The following table contains a list of primary references from scripture that lend direct support for each of the views, along with the interpretations that are commonly given to support each framework (Classic/Revised & Progressive Dispensational Theology, Covenant Theology). In some cases, important passages to each framework are listed that may not necessarily indicate a difference between the two, but which may have historically been perceived as a difference. Where general interpretations differ between revised and progressive dispensationalism, they will separately provided in the same block under the "Dispensationalism" column.
| Passage(s) | Area of Concern | Covenantalism | Dispensationalism |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gen. 3:15 | Purpose of the "Protoevangelium": Does this introduce Christ (and therefore grace, as a means for the redemption of man)? | Yes, this is a rudimentary introduction of God's promise for a Redeemer to bring man back into a right relationship with God. It is foundational to the "covenant of redemption," and from this point forward Christ can been seen throughout both the OT and the NT as the single means for the redemption of man. Of this, Robertson states, "It is not man's conscience that comes to the fore in Scripture immediately after the fall. Instead, it is God's grace that promises to enter the conflict against Satan on behalf of his fallen creature that characterizes the age." | Yes, most dispensationalists do hold that Gen. 3:15 is made in reference to Christ in His final defeat over Satan. It does not, however, appear to be an essential element in the dispensational system except that it is often included under one of the dispensations (even so, Ryrie does not mention it at all, except in connection with the Covenant Theology view), possibly because the true significance of it would not have been obvious until the incarnation of Christ. |
| Gen 12:1-3; 13:14-16; 15:18-21; 17:1-16; 22:16-18 | Nature of the Abrahamic Cov: What was the purpose and Nature of God's covenant with Abraham? | The Abrahamic covenant advances and further defines God's plan for divine grace as it was given in an initial form in the protoevangelium (Gen 3:15). This covenant "guaranteed and secured soteric blessing for 'all the families of the earth.'" (Reymond, 512-3) Under this covenant, God dealt distinctively with ethnic Israel, but it was through "a shadowy promise [that] anticipated the reality of fulfillment. As prophetic type of the anticipated reality, God's dealing with Israel as his elect people could only approximate the meaning of God's real purposes for those who were to be redeemed in Christ." | |
| Gen 13:15; 15:18; 17:8 | Meaning of the land promises to Abraham: Did God intend a literal meaning for the land promises to Abraham? | While the promises to Abraham of a land for he and his descendants did have a literal, earthly meaning, it was a temporal promise and was never intended by God to be given complete, literal fulfillment. Instead, the land promises were intended to be given ultimate fulfillment spiritually through the larger soteriological purpose of God, which is found in the final salvation of the elect. Biblically, one of the places that Reymond finds this in the declaration that "Abraham dwelt in the OT land of promise 'as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents' (Heb. 11:9) and never possessed it (Acts 7:25)." (Reymond, 513) | |
| Gen 19:3-6 | Meaning of "the covenant": Does it refer to the current covenant being established or a prior covenant? | ||
| Exo 12:43-49 | Distinction between Israel & Church: Does God's plan for redemption have built into it a racial distinction between His people? | No. This passage serves to demonstrate that, from the beginning of the Mosaic Covenant (and Gen 17:12-13 carries it back to the Abrahamic Covenant), there was a complete openness to the admission of Gentiles into the nation of Israel, such that there was no distinction between Israelites and non-Israelites as God's people. The only stipulation was that the Gentile be willing to submit to the same requirements to which the Israelites submitted. This would indicate that God does not hold to any racial distinction between the people that he sets as His own. (Robertson 154) | |
| Lev 1:4; 4:26-31; 16:20-22; | Salvation: What was the function of the sacrificial system under the Mosaic Law? | The sacrifices symbolized and typified the sacrificial atoning work of Christ. This involved genuinely atoning for sin, and acting as an early indication (a type) of the atoning death of Christ. Their purpose was twofold:
|
Without doubt, the sacrifices did genuinely atone for sin. Ryrie sees 3 purposes in the sacrificial system for the individual (although the first two seem primary):
|
| Deut 7 | |||
| Jer 31:31-34 | Nature of the New Covenant: (1) Who are members of the New Covenant, as addressed in the OT & NT? (2) What is the primary distinction of the new covenant referred to here? | Regardless of the make-up of the church (initially primarily Jewish in nature, and later when in Acts 10 they began to evangelize the nations, it shifted to primarily Gentile), the covenant community designated in this prophecy as "the house of Israel and the house of Judah" is the one true church, the body of Jesus Christ. That God's chosen people are the true spiritual "Israel" finds support in Jesus teachings in Matt. 16:18 and 18:17, where "it is clear that his assumption was that his church was 'Israel.'" There are also many similar statements from Paul, among other NT authors. This one OT reference to "new covenant" and the NT references (Lk 22:20; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb 8:8-13; 9:15) all refer to the same covenant. (Reymond, 525-6) The primary distinction of the new covenant, is that "God's law" under the NT resides in the believer's heart. "Rather than being administered externally, the law shall be administered from within the heart." The difference comes about because of the advancement in God's plan of redemption (Christ is revealed through progressive revelation, changing the administration of God with His people). (Robertson, 190-1) (DRH: This seems to be a very "dispensational" way of looking at things, once again showing that the two systems are not that far apart on many things.) | “I will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and the House of Judah” refer to the literal tribes of Israel and tribes of Judah. Some classic disp. would see this as being a separate new covenant from that expressed in the NT, and one with a fulfillment in the Millennium. Others would see this as a partial fulfillment in the Church age, with there just being one New Covenant, and a final fulfillment in the Millennium. (Blaising, 1992: Ware, 68) |
| Hosea 6:7 | Provides support for the “Covenant of Works.” Implies that Adam had a covenantal relationship with God prior to the Fall, but he “transgressed the covenant.” | ||
| Matt 5:17-19; Rom 7:7, 7:12) | Law: Is the OT law still applicable to NT believers? | Yes. Jesus teaches here the "permanent validity of the law" for believers of all dispensations. (Berkhof, 613) Both the law and the gospel are realities across both Testaments, as they both are a means of grace in the Covenant of Redemption. (DRH: The answer that Robertson gives to this question seems pretty weak. In essence he seems to agree with the dispensational position when he states that, "The Christian does not live under an externalized ministration of law engraved in stone tablets. Instead he lives with the law written in his heart." (183) Later, he states that "presumption would favor the continuing significance of the Mosaic covenant for the believer today," and his presumption comes from the fact that the other biblical covenants still play an important role in believers today.) | No. At this point in time, the people were still under the dispensation of the Law, and continued to be so until the resurrection of Christ. Therefore, this statement applied to the listeners at the time and does not apply to the Church. (Ryrie, 49) |
| Rom 6:14, 7:6; Gal 3:23-25 | Law: Is the law antithetical to Grace? | No. The purpose of the law-giving, as made clear in Gal 3:24, was to demonstrate the absolute impossibility of pleasing God through the keeping of the law, thus pointing to the grace that is to be found in Christ alone (rather than away from Christ). In the case of the Judaizers, however, the effect of the law was not that which was intended, but instead it served to foster within them a greater dependance on themselves to please God. Thus, it was to this understanding (or really, misunderstanding) of the term νόμος (law) that these passages address. (Robertson, 179-82) | Yes, there is an aspect to law and grace which is antithetical, however salvation has always been by grace alone through all the dispensations. The law was given to Israel alongside of the promise made to Abraham at a time when it was needed, in order to point them to Christ. There is still, however, an antithesis between law and grace that is evident in these texts and others. (Ryrie, 110-1) |
| Matt 10:5-10; 28:19-20 |
|||
| Jn 8:56; Psa 16:11; Job 19:25-26; Heb 11:26-27 | Salvation: Was the content of faith the same for OT believers as it is for NT believers (i.e. did the average OT believer, in establishing faith in the promise, understand that the object of their faith was Christ)? | The Covenant Theologian would say "yes." Ryrie claims that, in order to establish that all of God's elect are saved in the exact same way, Covenant Theologians go a long way toward stating (or infering) that the "conscious object of the faith of OT saints must have been Christ." (Ryrie, 114) Berkhof, while not going into detail, cites Jn 8:56 to say that "the promises, for the realization of which the believers [in the OT] hoped, were also the same [as those of NT believers]." (Berkhof, 280) | Dispensationalists would say "no." Per Ryrie, these passages do not mean that (for instance, with Jn 8:56) Abraham understood redemption through Christ, or (with Heb 11:26-27) that Moses saw Christ, but they had a far more general understanding. On the "unity" of salvation, he states that, "The basis of salvation in every age is the death of christ; the requirement for salvation in every age is faith; the object of faith in every age is God; the content of faith changes in the various dispensations. (Ryrie, 115) |
| Rom 5:12-21 | In this passage, Paul makes a comparison between the relation of mankind to Adam and the relation of mankind to Christ. Through Adam, mankind has imputed sin. Through Christ, mankind has imputed righteousness. Covenantalists would see that, as we are in a covenantal relationship with Christ, we are likewise in a covenantal relationship with Adam. (Berkhof, ??) | ||
| 2 Cor 3:3-11 | States that the Mosaic law, and in particular the Ten Commandments, have come to an end (even though nine of the commandments are reinstated under the dispensation of Grace). (Ryrie, 58) | ||
| Gal 3:17-19 | Nature of the Mosaic Covenant: Did the Mosaic Covenant function as a means of salvation by works? | The introduction of the law, under Moses, did not invalidate or do away with the covenant of promise (Abrahamic covenant). It also did not offer a temporary alternative to the covenant of promise. Therefore, the Mosaic covenant could not function as a principle of salvation by works. Instead, the function of the law within the Mosaic covenant was to serve "as a external summary of God's will for His people." (Robertson, 172, 174) | The giving of the law, under Moses, did not invalidate or do away with any of the features of the Abrahamic covenant, thus it did not diminish grace which came through the Abrahamic covenant. Instead, the law "was given to mark out the particular character of transgressions until the Seed, Jesus Christ, should come." It was not to serve as a means of salvation by works, but it was to "lead the Israelites to Christ." (Ryrie, 110) (DRH: Note that there was language from some classic dispensationalists that seemed to conflict with this view, indicating that the "dispensation of promise" either came to an end or was superseded by the giving of the law. (Reymond, 510)) |
| Gal 6:16 | "Israel of God": To whom does this phrase refer - ethnic Israel or all the children of God. | They see this as identifying the church with Israel. The και in the phrase is translated as even, which equates the Church with the Israel of God (Robertson, Israel, 39-45). Other places where Paul seems to clearly identify "Israel" as being made up of both ethnic Jew and Gentile believers include Phil 3:3 and Rom 2:29. | Distinguishes among three possible uses of the greek word και ("even" as a connective, "and" in an emphatic sense, or "and" as a connective). Ryrie admits that the first sense makes the two entities synonyms for each other, equating the Church with Israel. He sees this as less likely. The emphatic sense would make "Israel of God" the Jewish Christians, which would make up part of the whole. Finally, the connective would similarly make Jewish Christians as part of the whole. He favors the last two. (Ryrie, 126-7). |
| Eph 1:10 |
Eternal State: What is God's οίκονομια (dispensation/plan) for "the fullness of times"? |
This passage is seen by most amillenialists to represent the present gospel age. (Ryrie, 48) |
Classic/Revised: This passage is seen by most premillennialists as referring to the millennial kingdom. Progressive: "Fullness of times" would refer to only the second part of the final dispensation, which is the eternal state (the first part being the millennial kingdom). (Ryrie, 48) |
| Eph 3:4-6; Col 1:25-27 | The Church - NT Distinctiveness: Was the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles as members of the same body (the Church) something that was previously unknown? | No. That Gentiles would participate as members of one body with the Jews is prophesied through the prophets, and "Paul himself repeatedly and at length quotes their declarations on this point to prove what he taught was in accordance with the OT; see Rom. 9, 25-33. The emphasis must, therefore, be laid on the word as. This doctrine was not formerly revealed as, i.e. not so fully or so clearly as under the Gospel...." (Reymond, quoting Charles Hodge, 541). | Yes. This text, when combined with passages such as Eph 2:11-16, which show Gentiles as "at one time separated from Christ, and alienated from the Commonweath of Israel," present a distinct new body of people, composed of both Jews and Gentiles, which previously (in OT times) did not exist. (Ryrie, 124) This demonstrates a significant change or "newness" between the previous and current dispensations. (Blaising, 113) |
| Heb 9:15-20 | See discussion of διαθήκη (covenant or "will/testament") in Robertson, 138-144. | ||
| Heb 11 | Shows that faith in Christ was required for justification in the OT just as it is in the NT. This demonstrates that there were not differing responsibilities (between Mosaic and Grace dispensations) needed for justification as dispensationalism would see. | ||