n truth, there really is only one correct theological view of the Covenant, and that is the "Biblical" view. That is to say, the view of Covenant Theology as defined by the Bible. However, man typically chooses to make things more complicated and confusing than they should be, and so accordingly, labels are required to separate the three basic schools of thought. Though the specifics of the theology of the Covenant may be defined in one way by one group, and in another way by another group, in general there are basically three major views. These views fit somewhere into the systems known as "Covenant Theology," "New Covenant Theology," and "Dispensational Theology." Following is a general and brief synopsis of these three theologies.

Dispensational Theology
It is difficult to summarize the dispensational belief because out of its roots have come so many outgrowths and diverse branches. In general, the core of this system is their untenable insistence on the oxymoron that they take the Bible very literally, even when it is figurative. And thus they believe that Old Covenant believers were under an epochal of Mosaic law. These theologians teach that there is a great degree of discontinuity between the old and new Covenants, and that there are diverse ways in which God has dealt with man in different dispensations or epochs of time. This system teaches God's plan for dealing with man throughout history has been changing throughout these seven periods of time.

These diverse economies include the time of the Mosaic Law, the present age we live in, and the future one thousand year reign of Christ on earth. Those who hold this theological view do not believe that there is only one people of God, but rather that the Bible contains two distinctly different paths for certain people. This includes one plan for those who are of Jewish heritage, and a separate plan for all the Gentile people. The New Covenant is viewed in the sense of law being replaced by Grace, rather than law and Grace coexisting throughout time. Although it is believed that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ through faith now, they also hold that the nation of Israel will receive additional earthly promises and honors. Some even declare that the Jewish people are saved by grace of God during this present dispensation, but that the Jewish people of the past (and indeed Jewish people of the future) are somehow to be justified by lineage in a divine establishment of obedience to the law.

It is this view of God having separate plans for those who are of the heritage of the nation of Israel, and the belief in this series of divine dispensations, that distinguishes this form of theology from both "Covenant Theology," and "New Covenant Theology." Dispensationalism is beyond the scope of this particular publication, and so this paper will focus on the differences between "Covenant Theology" and "New Covenant Theology."

Covenant
To better understand the theologies, we first should better understand the word. The word translated Covenant in the Hebrew is [beriyth], and in the Greek is [diatheke] (often translated Testament). They both very literally mean "a promise or solemn oath" (genesis 26:3). For example, if you produced a written agreement certifying that your land should go to your son after your death, that is a Covenant. It is literally a written Promise, oath, or testament certifying that something must be done. Moreover, any Covenant can made out as conditional, or as an unconditional Covenant. For example, a Covenant can be a mutual agreement that "IF" certain requirements are met, then only then will the promise be enforceable. That is a contract or conditional Covenant. On the other hand, an Oath or promise to give something, with no requirements or necessary stipulations, is an unconditional Covenant. i.e., it is a solemn Promise or Oath to do something, with no conditions attached. Thus, any breaking of that Covenant for any reason is a violation. In these ways, God has made many solemn promises or Covenants in scripture, which careful study reveals all point to some aspect of Christianity. e.g.:

Jeremiah 33:25-36

• "Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth, then will I cast away the seed of Jacob..."

Genesis 9:15

• "And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

Psalms 132:12

• "If thy children will keep my Covenant and my testimony that I shall teach them, their children shall also sit upon thy throne for evermore."

Galatians 3:17

• "And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make The Promise of none effect."

Galatians 3:29

• "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to The Promise."

Covenant Theology
Which brings us to this word as it is used in the context of the issue before us. Covenant Theology (for example, as understood in the Westminster Confession of Faith) is the understanding that the promise supports a great degree of continuity between the Old Covenant (represented by works) and the New Covenant (representing grace). The Old Covenant is actually a synonym for the law, and the New Covenant a synonym for Grace. There were no saints ever saved by the Old Covenant law, as all who were saved before the time of Christ, were saved under the only Covenant that can save. And thart is the New Covenant that was confirmed in the shed blood of Christ. From the very beginning, all of mankind that were elect, were saved the exact same way. By faith in the redemptive work of Christ, the Old Covenant of works (conditional) was passed away (Hebrews 8:12-13) for us (both Old and New Covenant saints), that we are no longer under its sentence of death. The Old was the example, which the New brought to light and consummated.

Hebrews 9:15

• "And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

Moreover, in Covenant Theology we see scripture as also illustrating that the promise or Covenant of God is also external in nature. Where, just as the nation Israel was externally under God's protection, the Church is a family under this same external Covenant. The external nature of the Covenant applies not only to those adults who come to believe, but also in a non-salvific way (1st Corinthians 7:14), to their children. In like manner, water baptism is an external outward 'sign' of incorporation into the Covenant family of God. But it doesn't guarantee anyone's salvation.

The biblical hermeneutic of the law establishes that whatever is not abolished in Christ, continues. Therefore, there is a certain unity or continuity in God's Covenants. i.e., though there is the Covenant of works and the Covenant of grace, they are intimately related for the true believer. In other words, Christ fulfilled the conditions of the Old Covenant of law or works, that it may no longer rule over us. Once truly saved, we are looked upon by God as clean, holy and unblamable. That is how the Old Covenant is passed away for us, as we have become as dead to the law (Romans 7:4)through the death of the body of Christ.

Romans 4:15-16

• "Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
• Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,"

Hebrews 8:4-5

• "For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
• Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount."

When our Lord established the New Covenant, it was proof that there is nothing of merit in the dispensational system view of the Covenant. For Christ Himself was not establishing something radically different, rather, 'by Himself,' He was establishing the true or real fulfillment of the Old Covenant shadows.

Hebrews 10:1

• "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."

Hebrews 13:21

• "Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

New Covenant Theology
By contrast, 'New Covenant Theology' is a phrase that people use to identify the belief that the administration in the New Testament has a distinctively 'new character' to it. It has been un-flatteringly equated to being a compromise between Dispensational Theology and Covenant Theology. this is partly due to it being a doctrine held by many theologians who were former dispensationalists, Reformed Baptists or former Baptists who come from this background.

In this teaching, it is generally held that Christ has actually Changed God's laws. Their belief stems from their conclusion that because we live under the provisions of the New Covenant believed to be a New Dispensation inaugurated by Christ, that the law of Christ is 'not' the same as the law of Moses. However, it is my belief that this view is indefensible on may different fronts. Primarily because Christ did nothing but support the law of Moses all throughout His ministry. Indeed, it is quite evident that 'the law of Moses' is synonymous with 'The word of God.' In other words, the ten commandments and all other commandments of God, were not Moses' law, it was God's law. It is called the law of Moses to distinguish it from Grace.

John 1:17

• "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

Matthew 5:17-18

• "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
• For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

New Covenant theologians may look at the fact that we no longer celebrate the Passover in the style they did in the Old Covenant as proof that the law has changed. But in truth, what it proves is that the Passover celebration is kept in our festival of eating of Christ. He is the real passover Lamb, and not a animal that is burned in the flame. Why would the children of God eat of the shadow when they have the real which the shadow merely forecast? Christians keep the Passover eternally, in the real.

John 6:54-55

• "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
• For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."

While the New Covenant Theology system declares the New Testament characterizes the New Covenant as superior to the old, it also places a disconnect between the two. Therefore it is surmised that this perceived discontinuity means the law of Christ stands in contrast to the law of Moses. However, that would make two separate and distinct bodies, which is an un-biblical concept concerning the children of God. The Old Testament saints were saved by Grace exactly as the New Testament saints were. Not by works, but by the Covenant of Grace. In the Old Covenant times, by faith they looked forward to the coming of the Messiah Christ and his finished work on the cross. In the New Covenant, by faith we look backward at the coming of Christ and His finished work on the cross. The faith is the same and the Grace is the same. The only difference is the saint's directional of their view of Christ. In other words, We (Old Testament as well as New Testament saints) are all part of this very same continual eternal covenant of Grace. Just because before the cross of Christ, the Covenant was not yet given strength, doesn't mean that it's efficacy does not reach back to Abraham or Abel. And if it does, then there is obviously continuity.

If there indeed was no continuation of the Covenants with Israel, it is contradictory for God to declare He grafts New Covenant branches into the Old Covenant Olive Tree, Israel. The Olive tree (Romans 11) is the representation or symbol of this external Covenant that God has with Israel. And it clearly existed both before the cross and after the cross. This Covenant with Israel stood strong even as some branches were broken off of it as blindness in part.

Romans 11:17

• "And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;"

Hebrews 9:17

• "For a Covenant is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the Covenantor liveth."

Hebrew 10:16

• "This is the Covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;"

many New Covenant Theologians are fond of claiming that the Old Covenant law of Moses is somehow not in effect for Christians today, while at the same time using the Old Covenant laws of moses (thou shalt not kill, commit adultery, covet, etc.) as laws still in effect for Christians today. As they see it, if it's repeated in the New Covenant, then it's still in effect. But the question is, how then is the Old Covenant law still in effect and repeated in the New Covenant, if it was done away with? That's not a law being done away with, that is the law being reiterated! It is inconsistent at best, and presents a very shaky foundation on which to build a theology.

The New Covenant Theology system supposes that it is a totally different Covenant, when in fact it is different and new only in that the continuity of it is seen fulfilled in a new and glorious way. That is, we who are under that Covenant law may not are not condemned. It's not new in the sense that the law is abrogated. It's new in that it doesn't condemn us because of our imperfect works, or our lack of perfect labor. However, it still condemns those not in Christ, which in itself is proof that nothing has changed concerning the Old Covenant laws. Those who know the law, and who don't keep the law, will be judged more severely. Thus the words of the law stands.

James 2:8-11

• "If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
• But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
• For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
• For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law."

In conclusion, it is my belief that Dispensational Theology is not only untenable, but disjointed and fundamentally flawed. And New Covenant Theology is in parts inconsistent and places an artificial abrogation of Old Covenant law. But Covenant Theology is the Biblically consistent view of how God has always dealt with His people. Indeed, Biblical Theology is 'Covenant Theology,' one continuity between the Old Covenant and the New. The Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace, both in agreement and continuity. One in which we uphold our obligations to the conditional promises of God in the Grace of Christ Jesus only, because He has finished the works 'required' as our substitute.

The difference between the two Christian theologies of "Covenant Theology" and "New Covenant Theology," basically boils down to the distinction that Covenant Theology believes in the continuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and New Covenant Theology believes that the New Covenant law of Christ stands 'in contrast' to the Old Covenant law of Moses. There are many flavors of these Theologies, but generally speaking, this is the basic difference.