A Comparison of Classic Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and Progressive Dispensationalism

 

 

I.         Introduction

 

For the last 400 years there have been two major schools of thought within Orthodox Christianity; Covenant Theology and Classic Dispensationalism. There are, of course, several theologies that deviate from these two major schools, but all of them basically stem from these two major schools. For example, there have been attempts to find a mediating position between the two. For instance, George Ladd formalized a mediating position known as Covenant Premillennialism and more recently Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock have introduced a second mediating position known as Progressive Dispensationalism[1]. My goal is to inform the reader of the basic tenets of Classic Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and Progressive Dispensationalism. Perhaps the best way to expose error and distinguish truth is to expose the fundamental presuppositions of a system. If the underlying presuppositions are in error then the resultant conclusions most certainly err. By unmasking the presuppositions of each system, one can properly understand why these systems of theology differ so radically in their understanding of the Bible. One quickly sees that Classic Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology differ radically, while Progressive Dispensationalism appears to be an amalgamation of the two, thus making it more difficult to evaluate. Nevertheless, it is necessary to evaluate the fundamental presuppositions of Progressive Dispensationalism because of its growing influence in recent years. An evaluation of five major presuppositions will suffice to show the foundations, the development, and the conclusions of each system of theology. These five issues include; hermeneutics, the unifying principle of the Bible, progressive revelation, the relationship of Israel to the Church, and God’s primary purpose. To begin we need to define these five categories, what they are and why they are important.

 

II.        The Five Crucial Issues

 

A.        Hermeneutics

 

            The heart of the issue between Biblical Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and Progressive Dispensationalism is hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science (principles) of interpreting the Bible. It is this one element, above all others, which distinguishes the three schools of theology. We must ask, first of all, “what is the proper method of interpreting the Bible?” In response, all three systems unanimously answer that the literal approach to Scripture is a proper method. But what does it mean to interpret literally? Dr. David L. Cooper has phrased what is meant by literal interpretation in the following words,

 

When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning, unless the facts of the context indicate clearly otherwise.[2]

 

Thus, literal interpretation takes every word at its normal, ordinary, customary meaning. Even though each school admits that the literal method is the proper approach, this does not imply that all schools actually follow the literal method consistently. It turns out that the issue at stake is not the literal method, per se, but the degree to which each school consistently applies the literal method.

The literal method is to be identified with the grammatical-historical method because it employs a study of the grammar and the historical context. It is safe to say that to the extent that one follows Dr. Cooper’s rule, to that extent he will be biblical, and to the extent that one strays from the rule, to that extent he will be unbiblical. The literal approach should not be confused with wooden literalism which takes every word in a strictly wooden sense allowing no room for symbolism or figures of speech. The literal principle considers symbols and figures of speech to be normal parts of every language. Symbols and figures of speech are powerful communication devices that tap into the mental imagination of the reader. Yet, even when employed, they are done so with the intent of communicating literal ideas. Nor should literalism be thought of as unspiritual. Clearly, language employed by God to communicate His message to mankind cannot be called “unspiritual”, for God Himself is Spirit.

 

B.        The Unifying Principle of the Bible

 

            A unifying principle is a principle category from which all other issues are seen in light of. When a theological system decides upon a unifying principle that principle often governs the interpretation of all other issues, thus it is at the heart or crux of the whole matter. All issues must be interpreted in terms of this all-encompassing category or categories without which no unity could be seen in the overall structure.

            The all-encompassing nature of a particular unifying principle shows how determinative it is of one’s interpretation. The implications are far-reaching and weighty, thus this category has been chosen specifically to show how one’s governing category influences greatly one’s understanding of the Bible.

 

C.        Progressive Revelation

 

            Progressive revelation is closely related to hermeneutics and plays a key role in several interpretive issues among the three schools under investigation. Progressive revelation is the principle that God’s message to man was not given at one single moment, but was gradually unfolded as history progressed. Though gradually revealed later truth never contradicts earlier truth. Later revelation may supercede and clarify earlier revelation, but it never contradicts or changes it (Acts 17:30; Heb. 1:1-2; John 1:17; John 14:16-17; 14:26; 16:24).

The three schools under investigation claim that progressive revelation is critical when interpreting Scripture. Thus, our evaluation will center on the consistent application of the principle of progressive revelation as the various schools interpret Scripture. As will be seen, the consistency, or lack thereof, in applying this principle greatly affects one’s understanding of the Bible.

 

D.        The Relation of Israel to the Church

 

            All three schools come to different conclusions on this issue because of their hermeneutics, their unifying principle, and their consistency in recognizing progressive revelation. In concluding, there are three possible ways to evaluate the relationship between Israel and the Church; 1) to see a clear distinction between Israel and the Church (Classic Dispensationalism), 2) to claim that the Church has replaced Israel (Covenant Theology), or 3) to blend Israel and the Church (Progressive Dispensationalism). The implications of the theological conclusion adopted by the individual greatly affect his view of the Bible and prophecy and are thus, a very important issue.

 

E.        The Primary Purpose of God

 

            This is a second conclusion that differs between all three schools because of their hermeneutics, their unifying principle, and their consistency in recognizing progressive revelation. In concluding, there are three possible conclusions as to the primary purpose of God; 1) God’s ultimate purpose is doxological, to glorify Himself (Classic Dispensationalism), 2) God’s ultimate purpose is soteriological, the salvation of man (Covenant Theology), or 3) God’s ultimate purpose is Christological, to place Christ on the Davidic Throne (Progressive Dispensationalism). The implication of these three conclusions is equally important to the individual’s thinking and should thus be evaluated and understood properly.

 

III.      Classic Dispensationalism

 

A.                Classic Dispensationalism: History and Development[3]

 

Often, Classic Dispensationalism is charged with recency and thus it is implied that it must be wrong since the Apostolic Fathers didn’t teach it. However, the truthfulness of a teaching is not based on what the Apostolic Father’s taught, but whether the Bible teaches it or not. It is true that Classic Dispensationalism in its systematized form is recent, but an analysis of the development will show that the seeds of Classic Dispensationalism are not so recent and even if the charge of recency were true this would not prove that it is wrong.

Early Dispensational-like Concepts (1st - 4th century). Justin Marrtyr (110-165) believed in various programs of God. Irenaeus (130-200) spoke of the various dispensations of God with specific mentioning of the Christian dispensation. Clement of Alexandria (150-220) saw four dispensations in Scripture. Augustine (4th century) spoke of “successive epochs”, “dispensations” and “various ages” through which an immutable Creator ruled His mutable creation. Augustine did not find contradiction in the teaching that the diversity of God’s work within the creation was in any way incompatible with the immutability of His character. Though each of these authors alluded to dispensational-like concepts, these early references should not be claimed as the beginning of dispensationalism.

The Beginnings of Dispensationalism (1670-1830). Pierre Poiret (1649-1719) wrote a book titled L’OEconomie Divine which was published in 1687. The title, when translated, is The Divine Economie which is a direct reference to the recognition of “economies” or “dispensations” from the Divine viewpoint. His six volumes are premillennial and dispensational in perspective, as well as seeing seven such dispensations. John Edwards (1637-1716) wrote an immense work titled A Compleat History or Survey of all the Dispensations, in which he developed a dispensational scheme. Isaac Watts (1674-1748) defined dispensations and developed a six-fold dispensational scheme almost identical to Scofield’s scheme in the Scofield Reference Bible.

Systematizing Dispensationalism (1830-1980). John N. Darby (1800-1882), a leader of the Plymouth Brethren is often called the “Father of Dispensationalism”. There is certainly no doubt that he was the first to systematize Dispensationalism. Darby began systematizing dispensationalism during the mid-1820’s. His scheme is similar to Watt’s except that he added a seventh dispensation, the millennium. C. I. Scofield popularized Dispensationalism when he published The Scofield Reference Bible in 1909. This Bible revolutionized the layman’s understanding of the Bible because of the dispensational layout and study notes which made the Bible easier to understand. L. S. Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary (1924), followed in the Dispensationalism of Scofield and Charles Ryrie has defined and fine-tuned the system during the last 50 years.[4]

In conclusion, in terms of origin the Ancient Fathers clearly taught dispensational-like concepts that are unique to Dispensationalism today. When allegorical interpretation became dominant during the Middle Ages (approx. 400 – 1,500AD) most traces of dispensational thought disappeared. However, within 100 years of the Reformation (which was truly a hermeneutical reformation) dispensationalism resurfaces. These beginnings were expounded and systematized by later men such as Darby, Scofield, and Ryrie.

 

B.        Classic Dispensationalism: The Sine Qua Non

           

In order to be a dispensationalist, one must hold to the sine qua non (without which not/indispensable elements) of the system, which are as follows;

1.         Consistent literal interpretation of all Scripture including prophecy

2.         Recognize a clear distinction between God’s program for Israel and God’s program for the Church

3.         Recognize that God’s ultimate purpose is doxological, to glorify Himself

 

These are the core elements of Classic Dispensationalism. However, if just the first principle, a consistent literal interpretation, is followed, then the following two principles inevitably follow.

 

C.        Classic Dispensationalism: Hermeneutics

 

            Dispensationalism is built upon a consistent literal approach to the entire Bible including prophecy. Dispensationalism is the only system that consistently follows a literal hermeneutic. This means that Dispensationalism applies no other method of interpretation than the literal method. The result is that there is only one true interpretation (meaning) to each passage. This does not limit a passage to only one application. In the Dispensational system, meaning is one, application is any! The dispensationalist claims that a consistent literal method is the proper approach for three reasons.

A Philosophical Reason. Philosophically, dispensationalists interpret literally because of the received laws of language. A syllogism will describe the logic of the dispensationalist.

1.         God is the originator of propositional language

2.         Propositional language is a construct designed to communicate conceptual thought between God and men made in His image

3.         Men are therefore designed to understand propositional language

 

Because God is the originator of language, when He communicates to man it can only be understood according to the received laws of language, which seem to require a literal understand (e.g. If you eat, you will die). Seeking a deeper sense or a second meaning beneath the words is contrary to the received laws of language. Ryrie comments,

 

If language is the creation of God for the purpose of conveying His message, then a theist must view that language as sufficient in scope and normative in use to accomplish that purpose for which God originated it.[5]

 

            A Historical Reason. Since all the OT prophecies that centered on the First Coming of Messiah were fulfilled literally, it logically follows that the remaining prophecies that center on the Second Coming of Messiah will likewise be fulfilled literally. There is no scriptural indication or vindication for shifting to a non-literal approach just because something is prophetic[6]. The literal fulfillment of all prophecy thus far is strong evidence for the literal method.

            A Logical Reason. If one does not stay true to the received laws of language then all objectivity is lost. Who then would determine what a word means?[7] For language to be communicative it must be built on immutable laws designated for language. A denial of the received laws of language results in the elimination of the communicative property of language. Language becomes utterly meaningless and an improper medium for communication. This subjective approach to language should not be accepted by a theist. The number of interpretations for any given passage would be innumerable if a subjective approach to language were adopted. Thus, for any objectivity to be maintained we can only allow language to be taken in the plain, normal sense.

            A consistently literal method, supported by the philosophical, historical, and logical reasons, provides the foundation for Classic Dispensationalism. Bruce Waltke, a Covenant Theologian, in his response to the radical changes Progressive Dispensationalism has made to Classical Dispensationalism, admits the following.

 

This already—not yet model of dispensationalism, entailing a less than one-for-one correspondence between Old Testament covenants and prophecies and their partial fulfillment in the church, shakes the very foundations of dispensational hermeneutics, which includes a consistent literalistic interpretation of the Old Testament, another sine qua non of the system.[8]

 

 From a Covenant Theologians own perspective, Classic Dispensationalism is founded on a consistent literal interpretation and Progressive Dispensationalism is shaking that foundation! Literal hermeneutics is the hallmark trait of Classic Dispensationalism.

 

C.        Classic Dispensationalism: The Unifying Principle

 

            Dispensationalists clearly recognize distinctions in Scripture.[9] At the very least a dispensationalist recognizes a distinction between the dispensations of the Mosaic Law, Grace or the Church, and the Kingdom. Yet these distinctions do not erase the unity of the Bible. As most admit, unity and diversity are not incompatible. Is not the triunity of God accurately described as unity with diversity? Is not the church, the body of Christ, one unit composed of a diversity of members?[10] Therefore, it is not too foreign to think of God’s plan of history as composed of both unity and diversity. There is both diversity in the way God has dealt with man during different ages as well as a unity in God’s purpose. Classic Dispensationalism finds the unifying principle of God’s purpose to be

 

doxological, or the glory of God, for the dispensations reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing stewardships given to man. [11]

 

The doxological principle is present in every dispensation though different aspects of God’s character are brought to the fore. As man, via progressive revelation, matures in his understanding of who and what God is in relation to the successive dispensations the clarity with which God’s glory is made manifest is apparent. The revelation of His glory will be amplified even more so in the dispensation of the Kingdom, and ultimately culminate in the New Heavens and New Earth where

 

The city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine upon it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb…they shall not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God shall illumine them; and they shall reign forever and ever. (Rev. 21:23; 22:5)

 

Dispensationalists recognize other aspects of God’s ultimate purpose, such as salvation, the angels, creation, etc… , but teach that the one grand end of all of these sub-purposes is to bring glory to God (Eph. 1:5-6, 12, 14; Rom. 11:36).

 

D.        Classic Dispensationalism: Progressive Revelation

 

Progressive Revelation is Foundational to Dispensationalism. God did not reveal all truth simultaneously at one point in history. Rather God chose to teach mankind truth about Himself and hold man responsible to differing degrees of revelation. The principle of progressive revelation is analogous to the construction of a building. First the foundation is built. Later the superstructure is added. Finally, aesthetic details are supplied to the already laid foundation and superstructure. There are no contradictory elements. Each element is put together in a specific order, all the while complementing the others as the building comes to completion. The canon of Scripture is this way too. God built principle upon principle throughout Scripture in every area of truth. The whole of God’s message to man is only seen when one takes into account the completed canon of Scripture. For example, Abraham was not expected to place his trust in Jesus as the Messiah. All that was required was that he respond to the amount of revelation available at that time, which was to believe God (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). Additional revelation concerning the coming Messiah was later added to the early promises of a Messiah to enhance and clarify them, but never to contradict or change prior promises. Thus, when interpreting in light of the principle of progressive revelation one is protected from reading the NT into the OT. The hermeneutical foundation of Dispensationalism includes the consistent recognition of progressive revelation. Diagrammatically, the relation of progressive revelation to the successive dispensations would look something like this.

 

Salvation       By        Grace          Through          Faith

Innocence

Conscience

Government

Promise

Law

Grace

Kingdom

          Gentiles

Israel

Church

 

             P R O G R E S S I V E   R E V E L A T I O N

 

 

Dispensationalists consistently recognize the progressive revelation of Scripture. While all theologians of non-dispensational systems admit to the progressive revelation of Scripture, they are not so consistent in recognizing it when they interpret Scripture. Ryrie charges Fuller, a covenant premillennialist,

 

Fuller’s problem is that apparently his concept of progressive revelation includes the possibility that subsequent revelation may completely change the meaning of something previously revealed. [12]

 

Dispensationalists claim that progressive revelation may shed additional light on a subject, but that light never contradicts or changes prior revelation. If “subsequent revelation” could “change the meaning of something previously revealed” then no one could be sure of just what a prophecy meant until it was fulfilled in history or the canon was closed, which leaves interpretations of historical events devoid of a one to one correspondence with God’s word. Again, such an assertion destroys the communicative property of propositional language, ultimately destroying even the possibility of God and man having relationship.

Relationship Between Progressive Revelation and the Dispensations. In the gradual unfolding of the Bible there are distinguishable stages of revelation when God introduces new things for which man becomes responsible. Progressive revelation is inherent to the fact that God initiated successive dispensations by verbal revelation. The diagram above illustrates how progressive revelation is the foundation of the successive dispensations.

E.        Classic Dispensationalism: Israel and the Church

 

            Because of a consistent literal interpretation of both the Old Testament promises and prophecies Classic Dispensationalism teaches that God has a distinct program for Israel and a distinct program for the Church. Dispensationalists recognize that the New Testament never calls the Church “the new Israel”, “spiritual Israel”, or “Israel”.[13] He simply takes God’s word at face value, never to blur the distinction of Israel and the Church or replace Israel with the Church. A proper understanding of this distinction could be pictured as follows.

 

PAST                                                      PRESENT                                               FUTURE

 

ISRAEL                                                                                                                      ISRAEL

                                                    NEW MAN = CHURCH

                                                     *saved Jews and Gentiles

GENTILES                                                                                                           GENTILES

 

As you can see, God had a distinct program for Israel in the past and the future. He also has a distinct program for the Church, which is called the “new man” in Ephesians 2:14-15. If Paul had wanted to say that the Church was the “new Israel”, “spiritual Israel, or had “replaced Israel” Ephesians 2 would have been a great opportunity. However, no such thing is alluded to. In fact, Paul calls the Church a “new man”, meaning a new entity that had not existed before. The blood of Christ had broken down the dividing wall between the nation of Israel and the Gentiles making possible the formation of a new entity, the Church (also cf. 1 Cor. 10:32)! Jews who become believers during the dispensation of grace are part of God’s program for the Church. Past and future Jewish believers are not a part of the Church, but rather a part of God’s distinct program for Israel. These distinctions will be maintained even in eternity (Rev. 21:24-26).

 

F.         Classic Dispensationalism: God’s Ultimate Purpose

           

            As has been mentioned before, the ultimate purpose of God from the Classic Dispensational position is the glory of God. What this means is that there is recognition of several things God is doing, but the glory of God is what unifies His plan. God created, God designed a distinct plan for the angels, God predetermined a unique salvific plan, and God has done many other great and wonderful things, yet for one great end, to glorify Himself. How do we know this? First of all, the explicit statements of Scripture such as Ephesians 1:5-6, 12, and 14 where salvation is seen as merely a part of a greater purpose, the glory of God.

 

5He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved… 12to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ should be to the praise of His glory… 14who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

 

Secondly, if God’s ultimate purpose were salvific then why is there no offer of salvation to angels? All theologians consciously or unconsciously recognize that God has a distinct plan for the angels and yet it is clearly not salvific, for if it were God would have offered some plan of salvation for the angels. Third, if God’s ultimate purpose is salvific then it is stunning that His highest purpose is man-centered rather than God-centered? Wouldn’t God’s ultimate purpose be centered upon Himself, for He is the one who has done all these things?

            The following diagram illustrates that God’s glory is His ultimate purpose. Note the all-encompassing outer circle is the glory of God, within which God uses several sub-purposes to accomplish.

 

            Glory

Oval: Salvation Angels Kingdom Etc…
 

 

 

 

 

 


IV.      Covenant Theology

 

A.        Covenant Theology: History and Development

           

The Absence of Early Covenant-like Concepts. Covenant Theology is a recent system just as Classic Dispensationalism. Neither the Apostolic Fathers, the Post-Apostolic Fathers, or the great Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli make any mention of Covenant Theology. The first mentioning of the ‘covenant theory’ was in the Westminster Confession of 1647. Ryrie comments,

 

The covenant (federal) theory arose sporadically and apparently independently late in the sixteenth century. The first proponents of the covenant view were reformers who were opposed to the strict predestinarianism of the reformers of Switzerland and France.[14]

 

The Beginnings of Covenant Theology (1500-1646). Some covenant-like concepts are found in the writings of Andrew Hyperius (1511-1564), Kaspar Olevianus (1536-1587), and Rafael Eglinus (1559-1622). These secondary reformers, none of which were of the caliber of Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, provided the seedbed of modern Covenant Theology.

Systematized Covenant Theology (1647-today). Cocceius, a German, was the first to systematize Covenant Theology. He developed the system primarily as a revolt against the Reformers strict predestinarianism. Cocceius was ambitious to stray from the freedom of Arminianism and the determinism of Calvinism, especially in relation to the doctrine of predestination. He thought he found the solution to the dilemma in his two-fold idea of the covenant; a Covenant of Works before the fall and a Covenant of Grace after the fall. In both covenants man is said to have a role to play and a responsibility to meet. The covenant system, as outlined by Cocceius, focused more on man and his part, in contrast to the strict predestinarianism of his day. These two covenants were considered the unifying principle in all of God’s dealing with man and his redemption. Thus, Cocceius is often considered the “Father of Covenant Theology”, even though the Westminster Confession of 1647 outlined the ideas of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace in simple terms the year before Cocceius’ publication (1648). Nevertheless, Cocceius was the first to systematize Covenant Theology. Later, the strict Calvinist Witsius extended the idea of the covenant, making it the governing category of scriptural interpretation. John Cotton, Charles Hodge, and A. A. Hodge were later advocates. Today, modern Reformed Calvinists are usually covenant in their theology. As you can see, Covenant Theology (1647) is not more than 40 years older than Classic Dispensationalism (1687) and in fact dispensational-like concepts are found much earlier, as in the Ancient Fathers (1st – 4th Centuries).[15]

 

B.        Covenant Theology: The Sine Qua Non

           

            If Covenant Theology could be broken down into a sine qua non (indispensable elements), then the following tenets would be essential to the system.

1.         The governing categories for understanding the Bible are the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace

            2.         The basic hermeneutical principle is reading the NT into the OT                       

3.        God has one ultimate purpose and it is soteriological (salvation)[16]

 

These main tenets, especially the use of the two covenants as governing categories for interpreting the rest of the Bible, provide a basic outline of what Covenant Theology teaches. Of course, this approach would deny any future for national Israel and a future 1,000-year earthly, political Kingdom of God.

 

C.        Covenant Theology: The Unifying Principle

 

The history and development of Covenant Theology has been duly noted, as well as the basic tenets. What remains to be discussed is what exactly are the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace? It turns out that the idea of the “covenant” is the unifying principle of Covenant Theology. Let me be explicit in proclaiming that the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace are not biblical covenants. Instead, they are what scholars term theological covenants. A biblical covenant would be drawn explicitly from Scripture such as the Noahic Covenant (Gen. 9:9-17), the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:1-3), the Land Covenant (Deut. 29-30), the Davidic Covenant (II Sam. 7:12-16), and the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-34). A theological covenant is supposedly derived from the concept of the biblical covenants, but is never specifically called a covenant in Scripture.

The Covenant of Works. The Covenant of Works is said to have been instituted before the fall (foedus naturale). Alan Cairns, a Covenant Theologian, describes the Covenant of Works as follows:

 

Gen. 2:16-17 describes the Covenant of Works. The parties to this covenant were God and Adam. The promise of the covenant was life. The proviso was Adam’s perfect obedience. The penalty of disobedience was death.[17]

 

In short, the Covenant of Works is that agreement between God and Adam that promised eternal life for perfect obedience and death for disobedience. It is true that God promised death if Adam and Eve disobeyed, however, the claim that God promised eternal life for perfect obedience cannot be found in the Bible. Berkhof, a Covenant Theologian admits,

 

Those who deny the Covenant of Works generally base their denial in part on the fact that there is no record of such a promise in the Bible. And it is perfectly true that Scripture contains no explicit promise of eternal life to Adam.[18]

 

Berkhof then goes on to claim that the lack of an explicit promise does not exclude the fact that it is implied. Even if Berkhof’s claim is granted, it is certainly clear that the Covenant of Works is based on a conjecture and the Bible student should be careful when stepping outside of the bounds of Scripture. Furthermore, if Adam could have gained eternal life by obedience then Covenant Theology ‘theoretically’ introduces a second way of salvation. Salvation by works BEFORE the fall and salvation by grace AFTER the fall (although they do not claim to teach two ways of salvation).

Traditionally, Covenant Theologians use very few passages to support the Covenant of Works. Most use Gen. 2:16-17, Hosea 6:7, and Rom. 5:12-17, none of which are clear references to a Covenant of Works made with Adam. According to their definition the Covenant of Works lasted for a short time, extending from the creation of Adam until his fall. Upon Adam’s breaking of this covenant, God was offended and thus instituted a new covenant, the Covenant of Grace.

The Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Grace was apparently instituted after the fall (foedus gratia). Covenant Theology is more interested in the Covenant of Grace because it is related to the larger part of history, extending from the fall of man till the New Jerusalem. Thus, it is a binding covenant in force today. Berkhof defines the Covenant of Grace as

 

that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience.[19]

 

The Covenant of Grace is said to have been instituted in Genesis 3:15. It was apparently repeated throughout biblical history to Abraham (Gen. 17:7), Jeremiah (Jer. 31:33), Paul (II Cor. 6:16-18), only to be fully realized in the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:3). This covenant is said to be a “gracious agreement”. The parties are an “offended God” and the “elect sinner”. The promise is “salvation through faith in Christ”. However, just like the Covenant of Works, there is no explicit text outlining the Covenant of Grace. The phrase “Covenant of Grace” never occurs in Scripture and all the passages used to defend the Covenant of Grace are just talking about the blessings of salvation. This is all very vague and difficult to swallow especially when it becomes the all-encompassing reference point for interpreting the rest of Scripture. To build the entire system of Covenant Theology on two covenants that aren’t even mentioned in the Bible, all the while making the biblical covenants mere out workings of the Covenant of Grace is dangerous and unwarranted. Though the ideas of the Covenant of Grace are not entirely unscriptural it is clear that the “two covenant idea” is deductive and would never have been developed by an inductive study of Scripture.

As mentioned before, these two covenants become the all-encompassing categories within which all other events are interpreted. Much of the exegesis of covenant theologians, especially that of prophetic passages, is false because it is governed by these two theological covenants that have no explicit Scriptural basis. The implications are weighty and far-reaching.

Implications of the Covenant of Grace. First, the content of salvation is always faith in Christ. Already, in Berkhof’s definition of the Covenant of Grace, he mentioned that “God promises salvation through faith in Christ”. The statement may sound harmless at first until one realizes that if this is true then even Old Testament saints had to have faith in Christ. This concept of faith in Christ is a basic tenet of all covenant theologians. Hodge, a Covenant Theologian asserts,

 

It was not mere faith or trust in God, or simple piety, which was required, but faith in the promised Redeemer, or faith in the promise of redemption through the Messiah…. The Covenant of Grace, or plan of salvation, being the same in all its elements from the beginning, it follows… that the people of God before Christ constituted a Church, and that the Church has been one and the same under all dispensations. It has always had the same promise, the same Redeemer, and the same condition of membership, faith in the Son of God as the Saviour of the world.[20]

 

In addition to the simple fact that Abraham was saved by mere faith in God (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3) and not in Christ, the Son of God, it is difficult to say how much the OT Israelite knew about the coming Messiah. The assertion that one must have faith in Christ is forced in Covenant Theology because the Covenant of Grace was made with Adam and all the elect progeny of Adam. This forces the second implication, namely, there can be only one people of God, Adam and his elect progeny. This means that there can be no distinction between Israel and the Church. For Covenant Theology there is only one people of God, the Church began with Adam or Abraham in the OT and extends through the NT. It is composed of all the saints of all ages. Since there is only one redeemed people there can only be one condition of membership, that being “faith in the Son of God as the Saviour of the world.” This is a priori logic forcing artificial exegesis with the intent to satisfy the Covenant of Grace. The effects upon the hermeneutics of Covenant Theology are too vast to evaluate under this heading and thus, the next section will deal with the effects of the Covenant of Grace on hermeneutics.

 

D.        Covenant Theology: Hermeneutics

           

Covenant Theology defends the literal method just as the Dispensationalist has done. Remember, the difference is not in agreeing that the literal method is the proper method, but rather the consistency in following the literal method. The covenant theologian clearly applies the literal method to most of Scripture, but departs when he comes to prophetic passages. The following comment by Covenant Amillennialist Floyd Hamilton indicates that he is well aware of his move away from the literal approach in the area of prophecy.

 

Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal kingdom interpretation of the Old Testament promises.[21]

 

Hamilton readily admits that if he were to consistently follow the literal method he would be a premillennialist! His admission should be noted because it clearly points out that he himself realizes that he has moved away from a literal interpretation. This is proof that Covenant Theology, because of the unifying theme of the Covenant of Grace, is forced to interpret Scripture by a second method. Imposing the false category of the Covenant of Grace upon Scripture causes inconsistency to arise in his interpretation (see the previous section titled Covenant Theology: The Unifying Principle).

            Vern Poythress, a covenant theologian, makes similar comments when he says,

 

I claim that there is sound, solid, grammatical-historical ground for interpreting eschatological fulfillments of prophecy on a different basis than preeschatological fulfillments….It is therefore a move away from grammatical-historical interpretation to insist that (say) the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah” of Jeremiah 31:31 must with dogmatic certainty be interpreted in the most prosaic biological sense, a sense that an Israelite might be likely to apply as a rule of thumb in short-term prediction.[22]

 

Poythress may claim he has sound reasons for moving away from the grammatical-historical interpretive method, but his quotation indicates otherwise. Because Poythress follows the sine qua non of Covenant Theology, namely that the basic principle of hermeneutics is reading the NT into the OT he concludes that “house of Israel” and “house of Judah” don’t really mean what they say. This of course ignores progressive revelation as well. How would a 6th century BC Israelite understand what Jeremiah wrote? The truth of the matter is that Poythress is forced to shift his interpretive method because of the false unifying principle of the Covenant of Grace which underlies Covenant Theology. Poythress can only conclude this because his theological system excludes the possibility of a literal interpretation of eschatological passages. Poythress is faced with trying to interpret passages that are clearly addressed to Israel, with a mindset that there is only one people of God. Thus, the only logical conclusion, from Poythress’ mindset, is that Israel and Judah in Jer. 31:31 are code words for the Church. This is a common interpretation of most covenant theologians.

Thus, it is clearly the covenant theologian who is moving away from a literal interpretation without any grounds for doing so. Covenant theologians charge dispensationalists with departing from the literal method, but their frank admissions of non-literal interpretation prove otherwise. The problem for covenant theologians is that they begin by reading the NT into the OT and thus deny progressive revelation. The result is that they embrace a dual hermeneutic and are therefore inconsistent to the literal method.

            Covenant theologians take all passages which deal with future prophecy to be fulfilled in the Church. The Israel of the OT has no future in the plan of God because they forfeited their promises to the NT Church when they rejected Jesus as Messiah. Ryrie comments by claiming that the hermeneutics of Covenant Theology

 

allow him to blur completely the meanings of the two words in the New Testament such that the church takes over the fulfillment of the promises to Israel. In that view true Israel is the church.[23]

 

Thus, there can be no literal fulfillment of the OT promises made to Israel. The only possibility is to see the OT promises being fulfilled spiritually in the Church, and this is exactly the interpretation they opt for. The dispensationalist uses the inductive method of Bible study, which seeks to gain all the facts before drawing general conclusions. The result is that the dispensationalist sees two purposes of God and insists on keeping Israel and the Church distinct.

 

E.        Covenant Theology: Progressive Revelation

           

            Covenant Theology agrees with Dispensationalism that progressive revelation is an important principle to apply when interpreting Scripture. This means that we should not interpret Scripture as if the OT saints or 1st century Christians had the total revelation of God. Today we have the luxury of having the entire revelation of God. Thus, we can look back and see the foreshadowing of Christ in the OT as well as the fulfillments of many of the OT prophecies regarding the Messiah’s first coming. However, to disregard the fact that truth was progressively revealed is dangerous when interpreting Scripture because it assumes that the common OT Israelite had the complete corpus of revelation that we have today. The recognition of progressive revelation forces the interpreter to try to interpret within the confines of the amount of revelation available at the time the specific text he is working with was written. This protects him from reading later revelation into prior revelation. Covenant Theology is not so consistent applying this principle even though they verbally assent to it. Their basic hermeneutical principle of reading the NT into the OT is diametrically opposed to the principle of progressive revelation.

            Reading the NT into the OT. Of course, there is everything right about reading the NT in light of the OT, but there is everything wrong with imposing NT revelation on OT revelation. Nevertheless, reading the NT into the OT becomes the key principle of Covenant hermeneutics because they have already presupposed the Covenant of Grace as the unifying principle of Scripture. Thus, when they read the OT term “Israel” they read the content of the NT term “Church” back into the term “Israel”. By this they satisfy the demands of the Covenant of Grace which dictates that there can only be one people of God. Covenant logic would look something like the following:

 

            1.         The Covenant of Grace is made with Adam and all elect progeny

            2.         This body of elect makes up the one people of God, the redeemed

3.         The redeemed are composed of Jews and Gentiles

4.         The redeemed are called “Israel” in the OT and the “Church” in the NT

5.         There is no distinct program for Israel and the Church

 

This logic is airtight, but if the presupposition of the Covenant of Grace is wrong (and we believe it is) then everything that follows is also wrong. In essence the starting point determines the conclusion. If the starting point is wrong then the conclusion must be wrong as well. This is the charge dispensationalists level at covenant theologians. To escape, the covenant theologian asserts that the most basic hermeneutical principle is using the NT to interpret the OT. Berkhof, a covenant amillennialist writes,

 

The main guide to the interpretation of the Old Testament is certainly to be found in the New.[24]

 

George Ladd, a covenant premillennialist wrote,

 

The present writer is ready to agree with the amillennialist that there is only one place to find a hermeneutic: in the New Testament.[25]

 

But two reasons indicate that this is no escape at all. First, if the guide to interpreting the OT is found in the NT then NO ONE living before the NT was written could understand the true meaning of the OT. Second, to make the NT the basic hermeneutic required to interpret the OT undermines the principle of progressive revelation. The covenant theologian builds much of his argument for rightly reading the NT into the OT from the way NT authors quoted the OT.[26] He points out the freedom of the NT authors in quoting the OT. He then claims that he must also have this freedom which the NT authors exercised. The problem, however, is that the NT authors were writing under divine inspiration. True, the NT authors had freedom in their particular style, but their use of the OT in the NT was divinely inspired, not a product of human freedom.[27] Nor were the NT authors necessarily interpreting the OT. The bottom line is this; no man interprets under divine inspiration. Men may interpret under divine illumination, but divine illumination is, unfortunately, not free from error.

The covenant theologian is forced into this artificial exegesis of reading the NT into the OT and ignoring progressive revelation because of his overriding theme of the idea of the “covenant”. James Orr, a non-dispensationalist, notes,

 

It [covenant theology] failed to seize the true idea of development, and by an artificial system of typology, and allegorizing interpretation, sought to read back practically the whole of the New Testament into the Old. But its most obvious defect was that, in using the idea of the Covenant as an exhaustive category, and attempting to force into it the whole material of theology, it created an artificial scheme which could only repel minds of simple and natural notions. It is impossible, e.g., to justify by Scriptural proof the detailed elaboration of the idea of a Covenant of Works in Eden, with its parties, conditions, promises, threatenings, sacraments, etc. Thus also the Reformed theology—the more that it had assumed this stiff and artificial shape—failed to satisfy the advancing intellect of the age.[28]

 

Thus, failure to consistently apply the principle of progressive revelation complicates rather than simplifies matters for those who read the Bible in a straightforward manner. It also forces false conclusions that the normal reader would never conclude were he not taught the system as a whole.

 

F.         Covenant Theology: Israel and the Church

           

Covenant Theology makes several logical deductions that affect their view of Israel and the Church. Let’s follow the logic of the covenant theologian.

            1.          He presupposes the Covenant of Grace as the unifying principle

thus,

2.         He is forced to see only one people of God because Adam and all the elect were the parties of the covenant

therefore,

3.         He is forced to make “Israel” the OT Church and “true Israel” the NT Church

 

He honestly cannot see how God could have two purposes; one for Israel and one for the Church. His theology is all determining and it forces his view of Israel and the Church to be seen only in relation to the Covenant of Grace, which was supposedly made with Adam and all the elect. He mocks the dispensationalist for seeing multiple purposes in the overall plan of God, but to do so he must depart from a literal hermeneutic in order to draw his own conclusions. Only the dispensationalist is consistent to the literal hermeneutic that all schools, dispensational and non-dispensational, verbally agree to. Only the dispensationalist looks at the word “Israel” and recognizes that it is a specific national entity that is composed of the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.[29] Likewise, only the dispensationalist looks at the word “Church” and recognizes that it is a body of “called out” Jews and Gentiles who have been Spirit baptized into the body of Christ beginning on the day of Pentecost (cf. Matt. 16:18; Acts 1:5; 11:15; I Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22-23).

Covenant Theology, seeing no distinction between Israel and the Church, is forced to conclude that there is no future for national Israel. They believe that since OT Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah then all the OT promises made to Israel, the OT Church, were passed on to “true Israel”, the NT Church. Covenant Theologian Floyd Hamilton is quite aware of this non-literal approach when he says,

 

Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal kingdom interpretation of the Old Testament promises.[30]

 

By Hamilton’s own admission, if he were to interpret the Old Testament literally he would be a premillennialist, but he is not! All this amounts to saying that all non-premillennial theologies are inconsistent to literal hermeneutics. However, how do Covenant Theologians explain why John the Baptist and Jesus did not tell the Jews that their earthly kingdom concept was wrong when they proclaimed the coming kingdom (Matt. 3:1; 4:17).

 

G.        Covenant Theology: God’s Ultimate Purpose

           

            For Covenant Theology God’s ultimate purpose is soteriological or redemptive. This means that God’s ultimate purpose is centered upon the salvation of human souls. Again, let’s follow the logic of the Covenant Theologian to see how he came to this conclusion.

 

            1.          He presupposes the Covenant of Grace as the unifying principle

thus,

2.         All of God’s purpose must be aimed at fulfilling the Covenant of Grace which is salvific in content

3.         He is forced to see only one people of God because Adam and all the elect were the parties of the covenant

therefore,

4.         He is forced to read the NT into the OT resulting in the idea that there is one content of salvation, namely faith in Jesus Christ.

 

Forget about the plain statement of Scripture that salvation is merely a part of God’s greater purpose of glorifying Himself (Eph. 1:5-6, 12, 14). Certainly salvation is a large part of God’s glorifying Himself, but it is certainly not the ultimate purpose of God. Certainly salvation is important, but if it were the ultimate purpose of God would not there be some offer of salvation to the angels? Would there not be more men saved? Why is it that God’s ultimate purpose would be anthropocentric rather than theocentric?

Dispensationalism, employing the literal method, teaches that God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify Himself. To be honest, the covenant theologian does exalt the glory of God,[31] but his system of theology forces it to be secondary to salvation, yet without exegetical basis. A comparison of God’s ultimate purpose for Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism could be diagrammed as follows.

 

Covenant Theology                           vs.                                Dispensationalism

Salvation                                                                                 Glory

Oval: Salvation Angels Kingdom Etc… Oval: Glory Angels Nature Etc…