Don’t You Reformed People Just Spiritualize the Text?

 

Before becoming Reformed, I attended a dispensational seminary where I often heard that those who hold a covenental (rather than dispensational) view of Scripture “spiritualize” the Old Testament text.  By this, they mean that a covenant theologian virtually ignores the original transmission of the text in its historical context and conjures up an interpretation that illegitimately points to Jesus.  It does not matter one bit to the covenant exegete what the text meant to the original hearers.  The only thing that matters is the “spiritualization,” which comes virtually out of thin air.  The covenants of redemption, works, and grace have no exegetical support whatsoever and have been imposed on Scripture by overly-philosophical scholastics.  The original recipients of Scripture would have no concept of these convenants, so say the dispensationalists. 

 

This does not mean that all dispensationalists caricature covenant theology in this way.  I was taught by some fine dispensationalists at Moody Bible Institute who did not misrepresent covenant theology.  Unfortunately, there are other dispensationalists who are not as careful to present an opposing view accurately.  To be fair, some covenant theologians do make the same mistake when they depict dispensationalism in an unfair light.  The goal for everyone should be to present an opposing view in such a way that someone who holds that view would say, “Yes, that is what I believe.”

 

Heinrich Bullinger, author of the Second Helvetic Confession

So what do Reformed exegetes believe about interpretation of Scripture?  Maybe instead of caricatures, we should actually read what they have to say.  The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), chapter 2, “Of Interpreting the Holy Scriptures; and of Fathers, Councils, and Traditions”:

 

The True Interpretation of Scripture.  The apostle Peter has said that the Holy  Scriptures are not of private interpretation (II Peter 1:20), and thus we do not allow all possible interpretations.  Nor consequently do we acknowledge as the true or genuine interpretation of the Scriptures what is called the conception of the Roman Church, that is, what the defenders of the Roman Church plainly maintain should be thrust upon all for acceptance.  But we hold that interpretation of the Scripture to be orthodox and genuine which is gleaned from the Scriptures themselves (from the nature of the language in which they were written, likewise according to the circumstances in which they were set down, and expounded in the light of like and unlike passages and of many and clearer passages) and which agrees with the rule of faith and love, and contributes much to the glory of God and man’s salvation.

The fact is, proper Reformed exegetes always interpret the text in light of the original context.  This is the first job of the exegete.  To accuse Reformed exegetes of not really being concerned with the original historical context is a complete fabrication.  Some dispensationalist may say, “Sure, you say that you’re concerned with the text in its original context, but in reality all you care about is the ‘figurative’ meaning.”  They say this because, while Reformed exegetes first determine the interpretation concerning the original context of the text, we do not stop there.  We believe in a canon of Scripture.  God has given us revelation in the Old and the New Testaments.  We are foolish if we do not look to the authors of the New Testament for their interpretation of the Old, in light of their position on the other side of the cross.  To ignore the New Testament’s interpretation of the Old is non-Christian, it is Jewish. 

I was actually told at my dispensational seminary that I could not look to the New Testament to aid in interpretation of an Old Testament text, because the original recipient of that text would have had no idea of the New Testament.  They called that eisogesis, or reading into the text something that is not there.  I call that learning how to interpret the Bible from the Bible, rather than my own Enlightenment hermeneutic.  The dispensational method of interpretation actually began in the Enlightenment when exegetes who denied the inspiration of the Scriptures, and therefore denied a complete canon, interpreted each individual text solely in light of its original context.  No later revelation could be used to interpret a particular text because the Bible is not inspired and has no inherent unity.  God cannot use later revelation to shed light on earlier revelation because God did not write the Bible, so says the Enlightenment.  For some reason dispensationalists, some of the staunchest defenders of the inspiration of Scripture, have adopted this Enlightenment hermeneutic. 

Reformed exegetes believe that the entire Bible is about Jesus.  He is not not limited to the New Testament and some Old Testament messianic prophecies.  Christ is to be found on every page of Scripture.  After all, He wrote it.  Jesus, Himself practiced this hermeneutic when He spoke to the disciples on the road to Emmause.  Luke 24:27, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.”  So, would you rather interpret the Bible like Jesus did or come up with your own “literal” method?