In another thread, I wrote the following, with some of Joe's (Wannabee) response following it.

Let's help Joe with his fictional assignment of writing an argument against dispensationalism from the CT perspective, without raising any straw men. As a good seminarian, I think Joe is correct that its important to start with the hermeneutic behind dispensationalism, making sure that we really understand what that is. At the same time, to argue from the CT perspective, we need to understand what that hermeneutic is as well.

In this thread, I'd like for us to focus on trying to come to a common understanding of what the basic hermeneutic is for dispensationalism, then for CT. No CT bashing, no dispy (this term isn't offensive to anybody, is it?) bashing. Let's forget about all the wackos on TV or wherever who give either approach a bad name. For us ex-dispy's, let's try and set aside our emotions about how we feel about dispensationalism, and add our two cents about what exactly is the hermeneutic, the basic principle(s) that are behind the method of interpretaton. What would also be helpful, as we work through this, would be to include the scriptural reasons that drive each hermeneutic. How does God help us, using His scriptures, to know how to properly interpret His scriptures?

Anybody?

[Edited on 5-30-2006 by blhowes]

__________________
B.Howes
Framingham, MA

Just to get things started, here's what I found when I did a quick search on 'dispensationalism' and 'principles of interpretation':
Is this a good starting point for understanding the dispensational hermeneutic? How is this similar to or different from the CT hermeneutic?

[Edited on 5-27-2006 by blhowes]

Just so that I don't put words into people's mouths, this isn't saying to take into account metaphors, simile, hyperbole, and figurative language...but then interpret it literally, is it? When taking into account such things, what principles are used to determine if the literary devices override the literal interpretation?

Excellent question and exactly why it's so difficult to debate dispensationalists! For example, the very beginning of Revelation. The letters to the seven churches were written to a literal seven churches correct? CT and Dispy beliefs would agree with that regarding literalism. So where does the idea that these seven letters were also written to a future generation as well? How do we know what "Church age" we are in?

It's simple stuff like this that convinced me of the errors of dispy thought and teaching. Literally!

__________________
Adam - Pennsylvania - Baptist

http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/p...5655012&ref=nf

Good start Bob,
You understand number one correctly. Some would prefer to say, "the clear and simple meaning" rather than "literal" because it can lead to misunderstanding. However, the conditions in you definition are fair, as long as they're handled responsibly.

For clarity, where I use the word "allegory," cut some slack. I understand that "symbolism" or "spiritualize" may be preferred by some. Please, simply accept that we're talking about the same thing and let's not get hung up on how I've used these words in the past. I can use any of the three that anyone else is comfortable with.

Here's a thread with some nuggets
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...7881#pid250661

Here's a quote from http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/vi...d=11598&page=5Some more infoAnd thisSo, progressive revelation is also a big part of the dispensational hermeneutic. The NT does shed light on the OT, but only when the NT passage took place. The OT writers/audience did not have the same insight (revelation) as the NT audience.


Well, that should throw out a few nuggets. Bob, if you're up to it, maybe you can summarize or bullet point in order to keep things on track.




What about someone articulating the CT hermeneutic principles? I've offered up the challenge many times in our discussions, and yet to have someone do so.

__________________
For the Glory of our King,
Joe Johnson
Slave of Christ, husband, father, Preacherboy at Cornerstone Community Church, Escanaba, MI. and TMS graduate. Personal website - SoundLife.org

I do not know, and I do not say, that a person cannot believe in Revelation and in evolution, too, for a man may believe that which is infinitely wise and also that which is only asinine. ~ CHS

I'd never heard that they were written to a future generation, but that each letter represents a part of the church age. Maybe we're saying the same thing, different words.

Maybe we can use this and other passage examples to try see how they use their hermeneutic to arrive at an interpretation. The reasoning I've heard is:

Rev 1:19 Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

This verse, from what I've been taught, helps us understand the timeframe for various parts of Revelation. Some of Revelation is past, some present, and some is still future. If the early part of Rev 4 represents the rapture of the church, a future event, those things happening after Rev 4 would also be future, those before (7 letters) represent the present church age.

Is that a fair representation of dispy reasoning, and use of their hermeneutic, on this passage?

That's how I understood it when I was dispensational.

You've jumped to interpretation. It's part of it, but not the first step.

All the books of the Bible were addressed to someone (s or pl) at the time. That doesn't mean that they're not applicable to us today. This argument could be used against any of the epistles.

I wouldn't say that each church represents an era so much as to point out that each church in Revelation does represent, at least to some degree, present day churches. In other words, if the shoe fits then pay attention.

Don't wanna (short for...) jump the gun here. What's the first step?

OK, never mind. I went back and read what you wrote in another post:

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 hermentical principles.
Using the dispensational hermeneutic, you seem to have come to a different conclusion than others in the dispensational camp. Can you show how you use your hermeneutic to come to your conclusion? Are those dispensationalists that conclude that each letter represents a different part of the church age using the same hermeneutic as you? Why the differences?

[Edited on 5-27-2006 by blhowes]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "...but only when the NT passage took place"

Wow, that would go way beyond what I am ready to take on right now. First, let's get through the basics, if you don't mind.

Who disagrees with these principles? How about the definitions? If all are agreed on these principles then we have a starting place. But to jump ahead to conclusions will turn into another long thread arguing for different interpretations without getting to the root of the differences.

I think you summed them up nicely.

As for why others come to different conclusions, it's usually because they've bought into a man made system. I would say the same thing has happened in CT. It's difficult for anyone in the CT camp to talk long without quoting somebody. The dispy camp is a bit different: many of them are not good Bareans and fail to think on their own. They read what others have said into their understanding of Scripture rather than letting the text speak first. This doesn't mean that I'll always be right. Far from it! But it does give me the authority to say "Thus saith the Lord" because I stick with the text... and sometimes to say "I dunno" when I just can't figure it out. But, if you read through my explanations above you'll see that I'm shackled pretty tight to a set of principles that help keep me from straying too far.
We all bring so much with us to the table that this last set of questions has no simple answer. The statements made here should give a general idea though.

Another thought: why is it that we agree on so many of the core issues? It would be because the text says so, right? Why do we depart in other areas? For me, it's generally because of a lack of understanding when I'm wrong. Like anyone else, I bring presuppositions to the table and sway my judgment, and thus cunclusions. But I never start with a system. If I run across something that simply doesn't seem to fit with what I understand then it's time to search the Scriptures to find out where I'm wrong. I couldn't care less if it fits some dead guy's systematic theology (except as a check, which helps me to see if my conclusoins were right - then it's affirming). And when I get stumped I check my commentaries just like the next guy. Then we get into who a person reads. Bad theology is always picked up from men. It's never picked up from simply reading the Bible.

Well, hopefully that will get us back to the basics. I'm open to trying to answer any pointed questions. I think the posts above show much about how I use these hermeneutic principles to come to a conclusion. Remember, these are just basic definitions and principles in gaining a proper understanding.

Well, I've rambled a bit. Hope I didn't get off track too far.

Thanks Bob,

Sorry Bob. That wasn't clear. My point was that there are many things that could not be understood until the NT was written. We can't read NT understanding into OT passages in cases where there was no way the OT audience could have understood it that way. The church is a good example. Their is no way the OT saints could understand "church" as we know it. Jesus made it clear that the church began at Pentacost (though there are some arguments that it may have been at other times, this is generally accepted by Dispies). There are other examples, but times burning and I must run.
Hope that was clearer.

Joe,
You had mentioned that you wanted someone to also provide the reformed hermeneutic so we could take a look at it as well. I did a little search and found this, written by Dr. R. Scott Clark:
Bob

I'm not sure how to proceed Bob. These are principles that I would use.

One note: The analogy of faith shouldn't be applied until after the interpretation is done. This can lead to making passages parallel when they might not actually be. It also can force a preunderstanding into the text instead of allowing that passage to simply say what it says and mean what it means.

If you have an idea how you want to proceed then I'm still here. If not, maybe we could approach a somewhat controvercial passage (short one) and walk through it, applying the principles we would use.

I'd like to walk through a controversial scripture passage, but first I'd like to nail down what it is that makes the dispensational hermeneutic different from the CT hermeneutic. I'm not knowledgeable about hermeneutics, so it'd be great if somebody who's seminary trained and is knowledgeable about the reformed hermeneutic could chime in and help us determine what's unique about it.

Bare with me, but both systems recognize that God spoke to certain key people in the OT (Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David), but CT stresses the continuity between these events and dispensationalism the discontinuity. Is this different way of viewing the events part of the two hermeneutics, or is this the result of them?

Dispensationalism wouldn't view it as discontinuity, but rather as progressive. But this would be a result, not a cause. We have to start with the text. The hermeneutics deside how we get to the interpretation. You might look at the definitions I gave above again. They might be helpful.

I have to admit though, that some dispensationalists would see discontinuity here. I can't speak for them, because I consider them to have forced a grid on their understanding. This is a possible result of not following the hermeneutic consistently (or being completely ignorant of it, like most dispensationalists are.).

...the reformed hermeneutic I posted reflects, according to Joe, the way he as a dispensationalist approaches scripture. Anybody know anything unique about the reformed hermeneutic that I missed that would differentiate it from the dispensational hermeneutic?

Coming at this as a novice. It seems that CT has the same goals as disp. in its hermenuetic (i.e., blhowes 2nd post). The CT adds that if a literal interepretation of the NT modifies OT, then it understands OT as modified. The disp. exegete does not believe that that type of modification is possible. So he qualifies (limits, modifies) the NT reasoning that the modification must be implied otherwise the OT prophecies hold no knowable meaning until they are fulfilled.

__________________
Greg Bednarchik
Sovereign Grace Church
(part of Sovereign Grace Ministries)
Cherry Hill NJ

One of the books I found very helpful was Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow by Curtis Crenshaw and Grover Gunn, both of whom were former students at DTS. They spoke of the apostolic hermeneutic, i.e., interpreting the OT as the apostles did. It's my impression that dispensationalism isn't always faithful to the apostolic hermeneutic.

DTK

__________________
Sola Scriptura est norma normans non normata
D. T. King, pastor
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Elkton, Maryland
Augustine (354-430): Therefore what He [i.e., Christ] has deigned to speak to us, we ought to believe that He meant us to understand. But if we do not understand He, being asked, gives understanding, who gave His Word unasked. NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate XXII, §1.

These are good observations. That's what I was trying to convey earlier.

Unfortunately, dispensationalists are mostly inconsistent in their hermeneutic, as DTK mentioned. I hadn't heard the term "apostolic hermeneutic" though. It makes sense.

I'd modify Greg's statements a little. This is sort of hard to articulate clearly... at least for me it is. Bear with me here. The DT takes the OT at face value. If the NT uses the passage (Acts 2, where Peter uses Joel) differently than it was understood in the OT then it is new revelation. However, a DT would not allow the NT usage of the OT change the meaning (modify) the OT passage from an OT point of view. Whew! I hope that made sense.
I wouldn't necessarily say that the prophecies aren't knowable. However, the meaning wouldn't be clear until fulfilled. For example, Jesus will return. We all agree on that. He will return in like manner as He left. We all have an idea of what that means, but couldn't clearly picture it. He'll be returning on a horse. This leaves us wondering what that means. I can readily accept that it is a literal horse. But I sure wouldn't die on that hill. I can just as readily accept that it is figurative for something else, but I couldn't begin to figure out what. So, it's not unknowable. It's a matter of specifics and details that are unknowable.

Ps 16:10 - For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. (Acts 2:31-32)

From a DT perspective, David's words could not be rightly understood until Jesus rose from the dead.


I can work my way through that. But I don't understand the implications of the CT's approach to these passages.

I think you've found at least one difference between the dispensational and reformed hermeneutic. Just for clarification, when you say "OT point of view", whose view would that be? For example, during the time Jesus walked the earth, there was quite a difference in points of view when it comes to looking at OT passages, case in point the Pharisees vs the Sadducees.

Just wanted to be clear that I was just stated what I understood a DT perspective to be, this statement was not my personal belief.

I think a CT approach says the same thing - they are not rightly understood until Jesus rose from the dead. What the CT adds is that what is revealed by the NT's use of this Psalm is that it is perfectly legitimate to understand OT prophecies that had David as their referent to be referring to Christ. I think usually the DT is onboard for this (although I have heard some state that David will be resurrected to rule in Jerusalem, this has been on the fringe). Usually were they part company is when you start doing this with the temple.

It would seem that I've been very successful finding those churches that are on the fringe. From my experience, the fringe has been the norm.

Just for the fun of it, I'd like to take a look at a passage and step through how we would arrive at an understanding of the passage using the dispensational hermeneutic. Let's look at the passage in Zechariah that I mentioned in another thread:
At first glance, since most agree that Jesus is the branch spoken of here, it seems from the passage that he will build the structure (?) of the temple and others will build inside the temple. I'm not sure if this is how those in the time of Zechariah would have understood this passage, but it certainly seems feasible. If this is correct:

How do we determine who they that are far off is referring to, who will help Jesus build the temple?

How do we determine how far 'far off' is (within Israel, neighboring countries, other continent, etc)?

When will Jesus and those far off build the temple?

While I'm thinking about how to use the dispensational hermeneutic to answer these question, feel free to chime in.

Two possibilities so far:

Gentile Christians
Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Sabeans
Joe 3:8 And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the LORD hath spoken it.

[Edited on 5-31-2006 by blhowes]

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 hermentical principles.

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



So, the first step would be to work through the original text. I won't be able to work on that right away. My Hebrew is rusty and it will take me a little bit to get it done. Still competing assignments for summer classes right now. Anybody up to it?

How's this, from John Owen;

"This principle is always to be retained in our minds in reading of the Scripture, namely, that the revelation and doctrine of the person of Christ and His office is the foundation on which all other instructions of the prophets and apostles for the edification of the Church are built, and in which they are resolved."

From The Glory of Christ by John Owen

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Thanks, Meg. Good stuff.

I like also what he says in the previous paragraph:
Definitely a good principle to keep in mind as we study the scriptures.

It might help if the above hermeneutic was clarified and stated succinctly. For instance, while Christ is evident throughout the OT, some take this too far. I suspect that CTs would see Christ in more passages than DTs. What guidelines are used to keep one from eisegesis (I-see-Jesus ).

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

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

Since the majority of Christians can't read/understand Hebrew or Greek, I'm wondering what alternative the rest of us have to going to the original text and digging out meanings from the original languages per this hermeneutic principle. If there are no alternatives, then we're stuck just trusting the experts - dispensational experts if we're in a dispensational church or reformed experts if we're in a reformed church. There must be some way for the rest of us to be Berean Christians in this regard.

[Edited on 6-1-2006 by blhowes]

__________________
Andrew

I was thinking about the Daniel 9 passage with regard to the hermeneutic principles one uses, and how important it is to make sure we have and use the right principles. It seems the reformed hermeneutic leads the interpretter to see Jesus and His finished work in the latter part of the chapter - the dispensational hermeneutic (I assume) leads the interpretter to see the antiChrist in the same passage. If that's where each hermeneutic leads, one of them definitely needs a little tweaking.

I think there are some "half-way" steps that can help the student get closer to the Greek. An Englishman's Greek Concordance is one. I have been working with the ESV Reverse Interlinear and find it a good help. While the texts are ordered according to the English translation a numbering notational system is used to indicate the original order of the Greek text. (They have a Hebrew version also for the OT.) I have this in Logos, so by placing the cursor over the Greek word I can get the grammatical information. I need to always remind myself that I am not therefore an original languages scholar and any conclusions must be tentative. I read scholarly, or semi-scholarly, commentaries that explain the text and then try to find a scholar from a different theological viewpoint discuss the text to see what disagreements they have about the underlying text. Often falsifiable claims are made about the original language that can be tested. Failure on that test marks a commentator as unreliable for me. Hope this doesn't sound too modernist but I think it is a worthwhile half-step that someone can start with right away.
A diligent reading of Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" is a must. I spent a long time under the belief that the original language held the definitive answer to all the theological difficulties. Often however I discover that ambiguities in the translation is often the result of a good translation of an ambiguous text.

Greg,
Thanks for your helpful advice. I use something similar with e-sword to find out what the words mean, but, as you say, conclusions are tentative at best.
That sounds like a 'must read'. Although it'd be great to know the original languages and to really dig into it, I think a lot of wrong ideas about the english meaning can be weeded out by simply looking at the text in several different versions. My guess is that if all the versions essentially interpret the verses the same way, digging into the originals won't affect the overall rendering.

Good exegetical commentaries can help as well. But often you're getting a slant that you're not able to pick up on because of lack of ability with the languages. It would be best to try to find at least a couple for the passage in question and compare them to one another. The Bible software tools available today definitely give the student a great edge in this area, even if he doesn't know Greek or Hebrew.

But there are always nuances in the language that just don't translate well. Then there's the challenge of how to translate idioms. Do we translate them literally and simply footnote the idiom, or do we translate it in a manner that relates to the idiom in contemporary English? I prefer the former for an "official" translation. But this needs to be uncovered when exegeting the text.

Sometimes there are emphatic elements involved that are easily missed in English translations as well. Without some exegetical digging this would be very difficult to discover. Outlining the text helps to see patterns and emphasis as well. This brings up another item that is missed in English. Chiasm is used often in Hebrew. But it doesn't translate as a chiasm very often. There is no way to see this without looking at the Hebrew, or reading about it in a commentary. This can be very important because chiasms give emphasis and focus in ways that English doesn't.

I'm not saying that anyone "needs" to be able to work with the languages. The English translations are great. But it helps a lot in the exegetical process if we can begin with the original.

Here's an example from Pslam 32:5
Notice that "sin" is in the first line. Guilt is in the second line. Transgression in the third line. Guilt (same word as in second line) is next, with sin repeated last (same word as in 1st line).
So, we have a pattern of

sin
guilt
transgression
guilt
sin

Here are some observations I noted on this a while back. The use of different words referring to sin or guilt in verse 5 are arranged in a chiasm. The order is חַטָּ×�תִי - וַעֲוֹ֘×*Ö´×™ - פְש×�ָעַי - עֲוֹ֖ן - חַטָּ×�תִי, or sin "“ guilt "“ transgression "“ guilt "“ sin. The significance may be that David purposes to confess or make his sin known to God, and to reveal his iniquity or guilt. Finally he verbalizes it by saying he will confess his transgression to the
LORD (that he has stepped over the line that God has established), resulting in God taking away his iniquity or guilt for his sin. The significance is placed on the middle word here and what is happening in this phrase, for it is the turning point, the climax, of this verse. It is here that David finally gains relief from the anguish caused by his sin and, as these verses point out, his unwillingness to deal with it properly. The use of these specific words has significance in their use earlier in this psalm as well.
The first waw-conjunction in verse five is simply to show concurrent action (וַעֲוֹ֘×*Ö´×™).
Emphasis is given to the fact that it is the LORD, and Him alone, who bears away guilt for our sins.

Furthermore, this psalm has some idiomatic language. One phrase is "Your hand was heavy upon me." This language was used in the region whenever someone was going through hard times. For the pagans it meant that they needed to try to figure out how to placate their gods. But for the Israelite it meant that God was working in their lives and that they needed to turn to Him and trust Him. In David's case it was a matter of repenting. God took the guilt for the sin from him, which the pagan gods could never do. David knew reconciliation. Pagans could never know if their sacrifices and other efforts at appeasing their gods was going to do anything for them. The contrast is wonderful. Pagan gods put their hand on man's neck to oppress him. YHWH presses down on the neck of those He loves in order to bring them to a closer relationship with Him.

In verse 3 and 4 there are these observations as well:
The emphasis on the duration of the anguish of the guilty conscience has been brought forward in verses 3 and 4 of this psalm. By the use of anadiplosis the all consuming nature of David being crushed day in and day out, night and day, is brought out for the reader to gain a better understanding of the magnitude of both David´s guilt as he reflects, and on our own guilt when we attempt to deal with sin ourselves.

This can't quite be seen in the English either. If someone knew what to look for they might realize it was there. But I doubt it would be notable to any who didn't have some knowledge of Hebrew.



My point is, even a thorough treatment of this psalm in the English would most likely not reveal these things. Yet they are helpful in digging into the depth of God's Word. A good exegetical commentary should note these though.

By the way, Psalm 32 was Augustine's favorite.

Mat 13:45,46 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

Thanks for the example from Psalm 32. Its good to be reminded of the depth of God's Word and just how precious it is. Praise the Lord for those who can use their skill to dig out such truths for others.

What commentaries do you and others find most useful in providing this kind of information?

Tough call. It depends a lot on how much work you're willing to do and which book you're studying. Alford and Robertson deal well with the text, but may leave you scratching your head on occasion if you have no understanding of the Greek. I like Alford better. He simply has more information. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament is excellent for digging into the meaning of the words. This isn't a commentary either, but more of a lexical/theological aid. Hendriksen is helpful with the NT as well. MacArthur would be more expository - easy to read and deals with language enough to be helpful, but not so much as to overwhelm someone with no basic knowledge.

For the OT The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament is very helpful. So is the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis (NIDOTTE - The NT set is helpful as well). But these deal with individual words, which often requires at least some understanding of the language. You could learn how to use any of these effectively though, with just a little bit of study. For the Psalms you need Spurgeon. Regardless of what some people say, he does have some good exegetical information in The Treasury of David. But you need the unabridged version. The re-edited versions take out a lot of the exegitcal information. Spurgeon used books that we can't find today. Some of these observations are extremely valuable (like his discussion on "Selah"). There will be a commentary on the Psalms coming out soon from Dr. William Barrick also. I expect it to be very thorough and very good. You can check out a little bit of his work at his website, www.drbarrick.org. He has teaching outlines of most of the psalms there, as well as some other information that is helpful.

One of the better commentary sets, though I don't care for the NIV, is the NIVAC. The layout makes sense and is easy to use. They're generally very helpful. Word Biblical Commentary has some excellent commentaries. So do the NIGTC, Pillar and NICNT. But many of these sets have sort of a mixed bag, with a liberal scholar thrown in here and there. That's why you want to be careful in who you read. I like Hiebert on the NT books. He deals with the language, but in terminology that isn't too difficult to follow. He also deals with some of the desagreements in translation, without bogging down. And his contextual and expositional observations are very valuable as well (I sound like a commercial).

It really depends on which book you're studying though. Often there is an excellent work on one book by one person who really didn't do much in other areas. Hoehner has an excellent commentary on Ephesians. It's really a valuable tool. Carson's commentary on John is excellent as well (though he has other excellent books). Also, there is often a good commentary within a set that is not so good, a gem amongst the pebbles.

I know this may be overwhelming, and doesn't answer your question definitively. That's because I don't know that there is a definitive answer. It's simply too subjective, depending on how much work the individual is willing to put in; how much they know; what book they're in; and of course there are theological conisiderations as well.




So, if you have a few thousand bucks laying around, buy all the sets mentioned, plus a few favorites on each book, and enjoy yourself. But if you're like me, buy the aids you can afford, focus on one book at a time and buy the best aids you can find on that book, and start digging. You could do this the rest of your life and never get through the Bible.

Both Dispensational and Covenant theologians say they want to read Scripture literally etc. Yet we reach radically different conclusions re Israel.

See this essay.

It's a chicken and egg thing. Do we have our hermeneutic because of our theology or our theology because of our hermeneutic? The truth is probably that there is a reciprocal relation between the two. No one can say anymore, "I'm just reading the Bible..."

First of all, there's an "I'm" in "I'm just reading the Bible." A person must read the Bible. A Bible-reader lives in a given time and place. He is a product of his time and place. He, being a creature, can't transcend his time and place. So he "reads" his Bible under lots of influences. He's aware of some and not of others.

Second there is the verb "to read." There are obviously lots of ways to read a text, especially a text as layered as Scripture. So, some one, under some influences, is reading something, somewhere. To explain this would require a textbook. See e.g., Kevin Vanhoozer's work.

The short story is that Dispensationalists are convinced that national Israel is at the center of God's redemptive activity and they read the Bible in that light.

Covenant theology reads the Bible to say that Christ (the Christ of the Covenants) is at the center of redemptive history and that Israel, as it were, works for Christ. God's relations to national Israel were intentionally temporary and illustrative of his plan to redeem all his people through the obedience of his Son. See this essay.

Dispensationalists have been wont to imply/say that they are free from historical influence. It's a form of Biblicism (see above). Cov theology is, otoh, organically related to the way Christians have read the Bible since the earliest days. Read any of the early fathers on the unity of redemption, Irenaeus, Matthetes, et al and you will find them using a hermeneutic quite like that of covenant theology. [On early Christian eschatology see C. E. Hill] The medieval theologians, despite their faults, tended to see the history of redemption as united in Christ. The Reformation overwhelmingly read the Bible as CT does as did the 17th century orthodox. Historically considered, Dispensationalism" is about 150 years old. It isn't the hermeneutic of historic Christianity. Honest Dispensationalists will admit this.

There is, however, in my experience, a certain correlation between ignorance of historic Christianity and Dispensationalism, especially on the popular level. The Dispensationalists I've known specialize in creating a culture wherein they peddle gnostic insights into the Bible that no-one has had before e.g., "the Pauline epistles are not for "today" or "here's how this news event fulfills this prophecy." Laity in Dispensational churches are often shocked to find that their hermeneutic and theological system is a novelty.

The other factor is eschatology and world view. The older dispensational premillennialists tend to have an almost gnostic view of material reality. They want to escape it (via rapture) and they have the gnostic dialectic of indulgence and repression. One day they want to take back America for Christ or advocate antinomianism (Zane Hodges' antinomianism is related to his Dispensationalism) and the next day they are trying to flee material reality ("don't taste, don't touch" etc). Perhaps this describes older forms of dispensationalism better than the more recent versions?

CT has tended to be implicitly or explicitly non-millenarian, though not exclusively. There was an outbreak of historic pre-millennialism in the 17th century. Most of the time, however, we haven't looked for a literal 1000 year reign because we recognized that the Apocalypse was mostly symbolic. [On this I think I've seen dispensational writers treat the 7 churches as symbolic and the rest as literal. Yikes! See Colin Hemer's excellent work on the 7 churches].

From a CT pov, the older forms of dispensationalism seem quasi-Marcionite in their hermeneutic. Most of the older writers, anyway, were convinced that we cannot imitate the method/way the NT writers read the OT. So they have their own hermeneutic over against Paul's or Peter's or John's. Thus, they effectively insulated themselves against ever reforming their conclusions because they can't replicate or imitate the NT hermeneutic! Nice work if you can get it.

CT, otoh, doesn't think that the apostolic hermeneutic was inspired, just the text of Scripture. One doesn't need to be inspired to see "that Rock was Christ." or even to read Scripture as Jesus did in Luke 24 or as 1 Peter 4 does when he makes the New Cov church the holy temple over which the glory-Spirit hovers. 2 Cor 1 says literally that "all the promises are yes and amen in Christ," (not national Israel). Jesus literally re-capitulated the history of Israel (Matt 2) when he went "down to Egypt" and came up "out of Egypt." He literally fulfilled the promise to destroy and re-build the temple in three days. It's not a matter of who reads the Bible literally, it's a matter of who reads the Bible literally the way the Bible wants to be read, the way the Bible writers, esp. the Apostles, read it themselves. So ask yourself, who is a better guide to understanding the Hebrew Scriptures, Paul or C. Ryrie? There really is a choice.

rsc

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Westminster Seminary California
Associate Pastor, Oceanside URC
The Heidelcast Podcast
The Heidelblog
Office Hours Podcast

Don't worry about me being overwhelmed - I've learned to get use to the feeling, having been a member of the PB going on 4 yrs...

I think you did answer my question definitively. The commentary used depends on the book being studied.

A few thousand bucks ... ... no point reading the rest of the paragraph.

...A few thousand bucks......good one!