The next inducement to be noticed is incompetence, which has already been demonstrated to a degree in the case of M. R. DeHaan’s treatment of ‘the thousand years’ in Revelation 20. This kind of incompetence is perennial among writers of premillennial material. Year after year, in book after book, these writers show their commitment to opinions more than exegesis, especially, or at least, respecting their pet doctrine of a thousand literal years of pleasure and plenty. The Meaning of the Millennium is a book presenting four views on the subject by four current (in the 1970s) exponents of these respective views. I first read the book in 2001. When I read the book again in 2023 I was able to spend more time with it because now it was not borrowed. After reading Herman A. Hoyt’s presentation in favor of dispensational premillennialism, I noted: “He does not actually exegete. He merely cites passages copiously, which dispensationalists commonly do.” A few pages after his presentation and my comment upon it, I found that Anthony A. Hoekema, the advocate for the amillennial view, had observed the same thing. He said: “What makes Hoyt’s essay difficult to evaluate is that he nowhere gives us a specific exegesis of any Scripture passage. Most of the time he simply gives scriptural references in parentheses; occasionally he quotes a Bible passage; but never does he give a detailed and argued interpretation of a passage” (The Meaning of the Millennium, pp. 104, 105.) Dispensational premillennialists are like kids looking at pictures in books but never gaining understanding by the words on their pages except for whatever may be gleaned by lightly glancing at the text. The frequent use of figurative language in the Bible makes it a picture book; its pictures must be interpreted by the dissection of passages and words and by comparing text with text. When this work reveals that the view we’ve been espousing is wrong, what should we do? Alia tentanda via est. (Another way must be tried.) So often, as in all aspects of life, be it occupational, romantic, or religious, what holds us back from change and progress is what we want the truth to be. The first words in Hoyt’s essay on the dispensational-premillennial view are these: “A world in turmoil yearns for a period in history when mankind can enjoy the benefits of the millennial kingdom as described in the Bible, a golden age of civilization” (The Meaning of the Millennium, p. 63.) God has better gold for us, though, than any old-earth civilization can yield. The unbelieving Jews of Jesus’ day looked for an earthly kingdom; our present-day dispensationalists look for the same thing; they have been making the same mistake. Jesus says to focus on the kingdom within; they focus on a kingdom without. “And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, the kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17.20, 21.) Dispensationalists may not be Pharisees; but they are looking with a Pharisaical eye. Their eye is not penetrating beneath the terms. Even when looking up the meaning of a word, Hoyt shows how nearsighted he is. On page 75 of The Meaning of the Millennium, he says: “In the Latin translation the word millennium renders the Greek word for a thousand, and that explains the term as used for this kingdom.” Does that settle the matter? Does the use of the number ‘thousand’ in other parts of the Bible than Revelation 20 matter at all? The evidence that amillennialism is the correct view is based on a close look at what key words and concepts that are used in Revelation 20 mean, not only in that chapter, but outside that chapter, outside the book of which the chapter is a part, and even outside the New Testament and inside the Old.
The incompetent surfing of Scripture verses to convince readers of opinions is not Bible teaching; it is opinionated persuasion. Tacking on numerous citations at the ends of opinionated sentences might make a writer look like he knows what the Bible means on a subject; but it has something to do, maybe, with appearances. The show that is put on is rarely scrutinized by readers; and writers who put on this kind of show know that. How many readers look up the verses that are cited but not quoted or that are cited and only partially quoted? How many readers study the passages in which the verses that are quoted are found? How many readers will do this when the verses that are cited are as numerous as they are in Showers’ There Really is a Difference? On one single page of this book, Renald Showers (p. 48) cites the Bible thirty-eight times but quotes nothing from it; he does not quote one single verse, much less exegete anything. But the page is supposed to prove ‘the characteristics of the future Kingdom,’ by which kingdom he means: the coming millennium of a thousand actual years. He has seen, in these verses and passages, references to improved conditions, bumper crops, domestication, vegetarianism, the abolition of diseases and deformities, longevity, and worldwide peace on earth; and, without collating and expositing in order to see what any or all of this means, he supposes that there is a millennium coming of the kind that he wishes will come. John Bunyan tacks on numerous citations of verses at the ends of his sentences too, for example, in his Few Sighs from Hell. But he never does this in place of exposition. He quotes and explains in order to teach and convince; he turns the Bible contents over to show us what lies underneath; and he depends on mere citing sometimes, but never when trying to convince us of something from a hard subject or dark saying. There is a difference between amassing Bible citations in order to convince, and what Jonathan Edwards, in his History of the Work of Redemption, calls the ‘induction of particulars.’ Just before Showers commits one of his citation maneuvers, he says that ‘space will not permit a thorough evaluation….’ (Renald Showers, There Really is a Difference, p. 19.) How can ‘space not permit’ when you are writing a book? Was there a lack of paper in 1990? ‘Space does not permit’ is his excuse for ‘evaluating’ Covenant Theology in six measly pages. On the cover picture of my edition of his book, spectacles lie on top of an open Bible as if to show that Showers has taken a really close look at the contents of God’s word. Renald Showers needs to look a little closer at the text of Scripture and turn a blind eye to the Scofield notes at the bottom of the page while he does it.
No comments:
Post a Comment