Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism
For the typical believer, the terms covenant theology and dispensationalism can be very confusing. Combined with other theological terms such as premillennialism, amillennialism, preterism, Christian reconstructionism, and progressive dispensationalism, the average believer in any congregation can be easily intimidated by the polysyllabic terminology. However, the serious student of the Word will want to investigate these concepts in the light of Scripture because they affect how we interpret the Bible. Because of today’s growing interest in covenant theology, it is important to understand what it is and how it contrasts with dispensationalism.
What is covenant theology?
Covenant theology or covenantism is a means of interpreting the Bible through the lens of two or three covenants. Those who subscribe to this perspective refer to two of these covenants as the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Many in this camp see a third covenant which they call a covenant of redemption. Based on Hebrews 13:20, they claim that this was established between the Father and the Son in eternity past.
As a system of thought, covenant theology first appeared during the mid-1500s at the time of the Reformation. According to Louis Berkoff, a prominent covenant theologian named Kaspar Olevaanus was the first to develop this line of thought. Later, in the mid-1600s, Johannes Cocceius further systematized this approach to the interpretation of Scripture, and it quickly became established in many of the churches in Germany, the Netherlands, Scotland, and England. The Puritans were primarily responsible for bringing this teaching to America. Currently, it is the predominant theological persuasion in Protestantism and finds its center in churches following Reformed traditions. Thus it is closely linked with Calvinism.
Simply put, covenant theology purports that the whole of Scripture revolves around those two or three main covenants. It says that before time began, a covenant was established among the Godhead that the Son would be the head and redeemer of the elect, a select group of individuals predetermined to receive eternal life. The Son would come to Earth to die to procure salvation for the elect. This is called the covenant of redemption. After Adam was created, the triune God established a covenant with Adam in which he was promised eternal life in return for perfect obedience and warned of physical and spiritual death if he sinned. This all occurred under the covenant of works. Because of Adam’s failure, a covenant of grace was then established to provide forgiveness for the offending, elect descendants of Adam, whom he represented. This forgiveness was made possible by the covenant of redemption, made in eternity past. Consequently, the elect sinner through faith in Christ is forgiven and promises to live a life well-pleasing to God.
Problems with covenant theology
Adherents to covenant theology seek to emphasize the great doctrines of the faith, such as the centrality of Christ and justification by grace through faith alone. But many things are lacking in this school of thought. For one, covenant theology focuses on a limited line of truth. It emphasizes God’s work in the salvation of the elect to the exclusion of a number of other important truths in the Bible. That God has a plan to save His people and the importance of that salvation are not in doubt. But God has other things that He will accomplish that will also ultimately redound to His glory.
Covenant theology also fails to recognize that God has a distinct plan for Israel and for the nations. Scripture records a series of judgments yet to come: the judgment seat of Christ, the judgment of the sheep and the goats (Mt. 25), the judgment of the beast and the false prophet, and the judgment of Satan and the unsaved dead at the great white throne (Rev. 20:11-15). All are clearly differentiated in Scripture and could hardly be grouped into the general judgment which covenant theology maintains.
Neglecting the difference between Israel and the church is one of the most significant failings of covenant theology. To a covenantalist, the church and Israel are essentially the same, the one simply a continuation of the other. They see Stephen’s reference to the “church in the wiIderness” (Acts 7:38) as positive proof that the church existed in the Old Testament, despite the fact that the Lord referred to the church in the future tense in Matthew 16:18, when He said, “I will build My church.” To them, the church was present in the Old Testament, not inaugurated at Pentecost (Acts 2).
These failures in recognizing biblical distinctions come from covenant theology’s necessary attempt to merge everything from Genesis 3 on into one economy. In contrast, dispensationalism presents Scripture as the unfolding, progressive revelation of God. Through a series of dispensations, God worked with man. Man’s failure in each of these stewardships resulted in God’s judgment and then further revelation of the truth, which then set the stage for the next dispensation. Dispensationalism properly recognizes the distinctions in Scripture.
Another difficulty is that because covenant theology neglects key scriptural distinctions, it leads to a convoluted interpretation of the Bible, especially with regards to prophecy. In the case of prophecy, covenant theology requires its adherents to adopt two ways of interpreting Scripture. In matters dealing with the past fulfillment of Scripture, a literal method of interpretation is utilized. But when it comes to unfulfilled prophecy, instead of maintaining consistency in Bible interpretation, a symbolic hermeneutic is employed. The promises made to Israel are spiritualized and erroneously applied to the church. The result makes for some very interesting prophetic predictions, evidenced recently when a well-known radio Bible teacher schooled in covenant theology foolishly declared May 21, 2011 to be the end of the world. This was the sad result of failing to observe biblical distinctions.
Finally, because of the emphasis of God’s redemptive work of the elect, some view covenant theology as having a deadening effect on evangelistic fervor. “Why evangelize if God is going to save the elect anyway?” is the conclusion many come to when analyzing the ramifications of this theological approach.
What makes covenant theology popular?
The question naturally arises: “Why is covenant theology so popular?” There are a number of reasons. One is that it is historically tied to the Reformation. That has an appeal to some people because of the place it had in both church and world history and because of the tremendous contribution made by the Reformers. For some reason, something in the past always seems better. “Distance lends enchantment to the view.” Another reason is the academic nature of this topic. Detailed, intricate reasoning can appeal to the intellect, and that is attractive to some people. Others prefer covenant theology because they feel it predates dispensationalism. Although dispensationalism as a formal school of thought was developed in the 1800s, the key tenets of dispensationalism (God’s chief purpose in history and maintaining proper biblical distinctions, in particular, Israel and the church) have always been present. In any event, timing in itself does not legitimize any school of thought. Should we embrace Gnosticism simply because it can be traced back to the first century?
Yes, there are many differences between covenant theology and dispensationalism, differences that can easily divide. But despite these differences, covenant theologians and dispensationalists are not enemies. “He that is not against us is for us” (Lk. 9:50). Our attitude should be as Paul stated to the Philippians: “…if in anything ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you” (Php. 3:15).