Bovine Theology

It seems like it is easier to post videos than write sometimes. This is especially true with this one. This video is a project that I have worked on more hours than I care to admit. I would use descriptives like “meticulous” or “perfectionist” to describe my motivations, but neither fits well. I was tasked with creating a short film to profile MTW’s work in the region. I collected footage from a number of sources, which wasn’t really ideal, mainly because it was shot by a number of different people with different equipment. But I was thankful to have the footage at all, and was especially appreciative toward those who graciously shared what they had with me. I found myself constantly tweaking and changing the film because it is to be profiled in connection with the upcoming General Assembly. I wanted the outcome to reflect well on MTW by communicating not merely information, but a story that speaks to the hearts of its viewers. My times has run out and this is the final product, for better or worse!

I had the best of intentions to blog from General Assembly this year, but there was little time. It was a great week in Memphis, and several things will stick with me.

The highlight of the week was our MTW luncheon. We had about 400 people in attendance and the focus was on partnerships. The idea behind partnerships is that the traditional model of missions is losing its effectiveness. This model is where the local church, the missions agency and the field work in a lateral operation. The separation between the church and the field has created a divide between the two. Churches lack a sense of making an impact. The field feels alone. The missions agency can become bureaucratic. So in the past few years churches have sought to become their own sending agency. This has a number of weaknesses. Churches lack sustainability by themselves. Small churches are inadequate compared to big churches in what they can do. And churches of all sizes which do this end up requiring  a staff so large that the actual cost of “doing” missions is exorbitant. The partnership model brings the three together, rather than in a lateral line, working in concentric circles. At the lunch we demonstrated this by having a U.S. pastor, a missionary, and a national church leader in front. In this particular scenario the pastor spoke about how the relationship with the field developed from supporting missionaries, to the church sending short term teams. Soon the church brought the national leader from Mexico to the U.S. and hosted he and his family while they attended seminary at RTS. Now the church’s associate pastor and his family, Michael and Tricia Lee, are going to Mexico as long term missionaries. It was a special joy to me as  I have had the joy of working closely with the Lees as they have come through the assessment process and are now raising support. Partnerships work because each entity does what it can do best. The church is able to provide people and resources, the national leaders are the best leaders in their own country (they know the language, the culture, and they will raise up their own replacements rather than the mission agency sending new missionaries), and the mission agency can handle the administrative and care responsibilities most effectively and efficiently.

Another memory from the week was seeing a number of old friends and hearing how God is working throughout the PCA. It was also great to develop new relationships with pastors and ruling elders, and forging new paths to assisting churches in developing their missions ministries. Face-to-face time with people always proves more fruitful than relying solely on phone calls and emails. I experienced this especially with one church with which there has been some difficulty in their relationships with some of our fields. Walking away from this week I was struck with the effectiveness of simply talking through issues.

I left for Memphis struggling with loving the PCA. I love the theology of the PCA and I love the people in our denomination but sometimes I wrestle with loving the PCA. We’re not perfect. But General Assembly is refreshing because it demonstrates so many of the benefits of working together. God’s glory is our corporate goal, and his method of demonstrating His glory is through His Church. Watching the leaders wrestle with difficult issues, such as the Federal Vision debate, and then resolve and state that this movement does not represent the Confession, and therefore Scripture, renewed my commitment to the PCA. I still long for us to do better in a number of areas, such as genuine kindness (while balancing the purity of the church with the unity of the church), appreciating and using the gifts of all in the church (while appreciating the office of teaching elder, dismantling the fraternal order that divides it from the laity), and pursuing diversity (without pursuing it for diversity’s sake, but learning to appreciate all people groups). We’ve got a ways to go, but for now this is where I’m led to belong and serve. I long to finish my seminary work and get back in the trenches of pastoral ministry, but am resting in God’s sovereign timing, knowing that He is at work.

It’s been a while since I could post due to a number of things, mostly a certain book. Actually, it’s a certain stack of books (albeit a small stack). I’m trying to finish a course in my seminary studies, an apologetics course, to graduate with a Masters of Biblical Studies. I’m not giving up on my Master of Divinity (which I’m about 70% through). But since it’s taken me so much longer than I had hoped, I decided I wanted to get something to show for what I have done. I’m doing this partly for my own motivation, but also to possibly open up some doors of opportunity. So, all that to say, I’ve had my nose buried in the first of four books, a rather enjoyable comparison of apologetical methods, edited by one of my seminary profs, (Dr. Steve Cowan). The book is Five Views on Apologetics. I won’t get much into the book here (I’ll save that for later), but I will say that as much as I have been in the classical camp for as long as I’ve studied apologetics, I am really enjoying the writing of John Frame. I haven’t finished and am not nailing down any stakes, but so far I really like what Frame is saying and the way he is saying it.

The special committee of the PCA’s General Assembly to study “Federal Vision” has released their report. And as far as I have scanned over it, I’m pleased. It’s available here. The heart of their work can be found in the nine declarations they made:

In light of the controversy surrounding the NPP and FV, and after many months of careful study, the committee unanimously makes the following declarations:

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.
2. The view that an individual is “elect” by virtue of his membership in the visible church; and that this “election” includes justification, adoption and sanctification; but that this individual could lose his “election” if he forsakes the visible church, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
3. The view that Christ does not stand as a representative head whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
5. The view that “union with Christ” renders imputation redundant because it subsumes all of Christ’s benefits (including justification) under this doctrinal heading is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
6. The view that water baptism effects a “covenantal union” with Christ through which each baptized person receives the saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, including regeneration, justification, and sanctification, thus creating a parallel soteriological system to the decretal system of the Westminster Standards, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
7. The view that one can be “united to Christ” and not receive all the benefits of Christ’s mediation, including perseverance, in that effectual union is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
8. The view that some can receive saving benefits of Christ’s mediation, such as regeneration and justification, and yet not persevere in those benefits is contrary to the Westminster Standards.
9. The view that justification is in any way based on our works, or that the so-called “final verdict of justification” is based on anything other than the perfect obedience and satisfaction of Christ received through faith alone, is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

Derek Webb has a new album coming out this week entitled The Ringing Bell. I always enjoy Derek’s music and his lyrics.

I’ve recently been questioned as to how I came to hold to Covenant Theology. It’s a good question for me to try and answer. I didn’t grow up in a Covenantal context. Rather, I grew up in a Dispensational Bible church. In that church I was given a healthy, weekly dose of biblical exposition. It was usually morning and evening, and often in Sunday School. I don’t remember learning the system of Dispensationalism, but I certainly heard from it consistently.

When I left home to join the Navy, my father gave me a copy of J.I. Packer’s Knowing God. I didn’t enjoy reading much, and really had no love for theology. But because of the stresses of leaving home and having my faith questioned regularly by others, I dove in head first into this book. There were some hard truths within those pages. I didn’t know it was written from a Covenantal perspective. I simply recognized the truths within the book that I had been taught from Scripture all my life. I spent nearly a year reading it, often rereading pages until I understood them.

Soon after that, I got plugged into a PCA church in Hawaii where I was stationed. There I began to interact with Reformed theology, from a Covenantal perspective. I didn’t recognize so much the hermeneutical system as I did the truths within Reformed theology. I soon was able to wholeheartedly agree with Calvinism and Reformed theology. But I still wrestled with the system of hermeneutics (although I couldn’t necessarily articulate it). Dispensational thought was engrained within me, even though I didn’t know it. So when it came to eschatology and my view of the Church, I still had Dispensational leanings.

After leaving the Navy I served in a Southern Baptist church. There, I continued to study authors like R.C. Sproul, J.I. Packer, and other Reformed guys. I really had to defend being Reformed and that caused me to be more convinced of my beliefs. But Dispensational thoughts were still there.

From there, I returned to serve in the church I grew up in. I was Associate Pastor there for three years. It was during this time that I really began to look at hermeneutical systems. As I considered Dispensationalism, and I was certainly being encouraged to adopt this system, I became more and more frustrated. I liked many things about it, such as the literal approach to Scripture and the seemingly convincing eschatology. This was of course due to the fact that I was taught there that Covenant Theology treated Scripture allegorically and that it was nearly heretical to consider the Church as the fulfillment of Old Testament Israel. But the system itself still did not gel for me. One of the significant factors was the fact that many, if not most, of the authors I respected (and even those within this church respected) came from a Covenantal perspective. Because I wasn’t convinced of Dispensationalism, I felt compelled to study Covenant Theology more deeply.

I went from that church to Birmingham Theological Seminary where I pursued my Master of Divinity. It was during these years that I saw clearly several things about Covenant Theology. First, the Covenantal view of one God, with one people, and one means of salvation seemed consistent not only with Scripture in particular but seemed more consistent to God’s very nature. Although I struggled to articulate it, it seemed strange that God would have two people. This distinction, as engrained as it was in my head from birth, seemed inconsistent as I read not only the New Testament, but also as I studied the Old Testament. The way I began to understand it, the nation of Israel was the infancy of God’s revelation of His people, just as the Law had been given as a tutor to this infant people. As Christ came and fulfilled all that the Old Testament prophesied, so the expansion of His people went from infant Israel, to the adult Church. It is one and the same people. Covenant Theology teaches not that the Church replaces Israel, but that the Church is the further revelation of God’s people. Secondly, I learned that the difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism wasn’t a literal hermeneutic versus an allegorical one, but rather what each system considers literal. Covenant Theology uses a literal hermeneutic. It treats Scripture that is to be understood literally, as literal. The difference is that Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism disagree over those portions which are to be understood allegorically. Certainly, Dispensationalists don’t treat every word of Scripture literally. They simply disagree with us as to what is to be understood literally and what is allegorical.

I’m not writing this to be an exhaustive treatise on Covenant Theology. It’s simply my story. And at this point of that story, Covenant Theology just makes sense to me. This doesn’t mean that I have it all sorted out. I don’t. Although I’m Covenantal, I’m still quite sympathetic to Historical Premillennialism, for example. I wouldn’t say that I hold to this view of eschatology, but I’m still open to it. And that is quite acceptable in my denomination, the PCA. In fact, a number of pastors and professors I have set under hold to Historical Premillennialism. I’m still studying Amillennialism, however, as well.

So, I can clearly say at this point that I am Reformed, a Calvinist, and that I hold to Covenant Theology. Each of these perspectives has caused my love and faith in God to grow to a deeper level, and I have a stronger desire to see His glory shine as a result. And so, until I am convinced from Scripture otherwise, I’ll stand here. To read a more “scholarly” (and I use that term very lightly) approach to Covenant Theology versus Dispensationalism, I have posted it here in three parts: Part I, Part II, and Part III.

The Reformed View
The Reformed view of the doctrine of the Kingdom is defined by Vos as, “the rule of God established through creation and extending through providence over the universe.” The Covenantal perspective understands a unity to exist between the Old and New Testaments. God’s Kingdom has always ruled all things. On earth, God revealed His kingdom first through the nation of Israel. However, this was not to be the end as if God’s highest aspirations were merely political. The Jewish monarchy was to point to something greater, namely, the messianic kingship that would one day come to save not the ethnic nation of Israel, but the True Israel, the people of God. The Messiah’s coming brought with it the ushering in of the Kingdom.

Jesus was the founder of no new religion; instead, he was to bring about the realization of what had previously been presented in ideal form. His (Vos’s) point is that there is a historic unity between Jesus’ teaching and the revelation of the Old Testament regarding the Kingdom. The essence of the Kingdom of God consists in the supremacy of God, in the sphere of saving power and in the state of human blessedness. There could be, for Jesus, no state of happiness for man without the prior reigning of God.

Yet the Reformed view does not claim that the Kingdom of God is fully manifested. The present time is in the progression of the Kingdom’s manifestation. In other words, today can be seen the very making of history, the history of the Kingdom. The Church is the manifestation of God’s Kingdom work here on earth. The Church is the New Israel that is prophesied in the Old Testament. In the book of Ezekiel we see that, “Eventually Ezekiel saw a new Israel with Messiah as its prince (34:23f.; 37:24). That new Israel would walk in the law of the Lord (11:20; 16:61; 20:43; 36:27) and dwell in the land of Canaan (36:33; 37:25). God would enter into a new covenant with that people (37:26–28), and he would walk in close fellowship with them (39:29; 46:9). Upon them the Lord would pour out his Holy Spirit (36:27; 39:27).” Unless one insists on a literal occupying of the land of Canaan, all of these things have been fulfilled in the Church. The only thing that would keep Israel and the Church separate is a system of interpretation that insisted on such. The Reformed view, particularly the Amillennial view, asserts that the Church is the New Israel completely and that the Kingdom of God has been taken from Israel and given to a new people, the Church (Matt. 21:43). Of interest is that the term “Kingdom of God” is used in Matthew 21:43, not “Kingdom of Heaven.” Is this not specifically speaking of the Messiah’s particular kingdom and not of God’s general rule over all? This supports the view of the Reformed who hold that both terms, “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven,” are synonymous (see also Matt. 19:23-24 where both terms are used synonymously).

And so it is that the Kingdom has not only come but it also is to come. As in much prophecy of the Old Testament, there was a present or near fulfillment, and a future fulfillment (e.g. the Messianic Psalms). J.I. Packer writes, “The kingdom is present in its beginnings though future in its fullness; in one sense it is here already, but in the richest sense it is still to come (Luke 11:20; 16:16; 17:21; 22:16, 18, 29-30).” After Jesus’ death and resurrection, he claimed to His disciples, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” The word “all” is exclusive. Jesus is King now.

Introduction
It is enjoyable to think back to one’s Sunday School days and the Bible stories of the kings of Israel when one hears the term “the Kingdom of God.” After all, isn’t that what God had in mind when He made the promise of an everlasting kingdom? Is not the nation of Israel due a reinstituted kingdom according to the promises of the Old Testament prophets? Although no evangelical Christian would deny Christ’s kingly office or the sovereignty of God, the meaning of the term “Kingdom of God” is certainly varied across Christianity.

There are three basic views of the Kingdom of God. The first shall be called the “liberal hope” view of the Kingdom. In this view, the Kingdom is yet to come but is providing social, economic, and political salvation throughout the world. Proponents of this view often reduce Christ to simply a teacher or a prophet and turn the eschatological teachings of the New Testament into imagery of a present social evolution and a coming social bliss. The second view, and certainly the most common, is the dispensational premillennial view. Dispensationalists hold that the terms “Kingdom of God” and “Kingdom of Heaven” (the latter used only in Matthew) describe a present kingdom and a future kingdom, respectively. The focus, however, is on a future, literal, earthly kingdom in which Jesus will reign as an earthly king. The third view is the Reformed view which sees the Kingdom of God as both present and future. At present, “it designates the rule of God established through creation and extending through providence over the universe.” In the future, it will be a whole-hearted recognition of all creation to that sovereignty. These three views will be surveyed with attention being given to the light that Scripture sheds on each position.

The Liberal Hope View
The liberal hope view can certainly not be accepted by any serious student of the Bible, let alone anyone who would call themselves an evangelical. Its very premise denies the deity and perfection of Christ. Christ did not possess “Messianic consciousness,” because the order of events was not according to the “outlined plan,” say these proponents. Vos writes of this view, “it shifts the emphasis in His teaching from the present-spiritual to the external-eschatological, making the former no more than a mans to the latter…seeing that a man so absorbed by these radical other-worldly, fantastic speculations, could not have possessed a well-balanced psychical temper; He becomes a subject for psychiatric investigation.” Jesus is not only ludicrous, but He is quite an impotent king, if even considered a king by this view at all.

The kingdom, according to the liberal hope view, is not yet arrived. Some liberal theologians, like Albert Schweitzer, held that Jesus expected the Kingdom to arrive in the near future. Therefore, when it didn’t, Jesus died “a deluded first century apocalyptist.” This view also sees the Church, not as the Kingdom, since the Kingdom has yet to arrive. Therefore, everything is building, moving toward a future point (the consummation of the Kingdom). That point, however, is not realized now. In the early twentieth century this view was a tool of the Social Gospel in America. In order to accommodate the pressures of Academia, specifically the notion of evolution, liberals saw the movement toward the coming Kingdom as a bettering of mankind. This view of the Kingdom had all the answers to the social, political and economic woes of the day. Furthermore, this progression showed how man was getting better; he was evolving. The final fulfillment of all of this would be the consummation of the Kingdom.

It seems simple enough to identify the problems with this view. The rejection of Christ’s deity and perfection of His mission to earth seem reason enough to reject the notion. However, it is important that one understands why this view came into existence. The rationalism of the Enlightenment had grown tantamount in America, and theologians were not going to be left behind. Therefore, rationalism became the standard of liberalism. The supernatural teachings of Jesus had to be explained away or eliminated. Any notion of a spiritual kingdom was not rational and therefore eliminated. The Kingdom could be seen in the future, where it fit rather nicely. Only pragmatic elements of Christ’s teaching that could support the social and political agenda of the liberals were taught. The result was that Jesus became only an icon and that God’s work in this world was reduced to the occasional good phenomenon.

Critique

The author, although raised in a Dispensational Bible church, is convinced today that the system of Dispensationalism is faulty. This is not to say that the contributions Dispensationalists have made should be discounted. Many Dispensationalists have made profound impacts in the work of the Kingdom and will continue. Nonetheless, all personal feelings and ties must be put aside, as much as possible, to objectively as possible, evaluate both systems, and in this case defend the pre-eminence of Covenant Theology over Dispensationalism.

It is interesting to note the historical development of Dispensationalism and particularly its rise in popularity against the backdrop of Revivalism in America. There is little doubt that the two are closely intermingled. Furthermore, the most fundamental characteristic of Revivalism is man-centeredness. This anthropocentric disposition flourished during the late 1800s and early 1900s mainly because of the following elements: 1) the individualistic tendencies of Dispensationalism; 2) democracy in America; 3) Arminianism’s misnomer of free will. Although this facet cannot be further expanded at this point, it is at least worthwhile to mention as a basis for understanding the domination of Dispensationalism today. Additionally, it is important to see the connection of Arminianism, Dispensationalism, and Democracy as systems (all growing significantly during the same historical period), each being dominantly man-centered.

In “Dispensationalism Today”, Charles Ryrie accuses Covenant Theologians as having God’s redemption of the Elect as his chief goal. Furthermore, he claims that the Dispensationalist’s view of God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. But his further explanation is what is most disturbing. He writes:

Covenant theology uses redemption as its unifying principle. This is undoubtedly partly due to the spiritualizing of the text of Scripture so that there is little or no future for Israel, thus obliterating the distinctive purpose God has for that people. If that were not obliterated, then the covenant theologian would see that the glory of God is to be realized fully not only in salvation but also in the Jewish people and also in His purpose concerning angels. (emphasis added)

If Ryrie’s accusation that Covenant Theologians do not hold God’s glory in the highest regard, as his ultimate goal, then concession would have to be made. But as shall be made clear, this is not true. The accusation is false. However, before moving on, it must be questioned concerning his comment regarding a distinction between “salvation” and “in the Jewish people.” Are the Jewish people to be compared to angels? Is there a difference between God saving a Jew and God saving a Gentile? Does Revelation, or any other prophecy, describe a distinction between Jews and the Church in heaven? The answers are of course all “NO.”

In defense of the accusation against Covenant theologians by Ryrie, Mathison shows how God’s ultimate goal is his own glory. He cites the Westminster Confession of Faith along with numerous Reformed theologians who have written in support of the notion that God’s glory is his ultimate goal, including A.A. Hodge, Charles Hodge, and Louis Berkhof. He summarizes with the following conclusion, “Reformed theology clearly recognizes that God’s ultimate purpose is His own glory.” At best, both systems agree on this point. However, there still seems to be an underlying current in Dispensationalism that anthropocentric. This current will be further explained in the following critique of the distinctives of Dispensationalism: the literal hermeneutic, the secret rapture of the church, and the distinction between Israel and the Church.

Although the distinction between the Church and Israel is arguably the most formidable distinction between the two systems, Dispensationalists certainly seem to cling most loyally to their “literal, normal, plain” hermeneutic. Although numerous texts could be pointed out wherein the Dispensationalist uses an inconsistent hermeneutic (Matt. 24:34 to name only one), the most fundamental issue is that of “presuppositional hermeneutics.” In other words, every theologian comes to his desk, just like every scientist comes to his lab, with presuppositions. It is impossible for anyone to be purely objective, both the Dispensationalist and the Covenant Theologian alike. So when Ryrie claims that Dispensationalists (or literalist as he also uses) do not deny figurative language, symbols or spiritual truths but simply interprets the Bible “normally,” we must then ask, “Who is it that interprets any other way?” Does the Covenant Theologian interpret abnormally? Would most Dispensationalists claim that of Covenant Theologians? It is doubtful. Regardless of Ryrie’s wording, the bottom line between the two is not really normalcy, but a mere difference of opinion in meaning. The Dispensationalist says that the “horse” is literally a horse while the Covenant Theologian says that it represents a powerful nation. This is a difference, and this difference comes from a presupposition. The presupposition determines what is figurative and what is not. To use Matthew 24:34 again, the Dispensationalist claims that this is figurative (Jesus is referring to the entire Jewish race when he uses the word “generation”) while most Covenant Theologians see it as literal (the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in A.D. 70). Go to another text and the reverse is true. Accusations could fly back and forth on any given text. But the hermeneutic is not at issue (or at least at issue alone). The presupposition is. One comes to the Scriptures with the presupposition that God is immutable and sovereign and he relates to man through covenant. This shapes the “normalcy” of interpretation of every passage. The other comes to the Bible with the presupposition that God has a plan to test man, man will fail, and then God will judge him which in turn shapes his “normalcy”. Furthermore, the former requires a greater understanding of the whole counsel of Scripture. Covenant theology does not make sense in a piecemeal manner. Dispensationalism can easily be fragmented, as has been the case over the past 150 years, into numerous factions.

To deny the secret rapture of the church and the ensuing seven years of horror on earth before Christ’s second (third?) return is nearly an abomination (at least in the Bible belt). Yearly “Prophecy Conferences” at countless churches and books and movies like the “Left Behind” series fuel thoughts that the secret rapture is certainly biblical. So when one is confronted with the notion that this entire train of thought might not be biblical after all, it is certainly difficult to accept. To say the least, the doctrine is not overtly biblical. John Walvoord concedes that is completely circumstantial. To say that God’s people will be spared wrath, in the form of persecution, would simply be unbiblical (1 Peter is full of the contrary as one example). The main texts that Dispensationalists use, 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:9, neither necessarily refer to the removal of the Church from the world. Only a presuppositional hermeneutic can lead one to that conclusion. The meaning, clearly enough, is that those saved will not face wrath but are appointed “to receive salvation.” Why reclassify the meaning of the word “salvation” to mean something different than eternal salvation? Is that an inconsistent hermeneutic? Furthermore, those who appeal to the promise to the church at Philadelphia in Revelation 3:10, to be spared of the testing to come, must allegorize that church to represent the Church in the future. Why shouldn’t it be the literal church at Philadelphia? Another passage that Dispensationalists refer to is 1 Corinthians 15:51-53. The reference to the “last trumpet” establishes a problem if another trumpet is to be sounded at the visible coming of Christ (Matt. 24:31). Either the “last trumpet” in 1 Corinthians 15 is not the last one, or the two events are not two events. Without accounting for the attempts that Dispensationalists make to explain these texts, it is sufficient to say that a literal, plain hermeneutic will not lead one to a doctrine of a secret rapture. Only with a presuppositional hermeneutic will one arrive at such a destination.

As has been stated more than once, the distinction between Israel and the Church is the most significant distinctive of Dispensationalism. As opposed, the unity of the two for Covenant Theologians is also important. However, the importance for the Covenantal Theologian is not based on the same reasoning as that of the Dispensationalist. The unity, for the Covenant Theologian, comes from a covenantal view of God’s relating to man. God always relates to man through covenant. The unity isn’t necessary to fit the system. The unity necessarily comes from the system. Moreover, the system is based not on anything to do with man, but completely on God’s character. Man is merely the recipient of the covenant. He may break it, but God will not. He may be unfaithful, but God will not be. The system is not man-centered. Dispensationalism, on the other hand, sees the distinction between the two groups as necessary to fit the system. Their system is man-centered instead of God-centered. God is testing man to see what man will do. When man fails, then God judges man and starts all over again. Man is on the center stage. History becomes man’s story rather than God’s story, even though most Dispensationalists will claim a sovereign God. Their claim falls apart, as Mathison explains: “because of their weak view of depravity and their belief in unlimited atonement, dispensationalists have a confused doctrine of election – an unstable mixture of conditional and unconditional election. As a result, the biblical doctrine is corrupted.” Additionally, who God is characterizes how he relates to man. Although there is no overt biblical support for this facet of the argument, it at least seems logical to note that a sovereign, faithful, immutable and omniscient God is necessary to Covenant Theology. On the contrary, Dispensationalism could exist within Arminianism, open-theism, and other views that need not a sovereign, faithful, immutable or omniscient God. Although the latter does not deny that God could be any or all of those attributes, it certainly does not seem to be a system derived from the character of God who possesses those attributes. Therefore, based on God’s character alone, it would seem logical, if not necessary, that God would relate in a consistent manner to man. It is Covenant theology that is described by this consistency, in particular with how it views Israel and the Church. Furthermore, to reiterate a previously stated point, it is Christ who has fulfilled all that Israel lacked. This makes the Church a further developed people of God, not a separate people of God. It should be noted as important to ask of the Dispensationalist how the “two path” and “parenthesis” notions fit together, as well as how the object of faith for Old Testament saints, New Testament saints, Jews and Gentiles can be unified (it must be Christ according to Acts 4:12) and yet not unify. The Church stands on the shoulders of Israel and the Jewish faith. Therefore, there is no need to shun Israel today or the Jewish people. Rather, Christians should recognize the great heritage that exists in Israel and among the Jewish people and ought to have a great burden in their heart for the evangelism of the Jews. On the contrary, Dispensationalists make unfair claims when they state Covenant Theologians have no place for Israel in their hearts. The command given was to go to ALL the world. Evangelism is to all people. And because there is no other name under heaven by which a man can be saved than that of Jesus Christ, the Jews of all people need to hear this. Their pump has been primed if they know the Old Testament. However, if the Old Testament is divided, and the unity is broken, the Messianic Jew could certainly suffer from a minimized view of Christ and His work.

And so it must be said that there is no perfect system. One day all will be sorted out, but for now it is imperative that all test everything and cling to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). The Dispensationalist should be encouraged to search his Bible not only with a zoom lens, but also with a wide-angle lens. He must “back up” and see the whole picture. He must understand that “context is king”, not his literal hermeneutic. He must see who God is, and understand that He works according to His character. He must appreciate prophecy, but not be consumed by it, understanding its purpose is not to have a detailed map of the future but to live a hope-filled life in these tumultuous times. He must see how Israel was chosen not because of her worth but because of God’s good will and mercy. He chose Israel. And thus, He chooses each one, who are known as the Elect. And finally, he must see that our God is a God of faithfulness, a covenantal God who relates to man by means of covenant. And by understanding this about God, he can then know so much about more His work, His world, and His story.

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).

Introduction

It could be argued that a majority of evangelicals today could not define for themselves the method in which they use to interpret Scripture. To be more exact, most evangelicals could only claim that they either see the Bible through the lens of Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology, but could not clearly explain what either means. It is the purpose of this paper to set forth a concise definition and explanation of both systems, followed by a critique.

It is important to comprehend that the exercise of understanding the system through which one interprets the Bible is not merely an academic exercise. The means by which one understands the Holy Revelation of God will determine how he understands who God is, how He works, and what His plans are for history. Because of this, the believer needs to understand that the faults of a system will lead to a faulty understanding of Scripture. Furthermore, it must be understood that the Scripture itself is the ultimate authority and test of truth; and therefore, no fallible system ought to be elevated above the Bible. The test is not to find a perfect system (for man is fallible and cannot create a perfect system), but to test everything and cling to that which is good (1 Thess. 5:21). The goal of this paper then, is to identify the better of the two systems of Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, and to the best ability, try and identify faults with either so that the understanding of God can grow and be perfected.

Dispensationalism

In a study guide to the Scofield Reference Bible, one dispensationalist writer provides the following definition of dispensationalism:
A dispensation is a period of time in which God is dealing with human beings according to certain divine goals and human responsibilities. Such segments, which may have overlapping features, are designed to show His grace and human failure apart from Him. A dispensationalist is one who believes that the Bible sets forth such distinctives and also sees a particular role and time for the Church as the body of Christ, as well as a unique future for Israel.

There are three essential factors to which a dispensation must adhere. First, it must possess a “particular way of God’s administering His rule.” This means that God has chosen to rule in different ways throughout history and that history can be divided up into times, or dispensations, that are defined by these particulars. It must be noted that dispensations, although they may cover a period of history, are not limited to such a period but are rather characterizations of the means by which God rules during that period. Second, “it must involve a particular responsibility for man.” Dispensationalists hold that man relates to God differently in each dispensation and that man is tested (and fails) each test. Third, each dispensation “must be characterized by divine revelation which has not been given before.” This means that the people of each dispensation are held to the revelation that they have been given, and not that which would come afterward.

Dispensationalists claim that their method of interpreting Scripture is that of a literal hermeneutic and claim that this is a distinctive of Dispensationalism. Specifically, in contrast to Covenant Theology, dispensationalists hold that the Covenantal system is not “forced to a grinding literalism in its Biblical interpretation.” The difference, they claim, is that Covenantal theologians do not take the normal meaning of words in Scripture, but on the contrary choose to allegorize some. This is inconsistent interpretation, they hold, compared to their own consistent literal approach. Elliott Johnson states three reasons why consistent literal interpretation is necessary: “1) because the Bible claims to be God’s communication to men through human writers; 2) because it provides a normative definition of verbal meanings; 3) because only a principle that forces the interpreter to consistently consider the text as the basis of the meaning can satisfy the priority of the Bible in formulating doctrine.” The literalness of dispensationalists’ methodology is carried into their treatment of not just the historical and narrative passages of Scripture, but all passages including prophecy related to Israel and the Kingdom of God. They assert that Covenant Theologians allegorize many of these prophetic passages. However, the question must be asked, “How does one determine which words are to be taken “literally-literally” and which are to be taken as a form of allegory?” Proponents of both systems hold that their method accurately answers this question. Additionally, it will be seen that Covenant theologians do not accept this distinction made by dispensationalists. One dispensationalist writer, although progressive, also agrees, stating, an analysis of non-dispensational systems, however, reveals that their less-than-literal approach to Israel in the Old Testament prophecies does not really arise from an a priori spiritualistic or metaphorical hermeneutic. Rather, it is the result of their interpretation of the New Testament using the same grammatico-historical hermeneutic as that of dispensationalists.

This conclusion seems true of both systems, specifically, that both can be, and have been, accused of the end determining the means. Furthermore, it can be fairly said that all systems of interpretation employ a theological method to some degree or another. Ryrie, a leading dispensational proponent, accuses Covenant theologians of using a theological method as well as admits that dispensationalists are also accused of the same methodology. Therefore, it can be concluded that the issue of interpretation is significantly important to the debate, if not tantamount. Yet, semantics must be clarified if this issue is going to be fairly addressed by either side.

Another distinctive of Dispensationalism is the belief in a secret Rapture of the Church before the Tribulation. The secret Rapture is generally believed to occur before the Tribulation. Dispensational premillennialism bases this belief on promises that Paul made to the Thessalonians in his first letter to them (1:10, 5:9), that they (the Church) would avoid the wrath of God. Combined with these any other isolated texts is the doctrine of a Tribulation that is yet to come and then a literal 1000 year earthly millennial kingdom, which leads them to conclude that Jesus will return twice. The first time will be a secret rapture where he removes the Church (but not necessarily all the Elect, which will be explained later). There will be seven years of Tribulation and then Christ’s Second Coming with the Church followed by the literal 1000 year reign of Christ in his earthly kingdom. This first return, the Rapture, is known as Christ’s imminent return. By imminent, it is meant that the Rapture could occur at any time, without any necessary preceding event. The Second Coming, on the other hand, is not imminent according to Dispensationalists, because certain events do need to occur first. Of the three Greek words used for Second Coming in the New Testament (parousia, apocalupsis, and epiphaneia), Dispensationalists hold that those written in the context of imminence refer to the Rapture, and those written demanding a preceding sign refer to the Second Coming. Rather than seeing all three Greek words referring to one event, they hold that the three describe two. They argue that a “Failure to recognize this distinction and trying to see the Rapture and the Second Coming as a single event has forced certain writers into the dilemma of having a Second Coming that is imminent in some passages and not imminent in other passages.” Furthermore, those who hold this position also use Revelation 3:10 to support their argument. The promise is made to the church at Philadelphia, “Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.” In order to use this verse, however, Dispensationalists must provide some explanation as to the imminence of the coming wrath for this literal church. This will be questioned in the final section. Although arguably not as significant as other issues pertaining to the differences between Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, the “Secret” Rapture is something that is unique to Dispensationalism and therefore must be given fair consideration and examination.

Arguably, the most significant distinction between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology is each one’s view of Israel and the Church. Dispensationalists hold that Israel and the Church are two separate spiritual bodies. The Church did not exist before the time recorded in Acts, and after its birth, Israel still exists as a separate spiritual body. By Israel, it is not meant simply a literal, physical nation, but the Israeli people of God. This distinction is made unique partly because of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the saints who lived between the Day of Pentecost and the Rapture of the Church (this is the secret rapture, not the resurrection of the dead). According to this, one can understand such a statement by Renald Showers: “Saints who died before the day of Pentecost and people who become saved after the Rapture of the Church are never part of the Church.” The Church, according to Dispensationalists, is “a distinctive group of saints who live during one particular period of history.” This distinction between the Church and Israel is tied particularly to the terminology, “Body of Christ.” It was completely a mystery to Old Testament Saints, according to Dispensationalists, and was not revealed in any way until Christ came. Ryrie, criticizing the notion that the Church includes Old Testament saints, refers to Ephesians 2:15-16, where Paul wrote, “he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.” Ryrie states, “That was not done before the cross; therefore, it is clear that the new man, the one body, was not in existence in the Old Testament times.” This new equality that exists between Jews and Gentiles is what makes the Church unique from the body of Old Testament saints in addition to the indwelling of Christ in the life of the believer. According to Dispensational theology, both bodies are on different paths, headed in the same direction, but are not created or destined for the same purpose. The Church Age, say Dispensationalists, is a parenthesis, as they call it, in God’s redemptive history. Throughout the changes in Dispensationalism over the past 100+ years, this distinction remains as the most significant. However, not all present day Dispensationalists maintain this distinction.