Considering Some Propositions of "New Covenant Theology"

These seven propositions come from the book “New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense” by Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel.

Prop 1: The New Testament is the apex of God’s revelation, therefore the Old Testament should be read and interpreted through the grid of the New.

Thoughts: This principle of interpretation is widely held by many. Since we live on this side of Christ’s coming, we can now look back at the Old Testament Scriptures with greater understanding than those who lived before Christ’s coming. They were dealing with shadows, but we can see both the shadows and the real thing. I certainly affirm the this proposition as true, but would like to add the caveat that there are in fact times when the Old Testament helps us make sense of the New.

Prop 2: Our slavery to Jesus Christ has far reaching implications.

Thoughts: Of course this is true. However, I’m not sure it has the implication Wells and Zaspel think it does. They seem to be arguing that our obedience to Christ as our Master trumps our duty to obey the Law and the Prophets of the Old Testament. They refer to the Transfiguration, where Peter is rebuked for wanting to honor Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the Prophets) along with Christ. God spoke and said, “This is my son, whom I love. Listen to him!” (Mark 9:7) But is God telling us to listen to Jesus as opposed to the Law and the Prophets? I don’t think so. After all, are not all the words of Scripture the words of Christ? God’s command for Peter to recognize the uniqueness and superiority of Jesus does not discard our obligation to listen to all Scripture.

Prop 3: We should follow the highest revelation of the moral character of God.

Thoughts: Wells and Zaspel ask which is the higher revelation of God’s character – the 10 Commandments or the person and work of Christ? Their argument is that we should follow the “higher” of these two. But isn’t this an unfair dichotomy? Must we choose between following the Ten Commandments and the Lord Jesus Christ, as if they present two opposing views of God’s character? I would suggest that the person and work of Christ is certainly the greatest and highest revelation there ever could be, but that the character of God revealed in Jesus is not incompatible bur rather perfectly aligned with the character of God revealed in the Law. Wells and Zaspel seem to be putting forth an either/or for I what I think should be a both/and.

Prop 4: “In the NT the word covenant is almost always used to assert discontinuity…this kind of inductive study cannot prove, but strongly suggests, that no such comprehensive covenant is referred to in the NT.” (p. 45-46)

Thoughts: The implicit claim here is that there is no comprehensive “Covenant of Grace” taught in the New Testament, a claim made more explicit on page 48. The Covenant of Grace is a feature of Covenant Theology, and most simplistically can be identified with God’s covenant with Abraham that CT adherents claim overarches both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace includes God’s promise to create a vast people for Himself as well as the promise that by faith sinners can be reckoned as righteous in the sight of God. According to CT, the Abrahamic Covenant was not revoked but remains in effect through both the ld Covenant (Mosaic Covenant) and the New Covenant. The New Covenant in particular is the coming to fruition of the Abrahamic Covenant. Some NCT adherents seem to view the Abrahamic Covenant as replaced by the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant), which was then replaced by the New Covenant. To be clearer, perhaps you can imagine the CT view as an umbrella (the Abrahamic Covenant) which covers both the Old and New Covenants, whereas the NCT view sees all three covenants as a successive chain in which each new covenant ends the earlier one. (Wellum’s chapter in Believer’s Baptism, as I recall, seems to describe this perspective of the covenants.)

Notice that the proposition above asserts that the New Testament does not teach a comprehensive covenant. But is it appropriate to ignore the Old Testament? Is not all Scripture “breathed out by God and profitable” (2nd Tim. 3:16)?

I would suggest that Psalm 105:7-11 clearly teaches the enduring and comprehensive nature of the Abrahamic Covenant:

“He is the LORD our God;
his judgments are in all the earth.
He remembers his covenant forever,
the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,
the covenant that he made with Abraham,
his sworn promise to Isaac,
which he confirmed to Jacob as a statute,
to Israel as an everlasting covenant,
saying ‘to you I will give the land of Canaan
as your portion for an inheritance.”

What does this passage teach about the covenant made with Abraham? God remembers this promise forever. It was given for a thousand generations. It is an everlasting covenant.

But what about the proposition above? Is it true that the New Testament does not teach this comprehensive covenant? Allow me to give a couple of examples where I believe the NT does use the word covenant in a comprehensive way:

1. Zechariah’s prophecy in Luke 1: “Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people…to show the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham…”

This prophecy celebrates not only the birth of John the Baptist but also the coming birth of Christ, “a horn of salvation for us”. For Zechariah, the coming of Christ is not only issuing in the New Covenant but is also evidence of God’s keeping the Abrahamic Covenant.

2. Hebrews 13:20: “Now may the God of peace who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, by the blood of the eternal covenant…”

There is a lot of debate about the phrase “the blood of the eternal covenant”. Which covenant is in view here? Since it is speaking of Christ’s blood, which we know is part of the New Covenant (“this cup is the new covenant in my blood”), the New Covenant must be in view. The New Covenant is an eternal covenant. But didn’t we already see in Psalm 105:7-11 that the Abrahamic Covenant is an eternal covenant? Yes. Which leaves us with two options: either there are two eternal yet completely distinct covenants (which leads us in the direction of Dispensationalism?), or these two eternal covenants are in fact one and the same (or better, the New is simply the coming to fruition of the Abrahamic.) This is why Covenant Theologians can speak of an overarching covenant of grace that stretches from Abraham to eternity, and it appears (contrary to NCT) that the NT supports this teaching.

Another point: Wells and Zaspel looked at verses that used the word “covenant” in the NT to determine that no comprehensive covenant is referred to in its pages. But could it be that passages which do not actually use the word “covenant” still make reference to the comprehensive nature of the Abrahamic Covenant? I would suggest that a case for this could be made from Romans 4 and Galatians 3.

Let me briefly note that the proposition made above does not appear to be held by all NCT adherents. Steven Lehrer, for example, is clear in his book “New Covenant Theology: Questions Answered” that he sees both the Old and New Covenants as part of the Abrahamic covenant. This clearly does not square with Wells and Zaspel’s assertion above.

Prop 5: The church began at Pentecost.

Thoughts: I am willing to say that the visible, institutionalized church began at Pentecost. However, the invisible church, the elect of God, began with Adam. Old Testament Israel was certainly not a part of the Church, but there was always a remnant within Israel that had saving faith and was (and is) a part of His people. This gets to the question of whether God has one people or two, a subject which I discussed in an earlier post.

Interestingly, Wells and Zaspel later acknowledge that “from the standpoint of eternity future, looking back, the church will prove to have been God’s elect individuals from every era.” From this statement I assume that their position then is at least similar to mine.

Prop 6: The Church is under the law of Christ, not the law of Moses.

Now, here is where things really get interesting. The argument being made is that the Mosaic Law governed national Israel in the Old Covenant, but the law of Christ now governs the Church in the New Covenant. Christ is the new and higher Moses. His laws and those given through Moses are not unrelated - both reflect the character of the same God. But in the New Testament Christ is free to reiterate, modify, or even rescind the commands given to Moses. According to the adherents of NCT, if a command isn’t issued by Christ or His apostles, the Church is not bound by it.

Thoughts: Some of what is being argued here is what first attracted me to NCT, and much of it I still find appealing. I agree, for example, that the law of Moses was given to govern national Israel under the Old Covenant. I also recognize that the New Testament speaks of something called “the law of Christ.” Hebrews is clear that Christ is greater than Moses and much of the New Testament reminds us that we are no longer under “the law”. However…

1. I do not agree that the law of Moses was given only to govern national Israel under the Old Covenant. Like all of Scripture, the Mosaic Law is for us as well, in the sense that it reveals to us the moral character of God that we are to imitate. In particular, I find it difficult to say that the Ten Commandments were meant only for Israel and not for us. I would suggest that the principles given in the Ten Commandments were known as a standard of morality to be upheld long before they were written on the stone tablets at Sinai. So, for example, in Genesis 26:5, God tells Isaac that through his offspring all the nations of the earth will be blessed “because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” What commandments, statutes, and laws did Abraham keep? Clearly before the Mosaic law was ever given God’s people knew of a divine law. I would suggest that this is the law written on every person’s heart, the law summed up in the Ten Commandments.

2. I do not agree that “the law of Christ” can be identified as only those commands found in the New Testament, or as simply the command to love God and others. The law of Christ is the same as the law of God – it is those moral principles that express their character. The Old Testament Scriptures are no less the words of Christ than the New, and the commands within them reveal that same character. The commands to love God and love others do sum up the law of Christ (and the law of God, since they are one and the same), but they are not the sum total of the law’s content. We learn the moral character of Christ that we are to imitate in both the Old and New Testaments, and we should not neglect one or the other.

3. I do agree that Christ fulfilled the Law for us in His person and work, but that does not mean the law passes away. We are still obligated to obey the moral aspects of the law, and failure to do so will bring judgment. Yet this is what it means when we read in the NT that Christ has set us free from the law – Christ has so perfectly fulfilled the law for us that there is no more condemnation for those who are in Him. We have been set from from the bondage of having to obey the Law out of fear, and now have the freedom to live out the law (which is now written on our hearts) in joy.

4. All that said, I do agree with Wells and Zaspel on this point: that as the ultimate Law Giver, Christ has the right to reiterate, modify, or rescind any law He chooses. But I must add the caveat that Christ will never in anyway rescind the moral aspect of any law previously issued (since God cannot deny Himself). So, for example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ does seem to modify some of the Mosaic commandments, but in doing so never contradicts the moral obligations of the original commands. For example, the Mosaic Law allowed people to take an oath, but insisted that they keep it. At its root, the law forbade dishonesty – saying you’ll do something and then not doing it. Christ clearly modifies this command when He says that we should not take an oath at all. And since He is greater than Moses, surely His command trumps the original. But the point of His command is the same as the original – that His people not be dishonest.

Prop 7. The Sabbath was a command given to national Israel, but not to the New Testament Church. It has been fulfilled in Christ and we are under no obligation to keep it.

Thoughts: Since I posted my position on this earlier, I won’t stretch this post any further.

I would very much appreciate any thoughts or critiques. I have spent the last several months contemplating Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, and New Covenant Theology, and can now say with more understanding that I believe Covenant Theology to best fit the Bible’s teaching.