Evaluating Biblical Covenantalism and New Covenant Theology
Question
Are you familiar with Paul Henebury who goes by Dr. Reluctant and his system called biblical covenantalism? What are your thoughts on his teaching?
Originally published in Vol. 1, Number 9, September 2026, Ask The Theologian Journal.
Answer
I am somewhat familiar with Paul Henebury (“Dr. Reluctant”) and his proposal of “biblical covenantalism.” My knowledge is broad rather than detailed, but sufficient to outline where I agree and where I differ.
Biblical covenantalism is not traditional Reformed covenant theology. It is an attempt to rebuild a kind of dispensational system around the explicit biblical covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic/priestly, Davidic, New) rather than around the unstated theological covenants (works, grace, redemption) of classic covenant theology. In that, it seeks to take the text of Scripture more seriously and literally.
Areas of Agreement
From what I understand, I appreciate several elements of Henebury’s approach:
He focuses on covenants that are actually stated in Scripture, not speculative covenants.
He employs a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic, as dispensationalists do.
He affirms a future for national, ethnic Israel.
He recognizes that the church was a mystery in some sense and not simply the continuation of Israel.
He insists that God’s covenants bind Him to fulfill His oaths as spoken, which fits with a literal interpretation and a future fulfillment of Israel’s covenants.
These are important and commendable emphases, and much of his five-sentence summary of biblical covenantalism is language that many dispensationalists could affirm.
The Central Point of Disagreement
The core difference lies in how he relates the church to the New Covenant and to the broader covenant structure.
Henebury, as I understand him, effectively:
Places the church under the New Covenant.
Sees Acts 2 as the point at which the “mystery” reality surfaces or is substantially revealed.
Treats the development of the church as a kind of morphing from Israel’s covenant program, yet still reserves some future fulfillment of Israel’s covenants.
This framework blurs the sharp distinction between Israel’s covenants and the mystery body of Christ. If you start the mystery church in Acts 2 and place it under the New Covenant, you inevitably end up with a form of replacement theology, even if you deny the label. You have, in practice, placed the present church inside an Israelitish covenant that Jeremiah explicitly assigns to “the house of Israel, and … the house of Judah” Jer 31:31.
By contrast, I hold that:
The New Covenant is promised to Israel and Judah, not to the mystery body.
The Abrahamic, Davidic, and New Covenants belong to Israel’s prophetic program and will be fulfilled literally for that nation.
The body of Christ is a “new man,” a mystery hidden in God and not revealed in any of the covenants.
Therefore, I do not believe the church today is under any covenant. We are under a mystery administration revealed uniquely to Paul, not under the covenants promised to Israel.
On His Five Foundational Points
Henebury summarizes biblical covenantalism in five points (as he has written). Briefly:
Covenants are defined by their oaths. I agree that a covenant’s meaning is anchored in its explicit oath language.
God is bound by His covenants. Unilaterally sworn divine oaths must come to pass precisely as spoken. Again, that is standard literal hermeneutics and fully compatible with dispensationalism.
Covenants address major aspects of God’s “creation project,” and nothing else in Scripture can contradict them. Insofar as this affirms that later revelation does not overturn explicit covenant promises, I agree. The New Covenant to Israel, for example, cannot be “re-signified” so as to erase its national, Israelitish character.
Covenants are primarily hermeneutical. He uses covenants as his main lens for structuring the Bible’s storyline. I agree that covenants are key to understanding prophetic Scripture, but I insist there is also a mystery program not defined by those covenants.
The major covenants (Noahic, Abrahamic, priestly/Mosaic, Davidic) are unconditional and implemented on the basis of Christ’s mission as the New Covenant Lamb. Here is the pivotal issue: he anchors the realization of all these covenants in Christ as the New Covenant Lamb and then relates that directly to the church’s identity. This leads naturally to placing the church under the New Covenant and thus into Israel’s covenantal orbit.
The wording of these points is broad enough that many differing traditions—Catholic, Presbyterian, free grace dispensational, and others—could affirm them while meaning different things by them. The key disagreement is not the statements themselves, but what is built upon them, especially regarding the New Covenant and the timing and nature of the mystery.
Covenants and the Mystery
My concern is this: if the biblical covenants are made the controlling framework for all interpretation, the uniqueness of the mystery revealed to Paul is diminished or lost. That mystery, by definition, was “hid in God” and “not made known” in former ages. It is not an extension of, or participant in, Israel’s covenants.
If you insist that everything must fit under the covenants, you must, sooner or later, put the church into one of them—almost always the New Covenant. At that point, you have effectively skipped over the mystery character of the body of Christ and absorbed the church into Israel’s covenantal structure.
So, I would say:
Build your understanding of prophecy, Israel, kingdom, land, and future restoration around the covenants.
But keep the mystery program distinct, recognizing that it is not grounded in, or carried by, any of the biblical covenants.
That is where I part ways with biblical covenantalism as Henebury presents it.
Overall Assessment
Henebury is a dispensational premillennialist and a “reluctant dispensationalist” by his own description. He seeks to honor the text of the covenants and uphold a future for Israel while also integrating the church into a Christ-centered covenantal framework. I appreciate much in his method and many of his stated commitments.
However, by placing the church under the New Covenant and effectively rooting the present age in the covenant structure rather than in the mystery, his system, in my view, does not maintain a sufficiently sharp Israel–church distinction and tends to undercut right division at crucial points.
On those grounds, I cannot adopt biblical covenantalism as my framework, even while acknowledging areas of common ground and appreciating his desire to read the covenants literally.