A Bird's Eye View of New Covenant Theology

DEFINITIONS OF NCT
Allow me to give you a handful of definitions for NCT. Interestingly, these are not really technical definitions. One can search high and low and he will not find a technical definition of NCT given by NCT adherents. Nevertheless, the statements below are quotes from various sources that I believe give to us a broad definition of NCT.

The first one comes from our friend and speaker for the Laurelville Conference, Fred Zaspel. Here is what Fred says about NCT:

“New Covenant Theology (NCT) is a less settled theology than a movement still in the shaping by men who agree that the question has not yet been finally answered by either of the major competing schools of interpretation- dispensational theology and covenant theology…NCT claims simply to have middle ground between these two (DT and CT). We are not satisfied with the simple ‘one covenant’- ‘two administrations’ idea of CT. In our judgement this results in a rather ‘flat’ reading of Scripture which fails to appreciate the advance, the distinctively new character of the Messianic age. Nor are we satisfied with the over-compartmentalizing tendency of Dispensational theology. In our judgement its ‘no law’ and ‘two equal peoples’ notions failed to appreciate the unity of God’s nature and purpose. And so we find ourselves somewhere between the two traditional answers”.( Fred Zaspel, A Brief Explanation of New Covenant Theology).

If I can, allow me to point out a couple of features in Fred’s explanation of NCT. First, Fred speaks of NCT as more of a movement than a defined or settled system. This is important to grasp. I have found that there are many “streams”, if you will, of NCT. And not all of these “streams” converge into the same body of water. In fact, I recently asked Tom Wells (the foremost New Covenant Theologian) about this very topic. He was clear that all “streams” of NCT are not in complete agreement with one another. Quite frankly, it is even difficult to identify these streams. Suffice it to say, however, NCT is not as sharply defined as either DT or CT. This is not a criticism; it is a fact. It must be stated that this is also true with both DT and CT as well. There are many “streams” within each one of these systems. Nevertheless, it seems that with NCT the streams are more diverse, and are greater in number. However, it is difficult to know for sure. I do not know every dispensationalist, covenant theologian, and new covenant theologian. This is another reason why neither what others believe, nor logic itself should ever serve as the foundation to our belief systems. Scripture is the basis. And by the way, Scripture is logical (that is not to say that there are not mysteries found in paradox form), and Biblical truth will generally show itself in the majority positions of the church throughout church history.

Second, Fred speaks of NCT as holding a “middle ground” position between DT and CT. This is an important clarification. NCT does not take attributes of DT and place them in their system and then turn around and take elements of CT and store these in their system. Rather, NCT bases its arguments on Scripture. It is not a hodge-podge of DT and CT. Fred’s point is simply that in the final analysis NCT ends up somewhere between these other two systems of theology. Fred’s explanation serves in truly clarifying what we are facing with NCT.

Another way to define NCT is rooted in a short, pithy statement by a man I have yet to meet (but long to someday), John Reisinger. He once made the remark that, “Dispensationalism cannot get Israel and the church together in any sense whatsoever, and covenant theology cannot get them apart”. Essentially, Reisinger is affirming the failure of both DT and CT. Their failure is found in different aspects of the same topic- the identity of the church and national Israel. DT affirms that there are two peoples of God. Thus, they fail to define any unity in God’s elect people of all time. And CT, on the other hand, fails to separate Israel from the church. They view these two people as one entity. Reisinger’s point is that both positions are wrong. And the implication is that NCT holds the right answer. I agree with him and will seek to prove that in the remaining posts on NCT.

The next definition is take from Gary Long. He says, “NCT is a developing system of theology that provides a more biblical way to interpret the Scriptures by questioning key theological presuppositions which undergird the hermeneutics (principles of interpretation) of CT and DT” (Gary Long, New Covenant Theology Disnitctives). Gary Long is a strong NCT proponent. However, he refuses to “throw the baby out with the bath water” (sorry to use such a routine cliché). I appreciate his intellectual perceptiveness, and honesty of character to admit that not everything DT and CT teach is heretical and Satanic. Notice he says that NCT promotes " a more Biblical way" than either DT and CT. This is NCT being worked out practically- the demonstration of love toward others. He does not compromise truth. No, no! But he is also not condescending in his attitude.

One final way to understand NCT can be seen in the following statement:
“New Covenant Theology (NCT) describes how the unfolding plan of salvation in Scripture is to be understood. It focuses on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants. It views the nation of Israel as a picture of the people of God but not the believing people of God. It understands the Mosaic Covenant to be a legal covenant that demands perfect obedience in order to receive the promised blessings. It views the Ten Commandments as the essence of the Mosaic law and not the essence of all of God’s law. It views the New Covenant as a new and better covenant that replaces the Old Covenant. New Covenant Theology differs from both Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism” (Defining New Covenant Theology, Geoff Volker and Mike Adams from In Depth Studies).

Lord willing, we will look at some distinctives of NCT later.