Nevertheless, it often happens that covenant theology is criticized by non-covenantalists for its approach to biblical prophecy. Non-covenantalists, it is argued, interpret prophetic passages literally, while covenantalists interpret them figuratively, especially, it is thought, when a literal interpretation of a passage would produce a conflict with the pre-conceived covenantal framework.
Putting the issue of covenantalism aside for a moment, it does not appear to me that the real difference between conflicting views of the end times can be characterized simply as one side interpreting passages literally and the other side interpreting them figuratively. Indeed all eschatological views claim to interpret literal passages literally and figurative passages figuratively. The dispute, of course, is over which passages are which.
Take, for example, the differences between pretribulational and preterist eschatology (preterism being the view that much of biblical prophecy was actually fulfilled in the first century). Consider how literally or how figuratively a preterist would have to treat the scriptures in order to come to the following conclusions or how figuratively or literally a pre-tribulationalist who have to treat the scriptures to avoid them. Do the scriptures not literally say that:
before the apostles went through all the towns of
before some men who had been standing with Jesus had tasted death, the Son of Man came in his kingdom (Mt. 16:28), and the
by the time of Jesus’ transfiguration, Elijah had already come (Mat. 17:12; Mk. 9:12)?
before the generation to whom Jesus was speaking passed away, all the events prophesied in the Olivet Discourse came to pass (Mt 24:34; Mk 13:30; Lk. 21:32):?
the gospel was preached to all nations (Mt 24:14)?
the abomination of desolation stood in the holy place (Mt 24:15)?
there was a great tribulation such had not been from the beginning of the world nor never will be again (Mt 24:20)?
the Son of Man came on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Mt 24:30)?
the Son of Man sent out his angels and gathered his elect from the four winds (Mt 24:31)?
from the time of Jesus’ first coming onward, He was seen seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Mt. 26:64)?
before Jesus ascended into heaven, he had already been given all authority in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18)?
while the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians was being written, the man of lawlessness was already being restrained (II Th 2:7)?
while John was writing his first epistle, it was already the last hour, for many antichrists had already come (I Jn. 2:18)?
while the book of Revelation was being written, the things that were prophesied in it were soon to take place (Rv. 1:1; Rv. 22:6) and the time for them was near (Rv. 1:3)?
while the book of Revelation was being written, Jesus’ coming was soon to occur (Rv. 3:11; 22:7; 22:12, 21)?
while the Book of Revelation was being written, Jesus was already ruler of the kings on earth (Rv. 1:5)?
while the book of Revelation was being written, Jesus had already made the saints a kingdom and priests to his God and Father (Rv. 1:6)?
while the book of Revelation was being written, John was already a partaker in the tribulation and the kingdom that were in Christ (Rv. 1:9)?
while the book of Revelation was being written, Jesus had already received authority over the nations to rule them with a rod of iron (Rv. 2:26-27)?
while the book of Revelation was being written, Jesus had already conquered and had already sat down with his Father on his throne (Rv. 3:21)?
while the book of Revelation was being written, the temple was still standing (Rv. 11:1)?
the only saints raised to life for the millennial period are those who die as martyrs in the great tribulation (Rv 20:4-5)?
Now are pretribulationalists really willing to employ a literal interpretation with passages like these? If not, how can they claim to be THE literalists over aginst these covenantal yayhoos? Whatever advantages pretribulational eschatology might have over a view like preterism, the freedom to interpret passages literally does not appear to be one of the strongest.
6 comments:
thanks for being so patient with me. i feel like i asked a lot of rabbit trail causing questions on thursday.
obviously, we are different in our approach to baptism and eschatology...and i can't quite figure out why.
when we try to trace back to the beginning of the covenant perspective and dispensationalism, i'm not sure i understand where we disagree. (both calvinists, both love the covenants). perhaps you see the difference more clearly than i do.
however, perhaps this will help...i know you said "putting the issue of covenantalism aside for a moment," but i have to ask...
are there some premillinnial covenant theologians? would they be considered genuine covenant theologicans by others?
i guess i was under the impression that the covenant system required an amill or postmill perspective. if i'm wrong, then i really forced us down some useless rabbit trails. if my impression was right, what about Christ physically reigning from Jerusalem for 365,000 days is contradictory to the covenantal perspective?
again, thanks for being patient.
Sometimes the rabbit trail IS the point. Really, these discussions require patience on everybody's part. I'm thrilled that you all are still interested in carrying it on, and I'm sure that the further we go with it, the better we'll be able to understand where we're differing and why.
If I could take a stab at summarizing the basic underlying reason for our difference on baptism, I would say that it is because I bring the Old Testament much more heavily to bear upon the question of the status of children than you do. Right or wrong, I think that's what's happening.
As far as eschatology is concerned,--and I'm not trying to be funny here-- I believe that the difference springs from my tendency to treat a greater number of passages more literally and, I would add, less systematically. You might have noted this lack of system from the way my answers to your questions seem to lack any consistency. Still workin' on this one.
Perhaps an even more important factor is my tendency to interpret eschatological passages in ways that are much more limited to how the original audience would have understood them--maybe too much so. Again, still working.
Yes. Covenantalism and historic Premillenialism are, in my estimation, perfectly compatible. I have had professors who were both, and it is believed that many, if not most, of the early church fathers held to two perspectives together.
What are obviously less compatible are dispensational premillennialism and covenantalism. It's much more difficult to believe at the same time that God has two peoples and He only has one people, or that the church is the goal of God's plan and that it is an interruption in God's plan.
Several of the ideas in dispensationalism were really unheard of before the last hundred and fifty years or so. Before that, covenantalism was basically all there was.
There's a certain sense, then, in which "covenantalism" didn't historically exist until dispensationalism came along to contrast with it. It could almost be said that covenantalism just means "what the church believed for the eighteen hundred years before dispensationalism came along."
I can't tell you how much I appreciate these discussions, brother. Thanks so much.
this is very helpful...couple more questions...
if premill and covenantalism are not necessarily at odds, and you've stated before that covenantalism does NOT eliminate a plan for ethnic israel...
could we be on common ground if i said
God has one people, His elect, who are comprised both of ethnic Israelites and gentiles. the Church and Israel could be considered different...but both ultimately are His elect.
and
God's plan involves His elect. as i read romans 9, even the "era of the church," where the emphasis is on the gentile, still has the Israelite at heart...for the desire is to evoke jealousy in the Jew. furthermore, the return of emphasis to the Jew (which Romans 9 seems to suggest) was also for the sake of reaching the nations.
does this put us pretty much on the same page with these things.
if so, according to your definition...if i'm not quite dispensational, does that mean i am covenantal (just maybe not to a great degree)?
I don't think I'd disagree with anything you've said here, but I think I might go even further. Believing gentiles have more in common with believing Israel than just being "elect" in some general sense.
Believing gentiles, according to Paul in Eph 2 are fellow heirs of the covenants of promise and fellow citizens with the saints in the commonwealth of Israel.
Another way of saying it, perhaps, is that believing gentiles and believing Jews are more than just mutually elect, they are all mutually partakers in the one covenant people of God.
Do we still agree?
i'm hesitant to say yes, because it seems that i should be running into some major obsticle of interference...but as far as i can see, i don't see why your words should cause great concern either.
I'll accept that.
Post a Comment