“THE HERMENEUTICS OF DISPENSATIONALISM” Pt. 2
by Charles C. Ryrie
Its discontinuity with normative
dispensationalism. Clearly, progressive dispensationalists
are distancing themselves from the consistent literal hermeneutics of normative
dispensationalism by introducing "complementary hermeneutics." In speaking of the issues still on the table
to be discussed by covenant theologians and progressive dispensationalists,
Blaising and Bock say; "The final issue on the table is
hermeneutical. The issue is not a
distinct hermeneutic but debate about how to apply the hermeneutic that we
share.”[1] This sharing is between covenantalists and
progressives, not progressives and normative dispensationalists, further
demonstrating the distance progressives wish to have between themselves and
classic dispensationalists.
Unquestionably; a literal hermeneutic consistently used has been a key
feature of normative dispensationalism. Both nondispensationalists and
dispensationalists acknowledge this. "The first tenet of dispensationalism
is that the Bible must be interpreted literally.”[2]
Progressives are moving away from the
literal hermeneutic of normative dispensationalism. Although they still want to
come under the umbrella of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, they (in their
own words) embrace ideas developed "in sophistication beyond that which
was practiced by classical dispensationalists….”
Furthermore, a number of dispensationalists who today
practice consistent grammatical-historical interpretation (in its more
developed sense) have revised some of the distinctive interpretations of
earlier dispensationalism. Literary interpretation has developed so that some
things which earlier interpreters thought they "clearly" saw in
Scripture, are not "clearly" seen today at all.[3]
Bruce Waltke sees this as a very basic difference:
“This ‘already–not yet’ model of
[progressive] dispensationalism, entailing a less than one-for-one
correspondence between Old Testament covenants and prophecies and the partial
fulfillment in the church, shakes the very foundations of [normative]
dispensational hermeneutics, which includes a consistent literalistic
interpretation of the Old Testament, another sine qua non of the system.”[4]
Some questions arise from this distancing. (1) Does the progressives' modification or redefining of literalism permit them to proclaim honestly their continuity with the dispensational tradition? (2) Is the umbrella of literalism large enough to cover their expanded historical-grammatical hermeneutic? (3) Is it progress to see things in Scripture not so clearly today as before? (4) If the literal hermeneutic of normative dispensationalism is not adequate to interpret all of Scripture, especially the prophetic and apocalyptic parts, what may happen to other characteristic teachings of dispensationalism in the ongoing work of the progressives?
Complementary hermeneutics. In
order to give a hermeneutical base to certain interpretations of the progressives
(e.g., Christ is now on the throne of David in heaven, and the somewhat
indistinctiveness of Israel and the church), they have introduced what they
call complementary hermeneutics.
This means that "the New Testament does introduce change and advance;
it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison
old promises. The enhancement is not at
the expense of the original promise.”[5] The first sentence of their definition opens
the door for their ‘already/not yet’ view of the Davidic kingdom. The last two sentences keep them from
becoming amillennialists. More will be
said about this hermeneutic and the yet unspecified limitations on the use of
it in chapter 9.
If literal interpretation is the
correct principle of interpretation, it follows that it would be proper to
expect it to apply to all the Scriptures. This, as we have tried to show; is the reason the matter of
consistency in the application of plain interpretation is so important. The nonliteralist is the
nonpremillennialist, the less specific and less consistent literalists are the
covenant premillennialist and the progressive dispensationalist, and the
consistent literalist is a dispensationalist.
Literal interpretation results in
accepting the text of Scripture at its face value. Based on the philosophy that
God originated language for the purpose of communicating His message to man and
that He intended man to understand that message, literal interpretation seeks
to interpret that message plainly. In
the prophecies of the Old Testament, plain interpretation finds many promises
that, if interpreted literally; have not yet been fulfilled. The amillennialist says that they will not be
fulfilled literally but are being fulfilled spiritually in the church. The covenant premillennialist who does not
use consistently the literal principle that he believes in sees some of them
fulfilled literally and some not.
Daniel Fuller makes a startling confession when he says that "the
whole problem of how far a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophets
is to be carried is still very perplexing to the present writer.”[6] The admission is even more surprising when
one realizes that it is made in the last paragraph of his chapter on
conclusions. The consistent application
of literal interpretation would solve his problem, for the Scriptures would
speak to him as they did to the prophets — plainly and at face value.
Since literal interpretation results in
taking the Scriptures at face value, it also results in recognizing
distinctions in the Bible. No
interpreter of Scripture denies this fact, but the extent to which he
recognizes distinctions is the evidence of his consistent use of the literal
principle of interpretation. It is not
a matter of superimposing a dual purpose of God on the Scriptures, but it is a
matter of recognizing that in the New Testament the word Israel does not
mean the Church and vice versa.
The dispensationalist, then, recognizes the different peoples of God
simply because of the distinction maintained by the text as literally
interpreted.
Taking the text at face value and recognizing distinctions in the process of revelation leads to the recognition of different economies in the outworking of God's program. In other words, consistent literalism is the basis for dispensationalism, and since consistent literalism is the logical and obvious principle of interpretation, dispensationalism is more than justified. It is only by adjusting or adding to the principle of literal interpretation that dispensationalism is avoided. Face-value understanding incorporates distinctions; distinctions lead to dispensations. Normal interpretation leads to the clear distinction between words, concepts, peoples, and economies. This consistent hermeneutical principle is the basis of dispensationalism.
The distinctions resulting from the
application of the literal principle have brought the charge that
dispensationalism destroys the unity of the Bible. From the more scholarly opponents of dispensationalism the
charges run like this: Dispensationalism is “unable to display the unity of
the Bible,”[7] or, “The
Bible ceases to be a self-consistent whole.”[8] More popularly the charge is expressed in
words like T. A. Hegre's:
[Satan] advanced a much more modified
form of dispensationalism — a form so mild and so moderate that by the great
majority of fundamentalists it was accepted. In fact, fundamentalism and mild
dispensationalism are today almost synonymous. Yet in its tendencies,
fundamentalist dispensationalism is, we believe, dangerous and mischievous,
robbing us of much of the Bible, especially of the words of Christ.[9]
In the same chapter (which incidentally
is entitled "Have You Lost Your Bible?") Hegre names destructive
higher criticism as an additional example of Satan's efforts to rob people of
parts of the Bible. This is another example of an unfair method of attacking
dispensationalism — the use of guilt by association. Surprisingly this unworthy
tactic is used by no less a scholar and gentleman than 0. T. Allis, who makes
the same comparison between dispensationalism and higher criticism:
Dispensationalism shares with higher criticism its fundamental error…. In a word, despite all their differences, higher criticism and dispensationalism are in this one respect strikingly similar. Higher criticism divides the Scriptures up into documents which differ from or contradict one another. Dispensationalists divide the Bible up into dispensations which differ from and even contradict one another.[10]
It is scarcely necessary to say how unjust such a comparison is. But the charge, however stated, boils down to an accusation that dispensationalism so compartmentalizes the Bible that its unity is completely destroyed.
Undoubtedly dispensationalists have
given the impression that the dispensations are so many compartments, like
separate post office boxes, which have no connection with each other. But dispensationalists have also had much to
say about the unity of the Bible, and there is no excuse for
nondispensationalists to recognize only one side of what dispensationalists
say; except to make a straw man that is easier to attack. Dispensationalists have emphasized the unity
of the Scriptures whether the nondispensationalist wishes to acknowledge it or
not.
Scofield, who does not have one word to
say about dispensations in his introduction to the Scofield Reference Bible (which
is specifically designated "T0 BE READ"), does have quite a bit to
say about the unity of the Bible:
First, The Bible is one book. Seven great marks attest this unity. (1) From Genesis, the Bible bears witness to
one God…. (2) The Bible forms one continuous story…. (3) The Bible hazards the
most unlikely predictions concerning the future…. (4) The Bible is a
progressive unfolding of truth…. (5) From beginning to end the Bible testifies
to one redemption. (6) From beginning
to end the Bible has one great theme—the person and work of the Christ. (7) And, finally; these writers, some
forty-four in number, writing through twenty centuries, have produced a perfect
harmony of doctrine in progressive unfolding.[11]
Other dispensationalists, such as Erich
Sauer and W. Graham Scroggie (1be Unfolding Drama of Redemption ), give
strong emphasis to the unity of the Bible and prominence to God's redemptive
purpose.
Unity and distinction are not
necessarily contradictory concepts.
Examples abound. The human body
is not disunited because the hand is distinct from the ear. The unity of a building is not impaired by
carefully observing the distinctions between the iron and wood that go into it.
Furthermore, in the process of building, each part must wait its proper time
and order of entering into the overall development. "The unity of a touchdown by a football team is not
destroyed by the making of several separate and distinguishable first downs by
different methods during the connected march toward the goal line.”[12]
Even in areas of theology that nondispensationalists do not dispute with dispensationalists they recognize that distinctions do not necessarily mean disunity. "The unity of the Trinity is most certainly admitted by conservative opponents of dispensationalism; yet these theologians are very careful to maintain distinctions in the three Persons comprising the Godhead! This unity, with distinctions is recognized also in the doctrine of the hypostatic union of the two natures in the one Person of the incarnate Christ!”[13] Even the non-dispensationalist does not consider the unity of his sermon destroyed by the compartments of its divisions: "Sameness does not always produce unity, nor differences disunity. A more impossible situation could not be imagined than a jigsaw puzzle composed wholly of circles."[14] Unity and distinction are not necessarily incompatible concepts. They may be quite complementary, as indeed they are in dispensationalism.
Even though dispensationalists do speak
of the unity of the Bible, and even though nondispensationalists fail to
recognize that distinctions may be involved in unity, the charge that
dispensationalism destroys the unity of the Bible still persists. What is this unity that is supposedly
destroyed? It is, in the
nondispensationalist's opinion, the unity of the overall purpose of
redemption. The so-called covenant of
grace is the governing category by which all Scripture is to be understood.
God's purpose in the world is to redeem, and men have been, are, and will
always be redeemed in the same manner throughout all time.
Any distinctions recognized by the
covenant theologian are merely aspects of the outworking of this single purpose
controlled by the covenant of grace. "Everything in history and life is
subservient to spiritual redemption," says one covenant writer.[15] More recently Clarence Bass, an opponent of
dispensationalism, states that "the church, as the body of Christ
providentially redeemed, is the epitome of the whole structure of God's
purposes on the earth.”[16] Fuller makes it equally clear: "There
are those, on the one hand, who see the Bible as the outworking of God's one
purpose of redemption, whose focal point is in the cross of Christ. This is the
traditional view voiced by the conservative elements within the major
denominational groups.”[17]
No dispensationalist minimizes the
importance of God's saving purpose in the world. But whether it is God's total
purpose, or even His principal purpose, is open to question. The dispensationalist sees a broader purpose
in God's program for the world than salvation, and that purpose is His own
glory. For the dispensationalist the
glory of God is the governing principle and overall purpose, and the
soteriological program is one of the principal means employed in bringing to
pass the greatest demonstration of His own glory. Salvation is part and parcel of God's program, but it cannot be
equated with the entire purpose itself. John F. Walvoord says it succinctly:
All the events of the created world are designed to manifest the glory of God. The error of covenant theologians is that they combine all the many facets of divine purpose in the one objective of the fulfillment of the covenant of grace. From a logical standpoint this is the reductive error—the use of one aspect of the whole as the determining element.[18]
Thus, as stated in chapter 1, the
unifying principle of covenant theology is, in practice, soteriological. The unifying principle of normative
dispensationalism is doxological, or the glory of God, for the dispensations
reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing
stewardships given to man.
In progressive dispensationalism, the
overall purpose of God has shifted from a doxological to a Christological
purpose. This better fits the
progressives' emphasis on a Messianic and unified concept of kingdom and
Christ's present rule in heaven on the throne of David.
But, someone may object, are these in reality not simply minor distinctions? Are not the glory of God, the saving work of God, and the Christological/ Messianic purpose practically the same concept? Not at all. The different emphases resulting from the Christological purpose of progressive dispensationalism are discussed in chapter 9. The glory of God is manifesting God for who He is. God as a consuming fire (Heb. 12:29) reveals the judicial side of God's character, and it is not a display of redemption. Without getting involved in all the questions concerning salvation during the period of the Mosaic Law, it is quite clear that God had some purposes under the law besides the soteriological. Otherwise, how can we take at face value Paul's statement that the law was "the ministry of death" and "the ministry of condemnation" (2 Cor. 3:7, 9)? These are not descriptions of salvation to say the least!
How do we know that the glory of God is the purpose of God above and beyond His saving purpose? First, the plain statement of Scripture declares that salvation is to the praise of God's glory; which simply means that redemption is one of the means to the end of glorifying God (Eph. 1:6, 12, 14). Salvation, for all of its wonder, is but one facet of the multifaceted diamond of the glory of God. Second, all theologians of whatever persuasion realize that God has a plan for the angels. It does not involve redemption, for the elect angels do not experience it and the nonelect angels cannot. And yet for the angels God has a distinct program — a distinct purpose — and it is not soteriological. Third, if one is a premillennialist (not even necessarily of the dispensational variety) he recognizes that in the kingdom program God has a purpose that, though it involves salvation, is not confined to redemption. Obviously God has other purposes in this world besides the redemption of mankind, though with our man-centered perspective we are prone to forget that fact.
It is recognized that covenant
theologians declare clearly and strongly that the glory of God is the chief
purpose of God. For instance, Charles
Hodge says that "the final cause of all God's purposes is His own glory.”[19] William G. T. Shedd is more specific: “Neither
salvation nor damnation are ultimate ends, but means to an ultimate end:
namely, the manifested glory of the Triune God.”[20]
But covenant theology makes the all-encompassing
means of manifesting the glory of God the plan of redemption. Thus, for all practical purposes, covenant
theology uses redemption as its unifying principle. This is undoubtedly partly due to the spiritualizing of the text
of Scripture so that there is little or no future for Israel, thus obliterating
the distinctive purpose God has for that people. If that were not obliterated, then the covenant theologian would
see that the glory of God is to be realized fully not only in salvation but
also in the Jewish people and in His purpose concerning angels.
God does have various ways to manifest
His glory; redemption being one — a principal one but not the only one. The various economies with their stewardship
responsibilities are not so many compartments completely separated from each
other but are stages in the progress of the revelation of the various ways in
which God is glorified. And further,
dispensationalism not only sees the various dispensations as successive manifestations
of God's purpose but also as progressive manifestations of it. The entire program culminates, not in
eternity but in history; in the millennial kingdom of the Lord Christ. This millennial culmination is the climax of
history and the great goal of God's program for the ages.
In accord with the general thesis of Biblical theism, the achievement of this goal in the historical process is effected only by divine aid, for fallen man is helpless in the conflict of good and evil apart from the grace of God. A unique feature of dispensationalism is that this conflict does not assume a more or less fixed pitch. Rather it rises in a mighty crescendo, as in ever new forms by historical and experimental proof is demonstrated through respective dispensations man's supreme need of grace to attain to the glory of God.[21]
Dispensationalism sees the unity, the
variety, and the progressiveness of this purpose of God for the world as no
other system of theology. g
Taken from Dispensationalism, by Charles C. Ryrie, Moody
Press, copyright 1995. Used with
permission. Further reproduction
prohibited without written permission from the publisher.
[1] Craig A.
Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 392.
[2] Millard J. Erickson, Contemporary Options in Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 115, and Thomas Ice, Dispensational Hermeneutics,” in Issues in Dispensationalism, 29-46.
[3] Craig
A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton:
Victor, 1993), p. 36.
[4] Blaising
and Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, 348.
[5] Craig A.
Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, “Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: Assessment and Dialogue,” in Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church, 392-93.
[6] Daniel
P. Fuller, "The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism," Th.D. diss.,
(Northern Baptist Theological Seminary; Chicago, 1957), p. 374.
[7] Ibid., 371.
[8] Oswald T.
Allis, “Modern Dispensationalism and the Law of God,” Evangelical Quarterly
8 (15 July 1936): 872.
[9] T. A. Hegre,
The Cross and Sanctification (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1960),
3-4.
[10] Oswald T.
Allis, “Modern Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of the Unity of the
Scriptures,” Evangelical Quarterly 8 (15 July 1936): 24.
[11] Scofield
Reference Bible (New York: Oxford, 1909), v. This section is also include
in the New Scofield (New York: Oxford, 1967), ix.
[12] James E.
Rosscup, “Crucial Objections to Dispensationalism” (unpublished Master’s
thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1961), 74.
[13] Ibid.
[14] H. Chester
Woodring, “Grace Under the Mosaic Covenant” (unpublished Th.D., Dallas
Theological Seminary, 1956), 28.
[15] Roderick
Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board
of Christian Education, 1936), 14.
[16] C.B. Bass, Backgrounds
to Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 9.
[17] Fuller,
“The Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism,” 6.
[18] John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham, 1959), 92.
[19] Charles
Hodge, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1940), 1:535.
[20] William G.
T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (New York: Scribners, 1889), 1:448.
[21] Woodring,
“Grace Under the Mosaic Covenant,” 42.