START OF ARTICLE*****. Before I can spell out the differences between the two theological systems, we need to define Progressive Dispensationalism (PD). But even before we define PD, I would like to express my appreciation for Progressive Dispensationalism. Although I part ways with PD as a system of theology, as a movement Progressive Dispensationalists have been characterized by a willingness to open their Bibles and discuss what Scripture says with each other and those from differing theological perspectives. Proponents of PD have much to offer by way of rigorous exegesis and insightful conclusions to difficult theological questions.

The Main Hermeneutical Presupposition of Dispensationalism
PD is a brand of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism, even PD, is markedly different than New Covenant Theology. What beliefs make someone a Dispensationalist? What differentiates a garden-variety Dispensationalist from a Progressive Dispensationalist? In the first chapter of the excellent book Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison Between Traditional and Progressive Views, Hebert Bateman IV writes the following:  “What marks a dispensationalist is the person’s stress on the uniqueness of the church and confidence that a future millennial period exists in human history when God will consummate His Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants with national Israel through the physical, earthly reign of Jesus Christ here on earth—that are the linchpins for distinguishing a dispensationalist from a nondispensationalist.”   Prominent Progressive Dispensationalist Darrell Bock writes:  “So progressives speak openly as other dispensationalists do, of a future for national Israel among the nations in the Millennium. It is this detail that makes a premillenial view dispensational.” The presupposition that drives dispensational hermeneutics is that the promises made in the Old Testament must be fulfilled without change of original meaning. PD (as opposed to other brands of Dispensationalism) simply adds a caveat to this presupposition, which is that although the Old Testament promises must be fulfilled as their original promises in their original contexts describe, there can be expansion in the fulfillment. Darrel Bock calls this approach to Old Testament promises in the New Covenant era a “complementary” approach:  “According to this approach the New Testament does introduce change and advance; it does not merely repeat Old Testament revelation. In making complementary additions, however, it does not jettison old promises. The enhancement is not at the expense of the original.” What this means is that the church is not the pinnacle of God’s plan, but rather a parenthesis in God’s plan that once again will return to focus on Israel. Although PD has moved light years from traditional Dispensationalism in its understanding of the kingdom, it seems clear that traditional Dispensationalism and PD still exist as distant planets in the one solar system called Dispensationalism.

Considering Our Differences
If you are a New Covenant theologian, then your hermeneutic is quite different from the “complementary” hermeneutic of a Progressive Dispensationalist. The driving theological presupposition of PD is that when God promises something in the Old Testament, it must be fulfilled as it was stated in its Old Covenant context. Otherwise, according to PD, God is not true to His word and the Old Testament cannot be read with any stable meaning. NCT, on the other hand, views the Old Testament through the lens of the New. That is our driving theological presupposition. Therefore, if the New Covenant Scriptures interpret an Old Testament promise differently than the plain reading of that Old Covenant promise, then we say that God has interpreted His own promise in a very surprising way. But there is no need or expectation for a fulfillment of the Old Covenant promise beyond that which the New Covenant states. There is no need for the Old Testament promise to be fulfilled in the way it stands in its Old Covenant context if the New Covenant interprets it otherwise. If God says in later revelation that the fulfillment of a particular promise is different than I anticipated and He even changes the nature of the original promise, where can I go in Scripture to tell me that the promise as it stood in its original context must also be realized? NCT says “nowhere.”
In order to reveal and clarify the major differences between Progressive Dispensationalist and New Covenant Theologian, I have constructed a fictional dialogue between a progressive dispensationalist whom I call Pete and a New Covenant theologian whose name is Ned. Keep in mind that this dialogue is not meant to be exhaustive of the two theological positions, but rather it is simply meant to help the reader understand how the two systems of theology differ in their hermeneutics. Progressive Pete and New Covenant Ned are discussing Amos 9 and how it is quoted in Acts 15. I will place the passages before you and then jump right into the dialogue.

"In that day I will restore David's fallen tent. I will repair its broken places, restore its ruins, and build it as it used to be, so that they may possess the remnant of Edom and all the nations that bear my name, " declares the LORD, who will do these things (Amos 9:11-12).

The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13When they finished, James spoke up:  "Brothers, listen to me. Simon has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:  "After this I will return and rebuild David's fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, that the remnant of men may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things” that have been known for ages.
         It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood (Acts 15:12-20).

What follows is a fictional dialogue (based on my past dialogues with Progressive Dispensationalists) between a Progressive Dispensationalist and a New Covenant Theologian on these passages.

New Covenant Ned: So, do you believe that James is rightly interpreting Amos?

Progressive Pete: Of course. I just don’t think that the fulfillment in James exhausts the fulfillment of God’s promise given in Amos. I think it is overly simplistic to say that the fulfillment is exhausted simply because James made a connection with Amos in the salvation of the Gentiles.

Ned: But notice, salvation to the Gentiles is understood as the rebuilding of David's fallen tent. It is crystal clear from Amos 9 that this refers to the restoration of Israel. A straightforward reading of the passage in Acts leads one to believe that what was going on in James’ day "equals" the restoration of Israel. That which is surprising is that James is really speaking about the salvation of the Gentiles. What is it in Acts 15 leads you to believe that James did not intend this to entirely fulfill Amos 9?

Pete: There are other verses in the same chapter of Amos that seem to specifically deal with ethnic Israel. Look at the verses that immediately follow those verses quoted in Acts:

"The days are coming," declares the LORD,  "when the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman and the planter by the one treading grapes. New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills. I will bring back my exiled people Israel; they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them. They will plant vineyards and drink their wine; they will make gardens and eat their fruit. I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them," says the LORD your God (Amos 9:13-15).

What do you do with these verses? Should we interpret Amos 9:14-15 as referring to the church even though Amos is clearly prophesying about Israel? The burden of proof is on you.

Ned: I think you are missing my point. It is true that the verses you quoted and the verses that James quotes in the book of Acts, in the context of Amos had only to do with Israel. But James, in the book of Acts, applies these verses from the book of Amos to the church and more specifically to the Gentiles. James applied a promise given only to ethnic Israel and showed that the promise was being fulfilled in the church. According to the book of Acts, the church is David's fallen tent rebuilt.
So, when you quote Amos 9:13-15 as arguing that these verses are specific to ethnic Israel, I go back to Amos and consider if the context of those verses is somehow different than the context of Amos 9:11-12.  It is not. Amos 9:13-15 is referring to the same event as 9:11-12, which James quotes and applies to the salvation of the Gentiles. Look at the context in Amos. It is all about the restoration of Israel. James says it is fulfilled in the church. Look at the rebuilding language in verse 11 and then in verse 14. In the context of Amos the verses are talking about the same people. So, if James claims that what is happening in Acts (the building of the church by the ingathering of the Gentiles) is actually fulfilling Amos 9:11-12—the restoration of "David's fallen tent" and the restoration "of its ruins"—it also fulfills verses 14-15 (the same event just repeated in different language, which is very common in Hebrew poetry) "I will bring back my exiled people Israel (David's fallen tent) they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them.” The theme in both sets of verses is restoration and rebuilding and that which is being restored and rebuilt is the nation of Israel.

Pete: Once again, it seems to me that you might be oversimplifying things. I think part of the confusion is that there are several (sometimes overlapping) groups to consider:  ethnic Israel, unbelieving Israel, believing Israel or "the remnant," unbelieving Gentiles, and the Church (made up of Jews and Gentiles). There can be confusion when we don't know exactly to whom certain promises are made. For example, Paul quotes Isaiah in Romans 9:27-28: 

Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”

Paul makes a distinction between national Israel and the remnant of believing Israel. Paul writes in Romans 11:28-29:  “From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.” The “gifts and calling of God” have to do with the promises made to the Patriarchs. National Israel is beloved of God for the sake of the patriarchs to whom God made several promises. God still has a plan for national Israel.

Ned: I think you made a logical leap here from the argument concerning the remnant within national Israel to national Israel itself. But I want you to notice how you moved from the passages we were discussing straight to Romans 11. We need to stay with the passages we were discussing and get to the bottom of the issue in Amos and Acts before we move on to an entirely different passage.

Pete: Sure. Let’s go back to considering the passages in question. I think you did not adequately consider the context of Acts 15. Context is of the utmost importance. In Acts 15, James is trying to make one point and one point only: The Gentiles have an inheritance in God’s Kingdom in the church age and should not be burdened with Mosaic regulations. That's it! To press his statement further would be to read beyond the context of the situation of the Jerusalem council and to read into the text.

Ned: I agree that context is king when considering interpretation. But I think you actually miss the larger contextual issue. Why did people think that the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and to obey the law of Moses? The reason fills the book of Acts and that is the struggle for the Jews to see how salvation could come to the Gentiles. Peter's vision is repeated four times!  The whole book of Acts concerns the movement of the gospel from just the Jews to people from all over the world!  So in this context, James' statement takes on immense importance. The gospel going to the world is the fulfillment of Amos 9 and the restoration of “David’s fallen tent.” The salvation of God's elect from every tribe nation and tongue (Revelation 5:9) is the fulfillment of the restoration of Israel prophesied about in Amos 9. It is parallel to the fulfillment of the New Covenant prophesied in Jeremiah 31. The author of Hebrews interprets Jeremiah 31 and the promise of the New Covenant to be fulfilled in Christ and what he is doing right now.

Pete: I don’t disagree that the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 was referring to the work of Christ. But you limit that fulfillment to the church rather than allowing the clear referent of the promise (the house of Israel and the house of Judah) to be included.

Ned: I don't think your system of interpretation allows for the simplest and clearest understanding of this Old Testament quotation in Hebrews 8 and 10. The restoration of Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31 is taken by the author of Hebrews to refer to the work of Christ in the church. You might say that that is only part of the fulfillment. But Hebrews gives no hint that there is to be another fulfillment. That is why I argue that we must allow the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament and not the other way around. It seems to me that your interpretation of passages like Amos 9 and Jeremiah 31 are driven by the Old Testament context. Let me ask you a question:  Is Jeremiah 31 completely fulfilled? Or is the church only the beginning of that fulfillment?

Pete: No, it is not completely fulfilled and the author of Hebrews never said that it was. In Hebrews 8, the author is trying to make a specific point:  the superiority of the New Covenant. That's it. What I object to is trying to make this passage say more than it does. You probably think that God's land promises to national Israel are null and void because of the New Covenant. Of course, the passage does not say this. He is not addressing that issue at all.

Ned: I think you narrowed the context too much again. It is not just the superiority of the New Covenant but the passing away of the Old Covenant and all that it was. The Old Covenant was just a shadow (10:1) pointing to the reality of the New Covenant. The Old Covenant is null and void (Hebrews 8:13). This means Israel’s special nation status with God is null and void.  It follows that the promises of real estate to the nation of Israel are also no longer in effect because they are all part of the Old Covenant. In the New Covenant era, the true people of God are from every tribe, nation, and tongue. Their “Promised Land” is not physical rest in a physical land but spiritual rest with God.

Pete: You are ascribing the promise of an enduring nation and an inheritance of land to the Moasic covenant. But the promise of land and a nation come from the Abrahamic Covenant!  Look at Genesis 17:

Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, "As for me, this is my covenant with you:  You will be the father of many nations. No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God" (Genesis 17:3-8).

Ned: I think you are misunderstanding the nature of the Abrahamic Covenant and its place in God’s plan.  The Old Testament tells us that all of the physical promises given in the Abrahamic covenant were fulfilled and yet the book of Hebrews tells us that they weren't really fulfilled. Land didn't really give the people rest. The real rest is spiritual rest where you don't work for your salvation because Jesus, our high priest, did the work for us.

Pete:  Now you are simply spiritualizing without warrant.

Ned: I don’t think so. If you simply read the account of the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis you will only find physical promises:  God will make Abraham’s physical offspring innumerable. He will give them the physical land. God will cause Abraham to be a father of kings and he will be the God of Abraham and his physical descendants. That’s it. I encourage you to read Genesis 12, 15, and 17 again because it is shocking how clear the physical promises are. But these promises are actually fulfilled in history. In the book of Joshua, once the Israelites are in the promised land, we read:  "Now I am about to go the way of all the earth. You know with all your heart and soul that not one of all the good promises the Lord your God gave you has failed. Every promise has been fulfilled; not one has failed” (Joshua 23:14). All of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were fulfilled in the nation of Israel. That means there is no physical land promise waiting to be fulfilled! Pause a moment to let the weight of this passage of Scripture hit you. This "fulfillment" is simply in relation to the physical outworking or physical fulfillment of the promises. Hebrews 11 tells us that Abraham and the other believers in the Old Testament did not receive the things promised:  “All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth… These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect” (Hebrews 11:13, 39-40). Joshua 23:14 tells us that they received the physical promises and yet in another sense the book of Hebrews tells us that they did not receive the promises. The author of Hebrews is referring to the spiritual fulfillment of the physical promises.
It seems to me that you are actually jumping backwards to the physical fulfillment, which was merely a shadow of what we have now when you argue that you expect the physical descendants of Abraham to receive the physical promises. Now we have real spiritual rest for real spiritual people. To jump back to the shadows is in these areas is logically equivalent to going back to the animal sacrifices rather than looking to the sacrifice of Christ as the sole fulfillment of what God was doing in the Old Testament.

Pete: How can I respond to all of that? Let me stick to the clear point you raised and respond. You say that according to my logic I should be going back to the animal sacrifices (or at least looking forward to them). No. The land promises made to Israel and the Mosaic Code are obviously not the same thing. I am not talking about Mosaic Law or sacrificial regulations. Of course these have been fulfilled in Christ. I am referring to the land promises made to national Israel.

Ned: You may say they are obviously fulfilled but according to your system of interpretation if Scripture says in the Old Testament that there will be a priesthood and a temple and animal sacrifices in the future, then there must be a literal fulfillment.  Consider Jeremiah 33:

“For this is what the LORD says:  ‘David will never fail to have a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, nor will the priests, who are Levites, ever fail to have a man to stand before me continually to offer burnt offerings, to burn grain offerings and to present sacrifices.’”
The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah:  "This is what the LORD says:  'If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night no longer come at their appointed time, then my covenant with David my servant—and my covenant with the Levites who are priests ministering before me—can be broken and David will no longer have a descendant to reign on his throne. I will make the descendants of David my servant and the Levites who minister before me as countless as the stars of the sky and as measureless as the sand on the seashore' " (Jeremiah 33:17-22)   

The hermeneutic of PD demands that there must be a literal fulfillment to the verses above, but Hebrews 7 tells us that Christ is the fulfillment of the Levitical priests (that are weak and useless). If we consistently apply your hermeneutic, we must conclude that Christ is simply the preliminary fulfillment of Hebrews 7 and there must be a day in the future where there will be scads of Levitical priests continually making burnt offerings, grain offerings and presenting sacrifices. It seems to me that to say that Christ totally fulfills the prophecies about a literal Levitical priesthood and literal animal sacrifices destroys the PD hermeneutic. Just as I am not to look for a Levitical priesthood offering animal sacrifices in the future, so also I am not to look for a physical nation inheriting a physical land. Instead, I look to the fulfillment of the Levitical priesthood—Jesus Christ—and I look to the fulfillment of the physical people of God resting in the physical land—the church resting from working to earn His favor now and ultimately going to live with Him in Heaven for eternity.

Conclusion
I hope this dialogue has served to reveal and clarify the major differences in hermeneutics between PD and NCT. In summary, PD believes that if God says in later revelation that the fulfillment of a particular promise is different than the original promise in its Old Covenant context, then the promise as stated in its original context must come to pass. The New Covenant fulfillment may expand the promise but it will not change it. NCT asserts that we must read the Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament. This means that if the New Covenant fulfillment of an Old Covenant promise changes the nature of the original promise, then we have no biblical reason to expect the Old Covenant promise will be fulfilled as the promise stood in its Old Covenant context.

***END OF ARTICLE