Progressive Covenantalism: Continuing the Conversation
Stephen J. Wellum
Stephen J. Wellum is Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky
Introduction
It is an honor to participate in this ongoing conversation regarding how best to think through the Bible’s metanarrative and covenantal story from creation to Christ.[1] Getting the Bible right is not insignificant. God has given his word so that we would understand it, and properly grasping what he has revealed is our supreme privilege, duty, and delight. Although we agree on much, there are still important differences among us, and continuing the conversation allows us to see where these differences are and how best to adjudicate them in order to bring all of our thought captive to Christ and his word. My presentation will proceed in three steps. First, I will summarize my view in order to contrast it with my interlocutors. Second, I will interact with covenant theology as represented by Michael Horton. Third, I will interact with two variations of dispensational theology represented by Darrell Bock and Mark Snoeberger respectively.
Progressive Covenantalism: A Basic Summary
Progressive covenantalism contends that the Bible presents a plurality of covenants that progressively reveals God’s one redemptive plan for his one people that reaches its fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant. Each biblical covenant contributes to and reveals God’s unified plan, and to comprehend the “whole canon,” we must understand each covenant in its own biblical context by locating that covenant in relation to what precedes and follows it. By the progression of the covenants, we come to know God’s plan, how all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ (Heb 1:1-3; cf. Eph 1:9-10), and how we are to live as God’s new covenant people. The progression of the covenants, then, is the primary means by which God’s promises and typological patterns unfold and are fulfilled in Christ and his church.
Progressive covenantalism argues that the covenants are more than a unifying theme of Scripture; instead, they serve as the backbone to Scripture’s story similar to covenant theology. But unlike covenant theology, the covenants are not subsumed under the bi-covenantal structure of “the covenant of works” and “the covenant of grace.” Rather, God’s one plan unfolds through a plurality of covenants, first starting with Adam and culminating in Christ. The creation covenant lays the foundation that continues in all the covenants and is fulfilled in Christ. God’s plan moves from creation in Adam to consummation in Christ.
Concerning the Israel-church relationship, two points are stressed. First, God has one people, yet there is an Israel-Church distinction due to their respective covenants. The church is new in a redemptive-historical sense since she is the new covenant community. Second, we must think of the Israel-church relationship Christologically. The church is not directly the “new Israel” or her replacement. Rather, in Christ, the church is God’s new creation, comprised of believing Jews and Gentiles, because Jesus is the last Adam and true Israel, the faithful seed of Abraham who inherits the promises by his work. Thus, in union with Christ, the church is God’s new covenant people in continuity with the elect in all ages, but different from Israel in its nature and structure.
This way of viewing Israel-Christ-Church differs from dispensational and covenant theology. First, unlike dispensationalism, Jesus is the antitypical fulfillment of Israel and Adam and in him, all of God’s promises are fulfilled for the church, including the land promise realized in the new creation (Rom 4:13; Eph 6:3; Heb 11:10, 16; cf. Matt 5:5). Second, unlike covenant theology, Jesus’ new covenant people are different from Israel. Under the old covenant, Israel was constituted as a mixed nation of believers and unbelievers (Rom 9:6). The church, however, is constituted by people who are united to Christ by faith, which minimally includes heart circumcision (regeneration), justification, and the gift of the Spirit. In contrast to Israel, the church is constituted as a believing, regenerate people. This is why baptism, the sign of the new covenant, is only applied to those who profess faith, and why circumcision and baptism do not signify the same realities due to their respective covenantal differences.
Continuing the Conversation with Covenant Theology
Since my view is more aligned with covenant theology, there is much more agreement. For example, we agree that the biblical covenants function as the backbone of the Bible’s story and that the basic plotline of Scripture begins in creation with Adam and reaches its fulfillment in Christ. We agree that creation is the beginning rather than the goal of human existence and that Adam-Christ function as the two covenantal and legal heads of humanity. We also agree that God’s promise, grace, and initiative take priority over human disobedience. The covenant of creation broken in Adam is fulfilled in Christ, our new covenant head and mediator. By Christ’s active and passive obedience, we have redemption, and so on.
So where do we disagree? We disagree in the details of how we derive these conclusions. Ultimately, our main point of disagreement is over our understanding of the progression of the covenants and the changes that result in Christ’s new covenant work. I will focus on two points.
The Bi-Covenantal Structure of Covenant Theology
For covenant theology, the bi-covenantal structure of “the covenant of works” and “the covenant of grace” function as the basis for how we establish the categories of “law” and “grace/gospel.” “Law” refers to the conditional covenant of works, and “grace” refers to the unconditional covenant of grace. The covenant of works was broken by Adam as our federal head, but in Christ, the last Adam, the covenant of works has been fulfilled by his active and passive obedience, thus securing our redemption in the covenant of grace. Regardless of whether the Mosaic is viewed as a republication of the covenant of works, covenant theology insists that the Mosaic covenant has now ended in Christ, at least in terms of its civil and ceremonial aspects.
However, due to the one covenant of grace and its substantial unity, the Abrahamic covenant is viewed as eternal and in fact almost one-for-one with the new covenant. Thus, the Abrahamic covenant is subsumed under the larger theological category of “the covenant of grace,” that establishes the terms by which people from every nation share in Christ and the church. Given this understanding, covenant theology draws a direct line from the Abrahamic covenant to the new covenant, which establishes the warrant for their view of the church. Presently, the church, like Abraham’s seed under the Abrahamic covenant and Israel under the Mosaic covenant, is a “mixed” people constituted by the elect and the non-elect. Both Abraham’s seed and Israel receive the objective covenant sign of circumcision which not only distinguishes them as God’s people, but also functions as a sign and seal of God’s covenant promises. As this is brought over to the church under the same covenant of grace, what is true of Abraham’s seed and Israel as a nation is also true of the church, except that the sign has undergone an administrative change to baptism. By this overall construction of “the covenant of grace,” covenant theology believes it has warranted both a mixed view of Israel-church and its practice of paedobaptism.
Not surprisingly, I reject this bi-covenantal structure of the covenants as not being exactly true to Scripture. Horton thinks that I have mixed “law/gospel” by denying this bi-covenantal structure for at least two reasons.[2] First, because I don’t think that each post-fall covenant can be divided simply into “law” (conditional) or “gospel” (unconditional). Second, because I don’t argue for a ratification of the covenant of grace in Genesis 3:15. My response to this charge is twofold.
First, I deny that I have mixed law and gospel. I wholeheartedly affirm the theological categories of law and gospel and in some sense the overall bi-covenantal structure that specifically highlights the two heads of humanity: Adam and Christ. Our disagreement is in how covenant theology constructs the biblical covenants to derive these theological truths. After all, one can affirm correct theological truths but not sufficiently warrant them from Scripture. Instead, of covenant theology’s bi-covenantal structure, which tends to subsume and flatten the post-fall OT covenants under the one covenant of grace, Scripture presents God’s redemptive plan revealed through a plurality of covenants (Eph 2:12). This allows each covenant to contribute to God’s unified plan as each covenant is fulfilled in Christ. This better makes sense of each covenant in its own historical context, which also allows us to think through the intertextual relations between the covenants and how all the covenants are fulfilled in Christ.
Covenant theology is right to subsume all people under two covenant heads. In Adam, the category of “law” is established by God’s total demand for perfect obedience, which is then given greater specificity through the progression of the covenants. Adam, and all humanity, is created as God’s image-son, priest-king to rule over creation. God, as Creator and Lord, demands perfect obedience from us which continues through all the post-fall covenants. Our problem is that we do not obey; as such, we stand condemned before God (Rom 3:23). But thankfully God graciously speaks a word of “gospel” promise (Gen 3:15) that ultimately is fulfilled in Christ.
Second, Horton fails to see that I make a clear distinction between pre-fall under Adam, tied to the creation covenant, and God’s post-fall salvific promise centered in Christ (Gen 3:15). By this initial redemptive promise, God’s promises to act unilaterally to redeem a people for himself, which then is unveiled in every covenant and finally fulfilled in Christ. But Horton misses this point because I don’t see the ratification of the covenant of grace in Genesis 3:15, thus resulting in two distinct covenants in Genesis 1-3. He argues that I make Genesis 3:15 merely an “appendix to the creation covenant,” but this is incorrect.[3]
My reason for the rejection of the covenant of grace being ratified in Genesis 3:15 is due to the fact that there is no biblical evidence for such a specific covenant. If you mean by “the covenant of grace” God’s redemptive plan unveiled through the covenants, then we would agree. But this is not how the covenant of grace functions for Horton or covenant theology. For them, the covenant of grace is an actual covenant that subsumes all the post-fall historical covenants under it; it does not merely refer to God’s one redemptive plan. However, “the covenant of grace” is not a specific historical covenant but an overall theological construct. No doubt, there is truth in the fact that since God’s first gospel promise (Gen 3:15), humanity is now divided under either Adam or Christ. Since the fall, all humans come into the world “in Adam” and our only hope is to believe God’s word and to receive redemption “in Christ.” But should we view Genesis 3:15 as the start of the covenant of grace, or better, as God’s first salvific promise that despite Adam’s sin, God’s purpose for humans and creation will stand. From humanity, God will graciously provide a Redeemer to undo what Adam did, which ultimately reaches its fulfillment in Christ. In this sense, Genesis 3:15 is a Christological promise that prophetically anticipates and predicts in seed-form the definitive provision of the new covenant—the new covenant which is progressively revealed through the specific biblical covenants.
Is this merely a splitting of theological hairs? Theologically, what I am saying is very similar to covenant theology, but it is not exactly the same. Also, the differences are important because they lead to a slightly different way of “putting together” the covenants, which in the end, results in different theological conclusions in some doctrinal areas. Instead of thinking of God’s plan progressively revealed through the covenants and fulfilled in the new covenant, covenant theology subsumes the OT covenants under one covenant and then draws lines of continuity too quickly from old to new, especially regarding circumcision-baptism and the “mixed” nature of Israel-church. Creation, then, with a pre-fall covenant and post-fall redemptive promise not only upholds the theological categories of “law” and “gospel,” but it also allows us to see how God’s plan unfolds from Adam, through the covenants to Christ. In my view, this better explains how Scripture actually presents God’s unfolding plan and how each covenant reveals, predicts, and anticipates the coming of Christ and the new covenant.
The Relationship of the Abrahamic Covenant to the New Covenant
A second area of disagreement is regarding the relationship of the Abrahamic covenant to the new covenant. Horton contends I have separated these two covenants too much largely due to his understanding of “the covenant of grace.”[4] For him, the Mosaic covenant is a republication of the covenant of works and thus temporary, in contrast to the eternal Abrahamic covenant. For Horton, the Abrahamic covenant sets the terms by which people from every nation share in Christ and the church, and as such, the Abrahamic covenant is basically one-for-one with the new covenant. This is why, as I noted above, covenant theology can draw a direct line from the Abrahamic to the new covenant, which provides for them the warrant for their mixed view of the church and carry over of covenantal signs. Horton appeals to the standard arguments for his view: the parable of the wheat and the tares (Matt 13:28-30); the warning texts; and Acts 2:39. However, none of these arguments prove his view for at least two reasons.
First, Horton doesn’t account for how the previous covenants reach their fulfillment in Christ and thus the newness of Christ’s people. Horton thinks that I make my argument by appealing to only one text (i.e., Jer 31:31-34), but this is incorrect. In the OT, the Prophets anticipated that in the new covenant all of God’s people will know God and that every person will be born-indwelt-empowered by the Spirit, and receive the full forgiveness of sin (see Ezek 36:25-27; Jer 31:31-34; Joel 2:28-32; cf. Num 11:29). Furthermore, the NT announces that in Christ and his work the new covenant has arrived. This entails that the relationship between Christ and his people has changed; it’s not by natural birth but spiritual birth that we enter the new covenant. For this reason, in the new covenant, the redefinition of Christ’s people are not “you and your biological children” but people who savingly know God. One is “in Christ” not by circumcision of the flesh but by the Spirit’s gracious work in rebirth and granting saving faith.
Second, Horton and covenant theology acknowledges that the new covenant is now here, but then they insist that the regenerate nature of the church is still future. But this does not explain how the NT understands inaugurated eschatology. Yes, we await our glorification, but the church now is the eschatological, “gathered” people identified with the “age to come.” Christians are now citizens of the new Jerusalem (Heb 12:18-29) because we are no longer “in Adam” but “in Christ” (Eph 2:1-10). The church is the “new man” (Eph 2:11-22); the “new temple” in whom the Spirit dwells (1 Cor 6:19; Eph 2:21); the “new creation” (2 Cor 5:17); and presently raised and seated with Christ (Eph 2:5-6). Such a description requires a regenerate, believing people, something covenant theology does not account for given their mixed view of the church.
Why does covenant theology argue for their view of the church, especially given this NT description? It is largely due to the fact that covenant theology has not consistently worked out how God’s one plan is revealed through the covenants and how in Christ all the promises, instruction, and typological patterns of the previous covenants are here now even though we await the final consummation. With the ratification of the new covenant change has come, especially regarding the nature of Christ’s people. The church is no longer constituted as a “mixed” people, but those who are born of the Spirit, united to Christ, and justified before God.
Continuing the Conversation with Dispensational Theology
Darrell Bock and Mark Snoeberger’s essays reflect different forms of dispensational theology. Yet, despite their significant differences, they have a similar metanarrative centered on national Israel. In response, I will focus on three problems that result. First, they don’t account for how God’s unified plan unfolds through the covenants, starting in creation and reaching its fulfillment in Christ and the church. Second, given their dispensational storyline centered on national Israel and their use of either a “literal” and/or “complementary” hermeneutic, a number of conclusions are drawn that are difficult to square with the NT. Third, despite Bock’s protestations to the contrary, dispensationalism has a difficult time accounting for the theological-covenantal significance of the church. The church is not merely a parenthesis in God’s plan or a present-day illustration of what nation-states will be, but God’s new humanity and new creation that are “a royal priesthood, and a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9), and Christ’s bride that is the only community that lasts forever. Let us look at each of these problems in turn.
Problems with Dispensationalism’s Covenantal Storyline
Both Bock and Snoeberger affirm the importance of the covenants, but it’s in their understanding of the relationships between the covenants that their differences emerge.
First, Snoeberger’s application of the “Israel-church” distinction to the covenants results in a canonically indefensible view. For example, he asserts that the Noahic covenant is the first covenant that has no redemptive significance to it. Absent from his discussion is how the Noahic covenant is organically related to creation and Genesis 3:15, and that through Noah God’s promises to save continue despite God’s judgment. Also, he insists that the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants, along with the new covenant are only for Israel and not for the church. Gentiles only benefit from Israel’s covenants indirectly via national Israel, and the church (as a parenthesis in God’s plan) is under no specific covenant. In Christ’s first coming, the OT covenants were not fulfilled; they are only fulfilled when Israel is restored as a nation in the millennium and beyond. This entails that the promises of the previous covenants don’t find their fulfillment in Christ and the church because Israel is not the church and the covenants are for Israel alone. For Snoeberger, this also means that given the eternal nature of circumcision (Gen 17:7), the land (Gen 17:8), Sabbath (Ex 31:17), and the Levites (Jer 33:18), these rites and offices will return to national Israel after the church age is complete.
However, the problem with all of these points is that it is difficult to defend canonically. Instead, a specific view of Israel-church is imposed on the biblical texts, which cannot account for OT and NT teaching (cf. Isa 1:26; 58:12; 60:14; 62:2, 4, 12; 65:15). The NT specifically applies the new covenant to the church (e.g., Luke 22:20; 2 Cor 3:7-18; Eph 2:11-22; Heb 8-10), and the NT teaches that the previous covenants are fulfilled in Christ and the church. Snoeberger admits that the NT applies OT Davidic texts to Christ (Ps 2, 45, 110; cf. Matt 1:1; Rom 1:3-4; Heb 1:3), but then insists that this isn’t the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant. But the NT does teach that Christ is the Davidic King who is now reigning (Rom 1:3-4; Heb 1:4-14), and this is why I contend that Snoeberger’s view is difficult to square with the NT.
Significantly, Bock also rejects Snoeberger’s version of dispensationalism. Bock, like Horton, divides the covenants into “promise” and “law:” the Abrahamic, Davidic, and the new covenant are “promise,” while the Mosaic is “law,” although Bock admits that within the Mosaic covenant there are also promises. Bock argues that the Mosaic (as a “law” covenant) has ended as a pedagogue (Gal 3:24) now that Christ has come. In Christ’s coming a new dispensation has occurred, tied to the coming of Spirit, which results both in the “circumcision of the heart” (regeneration?) and the indwelling of the Spirit. Bock states: “Even though the OT called for a circumcision of the heart and hoped for such an inner capability, it did not arrive until the Spirit gave the capability to make it happen. This was a Novum in the program of God that stood at the center of the gospel.”[5] This understanding raises an important question. If circumcision of the heart is only first realized in the church, then were OT saints ever regenerated or indwelt by the Spirit. If not, how did people come to saving faith by the regenerative work of the Spirit? I will grant that the Spirit’s indwelling is unique to the new covenant, but not regeneration. What is different in the new covenant is not regeneration but that the entire community is regenerate and empowered by the Spirit, unlike “mixed” Israel whose leaders only experienced the empowering work of the Spirit. But given Bock’s view, what exactly is his view of human sin and the need for the supernatural work of the Spirit in both the OT and NT people of God?
But leaving that point aside and returning to dispensationalism’s understanding of the Bible’s covenantal storyline, at least Bock, in contrast to Snoeberger, rightly insists that the OT covenants are for Israel and the church, which is much more true to the NT. Yet, Bock arrives at this correct conclusion by applying his questionable “complementary” hermeneutic, i.e., there is “literal” application of OT texts to national Israel (Jer 31:31) and an inaugurated “spiritual” application to the church. Thus, in the future, Jeremiah’s new covenant will reach its fulfillment to national Israel entailing that it is only partially fulfilled in Christ and the church. In the consummation, God’s one people (contra traditional dispensationalism’s two peoples) consist of Israel and Gentile nations each receiving their inheritance according to their “structural diversity.” Israel as a nation receives her land while believing Gentile nations receive their inheritance which is different than Israel’s.
Overall, Bock’s construction captures the basic storyline of Scripture and is much better than what Snoeberger offers. However, I am not convinced that his complementary hermeneutic is correct, which results in some differences of how we conceive of inaugurated eschatology, and more significantly how all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Christ and the church as the “new man.” The church as constituted by believing Jews and Gentiles who equally receive all of the promises is the only people who enter the new creation as God’s “nation” (1 Pet 2:9). But this biblical understanding of the church stands in contrast to Bock’s who views the church as only a present-day illustration of what believing Jewish and Gentile nation-states will be in the future.
Why this dispensational covenantal plotline, which is obviously different from both covenant theology and progressive covenantalism? My answer: Dispensationalism doesn’t consistently start with a creation covenant in Adam which culminates in Christ and his new covenant people, the church. Let me focus on two points that illustrate my point.
First, unlike Scripture, the dispensational covenantal storyline begins in Genesis 12 and not in Genesis 1, hence one of its main reasons for its rejecting a creation covenant. In fact, Bock admits quite frankly: “The idea of a creation covenant, prominent in covenant theology, has no role in dispensationalism.”[6] Although, he admits the Bible’s story starts with Adam, Bock is convinced that there is no textual evidence for a creation covenant. In fact, Bock views all covenants as post-fall and the first significant covenant is with Abraham that created a specific nation and a hope that ultimately culminates in Christ. Starting with the Abrahamic covenant, dispensationalism finds warrant to privilege Israel as a nation—a nation that is given distinct promises and receives distinct blessings different than Gentile nations. For Bock, the idea of “law” is not grounded in Adam/creation but only introduced in the Mosaic covenant, as a pedagogue coming alongside the Abrahamic covenant to administer the promise until Christ comes. The command in Genesis 2 has nothing to do with a covenant relationship; it is only given to manage the garden of earth before God. The warning of “death” and Adam’s disobedience only excluded God from “their formation of moral judgment”;[7] it had nothing to do with any notion of a covenant of works. For Bock, this means that “[t]he story of Scripture starts not in a legal connection but a regal, relational one… This relational core is a given for Scripture and it need not be covenantal… Legal appeals only become necessary when the relational link is damaged and needs restoration.”[8] Bock also denies that in creation various typological patterns begin and are developed through the covenants such as the patterns of rest, Eden/temple/land, and Adam as a proto-prophet, priest, and king. Why? Because if this point is admitted, dispensationalism would have to tied everything back to creation/Adam and not Israel and the Abrahamic covenant.
However, the problem is that there is little biblical warrant to deny a creation covenant and various problems arise for those who do. Just because the word “covenant” is absent from Genesis 1-2 does not mean there is no covenant. No one denies that marriage or the promises made to David are covenants, but in both cases the word covenant is not found in Genesis 2 or 2 Samuel 7, something that is confirmed by later texts (e.g., Hos 6:7). Also, Bock dismisses the positive evidence for a creation covenant that I offer, which cannot be dismissed so easily especially given that Paul presents Adam and Christ as the two representative heads of humanity (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-28; cf. Heb 2:5-18). How does Bock and dispensationalism account for this Adam-Christ typological relation (Rom 5:14), along with how Adam’s sin is transmitted to all of us? Bock speaks of Adam in “relational” terms but in Scripture “relational” realities are always tied to covenants. Furthermore, Scripture begins in Genesis 1, not Genesis 12, and apart from grasping what is going on in Adam and a creation covenant, we misconstrue how Scripture moves from Adam to the last Adam.
Obviously, dispensational theology does not and cannot deny many of these points if they want to remain true to Scripture. But Bock is off when he does not see how important a creation covenant is to the Bible’s entire storyline. By not starting with a creation covenant, the Bible’s plotline veers in wrong directions. And by making the Abrahamic covenant the covenant by which all the covenants are understood, dispensationalism fails to locate the Abrahamic covenant in terms of its proper location in terms of what precedes and follows it. This is why Bock wrongly argues that kosmos in Romans 4:13 refers to “peoples” instead of the fact that Abraham believed that God’s promise of land was tied to the inheritance of the new creation (cf. Gen 22:17b; 26:3; Heb 11:16). The latter option (which is true to the text and which does not deny its “literalness”) makes the best sense if one locates the Abrahamic promise of land in terms of what precedes it, namely creation, and what follows it in the Bible’s storyline, namely the dawning of a new creation. In other words, when properly located in Scripture, the Abrahamic covenant becomes the means by which Adam’s sin is reversed and a new creation results. We know this is achieved by Christ, the last Adam who is Abraham’s true, literal seed (Gal 3:16). As we walk through the covenants, the land promise is not only realized under the Mosaic covenant; it also becomes a typological pattern that first looks back to creation and what was lost, and forward to the dawning of a new creation, which is why Romans 4:13 refers to more than peoples.
Second, dispensationalism’s view of the Bible’s covenantal unfolding is disjointed which explains why it doesn’t see consistently that all of God’s promises are definitely fulfilled in Christ and the church. For example, when Bock discusses the Mosaic covenant he doesn’t link it back to creation (although Moses does by putting Genesis before Exodus). Nor does Bock discuss the prophetic aspects of the covenant and their fulfillment in Christ—e.g., Passover, Exodus, Israel as son, Israel as a kingdom of priests who need Levitical priests, etc. All of these features (plus many more) are emphasized by the Prophets, and find their fulfillment in Christ and the church, not in Israel as a nation in the future. In many ways, much of the richness of divine revelation is lost in the dispensational view.
This last observation is also seen in Bock’s discussion of the David covenant and its relation to the previous covenants. Bock fails to discuss how the Davidic king, as son (2 Sam 7:14), becomes the individual representative of Israel—“true Israel”—who brings God’s rule to the entire world (2 Sam 7:19b). Thus, in this Israelite, we discover who the “seed” is (Gen 3:15) and how he will reverse the effects of Adam’s sin by his sacrificial death (Isaiah 53). But given the failure of the Davidic house, we also discover that it is only in David’s greater Son—a king-priest (Ps 110)—who will inaugurate God’s saving reign by effecting a new covenant. In him, all of God’s promises to Israel, Abraham, and Adam are realized (Ps 2, 8, 72) and applied to the church (Matt 16:18; Eph 1:20-21; 1 Pet 2:9; Rev 21:2). No doubt, Bock and dispensationalists do not deny these truths but for dispensationalism, Christ and the church do not receive all the promises in principle now and then in fullness at Christ’s return. Instead, the new covenant promises are divided between a spiritual application now for the church and a literal application in the future for national Israel. But this dispensational reading fails to start where the Bible starts, namely in Adam and creation and move to Christ and his church in the new creation.
Problems with Dispensationalism’s Hermeneutic
In terms of hermeneutics, Snoeberger affirms an “original/literal” hermeneutic while Bock affirms a “literal/complementary” one. They both charge Horton and me with denying a “literal” reading of Scripture, which is simply false.
For example, both insist that my use of progressive revelation leads me to change the meaning of the OT text, especially regarding the promises to Israel. They also charge me with reading the NT back on the OT, instead of what I actually do: read texts in light of their location in canon. In fact, Bock thinks that I trace the progress of revelation through typology alone and this is how I warrant Christological fulfillment, which again is false. I have repeatedly argued that God’s plan is unfolded through the covenants and that the covenants include within them promises, instruction, and patterns that develop and unfold from seed to full bloom. Additionally, both insist that I am a “supersessionist” regarding Israel. Bock says that I embrace a form of Platonism because I privilege the “spiritual” over the “physical,” which is simply not true. What he really means is that I disagree with his view of national Israel. “Gentile inclusion does not mean original Israelite exclusion,” we are told. But what does this charge amount to? I do not exclude Israel! Instead, I argue that all of God’s promises are fulfilled in Abraham’s literal seed, namely Christ, the true Israelite and last Adam whose people consist of elect Jewish and Gentiles believers. This is not “supersessionism”; it is God-intended fulfillment in Christ and the church. Why do I argue this? Because of how the Bible’s covenantal storyline unfolds from Adam to Christ. Instead, of these false charges being levied, what must be argued is whose understanding of the Bible’s storyline is correct and whose hermeneutic is more accurate to Scripture.
In Bock and Snoeberger’s discussion of my view of typology, both are fundamentally mistaken. Bock argues that my view of typology changes or cancels the meaning of the original context, which is incorrect. Snoeberger describes my hermeneutical approach as “typological interpretation,” something I also reject. He says that I find “symbolic secrets” in the antitype and that I am “dismissive of authorial intent.” In fact, he argues that my “Christological/typological” method is “unprecedented in any other known human literature, that wreaks havoc on the original intent of the OT,”[9] which is simply bizarre. The result: I seek “Christ in every single OT text,”[10] which is patently false. Or, I treat with suspicion any other appeal to the OT as “some sort of ‘legalist’ or ‘moralist’ reading,”[11] and that in my view, typology as an indirect form of predictive prophecy assumes “the idea of unconscious prophecy—i.e., prospective statements that could not be known to be prospective except retrospectively… without literary precedent.” Ultimately, both Bock and Snoeberger charge me (and Horton) with diminishing the character of God because we deny specific promises made to national Israel.
All of these are very serious charges and all of them are simply false. I have repeatedly argued that I hold to sensus literalis which requires a grammatical-historical-canonical reading of Scripture. Scripture does not come to us all at once, but as a progress of revelation, and it is crucial that we read Scripture as an unfolding revelation to discover what God is saying through multiple human authors. There is one divine author of Scripture but multiple human authors, and a correct reading of Scripture requires an intertextual and canonical reading.
In terms of typology, it is a feature of divine revelation—an indirect form of predictive prophecy—that is exegetically derived by attending to authorial intention which also includes the authorial intention of later authors. Under divine inspiration, what later authors do is pick up on the earlier patterns as part of God’s unfolding plan, which allows them (and us) to see that these persons, events, and institutions are not one-offs, but God-intended patterns that point forward to Christ. Thus, in light of Christ, we now know in a warranted way the referent of the OT types and promises and how God’s plan is being fulfilled. “New” meanings are not being created, and we are certainly not reading the Bible typologically as if the Bible is one grand type.
For example, think of how the seed theme develops in Scripture. It starts in Genesis 3:15, tied to the promise of God providing another Adam to reverse the effects of sin and crush Satan’s head. By the progression of the covenants, the “seed” is given greater definition so that we learn the “seed” will come through Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Israel, and ultimately culminating in an individual, namely, David’s greater Son. None of this requires a reading of “seed” in any way other than a proper meaning of sensus literalis. Or, think of Adam, who is presented in Scripture as a type of Christ (Rom 5:14). In the immediate context of Genesis, Adam is presented as the head of humanity, an image/son, priest-king who is to expand the borders of Eden (which is a temple sanctuary) to the entire creation. Through the covenants, the Adamic role continues via Abraham’s offspring (Israel), and eventually epitomized in the Davidic king. The Prophets project into the future the promise of a new covenant in a greater David, true Israel, and last Adam, and the NT says that all of this is fulfilled in Christ (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15; Ps 8 in Heb 2; cf. Ps 110). Again, none of this is a “strange” reading of these texts but recognizing the exegetical clues in the immediate context, and then seeing how later authors develop these typological patterns, which all reach their fulfillment in Christ. The same is true about how Melchizedek functions in the OT, or how circumcision becomes typological of circumcision of the heart, or how priests and the entire tabernacle/temple structure points forward to a greater High Priest who becomes both offering and offering for us. We can also make the same point about how the exodus, Passover, David, Israel, and land function in their OT context and the entire canon.
The truth is that dispensationalism, especially progressive dispensationalism agrees with much of this except when it comes to national Israel. Dispensationalists do not deny that Adam leads to the last Adam (Rom 5:12-21; 1 Cor 15:21-23; cf. Heb 2:5-18). They may not call Adam a type that prophetically anticipates Christ to avoid viewing Israel also as typological of Christ. Yet, even Snoeberger has to admit that Adam is a “representative” figure of Christ. So what is denied is brought in the backdoor by another name. Or, Bock agrees that Genesis 3:15 is given greater definition throughout the OT that reaches fulfillment in Christ (Gal 3:16) with application to the church (Gal 3:29), but then demands a both/and hermeneutic to bifurcate “literal” from “spiritual” application. Or, Bock seems to affirm that covenantal figures such as Moses (Deut 18:15-18; Acts 3:12-26), the Levites (Heb 5-10), the Davidic kings (2 Sam 7; Isa 9:6-7; Matt 22:41-46; Acts 2:22-36; Heb 1:4-14), or the entire sacrificial system is fulfilled in Christ, yet they turn around without warrant to insist that they are not completely fulfilled in him.
In other words, in most of these types there is broad agreement, but then dispensationalists place national Israel in a different category. But in doing so, they fail to understand properly “Israel” within the Bible’s covenantal storyline, starting with Adam and culminating in Christ. They fail to see that Israel as God’s son (Ex 4:22-23; Hos 11:1; cf. Matt 2:15) looks back to Adam by taking on Adam’s role in the world, but also that Israel anticipates the coming of the true Son, the true Israel, the true servant, the true vine, who is Davidic greater Son.
The further problem with the dispensational hermeneutic, especially their failure to see how “Israel” functions in the Bible’s metanarrative, is that they must affirm things that are difficult to reconcile with a canonical reading of Scripture. For example, Bock agrees that OT sacrifices are fulfilled in Christ but then to preserve the “literal” side of his hermeneutic, he argues that OT sacrifices will return in the future as commemorative (along with perpetual Levites, Jer 33:18, but see Isa 56:4-8). Bock even insists that the Lord’s Supper is one such commemorative sacrifice. But the problem is that the Lord’s Supper is not a “sacrifice;” it is a meal that celebrates how Christ fulfills the old covenant Passover, achieves a greater exodus-redemption by paying for our sin, and how Christ brings to fulfillment the entire sacrificial system. The only “sacrifice” we offer now is the “sacrifice of praise” (Heb 13:15). Furthermore, to argue that OT sacrifices return, even as commemorative, or that Levites return, doesn’t account for how the old covenant was temporary and that Christ has brought all sacrifices and the role of the Levitical priests to their God-intended telos (see Heb 7:11-12; 8:1-13).
The same applies to Bock’s treatment of the temple. Bock argues that Jesus fulfills the temple “spiritually” but not “literally” since the temple will return in the future. This is hard to justify canonically. The temple runs from creation to Christ (who is the true temple, John 2:19). In union with Christ, his people (individually and corporately) become temples (1 Cor 6:19; Eph 2:21-22). In the new creation there is no temple because the Lord and the Lamb is the temple (Rev 21:22). However, Bock’s view entails that the Bible’s storyline of temples is overturned by arguing that in the new creation the “structures” of nations, temples, sacrifices, feasts, and circumcision all return.
Or, given Snoeberger’s even stricter Israel-church distinction and hermeneutic, he faces greater challenges. He argues that the new covenant has no application to the church, which is impossible to sustain. Further, he denies that Israel functions as a God-given type, first fulfilled in Christ and then his people. But how do we make sense of Galatians 3:29 and 1 Peter 2:9-10 that applies Israel language to the church? Or, if Abraham’s literal seed is Israel, then how is Christ the true “seed” in Galatians 3:16? Or, how does James apply Amos 9 to the church as the temple in Acts 15? How does one explain how Israel’s restoration promise in Joel 2 is applied to the church in Acts 2? Snoeberger answers by saying it is analogous, but this is special pleading.
Problems with Dispensationalism’s Eccelesiology
In my response to dispensationalism, I contended that both forms of it deny that the church is not God’s forever people in its present form. This is certainly the case with Snoeberger who views the church as a parenthesis in God’s overall plan. But what about Bock? Progressive dispensationalists affirm that there is only one people of God, which is much closer to covenant theology and my view. But the problem is that Bock cannot account for the forever reality of the church as God’s “new man,” “new creation,” and “nation” (1 Pet 2:9). Why? Because for progressive dispensationalists, the church is only a present-day illustration of what believing nations will be in the future but eventually the church as a theological-covenantal people gives way to these distinct nations. Israel as a nation receives promises distinct from Gentile nations and both will co-exist in the new creation but the church as the church will not.
Bock pushes back on my charge that for him the church as God’s forever people disappears or better morphs into Jewish and Gentile nations, which is difficult to sustain from the NT.[12] For example, think of how in the vision of the new creation, John sees the bride of the Lamb descend from heaven, which is Christ’s church (Rev 21:2, 9). This confirms that it is only the church that lasts forever—the church who is constituted by believing Jews and Gentiles—who are the true eschatological Israel (1 Pet 2:9). Bock thinks that I miss what the “kingdom” is. He defines “kingdom” as the “spiritual communion of Israel and the nations reconciled in Christ and ultimately vindicated and living in shalom together in a new creation.”[13] He further contends that the church is the inauguration of this future reality so that it is not correct to say that the church disappears. Instead, the church simply comes into its fulfillment as a phase of the kingdom. Yet, even with this caveat, Bock still has to admit that the church does not continue to exist as the kingdom of priests and a holy nation, but ultimately gives way to distinct nations.
Is our disagreement on this matter merely a splitting of theological hairs? After all, all of us will be there, and does it really matter if the final state consists of distinct believing nations (dispensationalism) or the church as the nation comprised of all ethnicities (my view)? As long as we are all there, what does it matter? It matters in this sense: it is important to get Scripture right on this point, especially since I am convinced that the dispensational vision of the future is not how the NT describes the nature of the church. In fact, to not get this point right affects how we understand the overall covenantal storyline of Scripture, which affects other doctrinal areas. In my view, what partly drives the dispensational vision of the future is that God has made outstanding promises to Israel as a nation, which they believe have never been fulfilled. But the problem with this view is that Scripture does not say there are outstanding promises for Israel since all of God’s promises are yes and Amen in Christ and realized in his church.
Furthermore, viewing the church, and not national Israel and believing Gentile nations, as the forever, new creation people makes better sense of what the church is in the NT. After all, the NT speaks of the church as God’s new covenant people (Heb 8-10), which Christ himself builds (Matt 16:18). In addition, as already noted, the NT teaches that the church lasts forever as evidenced in Revelation 21 where she is identified as Christ’s bride (vv. 2, 9) and she is also identified as the heavenly Jerusalem (cf. Heb 12:22-24). The church is God’s new temple (1 Cor 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21) which entails no further temples. The church (individually and corporately) is God’s new creation-humanity identified with the “age to come” that lasts forever in its present form. As God’s new humanity, the church consists of Jewish and Gentile believers who receive the same salvation and inheritance in Christ (Gal 3:15-4:7; Eph 2:11-22). All of this entails that the church as the one new man does not morph into distinct nations since the church is the “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9).
Bock responds by arguing that 1 Peter 2:9 only speaks of the church’s unity but this is hard to justify, especially when the church is identified as the “Israel of God” (Gal 6:16). Nor, as Bock insists, is Ephesians 2 merely teaching that the church only “points to” the creation of something new “within the incorporation that Jew and Gentile share.” No, the church is the people of the new creation; it is not a mere present-day illustration of what nations will be. Bock’s argument bifurcates salvation from new creation structures because it does not properly trace out the Bible’s covenantal storyline from creation to new creation. Bock contends that his view alone is holistic because it focuses on nations, while my view is overly individualistic, but this is again incorrect. In Scripture, there is no bifurcation between the individual and the corporate; both are affirmed. Furthermore, the church as a corporate entity consists of the elect from every nation which is now the nation and royal priesthood (1 Pet 2:9).
Bock further appeals to Luke-Acts and Romans 9-11 to warrant his view that Israel as a nation still must receive distinct promises different than Gentile nations, but the problems is that there is nothing in these texts that require his view. In Acts, for example, Jesus teaches his disciples about the kingdom and tells them to wait in Jerusalem for the promised Spirit (which is the OT restoration hope for Israel applied to the church).[14] When asked, “When are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6), Jesus answers their question: Israel’s restoration is going to occur at Pentecost (Acts 2; cf. Joel 2) and in Jesus’ reign starting in Jerusalem with Jewish believers, extending to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8, thus a reconstituted Israel), and to the nations (Acts 10-11). Jesus’ response is drawn from Isaiah (32:15; 43:12; 49:6), which anticipates the day when God will save through his Servant, bring about Israel’s restoration, and include Gentiles into that restoration program. This is precisely what is going on in the establishment of the church. The restoration begins with Israel and then to the nations (cf. Acts 3:26). In Christ and the church, all of God’s promises are now being fulfilled; the church is the people of the new creation. This does not entail that God is finished with the Jewish people. I understand Romans 9-11 to teach that many ethnic Jews will come to faith in Christ, but there is nothing in this text that says that the church then morphs into distinct nations who receive different blessings. In Christ and the church, all of God’s promises are realized (2 Cor 1:20).
Concluding Reflection
It has been an honor to participate in this continuing conversation about how best to understand the Bible’s metanarrative and covenantal story from creation to Christ. All of the views represented agree on much, which I am thankful for. And in the times we live, it is necessary for us to work together for the larger cause of gospel proclamation and calling all people to bow to the Lordship of Christ. Yet, this in-house debate is important since God has given us his word in order to know him aright and to think about his glorious redemptive plan correctly. How we “put together” the Bible’s covenantal story matters and it has significant theological implications in a whole host of areas, which requires our careful reflection. May our ongoing discussion in these matters lead to this end so that the church will be strengthened, encouraged, and challenged to bring our entire thought captive to Christ for God’s glory and the life and health of the church.
[1] Editor’s Note: This essay was originally delivered in a session dedicated to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies as part of the 2022 annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Denver, CO. The session was a follow up discussion between the contributors to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, eds. Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2022). Due to health-related reasons Michael Horton was not able to participate, so the Covenant Theology view was represented by Richard Belcher in this session.
[2] Michael S. Horton, “A Covenant Theology Response,” 196-97.
[3] Horton, “A Covenant Theology Response,” 197.
[4] Horton, “A Covenant Theology Response,” 198.
[5] Darrell L. Bock, “Progressive Dispensationalism,” 134.
[6] Bock, “Progressive Dispensationalism,” 134.
[7] Darrell L. Bock, “A Progressive Dispensational Response,” 224.
[8] Bock, “A Progressive Dispensational Response,” 226-27.
[9] Mark A. Snoeberger, “A Traditional Dispensational Response,” 243-44.
[10] Snoeberger, “A Traditional Dispensational Response,” 244.
[11] Snoeberger, “A Traditional Dispensational Response,” 244.
[12] Bock, “A Progressive Dispensational Response,” 229-32.
[13] Bock, “A Progressive Dispensational Response,” 230.
[14] Here are other OT restoration texts given to Israel that the NT applies to Christ and the church. For example, see Isa 42;3, 6b-7, 16; 49:5-6 in Luke 2:32; 26:23; Acts 13:47; 26:18. Amos 9:11-12 in Acts 15:16-18. Joel 2:28-32 in Acts 2:16-21 and Acts 10:44-48, 11:15-18. Isa 32:15, 43:10, 12; 49:6 in Acts 1:8. Isa 52:7; 57:19 in Eph 2:17ff. Jer 31:31-34 in Heb 8, 10. Heb 12:22-24 presents the church as the heavenly Jerusalem.