In our first look at Sam Storms’ Kingdom Come, we considered his five foundational hermeneutical principles. We now turn to chapters two through five, which are as follows:
- Defining Dispensationalism
- The Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 and the Old Testament Roots of Dispensationalism
- Daniel’s Contribution to Biblical Eschatology
- Problems with Premillennialism
Storms starts by providing a very good description of what most would consider classic Dispensationalism, which is likely the popular eschatological position in American churches. After noting the actual seven “dispensations” that Dispensationalists are known for, Storms makes the following statement:
“… it is the distinction between Israel and the Church and the purposes God has for each that sets Dispensationalism apart from other eschatological systems” (p.51)
This is the sine qua non of Dispensationalism in its classic form. Storms does a good job of fleshing out other distinctions beyond the “two people’s of God” view such as the Pretribulational Rapture and the Dispensational Chronology. One can tell that Storms was trained by leading Dispensationalists (while at DTS) and that he’s familiar with their publications. He closes this chapter by discussing Progressive Dispensationalism, though I think some advocates of PD may take issue with how short his interaction is. While I’m not an advocate of PD, I’d think that scholars like Bock, Blaising, and Saucy would want to push back on how casually he dismisses their attempt to improve upon the Dispensational approach to eschatology. That, of course, is for future responses by those scholars.
For me, Storms’ work on Daniel 9 is worth reading because it’s so vastly different than the common Premillennial reading and also very intriguing. As one who has traditionally held to Historic Premillennialism, it’s quite different than what I’ve always held to and far more understandable (and convincing) than what I’ve read in the past from non-Premillennialists. Of course, there’s some speculation in Storm’s proposal, but I believe it should be given a fair reading by non-Amillennialists. This includes his critical interaction with Dispensational approaches to Daniel and his positive focus on how we can turn to Daniel in our understanding of biblical eschatology. I need to spend more time reading Daniel with Storms as a guide in order to assess whether it’s more convincing than what I’ve read in Ladd. Much to think about! Exciting!
The last chapter we’ll consider in this review is “Problems with Premillennialism.” Storms lists what he calls “problems” with Premillennialism, and they are not just with Dispensationalism but also with Historic Premillennialism. After noting some ideas that Premillennialists have to believe as a consequence to their position, he lists the following texts as problematic for Premillennialism: 1 Cor. 15:22-28, 50-57, Rom. 8:18-23, 2 Pet. 3:8-13, Matt. 25:31-46, 2 Thess. 1:5-10, and John 5:28-29. Readers will need to consult his exegesis to determine whether it is convincing, but in this reviewers mind, his problems need to be considered. Finally, in this chapter Storms addresses the argument that all of the early Patristic sources indicate that Premillennialism is the “oldest” view. He points to Alan Patrick Boyd’s thesis, “A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (until the Death of Justin Martyr),” as evidence that this is not the case. This challenges what I’ve ready in just about every book on eschatology and needs to be researched more. Perhaps, as Storms implies, there’s a lot of assumptions going on in eschatological circles! In fact, Storms cites Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Hermas, and the author of 2 Clement as not Premillennial. I would love to get a copy of Boyd’s thesis (looking into it!). One thing to note about this section is that, again, Storms’ focus is primarily on Dispensational Premillennialism, not the variety advocated by Ladd known as Historic or Classic Premillennialism. However, many of the criticisms apply.
In our next review, thanks to Christian Focus, we’ll turn to Storms’ ideas on “Replacement” Theology and the eschatology of Jesus as is found in the Olivet Discourse. See you soon!
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
excellent, Luke. keep ’em coming.
Thanks, Cary! Appreciate it. I hope these reviews help people!
excellent, Luke. keep ’em coming.
Thanks, Cary! Appreciate it. I hope these reviews help people!
Thanks, Luke. I’ll have to check this one out sometime soon. As for Storms giving too cursory a discussion of progressive dispensationalism, I wouldn’t go too hard on him for that. Bock, Blaising, and the Saucys would disagree, but they have yet to produce anything that convincingly shows that prog. disp’ism is coherent, let alone that it is correct. Whenever I’ve read any of their material, the experience has always been that in one part they will be talking like typical NT scholars who recognise the hermeneutical and theological validity of inaugurated eschatology, and in the next like disp’ists discussing disp’ism’s distinctive issues, and that the two sections really have nothing to do with each other (no matter how quickly or slowly they might alternate between the two views within a given piece, or how insistently they might claim that the two cohere). My overall impression is that prog. disp’ists have written so much over the past few decades because they are trying to overcome the cognitive dissonance that arises from recognising the truth of inaug. esch. while also trying to retain the incompatible system of disp’ism that is their traditional background. They hope that if they can just find the right way to mash that square peg into that round hole, it’ll fit, so they keep trying and trying. But if Storms, like most biblical scholars and theologians, looks at that effort and mostly passes it over as somewhat silly, he has pretty good reason to.
Jon,
I think you’d love this book. It’s really good.
Your thoughts make sense. My only reason for wanting more constructive work on Storms’ part is because I’d venture to guess that a large part of the audience he is trying to influence (especially in regards to Dispensationalism) would probably be those who are PD’s versus those of the classic variety. The Classic Dispensationalists that I have interacted with have often attached their eschatological convictions to the very core of the gospel… which means very little “discussion” takes place. Whereas PD’s are generally a bit more open to discussions.
Since I do not believe that the arguments of PD’s are convincing, I’d like to see more interaction and push back take place… which is why I’d love to have seen Storms do that in more than just the ending of that chapter.
Other than that, I totally concur with your assessment of PD’s. I’ve read each of them and have found them quite wanting 🙂
Hope you are feeling good and catching up!!!
Ah. I didn’t realize progressive dispensationalists were part of the target audience. Your critique is quite justified in that case. 🙂
Thanks, Luke. I’ll have to check this one out sometime soon. As for Storms giving too cursory a discussion of progressive dispensationalism, I wouldn’t go too hard on him for that. Bock, Blaising, and the Saucys would disagree, but they have yet to produce anything that convincingly shows that prog. disp’ism is coherent, let alone that it is correct. Whenever I’ve read any of their material, the experience has always been that in one part they will be talking like typical NT scholars who recognise the hermeneutical and theological validity of inaugurated eschatology, and in the next like disp’ists discussing disp’ism’s distinctive issues, and that the two sections really have nothing to do with each other (no matter how quickly or slowly they might alternate between the two views within a given piece, or how insistently they might claim that the two cohere). My overall impression is that prog. disp’ists have written so much over the past few decades because they are trying to overcome the cognitive dissonance that arises from recognising the truth of inaug. esch. while also trying to retain the incompatible system of disp’ism that is their traditional background. They hope that if they can just find the right way to mash that square peg into that round hole, it’ll fit, so they keep trying and trying. But if Storms, like most biblical scholars and theologians, looks at that effort and mostly passes it over as somewhat silly, he has pretty good reason to.
Jon,
I think you’d love this book. It’s really good.
Your thoughts make sense. My only reason for wanting more constructive work on Storms’ part is because I’d venture to guess that a large part of the audience he is trying to influence (especially in regards to Dispensationalism) would probably be those who are PD’s versus those of the classic variety. The Classic Dispensationalists that I have interacted with have often attached their eschatological convictions to the very core of the gospel… which means very little “discussion” takes place. Whereas PD’s are generally a bit more open to discussions.
Since I do not believe that the arguments of PD’s are convincing, I’d like to see more interaction and push back take place… which is why I’d love to have seen Storms do that in more than just the ending of that chapter.
Other than that, I totally concur with your assessment of PD’s. I’ve read each of them and have found them quite wanting 🙂
Hope you are feeling good and catching up!!!
Ah. I didn’t realize progressive dispensationalists were part of the target audience. Your critique is quite justified in that case. 🙂