The unity of redemptive history is a foundational principle of Christian theology. Yet, when we begin to think of the structural principles that guide our understanding of unity, that is where theologians disagree in significant ways. At the center of those disagreements are different understandings of the biblical covenants and what role they play in God’s plans for history.

Within these discussions, there are three prominent frameworks that offer strong explanations. Classical covenantalism finds the unity of redemptive history within three major theological covenants, emphasizing a covenant of grace that unfolds throughout redemption. Progressive dispensationalism agrees that there is unity, but it is carried out in distinct stages with the Abrahamic covenant functioning as a central guiding principle. In contrast, progressive covenantalism teaches that the biblical covenants themselves are progressively unfolding God’s plan for redemption, culminating in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

I believe that progressive covenantalism most coherently explains the unity of redemptive history by highlighting the progressive revelation of the biblical covenants that find their ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ, rather than in the theological covenants of classical covenantalism or the centrality of the Abrahamic covenant in progressive dispensationalism. I will show this by, first, defining redemptive history’s unity according to progressive dispensationalism and then classical covenantalism, second, showing that progressive covenantalism most accurately follows the biblical structure comparatively, and, third, responding to objections to progressive covenantalism’s answer to redemptive history’s unity.

Classical Covenantalism

Classical covenantalism explains the unity of redemptive history through covenants, and its origins can be traced back to the reformation. However, what is distinct about covenant theology is its formulation of three theological covenants that are the backbone of all other biblical covenants. Theological covenants are different than the explicitly revealed biblical covenants we think of, such as God’s covenant with Abram in Genesis 12. Instead, theological covenants are concepts implied in the text and serve as the backbone of all covenants. These three covenants are: (1); the covenant of redemption, (2); the covenant of works, and (3) the covenant of grace. I will briefly define these covenants and how they contribute to a covenant theologian’s understanding of unity.

The Covenant of Redemption

The covenant of redemption is an intra-trinitarian agreement to accomplish redemption, where the Father ordains it, the Son executes it, and the Spirit applies it. Louis Berkhof describes this covenant as the “archetype” of the historical covenants, in the sense that this covenant was agreed upon by members with “equal footing.”[1] The historical covenants instead are “monopleuric”, meaning that God “imposes His ordinances upon his creatures.”[2] Guy M. Richard describes the biblical rationale behind this covenant before history. He states, “Jesus regularly speaks about his mission on earth in terms implying he and the Father had made an agreement prior to his coming.”[3] Ephesians 1:4 is an often-cited passage showing the pre-planned redemption of mankind when Paul says, “he chose us in him before the foundation of the world.” The covenant of redemption is essential for explaining the unity of redemptive history because it is the underlying principle behind the actions of God and the events that unfold.

The Covenants of Works and Grace

Though the covenant of redemption explains the reasoning for God’s work in the world, the two remaining theological covenants contain the specific promises and curses that inform all historical covenants. These remaining theological covenants are the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. According to J.V. Fesko, the covenant of works is “the first covenant that God made with Adam” where mankind would receive eternal life based on Adam’s perfect obedience to God’s commands.[4] Although the word covenant is not explicitly stated in Genesis 1–3, the characteristics of a covenant, such as blessings and commands are present and are understood by covenant theologians to indicate a covenant made with Adam. Hosea says, “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant” (Hos 6:7 ESV), which appears to explicitly state that Adam was in a covenant relationship with God.[5] The covenant of works contributes to the unity of redemptive history because it shows our condemnation due to our status as covenant-breakers under Adam. Richard P. Belcher Jr. states that it lays “a foundation for the gospel” because it shows our need of righteousness.[6]

The covenant of grace is the main overarching theological covenant of redemptive history, however. God’s promise of an offspring from the woman who would crush the head of Satan in Genesis 3:15 is considered “the first promise” of the covenant of grace.[7] The remainder of redemptive history then “is an unfolding of this promise.”[8] Every post-fall historical covenant then can be categorized under the covenant of grace. Berkhof says “it is essentially the same in all dispensations, through its form of administration changes.”[9] Thus, the historical covenants are different administrations of the covenant of grace, including the new covenant of Jeremiah 31. Christ functions as a second Adam, and by his obedience “the many will be righteous” (Rom 5:19). A classical covenant theologian then sees the unity of redemptive history by these three aspects: (1); the Triune God’s eternal plan and agreement (covenant of redemption), (2); the legal demands and condemnation passed down to us through Adam’s failure (covenant of works), and (3) the promise of a redeemer who will vanquish the evil one and succeed where Adam failed (covenant of grace).

Progressive Dispensationalism

Progressive dispensationalism provides an alternative structure to redemptive history that emphasizes the distinctive stages in redemptive history (unlike covenant theology), while at the same time affirming the unity of God’s plan for history (unlike traditional dispensational theology). Blaising defines a dispensation as “an ordered set of relationships.”[10] A dispensation then is the set of circumstances and structures put in place by God to order his relationship with humanity. He identifies “at least two dispensations” in history, separated by the “incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus,”[11] though he admits that “the word dispensation is flexible” and could apply to any number of ways we could split different historical arrangements in biblical history.[12]

The biblical covenants are not synonymous with the various dispensations, instead, dispensations are “ways of relating to covenants.”[13] Distinctly though, progressive dispensationalism does not center its understanding of unity on the covenants or dispensations; Robert L. Saucy instead claims that “the concept of the kingdom” is the unifying principle of Scripture.[14] Thus, redemptive history is focused and unified around the kingdom as the way “God effects his lordship on the earth.”[15] Blaising states, “the eschatological kingdom is the arrangement in which all covenantal promises are fulfilled.”[16] Yet, it is a “unity with distinctives” that retains the differentness of God’s dispensations and promises, and showing that salvation history is fulfilled in progressive stages.[17]

Although covenants are not the main structure behind redemptive history, progressive dispensationalism particularly highlights the Abrahamic covenant as central to understanding the relationship of the various dispensations. No creation covenant is explicitly recognized, instead, God’s covenant with Abraham is seen as the foundation for understanding God’s promises in Scripture. Even the “new dispensation” under Christ is a “new arrangement in which blessings promised through the Abrahamic covenant are being bestowed.”[18] Blaising goes as far as saying “to understand the Bible, one must read it in view of the Abrahamic covenant.”[19] The other historical covenants are then in relationship to the central Abrahamic covenant. For instance, when speaking of the Mosaic covenant, Blaising argues that “the Abrahamic covenant is the fundamental relationship. The Mosaic covenant is dependent upon it.”[20] The Abrahamic Covenant then functions as the constant hope of blessing from God, and the Mosaic functions as a temporary, conditional agreement with blessings and curses that awaits a fulfillment in the new covenant. So, progressive dispensationalism understands unity by recognizing the kingdom as the unifying theme, unfolding through dispensations as distinct stages of history, and interpreted by the promises of the Abrahamic covenant.

Progressive Covenantalism

Progressive covenantalism offers a distinct framework opposed to both classical covenantalism and progressive dispensationalism in order to coherently explain the unity of redemptive history. Stephen Wellum establishes the main idea of this position when he said “Scripture presents a plurality of covenants that progressively reveal our triune God’s one redemptive plan for his one people” which is ultimately fulfilled in Christ in the new covenant.[21] This one redemptive plan is “grounded in the covenant of redemption.”[22] Much like progressive dipensationalism, progressive covenantalism emphasizes the concept of kingdom, but instead of it being the stage where all covenants find fulfillment, “it is through the progression of the covenants that God’s saving reign comes to this world.”[23]

The Progression of the Covenants

What is most important to establish in progressive covenantalism is the progressive nature of redemptive history through covenants. Both dispensational and covenant theologians agree that revelation is progressive in the sense that more information is revealed over time about God’s plans and intentions in history. Geerhardus Vos states “revelation is the interpretation of redemption; it must, therefore, unfold itself in installments as redemption does.”[24] However, progressive covenantalism goes further than affirming the progressive nature of revelation. Instead, the covenants are the means of progressing redemptive history and so they form the structure of redemptive history. They move the storyline forward. The starting point of this storyline begins in creation with Adam. Wellum states, “the creation covenant serves as the foundation that continues in all the covenants.”[25] The story ultimately leads to Jesus Christ who perfectly fulfills every biblical covenant and brings redemptive history to its intended end.

Typology is an important element in understanding the progressive nature of covenants in the context of history. Typology is broadly defined as the “God-ordained, author-intended historical correspondence and escalation in significance between people, events, and institutions” all throughout the Scriptures.[26] While both progressive dispensationalists and covenant theologians believe in typology as future-pointing patterns in revelation, what is distinct about the progressive covenantal position is that typology not only demonstrates the unity of the covenantal structure since all types point to Christ, but the fulfillment of these types in the antitype is what “warrants the uniqueness of the new covenant era”.[27] In other words, unlike covenant theology which emphasizes strong continuity between the Old and New Testaments, progressive covenantalism is able to emphasize the newness of the new covenant age. We live in an age that is currently unlike anything that has come before it. The reason for this is that the biblical types have found their fulfillment in Christ who’s inaugurated a new age that awaits the final consummation. Therefore, there is discontinuity between the covenants despite the fact that they are unified in their final goal. As we begin in the creation covenant with Adam, every covenant progresses the story through types that find their fulfillment and end in Christ. Thus, unity in redemptive history for progressive covenantalism is rooted in the one plan of God from all eternity that is progressed and revealed through all the covenants, which become future-oriented by types, and lead to complete fulfillment of all in Christ in the new covenant.

A Covenant with Creation

A key aspect of identifying the difference between progressive covenantalism and the other two positions is by comparing their views of theological covenants and the covenant in creation. It’s important to note that progressive dispensationalism sees no creation covenant, but instead looks to the Noahic covenant as the first historical covenant. There is still a relationship to creation since the Noahic covenant is viewed as confirming “the divine intention expressed in creation.”[28] However, there is not a continuing covenant found in creation.

Progressive covenantalism agrees with classical covenantalism that God’s plans in the world are “grounded in the covenant of redemption.”[29] Progressive covenantalism rightly recognizes the covenant circumstances of the intra-Trinitarian agreement to send Christ as a mediator for humanity displayed in passages like Ephesians 1. This covenant is the archetype for all that follow. Thus, the idea of a theological covenant is not questionable to progressive covenantalists. However, there are good reasons to doubt whether the covenant made in creation is a theological covenant, and if it can be split into a covenant of works and grace.

G.K Beale asserts that despite the fact the word “covenant” is missing from the Genesis account, he says that is no reason to doubt a real, historical covenant in creation. The fact is that the major elements of a covenant are expressed in Genesis 1–3: “(1) two parties are named; (2) a condition of obedience is set forth; (3) a curse for transgression is threatened; (4) a clear implication of a blessing is promised for obedience.”[30] Covenant theologians agree with this point. On what basis do they then categorize the covenant in Genesis 2 as an altogether different covenant than the one in Genesis 3:15? Numerous biblical covenants are detailed and affirmed over the course of many chapters and time, such as God’s covenant with Abraham, which spans Genesis 12–22. Ligon Duncan, a covenant theologian, readily admits that since the earliest days of the church, they recognized that the covenants were “both unilateral and bilateral, both promissory and obligatory.”[31] If that is true, then what basis is there to divide the covenant in creation into two separate covenants?

Classical covenantalism argues that to deny the covenant of works is to deny the foundation of important doctrines such as “the obedience of Christ, the relationship between Adam and Christ, and the concept of Christ as mediator.”[32] However, denying a two-covenant structure in Genesis 1–3 is not a denial of these key doctrines. Instead, we are able to more coherently explain the relationship and unity of the covenants if we understand the creation covenant as one instead of two. Wellum rightly observes that “all subsequent covenant heads function as subsets of Adam, who, in God’s plan, point forward to Christ, the last Adam.”[33] In the covenant given to Noah, he is told to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 9:1), the same command given to Adam before the Fall (Gen 1:28). David, as the king of Israel, acted as a representative over the people, and his personal sins affected the people as a whole when he selfishly took a census (2 Sam 24:10–17). Jesus Christ stands as the “last Adam” (1 Cor 15:45). If Adam served as a “type of the one who was to come” (Rom 5:14), and a type is broadly defined as a repeated pattern in redemptive history, then it is biblical to understand every biblical covenant as successive progressions of the single creation covenant leading to its end in Christ. Adamic typology demonstrates that unity does not have to come through imposed theological covenants, but rather from the language and unfolding of the biblical covenants themselves. Thus, progressive covenantalism is able to more coherently explain the unity of redemptive history through the progressive revealing and fulfillment of God’s plan beginning with a single creation covenant.

Progressive dispensationalism has a similar problem in showing unity by the way they categorize the covenants. Progressive dispensational theologians divide the covenants into unconditional “grant” covenants, and conditional “bilateral” covenants.[34] This is how they are able to hold onto the land promises of the Abrahamic covenant as lasting forever, but also explain the temporariness of the Mosaic covenant and its stipulations. However, even progressive dispensationalists admit that the blessings of the Mosaic covenant “are already promised in the covenant with Abraham.”[35] God’s covenant with Abraham includes an aspect of obedience, where he is to “walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you” (Gen. 17:2–3). God’s covenant at Sinai promises that if the Israelites would keep the covenant, he will make them a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod 19:5–6). What then is the basis for separating the two covenants into different categories?

Wellum states elements of grace and obedience are in every covenant. Thus, there is a “deliberate tension within the covenants” that can only be resolved in Christ.[36] The Mosaic covenant then, is not a dependent covenant that is functionally inferior to the Abrahamic because of its ratio of grace to obedience, instead, Exodus 19:5–6 demonstrates that “God intends for the nation to fulfill the Adamic role reassigned to Abraham.”[37] The Mosaic covenant is a progression and transformation of the Abrahamic, not a secondary conditional covenant. Therefore, the unity of redemptive history is best understood not by categorizing the covenants into two categories, but in the progression and escalation of the biblical covenants that find their fulfillment in Christ.

Objections to Progressive Covenantalism

A strong objection to progressive covenantalism lies in its relative recency in history. Classical covenantalism is a historic perspective that has roots in the reformation. Forms of dispensationalism have been around since the nineteenth century. Covenant theologians find support for their bicovenantal structure in the historic confessions of faith. D. Blair Smith points to the wording of the Westminster Confession of Faith, stating that “the Westminster divines had no interest in theological innovation,” they instead were “squarely in the stream of the historic Christian faith.”[38] Yet, even the Westminster Confession lays this principle at its foundation: “all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined” by the Holy Spirit speaking through the Scriptures.[39] While we readily admit to the weight of historical data and we appreciate the momentous work of the saints who have gone before us, the historical data does not take precedence over the testimony of Scriptures. Therefore, while our history is significant and cannot be dismissed, the truths derived from it must be tested as we seek to remain faithful to the Word of God.  

Another strong objection from classical covenantalism rests in how progressive covenantalism understands the place of the Mosaic law in the lives of new covenant believers. Romans tells us that all human beings have “the work of the Law written on their hearts” (Rom 2:14–15). Scott R. Swain argues that “gentiles committed the same sin as Israel because they violated the same law as Israel.”[40] This is tied to the tripartite division of the Law between the moral, the civil, and the ceremonial. Classical covenantalism argues that the moral law that has been written on our hearts transcends the various administrations and covenants. It’s a creational reality fundamental to being a human. Therefore, the ten commandments are eternally binding.

However, it is inconsistent to divide the law into three divisions. Swain admits that the indications of separations within the Mosaic law are “subtle.”[41] Yet, Paul in Galatians 5 warns believers who adhere to circumcision that they are “obligated to keep the whole law” (Gal. 5:3). This indicates that the Law is inseparable from its various parts or categories. The enduring nature of the ten commandments specifically does not take into account the progression of the covenants that we have already established. Hebrews 7 tells us “For when there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well” (Heb. 7:12). It’s from this that Wellum argues that “the Mosaic law as a covenant is no longer directly binding on the Christian.”[42] This does not mean we are lawless, for Christians are “not outside the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Cor 9:21). We are not bound by the ten commandments, yet, as Scripture, all of the Mosaic law “takes on a prophetic wisdom function.”[43] This means that the moral principles of the law still shape our convictions, and they point forward to the fulfillment and perfection in Christ. All Scripture informs our morality in this way. Yet, it is the teaching of Christ and the disciples in the new covenant era that bind us as the law of Christ.

Conclusion

The deeply rooted, historical defenses of unity in God’s plans for redemptive history are a testament to the surety that God’s plan is one. We can appreciate classical covenantalism and its commitment to the continuity of God’s plan across redemptive history. We can also appreciate progressive dispensationalism and its commitment to the recognizing and not undermining the distinctiveness of the steps in redemptive history. However, it is in progressive covenantalism that we find balance between these commitments, recognizing the distinctiveness of the biblical covenants and their circumstances, but also recognizing that the covenants are successively revealing the unified plan of God that terminates in Jesus Christ.

---

[1] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Louisville: GLH Publishing, 2017), 220.

[2] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 217.

[3] Guy M. Richard, “The Covenant of Redemption,” in Covenant Theology, ed. Guy P. Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 46.

[4] J.V. Fesko, Signed, Sealed, Delivered: An Introduction to Covenant Theology (Sanford, FL: Ligonier, 2024), 38.

[5] Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotations come from the ESV.

[6] Richard P. Belcher Jr., “The Covenant of Works in the Old Testament,” in Covenant Theology, ed. Guy P. Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 70.

[7] Fesko, Signed, Sealed, Delivered, 62.

[8] John D. Currid, “Adam and the Beginning of the Covenant of Grace,” in Covenant Theology, ed. Guy P. Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 107.

[9] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 231.

[10] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Bridgepoint Books, 1993), 109.

[11] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 115.

[12] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 117.

[13] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 123.

[14] Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 27.

[15] Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 27.

[16] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 126.

[17] Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, 28.

[18] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 124.

[19] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 135.

[20] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 143.

[21] Stephen J. Wellum, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 431.

[22] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 436.

[23] Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 654.

[24] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1975), 6.

[25] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 36.

[26] James M. Hamilton Jr., Typology: Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2022), 26.

[27] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 135.

[28] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 129.

[29] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 436.

[30] G.K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 43.

[31] Ligon Duncan, “Covenant in the Early Church,” in Covenant Theology, ed. Guy P. Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 291.

[32] Belcher, “The Covenant of Works in the Old Testament,” 64.

[33] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 446.

[34] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 131.

[35] Blaising and Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism, 142.

[36] Wellum, Systematic Theology, 440.

[37] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 442.

[38] D. Blair Smith, “Post-Reformation Developments,” in Covenant Theology, ed. Guy P. Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 362.

[39] Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10

[40] Scott R. Swain, “New Covenant Theologies,” in Covenant Theology, ed. Guy P. Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, and John R. Muether (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 565.

[41] Swain, “New Covenant Theologies,” 564.

[42] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 786.

[43] Gentry and Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant, 789.