Imperishable Inheritance

I find that the more I study the more I get confused! It eventually works itself out, but there is definitely some growing pains in there. I feel this way about my study of the "people of God." I say this generally to sum up the debate between the standing of national Israel and the "Church" or New Testament believers. I took some time to review some New Covenant Theology (NCT) ideas, and I'm in more confusion over the following issues.

It should be noted that before I start my quarrel is not over whether the "Church" or national Israel are separate--they are not. The New Testament, used as a filter for interpreting the Old Testament, clearly shows that we are in an age where promises to Israel are being fulfilled. Granted, if one was to read the Bible strictly literal (prima facie) it would illustrate a delineation between the two. But I believe that hermeneutic is flawed, because the "Analogy of Faith" (using the NT to interpret the OT) is important. Through that, "Israel" takes on a different meaning. While the NT does refer to "Israel" as national Israel, the whole of the NT shows redefines what that term means (Rom 2, 4, 9, 11; Gal 3; Heb 8).

The following analysis is an examination on a few of the major differences between the view of NCT and classical Covenant Theology (CT). It should also be noted that I do not hold to infant baptism. I feel that CT strives to hard to get everything to fit under the "Covenant of Grace," and baptism is one such issue. There is not enough recognition that there are indeed differences between the covenants in classical CT.

Defining the "Church"

First of all, it does not help that we continue to use the word "Church" to refer to new covenant believers. I have become convicted on the belief that there is no "invisible" or "universal" church. The term is derived from Catholicism (that is what "Catholic" means). It is reflected in the Apostles Creed. I found a website with the Apostle's Creed with a note:

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church...

*The word "catholic" refers not to the Roman Catholic Church, but to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I believe stronger now that it is incorrect to use the term "Church" to refer to the new covenant believers. This is compounded more by referring to the conglomeration of both OT and NT believers as coming together in the "Church." "Church" translated literally means "an assembly of called out ones." In this, it refers to the gathering of the elect not a universal body. But there is a sense where the believers do fit together in sense different from a gathering; this is what we would refer to as "The Bride of Christ" (Rev 21). So, the only time that the "Church" will be universal will be in heaven where all the tribes, tongues, and nations will be gathered before the throne (Rev 5:9, 7:9).

This is important, because NCT and CT view the "Church" (they refer to it as the people of God) as having different roles. The CT says that the "Church" started before national Israel, and the NCT says the "Church" was born at Pentecost much like the Dispensationalists. Again, here is where we can get confused easily.

The Role of the Holy Spirit

I believe one of the largest issues in this debate of definitions is the role of the Holy Spirit. Aaron sent me an interesting article entitled: "Were Old Covenant Believers Indwelt by the Holy Spirit?" written by James Hamilton. CT theologians, again wanting to make everything fit under the "Covenant of Grace," want to make the point that the role of the Holy Spirit hasn't changed between the covenants; they would say that OT believers were both regenerated and indwelt by the Holy Spirit. James takes the position that OT believers were not indwelt with the Holy Spirit, because God was physically in their presence.

"Were old covenant believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit? No. They did not need to be. God dwelt in the temple. He was thereby with them. How did old covenant believers become and remain faithful? They became faithful by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit, which in the OT is described more as ‘circumcision of the heart' (cf. Jer. 9:25) than as ‘new birth from above' (cf. John 3:3). They remained faithful not by the Spirit dwelling in them, but by the Spirit dwelling in the temple (Ps. 73:17), where they longed to be (Ps. 116:18–19). Further, the Spirit was active through Israel's prophets (1 Pet. 1:11). As the prophets proclaimed God's word, the Spirit instructed and admonished God's people (Neh. 9:20, 30). Under the old covenant, the Spirit gave life and was with the people as he dwelt in the temple. Under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life and dwells in God's people; they are his temple."

I have not completely decided on this issue, but I think it is crucial in understanding the change of the covenants; but I do not believe it is essential in discovering who is the Bride of Christ. I firmly believe that Adam and Eve were the first members into the Bride of Christ. I think it's more theologically correct to refer to OT and NT saints as being in the Body of Christ. It only serves to cause more confusion by continually confusion the word "Church" and "Israel."

The Law and Gospel

This is an amazingly complex topic that my few paragraphs cannot do justice. This is true especially since my knowledge is only entry-level at this point. The CT says that God gave Moses the civil, moral, and ceremonial laws; but NT believers are only bound by the moral law. On the other hand, the NCT doesn't see separating the law in such a way so they say that Christ did away with all of it, and we are only responsible for following the Law of Christ.

The abolishment of civil law remains a stickler in my side. I firmly believe that the ceremonial law (dietary, circumcision, and others) were wiped away by the ministry of Christ. Christ ushered in a new covenant that was without the legalism of the old covenant. As for the moral law, I have yet to decide; but Christ makes an important verse that is highly debated in the Sermon on the Mount:

"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished."
Matthew 5:17-18

By "fulfilling" the Law, I believe Christ is making the allusion that the atoning sacrifice had to follow all of God's statutes. So, what happens when He does complete it all? What does it mean that the Law will be accomplished? I'm not going to jump to a conclusion, but at least things are starting to become a little bit clearer. In that very sermon Christ gives new definitions to adultery, and it is not exactly "new" as it is more specific ("adultery in your heart," "eye for an eye"). I just have to spend more time dealing with this. I know the ceremonial law is gone, but what about the civil and moral law? What drastic impact will this have on our worldviews if we accept this? I think off the bat about political and social issues.

The Covenant of Redemption

Real quickly (because I've typed this three times and my blog has screwed up), the NCT denies there being an actual covenant between the members of the Trinity, and I find this confusing because it seems almost necessary for election. They claim to believe that there is a decree for redemption, but it seems hard to escape covenant-like language from Jesus in His high priestly prayer in John 17 ("accomplished the work which You have given Me to do").

I have to figure out exactly where the line is drawn between the covenant and decree. I would think the former would give rise to the latter?

Conclusion

This is just me thinking out loud about these issues. I was surprised at the amount of distinction between NCT and CT. While they agree at the basic premise, that is that there is no difference in the "people of God," they differ in enough crucial areas that deserves a closer look. Maybe someday I'll figure it out (probably not).

Read

• Theological Systems Compared: Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, Covenant Theology, New Covenant Theology
• A Response to John MacArthur on 'Dispensationalism and God's Plan for Israel'