Since covenant theology was developed largely as an explanation of and interpretive framework for the justification of amillennialism, it is strange that there should emerge in modern times a premillennial form of covenant theology. Covenant premillennialists hold to the same basic covenantal assumptions about the nature of the Church as do covenant amillennialists—that is, that all believers throughout history are part of the Church. However, when it comes to applying to the Church the millennial promises made to Israel, covenant premillennialists object to the degree of allegorization necessary in order to support amillennialism, and thus take a mediate position, holding to covenant theology’s view of the Church, but dispensationalism’s view of the millennium. (As will be discussed later, this position leads to what is referred to as “premillennial posttribulationism”—the belief that the rapture of the Church will occur in connection with the second coming of Christ, just prior to the beginning of the millennium.)
While meditate positions tend to be attractive, in that they appear to avoid extremes, they are sometimes the product of internal inconsistencies. If covenant theology’s assumption that Israel and the Church are the same entity is accepted (which covenant premillennialists do accept), the natural conclusion should be that the millennial promises will not be fulfilled to Israel, but to the Church—leading to amillennialism. Yet, premillennialism is based upon those promises being fulfilled to Israel (as distinct from the Church). Thus, premillennialism is not compatible with covenant theology’s view of Israel and the Church. In terms of consistency, “covenant premillennialism” is essentially an oxymoron, somewhat akin to an “Arminian-Calvinist” (or a square-circle).
Progressive dispensationalism represents a movement among some dispensationalist to bridge the gap with covenant premillennialists. The basic tenets of progressive dispensationalism are that there is one people of God, and that the kingdom rule of Christ has already begun (at least in some introductory, preliminary, or spiritual phase). Progressive dispensationalists also see the church as a co-inheritor (along with Israel) of the Old Testament promises, rather than a parenthetical entity as indicated from a study of Old Testament prophecy (e.g., Daniel 9:24-27) and the explicit statements of the New Testament (cf. Eph. 3:1-10; Rom 11). This is accomplished through the “progressive” subsuming of one dispensation into the next, such that each dispensation alters (and supersedes the previous dispensation. This then becomes a mechanism for folding (or graduating) the people of God under the Old Testament into the Church (accomplishing essentially the same thing that covenant theology attempts to do with the covenant of grace construct). The problem is that this simply does not represent a biblical picture of either Israel or the Church, and requires significant reinterpretation of Scripture (using “spiritualization”) in order to iron out all the wrinkles. While progressive dispensationalists insist they continue to accept the basic tenets of dispensationalism, the fact is, they do not. Like many other theological errors, this one began with a subtle redefinition of key terms (e.g., ”dispensationalism,” “the Church,” “Israel”), and a good measure of hermeneutical “tweaking,” in this case an acceptance of “spiritualization”—with which one can support almost any doctrine. While progressive dispensationalism follows a different route than covenant theology, they aim for the same objective: to demonstrate through some means that there is one people of God in history, and therefore obliterate any distinction between Israel and the Church—in the process redefining the biblical picture of the visible aspect of the kingdom of God as already present (at least in some sense), and thus bridging the gap with covenant theology. The problem with progressive dispensationalism is that it has an unbiblical view of the dispensations (as well as Israel, the Church, and the visible aspect of the kingdom of God), and as a result has to resort to spiritualization to square its conclusions with the Bible. Paul’s teaching on the distinctiveness of Israel and the Church presented in Romans 11 simply does not fit this model, neither does the prophetic plan revealed for Israel’s future in both the Old and New Testaments (cf. Zechariah 14:1-21; Matthew 24-25; Rev. 19:11-20:4), which may account for why these passages are seldom given serious treatment by progressive dispensationalists.
Copyright 2005, by Sam A. Smith
All rights reserved.
Published at: http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com
Adapted from What the Bible Says About the Future
Copyright 1995, 2004, by Sam A. Smith
All rights reserved.
Page-Formatted PDF version available at:
www.biblicalreader.com/books/future/future.html
See full copyright notice posted at:
http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com/copyright_info.htm
All Scripture taken from the New International
Version (NIV)
of the Bible unless otherwise indicated.