New Covenant Theology

New Covenant Theology (NCT) is but one recent attempt to move forward in this quest. As yet it is less a settled theology than a movement still in the shaping by men who agree that the question has not yet been finally answered by either of the major competing schools of interpretation — Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. There are still disagreements among us on several details, such as the questions of the future of ethnic / national Israel and the millennium. But while we appreciate and borrow from the previous advances made by either side, we are convinced that neither has a corner on the truth. We obviously do not claim to own this corner ourselves, else there would be fuller agreement among us! Thus, NCT is more a movement in progress, in search of more satisfactory answers.

Nor do we claim a great deal of originality. As I mentioned above, we borrow from the progress already made from both sides — in Biblical Theology from men such as Geerhardus Vos and the clarifications made in mainstream contemporary New Testament scholarship by men such as Douglas Moo and D. A. Carson. Nor are we alone in this pursuit — advances are being recognized by those on all sides of this theological fence, and this friendly in house debate is sure to continue for years to come.

Probably the simplest way to describe our distinctive hermeneutic is to say that we consider the New Testament to be the apex of God’s self-revelation to date. On one level, of course, all sides will agree with this. But we would argue that traditional Covenant Theology with its generally flat reading of Scripture has failed to appreciate it fully.

Further, this necessarily brings us into a distinctive emphasis on Biblical theology with its eye to the Christocentric and progressive unfolding of redemptive history. In short, we argue that traditional Covenant Theology has failed to appreciate fully the significant advance that marks this age of New Testament revelation.

Covenant Theology is designed to show the unity in God’s purpose in human redemption. It is called “covenant” theology not because of an emphasis on the Biblical/historical covenants as such but on certain theological covenants — the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is essentially the promise made in Gen.3:15 of the coming deliverer, and all of history is viewed as a progressive unfolding of this covenant. Thus, the New Covenant, in Covenant Theology, is not understood as a new covenant actually; it is rather a new “administration” of the covenant of grace, as was the Mosaic Covenant before it. One covenant with various administrations is the essence of Covenant Theology on this point. Therefore, the Old Covenant is seen as an essentially gracious covenant, not a legal one. Further, with this emphasis on the unity of God’s purpose there is a strong tendency in Covenant Theology to carry over the old order into the new: Israel is the church, the law of the Old Covenant is the law of the New, and so on.

We are not satisfied with the simple “one covenant — two administrations” idea of Covenant Theology. In our judgment this results in a rather “flat” reading of Scripture which fails to appreciate the advance, the distinctively “new” character of this Messianic age.

Dispensational Theology emphasizes rather the various differences in God’s dealings with men. A “dispensation” has to do with the various administrations of Divine truth. With new revelation come new responsibilities and/or privileges. This change results in a new “economy” or dispensation. With this emphasis on the various changes in God’s program, Dispensationalism labors to show the differences between the old and new economies or dispensations. For the (traditional) dispensationalist, there are two separate peoples of God running through all history and even eternity, law is a thing of the past and not relevant to the New Covenant believer, and so on.

Nor are we satisfied with the over-compartmentalizing tendency of Dispensational Theology. In our judgment its “no law” and “two equal peoples” notions failed to appreciate the unity of God’s nature and purpose. And so we find ourselves somewhere between the two traditional answers.

New Covenant Theology in all its various expressions has for some years now sought to offer a third way, as does its most recent step-child, Progressive Covenantalism.

The central premise of Progressive Covenantalism remains the same as that of the earlier works: the historical covenants form the backbone of and carry the Bible’s storyline, and in the unfolding of these covenants we are given Scripture’s own stated framework for understanding the Bible as a whole and, thus, the relation of the Old and New Testaments.

I have argued for years that the progressive unfolding of the covenants provides the framework for a right understanding of the “whole Bible” and the relation of the Testaments. Others have argued the same. But Progressive Covenantalism works out this thesis more carefully than any that I am aware of.

Christ is the one of whom Moses wrote (John 5:46), whose law would be absolute and the ultimate standard of judgment (Deut. 18:15-19). By no means are we left without law. Rather, Christ has taken morals a step higher, above Moses. From Him we learn God’s highest expression of holiness.

There are distinct advantages to this reading of the subject. On the one hand, it avoids the older dispensationalist tendency of denying any relevance of law to the new covenant believer; law there is, and it is a continuing rule of life. On the other hand, it renders the complex and apparently artificial tripartite division of Moses irrelevant. Such difficult hermeneutical grids are simply unnecessary, for to be without Moses is not to be without law. This also allows the Sabbath discussion to proceed on exegetical and theological grounds rather than on the less stable ground of hermeneutical presuppositions. In short, this perspective harmonizes the statements of both the abolition of Moses and the enduring continuity of law. More importantly, this new covenant perspective provides a Christocentric focus which takes seriously Christ’s claims of lordship. It is, in fact, a theology of lordship.

NCT also recognizes that law and grace are sometimes names for the two periods covered by the Old and New Covenants, but we would look at the two words as also defining two emphases, not the replacement of law by grace.

So in some sense, the Decalogue is foundational to the Old Covenant. This is the basic statement, or in a sense, the law covenant summarized. These are the words of the covenant. It’s not by accident that when Moses has the construction of the Ark of the Covenant, you remember what is placed in the Ark of the Covenant? It was the tables of the law. This is the words of the covenant. So these are the foundational demands of the covenant that God makes with Israel, a kind of summary statement of the law.

It would be wrong to forget this stated, essential unity of the old covenant/Decalogue when reading New Testament statements of the covenant’s / law’s abolition (e.g., 2 Cor. 3). The statements are as broad and inclusive as they appear. And this is to be expected. The new covenant believer is not under the old covenant but the new. It would be an odd thing indeed if “the words of the [old] covenant, the Ten Commandments” (Ex. 34:28) were made to be the new covenant believer’s rule of life. We would rather expect that for new covenant believers divine law would be codified in the new covenant.

Idolatry, murder, theft, adultery, etc., did not first become wrong when Israel was at Sinai. The great bulk of the Decalogue, then, is clearly but a formal codification of the law of God that was (and is) in man’s heart naturally.

The law, even its commanding aspects, looked ahead to what would be brought about in Jesus. So Jesus fulfills Moses by bringing about what that old law could only anticipate. And so the prohibition of murder gives way to a prohibition of anger, prohibition of hatred. The law prohibiting adultery gives way to a law prohibiting even lust.

The specific New Testament teaching given to the church regarding the Sabbath – e.g., Romans 14:5; Colossians 2:16-17; Galatians 4:10-11 – seems at first blush, at least, plainly to indicate that Sabbath observance is no longer a Christian duty. We are asked, however, to understand these passages in ways that are not immediately evident, and this not on the force of a New Testament command but on presuppositions which themselves rest on the thinnest of Old Testament exegesis. New Testament passages such Matthew 5:17ff and 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 point us in a better direction. New covenant believers ought to look first to Christ (and, by extension, his apostles) for the right understanding and application of Moses. In terms of the Sabbath this means that we now understand the Sabbath day to have been a shadow pointing forward to a reality now enjoyed in Christ (Col. 2:16-17). Coming to Jesus we find the rest (Matt. 11:28) that was previously anticipated but not fully realized in the observance of a day (Heb. 3-4) — a theme Blomberg traces out clearly and compellingly.

In light of all this it is not surprising to notice the apostolic denial of Sabbath day observance. In Colossians 2:16 Paul specifies that the Sabbath law must not be laid upon us as obligatory for the simple reason that the One whom it anticipated has now come. In Galatians 4:9-11 he expresses horrified surprise that some at Galatia would turn back to observing the day, a backward step which for Paul carried devastating implications. And in Romans 14 it is the weaker brother who observes the day as holy. The stronger brother understands that no particular day is holy but that all days are equally holy under God. The natural and easiest understanding of these verses recognizes an end to Sabbath day observance. The Sabbath, the sign of the old covenant, bore a greater significance than a continuing regulation of activity on a certain day of the week. It pointed forward to soteric verities realized in Christ.

The Sabbath command given to Israel in the Old Testament was, in one respect, one of the most important commands of all the laws that were given to ancient Israel. And what I mean by that is that we are told explicitly in Exodus chapter 31 that the Sabbath command was important precisely because it was the sign of the covenant.

There are still disagreements among us on several details, such as the questions of the future of ethnic / national Israel and the millennium.

For all that Brent Parker and Oren Martin and Jason DeRouchie will wish otherwise, I rather suspect that dispensationalists will (mis?)understand them as offering merely a new kind of replacement theology with regard to Israel and the church. I wonder if taking up the question of Israel as a yet recognizable subset of the church (the natural branches) could be of help here. In this case Christ would be understood as the pivot / fulcrum by whom the natural and the wild branches enjoy the Abrahamic blessing. I don’t see how this would necessarily change the Progressive Covenantal position, but it might allow space for the dispensationalist to adjust his position somewhat while preserving a hope for national Israel.