Interpretative Authority In Postponement Theology

Posted : 12 Sep, 2011 09:35 AM

Interpretative Authority In Postponement Theology





When I was thinking of writing this, I intended to include some paragraphs on the Roman Catholic "Church Militant."



A look in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance shows there is no "Church Militant" anywhere in scripture.



So, to use the metaphor of the "Church Militant" is too suggestive of killing and destruction. In Luke 9: 52-56 when James and John saw that a village of the Samaritans did not receive Christ they asked Christ if they could call down fire on the village, like Elijah did in II Kings 1: 10, 12. But Jesus said to them "Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of Man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them." So much for the metaphor of the "Church Militant." The Catholics made the "Church Militant" too literal in killing and torturing faithful Christians. While being militant was sometimes acceptable under the Old Covenant, it was not acceptable under the New Covenant.



Christ says in John 10: 10 "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." Violence, except in some instances of necessary self-defense, is not accepted under the New Covenant.



The point I wanted to make is that postponement theology, or dispensationalism, honors "all Israel," which means Israel of the Old Covenant. And under the Old Covenant, violence was sometimes more acceptable than under the New Covenant., as when Elijah called fire down on the priests of Baal. Dispensationalism as one of several Israel-First movements of the end time, can become allied with other Israel-First movements such as Hebrew Roots and groups within the Messianic Judaism movement, which are even more clearly mixing the Old with the New Covenant. Christian Zionism is not limited to John Hagee and his Christians United For Israel.



In mixing the covenants, and going back to the Old Covenant in part this end time coalition might become a literal "Church Militant," and contribute in some way to the martyrdom of Christians as predicted by Matthew 24: 9, Luke 21: 16 and John 16: 2.



But the essay became too long to include the "Church Militant."



Interpretative Authority In Postponement Theology



Postponement theology teaches that Christ will postpone the salvation

of "all Israel" until the tribulation period. This theology is usually

called dispensationalism.



Charles C. Ryrie (born 1925) says of classical dispensationalism

that the: "basic primise of Dispensationalism is two purposes of God

expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction

throughout eternity." Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today, 1966,

pp.44-45.



J. Dwight Pentecost is another dispensationalist theologian who in his

book Things To Come ( 1965) says "The church and Israel are two

distinct groups with whom God has a divine plan...These considerations

all arise from a literal method of interpretation." (page 193, J.

Dwight Pentecost,

Things To Come, Zondervan, 1965)....



In postponement theology, the pre-tribulation rapture of the

dispensationalist church is "eschatology,"

or end time prophecy. The interpretation of Romans 11: 26, and

several Old Testament prophecies on the restoration of physical Israel

that God will save "all Israel" sometime in the future, perhaps in the

tribulation, is also end time prophecy. So is the coming of their one

man super anti-Christ who is to desecrate a newly re-built temple in

Jerusalem a part of their "eschatology."



But behind the particular kind of end time prophecy in postponement

theology is their "hermeneutic," a term derived from the pagan god

Hermes. A "hermeneutic" is a system of interpretation, and in this

theology it is a system used to interpret scripture. And the core

teaching of postponement theology is in its postulates. A postulate

is a starting axiom, or assumption which is taken to be self-evident,

though not proven. There are three basic postulates in postponement

theology, as shown in the brief quotes above from Charles C. Ryrie

and J. Dwight Pentecost.



The first postulate of this theology is consistent literalism in

interpretation of scripture.



In 1936, Lewis S. Chafer, a classical dispensationalist, defined

Scofield's literalism as "The outstanding characteristic of the

dispensationalist is ... that he believes every statement of the Bible

and gives to it the plain, natural meaning its words imply." From:

L. S. Chafer, �Dispensationalism,' Bibliotheca Sacra, 93, October

(1936), pp410, 417.



Charles C. Ryrie says "The word literal is perhaps not as good as

either the word normal or plain, but in any case it is interpretation

that does not spiritualize or allegorize as nondispensational

interpretation often does. The spiritualizing may be practiced to a

lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of

interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach." From:

Dispensationalism. Charles C. Ryrie. Moody Press, Chicago. 1995.



The postulate of consistent literalism in interpreting scripture is

not supported by scripture itself.

Christ in Matthew 13: 35 says "That it might be fulfilled which was

spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I

will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of

the world."



Hosea 12: 10 says "I have also spoken by the prophets, and I have

multiplied visions, and used similitudes, by the ministry of the

prophets." Similitudes are a form of figurative language. Figurative

language, which is not literal, is used in very many scriptures,

especially in the Book of Revelation. Its the use of broad, sweeping

allegorization of a text which takes away its specific prophetic

meaning which is the culprit. An example of this broad, sweeping

allegorization is the amillennialist view of the 144,000 of Revelation

7: 1-8 and Revelation 14: 1-5, which says they are the saints of all

ages. This denies the prophetic statement that these people of God

are to be sealed before the destructrive events of the very end times

begin.



Postponement theology reacted against the broad, sweeping

allegorization of scripture by Origen, Augustine, the Roman Catholic

Church and by much of Calvinism. This reaction explains a great deal

about the particular kind of interpretative system that postponement

theology uses. Postponement theology went too far to the opposite end

of the spiritualizing-literal continuum.



This over-reaction against the spiritualizing or allegorical method

helps explain why the followers of postponement theology do not fully

accept and often reject the interpretative methods used by Christians

who want to follow scripture rather than theology. And this difference

in the methods of interpreting scripture between postponement theology

and those who want to stick to Biblical Christianity

makes it very hard to convince a postponement follower that his

theology does not agree with scripture. It is not just a matter of

the postponement follower not knowing scripture, but it is a matter of

his not interpreting scripture the same way as one who follows

Biblical precepts.



And this brings up the issue of what to call those who want to follow

the New Testament and the Old Testament as interpreted by the New.

Since those who follow postponement theology are now in the majority

and control much of evangelical Christianity and the denominations, it

is a small minority now who want to follow Biblical Christianity. So,

the term used in scripture can be applied to those who want to hold to

Biblical interpretations. This is the Remnant, the Remnant of Israel.



The second major postulate of postponement theology is that physical

Israel, all of the Israel of the old Covenant, must be honored and

seen as still being God's people. The implication is that all of

Israel of the Old Covenant is still God's chosen people.



Postponement theology does not accept Paul's separation of Israel into

two Israels in Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and in Galatians 4:

25-26. The distinction he makes between Israel of the flesh which is

not born again in Christ and that Israel which is born again is

supported by some other of his texts, such as I Corinthians 10: 18

("behold, Israel after the flesh"), and Philippians 3: 2-9, especially

verse 3 which says "..we are the circumcision, which worship God in

the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the

flesh." By saying "we are the circumcision" he means descendants of

Abraham who believed on Christ, that Remnant he talks about in Romans

9: 27 and Romans 11: 5 who were born again in Christ.



Honoring all of Old Covenant physical Israel is very important in

postponement theology. And this postulate leads to the fundamental

teaching of this theology that all of physical Israel shall be

saved.

Originally John Darby proposed that during the tribulation another

"dispensation" would begin and somehow it would be a kind of return to

the dispensation of law. This proposal had a problem since if the

dispensationalist "church" was still on earth when the tribulational

Jewish new dispensation of law began, how would the "church" deal with

that? the solution for Darby - and for postponement theology - was the

pre-tribulation rapture of the "church" off the earth. Darby's

proposal of a new dispensation during the tribulation was moderated

and not played up by his later followers, some of whom have said that

the Jews will be saved by accepting Christ during the tribulation.



The third main postulate of postponement theology says that the

"church" is a body of Christ, or a people of God, separate and always

different from physical Israel, still the chosen people.



"Church," from the Greek ekklesia, is used many times in the New

Testament. But unlike the "body of Christ,' or the "saints," the

"church" is not used in the New Testament to refer to the spiritual

identity of Christians in Christ. Paul does not say anywhere in

Romans 11 that the "church" is grafted into his good olive tree, whose

root is Christ and some of whose branches are the Remnant of physical

Israel who believed on Christ. Had he said this, it would have a

meaning of something like "the meeting was grafted into the olive

tree."



Postponement theology opposes the idea that there is a "spiritual

Israel" or born again Israel which includes, as Paul clearly teaches

in Galatians 3: 28, both those who were once physical Israelites and

Gentiles. Some of those influenced by postponement theology may agree

with Galatians 3: 28, and with Romans 2: 28-29, but will not agree

that "the Israel of God" in Galatians 6: 16 is that born again Israel

which includes both former Israelites and Gentiles. This apparent

double-mindedness can be a result of the application of the system of

Bible interpretation to scripture by the followers of this theology.



In order to honor all Israel, or all physical Israel, postponement

theology has to keep Israel separate from the Gentiles, which it calls

the "church," though some of its theologians admit that believing Jews

are part of the "church," but in the "church age" believing Israelites

are very few.



Lets see in a brief way, how these three starting postulates of

postponement theology work for many of its followers.



Again, the problem in discussing scripture with followers of

postponement theology is not just that they do not know scripture well

enough, but that they do not share the interpretations of scripture

with those of the Remnant. Its a conflict between interpretative

authority. The postponement people will take scriptures and interpret

them by their interpretative authority, their theology, and hold up

these scriptures as authority. Remnant people may set up other

scriptures as authority which contradict the meanings assigned to them

by the postponement crowd. There is no easy winning of such an

argument, and, in fact, the Holy Spirit does not want debate,

especially not endless debate, but the intent, "It is written," and

agreement with Him.



There are some statements in scripture that can be used as guidelines

for interpreting scripture.



II Peter 1: 20 says "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the

scripture is of any private interpretation." Private is from the

Greek idios, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Number 2398,

"pertaining to self, private or separate, apart, aside, private." We

can say that no scripture is to be interpreted by the natural mind,

the carnal mind, since I Corinthians 2: 14 teaches that "But the

natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they

are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are

spiritually discerned."



Scripture is not to be interpreted in a private way, different from

the meanings of other scriptures which are relevant. II Peter 1: 20

could mean in some cases that a person cannot interpret a scripture

differently than the majority of Christians - but, and this is

important, at times in history and in certain places, the majority

interpretation is wrong, and the Remnant is right.



So II Peter 1: 20 can be seen as saying that scripture should not be

interpreted separately from other scriptures which are relevant to it.

Why this has to be is explained in the next verse.



II Peter 1: 21 says "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will

of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy

Ghost."



And II Timothy 3: 16 says " All scripture is given by inspiration of

God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for

instruction in righteousness:"



Since all scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit to holy

men of old, the Spirit who is God, knows what he has inspired men to

say before and what he will have them say in the future. Scripture,

therefore, has a consistent nature because it is inspired by God.

Scripture cannot contradict itself, for it it appears to do so, there

is something wrong with our interpretative system.



Some followers of postponement theology will try to say the context

makes a particular scripture say something different than a similar

scripture in a different context, when in fact, the Holy Spirit is

consistent in his meanings in different contexts.



Postponement followers do not fully accept the Protestant idea

that Scripture interprets Scripture. This is, for example, why they

will sometimes think they have shot down I Corinthians 15: 52 where

Paul says that Christ will appear the second time at the last trump,

or last trumpet,

by saying Paul is talking about a trumpet on a Hebrew feast day and did not

mean the 7th trumpet of Revelation because Revelation was not written when Paul

wrote I Corinthians. And they will try to say that Matthew 24: 29-30

is not about

the same event as Paul describes in I Corinthians 15: 52. They do not

attribute consistency

in meaning regarding then Christ will appear to the Holy Spirit as the

author of both I Corinthians 15: 52 and Matthew 24: 29-30. In other

words, they do not want to connect the dots even

on this one clear set of scriptures both of whom say Christ will

appear at the end of the

tribulation - because their theology says different.



And important to postponement theology, they do not interpret

scripture by scripture for

Romans 11: 26, "and so all Israel shall be saved." They may appear to

agree with Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 4; 25-26 in

isolation from Romans 11: 26. But they will not interpret Romans 11:

26, "all Israel shall be saved" by these other scriptures in Romans

and the one in Galatians.

Their interpretative authority for Romans 11: 26 is their theology,

not scripture interpreted by scripture.



And again, for Romans 11; 26 there is no easy winning of a "debate"

with them. Not unless they begin to change their interpretative

authority.



They are doubtful about the concept that scripture interprets

scripture because its all given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

They may think this is a way to spiritualize away

what to them is "literal" in scripture.



They appear not to like it when one connects the dots to several

scriptures to show a strand of thought in the mind of God which runs

through more than one scripture. They prefer to consider each

scripture in isolation so far as they can. The concept of a gist

meaning beyond the literal words

of more than one text is suspicious to them, because this "gist

meaning" might lead to spiritualizing the texts - unless a list of

scriptures, often from the Old Testament, can be interpreted

to be consistent with their theology.



Postponement theology people do not like those who are not part of their theology

to use New Testament texts to interpret Old Testament scripture. They will

insist that the Old Testament prophecies on the restoration of physical Israel must

have their fulfillment during the tribulation when God, they say, will

save "all Israel."



Amos 9: 11, for example, as one of the restoration of Israel prophecies, says

"In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:"



Postponement people will say this, among other Old Testament prophecies, predicts

that "all Israel" shall be saved during the tribulation. But James in Acts 15: 7-9 and 13-17 quotes and

interprets Amos 9: 11, as an example of the Old Testament restoration of Israel prophecies.

"Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.

8. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;

9. And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith....And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:

14. Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.

15. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

16. After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:

17. That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things."



James says "to this agree the words of the prophets." Meaning all the prophets who wrote about the restoration of physical Israel, including Hosea 3: 5, Amos 9: 11, Micah 5: 3, and Zechariah 12: 10, and other prophecies that talk about some restoraton of Israel.



The postponement follower might deal with Acts 15 by giving a literal interpretation

of Amos 9: 11, and perhaps bringing in other Old Testament prophecies on the

restoration and imply that this rules over what is said in Acts 15. He may try

also to limit Acts 15 somehow to the context of the crisis of the conflict between the

Pharisees

who believed saying all Christians must be circumcised to be saved,

and Paul's teaching among the Gentiles that circumcision was done away with.



Christians who believe that New Testament texts have interpretative

authority over Old Testament texts would say, no, since James

writes that the prophets all agree with the New Covenant, that

the New Testament interpretation of James has authority over these Old Testament

prophecies on the restoration of Israel, and these prophecies do not apply

to the tribulation period.



And as before, until the follower of postponement theology changes his

interpretative authority, he is not going to be convinced by New Testament

scripture, even if it were spelled out in a more specific way

than in Acts 15, that this very important part of postponement theology is wrong.



Those who still follow the view that scripture interprets scripture and that

the New

Testament is the interpretative authority for the Old Testament, will say

that Acts 15 is the final word for all the prophets who talk about a restoration of physical

Israel. But the followers of postponement theology will, in some way or another, try to

wiggle out of Acts 15, and in effect say, the Old Testament prophecies on the restoration of

Israel must apply to the tribulation, when "all Israel shall be saved."

Post Reply