New covenant theology is best described as a hermeneutical principle, or an interpretative grid through which one reads and interprets the Scriptures. As a hermeneutical principle, it stands as a bridge between dispensational theology and covenant theology. That is not to say that new covenant theology has intentionally set itself up between dispensational theology and covenant theology, but that new covenant theology shares things in common with both dispensational and covenant theology. As such, we cannot say what new covenant theology is without reference to dispensational theology and covenant theology.
Dispensational theology essentially sees the Scriptures unfolding in a series of, usually, seven “dispensations.” A dispensation can be loosely defined as the means through which God governs His actions with man and creation. Therefore, God’s governance was different with Adam than it was with Abraham, etc. Dispensational theology views the revelation as progressive, i.e., in each dispensation, God reveals more and more of His divine plan of redemption. However, while Scripture is a progressive revelation, each successive dispensation represents a new way of God dealing with His creation. In other words, according to dispensational theology, there is a strong level of discontinuity between the dispensations; once an old dispensation is over and a new one begun, the "old" way of doing things under the old dispensation is superseded by the new dispensation. And each dispensation is typically introduced with some new revelation from God.
The thing to remember with dispensational theology is that there is a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. They are two different people with two different destinies in God’s economy. The Church is seen as a "parenthesis" between God’s dealings with national Israel. The restored kingdom promised to Israel will be fulfilled in the Millennium. Until then is the Church Age—the time of the Gentiles.
Covenant theology is effectively the polar opposite of dispensational theology. While both agree that Scripture is progressive, the overarching principle of covenant theology is the covenant. Covenant theology sees two theological covenants in Scripture—the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works was introduced in the Garden between God and man in which God promised mankind life for obedience and judgment for disobedience. The covenant of works was re-introduced at Sinai as God promised Israel long life and blessing in the land on the condition of their obedience to the Mosaic covenant, but expulsion and judgment in the event of their disobedience. The covenant of grace was implemented after the fall and represents God’s unconditional covenant with man to redeem and save the elect. All of the various biblical covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New) are outworkings of the covenant of grace as God works His plan of redemption in human history. So, where dispensational theology saw a discontinuity between the various dispensations (and in particular between the Old and the New Testaments), covenant theology sees a great deal of continuity.
This is especially evident in the fact that covenant theology does not see a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. Both entities are seen as one continuous people of God with one ultimate destiny.
All of that serves as the backdrop to view new covenant theology. As mentioned previously, new covenant theology is a middle point between the two. It shares a lot in common with classic covenant theology, in particular the continuity between the Church and Israel as being one people of God. However, it also differs from covenant theology in that it does not necessarily view the Scriptures as the unfolding of redemption in a covenant of works/covenant of grace framework. Instead, it sees the Scriptures in a more promise/fulfillment paradigm.
By far the biggest difference between new covenant theology and covenant theology is how each views the Mosaic Law. Covenant theology sees the Law in three ways: civil, ceremonial and moral. The civil aspect of the Law was those laws in the covenant of Sinai which governed the theocratic nation of Israel while they live in the Promised Land. The ceremonial aspect of the Law governed the worship of God by Israel while in the land. Finally, the moral aspect of the Law governed the behavior of God’s people. It should be understood that the Law, in and of itself, is one cohesive whole and that the Jews did not delineate between civil, ceremonial and moral; these are just terms used to help identify the three areas of Israelite life that the Mosaic Law governed.
According to classic covenant theology, Jesus came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17). He did so by satisfying all of the ceremonial, civil and moral aspects of the Law. Jesus Christ is the reality behind the shadows of the Old Testament sacrificial system and thereby fulfills the ceremonial aspect of the Law. Jesus Christ also bore the penalty our sins deserved and thereby fulfilled the civil aspect of the Law. Finally, Jesus Christ lived in full accordance with the moral aspect of the Law and fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law.
Now, the moral aspect of the Law represents the essence of the covenant of works. As such, it transcends the Mosaic economy. In other words, God has always required holiness from humanity. The covenant of works was not negated due to the fall, nor was it negated even though it was fulfilled in Christ. The moral aspect of the Law still stands as the standard of morality for mankind because it is reflective of God’s character, and that does not change. Therefore, covenant theology still sees the Mosaic Law (especially the Ten Commandments) as prescriptive for the Church, even though the ceremonial and civil aspects have been rendered obsolete in Christ.
New covenant theology sees the Mosaic Law as a whole and sees it all fulfilled in Christ (so far in agreement with covenant theology). However, because new covenant theology sees the Mosaic Law as a whole, it also sees the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law as fulfilled in Christ and no longer applying to Christians. Instead of being under the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law as summarized in the Ten Commandments, we are under the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21). The law of Christ would be those prescriptions that Christ specifically stated in the Gospels (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount). In other words, the entire Mosaic economy has been set aside in new covenant theology; it no longer applies in any way to Christians. So, while covenant theology sees a continuity between the Old and New Testaments in regards to God’s people and the way of salvation, new covenant theology draws a rather sharp line of distinction between the Old and New Testaments when it comes to the difference between the old Mosaic covenant and the new covenant mediated by Christ. The old covenant is obsolete (including the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law) and replaced by the new covenant with the law of Christ to govern its morality.
The word continuity is defined as “the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time.” At its root is the word continue. Of course, discontinuity is the opposite, meaning “a sharp difference of characteristics between parts of something.” In theology, continuity and discontinuity are terms applied to the flow of sacred history and God’s overarching purpose.
Christians believe that the entire Bible is God’s inerrant Word and that it is divided into two parts, the Old and New Testaments. The continuity vs. discontinuity debate has to do with how the two parts of the Bible relate and the application that has for Christians today. Covenant theology often emphasizes areas of continuity, while dispensational theology usually emphasizes areas of discontinuity.
The following are some of the issues that frequently come up in the continuity vs. discontinuity debate:
Are Israel and the Church essentially the same body, or is Israel quite distinct from the Church? Those who follow the discontinuity route hold that Israel is a separate group and see the “church age” as a distinct time in which God deals with the Gentiles. When the Church is removed at the rapture, God will once again focus His attention on the salvation of Israel. Those who see continuity between Israel and the Church will often speak of the “Church in the Old Testament” and apply promises made to Israel to the Church today.
If the Church is essentially Israel (continuity), then it makes sense that all the Law given to Israel would apply to the Church unless a particular law has been specifically repealed. If the Church is a brand-new entity (discontinuity), then it would make sense that none of the Old Testament laws would be in force unless they have been specifically applied to the Church.
The issues involved in the debate between continuity and discontinuity are complex, but, in reality, almost every theological construct (covenant, dispensational, or otherwise) recognizes some areas of continuity and some areas of discontinuity. Every Evangelical theology would recognize that the animal sacrifices have been discontinued as the sacrifice of Christ is once for all (Hebrews 10:11–12). Likewise, every Evangelical theology would recognize that the moral aspects of the Law continue to be in force today.
The best answer seems to be that there are some areas of both continuity and discontinuity, and that neither sharp discontinuity nor uniform continuity is warranted. Jeremiah 31 speaks of a New Covenant with Israel that outlines a radically new way (discontinuity) of dealing with Israel (continuity). The New Testament speaks of believing Gentiles being grafted into Israel (Romans 11). This was something new that most never would have imagined possible, but it was revealed with the coming of Christ (Ephesians 3:6).
Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). In other words, He was not preaching something brand new (discontinuity) but the culmination of what had been there all along (continuity). But Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law had in it the seeds of discontinuity, because, after the Law had been fulfilled, it was no longer needed (Galatians 3:24–25). God never changes, but the way that He deals with people can change.
It is tempting to buy into a particular system of theology and then try to read the biblical data through the lens of that system. It is far better to try to understand the Bible on its own terms and affirm continuity where it exists and discontinuity where it exists.
Covenant Theology isn’t so much a “theology” in the sense of a systematic set of doctrine as it is a framework for interpreting Scripture. It is usually contrasted with another interpretative framework for Scripture called “Dispensational Theology” or “Dispensationalism.” Dispensationalism is currently the most popular scriptural interpretative method in American evangelicalism, and has been so from the latter half of the 19th century. Covenant Theology, however, remains the majority report for Protestantism since the time of the Reformation, and it is the system favored by those of a more Reformed or Calvinistic persuasion.
Where Dispensationalism sees the Scriptures unfolding in a series of (typically) seven “dispensations” (a dispensation can be defined as the particular means God uses to deal with man and creation during a given period in redemptive history), Covenant Theology looks at the Scriptures through the grid of the covenant. Covenant Theology defines two overriding covenants: the covenant of works (CW) and the covenant of grace (CG). A third covenant is sometimes mentioned; namely, the covenant of redemption (CR). We will discuss these covenants in turn. The important thing to keep in mind is that all of the various covenants described in Scripture (e.g., the covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and the New Covenant) are outworkings of either the covenant of works or the covenant of grace.
Let’s begin to examine the various covenants detailed in Covenant Theology, beginning with the covenant of redemption, which logically precedes the other two covenants. According to Covenant Theology, the CR is a covenant made among the three Persons of the Trinity to elect, atone for, and save a select group of individuals unto salvation and eternal life. As one popular pastor-theologian has said, in the covenant of redemption, “The Father chooses a bride for His Son.” While the CR is not explicitly stated in Scripture, Scripture does explicitly state the eternal nature of the plan of salvation (Ephesians 1:3-14; 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; James 2:5; 1 Peter 1:2). Moreover, Jesus often referred to His task as carrying out the Father’s will (John 5:3, 43; 6:38-40; 17:4-12). That the salvation of the elect was God’s intention from the very beginning of creation cannot be doubted; the CR just formalizes this eternal plan in the language of covenant.
From a redemptive historical perspective, the covenant of works is the first covenant we see in Scripture. When God created man, He placed him in the Garden of Eden and gave him one simple command: “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17). We can see the covenantal language implied in this command. God sets Adam in the Garden and promises eternal life to him and his posterity as long as he is obedient to God’s commands. Life is the reward for obedience, and death is the punishment for disobedience. This is covenant language.
Some scholars see in the covenant of works a form of what is called a suzerain-vassal covenant. In these types of covenants, the suzerain (i.e., king or ruler) would offer the terms of the covenant to the vassal (i.e., the subject). The suzerain would provide blessing and protection in return for the vassal’s tribute. In the case of the covenant of works, God (the suzerain) promises eternal life and blessing to mankind (the vassal represented by Adam as the head of the human race), in return for man’s obedience to the stipulations of the covenant (i.e., don’t eat from the tree). We see a similar structure in the giving of the Old Covenant through Moses to Israel. Israel made a covenant with God at Sinai. God would give the Promised Land, a reconstituted Eden (“a land flowing with milk and honey”) and His blessing and protection against all enemies in return for Israel’s obedience to the stipulations of the covenant. The punishment for covenant violation was expulsion from the land (which occurred in the conquest of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom in 586 B.C.).
When Adam failed in keeping the covenant of works, God instituted the third covenant, called the covenant of grace. In the CG, God freely offers to sinners (those who fail to live up to the CW) eternal life and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. We see the provision for the CG right after the fall when God prophesies the “seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15. Whereas the covenant of works is conditional and promises blessing for obedience and cursing for disobedience, the covenant of grace is unconditional and is given freely on the basis of God’s grace. The CG takes the form of ancient land-grant treaties, in which a king would give land to a recipient as a gift, no strings attached. One can argue that faith is a condition of the covenant of grace. There are many exhortations in the Bible for the recipients of God’s unconditional grace to remain faithful to the end, so, in a very real sense, maintaining faith is a condition of the CG. But the Bible clearly teaches that even saving faith is a gracious gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9).
We see the covenant of grace manifested in the various unconditional covenants God makes with individuals in the Bible. The covenant God makes with Abraham (to be his God and for Abraham and his descendants to be His people) is an extension of the CG. The Davidic Covenant (that a descendant of David will always reign as king) is also an extension of the CG. The New Covenant is the final expression of the CG as God writes His law upon our hearts and completely forgives our sins. One thing that should be apparent as we look at these various OT covenants is that they all find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The promise to Abraham to bless all the nations was fulfilled in Christ. The Davidic king who will eternally rule over God’s people was also fulfilled in Christ, and the New Covenant was obviously fulfilled in Christ. Even in the Old Covenant, there are hints of the CG as all of the OT sacrifices and rituals point forward to the saving work of Christ, our great High Priest (Hebrews 8–10). This is why Jesus can say in the Sermon on the Mount that He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).
We also see the CG in action in the OT when God spares His people the judgment that their repeated sin deserves. Even though the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant (an application of the CW) promised God’s judgment upon Israel for their disobedience to His commands, God deals patiently with His covenant people. This is usually accompanied by the phrase “God remembered the covenant he made with Abraham” (2 Kings 13:23; Psalm 105; Isaiah 29:22; 41:8); God’s promise to fulfill the covenant of grace (which by definition is a one-sided covenant) often overrode His right to enforce the covenant of works.
That’s a brief description of covenant theology and how it interprets Scripture through the lens of the covenant. A question that sometimes arises regarding covenant theology is whether or not the CG supplants or supersedes the CW. In other words, is the CW obsolete since the Old Covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)? The Old (Mosaic) covenant, while an application of the CW, is not the CW. Again, the CW goes all the way back to Eden when God promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. The CW is further elaborated in the Ten Commandments, in which God again promises life and blessing for obedience and death and punishment for disobedience. The Old Covenant is more than just the moral law codified in the Ten Commandments. The Old Covenant includes the rules and regulations regarding the worship of God. It also includes the civil law that governed the nation of Israel during the theocracy and monarchy. With the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah of the OT, many aspects of the Old Covenant become obsolete because Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant types and figures (again, see Hebrews 8–10). The Old Covenant represented the “types and shadows,” whereas Christ represents the “substance” (Colossians 2:17). Again, Christ came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17). As Paul says, “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ. And so through him the ‘Amen’ is spoken by us to the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 1:20).
However, this does not abrogate the covenant of works as codified in the moral law. God demanded holiness from His people in the OT (Leviticus 11:44) and still demands holiness from His people in the NT (1 Peter 1:16). So, we are still obligated to fulfill the stipulations of the CW. The good news is that Jesus Christ, the last Adam and our covenant Head, perfectly fulfilled the demands of the CW and that perfect righteousness is the reason why God can extend the CG to the elect. Romans 5:12-21 describes the situation between the two federal heads of the human race. Adam represented the human race in the Garden and failed to uphold the CW, thereby plunging him and his posterity into sin and death. Jesus Christ stood as man’s representative, from His temptation in the wilderness all the way to Calvary, and perfectly fulfilled the CW. That is why Paul can say, “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).
In conclusion, Covenant Theology views the covenants of Scripture as manifestations of either the CW or the CG. The entire story of redemptive history can be seen as God unfolding the CG from its nascent stages (Genesis 3:15) through to its fruition in Christ. Covenant Theology is, therefore, a Christocentric way of looking at Scripture because it sees the OT as the promise of Christ and the NT as the fulfillment in Christ.
Some have accused covenant theologians of teaching what is called “Replacement Theology” (i.e., the Church replaces Israel). Such accusations are likely based on the fact that Covenant Theology teaches that the Church is Israel and Israel is the Church and its denial of any future plan for Israel. In 2002, Knox Theological Seminary issued a document clearly stating the CT position: “The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham . . . do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel“ (§VI), and “A day should not be anticipated in which Christ’s kingdom will manifest Jewish distinctives, whether by its location in ’the land,’ by its constituency, or by its ceremonial institutions and practices“ (p. 3). (“An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel“).
Accordingly, some have (reasonably) concluded that Covenant Theology takes the position that the church has either replaced or superseded ethnic Israel. Promises in the Bible made to ethnic Israel—people connected by blood to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—covenant theologians consider as metaphorically fulfilled in the Church, as “Israel” and the Church are all one “people of God,” a group that may or may not include people of Jewish ancestry, depending on the context. Unlike dispensationalists, covenant theologians deny any connection between ethnic Israel and the current or future land of Israel: “The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the ’Holy Land’ cannot be supported by Scripture“ (ibid., §IX).
Many more things could be said regarding Covenant Theology, but the important thing to keep in mind is that Covenant Theology is an interpretive grid for understanding the Scriptures. As we have seen, it is not the only way to interpret Scripture. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism have many differences, and sometimes lead to opposite conclusions regarding certain secondary doctrines, but both adhere to the essentials of the Christian faith: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and to God alone be the glory!
Dispensational theology essentially sees the Scriptures unfolding in a series of, usually, seven “dispensations.” A dispensation can be loosely defined as the means through which God governs His actions with man and creation. Therefore, God’s governance was different with Adam than it was with Abraham, etc. Dispensational theology views the revelation as progressive, i.e., in each dispensation, God reveals more and more of His divine plan of redemption. However, while Scripture is a progressive revelation, each successive dispensation represents a new way of God dealing with His creation. In other words, according to dispensational theology, there is a strong level of discontinuity between the dispensations; once an old dispensation is over and a new one begun, the "old" way of doing things under the old dispensation is superseded by the new dispensation. And each dispensation is typically introduced with some new revelation from God.
The thing to remember with dispensational theology is that there is a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. They are two different people with two different destinies in God’s economy. The Church is seen as a "parenthesis" between God’s dealings with national Israel. The restored kingdom promised to Israel will be fulfilled in the Millennium. Until then is the Church Age—the time of the Gentiles.
Covenant theology is effectively the polar opposite of dispensational theology. While both agree that Scripture is progressive, the overarching principle of covenant theology is the covenant. Covenant theology sees two theological covenants in Scripture—the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works was introduced in the Garden between God and man in which God promised mankind life for obedience and judgment for disobedience. The covenant of works was re-introduced at Sinai as God promised Israel long life and blessing in the land on the condition of their obedience to the Mosaic covenant, but expulsion and judgment in the event of their disobedience. The covenant of grace was implemented after the fall and represents God’s unconditional covenant with man to redeem and save the elect. All of the various biblical covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the New) are outworkings of the covenant of grace as God works His plan of redemption in human history. So, where dispensational theology saw a discontinuity between the various dispensations (and in particular between the Old and the New Testaments), covenant theology sees a great deal of continuity.
This is especially evident in the fact that covenant theology does not see a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church. Both entities are seen as one continuous people of God with one ultimate destiny.
All of that serves as the backdrop to view new covenant theology. As mentioned previously, new covenant theology is a middle point between the two. It shares a lot in common with classic covenant theology, in particular the continuity between the Church and Israel as being one people of God. However, it also differs from covenant theology in that it does not necessarily view the Scriptures as the unfolding of redemption in a covenant of works/covenant of grace framework. Instead, it sees the Scriptures in a more promise/fulfillment paradigm.
By far the biggest difference between new covenant theology and covenant theology is how each views the Mosaic Law. Covenant theology sees the Law in three ways: civil, ceremonial and moral. The civil aspect of the Law was those laws in the covenant of Sinai which governed the theocratic nation of Israel while they live in the Promised Land. The ceremonial aspect of the Law governed the worship of God by Israel while in the land. Finally, the moral aspect of the Law governed the behavior of God’s people. It should be understood that the Law, in and of itself, is one cohesive whole and that the Jews did not delineate between civil, ceremonial and moral; these are just terms used to help identify the three areas of Israelite life that the Mosaic Law governed.
According to classic covenant theology, Jesus came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17). He did so by satisfying all of the ceremonial, civil and moral aspects of the Law. Jesus Christ is the reality behind the shadows of the Old Testament sacrificial system and thereby fulfills the ceremonial aspect of the Law. Jesus Christ also bore the penalty our sins deserved and thereby fulfilled the civil aspect of the Law. Finally, Jesus Christ lived in full accordance with the moral aspect of the Law and fulfilled the righteous requirements of the Law.
Now, the moral aspect of the Law represents the essence of the covenant of works. As such, it transcends the Mosaic economy. In other words, God has always required holiness from humanity. The covenant of works was not negated due to the fall, nor was it negated even though it was fulfilled in Christ. The moral aspect of the Law still stands as the standard of morality for mankind because it is reflective of God’s character, and that does not change. Therefore, covenant theology still sees the Mosaic Law (especially the Ten Commandments) as prescriptive for the Church, even though the ceremonial and civil aspects have been rendered obsolete in Christ.
New covenant theology sees the Mosaic Law as a whole and sees it all fulfilled in Christ (so far in agreement with covenant theology). However, because new covenant theology sees the Mosaic Law as a whole, it also sees the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law as fulfilled in Christ and no longer applying to Christians. Instead of being under the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law as summarized in the Ten Commandments, we are under the law of Christ (1 Corinthians 9:21). The law of Christ would be those prescriptions that Christ specifically stated in the Gospels (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount). In other words, the entire Mosaic economy has been set aside in new covenant theology; it no longer applies in any way to Christians. So, while covenant theology sees a continuity between the Old and New Testaments in regards to God’s people and the way of salvation, new covenant theology draws a rather sharp line of distinction between the Old and New Testaments when it comes to the difference between the old Mosaic covenant and the new covenant mediated by Christ. The old covenant is obsolete (including the moral aspect of the Mosaic Law) and replaced by the new covenant with the law of Christ to govern its morality.
The word continuity is defined as “the unbroken and consistent existence or operation of something over a period of time.” At its root is the word continue. Of course, discontinuity is the opposite, meaning “a sharp difference of characteristics between parts of something.” In theology, continuity and discontinuity are terms applied to the flow of sacred history and God’s overarching purpose.
Christians believe that the entire Bible is God’s inerrant Word and that it is divided into two parts, the Old and New Testaments. The continuity vs. discontinuity debate has to do with how the two parts of the Bible relate and the application that has for Christians today. Covenant theology often emphasizes areas of continuity, while dispensational theology usually emphasizes areas of discontinuity.
The following are some of the issues that frequently come up in the continuity vs. discontinuity debate:
Are Israel and the Church essentially the same body, or is Israel quite distinct from the Church? Those who follow the discontinuity route hold that Israel is a separate group and see the “church age” as a distinct time in which God deals with the Gentiles. When the Church is removed at the rapture, God will once again focus His attention on the salvation of Israel. Those who see continuity between Israel and the Church will often speak of the “Church in the Old Testament” and apply promises made to Israel to the Church today.
If the Church is essentially Israel (continuity), then it makes sense that all the Law given to Israel would apply to the Church unless a particular law has been specifically repealed. If the Church is a brand-new entity (discontinuity), then it would make sense that none of the Old Testament laws would be in force unless they have been specifically applied to the Church.
The issues involved in the debate between continuity and discontinuity are complex, but, in reality, almost every theological construct (covenant, dispensational, or otherwise) recognizes some areas of continuity and some areas of discontinuity. Every Evangelical theology would recognize that the animal sacrifices have been discontinued as the sacrifice of Christ is once for all (Hebrews 10:11–12). Likewise, every Evangelical theology would recognize that the moral aspects of the Law continue to be in force today.
The best answer seems to be that there are some areas of both continuity and discontinuity, and that neither sharp discontinuity nor uniform continuity is warranted. Jeremiah 31 speaks of a New Covenant with Israel that outlines a radically new way (discontinuity) of dealing with Israel (continuity). The New Testament speaks of believing Gentiles being grafted into Israel (Romans 11). This was something new that most never would have imagined possible, but it was revealed with the coming of Christ (Ephesians 3:6).
Jesus said He did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). In other words, He was not preaching something brand new (discontinuity) but the culmination of what had been there all along (continuity). But Jesus’ fulfillment of the Law had in it the seeds of discontinuity, because, after the Law had been fulfilled, it was no longer needed (Galatians 3:24–25). God never changes, but the way that He deals with people can change.
It is tempting to buy into a particular system of theology and then try to read the biblical data through the lens of that system. It is far better to try to understand the Bible on its own terms and affirm continuity where it exists and discontinuity where it exists.
Covenant Theology isn’t so much a “theology” in the sense of a systematic set of doctrine as it is a framework for interpreting Scripture. It is usually contrasted with another interpretative framework for Scripture called “Dispensational Theology” or “Dispensationalism.” Dispensationalism is currently the most popular scriptural interpretative method in American evangelicalism, and has been so from the latter half of the 19th century. Covenant Theology, however, remains the majority report for Protestantism since the time of the Reformation, and it is the system favored by those of a more Reformed or Calvinistic persuasion.
Where Dispensationalism sees the Scriptures unfolding in a series of (typically) seven “dispensations” (a dispensation can be defined as the particular means God uses to deal with man and creation during a given period in redemptive history), Covenant Theology looks at the Scriptures through the grid of the covenant. Covenant Theology defines two overriding covenants: the covenant of works (CW) and the covenant of grace (CG). A third covenant is sometimes mentioned; namely, the covenant of redemption (CR). We will discuss these covenants in turn. The important thing to keep in mind is that all of the various covenants described in Scripture (e.g., the covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and the New Covenant) are outworkings of either the covenant of works or the covenant of grace.
Let’s begin to examine the various covenants detailed in Covenant Theology, beginning with the covenant of redemption, which logically precedes the other two covenants. According to Covenant Theology, the CR is a covenant made among the three Persons of the Trinity to elect, atone for, and save a select group of individuals unto salvation and eternal life. As one popular pastor-theologian has said, in the covenant of redemption, “The Father chooses a bride for His Son.” While the CR is not explicitly stated in Scripture, Scripture does explicitly state the eternal nature of the plan of salvation (Ephesians 1:3-14; 3:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Timothy 1:9; James 2:5; 1 Peter 1:2). Moreover, Jesus often referred to His task as carrying out the Father’s will (John 5:3, 43; 6:38-40; 17:4-12). That the salvation of the elect was God’s intention from the very beginning of creation cannot be doubted; the CR just formalizes this eternal plan in the language of covenant.
From a redemptive historical perspective, the covenant of works is the first covenant we see in Scripture. When God created man, He placed him in the Garden of Eden and gave him one simple command: “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17). We can see the covenantal language implied in this command. God sets Adam in the Garden and promises eternal life to him and his posterity as long as he is obedient to God’s commands. Life is the reward for obedience, and death is the punishment for disobedience. This is covenant language.
Some scholars see in the covenant of works a form of what is called a suzerain-vassal covenant. In these types of covenants, the suzerain (i.e., king or ruler) would offer the terms of the covenant to the vassal (i.e., the subject). The suzerain would provide blessing and protection in return for the vassal’s tribute. In the case of the covenant of works, God (the suzerain) promises eternal life and blessing to mankind (the vassal represented by Adam as the head of the human race), in return for man’s obedience to the stipulations of the covenant (i.e., don’t eat from the tree). We see a similar structure in the giving of the Old Covenant through Moses to Israel. Israel made a covenant with God at Sinai. God would give the Promised Land, a reconstituted Eden (“a land flowing with milk and honey”) and His blessing and protection against all enemies in return for Israel’s obedience to the stipulations of the covenant. The punishment for covenant violation was expulsion from the land (which occurred in the conquest of the Northern Kingdom in 722 B.C. and the Southern Kingdom in 586 B.C.).
When Adam failed in keeping the covenant of works, God instituted the third covenant, called the covenant of grace. In the CG, God freely offers to sinners (those who fail to live up to the CW) eternal life and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. We see the provision for the CG right after the fall when God prophesies the “seed of the woman” in Genesis 3:15. Whereas the covenant of works is conditional and promises blessing for obedience and cursing for disobedience, the covenant of grace is unconditional and is given freely on the basis of God’s grace. The CG takes the form of ancient land-grant treaties, in which a king would give land to a recipient as a gift, no strings attached. One can argue that faith is a condition of the covenant of grace. There are many exhortations in the Bible for the recipients of God’s unconditional grace to remain faithful to the end, so, in a very real sense, maintaining faith is a condition of the CG. But the Bible clearly teaches that even saving faith is a gracious gift from God (Ephesians 2:8-9).
We see the covenant of grace manifested in the various unconditional covenants God makes with individuals in the Bible. The covenant God makes with Abraham (to be his God and for Abraham and his descendants to be His people) is an extension of the CG. The Davidic Covenant (that a descendant of David will always reign as king) is also an extension of the CG. The New Covenant is the final expression of the CG as God writes His law upon our hearts and completely forgives our sins. One thing that should be apparent as we look at these various OT covenants is that they all find their fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The promise to Abraham to bless all the nations was fulfilled in Christ. The Davidic king who will eternally rule over God’s people was also fulfilled in Christ, and the New Covenant was obviously fulfilled in Christ. Even in the Old Covenant, there are hints of the CG as all of the OT sacrifices and rituals point forward to the saving work of Christ, our great High Priest (Hebrews 8–10). This is why Jesus can say in the Sermon on the Mount that He came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).
We also see the CG in action in the OT when God spares His people the judgment that their repeated sin deserves. Even though the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant (an application of the CW) promised God’s judgment upon Israel for their disobedience to His commands, God deals patiently with His covenant people. This is usually accompanied by the phrase “God remembered the covenant he made with Abraham” (2 Kings 13:23; Psalm 105; Isaiah 29:22; 41:8); God’s promise to fulfill the covenant of grace (which by definition is a one-sided covenant) often overrode His right to enforce the covenant of works.
That’s a brief description of covenant theology and how it interprets Scripture through the lens of the covenant. A question that sometimes arises regarding covenant theology is whether or not the CG supplants or supersedes the CW. In other words, is the CW obsolete since the Old Covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)? The Old (Mosaic) covenant, while an application of the CW, is not the CW. Again, the CW goes all the way back to Eden when God promised life for obedience and death for disobedience. The CW is further elaborated in the Ten Commandments, in which God again promises life and blessing for obedience and death and punishment for disobedience. The Old Covenant is more than just the moral law codified in the Ten Commandments. The Old Covenant includes the rules and regulations regarding the worship of God. It also includes the civil law that governed the nation of Israel during the theocracy and monarchy. With the coming of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah of the OT, many aspects of the Old Covenant become obsolete because Jesus fulfilled the Old Covenant types and figures (again, see Hebrews 8–10). The Old Covenant represented the “types and shadows,” whereas Christ represents the “substance” (Colossians 2:17). Again, Christ came to fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17). As Paul says, “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ. And so through him the ‘Amen’ is spoken by us to the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 1:20).
However, this does not abrogate the covenant of works as codified in the moral law. God demanded holiness from His people in the OT (Leviticus 11:44) and still demands holiness from His people in the NT (1 Peter 1:16). So, we are still obligated to fulfill the stipulations of the CW. The good news is that Jesus Christ, the last Adam and our covenant Head, perfectly fulfilled the demands of the CW and that perfect righteousness is the reason why God can extend the CG to the elect. Romans 5:12-21 describes the situation between the two federal heads of the human race. Adam represented the human race in the Garden and failed to uphold the CW, thereby plunging him and his posterity into sin and death. Jesus Christ stood as man’s representative, from His temptation in the wilderness all the way to Calvary, and perfectly fulfilled the CW. That is why Paul can say, “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).
In conclusion, Covenant Theology views the covenants of Scripture as manifestations of either the CW or the CG. The entire story of redemptive history can be seen as God unfolding the CG from its nascent stages (Genesis 3:15) through to its fruition in Christ. Covenant Theology is, therefore, a Christocentric way of looking at Scripture because it sees the OT as the promise of Christ and the NT as the fulfillment in Christ.
Some have accused covenant theologians of teaching what is called “Replacement Theology” (i.e., the Church replaces Israel). Such accusations are likely based on the fact that Covenant Theology teaches that the Church is Israel and Israel is the Church and its denial of any future plan for Israel. In 2002, Knox Theological Seminary issued a document clearly stating the CT position: “The inheritance promises that God gave to Abraham . . . do not apply to any particular ethnic group, but to the church of Jesus Christ, the true Israel“ (§VI), and “A day should not be anticipated in which Christ’s kingdom will manifest Jewish distinctives, whether by its location in ’the land,’ by its constituency, or by its ceremonial institutions and practices“ (p. 3). (“An Open Letter to Evangelicals and Other Interested Parties: The People of God, the Land of Israel, and the Impartiality of the Gospel“).
Accordingly, some have (reasonably) concluded that Covenant Theology takes the position that the church has either replaced or superseded ethnic Israel. Promises in the Bible made to ethnic Israel—people connected by blood to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—covenant theologians consider as metaphorically fulfilled in the Church, as “Israel” and the Church are all one “people of God,” a group that may or may not include people of Jewish ancestry, depending on the context. Unlike dispensationalists, covenant theologians deny any connection between ethnic Israel and the current or future land of Israel: “The entitlement of any one ethnic or religious group to territory in the Middle East called the ’Holy Land’ cannot be supported by Scripture“ (ibid., §IX).
Many more things could be said regarding Covenant Theology, but the important thing to keep in mind is that Covenant Theology is an interpretive grid for understanding the Scriptures. As we have seen, it is not the only way to interpret Scripture. Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism have many differences, and sometimes lead to opposite conclusions regarding certain secondary doctrines, but both adhere to the essentials of the Christian faith: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone, and to God alone be the glory!
RSS Feed
