If Only Apostles Knew as Much as Dispys

I took the test (seen below) that was on a Dispy blog and it posted my results here on my blog (also seen below). What amazes me is that Dispensationalists are still trying to defend a flawed hermeneutic that causes them to take the position that they know more than the biblical prophets themselves knew.

For example, consider Acts 2.  That chapter records when the Apostle Peter quotes David’s prophecy about the resurrection of Jesus. According to Dispensational theology David didn’t know about the resurrection of Jesus, so in reference to Acts 2 the Dispy has to say, “David did not know that his statements were about the resurrection of Jesus.”

The Dispy has to tell himself that because if David’s prophecy was about the resurrection of Christ then the “Millennial reign of Christ on the Davidic Throne” is what we are experiencing in the church even now according to Peter.

Of course the hermeneutical problem for the Dispensationalist is that Peter literally says that David knew that he was referring to the resurrection of Christ because he was a prophet. Peter said, “David, being a prophet, foreseeing (the resurrection of Christ) spoke concerning the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption” (Acts 2:30-31).  Notice that the Bible literally says that David foresaw the resurrection of Jesus.

It almost seems that David had to remind his Jewish audience that David was a prophet and was thus able to speak about the resurrection of Christ with divinely-given knowledge. It seems that we may need to remind Dispys also that the prophets were very wise! Maybe they were even more wise than some Dispy theologians would like to give them credit for. But I wonder, when was the last time Thomas Ice received a direct word from God? Hmmm.

By the way, in the next few verses (32-36) Peter makes sure that no one misses his point that the resurrected Jesus sits on the Davidic Throne at the Father’s right hand, ruling and reigning, fulfilling the Old Testament promises of a New Covenant.

Was it possible for prophets to understand the complexities of their prophecies, namely that they often had duel meanings (immediate and Messianic)? Sure its possible — indeed, probable… because they were God’s prophets! God didn’t have prophets just to help a nation to know its future but for us all to know about Christ.

Some of you may not be aware that Dispensationalist do not believe that the church today is in the New Covenant. Sadly, they don’t. For proof read this document recently published by The Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics.

And David was a unique prophet, in the category of such prophets as Abraham and Moses. If any prophet knew that his prophecies had Messianic meaning David knew. And Peter affirmed that “all the prophets… foretold these days” of the New Covenant church. That was there purpose and that is what they accomplished.

The Dispys will say that we are proponents of “inspired sensus plenior” at this point, but that is just a strawman argument. They believe we are saying that the NT adds a new interpretation to OT prophecies that were not meant at the time or the NT reveals an interpretation that was an indecipherable mystery when the prophecy was originally given. But don’t get burned by that strawman. We aren’t proponents of “inspired sensus plenior” at all for that would be an attack on the perspicuity of Scripture. NO, we believe what Peter believed — God’s prophets knew that there prophecies had both immediate and Messianic meanings — even if they didn’t totally understand the full scope of those meanings.

Another example is when Peter quotes Joel in Acts 2 the Dispy says to himself, “Surely Peter did not mean that Joel’s prophecy was being fulfilled in the church. Maybe some of Joel’s prophecy can be seen in the church — but only as a preview of what will happen after the dispensation of the church.” Poor Dispys. In an effort to protect and defend their flawed theological system they have to deny the inerrancy of Scripture. They have to defend a position that basically claims that the Dispensational interpreter knows more than Peter who was preaching on the Day of Pentecost and whose sermon was so of God that it was recorded forever in Scripture.

Well, nevertheless, I took their test just for the fun of it. Here are their results. Concerning the test, I find the results and explanations to be less than complete or helpful. For example, the explanation given for my result does not discuss the fact that the OT author knew the immediate meaning of his prophecy and that often times NT authors ignored those immediate meanings even though they did not deny them. Bottomline: cute gadget but unhelpful theologically.

I hope that in my lifetime I see the sweet passing away of Dispensationalism. May it be left behind forever.

NT Use of the OT — Test Your View!

Single Meaning, Unified Referents view You seem to be most closely aligned with the Single Meaning, Unified Referents view, a view defended by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. in the book “Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament” (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde, Nov. 2008). This view denies any distinction between what the OT author intends by his words and what the NT author intends (therefore a “single meaning”). In addition to any prior reference, the OT writer is to be understood as ultimately having the same people or events in mind when he writes his text as the NT author does when he refers that text to Jesus and the community defined by him. For more info, see the book, or attend a special session devoted to the topic at the ETS Annual Meeting in Providence, RI (Nov. 2008); Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Darrell L. Bock, and Peter Enns will all present their views.

Fun quizzes, surveys & blog quizzes by