Ed Hindson is clearly a Traditional Dispensationalist, yet he holds some surprisingly unconventional views regarding the Kingdom. On this topic, his perspective is arguably more "progressive" than my own, and even than Saucy's.
In Hindson's notes on Matthew in the KJB Commentary, as well as in his more recent Twenty-First Century Biblical Commentary Series, he presents a distinctive take on Traditional Dispensationalism (TD). For example, he writes:
"Therefore, an interval was now announced between the Messiah's original appearance and His final return. That interval is the Church Age, during which believers are citizens of the kingdom that is 'in their midst' (Luke 17:21). The distinction between the church and the kingdom is not that one is more spiritual than the other. The church is the present (realized) form of the kingdom of God. The millennial kingdom, which is to come in the future (Rev. 20:4), is another transitional form of the kingdom that will ultimately be presented to the Father to be the eternal kingdom of God (Rev. 21)."
Notice his statement: "The church is the present (realized) form of the kingdom of God." Hindson also claims that during this era a "spiritual nucleus is developed for the establishment of the messianic reign." This seems similar to what Darrell Bock has described-that the church acts as a kind of "sneak preview" of the Kingdom.
Elsewhere in the same commentary, Hindson writes:
"No longer is the message to be restricted to the house of Israel, but is to be declared to all people. The word of the kingdom is the gospel proclamation of Jesus the King and is not to be limited to an Old Testament Jewish-only message. Remember, these parables make it clear that the church is the present-day form of the kingdom."
Even Saucy, in his more progressive days, does not express anything like this. Regarding Matthew 21:43, Hindson comments:
"The warning 'the kingdom of God will be taken away from you' (Matthew 21:43) was fulfilled at Pentecost when the 'kingdom' was mediatorially transferred to the church (cf. Rom. 9-11, which clearly promises Israel's restoration at the time of the Tribulation Period and the millennial kingdom)."
Even Saucy and Vlach rejected this interpretation of Matthew 21:43, considering it too progressive.
The 21st-Century Commentary Series lists Mal Couch as editor, a strong traditional dispensationalist with a very traditional view of the Kingdom. Interestingly, he accepted Ed Hindson's entry even though he did not agree with it.
I have found numerous other authors who endorse a progressive understanding of the Kingdom without advocating PD-Tom Constable is one example. I plan to include all of this material in my upcoming book.
FreeRequest: Matthew 24:4–31 — Chronology in Dispensationalism
The chronological view of more than 60 dispensational authors on Matthew 24 — request it by email below.
Enter your email and we will send the PDF as an attachment. See our privacy policy.
Author
Leonardo A. Costa
A researcher and writer exploring dispensationalism from a progressive perspective, with a deep appreciation for the tradition's heritage.
Related Articles
Traditional Dispensationalism and Replacement Theology: An Unexpected Convergence
Traditional dispensationalism and replacement theology travel by different routes but arrive at the same practical destination — dispossessing Israel of her covenantal inheritance. In Ryrie's articulation the gap narrows further, restricting the promises to ethnic Jews living in non-glorified bodies during the Millennium. Progressive Dispensationalism recovers the full inheritance for all Israel.
The Already-Not Yet in Dispensationalism Was Never Foreign to the Tradition
An argument that already-not yet reasoning has always existed inside dispensationalism, especially in its treatment of prophecy and the New Covenant.
The Canonical Reading Layer: A Hermeneutical Double Standard in Traditional Dispensationalism
The thousand-year millennium is not in the Old Testament — it comes from Revelation 20. Traditional Dispensationalism reads it back into Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Zechariah by canonical complementation, yet rejects the same hermeneutical move when Progressive Dispensationalism applies New Covenant blessings to Gentiles. Exposing the double standard from a premillennial perspective.
Does the Israelite Remnant of the Present Dispensation Lose Its Inheritance as an Israelite in Dispensationalism?
How classical dispensationalism's earthly-heavenly dualism risked making the present Israelite remnant forfeit Israel's national inheritance, and how later dispensationalists corrected that implication.