The Only Rule Of Interpretation
February 25, 2010 14 Comments
The following is excerpted from Charles D. Alexander’s work “The Puritan Illusion – An Answer to the Book Entitled ‘The Puritan Hope’ ” by Iain Murray. It is an excellent work, if you can find it. – Joel
There is no limit to the subversion of Old Testament prophecy to make it conformable to Jewish interpretation, once the special, national interest of Jewry has been conceded in any one text. It is useless for cautious authors like Mr. Murray to deny the essential connection between these ambiguous interpretations and the extreme errors of millennialism and dispensationalism. The men quoted by our author were good men, but they lived in days before eschatology became a close study. The Puritans did not perceive the logical end of their theories, but had they lived at the latter end of the 20th century they would (we are sure), have retreated in dismay from their false position, and condemned with all the means at their disposal that ambiguous treatment of vital texts which has led to the subversion of the true doctrine of the Church in Old testament prophecy, and has marched on from that point to destroy the evangelical pulpit.
The Old Testament prophecies must only be understood in terms of New Testament usage. [This] is axiomatic and is accepted as the principle of prophetic interpretation by all reasonable men of whatever party.
But the Puritan Hope writers departs notably from this principle in order to establish their theory. In the face of all the New testament examples which insist on the Church of the Redeemed as being the fulfillment of the promises of the Kingdom, they select and isolate one, used by Paul in Romans 11:26, 27, and without any attempt at exegetical proof, assert that it foretells a time of Jewish national privilege.
From that point they proceed to demolish the true gentile interest in every other OT prediction of the Kingdom of Christ, by insinuating that Romans 11:26,27 provides a key by which a much wider field of prediction must be understood.
We remind our readers, however, that the New Testament teaches the exact contrary. It insists on the abolition of all national interest in the Kingdom of Christ. Paul’s dictum in Galatians 3:28, 29 states that a basic fact of Christ’s kingdom is that in it no question of race or nationhood can possibly enter. Thus:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (ESV)
Who are the Jews? Who are the Israelites? Who are Abraham’s descendants? Paul answers, “All, and only those who are Christ’s, be they Jew or Gentile.”
To make Paul say that in Romans 11 the “Zion” and “Jacob” to whom the promises belong and to whom the Redeemer is sent, are in fact the earthly nation of Israel, is to overturn the New Testament and set Paul against Paul. National interest and genealogical descent once more become paramount – and they do not come alone, for as we shall see, the Puritan Hope goes on to erect again the Jewish temple and set up the sacrifices of the Jewish altar. This they cannot avoid because they include in their Jewish scheme the whole of Isaiah 60 in addition to Isaiah 59 (see The Puritan Hope, pages 74, 75).
For our friends to attempt to set a double value on the predictions, a lesser for the gentiles and a greater for the Jew is the very nadir of exegesis, and is far more dangerous than the dispensationalism which makes the whole over to the Jew without a blush. The latter error is so patent that reasonable men will not entertain it for a moment. The ‘double-value’ interpretation, on the contrary, is highly commendable to those who desire the convenience of riding [their horses] in two directions, at the same time. The unwary are likely to be deceived by its very plausibility as it reassures the gentile on the one hand, and rehabilitates the Jewish nation on the other, and relieves one of the burden of serious thought.
There can be no escape however from the fact that this method of handling the prophecies completely destroys the relevance of the epistle to the Galatians because the Jewish prerogative against which paul so vehemently contended, is preserved, and held only in a state of abeyance until a Jewish day of glory shall come….
It is not enough to make a selection of Puritan authors to buttress the opinion. The Puritans were fallible guides on these matters. Godly men they were indeed, but prophetical exegesis was not their strong point. They were new to it, and they displayed in their handling of it a naivety not to be surprised at considering the recent emergence of the study in their time.
- Charles D. Alexander
Related Post:
Charles Alexander: The Puritan Age
Sola Ecclesia: The Lost Reformation Doctrine
Many thanks for posting this! As one who was duped (without being notified of such) by dispensationalists into their eschatological views and has been recovering and reforming for the past 5 or so years, I have a strong interest in improving my understanding of these matters.
A couple things.
I would be very, very surprised if you could get a dispensationalist to agree, “Yep, that’s what we’re saying.” Certainly on the phrase “to whom the Redeemer is sent”–don’t dispensationalists believe that the Redeemer was sent to the Gentiles as well as to ethnic Israel?
They might say that ethnic Israel is the one “to whom the promises belong”, but I doubt even that–they distinguish between promises. They assert that there are many OT promises & prophecies made to ethnic Israel specifically, which are not inherited by the church. But that doesn’t mean that none of the OT promises are inherited by the church!
I also want to point out an interpretive leap that was made, but not defended:
In that passage, Paul clearly identifies all believers as “children of Abraham”. He does not identify them as “Israel”. If the two are interchangeable, that needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. (All believers inherit the promises of salvation, as children of Abraham. But this passage leaves open the question, “Is there anything God said to ethnic Israel that was intended for them? Does God intend to do anything in the future specifically through believing Jews?”) Gal. 3:28-29 doesn’t get you there, nor does Romans 11. (I argued the Church/Israel implications of Romans 9-11 in some posts at my blog.)
Ideally, we need a passage that directly says, “Believing Gentiles are now considered to be Jews as well, in addition to being children of Abraham. Everywhere you see ‘Israel’, you can replace that with ‘all believers’.”
The strongest I’ve found is Romans 2:25-29.
A dispensationalist could try to say that v. 29 only means, “Ethnic Jewishness isn’t enough–you need to be inwardly circumcised, too.” But that’s pretty hard to maintain with v.26 in context. That does seem to push the point to, “A circumcised heart makes you a Jew in God’s eyes.”
Long post. Let’s try and keep them shorter to encourage others to participate in the discussion, ok? We do have rules you know
http://5ptsalt.com/comment-policy/
Thanks. – JT
Will do! No longer shall I a flagrant rule-breaker be.
P.S. Another thing on Gal. 3:28-29.
We have to be careful about using it to erase all kinds of distinctions between Jew & Greek, male & female, slave & free. Egalitarians use this to argue that in Christ, both male and female can serve as elders–but that wasn’t the point. Paul wasn’t addressing offices in the church.
If we want to use Gal 3:28-29 to deny a certain distinction between believing Jews & believing Gentiles, then we have to show that Paul had that kind of distinction in mind.
I agree with Manfred wholeheartedly, Amen! Only I have been recovering and reforming for about 6 months. Thanks for the post.
Laura,
We are all recovering and reforming (those who are saved that is) and it is called santification. He who began a good work in us will see it through and all things work together for good for those who are called according to His purpose and all who are in Christ are new creatures with old things passing away and all things becoming new…
Welcome aboard.
What do you folks do with the Book of Revelation if you don’t believe in dispensationalism? I guess you can only spiritualize it .
Pam S.
What did people do with Revelation before Dispensationalism was invented?
Here part 1 of a very good short series on this book of the Bible from an historic perspective, rather than a new one: http://pjmiller.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-book-of-revelation-is-not-meant-to-be-scary/
You can find the other videos on pj’s site, or search the web for bzell333 and Revelation.
Dispensationalism was not invented. It was what the first century church believed. It was pushed out by the Roman church and then regained its place around the 1700′s.
Sorry, I just don’t get how you can understand the Scriptures any other way unless you then choose to spiritualize them.
Do you have any historical evidence that the first century church ‘believed’ premillennial dispensationalism? I’d be interested in seeing that.
I believe it can be said that the first century church expected Jesus to return anyday and sooner rather than later. Wouldn’t that qualify as premillennial?
I’m not sure we can say the first church saw a dispensational point of view however since God still spoke directly to some of them on many occasions. True dispensationalism would have to be started later since the Bible wasn’t totally delivered from God to man until after the first century.
To me, the people who were living during the first century had a ‘current events’ view and a near-term expectation of Christ’s return. Only those who live later can have a historical view of past events. Then systems of thought like dispensationalism can be developed… right? But, then again, what do I know… I’m just a country boy living in one of the largests cities in the US… Opine si vou ples
Exactly my point. I’d love to see evidence from any writings of the first century that espoused dispensationalism. In the words of Elmer Fudd, “absowootley wedicuwous”
What is your definition of Dispensationalism? If your article here is to prove that God is finished with national Israel and that proves Disp. is not valid, then what do you do with Jeremiah 31:31-36? I believe it says the house of Israel. All the Old Testament prophets spoke of the scattering , chastizing, and restoration of Israel, as Israel, not as the Church. Even Paul in Romans 11:25-36 addresses that. There is no contradiction.
Oh, well. It seems we will just have to agree to disagree
Sorry to interrupt.