VIEWING "FOUR VIEWS"

Part 1 of Eschatological Tension in Progressive Dispensationalism

INTRODUCTION

One of the great tragedies resulting from the arising of dispensationalism is the frequent use of Revelation as an evangelistic tool. Of course, this is not NECESSARILY problematic. After all, Revelation is inspired of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. As such, it confronts the sinner with an angry God. The problems arise, however, for two important reasons (among many):

In the first place almost invariably the book is badly distorted in the hands of the would-be prophecy expert. The simplistic approach of dispensationalism (employing the plain, simple method of interpretation) lures the enthusiast so far in over his head that he is literally up-side-down in his interpretation. Rather than Revelation speaking of the BEGINNING of Christian history (see my section in Pate, "Four Views on the Book of Revelation" [Zondervan]), the dispensationalist thinks it speaks of its END. The revivalist prophecy buff makes no effort to discern anything of the historical setting of Revelation or of its revelational function in redemptive history.

We should remember that even John himself is initially befuddled with what he sees. For instance, in Revelation 17:6-7 we read:

"And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus. And when I saw her, I wondered greatly. And the angel said to me, 'Why do you wonder? I shall tell you the mystery of the woman and of the beast that carries her, which has the seven heads and the ten horns.'"

Elsewhere John is so overwhelmed by the majesty of what transpires before him, that he falls before an angel to worship him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9)! How then may we expect to understand Revelation ourselves, without diligent and serious study?

(The classic dispensationalist revivalist reminds me of the man who upon finishing his reading through the dictionary finally determined on the last page that the Zebra did it. Although upon second reflection he surmised that it was really a poem about everything.)

Secondly, the evident enthusiasm of the evangelist and the apparent success of the evangelistic encounter rubs off on the new Christian. This instills in the freshly born-again convert a fraudulent sense of confidence in understanding Revelation. Too often the newborn Christian rushes headlong into Revelation without securing any grounding elsewhere in Scripture. Needless to say, his understanding is no better than the evangelist's. The most difficult book of the Bible, through this means, becomes the playground of the young and restless.

REVELATION TODAY

Today, however, we have a new dispensaitonal approach to Revelation that better understands the difficulties of the book and endeavors more diligently to apply sound exegetical principles to its exposition. Progressive dispensaitonalism offers a new dispensational option on Revelation. Despite the "plain and simple" hermeneutic claims of old line dispensationalism, this school of thought has always had its difficulties in presenting a coherent eschatology.

For instance, as I mentioned in the July 1997 edition of "Dispensationalism in Transition," dispensationalists have long struggled over the proper understanding and application of the defining covenant of the New Testament era, the New Covenant. Historically they offered three distinctive, mutually-exclusive approaches, as Ryrie observes in his "Basis of the Premillennial Faith."

And what of the important Kingdom Parables of Christ, which define the nature of the kingdom of heaven which the Lord so vigorously proclaimed (Matt. 13)? Dispensationalists have had their serious differences here, as well. In fact, J. D. Pentecost in his early edition of "Things to Come" held a view of the significance of the mustard seed and leaven parables which is absolutely anti-thetical to his current understanding. Just as dispensationalist turn Revelation on its head, they even turn themselves on their heads, from time to time.

In addition, we are all familiar with dispensationalism's struggle over the meaning of "this generation" in Matthew 24:34. This phrase appears in the Lord's important Olivet Discourse, which is so vital to understanding eschatology. Here dispensationalists have tripped over each other trying desperately to avoid the obvious conclusion that Christ was speaking to and ABOUT people living in his own day.

Dispensationalists long held to the rather bizarre and precarious notion that "this generation" means "the Jewish race" (despite the phrase's obvious meaning just a few verses earlier in Matt. 23:36). Today, however, they more generally hold that "this generation" means "this generation" (that doesn't sound so difficult, now does it?). Unfortunately, they argue that it speaks of the generation who will begin to see the future fulfillment of the prophecies, a generation in the future from our own present time.

These are but a few samples illustrating how ineffectual is dispensationalism's "simple, plain" hermeneutic to deal with eschatological issues. They cannot provide a simple understanding of some of the foundational biblical discourses on eschatology. If their theologians cannot get their own act together on these foundational truths, no wonder they are losing so much ground that Dave Hunt, Thomas Ice, and others are sounding the alarm regarding the decline of dispensationalism!

THE TASK AT HAND

In this issue I will introduce a series analyzing progressive dispensationalism's understanding of eschatology. Remember: Dispensationalism is NOT simply an eschatological orientation. Rather, it is a whole integrated (even if poorly so) system of theology. As in other issues, we will note their great strides toward a more balanced and sound exposition of Scripture. We will discover in the end, though, when weighed in the balance, it too is found wanting.

In this issue I will provide a brief introduction to the just-released Zondervan Counter Point Series book: "Four Views on the Book of Revelation." I will cite a few relevant passages that highlight the internal squabble within dispensationalism today. (I am a contributor to this book and it may be ordered from me at the address below. I highly recommend this work not only for its usefulness in understanding Revelation itself, for its introducing several leading approaches to the book, but also for its illustrating the problems within dispensationalism.)

Interestingly — and tellingly — in this book of FOUR views on Revelation, TWO of those views are dispensational! In fact, two of the chapter titles are: "A Progressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation" (chapter 3) and "A Classical Dispensationalist View of Revelation" (chapter 4). Again we see that dispensationalism is so torn by internal struggles that it cannot provide a basic understanding of Revelation, another important eschatological section of Scripture. And remember again: this is problematic in light of their self-professed claim to offer a simple, plain hermeneutic. Things are not as simple and plain as advertised, apparently!

For apologetic purposes, the covenantal Christian needs to be aware of this internal chaos in dispensationalism's house. The average laymen assumes that all his theology is in a nice neat package — like Scofield's notes. Not so!

VIEWING "FOUR VIEWS"

I appreciated very much working with each of the contributors to "Four Views on the Book of Revelation." Each one was cordial and gracious; each offered clear summary insights into their systems of interpretation. In that this newsletter deals with dispensationalism, I will not focus on the Idealist viewpoint of Sam Hamstra. His exposition represents a fine introduction to Idealism, but is not one of our concerns here.

Marv Pate, the editor of the book and professor of Bible at Moody Bible Institute, provides a helpful introduction to the debate as the book opens. To illustrate the openness of the progressive dispensationalist view even to preterism, I will cite a few comments from his introduction. Though these comments are welcome emendations of dispensationalism, they cannot displace the strong arguments for preterism (am I biased?).

As readers of my books know, the date of writing assigned to Revelation is a crucial matter. In fact, I wrote my doctoral dissertation on the subject ("Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation" — second addition available through I. C. E. or me for $27.95 from address below). Pate is not only a contributor to the book, but its editor as well. As the editor he allows each author to deal with the date as he sees fit. He, however, makes a crucial observation in his one paragraph treatment of the question. An observation that suggests his own system is torn with dialectical tension.

Pate writes on page 14:

"We will analyze the theories of the date of the Apocalypse later in this introduction with reference to the interpretive schemes of the book, but for the moment we note that two major periods qualify as candidates: emperor Nero's reign (A.D. 54-68) and Domitian's rule (A.D.81-96). As will be developed later, the preterist school of interpretation argues for the former, while the futurist approach, especially classical dispensationalism, aligns itself with the latter. Progressive dispensationalism sees a combination of the two dates as operative in the book, while the idealist perspective is not bound by either time frame."

Of course, this concession to the early date does not endear Pate's progressive dispensationalist view to Robert Thomas's classic dispensationalism. Thomas deems the matter virtually an open-and-shut case for the later date. His earlier two volume commentary on Revelation ("An Exegetical Commentary" from Moody Press) frequently deals with my arguments for the early date, though I believe omitting in-depth analysis.

Thomas's first point of dispute with my exposition of Revelation 1:7, for one example, is found on page 186: "This preterist view of 1:7 creates numerous problems, however. It requires the writing of Revelation before A.D. 70, a dating that runs counter to early church tradition."

Thomas, of course, fails to mention that:

[1] His dispensationalism itself also runs counter to early church tradition. Several important studies from dispensationalists have proven that dispensationalism was NOT found in the early church.

[2] Neither does he mention that the late-date view depends heavily on a tradition deeply rooted in Irenaeus's famous statement in his "Against Heresies" (5:30:5). But as Greek textual scholar Bruce Metzger notes: "Irenaeus's date is open to question" (Metzger, "Revelation, The Book of," in B ruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible [New York: Oxford University Press, 1993], 653). This quick dismissal is Thomas's method throughout his chapter. Unfortunately, the reader will not be aware that early date advocacy is held by such noted scholars as: Moses Stuart, B. F. Westcott, F. J. A. Hort, Joseph B. Lightfoot, F. W. Farrar, Alfred Edersheim, Philip Schaff, Milton Terry, F. F. Bruce, J. A. T. Robinson, J. A. Fitzmeyer, J. M. Ford, C. F. D. Moule, Albert A. Bell, J. Christian Moberly, Cornelis Vanderwaal, and Christopher Rowland.

So here we see dispensationalists going at it again. We also learn of progressive dispensationalism's slide toward a more covenantal, reformed view. Yet, while the progressive is sliding, he is also holding onto his dispensationalism — which obviously causes severe cramping.

Later in opening his own argument, progressive dispensationalist Pate states: "For the progressive dispensationalist, the hermeneutical key to Revelation (and for that matter, the New Testament in general) is the 'already/not yet' eschatological tension.... That is to say, with the first coming of Jesus Christ the age to come already dawned, but it is not yet complete; it awaits the Parousia for its consummation." (p. 135). This "already/not yet" perspective should sound familiar to my readers, for progressive dispensationalist Bruce Ware employs it in his argument for understanding the New Covenant (November, 1997).

Thus, this "already/not yet" principle is becoming the defining theological principle of modern dispensationalism. Pate continues fleshing out his perspective (p. 136):

Regarding the "soon" statement in Revelation 1: "There is a question as to whether the words 'en tachei' mean that the end-time events will occur soon (i.e., in John's lifetime), or that, when they do begin, they will transpire with rapidity. The latter of these options allows for an indeterminate period between the apostle's day and the fulfillment of his prophecies. But in light of the subsequent claim in verse 3 regarding these events, 'the time is near,' the former alternative is to be preferred."

This is a nice admission, I think! And potentially damning of dispensationalism. But the system must be saved. So Pate continues (p. 136):

"But even here the period of fulfillment need not be limited to the writer's day. A clue to John's meaning may be found in the word 'time' in verse 3 (Gk. "kairos"), for, as Oscar has shown, such a term indicates that the early church believed that Jesus' death and resurrection inaugurated the last days.... This is the 'already' aspect of eschatological events. Yet these signs of the time were expected to continue their course within history (however short or long that may be) until the Parousia, that is, until the second coming of Christ.... This is the 'not yet' aspect of the eschatological events."

On page 137 he adds: "What John refers to in [Rev. 1:19] is his apocalyptic vision of the nature of reality — this age (the present) and the age to come (the future). If this suggestion is accurate, then we do indeed find in verse 19 the interpretive key to the book of Revelation. Chapters 2-3 describe the seven churches, which exist on earth in this present age. Chapters 4-5, in their vivid description of the death and resurrection of Jesus, portray the reality that the age to come has already dawned, but only in heaven. Chapters 6-18, then, depict the transition from this age to the age to come on earth, with the Great Tribulation (or the messianic woes) marking the turning point. Chapters 19-22 present the full arrival of the age to come on earth, initiated by the Parousia and manifested in the messianic reign of Christ then revealed to all."

Here we find the heartbeat of progressive dispensationalism's exposition of Revelation. Revelation records for us the mixed nature of the present age: an overlapping of the present church period with the principles of the coming messianic kingdom. This, remember, is essential to the notion of "progressive" dispensationalism as opposed to classic dispensationalism (see our newsletter dated August, 1997). The classic view had hermetically-sealed, water-tight, mutually-exclusive, cheap non-stretch dispensations following one upon the other. Progressive dispensationalism, on the other hand, allows the blending and merging of dispensations. And Pate suggests that this opens Revelation's point to us.

I don't think so. And I know the classic dispensationalist is not at all happy with such. It ruins a perfectly adequate, "Thus saith Scofield!" Haven't we long sung: "My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's notes and Moody Press"? (As such it's something like the Arminian distortion of Calvinistic hymnody: "Every Day with Jesus" becomes "Every Other Day with Jesus"). This is simply intolerable!

In fact, classic dispensationalist Robert Thomas vehemently decries progressive dispensationalism. Note his comment on page 180: "Progressive dispensationalism . . . represents a significant change in principles of interpretation, so that the name 'dispensationalism' does not apply to that system." He is here kicking the progressive dispensationalists out of the house!

And no wonder Pate alarms classic dispensationalists. On page 140 Pate writes:

"In our estimation, the exclusively futurist approach to Revelation has, in general, neglected the preceding historical backdrop in interpreting chapters 2-3, probably because it does not want to attribute significance to Caesar worship for the understanding of Revelation 6-18. To do so would be apparently to diminish the futurity of the events described in those chapters, especially the assumption that John looked forward to the day of a revived Roman empire under the rulership of the Antichrist, who will opposed Christ and Israel."

This is a scary approach for old-line dispensationalists! The beloved hermeneutic-futurism is being undermined.

In my part of the book I respond to this "already/not yet" ploy (as the Inspector Cleauseu would say). On pages 44 and 45 I write: "The already/not yet theological principle, though valid and widely accepted by evangelicals, cannot govern whole, vast, complex works such as Revelation. The already/not yet principle applies to unitary, simple constructs: the kingdom, salvation, new creation, and so forth. The principle snaps apart when we stretch it over so vast a work as Revelation. Furthermore, how can this principle explain the simultaneous operation in one book of such allegedly global themes operating as judgment (Rev. 6-19) and blessing (Rev. 20-22)? Pate's use of this principle to explain Revelation seems more hopeful than helpful."

Thus, we can see that the house of dispensationalism is not "clean, swept and put in order" (Matt. 12:44). Rather, it is a "house divided against itself" which "cannot stand" (Matt. 12:25). I will be showing in this series that the "already/not yet" principle of progressive dispensationalism cannot secure a place for dispensationalism.

ANNOUNCEMENT AND SPECIAL OFFER

FOUR VIEWS ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION (Zondervan) is now available. I contribute the chapter on preterism. It may be ordered from me for $16.99 (request free shipping).

THREE VIEWS OF THE END OF THE MILLENNIUM AND BEYOND (Zondervan) is a Zondervan Counter Point book debating the millennial positions. I present the theonomic postmillennial position. Its projected delivery date is June, 1998. If you order this book before June for $16.99, upon publication I will send the book and a free tape on millennialism.

PERILOUS TIMES: A STUDY IN ESCHATOLOGICAL EVIL Retail: $25.95
Christian Universities Press. Hardback. Foreword: R. C. Sproul. Publication Date: Fall, 1998. I present thorough exegetical studies of five leading judgment themes of Scripture, demonstrating they are fulfilled in the first century: Daniel's Seventy Weeks (Dan. 9); The Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24); The Man of Sin (2 Thess. 2); The Beast of Revelation (Rev. 13); and the Great Harlot (Rev. 17). Send $25.00 prior to June 1, 1998 and receive upon publication an autographed copy of Perilous Times; A cassette lecture: "The Great Tribulation Is Past" (#011:4); and free shipping (except for foreign orders: add $4.00).

CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL DEBATES

New tape series ($50 for 14 tape set; $4.00 per tape): Provides an analysis and exegetical-theological critique of contemporary theological controversies that are beginning to affect and alter historic evangelical orthodoxy. A defense of historic reformed orthodoxy and an illustration of proper theological method in resolving these and like issues. Issues covered: Annihilationism (2 tapes); Abortion (1 tape); Alcoholic beverages (1 tape); Charismatic: miraculous healing and tongues (2 tapes); Creation Framework Hypothesis (2 tapes); Homosexuality (2 tapes); Hyper-preterism (1 tape); and Theonomic challenges (2 tapes).

BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL: DATING THE BOOK OF REVELATION. $27.95

Full text of doctoral dissertation on Revelation's date. Includes careful exegesis of critical passages, diligent survey of scholarly literature, and meticulous search of early church fathers and Jewish and Roman historians. The book not only resolves this technical question, but provides much helpful exposition of Revelation's text itself. These provide the reader with a clearer understanding of the meaning of Revelation. "An academic work clearly argued, with full documentation and detailed footnotes on the subject" (Banner of Truth). "Convincingly demonstrates the fact the book of Revelation was written... [before] A.D. 70" (Jay E. Adams, Ph. D.). "Thorough and outstanding" (George W. Knight III, Th. D.). "Impressive job of collecting evidence.... Well researched and cogently presented" (Criswell Theological Review). "A strong case for the early external evidence" (J. P. M. Sweet, Journal of Theological Studies).

Order from me at:

Kenneth Gentry
P.O. Box 388
Placentia, CA 92871

END

 

---

WOULD YOU LIKE TO RECEIVE INFORMATION ON CHRISTIAN AND CHURCH-RELATED INTERNET HAPPENINGS, SENT DIRECTLY TO YOUR EMAIL BOX EACH WEEK, FOR FREE? SIGN UP FOR YOUR NEWSLETTER TODAY! http://churches.net/