The Church, Israel and Sovereign Election Pt. 2

Naturally, one of the things that Pastor MacArthur brings up on several occasions is the subject of Hermeneutics. He makes several accusations concerning those who do not hold to his own beliefs and mentions on several occasions that we must use the literal or “normal” hermeneutic.

Perhaps one of the most disturbing statements that he makes in this regard was something to this effect: if the Scriptural statement that “the dessert is going to blossom like a rose” does not literally mean that the dessert is going to blossom like a rose then he has nothing more to talk to such people about. Now I’m not going to argue about the dessert blossoming like a rose, but if he is not going to talk to those who do not share his view of hermeneutics then he has effectively shut down any debate right at the starting point.

As I have mentioned already I have listened to hundreds of Pastor MacArthur’s messages and when dealing with other subjects he has frequently taught that debate is good for the Church and that the Church will wither under false doctrine were there is no debate. So why the sudden change of attitude when it comes to Eschatology and more specifically hermeneutics? Such a statement seems very hypocritical to me.

Pastor MacArthur also declares that his opponents abandon the perspicuity of Scripture when it comes to Eschatology, that they set aside the tested and true rules of interpretation when it comes to texts dealing with Eschatology in order to protect a preconception. And he also asks who gets do decide the new rules of interpretation when we abandon the literal meaning of words and on what page of Scripture are they found.

His argument goes something like this: If we can’t take every last word of Scripture in its most literal sense, then how can we ever know exactly what any of the words of Scripture really mean? This is a very good question but we can’t shut down the debate without giving the other side the opportunity to answer the question.

So here is the first part of my answer: First of all, the so called “literal” hermeneutic is not the tested and true hermeneutic of the church. This is an erroneous and misleading statement. The “literal” hermeneutic seems to me to be a mythological hermeneutic brought forward at certain times by Dispensationalists to discredit their opponents.

When Dispensationalists talk about the literal hermeneutic they will often say that we must “read the Bible like we read the newspaper” and “take the words at face value according to the natural, normal sense of words.” Two examples that Pastor MacArthur mentions is that 1000 always means 1000 and Israel always means Israel.

I could ask Pastor MacArthur his own question here: Who decided this rule of interpretation and on what page of Scripture is it found?

The historic hermeneutic of the church is that the Scriptures interpret the Scriptures, this is often called the “Analogy of Faith.” This is the tested and true historical hermeneutic of the church and this is the hermeneutic (or something similar) that Dispensationalists themselves normally use unless it fits their purposes not to.

For instance, in Revelation 13:1 we are told of a beast with seven heads and ten horns. No Dispensationalist that I have ever listened to taught that this was a literal beast with seven literal heads and ten literal horns. Why not? Because this is found in a book full of symbolism and they let other parts of Scripture help them to interpret this passage. They use the analogy of faith at this point. They use my hermeneutic at this point and then deride me for using it in other parts of the same book.

Such examples could be multiplied all day long. Dispensationalists themselves will teach that the woman in Revelation 12:1,6 is not a literal woman but symbolic of Israel. The chain in Revelation 20 is not a literal chain with a literal lock on it and the pit with a door on it in the same verses is not a literal pit with a literal door. The woman in Revelation 17 is not a literal woman, Babylon in Chapter 18 is not literal Babylon and the weapons in Ezekiel 39:9 are not literally bows, arrows, swords and spears but are symbolic of modern weaponry. And we could go on and on and on. They frequently use their opponents hermeneutic and then blast their opponents for using it when they don’t like it.

The literal meaning of Scripture is that which God intended to convey, interpreting every word in its most literalistic sense does not necessarily help us to understand that meaning. And as we will see, the most literalistic interpretation of Eschatological passages in many cases is contrary to common sense and at odds with the hermeneutic that the Scriptures themselves force upon us.

As I think we will see, it seems impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Dispensational demand to use the “literal” hermeneutic, or rather to interpret every word in its most literalistic sense, is a sort of logical slight-of-hand trick. It might appear to make sense when phrased in a certain manner, but under some cross-examination it can be shown to be completely unbiblical, untenable and something they themselves often don't even use.