UNDERSTANDING SCRIPTURE AND ESCHATOLOGY
IT’S CLEARLY STATED right there in the Bible!”
That’s the tone that many strike when debating Scripture, but a deeper wade into the discussion over biblical narratives makes it clear that there are many theological ideas, theories, and paradigms that are anything but plain, simple, or settled.
Just consider how many Christian denominations we have these days. And ponder, for a moment, the vast disagreements over the Rapture, Millennium, Tribulation, and other eschatological issues that we’ve spent a great deal of time exploring thus far in this book.
Prophecy is, perhaps, among the most heated biblical subjects, as finding harmony between the many camps is a difficult task, to say the least.
We’ve already discussed the fact that interpretive methodology is key, but there are some fancier words that theology types will invoke when discussing the science of biblical interpretation: hermeneutics and exegesis. There are concepts that we should properly understand if we really want to know what’s at the center of the end-times debate.
Hermeneutics involves the study of methods and principles of interpretation of the Bible, and exegesis refers to an explanation or interpretation of a biblical text.
In a 2014 article on Lifeway.com, Wayne McDill explained that the purpose of hermeneutics is to use certain principles so that the “text will disclose its meaning to the interpreter.”1 Boiling the definition down, hermeneutics is the variety of ways in which individuals read the Bible in an effort to discern meaning.2
To determine the intended lessons and meanings of Scripture, McDill encouraged pastors and readers to determine the genre of the text, explore the context of the text, read for obvious meaning, examine the language, explore through the lens of how God deals with man, and examine the theological themes within.3
In the end, different hermeneutical approaches include various lenses through which Scripture is read. Perhaps Dr. Ellen White best explained this feature of hermeneutics in a 2011 article for Bible History Daily. She explained that the existence of differing goals among interpreters has led to a plethora of hermeneutics, going on to provide some key examples to help illustrate that different methods can yield various types of interpretations.
“For example, if you want to understand how Moses’s life in the wilderness differed from daily life in the ancient Levant, you would use an archaeological/anthropological hermeneutic,” White wrote. “However, if you want to understand the gender politics between Miriam and Moses in the wilderness, you would use a feminist or womanist approach to the text.”4
GotQuestions.org offered the following illustration to help readers best understand how to approach the different genres for optimal understanding: “A proverb should be understood and applied differently from a law.”5
When it comes to an explanation or interpretation of text, there are four major types of hermeneutical methods worth briefly exploring: literal, moral, allegorical, and anagogical.6
• The literal calls on Bible readers to do exactly as it sounds: interpret the meaning of Scripture as it is written by looking at what it’s saying and the grammar as well as the historical narrative.7 Famed end-times author Tim LaHaye, who takes the Scriptures literally, shared with me advice that he learned from Dr. David Cooper, a theologian who once said in reference to the Bible, “Take every word at its literal meaning unless the facts and the context indicate otherwise.”8 It’s a line that LaHaye, who penned the monumentally popular Left Behind book series, used to affirm his belief that “all Scripture should be taken literally.”9
• Then there’s the moral approach, which entails looking at biblical texts in a way that seeks to derive lessons on ethics—a process that could involve the third major form of hermeneutics: allegory.10
• The allegorical approach relies upon examining hidden meanings and grander narratives than what is literally being written in the text.
• The fourth and final major form of hermeneutics is anagogical, which “seeks to explain biblical events or matters of this world so that they relate to the life to come,” according to Encyclopaedia Britannica.11
The interpretive rules and regulations don’t end there, either. More specifically, when it comes to how to decipher the gospel, the law, and God’s plan of redemption for human beings, there are three main paradigms through which to view the Bible: dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology.12
Dispensationalism is a theological system that involves a strictly consistent literal methodology of examining Scripture.13 Ron Rhodes expanded upon this definition in his book The 8 Great Debates of Bible Prophecy, writing that the approach also involves “a clear distinction between Israel and the church” and “the glory of God as God’s ultimate purpose for the world.”14
Those who embrace dispensationalism believe that there are two separate prophetic destinies outlined in the Bible: one for Israel, which will take place on earth, and the other for the church as a whole, which involves the heavenly realm.15
In addition to embracing the distinct relationship and prophecy involving Israel and the entirety of the Christian church, dispensationalism involves God “structuring His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation” based on “dispensations,” Matt Perman explained in an article on the subject.16
Keeping in mind that the general definition of dispensation is “a system of revealed commands and promises regulating human affairs,”17 those who embrace dispensationalism generally see seven distinct dispensations throughout the biblical narrative. Outlined by Rhodes in The 8 Great Debates of Bible Prophecy, they include:18
• Innocence: Found in Genesis 1:28–3:6, this involved Adam and Eve and ended with their decision to sin and violate God’s rule.
• Conscience: Extending from Genesis 3:7–8:14, Rhodes describes this as beginning with the Fall and extending through the flood in Noah’s time.
• Human government: Involving the events in Genesis 8:15–11:9, this dispensation involves the creation of human government in an effort to stave off evils.
• Promise: This involves the promises God made to Abraham involving his descendants, as recounted in Genesis 11:10 through Exodus 18:27.
• Law: Involving a sweeping array of Scripture from Exodus 19 through John 14:30, this involves God’s delivering of the law to Israel, which was set in place until Jesus’s arrival to fulfill what had been promised.
• Grace: Encompassing Scripture outlined from Acts 2:1 through Revelation 19:21, this involves life on earth before the new heaven and new earth.
• Kingdom: Involving text in Revelation 20, this involves the millennial kingdom, which premillennial dispensationalists believe will be a literal ruling of Christ on earth following His return for a period of one thousand years.
All of this to say, a literal approach to Scripture is clearly the hallmark of the dispensationalist perspective. Perman detailed an important note about the role of Israel not only in dispensationalists’ biblical narrative but also in their view about how God’s relationship with humanity will eventually play out.
Adherents see God’s promises for Israel in the Old Testament as having a future far beyond the time in which they were written. Rather than being fulfilled in the future formation and growth of the Christian umbrella, dispensationalists believe that Israel will be restored as a nation to the land on which the nation once stood. This, of course, made the 1948 re-creation of the state of Israel so notable for dispensationalists, as we’ll address in later chapters. Critics, though, would counter that the Old Testament prophecies were more geared toward alluding to a world that would be inherited by the entirety of Christianity, not that Israel itself would be re-created in that process, as Perman explained.19
Noted Christian author Jeff Kinley said that there are some misconceptions about the definition of “dispensationalism” among some individuals who do not subscribe to the theology, saying that he’s often met with the following question: “Oh, so you believe in different ways to be saved throughout history, eh?” Such a dynamic, he said, couldn’t be further from the truth.20
“My understanding of what people call ‘dispensationalism’ . . . is this: since God’s revelation of Himself to mankind was, by necessity, gradual and progressive, man’s knowledge of his relationship with God (including everything . . . truth about sin, salvation, God, and heaven) was, therefore, limited,” Kinley said.21
To put this in simpler terms, the author said that dispensationalists would believe that biblical figures such as Noah actually knew less about the coming Christ and God’s plan for redemption than Abraham did, with Isaiah having less knowledge than Paul, who came along later on to compose much of the New Testament.
As time went on, dispensationalists believe that these messages became clearer, with Kinley explaining that it simply “makes logical and theological sense” for God not to “require Old Testament believers to possess and exercise a full and complete understanding when placing faith in Him and His provision for sin and salvation.”22 After all, biblical figures living in Old Testament times likely did not yet have the knowledge to fully comprehend all of the ins and outs of God’s salvation plan.
“As the light and content of God’s revelation grew over time, His followers understood more specifics about exactly how He would accomplish their redemption,” Kinley said. “But no matter what ‘dispensation’ they found themselves in, the basis for salvation was always the same, even though the content of their faith was incomplete.”23 That future plan for salvation obviously involved Jesus Christ, with practices such as the Jewish sacrificial system, among others, pointing toward what was to come.
Moving outside of the classical dispensationalist realm, there are two other related worldviews that are essential to briefly explore: revised dispensationalism and progressive dispensationalism. The former takes a literal approach to Old Testament covenants with Israel but holds that there is simply one new covenant that applies to both Israel and the church, according to Rhodes. That covenant presently applies to the church and will later apply to national Israel, seeing Israel and the church as a collective “one people of God,” he explained.24
As for progressive dispensationalists, they see the dispensations as being related and successive rather than disconnected events, cumulatively culminating in God’s redemptive plan.25
Under progressive dispensationalism, adherents are open to some figurative interpretation of certain verses and themes, leading them to advocate for a slight departure from what traditional and classical dispensationalists argue.
Here’s how Dr. Darrell Bock, a professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary and one of the individuals responsible for the formation of the progressive dispensational worldview, differentiated between the three brands of dispensationalism in an interview for this book.
“The earliest version of dispensationalism argued for a complete distinction between the church and Israel. They didn’t cross in any way or any shape or form,” he said. “Then, revised come along and said, ‘Well, there is some overlap; there is some association in the covenants, with association in the covenants in terms of fulfillment.’”26
Bock went on to explain that the third form of dispensationalism—progressive—holds that “all the covenant promises of God, in one way or another, have some form of initial fulfillment in the church.”27
“So it has to do with the level of continuity in the program between Israel and the church,” he said. “While all dispensationalists maintain an ultimate distinctive between Israel and the church, the two are not to be mixed in such a way that the church replaces Israel in the program of God.”28
Thus, the debate between traditionalists and progressives gets into the weeds a bit, but is, at least in part, based on an understanding of God’s promise to David in the Old Testament. God outlined the Davidic covenant to the Prophet Nathan in 2 Samuel 7, proclaiming that David’s kingdom would be established “forever.” Here’s how verses 11 through 16 read:
The LORD declares to you that He will instead bring about a house for you. When your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up after you an offspring from your body, and I will establish his rule. He will build a house for My name, and I will establish his royal throne forever. I will be a father to him, and he will be a son to Me. When he goes astray, I will correct him with the rod of men and afflictions of the sons of men. My commitment will not abandon him, as I removed it from Saul, whom I deposed before you. Your house and dominion will endure before Me forever, and your throne will be established by the LORD forever.
It is the establishment of this throne that serves as a key difference between traditional dispensationalists and their progressive counterparts, as the latter believe that Jesus is, at this time, sitting on the Davidic throne and ruling over humanity. Traditionalists, though, would counter that, though Jesus is ruling, He’s not necessarily on David’s throne.29 Both traditional and progressive dispensationalists would embrace the notion that Israel has a place in the future, according to Bible professor H. Wayne House.30
Moving on from the dispensational debate, the second interpretive framework for exploring the biblical narrative is covenant theology, in which strict literalism on the prophecy front is pushed to the side.
Consider that adherents would see Old Testament covenants with Israel being fulfilled by the church in the New Testament, rather than a literal refounding of the Jewish state. In the end, Christianity and the church are seen as the new Israel, but in a spiritual sense rather than a literal one.31 Instead of formulating a series of dispensations, the hermeneutical approach involved in covenant theology, according to Rhodes, is “built on two primary features—the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.”32
The idea rests on the notion that God created a covenant with Adam that was based on works—one in which humanity’s first man would be able to relate to the Lord and seek eternal life by abiding by the Almighty. But covenant theology holds that Adam’s failure led God to create a new covenant in which grace was the new gold standard for humanity’s ability to achieve eternal life. Here’s how Perman explained it:
The covenant of works, instituted in the Garden of Eden, was the promise that perfect obedience would be rewarded with eternal life. Adam was created sinless but with the capability of falling into sin. Had he remained faithful in the time of temptation in the Garden (the “probationary period”), he would have been made incapable of sinning and secured in an eternal and unbreakable right standing with God. But Adam sinned and broke the covenant, and thereby subjected himself and all his descendants to the penalty for covenant-breaking, condemnation.33
From there, such a prospect was achieved through an acceptance of the new covenant of grace through Christ.34 Adherents of covenant theology believe that God structured His relationship with mankind through covenants and not dispensations.
Perman wrote that these covenants are “not new tests of man’s faithfulness to each new stage of revelation” as dispensations are, but are, instead, “rather differing administrations of the single, overarching covenant of grace.”35
Interestingly Kinley said that, when assessing covenant theology, he actually sees at least two “dispensations” or sorts, comprised of the old and then the new covenants. If holding the definition of “dispensation” as “a system of revealed commands and promises regulating human affairs,” this idea holds merit.36
Of course, the debate over how to interpret Scripture and God’s relationship with human beings doesn’t end with dispensationalism and covenant theology, as there’s also a construct known as new covenant theology, which Bible professor and expert Dr. Larry Pettegrew described as residing somewhere “between covenant theology and progressive dispensationalism.”37
Consider that the new covenant—which is detailed in the Old Testament by the Prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31–34—is believed to have been established in the life and death of Jesus Christ. Those verses read:
Surely, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they broke My covenant, although I was a husband to them, says the LORD. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law within them and write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD, for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
This new covenant is referenced throughout the New Testament in Luke, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Hebrews, tying Christ to the fulfillment of this Old Testament redemptive promise. See some of these verses below:
• “In like manner, He took the cup after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood which is shed for you’” (Luke 22:20).
• “In the same manner He took the cup after He had supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me’” (1 Cor. 11:25).
• “Who has made us able ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor. 3:6).
• “For this reason He is the Mediator of a new covenant, since a death has occurred for the redemption of the sins that were committed under the first covenant, so that those who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15).
With that in mind, Pettegrew maintains that new covenant theology differs somewhat from covenant theology when it comes to addressing this pledge. He posits that new covenant theology “proclaims that the entire Mosaic Covenant has passed away as a law code, and that Christians are supposed to live under the New Covenant.”38
The difference, Pettegrew maintains, is that many covenant theologians believe that the new covenant is simply an update of the old, with parts of the Mosaic covenant continuing on when it comes to Christian ethics.
Perman further explains that covenant theology breaks Old Testament Mosaic Law into three groups: civil laws that regulated Israel’s government, ceremonial laws, and moral laws. While the first two are no longer operational following Jesus’s death, he said that covenant theologians still hold to moral laws. New covenant adherents, in contrast, wouldn’t accept such a division of laws, arguing that canceling any part of the law would render all of it no longer applicable; the law of Christ would thus be seen as paramount by these individuals, thus canceling out Mosaic code.39
This, in supporters’ views, is a way of handling the complexities surrounding the attempt to discern which Old Testament laws should apply to believers today, as it places the full authority of moral guidance upon Jesus’s teachings and the contents of other New Testament scripture.
It is this distinction, though, that Kinley, for one, flatly rejects.
“I don’t see the legitimacy in new covenant theology in dismissing the moral law of the Old Testament,” he said. “I agree that Christ fulfilled all of the Mosaic Law, and that as believers we are under no obligation to fulfill the Law. Faith in Christ satisfies the requirements of the Law. Period.”40 But Kinley said that he personally views the moral laws in the Old Testament as showcasing God’s eternal character and, thus, transcending time, making those provisions applicable, pertinent, and appropriate to consider throughout the ages.
This carries through to some of the contentious ethics issues that continue to be at the forefront of discussion and debate today, he argued. “In other words, had Paul not declared the mind of God regarding homosexuality, we would still understand it to be morally offensive and deficient from Old Testament passages that spoke to that moral issue,” he said.41
I’ve explored these ideas to help the reader understand that there’s far more at play than a series of debates over various eschatological elements. There are overarching lenses through which the Bible is viewed—a diversity of interpretive frameworks that lead believers in divergent directions when it comes to a variety of biblical issues, including prophecy.
Of course, one must approach all of this with a fair level of cautiousness. Speaking of the aforementioned debate, Kinley said that one’s view of dispensationalism or eschatology more broadly isn’t a “test for Christian fellowship,” and that he believes that the events prophesied in Revelation will become clearer as time goes on.
“I do anticipate that global coming events will make it clearer that the Revelation scenario is not only literally viable, but perhaps a lot closer to us in time than anyone realizes,” he said. “For that reason, as we continue seeing the foreshadowing of end-times prophecy, I anticipate some will rethink their views on eschatology.”42
Much of the contemporary end-times debate obviously centers on the Book of Revelation, though there are countless portions of the Old and New Testament that are pieced together by many Bible experts to create a proposed timeline of eschatological events.
Interpretation is key, of course, and understanding is reliant upon the way in which one views God’s relationship with humanity and, in turn, the way in which an individual sees that relationship being illustrated and documented in Scripture.
Some faith leaders may gloss over prophecy, but Tim LaHaye told me that it’s important to note the seemingly undeniable prevalence of eschatology in Scripture when considering how much attention it truly deserves.
“You know, 28 percent of the Bible, Old and New Testament, was prophetic at the time it was written, so obviously—if God would have almost 30 percent of His holy scriptures being prophecy of things to come—it must have been important to God,” he explained.43