Blog

This article will analyze the New Covenant, as understood within Dispensational and Particular Baptist theological frameworks. In keeping with the pattern of this section of the Dismantling Dispensationalism series, each of the three main classifications of Dispensationalism will be categorized with the primary source that corresponds thereto. Moreover, relevant citations from a Particular Baptist (1689 Federalism) primary source will be used to depict how the New Covenant is widely understood within that theological tradition. After analyzing each pertinent citation at the beginning of this article, we will conclude by summarizing key areas of continuity and discontinuity between Dispensationalism’s and 1689 Federalism’s understanding of the New Covenant.

*Sources For Each Variation of Dispensationalism:^[1]

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism-

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1988. 

Revised Dispensationalism-

MacArthur, John, and Richard Mayhue, eds. Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017. 

Progressive Dispensationalism-

Blaising, Craig A., and Darrell L. Bock, eds. Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

*Source For a Particular Baptist Theological Perspective:

Renihan, Samuel D. The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019.

Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism on the New Covenant

The following excerpts represent the most pertinent references to the New Covenant from the “standard” systematic theology textbook within Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism. Due to the extensive treatment of the New Covenant by Christian theologians, and in light of the tendency to make continual references to the New Covenant within a systematic theology, I have done my very best to provide an all-encompassing portrait of how Classic/Traditional Dispensationalists think about this aspect of Scripture’s theology of the covenants. These excerpts were carefully selected after assessing every explicit reference to the New Covenant in the “standard” systematic theology textbook for Classic/Traditional Dispensationalism.

Because the Mosaic Covenant was intended to be a temporary covenant the Old    Testament promised that it would be superseded by a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34)… The fact of a New Covenant is recognized by all conservative scholars. The coming of Christ brought in a new world order (John 1:17) which is supported by the designation Old and New Testaments in which the Scriptures are divided. Interpretation of the New Covenant has varied according to whether the millennial view of the interpreter is postmillennial, amillennial, or premillennial. Conservative postmillenarians regard the promise of the New Covenant as fulfilled in the glory of the last 1,000 years of the present age in which the Gospel will be triumphant and the world will become Christianized. The amillennial interpretation views the promises of the New Covenant as being fulfilled in the church. Those adhering to this point of view of course ignore the particulars of the covenant such as the prediction that everyone will know the Lord as well as the many details that describe the Millennium as the golden age in which Satan will be bound and when universal peace on earth will be present. Premillenarians have varied somewhat in their interpretation of the New Covenant. Some say it was given to Israel and has application to the church. Others hold that there are two New Covenants, one for Israel (Jer. 31) to be fulfilled in the Millennium and the other for the church being fulfilled in the present age. Still another plausible point of view is that the New Covenant is a covenant of grace brought in by the death of Christ which had application to any people with whom God is dealing graciously. In the case of Israel the New Covenant will be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom, and in the case of the church it is being fulfilled in the present age. The ultimate gracious promises of God will be fulfilled in the New Jerusalem to all who are saved.[2]

The New Covenant is confirmed in two other Old Testament passages, Isaiah 61:8-9 and Ezekiel 37:21-28. In these passages the New Covenant in relation to Israel includes promises of the everlasting character of the covenant, Israel’s regathering, the rejoining of the 10 tribes of the kingdom of Israel and the 2 tribes of the kingdom of Judah who will be ruled by one King, their spiritual revival, their living in the land forever, God’s presence with them, and their having a testimony that they are a nation blessed by God. If the promises and provisions of the covenant are taken in the normal, literal sense, they require a millennial kingdom (in addition to the present age) to allow for a literal fulfillment. The New Covenant as it relates to the church is mentioned in the New Testament in connection with the Lord’s Supper where the elements are declared to be a  memorial of the New Covenant (Matt. 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20). And believers today are called “ministers of a New Covenant” (2 Cor. 3:6). In Hebrews 8:1-13 the point is made that even the Old Testament by prophesying a New Covenant indicated that the        Mosaic Covenant would be terminated. It is most significant, however, that the writer of Hebrews did not claim that the New Covenant with Israel is being fulfilled today. He was simply emphasizing the word “new” to prove that the Mosaic Law has terminated. The rest of the revelation given in Jeremiah 31 will have its fulfillment in the future millennial kingdom, not in the present age.[3]

Revised Dispensationalism on the New Covenant

The following excerpts represent the most germane references to the New Covenant from the “standard” systematic theology textbook within Revised Dispensationalism. Due to the extensive treatment of the New Covenant by Christian theologians, and in light of the tendency to make frequent references to the New Covenant within a systematic theology, I have done my very best to provide a clarifying representation of how Revised Dispensationalists understand this aspect of Scripture’s theology of the covenants. These citations were carefully selected after reviewing every explicit reference to the New Covenant in the “standard” systematic theology textbook for Revised Dispensationalism.

The new covenant is an unconditional and eternal covenant whereby God enables and empowers his people to serve him willingly and to remain in his blessings. The foundational passage that describes this covenant is Jeremiah 31:31-34. The historical      context of this promise was a time of apostasy in Judah. Jeremiah the prophet warned Judah that God’s judgment was coming on the people because they had failed to keep the Mosaic covenant. The recipient of the new covenant was Israel, although all the    unconditional covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, new) were intended to eventually extend to Gentiles as well (Gen. 12:3; 2 Sam. 7:19; Isa. 52:15). God desired Israel to be the vehicle for God’s covenant plans, but as Israel was blessed, so too were Gentiles to be blessed. God contrasted the new covenant with the Mosaic covenant in that the new covenant was “not like the covenant” God made at the time of the exodus (Jer. 31:32).  The Mosaic covenant was a conditional and nullifiable covenant that Israel continually broke. God was faithful to the covenant, but Israel was not. The substance of the new covenant was that God would put his law within his people and “write it on their hearts”   (Jer. 31:33). They would be God’s people and would wholeheartedly obey his law. They no longer needed to be compelled by an external threat. Obedience would be internal, and all who participated in this covenant would know God and obey him. A new heart is at the center of the new covenant. While the Mosaic law was “holy,” “righteous,” and  “good,” (Rom. 7:12), it did not enable people to obey. Yet the new covenant enables God’s people to lovingly serve him. Ezekiel 36:26-27 includes the indwelling Holy Spirit as part of this covenant, whose redemptive features became effective in AD 30. As God places the Holy Spirit within his people, God will cause them to “walk” in his “statutes”   and “obey” his “rules.”[4]

The various new covenant passages reveal both spiritual and physical blessings (Deut. 30:1-6; Isa. 32:15-20; 59:20-21; Ezek. 16:53-63; 37:21-28; Rom. 11:26-27). A new heart,       the indwelling Holy Spirit, and forgiveness of sins are the spiritual blessings at the center of the covenant. Yet there also are national and material blessings, such as a united and restored Israel in the Land of Promise, the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and material prosperity for Israel (Isa. 61:8; Jer. 32:41; Ezek. 34:25-27). The spiritual, physical, and national promises are all important and all need to be fulfilled… [Moreover], the New  Testament presents Jesus as the Son of David who is the Mediator of the new covenant and the One who brings new covenant blessings. John the Baptist declared that the  Messiah “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11). Since the ministry of the Holy Spirit was closely linked with the new covenant, John declared that Jesus was the One who would bring the new covenant to believers. At the Last Supper, Jesus explicitly linked his death with the new covenant (Luke 22:20); Paul [also] mentioned this event in 1 Corinthians 11:25. Jesus ratified the new covenant with his sacrificial death and his identity as the suffering servant of the Lord (Isa. 53:3-6). The new covenant is in effect in this church age. Those who trust in Jesus the Messiah are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and participate in the full promises of the new covenant. Those who proclaim the gospel in this age are presenting the new covenant (2 Cor. 3:6). Quoting the new covenant passage of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 8:8-12, the writer of Hebrews explains that the new covenant is superior to the old covenant, which is becoming “obsolete” (Heb. 8:13). Hebrews 9:15 and 12:24 both affirm that Jesus is “the mediator of a new covenant.” Yet while spiritual blessings of the new covenant are in effect for the church, national and physical promises of the new covenant regarding Israel still need to be fulfilled. The Lord thus declared, “Behold, the days are coming” (Jer. 31:27, 31, 38) when Israel will receive the salvation promised in the new covenant. This will occur when Jesus returns.[5]

Progressive Dispensationalism on the New Covenant

Although there is not currently a “standard” systematic theology textbook published by Progressive Dispensational scholars, we have determined that the following volume is as useful as any other on this subject:

Darrell L. Bock and Craig A. Blaising, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Pub. House, 1992).

Therefore, the following excerpts encapsulate an understanding of the New Covenant that is consistent with Progressive Dispensationalism.

Between the two extremes of a strict distinction between Israel and the church (two new covenants and hence two distinct peoples of God) and a strict identity of Israel and the church (one new covenant and hence one undifferentiated people of God) there is a middle position that would suggest that Israel and the church share theologically rich and important elements of commonality while at the same time maintaining distinct identities.  One of those elements of theologically rich commonality is their coparticipation in the one new covenant, on the basis of which they are united as one people of God. And yet, their distinct identities should be maintained insofar as we can legitimately distinguish clearly different manners by which that one new covenant is fulfilled. First, regarding the territorial and political aspects of the new covenant promise (Isa. 11:1-16; 32:9-20; 42:1- 9; 44:1-8; 61:1-11; Jer. 23:5-6; 30:4-11; 33:14-18; Ezek. 34:25-31; 36:24-38; 37:24-28),[6] it seems incorrect to disregard these or to say they are fulfilled in some spiritual manner in the church. There can be no question that the prophets meant to communicate the promise of a national return of Israel to its land. To the extent that our hermeneutics are regulated by the principle of authorial intent, we are given ample reason to accept this literal rendering of what God, through the prophets, originally promised to his people Israel… Since, then, neither Old Testament nor New Testament teaching would allow us to understand the territorial and political aspects of God’s new covenant promise to Israel in anything other than a literal fashion, we must conclude that God will yet fulfill the new covenant with the nation of Israel, precisely in the manner prophesied by Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel.[7]

 It seems clear that biblical teaching best supports (1) the view that the New Testament envisions the same new covenant as spoken of in Jeremiah 31 as applied to the church,  and (2) the view that God will one day fulfill his promise of the national restoration of Israel as part of the new covenant promise as not applicable to the church. How can these be reconciled? They are reconciled when we permit the fulfillment of such eschatological promises to take both a preliminary and partial (“already”) fulfillment as well as a later full and complete (“not yet”) realization… The church (comprising believing Gentiles and Jews) participates in the essential spiritual aspects of the new covenant in the form of a preliminary or inaugurated realization of those covenant promises, while awaiting confidently the fullness of the covenant faithfulness that it will surely realize when Christ returns. Israel still awaits a future action of God whereby he will bring “all Israel” (Rom. 11:26), or the nation of Israel as a whole, under the provision of forgiveness of sin and     Spirit-indwelling as well as territorial and political restoration that it will surely enjoy in their fullness when Christ comes again (Jer. 31:31-34; 32:39-40; 50:5; Ezek. 11:19; 16:60; 18:31; 36:26; 37:26; Isa. 24:5; 49:8; 55:3; 59:21; 61:8; Hos. 2:18-20; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8; 9:15; 12:24).[8] Therefore, the same new covenant, because it contains spiritual as well as physical components, and because it is inaugurated partially first and fulfilled in its entirety later, can apply both to Israel and the church but does so in a form expressing differing manners of that application… Israel and the church are in one sense a united people of God (they participate in the same new covenant), while in another sense they remain separate in their identity and so comprise differing peoples of God. (Israel is given territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise not applicable to the church). Israel and the church are in fact one people of God, who together share in the forgiveness of sins through Christ and partake of his indwelling Spirit with its power for covenant faithfulness, while they are nonetheless distinguishable covenant participants comprising what is one unified people.[9]

1689 Federalism on the New Covenant

The following excerpts represent a synopsis of the New Covenant from a Particular Baptist theological framework. Although there is not currently a “standard” systematic theology textbook that holistically represents the Particular Baptist tradition, most contemporary Particular Baptists recognize Samuel Renihan’s, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019) as being a faithful portrayal of what they believe.

Jesus Christ is the son of Abraham and David, the one through whom the nations of the world are blessed (Matthew 1:1; Luke 1:68-75). He is also the Son of God who was commissioned to take many sons to glory, to bring a new humanity to a consummation Adam failed to reach. These two genealogies and purposes were united. Jesus Christ completed His heavenly mission in the context of the earthly covenants of Israel, born under the law to redeem those under the law (Galatians 4:4-5). And in the New Covenant he freely granted the salvation and new-creation inheritance he obtained in the Covenant of Redemption to all who received Him by faith… [The substitutionary death of Christ] brings His people directly into the heavenly presence of God’s glory and places them there by removing, once and for all, the sins the [Old Covenant] could not take away (Hebrews 9:11-15; Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 1:20-22). As the Old Covenant was inaugurated with ritual blood, so was the New. But the blood of Christ cleanses once for all (Hebrews 9:24-26). The benefits of this covenantal sacrifice were enjoyed throughout history, but the legal establishment of it took place “at the end of the ages” (Hebrews 9:25-26). The death of Christ establishes His people in the New Covenant on the basis of a perfect and permanent sacrifice. The fullness of the benefits of the New Covenant extend beyond forgiveness to a complete restoration and transformation of the sinner.[10]

The New Covenant announced by Jesus Christ on the night of His betrayal is the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 (cf. Hebrews 8:8-13). The blessings of this covenant are numerous and include everything that flows from union with Jesus Christ the Mediator and federal head of the covenant: justification,[11] regeneration and sanctification,[12]  adoption and preservation,[13] resurrection and glorification[14]… The Covenant of    Redemption is the foundation of the New Covenant. The covenant of redemption was a    covenant of works from the Father to the Son. The Son had a mission, a work to complete, with a reward suspended on condition of His obedience. Jesus willingly and perfectly fulfilled that Covenant of Works… The New Covenant of grace mediates the blessings obtained in the Covenant of Redemption. In other words, the New Covenant is the fulfilled Covenant of Redemption mediated to those for whom the Son was appointed head in the Covenant of Redemption. The New Covenant is God the Father covenanting to sinners forgiveness of sins and eternal life based on faith in God the Son, through whom they receive all the benefits [of the New Covenant]. The eternal resurrected new creation life that Jesus obtained when He kept the Covenant of Redemption is offered to the world in Christ by the Father. The New Covenant is a kept Covenant of Works, meditated to the world. The Old Covenant longed for completion and fulfillment. It longed for faithfulness. The New Covenant is a covenant already completed, already kept, and delivered to Christ’s people. Jesus Christ is the Mediator of a ”better covenant,”  established on “better promises” (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6; 12:24)… Apart from union with Christ, the federal head of the New Covenant of grace, there is no participation in the blessings and benefits of Christ’s covenant (Romans 8:9). This is consistent with all other cases of federal headship in the covenants of Scripture. Apart from Abraham, none participate in the Abrahamic Covenant. Apart from David, none participate in the Davidic Covenant. Federal headship always defines and delimits the extent of the blessings and benefits (or curses) of each covenant. [Thus], because Christ’s federal headship was established in the Covenant of Redemption, and because the New Covenant mediates that covenant to its inheritors, the extent of the blessings and benefits of the covenant is limited to those for who Jesus Christ is High Priest in the New Covenant (Hebrews 6:13-  20; 7:15-22; 1 John 5:11-13)… The New Covenant is not like the Old Covenant that Israel broke (Jeremiah 31:32). The New Covenant is a Covenant of Works already kept and mediated in Christ to an elect people. This is what grants it the name the New Covenant of grace. Its blessings are freely and fully bestowed upon its people, without any merit or work on their part. The guaranteed fulfillment of the delivery of these blessings rests solely on the promiser, God. The blessings have been definitively obtained, and they are definitively distributed… The New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. It unfailingly and infallibly blesses all of its children. They all know the Lord. They all enjoy the forgiveness of sins. The certainty of this covenant rests on the   Covenant of Redemption. The priesthood of Christ rests on the oaths the Father swore to the Son. The oaths have been sworn by God Himself. He who promised is faithful. We rest and rejoice in His faithfulness.[15]

A Critical Analysis of the Primary Sources

Now that the reader has been acquainted with an overview of how the New Covenant is understood by Dispensationalists and Particular Baptists, it is necessary to survey where these theological traditions agree and disagree. In the final analysis, when considering the New Covenant holistically, the only area where Particular Baptists share substantial agreement with Dispensationalists is regarding the spiritual blessings that the New Covenant mediates to members thereof. Stated differently, apart from recognizing that members of the New Covenant receive forgiveness of sins and are enabled by the Holy Spirit to love and obey God from the heart (i.e., all members of the New Covenant comprise God’s elect; Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-13), there is not much overlap of convictions between a Dispensational and Particular Baptist understanding of the New Covenant. The primary reason for the stark discontinuity of views can be chalked up to differences of hermeneutics.

As stated in a previous article of the Dismantling Dispensationalism series,[16] every variety of Dispensationalism embraces rigid adherence to the “Literal-Grammatical-Historical” (LGH) hermeneutic. Some Dispensationalists go so far as to say that one must come to the text of Scripture with no other pre-understanding than a LGH hermeneutic consistently applied to every part thereof.[17] In other words, there is often an a priori method of biblical interpretation that is integral to shaping a Dispensationalist’s understanding of Scripture. This conviction presupposes that the Bible is no different than any other form of literature that exists in the world, and as such, the Bible should be subject to the same method of interpretation that would be applied to a newspaper or a novel. While it’s true that the Bible is literature and should be interpreted in accordance with ordinary methods of interpreting literature, it is equally true that the Bible is qualitatively different than any other literary work in the world.

As the inerrant, inspired, and infallible word of the living God, Scripture is a document that is living and active; as literature, God’s Word is sui generis. Therefore, as noted in a previous article devoted to interacting with the hermeneutics of Dispensationalism,[18] it is unwise to—at the outset—subject Scripture to the same standards of interpretation that would be applied to any other literary work. Rather, by virtue of being God’s Word and by virtue of being the highest authority in creation, the method of interpreting Scripture must be derived from Scripture itself. If the Bible truly is God’s Word, and if the Bible truly is the highest authority in creation, then appealing to sources outside of Scripture—in order to determine how Scripture should be interpreted from the outset—undermines its inherent authority. Thus, at the very beginning of the process of biblical interpretation, one ought to come to Scripture with a posture of, “how does the Bible intend to be interpreted?”, and “what can I learn from the authors of Scripture to assist me in understanding the text?” Such an attitude not only safeguards the authority of Scripture itself but cultivates humility in the person approaching the written word of God. Moreover, in modeling this approach, the interpreter of God’s Word will find that much of Scripture should be interpreted in a manner consistent with a LGH hermeneutic. Nevertheless, one will also find that there are instances in which a LGH hermeneutic does not do adequate justice to unpacking the meaning of a passage in light of the biblical canon. Discussions on the New Covenant are just one of numerous examples of how this reality is evidenced.

The overwhelming consensus amongst Classic/Traditional, Revised, and Progressive Dispensationalists is that Israel always means the Old Covenant (geo-political) nation of Israel, and that entails Israel being fundamentally distinct from the Church. As seen from the quotes cited above, the consequences of such a distinction can entail belief in two New Covenants,[19] or two peoples of God.[20] Moreover, a firm division between Israel and the Church necessitates the Dispensational belief that all physical/national promises associated with the New Covenant must receive literal fulfillment in/for the nation of Israel. Namely, during the future millennial reign of Christ (Rev. 20:1-10). Even if one concedes the validity of all the passages cited in support of there being physical/national promises made to Israel in conjunction with the inauguration of the New Covenant, there is no exegetical warrant from the passages being cited—or from Revelation 20—to conclude that they must be fulfilled during a future millennial reign of Christ. Who’s to say such promises couldn’t be “fulfilled” at some point prior to the return of Christ, or during the eternal state (Rev. 21-22)? Moreover, how can claims that “Israel means Israel” be squared with Paul’s claims that “not all Israel is Israel” (Rom. 9:6-13; cf. Gal. 3:26-29; 4:21-31; 6:15-16; Phil. 3:2-3; etc)? These are just a few of the interpretive and theological difficulties that arise from an a priori commitment to the LGH hermeneutic, and as stressed in a previous article of this series, one can’t faithfully read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament or consistently ascertain sensus plenior without departing from the LGH hermeneutic at certain points.[21]

Contrary to the Dispensational alternatives, and on the basis of Scripture interpreting Scripture, Particular Baptists recognize—from the Garden of Eden to the New Heavens and the New Earth—there is one people of God without distinction (Eph. 2:11-18; Col. 1:25-28). From before the foundation of the world, it has always been God’s plan to redeem a people from every tribe, tongue, and nation through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:9-12). While it is certainly true that the majority of God’s elect were ethnically Jewish during the Old Covenant epoch of redemptive history, the Jewish kingdom and covenants were preparatory for God’s Messiah to accomplish the work of redemption—on behalf of sinners from every tribe, tongue, and nation—in the fullness of time (Gal. 4:4-5; Eph. 3:1-6).[22] Stated differently, Christ’s incarnation and establishment of the New Covenant, in His blood, enables elect Israelites and Gentiles to be united into the family of God (Rev. 5:9-10). In citing texts like John 1:12-13; Acts 3:25-26; 19:8-9; 28:23; Romans 4:1; 9:3-5; 11:1; 2 Corinthians 11:22; Galatians 3:16-17, 24-28; 6:16; Hebrews 8:6-13; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:4-10, and others, Samuel Renihan further delineates the intersection between Israel, the Church, the Christ, and the New Covenant.

 The apostles argued that the covenants of promise (Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic)… had a special purpose. They contained the full and final plan of God as a mystery. The apostles used this to teach a natural connection between Israel and the Church because     Israel according to the flesh was always designed to bring forth the Messiah according to the flesh… The Old Covenant provided the Messiah. The natural connection is that the Messiah provided the New Covenant, [unifying the storyline of the Old and New Covenants]… God established the throne of David’s faithful Son, Jesus Christ, and as King he called his people according to the flesh to join Him, and the world, in a new kingdom through a new covenant… [Therefore] Jesus is the connection between Israel,  the Christ, and the Church. He is the source of the natural flow from the [Old Covenant] to the [New Covenant], according to God’s eternal purpose… The [Old Covenant] people according to the flesh served a purpose for a time—the purpose of bringing forth the Christ. When Christ emerged from Israel, only a relationship by faith would legitimize placement in His kingdom and [New] Covenant… The Church is the antitype of Israel,     the final stage, the result of God’s eternal purpose and the mystery of Christ. And the people of the Church, the body of Christ, are the children and heirs of the age. The apostles taught that with the arrival of the kingdom of Christ and His [New] covenant, the Israelite kingdom and covenants were now abrogated and annulled… The substance has come. The shadows must disappear.[23]

In summation, Particular Baptists recognize that the New Covenant was consummately inaugurated through the death of Jesus Christ: the divinely appointed mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15). As such, there are no dimensions of the New Covenant that need to be fulfilled between now and Christ’s second coming. Indeed, the New Covenant that was prototypically revealed to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and was progressively clarified by farther steps (through the types and shadows of the Old Covenant), has been in effect for nearly 2,000 years.[24] The New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, and by virtue of Christ’s flawless keeping of the Covenant of Works on behalf of God’s elect, this Covenant of Grace mediates the blessings of the Covenant of Redemption to every member of the New Covenant (past, present, and future).[25] May contemporary Particular Baptists be faithful to champion these biblical-theological distinctives with boldness, while graciously refuting misunderstandings that pertain to the nature of the New Covenant (2 Tim. 2:24-26; Titus 1:9; 1 Pet. 3:15; etc).

Soli Deo Gloria!

---

[1] In keeping with each of the previous articles of this series, these four literary works will serve as the primary sources for the Classic/Traditional, Revised, and Progressive varieties of Dispensationalism, in supplementation to what is representative of a Particular Baptist theological framework.

[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1988), Pages 416-417.

[3] Chafer, Systematic Theology, Pages 417-418.

[4] John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), Pages 878-879.

[5] MacArthur and Mayhue, eds., Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth, Pages 879-880.

[6] Each of these Scripture references refer to explicit mentioning of the physical, national, and geographical blessings associated with the New Covenant, as noted in Blaising and Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, Page 84.

[7] Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), Pages 93-94.

[8] Each of these Scripture references refer to explicit mentioning of the New Covenant in the Old and New Testaments, as cited in Blaising and Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, Pages 69, 84.  

[9] Blaising and Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, Pages 93-97.

[10] Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2019), Pages 160-161.  

[11] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Pages 161-164.

[12] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Pages 164-168.

[13] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Pages 168-169.

[14] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Pages 169-170.

[15] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Pages 160-178.

[16] https://covenantconfessions.com/dismantling-dispensationalism-dispensationalism-over-elevates-the-literal-grammatical-historical-hermeneutic/.

[17] https://tms.edu/m/TMS-Fall2018-Article-01.pdf.

[18] https://covenantconfessions.com/dismantling-dispensationalism-it-is-inconsistent-on-sensus-plenior-and-new-testament-interpretave-priority/.

[19] See quote above from Chafer, Systematic Theology, Pages 416-417: “Others hold that there are two New Covenants, one for Israel (Jer. 31) to be fulfilled in the Millennium and the other for the church being fulfilled in the present age… In the case of Israel the New Covenant will be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom, and in the case of the church it is being fulfilled in the present age.”

[20] See quote from Blaising and Bock, eds., Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, Pages 93-97: “Israel and the church are in one sense a united people of God (they participate in the same new covenant), while in another sense they remain separate in their identity and so comprise differing peoples of God. (Israel is given territorial and political aspects of the new-covenant promise not applicable to the church).”

[21] https://covenantconfessions.com/dismantling-dispensationalism-it-is-inconsistent-on-sensus-plenior-and-new-testament-interpretave-priority/.

[22] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Page 181.

[23] Renihan, The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom, Pages 183, 188-189, 191-192.

[24] See chapter7, paragraph 3, of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (“Of God’s Covenant”): https://www.arbca.com/1689-chapter7.

[25] For a discussion on 1689 Federalism’s understanding of the Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, and Covenant of Grace, see the following article: https://covenantconfessions.com/examining-dispensationalisms-defunct-covenant-theology-recognizing-the-importance-of-the-covenants-of-redemption-works-and-grace/.