Can the Church Be Unrelated to the New Covenant? A Response to Christopher Cone

Christopher Cone's essay, Hermeneutical Ramifications of Applying the New Covenant to the Church, is useful precisely because it raises a real methodological concern. He is correct to insist that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 was made with "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," and he is also correct that dispensationalists should not flatten Israel into the Church. On those points, he is pressing in the right direction.

But Cone's solution goes too far in the opposite direction. In trying to protect the Israelite identity of the New Covenant, he reduces the covenant so strictly to its original contracting parties that he leaves no room for the New Testament's own witness that the Church already participates in its blessings through Christ. That is not consistency. It is reductionism.

The False Dilemma: Participation Does Not Mean Replacement

Cone treats the question as if there were only two options:

1. Either the Church participates in the New Covenant, in which case the covenant must somehow be applied to the Church as a covenant;
2. Or the covenant belongs only to Israel, in which case the Church can have no real relation to it.

But Scripture itself gives us a more nuanced pattern. A covenant can be made with one people while blessings flowing from that covenant extend beyond the covenant's immediate contractual parties. This is not a strange idea in the biblical storyline. It is built into Israel's vocation from the beginning.

Israel was never chosen merely to receive blessings as a terminal point. Israel was chosen to mediate blessing to the nations. The promise to Abraham already points in this direction: "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed" (Gen. 12:3). Israel is later described as a kingdom of priests (Ex. 19:5-6), and the Servant's mission expands toward the nations (Isa. 49:6). Israel's covenantal role is not diminished when blessing reaches the Gentiles; it is being fulfilled in the very direction God intended.

Cone himself accepts this mediatorial flow when it comes to the Abrahamic Covenant — he appeals to Genesis 12:3 as the source of Gentile blessings. But he denies the same flow when it comes to the New Covenant. The question is why. If Israel's covenantal role includes channeling blessing outward, and if the New Covenant specifies the content of that blessing (forgiveness, the Spirit, the new heart), then refusing to let that content reach the nations through the Messiah is not a defense of Israel's uniqueness — it is a truncation of Israel's vocation.

For that reason, the fact that the New Covenant is made with Israel does not prove that its blessings cannot reach the Church. It proves only that Israel remains the covenant's historical and prophetic locus.

Paul as a Minister of the New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Cone responds to the argument that Paul is a minister of the New Covenant by making two moves. First, he distinguishes between serving and administering a covenant: Paul was "serving a new covenant, not administering it," and therefore "his audience (whether Jew or Gentile, or both) is irrelevant." Second, he proposes that Paul serves the New Covenant "insofar as he magnified his ministry in order that the Jews might be moved to jealousy and be saved (Rom. 11:13–14)," thereby "seeking to hasten the fulfillment of the covenant." He adds that "the covenant can be ratified and awaiting fulfillment without being in effect or presently fulfilled, and one can be serving it even as he hopes for its future fulfillment."

Each of these moves fails on its own terms.

The serving/administering distinction is foreign to the text. The word Paul uses is diakonos, and in every instance in the New Testament it refers to someone serving something presently operative: a servant of Christ (1 Cor. 3:5; Col. 1:7 — Epaphras), of the gospel (Col. 1:23; Eph. 3:7), of the church (Col. 1:25; Rom. 16:1 — Phoebe as a servant of the church at Cenchreae), of God (2 Cor. 6:4), of governing authorities (Rom. 13:4), a faithful servant in the Lord (Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7 — Tychicus), Christ Himself as a servant of the circumcision (Rom. 15:8), and even servants of Satan (2 Cor. 11:15). In every single case, the object of the service is a presently existing and operative reality. There is no case in the NT where someone is called a diakonos of something future or not yet in force. Cone introduces a distinction between "serving" and "administering" that the text does not make and for which he provides no lexical or contextual warrant. The burden of proof falls on the one who claims that diakonos here carries a meaning it never carries elsewhere.

The jealousy reading is imported from Romans 11, not derived from 2 Corinthians 3. Cone appeals to Romans 11:13, where Paul uses the cognate term diakonia in speaking of his ministry to the Gentiles and his hope that Jews might be provoked to jealousy. He then reads this jealousy motif back into 2 Corinthians 3:6 as though it defines what it means to be a "servant of the new covenant." But 2 Corinthians 3:6 says nothing about provoking jealousy. The context of 2 Corinthians 3 is a contrast between two operative ministries (diakoniai): that of Moses — the ministry of the letter that kills — and that of Paul — the ministry of the Spirit that gives life. Moses was not a servant of the old covenant indirectly or instrumentally; he operated within it. The parallel demands the same for Paul. To import the jealousy theme from an entirely different letter and context, and to make it the defining content of Paul's designation as a servant of the New Covenant, is not literal-grammatical-historical exegesis — it is a theological imposition on the text.

The present effects of 2 Corinthians 3 presuppose a presently operative covenant. In this passage Paul does not merely claim a title or announce a future hope. He describes a presently operating ministry — one that produces present effects: the Spirit gives life (3:6), there is present glory (3:8–9), and the veil is presently being removed (3:16–18). If the New Covenant is "not in effect," then what is the source of this present ministry of the Spirit that Paul contrasts with Moses' ministry? Cone offers no answer. Furthermore, if "minister of the new covenant" means merely "one who proclaims a future covenant," then Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and perhaps even Moses himself could be called "ministers of the new covenant," since they too pointed forward to it. But Paul draws a contrast between his ministry and that of Moses — and that contrast only works if both are operating within distinct and active covenantal regimes. If both were merely announcing a future reality, there would be no contrast of ministries to speak of.

The Separation Between Christ's Blood and the New Covenant

Cone argues that Christ's death served as a "ratification rather than a 'putting into effect' of the covenant," and that therefore "the church would be related to the Mediator, and not to the covenant." In his handling of 1 Corinthians 11:25, he insists that "nothing in 1 Corinthians 11:25 offers any indication either that the covenant is in effect today or that it is related to the church," and that "the emphasis is not on the covenant He ratified but is rather on His own death."

This separation between Christ's blood and the covenant it ratifies is artificial and does not arise from literal-grammatical-historical exegesis.

Jesus identifies His blood as the blood of the New Covenant. "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25). The syntax makes this an identification, not a loose association: touto to potērion hē kainē diathēkē estin en tō haimati mou — the cup is (estin) the new covenant. Hebrews 10:29 calls it "the blood of the covenant." To separate the blood from the covenant to which it belongs is a distinction that Christ Himself does not make. The blood is efficacious precisely because it is covenantal blood — blood that ratifies and inaugurates the New Covenant. To claim that one can be related to the blood but not to the covenant it seals is to divide what Scripture joins. If the blood of the New Covenant is the basis of the Church's forgiveness, justification, and access to God, then the Church is related to the New Covenant — not merely to the person of the Mediator abstracted from His covenantal work.

The words of institution resist Cone's dichotomy. Cone claims the Church is to "remember Him, not the covenant" in the Lord's Supper. But Jesus does not say, "This cup is my blood." He says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (1 Cor. 11:25). The covenant is not incidental to the ordinance — it is constitutive of it. One cannot remember the death of Christ as presented in the Supper without remembering the covenant that His death enacts.

Cone's Abrahamic analogy undermines his own position. He argues that "the ratification of the Abrahamic covenant...did not see any of its specific aspects specifically fulfilled until much later," and that therefore the New Covenant can likewise be "ratified but not fulfilled." But this analogy works against him. The Abrahamic Covenant was ratified in Genesis 15 and was in effect from that point forward — Abraham was already operating under its provisions, receiving its promises, and acting on its basis, even though its complete fulfillment lay in the future. Ratification is the moment a covenant comes into force. If Cone grants that the New Covenant has been ratified by Christ's blood, then by his own analogy it is in effect — even if its complete fulfillment with national Israel remains future. Cone could still reply that the Abrahamic Covenant was in effect for Abraham, its recipient, and that likewise the New Covenant is in effect for Israel, its recipient. But this only shifts the question from whether the covenant is operative to for whom its benefits presently extend — and it is precisely that question that Hebrews 10:15–22 answers, where the "therefore" of verse 19 derives the Church's present access from the New Covenant's promises.

The Source of the Church's Salvific Blessings

A central pillar of Cone's SCIO case is the claim that the Church's salvific blessings — forgiveness, justification, regeneration, the ministry of the Spirit — do not come from the New Covenant at all, but from the Abrahamic Covenant. His reasoning runs as follows: these blessings existed before the New Covenant was even announced; they can be accounted for by the seventh aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 12:3 — "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed"); and since the NT writers discuss regeneration and the Spirit without always naming the New Covenant, there is "no exegetical warrant for relating the new covenant to the church." Cone further contends that "the Abrahamic covenant promises blessing for those who are not Abraham's physical descendants," that "the ministry of the Holy Spirit to gentiles is promised outside of the context of the new covenant (cf. Joel 2:28ff and Acts 2)," and that "there is significant revelation regarding salvation of gentiles outside of the context of the new covenant."

The underlying logic is this: if a blessing can be found apart from the label "New Covenant," then it need not be tied to the New Covenant at all. But this reasoning confuses the announcement of a blessing with its ground of efficacy, and it attributes to the Abrahamic Covenant a content that only the New Covenant provides.

First, Genesis 12:3 does not promise the specific blessings Cone attributes to it. The seventh aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant promises that "in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." This is a broad promise of blessing, but it does not specify what that blessing consists of. The content of the blessing — forgiveness, regeneration, the indwelling Spirit, the law written on the heart — comes from the New Covenant texts (Jer. 31:31–34; Ezek. 36:25–27). Cone is effectively borrowing the content of the New Covenant and placing it under the label of the Abrahamic Covenant. If the Abrahamic Covenant were truly the source of regeneration and forgiveness for the Church, one would expect the Old Testament to develop these promises under the Abrahamic framework. It never does. These blessings are developed exclusively under the New Covenant framework. The Abrahamic Covenant announces that blessing will reach the nations; the New Covenant specifies what that blessing is and how it is accomplished. To collapse the two is to treat Genesis 12:3 as though it contains content that only later revelation provides.

Second, the New Testament explicitly ties retroactive salvific efficacy to the New Covenant, not to the Abrahamic. Hebrews argues that forgiveness of sins was not possible under the old covenant (Heb. 10:4, 11) and only became a reality through the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14–15; 10:17–18) — blood that is identified as the blood of the New Covenant. Hebrews 9:15 states that Christ's death redeems the transgressions committed under the first covenant. That is retroactive efficacy — and the author of Hebrews ties it to the New Covenant, not to the Abrahamic. Romans 3:25 confirms the same pattern: God "passed over" former sins in His patience, and that patience is grounded in the propitiation through Christ's blood — the same blood Jesus identifies as "the blood of the new covenant." Old Testament saints were indeed forgiven — but on what basis? The fact that people were saved before the New Covenant was announced does not mean they were saved apart from its efficacy. The NT teaches the opposite: the blood of the New Covenant is what gives retroactive validity to every act of divine forgiveness.

Third, Joel 2:28ff does not help Cone's case — it reinforces the opposite. Cone cites Joel 2:28 and Acts 2 as evidence that the Spirit's ministry to Gentiles is promised "outside the context of the new covenant." But Joel 2:28–32 describes the same eschatological complex of events — Spirit-outpouring, restoration, divine nearness — that Ezekiel 36 and Jeremiah 31 describe. In prophetic literature these form a single eschatological package. Ezekiel 36:26–27 explicitly connects the gift of the Spirit with the New Covenant promises: "I will put my Spirit within you." Peter's citation of Joel 2 in Acts 2 does not separate the Spirit from the New Covenant; it identifies the present experience of the Spirit as the beginning of what the prophets foretold. To cite Joel as proof that the Spirit operates outside the New Covenant is to artificially separate what the prophets themselves treat as a unified eschatological reality.

Fourth, Cone's argument from John's Gospel is an argument from silence. Cone observes that John discusses regeneration (Jn. 3) and the Spirit's ministry (Jn. 14–16) without mentioning the New Covenant, and concludes that these blessings are unrelated to it. But the new birth Jesus describes — being "born of the Spirit" — is precisely the content of the New Covenant promise in Ezekiel 36:26–27. John's silence about the label does not sever the connection that the content establishes.

Content, Not Labels, Determines Covenantal Reference

Cone insists that because the New Testament writers do not explicitly connect church-age blessings to the New Covenant by name, no such connection exists. He argues from the absence of the label "new covenant" in passages like Galatians 3 and from the absence of explicit expansion language in Hebrews 8.

This creates a double standard. The expression "New Covenant" does not appear in Ezekiel 36 — yet Cone himself cites that passage as a New Covenant text, and rightly so, because he recognizes it by its content, not by its label. The expression "new covenant" appears explicitly only in Jeremiah 31:31. It is the content that determines the reference, not the presence of the label.

The content of Galatians 3:13–14 — "the promise of the Spirit" as the blessing that comes to the Gentiles through Christ — is unmistakably New Covenant language (Ezek. 36:26–27), not Abrahamic language. If one requires the label "New Covenant" to appear in Galatians 3 before accepting that Paul is speaking of the New Covenant, then by the same standard one cannot cite Ezekiel 36 as a New Covenant passage either.

For hermeneutical consistency, Cone would need to find in the Old Testament where the promises of receiving the Spirit, purification of the heart, and the law written on the heart are nominally tied to the Abrahamic Covenant. If nominal presence is demanded in the New Testament to connect a passage to the New Covenant, that same demand applies to the Old Testament — and the Abrahamic Covenant never nominally promises these things.

The Church's Covenantal Proximity (Ephesians 2:11–3:6)

Cone addresses Ephesians 2:11–3:6 and argues that the Gentiles being "brought near" (2:13) does not indicate participation in the covenants. He writes that Paul "does not assert that all of these conditions are reversed at the time of salvation," and that the mystery of Ephesians 3:6 is simply that Gentiles are "fellow members of the body" — not co-partakers of Jewish covenants. He concludes: "Near is not inside or upon."

The five conditions and the comprehensive reversal. Paul lists five conditions of unsaved Gentiles in Ephesians 2:12: separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God. The remedy Paul announces in 2:13 — "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ" — is presented as a comprehensive reversal. If "brought near" reverses their status as those who were "far off," and their being "far off" is defined in part by being "strangers to the covenants of promise," then being "brought near" must include a change in their relationship to those covenants. To say that near is not in does not resolve the tension — it simply restates the question. If the Church has been brought near to the covenants of promise but has no participation in them whatsoever, then "brought near" is an empty designation. What does the proximity actually consist of?

The singular "promise" includes, not excludes, the covenants. Cone argues that Paul later speaks only of "the promise" in the singular (Eph. 3:6), not of the covenants themselves, and therefore Gentiles are brought near to Jews in one body but not into any covenantal participation. But Paul's argument in Ephesians 2–3 is a deliberate before-and-after contrast. Before Christ, Gentiles were strangers to the covenants of promise. After Christ, they are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus. The singular "promise" in 3:6 does not detach Gentiles from the plural "covenants" of 2:12 — it summarizes them. Paul's earlier expression is precisely "the covenants of promise." The singular draws the plural together; it does not exclude it.

The promise of the Spirit is a New Covenant promise. Cone suggests that the "promise" in Ephesians 3:6 refers only to the Spirit, eternal life, or Abrahamic blessing — categories he considers unrelated to the New Covenant. But the promise of the Spirit is a New Covenant promise (Ezek. 36:26–27). One cannot isolate the promise of the Spirit from the covenantal framework in which it is given.

The mystery is not the absence of connection but the surprise of it. Cone argues that because this participation is a mystery, it cannot be found in Jeremiah 31. On this point, oddly enough, he comes close to the right insight but draws the wrong conclusion. Precisely because Gentile participation is a mystery, we should not expect Jeremiah to spell it out. The mystery is not that Gentiles receive blessing — Genesis 12:3 already anticipated that. The mystery is the mode: co-incorporation into one body, sharing in Israel's covenantal promises through union with Israel's Messiah. That the nations would be blessed was always the plan; that they would be co-heirs, co-members, and co-partakers in Christ Jesus (Eph. 3:6) is the surprise.

The Pronoun Shift and the "Therefore" of Hebrews 10:19

Cone argues that in Hebrews 10:15–16 the distinction between "us" (v. 15) and "them/their" (v. 16) proves that the recipients of Hebrews are distinguished from the recipients of the New Covenant. He writes: "Us is not them. The pronouns maintain the distinction between the readers of Hebrews and those with whom the covenant is made and to whom it is fulfilled." He further contends that "none of the sixteen appearances of diatheke show any exegetical connection whatsoever to the church," and that the purpose of Hebrews is simply to extol the superiority of Christ — not to apply the New Covenant to the church.

This is among the clearest and most decisive texts in the entire discussion, because it shows exactly the transition that Cone's position denies.

Observe the sequence carefully. In verse 15, the Holy Spirit "bears witness to us" (hēmin — dative, "to us"). In verses 16–17, the author quotes Jeremiah 31 — the covenant made with "them" (Israel): "This is the covenant that I will make with them... and their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more." The author introduces the Jeremiah quotation by saying the Spirit bears witness of this to us — not "about them," not "for the future," but to us, the present readers of the letter.

Then comes the conclusion. Verse 18: "Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin." Verse 19: "Therefore (oun), brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus..." Verse 20: "...by the new and living way that he opened for us..." Verse 22: "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience..."

The oun ("therefore") in verse 19 is the decisive piece. It directly connects the promises of the New Covenant in verses 16–17 to the present benefits for "us" in verses 19–22. The author's logical chain is: (1) The New Covenant promises forgiveness of sins (vv. 16–17, quoting Jeremiah 31). (2) Where there is such forgiveness, there is no longer any offering for sin (v. 18). (3) Therefore (oun) — we have access to the Holy of Holies (v. 19). (4) Let us draw near — a present exhortation, to us (v. 22).

Note what the author does not say. He does not say: "Therefore, through Christ's priesthood independently of the New Covenant, we have access." He says: the New Covenant promises forgiveness → therefore, we have access. The present benefits are derived from the promises of the New Covenant, not from another source. The "therefore" does not permit the separation Cone proposes. If the New Covenant is unrelated to the readers, the inferential chain is broken and the "therefore" has no antecedent.

And observe something even more remarkable: the covenant is made with "them" (v. 16, quoting Jeremiah), but the benefits are applied to "us" (vv. 15, 19–22). The author of Hebrews makes exactly the transition that Cone's position says cannot happen now: he takes the promises of the New Covenant made to Israel and applies them to the present Christian community as a current reality, not a future one. The pronoun shift reflects the fact that the author is quoting an Old Testament text addressed to Israel; it does not mean he considers the covenant's benefits inapplicable to his audience. On the contrary, the "therefore" of verse 19 seals the application.

Christ's Priesthood Cannot Operate in a Covenantal Vacuum

The central problem with Cone's position becomes apparent here: it attempts to operate Christ's priesthood in a covenantal vacuum — as if Christ could be high priest according to the order of Melchizedek, exercise a heavenly ministry, offer an efficacious sacrifice, and apply real benefits to the Church, all without the covenant that grounds, defines, and authorizes that ministry being in effect. But Hebrews binds priesthood and covenant together inseparably. The priesthood changed, and therefore the law necessarily changed (7:12). Christ now has a more excellent ministry as mediator of a better covenant (8:6) — the superiority of the ministry is defined by the superiority of the covenant. The death of the testator puts the covenant into effect (9:16–17) — and Christ has already died. The Spirit bears witness to us of the New Covenant promises (10:15), and therefore we have present access (10:19–22).

There is no way to access the benefits of Christ's priesthood without the covenant that sustains it. They are two sides of the same coin. Cone himself acknowledges that "inseparable from His role as Mediator of the covenant He is a priest in the order of Melchizedek," yet he attempts to give the Church the benefits of the priesthood while denying it any relationship to the covenant. Hebrews does not permit this separation. The "therefore" of 10:19 seals the unity of priesthood, covenant, and present application to the Church.

The Church's Participation Does Not Erase Israel

One of Cone's recurring concerns is that any participation language will blur the distinction between Israel and the Church. But this only follows if participation means replacement, redefinition, or exhaustion. It need mean none of those things.

Romans 11 provides a concrete picture of participation without replacement. The Gentiles are grafted into the olive tree. To be grafted in is not to stand outside the tree receiving fruit tossed over a wall — it is to be inserted into the organism and to share in the sap and nourishment. Yet the grafted branches do not replace the root; they depend on it (Rom. 11:18). Cone's framework requires that Gentile believers are organically connected to the tree yet have no share in the covenantal life that flows through it. That is a distinction without a difference.

The better formulation is simpler: the New Covenant is made with Israel, will be fulfilled with Israel, and is already the source of present blessings enjoyed by the Church through Christ. The Church does not become Israel. The Church does not fulfill the covenant in Israel's place. The Church does not exhaust the covenant's promises. But neither is the Church unrelated to the covenant whose Mediator she already knows, whose blood she proclaims, and whose blessings she already experiences.

That is not a compromise position. It is the harmonization of all the data.

Conclusion: Participation Without Displacement

None of the above arguments entail that the Church is the original covenant partner — Israel is, and the covenants will find their complete fulfillment with Israel. Nor does this mean the Church has become the new referent or the true covenant partner of Jeremiah 31. Jeremiah 31 continues to mean what it has always meant. What it does mean is that now, through Christ, the Church is a co-heir and co-participant in the covenants of promise (Eph. 3:6). The Church participates without displacing.

Cone frames the issue as a binary: either the Church is entirely unrelated to the New Covenant, or one must abandon literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutics. But this is a false dilemma. The New Testament itself — read by its own literal-grammatical-historical meaning — presents the Church as participating in New Covenant realities through union with the Mediator who ratified it.

Ironically, it is Cone's position that requires the greater hermeneutical strain. To maintain the SCIO view, one must: redefine diakonos to mean something it never means in the NT; separate Christ's blood from the covenant it seals, against Christ's own words of institution; attribute to the Abrahamic Covenant blessings that the OT develops exclusively under the New Covenant framework; demand nominal presence of "New Covenant" in NT texts while accepting its absence in OT texts like Ezekiel 36; render "brought near to the covenants of promise" an empty designation; and break the inferential chain of Hebrews 10:15–22, where the "therefore" of verse 19 derives present access from New Covenant promises. Each of these moves, taken individually, is questionable. Taken together, they represent a systematic departure from the text in order to preserve a theological commitment — the very thing Cone accuses others of doing.

The irony is striking: in trying to defend Israel's place, SCIO narrows the very purpose for which Israel was chosen. Israel was never meant to be a barrier that seals blessing within itself, but a channel through which blessing flows outward to the nations — a flow that reaches its climax in the Messiah.

Christopher Cone is right to resist any theology that dissolves Israel into the Church. He is right that the New Covenant remains Israel's covenant and that its full fulfillment is still future. But when he insists that the Church has no covenantal participation whatsoever, he overcorrects and creates a new imbalance.

The biblical picture is richer than Cone's SCIO framework allows. The New Covenant is not a Church covenant. It is not a second covenant. It is not exhausted in the present age. But neither is it sealed off from the Church as if the Church could know the Mediator while remaining untouched by the covenant He mediates.

The better reading preserves both truths at once: the New Covenant belongs to Israel in its original promise and future fulfillment, and the Church already shares in its blessings through the mystery now revealed in Christ. That is not inconsistency. It is the full biblical picture.

Related Articles

• Hebrews Does Not Separate the Mediator from the Covenant — Extended argumentation on Hebrews 7–10 and whether Christ's present mediation can be separated from the New Covenant itself.
• Darby's New Covenant View Has Been Distorted — Whether Darby can really be cited as a representative of a strict Israel-only view.
• God's Holistic Kingdom and Israel's Mediatorial Role in Dispensationalism — How the mediatorial logic — Israel chosen for the nations, not instead of them — extends to the Church's relation to the Kingdom and covenant blessings.
• The New Covenant and the Beneficiaries Analogy — A simple analogy built around the distinction between contracting parties and intended beneficiaries.