Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 152:608 (Oct 1995)
Article: The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant
Author: Rodney J. Decker

---

BSac 152:608 (Oct 95) p. 431

The Church’s Relationship to the New Covenant

Rodney J. Decker

[Rodney J. Decker is Assistant Professor of New Testament, Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary, Kansas City, Missouri.]

[This is article two in a two-part series.]

A few dispensationalists argue that the church’s New Covenant differs from the New Covenant for Israel. Some contend that the church has no relationship to the New Covenant at all. Others—the majority position among dispensationalists—assert that the church participates in some aspects of the New Covenant. These three groupings are not as neat and tidy as might be expected,1 for the position of Newell and Stanford, for example, might be classed with either the first or second group. This article surveys the divergent views of the New Covenant held by dispensationalists.

View One: The Church Has a Different New Covenant

Although seldom advocated today, it was formerly popular among dispensationalists to propose that there are two different new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church. While different, the two new covenants have similarities: their name, their basis (the death of Christ), and some of their provisions.

Chafer advocated this view, though he did not develop it systematically or at any length. His position must be pieced together from scattered comments in his Systematic Theology and his other writings.

BSac 152:608 (Oct 95) p. 432

The eighth covenant is with Israel and conditions their life in the kingdom (cf. Jer 31:31–34)…. There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding 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 made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two 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, however, 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. Israel’s new covenant rests specifically on the sovereign “I will” of Jehovah, while the new covenant for the Church is made in Christ’s blood. Everything that Israel will yet have, to supply another contrast, is the present possession of the Church—and infinitely more.

visitor : : uid: ()