This is something I posted on a message board recently concerning Dispensationalism:
I will apologize in advance for offending anyone.
Here is a typical and I would say fairly common outline Dispensationalists say they adhere to.
Rule of Interpretation of the Scripture:1 ) Take the Bible literally where it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative, or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey.
2 ) Interpret what is implied by what is specifically taught in Scripture.
3 ) Interpret the Scriptures in it's historical context.
4 ) Check your findings by comparing it to Commentators of the Scriptures in the Old Testement Hebrew and New Testament Greek.
Not a bad list, really. It does lack any mention of interpreting Scripture by using Scripture, although point 2 does sort of allude to it. It also make no mention of the value of word study, i.e. looking up a word [the Greek word in the NT or the Hebrew word in the OT] and finding out EVERYWHERE it occurs in either testament as a means of finding out the range of the meaning of the word by seeing how it is used in various contexts. This is, to my mind, the single most important interpretive tool and should be used FIRST.
On a related note, I also see that there is no mention of CONTEXT at all. Here's how context is supposed to work:
A word is checked in the context of how it is used in the rest of a testament.
The meaning of a verse is determined by assembling words together.
The verse is then looked at in the context of the immediate passage.
The passage is looked at in the context of the immediate chapter.
The chapter is looked at in the context of the current book.
The book is looked at in the context of the Testament.
The Testament is looked at in terms of the Bible.
As you can see, by the time you get to the last phase, you have covered context very well, from both ends, and should have come to a conclusion that is correct.
Be that as it may, what is wrong with the Rules above?
Well, aside from the shortcomings I pointed out, not much.
The problem, as you might expect, is in the APPLICATION of the rules. Or should I say the MIS-Application?
Here are the problems:
1 ) Take the Bible literally where it is at all possible; if symbolic, figurative, or typical language is used, then look for the literal truth it intends to convey.
Dispy's NEVER pay attention to anything after the semicolon. It's LITERAL, LITERAL, LITERAL. Even in a book like Revelation, which is FULL of symbols and is in fact a series of VISIONS, this rule is rigidly followed. Everything in the book happens in order like reading the morning paper. There's no attention paid to genre [what kind of writing it is].
There's no wonder pretrib premillenialism is so convoluted and hard to reconcile.
2 ) Interpret what is implied by what is specifically taught in Scripture.
This one is more subtle, but every bit as dangerous. The most glaring example is the whole idea of the Millennial Kingdom. There is, quite simply, no NT warrant to conclude there is a Millennial kingdom. It's all out of the OT. In other words, while there may be a reason to conclude there will be a Millennial Kingdom in the OT there is NO MENTION of it at all in the NT. Jesus is asked about the end of the age, does He mention the MK? No. Paul talks about the rapture, twice , does he mention it? No. How about Luke, Peter, James, Jude? Not a peep. It is only by applying a wooden, literal interpretation of Rev 20:1-6 that Dispys have any leg to stand on. Of course, they don't see the parallel structure of Revelation in general or that of Rev 19 and 20 in particular. They also don't see that the first resurrection is a spiritual one, although it is clear that the same writer, John, talked about it clearly in His gospel. And don't get me started about their view of the Second Coming. You know, Jesus comes back and....
Doesn't save everyone.
Let's unsaved people inhabit His kingdom.
Doesn't completely defeat evil.
Lets Satan come back, rally the whole world against Him, so that He has to clean up a big mess AGAIN.
Like Jesus needs 2 tries to get things right.
3 resurrections, 2 Second Comings, 2 judgements and a partridge in a pear tree. Sorry, it's hard to hide my incredulousness.
3 ) Interpret the Scriptures in it's historical context.
This one's easy: They don't. The fact of the matter is, this letter was written to the CHURCHES BACK THEN! You wouldn't know that from any dispy interpretation. To them it's all about some relatively small group of people at the end of the age...who, according to them, aren't even going to be a part of the CHURCH.
My incredulosity increases by the minute.
4 ) Check your findings by comparing it to Commentators of the Scriptures in the Old Testement Hebrew and New Testament Greek.
Read that backwards for how it really works. Read the commentators, only dispy ones, and then justify them.
That one is rather obvious.
Well, that's enough for now. I feel a lot better now having gotten that off my chest.
Chris
Recent Comments