Introduction
In the mid to late 1980s, a new “dispensationalism” was
beginning to surface in the academic world that is called “progressive
dispensationalism” (PD). Over the past several years some of the leading
“traditional” or “classic dispensationalists” have written many articles and
books critiquing and pointing out the danger of this “new or revised
dispensationalism.”
In order to allow our readers to acquire a better
understanding of this clear and present danger to true dispensational theology,
we have compiled sections out of what we feel have been the best critiques of
this theological development. These sections are footnoted indicating the book
from which they were gleaned. The
student may want to purchase one or more of these volumes to gain an even
deeper explanation of progressive dispensationalism. We hope this serves as an
alarm for traditional dispensationalists to be aware of the danger this new
development poses in our churches and schools. As you can see, at stake is the consistent literal interpretation of
Scripture.
What is a “Complimentary Hermenutic”?
Recently, some who claim to be interpreting Scripture
literally have introduced what they call “complementary hermeneutics.” Those who use this approach classify
themselves as progressive dispensationalists.
They also still wish to be numbered among premillennial pretribulation
dispensationalists. Darrell Bock, who seems to have been the one who introduced
the term “progressive dispensationalism,” defines it [complimentary
hermeneutic] this way: “The New Testament does introduce change and advance; it
does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary
additions, however, it does not jettison old promises.”
The method at the present time does not seem to be applied
to all of Scripture, but is applied to the promise of the Davidic covenant of 2
Samuel 7. It is admitted that when the
covenant was originally given, it was made exclusively with Israel. However, in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost,
Peter brought in the church as recipients of the covenant as well. This is
defended by Peter’s use of Psalm 110. In this way it is “inferred” or “implied” that the
kingdom promises to Israel
are now being fulfilled in part by Christ’s position at the right hand of the
Father. This means the Davidic kingdom is “now but not yet” in all its
fullness. What the New Testament is said
to have done is “complement” here what was given in the Old Testament.
What this means, if applied unilaterally to all of
Scripture, is that the original recipients of the revelation could never know
precisely what the text meant until the promise was fulfilled or the canon of
Scripture was closed. After all, later “complements” might introduce drastic
changes in the original promise.
“Complementary hermeneutics” must not be confused with the
historic orthodox doctrine of progressive revelation. This latter truth means that God revealed His
truth gradually, sometimes over a long period of time. What was revealed later never changed the
original revelation, however. The meaning and the recipients of the promise
always remain the same. More truth is simply given about the germ truth given
initially. When a promise was given to certain people about a certain thing or
certain place, it was always fulfilled exactly as predicted.
All the biblical and theological ramifications of
progressive dispensationalism and its foundation stone of complementary hermeneutics
have not yet surfaced. Several have, but the effects even of these upon classic
or normal dispensationalism have not yet been realized. Two doctrines that are
absolutely indispensable to the system out of which progressive
dispensationalism arose and with which its advocates still want to be
identified are greatly affected by it. These are the mystery nature of the church and the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit. Progressive
dispensationalism slights both of these by attaching new meanings to them.
Progressive dispensationalists no longer believe that the
church is a mystery completely unrevealed in the Old Testament. “Mystery,” as used in the New Testament, has
always been understood to mean that which had not been made known before but
came to be made known. This meaning is based on Paul’s usage of the word in
Romans 16:25. Progressive dispensationalism does not believe the church was
completely unrevealed in the Old Testament but that it was simply unrecognized
there.
Likewise, Progressives do not believe the baptizing work
of the Holy Spirit is entirely new to the New Testament. They see shadows of
the work of the Spirit in the Old Testament.
Many who are classic dispensationalists—and even those who
are not dispensationalists at all question why those who no longer believe in
the foundational essentials of dispensationalism still want to be a part of the
dispensationalism family.
This is truly something not yet revealed.
Lack of Consistency in Applying Literal Hermeneutics
Its
discontinuity with normative dispensationalism. Clearly, progressive
dispensationalists are distancing themselves from the consistent literal
hermeneutics of normative dispensationalism by introducing “complementary
hermeneutics.” In speaking of the issues still on the table
to be discussed by covenant theologians and progressive dispensationalists, Blaising and Bock say, “The final issue on the table is
hermeneutical. The issue is not a distinct hermeneutic but debate about how to apply the hermeneutic that we share.” This sharing is between covenantalists and progressives, not progressives and
normative dispensationalists, further demonstrating the distance progressives
wish to have between themselves and classic dispensationalists. Unquestionably, a literal hermeneutic consistently
used has been a key feature of normative dispensationalism. Both nondispensationalists and dispensationalists acknowledge
this “The first tenet of dispensationalism is that the Bible must be
interpreted literally.”
Progressives are moving away from the literal hermeneutic
of normative dispensationalism. Although they still want to come under the
umbrella of a grammatical-historical hermeneutic, they (in their own words)
embrace ideas developed “in sophistication beyond that which was practiced by
classical dispensationalists....
Furthermore, a number of dispensationalists who today practice
consistent grammatical-historical interpretation (in its more developed sense)
have revised some of the distinctive interpretations of earlier dispensationalism.
Literary interpretation has developed so that some things which earlier
interpreters thought they “clearly” saw in Scripture,
are not “clearly” seen today at all.
Bruce Waltke sees this as a very
basic difference: “This already–not yet model of [progressive]
dispensationalism, entailing a less than one-for-one correspondence between Old
Testament covenants and prophecies and the partial fulfillment in the church,
shakes the very foundations of [normative] dispensational hermeneutics, which
includes a consistent literalistic
interpretation of the Old Testament, another sine qua non of the system.”
Some questions arise from this distancing. (1) Does the
progressives’ modification or redefining of literalism permit them to proclaim
honestly their continuity with the dispensational tradition? (2) Is the
umbrella of literalism large enough to cover their expanded
historical-grammatical hermeneutic? (3) Is it progress to see things in
Scripture not so clearly today as before?
(4) If the literal hermeneutic of normative dispensationalism is not
adequate to interpret all of Scripture, especially the prophetic and
apocalyptic parts, what may happen to other characteristic teachings of
dispensationalism in the ongoing work of the progressives?
Complementary
hermeneutics. In order to give a hermeneutical base to certain
interpretations of the progressives (e.g., Christ is now on the throne of David
in heaven, and the somewhat indistinctiveness of Israel
and the church), they have introduced what they call complementary hermeneutics.
This means that “the New Testament does introduce change and advance; it
does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary
additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. The enhancement is not
at the expense of the original promise.” The first sentence of their definition opens
the door for their already/not yet view of the Davidic kingdom. The last two
sentences keep them from becoming amillennialists.
PD’s “Complimentary Hermeneutic” and the Old Testament Quotations in the
New Testament
Development of “complementary hermeneutics” by new
dispensationalists revolves around issues related to how New Testament writers
handle the Old Testament. Blaising and Bock present
three approaches to the question. They could be viewed as the traditional
literal approach, the spiritual approach, and the new complementary approach.
The complementary approach put forth by Blaising and Bock is claimed to be a synthesis combining
the answer of older dispensationalism, which demonstrates a greater sensitivity
to “the historical interpretation of the Old Testament,” while adopting
covenant theology’s view that includes the “adding of new revelation.” Bock has suggested, in the process of
interpreting Peter’s use of Joel in Acts 2 that the “eschaton
has begun; the movement toward the culmination of the eschaton
has started, as have the benefits associated with the coming of the Day of the
Lord.”
It appears that, in the minds of Blaising
and Bock, their complementary hermeneutical synthesis lends support to their
theological dualism of an “already/not yet” view of the Davidic kingdom
rule. “Both dispensations [Church Age
and Millennium] are also united as aspects of the messianic reign of Christ....
Both dispensations are seen in the New Testament as fulfillments of the Davidic
covenant.”
Bock sees “the presence of fulfillment” in Peter’s use of Joel in Acts 2 and
adds, “it is not a comparison.” However, Blaising
and Bock appear to be in agreement with older dispensationalists who tend to
see the Old Testament passages as left untouched by New Testament development:
“The enhancement is not at the expense of the original promise.”
Ken Gentry, representing a traditional covenant approach,
believes that “the Christian exegete must allow the New Testament to interpret
the Old Testament...This approach to biblical interpretation allows the
conclusive revelation of God in the New Testament authoritatively to interpret
incomplete revelation in the Old.” This would be a sound statement if Gentry
meant that the Scripture was expanded down through history (progressive
revelation) as more details and explanation are added in such a way as not to
change the meaning of an original Old Testament passage through
reinterpretation in the New Testament (i.e., the church replacing Israel in OT
passages). But that is not what Gentry means.
His approach is a so-called “grammatical-historical-theological”
hermeneutic, whereby it is believed that the New Testament gives a theological
basis for changing the original meaning of the Old Testament. Gentry believes that New Testament theology gives him the
liberty to take Old Testament passages and apply them “spiritually” to the
church. He asks, “Why cannot there be a spiritual Israel?” From the perspective of covenant theology, it
is sometimes taught that spiritualization of the Old Testament is needed to
make it conform to the doctrine of the New Testament.
But must one adopt an element of spiritualization (i.e.,
the New Testament [re]interprets the Old Testament) into one’s hermeneutic in
order to properly understand how the New Testament uses the Old Testament? That seems to be unnecessary.
Arnold Fruchtenbaum claims that
the New Testament writers (all were Jewish) quote the Old Testament in the common
Jewish way in the first century. “They
often gave a spiritual meaning or a new application to an Old Testament text
without denying that what the original said literally did or will happen.” Fruchtenbaum cites
four ways the New Testament quotes from the old and notes that Matthew 2
contains an example of all four uses (see chapter 4 [in Issues in
Dispensationalism]). “The first example is called literal prophecy plus literal fulfillment”.
This example is found in Matthew 2:5-6, which quotes Micah 5:2.
In the original context of Micah 5:2, the prophet is speaking prophetically and
prophesying that whenever the Messiah is born, He will be born in Bethlehem of
Judah. That is the literal meaning of Micah 5:2. When a literal prophecy is
fulfilled in the New Testament, it is quoted as a literal fulfillment. Many
prophecies fall into this category, such as Isaiah 7:14, 52:13-53:12, Zechariah
9:9, etc.
The second classification is called literal plus typical:
This example is found in Matthew 2:15, which is a quotation of
Hosea 11:1. However, the original context is not a prophecy, it is an
historical event. It is a reference to the Exodus when Israel,
the national son of God, was brought out of Egypt.
It is obvious that Hosea is thinking of literal Israel
for in the following verses he points out how Israel
quickly slipped into idolatry. The literal
meaning in context of Hosea 11:1 is a reference to the Exodus. There is
nothing in the New Testament that can change or reinterpret the meaning of
Hosea 11:1, nor does the New Testament deny that the
literal Exodus actually happened. However, Israel
as the national son of God coming out of Egypt
becomes a type of the individual Son
of God, the Messiah coming out of Egypt.
The passage is quoted, not as a fulfillment of prophecy, since Hosea 11:1 was
not a prophecy to begin with, but as a type. Matthew does not deny, change, or
reinterpret the original meaning. He understands it literally, but the literal
Old Testament event becomes a type of a New Testament event. This is literal
plus typical. Many of the citations in the Book of Hebrews of Exodus and
Leviticus fall into this category.
Fruchtenbaum calls the third
approach literal plus application:
This example is found in Matthew 2:17-18 which is a quotation of
Jeremiah 31:15. In the original context, Jeremiah is speaking of an event soon
to come as the Babylonian Captivity begins. As the Jewish young men were being
taken into captivity, they went by the town of Ramah.
Not too far from Ramah is where Rachel was buried and she was the symbol of
Jewish motherhood. As the young men were marched toward Babylon,
the Jewish mothers of Ramah came out weeping for sons they will never see
again. Jeremiah pictured the scene as Rachel weeping for her children. This is
the literal meaning of Jeremiah 31:15. The New Testament cannot change or
reinterpret what this verse means in that context, nor does it try to do so. In
this category, there is a New Testament event that has one point of similarity
with the Old Testament event. The verse is quoted as an application. The one point of similarity between Ramah and Bethlehem
is that once again Jewish mothers are weeping for sons that they will never see
again and so the Old Testament passage is applied to the New Testament event.
This is literal plus application. The original text may be history or prophecy.
The Jeremiah quote is an example of history. An example of prophecy is in Acts
2:16-21 which quotes Joel 2:28-32. Virtually nothing that happened in Acts 2 is
predicted in Joel 2. Joel was speaking of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on
the nation of Israel
in the last days. However, there was one point of similarity, an outpouring of
the Holy Spirit, resulting in unusual manifestations. Acts 2 does not change or
reinterpret Joel 2, nor does it deny that Joel 2 will have a literal
fulfillment when the Holy Spirit will be poured out on the whole nation of
Israel. It is simply applying it to a New Testament event because of one point
of similarity.
Finally, the fourth is called summation:
The example is found in Matthew 2:23. “…that
it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that he should be
called a Nazarene.” However, no such statement is found anywhere in the Old
Testament. Since Matthew used the plural prophets,
one should be able to find at least two, yet there is not even one. The fourth
category does not have an actual quotation as in the first three categories,
but only a summary of what the prophets actually said. The plural use of prophets is a clue to this category. In
the first century, Nazarenes were a
people despised and rejected and the term was used to reproach and to shame
(John 1:46). The prophets did teach
that the Messiah would be a despised and rejected individual (e.g. Isa 53:3) and this is summarized by the term, Nazarene. Another example of this
category is Luke 18:31-33. Using the plural for prophet again, Jesus states
that the time for fulfillment has come and He states what is to be fulfilled:
“the Messiah will go to Jerusalem, be turned over to the Gentiles; the Gentiles
will mock Him, treat Him shamefully, spit on Him, scourge Him, and kill Him,
but He will rise again the third day.” Not one prophet ever said all this, but
the prophets together did say all this. Hence, this is a summation.
Fruchtenbaum believes that every
quotation of the Old Testament in the New will fit into one of these four
categories. He notes that the “procedure
is not simply ‘to interpret the Old by the New’ as Covenant Theology insists...There
is no need to conclude that the New Testament changes or reinterprets the Old
Testament.”
An approach such as this contributes to a consistently literal hermeneutic and
demonstrates why many dispensationalists still believe that older approaches to
interpretation are to be preferred. How
the Old Testament is used in the New is no basis on which to abandon or modify
a consistently literal hermeneutic.
Christ’s Position at God’s Right Hand
In the ancient world the seat at the right hand of a
monarch was the place of honor. It was
given to a victorious general or to a wise and faithful counselor. It has been rightfully awarded to the Lord
Jesus as the One who has completed the task God gave Him (John 17:4)—the One
who by His death on Calvary’s cross defeated Satan, sin, and death. David had written, “The LORD says to my Lord,
‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’”
(Ps. 110:1). Jesus Himself referred to this passage
when He debated with the Pharisees concerning His identity as the Christ. To
His question, “Whose son is he?” they correctly responded, “The son of David”
(Matt. 22:42; Mark 12:35).
Seeking to show them that He was more than a human being, Jesus asked,
“How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’?” (Matt.
22:43). Then He quoted Psalm 110:1 and
asked, “If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” (Matt.
22:44-45; Mark 12:36-37). Similarly, in his sermon on the Day of
Pentecost, the apostle Peter pointed out that “David did not ascend to heaven,”
and then Peter quoted Psalm 110:1 as a prophecy of the exaltation of Jesus
(Acts 2:34).
Of importance is the fact that the throne at God’s right
hand is the throne of God the Father, not Jesus’ throne. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews
wrote that Jesus “sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (12:2; see
8: 1; Matt. 5:34; 23:22; Acts 7:49).
The glorified Christ in His messages to the seven churches through the apostle
John said, “To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my
throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne” (Rev.
3:21). Furthermore, the exalted Jesus is
to remain at God the Father’s right hand as the honored One until God fulfills
His promise to “make His enemies a footstool for His feet” (Ps. 110:1; see
Matt. 22:44; Mark 12:36). Our Lord’s
present activity in building and ministering to His church is separate from and
does not compromise His remaining at God’s right hand until that promise is fulfilled.
The promoters of a position called progressive
dispensationalism view Jesus’ position at God’s right hand differently. Its
exponents are dispensationalists because “they view the church as a new manifestation of grace, a new
dispensation in the history of redemption,”
and they affirm that “the church is a new institution, begun at Pentecost,”
At the same time, however, they insist that “Jesus’ rule from God’s right hand
initially yet decisively fulfills promises made to David.”
They recognize a future millennial dispensation with Christ reigning visibly on
earth in Jerusalem on David’s
throne with Israel
as the head of the nations; but now, “As the Davidic heir, Jesus sits in and
rules from heaven.
As a result they believe that both the dispensation of Christ’s present
ministry from heaven and the future millennial dispensation are “united as
aspects of the messianic reign of Christ.” “Both dispensations are seen in the
New Testament as fulfillments of the Davidic covenant.”
The difference of opinion begins in progressive dispensationalism’s teaching concerning Jesus’ presentation
of Himself as the promised Messiah in His ministry on earth in the first
Advent. According to this view, Jesus’ presentation of Himself to the Jewish
people inaugurated His messianic kingdom.
“In the gospel of Luke, it is clear that with Jesus’ presence, and
especially in his Resurrection-Ascension, comes the beginning of Jesus’
kingdom.” And “first, there is an inauguration with Jesus’ coming and
particularly in his resurrection-ascension to [sic] God’s right hand.”
In support of the position that Christ’s presence marked
the inauguration of His messianic kingdom, progressive dispensationalists point
to Jesus’ miracles of healing the sick, giving sight to the blind, enabling the
lame to walk, and raising the dead. Jesus told John the Baptist’s disciples to
describe these miracles to John as confirming evidence that He was “the one who
was to come” (Matt. 11:3), the Christ, the One whom John had announced (3:2,
11-12). No one questions the fact that such miracles demonstrate Jesus’
identity as Israel’s
Messiah, but performing miracles is not the same as marking the inauguration of
His messianic kingdom. Instead the
miracles identified Him as the Messiah in His offer of Himself as such to the
Jewish people.
As His ministry continued, the Jewish religious leaders
increasingly opposed Jesus and rejected Him as their Messiah until Caiaphas, “high priest that year” (John 11:49), told the Sanhedrin, “it is better for you that one man die for the people than
that the whole nation perish” (11:50).
John continued, “So from that day on they plotted to take his life” (11:53). Speaking of the Jewish people at Jerusalem
in particular, John later wrote, “Even after Jesus had done all these
miraculous signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him” (12:37). This rejection, John noted, fulfilled
Isaiah 53:1, which he quoted. The Jewish people’s rejection of Jesus as their
Messiah was final when Pilate presented Jesus to the crowd as their King and
the crowd shouted, “Take him away!
Crucify him!” and the chief priests said, “We have no king but Caesar”
(John 19:15). In the face of such rejection of the King by
His subjects, the kingdom can hardly have been inaugurated.
Progressive dispensationalism makes much of Peter’s
statement that the miracle of the disciples speaking in tongues as a result of
the filling of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost was “what was spoken by
the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16). They quote Joel 2:28-32, pointing out that the
beginning of the present dispensation of the church is identified as part of
“the last days” (Acts 2:17). This is not quite correct, however, because
“the last days” are Peter’s words, not Joel’s, who said, “And afterward” (Joel 2:28).
Progressive dispensationalists are partially correct, however, because
the writer to the Hebrews used the phrase “in these last days” in relationship
to Jesus’ incarnation and first coming (Heb. 1:2). Although the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit at Pentecost corresponds to
what Joel prophesied, he was speaking about an outpouring in the dark days
immediately preceding the second coming of Christ to earth (Joel 2:30-31), not
the outpouring to begin the church.
Progressive dispensationalism also focuses on Peter’s
quotation at Pentecost from two of David’s psalms (Pss.
16:8-11; 110:1) that speak prophetically of Jesus’ resurrection in a body that
did not experience decay. They draw the conclusion that since by resurrection
and ascension “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and
Christ” (Acts 2:36), He is now
fulfilling the Davidic Covenant and reigning in heaven. True, Jesus is David’s
greater Son (Luke 1:32), but the
focus of the Davidic Covenant is God’s promise to David that “your house [i.e.,
lineage] and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be
established forever” (2 Sam. 7:16;
see 7:13; Ps. 89:28-29, 34-37) on
earth, and not in heaven. Christ is not now fulfilling the Davidic Covenant;
instead He is now at God’s right hand, waiting “for his enemies to be made his
footstool” (Heb. 10: 13; see Ps.
110: 1). In the future He will return to earth to occupy David’s throne and
fulfill God’s promises to David.
In a real sense what Peter did both in his message on the
Day of Pentecost and more specifically in his sermon in Solomon’s Colonnade
(Acts 3:11-26) was to call the
Jewish people to repent and to accept Jesus as their Messiah so that He could
return and establish His messianic kingdom. In effect it was a reoffer of the kingdom.
Peter said, “Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be
wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, and that he may send the Christ, who has been
appointed for you—even Jesus. He
must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he
promised long ago through his holy prophets” (3:19-21,
italics added). Though many individual Jews responded to Peter’s message
(“about three thousand” on the Day of Pentecost; 2:41) and the apostles’
witness (“the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved”;
2:47), the Jewish religious leaders rejected His message and increasingly
persecuted the apostles (4:3, 5-7, 18-21; 5:17-27, 41) and others, resulting in
the martyrdom of Stephen (6:12; 7:54-60) and greatly increased persecution that
dispersed all of the believers except the apostles (8:1, 3).
Progressive dispensationalists, together with the
adherents of what they call “revised dispensationalism”
accept a single New Covenant instituted by Christ with the Twelve at the Passover
Feast the evening before His arrest and death (Matt. 26:17-20, 26-29; Mark
14:12-17, 22-25; Luke 22:7-20), and commemorated by His church in the Lord’s
Supper (I Cor. 11:23-26) as a proclamation of “the
Lord’s death until he comes” (11:26).
For the people of Israel,
represented by the Twelve, the New Covenant will become effective with the
establishment of the messianic kingdom at Christ’s return to earth. Jesus told
the Twelve, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until the
day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s kingdom” (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:16,
18). At that future time the blessings of the New Covenant will be bestowed on
the repentant, redeemed people of Israel as prophesied by Moses (Deut. 30:1-10)
and the prophets (Isa. 11:10-12:6; 14:1-3; 25:6-9;
26:1-27:13; 59:20-60:22; Jer. 31:1-25, 37:1-23; Dan.
2:44-45; 7:15-18, 23-27; 12:1-2; Joel 2-3). Although some blessings of the New
Covenant now enjoyed by members of Christ’s body, His church, are the same as
some to be bestowed on redeemed Israel
in the messianic kingdom, Israel
will also experience many different blessings then.
Also progressive dispensationalism identifies the
spiritual blessings of the New Covenant with God’s promises to David in the
Davidic Covenant. However, nothing of a spiritual nature is mentioned in the
promises of the Davidic Covenant; the promises deal only with a house
(lineage), a kingdom, and a throne being established and enduring forever (2
Sam. 7:16; Ps. 89:28-29, 33-37). True, the spiritual blessings of the New
Covenant will be poured out on the people of Israel
in conjunction with the establishment of the messianic kingdom. But this is not
because those blessings are part of the promises of the Davidic Covenant;
rather, they will occur because of Israel’s
repentance and return in faith to the Lord.
Progressive dispensationalism makes the same mistake in
tying the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant to the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 17:1-8; 15:18-20). God did tell Abram, “you will be a
blessing...and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (12:2-3).
Abraham also is a blessing as the stellar Old Testament example of
justification by faith (15:4-6; Rom.
4:1-25; Gal. 3:6-9). God’s specific promises to him in the covenant, however,
were that his offspring would be as the stars of the heavens (Gen. 15:5) and
that God would give “the whole land of Canaan...as an everlasting possession to
you and your descendants after you” (17:8; see 15:18). When Israel returns to
the land of Canaan and occupies it as an everlasting possession in the
millennial kingdom age, they will experience the spiritual blessings of the New
Covenant, blessings which are an outgrowth of the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant and, in particular the promise that “all
peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (12:3).
In Hebrews 7:4-10:25 the New Covenant is contrasted with
the Mosaic Covenant and the system of sacrifices, offerings, and Levitical priesthood related to that covenant. It is new as
the replacement of the old Mosaic Covenant (8:8-13; Jer.
31:31-34). The New Covenant also is
identified with a better high priest, one “in the order of Melchizedek” (Heb. 6:20).
This new high priest is the Lord Jesus, of course, who “did not take upon
himself the glory of becoming a high priest” (5:5) but “was designated by God
to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek” (5:
10). God the Father said to Him, “You are a priest forever, in the
order of Melchizedek” (5:6; see 7:21;
Ps. 110:4).
Since “Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God
Most High” (Heb. 7:1; Gen. 14:18) and Christ is a priest “in the order
Melchizedek,” progressive dispensationalists tie Christ’s priestly work of
bestowing blessings together with His being the Davidic king and conclude that
He is now bestowing those blessings as part of His reign as the Davidic king in
heaven. They believe that “the Melchizedekian priesthood is part of the Davidic Covenant”
simply on the basis of the inclusion of the statement, “You are a priest
forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4) in the same psalm as the
statement, “The LORD says to my Lord; ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your
enemies a footstool for your feet’” (110:1). However, no reference to the
Davidic Covenant is made in the psalm, nor is either statement a promise in the
Davidic Covenant. They also believe that “the Melchizedekian
priesthood is an office given to David’s son as part of his inheritance. But nowhere does the Bible state that the Melchizedekian priesthood is part of the inheritance of
Christ, David’s Descendant.
In addition, Melchizedek ministered to Abram as “priest of
God Most High” approximately a thousand years before David’s reign. Therefore instead of the Melchizedekian
priesthood being an office given to David’s Son as part of His inheritance, as
progressive dispensationalism states, the reverse is true: Being David’s Son is
an honor given to Christ, the Melchizedekian Priest,
as part of His inheritance. Progressive dispensationalism, however, says that
Christ’s bestowal of spiritual blessings now are part
of His reign as the Davidic King in heaven. Further, although Melchizedek was
“king of Salem,” he ministered to
Abram, blessed him and God Most High, and received “a tenth of everything” from
Abram as priest of God Most High (Gen. 14:18-20). Since Abram was not a
resident of Salem, Melchizedek had
no real relationship to him. Also being
a king does not necessarily mean functioning as a king. Christ is King now, but He is not now
reigning as the Davidic King, fulfilling the Davidic Covenant. David was anointed as king of Israel by
Samuel (I Sam. 16:1, 12-13) more than fifteen years before he was publicly
anointed as king over Judah and seven and a-half more years before he was
publicly anointed as king of all Israel (2 Sam. 5:2-5; 1 Chron.
11:1-3; 12:38).
Certainly, therefore, Jesus Christ as David’s Son and Heir
can now be the Davidic King without functioning as
such until He returns to earth and establishes the kingdom. In many respects
the crux of the difference of opinion with progressive dispensationalism
focuses on its interpretation of the statements in Psalm 110:1, 4, the quotation of Psalm
110:1 by Peter in Acts 2:34-35, and the relationship of those verses to the
fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant. In an excellent article on the
interpretation of Psalm 110, Elliott Johnson writes, “Is Jesus’ present
position at God’s right hand one of royal, Davidic status? Several observations
about Psalm 110: 1 and Peter’s quotation of it in Acts 2:34-35 help show that
the answer to that question is no: 1.
The Messiah’s present seating awaits a
future conquest... 2. The Messiah’s
present position does not include the images of coronation... 3. The Messiah’s present seating involves
what Yahweh decreed.”
In contradiction to progressive dispensationalism Johnson concludes from Psalm
110 that “Messiah’s present session does not involve His reigning on David’s
throne.
PD’s View of the Church
The Teaching of
Reconstructed/Modified/Progressive Dispensationalism on the Distinctiveness of
the Church
In recent days this newer form of
dispensationalism has modified or clouded the classic, or normative,
dispensational distinction between Israel
and the church in four ways.
1 By
introducing different facets to the concept of the church, the church in this
new view is less distinct. For example, Craig Blaising
writes, “Progressives do not view the church as an anthropological category in
the same class as terms like Israel....
The church is neither a separate race of humanity [true]...nor a competing
nation [perhaps not competing, but a nation nevertheless, I Peter 2:9]...The
church is precisely redeemed humanity itself.”
What exactly is meant is not clear to me.
Blaising also says that the church is not
another “people-group” in connection with the future promises to Israel,
the evidence being that a Jewish Christian today “does not lose his or her
relationship to Israel’s
future promises...[but] will join the Old Testament
remnant of faith in the inheritance of Israel.”
But does not a Jewish person who accepts Christ today belong to the body of
Christ and inherit the blessings of that position, rather than Israel’s? Or, as the quote implies, does he inherit
both?
Though not holding to all the teachings of the new
dispensationalism, another writer says that the church is an “independently
valid historical entity even though it is not an ontologically distinct
entity.”
One feels that such a distinction will not clarify matters for the average
reader but may, in fact, blur the distinction between Israel
and the church.
Another progressive, Robert Saucy, maintains that the
church is included in the concept of “the people of God,” which began with the
nation of Israel.
(Again, what about pre-Israelite redeemed people like Abel, Noah, Melchizedek—were they not also people of God?) The people of God are
one people because all will be related
to him through the same covenant salvation. But this fundamental unity in a
relation to God through Christ does not remove Israel’s distinction as a
special nation called of God...Nor does it define the totality of the people of
God as “Israel,” requiring that the church is somehow a new Israel.”
This statement is not entirely dissimilar to what has been
traditionally taught by dispensationalists, for it does not obliterate the
distinction between Israel
and the church nor does it replace Israel
by the church, which is conceived as the new Israel.
2 By
redefining the concept of the church as a mystery, the church has a less
distinctive purpose in God’s plan. As previously stated, classic
dispensationalism has understood the mystery of the church to be Jews and
Gentiles as joint-heirs in the Body of Christ and joint-sharers of the promises
in Christ, something unknown in the Old Testament (Eph. 3:4-6).
Amillennialists say that this mystery “was new and unknown
in a relative sense only, being in its essentials an important theme from the
time of Abraham.”
In other words, the mystery of the church, the Body of Christ, was only
relatively unknown in the Old Testament, being revealed in kernel form.
Essentially the same viewpoint is found in covenant premillennialism: “The
Greek noun musterion,
‘mystery,’ does not necessarily imply discontinuity.… A ‘mystery’ need not even
have been unknown or unappreciated previously, except perhaps relatively so.”
In a similar vein revisionist/progressive
dispensationalists view the mystery as unrealized but not completely unrevealed
in the Old Testament. Thus, Saucy writes, “A mystery may be hidden in the sense
that its truth has not yet been realized. The corresponding revelation consists
not in making the truth known in an objective or propositional sense but in
bringing it to reality or existence.” The argument is buttressed by interpreting
“the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:4) as the general plan of salvation, citing Old
Testament passages that predict Gentile blessing but that in no way predict the
truth of the Body of Christ (e.g., Isa. 12:2-4; 42:6;
Zech. 9:9-10). The progressive sees
himself in a mediating position between traditional dispensationalists (who
understand that mystery as unrevealed in the Old Testament) and nondispensationalists (who, like the progressives, see it
as only relatively unknown in the Old Testament) and who anticipate “one grand
Messianic fulfillment” to the exclusion of any Millennium.
Clearly, then, the Progressives and the amillennialists
agree on the relation of the mystery to Old Testament revelation (as being
partly revealed) but disagree on a millennial fulfillment. Saucy affirms this:
Although we thus agree with the nondispensationalist
that Paul’s teaching concerning the mystery of the composition of the Church in
the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ is a fulfillment of the OT predictions,
we must hasten to add that such fulfillments do not require us to understand
all of the prophecies related to the Messianic salvation and kingdom as thereby
fulfilled.
Does the term mystery
mean something not revealed in the Old Testament, or can it mean something
partly or relatively revealed? In
classical Greek the meaning of mystery was
something hidden or secret. In the plural form, the word was used to designate
the sacred rites of the Greek mystery religions—secrets that only the initiated
shared.
In the Old Testament, the Aramaic equivalent of mystery appears only in Daniel 2:18, 19,
27, 28, 29, 30, 47; 4:9. In the second chapter of Daniel the mystery was the
dream and its interpretation; in 4:9 it was only the interpretation. In all
instances the mystery was something unknown. In the Dead Sea
scrolls two synonymous words for mystery indicate not only something unknown
but also wisdom that is far above finite understanding.
In the New Testament the word occurs twenty-seven times
and includes ideas of something both deep (Matt. 13:11)
and secret (Col. 1:26). The Greek
scholar, J. B. Lightfoot, gives the meaning of the word as “simply ‘a truth
which was once hidden but now is revealed,’ ‘a truth which without special
revelation would have been unknown.’” He expands on this definition: “But the
one special ‘mystery’ which absorbs St. Paul’s thoughts in the Epistles to the
Colossians and Ephesians is the free admission of the Gentiles on equal
terms...This, though hidden from all time, was communicated to him by a special
revelation.”
The mystery in Ephesians 3:6 is that Gentiles are fellow
heirs, fellow members of the same body, and fellow partakers of the promise in
Christ. This is the detail of the “mystery of Christ” in verse 4. The mystery
is more than the fact that Gentiles are included in God’s salvation, for there
is little mystery in that, since the Old Testament revealed this (Gen. 12:3; Isa. 42:6-7). If this only is the mystery, then Paul was
wrong to label it a mystery, for it is neither something new nor something higher.
The heart of the mystery is the one body into which both Jews and Gentiles are
placed.
A concordance examination of the word body indicates that
the idea of a body into which redeemed people are placed is nowhere found in
the Old Testament. The first occurrences of the word body in connection with the Body of
Christ is in I Corinthians 12:12-25 and the next is in Romans 12:5. The remainder occur in Ephesians and Colossians. This further supports the truth that the
mystery of the equality of Jews and Gentiles in the one Body of Christ was
unknown and unrevealed in the Old Testament.
3 By abandoning the
concept of the church as an intercalation
or parenthesis. Classic dispensationalism used the words parenthesis or intercalation to describe
the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God’s program for Israel.
An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a
parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn
is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words
can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct
interlude in God’s program for Israel
(as clearly taught in Daniel’s prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27).
Progressive/modified/revisionist dispensationalism wishes
to discard the word parenthesis,
implying that it means that the church is something lesser in God’s plan, an
afterthought. Of course, the dictionary definition does not support this
meaning. Instead, the church is submerged
into the broader kingdom concept and called a “functional outpost of God’s
kingdom” and a “sneak preview” of the future kingdom.
4 By
a new concept the meaning of the baptism with, or by, the Spirit. Classic
dispensationalism has understood this particular ministry of the Holy Spirit as
forming the Body of Christ, the church, in this dispensation (Acts 1:5;
11:15-16; 1 Cor. 12:13). Progressive dispensationalists do not believe
that the baptism is a unique ministry only for the people of the present church
age and understand the body metaphor as applicable to believers who are not in
the church.
Whereas these changes have not led the revisionists to
deny all distinctions between the church and Israel
or to embrace “replacement theology” (the teaching that the church is the new Israel),
one wonders if some day that may not happen. Already one progressive
dispensationalist has done this: “[The number twelve] is perhaps the most
familiar number in the Bible, most frequently associated with the sons of Jacob,
the twelve tribes of Israel, and the twelve apostles of the ‘new Israel,’ the
church.”
PD’s view of the Kingdom
One of the major emphases in revisionist dispensationalism
is on the kingdom as the unifying theme of biblical history. One of the major weaknesses
in the system is not defining the kingdom and not distinguishing the various
kingdoms in the Bible. In general,
progressives speak of a single, or unified, kingdom
of God in both Testaments, with
major emphasis on the “eschatological kingdom,” defined as the kingdom
of God in the last days (which
began with the first coming of Christ). Thus, their exposition of the kingdom
of God in the Old Testament (though
the actual phrase does not occur in the Old Testament text) focuses largely on
the Messianic reign, especially in the future, millennial kingdom. In the New
Testament the discussion breaks down into the kingdom related to the life of
Christ, to the church, and to the future. All these are aspects of the
eschatological kingdom, since the last days begin with the first coming of
Christ. The discussions are accompanied by numerous charts.
It would not be practical in a single chapter to attempt
to sort out all the facets of the kingdom discussions in revisionist
dispensationalism. Nevertheless, two significant areas need investigation.
First, because the focus is largely Messianic, whether
discussing the psalms, prophets, the life of Christ, or the epistles, various
kingdoms are blurred and their characteristics merged because Christ is the one
involved in each. At least two results follow from this. One is the blurring of
the distinction between the church and the Davidic kingdom by asserting that
Christ is now reigning from heaven on the throne of David and that the church
is the present revelation of the eschatological kingdom. The second result
identifies the goal and purpose of history as Christological in contrast to
normative dispensationalism’s focus on the glory of
God. A Christological purpose is less comprehensive
(than the glory of God purpose in normative dispensationalism) but goes hand in
hand better with the Messianic, eschatological, unified kingdom emphasis.
Second, this unifying kingdom emphasis places a different
cast on the place of the church in the program of God. The church is called a
“sneak preview” of the kingdom and “a functional outpost of God’s kingdom.” The church is “a Present Revelation of the
[Messianic] kingdom.”
This emphasis comes from focusing on the Lord’s present reign and authority as
Messianic—enthroned and reigning in heaven on the Davidic throne in inaugural
fulfillment of the Davidic covenant and incarnate as the son of David and “not
as generic humanity.” Therefore, progressives conclude that the church is the
“present reality of the coming eschatological kingdom.” It is the kingdom
today.
In American evangelicalism the writings of George E. Ladd
widely promoted views of the kingdom that are now embraced by progressive
dispensationalism. Although progressives try to distance themselves from Ladd
and disclaim any dependence on his theology, they are espousing the same
views. When Bock was asked if Ladd would
disagree with his views, he replied, “I think the fundamental thrust of the
structure he would not disagree with.” The major similarities, if not sameness,
between Ladd and progressives are these: (1) the focus on the kingdom
of God as an overall,
all-encompassing theme; (2) the already/not yet, progressively realized nature
of the kingdom; (3) the present position of Christ reigning in heaven as the
Messianic/Davidic king.