Redemptive Historical Interpretation Compared to the Dispensational Hermeneutic

I came across an excellent article on Triablogue by Evan May entitled “The Redemptive-Historical Hermeneutic vs. The Foreign-Eschatological Hermeneutic” (HT: Doxoblogy). The article does a good job explaining redemptive historical hermeneutics to a dispensational commentor. I will quote a few points he makes here, and then refer you to read the article–it will help you understand reformed hermeneutics and will be well worth your time (it is not that long of a read, actually).

1. The Pendulum swings both ways. The Covenantal hermeneutic interprets the Old Testament in light of the New testament. The Dispensational hermeneutic interprets the New in light of the Old. Both camps must defend their hermeneutical methods. We don’t simply assume a Dispensational hermeneutic until we find something better….

3. Much of the Covenantal hermeneutic isn’t so much “the way NT authors used the OT,” but simply being fair to a text in its own context. Dispensationalists habitually rip OT prophecies from their redemptive-historical context and force them into a foreign eschatological context. It’s almost as if Dispensationalists believe that the prophets couldn’t find a topic to speak about: one moment they’re talking about restoration from the exile; the next moment they’re talking about folks disappearing out of their clothes on an airplane….

5. But, it must be noted that the Covenantal hermeneutic is not some knee-jerk, arbitrary dogma of “spiritualize any Old Testament prophecy whatsoever.” Rather, we deal with texts on their own merit. We want to be fair to what the text itself states, and we exegete them on a case-by-case basis (and for this reason, I am glad that Bobby posed a text rather than simply speaking generically)…. [Read the whole article.]