Words

The New Covenant

            The new covenant is spoken of by the Old Testament prophets. Most notably, Jeremiah speaks of a new covenant in Jer. 31:31-34 that God will make with his people. Robertson points out that while Jeremiah alone explicitly mentions the new covenant, “the concept of the new covenant cannot be restricted to this single prophecy.”[1] All three systems use a variety of prophetic passages to understand the new covenant.[2] Several promises are made in the new covenant and recognized by all the systems, although each debates the mode and recipients of their fulfillment. The covenant promises to return exiled Israel to the land of promise, to provide internal renewal, to give full forgiveness of sins, and to last eternally.[3] All three systems see the contrast between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant –the new covenant is seen as a replacement of the Mosaic –even while some find sources of continuity between them.[4] Each system is unique, however, in its own attempt to explain the fulfillment of this covenant. The main debate centers on (1) who the recipient of the covenant’s blessings is and (2) whether or not this covenant is in anyway realized today. The answer to each is informed by the other. Therefore, as we examine the differences among each system we will attempt to find the answers to these two questions. The answers to these questions have an impact on the Church’s role in the plan of God, present and future.

            Robertson suggests that the new covenant replaces the entire previous covenantal dealings that God has had with Israel, combining all previous covenants into an old covenant.[5] Yet, despite this apparent discontinuity, the substance of the new covenant is found in the old. The old covenant serves to typify that which becomes actual in the new: as the animal sacrifices of the old covenant relates to Christ’s once for all sacrifice of the new covenant.[6] “While the form of the old covenant administration may pass away, the substance of blessing which it promises remains.”[7] The question is; who is it that receives the blessing? The covenant theologian states that the Israel of the old covenant “may be regarded as a typological representation of the elect people of God.”[8] At the same time, the covenant theologian realizes that Israel did not merely function in this role, but attempts to avoid the oversimplification of Israel in sole terms of ethnicity.[9] This typology anticipated the reality of the new covenant chosen people; therefore, if the new covenant is now in affect, “those constituting the people of God in the present circumstances must be recognized as the ‘Israel of God.’”[10] The basis for such qualification as people of God and receiving of blessing is the obedience of Christ.[11]

It is apparent that in covenant theology, the Church is the people of God under the new covenant and therefore recognized as the ‘Israel of God.’ Yet, Horton emphasizes that there is indeed a distinction between Israel and the Church, apparent in both new and old testaments, arising out of the distinction between the covenant of the law –given to the nation to remain in the land, and the covenant of promise –given to Abraham’s seed for eternal inheritance in Jesus.[12] Thus, after some discussion on Romans 11:25-32, Horton sees a future where God will pour out his Spirit on the Jewish people.[13]

The covenant theologian combines the idea that the Church today is in the position of the people of God with the belief that the promises of the covenant cannot be dichotomized in terms of corporateness versus individuality, or internal reality versus external substance.[14] The prophet’s message was unified and must not, in this way, be destroyed.[15] Fulfillment, therefore, is in a multi-staged mode based on the typical/actual contrast in Scripture. Robertson gives four ways that the promises are fulfilled to those people of God in the present circumstances (the Lord’s supper in Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25; the law of God written on our hearts in 2 Cor. 3:3, 6-8; the Holy Spirit bears witness to forgiveness of our sins in Heb. 10:15-18; and the anointing of the Holy Spirit implies no need of anyone to teach in 1 John 2:27), yet insists that there remains a day when the consummate fulfillment will occur: “the time of the resurrection of the body and the rejuvenation of the whole earth.”[16] Thus, the Church is the people of God today and recipients of the blessings of the new covenant. The promises are being fulfilled now and yet await a time when they will be made complete and final.

The dispensational theologian emphasizes a role for national, ethnic Israel in the new covenant as distinct from the Church. Among dispensationalists there is some division on this covenant. Chafer asserts that there are in fact two new covenants, one for the church and one for Israel.[17] The basis for the new covenant to the church is found in Luke 22:20, when Christ instituted the Lord’s Supper. The blessings of these promises are either possessions or positions in Christ.[18]On the other hand, the new covenant to Israel is found in Jeremiah 31:31-34. This new covenant is for Israel alone, and its blessings, such as the restoration to the land of promise, are found in the future millennial period.[19] For Chafer the answer seems clear, the new covenant found in Jeremiah is for ethnic Israel alone, to be fulfilled in a literal earthly kingdom. The Church shares in similar promises, but only because God is doing something different. However, both new covenants are based on the act of Christ in his death and resurrection.[20]

Johnson declares that the new covenant was instituted at the time of Christ’s death, its blessings were offered to Israel upon his resurrection and ascension, and some of its provisions are available today. Arguing that in a manner similar to how Abraham received the blessings of future covenants, the Church today receives blessings of the future new covenant.[21] God has set aside the nation of Israel temporarily to continue the ministry of Christ in reaching Gentiles and Jews until he returns to judge and rule. This ministry is based on the new covenant provisions received by faith in Christ.[22] Still, from Christ’s position, “all the provisions are now ready to be inaugurated with the nation of Israel in the future.”[23] So the new covenant is not now being realized in the Church. Thus, the dispensationalists are somewhat divided on the nature of this covenant.

            The progressive dispensational theologian, similar to all dispensationalists, emphasizes the difference between the Church and Israel as it relates to the fulfillment of the new covenant. They, however, differ in that they believe that the new covenant is one unified covenant that is established and initiated with the death and resurrection of Christ.[24] They find continuity among the covenants as Bock notes that all the covenants of promise are one commitment by God to Israel and for the nations.[25] Saucy, likewise, notes that the new covenant is the means through which the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants find final fulfillment, including the restoration of the people to their land.[26] Yet he also maintains that just because the promises were addressed to Israel, does not mean that they must exclude others.[27] After surveying the Old Testament teachings on the salvation of Israel, Saucy concludes: “Thus, if the new covenant is in reality the elaboration of the Abrahamic ‘blessing,’ then clearly the Gentiles are included in that blessing, not by becoming Israel, but as Gentiles along with Israel.”[28]

            According to the progressive dispensational theologian, the new covenant was inaugurated through the work of Christ.[29] Bock asserts that when Jesus mentions the Lord’s Supper in Luke 22:20 he is “explaining how the new covenant is being established and thus initiated with his death.”[30] The messianic era is the time of the blessing of the nations, and the progressive dispensational theologian holds that the New Testament teaches that time has arrived; “thus the promises of the new covenant have begun to take effect and are available to all who receive the Messiah. In accord with the promises, God’s salvation is extended to both Jews and Gentiles who believe.”[31] Yet the present operation of blessing in the Church is not the complete fulfillment, rather the return of Christ will bring further fulfillment. The progressive dispensational theologian finds that there is a clear future blessing for historical Israel as well as more blessings to all the peoples of the world.[32] Thus, the new covenant is for the Jews, yet it has been expanded to incorporate the Gentiles as separate from the nation of Israel. In this way, the progressive dispensational theologian understands that the promises of the new covenant are being fulfilled in part to the Gentiles today and will be fulfilled in completeness to the nation of Israel in the future earthly millennial reign of Christ.

---

[1] Robertson 1980, 273.

[2] Ezekiel 36, 37; Jeremiah 16, 23; Isaiah 42, 45, 49; Zechariah 12.

[3] Robertson 1980, 274-277; Chafer 1976, 146-147; Bock 1999, 191.

[4] Robertson 1980, 281; Horton 2006, 53; Chafer 1976, 146; Johnson 1999, 133; Bock 1999, 190; Saucy 1993, 120. Robertson 1980, 281 points out that the substance of the covenant law is the basis for continuity from the old to the new.  Bock 1999, 190 notes that the new covenant provides for an obedience that the law sought to accomplish.

[5] Robertson 1980, 281.

[6] Ibid., 283-284.

[7] Ibid., 284-285.

[8] Ibid., 289

[9] Ibid., 288-289.

[10] Ibid., 289.

[11] Horton 2006, 76.

[12] Ibid., 131.

[13] Ibid., 132.

[14] Robertson 1980, 287-290.

[15] Ibid., 287.

[16] Ibid., 299.

[17] Chafer, Systematic Theology Vol. IV, 1948, 325.

[18] Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Vol. I. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947, 47.

[19] Chafer 1976, 147.

[20] Ibid., 147.

[21] Ibid., 146-147.

[22] Ibid., 155.

[23] Ibid., 147.

[24] Bock 1999, 192.

[25] Bock 1999, 193.

[26] Saucy 1993, 114, 121.

[27] Ibid., 114.

[28] Ibid., 122-123.

[29] Ibid., 133.

[30] Bock 1999, 192.

[31] Saucy 1993, 138.

[32] Ibid., 139.