Progressive Dispensationalism and Progressive Covenantalism
Case for Progressive Dispensationalism
Progressive dispensationalism and progressive covenantalism understand the fulfillment of the promises concerning the restoration of Israel in the Old Testament prophets quite differently. According to Robert Saucy, a key distinctive of progressive dispensationalism is the idea that Israel is a unique entity set apart from all other nations.[1] The term Israel never applies to all of God’s people, but instead, Israel refers to a specific nationality of people. Accordingly, when the Old Testament prophets promise land to Israel, it applies only to that specific nation. Furthermore, according to Saucy, the Old Testament prophecies retain elements that are both spiritual, such as the impact of the Holy Spirit, and material, such as the land, temple, and city of Jerusalem.[2] Progressive dispensationalism asserts that many of the eschatological promises have been inaugurated in Christ, but others remain unfulfilled. Saucy explains that the land promises to Israel have never been completely fulfilled, the promise of personal and societal renewal by the prophets has been inaugurated by Christ but not fully consummated, and Christ’s kingdom teaching points to a future reign upon His return, thus a future millennium is necessary for the restoration of Israel.[3] Accordingly, Progressive dispensationalists are premillennialists.
Progressive covenantalism views the nation of Israel quite differently. According to Brent Parker, the Old Testament prophetic promises are fulfilled “by Christ, and by extension, the church.”[4] In other words, the church does not replace Israel, but continues the work of Israel. Oren Martin expands the analysis by asserting that the land promises do not require a national Israel; the land promises move beyond geography into a typological fulfillment to the ends of the earth. Typology is the centerpiece of progressive covenantalism. With regards to the Old Testament prophets, Oren Martin provides three typological references: (1) the Servant-King language in Isaiah points to Christ, (2) the exodus language in Jeremiah points to a new exodus led by Christ, and (3) the temple language in Ezekiel refers to Christ.[5] Like progressive dispensationalism, progressive covenantalism also embraces inaugurated eschatology. However, in progressive covenantalism all of the Old Testament promises have been inaugurated by Christ whereas progressive dispensationalism leaves the material aspects to the millennium.[6] Accordingly, premillennialism is not required for progressive covenantalism. Amillennialism, postmillennialism, and even premillennialism is available within the system.
Two key issues within the theological systems of progressive dispensationalism and progressive covenantalism inform an understanding of how to read the promises within the Old Testament prophets. First, when reading the Old Testament prophetic promises, the interpreter must determine whether the author was writing about a time during the history of the prophet, the New Testament era, or a remotely distant time. Most progressive dispensationalists will lean toward a future fulfillment in the millennium, while many progressive covenantalists will lean toward a historical or New Testament fulfillment. Second, the interpreter must determine whether the Old Testament prophetic promise is literal or typological. Most progressive dispensationalists will look to a literal fulfillment of the material blessings for the nation of Israel, while most progressive covenantalists will look to a figurative fulfillment in Christ.
A key passage to the debate is Romans 11. Progressive dispensationalism asserts that Paul has not rejected Israel, but the nation is under temporary judgement (Rom 11:1-15). Furthermore, Saucy explains that the language of full inclusion in verse 12 refers to the restoration of the nation of Israel, and the language of all Israel’s salvation in verse 26 suggests the nation of Israel as the future recipients of the promised physical blessings, blessings that are separate from the church.[7] Progressive covenantalism counters by arguing that progressive dispensationalism’s inaugurated eschatology is reasonable, but if they include the spiritual aspects as commencing, then they should include the material aspects. According to Richard Lucas, progressive dispensationalists do not include the material aspects within their inaugurated eschatology because it would undermine the theological system that requires a literal fulfillment of land promises to the nation of Israel.[8]
Ezekiel 36-37
The first fifteen verses of Ezekiel 36 are an oracle to the mountains of Israel. The oracle is followed by a flashback to Israel’s history in verses 16-21, which focuses on the desecrated land and the desecrated people of Israel that desecrated Yahweh’s name. Starting with Ezekiel 36:22, the Hebrew verbs take on an eschatological flavor; Yahweh will vindicate His name, will take, will gather, will sprinkle, and will cleanse His people (Ezek 36:22-25). The restoration of Israel continues with verse 26. The question is whether the timeframe the prophet is referring to pertains to an immediate historical future, an intermediate future that points to the New Testament era, or a distant future such as the Millennium. Progressive covenantalists normally assume the prophet is either referring to an immediate fulfillment during the time of Ezekiel or to a fulfillment in Christ during the New Testament era. Progressive dispensationalists assert that language that points to the restoration of the Israel would be referring to the Millennium.
Certain New Testament passages may assist in determining the timeframe. Specifically, Ezekiel 36:24 states that Yahweh will gather Israel from all the pagan countries. Although the people of Judah do return from the Babylonian exile to the land of Canaan during Ezekiel’s day, the prophet explicitly uses the phrase all (כֹּל) countries, not just Babylon. In Acts 2:5, devout Jews from all (παντὸς) nations were gathered during the Spirit-filled event. In other words, the language of Ezekiel 36:24 appears to move beyond the immediate historical context. Furthermore, Ezekiel 36:25 states that Yahweh will sprinkle clean water on His people and cleanse them from their uncleannesses. Likewise, Hebrews 10:22 exhorts readers to draw near with their “hearts sprinkled clean.”[9] The language appears to take on a relevance during the New Testament era. The manifestation of the indwelling Spirit in Acts 2 also appears to reflect the reality of Ezekiel 36:26 when the prophet states, “a new spirit I will put within you.” Finally, Ezekiel 36:35 makes references to a land that becomes like Eden, which may suggest a remote future such as the Millennium.
The famous chapter 37 divides into two main sections. The first section (vv. 1-14) highlights the power of the Spirit to animate dead bones, which pictures the nation of Israel revitalized. In the second section (vv. 15-28), the oracle unites Judah and Israel under one nation, one land, and one king. Importantly, chapter 37 provides a revival of all the nations, which means uniting all twelve tribes. Once again, the Hebrew grammar points to a future eschatological reality. The question is whether the future is immediate, intermediate, or distant. It is difficult to assign the events to the immediate future because of the reconciliation of all the tribes, which did not occur during Ezekiel’s time. However, Acts 2:5 may apply because the devout Jews from all (παντὸς) nations were united at Pentecost. However, more poignantly, Nicholas Piotrowski connects the language of Matthew 1:21, which proclaims that Jesus will “save people from their sins,” with Ezekiel 36:29 and 37:23.[10] Piotrowski asserts that the two verses in Ezekiel are the only ones in the entire Old Testament that refer to a salvation from an internal enemy such as sin.[11] In other words, Ezekiel is pointing to a fulfilment during the New Testament era. However, it may be possible that Ezekiel’s oracle spans beyond the New Testament period. In Ezekiel 37, the prophet focuses on uniting the two nations by reciting Yahweh’s words, “I will set them in their land and multiply them and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore” (Ezek 37:26). Per Martin, the language of the land may, according to progressive covenantalists, ultimately be consummated in the new creation (cf. Rev 21-22), but, according to progressive dispensationalists, the land promise refers to a literal fulfillment with the nation of Israel in the millennial age prior to reaching an ultimate new heaven and earth.[12] Furthermore, the Edenic language of multiplication and sanctuary may point to an eternal reality or, according to progressive dispensationalists, a millennial kingdom that precedes an eternal reality.
The New Temple in Ezekiel 40-48
In Ezekiel 40-48, the prophet has a vision of a new temple. The temple language interfaces with the same issues of time as discussed above with regard to the eschatological language in Ezekiel 36-37. First, the Edenic language within the chapters clearly appear to point to a time beyond an immediate historical fulfillment. Second, regarding the potential of an intermediate fulfillment, the New Testament provides several references to the temple language of chapters 40-48. First, John 2:19 clearly communicates that the temple will be destroyed and raised in three days, which provides a clear relationship between the temple and the body of Christ. Second, 1 Peter 2:5-6 contends that Christians can believe in the cornerstone of the temple, which is Jesus. If a temple exists, the temple needs priests. Peter identifies a spiritual house built with living stones, believing priests. The confluence of imagery now points the temple language in the direction of both Jesus and believers. Third, Ephesians 2:20-22 also suggests that believers and Christ join into a “holy temple in the Lord.” The temple provides a location for God to dwell (Eph 20:22). Taking the temple language further, the apostle Paul makes it clear in 1 Corinthians 3:16 that his listeners, which include Gentiles, are God’s temple and that the presence of God dwells within them (see also 2 Cor 5:1-5; 6:14-18). It appears that in some way the temple language in Ezekiel 40-48 is at least inaugurated during the New Testament era in Christ and His believers who reside in Him. Finally, John specifically asserts that he “saw no temple” because the temple is God and Jesus (Rev 21:22).
The question remains as to whether the temple language ought to be read literally or figuratively. Based on the New Testament texts, it is possible to simply assume the new temple is figurative, but two other literal options exist. First, G. K. Beale asserts that a literal fulfillment occurs within the scope of the prophet’s authorial intent when Paul states that “Christians are the beginning fulfillment of the actual prophecy of the end-time temple.”[13] In other words, the temple is literally fulfilled in Christ and the church. Second, progressive dispensationalism suggests that Ezekiel 40-48 specifically refers to physical land redistribution among the tribes and that the references to sin and death, according to Saucy, “make it obvious that this restoration…argues for an interim period.”[14] In sum, to disconnect the view of ancient Israelites from a literal structure, according to progressive dispensationalism, is not realistic, and thus Ezekiel is pointing to a literal, physical, temple during the Millennium. In light of inaugurated eschatology, the new temple surely commences with Christ, but to suggest that a form of further development in an eternal event or millennial period is absolutely impossible takes logical leaps beyond the evidence.
Within chapters 40-48, Ezekiel also engages in sacrificial language (Ezek 40:42; 44:11; 46:24). A theological conundrum occurs if the reader assumes a literal, physical temple because it is then difficult to argue that the sacrifices within the temple are anything but literal, physical sacrifices. Hebrew 10:1-18 asserts that Christ’s sacrifice is the “once for all” sacrifice and that offering the same sacrifices “can never take away sins.” An argument for sacrifices may include the possibility of memorialization that points to the cross, but with the availability of the New Testament, it seems unnecessary. However, once again, in light of inaugurated eschatology, to suggest that Ezekiel’s language of sacrifice has no meaning beyond the Christ event appears to risk unwarranted certainty for as D. Brent Sandy states, “Prophecy always has been – and always will be – subject to misunderstanding until after it is fulfilled.”[15]
________________________________
[1] Robert Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 221.
[2] Ibid., 30.
[3] Ibid., 101, 229, 291.
[4] Brent E. Parker, “The Israel-Christ-Church Relationship,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, ed. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 44.
[5] Oren Martin, “The Land Promise Biblically and Theologically Understood,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, ed. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 261–269.
[6] Ibid., 272–273.
[7] Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 246–263.
[8] Richard J. Lucas, “The Dispensational Appeal to Romans 11 and the Nature of Israel’s Future Salvation,” in Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, ed. Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016), 237–242.
[9] Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008).
[10] Nicholas G Piotrowski, “‘I Will Save My People from Their Sins’: The Influence of Ezekiel 36:28b-29a; 37:23b on Matthew 1:21,” Tyndale Bulletin 64, no. 1 (2013): 33–34.
[11] Ibid., 33–344.
[12] Martin, “The Land Promise Biblically and Theologically Understood,” 273–274.
[13] Gregory K. Beale, “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation” 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 24.
[14] Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 230.
[15] Brent Sandy, Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002), 184.
Bibliography
- Beale, Gregory K. “Eden, the Temple, and the Church’s Mission in the New Creation” 48, no. 1 (March 2005): 5–31.
- Lucas, Richard J. “The Dispensational Appeal to Romans 11 and the Nature of Israel’s Future Salvation.” In Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, edited by Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016.
- Martin, Oren. “The Land Promise Biblically and Theologically Understood.” In Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, edited by Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016.
- Parker, Brent E. “The Israel-Christ-Church Relationship.” In Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies, edited by Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2016.
- Piotrowski, Nicholas G. “‘I Will Save My People from Their Sins’: The Influence of Ezekiel 36:28b-29a; 37:23b on Matthew 1:21.” Tyndale Bulletin 64, no. 1 (2013): 33–54.
- Sandy, Brent. Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2002.
- Saucy, Robert. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993.
