My brother is quite adversarial in his dispensational position. He sometimes repeats the refrain, "literal interpretation of Scripture."
While there is no discussing this issue with my brother, I'd like to be able to tear down this straw man, so I'd like to build a list of instances where dispensationalists don't take Scripture literally.
I'm getting ever more chagrined with dispensationalism because of it's emphasis on a future literal kingdom rather than the present spiritual (but just as real and more germane to our lives) kingdom.
Interestingly, I just remembered discussing "turning the other cheek" whereby I thought Jesus meant much by what he said but that it included literal assualts and he disagreed.
Anyway, in which cases do Amillennialists take a passage literally where Dispensationalists take it figuratively?
Instances of dispensationalists not taking scripture literal
Instances of dispensationalists not taking scripture literal
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_STEVE7150
- Posts: 894
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 8:38 pm
Anyway, in which cases do Amillennialists take a passage literally where Dispensationalists take it figuratively?
Maybe Daniel 9.27, the amills simply take it literally as the 70th consecutive week because that's how the verse literally reads, but the dispens place it 2,000 years into the future with no literal support in the text.
Their whole 7yr trib is based on a non literal interpretation of that 70th week being not in consecutive order.
Maybe Daniel 9.27, the amills simply take it literally as the 70th consecutive week because that's how the verse literally reads, but the dispens place it 2,000 years into the future with no literal support in the text.
Their whole 7yr trib is based on a non literal interpretation of that 70th week being not in consecutive order.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
The gap in Daniel 9 (mentioned above by Steve7150, is one of several such gaps imported unnecessarily (and non-literally) into prophetic scriptures by Dispensationalists. The "gap" between the ankles and the feet of the image in Daniel 2, and the gap between verses 2a and 2b of Isaiah 61 would be other examples. In these cases, the amillennialists are more "literal" in their interpretation.
There are also many cases where no one (including Dispensationalists) takes the wording of a prophecy literally. In a casual perusal of Matthew's Gospel alone, many instances of this kind leap from the page. For example:
No one literally heard the corpse of Rachel weeping in her grave when the Jews were carried away to Babylon (Jer.31:15), nor was she doing so when the infants of Bethlehem were slain (Matt.2:16-18). Her consciousness, and her voice, had long since departed from that corpse.
No one believes that John the Baptist was engaged in site preparation for the building of a literal highway in the wilderness of Judea (Isa.40:3-4/ Matt.3:3).
No one believes that, when Jesus began preaching in Galilee, the locals saw a literal "great light" after previously sitting in literal "darkness" (Isa.9:1-2/ Matt.4:12-16).
I doubt if anyone would wish to insist that the apostate Jews had closed their literal (physical) eyes to avoid seeing the truth, nor that the "healing" that they forfeited by their obstinance was literal healing (Isa.6:9-10/ Matt.13:13-15).
To be more brief—no one believes that those who acclaimed Christ on Palm Sunday were literally "babes and nursing infants" (Psalm 8:2/ Matt.21:15-16); nor that Jesus was a literal "stone" rejected by literal "builders" (Ps.118:22-23/ Matt.21:42); nor that Jesus' enemies will be morphed into a literal "footstool" (Ps.110:1/ Matt.22:44); nor that Jesus was a literal "shepherd"—that is, one who herds literal sheep—nor that those who scattered when He was smitten were literal "sheep" (Zech.13:7/ Matt.26:31). When Jesus was crucified, the soldiers did not divide David's garments among them—which a strictly literal rendering of Psalm 22 would require (Matt.27:35).
These are simply examples that can be immediately gleaned from Matthew's Gospel alone. If you take the remainder of the New Testament, you will find scores of other examples where an Old Testament prophecy is seen to have been fulfilled, but not in terms of its literal language.
Of course there are also examples of literal fulfillment—e.g. Micah 5:2 (Matt.2:6), but this is much less common. Two graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary*, examined all the Old Testament prophecies that are identified as fulfilled in the New Testament, and determined whether the fulfillment was literal, spiritual, typological, or otherwise symbolic. They concluded that about one out of three were understood literally by the New Testament writers. I, personally, would estimate a lower percentage.
Blessings!
Steve
*I believe their book was entitled, "Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow."
There are also many cases where no one (including Dispensationalists) takes the wording of a prophecy literally. In a casual perusal of Matthew's Gospel alone, many instances of this kind leap from the page. For example:
No one literally heard the corpse of Rachel weeping in her grave when the Jews were carried away to Babylon (Jer.31:15), nor was she doing so when the infants of Bethlehem were slain (Matt.2:16-18). Her consciousness, and her voice, had long since departed from that corpse.
No one believes that John the Baptist was engaged in site preparation for the building of a literal highway in the wilderness of Judea (Isa.40:3-4/ Matt.3:3).
No one believes that, when Jesus began preaching in Galilee, the locals saw a literal "great light" after previously sitting in literal "darkness" (Isa.9:1-2/ Matt.4:12-16).
I doubt if anyone would wish to insist that the apostate Jews had closed their literal (physical) eyes to avoid seeing the truth, nor that the "healing" that they forfeited by their obstinance was literal healing (Isa.6:9-10/ Matt.13:13-15).
To be more brief—no one believes that those who acclaimed Christ on Palm Sunday were literally "babes and nursing infants" (Psalm 8:2/ Matt.21:15-16); nor that Jesus was a literal "stone" rejected by literal "builders" (Ps.118:22-23/ Matt.21:42); nor that Jesus' enemies will be morphed into a literal "footstool" (Ps.110:1/ Matt.22:44); nor that Jesus was a literal "shepherd"—that is, one who herds literal sheep—nor that those who scattered when He was smitten were literal "sheep" (Zech.13:7/ Matt.26:31). When Jesus was crucified, the soldiers did not divide David's garments among them—which a strictly literal rendering of Psalm 22 would require (Matt.27:35).
These are simply examples that can be immediately gleaned from Matthew's Gospel alone. If you take the remainder of the New Testament, you will find scores of other examples where an Old Testament prophecy is seen to have been fulfilled, but not in terms of its literal language.
Of course there are also examples of literal fulfillment—e.g. Micah 5:2 (Matt.2:6), but this is much less common. Two graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary*, examined all the Old Testament prophecies that are identified as fulfilled in the New Testament, and determined whether the fulfillment was literal, spiritual, typological, or otherwise symbolic. They concluded that about one out of three were understood literally by the New Testament writers. I, personally, would estimate a lower percentage.
Blessings!
Steve
*I believe their book was entitled, "Dispensationalism: Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow."
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
One way I have always thought would be interesting to present this to a dispensationalist is like this:
Who is Jesus? It is said that He would be called "Immanuel" (Matt 1:23), yet he's never called that name literally.
When they fled to Egypt and later returned after Herod died it says: "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON." (Matt 2:15) Yet, the context that statement comes from says: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (Hosea 11:1)
If the church and Israel are separate (as dispensationalism contends), then why did Matthew quote a verse that spoke of Israel being like God's son and apply that to Jesus? It almost sounds as if one could say Jesus is the anti-type of Israel. Yet Jesus is said to be the foundation and chief cornerstone of the church (1 Cor 3:1, Eph 2:20) So which is it? Is Jesus likened to Israel or the church or what?
Well Paul made this statement:
Rom 9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STUMBLING STONE AND ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND WHOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME."
The stumbling wasn't literal. People didn't trip over Jesus and break into little pieces. So how did Israel trip and fall? They did not seek righteousness by faith, but rather by works.
Jesus is the stone that God placed in Zion. So what is Jesus the foundation of? Is Jesus the foundation of the church or the modern day regathered nation called Israel? (Or the Israel that stood in Paul's day for that matter).
It seems clear that Jesus is the foundation of the church, the stone that God laid in Zion. The key point here is that Zion means the church. Since that what Jesus is the foundation of. He was not the literal foundation of literal zion, nor was He a literal stone.
This is also stated in Hebrews:
Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven
and Galatians:
Gal 4:25 ...for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
and Revelation:
Rev 21:9 "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God...14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Remember Ephesians 2:
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation...19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
So the holy city heavenly Jerusalem, Zion, etc are simply other terms used to refer to God's called out ones, the church members. It seems that there are many references here where the apostles are not taking these terms literally, but are rather applying an OT concept and terminology to the NT body of believers.
Who is Jesus? It is said that He would be called "Immanuel" (Matt 1:23), yet he's never called that name literally.
When they fled to Egypt and later returned after Herod died it says: "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON." (Matt 2:15) Yet, the context that statement comes from says: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son. (Hosea 11:1)
If the church and Israel are separate (as dispensationalism contends), then why did Matthew quote a verse that spoke of Israel being like God's son and apply that to Jesus? It almost sounds as if one could say Jesus is the anti-type of Israel. Yet Jesus is said to be the foundation and chief cornerstone of the church (1 Cor 3:1, Eph 2:20) So which is it? Is Jesus likened to Israel or the church or what?
Well Paul made this statement:
Rom 9:31 but Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were, by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. 33 As it is written: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A STUMBLING STONE AND ROCK OF OFFENSE, AND WHOEVER BELIEVES ON HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME."
The stumbling wasn't literal. People didn't trip over Jesus and break into little pieces. So how did Israel trip and fall? They did not seek righteousness by faith, but rather by works.
Jesus is the stone that God placed in Zion. So what is Jesus the foundation of? Is Jesus the foundation of the church or the modern day regathered nation called Israel? (Or the Israel that stood in Paul's day for that matter).
It seems clear that Jesus is the foundation of the church, the stone that God laid in Zion. The key point here is that Zion means the church. Since that what Jesus is the foundation of. He was not the literal foundation of literal zion, nor was He a literal stone.
This is also stated in Hebrews:
Heb 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven
and Galatians:
Gal 4:25 ...for this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children—26 but the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all.
and Revelation:
Rev 21:9 "Come, I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." 10 And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God...14 Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
Remember Ephesians 2:
Eph 2:14 For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation...19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
So the holy city heavenly Jerusalem, Zion, etc are simply other terms used to refer to God's called out ones, the church members. It seems that there are many references here where the apostles are not taking these terms literally, but are rather applying an OT concept and terminology to the NT body of believers.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another. (John 13:35)
-
_psychohmike
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: lakewood, Ca.
The one that I get the biggest kick out of is Revelation 1:1-3
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.
How anyone can claim a literal interpretation of the Bible and say that the book of Revelation is talking about things thousands of years later is beyond me.
I personally like to use the term naturally rather than literally.
Pmike
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.
How anyone can claim a literal interpretation of the Bible and say that the book of Revelation is talking about things thousands of years later is beyond me.
I personally like to use the term naturally rather than literally.
Pmike
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Soon means later, Near means far, and at hand means countless thousands of years off in the future.
Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary
Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary
-
_psychohmike
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: lakewood, Ca.
Here's a good one that shows the inconsistency in the futurist method of interpretation.
2 Timothy 4:6-7 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.
Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.
Pmike
2 Timothy 4:6-7 For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 Peter 4:7 But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.
Revelation 22:10 And he said to me, “Do not seal the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand.
Pmike
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Soon means later, Near means far, and at hand means countless thousands of years off in the future.
Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary
Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary
Well, it's beyond me how anyone can claim that the things John saw in his vision, though we know they were "signified", all took place in 70 A.D.!Psychomike wrote:The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.
How anyone can claim a literal interpretation of the Bible and say that the book of Revelation is talking about things thousands of years later is beyond me.
As for "the time draws near", the verb "eggizō" is sometimes used of things that might be near, but actually come later.
Consider Phillipians 2:29, 30
Receive [Epaphroditus] then in the Lord with all joy, and hold men like him in high regard; because he drew near to death for the work of Christ...
Yes, he drew near to death, because of his illness. Yet he didn't experience death until years later. Events can occur which will postpone that which draws near, or that to which we draw near.
C.I. Scofield taught that the kingdom was "offered to the Jews and was refused by them, and so was postponed --- presumably to a date future to his time. I strongly disagree with Scofield's dispensationalism, but I do think that something which "draws near" may not happen immediately, but may happen considerably later.
The only historical evidence concerning the time in which Revelation was written dates it about 90 A.D. after the destruction of Jerusalem. So obviously the events described in Revelation did not occur soon after that. The evidence that John wrote Revelation before 70 A.D is zero. The belief that he did seems to rest entirely on a preterist explanation and not on any objective evidence.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_psychohmike
- Posts: 32
- Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 1:41 pm
- Location: lakewood, Ca.
I won't even take the time to argue this statement. Maybe if you studied the dating of Revelation a little better you wouldn't be so dogmatic about it's so called objectivity. I personally won't argue for a late or early date because I believe that there is clearly no solid evidence one way or the other. Both arguments are too subjective.Paidion wrote:The only historical evidence concerning the time in which Revelation was written dates it about 90 A.D. after the destruction of Jerusalem. So obviously the events described in Revelation did not occur soon after that. The evidence that John wrote Revelation before 70 A.D is zero. The belief that he did seems to rest entirely on a preterist explanation and not on any objective evidence.
On the other hand if the Revelation was written around 90-95 AD and the evidence was clearly objective I would still argue that it was speaking of something that was at hand. Or can I use that term. Do you understand what I mean?
Perhaps the Bar Kokhba revolt 132-135 AD. Something that happened not more than 40 years later. Hmmmm...Within a generation.
Whenever it was written...to say that it was something other than soon...near...or at hand, in it's normal sense is to make it something enigmatic and unintelligible.
I will ask you this however...Consider Revelation 13:18 "Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man: His number is 666."
If this was not speaking of something or someone contemporary to those who received the letter...then how much wisdom or understanding could they have used? Seriously...they were told that THEY could figure it out.
Pmike
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Soon means later, Near means far, and at hand means countless thousands of years off in the future.
Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary
Hermeneutics 101, Dallas Theological Seminary
I came across a good one today: Mat 26:64 (Jesus responds to the high priest):
The amellienialist takes this more or less literally, the dispensationalist must spiritualize it or blow it off.Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
How about the seven letters to the seven churches in Revelation? I believe that dispensationalism takes them to be allegorical of the history of the church from the the time of John onward. Amillenialists (at least the ones I've heard so far, which might not be a very big sampling, since I'm new to this POV) take them to be, well... letters addressed to seven churches that existed at that time.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: