Problems with Progressive Dispensationalism

Dr. Ron Bigalke

Pre-Trib Study Group

Fifteenth Annual Meeting, 4-6December 2006

Sheraton Grand Hotel, Dallas/ Ft. Worth

Dispensationalist critic, George E. Ladd, wrotethe following words regarding dispensationalists: "It is doubtful if there hasbeen any other circle of men who have done more by their influence inpreaching, teaching and writing to promote a love for Bible study, a hunger forthe deeper Christian life, a passion for evangelism and zeal for missions inthe history of American Christianity."[1]The system of dispensationalism has endured much opposition within the past fewdecades, primarily from nondispensational evangelicals. However, a form of"dispensationalism" called "progressive" has emerged whose adherents believethey are in the line of normative or traditional dispensationalism, yet,together, they have made significant changes and revisions to the traditionaldispensational system. Whereas adherents of Progressive Dispensationalism(hereafter PD) regard themselves as supplementing the continual development ofdispensational theology, they have also sought dialogue between dispensationaland nondispensational systems. Although progressives have rejected Dr. CharlesC. Ryrie's sine qua non in his classic DispensationalismToday (published by Moody Pressin 1966), which was later revised and expanded in 1995 as simply Dispensationalism to include his confrontation of the increasinglypopular PD, they have not articulated a definition. Therefore, Ryrie offeredthe following definition/description of progressive dispensationalism based onthe outline of his sine qua non:"(1) teaches that Christ is already reigning in heaven on the throne of David,thus merging the church with a present phase of the already inaugurated Davidiccovenant and kingdom; (2) this is based on a complementary hermeneutic thatallows the New Testament to introduce changes and additions to Old Testamentrevelation; and (3) the overall purpose of God is Christological, holisticredemption being the focus and goal of history."[2]

Defining Dispensationalism

The word "dispensation" issimply a compound of two Greek words, ŏikŏs ("house") and nŏmŏs ("law"). The central ideaof dispensationalism is "house law" or "managing or administering the affairsof a household."[3] From this one derives the idea of an "economy,stewardship, arrangement," or simply a "dispensation." The Greek word for dispensation is ŏikŏnŏmia and is found in passages such as Luke 16:2-4; 1Corinthians 9:17; Ephesians 1:10; 3:2, 9; Colossians 1:25; and 1 Timothy 1:4.

Dispensationalismis that biblical system of theology that views the Word of God as unfoldingdistinguishable economies in the outworking of the divine purposes for thenation of Israel in a distinct and separate manner from His purpose for thechurch. Ryrie demonstrated that from these ideas one distinguishes "theoutworking of God's purpose."^[4]Dispensations are also understood as the sovereign work of God, not man. Thedispensations are "economies instituted and brought to their purposefulconclusion by God."^[5]

Tosummarize: Dispensationalism views the world as a household run by God. In Hishousehold-world God is dispensing or administering its affairs according to Hisown will and in various stages of revelation in the passage of time. Thesevarious stages mark off the distinguishably different economies in theoutworking of His total purpose, and these different economies constitute thedispensations. The understanding of God's differing economies is essential to aproper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.^[6]

Dispensations arerecognizable historic divisions in Scripture wherein God observes the actionsand thoughts of man in time and history, and judges the actions and thoughts ofman. In every dispensation, man fails to obey God both morally and spiritually.Dispensations are notdiffering manners of salvation. Throughout the ages of time and history, asrevealed in Scripture, man is always saved by grace through faith in thecontent of God's revelation. The content of faith may change, but man is alwayssaved by grace through faith alone. In the New Testament, saving faith istrusting in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ for one's sins.Christ and His atonement are the content of the sinner's belief.

Number of Dispensations

Most dispensationalists believe Scripture affirmsseven dispensations. However, all would agree there at least three main historicaldivisions in God's interaction with man: Law, Grace, and Kingdom.^[7]The Apostle Paul clearly made a distinction between the Dispensation of Law andthe Dispensation of Grace in Colossians 1:25-27. Paul also alluded to theDispensation of the Kingdom in Ephesians 1:10. By analyzing the Bible carefully,other dispensations seem to surface naturally in the historical narration. Fewhave questioned the fact that the apostle Paul referenced at least three of theseven.

Paulclearly contrasted between the Dispensation of Law and the Dispensation of theChurch. He wrote concerning the stewardship ("dispensation") that was given tohim by God, the "mystery" that "has been hidden from the past ages and generations; but has now beenmanifested to His saints . . . the riches of the glory of this mystery amongthe Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" (Col 1:25-27). Thistruth had been hidden from ages past but is now manifested to the presentsaints in contrast to the factthat saints of the past had not known this great spiritual truth of redemption!

InColossians 1, and in Ephesians 3, Paul's "mystery of Christ" (Eph 3:4) isclearly the Dispensation of the Church. He wrote, "which in other generationswas not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed" (3:5).Specifically the Gentiles would become fellow partakers [with the Jews] of thesame spiritual body, and become fellow heirs of the promise in Christ Jesus(3:6). Therefore, it was given to Paul "to bring to light what is theadministration [dispensation] of the mystery which for ages has been hidden inGod" (3:9). Without question, the great Apostle was referring to theDispensation of the Church.

Finally,Paul alluded to the Dispensation of the future Kingdom when he wrote inEphesians 1:9-10: "[God] made known to us the mystery of His will . . . with aview to an administration [dispensation] suitable to the fulness of the times, thatis, the summing up of all thingsin Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth."

Dispensationsin Progressive Dispensationalism

"Progressivedispensationalists understand the dispensations not simply as different arrangements between God and humankind, but as successivearrangements in the progressiverevelation and accomplishment ofredemption."[8] It appearsthat most theological systems which are antagonistic to dispensationalism arefavorable (in some degree) to PD. For instance, Chris Strevel, pastor ofCovenant Presbyterian Church, applauded the progressives for an emphasis on"covenantal unity."[9] PD teachesthat the church is receiving benefit of a "partial and glorious experience" ofsome aspects of the Davidic kingdom, which according to postmillennialism iscommendable since this teaching emphasizes covenantal unity as some OldTestament prophecies are fulfilled in the church. According to progressives,"The present dispensation is not the full and complete revelation of theeschatological kingdom. It is a progressive stage in the revelation of thatkingdom."[10] PDemphasizes differences and discontinuity within the dispensations, butsimilarity and continuity is highlighted and related to a redemptive (kingdomof God) theme throughout the whole of human history.[11]Accordingly, PD yields four primary dispensations.[12]

Itis difficult to understand why progressives begin their Patriarchal Dispensationwith Adam and continue it to Sinai, when it would be best to understand thepre-fall Dispensation of Innocence separately. Even Galatians 3:8-16 emphasizesthe uniqueness of the Dispensation of Promise. Ryrie commented on thispeculiarity: "To lump pre-Fall conditions, post-Fall conditions and theAbrahamic covenant under common stewardship arrangement or dispensation isartificial to say the least."[13]

Thereis no problem with the beginning point of the Mosaic Dispensation beginning atSinai, but there is simply no good biblical reason for not ending it at thedeath of Christ (cf. Rom 3:20; Gal 3:18-25; 4:5; Col 2:14). It appears thealready/not yet presupposition is the only reason for ending this dispensationat the ascension.

TheNew Covenant was ratified by Christ's death and was launched by the coming ofthe Holy Spirit (Acts 2). The Dispensation of the Church is based upon the NewCovenant and characterizes how God will deal with people in the currentdispensation. The Ecclesial (as opposed to church) Dispensation will simply bea confusing term to most.

TheZionic Dispensation, which is subdivided into the millennium and the eternalstate, clearly disregards the uniqueness of the millennium (the promiseddispensation so often mentioned in the Old Testament). The promises in the OldTestament are Jewish promises made to Israel concerning an earthly, historicglory with the King Jesus Christ reigning in splendor. The three sub-covenantsof the Abrahamic Covenant will be fulfilled in the kingdom. The final rebellionin the Dispensation of the Kingdom will close the dispensations in the failureof mankind. The ungodly dead, apparently from all dispensations, are raised forfinal judgment prior to the beginning of Eternity with a New Heaven and a NewEarth. The uniqueness of the millennium has always been an integral componentof dispensationalism, and is now a component that progressives have surrenderedunbiblically in their eschatology to grant appeal with covenant theology.

The emphasis in PD upon similarity and continuity of thedispensations to the exclusion of discontinuity is more in common with covenanttheology than traditional dispensationalism. Progressives are currentlycommitted to futurist eschatology, but the stress upon continuity raisesconcern as to what extent they will continue to distinguish God's program forIsrael and the church (major de-emphasis on the uniqueness of the church hasalready been articulated in PD writings). If PD completely commingles Israeland the church (i.e. replacement theology), then it will be obvious that thesystem is not a valid form of dispensationalism. Of course, if biblicaldispensationalists do not challenge the threat with a reasonable response, whenprogressives have finally found their "definition" they may have so erodedformerly dispensational schools to the point of no return.

Christocentricity

Blaising has said that Christocentricity means, "[a]llScripture points to Christ and is interpreted correctly only with respect toChrist."[14] Contrary toBlaising, this is a feature that has been an emphasis universally recognized byall dispensationalists (Luke 24:27, 44). However, Blaising and Bock wanted togive the impression that PD has returned to the Christocentricity of Niagaraand that the Scofield and Ryrie (essentialist) eras had abandoned thisprinciple with their alleged "anthropologically centered"[15]and "doxological unity."[16]

Whatis needed today is a new approach to defining dispensationalismone that mayrehabilitate and revise features that were central to an earlierdispensationalism but may have been eclipsed by the concerns of an interveninggeneration [such as Scofield and Ryrie] (such as the factors of exclusivity andChristocentricity, which present-day dispensationalists share more closely withthe Niagara dispensationalists than they do with their immediate predecessors).[17]

Scofieldand Ryrie demonstrated that they are just as Christocentric as Niagara.

TheCentral Theme of the Bible is Christ. It is this manifestation of Jesus Christ,his Person as "God manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim. 3:16), his sacrificial death,and his resurrection, which constitute the Gospel. Unto this all precedingScripture leads, from this all following Scripture proceeds.[18]

Theoutstanding theme that ties those sixty-six books together is God's provisionof a Savior in Jesus Christ. The Old Testament predicts His coming, and the NewTestament announces the good news of His coming. Not every verse, of course,directly mentions Him, but He is the theme that ties the Bible together.[19]

Blaisingand Bock used this point about Christocentricity as their integrating principlebetween Old and New Testament theology.[20]

Thedispensationalism of this book distinguishes itself from the immediatelypreceding dispensationalism [i.e., Ryrie] and Scofieldism by the fact thatinstead of being anthropologically centered on two peoples, it isChristologically centered.[21]

Itappears that Blaising and Bock are using Christocentricity in a mannerdifferent than Niagara and other dispensationalists. They seem to have used itas a mechanism to separate dispensational distinctives (hardly the samedirection that those of the Niagara era were moving). They seem to be usingChristocentricity in the same manner a covenant theologian uses the covenant toargue against distinctions seen by dispensationalists. Christocentricity is oneof the devices they used to argue for a present form of a Davidic rule forChrist.

Themovement from the past to the present and then to the future dispensations isnot due to a plan for two different kinds of people but rather is due to thehistory of Christ's fulfilling the plan of holistic redemption in phases(dispensations).[22]

ForBlaising to describe PD as Christocentric, as set against the characterizationthat Scofield's dispensationalism is anthropologically centered or Ryrie's isdefectively theocentric is an arbitrary judgment. It could just as likely beensaid (only as a matter of illustration) that Blaising and Bock's dispensationalism is influenced by KarlBarth, since he is often described as having a Christocentric theology. Itwould be better to understand each brand of dispensationalism as having acertain view of each aspect of theology. Each view has an anthropologicaldimension. Each view has a Christological position, etc. Therefore, it does notmake one form of dispensationalism any better or more heroic (better able toexplain the Bible) to state that PD is Christocentric, as set against otherforms of dispensationalism.[23]

Israel and the Church

The emphasis upon the continuity of thedispensations in PD results in a lessening of teaching regarding the uniquenessof the church. Even the mystery concept of the church is not taught asunrevealed in the Old Testament but merely unrealized. The outcome of continualPD development and departure from dispensationalism may result in teaching Goddoes not truly have a separate program for the church. The church is alreadyregarded as a sub-category of the kingdom in PD. It is called an "'already', or'sneak preview'" of the kingdom[24]and a "'functional outpost of God's Kingdom.'"[25]The church is regarded as the present revelation of the kingdom today.[26]Indeed, David Turner referred to "the 'new Israel,' the church."[27]Significantly, Bruce Waltke's response to PD noted that Turner's "position is closerto covenant theology than to dispensationalism."[28]By confusing the uniqueness of the church, PD is regarding the rapture as aminimal doctrine and therefore disregarding God's revealed program for thechurch.

Blaisingexplained that PD's search for a new definition "has led manydispensationalists to abandon the transcendental distinction of heavenly versus earthly peoples in favor of ahistorical distinction in theprogressive revelation of the divine purpose. The unity of divine revelation,of the various dispensations, is found in the goal of history, the kingdom ofGod."[29]It is important to remember that progressives have an agenda for integratingdispensational and nondispensational systems, in addition to the distinctionsbetween the church and Israel. It is for this reason they downplay the raptureand the fact that this is the next great event for the church. The rapture isway down the list of important doctrines in PD; yet, with all due respect,there are over thirteen identifiable rapture passages in the New Testamentwhich does not make the doctrine a minor issue.

Blaisingalluded to dispensationalist statements of a heavenly destiny for the churchand an earthly destiny for Israel. The word "destiny" is possibly misleading.The words purpose, program, and function are best used to describe what isoccurring with the church and Israel. God has a distinct purpose and programfor the church now. He has a distinct purpose, program, and function for Israelin the kingdom, even though the church will be there with the Lord. Acts 1:6-7;3:18-on; 1 Thessalonians 1:10, and especially all that is written in Jeremiah30-33, have much to say about the regathering of the Jews, God's purpose forthem in the kingdom, and the intent of the kingdom.

Perhapsthe greatest concern regarding PD is the confusion it has created regarding thedistinctions between Israel and the church. For instance, one progressivewrote, "The believing remnant of Israel within the church share in promisesthat have Old Testament roots. Through the covenants, Messiah, and promises of Israel,they experience promised blessings in which Gentiles also participate."[30]Another progressive stated, "One of the most striking differences between progressiveand earlier dispensationalists, is that progressives do not view the church asan anthropological category in the same class as terms like Israel, GentileNations, Jews, and Gentile people. . . . The church is precisely redeemedhumanity itself (both Jews and Gentiles) as it exists in this dispensation prior to the coming of Christ."[31]Another progressive, for yet another example, referred to "the 'new Israel,'the church."[32] It appears,at times, that progressives are advocating a holistic and unified doctrine ofsalvation that is similar to the covenant of grace in covenant theology.Furthermore, Paul did regard the church as anthropologically distinct fromIsrael and the Gentiles in 1 Corinthians 10:32. Another progressive referred toIsrael and the church as the "one people of God" meaning salvation has alwaysbeen by grace through faith (which is, of course, biblical), but suchterminology confuses the distinctions between Israel and the church andactually appears to be in greater agreement with covenant theology.

Althoughprogressives claim to employ a grammatical-historical interpretation, they meansomething entirely different from traditional dispensationalism. For instance,grammatical-historical interpretation means there is a single-meaning assignedto a text that does not change. However, the complementary hermeneutic of PDdoes teach the meaning of texts can change. It is true that progressives arenot teaching the New Testament abandons Old Testament promises (as inamillennialism), but their focus on "preunderstandings" and openness tonondispensational systems causes this author to wonder if they will eventuallymove in that direction since they are already closer to a modified form ofcovenant theology.

Literal Interpretation of the BiblicalCovenants

Progressive dispensationalist, Craig Blaising,indicated the drift today from literal interpretation. He wrote, "Hermeneuticshas become much more complex today than when Charles Ryrie affirmed literalinterpretation as the 'clear, plain, normal' method of interpretation. . . .Literary interpretation has developed so that some things which earlierinterpreters thought they 'clearly' saw in Scripture, are not 'clearly' seentoday at all."[33] It isbecause of progressive dispensationalists' drift toward nondispensationalsystems of interpretation that they have adopted the same hermeneuticalprinciples of anti-dispensational systems. The grammatical-historicalinterpretation (which Blaising referenced) has always been identified withdispensational hermeneutics; however, PD uses the term in a manner quitedifferent than dispensationalists historically.

Inthe 1950s and '60s, other evangelicals were also shying away from "spiritualhermeneutics" ["typology"] in favor of grammatical-historical interpretation.However, evangelical grammatical-historical interpretation was also broadeningin the mid-twentieth century to include the developing field of biblicaltheology. Grammatical analysis expanded to include developments in literarystudy, particularly in the study of genre, or literary form, and rhetoricalstructure. Historical interpretation came to include a reference to thehistorical and cultural context of individual literary pieces for their overallinterpretation. And by the late 1980s, evangelicals became more aware of theproblem of the interpreter's historical context and traditionalpreunderstanding of the text being interpreted. These developments are nowshared by evangelical biblical scholars of different traditions, including manydispensationalists. They have opened up new vistas for discussion which werenot considered by earlier interpreters, including classical and many reviseddispensationalists. These are the developments which have led to what is nowcalled "progressive dispensationalism."[34]

Almosttwo decades earlier, Blaising had written, ". . . consistently literal exegesisis inadequate to describe the essential distinctive of dispensationalism."[35]Progressive dispensationalists are not rejecting literal interpretationcompletely; they are rejecting consistent, traditional historical-grammaticalinterpretation. Traditional dispensationalists have always employed aconsistent and literal interpretation of the Scripture from Genesis toRevelation.[36] Today anew, compromised hermeneutic of the former is being employed by progressivedispensationalists called a "complementary hermeneutic."

Certainlythere have been differences of opinion in the history of dispensationalism;however, the progressives' new approach to hermeneutics is a major changecompared to earlier dispensationalism, which always taught that there was onlyone intended meaning of a text. Historically, the Protestant Reformers affirmedthat subjects could change in paragraphs, but there is only one subject in viewin any given passage. In other words, there is no expanded meaning that can bederived beyond the original intent of Scripture.

Itis important again to note that Blaising and Bock's book, subtitled TheSearch for Definition, rejectedRyrie's sine qua non but theauthors did not attempt to articulate any essentials themselves! Blaisingbelieves that traditional dispensationalism is the product of Baconianism andwould rather have Christians to be "text-based."[37]The issue is whether there can be clear essentials that are demonstrated to bevalid by interaction with the Text. The interpreter is told that he mustrecognize his "human limitations" and preunderstanding (the "hermeneuticalspiral") before interpreting Scripture. Certainly, one must rely on the HolySpirit to illumine the mind (1 Cor 2), but this is not to say that a sinequa non is irrelevant. Theconclusion is one of postmodern subjectivity rather than any form ofobjectivity. The result is a multilevel (up to three levels) reading ofScripture that creates a complementary hermeneutic.[38]

Bockargued, "Both our limitations and our grid [our preunderstandings[39]]are combined to form a prism through which we interpret reality and throughwhich we read our texts. As good as the text is that which we read, it alwayscomes to us through the prism we construct of reality."[40]Presuppositions[41] andpreunderstandings, according to PD, hinder interpreting Scripture according tothe original intent.[42]Concerning the postmodern influence upon hermeneutics, McQuilkin and Mullenwrote,

It [postmodern thinking] is saidby some to be the logical development of modernism toward ever greaterrelativity, not only in the perception of truth but also of reality itself. Onthis view postmodernism would be the logical outcome of Enlightenment thinking,the final step of recognizing that meaning is created in part, at least, by mypersonal perceptions. . . . The role of the interpreter, the knowing subject,is being redefined not merely for how meaning is to be understood andcommunicated but actually for how the interpreter participates in the creationof meaning and even, for some, the creation of whatever reality there is.[43]

Due to presuppositionsand preunderstandings, the interpreter can only approximate towardunderstanding the authorial intent of Scripture, which is why progressives givemuch emphasis to what is called a "community hermeneutic."[44]Postmodernists apply the deconstruction of literature to "interpret reality" byemphasizing the reader-response theory of meaning, which "is a fancy way ofsaying that when you read something, you can never know for sure what the writermeant. Meaning is determined by the reader. . . . Nothing is clear. Nothing iscertain. Everything is interpretation."[45]The meaning of a given verse is dependent upon the presuppositions andpreunderstandings of the one who is reading the text. There can be as manyacceptable interpretations as there are readers. Presuppositions andpreunderstandings "influence perspective and impact interpretation."[46]

Consequently,the multilevel ("layered") approach of PD is remarkably similar to theamillennial approach of Vern Poythress who suggested four levels ofcommunication in the symbolism of Bible prophecy.[47]Likewise C. Marvin Pate, a progressive dispensationalist, followed the multilevelapproach of amillennialism as he wrote in harmony with preterists who interpretfirst century Jerusalem with those prophecies of Babylon in the book ofRevelation. [48] Pate'sinterpretative approach is eclectic as he combined forms of preterism andidealism with futurism.[49]Instead of teaching one single meaning, Pate can be in harmony with almost allprophetic views. The self-defeating nature of this eclectic approach is seen inPate's attempt to state Revelation records prophesied events preceding thepredictions that prophesied of tribulation events. For instance, he believesthe prophesied wars within the second, third, and fifth seal judgments occurredbefore Revelation was written.[50]Clearly, progressives do not offer clarity of the text; rather they offerconfusion by introducing precariousness to hermeneutics.

Theissue in regards to the difference in hermeneutics has to do with the subjectof progressive revelation, which is the gradual unfolding over a chronologicalperiod of certain revealed truths of God as recorded in Scripture. The issue ofhermeneutics is the major difference between progressives and traditionalists.Progressive revelation emphasizes development, or enlargement of God'ssovereign plan. Dr. John Walvoord wrote,

Dispensationalistsall recognize that there is the element of progressive revelation throughoutScripture, and in fact this is inherent in and emphasized by dispensationalinterpretation. The difference between the dispensational interpretation andthe nondispensational interpretation is not an affirmation or denial ofprogressive revelation, but rather is the contrast between literal versusnonliteral interpretation. It seems clear to most observers of the history ofdoctrine that prior to the writings of the New Testament, prophets as well asordinary people in the Old Testament understood that God had a special programfor Israel, and that this had its consummation in the coming of their Messiahand in their repossession of the promised land. The golden age predicted in theOld Testament for Israel anticipated a literal fulfillment.

Thedifference in interpretation originates when amillenarians and somepremillenarians interpret the New Testament as contradicting or amending thisconcept to the extent of substituting a nonliteral fulfillment of these hopesvoiced in the Old Testament. The issue accordingly is not progressiverevelation versus nonprogressive revelation, but rather whether in progressiverevelation there is contradiction or correction of what was commonly assumed tobe the main tenor of Old Testament revelation.[51]

Thecomplementary hermeneutic does not emphasize development rather it emphasizeschange. Progressives stated, "The New Testament does introduce change andadvance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In makingcomplementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. Theenhancement is not at the expense of the original promise."[52]In other words, "complementary additions" result in an unparalleledinterpretation of the New Testament that goes beyond the original intent andcreates an entirely new context. The direction that progressives are taking isa liberal, at-will hermeneutic.

Certainly,there is a sense in which the biblical covenants are fulfilled progressively.For instance, Abraham enjoyed some of the promises that God has covenanted withhim. The Davidic Covenant was fulfilled some in David and Solomon's day, yetthere will be a complete fulfillment in the millennial kingdom. However, achange in progressive revelation is that Christ is reigning now of David'sthrone in heaven. Furthermore, the Land Covenant could imply another peoplebased on the complementary approach, which leaves the interpreter guessing asto whether or not a specific prophecy is fulfilled or not. It is theprogressive "change" that is revisionist of the Old Testament. Complementaryhermeneutics allows the interpreter to be liberal with the Text. Whileprogressive revelation affirms developments in Scripture, there is not a changeof meaning in the New Testament.

TheAbrahamic Covenant (Gen 12:1-3) promised a land (12:1; cf. 13:14-17), a seed,or numerous descendants (12:2; cf. 13:16; 17:2-6), and a blessing, orredemption (12:3; cf. 22:18). Consequently, it is the beginning of allredemptive covenants, and all of God's spiritual blessings for both Jew andGentile are the result of this covenant (12:1-3, 7; 13:14-17; 15:1-21; 17:1-21;22:15-18). Therefore, it must be the starting point for any discussionregarding covenant fulfillment. A consistent use of the literal hermeneuticmakes interpretation regarding the Abrahamic Covenant to be a foundationalelement for dispensational premillennialism. The covenant is seen asunfulfilled and unconditional to be fulfilled with Israel. Since thesub-covenant promise to Israel regarding the land are inseparable from thefulfillment of the sub-covenants of seed and blessing within the AbrahamicCovenant, any discussion of fulfillment must correspond to Israel being inpossession of her land under her Messiah King. If the covenants are understoodliterally, then fulfillment can only correspond to a future blessing ofbelieving, national Israel in the land of promise under the rule of Messiah inthe millennium. PD has five main weaknesses regarding the interpretation of thebiblical covenants.

First, the complementary hermeneutic of PD obfuscatesthe distinction between Israel and the church. Since the church is not taughtto be a mystery, but only unrealized in the Old Testament, the corollary isdisregard for the two distinct purposes of God for Israel and the church.Blaising's statement that "Jewish Christians will join the Old Testamentremnant of faith in the inheritance of Israel" raises the question why abelieving Jew today would not inherit the blessings promised to the church.Saucy included the church in the concept of the "people of God," which he beganwith the nation of Israel (and did not answer how pre-Israelite redeemed peopleare included in this concept), and taught that the church participates "alongwith Israel in the final inheritance that God has prepared for all of hispeople, both those who are Gentiles and those of Israel."[53]Such statements are a form of spiritualization of covenant promises to Israelwhich have now been applied to the church. PD emphasizes greater continuitybetween the dispensations (i.e. progress between thedispensations wherein the unifying theme of history is the kingdom ofGod)[54]regarding the purposes of God for Israel and the church so that it is notentirely dissimilar from the teaching of covenant theology which equates Israelwith an Old Testament church.[55]The rejection of the concept of Israel and the church as distinct peoples ofGod possessing distinct programs is a major weakness of PD.

Second, by obfuscating the distinctions between Israeland the church, PD does not adequately recognize the centrality of the nationof Israel in the program of God. The Abrahamic Covenant necessitates Israel toinherit certain promises and blessings distinct from God's blessings to thechurch. The Zionic Dispensation of PD merges the millennium and the eternalstate which fails to give adequate attention to the centrality of Israel in themillennial kingdom. Referring to the one-people-of-God dispensationalism (i.e.PD), covenant theologian Vern Poythress commented, "So, provided we are able totreat the question of Israel's relative distinctiveness in the Millennium as aminor problem, no substantial areas of disagreement remain."[56]

Third, traditional dispensationalism recognizesScripture to indicate a natural seed of Abraham (Isa 41:8), Christ as seed (Gal3:16), and a spiritual seed (3:29). The church is the spiritual seed of Abrahamsince she experiences salvation through faith in Christ, but the heir of thenational promises is the natural seed, Israel. PD minimizes discontinuity inredemption when speaking of one people of God "related to him through the samecovenant salvation" by grace through faith in God's promises based on Christ'satoning death. Therefore, the distinction in God's purposes for Israel and thechurch is rejected.[57] Belief in the "one people of God" inredemption would seem to include a unified eschatological purpose for Israeland the church (and would require the rejection of a pretribulational rapture).PD emphasizes redemptive continuity between Israel and the church as the seedof Abraham, but does not apply the continuity consistently to include alleschatological aspects. Israel and the church do not have separate purposes,but are both components of God's eschatological kingdom program since "the trueseed of Abraham includes both Jews and Gentiles."[58]

Fourth, if all the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant(i.e., land, seed, and blessing) are inherited by those in Christ, then PDshould teach the church receives promise of the land which will progressivelydiminish the central role of Israel in the millennium. Furthermore, if theAbrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants are inaugurated then there should also bemention of an inaugurated Land Covenant. Furthermore, traditionaldispensationalists have taught that Jesus is currently exalted at the righthand of the Father, but this throne is not to be confused with David's throne.Progressive dispensationalists teach that Christ is now reigning on David'sthrone in heaven at the right hand of the Father as an "already" partialfulfillment and inaugurated Davidic kingdom but also teach Christ is "not yet"reigning on earth in the future millennium. Therefore, the Father's throne andthe Davidic throne are thought to be synonymous. Progressives believe Jesus'statement that the kingdom of heaven is near means the "already" aspect of thekingdom arrived with the first coming of Christ.

Fifth, PD fails to teach progressive revelationadequately. Progressives have stated, "The New Testament does introduce changeand advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In makingcomplementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. Theenhancement is not at the expense of the original promise."[59]Certainly, God has progressively revealed more truth; He has even introducednew truths in the New Testament and developed truths from the Old Testament.However, the New Testament nowhere changes or reinterprets the Old Testament.Progressive revelation does not mean the New Testament changes Old Testamentprophecies so that it cannot be understood apart from the New Testament.

Clearly,PD is not the historical antecedent of pretribulational, premillennialdispensationalism. The real issue is whether the Bible is inerrant, whether itis verbally inspired, and whether it should be interpreted literally. Theconcept of literal interpretation is the real issue in the interpretation ofprophecy today.[60] Consistent,literal interpretation is the sine qua non of any theological system since it allows no fuller or extendedmeaning beyond the original intent of Scripture. The current trends inevangelical hermeneutics, as followed by progressive dispensationalists, willinevitably lead away from dispensational conclusions. In contrast, aconsistent, grammatical-historical interpretation will naturally lead todispensational conclusions.[61]

Dispensational Hermeneutics

Much of the discussion among dispensationalistswith progressives and nondispensationalists converges on the method ofhermeneutics, especially regarding literal interpretation. One of the majorpostmodern trends today is this frequent use of apocalyptic genre as a methodof hermeneutics. The major characteristic of apocalyptic genre is to drawattention to the highly symbolic nature of prophetic writings. The only book inthe New Testament that would fit the category of being entirely apocalyptic isthe Book of Revelation. However, Revelation should not be placed in a categoryunlike ordinary prophecy that is quite literal and can be interpreted at face valuequite literally. Since those favoring a non-literalcategory of genre-termed apocalyptic-for interpreting prophecy draw muchattention to the use of sensus plenior, New Testament quotation of Old Testament prophecy, symbols andfigures of speech, and the role of prophetic prediction in their argumentsthese issues will be addressed.

Sensus Plenior

For those who attempt to make distinctionsbetween authorial intent and divine intent, sensus plenior is the plea. S. Lewis Johnson and Elliott E.Johnson have written on the subject in hopes of establishing a connectionbetween divine intent and authorial intent. Both writers believe the OldTestament remains the basis for determining New Testament fulfillment. Thecontrol placed on this "deeper sense"[62]is to prevent outrageous speculation typical of inane allegory. The control is"the implication of the words" in light of progressive revelation (S. LewisJohnson)[63] or the"defining sense" of the writings of the human author (Elliott E. Johnson).[64]

Theinterpretation of the Bible, as with any work of literature, should be aneffort to understand the intent of the author. A proper hermeneutic is the onewherein the interpreter sets aside his own presuppositions about what a passagemay mean and works by means of exegesis to allow the passage to speak foritself. According to grammatical-historical interpretation, both words andsentences have one single meaning. Bernard Ramm wrote, "But here we mustremember the old adage: 'Interpretationis one, application is many.' This means that there is only one meaning to apassage of Scripture which is determined by careful study. But a given text ora given passage may speak to a number of problems or issues."[65]Likewise, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy assented, "We affirmthat the meaning expressed in each biblical text is single, definite, andfixed. We deny that the recognition of this single meaning eliminates thevariety of its application" (Article VII).[66]If this principle of single meaning is abandoned or neglected then the resultwill be a postmodern mlange of doubt and speculation.

Theissue of sensus plenior iswhether a given passage contains a deeper meaning than grammatical-historicalinterpretation demands. The results of such attempts are allegorical ratherthan literal interpretation. The dispensational hermeneutic has always beenthat every word, sentence, paragraph, and book of the Bible is inspired by Godin written language which means that it should be interpreted following normal,grammatical connotations and denotations.[67]The idea is the Bible was not recorded in an incomprehensible language thusrequiring it to be interpreted by some mysterious modus operandi. The Bible waswritten in understandable languages, such as Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.Therefore, those who read and interpreted the Bible would not search for somedeeper meaning other than a plain, or normal, meaning. The Bible isunderstandable when read according to normal, grammatical writing.

Thenotion of a sensus plenior inthe interpretation of Bible prophecy is in opposition to thegrammatical-historical hermeneutic. Certainly, as Ramm observed, there arenumerous practical applications of a given passage that is still consist with agrammatical-historical, plain interpretation of Scripture. Second Timothy 3:16affirms, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, forreproof, for correction, for training in righteousness."

However,if at any moment in the interpretation of Scripture the principle of singlemeaning is lost the corresponding effect will be a degree of uncertainty thatdisconcerts any scientific interpretation. It is logical that Scripture musthave a single meaning, or it would not carry any meaning. The task of theinterpreter is not to obfuscate, but to clarify Scripture. If the words ofScripture are not interpreted grammatically and historically, all meaning isreduced to obfuscation in a most dangerous manner.

Insteadof affirming traditional grammatical-historical interpretation, interpreterstoday are entertaining views of more than one meaning to a passage. Rejectingthe traditional view of hermeneutics, distinction is often made between authorintent and divine intent in prophecy. Dispensationalists have affirmed that allinterpretation should be limited to the author's original intent. It is grantedthat the human author may not have understood all that he was writing (cf. 1Pet 1:10-11), but this does not mean there is a difference between divineintent and human intent. Departure from the principle of single meaning occurswhen "related submeanings" are introduced.[68]The idea that a passage has one single meaning and related submeanings iscontradictory. If a passage has one single meaning, there is no reason fortalking of related implications or "related submeanings." Discussions aboutauthorial intent, submeanings, and sensus plenior demonstrate the drift away from traditionalgrammatical-historical interpretation.

Thecomplementary hermeneutic of progressive dispensationalism is yet anotherexample of this drift. Bock wrote, "But textual meaning is not really limitedto reproducing what the reader thinks the author might have meant . . . thereis a difference between description and understanding."[69]Progressives view the control of a single meaning upon the inspired text of theauthor as being too simple. Concerning single meaning progressives stated,"These texts have a message that extends beyond the original settings in whichthey were given. Something about what they say lives on. Their intrinsic merithas caused them to be preserved and passed on."[70]Denying the "simplicity" of one interpretation and many applications,progressives set forth a typological-prophetic "pattern" fulfillment.[71]The "patterned" design of prophetic interpretation means that many applicationsare actually many meanings which are beyond the grammatical-historicaldetermination of the text. The complementary hermeneutic means progressiverevelation in the New Testament can add a different meaning to the originaltext. Progressives do not like the accusation of sensus plenior but the classification is appropriate since theyare clearly moving beyond the historical-grammatical context.

Accordingto 1 Peter 1:10-11 (a commonly used passage by those appealing to sensusplenior), the Old Testamentprophets were unable to distinguish the two advents of Jesus Christ. Now, afterHis first coming, it is readily apparent that the Church Dispensation willprecede His second coming. Peter said the disciples could not readily reconcilethe sufferings of Christ with the glories to follow, but he was not affirming adeeper meaning to the Old Testament prophecies. A similar difficulty ofunderstanding the timing issue between the rapture and second coming was trueof the disciples. At first, the disciples were unable to distinguish therapture from the second coming. Recognizing this confusion, Jesus did notattempt to explain all the details of the church age since this "mystery"teaching would have been more than the disciples could comprehend at the time.

Theissue of timing concerning the two phases of His second coming would becrystallized to the disciples through progressive revelation. After the churchwas in existence for a few years, this would occur primarily through the NewTestament writings of Paul. From Genesis to Revelation, God has revealed Hisprogram progressively to His people. The same is true concerning the doctrineof the rapture as an imminent event, followed by seven years of tribulation,and the return of Jesus Christ to earth.

Second Peter 1:21 states no profhteiva ever cameby the will of a man, but by the pneuvmato" the writers of Scripture weremoved. First Peter 1:10-11 records how the profh'tai spoke by the pneu'maCristou'. The work of the exegete in prophetic interpretation involves intensestudy.[72]As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that wouldcome to you made carefulsearch and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christwithin them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and theglories to follow (1 Pet1:10-11). Nevertheless, Peter indicated exegesis is not based on the wildspeculation of man by means of a deeper sense, but it is based on therevelation of God. In other words, it was revealed to them (1:12).

Grammatical-HistoricalInterpretation

Three key factors in understanding a passage arecontext, context, and context. Prophecy must be interpreted contextually(according to its original context); otherwise, it becomes a pretext. Contextincludes the following: the versesimmediately before and after the passage (immediate context), the paragraph,the context of the entire book, its audience (Israel or the church), thecontext of the entire Bible, and the historical-cultural environment at thetime of the writing. Therefore, the expositor needs to consider the author'scontext, both far and near.

Thecontext of the writings of the author includes the theme of the whole book,that is, audience and purpose. The far context involves the plot developed bythe book. The near context involves the surrounding verses immediately beforeand after the chapter. The student of the Word must consider the dispensationand the historical-cultural environment at the time of writing.

Useof context in determining the meaning of a portion of Scripture is essential.For example, chapter and verse divisions must be ignored for contextual reasonssince these divisions were not a part of the original text. The author's lineof thought or reasoning in part, and as a whole, will indicate the meaning of asingle part. From the context of a single part, a word or phrase can have morethan one meaning. For example, biased news reporters could quote individualsout of context to make the person appear to have said something entirelydifferent.

Thereare other aspects of context. Since the Bible has only one ultimate Author,God, the entire Bible is an aspect of context. Therefore, what one author maywrite, or the word or figures of speech used are aspects of biblicalinterpretation. For example, some of the figures of speech in Revelation arebest interpreted by consulting Old Testament prophets who used similar or thesame figures of speech.

Finally,the author's context is critical to understand. The author'shistorical-cultural environment is important because he speaks or writes as aperson in his environment to other people in the same world. Certainly, thereare some constants between one period of history and another, but there arealso many changes that develop throughout time. The historical-cultural environmentof the author would be the world of his time; it is important to understandwhat the author is communicating to people in his world.

Thevarious aspects of the circles of context are fundamental sources forinterpretation. The immediate context is perhaps the most determinative, butother more subtle aspects of context require the interpreter to examine theremote context, the context of the entire book, the context of the entireBible, and ultimately the author's historical-cultural environment. To ignorecontext allows the reader to force Scripture to say nearly anything wished ordesired and degenerates into non-literal interpretation.

Old TestamentCitation in the New Testament

It is clear that Jesus employed a consistentlyliteral method as He interpreted the Old Testament. For instance, He acceptedthe narratives of Abel (Matt 23:35), Noah (24:37-38), Abraham (3:9; 8:11;22:32), Isaac and Jacob (8:11; 22:32), Moses (8:4; 19:8), David (12:3; 22:43,45), and Jonah (12:40) as records of historical fact. Jesus never used anallegorical method of interpretation whenever He made application of thehistorical record. Never did Jesus divideScripture into multilevel ("layered") meanings thereby distinguishing a surfacelevel meaning based on a literal reading of the text and a deeper level meaningbased on a numinous reading of the text. Jesus rebuked the religious leadersbecause they developed sophistical methods for interpreting Scripture andreplaced a literal understanding with their contrived traditions. On thecontrary, no accusation of interpreting Scripture unnaturally or non-literallywas ever attributed to Jesus by the religious leaders.[73]

Similar to Jesus,the apostles interpreted the Old Testament literally. Of course, some todaybelieve the New Testament writers change the meaning of the Old Testament. Forinstance, Robert Saucy argued for a deeper meaning in Psalm 110 because hebelieves Peter's quotation of the Psalm in Acts 2 modifies the original meaningof the Old Testament text. The distinguishing characteristic of the progressivehermeneutic is the historical-grammatical-literary-theological meaning beyondthe original it gives to earlier interpretations. Saucy did not demonstrateliteral fulfillment in the New Testament use of literal prophecy from the OldTestament, but he argued for new applications of the Old Testament. Using thebook of Hebrews as an example, he wrote,

Inthis connection it is important to recognize that the purpose of the writer tothe Hebrews is not to give us an interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. Thebook is rather "a word of exhortation" (13:22). . . .[74]

theScriptures frequently reveal different applications of similar language withoutimplying a change in identity. The fact that the same phrase about God's son beingcalled out of Egypt applies to both Israel and Christ does not make theseobjects identical (cf. Hos 11:1 and Mt 2:15). God's similar working throughoutsalvation history makes the use of analogous language common in the biblicalrevelation.[75]

Finding application of a literal Old Testamentprophecy quoted in the New Testament is more consistent withgrammatical-historical interpretation than the progressive hermeneutic.[76]If the New Testament adds meaning to Old Testament prophecy, this does not meanthe original meaning of the text has changed. Progressive revelation in the NewTestament is common because some meanings of the Old Testament were not fullydiscernable or revealed until the New Testament writers gave the added meaningunder the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The central idea to keep in mind isthe added meanings in the New Testament are the result of progressiverevelation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the writing of the NewTestament. In other words, the authority is derived from the quotation of the literal Old Testament prophecy in the NewTestament. Only God was able to give the progressive revelation, and only Heknew that the Apostles would be inspired in New Testament times with the addedmeaning. The support for hermeneutics that would allow for New Testamentquotation in a non-literal fashion that ignores the grammatical-historicalcontext fails.

In the samemanner as Jesus, the apostles interpreted the Old Testament literally. It isgranted that certain New Testament citations appear to change the originalmeaning of the Old Testament text or appear to interpret the Old Testament in anon-literal fashion, but the more one looks at the grammatical-historicalcontext in the New Testament the writers can be seen to interpret consistentlythe Old Testament according to a normal (plain) interpretation. Virklercommented,

Inconclusion, the vast majority of the New Testament references to the OldTestament interpret it literally; that is, they interpret according to thecommonly accepted norms for interpreting all types of communication. . . .There is no attempt to separate the message into literal and allegoricallevels. The few cases where the New Testament writers seem to interpret the OldTestament unnaturally can usually be resolved as we understand more fully theinterpretive methods of biblical times.[77]

Theprinciple for biblical interpretation means there is one single meaning. Afterdetermining the single meaning, many legitimate applications can be gleanedfrom the text. Normal grammatical-historical interpretation avoids selectivityin the biblical text, such as sensus plenior, which actually changes meaning of the original.Ramm detailed the precision involved in grammatical-historical interpretationwhen he warns against "apparentcross reference," which finds a word or words (or expression) to be the sameeach time it is used thereby allowing the interpreter to equate two differentmeanings as one meaning in one or both passages.[78]Consistently literal interpretation is essential to understand Bible prophecy.Literal interpretation involves grammatical, historical, and contextualinterpretation. Among most evangelicals, a literal hermeneutic is employed;however, in the discipline of prophecy is when some begin to deviate and evendisregard simple rules of interpretation.

Progressive Dispensationalism In Relation toCovenantal Idealism

Since PD has minimized theimportance of inductive Bible study (i.e. the scientific method, which requiresthe interpreter to gather all facts before deriving general conclusions) and aform of literal interpretation, it will be enlightening to include anassessment of covenantal idealism in relation to progressive teachings. Forinstance, an induction on the use of the terms Israel and the church willdemonstrate clear distinctions in the nature and program for Israel and thechurch.[79] Progressives talk much aboutpreunderstanding and the need to be cognizant of cultural influences wheninterpreting the Bible, but it appears (to this lecturer) that covenantalidealism has significantly influenced PD hermeneutics and theology whichresults in progressives minimizing the absolute necessity of consistent literalinterpretation and adopting instead a form of spiritualization which disregardsthe principles stated in this addendum regarding the interpretation ofScripture.[80]

The dominant interpretative method of idealism isthe redemptive-historical. The redemptive-historical[81]hermeneutic is based on the following principles: (1) Scripture is progressiverevelation; (2) Scripture can only be understood from Genesis throughRevelation Christologically; (3) the people of God in both the Old and NewTestaments were redeemed through faith in Christ; and, (4) the people of God inthe Old Testament were under the same organic, covenant body as the people ofGod in the New Testament. Greidanus (Dutch Reformed covenant theologian)[82]believed the redemptive-historical hermeneutic allows one to communicate Christfrom all of Scripture. A "Christian preacher cannot preach an Old Testamenttext in isolation, but must always understand the text in the context of thewhole Bible and redemptive history. . . ."[83]

Thefocus of the redemptive-historical hermeneutic is the progressiveself-revelation of God to His covenant people through the medium of history. As"the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, God is the beginning and theend" of all things in the earth below and heaven above. All history moves inthe direction of the consummation of God's good purposes. The incarnation ofJesus Christ is the culmination of the two ages: "this present evil age and theone to come" (cf. Matt 12:32; Gal 1:4; Eph 1:21). Since the powers of "the oneto come" have already entered history in the person and work of Jesus Christ,the two age view of reality means "the age to come" (the kingdom of God)arrived sooner than expected (Mark 1:15; Luke 17:20-21). Those who are unitedby faith to Christ have been transferred from this present evil age into thepower of the one to come. In other words, they are now in the kingdom of God.

Althoughthe church is already in the kingdom of God, there is still tension since thekingdom of God has not yet arrived in its completeness. The age to come isrelated to this present evil age which creates a transitory eschatologicaltension in between the time of the first and second comings of Christ (cf. 2Cor 4:16). Redemptive-historical hermeneutics begin with this two-age knowledgeof the Christian life. The hermeneutic attempts to bring the church into agreater awareness of her position in Christ by emphasizing the fact that thebeliever is already raised with Christ, but has not yet entered the completeeschatological fullness of the kingdom which will take place at the secondcoming of Christ. The believer groans in this present evil age while longingfor the return of the Lord.

Thefirst coming of Christ in humiliation was to accomplish God's eternalredemption and the second coming will be in glory to consummate the kingdom ofGod. The completeness of time is the direction in which history is moving.Christ foreshadowed and hinted at the consolation of Israel throughout the OldTestament. Redemptive history means Christ now reigns as the fulfillment of theOld Testament types and shadows. Similar to the nation of Israel in the OldTestament, the church is the chosen nation, the sole investiture of God's grace,in the kingdom age and will be a blessing to all the nations of the world. Thechurch is the heir and seat of all the covenantal blessings. Presently, thechurch is situated at the end of the ages and has already realizedeschatological fulfillment in contrast to mere promise and typology. The churchis the historical expression of the kingdom of God according to the newcovenant. The redemptive-historical approach is to understand Scripture asGod's progressive revelation in the sense that all Scripture points to theperson and work of Jesus Christ. All Scripture is interpreted in light of Hishistorical life, death, resurrection, and ascension.

Progressiverevelation means the New Testament authors amplify the revelations of formerages. The New Testament amplifies the Old Testament themes and expounds uponthem in light of Christ. The comprehensive knowledge of God's redemptivepurposes for history is the result of a more comprehensive and personalknowledge of God. The more comprehensive knowledge of God is revealed in theevents of redemptive history. According to the redemptive-historicalhermeneutic, the Old Testament must be interpreted both Christologically andeschatologically in light of the person and work of Messiah. Theredemptive-historical approach maintains that history is the vehicle by whichGod reveals his sovereign purpose of redemption progressively. Eternalredemption in Jesus Christ and His eschatological kingdom is the central themeof Scripture.

Conversely,dispensationalism would disagree with the Christological interpretation of theOld Testament. The amount and content of Christocentric and salvific revelationthat the redemptive-historical hermeneutic demands is far too much. Even ifthere is agreement that a certain amount of Christocentric knowledge wasavailable to certain individuals in the Old Testament by means of covenants,visions, dreams, or revelation, the number of individuals with such knowledgewould be so minute so as to make salvation in the Old Testament virtuallyunfathomable. However, even though there was not a great amount ofChristocentric knowledge of Christ there was salvation by faith in the OldTestament.[84]

Theeschatology of idealism is similar to covenant theology, since understanding ofthe so-called covenant of grace controls it. It is granted this is not the onlycovenant referenced, but it is the one covenant that is seen to rule over allother covenants since the failure of the covenant of works (Gen. 3). Accordingto covenant theology, God relates to mankind through two covenants: the covenant of works (foedus operum) and the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae). Sometimes the covenant of grace is understoodunder two aspects: (1) the Godward aspect, and (2) the manward aspect. TheGodward aspect is called the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis), which is between God and Christ from alleternity and will result in the eternal redemption of all believers. Themanward aspect is between God and the believer and will result in eternalredemption to the believer who has faith in Jesus Christ.

Thecovenant of works was between God and Adam. Adam was promised eternal life forperfect obedience to God. Since Adam failed, death came. Evidence given for thecovenant of works is Hosea 6:7. Apparently, the prophet was conscious (likeAdam) of a prelapsarian covenant of works. Romans 2:13 and 4:4 are cited asexamples that the Apostle Paul presupposed the reality of a prelapsariancovenant of works. The excommunication from the Garden of Eden and subsequentremoval of the Tree of Life in Genesis 3:22-24 is thought to be evidence of theprovisional nature of the covenant of works. Other evidences for the covenantof works include the creational Sabbath and the Tree of the Knowledge of Goodand Evil. The covenant of grace (foedus gratiae) was made, from all eternity, to save man fromthe penalty of disobedience. Covenant Theology teaches there is progressiverevelation of the outworking of this covenant throughout the Old Testament. Theprotevangelium of Genesis3:15 announced the existence of the covenant of grace.

Theadministration of the Gospel is traced throughout Old Testament redemptivehistory according to belief in the progressive proclamations of the covenant ofgrace. For instance, certain provisions of the covenant of grace were revealedto Noah. The first mention of the Noahic covenant (Gen 6:17-19) was particularand an administration of the covenant of grace. The second mention of theNoahic covenant (9:8-17) amplified the fact that there would be anall-inclusive non-salvific covenant promising the constraint of judgment untilthe last day. The covenant of grace was afterward established with Abraham andhis descendants. The Abrahamic covenant renewed the postlapsarian covenantalpromise originally made in the covenant of works between God and Adam(3:15-17). At this point, the covenant became national. In redemptive history,the covenant of grace is renewed in Abraham, as the father of all who believe(Rom 4:11; cf. John 8:56).

God'spromise of land to Abraham (Gen 15:18; Exod 6:4; Judg 2:1) was typical of theblessings to be made manifest according to the new covenant (Gen 2:4; Gal 3:14;Heb 8) and the final state (Heb 11:10). As historically prior to the Mosaic covenant,the Abrahamic covenant was renewed under Christ but the Mosaic covenant wasnot. In terms of justification and soteriology, the Mosaic covenant was anadministration of the covenant of grace. All believers who were justified underthe Mosaic covenant were saved by grace though faith in Christ alone. In termsof the land promise though, the Mosaic covenant, with necessary changes, was a republication of the Adamic covenant of works.Israel received the land promise and maintained possession by grace. However,the nation fell into apostasy and excluded from the land for failing inobedience to a temporary, typical covenant of works (Gen 12:7; Exod 6:4; Deut29:19-29; 2 Kgs 17:6-7; Ezek 17).

Accordingto 2 Corinthians 3:6, New Testament believers are "servants of a new covenant,not of the letter, but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spiritgives life." The Mosaic covenant was predisposed to the ministry of the letter(the Law) but the New Covenant was inclined to the ministry of the Holy Spirit.According to the redemptive-historical hermeneutic, the New Covenant, as thecertainty symbolized by the pre-incarnational types and shadows (John 6:32; 2Cor 1:20; Heb 7-9), is the fulfillment of the protevangelium to Adam (Gen 3:15)and the (Abrahamic) covenant of grace.

Theexterior conditions of the covenant of grace are a faulty imposition that isplaced on Scripture and, as such, it distorts proper exegesis of both the Oldand New Testament. Conversely, the grammatical-historical hermeneutic ofdispensationalism is far more superior to exegete the Testaments since it canaddress Scripture much more accurately and provide hope that the idealistdesires of eschatological passages. The difference is dispensationalists teachhope to Israel since the King will return to fulfill His covenantal promises toher and to the church who are joint-heirs with the coming King.

Israeland the Church

Idealism viewsthe church as the eschatological fulfillment of the same Old Testament promisesGod made with Israel. The death and resurrection of Christ is the culminatingevent for believers of all ages; it unites them without distinction for thecommon purpose and entrance into the kingdom of God. The covenantal promiseswith Israel in the Old Testament find their fulfillment in the church at thedeath and resurrection of Christ. The church is now raised to its finalmediation from glory. Since idealism places heavy emphasis on church covenantfulfillment,[85] it will bebeneficial to consider the nature of biblical covenants. Dispensationalism notonly emphasizes the spiritual aspect of the covenantal promises of God, butalso the physical aspects. John Feinberg explained,

Fornondispensationalists history is seen primarily as salvation history. In otherwords, the emphasis is on God's ongoing plan in saving men. Fordispensationalists history is the gradual implementation and outworking of thekingdom of God. A major part of that implementation involves saving people, butthe soteriological and spiritual elements are not the only aspects of thekingdom. . . . For example, nondispensational treatments of the nature of thecovenants and of Israel's future invariably emphasize soteriological andspiritual issues, whereas dispensational treatments emphasize both thespiritual/soteriological and the social, economic, and political aspects ofthings.[86]

Incontrast to dispensationalism, idealism merely emphasizes the spiritual andsalvation aspect of God's covenantal promises. Both systems would emphasize adoxological purpose to history, but the dispensationalist approach is muchbroader than the idealist. Dispensationalism emphasizes both spiritual andphysical blessings within the doxological purpose of history.

The Kingdom of God

Idealismteaches the kingdom of God is a present, spiritual reality. The church is apartaker in the kingdom of God even though it is only presently seen by faith.The consummation of the kingdom of God occurs when all God's covenants arefulfilled in the eschatonwith God's earthly creation. At this time, the kingdom of God will be by sight.The idealist position assumes, without biblical exegesis, that God's covenantswith Israel were conditional and because of the nation's disobedience, thepromises have been reassigned to the church. Ryrie countered this belief wellin the quote below.

Premillennialistspoint out that if the yet unfulfilled part of that covenant is to be fulfilledliterally (the promise of the land of Palestine), this will have to occur in afuture Millennium, since there has been no place in past or present history fora literal fulfillment. Amillennialists [idealists included] say that we neednot expect a future fulfillment because (a) the promises were conditional andthe conditions were never met; or (b) the land promise was fulfilled in thetime of Joshua (Josh. 21:43-45); or (c) it was fulfilled under King Solomon (1Kings 4:21); or (d) it is now being fulfilled by the church; or (e) it isfulfilled in the heavenly Jerusalem. I only observe that each of those fivesuggestions negates the validity of the other four. One receives the impressionthat the amillennialist does not really know how or when the Abrahamic Covenantshould be fulfilled. He is only certain that it will not be in a future,earthly Millennium.[87]

Generally,idealists will teach the millennium was inaugurated at the resurrection ofChrist. At His crucifixion and resurrection, Christ emerged victorious overSatan and ascended into heaven in order to begin His present reign over allcreation in an "already and not yet" eschatological sense. The last days, oreschaton, of Acts 2:16-21, Hebrews 1:1, and the majority of the Book ofRevelation are not the seventieth week of Daniel. The members of the church arenow subjects of the kingdom since Christ was crowned King of Kings at Hisascension.

JesusChrist is now and already "the ruler of the kings of the earth" (Rev 1:5) for"The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He willreign forever and ever" (11:15b). The church is "already" reigning with JesusChrist, but eternal redemption has "not yet" arrived in its fullness. The"signs of the times" will continue throughout the interadvent age regardless oftime for the period to reach its eventual fullness. The first century andmodern church is invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb in heaven (not onthe earth in the millennium), but will not experience the marriage supper untilthe fullness of the ages, or if death precedes the consummation.

Majorprophecies, such as the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation, areinterpreted as part of the redemptive-historical plan of God which began in thefirst century Roman persecution of the church. Idealism emphasizes a two-age[88]coming of the kingdom of God. Christ's first coming was the dawning of thefirst age, as John the Baptist preached, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven isat hand" (Matt 3:2). At His death and resurrection, Christ emerged victoriousover death and Satan. At His ascension, Christ began His eternal reign upon thethrone of David (Luke 1:32-33; Acts 2:30-31).

Ratherthan understanding a passage like 2 Corinthians 4:18 as an exhortation todistinguish the temporal (the ephemeral and evanescent) in contrast to theeternal, idealist understands eschatological events as already accomplished,though not yet evident by sight but by faith. Eternity is everlasting now, andthe church abides in the eternal realm now (John 17:3) which cannot be seen.However, a reference to the ultimate glorification of the body must not betaken to mean the kingdom is already, though not by sight, and not yet, bysight. The believer walks by faith (cf. Rom 6:4, 13:13; 2 Cor 1:12; 5:7) in thepresent time, but when glorified shall know fully (1 Cor 13:12) and see fully(1 John 3:2). It is poor exegesis though to argue for a present form of thekingdom which cannot be seen, but understood by faith as "already but not yet."

Animportant characteristic of idealism is the reality of suffering for the churchin the present world. Since Christ was hated by the world, the church isexpected to be hated on account of His name (Matt 10:22). The church today issimilar to the first century saints who were martyred or persevered during theRoman persecution. The role of the church on earth is to share in Christ'ssufferings which means there is no expectation for an earthly adulation.

Theexpectation of the idealist is the fulfillment of the second stage of thecoming kingdom of God. The final consummation of all the heavenly promises isthis second stage in idealism. At this time, the church will not live solely byfaith, but also by sight. All the shadows and types will fade away and theeternal reign of the church with Christ will commence. Therefore, the idealistdoes not look with hope to an earthly kingdom for Israel, wherein the churchwill be joint-heirs with Christ; rather, the idealist consigns all hope in theconsummation of heavenly promises.

Idealismis wholly dependent on a two-age "biblical" theology which focuses primaryattention upon an already not yet eschatology. For example, emphasis is placedon the fact that God already "raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him inthe heavenly places, in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:6). However, the church stillanticipates a bodily resurrection "for we shall not all sleep, but we shall allbe changed" (1 Cor 15:50), or emphasizes the certainty of the glorification ofthe saints (Rom 8:30). Glorification is the last stage of the believer'ssalvation and so he still anticipates the complete fulfillment.[89]

Itis noteworthy that the alleged "developments" by PD are actually radicalchanges of the dispensational system and is moving closer to the covenantalismfound in idealism. For instance, Blaising wrote,

Progressivedispensationalists understand the dispensations not simply as different arrangements between God andhumankind, but as successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishmentof redemption. . . . Because they all have the same goal, there is a real,progressive relationship between them. As each leads to the goal of finalredemption, Scripture draws various connections between them which relate themtogether in a truly progressive fashion. It is from this progressiverelationship of the dispensations to one another that the name progressivedispensationalismis taken.[90]

Blaising'sstatement could easily have "progressive dispensationalists" changed to"covenantalists" and "dispensations" changed to "covenants" and it would beremarkably same as the theology of covenantalism. In response to Blaising,Ryrie wrote, "Although differences and discontinuity among the dispensationsare recognized, sameness and continuities are emphasized and linked to thetheme of redemption throughout all of human history."[91]The radical changes to dispensationalism by PD have led Bruce Waltke to questionwhether "the term dispensationalismwill still be useful." He wrote, "If ethnic Israel's role is only its remnantstatus on a permanent equality with the Gentiles in the one true people of Godwith no distinctive role in the land beyond the Parousia, then the term dispensationalism is misleading and ought to be dropped."[92]Traditionalists would agree.

The Future of Dispensationalism

There can be no doubt that dispensationalism isfacing some radical changes from within the dispensational camp. It does seemif progressives continue making such radical changes to dispensationalism thatthey will eventually destroy the system. One struggles to understand suchcandid statements by a former president of a historically sound dispensationalschool, who would even consider himself a traditionalist, in light of thedominance of progressive teaching at this school. He remarked, "Dispensations isa scare word. I'm not sure we're going to make dispensationalism a big part ofour marquee. But in the progress of revelation, there is need to fit terms sothey make sense, to use words that do not frighten or create misunderstanding."[93]

IfPD continues to dominate and influence historically dispensational schools,clear eschatological teaching may be sacrificed for an unclear expectation ofthe future. According to one writer, PD is already "less 'land-centered' and'future-centered' than past versions."[94]The reason for the change is that the covenantal blessings for Israel in themillennium are radically reinterpreted. According to progressive Carl Hoch, theprivileges of ethnic Israel "were restricted to Israel before the death ofChrist and the creation of the Church."[95]Since progressives have already obfuscated the distinctions between Israel andthe church, it is consistent to minimize distinctions between the millenniumand eternal state, thereby making the need for a millennium almost unnecessary.

Itis best to regard PD not as development but a departure from traditional dispensationalism.[96]Consequently Elwell concluded, "The newer dispensationalism looks so much likenondispensationalist premillennialism that one struggles to see any realdifference."[97] Bockresponded by stating critics of progressive dispensationalism havemisunderstood the crucial differences between his "already/not yet" dialecticand the covenant premillennialism of George Ladd.[98]Bock did confess that his understanding of a present kingdom is very much likecovenant premillennialism (which is a position antagonistic todispensationalism). The crucial difference would be that the progressiveconcept of the millennium is more Israelitish than Ladd.[99]However, Bock continues to be influenced by Ladd regarding the present,preliminary stage of fulfillment. Bock even confessed, "Nevertheless, it istrue that this complementary approach of reading Scripture means that this viewof the kingdom in the present era looks very much like Ladd's."[100]Gerry Breshears' report on the 1987 Evangelical Theological Society meeting ofthe Dispensational Study Group (chaired by Craig Blaising) was that moderatedispensationalists and moderate covenant theologians are much more similar thanclassic dispensationalism or classic covenant theologians. He summarized, "Itseems both are moving toward each other in rapprochement. That was generallyagreed."[101] Indeed,this desire for rapprochement with nondispensationalists appears to be theimpetus for PD.

Itneeds to be stated that progressive dispensationalists are considered brothersin the Lord. Several progressives have written clear defenses of biblicaltruths that are greatly appreciated. However, each generation faces itschallenges to communicate accurately the Word of God to its contemporaries andmust not compromise biblical doctrine in the process. The biblical mandate tohandle "accurately the word of truth" is essential to any theological system;however, it is especially relevant based on PD's revisions and changes in thedirection of covenant theology.

Throughoutits history, there has been systematic development of dispensationalism sinceDarby. Of course, modern dispensationalists continue to develop and refinedispensationalism. However, progressives are introducing fundamental changes todispensationalism. The progressives clearly depart from refinement of the viewsof former dispensationalists and introduce radical revision. It must be notedthat there is disagreement even among progressives on particular issues sincesome have been more prolific than others in advancing PD.

Therehave been a significant number of responses to the progressive view. However,there has not been a single book written solely from a typical dispensationalposition answering the issues raised by progressives. The publication of ProgressiveDispensationalism: An Analysis of the Movement and Defense of TraditionalDispensationalism (Lanham, MD:University Press of America, 2005) has now changed that. Since the first workcommunicating PD was a joint effort, the traditionalist response was also acombined effort. All the authors of the work pray it will bring greater clarityto God's revelation and it can be a work for serious students of Scripture,professors, and pastors to use to communicate the Word of God accurately. Ifdiscernment is not exercised and a reasoned response articulated, PD willcontinue to erode the foundations of formerly dispensational schools, the teachingswill become more and more accepted in the college and seminary, and eventuallythe writings will become more prominent in the Christian bookstores, which willresult in the local church becoming more confused regarding God's plan of theages. May the grace of God grant us all the wisdom to discern and to respond tothe issues!

[1] George Eldon Ladd, Crucial Questions about theKingdom of God (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1952), 49.

[2]Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism(Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 164.

[3]Ibid., 25.

[4]Ibid., 29.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Ibid.

[7]For instance, the Dallas Theological Seminary doctrinal statement (Article V)reads: "We believe that different administrative responsibilities of thischaracter are manifest in the biblical record, that they span the entirehistory of mankind, and that each ends in the failure of man under therespective test and in an ensuing judgment from God. We believe that three ofthese dispensations or rules of life are the subject of extended revelation inthe Scripture, viz., the dispensation of the Mosaic Law, the presentdispensation of grace, and the future dispensation of the millennial kingdom.We believe that these are distinct and are not to be intermingled or confused,as they are chronologically successive."

[8]Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1993), 48.

[9]Chris Strevel, "Dispensational Theology: A Flawed Hermeneutic Produces FlawedEschatology," audiotape (SCCCS Conference, "Left Behind or Moving Forward,"Summer 2001). Pastor Strevel also commended progressives for "soteriologicalclarification," "ethical renewal," "present realization," and "futurefulfillment."

[10]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 260.

[11]Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 163.

[12]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 123.

[13]Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 166.

[14]Craig A. Blaising, "Dispensationalism: The Search for Definition," in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church, eds. Craig A.Blaising and Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 18.

[15]Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, "Assessment and Dialogue," in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church, 383.

[16]Blaising, "The Search for Definition," in Dispensationalism, Israel and theChurch, 27.

[17]Ibid., 30.

[18]The Scofield Reference Bible, ed. C. I.Scofield, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1909), vi.

[19]Charles C. Ryrie, Ryrie's Concise Guide to the Bible (San Bernardino, CA:Here's Life Publishers, 1983), 13.

[20]Blaising and Bock, "Assessment and Dialogue," in Dispensationalism, Israeland the Church, 382.

[21]Ibid., 383.

[22]Ibid.

[23]Ron J. Bigalke Jr. and Thomas D. Ice, "History of Dispensationalism," in ProgressiveDispensationalism: An Analysis of the Movement and Defense of TraditionalDispensationalism, ed. Ron J. Bigalke Jr.(Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995), xxxvii-xxxix.

[24]Darrell L. Bock, "The Reign of the Lord Christ," in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church, 53.

[25]Robert L. Saucy, "The Church as the Mystery of God," in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church, 155.

[26]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 257.

[27]David L. Turner, "The New Jerusalem in Revelation 21:1-22:5," in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church, 288.

[28]Bruce K. Waltke, "A Response," in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, 348.

[29]Craig A. Blaising, "Dispensationalism: The Search for Definition," in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church, 33.

[30]Carl B. Hoch Jr., "The New Man of Ephesians 2," in Dispensationalism, Israeland the Church, 126.

[31]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 49.

[32]Turner, "The New Jerusalem," in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, 288.

[33]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 36.

[34]Ibid., 35-36.

[35]Craig A. Blaising, "Developing Dispensationalism, Part 2: Development ofDispensationalism by Contemporary Dispensationalists," Bibliotheca Sacra 145 (July-September 1988): 272.

[36]See Robert L. Lightner, "Consistency from Genesis to Revelation," in RevelationHoofbeats, gen. ed. Ron J. Bigalke Jr.(Longwood, FL: Xulon Press, 2003), 95-105.

[37]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 75.

[38]Ibid., 100-103.

[39]Bock defined preunderstandings as authoritarian and cultural influences [Ibid.,60].

[40]Ibid., 59.

[41]Bock defined presuppositions as fixed, and may be held either consciously orunconsciously [Ibid].

[42]In fairness, Bock does believe there are fundamentals of the faith which areabsolute [Ibid., 70].

[43]Robertson McQuilkin and Bradford Mullen, "The Impact of Postmodern Thinking onEvangelical Hermeneutics," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (March 1997): 69-70.

[44]A community hermeneutic would include four or more acceptable interpretationsof a given verse, as opposed to being dogmatic concerning a single meaning of agiven verse. Interpreting the authorial intent of a given biblical verse is notthe goal; rather, conviction and responsiveness are the emphasis.

[45]David Henderson, Culture Shift: Communicating God's Truth to Our ChangingWorld (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 192.

[46]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 61.

[47]Vem Sheridan Poythress, "Genre andHermeneutics in Rev. 20:1-6," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36 (March 1993): 41-43. He suggested the nature ofsymbolism in Bible prophecy suggests four levels of communication: (1) "Thelinguistic level, consisting of the textual record itself"; (2) "The visionarylevel, consisting of the visual experience that John had in seeing the beast";(3) "The referential level, consisting of the historical reference of the beastand of the various particulars in the description"; and, (4) A symbolicallevel, consisting of the interpretation of what the symbolic imagery actuallyconnotes about its historical referent."

[48]C. Marvin Pate, "A Progressive Dispensational View of Revelation," in FourViews on the Book of Revelation, gen. ed.C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 160-61, 168-169.

[49]Ibid., 145-146.

[50] Ibid., 151-157. See also Darrell L. Bock,"Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism," in Three Central Issues inContemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and ProgressiveViews, gen. ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV(Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 107.

[51]John F. Walvoord, "Part 1: Does the Church Fulfill Israel's Program?" BibliothecaSacra 137 (January-March 1980): 121.

[52]Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, "Dispensationalism, Israel and theChurch: Assessment and Dialogue," in Dispensationalism, Israel and theChurch, 392-393.

[53]Saucy, "The Church as the Mystery of God," in Dispensationalism, Israel andthe Church, 134-135; cf. Blaising and Bock,Progressive Dispensationalism,187-193.

[54]Craig A. Blaising, "Dispensationalism: The Search for Definition," in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church, 33.

[55]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 51.

[56]Vern Sheridan Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 51.

[57]Robert L. Saucy, "Israel and the Church: A Case for Discontinuity," in Continuityand Discontinuity, ed. John S. Feinberg(Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), 241.

[58]Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 50.

[59]Blaising and Bock, "Assessment and Dialogue," in Dispensationalism, Israeland the Church, 392-393.

[60]On several personal conversations with the late Dr. John F. Walvoord, he wouldstate the importance of verbal, plenary inspiration in the development (asopposed to changes by PD) of dispensationalism. Regarding the important issuesregarding traditional dispensationalism, Walvoord reiterated the same thinkingin response to a winter 1999 advertisement on dispensationalism submitted byMal Couch to the DFW Christian Heritage.Walvoord wrote, "The whole discussion as it stands should be clarified by thehistory of the doctrine. Dispensationalism did not grow out of premillennialismor pretribulationism but out of the fact that there is progressive revelationin the Bible. . . . Frankly I do not believe that dispensationalism is the realissue. The real issue is whether the Bible is inerrant, whether it is verballyinspired, and whether it should be interpreted literally. The concept ofliteral interpretation is the real issue in the interpretation of prophecytoday" [John F. Walvoord, personal correspondence to Mal Couch, 1999; quoted inThe Conservative Theological Society / Tyndale News (Spring 1999): 2-3].

[61]A new approach to Bible study methods is the use of literary genre called"apocalyptic." The term is used to distinguish predictive prophecy which isinterpreted quite literally. If there is an entire genre that is apocalypticthen there is a basis for interpreting Bible prophecy in a non-literal fashion.At some point, all non-futurist schools of interpretation (preterist,historicist, and idealist) spiritualize Bible prophecy under the presuppositionthat its apocalyptic style allows it to be distinguished from ahistorical-grammatical interpretation. On the other hand, if Bible prophecy isnot categorized according to a specialized study of apocalyptic genre then itmust be interpreted literally as is true of non-prophetic portions ofScripture. Even the symbols and figures of speech that are common distinctivesof Bible prophecy proffer themselves to a normal, literal interpretation. Twopopular commentaries today emphasizing apocalyptic as literary genre are Greg Bealeand Grant Osborne's commentaries on the Book of Revelation. Both commentatorsdescribed their hermeneutical approach as eclectic. Osborne combined preterist,futurist, and idealist methods [Grant R. Osborne, Revelation (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2002), 1-49; Grant R. Osborne, TheHermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1991), 88-89];Beale combined futurist and idealist methods [Gregory K. Beale, TheBook of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (New InternationalGreek Testament Commentary) (GrandRapids, Eerdmans, 1999), 48-49]. The eclectic method of hermeneutics allows theinterpreter to choose whatever meaning in any given passage is suitable to hispre-understood eschatological position.

[62] An example of the use of "deeper sense" would be thecurrent battle between essentialist dispensationalism and progressivedispensationalism. Progressives (and amillennialists) believe there is aheavenly allusion to New Testament fulfillment of passages such as Psalm 2 andPsalm 110. Amillennialists believe the New Testament changes any earthlyfulfillment of the Old Testament, whereas progressives oscillate on the issue.

[63]S. Lewis Johnson, The Old Testament in the New: An Argument for BiblicalInspiration (Contemporary EvangelicalPerspectives) (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).

[64]Elliott E. Johnson, "Dual Authorship and the Single Intended Meaning ofScripture," Bibliotheca Sacra 143(July-September 1986): 218-227.

[65]Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation: A Textbook on Hermeneutics, 3^rd rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker,1970), 113.

[66]The Chicago Statements on Biblical Hermeneutics, "Articles of Affirmation andDenial" (accessed 29 November 2006) available fromhttp://www.namb.net/site/c.9qKILUOzEpH/b.238325/k.AC1C/ Chicago_Statement.htm.The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy adopted the 25 articles inNovember 1982. J. I. Packer wrote, "In November 1982 the International Councilon Biblical Inerrancy called a second international conference of approximately100 scholars to tackle a second major task, the achieving of a consensus on theprinciples and practices of Biblical interpretation. It was recognized thatwhile belief in the inerrancy of Scripture is basic to maintaining itsauthority, that belief and commitment have real value only so far as themeaning and the message of Scripture are understood. In fact, most of theaction in present-day debate about the Bible centers on questions ofinterpretation and hermeneutics" [J. I. Packer, God Has Spoken (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), 157].

[67]The term literal simply means "belonging to letters." Therefore, literalinterpretation of Scripture is derived from the actual words in their ordinary,grammatical meaning. Literal interpretation does not go beyond thegrammatical-historical context. The superiority of the literal hermeneutic isthat it interprets the original sense of Scripture according to the normal andcustomary usage of its language. Literal interpretation of all literature(including Scripture) is the attempt to understand the actual communicationbased upon what is written. In contrast to literal interpretation is theallegorical or non-literal hermeneutic. The allegorical or non-literal viewattempts to interpret a passage based upon a presupposition or understandingthat is not found specifically in the biblical passage. Therefore, allegoricalinterpretation imports a key idea from outside a passage as the basis forinterpretation and is not found or supported explicitly from the text.

[68] Johnson, "Dual Authorship and Single Meaning," 143.

[69]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 64.

[70]Ibid.

[71]Ibid., 102.

[72]Second Timothy 2:15 demarcates the goal of the exegete's diligent searching ofthe Scriptures: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workmanwho does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth. The Greek word translated as handlingaccurately is ojrqotomou'nta (present participle of ojrqotomevw). In the Septuagint, ojrqotomevw is used with oJdouv" in Proverbs 3:6 and 11:5.Scripture is referring to a path that is divided accurately so that another canfollow the same path clearly. When ojrqotomevwis used in regard to biblical exegesis it means that the exegete is to makestraight paths for those who will follow behind him.

[73]Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of BiblicalInterpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981),54.

[74]Saucy, Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 56.

[75]Ibid., 206.

[76]Ron J. Bigalke Jr., "The Abrahamic Covenant," in Progressive Dispensationalism:An Analysis, 62-63.

[77] Virkler, Hermeneutics, 58.

[78]Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation,140-141.

[79]Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 84-85.

[80]Blaising, "Dispensationalism: The Search for Definition," in Dispensationalism,Israel and the Church, 30-33.

[81] The termredemptive-historical is derived from the German word for "sacredhistory" (heilsgeschichte). Redemptive historians understand the pastas God's self revelation to mankind in the person of Jesus Christ. The life,death, and resurrection of Christ are the means of God's redemptive purposes.Redemptive history attempts to unify the historical events by which Godadvances His saving kingdom.

[82]Popular redemptive historians include: Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949); KlaasSchilder (1890-1952); Herman N. Ridderbos (1900-); Oscar Cullmann (1902-1999);and, Charles G. Dennison (1945-1999).

[83]Sidney Greidanus, Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A ContemporaryHermeneutical Method (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1999), 230.

[84]Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 118-121.

[85]Hamstra, "Idealist View of Revelation," in Four Views of Revelation, 96.

[86]John S. Feinberg, "Systems of Discontinuity" in Continuity and Discontinuity, 85.

[87]Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to UnderstandingBiblical Truth (Chicago: Moody Press,1999), 447.

[88]"Biblical Theology and Redemptive Historical Hermeneutics" (accessed 18 July2003) available from http://www.two-age.org/index.htm.

[89] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation: A Commentaryon the Greek Text (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1999); William Hendrikson, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretationof the Book of Revelation (GrandRapids: Baker Books, 1939); Anthony Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Herman Ridderbos, TheComing of the Kingdom (Philadelphia:Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1962); Robert B. Strimple,"Amillennialism," in Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1999);Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953); Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953).

[90]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 48-49.

[91]Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 163.

[92]Waltke, "A Response," 354.

[93]Charles Swindoll, "Interview," Christianity Today (25 October 1993): 14.

[94]Ken Sidey, "For the Love of Zion," Christianity Today (9 March 1992): 50.

[95]Hoch, "The New Man," 125.

[96]Stephen J. Nichols, "Already Ladd-Not Yet Dispensationalism: D. Bock andProgressive Dispensationalism." Paper Presented to the Eastern Regional Meetingof the Evangelical Theological Society (Philadelphia, PA, 2 April 1993).

[97]Walter Elwell, "Dispensationalists of the Third Kind," Christianity Today (12 September 1994): 28.

[98]Darrell L. Bock, "Current Messianic Activity and OT Davidic Promise:Dispensationalism, Hermeneutics and NT Fulfillment," Trinity Journal 15NS (Spring 1994): 70, n. 29.

[99]Ibid., 69-70.

[100]Ibid., 70.

[101]Gerry Breshears, "Dispensational Study Group Discussion," Grace TheologicalJournal 10NS (Fall 1989): 161.