof than you’ve decided he was really writing to the church and so the church is Israel.

Let me conclude now with my last. This is from Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics published in 1885 and it is well worth reading but I realize that may not be what you want to do this week. It is on the hermeneutics book list. It is an extensive work. But here is what he said about interpretation. Note the simplicity of this. I’m not going to tell you sometimes he is referencing others as he quotes but here he says, “It’s been laid down as a maximum since (in the early days before his days in 1885) which cannot be controverted that the Bible is to be interpreted in the same manner, that is by the same principles as all other books. Is there any good reason to object to the principle of interpretation now in question? In order to answer let us direct our attention to the nature and source of what are now called principles and laws of interpretation. Where did they originate? The principles of interpretation as to their substantial and essential elements are no invention of man, no product of his effort and learned skill. No, they can scarcely be said with truth to be have been discovered by him. They’re co-equal with our nature.” They go hand-in-hand with what we are as human beings. “Ever since man was created and endowed with the powers of speech and made a communicative, social being, he has had occasion to practice upon the principles of interpretation and actually done so. From the first moment one human being addressed another by the use of language down to the present hour; the essential laws of interpretation became and has continued to be a practical matter. I venture to advance a step further and to infer that all men are and ever have been in reality good and true interpreters of each other’s language. Has any part of our race in full possession of the human faculties ever failed to understand what others said to them and understand it truly or make themselves understood by others when they have in their communication kept within the circle of their knowledge? Surely none. One cannot commit a more palatable error in relation to this subject than to suppose that the art of interpretation is in itself wholly dependent upon an acquired skill for the discovery and development of its principles.” In other words, we do it all the time.

Graham Goldsworthy wrote a book on hermeneutics assuming we would be able to interpret it. How would you make any progress there? I wonder what he meant when he said that Christ died for our sins and was raised from the dead. You know, Christ, a word that means Messiah or anointed one. Now priests in the Old Testament could have been anointed, kings could have been anointed, ah, I wonder what? You just go on forever. We understand. We talk all the time. If you watched the ballgame today you may say, “He had a smoking fast ball.” Smoking, I didn’t see any smoke on any fast ball. We don’t even stop and think about it. Everybody knows. We use figures of speech. They just are part and then we come to the Bible and can interpret it but wow, that’s his whole point. Interpret it normally just like you are reading another book. You will find symbols and figures of speech and all of that. Don’t make it more difficult than it is.

You know, these original readers were shepherds in the Old Testament in the land of Israel shepherding their sheep. They weren’t scholars sitting, learning trying to learn principles of language and God held them accountable for knowing what He said, understanding it and doing it. Then you come to the New Testament and Christ uses what? Language scholars out of the best schools? No, fishermen. How much time do you think Peter spent sitting down, trying to read and understand principles of language to know how to interpret and use this to display their knowledge and really remove the Scripture from the hands of the people to whom God has given it to be read, to be understood, to be obeyed.

Let’s pray together. Thank You Lord for Your truth. Thank You Lord in Your awesome greatness. You created us in Your image. You created us to communicate. You created us from the beginning in the Garden of Eden when You walked with Adam and Eve in the cool of the evening. You talked with them. You communicated with them and how You have preserved Your Word for us so Lord even the least educated have the basic principles, can study Your Word under the inspiration of Your Spirit, His guidance, His enlightening, we as Your children understand. How amazing that You, the eternal God has communicated to us the intention that we understand and know You, know Your will, know how to obey. May we count these truths precious, may we hold them tightly and may we live in light of them. Bless us in our service for You in the days of the week before us, we pray in Christ’s name, amen.