Ezekiel’s Temple: Premillennial Achilles’ Heel?

This is the outline I used for a presentation at a Conference in 2005.

Let me begin this short study with a quotation from two former DTS graduates who have since abandoned and then rounded on dispensationalism:

The passage most commonly mentioned that presents great difficulty to dispensational literalism is Ezekiel’s temple vision (Ezekiel 40-48). The dispensationalists are looking for a reinstitution of bloody animal sacrifices in a millennial temple built in accordance with the description found in this passage. Dispensationalists are careful to qualify that these sacrifices are merely memorials of Christ’s death and will be the millennial equivalent of the Lord’s Supper. The problem with this is that Ezekiel’s vision refers to these sacrifices literally making atonement (Ezekiel 45:15, 17, 20; Hebrew: “kaphar,” to atone). Of course, a dispensationalist can go to the book of Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices in the Old Testament never literally atoned for sin (Hebrews 10:4). When the Reformed theologian, however, goes to Hebrews to prove that animal sacrifices were rescinded forever [no memorial sacrifice] by Christ’s once for all offering (Hebrews 10:10-18), then that is “theological interpretation” and “reading the New Testament back into the Old Testament” – two practices which dispensationalists routinely criticize. – Curtis I. Crenshaw & Grover E. Gunn, III, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow, (Memphis: Footstool Publications, 1989), 221. Emphasis added.

This is a representative criticism of dispensational writers from people who now find themselves on the other side of the theological fence.

Progressive Dispensationalism and Normative Dispensationalism

Those in the progressive dispensationalist camp are comfortable with disposing of grammatical-historical hermeneutics, whereas normative dispensationalists align themselves closely with it. The fact that Darrell Bock could write a Forward commending William Webb’s controversial X-Y-Z approach shows that they are both influenced by modern hermeneutical theorizing. Bock himself emphasizes the supposed problem with saying that Scripture may be read in a consistently literal manner[1]; Schleiermacher’s warning about imposing a rigid set of rules upon the text before we actually read it[2]; the importance of “preunderstanding”[3]; and sensitivity to literary genres.[4] This is why he, along with his fellow Progressive Dispensationalists, has bid adieu to consistent grammatical-historical interpretation (G-H) and has adopted a “complementary hermeneutic” wherein the passage being read is helped by the rest of the Biblical Canon. The hermeneutical tool chosen to ground this approach is an adaptation of the “already-not yet” hermeneutic.

FF Bruce’s Eschatology

As I was doing my all-too-infrequent clearing up of my email messages I inadvertently removed a question I was asked about FF Bruce’s position on eschatology.  I place an answer of sorts here in the hope that Prof. Fred Hall’s eyes might fall on it.

As far as I can make out Prof. Bruce’s position was in line with the B. W. Newton stream of Plymouth Brethren interpretation.  That is to say, he was a historic premillennialist in the vein of C. H. Spurgeon (Baptist) and J. C. Ryle (Anglican).  I say this because I remember reading his Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians in the WBC Series and coming away with that opinion.  I don’t actually own that book, but my opinion is bolstered for the following reasons:

1. Bruce writes the Forward to the English translation of Erich Sauer’s The Dawn of World Redemption.  The Forward is very commendatory even though Sauer adopted what could be called a modified dispensational approach.

2.  In some of his commentaries Bruce seems to hold out for a “renovation” of this earth after the appearance of the final (and personal) Antichrist.  On the latter, see especially his remarks in Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free, 233.  On a future hope for the planet, see his Romans (Tyndale series), 174  where he refers to a “worldwide regeneration” after all Israel has been “reincorporated…among the people of God.”  (Ibid. 205).

3. It is easy enough to prove that Bruce believed that Israel (i.e. the ‘Remnant’) will be saved by believing the Gospel and so brought into the fold of the Church (See above).  In his Romans, 208 he maintains that there will be no restoration of an “earthly Davidic kingdom.”  I take him to mean that even though there will be a future millennium of some sort, this will not have OT characteristics but “Churchly” ones.

4.  Finally, in his commentary on the Greek text of Galatians Bruce allows that the kai of 6:16 ought to translated “and” thus drawing a distinction between “all them who walk according to this rule” and “the Israel of God,” but he then refers “the Israel of God” to the “all Israel” of Rom. 11:26 (275).

My interpretation is hardly incontrovertible, but when one considers his Brethren affiliation and his endorsement of Sauer I think it bears up quite well.

I should say that Bruce wrote the entry on the Apocalypse in the old one volume International Bible Commentary.  Perhaps this would help put the matter to rest.  But as I do not have access to a copy, that will have to be the work of another.

Hermeneutical Confusion and Hermeneutical Consistency

The Rationale Behind Dispensational Hermeneutics

Without a doubt, the issue of hermeneutics is one of the hottest issues in theology today. The word comes from the Greek hermeneia which basically means “interpretation.”[1] How do we interpret the Bible, and, in particular, those relatively few, yet significant parts of it which cause puzzlement or debate?

 

No one can enter upon the task of theology without confronting this question. Yet the answer to it is not as straightforward as it may appear at first sight. Take for an example this quote from an important work on biblical ethics:

 

The church dares to articulate fresh and audacious readings of Scripture only because it relies upon the work of the Holy Spirit in the community – as promised in the New Testament texts themselves (cf. 1 Cor. 2:6-16; John 16:12-15). The Spirit reshapes the community into unexpected metaphorical reflections of the biblical stories and thereby casts new light back onto the texts. Such illuminative conjunctions are impossible to predict and difficult to discern, but the church that seeks to deny or preclude them will find itself locked into the stifling grip of “the letter” (gramma, 2 Cor. 3:6), unable to hear the Word of God. Another way to put this point is to say that it is finally God who writes the metaphors.[2]

 

The quotation is reproduced to show that there are a lot of scholars out there whose idea of how to interpret the Bible is wildly different than dispensationalists. The writer wants the broad church to explore interpretive possibilities and discover novel new interpretations of well-worn texts. In this way, he says, the church avoids getting cemented in a particular time and culture. More importantly, God is not similarly confined.

The trouble with this kind of view is that is violates the Golden Rule.[3] It treats the passages of the Bible differently than its own passages. That is to say, the writer of the above statement wants to be taken literally, at face value. He employs numerous figures of speech; “The church dares”; “The Spirit reshapes the community” and “casts new light back onto the texts”; a church that denies this risks becoming one that is “unable to hear the Word of God”; “God…writes the metaphors.” But he does this without giving a second thought as to whether his language will be misunderstood by literalistic interpreters. Moreover, he cites certain texts of Scripture (1 Cor. 2:6-16; John 16:12-15; 2 Cor.3:6), presumably with the intent that the reader will turn to those verses and read them in their plain sense – figures and all.

Knox, Knox, Who’s There?

A Reply to “An Open Letter To Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, The Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel,” issued by Knox Theological Seminary.

This is a paper I wrote for the Conservative Theological Journal which never saw the light of day (I can’t grumble, I used to edit it). I have been reading Kim Riddlebarger’s A Case for Amillennialism and Timothy Weber’s On the Road to Armaggeddon and I remembered the piece, bits and pieces of which have found their way into other essays.

As far as I know, this letter has not received the negative press it deserves, but here are two responses you might want to peruse. The first is by Steve Hays, showing that one can be Reformed (and amillennial) and not be involved in what to many will look like a mild form of anti-semitism (Anyone opening Palmer Robertson’s The Israel of God and reading about America’s political allegiance to Israel being questioned has to wonder why an author would concern himself with politics in such a work).

As the “Open Letter” is still up (in English and French) I don’t think it inappropriate to post this item now.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/06/open-letter-to-evangelicals.html

http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/Biblical_Studies/Eschatology/eschatology_dr.htm

 

The faculty and friends of Knox Theological Seminary, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida have recently felt moved to rebut certain statements by some evangelical leaders relative to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Evidently, these unidentified evangelical spokesmen have “urged the endorsement of far-reaching and unilateral political commitments to the people and land of Israel…citing Holy Scripture as the basis for those commitments.”

Exactly what these “unilateral political commitments” are is not specified, but back of “the political commitments in question are two fatally flawed propositions.” These two supposedly erroneous propositions will be discussed below. Before turning to these two propositions, and addressing the ten counter-propositions which follow on their heels, we would first like to make some general observations.

Contemporary Hermeneutical Theory and Conservative Interpretation

 

In many respects there is much ground that is mutually shared by evangelical/fundamentalist theology per se. However, consistent hermeneutics is the environment in which dispensationalism thrives. Outside of that environment it fades into nothing.

In this little essay[1] I want to examine some of what is happening in the world of philosophical hermeneutics so that we can better understand the influences that are being seen in evangelical textbooks on the subject. Still more, we shall start to understand why evangelicals are jumping ship from grammatico-historical interpretation; a situation that threatens dispensationalism even more.

A. Definitions: Hermeneutics, Exegesis, Application

In any discussion, but especially in those involving foundational matters, it is crucial to define ones terms. Hermeneutics has been given a few different definitions. Many are covered by Robert Thomas in his book, Evangelical Hermeneutics.[2] For the moment it will suffice to borrow from a standard conservative manual.

As a theological discipline hermeneutics is the science of the correct interpretation of the Bible…It seeks to formulate those particular rules which pertain to the special factors connected with the Bible. It stands in the same relationship to exegesis that a rule-book stands to a game.[3]

 

The definition above draws a helpful comparison between a book of rules that acts as the control over what is admissible and what is precluded in playing a game. All ought to play by the same rules. If they don’t; if each player thinks they can make up their own rules, the game is spoiled. This has been a good assumption of Bible interpreters, which has yielded excellent sermons, commentaries and theologies in the past. It has also been the operating assumption of those modern scholars whose hermeneutics books advocate a more subjective, reader-response attitude to the text of Scripture. As E. D. Hirsch noted, “Most authors believe in the accessibility of their verbal meaning, for otherwise most of them would not write.”[4] It would seem to be safe policy to define hermeneutics in a reductionistic fashion so as to leave room for clear roles for exegesis and application. Thus, we may begin by agreeing with Thomas’s classification of hermeneutics as “a set of principles” for right interpretation.[5]

Who Are The “Sons of God” in Genesis 6:1-4?

The identity of the “Sons of God” in the sixth chapter of Genesis is and always has been, as one OT writer has put it, “the subject of a longstanding debate among biblical scholars.”^[1] Whichever view is taken of them, it cannot be doubted that even amid the extraordinary stories in Genesis 1-11, the first four verses of Genesis 6 are extremely enigmatic.

Why does the human author (Moses) use this term the “Sons of God”? Who are the “Nephilim” of v. 4? How is one to relate vv. 1-4 with the following pronouncement of judgment in the Flood? W.H. Gispen has said that the key to the understanding of these verses “lies in the contrast between “the Sons of God” and the “daughters of man.”^[2] We agree with this statement.

In this essay we will give our personal opinion and explanation; but before we do, we will briefly outline the 3 main interpretations given for the passage. We shall then proceed to give reasons for our rejection of 2 of the 3 views. After this our preferred interpretation will be set down. We shall give our responses to the objections which are raised against it in the body of the essay.

Hermeneutics: Table of Contents

A Brief History of Biblical Interpretation - a paper.

A Brief History of Biblical Interpretation

The history of the interpretation of the Bible is a long and involved one. For many centuries people have approached the Scriptures supposing that it should be interpreted literally whenever possible, or that one ought to look deeper than the surface meaning to find its true spiritual center. Still others have believed that the Old and (to a lesser extent) the New Testament is opened up by means of three or four hermeneutical categories. In this paper we shall try to review the main schools of interpretation, especially throughout the history of the Church.