The Old Testament anticipates the Messiah and leads us to him in the person of Christ, specifically through typological persons, events, and institutions. Jesus was not abolishing the canonical authority of the Old Testament but correctly orienting it to terminate in his own authority. D. A. Carson explains that \u201cthe OT\u2019s real and abiding authority must be understood through the person and teaching of him to whom it points and who so richly fulfills it.\u201d The Christological claim is simply staggering. Jesus understood himself to be the eschatological goal of the entire Old Testament and the sole authoritative interpreter of its teaching. In other words, Jesus views himself as sharing authority with God and bringing all God\u2019s promises to pass in himself.
\nAlong with his teaching, Jesus\u2019s healing and nature miracles bear witness to his unique authority and power as the divine Son, who has become the human son-king to redeem and restore us. Jesus\u2019s healing miracles evidence the arrival of the new covenant age (Luke 7:22\u201323; cf. Isa. 29:18\u201319; 35:5\u20136; 61:1) and manifest God\u2019s supernatural rule coming in and through him. In relation to nature, as Jesus rebukes the stormy sea and it obeys him (Matt. 8:26), as he walks on the sea and the waters support him (Matt. 14:25, 28\u201330), these acts of authority and power are viewed not as isolated acts but as evidence that God\u2019s kingdom rule is now here. When placed in the Bible\u2019s storyline and covenantal progression, these dramatic acts of redemption reveal that Yahweh alone triumphs over the stormy sea (see Pss. 65:7; 107:23\u201331) and treads upon its waters (Job 9:8 LXX; cf. Ps. 77:19; Isa. 51:9\u201310), yet now these acts are identified with Jesus. In a similar manner, the New Testament presents many other healings and miracles and even the exorcism of demons (Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 10:7\u20138; Luke 9:11; 10:9, 17; 11:20) as an indication that in Jesus, God\u2019s kingdom has come.
\nFurther evidence that God fulfills his plan in Jesus by inaugurating the kingdom through (new) covenant is in Jesus\u2019s authority and power to exercise divine judgment and to bring resurrection life. Jesus understood himself to be the man appointed by his Father to exercise divine judgment (Matt. 7:22\u201323; 16:27; 25:31\u201333, 41; cf. John 5:22\u201323). But Scripture is clear that judgment is the work of God alone (Deut. 1:17; Jer. 25:31; Rom. 2:3, 5\u20136; 14:10; 1 Pet. 1:17). And yet, Jesus knew that he came as the appointed Judge of all humanity and that his verdict assigns every person to either eternal punishment or eternal life (Matt. 25:46; cf. John 5:29; 2 Cor. 5:10). And in relation to this judgment, Jesus understood that he had the authority and power of resurrection. But one cannot understand these claims apart from their fulfilling the prophetic anticipation of God\u2019s kingdom, which is tied to the hope of resurrection life (Ezek. 37:1\u201323; cf. Isa. 25:6\u20139; Dan. 12:2). Once again, Jesus is presented as the divine Son, identified with the Father but appointed as the promised Davidic son-king, who fulfills all the promises of God in himself.
\nOr think of how Jesus has the authority to forgive sins, which is tied to the promise of the new covenant. In Mark 2, Jesus tells a paralytic, \u201cSon, your sins are forgiven\u201d (2:5). The religious leaders who charge Jesus with blasphemy are correct that God alone can forgive sins (2:7), so Jesus does not challenge their theological reasoning. But he does challenge their theological conclusion that Jesus is not God the Son, who has the authority to forgive sins: \u201cWhy do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Rise, take up your bed and walk?\u201d (2:8\u20139). Jesus steps into the plotline of Scripture at a point where he is now inaugurating God\u2019s kingdom through new covenant. Healing the paralytic and having the authority to forgive sins, especially outside the temple, is proof that Jesus is the one in whom God\u2019s saving rule has finally come and that he is the true temple (see Matt. 8:17; cf. Isa. 35:5\u20136; 53:4; 61:1; Jer. 31:34; John 2:19\u201322). As Carson notes, \u201cThis is the authority of Immanuel, \u2018God with us\u2019 (Matt. 1:23), sent to \u2018save his people from their sins\u2019 (Matt. 1:21).\u201d The plotline, the scene, and the dialogue combine to reveal that the promised forgiveness of sin and covenantal reconciliation between God and man is fulfilled in Jesus. The temple, priesthood, and sacrificial system played their typological role to set the stage for God himself to come in Christ to redeem a people for himself.
\nLastly, in relation to the Old Testament teaching that it is God who ushers in his kingdom but through the Messiah, Jesus\u2019s use of the \u201cI am\u201d (eg\u014d eimi) in John\u2019s Gospel further confirms that he is the unique divine Son and that he is the antitypical fulfillment of the previous covenant heads and typological patterns. Regarding the former, when Jesus refers to himself as \u201cI am\u201d without a predicate (John 6:20; 8:24, 28, 58; 18:6), he connects his personal identity with the covenantal identity of Yahweh. In Exodus 3, God identifies himself to Moses as the \u201cI am\u201d (3:6, 14), which becomes the unique and personal name for God in his covenant with Israel and with David. And in Isaiah 40\u201348, the prophet uses God\u2019s covenantal name to make the point that as the one true and living God, Yahweh is unique and incomparable by nature (41:4; 43:10, 25; 45:8, 18, 19, 22; 46:4, 9; 48:12, 17). The \u201cI am\u201d is in a category by himself as the eternally self-existent being who alone is God. The Old Testament reserves \u201cI am\u201d for Yahweh; by definition, this name cannot apply to any mere man. So when Jesus steps into the Old Testament covenantal storyline and refers to himself as \u201cI am,\u201d he identifies himself as Yahweh, the divine Son who is equal with the Father (John 8:58; cf. 13:19).
\nRegarding the latter, when Jesus refers to himself as the \u201cI am\u201d with a predicate (\u201cthe bread of life,\u201d 6:35; \u201cthe light of the world,\u201d 8:12; \u201cthe gate,\u201d 10:7, 9; \u201cthe good shepherd,\u201d 10:11, 14; \u201cthe resurrection and the life,\u201d 11:25; \u201cthe way, the truth, and the life,\u201d 14:6; and \u201cthe true vine,\u201d 15:1, 5), he sees himself as the antitypical fulfillment of the previous covenant heads and typological patterns. For example, in John 6, Jesus declares, \u201c \u2018I am the bread of life\u2019 \u201d (6:35, 48) to reveal that he is greater than the manna that sustained Israel in the wilderness, because in him is eternal life (6:51, 58). Or in John 10, Jesus declares, \u201c \u2018I am the good shepherd\u2019 \u201d (10:11). By using this predicate within the Bible\u2019s plotline, Jesus is claiming to fulfill the role of Israel\u2019s kings and leaders to shepherd the people where all those kings and leaders failed (Ezek. 34:1\u20139). But Jesus also identifies with Yahweh, who promised, \u201cI, I myself will search for my sheep and will seek them out.\u2026 And I will bring them out from the peoples \u2026 and will bring them into their own land\u201d (Ezek. 34:11\u201313). Or in John 15, Jesus says, \u201cI am the true vine\u201d (15:1), which identifies him as the antitypical fulfillment of Israel. In the Old Testament the vine is a common symbol for Israel (Ps. 80:9\u201316; Isa. 5:1\u20137; Jer. 2:21; Ezek. 15:1\u20138; 17:1\u201321; 19:10\u201314; Hos. 10:1\u20132), and it mostly refers to Israel\u2019s unfaithfulness as a covenant partner. Yet Jesus is the true vine, which, as Carson notes, in this context entails that Jesus sees himself as \u201cthe one to whom Israel pointed, the one that brings forth good fruit\u201d and the one who \u201csupersedes Israel as the very locus of the people of God.\u201d In all these ways, the Old Testament hope is fulfilled in Jesus by his kingdom work.<\/p>\n
JESUS\u2019S DEATH AND RESURRECTION: THE INAUGURATION OF THE NEW COVENANT<\/p>\n
From the beginning of his ministry, Jesus knew he was the Messiah and had to die to fulfill his Father\u2019s will. From his use of the title \u201cSon of Man\u201d (from Dan. 7:13\u201314); to the application of Isaiah 61 to himself (Luke 4:21); to the prediction that the bridegroom would be \u201ctaken away\u201d (apair\u014d) from his disciples (Mark 2:20), an allusion to Isaiah 53:8 (a description of the suffering servant, who \u201cby oppression and judgment \u2026 was taken away,\u201d speaking of his violent death); to the comparison of himself with Jonah (Matt. 12:40); to the serpent in the wilderness (John 3:14)\u2014all this demonstrates that Jesus knew his death was \u201cbecause it was so determined in God\u2019s counsel and predicted in Scripture (Matt. 16:21; 26:54; Luke 22:22; 24:26, 44\u201346; John 3:14; 7:30; 8:20; 10:18; 11:7\u201315; 12:23; 13:1; 17:1; 20:9; 1 Pet. 1:20).\u201d As Herman Bavinck notes, \u201cProphecy, especially the prophecy of Isaiah (ch. 53), was always present to his mind (Luke 4:21; 18:31; 22:37; 24:26, 46) and instructed him concerning his departure.\u201d
\nThis truth is especially evident at Caesarea Philippi, where Peter rightly confesses that Jesus is the Messiah and where Jesus instructs his disciples about the nature of his messianic work. Jesus insists that precisely because he is the Messiah, he must (Gk. dei) suffer, die, and be raised on the third day\u2014a fact he reiterated on three separate occasions (Mark 8:31\u201332; see 9:31; 10:32\u201334). Jesus reinforces this truth after his resurrection, when he reminds his disciples what he taught them before his death: that his death and resurrection were central to God\u2019s plan and thus the fulfillment of Scripture (Luke 24:25\u201327, 44\u201347).
\nIn addition, the transfiguration also reminds us how central Christ\u2019s death is to his mission, the inauguration of the kingdom, and the dawning of the entire new covenant age. On the mountain, our Lord receives further confirmation of his Father\u2019s love (Mark 9:7), and then he meets with Moses and Elijah. What did they discuss? Luke tells us: \u201cThey spoke about his departure [exodos], which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem\u201d (Luke 9:31). Why is thinking about Christ\u2019s death as his exodos significant? Because this language sets Christ\u2019s cross in the larger context of God\u2019s divine plan by suggesting that it is the antitypical fulfillment of the exodus, the Old Testament\u2019s great act of redemption. Christ\u2019s impending death is not the death of a martyr or victim. Jesus dies as the Messiah, the divine Son incarnate, who as the Passover Lamb and the conquering priest-king fulfills God\u2019s plan and achieves a new exodus in his blood.
\nThis truth is also reinforced in Jesus\u2019s celebration of the Passover and establishment of the Last Supper. In the upper room, Jesus interprets his upcoming death in covenantal terms: first, as the fulfillment of the Passover, and, second, as the inauguration of the new covenant. Let us look at each of these points.<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019s Death as the Fulfillment of the Passover<\/p>\n
First, given the Passover context of the meal, Jesus views his upcoming death as a sacrifice, the antitypical fulfillment not only of the sacrificial system but also of the Passover lamb (John 1:29; 1 Cor. 5:7). Also, the sacrificial nature of Jesus\u2019s death is reinforced by his words: \u201cThis is my body given for you.\u2026 This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you\u201d (Luke 22:19\u201320). New meaning is given to the Passover, which reveals how Jesus views the import of his upcoming death, namely, as a priestly sacrifice, in obedience to his Father\u2019s will, and fulfilling the typological significance of the sacrificial Passover lamb. Just as the Passover lamb functioned as a God-provided substitute for human life and deliverance from divine judgment of sin, it also was linked to the exodus, which constituted Israel as God\u2019s covenant people.
\nHowever, in a much greater way, Jesus, as the fulfillment of the Passover, is the willing and gracious provision of the Father to redeem his people from sin and to constitute the church as God\u2019s new covenant people. This truth is already present in the Old Testament, which one can see by working through the covenants. As the Passover is given to Israel at the beginning of the old covenant, it is also linked to elements of the sacrificial system and, most importantly, in the Prophets to the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. From the perspective of Jesus and the New Testament authors, Isaiah 53 is probably the most important text in the prophetic literature for interpreting the cross, and it serves as the backdrop to Jesus\u2019s ransom sayings in the Gospels. In Isaiah 53, the servant not only suffers undeservedly because of human sin but also suffers in the people\u2019s place, as a substitute, the righteous for the unrighteous (see 1 Pet. 2:24\u201325). As John Oswalt demonstrates, Isaiah 53, in its context, points to the servant as both the means of salvation anticipated in chapters 49\u201352 and the one who achieves the salvation that the people are invited to participate in, in chapters 53\u201355. Also, in context, Isaiah teaches that even though the exile was a temporary punishment for sin, it did not automatically restore the people to fellowship with God. Something more was needed because of the seriousness of their situation under the curse of God. Only the affliction of the servant could make them whole, and only by his bruises could they be healed (53:5)\u2014language that echoes the sacrificial system and the previous Passover celebration. Only by the suffering of God\u2019s righteous servant-king in our place is salvation accomplished.<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019s Death as the Inauguration of the New Covenant<\/p>\n
Second, given the context of the Passover-exodus, it is not surprising that Jesus sees the purpose of his death as inaugurating what these events ultimately anticipated: the establishment of the promised new covenant (Luke 22:20). Paul and other New Testament authors confirm this point when they later identify Christ\u2019s cross work as a new covenant sacrifice (1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3; Hebrews 8; 10). As noted in our exposition of the new covenant, at its heart is the promise of the complete forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:34), which only occurs through priestly, sacrificial action. In fact, in biblical thought, the concepts of priest and covenant are inseparable, which is the argument of Hebrews 7:11, where the parenthesis helps us understand the relationship between the priesthood and the covenant: \u201cFor on the basis of it [the Levitical priesthood] the law [old covenant] was given to the people.\u201d Here the author contends that the old covenant is grounded in the Levitical priesthood. That is why, given this relationship, the author argues in 7:12 that the Old Testament, in announcing the coming of a new priest (Psalm 110; see Hebrews 7), also anticipates the arrival of a new covenant (Jer. 31:31\u201334; see Hebrews 7\u20138), because a change in priesthood requires a change of covenant.
\nWhy? Because at the heart of the covenant relationship is the reality that God dwells with his people. But how can God dwell with a sinful people? Through the progression of the covenants, we learn that God can do so only by the provision of his own dear Son, our Great High Priest and new covenant head\u2014the one whom the entire priesthood, tabernacle, and sacrificial system anticipated. By Christ alone, the obedient Son, the covenant\u2019s demands are fully met and our ransom price paid. All this speaks to how Christ Jesus is the fulfillment of the covenants in himself.
\nThese truths are explicitly taught in two important texts (Rom. 3:21\u201326 and Heb. 9:15\u201328) that wonderfully explain the meaning of Christ\u2019s cross in new covenant terms and demonstrate why the new covenant is the fulfillment of the previous covenants and thus greater. Let us look at each of these texts in turn.<\/p>\n
ROMANS 3:21\u201326. First, think of Romans 3:21\u201326. In a number of places, Scripture explains the why of the cross but nowhere more explicitly than here. It is set in the larger context of Paul\u2019s argument, starting in 1:18\u20133:20, where Paul establishes that apart from the cross, all humans are under divine wrath, are guilty, and stand condemned before God. Following the Bible\u2019s storyline, Paul establishes that God\u2019s wrath is revealed from heaven against all people (Jew and Gentile), ultimately due to Adam\u2019s disobedience as our covenant representative (5:12\u201321). As God\u2019s image bearers, although we clearly know God from creation, we suppress the truth, turn from him, and stand under his judgment. With a litany of Old Testament texts, Paul concludes in 3:9\u201320 that apart from God\u2019s gracious initiative to redeem, all people stand guilty and condemned before the Judge of all the earth.
\nBut thankfully, in Romans 3:21, Paul shifts to the good news centered on God\u2019s grace, initiative, and provision of Christ set in the context of the covenants. The text highlights the redemptive-historical shift that has now occurred in Christ\u2019s coming (\u201cBut now \u2026\u201d)\u2014a shift that introduces a key contrast between the old and new covenants and a shift that explains why the cross is necessary in our justification before God and why the new covenant is better. In Christ\u2019s cross, the righteousness of God (dikaiosun\u0113 theou)\u2014that is, God\u2019s justifying activity\u2014is now revealed, a righteousness that is rooted in his covenant promises and that results in God declaring all who believe in Christ justified before him. In fact, as Paul explains the glory of Christ and his work, he speaks of the revelation of God\u2019s righteousness in Christ as the fulfillment of the Old Testament (3:21) and as necessary to demonstrate that God is truly just (3:25\u201326).
\nPaul stresses that God\u2019s righteousness is \u201capart from the law\u201d (old covenant), though that same law-covenant and its prophets testify to it. Under the old covenant, God entered into relationship with his people, and through the Levitical priesthood and sacrificial system, God granted forgiveness to them as they believed God\u2019s promises (Gen. 15:6; see Romans 4). Yet Scripture is clear: God never intended the old covenant to ultimately redeem us. Built within the old covenant were God-given limitations\u2014for example, no adequate substitute, an inability to fully forgive sin as revealed by the repetitious nature of the system, and no provision for high-handed sins. But in diverse ways the law-covenant and the prophets predicted the dawning of a new covenant, a greater priest, and a better sacrifice. Yet given the fact that the previous covenants did not fully pay for sins, how could God declare Old Testament believers justified if sin remained unpunished (e.g., Gen. 15:6; Ps. 32:1\u20132)? Within the Old Testament, as we have demonstrated, this is a major tension\/problem, given that God left \u201csins committed beforehand unpunished\u201d (Rom 3:25b). How can God declare ungodly people just before him, if God\u2019s righteous, holy demand was not fully satisfied? The answer is found in Christ, his work, and the new covenant, which would finally secure full atonement. Because of who Jesus is and what he has done, he has inaugurated a new covenant, which fulfills the previous ones.<\/p>\n
HEBREWS 9:15\u201328. Second, think of Hebrews 9:15\u201328, which teaches the same truths. Central to the book of Hebrews is Christ\u2019s incomparable high-priestly, new covenant work, which fulfills all the previous covenants. Already in Hebrews 2:5\u201318, the author has located the necessity of Christ\u2019s incarnation and work in the context of Adam and creation. God the Son took on our humanity to undo the work of Adam and restore us to the purpose of our creation, and he did so by becoming our merciful and faithful High Priest. As the priestly theme is developed, especially in chapters 5\u201310, it is done in a twofold way, tied to typological and covenantal fulfillment. First, Christ is a greater priest because he transcends the entire Levitical order. Christ comes in a new order, namely, in the order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7; see Psalm 110), which requires a change in covenants, given the organic covenant-priesthood relationship in biblical thought (Heb. 7:11\u201312). Second, Christ is a greater priest because he fulfills all that the Levitical priests typified (5:1\u201310; 8:1\u201310:18). For example, if the Levitical priest was selected by God, then so was Christ; if the priests offered a sacrifice, then so did he; and if they functioned as mediators of a covenant, then so did he, but in a far greater and more glorious way.
\nBy the time we get to Hebrews 9:1\u201310:18, the author has already established that Christ has inaugurated the new covenant (Hebrews 8), but now he explains why the new covenant is so much better. The specific focus turns to Christ\u2019s greater sacrifice compared to the Levitical sacrifices. Yet in contrasting the old sacrifices with Christ\u2019s new covenant sacrifice, the rationale for Christ\u2019s cross is given, rooted in covenant inauguration. As Hebrews 9:1\u201314 explains, the old covenant sacrifices were never intended by God to be the final sacrifice. The tabernacle-temple served many purposes in the old covenant, but one of its primary tasks was to reveal, instruct, and point forward to Christ\u2019s coming and the entire new covenant era (9:8\u201310). The limitations of the old system were apparent within the system. For example, the Levitical priest offered daily sacrifices, but the repetitious nature of the sacrifice revealed that they were never sufficient. Also, the Levitical priest could never enter the Most Holy Place, and even the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place only once a year and only by first offering a sacrifice for his own sins, thus revealing that the high priest too needed redemption. In all these ways, the old system was incomplete and insufficient in paying for our sin and giving us full access to God\u2019s covenantal presence. Ultimately, as the author states, the Levitical priest and his sacrifice \u201care not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings\u2014external regulations applying until the time of the new order\u201d (9:9\u201310). But Christ and the sacrifice of himself are greater. As Hebrews 9:11\u201314 reminds us: Christ served not in the shadow but in the reality. He did not offer anything for himself since he was perfect. And he did not offer the \u201cblood of goats and calves\u201d; instead, he offered himself \u201conce for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption\u201d (9:12). By his one-time sacrifice, eternal redemption is accomplished, which at its heart requires the complete forgiveness of sins (Jer. 31:34; Heb. 10:1\u201318).
\nBut the author does not stop here. He explains the reason why Christ had to die. By setting Christ\u2019s death in its new covenant context, he argues from covenant inauguration for the necessity of Christ\u2019s cross (Heb. 9:15\u201322). In 9:15, he states, \u201cfor this reason\u201d (kai dia touto), which establishes a strong causal relationship between 9:11\u201314 and 9:15. Jesus not only fulfilled the priesthood-sacrifices of the old covenant, but he also fulfilled the covenant itself, thus bringing it to its God-appointed telos. Jesus\u2019s death is viewed as a covenant sacrifice, a representative death, first, for those under the penalties of the old covenant\u2014\u201cas a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant\u201d (9:15)\u2014and, second, as the judicial grounds for the inauguration of the new covenant, which is bound up with the full forgiveness of sin. In an important way, Hebrews 9:15 is very similar in thought to Romans 3:25\u201326. In Romans 3, the rationale for Christ\u2019s cross was due to God\u2019s \u201cpostponement\u201d of the full payment of human sin, even though God had already declared Old Testament believers just. In doing so, God\u2019s integrity was at stake unless the full satisfaction of sin was ultimately met. In a similar way, Hebrews argues that the people\u2019s sins were not fully paid for under the old system. Thus, for the new covenant to be inaugurated, which promised the permanent forgiveness of sin, a greater priest-sacrifice had to pay for the sin of God\u2019s people completely.
\nThis truth is reinforced in the parenthesis of Hebrews 9:16\u201322. These verses explain further why it was necessary for Christ to die. The cross\u2019s necessity is rooted in covenant practice based on patterns from the Old Testament. To inaugurate a covenant, it was necessary for animals to be cut in two and the parties of the covenant to walk between the pieces. In this way, the blood of the animal was brought forward, and the legal grounding of the covenant was established. With this in mind, Hebrews argues that the legal basis for the new covenant was established not by the blood of animals but by the blood of God\u2019s own dear Son.
\nWhy, then, is the new covenant greater? The answer is simple yet glorious: it is greater because of our Lord Jesus Christ. Just as Christ is the antitype of the previous typological patterns and thus greater, so the new covenant he secures by his person and work is greater, and thus he is \u201cable to save completely those who come to God through him\u201d (Heb. 7:25a).
\nBefore we leave this section, there is one further point to highlight. The New Testament not only teaches that the new covenant promises are fulfilled in Christ, it also applies those promises to the church (2 Corinthians 3; Galatians 3\u20134; Hebrews 8; 10). Why is this significant? Because Jeremiah 31:31 says that the new covenant is made \u201cwith the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.\u201d Yet now in Christ, the New Testament applies it to the church, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles. This New Testament application renders classic dispensationalism untenable since it argues that Jeremiah 31 does not apply to the church. Does Jeremiah 31, then, have a double fulfillment, as many within dispensationalism now claim? A spiritual fulfillment in the church but a literal, national fulfillment to Israel in the future? Or should we view the church as directly the new Israel? Minimally, one has to view the church as the renewed eschatological Israel, but better, one should view the church by her relationship to the Lord Jesus, her new covenant head. Because Jesus is the antitype of the previous covenant heads, he, as the true Israel, David\u2019s greater Son, Abraham\u2019s true seed, and the last Adam, constitutes a new covenant people, who are in continuity with believing saints of old but who are new in the covenant sense of a believing, transformed people. Thus, contrary to dispensationalism, a sharp ontological Israel-church distinction is untenable. Yet contrary to covenant theology, an equation of the two without noting their covenantal differences is also untenable. Israel, as a nation, serves many vital purposes in God\u2019s plan, yet it also functions as a type of a greater Son, Christ Jesus. Within national Israel there has always been a believing elect (Rom. 9:6), yet as a people, through Christ Jesus, they pointed forward to a renewed, transformed Israel, the church\u2014an international kingdom of priests and a holy nation (1 Pet. 2:9). However, it is a mistake, which covenant theology makes, to think that the church, as God\u2019s new creation people, remains at present a mixed people, like Israel of old.<\/p>\n
JESUS AS GOD THE SON INCARNATE: THE ANTITYPICAL FULFILLMENT OF THE PREVIOUS SONS<\/p>\n
Central to the New Testament\u2019s presentation of Jesus is that he is the Son of God. The title appears throughout the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 3:17; 11:25\u201327; 28:19; Mark 1:1, 11; 9:7; Luke 1:32; 3:38; 9:35) and occupies a central role in John\u2019s Gospel (John 3:16, 17, 35\u201336; 5:19\u201323; 6:40; 8:36; 14:13; 17:1). Son of God is applied to Jesus at his baptism (Mark 1:11), temptation (Luke 4:9), and transfiguration (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35). And the title is used to address Jesus by the centurion (Mark 15:39), the high priest (Mark 14:61), and the demons (Mark 3:11; 5:7). In fact, Son of God is so central to the identity of Christ that John wrote his Gospel \u201cso that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God\u201d (John 20:31).
\nTo grasp the significance of what Jesus meant by calling himself the Son of God, along with that of the New Testament authors employing the term, we must think in both functional and ontological terms. First, the New Testament does not hesitate to emphasize a strong functional aspect to Jesus\u2019s sonship, rooted in the typological figures of the Old Testament as developed through the progression of the covenants\u2014Adam, Israel, and the Davidic king. Building on this pattern and fulfilling it, Jesus is the true Son, the antitype of the previous sons, who is the last Adam, the true Israel, and David\u2019s greater Son. And by virtue of his incarnation and work, Jesus becomes the Son and Lord. By the Son becoming flesh (John 1:1, 14), identifying with us, and obediently representing us as our covenant head and substitute, Jesus secures our eternal redemption and takes up the title Son of God at a particular time in history (see Rom. 1:3\u20134; Phil. 2:6\u201311).
\nHowever, Jesus\u2019s incarnational sonship culminating in his representative and substitutionary death is only half the story. By virtue of who he is from eternity, Jesus has always been the Son in relation to the Father and Spirit (John 1:1, 18). In fact, Jesus\u2019s eternal sonship serves as the basis for his incarnational and redemptive sonship. Jesus regularly addressed God directly as \u201cFather\u201d (e.g., Matt. 11:25; Luke 23:46; John 11:41; 12:28) and referred to him as \u201cmy Father\u201d (e.g., Matt. 16:17; 26:29; Luke 22:29; John 15:8). Even by themselves, these expressions go beyond a relationship of obedience to a relationship of begottenness. As a child, before he had accomplished the works given to him by the Father, Jesus spoke of his heavenly sonship to his earthly parents: \u201cDid you not know that I must be in my Father\u2019s house?\u201d (Luke 2:49). And just before his death, Jesus prayed to God on the basis of his own life as the eternal Son: \u201cAnd now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed\u201d (John 17:5).
\nJesus, then, by identifying himself as the Son, claims that he is both the eternal Son (ontological) and the antitypical son (functional), who is the only true, faithful human covenant partner and, by virtue of his work, the only one who can restore his people to their image\/sonship. In other words, understood within the Bible\u2019s storyline, to say that Jesus is the Son of God in his person and work explains why in Christ alone all God\u2019s covenant promises are fulfilled and are \u201cYes\u201d and \u201cAmen\u201d (2 Cor. 1:20).
\nFor example, Jesus as Son explains why he is David\u2019s greater Son and why the Davidic covenant is fulfilled in him. As the Davidic king, Jesus receives the Spirit in full measure (Isa. 11:1\u20135; 61:1\u20132; Luke 4:14\u201321) and, by his work, secures the new covenant blessing of the greater work of the Spirit in the entire people of God, pouring out the Spirit on his people at Pentecost (Luke 3:16\u201317; John 20:21\u201323; Acts 2:1\u201336; 10:44\u201348; Gal. 3:1\u20136; 3:26\u20134:7) and thus fulfilling the prophetic expectation of the new covenant. In Christ, God\u2019s kingdom has come, and even now, Jesus is seated as the Davidic king, leading history to its consummation at his return (Matt. 1:1; 28:18\u201320; Luke 1:31\u201333; Acts 2:32\u201336; Rom. 1:3\u20134; Eph. 1:9\u201310, 18\u201323; Phil. 2:9\u201311; Col. 1:15\u201320; Hebrews 1 [cf. Psalms 2; 45; 110]).
\nAlso, Jesus as Son explains why he is the true Israel, who fulfills Israel\u2019s role and brings the old covenant to its terminus in him (Gal. 3:1\u20134:7). In Christ, the Son, Israel\u2019s exile is brought to its end in a new exodus (his cross). In Christ, the Son and true Israel, he is what Israel was not, namely, the faithful, covenant partner. And in his obedience in life and death, he wins our eternal salvation (Matt. 2:15 [Hos. 11:1]; Matt. 3:15\u201317 [cf. Isa. 11:1\u20132; 42:1; 61:1]; Matt. 4:1\u201311; John 15:1\u20136 [Isa. 5:1\u20137]). Jesus, as the Davidic king who is Israel representatively, inherits all Israel\u2019s promises as given through the Abrahamic, old, and Davidic covenants and pours them out to his people (Rom. 8:17\u201327; Gal. 3:26\u201329; Eph. 1:11\u201314).
\nOr consider that Jesus as Son explains why he is Abraham\u2019s true seed (Gal. 3:16) and why he fulfills the Abrahamic promises in himself. He constitutes all those in faith union with him as true children of Abraham and inheritors of all the Abrahamic promises (Rom. 2:25\u201329; 4:9\u201322; Gal. 3:6\u20139; Heb. 2:14\u201318; Rev. 5:9\u201310).
\nFurthermore, Jesus as Son explains why he is the last Adam and the first man of the new creation, who fulfills the foundational role of Adam and the creation covenant (Rom. 5:12\u201321; 1 Cor. 15:21\u201322; Heb. 2:5\u201318; 8\u201310). As noted above, in Jesus\u2019s conception, the Spirit, parallel to the first creation (Gen. 1:2), overshadows and brings about the beginning of the new creation (Luke 1:35). In his incarnation, Jesus is not \u201cin Adam\u201d as we are; instead, he is the beginning and head of the new creation. Moreover, in his work, Jesus fulfills Adam\u2019s role of ruling over the creation as the obedient royal son-priest (Heb. 2:5\u201318; cf. Psalm 8), evidenced by his healings and miracles, tied to the inauguration of God\u2019s kingdom (Matthew 8\u20139). And significantly, in Christ\u2019s bodily resurrection, the new creation is now visible and physical. No wonder that in and through Christ we are now a \u201cnew creation\u201d by the Spirit, both individually (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:1\u201310) and corporately as the church (Eph. 2:11\u201321).
\nIn every aspect of Jesus\u2019s life, ministry, and cross work, he fulfills all the promises, instruction, and typological patterns of the previous covenants and their covenant heads, thus bringing God\u2019s eternal plan to its intended end. Whether he is viewed as David\u2019s greater Son, the true obedient Israel, a greater than Moses (Heb. 3:1\u20136), the fulfillment of the temple (John 2:19\u201322), or the one who fulfills the priestly sacrifices in his one-time offering of himself as our Great High Priest (Heb. 9:1\u201310:18), all God\u2019s promises find their fulfillment, terminus, and \u201csumming up\u201d in him (Eph. 1:9\u201310). What the Old Testament Prophets anticipated in the coming of Yahweh and his Messiah, tied to the dawning of God\u2019s saving reign through the new covenant, is now here in Jesus. Yet it is important to think about the nature of this fulfillment in terms of inaugurated eschatology.<\/p>\n
INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY AND THE NATURE OF FULFILLMENT IN CHRIST<\/p>\n
The New Testament clarifies how Christ fulfills all the Old Testament promises and covenants. The Old Testament prophets speak of the one coming of Yahweh and his Messiah to consummate all things. This one coming will result in the end of \u201cthis present age\u201d (characterized by sin, death, and opposition to God) and the beginning of \u201cthe last days\u201d \/ \u201cthe age to come\u201d (characterized by resurrection life, forgiveness of sin, the defeat of God\u2019s enemies, and the arrival of a new covenant bound up with the new creation).
\nAdditionally, the Old Testament prophets think of the age to come in terms of an entire package. Minimally, when Yahweh and Messiah come and the new covenant is established, we will see the following: the arrival of God\u2019s saving reign, the pouring out of the Spirit, a new temple, the full forgiveness of sin, the judgment and defeat of God\u2019s enemies, resurrection life, eschatological rest, a restored Israel, a transformed people composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, and a new creation.
\nAs the New Testament opens, it never contravenes this Old Testament expectation, but it does modify the Old Testament outlook in what is famously known as inaugurated eschatology. The New Testament announces that in Christ Jesus, the promised age is now here (\u201calready\u201d) because he has, in his life, death, resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost, inaugurated God\u2019s kingdom through the new covenant. Yet the full consummation of what the Old Testament prophets anticipated and predicted is \u201cnot yet\u201d here in its fullness. Inaugurated eschatology and the already-not yet tension not only characterizes the basic framework of New Testament eschatology but also functions in two other important ways.
\nFirst, inaugurated eschatology helps explain why and how Old Testament promises, hopes, expectations, and covenants are fulfilled in Christ and applied to the church. The why is due to who Jesus is as God the Son incarnate and his glorious triumphant cross work for us. The how is not only in terms of the already-not yet relationship but also in underscoring how fulfillment in Christ has resulted in significant epochal-covenantal changes in redemptive history associated with the dawning of the new covenant. Although the New Testament continues the Old Testament\u2019s basic storyline, building on the progression of the covenants, once Christ comes\u2014the one whom all the promises, types, and covenants pointed forward to\u2014it is not surprising that many of the themes that were basic to the Old Testament have now been transposed and transformed. In light of the epochal-covenantal shift Christ has inaugurated, D. A. Carson notes a few examples of the kind of transposition that has taken place:<\/p>\n
\u201cKingdom\u201d no longer primarily conjures up a theocratic state in which God rules by his human vassal in the Davidic dynasty. It conjures up the immediate transforming reign of God, dawning now in the ministry, death, resurrection, ascension, and session of Jesus, the promised Messiah, and consummated at his return. Eschatology is thereby transformed. The locus of the people of God is no longer national and tribal; it is international, transracial, transcultural. If the Old Testament prophets constantly look forward to the day when God will act decisively, the New Testament writers announce that God has acted decisively, and that this is \u201cgood news,\u201d gospel, of universal, eternal significance and stellar importance. Thus kingdom, Christology, eschatology, church, gospel, become dominant terms or themes. Temple, priest, sacrifice, law, and much more are transposed; national and tribal outlooks gradually fade from view.<\/p>\n
Second, inaugurated eschatology also explains how the New Testament modifies, or better, clarifies, the basic timeline of the Old Testament to speak of two comings of Christ. The Old Testament distinguished between \u201cthis present age\u201d\u2014an age characterized by sin, death, and opposition to God as represented by earthly kingdoms\u2014and the \u201cage to come\u201d\u2014an age in which the covenant Lord will come to rescue his people through his Messiah, the Davidic king, and inaugurate his kingdom through the new covenant. The relationships between these two ages, as David Wells explains, is one of chronological sequence. He writes, \u201cThis \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd [\u2018age\u2019] ended with the coming to earth of the Messiah, and with his arrival there began the heavenly \u03b1\u1f30\u03ce\u03bd.\u201d For this reason, from an Old Testament view, there is only one coming of Yahweh and his Messiah-son-king in grace and power to usher in the \u201clast days\u201d \/ \u201cage to come\u201d\u2014an age characterized by the eschatological hope of the prophets (see figure 17.1).<\/p>\n
Figure 17.1 Old Testament<\/p>\n
However, the New Testament modifies this basic redemptive-historical timeline and now speaks of two comings of Christ and an overlap of the ages. In Christ\u2019s first coming, Jesus appears as Yahweh in relation to his Father and as Messiah, and he brings all that the Old Testament associates with the \u201cage to come\u201d into \u201cthis present age\u201d in principle, just as the prophets anticipated. Yet the New Testament also teaches that the consummation of the \u201cage to come\u201d awaits Christ\u2019s second coming. Between these two comings, our Lord is currently reigning over his creation-kingdom, and the realities of life in the age to come have already come into this present age but not yet in full. This present age, then, characterized by sin and death, continues until Christ\u2019s second coming even though he has already inaugurated the age to come, hence the overlap of the ages.
\nSometimes this overlap of the ages is illustrated by a World War II analogy between D-day and V-day. In World War II, D-day brought about an incredible victory for the Allied troops. As a result of that day, the enemy was decisively defeated, and it was only a matter of time before final victory would be achieved, even though the war was not yet over. D-day is then compared to the first coming of Christ, which, in principle, has ushered in the age to come but not yet in its fullness. Thus, in Christ\u2019s first coming God\u2019s promise of redemption has now been realized. God\u2019s sovereign saving reign\u2014his kingdom\u2014has broken into this world, and along with it have come the new covenant and the new creation. Sin, death, and the power of the Evil One have been destroyed. It is only a matter of time before final victory is won; in principle, the victory has been won, and it is now guaranteed. Yet our D-day still awaits our V-day, that is, our final victory when Christ comes again and consummates what he began. In this overlap of the ages, then, even though we as God\u2019s people are no longer identified with this present age because we have been transferred from being \u201cin Adam\u201d to being \u201cin Christ\u201d (Rom. 5:12\u201321; Eph. 2:1\u201310), and even though we are now participants of the future age and have eternal life, justification before God, and the transforming power of the Spirit (all realities associated with the age to come), we still await the fullness of Christ\u2019s victory and the arrival of his kingdom in consummated glory. But what Christ has won in his first advent is now our guarantee and pledge that the consummated age is not a vain hope but a certainty. In light of this, we can draw the New Testament restructuring of the Old Testament time line as follows (see figure 17.2):<\/p>\n
Figure 17.2 New Testament<\/p>\n
INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY AS THE NEW TESTAMENT FRAMEWORK<\/p>\n
Given the New Testament\u2019s teaching of inaugurated eschatology and its relationship to consummated eschatology, it is not an overstatement to say that it forms the entire context within which the New Testament expounds how Christ fulfills all the promises, hopes, and expectations of the Old Testament. One cannot understand the nature of the kingdom, eternal life, the gift of the Spirit, the church, salvation, eschatology, and, most importantly, Christ\u2019s person and work, apart from this larger framework. This is one of the reasons why inaugurated eschatology has almost become a given within evangelical theology. To say that Christ has fulfilled all God\u2019s plans and purposes is another way of explaining how he alone has ushered in the promised age to come and all that is associated with that age, which is pregnant with Christological import and the warrant for the newness and the greater nature of the new covenant.
\nIn the New Testament, the already-not yet tension is presented in a number of ways. For example, we see it in regard to the coming of God\u2019s kingdom and saving rule in Christ. The New Testament teaches that the Creator-covenant Lord who rules over all (e.g., Pss. 93:1; 97:1; 99:1; 103:19; Dan. 4:34\u201335) has now brought his saving reign and rule to this fallen world in Christ, as evidenced by the coming of the Spirit (Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20) and the miraculous signs and preaching (Luke 4:16\u201330; cf. Isa. 61:1\u20132; 58:6; 29:18). Truly in Jesus, as he himself announces, God\u2019s sovereign, saving rule has broken into this world (Matt. 4:17; Mark 1:14\u201315). Yet even though the kingdom is now here, Jesus still teaches us to pray, \u201cYour kingdom come\u201d (Matt. 6:10), and he speaks to his disciples of a future day when he will come \u201cin his kingdom\u201d (Matt. 16:28; Luke 23:51), \u201cwhich clearly refers to the future fulfillment of the kingdom promise.\u201d Because it is in \u201cthe present evil age\u201d (Gal. 1:4), then, that Christ sits on the throne of heaven\u2014\u201cfar above all rule and authority and power and dominion \u2026 not only in this age but also in the one to come\u201d (Eph. 1:21)\u2014there is both continuity and discontinuity between his present and future rule. His future rule is here in kind (continuity), and the present kingdom of Christ will increase unto completion (discontinuity) at his return.
\nWhat is true regarding the already-not yet dynamic of Christ\u2019s rule and the inauguration of the kingdom is also true of the entire package of prophetic anticipation of the age to come. For example, think about how the New Testament presents the pouring out of the promised Holy Spirit, associated with the new covenant age. Because Jesus is the risen and exalted Davidic king and Lord, he pours out the promised Spirit on his new covenant people, in fulfillment of Joel\u2019s prophecy (Acts 2:32\u201336; cf. Luke 24:46\u201351; John 14:15\u201317). Yet the present gift of the Spirit is the arrab\u014dn, the deposit and guarantee of our future inheritance awaiting us in the consummation (Eph. 1:13\u201314). Thus, the reception of the Spirit signals that the Old Testament restoration promises, first given to Israel, are now taking place in Christ and his people (the church), which entails that everyone in Christ has the Spirit and is now a participant in the promised age and a partaker of the powers of the age to come. Yet the New Testament insists that what the Spirit gives is only a foretaste of far greater blessings to come. As Anthony Hoekema summarizes,<\/p>\n
We may say that in the possession of the Spirit we who are in Christ have a foretaste of the blessings of the age to come, and a pledge and guarantee of the resurrection of the body. Yet we have only the firstfruits. We look forward to the final consummation of the kingdom of God, when we shall enjoy these blessings to the full.<\/p>\n
We can think of other Old Testament promises that are here now yet still await their final consummation in their fullness. In Christ, we are now justified and forgiven of our sin, partakers of new covenant blessings (Jer. 31:34; Rom. 3:21\u201326; 8:1), yet we will still publicly stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2 Cor. 5:10). Currently, in Christ, we are raised from spiritual death to life, adopted, redeemed, reconciled, and holy (Rom. 8:9\u201317; 2 Cor. 5:16\u201321; Eph. 1:7\u20138; 2:1\u201310). Yet we still await our bodily resurrection at Christ\u2019s return, the full benefits of our adoption and inheritance, and our glorification (Rom. 8:18\u201327; 1 Cor. 15:35\u201358; Eph. 1:13\u201314; 1 Pet. 1:3\u20139). In Christ, we now experience salvation rest (Matt. 11:28\u201330; Heb. 3:7\u20134:11)\u2014a rest that was introduced in creation, lost in the fall, and typologically foreshadowed in the Sabbath and entrance into the land, but is now entered into by faith in Christ (Heb. 4:1\u201311). Yet the fullness of our covenant rest waits the dawning of the new creation (Heb. 11:16; 12:22\u201329). Related to our rest, in Christ\u2014the antitype of the temple (John 2:19\u201322)\u2014new covenant believers are now, individually and corporately, God\u2019s temple indwelt by the Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16\u201317; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; Heb. 3:6; 1 Pet. 2:5). Yet we still await the new creation, where there is no temple, \u201cbecause the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple\u201d (Rev. 21:22).
\nEven the new creation promise is fulfilled in an already-not yet way. Our Lord is the first man of the new creation in his incarnation and resurrection. G. K. Beale notes, \u201cChrist\u2019s resurrection \u2026 placed him into the beginning of the new creation. The resurrected Christ is not merely spiritually the inauguration of the new cosmos, but he is literally its beginning, since he was resurrected with a physical, newly created body.\u201d And in union with Christ by the Spirit, we, individually and corporately, are now a \u201cnew creation\u201d (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:1\u201321), although we wait for a new creation where we will live forever and fulfill our role as image-sons.
\nLastly, note how the new covenant promise of a transformed, obedient people participates in the already-not yet dynamic. The prophets anticipate that Messiah\u2019s new covenant people (composed of believing Jews and Gentiles) will not be like Israel (Jer. 31:29\u201332). Why? Because God will circumcise their hearts (Deut. 30:1\u20136; Jer. 31:33) by the Spirit\u2019s resurrection work (Ezek. 36:25\u201327; 37), and by the same Spirit, God will empower\/gift the entire community (Joel 2:28\u201332; cf. Num. 11:29). The end result is a transformed community of people who will all savingly know God and experience the full and complete forgiveness of their sins (Jer. 31:34). In Christ, this is fulfilled in God\u2019s people, individually and corporately. In fact, a Christian is now no longer \u201cin Adam\u201d but \u201cin Christ,\u201d which entails that all new covenant blessings are ours now: we are born of and empowered by the Spirit, we are forgiven of our sin, and we know God. Yet we still await our glorification, resurrection bodies, and a greater experience of the knowledge of God in the consummated new creation.<\/p>\n
INAUGURATED ESCHATOLOGY IN DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY<\/p>\n
Inaugurated eschatology, then, is important in thinking about how Christ fulfills all God\u2019s promises as unfolded through the covenants. What the Old Testament prophets looked forward to has now come in Christ, yet we await the fullness of what Jesus has achieved at his return. As noted, within evangelical theology inaugurated eschatology is a kind of \u201cassured result of scholarship\u201d that most affirm. Yet despite its widespread acceptance, even by various dispensational and covenant theologians, we are convinced that inaugurated eschatology is often applied inconsistently, especially at the specific points central to dispensationalism and covenant theology. This is particularly evident in each view\u2019s understanding of the Israel-church relationship, an issue that we argued in chapter 3 was a central point of division between the two theological systems.
\nOn the one hand, dispensationalism distinguishes Israel from the church ontologically so that in the future, national Israel must receive certain promises tied to the land, \u201cdistinct\u201d from believing Gentile nations. The church is not viewed as the renewed, eschatological Israel that receives all the promises, including the inheritance of the land, which is ultimately fulfilled in the new creation. So although Jeremiah speaks of the recipients of the new covenant as \u201cthe house of Israel and Judah\u201d (Jer. 31:31) and the New Testament clearly applies Jeremiah 31 to the church (Hebrews 8; 10; cf. 2 Corinthians 3; Galatians 3\u20134), many dispensationalists explain this New Testament interpretation by appealing to inaugurated eschatology. In the already, the new covenant is spiritually applied to the church, but in the not yet, the new covenant will be applied literally to national Israel in the land. In the future, Israel, as a nation, will receive her \u201cdistinct\u201d promises and privileges (tied to the land) differently from believing Gentile nations.
\nThis view has at least two problems. First, it assumes a faulty understanding of the Israel-church relationship because it does not properly follow the Bible\u2019s covenantal progression. It does not start with creation\/Adam and then situate Israel and her role within the covenantal storyline. It does not consistently see how Christ, as David\u2019s greater Son, is the true Israel and last Adam, and how he fulfills all God\u2019s promises. In turn, it fails to view Messiah\u2019s people, the church, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles, as receiving all the Old Testament promises equally as the one new man (Eph. 2:11\u201321), a point we will return to below. No doubt, in Christ, people do not lose their ethnicity and gender; we are embodied creatures. Yet the church is not merely a spiritual installment of the final state, which results in discrete believing nations receiving slightly different promises and privileges. Within God\u2019s new covenant community, all are \u201cco-inheritors\u201d and \u201cco-partakers\u201d of God\u2019s promises in Messiah Jesus (Eph. 3:6; cf. 2:12). As Paul reminds us, God\u2019s promise, which includes our inheritance, \u201cdepends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring\u2014not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, as it is written, \u2018I have made you the father of many nations\u2019 \u201d (Rom. 4:16\u201317a). In the church, Christ fulfills all God\u2019s promises to Abraham, because Christ\u2014Abraham\u2019s true seed (Gal. 3:16), Israel\u2019s king, and the last Adam\u2014has secured our salvation and every blessing for redeemed Jews and Gentiles alike, who together are Abraham\u2019s spiritual seed (Gal. 3:29).
\nSecond, regarding inaugurated eschatology, dispensationalists appeal to it inconsistently to buttress their specific view of the Israel-church relationship. The New Testament teaches that all new covenant promises and blessings, as an entire package, are now here in Christ and applied to the church in principle. No doubt, we await the fullness of those same blessings at Christ\u2019s return, but the covenant privileges are a unit that are now here in inaugurated form. It is difficult, then, to argue that various spiritual blessings of the new covenant are now here in the church but that the material-physical blessings of the new covenant are still future and for national Israel. This not only assumes the Israel-church distinction of dispensationalism, which we contend is incorrect, but also fails to recognize that both the material-physical and spiritual blessings of the new covenant are now here in Christ and applied to the church, although we still await the fullness of both. For example, think once again about how the new covenant expectation of the new creation is fulfilled in an already-not yet way. In Christ, the new creation is fulfilled in his incarnation and resurrection. Then, in union with Christ by the Spirit, we, individually and corporately, are now the \u201cnew creation\u201d (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:1\u201321), although we wait for the new creation as a place. Inaugurated eschatology does not divide up the blessings of the new covenant as dispensationalism does.
\nOn the other hand, covenant theology insists on the continuity between Israel and the church, especially regarding its nature. The church, like Israel, is a mixed people, constituted by believers and unbelievers so that the locus of the covenant community and the locus of the elect are distinct and the continuity of covenant signs continues from circumcision to baptism, hence the warrant for paedobaptism. But this view seems to conflict with the Old Testament expectation that Messiah\u2019s people will be a regenerate people who will all be born\/empowered\/indwelt by the Spirit, know God, and experience the full forgiveness of their sins. Covenant theologians admit that Jeremiah 31:31\u201334 anticipates such a people; however, to explain why the church is at present still mixed, they appeal to inaugurated eschatology. Richard Pratt, for example, argues that Jeremiah 31\u2019s anticipation of an entire people who are regenerate is realized only in the not yet. At present, the church remains a people constituted by true believers and sanctified unbelievers. G. K. Beale argues that at present the church is different from Israel since she is more \u201cdemocratized\u201d\u2014namely, there is no categorical distinction between priests and prophets and the rest of God\u2019s people. But the church now remains a mixed people; her nature as an entire regenerate people awaits the not yet.
\nThis view also has two problems. First, it does not sufficiently account for the relationship of Christ\u2014the head of the new covenant\u2014to his people. Through covenantal progression, the genealogical principle\u2014namely, the relationship between the covenant mediator and his seed\u2014is transformed in the new covenant. In the previous covenants, the relationship is more biological-natural (e.g., Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, David), but now in Christ, the relationship is spiritual, that is, of the Spirit. One is in Christ and the new covenant not by natural-biological birth or a circumcision of the flesh but by spiritual rebirth and faith. Only those in faith union with Christ are his family and thus savingly know God. We will develop this argument further in chapter 19.
\nSecond, regarding inaugurated eschatology, similar to dispensationalism (but for different reasons), covenant theology fails to see how all new covenant blessings are now here in Christ and applied to the church in principle. Now that Christ has come, one is either in the new covenant or not, and to be in the new covenant entails that one now knows God, is forgiven of his or her sins, and is circumcised in heart. In other words, all these new covenant blessings come to us as a unit fulfilled in Christ. Once again, it is no doubt true that the fullness of new covenant blessings is still future, but already, in Christ, both individually and corporately, we currently enjoy and partake of the blessings of the future age, which is now here. For the church, this entails that she is a regenerate people now since in Christ, all God\u2019s promises are here in him (2 Cor. 1:20). In fact, as James White astutely notes, in speaking of new covenant fulfillment in Christ, the author of Hebrews never argues that the new covenant is only partially here or that it \u201cis only partly better now, and will get much better in the future.\u201d Instead, the author argues that the new covenant \u201chas been enacted\u201d (nenomothet\u0113tai, perfect tense), which speaks of a completed action and a present reality. The new covenant, then, is now here in Christ\u2019s person and work; what has resulted is a new people who all savingly know God and the forgiveness of their sins.
\nBut if we argue that the new covenant is only partially here or partially fulfilled, then we have to bifurcate its blessings. Yet this hardly makes sense of how the author of Hebrews applies Christ\u2019s perfect once-for-all-time work when he writes, \u201cFor by a single offering [Christ] has perfected [tetelei\u014dken, perfect tense] for all time those who are being sanctified\u201d (Heb. 10:14). As Beale and others admit, this text demands that we acknowledge that our justification is inaugurated, but if one blessing of the new covenant is now here, then on what basis do we argue that other blessings are still future, such as the reality of a transformed, regenerate people? Instead, it is better to see that both new covenant blessings are now here, yet our glorification as a justified people, both individually and corporately, is still future. The church, then, as God\u2019s new covenant people, is different from Israel in her nature, now and forever. In fact, it is this Israel-church difference, tied to their covenantal differences, that explains why baptism, as a new covenant sign, signifies something different from circumcision and why it is to be applied only to those who know God, have circumcised hearts, and are forgiven of their sins.<\/p>\n
THE CHURCH RECEIVES ALL GOD\u2019S PROMISES IN CHRIST<\/p>\n
It is not an overstatement to say that the church is central to God\u2019s redemptive plan and our Lord\u2019s entire work. For example, our Lord Jesus as the Messiah reminds us how central the church is to his messianic mission with these famous words: \u201cI will build my church\u201d (Matt. 16:18). By this time in his ministry, Jesus has already begun to gather his messianic community by calling the twelve disciples and constituting them as the new Israel (Matt. 4:18\u201322; 10:1\u20134) in relation to him, the true Israel (Hos. 11:1; Matt. 2:15). Also, the future tense of \u201cI will build\u201d (oikodom\u0113s\u014d) looks ahead to the time after Jesus\u2019s cross and resurrection when the promised Spirit is poured out at Pentecost, thus signaling the arrival of the new covenant age. In fact, as Christ\u2019s redemptive mission unfolds in the book of Acts, Jesus\u2019s messianic people (ekkl\u0113sia) begins with the Twelve and other believing Jews (Acts 1\u20132), reunites Israel with the conversion of the Samaritans (Acts 8), and then incorporates into it believing Gentiles, which together constitute the church (Acts 10; cf. Eph. 2:11\u201321). In Christ, the church as his people has entered God\u2019s kingdom through the new covenant, and she now faithfully lives, worships, and proclaims the gospel to the ends of the earth as she awaits Christ\u2019s return. Central to Jesus\u2019s work, then, is the fulfillment of his Father\u2019s will by redeeming, establishing, and building his church.
\nIf the church is central to Christ\u2019s work, then it follows that she is also central to the entirety of our triune God\u2019s redemptive plan. For example, Paul can say that due to Jesus\u2019s triumphant work, the Father has \u201cput everything under [Christ\u2019s] feet and appointed [Christ] as head over everything for the church\u201d (Eph. 1:22). Christ\u2019s lordship over the universe is for the benefit of his people, which certainly places the church at the center of God\u2019s redemptive purposes. This truth is also borne out in Ephesians 3:1\u201310, where Paul identifies the \u201cmystery\u201d of God\u2014that is, God\u2019s eternal plan, which was hidden in ages past but is now revealed and made known in Christ\u2014with the church. As Paul proclaims the \u201cincalculable riches of the Messiah\u201d (3:8), it results in the birth and growth of the church. The \u201cmystery\u201d is not an abstraction. In Christ and his church it takes on concrete shape before our eyes, as a new multiethnic humanity is formed and grows, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles, who display \u201cGod\u2019s multifaceted wisdom\u201d (3:10). The church is the public display of God\u2019s power, grace, and wisdom and thus is central to God\u2019s entire redemptive plan.
\nGiven the centrality of the church to God\u2019s plan and Christ\u2019s triumphant work as our new covenant head, there is an inseparable relationship between Christ and his people, signified by our union with Christ. All that Christ has achieved is for the benefit of the church, and as an entire church without distinction, she has received all God\u2019s promises in him. Since the new covenant is the fulfillment of the previous covenants, the church, as God\u2019s new covenant kingdom people, is the community that continues forever, while all the kingdoms of this world fade away and ultimately come under divine judgment (Revelation 18\u201322).
\nTwo crucial entailments follow from the unbreakable Christ-church relation, which explains why the church receives all God\u2019s promises in Christ. First, the church is part of the one people of God (elect) across time, yet it is covenantally new and constituted now as a transformed, regenerate community and not a mixed people in the present time (against covenant theology). Second, the church is God\u2019s new creation eschatological community that remains forever, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles, who, in Christ, equally and fully receive all God\u2019s promises. The church is not a parenthesis in God\u2019s plan or merely a present illustration of what Israel as a nation and the Gentile nations will be like in the millennium and consummation as recipients of \u201cdistinct\u201d blessings (against dispensationalism). Three points will summarize the New Testament data that support these two entailments and distinguish progressive covenantalism from both dispensational and covenant theology on these specific points due to a different way of \u201cputting together\u201d the Bible\u2019s progression of the covenants.<\/p>\n
THE CHURCH IS PART OF THE ONE PEOPLE OF GOD<\/p>\n
From the outset, it is important to establish that there is only one people of God (elect) across time (against some forms of dispensationalism). Most people today agree on this point because of the abundant data in favor of this claim. For example, under the Old Testament covenants, God\u2019s people were saved by grace through faith in the promises of God, and the same is true under the new covenant, yet now there is greater knowledge and clarity regarding how God\u2019s promises reach their terminus and fulfillment in Christ (Gen. 15:6; Luke 24:25\u201327; Rom. 4:9\u201312; Gal. 3:6\u20134:7; Heb. 11:8\u201319). \u201cPromise\u201d has given way to \u201cfulfillment\u201d so that now one cannot savingly know God apart from faith in Christ (John 5:23; Acts 4:12; cf. 1 John 2:23; 4:2\u20133).
\nFurthermore, Scripture speaks of the one people of God by assuming a genuine continuity between Old and New Testament saints in the language used to describe each (see Rom. 1:1\u20132, 11; Phil. 3:3, 7, 9). Descriptions of Israel as God\u2019s covenant people are applied to the church through her identification with Christ. For example, think of how Old Testament language describing Israel (Ex. 19:6; Deut. 32:15; 33:12; Isa. 43:20\u201321; 44:2; Hos. 1:6, 9; 2:1, 23) and Old Testament texts that were applied to Israel (Jer. 31:31\u201334; Hos. 1:10\u201311) are now applied to the church (Rom. 9:24\u201326; Gal. 3:26\u201329; 1 Thess. 1:4; cf. Eph. 2:12, 19; 3:4\u20136; Heb. 8:6\u201313; 1 Pet. 2:9\u201310). Or think of how the language of \u201cassembly\u201d (Heb. q\u0101h\u0101l; Gk. ekkl\u0113sia) is applied to both Israel and the church (Deut. 4:10; Josh. 24:1, 25; Isa. 2:2\u20134; Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 11:18; Heb. 10:25). These textual data serve as strong evidence in favor of the claim that there is only one people of God throughout the ages.
\nHowever, affirming this point does not entail that Israel and the church are the same kind of community. Through Jesus, the last Adam and true Israel, the church may be viewed as the \u201cIsrael of God\u201d (Gal. 6:16), yet there are significant redemptive-historical differences. The church is covenantally new and constituted as a believing, regenerate people and not a mixed community. Evidence for this claim is first found in the Old Testament and later confirmed in the New Testament\u2019s description of the church, a point to which we now turn.<\/p>\n
THE CHURCH IS COVENANTALLY NEW AND CONSTITUTED AS A REGENERATE PEOPLE<\/p>\n
To state that the church is \u201cGod\u2019s new covenant people\u201d is to say a lot, given the progression of the covenants and their fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant. However, our central point is that the church is new and at present constituted as a regenerate people in contrast to Israel. Three lines of data support this point.<\/p>\n
The Church Is New as a Transformed People<\/p>\n
In chapter 16, we noted that the Old Testament anticipated that the new covenant would be \u201cnew\u201d in at least three ways. First, the new covenant is new by changing the structure of God\u2019s people. Despite remnant themes and an emphasis on individual believers under the old covenant, there God dealt with his people primarily in a mediated or representative structure, through specially called mediators\/representatives\u2014prophets, priests, and kings. Related to this, the Old Testament taught that God\u2019s Spirit was poured out on these leaders in an empowering\/gifting sense, which was not true of every individual believer. But Jeremiah and the prophets signal a structural change in the covenant people. All God\u2019s people in the covenant will know him, from the least to the greatest, and in relation to the new covenant mediator (who we now know is Christ), all God\u2019s people will become prophets, priests, and servant-kings, which in turn will result in God\u2019s new covenant people keeping the covenant (Jer. 31:29\u201334). Evidence for this kind of change is also underscored by the prophetic anticipation of the Spirit\u2019s unique work in the \u201cage to come.\u201d The Prophets speak of an increased and heightened work of the Spirit, first on the messianic king (Isa. 11:1\u20133; 49:1\u20132; 61:1\u20133) and then on Messiah\u2019s people (Joel 2:28\u201332; cf. Num. 11:27\u201329), given the inseparable relationship between Messiah and his people. In light of the Old Testament context, this prophetic teaching anticipates a universal distribution of the Spirit on Messiah\u2019s people in this empowering\/gifting sense so that all those in the new covenant will have the Spirit and every member will be gifted for service.
\nSecond, the Old Testament also anticipates that the new covenant is new by changing the nature of God\u2019s people. Jeremiah signals this in two ways. First, he contrasts the new covenant with the old, and second, he tells us why the new is better due to the heart change of its people. Different from the mixed community of Israel, all people in the new covenant will know God, have the law written on their hearts, and experience the full forgiveness of their sins (Jer. 31:32\u201334; cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Ezek. 11:19\u201320; 36:25\u201327). This does not mean that there were no regenerate people in the Old Testament. Instead, it signals that all members of the new covenant will stand justified before God and know the transforming work of the Spirit in their lives. Within national Israel there were many believers saved by grace through faith in the promises of God (which looked forward to Christ), but as an entire community not all Israel was Israel (Rom. 9:6). But this is not what is anticipated of those under the new covenant.
\nThird, the Old Testament anticipated that the new covenant is new by changing the sacrifice made for God\u2019s people, signaled by the promise of the complete forgiveness of our sin (Jer. 31:34).
\nIn these three areas, the Old Testament anticipates that the new covenant is really new, ultimately because of its unique covenant head\/mediator, Christ Jesus. What the Old Testament predicts is what the New Testament testifies is now here. For example, think of the New Testament\u2019s emphasis on the scope of the Spirit\u2019s work in the entire new covenant people, thus signaling a structural change in the church. As the New Testament opens, John the Baptist announces this coming age (Matt. 3:11), the cross work of Christ procures and secures it (John 7:39; 16:7; Acts 2:33), and Pentecost inaugurates it with Christ pouring out his Spirit on the entire community (Acts 2). As the Spirit is given, God\u2019s people are not only made alive (regeneration, or circumcision of the heart), but they are empowered with gifts for ministry, and the entire church mediates the knowledge of God to the world as a kingdom of priests (1 Cor. 12:4\u20137; 1 Pet. 2:9\u201310). The role Israel was supposed to play is now fulfilled in the entire church, by the Spirit. Everyone within the new covenant community is given the Spirit as a seal, down payment, and guarantee of the promised inheritance (Eph. 1:13\u201314). To be a member of the church is to be united to Christ and to have the Spirit. In fact, not to have the Spirit is not to have Christ or to be his people (Rom. 8:9).
\nOnce again, this is not to say that there were no believers prior to Pentecost or that the Spirit was not active in the Old Testament. The lives of people like Abraham, Moses, Joshua, Hannah, Ruth, David, and others attest otherwise. Yet what is new about the new covenant as demonstrated at Pentecost is the extent to which the Spirit was given, the fact that he was given to people permanently, and the fact that the entire community received the promised Holy Spirit, fulfilling the words of both the prophet Joel and our Lord (Joel 2:28\u201332; Acts 1:4\u20135; cf. John 7:37\u201339). Pentecost also fulfilled what Moses longed for centuries before: \u201cWould that all the LORD\u2019s people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!\u201d (Num. 11:29). On that occasion the Lord had taken the Spirit that was on Moses and put the Spirit on the seventy elders of Israel. But what Israel ultimately needed was not more leaders or even more Spirit-endued leaders. The nation needed to know the Lord and be filled with the Spirit as an entire people. Then, at Pentecost, Moses\u2019s hopes were realized. The Spirit was abundantly poured out on all members of the covenant community, which suggests that what the Old Testament anticipated has now been fulfilled in Christ and the church.
\nFurthermore, think about how the New Testament teaches that the nature of God\u2019s people as an entire community has changed due to the final sacrifice of Christ. On the basis of Christ\u2019s work (Rom. 3:21\u201331), those who have entered God\u2019s saving reign and have become his people are those who have been born of the Spirit (John 1:12\u201313; 3:1\u201321), have repented of their sin and believed in Christ, and by union with Christ have been declared just before God and adopted into God\u2019s family (Rom. 3:21\u201326; 5:1\u201311; 8:1\u20132; Gal. 3:26\u20134:7). In other words, such people have been brought from death to life, have been transferred from being \u201cin Adam\u201d to being \u201cin Christ,\u201d and have now begun to experience in their lives the promised blessings of the new covenant (Rom. 5:12\u201321; Eph. 2:1\u201310; Col. 1:13\u201314, 21\u201323; 2:6\u201315). Due to Christ\u2019s work, the new covenant as a package is now here. Although we await the fullness of what Christ has inaugurated, the anticipated new covenant changes of the structure and nature of God\u2019s people tied to the better sacrifice of our Lord Jesus are here (Hebrews 8\u201310). To support this point, James White refers to the use of the perfect passive in Hebrews 8:6\u2014God \u201chas enacted\u201d\u2014to underscore the fact that the new covenant is here now. As White rightly comments,<\/p>\n
There is nothing in the text that would lead us to believe that the full establishment of this covenant is yet future, for such would destroy the present apologetic concern of the author; likewise, he will complete his citation of Jeremiah 31 by asserting the obsolete nature of the first covenant, which leaves one to have to theorize, without textual basis, about some kind of intermediate covenantal state if one does not accept the full establishment of the new covenant as seen in the term \u03bd\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bc\u03bf\u03b8\u03ad\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u201chas been enacted.\u201d<\/p>\n
There are many implications of this point, but the central one to emphasize now is that the church, as God\u2019s new covenant community, is a transformed, regenerate people and not a mixed community. Under the new covenant, the locus of the covenant community and the locus of the redeemed are one, precisely unlike Israel. Due to the fulfillment work of Christ, the church is new in her structure and nature. In Christ, his new covenant people are here, the Spirit has been poured out on the entire community (Acts 2), all those in the church know God in a direct and immediate fashion (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 10:19\u201325), and all are declared forgiven of their sins before God (Rom. 8:1). Although we wait for the consummated state, at present we enjoy and live out what it means to be God\u2019s new people.<\/p>\n
The Church Is the New Eschatological Assembly<\/p>\n
Further evidence to support the claim that the church is new as a transformed, regenerate people is the New Testament\u2019s description of the church as an eschatological and gathered (ekkl\u0113sia) community.
\nThe New Testament identifies the church with the dawning of the kingdom and the ushering in of the \u201cage to come,\u201d which has now arrived in Christ and which he will consummate at his return. As such, the church is part of the already-not yet tension in the New Testament. Her identity is not with \u201cthis present age\u201d (identified with Adam) but with the \u201cage to come\u201d (identified with Christ). As a result of Christ\u2019s work, those in faith union with Christ are now citizens of the new, heavenly Jerusalem (our final destination tied to the new creation). In one sense this new Jerusalem is still future, but in a profound sense, it is already here.
\nThis is the point of Hebrews 12:18\u201329. In contrast to the Israelites who assembled at Sinai (12:18\u201321), new covenant believers have already gathered to meet God at the \u201cheavenly\u201d Jerusalem (12:22\u201324) tied to the new creation. As the church and participants of the \u201cage to come\u201d (see Col. 1:18; cf. Heb. 12:22\u201324), we begin to enjoy by faith the privileges of that city that is still future (Heb. 13:14). We wait for Christ\u2019s return, but as the gathered\/assembled people of God, we already experience the realities of the end, though not yet in its fullness.
\nThree conclusions result from these biblical truths for our understanding of the newness of the church. The first pertains to the relationship between the local church and the eschatological, heavenly gathering. D. A. Carson spells out this relationship by first saying what the local church is not. He writes, \u201cEach local church is not seen primarily as one member parallel to a lot of other member churches, together constituting one body, one church; nor is each local church seen as the body of Christ parallel to other earthly churches that are also the body of Christ\u2014as if Christ had many bodies.\u201d On the flip side, we should think of the relationship in this way:<\/p>\n
Each church is the full manifestation in space and time of the one, true, heavenly, eschatological, new covenant church. Local churches should see themselves as outcroppings of heaven, analogies of \u201cthe Jerusalem that is above,\u201d indeed colonies of the new Jerusalem, providing on earth a corporate and visible expression of \u201cthe glorious freedom of the children of God.\u201d<\/p>\n
If so, then a second conclusion follows. This view of the church presupposes something about her nature. Those who are members of the church are a regenerate, believing people. Why? Because to have already come to the new, heavenly Jerusalem and to have begun to participate in its realities is another way of saying that those in the church are, by definition, part of the new creation, members of the new covenant, and people already raised and seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (see Eph. 2:5\u20136; Col. 2:12\u201313; 3:3). But biblically speaking, this reality is only possible for those who have been born of the Spirit and united to Christ by faith.
\nAs new covenant people, we receive the benefits of Christ\u2019s work in only one way: individual repentance toward God and faith in Christ. In salvation we are transferred by God\u2019s grace and power from being \u201cin Adam\u201d to being \u201cin Christ\u201d with all the benefits of that union. To be \u201cin Christ\u201d now that he has finally come and fulfilled the previous covenants (and to be a member of his ekkl\u0113sia) entails that one is a believer, born of the Spirit, transformed, and justified before God. The New Testament knows nothing of one who is \u201cin Christ\u201d who is not also regenerate, effectually called by the Father, born of the Spirit, justified, holy, and awaiting glorification. That is why it is so difficult to think of the church as a mixed entity.
\nThere is a third conclusion. If this understanding of the church is basically right, then, as Carson notes, \u201cThe ancient contrast between the church visible and the church invisible, a contrast that has nurtured not a little ecclesiology, is either fundamentally mistaken, or at best of marginal importance.\u201d Why? Because the New Testament views the church as a heavenly (tied to the \u201cage to come\u201d and the new creation, not \u201cin Adam\u201d but \u201cin Christ\u201d) and spiritual (born of and empowered by the Spirit in faith union with Christ) community. She lives her life out now while she awaits the consummation, as \u201cthe outcropping of the heavenly assembly gathered in the Jerusalem that is above,\u201d which assumes a regenerate people. The church is not viewed as a \u201cvisible\u201d community in the sense that it comprises believers and unbelievers simultaneously until the end, like Israel of old (with the \u201cinvisible\u201d church as the true, believing, regenerate community of all ages). It may be true that the church is universal and \u201cinvisible,\u201d given the fact that there is only one people of God throughout the ages. But it is not the case that the \u201cvisible,\u201d local church is constituted in its very nature of a mixture of believers and unbelievers.
\nInstead, the New Testament church, unlike Israel under the old covenant, is constituted of those who profess that they have been transferred from death to life, from being \u201cin Adam\u201d to being now \u201cin Christ.\u201d They have become participants in the new creation tied to the inauguration of the entire new covenant age. No doubt, it is true that not all those who profess faith in Christ are regenerate and that some who are admitted into membership in the church later show themselves not to have belonged. In the words of the apostle John, \u201cIf they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. However, they went out so that it might be made clear that none of them belongs to us\u201d (1 John 2:19). The New Testament knows of false professions and spurious conversions; in fact, the Scripture exhorts us to examine ourselves (see 2 Pet. 1:10). Yet the New Testament also assures us that all those united to Christ and born of the Spirit will be kept to the end. This contrasts with covenant theology, which affirms a mixed view of the church or asserts that the visible church is constituted by believers and unbelievers until the end of the age. The New Testament speaks of the visible local church but not in this way. It is mistaken to think that the New Testament church is constituted in the same way as Israel of old.<\/p>\n
The Church Is God\u2019s New Temple<\/p>\n
The tabernacle-temple typological pattern runs through the covenants, especially developed under the old covenant. At the heart of the covenant relationship is the triune God dwelling with his people, and vice versa. The tabernacle-temple was the means by which God in his holiness dwelt among a sinful people without destroying them. It was also the means by which atonement was made for the covenant people\u2019s sin, through the mediation of the priesthood and the sacrificial system.
\nWhen Jerusalem became the capital under David, and Solomon later constructed the temple, God\u2019s dwelling with his people took on a note of permanency. God is omnipresent, but the temple was the means by which he manifested his unique covenantal presence among his people. In fact, God\u2019s presence in the midst of the nation distinguished Israel from all the other nations (Ex. 33:15\u201316). With the construction of the temple, the nation was now able to assemble annually in Jerusalem and go to the place where God dwelt (Pss. 42:2; 63:2; 65:1\u20132). Worship was centered on a place, and the covenant community was able to meet with God at the temple, though their interactions with him were mediated through the priests.
\nWhen the nation went into exile and the temple was destroyed, it was as if the entire covenant had come to an end. But in the midst of God\u2019s judgment on the nation, the prophets held out hope. They reminded the people that God\u2019s presence was not limited to a place; the temple itself was only a type of something greater (see Ex. 25:40; cf. Ezek. 11:22\u201323; Heb. 8:3\u20135). The hope for Israel was in God himself, who would act to keep his promises, to save his people, and ultimately to make all things new by definitively dealing with human sin through a new covenant (Isa. 2:2\u20134; 53\u201355; Ezekiel 34; 36\u201337; Jer. 31:31\u201334; cf. Hebrews 8). In that new covenant, Yahweh himself would come through the Davidic son; he would be present among his people as Immanuel; he would be anointed with the Spirit and would also pour out the Spirit on his people (Psalm 110; Isa. 7:14; 11:1\u20135; 61:1\u20133; Joel 2:28\u201332; cf. Acts 2). He would secure everything necessary for our redemption, supremely associated with the forgiveness of our sin and the inauguration of the new creation (Isa. 53; 61:1\u20133; 65:17\u201325; Jer. 31:34).
\nAs we move from Old Testament \u201cpromise\u201d to New Testament \u201cfulfillment,\u201d our Lord Jesus fulfills the prophetic expectation in at least two important ways. First, Jesus is the fulfillment of the temple (John 1:14\u201318; 2:19\u201322). As the Lord (who is also David\u2019s greater Son and the Great High Priest of the new covenant\u2014see Hebrews 5\u20137), he is the very dwelling of God with us (Matt. 1:23; John 1:14). In his life and cross work, he fulfills the purpose and function of the earthly temple (Matt. 27:51; Heb. 9:1\u201310:18). Second, as the temple builder and Lord of the house (Heb. 3:1\u20136), Jesus now builds his church, from every nation, tribe, and tongue (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:11\u201322; cf. Rev. 5:9\u201310). By God\u2019s sovereign grace, the church becomes his house\/temple by being transferred from one covenant head to another, from Adam to Christ. By the agency of the Spirit (who regenerates us and empowers\/gifts us, individually as Christians and corporately as Christ\u2019s church), we are now God\u2019s new temple (1 Cor. 3:16\u201317; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; Heb. 3:6; 1 Pet. 2:5). In Christ, the temple is no longer associated with a specific building and place (Jerusalem); instead, the temple is identified with Christ and his body, the church. In Christ, the church is his temple-people, who now have direct access to the Father through him by the Spirit (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 4:14\u201316; 10:19\u201322).
\nWhat is the significance of this truth for the church? First, to describe the individual Christian and the corporate people of God as his new temple highlights something of the newness, superiority, and glory of the new covenant. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Israel as a people described as the temple of God in which God\u2019s Spirit dwells. Instead, Israel as a nation had a physical temple in their midst. They could travel to it, and their worship centered around it. God condescended to dwell in it. But never was Israel overtly described as God\u2019s temple. On the other hand, the church experiences a greater covenantal access to God than Israel knew, precisely because Jesus has come and has brought all the types and shadows of the Old Testament to their God-ordained end. The church is something new in God\u2019s plan, not ontologically (against dispensationalism) but redemptive-historically. God\u2019s plan of salvation has now reached its fulfillment in Christ.
\nSecond, the individual Christian and the church can only be described as God\u2019s new temple if the church is constituted by a regenerate, believing people and not a mixed body (against covenant theology). Why? This description is true only of people brought from death to life by the call of the Father and the new birth of the Spirit. They have been united to Christ by faith, a union that is permanent and secure (Rom. 8:28\u201339; Eph. 1:3\u201314). This description is not true of unbelievers, though it does describe those who profess faith but in the end demonstrate (by their lack of perseverance) that they were never truly God\u2019s people in the first place (1 John 2:19; cf. Col. 1:21\u201323; Heb. 3:6, 14).<\/p>\n
THE CHURCH IS THE COVENANT COMMUNITY THAT REMAINS FOREVER<\/p>\n
The church is new not only as a transformed, regenerate people but also as God\u2019s new creation community that remains forever. The church comprises believing Jews and Gentiles, who, in Christ, equally and fully receive all God\u2019s promises. The church is not a parenthesis in God\u2019s plan or merely a present illustration of the spiritual unity that Israel as a nation and the Gentile nations will exhibit in the millennium and consummation as recipients of \u201cdistinct\u201d blessings or privileges (against dispensationalism). Given that the new covenant is the fulfillment of the previous covenants and that beyond it there is no other covenant relationship that defines our relationship to the triune God, the church, as the people of the new covenant, remains forever. In relation to Christ, who is the antitypical fulfillment of the previous covenant heads\/mediators, the church, as his people, now lives out what God intended us to be, namely, his image-sons. As such, we function as a kingdom of priests and a holy nation and are restored to the purpose of our creation to know, love, and worship the triune God and to rule as his people over the entire creation (Heb. 2:5\u201318; 1 Pet. 2:9\u201310; Revelation 21\u201322). In this way, the church lives out what Israel as a nation was called to be but now as the renewed eschatological Israel. And as the \u201cIsrael of God\u201d (Gal. 6:16), the church is composed of believers in Christ, the true seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:16), who are now the spiritual seed of Abraham in Christ and who receive all God\u2019s promises equally in him (Gal. 3:29). Two lines of evidence will substantiate these points from the New Testament.<\/p>\n
The Church Is God\u2019s New Humanity<\/p>\n
The description of the church as the \u201cnew humanity (man)\u201d is drawn from Ephesians 2:11\u201322. This title nicely captures something of the newness of the church and why she exists forever as God\u2019s covenant people. The title is linked with the new creation and the biblical covenants, and it underscores the church\u2019s newness in God\u2019s unfolding plan, as everything is fulfilled and \u201csummed up\u201d in Christ (1:9\u201310).
\nIn Ephesians 2:1\u201310, Paul speaks of what individual believers are in Christ. No longer are we \u201cin Adam\u201d and dead in our sins and transgressions (2:1\u20133). But now, by God\u2019s sovereign grace and \u201cin Christ,\u201d we have been made alive and been seated with Christ in the heavenlies (thus participants of the \u201cage to come\u201d) as God\u2019s new creations or masterpieces (2:4\u201310).
\nIn Ephesians 2:11\u201321, Paul speaks of the same truths of what we once were and what we now are in Christ\u2014but now by the use of corporate and covenantal categories. Gentile Christians, for example, given their covenantal position \u201cin Adam,\u201d were once excluded from \u201cthe citizenship of Israel,\u201d \u201cforeigners to the covenants of promise\u201d and \u201cwith no hope and without God in the world\u201d (2:11\u201312). But now, in Messiah Jesus, everything has changed. In Christ, because of God\u2019s grace and according to his eternal plan (3:1\u201313), Gentiles have now been brought near. They are now recipients of God\u2019s promises, given first to Adam and then through Abraham to the nation of Israel. In Christ and in his reconciling cross, the law-covenant has been brought to fulfillment and thus torn down. The law-covenant purposely given to temporarily separate Jews and Gentiles is now fulfilled. The result is the creation of the church, so that both Jews and Gentiles together now have peace with the triune God and covenantal access to him (2:14\u201318) and together inherit the same promises. Incredibly, believing Gentiles have become (alongside believing Jews) \u201cfellow citizens with the saints, and members of God\u2019s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.\u201d Together, as God\u2019s \u201cone new man,\u201d they are being built as a new temple \u201cfor God\u2019s dwelling in the Spirit\u201d (2:22).
\nGiven what Paul has said, how should we think of the church as God\u2019s new humanity and new covenant people? A number of conclusions may be drawn. The church is not simply an extension of Israel. It is related to Israel and the covenants of promise, but it is a new humanity, part of the new creation associated in Old Testament expectation with the inauguration of the new covenant. The church now lives out what Israel was supposed to be but only because of Christ, who first fulfills Israel\u2019s role, along with the role of every covenant head, in himself. The church is not merely some kind of amalgam made out of the best elements of Israel and the Gentiles. The church is also not merely a phase in God\u2019s redemptive plan to end in the future when God returns to his previous plan for Israel and the nations. The church is a new creation, a third entity that is neither Jewish nor Gentile but Christian, and both believing Jews and Gentiles are now one in the church (see 1 Cor. 9:19\u201323). God\u2019s eternal plan always anticipated the creation of the church (Eph. 3:8\u201313). Now that Christ has come and by virtue of his saving work, this new entity has been created. In this way, the \u201cnew humanity\u201d transcends the two old entities, even though unbelieving Israel and disobedient Gentiles continue to exist \u201cin Adam\u201d now that Christ has come. Believing Gentiles are now able to receive the blessings of God and have equal standing with believing Jews without having to submit to the old covenant (circumcision, food laws, and so on). In Christ the old covenant has come to its fulfillment, and the \u201cnew humanity\u201d is identified with the inauguration of a new and better covenant.
\nDoes this mean that the church has \u201creplaced\u201d Israel? This is not how Paul states it. Instead, the person who has fulfilled the covenants, including the role of Israel, is Christ. By virtue of our relationship to him, we, as his people, inherit and receive all God\u2019s promises in him. Christopher Wright captures this point well:<\/p>\n
In all of this, then, it is not a case of abolishing and \u201creplacing\u201d the realities of Israel and the Old Testament, but of taking them up into a greater reality in the Messiah. Christ does not deprive the believing Jew of anything that belonged to Israel as God\u2019s people; nor does he give to the believing Gentiles anything less than the full covenantal blessing and promise that was Israel\u2019s. On the contrary, we share together in all of it and more\u2014in him, and for ever.<\/p>\n
What makes all this possible is Messiah Jesus, who fulfills God\u2019s promises and applies them to his people. One cannot understand the identity, nature, and newness of the church apart from him. Dispensational theology views Israel and the church as distinct without sufficiently accounting for Jesus as the last Adam and true Israel. He fulfills the role of both Israel and Adam, thus creating not an ontologically distinct people but \u201cone new man.\u201d Covenant theology tends to move from Israel to the church too quickly without sufficiently accounting for the differences between the two communities due to the person and work of Christ. As we progress through the covenants, we move from type to antitype, from the covenant heads\u2014Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses\/Israel, and David\u2014to Christ. Our Lord\u2019s work brings with it God-intended change. Because of its identification with Christ, the head of the new covenant and the new creation, the church is the \u201cone new man.\u201d This is why the church is identified with the \u201cage to come\u201d and not with the structures of the old era. This is why the church is viewed as the new assembly and the new temple, born, empowered, and indwelt by the Spirit. This is why the church must be viewed not as a mixed entity but as a regenerate, believing community.<\/p>\n
The Church Receives All God\u2019s Promises in Christ<\/p>\n
The way that the Old Testament restoration promises for Israel are applied to the church in Christ provides further evidence that the members of the church, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles in Christ, equally and fully receive all God\u2019s promises.
\nFor example, in Acts, before Christ ascends, he teaches his disciples about the kingdom and tells them to wait in Jerusalem for the promised Spirit, tied to Old Testament prophetic restoration hope. As noted previously, the promise of the Spirit is tied to the promises of the Messiah\u2019s coming and the entire messianic age rooted in the new covenant and Israel\u2019s restoration as a nation. The disciples ask, \u201cWhen are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?\u201d (Acts 1:6). Jesus answers not by redirecting their attention to the church age, \u201cimplicitly postponing a restoration of Israel to the future,\u201d when she will finally receive promises \u201cdistinct\u201d from believing Gentile nations. This dispensational view does not sufficiently account for who Jesus is as the true Israel and last Adam, how he fulfills all the covenants, and how he applies God\u2019s promises to the church.
\nInstead, Jesus answers their question by saying that Israel\u2019s end-time restoration is about to occur at Pentecost (Joel 2:28\u201332; Acts 2:14\u201321), starting in Jerusalem with Jewish believers and extending to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8, thus a reconstituted Israel) and to the Gentile nations (Acts 10\u201311), thus creating a new humanity in Christ. Jesus responds to his disciples with language (\u201cwhen the Holy Spirit comes on you,\u201d \u201cyou will be my witnesses,\u201d and \u201cto the ends of the earth\u201d) drawn from Isaiah (Isa. 32:15; 43:12; 49:6), which anticipates the day when God will save through his servant, bring about Israel\u2019s restoration, and include Gentiles in that restoration program. Jesus heralds that what the Old Testament prophets anticipated is now occurring in him and the church, which is precisely how Paul and the apostles see their mission (see Isa. 49:6; Acts 13:47). Exactly how the Gentiles are included in God\u2019s people is yet to be shown (Acts 10\u201311; 15; cf. Ephesians 3), yet there is no question that Gentiles will be included, and it is now about to commence at Pentecost. The sequence of restoration is significant: first to Israel, then to the nations (cf. Acts 3:26), which is precisely how the risen and exalted Christ builds his church, and how the church grows in the book of Acts.
\nActs 15 is also instructive. As the church wrestles with Gentile participation in God\u2019s covenantal promises, it becomes clear that Gentiles join with believing Jews to form the one new humanity and that all members equally receive all God\u2019s promises. Gentiles come to participate in Christ with Jewish believers by faith alone, by receiving the same Spirit, and by coming under the new covenant (Acts 15:7\u201311; cf. Eph. 2:11\u201321). In fact, James speaks of God\u2019s \u201cvisitation\u201d (episkeptomai, Acts 15:14) of the Gentiles by using the same terminology used of God to save his people Israel (Ex. 3:16; 4:31; 13:19; Ruth 1:6). When James says that believing Gentiles were taken \u201cfrom the Gentiles\u201d (Acts 15:14), he once again employs the same terminology used of Israel as taken from the nations to be God\u2019s people (Deut. 7:6; 14:2). Alan Thompson rightly draws the following conclusion: \u201cThe language that James uses here therefore indicates that he views Gentiles who have placed their faith in the Lord Jesus as being just as much a part of God\u2019s people as Jews who have also placed their faith in the Lord Jesus.\u201d Furthermore, James appeals to the words of the Prophets to warrant the fact that God in his plan has always intended to form one people that would include believing Jews and Gentiles. Specifically, James quotes Amos 9:11\u201312, which indicates an important sequence of God\u2019s saving work tied to the Davidic covenant being fulfilled in Christ and the new covenant. After the restoration of David\u2019s house, which James and the book of Acts see as occurring in Christ (Acts 2; 13), the Messiah also restores his people, given the inseparable relationship between them (cf. Luke 1:32\u201333, 68\u201369). Yet what Amos anticipates, and James says has now occurred in the church, is that the Messiah\u2019s people will include believing Jews and Gentiles together as inheritors of the Davidic kingdom. In the church, then, \u201cJames recognizes that God is fulfilling his saving promises to accept Gentiles in this Davidic kingdom through their faith in the Davidic King Jesus.\u201d God has joined believing Jews and Gentiles together under the new covenant on the same basis: faith in Jesus, the son of David.
\nThroughout its pages, the New Testament repeatedly teaches the truth that in Christ, the members of the church, including believing Jews and Gentiles, equally and fully receive all God\u2019s promises. In fact, as we have seen in the Bible\u2019s covenantal progression, our Lord Jesus Christ first fulfills the previous covenants in himself and then applies his work to his people. As God\u2019s people, we are restored to the purpose of our creation and thus fulfill what Israel\u2014indeed, Adam\u2014only typified: a transformed people who function as a royal priesthood and holy nation (Ex. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9). As the church, we function as the restored Israel and Abraham\u2019s spiritual children (Rom. 4:9\u201322; Gal. 3:6\u20139); true Jews because of our heart circumcision (Rom. 2:25\u201329; Phil. 3:3); the one new man (Eph. 2:11\u201321); from the same olive tree (Rom. 11:17\u201324); and part of the 144,000, which symbolically refers to the entire church (Rev. 7:1\u20138; 14:3). Also, in Christ, the church receives her \u201cinheritance\u201d (Eph. 1:13\u201314; Col. 1:12\u201314), which is more than mere spiritual blessings. In the Old Testament, the inheritance is tied to Israel\u2019s land, which in the progression of the covenants, becomes a type of the entire creation. For this reason, the church is said to inherit the \u201cearth\u201d (Matt. 5:5) and receive what Abraham was promised, namely, that he would inherit the \u201cworld\u201d (Rom. 4:13) as he looked for the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, which would last forever and ultimately is identified with the new creation (Heb. 11:8\u201316). Captured in Scripture\u2019s final vision, the church is Christ\u2019s bride, the heavenly Jerusalem, whose foundation is the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles (Rev. 21:9\u201314), an international people (Rev. 5:9\u201310) that inherits the new creation as God\u2019s covenant people forever (Revelation 21\u201322). The covenant people that lasts forever is Christ\u2019s bride, the church.
\nIs there, then, no future for national Israel? We will return to this question in chapter 19, but for now, we simply state that Paul in Romans 9\u201311, specifically in 11:1\u201332, addresses this question, and his answer is no. Yet as we will argue, regardless of how one understands the meaning of \u201call Israel will be saved\u201d (11:26), there is no warrant from this text to think that national Israel will receive an outstanding promise in the millennium or consummated state distinct or different from believing Gentiles. Nothing in Romans 9\u201311 speaks of the \u201crestoration\u201d of Israel as a nation in her land with a specific identity and role of service to the nations apart from believing Jews and alongside believing Gentiles, participating in covenant community that lasts for eternity, namely, the church. Romans 11 can only serve as \u201cevidence\u201d for the restoration of national Israel apart from or distinct from the church if the entire dispensational view is assumed, which is precisely what is at debate. Instead, the Bible\u2019s storyline as unfolded through the covenants teaches that all God\u2019s promises are fulfilled in Christ and his people, the church.
\nTo summarize, in chapters 16\u201317 we have sought to provide a biblical-theological summary of kingdom through covenant. In the end, we contend that the entire Bible gloriously reveals our triune God\u2019s eternal plan in and through the biblical covenants, from creation to consummation. At the center of all God\u2019s plans and purposes is God\u2019s own dear Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. In him, all God\u2019s promises are \u201cYes\u201d and \u201cAmen\u201d (2 Cor. 1:20), and by grace, we, as the church, are the beneficiaries of his all-sufficient work. In the final two chapters, we will briefly highlight a number of implications of our view for selected areas of systematic theology. Our focus is on showing how understanding the progression of the covenants has theological significance for our theological formulations, with specific focus on areas of contention between dispensational and covenant theology, thus showing how progressive covenantalism functions as a via media.<\/p>\n
18<\/p>\n
KINGDOM THROUGH COVENANT<\/p>\n
Some Theological Implications: Christology and the Christian Life<\/p>\n
We now turn to the question, So what? Given our proposal of kingdom through covenant, or progressive covenantalism, for putting together the metanarrative of Scripture, what are some of the implications for systematic theology? Obviously, in two chapters we can only sketch some of the implications. In truth, every locus of theology is affected by one\u2019s understanding of the progression of the covenants, since the covenants are the backbone of the Bible\u2019s storyline. Perennial polemics within theology\u2014such as the law-gospel divide, the application of the old covenant to Christians today, the question of creation ordinances related to Sabbath regulation, church-state issues that have implications for how Christians engage politically in society, and so on\u2014are directly related to one\u2019s view of the covenants.
\nIn addition, in order to do justice to all the theological implications, full book-length treatments, at minimum, are required for each topic, with alternative views described and critiqued in terms of their overall fit with Scripture. Given our space limitations, our goal is to hint at the direction our proposal would take in a few areas with special focus on differences between dispensational and covenant theology. A full treatment of further areas will require future writing projects to flesh out the implications in more detail. We will focus on four main loci: Christology, the Christian life, ecclesiology, and eschatology.<\/p>\n
CHRISTOLOGY<\/p>\n
In what ways does an understanding of the progression of the covenants affect Christology? We will focus on two related areas: one pertaining to the person of Christ and the other to his work. In regard to the person of Christ, we are using the term person to address the question, Who is the Jesus of the Bible? or, in today\u2019s terminology, What is the identity of Jesus the Christ? In terms of the work of Christ, our focus will turn to the debated issue of the active obedience of Christ.<\/p>\n
KINGDOM THROUGH COVENANT AND THE IDENTITY OF JESUS<\/p>\n
Who is the Jesus of the Bible? Scripture presents a straightforward answer that the church has confessed throughout the ages: Jesus is God the Son incarnate. As God the Son, he has existed from all eternity, coequal with the Father and Spirit and thus fully God (John 1:1\u20132, 18). Yet at a specific point in time he took to himself our human nature and became incarnate in order to save us from our sin by his glorious life, death, resurrection, and ascension (John 1:14). As summarized by the later Chalcedonian Definition, Jesus is fully God and fully man, one person existing in two natures now and forevermore.
\nHow does Scripture teach that Jesus is God the Son incarnate? How did the church draw this theological conclusion from the diverse biblical data? For the most part, the church appealed to individual texts that not only establish Jesus\u2019s unique relation to the Father and Spirit but also demonstrate his unique divine status and prerogatives, his divine work and acts, and his divine name and titles. However, an often neglected way of establishing Jesus\u2019s identity is by tracing out the Bible\u2019s storyline. As God\u2019s redemptive plan is disclosed through the progression of the covenants, the identity of the coming Messiah (Son) becomes more defined. By the time the curtain of the New Testament opens, the prophetic testimony has already revealed and anticipated a Messiah to come who will inaugurate God\u2019s saving reign and usher in the new covenant age. From the Old Testament teaching, the Messiah is viewed as both the obedient son-priest-king, the antitype of all the previous covenant heads\/mediators, and the one who is also uniquely the Son, who is identified with Yahweh, hence God the Son incarnate. Four steps will sketch out how Scripture identifies the Jesus of the Bible by unpacking kingdom through covenant.<\/p>\n
The Initial Promise<\/p>\n
Scripture begins with the declaration that God, as Creator and triune Lord, is the sovereign ruler and King of the universe. From the opening verses of Genesis, God is introduced and identified as the all-powerful Lord who created the universe by his work, while he himself is uncreated, self-sufficient, and in need of nothing outside himself (Pss. 50:12\u201314; 93:2; Acts 17:24\u201325). As the Lord, he chooses to enter into covenant relationships with his creatures through the first man, Adam. But sadly, Adam willfully and foolishly rebels against God\u2019s sovereign rule, and by his act of disobedience, sin and all its disastrous effects are brought into this world. Instead of God leaving us to ourselves and swiftly bringing full judgment on us, he acts in grace, choosing to save a people for himself and to reverse the manifold effects of sin. This choice to save is evident in the protevangelium (Gen. 3:15), given immediately after the fall to reverse the disastrous effects of sin on the world through a coming deliverer. This promise, in embryonic form, anticipates the coming of a Redeemer, the \u201cseed of the woman,\u201d who, though wounded himself in conflict, will destroy the works of Satan and restore goodness to this world. This promise creates the expectation that when it is finally realized, all sin and death will be defeated, and the fullness of God\u2019s saving reign will come to this world as God\u2019s rightful rule is acknowledged and embraced.<\/p>\n
Further Definition<\/p>\n
God\u2019s initial promise receives greater definition and clarity through the progression of the covenants. As God\u2019s plan unfolds in redemptive history and as God enters into covenant relations with Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David, step-by-step, God, by his mighty acts and words, prepares his people to anticipate the coming of the \u201cseed of the woman,\u201d the deliverer, the Messiah\u2014a Messiah who, when he comes, will fulfill all God\u2019s promises by ushering in God\u2019s saving rule to this world. This point is important for establishing the identity of the Messiah, especially the truth that he is God the Son incarnate. On the one hand, Scripture teaches that the fulfillment of God\u2019s promises will be accomplished through a man, as developed by various typological persons such as Adam, Noah, Moses, Israel, and David, all seen in terms of the covenants. On the other hand, Scripture also teaches that this Messiah is more than a mere man, since he is identified with God. How so? Because in fulfilling God\u2019s promises, he literally inaugurates God\u2019s saving rule (kingdom) and shares the very throne of God\u2014something no mere human can do\u2014which entails that his identity is organically tied to the one true and living God. This observation is further underscored by the next point, which shows how God\u2019s kingdom is established through the inauguration of the new covenant.<\/p>\n
Salvation Typified through Covenant Heads<\/p>\n
How does God\u2019s kingdom come in its saving \/ redemptive \/ new creation sense? As the Old Testament unfolds, God\u2019s saving kingdom is revealed and comes to this world, at least in anticipatory form, through the progression of the covenants and covenant heads\/mediators\u2014Adam, Noah, Abraham, Abraham\u2019s seed centered on the nation of Israel, and most significantly, David and his sons. Yet in the Old Testament, it is clear that all the covenant mediators (sons) fail and do not fulfill God\u2019s promises; all of them are not obedient sons. This is specifically evident in the Davidic kings, who are \u201csons\u201d to Yahweh, the representatives of Israel, and thus \u201cother Adams,\u201d but who fail in their task. It is only when a true, obedient son comes, a son whom God himself provides, that God\u2019s rule finally and completely is established and his promises realized. This is why, in Old Testament expectation, the arrival of God\u2019s kingdom is organically linked to the dawning of the new covenant. This is also why, when one begins to read the Gospels, one is struck by the fact that the kingdom of God is so central to Jesus\u2019s life and teaching; he cannot be understood apart from it. But note: in biblical thought, one cannot think of the inauguration of the kingdom apart from the arrival of the new covenant.
\nIn this regard, Jeremiah 31 is probably the best-known new covenant text in the Old Testament, but as previous chapters have demonstrated, teaching on the new covenant is not limited to it. New covenant teaching is also found in the language of \u201ceverlasting covenant\u201d and \u201ccovenant of peace\u201d and in the anticipation of the coming of the new creation, the Spirit, and God\u2019s saving work among the nations found through all the prophets. In fact, among the prophets, who all write after the Davidic covenant, there is an expectation that the new covenant will have a purpose similar to the Mosaic covenant\u2014namely, to bring the blessing of the Abrahamic covenant back into the present experience of Israel and the nations. Yet there is also an expectation of some important changes from the old, all of which are outlined in Jeremiah 31 and other new covenant texts. Probably what is most new about the new covenant is the promise of complete forgiveness of sin (Jer. 31:34). In the Old Testament, forgiveness of sin is normally granted through the priestly-sacrificial system. However, the Old Testament believer, if spiritually perceptive, knew that this was never enough, as evidenced by the repetitive nature of the system (Heb. 9:1\u201310). But now Jeremiah announces that sin will be \u201cremembered no more\u201d (Jer. 31:34), which certainly entails that sin will finally be dealt with in full. When other texts are considered, the Old Testament ultimately anticipates a perfect, unfettered fellowship of God\u2019s people with the Lord, a harmony restored between creation and God\u2014a new creation and a new Jerusalem\u2014where the dwelling of God is with men (see Ezek. 37:1\u201323; cf. Isa. 25:6\u20139; Dan. 12:2; Rev. 21:3\u20134). That is why it is with the arrival of the new covenant age that we also have God\u2019s saving kingdom brought to this world, which is precisely the fulfillment of the protevangelium.<\/p>\n
The Progression of Covenants and the Identity of Jesus<\/p>\n
Let us now take the Bible\u2019s basic covenantal storyline and explain how it answers the crucial question, Who is Jesus? If we step back for a moment and ask, Who is able, or what kind of person is able to fulfill all God\u2019s promises, inaugurate his saving rule in this world, and establish all that is associated with the new covenant, including the full forgiveness of sin? the answer in biblical thought is clear: it is God alone who can do it, and no one else. Is this not the message of the Old Testament? Is this not the message of the covenants? As the centuries trace the history of Israel, it becomes evident that Yahweh alone must act to accomplish his promises; he must initiate in order to save; he must unilaterally act if there is going to be any redemption. After all, who ultimately can achieve the forgiveness of sin other than God alone? Who can usher in the new creation, final judgment, and salvation? Certainly, none of these great realities will ever come through the previous covenant heads\/mediators, for they have all, in different ways, failed. They only function as types and shadows of the one to come. Nor will it come through Israel as a nation, for her sin has brought about her exile and judgment. If there is to be salvation at all, God himself must come and usher in salvation and execute judgment; the arm of the Lord must be revealed (Isa. 51:9; 52:10; 53:1; 59:16\u201317; cf. Ezekiel 34). Just as he once led Israel through the desert, so he must come again, enacting a new exodus in order to bring salvation to his people (Isa. 40:3\u20135).
\nHowever, as the progression of the covenants establish, starting with creation and Adam and moving to David, alongside the emphasis that God himself must come and accomplish these great realities, the Old Testament also stresses that Yahweh will do so through another David, a human figure but a human figure who is also closely identified with Yahweh himself. Isaiah pictures this well. This king to come will sit on David\u2019s throne (Isa. 9:7), but he will also bear the very titles and names of God (Isa. 9:6). This king, though another David (Isa. 11:1), is also David\u2019s Lord who shares in the divine rule (Ps. 110:1; cf. Matt. 22:41\u201346). He will be the mediator of a new covenant; he will perfectly obey and act like the Lord (Isa. 11:1\u20135); yet he will suffer for our sin in order to justify many (Isa. 53:11). It is through him that forgiveness will come, for he is \u201cThe LORD our righteousness\u201d (Jer. 23:5\u20136). In this way, Old Testament expectation, which is grounded in the coming of the Lord to save, is joined together with the coming of the Messiah, one who is fully human yet also bears the divine name (Isa. 9:6\u20137; Ezekiel 34).
\nIt is this basic storyline of Scripture that serves as the framework and background to the New Testament\u2019s presentation of Jesus. Who is Jesus? He is the one who inaugurates God\u2019s kingdom and new covenant age. In him, the full forgiveness of sin is achieved; in him, the eschatological Spirit is poured out, the new creation dawns, and all God\u2019s promises are fulfilled. But in light of the Old Testament teaching, who can do such a thing? Only one who is both Yahweh and the obedient Son, which is precisely how the New Testament presents Jesus. The New Testament unambiguously teaches that this human Jesus is also Yahweh since he alone ushers in God\u2019s kingdom. He is the eternal Son in relation to his Father (see Matt. 11:1\u201315; 12:41\u201342; 13:16\u201317; Luke 7:18\u201322; 10:23\u201324; cf. John 1:1\u20133; 17:3), yet the one who has taken on our flesh and lived and died among us in order to win for us our salvation (John 1:14\u201318). In him, as fully human, the glory and radiance of God is completely expressed, since he is the exact image and representation of the Father (Hebrews 1\u20133; cf. Col. 1:15\u201317; 2:9). In him, all the biblical covenants have reached their fulfillment; indeed, all history is \u201csummed up\u201d in him (Eph. 1:9\u201310). By his cross work, Jesus has inaugurated the new covenant and all its entailments. But it is crucial to point out: to say that Jesus has done all this is to identify him as God the Son incarnate, fully God and fully man.
\nIt is for this reason that the New Testament presents Jesus in an entirely different category from any created thing. In fact, Scripture so identifies him with Yahweh in all his actions, character, and work that he is viewed, as David Wells reminds us, as \u201cthe agent, the instrument, and the personifier of God\u2019s sovereign, eternal, saving rule.\u201d In Messiah Jesus, we see all God\u2019s plans and purposes fulfilled; we see the resolution of God to take on himself our guilt and sin in order to reverse the horrible effects of the fall and to satisfy his own righteous requirements, to make this world right, and to inaugurate a new covenant in his blood. In Jesus Christ, we see the perfectly obedient Son, who is also the Lord, taking the initiative to keep his covenant promises by taking on himself our human flesh, veiling his glory, and winning for us our redemption. In him we see two major Old Testament eschatological expectations unite: he is the sovereign Lord who comes to rescue and save his people and who is simultaneously David\u2019s greater Son. In this way, our Lord Jesus Christ fulfills all the types and shadows of the Old Testament and is also presented as the eternal Son, identified with the covenant Lord and thus God\u2014equal to the Father in every way. Kingdom through covenant teaches us who Jesus is, and he cannot be understood apart from it.<\/p>\n
KINGDOM THROUGH COVENANT AND THE WORK OF CHRIST<\/p>\n
Regarding Christ\u2019s work, there are at least two places where properly viewing the progression of the covenants helps illuminate this doctrinal area, although here we are only briefly able to discuss these important matters.<\/p>\n
The Obedient Son: The Active Obedience of Christ<\/p>\n
Historically and in current theological discussions, people have disputed the biblical and theological basis for Christ\u2019s active obedience. In Reformed theology (but not limited to it), the debate on Christ\u2019s active obedience is part of the larger discussion of the nature of Christ\u2019s work and how his work is applied to us in salvation. Often the distinction is made between Christ\u2019s active and passive obedience.
\nActive obedience, as Wayne Grudem explains, means that \u201cChrist had to live a life of perfect obedience to God in order to earn righteousness for us. He had to obey the law for his whole life on our behalf so that the positive merits of his perfect obedience would be counted for us.\u201d As that active obedience is applied to us, it is viewed in terms of the imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness to us, tied to the larger discussion of justification by grace through faith. In other words, our Lord, in his life and death, acts as the obedient Son in our place so that his righteousness is legally reckoned to us by faith union in him. Passive obedience refers to Christ, as our substitute, bearing our sin in our place and paying the penalty we rightly deserve. Together they emphasize that for our Lord Jesus to act as our Savior, his whole life and death is one act of obedience to the Father on our behalf. Salvation requires that our Lord not only had to pay for our sin as our substitute (passive obedience) but also had to live a life of perfect, devoted obedience before God as our representative (active obedience). In so doing, as the obedient Son, he fulfilled God\u2019s righteous demands for us in regard to both penal sanctions and positive demands.
\nWhy have some disputed the biblical basis for the active obedience of Christ? A number of reasons could be given, all the way from a misunderstanding of the terms, to thinking that the doctrine can be maintained only as it is linked to a specific understanding of the \u201ccovenant of works,\u201d to a rejection of the notion that God demands perfect obedience for salvation. Yet such a dismissal, or even worse, rejection, greatly affects how we think of Christ\u2019s cross and its application to us. As Greg Van Court reminds us, the active-passive distinction is not just an attempt to describe the judicial character of justification:<\/p>\n
It is also a means of articulating the holiness and infinite worth of God\u2019s character and the positive and negative aspect that is inherently and inseparably bound up in all true obedience to his perfect will. For example, it is not enough to have no other gods before him; if one is to be acceptable before holy God, he must love him with all his heart, mind, and soul. It is not enough to refrain from committing adultery; if a husband is to be obedient to God, he must love his wife as Christ loved the church and gave his life for her. It is not enough to put off filthiness; one must also put on righteousness. Righteousness is not merely the negative lack of what is bad but also the positive fulfillment of what is good. It is this positive aspect of Christ\u2019s obedience to the will of the Father even unto and especially unto death that Reformed theologians have termed active.<\/p>\n
As John Murray rightly states,<\/p>\n
We must not view this obedience in any artificial or mechanical sense. When we speak of Christ\u2019s obedience we must not think of it as consisting simply in formal fulfillment of the commandments of God. What the obedience of Christ involved for him is perhaps nowhere more strikingly expressed than in Hebrews 2:10\u201318; 5:8\u201310 where we are told that Jesus \u201clearned obedience from the things which he suffered,\u201d that he was made perfect through sufferings, and that \u201cbeing made perfect he became to all who obey him the author of eternal salvation.\u201d \u2026 It was requisite that he should have been made perfect through sufferings and become the author of salvation through this perfecting. It was not, of course, a perfecting that required the sanctification from sin to holiness. He was always holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners. But there was the perfecting of development and growth in the course and path of his obedience\u2014he learned obedience. The heart and mind and will of our Lord had been moulded\u2014shall we not say forged?\u2014in the furnace of temptation and suffering. And it was in virtue of what he had learned in that experience of temptation and suffering that he was able, at the climactic point fixed by the arrangements of infallible wisdom and everlasting love, to be obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.<\/p>\n
Establishing the Active Obedience of Christ<\/p>\n
Given the importance of the active obedience of Christ for understanding Christ\u2019s work and its application to us, how is it best demonstrated? As in the discussion of the identity of Christ, one must establish its biblical basis text by text. But it is also important to remember that individual texts are embedded in an overall storyline that provides the categories, structures, and framework to make sense of individual texts. In the case of the active obedience of Christ, the progression of the covenants is crucial in establishing its grounding. Let us develop this point in three steps.<\/p>\n
UNCONDITIONAL VERSUS CONDITIONAL COVENANTS. The active obedience of Christ is organically related to the larger question of the unconditional\/unilateral-conditional\/bilateral nature of the biblical covenants. As previous chapters have discussed, a common way to distinguish the biblical covenants is to employ the unconditional\/unilateral (royal grant) versus conditional\/bilateral (suzerain-vassal treaty) distinction. We dissent from this thinking, since elements of both are blended together throughout the covenants. In fact, we contend that it is precisely due to this blend that there is a deliberate tension within the covenants\u2014a tension that is increased and heightened as the covenants progress toward their fulfillment in Christ and a tension that is important in grounding Christ\u2019s active obedience.
\nOn the one hand, what the progression of the covenants reveal is the sovereign promise-making and covenant-keeping God who never fails. He is the covenant Lord who supremely reveals himself as the God of \u1e25esed and \u2019\u0115met. As Creator and Lord, he chooses to enter into relationships with his creatures wherein he demonstrates that he is always faithful. He always remains true to himself, his own character, and his promises, and it is on this basis alone that we can hope, trust, and rest in him. It is for this reason that all the biblical covenants are unconditional or unilaterally guaranteed by God\u2019s sovereign grace and power. By starting with Adam in creation and tracking the progression of the covenants, we discover God\u2019s commitment to his image bearers and creation, tied to his promises that never fail because he never fails. God remains true to his promises across the entire canon, which reaches its most profound fulfillment in our Lord Jesus Christ.
\nOn the other hand, all the biblical covenants also demand an obedient partner (image-son). This is evident with Adam, as God gives him commands and responsibilities with the expectation that he will respond perfectly. Furthermore, as the covenants unfold, the same emphasis appears in all of them. Complete obedience and devotion are demanded from the covenant mediators and the people; God demands and deserves nothing less. In this sense, there is a conditional\/bilateral element to all the covenants. It is this emphasis on God\u2019s demand of complete obedience from his creatures that is crucial in establishing the grounding to the active obedience of Christ. This is consistent with who God is as the standard of righteousness and justice. To demand anything less than full devotion and obedience from his creatures would be a denial of himself. In addition, in creating us, our triune God made us for himself, to know him, to worship him as servant-kings, to obey him, as we fulfill our task to extend his rule to the entire creation.<\/p>\n
CONDITIONAL PROMISE OF ETERNAL LIFE. In the covenant of creation, it is best to think of God\u2019s initial arrangement with Adam as holding forth a conditional promise of everlasting life. Even though this point is often disputed, there are good reasons to maintain it. In this regard, God\u2019s specific command and warning to Adam in Genesis 2:16\u201317 and the emphasis on the tree of life in Genesis 2:9 are important. Admittedly, the text itself does not explicitly mention a reward, yet in light of the entire canon, this conclusion is warranted.
\nFirst, think of the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It is best to view this command as a test of Adam\u2019s obedience to the Lord. He was created to love God and his neighbor. The specific prohibition was a test to discern whether Adam would be what he was created to be: an obedient son. Sadly, Adam disobeyed, and the consequence of his action was no private affair. As the first man and representative head of the human race, his choice brought death into this world\u2014spiritually and physically\u2014for the entire human race (Rom. 3:23; 5:12\u201321).
\nSecond, think of the tree of life. It is best to see it as an implied promise of life, especially in light of Genesis 3:22, where God expels humanity from Eden so that they will not take of the tree and live forever. The expulsion from Eden not only speaks of God\u2019s judgment on Adam (and the entire human race) but also gives a glimmer of hope that eternal life is still possible, especially set in the context of the Genesis 3:15 promise of a coming deliverer. Together the two trees present two choices in Eden: life or death. As Micah McCormick notes, \u201cIf the tree of the knowledge of good and evil loomed over Eden with the threat of death, so too did the tree of life course with the expectation of everlasting life.\u201d Canonically, it is significant that the tree of life appears again in the new creation. Not only are believers told that they will eat of the tree of life if they persevere until the end (Rev. 2:7), but all who dwell in the new creation are sons of God who enjoy the tree of life (Rev. 22:1\u20135). G. K. Beale captures the significance of this when he writes, \u201cTo \u2018eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God\u2019 is a picture of forgiveness and consequent experience of God\u2019s intimate presence (22:2\u20134).\u2026 The \u2018tree\u2019 refers to the redemptive effects of the cross, which bring about the restoration of God\u2019s presence.\u201d In this light, it is legitimate to conclude that the tree of life symbolizes eternal life\u2014held out to Adam in the beginning and won by our Lord Jesus Christ.
\nPutting together these pieces, especially in light of the larger Adam-Christ typological relationship (Rom. 5:12\u201321; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45\u201349; cf. Heb. 2:5\u201318), we see that where Adam disobeyed and failed, Christ succeeded in obedience and in securing our eternal redemption. Death (physical and spiritual) was the result of Adam\u2019s disobedience; eternal life (spiritual and physical) was the result of Christ\u2019s act of obedience\u2014an obedience that characterized his entire life including the supreme act of obedience in his death (Phil. 2:8). Adam acted as our covenant head yet failed the test. God demanded from him covenant loyalty, devotion, and obedience, but he did not fulfill the purpose of his creation. As Horton rightly notes, \u201cAdam is created in a state of integrity with the ability to render God complete obedience, thus qualifying as a suitable human partner,\u201d yet he disobeyed. Our Lord, as the second Adam, lived a life of complete love, devotion, and obedience to his heavenly Father for us\u2014showing us what an obedient son looks like\u2014and in the greatest act of obedience possible, he went to the cross for us to pay for our sin and to satisfy God\u2019s own righteous requirements, which we violated in our sin, rebellion, and disobedience.<\/p>\n
THE NEED FOR AN OBEDIENT SON. Building on the previous point, it is important to observe that as we progress through the covenants, tension grows in regard to God\u2019s demand for obedient covenant partners. To be sure, Yahweh always remains the faithful covenant partner as the promise maker and keeper. By contrast, all the human covenant heads\u2014Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David and his sons\u2014show themselves to be unfaithful, disobedient covenant breakers\u2014some to a greater extent than others. As a result, there is no faithful, obedient son who fully obeys the demands of the covenant. Obedience must be rendered, given who God is, but there is no obedient son to do so. How, then, can God remain the holy and just God that he is and be present with us in covenant relationship? How can he continue in relationship with us unless our disobedience is removed and our sin is paid for in full? The only answer is this: God himself, as the covenant maker and keeper, must unilaterally act to keep his own promise through the provision of a faithful, obedient Son. It is only through the Son\u2019s obedience\u2014in life and in death\u2014that our redemption is secured, our sin is paid for, and the inauguration of an unshakable new covenant is established.
\nIn this regard, it is important to note how much the New Testament stresses the obedience of Christ. John Calvin is correct when he says, \u201cNow someone asks, how has Christ abolished sin, banished the separation between us and God, and acquired righteousness to render God favorably and kindly toward us? To this we can in general reply that he has achieved this for us by the whole course of his obedience.\u201d It is a \u201cwhole course\u201d of obedience that refers not only to Christ\u2019s obedient death on our behalf but also to his entire obedient life, lived out for us as our representative head. In the context of the covenant of creation, God\u2019s demands on his image bearers must be perfectly met, either personally or representatively. As Horton states, \u201cTo reflect God as his image-bearer is therefore to be righteous, holy, obedient\u2014a covenant servant, defined as such by the covenant charter (Hos. 6:7, with Isa. 24:5; Jer. 31:35\u201337; 33:20\u201322, 25\u201326).\u201d Christ fulfills Adam\u2019s role, he recapitulates Adam\u2019s testing in the garden, yet he does not disobey. In his obedient life he fulfills Adam\u2019s role representatively, and by his obedient death he acts as our substitute, paying the debt we could never repay. And all his work as the head of the new covenant becomes ours, not by physical birth or anything in us but solely by God\u2019s sovereign grace as the Father chooses us in him, the Spirit unites us to him by new birth, and his righteous standing becomes ours as a result.<\/p>\n
The Imputation of Christ\u2019s Righteousness<\/p>\n
It is in this covenantal context that we must think of the imputation of Christ\u2019s righteousness to the believer and how it is that his active obedience becomes ours. It is by Christ acting as our covenant head that we, by God\u2019s grace and through repentance and faith, come under his covenant headship. As John Murray rightly states, \u201cChrist\u2019s obedience was vicarious in the bearing of the full judgment of God upon sin, and it was vicarious in the full discharge of the demands of righteousness. His obedience becomes the ground of the remission of sin and of actual justification.\u201d God reckons, or counts, our entire sin to be Christ\u2019s and Christ\u2019s entire righteousness to be ours. This great exchange provides the basis for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life. In this way, as Van Court notes, Scripture speaks of three great imputations:<\/p>\n
The first great imputation is Adam\u2019s entire guilt from the fall to all people (Rom. 5:12, 18a, 19a; Ps. 51:5). The second is the elect\u2019s entire sin to Christ (Isa. 53:4\u20136; Rom. 8:3\u20134; 2 Cor. 5:21a; Gal. 3:13). The third is Christ\u2019s entire righteousness to his elect (Rom. 3:21\u201322; 5:18a, 19b; 2 Cor. 5:21b; Phil. 3:9).<\/p>\n
Viewing Christ\u2019s active obedience, imputation, and justification within the context of kingdom through covenant is nothing new. Yet in light of today\u2019s debates, it helps illuminate and underscore the great gospel truth of salvation by grace alone, by faith alone, and in Christ alone. In an article wrestling with the New Perspective on Paul, Kevin Vanhoozer suggests that the more biblical way of thinking is to view Christ\u2019s work and how it becomes ours in the context of Christ\u2019s covenant representation of his people and our faith union with our covenant head. When we do so, it now makes sense to say that<\/p>\n
God reckons Christ\u2019s \u201cright covenantal relatedness\u201d ours \u2026 [since] \u201cChrist does everything that Israel (and Adam) was supposed to do. He suffers the covenant sanction and fulfills the covenant law, including its summary command \u201cto love God and your neighbor as oneself.\u201d In counting us righteous, then, God both pardons us (\u201cthere is therefore now no condemnation\u201d [Rom. 8:1]) and gives us the positive status of rectitude, a down payment, as it were, sealed with the Spirit, on our eventually achieving an actual righteous state (i.e., sanctification).\u2026
\nChristians become members of God\u2019s covenant family by receiving the Son\u2019s status: righteous sonship. Jesus Christ was the righteous Son the Father always wanted Israel, and Adam, to be.\u2026 Sons and daughters in Christ, we have Christ\u2019s righteousness [sic] standing before God and unity with one another as members of Christ\u2019s one body.<\/p>\n
Without a metanarrative in which the covenants are key, and especially the creation covenant as epitomized in the Davidic covenant, where the king represents the nation, the doctrine of imputation is difficult to properly sustain.<\/p>\n
THE CHRISTIAN LIFE: APPLYING SCRIPTURE THROUGH THE LENS OF THE NEW COVENANT<\/p>\n
We have argued that the new covenant is the fulfillment of the previous covenants. Given this view, a question is often asked: How do we apply the Bible as our ethical standard, especially if we reject the validity of the tripartite distinction of the old covenant? This question is relevant for our interaction with covenant theology for two reasons. First, covenant theology often charges as antinomian those positions that think of the old covenant as a covenant package now fulfilled in Christ. Second, covenant theology has sought to establish the basis for moral law by following the venerable tradition of dividing the Mosaic law into three parts\u2014moral, civil, and ceremonial\u2014something we reject. Covenant theology argues that with Christ\u2019s coming, the law\u2019s civil and ceremonial parts are now fulfilled and abrogated, yet God\u2019s eternal moral law as revealed in the Decalogue remains unchanged. A direct equation is made between the Decalogue and eternal moral law, and a general hermeneutical rule is followed: unless the New Testament explicitly modifies or abrogates the Mosaic law (as in the ceremonial and civil parts), it is still in force today. This rule becomes the principle by which moral law is established across the canon.
\nSince our understanding of the Bible\u2019s covenantal progression differs from the covenant view, how, then, do we draw moral conclusions from Scripture? Before we answer this question, we must first acknowledge that there is much to commend about the covenant approach, and in fact, it is crucial not to exaggerate the differences between our views. In the end, both positions will arrive at similar conclusions regarding God\u2019s moral demands today, yet the difference lies in how we arrive at our conclusions. Given that we view the old covenant as a covenant package that as an entire covenant is now fulfilled in Christ, we do not appeal to the tripartite distinction of the law as the principle to determine what the moral law is. So how do we apply all Scripture to our lives?
\nOur answer to this question involves five steps. Given our rejection of the tripartite distinction, what is our alternative? How do we escape the charge of being antinomian? How do we establish God\u2019s moral norms, especially in our secular and pluralistic age, as those who now live under the new covenant?<\/p>\n
THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE<\/p>\n
All Scripture is authoritative and thus provides the norm for Christian ethics. What is our standard for ethics? The simple answer: All Scripture is our standard, and it alone establishes moral norms. In this regard, 2 Timothy 3:15\u201317 is crucial. Paul describes Scripture, specifically the Old Testament, as God\u2019s breathed-out Word and thus fully authoritative for Christians. In other words, the entire Old Testament, including the law-covenant, functions for us as the basis for our doctrine and ethics. Although Christians are not \u201cunder the law\u201d as a covenant, it still functions as Scripture and demands our complete obedience.
\nThis point is crucial to stress at the outset of our discussion. All Christians ought to confess that God\u2019s nature and will are the objective standard of morality, and as creatures, we know this standard by revelation. Christian ethics is not antinomian. Although Scripture is not an exhaustive revelation, it is a true and objective revelation of God\u2019s moral will. Our triune God has not left us to ourselves; Scripture is our sufficient and authoritative moral standard.
\nNevertheless, though all Scripture is our standard, its moral instruction requires careful application depending on our covenantal location. For example, some specific commands under the old covenant such as circumcision, food laws, gleaning laws, and so on, which are all demanded by God to be obeyed and are thus moral, no longer apply to us today in exactly the same way (Gen. 17:9\u201314; Lev. 11; 19:9\u201310; cf. Mark 7:1\u201323; Hebrews 5\u201310). For this reason, it is crucial to distinguish between biblical morality and Christian ethics. As Michael Hill explains, \u201cBiblical morality has to do with the morality found in the Bible\u201d; it describes God\u2019s moral demands in specific places in redemptive history. But \u201cChristian ethics is locating what is normative for Christians in this present age.\u201d As Hill grants, \u201cSome unreflective Christians believe that the revelation of God is exactly the same in any part of the Bible.\u201d Thus the doing of ethics is simply to take \u201ca moral rule, principle or virtue from any part of the Bible and without further interpretation apply it directly as moral guidance for Christians today.\u201d But this ethical use of the Bible fails to do justice to the Bible\u2019s own teaching and the progression of the covenants. So all Scripture is for our ethical instruction, but not all Scripture applies to us in exactly the same way. How do we rightly apply the entire Bible as our ethical norm?<\/p>\n
REJECTION OF THE TRIPARTITE DISTINCTION OF THE LAW<\/p>\n
Negatively stated, we reject the tripartite distinction of the law-covenant as the means by which Christians determine what is morally binding on us today. Historically, covenant theology has determined what is morally binding on Christians by appealing to the tripartite distinction of the Mosaic law. Although this approach is noteworthy, we reject it for at least three reasons.
\nFirst, Scripture views the law-covenant as a unit or package, and it does not appeal to the tripartite distinction as the principle means by which the continuity and discontinuity of moral law is established for Christians today. This is not to say that within the law-covenant no distinctions can be made (recognizing, e.g., certain principles as more important [Matt. 5:24; 9:13], the weightier matters of the law [Matt. 23:23], laws regarding sacrifices [Leviticus 1\u20137] versus civil matters, or even the central place of the Decalogue [Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5]). Instead, it is to say that Scripture views the law-covenant as a covenant package that serves a specific role in God\u2019s plan for the life of Israel, and as an entire covenant, it is brought to fulfillment in Christ and the new covenant.
\nTexts such as Galatians 5:3 and James 2:8\u201313 point in this direction. Keeping or breaking one part of the law assumes the keeping or breaking of the whole law. Or as the author of Hebrews argues, the law-covenant is an integrated whole grounded in the priesthood (Heb. 7:11), and with a change in priesthood (Psalm 110; Hebrews 7), there is necessarily a change of the whole covenant, not merely parts of it (Heb. 7:12; 8:7\u201313). Think of how Paul views himself as a Christian: before, he was under the law-covenant as a Jew, but now he no longer is. Instead, he is under God\u2019s law by being ennomos Christou (1 Cor. 9:21), that is, under the new covenant. Paul views the covenants as entire packages, the old having reached its end in Christ.
\nSecond, Scripture teaches that the law-covenant was temporary in God\u2019s plan, serving a number of purposes but ultimately pointing forward to its fulfillment in Christ (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:15\u20134:7; Heb. 7:11\u201312). In order to grasp the role of the law-covenant in God\u2019s redemptive plan, we must locate it within the progressive unfolding of the covenants. When one does so, Scripture teaches the opposite conclusion of first-century Judaism. Jewish thought believed that the old covenant was eternal and unchangeable (e.g., Wis. 18:4; Jub. 1:27; 3:31; 6:17; Mos. 2.14; Ag. Ap. 2.277); the New Testament teaches that as important as the law-covenant is in God\u2019s unfolding plan, it has now come to its end as an entire covenant.
\nIt is for this reason that the Mosaic law as a covenant is no longer directly binding on the Christian. In fact, the law\u2019s purpose of supervising God\u2019s people and directing their behavior as a paidag\u014dgos (Gal. 3:24) reached its end with Christ\u2019s coming and the new covenant (Gal. 4:1\u20137). Two important results follow. First, it is difficult to separate the law-covenant into three parts and suggest that only its moral parts apply to us today. Second, given that the law-covenant has reached its telos in Christ, we apply its ethical instruction to us only through the lens of the new covenant.
\nThird, and related to the previous points, the New Testament teaches that Christians are no longer \u201cunder the law\u201d as a covenant, and thus it no longer functions as a \u201cdirect authority\u201d for us (e.g., Rom. 6:14\u201315; 1 Cor. 9:20\u201321; Gal. 4:4\u20135; 5:13\u201318). On this point, Paul\u2019s argument is thoroughly redemptive-historical: the old covenant served its purpose in God\u2019s plan, but now in Christ, it has reached its telos (end and goal) (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 3:15\u20134:7). A common way to avoid this conclusion is to interpret Paul as saying that Christians are no longer \u201cunder the law\u201d either by a legalistic misuse of it or in its ceremonial requirements. Both of these interpretations fail, however, since Paul does not equate \u201claw\u201d (nomos) with a \u201clegalistic\u201d misunderstanding of it; instead, \u201claw\u201d refers to the entire law-covenant, which Christians are no longer under as a covenant unit in Christ since they are now under the new covenant.
\nOn this point, 1 Corinthians 9:20\u201321 is a crucial text. As a Christian, Paul no longer sees himself as \u201cunder the law,\u201d and, remarkably, he does not equate God\u2019s law one-for-one with the Mosaic law. Instead, Paul views himself as under God\u2019s law but with God\u2019s law now defined completely in relation to Christ (ennomos Christou). This entails, as Moo suggests, that<\/p>\n
the \u201claw\u201d under which Christians live is continuous with the Mosaic law in that God\u2019s eternal moral norms, which never change, are clearly expressed in both. But there is discontinuity in the fact that Christians live under the \u201claw of Christ\u201d and not under the Mosaic law. Our source for determining God\u2019s eternal moral law is Christ and the apostles, not the Mosaic law or even the Ten Commandments.<\/p>\n
This fact helps make sense of why Christians do not \u201cdo\u201d or \u201ckeep\u201d the law; instead, in Christ, we \u201cfulfill\u201d the law due to Christ\u2019s work and the power of the Spirit.
\nWhat do these three points teach us? Scripture does not appeal to a tripartite division in the law as the basis for determining the moral law today. The law-covenant is viewed as a whole. It has now reached its end in Christ. This is why the law-covenant is not directly binding on Christians. This is not to say that it has no present relevance. In fact, if we ask, What is the purpose of the law? (Gal. 3:19), diverse answers may be given.
\nCentral to the law\u2019s purpose was to reveal God\u2019s character, to show the nature of human sin by imprisoning Israel under sin, and to instruct how God would graciously redeem in priesthood and sacrifice (e.g., Rom. 3:19\u201320; 5:20; 7:7\u201312; 8:2\u20133; Col. 2:14; Heb. 7:11; 10:3). The law-covenant held out the promise of life (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 2:13; Gal. 3:12), but due to human sin, it could not save us, despite being \u201choly, righteous, and good\u201d (Rom. 7:12). In fact, the law-covenant was never intended to save, yet in its typological patterns (e.g., sacrificial system, tabernacle-temple, priesthood), it pointed forward to how God would save. In the end, God\u2019s righteousness comes apart from the old covenant (Rom. 3:21), and it is found only in the new covenant\u2014that to which the law pointed (Rom. 3:21\u201331; 8:2\u20134; Gal. 3:13\u201314; 4:4\u20137). For a time, the Mosaic law supervised God\u2019s people (Gal. 3:24; 4:1\u20137), but now that Christ has come, its supervisory work is done. Yet the law-covenant still functions for us as Scripture, teaching us about God\u2019s glorious plan of redemption, making us wise to salvation in Christ, and instructing us how to live wisely in the world as God\u2019s new covenant people.<\/p>\n
THE NEW COVENANT AS THE INTERPRETIVE LENS<\/p>\n
Positively speaking, we determine what is morally binding on us today by appealing to the entirety of Scripture viewed through the lens of the new covenant. Although Christians are not \u201cunder the law\u201d as a covenant, the law still functions for us as Scripture. As with any biblical text, however, before we directly apply it to our lives, we must first place it in its covenantal location, and then we must think through how that text points forward, anticipates, and is fulfilled in Christ. It is only by doing this that we correctly apply any biblical text to our lives as Christians. In fact, apart from following this hermeneutical process, we will incorrectly apply Scripture.
\nFor example, if we ask, Does the Levitical sacrificial instruction apply to us today? the answer is no, if we mean as God\u2019s covenant instruction to Israel. We, as Christians, live after Christ, who by his glorious work has brought the Old Testament sacrifices to their telos (Hebrews 5\u201310). Yet Leviticus as Scripture does apply to us in diverse ways\u2014as prophecy, instruction, and wisdom\u2014but now only in light of Christ. What is true of Leviticus is also true of the law-covenant (e.g., circumcision, food laws, civil laws, and Decalogue). No part of the law is applied to us without first placing it in its covenantal location (immediate and epochal-covenantal context) and then asking how the entire covenant is fulfilled in Christ (canonical context).
\nIn answering the question, What is the moral law for Christians today? we must follow the same path. We first gladly confess that the entirety of Scripture is our standard. But we must simultaneously add that all Scripture\u2019s moral teaching is binding on us only in light of its fulfillment in Christ. Both of these points are needed to discern God\u2019s moral demands for new covenant believers, and Hill nicely emphasizes these points in his discussion of the Ten Commandments and their application to us today.
\nOn the one hand, Hill notes that \u201cthe Law of Moses does not provide a complete and binding guide to Christian morality.\u201d Moo rightly asserts that \u201cthe entire Mosaic law comes to fulfillment in Christ, and this fulfillment means that this law is no longer a direct and immediate source of, or judge of, the conduct of God\u2019s people. Christian behavior, rather, is now guided directly by \u2018the law of Christ.\u2019 \u201d For Moo, the \u201claw of Christ\u201d reflects all that God has given to us under the new covenant, especially \u201cthe teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles, the central demand of love, and the guiding influence of the indwelling Holy Spirit.\u201d
\nOn the other hand, as Hill insists, the Mosaic law cannot be ignored either since it is authoritative Scripture. As a covenant, the law does not govern us directly, yet as Scripture, and applied to us in Christ, it now takes on a prophetic-wisdom function. Hill comments that in the Mosaic law \u201cthe basic shape of God\u2019s rule, and of God\u2019s just order established at creation, is confirmed and further delineated in the Law. Yet it is delineated in positive and negative ways\u201d\u2014ways that point forward to a better covenant. Hill rightly notes that \u201cwhile Christians are not under the package called the Law (a package designated as the \u2018Old Covenant\u2019), the moral elements in the Law are part of a continuum that gives shape to an ideal.\u201d That ideal is first given in creation, distorted in the fall, and recovered in the law-covenant, but ultimately, it is only fully restored in Christ. In this way, the law-covenant expresses God\u2019s moral demands, but it also points forward to a greater covenant. In the new covenant the previous moral instruction is not dismissed; rather, it continues and is transformed in light of the ideal that has begun in Christ and that will be consummated at Christ\u2019s return. The new covenant, then, not only replaces the old but also fulfills it.
\nThe New Testament teaches both the replacement and fulfillment of the old covenant by the new. On the one hand, in the new covenant, the old is replaced by the law of Christ (1 Cor. 9:20\u201321). Instead of reliance on the law, we rely on Christ (Gal. 2:19\u201320; Phil. 3:4\u201314), and we discern God\u2019s will in Christ and apostolic instruction (1 Cor. 7:19; 9:21; Gal. 6:2). As Rosner contends,<\/p>\n
Christians are not under the Law of Moses, but under the law of Christ, the law of faith and the law of the Spirit. We have died to the law, Christ lives in us and we live by faith in the Son of God.\u2026 We do not keep the law, but fulfil the law in Christ and through love. We do not seek to walk according to the law, but according to the truth of the gospel, in Christ, in newness of resurrection life, by faith, in the light and in step with the Spirit.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the new covenant fulfills the old. A crucial text in this regard is Matthew 5:17\u201320. Although debate surrounds this text, fulfillment is best understood in a redemptive-historical sense (see Matt. 1:22; 2:15, 17, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 27:9). Jesus fulfills the law and the prophecies (and thus the entire Old Testament) in that they point forward to him, and Jesus is the one who brings them to their intended end. The entire Old Testament, including the previous covenants, have a prophetic function as they foreshadow and predict the coming of Christ. Obviously, the prophetic foreshadowing varies depending on whether it is a typological pattern (e.g., exodus, sacrifices, priesthood, and temple) or whether it is the law\u2019s instruction. Yet in light of the antitheses in Matthew 5:21\u201348, Jesus teaches that just as he has \u201cfulfilled OT prophecies by his person and actions, so he fulfilled OT law by his teaching.\u201d As Carson notes,<\/p>\n
In no case does this \u201cabolish\u201d the OT as canon, any more than the obsolescence of the Levitical sacrificial system abolishes tabernacle ritual as canon. Instead, the OT\u2019s real and abiding authority must be understood through the person and teaching of him to whom it points and who so richly fulfills it.<\/p>\n
If this is so, it is important to see that in his teaching, Jesus fulfills the law not simply by extending, annulling, or merely intensifying it but by demonstrating \u201cthe direction in which it [OT law] points.\u201d In so doing, Jesus views himself as \u201cthe eschatological goal of the OT, and thereby its sole authoritative interpreter, the one through whom alone the OT finds its valid continuity and significance.\u201d From Matthew 5:17\u201320, Moo draws the following ethical implication: Jesus teaches us that<\/p>\n
the OT law is not to be abandoned. Indeed, it must continue to be taught (Matt 5:19)\u2014but interpreted and applied in light of its fulfillment by Christ. In other words, it stands no longer as the ultimate standard of conduct for God\u2019s people, but must always be viewed through the lenses of Jesus\u2019 ministry and teaching.<\/p>\n
In order for Christians, then, to determine what God\u2019s moral law is, we must apply all Scripture in light of Christ. God\u2019s moral law is not discovered, as covenant theology teaches, in an a priori manner, that is, by isolating the Decalogue from the law-covenant and then applying it directly to us. Instead, \u201cmoral law\u201d is determined from the entire Bible in an a posteriori way, that is, by reading and applying biblical texts to us, first in their covenantal location and then in light of Christ. Carson is right to insist that<\/p>\n
we do not begin with a definition of moral law, civil law, and ceremonial law but observe (for example) what laws change least, across redemptive history, in the nature and details of their demands, and happily apply the category \u201cmoral\u201d to them. This seems to me to reflect better exegesis and allows space to see the teleological, predictive, anticipatory nature of Tanakh as it points forward to the new covenant and beyond to the consummation.<\/p>\n
What this entails is a careful reading\/application of the whole Bible in ethics. The entire Old Testament, including the law-covenant, is for our moral instruction. Reading Scripture by placing each covenant in its immediate, epochal, and canonical contexts is the way we determine what God\u2019s moral law is. We do not follow either the hermeneutical rule that unless the New Testament explicitly modifies or abrogates the Mosaic law (as in the ceremonial and civil parts), it is still in force today, or even the rule Moo suggests, that Christians are bound only \u201cto that which is clearly repeated within New Testament teaching.\u201d The former approach wrongly assumes the validity of a tripartite distinction of the law as the principle by which moral law is canonically established, and it fails to grasp the law-covenant\u2019s place in the progression of the covenants. The latter approach, if one is not careful, is open to the charge that since certain behaviors are not clearly repeated in the New Testament\u2014such as bestiality (Ex. 22:19; cf. Lev. 18:23; 20:16) or the cursing of the deaf (Lev. 19:14)\u2014then we have no New Testament warrant to say that these actions are immoral. What is needed is a \u201cwhole Bible\u201d hermeneutic, unpacking the Bible\u2019s own internal categories, placing texts in the Bible\u2019s unfolding storyline according to their covenantal location, and then thinking through their relation to Christ. Let us develop this approach briefly in the last two points.<\/p>\n
THE BIBLE\u2019S INTRASYSTEMATIC CATEGORIES<\/p>\n
Applying Scripture today requires a careful unpacking of the Bible\u2019s storyline and intrasystematic categories. How do we draw moral conclusions from the whole Bible? One point needs to be stressed. In using Scripture to do ethics, it is crucial to unpack the Bible\u2019s own intrasystematic categories, which include both the Bible\u2019s progressive unfolding of the covenants and the larger biblical-theological framework of creation, fall, redemption, and new creation.
\nWhy is this important? Just as it is crucial to begin the Bible\u2019s storyline and covenantal unfolding in creation in order to grasp God\u2019s plan, it is also necessary to ground ethics in the norm of creation. As Hill rightly insists, it is the original creation with its revealed goals or purposes that \u201cprovides us with the basis for determining what is morally good.\u201d This point is especially significant in ethical discussions over the nature and dignity of humans, the proper use of our sexuality, marriage, the value of labor, and so on.
\nFor example, take the case of bestiality. Before the law forbids it (Ex. 22:19), we know from creation that there is a qualitative distinction between humans and animals and that the only valid expression of our sexuality is in heterosexual marriage (Gen. 2:18\u201325). Given our sin and rebellion, God reminds Israel in the law-covenant what is and is not morally acceptable, but this does not entail that we know that bestiality is wrong only from the law-covenant. Also, even if the new covenant does not explicitly forbid bestiality, this does not entail that the Mosaic law is still in force unless the New Testament explicitly modifies\/abrogates it, or that we are only bound to that which is clearly repeated in the New Testament. Both of these approaches fail to do justice to a \u201cwhole Bible\u201d reading, grounded in the Bible\u2019s own biblical-theological framework and moving across the covenants from creation to the new creation.
\nIn order to discern God\u2019s moral will, we need to begin in creation and then think through how sin has distorted God\u2019s order, walk through the covenants, and discover how God\u2019s redemptive promise will restore and transform the created order\u2014a reality that has now been realized in Christ. At every stage in redemptive history, the covenants reflect God\u2019s moral demands, thus explaining why we expect and find a continuity of moral demand across the canon. But earlier covenants on their own do not provide a complete and binding guide for Christian morality. No doubt, the earlier covenants are crucial parts of God\u2019s one redemptive plan, but now, due to Christ\u2019s work, as covenants, they have been fulfilled. As Scripture, all the covenants, including the law-covenant, are instructive for us, since as Hill observes, \u201cThe basic shape of God\u2019s rule, and God\u2019s just order established at creation, is confirmed and further delineated in the Law.\u201d But applying specific ethical instruction to us must be done by a \u201cwhole Bible\u201d reading viewed in Christ\u2014the one in whom \u201call the elements of the moral ideal are realized and revealed.\u2026 In [Christ] we see God\u2019s just and good order.\u201d<\/p>\n
ILLUSTRATIONS OF ETHICAL CONCLUSIONS<\/p>\n
Let us think of some illustrations of how to draw ethical conclusions from the \u201cwhole Bible\u201d and under the new covenant. Hill summarizes how Christians ought to approach Scripture and draw ethical conclusions:<\/p>\n
On any particular issue we will need to put together the relevant sections of Scripture so that we can know what is good in particular cases. The basic creation pattern is the starting-point for this exercise. The Law and the Prophets point to the original shape and purpose of God\u2019s good order and highlight the fractures and disorder caused by sin. Finally, the revelation in Christ gives us a glimpse of the completed and perfected order. With minds renewed by the Spirit of God through the work of Christ believers can use this information to discern what is right and good. Such discernment is the substance of wisdom.<\/p>\n
A few examples may help, but admittedly, the discussion is brief.
\nFirst, let us think about sexual ethics. Scripture teaches us that God\u2019s norm for human sexuality is in creation (Gen. 1:26\u201330; 2:15\u201325). In the creation of male and female, God designed human sexuality to function within the permanent, covenant relationship of heterosexual marriage (Matt. 19:4\u20139). All misuses of our sexuality, whether fornication, adultery, divorce, homosexuality, bestiality, and even polygamy, are distortions viewed against the backdrop of God\u2019s creation intent for us. Sadly, in light of the fall, all sexual distortions are introduced. In earlier stages of redemptive history, a less than normative behavior is sometimes allowed (e.g., polygamy), but viewed against God\u2019s creation order and in light of the greater Christ-church relationship, polygamy is never viewed as normative. It is for this reason that with the dawning of the new covenant, polygamy is no longer acceptable. God\u2019s creation standard is reaffirmed and lived out in the church.
\nAlthough the Mosaic law explicitly forbids specific sexual distortions (Lev. 18:1\u201330), it is important to see that all its prohibitions simply unpack the \u201cone flesh\u201d ideal of creation. In addition, given the prophetic function of the law-covenant, as the law anticipates a greater righteousness to come, the ethical demand under the new covenant is greater. Also, as the prophets anticipate the dawning of the new creation, they speak of a day when God will so transform the entire community that God\u2019s new covenant people will become covenant keepers and not breakers (Jer. 31:31\u201334; Ezek. 36:25\u201327), which is precisely what our Lord addresses in his teaching regarding the kingdom (Matt. 5:17\u201348). In Christ\u2019s coming and work, the new order has arrived. By the regenerating work of the Spirit, those who enter God\u2019s kingdom are united to Christ and freed from Adam and the old era. In Christ, individuals and the church are the \u201cnew creation\u201d (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:8\u201310, 11\u201321), hence the reason why we begin to live out what it means to be God\u2019s new creation even though we still live between the times. The New Testament, in calling the church to a proper use of sexuality, grounds it both in creation and in what we are in Christ. This is why God\u2019s moral demand on us today is greater\u2014greater in restoring us to what we were created to be in the first place and in calling us to live now as God\u2019s new creation people.
\nSecond, let us think about various life issues. Given our creation as image bearers, human life is precious (Gen. 1:26\u201328; cf. 9:6). Strife, anger, murder, and our inhumane treatment of others are a result of the fall. In the law-covenant these wrong behaviors are explicitly forbidden and punished, but their prohibition is basically the outworking of who we are as created beings. Jesus is clear that God\u2019s intent from the beginning was for his image bearers to love God and their neighbors, which is precisely what the entire canon emphasizes (Lev. 19:18; Deut. 6:5; cf. Matt. 22:34\u201340). Yet in the new age, the full intent of how we are to love as God\u2019s people is now realized in a greater way. This is why Jesus stresses that it is not merely murder, adultery, or lying that are forbidden but our very hateful, self-gratifying heart attitude toward one another (Matt. 5:21\u201348). What God demands of his people is love. In the old era, the law-covenant demanded it, but it also anticipated something more. Now, in Christ, what the old anticipated is here. This is why Paul can say that love fulfills the law (Rom. 13:8\u201310; Gal. 5:14)\u2014not an amorphic love but one governed by God\u2019s will and our renewal in Christ by the Spirit. As this understanding of humans and love is applied to ethical issues such as abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia, although each issue involves other matters, a sanctity-of-life ethic is foundational to a Christian ethic and is consistent in all Scripture.
\nThird, how should we apply the law-covenant to us today? We do not apply it as if we are under it as a covenant. No doubt, prior to the coming of Christ, that is precisely how it was applied to God\u2019s people. Nevertheless, as new covenant believers, the law-covenant is no longer directly applicable to us in this way. Thus, in reading of the law\u2019s various moral demands, we do not directly apply them to our lives until we have first wrestled with how these moral demands have been brought to fulfillment in Christ. For example, in regard to such demands as not sowing two seeds in a field, not eating unclean foods, the need to circumcise our male children, the treatment of blood disorders, and so on, we do not directly obey these commands as covenantal obligation. However, as Scripture, the law-covenant is for our instruction. As we apply these commands, we must think through whether old covenant commands are tied to creation, whether they are tied solely to the old era, and how they are fulfilled in the New Testament. By following this procedure, we learn how to apply all Scripture to us in Christ.
\nIn the case of the sacrificial system, for example, it no longer functions for us covenantally. Yet as Scripture, the sacrificial system instructs us about our sin, it teaches us something about God\u2019s holy demand and gracious provision, and most importantly, it reveals our need for someone greater. Or think of the food laws. Even though they no longer apply to us directly, they are instructive for us. In thinking through why God gave them in the Old Testament and how they are fulfilled in Christ, we discover that their primary purpose was to separate God\u2019s people from the nations and to instruct them about their need for an internal heart transformation (Mark 7:1\u201323; Acts 10\u201311). Although these two purposes have ended in Christ, we, as new covenant believers, are still instructed by them. In fact, it was the theological and practical implications of these very issues that the Jerusalem Council had to resolve; otherwise, the entire gospel was at stake (Acts 10\u201311; 15; Rom. 14:1\u201315:13; Gal. 1:6\u201310).
\nOr think of the various capital punishments exercised in the Old Testament. Given the change from Israel to Christ and a church-state distinction in the new covenant, we do not directly apply the civil law of Israel to governments today, yet two points need to be made. First, given the God-ordained role of government and the sanctity of human life, the state\u2019s role is to protect life and to punish those who do not (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:1\u20137), and as such, some forms of capital punishment are consistent throughout time. Yet in other areas, there is no New Testament warrant to practice specific punishments today as they functioned for Israel under the law-covenant. Second, the church functions as a theocracy in the new covenant, and the church\u2019s exercise of church discipline picks up some of the punishments of the old covenant in a greater way. For example, think of various sexual sins. Under the law-covenant, sexual sin was punishable by death. Under the new covenant, the church does not deal with sexual sin in this way; instead, she deals with it through the exercise of church discipline (Matt. 18:15\u201320; 1 Corinthians 5). But, it is crucial to remember, if the guilty party does not repent, the verdict of excommunication is far greater than anything in the old since it is viewed as a verdict with eternal consequences (see Heb. 2:1\u20134).
\nWhat about applying the Decalogue today? It too must be applied in a similar manner, that is, by locating it in its covenantal location and then applying it to us in light of Christ. So, for example, as we read the opening preamble (Ex. 20:1\u20132), we are keenly aware of its covenantal location, yet it is now applied to us in light of God\u2019s unfolding plan of redemption culminated in Christ. Unlike Israel, we have not been redeemed from our bondage to Egypt, but in a far greater way, we have been redeemed from that which the exodus (along with the prophets [Isaiah 11; 42; 53]), typologically pointed forward to, namely, our exodus-deliverance from sin in Christ\u2019s cross (Luke 9:31). Then as we apply each commandment in light of our redemption in Christ, we discover that there is a greater incentive, obligation, and demand on us to have no other gods before us (Ex. 20:3) and to honor the great name of our triune God (Ex. 20:7). In one sense, the moral demand has not changed; in another sense, it is greater in Christ.
\nAs we approach the Sabbath command (Ex. 20:8\u201311), once again, we apply it in exactly the same way. In thinking through the Sabbath\u2019s covenantal location\u2014that which looks back to the covenantal rest at creation (Gen. 2:1\u20133), a day to be obeyed by Israel under the law and a day that typologically pointed forward to a greater rest to come (Psalm 95; cf. Matt. 11:28\u201330; Heb. 3:7\u20135:13)\u2014it is now applied to us in light of its fulfillment, namely, Christ, who has achieved for us salvation rest. All the other commandments (Ex. 20:12\u201317) are applied in the same way.
\nWhat about the commandment concerning parents and children (Ex. 20:12)? Surely, given that Paul quotes it directly in Ephesians 6:2, this demonstrates that the Decalogue has direct relevance for us today, does it not? But before we draw this conclusion, it is important to observe that even though there is moral continuity between this command and the New Testament, as there is with the other commands, there is also a major transformation. Paul no longer says that our honoring of our parents will yield long life in the land; instead, he expands the promise to the whole earth, thus further confirming that the law-covenant is applied to us today in and through Christ and his glorious new covenant work.
\nHow, then, do we apply the entire Bible as our ethical standard, given our view of progressive covenantalism? We have offered a brief answer to that question. Most Christians, regardless of their commitment to covenant or dispensational theology, will arrive at similar conclusions. But as noted above, the important difference lies in how we get there. In the end, our aim is to achieve two results simultaneously: first, to employ a consistent hermeneutic that properly puts together the biblical covenants on the Bible\u2019s own terms, and, second, to learn anew to obey all that Scripture teaches.
\nIn this chapter, we have investigated how our view of kingdom through covenant has direct implications for Christology and the Christian life. In the last chapter, we will develop further implications of progressive covenantalism for systematic theology by turning to two other theological loci, namely, ecclesiology and eschatology.<\/p>\n
19<\/p>\n
KINGDOM THROUGH COVENANT<\/p>\n
Some Theological Implications: Ecclesiology and Eschatology<\/p>\n
As discussed in part 1, a crucial difference between dispensational and covenant theology centers on the Israel-church relationship, which has direct implications for ecclesiology and eschatology. We now turn to these doctrinal areas to further discuss where progressive covenantalism differs from these two dominant biblical-theological systems and how our understanding of the progression of the covenants affects our understanding of these theological loci.<\/p>\n
ECCLESIOLOGY<\/p>\n
A major difference between dispensational and covenant theology involves their view of the nature of the church. This difference in turn is rooted in each system\u2019s conception of the Israel-church relationship, which is tied to their respective understanding of the biblical covenants. How does our view of the progression of the covenants shed light on some of these old debates and respond to some of the challenges of dispensational and covenant theology against our view? We will answer this question by focusing on where our view differs from these two other views before turning to a discussion of how our view of the covenants impacts the age-old divide between credo- and paedobaptism.<\/p>\n
KINGDOM THROUGH COVENANT AND WHAT THE CHURCH IS<\/p>\n
Dispensational theology has a distinct view of the Israel-church relationship, which we described in part 1, chapter 2. In this system, Israel refers to a national, ethnic people with a specific genealogical heritage and distinct privileges and promises that continue into the millennium and consummated state. The church, on the other hand, is not the continuation of Israel in God\u2019s plan of salvation or the new, renewed eschatological Israel. Instead, depending on the variety of dispensationalism, the church is a uniquely new people (ontologically) in God\u2019s redemptive purposes. She finds her origin in Christ and specifically in the regenerative and indwelling work of the Spirit that Christ has bestowed equally on the entire church at Pentecost as something new in contrast to Israel. In this sense, the church is currently a spiritual people composed of an international community and not tied to ethnicity or national origin. In fact, the church, as indwelt by the Holy Spirit, is a present epochal-dispensational illustration of what Israel and the Gentile nations will be like in the future. In the future, national Israel and Gentile nations will have the same salvation blessings in Christ, yet they will also receive \u201cdistinct\u201d prerogatives and blessings tied to their national identity. This is especially true of national Israel since she was given specific promises (tied to the land promise) in the Abrahamic covenant that still await their fulfillment according to her distinct national identity. Given dispensationalists\u2019 view of the Israel-church relationship, they see much more discontinuity between Israel and the church. One major difference is that Israel was a mixed people while the church is a regenerate people by the Spirit, hence the reason why the church is a present illustration of what the nations will be like in the future. Israel under the old covenant was constituted by believers and unbelievers within the community, while the church is composed of all those who have been born of the Spirit, united to Christ, and who profess this to be so. Most dispensationalists affirm credobaptism (versus paedobaptism), although there have been some rare exceptions. The covenant sign of baptism, then, is for the church, and it is to be applied to those who have been born of the Spirit and profess faith in Christ.
\nCovenant theology operates with a different Israel-church distinction, which we described in part 1, chapter 2. Although there are administrative differences between the two communities, they are substantially\/essentially the same in the following ways: they are together the one people of God; they experience the same salvation experience, including regeneration and the indwelling of the Spirit; their covenant signs (circumcision and baptism), though different, signify the same truths; and by nature they are a mixed versus a regenerate community, so that the locus of the covenant community and the locus of the elect are distinct. This latter emphasis has led to the \u201cvisible\u201d versus \u201cinvisible\u201d distinction, with the former referring to the mixed nature of Israel and the church and the latter referring to the elect throughout all ages. It has also led to the distinction of a person being \u201cin\u201d the covenant (visible) but not necessarily being \u201cof\u201d the covenant (invisible). Given this view of the church, it is not accidental that covenant theology strongly embraces (paedo) baptism, since it signifies the same gospel truth as circumcision did under the previous covenants.
\nWhere does our analysis differ? Regarding the Israel-church relationship, we argue two points. First, God has one people (elect) across time, yet there is an Israel-church distinction due to their respective covenants. The church is new in a redemptive-historical sense precisely because she is the community of the new covenant and thus different from Israel in her structure and nature. Second, we must think of the Israel-church relationship through Christ. Or better, we must think of the Israel-church relationship by working through the Bible\u2019s covenantal progression. When we do so, we first start with Adam, who establishes the role of image-priest-sons and who brings God\u2019s \u201ckingdom through covenant\u201d to the world. Then we must think of Israel as a nation through Abraham as the corporate people who are to live in covenant relationship with God and each other and to function as a kingdom of priests, displaying to the world what it means to be God\u2019s image-sons. After Israel we must then move to the Davidic king who is \u201ctrue\u201d Israel in himself as he represents the nation and fulfills the role of Adam in the world. Then in light of the typological function of the previous covenant heads and their failure\/disobedience, we move to Christ, who fulfills all the previous covenants in himself as David\u2019s greater Son, the true Israel, Abraham\u2019s true seed, and the last Adam, who brings all God\u2019s promises to pass and then makes his people, the church, the recipient of all those promises. This entails, then, that we do not view the church as directly the \u201cnew Israel,\u201d but rather, in Christ the church is God\u2019s new creation, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, who as the church receive all God\u2019s promises equally and fully.
\nThis way of viewing the Israel-Christ-church relationship differs from dispensational and covenant theology in at least two areas. First, against dispensationalism, Jesus is the antitypical fulfillment of Israel and Adam, and in him, all God\u2019s promises are fulfilled for his people, the church, including the land promise, fully realized and consummated in the new creation (Rom. 4:13; Eph. 6:3; Heb. 11:10, 16; cf. Matt. 5:5). The church is not a parenthesis in God\u2019s plan or merely a present illustration of what Israel as a nation and the Gentile nations will be like in the future. The church is God\u2019s new covenant people that lasts forever. Second, against covenant theology, Jesus\u2019s new covenant people are different from Israel under the old covenant. Under the old covenant, Israel, in its nature and structure, was a mixed community of believers and unbelievers (Rom. 9:6). Yet the church is constituted by people who are united to Christ by faith and partakers now of the blessings of the new covenant, which minimally includes the forgiveness of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and heart circumcision for the entire community. Thus, in contrast to Israel, the church, as God\u2019s new covenant-new creation people, is constituted now as a believing, regenerate people, although we await the fullness of what Christ inaugurated at his glorious return. For this reason, baptism, the sign of the new covenant, is applied only to those who profess faith and give credible evidence that they are no longer in Adam but in Christ, and circumcision and baptism do not signify the same realities due to their respective covenantal differences.
\nIn part 2, and as summarized in part 3, chapters 16\u201317, we have sought to give the biblical and theological grounding for these claims regarding the Israel-Christ-church relationship as unfolded through the progression of the covenants. Not surprisingly, both dispensational and covenant theology reject our view but at different points of analysis. For dispensational theology, we share many points of agreement regarding what the church is by nature and structure, but they reject our conclusion that Jesus is the antitypical fulfillment of Israel and that in Christ all God\u2019s promises are fulfilled for his people, the church, including the land promise, which will be fully realized and consummated in the new creation. They still maintain that Israel as a nation is to receive \u201cdistinct\u201d privileges and promises in the future, different from believing Gentile nations, and their strongest evidence for this assertion is found in Romans 9\u201311, which they argue teaches national Israel\u2019s future restoration. For covenant theology, we share many points of agreement as well, but they reject our conclusion that the church, as God\u2019s new covenant people, is constituted as a regenerate, believing people in contrast to the mixed community of Israel. Probably the strongest evidence for their view is their appeal to the warning passages of the New Testament, which they argue are proof that the church at present is a mixed people, awaiting the not yet when the church will no longer be constituted as a mixed body but a regenerate, believing people. Let us briefly respond to these two objections by looking at each in turn.<\/p>\n
Dispensationalism\u2019s View of Israel\u2019s National Restoration<\/p>\n
In chapter 17, we sought to establish the positive case that the church is God\u2019s new creation, eschatological people who remain forever, consisting of believing Jews and Gentiles, who, in Christ, equally and fully receive all God\u2019s promises. We deny that God is finished with ethnic Israel, yet we affirm that their future is found not in receiving \u201cdistinct\u201d future blessings and privileges different from believing Gentiles but in receiving all God\u2019s promises in Christ and thus becoming part of his church, the one new man of the new creation. Our argument involved three points.
\nFirst, the Bible\u2019s progression of the covenants leads us to the conclusion that in Christ all God\u2019s promises are fulfilled. Israel as a nation must be understood in terms of its role in God\u2019s plan, but its role cannot be understood apart from locating it in God\u2019s covenantal plan, starting with Adam and moving to Christ. This is why Jesus is presented as the true Israel and last Adam, who in himself is the faithful covenant partner and brings about all God\u2019s redemptive plan.
\nSecond, the church, as Messiah\u2019s new covenant people, is not merely a parenthesis in God\u2019s plan or a present illustration of what God will do for nations. The church is God\u2019s new creation\/humanity that remains forever, composed of believing Jews and Gentiles, who, in Christ, equally and fully receive all God\u2019s promises. This is taught in Ephesians 2:11\u201321. Gentiles, who were once covenantally outside Israel (2:11\u201312), now in Messiah Jesus are recipients of all God\u2019s promises. By Christ\u2019s work, the law-covenant, which purposely separated Jews and Gentiles, is fulfilled and torn down. The result? Both Jews and Gentiles are now reconciled to God and each other by entering a new covenant and becoming God\u2019s new creation\/humanity (2:14\u201318), who together inherit the same promises. Paul is forthright: the church is not merely the extension of Israel or an amalgam of Jews and Gentiles; the church is new\u2014a third entity that is Christian (see 1 Cor. 9:19\u201323). The church transcends the old entities, although unbelieving Israel and disobedient Gentiles continue to exist. The church is not one phase in God\u2019s plan to end in the future when God returns to his previous plan for Israel and the nations. God\u2019s eternal plan always anticipated the creation of the church as his end-time people (Eph. 3:8\u201313) in and through Christ Jesus.
\nThird, further evidence that the church receives all God\u2019s promises is how Old Testament restoration promises for Israel are applied to the church in Christ, which we discussed in terms of Acts 1:6\u20138. When the disciples ask, \u201cWhen are you going to restore the kingdom to Israel?\u201d (Acts 1:6), Jesus answers not by redirecting their attention to the church age, \u201cimplicitly postponing a restoration of Israel to the future\u201d when she will finally receive promises \u201cdistinct\u201d from believing Gentile nations. Instead, Jesus answers their question by saying that Israel\u2019s restoration is about to occur at Pentecost (Acts 2) and in Jesus\u2019s reign, starting in Jerusalem with Jewish believers and extending to Judea and Samaria (Acts 8, thus a reconstituted Israel) and to the nations (Acts 10\u201311), thus creating a new humanity in Christ. Jesus responds to his disciples with language (\u201cwhen the Holy Spirit comes on you,\u201d \u201cyou will be my witnesses,\u201d and \u201cto the ends of the earth\u201d) drawn from Isaiah (Isa. 32:15; 43:12; 49:6), which anticipates the day when God will save through his servant, bring about Israel\u2019s restoration, and incorporate Gentiles into that restoration program. Jesus heralds that what the prophets anticipated is now occurring in him and the church, and the sequence of restoration is significant\u2014first to Israel, then to the nations (cf. Acts 3:26)\u2014which is precisely how the risen and exalted Christ builds his church. Thus, in Christ and the church, all God\u2019s promises are now being fulfilled. Moreover, as the Old Testament anticipated and the New Testament teaches, God\u2019s people include believing Jews and Gentiles, who fulfill what Israel, indeed, Adam, only typified: a transformed people who function as a royal priesthood and holy nation (Ex. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:9\u201310). Together they are the restored Israel as Abraham\u2019s children (Rom. 4:9\u201322; Gal. 3:6\u20139); true Jews because of their heart circumcision (Rom. 2:25\u201329; Phil. 3:3); the one new man (Eph. 2:11\u201321); from the same olive tree (Rom. 11:17\u201324); and part of the 144,000, which symbolically refers to the entire church (Rev. 7:1\u20138; 14:3). Captured in Scripture\u2019s final vision, the church is Christ\u2019s bride, the heavenly Jerusalem, whose foundation is the twelve tribes of Israel and the twelve apostles (Rev. 21:9\u201314), an international people (Rev. 5:9\u201310) who inherit the new creation as God\u2019s covenant people (Revelation 21\u201322).
\nBut what about Romans 11? For dispensationalists, this is the key text that establishes their view that there is not only a future salvation for ethnic Jews but also a future restoration of national Israel. The latter point is crucial. Many nondispensationalists believe that Romans 11 teaches a future salvation for ethnic Jews as they are brought to saving faith in Christ and incorporated into the church. The issue is whether this passage teaches Israel\u2019s restoration as a nation. Michael Vlach states it this way: \u201cThe concept of \u2018restoration\u2019 certainly includes the idea of salvation, but it goes beyond that. \u2018Restoration\u2019 involves the idea of Israel being reinstalled as a nation, in her land, with a specific identity and role of service to the nations.\u201d We affirm that Romans 11 teaches a future hope for Jews coming to faith in Christ, but the problem is that there is nothing in this text that teaches a national restoration for Israel.
\nRomans 9\u201311, specifically 11:1\u201332, does speak to the issue of a future Jewish salvation. God is not finished with Israel. In fact, Paul wrestles with why many of his \u201ckindred\u201d (9:3) have not believed. The nation of Israel in God\u2019s plan was privileged indeed (9:4\u20135), but with Christ\u2019s coming, only a remnant has believed. Paul is emphatic that God\u2019s word has not failed (9:6). By God\u2019s sovereign election and by bringing a present Jewish remnant to faith in Christ, which Paul himself includes in this group (11:1\u201310), God has not failed in his promises. In God\u2019s plan, not only did the larger Jewish rejection of Christ allow for God\u2019s elect among the Gentiles to believe, but God is also using it to provoke jealousy among the Jewish people (11:11\u201316). Gentiles, as \u201cwild olive shoots,\u201d must not become arrogant since God is able to graft back in Israelites (\u201cnatural branches\u201d) who come to faith in Christ (11:17\u201324). In fact, the partial hardening of Israel is until the full number of Gentiles has come in, which will result in \u201call Israel being saved\u201d (11:25\u201327). God is not finished with Israel (11:28\u201332). But what does \u201call Israel will be saved\u201d mean, and when will this occur?
\nA minority view argues that \u201call Israel\u201d refers to all the elect, Jew and Gentile, and that \u201call Israel\u201d is coming to salvation now as the gospel is preached to the nations. The majority dispensational view argues that \u201call Israel\u201d refers to national Israel, yet within this view, some argue that elect Jews have been converted throughout church history, while others see a mass conversion of the Jewish people at the end of history. Many fine arguments can be given for these options, but what is important to note is that the text says nothing about national Israel receiving outstanding promises in the millennium or consummated state distinct or different from those made to believing Gentiles. Nothing in Romans 9\u201311 speaks of the \u201crestoration\u201d of Israel as a nation, in her land, with a specific identity and role of service to the nations. This text can serve as \u201cevidence\u201d for the dispensational view only if the entire view is assumed, which is precisely what is at debate. Instead, the Bible\u2019s storyline teaches that all God\u2019s promises are fulfilled in Christ and his people, the church. Douglas Moo nicely captures this point as he reflects on Paul\u2019s understanding of the Israel-church relationship in Romans 11. We quote him at length:<\/p>\n
The relationship between Israel and the church in Paul\u2019s perspective is much more historically oriented and continuous than [the \u201cIsrael equals church\u201d model] might suggest. As his olive tree analogy in Romans 11 makes clear, Paul views Gentiles who are experiencing the messianic salvation as belonging not to a new body discontinuous with Israel but to Israel itself. True, this is not simply national Israel\u2014for unbelieving Jews can be, and are, cut off from it. But it is the spiritual Israel within Israel that, according to Romans 9, has always been in existence and, according to [Romans] 11:16, grows from the seed of God\u2019s promises to the patriarchs. If we follow the logic of this analogy, then, the church is not so much a replacement for Israel or even a \u201cnew\u201d Israel; it is the continuation of \u201cIsrael\u201d in the era of fulfillment. As has always been the case, believing Jews, the remnant, are part of this spiritual Israel. And Paul\u2019s \u201cto the Jew first\u201d makes clear that the Jewish presence in the new Israel is both fitting and necessary. Now, however, in the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham and in line with the prophetic expectation of the universal extent of God\u2019s kingdom, Gentiles are becoming part of Israel. And in the eschatological consummation, as I understand Romans 11, many more Jews will be added to spiritual Israel.<\/p>\n
However, dispensationalists will often find Israel\u2019s \u201crestoration\u201d in Romans 11 by assuming that the Old Testament teaches that national Israel will be restored in the new covenant and that the new covenant is fulfilled in the New Testament first spiritually in the church and then literally in national Israel in the future. The problem is that this view assumes that Israel\u2019s restoration has not already begun in the church, for which we have given evidence in chapter 17. In addition, it fails to understand how inaugurated eschatology works. The New Testament teaches that all new covenant promises and blessings as an entire package (including spiritual and material) are now here in Christ and applied to the church in principle. No doubt, we await the fullness of those same blessings at Christ\u2019s return, but the covenant privileges are here now. For this reason, it is difficult to divide up various spiritual blessings of the new covenant from its future material blessings for the nation of Israel. This not only assumes the dispensational view of the Israel-church distinction, which we have sought to demonstrate cannot be substantiated, but it also fails to recognize that both the material\/physical and spiritual blessings of the new covenant are now here in Christ and applied to the church, although we await the fullness of both.<\/p>\n
Covenant Theology\u2019s Mixed View of the Church<\/p>\n
In chapter 17, we also sought to establish the positive case that the church is not only part of the one people of God across time but also covenantally new in the sense that the church at present is constituted as a transformed, regenerate people and not a mixed community like Israel under the old covenant. Our argument involved five points.
\nFirst, the Bible\u2019s progression of the covenants leads us to the conclusion that in Christ and the new covenant all the previous covenants have been fulfilled, and this entails some important changes in the structure and nature of the covenant people due to Christ\u2019s greater fulfillment work. It also anticipates a change in the way that Christ, as the head of the covenant, relates to his people. In the previous covenants, the relationship of covenant mediator to his seed was more biological-natural (e.g., Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, and David), but now in Christ, the relationship is spiritual, namely, born of the Spirit. One is in the church, then, not by natural-biological birth but by spiritual rebirth and faith.
\nSecond, within the Old Testament, the prophets anticipated that the new covenant would be \u201cnew\u201d by changing the structure and nature of God\u2019s people. Regarding the former, under the old covenant God dealt with his people primarily in a mediated way, whereby God related to his people through specially called mediators\u2014prophets, priests, and kings\u2014who had the Spirit poured out on them. But the prophets anticipate that in the new covenant people, all God\u2019s people in the covenant will know him and become prophets, priests, and servant-kings, which in turn will result in them keeping the covenant (Jer. 31:29\u201334). Regarding the latter, the prophets anticipate that the new covenant people will keep the covenant because they will all know God, will have the law written on their hearts, and will experience the full forgiveness of their sins (Jer. 31:32\u201334; cf. Deut. 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25; Ezek. 11:19\u201320; 36:25\u201327). What this signals is that all members of the new covenant will stand justified before God and know the transforming work of the Spirit in their lives, which assumes a believing, transformed people.
\nThird, what the Old Testament anticipated, the New Testament says is now here. Although we still await our glorification, to be at present united to Christ and in the new covenant entails that one has been born of the Spirit and forgiven of his or her sin. There is no evidence that the church is a transformed people only in the not yet, since already we have been transferred from Adam to Christ, individually and corporately, and have become participants of the \u201cage to come.\u201d On the basis of Christ\u2019s work, we have now entered God\u2019s saving reign and have become his people. In Christ, his new covenant people are here; the Spirit has been poured out on the entire community (Acts 2); all those in the church know God in an immediate way (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 10:19\u201325); and all are declared just before God (Rom. 8:1). We wait for the consummation, but at present we enjoy what it means to be God\u2019s new people.
\nFourth, the truth that the church is a transformed people is further taught by the New Testament\u2019s description of the church as an eschatological and \u201cgathered\u201d (ekkl\u0113sia) community\u2014identified with the \u201cage to come\u201d\u2014which has arrived in Christ and is consummated at his return. Her identity is not with \u201cthis present age\u201d but with the saving reign of Christ, which is now here. Those who have placed their faith in Christ are now citizens of the new\/heavenly Jerusalem, transferred from being \u201cin Adam\u201d to being \u201cin Christ\u201d with all the benefits of that union (Heb. 12:18\u201329). As the church, we begin to enjoy by faith the privileges of that city still to come (Heb. 13:14). Yet to participate in these realities now is another way of saying that the church is, by definition, part of the new creation, consisting of people who are raised and seated with Christ in the heavenly realms (Eph. 2:5\u20136; Col. 2:12\u201313; 3:3). In biblical terms, this is true only of regenerate people.
\nFifth, the truth that the church is a transformed, regenerate people is also underscored by the New Testament\u2019s description of the church as God\u2019s new temple (1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; Heb. 3:6; 1 Pet. 2:5). As God\u2019s temple, we now have direct access to the Father by the Spirit (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 10:19\u201322), something different from Israel. To be God\u2019s temple assumes a regenerate people, given that it presupposes the transforming work of the Spirit (Rom. 8:28\u201339; Eph. 1:13\u201314).
\nHow do covenant theologians respond to this analysis, since they continue to affirm the mixed nature of both Israel and the church? Probably the most significant response is an appeal to the warning\/apostasy passages of Scripture to demonstrate that the visible church is a mixed community, just like Israel of old (see, e.g., Heb. 6:4\u20136; 10:26\u201339). These texts seem to demonstrate that it is possible for some people to be members of the new covenant community (\u201cin\u201d it) but then, sadly, to depart from the faith, thus demonstrating that they were never regenerate, believing people (not \u201cof\u201d it). There are five problems with this response.
\nFirst, the \u201cmixed community\u201d interpretation of the warning passages assumes that the nature of Israel and the church is substantially and covenantally the same, but this is precisely what is at dispute. In order for covenant theology\u2019s argument to carry weight at this point, proponents must first prove that the nature of the covenant communities is essentially the same, but we have already given reasons to doubt that this is so. As one thinks through the progression of the covenants, it is difficult to sustain that Israel and the church are the same in structure and nature. This assumption does not do justice to what each covenant is in its context and in light of Christ\u2019s fulfillment of the covenants.
\nSecond, this interpretation contradicts what the Old Testament anticipates about the new covenant community and what the New Testament confirms. It is common to find the assertion that, since the New Testament speaks of the possibility of apostasy and, sadly, we witness it in our daily experience, this demonstrates that the church is a mixed community like Israel. The problem is that this goes against the kind of data we have discussed about what the church is. One must carefully distinguish between the fact of apostasy taking place and the status of the one who commits it. No one disputes the fact that apostasy takes place in the new covenant age. What is at dispute is the status of those apostates. Should they be viewed as \u201cnew covenant breakers\u201d (assuming they were once full covenant members) or as those who professed faith, who identified with the church, but who, by their rejection of the gospel, demonstrated that they were never one with us (see 1 John 2:19)? Given our overall argument of how the covenants fit together, we are convinced that the New Testament teaches the latter. When apostasy takes place, we reevaluate the person\u2019s former profession and thus his or her covenant status. However, this situation is unlike that of unbelievers in the old covenant. The old covenant by its very nature allowed for a mixed group. R. Fowler White hits the mark when he asserts,<\/p>\n
Unlike apostates from the Mosaic covenant (Heb. 3:7\u201311, 16\u201319) who had heard God say of them that he had (fore) known them in their mediatorial forebears (cf. Deut. 4:37; 7:6\u20138; 10:15), apostates from the Messianic covenant will hear the Lord of the covenant say to them, \u201cI never knew you\u201d (see Matt 7:23; cf. 2 Tim 2:17\u201319).<\/p>\n
Other than a few exceptions, one was under the old covenant due to natural-biological relationships that did not assume regeneration and saving faith. But new covenant members are those who have come to faith in Christ, which entails that they have been born of the Spirit, they know God, they have been declared just before God, and they thus are no longer \u201cin Adam\u201d but \u201cin Christ.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Old Testament anticipates the Messiah and leads us to him in the person of Christ, specifically through typological persons, events, and institutions. Jesus was not abolishing the canonical authority of the Old Testament but correctly orienting it to terminate in his own authority. D. A. Carson explains that \u201cthe OT\u2019s real and abiding authority … <\/p>\n