From the beginning the great dispensational teachers believed that there were two New Covenants and not just one. Craig A. Blaising writes that "The new covenant (a covenant prophesied in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) was interpreted primarily or solely an an earthly covenant, even though it promised that God would put His Spirit in His people. Darby believed that when it appeared in the Bible, the new covenant always referred to Israel and consequently had nothing to do with God's heavenly people. Chafer followed Darby as closely as possible, but had to recognize that the New Testament did speak of a 'new covenant' which was in force for the church of this dispensation. He argued that it was a completely different 'new covenant' than which will be made with Israel...Scofield, on the other hand, interpreted the New Covenant in the same manner as he did the Abrahamic covenant: literally it had to do with God's earthly plan for Israel; spiritually it revealed God's spiritual plan for the church (the blessing of the Spirit for Israel in Ezeliel 36 typified the church's blessing of the Spirit" (Blaising & Bock,Progressive Dispensationalism [Baker Books, 1993], pp.28-29).

Indeed, Darby saw that Israel's New Covenant is in regard to an "earthly covenant" and therefore not applicable to a "heavenly people."

Chafer saw a typological relationship between the two New Covenants, writing that "There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a 'new covenant.' It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. [Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948; reprint, 8 vols. in 4, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993], 7: 98-99).

Scofield also saw that the blessings under Israel's New Covenant was but a "type" of the blessings received under today's New Covenant.

Unfortunately, over time the traditional dispensationalists failed to understand the difference between an earthly covenant and a heavenly one, and these truths proclaimed by the giants of dispensationalism began to slip away.

Walter C. Kaiser,Jr. correctly observes that "An enormous amount of water has gone under the bridge in more than a quarter century since Charles Ryrie's 'Dispensationalism Today' was published in 1965 by Moody Press. In fact, somewhere in the decade of the 1960s, one of the most significant developments in dispensationalism took place. It happened so quitely, but so swiftly, that it is difficult to document, even to this day. This is what changed the whole course of dispensationalism: the view that there were 'two' new covenants, one for Israel and one for the church, was decisively dropped. The implications of such a move are enormous, as the events that followed duly testified. The new covenant was made with 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah,' yet the church was obviously enjoying the benefits of this same covenant...when Israel and the church were viewed as sharing one and the same covenant, the possibilities for major rapproachment between covenant theology and dispensationalism became immediately obvious" [emphasis added] (Blaising & Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, Zondervan Publishing,1992], p.369).

This "major rapproachment between covenant theology and dispensationalism" is defined by the title of Robert L. Saucy's book defending Progressive Dispensationalism: "The Case For Progressive Dispensationalism: The Interface Between Dispensational & Non-Dispensational Theology."

Progressive Dispensationalists themselves see that there is a typological relationship between the blessings promised under Israel's New Covenant and the blessings received under today's New Covenant. Since the blessings under the two different New Covenants are typical then that can only mean that Israel's New Covenant is a "type" of today's New Covenant.

Progressive Dispensationalist W. Edward Glenny writes the following:

"Once again, although Israel's experience is a pattern for New Testament believers, the context of Hosea 1-2 prophesies a future fulfillment of this pattern in the nation of Israel" [emphasis added](Blaising & Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church [Zondervan Publishing House, 1992], p.181).

According to Glenny when he speaks of "patterns" he is describing a relationship between "types" and "antitypes": "A pattern or correspondance must exist between the Old Testament type and the New Testament antitype" [emphasis added] (Ibid., p.158).

The particular "pattern" which Glenny makes reference is in regard to the following promises made in Hosea 1-2. Here are his words:

"These promises in Hosea are given to Israel and will be fulfilled in 'that day'...The day when these promises will be fulfilled will also be the day when the nation of Israel acknowledges Yahweh as 'my God' (2:23). In 'that day' God will establish an eternal unbreakable relationship with Israel (2:19)" [emphasis added] (Ibid., p.178).

The only Biblical "eternal unbreakable relationship" between the Lord and Israel is "Israel's New Covenant." The promises made to Israel recorded in Hosea 1-2 are indeed in regard to Israel's New Covenant as a comparasion of the following two verses demonstrate:

"And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God" (Hos.2:23).

"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people" (Jer.31:33).

Therefore the "type" must be Israel's New Covenant:

"A pattern or correspondance must exist between the Old Testament type and the New Testament antitype."

We can also see that Glenny understands that the "pattern" revealed in "Israel's New Covenant" is in regard to "today's New Covenant":

"The allusion to Hosea 1-2 in 1 Peter 2:10 is the conclusion of Peter's doctrinal statement in 2:4-10 and the goal toward which all of the Old Testament quotations, allusions, and comments on them in verses 4-10 have been directed. The point of Peter's catena of Old Testament references is that by virtue of their relationship with Jesus, the elect Messiah, his recipients are the elect people of God in these last days. He does not explicitly call them the 'new' or the 'true' Israel; instead he shows that they are the 'people of God', whose salvation and spiritual benefits under the new covenant follow a pattern established in God's promised relationship with his chosen people, the nation of Israel" [emphasis added] (Ibid., p.179).

There can be no doubt that the "type" of which Glenny speaks is Israel's New Covenant and the "antitype" is today's New Covenant.

Next