Grace Theological lournallO.

2 (1989) \39- 145'

RESPONSE TO UNDERSTANDING
DISPENSATIONALISTS,
BY VERN S. POYTHRESS

ROBERT L. SAUCY

W spirit
would like to begin by expressing our appreciation for the
E
evident throughout Dr. Poythress' work. While he defi-
nitely seeks to call in question the crucial tenets of dispensationalism,
he does so with a gentle irenic spirit inviting dialogue rather than
defensive rebuff. It is no doubt this spirit which gives one the impres-
sion that the work is a genuine attempt to understand dispensa-
tionalism and to present it fairly. We recognize the problems inherent
in seeking to present a portrait of dispensationalism today in light of
the considerable diversity which has developed over the past years. If
there is any weakness in the portrayal of dispensationalism in the
work, it is a tendency at times to deal with some issues that in our
mind do not seem to be prevalent among most contemporary dispen-
sationalists including those more traditionally oriented. For example,
if I am not mistaken, both Ryrie and Pentecost, although affirming
an eternal distinction between Israel and the church do not include a
final earthly and heavenly destiny in that distinction. It is questionable
therefore that they should be included in the category of D-theolo-
gians whose primary commonality is stated to be "parallel-but-
separate roles and destinies of Israel and the church" (p. 9).
One might also wonder about some of the dimensions described
as social forces at work among dispensationalists. For example, we
would have appreciated more evidence that it is in response to the
exactness of science that dispensationalists seek a greater precision in
biblical language (pp. 57-58). At least as good a case can be made
that the more literal approach was in reaction to the spiritualizing of
much of prophecy in connection with a prevalent post-millennialism
in the early part of the 19th century (cf. G. E. Ladd, The Blessed
Hope [Eerdmans, 1956], p. 43). But these are relatively minor ques-
tions of an overall fair presentation.
140 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

I. POINTS OF AGREEMENT

Before dealing specifically with the points of contention, we

would like to give some indication of where we are coming from by
noting some of the major areas included in the work with which we
are in substantial agreement.
First, we agree that there is finally one people of God. Believing
Jews and Gentiles are permanently united as "one new Man" in
Christ (Eph 2:15). This is in accord with the OT prophecies that
pictured the salvation of God going to the Gentiles as well as to Israel
in the messianic era. In saying that there is one people of God, we are
talking about a spiritual unity. This oneness, according to our under-
standing, does not rule out the historical functional distinction be-
tween the church and Israel. Even as there can be functional
distinctions between men and women, or church elders and others in
the church, without destroying spiritual equality and oneness, so
there is a distinction in the historical plan of God between Israel and
the church. This allows for a future for Israel as a nation among
nations in accordance to the basic picture of the messianic times
according to the Old Testament.
Secondly, we agree that the messianic era has been inaugurated
in some sense by the first coming of Christ. Consequently, we would
affirm in distinction to much of earlier dispensationalism, that this
present age is the beginning of the fulfillment of promises related to
the messianic kingdom foretold in the OT. This present fulfillment is
primarily limited to the promise of spiritual salvation found in the
new covenant (i.e., the forgiveness of sins and spiritual renewal
through the indwelling Spirit). According to OT prophecies the salva-
tion of God was to go to the Gentiles as well as to Israel. This is
taking place today, albeit in a way not clearly seen in the OT.
We agree with the position presented by Hoekema in his work,
The Bible and the Future, which Dr. Poythress quotes favorably, that
the OT presented the messianic kingdom in connection with an un-
differentiated coming of the Messiah. The NT separates the fulfillment
of the kingdom prophecies into stages. In distinction to Hoekema and
the position of this work which presents only two stages, this age and
the eternal state, we would simply argue for an additional millennia!
stage which in our opinion better encompasses all of the prophecies.
In the third place, we agree that it is difficult to define what is
meant by "literal" interpretation and to determine when something is
to be interpreted with more than a "fiat" meaning. I do not believe
that this problem is unique to dispensationalism, however. I would
also doubt that dispensationalists can be charged generally with deter-
mining this issue by their system anymore than non-dispensationalists,
 SAUCY: RESPONSE .T O VERN S. POYTHRESS 141

especially in light of the vastness of OT prophetic material which is

viewed through the lens of a non-dispensational interpretation of
the NT.
Without denying the significance and difficulty of fully grasping
the proper hermeneutics of Scripture, especially the prophetic mate-
rial, we would suggest that our differences do not finally lie in
any distinct hermeneutical apriori. Both dispensationalists and non-
dispensationalists transcend the immediate "flat" meaning of a given
passage on the ground that their exegesis of other portions of Scrip-
ture (generally using the "flat" meaning) demands something addi-
tional be seen in the passage under question. The difference finally
stems from the fact that the non-dispensationalist, with the use of
essentially the same hermeneutical principles as the dispensationalist,
understands the NT as teaching the fulfillment of messianic kingdom
promises of the OT in a way different from the dispensationalist. This
difference then calls for a different interpretation or reinterpretation
of the OT prophecies.

II. POINTS AT ISSUE

A. The question of the typological and symbolic in the relation

of prophecy to fulfillment.
Turning to some points at issue with Dr. Poythress' work, we
would like to begin with what seems to be the crucial issue, namely,
the whole question of the typological and symbolic in relation to
prophecy and its fulfillment. In our reading of the work, what seemed
to be suggested in many areas was a basic principle that the whole of
OT prophecy that has to do with material historical earthly realities
(e.g., animal sacrifices, priesthood, the temple, the nation of Israel ,
Jerusalem, and the land of Palestine) is to be seen as symbolic and
typical and therefore superseded with the appearance of the promised
eschatological reality in Christ. The prophecies related to spiritual
realities associated with the salvation of the new covenant, on the
other hand, come over into the era of fulfillment essentially without
change. It is acknowledged that some material fulfillment will occur,
but this primarily awaits the new earth and then it will be quite
different from the historical picture of the prophecies.
We would like to respond to this general perspective of the
symbolic and typical nature of OT prophecies with two thoughts.
I. First, we would suggest that all material realities are not
necessarily types. In this same connection we would also feel that
some distinction needs to be made between type and symbol. If by
type we mean that which is done away with or superseded by the
appearance of the antitype, then type must be distinguished from
142 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

symbol, for a symbol does not necessarily stand in this same relation
to the reality which it symbolizes. In other words, a symbol can and
in fact does exist alongside the corresponding reality. Today we have
both the eschatological reality of new covenant salvation and its
symbols in the bread and cup of the Lord's Table. It is difficult to say
that these symbols lose their significance when the reality appears.
One might also refer to the symbol of the rainbow. Is it not possible
that even in the final state of the new earth that some material objects
will stand as symbols, or we might even say as sacraments, in relation
to spiritual realities?
While much of OT revelation may be "preliminary and shadowy
in character" (p. 114), it seems impossible to apply these words to its
entirety. Since we would all agree that the predictions of spiritual
salvation as well as the new heavens and earth are not really tran-
scended by NT reality, the question then becomes one of distinguish-
ing what is typical and therefore superseded and what is not. We
would suggest one distinction in that the realities which partake of
redemption or regeneration are not typical or symbolic in the sense of
being shadows which are eliminated with the coming of reality. For
example, the present earth is not typical of the new earth in the same
sense as the sacrificial system of the Old Covenant. Our present
bodies are not typical of our new bodies which we will someday
receive. In the same vein, we would argue that earthly Jerusalem is
not typical of the final new Jerusalem in the sense of having lost its
present historical significance. These historical realities would seem to
retain their significance, perhaps one could say forever. At least they
remain meaningful during their existence within history before they
are transformed by the eschatological reality in accordance with
God's timetable.
We would therefore argue that Israel is not a type in the sense of
being superseded by something else. Without question there were
elements within Israel's history which were typical, but to suggest that
Israel's priestly ministry was in the category of Aaron's priesthood
seems contrary to Scripture. The Old Covenant ministry was predicted
to give way to a new covenant even in the OT. But these same
prophecies applied this new covenant to a future repentant Israel
which was understood as a nation among Gentile nations and not the
supranational entity of today's church.
We would concur that the ultimate priestly ministry has been
accomplished in Christ. But this no more eliminates a priestly ministry
for Israel in the future, as is suggested (cf. pp. 101-3), than the reality
of Christ's priestly ministry eliminates the present priestly ministry of
the church (cf. I Pet 2:5, 9). In other words, the fulfillment of the or
 SAUCY: RESPONSE TO VERN S. POYTHRESS 143

typical priestly ministry under the Aaronic priesthood with the work
of Christ and the final reality of that priesthood does not rule out the
existence of what might be termed an instrumental priestly ministry
until the full promised eschatological salvation is complete in the
eternal state.
If the church today can have a legitimate priestly function , there
is no reason based upon the coming of the reality of the priesthood of
Christ to deny such a ministry to the nation of Israel in the future. In
fact, the apostle Paul suggests as much in Romans II when he speaks
of the vastly greater blessing yet in store for the world in relation to
Israel's fulfillment or acceptance with God (vv 12, 15).
2. The second thing to be noted in response to this fundamental
issue of typology and the fulfillment of prophecy is that the fact of
our present coming to the reality of eschatological fulfillment in
Christ does not mean that we have yet reached the consummation of
those prophecies. The present existence of the heavenly Jerusalem
and our relation to it described in Hebrews 12 is said to be analogous
to the situation concerning sacrifices. Dr. Poythress writes, "Can we
draw an analogy between the situation concerning sacrifices and the
situation concerning Jerusalem? The heavenly Jerusalem in Hebrews
12 exists by virtue of the presence of Christ as high priest with his
sprinkled blood (Heb 12:24). Hence it would appear to be the antitype
to which the OT historical Holy City, Jerusalem, pointed as a type.
Therefore we may also expect that it is simultaneously the fulfillment
of prophecies about a perfect, restored Jerusalem (Isa 60: 14; Mic 4: 1-
2)" (pp. 119-20).
But the truth of the matter is that the heavenly Jerusalem has not
yet finally come. According to Revelation 21 it is yet to come to
earth. While we might debate the time, all would acknowledge this
fact. Thus the teaching of Hebrews that we have in the present age
come to the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22-23), cannot be under-
stood as saying that we have reached the complete fulfillment of the
prophecies. Saying this makes it evident that, although we have come
to the final reality to which the OT prophecies looked forward, this
reality is actually fulfilled in stages. Clearly we are not actually in the
heavenly Jerusalem which will one day become the new Jerusalem on
the new earth.
Thus there is today a period when the eschatological reality is
present on earth, not yet in its fullness, but nevertheless in reality.
During this time the earthly realities of the church, made up of yet
imperfect saints, and its priesthood still have meaning and signifi-
cance. Their significance is not swallowed up by the reality and
perfection of the heavenly city. If such is the case, there can be no
144 GRACE THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

reason in principle why Israel could not also exist as a historical

reality with a real historical function, even as the church, during a
period of time before the ultimate perfection.
B. The question of the number of stages in the eschatological
salvation.
The recognition by dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist
alike that the eschatological salvation is actually accomplished in
stages, brings us to a second point of issue with Dr. Poythress' work,
that is, the question of how many stages are involved. Agreement on
a present initial stage fulfillment of the eschatological promises and a
unified sp'iritual people of God does eliminate many differences be-
tween dispensationalism and non-dispensationalism. But in our opin-
ion, the question of the millennium still looms rather large, perhaps
larger than is suggested by Dr. Poythress. To us the suggestion that
seeing a real connection between the present time and the eternal
state and viewing the latter time (if we can say time) as the fulfillment
of the remainder of the messianic prophecies is inadequate for at least
two reasons.
1. First, the OT picture of the messianic period seems to include
a situation in which the Messiah is reigning in a yet imperfect world.
One such example may be noted in Isa 2:2-4 and its parallel in Mic
4:1-3. Although Dr. Poythress includes the latter passage in relation
to prophecies about "a perfect, restored Jerusalem" (p. 120), the
immediate context portrays conditions which are not yet perfect. For
example, God is said to "judge between the nations and ... render
decisions for many peoples" (Isa 2:4). Interpreting this as God's
action through the Messiah, non-dispensationalist E. J. Young ex-
plains the meaning of these statements by saying, "God is now repre-
sented as one who in a peaceful manner intervenes in the disputes of
nations, and settles them so that the nations change the implements
of war into utensils of peace .... " Concerning the Messiah's rendering
decisions for many peoples, Young notes further that this" ... pic-
tures the LORD in the position of Judge and Arbiter who pronounces
decisions concerning the nations and their disagreements" (The Book
of Isaiah, NICOT [Eerdmans, 1965], p. 107). To say the least, this
prophecy is difficult to apply to the present work of Christ in the
world, and it would seem impossible to see Christ performing these
tasks in a perfect sinless state. These and many other Scriptures
which picture Christ judging and disciplining those who refuse to
obey his kingship (e.g., Psalm 72; Isa 11:1-9; Zechariah 14) are
difficult to fit into a two stage fulfillment. But they are perfectly in
harmony with the viewpoint that the eschatological promises involve
three stages, i.e., this present age, the millennium, and the final state
of perfection. Many other aspects of the prophecies which almost all
 SAUCY: RESPONSE TO VERN S. POYTHRESS 145

OT theologies describe as the OT prophetic hope, including the

restoration and preeminence of the nation of Israel as a means of
blessing for all nations, fit the picture of a future millennial stage as
well. In our opinion, there does not seem to be any compelling
teaching either in the OT or the NT which necessitates a rather
radical reinterpretation of this prophetic picture. These earthly reali-
ties involving Israel and the nations seem just as possible within the
stages of eschatological salvation as the present earthly realities of the
church and its ministry.
2. The concept of the realities involved in the OT picture raises
our second objection to a two stage eschatology, and that is the
nature of salvation brought about under the messianic reign of Christ.
A two stage amillennial theology as represented in this work and
others seeks to save the prophecies concerning societal peace and
prosperity for the eternal state rather than force their application to
this age through a spiritualizing hermeneutic. My problem with this
approach is that if the second coming of Christ inaugurates the final
consummative stage of perfection or eternity, then according to the
apostle Paul this stage occurs after the Messiah hands over the
kingdom to the Father (I Cor 15:24). If it is only the eternal state that
brings open peace and righteousness among the peoples of the world,
then this societal salvation would not seem to be a part of the work of
the Messiah in his messianic office, for the delivering up of the
kingdom to the Father represents the completion of the mediatorial
work of Christ. As Fee says, it signifies" ... the Messiah's bringing
to completion his work of redemption" (Gordon D. Fee, The First
Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT [Eerdmans, 1987], p. 756). We
would argue that the redemptive work of the Messiah involves not
only a personal inner spiritual salvation, but a socio-political salva-
tion as well. If such is the case, this latter salvation must be accom-
plished before the end when the kingdom is transferred to the Father
and Christ's kingdom is merged into the eternal kingdom of God. The
fullness of the Messiah's salvation, therefore, seems to cry out for
another stage following the present divine activity of this period,
namely a millennial time, which falls clearly under the reign of Christ
before his work is complete and the kingdom is handed over to the
Father.
Dr. Poythress addresses many other topics related to the discus-
sion that we cannot get into in this response. We have simply chosen
to address some of the broad issues which seem central to the dia-
logue. In conclusion, we would like to thank Dr. Poythress for his
work. It is just such a desire to understand the other's position and
the gentle spirit of rapprochement that one finds in this work which
will help us all to understand the truth of Scripture more fully.