As an evangelical Christian I join with many others and am part of a tradition that takes the Bible seriously. In saying that, I am not dismissing authorities such as human tradition and reason; but these are subordinate authorities.
I believe the scriptures to be the word of God written given to show us the way of salvation (2 Tim 3.15). The scriptural Word points to Jesus the Word (Jn 1.1;1.14) who points us to God the Father.
The very next verse in the letter to Timothy (2 Tim 3.16) gives a fuller description of the nature of scripture and its profitability for those who read it and do it.
The Scriptures Invite Interpretation
No one, whatever he may say, can speak the words of Scripture without involving the community of which he is a part. So for example, the Mormon 'missionaries' at your door use Scripture consistent with the beliefs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Attempts have been made to override individual, ignorance or bias altogether by insisting that one central body has the one true interpretation of Scripture.
The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) took that position from the 6th century, until the 16th century Protestant Reformation cracked the RCC's monolithic structure apart. And various cults today maintain this same delusion that only those within their organisation1 are saved.
Granted that the scriptures require interpreting and that this means the involvement of sinful people with human limitations, how can we know what scripture means? Through these two means at least:
1. The Holy Spirit is given to 'guide us into all truth' (Jn 16.12-15). When scripture is read with 'an honest and good heart' (Lk 8.15) then the truth of the word can be received. Reading the word together is helpfully done in groups where each can receive direction from others.
2. Teachers within our particular denominational or house church groups play an important role in teaching the word of God.
Dispensationalists are passionate about interpreting scripture using a 'literal' hermeneutic (system of interpretation). And it sounds very proper for evangelicals to advance a case for taking the bible's text literally because it can appear to be a method for taking it seriously. Attempts have been made to override individual, ignorance or bias altogether by insisting that one central body has the one true interpretation of Scripture.
The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) took that position from the 6th century, until the 16th century Protestant Reformation cracked the RCC's monolithic structure apart. And various cults today maintain this same delusion that only those within their organisation1 are saved.
Granted that the scriptures require interpreting and that this means the involvement of sinful people with human limitations, how can we know what scripture means? Through these two means at least:
1. The Holy Spirit is given to 'guide us into all truth' (Jn 16.12-15). When scripture is read with 'an honest and good heart' (Lk 8.15) then the truth of the word can be received. Reading the word together is helpfully done in groups where each can receive direction from others.
2. Teachers within our particular denominational or house church groups play an important role in teaching the word of God.
Literalness: A Valid Interpretive Principle?
However, the term 'literal' is a slippery one. (See here for a full treatment.)
The Nature of the Patriarchal Covenants
Many Christians may not recognise the importance of the covenant which God makes with Abram (Gen 12.1-3) (then Isaac, and Jacob) but it is pivotal for understanding the unity of Scripture as taught by dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists.
Abram (later Abraham, 'father of many nations') is first called to go to Canaan and God will make him a great nation (Gen 12.1-3; 13.14-17; 15.5, 13-21; 17.1-11; 21.1-7). In summary, these passages promise that Abraham will have land, descendants ('seed'), and be blessed and a blessing to all 'families' of the earth. (Abram is also promised protection from those who curse him, and promised the fatherhood of a great nation.)
This land promise in terms of its geographical extent was fulfilled (Josh 21.43-45; 23.4-5; 24.11, 13, 28; 2 Sam 8.3; I Kings 4.21; II Chron 9.26; Neh 9.8; Jer 11.5).3
God's promise re land spoke of its being 'an everlasting' possession, and it is just at the point that dispensationalist (D) and non-dispensationalist (nD) cross swords.
For the D says, 'Everlasting means "lasting forever". Hence, those who are cultural descendants of Abraham still have just claims on the land of Palestine-Israel according to the borders of the Abrahamic covenant.'
However, the nD says, 'Not so fast. Don't you Ds say that while believing that 'everlasting' means "lasting forever" also contend that the land promise was suspended for 2000 years? Surely that is a very flexible, 'literal' meaning of everlasting.
'And don't you Ds claim that when the Jewish leaders comprehensively rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the "woes" of Matt 23.13-36 are pronounced upon them and the nation (Matt 23.37-39) that the offer of the kingdom was taken from them and given to the Church (the congregation)? But where is this major 'stopgap' plan so much as hinted at in any scripture?
Two millennia are devoted to the Gentiles' salvation according to D theology and during that period the Jews have no land and again nDs ask, 'How can the land be said to be an "everlasting" possession when it is obvious that this "everlasting" possession has not been enduring or "continuous"?'
If the D admits that it hasn't been 'everlasting' in the normal, plain sense of 'everlasting' he has surrendered his literal hermeneutic.
Next time, we look further into the question of the land promise and how it affects us as Gentiles.
1. However mercifully, the scriptures have a power through the Holy Spirit that can also transcend the restrictions of the traditions to which we belong.
2. Cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses are controlled by 'The Organisation' as to what they must believe about the bible's teaching. Such control becomes more and more pervasive as one become more deeply involved. Even the Seventh-Day Adventist Church regards itself as the 'remnant' Church although the SDAs are not as monolithic as they once were.
3. Joshua's confirmation of God's fulfilment of his promise re land was accompanied by a stiff warning of the consequences of sinning against the Lord (Josh 23.16; 24.11-27). We know that Israel did go into apostasy after Joshua's death and God sent the deliverer-judges, prophets and kings to deliver them from their distress. Finally, they lost their land altogether to the Assyrians in the North in 721BC and to the Babylonians in 586BC. After 70 years they came back to their land but were ruled by the Persians then by the Greeks, and after a short time of independence under the Maccabees, were finally conquered by the Romans (63BC).
Abram (later Abraham, 'father of many nations') is first called to go to Canaan and God will make him a great nation (Gen 12.1-3; 13.14-17; 15.5, 13-21; 17.1-11; 21.1-7). In summary, these passages promise that Abraham will have land, descendants ('seed'), and be blessed and a blessing to all 'families' of the earth. (Abram is also promised protection from those who curse him, and promised the fatherhood of a great nation.)
Fulfilment of God's Land Promise
Now the question arises as to how we understand these promises are to be fulfilled. To illustrate, let's look at the promise of LAND (Gen 13.15; 15.18-21; 17.1-9). In Gen 17.8 the Land given by God to Abraham and his descendants is said to be 'all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession [italics added]'.This land promise in terms of its geographical extent was fulfilled (Josh 21.43-45; 23.4-5; 24.11, 13, 28; 2 Sam 8.3; I Kings 4.21; II Chron 9.26; Neh 9.8; Jer 11.5).3
God's promise re land spoke of its being 'an everlasting' possession, and it is just at the point that dispensationalist (D) and non-dispensationalist (nD) cross swords.
For the D says, 'Everlasting means "lasting forever". Hence, those who are cultural descendants of Abraham still have just claims on the land of Palestine-Israel according to the borders of the Abrahamic covenant.'
However, the nD says, 'Not so fast. Don't you Ds say that while believing that 'everlasting' means "lasting forever" also contend that the land promise was suspended for 2000 years? Surely that is a very flexible, 'literal' meaning of everlasting.
'And don't you Ds claim that when the Jewish leaders comprehensively rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the "woes" of Matt 23.13-36 are pronounced upon them and the nation (Matt 23.37-39) that the offer of the kingdom was taken from them and given to the Church (the congregation)? But where is this major 'stopgap' plan so much as hinted at in any scripture?
Two millennia are devoted to the Gentiles' salvation according to D theology and during that period the Jews have no land and again nDs ask, 'How can the land be said to be an "everlasting" possession when it is obvious that this "everlasting" possession has not been enduring or "continuous"?'
If the D admits that it hasn't been 'everlasting' in the normal, plain sense of 'everlasting' he has surrendered his literal hermeneutic.
Next time, we look further into the question of the land promise and how it affects us as Gentiles.
1. However mercifully, the scriptures have a power through the Holy Spirit that can also transcend the restrictions of the traditions to which we belong.
2. Cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses are controlled by 'The Organisation' as to what they must believe about the bible's teaching. Such control becomes more and more pervasive as one become more deeply involved. Even the Seventh-Day Adventist Church regards itself as the 'remnant' Church although the SDAs are not as monolithic as they once were.
3. Joshua's confirmation of God's fulfilment of his promise re land was accompanied by a stiff warning of the consequences of sinning against the Lord (Josh 23.16; 24.11-27). We know that Israel did go into apostasy after Joshua's death and God sent the deliverer-judges, prophets and kings to deliver them from their distress. Finally, they lost their land altogether to the Assyrians in the North in 721BC and to the Babylonians in 586BC. After 70 years they came back to their land but were ruled by the Persians then by the Greeks, and after a short time of independence under the Maccabees, were finally conquered by the Romans (63BC).
