Under Covenant Theology, which we discussed in the previous post, the purpose of Biblical philosophy is the emphasis upon the grace of God. While that is true, it doesn’t cover everything about what is presented to us in Scripture. The other doctrine I want us to look at today is called Dispensational Theology which states the purpose of Biblical philosophy is the emphasis upon the sovereign rule of God. This definitely covers the grace of God but covers other aspects and purposes that are revealed to us in history. Many of these dispensations, as they are called, contain a covenant, but it is not the covenant that necessarily drives the purpose of that historical dispensation. The covenants themselves don’t always covey what God is doing in that portion of history but are important in moving God’s plan for his creation along. The name of each dispensation is the new ruling governance that has been introduced moving forward in history with the previous governances of previous dispensations still in effect. Let’s take a closer look.

1.                                  Innocency: This is from creation until the fall of man (when Adam and Eve were forced to leave the Garden of Eden; Gn 1:26—3:24). The overarching governance during this time was where Adam and Eve were favorably disposed toward God. This was a condition imposed by God on man and not a choice given to man. Adam and Eve obeyed God, had fellowship with him, and looked forward to their visits by their Creator. Because this was an unconfirmed state, it had to be tested. Adam and Eve failed the test. Adam chose to eat the forbidden fruit in violation of God’s command indicating his desire to assert his own self-rule. This decision led to consequences: spiritual death as well as being subject to disease, deformity, accidents, and physical death. Their decision also led to a physical separation between God and humans, and a replacement of being favorably disposed toward God to enmity against God (Ro 8:7) as evident by them wanting to hide from God rather than be with him (Gn 3:8). Mankind now needed someone to rescue them from such a state.

Within this disposition is what some call the Adamic Covenant. God had told Adam not to eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Gn 2:17) and Adam agreed as evidenced by him teaching Eve of this requirement (Gn 3:2). His disobedience of this requirement led to the consequences we just mentioned. Yet, God did provide a glimmer of hope by stating he would one day send someone who would repair this separation (Gn 3:15). This is the first promise of a Redeemer who would be born of a woman and would become the provision of redemption for man and initiate the defeat of Satan.

Others do not claim this is a covenant as Scripture does not call this a covenant. If we only go by what Scripture labels a covenant, then this is not one.

2.                                  Conscience: This is from the fall of man to the world-wide flood during the time of Noah (Gn 4:1—8:19). Eating the forbidden fruit led way to the awakening of man’s conscience (Gn 3:5, 22). Human conscience allows mankind to choose between good and evil (Ro 2:14-15). In addition, during this time came the restraint of the Holy Spirit on mankind’s sinfulness (Gn 6:3). It seems that God gave Adam and his family directives that God can be approached only by means of a blood sacrifice (Gn 4:3-7; Hb 11:4). Mankind also failed this test of utilizing conscience and the restraint provided by the Holy Spirit as noted by Cain’s rebellion and murder of his brother. This rebellion continued until the time of Noah (Gn 6:5). Judgment came via a world-wide flood.

Within this dispensation is the Noahic Covenant, which was between God, Noah, all creation, and to all Noah’s descendants (Gn 9:9-17) where God stated he would not again destroy the entire world via a flood. He gave his rainbow in the sky as a token of his vow to Noah (Gn 9:8-17).

3.                                  Human Government: This is from the end of the Noahic Flood to the call of Abraham (Gn 9:18-11:32). To human conscience and the restraint of the Holy Spirit, God added human government to institute capital punishment to curb murder so they would recognize the sanctity God places on human life (Gn 9:5-6; Ro 13:1-7). Humans were now to repopulate the earth, animals would now have a fear of humans built into them, and animals could now be used as food for humans (Gn 9:1-7). Humans also failed this test given them. Noah’s drunkenness led to Ham’s impropriety (Gn 9:20-24), many failed to spread out and repopulate the earth (Gn 11:2-4) and built the Tower of Babel in defiance. This led to the consequence of many languages so they could no longer act in unison (Gn 9:8-9) and led to the birth of many nations. God looked for that one from the vast array of nations who would listen to him and found that in Abraham.

4.                                  Promise: This is from the call of God to Abraham to the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai (Gn 12—Ex 18). God added his promises to these other ruling factors from the previous dispensations to try and make a difference in the way people lived (Ga 3:15-22; Hb 6:13-15). God promised several things to Abraham in the covenant he made with him: he would become a great nation, his name would be great and be a blessing, those who blessed him would be blessed and those who cursed him would be cursed instead, all the earth would be blessed through him (Gn 12:2-3), and all the land in which he walked would be for him and his descendants forever (Gn 13:14-17). Abraham did live according to his faith in God’s promises to him (Hb 11:8-30). God sealed this covenant with Abraham and made it unconditional as it was made between God himself and his Spirit (Gn 15:9-19). The promises of this covenant passed from Abraham to Isaac (Gn 17:19, 21) and then to Jacob and his descendants (Gn 28:13-17; 35:9-12; 48:3-4).

When God spoke to Abraham, he stated that the land of Canaan in which he was living would be for himself and his descendants. Even though they would be away from it for a long period of time, God ensured him the land would remain his.

Abraham and his descendants failed this test as well. On several occasions they disobeyed God due to lapses in faith and trust in his God’s promises: Abraham fathered Ishmael through Hagar, twice he lied about his wife Sarah, Isaac lied concerning his wife Rebekah, Jacob was a deceiver, and the Israelites did not return to Canaan after the famine during Joseph’s time ended. All these failures led to eventual consequences. The Israelites were subjugated to slavery and faced annihilation in Egypt; Jews and the descendants of Ishmael have had resentment between themselves for centuries.

5.                                  Mosaic Law: This is from the giving of the Mosaic Law at Mt. Sinai to the death of Jesus Christ on the cross at Mt. Calvary (Ex 19—Mt 27:56; Mk 15:41; Lk 23:49; Jn 20:30). The Mosaic Law with its 613 commandments served as a moral restrainer on sin (Ga 3:23-25), along with the previous governance of each dispensation. The people also failed this test as well. They broke the Mosaic Law repeatedly (Jr 31:32; Ek 16) and were compared to those whose hearts were made of stone (Ek 32;26; Zc 7:12). This failure also led to consequences with the people eventually being taken captive by the Assyrians and Babylonians and eventually led to their temporary removal from their place of blessing (Ro 11) leading to their worldwide dispersion.

God made three covenants with Israel during this dispensation:

Mosaic Covenant (Ex 24:1-18; Dt 11:1-32): This established Isael as a nation before the Lord and was a conditional covenant in that they would be blessed through their obedience and would face hardship through disobedience. When things began to go wrong, they would know they needed to course correct. If they did not, more and more hardship would come upon them which would eventually lead to their captivity. God gave them the Ark of the Covenant for a perpetual reminder of this covenant he had establish with them.

Deuteronomic Covenant (Dt 30:1-20): This did not change their unconditional covenant with God as to the possession of their land but was a conditional covenant that required their obedience to be able to stay within their land. Repentance and obedience would allow their return.

Davidic Covenant (2Sa 7:8-16): God would provide the throne to David and his descendants forever.

6.                                  Grace: This is from the death of Jesus Christ on the cross to his second coming (Mt 27:57; Mk 15:42; Lk 23:50; Jn 19:31—Rv 19:21). While the Mosaic Law never functioned as a way to achieve salvation (Ga 2:16), it did serve as a rule of life. Grace, although evident in the Old Testament, did not begin to function as a ruling governance until Christ’s first coming and his death on the cross. Both Jews and Gentiles are to receive the gift of righteousness through faith in Christ and his death, burial, and resurrection, and live with power given to them via the Holy Spirit.

Mankind also fails this test as most unsaved humans do not accept the gift of righteousness that Christ offers them. Believers do not always live godly lives, make disciples, use their spiritual gifts wisely, or operate within the authority given them through the Holy Spirit. Even though there may be a spiritual revival and a unification of the bride of Christ, in the end of this dispensation the unsaved will stage a major revolt against God’s rule and Christendom will become apostate.

The consequences of this failure will become dire. God may even chasten some through premature physical death (Ac 5:1-6; 1Co 5:1-5; 11:27-32; Hb 12:5-13; 1Jn 5:16) and some local churches may be put out of commission (Rv 2:5). Near the end of this dispensation, God will remove the Holy Spirit’s restraint of evil (2Th 2:7-8), divine judgments will be poured out (Rv 6-19), and the revolt of the unsaved will be crushed (Rv 19:17-21).

During this dispensation is the establishment of the New Covenant which Jeremiah first mentions (Jr 31:31-34). It began with the crucifixion of Christ whose blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins becoming the symbol of this new covenant (Mt 26:27-29) and a drink offering poured out for us (Mk 14:24) to show his joy in doing this for us (Hb 12:2). The act of dying was not joyous but knowing it would lead to the restoration of his fellowship with us going forward was the joy with which he looked forward to (2Co 5:18-21). This will come to full fruition when he returns, purifies, and claims all those who belong to him (Zc 13:1; Rv 20:4-6).

7.                                  Millennium: This is from the second coming of Christ and will end immediately before the release of Satan from the abyss and his final revolt (Rv 20:1-6). Christ will rule over the entire earth in righteousness (Is 11:1-5; Zc 14;9-10). Mankind will ultimately fail here as well. Despite having a perfect government and exceptional, idyllic, conditions, it will be shown that mankind’s failure and rebellion comes from his own inward, sinful nature which rejects the rule of God and asserts self-rule. Those who rebel outwardly during Christ’s reign will be executed (Is 11:3-4; 29:20-21; Jr 31:29-30). God will crush the revolt which will occur at the end of this dispensation and cast Satan who leads this final rebellion into the lake of fire for everlasting torment (Rv 20:9-10).

After this comes the judgment of Satan (Rv 20:7-10), the judgment of the unrighteous (Rv 20:11-15), the creation of the new heaven and new earth (Rv 21:1), the coming of the New Jerusalem (Rv 21:2-27), and our eternal existence of Christ (Rv 22:1-21).

Now, can we say that either Covenant Theology or Dispensational Theology is right and the other wrong? No. I don’t think we can make such a claim. Both approaches are valid, I think, but the scope of each is different. Covenant Theology focuses on the grace of God and that is an important aspect for us humans to grasp and understand. Yet, while important, it is not the totality of Scripture. I think Dispensational Theology is a little more comprehensive for us to understand not only the grace of God but also the rule of God. The former seems to focus more on how mankind is important to God whereas the latter focuses more on how we are a part of God’s overarching plan. We should understand the merits and limits of each. After all, each concept is manmade, so we can’t expect either one to be flawless in its scope or explanation. Only God’s word is flawless, and we should always focus more intently on that rather than a manmade concept. Both concepts are helpful guides in our understanding of Scripture, but we always need the Holy Spirit to guide us as we study and learn from him, our true teacher.

Note: most of this post’s concepts were taken from the book There Really is a Difference by Renald E. Showers.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens

Before we start talking about the different covenants found in Scripture, we need to understand its definition. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary it means a formal, solemn, binding agreement that is sealed between two or more parties especially for the performance of some action. So, when we talk about covenants in the Bible, we are talking about a binding agreement between God and mankind or specific human individuals. Now, that sounds very straight forward, doesn’t it? Well, unfortunately, we humans seem to have a knack for making the simple complicated, don’t we?

There could be more views, but typically there are two main views about covenants. Let’s briefly examine these.

One view comes from a doctrine called Covenant Theology which teaches there are only three covenants in Scripture: the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. Some combine the covenants of redemption and of grace into one: the Covenant of Mercy.

1.      The Covenant of Redemption was made between God the Father and God the Son in eternity past because of God’s foresight in knowing that mankind would fall away from him when tested by Satan. The requirement for the Son to accomplish this was to become human and be without sin under Mosaic Law. The reward to the Son from this covenant would be resurrection, numerous believers in him, all power in Heaven and earth, and great glory.

2.      The Covenant of Works was made between the triune God and Adam when in the Garden of Eden as Adam was the representative head of all humans who were to follow him via reproduction. The requirement for Adam was perfect obedience to God. The reward for Adam and his descendants was eternal life. Failure to meet this expectation was physical, spiritual, and eternal death.

3.      The Covenant of Grace was made between the offended God (because of Adam’s disobedience) and a certain grouping of human beings. There seems to be controversy as to who this human contingent is supposed to be. Some say it is the sinner (all humans separated from God due to Adam’s sin). Others say it is the elect or the elect sinner in Christ (in other words, those who accept Christ’s actions on the cross to pay for their sin).

Likely because the second party in the Covenant of Grace is hard to define, some roll this covenant into the Covenant of Redemption and called it the Covenant of Mercy since the Covenant of Redemption is the eternal model and foundation for the Covenant of Grace and provides the means for its execution.

Now, these covenants are not mentioned in Scripture by these names. Is there anything wrong with this biblical thinking? Well, yes and no. It does provide the biblical teaching of the redemptive act of Christ, states that salvation is by grace through faith, and these beliefs show the motivation for what man is to believe and practice. Yet, we need to ask ourselves, do these covenant descriptions meet the definition of the term covenant provided at the beginning of this post? Unfortunately, I don’t think it does. The premise is good, the biblical teaching is good, but it falls short of its definition.

First, a covenant is to be a solemn, binding covenant between two parties. None of these are presented in Scripture as such. Granted, they can be implied but they are not provided for us to really examine. The one that really falls short of this aspect of the definition is the Covenant of Grace. If one can’t nail down who the second party is, then it can’t really be a covenant because both parties must agree to its conditions and requirements.

Now, don’t get me wrong, the concept of this covenant as provided is certainly true but without a defined party, I’m not sure it can be classified as a true covenant with the definition that is normally provided for this word.

There is another aspect of these covenants that seems to fall short of what we know of in Scripture. Not that they are necessarily wrong, but that they are too limited. These covenants, as defined, seem to indicate that the sole purpose of history is for the salvation of the elect. While that is definitely an important part of biblical truth, it is not the entire truth of what Scripture reveals to us. While God most definitely has a plan and purpose for the elect, God’s ultimate goal in history must be large enough to incorporate other programs that are part of Scripture: the non-elect, nations, rulers, Satan, and nature to name a few of these other important systems that must be incorporated into an overarching biblical plan. I think we need to be cautious when the theme of Scripture has man as its center. While that may not be the intent of the concept of these covenants as defined here, it does seem to imply such. I think God, and especially Jesus Christ, is the focus of Scripture. We are part of his plan, but we are only a part of his ultimate plan.

Also, I’m not sure why these three covenants are conveyed as the only covenants of Scripture when Scripture itself mentions the term covenant in its text. The word “covenant” is used almost 290 times in Scripture. Here are just a few of the specific times: with Noah: Gn 6:18; 9:9-17; with Abraham: Gn 15:18, 17:2-21; with Israel: Ex 24:7-8, 34:27-29; with David: 2Sa 7:28, 23:5; 2Ch 7:18; and new covenant: Jr 31:31-32. Sometimes, it seems the text is quite nuanced in what is being said about a covenant. I know the point is to convey what is being said at a high level, but shouldn’t an effort be made to explain how these three take all these others into account as well as explain why covenants not specifically named in Scripture are used while those covenants mentioned in Scripture are not part of the names provided for this theological philosophy.

Also, there are other aspects that need to be considered. For example, these three covenants do not distinguish between Israel and the Church as it is about believers throughout history. While that is true to a certain extent, Scripture does indicate there is a distinction between the two and that God has a distinct plan for each (Ro 11:25-27). Also, the overall teaching with these three covenants seems to apply historical-grammatical hermeneutics to Scriptures which have already been fulfilled but applies more allegorical elements to unfulfilled Scripture. This seems dichotomous and would require one to continually move from allegorical to historical as time progresses as more and more prophetic scripture becomes fulfilled.

In the beginning of this post, I stated there are two covenant philosophies. What is the second one? Stay tuned and we will discuss this second one next time. I hope you join me.

Note: most of this post’s concepts were taken from the book There Really is a Difference by Renald E. Showers.

____________

Visit Books & Words to Inspire by Randy C. Dockens