Given the trivial commentary by dispensationalists in this and other related threads, such a comment is laughable.
All of the dispensational leaning pastors I've observed prefer to only teach from Greek and Hebrew
I recall Hal Lindsey was quick to tout his abilities in Greek to “rightly divide” the Bible along dispensational lines. It was that very knowledge of Greek that supposedly led him to conclude Jesus was returning in the rapture in 1981.
It was also Hymenaeus and Alexander, well versed in Greek, who denied the orthodox view of Christ’s second coming (not unlike most dispensationalists today) and was condemned by the apostle Paul.
The hallmark doctrine of dispensationalism, the secret pre-trib rapture, is not plainly or literally taught in the Hebrew or Greek of Scripture. So much for claim that the language skills of dispensationalists are superior to all others. How could they arrive at an erroneous doctrine such as this?
The point is that folks in dispensational pews are largely ignorant of the Bible in any systematic fashion, preferring to believe the wild exaggerations of their teachers. It is an eschatology that feeds on the ignorance of those being taught. That why folks can get by writing nonsensical tales like “50 Reasons Why We Are Living In The End Times”. It only makes sense to those who have drunk deeply from the dispensational kool aid.
A “literal” hermeneutic, if consistent, forces the dispensational interpreter into a hopeless dilemma. On the one hand, the New Testament is clear: no more animal sacrifices. On the other hand, a “literal” interpretation of Ezekiel 40-48 is clear: animal sacrifices will be reinstituted in the Millennium. What must be done to resolve the dilemma?What do your dispenational Greek and Hebrew scholars do with that? Weasel out of it? Twist the Greek and Hebrew? Cover up? Hope the unwashed masses in the pew won't notice their error? Sell another book to change the subject?Weasel out of it! Even dispensationalists recognize the heresy of arguing for the reinstitution of Levitical animal sacrifices. To solve the problem, they argue that the sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48 are “memorial” sacrifices, in the same way the Lord’s Supper is a memorial. These sacrifices will not be propitiatory or in any way an atonement.
There’s just one slight problem: the text won’t allow it. Ezekiel 45:17 reads: “Then it shall be the prince’s part to give burnt offerings, grain offerings, and drink offerings, at the feasts, the New Moons, the Sabbaths, and at all the appointed seasons of the house of Israel. He shall prepare the sin offering, the grain offering, the burnt offering, and the peace offerings to make atonement for the house of Israel” (emphasis mine). The sacrifices are meant “to make atonement. ” Literally, the Hebrew reads “to cover, propitiate.” Similarly in verse 20 Ezekiel writes, “And so you shall do on the seventh day of the month for everyone who has sinned unintentionally or in ignorance. Thus you shall make atonement for the temple” (emphasis mine). Once more, the same Hebrew word appears.
DISPENSATIONALISM’S HERMENEUTIC: “LITERAL, EXCEPT WHEN EMBARRASSING”