The Gap Solves Everything??

Literal Interpretation vs. Convenient Gaps

Arguments over eschatology often culminate when one party says to the other, “Brother, just read the Bible.” For whatever reason the person who says this usually believes that this statement scores him an automatic point. I agree that the Bible must be our ultimate source when we are discussing doctrines, however, how a person reads the Bible then becomes a very important matter.

There are some Christians who claim to be strict literal interpreters of the Scripture and yet how they define literal is very selective in deed. One of the areas where supposed literal interpreters of the Bible like to play carefree with the facts is in that area of Biblical interpretation that deals with time. A few examples should illustrate what I mean.

  • The early chapters of Genesis can be embarrassing when compared with the discoveries of modern science, so we will place a gap of indeterminate length between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.
  • Jesus only seemed to say that he would be “coming soon.” Soon is not a term that has anything to do with length of time, but means that His coming could be at “any moment.” So soon in reality means immanent.
  • In Daniel’s vision of the “70 Weeks,” the time table that the text brings us is long since over with, but the “strict literalists” again find a gap of indeterminate length between the 69th and 70th week.
  • This generation in Matthew 24:34 does not mean. this generation it means…and there is a long list of corrections to what Jesus said so that are able to save Jesus from an embarrassing “false prophecy.”
The Gap Solves Everything??

The Gap Solves Everything??

Hal Lindsey begins his “Late Great Planet Earth.” with a comparison between Biblical Prophets and other so called predictors of the future. The # 1 criteria he lists is that the prophet of God must be 100% correct. If they are not, then they are not a Biblical prophet. He then shows how famed astrologist Jeanne Dixon fails the test of a true prophet. I am in no way defending Jeanne Dixon, but Hal seems to be operating with a stacked deck.

If I predicted that the Chicago Cubs would win the World Series next year, and I staked my entire reputation on that prediction, who would let me get away with inserting a gap of indeterminate length between my prediction and the someday future fulfillment? I don’t think anyone would let me have a pass and yet many of the “most respected” voices of Biblical prophecy want us to believe this is the way the Bible is written.

I do know there are difficult passages in the Bible that are not always the easiest to interpret, however, when the Bible speaks in terms of time, we don’t have to make excuses for the supposed mistakes. It is amazing, when we let the Bible actually mean what it says, how much clarity there is.

One of the scenarios I listed above is Daniel’s 70 weeks. I have read all kinds of fascinating and inventive scenarios regarding Daniel’s 70 weeks. But what is at the heart of all of them is the idea that in order for Biblical Prophecy to be fulfilled accurately one of those Gaps of indeterminate length must be inserted between the 69th and 70th week. Rather than strengthening one’s belief in Biblical prophecy such an interpretive scheme actually undermines one’s believe in the clear meaning of the text.

The events spoken of in the vision of Daniel’s 70 weeks were all fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus Christ. I will write about this a little bit more in my next entry.

The following two tabs change content below.
Michael Denna is a reformed pastor and expert on American Dispensationalism. Mike and his wife Michelle lived in California's Sacramento Valley for 24 years and they have recently moved to Grand Junction Colorado where Mike is now the Pastor at Providence Reformed Church.

Latest posts by Mike Denna (see all)

One thought on “Literal Interpretation vs. Convenient Gaps

  1. Ken

    I am far from an expert on eschatology and am wide open to the possible interpretations that seem to be available to us! I used to be dogmatic about the eschatological perspective I was firs acquainted with when I first became a Christian, however I am much more open to look at other views now days. I do however, find it interesting that in order to maintain the theory that Jesus meant the word SOON (regarding his return) as literal (in human terms) that we must ignore the LITERAL sense when the angel told the disciples that Jesus would come again in the “clouds” as they saw him leave. If these clouds are indeed meant to be interpreted figuratively relating to his coming, it seems one has to make the case that “clouds” is also meant in a figurative way regarding his ascension. However, it seems to me that “clouds” is intended in a literal sense regarding Christ’s ascension and would then seem to indicate a literal sense as well in reference to his return rather than “clouds of judgment” as is often referred to from non dispensationalists. It seems to me that it is still a matter of theological opinion and pick and choose which aspects of God’s word are intended to be interpreted literal or in a figurative way especially when it comes to aspects of eschatology. Honestly I am wide open and pretty much an agnostic (without further extensive personal research) as to any certainty of specific details other than wide generalities that Jesus will in fact come again one day! MARANATHA!

Comments are closed.