Introduction

There is little question that God has chosen to deal with humanity in different ways over time. Any Bible believer who today does not practice animal sacrifice or temple worship recognizes this basic fact. There is, however, a very large question regarding how the distinct outworkings in God’s plan are to be understood. The two basic methods of doing so are Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology. 

While Dispensationalism views Israel and the Church as distinct peoples of God and expects promises made to Israel to be fulfilled literally and physically, Covenant Theology sees the Church as replacing Israel as the people of God, and sees the promises made to Israel to be transferred to the Church spiritually. With these differences noted, it should be clear that how one interprets God’s administrations throughout history will have a considerable impact on how he views eschatology (study of end-times), soteriology (study of salvation), ecclesiology (study of the Church), etc., and is thus an important part of one’s theology.

Defining Covenant Theology

Covenant Theology is usually defined simply by describing what it’s followers believe about God’s plan through the ages. Put simply, Covenant Theology teaches that God has established two contractual agreements with mankind (plus one within the Godhead) to deal with how the two are to relate. The first (in chronological order), usually termed the “Covenant of Redemption,” is the agreement within the Godhead that the Father would appoint the Son to give up His life for mankind, and the Son’s agreement to do so.  The second, called the “Covenant of Works,” was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam promising life for obedience and death for disobedience. Once Adam failed, the third covenant was made - this time between God and all of mankind (who also fell with Adam).  This third contract, the “Covenant of Grace,” promised eternal blessing for belief in Christ and obedience to God’s word. This Covenant of Grace became the basis for all future covenants that God made individually (i.e. Noah, Abraham, David), nationally (i.e. Israel), and universally (known as the New Covenant) with man.

Implications of Covenant Theology

In their attempt to unify God’s dealings with mankind, Covenant theologians make the people of God into one group. They argue that Israel was the people of God, that the Church is now the people of God, therefore Israel is (or, more properly, became) the Church. Because the Church has taken Israel’s place, the blessings promised to Israel become the Church’s.  The Church receives these blessings through Christ who is the fulfillment of Israel’s blessings.  Working backward from this point, Covenant theologians see the Church in all saved people in all time periods -  past, present, and future. Thus, the Church began with Adam. This usually also entails a denial of premillennialism among Covenant theologians who favor an amillennial standpoint with the church currently fulfilling Israel’s promises spiritually.

Justification for Covenant Theology

The basic structure of Covenant Theology  rests upon its definitions of terms. It sees any time wherein promises are made and conditions imposed between God and man as a covenant. It sees all of saved mankind as “the people of God,” and all of “the people of God” as the Church. Once these definitions are accepted, the rest follows. To back up these definitions Covenant theologians will point to Scripture is claimed to back them up.

As to the definition of “covenant,” Covenant theologians will point to definitive covenants in Scripture and attempt to show that they mirror the circumstances involved in their proposed covenants listed above . Each of the main covenants listed in Scripture (Noahic - Gen. 8-9; Abrahamic - Gen. 12,15,17,22; Mosaic - Ex. 19-24; Palestinian - Deut. 29-30) have the characteristics of promises between two parties, although not all contain stated conditions. This being the case, anytime the Covenant theologian sees similar circumstances (such as the Edenic commands) he asserts that a covenant has taken place.

As to the Covenant theologian’s assertion that the Church has replaced Israel, Romans 8:17 and Galatians 3:29 are combined to show that in Christ we (the Church) are Abraham’s heirs. John 1:12 and 11:52 are similarly connected to show that in Christ we are the children of God. Romans 9:6 shows that not all who are born Israelites are considered to be Israel (see also Gal. 3:7). Covenant theologians will sometimes state that a denial of this idea is tantamount to asserting two different means of salvation.  Further, Covenant theologians will point to many prophecies regarding Israel in the Old Testament that are said to be fulfilled in the Church of the New Testament. These would include:

• the prophecy of Pentecost (the birth of the Church) in Joel 2:28-32 (cf. Acts 2:14-21).
• the prophecy of coming to Mt. Zion in Isaiah 60:14 or Micah 4:1-2 with Hebrews 12:22 and Revelation 21.
• the Church / Temple prophecy of Zechariah 6:12 with verses like 1 Corinthians 3:16 and Ephesians 2:21. 

Critique of Covenant Theology

The first objection that many see with Covenant Theology is the simple fact that not one of the covenants that the system is based upon are mentioned anywhere in Scripture. While the Dispensationalist can refer to verses that use the term in the same manner that they use it (Eph. 1:10, 3:2, 2 Cor. 3:7-9), it is up to the Covenant theologian to prove that these other “covenants” do in fact exist. If the definition of the Covenant theologian is accepted, it still remains for them to show the connection that they see between all the biblical covenants and the ones they have proposed.

Second, regarding the separation of the Church and Israel, the Covenant theologian must employ inconsistent hermeneutics at times throughout Scripture. This is seen in Romans chapter 11, where the term “Israel” would have to refer to national Israel and the Church at the same time. Is this legitimate? On the contrary, the term for national Israel is still used in Scripture after the formation of the Church. In Romans 9-11, Paul clearly presents the distinction between Israel and the Church. In 1 Corinthians 10:32, Paul addresses the two as distinct entities. If the two groups are to be equated, why was Paul not aware of that being the case? If he was, why act as though the differentiation existed? 

Beyond mere terminology, theologically the Church appears to be a separate entity with a certain beginning point in time (long after the formation of Israel). In Acts chapter 2, the baptism of the Spirit at Pentecost placed people into the Body of Christ for the first time (1 Cor. 12:13). In Ephesians 2:18-22 the Church was said to be built upon “the foundation of the [first century] apostles and prophets.”  Further, the functioning of the Church is based upon the resurrection and ascension of Christ (Eph. 4:7-12) which did not occur prior to the first century. Finally, it should be noted that the Church was specified as a mystery to Old Testament believers (Eph 3:4-6; Col. 1:18-26). If it was a mystery before the time of Paul, then it was a mystery to the Old Testament believers. 

None of this is not to say that redeemed people did not exist prior to the first century Church, Only that distinct divisions exist between people groups within the people of God. The fact that the Church is the merging of Jewish and Gentile believers shows that the distinction (with equality of position - Gal. 3:28) is still recognized even during the Church Age.

Conclusion

While it is tempting to ignore this issue and simply assert the best parts of each, it would eventually lead to contradiction and confusion. It is undeniable that God has dealt differently with His people throughout history - and the labels attached (covenants or dispensations) may or may not be as important as the reasoning behind them. The central issue that I see here is whether or not the Church has replaced Israel. To this I answer with an emphatic “No.” It is simply too clear from Paul’s writings that the two remain separate, distinct entities after the Church began. If this is, as I understand it, the dividing issue between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology then I fall squarely into the former camp.

The issue does not end here, however. It is equally clear to me that the Church shares in the promises made to Abraham. Paul states that, “if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise,” (Gal. 3:29). Further, those in the Church appear to be plainly equated with Abraham’s offspring: “And you brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise,” (Gal. 4:28), and,  “For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; neither are they all children because they are Abraham’s descendants, but: “through Isaac your descendants will be named.”  That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants,” (Rom. 9:6-8; also 4:16). 

I find it true that we are not to commit a fallacy by stating that because the Church and Israel are God’s people that they are also each other (fallacy of undistributed middle), but rather that the people of God are made up of different peoples united in Christ (Gal. 3:28). Since the promises are, or will be, fulfilled in Christ then all of God’s people will be heirs of those blessings (Gal 3:29 cf. 2 Cor. 1:20; Rom. 15:8). 

If these things are so, then what promises are we to expect? And if we are to receive the promises made to Abraham / Israel, is the distinction that certainly exists really important? If it is the case that the Church equates with Abraham’s descendants in some way, then what is the point of differentiation? Is it only race? It may be the case that we (the Church) are heirs only of eternal life (Titus 3:7), but that seems to contradict the message found in many of the other verses so far listed.  While it may seem to be leaving the issue totally unresolved, exactly what those promises are will have to be the subject of another writing.