Quotes to Note 19: John Gerstner on Literal Interpretation

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.

Random Thoughts on Eschatology

Recently, a friend asked for feedback on some thoughts she had shared about eschatology. Her blog post shared a summary and reflection on Kim Riddlebarger’s book A Case For Amillennialism. After I typed up my response, I thought it’d be good to share it here as well, as it gives a good summary of my current perspective on eschatological questions. As R.C. Sproul once said, “When it comes to eschatology, I land like a butterfly with sore feet!”

For me, I think there are a couple guiding principles which lead me in my thinking of Eschatology.

1) The New Testament use of the Old Testament is programmatic. In other words, it is an example of how we are to properly interpret the OT. You certainly can’t get the idea that we should never try to interpret the OT like the NT authors did, from a plain reading of the NT. They speak as if their interpretation is quite clear from the OT texts they are reading, and that they believe it is a normative interpretation.

2) We should interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear passages. In other words, obscure passages in the prophets or Revelation, should not form the foundation of our entire eschatological framework. Clear teaching in the NT epistles and elsewhere (as in the one parousia, and in the relief that we believers will find at the parousia — 2 Thess. 1), should factor in first, before grappling with picturesque language in Revelation, Gospel parables and OT prophecies.

Finally, an additional consideration comes to mind. Ultimately Christ will reign over all the Earth with His people forever. That can safely fulfill all the OT prophecies in a very literal sense. Prior to that eternal kingdom, we certainly have Christ ruling in some sense, even as the kingdom is here in some sense (but not yet fully). So this could be amillennial. But the ultimate rule is going to be much better than anything we have now, so a postmillennial flavor can be seen.

Premillennialism, for me, given that I accept the Church as being part of the one people of God (grafted in as Rom. 11 says), boils down to how you interpret Rev. 20. Nothing else speaks of a duration of time associated with the restored/renewed Davidic kingdom. Sometimes the amil arguments sway me on Rev. 20, but other times the literal exegesis of Rev. 20 seems to sway me the other way. It is an admittedly difficult passage.

To make one’s view of this one passage a litmus test for the level of their faithfulness to the Bible seems unwise to me.

I think that in dealing with Revelation, we need to admit there is much that we aren’t sure of. But the main message of the book is a wonderful blessing. The devil loses, Jesus wins! The bad guys get punished, and God rewards the faithful. Persecution now is not the end. God sees what is done and He will mete out judgment in his time. The plans and city of Man will not prosper. The beastly elements of religion and political might are nothing to Christ. I fear our tribulation saints’ merchandise, our intricate charts and end times maps, all conspire to make us lose the sweet view of the big picture given us in Revelation.

Achan’s Curse and the Cross of Christ

The stoning of Achan is one of the most horrific accounts in the Bible. Many Christians cringe when reading the account.

Let me quote it here at some length, and then point you to a very helpful meditation on this passage.

Then Joshua said to Achan, “My son, give glory to the LORD God of Israel and give praise to him. And tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me.” And Achan answered Joshua, “Truly I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and this is what I did: when I saw among the spoil a beautiful cloak from Shinar, and 200 shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing 50 shekels, then I coveted them and took them. And see, they are hidden in the earth inside my tent, with the silver underneath.”

So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and behold, it was hidden in his tent with the silver underneath. And they took them out of the tent and brought them to Joshua and to all the people of Israel. And they laid them down before the LORD. And Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver and the cloak and the bar of gold, and his sons and daughters and his oxen and donkeys and sheep and his tent and all that he had. And they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. And Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The LORD brings trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him with stones. They burned them with fire and stoned them with stones. And they raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day. Then the LORD turned from his burning anger. Therefore, to this day the name of that place is called the Valley of Achor. (Joshua 7:19-26 ESV)

The thought of being stoned for a crime seems barbaric. Stoning Achan’s family and servants, his flocks and possessions, and then burning them seems unconscionable. Is not this evidence that the God of the Old Testament, is not the Christian God of Love, presented in the New Testament Scriptures?

Some would say so. But our revulsion to this event is actually an important emotion for us to ponder. In fact, the wrath and fury of God against sin is bound up in the violent action taken against Achan. And when we think of this event from a redemptive historical perspective, when we look forward to how this story prefigures the work and death of Christ, a glorious picture comes into focus.

Christ’s cross was the place God poured out all his violent anger and fury, for God is a Holy God who cannot tolerate sin, even sin in his covenant people. Ultimately, no one could be completely holy and stay perfectly true to God’s covenant. This is why Jesus came to take our punishment for us. God’s just and holy anger against sin was meted out in full measure upon His own Son! What love and mercy, what amazing grace and pity!

My thoughts were turned in this Christ-centered direction by reading a meditation on Achan’s curse from my friend Nathan Pitchford of Psalm 45 Publications. Let me share his concluding paragraph and encourage you to read the whole thing.

Oh, that you would flee to this great Savior and Sacrifice, who was hanged on a tree as a curse, who was made a spectacle before all the people, and went to a bloody death for them, and suffered all the fire of God’s wrath, who was numbered among the sinners, and experienced all that an accursed sinner ought to experience, for no wrong of his own, but only that he might deliver his people from all their sins, and lead them in triumph over all their enemies! Oh, what a Savior is he!

Nathan goes through many Old Testament passages like this mining rich jewels for our meditation. He speaks with the heart and words of a true Puritan. Lately, he has been going through the book of Joshua. I encourage you to feast on his devotions on the Old Testament.

Along these lines, I did a post on the typological aspects of the Battle of Jericho some time ago, which you may also like to read.

The Ultimate Fulfillment of the Land Promise

Some time ago, I did a series of posts entitled “Understanding the Land Promise“. It is still my contention that understanding how the Bible develops the theme of the promised land will do much to help one gain a fuller understanding of how the church and OT Israel relate. Abraham and his offspring were promised that “he would be heir of the world” (Rom. 4:13), and that singular promise according to Rom. 4:16 is guaranteed to “all his offspring… to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”.

Recently as I read through Isaiah, I couldn’t help but be reminded of this great theme. Notice Isiah 60:19-21.

The sun shall be no more
your light by day
,
nor for brightness shall the moon
give you light;
but the LORD will be your everlasting light,
and your God will be your glory.
Your sun shall no more go down,
nor your moon withdraw itself;
for the LORD will be your everlasting light,
and your days of mourning shall be ended.
Your people shall all be righteous;
they shall possess the land forever,
the branch of my planting, the work of my hands,
that I might be glorified.

So possessing “the land forever” is in the context of God being the “everlasting light” which replaces the sun and moon. Doesn’t this sound a lot like these verses from Revelation?

And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. (Rev. 21:22-23)

They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever. (Rev. 22:5b)

So the land promise is connected with these heavenly realities which are ultimately realized in the eternal state.

Ezekiel 37:24-28 sounds a similar note:

My servant David shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.

The idea of God’s dwelling place being with his people is connected with the fulfillment of the promise of Israel dwelling in the land. Again, see Revelation 21 for a comparison (verses 1-3).

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.

Of course Isaiah concludes his book with the promise of “new heavens” and a “new earth” (64:17, 66:22). The glorious restoration of Israel to their land is ultimately fulfilled in the eternal possession of the Heavenly Jerusalem, and the entire recreated, new heavens and earth by God’s people. And that possession and enjoyment of the land will endure forever. And redeemed Jews certainly will be enjoying that land along with the Church.

So my question is, why do we need a literal possession of the entire promised land by a national Israel when we know that ultimately an eternal possession of “the world” will be realized by believing Israel? And if this is the case, why all the fussing over the millennium? However you view Rev. 20, the next two chapters in Revelation make clear that the promises to Israel find their ultimate fulfillment in that eternal era. Remember that is when we all live in the city that is significantly named the “New Jerusalem”. Doesn’t the name itself speak volumes here?

One last point, as my series on the land promise makes clear, in some way the Church enjoys some level of fulfillment of these promises in the here and now. 2 Cor. 6:16 declares:

What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For(AK) we are the temple of the living God; as God said, “I will make my dwelling among them and(AM) walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people….”

So even now, we are enjoying God’s designation of “my people”. And we experience God as our God. Read my series on the land for more about how we enjoy rest and fellowship with God presently in a way that the OT experience of dwelling in the land was designed to foreshadow.

“The Meaning of the Pentateuch: Revelation, Composition and Interpretation” by John H. Sailhamer

Few 600 page books on theology are intended to help the average Bible student as much as the learned theologian. Even fewer succeed in that aim. But I figured something was special about this book when John Piper encouraged everyone who cared about “meaning” to get this book, because it will “rock your world”. Rock my world, it did! And more.

I can’t claim this book is an easy read. I had to work my way through parts of it. But the effort was worth it. Sprinkled throughout the book are the kinds of takeaways that can truly change one’s life. John Sailhamer unpacks the meaning of texts and shows the relationship between various parts of the Old Testament. I came away with an enhanced understanding of OT Scripture and a greater appreciation for the unity of the testaments. In the following review, I will walk through the book, then I’ll focus on Sailhamer’s emphasis on authorial intent, the final shape of the canon, the poems of the Pentateuch and some of his conclusions about the meaning of the Pentateuch.

The book begins with a 46-page introduction setting the stage for what will be covered. The scope of what Sailhamer sets out to accomplish with this book is impressive. He is all about “meaning”, and showing us how we can go about finding the meaning of something as large as the first five books of the Bible — considered as one cohesive unit, the Pentateuch. Along the way, he offers thoughts on OT theology, and traces a history of biblical interpretation. This sets the stage for his discussions of authorial intent, verbal meaning, and the place of “historical meaning” in biblical texts. Ultimately he is pushing toward discovering the “big idea” of the Pentateuch, as expressed by the biblical author.

Once he introduces us to his stress on finding the author’s intent in the final shape of the canonical Pentateuch, he goes about doing fantastic exegesis of the Pentateuch itself. He explores how the Pentateuch was put together and composed, and shows how poetry frames the Pentateuch, offering textual clues to finding the author’s emphasis. He then goes on to trace several themes in the Pentateuch, finding corroboration in how the prophets and later authors of Scripture themselves interpreted Moses’ foundational books. That’s the book in a nutshell, but there’s so much more that could be said about it!

Sailhamer sees incredible importance in finding the author of the Pentateuch’s intent. He sees both conservative and liberal theologians as having erred in focusing too much on the questions of historicity. To this point, Sailhamer explains:

The Pentateuch may be compared to a Rembrandt painting of real persons or events. We do not understand a Rembrandt painting by taking a photography of the “thing” that Rembrandt painted and comparing it with the painting itself. That may help us understand the “thing” that Rembrandt painted, his subject matter, but it will not help us understand the painting itself. To understand Rembrandt’s painting, we must look at it and see its colors, shapes and textures. In the same way, to understand the Pentateuch, one must look at its colors, contours and textures. (pg. 19)

Sailhamer’s history of biblical interpretation focuses on the increased attention paid to the historical background to the OT text. There was an attack on the historicity of Scripture, and Sailhamer acknowledges the apologetic value of historical studies. But they have served to distract OT scholars from their real mission. “Filling in the biblical narratives with additional historical material may teach us things about the events of which the biblical writers were speaking, but the evangelical’s goal in interpretation and biblical theology is not an understanding of those events as such. The goal, as evangelicals must see it, is the biblical author’s understanding of those events in the inspired text of the Bible (OT).” (pg. 104)

Questions of authorial intent, when it comes to the Pentateuch, inevitably run into the various source theories. This is where Sailhamer parts course and advocates a “compositional approach”. Some have read Sailhamer and conclude he rejects a Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, my understanding is different. I’ll let Sailhamer explain at some length.

…an evangelical compositional approach to biblical authorship identifies Moses as the author of the Pentateuch and seeks to uncover his strategy in putting the book together…. As far as we know, the Mosaic Pentateuch is identical with the canonical Pentateuch with only few exceptions…. Two notable examples are the account of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy 34 and Moses’ final words in Deuteronomy 33. Such comments, though possibly spoken by Moses, were added late in Israel’s history, likely as part of a “new edition” of the Pentateuch (“Pentateuch 2.0,” in the lingo of today’s computer world). Contrary to the prevailing view of biblical authorship, both critical and evangelical, the compositional approach suggests that the Pentateuch was not the product of a long and complicated process of literary growth, but comes to us more or less as an updated edition of a single earlier Mosaic composition. The present canonical Pentateuch is thus an updated version of the Mosaic Pentateuch produced, perhaps, by the “author” of the OT as a whole (Tanak). (pg. 48)

Such a focus on the “final shape” of the canonical Pentateuch is best suited to a vigorous pursuit of the author’s intended meaning given to us through the text. To that end, Sailhamer sees an importance in the poems which frame the narrative sections of the Pentateuch. Gen. 49, Ex. 15, Numb. 23-24, and Deut. 32-33 are all large poems which function as a frame for the stage upon which the narratives of the Pentateuch are played out. These and other poems in the Pentateuch “serve a didactic purpose without being didactic.” Sailhamer explains further:

They are intended as commentary, although, being poetry, what they add to the narrative is not merely commentary, but also the opportunity of thoughtful reflection. The poems, as such, slow readers down and challenge them to reflect on the narrative through the eyes of a poet. Ultimately, the reader is left not with a narrative meaning, but with a poetic one. The reader joins the narrator in filling in the sense of the story. Although this may challenge the patience of modern readers, it adds an essential feature to the meaning of biblical narrative. (pg. 319)

When one looks at these four chief poems, an emphasis on a kingly messiah figure is apparent. Furthermore, three of the four poems are specifically said to be related to “the last days”. Sailhamer explores the intertextuality of these poems and other sections of the Pentateuch and even with the Hebrew OT as a whole. He then offers a decisive verdict: the Pentateuch is decidedly messianic in focus. The laws given on Sinai are not central, rather the new covenant Moses foretells and the coming of a kingly Messiah — they are the focal point of the books of Moses.

Following the lead of the poems, Sailhamer finds several important themes in the Pentateuch itself. Some of them sound very much like ideas we find in the New Testament. He sees a stress on a singular “seed” rather than a collective “seed” as the ultimate fulfillment of the Abrahamic promise (and Gen. 3:15), the importance of faith as opposed to a mere law-keeping perspective, and the idea of salvation coming to those who believe and hope in God. Along the way, Sailhamer also explains the Messianic structure in the arrangement of the Hebrew canon (the Tanak) and within the psalter. Three additional points from Sailhamer’s book were especially helpful to me.

First, was the discussion of Matthew’s use of Hosea 11:1. Sailhamer shows how Matthew’s use of the text in Hosea is not entirely novel, as many interpreters believe. Rather, Hosea himself is reading the Pentateuch in a messianic way. Hosea quotes Numb. 24:8, one of the messianic poems which frame the Pentateuch. So he has in mind a messianic application in his use of the text. Matthew is merely following suit. Second, was the discussion of how Gen. 49 and the surrounding chapters about Joseph’s story, actually serve to use Joseph as an example of the future kingly Messiah. In other words, the very structure of the Genesis account of Joseph is designed intentionally to see Joseph’s life as a kind of type of the future messianic kingly leader who was to come from Judah’s line.

Third, was Sailhamer’s discussion of the law as being given successively over time and in response to the sin of the Israelites. He revives the earlier teaching of John Calvin and Johann Coccejus based in large part on both Gal. 3:19 and a careful reading of the Pentateuch itself. The golden calf as well as Israelite sacrifices to goat idols (Lev. 17:1-9) are narrative sections that frame different collections of laws. Sailhamer also points out that there were laws mentioned as operative prior to the account of the giving of the 10 commandments even. This perspective merits further study especially as it doesn’t fit the mold of either covenant theology or dispensationalism’s teaching on the laws of Sinai.

Time prevents me from offering a fuller discussion of these matters. One must get the book and hear Sailhamer out. Even if one differs with some of Sailhamer’s conclusions, he must appreciate Sailhamer’s exegetical insight and the great care he has to listen to the text itself. Like John Piper implied, Sailhamer cares about “meaning” , and so should we. If you do, you will benefit from studying what John Sailhamer has to say on the Pentateuch. You may never look at the Old Testament in the same way again.

Pick up a copy of this book at Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Amazon.com or through Inter-Varsity Press.

This book was provided by Inter-Varsity Press for review. The reviewer was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.