A Comprehensive Defense of the Covenantal Interpretation of Scripture
Scripture presents God's redemptive plan through a series of progressively unfolding covenants. Each covenant builds upon and moves toward the fulfillment of the preceding, creating a coherent narrative arc from creation through consummation. These covenants—Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New—provide the structural framework for understanding biblical history and theology.
Covenant theology distinguishes between two overarching covenants. The Covenant of Works, exemplified in God's arrangement with Adam, offers life on condition of perfect obedience; Adam's failure brought death and condemnation. In contrast, the Covenant of Grace, first promised in Genesis 3:15 and progressively revealed throughout history, offers salvation through grace alone, received by faith in the promised Messiah. All saving grace in both testaments flows through this single Covenant of Grace, administered through successive historical covenants that reveal God's redemptive purpose.
The Noahic covenant assured the continuity of creation and human society despite sin. The Abrahamic covenant narrowed the focus to a specific line through whom blessing would come to all nations: a promise of seed, land, and universal blessing. The Mosaic covenant, given to Abraham's descendants at Sinai, formalized Israel's status as a covenant people and revealed God's law as an expression of His holiness and moral character. The law also served as a "tutor to bring us to Christ" (Galatians 3:24), revealing sin and driving sinners toward grace. The Davidic covenant promised an eternal dynasty through which God's redemptive purposes would be fulfilled. Finally, the New Covenant in Christ brings all previous covenants to their appointed end and inaugurates the consummation of redemptive history.
Throughout this progression, believers in every age have been saved by grace through faith in the promised Messiah, though their understanding of that promise varied. Abraham believed God's promise that in his seed all nations would be blessed (Genesis 12:3); faithful Israelites looked forward to the coming Messiah; New Testament believers recognize Jesus as the fulfillment of these promises. The substance of salvation remains constant—grace, faith, Christ—even as its revelation becomes progressively clearer.
Scripture demonstrates that God's covenant commitments persist across the testaments. The promises made to Abraham (that his seed would be multiplied as the stars, that his seed would inherit blessing, and that through his seed all nations would be blessed) find their fulfillment in Christ and the church. In Christ, believers of all nations become Abraham's spiritual offspring, inheriting the promises through faith (Galatians 3:29). This is not a spiritualization that denies the original promise but its fulfillment and expansion beyond the boundaries of ethnic Israel to encompass all who believe.
The Mosaic law, far from contradicting grace, served grace. It revealed God's holiness, exposed human sinfulness, and pointed toward the need for redemption. The ceremonial system foreshadowed Christ's sacrifice; the priesthood typified His high priestly work; the temple prefigured His body as the locus of God's presence. The covenant sign of circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New mark the same covenant people across redemptive history. Rather than representing disconnected epochs, these elements display the inner coherence of Scripture as it progressively moves toward Christ.
Covenant theology holds that Old Testament promises find their ultimate fulfillment in Christ and His kingdom, now inaugurated but not yet consummated. The promised land, understood typologically, becomes the kingdom of God and the inheritance of believers (Hebrews 11:8-16). The son of David sits eternally on David's throne in Christ's exaltation (Luke 1:32-33; Hebrews 1:13). The restoration of Israel is realized in the gathering of Jews and Gentiles into one body in Christ, though future completion awaits the full realization of God's purposes at Christ's return.
This understanding avoids both the error of "replacement theology" (which simply discards Israel's place in God's purposes) and the error of dispensationalism (which denies that Christ's work stands as the climactic fulfillment of Old Testament expectations). Rather, Israel's promises are opened to the nations through Christ, and individual Jewish believers are included in this fulfillment. The new covenant reality is already operative—believers experience the forgiveness of sins, receive the Holy Spirit, and know transforming grace. Yet the full consummation remains future, when Christ returns to judge, resurrect the dead, and renew all things. This "already-not yet" framework honors both the present reality of covenant blessing and the future hope of complete fulfillment.
Covenant theology, properly understood, leads necessarily to the practice of infant baptism (paedobaptism). This follows directly from its core convictions:
1. One Covenant of Grace across testaments: If salvation has always been by grace through faith, and if one covenant of grace has been progressively revealed from Genesis to Revelation, then there exists a fundamental continuity in how God relates to His people.
2. Children included in covenant promises: The Abrahamic covenant explicitly promised, "I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you" (Genesis 17:7). God commanded circumcision for infants born to believers, incorporating them into the covenant community without requiring personal faith.
3. No explicit New Testament revocation: Nowhere in the New Testament is the principle of children's inclusion revoked. Instead, Peter at Pentecost applies the covenant promise to both believers and their children: "The promise is for you and for your children" (Acts 2:39), indicating continuity of principle.
4. Baptism replaces circumcision: Colossians 2:11-12 identifies baptism as the Christian counterpart to circumcision: "In him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands... having been buried with him in baptism." If baptism is the new covenant sign replacing circumcision, it should apply to the same persons, believers and their children.
5. Therefore, children receive baptism: Just as infants were circumcised on the basis of parental faith, infants born to believing parents are baptized, marked as covenant members who will be instructed in the faith and called to personal appropriation of covenant grace.
This does not mean infants' salvation is automatic. Covenant theology recognizes that children must be catechized, instructed in doctrine and Scripture, and called to personal repentance and faith. Many grow to genuine faith, confirming that their baptism was a true sign and seal of covenant grace to them. Others, tragically, make profession without genuine conversion—a reality Scripture acknowledges (1 John 2:19). Yet this mixed result in the visible church does not invalidate the practice; it reflects the nature of any visible covenant community in history.
Paedobaptism is thus not an oddity appended to covenant theology; it is covenant theology consistently applied. The unity of the Covenant of Grace, children's inclusion in covenant promise, the continuity of the covenant sign, and the lack of explicit scriptural revocation all converge on the conclusion that God's covenant, in its New Testament administration, includes the children of believing parents, marked by baptism as members of the visible covenant community.
Dispensationalism interprets Scripture through the lens of distinct, discontinuous administrations (dispensations) separated by fundamental shifts in God's program and purposes. Where covenant theology sees an underlying continuity of purpose expressed through changing administrations, classic dispensationalism sees radical discontinuity. The Old Testament and New Testament are viewed as essentially separate economies with different peoples, different promises, and different modes of salvation.
At the center of this framework is the distinction between Israel and the church. Classical dispensationalism teaches that God maintains two separate peoples with two separate destinies: national Israel receiving earthly promises, and the church receiving heavenly promises. The church is understood as a "parenthetical" mystery—a plan not revealed in the Old Testament that interrupts God's program with Israel. This necessitates a consistently literal, futuristic interpretation of Old Testament prophecy regarding land, kingdom, and restoration, since these promises are said to await fulfillment apart from or outside the present church age.
It should be noted that dispensationalism has developed significantly since its classical form. Some modern dispensationalists have moved toward greater recognition of Israel's place in the new covenant and have moderated the sharp two-peoples distinction. However, the classical framework described above remains influential and represents the system most in tension with covenant theology.
Hermeneutical Inconsistency: Dispensationalism employs selective literalism, treating certain prophecies as literally fulfilled while applying different interpretive principles to others. Why should "Messiah shall be cut off" (Daniel 9:26) be literally fulfilled in Christ's death, while "The Messiah shall sit on David's throne forever" is not fulfilled in Christ's eternal reign but awaits future earthly restoration? Covenant theology offers a more integrated hermeneutics: it takes biblical language seriously, recognizes typology and progressive fulfillment, respects genre (distinguishing poetry from narrative), and shows how Christ fulfills types in their deepest significance. This yields greater interpretive consistency.
Compartmentalization of Salvation History: By dividing Scripture into largely disconnected dispensations, the framework tends to compartmentalize epochs in ways that weaken the sense of a single, unfolding covenant of grace. This runs counter to Paul's explicit teaching that Old Testament history was "written for our instruction" (1 Corinthians 10:11) and Romans 15:4: "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning." The progression from Adam through Abraham to Christ appears not as a series of failed experiments but as a unified purpose progressively unfolding toward its climax.
Contradiction of Apostolic Interpretation: The New Testament apostles consistently interpret Old Testament promises as fulfilled or being fulfilled in Christ and the church. Peter at Pentecost applies Joel's promise to the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:16-21). Paul teaches that believers are Abraham's seed, inheriting Abraham's promise (Galatians 3:29). Stephen traces Israel's history as a foreshadowing of Christ (Acts 7). Yet classical dispensationalism maintains that these promises remain unfulfilled, awaiting a future, literal earthly restoration. This puts the system at odds with how the apostles actually handled Old Testament Scripture.
Compromises the Finality of Christ: By insisting that major Old Testament promises await future fulfillment apart from or outside of Christ's present kingdom, dispensationalism subtly undermines Christ's finality as the goal toward which all history moves. Covenant theology maintains that Christ is the focal point in whom all God's promises are ratified and accomplished (2 Corinthians 1:20). To suggest that significant aspects of God's plan remain unfulfilled after Christ's resurrection and ascension raises questions about whether His work truly stands as the climactic fulfillment of all previous expectations.
Objection: Scripture consistently distinguishes Israel from the church. God made specific, unconditional promises to national Israel regarding the land, a kingdom, and restoration as a distinct nation. The church is a new entity, a mystery unrevealed in the Old Testament. To apply Old Testament Israel promises to the church is to commit "replacement theology," robbing Israel of her unique covenant standing.
Response: Covenant theology agrees that Scripture distinguishes Israel as God's chosen people. However, the New Testament teaches that this distinction is fulfilled and transcended in Christ. The barrier between Jew and Gentile is abolished not because Israel ceases to matter, but because both are now united in the true Israel—Jesus Christ and those in Him (Galatians 3:28-29). Paul explicitly teaches that believers of all nations become Abraham's seed through faith, inheriting the Abrahamic promise (Galatians 3:29). This is fulfillment, not replacement; Israel's covenant blessings are opened to the nations through Christ.
Moreover, Romans 11 teaches that God has not cast off His people. A believing remnant of Israel is being saved according to election (11:5). Individual Jewish believers are incorporated into the covenant community through faith in Christ, just as Gentile believers are. The new covenant reality creates one people—"neither Jew nor Greek"—while honoring Israel's privilege in redemptive history. Jewish believers are not replacements for ethnic Israel; they are Israel receiving her promises through faith in her Messiah.
The assumption that promises to Israel must be fulfilled in national Israel in perpetuity fails to account for how Scripture itself presents covenant development. The Mosaic covenant was added temporarily "until the Seed to whom the promise had been made" (Galatians 3:19). Covenantal identity progressed from the ceremonial to the spiritual, from national ethnicity to faith community. This progression honors Israel's history while recognizing the fulfillment of her promises in Christ.
Objection: God unconditionally promised Abraham that his descendants would possess the land of Canaan forever (Genesis 13:15; 17:8). This promise cannot be spiritualized or transferred to the church. National Israel will literally possess the land in the future; to deny this is to deny God's unconditional promise.
Response: Covenant theology does not deny the Abrahamic promise; it recognizes how Scripture itself interprets its fulfillment. Hebrews 11:8-16 teaches that Abraham "looked for a city whose builder and maker is God," indicating that his ultimate inheritance transcends earthly geography. The promised land becomes the kingdom of God, the eternal inheritance of believers—more gloriously fulfilled in the heavenly Jerusalem than in territorial possession.
Furthermore, the land promise was conditioned on obedience. Leviticus 18:28 warns that Israel would be cast out of the land for covenant violation. Deuteronomy details curses for disobedience including exile from the land. Israel's possession was thus conditioned on covenant faithfulness, not truly unconditional. The promise itself looked forward to a greater, eternal possession—the inheritance reserved in heaven for believers (1 Peter 1:3-4).
When Scripture speaks of believers inheriting the earth (Matthew 5:5) or receiving "the land of promise" (Hebrews 11:9), it refers to the transformed, renewed creation—the eternal inheritance that Abraham anticipated. The promise is thus fulfilled to all of Abraham's seed through faith, not denied but gloriously realized.
Objection: Covenant theology spiritualizes Old Testament prophecy, denying its literal, plain-sense meaning. If Jeremiah 23:5-6 promises that a righteous Branch will sit on David's throne, should this not be taken literally—a future Messiah ruling over a restored Israel?
Response: Covenant theology affirms literal interpretation but applies it with hermeneutical sophistication. "Literal" does not mean "ignoring context and genre." Poetry uses figurative language literally—the meaning is literal, but the expression is metaphorical. When Isaiah 40:31 speaks of those who "will mount up with wings like eagles," we interpret this literally (they will run without becoming weary) while recognizing the figurative expression.
More importantly, covenant theology recognizes typology—a divinely ordained correspondence between Old Testament types and New Testament antitypes. David was a type of Christ; the Davidic kingdom foreshadowed Christ's kingdom. The promise of a son of David ruling forever finds its literal, ultimate meaning in Christ's exaltation at the right hand of God, reigning eternally over all creation (Hebrews 1:13). This is not spiritualization but fulfillment—the promise realized in its fullest, most exalted significance.
The apostles consistently interpret Old Testament prophecy this way. When Gabriel announced to Mary that her son would sit on "the throne of David" (Luke 1:32), neither Mary nor the disciples understood this as a future, earthly political throne. They understood that Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of the Davidic promise—reigning eternally in the kingdom of God. Covenant theology aligns with apostolic interpretation.
Objection: Israel's rejection of Christ and subsequent dispersion seem to invalidate God's covenant promises. Dispensationalism explains this as a temporary pause—the church age—after which God resumes His program with national Israel. This makes sense of Israel's peculiar history. Covenant theology cannot adequately explain Israel's unique, continuing existence as a nation.
Response: Paul explicitly addresses this in Romans 9-11. Israel's rejection is not a failure of God's plan but a manifestation of His sovereign purpose. God has hardened Israel partially to allow the gospel to reach the Gentiles, but this hardening is temporary and partial—a remnant continues to be saved according to election (11:5). Israel's rejection does not negate the covenant; rather, Paul teaches that "all Israel will be saved" when the full number of Gentiles has come in (11:26).
Covenant theology explains Israel's continuing existence as the people through whom Christ came and to whom the covenants belong (Romans 9:4-5). Their rejection of Christ does not erase their historical significance. Rather, individual Jews are being saved and will be saved through faith in their Messiah, becoming part of the one people of God alongside Gentile believers. This is not replacement but inclusion—"Gentiles grafted in among" the natural branches (Romans 11:19-24).
The dispensational framework—a temporary church age followed by resumption of Israel's earthly program—lacks explicit scriptural warrant and creates theological problems regarding the finality of Christ's work. Covenant theology, by contrast, recognizes that Israel's salvation history unfolds one purpose: the gathering of a people through faith in Christ, encompassing Jews and Gentiles in one redeemed community.
1689 Federalism (also called Baptist Covenant Theology) shares substantial common ground with classical covenant theology. Adherents affirm that salvation has always been by grace through faith, that the Covenant of Grace is continuous throughout Scripture, that the covenants progressively reveal God's redemptive purpose, and that Christ is the center and goal of all covenant history. Both traditions affirm the Trinity, justification by faith, and that the gospel was truly preached in the Old Testament through types and promises.
The 1689 London Baptist Confession articulates a covenantal understanding that aligns substantially with the Westminster Standards in its doctrine of the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, the person and work of Christ, justification by faith, and the future consummation. The tradition honors the Reformation's recovery of sola fide and affirms the sufficiency of Christ's redemptive work. Where it diverges from paedobaptist covenant theology is not in fundamental theological structure but in a particular application of that structure to the practice of baptism and church membership.
The Nature of Old Testament Covenants: 1689 Federalism teaches a significant distinction between the Covenant of Grace itself and its historical administrations. While the invisible church of the regenerate receives grace continuously throughout history, the Covenant of Grace as a formal, comprehensive covenant was not administered in the Old Testament. Rather, Old Testament covenants are "administrations of promise"—pointing forward to the New Covenant but not themselves constitutive of the Covenant of Grace. Only with Christ's inauguration of the New Covenant does the Covenant of Grace formally begin its administration.
Visible Church Membership: This understanding leads to a different view of who comprises the visible church. 1689 Federalism maintains that the visible church in the New Testament era consists only of those who have made a credible profession of faith and been baptized. Infants born to believing parents, while children of covenant members and entitled to Christian nurture, are not themselves covenant members until they personally profess faith. This creates an ecclesiology where covenant status requires personal faith in a way Westminster paedobaptism does not.
Application of the Covenant Sign: Where Westminster theology teaches that baptism, like circumcision, should be applied to believers and their children, 1689 Federalism restricts baptism to those who have personally professed faith. The covenant sign, in this view, is administered only to those already in covenant through their own conscious faith, not to their children.
Inconsistency with the Continuity Principle: If baptism truly replaces circumcision as the sign of the covenant (a conviction 1689 Federalism affirms), then baptism should logically be applied to the same category of persons as circumcision was. Circumcision was applied to male infants on the basis of parental covenant membership, without requiring the child's personal profession of faith. Yet 1689 Federalism restricts baptism to those who have personally believed, thus changing the fundamental principle governing who receives the covenant sign. This represents a significant shift in what it means to be a covenant member, yet the shift lacks explicit scriptural warrant. Where in the New Testament is the principle "children do not receive the covenant sign" clearly stated or derived?
The Ambiguous Status of Covenant Children: 1689 Federalism creates an unclear intermediate category. Children born to believing Baptist parents are born to covenant members—they are part of covenant families, yet 1689 Federalism maintains they are not themselves covenant members until they believe. They occupy an undefined status: neither fully in the covenant nor fully outside it. This obscures what Scripture teaches: "The promise is for you and for your children" (Acts 2:39). If the promise belongs to children, in what sense are they not covenant members? They are members of covenant families awaiting personal appropriation of covenant grace, just as paedobaptism teaches. Yet 1689 Federalism denies them the sign of that membership.
Undervaluing the Corporate Dimension of Covenant: Scripture consistently presents redemption as having a corporate, familial dimension, not merely as individual transactions. God covenanted with Abraham and his seed, not just Abraham. Noah was saved with his household. The promises of Acts 2:39 are explicitly to "you and your children." Throughout Acts, when a household member believes, the whole household often receives baptism, suggesting that covenant blessings extend to family units. 1689 Federalism's emphasis on individual faith as the prerequisite for covenant status, while biblically important, somewhat obscures the corporate, familial framework in which God ordinarily works. It risks individualizing redemption in a way foreign to the biblical covenant pattern.
Objection: Jeremiah 31:33-34 promises that in the new covenant, all covenant members will "know me, from the least to the greatest." This presupposes personal, conscious faith. How can infants be new covenant members if they lack this knowledge of God?
Response: This objection confuses the eschatological vision of Jeremiah 31 with the present administration of the New Covenant. Jeremiah 31:33-34 describes the ultimate, final state of the covenant—when sin and forgetting are completely eliminated and all who remain are genuinely converted. This is a promissory vision of the consummation, not a description of how the New Covenant functions in history.
The visible church throughout history, including now, contains both the truly regenerate and those who make profession of faith without genuine conversion (1 John 2:19). The New Covenant is administered through the gospel and the church, which receives both believers and their children into the covenant community. The promise that ultimately "all shall know me" remains eschatologically true while not precluding the present inclusion of baptized children awaiting their own response of faith.
Moreover, Peter at Pentecost applies the new covenant promise directly to both the listeners and their children: "The promise is for you and for your children" (Acts 2:39). This demonstrates that the apostolic understanding maintained children within the scope of the new covenant. The promise belongs to them by virtue of their parent's covenant status, while their personal faith determines whether they truly appropriate the grace that promise offers.
Objection: Faith and repentance require conscious choice and understanding. Infants cannot meet these requirements. Therefore, they should not receive baptism. The doctrine and practice of baptism should follow, not precede, personal faith.
Response: This objection conflates two distinct situations that Scripture treats differently: becoming a covenant member as an adult convert versus being born into a covenant family as an infant. The objection correctly notes that adult converts must exercise personal faith and repentance. But this does not apply to those born to believing parents.
In the Old Testament, infants born to Abraham and his descendants were circumcised without exercising faith—they entered the covenant by birth. This was not abnormal or problematic; it reflected how God ordinarily worked with His people. Similarly, New Testament paedobaptism applies the covenant sign to infants born into believing families. They receive the sign as a marker of their status as covenant children while awaiting their own conscious response to God's grace.
Paedobaptism does not claim that infants' baptism is efficacious without their response. Rather, it recognizes two distinct moments: first, incorporation into the covenant community through the sign (baptism); second, personal appropriation of covenant grace through faith and repentance (which may come later in life). The child is grafted into the covenant family, nurtured in doctrine and prayer, and called to respond to God's grace. This sequence—covenant incorporation, then personal response—mirrors how God has always worked with families and communities.
Objection: While we affirm continuity of the Covenant of Grace, this does not mean the New Testament administration must be identical to the Old. God can maintain covenant continuity while fundamentally changing the application. The new covenant is administered differently—to believers only—precisely because it is the new and better covenant.
Response: This objection contains a crucial insight: not every aspect of old covenant administration continues unchanged. The ceremonial system has been fulfilled in Christ; the civil laws of Israel are no longer binding; the priesthood has been transformed. Legitimate discontinuities exist between old and new covenant administrations.
However, the objection shifts from "some administration changes" to "the fundamental principle of who is a covenant member changes." This is a far greater discontinuity and requires explicit scriptural warrant. The question is not whether all administration is identical, but whether the principle governing covenant membership—that children born to believers belong to the covenant—has fundamentally changed.
In the Old Testament, the principle was: believers and their children. In paedobaptism, the principle remains: believers and their children. The change is in the sign (circumcision to baptism) and the scope (physical Israel to the worldwide church), not in the governing principle of membership. 1689 Federalism proposes a more radical shift: from "believers and their children" to "believers only." This represents a fundamental change in the principle of membership, and such a change would require clear, explicit scriptural command. The New Testament does not provide such a command; instead, Acts 2:39 suggests continuity of the principle.
Objection: Effective church discipline and pastoral governance require that members have made a personal profession of faith. How can pastors exercise oversight and discipline over those who have not personally professed? This is why a believers' church is necessary.
Response: This objection addresses a practical concern that is legitimate yet distinct from the theological question of covenant membership. It is true that effective church governance requires knowledge of who has personally professed faith. However, covenant theology and paedobaptism have practical solutions that preserve both covenant membership and appropriate pastoral oversight.
In paedobaptist churches, membership rolls typically distinguish between (1) baptized members, including children, and (2) communicant members, those who have made public profession of faith and are eligible for the Lord's Supper. Pastoral care of covenant families includes instruction of children, calls to Christian obedience and faithfulness, and age-appropriate discipline. As baptized members of the covenant community, children are held to the expectations of covenant membership—living according to Christian standards and being called to personal faith as they mature.
Moreover, the practical requirement for knowing members' faith status does not negate covenant membership itself. The church has always included babes in Christ and the spiritually mature—all members with varying degrees of understanding. Effective governance does not require that all members be identical in maturity or comprehension. The theological question of whether children belong to the covenant and receive its sign is distinct from the practical question of how the church administers pastoral oversight—both can be true simultaneously.
New Covenant Theology (NCT) shares important commitments with covenant theology. Adherents affirm that the covenants progressively reveal God's purpose and that Christ is the fulfillment of Old Testament expectations. They recognize that salvation is by grace through faith, that Scripture is unified in its testimony to Christ, and that biblical interpretation must account for covenant progression and fulfillment. NCT is genuinely Christ-centered and rejects any framework that marginalizes His work or treats the Old Testament as irrelevant.
NCT represents an attempt to synthesize insights from covenant theology, dispensationalism, and credobaptist thought. It seeks to maintain covenant theology's emphasis on Christ as the goal of Scripture while incorporating elements of dispensationalism's distinction between old and new, and creationism's insistence on personal faith as the condition of visible church membership.
The Status and Abrogation of the Law: NCT teaches that the Mosaic law, including all its stipulations—ceremonial, civil, and moral—has been entirely abrogated. The law is not divided into categories (moral, ceremonial, civil) but is viewed as a unified covenant that has been set aside. Believers are bound not by the law but by the "law of Christ"—understood as the moral teachings of the New Testament, which NCT sees as fundamentally new rather than continuous with the Old Testament moral law.
Westminster covenant theology, by contrast, maintains that while the ceremonial and civil aspects of the Mosaic law have been fulfilled in Christ, the moral law remains binding as an expression of God's eternal moral character. The law's threefold use—pedagogical (revealing sin), civil (guiding societies), and normative (directing believers toward obedience)—persists, even as its administration changes with the new covenant.
The Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace: While NCT does not uniformly deny the Covenant of Works / Covenant of Grace distinction, it sometimes minimizes or reinterprets it. Some NCT proponents question whether Adam was truly under a "Covenant of Works" or whether all covenants are fundamentally covenants of grace. This reflects a hesitancy about the traditional Reformed categories.
Eschatological Discontinuity: NCT emphasizes the radical newness of the new covenant more heavily than classical covenant theology. The old covenant is viewed as a temporary, provisional arrangement awaiting fulfillment in something wholly new, rather than as a stage in the progressive unfolding of the Covenant of Grace. This leads to a more significant sense of discontinuity between old and new testaments.
Incoherence in the Treatment of the Moral Law: NCT's assertion that the Mosaic law has been entirely abrogated creates serious logical and ethical problems. If the law against murder, theft, and adultery is no longer binding—if it has no authority because it is Mosaic rather than explicit in the New Testament—on what foundation does Christian morality rest? NCT appeals to the "law of Christ" as the normative standard for ethical behavior. However, when examined closely, this "law of Christ" often reaffirms the same moral content as the Old Testament law. Prohibitions against murder, theft, sexual immorality, and false witness appear in both testaments. This creates an unstable position: the same moral norms are binding, but only because they appear in the New Testament, not because they reflect God's eternal character revealed in the Old Testament. This distinction between "what is morally required" and "why it is morally required" appears arbitrary. It is more coherent to recognize that the moral law, reflecting God's character, remains binding across both testaments.
Furthermore, the New Testament itself reaffirms the binding force of the Mosaic moral law. Paul declares, "The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good" (Romans 7:12), indicating that the law itself is not abrogated but holy. He applies the Ten Commandments to believers, teaching that "the commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness'... are summed up in this word, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Romans 13:8-9). Jesus Himself summarized the entire law in the twin commandments of love to God and neighbor—not abolishing the law but fulfilling it (Matthew 22:40). These passages indicate that the moral law remains authoritative, properly understood.
Fracturing the Unity of Redemptive History: By teaching radical discontinuity between old and new covenants, NCT threatens the coherence of Scripture as a unified witness to God's purposes. If the promises to Abraham are not fulfilled in the church, if the law is entirely abrogated, if the covenant structure fundamentally changes with no continuity of principle, then the Old Testament becomes largely irrelevant to New Testament believers. This contradicts Paul's explicit teaching: "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope" (Romans 15:4). The Old Testament is written for us, for our instruction and encouragement. Its covenants, laws, and promises are not merely historical artifacts but carry ongoing significance.
Difficulty with Typology and Prophecy Fulfillment: Classical covenant theology provides a robust hermeneutical framework for understanding Old Testament types and their fulfillment in Christ. The priesthood is understood as a type of Christ's high priestly work; the temple foreshadows His body as the locus of God's presence; the sacrificial system prefigures His atoning sacrifice. These type-antitype relationships provide theological coherence and show how the Old Testament points forward to Christ. NCT's framework of radical discontinuity makes it harder to maintain these connections. If the Mosaic system is entirely abrogated and has no ongoing relevance, how do we understand the types as predictive and fulfilled rather than merely illustrative? The typological interpretation depends on seeing the Old Testament as moving toward and being fulfilled in the New Testament, which requires a stronger continuity than NCT typically allows.
Incoherence Regarding the Law's Purpose: If the Mosaic law was entirely temporary and had no ongoing moral purpose (as NCT suggests), what was its function in God's plan? NCT struggles to articulate a coherent theology of the law. Classical covenant theology answers: the law reveals God's holiness and justice, exposes human sin, demonstrates the impossibility of justification by works, and thus drives sinners to Christ (Romans 3:20; Galatians 3:24). This makes the law's temporary administration intelligible—it served a pedagogical purpose leading to Christ. But if the law has no moral continuity and is not an expression of God's eternal will, this rationale becomes unclear. Why would God give a law that was never meant to express His moral character and that has no ongoing validity? NCT lacks a fully satisfying answer.
Objection: Christ said "all the law and the prophets hang on" the two commandments of love to God and neighbor (Matthew 22:40). He fulfilled the law perfectly (Matthew 5:17), and believers are no longer "under the law" (Romans 6:15). The entire Mosaic economy, including its moral dimension, has been abrogated. Maintaining that the moral law binds believers is to place them back under a covenant that Christ has ended.
Response: This objection depends on a failure to distinguish between different senses of "law" and different ways the law can relate to believers. Scripture itself makes important distinctions that must be respected.
First, the law contains diverse elements that must be differentiated. The ceremonial laws governing sacrifice and temple worship were fulfilled in Christ; their purpose is completed. The civil laws particular to Israel's theocratic governance no longer apply to societies without that covenant structure. But the moral law—the Ten Commandments and the ethical principles they embody—reflects God's eternal moral character and remains binding.
Second, when Paul teaches that we are not "under the law" (Romans 6:14) or that believers are "no longer under a tutor" after faith comes (Galatians 3:25), he addresses the law as a covenant of works—as a means of salvation. Believers are freed from the law's condemning power and from the notion that keeping the law earns God's favor. But freedom from the law as a way of justification does not mean the law has lost its authority to guide holy living. Paul applies the Ten Commandments to believers: "You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal... and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" (Romans 13:8-9). He applies Old Testament moral law as binding on New Testament believers.
Third, Jesus's summary of the law in the two commandments (love God, love neighbor) does not abrogate the law; it distills the law's essence. The Ten Commandments can be organized under these two principles: the first four commands express love to God, the last six express love to neighbor. By summarizing the law this way, Jesus affirms its moral content while emphasizing that obedience flows from love. The moral law, understood correctly, remains an expression of God's will for His people.
Objection: The distinction between a "Covenant of Works" and a "Covenant of Grace" is not clearly presented in Scripture. This appears to be a scholastic imposition on the biblical text. All covenants involve God's grace and initiative, not stark alternatives between works and grace.
Response: While the precise terminology is systematic and theological rather than explicitly scriptural, the distinction itself is grounded firmly in Scripture. The biblical foundation is clear:
God placed Adam in the garden with explicit terms: "Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" (Genesis 2:16-17). This arrangement offers life on condition of obedience. The sanction—death for disobedience—indicates works-conditioned standing. This fundamentally differs from the Covenant of Grace, which offers life through faith despite our failure in works.
Paul explicitly contrasts these two principles: "The righteousness which is of faith speaks in this way... 'If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart... you will be saved'" (Romans 10:8-9), versus "The man who does these things shall live by them" (Romans 10:5, quoting Leviticus 18:5, regarding the law). Romans 3:20-22 teaches: "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified... But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed." Galatians 3:10-12 contrasts: "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse... the law is not of faith; rather, 'the just shall live by faith.'"
These passages presuppose the distinction between two economies: one based on works (the law), one based on grace (the gospel). While the terminology "Covenant of Works" and "Covenant of Grace" is theological shorthand, the distinction reflects how Paul himself structured his argument. Reformed theology systematizes what Scripture teaches: salvation comes either through keeping the law (works) or through faith in Christ (grace). These are fundamentally different principles.
Furthermore, this distinction clarifies the role and purpose of the law. The law was never intended as a way of salvation; it was added "because of transgressions, until the Seed to whom the promise had been made" (Galatians 3:19). It serves to reveal sin and shut all mouths before God, so that grace through Christ becomes both necessary and desirable. Without the Covenant of Works / Covenant of Grace distinction, the law's purpose becomes confused, and the relationship between law and gospel becomes incoherent.
Objection: Many Old Testament laws addressed specific cultural situations in ancient Israel. They were God's guidance for a particular people in a particular time, not universal moral principles. To bind modern believers to Old Testament commandments is to impose an ancient cultural framework on different contexts.
Response: This objection conflates two distinct issues: the binding nature of a command's underlying principle and the cultural expression or application of that principle. Covenant theology handles this distinction carefully.
Principle vs. Application: Consider the prohibition against murder (Exodus 20:13). The principle—that human life is sacred and unjustified killing is sin—is eternal and binding in all cultures. The specific case laws regarding restitution for injury (Exodus 21:23-25, "an eye for an eye") applied that principle to ancient Israelite society but do not require modern societies to implement identical penalty structures. Modern justice systems may differ in how they punish homicide while affirming the same underlying principle: human life is sacred.
The New Testament's Guidance: The New Testament shows how to discern which Old Testament commandments remain binding. Commands regarding the Sabbath, temple sacrifice, ritual purity, and ceremonial cleanness are set aside—their specific purpose fulfilled in Christ. Commands against adultery, theft, murder, false witness, and coveting are reaffirmed in the New Testament (Romans 13:8-9; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The moral law, which reflects God's eternal character, remains binding; the ceremonial and civil applications change with context.
The Danger of Unlimited Relativism: If Old Testament commandments are merely cultural relative—if they expressed God's guidance for ancient Israel but have no claim on modern believers—then what prevents the same argument from applying to New Testament commands? If modern culture is sufficiently different, cannot nearly any biblical command be dismissed as culturally relative? This opens the door to wholesale rejection of scriptural authority. The alternative—that God's moral law reflects His eternal character and therefore remains binding across cultures—provides the only secure foundation for Christian ethics.
Objection: Hebrews 8:13 declares that if a new covenant is made, the first is "made obsolete" and "ready to vanish away." This radical discontinuity cannot be overstated. Covenant theology, by maintaining continuity and affirming the ongoing validity of the Mosaic law, fails to appreciate the revolutionary newness Christ brings.
Response: Covenant theology affirms that the new covenant is genuinely new and brings radical transformation. However, "new" and "continuous" are not mutually exclusive. The new covenant is the fulfillment and culmination of the old—genuinely new in what it accomplishes while remaining continuous in what it reveals about God's purposes.
What Is Obsolete in Hebrews 8:13: When Hebrews 8:13 declares the first covenant "obsolete," the context makes clear what is obsolete: the entire Sinai arrangement as a way of salvation and as a mediating structure. The tabernacle and its sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, the ceremonial law—all are set aside because their purpose is fulfilled in Christ. This is genuinely radical and new.
However, the author of Hebrews goes on to quote the Ten Commandments as guides for Christian conduct (Hebrews 13:4-5): "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled... Keep your lives free from the love of money." These are direct applications of the moral law to believers. The text shows that while the old covenant arrangement is obsolete, the moral principles it embodied remain authoritative.
The Radical Newness in the New Covenant: The new covenant is radically new in what Christ achieves: He fulfills what the law demanded, accomplishes what the sacrifices foreshadowed, and accomplishes what no human effort could achieve. He secures the forgiveness of sins definitively and permanently. He pours out the Spirit universally, not limited to prophets and priests. He opens direct access to God for all believers, not mediated through a priesthood. He transforms sinners from within by the Spirit's work, not merely by external commandment. These constitute genuine, radical novelty.
Yet this newness consists in Christ's work fulfilling and transcending the old, not in wholesale repudiation of God's moral will previously revealed. Covenant theology honors both continuity and discontinuity: continuity of God's saving purpose and moral character, discontinuity in the way that purpose is now fulfilled through Christ. This both appreciates the radical achievement of Christ and maintains the coherence of Scripture as a unified witness to God's eternal purposes.