Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism

As anyone who has encountered a Hyper-Dispensationalist or even a classic Dispensationalist knows that the real point of tension is Bible interpretation. No proof-texting or single sentence argument from the Bible will do. We must address underlying presuppositions, not just what is visible on the surface. Granted, Hyper-Dispensationalism is a movement and a system of theology that contains false teaching. But, more than anything else, Hyper-Dispensationalism is an erroneous method of biblical interpretation. The real concern isn’t necessarily what Hyper-Dispensationalists believe, but rather, how they arrive at their beliefs in the first place. The problem is hermeneutics – the science of interpretation.

A “system of interpretation” or “hermeneutic” is necessary in order to understand any part of Scripture. How do we know what certain texts mean? How do we know certain texts apply to us today and not someone else in the past? How do we know what is “literal” and “symbolic”? Answering these questions requires us to form a framework of interpreting the Bible, a “hermeneutic.”  It is evident, then, how incredibly important it is to have a sound hermeneutic; our hermeneutic determines the very trajectory of our theology.

In other words, all Christians agree that the Bible interprets itself. There’s no debate about that. But, the question is, how does it interpret itself? That’s where the sparks fly.

Generally speaking, Christians have answered that question in two major ways: (1) the Bible interprets itself through covenants, and (2) the Bible should be interpreted through dispensations.

Covenant Theology

Many Christians have realized that the best framework of interpreting the Bible is one that is internal – a hermeneutic that is found and demonstrated within the text of Scripture itself. That type of hermeneutic involves covenants, a word mentioned 321 times in Scripture.[1] Covenant essentially means “contract,” or “administration.” It’s a relationship between two parties that involves promises, conditions, consequences, blood-shedding, and a host of other notable features. As O. Palmer Robertson put it, “A covenant is a bond in blood sovereignty administered.”[2] Louis Berkof also said:

A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more parties…each one of the parties binds himself to the fulfillment of certain promises on the basis of stipulated conditions.

So, instead of making up arbitrary rules that may or may not actually provide us with a sound interpretation of Scripture, covenantal theologians have recognized that the Bible divides itself up into distinct covenants while also retaining continuity, relevance, and truthfulness throughout history. Thus, covenantal theologians assert that their view is honoring to the Bible and consistent because it gives justice to how God’s revelation is internally organized. As Dillard and Longman’s An Introduction to the Old Testament says,

Covenant is the primary divine-human relationship metaphor used in the Bible, and the Bible charts this relationship from the time of Adam and Eve (Genesis) through the time of consummation (Revelation).[3]

What are the actual covenants? Here is a brief outline:

1. Adamic Covenant (Genesis 2-6, referred to in Hosea 6:7)
2. Noahic Covenant (Gen. 6:18; 8:20-9:17) “Behold, I shall establish my covenant with you.”
3. Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15:18) “On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram.”
4. Mosaic Covenant (Ex. 19-24) “If you will obey my voice and keep my covenant…”
5. Davidic Covenant (II Sam. 7; 23) “God has made an everlasting covenant with me…”
6. New Covenant (Jer. 31, Luke 22:20, II Cor. 3:6, Heb. 8:13, etc.) “This…is the New Covenant in My blood.”

Keep in mind, theologians don’t always agree on what should be considered a “covenant” or not. For example, the relationship between Adam and God seems to have had all the features of a covenantal relationship (promise, condition, consequence, symbol, blood-shedding, etc.). But Scripture doesn’t immediately describe God making a covenant with Adam. So, some scholars refer to a “covenant of works” [4] or “covenant of commencement”[5] in Genesis 1-3. Others see the pattern, but don’t insist on calling it a covenant simply because God never mentions a covenant in Genesis 1-3. Of course, Scripture does recognize a covenant in the Garden, at least in Hosea 6:7, which says, “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant.”

Thus, there are differences in how theologians understand covenant theology, but the general point is the same: Scripture and God’s works in history are organized into covenant relationships. And, in fact, Scripture gives its own commentary on covenants, and what they mean and how they are different, in the New Testament book of Hebrews. For example, in Hebrews 8 the authors talks about the covenant God had with Moses in the Old Testament. But, then he talks about how things have changed in the New Covenant, saying in 8:6-7,

But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.

This is a clear example of covenant theology at work.

Of course, while there are various differences between each covenant, God’s overall approach and purpose is the same: “I will be your God, and you will be my people.” That hasn’t changed, and it never will. And for all of the similarities and same essence of all covenants, Article 10 of A Reformed Confession Regarding Hermeneutics says:

WE AFFIRM that all of God’s post-fall covenantal administrations complemented (not contradicted) each other, being progressively revealed facets of the same underlying single promise of God which came to fulfillment in the person and saving work of Jesus Christ.

WE AFFIRM that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are one in purpose and substance, constituting a unified Covenant of Grace established by God, with both Testaments testifying to the person and saving work of Christ as the central message of the whole Bible.

Thus, while there are different covenants in Scripture, there is one “covenant” in history that underlies all of God’s work.

One could spend volumes looking at how the idea of covenant permeates both the Old and New Testaments. The simple fact is, it is unavoidable. No matter what corner of Scripture we turn to, God’s covenantal faithfulness is always there. And when authors in the 300+ usages of “covenant” in Scripture refer to a covenant, they don’t have to explain themselves. Everyone knows what is meant when someone says “covenant.”

In summary, the consistency and internal testimony of Scripture requires us to recognize the significance of covenants in Scripture and Scripture interpretation. A hermeneutic that is not built upon the covenant structure of Scripture can never be a hermeneutic that consistently yields sound theology.

Covenant Theology vs. Dispensationalism

This is the case with Dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is the opposite of covenant theology. Instead of interpreting the Bible according to its own internal structure of covenants, Dispensationalism creates an external structure of dispensations and places it onto the Bible.

John Nelson Darby essentially renamed several of God’s covenants and made-up additional administrations to fit his particular system. The result was revolutionary beliefs regarding eschatology (i.e. 7-year tribulation, etc.) and hermeneutics (sharp Israel-church distinction, sharp literalness, etc.). Hyper-Dispensationalists modified Darby’s system by changing the intervals of the last few administrations (“dispensations”), which likewise resulted in revolutionary conclusions (i.e. “two gospels” in the NT, a condemnation of water baptism, etc.). One can see the overlap and comparison between these three systems below:

Covenant Theology                             Dispensationalism                                    Hyper-Dispensationalism

Thus, dispensations act, look, and function in a similar way to covenants. However, they were essentially created outside Scripture and then placed on top of the Scriptural text.

As we saw in the illustration above, the seven dispensations are:

1. the dispensation of innocence (Genesis 1:1 – 3:7), prior to Adam’s fall,
2. of conscience, (Genesis 3:8 – 8:22), Adam to Noah,
3. of government, (Genesis 9:1 – 11:32), Noah to Abraham,
4. of patriarchal rule/promise, (Genesis 12:1 – Exodus 19:25), Abraham to Moses,
5. of the Mosaic Law, (Exodus 20:1 – Acts 2:4), Moses to Christ,
6. of grace, (Acts 2:4 – Revelation 20:3), the current church age, and
7. of a literal earthly 1,000 year Millennial Kingdom that has yet to come but soon will, (Revelation 20:4 – 20:6).

As we observed, covenants are explicit,[6] commented on,[7] and continuous throughout Scripture.[8] However, the dispensations in Dispensationalism are implicit and not referred to by any biblical writer.[9] Dispensationalism, then, seems to comprise an artificial system of hermeneutics. Vern Poythress correctly summarizes the situation:

In the dispute between dispensationalism and covenant theology, both sides cannot be right.[10]

Where, then, did Dispensationalism come from? And how does it historically compare with covenant theology?

---

[1] That’s the NASB count. The ESV has 325 occurences.

[2] O. Palmer Robertson. The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 4.

[3] Tremper Longman III and Raymond Dillard. An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 19.

[4] See for example, Michael Horton in his book God of Promise: An Introduction to Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).

[5] Palmer, The Christ of the Covenants.

[6] I.e., “this…is my New Covenant.” Luke 22:20.

[7] I.e., “has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant,” II Cor. 3:6; “This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant, ” (Heb. 7:22), all of Hebrew 8, Hosea 6:7, etc.

[8] See Gen. 8-9:17, Gen. 15, Ex. 19-24, II Sam. 7, Jer. 31, Luke 22:20, etc.

[9] The word “dispensation” appears in the King James Version as a translation of οἰκονομία, but it is a poor translation. The NASB, ESV, and NET have “stewardship” and NRSV has “stewardship commission.” More on this later.

[10] Vern Poythress. Understanding Dispensationalists (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994), 7.