Clashing Hermeneutics–Who’s Right?

Some Christians are offended by the idea that Jesus actually came, right on time, and in age-ending, day-of-the-Lord, judgment in destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple during the Jewish-Roman War and demolition of 66-73 A.D.  As one critic comments on this site bluntly puts it “if he came in 70-73 AD [there are] serious problems . . .

1. The dead will rise from their graves….didn’t happen
2. The Christians alive will be changed and meet him in the air…didn’t happen
3. a Cry of Command…nope
4. every eye will see him…nope
5. Rule on earth with a rod of Iron…not happening
6. a voice of the archangel…didn’t happen
7. like lightning from east to west… did not happen
8. Those who pierced him will see him…did not happen
9. the nations will mourn…didn’t happen
10. I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army…didn’t happen
11. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet…didn’t happen
12. Returns with an army…didn’t happen”

What you see manifested here is the clashing of two competing, confusing, and conflicting hermeneutics. A hermeneutic is a method or system of interpretation. My critic is voicing a “nature determines time” hermeneutic. Since he has not seen what he thinks should have happened, in his life or in history to date, he has to adjust the time factor. And since one can only adjust time in one direction, he is forced to futurize these fulfillments.

My hermeneutic is the opposite: “time determines nature.” Since I honor the time statements of Scripture as being literal and exact, then, to be consistent, I am forced to adjust my understanding of the nature of fulfillment to fit within that constraint. However, I don’t make things up to do so. I utilize another basic hermeneutical principle of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

Those two different hermeneutics account for most, if not all, of our differences in understanding fulfillment and ongoing relevance contained in my critic’s above comments. But the bottom line is this. As long as someone continues to adhere to what I consider to be a flawed and false hermeneutic, there can be no resolution between our two different positions.

(To see his full comments and all my responses, go to the bottom of the Introduction in the “Rapture” topic.)

What do you think?