The New Covenant and Dispensationalism

The institution of the new covenant unfolds the depth of God’s faithfulness to Israel. This unconditional agreement is made with Israel because they had broken the terms of the earlier Mosaic covenant. The new covenant is rooted in God’s faithfulness rather than Israel’s obedience. It points to a future day when God gathers Israel out of the nations and bring them into their own land, giving them a new heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 36:28). They will be His covenant people, “a nation born in a day.”

The authority of the new covenant is anchored in the blood of Christ. Because of this fact, Christ is called the  mediator of a new covenant by the writer of the book of Hebrews (Heb. 12:24). The Lord’s Supper demonstrates this: “This cup is the new covenant in My blood which is shed for you” (Lk. 22:19). As Christians, we are identified with the glorious mediator and enjoy the spiritual privileges and blessings of the new covenant; but it is essentially a covenant with Israel. Its final consummation awaits the time when “the Deliverer will come out of Zion, and…turn away ungodliness from Jacob” (Rom. 11:26). Afterwards, this covenant will be fully realized by Israel in the millennial age.

Reformed Theology and Dispensationalism

However, this understanding of the new covenant is seen by Reformed teachers as a weak link in dispensational theology. A leading Reformed theologian, Professor Keith Mathison, writes, “The new covenant is perhaps the clearest example of a promise made to national Israel that is now being fulfilled in and by the church.”1

Current Reformed theology teaches that the church now fulfills the provisions of the new covenant. The Reformed view has been adopted by a growing number of charismatic leaders to buttress their view for miracles and healing during this age. They teach that since Christ is presently reigning as the covenantal king, the supernatural blessings of the new covenant should be experienced by the church today.
Critics of dispensationalism are quick to point to Hebrews 8 as support for their view that the new covenant is fulfilled in the church. There we read, “By how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises” (Heb. 8:6). Calvinistic writers emphasize the statement “He is the mediator of a better covenant.” They argue that since Christ is currently the mediator of the new covenant, then the covenant is now fulfilled by the church.

The twofold structure of the new covenant

How have dispensational writers answered this argument? Yes, Christ is the mediator of the covenant; but there is an important theological distinction between inauguration and institution. Inauguration indicates the fulfilling of the provisions of the covenant, whereas institution refers to the setting forth of the terms of the covenant. The new covenant has been instituted but not yet fully inaugurated. Many dispensational writers point to the two-level structure of the four major biblical covenants. In all these covenants, the covenant was first instituted; and then many years later, some or all of the covenant’s provisions were fulfilled. In the Abrahamic covenant, God unconditionally promised a seed (son) to Abraham and Sarah; however, it was not until twenty-five years later that that provision of the covenant was fulfilled. God’s pattern for His covenants is that a covenant is first introduced; and then many years later, the provisions of the covenant are fulfilled.

This is also the pattern of the new covenant. The new covenant was introduced by the mediator, the Lord Jesus Christ. It was sealed by our Lord when His blood was shed on the cross of Calvary. The provisions of the covenant were offered to the nation of Israel after the resurrection of Christ, but they were rejected. Nevertheless, the terms of the covenant will be fulfilled in the nation of Israel during the millennial reign of the Lord Jesus Christ. Elliot Johnson, a professor at Dallas Seminary, explains:

The distinction between the institution and the fulfillment of a covenant must be clarified. To institute a covenant is to introduce provisions of the agreement which are now available to be received. To inaugurate fulfillment is to keep all of the provisions of the agreement. The new covenant was instituted only after the death of Christ, the mediator of the covenant; then He and the provisions of the covenant were offered to the nation, following His resurrection and ascension. The new covenant will be inaugurated in fulfillment when Israel as a nation will accomplish her national destiny.2

The new covenant and Israel

The New and Old Testaments provide support for the idea that national Israel will still inherit the spiritual and the material provisions of the new covenant. If this is true, then it is a powerful argument against the view that the church replaces Israel. There are two main categories into which the biblical evidence can be arranged:

I. The integrity of God’s promises to Israel

The Scriptures teach that God must be absolutely faithful to His Word. In the new covenant, He has unconditionally bound Himself to be faithful to its provisions and its terms. In Jeremiah 31 and in Hebrews 8, no fewer than five times does God use the phrase “I will” to express His loyalty to the new covenant. The psalmist comforts himself in God’s faithfulness when he writes, “My covenant I will not break, nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips” (Ps. 89:34). Sixty years after the death of Christ, the apostle Paul in the book of Romans tells us that Israel still possesses the provisions contained in the covenants: “Who are Israelites; to whom pertain the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants” (Rom. 9:4). The use of the present tense “to whom pertain…the covenants” indicates that God has never wavered in His promises made to Israel.

II. National and material promises

Closely associated with the fact that God must be faithful to His promises is the uniqueness of the covenant provisions. God has made both spiritual and material promises to Israel. Today, the church enjoys some of the spiritual blessings of the new covenant. However, in a careful study of the new covenant, it soon becomes obvious that many of its spiritual and material provisions can be fulfilled only by national Israel in the Millennium. The prophet Ezekiel in chapter 34, begins to unfold of some of the blessings of the new covenant:

• Wild animals will be removed from the land so that the inhabitants may sleep in safety in the fields and the woods (v. 25).

• There will be a supernaturally abundant harvest of farm crops and other agriculture from the land (v. 27).

• Israel will not receive any threats or insults from other nations (Ezek. 34:28-29). All of these provisions have not taken place today in the church nor in the land of Israel; they are provisions of the new covenant that will be fulfilled in the future.

Conclusion

The new covenant is expressly promised to Israel. It is a better covenant than the one God made with Israel at Mount Sinai, as it provides for the future salvation of the nation and endows the people with the ability to walk in God’s laws and statutes (Heb. 8:10). We can have confidence that the Lord will faithfully fulfill every term of the new covenant with His chosen people, Israel, for, as the Bible says with specific reference to God’s faithfulness to Israel, “the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29).

1. Keith Mathison, Rightly Dividing the People of God? (Phillipsburg, PA: P & R Publishing, 1995), p. 28.
2. Elliot Johnson, Contemporary Dispensationalism (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1999), p. 146.

Donate