Dispensationalism vs Covenant Theology
Two Opposing Systems of Biblical Hermeneutics
Introduction
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are two opposing theological systems for interpreting Scriptures. It is of the utmost importance that Christians should interpret the Bible correctly, as it is their “God-given grace and responsibility” to faithfully proclaim the Word of God.
The question then stands — is Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology the correct system for interpreting the Bible? In order to answer this question with integrity, the strengths of both positions must be analyzed.
Addressing Presuppositions
When approaching topics such as this, one must be honest about the presuppositions that they hold and be willing to change them if the Word of God says something that opposes a previously held belief. The following are my own presuppositions that I am taking as “givens” in this discussion between the two theological systems of hermeneutics:
- Believers have the obligation of taking great pains to understand God’s Word truly and explain it plainly. There is (likely) no significant consequence for someone who misinterprets Shakespeare’s plays; there is (potentially) an eternal consequence for someone who misinterprets God’s Word.
- God gave language to humans for the purpose of communicating. God sees that the means (language) is sufficient to sustain His purpose (communication) — this is why God communicates through the written Scriptures. God desires to communicate with man and hold him accountable for what he does with that communication.
- God’s Word is eternally relevant. Because God’s Word was spoken through human words in history, the Scriptures also have historical particularity which must be discerned through.
What are Hermeneutics?
Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are both systems of interpreting Scriptures. The primary difference between these two systems is found within the realm of hermeneutics and priority of Testament. Hermeneutics is a term used to describe the process of interpreting and seeking relevant applications from the Text.
Both systems use the normal, literal, historical-grammatical hermeneutic, except that covenant theologians stop using it in cases of prophesy. This system of interpretation seeks to give every word the same meaning it would have had to the original audience, considers grammar and historical contexts, and chooses literal interpretation over analogical interpretation except in instances of explicit symbolism, figures of speech, and types which are not meant to be interpreted literally.
The Systems
What exactly are the similarities and differences between these two systems? A working definition of Dispensationalism provided by Michael Lester states that “Dispensationalism is a system of historical progression consisting of a series of stages in God’s self-revelation to man, anchored by a historical-grammatical hermeneutic which results in a distinction between Israel and the Church and which also unifies progressive revelation around a doxological purpose.”
Ernest Pickering defines Covenant Theology as a “theological system of thought which affirms that God’s redemptive dealings with men are governed by certain covenants between (l) the persons of the Godhead, and (2) the Godhead and men.”
Dispensationalism examines the entirety of human history and (generally) divides it into seven “dispensations” — that is, seven distinct stages of history where God governs mankind or a group of men in a specific way.
The seven divisions of human history (as found in Scriptures) defined by Lester and Ryrie are as follows: (1) Innocency, Conscience, Civil Government, Patriarchal rule, Mosaic Law, Grace, and Millennium. Each one of these dispensations is marked by certain responsibilities and judgements. God’s redemptive plan is progressively revealed with each stage.
Covenant Theology differs in that it view’s God’s redemptive plan, not in terms of dispensations, but in terms of covenants. There are three overarching covenants that are defined by Covenant theologians: (1) the Covenant of Redemption, (2) The Covenant of Works, and (3) the Covenant of Grace.
Pickering writes, “Covenant theology views God’s purpose with the human race as essentially soteriological, God is saving the elect. All of his dealings with men are to be viewed in the light of this pervading purpose.” This differs from Dispensationalism, in that Dispensationalism understands God’s purpose with the human race to be more than one of salvation — Dispensationalism states that God’s purpose is doxological, that is, centering around His glory.
Which One is Biblical?
A stated strength of Dispensationalism (and a weakness of Covenant Theology) is that the different dispensational stages can be Biblically identified in Scriptures. On the other hand, the three overarching covenants of Covenant Theology are not Biblical in that they are not explicitly stated in Scriptures. In other words, the three major premises of Covenant Theology “are largely derived from theological speculation rather than sound Biblical exegesis.”
However, this same argument can be made the other way around. Philip Mauro argues similarly that there are no dispensational distinctions that can be found within Scriptures, labeling the seven dispensations as “purely arbitrary, fanciful, and destitute of scriptural support.”
The question, perhaps, is not which system is more “biblical”. Neither system is un-biblical; both systems read the same Scriptures with the reverence; both systems make extra-biblical assumptions in order to function as theological systems of hermeneutics. Both systems have their own functioning “logics”.
Christian Epistemology
Perhaps the question that should be asked is which system is more “logical”? D.A. Carson defines “logic” at the theoretical and symbolic level as “a comprehensive term that refers to sets of axiomatic relationships.” Logic in this sense is the set of relationships “that must apply if any knowledge is possible and if any communication of propositional knowledge is possible.” One such universal law of logic is the “law of noncontradiction”, which, stated formally by James Stambaugh, is the following: “A cannot be and non-A at the same time and in the same respect.”
Knowing this, is Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology more “logical” in the sense that it is more consistent with the universal law of noncontradiction? Should such a standard even be applied? Is measuring the quality of an argument based on its “logic” supported by Scripture? Or is such a judgement extra-Biblical?
James Stambaugh comments, “Man did not invent the principles of logic, he merely discovered what God had already created; man just collected the rules for rational thought.” He then proceeds to quote Robert Tad Lehe: “We would have no reason to abide by the law of noncontradition if coherence were not a requirement and a test of truth. The fact that no proposition can be true unless it coheres with other propositions which are true means that any argument for or against any criterion of truth rests upon coherence as a basic criterion of truth.” In other words, if there is no law of noncontradiction in Christian epistemology, there is no way to know what truth is! This is because “truth” is nothing more than an un-contradicting view of reality.
Nothing is more unbiblical than the idea that truth cannot be known. Jesus Himself promises, “If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” Put in another way, Jesus is saying “If you continue in my word, then you are my disciple; you will come to know an un-contradicting view of reality, and this un-contradicting view of reality will set you free.” Just a few chapters later, Jesus proclaims, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” The foundation of such a non-contradicting reality must be a non-contradicting God. The author of Hebrews affirms that “Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.”
“Logic” is absolutely a Biblical standard. Here is the logic: (1) Jesus promises that it is possible to know truth, (2) Jesus is the truth, and (3) Jesus is consistent in His nature. Therefore, truth is consistent (noncontradictory) in its nature and it is possible to know it because it is possible to know Jesus.
Which System is More Consistent?
All the above considered, I am personally led to believe that Dispensationalism is more logically consistent than Covenant Theology. Dispensationalism is consistent in its use of the normal, literal, historical-grammatical approach, even in prophetic Scriptures; Covenant Theology does not use this hermeneutic consistently.
Dispensationalists looks toward the Biblical record of fulfilled prophesies and use that as a baseline for how to remain unfulfilled prophesies. Lester elaborates: “When the Old Testament prophecies that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5.2), He was literally born here. When Isaiah prophesies that the Messiah would be in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53.9), He was literally placed within the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. In Psalm 34.20, it’s prophesied that no bones will be broken for the Messiah — this is exactly what happened. With this precedent, when a dispensationalist reads about a temple in Jerusalem during the Millennial Kingdom, he has no option than to believe that the temple will be literally built.”
A literal reading of such prophesies, however, does not align with Covenant Theology, so in order to make the system work, Covenant theologians change their hermeneutics. This is an inconsistency that Dispensationalism does not have.
When examining the question of why New Testament Christians follow some Mosaic laws and not others, Covenant Theologians create arbitrary divisions: ceremonial, civil, and moral law. These divisions are inconsistent with what the Jews would have understood the law to mean — no Israelite would understand a three-fold law. It was always the “law of Moses”, not the “laws of Moses”. Dispensationalism makes no such divisions — instead, it understands that different dispensations consistently consist of different corresponding responsibilities and judgements.
Conclusion
The question then stands — is Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology the correct system for interpreting the Bible? In an effort to answer this question with integrity, the strengths of both positions were analyzed. I personally conclude that Dispensationalism is the better theological system of hermeneutics because it is more consistent and “logical”.
Both systems have their strengths and both have their weaknesses. Both are Biblical. Dispensationalism is simply more consistent. For this reason, it is my conviction that Dispensationalism is the better system for Christians to use in order to fulfill their “God-given grace and responsibility” to faithfully proclaim the Word of God.
