Hermenevtika dispenzacijske teologije

Koala-spis

Povzetek
Ceprav obstajajo razlicni kljucni principi hermanevtike dispenzacijske teologije, bomo pogledali tiste, za katere zagovorniki sami trdijo, da so kljucni ter jih kriticno ocenili. Dva najbolj pomembna principa sta: razlika med Izraelom in Cerkvijo in dosledna dobesedna razlaga cele Biblije. Nas zakljucek je, da ti principi, ceprav pravilno poskusajo braniti avtoriteto Biblije in njeno njeno nezmotljivost, prav tako napacno razumejo naravo Cerkve kot Bozjega ljudstva, novega clovestva Judov in Poganov, ustanovljenega v Kristusu (Ef 2:13-18). To novo clovestvo ima tako skupne kot razlicne karakteristike od Bozjega ljudsva v Stari zavezi. Drugic, ne upostevajo literarnega zanra teksta in koncno, ne upostevajo Kristocentricne hermanevtike Stare zaveze kot to vidimo v primeru Apostolov, to je, nacin na katerega Nova zaveza interpretira Staro zavezo in vidi njeno izpolnitev v dogodku Kristusa.

Synopsis
Despite different views on what the key hermeneutical principles are in dispensationalism, we look at those that dispensationalists themselves claim to be the guiding principles. The two most important principles they set out are: the distinction between Israel and the Church and consistent literal interpretation across the whole Bible. We conclude that these principles while rightly trying to defend the authority of the Bible and its inerrancy, they also first, fail to see the nature of the church as God's people, a new humanity of Jews and Gentiles, established in Christ (Eph 2:13-18). This new humanity has its continuity and discontinuity with the people of God from the Old Testament. Second, they fail to see the literary nature of the texts and finally, they fail to employ Christological hermeneutics of the Old Testament as we see in the example of the Apostles, that is, the way New Testament uses the Old Testament and sees its fulfilment in the event of Christ.

What is dispensationalism?
What has become to be known as "dispensationalism" refers to a theological system with beginnings in the nineteenth-century Plymouth Brethren movement in Britain, and particularly John Darby (1800-1882). It has been systematised later by Lewis Sperry Chafer in his Systematic Theology (1948), and particularly by the authors of Scofield Reference Bible (1909, reprinted in 1917, and revised in 1967). General feature of dispensationalism is seeing God's outworking of his plan for the world through different stages in history, commonly called "dispensations." Ryrie, one of the main proponents of dispensationalism in the second half of the 20th century, says that dispensation is "a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God's program." Other features have gone through some modifications since its beginning. One important change had to do with the understanding of the new covenant. Philadelphia College of Bible emphasised that there is only one new covenant. Before that, new covenant promises were considered to be for future Israel only; the church had no part in any of them. Then the revision was made by Chafer who argued for the two covenants, one for national Israel (Jer 31:31-34, Heb 8:7-12) and one for the church (Lk 22:20). Scofield later argued for one new covenant with an "already-not yet" fulfilment emphasising the "not yet." Another challenge came in the '90s touching upon the issue between "literal" and "spiritual" understanding. This led to so called "progressive dispensationalism" of which one well known proponent is Darrell E. Bock. The difference here is that he holds a complementary view of the relationship between the Old and New Testament. This view claims to be more integrative in the way it exegetes the Bible and more consistent in historical-literary interpretation. Bock explains the distinction between Israel and the church as applying it to a specific aspect of the structure of God's plan. They are distinctive in structure but not in theological-redemptive makeup of God's people. Abraham is the father of all who believe because all are saved on the basis of faith (Rom 4). All are headed for a destiny of total reconciliation where all shall be one (Rom 8, Rev 21-22).
Thus today we can make a general distinction between so called "traditional" and "progressive dispensationalism". In this essay we will asses the hermeneutics of traditional dispensationalism.

Essential characteristics
The first of the essential characteristics of traditional dispensational system according to Ryrie is: "consistent use of the hermeneutical principal of normal, plain, or literal interpretation. This principle does not exclude the use of figures of speech, but insists that behind every figure is a literal meaning." Other characteristics are: "Applying this hermeneutical principle leads dispensationalism to distinguish God's program for Israel from his program for the church. Thus the church did not begin in the OT but on the day of Pentecost, and the church is not presently fulfilling promises made to Israel in the OT that have not yet been fulfilled."
As Blaising correctly observed, we can see that literal interpretation and different dispensations (and other principles) are not exclusive features to dispensationalism. What then are really the distinguishing hermeneutical principles of dispensationalism? Paul S. Karleen claims that different hermeneutics is not the issue but that different assumptions in thinking are. Block on the other hand assumes that all interpret Scripture literary; the difference is how one relates the results of canonical integration. Then again Herbert argues that more central issue is "presuppositional preference of one testament over the other that determines a person's literal historical-grammatical hermeneutical starting point." He claims that New Testament approach tries to use the New Testament to bring into focus divine author's intent of an Old Testament text and thereby clarifies the human author's meaning. And he continues' "For dispensationalists, however, their historical-grammatical hermeneutics keeps a reference point in the Old Testament." And finally, Shepherd claims that literalism is not the fundamental principle, but inerrancy of Scripture is. These views are helpful to prevent false accusations against non-dispensationalists (as though they don't hold to literal meaning or different dispensations) and to see that there are other factors involved. But we will asses the hermeneutical principles as dispensationalists themselves have set them up. The first most important principle we will deal with is the distinction between Israel and the church and second principle is consistent literal interpretation which also touches upon the issue of fulfilment and author's meaning.

Distinction between Israel and the Church
We will argue that the distinction between Israel and the Church in dispensationalism is not the direct result of consistent literal reading but the presupposition which governs the other principles and is thus the governing hermeneutical principle of dispensationalism as a whole. In assessing this distinction we will argue that the distinction fails to see the true nature of the church and the continuity and discontinuity of God's dealing with his people.
Bock himself said of traditional dispensationalists that: "the rules of the game are determined principally before one reads the text. In effect, competing readings are ruled out by definition before the passages are looked at in their exegetical and canonical contexts." This reference is made in connection to their dispensational presupposition. Ryrie himself also claims that: "the understanding of God's differing economies is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies."
Which leads him to conclude that "the essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the Church." This means that before we come to interpret the text we need to distinguish different dispensations (and hence the distinction between Israel and the Church).
Non dispensationalists are sometimes guilty of the lack of clarity when it comes to the relationship between Israel and the church. They often speak of the church as though it overrode Israel because they rejected their Messiah. Stanley Grenz, when he speaks of the fulfilment of Joel 2 in Acts 2, says that Peter applied the vision not to national Israel but to the church. Statements like this can ignore the outworking of God's plan through Israel. Thus Bock sees that non dispensationalists argue that Israel becomes subsumed in the church, and dispensationalists argue that Israel retains an identity in God's plan. But in fact this is not true, when we define what church is and what her characteristics and roles are.
When Ryrie ponders that idea, he goes first to the New Testament. He sees the church distinctive in her members (Jews and Gentiles) and her new relationship: being in Christ and his indwelling in her. This is new, because these things were not experienced by the people of God in the Old Testament, claims Ryrie. He then claims that the living organism indwelt by Christ in which Jews and Gentiles are on equal basis is described as a mystery unknown in Old Testament times (Eph 2:15 only after Christ). "Since the church is the body of Christ the church could not have begun until Pentecost." Saying this fails to some extent to see both what the notion of the term "church" means and how it came about. Firstly, the term "church" (ekklesia) is used to refer to the gathering of God's people. In this sense it is used both in the Old and New Testament only that in the latter it became the dominant term for God's people (Deut 4:10, 9:10, Judg 20:2, 21:5, 8 etc.). Although the whole nation of Israel was chosen as God's people in the Old Testament the theology of remnant especially in the prophets implies that only some were really God's people. There were instances where the whole Israel was called "not my people" (Hosea 1:6-9).Thus at the end only the faithful remnant would remain (Hosea 1:10-11 from Judah, Isaiah 1:9, 4:2-6, 11:10-12). So we can understand why Paul talks about the outward and inward Jew (Rom 2:28-29), why he says that not all Israel is Israel (Rom 9:6) why he speaks of the remnant (Rom 9:24-29) and the incorporation of the Gentiles. There are also other important features which are new, to which Ryrie rightly points out, but those do not mean that there is such a sharp discontinuity.

As another proof, Ryrie points to the fact that Jews as a nation are mentioned even after the church was born (1.Cor 10:32). His conclusion is that the "use of the word Israel and church shows clearly that in the New Testament national Israel continues with her own promises and that the church is never equated with a so-called 'new Israel' but is carefully and continually distinguished as a separate work of God in this age." But how else, or by what other name, could Paul address the Jews? They did not physically cease to exist with Christ. As we said, Gentiles did not subsume Israel. Israel and the Church are not exclusive terms. Paul explains this in Rom 9:6-16. His conclusion is that Abraham's offspring are the children of promise and not the natural descendants. And we see that the children of promise are from both, natural descendants (from amongst the Jews) and from unnatural descendants (from amongst the Gentiles). Ryrie agrees with this when he says that believers of this age are Abraham's seed but not the only seed. But Ryrie's treatment of Rom 9:6 is peculiar. He says that the verse is not saying that "spiritual remnant within Israel is the church . It simply distinguishes the nation as a whole from the believing element within the nation." We don’t know what is the point of the remnant other that distinguishing them from the unbelieving element which is not acceptable to God and thus not heirs of the promises. That is exactly Paul's point in Rom 9:30-10:4.

Therefore it is not true that the church did not feature at all in the Old Testament or that there was no place for Gentiles in the promises. As Israel was the light to the world Gentiles could and did come to know God through them (Ruth, 1 Kings 10:6-9; Dan 2:46-48; 3:28-30; 4:34-37). But even greater incoming of Gentiles was promised and we see its fulfilment in the book of Acts because the eschatological age has dawned with the death and resurrection of the Christ (Is 11, 45:20, 66:19-21).
Now in the new covenant there is single new humanity (from among Jews and Gentiles) promised in the Old Testament and established in Christ (Eph 2:13-18), which is called "the church."

Literal interpretation, fulfilment and author's intent
Second most important hermeneutical principle in traditional dispensationalism is the use of consistent literal interpretation. Ryrie explains literal as the "interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It might also be designated plain interpretation so that no one receives the mistaken notion that the literal principle rules out figures of speech. Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. Ryrie claims that the difference is in the consistent use of this principle in all of the study of the Bible. The charge against non dispensationalists is that they allegorise and spiritualise prophecies. We will argue that while we are also committed to the same (or similar) consistent literal reading, dispensationalism does not take into account the genre of the text and the possibility of both literal and non literal fulfilment, thus they split passages into fulfilled/unfulfilled. Furthermore, dispensationalism does not take into the account the way Apostles (thus the New Testament) explain and use the Old Testament.
Dispensationalists are right to protect the literal reading of the Bible, particularly in the light of liberal theology which seeks to undermine the authority of the Bible as God's word. Thus we are also committed to read the text literally, of course having in mind the different genres of the text. We need to keep in mind that one book, or even one passage may contain different genres (Dan 1-6 and 7-12 or Psalm 22:1-5 and 22:6, 12-18). For this reason the content of the prophecies can be literal, metaphorical or symbolical and thus fulfilment would correspond accordingly. Ryrie claims that Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection were fulfilled literally and therefore we must interpret everything literally. It is true that some things were fulfilled literally because they were meant to be literal but not all (Is 22:22, Ps 118:22, Zech 13:7-14:20). But how do we know what is literal and what is not? Here dispensationalist employ the consistent literal reading which in our mind misses the way the Bible interprets itself. When we look into the New Testament we can see what aspects of Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection and its consequences were meant to be literal and what metaphorical. Thus we hold prophetic units together rather than splitting them. One example is Joel 2 and Acts 2. Joel 2:28-32 comes just after a promise of abundance of resources for Israel. After this Israel is to expect the outpouring of the Spirit on all people (v. 28) and wonders in the heavens and on earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke (v.30-31). Now, when we look at Peter's speech in Acts 2:14-24 we see that he claims that all these things happened in the time of Pentecost (the Spirit was given, wonders) and the ministry of Jesus (v.22, wonders). But we notice that the promise of wonders on heaven and on earth, blood, fire and smoke were not all fulfilled literally neither in Jesus' ministry nor at Pentecost even though Peter is quoting Joel 2 as the fulfilment at Pentecost (nor was the abundance of resources in Israel fulfilled literally) but they were all fulfilled nevertheless. Johnson argues against this by saying that Peter does not use the word "fulfilment", which is really beyond what the marks of fulfilment are. Other than claim, that only the giving of the Spirit was fulfilled. Thus we don't claim that we decide what is literal and what is metaphorical but that we look into the New Testament to see what the nature of fulfilment was. Dispensationalists don't take this into account when they insist, as Johnson does, that the promise must only include the original recipient and the original form. We can't presume to know what things have been fulfilled and what not without measuring it with the New Testament, as truth was both revealed and concealed in the visions. Walke rightly says that "If God promised the fathers $5 and he rewards them with $5,000, is he unfaithful?"
This expression reminds us that God's intention may be richer than human authors were aware (1 Peter 1:10-11). Here we might see how Shepherd is correct in saying that dispensationalists try to defend the factual inerrancy of the Bible. Namely if God has promised Israel earthly kingdom, how can this not be? Thus they resort to literalism. Dispensationalists then don't recognise the final and full revelation of God in the New Testament particularly in the person of Jesus Christ (Heb 1:1-3). They actually don't hold Christocentric hermeneutics. That is not say that New Testament denies Old Testament but it nevertheless gives the full picture (full as it is meant to be given) whereas the Old Testament was its shadow. This is because the revelation of the Father through his Son is the ultimate one to which the Old Testament was pointing to through its types (shadows) (Heb 3:1-6, 5:1-9; 7:23-10:18).

Conclusion
We have seen that while dispensationalism rightly tries to protect the Bible as the word of God and its inerrancy, it also fails to understand the literary mode of Biblical books. Shepherd claims that dispensationalism reflects the Baconian system of induction and classification, and thus scientific approach to reality and thus the Bible. As a result, it splits prophetic text into fulfilled/unfulfilled bits according to what fits reality. Furthermore, it fails to understand the flow of Biblical thought – there are not two hopes in the Bible, one for Israel and the other for the church (thus also nations). And most importantly, is fails to understand the centrality of the Christ event of which the whole New Testament testifies. Thus dispensationalists do not have the Christocentric hermeneutics which we see Apostles use. We will conclude with a quote from Waltke, which captures the main miss of dispensationalism:

"Though many Jews are yet to be saved and become a part of the one true people of God in Christ, the new man, God will never set them either apart or above saved Gentiles in Christ or restore to them the 'weak and beggarly' shadows of the Old Testament."


Bibliography of Sources Cited

Bateman, Herbert W. IV. 'Dispensationalism Yesterday and Today'. Pages 21-60 in Three central issues in contemporary dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.

Bock, Darrell L. 'Hermeneutics of progressive dispensationalism'. Pages 85-101 in Three central issues in contemporary dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.

Doyle, Robert C. Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1999.

Grenz, Stanley J. The Millennial Maze. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Johnson, Elliot E. 'Covenants in traditional dispensationalism'. Pages 121-155 in Three central issues in contemporary dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.

Johnson, Elliot E. 'A traditional Dispensational Hermeneutics'. Pages 63-76 in Three central issues in contemporary dispensationalism. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1999.

Karleen, Paul S. 'Understanding covenant theologians: A study in presuppositions'. Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 125-138.

Knox, Broughton D. 'The Church'. Pages 7-103 in D. Broughton Knox Selected Works, Volume II: Church and Ministry. Edited by Kirsten Birkett. Kingsford NSW: Matthias Media, 2003.

Poythress, Vern S. 'Response to Paul S. Karleen paper "Understanding covenant theologians"'. Grace Theological Journal 10.2 (1989): 147-155.

Poythress, Vern S. Understanding Dispensationalists. 2nd Edition. New Jersey: P&R Publishing, 1994.

Ramesh, Richard P. 'Selected Issues in Theoretical Hermeneutics'. Bibliotheca Sacra Vol. 143, No. 569 (Jan-Mar 1986): 14-25.

Ryrie, Charles C. 'Dispensation, Dispensationalism'. Pages 321-323 in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Revised and expanded edition, Chicago: Moody Press, 1995.

Shepherd, William H. Jr. 'Revelation and the Hermeneutics of Dispensationalism'. Anglican Theological Review Vol. 71, No. 3 (1989): 281-299.

Sterrett, Norton T. How to Understand Your Bible. Downer Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1974.


VanGemeren, Willem A. 'A Response'. Pages 331-346 in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.


Waltke, Bruce K. 'A Response'. Pages 347-359 in Dispensationalisn, Israel and the Church. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.


Other works consulted
Johnson, Elliot E. 'Author's Intention and Biblical Interpretation'. Pages 407-429 in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible. Edited by Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus. Grand rapids: Academie Books/Zondervan, 1984.