Dispensationalism and the New Covenant

Jeremiah 31:31-34 speaks of a future new covenant with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," which gives glorious promises. This text is quoted in Romans 11 and both the 8th and 10th chapters of Hebrews. Furthermore, of the thirty three uses of the term diatheke in the New Testament, as many as fifteen are references to a new covenant.[1] Paul calls himself a minister of the new covenant. The wine, or cup of the Lord's Supper is called the blood of the new covenant. Although this is an important biblical theme, as the above suggests. Dispersationalists are not in agreement in their treatment of the idea. It is our purpose to trace the genesis and implications of the various dispensational understandings of the new covenant concept and the purpose of God for ethnic Israel and the Church (or Churches) of the New Testament.

Before proceeding some things should be noted concerning the distinctives of dispensationalism and the groups we shall consider. Charles Ryrie lists three essentials, sine qua non, of dispensationslism:[2] 1) a distinction between Israel and the Church; 2) a consistent literal hermeneutic; and 3) an ultimately doxological rather than soteriological view of Scripture.[3] In addition, most dispensationalists affirm the "mystery" nature of the church age – the church and its corresponding age was not foreshadowed in the Old Testament, but was revealed in the New Testament especially (or exclusively) through the Apostle Paul. [4]

In discussing the dispensational views of the new covenant we distinguish three groups. First, we will discuss the views of two "earlier dispensationalists" – John Nelson Darby and C. I. Scofield. Second, we will treat the "moderate dispensationalists" – Lewis Sperry Chafer, John F . Walvoord, and Charles C. Ryrie. Third, we will examine two "ultra dispensationalists" [5] E. W. Bullinger and Charles F. Baker. While these groupings do not reflect all who might display the dispensational banner they are representative of the spectrum of thought on the new covenant. A further refining of the picture is beyond the scope of this paper.

J. N. Darby (1800-1882), the prolific Plymouth Brethren writer, does not treat our issue at great length, but his few comments do indicate his position. The new covenant of Jeremiah 31, according to Darby, stands in contrast to the old covenant of Moses although both were contracted with ethnic Israel. The full provisions of this new covenant are to be fulfilled in the millennium. [6] The author of Hebrews cites Jeremiah in the 8th chapter only to demonstrate to his Jewish readers that the fact of a second covenant promise shows the first covenant to be both faulty and temporary, thus enjoining them not to rest in the first covenant but rather to look to the Mediator of the new covenant. [7] The church, according to Darby, as a result of her relation to the Mediator of the new covenant, presently enjoys its spiritual, its heavenly blessings and privileges even though it is not formally under the covenant. He says,

these blessings are now the portion of the children of God; and the whole of our portion now is not in the formal accomplishment of the new covenant with Israel and Judah, but entirely in the heavenlies with Christ, according to the pattern of the then tabernacle with this only added that the veil is rent from the top to bottom.

It is, then, the annexed circumstances of the covenant with which we have to do, not the formal blessings which in terms have taken the place of the old, though some of them may, in a sense, be accomplished in us. Thus the heavenly and distinct character of the dispensation is most plainly brought out, and we find our place is to be identified with the Mediator, as gone within the veil, not in the blessings which result to Israel in consequence of His title and power to bless in grace therefrom resulting. [8]

Thus Darby's treatment, while not specifically addressing all of the New Testament passages and problems, provides a rationale for a future, literal Jewish fulfillment of the one new covenant as well as a present, spiritual accrual of benefit for the Church via the Mediator, even though they are not subjects of the covenant. C. I. Scofield (1843-1921), chief editor of the Scofield Reference Bible, treats the new covenant in a fashion somewhat different than Darby. Scofield and those holding a similar position (C. F. Lincoln, and F. W. Grant for example ), [9] like Darby see only one new covenant in Scripture. Scofield's view differs, however, in that he affirms that this covenant has a two fold applications 1) to Israel in the future (i.e. it "secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel."); [10] and 2) to the Church in the present (i.e. it "secures the eternal blessedness... of all who believe.") [11] The distinction between Darby and Scofield in this regard is a fine one, nevertheless, it is an important one for later developments, as we shall see. Suffice it to say at this point that Darby speaks of the Church's relation to the Mediator of the new covenant, Scofield and his followers who treat a wider range of New Testament passages are not hesitant to speak of the Church as having the new covenant itself ministered to them. [12]

The earliest published treatment of the new covenant by Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871-1952) in Major Bible Themes, 1926 reflects the view of Scofield. Chafer states,

The New Covenant guarantees what God proposes to do for men on the ground of the blood of His Son. This may be seen in two aspects (a) that He will save, preserve and present in Heaven conformed to His Son, all who have believed on Christ...(b) The future salvation of Israel is promised under the unconditional New Covenant (Isa. 27:9; Ezek. 37:23; Ro. 11:26, 27). [13]

A decade later in Dispensationalism Chafer begins to reflect a dual covenant structure. He says,

No human conditions can be forced into this great declaration of Jehovah's concern for what He will yet do for Israel, nor can it be demonstrated that such promises have ever been fulfilled for Israel, nor that they even remotely apply to the Church.

When a parallel is drawn between the New Covenant now in force for the Church (Matt. 26:28) and the New Covenant yet to be made for Israel (Jer. 31:31-34), it is found that all that is promised Israel is now vouchsafed to the Church and that the range of blessing for the Chy ch far exceeds the restricted provisions for Israel. [14]

With the publication of his eight volume Systematic Theology, 1948 the two new covenant structure is clearly set forth. For example, Chafer after speaking of the eighth covenant with Israel – that of Jeremiah 31 – states,

There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is styled like the proceeding one for Israel a "new covenant." It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two new covenants – one for Israel and one for the Church – are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God's purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israel's covenant is new only because it replaces the Mosaic, but the Church's covenant is new because it introduces that which is God's mysterious and unrelated purpose. [15]

This two covenant view is followed and expanded by Walvoord and Ryrie. It is Interesting historically to note one key factor in the shift toward a two covenant view – the publication of O.T. Allis' Prophecy and the Church, 1945. Allis in two brief paragraphs argues that Scofield's two fold application, of the one covenant is inconsistent with the "mystery" nature of the Church; he finds Darby's view more consistant. He says,

This (Darby's view) is consistent Dispensationalism. If the Church is a mystery unknown to the prophets, the new covenant foretold by Jeremiah cannot concern the Church. It must concern Israel. [16]

The importance of this criticism by Allis for the development of a two covenant view is freely admitted by both Walvoord and Ryrie. Walvoord's article in Biblioteca Sacra (1946) states,

Dr. Allis has, however, done premillennialism a service in demanding consistency on interpretation of this passage (Hebrews 8). Either the Church fulfills the new covenant with Israel or it does not. While the writer has great respect for the Biblical scholarship of Dr. C. I. Scofield he is inclined to agree with Dr. Allis that Scofield is not clear on this point in his Scofield Reference Bible.

It is more consistent with the whole premillennial position to hold that the new covenant realized today by the church is different than the new covenant with the house of Israel than to hold that it fulfills it in part. The issue, after all, is whether the church inherits Israel's promises.[17]

Walvoord and Ryrie accepting the two covenant structure of Chafer proceed to analyze the New Testament passages. They arrive at identical conclusions. [18] The gospel references along with Paul's reference to the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. 11:25) speak of the Church's new covenant. It is this new covenant that Paul ministers (2 Cor. 316). Paul's reference in Romans 11:27, a citation of Jeremiah's prophecy, is to the Jewish new covenant, which is yet to be fulfilled.[19]

The book of Hebrews, especially chapters 8 and 10 receive more detailed treatment. Walvoord and Ryrie see the epistle as addressed to Jewish people showing the "better" aspects of Christianity, which includes a "better covenant" – the new covenant with the Church. [20] Yet, both admit that Hebrews 8 and 10 make mention of Jeremiah 31 – the new covenant with Israel. This does not present any confusion or difficulty for them. Hebrews 8 cites the Jeremiah passage to show that the old covenant is not eternal. The emphasis of the citation is directed to the word "new" and not on its contents, that is, the contents of the new covenant with Israel.

Indeed it would follow that the better covenant of Hebrews is that which the Lord Jesus established with the Church, that is, the new covenant with the Church. This means that the writer of the Epistle has referred to both new covenants, and by his reference to the new covenant with Israel. in the quotation from Jeremiah 31 he shows that It has not been annulled. It is important to notice that nowhere does the writer say the new covenant with Israel is fulfilled. Indeed that is the reason for the lack of appeal to the content of the covenant.[21]

The argument here is that the sacrifice of Christ supersedes the sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant, and the appeal to the new covenant with Israel is to show that the Old Testament Scriptures promised that sins would be remembered no more. The passage does not state that the new covenant with Israel is identical with the new covenant with the church or that it is fulfilled by the Church. [22]

In summary, the moderate dispensational view initiated by Chafer and reinforced by Walvoord and Ryrie presents two distinct new covenants, both based on the blood of the same Mediator. While this position is that of the first two presidents of Dallas Theological Seminary (Chafer 1924-1952 and Walvoord 1952-present) as well as the current chairman of Dallas' systematic theology department (Ryrie) it is not an official position of the school, whose confession of faith makes no mention of the new covenant.

"Ultra" dispensationalism posits two economies existing between Acts 2 and the consummation of the present age – the Jewish Church, or the "Bride of Christ," and a subsequent Christian Church, or the "Body of Christ," which was established upon Paul's revelation of the "mystery" of the church. The two most prevalent beginning points for the "Body of Christ" are Acts 13 and Acts 28. Each view has its own understanding of the biblical testimony concerning the new covenant.

Acts 28 dispensationalism, presented by E. W. Bullinger and others sees the new covenant of Jeremiah being administered during the period of the book of Acts. Later it was suspended until the return of Christ. The Body of Christ has no relation to the new covenant and consequently this group does not consider the Lord's Supper to be a scriptural ordinance in the present dispensation. [23] Charles Baker is representative of those dispensationalists who hold a mid-Acts view of the initiation of the Body of Christ. Like the Acts 28 dispensationalists, the Body of Christ is seen as an unprophesied mystery which is begun after the new covenant had been initiated (at Pentecost) and suspended. The practical difference of Baker's view, for this paper, lies in his acceptance of the Lord's Supper as a ordinance of the Body of Christ. Consequently, Baker must explain the connection between the Body of Christ and the covenant of Jeremiah (since he rejects a two covenant view). He explains,

The Apostle Paul wrote letters to members of the Body of Christ during the latter half of the book of Acts in which he indicated that a spiritual transition was taking place from the old to the new order in which some practices were passing away (1 Corinthians 13). He also. indicated that as a part of the special revelation given him for the Body of Christ was the observance of the Lord's Supper (I Corinthians 11:23) and the fact that in this dispensation God was making the Gentiles to partake of Israel's spiritual things (Romans 15:27). Thus it appears in sovereign grace God bestowed upon the Gentiles who had no covenant ties with God (Ephesians 2:12), all of the spiritual blessings in redemption which he had covenanted with Israel and which Israel had rejected. This was done not in fulfillment of a covenant promise, but in sovereign grace, and hence, although God has always been gracious, it is called the dispensation of the grace of God (Ephesians 3:2).

The point here is that when Christ shed His blood it was the blood of the New Covenant. It is by that blood and that blood alone of the New Covenant that any sinner in any dispensation is reconciled to God, Only Israel comes under the actual terms of that covenant, which includes material, physical and spiritual blessings. But God, who is sovereign, has the right, if He so wills, to do with His own as He sees fit (Matthew 20:15), and He has seen fit to bestow all of the merits of that precious blood of the New Covenant upon undeserving and uncovenanted Gentiles in this dispensation of the grace of God. [24]

The spectrum of dispensational teaching on the new covenant(s) is indeed diverse. Yet amid this diversity of treatment there are common emphases on: 1) a literal fulfillment to ethnic Israel of Jeremiah 31; 2) the distinctive characteristic of the present Church in contrast to ethnic Israel; and 3) the "mystery" nature of the present Church. Of these elements, the last two have contributed to the development of the various views. The two covenant view feels that it consistently maintains the second element (the distinction between Israel and the Church) in contrast to the Scofield position. Similarly, the "ultra" dispensationalists feel they most consistently maintain the "mystery" element of the Church as the revelation by Paul.

In the final analysis the critical issue is not simple consistency of a theological "package” but rather fidelity to the biblical texts. Therefore, dispensationalists should welcome and furthermore initiate more extensive exegesis of the key texts. Dispensational commentaries on the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, are just too few and far between to suit this writer.

[1] See Table 1 for an overview of the use of diatheke by the New Testament writers [not included in this document].

[3] This third sine qua non probably would be better deleted since it really is a critique of Covenant Theology rather than a distinctive.

[4] Scofield Reference Bible, p. 1252; L.S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:75-77, 251, 385-86; Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, p. 134f, 200; Charles Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p. 51, 500f.

[5] This is a pejorative term (after all, who wants to be an ultra anything?). Lacking a better term, I use it with the same apology noted by Ryrie, Op. Cit., 192.

[9] F.W. Grant, The Numerical Bible, 7:48,; C.F. Lincoln, “Covenants,” p. 202-03. Co-editors of the Scofield Reference Bible include W.J. Erdman, A.T. Pierson, and A.C. Gabelein.

[13] Major Bible Themes, p. 109, 111. He also states, “What may be proposed for Israel or the nations may be of interest to the believer, but it does not directly apply to him.” This seems to imply that the Christian does indirectly benefit from the new covenant of Jeremiah 31, which he describes in this quote.

[17] John Walvoord, “The New Covenant with Israel” Biblioteca Sacra,(1946), p. 25; see also Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 118.

[18] A comparison of Walvoord’s treatment (Bib Sac, 1946) with Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 105-24 shows the same arguments and frequently the same words. Evidently Ryrie used Walvoord’s 1946 article for his Th.D. dissertation, 1949 (later published in 1953 as Basis of the Premillennial Faith) though no reference is cited.

[19] Walvoord criticizes amillennialists in general and Allis along with Wyngaarden in particular for not treating this passage, one which Walvoord feels overturns the amillennialist’s contention that there is one new covenant which is now in force for the Church. See Walvood, The Millennial Kidgdom (1959), 215.

[20] Ryrie suggests that “new” in this case either be seen as a comparison to the “so-called Adamic covenant” or an expression of quality. See Basis of the Premillennial Faith, p. 121. He prefers the later explanation.

[23] Here I rely on the presentation of Charles Baker, A Dispensational Theology, p., 102 due to lack of primary sources.

[24] Ibid., p. 103. Note the similarity of Baker and Darby with the difference being Darby’s emphasis on the Mediator of the covenant and Baker’s emphasis on the blood of the covenant.

I see no distinction between Israel and the Church. We are merely, per Paul, a grafted on branch.

Which Israel?

Rom. 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel.

Amos 9:9 For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.

There are those who are born "of Israel," and those who are reborn into Spiritual Israel. But, the second verse I quoted makes the difference very ambiguous. I really do believe the solution to this problem cannot be discovered in our age.

Hank

In case you didn't grasp what I was driving at in #24, I would say that I am half-way between the "dispensational" and "covenant of grace" positions.

I emphasize a continuity between the national Israel and the Church (which delights all covenant theologians and irks some dispensationalists), but I also point out with unshakeable confidence that it does not follow from this fact of continuity that national Israel was the Church (which position delights all dispensationalists and irks most covenant theologians, I guess).

I think we need to be more careful in the systematizing which we do. I specifically believe that we need to appreciate typology more.

National Israel was called the "Church in the wilderness," but I read this as a largely typological statement (very much like "That Rock was Christ")--not a simplistically literal statement. I think the reference to the "Church in the wilderness" presents an important idea, but I maintain that it has to be typological rather than literal.

(Hey, that's the way I read Revelation 20, too!)

And this makes a monumental difference in the overall theology. (Of course, it makes a monumental difference in our interpretation of Revelation 20, too!)

In short, I say that the type and the antitype are CONNECTED in God's progressive revelation. But still, it should be crystal clear that the type is NOT the antitype. (Absalom certainly wasn't Christ! For that matter, Adam was not Christ even though Christ is called the "Second Adam." In fact, the First Adam and the Second Adam are actually antithetical.)

Interesting because his name means "father of peace"....yet he was a very carnal man..

I have never thought of him specifically as a type of Christ..but rather it was an opportunity to peek into a fathers heart...David loved him inspite of his murder and later betrayal.

While we were yet sinners...

David was a man after Gods own heart:>)

I have never thought of him specifically as a type of Christ..but rather it was an opportunity to peek into a fathers heart...David loved him inspite of his murder and later betrayal. The Scriptures testify of Christ in some very startling ways.

Absalom means "Father of Peace." He was the son of David. He was the rightful heir to the Throne of Israel. He died the death of the accursed, hanging from a tree. He was pierced in the side with Joab's dart as he hung there.

His death quelled the rebellion of Israel and saved Israel.

(Ah, but this just goes to show that types are figurative. Absalom's death saved national Israel just as the Lord's death saved spiritual Israel. But national Israel and spiritual Israel are not the same thing any more than Absalom and Christ are the same person. As I said earlier, the type and the antitype are spiritually connected, but they are different.)

You're starting to sound like people within my denomination (Plymouth Brethren) when they try to use types, which are inherently subjective, to prove doctrine.

Types carry ABSOLUTELY no weight in my mind because I can name types alleged to demonstrate the pretrib rapture, etc. One of the first rules I learned when I was taught hermaneutics was that types were to be completely subject to doctrine, never used to prove them.

You're starting to sound like people within my denomination (Plymouth Brethren) when they try to use types, which are inherently subjective, to prove doctrine. Types carry ABSOLUTELY no weight in my mind because I can name types alleged to demonstrate the pretrib rapture, etc. One of the first rules I learned when I was taught hermaneutics was that types were to be completely subject to doctrine, never used to prove them.

You're "Plymouth Brethren"?

Well, I can see that it will be a hero's labor to divorce you from Dispensational Premillenialism, then. (That's all well and good, I was a dyed-in-the-wool Dispy Pre-Millenial myself at one time).

BUT.... perhaps you should start calling yourself OrthodoxPlymouthBrethren, given your adoption of Absolute Predestinarian soteriology (JN Darby and his associates were, of course, strict 5-Point Calvinists). It's only the latter-day "Plymouth Brethren" such as Dave Hunt who have led that denomination astray into the wilds of Humanistic Arminianism.

Although, if you really want to be an "Orthodox Plymouth Brethren", then you of course cannot call yourself a "Calvinist". While the Baptist Spurgeon was entirely comfortable with the label "Calvinist" (as, indeed, am I), the Brethren JN Darby thought that it was silly to define the Biblical Doctrine of Absolute Predestination in what he considered to be "sectarian" terminologies.

JN Darby had a much different terminology for the Biblical Doctrine of God's Sovereignty: he preferred simply to refer to Absolute Predestination as "plain, simple, Bible doctrine".

I would add that the Absalom type is obvious--and that it is not at all offensive to any doctrine in the Scripture. Heck, it fits God's doctrine.

(So, I am a bit puzzled by the fact that you seemed to be bothered by my post. Most people find a study of the typology of Absalom delightful. Our "hearts burn within us" as the things of Christ are shown to us in the Old Testament.)

the natural man's pretension not to be entirely lost, for that is really what it amounts to.

All men who have never been deeply convinced of sin, all persons with whom this conviction is based upon gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans, of all reasoners, of all philosophers. But this idea completely changes all the idea of Christianity and entirely perverts it." ~~ John Nelson Darby

JN Darby BUMP!!

Y'all take note and mark your calendars, this may be the first and only time I "bump" a Plymouth Brethren quote (grin).

Best, OP

"This fresh breaking out of the doctrine of free-will helps on the doctrine of the natural man's pretension not to be entirely lost, for that is really what it amounts to. All men who have never been deeply convinced of sin, all persons with whom this conviction is based upon gross and outward sins, believe more or less in free-will. You know that it is the dogma of the Wesleyans, of all reasoners, of all philosophers. But this idea completely changes all the idea of Christianity and entirely perverts it." ~~ John Nelson Darby

Come to think of it, I vaguely wonder what our Hyper-Dispensational, Arminian "Baptist" Freeper "RaceBannon" (whose contributions to the Pro-Life and Genesis threads I have respected in the past) would think of Darby's soteriology. (Or for that matter, what the ever-so-false-baptist "ForTheDeclaration" would think).

I suppose that they must regard Darby as a "Calvinist son of Satan" who just happened to get his Dispensational Eschatology "right"... Gee, awfully lucky for them; but a pity for that poor, deceived predestinarian JN Darby.

(Just an observational side note, between you and me)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.