Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
as Systems of Interpretation

Because dispensationalism and covenant theology are both ways of looking at redemptive history (past, present, and future), each naturally has a profound influence on the interpretation of Scripture. The effects of applying the assumptions of either system will influence almost every area of one’s theology. Nowhere is that influence more noticeable than in the study of future prophecy.

The point of controversy between these two frames of reference is not, as might be supposed, the validity of the covenant of grace, though that is a concern. Rather, the disagreement involves the covenantalists’ use of this covenantal construct to equate Israel and the Church. Even if Israel and the Church are saved under the same covenant (and they are, Scripture calls it the “new covenant,” cf. Jer. 31:31-37), there is no logical necessity to view them as the same entity. Therefore, it is not so much the postulation of the supposed “covenant of grace” to which dispensationalists object, it is rather the assumption made by covenantal interpreters that Israel and the Church’s inclusion in this supposed covenant justifies the identification of the Church with Israel. Such a procedure is logically deficient and confuses two prophetic programs that Scripture presents as distinct (Rom. 11), so much so that covenantal interpreters must subject many prophecies to allegorical interpretation in order to avoid absurd conclusions.

Covenant theology as a system of interpretation

An important corollary of the covenantal system is that the Church is an extension of Israel. Given that assumption, it would seem reasonable that all of the promises made to Israel would apply equally to the Church. The interpretive implications are almost endless, but the final result is that there can be no real distinction between God’s revelation to and plan for Israel, and that of the Church. Under this system of interpretation, the Church is a new form of Israel and inherits all the promises and blessings made to Israel in former times (understood “spiritually,” of course). Many covenant theologians go so far as to identify baptism in the New Testament with circumcision in the Old Testament, both being signs of the covenant, thus validating infant baptism on the basis that infants in the Old Testament were circumcised—even though the New Testament draws no such parallel, referring only to the baptism of believers in Christ.

With regard to future prophecy, if the Church were an extension of Israel it would stand to reason that the kingdom promises made to Israel would be fulfilled to the Church. Even so, covenantalists recognize the problems of a literal fulfillment of these prophecies to the Church. The solution of course, is to selectively allegorize any prophecies that present problems, which turns out to be virtually all of them. Nevertheless, what covenant theology has never been able to satisfactorily defend is its manifestly a priori approach in applying this dual hermeneutic, that is, the necessity to make Scripture conform to its predetermined theological conclusions as evidenced by the selective, rather than consistent, use of allegorical interpretation. How does the covenantal interpreter know when to switch from a normal/literal method of interpretation (which he uses with most of the Scripture) to an allegorical method (applied mainly to future prophecy)? The answer is simple: the interpretation has been “pre-concluded;” that’s one of the characteristics of allegorical interpretation; the text can say whatever one needs it to say (which is usually whatever one’s theology requires). Unfortunately, this practice reveals that the covenantal interpreter is not really “interpreting” at all; insofar as he chooses to engage in this practice, he is merely “conforming” scriptural statements to his own theology. Allegorical interpretation is an inherently eisegetical process, in which meaning is put into a passage rather than derived from the passage. This can be seen from the fact that there are no rules governing the process of allegorical interpretation (nor can there be). Even though it might have a veneer of biblical facts and observations from which to work, its core process is entirely subjective.

Figure 1

[Covenantalists view all redemptive history as falling under the supposed “covenant of grace,” and therefore blur the dispensations and the distinction between Israel and the Church. This results in confusion over how the promises made to Israel will be fulfilled. Covenantalists generally apply those promises to the Church (allegorically).]

Dispensationalism as a system of interpretation

In contrast to covenant theology, which is based primarily upon the theological construct of the covenant of grace, dispensationalism imposes no artificial grid upon the interpretive process. Instead, it recognizes the natural landscape of theological history as recorded in Scripture, and interprets accordingly. Dispensationalism maintains that instead of pre-concluding the nature of the kingdom and then tailoring the interpretive process to support that conclusion, one should simply interpret Scriptural statements in light of their clearly intended meaning, according to the normal rules of grammatical and historical interpretation. In other words, dispensationalism holds that the meaning of a text should be determined by the text and its context, not the pre-conclusions of the interpreter. If this point is sustained, it becomes apparent that the interpreter cannot arbitrarily manipulate interpretation (e.g., through the selective use of some alternate method of interpretation [like allegorization] in favor of a particular outcome—such as amillennialism). The interpreter must, at the very least, apply his interpretive principles consistently; failure to do so is an indication of theologically biased interpretation.

Dispensationalism, as an interpretive system, rejects the idea that because all saved people are saved under the same covenant that automatically makes the promises made to one person or group applicable to all people or groups. If specific promises made to individual believers cannot be applied to others (e.g., that Abram would become the father of many nations, or that Hezekiah would live another fifteen years), it does not seem logical that promises made to Israel should be applied to the Church, particularly in view of the fact that the New Testament makes a clear distinction between the two (cf. Rom. 11). Therefore, dispensationalism holds that the meaning of a passage must be derived from the text itself according to the only rules of communication suitable—the customary usage of language, understood in its historical and dispensational context. When this is done, premillennialism is the clear and natural conclusion.

Published at: http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com

Adapted from What the Bible Says About the Future

Page-Formatted PDF version available at:

www.biblicalreader.com/books/future/future.html

See full copyright notice posted at:

http://prophecy.biblicalreader.com/copyright_info.htm

All Scripture taken from the New International Version (NIV)

of the Bible unless otherwise indicated.

Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology as Systems of Interpretation

Covenant theology as a system of interpretation

Dispensationalism as a system of interpretation

Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology
as Systems of Interpretation