Most Christians read their Bibles faithfully without ever realizing they are reading through a theological framework. That is not a criticism. It is simply reality. Everyone reads Scripture with assumptions, patterns, and instincts shaped by preaching, study Bibles, books, and church culture. Two of the most influential frameworks in evangelical Christianity are Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism. Many believers have absorbed elements of one or the other without ever knowing their names (this is especially true in the case of Dispensationalism when it comes to end times prophecy) .

This article is meant to be a simple primer, and not a technical deep dive. Just a clear, honest explanation of what each system is, how they developed, and why I think Covenant Theology offers a more faithful and coherent way of reading the Bible as one unfolding story centered on Christ.

At the most basic level, Covenant Theology sees the Bible as a unified story of redemption revealed through God’s covenants. From Genesis to Revelation, God is working out one plan of salvation through one people, grounded in His promises and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Scripture is read as a progressive, Christ-centered revelation where earlier covenants point forward and find their fulfillment in the New Covenant.

Dispensationalism, on the other hand, tends to divide the Bible into distinct eras or dispensations in which God relates to humanity in different ways. These dispensations are often marked by changes in responsibility, testing, failure, and judgment. A sharp distinction is maintained between Israel and the Church as two separate peoples, with separate promises and futures for each.

These two approaches lead to very different instincts when reading Scripture.

Covenant Theology asks, “How does this passage fit into God’s one redemptive plan that culminates in Christ?”
Dispensationalism often asks, “Which group is this addressed to, and does it apply directly to the Church today?”

Historically, these systems did not arise at the same time.

Covenant Theology grew out of the Protestant Reformation and was further developed by Reformed theologians in the 16th and 17th centuries. Reformers and Puritans saw the covenants as the Bible’s organizing structure. They recognized continuity between the Old and New Testaments, while still honoring the fulfillment that comes through Christ. Later theologians like Herman Witsius, and in more recent times R.C. Sproul and Michael Horton, continued refining this approach, always emphasizing Scripture interpreting Scripture.

Dispensationalism is much newer. It emerged in the mid-19th century through the teaching of John Nelson Darby. Darby’s ideas gained widespread influence through the Scofield Reference Bible (first published in 1909), which placed dispensational notes directly alongside the biblical text. Later figures like Lewis Sperry Chafer and Charles Ryrie systematized Dispensational theology, and it became deeply embedded in American evangelicalism and the charismatic community through Bible conferences, prophecy charts, and popular preaching.

This historical difference matters. Covenant Theology reflects how the Church understood Scripture for most of its history. Dispensationalism represents a relatively recent interpretive shift.

One of the most important differences between the two systems is how they understand the relationship between Israel and the Church.

Dispensationalism insists on a sharp and ongoing separation. Israel is a physical, ethnic nation with earthly promises. The Church is a spiritual people with heavenly promises. Because of this, much of the Old Testament is viewed as primarily about Israel and only indirectly applicable to Christians today.

Covenant Theology sees greater continuity. The people of God are defined by promise and faith, not ethnicity. Paul’s teaching in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 is taken seriously. Abraham is the father of all who believe, and all believers in Jesus Christ are spiritual descendants. Gentiles are grafted into the same covenant promises (Romans 11:11-31, Ephesians 3:6). The Church does not replace Israel, but rather Israel’s promises are fulfilled and expanded in Christ, creating one redeemed people.

This approach allows the whole Bible to speak directly to believers without awkward detours or disclaimers.

Another key difference is how law and gospel are understood. Covenant Theology sees God’s moral law as revealing His unchanging character. While Christians are not under the Mosaic covenant as a legal system, the law still instructs us in holiness and gratitude. Dispensationalism often draws sharper breaks, sometimes leading to confusion about how the Old Testament applies to Christian life.

End-times discussions are often where people first encounter these systems, but eschatology flows downstream from how the Bible is read as a whole.

Dispensational Premillennialism, especially in its pre-tribulational rapture form, depends heavily on maintaining rigid distinctions between Israel and the Church. This results in elaborate timelines, multiple resurrections, and a secret rapture that is difficult to find clearly taught in Scripture. While many sincere believers hold this view, its complexity and novelty should give us pause.

I personally lean toward Historical Premillennialism, which affirms Christ’s future reign without the theological machinery required by Dispensationalism. This view was held by many early Christians long before Darby and Scofield. More importantly, it does not require separating God’s people into parallel tracks.

What ultimately tips the scales toward Covenant Theology is not charts, timelines, or systems, but the person of Christ.

Jesus Himself taught His disciples that all Scripture points to Him. The apostles consistently read the Old Testament as fulfilled in Christ and applied its promises to the Church. Hebrews does not treat the Old Covenant as a discarded plan but as a shadow that finds its substance in Jesus.

Covenant Theology allows Scripture to remain what it claims to be: one story, one Savior, one people, one gospel.

Here is a simple way to remember the difference:

Dispensationalism emphasizes separation. Covenant Theology emphasizes fulfillment.

Dispensationalism divides the Bible into distinct programs. Covenant Theology traces one redemptive promise unfolding over time.

Dispensationalism often asks who a passage is for. Covenant Theology asks how the passage points to Christ.

My encouragement is simple: Read your Bible slowly. Pay attention to how the New Testament uses the Old. Notice how often the apostles apply Israel’s promises to the Church. Let Scripture shape your framework rather than the other way around.

This article is only the beginning. In future posts, I plan to dive deeper into Covenant Theology, explain the covenants in more detail, and show how this approach strengthens assurance, unity, and confidence in God’s promises.

The Bible is not a puzzle book meant to confuse God’s people. It is a covenantal revelation of a faithful God who keeps His promises in Christ. When we read it that way, the pieces begin to fit together naturally.