« Is Dispensationalism Biblical? | Main | Speculative Physics (part 2) »
Critiquing the Dispensational Hermeneutic
By pitchford | June 8, 2005
Dear _________,
For the sake of the name of our precious Savior whom we both serve, and in the bonds of his love, I trust that you will not count amiss my intrusion into your correspondence with Dave on the matter of this hermeneutic which, you say, leads to dispensationalism; and which is, in fact, “what every Christian must assume when he approaches the scriptures.” The specific content of this necessary hermeneutic which you propose is,
1) That God has communicated authoritatively in the form of human language.
2) Because of that presupposition [of authoritative communication], every document in the canon demands a reading on its own terms;
3) Because of that presupposition, the referent (the object of knowledge to which the symbols of language reach) and the sense (the proposition which the symbols form) of every text in the canon must remain stable.
Concerning these propositions, you add the following clarifying and emphasizing statements:
1) To say otherwise is to undermine the way language itself works.
2) The Dispensationalist hermeneutic must be assumed if one is going to argue against it.
The latter of these is particularly important, because it clarifies your intention of making the first three propositions identical with your understanding of what constitutes “the Dispensationalist hermeneutic.” And as it is the dispensational hermeneutic which I am interested in critiquing, it would perhaps be advantageous to examine these propositions, with respect both to their inherent reasonableness and their proposed conclusive force (i.e. dispensationalism).
The first proposition is one which, I trust, we have no real need to discuss. I would affirm its validity as heartily as you.
The second, however, is, in my estimation, a blatant non-sequitur. If there is a necessary syllogistic pathway from the first proposition to the next, by all means trace it for me; in the meantime, I have no trouble imagining a world in which God communicates authoritatively, and in which he communicates via a system of interdependent revelations. In fact, such texts as Hebrews 1:1,2 and I Peter 1:10-12 indicate a previous revelatory history which was varied, imperfect, and dependent upon the fuller revelation of Christ for the truest and fullest significance of its meaning.
The third is worded with an unfortunate element of ambiguity. By “stable” do you simply mean, “eternally containing the entirety of its significations within itself”? If this is your intended meaning, one that leaves completely undefined the interpreter of or the levels of the information propositionally conveyed, then I have no issue with it. I cannot, however, suppose that to be your meaning, as it does not necessarily lead to dispensationalism. What I must suppose you mean, therefore, is that each textual morpheme codifies an obvious, immediate referent; and that, beyond this “natural” understanding, no “secondary,” or “hidden,” or “spiritually-informed,” referent can possibly exist. This is where your second clarifying statement becomes essential for understanding the ramifications of your hermeneutic. In essence, you are saying that a unilateral field of linguistic codification is necessary for the transmission of any information whatsoever. But even the most cursory examination of language will reveal that this idea is simply not tenable. In order to facilitate the transmission of information, at least two things are necessary: a language which codifies external realities; and an intelligence which contains the information necessary to decodify its symbols. Hence, letters on paper or vocalized sound waves, as the case may be, are simply things-in-themselves, or primary phenomena, to animals or humans with no understanding of the particular language being employed. With enough information, however, a recipient can make the logical steps necessary to begin at four letters on a page (e.g. “Rock”) and arrive at a mental apprehension of a physical object composed variously of silica, mica, etc. This level of communication is what you seem to be arguing for: a simple, unilateral decodification informed by one level of previously existent knowledge. However, the very idea of language involves the necessity of the abstraction of objective realities, such as sounds and letters. Which is a significant principle for the following reason: if it is possible to convey objective truth based on human ability to see letters and jump to a materially unrelated object (a rock); then it must be equally possible for them to see a rock and jump to some other materially unrelated object (e.g. Christ). All that is necessary for this apprehension of information is an extension of prior interpretive knowledge. Essentially, it is identical to the most basic level of linguistic communication.
Furthermore, if the linguistic transmission of information involved the need for one “stable” referent for each morpheme, the possibility of any abstraction at all would perhaps be eliminated. At the least it would be dealt a very serious blow. What infant is there, in learning to speak, that is able to make an immediate jump from the code-sounds of such words as “selfishness,” “love,” “security,” “comfort,” and so on, to the abstractions that they signify, without any intervening steps? Without exception, I think you will find that infants learn the meaning of such abstractions by means of quasi-relatedness to certain essentially unrelated objective realities. An infant learns what it is to love by relating the word first to a series of events, actions, etc., that he sees in others, and which his mother commends to him, along with such enforcing observations as, “you need to be loving.” Initially, therefore, when he hears “love,” he is only able to decodify the term to the level of a series of actions. Eventually, he is able to take his decodification to a secondary step, and relate those actions to an abstract reality behind them. This secondary level of linguistic reference is therefore vital for abstract communication. It certainly does not “undermine the way language itself works.”
If there is the possibility of certain, reliable communication in a multi-level field of codification, provided the necessary interpretive information is available, the question now becomes, “What information is necessary to arrive at the secondary codifications of scriptural morphemes?” Certainly, even the most staunch dispensationalist would recognize the multiplicity of levels of codification to some extent. When Christ calls Herod a “fox,” the immediate referent of that morpheme is simply a four-legged animal. However, given certain information — the nature of foxes, the cultural understanding of the comparison, the nature of King Herod, etc. — the interpreter can arrive at a secondary level of information and assume certain abstract things about Herod. If this cultural, biological interpretive information is solid enough for a certain apprehension of secondary levels of meaning in a text, then we must be forced to ask the question, what is it about Christ-centered relevance through the inspired writings of the apostles that makes it a less solid informational basis for interpreting “that Rock” on a secondary level? Is the later clarification of God himself less reasonable than simple “obvious allusive material” for determining a secondary meaning? Why is it obvious that someone referring to a person as a “fox” involves at least two levels of decodification for genuine understanding? It must be simply that the author who codified a four-legged beast as the linguistic morpheme “fox” gave sufficient evidence through context, etc., that he was also codifying that four-legged beast as the abstraction of “cunning.” If the authorial intent of a morpheme clearly involves a secondary meaning, either through his own first-level interpretation or through a self-evident set of circumstances, then no dispensationalist denies that secondary meaning. With one exception: the first-level interpretation of the Author of the entirety of biblical revelation. If God codifies the abstraction of his own chosen people related to him in a national sense with the historical reality of an objective people, the Jews; and later clarifies that even this external object was a code for those related to him spiritually in the covenant of grace (as, for example, in Romans 2, 4, 9, Galatians 3, 4, Ephesians 2,3, etc.) — if God himself so interprets the primary codification as explicable in terms of a secondary level of codification, then how can we deny the legitimacy of this dual-level transmission of information — particularly when we affirm the legitimacy of dual-level hermeneutics all the time with such statements as, “he has a cold heart.”?
If the foregoing is true, then your statement that any multi-level hermeneutic undermines the nature of language is patently false. But to take the argument a step further, I would suggest that a multi-level understanding of scriptures is necessary to understand the whole. Let’s walk through a couple of syllogisms:
Major Premise: The referent of a linguistic code must remain stable and unchanged for the transmission of information.
Minor Premise: The referent of “rock” in Exodus 17:6 is a physical/geological outcropping.
Minor Premise: Some degree of change is inherent in the interpretation that sees the referent of “rock” as Christ.
Conclusion: Therefore, the hermeneutic that sees the referent of “rock” in Exodus 17:6 as Christ destroys the possibility of the transmission of information.
Now, another:
Major Premise: In I Corinthians 10, Paul declares that the referent of “rock” in Exodus 17:6 is Christ.
Minor Premise: The equation of “rock” with Christ destroys the possibility of the transmission of information.
Conclusion: I Corinthians 10 destroys the possibility of the transmission of information.
I could continue with these syllogisms, but I think my point is clear: what you see as a necessary hermeneutic for understanding scriptures in reality destroys the reliability of those scriptures. That I am not dealing with a straw man, but with your hermeneutic genuinely perceived, should be patently clear: your hermeneutic would strictly forbid me to go straight to Exodus 17 and interpret “rock” as “Christ” on pains of the utter dissolution of communicative ability. When Paul does this very thing, he must not be subscribing to a similar view of hermeneutics. And if Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, evinces a substantially different hermeneutic than you had presupposed, the choice which therefore confronts you between his hermeneutic and yours should be an easy one for a Christian affirming the inerrancy of scriptures to make. In the end, it must boil down to a recognition of the Author of scriptures, and his authorial (not to mention divine) prerogatives. If I, as an author, told a story — or as a painter sketched a picture, or as a sculptor formed a statue, etc. — and then decided to explain in first-level language the second-level significance that I intended that work to have, as its author I would have every right to do so. Any hermeneutic which demands that God must inspire each individual book so that it may be fully apprehended by “a reading on its own terms,” and allows him no authorial liberty to foreshadow in second-level symbols what he intends to clarify in subsequent revelatory books through first-level language — any such hermeneutic is dangerously presumptive, and flies in the face of clear New Testament interpretive patterns.
Please understand my comments as I intend them: written in love from one worshipper of Christ to another. I write because I am convinced of the truth and importance of these things, and I trust that God will use your studies as well as mine for the purpose of the mutual edification of Christ’s body, until we all arrive at the unity of the full faith.
In Christ,
Nathan
Topics: Articles, Dispensationalism |
June 19th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
With regard to the blatant non-sequitor, here’s what I left implied:
Stated Presupposition: God has communicated authoritatively in the form of human language.
Tacit Presupposition: God has communicated authoritatively in the form of several human documents which are interdependent but distinct.
Tacit Presupposition: Full apprehension includes relating the whole to its parts and relating the parts to their whole.
Tacit Presupposition: When we speak of Scripture (the several-but-interdependent set of human documents which are God’s authoritative communication in writing), the ostensible parts of the whole are the individual documents themselves. There may be parts which fit organizationally above these documents (e.g. testaments) which constitute a whole unit comprised of these documents, and which themselves constitute a part of the Scriptures as a whole unit. There are certainly parts which fit organizationally below these documents (e.g. paragraphs/pericopes). Yet the documents are certainly distinct parts of the whole of Scripture.
Conclusion: A necessary part of fully apprehending the whole of the Scriptures is the interpretation of its constituent parts. Or, in other words, every document in the canon demands a reading on its own terms.
Clarification: The phrase “on its own terms” is probably a poor choice of phrase. What I mean is that in order to understand a document certain areas should be explored, for instance, the grammar and syntax of the original text to the degree that we can establish it, and the occasion and purpose of the original document in the original historical situation.
Clarification: I hope drawing out these tacit presuppositions helps you see that dispensationalists are not enemies of interdependence. Full apprehension develops from relating the whole to its parts as well as the parts to their whole. I do not believe we are in disagreement that the OT is, in many areas, “dependent upon the fuller revelation of Christ for the truest and fullest significance of its meaning.” The statement “Every document demands a reading on its own terms” does not mean “God must inspire each individual book so that it may be fully apprehended by ‘a reading on its own terms.’” Grammar, history, and theology are all needed in coming to a full apprehension of the documents as parts and of the Scripture as a whole.
Clarification: I also hope that this response has made clear that I do not believe that my hermeneutic “necessarily lead[s] to dispensationalism.” While we are certainly allowed to call each other out for breaking the hermeneutical rules, the rules themselves are part of the image of God and Christian worldview. They are axiomatic, and pagans make fools of themselves when they try to modify them.
Observation: Your discussion of second-level significance seems to explain a concept which I would call “typology.” Historically dispensationalists have allowed for the concept, and your discussion gives me good reason to agree with them (and you). The Divine Author has every right to bring out the full significance of the statements, institutions, people, and geographical objects which appear on the pages of Scripture.
However, I am not convinced that there is any first level language which militates against the anthropological distincition between Israel and the Church which dispensationalists have traditionally taught. If you disagree with me, that is fine. But you will have to use my (read: our) hermeneutic to do so.
June 19th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
I don’t see how the words of Paul could be interpreted any way other than denying the “anthropological distinction between Israel and the Church which dispensationalists have traditionally taught.” Paul clearly states (even with a very literal reading), “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:28-29, ESV) And he says many similar things in Romans.
Granted, this doesn’t cover everything, but it must flavor how you interpret everything else in relation to distinctions (or lack thereof) between Israel and the Church. Why would God then erect again the wall that Christ tore down?
June 20th, 2005 at 4:02 am
I appreciate the clarifications, particularly the new understanding that by the statement, “The Dispensationalist hermeneutic must be assumed if one is going to argue against it,� you did not intend, “the hermeneutic which leads to Dispensationalism,� nor yet, “the hermeneutic which Dispensationalists employ in contradistinction to, for instance, Covenant Theologians,� but rather, “the hermeneutic which all genuinely Christian interpreters assume when dealing with biblical texts, in contradistinction to that hermeneutic by which pagans make fools of themselves.� Two questions on the basis of this new understanding:
Granted the essential likeness of hermeneutical approach by Dispensationalist and Covenant Theologian alike, in what does the basic difference of interpretation consist? The answer to this question may be instructive in how we go about the process of attempting to grow together in our doctrinal understanding, as per Ephesians 4.
Granted our essential likeness of hermeneutical approach, on what basis do you deny that such texts as Fitzy quoted do not obliterate the “anthropological distinction between Israel and the Church which dispensationalists have traditionally taught.� In other words (to reiterate Matt) what the heck does Galatians 3 (etc.) mean?
June 20th, 2005 at 4:42 am
I am not certain that I disagree with you with respect to Galatians 3:28-29. (I have not treated this passage extensively, so my view of the passage could change. My current understanding is here; please let me know if I have misunderstood the text.) It seems to me that Paul could very well be saying that there are no soteriological distinctions between all the various groups which are “in Christ Jesus” (which can be taken to mean “related to Christ Jesus as federal head,” 1 Cor 15:22, Rom 5). All such people, regardless of race or anthropological category, are also called “Abraham’s offspring.” In my view they are all Abraham’s offspring because Christ is the Abrahamic Offspring par excellence and all the redeemed in every age are “in him” in the federal headship sense. (One could also say that we are Abraham’s offspring by virtue of the fact that we are justified by faith just as he was. Paul leaves that connection implicit here, but he explicates it in Rom 4:11.) However, soteriological equality does necessitate anthropological identity. I think that’s where we begin to differ. Let me at least partially defend what I said about anthropological distinctions before I check out of this conversation for awhile (again).
On the revised dispensationalist view God never “erect[s] again the wall that Christ tore down.” The Church will always be a body in which ethnic distinctions are absolutely irrelevant. That is part of what God made the Church to be.
However, this truth does not conflict with the idea that regenerate Jews who are not part of the Church (like converts who lived under the Mosaic code, or Jewish converts after the rapture) will maintain a distinct role in the Messianic Kingdom.
The line of argumentation you are bringing to bare on my understanding is well-appreciated. In fact, I would use the same line of argumentation against my progressive dispensational counterparts. On their view of the Messianic Kingdom, Jews and Gentiles of the Church are split back up into their constituent Jewish and Gentile parts and maintain separate roles within the Kingdom. To them I ask, “Why would God then erect again the wall that Christ tore down?”
In the Church, God has broken down all barriers between Jews and Gentiles. They are now one Body. But this does not necessitate that the categories “Jew” and “Gentile” have been abolished in an absolute sense, nor does it necessarily mean that God does not have distinct plans for all three (Jew, Gentile, and Church-saint) of the groups for his Kingdom.
I say this not to offer proof for my position. I have not given you a detailed discussion of the texts involved (e.g. Gal 3; Eph 2; Rom 2, 9-11). I am also not saying these things to critique your position. I have offered no counter-arguments or texts. What I am trying to say is that better theologians than I have dealt with your question in a way which is also consistent with the anthropological distinction between Israel and the Church. I think their answer fits the texts.
June 20th, 2005 at 10:48 am
Sorry, Pitchford, I was writing my post as you wrote yours, so I did not see yours until after I had already completed mine. I addressed your second question briefly in the above reply.
With regard to your first question, I see the difference between revised dispensationalism and other systems as threefold:
-Spirit-Baptism, which in its technical (revised dispensational) sense is pecular to the the time between Pentecost and the Rapture, places redeemed believers into the Body of Christ which is the Church.
-The Church is a distinct group of redeemed people in which ethnic distinctions are absolutely irrelevant.
-Redeemed Israel and the Church share salvation in Christ equally but have distinct roles in the eschaton.
Off the top of my head those are the areas with which I would disagree with other reformed premillennialists. This list could be expanded, but I think those three are the most important differences as far as I can see. Hope this helps forward the conversation.
Again I may take a while to write back after this one.
I have enjoyed the discussion. I hope we can all wonder at God’s wisdom as we consider these things (Rom 11:33-36).
Jeremy.
June 30th, 2005 at 1:57 am
I’ve been pretty busy lately, so I haven’t really had time to respond, but let me make a couple of quick observations that I hope will be helpful in progressing to a more mutual understanding of the question.
As I understand your position, national Jews from Abraham’s era to Christ’s, and again from Christ’s second advent throughout the literal thousand years comprise one distinct group within God’s eternal redemptive purposes. The position they occupy in this group is that they are, without exclusion, the people of God outwardly; and of this exclusive set there is a subset who are the people of God inwardly as well as outwardly. The second basic group is the church, which is the group which is, without exception, God’s people inwardly, regardless of ethnic distinction; and yet they do not comprise the entire set of God’s people inwardly, because excluded are the subset of Jews from Abraham to Christ and in the millennium who are also God’s people inwardly. The third set (as I understand) is the Gentiles, which is the set comprised of those who are (1) not ethnic Jews nor God’s people inwardly from the time before Christ; (2) either ethnic Jews or ethnic Gentiles who are not God’s people inwardly during Christ’s inter-adventual period; or (3) those who are not ethnic Jews and not God’s people inwardly during the millennium.
If I am misunderstandin you in this assessment, please apprise me of the fact.
If I am understanding correctly, the question which immediately comes to my mind is this: what scriptural basis do you see for the formulation of a categorically distinct inward people of God during the inter-adventual period alone? In other words, if ethnic Jews maintain a role in the eschaton as those who are God’s people inwardly, and yet distinct from the church, then what does Paul (Peter, the author of Hebrews, etc.) mean by such statements as, “the Gentiles would be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus…)? Or cf. as well Paul’s analogy of Gentiles being grafted into the one tree which corresponds to true (believing) Israel; and Jews, when they believe in Christ, being grafted back into that same tree; or again, “in order that the promise (contextually the Abrahamic promise made to Abraham’s seed), by faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe,” and other such statements. Such statements seem to indicate one eternally indivisible, organically connected redeemed people of God. Or, to employ Paul’s analogy again, God only has one “tree”; at different periods of history he is putting into that tree branches composed primarily of Jews or else Gentiles; but it is still one tree; and within that tree there are no ethnic distinctions. There are no distinctions from the days of the Jewish nation to the time when Paul was writing to Gentile believers; and likewise, there was to be no distinction from those days until the day in which all Israel would be saved in the same way the Gentiles were being saved.
Consider as well how the authors of the New Testament considered distinctively Jewish prophecies as being fulfilled in the church, e.g. Peter in Acts 2, A.H. in Hebrews 8 and 10, saying that the prophecy made “to Israel” was fulfilled to the church of this day, etc. If ethnic Jews occupy a distinct place in the eschaton, then why do the prophecies that are clearly made to Israel so “loosely” (from a dispensational standpoint) employed by NT authors? If the Jeremiah 33, Joel 2, etc., promises are to have a literal fulfillment to end-times Israel, then they can only be “fulfilled” by way of analogous relationship in the categorically distinct NT church — since their truer (literal) fulfillment is still to come. If this is the case, why do we not see the NT authors indicating in any way whatever that what Peter observing was “spiritually analogous to the later actual fulfillment of what was spoken of by Joel the prophet” or the author of Hebrews telling us that Christ shed his blood to establish with the church a relationship that was spiritually analogous to the actual fulfillment of Jeremiah 33 that was yet to come? And why do we not see Christ saying, “This cup is the new relationship of grace in the church which also serves in a yet-unrealized and essentially different way as the foundation for the new covenant of grace which will be to eschatological Israel, a distinct entity from the third category ‘church’”?
Obviously I’m rambling, but my point is simple. The NT authors treat the church as the continuation of the one true inward people of God, and they treat the spiritual realities being effected in the church as the actual fulfillment of OT “Israel” prophecies. To adduce a couple more examples, in Hebrews 13, the true church is worshipping at the spiritual Mount Zion, and offering spiritual sacrifices; in Galatians 4, the church is the spiritual seed of the free woman, worshipping at the Jerusalem from above; in I Peter 2, the church is a nation of priests, a peculiar people. And the examples could continue. However, I fail to think of any examples that would indicate the formation of an inward people of God that are categorically distinct from the inward Israel of yesterday and tomorrow (just not today).
Forgive my verbosity.
NP
July 7th, 2005 at 6:55 pm
I have little time to write now, but just a few of bullets.
1) The Church’s participation in the New Covenant does not necessarily mean that it is not a distinct participant among a set of participants as long as participation is not the criterion of distinction within the set.
2) Fulfillment in the NT sometimes refers to a typological or analogical relationship. Matthew quotes Hosea’s statement of Israel’s history “out of Egypt I have called my son” (Matt 2:15, Hos 11:1) and says it is “fulfilled” by Jesus’ personal “exodus” from Egypt. He does not mean that Israel never made a historical exodus. Also he does not mean that Hosea’s words do not speak to that historical exodus. He means that the historical exodus pictured or prefigured the exodus of Jesus from Egypt. So NT usage seems to indicate that “fulfilled” can be “by way of analogous relationship” to a distinct category if contextual considerations make that clear. You seemed to stay away from texts that actually use “fulfillment” language. But that’s my take on fulfillment for what it’s worth. I think we can find something similar in the other passages you brought up.
3) For instance, In Acts 2 Luke is completely clear to me that he is recording Peter as making some sort of analogy between the “great and glorious day of the Lord” recorded in Joel 2 and the outpouring of the Spirit and salvation on Pentecost. Peter quotes much more than actually happened to make clear that he is making an analogy. Do you understand “blood and fire and pillars of smoke,” darkened sun and blood-red moon to have all been present on Pentecost morning? Or do you understand Joel’s words to not have been referring to actual future conditions? If Joel is using figures of speech, what do the figures of speech refer to? The only aspects of divine judgment I can find in Acts 2 are utterly implicit: divine wrath placed on Christ according to his eternal plan, and divine hardening on those who did not accept the message Peter brought. Luke himself knew from recording the words of Christ (and Peter knew from hearing them) that the events predicted by Joel awaited their final fulfillment at least until after Jerusalem had been destroyed (Luke 21).
4) Paul does not mention the church when he talks about Hagar and Sarah in Galatians 4. I think he is talking about everyone related to him by faith without distinction or exception. But this does not mean that distinctions do not exist within that set of people.
5) 1 Peter 2 is commonly used to say that Peter thought of the Church as the true Israel. But there is nothing distinctly Israelitish about the words he uses. Granted Moses applied the words to Israel, but that does not mean that true Israel is the only “nation of priests,” the only set-apart “peculiar people.” Peter has found that the same words apply to the true church. (I imagine he could be saying something that refers to all believers generally and not to the church specifically, but that does not mean that there are no distinctions within that broad “nation.”)
6) Hebrews 12, which has the true church worshipping at Mount Zion, seems to refer to a number of distinct groups or individuals within God’s all-embracing redemptive program: (a) “thousands and thousands of angels in joyful assembly,” (b) “the church of the firstborn whose names are written in heaven,” (c) “God the Judge of all,” (d) “the spirits of the righteous made perfect,” (e) “Jesus the mediator of a new covenant.” He doesn’t exactly explain how “the spirits of the righteous” are distinct from “the church of the firstborn,” but he does distinguish them. This may be a premature understanding of the text, and I am willing to be corrected on this. Nevertheless AH does seem to be making a list of the people who are present and just because they are all present does not mitigate their distinctiveness in his list.
7) Romans 11 seems to break up true Israel into two groups: historical and eschatological. These groups do not seem to be distinguished from each other in any other way that chronology. But if true Israel is historical and eschatological, what is God doing right now? Ephesians 2 seems to describe the church as “one body”â€? wherein national distinctions are irrelevant. Those who are redeemed now are added to this Body whether they are Jew or Gentile.
July 8th, 2005 at 10:45 pm
Thanks once again for your response.
I could spend quite a considerable length of time arguing over the specifics of fulfillment-terminology, or the idea of New Testament vocabulary that is clearly reminiscent of Old Testament Israel being merely analogous, etc., but I think that to do so would rather lead us away from the crux of the dispute than result in anything profitable. The key question of the entire affair is this: Is the church a subset of those rightly related to God by grace through faith or is it the whole set without exception? The entire force of all of your arguments hinge on this one point: that you see a categorical distinction in the historical/present/eschatological peoples that are rightly related to God. If there is one people of God in all of history, then your arguments will dissolve, because they are grounded in admitting that, while there is no ethnic distinction whatsoever in the present status of God’s people, yet there are historical distinctions, and there will be future distinctions. Let me quote you, so there is no question of misrepresentation: “In the Church, God has broken down all barriers between Jews and Gentiles. They are now one Body. But this does not necessitate that the categories “Jew� and “Gentile� have been abolished in an absolute sense, nor does it necessarily mean that God does not have distinct plans for all three (Jew, Gentile, and Church-Saint) of the groups for his Kingdom.� Or, as you elsewhere expressed more concisely, “The Church will always be a body in which ethnic distinctions are absolutely irrelevant.� The way that you can make such strong statements of ethnic sameness in the Church and yet insist on ultimate distinctions in peoples of God is by placing historical parameters on the Church, so that, neither Jewish nor Gentile heritage per se, but only date of birth, is a matter of distinction in the peoples of God. This historical division is really the only ground of all your dispensational arguments. That is point one.
Point two is simply that you confess that all who are rightly related to God are rightly related because they are in Christ Jesus. Let me quote you again. “It seems to me that Paul could very well be saying that there are no soteriological distinctions between all the various groups which are ‘in Christ Jesus’ (which can be taken to mean ‘related to Jesus as federal head,’ 1 Cor 15:22, Rom 5). All such people, regardless of race or anthropological category, are also called ‘Abraham’s offspring.’� So in essence you are saying that, while there are no ethnic distinctions in the church, (which is in Christ), yet there are ethnic distinctions in the whole of the redeemed (who are in Christ). You can only make this distinction because of your belief that the church is simply a subset of those who are in Christ. On the basis of point one and point two, when Paul teaches that there is no ethnic distinction in the church, he is speaking only of the church as a subset of the redeemed, all of whom are in Christ. Hence, he could say truly, “There is no Jew nor Gentile in the church,� but he could never say truly, “There is no Jew or Gentile among those who are in Christ.� Because to say this would be to include historical and eschatological Jews who are redeemed, and therefore in Christ, i.e., related to him as federal head.
However, this last leg you are standing on, in supposing historical and eschatological distinctions where there are none today in “the church age� is obliterated by your own confession that all those rightly related to God are rightly related to him because they are in Christ. I can say this with confidence, because Paul never argues for ethnic unity on the basis of being in the church, but on the basis of being in Christ. As he says in Galatians, “There is no Jew nor Greek, there is no slave nor free, there is no male nor female; [on what basis?] because you are all one in Christ Jesus.� To exclude a man from the ethnicity-obliterating unity of which Paul speaks is to exclude him from being in Christ. And to exclude him from being in Christ is to exclude him from being redeemed, rightly related to God, one of God’s true people.
We must be crystal clear on this point, before it will profit us to discuss the nature of the Acts 2 fulfillment of Joel, and so on. If you have not found this argument convincing, let me state (very simply, without attempting to argue for them) three other passages to keep in mind as you deal with the vital issue of whether or not it is consonant with scriptures to be retaining this chronologically-derived ethnic distinction in the set of the redeemed.
1.) Ephesians 2:11-13. Paul here states very clearly that Gentiles were formerly alienated from Israeli citizenship and foreigners as regards the covenants of promise. But now in Christ those realities are reversed. In other words, Paul is not only saying that the Gentiles were formerly without God and without Christ; but more than that, they formerly were not Israelites, and not under the covenants established by way of promise to Israelites, as, for instance, with Abraham and David. Note also verses 19-22.
2.) Ephesians 3:1-6. Paul does not simply state that the church today is without ethnic distinction, but more specifically, that it was hidden to other generations that Gentiles would be of the same body as they themselves were (as well as fellow-heirs and fellow-partakers of the promise). Note that Paul does not say it was hidden to the other ages that there would be another body in the future in which Jews and Gentiles would be one, but simply that they would be in the same body, which is as much to say “The body in which were the believing Jews in other generations, through faith in the coming Messiah, is a body which is not exclusively Jewish, by reason of the later coming of the Gentiles to swell their ranks, becoming, in every sense one of them – full heirs, full partakers of the promise, etc.�
3.) Romans 11. Note here Paul’s very clear teaching that the Gentiles are grafted into the one tree of God’s redeemed people, not that God temporarily set aside his dealings with the first tree and grew another with which he will be primarily occupied until the eschaton. If Romans 11 is clear on nothing else, it should be clear on the continuity of the one “tree� of God’s redeemed throughout all of history, regardless of the predominantly Jewish or Gentile origin of the branches at any point in time.
In addition, consider what it means that a Jew was never one who was merely Jewish outwardly, but that one who was inwardly Jewish was a Jew (Romans 2). This excludes ethnic Jews who are unbelieving from being true Jews; and it includes ethnically-non-Jewish persons who do believe as true Jews. And that this is not simply a “church-age� state of affairs, but the state of affairs from the beginning is made clear by the fact that Abraham was non-circumcised and “Gentile� when he was justified through faith. When he was circumcised it was both the non-Jews of his household and his own descendants (ethnic Jews) who partook of the rite. In other words, Jewishness and all its benefits was never a matter of ethnic descent (cf. as well chapters 4 and 9), but a matter of believing, just as Abraham believed.
Let me conclude, simply, that because the basis of our ethnicity-shattering unity is that we are in Christ, then it must follow that there are no ethnic distinctions among all who are in Christ. And if one is not in Christ, he is not redeemed. Therefore, the entire set of redeemed persons from Adam through the eschaton is a set in which there are no “anthropological distinctions.�
July 9th, 2005 at 3:28 am
Hey, Pittsley:
If you haven’t already, please check out Pitchford’s article “Land, Seed, and Blessing in the Abrahamic Covenant” I think, at this point in your dialogue, you may find his comments insightful & useful. It is my favorite paper of his so far. Absolutely sweet! [of course, I'm using "absolutely" in a non-absolute vein...] : )
Blessings,
Hayton
July 9th, 2005 at 4:43 am
I think your assessment of my position is on the whole correct. I see in God’s redemptive plan subsets among those who are redeemed. These redeemed peoples, which can be united under the rubrics “in Christ” and “elect” and “Abraham’s seed” and “believers,” can also be divided according to the administration (or economy or dispensation) within God’s plan under the Spirit applied Christ’s redemption to them. Technically the distinction is not based on chronology but on administration, but I did not make that clear earlier, and this might seem like hairsplitting for someone outside dispensational circles.
I understand Paul to refer to salvation in the Galatians passages we have discussed because a false way of salvation was being presented to the Galatians. Ethnic distinctions (”Jew and Gentile”) do not matter for salvation, economic distinctions (”slave or free”) do not matter for salvation, gender distinctions (”man or woman”) do not matter for salvation. It seems clear to me that the distinctions have not been abolished in an absolute sense (unless you wish to propose an egalitarian, liberationistic Paul over against the Paul of the Pastorals). Paul uses the historical example of Abraham in these (Galatian) texts to show that salvation has always been this way and that the Mosaic Law could not change it from being this way.
I see that we disagree on the exegesis of Ephesians 2, Romans 2 and Romans 11, and unfortunately I will have to be willing to live with that disagreement for now because I simply do not have time to give them the thorough exegesis they deserve. Please do not understand this as a cop out. I have already stated my understanding of these texts, and I think that my understanding can be and has been defended exegetically. This is simply not the time for me to do it. When the opportunity presents itself, I will try to elicit your help so that I can present the opposite side fairly. In the mean time I suggest Hoehner’s commentary on Ephesians from Baker for an understanding of 2:11-3:12 with which I am in general agreement.
I suppose my biggest question, and last, at least for awhile, is: What do you do with passages like Zech 8:23, “In those days ten men from all languages and nations will take firm hold of one Jew by the hem of his robe and say, ‘Let us go with you, because we have heard that God is with you.’”? And like Revelation 7:1-8, in which John, who should have known that all ethnic distinctions have been absolutely abolished, prophesies that God will give a special role to 144,000 Jews? I have no doubt that these “witnesses” are true Jews, that is, that they are genuine Jewish believers. But that God is giving them a special eschatological role based, in some way, on their ethnic (even tribal) origin seems inescapable to me.
In closing one thing that I want you to remember in these discussions is that I have a deep love for the doctrines of the Reformation. I think that Calvin and the tradition that followed him have a richly and deeply Biblical understanding of God and his workings with men. I drink long and deep at their wells. However, I fear that they have found good truths in a few too many texts. Nevertheless they are not alone in these mistakes. I am also a guilty party, and that is why I must duck out of the discussion and work on my exegesis paper.
July 13th, 2005 at 7:54 am
It seems as though the conversation is winding down, and remains somewhat of a stalemate, as it were. I’m thrilled with your love for the doctrines of the Reformation, particularly as it’s a love which I fully share. However, I’m not sure how many of those “good truths” they found apart from textual consistency. The Reformation was above all a scripturally honest doctrinal change, and I can’t help but think that the textual misunderstandings they had (as we all retain to some degree or another in this lifetime) were largely peripheral to the basic conception they had of Christianity and the continuity of God’s redemptive purposes. But that’s beside the point. Before concluding our discussion (or at least pausing it indefinitely), let me give a brief answer to your remaining biggest question.
The answer to which is basically formulated on the basis of the answer to the question, “Who is a Jew?” If, as I believe Romans 2 (among many other passages) teaches, a true Jew is one whose heart is circumcised (i.e. one who is redeemed), then the answer is easily apprehended by a simple observation of history. When Peter preached the gospel in Acts 2, “ten men” grabbed the hem of his garment (in a manner of speaking) and said, “Let us go with you because we hear that God is with you.” Or, in other words, “What must we do to be saved?” So then, throuoghout this period of the last days, God has been working in people’s hearts so that, when the gospel goes forth, Christ’s elect from all over the world grab the hem of that Gospel-proclaimer (a.k.a. true Jew) and seek to follow him to spiritual Zion where he too can find and worship God.
Along these lines, by the way, examine Paul’s usage of Hosea 1 in Romans 9. The prophecy in Hosea was that the Jews would become lo-ammi, but then would be restored so that they were again “Israelites,” and “ammi,” and “Sons of the living God.” When Paul says that this was fulfilled when God called us not of Jews only but also of Gentiles, the only way of understanding Paul consistent with the prophecy of Hosea is that the restored Israel is of Jews (ethnically) as well as Gentiles. But let me progress to the second aspect of your question.
In examining Revelation 7, I think it is helpful to keep in mind that Revelation is, by design, a largely symbolical book (even Dispensationalists recognize this to some degree — is Israel literally a woman clothed with the sun?, etc.) This is particularly true with numbers. To adduce the first example that comes to my head, John’s reference to the seven Spirits of God at the beginning of chapter one and again in chapter 4 (I think) seems, contextually, to refer to the Holy Spirit. Assuming this is the case, a literalistic rendering would necessitate that there are seven Holy Spirits. A consideration of the symbolic use of numbers, however, would lead one to understand by the term that the One Spirit of God is being viewed with respect to his omnipresence and the perfection of his working and accomplishing the will of God in the world. If this is accepted as a legitimate hermeneutic, as I believe it must be, then it is no difficult thing to see in the hundred and forty-four thousand the complete number of the redeemed - twelve being the number of completion, twelve of the twelve (twelve squared) indicating the complete set of the redeemed from every tribe, tongue, kindred and nation; and furthermore, the twelve squared being multiplied by a thousand to signify the vastness of this complete set of the redeemed multitudes who are sealed by God and preserved by his power from worshipping the beast, the Satanic political and religious world systems that ever oppose God and attempt to substitute themselves to be worshipped by the world in his stead.
Check out the (lengthy) introductory articles to G. K. Beale’s commentary on Revelation.
NP
October 24th, 2005 at 7:15 am
A bit too late and too little to contribute, I’m afraid. I commend both Pitchford and Pittsley for keeping up such reasoned debate. Quite ironic that both names start with the same first three letters. I will not involve myself directly in the debate at this point save to say that both need to drink deeply and often of the well of the opposition. So little time, and not enough to really examine the arguments of others. We all tend to talk to ourselves a little too much. Secondly, the blog would go much better if sophomoric cheerleading inanities would be kept to a minimum. We are discussing theology, not cheering a ballgame. There are differences, you know. Thirdly, while I myself am a dispensationalist and my kind seems to strain at the gnats of a particular text, thus making more of a passing phrase than it ought, I find you both to be engaged in this sort of argumentation: text by text, blow by blow. I’m not sure that it works in these sort of “grand scheme” sort of discussions. You end up talking right past each other because you are so indoctrinated in your positions that you fail to question your own presuppositions.
Let’s keep things together in some sort of context. Dispensationalism got its impetus from a seemingly minimalist exegesis on the part of the Covenant folks of the day. Since those days at the end of the 19th century, there have been significant changes in BOTH systems as they are most popularly promoted. Dispensationalists tend to be more open on the New Covenant, affirming only one such entity. Covenant Theologians tend to see a future for ethnic Israel. Classic premillennialism is much more in vogue than it was in the dawn of Dispensationalism.
Oh…I know…I know, this is all about Scripture; and we can figure it out if we just exegete the text. What a naive view! Just forget those nasty presuppostions jangling in your cranium. In my opinion, and as this discussion seems to bear out, both systems come dangerously close to the truth; but there are holes in each. Nate can’t figure out how to fully explain distinctions made in Holy Writ. Jeremy can’t seem to make sense of all the similarities and analogies. In two words, you both are hung up on continuity and discontinuity. Both truly exist in Scripture and I believe both are best done justice in certain rare forms of non-garden variety Dispensationalisms.
Please excuse the over generalizations, mispellings, poor grammar, etc. I’m going to try and keep up on this page more often. It is definitely superior to Duller…er…Sharper Iron.
October 24th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
Van,
While you may have a point, you seem to have missed the fact that Pitchford was at one point a dispensationalist (as was I). Therefore, I think it unlikely that he is relying on his presuppositions to the extent that you accuse him of.
Matt
October 24th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
Matt:
Thank you for your kind correction, however incorrect it may be. I did not miss that fact, as you seem to miss the fact that the criticism was directed at both sides involved in the debate. I had Nate in class, and I know a little of his background. The point was that neither side has done their share of reading.
There was a time when people really researched the thought and argument of those with whom they were debating. In this day and age, just gimme a Bible a few bad experiences with my foe and I’m ready to do battle royale. You also seem to miss the fact that people who reject a view previously held to often do so because of a poor understanding of the view they take for granted. This is the plight of Southern Baptists who become Mormans. A few years of experience has taught me that when I ramble off a short bibliography of related works, nobobdy seems to have read them - and yet, they view themselves with believe that they are experts in the field.
This episode is occuring disturbingly often, and often there is no penitence for such oversight. The arrogance of such a position is overwhelming. If you won’t consider the literature of others in the field, enough to make a cogent analysis of the position, why should I waste my time in discussion when all that seems to be happening is a pooling of ignorance. I had one particular student dismiss the statements of a degreed and often published theologian with the statement that he was “an idiot.” I could understand this if it the theologian in question earned his degrees at of questionable academic reputation or they were honorary, but this was not the case. I could even understand a well thought out rebuttal to the this theologian’s opinion. I don’t even call Fosdick an idiot. To do so would give the devil an unfair advantage by my display of misguided naivte. It seems to prove to me that there is a class of “student” who will not be taught and comes to conclusions much more quickly than he or she ought.
I know Nate and Jeremy, and neither of these young men stands in the extreme position I have just described. On the one hand I hope to appeal to the better angels of their natures and spur them onto further study, on the other hand I hope to heap excoriating rebuke upone those who fit the description given earlier.
Good day,
Van
October 25th, 2005 at 2:07 am
The previous offered in some haste and without the proper proof reading.
My apologies,
Van
October 25th, 2005 at 6:15 am
I’m sure I could rattle off my own “short bibliography,” if the occasion demanded it — and yes, from both sides of the debate. However, I’m not sure that would really profit anyone in a dialogue of this nature. I have at certain times in the past rattled off short bibliographies for the purpose of encouraging friends interested in the discussion to read literature which I presume they would find more valuable than my own words, but to my mind, that is an entirely different affair than rattling off a bibliography to substantiate my authority to entertain an opinion, exegete a passage, critically assess an argument, and so on. I’ve heard much of bibliographies from you, but one thing I have not heard is a simple explanation of your own position — what you believe and why you believe it, scripturally and logically. I’ve never even heard you align yourself with any particular instance in that bibliography you allude to, so I really don’t even know what you’re arguing for, only that (whatever it is) you’re qualified to argue for it. I would be the first to agree that it is beneficial to be widely read. But to discourage anyone from attempting to go to scriptures and develop a position from those scriptural passages, and then to sharpen and modify that position through ensuing dialogue — to discourage him from embarking on such a quest until he has read substantially in the field savors of Romanish intellectual elitism.
If I’m misunderstanding any scripture or if I am arguing incorrectly from any one point to the next, please use your entire bibliography, if necessary, to point out the error and perhaps even substitute a more accurate understanding. Talking about qualifications to talk about the subject without actually talking about the subject is entirely supererogatory.
October 25th, 2005 at 10:40 am
Forget it Nate, I’m not in the mood for hurling insults at you or having them hurled at me. You missed my point entirely. We were getting to what I believe, but I thought this thread to be pretty much a dead party and was merely registering my critique. I was trying to garner some information of what research had been performed and to work at some sort of constuctive debate. But you have been very kind in identifying me with “Romanish intellectual elitism” and opined similar bitterness on my blog. It is clear that winning a debate at all costs, is what is more important to you. Truth really does seem irrelevant when you have all the answers. I think that I shall end this discussion before I do, what is left of our friendship, anymore damage. You have let loose with a very long and arrogant sneer, something I thought was far beneath you. I was here at your invitation. I will leave this blog on my own.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:16 am
I have not read Van’s blog, or the comments on it; but judging by this particular thread, the arrogance has been chiefly on the part of Mr. Carpenter.
October 26th, 2005 at 5:52 am
I see that you’re offended, and I trust that you will remember how much Christ has forgiven you, and then find it in your heart to accept my true and sincere apology. I am a weak brother, and I’m sure that my comments were constructed poorly and with an edge that made them suitable to offer offense, not to engage in constructive dialoge among sinners saved by God’s grace. So please, forgive me, and overlook the tenor of what I said, together with anything else offensive.
However, I hope you will not entirely overlook every point I inadequately tried to convey. Remember that Paul was perhaps the most highly educated and well read person in many of the churches which he started, but we never see him encouraging other christians to undertake as extensive an education as his before entering a dialogue. In fact, he expressed great approbation for as many church members as were searching the scriptures to test the veracity of his teaching. To indicate that the viewpoint which believes that simply understanding the texts of scripture is adequate for theological depth and soundness is a “naive view” and a “nasty presupposition,” is not helpful to the cause of the growth of Christ’s body in doctrinal maturity. To write off the legitimacy of a genuine mutual pursuit of scriptural truth because of a preconception that “neither side has done their share of reading,” and to refer in a sense that at least seems derogatory to certain truly Christ-loving seekers of doctrinal truths as sophomoric cheerleaders instead of theologians may lead to a philosophy which could be damaging.
Not every christian is good at reading. But every christian ought to be searching the scriptures with the confidence that he is equipped to do so, and to be involved in the growth of other believers. I know that you do genuinely desire for other believers to be growing in doctrinal maturity — I’ve seen fruit of that in your life — but I am telling you as humbly as I know how, that if believers of a certain disposition, upbringing, etc., read some of the things you expressed, they will walk away with the impression, “Why even bother? I’m not smart enough to understand scriptures. I could never read as much as I’m supposed to in order to be able to grow in truth. I’m not qualified to interpret the bible, I’ll have to let the experts do it for me. I guess I’ll just have to be a second rate christian all my life.”
Please forgive me for the offense I have caused you, and please at least take a moment to consider honestly whether the things I am saying have any element of truth.
With love in Christ our Savior,
Nathan
“When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.” — Acts 4:13
October 28th, 2005 at 5:03 am
I don’t feel that I am on the intellectual or studied level of some of the parties involved in this thread, so I will keep my comments to the sub-issue that seems blatantly obvious to me.
I am a graduate of the same college as Pitchford and am aware of the intentional misstating of opposing theological viewpoints propagated there and other places like it. There is a keen fear evident of someone actually coming to a different conclusion through either biblical study or through reading a properly presented thesis from an opposing view. It all goes back to the fundamental instinct to desperately have the only right answers for every issue; or rather, proof for what they’ve believed for the last century and a half. Because of that, the “short bibliography” that’s used to represent the opposing view is [purposely or not] an inaccurate representation of what the other side actually believes. The most extreme and off-center examples are chosen for suggested reading, presumably to ensure the students never drift into the waters of apostacy. This was the case in the dispensationalism debate, eschatology, baptism, music, soteriology, and many others.
Mr Carpenter, you may bristle at the above accusation. I ask you, though, why does the doctrinal statement that must be signed for graduation include so many of these very controversial teachings? What happened to the true fundamentals (Baptist or not)? Why is there a fear that a student might come to a different conclusion on dispensationalism or other topics?
I would be interested in knowing what you feel are the best books on both the dispensationalism and Covenant sides. It’s easy to say the people you talking down to are unread, but what books do you (as the obviously detached and all-knowing moderator), suggest we all read to come to the correct (read: your) conclusion(s)?
I try hard to exhibit the same maturity and humility that Pitchford constantly exudes in his responses. I may have failed.
October 28th, 2005 at 7:11 am
I understand your feelings, and I recognize that much of that sort of thing has indeed ocurred at Northland, but I think you must have left before Van Carpenter began teaching. I feel constrained to tell you that he was probably the one teacher I had that I would consider the least prone to that problem (distortion of one side of a debate to facilitate arguing for a presupposed conclusion). No matter what else you can say, and no matter how different the conclusions to which you come may be, I have full confidence that he would direct you to the most outstanding examples of both sides of the debate and attempt to address the truest forms of the positions against which he was arguing.
In all of this I hope we can all remember that we’re trying to build each other up in the bonds of Christ’s love. For anything I’ve said which has proven detrimental to that goal, I am truly sorry. I trust that, if anyone else has failed to show Christ’s love, the Spirit will convict him of the utter inappropriateness of that manifestation among us who have been forgiven much by the great grace and love of our Savior. We may not come to the same conclusions, in this life at any rate. But we cannot fail to do less than embrace unconditionally as beloved brothers and sisters all those who cling to the same pure gospel of God’s grace — faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone for our eternal joy and salvation.
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:47 pm
Nate:
Apology accepted…more to come later.
Van