Dispensationalism 101: Part 1 - The Difference Between Dispensational & Covenantal Theology

….the author’s humility and note that if we win by foul play, we lose. That said, perhaps a quick description of covenant theology from a covenant theology source would be a nice bit of “good faith” in the follow-on. It is interesting as well that we might say that covenant theology might be described as dispensationalism with only two dispensations instead of…was it 7? (count me as “learning” here!)

A final note is that we ought to be careful about the language and the terms selected, as I believe dispensationalism derives from the KJV term “dispensation” for economy that does not show up in many modern translations, and I’d guess there are multiple translations for Strong’s 1285 as well.

The recognition of dispensations in Scripture is not a distinguishing factor between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. As the Westminster Confession of Faith stated in 1646, “There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.” (WCF 7.6)(boldface added). ” Charles Ryrie recognized this:

What marks off a man as a dispensationalist? What is the sine qua non of the system? ….

Theoretically the sine qua non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact that God has distinguishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world. Covenant theologians hold that there are various dispensations (and even use the word!) within the outworking of the covenant of grace. Hodge, for instance, believed that there are four dispensations after the Fall—Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the end. Louis Berkhof writes … of only two basic dispensations—the Old and the New, but within the Old he see four periods and all of these are revelations of the covenant of grace. In other words, a man can believe in dispensations, and even see them in relation to progressive revelation, without being a dispensationalist.

Dispensationalism Today (Moody Press: Chicago 1965), 43-44. This does not make Covenant Theologians Dispensationalists.

Likewise, Dispensationalists recognize the various Covenants in Scripture and, to a greater or lesser degree, their importance. I appreciate Dr. Henebury’s continuing efforts to persuade Dispensationalists to embrace the importance of the Biblical Covenants. This recognition of the Biblical Covenants, however, does not make Dispensationalists Covenant Theologians.

Dr. Reardon signals his grounds for distinction in the following phrase: Dispensationalists are those “who apply a consistently literal hermeneutic, especially in the prophets, while not reading Jesus into every Old Testament verse or giving the New Testament priority.” He implies that Covenant Theologians do the reverse. In response, Covenant Theologians will deny that they inconsistently apply a literal hermeneutic, even in the prophets. Rather, they will say that Dispensationalists use a woodenly literal hermeneutic that does injustice to the plain reading of Scripture in grammatical-historical context. They will concede that “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, [Jesus has] interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself,” but this is merely what Luke 24:27 plainly and literally says. Finally, Covenant Theologians will state that “The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us …” (WSC 2)(boldface added). Indeed, all of Scripture is to be brought to bear on questions of interpretation. “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” (WCF 1.9). The New Testament does not have overweening priority but is to be read in pari materia with the Old.

Therefore, I have little hope for this series. A more profitable exercise would be to pick cases and interpret Scripture from a Covenantal perspective as well as a Dispensational perspective. For example, take the Abrahamic Covenant as recorded in Genesis 17. Who will enjoy the blessings promised in this Covenant? When will they enjoy them? Where will they enjoy them? How long will they enjoy them? What Scriptural arguments do the sides bring to bear? Only through this type of exercise will you truly and fairly explore the differences between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism.

Appreciate the background and wish you well. Although I know that you want your congregation to come away fully persuaded of Dispensationalism, I hope you will present a “flesh and blood” account of Covenant Theology and not a “straw man” version. I am afraid from your following statement that there will not be much meat on the bones of the Covenant Theology that you present.

The intent of this series of articles is not to fully flesh out the views of either dispensational or covenant theology, but to show the clear distinctions between them and why—Biblically—dispensational theology is to be preferred.

I do think that it was particularly helpful for you to identify that non-Dispensationalists can hold to amillennialism (which is really inaugurated millennialism), postmillennialism, or covenantal premillennialism.

By the way, I believe that James Montgomery Boice moved from pretrib premil to historic premil during his career. Heard him speak once at Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia back in the 1980s.

Like most people, I’ve been weaned on the “dispensationalism uses literal hermeneutics, and covenant theology spiritualizes things” approach. Of course it was much more nuanced than that, but this is the essence of it. This language probably isn’t helpful. The comments from Bro. Henebury’s on-going series illustrate this. Perhaps the time has come for a better terminology:

• Maybe all flavors of dispensationalists should use something like “authorial intent,” and stress how the original audience would have understood the OT passage.
• This leads us into how NT writers interpreted the OT. Peter’s use of Ps 16 comes to mind (cf. Acts 2).

But, as a better way forward, perhaps it would best to say that dispensationalists give primacy to the original author’s authorial intent, in the original audience’s context, rather than refer to “literal vs. spiritual.”

Authorial intent should be the goal of every endeavor to interpret Scripture. What else would one desire to know besides what the author intended to convey? However, claiming this as the proper term to describe dispensationalism is not helpful. It assumes that CT is not endeavoring to interpret according to authorial intent. From my experience, I that CT is equally committed to this concept, and perhaps even more so. I say more so because CT usually gives more attention to the genre of the book as an important aspect of accurate interpretation. The literal whenever possible hermeneutic frequently imposes literal interpretation upon a passage that the genre indicates should be understood symbolically. Poetry and apocalyptic literature should not be forced through a strictly literal hermeneutic. To do so distorts authorial intent instead of honoring it and submitting to it.

Well, at least I tried to propose something useful! :)

Look forward to the rest of the series. I realize you aren’t writing a journal article, here! Thanks for the series.

[TylerR]

Look forward to the rest of the series. I realize you aren’t writing a journal article, here! Thanks for the series.

I agree with G. N. Barkman’s assessment of authorial intent but understand why, and appreciate that, Bros. Reardon and TylerR are struggling with how to address the difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism when it comes to hermeneutical method. The struggle is because there is or should be no significant difference. The difference would lie in the application of the grammatical-historical method to a particular text. Perhaps Bro. Barkman, I, and others can provide constructive comments as the series proceeds which may help shed further light on this issue.

Why do Dispensationalists insist that the 1,000 years in Revelation 20 must be literal? By the time the term is first used in verse two, John has already given us five terms that are almost certainly symbolic. (key, bottomless pit, great chain, dragon, serpent) Symbolic in that the reality being communicated is something other than a literal key, etc. So what Biblical principle is violated if we at least consider the possiblity that the term, “a thousand years” is symbolic? After all, this is apocalyptic literature laden with symbols.

I’m glad you asked an easy question … :)

We did a fairly deep-dive into Revelation 4-22 during family devotions last year. It took us four months. I found many dispensationalist commentaries a bit wild at some points. I think Robert Thomas’ 2-vol work is the most responsible thing out there from dispensationalists on Revelation. I look forward to preaching through Rev 4-22 one day. I’ve never seen it done in anything but a sensationalistic fashion.

From my experience, I that CT is equally committed to this concept, and perhaps even more so.

There are people like Peter Enns who flat out say that authorial intent of the OT doesn’t matter. I wonder if, in practice, that isn’t more prevalent that some might like to admit. For instance, when the OT talks about the land, it seems beyond dispute that the author had in mind the land of Palestine between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt. But there are a great many who deny that meaning for today and assert that it is eternity, the new heavens/new earth, or some such. Or take the NC. It seems clear from the words that Jeremiah intended that to refer to the ethnic Israelites. He certainly had the vocabulary and the categories to talk about the nations (as he, Isaiah, and other prophets do) and yet he didn’t. It was specifically Israel. He also clearly references the land of Palestine. Yet many today go beyond that intention or deny that intention on one or both counts. So I am not sure that CT as a whole is “equally committed” and I certainly wouldn’t say they are “more committed.”

I would add this caveat: There are many dispensationalists who came up with strange interpretations. Someone rather sardonically pointed out that the CT impulse was to spiritualize the prophetic sections while the DT impulse was spiritualize the historical narrative sections. There was a lot of good preaching, so to speak, that came from such nonsense.

The literal whenever possible hermeneutic frequently imposes literal interpretation upon a passage that the genre indicates should be understood symbolically. Poetry and apocalyptic literature should not be forced through a strictly literal hermeneutic. To do so distorts authorial intent instead of honoring it and submitting to it.

I object to this definition of “strictly literal.” A literal hermeneutic is one that reads/hears the author in his intent. So a “strictly literal” interpretation of an analogy or metaphor recognizes the analogy or metaphor. A “strictly literal” interpretation of poetry interprets it as poetry.

Here are three quotations that I think are helpful in this.

This recognition of a metaphorical style is not to be thought of as a return to allegorization, nor is it a “spiritualizing” of the passage. When a writer employs metaphor he is to be understood metaphorically and his metaphorical meaning is his literal meaning: that is to say, it is the truth he wishes to convey. The term “literal” stands strictly as the opposite of “figurative,” but in modern speech it often means “real,” and it is used this way by those who want to be sure that they know what the writer really and originally meant. In this sense a metaphorical saying is “literally” true. … Thus a metaphorical statement is “literally” true but cannot be “literalistically” true. The “literal” meaning, then, is what the particular writer intended, and although he used metaphor, no one familiar with the language in which he expressed himself could reasonably misunderstand him (Kevan, “The Principle of Interpretation,” in Revelation and the Bible, ed Henry, p. 294).

Dispensationalists claim that their principle of hermeneutics is that of literal interpretation. This means interpretation that gives to every word the same meaning it would have in normal usage, whether employed in writing, speaking, or thinking. It is sometimes called grammatical-historical interpretation since the meaning of each word is determined by grammatical and historical considerations. The principle might also be called normal interpretation since the literal meaning of the words is the normal approach to their understanding in all languages. … Symbols, figures of speech, and types are all interpreted plainly in this method, and they are in no way contrary to literal interpretation. After all, the very existence of any meaning for a figure of speech depends on the reality of the literal meaning of the terms involved. Figures often make the meaning plainer, but it is the literal, normal, or plain meaning that they convey to the reader” (Ryrie, Dispensationalism, p. 80).

The literalist (so called) is not one who denies that figurative language, that symbols, are used in prophecy, nor does he deny that great spiritual truths are set forth therein; his position is, simply, that the prophecies are to be normally interpreted (i.e., according to the received laws of language) as any other utterances are interpretation—that which is manifestly figurative being so regarded (Lange, Revelation, cited in Ryrie, p. 81).

So “literal interpretation” is authorial intent. It does not deny the use of metaphor, analogy, etc. It uses it.

[Larry]

From my experience, I that CT is equally committed to this concept, and perhaps even more so.

There are people like Peter Enns who flat out say that authorial intent of the OT doesn’t matter. I wonder if, in practice, that isn’t more prevalent that some might like to admit. For instance, when the OT talks about the land, it seems beyond dispute that the author had in mind the land of Palestine between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt. But there are a great many who deny that meaning for today and assert that it is eternity, the new heavens/new earth, or some such. Or take the NC. It seems clear from the words that Jeremiah intended that to refer to the ethnic Israelites. He certainly had the vocabulary and the categories to talk about the nations (as he, Isaiah, and other prophets do) and yet he didn’t. It was specifically Israel. He also clearly references the land of Palestine. Yet many today go beyond that intention or deny that intention on one or both counts. So I am not sure that CT as a whole is “equally committed” and I certainly wouldn’t say they are “more committed.”

…………………………….

Just one quick thought on the land. Romans 4:13 says “For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world…” Since Jesus is the “offspring” (i.e., Christ - Gal. 4:16) it seems that there is an expansion of the promise. Israel as a nation received the land as promised with its little boundaries. And forfeited it. Now in Jesus, the obedient Israelite, the fuller intent of the promise is made known. A promise can be more than what a writer understood or anticipated. Why would “Israel” want Palestine when the world is now the inheritance?

I agree with GNB that “authorial intent” would be helpful to refer to, but it would solve absolutely nothing because what is meant by authorial intent can differ depending on one’s outlook. If one holds that the NT interprets the OT then what does “authorial intent” mean? Usually it means the intent of the Divine Author. But that begs the question that Divine intent is in agreement with that approach. I like the term “plain sense” to literal even though it isn’t perfect.

GNB loads the bases in another comment when he says we must judge meaning through genre. But this will play into the understanding of authorial intent which he recommended. Problem? Yes. The matter of genre is elastic to say the least, and especially in the area where GNB wants to commend his hermeneutics - i.e. apocalyptic.

Apocalyptic is a wax nose if ever there was one. I’ve read scores of descriptions (usually based on liberal scholarship) and they seldom agree. Neither can scholars agree on which books or parts of books are apocalyptic. And the Book of Revelation says it is a prophecy several times. It does not claim to be an “apocalypse” in the genre sense. It is an apocalypto because it is an unveiling, not a covering up. I reject treating Revelation or Daniel as apocalyptic. They are prophetic and they can be readily understood as prophecies in the “plain-sense” tradition, particularly via Biblical Covenantalism (I think).

As for “Land” and Romans 4:13, Paul is speaking about justification, not the land promise. I simply reproduce what I have written on SI before:

“If we look at Romans 4:13 your reasoning depends upon reading “world” (kosmos) as “planet earth” or “all the lands of the earth.” If such was Paul’s meaning then we could go with the amendments to Genesis 15 (although not without some difficulty regarding continuity). But this is not necessary because the Apostle does not have the land promise in mind in Romans 4. The context is justification to salvation, not Israel’s land grant. Even John Murray (Romans 141-142) recognizes this. A more recent commentator writes that,

“…in speaking about God’s promise, he [Paul] does not include any reference to the territorial aspect of the promise given to Abraham and to his descendants.” - R. N. Longenecker, The Epistle to the Romans, NIGTC, 510.”

But this illustrates the divide quite well. What seems reasonable to one group looks pretty outlandish to the other.

”