Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology[1] are two theological systems which govern how we interpret the overall storyline of Scripture. Each seeks to describe how God’s redemptive purposes unfold through history. These are “whole-Bible theologies,”[2] ways of understanding God’s redemptive purposes throughout Scripture.
Anyone who has seriously studied the Bible belongs somewhere in one of these camps, whether he realizes it or not. If you believe that some of God’s promises to Israel in the Old Testament await fulfillment in a future millennium, you are generally aligned with dispensationalism. If instead you believe that all of God’s promises to Israel are fulfilled in the church, you are somewhere within covenantalism.
The fact that covenantalism has “covenant” in its name does not mean that they are the only ones who take the biblical covenants seriously. The name comes from a certain view of the biblical storyline that became prevalent during the Reformation under the teaching of men like Ulrich Zwingli and John Calvin. They subsumed the various covenants and promises of God under two headings: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.[3] This emphasis on these covenants earned this view the moniker of “Covenant Theology.”
But dispensationalists also take the covenants seriously. We do not disregard the covenants described in the Bible, though we do disregard the two covenants proposed by covenantalists because the Bible nowhere describes the covenants in those terms.
I’m going to go on in this article to talk about some concerns I have about covenantalism. It is therefore important to stress that dispensationalists and covenantalists agree on the essentials of the faith. We stand together regarding the Trinity, the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of the Bible, the fall of man, the nature and effects of sin, Christ’s deity and humanity, His substitutionary atonement, resurrection, and ascension to the right hand of the Father, the freeness of the gospel, justification by faith alone, the necessity of sanctification, the promise of glorification, and the culmination of all things in the last judgment and the establishment of the New Heavens and the New Earth. Even this long list is an insufficient summary of the areas of agreement between covenantalists and dispensationalists. While the differences between the views are significant, neither is heresy. There are good brothers and sisters on each side with whom I would gladly link arms regarding the Bible, the gospel, and many other doctrinal and ethical issues.
Differences Between Covenantalism and Dispensationalism
That said, there are very real differences between the systems, and they affect how we approach most (if not all) of Scripture. While there are a number of differences, there are two fundamental distinctions, one regarding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments and the other regarding the relationship between Israel and the Church. Most (if not all) of the other differences flow from these fundamental distinctions.
Covenantalists prioritize the New Testament in biblical interpretation. This means that they understand the Old Testament primarily through the New Testament. They believe that New Testament authors expanded the meaning of Old Testament passages (and sometimes reinterpreted them), and they defer to the New Testament interpretation over the original meaning of the Old Testament. Since the New Testament strongly links the Old Testament promises to Christ and His church, covenantalists believe the promises to Israel in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the church. Consequently, they do not expect a future restoration of national Israel.
Dispensationalists prioritize the meaning of any particular passage in context. The Old Testament ought to be interpreted according to the meaning it had to its original audience, and the same for the New Testament. We believe that the New Testament expands the Old Testament, but not in a way that nullifies its original meaning. Since some aspects of the Old Testament covenants have no apparent fulfillment to this point in history (e.g. the land promises to Abraham, the kingdom promise to David), dispensationalists expect a future fulfillment of these promises. Since these promises were made to Abraham and his children (originally in the Abrahamic covenant and reiterated many times through the prophets), we expect these to be fulfilled in ethnic Israel. Dispensationalists maintain the New Testament link between the Old Testament and Christ and His church, but not in a way that eliminates the aspects of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants which are intended for ethnic Israel. Consequently, we expect a future restoration of national Israel in the millennium.
To summarize, the two primary distinctions of dispensationalism are (1) passage priority in hermeneutics and (2) a distinction between Israel and the church. Covenantalism mirrors these, holding (1) New Testament priority in hermeneutics and (2) Israel, with all its promises, is fulfilled in the church.
This summary is necessarily brief, but I believe it represents the essential distinctions between dispensationalism and covenantalism.[4]
These headings are quite broad. There are various forms of covenantalism and various forms of dispensationalism. It’s better to think of this as a broad spectrum, with many variations across the spectrum on each side. The distinctions I’ve outlined above represent the mediating line between the views.
The Sword and Trumpet has historically been somewhat dispensational,[5] a view which is married to our premillennialism and our expectation of a pre-tribulational rapture of the church. I intend to continue teaching and defending dispensational premillennialism in this publication. Part of the reason I am dispensational is because I am concerned about how a covenantal framework affects our interpretation of Scripture; I will outline some of those effects in this article. Readers who are covenantalists are welcome to email me if they believe I have misrepresented their view here. I also have concerns about some views held by others in the dispensational camp, which will be addressed in a future article.
Strengths of Covenantalism
Before I talk about my concerns with covenantalism, I want to commend the commendable. In my experience, covenantalists do far better in biblical theology.[6] Biblical theology traces particular themes as they unfold throughout the Bible.
For example, throughout the Bible we see an emphasis on God’s people, in God’s place, with God’s presence. In the beginning, God made a garden, placed Adam and Eve in it, and fellowshipped with them. These themes show up again in Exodus, where God rescues the Israelites from Egypt (people), leads them to Canaan (place), and instructs them to build a tabernacle so He can dwell with them (presence). It is striking when, in the New Testament, John says that Jesus “became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14). Jesus became one of us to dwell with us (presence). Biblical theology helps us identify and appreciate these themes.
Covenantalists have typically outdone dispensationalists in biblical theology. This kind of teaching has helped me see the continuity of the overall storyline of Scripture, and I’m grateful particularly to covenantalists for this.
Additionally, I want to reiterate something I already said. We agree on the essentials of the faith, and we can stand together on many important issues. Significant differences on certain issues need not prevent us from linking arms in other areas. There’s no reason I can think of that dispensationalists and covenantalists cannot cooperate to teach and defend the essentials of the faith.
My Concerns with Covenantalism
As I have studied covenantalism, I have three particular concerns, all related to its hermeneutics. If we reduce the differences between dispensationalism and covenantalism as much as possible, we realize that they reduce fundamentally to an issue of hermeneutics. This has sometimes been defined as a difference between literal hermeneutics (dispensational) and non-literal hermeneutics (covenantal). In my opinion that distinction isn’t quite right.[7] Rather, it’s a difference of how we think about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments. As discussed previously, dispensationalists hold to passage priority while covenantalists hold to New Testament priority. That means dispensationalists seek to understand any given text (Old or New Testament) the way its original recipients would have understood it. Themes which are present in the Old Testament are emphasized even if they aren’t explicitly picked up in the New. Covenantalists do take the Old Testament seriously, but they put more weight on the New Testament and interpret the Old through the New.
New Testament Priority
This leads to my first concern. While I certainly believe that the Old Testament should be interpreted in light of the New, overemphasizing the New Testament leads to sidelining themes which are present in the Old Testament but are not picked up in the New. For example, many passages in the Old Testament prophets describe the details of the restoration of Israel in ways not found in the New.
This is not the place to defend this at length, but a few examples will be helpful. Hosea speaks of Israel and Judah being regathered and established under one king (cf. Hosea 2). Jeremiah 33 weaves together themes of the restoration of Israel, the establishment of a Davidic king, and the permanence of God’s covenant with Israel. Verses 25-26 are especially potent. God says specifically that He will cause the descendants of “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” to return to the land, and that He will establish a descendant of David to reign over them. If we take these and other similar Old Testament passages according to their meaning to their original recipients, we ought to expect that God will yet fulfill this promise since there is no apparent fulfillment at this point in history. Some aspects of God’s promises to Israel are described in terms that don’t map onto the New Testament’s description of the church. Covenantalists overlook the particularities of passages like these, absorbing them into Christ who is the true Israel. This is an example of New Testament priority which neglects the details of particular Old Testament passages.
I understand why someone might see passages like these as fulfilled in Christ, but that conclusion minimizes the significance of God’s promises to Israel through their prophets. If we take these texts on their own terms, we should expect that God will one day remember His covenant with Israel and do what He promised He would do.
I can’t see how neglecting the details of any passage of Scripture can be spiritually healthy. I don’t believe covenantalists intentionally minimize Scripture’s meaning, but I am concerned that by running too quickly to New Testament passages they miss God’s intention in the Old Testament.
Typological Interpretation
My second concern is closely related to the first, though it is distinct. Covenantalists tend to make much of types and antitypes. This is fundamental to how they see Israel fulfilled in the church. Israel (as a type) is fulfilled in the church (the antitype), and therefore the particularities of God’s promises to Israel are minimized because they are fulfilled in the church.
It is true that the Bible includes types and anti-types, but we need to be cautious about identifying them as such unless the Bible makes the connection for us. A fascination with typology can lead to sloppy interpretation of Scripture.
On the one hand, it can lead us to see something that isn’t there. There are parallels that we can be tempted to interpret typologically, but in so doing we often neglect significant differences between types and antitypes. We can see connections that make sense in our minds but aren’t actually present in the texts we’re examining.
On the other hand, typological interpretation can lead us to not see what is there. If we approach a text looking for types, we may miss what the inspired author intended to communicate. We may identify the typological connection between a New Testament passage and an Old Testament type, and assume we have exegeted the text when in reality we are missing the main point.
I want to emphasize that typological interpretation exists in varying degrees within the covenantalist camp. Not all miss the trees for the forest, and not all insert types where they aren’t explicit. But the tendency toward typological interpretation is far more present in covenantalism than in dispensationalism.
Redemption Reductionism
My third concern has to do with the way covenantalism tends to reduce the biblical story to human-salvific themes. That is, the entire story of the Bible is told in terms of how God is redeeming mankind. While that is certainly a theme in Scripture, God is also working to redeem the earth (cf. Gen. 2, Rom. 8, Rev. 21), a theme which connects directly to the land promises God made with Abraham—and the future fulfillment of that promise in the millennium and in the New Heavens and the New Earth. Covenant Theology tends to emphasize God’s redemption of humanity but neglect other aspects of God’s redemptive work.
This is less present in Progressive Covenantalism, which emphasizes that the land promises to Israel find their fulfillment in the New Creation. But I believe dispensationalism does a better job of accounting for God’s redemption of all of creation and not just the human race. Covenantalism tends to sideline the physical aspects of God’s covenants with Abraham and David (promised land, earthly kingdom) or subsume them into a future New Heavens and New Earth without considering how the Old Testament points to a time-and-space fulfillment of those covenants in a restored Israel.
Conclusion
I hope readers have not concluded from this article that I think covenantalism is heresy. I see its proponents as brothers and sisters. R. C. Sproul was a covenantalist and John MacArthur was a dispensationalist, yet they labored together for the gospel. Sproul said to MacArthur, “When I’m in a foxhole, I’m going to call you.” They disagreed on their views of “whole-Bible theology” yet they were brothers-in-arms regarding the gospel.
That said, our position on these issues has ripple effects throughout our theology, especially regarding our hermeneutics. I have spent considerable time considering each view—and will continue to do so. The concerns I’ve listed above explain why I find it difficult to accept covenantalism personally.
There’s much more that could be said, and we may find it necessary to revisit this issue in the future. For now, I hope my summary helps clarify these sometimes-muddy issues and show why I believe dispensationalism best represents the unfolding of God’s redemptive purposes as revealed in Scripture.
[1] I’ve chosen to use “covenantalism” for most of this article because it is simpler and because it encapsulates the various forms of covenantalism beyond what has traditionally been called “Covenant Theology.”
[2] A term I picked up from Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum in their book Kingdom through Covenant.
[3] Later covenantalists added a third covenant wrought in the Trinity before creation, namely the covenant of redemption.
[4] For more on this, see Michael Vlach, Dispensationalism: Essential Beliefs and Common Myths.
[5] We are currently working on a statement on our view of dispensationalism which we expect to publish sometime in the next year. Interested readers may contact me at editor@swordandtrumpet.org to request a preview of the draft.
[6] This term is somewhat nebulous, but it is most frequently used the way I have defined it here.
[7] Witnesses on both sides agree. See John Feinberg’s chapter “Systems of Discontinuity” in Continuity and Discontinuity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments and p. 138 in Kingdom through Covenant by Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum.
Discover more from Theological Touchpoints
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.