by
Robert Dooling
I returned recently from a week-long study leave during which it was my
pleasure to work my way through a stack of long-neglected books. One of
those books was Jack Rogers’, _Reading the Bible & the Confessions_. To
a large degree, I found myself agreeing with Rogers, but will wait for
another venue to comment more specifically on his hermeneutical theses.
I mention Rogers here only because he spends a good amount of time in
his book arguing with another book that was written about 1955, and
published by Westminster Press. The book was entitled _The Case for
Orthodox Theology_, and was written by Edward John Carnell.
Edward Carnell was one of the most remarkable persons it has ever been
my privilege to know. He was my teacher at Fuller Seminary in the middle
60’s, and his teaching continues to inform my understanding of the
Christian faith. And, having been reminded by Rogers of what he called
_The Casebook_, which is now out of print, I asked Sylvia for permission
to reprint his chapter on hermeneutics so that we might all profit from
it.
Robert Dooling
*THE CASE FOR ORTHODOX THEOLOGY*
*by*
*Edward John Carnell*
*Chapter IV*
*Hermeneutics*
HERMENEUTICS defines the rules that one follows when searching out the
meaning of Scripture. These rules are not peculiar Christianity. They differ
in language, but not in substance, from rules that educated people follow
when searching out the meaning any system of thought.
The doctrines of Scripture can be apprehended only as we apprehend the text
with a spirit of meekness. Humility before the facts is the precondition of
all learning, whether of Christianity or botany. We must submit to the
system.
To “submit to the system ” means to be fair and honest with the manner in
which the controlling concepts are related. A novel is led by a plot, a
dictionary by alphabetical sequence. A novel should be read from the
beginning; a dictionary can be opened anywhere. But in either case the
system must be respected.
This is particularly true in the case of great books. The reader immerse
himself in the text; the system does not jump out at him. Melville was
pleased that Hawthorne understood Moby Dick, for the general public missed
the point.
Since the Bible is a work of art, its system is easily corrupted by the
cultic mind. ” So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you ding to the
wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in is letters. There are some
things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to
their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.” (II Peter 3:15?16.)
The Bible is vulnerable to cultic thinking because it was written by no less
than thirty authors, from every rank and class of society, over a span of
nearly fifteen centuries.
_Progressive Revelation _
The concept of “progressive revelation” is the key to Biblical hermeneutics.
Revelation is not complete all at once. If the light with which it starts is
dim, it grows clearer as the ages advance. The world into which it comes is
one deeply sunk in sin, and in the evils which sin brings with it.
Revelation has to take up man as it finds him, with his crude conceptions,
his childlike modes of thought and expression, his defective moral ideas and
social institutions, and has to make the best of him it can. Imperfect
conditions have to be borne with for the time, while germs of truth and
principles are implanted which, in their development, gradually throw off
the defective forms, and evolve higher.” For example, Lot violated parental
duty by offering his daughters to be polluted. (Gen. 19:8.) His conduct was
prompted, though not excused, by the sacred rites of hospitality that
prevailed in Eastern nations at that time. (Cf. Judg. 19:22-24.)
Each stage of divine revelation must be interpreted from within the
spiritual and cultural level of the people being addressed. “The Mosaic
stage of revelation, e.g., did not clearly condemn polygamy or slavery,
though it held in it . . . ideas and principles which effectively wrought
for the abolition of both. The Song of Deborah is an inspired production
Deborah is a `prophetess ‘ but parts are on the lower key of the rude age of
the Judges. There are portions of the Psalms prayers for the destruction of
enemies and imprecatory psalms, which no Christian congregation could now
sing, or use in any form without excessive spiritualization Jesus disclaims
the imitation by his disciples of the example of Elijah. What was suitable
to the age and circumstances of that prophet (Jesus does not condemn Elijah)
might not be suitable to a higher dispensation. All this does not detract
from the sufficiency of the Biblical record, taken as a whole; it detracts
only from the
sufficiency of certain portions of it if taken by themselves. The lower
stages have to be read in the light of the higher, with the correction which
the higher affords. A Christian may uphold the divine authority of the Old
Testament, but he will not feel that he is bound by the Mosaic law of
divorce. Jesus did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to
fulfill them. But the fulfillment was itself an abrogation of whatever was
imperfect in the earlier stages.”
Even the apostles had to grow in knowledge. Although Peter prophesied the
breakdown of the wall between Jews and Gentiles, it was only after a
shameful bout with pride that he conceded the very thing he prophesied.
“Though this calling of the Gentiles was announced by so many testimonies,
yet when the apostles were about enter upon it, it appeared to them so novel
and strange, that they dreaded it, as if it had been a prodigy: indeed it
was with trepidation and reluctance that they at length engaged in it.”
This is clear enough. But apparently it is not clear enough for the cultic
mind. Cultic thinking tends to impose a uniformity on Scripture that
Scripture itself disavows. Since the Bible is plenarily inspired, the cultic
mind assumes that all verses in the Bible are equally normative. No
allowance is made for the part that a particular verse plays in the analogy
of faith. Open the Bible anywhere, and a “promise? for the day ” can be
claimed.
Two principles must be kept in delicate balance: first, the whole of
Scripture is inspired; secondly, some parts of Scripture are subject to the
illumination of other parts. If a Christian neglects the second principle,
out of a zeal to honor the first, his conduct hardly conduces to a healthy
Biblical faith.
Five rules govern Biblical hermeneutics: first, the New Testament interprets
the Testament; secondly the Epistles interpret the Gospels; thirdly,
systematic passages interpret the incidental; fourthly, universal passages
interpret the local; fifthly, didactic passages interpret the symbolic. If
any rule is neglected, the harmony of Scripture is disrupted.
_First, the New Testament Interprets the Old Testament_
Although the Abrahamic covenant is one covenant, it is administered in two
economies. The Old Testament is the “economy of preparation”; the New
Testament, the “economy of fulfillment.” The Old Testament is a shadow of
better things to come. (Heb. 10:1.) And since the shadow derives from the
substance, the old economy derives from the new economy. The prophets look
forward to Christ; the apostles are eyewitnesses. Therefore, in no case does
the Old Testament enjoy primacy over the New Testament. Moses is a servant
in the house, while Christ is the Son.
A neglect of this principle accounts for much of the present blindness in
the Jewish nation.”Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over
their minds.” (II Cor. 3:15.) Moses received his authority from Christ, not
the other way around.
Roman Catholicism is cultic when it rests its distinctives, such as prayers
for the dead, on apocryphal elements in the Septuagint canon. It forgets
that the limits of Christian theology are decided by the New Testament, not
the Old Testament.
Seventh?day Adventism is cultic when it converts an Old Testament ceremony
into a New Testament principle. The apostles worshiped on the first day of
the week rather than on the seventh, because the first day commemorated both
the Lord’s victory over death and the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit.
God requires a seventh of our time; that is the principle. The day in the
week is the ceremony. The apostles kept the principle but dropped the
ceremony. Seventh?day Adventism separates itself from the church by siding
with the Jewish rather than with the Christian tradition.
Dispensationalism makes a similar mistake in eschatology. It uses Old
Testament prophecies to prove that the Jews have a theocratic destiny
outside the church. Dispensationalism forgets that prophecy is not
self?interpreting. When Malachi says, “Behold, I will send you Elijah the
prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes ” (Mal? 4:5), no
exegesis of the Old Testament would suggest that Malachi spoke of John the
Baptist. Yet, Jesus assures us that John was the object of this prophecy.
(Matt. 11:14; 17:9?13.) ” It should be remembered that it is part of the
character of the Scripture prophecies not to be so framed as to be fully
understood before the event ‘Prophecy is not to be its own interpreter’;
that is, is not to have its full sense made out (like that of any other kind
of composition) by the study of the very words of each prophecy itself, but
it is to be interpreted by the event that fulfills it:” The degree to which
prophecy is typical or literal is decided by the theology of the New
Testament. ” As to the restoration of the Jews and of Jerusalem, many indeed
and glorious are the promises to this effect which are found in Scripture,
but they are not so numerous, nor so strongly expressed as the declarations
of the everlasting duration of the Mosaic law; and these, all Christians are
agreed, must be understood, not literally, but figuratively and
spiritually.”
Cultic thinking often crops up where one would least expect it. For example,
Matthew Henry tried to justify seventeenth?century laws on witchcraft by an
appeal to the Old Testament. ” By our consulting, covenanting with,
invocating, or employing, any spirit, to any intent whatsoever, and
exercising any enchantment, charms, sorcery, whereby hurt shall be done to
any person whatsoever, is made felony, without benefit of clergy; also
pretending to tell where goods lost or stolen may be found, or the like, is
iniquity punishable by the judge and the second offense with death. The
justice of our law herein, is supported by the law of God here.” This
confidence is misdirected, for the Mosaic laws against witchcraft perished
with the old economy.
Cultic thinking also tinctures the classical theologies. For example,
Calvinism seldom appreciates the extent to which the New Testament ethic
judges the truncated ethic of the Old Testament. Although Jesus plainly
says, “A new commandment I give to you, to love one another ” (John 13:34),
Calvinism judges the law of love as nothing but a religious summary of the
Ten Commandments. “The Ten Commandments are summed up by Christ into the se
two: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and soul, and
might; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” This an erroneous
judgment, for the Ten Commandments do not take in Christ’s active obedience.
Christ is righteous because he loved with perfection, not because he
eschewed murder and theft. Whereas the Ten Commandments negate, love
affirms. Moses gave form to law of love (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5), but only
Christ could give it substance.
The New Testament abrogates everything that does not materially advance the
Abrahamic covenant. When the Pharisees inquired about the Mosaic law of
divorce, they were told that the law was written for their ” hardness of
heart ” and that it was contrary to the creative order. (Mark 10:2?6.) The
same can be said about slavery. The Jews could make slaves of other people,
but not of fellow Jews (Lev. 25:39 ff.) ; capital punishment was enforced,
but not against a man who killed a slave (Ex. 21:20?21). This ethic, in and
of itself, is no higher than that of Plato and Aristotle. And the New
Testament stands in judgment on it, for the law of love negates
any static subordination of life to life. Human equality is the limiting
concept of all Christian social action.
The Old Testament authorized the congregation to stone a rebellious son
(Deut. 2M8?2r), but the New Testament confers the power of the sword on the
civil magistrate alone (Rom. 13:1?7). The church has no jurisdiction in
temporal affairs. Even so disturbing an incident as the Amalekite massacre
is mitigated by the concept of progressive revelation. Since Israel’s battle
tactics shared in the standards of cruelty that prevailed at that time, no
mercy was shown (I Sam. 15:3). It was for their “hardness of the heart “
that God used these standards in the service of his will, for Jesus lists
mercy among the ” weightier matters ” of the law. And by law he means the
Mosaic law.
It is important to observe, however, that the New Testament fulfills the Old
Testament; it does not reject it. The Old Testament is a storehouse of
instruction because it a adumbrates the New Testament. ” Now these things
happened to them as a warning, but they were written down for our
instruction, upon whom the end of the ages has come.” (I Cor. 10:11.) The
principles in the Old Testament are eternal; their mode of administration is
temporal. God used fire from heaven to reveal his displeasure with unbelief.
The displeasure is eternal; the use of fire is temporal. ” During that
period, in which he gave the Israelites his covenant involved in some degree
of obscurity, he intended to signify and prefigure the grace of future and
eternal felicity by terrestrial blessings, and the grievousness of spiritual
death by corporal punishments.”
_Secondly, the Epistles Interpret the Gospels_
In liturgical churches it is customary for the laity to rise when the Gospel
is read, while remaining seated when the Epistle is read. This is cultic,
for it implies that the Gospels are entitled to more reverence than the
Epistles. But we are assured, on very clear evidence that the fullness of
revelation came after the Gospels. ” I have yet many things to say to you,
but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide
you into all the truth.” (John 16: 12-13)
The Synoptic Gospels contain a few very cryptic elements. These elements are
easily corrupted by the cultic mind. Jesus said it is better to mutilate the
body than to go to hell (Mark 9:43?47) ; Zealots gouge out their eyeballs.
Jesus said that some are made eunuchs for the Kingdom’s sake (Matt. I9:i2);
Origen castrated himself. Jesus spoke of spiritual powers without telling
whether these powers could claimed by future generations (Luke ioa9); the
Dolly Pond cult handle venomous snakes as a proof of faith. Jesus reviewed
the last times without distinguishing between the destruction of Jerusalem
and the events accompanying his own return (Matt., ch. 24); Anabaptists set
up an earthly kingdom. Jesus forbade his disciples take an oath or resist an
evil person (ch. 5:33?42) ; Tolstoy constructed a lofty social ethic which
disregarded the distinction between personal and official conduct.
Jesus did not develop a systematic theology for at least two reasons. First,
a normative interpretation of his life, death, an resurrection could not be
given until these events had actually happened; secondly, the Holy Spirit
could not be sent in the name of Jesus until that name had been earned.
(John 7:39.) Jesus completed the Old Testament while he ushered in the New
Testament ; he submitted to the ceremonial law that he might have a base
from which to terminate the ceremonial law. But Jesus did not connect his
own Messianic office with the promises made to Abraham. This work work was
bequeathed to the disciples. For example, when Jesus told the rich young
ruler to sell his possessions (Mark 10:17?22), or when he depicted scenes
from the Final Judgment (Matt. 25:31?46), he implied that sinners are
justified by works. This seems to conflict with Paul’s teaching that sinners
are justified by faith (Rom. 4:16-25). But the conflict exists in the cultic
mind, for it was never Jesus’ intention to develop a systematic theology.
This principle is often offended. When the liturgical churches read, “
Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter the kingdom of God ” (John 3:5), they promptly conclude that
Jesus is teaching baptismal regeneration. The conclusion is cultic. If a
Christian wants to settle the relation between baptism and regeneration, he
must turn to passages that have this question in view; and the Lord’s
discourse with Nicodemus is not one of these passages. Nor is the discourse
on the ” bread of life ” (ch. 6:25?59) a relevant base from which to defend
the medieval view of the Eucharist.
_Thirdly, Systematic Passages Interpret the Incidental_
Though all parts of the Bible are connected with the Abrahamic covenant, not
all parts are directly connected; for it is only as we reach the systematic
sections of the Epistles that a theological effort is made to trace the
relation between this covenant and Christ’s Messianic office. Christ is the
federal head of a new and holy race; he invested human nature with
perfection by loving God with all his heart and his neighbor as himself. The
human nature was then offered on the cross to satisfy divine justice. Being
propitious toward the world, God forgives all who repent. This is the
gospel, and its nerve center is justification by faith.
There are only two places in Scripture where justification is treated in a
systematic, didactic form. These are Romans and Galatians. This does not
mean that justification is concealed elsewhere, for God’s Word is one.
Abraham was justified by faith, even as we are. It only means that
justification is implied in some places, while in others it is
systematically developed. Paul touches on justification in Phil. 3:6 ff.,
Titus 3:5 ff., and elsewhere; but it is characteristic of Paul not to return
to a subject that he has treated at length in a particular epistle or group
of epistles. John develops the plan of salvation; so does the book of
Hebrews. But only Romans and Galatians make a didactic effort to connect the
blessings of the covenant with the gift of God’s Son. Therefore, if the
church teaches anything that offends the system o f Romans and Galatians it
is cultic.
Since the concept of progressive revelation touches all portions of the
Bible, however, not everything in the Epistles is systematic. For example,
Paul speaks of ” baptism for the dead ” in a highly doctrinal chapter (I
Cor. 15:29). The import of this passage is admittedly obscure. But theology
is not affected, whatever the import may be, for theology draws on
systematic, not incidental passages. Mormonism is cultic when it elevates
proxy baptism to a cardinal doctrine. If there were any connection between
baptism for the dead and the Abrahamic covenant, Paul would have reviewed
this in Romans and Galatians.
But the cults do not have a monopoly on the cultic mentality. For example,
Baptists often limit fellowship to those who have been immersed. This is
unfortunate. If the mode of baptism had any connection with the Abrahamic
covenant, Paul would have reviewed this in Romans and Galatians. The same
can be said about the Lutheran view of the real presence, the Anglican view
of succession, and the Methodist view of subjective holiness.
Liturgical churches place considerable emphasis on the rite of baptism
itself. This is cultic, for Romans and Galatians name faith, not baptism, as
the instrumental cause of justification.
Roman Catholicism sees the cultic elements in Protestantism, but not in
Roman Catholicism. Yet, the theology of Mary rests on data that are not even
found in Scripture. The appeal is to “unwritten tradition.” But if there
were any connection between the Abrahamic covenant and the intercessory work
of Mary, Paul would have reviewed this in Romans and Galatians. We look in
vain for any such connection.
Roman Catholicism says we are saved by what we do, not by what we believe;
and in saying this it appeals to what looks like very clear evidence: ” You
see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).
But James is correcting an abuse of faith; he is not developing the plan of
salvation. He says that when faith is alone, not having good works, it is
not vital faith at all. Paul says the same thing: ” For it is not the
hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law
who will be justified “
(Rom. 2:133). Whenever profession does not issue in a lively sense of
charity, it stands condemned. ” We never dream either of a faith destitute
of good works, or of a justification unattended by them: this is the sole
difference, that while we acknowledge a necessary connection between faith
and good works, we attribute justification, not to works, but to faith.”
Roman Catholicism defends the sacrament of extreme unction by an appeal to
the oil passage in James (ch. 5:14?15). But the ap peal is cultic, for James
is talking about sick, not dying, people. Furthermore, if anointing with oil
had any connection with the Abrahamic covenant, Paul would have reviewed
this in Romans and Galatians. t:
Roman Catholicism prefers James above Paul. In doing so, however, it
egregiously offends right procedure.” When there is an appearance of
repugnancy or contradiction in any places of Scripture, if some, or any of
them, do treat directly, designedly, and largely about the matter concerning
which there is a seeming repugnancy or
contradiction; and others, or any other, speak of the same things only
‘obiter,’ occasionally, transiently, in order unto other ends; the truth is
to be learned, stated, and fixed from the former places: or the
interpretation of those places where any truth is mentioned only
occasionally with reference unto other things or ends, is, as unto that
truth, to be taken from and accommodated unto those other places wherein it
is the design and purpose of the holy penman to declare it for its own sake,
and to guide the faith of the church therein According unto this rule, it is
unquestionable that the doctrine of justification before God is to be
learned from the writings of the
apostle Paul, and from them is light to be taken into all other places of
Scripture where it is occasionally mentioned For it must be acknowledged
that he wrote of this subject of our justification before God, on purpose to
declare it for its own sake, and its use in the church; and that he doth it
fully, largely, and frequently, in a constant harmony of expressions.”
The third canon of hermeneutics needs no special defense, for it is only an
extension of the kind of procedure that educated people follow when any
system of thought is under examination. For example, the Platonic system
connects such concepts as God, the world of Ideas, the Demiurge, the theory
of reminiscence, and the space?time receptacle. But not everything in the
dialogues advances this system; obiter dicta are abundant. The dicta do not
disturb Platonic scholars, however, for scholars have more sense than to
subordinate systematic passages to incidental. If the church had exhibited a
measure of this same sense, the Reformation might have been avoided.
_Fourthly, Universal Passages Interpret the Local_
Scripture often communicates universal principles through local ceremonies.
But this very artistry exposes Scripture to the abusive tactics of the
cultic mind. Observe, for example, the skillful manner in which Jesus taught
the principle of love and humility: he washed the feet of his disciples. The
principle is universal; the ceremony is local. Since foot washing has no
relevance outside a culture of sandals, it cannot be imposed on the church
universal.
It is particularly necessary that right procedure be followed when the
Epistles are studied, for not everything in the Epistles is normative. For
example, Peter tells women how to adorn themselves; and his advice is
remarkably precise: ” Let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of
hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes” (I Peter 3:3). When
enthusiasts cite this passage to control women’s fashions, they render
Christianity trivial and offensive. The apostles taught the principle of
modesty through counsel which
was pertinent to the culture of that day. In another culture a woman might
prove her modesty by braided hair, decoration of gold, and wearing of robes.
The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians contains a baffling mixture of
universal and local elements, as illustrated by chapter sevem. Here Paul
advanced general truth by answering particular questions (v.1); and among
such questions was that of marriage. Since the church was on the eve of an “
impending distress,” Paul
advised the postponement of wedlock (v. 26). There is a time to marry and a
time to remain single. To defend perpetual celibacy on the strength of this
advice is cultic.
Again, Paul tells the Corinthian women to respect the federal headship of
the male by wearing a veil (I Cor. II:2?9); and in giving this advice he
appeals to existing social mores: “That is why a woman ought to have a veil
on her head, because of the angels ” (v. 10). When Roman Catholicism insists
that women cover their heads when entering a church, it is cultic. Since
Occidental societies do not require external evidence of female
subordination, a modern woman honors the principle by wearing a veil over
her heart.
On another occasion Paul tells Philemon how to treat a runaway slave:
Philemon should be just and considerate. The principle is eternal; its
application to a slave economy is circumstantial. When critics chide the
apostles for not attacking the institution of slavery, they betray a very
unimaginative grasp of Christian social action. The apostles attacked
slavery in the same way they attacked the tyranny of Caesar with grace and
dignity, not grossly and frontally. Love is the law of life, and love stands
in judgment on any static subordination of life to life. The apostles chose
a subtle course because the existing order suffered from ” hardness of
heart.” Unless social changes are introduced gradually, revolution is
invited. In such a case the gospel would be identified with an ideology and
the promised blessings would be obscured, if not destroyed altogether.
Pentecostalism tries to revive the charismatic gifts, but it does not reckon
with the economy that made these gifts necessary. Speaking in tongues served
as a public demonstration of the Holy Spirit’s presence among the Gentiles:
” For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter
declared, `Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have
received the Holy Spirit just as we have? “‘ (Acts 10:46?47). When the wall
of partition between Jews and Gentiles was demolished, the charismatic gifts
yielded to love as the “more excellent way” (I Cor. I2:31). Paul delineates
this more excellent way in his later Epistles; reference to the charismatic
gifts vanishes. Whereas love edifies, speaking in tongues can be enlisted in
the service of pride.
Some may object that a precise line cannot be drawn between universal and
local elements in the New Testament. The objection is valid, but irrelevant.
A line must be drawn; the task is not optional. For example, Paul says,
“Greet one another with a holy kiss.” (Rom 16:16) this is a command; it is
apostolical; and it falls within the book of Romans. Yet, there is only one
way in which the church can honor this command, and that is by
distinguishing between the principle of Christian fraternity and the
fires-century ceremony of a holy kiss.
The fourth rule of hermeneutics may explain why some of Paul’s letters are
not in the canon. While no final proof is possible, the missing letters may
have been too local in character to profit the church universal.
_Fifthly, Didactic Passages Interpret the Symbolic_
Some sections of the New Testament are systematic in form, though symbolic
in substance. The Olivet discourse and the book of Revelation are the most
prominent examples. In such cases the symbols must be illuminated by
didactic passages, for symbols share in the general limitations of Biblical
prophecy. Prophecy, let us remember, is not its own interpreter. Whereas
didactic language is open and plain, symbols are shadowy and ambiguous.
The fifth rule of hermeneutics is a functional extension of the first rule.
Just as the Old Testament is subject to the New Testament, so the symbolic
passages in the New Testament are subject to the didactic passages; and for
precisely the same reason. To reverse this order is cultic.
Roman Catholicism often uses Biblical symbols to sustain its “counsels of
perfection” For example, the book of Revelation implies that virginity is a
better moral state than marriage: “It is these who have not defiled
themselves with women, for they are chaste” (Ch 14:4). But moral theology
must look to passages that have moral theology in view, and the book of
Revelation is not one of these passages. Love is the law of life, and love
enjoins an equal obligation on all men, factory worker and monk alike.
whether a person marries or remains single depends upon the call of God.
Dispensationalism used Biblical symbols to defend a pretribulation view of
the rapture. But if the church were to be raptured before the tribulation,
Paul would have taught this in First and Second Thessalonians. In these
Epistles he traces the events of the Last Times in plain, didactic language;
and he says that the hope of the church is the return of Christ, not
deliverance from tribulation ((IIThess. 2: 1-12).
Dispensationalism is anxious to have the church raptured in order that an
earthly Semitic kingdom might be founded. But this anxiety is fathered by a
capital theological error. Unless the future of saved Jews falls within the
general life of the church, we replace the spirit of the gospel with the
spirit of Old Testament Judaism. “Now if all these things were to come to
pass, the determined expectation of which caused the Jews to reject Christ
if he should actually appear, with miraculous splendor, as the restorer of
the Jewish nation, and city, and Temple, reigning over the whole world as a
great earthly sovereign, and reserving peculiar privileges for his own
nation if, I say, all these expectations should be fulfilled, to which the
Jews have so long and so obstinately clung, surely this would not be so much
a conversion of the Jews to Christianity, as a conversion of Christians to
Judaism; it would not be bringing the Jews to the gospel by overcoming their
national prejudices but rather carrying back the gospel to meet the Jewish
prejudices; it would be destroying the spiritual character of our religion,
and establishing those erroneous views which have hitherto caused the Jews
to reject it. We may conclude, then, that all the promises and predictions
in Scripture relative to the future glories of the Jews and Jerusalem, are
to be understood of the Christian church, of which the Jewish church was a
figure; and all that is said of feasting, and splendor, and wealth, and
worldly greatness and enjoyment, is to be interpreted spiritually of the
inward comfort and peace of mind, and joy of the Holy Ghost which is
promised to sincere Christians in this life and of the unspeakable happiness
prepared for them after death.”