Words

After our quick look at Old Testament theology, next we must briefly examine the systematic theologies before we delve into how they understand the covenants of the Old Testament. What follows here is a brief (very brief!) overview of the systematics that we will be examining.

The Systematic Theologies

It is appropriate, at this time, to give a very brief overview on the systems themselves. This will aid us as we look at the covenants and find connections between them and the systems. The covenant theologian finds in the plan of God an overarching covenant of redemption from the time of Adam to the consummation of the ages, in which God promises to redeem a people to himself.[1] This inclines him or her to find unity amongst the biblical covenants. “The history of God’s covenant people indicates that the covenants are basically one…. A basic unity binds them together.”[2] Yet, within this unity, the covenant theologian finds distinctions: pre-creation and post-creation, covenant of works and covenant of grace, and old covenant and new covenant.[3] In this way we find the other two overarching covenants by which covenant theologies receives its name: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. In the covenants of the Old Testament, the covenant theologian finds examples of God’s working with man in terms of law and grace. The two ideas complement each other: one was not intended to function apart from the other. [4]

The dispensationalist, on the other hand, attempts to “give proper place to the idea of development. Under the various administrations of God different revelation was given to man, and that revelation was increasingly progressive in the scope of its content.”[5] While acknowledging there are similarities present in the various dispensations, they are not due to the employment of the unifying principle of the covenant of grace.[6] According to Charles Ryrie that unifying principle is eschatological: “the differing dispensations reveal the glory of God as He manifests His character in the differing stewardships culminating in history with the millennial glory.”[7] Therefore, “[t]he understanding of God’s differing economies [differing stewardships] is essential to a proper interpretation of His revelation within those various economies.”[8] These dispensations are described as having three major characteristics: “(1) a change in God’s governmental relationship with man…, (2) a resultant change in man’s responsibility, and (3) corresponding revelation necessary to effect change….”[9] Out of this view, combined with a literal hermeneutic, the dispensationalist keeps Israel and the Church distinct, having two plans culminating in God’s larger purpose of his glory.[10]

The progressive dispensationalist, in contrast to the dispensational charge that covenant theology sees God’s purpose as soteriological while they see God’s purpose as doxological, that is, the glory of God, finds that both systems ultimately see the goal of God’s plan is his glory.[11] Contrary to the distinction between the plan of God for the Church and the plan of God for Israel, the progressive dispensationalist attempts to show that there is one unified historical plan while still keeping the Church and Israel distinct.[12] Thus, the progressive dispensationalist attempts to find a mediating position between the dispensationalist and non-dispensationalist.[13]

It is easy to oversimplify the differences between covenant, dispensational, and progressive dispensational theologians in a short work such as this. These systematic theologies have been developed and refined to illustrate with fine detail their various understandings of the Scriptures. The differences in hermeneutical approach and centralizing themes have led to theological variations and it can get quite complex to delve into those issues. Compounding the difficulty is the human element: certain nuances may be employed that vary from theologian to theologian even within the larger umbrella of the same systematic theology. Generalizations are always problematic in relating the depth of the understanding that has been achieved, but nonetheless necessary, in a relatively small space, to unpack each system’s position.

At the outset of this discussion, therefore, it is appropriate to note that I have tended to stay away from the finer discussion of hermeneutical and thematic issues as it pertains to the systematic theologies. This work is not an investigation of the systematic per say, instead it is a look at how the systems relate to Old Testament theology, specifically to the Old Testament covenants. Thus, appropriately, I have used some generalization in characterizing each system of theology. This is done, not with the intent to distort the reality of the position, but to make clear the distinctions that are at times very fine. I have attempted, to the best of my ability, to clarify and nuance whenever possible, but nevertheless clarifying the positions cannot be comprehensive. My goal is to shed light on how each system looks at the specific covenants; how they are similar and how they are different.

[1] Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980, 208. On page 53-54, he describes the covenant of redemption as that covenant made among the trinity expressing “[t]he intention of God from eternity to redeem a people to himself…. Before the foundation of the world God set his covenantal love on his people.”

[2] Ibid., 34.

[3] Ibid., 53-57. He applies the term covenant of works to the condition of man prior to his fall into sin and the covenant of grace to describe the condition of man after his fall into sin. However, he is careful to elaborate that  this distinction of the two terms does not mean to imply that there is no role of grace in the covenant of works and that there is no role of works in the covenant of grace. The old covenant is the shadow where the new covenant is the reality.

[4] Ibid., 59, 218.

[5] Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism Today. Chicago: Moody Press, 1965, 19.

[6] Ibid., 19. On page 29 he gives his definition of a dispensation: “A dispensation is a distinguishable economy in the outworking of God’s purpose.”  And on page 32: “A dispensation is from God’s viewpoint an economy; from man’s, a responsibility; and in relation to progressive revelation, a stage in it.”

[7] Ibid., 18.

[8] Ibid., 31.

[9] Ibid., 37-38.

[10] Ibid., 44-46.

[11] Saucy, Robert. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993, 20.

[12] Ibid., 28.

[13] Ibid., 27-29.