UNIFIED MANNER IN THE CONSUMMATION
(KINGDOM THEOLOGY)
As I come to the final chapter of this dissertation, although I have sought to be fair to the different views I have considered and to represent them as accurately as
possible, I have not entered into this project as an objective observer without a viewpoint.
I am persuaded by kingdom theology—referred to as Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) for the remainder of this chapter in which I will make a case for it.1 In doing so, I
endeavor to show that PD addresses many of the weak points of the other systems
brought out in the assessment sections of the foregoing. I want to reiterate that the burden of this dissertation is not to show that PD is completely correct and other views are incorrect; rather, as evaluated through the criteria proposed by Wolfe for a strong interpretive system, I argue that PD is just such a system.
In arguing for PD, a breadth of contributors to this model will be utilized and interacted with. However, the writings of Craig Blaising will be prominently featured, as he was a principal formulator of the view from its inception in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In addition, since that time, Blaising has made the largest contribution to the continuing explication and refinement of PD.
1 More recently, PD is also being referred to as “Redemptive Kingdom Theology,” or simply,
“Kingdom Theology.” Although kingdom theology is out of the dispensational tradition, it is distinct from earlier forms of dispensationalism and makes a unique contribution to evangelical theology—thus, a different name is warranted. See Craig A. Blaising, “A Theology of Israel and the Church,” in Israel, the Church, and the Middle East: A Biblical Response to the Current Conflict, ed. Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2018), 88; see also Craig A. Blaising, “Progressive Dispensationalism as Kingdom Theology” (paper presented at Evangelical Theological Society National Conference, Fort Worth, TX, November 2021), 1.
188 Hermeneutics
In what follows, I wish to show that PD’s approach to hermeneutics is a development and an advance of the interpretive practices of CD and RD. In addition, the hermeneutics of PD are distinct in some important ways from other contemporary models considered in this dissertation, and the interpretive practices of PD can be shown to produce a stronger interpretive system.
Development beyond the hermeneutics of classic dispensationalism and revised dispensationalism. In the history of Christian interpretation there has been much debate regarding spiritual versus literal hermeneutics. John Walvoord traces this debate (and the church moving in a wrong-headed direction towards spiritual interpretation) back to the church fathers, to the Alexandrian school which championed allegorical interpretation, to Augustine proposing literal interpretation for most of Scripture but spiritual interpretation for the prophetic portions, to the Catholic church carrying on Augustine’s approach, and eventually even the Reformers adopting it.2 It seems for Walvoord (as seen in the preface of his book The Millennial Kingdom in which he briefly discusses hermeneutics) and other revised dispensationalists, that problematic
interpretations can almost always be traced to violating the fundamental principle of literal interpretation: “Though recognizing that some Scriptures are contextually indicated as containing figures of speech and not intended for literal interpretation, premillennial interpretation finds no need for spiritualizing prophecy any more than any other portion, of Scripture.”3 A similar posture comes across in Ryrie’s second point of his sine qua non of dispensationalism: “Spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or
2 John F. Walvoord, preface to The Millennial Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), v–
vi.
3 Walvoord, preface, vi.
189
greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a
nondispensational approach. Consistently literal or plain interpretation is indicative of a dispensational approach to the interpretation of the Scriptures.”4 However, as was argued in chapter 4, there are inconsistencies in how Ryrie, Walvoord, and other revised
dispensationalists actually practice what they claim to be consistent, literal hermeneutics.
In fact, Ryrie and Walvoord’s view that involves the translation of Jewish believers at the end of the millennium from an earthly existence to a heavenly existence for the rest of eternity, entails a spiritualization of numerous OT prophecies that describe Israel in possession of earthly land forever.5 As will be shown below, progressive
dispensationalists affirm a new creation eschatology in which Israel will indeed possess her earthly land forever. Thus, the inconsistency of RD, which seems to practice a literal hermeneutic from creation through the millennium in the storyline, is removed in PD which practices a literal hermeneutic from creation through the eternal consummation in the canonical narrative. In this way, the hermeneutics of PD are actually more
consistently literal than that of RD.
Although the revised dispensational emphasis on literal interpretation along with their stern warnings to avoid spiritualizing were very important contributions, their overall approach to hermeneutics was too simplistic. Commenting on the development of interpretation in the dispensational tradition, Blaising writes,
Biblical interpretation developed from the middle to the latter part of the twentieth century. Dispensationalists changed from advocating a dual hermeneutic of spiritual and literal interpretation [the approach of CD] to an emphasis on consistently literal
4 Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago: Moody, 1965), 45–46. Radmacher maintains that of Ryrie’s three points of sine qua non, it is point two that is the fundamental pillar of dispensationalism: consistent, literal interpretation. Radmacher writes, “Why should one make such a fuss over a proper statement of the basic principle? Because it is so utterly fundamental to understand that the foundational premise of dispensationalism is not theological but hermeneutical.” Earl D. Radmacher, “The Current Status of Dispensationalism and Its Eschatology,” in Perspectives on Evangelical Theology:
Papers from the Thirtieth Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, ed. Kenneth S. Kantzer and Stanley N. Gundry (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 166.
5 This insight was pointed out to me by Craig Blaising in a private conversation.
190
from the “clear plain” method of attaching to words whatever meaning ‘‘seemed clear” to the interpreter to a more critical awareness of how bias (or pre-
understanding) conditions our intuitions, our impressions of certainty, and clarity of interpretation. Literal interpretation also developed as grammatical-historical interpretation. From an early emphasis on the grammatical analysis of words, interpretation broadened to include syntactical rhetorical, and literary study.
Historical interpretation expanded beyond dates and chronologies to include the historical setting and development of themes, words and ideas. It also came to bear on the history of interpretation the matter of tradition and the historical context of the interpreter [the approach of PD].6
In addition to the aforementioned, there are other aspects of the modern art and science of biblical interpretation that PD has integrated enabling more hermeneutical precision.7 For instance, greater recognition of the literary/formal level of interpretation in which words, sentences, and paragraphs are structured so as to form different kinds of literary genres.8 Progressive dispensationalists more readily appreciated the variegated genres of Scripture (narrative, poetry, law, reports, letters, songs, etc.), and recognized that when an interpreter comes to a text, he must be aware of the kind of literature he is reading and ascertain the literary connection of the passage to its surrounding context.9 Another advance in the hermeneutics of PD (beyond that practiced by CD and RD) is an emphasis on thematic and intertextual development.10 More careful attention was given to biblical themes like the “Kingdom of God” or the “Day of the Lord,” and how they are developed through the canon to come to an understanding of the meaning of
6 Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL:
BridgePoint, 1993), 51–52.
7 Craig A. Blaising, “Israel and Hermeneutics,” in The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel: Israel and the Jewish People in the Plan of God, ed. Darrell Bock and Mitch Glaser (Grand Rapids:
Kregel, 2014), 154.
8 Blaising, “Israel and Hermeneutics,” 154.
9 Blaising, “Israel and Hermeneutics,” 154–55.
10 Blaising, “Israel and Hermeneutics,” 155. Blaising argues that the “thematic is an aspect of contextual interpretation that recognizes that themes weave their way through larger literary structures.
Thematic connection in a larger literary work is a context just as important as, and maybe more than verbal proximity.”
191
particular uses in various places in Scripture. These considerations move in the direction of the broadest level of biblical interpretation: the canonical.
Canonical interpretation. Although what has just been described
distinguishes PD from traditional forms of dispensationalism, most of the above—what one might call “micro hermeneutics”—is broadly agreed upon by evangelicals today.
However, it is in the area of what one might call “macro hermeneutics,” or narratological canonical interpretation, in which interpreters synthesize themes and intertextual
development rendering an understanding of the biblical storyline that differences between the models considered in this dissertation become more apparent. It is here that PD shows itself to be distinct from both traditional dispensationalism (model 2) and forms of
covenantalism (model 1).
Progressive dispensationalism’s understanding of the relationship between Israel and the church. How one understands the relationship between Israel and the church in the plan of God is most certainly an act of canonical interpretation. As was discussed in chapter 2, one such approach to the Israel-church relationship is
supersessionism (model 1A). Supersessionists understand Israel of the OT to be replaced (superseded) in the NT by a different reality.12 In this view, from the divine perspective, Israel, was an earthly people that was always intended by God to be replaced by “a new Israel,” a spiritual people, the church.13 Given this macro hermeneutical move, it follows that promises to ethnic, national, territorial (ENT) Israel in the OT have to be spiritually interpreted to be fulfilled in the church in the NT.14
11 Blaising, “Israel and Hermeneutics,” 155.
12 Blaising, “Theology of Israel and Church,” 85.
13 Blaising, “Theology of Israel and Church,” 86.
14 Blaising, “Theology of Israel and Church,” 86–87.