Boanerges said:

Thank you both, now a follow up question: I have seen many "Dispesational" theologians speak with derision regarding this hermeneutic because it doesn't define "Israel" as only the physical nation. In fact I've seen a few ministries like Zola Levitt's warn about how Moody and Dallas are going liberal because they no longer teach strict "Dispensationalism" but allow this hermeneutic to be taught. Is there any reason why this is a lesser hermeneutic than the grammatical-historical?

I think the reason dispensational theologians speak with derision about redemptive historical hermaneutics is because it doesn't agree with their preconceptions. Actually strict “dispensationalism” brings a lot of baggage in its hermeneutical approach. As Robin has pointed out how are you going to deal with the texts of Scripture that dispute it? Furthermore if you compare it to redemptive historical you will see that their view of eschatology is quite different. This raises further questions. Not only how do you support the idea about God having two select peoples but dispensationalist teachers hold to pretribulational premillennialism which certainly suggests a different escatology.


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts