“PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM” Pt. 4
by Dr. Charles C. Ryrie
Progressives do not see the church as
completely distinct from Israel as normative dispensationalists have
maintained. Neither do they consider
the mystery concept of the church to mean that the church was not revealed in
the Old Testament, only that it was unrealized. A corollary of this new view erases the idea of two purposes of
God — one for the church and one for Israel.
These matters have been discussed in chapter 7.
While not denying the grammatical-historical hermeneutic, which has been a hallmark of normative dispensationalism, revisionist dispensationalism has introduced what is called "complementary hermeneutics":
The New Testament does introduce change
and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making
complementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. The
enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise.
Old Testament promise has not been
replaced; it has been opened up, clarified, expanded, and periodized in the
progress of apostolic reflection on Jesus' teaching and actions.[32]
Certainly in the progressive nature of
revelation (not all was given at one time, but progressively), the New
Testament reveals matters not communicated in the Old Testament. But one must beware of the word
"change" in the revisionists' definition of complementary
hermeneutics. Amillennialists, for example, understand change to mean that the
promises made to Israel in the Old Testament are fulfilled by the church in New
Testament times, without any future fulfillment (since amillennialists do not
believe in a future, present earth Millennium). Progressives do not say this, for the last two sentences in their
definition guard against change going that far. What kind of change do they consider legitimate? Principally a change in the Davidic
covenant, which in the Old Testament concerned only promises to be fulfilled in
the Millennium on an earthly throne but now in the New Testament reveals Christ
presently sitting and reigning on the Davidic throne in heaven.
As an example of the slippery nature of this complementary hermeneutic if applied to other concepts, consider the concept of "temple." In the Old Testament it regularly referred to a building where God was worshiped. This meaning continues to be used in the New Testament, but other meanings are revealed. Our Lord referred to His own body as a temple (John 2:19-21). The body of an individual Christian is the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:19). The local church is a temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16), as is the universal church (Eph. 2:21). What, then, is the meaning of temple in Revelation 11:1-2? A literal hermeneutic answers that it refers to an actual building in the tribulation period since there is no indication in the text that points to any other interpretation. But using the complementary hermeneutic one could conclude that it refers to a community of believers (since that meaning is found elsewhere in the New Testament), thus placing the church in the tribulation period. Progressives have not used their complementary hermeneutic to conclude this, though it could be so used. However, one nondispensational premillennialist has proposed this understanding:
"This interpretation understands
the temple to stand for the church, the people of God (as in I Cor 3:16-17; II
Cor 6:16; Eph 2:19-22)…. It means that
God will give spiritual sanctuary to the faithful believers against the demonic
assault of the Antichrist."[33]
One could support this interpretation further by pointing to the Qumran
community, which had developed the idea of the community as a new temple.[34]
The
important question is simply this: Are there limits on the use of a
complementary hermeneutic, and, if so, how are these limits to be determined
and by whom?
Holistic redemption means a redemption
that "covers personal, communal, social, political, and national aspects
of human life."[35] Revisionists give more attention to social
action than they feel normative dispensationalists did or do. This total, or holistic, redemption will
only be realized in the Millennium, but it can and should be begun in the
church, which then "becomes the workshop in which kingdom righteousness is
pursued in the name of Christ."[36] But promoting kingdom righteousness in the
present time is not the mandate of the church, though progressives and others
make it so.[37] In their discussion of the internal and
external social and political ministry of the church, many broad-stroke slogans
are used — such as pursuing righteousness, peace, justice (which are good) —
and some specific suggestions are put forth — such as being concerned about
power structures in the church. But the
many particulars and any prioritizing on the basis of biblical references to
social responsibilities are absent. In fact, in Progressive
Dispensationalism only two Scripture references are included in the
discussion of this subject.[38]
The Scriptures contain many specifics
about the social responsibilities of believers in areas such as the use of
money; civic responsibilities, and vocation.
But there are other clear and specific commands. How to catalog and prioritize them will differ. My own prioritized agenda is this: first,
the cultivating of personal holiness; second, spreading the gospel; third,
being involved in building Christ's church; fourth, having a generous
lifestyle.[39] The Scriptures call us to obey church
ethics, not kingdom ethics, and to do good to all people as we have
opportunity, but especially to the household of faith (Gal. 6:10). Holistic redemption can easily lead to
placing unbalanced, if not wrong, priorities on political action, social
agendas, and improving the structures of society.[40]
Now that enough books and articles have
been written by progressive dispensationalists, it is fair to highlight some
important matters omitted or slighted in their system.
1
The minimizing of a clear and consistent distinction between Israel and the
church results in ignoring the great prophecy of the seventy weeks in Daniel
9:24-27. Nowhere in the progressives'
writings to date have I found any discussion of the passage, only very brief
and occasional citations of the reference itself. Why is this so?
For one reason, the passage clearly distinguishes God's program for Israel (v. 24), which runs throughout the seventy weeks (and were decreed "for your people and your holy city"), from what occurs in the interval between the sixty-ninth and the seventieth weeks, which we now know to be God's program for the church. For another related reason, revisionists do not care for the concept of “parenthesis," which is too clearly part and parcel of the premillennial interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27. They seem to infer that to speak of the church as a parenthesis makes the church somehow less important in God's program. But, remember, one of the dictionary meanings of parenthesis is "interval," which is further defined as "a space of time between events." So the church can properly be called a parenthesis in God's program for Israel. And since it is, then God must have at least two programs within His overall plan. Recall, too, that there are many other scriptural examples of similar intervals.[41]
2
Noncharismatic progressive dispensationalists have not faced the question as to
why signs and wonders are not characteristic of the church age if in fact
Christ is already on David's throne.
During our Lord's earthly life many signs validated His claim to be the
promised Davidic king for Israel. Now
that He is allegedly reigning as Davidic king (according to progressives), why
are there not miraculous signs happening today in the "already" stage
of His Davidic reign?
3 While not denying the pretribulation Rapture
or the literal tribulation period, revisionists do not give much attention to
these aspects of eschatology. Blaising
and Bock do not take obvious opportunities to mention the Rapture, and in one
place (discussing 1 Thess. 5) they say only that the Rapture “would appear to
be pretribulational."[42] They decry (as do many of us normative
dispensationalists) the sensationalism of some interpreters of prophecy. But abuse of a doctrine is no reason for
playing down the truth of that doctrine.
Rather, it ought to make us more zealous to present it accurately and in
a balanced fashion. Furthermore, there exists already in the writings of progressives
a thrust toward positioning the Revelation as a book mat is
"difficult" to interpret.
Playing up the imagery in that book, as some revisionists do, seems to
play down a plain interpretation of it.
The locusts in chapter 9 and Babylon in chapters 17 and 18 are examples
of such "literal/symbolic difficulty" in interpreting the book.[43]
4 The Millennium and the eternal state
(part-icularly the new earth) seem to be less distinct in revisionism. Recall that in the progressive scheme of the
dispensations, the last one, the Zionic, was subdivided into two aspects: the
Millennium and the Eternal State.
Coming at this matter from the side of the amillennialist, recall that
Poythress concluded that "provided we are able to treat the question of
Israel's relative distinctiveness in the Millennium as a minor problem, no
substantial areas of disagreement [between progressive dispensationalism and
covenant theology] remain."[44] Couple this with some amillennialists' view
that Israel's yet unfulfilled promises will be fulfilled on the new earth, and one
wonders if eventually the need for a Millennium will be increasingly minimized
by progressives. Bock (contrasting
progressive with normative dispensationalism) reportedly said in 1992 that
progressive dispensationalism is "less land centered" and less
"future centered."[45]
One expects that there will be further revisions and changes in progressive dispensationalism as time passes. Where it will all lead and whether or not it will be understood and received by those who have embraced normative dispensationalism, no one knows. But already progressive dispensationalism certainly appears to be more than a development within normative dispensational teaching. Some so-called developments are too radical not to be called changes.
Little wonder that some nondispensational
critics of progressive dispensationalism see it as having already changed to
covenant premillennialism or, at the least, clearly leading to that view:
Willem Van Gemeren (a covenant theologian) pointed out that "Bock agrees
with covenant theology that the eschatological kingdom was inaugurated in the
ministry of Jesus."[46] Bruce Waltke, in appraising David Turner's
essay; says that his "position is closer to covenant theology than to
dispensationalism. "[47] Walter A. Elwell thinks that progressive
dispensationalism "will be warmly received by nondispensationalists"
and concludes that "the newer dispensationalism looks so much like
nondispensationalist premillennialism that one struggles to see any real
difference."[48] And more, Poythress predicts that the
progressives' position "is inherently unstable. I do not think that they will find it possible in the long run to
create a safe haven theologically between classic dispensationalism and
covenantal premil-lennialism. The
forces that their own observations have set in motion will most likely lead to
covenantal premillennialism after the pattern of George E. Ladd."[49]
A concluding thought:
O wad some Pow'r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us![50]
g
Taken from Dispensationalism,
by Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, Moody Press, copyright 1995. Used with permission.
Further reproduction prohibited without written permission from the
publisher.
[32] Craig A.
Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 392-93, 59.
[33] Robert H.
Mounce, The Book of Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 219-20.
[34] Bertil
Gartner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament
(Cambridge: University Press, 1965).
[35] Craig A.
Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Wheaton,
Ill.: Victor, 1993), 56.
[36] Ibid., 289.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Ibid.,
285-91. The two references are 2
Corinthians 4:7 and 1 Corinthians 13:12.
[39] See my full
discussion in What You Should Know About Social Responsibility (Chicago:
Moody, 1982).
[40] Note the
revisionists’ use of the phrase “structural sin” in Blaising and Bock, Progressive
Dispen-sationalism, 287.
[41] J. Randall
Price, “Prophetic Postponement in Daniel 9 and Other Texts,” in Issues in
Dispensationalism, 159-60 (where twenty-six examples are listed).
[42] Blaising
and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 317 n. 15.
[43] Ibid.,
91-96.
[44] Vern S.
Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1987), 51.
[45] Darrell
Bock, quoted in “For the Love of Zion,” Christianity Today, 9 March
1992, 50.
[46] Willem Van Gemeren, “A Response,” in Dispensationalism,
Israel and the Church, 334.
[47] Bruce Waltke, “A Response,” in ibid., 348.
[48] Walter A. Elwell, “Dispensationalism of the Third Kind,” Christianity Today, 12 September 1994, 28.
[49] Poythress, “Postscript to the Second Edition,” in Understanding
Dispensationalists (Phillipsburg, NJ.: Presb, & Ref., 1994), 137.
[50] Robert Burns, “To a Louse” (1786).