Two Hermeneutics: Covenant and Dispensations

[Arial]

The material I am providing is from ChatGPT. I asked it to outline the two hermeneutics. I am using what they provided so as to keep things organized and simple to follow. It is a great big topic and involves ten steps for each side. So that each can be discussed in turn I will present them side by side in separate posts.

I. Covenant Hermeneutic (Covenant Theology)​

1. Foundational Principle​

Scripture is one unified redemptive story centered on Christ, governed by God’s covenantal dealings with humanity.

Key idea: Unity of Scripture through covenant fulfillment in Christ.

II. Dispensational Hermeneutic (Dispensationalism)​

1. Foundational Principle​

Scripture must be interpreted consistently literally, maintaining distinctions God makes in redemptive history.

Key idea: Continuity of meaning, discontinuity of administrations.

 

[Arial]

2. Covenant Structure​

Classic covenant theology recognizes:

• Covenant of Works (Adam, pre-fall)
• Covenant of Grace (post-fall, administered through redemptive history)

These are theological covenants, inferred from Scripture rather than explicitly named as such.

2. Dispensational Structure​

History is divided into distinct dispensations (varies by system):

• Innocence
• Conscience
• Human Government
• Promise
• Law
• Grace (Church Age)
• Kingdom (Millennium)

These are administrative economies, not means of salvation.

 

[Arial]

Covenant Hermeneutical Method

• Grammatical-historical reading
• Christological focus (Luke 24:27)
• Typological fulfillment
  
  • Earlier persons/events prefigure Christ and the church
• Progressive revelation
  
  • Later Scripture interprets earlier Scripture

Dispensational Hermeneutical Method

• Grammatical-historical-literal interpretation
• OT promises retain their original referent
• NT does not redefine OT meaning, only adds clarity

 

[Arial]

Covenant OT-NT Relationship

• The New Testament has interpretive priority
• OT promises are understood in light of their fulfillment in Christ
• Israel’s role is fulfilled and expanded in Christ, not erased

The church is the eschatological people of God, not a replacement but the fulfillment.

Dispensation OT-NT Relationship

• OT promises must be fulfilled as originally given
• NT does not “reinterpret” OT promises spiritually
• Prophecy is read forward, not backward

 

[Arial]

Covenant-Israel and the Church

• One people of God
• Distinction acknowledged historically, not eternally
• Romans 9–11 read as:
  
  • One olive tree
  • Jewish and Gentile believers united in Christ

Dispensational - Israel and the Church

• Two distinct peoples of God
  
  • Israel = ethnic/national
  • Church = spiritual/heavenly
• Church is a mystery, not revealed in the OT
• God resumes His program with Israel after the church age

 

[Arial]

Covenant- Land, Temple, and Kingdom

• Land → new creation (Rom 4:13)
• Temple → Christ and His body (John 2:19–21; Eph 2:19–22)
• Kingdom → inaugurated now, consummated later

Dispensational - Land, Temple, and Kingdom

• Land → literal land of Israel
• Temple → future rebuilt temple
• Kingdom → future, earthly, Davidic reign of Christ

 

[Arial]

Covenant - Use of Typology

• Adam → Christ
• Exodus → salvation in Christ
• Davidic kingship → Christ’s reign
• Sacrificial system → once-for-all atonement

Typology is grounded in Scripture itself, not allegory.

Dispensational - Use of Typology

• Typology acknowledged but limited
• Types do not cancel literal fulfillment
• Example:
  
  • Christ fulfills Davidic kingship
  • But Davidic throne still fulfilled literally in Jerusalem

 

[Arial]

Covenant - Eschatological Orientation

• Often amillennial or postmillennial
• Emphasis on:
  
  • Christ reigning now
  • “Already / not yet” fulfillment
• Revelation interpreted symbolically where genre requires

Dispensational - Eschatological Orientation

• Premillennial
• Often pre-tribulation rapture
• Revelation read chronologically
• Strong future orientation for Israel

 

[Arial]

Covenant - Strengths

• Strong Christ-centered reading
• Emphasizes unity of Scripture
• Honors NT use of the OT

Dispensational - Strengths

• Protects historical meaning of OT texts
• Avoids allegorization
• Preserves ethnic Israel’s promises

 

[Arial]

Covenant - Critiques

• Dispensationalists argue it:
  
  • Reinterprets OT promises
  • Diminishes ethnic Israel’s future distinctiveness

Dispensational - Critiques

• Covenant theologians argue it:
  
  • Divides Scripture too sharply
  • Undermines NT interpretive authority
  • Fragments redemptive history

 

[Carbon]

Covenant OT-NT Relationship

• The New Testament has interpretive priority
• OT promises are understood in light of their fulfillment in Christ
• Israel’s role is fulfilled and expanded in Christ, not erased

Dispensation OT-NT Relationship

• OT promises must be fulfilled as originally given
• NT does not “reinterpret” OT promises spiritually
• Prophecy is read forward, not backward

Right! And dispensationalists make a huge mistake. They make the mistake of interpreting the New Testament by the Old Testament.

 

[EarlyActs]

If your hermeneutic is the fabric of the modern intellectual climate , then there is no advantage to it being Covenant. This is why Dr F Schaeffer spoke so much of neo-orthodox theology, where it was OK for the Bible to ‘be historically false but theologically true.’

 

[Arial]

The material I am providing is from ChatGPT. I asked it to outline the two hermeneutics. I am using what they provided so as to keep things organized and simple to follow. It is a great big topic and involves ten steps for each side. So that each can be discussed in turn I will present them side by side in separate posts.

I. Covenant Hermeneutic (Covenant Theology)​

1. Foundational Principle​

Scripture is one unified redemptive story centered on Christ, governed by God’s covenantal dealings with humanity.

II. Dispensational Hermeneutic (Dispensationalism)​

1. Foundational Principle​

Scripture must be interpreted consistently literally, maintaining distinctions God makes in redemptive history.

We see here that the two foundational principles are entirely different.

Covenant affirms that Scripture has unified meaning and Dispensationalism denies it. The controlling priority of Covenant is Christological fulfillment governs all interpretation.

In Dispensationalism the controlling priority is original authorial meaning governs all interpretations.

 

[Arial]

If your hermeneutic is the fabric of the modern intellectual climate , then there is no advantage to it being Covenant. This is why Dr F Schaeffer spoke so much of neo-orthodox theology, where it was OK for the Bible to ‘be historically false but theologically true.’

Huh?

 

[EarlyActs]

Huh?

THE GOD WHO IS THERE. Section 2 is on the ‘new theology’ and Section 3 answers it biblically. Unfortunately it has had quite an effect. A person will learn what thesis—antithesis—synthesis means in modern thought, by reading the material.

‘Historically false but spiritually true’ is a synthesis.

 

[Arial]

We see here that the two foundational principles are entirely different.

Covenant affirms that Scripture has unified meaning and Dispensationalism denies it. The controlling priority of Covenant is Christological fulfillment governs all interpretation.

In Dispensationalism the controlling priority is original authorial meaning governs all interpretations.

To me that speaks of missing a crucial point of God giving us the Scriptures. He is telling us his story of redemption as it has player out in history and will play out in history. In doing that, they miss the central figure that is on every page of the saga---Christ. It is the life and times of Christ.

In addition, in the way Chat GPT has worded the Dispensation interpretive priority it leaves room for it to be assumed that CT does not take into account the authorial meaning as part of its hermeneutic. They just say that is not the only thing that comes into play, and the higher interpretive authority is Christ and how he fits into it. Christ as the priority does not change the author's meaning. It throws a light on it as God is the ultimate author.

 

[Arial]

THE GOD WHO IS THERE. Section 2 is on the ‘new theology’ and Section 3 answers it biblically. Unfortunately it has had quite an effect. A person will learn what thesis—antithesis—synthesis means in modern thought, by reading the material.

If The God Who is There is a book, ( who wrote it?) that is not what this thread is about. And introducing something from it without ever saying what that something is or where it came from is confusing and distracting.

 

[EarlyActs]

I mentioned Dr Schaeffer above, the author. He called this topic the new hermenuetic. It’s not for or against you per se; it is about the modern acceptance of a sense of reality that is split; facts are hopelessly split from meaning, without connection to each other.

One of the most important cultural books from the end of the 20th century. He labored to resolve it.

Lewis also spoke of it in another manner.

Both CT and D’ism have a way of departing from facts to keep meaning intact.

 

[Arial]

Both CT and D’ism have a way of departing from facts to keep meaning intact.

Such as?

 

[Carbon]

Such as?

@EarlyActs

I’d like to know also.

Such as?