This study concerns itself with the question of whether or not those in the Body of Christ partake of the New Covenant promised to the nation of Israel. Walter K. Kaiser, Jr., wrote that "somewhere in the decade of the 1960's, 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...when Israel and the church were viewed as sharing one and the same covenant, the possibilities for major rapprochement between covenant theology and dispensationalism became immediately obvious" [emphasis added] (Blaising & Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992], p.369).

This "major rapprochement" is being fulfilled today through the teaching of Progressive Dispensationalism, as the following title of Robert L. Saucy's book suggests:

In the NT the Greek word diatheke is translated either as "covenant" or "testament." In this study I will quote the writings of the Progressive Dispensationalists extensively and use their own words to disprove their teaching that the Scriptures speak of only "one" New Diatheke.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the founding President of Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote the following in regard the Body of Christ's relationship to God's purposes toward Israel:

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term 'parenthetical,' commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 8 vols. [Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948; reprint, 8 vols. in 4, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993], 4:41; 5:348-349).

Charles Ryrie writes that "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

According to traditional dispensational thought the present dispensation "is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it." The present dispensation has no "direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows." That means that the present dispensation has nothing whatsoever to do with the following "New Covenant" promised to the houses of Israel and Judah:

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah" (Jer.31:31).

Since the New Covenant promised to the houses of Israel and Judah has neither a direct relationship nor an indirect relationship to those living in the present dispensation then what do we make of the following "New Covenant" of which Paul speaks?:

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant–not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor.3:6; NIV).

If it is said that those living in the present dispensation are made ministers of the New Covenant promised to the houses of Israel and Judah then the idea that the present dispensations represents an "intercalation" must be abandoned and the foundations of traditional dispensational thought must be reexamined.

In his book Basis of the Premillennial Faith written in 1953 Charles Ryrie gave a summary of the issues surrounding the "New Covenant" in dispensationalism: "If the Church does not have a new covenant then she is fulfilling Israel's promises, for it has been shown that the Old Testament teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone. If the Church is fulfilling Israel's promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened. One might well ask why there are not two aspects to one new covenant. This may be the case, and it is the position held by many, but we agree that the amillennialist has every right to say of this view that it is 'a practical admission that the new covenant is fulfilled in and to the Church.' However, since the New Testament will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Basis of the Premillennial Faith [Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Bros., 1953], p. 118).

To stress the importance of recognizing two New Covenants he says that "the one covenant, two aspects interpretation absolutely contradicts the entire premillennial system" (Ibid., p.108).

From the beginning the traditional dispensationalists understood that the saved of the present dispensation do not partake in Israel's New Covenant in any way. 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..." [emphasis added] (Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993], pp.28-29).

However, over time, this teaching has been abandoned. Bruce A. Ware writes the following: "First, readers are perhaps aware of an earlier dispensational view, advocated, for example, by Chafer and at one time by Walvoord and Ryrie. According to this view, in order to maintain the distinction between Israel and the church as separate peoples of God, the new covenant promised to Israel was distinct from the new covenant enacted with the church. Although this view was defended vigorously by its proponents, it has been uniformly abandoned by dispensationalists (including Walvoord and Ryrie), who recognized, as Blaising acknowledges, that such a two new covenants view 'is really a defenseless position'" (Blaising & Bock, Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992], p.91).