In the world of evangelicalism, pastors, missionaries, evangelists, professors, theologians, and laypeople have a worldview, so to speak, of how to approach the task of interpreting the Bible. In other words, we all have a starting point in regard to hermeneutics. In this article, I will attempt to explain what I believe are the divergent starting points for the two main systems in the hermeneutical world—covenant theology and Dispensationalism. I will then demonstrate how these totally opposite hermeneutical starting points lead to certain distinguishing marks in each system that are, as we would expect, dissimilar.

At this point, it would be helpful to clarify specifically who I am referring to as covenantalists and Dispensationalists. There are mainly two groups on the covenantal side: amillennialists who believe in no literal millennium and non-Dispensational premillennialists who hold to a post-tribulation rapture. Some conservative postmillennialists also subscribe to covenantalism. As for Dispensationalists, I am including only the traditional camp, not ultra-Dispensationalists or progressive Dispensationalists.

 

Covenant Theology’s Starting Point

The proponents of covenant theology would insist that their starting point is Scripture. In reality, however, they start with two covenants which they say are implied in Scripture—the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, as outlined in the Westminster Confession of Faith. God established the covenant of works between Himself and Adam, who was promised eternal life, but there had to be perfect obedience. Adam, as the federal head of the human race, had the power to keep this covenant; if he did not, there would be death not only to him but to all of mankind. When Adam sinned, he in essence broke the covenant; thus, God instituted another law between Himself and sinners, the covenant of grace. This covenant affirms that Christ offers eternal life to the elect in Christ as they place their faith in Him.[1]

Later in the history of covenant theology, the covenant of redemption was added, which supposedly was established in eternity past between the Father and Son and made the covenant of grace possible. Louis Berkhof explains, “In the covenant of redemption Christ undertook to atone for the sins of His people by bearing the necessary punishment, and to meet the demands of the law for them. And by taking the place of delinquent man, He became the last Adam and is as such also the Head of the covenant, the Representative of all those whom the Father has given Him.”[2]

Berkhof then describes how this covenant specifically relates to the covenant of grace. It is “the eternal prototype of the historical covenant of grace… the firm and eternal foundation of the covenant of grace…[which] also gives efficacy to the covenant of grace, for in it the means are provided for the establishment and execution of the latter.”[3]

We know these two covenants are never explicitly named in Scripture, so what do the supporters of covenant theology mean when they insist that they are implied in Scripture? Are they truly covenants? Charles Ryrie provides this answer: “What the covenant theologian does to make up for the lack of specific scriptural support for the covenants of works and grace is to project the general idea of covenant in the Bible and the specific covenants (like the covenant with Abraham) into these covenants of works and grace.”[4]

We can conclude, then, that these covenants are theological in nature and are logically reasoned from the pages of Scripture. In contrast, biblical covenants are identified explicitly in Scripture as covenants (Noahic – Ge 6:18; 9:9-17; Abrahamic – Ge 15:9-21; 17:7; Mosaic – Ex 19:5; Dt 5:2-3; Palestinian – Dt 29:1; Davidic – 2Sa 7:1-17; 23:5; and New – Jer 31:31-34). The issue is not that the teaching contained in the wording of the two covenants is totally anti-biblical. Some biblical truth is expressed therein. Rather, as Ryrie states, an exhaustive inductive study of the Bible would not uncover one shred of evidence for the existence of the covenant of works or the covenant of grace as they are so named.[5] The bottom line is this: covenant theology has a very shaky foundation.

 

Dispensationalism’s Starting Point

We who are a part of IFCA International are unashamedly Dispensational.  It is part of who we are. But why are we Dispensational? Is it because Dispensationalism seems to be a reasonable approach to Scripture? After all, if it was good enough for James H. Brookes and C.I. Scofield, it is good enough for us. Is that the reason? I think you would agree that we are Dispensational because of our starting point. Unlike the covenantal approach, which begins with two or three covenants deduced from Scripture, we start with the Scriptures themselves.  Specifically, one of the absolute essentials for Dispensationalism—consistent literal, grammatical, and historical interpretation—is our starting point. Let me be clear. Dispensationalism does not lead to consistent literal, grammatical, and historical interpretation. Rather, starting with consistent literal, grammatical, and historical hermeneutic results in Dispensationalism.

This firm stance has drawn the criticism of some in the covenantalist crowd, as Ryrie has reminded us. Their complaint is that they also use a literal approach; however, they are not consistent in its use.[6] That is where the rub is, and I will discuss it in more detail later.

What, then, is the nature of this consistent literal, grammatical, and historical approach to Bible interpretation?  It is simply a straightforward reading of the text at hand in which we determine what the author was communicating to his original readers. Thus, we do word studies; we analyze the grammar; we look at the immediate and remote context; and we compare Scripture with Scripture.

So, we aim for the literal interpretation of each text we encounter. But does this mean all of our interpretation must be nonfigurative? Not at all, because literal interpretation takes into account that some authors of Scripture do use figurative language. Thus, part of normal and literal hermeneutics is determining when figurative language is used and interpreting accordingly.

Hopefully, by now, you get the picture that covenant theology and Dispensationalism, at their very foundations, are very different systems of interpreting the Scriptures. Because each system has a different starting point, naturally, the specific distinguishing marks of each are at odds with each other as well. The rest of this article will focus on some of these distinguishing marks.

 

Some Distinguishing Marks of Covenant Theology

Because covenantalists believe the covenant of grace has been in effect since the fall of man, they insist that the controlling purpose of God’s program throughout all history is soteriological in nature, that is, the salvation of the elect. This is their “unifying principle,” and they have accused Dispensationalists of destroying the unity of the Bible by dividing it into sections.[7]

The priority of the covenant of grace has led to another distinguishing mark of covenant theology: reading the interpretation of the New Testament back into the Old Testament so that the meaning of many Old Testament passages is changed. Thus, this system has a woefully deficient view of progressive revelation.[8]

Covenant theology’s unifying principle and faulty view of the New Testament interpreting the Old Testament, has opened the door to some serious errors.

First, the fallout from embracing this unifying principle under the single covenant of grace has led to a non-biblical ecclesiology and has even muddied pneumatology. The Church is defined as consisting of all the elect of all time, which means it began with Adam. Some covenantalists, however, stipulate that the Church began with Abraham. Thus, not only are New Testament believers seen as a part of the Church, but so are all Old Testament saints. There are at least two problems with this doctrine: (1) Jesus, in Matthew 16:18, instructed the disciples that the Church was future. How, then, could it have begun with Adam or Abraham? (2) Paul, in 1 Corinthians 12:13, taught that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is the instrument by which people become a part of the body of Christ, the Church. Where, in the Old Testament, do we see a first occurrence of this baptism? Nowhere. It did not happen until Acts 2.

Second, the fallout from reading the interpretation of the New Testament back into the Old Testament has not only thrown hermeneutics into disarray, but it has also upended several important doctrines as well.

It has affected hermeneutics because, as a result of allowing the New Testament to interpret the Old Testament, those in covenant theology claim it is acceptable to spiritualize passages when necessary. They usually see this as a necessity in Old Testament prophetic sections that refer to Israel, Christ’s second coming, and the kingdom; thus, they do not consistently use literal interpretation. Ryrie rightly judges that they “introduce another hermeneutical principle (the ‘theological’ method) in order to have a hermeneutical basis for the system [they hold].”[9]

As a result of their flawed hermeneutics, one very serious doctrinal error they make is to claim that God is finished with Israel since the nation rejected their Messiah. The promises He made to Israel are now being fulfilled in the Church. This distinctive is called replacement theology; thus, the Church is now the new Israel.  This view would deny that God has abrogated the three unconditional covenants He made with Israel—the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New. His promises are still intact, but they are now applicable to the true spiritual Israel, namely the Church.

According to Paul Enns, the proof text they use is Galatians 3:29, which says, “And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to the promise” (NASB). Enns continues by stating that replacement theology claims this verse “shows that sonship to Abraham is spiritual, not physical.”[10] But this spiritual sonship has nothing to do with the Church replacing Israel. Galatians 3:29 is simply teaching that believers, Jewish and Gentile alike, have inherited the spiritual blessings associated with the Abrahamic Covenant because, like Abraham, they have been justified by faith (cf. Gal 3:6-9).

Some covenantalists who are premillennial and teach a post-tribulation rapture have a softened view of Israel. Ryrie explains that they go “halfway” meaning that “[t]he church and Israel are somewhat blended, though not amalgamated in this age (they are kept distinct in the Millennium).”[11]

Another serious doctrinal error of covenant theology is found in its eschatology. Because of their wrong view of Israel and the Church, which is a result of their flawed hermeneutics, amillennial covenantalists insist that the kingdom is spiritually fulfilled in the Church.  Thus, Christ is now reigning over a spiritual kingdom.

Covenantalists have traditionally taught baptism of infants because they relate it to the requirement of the Israelites to circumcise their male infants on the eighth day as a sign of the covenant. However, circumcision is a prescription from the Mosaic Law and is not connected to baptism at all. Furthermore, baptism is for those who have repented of sin and trusted Christ as Savior. Infants are incapable of doing any of this.

 

Some Distinguishing Marks of Dispensationalism

In his book, Dispensationalism, Charles Ryrie presents the three essentials of dispensationalism: (1) Israel and  the Church are different entities, (2) Literal interpretation of Scripture must be used consistently, and (3) God’s overall purpose is to manifest His glory in the world in all that He does.[12] I have already claimed that Ryrie’s second essential is actually Dispensationalism’s starting point. My further assertion is that if we start there, the other two essentials will follow as distinguishing marks.

First, Dispensationalism recognizes that Israel and the Church are different entities. Much could be said in support of this, but I will be brief. If we did an exhaustive study of the term “Israel,” other than the few times it is used of Jacob himself, we would learn that it means Jacob’s physical descendants. The term is never used in a spiritualized sense to refer to the Church.[13]

Earlier, I referenced Matthew 16:18 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 as biblical answers to the covenantal view that the Church existed in the Old Testament. First Corinthians 10:32 distinguishes between Jews, Gentiles, and the Church. Additionally, Ephesians 3:5, 6 speaks of the one body composed of Jew and Gentile as being something not formerly revealed. Verses 9 and 10 leave no doubt that Paul is speaking of the Church.

Distinguishing between the Church and Israel has paved the way for two eschatological views: the pretribulation rapture and a literal millennial kingdom. Covenant theology, as a whole, rejects the pretribulation rapture, but the doctrine of a literal millennium is accepted by non-Dispensational premillennialists.[14]

A second distinguishing mark of Dispensationalism is that it insists that God’s overall purpose is to mani- fest His glory in the world in all that He does. Ryrie states that this is Dispensationalism’s “unifying principle.”  This is in contrast to the covenant- al view, which, if you remember, sees God’s overall purpose as the salvation of the elect. Thus, the unifying principle for covenantalism is soteriological in nature, whereas the Dispensationalist’s is doxological in nature. This doxological purpose is seen in “the differing dispensations [that] reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing stewardships, which culminate in history with the millennial glory.”[15]

Does this view minimize the importance of the gospel and salvation?  Definitely not. As one writer expressed it, “From man’s perspective, nothing could be more important than salvation. But from God’s perspective, all that He does is for His glory, including the salvation of the elect.”[16]

Dispensational and covenant theology are miles apart in their hermeneutics.  However, as I have demonstrated, when we begin with the consistent literal, grammatical, and historical interpretation of Scripture, as Dispensationalism has, our foundation and distinguishing marks are solid.

 

---

ENDNOTES

[1] Westminster Confession of Faith 7.2-3, 19.1, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary, accessed December 9, 2025, https://prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Westminster_Confession.pdf.

[2] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1979), 267.

[3] Ibid., 270.

[4] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2007), 206.

[5] Ibid., 206, 210.

[6] Ibid., 41-42.

[7] Ibid., 95-100.

[8] Sanford Bible Church, “The Hermeneutics of Covenant Theology,” accessed December 10, 2025, https://www.sanfordbiblechurch.org/BibleInt07.pdf.

[9] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 87-88.

[10] Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology (Chicago, IL: Moody Publishers, 2008), 538.

[11] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 89.

[12] Ibid., 46.

[13] Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, 555.

[14] Ryrie, Dispensationalism, 161-62.

[15] Ibid., 18.

[16] Alex Bauman, ed., Why Dispensationalism Matters (Arlington Heights, IL: Regular Baptist Press, 2015), 75.

Copyright VOICE Magazine, used by permission.

Issue: March/April 2026.