Christian Palestinianism and the Universal Non-Jewish Covenant
Christian theology generally understands the covenant God made with Abraham as fundamentally one and the same across both the Old and New Testaments, though its administration differs [3, 7]. This perspective, articulated by figures like John Calvin, emphasizes that God's adoption of people into covenant has always been on the same conditions and under the same doctrine [8]. The promise of the land of Canaan to the Jewish nation, for instance, is viewed as a terrestrial promise that pointed to a spiritual promise, which always held the primary place [1].
The covenant with Abraham is considered no less applicable to Christians today than it was to the ancient Israelites [2]. While the Old Testament covenant organized the Hebrews as a nation with specific municipal, national, and religious affairs, the kingdom of Christ is designed to encompass all kingdoms and can exist under various forms of civil government without interference [4]. This distinction highlights that Christ's kingdom is "not of this world" in its nature and scope [4].
The New Covenant, prophesied in Jeremiah 31, is described as "not... the covenant that I made with... fathers" [5]. This new covenant, often referred to as the gospel covenant, is distinguished by its provision for the forgiveness of sins through an adequate atonement and the inworking of grace that ensures permanent obedience [5]. This understanding suggests a continuity of God's redemptive purpose but a change in the covenant's administration and its beneficiaries, now including both Jews and Gentiles [5].
The "gifts and calling of God" to Abraham are considered irrevocable, referring to the sovereign act by which God chose Abraham to be the father of a peculiar people and the articles of the covenant that distinguished his family [9]. However, the visible church under the Old Dispensation, which was the Hebrew nation, is distinct from the internal covenant where eternal life is promised to believers in Christ [6]. The conditions for admission into the external, visible society were outward profession and obedience, whereas the condition for the internal covenant is true faith [6]. This distinction between an external and internal covenant helps explain how the covenant can be both singular in substance and diverse in its historical manifestations and applications [6].
Sources
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 98: place a manifest indication of favour before his eye, added the promise of possession of the land of Canaan. In the same way we should understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation, the spiritual promise, as the head to which the others bore reference, always holding the first place. Having handled this subject fully when treating of the difference between the old and the new dispensations, I now only glance at it. 12. Under the appellation of children the difference they observe is this, that the ch”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 98: refute all gainsayers. The objection, that there was a fixed day for circumcision, is a mere quibble. We admit that we are not now, like the Jews, tied down to certain days; but when the Lord declares, that though he prescribes no day, yet he is pleased that infants shall be formally admitted to his covenant, what more do we ask? 6. Scripture gives us a still clearer knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant, which the Lord once made with Abraham, is not less applicable to Christians now than it was anciently”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 46: Israelites before the advent of Christ, and that which he has made with us now that Christ is manifested. 2. It is possible, indeed, to explain both in one word. The covenant made with all the fathers is so far from differing from ours in reality and substance, that it is altogether one and the same: still the administration differs. But because this brief summary is insufficient to give any one a full understanding of the subject, our explanation to be useful must extend to greater length. It were superfluous, however, in showing ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 2, section 123: of this world. The latter organized the Hebrews as a nation, and directed all their municipal and national, as well as their social and religious affairs. It, therefore, could not coexist in time and place with any other national organization. The kingdom of Christ being designed to embrace all other kingdoms, can exist under all forms of civil government without interfering with any. It was especially in this view that Christ declared that his kingdom was not of this world. His immediate design was to vindicate his claim to be a king, f”
- Jeremiah (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Jeremiah 31:32: Not . . . the covenant that I made with . . . fathers--the Old Testament covenant, as contrasted with our gospel covenant (Heb 8:8-12; Heb 10:16-17, where this prophecy is quoted to prove the abrogation of the law by the gospel), of which the distinguishing features are its securing by an adequate atonement the forgiveness of sins, and by the inworking of effectual grace ensuring permanent obedience. An earnest of this is given partially in the present eclectic or elect Church gathered out of Jews and Gentiles. But the promise here to Israel in the ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 64: that of a twofold covenant; one external, the other internal; answering to the distinction between the Church visible and invisible. God, under the old dispensation, entered into a covenant with the Hebrew nation constituting them his visible Church, which covenant was distinct from that in which eternal life was promised to those that truly believe in the Redeemer who was to come. The conditions of admission into this external, visible society, were outward profession of the true religion, and external obedience. The condition of admissi”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 46: 368 CHAPTER 10. THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE NEW. 225 225 As to the agreement of both dispensations, see August. Lib. de Moribus Eccles. Lat., especially cap. 28. This chapter consists of four parts. I. The sum, utility, and necessity of this discussion, sec. 1. II. A proof that, generally speaking, the old and new dispensations are in reality one, although differently administered. Three points in which the two dispensations entirely agree, sec. 2–4. III. The Old Testament, as well as the New, had regard to th”
- CCEL (Reformed) “John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, section 46: similarity of both dispensations. For fuller confirmation, four passages of Scripture produced. Refutation of the error of the Sadducees and other Jews, who denied eternal salvation and the sure hope of the Church. 1. From what has been said above, it must now be clear, that all whom, from the beginning of the world, God adopted as his peculiar people, were taken into covenant with him on the same conditions, and under the same bond of doctrine, as ourselves; but as it is of no small importance to establish this point, I will here ”
- Romans (Presbyterian) “Jamieson, Fausset & Brown on Romans 11:29: For the gifts and calling--"and the calling" of God are without repentance--"not to be," or "cannot be repented of." By the "calling of God," in this case, is meant that sovereign act by which God, in the exercise of His free choice, "called" Abraham to be the father of a peculiar people; while "the gifts of God" here denote the articles of the covenant which God made with Abraham, and which constituted the real distinction between his and all other families of the earth. Both these, says the apostle, are irrevocable; and as the point for which he r”