Progressive Dispensationalism DBTS Journal
Progressive Dispensationalism DBTS Journal
Progressive Dispensationalism DBTS Journal
PROGRESSIVE DISPENSATIONALISM:
AN OVERVIEW AND PERSONAL ANALYSIS1
by
Roy E. Beacham2
INTRODUCTION
1This material was first presented in outline form at the Faculty In-service of
Central Baptist Theological Seminary of Minneapolis, August 22–23, 1996. Subse-
quently, it was delivered with some revision and updating at the Bible Faculty Leader-
ship Summit, Faith Baptist Bible College and Seminary, Ankeny, IA, July 31–August
2, 1997, and at the Ekklesia Consortium, Huron Baptist Church, Flat Rock, MI, July
28–29, 2003. This published form is presented in honor of Dr. Rolland D. McCune,
professor, mentor, coworker, and friend, in deepest gratitude for his faithful teaching,
unfailing encouragement, and unmerited support. Though all of my professors have
had worthwhile and lasting impact on my life and teaching, none has excelled his.
2Dr. Beacham is Professor of Old Testament at Central Baptist Seminary in Ply-
mouth, MN.
6 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
and thus a greater sense of true brotherhood in Christ. I have been heart-
ened by what Radmacher calls the “growing rapprochement that has been
taking place between covenant and dispensational theologians of ortho-
dox persuasion over the last decade or so.”… Certainly dialogue must
continue between the two theological camps, for it can only result in
greater understanding, which in turn will advance the cause of concilia-
tion. I would like to think that this message also moves in that direction.
Is this not as it should be in the body of Christ? And are we not united
on the issues that matter most?3
A decade later, after the label “progressive dispensationalism” had
been adopted by the leaders of the movement, the original goals re-
mained. In a seminal book designed to serve as a catalyst and forum for
discussion between progressive dispensationalists and covenant theolo-
gians, Darrell Bock and Craig Blaising concluded,
One of the tragedies of the current Christian evangelical scene is the divi-
sive tendencies present in many strands of the community. When the
subtradition is more crucial than the Christian tradition, we fragment the
unity to which God has called us and for which the Lord intercedes
(John 17)…. This is not to deny the value of subtraditions or their con-
tribution to the whole body of Christ, but it is to say that the task before
the Christian community to reflect the love of Christ and evangelize the
world is so vast that no subtradition can do it all by itself…. What we
share with our responders in this book is an honest desire for dialogue
and a pursuit of truth, but not at the expense of a fundamental unity that
we know that God has given to us.4
Robert Saucy, called by some “the father of progressive dispensa-
tionalism,” decisively espoused the fundamental goal of finding theo-
logical middle ground. In his book on progressive dispensationalism,
subtitled The Interface Between Dispensational and Non-Dispensational
Theology, Saucy asserted that there is, in fact, “a mediating position
between non-dispensationalism and traditional dispensationalism that
provides a better understanding of Scripture.”5 In his view, Saucy was
advancing such a position.
6Blaising and Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, back cover.
7Blaising and Bock, “Assessment and Dialogue,” pp. 384–85.
Progressive Dispensationalism 9
Grammatical-Historical Interpretation
Saucy says that the non-dispensationalists’ theological system “is
the result of their interpretation of the New Testament using the same
grammatico-historical hermeneutic as that of dispensationalists.”12 Ac-
cording to Saucy, “the basic hermeneutical procedure…is essentially
the same for both dispensational and nondispensational scholars. Both
affirm a historical-grammatical hermeneutic.”13 Craig Blaising concurs:
Evangelicals today, including dispensationalists, affirm historical gram-
matical interpretation as the proper hermeneutical method…. As evan-
gelicals have worked together exploring these developments, the old
divisions of spiritual versus literal interpretation have been left behind….
The issues are more complex, but the evangelical community is working
inclusively on these matters. It is a matter not of an exclusive hermeneu-
tic but of a skillful application of a method we all profess…. There is no
the future.
church and Israel that are somehow ultimately unified only in the display
of God’s glory or in eternity. The present age is not a historical parenthe-
sis unrelated to the history that precedes and follows it; rather, it is an in-
tegrated phase in the development of the mediatorial kingdom. It is the
beginning of the fulfillment of the eschatological promises. Thus the church
today has its place and function in the same mediatorial messianic king-
dom program that Israel was called to serve.24
Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock say,
The biblical characteristic of viewing events from a variety of perspectives
shows us that one can make points from a “both-and” perspective with-
out denying either side of the present-future relationship. It is possible to
get fulfillment “now” in some texts, while noting that “not yet” fulfill-
ment exists in other passages. In fact, in some texts fulfillment can be ini-
tial or partial, as opposed to being final and total. As a result, one can
speak of inaugurated eschatology without denying either what the Old
Testament indicates about a future, earthly kingdom or what the New
Testament asserts about the arrival of the kingdom as part of fulfillment
in the first coming of Jesus.25
Within Non-dispensationalism
There is nothing new about this viewpoint or this debate. Inaugu-
rated eschatology has long been wedded to New Testament priority. In
George Ladd’s review of Alva McClain’s Greatness of the Kingdom,
Ladd scolds McClain for McClain’s failure to prioritize the New Tes-
tament.
Within Dispensationalism
What is new is the growing espousal of some degree of New Tes-
tament priority within the framework of dispensationalism. Saucy,
agreeing in principle though not necessarily in extent with Ladd and
Waltke, has the unenviable task of defending adherence to the original
meaning of most Old Testament predictive prophecy at the same time
that he asserts the possibility of New Testament reinterpretation of
some Old Testament predictive prophecy: “Recognizing that the Old
Testament prophecies speak of eschatological times and events,…these
eschatological elements should be understood in their Old Testament
meaning unless later revelation indicates a reinterpretation.”29 Saucy
elaborates, “The lack of detail about the Old Testament prophecies in
the New Testament does not necessarily mean that they are invalid or
superseded…. We should consider the prophecies valid unless there is
explicit teaching to the contrary.... These promises retain their Old Tes-
tament meaning unless otherwise stated.”30
Blaising and Bock also recognize the principle of New Testament
priority and value its impact on biblical interpretation.
Whether or not certain features of the eschatological kingdom (whether
spiritual or political) will be enacted or revealed prior to the full estab-
lishment of that kingdom is not to be determined by reasoning from full-
orbed descriptions of Old Testament prophets alone. Rather, it is a mat-
ter of the Father’s will for this and any intervening dispensation, a matter
which is discerned through New Testament revelation. The New Testa-
ment clarifies how the kingdom predicted by the Old Testament proph-
ets is being revealed today.31
Within Non-dispensationalism
Among non-dispensationalists, a dual hermeneutic has long been
espoused in interpreting Old Testament predictive prophecy. Vern
Poythress, in his evaluation of dispensationalism, makes this herme-
neutical bifurcation explicit. Beginning with the perspective of the Old
Testament prophets themselves, Poythress says,
In the near future, the organized political and social community of Israel
continues in more or less a straight line. Predictions, even when they use
symbolic and allusive language, can expect to find fulfillment on the
symbolic level on which Israel then exists [i.e., on the level of a literal,
historical, socio-political, earthly kingdom]. But fulfillment in the “latter
days” (eschatological fulfillment in the broad sense of eschatology) is a
different matter. There the symbol is superseded by the reality, and hence
straight-line reckoning about fulfillments is no longer possible. Pre-
eschatological prophetic fulfillments have a hermeneutically different
character than do eschatological fulfillments.32
Bruce Waltke similarly holds to a dual method of interpreting Old
Testament predictive prophecy. In his response to the new dispensa-
tionalism he says, “I argued in ‘Kingdom Promises as Spiritual’ that
prophecies finding fulfillment up to the ascension of Christ, such as his
birth in Bethlehem, will have an earthly, visible fulfillment, and those
pertaining to the church formed with the coming of the Spirit at Pen-
tecost from Christ’s heavenly Davidic throne will have an invisible,
spiritual fulfillment.”33 This dual hermeneutic arises directly out of a
theological, interpretational proclivity for New Testament priority. As
Carnell states in his evaluation of dispensationalism, “the degree to
which prophecy is typical or literal is decided by the theology of the
New Testament.”34 This stance is in essential if not in full agreement,
then, with Ladd as cited above, who sees the dual interpretation of Old
Testament prophecy based on New Testament priority as the funda-
mental hermeneutical distinction between dispensationalism and non-
dispensational theology.
Within Dispensationalism
It is not surprising to find a dual approach to interpreting Old
Testament predictive prophecy among non-dispensationalists. This
hermeneutical method has long been espoused in covenant theology.
Now, to some degree, this approach has been imported into dispensa-
tionalism by those who label themselves progressive dispensationalists.
Blaising and Bock, in discussing the New Testament’s use of the Old
Testament, state that Old Testament prophecy may “not always [be] a
matter of exclusively direct prophetic texts, where the Old Testament
passage refers only to one event or person in one setting…. Such
prophecy [may be] both prophetic and typological.”35 They conclude,
Given the variety of possible ways the Old Testament can be cited
within the New, the relationship between the Testaments on given
themes must be handled on a case-by-case basis. Rules that apply in every
case before each text is examined preempt the discussion and ignore the
variety of possibilities.36 In this area, one size does not fit all cases….
Old Testament prophecy, Blaising and Bock make the following identifications. There
are “exclusively direct prophetic” texts which are, apparently, non-typological in nature
and fulfillment, i.e., more singularly literalistic in their prediction and their outcome.
This kind of prophecy, in their words “refers only to one event or person in one set-
ting.” This type of prophecy seems to accord with what Poythress calls “straight line”
prophecy, or Waltke’s “literal” fulfillment. In the ensuing paragraph (p. 102), Blaising
and Bock forward an example of such a non-typological, “directly prophetic” proph-
ecy. The example is Daniel 7:14, where the Son of Man returns to the earth in judg-
ment. They assert that this kind of “directly prophetic” prophecy will find fulfillment
in one referent at one time, explicitly and singularly as predicted. Such a “directly
prophetic” prophecy is distinguishable from a “typological” prophecy, which presuma-
bly may find fulfillment in more than one event, person, or setting. As has been noted,
they suggest that some “prophecy” can be “both prophetic and typological.” It is sig-
nificant that their discussion mixes explicit, literary, prophetic predictions together
with more oblique, non-predictive, promissory, analogical, and typological Old Tes-
tament forms under the rubric of “prophecy.” This admixture of explicit Old Testa-
ment prophetic predictions with other Old Testament literary forms, and the ensuing
definitive interpretational cross-analysis of these forms greatly confuses the issue of the
literal versus non-literal interpretation of explicit, Old Testament prophetic predic-
tions. In other words, the fact that there may be types and analogies in the Bible (e.g.,
Davidic kingship as typical of messianic kingship, or the Sabbath ‘rest’ as analogical
with the Christian ‘rest’)—types and analogies that can and should be interpreted as
typological and analogical—that fact alone does not prove that predictive prophecy can
or should be interpreted in a non-literalistic manner. In any case, it seems obvious that
Blaising and Bock espouse more than one method of interpreting prophecy, including
explicit, predictive prophecy. In their view, some explicit predictive prophecies may be
“directly” and only “directly” fulfilled, while other explicit predictive prophecies may
also be “typologically” fulfilled. The determining factor is the New Testament.
36In other words, the more historic hermeneutical assumption by dispensational-
ists that all Old Testament predictive prophecy will be fulfilled in a singular, exclu-
sively literalistic way is too restrictive a view for Blaising and Bock. Such a perspective
does not allow for fuller, more expansive, non-literalistic fulfillments (or pre-
fulfillments) as assumed or even demanded by their approach, along with the approach
of many interpreters who read the New Testament with these broader hermeneutical
presuppositions. According to progressive dispensationalism, there are no hermeneuti-
cal pre-understandings or “rules” that should be brought to bear on every New Testa-
ment citation of Old Testament predictive prophecy, especially not the rule of
singular, literalistic interpretation. This stance within progressive dispensationalism
creates its own set of problems for the progressivist construct. The assertion that no
presupposed, universally applied rules should be brought to bear on every New Testa-
ment citation of Old Testament predictions is, itself, a presupposed, universally ap-
plied rule. Further, in their assertion that the rule of singular, literalistic interpretation
of all Old Testament predictive prophecy is invalid, they have created a rule that New
Testament citations of predictive prophecy may indeed be interpreted by some other
means. The hermeneutical approach of progressive dispensationalism should certainly
not be viewed as a more textually objective, less presuppositional approach to Bible
interpretation than that of traditional forms of dispensationalism. Progressive
20 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
Fulfillment can be “already-not yet,” that is, partial and then full. To sort
out whether fulfillment is inaugurated, realized, or still anticipated, one
must study each passage with sensitivity to the various aspects that con-
tribute to the textual message: historical, grammatical, literary, and theo-
logical. Each passage should be allowed to speak on its own terms and
should be studied with sensitivity to the various angles from which the
text can be read.37
Blaising and Bock summarize the various approaches to Bible in-
terpretation:
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.
The question most simply put is, How does “new” revelation impact
“old” revelation and expression? There are three approaches to this ques-
tion.
First, does new revelation repeat old revelation or add to it in such a
way that the original revelation is not affected at all? This appears to be
the answer of older dispensationalism…. One defines Old Testament
terms that reappear in the New Testament simply by going back to the
Old Testament and looking for the “literal” meaning.
Second, does the New Testament unveil “unconscious symbolism”?
Waltke believes that Old Testament revelation is resignified by New Tes-
tament revelation, and the effect is a change in its interpretation.
Third, does the New Testament complement Old Testament revela-
tion? According to this approach, 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 prom-
ise.38
integrate, consistently and literally, many Old Testament predictions that await ful-
fillment for national Israel in the future. This question merits close attention in the
ongoing analysis of the movement.
22 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
39In tandem with this emphasis, much could be said about the old debate be-
tween dispensationalists and non-dispensationalists concerning the purpose of God in
history (i.e., a doxological vs. soteriological purpose). Although this debate has essen-
tially been pronounced dead by those who adhere to progressive dispensationalism, a
case could be made that there is still some substantial room for differing on this point.
Progressive Dispensationalism 23
earnest, the gift of the Holy Spirit. The future dispensation is the dispen-
sation of his return and consummative rule.45
Holistic Redemption
Having established these three premises, (1) the history of redemp-
tion as a fundamental theological construct, (2) the death, burial, and
enthronement of Christ as the climax of salvation history, and (3) the
baptism of the Holy Spirit as the universal bond of all believers (Jew
and Gentile) under the new covenant, the proponents of progressive
dispensationalism assert that this redemptive, climactic, Spirit-
endowed union in Christ becomes God’s template of soteriology not
only in the age of the church, but also in all of the ensuing eras: the
Tribulation, the millennial kingdom, and the eternal state. In other
words, once redemptive history has climaxed in Christ, the redemptive
structures never again change in kind. From the time of the church on
through the Millennium and into the eternal state, there is one saving
work of Christ, one new covenant ministry of the Sprit, and one uni-
fied, redeemed people of God.46
First, progressive dispensationalism specifically links the era of the
church and the ensuing millennial age in redemptive status. In summa-
rizing their book, Blaising and Bock say,
In the new dispensation that emerged through the Christ event [i.e., the
present church age], Ware, Bock, Hoch, Saucy, and Burns all speak of
the new state of things in which Gentiles are included with equal stand-
ing alongside the remnant of Israel. Both receive blessings from the inau-
gurated new covenant, blessings that are emphasized as new in biblical
theology, being differentiated as an advance over the old covenant….
These studies [also] uniformly assert that the New Testament teaches a
strong continuity between the present dispensation of the church and the
future [millennial] dispensation in which all things in heaven and earth
will be united in Christ…. We can see in this [present] dispensation the
basis for the integration of all the covenants in the redemption inaugu-
rated in this dispensation and fulfilled in the future.47
Having equated the redemptive status of those believers in the era
of the church with those believers in the era of the Millennium, pro-
gressive dispensationalism proceeds to link (if not unite) the millennial
age with the eternal state in terms of unified redemption.
This new dispensationalism sees a greater continuity between the Millen-
nium and the eternal kingdom than was the case in some forms of essen-
tialist dispensationalism. Turner notes that the difference between the
Millennium and the new earth is one of degree, not kind. The transition
from the former to the latter is not the change from the material to the
spiritual, the substantial to the ethereal, but the completion of the re-
demption (not annihilation) of the whole created order. The continuity
is such that Barker, for example, sees them together as one dispensa-
tion.48
dispensationalism.
There is a significant change taking place in dispensationalism today….
This is what we have called progressive dispensationalism…. Its major
distinctive is found in its conception of the progressive accomplishment
and revelation of a holistic and unified redemption.53
While the New Testament proclaims the relationship between Christ and
the church…as a revelation of the eschatological kingdom, it also predicts
the future coming of that kingdom in all its fullness…. The spiritual
blessings which were displayed in the previous dispensation in the life of
the eschatological community, the church, will be extended in this [fu-
ture] stage of the kingdom through national and political dimensions of
human life as well.54
Progressive dispensationalists believe that the church is a vital part of this
very same plan of redemption. The appearance of the church does not sig-
nal a secondary redemption plan, either to be fulfilled in heaven apart
from the new earth or in an elite class of Jews and Gentiles who are for-
ever distinguished from the rest of redeemed humanity. Instead, the
church today is a revelation of spiritual blessings which all the redeemed
will share in spite of their ethnic and national differences.55
One of the striking differences between progressive and earlier dispensa-
tionalists, is that progressives do not view the church as an anthropologi-
cal category in the same class as terms like Israel, Gentile nations, Jews,
and Gentile people. The church is neither a separate race of human-
ity…nor a competing nation,…nor is it a group of angelic-like humans
destined for the heavens in contrast to the rest of redeemed humanity on
the earth. The church is precisely redeemed humanity itself.56
In this view, then, resurrected and glorified Old Testament saints,
resurrected and glorified saints from the present dispensation, and res-
urrected and glorified tribulational saints will live together among the
nations of non-glorified humanity (both the regenerate and unregener-
ate), and will experience the fulfillment of the earthly and spiritual
blessings of the biblical covenants during the millennial kingdom. All
of the redeemed, both glorified and non-glorified, will be united in the
53Ibid., p. 56.
54Ibid., pp. 281–83.
55Ibid., p. 47.
56Ibid., pp. 49–50. In conjunction with their view that the church is not distinct
in kind in this dispensation, those who hold to progressive dispensationalism also gen-
erally understand the term “mystery,” as it relates to Jewish/Gentile unity in the
church, not to refer to truth that was unrevealed in the Old Testament and only later
made known in the New. Rather, in their view this “mystery” involved truth that was
previously revealed, but only later actualized or accomplished. See especially Saucy,
Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 143–73.
28 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal
body of Christ through the new covenant baptism of the Holy Spirit as
a single people of God. In the case of the Jews, Old Testament Jewish
believers and Jewish believers of the present age, having been glorified
through resurrection, will live among mortal, non-glorified, national
Israelites who survive the Tribulation, and will receive the national,
physical, and spiritual blessings of the covenants promised to Israel. In
fact, all believers of all national, ethnic descent and historic eras will be
equal in their experience of these blessings.
According to Blaising and Bock,
Ephesians 2 is clear that the barrier between Jew and Gentile is removed
for all time. This is one of the transdispensational features of Christ’s
work. Millennial saints will be Christians, and their identity in Christ
will transcend their racial distinctions, just as it should be in the current
era of the church.57
The prophetic promises envision Christ ruling forever over the na-
tions of the redeemed. The church is not another “people-group” in that
picture. Those Jews and Gentiles who compose the church prior to
Christ’s coming join the redeemed Jews and Gentiles of earlier dispensa-
tions to share equally in resurrection glory. Those who during their dis-
pensation had certain blessings only in promise [OT saints] or in an
inaugurated form [the church] will all be brought to the same level of
complete fulfillment when they are raised together from the dead. Re-
deemed Jews and Gentiles will share equally in the completed blessings of
the Spirit.
We can illustrate this progressive dispensational view of the church
in the case of Jewish Christians. A Jew who becomes a Christian today
does not lose his or her relationship to Israel’s future promises. Jewish
Christians will join the Old Testament remnant of faith in the inheri-
tance of Israel. Gentile Christians will be joined by saved Gentiles of ear-
lier dispensations. All together, Jews and Gentiles, will share the same
blessings of the Spirit, as testified to by the relationship of Jew and Gen-
tile in the church of this dispensation. The result will be that all peoples
will be reconciled in peace, their ethnic and national differences being no
cause for hostility. Earlier forms of dispensationalism, for all their empha-
sis on the future for Israel, excluded Jewish Christians from that future,
postulating the church as a different people-group from Israel and Gen-
tiles.58
CONCLUSION
There is no doubt that progressive dispensationalism made its
theological mark on the twentieth century, and there is growing evi-
dence that its impact will continue to flourish in the twenty-first.
However, numerous important questions remain in the minds of some
who hold to more historic forms of dispensationalism. Is the goal of
the new dispensationalism—unity through rapprochement—both bib-
lically and methodologically sound? Are the presuppositions of pro-
gressive dispensationalism truly superior to those of traditional forms
Progressive Dispensationalism 31
must lead at the least to this restructuring of the historic model. Without
that openness, honesty, and careful exegesis, dispensational schools would
betray their commitment to inspired Scriptures rightly interpreted above
uninspired confessions and would fail to attract bright, young minds and
to raise up theologians to lead them….
If the [new Dispensationalism] augurs well for the future of dispensa-
tional schools, it does not augur well for the future of dispensationalism.
What remains distinctive to dispensationalism pertains to the “not-yet” as-
pect of the kingdom…. At issue is whether or not God has two “true peo-
ples” (true Israel and the church) and whether true Israel has a future role in
redemptive history different from the church…. If ethnic Israel’s role is only
its remnant status on a permanent equality with the Gentiles in the one true
people of God with no distinctive role in the land beyond the Parousia, then
the term dispensationalism is misleading and ought to be dropped.62
Modification and refinement can, has, and continues to go for-
ward within more traditional forms of dispensationalism, and does so
without jettisoning the basic hermeneutical method and theological
construct that lies at the very foundation of the system. The proposals
of progressive dispensationalism, on the other hand, change the her-
meneutical and theological construct at its very core. It could be ar-
gued that in progressive dispensationalism it is not the superstructure
that is undergoing renovation. Rather, the building itself has been
razed and a new and vastly different foundation laid, one not unlike
that formerly fashioned by non-dispensational theologians. The future
of the movement is unforeseeable, but the path taken seems already
worn, and end of the way appears hardly to be surprising, particularly
to those who have walked it before.