Revised and progressive dispensationalists both seek to interpret the Bible in a literal fashion, employing a grammatical-historical hermeneutic. There are notable differences, however, as revised dispensationalists advocate a more strict literal hermeneutic. According to Mappes and House, more traditional dispensationalists practice a
common, consistent hermeneutical historical-grammatical-literal (sensus literal) method of interpretation to discern the intention of the human author by examining what the author affirms in the historical context of his writing and then correlate all the material related to a topic in a compressive manner. Rather than re-interpret the OT or practice a complementary hermeneutic, traditional dispensationalists seek to understand the literal meaning of a text by its immediate historical-textual
parameters and then understand how this meaning relates to God’s overall program.
This system of interpretation allows the immediate historical context of a passage to define and limit textual meaning.
422005); and Johnson, “A Traditional Dispensational Hermeneutic,” and Stanley D. Toussaint, “Israel and the Church of a Traditional Dispensationalist,” in Three Central Issues.
41Blaising, “Contemporary Dispensationalism,” 11, states that progressives believe in one divine plan of holistic redemption for all peoples and that this “holistic redemption is likewise partially and progressively realized in biblical history through a succession of divine-human dispensations and will be ultimately fulfilled when Christ returns and completes the final resurrection. The term progressive dispensationalism is taken from this notion of progressive revelation and accomplishment of one plan of redemption” (emphasis original). Cf. Blaising and Bock, “Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church,” 380.
42Mappes and House, “A Biblical and Theological Discussion,” 8-9, emphasis original.
Johnson, “A Traditional Dispensational Hermeneutic,” 65, explains that the “literal interpretation entails those meanings which the author intended to communicate in the expressions of the text (grammar) in the original setting (historical). Literal thus works with a text within the frame of an author and his
communication” (emphasis original). See also Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 91-93; Ice, “Dispensational Hermeneutics,” 30-31; and Couch, “Dispensational Hermeneutics,” 13-17. For a discussion on authorial
This plain or normal interpretative approach of literalism does allow for symbols, metaphors, and figures of speech. Stress is placed on the objectivity of the interpreter who does not read his or her theological system into the text and additionally, emphasis is placed on the static or fixed nature of meaning.
43On the issue of the expansion of meaning in the progress of revelation or with how later authors appropriate earlier texts, traditional dispensationalists find that meaning “is stable in spite of the perspective gained by further revelation.”
44There is only one single meaning as that meaning is fixed in the context of its original historical setting no matter how the NT uses the OT. Mappes and House write,
Traditional dispensationalists support the single historical, human/Divine authorial meaning for any given text. Some traditional dispensationalist [sic] support a controlled form of sensus plenior or reference plenior, though any fuller NT
explanation is only an extension and development of the OT authorial verbal meaning and thus always governed by the initial pattern of authorial meaning.
45intent, the interpreter’s identification of the type of meaning, and the principle of exegesis, see Elliott Johnson, “Author’s Intention and Biblical Interpretation,” in Hermeneutics, Inerrancy, and the Bible, ed.
Earl D. Radmacher and Robert D. Preus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 409-29.
43Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” 85-89. Mappes and House,
“A Biblical and Theological Discussion,” 12-13, write, “Once the human authorial meaning is determined, then that meaning becomes fixed in time and does not change.”
44Johnson, “A Traditional Dispensational Hermeneutic,” 67. Johnson adds that “[w]hile the questions of history and the benefits gained in the progress of revelation may introduce added complexity to interpretation, it does not invalidate the principle that literal is what an author intends to communicate through a text.” Ibid., 67. Mappes and House, “A Biblical and Theological Discussion,” 13, find that “[s]ince the OT provides the foundational building block for NT theology, the traditional dispensationalist argues that the OT literal interpretation must be preserved in light of later progressive revelation.” In arguing against progressive dispensationalists, Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” 89, strikingly states, “According to traditional hermeneutical principles, such a ‘bending’ [of the text] is impossible because the historical dimension fixes the meaning of a given passage and does not allow it to keep gaining new senses as it comes into new settings.” See also Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of
Discontinuity,” 120, 123-24.
45Mappes and House, “A Biblical and Theological Discussion,” 10-12, emphasis original. Cf.
Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 95-96. Feinberg, “Hermeneutics of Discontinuity,” 127-28, concludes, “ Where a promise or prediction is expanded or amplified, the amplification does not preclude the original addressees as a part of the referent (fulfillment) of that promise. Expansion does not require exclusion. Exclusion from any promise must be based upon some explicit or implicit statement of subsequent Scripture” (emphasis original). In addition to Feinberg, treatment of the NT use of the OT or the relationship between the
testaments in revised dispensationalism is addressed by Robert L. Thomas, “The New Testament Use of the Old Testament,” in Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond, 165-88; Ice, “Dispensational Hermeneutics,” 38- 41; Fruchtenbaum, Israelology, 842-45; House, “Traditional Dispensationalism and the Millennium,” 6-10;
Application of this hermeneutic is significant particularly for understanding OT prophecies and promises to national Israel. As Grenz observes, “The literalist hermeneutic leads dispensationalists to anticipate that prophecies concerning Israel (and perhaps the surrounding nations) will be fulfilled sometime in the future basically as they were originally given.”
46Thus, normative dispensationalists claim that consistency in utilizing a plain or literal hermeneutic requires the literal fulfillment of Israel’s promises and prophecies be met with Israel’s future possession of the promised land and reception of all the national blessings.
Progressive dispensationalists also advocate a literal hermeneutic as they contend that their form of dispensationalism “is not an abandonment of ‘literal’
interpretation for ‘spiritual’ interpretation. Progressive dispensationalism is a development of ‘literal’ interpretation into a more consistent historical-literary interpretation.”
47Noting the syntactical, rhetorical, history of interpretation, and literary studies, progressives call their approach the “historical-grammatical-literary-theological” method.
48Progressive
Springs: Victor, 1991), 260-70. Note also Elliott E. Johnson, “Dual Authorship and the Single Intended Meaning of Scripture,” BibSac 143 (1986): 218-27. Overall, traditional dispensationalists reject that the NT reinterprets OT prophecies and predictions to Israel as having fulfillment with the church. Where OT predictions are literally fulfilled requires clear indication in the NT, but other aspects of “fulfillment”
include analogical correspondence or application.
46Grenz, The Millennial Maze, 101. Grenz further finds that classical dispensationalists (which for him stands for dispensationalists prior to progressives, i.e., revised dispensationalists) take their literal hermeneutic to an extreme in advancing, based on the prophetic visions of Ezekiel, the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem and the reinstitution of the sacrificial system as a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice. On the subject of the rebuilding of the temple prophesied in Ezek 40-48, see Jerry Hullinger, “The Realization of Ezekiel’s Temple,” in Dispensationalism Tomorrow & Beyond, 375-95. John F. Walvoord, “Will Israel Build a Temple in Jerusalem?” BibSac 125 (1968): 99-106, appeals to NT texts (Matt 24:1-2, 15; 2 Thess 2:1-4; and Rev 13:14-15) to justify the future rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. For discussion of future animal sacrifices, see chap. 2, n123. Cf. Benware, Understanding End Times Prophecy, 334-36.
Some progressive dispensationalists also affirm these views while others do not. On the point of consistency in regard to the interpretation of prophecy, see Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 93-97.
47Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 52.
48Ibid., 77. Cf. Helyer, The Witness of Jesus, 111-12, and Holsteen, “The Hermeneutic of Dispensationalism,” 115-16, as they note other developments that impacted their hermeneutic.
dispensationalists do affirm the stability of textual meaning, the dual authorship of Scripture, and deny their approach allegorizes texts or creates multiple meanings or neglects the author’s original intent.
49While the commitment to grammatical-historical interpretation is maintained, their hermeneutic is more sophisticated than that of revised dispensationalists in that it is not strictly grammatical-historical. Progressives are more sensitive to the successive stages of Scripture in not treating them as discrete, distinct arrangements, and are more complex in how they interpret OT promises through the canonical horizon.
Probably the most significant interpretative feature of progressive
dispensationalism, and a point of much debate among dispensationalists, is the appeal to a complementary hermeneutic. Blaising and Bock describe the complementary concept:
According to this approach, the New Testament does introduce change and advance;
it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise.
50The original authorial intent with applications or implications of that meaning is not eschewed in this dispensational framework, but the progress of revelation brings
49See Darrell L. Bock, “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Three Central Issues, 85-118, esp. 90-96. Contra Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” 86-91.
50Blaising and Bock, “Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church,” 392-93. Bock, “Why I am a Dispensationalist,” 390, explains that the “‘complementary’ hermeneutic of progressive dispensationalism meant that what the NT gives us comes in alongside what God has already revealed in the OT. God can say more in his development of promises from the OT in the NT, but not less. He can also bring fresh connections in the development of promises as more revelation fills it out. It is this dynamic of the multitemporal dimension of promise that some dispensationalists have underplayed, while covenant theologians have overplayed the NT element. Texts raising the note of fulfillment define the scope of its realization and its timing. The covenant integration argues that the OT hope has been transcended and/or more clearly articulated by the NT. Progressives argue that the NT indicates a complement of the OT promise, with more fulfillment also to come within the ethnic structures the OT had already indicated. This means that in both views the Church can exist as a distinct institution in the plan of God and yet can share in promises originally given to Israel, because God brings them into the promise through his plan involving Christ the seed of Abraham, who also was the promised vehicle through whom the world would be blessed (Galatians 3-4).” For critiques of this complementary hermeneutic by more traditional dispensationalists, see Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 205-6; Thomas, “The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” 89-93; Baker,
“Is Progressive Dispensationalism Really Dispensational?,” 349-54.
complementary aspects of meaning as additional elements of the text’s message take added shape.
51Progressive dispensationalists, then, offer a multilayered reading of the text in accounting for the near context and in consideration to the inter-textual literary connections that occur in the more distant contexts.
52The three levels of reading are the historical-exegetical level (the immediate context), the biblical-theological level (context of the whole book where the text is found), and the canonical-systematic level (reading a text in light of the whole canon).
53This approach to biblical texts overcomes the problems in more traditional forms of dispensationalism that do not allow the NT to develop the progress of a promise given how the OT is prioritized. Further, this hermeneutic avoids the criticisms of the revised dispensational hermeneutic that has been described as a “flat”
reading or interpretation of Scripture.
54From these differing hermeneutical commitments arise other dissimilarities between progressive and revised dispensationalists, particularly
51Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 64, 68; Bock, “Hermeneutics of
Progressive Dispensationalism,” 90, 96-98; Saucy, “The Progressive Dispensational View,” 158. Darrell L.
Bock, “Current Messianic Activity and OT Davidic Promise: Dispensationalism, Hermeneutics, and NT Fulfillment,” TrinJ 15 (1994): 71, explains, “Does the expansion of meaning entail a change of meaning?
This is an important question for those concerned about consistency within interpretation. . . . The answer is both yes and no. On the one hand, to add to the revelation of a promise is to introduce ‘change’ to it through addition. But that is precisely how revelation progresses, as referents are added to the scope of a previously given promise. If the promise were present with its full meaning from the start, then where would the revelatory progress of promise reside? There would be no progression, only a re-presentation of meaning. . . . Progress and expansion can emerge as more pieces of the promise are brought together into a unified whole or as more of its elements are revealed. These additions can occur without undercutting a consistency of meaning, which is necessary for texts to be understandable and hermeneutics to be stable. In sum, the disclosure and nature of promise is not a static, but a dynamic process of progressive revelation about God’s covenants.”
52See Darrell L. Bock, “The Son of David and the Saints’ Task: The Hermeneutics of Initial Fulfillment,” BibSac 150 (1993): 445-47; Blaising, “Israel and Hermeneutics,” 154-55; Blaising, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” 81-83; and Saucy, “The Progressive Dispensational View,” 157-60.
53Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 100-101; Bock, “The Son of David,”
445n9. Saucy is not as explicit about his reading approach in The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, but a complementary hermeneutic with fuller meaning understood to reside at the canonical level appears in Saucy, “The Progressive Dispensational View,” 156-65.
54Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 87-96.