Here lately the algorithms that drive my social media content must think I need to see the continuous arguments between Dispensationalist and Covenantalist. Having been the former and now the latter, I like to think that I have a pretty good concept of what is taught in both. So, when I hear some of these arguments I often wish I could sit down and have a civilized discussion, brother to brother. My point not being to win an argument or even bring the person over to my side (although if that happens… I am not going to complain). All that I would really hope to accomplish is to make sure that the reasons given for rejecting a particular view are accurate and not just strawmen arguments. For this post, I am going to be addressing my Dispensational brothers. Sure, there are Covenantalists who make bad arguments against Dispensationalism, but the majority of misrepresentations seem to come from the other direction.
Now when I say “misrepresentations” I do not mean that these brothers are intentionally misrepresenting Covenantalism. These brothers (mostly) are sincere and believe what they are teaching. The problem is that most of what they know has been passed down to them and is not based on their own personal study of Covenantalism. So, when they say things like “Covenantalists believe that the Church replaces Israel as God’s chosen people,” or “replacement theology doesn’t take the Bible literally” they believe these are true and accurate statements.
That second charge also points to one essential claim that Dispensationalists use to dismiss Covenantal Theology, that being of an inconsistent hermeneutic or method of interpreting the Bible. Because Dispensationalists, for good reason, hold the Bible in high regard (Covenantalists do as well), I invite you to honestly examine the Bible with me before you dismiss Covenantalism as an orthodox Christian position.
What Does Consistency Actually Require?
Dr. Charles Ryrie insists in his book Dispensationalism, “if plain or normal interpretation is the only valid hermeneutical principle and if it is consistently applied, it will cause one to be a dispensationalist.”[1] In Chapter 5, he explains that Dispensationalists use a “literal” hermeneutic while “one of the key features of nondispensational hermeneutics is to interpret prophecy and sometimes nonprophetic portions of Scripture figuratively. This, often called a “spiritual” hermeneutic, allows for a symbolic meaning of a passage.”[2] The Dispensationalists, therefore, claim to hold to a historical-grammatical hermeneutic, and they believe Covenantalists do not. So, before we can move any further we must establish our framework. We can do that by addressing these questions; 1. How should we understand the Bible?, 2. Is it permissible to spiritualize parts of Scripture?, and 3. What does consistency require? Rather than hash out the differing positions and establish the pros and cons of each, I will just try to establish an answer that, hopefully, both sides can affirm, so that we can proceed.
- We should read and understand the Bible in its historical and grammatical context. Historical meaning that we should understand first and foremost who wrote it, who it was written to, when it was written, and as best as we can establish the historical context of why it was being written. We must first properly understand it in this context before we can appropriately apply it to the Church today. Grammatical meaning that we understand grammar to work in Scripture just as it does in any other writing. We read nouns to be things, verbs to describe actions, parables to be stories and not necessarily actual events, symbolism is to be understood as representative of something real yet not literal, and so on. This is particularly important when we get to apocalyptic texts where the lines between literal and symbolic are often blurred. I think both sides should feel comfortable within these guidelines.
- Both sides must admit that they spiritualize certain aspects of the Scripture. According to Dispensationalists Covenantalists spiritualize Israel to mean the Church, and according to the Roman Catholic Church Dispensationalists spiritualize baptism as an “outward sign of an inward change,” rather than the “plain reading” of 1 Peter 3:21 which teaches that baptism is an effectual working of salvation. Now, I am not getting into that discussion, I only use it as an example that both sides spiritualize Scripture. Therefore, it is not only permissible, but it is in fact necessary. We all understand this when Jesus says, “I am the door.” None of us believe that his is a physical door, nor do we believe he took on the flesh of a sheep as he did mankind in order to be called “the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” So, yes spiritualization is permissible. The question is when should we understand something to be literal and when should it be understood to be spiritual? These must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
- The major charge of the Dispensationalist regarding proper hermeneutics is that of consistency. But does consistency mean that everything must be taken literally? As we established in point two above, no, it can’t because not everything written in Scripture is literal. Maybe a better way to say it would be to say that we should read the Bible literarily. What I mean is we should read it like we read other literature. Now don’t get me wrong. I am not saying the Bible is just like any other book. I believe it is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. What I am saying is that we do not read poetry in the same way we read a chemistry textbook. So, why would we read the songs or poetry of Scripture with the same demand for literalness as we do the Gospels or Acts? We don’t, or at least we shouldn’t. So, if we are consistent with our hermeneutic and allowing the type of writing to be interpreted within its own framework, then that is a more consistent hermeneutic than if we try to force an unnatural literal reading where a poetic or symbolic understanding is intended. Again, I think both sides can agree here, as neither side is looking for a literal seven-headed, ten-horned beast. We all understand this to represent something . . . even if we don’t agree on what that is.
With this framework and agreement that the Bible is the inspired word of God, we can proceed and hold each other to a common standard of a consistent hermeneutical methodology. Sorry, I won’t use phrases like that often, but what that means is that if we think that one side is not using a consistent method of interpreting Scripture, we may call that out and ask for a reason for the presumed inconsistency.
Have I been fair so far?
The Abrahamic Covenant: Land, Seed, Blessing
In seminary I sat under Dr. Berry Leventhal, who was himself a student of Dr. Ryrie at Dallas Theological Seminary. Dr. Leventhal was a Messianic Jew and very Dispensational. I was too (very Dispensational, not a Messianic Jew). I wrote a paper in that class defending Dispensationalism against Covenantalism. Sadly, Dr. Leventhal passed shortly after the end of that semester. I look forward to meeting him in person in the New Jerusalem. The class I had with Dr. Leventhal was Systematic Theology 504, which covered eschatology, among other things. This of course was right where his Dispensationalism shined. He made sure we were thoroughly informed of the eternal and irrevocable promises of God to Abraham; the promise of a “seed” and the promise of “the land.”
Why is this important for this conversation? It serves as the basis for one of the most common charges of “replacement theology.” First, I reject the idea that Covenantalism is “replacement theology.” Although there may be some who teach that the Church “replaces” Israel as God’s chosen, this is not the majority of those who call themselves Covenantalists. But the accusation goes as follows, “Covenantalists believe that the Church has replaced Israel as the chosen people of God. The problem is they want all of the blessings, but don’t want any of the curses.” So, let’s walk through this charge to see if it holds up.
My first question would be, which promises? We clearly are not speaking of the Mosaic covenant because Jeremiah clearly explained that this covenant was not irrevocable, that it was in fact broken, and a promise was given for a future “new covenant” (Jer. 31:31-32). That doesn’t mean that the Mosaic covenant is not important, however, it cannot be the basis for the charge leveled against Covenantalists. It is not the Davidic covenant. We both agree that this one is, or will be, fulfilled in Christ. It is not the Noahic covenant, with the promise to not destroy the Earth by flood. The only covenant that is eternal and irrevocable, as Dr. Leventhal taught, and contains promises that the Church could be said to appropriate is the Abrahamic covenant. So, I ask, what is it in the Abrahamic covenant that the Church is supposedly appropriating? The land, the seed, or some other blessing?
Let’s start with the land. God promised certain land to Abraham. What part of that land does the Church attempt to claim today? Do the local Reformed Baptist, Presbyterian, or Anglican congregations feel that they should move to Israel and claim the land for Christians everywhere? No, and no one makes this claim. So, clearly the Church is not trying to appropriate the land promise.
So, what about the promise of a seed? Does the Church believe this is a promise to them through Abraham? Yes! “See,” you say, “you are trying to replace Israel!” Well, if that is the case then the Apostle Paul is a “replacement theologian” for he clearly teaches in his letter to the Galatians, “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ” (Gal. 3:16, KJV). The promise God made to Abraham was the promise of Christ, who established his Church, his Bride. This is not some anti-Jewish teaching, this is the inspired Word of God being explained through the Apostle Paul, a Hebrew of Hebrews, who adamantly desired the salvation of his people (Rom. 9:1-5). If this is your definition of replacement theology, and it is being espoused in the Scripture itself, then maybe you should consider becoming a replacement theologian! This clearly is not the Church replacing Israel and appropriating her promises. Rather, it is the fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham in Jesus the Christ, for the Hebrews and Gentiles.
But what about the blessings, “And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:2-3, KJV)? What about it? Does this apply to Ishmael as well? No, only Isaac. What about Esau? No, only Jacob. Ok, so only one son’s line gets the promise? No, all of Jacob’s sons share in the promise. Ok, so God has the right to apply this promise as narrowly or as broadly as he sees fit. Sometimes to one son, sometimes to twelve sons, right? But we all agree that the ultimate fulfillment of this promise is Jesus. It is in him, not in the Hebrew people, that “all families of the earth will be blessed.”
So, I ask, what promises does the Church try to take from Israel, that the Bible does not clearly teach? As to the curses, what are the curses in the Abrahamic covenant? All of the warnings are in the Mosaic covenant, and we have agreed that this is not the covenant we are talking about.
Continuation, Not Replacement
“Ok,” you might say “maybe you are not trying to appropriate Israel’s promises, but you for sure are teaching replacement theology and I can prove it! You believe that the Church is the new Israel and that the Jews have been cut off!” Well … yeah, kind of, but you do too.
Having been raised a Baptist and a Baptist pastor for over fifteen years I can’t tell you how many sermons I have heard. How many times in revival messages have I heard “but as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12, KJV)? This is usually followed up by a praise that we have been saved, adopted into the family of God, because we have “received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father” (Rom. 8:15, KJV). Yes, you have heard these sermons too, haven’t you? And you didn’t think a thing about them in relation to Israel, except that you might have heard that you are an adopted Jew and a joint-heir with Christ. Then the preacher will turn right around and insist that we don’t replace Israel as God’s chosen people. Now, let me ask you to pause here and think. Does that make sense? Does that argument follow, or does it seem to suffer from some disconnect somewhere? Ok, you might grant me that, but you must insist that your adoption into God’s family does not replace the current, natural born children. I agree. This is why we reject your description of replacement theology. Covenantalists believe that the Church is the continuation of faithful Israel.
Paul teaches just this in Romans 11. There he explains;
But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. (Rom. 11:17-20a, ESV)
The root is not changed. It continues from the beginning through eternity. The only thing that changes are the branches. Paul says that branches were broken off because of their unbelief. We, the wild branches, are grafted on through our faith in Christ. Thus, we can conclude that all branches that remain connected to the root, whether in the Old Testament or New, were there through faith. The branches on that root are Israel by faith, either naturally or by grafting (adoption). The Church is not a new tree with a new root system separate from Old Testament Israel, but a continuation of the one true root that is Christ.
You May Already Be a Covenantalist
As we sit here together, branches grafted into this precious olive tree, do you see an area where we disagree? I think, as a whole, we are in total agreement. Ok, maybe you still hold that Israel and the Church are separate, but you should ask yourself, is that what Paul teaches? Is that what Jesus accomplished on the cross? Did he make two ways? One for the Jews and another for the Gentiles? Or is he The Way? If we are to come to God, are we not all to come through Christ? I know you preach that there is no other way. And I say Amen. There is one Way, one Truth, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism. One Body of Christ.
This conversation is not over. There are still arguments that need to be made, and I plan on addressing some of those in a later post. But for now, I hope that we can stop the bad arguments. There are substantial differences between Dispensationalism and Covenantalism, but we cannot move on to those as long as the things we argue against are not even the positions being held in the first place.
God Bless
[1] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Moody Publishers, Kindle Edition, 20.
[2] Ibid. 85.