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

Do we begin with our rules of hermeneutics before we open Scripture, or do we study Scripture to discover rules of hermeneutics used by Christ and the Apostles?

This seems to put you on the horns of a dilemma because we have to start with “our rules of hermeneutics” to even study the Scripture to find out “their rules of hermeneutics.” No one approaches any text or communication devoid of “rules of hermeneutics.” And most of the time, the rules come quite natural because we do it every day. (I still don’t know why people abandon it when we come to Scripture.) If we can’t trust our hermeneutics to understand the OT, how can we trust it to understand the NT to know what their “rules” were? What if we start with the presupposition that there is no conflict at all? That, to me, is the right place to start. But I don’t want to be repetitive.

More to the point, this is why Longenecker’s article and Walton’s article is important and helpful. We don’t really even know what the apostles did or what their hermeneutic was. When you see the variety of ways the the NT uses the OT, it seems that they don’t even know what they did. It does not appear to be a conscious method. Longenecker says, “There is little indication in the New Testament that the authors themselves were conscious of varieties of exegetical genre or of following particular modes of interpretation. At least they seem to make no sharp distinctions between what we would call historical-grammatical exegesis, illustration by way of analogy, midrash exegesis, pesher interpretation, allegorical treatment, and interpretation based on a ‘corporate solidarity’ understanding. All of these are employed in their writings in something of a blended and interwoven fashion.” (Longenecker, “Can We Reproduce the Exegesis of the New Testament”, p. 16). We are reading what they did, making assumptions about what they were trying to do, and then trying to make some sort of rules (or just “rely on the Spirit-leading” as someone put it). And evangelical scholars can’t even agree on what they did.

So if we don’t know what they did, how can we do it? The NT is not a manual for hermeneutics. I think Longenecker is correct that our responsibility to to reproduce their doctrine, not their hermeneutics.

It seems to me as well that you are underestimating inspiration as a source for their “interpretations” (which, again, are not always interpretations). To cite Walton again, ““The credibility of any interpretation is based on the verifiability of either one’s inspiration or one’s hermeneutics” (Walton 2002, 70). If we are not inspired, we are left with only the text that is inspired. And our burden must be to convince our hearers that the text says what we are saying, or to put it better, that we are saying what the text has already said. So the text must take center stage. I struggle to believe that God gave us all these words and sentences in the OT whose meaning cannot be determined by the analysis of the words and sentences together in their context.. Perhaps my dispensational education was different than yours, but I haven’t really come across this tension you seem to feel. Maybe I missed something along the way.

BTW, all four statements are quotations from Peter Enns. That’s why I said that you and others are very close to what Enns says about this. It’s almost identical to what Dennis Johnson says who is a more mainstream author than Enns. Again, my only point is that this is more prevalent than some are willing to admit.

A risky aside: I think there might be a case to be made that Enns ended up where he did on bibliology because he started down this road. It is not a necessary end to be sure, and I do not in any sense mean that you or anyone else will end up where Enns did. It would be interesting to think about it more. Perhaps once Enns gave up on the OT having real meaning in and of itself, there was no longer any reason to carry on the pretense that it was supernatural and accurate. I think Kaiser’s response to Enns in the Three Views book is pretty devastating. Bock’s is good as well.

It seems to me that if we want some recurring examples of how one NT author handled and interpreted the OT, we could examine the entire Book of Hebrews. That book cited more OT than anything else in the NT.

The book of Hebrews is a good place to begin understanding how NT authors handled OT Scripture.

I completely agree Hebrews is a great example of the varied uses of the OT in the life of the church. Hebrews is probably the closest extended form of early preaching we have if Hebrews is a pastoral tract. That raises a lot of interesting questions and examples such as Melchizedek, or why the partial citation of the NC, or the use of Psa 110, and the like. I think Hebrews shows us that not all the NT uses of the OT are interpretations in the way we normally talk of it. It also shows us the role of inspiration that we don’t have.

But even if we understood the methods used in Hebrews, that wouldn’t be enough, would it? There would still be others.

An observations from Hebrews:

• The citation from Jer 31 about the New Covenant in Heb 8 is absolutely devastating for classical dispensationalism and that system’s understanding of the new covenant. To be more frank, it is a death blow. All classical DTs are left with is an appeal to Heb 8:13. This argument seems rather weak, given the entire point of Hebrews is that Christ’s new covenant is better, therefore the Jewish Christian audience shouldn’t go back to the synagogue. See Decker’s contribution to A Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant.

Forgive me for painting with a broad brush, but I see two opposite hermeneutical approaches, both of which I believe are incorrect:

1. To be so wedded to an Old Covenant hermeneutic that you refuse to recognize New Covenant revelation which complements and expands on the original promise, without negating it. An example of this would be some strands of hard-core classical dispensationalism, and that system’s perpetual confusion about what to do with the New Covenant.
2. To be so wedded to a New Covenant hermeneutic that you refuse to recognize Old Covenant revelation which had to have meant something concrete and objective to the original audience - or else it would have been useless revelation. Covenant theology, broadly speaking, does this when it interprets the promises to Israel in so spiritual a fashion that the original audience would never have understood it that way.

Well said. Of course, Hebrews is written to…. Hebrew Christians????? I’ve always had trouble with that because of what to do with them warning passages and the distinctly OT prophetic flavor of the book. If you read Hebrews like a dispy might read Matthew 24 it is intriguing.

I agree that classic DT is a mess on the New covenant. What I call Biblical Covenantalism has no trouble with it. The New covenant (I think) is Christ (cf. Isa. 49:8). While I’m sounding crazy I may as well say that I’m crazy enough to believe that there is a triad of New covenant peoples - a three in one, in the New Creation. The covenants give the hermeneutic!

I need to take some time to look at who the audience is a bit more. I’ve been meaning to do that for awhile. There isn’t enough time in the day. When I preach through it again, I’ll give it a good look.

The citation from Jer 31 about the New Covenant in Heb 8 is absolutely devastating for classical dispensationalism and that system’s understanding of the new covenant.

How so? I have never understood this argument and I have never had trouble with the NC is Heb 8. Perhaps you can make sense of it for me and tell me why I am supposed to have problems. Given the number of traditional dispensationalists who have no problem with the NC in Hebrews 8, it seems you have overstated your case at the very least. I find Bruce Compton’s handling of this to be clear and convincing.

What is the NC citation doing in Hebrews 8?

And why does the author cite only part of the NC rather than all of it?

Classical dispensationalism generally holds that the church has absolutely NO relationship to the NC. This is why, for example, Chafer believed there were actually two NCs, one for Israel and one for the church. That isn’t Compton’s position. I’m only referring to DTs who believe the church has no relationship to the NC.

Thanks Tyler. So you are not referring to traditional dispensationalists, but only to a certain segment of them, correct? I agree that many people (on all sides) have made a jumbled mess of the NC, mostly, IMO because they don’t actually read it and believe what it says. But therein lies the issue, correct?

How would you address the two questions above about the role of the NC in Hebrews 8 and the partial citation of it?

Correct. I’m referring to the old-school, classical dispensationalists who believe the church has no connection to the NC whatsoever.

As for the NC, I believe the church is a full and complete participant in it now, and “all Israel” will be, later. I preached through Hebrews a while back, then afterward came across Decker’s contribution to A Dispensational Understanding of the New Covenant, and found myself in complete agreement with him. If you want to know my position on the church and the NC, Decker pretty much sums it up.

More could be said, but I’m at work and this really isn’t the topic of this thread. My point in brining up Hebrews and the NC is that some flavors of DT seem (to me) to employ transparently desperate hermeneutics to support their system. My main point was the two poles in interpretation both sides should probably avoid, which I’ll repeat here:

1. First hermeneutical mistake: To be so wedded to an Old Covenant-centric hermeneutic that you refuse to recognize New Covenant revelation which complements and expands on the original promise, without negating it. An example of this would be some strands of hard-core classical dispensationalism, and that system’s perpetual confusion about what to do with the New Covenant.
2. Second hermeneutical mistake: To be so wedded to a New Covenant-centric hermeneutic that you refuse to recognize Old Covenant revelation which had to have meant something concrete and objective to the original audience - or else it would have been useless revelation. Covenant theology, broadly speaking, does this when it interprets the promises to Israel in so spiritual a fashion that the original audience would never have understood it that way.

My NT and Greek professor from Seminary believes the church has absolutely no relationship to the NC. We’ve spoken about this a bit, and he and I plan to correspond this Summer on this a lot more. I just can’t get there. Maybe I’ll change my mind … :)

Thanks Tyler. Here’s my brief response:

1. How can the church be a “full and complete participant now” in something that is not even full and complete at this point? That’s my question about about why the partial citation of Jer 31. I think there’s a reason why it is a partial citation and, in the flow of the book of Hebrews, the point of the partial citation is different than most make. The partial citation is because he is expressly not including the church in the whole NC. He is actually making quite a different point—that the OC has gone away.

2. the OC-centric and NC-centric hermeneutics still doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. Hermeneutics is hermeneutics. I know of no basis to have a different one for the OT than the NT. It’s the same one we use here and every where else we communicate. The only thing I can figure is that you are referring to something Kaiser addressed about which direction we read the Bible. Some (such as yourself it seems) want to read it backwards. It is better, IMO, to read it forward. But again, the hermeneutic is the same. You do the same thing with the words, the sentences, the paragraphs, the grammar, etc no matter which testament you are in. I still don’t know why you would trust your reading of the NT if you don’t trust your reading of the OT. The OT was written to a group of people who were supposed to understand it and believe or act in particular ways because of it. To me, that is significant because it indicates that the OT has intelligible meaning for which readers are responsible quite apart from the OT, and remember, Jesus condemns those who do not believe the OT on its own terms.

Thanks again.

Somehow, we’re completely missing each other. I’m a dispensationalist. I don’t read the Bible backward. You wrote:

I still don’t know why you would trust your reading of the NT if you don’t trust your reading of the OT. The OT was written to a group of people who were supposed to understand it and believe or act in particular ways because of it. To me, that is significant because it indicates that the OT has intelligible meaning for which readers are responsible quite apart from the OT, and remember, Jesus condemns those who do not believe the OT on its own terms.

I agree. I wrote the same thing on another thread.

Tyler, My apologies. There are several people involved in this conversation and I am apparently confusing who said what. I think the bulk of the two points I made remain relevant. Again, my apologies for confusing you with whoever said that.

I understand! I think there are about four different discussions going on right now about the same topic … :)