By Mark W. Christy, PhD
(Note: The author of the article affirms John MacArthur’s progressive dispensationalism as well as his position on the doctrines of grace. Since many in the Reformed community also uphold the doctrines of grace, this article is meant to help both covenantalists and dispensationalists better understand the key differences between their positions.)
Given the increased liberalization of many Baptist churches, more and more of their parishioners are turning to Reformed Baptist theology for solace. Among these, many have embraced the doctrines of grace which have been derived from Calvin’s teachings. At this point, their foray into Reformed theology often ends given that many of these newcomers hold to some form of dispensationalism which remains diametrically opposed to the covenant theology (CT) of Reformed Baptists; therefore, their eschatological and ecclesiological commitments prevent them from becoming fully reformed.
When these Calvinistic newcomers attempt to dialogue with their covenantal brethren, all manner of emotionally charged and unhelpful discourse tends to result. Sadly, many within the Reformed Baptist community prefer to juxtapose their CT with the earliest form of dispensationalism which is known as Classical Dispensationalism (CD). This form, however, underwent significant revision primarily between the late 1950s and early 1970s and came to be known as Revised Dispensationalism (RD). Presently, its contemporary version, which began advancing in the 1980s, has come to be known as Progressive Dispensationalism (PD). In fairness, it is this form that Reformed Baptist theologians should be using when making comparisons between their CT and dispensationalism. When, instead, they choose to use CD, they essentially develop a straw man argument by partially if not completely misrepresenting the views of many modern-day dispensationalists who are steadily moving toward Progressive Dispensationalism (PD).
In one particularly inflammatory example found within a work written in 2016, a Reformed Baptist author arguing in favor of CT chooses to highlight CD exclusively and then disparages it (and by extension all other dispensationalists) as one of the “attacks from without” the Church like “Darwinian evolution and liberalism” that “all too often led to feelings and experiences replacing intellectual rigor.”[1] Similarly, Douglas Van Dorn recounts discrepancies in the articulation of early proponents of CD as sufficient evidence for the need of “a strong safeguard against such thinking” even though he admits, as dispensationalists themselves have demonstrated, that such errors were not crucial to the dispensational framework.[2]
Such unguarded criticisms among the Reformed Baptists appear somewhat astounding in their lack of hermeneutical humility given that they themselves have willingly abandoned the CT of their Presbyterian forebears. Whereas comments related to the dispensationalists often come with a degree of high-mindedness, the same is not always the case when Reformed Baptists discuss their divergence from original CT founders. Referencing this, Stuart L. Brogden writes, “every man…is ‘trapped’ in his own context of culture, custom, and language. This is why those who were closest in time to the escape from Rome clung to practices learned from Rome more than those who came later. This should remind us to humbly examine what others have written and use the same hermeneutic principles we use in studying Scripture as we read theology. Otherwise, we are apt to be misled, as man is so naturally inclined.”[3]
Such an attitude should be manifested in this ongoing discussion between Reformed Baptists and dispensationalists, especially when many dispensationalists now hold to the doctrines of grace. To this end, Reformed Baptist theologians should expend more energy discussing the distinctions between their version of CT alongside PD. To help understand the core difference between Reformed Baptist CT and progressive dispensationalism, this article will compare the PD of John MacArthur to the CT of Reformed Baptists by 1) introducing CD, 2) contrasting it with Reformed Baptist CT and CD, 3) reviewing RD and PD, and 4) discussing the distinctions of MacArthur’s PD.
Overview of Classical Dispensationalism
Following another disturbing trend among critics of dispensationalism within the Reformed Baptist community, Griffiths begins his argument for CT by comparing it to CD as taught by John Nelson Darby and made famous in the Scofield Reference Bible.[4] For Darby, the various dispensations of God’s grace being given to humanity in the form of Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants and leading up to the new covenant were always met “with the evil and failure of man.”[5] Like Reformed Baptists, Darby recognized the fallen state of the human heart and the complete inability of human to save themselves via the various covenants based on works. Nevertheless, he affirmed that Old Testament (OT) saints, throughout the various dispensations (i.e., covenants which preceded the new covenant), were saved by faith in “the manifestation of [God’s] Person”[6]
To the chagrin of most reformed theologians of his day, Darby proposed what has come to be known as pre-tribulation premillennialism. Under this system, God’s plan for the Jews marches forward through the OT covenants with a time gap between the 69th and 70th week (cf. Dan 9:24-27) whereby there would be the Church age.[7] Within this gap, the church merely fills up a sort of whole in God’s eschatological calendar “made by the rejection of the Jews on the covenant of legal prescribed righteousness [and] in the refusal of the Messiah.”[8] When the seventieth week arrives, the age of the Church will end, according to Darby, because “it forms no part of the regular order of God’s earthly plans, but is merely an interruption of them to give a fuller character and meaning to them.”[9]
Believing that the Church age would come to an end and finding biblical warrant for the Church’s removal, Darby began teaching on the rapture.[10] One warrant for this highly debated theological position comes from Romans 11:25 where Paul speaks of “a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.” In Darby’s view, “It is not till after the fullness of the Gentiles (i.e., all the church from among the Gentiles) shall have come in, that God will save Israel; and it is only when the Lord will have put an end to the times of the Gentiles.”[11]
With the Gentiles having been removed during the rapture or mystery (as Darby interprets Paul to be referring to the rapture), the Great Tribulation will begin and out of this God will save a Jewish remnant (including every Jew alive at that time) by establishing the new covenant in their hearts “in the way of grace on their repentance.” [12] Explaining this in greater detail, Darby writes, “It is not till after the fullness of the Gentiles (i.e., all the church from among the Gentiles) shall have come in, that God will save Israel as a nation; and it is only when the Lord will have put an end to the times of the Gentiles and crushed the image, that the little stone will grow and become a mountain which will fill all the earth (Dan. 2:33-34); finally, the Lord will come to execute judgment on the nations, which evidently will close the dispensation. Then the Jews will be recognized as the nation favored by God, which is an impossible thing as long as the present dispensation lasts.”[13]
After the Lord’s judgment of the nations and the establishment of the earthly Jewish throne, Christ will reign upon the earth for one thousand years. During this time, “Satan will be bound,” “the glory of this world…will be the glory of Christ,” and the faithful will enjoy all of the world’s blessings without the sufferings associated with the cross.[14] This millennial kingdom, Darby writes, “will be a kingdom of righteousness, which will not permit evil, because Jesus will…act as a king.”[15] In addition, it will be a kingdom of the Jews where “all the [earthly] promises made to the fathers will be fulfilled on their behalf.”[16] In regard to those who have already been raptured, they will be enjoying an even better provision in the heavens in Darby’s estimation.
Overview of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology
Covenant of Redemption
Reformed Baptists begin with what they call the Covenant of Redemption. This covenant, they portend, was agreed upon by the Triune God before creation began. As Van Dorn puts it, “Reformed theology does not see the beginning of this covenant between the Persons of the Trinity as originating in the days of David or even Abraham. It sees it as pre-temporal, that is, before time began.”[17] Based upon its terms, Christ was guaranteed a kingdom which He would in turn rule after He conquered Satan, sin, and death. Besides being the King, He would also be a Priest and a Prophet. Taken together, Christ was sovereignly assured by God that He had been given (by virtue of a decree backed by the Word of God) an Elect People who were personally chosen by God and (would be) personally redeemed by Christ’s atoning work.
While this Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty in election completely undergirds Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, it seems largely toned down but not absent from original CD theologians like Darby and Scofield who preferred to look at God’s salvation work as it unfurled in history. Despite their focus on creating a new framework for viewing and understanding redemptive history, both men were Calvinists who held firmly to the doctrine of divine sovereignty. Darby, for example, opines, “The fact of our election before the world was, adds nothing to the sovereignty of God; if God had elected us in time, His sovereignty would have been the same; but election before time-before the world was, shows that the church is NOT of the world, since she was before the foundation of the world in the counsels of God. Neither the position of the church, nor her life, hang upon anything in this world; the world is but the sphere through which she moves.”[18]
As a Calvinist, Darby would have had exposure to the CT of his day. Despite this, his covenantal thinking seems to have been grounded in the series (i.e., dispensations) of God’s redemptive acts more so than God’s overall eternal decree (i.e., The Covenant of Redemption). This fundamental difference in starting points caused those within CD to look even more fundamentally opposed to their CT colleagues than the more modern versions of dispensationalism today (even though significant differences persist). Further complications arose due to inconsistencies in the articulation of this new eschatological framework.
The Covenant of Works
In the Covenant of Redemption which awaits final consummation in the eschaton, Reform Baptists understand Scripture to be teaching that God institutes His eternal plan through two covenants—the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace.[19] The first of these, the Covenant of Works, initially appears in what Reformed Baptists call the Adamic covenant (cf. Hos 6:7). Stogden sympathizes with those who prefer to see God’s arrangement with Adam as a promise, but then he asserts, “a promise from God is a covenant, for when YHWH promises something He is bound to His Word to bring it to pass.”[20] This sort of admission, which he apparently overlooks, could be employed against him and his peers by dispensationalists who claim that God’s promises to Israel must be upheld despite their covenantal disobedience.
Along with presuming the existence of the Covenant of Works in the Garden of Eden, Reformed Baptists consider the tree of life to be a sign of this covenant. This sign, of course, was removed with Adam and Eve’s sin and they were barred from access from that time forward. Since the fall of Adam and Eve remain condemned under the Covenant of Works, all people, unless they come to salvation in Christ such that Christ bears the penalty associated with the breach of this Covenant, stand likewise condemned. With sin having entered the world and humanity failing to adequately “comprehend sin and the need for redemption,” God’s plan for redemption included additional expressions of the Covenant of Works in the form of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants.[21] Repeatedly through the failings of the Israelites, humanity proved themselves incapable of obeying God’s Word. Jesus, however, was able to fulfill these covenants, and by doing so He was granted the right to grant access to the Tree of Life.
Critics of this contention that the so-called Adamic covenant is the first outworking in God’s Covenant of Works quickly call attention to the obvious fact that God nowhere asks Adam to do any sort of work. To defend their position, Reformed Baptists simply argue for a different understanding of works. Works, they contend, involve “keeping, obeying, walking, observing, and doing all the law of God, turning neither to the right nor the left.”[22] Applying this to the Adamic covenant, Griffiths states, “One can reasonably assume that should Adam have partaken of the tree of life instead of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would have secured eternal bliss for both himself and his posterity.”[23] This speculation, whether true or not, ultimately plays no significant role in the CT of Reformed Baptists because they acknowledge that God planned for sin in His eternal decree when He originated the Covenant of Redemption before embarking on work in creation.
Covenant of Grace
The second covenant that operates under God’s Covenant of Redemption is, as it has been mentioned, the Covenant of Grace. Differentiating this covenant with the Covenant of Works, Spurgeon writes, “The Covenant of Works was, ‘Do this and live, O man!’ but the [C]ovenant of [G]race is, ‘Do this, O Christ, and thou shalt live, O man!’”[24] As with the Covenant of Works, the name assigned to this covenant is a “theological idiom” as it represents a concept undergirding the CT of Reformed Baptists.[25] Of the various covenants found in Scripture, the new covenant alone provides the best glimpse of the Covenant of Grace for the obedience that it requires is provided by God Himself. All other OT covenants are classified under the Covenant of Works (although some of them will exclude God’s initial covenant with Abraham), even though Reformed Baptists will admit that these covenants do contain promises, that is “gracious covenants” which will ultimately be fulfilled in Christ through His consummation of the new covenant.[26] As the promised seed mentioned in God’s promise to Adam (Gen 3:15), Jesus, Van Dorn exclaims, “ties all of the OT covenants of promise together along with the new covenant in an explicit way.”[27]
Noahic Covenant
Among Reformed Baptist writers, the Noahic covenant is typically given less prominence than the others, and some, like Griffiths, fail to even really consider its place in redemptive theology.[28] Van Dorn and Stogden view this covenant as a confirmation of the Adamic covenant whereby Noah assumes Adam’s position as federal head of all humanity.[29] Van Dorn, however, qualifies this further by arguing that “[t]he covenant with Noah is outside the redemptive chain, as it is an unconditional promise of God to provide for man and beast seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night until the end of the age. It is included to remind us of God’s kind provision even to those whose best life is now. It mitigates the wrath of God for those in Adam while this age winds down.”[30] Explaining this in even more detail, Van Dorn adds, “the recipients of this post-Flood covenant include the earth and the animals and other things besides mankind (Gen 8:22; 9:12, 15). In other words, we seem to be returning to the covenant idea present prior to the Fall, prior to grace. This makes it clear that grace is now the necessary backdrop to carrying out these now otherwise unattainable covenant obligations.”[31]
Distinctives Between Classic Dispensationalism and Reform Baptist Covenant Theology
People(s) of God
Now that Darby’s CD (in an admittedly abbreviated form) and a brief introduction to the CT of Reformed Baptists have been put forward, it may help to consider some deeper concerns that CD raises. First, the rigidly imposed hermeneutic undergirding Darby’s system creates two peoples of God, namely Israel and the Church. Since the Church was confined to the Church age, OT saints and Jews saved after the rapture seemingly were left outside the Church. This, however, does not mean that believing Israelites (the faithful remnant and the end-time gathering) are not saved through the grace made available in the new covenant; rather, Darby’s system divides the Israelites and the Church based on his perspective of God’s purposes. Addressing this point, Lewis Sperry Chafer states, “The Dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved.”[32]
In opposition, Reformed Baptists submit that there is only one people of God. As Griffiths firmly states, “the Reformed Baptist position…is consistent in its understanding concerning the one people of God throughout all of redemptive history.”[33] Within this perspective, many of its adherents frequently refer to this one people of God as the Church, but Griffiths, relying on Paul’s words in Romans 9:6, is content to call God’s people Israel.[34] Like those espousing CD, Reformed Baptists believe that all of those who are saved are saved by grace.
Hermeneutical Approach
As a second concern, Darby’s hermeneutic, as alluded to previously, also served to create major tension with CT proponents. In essence, dispensationalism favors a more literal approach to any texts that deal specifically with Israel. The treatment of other texts, however, may incorporate many of the standard CT hermeneutical devices that allow for secondary typological and symbolic meanings. To justify his hermeneutic, Darby argues, “when the address is directly to the Jews, there we may look for a plain and direct testimony, because earthly things were the Jews’ proper portion. And, on the contrary, where the address is to the Gentiles, i.e., when the Gentiles are concerned in it, there we may look for symbol, because earthly things were not their portion.”[35] Following Darby’s lead, Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, in the Scofield Reference Bible, had no problem with “spiritualiz[ing] the historical Scriptures” so long as this approach avoided the prophecies.[36]
This classic dispensational hermeneutic of Darby and Scofield is soundly rejected by Reformed Baptists because, in part, it thoroughly upends their entire covenantal framework undergirding CT. For Van Dorn, the hermeneutical differences lie in how Jesus in viewed in the OT. For Reformed Baptists in the CT fold, “Jesus is in the OT,” “Jesus is making covenants with Israel,” and “Jesus is giving the law to Israel.”[37] Taking a non-linear approach to the historical progression of God’s revelation, Reformed Baptists go so far as to declare the new covenant to be “the only covenant of grace,” and contend that it was “actually in force before either the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants.”[38] Concerning the relation of OT covenants to the Covenant of Grace, Van Dorn opines, “So we can think of the Covenant of Grace as ‘the gracious plan of salvation that God has given us in Christ.’ Old covenants are gracious. Old covenants typify Christ. But they are not the Covenant of Grace anymore than Christ is literally a lamb. He is a lamb, but he is not an animal.”[39]
Conditionality of the Covenants
A third issue that arises in the dispute between CT advocates and classical dispensationalists involves whether or not the various biblical covenants can be understood as conditional or unconditional. While both parties affirm that God made promises to the Israelites and tend to agree on the conditionality of the Mosaic covenant, they disagree (at various points) on whether or not the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants can be considered as still being in force due to the failure of the Israelites as a nation to perform their role under the covenantal terms.
For classical dispensationalists like Darby and Scofield, the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants should all be considered as unconditional because of the promises that are contained within each cannot be nullified by the disobedience of the Jews. In these covenants, they contend that God made promises to the entire nation of Israel, and the fulfillment of these promises have been put temporarily on hold for the Jewish nation as a whole while “Gentiles are [being] graffed [sic] into” Israel.[40] At the close of history, Darby asserts, “The Jews will be a separate nation, and all the promises made to the fathers will be fulfilled on their behalf” (cf. Rom 11).[41] This fulfillment of the promises, which awaits a future moment after the time of the Gentiles, was achieved by Christ as the promised seed of Abraham.
Unlike those affirming CD, some Reformed Baptists like Van Dorn believe that the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants had at least some degree of unconditional elements.[42] Brogden disagrees and instead perceives the only the Abrahamic covenant as possessing unconditional elements.[43] He adds that the unconditional promises that God made to Abraham should be viewed as eschatological and ultimately fulfilled through the new life made available through Christ who is the promised seed.[44]
Echoing a perspective common among his peers, Brogden goes on to say that the spiritual seed (those who obtain grace through Christ) remain, while the physical seed of Abraham have been broken off due to disobedience.[45] This dual nature of the Abrahamic covenant is also said to exist in the Davidic covenant except “that Christ is the substitute for all of Abraham’s spiritual seed, earning us the right to enjoy the promises made to Abraham; while in the Davidic Covenant, Christ reigns as high priest and rules alone as the King of kings, seated on the throne of David. The Covenant of Abraham secures our position in the kingdom of God. The Covenant of David secures Jesus’ position as King of kings and Lord of lords, as a reward for having perfectly kept the law of Moses and the prophets.”[46]
In all of this, the covenantal promises made to the Israelite nation in the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants have now been set aside due to their disobedience according to scholars within the Reformed Baptist interpretation. For them, this breach in the unfolding of redemptive history is subordinated by God’s eternal decree to apply the benefits of the new covenant to “all of God’s people from the first promise” presumably in Genesis 3:15 (as Griffiths mistakenly refers to Genesis 3:3) because, as Griffiths quoting Geerhardus Vos explains, the “New Covenant in its preexistent state reaches back, stretching its wings over the Old and New Testament people of God.”[47]
The Receptors of the New Covenant
A fourth concern that separates the two camps involves the identity of the receptors of the new covenant. Both sides agree that “the foundation of the new [covenant] has been laid in the blood of the Mediator,” but Darby, representing the CD position, also declares that the “new covenant is to, and with, Israel.”[48] He adds that it will not begin in all its effects until Israel enters into its promised millennial inheritance. For the Church, Darby believed that the eternal (non-earthly) benefits of the new covenant could now be apportioned unto them through Christ’s blood (as opposed to the covenant itself). Scofield, for his part, slightly disagreed with Darby by contending that the earthly benefits of the new covenant could be applied now to the Church (through partial fulfillment) and then Israel in the future (through ultimate fulfillment).
Darby’s highly nuanced understanding of the application of the new covenant and its blessings is rejected by CT adherents in the Reformed Baptist fold. Instead of looking at the new covenant through lens of historical, albeit biblical, progression, they prefer a less rigid and more sophisticated theological approach. Griffiths, for his part, rejects “the idea that the new covenant was simply another administration of the [C]ovenant of [G]race,” and prefers to view it (as previously stated) “as the only [C]ovenant of [G]race.”[49]
By separating God’s covenants with Abrahamic into two distinct covenants (in Genesis 15 and 17), Griffiths connects the Covenant of Grace, and by extension the new covenant, only with God’s first covenant with Abraham.[50] By holding to this distinction, Abraham’s physical offspring all be placed under the Genesis 17 covenant, while the Genesis 15 covenant only applied to the Elect in Christ. Going back even further, Griffiths, Van Dorn, and Brogden contend that the new covenant arises from the eternal decree of God that set history in motion, and that its first expression in biblical history can be seen in God’s promise in Genesis 3:15.[51] By firmly rooting the new covenant in God’s creation decree, Reformed Baptists clearly identify all who believe in God’s promises (as demonstrated by faithful obedience) through redemptive history as receptors of the new covenant. Griffiths goes one step further by claiming that “the new covenant [is] a reality before Christ’s completed work.”[52]
Diverging from Griffiths at least in emphasis and to some degree semantics related to discussions the new covenant, Van Dorn addresses the historical progression in covenantal history more directly. For him, the new covenant should be seen as separate from the covenantal promises which it would ultimately fulfill.[53] Therefore, he willingly admits that the final fulfillment of God’s promises in the new covenant awaits His future eschatological endeavors. Commenting on this, he writes, “In the new covenant as it has been inaugurated today, there is not total fulfillment in every respect, as the NT still sees an already/not-yet distinction between the present and the future. Nevertheless, the promise of the Coming Seed has been fulfilled once and for all. This includes many things that he brought with his coming that are related to the OT’s types and shadows.”[54]
The Salvation of Old Testament Saints
A fifth cause of discord between Reformed Baptists adhering to their version of CT and CD propounders involves the salvation of OT saints. Unfortunately, a few statements by some CD advocates, like Scofield, have led many Reformed Baptist critics to claim that CD proponents believe in two ways of salvation, one for Israel and one for the Church. Recognizing Scofield’s lack of clarity on this matter, Van Dorn affirms that contemporary dispensationalists “have rejected this obvious error,” but then notes that this earlier theological upheaval could have been avoided “if a few things were present at the beginning. 1. Jesus is in the OT. 2. Jesus is making covenants with Israel. 3. Jesus is giving the law to Israel. 4. Jesus always saves people the same way.”[55]
Role of Mosaic Law in the New Testament
A sixth area of disagreement between the two parties involves the way in which OT law is to be applied in the New Testament (NT) era. Those in the CD community see no place for OT law in the current dispensation. After “closing the age of the law” with the blood of Christ, Darby asserts that “[t]he law will be written in their hearts hereafter.”[56] Scofield took Darby’s position on this matter to the extent of denying that Christ’s teachings on the law in the Sermon on the Mount as having any legal hold over believers even while these teachings and the rest throughout the Gospels (given before Christ’s death) may have moral application to NT believers.[57] Affirming the idea that the teachings of Scripture which apply to Christians are those that proceeded the death of Christ, Chafer, representing CD, taught that “Christians can appropriate the principles found in portions of Scripture outside the dispensation of grace. Nevertheless, they should not assume the words directly address them.”[58]
This understanding of Mosaic law within the CD community is resoundingly rejected by Reformed Baptists. Holding to the 1689 London Baptist Confession, they understand Mosaic law to contain moral, ethical, ceremonial, and judicial (or civic) elements. With the coming of Christ, only the portions related to moral and ethical duties remain “valid” and “binding.”[59] This includes the Ten Commandments as well, and so Reformed Baptists (who hold to the 1689 LBC) are Sabbatarians. While modern dispensationalists have softened in their view on the application of Mosaic law in the Church era, they remain fully opposed to the Sabbatarianism among their Reformed Baptist counterparts.
The Kingdom of God and/or Heaven
A seventh area where CD advocates stand apart from those in the Reformed Baptist camp involves their distinguishing between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. According to Scofield, the kingdom of God is accessed “only by the new birth,” incorporates all who “willingly subject [themselves] to the will of God”, and remains in this present life “chiefly that which is inward and spiritual.”[60] Whereas the kingdom of God is universal in the understanding of Scofield and others CD thinkers, the kingdom of heaven is the Messianic and Davidic kingdom of Israelites. Being that the kingdom of heaven is earthly and ethno-inclusive of all Israelites, it necessarily includes both the saved and unsaved among them. In the end, this kingdom will merge with the kingdom of God such that all redeemed Israelites will be saved.
Under the CD hermeneutical system, the advent of the kingdom of heaven would have coincided with the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. Had the Jews accepted Christ as their Messiah, the earthly rule of the Messiah along with His establishment of the kingdom of Israel would have begun at that time. Since the Jews rejected Him, Christ’s offer of an earthly kingdom has been temporarily postponed, and thus this present dispensation of grace (sometimes called the Dispensation of Grace) was born.[61] At the end of this dispensation, seven events will occur before the kingdom of Israel become finally inaugurated: the rapture, the great tribulation, the return of Christ, the judgment of Israel, the establishment of the Davidic throne, the judgment of the nations, and the binding of Satan.
This old-school differentiation between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven among the early CD scholars has since been discarded in favor a view that aligns more with the position of Reformed Baptists. According to the Reformed Baptists, Christ’s kingdom, the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of heaven are one and the same thing. The kingdom of heaven, as far as they see it, is not to be associated with ethical Jews; instead, it refers to the Elect in Christ just as Christ’s kingdom and kingdom of God do.
Revised Dispensationalism (RD)
Like many theological endeavors, new contributors arise who ultimately shift and shape the various teachings one way or another. Within the dispensationalist movement, a new generation of scholars including Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, and Dwight Pentecost offered some slight tweaks which led to what is sometimes called RD. Unlike their predecessors, RD advocates clearly reject any thought that there may be more than one way to obtain salvation. Ryrie affirms this simply by saying “Dispensationalism does not teach two ways of salvation.”[62] Along with this helpful affirmation, RD theologians move away from the distinction upheld by CD proponents in regard to the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.
Formerly, the CD position employed a hermeneutic that involves a series of successive dispensations (which coincide typically with the covenants) whereby the arrival of each new dispensation represented the closing of the former dispensation. This approach, among the RD supporters, has been rejected in favor of a hermeneutic which allows for a progressive unfolding of God’s Revelation such that every new dispensation builds upon those which have come before. With this updated interpretational framework, RD advocates, unlike their predecessors, are more willing to read the OT in light of the NT since the NT is considered to possess revelations that clarify the OT. Despite this admission, RD scholars maintain that the NT revelation cannot absolve the meaning of OT revelation. In practical terms, this means that they continue to attach OT promises given to Israel to eschatological Israel.
This somewhat softened hermeneutic of those affirming RD continued to extend to their understanding the role of OT law, its purpose in the SM, and the application of Christ’s parables. Unlike the CD advocates, they clearly contend that the Sermon on the Mount was purposed in part for Christians as it relates to anytime “the kingdom is offered” and yet it “also relates to life in the millennial kingdom.”[63] Despite this admission, they continue to maintain that ultimate fulfillment of the OT law as presented in the Sermon on the Mount awaits its full fulfilment when Christ returns and inaugurates His millennial reign. As Ryrie puts it, “the full, non-fudging, unadjusted fulfillment of the Sermon relates in several ways the kingdom of Messiah, while at the same time not postponing the relevance of the Sermon to a future age.”[64] As far as Christ’s parables are concerned, Pentecost surveys them in his work, The Words & Works of Jesus Christ, and finds content related to the Jewish rejection of their Messiah, the postponement of the Messianic Kingdom (earthly), the arrival of the Church age, and the future millennial Messianic kingdom.[65]
Echoing and somewhat reinforcing the distinctives of CD, RD theologians hold the line on Israel and the Church being treated as distinctive from one another. Commenting on this, Benjamin L. Merkle writes, “The church is completely distinct from Israel because the church is the body of Christ whereas the Old Testament people of God (Israel) was an ethnic group promised physical blessings. The church is distinct because, as the body of Christ, it is composed of both Jews and gentiles. It is also distinct in that Christians have a relationship with Christ, being indwelt by his Spirit. This new mysterious relationship was not experienced by God’s people in the Old Testament (or during the ministry of Jesus) and was unpredicted in the Scriptures.”[66]
In support of Merkle’s synopsis, Walvoord confirms that this “present age” (also known as the Church age) “is the fulfillment of God’s plan and purpose, revealed in the New Testament, to call out a people from Jew and Gentile alike to form a new body of saints.”[67] He adds that the Church began “at Pentecost,” and so it should “not to be confused with Israel or Old Testament saints.”[68] Before the Pentecost, RD proponents, as Merkle states, do not believe that saints were indwelled by the Spirit in the same way Christians are since that event; rather, they, Ryrie submits, argue that “the Spirit indwelt many (Dan. 4:8; 1 Peter 1:11) and came upon many others for special power (Ex. 28:3; Judg. 3:10; 1 Sam. 10:9-10), but there was no guarantee that He would permanently or universally indwell God’s people as He does today.”[69]
Progressive Dispensationalism (PD)
The latest theological trend in dispensationalism, as shown in the introduction, has come to be known as PD. Its major academic proponents include Robert Saucy, Craig Blaising, and Darrell Bock. Though this form of dispensationalism finds its roots in both CD and RD, it ultimately arose from “contemporary evangelical biblical interpretation” that developed within the broader dispensational community and found itself to hold significant distinctions which set it apart from its predecessors.[70]
Both CD and RD affirmed a Church age to be a sort of parenthesis in the dispensational framework that they believe to be undergirded God’s redemptive efforts. This view, however, is no longer held within PD; rather, PD proponents seek to lose the rigidity of their forebears and move toward a “greater continuity within God’s program of historical salvation.”[71] Saucy expounds upon this new understanding: “Instead of a strict parenthesis that has no relation with the messianic kingdom prophecies of the Old Testament, many dispensationalists now acknowledge the present age of the church as the first-stage partial fulfillment of these prophecies. Israel and the church are no longer viewed as representing two different purposes and plans of God, as some earlier dispensationalists taught; they are now seen as sharing in the same messianic kingdom of salvation history.”[72]
Along with this removal of some of the rigidity in the dispensational framework, PD advocates have also softened their hermeneutic. Remaining in line with changes made within RD to the somewhat wooden literalism of CD, they choose to allow the context a greater role in the interpretational process as opposed to the individual words. While still claiming to hold to the grammatical-historical approach, they seek “a more consistent historical-literary interpretation.”[73] To this end, PD theologians affirm the intent of the original author of a given biblical text and the need to first interpret each text on its own, but also hold that the meaning of any particular text can be later expanded by subsequent texts. Their approach to Scripture does not extend to reading the OT through the lens of NT; nevertheless, the NT “complements” the OT by offering greater perspective as salvation history continued forward as well as additional insights that may have been otherwise unknown to the original authors.[74]
Another hermeneutical shift in PD involves their increased level of openness to typology. Whereas CD and RD allowed for a somewhat constrained use of typology, PD theologians “more readily embrace” it although they refuse any “attempts to find hidden meanings or to reinterpret material objects in the Old Testament as spiritual realities in the New Testament.”[75] With this in view, typology within PD essentially serves as “patterns of resemblance between persons and events in earlier history to persons and events in later history.”[76] Applying this to the “study of the teachings about the new covenant in the Old and New,” Saucy claims that “a pattern of fulfillment similar to that of the promises to Abraham and David” can be discovered.[77]
Despite these modifications in PD hermeneutic, they still maintain, like those adhering to RD and CD, that the promises given to Israel in the OT must be viewed as just that. To buttress this, Blaising employs speech-act theory to God’s promises by refusing to relegate them to mere transferences of information. “The key insight of speech-act analysis,” he explains, “is that language has a performative force. By language, people not only refer to things, they also do things.”[78] Expanding upon this, Blaising adds, “When somebody makes a promise, they’re not just stating something, they are doing something. They are forming a relationship and creating an expectation that carries moral obligation. Failure to complete a promise is a violation of one’s word. It is a serious matter.”[79]
This understanding of God’s promises, especially those associated with the covenants, leads to the disavowal. among those affirming PD, of unnecessary symbolic and spiritualization of OT texts on the part of NT writers. Instead, they maintain that NT prophetic texts simply continue to build upon their OT counterparts and like them point to a final fulfillment in the future. To this end, PD offers “a more unified view of…the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants” that interprets them as “being fulfilled today” (at least partially) according to what was “actually predicted by the new covenant.”[80] For now, “These blessings are given in a partial and inaugurated form, which looks forward to complete fulfillment at the return of Christ.”[81]
Following RD in how it perceives the relationships between the covenants, PD continues toward a more progressive position which considers “these covenants [to be] linked together.”[82] Understood this way, the promises contained within the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants remain unconditional, continue to be in force, and await future fulfillment. In part, this understanding of the covenants does much to move dispensationalism toward a closer proximity with the CT of Reformed Baptists. The differences arise from the hermeneutical perspective of each.
The Reformed Baptists choose to view the covenants with the belief that all are subsumed under an overarching covenant (i.e., the Covenant of Redemption) with the Elect. In response, PD propounders do not necessarily deny that God has a unified covenant with His Elect rooted in His eternal decree before the foundation of the world (cf. Eph 1:4). Even so, they choose to read the covenants as they unfold historically in Scripture and then continuing to advance in redemptive revelation. Due to their divergence in their approach, Reformed Baptists end up focusing more on the spiritual and eternal aspects of God’s redemptive efforts, while PD advocates maintain some of their eschatological focus on God’s earthly and political plans for Israel.
While the Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants are considered unconditional within PD, the Mosaic covenant continues to be understood as a conditional covenant. Furthermore, its primary function has now been abolished due to the disobedience of the Israelites so much as that Saucy “suggest[s] that the new covenant replaced the Mosaic one and rendered it obsolete in salvation history.”[83] With the arrival of the new covenant, the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants continue to have a role because “the new covenant is the means through which these covenants attain final fulfillment.”[84]
Addressing the conditional aspects of unconditional covenants, Blaising and Bock assert, “God’s promise to raise up a descendant is unconditional. But a continuous, uninterrupted reign is not. That is conditioned upon the faithfulness of the Davidic kings.”[85] Viewed in this manner, failure to uphold the conditions within the unconditional covenants at the personal level does not in any way render the covenant null and void. For this reason, these covenants remain in effect as God’s promises to the nation of Israel will be upheld.
Initially, the unconditional covenants, PD maintains, are partially fulfilled during the coming of Christ and the Church age inaugurated thereafter. While the earthly promises given to Israel remain to be fulfilled, currently the Church is able to enjoy the blessing of salvation, the promised resurrection, and the heart effects of the new covenant. United under the new covenant, both Israel (those who have been saved among them) and the Church, Saucy clarifies, “share a similar identity as the people of God enjoying equally the blessings of eschatological salvation.”[86] These blessings are received through faith in Christ in this current dispensation, but previously they were obtained by OT saints (who lived under Mosaic law) through the promises within the Abrahamic covenant. Since Christ had not been revealed at that time in redemptive history, Saucy proclaims, “the Old Testament saints could not have expressly placed their faith in Christ and the saving work of his death and resurrection in the same way believers could after those events took place.”[87] This being the case, PD proponents, like Saucy, Blaising, and Bock, will argue that OT saints placed their faith in God and His covenantal promises.[88]
In the present era, PD acknowledges the moral aspects of the Mosaic law as still being in effect just as their CD and RD forebears did. Their unity over this matter, however, begins to dissipate when it comes to their understanding of Jesus’ discussion on Mosaic law in the Sermon on the Mount. Whereas CD theologians maintained that the Sermon on the Mount was meant for the Jewish audience while their RD counterparts softened their stance a little, PD advocates understand the Sermon on the Mount as being instructions on principles as opposed to teachings on the law. As Merkle puts it, “Progressive dispensationalists often contend that the application of Jesus’ words continues throughout the present age and is not limited to the original disciples.”[89]
Holding to tradition, PD still maintain that this present age, the Church age, began at the Pentecost where a special “indwelling” of the Holy Spirit occurred that was “unique to the believers” at that time.[90] While preserving this part of their connection to their forebears, PD proponents continue to build upon the newer RD perspective concerning God’s kingdom as announced by Christ. For them, there is only “a single eschatological kingdom that contains both spiritual and political dimensions.”[91]
The political aspects of the kingdom, as announced in the covenantal promises of God, will have their fulfillment in the eschaton, but for now the Church serves to inaugurate God’s eschatological promises. This, however, does not mean that the kingdom itself awaits the fulfillment of the political promises in order for it to be inaugurated according to the PD position. Rather, Christ’s arrival coincided with the coming of the kingdom. Since His resurrection and ascension, Jesus has reigned from His heavenly throne over the kingdom of God which awaits its ultimate consummation when Christ return and begins His millennial reign.
Distinctives of MacArthur’s Progressive Dispensationalism
People(s) of God
MacArthur carefully delineates between the ethnic people and historical nation of Israel and the Church. For him, every mention of Israel in the Bible is a reference to those who are ethnic Jews or their nation. By this, he does not mean to say that all Jews are saved for he recognizes that only a remnant would in fact be saved. In much of MacArthur’s extensive work, he is careful to call this Jewish remnant ‘spiritual Israel’ even though he affirms that this term could be employed in a theological sense to include all who are saved. Concerning this, he states, “We are in the eyes of God spiritual Israel only in the sense that He sees us in Christ, and since Christ is of the seed of Abraham, He sees us in Christ as Abraham’s spiritual seed. But keep in mind that does not invalidate God’s promises to the nation Israel.”[92]
This effort to retain a more ethnic-based interpretation of ‘spiritual Israel’ is in part due to MacArthur’s understanding of the OT covenants. Whereas Reformed Baptists believe that God’s covenantal promises in the OT have been consigned to Christ, MacArthur believes that these promises to ethnic Israel still hold for spiritual Israel. Speaking on this matter, he says, “But His promise to Israel is not just to fleshly Israel, not at all, His promise to Israel has always been to spiritual Israel. And the fact that the whole nation rejects doesn’t mean that He’s changed His promise, no, no. Why there are a lot of times in its history when the nation on the widest margin rejected and it was only a remnant that believed. And God kept His covenant promise with the ones who believed, as He always will and always has.”[93]
In response to those holding to the “Amillennial, Postmillennial, and Historic Premillennial view…that the [C]hurch has superseded Israel as the one people of God,” he flatly rejects any interpretation that conflates the Church with Israel.[94] His separation of the two, however, relates to the role of each in the historical progression of God’s redemptive work. Whereas Israel can include both saved and unsaved Israelites, the Church “always refers to those people (Jew and Gentile) who are believers in Christ.”[95]
This intentional separation of Israel from the Church is not motivated by a desire to draw any sort of line of demarcation between the people of God; rather, MacArthur is focused on preserving the meaning of terms purely in relation to how he sees these entities operating in God’s redemptive timeline. In his commentary of Revelation concerning the final consummation of God’s eschatological endeavors and the arrival of the New Jerusalem which comes down from heaven in Revelation 21:9-11, MacArthur believes the Bride of Christ “encompass[es] all the redeemed of all ages.”[96] Elsewhere, he employs the term “true church” and even just “church” to refer to the Bride of Christ.[97] Despite these occasional articulation gaffes, Macarthur’s commitment to the idea that God’s redemptive efforts involve a specific role for ethnic Israelites even while all Elect of God come together to form the Bride of Christ.
Dispensationalist Hermeneutic
The ongoing debate between all dispensationalists and covenantalists centers around the preferred hermeneutics of those involved. Affirming this, MacArthur asserts, “At the heart of the debate over millennial views is the issue of hermeneutics.”[98] In defense of his dispensationalistic (also known as futuristic) hermeneutic, MacArthur declares, “Only this approach allows Revelation [and by extension other eschatological portions of Scripture] to be interpreted following the same literal, grammatical-historical hermeneutical method by which non-prophetic portions of Scripture are interpreted.”[99] Concerning the hermeneutical approaches of those who disagree, he claims that they “are frequently forced to resort to allegorizing or spiritualizing the text to sustain their interpretations.”[100]
To support his position, MacArthur offers several reasons for interpreting the OT prophecies concerning the nation of Israel in a literal manner.[101] First, adhering to the literal interpretation is the only means whereby one can access the truth being revealed. In saying this, MacArthur realizes the rich symbolism and typology that is found throughout the Bible’s prophetic material, so therefore he is not suggesting that these things are foreign to a proper literal hermeneutic. Rather, he simply desires to take each text in the most literal manner based upon contextual cues that are available.
A second reason to maintain a more rigid literal hermeneutic than that of the Reformed Baptists, MacArthur opines, is the problematic issues that arise from their approach. To address these undesirable consequences of what he deemed to be a faulty method of interpretation, MacArthur asks a series of revealing questions: “What did those prophecies mean to those to whom they were addressed? If prophecies seemingly addressed to Israel really apply to the church (which did not exist at that time), did God give revelation that failed to reveal? And if those prophecies were meant to apply symbolically to the church, why were they addressed to Israel? What meaning could such prophecies have in their historical settings?”[102]
Besides these two concerns, MacArthur raises a third one that involves “inconsistencies” that result from what he believes to be a hermeneutic that strays toward the spiritualizing and allegorizing of the text when it comes to the Bible’s prophetic material. In the OT covenants, God’s promises to Israel were often intertwined with curses connected to disobedience. In his view, his opponents, including Reformed Baptists, unfairly and without hermeneutical warrant apply the promises to the Church and fail to do the same with the curses. To avoid this, he counsels the consistent employment of the same literal, grammatical-historical method for all of Scripture, and then notes that those who do this will find that “premillennialism emerges naturally from the text.”[103]
Conditionality of the Covenants
Based upon MacArthur’s hermeneutic which is slightly less rigid that earlier dispensationalists, the Abrahamic covenants or promises were repetitions of the same promise made by God.[104] He elaborates, “God picked Abraham. God predetermined the patterns of Abraham. God set His love upon Abraham, to be the one through whom the channel would be cut. It was a matter of divine choice.”[105] Putting this in another way, he writes, “That means the Abrahamic covenant wasn’t even made with Abraham; it was made between God and Himself.”[106]
As far as the Mosaic covenant, MacArthur considers it to be the only unconditional covenant in the OT, but all other covenants, he contends, are built upon unconditional promises of God, and so every promise made including those specifically to Israel will be fulfilled.[107] Commenting on this, he states, God “made unilateral, unconditional, irrevocable promises and covenants with Israel. In those covenants He included the promise of a great nation, a land defined in boundaries, blessing through Israel, blessing to the world, salvation, the Messiah, and a great glorious kingdom in which the Messiah would rule in Jerusalem, Israel would become the center of the whole world, and from His throne in Israel in Jerusalem Messiah would rule the entire world, wisdom and knowledge would pervade all the world, and righteousness and peace would dominate.”[108]
Taking this firm stance on the unconditionality of God’s covenantal promises to Israel in the OT, MacArthur emphatically declares that the covenantal basis for the theology of Reformed Baptists is non-existent: “So we have to answer the question, ‘Is the Old Testament Amillennial?’ with a resounding, ‘No.’”[109] To buttress his position, he leans on Emil Schurer’s work entitled A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Christ where Schurer discusses Jewish eschatology at the time of Jesus.[110]
Summarizing the German scholar’s findings, MacArthur recounts,
“Jewish eschatology affirmed that Messiah comes, and He will be a son of David who will exercise power to set up His kingdom on earth in Israel and fulfill all the promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs and to David. This study points out, as well, that Messiah in His coming and the establishment of His kingdom must wait for the repentance and salvation of Israel. The Jews also believed that the Old Testament taught that the kingdom would be established in Israel and Jerusalem would be the capital city. They also believed that dispersed Jews scattered around the world would be gathered from around the world into the land for that great kingdom. They also believed that the messianic kingdom would extend to cover the whole earth, and the whole of human society around the world would be dominated by peace: all people would worship Messiah, no one would resist Him, even those who did not worship Him in heart. There would be no war, only joy, gladness, health, prosperity. They also believed that the temple would be rebuilt, because that’s what Ezekiel says in Ezekiel 40 to 48, and temple worship would be at its apex.”[111]
If Schurer’s research is solid, then the Jewish eschatological positions were essentially dispensational albeit without any concept of the Church or the rapture. Despite this eschatological consensus between the Jews of Jesus day and dispensationalists, Reformed Baptists resoundingly refuse to accept this framework as it remains in fundamental disagreement with theirs. Among the various points listed by Schurer that are common to classic dispensationalism, Reform Baptists especially find the idea that temple worship will be re-established to be particularly abhorrent because classic dispensationalists affirm the re-institution of the OT sacrificial system. In a recent defense of this admittedly troublesome issue, one recent defense argues “that the animal sacrifices in Ezekiel 40-48 will take place in a literal future temple for outward purification purposes in the presence of Christ Jesus glorified who resides over His theocratic kingdom operating under the New Covenant in the Millennial temple.”[112]
Rejecting this sort of dispensational stance and positioning himself alongside progressive dispensationalists, MacArthur relegates the reinstitution of temple sacrifices to the fourth temple built during the Tribulation (Matt 24:15; 2 Thess 2:4) and perceives of a fifth temple established by Christ in His millennial reign (Ezek 40-48; Hag 2:9; Zech 6:12-13).[113] With this caveat in place, MacArthur, by his own admission, fully aligns himself with the Jews of Jesus day in accordance with Schurer’s research “because it’s what the Bible teaches. They were just interpreting the Old Testament in its normal sense.”[114]
The Receptors of the New Covenant
Despite his somewhat softened hermeneutic, MacArthur remains steadfast with his dispensationalistic forebears (and therefore against those who adhere to the CT of Reformed Baptists) who taught that the new covenant was given solely to Israel. In his own words, “the new covenant is with Israel. It is with the Jews. And…God has never made a covenant with Gentiles – as far as I can see, never will. The new covenant is not made with the Church.” [115] He adds, the Church is “the beneficiaries…of the new covenant just like Gentiles could be beneficiaries of the old covenant.”[116] Applying his hermeneutic in this manner, MacArthur is even willing to say that the Church is “under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8).”[117] As to how this works, he explains, Jesus is the “mediator who carries on the functions of the covenant” and serves as “a surety who guarantees the eternal character of the covenant. So, all of God’s promises in the new covenant then are guaranteed to us by Jesus who is the guarantee [sic], who pays our debts immediately upon their being owed.”[118]
The Salvation of Old Testament Saints
To arrive at his understanding of the new covenant, MacArthur simply held fast to his dispensationalistic hermeneutic that favors a more earthly (i.e., Israel-focused), linear, and literal interpretation of covenantal progression than that his Reformed Baptist counterparts. Given his approach, a common concern among any potential critics relates to how he understands the salvation of OT saints. Like Darby, Scofield, and those who followed, MacArthur only affirms one way of salvation for all people.
“Old Testament saints,” MacArthur proclaims, “are engulfed into the bride and take up residence in the New Jerusalem.”[119] His inclusion of all believers who came before Christ does not mean that he thinks they had to wait for salvation and its benefits (apart from resurrection and participation in other eschatological events); rather, “The cross…reaches back, [and] it reaches forward. God forgave Old Testament saints because Christ would pay the penalty of their sin.”[120]
With Jesus’ atoning work having been completed in the eternal decree of God, it could be applied retroactively, according to MacArthur, to those “saints who…were saved by grace through faith.”[121] Along with this, he even believes that they experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He writes, “Old Testament saints were given new life by the Spirit, [and so] the Spirit of God did come upon them.”[122] On this point, MacArthur abandons Darby and other historic dispensationalists. Darby, for example, teaches, “It is clear [the OT saints] could not be in the Spirit if the Spirit was not given.”[123] Representing the Reformed Baptists’ view on this make and taking a position that would accord with that of MacArthur, Griffiths submits, “The important difference between the Spirit in the Old and New Testament is to be found not in any distinction concerned ‘with’ or ‘in,’ but rather ‘in the capacity in which he dwells,’ in other words, in the manner of his indwelling.”[124]
Role of Mosaic Law in the New Testament
After abandoning the CD view on the Spirit-filling of OT saints, MacArthur takes a centrist position between dispensationalists and covenantalists concerning the present application of the Mosaic law. From his perspective, no one is now bound by Mosaic law because the arrival of the new covenant abrogated it. Qualifying his thoughts, he states, “God’s law hasn’t changed. His moral standards haven’t changed, but He has a new and better covenant. It is qualitatively superior, and it obliterates and cancels the [o]ld [c]ovenant.”[125] For him, Christ supersedes the Mosaic law, and provides for those who have now received revelation of Him (i.e., all people born since Christ). The law itself continues to provide “a reflection of God’s holy nature, which never changes because God never changes. But it also contained social stipulations, ceremonial observances, which passed away because they were only temporary for purposes fulfilled in the past. The old covenant, that stage of the law, that form of the law, that embodiment of the law, that sort of container of the moral law of God, is obsolete.”[126] As of now, MacArthur adds, “So if you want to see the law of God, you don’t look at the Mosaic law, you look at Christ.”
In general, MacArthur’s position on the Mosaic law, as it is has been articulated so far, closely accords with that of the Reformed Baptists who hold firmly to the 1689 London Baptist Confession. Whereas they hold to Sabbatarianism, MacArthur stands firmly in opposition to this stance. First, he bluntly argues, “Jesus was not a Sabbatarian.”[127] Second, he connects this doctrinal stance with the Jews who stood against Christ.[128] Finally, MacArthur sees the Sabbath as “a sign and a symbol to lead the people to rest and repentance,” because it is not commanded in the NT.[129]
The Kingdom of God and/or Heaven
Following along with the trend among other progressive dispensationalists and the long-held perspective among Reformed Baptists, MacArthur firmly rejects the contention of CD that the kingdom of God is different from the kingdom of heaven. In a discussion on his study of the synoptic gospels, he concludes that the terms are used “interchangeably” and “seem to be parallels.”[130] At this junction, MacArthur parts company with the Reformed Baptists because he differentiates between the kingdom of heaven/the kingdom of God and “a future millennial kingdom, [that] is not limited to heaven.”[131] This being the case, MacArthur considers the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God to be eternal in nature even while he also sees the kingdom being revealed in temporal history. Reform Baptists agree that God’s revelation of His Kingdom is being rolled out through redemptive history, but they deny the inclusion of any such future, earthly kingdom.
Conclusion
This overview of the ongoing conversation between dispensationalists and Reformed Baptist covenantalists has disclosed where the difference between these two hermeneutical frameworks exists. In the end, the eschatological divergence begins with how each interprets God’s promises in the OT. The Reformed Baptists consider Jewish disobedience to have led to the Church being made heir to the promises. Countering them, the dispensationalists believe that God’s promises to Israel still remain despite their unfaithfulness.
Within this centuries old debate, it has been shown that the initial proclaimers of CD offered an overly rigid, somewhat poorly conceived, and sometimes poorly articulated version of dispensationalism. While this form in unfortunately the one most commonly attacked by the Reformed Baptist opposition, this research has shown the updates to CD, particularly PD, now offer a far more well-thought out position with a balanced hermeneutic, less rigidity, and improved articulation. Exemplifying this, MacArthur continues to interpret OT prophecies concerning Israel (including covenantal promises) in a literal manner. Nevertheless, he has abandoned some views of his dispensationalistic predecessors by affirming the existence of only one people of God, seeing a progressive (as opposed to purely successive) unfolding of God’s redemptive plans in the OT covenant, teaching that OT saints were Spirit-indwelled, considering Christ to have superseded Mosaic Law such that believers are no longer beholden to it, and uniting (in his thinking) the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God.
[1]Phillip D. R. Griffiths, Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Perspective (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016), 3.
[2]Douglas Van Dorn, Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Primer, pdf. version (Erie, CO: Waters of Creation, 2014), 102.
[3]Stuart L. Brogden, Captive to the Word of God: A Particular Baptist Perspective on Reformed and Covenant Theology. Pdf. Version (n.p., 2016), 12-13.
[4]Ibid.
[5]John Nelson Darby, “The Apostasy of the Successive Dispensations,” BibleTruth; available at: https://bibletruthpublishers.com/collected-writings-of-j-n-darby-ecclesiastical-1/lbd15226.
[6]Ibid.
[7]All Scripture references have been takes from NASB1995. In Daniel 9:24-27, a prophecy is given concerning the “end of sin” and the establishment of “everlasting righteousness.” In the dispensationalists rendering of this passage, both of these will happen in a period of “[s]eventy weeks” of years or 490 years. At the end of the 69th week, the Messiah is prophesied to arrive. After this, the Hebrew text employs a conjunction with a preposition to show that the Messiah will be “cut off” (A.D. 30-33) and the Temple destroyed (cf. A.D. 70) before the future onset of the seventieth week at which point the seven-year tribulation would begin.
[8]Darby, “The Character of Office in the Present Dispensation,” BibleTruth; available at: https://bibletruthpublishers.com/collected-writings-of-j-n-darby-ecclesiastical-1/lbd15226.
[9]Ibid.
[10]Mark W. Christy, “The Rapture: Its Biblical Support, Its Timing, and Its Historical Formation within Premillennialism,” available at: https://battlehardenedbeliever.com/?p=2224. This article will offer the available biblical support for the “rapture.”
[11]Darby, “Principles Set Forth in “On the Formation of Churches,” BibleTruth; available at: https://bibletruthpublishers.com/collected-writings-of-j-n-darby-ecclesiastical-1/lbd15226.
[12]Darby, “The Character of Office in the Present Dispensation.”
[13]Ibid.
[14]Darby, “Principles Set Forth in “On the Formation of Churches.”
[15]Ibid.
[16]Ibid. Darby also says, “The Jews were the objects of the promises, and the Gentiles of pure mercy. Jesus came to fulfill the promises made to the fathers.”
[17]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 24.
[18]Darby, “Notes on the Epistle to the Ephesians,” in Collected Writings of J.N. Darby: Expository 6, BibleTruth; available at: https://bibletruthpublishers.com/notes-on-the-epistle-to-the-ephesians/john-nelson-darby-jnd/collected-writings-of-j-n-darby-expository-6/la63014.
[19]The Covenant of Works is also known as the Covenant of Life, the Covenant of Creation, the Covenant of Nature, and the Edenic Covenant.
[20]Stogden, Captive to the Word, 216
[21]Ibid., 221.
[22]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 40.
[23]Griffiths, Covenant Theology, 21.
[24]Charles Spurgeon, “The Allegories of Sarah and Hagar,” in New Park Street Pulpit Volume 2 (March 2, 1856); available at: https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/the-allegories-of-sarah-and-hagar/#flipbook/.
[25]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 44.
[26]Ibid., 46.
[27]Ibid.
[28]Griffiths, Covenant Theology, 39-40. Griffiths focuses on Noah’s ministry instead of God’s covenant with Noah and its place in his redemptive framework.
[29]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 64; Stogden, Captive to the Word, 234.
[30]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 214.
[31]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 64.
[32]Lewis Sperry Chafer, “Dispensationalism,” BSAC 93 (1936): 448.
[33]Griffiths, Covenant Theology, 59.
[34]Ibid.
[35]Darby, “On ‘Days’ Signifying ‘Years’ in Prophetic Language,” (1830); available at: https://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/PROPHET/02002E.html.
[36]Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, The Scofield Bible Correspondence School, vol. 1 (Chicago: Moody, 1907), 45-46.
[37]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 102.
[38]Griffiths, Covenant Theology, 111.
[39]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 55.
[40]Darby, “Principles Set Forth in “On the Formation of Churches.”
[41]Ibid.
[42]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 8, 80.
[43]Brogden, Captive to the Word, 222.
[44]Ibid., 241.
[45]Ibid., 242.
[46]Ibid., 259-60.
[47]Griffiths, Covenant Theology, 5, 38; Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2001), 99; Brogden, Captive to the Word, 222.
[48]Darby, “The Covenants,” in the Collected Writings of J.N. Darby: Doctrinal 1, BibleTruth; available at: https://bibletruthpublishers.com/the-covenants/john-nelson-darby-jnd/collected-writings-of-j-n-darby-doctrinal-1/la62243.
[49]Griffiths, Covenant Theology, 5, 59, 78.
[50]Ibid., 52. This is rejected in the paedobaptist version of CT and among some within the Reformed Baptist community as well.
[51]Ibid., 61; Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 60; Brogden, Captive to the Word, 92, 200-201.
[52]Griffiths, Covenant Theology, 121.
[53]Ibid., 46, 50.
[54]Ibid., 51.
[55]Van Dorn, Covenant Theology, 102.
[56]Darby, “The Character of Office in the Present Dispensation”; Ibid., “On the Apostasy: What Is Succession a Succession Of?”; available at: BibleTruth; available at: https://bibletruthpublishers.com/collected-writings-of-j-n-darby-ecclesiastical-1/lbd15226.
[57]Cyrus Ingerson Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, New and Improved ed. (New York, Oxford, 1917), 1000, 1002, 1089. See the footnotes associated with Matthew 5:2, 6:12, and 11:1.
[58]Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, vol.4 (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947),225.
[59]1689 London Baptist Confession; available at: http://truegraceofgod.org/1689-london-baptist-confession/#:~:text=1689%20London%20Baptist%20Confession%201%20Scripture%201.%20The,4%20Creation%201.%20…%205%20Providence%201.%20.
[60]Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible, 1003. See footnote associated with Matthew 6:33.
[61]Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody, 1995), 106-107. Ryrie admits that “the labeling of the present dispensation as that of Grace has been taken to mean that dispensationalism teaches that there was no grace in any other age.” He contends that this false interpretation of dispensationalism “persists because dispensationalists have made unguarded statements that would have been more carefully worded if they were made in light of today’s debate.”
[62]Ibid., 107.
[63]Ibid., 100.
[64]Ibid., 100-101.
[65]J. Dwight Pentecost, The Words & Works of Jesus Christ: A study of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016). Since the version of this work employed by the author was in the pdf form without page enumeration, the material from this remark arose will be quoted at length in this footnote. In the words of Pentecost, “As we survey the parables, then, we find that in view of Israel’s rejection of the person of Christ, He foresaw the postponement of the millennial form of the kingdom. He announced the introduction of a new form of the kingdom, one that will span the period from Israel’s rejection of Christ until Israel’s future reception of Christ at the Second Advent. This present age with its new form of the kingdom is characterized by the sowing of the word to which there will be varying responses, depending on the preparation of the soil (the parable of the soils). The harvest that results from the sowing is the result of the life that is in the seed that was sown (the seed growing of itself). There is a false countersowing (parable of the weeds). The new form of the kingdom had an insignificant beginning but will grow to great proportions (parable of the mustard seed). The power in the kingdom is not external but internal (parable of the leaven hidden in meal). God will gather a peculiar treasure to Himself through this present age (parable of the hid treasure and the pearl of great price). The present form of the kingdom will end in a judgment to determine who are righteous and eligible to enter the future millennial form of the kingdom, as well as who are unrighteous and will be excluded from the millennial kingdom to come.”
[66]Benjamin L. Merkle, Discontinuity to Continuity: A Survey of Dispensational & Covenantal Theologies (Bellingham, WA: Lexham, 2020), 67.
[67]John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom: A Basic Text in Premillennial Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959), viii.
[68]Ibid., 135.
[69]Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 112.
[70]Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic, 2012). Since the epub edition of this book does not contain page numbers, it may help to provide the original quoted material. In this work, Craig and Bock state, “Progressive dispensationalism offers a number of modifications to
classical and revised dispensationalism which brings dispensationalism closer to contemporary evangelical biblical interpretation. Although the name is relatively recent, the particular interpretations that make up this form of dispensationalism have been developing over the past fifteen years.”
[71]Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 9.
[72]Ibid.
[73]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 77.
[74]Bock, “Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism,” in Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional and Progressive Views, ed. Herbert W. Bateman IV (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 85-86; Ibid., “The Son of David and the Saints’ Task: The Hermeneutics of Initial
Fulfillment,” BSAC 150/600 (October-December 1993): 445-447; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 100-101.
[75]Merkle, Discontinuity to Continuity, 84.
[76]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 52
[77]Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 138.
[78]Blaising, “A Critique of Gentry and Wellum’s, Kingdom through Covenant: A Theological-Hermeneutical Response” MSJ 26/1 (Spring 2015): 118.
[79]Ibid.
[80]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 262.
[81]Ibid.
[82]Merkle, Discontinuity to Continuity, 88.
[83]Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 120.
[84]Ibid., 121.
[85]Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 164.
[86]Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 210.
[87]Ibid., 16.
[88]Ibid., 48; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism. Blaising and Bock seem to prefer to speak of God in the OT as Lord when discussing this issue.
[89]Merkle, Discontinuity to Continuity, 94.
[90]Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 167.
[91]Merkle, Discontinuity to Continuity, 99.
[92]John MacArthur, “Israel in the Tribulation” Grace to You (September 9, 1973); https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1329/israel-in-the-tribulation.
[93]John MacArthur, “Is Israel’s Unbelief Inconsistent with God’s Plan? Part 1” Grace to You (December 4, 1983); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/45-71/is-israels-unbelief-inconsistent-with-gods–plan-part-1.
[94]Richard Mayhue, “Why Futuristic Premillennialism?,” Christ’s Prophetic Plans: A Futuristic Premillennial Primer, ed. John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue (Chicago: Moody, 2012), 94.
[95]Ibid.
[96]John MacArthur, Because the Time is Near, pdf. version (Chicago: Moody, 2007), 347.
[97]Ibid., 220; John MacArthur, Revelation I and Revelation II, in The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 805, 816, and 890. MacArthur refers to the Bride of Christ as the church three times in his comments on Revelation 19:11-21.
[98]MacArthur, Because the Time is Near, 320.
[99]MacArthur, Revelation I and Revelation II, 26.
[100]Ibid.
[101]Ibid., 833-34.
[102]Ibid., 833-34.
[103]MacArthur, The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999), 21.
[104]MacArthur, “Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 1” Grace to You (Mar 25, 2007); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-334/why-every-calvinist-should-be-a-premillennialist-part-1.
[105]Ibid.
[106]MacArthur, “The Securities of God’s Promise,” Grace to You (June 11, 1972); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1615/the-securities-of-gods-promise.
[107]MacArthur, “Leviticus,” Grace to You (n.d.); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/bible-introductions/MSB03/leviticus; “War in the Gulf: A Biblical Perspective, Part 2,” Grace to You (January 27, 1991); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-49/war-in-the-gulf-a-biblical-perspective-part-2.
[108]MacArthur, “Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist, Part 4,” Grace to You (May 20, 2007); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-337/~/about.
[109]Ibid.
[110]MacArthur, “The Signs of Christ’s Coming, Part 1,” Grace to You (May 6, 1984); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/2366/the-signs-of-christs-coming-part-1.
[111]Ibid.
[112]Ian S. Bacon, “The Plausibility of Animal Sacrifices in Ezekiel 40—48 Literally Operating in the Millennial Kingdom Under the Covenant” (Thesis, Liberty University School of Divinity, 2018), 59.
[113]MacArthur, Revelation I and Revelation II, 407; Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 231; Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 215. Blaising, Bock, and Saucy fail to develop this aspect of their thinking, but they do submit that the millennial kingdom will be a place where harmony exists between humans and animals.
[114]MacArthur, Revelation I and Revelation II, 407.
[115]MacArthur, “The New Covenant, Part 1,” Grace to You (September 10, 1972); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1619/the-new-covenant-part-1.
[116]Ibid.
[117]MacArthur, “Are the Sabbath Laws Binding on Christians Today?,” Grace to You; available at: https://www.gty.org/library/Questions/QA135/Are-the-Sabbath-laws-binding-on-Christians-today.
[118]MacArthur, “Jesus: The Guarantee of a Better Covenant,” Grace to You (August 27, 1972); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1618/jesus-the-guarantee-of-a-better-covenant.
[119]MacArthur, “The Doctrine of Election, Part 3,” Grace to You (October 17, 2004); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-275/~/about.
[120]MacArthur, “The Character of God in the Cross of Christ,” Grace to You (June 20, 2021); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/81-118/the-character-of-god-in-the-cross-of-christ.
[121]MacArthur, “The Lordship Controversy,” Grace to You (October 19, 2009); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A293/the-lordship-controversy; Ibid., Ephesians, in The MacArthur New Testament Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 13-14.
[122]MacArthur, “Bible Questions and Answers, Part 40,” Grace to You (May 13, 1990); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/70-12/bible-questions-and-answers-part-40.
[123]Darby, “Bethesda and Principles; the Christian’s Position as to Life and Spirit; Death to Sin; the Place of Experience; What It Is to Be in the Flesh; Old Testament Saints; J.G. Bellett,” in Letters 3, BibleTruth; available at: https://bibletruthpublishers.com/bethesda-and-principles-the-christian-apos/john-nelson-darby-jnd/letters-3/notes-letters-other-darby-writings/la64208.
[124]Griffiths, Covenant Theology, 167.
[125]MacArthur, “Victory in the New Covenant,” Grace to You (February 19, 1984); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1297/victory-in-the-new-covenant.
[126]MacArthur, “Written on the Heart,” Grace to You (June 11, 2004); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-286/~/about/
[127]MacArthur, “Divine Truth Confronts Human Tradition,” Grace to You (April 22, 2001); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/42-70.
[128]MacArthur, “Jesus Is Lord of the Sabbath, Part 1,” Grace to You (June 7, 2009); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/41-11.
[129]MacArthur, “Understanding the Sabbath,” Grace to You (September 20, 2009); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-379/understanding-the-sabbath.
[130]MacArthur, “The Greatest Man,” Grace to You (March 19, 1978); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/2187/the-greatest-man.
[131]MacArthur, “The Only Way to Happiness: Be Poor in Spirit,” Grace to You (April 26, 1998); available at: https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/90-189/the-only-way-to-happiness-be-poor-in-spirit.