Progressive Dispensationalism: Continuing the Conversation
Darrell L. Bock
Darrell L. Bock is Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theology Seminary in Dallas, TX
Introduction: Defining Progressive Dispensationalism
Let’s begin with a definition of Progressive Dispensationalism.[1] Progressive Dispensationalism is an attempt to specify how the dispensations and covenants commitments advance building on each other as the program of God progresses through them. As such, it articulated more continuity than previous forms of the Dispensational tradition. Let me define the parts: A dispensation is an administrative relationship, a stewardship arrangement. (So Israel-church-millennium reflects a movement from promise to initial realization through an ascended Jesus to consummation through a fully present Jesus—Jesus face to face). Israel is not the church nor are either of them the millennium in terms of structural scope and administrative operation. Dispensationalism is the idea that God has managed the structure of his salvific plan in part with different stewardships within that plan as that plan progressively advanced. Covenants come in because the content of the promises are managed through them- Abrahamic- People, land and hope- seed through which the world is blessed. That seed is both corporate (Israel) and singular in Christ. Blessing comes through the singular seed, but hope remains for the corporate entity to whom this promise was originally given. This is why dispensationalism speaks of a future for corporate Israel. And not just for believing Jewish people. The Davidic covenant is a promise of a dynasty from the house of David. The New Covenant involves forgiveness and the law on the hear (or as Ezekiel states it, a washing with the Spirit within). The emphasis on progressive highlights how the program builds in continuity as the realization of covenant promises advances. God completes his program in steps, so that initial fulfillment has ties to original promises just as consummation completes the process. The term is neither political in force nor is it a reflection on other views. It is strictly description of how the program of God develops. It progresses to realization through the connecting and developing stewardships in the program. I now turn to the specific questions raised for us.
Differences from Historic Premillennialism
We have spent a great deal of time in recent discussions interacting mostly with historical premillennialism as people often ask how different our approach is to that view, seeing them as similar. So let me develop this now with focus on differences. The main difference is found in how we see Israel in the program of God as a category that continues to have a place in the future plan of God. This is rooted in a belief that God made commitments to her that are rooted in God’s promise and faithfulness. This is a reflection of repeated reaffirmations of Israel in the land through the OT and the remarks of Acts 3:18-22, as well as Romans 9-11. This is not separate from an embrace of Christ but foresees that down the road many in Israel will say “Blessed is he who come in the name of the Lord”. This includes a view of an earthly millennium with Jesus ruling from Jerusalem on his return where Israel functions not just as an ethnicity but as a nation of people among the nations. This represents an equality among nations, not a Jewish nationalism as God redeems corporate structures in society, not just individuals. It is that which is in view with the peace that comes with Jesus’ return and the millennium.
We also reject the idea that dispensationalism requires a disengagement with issues in the world. My own role at Dallas as Executive Director of Cultural Engagement at the Hendricks Center hosting a podcast that deals with issues of life today in culture shows a commitment to engage with issues today and seek the best for people as an outgrowth of a commitment to the gospel and as a missional testimony to God and the gospel that points to God’s care for people.
Differences from the Other Three Views
Concerning Traditional Covenantalism
(and some points in Progressive Covenantalism)
My remarks about Traditional Covenantalism will be contained in this initial response.
A. I do not embrace a view that sees a covenant of works in the Bible. Both Wellum and Belcher made much of this, so it is a good place to start. I prefer to focus on the covenants of promise (Abraham, David, New). Here is a question for my covenant friends, please tell me where the term covenant is used with the creation. Best I can tell it is hidden in a “legal” relationship claim. I would argue this is simply the relational dimension for Creator-Creature claims and those elements still remain after the covenant of works became the covenant of grace. What exists is a creator/creature calling that is always the responsibility of the creature in response. It is not so much legal but relational. That has always been the case since Genesis 1 and is what makes the fall of Genesis 3 so significant as it represents the breaking of that calling and a rebellion relationally. This calling did not require a covenant, but was inherent in creating humanity in God’s image. Adam is about a failure. God begins to deal with that in the Abrahamic covenant of Gen esis12 and the biblical covenantal path. This is where the solution to the failure on the Creator-creature relationship is picked up to restore it but not back to a covenant of works. So to pit Genesis 12 in contrast to Adam is to miss why the OT is so much about Israel, including in the Prophets. Let me say something that is not controversial, Israel is discussed far more than Adam in Scripture. A question is why? Because God has focused on her as the movement toward the solution culminating in Christ as the nations are reconciled to each other as part of the reconciliation God brings, which is why ultimately Israel to must embrace her Messiah. Salvation is both individual and corporate (the individual and peoples or nations). This critique suggests a risk in the covenant of works on making salvation only about the individual, a trait that the West’s focus on the individual promotes. It leaves a corporate blind spot. Salvation is bigger than just saving the individual. It addresses peoples and the cosmos.
B. I also reject the idea there is no future millennium (against amillennialism). A close look at Revelation 20 and the genre of Apocalyptic as a theodicy that has a calendar tied to it is against this idea. The earliest Christians were chiliasts. If 1000 years is an idiom for a period of time why does it appear 6 times in the space of a few verses in Revelation 20? One of the features of apocalyptic is the presentation of a calendar of timing that says God has a specific plan to redeem and establish justice. So, a 1000 years fits in with other length markers like 7 years or times, time and half a time. These are specific not vague time markers in the genre.
C. I also disagree that the land promise was fulfilled in Joshua’s time or according to Psalm 68. The issue of land remains a point of OT discussion long after this period. It is the basis for the return to the land and the hope of Israel as a national people.
D. In addition, the triumphal entry is not the fulfillment of Luke 13:34-35. Luke explicitly has the national leaders rejecting Jesus’ entry with the retort of Jesus that creation would speak if the disciples did not speak. This was the atriumphal entry from the perspective of the Jewish leaders and so that event cannot fulfill that hope.
E. The common covenantal reading of Acts 1:6 that contends the disciples asked the wrong question in querying when the kingdom would be restored to Israel ignores the link I noted with Acts 3:18-22. Here is how Peter put the package together. Jesus returns to restore the kingdom to Israel (or perhaps better, to reclaim Israel’s place within it). In Acts 3 Peter says what happens when Jesus returns is already expressed in the Hebrew Scripture. You can read what is to come there. There is with no note to read it differently than the expectation they still had after spending 40 days with Jesus as he had explained the hope of the Scripture to them.
Having said all of this, I’d want to highlight, we share the centrality of Christ in all of this and the result being an eternal shalom for creation. It is a return to embracing Christ for Israelites that triggers this reinclusion.
F. How do we solve the issue of the book of Hebrews? Is its showing the superiority of the new era and its claim the old era passes away the death knell for a dispensationalists hope for Israel as a corporate entity? The response is simple. We are speaking of realizations tied to the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants. There is much either/or thinking in this response that has plagued eschatological discussion on both sides of the debate for some time. We need to remember that Hebrews is speaking of a return to old way apart from Christ—Judaism on its own terms apart from Christ is the target of the shadows remark in Hebrews. That is not where Progressives are when they argue for elements of Jewish expression in a post-cross context including in the consummative future. What do we do when we combine Christ with elements of Jewish praxis? The NT Testament shows this in its exhortation not to fight over calendars and days. The participation of the Temple with a Messianic belief says the same thing. The reality of being a Jewish believer in Christ in the NT shows one can have continuity and unity alongside distinct praxis at the same time.
Concerning Traditional Dispensationalism
The major difference here is Progressive Dispensationalists do not share the degree of futurism and full discontinuity that exists in Traditional Dispensationalism. The kingdom is seen as already/not yet in Progressive Dispensationalism. Promises connect both in this era and the one to come, not just in the future and not just in ties to Israel. There is one people of God, but Israel is an identifiable part of that reconciled unity and as a future corporate entity among the reconciled nations in the world in that era to come. That is where its distinctness remains.
The commitment to God’s faithfulness, that he keeps his promises to those he makes them to originally, and an insistence that Israel not be forgotten in all of this is what Progressives share with Traditional Dispensationalists.
Concerning Progressive Covenantalism
In many ways, we are closer to Progressive Covenantalism, but its total absorption of Israel into the church misses some of the Israel among the nations elements that are a part of premillennialism. I will elaborate on that more a little later.
What I share with Progressive Covenantalists is a recognition of the centrality of Christ, the hope of a future of shalom, and a recognition of important themes of continuity as the story of Scripture progresses.
Setting the Record Straight
I noted the ethical claims and current issues of life denied to a dispensational view. Though we are futurist in theological expression, we are not calendar nor date setters. We have a priority assignment that is set forth in Acts 1:6-8 that is to be witnesses in the world today. We are to preview what is to come. We are to seek what God desires of humans in the public square and care for people as God did with us, seeking to recapture those who have been lost and to pursue them even as they ignore or reject God. We are to testify to God’ scare in and for the world by how the church serves the city, even when that city does not recognize God (Jer. 29).
Here I focus on differences with Progressive Covenantalism as many (often Traditional Dispensationalists) have had trouble seeing any differences between these two approaches. To bypass differences is a mistaken reading of the situation and the conversation around eschatology.
I also see too many engagements with Dispensationalism today even in the most recent present discussions that almost pretend that Progressive Dispensationalism does not exist and then generalizes about Dispensationalism. That is to miss the last thirty plus years of eschatological discussion.
Wellum comes close to doing this in the book by saying his objections against both dispensational views are the same, while also curiously claiming quite a difference in tone and serious differences. The way this is handled by Wellum helps us appreciate there are layers here in the conversation that has been made more complex by more options within dispensationalism. I would argue that the way Progressive Dispensationalists argue for their synthesis is sufficiently different to deserve direct, not indirect treatment that amounts to treating only Traditional Dispensationalist views. The differences in argument within Dispensationalism makes unfair or insufficient the lumping together of Dispensationalists simply because they land in a similar place with regard to Israel. This approach does not deal clearly enough with the distinctive route taken by Progressive Dispensationalists and the way the texts and Progressive Dispensational synthesis is made. It does not do to simply allude to the side that Progressive Dispensationalists exist (in a footnote or a single sentence or two) and then proceed without engaging the way their synthesis works. Most critiques coming from a covenantal side take this tact. Sometimes the claim is that is not where popular dispensationalism is, but that claim also ignores a potential way forward in our conversations that Progressives offer to our community conversation.
A. I think for me more substantive and problematic is Wellum’s objection that Progressive Dispensationalism understates the permanent role of the church. But is this correct or a misunderstanding of what Progressives are claiming? We contend there is ultimately one people of God and that Christ is the key to belonging in this era and in what is to come. The distinction we are after is that the church is a transnational entity distinct from nations vis-a-vis Israel and that God will work with both groupings (Salvation and societal with these primarily in stages of inauguration and consummation). Salvation unifies people at all societal levels and through all of society’s structures. We are back to the points I made earlier about individual and corporate structures and the corporate includes the nations, not just the bringing together of races or ethnicities. This is why we talk about the continued existence of Israel in God’s program.
Our contention is that far more than a remnant will one day respond and in a non-nationalistic way Israel has a future in that program among the nations including living in shalom in the land God gave her. (Note how Israel disappeared as a place for fulfillment in his remark on p. 211 of the Four Views book as he discusses meta-narratival questions, when he says “they fail to grasp how God’s unified plan unfolds through the covenants, starting in creation and reaching its fulfillment in Christ and the church”. Our contention is that fulfilment comes through Christ, the church and with a place for Israel. The responses and claims that say we do not distinguish how fulfillment comes in the church versus being an illustration of nation-states to come misses the distinction in structures between the entity of salvation and how the rule over all the earth to come that includes nation-states in ways the current structure and fulfillment does not. Yes, this is the ultimate, comprehensive form of the kingdom, but it also is a distinct phase (yes, dispensation) of God’s rule. So what is trans-national and outside of, or at least among, nation-states now, then will include all of them, including Israel. We are not speaking of an illustration but of a transition into a different administrative arrangement, which is what a dispensational/administrative move is.
As for whether Progressives have a spiritual and a literal reading of the OT and NT. That denies what is gained by seeing the kingdom in dispensational stages (already/not yet) operating through different kinds of social structures (Individual first now as people of faith are gathered into the church, but then including the nations in the consummation). This fits a recognition that to expand along lines announced as blessing for the world as early as Abraham is not a spiritualizing but an inclusion of scope.
B. Progressive Covenantalism is too limiting in how it sees the role of seed in Scripture. That limiting allows Israel to disappear in Christ and the church but it is not so straightforward. This promise is to Abraham and his seed, but that seed is multiple. The whole point is to argue in Genesis and Exodus that the seed is like the starts in the sky or the sand of the sea. Christ and Israel both exist in the biblical themes. The OT highlights the national, corporate element and scripture as a whole revealing the singular seed of Christ as the OT covenant promises narrow and point to this focus. Christ is the bearer of that promise but that other seed is still left in play as a reflection of God’s faithfulness to original recipients, which is why in part Peter refers in Acts 3 to the God of the patriarchs. My point is that to include such an expansion of focus beyond Israel or the promise’s focus on Christ does not take place at the expense of commitments made into the hope for Israel, but as a part of it. I play on one of Wellum’s sentences where he says, “The one new man does not morph into distinct nations since the church is the ‘chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation’ 1 Pt 2:9.”[2] The church does not morph into distinct nations in my view (I never said this by the way. It is a characterization of my view). Rather, and here is my reading of this space, the era to come will include the nations within and directly under the kingdom’s rule (something that did not previously exist in the way it will). This is the only way to explain OT texts that speak of nations streaming to Jerusalem in the end, texts such as Is 19:23-25.
These two ideas (how we see the church and the seed) tie together to make the difference between us.
C. One more point and question: Are nation-states limited to the Fall and its consequences? I wonder. We were headed to a multiplication of people on the earth from Gen 1. OT consummative eschatological texts seem to suggest not. The nations appear to exist on the other end. Just as gender is designed in us, perhaps also are our varied ethnicities and nation groups to show the scope of reconciliation after it is consummated. We are not homogenized, but remain as many tribes and nations as Rev 5 and 7 note. This unity and distinction side by side (a both/and!) is why I would want to make clear that the millennium is part of the journey to the new heavens and earth, so the claim Progressive Dispensationalists focus on the millennium at the expense of the latter eternity is simply wrong. We see it as a stage within consummation in this history in transition to a new Heavens and Earth that will be eternal and the final resting place, dare I say, dispensation, for the display of Gods glory.
D. To claim I do not recognize typology is another overclaim. My dissertation, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology argued typological-prophetic fulfillment was more common than directly prophetic texts.[3] The question is not whether typology exists but whether it cancels some of the previous elements that seem to be a part of the promise. Does Gentile inclusion mean Israelite exclusion?
A Final Word Concerning Traditional Dispensationalism
As for traditional dispensational claims that our hermeneutic is spiritual or departs from original meaning, I also find this claim misleading because it bypasses where the Progressive Dispensational view lands ultimately. We are dealing with promises realized in stages (across dispensations!). Those stages come in a context, an original context going back to Abraham that included people from outside Israel even as promises were made to Abraham and the corporate seed. Those outside also would experience blessing in the promises made to Israel and the larger seed. Those promises ultimately have Christ at its center and as its trigger. “Expansion” and its capacity is built literally into the promise. It does not totally scuttle the original promise (as is claimed as a flaw of mine).[4] This is not a case of scuttling for two reasons: (1) the promise has an open end of inclusion built into it as the promise to Abraham does and (2) we do not lose the original recipient(s) in the process when it is consummated. The former is my response to traditional dispensationalists, while the latter is my response to our covenantal brethren.
Traditional Dispensationalists miss this in a nearsighted reading of Israel alone as the audience for the promise. Another Traditional Dispensational mistake is to limit the idea of fulfillment only for moments of total consummation. However, our salvation rooted as it is in this eschatology, does not work that way nor does the kingdom program. It proceeds over time and builds progressively across it. It works in fresh structures (dispensations) as well. The promise of God always foresaw blessing to the world from the time of Abraham, so Gentile blessing was foreseen. So what is needed is a careful articulation of how Israel is distinct in and functions within God’s total and larger program. That means recognizing the unity of Gpd’s people as well as elements of distinction. I say the former to my Traditionalist Dispensational brothers and sisters and the latter to my Covenantalist brothers and sisters. We are all family here before God. It is why I think seeing progressive dispensations with the covenants reflects the full scope of the Bible’s metanarrative. When it comes to eschatology, the believing family needs a both/and, not an either/or.
[1] Editor’s Note: This essay was originally delivered in a session dedicated to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies as part of the 2022 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Denver, CO. The session was a follow up discussion between the contributors to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, eds. Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022). Due to health-related reasons Michael Horton was not able to participate, so the Covenant Theology view was represented by Richard Belcher in this session.
[2] Stephen J. Wellum, “A Progressive Covenantalism Response,” 218.
[3] Darrell L. Bock, Proclamation from Prophecy and Pattern: Lucan Old Testament Christology (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997).
[4] Mark A. Snoeberger, “A Traditional Dispensational Response,” 248.