A Brief Statement

I hold that God has ordered the whole course of redemptive history through a series of covenants — solemn, binding arrangements He has established with man — and that these covenants, read in their plain sense, are the framework of biblical theology. The great covenants of promise (the Abrahamic, the Davidic, and the New) are unconditional and everlasting, resting upon God’s own oath; and they pledge to Israel a literal land, an eternal throne and kingdom, and a redeemed heart — promises not yet fully realized, and not quietly transferred to another people. The Mosaic covenant, by contrast, was conditional and temporary, given to Israel alone, and has been fulfilled and set aside in Christ.

The church, born at Pentecost, is a distinct people who share even now in the spiritual blessings of the New Covenant secured by Christ’s blood, while Israel’s national promises await their fulfillment in the coming kingdom. I therefore distinguish this covenantal framework from the theological covenants of Reformed Covenant Theology, holding — with genuine respect for the brethren who differ — that the covenants Scripture actually names, taken at face value, keep Israel and the church distinct and the promises of God intact. This, more than any other single thing, is the backbone of how I read the Bible.

❖ ❖ ❖

A Detailed Exposition

What a Covenant Is

A covenant, in the biblical sense, is a binding arrangement between two parties, solemnized by an oath and often sealed in blood. The Hebrew word is berith; tellingly, one does not “make” a covenant in Hebrew but “cuts” one (karath berith), an echo of the ancient rite in which animals were cut in two and the parties passed between the pieces, invoking a like fate upon the covenant-breaker.¹ The covenants of Scripture fall into two broad kinds, after the pattern of the treaties of the ancient world. Some are conditional — of the suzerain-and-vassal type, in which a great king pledges blessing to a subject people if they obey, and cursing if they do not. Others are unconditional — of the royal-grant type, in which a king binds himself by oath to bestow a gift, the fulfillment resting not on the recipient’s performance but on the giver’s faithfulness. Reading each covenant according to its kind is the first step to reading them rightly.²

Two Approaches to the Covenants

Before walking through the covenants themselves, I must mark a parting of the ways. Reformed Covenant Theology organizes all of Scripture around three covenants of its own naming: a covenant of redemption within the Godhead, a covenant of works made with Adam, and a covenant of grace running from the Fall to the end, under which Israel and the church are one people of God in differing administrations. I honor the system’s desire to see the Bible whole, and I share its high view of grace; but I cannot adopt it, for these covenants are theological constructs inferred from the text rather than covenants the text itself names and describes, and the framework tends to flatten the very distinctions Scripture draws — above all the distinction between Israel and the church.³ I prefer to follow the covenants God actually cuts in the pages of Scripture, in their own terms, and to let them, rather than a prior scheme, supply the structure. I hold this as a conviction and a matter of hermeneutics (see my paper on Hermeneutics), not as a barrier to fellowship with my Reformed brethren, from whom I have learned much.

The Noahic Covenant

After the flood God made a covenant with Noah, and through him with “every living creature” and indeed with the earth itself (Genesis 9:8–17). It is universal in scope and unconditional in form: God pledges, asking nothing in return, that He will never again destroy the world by water, and He sets the rainbow as its sign. This covenant is not redemptive — it does not save — but it is foundational, for it guarantees the stable order of nature and the restraint of judgment within which the whole drama of redemption can unfold. It is the charter of what theologians have called common grace, the kindness God shows to a fallen world He is patiently bearing with.⁴

The Abrahamic Covenant

With Abraham we reach the foundation on which all that follows is built. God called him out of Ur and bound Himself by covenant to give him three things: a land, a seed (descendants), and a blessing that would reach through him to all the families of the earth (Genesis 12:1–3; 15; 17). The covenant’s unconditional character is shown unforgettably in its ratification: God put Abraham into a deep sleep, and He alone — as a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch — passed between the divided pieces, taking the whole obligation upon Himself (Genesis 15:9–18). It is called “an everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:7).⁵ The land promise was later confirmed and enlarged in what is sometimes called the Land covenant (Deuteronomy 30), and its boundaries were drawn with a definiteness that Israel has never yet fully possessed — which tells me the promise still awaits a literal fulfillment.⁶ The seed promise narrows, in the end, to one — “to Abraham and to his offspring … who is Christ” (Galatians 3:16) — and through Him the promised blessing flows out to the nations, so that all who are Christ’s, Jew and Gentile alike, are “blessed along with Abraham” (Galatians 3:9, 29). Yet the blessing of the Gentiles does not cancel the promises made to the nation; it fulfills one strand of them while the others stand.⁷

The Mosaic Covenant

At Sinai, God gave Israel the covenant of the Law (Exodus 19–24). Unlike the covenants of promise, it was conditional — a suzerain-vassal arrangement, with blessing pledged for obedience and cursing for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28) — and it was given to the redeemed nation of Israel, not to mankind at large. Its purpose was never to save: it was “added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come” (Galatians 3:19), to reveal sin, to govern and set apart the nation, and to serve as a paidagōgos — a guardian or tutor — leading us to Christ (Galatians 3:24).⁸ And being a covenant for a season, it has come to its appointed end. “Christ is the end of the law” (Romans 10:4); in Him it is at once fulfilled and terminated, so that the believer is no longer under the Mosaic Law as a covenant but under grace, and walks now by the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 9:21). I have set out the implications of this for Christian living in my paper on the Law of Christ; here I note only that it is the covenant structure of Scripture that makes the point sure — the Law was a covenant with Israel, for a time, now ended in Christ.⁹

The Davidic Covenant

To David, God made a further unconditional promise: that He would establish his “house,” his “throne,” and his “kingdom” forever (2 Samuel 7:12–16). This was no mere prediction of a long dynasty; it was an oath that a Son of David would reign over an everlasting kingdom. The angel announced its fulfillment to Mary: God would give to her Son “the throne of His father David,” and He would “reign over the house of Jacob forever” (Luke 1:32–33). I do not believe this promise is exhausted by Christ’s present session at the Father’s right hand. A literal throne, a literal kingdom, and a literal reign over the house of Jacob were promised, and these I expect to see fulfilled when Christ returns to reign upon the earth — the millennial kingdom of which I have written in my paper on Eschatology.¹⁰

The New Covenant

Through Jeremiah, God promised a “new covenant” to replace the broken covenant of Sinai — made explicitly “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31–34; cf. Ezekiel 36:24–27). Its provisions are all of grace: the forgiveness of sins, the law written upon the heart, the indwelling Spirit, and an intimate knowledge of the Lord from the least to the greatest. It was ratified, our Lord declared, in His own blood — “this cup is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20) — and the book of Hebrews expounds it at length as the better covenant of which Christ is the mediator (Hebrews 8–10).¹¹ How the church relates to a covenant made by name with Israel has been debated among dispensationalists. An older view held that there are two New Covenants, one for Israel and one for the church; the more common view today, which I hold, is that there is one New Covenant, whose spiritual blessings — forgiveness and the Spirit — the church enjoys now through union with Christ, while its national fulfillment to a restored Israel awaits the kingdom. Either way, the church’s present participation does not consume Israel’s future portion.¹²

Israel, the Church, and the Kingdom

Set side by side, the covenants give the storyline of Scripture its shape, and they hold three things together that must not be confused. Israel is the nation to whom the covenants of promise were given, and to whom their national fulfillment is still owed. The church is a distinct people, born at Pentecost, in whom Jew and Gentile are made one new man and who share the spiritual riches of Abraham’s blessing and the New Covenant (see my papers on Dispensationalism and Ecclesiology). And the kingdom is the coming reign of Christ in which the land, throne, and national promises will at last be made good. The great error to avoid is the notion that the church has simply replaced Israel, inheriting her promises while leaving her the curses. The apostle forbids it: Israel’s “gifts and calling … are irrevocable,” and “all Israel will be saved” when her appointed day comes (Romans 11:29, 26). God has not finished with the people to whom He swore. In the end every covenant finds its center and its “Yes” in Christ, in whom all the promises of God are confirmed (2 Corinthians 1:20).¹³

❖ ❖ ❖

Practical Implications

Ministry Emphasis: The Faithfulness of God and Confidence in His Word

First, the covenants are the bedrock of assurance, because they rest on the faithfulness of God rather than the performance of man. A God who keeps His sworn word to Israel across the centuries — who does not revoke His gifts and calling even when His people fail — is a God I can trust to keep His word to me. The unconditional covenant is the deepest ground of the believer’s security (see my paper on Eternal Security): what God has promised by oath, He will perform.

Second, the covenants teach us to read the whole Bible, not merely to mine it for isolated verses. They are the thread on which the beads of the story hang — from Abraham to David to the upper room to the kingdom — and a congregation that grasps them will see the unity of God’s purpose from Genesis to Revelation. I have found no better way to help people stop reading the Bible as a scatter of disconnected lessons and start reading it as one unfolding plan.

Third, rightly dividing the covenants guards the church from a perennial danger: dragging believers back under a covenant that has ended. Because the Mosaic Law was a covenant with Israel, now fulfilled in Christ, the Christian is not under it as a rule of life but is free — free not for license but for the law of Christ, the obedience of love empowered by the Spirit (see my papers on the Law of Christ and Soteriology). Much needless bondage is laid on tender consciences for want of this distinction.

Finally, the covenants give us hope and teach us humility. They send our eyes forward to a kingdom yet to come, and they teach us to love and pray for the Jewish people, in whom God’s ancient promises still wait to ripen. And because godly men have read these things differently — my Reformed brethren chief among them — I hold my framework with conviction but without contempt, remembering that we are debating the architecture of promises that are, every one of them, sure in Christ.

In Christ every promise of God is “Yes” — the land, the throne, the new heart — and what God has sworn, He will surely keep.

❖ ❖ ❖

Biblical, Exegetical, Theological, and Historical Notes

The Hebrew berith (ברית), “covenant,” is regularly paired with the verb karath (כרת), “to cut” — hence “to cut a covenant” (Genesis 15:18) — reflecting the ancient rite of dividing animals and passing between the parts (Genesis 15:9–17; Jeremiah 34:18). The Greek of the New Testament renders it diathēkē (διαθήκη), “covenant” or “testament.” Covenant loyalty is expressed by chesed (חסד), God’s steadfast, covenant-keeping love.
Modern study of ancient Near Eastern treaties has illumined two forms reflected in Scripture: the suzerain-vassal treaty, in which a great king imposes obligations on a subject people with blessings and curses attached (the pattern of the Mosaic covenant), and the royal grant, in which a king unconditionally bestows a gift or land upon a favored servant (the pattern of the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants). The distinction between conditional and unconditional covenants is, on the dispensational reading, of the first importance, for the unconditional covenants depend for their fulfillment on God’s faithfulness alone.
Reformed Covenant Theology is structured by three covenants: the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) among the persons of the Godhead; the covenant of works (foedus operum) with Adam; and the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae) from the Fall onward, under which the saints of all ages — Israel and the church together — form one people of God in successive administrations. My difficulty is twofold: these are theological covenants inferred from Scripture rather than covenants Scripture names and ratifies, and the unifying “covenant of grace” tends to absorb Israel into the church and so to blur the distinction the biblical covenants maintain. I differ here as a matter of conviction and hermeneutics, with respect for a venerable tradition.
The Noahic covenant (Genesis 8:20–9:17) is universal — made with Noah, his descendants, every living creature, and the earth — and wholly unconditional, sealed by the sign of the rainbow. It is not a covenant of salvation but a covenant of preservation, guaranteeing the order of nature and the seasons (Genesis 8:22) and the restraint of total judgment. It undergirds what theologians call common grace, the basis on which a fallen world is sustained while redemption runs its course.
The Abrahamic covenant is given and confirmed in Genesis 12:1–3; 15:1–21; and 17:1–21, pledging land, seed, and blessing. Its unconditional character is sealed in Genesis 15: while Abraham slept, God alone — symbolized by the smoking fire pot and flaming torch — passed between the divided animals, assuming the whole obligation Himself. It is expressly “an everlasting covenant” (Genesis 17:7). All later covenants of promise develop strands already present here.
The land promise of the Abrahamic covenant is reaffirmed and expanded in Deuteronomy 30:1–10, sometimes distinguished as the Land (or “Palestinian”) covenant, which foretells Israel’s dispersion for disobedience and her future regathering and restoration to the land. The covenant’s geographical boundaries (Genesis 15:18–21) exceed any territory Israel has historically held, which on a literal reading points to a yet-future fulfillment. See my paper on Eschatology.
The “seed” (sperma, σπέρμα) of Abraham is read by Paul as ultimately singular — “who is Christ” (Galatians 3:16) — through whom the promised blessing reaches the Gentiles, so that believers are “Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise” (Galatians 3:29). This spiritual blessing of the nations fulfills one element of the Abrahamic promise; it neither requires nor permits the conclusion that the national and territorial promises to Israel have been annulled.
The Mosaic covenant (Exodus 19–24) was conditional (Exodus 19:5; Deuteronomy 28) and given to Israel as a nation. Its purposes were to expose and restrain sin, to order the national and religious life of Israel, and to lead to Christ: it was “added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come” (Galatians 3:19) and served as a paidagōgos (παιδαγωγός), the household guardian who escorted a child to his teacher (Galatians 3:24). It was never a means of justification (Galatians 2:16; 3:11).
“Christ is the end (telos, τέλος) of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Romans 10:4) — telos carrying both senses of goal and termination. With its fulfillment in Christ, the Mosaic covenant ceased to be the believer’s rule (Romans 6:14; 7:4, 6; Galatians 3:25); the Christian now lives under “the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 9:21). See my paper on the Law of Christ. This is not antinomianism: the moral character of God is unchanging, but the believer relates to it through Christ and the Spirit, not through the Sinai covenant.
The Davidic covenant (2 Samuel 7:12–16; cf. Psalm 89; Jeremiah 33:17–21) pledged to David an enduring house, throne, and kingdom. Its fulfillment is in Christ, the Son of David (Luke 1:32–33; Acts 2:30), but I take the promise of a literal throne and reign over “the house of Jacob” to await His return and millennial reign, not to be exhausted by His present heavenly session. See my paper on Eschatology.
The New Covenant is promised in Jeremiah 31:31–34 (cf. Ezekiel 36:24–27) to “the house of Israel and the house of Judah,” with provisions of forgiveness, internal transformation (the law written on the heart), the indwelling Spirit, and the knowledge of God. Christ ratified it in His blood (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25), and Hebrews 8–10 presents Him as its mediator and announces the obsolescence of the old covenant it replaces.
Dispensationalists have explained the church’s relation to a covenant named for Israel in more than one way. The older “two-covenant” view (Chafer, the early Walvoord) posited a separate New Covenant for the church; the prevailing view today — which I hold — is that there is one New Covenant, inaugurated by Christ, whose spiritual blessings the church partakes of now (2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8) through union with Him, while its full and national realization for regathered Israel awaits the kingdom. The church’s present share does not cancel Israel’s future inheritance. See Robert L. Saucy, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism, for one careful treatment.
The covenants require that Israel and the church be distinguished without being divorced (see my papers on Dispensationalism and Ecclesiology). The church has not replaced Israel (the error of supersessionism); Paul insists that Israel’s “gifts and calling … are irrevocable” and that “all Israel will be saved” (Romans 11:25–29). The land, throne, and national promises converge in the future kingdom of Christ, and all the covenants alike find their “Yes” in Him (2 Corinthians 1:20).