Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism - Part 2

Covenant Theology

Covenant Theology “stresses the unity and continuity of redemptive history,” holding that God relates to man through covenant. Covenant theology sees no distinction, spiritually, between Old Testament saints and New Testament saints. The Old Testament believers looked in faith to the coming Messiah (their object of faith being Christ) as do the New Testament believers look in faith to the already come Messiah, Jesus Christ. God’s sovereignty is supreme in that He has always been the initiator of the covenant relationship, and because He is unchanging, so are His ways. O. Palmer Robertson defines a covenant as a “bond in blood sovereignly administered.” Throughout history, hold Covenant Theologians, God has worked by initiating the bond, with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience, through the mode of shed blood, under the complete context of his sovereignty. Geerhardus Vos explains further that “the outstanding characteristic of a berith (the Hebrew word for covenant, tyr]B=) is its unalterableness, its certainty, its eternal validity, and not its voluntary, changeable nature.” In other words, Covenant Theologians see God as the author of history, sovereign over the course of every wind. He did not write history as an ad lib script to be completed by man. The covenant’s “certainty” and “eternal validity” is not based on anything to do with man. This comes from God’s character. It is His faithfulness that makes the covenant a certainty. Therefore, Covenant Theology makes its argument to be a God-centered theology, basing its understanding of all things according to who God is, not what man has done.

While Dispensationalists claim an adherence to a literal hermeneutic, they accuse Covenant Theologians of using a double hermeneutic. However, Covenant Theologians claim a consistent hermeneutic, interpreting literal as literal and figurative as figurative. Poythress provides some help here when he writes, "To define literal interpretation is not so easy as it might appear. Ryrie invokes other, related terms like “normal” and “plain” to explicate what he means by literalness. But by itself this explanation is not enough. Our sense of normality depends radically on our sense of context, including a whole world view. One major aspect of the problem of defining “literal” is that in many instances words, but not sentences, have a literal normal meaning. Moreover, for both words and sentences context is all-important in determining meaning at any given point in an act of communication. What contexts areas to be looked at, and how they are to be looked at, in determination of meaning is very important."

What Poythress clarifies in this explanation is that the Covenant Theologian’s aim is the right meaning, not just the literal meaning. The author may not have intended the literal meaning, but rather used a term figuratively. Arguably, those in the Dispensational camp would claim that this end is their goal as well. Yet many Dispensationalists make the accusation that Covenant Theology allegorizes or spiritualizes the normal meanings of words, and therefore interprets them incorrectly. As has already been stated, the fair question to both sides would be, “Who determines which words are to be taken literally and which are to be taken figuratively?” Covenant Theology does not accept the accusation by Dispensationalists that it allegorizes at will, but rather holds to the notion that context determines meaning and sometimes that meaning is figurative.

Within Covenant Theology, individuals may maintain any of the following eschatological views: Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism, as opposed to the Dispensational system which allows for Dispensational Premillennialism only. Within the three systems linked to Covenant Theology, the secret rapture of the church is not an element. There is only one Second Coming, not two. The two resurrections mentioned in Revelation 20:4-6 refer to the resurrection of the individual soul from death and secondly, the resurrection of the body to eternal life, according to Covenant Theologians. Note that Revelation 20:6 states “Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such, the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ.” This description is descriptive of all believers, not simply a certain group within a specific period of time. “The rest of the dead do not live until the thousand years has ended. But then the general resurrection occurs, which involves all people and includes both body and soul (Rev. 20:11-15).” Not only will there not be a secret rapture according to Covenant Theologians, but present-day believers need not fear of going through the Tribulation either. Particularly thought provoking is the consideration of Matthew 24:34, where Christ states that the present generation would not pass away until all that he had promised in the Olivet Discourse regarding the Tribulation had occurred. Many with the Covenantal perspective believe that this much of this prophecy was fulfilled in the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman armies.

As was stated previously, the most significant distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is each one’s view of the relationship between Israel and the Church. As opposed to this view, Covenant Theologians view a unity between them. Although Dispensationalists claim that the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament, many passages in the Old Testament that refer to Israel are used of the Church in the New Testament, including Exodus 19:5-6 in 1 Peter 2:9, Jeremiah 24:7 in 2 Corinthians 6:16, Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Luke 22:20, and Leviticus 19:2 in 1 Peter 1:15 to name a few. Mathison provides further clarification by explaining that one must distinguish between the nation of Israel (all Israeli nationals) and the True Israel, or Old Testament saints. The nation of Israel included believers and unbelievers, as does the visible church today. The latter was the spiritual body, the people of God, the Elect. It is that group, when Covenant Theologians refer to Israel, which maintains a unity with the Church (the True Church). In other words, God’s people are his people now and always. He does not have two groups of people, on two different tracks, or in two different spiritual spheres. Whereby the New Testament believer looks back (historically speaking) to Christ in faith, the Old Testament believer looked forward in faith to the promise of the Messiah to come. If one can understand the biblical doctrine of Election, then one can understand this unity that Covenant Theologians claim exists between Israel and the Church. Just as God will reject Gentiles who have refused Christ, so He will also reject Jews who have refused Christ. Romans 11 paints a clear portrait of unity which Covenant theologians hold exists between Israel and the Church. “God does not plant a brand new tree. He does not break off believing Jews and believing Gentiles from their respective trees and graft them into a third, new tree, all the while maintaining the unbelieving Jewish tree.” This grafting idea in Romans 11 is made clearer when one does not see the Church as simply a “straight-line continuation of Israel,” but rather sees the Church in light of Christ’s fulfillment of all that the Old Testament held in promise. Inasmuch as Israel had fallen short of God’s standard, Christ fully met the standard (2 Cor. 1:20). If this notion of unity is true, and if it exists only and completely because of Christ’s fulfillment, then the New Testament believer should, upon discovery of this truth, have an expanding worship of God because of who he is and what he has done in Christ to make us “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:29).