Is Covenant Theology More Literal Than Dispensationalism?

A Biblical and Hermeneutical Evaluation of Joseph Weissman’s Argument

Posted by: Monergism | April 2025

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.”
— Westminster Confession of Faith 1.9

Introduction

In a recent public debate, Joseph Weissman presented a striking thesis: Covenant Theology is more faithful to the literal sense of Scripture than Dispensationalism. At first glance, this might seem counterintuitive—after all, Dispensationalists often claim to be the defenders of “literal interpretation.” But what do we actually mean by literal? Is it merely a face-value reading of words, or is it something richer: seeking the meaning intended by the divine Author of Scripture?

Weissman offers three core reasons for why Covenant Theology upholds the true literal sense of the Bible. What follows is a summary of his case, followed by a biblically grounded evaluation of each point.

Summary of Joseph Weissman’s Argument: Three Reasons Covenant Theology Is More Literal

Reason 1: Covenant Theology is more literal because it uses the analogy of faith as part of exegesis.

Syllogism A:

• If the faith in Romans 12:6 were subjective (personal belief), it would not take the definite article.

• But tēs pisteōs (the faith) does include the definite article.

• Therefore, Romans 12:6 refers to objective, revealed truth—the content of the faith.

• Therefore, we must interpret Scripture accordingly.

Syllogism B:

• The literal sense of Scripture is that which upholds the analogy of faith.

• Reformed hermeneutics upholds this principle.

• Dispensationalism relegates it to a post-exegetical check.

• Therefore, Reformed hermeneutics is more faithful to the literal sense.

Reason 2: Covenant Theology is more literal because it recognizes how visions and dreams function symbolically.

Syllogism A:

• If biblical visions corresponded materially to later history, we’d find such examples in Scripture.

• But we find no such material fulfillments.

• Therefore, visions represent symbolic truths God conveys.

Syllogism B:

• To interpret visions rightly, we must examine both the vision and its fulfillment in Scripture.

• Doing so shows visions are figurative.

• Therefore, the visions of Scripture should be interpreted figuratively.

Reason 3: Covenant Theology is more literal because it recognizes the Holy Spirit as the proper Author of Scripture.

• The literal sense corresponds to the intent of the proper author.

• The proper author of Scripture is not man, but the Holy Spirit.

• Therefore, the hermeneutic that seeks the intent of the divine Author—not merely the human—is more faithful.

• Covenant Theology does this; Dispensationalism does not.

Evaluation of the Argument

Reason 1: The Analogy of Faith and Literal Meaning

Summary:
Weissman argues that Covenant Theology is more literal because it employs the analogy of faith (Romans 12:6), understanding "the faith" as an objective body of truth. Therefore, any interpretation of Scripture must align with the whole counsel of God.

Biblically:
The term “τῆς πίστεως” (tēs pisteōs, “the faith”) in Romans 12:6 includes the definite article, suggesting an objective, revealed body of truth. Paul uses similar phrasing in Jude 3 (“the faith once for all delivered to the saints”), indicating that “the faith” is not subjective belief, but a theological standard.

Hermeneutically:
This is precisely the principle of Westminster Confession of Faith 1.9:

“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.”

This is the analogy of faith—interpreting Scripture with Scripture. Dispensationalism, by separating the Old and New Testaments into distinct programs, often ignores this principle. In doing so, it distorts the unified redemptive storyline: one people of God, one plan of salvation, one covenant of grace.

Logically:
The syllogism holds. If Scripture has one divine Author and one theological unity, then the interpretive method that preserves that unity is more “literal” in the proper, classical sense.

Conclusion:
This argument is biblically faithful, hermeneutically sound, and logically valid.

Reason 2: The Nature of Visions

Summary:
Weissman claims that Covenant Theology is more literal because it understands that dreams and visions are symbolic. Dispensationalists, by contrast, often interpret apocalyptic visions (e.g., Daniel, Revelation) as literal previews of material future events.

Biblically:
Scripture supports this symbolic reading. Joseph’s dreams in Genesis 37, Daniel’s visions of beasts (Daniel 7), and John’s Revelation (e.g., the dragon, beast, harlot) all use imagery to convey truth. Fulfillment is theological, not material.

Hermeneutically:
Apocalyptic literature, by genre, is symbolic. To interpret symbols as woodenly literal is to misread the genre itself. Dispensationalism's literalism in symbolic texts (e.g., future rebuilt temple, animal sacrifices) actually fails to be truly literal.

Logically:
If every vision in Scripture is fulfilled symbolically, then interpreting them as symbols is actually more faithful to their literal sense—as intended by the divine Author.

Conclusion:
Covenant Theology’s symbolic interpretation of visions is biblically grounded, genre-sensitive, and consistent with divine intent.

Reason 3: The Holy Spirit as Author

Summary:
Since the Holy Spirit is the primary author of Scripture (2 Peter 1:21), the “literal sense” of Scripture is the one intended by the Spirit. Covenant Theology seeks that unified, Spirit-driven meaning. Dispensationalism often limits itself to the human author’s historical context.

Biblically:
Jesus interpreted the Old Testament as ultimately about Himself (Luke 24:27, 44). Peter affirms the prophets were writing for our benefit, under the Spirit’s inspiration, even when they themselves did not understand the full meaning (1 Peter 1:10–12).

Hermeneutically:
The Confession teaches that Scripture’s meaning is revealed progressively, and must be interpreted as a whole. Covenant Theology seeks the theological intention of the Spirit, while Dispensationalism often severs the spiritual unity of the Bible by isolating authors and covenants.

Logically:
If the Spirit is the Author, the literal sense of Scripture must be His intended meaning. Covenant Theology, therefore, interprets Scripture more literally in the fullest, theological sense.

Conclusion:
This argument is biblically faithful, hermeneutically rich, and logically compelling.

Final Thoughts

Weissman’s argument is both pastorally helpful and theologically sharp. It reclaims the historic meaning of literal—not as surface-level reading, but as discerning the Spirit-intended meaning within the unified Word of God.

Covenant Theology:

• Honors the unity of God’s redemptive plan

• Reads visions symbolically as Scripture itself models

• Interprets Scripture in light of the Spirit’s intent across all of redemptive history

Dispensationalism, despite its claim to “literalism”:

• Fragments redemptive history

• Elevates national Israel over the Church

• Obscures the single plan of grace unfolding in Christ

As Calvin wrote in the Institutes (1541 Edition, Ch. 7),

“The Old and New Covenants differ in administration, but not in substance.”

There has always been one covenant of grace, one faith, one people of God. That is the true literal reading of Scripture.

“Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” – 1 Corinthians 1:31
“Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.” – Psalm 119:105

--------------------

Curious how these hermeneutical differences affect the interpretation of specific passages?
See our companion chart:

Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Key Texts

This chart illustrates how Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism differ in their interpretation of key biblical texts. It serves as a companion to the article “Is Covenant Theology More Literal Than Dispensationalism?”