Five Difficulties for Progressive Dispensationalism
Image
There are at least five reasons that progressive dispensational (PD) represents a departure from a normative hermeneutic (literal grammatical historical) and reading of the Bible. The first two pertain to methodology in arriving at conclusions, and the latter three have to do with theological conclusions which are not exegetically derived.
The Complementary Hermeneutic Is a Departure from Fixed Meaning
Blaising and Bock recognize that methodology is definitive in the formation of PD, and acknowledge that PD is the result of a methodological departure from the hermeneutic of classical and revised dispensational thought, as they observe that,
Evangelical grammatical-historical interpretation was…broadening in the mid-twentieth century…And by the late 1980s, evangelicals became more aware of the problem of the interpreter’s historical context and traditional preunderstanding of the text being interpreted. These developments…have opened up new vistas for discussion which were not considered by earlier interpreters, including classical and many revised dispensationalists. These are developments which have led to what is now called “progressive dispensationalism.”1
Milton Terry represents classical and revised perspectives of the historical aspect of the literal grammatical historical hermeneutic when he notes that,
The interpreter should, therefore, endeavour to take himself from the present, and to transport himself into the historical position of his author, look through his eyes, note his surroundings, feel with his heart, and catch his emotion. Herein we note the import of the term grammatico-historical interpretation.2
Robert Thomas states adeptly the differing PD perspective as represented by Bock:
Bock, on the other hand, advocates a multilayered reading of the text which results in a “complementary” reading (or meaning) that adds to the original meaning determined by the text’s original setting. The “complementary” perspective views the text from the standpoint of later events, not the events connected with the text’s origin. He proposes a third layer of reading also, that of the entire biblical canon. In essence, he sees three possible interpretations of a single text, only one of which pertains to the text’s original historical setting. He refers to his method as a historical-grammatical-literary reading of the text. He notes that “such a hermeneutic produces layers of sense and specificity for a text, as the interpreter moves from considering the near context to more distant ones.” By thus ignoring the way the original historical setting “freezes” the meaning of a text, Bock concludes that the meaning of any given passage is not static, but dynamic. It is ever changing through the addition of new meanings.3
This shift in definition means a shift in emphasis. In classical and revised perspectives, the meaning of a passage is embedded in the passage at the time of writing and is not adjusted by later related writings. The difference between meaning and significance is evident in that the meaning of a passage doesn’t change with forthcoming data, though its usage (significance) may. In PD perspective, meaning does change as complementary passages provide new information. In classical and revised perspectives, the earlier texts have primacy in providing definitions and precedents for meaning. In PD perspectives, the complementary passages have primacy as they provide the fuller meaning. This is a key methodological maneuver that removes certainty of understanding from all but the latest interpreters (and who is to know whether there might not be more revelation coming which might provide further redefinitions?). This is a change, but not progress.
“Already Not Yet” Is Not Exegetically Demonstrable
One prominent advocate of PD has justifies already not yet as a hermeneutic device by appealing to salvation, and the future aspects embedded along with the past and present, and concluded that if there are already not yet aspects of salvation, then there can be already not yet aspects of the covenants. The problem with that appeal is that one would have no idea of past, present, or future aspects unless they were (at least) first explicitly stated as individual propositions in a given text. For example, in Ephesians 2:8, we have been delivered (from being children of wrath), in Ephesians 2:10 we are presently His workmanship, and also in Ephesians 2:10 it is intended that we walk in good works. In Romans 5:1 we have been justified, we have peace with God, and we will be delivered from the wrath of God Romans 5:9. My point here is that each aspect is stated separately and is exegetically defensible. There is no already not yet to be applied in the hermeneutic of salvation passages, nor should there be in covenant passages.
Right Hand of a Throne Is Not a Throne
The phrase “the right hand” is used 35 times in Scripture, and never once refers directly to royalty or kingship. Further, according to Romans 8:34, Jesus’s role at the Father’s right hand is to intercede, not rule. Also, in Hebrews 8:1 we learn that Jesus is at the right hand of the throne, and is never elsewhere said to be presently on any throne. Further, while “angels and authorities and powers have been subjected to him,” we learn in 1 Peter 3:22 that this was before Jesus even ascended. Thus there is no “already” aspect of Davidic Covenant fulfillment, nor any assumption of authority embedded in His being seated at the right hand of the Father. On the other hand, Jesus Himself asserts in Matthew 25:31 that it will be when He comes in glory with His angels that He will sit on His glorious throne. There is no other throne identified in Scripture upon which Christ has sat or will sit. Revelation 19:11-14 describes a future event in which Jesus returns in glory—with “the armies of heaven.”
Is the Kingdom Here or Near?
In Revelation 12:10 the Kingdom is described as having “now” come during the day of the Lord when the accuser is thrown down. Prior, it is said to be “at hand” or “near” except for a few exceptions within parable references4 and Jesus’ eschatological statement in Luke 17:1-3 that people in the future will not say to look here or there, for the kingdom would be in their midst. In John 18:36, Jesus acknowledges that His kingdom is not (present tense) “from here.” In order for an “already” aspect of the kingdom, something explicit would need to change to make the kingdom “from here.” A parable reference to a nobleman who traveled to receive a kingdom, for example, does not constitute eschatological bearing on the timing or sequence of events related to the arrival and installation of the Messianic kingdom. In Revelation 19, on the other hand, it asserted explicitly that Christ comes in glory and in judgment and, in Revelation 20:4 and 6 it is asserted that Christ is reigning at that point, and others share in that reign for one thousand years.
In the meantime, the kingdom of the heavens is not here, though its citizens are. Colossians 1:13 explains that we have been rescued from the domain of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of Christ. Because of that transfer, Paul adds in 3:1-4 that we ought to set our minds on things above (not on things of earth), because we have been raised up with Christ, and He is seated at the right hand of God. One day Christ will be revealed in glory, and we with Him. It is then that we will no longer need to have our minds set on things above, as He will return and His kingdom will be inaugurated in glory.
Distinctions and the Body of Christ
Ephesians 2:12 describes (believing) Gentiles’ past tense separation from things of Israel, including the covenants, yet in the following verse (2:13) these Gentiles are not brought “in” but rather they are brought “near.” Near is not in. The two (Jew and Gentile) are indeed one new man in the body (2:15,16, 19). Gentiles don’t become Jews or even spiritual Jews. There is simply unity in the body, and our identity in the body of Christ has nothing to do with ethnicity, gender, or socio-economic standing. If this assertion represents an invalidation of ethnic distinctions altogether, then it also invalidates, for example, any gender distinctions. The kingdom, on the other hand, is broader than the scope of the body, as there will be citizens of the kingdom from Old Testament times (Abraham, etc.), but those citizens are not part of the body of Christ. Recognizing that not all citizens of the kingdom are from the body of Christ yet all members of the body of Christ are citizens of the kingdom is to observe a vital distinction embedded in the Biblical narrative. As is often the case, acknowledging textually explicit distinctions can help keep us from a confused theology that blurs definitions and juxtaposes things which are separate.
Notes
1 Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton: Victor, 1993), 35-36.
2 Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 231.
3 Robert Thomas, The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism, TMSJ 6:2, Spring 1995: 88.
4 E.g., Matthew 13:31,33,44,45,47,52, 20:1, Mark 4:26, Luke 13:18, 19:12,15.
DrCone.com Articles
Reposted from DrCone.com.
Christopher Cone Bio 2020
Christopher Cone, Christopher Cone, Th.D, Ph.D, Ph.D, serves as President and CEO of AgathonEDU Educational Group and leads Vyrsity and Colorado Biblical University. Dr. Cone has served as a President, a Chief Academic Officer, and a Research Professor and has served in several pastoral teaching roles. His articles are published at www.drcone.com.
My thoughts are mixed on this.
I do agree that gentile Christians are not and do not become Jews, though we are participants of the Jewish commonwealth (Eph. 2:12, my understanding). I agree that Christ is not reigning on the throne of David, though whether seated upon it is academic.
But the NT is filled with double or multiple layers of meaning and methodology. For example, the believer’s standing is being seating above the heavenlies, but our state is here on earth. The fulness of our standing is realized in the future. In a similar way, the believer is part of the Kingdom, but He is here on earth as an unwelcome ambassador of that Kingdom. We are part of the Kingdom with many privileges of the Kingdom, but the full blessings of that Kingdom are yet future. One first century Jewish belief was that we enter that Kingdom when we study the Word or pray, and I think there is a sense in which this is true.
The NT authors sometimes draw multiple understandings of OT texts. Many times this is literal exposition, but sometimes the principle of the text is what they emphasize. For example, the Torah command about oxen is straightforward enough, and I think we agree that is the primary meaning of the verse. But a secondary meaning — based on principle — is seen in I Corinthians 9:8-10 (ESV):
8 Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain.” Is it for oxen that God is concerned? 10 Does he not certainly speak for our sake? It was written for our sake, because the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher thresh in hope of sharing in the crop.
The Mount of Transfiguration, according to my understanding of Peter, was a “now, not yet” event in 2 Peter 1:16-18:
16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.
The idea that this is the Second Coming in a “now, not yet” sense is borne out by the Gospel context:
Matthew 16:28-17:3
28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
17 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.
There are many examples in Scripture of multiple meanings, but not negating the normal, straightforward meaning. It is the normal (somewhat literal) meaning PLUS, not instead of (which would be replacement theology).
BTW, I consider myself somewhere between traditional and progressive dispensationalism. Dispensationalism has loosened up a lot since Scofield (for example, many now recognize that the believe is under the New Covenant now) and needs to loosen up a little more, IMO. I think the fear of losing the straightforward more literal interpretation is behind much of it. And I share that fear.
"The Midrash Detective"
There are many examples in Scripture of multiple meanings, but not negating the normal, straightforward meaning.
I think the traditional dispy response to this is to distinguish between meaning and significance. Those texts have only 1 meaning, but they may have many significances or applications. The command to not muzzle the ox is a perfect example of this. Paul never says that Moses meant something other than the plain sense of those words, but the principle has a broader application than just oxen.
Those texts have only 1 meaning, but they may have many significances or applications.
Using a different term (significance) does not change the fact that the New Testament writers find something more than direct interpretation in their use of the Old Testament. Whether you call it levels of meaning or multiple implications or whatever, there is one original meaning as understood in the original context, but other levels of meaning that are not immediately obvious. The NT writers were authorized to find these, but no one since the apostles has the authority to find them as absolutes, but if they do, as possibilities. Midrash — as originally understood in the first century — entailed any sort of development of a text, whether straightforward interpretation (what is now called pesha) or developing a principle, or an observation not immediately apparent. The point is that the NT authors were not limited by only direct straightforward interpretation, but they never forsook it, just added to it.
"The Midrash Detective"
New Testament writers find something more than direct interpretation in their use of the Old Testament.
This is often claimed but never actually demonstrated, so far as I've seen. Mike Vlach dealt with this pretty thoroughly in The Old in the New, where he identified only about a dozen passages where a non-literal/secondary use of the OT is even possible, then showed that there are plausible explanations which do not involve any kind of dual-meaning. This isn't just semantics, it's a basic rule of communication that language is univocal, otherwise Scripture isn't revelation in any meaningful sense.
PVAWTER wrote, This is often claimed but never actually demonstrated, so far as I’ve seen.
I respect that you have to be convinced, but IMO the evidence is compelling. Here are a few more examples:
- Isaiah 7:14 and the Virgin Birth refers in the immediate context (chapters following) to Maher-shallal-hashbaz. Isaiah married a virgin. She then subsequently conceived (Isaiah 8:3). By the time it took for this to happen, the kingdoms that threatened Israel were no longer powerful (Isaiah 7:16), as prophesied. BUT this child was not Emmanuel. Jesus fulfilled the prophecy more literally in that Mary was a virgin and conceived as a virgin miraculously, and the child born was Emmanuel, God with us.
- John the Baptist says he is not Elijah in John’s Gospel (John 1:21), Jesus says he is Elijah in Matthew 11:14, and Luke tells us he came in the power and spirit of Elijah (Luke 1:17). This relates to the prophecy of Malachi 4:5-6. The only conclusion is that in a sense John is Elijah and in another sense he is not. And to add another layer, I believe that Elijah will be one of the two witnesses, and that will literally fulfill the Malachi 4 principle.
- The New Covenant is another example. I believe there is a clear sense in which believers are in the New Covenant now, but the fuller and more literal fulfillment will be during the last of the Tribulation and Millennium (Jeremiah 31:31-36) when all surviving Israel believes, every one of them.
To me, this is compelling.
Whether it is semantics or evasion, it makes more sense to loosen up and allow the NT writers the freedom they had to share different senses from these passages. We cannot do so with certainty because we are not inspired in the same way. Their authority was unique.
"The Midrash Detective"
The reason I mentioned Vlach is that he's done the heavy lifting to show (1) that there aren't many examples of NT writers doing something other than direct interpretation of OT texts, even though that claim is repeated almost as a truism, and (2) the about a dozen or so really difficult examples may be seen as direct interpretation of the OT text by the NT writer if we are willing to do due diligence in our interpretation of both passages. Abner Chou's The Hermeneutics of the Biblical Writers is another resource that deals with the same thing.
So the claim that the NT writers often interpreted the OT indirectly or by appealing to a secondary or other-than-literal meaning is simply not supported by the evidence. And since plausible literal interpretations exist for even those few texts which appear at first glance to be something else, the burden is on those proposing additional meanings to demonstrate that those interpretations are necessary and explicitly grounded in the text. This is why I find the hermeneutic of progressive dispensationalism no more convincing than that of the various flavors of covenant theology.
Pvawter wrote: there aren’t many examples…So the claim that the NT writers often interpreted the OT indirectly…
I am glad that you and Vlach recognize that the NT writers sometimes do this. And I agree that they do not do it often, but I wouldn’t say that it is rare, either. Whether or not I am correct about frequency, I think the point stands that dispensationalism must loosen up because the above examples require more flexible parameters. There are variations of dispensationalism; the more current common version has been adjusted since Darby/Scofield, and some still debate whether we are under the New Covenant, for example. When one crosses over the border to progressive dispensationalism can be a judgement call, with some, like myself, in no-man’s land between the two. However, allowing just for the exceptions I pointed out, some or many of previous generations of dispensationalists would have condemned any such teaching (i.e., allowing for the “exceptions” above).
Every hermeneutical system must flex. Hermeneutical constructs/paradigms are designed to help contain our propensity to drift, confusing spirituality with an active imagination. I get that. But if our system does not fit the examples of interpretation we see in Scripture, we need to adjust our system. And, IMO, traditional dispensationalism needs some adjustment, but not much.
"The Midrash Detective"
I am glad that you and Vlach recognize that the NT writers sometimes do this.
I'm sorry if my comment wasn't clear. As far as I'm concerned, our hermeneutic can be at loose as God's promises. That's pretty much the entire purpose of covenants, and I don't think we can or should look for wiggle room when something doesn't seem to fit immediately. Instead, we should be more suspicious of our own conclusions than the literal intention of the authors.
Well said, Ed!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
- Isaiah 7:14 and the Virgin Birth refers in the immediate context (chapters following) to Maher-shallal-hashbaz. Isaiah married a virgin.
Except the young woman in Isa 7:14 is a virgin and pregnant at the same time. That cannot Isaiah’s wife, and the child in Isa 7:14 is Immanuel and, as you say, “this child” (meaning Maher-shallel-hash-baz) was not Immanuel. So it seems quite clearly that this is not an example.
- John the Baptist … The only conclusion is that in a sense John is Elijah and in another sense he is not.
The most obvious conclusion seems to be one who came in the spirit and power of Elijah. It’s a kind of use of language that is common. If we, today, say, “We really need another George Washington,” we would quite obviously be referring to someone like George Washington. Jesus seems to make this clear when he refers to John the Baptist who was clearly not Elijah.
- The New Covenant is another example. I believe there is a clear sense in which believers are in the New Covenant now, but the fuller and more literal fulfillment will be during the last of the Tribulation and Millennium (Jeremiah 31:31-36) when all surviving Israel believes, every one of them.
Unsurprisingly, I don’t think the NC is an example at all, if we exegete the text. Believers participate in the blessings of the NC for sure, but they are not part of it in any meaningful textual sense. The NC is with the people described in vv. 31-32. Those words cannot apply to the church.
And why did you leave four verses off the NC?
In the end, language and communication would completely break down under these theories of multiple fulfillments. You might argue for stages of fulfillment, but not multiple or deeper.
And remember, a great deal of NT use of the OT is not interpretation at all. If you look at the various breakdowns (and there are quite a few), all have categories of usage that are not interpretation.
Discussion