The Church, Israel and Sovereign Election Pt. 3

(In the interest of being fair and honest, I tried to find this message on the Grace to You web site (gty.org) so anyone who would like to hear it could listen to it, but it apparently is not posted. I did find many other messages on the subject of Eschatology and I have no doubt that Pastor MacArthur says many of the same things in some of these other messages if you’re interested in hearing it for yourself.)

While dealing with the subject of Hermeneutics Pastor MacArthur compares the interpretation of Genesis chapter 1-3 with the interpretation of prophecy and asks; if we don’t want people tampering with the beginning of the Book, why do we tolerate tampering with the end of the book? He then adds “especially the book of Revelation.”

The clear implication is that we should interpret Genesis 1-3 in the exact same manner as we interpret the book of Revelation. This is the same thing that is so often implied when it is said that we must interpret everything literally or “read it like a newspaper.”

Does this even make sense? What about literary genre? Shouldn’t we take that into consideration? Should we really interpret an historical narrative of the days of creation in the exact same manner we interpret an apocalyptical vision? Should we interpret prose in the exact same manner that we interpret poetry or parables? Should we interpret Zechariah 5:1-11 in the exact same manner that we interpret Romans 5:1-11? Should we?

What about figures of speech? What about symbolism, metaphors, hyperbole, parables, poetry, irony, analogy, metonymy, oxymoron, paradox, personifications, anthropomorphisms, similes, synecdoche, and other such manners of speech?

Does the Bible teach us to interpret it all the same? Does it teach us to interpret each word in its most literalistic sense? Where does it do so? Does it always use words in their most literalistic sense?

Absolutely not! Jesus spoke to his disciples in figurative language until it exasperated them. They were thrilled when He finally spoke to them in plain (literalistic) language (John 16:29). Daniels visions needed to be interpreted (Daniel 7:16) indicating that they could not be taken in their most literalistic sense. And the New Testament frequently interprets the Old in ways that can hardly be called literalistic as we shall see.

To insist that we interpret everything in its most literalistic sense, or to say, as Pastor MacArthur does in this message, that all of the prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally and therefore we should interpret all those concerning His second coming in the same manner, is absolutely without any Biblical foundation at all.

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.

The Church, Israel and Sovereign Election

A Pastor of a local Church recently gave me a copy of a message from the 2007 Shepherds Conference put on by John MacArthur. The message was by Pastor MacArthur and it was on the subject of Israel, the Church and the Doctrine of Election. Knowing that I hold to more of an Amillennial Position, he asked me to listen to it, take some notes and explain to him why Pastor MacArthur could not be right.

So I’ve been listening to it repeatedly and taking notes and I thought it might be good to address some of the things that Pastor MacArthur says here as they are things that I commonly hear about those who reject the Dispensational/Premillennial view of Scripture.

As I have said before, I have a great deal of respect for Pastor MacArthur. I have literally listened to hundreds of his sermons, read a great many of his books and I learned a great deal from him as a new Christian. In fact I became Reformed in some measure because of his teaching and that of some of the elders at his Church. You might say he pointed the way but didn’t get on the bus with me.

I really do enjoy a great deal of Pastor MacArthur’s teaching but when it comes to Eschatology he seems to be too committed to Dispensational presuppositions to even think objectively through other points of view. If there is one thing I’ve learned about polemics it’s this: you better understand the position of those you are trying to correct and argue against or you completely discredit yourself in their eyes and you don’t even know it.

Personally I have found this message to be full of logical slight-of-hand and what seems to be a surprising lack of careful thought by a man who frequently urges his fellow Christians to pursue careful and critical thought. All I can figure is that Pastor MacArthur just hasn’t given his own views in this area a careful cross-examination.

So anyway, if you are one of those of the Dispensational persuasion who thinks that it is wrong to listen to other points of view on this subject you might want to close your eyes for the next dozen posts or so.