The conclusion to Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views includes several helpful tables which compare and contrast the four views on specific issues. I’ve added a column reflecting my own views on those topics. When possible I’ve used the wording from one or more of the preceding columns to indicate agreement. (Note: to see my column, you’ll probably need to scroll the chart; see the scroll bar at the bottom of each chart.)
Table C.1. Systems of Theology on Hermeneutics and the Structure of the Bible
| Covenant Theology (Horton) | Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum) | Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock) | Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger) | Collins | |
| Hermeneutical Framework and/or Principles | Law/gospel contrast (wrath, curse, condemnation versus grace, blessing, promise); covenant of works and covenant of grace as the outworking of the covenant of redemption. | God’s one plan is developed through the plurality of covenants (creation, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, new) across the storyline of Scripture; three horizons of Scripture are key: textual, epochal, and canonical. | Emphasis on three key covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, and new); complementary hermeneutic (both/and reading) as the original meaning can be expanded as it is developed in the NT, but the original sense is not lost. | Dispensations and arrangements with emphasis on the covenants to and for Israel (including the new covenant); originalist hermeneutic—strict intentionality with binding authority to the author’s intention, meaning and referents are fixed. | God’s one plan is developed through the plurality of covenants (creation [law], Noahic [promise], Abrahamic [promise], Mosaic [law], Davidic [promise], new [promise]) across the storyline of Scripture; three horizons of Scripture are key: textual, epochal, and canonical. complementary hermeneutic (both/and reading) as the original meaning can be expanded as it is developed in the NT, but the original sense is not lost. |
| Hermeneutical Priority | NT, for it is the divinely inspired interpretation of the OT. | NT, later texts in progressive revelation bring more clarity and understanding; yet, grammatical-historical-canonical method focuses on covenants in terms of what precedes and follows each one. | Neither, a complementary hermeneutic allows each text in each testament to say what they say without nullifying what was originally communicated. | OT, Christ and NT authors honor the OT and bring NT faith, practice, and mission in conformity to it. | Neither, a complementary hermeneutic allows each text in each testament to say what they say without nullifying what was originally communicated. Later texts in progressive revelation bring more clarity and understanding; yet, grammatical-historical-canonical method focuses on covenants in terms of what precedes and follows each one. |
Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 252, with Collins column added to reflect my own views.
Table C.2. Systems of Theology on the Covenants
| Covenant Theology (Horton) | Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum) | Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock) | Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger) | Collins | |
| Is there a Covenant in Gen 1‑3? | Yes, the covenant of works with a commandment of life based on law (“Do this and you shall live; disobey and you will surely die”), made with Adam as the covenant head in a state of nature prior to grace. | Covenant of creation—Adam is federal head, image, son, and in a Lord/vassal relationship; foundational for all future covenants as Adam’s role as priest-king and image-son is unpacked and the typological structures are tied to the creation covenant. | No covenant but a mandate. Covenants are about restoration and the delivering work of God. The idea of creation covenant has no role in progressive dispensationalism. | Not a formal covenant, but an Edenic “arrangement” with Adam and Eve involving civil and redemptive spheres. | Yes, the covenant of creation, a covenant or works (“Do this and you shall live; Disobey and you will surely die”), made with Adam as the covenant head, image, son, and in a Lord/vassal relationship; Foundational for all future covenants. |
| Categorization of the Covenants | Conditional (suzerain vassal or bilateral) and unconditional (promissory) covenants. | All covenants have both unilateral and bilateral aspects (conditional and unconditional elements) even as an accent may be on the bilateral or unilateral aspects (e.g. the Mosaic covenant is predominantly bilateral, but God unilaterally keeps his promises). | There are covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, new covenants), and covenants that are other: Mosaic covenant is promise and law; Noahic covenant is not promissory but features God’s commitment to preserve the creation. | Covenants are unilateral or promissory or royal grant (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic) or bilateral, suzerain vassal (Mosaic and new covenants). Note: God’s expectations are communicated through “arrangements” that may or may not be governed by covenants. | Conditional/bilateral (Adamic, Mosaic) and unconditional, unilateral, promissory (Noahic, Abraham, Davidic, New); all post-fall covenants are graciously established, and even the unconditional covenants come with expectations for obedience. |
| Covenants Already Fulfilled in Christ | All | All covenants (even as creation and Noahic structures continue in this age) are fulfilled in Christ and the new covenant. | Covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Davidic, new) have initial realization in Christ. The Mosaic covenant has been completely fulfilled through the work of Christ and the indwelling Spirit. | Abrahamic covenant could be considered “partially” fulfilled but generally is not. Mosaic covenant is fully fulfilled in Christ. The church has no legal relationship to the new covenant and it will be fulfilled to national Israel in the future. | The Mosaic covenant has been completely fulfilled through the work of Christ. The covenants of promise (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and new) have initial realization in Christ and the new covenant. |
| Covenants to Be Fulfilled | None | None | The covenant promises to Israel remain (especially the Abrahamic covenant) and will be realized in the future. | The Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants are distinctly Israelite and the terms must be fulfilled by ethnic Israel. Fulfillment (except the Mosaic covenant) will occur in the future along with the eternal benefits to national Israel. | All covenants are fulfilled or have begun to be fulfilled, but the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic, and new covenants all have promises that await the second advent for their ultimate fulfillment. |
Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 253–254, with Collins column added to reflect my own views.
Table C.3. Systems of Theology on Various Ecclesiological/Eschatological Issues
| Covenant Theology (Horton) | Progressive Covenantalism (Wellum) | Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock) | Traditional Dispensationalism (Snoeberger) | Collins | |
| Israel/Church Relationship | The church is the Israel of God (Gal 6:16), the descendants of Abraham are those who believe and so the true Israel are the people of Christ. Israel is not superseded as Rom 9–11 holds out hope of a future salvation of Jews. It is the nation of Israel that is a parenthesis; the church from Eden onward are those in the body whose head is Christ. | The church is part of the one people of God and yet is covenantally new. The church is God’s new creation and remains forever, consisting of Jews and Gentiles together. The church receives all of God’s promises through Jesus Christ. Rom 9–11 could speak of a mass gathering of Jews into the church at the return of Christ. | There is unity as Jews and Gentiles are made one and are saved in Christ, but the expansion of the Abrahamic promises does not lose what was originally promised for the people of Israel. Israel is not transformed into another entity even if nations are added to the people of God. There is one people of God, unity in salvation, but diversity in reconciliation as Israel will be among the nations. | The church is an intercalation parenthetical to God’s covenants with Israel. Israel and the church remain distinct forever. | Israel is a nation, and (along with the Gentile nations) will persist for all eternity. The church is a multinational institution comprised of people from every nation. There is one people of God, unity in salvation, but diversity in reconciliation as Israel will be among the nations. |
| Future Restoration for National Israel? | No, for example James’s citation of Amos 9:15 in Acts 15:13–21 shows that the promise of restoration is fulfilled in Christ. The people of God are redefined around Jesus. The Mosaic/Sinai covenant is made obsolete and there is no revival or renewal of it. Jesus is the fulfillment of the temple and the sacrificial system and nothing is then left for Israel as a nation now or in the future. | No, Christ fulfills the OT covenants as all the promises, instruction, and typological patterns culminate in him. Further, Israel’s restoration begins at Pentecost, and the OT restoration promises for Israel are applied to the church through Christ | Yes, the national hope of Israel remains and will occur in the future and through the new heavens and earth. The role of national, territorial Israel is promised and is complementary to the blessing extended to all who believe in Christ. National Israel will live in shalom with the nations in the new creation. | Yes, after the church age (when all the Gentiles enter), God returns his attention to Israel with Christ returning after the tribulation and thus fulfilling the Abrahamic and new covenants with the mass conversion of every Israelite. Israel will remain distinct from the nations in the eternal state. | Yes, the national hope of Israel remains and will occur in the future and through the new heavens and earth. The role of national, territorial Israel is promised and is complementary to the blessing extended to all who believe in Christ. National Israel will live in shalom with the nations in the new creation. |
| Israel and the Promised Land | No, the promise was fulfilled when God brought Israel in the land. The Mosaic/Sinai covenant took over for the nation of Israel to remain in the land. Israel and the land point and lead to God’s worldwide family inheriting the whole earth through Christ. | No, in the context of Genesis, the land points back to creation and an expansion beyond the Promised Land to include the whole earth. The land is typological and is fulfilled in Christ already in his inauguration of the new creation and finally in the consummated new heavens and earth. | Yes, even if the NT adds or augments the original promise of land, the language of the original OT text stands. | Yes, the Abrahamic covenant is left unfulfilled unless Abraham’s physical descendants (national Israel) occupy the Promised Land forever. | Yes, for even though the Promised Land conquered by Israel under the Mosaic covenant was typological of the new creation, and even though the land promise is extended to the Gentiles and finally consummated in the new earth, Israel will receive the land God promised her. |
| Circumcision and Baptism | Paedobaptism—the Abrahamic covenant continues with respect to the promises of worldwide family and inheritance in Christ. Circumcision was a sign and seal of Abraham’s faith and baptism welcomes recipients into the covenant of grace. The covenant promises are to believers and their children as the household texts in the NT indicate. The warning passages of Hebrews show that members of the visible church can turn away. | Credobaptism—the arrival of Christ and the new covenant brings changes to the structure and nature of the people of God such that all in the new covenant community receive the Spirit and forgiveness of sin, and all know God savingly unlike OT Israel. The church by nature consists of those circumcised in heart and in faith union with Christ. | Baptism is distinct from the practice of circumcision and represents Spirit baptism, evidencing a new era and new dispensation. Baptism depicts union with Christ and the new life of the Spirit indwelling believers, pointing to circumcision of the heart. | Baptism is restricted in the NT to the regenerate (believers only). | Credobaptism—the arrival of Christ and the new covenant brings changes to the structure and nature of the people of God such that all in the new covenant community receive the Spirit and forgiveness of sin, and all know God savingly unlike OT Israel. The church by nature consists of those circumcised in heart and in faith union with Christ. |
Brent E. Parker and Richard J. Lucas, “Conclusion,” in Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies: Four Views on the Continuity of Scripture, Spectrum Multiview Books (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2022), 255–256, with Collins column added to reflect my own views.
Colin Hamer says
It strikes me one fundamental problem for covenant theology is a presumption Gentile believers were, or are, somehow included in the mosaic covenant. A position Palmer Robertson et al argue. In contrast, the scriptural position appears to be that by definition they are excluded from it.
Colin Hamer says
Another problem is that covenant theologians, rarely if ever engage with the fact that both the Mosaic and the new covenant are repeatedly described as marital covenants. That concept is the dominant conceptual metaphor in scripture and is employed as a controlling metaphor for example, in Jeremiah 3 and 31.
Colin Hamer says
If Jeremiah 3 is correct the mosaic covenant for northern Israel was terminated by a divorce. Jeremiah 31 explains that the new covenant is going to be different to the mosaic covenant. This would suggest a lack of continuity?
Furthermore, Jesus’ comment in Matthew 23:37 seems to be a fulfilment of Malachi 4 enacted in the destruction of Jerusalem – a ‘divorce’ for Judah and an end of the mosaic covenant. If this is correct, it seems to present a problem for the concept of progressive covenantalism in scripture. I do not believe this problem has been addressed?
Colin Hamer says
Thus Jesus is described as the bridegroom throughout the new Testament – never a husband seeking to restore or renew a previous marriage. Entrance to the bridal community will not be based on blood as per the sinaitic covenant as Jeremiah, in citing a Hebrew proverb in Jeremiah 31:28 – 30 makes clear?