The Hermeneutics of Covenant Theology

By Michael A. Harbin

[Michael A. Harbin, Elder, South Garland Bible Church, Garland, Texas]

The question of authority is probably the key question of this generation. Conservative Christianity has struggled to resist numerous attempts to erode the base of authority rediscovered during the Reformation, when the Reformers proclaimed Sola Scriptura, rather than the pope, as the base of authority.

Following this standard, the Reformers built on the principle of a literal interpretation of Scripture.[1] This hermeneutical principle is more than just a guideline for Bible study. It is also a powerful control on what Scripture may or may not be construed to say. In other words the principle of literal interpretation is what makes Scripture, and not some interpreter, the authority.

However, the issue is more complex than this. Obviously the Scriptures contain many kinds of figurative speech. In addition several books of the Bible are devoted almost exclusively to prophecy. Properly interpreting this mass of material has challenged conservative Christianity since the Reformation. Two schools of interpretation have arisen in an attempt to maintain this authority.

These two schools, popularly known as covenant theology and dispensationalism, are often set at odds with one another. Unfortunately they are also often misunderstood. At times members of both camps have gone to extremes in their zeal to uphold their systems.

What Is Covenant Theology?

Confusion abounds in the minds of many people about several terms. Apparently many people use the terms “Reformed tradition,” “Calvinism,” “covenant theology,” and “amillennialism” interchangeably. For this reason it is necessary to define these terms.[2]

Reformed Tradition

“Reformed tradition” is a term often used by Presbyterians and people in related groups to reflect their theological system. This is a catch-all term that reflects all the various facets of theology that arose as part of the Reformation. The “Reformed tradition” seems to include Calvinism, covenant theology, and amillennialism, as well as the Presbyterian form of church government. Arriving at a more technical definition is difficult. As de Witt observes, “There is no single source to which we can turn for an authoritative expression of Reformed faith.”[3] He cites several sources of the Reformed faith, including John Calvin, Martin Luther, the Canons of Dort, and even pre-Reformation men such as Augustine and Anselm.

It would appear then that the Reformed tradition is not an explicit system of doctrine but a history or development of doctrine. That is, the Reformed tradition is the historical process of the church clarifying views on specific points of theology by dealing with issues as they arose. As issues came to the fore, the church, through debate and consultation with the standards of Scripture clarified what was truth and what was heresy.[4] This may lead one to suspect that there may yet be areas where the church has not delineated the limits of orthodoxy.[5] This is addressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states that “it belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith” (chap. 31). Furthermore the same chapter warns that “all synods or councils, since the apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”

De Witt lists seven themes that he argues could be construed as delineating the Reformed faith or tradition: (1) its doctrine of Scripture, (2) its high view of the sovereignty of God, (3) its view of the invincibility of the grace of God, (4) a doctrine of the Christian life that places a high view on holy living, (5) a distinction between law and grace, (6) a positive view of the relationship between the kingdom of God and the world (a view of a cultural mandate), and (7) a distinctive view of preaching.[6]

One cannot help but wonder how these characteristics are peculiarly “Reformed” in the traditional sense of the word. De Witt notes this himself on the last point: “There is much that all evangelicals, from whatever period of history, have in common here. That, of course, is true with respect to the other areas I have mentioned as well.”[7]

In evangelicalism today the distinctions that set the Reformed tradition apart are questions more of degree or emphasis rather than absolute differences. So caution must be exercised in the use of the term as a label.

Calvinism

Calvinism is the system of theology developed from the writings of John Calvin. As usually delineated, it is set forth in five points which were the points of remonstrance postulated by the followers of Jacob Arminius. The argument primarily focused on the question of predestination, especially in relationship to salvation. Properly speaking, then, Calvinism follows up the question facing the first Reformers (viz., the issue of salvation by faith) and is an attempt to reconcile the sovereignty of God with salvation.[8]

Covenant Theology

Covenant theology is a system developed by two men, Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669) and Hermann Witsius (1636–1708). It was an attempt to tie the Old and New Testaments together by two covenants. The first was called the covenant of works, defined as the covenant instituted by God with Adam after creation. This was abrogated by the Fall and was replaced by the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is the covenant of salvation, a single covenant for all men after the Fall.[9] Thus the unifying feature of the Bible in this system is God’s grace. An evaluation of the hermeneutical base for this system will be given later.

Amillennialism

Amillennialism is a system of interpretation of prophetic Scripture. Basically it holds that the Bible does not predict a literal 1,000-year period of universal peace and righteousness before the end of the world.[10] For example Berkhof states:

The Amillennial view is, as the name indicates, purely negative. It holds that there is no sufficient Scriptural ground for the expectation of a millennium, and is firmly convinced that the Bible favors the idea that the present dispensation of the Kingdom of God will be followed immediately by the Kingdom of God in its consummate and eternal form.[11]

Others, while agreeing with Berkhof regarding the characteristics of that system of interpretation, dislike the negative implications of the title. For example Adams renames the “unhappy term” with a title he feels is more accurate and positive—realized millennialism.”[12]

What Is Dispensationalism?

Dispensationalism is an effort to interpret Scripture on the basis of the distinctives of God’s demands for and relationships with mankind. This pertains to man’s stewardship toward God. A basic corollary of this is the assumption of the same literal, historical grammatical method of interpretation followed by many other schools of thought in evangelical Christianity.[13] Like other sections of evangelicalism, it recognizes the use of figures of speech and symbols as an important aspect of the literal method.[14]

Dispensationalism, then, is not per se a method of interpreting only prophecy. Premillennialism seems to flow naturally from the hermeneutical assumptions of dispensationalism, but it is not a direct or necessary corollary.

Also, as delineated, dispensationalism is not necessarily incompatible with covenant theology, if one wishes to view the various dispensations as being aspects of the covenant of grace, which encompasses all time after the Fall. In fact this has been true of covenant theology from its inception. For example Witsius notes that it was “dispensed ‘at sundry times and in divers manners,’ under various economies for the manifestation of the manifold wisdom of God.”[15] He suggests that the Old Testament includes four distinct periods between the Fall and Christ: Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ.[16] Berkhof states that the covenant of grace “is essentially the same in all Dispensations, though its form changes.”[17]

The distinctions between the various periods noted by Witsius cannot be denied. The real question lies in their significance and the amount of emphasis one wishes to accord them.

Dispensationalism suggests that the distinctions are significant, whereas covenant theology suggests that they are in reality minimal.

“Reformed tradition” is a broad term. “Calvinism” reflects a perspective on soteriology. “Amillennialism” and “premillennialism” reflect one’s eschatological perspective. “Dispensationalism” and “covenant theology” reflect one’s perspective on the unity and purpose of Scripture. Therefore it is possible, theoretically at least, to be an amillennial dispensationalist or a premillennial covenant theologian.

Dispensationalism, however, because of its focus on a consistent hermeneutic, is difficult to harmonize with an amillennial view of prophecy, and covenant theology is traditionally associated with the amillennial view and more naturally fits with it. So in this article covenant theology is considered as including amillennialism as an adjunct, and dispensationalism is viewed as including premillennialism as an adjunct.

The Beginning of Covenant Theology

As already noted covenant theology was first developed in the 17th century by Johannes Cocceius (1603–1669). His work, viewed with suspicion, was not accepted until it was republished much later in a somewhat different form.[18] Apparently he built on Beza’s work (1519–1605) on the eternal decrees. Rogers states that “Beza was the first supralapsarian among the Reformers who rooted all theological affirmations in God’s eternal decrees.”[19]

MacKay has suggested that Cocceius’ work was not initially accepted because of his opposition to some of the more extreme teachings on predestination. Cocceius wrote during the period after the Synod of Dort (1618–1619), which delineated but did not settle the issue. Van der Waal suggests that a factor was Cocceius’ premillennial views, which Van der Waal placed in the same category as those of Hal Lindsey.[20]

Cocceius’ hypothesis was revised by Hermann Witsius (1636–1708), and in this form it gradually gained acceptance. Even before this, however, statements on the decrees of God were included in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647, a year before Cocceius published his major work).[21]

This was not the only attempt to explain how the Scriptures together. For example the Englishman William Cave (1637–1713) wrote from a dispensational perspective. The Frenchman Pierre Poiret (1646–1719) published a six-volume set in 1687 in which he presented a “fully systematized teaching on premillennial dispensationalism with six distinct economies.”[22]

The doctrine of the covenants then became a part of the Reformed tradition. This perspective of theology was essentially completed with the “Formula Consensus Helvetica,” adopted in 1625. It is significant that Seeburg sees this as the completion of the doctrines of the Reformed church,[23] which would suggest that Reformed theology has been essentially fixed for more than 300 years.

The Hermeneutical Base of Covenant Theology

Historical-Grammatical Method of Interpretation

Covenant theologians generally begin with a literal or historical-grammatical method of interpretation. This came in conjunction with rejecting the Roman Catholic viewpoint that the church is to interpret Scripture and that church tradition is on a par with Scripture.[24] The Roman Catholic Church views this rejection as effectively removing all controls on interpretation. For example O’Brien states that Luther’s 95 theses “set loose in the religious world a principle which was destined to produce consequences far beyond the ken of himself or his fellow reformers. It was the principle of the supremacy of private judgement in the interpretation of the Scriptures and as a guide in the religious life.”[25]

Protestantism has three controls, however. The first is the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the believer (John 14:26; 1 John 2:27). Even the most mature Christian, however, does not consistently follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, even in the area of interpretation. Reasons for this are the depravity of man, presuppositions one may hold from before regeneration, and cultural values which are often difficult to sort out. A second control is the combined testimony of the body of believers. By comparing interpretations, honest students of the Word have a clearer understanding of the truth. This builds on the first control and assumes that all in the body of Christ indeed have the testimony of the Holy Spirit within them. Even here, however, a group or an individual may go astray in some interpretation. A third control is the literal method of interpretation. This is the most reliable of the three, since it is the least dependent on frail human instruments. This is the method adopted by the church in the Reformation. This is not to say that it was not an accepted method before that time. In actuality it dates back to the early church (cf. Acts 17:11). The loss of this control at the time of Augustine led to the institutional church considering itself the final control.

The Westminster Confession states the following in its first chapter:

ix. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself, and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.

x. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

This historical-grammatical method is the basic hermeneutical method of covenant theology. However, many writers on hermeneutics would suggest that there are areas that require “special literary methods.” These include similes, metaphors, proverbs, parables, allegories, types, prophecy, and apocalyptic literature (though not everyone would necessarily include all these categories).[26]

The point these writers make is that the interpretation of figurative speech requires something other than an explicit, straightforward, dictionary meaning of each word. A figure, in whatever sense, requires recognition of the fact that it is a figure, and that its interpretation transcends the explicit word value. This would seem to imply that the interpretation of figurative language is beyond the scope of the literal method of interpretation.

Historically, however, scholars have allowed figures of speech as an integral part of the historical-grammatical, or literal, method. This is true, no matter which view one takes of the interpretation of prophecy, which will be discussed later.

A thorough knowledge of the varieties of figures of speech employed in the Scriptures is necessary for accurate interpretation. The literal method calls for an understanding of the word or phrase in the figure of speech which corresponds to the passage’s intended meaning. This problem relates to the purpose of the passage.

Purpose of Scripture

In addition to the sheer mass of material in the Scriptures is their depth. One of the aids to understanding Scripture is the delineation of its purpose. The statement of purpose of any piece of literature must be broad enough to encompass all the data, yet narrow enough to reflect its distinctive characteristics.[27] This purpose becomes a key for interpretation in that it provides a foundation for understanding overall themes, which then provides clarification of obscure passages. This is especially relevant for figures of speech and for extended figurative passages.

A variety of purposes have been proposed for the Bible. Augustine apparently suggested “purity of life.” “Whatever there is in the Word of God that cannot, when taken literally, be referred either to purity of life or soundness of doctrine, you may set down as figurative.”[28]

Calvin said the revelation of Christ for man’s salvation is the purpose of Scripture. “Calvin cautioned that we must not interpret Scripture as having any other purpose than of revealing Christ for our Salvation.”[29]

Voetius suggested that the Synod of Dort was the key for figurative interpretation.[30] Cocceius saw the key as Christ.[31] Milton saw charity as “the end of all Scripture.” On this basis, he built “an extraordinarily flexible hermeneutical principle.”[32]

Luther said that Christ as Judge and Savior was his criterion for interpretation.[33] Berkhof suggested that a possible foundation for interpretation is Matthew 21:43,[34] in which Jesus stated that the kingdom of God would be given to a “nation producing the fruit of it.” This is the principle, he said, that the church has replaced the nation of Israel in God’s program.

Van der Waal cites both the covenants and the confessions of the Reformation. To him these two seem to be synonymous or at least closely related.[35] MacKay suggested that dispensationalism “proposes the glory of God as the all-inclusive principle for the divine activities.”[36]

This is a broad spectrum of suggestions. Two major purposes of Scripture held today are “salvation by Christ” and “the glory of God.” The former is held predominantly by covenant theologians, and the latter predominantly in dispensational circles. Which of these two is appropriate?

Salvation is certainly a major theme throughout the Bible, appearing first after the Fall in the protevangelium (Gen 3:15), and continuing up to the removal of the curse (Rev 22:3). However, the glory of God is also emphasized throughout Scripture.

The salvation or redemption of the world by Christ could be subsumed under the subject of the glory of God. For an overriding purpose of the Scriptures, salvation is too narrow a theme, for several reasons.

First, some passages of Scripture (e.g., some of the psalms) do not fit into the theme of salvation. Calvin observed this and rejected Luther’s contention that Christ could be found everywhere in Scripture.[37]

Second, because of this difficulty, certain portions of Scripture have been interpreted nonliterally to seek to relate them to the salvation theme. One such portion is the Song of Solomon, which has often been construed as an extended allegory representing the relationship of Christ and His church. The problem is that this approach is not presented in the book itself. Instead the book is written as a straightforward love relationship between a man and a woman. Any allegorical interpretation of the Song of Solomon has no controls. Who decides which details do or do not represent “spiritual” values? When two commentators disagree on a given allegorical interpretation, how does a person decide which one to follow?

Third, this view does not take into account God’s role as Judge (Matt 7:23; 25:41; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:11; etc.).

Therefore a more appropriate theme is the glory of God, which is suggested by Hebrews 1:1–3. Interestingly this theme fits well with Westminster standards. It is seen in the Westminster Confession in 1.6; 4.1; 6.1; and 18.1. It is also seen in the Westminster catechisms. The first answer in the Larger Catechism is “Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God and fully to enjoy Him forever.” The first answer of the Shorter Catechism says essentially the same thing.

The Question of a Special Interpretive Method for Prophecy

As already noted, many writers suggest that prophecy calls for a special method of interpretation. This is the foundation for the distinction between amillennialism and premillennialism. For example Terry states: “A thorough interpretation of the prophetic portions of the holy Scripture is largely dependent upon a mastery of the principles and laws of figurative language and of types and symbols…. It is principally those portions of the prophetic Scriptures which forecast the future that call for special hermeneutics.”[38]

While it is acknowledged that many prophetic passages do contain figurative language and that they are often written in poetic style, one must question whether the method for interpreting prophecy should be distinct from the method for interpreting other kinds of biblical literature.

As Virkler has observed,

The question is not between a strictly literal versus a strictly symbolic approach: even the strictest literalist takes some things symbolically…conversely, even the most thoroughgoing symbolist interprets some things literally. Thus the differences between literalists and symbolists are relative, rather than absolute, involving questions of “how much” and “which parts” of prophecy should be interpreted symbolically rather than literally.[39]

Therefore instead of a “special hermeneutics” of symbolism for prophecy, as is suggested by covenant theologians, the question is, How much and which parts are to be understood symbolically?

Several factors are involved in determining where a given Bible passage may lie in the spectrum between the “absolutely allegorical” and the “absolutely literal.”

Virkler notes that context and historic word usage are two such factors. Another key factor is that of presuppositions. An additional factor is the question of past or future fulfillment. Some writers will accept a literal fulfillment of prophecy in history, and yet will deny a literal future (from a present perspective) fulfillment of prophecies that may be found in the same passage. By what criteria can one determine that yet unfulfilled prophetic sections are symbolic or allegorical while asserting that already fulfilled prophetic sections are literal?

Crucial to this question is the issue of authority. Regardless of one’s position on the allegorical-literal spectrum, one must have a standard by which to determine whether an interpretation of a given passage is valid. This standard in effect becomes one’s ultimate authority. This is why the Westminster Confession deferred councils and synods (including those that developed the Westminster Confession and the Synod of Dort) to Scripture.

If one accepts an “absolutely literal” perspective, the text itself becomes the clearcut authority without question. Unfortunately this absolute view is impossible to maintain, not only because of the nature of language (and even more so the language of Scripture), but also because of the size and complexity of Scripture. As one moves away from this end of the spectrum, a greater degree of subjectivity of interpretation enters the picture until one reaches the opposite extreme of absolute subjectivity with each individual and his interpretations being his own authority.

Here is where Calvin’s dictum that Scripture interprets Scripture is helpful. For example Ryken notes that in interpreting the Book of Revelation, one must be aware that the symbols in it were addressed to an audience that knew the Old Testament and that the book contains approximately 350 allusions to the Old Testament.[40] So it is crucial that a reader studying Revelation be aware of the Old Testament Scriptures and symbols for a valid control on interpretation.

Some Old Testament prophecies, regardless of how symbolical, have been interpreted in the New Testament. These, of course, are ones that were fulfilled in the first coming of Christ. A prime example is Isaiah 61:1–2a. Jesus read this passage in the synagogue in Nazareth and proclaimed that this Scripture had been “fulfilled” in the hearing of His listeners (Luke 4:17–21).

The Old Testament was often used by New Testament writers to demonstrate God’s dealings or to prove a point. In the case of the fulfillment of prophecy, the Old Testament predictions provide a foundation for understanding further prophecy. The understanding and hope of New Testament prophecy is built on the foundation and fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. As Hoekema has stated, “Christian eschatology, therefore, involves an expectation for the future which is rooted in what has already happened in the past.”[41]

Also the New Testament often explains aspects of Old Testament prophecy. For example no interpreter of Isaiah should bypass the explanation of Isaiah 61:1–2a given by Jesus. This interpretation in Luke 4:17–21 has put a control on the possible ways of understanding the Isaiah passage. This does not necessarily say that Isaiah himself understood all the implications of what he wrote.

As one moves toward figurative and symbolic language, the built-in controls decrease and the need for an external control heightens. According to Roman Catholicism this external control is church tradition and authority, focused ultimately in the pope.

The Reformers broke with this, in their acceptance of the historical-grammatical method. This returned Scripture to its role as one’s ultimate authority. However, this break was not complete. Amillennialism was the prophetic understanding of medieval Catholicism. It was also the prophetic understanding of Calvin and Luther, who were educated in the medieval Catholic Church. Eschatology was not an issue of the Reformation; soteriology and ecclesiology were.

Consequently it is not surprising that scholars who followed Calvin sought a new control as they studied Scripture. Two controls were suggested—one typified by Cocceius, and the other typified by Poiret. The former became the one accepted by most of Protestant Christianity for the next two and one-half centuries. The other, though accepted in some circles, was not revived on a large scale until the 19th century. One cannot help but wonder how much of that revival was also a result of the awareness of the inadequate controls exhibited by an emerging liberal theology.

The control accepted in the circles of the Reformed tradition was that of the covenants. This was an attempt to demonstrate the unity of Scripture. However, it is suggested that this control served more as a stopgap measure to clarify a prophetic understanding already present, and thus was not a clear Reformed reevaluation of the issue. This is not to say that the concept of the covenants is invalid. The covenants are an attempt to understand the thinking of God and the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity to each other and to man in the manifestation of God’s grace in the redemption process. As such, there is value in their consideration.

However, to base the interpretation of all Scripture on the covenants is inadequate. Van der Waal appears to exhibit such a view when he states, “Our understanding of the covenant must come to fruition in our understanding of Scripture,”[42] or when he writes, “Dispensationalism must stand or fall with its view of the covenants.”[43] He views the covenants as the ultimate truth and authority, and suggests that even Scripture must be interpreted in consonance with this theological construct.

Interestingly he senses a certain degree of frustration in the amillennial interpretation of the Book of Revelation. He calls it being “trapped in a blind alley.”[44] This admits a sense of inadequacy in the entire system.[45]

Dispensational theology is more objectively based. As such, it has the necessary external control while at the same time recognizing the place of figures of speech. On the other hand the control of the covenants is insufficient to prevent a person from slipping further away from a literal understanding of the text.

Conclusion

Covenant theology is built on a weak hermeneutical base which consists of theological constructs. These constructs were established during the 17th century by serious scholars who no doubt genuinely sought to understand God’s Word and how it fits together. But it was done without sufficient evaluation of the basic issue of authority and hermeneutical foundations. Conversely dispensationalism is built on the strong hermeneutical base of literal interpretation. As such it has a strong external authority and a consistent method. Since Scripture is the believer’s authority, dispensationalism is concluded to be a more effective hermeneutical system.

Notes

1. Bernard L. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1970), pp. 51-59.
2. J. R. DeWitt, What Is the Reformed Faith? (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1981), p. 4. As de Witt attempts to define the Reformed faith in the final paragraph, he uses “Calvinism” as a synonym for it.
3. Ibid., p. 3.
4. Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1969), pp. 37-42.
5. H. G. MacKay, Countdown to Eternity (Chicago: Emmaus Bible School, 1973), p. 34. MacKay cites James Orr’s lists of specific doctrines. Of interest is the fact that Orr cites eschatology as the major issue of the 19th century. His implication is that since the 19th century saw the development of modern premillennialism, this is now the orthodox view. This argument is suspect, however, since that issue is still under debate.
6. De Witt, What Is the Reformed Faith? p. 17.
7. Ibid.
8. Reinhold Seeburg, The History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 424.
9. Hermann Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants (London: T. Tegg and Sons, 1837), 1:26.
10. Robert G. Clouse, “Introduction,” in The Meaning of the Millennium, ed. Robert G. Clouse (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1977), p. 8.
11. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1941), p. 708.
12. Jay Adams, The Time Is at Hand (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1966), p. 9. Also see Anthony J. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979), pp. 173-74.
13. Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, pp. 53, 126; Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p. 173; and Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), p. 73.
14. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 243. See also J. Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1958), p. 72.
15. Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants, p. 259.
16. Ibid., pp. 280-81.
17. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 279.
18. MacKay, Countdown to Eternity, p. 47.
19. Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), p. 104.
20. C. Van der Waal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy (St. Catherines: Paideria Press, 1978), p. 29.
21. Westminster Confession, chap.7. It should be noted that even here the Reformers observed the various “dispensations” of the covenant of grace. Compare paragraphs 5 and 6.
22. MacKay, Countdown to Eternity, p. 48.
23. Seeburg, The History of Doctrine, p. 426.
24. The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. “Exegesis,” by A. J. Maas, 5:696, 698.
25. John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1938), p. 29.
26. Cf. Virkler, Hermeneutics, pp. 157-210; Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, pp. 215-88.
27. E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1967), pp. 1-6, 209–44.
28. Augustine On Christian Doctrine 3.10.
29. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, p. 107.
30. Cited in Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 691.
31. Ibid., p. 692.
32. John R. Knott, The Sword of the Spirit: Puritan Responses to the Bible (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980), pp. 115-16.
33. Rogers and McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, p. 85.
34. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 699.
35. Van der Waal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy, pp. 51, 68.
36. MacKay, Countdown to Eternity, p. 13.
37. Virkler, Hermeneutics, p. 67.
38. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 405-7.
39. Virkler, Hermeneutics, p. 196.
40. Leland Ryken, The Literature of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974), p. 340.
41. Hockema, The Bible and the Future, p. 20.
42. Van der Waal, Hal Lindsey and Biblical Prophecy, p. 9. Note the singular use of “covenant.” It is assumed that this is the covenant of redemption. If that is the case, then Van der Waal has made a hypothetical covenant developed 15 centuries after the close of the canon into the crux interpretum of all Scripture.
43. Ibid., p. 28. It would appear that Van der Waal is not clear on the issue of a dispensational interpretation that, as noted above, is unrelated to the issue of the covenants.
44. Ibid., p. 9.
45. Since amillennialism is essentially an adjunct of covenant theology preceding it by several centuries historically, it may be well to note several presuppositions apparently involved in the amillennial hermeneutic. One such presupposition is traditional teaching. The Reformers’ eschatology, as noted, was in line with the traditional teachings of the medieval Catholic Church. Another presupposition is the spirit of optimism. Hoekema pointed out that amillennialism is an optimistic viewpoint (Anthony J. Hoekema, “Prophecy: Reformed or Dispensational?” Lecture delivered at the Pensacola Theological Institute, McIlwaine Presbyterian Church, Pensacola, FL, August 3, 1982). Therefore a person who was optimistic would tend to be drawn to it. Granted, the pretribulational, premillennial world view has a degree of pessimism. But which is the more realistic view of a fallen world? And which is more consistent with man’s depravity? A third presupposition is a theological system. In amillennialism some passages are interpreted solely on the basis of one’s theological system.