6
STRATEGY FOR DIALOG
WITH DISPENSATIONALISTS

What happens when people get into arguments for and against dispenstionalism? The first skirmishes are usually theological. People disagree over some question of doctrine, concerning eschatological events, concerning the relation of the OT law to the Christian, or concerning some other such question. But the arguments soon involve particular verses of Scripture. People disagree over exegesis (the meaning one assigns to a particular passage). Yet exegesis is not enough. The essence of the difference is over hermeneutics (general principles for interpreting the Bible). Dialogue will not get far unless it confronts the hermeneutical issues head-on.

20. The pertinence of exegesis

Shall we, then, confine our arguments to the level of hermeneutical principle? No. Most dispensationalists are rightly suspicious of argument that appeals only to general principles, whether these principles are hermeneutical or theological. They want to see arguments based on particular texts. Hence observations with regard to hermeneutics are unlikely to be very useful or very effective unless they are tied in with exegesis (the interpretation of particular texts).

But exegesis can easily become side-tracked by multiplying the number of texts under discussion. Well-trained dispensationalists and nondispensationalists alike have multitudes of texts at their disposal. When confronted with difficulties in the interpretation of one text, they appeal to another which, they think, shows that their interpretation of the first text is correct. The opponents quickly find themselves frustrated, and often out of their depth, because they cannot agree with the interpretation of even one of these texts. They find themselves called upon to reinterpret a large number of texts simultaneously. Since the texts can be discussed effectively and thoroughly only one at a time, the discussion may only confirm to each side the impression of its correctness and the obtuseness of the other side. Each side simply sees the text in the light of a gestalt, in the light of a system. And the system itself is built up using many other texts. Those many other texts must be appealed to in order to explain the system thoroughly to the outsider.

As a nondispensationalist hoping to persuade dispensationalists, I have found two texts to be of particular usefulness: Heb 12:22-24, and, subordinately, 1 Cor 15:51-53. I have chosen these passages because they are useful in one direction of the argument: they are useful in inviting classic dispensationalists to rethink some of their views. Classic dispensationalists themselves will probably be the best judges of what passages they would themselves choose as a basis for discussion going the other way.

Both kinds of discussion are to be welcomed for the sake of learning from one another. But I cannot pretend to represent dispensationalists as well as they would represent themselves. From here on, then, I will focus on the two texts, Heb 12:22-24 and 1 Cor 15:51-53, and on related hermeneutical questions. I will be looking at ways in which classic dispensationalists might be helped by focusing on the texts and on hermeneutical principles. Modified dispensationalists will also find these texts of interest in their dialog with classic dispensationalists. I am less certain which would be the best texts for a dialog between modified dispensationalists and nondispensationalists. Modified dispensationalists and nondispensationalists display considerable variety among themselves. Moreover, as we have seen (chapters 3 and 4), the views of the two groups approach one another closely at many points. Heb 12:22-24 and 1 Cor 15:51-53 will still be of considerable interest to them. But because of the greater measure of agreement, dialog over these texts will take on a different complexion.

What happens in the case of dialog with classic dispensationalists? In this case, appeal to the texts in themselves is not enough. One ought to discuss them in a way that appeals alternately to hermeneutical principles and to exegesis. Only in that way will the underlying hermeneutical principles come to the surface. By using the key texts, the interpreter can bring up the hermeneutical principles in a concrete way. This will help to show that hermeneutical practice in classic dispensationalism does not and cannot live up to its theory.

Aside from the above two texts, I believe that, in general, the best strategy for critics discussing particular texts is to admit freely that at least two interpretations of the text are possible: one that makes sense when one operates within a classic dispensationalist system, and one that makes sense when one operates within the critic's system. By operating this way, critics can achieve two positive goals. First, they can build friendship with dispensationalist dialog partners, by showing that they are able to stand in the other person's shoes and listen sympathetically. They may learn more about the Bible. And they will learn more about what it is like to be a dispensationalist interpreter. They may say, "Yes, I see that using these principles it makes sense to argue that the text means thus and so." This will help them not to make fun of things that seem crazy when viewed from outside the classic dispensationalist system. At the same time, they can help to make dispensationalists more aware of the way in which their system as a whole forms an all-important input for exegesis. Critics place over against one another two whole frameworks (a dispensationalist framework and their own nondispensationalist framework). Then they say, "Let us see how each works when applied to a particular text." This makes it more apparent that it is not simply a question of obtuseness over the meaning of one text, or lack of knowledge of the existence of some other supporting prooftext.

21. Particular theological issues

The theological issues separating dispensationalist evangelicals from nondispensationalist evangelicals are difficult to discuss orally in a short period of time, because often they involve the integration of the contents of a large number of biblical texts. Serious wrestling about theological integration is, in general, best left for times of reading and meditation on the Bible. But critics may still find it helpful to set forth the theological issues in a brief way orally, so that dispensationalists can have opportunity to reflect on them later. Three areas of reflection seem to me to be the most fruitful.

First, there is the issue of the church's inheritance of OT promises.¹ The essence of the theological issue here can be posed very simply. To which of the promises of the OT is Christ heir? Is he an Israelite? Is he the offspring of Abraham? Is he the heir of David? The answer must be, "No matter how many promises God has made, they are 'Yes' in Christ" (2 Cor 1:20). Now, to which of these promises are Christians heirs in union with Christ? Theologically, it is hard to resist the answer, "All of them." After all, "in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority" (Col 2:9-10). One cannot neatly divide between heavenly and earthly blessings, because there is only one Christ, and we receive the whole Christ. The resurrection of the body and the renewal of creation in Christ touch also the physical aspects of existence (Rom 8:22-23). As Paul says, "He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things" (Rom 8:32). It is no exaggeration, then, when Paul says that the "world" (which must include the land of Palestine!) is ours (1 Cor 3:21-23). We will return to this issue in chapters 12-13.

A second theological issue is that of the nature of OT symbolism. The atmosphere of God's revelation in the OT was an atmosphere suffused with eschatological hope. This hope focused on the last days, and was oriented to God's heavenly dwelling. In that context, I believe, the most "literalistic" reading of eschatological prophecy is not the best. We will take up this issue at greater length when we discuss the meaning of "literalness" (chapters 8-11).

Third, there is the issue of how the Bible itself is to be used in the controversy. I would reason thus. Can we agree that one of the issues, perhaps the key issue, most distinguishing dispensationalists from nondispensationalists is the issue of the interpretation of OT? This issue includes within itself both the question of "dispensations" or redemptive epochs, the question of Israel and the church, and the question of "literalism" in interpretation. Moreover, the issue of the interpretation of OT prophecy is a key subdivision of this issue. I believe, then, that this is the key theological issue to consider.

How do we go about finding the Bible's own teaching on the subject? By reading the Bible, of course. But that is a big project. Is there some particular passage of the Bible which addresses this issue more directly and speaks to it at greater length than any other place in the Bible? I believe that there is: the whole Book of Hebrews. If this is so, we should be concerned to base our own doctrine of the interpretation of the OT primarily on this passage. In the case of the doctrine of justification, for instance, we start with the two great passages in Romans 3-4 and Galatians 3. Then we integrate into the doctrine minor passages like James 2. What would happen if we reversed the procedure? Suppose we tried to fit the major passage or passages into a scheme that we had derived almost wholly from a few verses, verses whose implications might not be absolutely clear in themselves. We would be much more liable to error and distortion that way.

I propose, then, both to myself and to my dispensationalist friends, the following discipline. Let us all devote ourselves to reading, studying, and meditating on the Book of Hebrews. Let us ask the Lord to teach us how to interpret the OT properly, and understand the relation of the OT to the NT properly. Let none of us come with the attitude, "I will see whether there is some way or other of understanding Hebrews such that it confirms my own views." Let us not struggle to have it simply confirm our previously existing views. Rather, let us cast those views aside so far as we genuinely can. Let us subject them to criticism wherever things in the Book of Hebrews point us in that direction. Let us be humble listeners wherever Hebrews leads us.

I do not think that there is any danger in this discipline. The Bible is able to protect us from going astray. We do not need a tight clinging to our previous beliefs in order to be safe. In fact, we will not be safe if we are not open to having the Bible challenge even views that we dearly cherish.

Moreover, I think that something like this is probably the ideal way for people who are unsure of their own position to make up their minds. No doubt one of the reasons God has provided us with the Book of Hebrews is so that we would have a safe and sure starting point and guide into the complexities of intepreting the OT. It has proved to be that in my life: the above discipline was one of the ways whereby I came to make up my mind. I am confident that it will be so in many others' lives.

But because the Book of Hebrews is such a large text, I cannot give a full discussion of it here. We shall have to go on to other issues. But in chapter 12 we will devote attention to one key passage of Hebrews, namely Heb 12:22-24.