In his book Progressive Dispensationalism Craig A. Blaising points out that C.I. Scofield taught that the blessing of the Spirit under Israel's New Covenant "typified" the blessing of the Spririt that is in regard to the Body of Christ: "Scofield...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 Ezekiel 36 typified the church's blessing of the Spirit)..." [emphasis added] (Blaising & Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism [Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993], pp.28-29).

Blaising continues, stating that "Classical dispensationalists believed that the biblical covenants would be fulfilled for earthly people in the Millennium and eternal state. Since the covenants did not concern heavenly people (except in a typological or spiritual sense) it was not proper to say that they were being fulfilled in the present dispensation (except in a spiritual or typological manner)" [emphasis added] (Ibid., pp.29-30).

Lewis Sperry Chafer also saw characteristics of 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).

In a lecture addressed to Dallas Theological Seminary on the subject of Typology Charles T. Fritsch said that "typology is not a matter of collecting all of the resemblances between the Old and New Testaments, but rather of understanding the underlying redemptive and revelational process which begins in the Old Testament and finds its fulfillment in the New. In this light, for instance, the covenant of Sinai becomes a type of that perfect covenant relation between God and man in Christ, clearly adumbrated in the new covenant of Jeremiah 31" (Fritsch, "Principles of Biblical Typology," Bibliotheca Sacra, 104 [April-June, 1947], p.220).

The word "adumbrate" means "to give a faint shadow or resemblance of; outline or shadow forth".

Therefore Fritsch was saying that Israel's New Covenant is but a "shadow" of the New Covenant of today, the perfect covenant relation between God and man in Christ. This practically defines a "typological" relationship.

Even though the early dispensationalists realized that some of the blessings of Israel's New Covenant "typified" the blesssings bestowed on Christians today they never directly taught nor stated that Israel's "New Diatheke" was a "type" of the "New Diatheke" which is in operation today. However, common sense dictates that if the blessings under Israel's "New Diatheke" are mere "types" of today's "New Diatheke" then Israel's"New Diatheke" must necessarily be a "type" as well.