Covenant Theology: Is This Method of Interpretation Scripturally Sound?
Stanley Bruce Anstey
Table of Contents
Chart: Comparison of Millennial Teaching
/
Covenant Theology
Method of Bible Interpretation
Covenant Theology is a method of Bible interpretation that sees the Old Testament promises and prophecies concerning Israel as fulfilled today in the Church. Since these things cannot be shown to have happened literally, Covenant theologians have invented a false principle of interpretation known as "spiritualization." Thus, they take certain statements in those Old Testament promises and prophecies and claim that they are being fulfilled today, spiritually or allegorically, rather than literally.
This method of interpretation is called, "Covenant" theology, because it is supposedly based on the covenants that God made to Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, etc. Its origins can be traced back to the early centuries of the Church's history, when men (like Augustine) began to teach these things. They were later formulated into a system of doctrine and popularized by the reformers in the 1500s. Hence, it is sometimes called, "Reformed Theology," though its origins were long before the Reformation. This erroneous method of interpretation has led many dear Christians to believe a host of things that are contrary to Scripture. It is difficult to state exactly what all Covenant theologians hold doctrinally, because there is variation among them.
General Statement of What They Believe
The following is a general statement of what they believe:
The Old Testament saints, Christians, and millennial saints are all said to be one people of God who are equally blessed on the same footing without distinction, and they are all the bride and wife of Christ. Covenant theologians do not believe that there will be a heavenly company of blessed, glorified saints distinguished from those blessed of God on earth in the kingdom reign of Christ. Instead, all who have faith from all the ages are melded into one people, and they will inherit the earth and live on it together. All such are said to be the Church. In fact, they say that the Church is Israel in the Old Testament and that Israel is the Church in the New Testament.
Covenant Theologians do not believe that the Lord's coming is imminent, but rather, something that will only occur after Christ's kingdom concludes—and this will not happen until Christians have sufficiently evangelized and converted large portions of the world. Hence, they believe that the world will be set right by the influence of the gospel, rather than by judgment, as Scripture states (Isa. 26:9). Moreover, they believe that the Church has already gone through the Great Tribulation at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the Romans (in 70 A.D.). Hence, it is not something future. They also say that we are in the kingdom reign of Christ now—i.e. the Millennium—but in a spiritual way. It will not be a literal kingdom with material blessings as the Jews expected. This is called "Amillennialism," which is a tenet of Covenant Theology.
They teach that when the Lord does come, both the Rapture and the Appearing will happen at the same time. The Lord will raise the dead—the righteous and the wicked together—catching away the righteous (with the living saints) into the clouds to meet Him in the air. He will then bring them directly back down to earth, and they will be with Him as He judges the wicked who have been raised. The righteous will then live with Christ on earth thereafter—they do not go to heaven.
As far as the present call of the gospel is concerned, Covenant Theology confuses the gospel of the grace of God with the gospel of the kingdom. Out of this comes the error of kingdomizing the Church. The Church and the kingdom are viewed as one and the same, and Christ is said to be the King of the Church, and that He reigns over it. Hence, Christians are children of the King. Since they think that Israel was the Church in the Old Testament and that the Church is Israel in the New Testament, they believe that Christians should keep the Law. They falsely transmute the Sabbath to the Lord's Day and insist that Christians are to "observe" and "keep" the Lord's Day as if it were the Sabbath. Consequently, they also think nothing of adopting the Judaic methods of worship that Israel used in Old Testament times.
Covenant Theology also teaches that "the promises" to Abraham have been fulfilled today in the Church. And also, that the "new covenant" the Lord promised to make with Israel (Jer. 31:31-34) has been made with the Church, because the Church (in their minds) is spiritual Israel.
This interpretation, however, is full of error and very problematic when worked out to its logical conclusion.
Chart the Churches of Christendom in Relation to Dispensational and Covenantal Teaching
This chart indicates that most of Christendom holds a
Covenantal interpretation of Scripture.
/
How Covenantal Interpretation Violates the Basic Principles of Bible Interpretation
First, it DEMEANS the character of God
First, it DEMEANS the character of God. He is portrayed as having misled the children of Israel in allowing them to believe that there would be a literal kingdom yet to come, in which they would have a part, when in reality He never intended that there would be such a thing. Through the many centuries in Old Testament times, He made no attempt to correct their false expectation. Hence, God is made out to be a God that makes false and misleading promises.
However, God said what He meant, and He meant what He said—literally (Num. 23:19). When the Lord appeared to His disciples in resurrection, and they asked Him, "Lord, wilt Thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" He didn't deny that it would be set up in that literal way. He simply said, "It is not for you to know the times or seasons, which the Father hath put in His power" (Acts 1:6-7). The Father had His time to bring in the kingdom with its promised blessings in a literal way, but it would be sometime later. If it was not to be, the Lord would have corrected their mistaken expectations at that time, but He made no attempt to set them straight on this because they had it right.
Second, it DEPRIVES the Lord Jesus of the Display of His Kingdom Glory in this World
Second, it DEPRIVES the Lord Jesus of the display of His kingdom glory in this world (Hab. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 1:7), and God the Father the satisfaction of seeing His Son publicly exonerated in the place where He was dishonoured (John 5:23).
Third, it DENIES the Scriptures That Clearly State That God's Present Calling of the Church by the Gospel
Third, it DENIES the Scriptures that clearly state that God's present calling of the Church by the gospel, disclosed in the Mystery, was unknown by the Old Testament saints (Rom. 16:25-26; Eph. 3:3-10; Col. 1:25-27). Covenant theologians say that it was known by the Old Testament prophets who prophesied of this new departure of God. But it is a flat-out denial of the plain statements of Scripture that say that they didn't know about it. It was a "secret" that was "hidden" in those past ages, and only revealed when the Spirit of God came to dwell on earth in the Church.
Furthermore, teaching that the Church was in existence in Old Testament times (as Covenant theologians do) is a denial of the Lord's statement in Matthew 16:18. He said, "I will build My Church." By stating that He was going to build His Church shows that it was not in existence at the time when He was on earth teaching and preaching. It did not begin until Pentecost when the Spirit of God was sent to form the Church, the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13; Acts 2:1-4, 47; 5:11). This action of the Spirit is called a "beginning," not a continuation (Acts 11:15).
Fourth, it DEFERS the Lord's Coming
Fourth, it DEFERS the Lord's coming, and this opens the door to all kinds of negative things that impact a believer's life practically (Matt. 24:48).
Fifth, it DOWNGRADES the Church
Fifth, it DOWNGRADES the Church from being a heavenly thing with distinctive blessings belonging to it alone (Eph. 1:3), to being that of a millennial saint on earth. Scripture teaches that the Church is indeed a distinct entity among the companies of blessed men in the system of grace. It is called the "assembly of the firstborns" or "church of firstborn ones" (Heb. 12:22-23 — W. Kelly Trans.). Firstborn, is a term that refers to that which is first in rank and pre-eminence; hence the Church has a preeminent place among the other saints of God. Those who compose the Church are viewed as "sons" in the household of God, whereas an Old Testament saint is viewed as a "child" and a "servant" in the house (Gal. 4:1-7). The Jewish household custom of a bar mitzvah illustrates this difference. Again, Revelation 19 sees the Lamb's "wife" as distinct from the other heavenly saints who are "called to the marriage supper" (i.e. the friends of the Bridegroom — John 3:29). As the wife, she has a special place in relation to the Lamb that the others do not have. Scripture states that God will have many families of blessed beings in heaven and on earth with different relationships to Him—they are not all one company (Eph. 3:15). But there are none that have a place of favour and nearness to Christ as do Christians who are members of His body (Eph. 5:23-32).
Sixth, it DEPRIVES the remnant of Israel
Sixth, it DEPRIVES the remnant of Israel of their inheritance in their homeland. Scripture states that it has not been taken away from them in spite of their failure (Rom. 11:29).
CHART Erroneous Covenantal Interpretations of Scripture
/
Seventh, it DEPARTS from sound principles of Biblical exegesis
Seventh, it DEPARTS from sound principles of Biblical exegesis, and supposes that because things in the Old Testament are quoted by the Holy Spirit in the New, it means that they are fulfilled today in the Church. But this is assuming something that the Spirit of God did not necessarily intend.
In truth, as a rule, when an Old Testament passage is quoted in the New Testament as a fulfillment, it will state that it is. But when the Spirit of God quotes an Old Testament passage in the New, but does not say that it is "fulfilled," it is to merely show the character of a thing, or that the principle involved coincides with the moral ways of God. Compare John 19:36 with 19:37; Acts 1:16, 20 with Acts 2:16-21; Acts 13:27 with 47, etc. Covenant Theology does not observe this principle when interpreting the Scriptures and infers things into various passages that are not intended. And thus, erroneous conclusions are drawn as a result.
Covenant theologians are also often inconsistent in their method of "spiritualizing" the Scriptures. They teach that the Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled today in the Church allegorically. Yet many Old Testament passages have been fulfilled literally. This cannot be denied. Take, for example, the curses and judgments pronounced on Israel. If they did not meet their covenant relationship responsibilities, they were warned that they would be destroyed by their enemies and carried away as captives from their land. This actually happened; the ten tribes were carried to Assyria and the two tribes to Babylon. Also, the prophecies concerning the first coming of the Messiah—His virgin birth, His life and ministry, His rejection, His death and resurrection, etc. These are things that have all happened literally.
This being the case, Covenant theologians are forced to admit that only some of the Old Testament prophecies have been fulfilled allegorically. But this leaves the serious Bible student in a quandary. Which parts should he take literally, and which should he take allegorically? And, what authority does he have to pick and choose which is which? Covenant theologians will say that the blessings are to be taken allegorically, but that the judgments are literal. But what Scriptural authority do they have to make this qualifying distinction? If this is true, why hasn't God told this to us in His Word?
When we examine this idea (that the Old Testament blessings are fulfilled allegorically, but the judgments are literal), we find that many times it is not consistent. Many of the blessings promised to Israel were fulfilled literally. For instance, the blessings in Deuteronomy 27-31 were realized in the days of Joshua, and again in the time of David and Solomon. Also, the blessings promised in restoring the children of Israel from captivity, if they humbled themselves—these were also fulfilled literally in Ezra and Nehemiah. Thus, there is no consistency with this method of interpretation. And why should we think that some parts of the Old Testament are fulfilled spiritually or allegorically when God has already shown us how He intends to fulfill those things by having brought many of them to pass literally? Logically, one would expect that if He has started that way, He will continue to fulfill the remaining prophecies in that literal way.
Orthodox Bible Interpretation Believes in a Literal Fulfillment of Scripture
Orthodox Bible interpretation believes in a literal fulfillment of Scripture. This does not mean that every word or phrase found in the Bible is literal, but that the fulfillment of those things is literal. The Spirit of God uses many figures and symbols in the Word of God; these are not literal things, but what they symbolize are always literal. For example, Scripture speaks of "the sun" not shining and "the stars" falling from heaven (Matt. 24:29). This could not be taken literally. Many of the stars are thousands of times the size of the earth; if one of them were to fall to the earth, it would be destroyed immediately. These things are obviously symbolic. They are meant to signify that the great apostasy, which the Antichrist will bring in, will take away divine light and truth (the sun) from men, and many leaders (the stars) will succumb to the spiritual darkness, and give up their acknowledgement of God. These things will happen literally.
Covenant theologians have no problem inferring things into Scripture to make them fit their ideas. We call this "the fudge factor." An example of this is the invention of "the Covenant of Works" and "the Covenant of Grace"—of which Scripture makes no mention. They also say that the "new covenant" (Jer. 31:31-34) has been made now with the Church—but there is no Scripture which says it. Each time the new covenant is mentioned, it clearly states that it is with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah"—never the Church (Heb. 8:10-12). The Apostle Paul confirms this, stating that "the covenants" and "the promises" belong to his countrymen. He qualifies exactly who they are, so as to leave no doubt in anyone's mind, saying, "My brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:3-4). This cannot possibly be construed as a company of believers today from among the Gentiles, as Reformed theologians teach. As a rule, Christian blessings are seen as a present possession of believers (Eph. 1:3-14 — "hath"), whereas Israel's blessings in prophecy are future.
Covenant Theology Departs from Sound Principles of Biblical Exegesis
Another example where Covenant theology departs from sound principles of Biblical exegesis is in the reversing of the meaning of "Israel" from the Old Testament to the New. Such disrupts the progressive revelation of truth in Scripture. A great principle of Bible interpretation—that Bible students would do well to observe—is that new revelations never contradict revelations previously given. A concept in the Old Testament cannot be taken to be the opposite in the New Testament, otherwise the Bible would be filled with contradictions. As Scripture was written, God gave additional light on certain subjects, but those new revelations do not contradict previous ones. Scripture unfolds truth like a building being constructed; a foundation is laid, then a framework is added, etc. One thing is built on another; and, any new thing added doesn't tear down a previous thing. Hence, it cannot be that the nation of Israel, which is a literal thing in the Old Testament, has lost its literalness when mentioned in the New Testament. Romans 9-11 Confirms this. The term "Israel," is used a number of times in these chapters for the natural descendants of Abraham (Paul's kinsmen according to the flesh), not the spiritual descendants of Abraham. Thus, the word "Israel" has not changed its meaning in the New Testament.
The right and proper way of handling the Scriptures is demonstrated by the Apostle Paul. He "reasoned with them out of the Scriptures" (Acts 17:2). He did not reason into the Scriptures with preconceived notions, but rather, he took his thoughts from the Scriptures.
Eighth, Covenant Theology DEFIES Logic in Many of its Interpretations
Eighth, Covenant theology DEFIES logic in many of its interpretations. When worked out to their logical conclusion, many of their "spiritualizations" don't make sense. For instance, we are told that we are in Christ's (millennial) kingdom now. But the descriptions in Scripture of His kingdom in power indicate that Christ will rule with a rod of iron (Rev. 2:27), and righteousness will pervade the whole world (Isa. 32:1-19). Also, Satan and his fallen angels will be bound in the bottomless pit and will not be able to go forth to deceive the nations (Isa. 24:21-22; Rev. 20:1-3). Furthermore, judgment will be executed every morning on offenders (Psa. 101:8; Zeph. 3:5). And, the wolf and the lamb will feed together, with the desert blossoming like a rose (Isa. 11:6; 35:1-7; 65:25). Whatever way a person chooses to interpret these things—allegorically or spiritually—it would be very difficult to convince anybody that such is happening today.
Are we to believe that righteousness is reigning now in this world? Is Satan really bound today? How can we honestly think this when his evil working can be seen in every nation and walk of life? Does judgment really fall on offenders every morning as Scripture states? They may "spiritualize" these things, but this would be going back on their own teaching that the judgments in Scripture are literal. And, is the animal kingdom at peace? If they say that the leopard and kid are lying down together spiritually today, what could this mean?
Ninth, Covenant Theology DESTROYS the Types and Figures of Scripture
Ninth, Covenant theology DESTROYS the types and figures of Scripture. The beautiful dispensational pictures in both the Old Testament and the New, showing the temporary setting aside of Israel and the present interposed heavenly calling of the Church, before God resumes His dealings with a remnant of Israel, must all be written off as mere fiction. These figurative pictures cover some 50 or 60 chapters in our Bibles!
Tenth, Covenant Theology DISRUPTS the Order of Prophetic Events
Tenth, Covenant theology DISRUPTS the order of prophetic events. Except perhaps for the coming of the Lord and the final casting of the wicked into the lake of fire, we are told that prophecy in the Old Testament and in the book of Revelation has been fulfilled already! Hence, there is no seven-year Tribulation coming, no Antichrist coming, no Armageddon, etc.!
The Rapture and the Appearing
Another example of this confusion is the idea that when the Lord does come, the Rapture and the Appearing are said to occur at the same time. However, Scripture indicates that there are too many things that have to happen between the Rapture and the Appearing for this to be possible. The Lord must first take us into the Father's house (John 14:2-3) and sit us down at His table and serve us heavenly happiness (Luke 12:37). He will then take His position on the judgment seat and review each of our lives (2 Cor. 5:10, etc.). After this, there will be a time of worship around the throne in heaven, and we will cast our crowns at His feet (Rev. 4-5). Following this, the marriage of the Lamb will take place (Rev. 19:7-8), and then the supper following it (Rev. 19:9). These things cannot possibly happen in the moment of time that the covenantal interpretation maintains.
Furthermore, if the coming of the Lord to judge "the living and the dead" (2 Tim. 4:1; 1 Peter 4:5) occurs at the end of the kingdom reign of Christ, when the Church has supposedly converted the world to God, who among the living would be judged at that time?