klaassen.pdf

7/25/2019 klaassen.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/klaassenpdf 1/22

DISPENSATIONALISM IN CONTRAST TO COVENANT THEOLOGY

Introduction

Two of the major systems of dogmatic theology are Covenant Theology and

Dispensationalism. The proponents of both, at least those who are evangelical, respect

the Bible as God’s Word. Many of the theologians are committed to the authority of the

Word of God. Yet out of this similar background come two divergent views. This paper

will survey the differences between these two systems.

Definitions

An understanding of the differences between these two systems begins with a

definition or description of each of them. We must understand what each believes before

we are able to explain the differences. Neither dispensational theology nor covenantal

theology are static theologies. Some from each system are making slight alterations to

their systems; while others bring major changes to seemingly create new systems within

the general idea of the old system. The basis of this discussion will be the

Dispensationalism that is exemplified by Charles Ryrie in Dispensationalism: Revised

and Expanded.1 The Covenant Theology will be that of both Louis Berkhof

2 and Robert

Reymond.3

1Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody, 1995).

2Louis Berkhof, “Systematic Theology” in Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996).

3Robert L. Reymond. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Nelson,

1998).



2

Some theological discussions create intense emotions. The differences here are

one of these emotionally stirring debates. “There is the grievous heresy that bewitches

multitudes of supposed evangelicals and fundamentalists so that they expect a carnal

kingdom of the Jews in Palestine, preceded by a secret ‘rapture’ of the church. This

bizarre teaching involves denial of the oneness of Old Testament Israel and the New

Testament church, rejection of the unity of the covenant of grace, opposition to infant

baptism, and embrace of the dread doctrine and practice of antinomism (lawlessness of

life with appeal to ‘grace’)….Dispensational premillennialism…is the enemy of the

Reformed faith.”4 “The literal interpretation of Old Testament prophecy ends in a carnal

Messianic kingdom.” The author continues, “The prophecy [of Isaiah 65:17ff] may not be

interpreted literally. The New Testament teaching that all prophecy is fulfilled spiritually

in Jesus Christ.…[Prophecy] cannot be interpreted literally.”5 (emphasis in original)

Not all reactions are this emotionally charged, yet the differences are real and

have significant impact on our understanding of the world today and the application of

the biblical texts to modern situations.

Many who attempt to define each of these systems will define not the system but

the major components of the system. So many of the definitions of the system of

dispensationalism are, in fact, a definition of a dispensation; and for covenant theology

they simply define the covenant of grace. Covenant Theology needs the covenant of

4David J. Engelsma, A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism

Http:members.aol.com/warren11/amil.html accessed 2/9/2005. This was originally published in theStandard Bearer from April 1, 1995 through December 15, 1996. These were not designed to be adiscussion of Dispensationalism but rather a defense of Covenant Amillennialism as opposed to Covenant

Postmillennialism. The author did reference Premillennialism and Dispensationalism in his attempt to

show similarities or associations between them and Postmillennialism, and thus point out the error of both.

5Ibid



3

grace and Dispensationalism needs dispensations; but in defining the system, it appears

that the system is bigger than the dispensations or the covenant of grace.

Covenant Theology

Enns, in his theological handbook defines covenant theology as “a system of

interpreting the Scriptures on the basis of two covenants: the covenant of works and the

covenant of grace.”6

The Westminster Confession says of these covenants in paragraph VII: “The first

covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam;

and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. Man, by

his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to

make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto

sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may

be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy

Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.”7

“The covenant of works reflects the fact that the most fundamental obligation of

man the creature to God his Creator always has been, is now, and always will be

obedience to the will of the Creator. As covenant creature…man is always ultimately

related to God on a legal (covenantal) basis”8 (emphasis in original). Because man failed

in the covenant of works, God formalized another covenant with man which would

continue throughout all of man’s history here on earth. This covenant is the same in “all

6Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago: Moody1989), 503.

7Westminster Confession of Faith,

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/indexf.html accessed 3/1/2005.

8Reymond, New Systematic Theology, 439.



4

ages, through the execution of which is created the one people of God—the church of

Jesus Christ—comprising all the elect in all ages.”9

The covenant of grace is the operational principle of God from the time of

Adam’s sin until the new creation. Berkhof defines the covenant of grace as “that

gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in

which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this

believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience”10 (italics in original).

It is this covenant that ties all of history into a unified whole.11

Because of the

overarching nature of the covenant, Showers concluded that “Covenant Theology sees the

ultimate goal of history as being the glory of God through the redemption of the elect.”12

So he defined Covenant Theology as a “system of theology which attempts to develop the

Bible’s philosophy of history on the basis of two or three covenants. It represents the

whole of Scripture and history as being covered by two or three covenants.13

Covenant Theology sees an intrinsic unity to all of history through the oneness of

the covenant. While they see diversity in the outworking, the framework is that of unity

of the covenant.

9Ibid., 507.

10Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 277.

11J. Rodman Williams, Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective,

Three Volumes in One, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 278.

12Renald E. Showers, There Really is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and

Dispensational Theology (Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel, 1990), 20.

13Ibid., 7.



5

Dispensational Theology

Ryrie says that Dispensationalism is a system of theology that maintains two key

elements. The first, he says, is that the Church is distinct from Israel; and the second is

that “God’s overall purpose is to bring glory to Himself.”14 Enns adds to these two the

importance of “maintaining a consistently literal method of interpretation.”15

Showers

says that “Dispensational Theology can be defined very simply as a system of theology

which attempts to develop the Bible’s philosophy of history on the basis of the sovereign

rule of God. It represents the whole of Scripture and history as being covered by several

dispensations of God’s rule.”16

Dispensationalism understands the unifying theme of history is God’s rule. As

the sovereign, God has the right to run his kingdom, even if this requires new revelation

by which he prescribes new rules for man to follow; a newness that replaces the old rules

as the prescription for life.

To better understand how the systems differ, we need to investigate specific areas

where they disagree. We begin with an overview comparison of these two systems.

Limiting this discussion to a short paper demands that some limits be placed on the

contrasts detailed.

14Charles C. Ryrie, “Dispensationalism,” in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology: A Practical

Guide to the People, Viewpoints, and History of Prophetic Studies, Mal Couch, General Editor, (Grand

Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 94.

15Enns, Handbook , 513.

16Showers, Difference, 27.



6

Comparison of the Systems

“It is difficult to conceive of two evangelical perspectives on Old Testament faith

differing more radically….These two systems are mutually exclusive.”17

says a covenant

theologian. Showers draws the same conclusion as seen in the title of his book There

Really is a Difference.18

To understand the differences we begin with the unity of Israel

and the Church or the distinction between them.

The Distinction of the Church and Israel

Covenant Theology holds that there is a single unified people of God; all of the

elect of all time. Reymond, recognizing the difference, says that Dispensationalism

“repudiates the unity of the covenant of grace and the oneness of the people of God in all

ages19

(emphasis in original). He believes that there is no separation between Israel and

the church. If there is this unity of people then there can be no distinction between Israel

as a people of God and the Church as a separate people of God.

In the chapter titled The Scriptural Doctrine of Israel and the Church,20

Mathison

defines Israel in several ways: as being natural, national, unbelieving or true. “True

Israel was and is identical to the true church. True Israel had always been the true

church.”21

He implies that the only “real” definition of Israel is “true Israel,” which he

17

Reymond, Systematic Theology, 509.18Showers, Difference.

19Reymond, Systematic Theology, 511.

20Keith A. Mathison, Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?, (Phillipsburg, NJ:

P & R, 1995), 38.

21Ibid., 40.



7

says is identified in the Old Testament as the remnant .22

So the nature of the church and

the nature of true Israel are identical. Berkhof agrees. “The New Testament church is

essentially one with the Church of the old dispensation.”23

The Belgic Confession says

in Article 27:

The Holy Catholic Church: We believe and confess one single catholic oruniversal church-- a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers,

awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ being washed by his blood, and

sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as a ppears from the fact that

Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects.24

To understand the difference between Israel and the church we must first

determine the “who” of Israel and then the “who” of the church.

Is the intent of the Bible to limit Israel to just the remnant or to just the elect?

How does the Bible use the term Israel? First there is a genetic or racial distinction

known as Israel—frequently referred to as the “children of Israel.” (cf. Ex 1:7, 9, 12, 13;

2:23, 25) These are the descendants of Jacob (Israel) and the only requirement for

inclusion is to be born into the family. This is Paul’s usage in Rom 9:3-4 when he

referred to “my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, who are Israelites”

(NKJV). Politically, nationally, religiously, racially—Israel is physical Israel. This is the

most common usage for the term “Israel.”25

Paul also used Israel in a different way in Romans chapter 9, “they are not all

Israel who are of Israel” (vs. 6 NKJV). In this context, Israel is considered to mean those

22Mathison, Dispensationalism, 40.


24The Belgic Confession http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html accessed 3/1/2005.

25For a fuller discussion see Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, “Israel and the Church” in Issues in

Dispensationalism, Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master, General Editors, Charles C. Ryrie, Consulting

Editor, (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 113.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html




8

individuals who, being a part of the natural family of Israel, are also children of Abraham

by faith. So there is both a physical and a spiritual connotation to the name Israel in the

Bible. But the spiritual connotation is not separate from the physical. The meaning must

include those who are physical descendants of Jacob.

“Not all physical descendants of Abraham are Israelites, but all physical

descendants of Jacob are. The very term Israel originated with Jacob and not with

Abraham…the use of [the children of] ‘Israel’ is more restrictive than the use of [the

children of] ‘Abraham.’”26

The church is never called Israel because the church is not a physical designation.

Believers within the church are called “children of Abraham” in Gal 3:7-9, 29, because of

their spiritual relation to him.

Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the

Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the

gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. And if you

are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise(NKJV).

Being a child of Abraham is not the same as being a child of Israel. Not all

descendants of Abraham are also descendants of Israel. Being included in the Abrahamic

blessing of Genesis 12:3 and other places does not place one within the blood covenant

which God made with Abraham (Gen 15:7 - 21) and included a promised land to his

future descendants. While Ishmael was blessed because of his relation to Abraham, he

was not included in the blood covenant alongside Isaac. The same is true of Jacob’s

inclusion and Esau’s exclusion from the covenant. Being of the seed of Abraham does

26Fruchtenbaum, Israel, 113.



9

not equate to being an Israelite, and does not include one in the blood covenant. The

church is never referred to as the seed of Jacob and is therefore never one with Israel.27

Equating the Church to Israel requires that the church be in existence since the

beginning of the covenant of grace (either at the time of Adam at the initiation of the

covenant found in Gen 3:15; or the time of Abraham, at the ratification of the covenant in

Gen 15).

The church has not existed since the time of Abraham or before. There are three

“proofs of the distinctiveness of the church to this age.”28

The first is the mystery

character of the church. Paul says in Eph 2:15 that the “new man” of the church is

possible only after the death of Christ. The church could not have existed before Christ’s

death. Second is the stated beginning and ending of the church. The beginning, from

Ephesians 1:20, 22-23; 4:7 - 12, occurred following the resurrection and ascension of

Christ; the ending will occur at the taking of those “in Christ” at the Rapture (1 Thess

4:16). Third, the baptizing work of the Holy Spirit shows that the church did not begin

until the Day of Pentecost.29 Ryrie concludes that “dispensationalism insists that the

people of God who have been baptized into the Body of Christ and who thus form the

church are distinct from saints of other days or even of a future time…The church did not

come into functional and operational existence until the Day of Pentecost. It is

distinctive to this time.”30

27Fruchtenbaum, Israel, 1267.

28Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 125.

29Since the baptism of the Spirit did not begin until the Acts 2 Day of Pentecost, the church could

not have been in existence until then. In Acts chapter 1 the baptism is still future and the disciples are told

to wait. In Acts chapter 11 Peter says that what happened to Cornelius was like what happened to them at

the beginning, in reference to events from Acts chapter 2.

30Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 126-7.



10

People of God or Peoples of God

If the church is distinct from Israel then there are at least two “people of God.”

Consider what Reymond says. “The Westminster representation of the covenant of grace

as being one in all ages, through the execution of which is created the one people of

God —the church of Jesus Christ—comprising all the elect in all ages.”31

(emphasis

added)

The reality of one people, or more than one people, is not as obvious during

earthly time as it will be in eternity. Currently, the people of God are mixed with those

who will never be part of eternity with God. This distinction may become clearer when

we are partakers of the new heaven and new earth.

When this present creation is destroyed and a new creation is put into place, will

there be a people of God or will there be peoples of God? Berkhof says in his argument

for a singular people of God that “the promise [of the new covenant] is fully realized

when at last the new Jerusalem descends out of heaven from God, and the tabernacle of

God is pitched among men. Consequently we hear the last echo of it in Rev. 21:3.”32

Revelation chapter 21 does not require a singular unified people of God.

Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of

heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard aloud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and

He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with

them [and be] their God (Rev 21:2-3 NKJV, emphasis added).

We have seen that Covenant Theology holds to a singularity of the people of God

under the covenant of grace; a mutual relationship where God is the God of his people.

31Reymond, Systematic Theology, 507.




11

Revelation chapter 21 leaves the door open for peoples of God. John has told us in these

verses that in eternity there are “peoples” of God (note italicized word). The Greek plural

has been translated in the singular rather than plural. Thomas says in his commentary of

the book of the Revelation that “a noticeable change from the singular to the

plural…marks an expansion beyond the boundaries of Israel….John updates the

traditional concept of a singular people to include the many peoples represented among

the redeemed.”33

While accepting the validity of people being a plural noun, Osborne, in his

commentary, interprets it differently. When commenting on the fact that all other

references have the singular and here alone it is plural, he says this indicates “all the

people of the world, in keeping with the frequent emphasis of the book on all the

‘peoples’ of the world….In eternity all ethnic and racial distinctions will disappear, and

we will be one.”34

Since it is not necessary to come to Osborne’s conclusion from the text and since

the most normal reading from the text is plural, there seems to be peoples of God in the

eternal state. While all of God’s people will be in heaven with their God, the indication

from Revelation chapter 21 is that there are peoples of God in heaven.

The Content of Belief

Covenant theologians have long accused Dispensationalists of teaching more than one

way of salvation. There seems to be agreement from both camps that salvation has

always been in the person of God, by grace through faith, and complete through the

33Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8 - 22: An Exegetical Commentary(Chicago: Moody, 1995), 444.

34Grant R. Osborne, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Moises

Silva, Editor (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 734.



12

substitutionary sacrifice of Christ. The disagreement is on the content of the faith. What

did the people of the Old Testament need to know to be saved?

For the covenant theologian the answer is the death of Christ. All people—of all

time—trusted Christ’s death, either in anticipation or in completion.

“This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and inthe time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises,

prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and

ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the

Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by

whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old

Testament.Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the

ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, andthe administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which,though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward

glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual

efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament.

There are not therefore two covenants of gr ace, differing in substance, but one

and the same, under various dispensations.35

(emphasis added)

Abraham and his story give us information about what he believed. One of the

reasons Abraham is important to this discussion is that with him we have a clear

statement of the events that surrounded him being justified.

The record is in Genesis chapter 15. Abraham expressed doubt, as the chapter

begins, by questioning how he could be assured of a reward from God since he had no

children. God told him to look at the stars because that would be the number of his

descendents. Abraham looked and believed not in the coming Messiah but that God

would give him a multitude of offspring. Because Abraham believed this promise of

God, God justified him. Abraham believed God; Abraham was justified by grace through

faith; Abraham’s eternal position was granted on the basis of Jesus’ future death on the

35Westminster Confession Section VII. Paragraphs v. and vi.



13

cross; but what he believed was what God had revealed about himself—God would give

Abraham a multitude of descendants. While clearly he had received revelation from God

on an earlier occasion and had expressed obedience to God earlier and had worshipped,

the record of this event in his life expressly states that he was declared righteous by

believing God’s promise of descendants.

When Abraham’s life was completed he apparently believed in resurrection

(Romans chapters 4 and 5) and that he would receive an inheritance beyond “physical”

history (Hebrews chapter 11). He also obeyed God and worshipped God, and trusted

God when he left his home and moved to a land, unknown to him, God would show him.

But his justification was granted to him because of his trust in the promise of God—

God’s gift of physical descendants as numerous as the stars.

There are not two ways of salvation; but the content of faith has changed. All

believed the promises of God but the promises that they knew changed as God

progressively revealed his plan of salvation. While Abraham may have believed in the

coming Messiah, it was his faith in God’s promise through which he was justified.

Law and/or Grace

If the church is not equal to Israel but is a distinct people of God does the church

have any moral or spiritual obligation to the Law of Moses as established in the Ten

Commandments and expanded in the Pentateuch.

According to one Covenant theologian, “if we take Jesus words seriously, we

must conclude that every law in the Old Testament remains valid until and unless God

Himself cancels it. And the New Testament clearly indicates which kinds of laws no

longer apply. The book of Hebrews, for example, expressly teaches that the ceremonial



14

laws of sacrifice have been annulled because Jesus was the final sacrifice. But Scripture

nowhere indicates that the moral law as summarized in the Ten Commandments has been

done away with.”36

“Covenant Theology advocates the position that Christians today are not under

the civil and ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Law, but they are under the moral aspect

(the Ten Commandments) of the Law. Failure to be under the moral aspect of the Mosaic

Law is to be lawless. The moral aspect of the law presents the eternal, moral absolutes of

God, which are unchangeable. If a person is not under the moral aspect of the Mosaic

Law, that person is unrelated to the eternal, unchangeable, moral absolutes of God.”37

Dispensationalists say that the Law of Moses has been set aside as a requirement

for the Christian.38

While they do not believe that all rules have been abandoned, they

say the rules for today are not found in the Old Testament. Because they believe that

God has given new rules in his new revelation in each dispensation, the only applicable

“carryovers” from the Old Testament are those that are part of the new revelation in the

New Testament. One example: are children in this dispensation to honor their parents?

Paul states emphatically “Yes” in Ephesians 6. But because this one command is clearly

stated, that does not mean that the entirety of the Law is then obligatory; rather it is part

of the new revelation for this dispensation. “Not being under the Mosaic Code does not

mean one is without law, and dispensationalists make no such claims. Dispensationalists

claim that the believer is under the Law of Christ as outlined in the NT. As in the case of

36Mathison, Dispensationalism, 87.


38Showers, Difference, 187. Also see John A. McLean “Law and Grace,” in Dictionary of

Premillennial Theology: A Practical Guide to the People, Viewpoints, and History of Prophetic Studies,

Mal Couch, General Editor, (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1996), 240.



15

the Mosaic Code, the Law of Christ embodies the timelessly true moral principles of God

which are instanciated [sic.] in both codes. But as a separate code the Law of Christ

excludes the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Mosaic Code. Dispensationalism is

neither antinomian nor entails it.”39

Dispensational theology holds the position that Christians today are not under any

aspect of the Mosaic Law, even the moral aspect.40

It should be noted that although the

Mosaic Law had three aspects (civil, ceremonial, and moral), it functioned as an

indivisible unit.41

Thus, to place oneself under one aspect of the Mosaic Law is to

obligate oneself to be under the entire Law. If a person is under the moral aspect of the

Law, he is required to keep all the civil and ceremonial regulations as well. Since Jesus

abolished the Mosaic Law when He abolished the Aaronic priesthood, it can be

concluded that Christians today are not under the Mosaic Law42

(Hebrews 7).

Hermeneutical System

There is much debate concerning the relation between the two testaments. The

question addressed here is whether the New Testament in any way changes meaning of

the Old Testament text and/or understanding. Covenant theologians say that the New

Testament changes the meaning of the Old, primarily in the area of the fulfillment of

specific promises of the Old Testament. Dispensationalism says that the Old Testament

retains the meaning that was originally stated in the text.

39John S.Feinberg, “Systems of Discontinuity” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on

the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. John S.

Feinberg, Editor (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988), 71.

40The Christian is not under the law: Rom 6:14-15; 7:4, 6; Gal 2:19; 3:19; 5:18.

41Law a unit: Gal 3:10; 5:3; James 2:10.

42Hebrews 7:18, “there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and

unprofitableness” (NJKV emphasis added).



16

Berkhof says “the theory…based on a literal interpretation of the prophetic

delineations of the future of Israel and of the Kingdom of God…is entirely untenable”43

because “the promise of various temporal blessings,…serve to symbolize those of a

spiritual kind.”44 The temporal promises of the Old Testament were merely types of the

fulfillment that would come to the future generations as a spiritual fulfillment. “It is very

doubtful…whether Scripture warrants the expectation that Israel will finally be re-

established as a nation, and will as a nation turn to the Lord. Some Old Testament

prophecies seem to predict this, but these should be read in the light of the New

Testament.”45

Even during Jesus’ lifetime he “never had in mind the re-establishment of

the Old Testament theocracy, but the introduction of the spiritual reality, of which the

Old Testament kingdom was but a type.”46

“It is remarkable that the New Testament,

which is the fulfillment of the Old, contains no indication whatsoever of the re-

establishment of the Old Testament theocracy by Jesus, nor a single undisputed positive

prediction of its restoration, while there are abundant indications of the spiritual

fulfillment of the promises given to Israel.”47

The same sentiment is expressed by Reymond. “Undoubtedly, temporal, earthly,

promises of a land were given to Abraham and his descendants in the Abrahamic

Covenant. But the land promises were never primary and central to the covenant

intention, and a literal and complete fulfillment of these promises under the Old


44Ibid., 277.

45Ibid., 699.

46Ibid., 714.

47Ibid., 713.



17

Testament conditions was never envisioned by God. Rather, the fulfillment of the land

promises must be viewed as arising from the more basic and essential soteric promises

and for their fulfillment they will have to wait the final and complete salvation of God’s

elect in the Eschaton.”48

Again we hear from Williams. “At the very heart of God’s covenant promise is

the land—the land of Canaan. But something else must be added. For although physical

land is undoubtedly intended in God’s promise, there is also a deeper intimation—a

spiritual land or realm. This is clear from the Book of Hebrews where it is said that

Abraham, ‘living in tents with Isaac and Jacob….looked forward to the city which has

foundations, whose builder and maker is God’ (11:9-10). That this signifies more than an

earthly land becomes clear in the verses that follow: ‘They [the patriarchs] were strangers

and exiles on the earth…seeking a homeland…they longed for a better country, that is, a

heavenly one’ (11:13-14)….Hence the climax of the promise is not an earthly realm or

city but a heavenly one—the homeland of the Spirit.”49

“The emphasis is totally shifted

from a physical to a spiritual fulfillment……Thus the ultimate fulfillment of the covenant

with Abraham will not be a physical land but a spiritual estate.”50

These covenant theologians agree that the promise to Abraham sounds like it is a

physical promise. But because the New Testament has changed the meaning of the Old

Testament we must look to the New Testament for a further, more complete

understanding of the meaning of the nature of God’s intent and Abraham’s

understanding. An example of the meaning of the Old Testament being changed is given

48Reymond, Systematic Theology, Footnote 19, 513.

49Williams, Renewal Theology, 288.

50Ibid., 288.



18

from Hebrews chapter 11. Reymond stated that Abraham never anticipated a physical

fulfillment because what Abraham anticipated was a spiritual inheritance in heaven and

did not anticipate anything here on earth, because he was looking for a city built by

God.51 “The Bible declares that Abraham dwelt in the Old Testament land of promise ‘as

in a foreign country, dwelling in tents’ (Heb. 11:9) and never possessed it (Acts 7:25),

since, as with so many other of God’s promises made during the ‘shadow’ days of Old

Testament Heilsgeschichte (Col. 2:17), he looked forward to this promise’s final

fulfillment, in the ‘substance’ days of…the new heaven and new earth”52

.

The issue is that of the meaning of the Old Testament. Does the Old Testament

still mean what it meant before the time of Christ? Does it still mean what was

pronounced by God and recorded in the Old Testament, or does the New Testament give

us the real meaning?

The covenant made with Abraham is not the only incident where God affirms the

reality of a physical people in a physical land. Ezekiel 36 tells us of a future time when

Israel will be in the land. The message is not to the seed of Abraham but to the house of

Israel, the same ones taken from the land and who profaned God’s name among the

nations. These people are promised a return to the land, not because they deserve

anything, but because of God’s promise, honor, and name’s sake. During this promised

time in the land, the nation will be enjoying abundant peace and prosperity, and will be

given the Spirit of God because their sins will have been forgiven.53

It appears that these

details (Spirit, forgiveness, peace, prosperity in the land, as well as the nation no longer

51Reymond, Systematic Theology, footnote 19, 513.

52Ibid.

53Jeremiah 31 also says that with the New Covenant, made with the house of Israel and the house

of Judah, and includes promises about the land and the city of Jerusalem.



19

being a despised people) will happen within the same context of time and cannot refer to

anytime in the history of Israel since the writing of the prophecies of Ezekiel. If the

giving of the Spirit is fulfilled in a way that is consistent with the text, then the peace and

prosperity in the land must also be equally consistent and all be fulfilled at the same time

and in the same manner—physically but with obvious spiritual overtones—the nation

will be “saved.”

Because God’s covenant with Abraham was ratified as a blood covenant,

whatever came before this event, whatever came after this event can in no way alter this

agreement. Paul argues that the Law cannot change the promise when speaking of this

event (Gal 3:17). The Law and the covenant were separated by hundreds of years, but the

same principle must apply to all events, near and far, that are not expressly a part of the

ratification process. While it is consistent with the promise in Genesis 3:15 it must be a

distinctly different promise with its own distinctive fulfillment.

The same argumentation can be made for the Palestinian Covenant found in

Deuteronomy chapters 29 and 30; the Davidic Covenant, 2 Samuel chapter 7 and the

New Covenant, Jeremiah chapter 31. These were all made with a specific individual or

group of individuals; they are all separate and distinct—though related to the others; they

must each have a separate literal, physical fulfillment since they were understood in a

physical setting when given. Just like Abraham expected a physical seed, Israel, as a

redeemed nation, could expect to dwell securely in the land in prosperity, fellowship with

and obedience to God, and being ruled by a descendant of David

“All dispensationalists think some sort of distinction between Israel and the

church is important. They also think one must take seriously the unconditionality of

covenants like the Abrahamic and Davidic and the implications for Israel’s future the



20

covenants entail. All these items, properly understood, are foundational to dispensational

theologies.54

Philosophy of History

For nondispensationalists history is seen primarily as salvation history. In

other words, the emphasis is on God’s ongoing plan in saving man. Fordispensationalists history is the gradual implementation and outworking of the

kingdom of God. A major part of that implementation involves saving people,

but the soteriological and spiritual elements are not the only aspects of thekingdom.

In a real sense, this is a critical watershed for continuity and discontinuity

systems. The more one stresses redemption history to the exclusion of God’s

other works in the world, the more one’s system becomes a continuity system, forall sides agree that soteriologically the same basic things are happening from one

Testament to another. On the other hand, the more one stresses the multi-facetedaspects of God’s workings in history, the more his system becomes adiscontinuity system, for God does not always work with and through the same

peoples, nor does he have the same social and political program for each group.55

Conclusion

While there is unity under the sovereign rule of God, there is diversity in the

means by which he has and does rule. While there is unity in fellowship with God, there

is diversity among the people of God. While all who are saved are granted salvation

because of the finished work of Christ’s substitutionary atonement, there have been a

variety of promises of God that, when believed, brought justification. While God’s moral

nature has not changed, the regulation of human behavior has varied through the

dispensations. While the New Testament has given us revelation that was not in the Old

Testament, it does not change the meaning nor the intent of the Old.

The disagreements of these two doctrinal systems relative to several ofthese issues have a significance which goes beyond the realm of theological

theory. Some have very practical ramifications. For example, one’s view

54Feinberg, Continuity, 68.

55Ibid., 85.



21

concerning God’s program for Israel will affect one’s attitude toward the present

nation of Israel and its right to exist as an independent state in the land which it

now occupies. In addition, one’s view regarding the means through which theChristian is to live a godly life will affect how one approaches the matter of

practical sanctification.

Doctrine determines attitudes and practice; therefore, the system ofdoctrine to which a person is committed does make a difference. In light of this,

it is crucial that every Christian diligently search the Scriptures to determine

whether it is Covenant Theology or Dispensational theology which is presentingthe biblical view.

56




BIBLIOGRAPHY

Berkhof, Louis. “Systematic Theology” in Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition, Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1996.

Engelsma, David J. A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism Http:members.aol.com/warren11/amil.html

accessed 2/9/2005. Originally published Standard Bearer April 1, 1995 December 15, 1996.

Enns, Paul, The Moody Handbook of Theology, Chicago: Moody1989.

Feinberg, John S. “Systems of Discontinuity” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the

Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments, Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, Jr. John

S. Feinberg, Editor, Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1988.

Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. “Israel and the Church” in Issues in Dispensationalism, Wesley R. Willis and

John R. Master, General Editors, Charles C. Ryrie, Consulting Editor, Chicago: Moody, 1994.

Mathison, Keith A. Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R,1995.

McLean, John A. “Law and Grace,” in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology: A Practical Guide to thePeople, Viewpoints, and History of Prophetic Studies, Mal Couch, General Editor, Grand Rapids:

Kregel, 1996.

Osborne, Grant R. Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, Moises Silva, Editor,

Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.

Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith Nashville: Nelson, 1998.

Ryrie, Charles C. “Dispensationalism,” in Dictionary of Premillennial Theology: A Practical Guide to the

People, Viewpoints, and History of Prophetic Studies, Mal Couch, General Editor, Grand Rapids:

Kregel, 1996.

Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism: Revised and Expanded, Chicago: Moody, 1995.

Showers, Renald E. There Really is a Difference: A Comparison of Covenant and Dispensational Theolog,y

Bellmawr, NJ: Friends of Israel, 1990.

The Belgic Confession http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html accessed 3/1/2005.

Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 822: An Exegetical Commentary, Chicago: Moody, 1995.

Westminster Confession of Faith, http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/indexf.html

accessed 3/1/2005.

Williams, J Rodman. Renewal Theology: Systematic Theology from a Charismatic Perspective,Three

Volumes in One, vol. 1, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.




Documents

klaassen.pdf