Often when a theological discussion takes place, the conversationalists will focus on the conclusions before focusing on the premise.  For example, in a discussion about eschatology (end times) one person may say, “There is still evil in the world, therefore Jesus has not come” whereas another person may say, “Jesus has come therefore there must not really be evil in the world”.  Both approaches are operating from conclusions not from premises.

Discussions that operate from conclusions are much like the proverbial cart before the horse & often only end in frustration if not outright hostility.

Another conclusion I have seen in eschatological discussions is that the “Old Covenant is gone therefore we are in the New Covenant”.  A conclusion such as this can have some truth to it but without first looking at the premise a person can often be misled to all sorts of faulty sub-conclusions.  One such faulty sub-conclusion based on the “Old Covenant is gone therefore we are in the New Covenant” is antinomianism (no more law) whereas another faulty sub-conclusion may be universalism (everyone saved).  Conclusions as simply stated may not even be false but it is because there is little work done in fleshing out the premise that even a correct yet simplified conclusion breeds so many false sub-conclusions.  For instance, I have seen where building off of the “Old Covenant is gone therefore we are in the New Covenant” a person has advocated “In Adam, humanity was alienated from God and there was no victory for either. What was needed was a new world that would bring forth a new man through a new relationship of life and righteousness.”  This may sound good on the surface especially as we overlay it with the main conclusion of the New Covenant but unpacking the premise shows this sub-conclusion to be very flawed.

First, the changing of the “world” isn’t what changes man.  Remember, God did change the world during the Flood as well but soon after that change, Noah was found in drunkeness. (Gen 9:20-21)  Ham was found in betrayal (Gen 9:22) & eventually other men were trying to become equals with God by building a tower to heaven. (Gen 11:1-4)  The “new world” did not change the very thing that needed to be changed, the nature of man.  Therefore it is important to understand a premise before jumping to conclusions & further sub-conclusions.

Ask yourself questions about the premise first.  For example, does God really intend to convey that the Old Covenant is destroyed…or was it fulfilled? (Mt 5:17)  Is there a difference & does it affect the conclusion?  How does a person enter this “new world” of the New Covenant?  This is the kind of solid theological work in premises that must be done before a conclusion is ever formed.

Another example of faulty conclusions is based on the original example of the two conversationalists discussing Jesus “coming”.  Both assume something about the word “coming” that may not be the intent of the text.  All throughout the Bible the “comings” of the Lord indicated not even a return from one place to another but rather a display of power.  This is a solid biblical premise of the concept of the Lord’s “coming”.

For instance, Jesus said to the High Priest:

There are a few important points about this premise:

1)      How is it Jesus would be sitting at the right hand of the Power AND moving from one place to another?  Rather the “coming on the clouds” denotes a position of power rather than actual movement.

2)      The High Priest being addressed (Caiaphas – see Mt 26:57) never “saw” Jesus “coming” from anywhere.  As a matter of fact, if a person claims Mt 26:64 is about an AD70 return of Christ, Caiaphas was most likely dead by this date & could not have seen a spiritual or physical “coming” of Christ.

Now, it is also important to challenge a premise.  As I set out, the premise is that the coming of the Lord, at least how it is used here in Mt 26:64 is not about a return or movement from one place to another but only about positional power.  This premise should be challenged & supporting or objecting texts supplied.  Since I am advocating the premise of a coming of positional power I will supply that support.

Daniel 7:13 speaks of this very coming of positional power:

Notice that the “One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven” ISN’T coming to earth; rather HE CAME TO the Ancient of Days.  This fits perfectly with Christ “coming” into positional power…seated at the right hand of the Power.

Add to this what the thief on the Cross said to Jesus.

Again, another statement supporting the concept of the Lord about to obtain positional power yet using the term “come”.  Perhaps part of problem is that in our modern English we use the notion of “to go into” to denote positional movement from a “here position” to a “there position” whereas we think of the notion of “to come into” as a positional movement from a “there position” to a “here position”.  Thus, a false understanding of the premise leads us to conclude many of these “coming” verses are a return of Christ from heaven to earth rather than a simple concept of His moving into positional power.

It is therefore extremely important to first unpack the premise long before you ever approach the conclusions & certainly before you venture into sub-conclusions.

Lately I have been trying to practice what I am terming as “Hippocratic hermeneutics”, which is basically built from the so-called Hippocratic Oath – “First, do no harm”.  This is a physician’s oath, which is supposed to mean that as they treat a patient they will be careful to not make the patient worse.  A doctor follows this oath by not jumping to conclusions but rather carefully diagnosing the situation & prescribing the proper medicine even to the point of considering the interactions & side effects.  So, with “Hippocratic hermeneutics” it is my goal to be careful how I interpret the Bible.  To read the text in a manner that does not jump to conclusions or fill in gaps with mere deduction or speculation.  For some people, this approach may be playing it too safe, but hey, who wants a doctor playing fast & loose with our physical health & to me, mine & my readers’ spiritual health is more important than even our physical health.