A while back I was reading through Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism by John H. Gerstner (Draper, VA: Apologetics Group Media, 2009 updated edition]) and came across some profound insights he shared regarding the role “literal interpretation” plays in dispensationalism. Many on both sides of the dispensationalism vs. Covenant Theology debate think the issue of a literal, or “overly-literal” hermeneutic determines the debate. If you use the “proper hermeneutic”, from dispensationalism’s perspective, you will interpret the Bible like dispensationalists do.
Gerstner argues that this is not the case. The literal method employed by dispensationalists stems from their pre-conceived over-arching views of prophecy and the Scripture, not the other way around. In pointing this out, I think he helps both sides to see that the argument isn’t as all-pervasive and wholistic as some make it out to be. Listen to Dr. Gerstner below, as I really think he hits on something very important for all to consider, when it comes to our interpretation of Scripture.
…there is a small area of Scripture, mainly in the area of prophecy, where there is a lively debate as to whether one interprets literally or figuratively. The vast proportion of Scripture is admitted by both sides to be either obviously literal or obviously figurative. It is only in a relatively few disputed areas where we differ with one another. Only there does the question whether Scripture is to be taken literally or figuratively arise. We should not accuse the dispensationalists of being absolute literalists nor should they accuse non-dispensationalists of being absolute spiritualizers. We are all literalists up to a certain point. At the point where we differ, there is a tendency for the dispensationalists to be literalistic where the non-dispensationalist tends to interpret the Bible figuratively. But to say on the basis of that limited divergence of interpretation that the two schools represent fundamentally different approaches is not warranted.
Many on both sides think that this minor “hermeneutical” difference is a more foundational difference than the theological. I profoundly disagree for I believe that the dispensational hermeneutic is driven by an a priori commitment to dispensational theological distinctives… (pg. 80)
Gerstner proceeds to show how in prophecy even dispensationalists find figures of speech and don’t interpret literally across the board. He talks of O.T. Allis’ “point(ing) out that they [i.e. dispensationalists] tend to reverse the usual view and instead of reading history literally and prophecy figuratively, they spiritualize history and literalize prophecy. Israel must mean Israel, Canaan must mean Canaan. On the other hand, Eve, Rebecca, and Zipporah may be viewed as spiritual types and branch is a symbol.” (ibid, pg. 81)
He then goes on to cite a non-controversial (at least to the participants of this intramural debate) example which highlights how the “literal method” is quite powerless to settle this theological debate.
The real point of divergence is that dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists have different conceptions of what constitutes a plausible interpretation. The question of what is plausible is, it should be noted, a theological rather than an interpretive question.
Let us take a biblical example. Some of the most controverted words in history are Christ’s “this is my body” at the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Luke 22:19). There is no disagreement abut the words this, my, or body. They are construed literally by all concerned. The debate concerns the interpretation of the word is. Some say is should be taken literally; that is, it is understood to mean literal identity of body and bread, of blood and wine. Others say that is should be taken non-literally or metaphorically; that is, to mean “represents”. There is nothing in linguistics, per se, that will ever settle that question. There is no non-arbitrary way (nor can there be) of saying that the word cannot mean something other than its usual meaning.
At the Colloquy of Marburg (1529), Luther agreed with that as he defended his principle, “literal wherever possible.” His opponents, likewise, agreed with him on that principle. But Luther thought it was necessary to take is literally…. The Swiss theologians, Zwingli and Oecolampadius, found it palpably absurd that Christ could hold the bread in His hand (His body) and mean that that bread actually was His body. Both interpreters started as always with the literal meaning intending to accept it if possible. One found it necessary and possible in this case; the other found it absurd and impossible. (ibid, pg. 83)
I think perhaps some of the rancor and bitterness in the dispensational-covenantal debate would subside if we took a more measured assessment of the actual differences between the two sides. We shouldn’t try to claim the high ground in the debate by denying the other view has a concern for Biblical truth, or that they are only and always overly literal, or excessively spiritualistic. Truth be told, we differ in the realm of prophecy, primarily. And the differences do not of necessity lead one down the road of total theological error. No matter which position is right, people can hold it and avoid the extremes (of say John Hagee on one side or liberal/postmodern theology on the other).
*Note: bolded emphasis is mine, I standardized the italicization of individual words where appropriate, too.
Thanks, Bob. I know that I tend to have a root of bitterness when I approach the topic.
Regarding the assertion that the hermeneutic follows the system, I must concur. This is, in fact, how the dispensational system was worked out historically. Please consider that the main tenants of the dispensationalist system were in place well before there was a Dallas Seminary to systematize them. The hermeneutic, at least historically, did not drive the system, but rather the reverse.
This does not overthrow the system by any means, but it is a good thing to keep in mind when we are told that the proper hermeneutic demands the dispensational system.
Case in point: consider Babylon in Isaiah chapters 13 and 14. Many Dispensational interpreters would consider the overthow of Babylon to be the destruction of the world system at the end of the tribulation period, but yet, the word Israel can only mean physical Hebrew descendants in this same passage.
I’m not saying that this is the wrong interpretation, per se. I only mean to point out there are inconsistencies – as all man-made efforts to systematize God’s Word do.
Bob,
Thanks. This really hits the nail on the head. The issue is not so much whether or not we subscribe to the hermeneutic, “literal whenever possible.” Both dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists accept this principle, because it’s the only way we can read anything with the anticipation of understanding what is said. However, when the text itself causes us to read something as symbolic, rather than literal, we shift our understanding accordingly. We must. The literal hermeneutic causes us to see a non-literal intent by the author. Dispensationalists do this as much as others, when their eschatology is not threatened. Both, for example, believe Hagar is a symbol for the Mosaic Law, because the NT spells this out in unmistakable terms. (Galatians 4:24,25) Hagar MUST be understood in a non-literal way in this passage because the text requires it. “Literal whenever possible” is employed by both, because it is clear to both that literal is not possible in this instance. Paul rendered literal impossible by His Spirit-inspired allegory.
Where the rub comes in, it seems to me, is when the NT handles an OT text in a symbolic way that dispensationalists have already interpreted literally before they factor in the NT evidence. Literal whenever possible is understood to mean something like, “Because I am able to understand this OT text in a literal sense, it must be interpreted literally.” End of story. If the NT interprets it symbolically, too bad. The NT interpretation must be sublimated to the literal interpreation derived by the literal hermeneutic. The NT must be “toned down” in such a way that it does not interfere with the interpretation already settled by the literal hermeneutic.
But shouldn’t the NT information be considered BEFORE the interpretation of the OT passage is locked in? It’s not that non-dispensatonalists are “spiritualizing” whereas dispensationals are interpretating literally. It is that non-dispensatonalists are taking the NT information into account to determine whether a literal interpretation is in fact possible. Is it possible when only the OT is considered? Yes. Is a literal interpretation possible once the NT information is added to the equation? No. The inspired NT writers have altered what is now possible. It is no longer possible to interpret this OT passage that is quoted and explained in the NT literally, unless interpreted by ignoring the NT evidence.
Gerstner is right. Both employ the same hermeneutic. But the range of what is “possible” narrows when one considers the NT evidence alongside the OT.
Cordially,
Greg
best said that I have ever seen
I remember asking Dr. Gerstner why his entire manuscript was not published? He told me the original manuscript was much fuller the the final publication. The publisher thought it was “too much.” He said, “it’s two theological divisions because it’s two hermeneutical systems.” I believe presuppositional apologetics and dispensational theology is the post modern equivalent to scholastic nominlism.
Good thoughts, Alex and Greg. Interesting, Martin. I’m not sure if the copy I have is the expanded version he hoped for, it’s the 2009 edition from Apologetics Media group.
And I say that what’s saauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: covenant theologians abandon normal hermenuetic rules whenever they approach 2 signature doctrines — paedobaptism and amillennialism.
Bob,
We could probably chat for hours on this subject…however, if I could throw in my dispensational understanding of the difference – it is in the difference of how we understand the “canonical” concept within interpretation. A dispensationalist would argue that progressive revelation means that we gain more inspired content over time – we gain in the quantity of revelation that we have. The Covenant Theologian would argue (mainly Waltke – and I realize that one character isn’t necessarily endemic of the whole) that progressive revelation means an increase in both quantity and quality of revelation – that is to say, that later revelation “trumps” (for lack of a better term) earlier revelation – that it can change or add meaning, or find some sort of deeper meaning. Progressive Dispensationalism tries to hold on to both hermeneutical concepts (Bock), but leans towards CT with the sensus plenior.
I don’t think Gerstner’s treatment of dispensationalism as a whole is fair…but that is a different discussion.
That’s funny, C.A. Many dispensationalists I know treat the NT as the only part of the Bible that really applies to Christians today. How is that attitude not a qualitative viewpoint on the NT?
I would argue that both in the Old Testament’s use of earlier OT revelation, and in the New Testament’s use of earlier revelation, we have a pattern for how to understand Scripture that is given to us. Furthermore, I think interpreting the unclear in light of clearer revelation is wise. There is much in the New Testament which is very clear about how we are to view the church, and with regard to the new covenant. Some prophetic texts are certainly open to different readings and are not as patently direct or clear. It is wise to let the clear influence our handling of the unclear.
Speaking of talking, I’m still game for lunch sometime. I had a chance to chat with Dr. Bauder a couple weeks ago, and enjoyed that quite a bit.
In Christ,
Bob
Actually, isn’t the OT pretty much a Jewish history book. Paul himself never brought the OT into the NT church in his writings. When you state that you have to clearly understand the scriptures, you need to filter that through what Jesus said in John 5:39-40. When Paul says ‘Old things have passed away’, I wonder if much of the old things are contained in the Old Testament.
John,
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Paul repeatedly quotes the OT and applies it to his day. He says the OT is written for our edification. See such places as 1 Cor. 10:1-13 and Rom. 15:1-7. He says he is the minister of the “new covenant”, a concept explicitly discussed in the OT. He also argues on the basis of the innate goodness of the OT law, as in 1 Cor. 9:8-10.
There is a classic brand of Dispensationalism that treats the Church as hermentically sealed-off from anything Old Testamental. This idea is easily disproved by amateur Bible students spending just a half-hour looking up passages. Darby, Chafer, et.al. were infatuated with their big-picture system, and ignored a lot of the biblical data.
But covenant theology is like their “evil-universe” twins. IMO, Reformed theologians are myopic regarding the elements of discontinuity and progression between the testaments. They chronically drift into “Christianizing” the Sinaitic law (you would never find the Theonomy heresy emerging out of any Dispensational circles). And their a priori determination to adhere to infant baptism causes them to deny the NT teaching on the regenerate/confessing nature of the Christian congregation, which strews even more confusion. It might also explain why the Reformed (in my practical experience) show so little interest in the Holy Spirit, since the giving of the Spirit is the signature event of the New covenant. Most of the Reformed people I know talk about the New Covenant as if it is nothing more than a rehabbed, freshened-up iteration of the Old Covenant, if they talk about it at all. The covenant of grace precept mashes ewverything into one big covenantal lump.
Jack you are astute, I think, in your observations. I have been hesitant to embrace everything that CT is. But what is painfully clear to me is the ultra dispensationalism of Darby and Chafer and that view of Israel and the Church is clearly wrong. The dispensational circles I was in, still touted the Scofield Bible and followed Walvoord and Ryrie closely. I think the strict separation of Israel and the Church is unwarranted Biblically. But the idea of different stages in how God administrates His dealings with man seems right. I just see that as more in the progressive unveiling of covenants. And as a Baptist, I do stress the newness of the new covenant, more than CT would.
If classical Dispensationalists struggle to explain Paul’s use of the Law as a guide for Christian morality, given their own precepts, Reformed theologians have struggled for centuries to explain how the Law relates to the “covenant of grace.”
Many of the ones I’ve debated with on-line reacted strongly against any suggestion that there was any sort of antithesis between the Law and the Gospel, despitr Jeremiah’s prophecy in Jer 31. I thought was a dangerous denial to make, because it puts yuou onto a Judaizing flight path.
They all wanted to make the Law a manifestation of saving grace, driven to say this by their presupposition of the “covenant of grace.” I tried to advocate the idea that the Law served the gracious purposes of God in His over-all plan of redemption, while at the same time not being a grace covenant in itself, but they would have none of that.
I was building my view of the Law very much out of Galatians, and certain chapters in Hebrews, but the Reformed people with whom I was discussing (including a few Reformed preachers and elders) this didn’t seem at all tuned into Galatians, or even know its contents. They sometimes denied outright the statements that Hebrews makes about the futility and non-saving nature of the Law.
Jack –
Your argument makes no sense to me. Are you sure these were CTers you were debating with. Classic dispensationalists are likely to see the covenant at Sinai as giving salvation for obedience to the law, whereas CTers do not. They believe that salvation has always been of grace. Everyone believes the purpose of the law is to show men their sin and drive them to Christ. Perhaps what you are misunderstanding is that the CTer sees the law as being a publishing of God’s royal standard of Holiness – a summary of the righteous obligations for man. Many see this as a summary of the universal moral law, binding upon all men of all ages, in order to be righteous before God.
The Covenant of Grace is simply the acknowledgment that God has had one plan of Salvation, purposed in Himself, before the world was created, for the salvation of fallen men. This plan was revealed in fuller and more clear steps, from Genesis 3:15 until the coming of Christ.
I hope that helps.
Classic dispensationalists are likely to see the covenant at Sinai as giving salvation for obedience to the law,
Of course, the Bible teaches that if you could keep the Law, then God owe you salvation as your due. But all classic dispensationalists, including Scofield, taught that it wasn’t possible to do. The famous Scofield note was used in a slanderous fashion by Reformed partisans to, frankly, lie that Scofield taught that salvation was by law-keeping. Well, salvation could indeed be yours if you could keep the law — which no one can.
I do not believe I am misunderstanding anything, though perhaps you would consider that there are many Presbyterians who are dangerously tainted with (or sympathetic toward) Catholic sacramentalism, which then discolors their interpretation of the Law’s ceremonies. I have been screamed at (on-line) by a CRC pastor that the priestly laws transmitted saving grace to the worshipers. But he was also a Federal Vision fan, so perhaps that would explain some of it.
Classical Dispensationalism always taught that there is only one plan of salvation, by grace, through faith. Gerstner maintained that fiction in his abysmal book about dispensationalism. But their teaching that there was a hypothetical possibility of salvation through perfrect law-keeping was used as a propaganda stick to beat them with.
I will also add that it has been demonstrated that classical Reformed writers of the same period said the exact same things about the Law that Scofield did.
Jack –
You are simply wrong on Scofield. I have a Scofield Bible and have lived most of my life under classic Dispensationalism. The system, as taught by that school is that the Bible is comprised of 7 Dispensations – Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Grace, and the Kingdom. According to the system, each dispensation is a test for mankind with respect to God’s revealed truth of that system. In effect, during each time period, God offers salvation through a different test of mankind. The present age of grace is temporary and will ultimately come to an end when the church fails and Christ raptures the remaining Gentile believers. God then returns his attention to the Israelite people who continue where the Old Testament left off. A Temple will be erected where sacrifices and legal obedience are necessary to salvation. Jews can and will lose their salvation during this period, based upon their obedience. When Christ returns, the Kingdom that was promised to the Jews takes place and ushers in the last Dispensation. The beauty of the system is that is shows man to fail with respect to any test God will give them – even free grace!
That is the whole Scofield system – it is the system I grew up in and the system all of my IFB family members believe to this day. The system is very self-consistent and is more far-reaching than one simple note. If you have found any “classic” Reformed authors who believe that man is saved apart from the grace of God, I’d like to see the quotes.
By the way (I’m sure you’ll agree), if a man were to keep the whole law of God, God would not ‘owe’ him salvation, but rather, that man would be righteous. He would require no salvation as he would already be just.
Regarding the following (I’m sure you’ll agree here as well):
> “Well, salvation could indeed be yours if you could keep the law — which no one can.”
No one will see God without perfect righteousness – perfect obedience to the full intent of God’s law. How is this possible? It is in that a substitute was obedient on our behalf. We have all our Holiness in Christ. So, in a sense, salvation is purely of works! What makes salvation of grace is that it is Christ’s work which he freely bestows upon us.
For example, I just Google’d “Rightly Dividing Dispensations” and I find this as my first hit:
https://www.biblelife.org/dispensations.htm
Note that these good folks are presenting what they sincerrely believe to be Scofield’s system. Note also that there is a new and different Gospel in each dispensation. I’m sure one could find manifold witnesses like this.