By Angus Harley

This article completes the critique of Stephen Wellum’s short article, “How to Interpret the Covenants and the Nature of Typology: A Companion Article”.[1] We will see how NCT strongly differs from Progressive Covenantalism (PC). Specifically, I show that PC works on the basis of a hermeneutic (interpretive control) that is essentially Reformed in nature. PC is not a ‘via media’ between Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensationalism. It is, rather, a new brand of CT itself.

Wellum’s hermeneutical approach

I will now unfold Wellum’s hermeneutic for the reader’s sake.

Hermeneutical sandwich

The first third of Wellum’s article refers to points 1 and 2 of a hermeneutical model. The second third discusses typology. The last third completes the hermeneutical discussion with points 3 and 4. It is a hermeneutical ‘sandwich’, the ‘bread’ of which is a discussion of hermeneutics and the ‘filler’ is typology. This demonstrates, very markedly, that typology is being used as a tool to defend Wellum’s hermeneutical, PC, mindset.

Whole bible

In the world of theology, a ‘hermeneutic’ refers to an interpretive model used to unlock the entire bible. Thus, Wellum writes of his PC model:

“One of the points which I could not fully discuss was this: to make theological conclusions properly from Scripture, we must do so by reading the entire canon of Scripture and carefully think through the progression of the covenants. Since all of Scripture is for our instruction (2 Tim. 3:15–17), we must not only draw theological conclusions from all of it, we must also do so on the Bible’s own terms which means that we must carefully unpack Scripture’s covenantal progression.”[2]

See how Wellum is saying that the entirety of the bible must be read to reflect the theology of divine covenants and how these progress. From Genesis and its teaching about the Garden of Eden, all the way through to Revelation, it is all about divine covenants and their progression. Thus, the title of Wellum’s hermeneutical model is ‘Progressive Covenantalism’.

Three stages of covenant hermeneutic

The controlling covenant in PC’s system is the Adamic, or Garden, Covenant, which, PC says, was made between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden. Subsequent divine covenants are hugely reflective of the archetypal Garden Covenant, so much so that the figures of these other covenants (Noah, Abraham, Israel, David) are considered to be versions of Adam, what I call ‘mini-Adams’. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of this positive Adamic paradigm, for in the NT Adam as the covenant-head of humanity is contrasted to Jesus as the covenant head of the assembly or new humanity, according to PC.

  • Archetypical covenant: Adamic covenant
  • Progressive covenants: the ‘mini-Adams’: Noah, Abraham, Israel, David
  • Fulfilling covenant: the New Covenant; Jesus the Last Adam.

I will now critique Wellum’s PC hermeneutic.

PC weaponizes typology

In his article, Wellum weaponizes typology, deviating it from its proper typological role in the NT. This is an argument I have already defended as to Wellum’s use of Adamic typology.[3] This time, however, I wish to underscore just how typology is weaponized by the PC ‘hermeneutic’ specifically. To do that, I need to back up to explain the difference between ‘hermeneutics’ (plural) and a ‘hermeneutic’ (singular).   

‘Hermeneutics’= interpretive tools

In old-school ‘hermeneutics’ (plural), what we have are general principles for reading the bible properly. Typology is one of those principles. So, for example, we can refer to Fee and Stuart’s book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. It specializes in demonstrating the different genres of Scripture. Other books on ‘hermeneutics’ (plural) focus upon interpretive tools such as typology, the nature of Scripture, symbolism, figures of speech, historical interpretation, theological interpretation, etc., etc.. When we speak of ‘hermeneutics’ (plural) what we have are, essentially, interpretive tools.

‘Hermeneutic’ = interpretive mindset

A ‘hermeneutic’ (singular), by contrast, is the controlling theological and interpretive mindset the reader brings to the entire bible. Any Christian, any theologian, comes to the bible with a very specific mindset for reading the bible as a whole. If you’re not sure of this, then think of how your ‘Evangelical’ reading of the Bible radically contrasts to that of an atheist, or secularist, or Jew, or Roman Catholic. Etc. Within Evangelicalism itself, there are, on the theological level, different mindsets for reading the whole bible. The NCTer is most certainly not a Dispie, nor does he follow CT. These are two different theological models. Similarly, PC and NCT approach the entire bible each with its own ‘hermeneutic’ or interpretive model.

‘Hermeneutics’ gives different tools for reading the bible; a ‘hermeneutic’ is the interpretive mindset we bring to the bible that uses those tools.

Weaponizing of typology

We saw in the previous article on typology that critiques Wellum, how his view of typology put the emphasis upon the OT and not on the NT’s understanding of typology. In doing this, what Wellum did was, to all intents and purposes, weaponize typology, making it part of his PC hermeneutic. Typology was no longer a ‘tool’ of interpretation; it was, in effect, a foundational feature of the PC interpretive mindset itself.

NCT response

The NCT ‘hermeneutic’, by contrast, gives interpretive priority to the NT, specifically focusing upon its Christological nature. Thus, in the previous article on typology, I started with the NT understanding of a ‘type’. By doing that, we avoided weaponizing typology, and used it as a mere tool, the way it was meant to be used. As a result, we saw that there was both negative and positive uses of typology in the NT, but that Adamic typology was invariably negative, and not at all positive.

Revised CT hermeneutic

Same superstructure

Wellum’s interpretive model is utilizing a revised Reformed hermeneutic. Reformed theology is called ‘Covenant Theology’ (CT) for a reason: it places all its eggs in the basket of divine covenants that are then enacted and unfolded, reaching their fulfillment and climax in the New Covenant. Of course, there are differences between standard, old-school, CT and PC. Notwithstanding, Wellum takes this Reformed ‘covenantal engine’ and places it within a PC carriage. There is nothing structurally different between PC’s covenantal hermeneutic and CT’s, for it is the same divine covenant superstructure that is determining the entirety of biblical interpretation.

Different BT version

Specifically, what PC brings to the table, to the discussion of a covenantal hermeneutic, is a more in-tune Biblical Theology model of covenants. Long before PC was even a glimmer, there were theologians like Geerhardus Vos, Herman Ridderbos, and John Murray who all ‘played around’ with- to speak loosely- the interrelationship between divine covenants and Biblical Theology. If you read PC’s view of covenants, it attempts to do what Murray’s approach was trying to do, namely, revise the standard Reformed model of covenants. Thus, it is as those operating within the same covenantal ‘orbit’ as CT, that PC complains about CT’s terminology, e.g., ‘Covenant of Grace’, ‘Covenant of Redemption’, ‘Covenant of Works’.

Recent alignment

For that reason, in recent years, PC has publically put a massive distance between itself and NCT. More relevant is that, PC has openly embraced the Reformed Baptist position in general,[4] and Wellum has overtly committed himself to being a variety of a CT theologian.[5] NCT started off as a ‘via media’ between CT and Dispensationalism, but PC has openly avowed allegiance to CT. It is no longer a ‘via media’.

Objections

There are many objections that some will bring against my reading, but as I’m trying hard to limit myself to Wellum’s short article, I will answer only two objections in particular that reflect upon the matter of a hermeneutic.

‘PC is Christocentric’

It will be counter-argued that Wellum is promoting a Christological, Christocentric interpretation, just as NCT does. It is not about Adam as such, but Christ.

Of course, all those who are Evangelical accept the Christological nature of the entire bible. It was always about him. Read any Dispensationalist account, for example, and it will tell you that it is Christocentric.[6] What each theological model means by ‘Christocentric’ is a different matter, however. Moreover, what premium is put upon the NT’s Christological emphasis is, yet again, a crucial factor. The proof is in the pudding, surely. By the nature of the case, PC’s Genesis-to-Revelation model makes Adam the anchor, so that Christ is said to restore and fulfill this idyllic Adamic model. Yet, when put to the test, it is NCT’s model of Christology and Christocentrism that prevails, for it is a genuine, NT-oriented, Christological interpretation that gives interpretive priority to the actual Christ-event itself and its subsequent apostolic witness. The Christ-event is our interpretive anchor.

‘Why are you objecting going from Genesis to Revelation?’

I am not objecting to reading the bible from Genesis to Revelation. I do so myself! I am objecting to making the OT the interpretive key to the NT. PC, CT, and Dispensationalism all place their hermeneutical anchor in the OT. As the canon of Scripture is about the actual Christ-event and its meaning, our interpretive starting point has to be the revelation of the Christ-event itself. This entails going to the NT first, and reading, then, how it understands the fulfillment of OT promises by the Christ-event. The NT is our interpretive anchor.

[1] Stephen Wellum, “How to Interpret the Covenants and the Nature of Typology: A Companion Article”,  Christ Over All, September 6, 2023, https://christoverall.com/article/concise/how-to-interpret-the-covenants-and-the-nature-of-typology-a-companion-article/. For my prior critique of this article, see Angus Harley, “The New Covenant is not about conditional and unconditional elements: a response to Progressive Covenantalism”, All Things New Covenant, July 5, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/07/05/the-new-covenant-is-not-about-conditional-and-unconditional-elements-a-response-to-progressive-covenantalism/; “Progressive Covenantalism’s insufficient understanding of typology” All Things New Covenant, July 7, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/07/07/progressive-covenantalisms-insufficient-understanding-of-typology/.

[2] Stephen Wellum, “How to Interpret the Covenants and the Nature of Typology: A Companion Article”,  Christ Over All, September 6, 2023, https://christoverall.com/article/concise/how-to-interpret-the-covenants-and-the-nature-of-typology-a-companion-article/. For my prior critique of this article, see Angus Harley, “The New Covenant is not about conditional and unconditional elements: a response to Progressive Covenantalism”, All Things New Covenant, July 5, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/07/05/the-new-covenant-is-not-about-conditional-and-unconditional-elements-a-response-to-progressive-covenantalism/;

[3] Angus Harley, “Progressive Covenantalism’s insufficient understanding of typology”, July 7, 2025, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2025/07/07/progressive-covenantalisms-insufficient-understanding-of-typology/.

[4] Angus Harley, “Comments on ‘Christ Over All’, a Progressive Covenantalism site”, All Things New Covenant, February 28, 2023, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2023/02/28/comments-on-christ-over-all-a-progressive-covenantalism-site/.

[5] Angus Harley, “Wellum launches out into Covenant Theology”, All Things New Covenant, May 19, 2024, https://allthingsnewcovenant.com/2024/05/19/wellum-launches-out-into-covenant-theology/.

[6] For example, read Michael Vlach’s chapter 4 in his Dispensational Hermeneutics, in which he argues for a Dispensational version of Christ-centeredness. [(Theological Studies Press, 2023)]