Dr. Clark,
Thank-you for your response, and your links to the essays.

I understand what you're saying, though I have a pretty authoritative source that leads me to believe that the chicken did indeed come first...

I don't know if its the same thing, but lately I've been thinking that finding the truth in the scriptures involves (at least) two ways of looking at the scriptures. One way is through hermeneutics whereby you look at the scripture passages closely, as if through a microscope. You examine the text, using whatever tools you have at your disposal, to unlock hidden meanings.

The second way is by just reading the Bible from a 'bird's-eye view', reading large portions of scripture to try and see general themes in the scriptures. The two should work hand-in-hand.

When stated that way, the choice between theologies is simple. In a way, though, isn't dispensationalism grounded in the covenants and God's faithfulness to keep his covenant promises? CT and dispensationalism differ in who the recipients are, but both agree that God is faithful and, because of this attribute, He will fulfill whatever promises he made as part of the covenant.

The bottom line is that God made covenants with 'his people'. God is faithful to keep the covenant promises he made to 'his people'. As you mentioned in the first essay, its important to determine who 'his people' (ie., who is Israel) are.

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Thank you Dr. Clark.


I like The White Horse Inn as well.


The essays are good to read. However, there are sweeping comments that are too general in regard to dispensationalism. DT is presented as decidedly Arminian; too wide of a brush ("the cross is ahappy by-product of God's plan for natioinal Israel").


"Honest Dispensationalists will admit this."
In other words, if you disagree then you are either dishonest, or ignorant.


"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."
This is well said, but poorly followed up.

"So ask yourself, who is a better guide to understanding the Hebrew Scriptures, Paul or C. Ryrie? There really is a choice."
Very unhelpful and unedifying use of sarcasm. A dispensationalist would insert Calvin or Witsius or one of the other heroes of CT here and the statement would be just as valid in reverse (though I usually prefer Calvin's comments over Ryrie's).


This discussion involved hermeneutics, not systematics. Any honest CT will admit that their system isn't much older than DT, in the scheme of things. It's not a matter of which is older, but which is right. There are tenets of both from the earliest days of the church.



Sorry Bob. At this point an effort to understand one another and discuss the difference in hermeneutics has been superceded...

Blessings
Joe

[Edited on 6-3-2006 by Wannabee]

__________________
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

Dear W,

What are you saying, that Covenant theology was invented in the middle of the 19th century?

You haven't been reading the history of covenant theology published in Bib Sac have you? That was a really amateur piece of work!

Covenant theology in the Reformation traces to at least 1523 in Johannes Oecolampadius' commentary on Isaiah.

No one in the Reformation was propounding seven different dispensations (as in classic dispensationalism) in the Reformation. No one was making God's relations to national Israel the lever by which all of redemptive history was analyzed. See Luther's notes on how Christians should understand Moses.

I don't see a trace of what became dispensationalism in the Fathers, whereas ALL patrologists see a strong doctrine of the unity of redemption in the fathers over against the gnostics.

This is the sort of naivete about which I was writing. Hermeneutics is not some hermetically sealed science practiced by folk who aren't somewhere at sometime.

Hermeneutics IS theology. They are inextricably linked to one another.

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

Ditto.
You're not going to read them all at once, so no point in buying them all at once. Even if you got a discount for one a whole series at once, I don't know if the savings would cover the individual books you wouldn't have bought.
I get a lot of use out of my Logos. It has TDNT & TWOT. I bought it a while ago, so I don't what current configuration gets you that. The "leader books" mostly stink and the commentaries are single volume, so if you can get the good stuff without them, that's the way I would go. Then start buying commentaries 2 or 3 at time as you study or teach a book.
I was suprised by the NIVAC. I almost didn't buy it because of the cover - front is dorky and back has endorsement quotes by Rick Warren and Billy Graham. I really like the Thess. & Eze. ones, haven't read 2 Cor., but like other Hafemann works. There are some good New American Commentaries like the one on Samuel, as well as duds like the one on Ezekiel. Carson's commentary on John is GREAT.
Figure out where you want to start and ask what people like and why they like them.

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

Thank you for putting me in my place Dr. You've accused me of dishonesty and naivete. Furthermore, you addressed my comment out of context. The dating of CT is generous, but still is "new" in the scheme of things (as I stated).
Admittedly, there is a little room here for misunderstanding. But certainly not enough to not take this seriously and admit the presence of premillennialism in the early church. As far as I can tell, their were no anti-premillinnialist proponents until Origen.


The authoritative nature of the statement regarding hermeneutics and theology notwithstanding, and your credentials duly noted, perhaps your expertise surpasses others who have gone before you.Unless Terry, and others, are off their rocker, it is apparent that theology is entirely dependent upon hermeneutic principles as they are applied to exegesis. Hermeneutics are obviously not dependent upon theology, and can apparently be involved in any literature. How one could be dependent upon the other and yet still be the same thing is beyond me.

Ergo, hermeneutics is NOT theology. However, theology is inextricably linked to hermeneutics because of its utter dependency on proper exegesis.

Graciousness and humility, professor, would be admirable traits to behold. If I err, teach me, don't bully or throw authoritarian rhetoric around.


For our King
Joe

[Edited on 6-4-2006 by Wannabee]

__________________
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

Not both, just the latter.

I think you're honestly wrong.

Many dispensationalists (especially of the earlier forms of it) have/had a view of hermeneutics that held it is sort of mechanical thing, put the passage in the grinder, turn the handle and there it is.

Most evangelical (and other) scholars today would say that no interpretation of any text works this way.

Take your interpretation of my criticism. You think I'm accusing you of dishonesty. Why? Because, I guess, in your world the only "honest" view is the correct view and if I think you're wrong, then I must be accusing you of dishonesty. I don't think the world works this way.

I myself have sometimes been guilty of speaking this way.

I honestly do think that you are sincere in your views, but that you are sincerely wrong. There's a difference. I don't think that being wrong entails dishonesty. You come to my comments in a context, with a background, that causes you to read them as you do. That's my broader point about hermeneutics.

I read you to say that CT and Disp. are roughly contemporaraneous in origin. This was a widely-held view in American disp. circles. It relied on now discredited scholarship on the history of covenant theology.

See this essay for a popular update:
http://www.wscal.edu/clark/briefhistorycovtheol.php

I don't mean to say that that there was a fully-formed covenant theology in 1523 -- I've read the original text, done my own translation of untranslated texts; it's what I do for a living -- see this work for example.

Covenant theology developed gradually through the 16th century and into the 17th. Most of the older scholarship held that it more or less arose de novo in the 17th century with Cocceius. This is false as Van Asselt, Bierma, and I and others have shown.

I'm not aware of anything like the Scofield system (or its predecessors) in the 16th century. In many ways, dispensationalism in not a Protestant hermeneutic (defined by the Reformation reading of texts).

Yes, there were, as I've said, historic pre-mil folk in the early 17th century - there is good work being done on Alsted and Meade and Piscator and others. They weren't dispensationalists however.

Yes, you can quote someone quoting the Fathers, but as Luther might say, I read the Fathers for myself and I teach patristics. Though not a Patrologist by trade, I read some patristic scholarship.

Yes, as I already said, there were pre-millennial fathers, but they didn't make national Israel the baseline for understanding redemptive history -- precisely because they were in an argument with Jewish critics. They argued that Christianity was the spiritual Israel, that the national covenant was temporary and illustrative of the new covenant. Irenaeus argued this at great length.

As I say, please read C E Hill, (1st edn Oxford Univ Press; 2nd edn is Eerdmans). It is the definitive work on early Christian eschatology.

The modern discussion on hermeneutics is well beyond Milton Terry et co. Even the points I wrote (in the context of the creation debate) are somewhat naive and dated. I would write them differently today. In that context I was trying to explain to frightened fundamentalists in my own circle the same point I'm making here, that two people can use the same set of hermeneutic principles and emerge with different readings of the same text.

I'm not trying to bully you. I'm sorry you feel that way.

I do tend to be blunt and I don't think disagreement is bullying, though I understand that in our culture the two are often mistaken.

rsc

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

Using the dispensational hermeneutic, is there any reason to think that the temple spoken of in the Zechariah 6 passage should not be taken to mean a 'literal' temple (one that's built with bricks and mortar or whatever) similar to other OT temples?

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply Dr.

Forgive me if I don't know all that you've said on other threads. I don't spend much time here; just a discussion here and there. So I've missed much of what you've said.

My reference to being called dishonest is in light of I disagree, to a point. Systematically I see little to refute this, though there are some references they show "some" dispensational thought. Hermeneutically I disagree, but only basically.

I have not studied the fathers as you have, so lean on the teaching of my professors. Would you expect me to trust my professors any less than you expect your students to trust you? Of course we must search for ourselves, but there is only so much time in the day and many irons in the fire. We all lean on the teachings and references of others until we can search and and own it for ourselves. Either way, that's where I perceived you as calling me dishonest. Furthermore, if the quotes are accurate then the truth stands. But you've already said as much, in other words.

Even CTs see different administrations of God's relationship with man. This is part of progressive revelation. Did God interact with man the same prior to the flood as after? Prior to Abraham? Prior to Moses? Prior to David? Prior to the cross? Even immediately after the cross? Yes, salvation has not changed. But God's interaction with man has. Often the two call it by different names and talk past one another simply by reason of symantics and different perceptions on covenants.

The bullying perception came from what I saw as authoritarianism and brandishing of credentials, rather than presenting facts. This in light of being called dishonest and naive didn't come across as very humble or gracious.

As far as hermeneutics go, I used Terry to keep away from contemporary divisions. Dr. Robert Thomas, whom I'm sure you know, has the same basic position (Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus the Old, Kregel, 2002). Though aged, his experience and knowledge in the area of exegesis and hermeneutics does give him a certain credibility in defining hermeneutics, dispensational or not (we'd both disagree with some of his conclusions).

This leads to one more observation: You stated that theology and hermeneutics are the same thing. I obviously disagree, seeing theology as completely dependent upon hermeneutics. However, this may be where our roads fork. It seems that CT is more reliant upon its systematics than DT (sensationalistic eschatology excluded, which departs from the dispenstational hermeneutic often). Perhaps I am mistaken, but this often seems to get in the way of common understanding, as the disagreement here in regard to hermeneutics seems to imply.

Again, thank you for your thoughtful reply.
Joe



Bob,
Yes, I do think that this would be taken to mean a literal temple, unless there was another passage that clarified it to mean otherwise. But the clear and simple meaning of the passage would be a literal temple. Those who are "far off" would most likely refer to the Gentiles, pointing out that it would include all peoples. This would have to happen after the arrival of the BRANCH.

Walk through the passage and tell me what you see here, trying not to read a preunderstanding into it (which is admittedly hard to do). We agree that the Branch is Christ. It says he shall build the temple of the LORD (not rebuild). He shall bear the glory. He shall sit and rule on His throne (this obviously hasn't happened yet, unless one takes it to mean a heavenly throne, but then the "far off" needs to be explained clearly). The uniting of the priestly and kingly office takes place in v 13.

Well, don't take my word for it. You walk through it and share what you see.

Blessings
Joe

__________________
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

Joe,
I'll walk through it and let you know what I see.

Defense Attorney: "Objection, your honor, the prosecution is leading the witness"

Judge: Sustained. The prosecution will refrain(jk).

Prosecution: Yes, your honor...OK, Mr. H., in your own words, tell us what you saw when you looked at Zechariah 6. Remember, you ARE under oath.

Mr. H: I was reading my Bible, when I happened to come across Zechariah, where it was talking about a branch building the temple and those afar off building inside it. Here's what I saw...TBD

[Edited on 6-4-2006 by blhowes]

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Well, I have to admit that this was a pretty kneejerk effort. I didn't really do the proper work, but just gave it a quick shot. Notice that I didn't use the word "Millennium" though.

__________________
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

If you could clarify the phrase above in bold. Does preunderstanding include what the NT would teach on the passage or its treatment of "the Temple" in general.
It might be premature, but let me jump to my next question. If so, why would you want to eliminate that info? It might be an interesting exercise, but it doesn't seem it would be helpful in getting at the truth. As a rough analogy, it seems it would be like asking a physicist to limit his understanding of gravity to what was known in the 19th century.

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

An initial observation:

One thing that caught my attention, which may be irrelevant (but which I thought was interesting), is the differences in the names listed in verse 10 (those that are told to go to the house of Josiah) and the names listed in verse 14 (who its said "crowns shall be to...). What initially caught my attention is that some names are common to both lists, some are unique to one or the other. The meanings of their names are interesting, as is the differences between Tobijah and Jedaiah in the two lists (vs 10 has the word meaning 'with, near, together' with the name, vs 14 doesn't).

Names listed in verse 10:
Heldai (chelday) = "œworldly"�
Tobijah ('êth ṭôbîyâh) = with,near,together ... Jehovah is good
Jedaiah ('eÌ‚th yeda"›yaÌ‚h) = with,near,together ... Jehovah has known

Names listed in verse 14:
Helem (cheÌ‚lem) = "œstrength"� or "œdream"�
Tobijah (ṭôbîyâh) = Jehovah is good
Jedaiah (yeda"›yaÌ‚h) = Jehovah has known
Hen (chên) = favour

__________________
Bob Howes
Framingham, MA

A reoccurring thought:

Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

To what degree does Jesus' discourse in John 2(:21) where he makes himself "the temple," and Peter's identification of the new covenant church 1 Peter 4 as "the temple" matter in interpreting such passages from the Hebrew Scriptures?

What about 1 Cor 3:16-17 and 6:19 and 2 Cor 6:16 and Eph 2:21 where the new covenant church is the temple or a temple either corporately or individually?

This is the "literal where possible," which, it seems to me is code for "national Israel" or "physical temple" where possible.

Do not the NT passages above show that not only that that "temple" can refer to the new covenant church but what the apostolic church thought was the "literal" meaning of the temple in the Hebrew Scripture?

The apostles did "literal" exegesis but in dispensationalism, don't we have an alternative exegesis proposed that isn't, if the apostles define it, a literal reading but an allegorical or doctrinal reading of "temple"?

In other words, despite the repeated NT use of "temple" in a very specific way, when it comes to assigning theological meaning to the temple, dispensationalism persists in reading the temple alternately because they know what temple must mean.

Why isn't this a rationalist a priori?

For example,

Whose "clear" and whose "simple," Dispensationalism's or the Apostles'?

For the Apostles' it was "clear" and "simple," that the temple ultimately referred to Christ (because all the promises are yes and amen in Christ) and secondarily to us who are united to Christ by faith.

For the apostles, it was clearly and simply the case that Hagar stands for one city and Sarah stands for another. For the Apostles it was clear and simple "that rock was Christ."

When I criticized dispensational hermeneutics earlier as such I had in mind passages such as that in the early pages of Pentecost's Things to Come where he says that the Pharisees had the right hermeneutic, they just reached the wrong conclusions.

Doesn't the NT usage of the temple (and I haven't mentioned Hebrews, where we've come to a "mountain" that cannot be touched!) teach us not only specific conclusions, but also a hermeneutic that is incompatible with the dispensational "literal where possible" (as defined above) method?

Earlier I was asked if CT understands that there are dispensations in the progressive of revelation.

Well, it depends on what is meant. We've always taught that there is one salvation, one covenant of grace, with different administrations.

On this dispensationalists should certainly read Mike Horton's recent book on covenant theology. It is quite representative of the tradition.

We've always taught that God's covenant with national Israel was temporary and ilustrative (or proto-typical) of heaven, in certain respects, and of Christ in other respects. The typology is both horizontal/historical and vertical/eschatological. Moses was to make the tabernacle according to the heavenly pattern shown him on the mountain, but Moses himself was a type of Christ, so his life points us forward to the true deliverer who did cross over, indeed ahead of us (see Hebrews!) into the promised land.

rsc

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog

Greg,

You do want to apply the analogy of Scripture. But I wouldn't read the NT into it. I would attempt to assertain what it meant to the then present day audience.


Dr. Clark,
Temple, taken literally, is a building. I hope we can agree on that. Simply and clearly speaking, if we were to speak to the average person of any time, in any place, and refer to a temple a mental image of a physical place would come to mind. We can understand it to mean body because of NT passages. I don't think it would be a priori because of this. What would the original readers thought of when reading "temple" in this passage? This is where the NT is being used to interpret the OT. But shouldn't the OT meaning be understood in its own context first?



I haven't read Pentecost, so have no reply. Interesting thought though.

Agreed! Though you probably understand that I wouldn't recognize the CoG, as you would.



Bob,
Good observations. I'm looking forward to the next installment.

[Edited on 6-5-2006 by Wannabee]

__________________
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

What I want to do is get at the truth of the matter. So if I have a choice between taking my best stab at it by myself or under the tutelage of the God-inspired NT authors, I take the latter. What is puzzling to me is why anyone would choose the former. Having spent 20-some years in dispensationalism, I know that "reading the NT into the OT" was always said as a pejorative dismissal. However, it is still not a rational argument for dismissing a whole body of known truth (i.e., the NT) as one tries to ascertain the truth of a matter.
Not to put words in your mouth, but it is as if you are saying "what the NT has to say is irrelevant." You have demonstrated that you are a thoughtful student of the Scripture, so it is hard to imagine you embracing that statement. But I don't see how someone can avoid the implication when you dismiss the NT's understanding of the OT in trying to arrive at your own understanding of it.

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

Well, actually, no we don't agree. The new covenant church is LITERALLY the temple.

There was a Solomonic temple and a Second Temple. They aren't any longer.

Christ was literally (if "literal' = the intent of the divine and human authors of Scripture) "the temple."

"Destroy this temple...." They all thought he was speaking about "the temple," but they were wrong. He was speaking of himself.

The function of the two temples in redemptive history was to point to Christ. That was their divinely intended purpose. When they had fulfilled their purpose, they were destroyed.

As I said, Moses (including the temple) works for Christ, not the reverse.

No, if you'll permit me to be direct, you don't get to establish a priori what "temple" must mean. Clearly Jesus and the Apostles took a dim view of what most ordinary folk thought about most things.

Most ordinary folk were expecting Messiah to arrive on a white stallion and, to paraphrase a movie, "open up a can" on the Romans. He came on a donkey and submit to brutal humilation.

That may be "no way to run a kingdom," except it was Jesus' way of running his kingdom.