Tag: prophecy

Reformation Gems 3: William Greenhill on the Conversion of the Jews and Ezekiel’s Temple

~ Bob Hayton

Reformation Gems are excerpts from selections contained in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture, a new commentary series from IVP which gathers the best Reformation-era comments on the text together all in one set. The volumes in this commentary series resurrect long-forgotten voices from the Reformation age and in so doing they recover the piety and vivacity of that era. I hope that by sharing some excerpts from this series, I will edify my readers and promote this important commentary series.
 _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _  _ 

Today’s selection comes from the Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Volume XII (Ezekiel, Daniel). In perusing the comments on Ezekiel, I was surprised to see quite a bit about the prophesied conversion of the Jews and their return to the Promised Land. Most of the comments in that vein came from William Greenhill or Matthew Meade (one of his fellow non-conformist ministers). While many today herald the formation of the modern nation of Israel in 1948 as evidence that God has kept this promise, most still hold to a future conversion of Jewish people to Christianity. Many Reformed theologians, amillennialists and the like, understand the return to the land to be fulfilled already historically, and ultimately that it points to Christ and the greater inheritance that His Church experiences. In this vein, see my “Understanding the Land Promise” series. But I found it insightful to see this same question wrestled with in the 1600s soon after the Reformation by Greenhill, Matthew Meade and others.

Here are some excerpts from Greenhill’s comments, as well as evidence that he wouldn’t quite fit the mold of a standard dispensationalist, when it comes to his thoughts on other aspects of Ezekiel’s prophecy. He takes a literal view of the land in some passages, and in others, he sees a spiritual fulfillment:

Literal interpretation of a future “conversion of the Jews” and “return to the land.”

Ezekiel 37:21-22
…The conversion of the Jews we may with warrant expect and pray for. God has promised to gather the children of Israel and to bring them to David their king, that is, Christ…. Seeing God has promised to do it, we may believe and pray for the same. (pg. 185)

Ezekiel 37:26-27
Some look on this promise of David to be king over the Jews as accomplished in the reign of Christ the Messiah when here on earth because he gave out his commands then and required obedience to them…. Others are of a different judgment and believe that this great promise made here to the two houses of Judah and Israel remains yet to be performed: (1) Because the two houses are not yet united into one…. (2) Because the Jews do not own Christ; neither one house nor the other do it; neither Judah nor Israel acknowledged Christ to be the Messiah…. (3) The Jews have been, and are still, under many kings and shepherds…. (4) They shall then walk in the ways of Christ, not the ways of Moses….

From Ezekiel 37:26-27 I shall only give you this observation that there are great and precious promises that concern the Jews, yet unperformed. The everlasting covenant of peace, Christ being their king and temple, with many others, the Jews expect the fulfilling of. And so may we, for God is faithful and will make good his word. (pg. 187)

Ezekiel 39:25-29
God hid his face seventy years from them in Babylon; and since their crucifying of Christ, he has hid it from them sixteen hundred years. But he has a time to let them see his face again, and never more to hide it from them. They shall have his favor, his counsel, his help and protection. They shall not be under severe judgments but enjoy sweet mercies. (pg. 193)

Spiritual interpretation of Ezekiel’s temple.

Ezekiel 41:1-7
“Of the signification of this temple.” Some make the court belonging to it to represent the world and the temple to represent heaven. It may be considered whether the porch does not point out the common professor of the faith, the temple, the true saints, who are temples of the Spirit, and the holy of holies, the saints in glory, the condition of those made perfect. The true representation of this temple, I take it, is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ; both his body natural and his body mystical, namely, the church. (pg. 207)

Ezekiel 45:1-6
Having laid down the platform and measures of the temple, he comes now to the division and measuring of the land, wherein things are dark, difficult and deep, not to be attempted by human strength but by the help of Christ’s Spirit, which makes dark things, light, difficult things easy and sounds the greatest depths.

…There was a distinction of the land of Canaan in Moses’ and Joshua’s days (Num 34, 35; Josh 13, 21). But this division differs much from the same, and when the Jews returned from Babylon, there was no such division made of the land. Had it been, Ezra or Nehemiah would have made mention of it. This division, therefore, is not to be understood literally but spiritually, and the completing of it to be looked for in the church of Christ, not in the Jewish state or temple. Here, then, seems to be a spiritual lotting, and bringing people out of Judaism and heathenism into the kingdom of Christ and fellowship of the gospel…. The work of grace, and bringing of people into the church, is free; nothing in people, or from people, procures it. (pg. 220)

Ezekiel 47:13-23
Having given you the literal sense of the words… now let us see what may be the spiritual sense of them. Indeed, according to the letter, they were not fulfilled after the return from Babylon, but mystically under the gospel they were.

1. Then here is held out to us the great extent and largeness of the church under Christ and the gospel. The land mentioned signifies the church’s state; and the bordering of it out, north, east, south, west, the extent of it into all parts. The Christian church is larger than the Jewish, that was shut up in one nation; now it reaches to all nations (Mt 28:19), neither Asia, Africa, Europe or America is excluded (Mt 24:14; Lk 24:47; Rev 15:4). The church under the gospel is universal and invisible.

2. Those who are subjects or members of this church are not hypocrites but Israelites. Those who were not Israelites, and true Israelites, were not to be in this church…. true Israelites, such as Nathaniel was (Jn 1:47); of Jews inwardly, such as are circumcised in heart and spirit (Rom 2:29); of such as are enrolled in heaven (Heb 12:23); of sealed ones (Rev 7), and these stood with the Lamb on Mount Zion (Rev 14:1). These made up the church and body of Christ. (pg. 227-228)

About the Reformation-era author: William Greenhill (1591-1671). English nonconformist clergyman. Greenhill attended and worked at Magdalen College. He ministered in the diocese of Norwich but soon left for London, where he preached at Stepney. Greenhill was a member of the Westminster Assembly of Divines and was appointed the parliament chaplain by the children of Charles I. Oliver Cromwell included him among the preachers who helped draw up the Savoy Declaration. Greenhill was evicted from his post following the Restoration, after which he pastored independently. Among Greenhill’s most significant contributions to church history was his Exposition of the Prophet of Ezekiel. (pg. 434-435)

Learn more about this commentary series at the Reformation Commentary page at IVPress.com, or check out this sampler (PDF). You can pick up a copy of Reformation Commentary on Scripture: Volume XII (Ezekiel, Daniel) at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes&Noble or direct from IVP. You may want to consider becoming a member with IVP and getting the entire series on a subscription discount of more than 40% per volume.

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

Book Briefs: “The Gospel According to Isaiah 53” edited by Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser

~ Bob Hayton

Perhaps no chapter in the Old Testament is more foundational to the cause of Jewish evangelism than Isaiah 53. In The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: Encountering the Suffering Servant in Jewish and Christian Theology editors Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser bring together an impressive group of scholars to discuss this text in full detail. The result is an academic work that aims to equip church leaders for effectively using this pivotal chapter in Jewish evangelism.

The book is divided into three sections. Part 1 coves Christian and Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53. These first two chapters were most informative and really are worth the price of the book. Richard Averbeck surveys a wide variety of Christian interpretations, and Michael Brown masterfully gives a thorough treatment of Jewish opinions on this passage.

Part 2 is a collection of various essays on Isaiah 53 and is the weakest part of the book in my opinion. The essays themselves are fine, but there is repetition and disparity between them. Most of them spend some time discussing whether the Suffering Servant is collectively understood as Israel or should be viewed as an individual Messianic figure. These essays are written independently and not situated in the flow of the book well, so we cover the same ground over and over again. That being said, the articles do make some important points and cover different points of emphases when it comes to Isaiah 53’s development in the New Testament.

Part 3 covers Isaiah 53 in practical theology and is quite good. Mitch Glaser’s piece on using Isaiah 53 in Jewish Evangelism is excellent. His explanation of orthodox Jewish objections to Isaiah 53’s use by Christians as opposed to the average Jewish person’s more secular outlook to the passage is priceless. Too often, we assume that Jews think like Christians when it comes to God’s holiness and personal sin, blood atonement and the like, and Glaser assures us this is not the case.

The book ends with an odd concluding chapter, in which Darrell Bock excerpts several paragraphs from each of the chapters in the book. It seems a strange way to conclude a book, but I wonder if it is an attempt to forge a greater unity between disparate pieces? An appendix then includes two sample sermons on Isaiah 53.

The book points us to numerous additional resources throughout, and really does cover Isaiah 53 well. It definitely accomplishes the task it sets out to achieve. Yet the book is clearly directed toward a more scholarly audience and I believe this will limit its effectiveness. There are no transliterations of Hebrew and Greek terms provided, and sometimes there are not even short lexical definitions of them included either. The interaction with scholarly literature, too, is much more than the average lay leader is equipped to handle. Still there is a lot of value to be had in the book, and I was thankful to be reminded of how important this single chapter is for Jewish evangelism.

Pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Christianbook.com, Amazon, or direct from Kregel.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Academic. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

“40 Questions about the End Times” by Eckhard Schnabel

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Book Details:
  • Author: Eckhard Schnabel
  • Category: Theology
  • Publisher: Kregel Publications (2012)
  • Format: softcover
  • Page Count: 352
  • ISBN#: 0825438969
  • List Price: $17.99
  • Rating: Highly Recommended
  • Rating: Highly Recommended

Review:
Few subjects spark such controversy among Christians as end times theology. For some, the only controversy lies in the inexplicable reluctance of some to fully embrace the truth. Why can’t everyone be so moved and excited by the very evident relevance of Biblical prophecy? Can’t they see just by picking up a newspaper how we are living in the last days? Others make it their mission to pop the bubble of the many believers who practice such a newspaper-theology. Whether they advocate preterism, pre-wrath, post-millennialism or some other minority position, they turn every conversation into a discussion of their favored end times view. Still others have been burned by churches for abandoning the official eschatological position. And many would rather avoid this subject than see another passionate argument arise.

Given the many opportunities to engender strife on such a volatile subject, we must assume that Eckhard Schnabel was perhaps a bit hesitant to put forth yet another book that aims to navigate the mine-field of eschatology. Whatever the case, Schnabel’s new book 40 Questions about the End Times (Kregel, 2012) will certainly prove to be an important and helpful contribution. I hope it receives wide attention as it offers a helpful corrective to careless end-times speculation and steers clear of divisiveness.

40 Questions is informative and expansive without being exhaustive. The format of attacking the subject by means of 40 separate questions allows the book to aim for a systematic treatment of the topic in small segmented bites. This approach means that it can’t cover every relevant passage and answer every conceivable question, but it has its merits too. The book can serve as a manual to be referenced when one is looking for information specific to one question (the millennium, the rapture, Hell and judgement, etc.). And the approach keeps the book moving and on track.

Schnabel masterfully employs charts and comparisons between parallel passages and betrays a true mastery of the literature. Yet he doesn’t write for scholars. He stays both practical and accessible, even as his footnotes point the way for further study. He tries his best to avoid discussing eschatological positions directly, preferring to cover the relevant Biblical texts exegetically. It is apparent that he is premillennial but not dispensational. He would be post-tribulational in a sense as well, but is more historic premil. And for the most part, he is right in the mainstream of evangelical scholarship: he defends eternal conscious punishment, but holds to a strange view of the millennium that sees the Gog and Magog rebellion at the end of the thousand years as a release of the unrepentant followers of Satan who are deceived and judged again. (This may just be strange to me, as I have not come across this view before. Yet, I can’t help but suspecting this is a minority view at best in scholarship today.)

Throughout the book, Schnabel obliquely references “end times specialists” who presume that certain prophecies can only be fulfilled given modern technological advances. Such views are anachronistic, and worse: they represent “new prophecies”, since they give a prophetic significance to history. He puts the claims that Babylon will be rebuilt and that a third temple will be built into this category. I have to agree with him that the false predictions and constantly modified interpretive declarations about end times theology (such as the identification of the European Union with the 10-kings who support the Beast) present a problem for the church. Schnabel elaborates:

If the prophecy writer tries again and adjusts his prophecy, and the new prediction does not come to pass, the end-time “specialist” is clearly neither a specialist nor a prophet. Prophecy writers who get it wrong must apologize and they should stop writing, speaking, blogging, and tweeting about matters related to prophecy. (pg. 311)

This book, however, is more than a mere eschatological handbook or polemic against modern-day false prophets. It is a call for the Church to live in light of the big central truths of prophecy. Christ is returning at any moment, and He will judge the dead and reward the faithful. His kingdom will never end and everything wrong will be made right.

Even if one disagrees with some of Schnabel’s particular interpretations, his discussion of the relevant arguments on each question will be both helpful and enlightening. But the book will especially be a help to those who remain “willing to consider the truth of other interpretations of biblical passages,” and when warranted, “willing to concede that [they] may have to adjust [their] understanding” (pg. 315). Ultimately, what Schnabel says of Revelation applies to this book: it is written “not to satisfy our curiosity about God’s timetable for the end times but in order to encourage believers who are suffering and to exhort believers who are in danger of compromising their faith” (pg. 316).

This book will both educate and encourage the believer. I highly recommend it.

Author Info:
Eckhard J. Schnabel (PhD, University of Aberdeen), is professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. His publications include Early Christian Mission and a commentary on 1 Corinthians.

Where to Buy:
  • Christianbook.com
  • Amazon
  • Kregel

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

Good Friday: The Day the Moon Turned to Blood

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Today is Good Friday. We celebrate the death of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ today. When we think back to all that happened on Good Friday, we of course focus on Jesus’ becoming the “propitiation for our sins” (1 John 2:2).

But I want you to also think about all the signs and wonders which were on display that day. The sky turned dark, there was an earthquake and many who were dead came back to life. The veil of the Temple ripped from the top down. And on top of all of this, the weeks leading up to Jesus’ death were filled with all the talk of his many miracles including the raising of Lazarus from the dead.

Peter’s Sermon at Pentectost

Keep these signs and wonders in view as you look at Acts 2 with me, as Peter tries to explain another miraculous event – the mighty, rushing wind, tongues of fire, and the miraculous speech that enabled the 120 who were gathered in the upper room to tell the Good News to people of a multitude of languages, who all heard the Gospel in their native tongue.

For these people are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel:

“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” [quoted from Joel 2:28-32]

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it….

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2:15-24, 32-33)

Put in this light, you can see what Peter is doing. He’s comparing both the signs and wonders that were seen on Pentecost with the larger story of all that was seen surrounding Jesus – and all of this is the fulfillment of Joel’s prophesy, which Peter quotes. We have the men and women speaking in tongues (the first part of Joel’s prophecy), and we have a darkened sky and other wonders (the second part). Peter is making a point that the “last days” have now come. He adds the words “last days” to Joel’s prophecy for this very reason (Joel has “and afterward”). The “signs of the times” as it were, were already being seen – and Peter felt like he was living with the “day of the Lord” in the near future.

Some object to this view of Peter’s sermon in Acts 2. They claim that Peter was just making an anlogy with Joel 2 to the current situation. Others claim that just the first part was being fulfilled, not the heavenly signs – which would obviously be in the future tribulation period. I won’t delve into all the arguments, but suffice it to say that the view that the New Testament authors understood the “last days” to have begun is quite strong and is attested to throughout the New Testament (see 1 Cor. 10:11, Heb. 1:2, 1 Pet. 1:20, 1 John 2:18).

Going back to Acts 2 now, let me quote from a book I’ve been reading: 40 Questions About the End Times by Eckhard Schnabel (Kregel, 2012):

The connections of the “wonders” and “signs” of Joel’s prophecy with Jesus’ ministry and death provide the basis for Peter’s subsequent arguments concerning the status and the significance of Jesus. The reference to the “last days” establishes how Peter reads the prophets: God has begun to fulfill his promises; the last days have arrived with Jesus’ ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension, and his bestowal of the Spirit. (pg. 21-22)

I agree with Schnabel’s conclusion, but I was especially intrigued with another point he made, almost in passing, in this chapter.

The Moon Turned to Blood

The suggestion that Acts 2:19 refers to a lunar eclipse during which the moon assumes a dull, red color, which was visible in Jerusalem at Passover in A.D. 33, is intriguing; however, it requires a later date for Jesus’ crucifixion, which is more plausibly dated in the year A.D. 30. (pg. 20)

Ever since I read Harold Hoehner’s Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Zondervan, 1978), I have held to a Friday crucifixion and to April 3, A.D. 33 as the most likely date for Jesus’ death. I am not alone in considering A.D. 33 to be the most likely date for Christ’s death and resurrection. If you click this link, you should be able to read the relevant section from IVP’s Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel Green, which concludes as I do. So I was not put off by Schnabel’s preference for A.D. 30. Instead I was very much intrigued by his reference to the moon turning to blood being explained by a lunar eclipse.

I must be honest in admitting that while I have understood Peter to be saying Joel 2 is fulfilled, I was thinking the literal fulfillment focused on the Pentecost event not on the darkening of the sun at Christ’s death. Or at least I hadn’t thought very much about this. So I was eager to read the paper that Schnabel cited which dealt with this lunar eclipse. I was happy to find that the paper is freely available online. It is titled, “The Jewish Calendar, a Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ’s Crucifixion” by Colin J. Humphreys and W. Graeme Waddington (Tyndale Bulletin 43, 1992).

I encourage you to read the entire paper (available here), but for my purposes I will excerpt the chief evidence presented for understanding a lunar eclipse to be in view with the prophecy that the moon would turn to blood.

Evidence from Early Christian Writings

In addition to quoting from the apocryphal “Report of Pilate”, the authors of the paper cite Cyril of Alexandria (A.D. 412) as evidence:

The so-called ‘Report of Pilate’, a New Testament apocryphal fragment states, ‘Jesus was delivered to him by Herod, Archelaus, Philip, Annas, Caiphas, and all the people. At his Crucifixion the sun was darkened; the stars appeared and in all the world people lighted lamps from the sixth hour till evening; the moon appeared like blood’. [No matter the authenticity of this later document,] there must have been a tradition that at the Crucifixion the moon appeared like blood….

Further evidence is provided by Cyril of Alexandria, the orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria in AD 412. After stating that there was darkness at the Crucifixion he adds, ‘Something unusual occurred about the circular rotation of the moon so that it even seemed to be turned into blood’, and notes that the prophet Joel foretold such signs. (pg. 342)

The Technical Nature of the Phrase “Moon Turned to Blood”:

The moon turning to blood is a graphic description of a lunar eclipse. The reason an eclipsed moon appears blood-red is well known and the effect has been well documented. Even though during an eclipse the moon is geometrically in the earth’s shadow, some sunlight still reaches it by the refraction of light passing through the earth’s atmosphere. The light reaching the moon is red since scattering by air molecules and very small particles along its long path through the atmosphere preferentially removes the blue end of the spectrum. The phrase ‘moon turned to blood’ has been used by writers and historians to describe lunar eclipses for many centuries, and the expression dates back to at least 300 BC….

In the medieval European annals compiled by G.H. Pertz there are so many lunar eclipses described by ‘the moon turned to blood’ that the phrase appears to be used as a standard description. (pg. 343-344)

For additional corroboration, see the picture at the top of this post (taken from this article about a lunar eclipse in Brooklyn from 12/21/10). In that article, the moon is described as going “dark red” — very similar to the “blood red” description of the medieval era.

Conclusion

On this point, the authors put forth the following conclusion:

There is therefore strong evidence that when Peter, the ‘Report of Pilate’, and Cyril of Alexandria refer to the moon turning to blood on the evening of the Crucifixion, they were describing a lunar eclipse. It is surprising that this deduction does not appear to have been made before, although F.F. Bruce almost reaches this conclusion. He states, with reference to Peter’s Pentecost speech, ‘It was little more than seven weeks since the people in Jerusalem had indeed seen the sun turned into darkness, during the early afternoon of the day of our Lord’s Crucifixion. And on the same afternoon the paschal full moon may well have appeared blood-red in the sky in consequence of that preternatural gloom’. Presumably Bruce and other commentators have not been aware that a blood-red moon is a well-documented description of a lunar eclipse. (pg. 344)

The paper goes on to document how there was only one lunar eclipse that would have been visible from Jerusalem during the Passover in any of the years that are possible dates for his death. That eclipse is dated to Friday, April 3, A.D. 33 – the most likely date of the crucifixion.

This study has forced me to see the Crucifixion anew — to realize what a world-shattering event it really was! The death of Christ and His resurrection marked the end of the old age and the beginning of a new one. And miraculous signs in the heavens and on earth all attest to the prophetic undertones of what is happening. This also should serve to wake us up to the importance of the Cross of Christ and the Empty Tomb. The Gospel of Christ really is world-shattering. The realities we are sharing through the indwelling Spirit and our present realization of the blessings of the Gospel are all a brand new experience which is a foretaste of even greater things to come!

We are living in the last days and Jesus’ return draws near. May we live soberly and righteously in light of all that Christ has done for us. And may we not forget that the power of His resurrection has been given to us — we can live lives that testify to the glory of the age to come.

UPDATE: You can read my review of 40 Questions About the End Times here.

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.