Tag: approach

“Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles” by Graeme Goldsworthy

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Book Details:
  • Author: Graeme Goldsworthy
  • Category: Biblical Theology
  • Publisher: IVP (2012)
  • Format: softcover
  • Page Count: 240
  • ISBN#: 0830839690
  • List Price: $20.00
  • Rating: Must Read

Review:
In recent years biblical theology has enjoyed something of a comeback. A robust, Christ-centered, confessional variety of biblical theology is becoming more and more widespread and influential. And if we wanted to find someone to thank for this development, Graeme Goldsworthy’s name would come up on anyone’s short-list. His books Gospel and Kingdom, The Gospel in Revelation, and Gospel and Wisdom touched a nerve in the 1980s [get all three in one volume from Amazon]. And his later book Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture was picked up by many a Gospel preacher. Some have bristled at what they think is his wild approach to typology. And indeed, for many who pay attention to this theologian from down under, his approach to the Bible is nothing short of revolutionary. His redemptive-historical approach to the Bible has made the Old Testament come alive to thousands of rank-and-file Christians the world over.

Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles is Goldsworthy’s latest book, and in it he traces some of the influences to his thought. Along the way he gives a history of evangelical biblical theology and weighs the relative merits of competing approaches. He details the tripartite division of redemptive history that he inherited from his mentor, Donald Robinson. And by the end of this book, he has demonstrated just how careful and faithful his approach to Scripture really is.

Goldsworthy begins by explaining the problem. Biblical theology opens the way to a “big picture,” grand view of all of Scripture. Yet too many view it as a “lame duck” and a distraction. Goldsworthy’s faith in the potential of biblical theology stems from his simple faith in the entire Bible being “the one word of the one God about the one way of salvation through the one savior, Jesus Christ” (pg. 19). Drawing from his mentor, Donald Robinson (also a professor at Moore Theological College in Sydney) Goldsworthy sees a threefold structure to Scripture:

  1. Creation to Solomon’s Temple (The Kingdom of God revealed in OT history)
  2. Solomon’s Decline to the end of the OT era (The Kingdom revealed by the prophets in a future, glorified, Israelite form)
  3. The New Testament inauguration of the Kingdom (The Kingdom revealed in Christ)

He develops this further:

The Old Testament… can be represented as a manifestation of promise and blessing reaching a high point in David’s Jerusalem as the focal point of the land of inheritance, in Solomon as David’s heir, and in the temple representing the presence of God to dwell among and bless his people. After Solomon’s apostasy it is history primarily as a manifestation of judgment… overlaid with the prophetic promises that the Day of the Lord will come and bring ultimate blessing and judgment… It takes the person of Jesus, his teaching and the proclamation of his apostles to restore hope in the original promise of God. (pg. 25)

Goldsworthy addresses some of the objections to his approach as he traces out its foundation throughout the book. But at the onset he points out his pastoral concern in this whole debate. He is concerned with the simplistic way that so many Christians handle the Bible.

Many have learned one particular way of dealing with the Bible and have not been exposed to a comprehensive biblical theology as an alternative. Some acknowledge that the Bible is a unity and that the heart of it is the gospel of Christ. But they have never been shown, or have tried to work out for themselves, the way the various parts of the Bible fit together. Reading the Bible then easily becomes the search for today’s personal word from God, which is often far from what the text, within its context, is really saying…. Too many Christians go through life with a theoretically unified canon of Scripture and a practical canon consisting of favourite and familiar snippets and extracts removed from their real canonical context. (pg. 29, 37)

The heart of the book is Goldsworthy’s romp through Scripture looking at its structure and storyline. He is convinced that the New Testament provides a model for how to interpret the Old Testament faithfully, but he focuses on the Old Testament’s own use of earlier Old Testament themes and writings. The Old Testament creates the typological categories that the NT authors pick up. I found this point most intriguing, and cannot help but reproduce Goldsworthy’s quotation from Donald Robinson to this regard.

The blessings of God’s End-time are described in the Old Testament for the most part in terms drawn from Israel’s past history. The day of the Lord would be Israel’s history all over again, but new with the newness of God. There would be a new Exodus, a new redemption from slavery and a new entry into the land of promise (Jer. 16:14, 15); a new covenant and a new law (Jer. 31:31-34). No foe would invade the promised inheritance, “but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid” (Micah 4:4). There would be a new Jerusalem (Isa. 26:1, Ez. 40) and a new David to be God’s shepherd over Israel (Jer. 23:5, Ez. 34:23,24) and a new Temple where perfect worship would be offered and from which a perfect law would go forth (Isa. 2:2-4, Ez. 40-46). It would not be too much to say that Israel’s history, imperfectly experienced in the past, would find its perfect fulfilment “in that day.” Indeed, nothing less than a new creation, a new heaven and a new earth, could contain all that God has in store for the End (Isa. 65:17) (pg. 173 -174 [quote is from Donald W. B. Robinson, The Hope of Christ’s Coming (Beecroft, New South Wales: Evangelical Tracts and Publications, 1958), pg. 13]).

When Goldsworthy looks at typology, he takes great care not to endorse a “no-holds barred” approach. While he advocates a macro-typology recognizing that “there is no aspect of reality that is not involved in the person and work of Christ.” On the same hand, he argues that seeing “the pomegranates on the robes of the Israelite priest” as “types of the fruits of the Spirit;” or even “the redness of Rahab’s cord” as a “type of Jesus’ blood,” is to pursue “fanciful, non-contextual associations that avoid the real theology behind these things” (pg. 186-187).

Throughout his book, Goldsworthy compares and contrasts his approach to biblical theology with several other evangelicals of note: Geerhardus Vos, Edmund Clowney and Dennis Johnson, Willem VanGemeren, William Dumbrell, Sidney Greidanus and others. He also details Donald Robinson’s approach and legacy. In his assessment of differing approaches, he doesn’t portray his view as the only faithful one, but as one faithful approach among many.

He doesn’t provide a biblical theology in this book, but sketches the background for how to pursue a biblical theology. He does address a few issues more directly, since they focus on Robinson’s legacy. One of these is an interesting discussion of the continuing distinction between Israel and the Church in the New Testament. He explores Robinson’s contention that there remains a distinction between new Israel and the Church. The Gentiles get the blessings promised to Gentiles in the OT, while the blessings promised to Israel are experienced by the believing Jews in the NT era. Both groups of people are then subsumed in the new revelation of God’s intent to make a new man, a new people for himself (cf. Eph. 2).

Christ-Centered Biblical Theology manages to keep from being merely a last word from an old theologian. There are memoirs and reflections, to be sure. But the over-all thrust of the book is to equip the reader to pick up the torch and take biblical theology into the new millennium. Numerous charts and diagrams help communicate the concepts of the book, and Goldsworthy ends with a litany of possibilities for furthering the discipline of biblical theology.

This book will kindle a fire in many hearts for biblical theology. And for those who are familiar already with this important discipline, it will stimulate further reflection on the structure of Scripture and the centrality of the Gospel. I hope it will find a broad audience, and that a new generation will carry on Goldsworthy’s work.

Author Info:
Graeme Goldsworthy was formerly lecturer in Old Testament, biblical theology and hermeneutics at Moore Theological College, Sydney, where he still teaches part time. His other books include Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, According to Plan, Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, Prayer and the Knowledge of God, and three books on biblical studies collected as The Goldsworthy Trilogy.

Where to Buy:
  • Westminster Bookstore
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • direct from IVP

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

New Release: “Christ-Centered Biblical Theology” by Graeme Goldsworthy

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I am really excited about this new book from Graeme Goldsworthy: Christ-Centered Biblical Theology: Hermeneutical Foundations and Principles (IVP, March 2012). Goldsworthy is known for trumpeting a redemptive-historical approach to hermeneutics and that approach has had a big impact in how I understand Scripture.

This book traces the development of Goldsworthy’s hermeneutical approach and in that sense is somewhat autobiographical. He also comments on the state of biblical theology today. This promises to be an excellent follow up to his earlier works, most notably Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics: Foundations and Principles of Evangelical Biblical Interpretation (IVP, 2010). I’m looking forward to reading this one!

Here’s the publisher’s description and some glowing endorsements for this latest work by Graeme Goldsworthy:

The appeal of biblical theology is that it provides a “big picture” that makes sense of the diversity of biblical literature. Through the lens of biblical theology the Bible ceases to be a mass of unconnected texts, but takes shape as a unified metanarrative connecting the story of Israel with that of Jesus. It presents the whole scene of God’s revelation as one mighty plan of salvation.

For fifty years Graeme Goldsworthy has been refining his understanding of biblical theology through his experiences as a student, pastor and teacher. In this valuable complement to his Gospel-Centered Hermeneutics, Goldsworthy defends and refines the rationale for his approach, drawing especially on the work of Australian biblical scholar Donald Robinson.

“Over the years readers have benefited from Goldsworthy’s work in biblical theology. Now we have the mature and wise reflections of a veteran scholar on how to do biblical theology. I found this book to be edifying and stimulating. Even those who disagree with some dimensions of Goldsworthy’s approach will find him to be a challenging conversation partner.” ~ Thomas R. Schreiner (James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)

“Graeme Goldsworthy’s contribution to the study of biblical theology has been enormous. In this informative study, he helpfully compares different evangelical approaches, explaining his own preference for the method advocated by Donald Robinson. Supporting a ‘three-stage structure of revelation’ (biblical history from creation to Solomon, prophetic eschatology, fulfillment in Christ), Goldsworthy gives an interesting insight into those influences which have inspired and shaped his passion for defending and expounding the theological unity of the Bible. For anyone fascinated by biblical theology, and especially Goldsworthy’s contribution to this field of study, the present volume is essential reading.” ~ T. Desmond Alexander (Union Theological College, Belfast)

“For many years I have admired the good things coming out of Moore Theological College. It’s high time that the biblical theology being done down under be put front and center in North America. In an age of increasing specialization and fragmentation where even biblical things come apart, Goldsworthy’s approach to the unity of Scripture is an important countercultural blast.” ~ Kevin J. Vanhoozer (Wheaton College Graduate School)

The table of contents provided below gives a sneak peek at what biblical theological gems this new book will cover.

1. Biblical theology: lame duck or eagles’ wings?
    Confessions of a biblical theology addict
    The big questions about the big picture
    The Robinson-Hebert schema
    The role of Genesis 1–11
    The question of reductionism
    Why is biblical theology so neglected?

2. Evangelical definitions and presuppositions
    Tentative steps towards a definition of biblical theology
    Evangelical theological presuppositions in biblical theology
    Evangelical hermeneutical presuppositions in biblical theology

3. Salvation and history
    The idea of salvation history
    The biblical history as salvation history
    Salvation history within Scripture: Old Testament
    Salvation history within Scripture: New Testament
    Conclusions

4. Evangelical practice
    The lack of consensus among evangelicals
    The shaping of a biblical theologian: my debt to Donald Robinson
    Some leading evangelical biblical theologians
    Conclusions

5. Multiplex biblical theology
    The problem of unity and diversity in method
    Proponents of the multiplex approach
    Conclusions

6. Letting the Old Testament speak I: biblical history
    What kind of epoch?
    The main foci in Old Testament history
    Conclusions

7. Letting the Old Testament speak II: prophetic eschatology
    The pattern of prophetic eschatology
    The canonical shape
    The main foci in prophetic eschatology
    Conclusions

8. Letting the New Testament speak
    Is the New Testament normative in the interpretation of the Old Testament?
    Does the New Testament exhibit a structure of revelation?
    The Abraham-David/Solomon axis and the fulfilment of prophecy
    A comparison of approaches

9. Typology
    Robinson’s typology
    Approaches to typology
    Some issues in the debate
    Macro-typology

10. The Robinson legacy
    Robinson’s typology and method in biblical theology
    Israel and the church
    Eschatology
    Baptism
    Assessment

11. How to do biblical theology
    Is there a future for biblical theology?
    Possibilities for biblical theology
    Epilogue

Book Details:
  • ISBN: 9780830839698
  • List Price: $20.00
  • Book Detail Page: Here

Book Details:
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • Barnes&Noble
  • IVP

Disclaimer:
This book was provided by InterVarsity Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Our Attitude toward Homosexuals

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Following my recent review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill (Zondervan), I plan on discussing a few additional resources on thinking through this topic from a Christian perspective. Don’t forget too, about entering the giveaway for a free copy of Hill’s book compliments of Zondervan.

Today, I wanted to give an excerpt from a helpful booklet from Wheaton College entitled Understanding Homosexuality. Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian (Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Studies, Emeritus, Wheaton College) challenges the Christian Church on our attitude toward homosexuals at the conclusion of his article in the above mentioned booklet “Part 1: Biblical and Theological Understanding”.

Dr. Bilezikian’s concerns are especially poignant for the more conservative side of evangelicalism. Many fundamental Baptists seem to have such a view of homosexuality by default. It’s easy for any of us to stoop to this perspective. I hope these remarks, however, can help us be careful not to despise homosexuals but rather be positioned to actually serve them as Christ would.

And now a word to the rest of us who are not battling homosexuality. I suppose we represent a broad variety of attitudes, from thoughtless unconcern to violent revulsion. Both of these extremes are sinful. The biblical command, regarding our response to a brother or sister who struggles with a problem we do not have is for the strong to help the weak””neither indifference nor rejection, but the extension of God’s redemptive and restoring love. Particularly grievous among Christians is the sin of homophobia””the hatred of homosexuals, a judgmental, censorious spirit expressed in ridicule, queer jokes, impersonation of gay mannerisms, macho stories of gay-bashing.

I would like Christ himself to speak to this kind of attitude as he does in the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7. “Judge not, that you be not judged.” An absolute, categorical prohibition on the part of Jesus. Can’t we make exceptions in the case of gays? Isn’t that sin bad enough so we can allow ourselves to judge? It’s as if Jesus were saying, “Read my lips! Judge not.” And that is exactly what he means, “Judge not.” In fact, Paul adds to this as he says in I Corinthians, chapter 5, verses 11-12, “Don’t even judge outsiders, because that is God’s business. You are not in the business of judging. You take care of yourself and of your community.” And Christ adds a warning, “So that you will not be judged.” In other words, the same harshness that you apply to your judging will be applied to your sins. The Scripture reminds us that judgment is without mercy to those who have shown no mercy. And Jesus gives reasons for his absolute prohibition, “for with the judgments you pronounce, you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you’ll get.” He says there is no double standard with God. With us, there is. We have a tendency to be hard on others, easy on ourselves. Not with God!

The second reason, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye but do not see the log which is in your eye?” What is your real motivation for judging? It indicates that you have problems yourself and that you are trying to mask them with this kind of diversionary tactic by your attacks on other people. Often most hate-filled critics of homosexuals are people who feel insecure about their own sexuality.

And the third reason Jesus gives for not judging is, “How can you say to your brother, let me take the speck out of your eye when there is a log in your own eye?” This question addresses the issue of competency. Are you competent to judge? Do you know what is going on in the soul of that brother or that sister? Can you identify the composites of their background, understand their upbringing, the decisions that have been made in the past, identify with their compulsions, with the intensity of their addictions? Can you understand that? In I Corinthians, chapter 4, verse 5, the apostle Paul tells us that God can do that because he knows the secrets in the hearts of humans. But can you stand in someone else’s shoes, and can you say, “I would have done better under the same circumstances” ? What is the proper attitude? Jesus says, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” He says, “First take care of yourself. Clean up your act, and when you are righteous, you may address your brother. Only then, may you take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” You will not judge but help the person.

And there are different ways of helping the person. There are patterns in the Scriptures for exhorting each other, for rebuking each other on an individual basis first, and then getting the community involved, and confronting in love. When that doesn’t work, the offending person becomes to us “like a publican and a Gentile,” said Jesus (Matt. 18: 15-17). What does that mean? Jesus loved Gentiles and publicans. He ministered to them, and he died for them. So this doesn’t mean we are supposed to reject them. It means that we make the redeeming love of God real to them. We start again from the ground up, from square one. We don’t give up. God is not in the business of rejecting people. He wants all people to be saved because they matter to him. Each one of us needs to present himself or herself before God, whether we are struggling with this problem or with another problem which may be just as grievous in the eyes of God as homosexuality.

We need to confess to God that we are all partakers in fallen humanity, and that we are often stuck in our sinful state. Sometimes our sins are flagrant, sometimes they are hidden in the secret places of our souls. We need to confess the sins that pertain to the misuse of our sexuality, one way or the other, even the sins that pertain to our thought life. The apostle Paul put in the same category the sin of homosexuality and those of greed and reviling. Some of us have to confess that by reviling homosexuals we have entered that same category of gravity of offense before God.

We need to come to God as a community but also as individuals. We must ask him to search our hearts and to cause us grief where there is need for repentance. But we need also to remember that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And yet, if we confess our sin, God is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. [emphasis added]

“Reclaiming the Old Testament for Christian Preaching” edited by Kent, Kissling & Turner

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Over the last few decades, a revival of interest in the Old Testament seems to have come over the evangelical church. Numerous resources for preaching the Old Testament and for understanding the various genres we find in the first two thirds of our Bibles have been produced. The tide is turning, and more and more we hear of careful preaching through the Old Testament again.

We still have a long way to go, however. Most conservative pulpits major on the New Testament. After all, the relevance of NT books to the Christian living today is much more apparent. Popular expositors have even given us commentary after commentary on the New Testament, to the almost complete exclusion of the Old Testament. Theology-heavy sermons from the doctrinal portions of the New Testament can serve to keep people out of touch with the reality of the story of Scripture. And ironically, in an age where everybody’s story has value, the grand overarching storyline of the Bible is silenced by the Church’s neglect of the first 39 books of her Bible.

Many of the resources being published that are seeking to revive a focus on the Old Testament are locked away in scholarly tomes or couched in some liberal theological garb, effectively kept away from the average pastor’s and Bible teacher’s reach. A new book by InterVarsity Press aims to bring scholarly resources into an accessible and highly useful format. Reclaiming the Old Testament for Christian Preaching, edited by Grenville J.R. Kent, Paul J. Kissling and Laurence A. Turner, actually manages to live up to its title’s bold claim. In an accessible and user-friendly format, the book brings together contributions from a wide array of OT scholars.

After a brief introduction, the book moves on to cover OT narrative plot, OT narrative characters, the Law, Lament, Praise Poetry, Wisdom literature, the Song of Solomon, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Apocalyptic literature, and the Minor Prophets. It also has a chapter on preaching from difficult texts and another on preaching Christ from the Old Testament. The chapters aren’t too long or overly detailed; instead, they are delightfully readable. They are structured in such a way as to clearly convey the primary difficulties and recommended approaches for the particular genre surveyed. Almost all the chapters include helpful footnotes and recommendations for further study. And each concludes with an example sermon which puts the theory into practice.

As I read through this book, I kept earmarking page after page where helpful insights were shared about the various parts of the Old Testament. The sections covering narrative plot and characters were especially helpful and full of examples. Laurence Turner stressed placing each narrative in context to its larger narrative, and on sticking to the flow of the author as much as possible when developing a sermon. Paul Kissling discussed a unique strategy of comparing the speech of the characters over and against the narrator’s account, as a way of finding the main point of a given story. Christopher J.H. Wright’s chapter on preaching the Law was also superb. He stressed the connection Law has with grace as seen in the historical setting given in the Pentateuch. He also unpacked the lesser-known missiological aspects of the Law: namely, Israel living out God’s Law as a testimony to the nations, and the application this has to the Church today.

Federico Villanueva’s chapter on Lament was particularly insightful as he writes from the standpoint of a non-Westerner (he ministers in Manila). Tremper Longman’s chapter on wisdom literature, particularly his discussion of Ecclesiastes and Job, was also very helpful in finding ways to grasp the main point of these books and how best to apply it to today’s Christians. Similarly, Grenville Kent’s discussion on the Song of Solomon was also very helpful. Even though he steers clear of a direct allegorical interpretation, he finds value in analogy and metaphor. His discussion of where God makes an appearance in the Song, and why, is worth quoting here:

So if Yahweh had appeared directly in the Song, the culture may well have misunderstood him as condoning fertility religion or even as just another fertility god. The Song clearly separates worship and sex. it is ‘a non-mythological, non-cultic, non-idolatrous, outright, open celebration of God-given sexual love’. (pg. 130, quote from John G. Snaith The Song of Songs (Eerdmans, 1993), pg. 5.)

The chapter on Isaiah, by H.G.M. Williamson did a great job stressing the literary unity of Isaiah. He traced the theme of righteousness and justice showing how such wide themes inform the specific context of any given passage in the book. Daniel Block challenges us to preach Ezekiel, and offers several helpful charts and analyses of the book and its central message. Alison Lo gave a wonderful, yet brief treatment of the Minor Prophets. She excelled at relating the context and themes of those books to today’s world and its problems. She also discussed the interrelation of the books as a wider whole (the “book of the twelve”), and provided a fascinating outline of Zephaniah.

Gordon Wenham’s discussion of various “difficult texts” in the Old Testament was in the whole, masterful. Some may disagree with his stance on Gen. 1 — explaining the wider context of the ideas about the world of the time (and thus not getting into a discussion of whether the six days are literal 24 hour days), but his comments on the imprecatory psalms, the “eye for an eye” law, apparent divine-sanctioned genocides, and OT slavery are both helpful and wise. R.W.L. Moberly’s chapter on preaching Christ from the Old Testament cites a lot of material that applies to this concern. He stresses that the wider context of the Old Testament includes the canonical grouping of the books and their use by the Church. He sees a second narrative (the NT) interpreting the original narrative in a sense similar to a detective story where at the end, all the initial elements of the plot make perfect sense. He also allows for imagination to impact interpretation and helpfully walks through some examples in how to think through this in a practical manner.

The chapters in the book are not all of equal value. The praise poetry, and apocalyptic literature sections were not as helpful to me. Some of the contributors may not be as immediately accessible as others. But the beauty of this book is how it offers a manual for the preacher who is choosing an OT text to preach. This book won’t be the only resource consulted, but it offers a sensible approach and several helpful points for encountering just about any text in the Old Testament. Throughout, it stresses a literary and canonical approach that focuses on the Old Testament we have, not imagined historical reconstructions. This ensures the book’s usefulness by people of a variety of particular persuasions within evangelicalism.

I trust tools such as Reclaiming the Old Testament for Christian Preaching, will encourage many pastors to pick an OT book for their next sermon series. This book will prove useful for any Bible student, and I highly recommend it. May the beauty of the Old Testament captivate the hearts and minds of more teachers and preachers, and be preached with power to the congregations that God has entrusted to their care.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

Pick up a copy of this book at Amazon.com or through IVP direct.

Quotes to Note 19: John Gerstner on Literal Interpretation

~ Bob Hayton ~ 18 Comments

A while back I was reading through Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 updated edition]) and came across some profound insights he shared regarding the role “literal interpretation” plays in dispensationalism. Many on both sides of the dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology debate think the issue of a literal, or “overly-literal” hermeneutic determines the debate. If you use the “proper hermeneutic”, from dispensationalism’s perspective, you will interpret the Bible like dispensationalists do.

Gerstner argues that this is not the case. The literal method employed by dispensationalists stems from their pre-conceived over-arching views of prophecy and the Scripture, not the other way around. In pointing this out, I think he helps both sides to see that the argument isn’t as all-pervasive and wholistic as some make it out to be. Listen to Dr. Gerstner below, as I really think he hits on something very important for all to consider, when it comes to our interpretation of Scripture.

…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.

Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theological. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (pg. 80)

Gerstner proceeds to show how in prophecy even dispensationalists find figures of speech and don’t interpret literally across the board. He talks of O.T. Allis’ “point(ing) out that they [i.e. dispensationalists] tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, Canaan must mean Canaan. On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbol.” (ibid, pg. 81)

He then goes on to cite a non-controversial (at least to the participants of this intramural debate) example which highlights how the “literal method” is quite powerless to settle this theological debate.

The real point of divergence is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.

Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.

At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)

I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee on one side or liberal/postmodern theology on the other).

*Note: bolded emphasis is mine, I standardized the italicization of individual words where appropriate, too.