Many evangelicals find Covenant theology new and difficult. Frequently, this is a function of years spent under premillennial dispensational teaching. As such, we thought it would be helpful to allow an important dispensationalist to criticize Covenant theology head on.
Additionally, given that there have been a number of significant changes in dispensationalism the last few years (largely associated with the emergence of "progressive dispensationalism" as distinct from the more traditional variety), we wanted to ask Professor Bock both to help us understand the distinction, and to comment on the likelihood of the "progressives" being more open to Reformation theology. -EDS.
MR: Were you always dispensational or was it something of which you became convinced later in your Christian life?
DB: I became a Christian during my time in college and was certainly influenced by people who came out of the dispensational background. I grew up in Texas and went to the University of Texas at Austin. I also had exposure to the reformed tradition, though not to the same extent. However, dispensationalism is something about which I became steadily more convinced as I worked with the biblical text (Daniel's seventieth week; Acts 3:19-25; Rev. 20; hosts of Old Testament passages on the future about the nation of Israel). Those who know me, know that I am an independent thinker in how I relate to tradition. This was something that I became convinced of in my own study of Scripture.
MR: What do you see as the key differences between Covenant and Dispensational theologies?
DB: I would regard Covenant theology as being, generally speaking, more canonically built and developed. Dispensational theology is more sensitive to biblical theology in its classic sense. What I mean by that difference is that Covenant theology works with the whole of Scripture and argues a kind of New Testament priority hermeneutically for different themes. Whereas dispensationalism tends to want to take the Old Testament on its own terms, the New Testament on its own terms, and then combines the two testaments together so that they have harmony with one another. In contrast, the reformed tradition has a supercessationist kind of hermeneutic, where the New Testament appears to redefine categories from the Old Testament or at least from what the Old Testament appeared to be teaching. I realize these descriptions are a bit loaded in the weight that they are carrying. But generally speaking, when you listen to a Covenant theologian he will say that the New Testament is really not what it originally appeared to be but is what the New Testament explains to be the case. Or, they say that the meaning gets pictured in the Old Testament but the real meaning is found in the New Testament, where it is not clear on its own terms, is what dispensationalists question. It raises questions in my mind about the perspicuity of Scripture. Hermeneutically, there is a difference between the two approaches. Although I think the distance is lessening significantly as a result of more recent discussion. There is room for a better conversation between the two camps today.
A second key difference-content-wise-has to do with the role of national Israel. And I don't necessarily mean the future of the Jews per se, ethnically, as some in the reformed camp see the possibility of a significant number of Jews coming to Christ in the end. I am speaking specifically of a role for national Israel. The issue is whether national Israel as an administrative structure is still in the plan of God. Dispensationalists answer this question "yes" and Covenant theologians tend to answer "no." In my view, the presence of the church or even of one people of God does not necessarily exclude a role for national Israel in the future.
A third difference, which normally gets raised but I don't think applies, concerns law and Grace. It is often said that Covenant theology and Dispensational theology differ on this theme. But I don't think this is correct. Some dispensationalists teach the Gospel and offer the Gospel in such a way that there appears to be a difference. But many dispensationalists affirm a Gospel that recognizes the authority or Lordship of Christ as a part of the Gospel right at the front end. This obviates against a major distinction between law and Grace. A variation of this is to argue that dispensationalists tend not to want to deal with the content of the Gospels, while Covenant theologians deal with the whole of the New Testament in putting their theology together. Again, I think this is a misreading of what is going on today in dispensational circles. Many dispensationalists argue that the Gospels are as integrated to the early church theology and apply to the Church as much as the Epistles do. My technical work all stems from a commitment to teaching and preaching the gospels for the Church.
MR: There has been a lot of discussion about "progressive dispensationalism," and evidently its adherents have been criticized from more traditional dispensationalists. Where are you in all of this and what distinguishes the progressive type?
DB: It is true that progressive dispensationalism has received criticism from traditional dispensationalists. Some of the criticism has softened as they understand it better, but for others, this new view is a major concern. They feel like our emphasis on the continuity of Scripture and on the fact that the covenants of the Old Testament do have an initial realization today in the Church, which is the emphasis of progressive dispensationalism, undercut the distinction between Israel and the Church. Progressives, on the other hand, argue that this continuity does not undercut a distinction between Israel and the Church. Progressive dispensationalists get their name because they argue that each dispensation, or each administrative period, in the plan of God builds on the previous one and advances the plan of God. There is a unity to the plan tied to God's people in terms of salvation benefits. There are no parentheses for the Kingdom in progressive dispensationalism. So the Abrahamic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant, and the New Covenant all have an initial realization that is focused in Jesus Christ and that has been inaugurated as a result of his initial coming and his resurrection. Those benefits go to the Church. Fuller benefits await God's people in the Millennium to come. This coming period will involve the restoration of national Israel not as a superior to the nations but as an equal among the nations. Still national Israel will be important because Israel will be the place from which Jesus one day will rule before we eventually end up in the eternal state. My role in all of this has simply been to write about these continuities in Scripture and to emphasize them, particularly with regard to the initial realization of Davidic Covenant hope in the New Testament and in the Early Church period.
MR: It seems that the differences between Covenant and Dispensational theologies are not superficial, but deeply hermeneutical. In other words, we just read the Bible differently. One focuses on continuity of law and Gospel, the covenant of grace (sealed in the Sacraments), and the Church throughout both testaments; the other favors discontinuity. One sees the Bible as the unfolding of a single redemptive plot centered in Christ, whereas the other tends (or at least has tended) to concentrate on end times scenarios centered on the earthly temple in Jerusalem. Is that a fair contrast?
DB: I don't think that contrast works anymore or as clearly as it may have either in the middle of the last century or in the 1930s. Progressive dispensationalists are quite content with the idea of a single plan of God for a united people of God. What they want to be careful about is what these people are called at different stages in that plan, that is, what structure they belong to in a given period. Thus, they hesitate to use the word "church" in any kind of significant way for Old Testament saints. Progressives see a unity in the people of God, but that unity is connected to a distinct structure in the Old Testament, theocratic national Israel through which God is working in that period. Today, they would argue that Jew and Gentile are connected to the Church as the structure through which God is working, and in the future they will see believers as connected to a third structure in the plan, the Millennial Kingdom. Now the structures are different but every group in each age is part of the people of God. But the Church is not Israel and neither is the Church-or Israel-the Millennium. They are different structures. Dispensationalists want to keep those structures distinct. They are the keys to the discontinuities dispensationalists see.
Concerning the distinction between the law and Gospel, I am not sure that the contrast ever worked entirely, though there are some parts of dispensationalism that made a distinction between law and Gospel. Even someone like popular Bible teacher John MacArthur, who is an avowed dispensationalist, does not make this distinction. I would not regard myself as having a great distinction in this either. I'm not even sure MacArthur would call himself a progressive dispensationalist, so we have both traditional and progressive dispensationalists who do not have a law and Grace contrast. There has always been a greater variety in dispensationalism than Covenant theologians have tended to see. Unfortunately, many caricatures exist in our discussions.
It is fair to say that dispensationalists have tended to concentrate on end times scenarios and an earthly temple in Jerusalem in their writings, particularly in their popular writings. This is in part because they see this as a way of highlighting how God completes his promises and is faithful to his promises made to national Israel in the Old Testament. The issue of the future of the kingdom for Israel is related to the faithfulness of God. Nonetheless, I think it is an oversimplification to say that hope focuses inordinately on the earthly temple in Jerusalem. Rather, the focus is on God completing commitments that he has made to his people-a specifically named people, namely, Israel. Israel has not become something else or has not been expanded in such a way as to exclude those to whom the original promise was given. The issue of God's grace and God's faithfulness are very much wrapped up in the hermeneutical commitment that national Israel has a future. His commitment is to Israel as a part of irrevocable promises made to Abraham, even after seeing that the promises to Abraham were also for the world.
MR: Many of our readers were reared in dispensational churches where the relationship of Israel and the church was that of "Plan A" and "Plan B," respectively. Some of us actually recall being told that God offered Israel the kingdom-that this was the whole plan in sending Christ, but that God, his plan having been thwarted, decided to take a "time out" with Israel while he worked briefly (a "parenthesis" it was called) with Gentiles. Is this the approach that progressive dispensationalism has trouble retaining?
DB: I am not sure I like the way the question is asked. We don't have any trouble retaining anything that we think is biblical. When the Bible confronts tradition, the Bible should have first place regardless of the results for our systematic systems. However, progressives are arguing there is no parenthesis in the plan. Neither is there a delay of the arrival of the Kingdom. Certainly with regard to past views of dispensationalism, where a parenthesis has been emphasized, this is a significant change. I do think, however, that the older dispensational view can be defended to a degree, as I think they were onto something important, though it was overdrawn. Let me explain. From the standpoint of national Israel and her involvement in the plan what appears to be taking place for her, although not for humanity, is a delay in the realization of the plan. To that extent "parentheses," if you put it in quotes or if you restrict it strictly to national Israel, is a good description of how the plan is proceeding for her as a nation. There is a "break" for her. For me, Daniel's seventieth week, yet unfulfilled, belongs here. However, I think older and more traditional dispensationalists fail to notice this distinction between national Israel and all nations and in the process made a general category out of something that was much more specific. In the meantime, the plan of God with regard to the Kingdom was moving on. Jesus brought an initial phase of the Kingdom with him in his first coming to both Jew and Gentile that ended up manifesting itself in the Church. That is what progressive dispensationalists teach. Thus this era, beginning with Pentecost, is the natural extension of an initial realization of promises made in the Old Testament in the covenants especially as they relate to forgiveness of sins and the indwelling Spirit, the heart of the Gospel. These promises are realized in the Church now, but the mass of Israel will respond one day. (1)
MR: Considerably easier than predicting the end of the world, what do you think is the future of progressive dispensationalism?
DB: I think it has a good future. It is yet another way to talk about the continuity of Scripture while trying to be sensitive to the discontinuities in Scripture that exist between structures like Israel, Church, and Millennium. I think it provides another premillenial model for thinking through this alongside particularly historical premillennialism. It raises the question of God's promises and faithfulness with regard to the nation of Israel. These, in turn, relate to both the issue of his promises and his faithfulness to us in the Church. All of us are-or will be-in Christ; for both groups are tied to covenant commitments realized ultimately both now and in the future in Jesus. My hope would be that the discussion between the various camps, which now proceeds on a more irenic and even-keeled basis than it has previously, can engage on matters of biblical theology in a way that will be beneficial to the entire Church. Hopefully, it will encourage us to embrace all of God's word and rest in his grace and faithfulness.
