Dispensational Hermeneutics Dr. Thomas Ice Consistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures, declared Charles Ryrie in 1965. And it is this very consistency-the strength of dispensational interpretation-that irks the nondispensationalist and becomes the object of his ridicule.[1] Consistently literal interpretation was listed by Ryrie as the second most important sine qua non of dispensationalism, which forms the foundation for the most important essential, the distinction between Israel and the Church.[2] Earl Radmacher, in 1979, went so far as to say that literal interpretation is the bottom-line of dispensationalism.[3] While the ridicule of nondispensationalists has continued, there also appear to be signs of hermeneutical equivocation within the ranks of dispensationalism. Within contemporary dispensationalism, some are moving away from the generally held hermeneutical statements of Ryrie and Radmacher. Craig Blaising concluded that consistently literal exegesis is inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism. Development is taking place on how to characterize a proper hermeneutic for dispensationalists.[4] Blaising and his coauthor Darrell Bock assert that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is shared broadly in evangelicalism, so consequently present-day dispensationalists do not think of themselves as having an exclusive hermeneutic.[5] Outside dispensational circles some would admit that dispensational hermeneutics continues to exercise a widespread influence among evangelical Christians today.[6] However, many do continue to see the literal approach as an object of ridicule. Most likely, the loudest voice of dissent against the consistent literal hermeneutic of dispensationalism is from Christian Reconstructionists. Kenneth Gentry labels the dispensational claim to consistently literal interpretation as a presumption that is unreasonable and an impossible ideal.[7] A Definition of Literal Interpretation Many times dispensationalists have explained what they mean when they speak of literal interpretation. Ryrie begins his discussion of literal interpretation by referring to Bernard Ramm, who wrote the standard hermeneutics textbook of his day: Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation which gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking or thinking.[8] He then formulates an extensive definition: This is sometimes called the principle of grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech and types are all interpreted plainly in this method and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader.[9] Ryrie concludes his statement of the dispensational position by quoting E. R. Cravens oft cited summary of literalism: The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpreted-that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded.[10] On the one hand, many current dispensationalists believe that Ryries statement is adequate and that literal interpretation still is (should be) a defining tenet of dispensationalism. Many believe that they have been able to satisfactorily interpret the details of Scripture and harmonize their exegetical conclusions into a theology that is the product of consistent literal interpretation. On the other hand, there are many, inside and outside of dispensationalism, who see problems with such an approach. We will now consider some objections. (and we will do so tomorrow morning)
Posted on: Sun, 05 Oct 2014 10:56:17 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015