Curiosities in JBTS Issue 9 on Dispensationalism

Issue 9 of JBTS contains a few curiosities worth noting. Each dispensationalist author defends his own position and tradition and identifies with a label: TD or PD. The articles are well written and present their views fairly. What caught my attention is that some unusual lines of thought (on certain points, not all) came from authors I did not expect.

Vlach and Dunham on the Kingdom

The most interesting peculiarity involves Vlach and Dunham. Vlach writes from the progressive side and Dunham from the traditional side. By default, one would expect the progressive side to hold that the Kingdom of God — or at least some of its benefits — is present in the current dispensation, and the traditional side to argue that the Kingdom has been postponed and is not yet present. What we find, however, is precisely the opposite. Dunham is the author who maintains that the Kingdom of God is present in a specific sense, with Christ reigning as a Melchizedekian sacral king. On the other side, Vlach's position has been well known since his book He Will Reign Forever: the Kingdom has been postponed and is not present in any sense.

Dunham, the TD, even praises inaugurated eschatology, calling it one of the "most fruitful insights of twentieth-century" theology — something that, in my twenty years as a dispensationalist, I had never seen any TD say. He goes further and cites Ladd on this point, which is quite eccentric: "Here I argue, in keeping with a primary concern of Ladd and progressive dispensationalists, that the NT links the kingdom to the current church age under the premises of inaugurated eschatology."

Fazio, Bock, Vlach, and Snoeberger on Sensus Plenior

Another peculiarity emerges when we compare James Fazio with Bock, Vlach, and Snoeberger. Fazio's article aims to define TD, and his definition is fair. But there is one point that fits the pattern of eccentricity I am describing. While Snoeberger, also a TD, criticizes any form of sensus plenior in the same journal, Fazio takes the opposite path and affirms sensus plenior — and does so in language that partially overlaps with Bock's complementary hermeneutic, Bock being another contributor to the same issue: "This does not mean that a text cannot have an expanded or fuller meaning, or what hermeneuticians have referred to as sensus plenior. Indeed, a text can have an expanded meaning, but it cannot violate the original meaning" (Fazio).

His statement that "a text can have an expanded meaning, but it cannot violate the original meaning" is nothing less than what Bock has called complementary hermeneutics — and arguably even more so, since Bock himself dislikes the expression sensus plenior. Snoeberger, by contrast, opposes any form of sensus plenior and proposes an "originalist" method, restricting a text's meaning to what was "intended by the original author and accepted by the original readers." The sensus plenior that Fazio defends, however, goes beyond Snoeberger's definition: it permits that "a text can have an expanded meaning, but it cannot violate the original meaning."

And if the eccentricities were not enough, Fazio defines TD's hermeneutic as consistent and claims that TD rejects PD's complementary hermeneutic — without noticing that his own view of sensus plenior is itself a complementary hermeneutics + sensus plenior. The eccentricities still do not stop there: Vlach, who represents PD, does not defend complementary hermeneutics either. Writing as a PD, Vlach states: "Progressive dispensationalism, at times, is linked with the concept of 'complementary hermeneutics' in which God may do more than what He promised in a text but He will not do less. Thus, there could be meanings and significances beyond the original meaning of a text. This concept has been debated within dispensationalism, and it is not my view." So Vlach, though a PD, says this is not his position. And curiously, Vlach's definition of CH — that there "could be meanings and significances beyond the original meaning of a text" — is essentially the same as what Fazio affirms when he says a "text can have an expanded meaning, but it cannot violate the original meaning."

Labels Are Useful but Not Definitive

In the end, then, the labels are important and useful, but not definitive. As in politics, where "left" and "right" organize a real spectrum but collapse internal differences. The examples above show that the map can mislead: a TD citing Ladd and embracing inaugurated eschatology, a PD rejecting complementary hermeneutics, two TDs in the same journal on opposite sides of the sensus plenior question. The eccentricity does not lie in the authors themselves, but in the expectation that the label should determine the position. Anyone who wants to understand the debate properly will need to do more than identify the label — he will need to ask which specific questions each author is answering, and how.