Note: I do not believe this post is accurate at some points. I will leave it as is because I believe it still has value.

I have been looking for several months for a book, pamphlet, or article that both lays out what Covenant Theology is/teaches for someone who holds to a Dispensational view and explains why Covenant Theology is a more biblical system than Dispensational Theology. I have found multiple writings developing the second part, a handful addressing the first, and one attempting both.

The one is Children of the Promise by Robert Booth which is distinctly Paedo-baptist and exists primarily to advocate for and defend the practice of Paedo-baptism. As Covenant Theology is a necessary prerequisite for Christian Paedo-baptism (as opposed to Roman Catholic Paedo-baptism), Booth also explains and defends Covenant Theology. Even though it is not the primary aim of his book, since he was a Baptist (and presumably Dispensational) pastor, his exposition of Covenant Theology is excellent for someone who only knows the Dispensational system – probably the best I have read despite its Paedo-Baptist flavor. However, it seems strange at best to recommend a book for its secondary purpose, especially when you disagree with its primary thesis. (1)

So I have decided to write this post in an attempt to, briefly, outline what I understand to be the core teachings of Covenant Theology (from a Credo-baptistic perspective) and what I think are the strongest arguments for Covenant Theology and against Dispensational Theology and to do so primarily addressing those who hold to a Dispensational view.

What Is Covenant Theology

Before I explain what Covenant Theology is, it will be useful to explain several things that it is not.

It is not Replacement Theology or supersessionism. Prior to reading an explanation of Covenant Theology by someone who held to it, I had always been taught (or at least understood) that Covenant Theology was, at its core, the teaching that the Church had replaced Israel, that Israel, God’s promised seed of Abraham, had finally failed so badly that God was done with Israel as a distinct people and had instead substituted the Church in Israel’s stead. Covenant theologians reject this teaching almost as strongly as those who hold to Dispensational Theology.

Covenantal Theology is also not Paedo-baptist theology. While the majority of those who hold to Covenant Theology may be Paedo-baptist (especially over the last 120 or so years) and while Paedo-baptist doctrine is predicated on Covenant Theology, Paedo-baptism is not the inevitable end of a Covenantal view of Scripture. The original Baptists were thoroughly Covenantal in their doctrine and developed an understanding of Covenantal Theology that strongly refutes the doctrine of Paedo-baptism. Many of the great Puritans, such as John Bunyan, Nehemiah Coxe, Benjamin Keach, and John Owen held to and espoused a distinctly Credo-baptist form of Covenant Theology. (2)

Covenant Theology is not based on an allegorical interpretation of Scripture. Dispensationalists love to claim that their system is the correct understanding of the Bible because they interpret it “literally” (thereby implying that all other systems interpret it, at least partially, allegorically). Covenantalists are also quite literal in their interpretation of the Bible, by which I mean they do not read hidden meaning into the text but rather seek to interpret what the text actually says. While the Covenantal hermeneutic is not as aggressively “plain-meaninged” in its interpretation as the Dispensational hermeneutic, it only allows for “non-obvious” meaning based on Scripture (Scripture interprets Scripture) rather than based on a creative ability to read something unique into the text.

Finally, Covenant Theology is not a rejection of differences in God’s dealings with man throughout history. While those who hold to Dispensationalism like to make much of their idea that God had distinctly different ways of ruling throughout history, Covenant Theology also sees differences in God’s rule in history; those differences are usually not as drastic as in Dispensational Theology, but differences are certainly recognized.

So then, what is Covenant Theology; what does it teach?

The Covenants

First, it sees the biblical covenants as foundational to Scripture and to theology. Where Dispensationalism teaches biblical history based on various dispensations, Covenant Theology uses the covenants as the basic demarcators of Biblical progression. It usually focuses on six specific covenants and categorizes those six as falling into one of two categories, Covenants of Works or the Covenant of Grace. Occasionally a seventh covenant is also viewed as distinctly significant. These covenants are as follows:

• The Covenant of/with Creation (usually referred to as The Covenant of Works)
• The Noahic Covenant
• The Abrahamic Covenant
• The Mosaic Covenant (sometimes referred to as the Old Covenant)
• The Davidic Covenant
• The New Covenant

Sometimes the Levitical Covenant is included but this does not seem to be common.

Each of the above covenants are usually categorized as being either a covenant of Works or a covenant of Grace. This is where the distinction between Paedo-baptists and Credo-baptists begins to complicate matters; those who hold to Paedo-baptism see the Abrahamic Covenant (and occasionally the Mosaic Covenant) as being the covenant of Grace along with the New Covenant while Credo-bapists teach that only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.

There is also a third position, referred to as Progressive Covenantalism, that says these distinctions are too simplistic, that every covenant contains elements of works and grace, and that to categorize them as solely one or the other is to either ignore God’s graciousness in each covenant or to deny the necessity of man’s obedience. (3) I tend to think that this point is correct in that every covenant contains both grace & required obedience, but I also think that the categories, while focusing primarily on either the requirement of obedience or the giving of grace, do not necessarily exclude seeing each covenant as both gracious and requiring obedience.

Covenant Theology sees all the above covenants as stemming from the Covenant of Redemption. This is the covenant made in eternity past between the members of the Godhead to bring glory to God by redeeming fallen mankind by means of Jesus’ death and resurrection.

As a final note, not everyone who holds to Covenant Theology agrees on the above list of covenants. For instance, there are those who do not hold to a Covenant with Creation and some disagree that the Covenant of Redemption is a covenant but argue instead that it is a Testament (I am not clear on what the distinction being made by this argument is). In short, while the covenants are the underlying framework of Covenant Theology, agreement on the exact phraseology and list of covenants is not required for someone to hold to Covenant Theology.

The People of God

Second, Covenant Theology teaches that there is only one people of God. This is where Dispensationalists most vehemently disagree with Covenantal thought. Dispensationalism holds, as fundamental to its system, a clear distinction between the nation of Israel and the New Testament Church. It bases this distinction on the unconditional promises made to Abraham in the Abrahamic Covenant that his offspring would inherit land, become a great nation, and bless all nations. This is the point that most intrigued me regarding Covenantal Theology: How does Covenant Theology “get around” the unconditional nature of the promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic Covenant? Israel cannot be thrown out or discarded based on her disobedience because the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant are not based on the obedience of Israel. Yes, Israel cannot fully realize the promises until she is obedient, but her disobedience merely delays the fulfillment rather than negates it, right? I won’t answer this question yet but instead leave you with this – this question misses the point of the Covenantal interpretation; it focuses on the wrong part of the Covenant.

Covenant Theology famously uses the terms “Church” and “Israel” rather interchangeably. It sees one people of God who were largely called “Israel” in the Old Testament and the “Church” in the New Testament. It denies that there is an essential difference between Israel and the Church but rather teaches that there is a distinct continuity between the two.

There is some disagreement within the different streams of Covenantal thought as to what exact relationship “the people of God” have to both Israel and the Church. Paedo-baptists generally teach that all the people of the Old Testament nation of Israel, both the regenerate and unregenerate, are the people of God and all the people within the New Covenant, both the regenerate and unregenerate, are also the people of God. (Note that Paedo-baptist thought makes a distinction within “people of God” between being merely “in the covenant” and being truly regenerate. This is the point which leads to/allows for baptism of infants.) Credo-baptists generally teach that, while both OT Israel and the Church are jointly the people of God, only those who are actually regenerate in either Church or Israel can truly be called the people of God. (4)

Salvation & Faith

Covenant Theology is Reformed Theology or, as it is often known, Calvinism. To be clear, Calvinism usually refers solely to Reformed Soteriology, but Calvin did not teach merely on salvation (he also did not originate what we now call Calvinism, but that’s outside the present topic).

Because Covenant Theology is Reformed Theology, its view of salvation is completely monergistic (5). It teaches that man is depraved in his totality, wholly unable to seek God for himself, that God must first elect to save a sinner before that sinner is even capable of wanting to turn to God, and that God must then supply the will and the faith to be saved. It does not deny that man is commanded to repent but simply understands that, because he is fallen, man cannot repent or even desire to repent apart from God’s effective calling (6).

The End Times

Covenantal Theology is significantly different than Dispensational Theology here in that, if you hold to Dispensationalism, you are pretty much guaranteed to hold to Dispensational Premillenialism but, if you hold to Covenantalism, you are likely to hold any one of 3 views; Amillenialism, Historic Premillenialism, or Postmillenialism. Because of this, there is no one eschatological view that is the Covenantal position. I will likely write a post later discussing the various end times positions but will largely ignore eschatology for this post.

Why Covenant Theology

Now that I have explained what Covenant Theology is, I will give the reasons I believe it to be superior to Dispensational Theology.

The Abrahamic Covenant

While I was still trying to understand Covenant Theology, my biggest question was “How does Covenant Theology deal with the promises made to Israel in the Abrahamic Covenant?” As I stated above, this question misses the point. (It also demonstrates the deep misunderstanding Dispensationalists often have of Covenant Theology.) The question has several related assumptions behind it. First, that Covenant Theology teaches that Israel looses its place as the special people of God and is replaced by the Church. Second, that Covenant Theology agrees with Dispensational Theology on the role Israel played in the Old Testament. Third, that the Abrahamic Covenant has Israel in view as the promised seed/offspring.

In view of these assumptions, the best answer to the question is that the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were not ultimately given to Israel; that Israel is not ultimately the offspring to which the Abrahamic Covenant refers. To demonstrate the validity of this answer, I will start with the Abrahamic Covenant itself.

Who The Offspring Aren’t

Gen 15 records the conclusion(7) of the Abrahamic Covenant. Once a covenant is concluded, the terms of the covenant cannot be altered (Gal 3:15). Therefore, anything that comes after Gen 15 is not technically part of the Abrahamic Covenant. This does not of course mean that clarification of our understanding of the content cannot later occur but rather that the content cannot be later changed; the later clarification must not alter the original, it can only correct a misunderstanding. We are particularly concerned here with the promise of an heir/offspring to Abraham.

“And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

Gen 12:2-3 ESV

Then the Lord appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.”…

Gen 12:7 ESV

…for all the land that you see I will give to you and to your offspring forever. I will make your offspring as the dust of the earth, so that if one can count the dust of the earth, your offspring also can be counted.

Gen 13:15-16 ESV

But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

Gen 15:2-5 ESV

As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”

Gen 15:12-21 ESV

Notice that very little is said regarding who the offspring is other than “your very own son [literally “what will come out of your own loins“] shall be your heir.”

Now look at the promise regarding the birth of Isaac. I will examine it in light of the Dispensational interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant – that Israel is the promised offspring by virtue of their descent from Abraham.

And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!” God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation. But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.”

Gen 17:18-21 ESV

Ishmael is explicitly excluded from the Abrahamic Covenant here. God does promise to bless him and make him a great nation but God grants these to Ishmael on the basis of Abraham’s plea to God, not on the covenant. Notice in particular that Ishmael does not inherit the land. If inheriting the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant are based on physical descent from Abraham, then God has here violated His covenant. The Dispensationalist will protest that the inheritance is not based on physical descent solely from Abraham but also descent from Sarah. But, nowhere prior to concluding the Abrahamic Covenant does God specify that Abraham’s offspring must come from Sarah. If physical descent is the key to inheriting the promises, then Ishmael is in the Covenant, yet we are told that he is not.

In case you are not yet convinced, let us look at another individual.

And Isaac prayed to the Lord for his wife, because she was barren. And the Lord granted his prayer, and Rebekah his wife conceived…. And the Lord said to her,
“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you shall be divided;
the one shall be stronger than the other,
the older shall serve the younger.”

Gen 25:21 & 23 ESV

And Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stew, for I am exhausted!” (Therefore his name was called Edom.) Jacob said, “Sell me your birthright now.” Esau said, “I am about to die; of what use is a birthright to me?” Jacob said, “Swear to me now.” So he swore to him and sold his birthright to Jacob.

Gen 25:30-33 ESV

Esau said to his father, “Have you but one blessing, my father? Bless me, even me also, O my father.” And Esau lifted up his voice and wept.
Then Isaac his father answered and said to him:
“Behold, away from the fatness of the earth shall your dwelling be,
and away from the dew of heaven on high.
By your sword you shall live,
and you shall serve your brother;
but when you grow restless
you shall break his yoke from your neck.”

Gen 27:38-40 ESV

“I have loved you,” says the Lord. But you say, “How have you loved us?” “Is not Esau Jacob’s brother?” declares the Lord. “Yet I have loved Jacob but Esau I have hated. I have laid waste his hill country and left his heritage to jackals of the desert.” If Edom says, “We are shattered but we will rebuild the ruins,” the Lord of hosts says, “They may build, but I will tear down, and they will be called ‘the wicked country,’ and ‘the people with whom the Lord is angry forever.’”

Mal 1:2-4

See to it that no one… [is] unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.

Heb 12:15-17 ESV

Esau is not only a physical descendant of Abraham, but also of Sarah through Isaac. And yet he also is excluded from the Abrahamic Covenant! There are two ways this can be; either physical descent from Abraham (& Sarah) is not the deciding factor of who is the Abrahamic offspring or Esau was given the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant but the promises were revoked based on his failure. Since neither Dispensational nor Covenantal thought have any interest in the second option, it must be that the offspring is not Abraham’s offspring solely on the merits of physical descent.

Who the Offspring Are

Now, it is likely that you are still at least skeptical at this point. Surely I have played some trick, left something out. I certainly would have felt that way while I still held to the Dispensational view. So let us now look at what the New Testament has to say about Abraham’s offspring.

So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” They answered him, “We are offspring of Abraham and have never been enslaved to anyone. How is it that you say, ‘You will become free’?”
Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who practices sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. I know that you are offspring of Abraham; yet you seek to kill me because my word finds no place in you. I speak of what I have seen with my Father, and you do what you have heard from your father.”

They answered him, “Abraham is our father.” Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you would be doing the works Abraham did, but now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. This is not what Abraham did. You are doing the works your father did.”… “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires…”

John 8:31-44 ESV

Here Jesus is speaking to a group of Jews. They assert that they are descendants of Abraham and Jesus agrees but then proceeds to explain that, though their physical descent is from Abraham, that does not make Abraham their father. This passage makes absolutely no sense unless we understand that, though the Jews believe that physical descent from Abraham grants them the place of promise, Jesus draws a distinction between physical descent and spiritual descent and tells them that physical descent is not sufficient to be Abraham’s children.

For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful?

Rom 2:28-3:3 ESV

Paul here explicitly draws a distinction between the physical and the spiritual and then tells us that the physical is not sufficient to be a spiritual Jew. The Dispensational response here would be “of course the Jews must be spiritually right in order to inherit the promises but Paul is still talking about physical Jews here.” But this argument is rendered null by the rest of the quoted section; Paul immediately asks what benefit it is then to be a (physical) Jew? This question makes no sense if Paul is claiming that Jews must be spiritually right in order to inherit the promises; his argument is that anyone who is a Jew inwardly (spiritually right) and has a circumcised heart (regenerate) is a spiritual Jew. Again, physical descent is not the key factor here.

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham.

Gal 3:7 ES

Paul is both explicit and direct, leaving no room to question that it is faith that is the key to inheriting the promises.

Even with the above evidence, perhaps you are still unsure, maybe you think it might be that physical Israel (and only physical Israel) is the offspring of the covenant provided she is spiritually regenerate. I have saved the most explicit, most direct passage, that directly answers who the offspring is that to whom God made the promises, for last.

To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.

Gal 3:15-18 ESV

Here we have the answer – the offspring God cut a covenant with in Genesis 15, is not Israel, not the physical descendants of Abraham, but is the physical and spiritual descendant, Christ. The Mosaic Covenant (the law), which was made with physical Israel, cannot change the Abrahamic Covenant and cause Israel to usurp Jesus’ place as the offspring of Abraham.

A Difficulty

If you are more astute than I was at this point, you may notice that there is an apparent flaw in my exposition of the above passages. Gal 3:16 speaks of a single offspring but I quoted passages that speak of “sons of Abraham”. The end of Galatians 3 and other passages provide us the answer to this as well.

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Gal 3:26-29 ESV

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Col 2:11-13 ESV

“For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

Mark 3:35 ESV

For he who sanctifies and those who are sanctified all have one source. That is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers,…

Heb 2:11 ESV

For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.

Rom 8:29 ESV

Christ is the offspring of the Abrahamic Covenant but we (the saved) are in Christ. From God’s perspective in this regard, we actually are Christ. This is not only why we are “sons of Abraham”, but also why God can justify us; He no longer sees us, but Christ.

We are also His siblings. If Christ is the offspring of Abraham, we, as his siblings, are also Abraham’s offspring, though by adoption.

I hope that now you can see why the answer to our question is “the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant were not ultimately given to Israel; that Israel is not ultimately the offspring to which the Abrahamic Covenant refers.” First, the promises were given to Christ. Secondly, those who Christ saves are “in Christ” and siblings of Christ’s. This is partly why the answer must include the word “ultimately”; those in physical Israel who are regenerate are given the promises but only through Christ. I will leave the other part of why Israel is not ultimately the offspring for a later post.

The Promises

What then becomes of the promises to Abraham and his offspring? They are fulfilled to Christ by His Church and in Christ to His Church.

The Abrahamic Covenant promises land, blessings, and a nation/offspring. We have already seen that Christ is the fulfillment of the promise for offspring. But he also fulfills the other promises as well.

Christ is the primary blessing to the nations. He is the direct revelation of God and the Savior of all the regenerate from all nations. In him, we are all blessed in a vast number of ways. This point is usually acknowledged even by Dispensationalists.

Christ, by means of His Church, fulfills the promise of a nation. He is the “firstborn among many brothers.” How many people are part of this family?

After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!”

Rev 7:9-10 ESV

The nation Christ heads is great, without number. You may object that the Church is not a nation. But she is explicitly called both a nation and a people.

Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Matt 21:43 KJV

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.

1 Peter 2:9-10 ESV

Finally, Christ and His Church inherit the land. Christ will reign eternally over all creation as acknowledged King in the eternal state with the Church as His subjects. All major eschatological positions except Dispensational Premillenialism recognize this; I will deal indirectly with the objection that only Israel is present on earth in the eternal state in the next major point.

The Classical Dispensationalist might object that Christ’s reign in the eternal state does not fulfill the Abrahamic promise of specific land. This objection however falls apart when we examine the proposed solution – physical Israel will inherit the promised land in the millennial kingdom. This assertion is entirely inadequate as God promised the land to Abraham’s offspring “forever.” The millennial kingdom is 1,000 years according to the Dispensationalist. The promise of land eternally cannot be fulfilled in a 1,000 year time frame (or a 1,000,000 year time frame for that matter). The fulfillment must come in the eternal state.

A final objection to Christ fulfilling the land promise is, again, that God promised specific land and Christ inherits the earth, not Palestine. I hope you see the error of this objection but just in case you don’t, I offer the following analogy.

I promise to give to you the deed to specific house. When the time comes for me to honor my promise, I give you a stack of deeds, not just to the specific house I promised, but to every house in the State. Did I fulfill my promise? Obviously I did.

So then, Christ and His Church are and receive the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham.

Who is the Church? Or, One People of God?

Another strong objection Dispensationalism has to Covenant Theology is the tendency of Covenantalists to refer to Old Testament Israel as the Church. When I first came across this in my reading, it deeply disturbed me. Surely the Church is only found from the New Testament onwards?!

The Start of the Church

Before looking at who the members of the Church are, I want to look at when the Church started. Please do note that this portion is largely my own thoughts in that I have not found (yet?) any Covenantal Theologians who directly address this question, but I think I have pieced an answer together well enough from tangential discussions.

The Church started with the death and resurrection of Christ. It did not start in the Old Testament and it did not start at Pentecost. This answer probably surprised you; it certainly surprised and even confounded me when I first came to it for reasons that I will deal with below. Why then am I so sure?

What are the ordinances of the Church? As any good Dispensationalist knows, they are baptism and communion. And what is the constitution (the legal definition of the make-up) of the Church? It is the New Covenant. I will not take the space here to fully argue this point but will instead point you to Samuel Waldron’s excellent A Reformed Baptist Manifesto: The New Covenant Constitution of the Church. Instead I will briefly ask you to compare the promises of the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34) with the realities of salvation (and therefore the realities of the membership of the Church). Also, see what Paul says of himself and his fellow laborers –

[God] who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

2 Cor 3:6 ESV

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, is a minister of a new covenant. Clearly the New Covenant deals with the Church.

If then, the New Covenant is the constitution of the Church, we can easily pinpoint the start of the Church by examining the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.

And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood….”

Luke 22:20 ESV

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

1 Cor 11:23-25 ESV

The wine, symbolizing Christ’s blood, is the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the constitution of the Church. We, the Church, do not celebrate the Holy Spirit’s Supper or the Holy Spirit’s Burning; we celebrate the Lord’s Supper. The Church began with the blood of Christ at His death and resurrection.

The Members of the Church

So who then are the members of the Church? First, it is helpful to consider the Greek word translated as “church”. It is Strong’s Number 1577 – ekklesia

“a calling out, i.e. (concretely) a popular meeting, especially a religious congregation (Jewish synagogue, or Christian community of members on earth or saints in heaven or both):–assembly, church.”

Strong’s Greek Lexicon #1577 (electronic copy)

“Church” is essentially another word for an assembly or meeting albeit one that has strong connotations of a religious and especially Christian assembly or meeting. When the term Church is used of Old Testament Israel, consider that Israel is also called the assembly and congregation (8).

Secondly, consider what we just finished discussing in the last major point; that Israel is not ultimately the offspring of the Abrahamic covenant. This does not of course mean that Old Testament Israel is the same as the New Testament Church, but one very significant barrier to that conclusion has been broken down. There still however remains a barrier in that it is difficult to see how the elect of the Old Testament can be together members of the Church in the New Testament if the Church does not start until the death and resurrection of Christ.

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. And he came and preached peace to you who were far off and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord. In him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit.

Eph 2:11-22 ESV

What here is the foundation of the “household of God?” It is the apostles and prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. There is only one building in Scripture that I am aware of that has Christ as its cornerstone; the apostles are the foundation of only one temple. The Church. We (regenerate Gentiles) are fellow citizens and members of the household of God (the Church) with saints and the prophets.

Note also what we are fellow citizens of – the commonwealth of Israel. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

I can imagine one last objection here. How can Old Testament saints be members of a body that does not start until the New Testament. I do not have a direct answer to this but rather have two questions for those who might be asking this. How can Old Testament believers be saved by the blood of a Covenant that is not shed until the New Testament? And how did Moses “[consider] the reproach of Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt” when Christ had not yet come? I don’t know how people in the past are able to participate in something that did not occur until hundreds of years after they died, but somehow they did.

Covenants as Basis for Interpretation

The final evidence I offer here in defense of Covenantal Theology is admittedly a somewhat petty argument and rather under-developed. It was however the initial reason I began to have doubts about Dispensational Theology. It is equally an attack on Dispensational Theology as it is an argument for Covenantal.

Covenantal Theology holds that the biblical covenants are the basic structure of the Bible, the framework by which we are to understand God’s special revelation. Dispensational Theology holds that the several dispensations it teaches are that framework. I find it useful to point out that five of the usual seven dispensations align with biblical covenants as well as to point out that, while the Bible does mention “economies” in history, the Dispensational dispensations are not explicitly mentioned in Scripture (apart from those that align with the biblical covenants).

It seems to me that it is a much safer option to use the distinctions that are explicitly laid out for us in Scripture rather than, essentially, making up our own distinctions, especially when our own distinctions are unable to differ significantly from the biblical ones!

You may here object that Covenantal Theology makes up its own distinctions as well; Genesis makes no mention of a covenant with creation! It is true that we are not explicitly informed that God made a covenant with creation when He created the world, but there are clear scriptural indicators of the existence of this covenant. Jeremiah 33:20 references God’s covenant “with the day and night” and clearly ties it to the creation account. Hosea 6:7 says that Adam “transgressed the covenant.” The language and imagery of the creation account and Garden of Eden is also strongly tied to covenant making (9).

It is evident that covenants are an inherently better way to develop our understanding of Scripture than are dispensations.

Footnotes

1 – Despite my disagreement with Booth, I would highly recommend Children of the Promise as an easily accessible explanation of Covenant Theology, especially if you have never considered the arguments for Paedo-baptism. The arguments for it are probably stronger than you realize. I would, however, strongly urge you to follow Booth with Pascal Denault’s The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, an excellent explanation of how and why the original Baptists disagreed with and answered the Paedo-baptist position.

2 – Though John Owen never called himself a Baptist and remained a Paedo-baptist throughout his life, his writings are strongly in favor of the Credo-baptist form of Covenant Theology and were used by the Baptists of his day. For a discussion of this, see The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault, pp 32-36 (Revised Edition).

3 – See either Kingdom Through Covenant or God’s Kingdom Through God’s Covenants, both by Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum for an in-depth discussion of this.

4 – I should point out here that neither I nor Credo-baptists believe that there are unregenerate people “in the Church.” I am merely referring to our uncertainty as beings with limited knowledge of who is actually regenerate and not merely claiming salvation. Even Paedo-baptists do not believe that the unregenerate can be members of the Church but only members of the external parts of the Covenant of Grace.

5 – For a short but clear definition of monergism see here – https://www.monergism.com/simple-explanation-monergism.

6 – For an explanation and defense of “effective calling” see Wayne Grudem’s The Gospel Call and Effective Calling.

7 – Covenantal Theologians usually refer to the act of finalizing or creating a covenant with the term conclude. The Old Testament uses the phrase “cut a covenant” to signify this.

7 – Covenantal Theologians usually refer to the act of finalizing or creating a covenant with the term conclude. The Old Testament uses the phrase “cut a covenant” to signify this.

8 – See for instance Leviticus 4:14 and Numbers 15:35-36.

9 – Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum give strong evidence that the language of the creation account and the descriptions of the Garden of Eden are covenantal in nature in their concise Biblical Theology God’s Kingdom Through God’s Covenants, pp 67-92.