This is the third post in a series comparing covenantalism with dispensationalism. The first post gave an overview of covenantalism, and the second looked at the broad outlines of dispensationalism. Today, I want to look at some practical ways these differences matter.
First though, I hope you noticed that the two approaches are very similar. They both concern how to understand the meta-narrative of the Bible and how to interpret the progress of revelation. They both try to make sense of the unfolding drama of scripture through the lens of key covenants, and they both recognize that those covenants mark distinct dispensations.
But even at first blush, a few subtle differences stand out. Dispensationalism stresses discontinuity between those covenants, whereas covenant theology focuses on their continuity. Thus there are different areas of focus that emerge from both views. A dispensationalist is going to see the meta-narrative of the Bible as the story of Israel. She was called by God in the OT, and her future kingdom stands as the earth’s final era, ultimately vindicating God’s promises to her. Whereas in covenant theology, because of the continuity of the covenant of grace, the focus is more likely to be on how all of history was leading to Christ; rather than seeing a future kingdom as the location for fulfillment of many promises, covenantalism is more likely to see those promises as fulfilled in Christ. Thus, the kingdom is a present spiritual reality (vs. in dispensationalism where it is a future physical reality).
Even then, it is possible the differences between those two still seem rather esoteric. But there are more practical distinctions that become important. Here are six:
God’s people: what is the relationship between the church and Israel? In covenantalism, it appears that the church has an essential relationship to Israel, such that “the church has the flowering of God’s promises to Israel” (Glodo, in Covenant Theology). In covenantalism, it is not so much that the church has “replaced” Israel, as it is that the church IS the rightful recipient of Israel’s promises (again, that language is from Glodo’s excellent summary of this issue). Meanwhile dispensationalism sees God’s people in every age as having continuity, yet the outward manifestation of those people is different; thus Israel and the church are distinct, and the church does not fulfill promises given to Israel. Which leads to:
God’s plan: in dispensationalism, God will fulfill his promises to Israel in a future kingdom on earth. If there are nations in the new heavens and the new earth, the dispensationalist asks: can one of those nations be Israel? If so, why wouldn’t they fulfill the promises given to Israel? Thus the dispensationalist does not see present day as the final stage of world history, but looks forward to a kingdom on earth. On the other hand, covenantalism is more likely to see this current age as the last era of human history. God’s plan, they say, is fulfilled in Christ, not Israel. Speaking of:
God’s promises: in covenantalism, rather than seeing the OT as a series of promises to Israel, the OT is understood as progressively unfolding the covenant of grace, which is made manifest through Jesus. Thus the promises find their fulfilment in him, not in a future kingdom through Israel. Dispensationalists counter that many of those promises were given to Israel, and thus as a pure matter of fact they remain unfulfilled, and calling the Church “true Israel” because of their union with Christ (who is the true Israel) doesn’t adequately account for those promises. While we are talking about the church:
The church: an essential component of dispensationalism–in fact, perhaps the essential component–is the understanding that church began at Pentecost in Acts 2. The church is new, baptism does not replace circumcision, elders do not replace priests, and deacons are not Levites. The worship center is not a sanctuary, and the Mosaic Law (or even 1/3 of it!) doesn’t bind Christians. Also don’t call your gifts to the Church tithes, and stop getting Jeremiah 29:11 tattoos (but seriously tattoos themselves are fine–you aren’t under the Mosaic Law are you?). Conversely, in covenantalism, the church began in Eden with Adam and Eve. The Mosaic Law continues (at least the “moral” elements of it), thus you probably shouldn’t get a tattoo, but if you do, Jeremiah 29:11 would work just fine, as it was a promise to Israel and you, my friend, are welcome back from exile any time. Jesting aside, a practical implication of this would be how the covenantalist sees promises to Israel in the OT–he is likely to see them as more applicable to the church than a dispensationalist would be comfortable with.
Hermeneutics: For covenantalism, much of the Bible makes more sense if you start with Jesus and work “backwards.” It is not only that the NT colors in OT promises, but rather that the NT energizes and fulfills OT scripture in such a way that the full meaning of many OT passages is only evident through NT realities. If you are going to understand what is happening in Exodus 16 (manna) for example, its probably essential to have a working understanding of John 6 first. Dispensationalists, however, stress the doctrine of perspicuity–the idea that at any point of revelation, God’s people had sufficient understanding to rightly interpret the passage. The Bible is not Hebrew, they say, so read don’t read it right to left.
Life in the church: Earlier I joked about tattoos, but behind that is a serious point for the dispensationalist: is the church under the Mosaic Law? If so, do you keep the Sabbath? Is that Sunday? All of this comes immediately and practically to a head with the notion of infant baptism. In dispensationalism, this is precisely the area where the new covenant is supposed to be different from the old; foundational to the new covenant community is the promise that all who are part of it are believers and posses God’s Spirit. There is no “covenant sign” pointing toward future salvation in the new covenant, but rather ordinances that proclaim what God has already done. In covenantalism, circumcision gives way to baptism as the physical sign (circumcision) is replaced with a spiritual sign (baptism), but the organic nature of the covenant community itself is unchanged. In other words, both the OT and NT display covenant communities made up of covenant families, which include infants. The difference is in the fullness of the revelation of Christ, not in an exclusion of children from the covenant.
I don’t want this series to end here, as I do want to look at one verse in light of these distinctions–Galatians 6:16. But I don’t know if I’ll have time to get that out this week, so that might be a next week project :). I hope this series has been helpful for you..
