Chapter Nine:
Defining New Covenant Theology
Author: Kevin Hartley

 

 

New Covenant Theology and its Fundamental Presupposition

 

            New covenant theology, at its most core expression, answers the question of how God relates to men, as either in Christ or outside of Christ.  Such an expression covers God’s manifestation of that relationship through the successive stages of redemptive history.  Biblical history can, in its simplest expression, be divided into the days before Christ’s incarnation and the days after it.  In the days prior to his incarnation, all revelation from God looked forward to the fullest expression of the earthly in Christ relationship. In those days men were said to be in Christ by faith in the anticipation of his coming and redemptive work at the cross. Thus, the church is the consummate earthly expression of that in Christ relationship which is by faith alone, and that remains constant through the ages.  As long as men have been on earth they have been (and always will be until the consummation of all things) in Christ by faith alone.  In the days before the coming of Christ, faith looked forward to his coming; faith now looks to his final return and the realized in Christ relationship.  Those in Christ are related to God in a gracious way.  A man, in any age, is not said to be in Christ apart from faith.

The in Christ relationship is an eternal expression of God’s relationship to men.  This is evidenced by the truths that the elect of God were chosen in him, are called in him from the wrath of God, are living in him now, and shall reign with him in glory.  The in Christ relationship was, before his incarnation, expressed by way of anticipation and expectation.  Beginning with Adam, the promise of a seed--to which men could look to the mercy and grace of God in the hope of a redeemer--was given. Under the old covenant that anticipation was heightened and even further defined and illuminated as hope was given by way of emancipation to those bound up under the schoolboy status of the Law.  Even those under the old covenant were said to be in Christ by hope and anticipation of his coming.  Since the incarnation, the in Christ relationship is expressed in reflection of what God has done to draw men to himself and in hope of the coming final consummation of this relationship.  Continuity is found in the fact that, in every biblical age, the in Christ relationship is and ever shall be, here on earth, by faith and faith alone.   Thus, there is the earthly reality of faith and the heavenly hope of sight.

            The contrary relationship of God to those outside of Christ, in every age, has been made known in the guise of holiness. God expresses himself to men as the creator and holy God who rightfully expects obedience from men.  At times, though not exclusively, he has done this through a covenant.  In Eden God expressed himself judiciously to Adam in a single command.  That judicious relationship, by way of Adam’s transgression, brought men in relation to God under the wrath of God and recompense of reward.  Men in Adam were out of Christ.  They were left to themselves, ever related to God by way of the demands of his holy and just nature.  When the law came in, God further manifested himself by way of a holy and judicial relationship in a legal manner, further elucidating that relationship to men outside of Christ.  At Mount Sinai God presented himself to Israel as an exacting God of holiness and justice.  Holiness is demanded of all men outside of Christ; apart from faith and divine election in Him, there is nothing but holiness, justice, and wrath. 

God, then, can be said to relate to all men in one of two ways, either in Christ or outside of Christ.  How that relationship is expressed has varied through the ages.  It has been at one moment advancing and at another moment consummating.  Each demonstration of God’s expression of this relationship in history has advanced toward a greater evidencing of either his justice or mercy while it also has been moving toward the final expression of that relationship in the final judgment.  In the end it will be the consummate declaration of God that men are either in Christ or outside of Him, just as it was even before all things.  This is the fundamental presupposition of new covenant theology.  God relates to men in every age, in every administration or dispensation of his providence, as either in or out of Christ.  Those outside of Christ, in various stages of redemptive history, have been placed under a judicious expression of God’s relationship. Adam was under the judicious expression of a creator to a creature.  A command was given and obedience was expected based upon that judicious relationship.  With Adam’s fall he was placed under the wrath of God, that judicious relationship to men outside of Christ.  All men outside of Christ are like Adam or Israel, under the judicious administration of God’s holy wrath. 

 

 

New Covenant Theology’s Struggle for Self-Identity

 

            New covenant theology wrestles with the presuppositions of existing dogmas, struggling to free itself from the womb that would bind it within its own embryonic sac.  If it is to confirm itself as a viable theological system, new covenant theology must establish itself upon a fundamental presupposition that distinguishes itself as unique.  Many claim they hold to the same principle as new covenant theology; however, they cannot claim agreement with new covenant theology when they define God’s fundamental relationship with men under any other premise than that presupposed by new covenant theology.  Where new covenant theology will differ from the other systems of dogma presented in this book is in its fundamental presupposition that subordinates all other theological premises to this singular identifying theme: either a man is in Christ or is not in Christ.  This core affirmation of new covenant theology will set itself apart as a system of its own and will provide itself with a defensible identity.  It will relegate the relationship of covenant to simply an expression of this in Christ relationship and the ethnicity of Israel to a mere temporal expression of that relationship within an era of redemptive history.

Clearly the most difficult task of defining new covenant theology is identifying its most fundamental presupposition.  There is a broad spectrum of interest in support of the principles adhered to in new covenant theology, and many lay claim to the title who do not agree in totality with either federalism or dispensationalism.  They seek a safe haven in new covenant theology, a domain that will provide them the freedom of a theological system outside of the constricting boundaries of either federal theology or dispensationalism.  With the many refugees in the camp, of various doctrinal backgrounds, it is a most difficult task to define new covenant theology.  Those who claim to teach it have never agreed upon its definition, and with the dispensationalists who claim to be new covenant and the non-dispensationalists who make such a claim, who then holds claim to the dogma firmly enough to establish its presupposition?  It is the premise of this book that the latter group should provide new covenant theology with a clear and definitive statement of its particularity.

The thesis of this book states that all systematic theology can be identified in its most basic form as identifying the relationship between God and men. This view has not been addressed in the discussions centered on the definition of new covenant theology.   This proposal is not only viable but also affirmed by the discipline of systematic theology as the fundamental question asked of every dogma.   New covenant theology must then answer to the question if it is to be given its own place alongside federalism and dispensationalism.  New covenant theology is unique; its answer to the question of how God relates to men is novel.  The unique aspect of the new covenant theology view is that it stresses both progression and succession in a way that affirms both continuity and discontinuity far distinct from the other dogmas.  True progressive theology is what new covenant theology claims; each biblical age is a fuller expression of the fundamental relationship between God and men in Christ and not an expression of either one single covenant or a singular people.  We reaffirm our principle that God relates to men either in Christ or not, and it becomes gradually more and more evident through the ages.  Christ is the consummate goal of all redemptive history in the salvation of the elect; the new covenant is the expression of the most advanced earthly relationship between God and men, and it has consummated on earth in the church.  We await the final expression of that relationship at the final coming of Christ.

In the new covenant scheme, Adam was a mediator and representative head of all men.  A. T. B. McGowan writes, “It is, of course, possible to hold a view that makes much of Adam as the representative head yet without a covenant of works (this was certainly the position of Augustine).”[1]  In some sense new covenant theology is a redaction of federal thought, returning to the roots of federal theology without the restrictions of later expressions of the covenant of grace and the covenant of works.  New covenant theology does affirm that a covenant, which is the highest expression of God’s relationship to men, was alluded to in Adam, but was not made in Eden.  God would later express himself in covenant, but in Eden it was mere allusion.  All creation and history has been moving forward toward that consummate expression of God’s relationship to earthly men.  Rather than this forward expression denoting a single covenant from Adam to eternity, it is at the cross that God graciously covenants with men in Christ.  Abraham was the father of men of faith, but still was given only an in Christ relationship by way of promise.  Moses was a mediator of a legal covenant, equally anticipatory of the coming age of Christ (thus even new covenant theology would affirm the gracious character of the old covenant), but still that covenant was only anticipatory of the greatest lawgiver.  Christ is the consummation of all previous covenants, promises, and relationships, fully replacing those things that anticipated him.   Each demonstration of God’s relationship to men prior to the coming of the new covenant was a temporal, incomplete, and inferior expression of the in Christ relationship.  All forms of that expression, whether by way of covenant, patriarch, head, or nation, was a substandard expression of God’s relationship to men in or out of Christ.  The pinnacle expression of that relationship on earth is found in the new covenant.  Men continue to be, as they have always been, related to God by two heads: Adam or Christ.

Federal theology has historically presented the old covenant as an administration of the new covenant.  This is not the case.  The old covenant was a mere expression of God’s relationship to men as being in Adam and under the judicious expression of holiness.  The law was a pedagogue to show the absolute sinfulness of sin, the inability of men to know God apart from sin, and God’s relationship to them as a holy and just God.  However, the old covenant was also typical of the in Christ relationship.  There was, in the old covenant, allusion to the relationship in form, type, and shadow of the once again anticipated new covenant.  Yet when all was said and done, the old covenant was another, more visible, display of the fact that God relates to men either penally or graciously, as either in Christ or not in Christ, the pedagogical and anticipatory legal covenant having ended with Christ’s first advent.  If a man is outside of grace he can be said to be under the judicious wrath of God, either by way of ignorance apart from the law or by culpability under the law.   He is said to be so, whether it be by virtue of living under the old covenant, or, in our day, by virtue of an ipso facto relationship.   It is through grace, then, that God relates to men in Christ and outside of Christ; He is a just and holy God.

New covenant theology affirms the newness of the new covenant.  It is not the old covenant, nor a single covenant variously administered; it is a covenant that is absolutely new.  It is similar to other covenants that anticipated it, but it is truly a replacement covenant.  The old covenant ceased with the first coming of Christ, and the new covenant was confirmed with the church.  Thus, new covenant theology sees the church as the consummation of an earthly expression of God’s relationship to men.  The pinnacle of all expressions of God’s relationship to men will be displayed at the return of Christ and the last judgment, when men shall relate to God as either fully under the administration of wrath and justice or fully under the administration of grace and love.  That relationship between God and men may express itself finally in a new heaven and earth. Thus, God’s relationship to men was not given in its highest expression at Mount Sinai, nor was that previous covenant the fullest expression of God’s glory.  The new covenant is the greatest expression of God’s grace and justice here on earth.  In the previous age, God related to men by way of physical distinction; that is, what is both spiritual and physical in this age was merely physical then.  In the old age, the law was upon a tablet of stone, but now it is in the heart; the foreskin of the flesh was circumcised, but now the heart’s deadness is cut away.  New covenant theology, then, can be classified as fulfillment theology, replacement theology, or progressive theology.

            It might be said that new covenant theology is, in its most germane expression, christocentric.  Surely all theologies would stake this claim, but new covenant theology does so rather uniquely.

 

1.      It views Christ as the answer to the question of how God relates to men.  Covenant is subordinate to Christ, a vehicle or mere expression of that relationship, but not always present or necessary.  Moses, the Decalogue, and the nation of Israel are subordinate to the Son and merely anticipatory of this age, and simple expressions of the in Christ relationship are more perfectly realized in the church.  God does not relate to men in a gracious way because of their ethnicity; rather, he does so because of Christ.  This can be illustrated in the Tabernacle where we see a physical expression of God’s relationship to men by way of a type.  It is an expression of God’s promises of Christ and, at the same time, an expression of his just wrath for sin, yet it is only a typical, temporal expression of that relationship, soon replaced by a more permanent, efficient, and consummate fulfillment of that relationship found in Christ.

 

2.      New covenant theology declares that law finds its place in Christ, but only below him who is the divine lawgiver. It declares that Adam and Moses (along with every other man or nation or physical expression of glory) are found beneath the feet of Christ.  It is the theology that has grown up out of Galatians and Hebrews and will not give place to any but Christ in its expression; it fully raises Christ higher than any other form of theology.  Federal theology places Christ more as a cog within the covenant scheme.  Dispensationalism would raise Israel and Moses above him or next to him.
 

3.      New covenant theology sets forth Christ as the terminal point of all that preceded him and the antecedent of everything that follows.  In this christocentric scheme, new covenant theology has a peculiar hermeneutic.  The Old Testament scriptures were anticipatory of the church age, referring almost exclusively to the age between Christ’s First Coming and Second Coming.  Israel and its covenant were for a given time, and their existence does not persist beyond the cross.  Pentecost marks a day of uniqueness in which God expresses his relationship to men in a unique Trinitarian fashion, alluded to in previous ages but experiencing its fullest expression in this age.

 

4.      New covenant theology’s peculiar hermeneutic results in a theology of replacement; each successive biblical age is a fuller expression of God’s grace to men in Christ and of God's wrath outside of him.  It sees Christ and the new covenant as not taking its place alongside previous expressions of God’s relationship to men but as supplanting those relationships.  He is the second Adam; the second and superior lawgiver; that ultimate prophet who speaks, not for another, but for himself.  He is the king of kings, and David calls him Lord.

 

5.      New covenant theology is the system of theology that seeks to see all revelation preceding the New Testament as memorial to Christ.  It is useful, much as Christ taught on the road to Emmaus, but, at the same time, it asserts a new law in Christ, a new covenant in Christ, a new relationship between God and men that is truly just that, new.  One might say new covenant theology declares that God relates to men either in the old age or in this age, but that is just a subordinate point; it is not comprehensive enough.  In both ages, the simplest expression of God’s relationship to men is the in Christ relationship.  In the old age that relationship was seen in typical anticipation, and in this age that relationship is expressed in the revelation of Christ.
 

            Clearly this needs further elaboration since in the previous age God related to men in various ways.  There were believers, but not Christians; there were redeemed Israelites, but they were not the church.  They looked forward to the gathering of God’s elect in one body, but stood outside of it.  They were the foundation of the house of Christ, and the church is that house.  They were the embryo, but the church is the man. That was the age of mystery; this is the day of fullness.  It is like looking backwards from this day to that day and seeing the shadows cast from Christ, and those upon whom the shadows fell, resulting in belief in Christ, are said to be in him.  It is like living in that day and looking forward in time and seeing, at a distance, a figure, but only a form.  Christ, then, stands central to God’s relationship to men.  God relates to men in Christ; they are either in him or without him. Before he came, they were in him by faith in the promise of his coming; now that he has come, they are in him by faith in him.  They are one with him, and in the age to come they will be with Him.  Regardless of the man, the age, or the economy of God’s expression of his Son, in the end men will either be in Christ or not.  This is the fundamental and most central expression of God’s relationship to men.  New covenant theology then is unique, distinctive, set apart, and novel.

 

 

New Covenant Theology and Antinomianism

 

            New covenant theology is not antinomianism.  The chief proof of this assessment lies in the two theologies' disagreeable presuppositions.  Even though there is a strong antithesis between law and grace in new covenant theology, it has not developed to the degree of the antinomian premise.  In fact, new covenant theology is more in agreement with the experimental expressions of federal theology, as it views the metaphysical and ontological work of salvation.  The clear difference with federalism, though, is found in the fact that new covenant theology is true replacement theology.  The new covenant, as a gracious covenant, fully replaces the old covenant, yet that in no wise affirms the law grace antithesis of antinomianism.  One can read the antinomians and find much in agreement with their words and new covenant theology; one can read the federalists and do the same.  Mere agreement in expression, however, does not necessarily equate new covenant theology with either dogma.  Thus, we see the importance of expressed presuppositions.  New covenant theology does not agree with the antinomian presupposition that asserts an absolute antithesis between law and grace.

New covenant theology affirms many areas in which it is clearly not in agreement with antinomianism:

 

1.      New covenant theology is not antinomian because it affirms the abiding place of law and exhortation in the believer’s life.  New covenant theology is not concerned with whether the believer is free of all law, but is concerned with the question, "Under which law is the believer?"

 

2.      New covenant theology is not antinomian because it affirms the place of exhortation, admonition, repentance, sin, and the Father’s chastisement, in this life, of men who are in Christ.  In new covenant theology there is a place for commands in the Christian life.

 

3.      New covenant theology is not antinomian because it affirms a metaphysical relationship between God and redeemed men.  We are not simply seated with Christ in the heavenlies, but we are men, in the flesh, dwelling on earth, struggling with sin, and in need of God’s sustaining grace in Christ.

 

4.      New covenant theology is not antinomian because it affirms the use of means in the Christian’s life.  Preaching is necessary, as is the church, as are the ordinances, and as is the word of God.

 

5.      New covenant theology is not antinomian because it affirms the progress of sanctification.  It does not believe in the error of eternal justification.  It affirms the fact that the believer exercises faith, which is the gift of God.

 

6.      New covenant theology is not antinomian because it affirms the believer’s need to grieve over sin and to seek repentance for it.

 

7.      New covenant theology is not antinomian because it affirms the believer’s growth in assurance and the evidential use of good works.

 

8.      New covenant theology is not antinomian because it affirms the use of the old covenant law in its pedagogical form.

 

9.      New covenant theology is not antinomian because it denies the fundamental premise of antinomian theology.

Clearly, beyond any doubt, it is a most egregious error to equate new covenant theology with the errors of antinomianism.

 

 

New Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism

 

            New covenant theology is not dispensational theology.  Many would place new covenant theology in the camp of dispensationalism simply because it stresses the discontinuity between the old and new covenants.  Yet, as has been shown, the affirmed discontinuity of new covenant theology is far different from that expressed in dispensationalism.  New covenant theology disagrees with dispensationalism in many areas:

 

1.      New covenant theology does not affirm the dispensational presupposition that asserts the abiding validity of the ethnic distinctions beyond the church age.

 

2.      New covenant theology is truly progressive theology, in that each stage in redemptive history is successive.

 

3.      New covenant theology affirms the full end and termination of the distinctive of the old covenant, assigning it to the previous age.

 

4.      New covenant theology is not dispensationalism because it affirms the church as God’s consummate end of redemptive history here on earth.

 

5.      New covenant theology is not dispensationalism because it affirms the supremacy of Christ as consummate in all ages, over and above any other expression of God’s relationship to men.

6.      New covenant theology is not dispensationalism as it looks for no further expression of the new covenant outside of the church in this age.

 

            Some may argue there is room in new covenant theology for another dispensation and a fuller expression of God’s glory on earth.  New covenant theology cannot agree since it sees the church as that greatest expression.  Dispensationalism is not the only theology that divides history into various dispensations.  Federal theology has its own expression of such historical dispensations, and new covenant theology speaks of stages in redemptive history.  Neither theology can deny there are distinct differences and similarities in redemptive history.  Thus new covenant theology’s emphasis upon and use of terms like progression of redemptive history and the promise-fulfillment aspect of history does not necessarily make it dispensationalism.  When dispensationalists use terms such as promise-fulfillment and already-not-yet, they mean something completely different than what someone affirming new covenant theology would mean by them.  In the mind of a dispensationalist, the phrase already-not-yet is in reference to God’s promises to ethnic Israel, while to the new covenant theologian the term means the full expression of the in Christ relationship in the final judgment.  The two, new covenant theology and dispensationalism, are not in agreement.  A dispensationalist thinks of fulfillment in terms of Israel, while a new covenant theologian simply thinks of fulfillment as the full realization of being in or out of Christ. 

See this expressed in the writing of Fred Zaspel, who finds much in agreement with new covenant expressions, but who is a dispensationalist at heart.  He writes: “So in all of this ‘realized eschatology’ we should not lose sight of the future.  What we have today is the glorious realization of the OT hopes.  But what lies ahead is more glorious still.”[2]  What does he mean by more glorious still?  He appears to answer with the fundamental presupposition of new covenant theology, when he says:

 

Finally, when all this is said we must recognize clearly that the ‘fulfillment’ anticipated in the OT and realized in the NT is nothing other than Jesus Christ Himself.  He is the covenant, the promise, the kingdom; He is our life, our righteousness, our peace, our salvation, and our everything else.  He is the goal of history.[3]

 

Zaspel's seemingly new covenant perspective is eclipsed, however, when his theology gives way to his most fundamental, dispensational presupposition.  While he can seemingly agree with new covenant theology, he cannot do so without again couching his assessment with the scheme of his most fundamental belief.  He must bring ethnic Israel into his answer.

Thus, as a dispensationalist answers the question of God’s relationship to men, even though he can stress the in Christ relationship in terms of already-not-yet or promise-fulfillment, he must do so by bringing in the ethnic distinctive of his presupposition.  He cannot express the in Christ relationship apart from Israel’s assumed ethnic diversity.  It is his fundamental presupposition that holds to the distinctive place of Israel as an expression of God’s relationship to men.  Thus Zaspel writes regarding what lies ahead is more glorious:

 

That a promised blessing is realized here and now does not, ipso facto, rule out its fuller realization later.  For example, there is nothing here that rules out the premillenialist’s hope of the future manifestation of the kingdom—nothing at all.  That the age to come is present and coming is a matter of simple Biblical statement.  And if there is already a realization of these blessings within history we should not be surprised to learn of a still fuller manifestation of them.[4]

 

A true dispensationalist of any breed thinks of promise-fulfillment in terms of Israel.  The in Christ expression, though perhaps not calculatingly, is subordinated to Israel’s place in redemptive history.  The dispensationalist is not looking simply for an expression of the in Christ relationship when he says already-not-yet; he is looking for fulfillment of promises with ethnic Israel.  The true dispensationalist cannot speak of the in Christ relationship without introducing ethnic Israel into the equation.

Thus, new covenant theology is not dispensationalism, no matter how dispensationalism is expressed.  New covenant theology does not necessitate the ethnic distinction of Israel as a fundamental premise of its theology.  Though dispensationalists have much in agreement with new covenant theology and use language transparent to new covenant dogma, the two are not one and the same.  When new covenant theology uses the term promise-fulfillment or already-not-yet, it does so simply in the expression of the in Christ relationship.  There is no reason, in the new covenant scheme, for God to retrofit biblical history with an antiquated expression of that relationship when it has been surpassed by a better expression of it.  To bring ethnic distinction back into the picture would be counterproductive to the progression of time.  It is grace in Christ that is being revealed and has been revealed.  Israel as a nation served a purpose for a time and that time has passed.  Christ has come and God has expressed his relationship to men, not nationally and not in physical type but in Christ.  We have, in our day, the consummate expression of that relationship, an end to types and an end to the rudiments of a previous age.  New covenant theology can say already-not-yet but does so simply to say that one day Christ shall return, and men will not be found as Israelites or Gentiles but as either in or out of Christ. 

 

 

New Covenant Theology and Federal Theology

 

            New covenant theology is clearly distinct from federal theology.  Again, it has much in agreement with federalism, just as it has with dispensationalism, but what clearly sets new covenant theology apart from federal theology is its emphasis upon newness.  The old law is not the new law; the old covenant is not the new covenant.  The new covenant is a distinct covenant; it is the fullest expression of the covenant form, and it is the final expression of the covenant form.  The church listens to Christ, not Moses; the church follows Christ’s law, not the law mediated through Moses.  The church is not Israel, and Israel is not the church.  Israel was, by way of type, anticipatory of the church, and we may call the church the Israel of God, but that does not entail bringing the church into the pre-incarnate days of the Old Testament.  Christ came and made a new covenant, through a new mediator, with a new Israel.  He brought a new law and more efficient covenant with greater ability to elicit obedience.  Though the law and covenant were similar to the old, they were not one and the same.   A new car may be just like an old car, but they are not one and the same.  The old car was a vehicle all it’s own and the new car--though like the old functionally, though resembling it, and though nearly identical to it--is still not the old car.  The old car is the old car and the new car is the new car.  The old car is not as quick, efficient, and sleek, just as the old covenant is as different from the new as Moses is different from Christ Jesus.  The new covenant, in new covenant theology, is truly a new covenant.  Federal theology simply calls the new covenant a new expression of the old covenant.

New covenant theology does not affirm the fundamental presupposition of federalism.  It does not affirm a prelapsarian covenant called the covenant of works.  Federalism’s expression of a covenant of grace is contrary to the progressive emphasis of new covenant theology.  The various biblical covenants are not seen as one single covenant of grace expressed in various administrations; instead, the various covenants are distinct, historical, and are all preempted by the new covenant.  There is in new covenant theology a clear difference between the Mosaic covenant and the new covenant.  The Mosaic covenant was truly a legal covenant.  Grace may be found expressed in the old covenant, but it was a legal covenant and the Decalogue was the expression of that covenant.  The new covenant is a gracious covenant.  The new covenant is not a mere re-expression of the old covenant; it is a true, new covenant.  There are similarities among the various covenants, but the new covenant is not one and the same with the previous covenants. 

Federalism can argue for its christological focus; its presupposition does not necessarily deny the in Christ motif.  It does, though, in its covenant scheme, go beyond the basic simplicity of the new covenant theological expression of that relationship.  It does so by making it necessary that every relationship between God and men is by way of a covenant, thus subordinating the in Christ relationship to the covenant expression.  New covenant theology does not agree.  The in Christ relationship takes precedence over the idea of covenant.  At times the in Christ relationship is, and has been, expressed in covenant form, but not always.  It has been an increasing, progressing, and consummating process leading up to the new, superior, consummate, and final covenant, replacing and/or meeting the expectations of all previous covenants.  There is much that both new covenant theology and federalism agree upon.  Yet, at the heart of their disagreements are their presuppositions.

 

 

New Covenant Theology

 

            New covenant theology is a new approach to the formulation of redemptive history.  Its presupposition is unique, and its approach to expressing God’s relationship with men is novel.  It has much in agreement with its theological kin, but it is its own person.  It stands alone and offers a new perspective in systematic theology and a new approach to understanding God’s revelation in all its various forms.  It seeks to simplify most of the complexities that have arisen from federalism and, at the same time, to rectify the confusion and inconsistency dispensationalism raises.  It is a fresh approach to the pressing question of Christianity.  It is a viable option for the one, who, when confronted with the theological giants of federalism and dispensationalism, wonders if they are the only available options.  The consummate purpose of new covenant theology, like all well intended systems of theology, is to glorify God and his Christ.  In doing so, it offers a new solution to the enduring biblical tension between continuity and discontinuity, law and grace, and Israel and the church.  Instead of providing the Christian with a hybrid or middle ground between dispensationalism and federalism, new covenant theology seeks to step back and ask the question again of how God relates to men.  It seeks the simplest expression of the relationship in the answer that men are either in Christ or not, and God relates to them based upon that criterion.  This is not just part of history's grand theological scheme; it is history's theological premise of every age of redemptive history.  At the heart of new covenant theology is Christ.  It may be said that the term new covenant theology is itself not fully expressive of this dogma.  It could simply be called Christ theology.  Nevertheless it has the title new covenant theology, and it must stand up and be heard.  History will tell whether this adolescent will be heard.

 

 

The Conclusion

 

The Beginning

 

            Theological dogma has, since the 16^th century, clearly taken its place in Protestantism thought.  John Murray notes, “The reformation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is without question the most notable.  It was then that the opus magnum of Christian theology was given to the church […].  It was the golden age of precision and formulation.”[1]  Since then the church of the Reformation has labored to express itself in a most definitive manner.  It has done so by way of confessional practice, and it has done so through the expression of systematic theology.  Systematic theology is the theology of presuppositions.  John Murray writes, “The task of systematic theology is to set forth in orderly and coherent manner the truth respecting God and his relations to men and the world.”[2]  This is the basic presupposition of this very book.  Theology is a discussion of presuppositions seeking to answer this most pressing theological question.  Federalism is a system of theology, as is dispensationalism and antinomianism.  In this book new covenant theology has been set forth as a viable option for consideration within the discipline of systematic theology.  One might question this approach and argue that the methodology of biblical theology is more apropos to the discussion at hand.  Some may even be inclined to designate new covenant theology as a biblical theology rather than a theological dogma.  This however is not the case.  Systematic theology is presupposed in any biblical theology.  In other words, new covenant theology’s systematic expression affirms its biblical theological method, the same with federalism and dispensationalism. The approach in this book has been to start at the most germane point in theological discussion.

 

 

Theology in its Present Form

 

            Systematic theology is an integral part of Christianity.  That integration, though, in the passage of time has given way to theological sloth.  Many hold to a system of theology and yet can offer little by way of explanation for what they believe.  John Murray writes, “When any generation is content to rely upon its theological heritage and refuses to explore for itself the riches of divine revelation, then declension is already under way and heterodoxy will be the lot of the succeeding generation.”[3]  Within the various systems of theology present today there continues to be necessary development, formulation, and definition.  History has a way of inscribing dogma within the consciences of men as infallible as scripture itself and this must be avoided.  Thus it is imperative that theologians continually question, examine, and affirm what they hold as truth.  Many in our day affirm a system of theology and would perhaps die to defend it, having never truly understood it or weighed its conclusions against the greater rule of faith, God’s word.  Are the present theological dogmas the only options available?  Have we come to a place where we can honestly say that dogma must be either federalism or dispensationalism, that one of the two must be right, or is there room within the discussion of systematic theology for new options?  New covenant theology presents itself as one viable option for consideration.  As it seeks to assert itself, it will naturally continue to isolate itself.  In our day there is an immediate revulsion toward the notion that theological labels, distinctive, and separation are necessary.  Yet such distinction is necessary.  New covenant theology is a novel approach to the age-old question asked by systematic theology.

 

 

The Future

 

            The extreme importance of continued interaction with the basic thesis of this book is evident.  Until new covenant theology has an identity all its own, it will continue to be associated with what already exists and will be in danger of being consumed by the existing theological systems.  If new covenant theology is an expression of an existing system of theology, then there is no need to discuss it, and it should take up its place within the prescribed norms.  If it is not, then it needs to set itself apart.  New covenant theology is set forth as a novel approach to understanding the nature in which God relates to men.  It has peculiar answers to the most pressing theological questions of our day.  It is an attractive system due to its unique view of redemptive progress.  The next step in the maturation of new covenant theology must come in the way of further refinement.  Working from this basic presupposition, new covenant theology needs to set forth its view of law and grace, continuity and discontinuity, and Israel and the church.  It must develop its hermeneutic and deal with specific portions of scripture to demonstrate its interpretive process.  Though confessional formulation appears, in our day, to be a practice of the past, new covenant theology eventually must develop a confessional statement of its own.  Dispensationalism, which has never been by way of confession codified, has suffered greatly due to its failure in this stead.  It has been common and unintelligent and has had to defend its scholarship in the past half-century.  Historically, doctrinal formulation led to scholastic matriculation, which in turn led to confessional status.  This text is being set forth as the beginning of the formulation of new covenant theology as a viable dogma and due scholarly attention.  Federalism, dispensationalism, and antinomianism have established their place in systematic thought. Now, new covenant theology presents its own answer to the most pertinent theological question.  Will it be heard?