The Reductionism of Traditional Dispensationalism

I have noticed a certain conditioning and a reductionist tendency among most (not all) Dispensationalists (DTs). Every time I speak about the Kingdom of God and its present spiritual aspects, most DTs-especially those who do not come from the lineage of McClain and Pentecost-exhibit the following reductionist trends:

1. Kingdom of God = Israel

This trend limits the Kingdom solely to Israel. For those who hold this view, the Kingdom was promised to and for Israel; consequently, the Church does not share in any of its benefits. They argue the Kingdom promised in the OT is entirely Israelite and the Church has nothing to do with it, as the Church is a mystery revealed only in the NT, while the Kingdom was revealed in the OT.

They claim Jesus in Matthew 13 does not link the Kingdom to the Church. To exclude the Church from Kingdom promises, most DTs argue that the Kingdom in Matthew 13 isn't even the one promised in the OT; they suggest Jesus changed its meaning to a "mysterious form" of the Kingdom rather than revealing mysteries about the same Kingdom. Curiously, they ignore that the Church will reign with Christ in the Millennial Kingdom. As McClain and Pentecost observe, the Kingdom project begins in Genesis 1, not with David or Abraham.

2. Kingdom of God = Davidic Covenant

This is a second trend: when I argue that spiritual aspects of the Kingdom (the indwelling of the Spirit, regeneration) are present today, the response is often: "The Davidic Kingdom is not present." This expression indicates the person believes the promised Kingdom is entirely contained within the Davidic Covenant-a glaring reductionism.

The Kingdom project encompasses far more than the Davidic Covenant, which focuses primarily on the administrative and political aspects (the lineage of the King). There are many other spiritual elements of the Kingdom found in Isaiah, and the New Covenant itself is part of the Kingdom. Furthermore, the Abrahamic Covenant already contains Kingdom-related elements. This reductionism prevents most DTs from seeing that the present benefits of the New Covenant are part of the Kingdom's essence, not something foreign to it. I also disagree with Progressive Dispensationalists (PDs) here, as I believe the aspects present today are linked to the New Covenant, not the Davidic Covenant (Jesus on the Throne of David).

3. "All or Nothing" Hermeneutics

I have noted another trend that I will call "all or nothing" hermeneutics: the idea that for a Kingdom to be "present," either all its aspects must be present simultaneously, or nothing of the Kingdom is present at all. This "All or Nothing" mentality is strangely applied only to the Kingdom; most DTs accept that some aspects of the New Covenant are present while others are future, yet they refuse this nuance for the Kingdom. Obviously, Jesus did not practice this "all or nothing" hermeneutics (Luke 4:17-21).

4. Political Reductionism

Most DTs also fall into political reductionism. They argue that no aspect of the Kingdom is present because the Kingdom is primarily political. Since we do not see Jesus politically seated on a throne in Jerusalem ruling Israel and the world today, they conclude that no aspect of the promised Kingdom is present. This ignores the fact that the benefits of the New Covenant itself are already active.

5. New Covenant != Kingdom of God

Related to the previous point is the view that the New Covenant contains elements necessary to enter the Kingdom but is not part of the promised Kingdom itself. This is another fruit of reductionism. While New Covenant blessings are indeed prerequisites for entering the Kingdom (John 3:3), they are also blessings that flow from the promised Kingdom Program.

6. Kingdom of God = Millennium

I said that there are present aspects of the Kingdom, and someone replied by saying, "We are not living in the Millennium. The Millennium has not arrived." The strange thing is that I never said we are in the Millennium. I am premillennial. But this happens because of another reductionism held by most dispensational theologians. This reductionism does not occur only regarding the present aspects, but also the future ones. For them, the Kingdom of God is exhausted in the Millennium. Yes, the Kingdom that the Bible says is ETERNAL is reduced to the Millennium (Ryrie's idea, in which the philosophy of history culminates in the Millennium). The Eternal State is also a phase of the Eternal Kingdom promised in the OT.

7. Kingdom Program vs. Kingdom Manifestation

This is perhaps the most serious issue and the one that hinders dialogue the most. I believe that even McClain, Pentecost, and Vlach-the lineage I follow-did not fully grasp this implication. When I speak of the present aspects of the Kingdom within my theology, I am referring to the present aspects of the Kingdom Program that began in Genesis and extends to this day. I am not referring to the physical and political manifestation of the Kingdom. Therefore, is the New Covenant part of the Kingdom program (rather than the Kingdom manifestation) started in Genesis 1? Yes, it is. Consequently, we enjoy present benefits from this Kingdom Program present today. That is the implication of the McClain, Pentecost, and Vlach theology.

In the theology of McClain, Pentecost, and Vlach, the Kingdom serves as the overarching category-the unifying theme of Scripture. Therefore, the New Covenant project is an integral part of the Kingdom program. If the benefits of the New Covenant are present today, it follows by implication that these are already active benefits of the Kingdom program.

Conclusion

Therefore, what I refer to as the "Present Kingdom" today is simple: the benefits of the New Covenant. Unlike some PDs who speak of present Davidic benefits (like Jesus on the Davidic Throne), I refer solely to the New Covenant. Only when someone convinces me that the New Covenant is not part of the Kingdom program that began in Genesis 1 will I stop saying that the Kingdom of God already has present aspects.