Progressive Dispensationalism by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock
Essentials in Biblical Theology Series
Progressive Dispensationalism by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock[1]
Throughout the 20th century, American Evangelicalism was largely shaped by Dispensationalism, a form of futuristic premillennialism which organizes the biblical storyline around a framework of administrations (i.e., dispensations) of God’s interaction with humanity throughout history.[2] While dispensationalists differ over the number of dispensations, they share three core convictions: (1) a literal hermeneutic whereby later revelation cannot cancel earlier promises; (2) a distinction between Israel and the Church; and (3) a unique role for national Israel in the future millennial kingdom.[3]
By the 1990s, a newer form emerged called Progressive Dispensationalism, primarily advanced by Craig Blaising and Darrel Bock.[4] Their aim was to align the Dispensational system more closely with “contemporary evangelical biblical interpretation” (22). This newer form of Dispensationalism was distinct in several ways: hermeneutically, it adhered to a form of progressive revelation allowing for some development of meaning from earlier biblical prophecies; it presented a more unified plan of redemption progressively unfolding with each dispensation; it recognized that the Church and Israel, though distinct, composed two groups within the one people of God; and it acknowledged that the eschatological kingdom has been inaugurated in Christ.
By developing a more integrative biblical theology, Progressive Dispensationalism sheds much of the dualism characterizing its predecessors and narrows the divide between dispensational and covenantal systems of theology. Nevertheless, while Progressive Dispensationalism offers a more cohesive biblical theology, its insistence on a future literal fulfillment of national and political promises to ethnic Israel introduces hermeneutical and theological inconsistencies that ultimately obscure the Christological telos of Scripture.
Hermeneutically, Progressive Dispensationalism, advocates for a “historical-grammatical method” of interpretation prioritizing the historical meaning of the original authors, the grammar of the text, and the proper consideration of Scriptures’ literary genres (77). In contrast to older dispensationalists, Blaising and Bock contend that this method allows for NT expansion of OT promises through prophetic and even typological fulfillment. However, while the NT may introduce developments to OT promises, this “need not mean the cancellation of earlier commitments God has made” (103). There is a “complementary relationship” between the Old and New Testaments whereby “it is possible to get fulfillment ‘now’ in some texts, while noting that a ‘not yet’ fulfillment exists in other passages” (97–98).
This expression of inaugurated eschatology affirms an initial spiritual fulfillment of OT promises, while reserving their literal and national realization for the future. For example, though believing Gentiles enjoy spiritual benefits of the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31, this does not negate the specific promises made to Israel as a nation (103–4). Accordingly, inaugurated eschatology not only speaks of “stages” of fulfillment but “degrees” and “kinds” (191). At the present stage, spiritual blessings are shared “equally” among believing Jews and Gentiles in Christ (e.g., forgiveness of sins, indwelling of the Holy Spirit). However, other kinds of New Covenant blessings—the national promises to Israel—are not-yet and will be experienced differently in degree by the nation of Israel (191).
Their articulation of inaugurated eschatology is connected to how they view the covenants. Unlike older dispensationalists, they present a more unified arrangement of the biblical covenants which progressively reveal God’s one plan of redemption. Yet, unlike covenantal systems which start with God’s covenant with Adam, they begin with God’s covenant with Abraham. For Progressive Dispensationalism, the “covenant with Abraham is the foundational framework for interpreting the Scripture and the history of redemption” (135). The other grant covenants—namely the Davidic and New—progressively unfold how God will fulfill his initial covenant with Abraham. The Mosaic Covenant, however, is unique as a bi-lateral covenant whereby Israel experienced blessings or curses based on obedience; however, it has been replaced by the New Covenant.
These covenants are interconnected with various dispensations which are described as “successive arrangements in the progressive revelation and accomplishment of redemption” (48; emphasis original). Each dispensation reveals progress in God’s redemptive plan and how his political-social and spiritual purposes complement one another (48). Progressive Dispensationalism identifies four dispensations: Patriarchal, Mosaic, Ecclesial, and Zionic which culminate in the eschatological kingdom of God (123).
Distinct from older forms of Dispensationalism, Blaising and Bock understand the eschatological kingdom as already inaugurated with the ascension of Christ.[5] Jesus is now seated on David’s throne (Acts 2:22–36) reigning over his Church from heaven (177). In this current “Ecclesial Dispensation,” the Church entails a new and mysterious form of the kingdom whereby forgiveness of sins, reception of the Spirit, and reconciliation with God are experienced prior to the return of Christ (262). Nevertheless, the present form of the kingdom does not preclude a future consummation in the “Zionic Dispensation” when national and political elements will be restored to ethnic Israel (255; cf. Acts 1:6; 3:19–20). The realization of the kingdom will occur in two stages: the return of Christ with the millennial kingdom (Rev 19:11–21; 20:1–6) followed by the everlasting kingdom on a renewed earth (Rev 21; 281–83).
This view of the kingdom maintains a functional distinction between the Church and Israel—the very distinction that remains Dispensationalism’s sine qua non. While Progressive Dispensationalism doesn’t advocate for a strict distinction in terms of salvation in Christ, it does regarding roles in the kingdom. The Church is “a new manifestation of grace, a new dispensation in the history of redemption” in continuity with the promises of New Covenant (49). During this “Ecclesial Dispensation,” the Church manifests redeemed humanity—both Jew and Gentile—prior to the return of Christ (49). However, in the future “Zionic Dispensation,” Israel will be restored to prominence, inheriting the ethnic, national, and territorial aspects of the kingdom. So, a unity exists between the Church and Israel within the one people of God; yet Israel retains a unique role as a national and political entity.
There is much to commend in Blaising and Bock’s Progressive Dispensationalism. They avoid the disjointedness which characterized older Dispensationalism by seeing one redemptive plan among one people of God. Their complementary hermeneutic allows for some expansion of OT promises as each dispensation progressively builds upon another. This arrangement of the biblical storyline also allows them to embrace an inaugurated view of the kingdom of God which will be consummated at Christ’s return.
Nonetheless, inconsistencies remain which are rooted in the relationship between the Church and Israel. Despite affirming prophetic and even typological development elsewhere, Progressive Dispensationalism resists such development with respect to the land promise, treating it as hermeneutically immune to NT expansion. They assert that the land promises remain exclusively for national Israel as the NT is silent concerning any change in meaning. However, this assertion is inconsistent with how they treat other elements of the Abrahamic Covenant, especially circumcision (103). Circumcision is rightly understood to typologically anticipate the circumcision of heart promised in the New Covenant. Yet Blaising and Bock fail to see how the Scriptures similarly treat the land promises as typological, looking back to what was lost in creation and then forward to the new creation (Matt 5:5; Rom 4:13; Rev 21).
This inconsistency is compounded by their organization of the storyline of Scripture. Rather than allowing Scripture’s covenantal structure to govern the storyline, Progressive Dispensationalism organizes redemptive history around four dispensations centered on the nation of Israel beginning with God’s covenant with Abraham. However, the Scriptures begin with Genesis 1 and God’s covenantal relationship with Adam, humanity’s representative head.[6] Their starting point proves problematic because it skews how the covenants build upon each other to find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ. Starting with God’s covenant in creation, the telos of Scripture points to the redemption of the world with a new Adam representing a new humanity in a new creation (Rom 5:12–20).
Progressive Dispensationalism’s starting point also affects how they understand inaugurated eschatology. In the current Ecclesial Dispensation, the Church already receives the spiritual blessings of the covenants; however, the not-yet entails material blessings for Israel in the Zionic Dispensation. Yet this is difficult to square with Galatians 3:29 which says, “And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” Paul doesn’t distinguish between the spiritual and material blessings of Abraham. This is because all the promises find their fulfilment in Christ, Abraham’s true offspring (Gal 3:16). Through faith, all who are united to Christ find their identity in him as sons of God (Gal 4:7). Therefore, as sons, they are equal heirs of God and heirs of Christ (Rom 8:17). This promise is sealed by the gift of the Spirit who guarantees our inheritance (Eph 1:13–14; Rom 8:16–17; cf. Deut 30:5; Num 34:2 [LXX]), a term which speaks of the OT land promise.[7]
Progressive Dispensationalism ultimately falters by failing to present the promises of God as fulfilled in Christ and his Church.[8] The Scripture consistently locates Christ as the focal point of biblical fulfillment because he is the true offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:16) and the new Adam (Rom 5:12–21; 1 Cor 15:45). Therefore, all who are united to Christ by faith—whether Jew or Gentile—become co-heirs of the kingdom and inherit the new creation (2 Cor 5:17). By reserving some of the promises as exclusively for national Israel, Progressive Dispensationalism divides the body of Christ and eclipses God’s one plan of redemption fulfilled in Christ.
P. Chase Sears
Tulip Grove Baptist Church (February 2026)
TL;DR
Progressive Dispensationalism (PD) emerged in the 1990s (Blaising and Bock) to address weaknesses in older dispensationalism by adopting a more unified redemptive plan and an inaugurated view of the kingdom.
Hermeneutically, PD employs a historical-grammatical method that allows for New Testament expansion and typological development of Old Testament promises—without cancelling earlier commitments.
PD understands the New Covenant blessings as presently shared spiritually by believing Jews and Gentiles, while national and political promises to Israel remain future and distinct.
Redemptive history is organized into four dispensations (Patriarchal, Mosaic, Ecclesial, Zionic), culminating in a future millennial kingdom centered on restored national Israel.
While PD offers a more cohesive biblical theology, its insistence on a future literal fulfillment of national and political promises to Israel introduces hermeneutical and theological inconsistencies that ultimately obscure the Christological telos of Scripture.
[1] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993).
[2] For an overview of the history and influence of Dispensationalism among American Evangelicals, see Daniel G. Hummel, The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism: How the Evangelical Battle Over the End Times Shaped a Nation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2023).
[3] While there are three main variations of Dispensationalism (i.e., Classic, Revised, and Progressive), Michael Vlach identifies six essential beliefs for every form of Dispensationalism. His list merely expands into more detail the three main convictions I’ve listed. These include: (1) the primary meaning of any Bible passage is found in that passage. The New Testament does not reinterpret or transcend Old Testament passages in a way that overrides or cancels the original authorial intent of the Old Testament writers; (2) types exist but national Israel is not an inferior type that is superseded by the Church; (3) Israel and the Church are distinct; thus, the Church cannot be identified as the new and/or true Israel; (4) spiritual unity in salvation between Jews and Gentiles is compatible with a future functional role for Israel as a nation; (5) the nation Israel will be both saved and restored with a unique functional role in a future earthly millennial kingdom; (6) there are multiple senses of “seed of Abraham,” and thus the Church’s identification as “seed of Abraham” does not cancel God’s promises to the believing Jewish “seed of Abraham.” Michael J. Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths, rev. and upd. ed. (Los Angeles: Theological Studies Press, 2017), 30–50.
[4] The name “Progressive Dispensationalism” was introduced in 1991 at the Evangelical Theological Society. Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 23. There are other works that also advance this form of dispensationalism. For examples, see Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church: The Search for Definition (Zondervan, 1992); Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology (Zondervan, 1993).
[5] Revised Dispensationalists like Charles Ryrie understand the Davidic kingdom as postponed since its offer was rejected by Israel. Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. and exp. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 2007), 183.
[6] For a comprehensive study on God’s Covenant of Creation see Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 211–58.
[7] Oren Martin, Bound for the Promise Land, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2015), 138–49.
[8] For a more thorough treatment on the Church’s relationship to Israel see P. Chase Sears, Heirs of Promise: The Church as the New Israel in Romans (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2015).
