Dispensational Federalism

Covenant Theology isn’t a singular, monolithic, and unified system of theology. It represents a wide spectrum of views.

Take the Mosaic Covenant for example.

The Reformed tradition has always struggled to interpret the Mosaic Covenant. This confusion can be demonstrated by personal admissions, historical surveys, theological taxonomies, internal debates, and external controversies. While we should also acknowledge majority opinions that have developed, this area of theology still stands in need of clarification.

Personal admissions of this reality are not hard to find. The OPC Report on Republication acknowledges that, ‘Describing the function and role of the Mosaic Covenant… is arguably one of the most challenging and complex theological problems in which one can engage.’[1] Jonathan Edwards concurs by saying, ‘There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as the stating the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and of Christ.’[2] Adding his voice to the difficulty of interpreting the Mosaic Covenant, Westminster Assembly member Anthony Burgess has somewhat famously admitted, ‘I do not find in any point of divinity, learned men so confused and perplexed (being like Abrahams Ram, hung in a bush of briars by the head) as here.’[3]

Surveys of differing theological positions within the Reformed tradition highlight the same confusion. Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) surveying the various Reformed interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant summarises his findings and concludes that it has been understood in three main ways, ‘(1) as a covenant of works, (2) as a subservient covenant preparing for the advancement of the covenant of grace with the coming of Christ, and (3) as a covenant of grace more legally dispensed.’[4] These are three very different conclusions.

Mark Karlberg, in a similar fashion, surveying the interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant noted, ‘The great variety of expression within the Reformed tradition.’[5] He gives a historical survey of significant Reformed Theologians and a brief description of how they each interpreted the Mosaic Covenant. He demonstrates another sweeping range of opinion gathered from the most prominent of Reformed Theologians up until the time of the Westminster Confession (1648).

Another taxonomy displaying the numerous Reformed positions has been presented by Brenton C. Ferry. He tellingly remarks, ‘there is no single Reformed answer to the question’.[6] He categorises positions on the Mosaic Covenant that range from it being considered as a distinct covenant of works, to a pure covenant of grace. Which, for all intents and purposes, includes every possible view. Given that Dispensationalists understand the Mosaic Covenant as conditional, it must even be granted that dispensational conceptions of the Mosaic Covenant fit within the Reformed spectrum.

Internal debates among the Reformed concerning the Republication of the Covenant of Works also stem from differing views on the Mosaic Covenant. Some understand the Mosaic Covenant to share substantial unity with the Covenant of Grace, while others to varying degrees, understand it to be, ‘in some sense’ a republication of the Covenant of Works. Any search for precision as to the exact ‘sense’ in which it might republish the covenant God made with Adam will prove futile.

Lastly, external conflicts with Dispensationalists also find the Mosaic Covenant at the centre of much of the controversy. Karlberg notes, ‘The central issue… both within and without confessional orthodoxy, as it turns out, is the interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant.’[7]

In light of this obvious confusion, the Mosaic covenant represents a stubborn piece of the covenantal puzzle that refuses to be unnaturally forced into place.

My point here, is that even voices within the Reformed tradition acknowledge, ‘Quite clearly, Reformed theology is in need of clarification’[8]

In the articles that follow, we will look at this in more detail.

[1] OPC Report of the Committee to Study Republication, 2016, p2.

[2] Jonathan Edwards, Works, New York, 1881, Vol. I, p. 160. https://www.galaxie.com/article/wtj04-1-01)

[3] The Law is Not of Faith, Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, Edited by Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko and David VanDrunen, p76, Chapter 3, Brenton C. Ferry, Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Reformed Taxonomy. Anthony Burgess, A Vindication of the Morall Law and the Covenants, 1647, p229.

[4] Mark W. Karlberg, Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant, p31, WSJ Article. Quoted from Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (based on the 1645 edition; London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1964), p.28

[5] Mark W. Karlberg, Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant, p30, WSJ Article which was an abbreviation of his dissertation, ‘The Mosaic Covenant and the Concept of Works in Reformed Hermeneutics: A Historical-Critical Analysis with Particular Attention to Early Covenant Eschatology (Th.D Westminster Theological Seminary, 1980).

[6] The Law is Not of Faith, Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, Edited by Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko and David VanDrunen, p90, Chapter 3, Brenton C. Ferry, Works in the Mosaic Covenant: A Reformed Taxonomy

[7] Mark W. Karlberg, Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant, p3, WSJ Article.

[8] Mark W. Karlberg, Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant, p38, WSJ Article.