Why Look For an Alternative to Covenant Theology?
I’ve spent a great deal of time and thought trying to understand and dissect the disagreement between covenant theology and dispensationalism, two competing theological viewpoints that attempt to explain why God structured redemptive history in the way that he did. If you’ve ever asked the question, “Why are Christians allowed to eat shellfish when it’s forbidden in the Bible?” then you’re hitting on the essential goal of these two theological systems — to understand what changes throughout redemptive history, what stays the same, and the million dollar question of why.
Biblical Polity offers a third system called Shadow Covenant Theology, which is the product of long reflection on the weak points of each system. It’s inevitable that I’ll insult everyone engaged in the debate, so I’ll simply state my opinion with all of the bluntness of R.C. Sproul, and move forward. Dispensationalism generally excels in exegetical precision, but it fails as a system to provide any cohesive understanding of why God structured redemptive history the way that he did. Covenant theology excels in providing a cohesive framework, but because that framework doesn’t actually fit the biblical data very well, it tends to be exegetically weak in areas of scripture which don’t fit its mold.
In this article, we’ll look at one such weakness of covenant theology, which I view as a fatal flaw in the system when it is fully recognized and understood. To summarize the issue, because covenant theology regards the covenant of Moses as part of its so-called “covenant of grace” — the covenant through which eternal salvation is accomplished — it makes the same theological error as the judaizers who Paul worked to refute throughout his ministry. The judaizers believed that salvation occurred in association with the covenant of Moses, which is why they emphasized the importance of physical circumcision, the sign which would allow Gentiles to be grafted into the mosaic covenant. In contrast to this, Paul vehemently argued that eternal salvation has always only ever come through something greater than the covenant of Moses, and that Jew and Gentile alike enter into it by faith through the circumcision of the heart (Php 3:2-3, Col 2:11-12, Rom 2:29).
But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it– the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.
For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus… For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one–who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. (Rom 3:21-24, 28-30)
Works vs Covenant: What Does Paul Mean By “Law”
When a passage like the above from Romans is read, a covenantalist will often focus exclusively on Paul’s condemnation of salvation by works. This is certainly a major emphasis of Paul’s teaching, but what is frequently missed is that the particular covenant whose works are under consideration — the law of Moses — is also being repudiated as a source of righteousness. (2Co 3:7-18). Paul is not only he waging war against salvation by works, but also against salvation by Moses, showing that eternal salvation never came through the earthly, fleshly mosaic covenant (cf. Heb 9:8-10).
This comes out in Romans 3 when we think carefully about Paul’s flow of logic. When he says, “We hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law,” this idea is contrasted and bolstered by the rhetorical question, “Or is God the God of Jews only?” If Paul is only concerned with salvation by works as a general concept, then it is odd that he would bring up Jewish/Gentile issues. Salvation by works is a trans-cultural problem, something which covenantalists would see as dating back to the fall of man, as would I. It has nothing to do with being Jewish.
But if the law of Moses is his concern, then the argument makes sense. The law / covenant of Moses does have something to do with being Jewish; you enter into it by converting to Judaism through ritual circumcision. Paul’s argument in Romans is that both Jew and Gentile are still under sin (Rom 3:9-24), and that Judaism could not ultimately solve man’s problem of estrangement from God, because it was never intended to. There is much benefit to being Jewish (Rom 3:1-2), but Jews are not automatically granted eternal life by virtue of their circumcision or heritage; that comes through the higher covenant and spiritual circumcision of Christ (Rom 2:12-29).
This concern with Moses is why Paul waged war against circumcision alongside his opposition to salvation by works in general. Circumcision was the sign of the mosaic/abrahamic covenant (Jhn 7:22), which obligated one to follow the entire law of Moses (Gal 5:1-6). Paul was concerned about forcing Gentiles to become Jewish as if it were a necessary part of their salvation, which he viewed as entirely separate from the Jew/Gentile, circumcised/uncircumcised divide. Paul advanced a righteousness and a covenant apart from the law of Moses, the law and covenant of Christ (1Co 9:19-21), which the book of Hebrews argued to be both superior to, and prior to, the covenant of Moses (Heb 8:1-6).
The Problem: Covenant Theology Locates Salvation in Moses
The problem is that covenant theology views the covenant of Moses and the covenant of Christ as essentially the same thing, differing only in the particular outworkings and ceremonies of each, as Christ (allegedly) succeeded Moses in time and history. For this view, the New Testament debate over circumcision is merely an issue of wrong ceremonies or “ordinances” being enacted in the present age of redemptive history, rather than a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel that rests a person’s faith in a covenant which cannot ultimately save him from his sin.
The essence of covenant theology is that it posits a single “covenant of grace” which extends throughout redemptive history, absorbing all of the major covenants into its fold — Moses, Christ, Abraham, Noah, David, or just the old and new testaments in the version quoted above. Then it saves mankind through that covenant by emphasizing salvation by grace alone through faith in Christ as the theme that unites them all, despite whatever variations may exist between each of the sub-covenants.
The attractiveness of this view is seen when contrasted with certain older variations of dispensationalism, which are criticized (though not always fairly) as claiming that man is saved in multiple different ways, depending on the era of redemptive history. This, together with dispensationalism’s general incoherence makes the unity of the covenantal system an attractive feature, even though it faces exegetical problems (and a severe one in this case) when examined closely.
The Solution: Shadow Covenant Theology Distinguishes Moses and Christ
Shadow covenant theology solves both dynamics by viewing Moses and Christ as distinct and discontinuous covenants that are related through typology rather than succession, while presenting its own “covenant of grace” concept in the law of Christ — though I wouldn’t use the terminology of grace. I view grace and works as dynamics in every covenant, rather than two separate covenants, so I prefer the term “law of Christ” or “covenant of Christ” to align with Paul’s language. For shadow covenant theology, the law of Christ is that unifying covenant through which man’s total redemption is achieved, from the beginning of history to the end. Then the law of Moses is created in its image and likeness as a “shadow covenant.”
So just as the law of Moses has its roots in Abraham, so also the law of Christ has its roots in Adam. This means that the key elements of salvation span throughout all of history, and redemption is offered through a single, cohesive covenant with three parts — promise, fulfillment, and consummation. In the shadow covenant, we see the promise given to Abraham, the fulfillment given to Moses, and the consummation given to Joshua and successors. And in the covenant of Christ, we see the promise given to Adam, the fulfillment given to Jesus in his first coming, and the consummation given to Jesus in his second coming.
To give one example of one element of the covenant of Christ, the temple in Heaven in which Christ’s blood was offered does not come after the tabernacle/temple of Moses, as you would expect with classic covenant theology. Rather, it precedes the tabernacle of Moses, and serves as the source of the pattern after which Moses’ tabernacle was built (Heb 8:1-6). This element of the new covenant comes to its fulfillment in the offering of Christ’s blood (Heb 9:11-14), and its consummation in his return (Rev 3:12, 7:15), but it has always existed since the dawn of time. The altar of Abraham on Moriah similarly foreshadows the earthly tabernacle of Moses, etc.
Simply put, the law of Moses is a shadow covenant which reflects or outlines these higher realities for our benefit here on earth; it is not the source of man’s redemption. The blood of bulls and goats was never intended to remove man’s sin in any ultimate sense; they are a picture of Christ’s greater work (Heb 10:1-4). Men like Joshua or Josiah were therefore saved under the covenant of Moses, but never through it. They were saved by faith, through the circumcision of the heart that has always granted entrance into the higher covenant for Jew and Gentile alike, both during the time of promise, and when Christ finally came.
To put it another way, when we acknowledge that some covenants in scripture are not intended to bring about the salvation of mankind, it allows us to view the scriptures with more dimensionality and elegance than the flattened structure of traditional covenant theology allows. The covenant between Laban and Jacob, for an obvious example, was not intended to provide the eternal salvation of either man or family; it was created for temporal purposes, to protect the interests of all from war or abuse of the women. And some covenants between God and man are similarly disconnected from ultimate redemption, such as the covenant of David, whose purpose was to define a royal lineage.
In the same way, the covenant of circumcision in Abraham and Moses was intended for a purpose other than the eternal redemption of the Jews; it was intended (among other purposes) to be a type or shadow of the covenant of Christ. True redemption has always only ever been possible through faith in God and his Christ, which would come through the higher covenant. And Jews have always had access to that covenant, as have the Gentiles (Rom 2:14-16). But the covenant of Moses was never a part of that heavenly covenant; it was a reflection of it here on earth. So to view Moses as a source of eternal salvation is therefore to risk preaching another gospel, rooted in a covenant that cannot ultimately save man through its lesser types and shadows.
But Covenantalists Are Still Chill, Though, Right?
While it’s true that covenant theology makes the same theological mistake as the judaizers in its conflating of the two covenants as one, it would be both uncharitable and inaccurate to say that another gospel is being preached by covenant theology. Covenantalists agree with the judaizers in locating salvation in the covenant of Moses, but they deprecate Moses in this age to promote Christ, placing man’s faith in its proper object, the finished work of Christ. Shadow Covenant Theology pushes back against the deprecation of Moses as unnecessary and exegetically wrong, but the core of covenant theology’s gospel is entirely sound. The judaizers rested their faith in the shadow covenant; covenantalists rest their faith in the covenant of Christ.
Nevertheless, when we understand the debate in the New Testament as addressing the conflation of the old and new covenants, particularly in answering the question of which covenant offers eternal salvation to mankind, Paul and the other apostles refute not only the judaizers, but also the covenantalists in their reasoning. The debate over Gentile inclusion in the church truly is an achilles heel to the covenantalist system, which significantly if not entirely undermines its justification.
To resolve this, Shadow Covenant Theology offers a robust improvement upon the traditional foundation of reformed thought, one which can also address the exegetical challenges of dispensationalism without devolving into its incoherent view of redemptive history. While it doesn’t solve every outstanding question I have about the drama of redemption, my understanding of God’s word is far richer and exegetically cleaner than what I experience in any other system available today. Most importantly, it heals the achilles heel that periodically trips up reformed theology and rhetoric in various areas.
