Introduction
There are three primary systems of theology by which Christians understand and explain the Scriptures, especially in regard to how the Old and New Testaments relate to each other. It’s a science or a means by which we interpret the Bible (hermeneutic) and put it all together where the pieces are in harmony as a whole. Central to this study is how God carried out His redemptive plan for His people. These systems are as follows:
Covenant Theology (CT)
— Presbyterian CT (PCT) (paedobaptist)
— Baptist CT (BCT) (credobaptist)
New Covenant Theology (NCT)
Dispensational Theology (DT)
Note: When people refer to Covenant Theology, it’s the Presbyterian type they’re talking about. It’s the classic version of CT. Also, there’s a system of theology called Progressive Covenantalism, which shares certain elements with both NCT and BCT. While it’s a lesser known theology than the others, it seems to be gaining in popularity. I don’t know enough about it to address it here.
The purpose of this is not to do an extensive comparison between the three systems, but merely to introduce you to them so you can do further reading on your own. The primary purpose here is to provide an expanded statement of what I believe, beyond what I’ve written in my general statement of faith (see link above). Here I include some comparison between the systems, but mainly focus on what my own position is.
To read about the differences between these theological systems, I encourage you to read the links at the end of this post, which describe all three systems. I also encourage you to read books that go into much greater detail.
Note: Before I get too far into this, I want to point out that I think there’s a danger in locking oneself into a particular theological system—for this reason: I think there’s a tendency to try and fit everything into a particular theological model, rather than allowing Scripture to form our model for us. In other words, if we’re tenacious about keeping our system together for the sake of faithfulness to it (or outside pressure), we may be blinded to scriptures that would challenge certain points of that system. We must be willing to interpret Scripture without a model bias. We must be willing to follow Scripture where it wants to lead us. And if we believe it proves contrary to our theological system, then so be it. We must be more interested in the truth, rather than a system we’ve come to embrace. That’s why I cannot fully embrace any one particular theological system, because I see weaknesses in all of them. As you’ll see below, there are two systems I embrace as a blend of the two. There are those who believe you can’t mix two different systems. But that’s the kind of viewpoint you get when you confine yourself to your own theological model, and see everything through that one lens. However, I would certainly agree that you cannot blend Dispensationalism with any of the other systems. It’s an island all by itself.
In terms of how the New Testament fulfills the Old Testament, my understanding aligns well with both NCT and BCT. There are many points of agreement between PCT, BCT and NCT. On the other hand, DT is in a completely different category in how they view Israel and the Church. While I have issues with PCT and even bigger issues with DT, I identify much with NCT and BCT. I land somewhere between the two, so it’s hard to say which one I lean toward most. There are certain points where I disagree with both of them, and I highlight those points of divergence in the paragraph below:
I agree with NCT that OT Law (Mosaic Law) must be taken as a unit. In other words, I don’t believe we should divide up the Law as civil, ceremonial and moral, but should be understood as a single entity. Therefore, in agreement with NCT, I believe the whole Law has been set aside under the New Covenant (NC). BCT agrees that the civil and ceremonial laws have been set aside, but believes the moral law still applies. I agree with NCT that in the NC we’re now under that Law of Christ, as opposed to the Law of Moses, or any part of that Law. Therefore, I agree with NCT that we’re no longer obligated to observe the Sabbath, because Jesus is our Sabbath. I agree with NCT that there is neither a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace in Genesis 2 & 3, but rather, a covenant of obedience (or a covenant of life) and a promise of a covenant of grace (see point 4 below). I agree with BCT that the Church existed in the OT—however, in agreement with NCT, not in the same fully established form that it exists today, since the day of Pentecost.
I provide a more detailed explanation of these differences in “Components of My Theology” below.
In addition, since NCT and BCT have the same view of Israel and the Church, I don’t have to change anything I’ve written about it no matter which system I hold to. That’s a bonus.
With all of this in mind, below I provide an overview of what I believe, which for the most part is a brief introduction to both NCT and BCT.
Components of My Theology
1. Christocentric — Central is the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He is key to understanding the Scriptures. That’s obviously true of the New Testament (NT), but it’s equally true of the Old Testament (OT). When it comes to interpreting the OT as it relates to Israel and God’s covenant promises to them, DT does not have the same Christocentric (Christ-centered) approach, but rather, an OT Israel-centered approach that takes precedence over NT teaching, because DT takes a very literal approach to the OT regarding Israel. In other words, DT does not accept that Israel is fulfilled in Christ as the true Israel of God. In their view, it starts with ethnic Israel and ends with ethnic Israel. Conversely, a theology of truth begins and ends with Christ Himself and the NT Scriptures that reveal Him. What the NT reveals is that Israel has its fulfillment and continuation in Christ as a spiritual nation, which is the Church. All the covenant promises and prophecies are fulfilled in Christ (2 Cor 1:20), who is Himself true Israel (Gal 3:16). God’s full plan for His people is fulfilled in His Son and His Church. There is only one people of God—those who are in Christ. This is a true Christocentric theology.
2. The New Testament has interpretive priority — All truth is contained in Christ and His Church, for Jesus Himself said that He is “the truth” (Jn 14:6), and Paul said that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (CSB – 1 Ti 3:15). Therefore, an understanding of the OT can only come through a NT understanding of Christ and His Church. Furthermore, Jesus said that He came to fulfill the Law and the prophets (Matt 5:17; Lu 24:44; Ro 10:4). Therefore, understanding of the OT must begin with a proper understanding of Christ and the NT Scriptures. That’s our starting point. It’s a hermeneutical mistake to try and understand the OT apart from a right understanding of the NT. It’s the light of the NT that interprets the truth of the OT, which includes the types and shadows and patterns of the OT that point to Christ and the Church of the NC. All the teachings of the OT Scriptures have Christ and His Church in view. To bring an OT understanding to the NT will result in disastrous misinterpretation of both testaments.
Lest there be misunderstanding, the OT Scriptures are still relevant for today. The point is, we must seek to understand them and apply them via the light of the NT Scriptures. In regard to the commands of the OT, we have to be careful to discern what was specifically for the Jews under the Law, and what is still applicable for us today. Thankfully, we have a guide, which again, is the NT Scriptures.
Aside from the discussion regarding the commands of the OT, there’s also so much we can learn about how God worked in people’s lives—through their experiences, through the things they did right and the things they did wrong. There are some wonderful character studies that we can learn and apply that will enrich our lives. We just need to make sure that we have the right starting point, which is first having a good understanding of the NT. That will enable us to learn the OT with discernment.
In regard to the prophetic books of the OT, much if not most of what was written was fulfilled with the first coming of Christ and the establishment of His Church in the NC era. However, there’s obviously still prophecy yet unfulfilled, which will be fulfilled when Jesus returns and we enter into the eternal kingdom of the new heaven and new earth of Revelation 21 and 22.
3. There are two overarching covenants, Old Covenant (OC) and New Covenant (NC) — (He 8:1-13; He 9:15-16) – This is basically a continuation of the above discussion. The Mosaic Law of the OC is replaced by the law of Christ of the NC (Ga 6:2; 1 Cor 9:20-21; Ro 10:4). Luke 22:20 fulfills Jeremiah 31:31-34. In 1 Cor 9:21 Paul equates the “law of God” to the “law of Christ.” So I think better understood, in the NC we are under the law of God in Christ (1 Cor 9:21). In the OC it was the law of God in the form of the Law of Moses. Christ fulfills the Law and the Prophets (which spoke of Him), and essentially has in view the whole OT system and manner in which God dealt with His people and with mankind in general (Matt 5:17; Lu 16:16). Now, instead of being under the Law of Moses or OC Law (Exodus thru Deuteronomy, where the Ten Commandments are central), we are now under the law of God in Christ. Old Testament Law has been made “obsolete” in Christ (He 8:13; 2 Cor 3:3-13), and the law of Christ of the NC has been established. Being made “obsolete” is especially true of the ceremonial laws, which pointed to Christ and the NC as types and shadows (He 8 & 9). The physical of the OT pointed to the spiritual of the NT. Through Christ we’ve been “released from the law” (Ro 7:6). Through Christ we “uphold the law” (Ro 3:31,22). Through Christ “the righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in us….who walk according to the Spirit” (Ro 8:4) and “serve in the new way of the Spirit” (Ro 7:6), as we’re “led by the Spirit” (Ga 5:18)….and if we’re “led by the Spirit” we’re “not under the law.”
The NC is completely new and replaces the OC. OC law is no longer operational. Thus, we’re no longer obligated to it. It no longer governs our lives, because Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the law and we fulfill them through Him (in Him). That doesn’t mean we’re now free to sin. But now our focus is on living according to the NC, which is contained in the NT Scriptures. We’re to live according to the OT as the light and interpretation of the NT Scriptures reveal and guide.
The light of the NT allows us to understand the OT Scriptures correctly. Under the law of Christ: we understand doctrine, we know God’s will, we know how to live via the teachings and life of Christ and the overall teachings of the NT Scriptures. Specific commandments of the OT have been made “obsolete” (He 8:13; 2 Cor 3:3-13), unless the NT teaches otherwise. We have to keep in mind that the OT Law was written to and for the nation of Israel, while the NT Scriptures were written to and for Christians—both believing Jews and believing Gentiles. Without the revelation and guidance of the NT, it would be difficult to know how to apply the OT to our lives as NC believers, especially as it applies to the Law of Moses.
In regard to moral character and behavior: inherent sin, the things that are inherently right and good, that which is written upon our hearts (He 8:10; He 10:16; Ro 2:14-16; 2 Cor 3:1-3) and applied to all people in all periods of time (and all guilty of breaking), these are not governed by covenants (Gal 5:18,22-23; Ro 2:14-15). They’re unchangeable. This “moral law” within us is summarized in both the two Great Commandments of Matthew 22:37-40, and in the Ten Commandments (where 9 of the 10 are repeated in the NT). In regard to the Sabbath, Jesus Himself is our rest (Col 2:16-17; He 4:9-10). Furthermore, Paul tells us in Romans 14:5 that we’re to “be fully convinced in our own minds” regarding days. However, according to the practice of the NT gatherings, as well as historical tradition, it’s appropriate to practice our corporate gatherings on the first day of the week, the day of Christ’s resurrection.
All the things that are inherently right and good in the eyes of God are a reflection of Christ Himself. Thus, these things are by nature an integral component within the law of God in Christ, which is central to NC living. Furthermore, as those who have the Holy Spirit living within us – and empowered by Him – the heart and mind and character of Christ is being developed in us (Ro 8:29; Col 3:9-10; 2 Cor 3:18; Ro 12:2).
Basic to understanding the law of Christ is the new commandment that Jesus gave to His disciples in John 13:34. We’re to love one another as Christ loves us. Love fulfills the law (Ga 5:14; Ga 6:2). By loving others we’re always seeking their good and never their harm—in this way we fulfill the law that instructs us in our behavior and how to live, which normally involves our treatment of others. However, no one can love apart from a love for God. Love for others flows out of a love for God. They’re inseparable. A love for God and a love for others with the love of Christ is the basis for living the Christian life, for obeying the will of God as revealed in the NT Scriptures (Matt 22:36-40), as well as the OT Scriptures as it’s in harmony with the teachings of the NT Scriptures. It’s an obedience to God that flows out of love in the power of the Holy Spirit who lives within us. In the OC, obedience to God was a legalistic, outward form, absent of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling (see point 7 about the Church), although regenerated. In the NC, obedience to God is inward and flows out of a heart of love empowered by the Spirit of God as He conforms us to the likeness of Christ. However, lest you misunderstand, love for God and love for others is taught in the OT (De 6:5; Lev 19:18) and confirmed by Jesus Himself (Matt 22:36-40). Obedience to God in both Testaments was to be motivated by love for God and a love for others. However, in the NT, believers are taught to live as followers of Christ under the NC, as the Holy Spirit is continuously at work to grow us in Christ-like character according to the fuller revelation of Christ and greater light of the NT Scriptures. This advanced revelation and more developed form of living was absent in the lives of OT believers.
The law of God in Christ (1 Cor 9:21) should be understood as all the will of God that is revealed in the NT Scriptures. All the teachings of the NT Scriptures, all the instructions and commands, are contained in these Scriptures. Indeed, the whole NT is God’s will for us revealed in written form. These were written to Christians and for Christians. They were given to us specifically to show us specifically how to live the Christian life as followers of Christ. Jesus is our King, and we are His servants. We’re under His authority to walk in obedience to Him, to carry out His will—as revealed in the NT Scriptures, and as the NT interprets the OT Scriptures. In other words, we’re to look for harmony between the NT and the OT, with the NT as our guide. We’re also to look for principles in the OT that are in harmony with the NT. We’re saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ, but we live out our faith by way of obedience.
Therefore, antinomianism has no place in our lives as servants of Christ. In regard to sanctification, it’s both positional and progressive. Positionally, we are completely sanctified in Christ. However, in the practical outworking of sanctification, we’re progressively growing. In other words, in daily living we are growing in Christlikeness and will continue to do so until we are in the presence of God. The positional and practical will then be one.
In regard to water baptism, the Bible describes and displays immersion. It also makes it clear that baptism is for believers in Christ only. The universal and local church is made up of regenerated believers only. Furthermore, infant baptism is not taught anywhere in the Bible.
4. Covenant of Works & Covenant of Grace? — BCT teaches that there is a “Covenant of Works” and a “Covenant of Grace” seen in Genesis 2:17 and Genesis 3:15 (NCT disagrees). However, I believe there’s something different going on there. While OC law (Law of Moses) has been set aside and no longer operational for believers (in general, and interpreted according to the light of the NT), the law of God that was issued to Adam and Eve (Ge 2:17) is still in force, in that, it affects the whole human race. In other words, the sin and death that resulted from their disobedience (breaking God’s law – Ro 4:15) is still in force. The law they broke is as if we broke it ourselves, and the resulting sin and death was passed on to the rest of humanity from that time forward (Ro 5:12). The promise of the Seed (Ge 3:15; Ga 3:16,19), which is Christ, is the way of forgiveness. In that whole situation with Adam and Eve, we see both a requirement of obedience (Ge 2:17) and the consequences for disobedience (spiritual and physical death – Ge 2:17), as well as the remedy for the consequences (grace/Christ – Ge 3:15).
Therefore, I believe it’s more accurate to view the “covenant of works” as a covenant of obedience. The consequences for breaking this covenant of obedience, which began with Adam and Eve, is still in force for the unsaved, since sin was passed on down to the rest of humanity since that time (Ro 5:12). The grace of God that is realized in the New Covenant of Christ is, of course, the remedy for sin and death under both Old and New covenants. We see this grace in Genesis 3:15, where God speaks of “her seed,” which refers to His Son (Gal 3:16), through whom we have salvation through this grace—Jesus as the “mediator of a new covenant” (He 9:15; 12:24), which is the New Covenant.
I believe Genesis 3:15 is the promise of the NC that would come (which is a “covenant of grace”), but became effective and functional immediately (Ge 3:21; 4:4) as it looked forward to the inauguration of the NC. In other words, there’s the New Covenant, then there’s the promise of the New Covenant, which is a covenant of grace. The promise of the NC in Genesis 3:15 was more clearly stated in Jeremiah 31:31. In effect, the NC came before the OC (the OC didn’t begin until the time of Moses and Mt. Sinai), for it’s only through the NC of Christ that people are saved—in both Old and New Testaments. The NC was set in motion in Genesis 3:15 in the form of a promise (the Seed), which is God’s grace toward us from the very beginning (a covenant of grace).
So I agree with NCT that there is neither a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace in view in regard to Adam and Eve—but rather, a Covenant of Obedience and a promise of a covenant (the New Covenant of grace). This is where I believe BCT has it wrong. This promise pointed to the coming Christ of the New Covenant. God’s grace was certainly extended and activated on that very day. We see this immediately when God extended grace to Adam and Eve by covering them with garments of skin (Gen 3:21), which clearly implies the shedding of the blood of the animal that the skins came from, which of course points to the shedding of Christ’s blood (He 9:22) as a picture of that which was to come.
To elaborate, IRT Genesis 2:17, Adam and Eve were sinless, in perfect fellowship with God. Then God gave them a command NOT to eat. It was not a command of doing something, as in a work, but of NOT doing something, which is merely avoidance. It was certainly a command to obey, but it was not a command to perform a certain work. HOWEVER, disobedience to God is a sin, and that is what’s actually in view here. It was a command to obey, whether it was doing a work or avoidance of doing something that is prohibited. Thus, the common denominator is a command to obey, which is a sin when disobeyed. That’s what’s in view here.
So…..was this a covenant of works? Literally speaking? Especially considering they were sinless and possessed life in the first place? Up to this point, they were sinless and had life in God. All things considered, I don’t see this as a covenant of works—but rather, a covenant of obedience. It was a covenant of obedience, for the purpose of continuing the life and fellowship they had with God. God placed a condition on that relationship. For that relationship to continue, they had to obey God. For Adam and Eve, this life and relationship depended on their own obedience, their own righteousness. At this point, God’s grace is not in view. Their continued walk with God depended entirely on them.
This covenant of obedience could also be viewed as a covenant of life. Or more specifically, a covenant to continue life. Thus, from that perspective, God made a covenant with Adam and Eve, that if they obeyed Him, they would continue to live and walk with God in perfect fellowship. They obviously did not understand all the implications of that covenant, what it would really mean for them—but God knew. The point is, their obedience to God, whether they understood or not is what we need to emphasize. They didn’t obey, so they lost what they had in that relationship. They died! Therefore, I see this more as a covenant of life, rather than a covenant of works, which is certainly what we see in the Mosaic Covenant. The covenant with Adam is different than the MC in that respect. They are not the same. The purpose of the two covenants are different. The covenant made with Adam was for the purpose of maintaining life and fellowship with God. The purpose of the MC was to magnify their total inability to obey God, thus revealing their total helplessness and need for a Savior—which RESTORES the life and fellowship with God that began with, and lost with Adam and Eve. Thus, the first covenant was for the purpose of MAINTAINING life and fellowship with God, while the second covenant was for the purpose of REVEALING our need for Christ (Messiah) to restore for us what was lost.
Summing up, I believe it’s best to understand the covenant of works (BCT understanding) as a covenant of obedience or perhaps, a covenant of life. I believe the covenant of grace (BCT understanding) should be understood as a promise that points to the NC, and as the means of grace in the OT that operated in the light of the New Covenant. This is in harmony with how OT believers were saved, which was based on the promise of the coming Christ (Messiah) and salvation in Him. Christ had not yet come, but they placed their faith in Him based on the promise. They were saved as though Christ had already gone to the cross for them. Likewise, God’s grace was operational in the OT based on the New Covenant that would come. In other words, the NC cast its shadow backwards and functioned as though it had already been established.
Note: This doesn’t mean that the Old Covenant doesn’t exist, it obviously does. It’s still there in the Old Testament of our Bibles. It’s just not operational in the plan of God. The Lord Himself ended it. Orthodox Jews still live according to the OC, but they do so under a covenant that has been abolished. They’re placing their faith in a covenant that God no longer honors, if that is where it ends for them. HOWEVER, it still serves the same purpose as it did for the Jews in the days of Christ and the early years of the Church. A careful study of the OT Scriptures can still lead them to the Christ of the New Covenant, as the Holy Spirit opens their spiritual eyes to Him.
5. There’s a unity between the Abrahamic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant — The Abrahamic Covenant (Ge 12:2-3; 17:1-10) has both his physical and spiritual offspring in view. It was through his physical line (Isaac and Jacob) that Jesus came (Seed of Christ, Gal 3:16,19). In regard to Abraham’s spiritual offspring, it has spiritual Israel in view, which is the Church in Christ. Those who make up the Church are spiritual Jews who share Abraham’s faith (Ro 2:28-29; Ga 3:29). Through Abraham’s offspring (Seed/Christ) all the peoples and nations of the earth would be blessed (Ga 3:8) in the form of salvation for His people. The Abrahamic Covenant is a continuation of the promise of Genesis 3:15 (Seed/Christ, NC), which provided further revelation of how it would be accomplished.
The Davidic Covenant (2 Sa 7:12-17; Ps 89; Ps 110; Acts 2:14-36) had Christ the King and His throne in view, from where He reigns over the universe and His kingdom (Col 1:13), which beings with His Church, and finds it ultimate fulfillment in the “new heaven and new earth” of Revelation 21 & 22.
6. All are saved by grace through faith in Christ in both Old Testament and New Testament – In the OT, people were saved by responding in faith to whatever light they were given about Christ (Ro 9:30-33), which involved the covenant promises regarding Christ [Adamic Cov (Ge 3:15); Abrahamic Cov (Ge 12:2-3; 17:1-10; Davidic Cov (2 Sam 7:12-17; Acts 2:14-36)], types and shadows (especially via the temple and temple sacrifices), and later on through prophecies such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, and the OT Scriptures in general. Christ and redemption through Him were revealed from the very beginning with Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel (Ge 3:14-15, 21; 4:1-7). Thus they were responsible to believe whatever light was revealed to them. The revealing of Christ the Redeemer was progressive, and people were responsible to believe whatever was revealed to them at their particular time in history within the plan of God. The OT Law was not a means of salvation. Those under the Law were still saved by God’s grace through faith by believing the promises regarding Christ (the Seed of Abraham – Gal 3:16; Ro 9:30-33). The purpose of the Law was to test the faith and faithfulness of His people. It was also for the purpose of revealing their (our) sinfulness and need for a Savior (Ro 5:20). It was their tutor to lead them to Christ (Gal 3:24-25). Keeping the OT Law was the outward evidence of inward faith—the same thing that’s taught in the NT. We follow Christ because we believe. Likewise, they obeyed the Law because they believed.
7. The Church existed in the Old Testament, but not in current form — I disagree with NCT that the Church didn’t exist in the OT. On the other hand, I agree with BCT that the Church existed in the OT as the regenerate corporate people of God, but not in the fullness that it exists today (as some proponents of BCT believe) since the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came to indwell believers, while baptizing us into the Body of Christ and bringing us into union with Him (1 Cor 12:13; Ga 3:27). The Church existed as the regenerate people of God in the OT (Jn 1:12-13; Jn 3:3,5), but the Holy Spirit did not indwell them (Jn 7:37-39; Jn 14:16-17; Jn 16:7). While He was not “in” them, He was “with” them and enabled them to remain steadfast in their faith and faithfulness to the true God. They were His remnant people, those who belonged to Christ individually and collectively. They all had the Messiah in common. They were a redeemed group set apart because of their faith in the Christ who was to come, who was promised to His people.
Those who make the case that OT believers were indwelt by the Holy Spirit, use Romans 8:9 as validation of that notion. However, I believe that verse is to be understood as believers of the New Covenant since Pentecost.
Think of the Church of the OT as a seed that began in the Garden of Eden, and continued to grow into a plant until it reached full growth and full bloom in the coming of the Holy Spirit of the NC on the day of Pentecost. The Church of the OT was the foundation and skeleton of the building, while the Church was finished with all the rooms and walls inside and enclosed on the outside.
However, even though OT believers were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit and not yet baptized into the Body of Christ, in some sense they were were united to Christ because they belonged to Him as children of God…..and in some sense they were untied to each other as children of God, as part of the same family of faith—for John tells us that to be born again is to become a child of God (Jn 1:12-13).
One can surely make the case that the Church existed in the OT. That being said, there’s no need to insist that it was in the exact form as it is today, as some BCT proponents teach. Virtually nothing in the OT is exactly as it is under the NC of Christ. Most everything in the OT was a type and shadow or incomplete in its form of that which was to come in the NC. This is true of the Church. It looked ahead to the time when it would be in its more glorified form after Christ’s work was finished. The most glorified form of the Church will be when we’re resurrected and dwelling in the “new heaven and new earth” of the Revelation 21 & 22. Just as the Church is not today in its most glorified form, so was the Church in the OT not in the present Pentecost-glorified form.
I agree much with BCT, but I don’t believe there’s any biblical reason to insist that the nature of the Church in the OT was as it is in the NT (being indwelt by the Spirit and baptized into the Body of Christ), being “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets” (Eph 2:20). One does not have to give up their position that the Church existed in the OT, but simply realize that it was in an early stage of development that reached full maturity in Christ in the establishment of the NC. Likewise, proponents of NCT don’t have to give up their position that the Church didn’t exist in the OT (as believers who are indwelt by the Spirit and baptized into the Body of Christ), but simply realize that the nature of the Church in the OT was not the same as it is in the NT. I believe the two systems of theology can come together by recognizing this distinction. To be clear, not all proponents of BCT believe that OT believers were indwelt by the Holy Spirit as we are today.
Lastly, in the OT, the Church of the NT was always in view as Israel’s total fulfillment and continuation as a spiritual nation, as the true Israel of the NC. Yes, true Israel was in the OT too as spiritual offspring of Abraham and Isaac, but not in its completed Pentecost form. The OT looks ahead and sees spiritual Israel in its NT form.
Note: I encourage you to read the article by James M. Hamilton Jr. titled, “Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit?” I believe he makes a sound case against that idea. For your convenience, you will find the article here.
8. True Israel Is Christ Himself — Israel has its fulfillment and continuation in Christ (Gal 3:16. 28-29; Ro 2:28-29; Eph 2:11-22; Ro 9:6-8). Jesus Himself is true Israel. Through Christ, Israel continues as a spiritual nation, which is the Church (1 Pe 2:4-10). The Church is New Israel of the New Covenant in Him. This means that the OT covenant promises and prophecies regarding the nation of Israel are fulfilled in Him. In regard to the land promises, they too are fulfilled in Christ and His kingdom (Col 1:13) – His Church – which continues in the New Earth of the “New Heaven and the New Earth” which is the Eternal Kingdom (Rev 21:1-2; 2 Pe 3:13; He 11:10, 14-16; 12:22; 13:14).
Only Christ fulfilled the will of God. He alone fulfilled what Israel could not. Therefore, He Himself is true Israel or fulfilled Israel. As true Israel, He’s a nation of one (Gal 3:16). Believers are spiritual Jews in Him as spiritual offspring. Or put another way, we are spiritual offspring of Abraham in Christ (Gal 3:26-29; 1 Pe 2:5; Ro 2:28-29; Ro 9:6-8; Ro 4:13; Ro 4:16-18). The nature of Israel changed with Christ’s fulfillment—from physical and earthly, to spiritual and heavenly. As the Church, we are a spiritual kingdom (Col 1:13).
In regard to the land promises, they were fulfilled when God gave Israel the land of Canaan in the days of Joshua—nothing was left unfilled (Josh 21:43-45). However, the promised land of Canaan was merely a type of the true Promised land of the “new heaven and new earth” (Rev 21:1). This promise is fulfilled in Christ Himself (by way of), for apart from Him there is no Promised land to live in. I also believe that this Promised land is first and foremost, a spiritual kingdom—the Kingdom of Christ, which is the Church (Col 1:13). As already indicated, this kingdom has its ultimate fulfillment in the Eternal Kingdom of the New Earth of the “New Heaven and the New Earth” (Rev 21:1-2; 2 Pe 3:13; He 11:10, 14-16; 12:22; 13:14). This promised land is not some earthly kingdom of this world where sin continues to exist and thrive. The premillennial view of such a kingdom is an OT understanding that is unaided by the light of the NT. It places an emphasis on the physical instead of the spiritual.
9. Israel and Election — (Calvinist; Not Reformed): Christ died only for His Church (Eph 5:25), for His sheep (Jn 10:11). This is known as particular redemption (limited atonement). Election is both corporate and individual, and is unconditional. God has chosen the corporate Body of Christ (the Church) with all its individual members in view. To speak of one is to speak of the other, for we are all united as one people, and each member foreknown and chosen by God before the world began (Eph 1:4). Thus, election is best understood as the predetermined choosing of God of particular individuals who come into the world as the elect of God, “predestined for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will” (Eph 1:5). At some point, God intervenes in our lives and draws us to Christ (Jn 6:44) via regeneration (to make alive, born again) and the gospel message — granting the gift of faith (Eph 2:8). This drawing always results in salvation (Jn 6:45), and is as natural as sheep hearing and following the voice of their shepherd. This is all according to Sovereign grace and the Sovereign will of God.
I believe the Apostle Paul (Saul at the time) is the perfect outward example of how election unto salvation works for the rest of us. He was filled with rage and apparent hatred toward followers of Jesus and the Christian faith. He was seeking to destroy it, not seeking Jesus. It was during that time that Jesus intervened and revealed Himself to him and drew him to Himself. Salvation for Paul was a total work of God’s sovereign grace. I believe this example must be followed to help guide our understanding of the doctrine of election.
As it relates to Israel, God’s choosing of Abraham and the ethnic people of Israel serve as the pattern or the manner in which He chose the redemptive people of Christ. It reveals that God chose both the corporate people of Christ (the Church), as well as the individuals who make up the corporate body.
First, God chose His Son (Lu 9:35). God chose Him to be the source from whom He would raise up His redeemed. Within His Son were God’s chosen people, even before He created us (Eph 1:4). Having fulfilled all the covenant promises to Israel, Jesus became a nation of one—as true Israel, and as the Corporate Head of His redemptive people. From Christ would emerge a great spiritual nation, mirroring and directly related to the promise made to Abraham (Ge 12:2-2; Gal 3:7-9,26-29). God saw His chosen people in His Son. When God chose Him, it was with every person in view who would be born spiritually into His line, which includes all believers from Adam to the very last person saved (up to the return of Christ). We see the whole kingdom of believers in Rev 5:9 and Rev 7:9.
What we learn from God’s choosing of Israel is that people become a member of Christ’s corporate people in this world via birth—that is, by new birth—just like those who were born physically into ethnic Israel. This is via faith. Those who believe in Christ are born spiritually into the corporate body of Christ, which is the Church (spiritual Kingdom of Christ – Col 1:13). Those under the Old Covenant became a member of God’s chosen redeemed the same way, and that was via faith—springing from a humble and receptive heart. Faith is the means God uses to bring us into union with Christ and His corporate people. Thus, each believer is elect both by God’s choice “before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4), and by virtue of this union.
As to how God chose His redeemed, while we can’t be certain about this, we do know that God has always known His people (although we have not always known Him, for our existence begins in this life). God is all-knowing, so there’s never been a time when God didn’t know His own people. Therefore, I believe God chose those whom He already knew, from eternity past. Perhaps the biggest clue we have for this is in the following examples: the knowing and choosing of Jeremiah before he was conceived (Jer 1:5); the prophecy about John the Baptist before he was conceived (Mal 4:5-6; Lu 1:5-17); Paul’s call and conversion, being set apart from his mother’s womb (Gal 1:15-16); and what Peter says about God’s foreknowledge (1 Pe 1:1-2). Using those examples, I believe we can reasonably conclude that God chose us because He’s always known us as His own. This is another one of those mysteries about God that we’re not able to fully comprehend or explain.
10. The prophesied Messianic kingdom is fulfilled in the Church — Jesus is the Messiah that was to come and reign as King of Israel (2 Sa 7:12-17), and He does so now over His Church (Acts 2:29-36; Acts 15:13-18; He 1:3,8,13; 1 Cor 15:25; Col 1:13). The Church is the Kingdom of Christ. Thus the prophesied kingdom is not an earthly, physical kingdom, but a spiritual kingdom. When Jesus ascended, He sat down at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2:14-36; He 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pe 3:21-22; Col 3:1). From His throne in Heaven (and within the hearts of believers), Jesus reigns over His people. His kingdom will continue in the New Jerusalem of the New Heaven and New Earth (Rev 21:1-3), where He will co-reign with the Father.
11. Eschatology (prophecy) — Believers reign with Christ in His kingdom now and throughout the Church age (Col 1:13), for the Church is Christ’s Kingdom—a spiritual kingdom. The book of Revelation covers the whole Church age. At the end of the age, Christ will return to defeat His enemies, the resurrection of the saved and unsaved will occur where we will all stand before the throne of Christ to be judged, followed by the Eternal Kingdom of the New Heaven and New Earth (after the present universe is destroyed).
There is no earthly, millennial kingdom. That’s a premillennial interpretation of prophecy, a viewpoint shared mostly by dispensationalists who believe God still has a future plan for the nation of Israel that is separate from the Church. However, all the covenant promises and prophecies regarding Israel are fulfilled in Christ and His Church. God’s plan for ethnic Israel is, therefore, finished.
My eschatological position is Amillennial.
12. Situational Continuation of miracle gifts — I’m fundamentally a cessationist. I believe the miracle gifts ceased with the completion of the NT Scriptures and the full establishment of the Church of the New Covenant. The OT pattern of miracles were completed in Christ and His Apostles and in the foundation they laid for the Church. When the Apostolic period ended, so did the miracle gifts that accompanied the Apostles and their mission. While God still performs miracles today, the miracle gifts themselves are not normative where Christianity flourishes—such as in the United States.
HOWEVER, in places where Christianity is new and undeveloped, God may choose to employ any or all of the miracle gifts in those areas. For example, in places around the world where Christianity is outlawed and Bibles are rare, God may choose to activate the miracle gifts as needed, because these types of situations are much like what we had in the early years of the Church when Christianity was being established and the NT Scriptures were being written. This describes situational continuationism.
Comparison of Theologies
Below you will find links that compare the differences between Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. In brief, the major difference between Dispensationalism and the other two is that DT views Israel and the Church as completely distinct from each other. DT teaches that God has a future plan for the nation of Israel that is completely separate from the Church, and will be fulfilled once the Church has been “raptured.” It teaches that there will be a millennial kingdom on this present earth where Christ will rule as King, which includes a Jewish temple and a return to animal sacrifices (as a “memorial”).
As for the other two theological systems, CT and NCT are basically in agreement that the Church is Israel of the New Covenant. NCT and Baptist CT describe it as Israel having its fulfillment in Christ as the True Israel. In Christ, as the Church, we are spiritual Israel and a spiritual nation. Presbyterian CT sees Israel and the Church as the same in both testaments, consisting of both regenerate and unregenerate offspring of Abraham in the OT, which carries over into the NT as regenerate and unregenerate (baptized children) in local church settings. In their view, Israel is the Church and the Church is Israel. I don’t believe the Bible teaches this. Therefore, I cannot agree with either PCT or DT.
NCT, BCT and PCT also agree that God does not have a future plan or kingdom for national Israel. NCT and BCT teach that the Kingdom of Christ is now – as the Church – and that Jesus reigns within and over His Church now. We will see its ultimate fulfillment in the everlasting kingdom of the New Heaven and the New Earth of Revelation 21 & 22.
The reason for these differences is that DT brings an OT understanding of Israel to the NT. Proponents interpret the NT according to their understanding of the OT—which is a backwards hermeneutic, since the NT fulfills the OT. Christ is central in both testaments, but fully revealed in the NT Scriptures.
Links:
Book Recommendations:
“The Kingdom of God – A Baptist Expression of Covenant Theology,” by Jeffrey Johnson (excellent!)
“The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology,” by Pascal Denault (provides a good history of BCT, as well as a comparison between PCT and BCT).
Articles:
1689 Federalism (Baptist CT) vs. New Covenant Theology
Comparison between DT, CT, and NCT
Covenant Theology (Presbyterian)
