[ 1 minutes to read ]I disagreed with a lot in this book and came to realize the problem with it is a foundational hermeneutical issue. Ladd held to a re-interpretation of Old Testament texts by the New Testament, so later revelation changed the contextual meaning of prior revelation. Though he tried to maintain some sort of continuity of the kingdom from the Old to the New Testament, he ended up with a discontinuity in the nature of the kingdom as revealed in the Old and New Testaments.
He spiritualized and generalized the kingdom to where at times he made it synonymous with salvation, eternal life, etc. He conflated conceptions of the universal lordship of Christ and the mediatorial kingdom of men on the earth. He ended up with a supersession of Israel and reformulation of the people of God to the point that his vision for the restoration of Israel fell short of the promises/covenants made to the fathers, which necessarily included a geo-political, ethnic, and territorial kingdom with Jesus Christ on the throne of his father David in Jerusalem ruling over the twelve tribes united on the land promised to Abraham.
It was an interesting read historically, but I can’t recommend it as helpful.