Sunday Sermons
The New Covenant
The New Covenant
Jeremiah 31:31-34 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them, "declares the LORD. "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. "And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."
“A crucial question is the identity of the beneficiaries of the new covenant. Who fulfills it? Has it been fulfilled?” (Hebrews, Kent, p. 155). In the denominational world there are a number of false ideas about the new covenant that we want to explore in this lesson.
The New Covenant is only for the Nation of Israel
This is one of several views suggested by various dispensational premillennialists. It is argued that the above passage specifies “Israel” and “Judah” and says nothing about other nations. J. N. Darby argued that Christians enjoy all the essential privileges of the new covenant, but only in spirit and not according to the letter of the law. It is also argued that the new covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium.
Yet the Old Testament also promised that the Messianic age (the time of the New Covenant), would include blessings for all the nations (Isaiah 2:2 “All nations will stream to it”; 2:3 “Many peoples will come and say”; 11:10 “Then it will come about in that day that the nations will resort to the root of Jesse”). In fact, in Romans 15 Paul cites a number of Old Testament passages to prove that God in the Old Testament had indeed included the Gentiles in His promises of salvation which had been given to the patriarchs (Romans 15:8-12). We then must reject the idea that God’s offer of salvation during the Messianic age did not specify the Gentiles, for the prophets did mention the Gentiles (Romans 9:23-26 “I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people’”; 10:19-20).
The terms House of Israel and House of Judah in Jeremiah 31:31 infer that God is once again going to reunite what had become two nations, into one nation again. This would be done in Jesus Christ, and Paul notes that this one nation would include the Gentiles as well (Ephesians 2:13-18). Note the following concerning this last passage: 1. This one body could only be formed after the Law of Moses was removed “Abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances”, and this is exactly what Jeremiah 31:32 taught, “not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt”. 2. Specific promises in the Old Testament had foretold of the Gentiles being part of this body as well, “And He came and preached peace to you who were far away, and peace to those who were near” (Ephesians 2:17). 3. Gentile believers are equal with Jewish believers in Christ, for both needed to be reconciled (2:16), both needed access to the Father (2:18), and those both groups are fellow citizens (2:19).
The idea that the new covenant is somehow operational now but will not be formally established until the millennium, runs contrary to the teaching in the above passage, as well as that which is taught in Hebrews 8:6-13. In this passage Jesus is pictured as presently being the mediator of a better covenant that has been enacted on better promises (8:6). The new covenant has been formally established from the fact that the first covenant has been formally removed (8:13). The new covenant was established at His death (9:15-16 “For where a covenant is there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it”). The writer says that even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood (9:18), which necessarily infers that the new covenant was inaugurated at the death of Jesus. Even verse 17 points out that a covenant or testament is “valid” when a man dies. In Hebrews chapter 10 we learn that Jesus removed the first covenant and established the second or new covenant at His first coming, not His second coming (Hebrews 10:5,9). The Holy Spirit also inherently links the sacrifice of Jesus Christ which brought the forgiveness of sins with the new covenant that had specifically promised such forgiveness(Hebrews 10:14-18). To argue that the new covenant has not been officially established is to argue that presently there is no true forgiveness of sins available for mankind.
“There are two new covenants, one with Israel and one with the New Testament Church”
This is the position taken by Charles C. Ryrie in the book, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. The reason for this position is that if the Bible teaches that the Church in the New Testament takes the place of the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, that is being God’s people (1 Peter 2:5-9), then Premillennialism completely crumbles, for that theory rests upon the assumption that the physical nation of Israel always remains in God’s plan and can never forfeit their place as God’s chosen people and heirs to the land of Canaan. Therefore, to avoid the clear teaching that the church is the household of God today (1 Timothy 3:15) itincludes all believers both Jewish and Gentile (Ephesians 2:13ff), that its members are true children of Abraham (Galatians 3:26-29), and that it is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), and that Christianity is the fulfillment of the new covenant (Hebrews 8:6), Premillennialists are forced to argue that there are two new covenants. In fact Ryrie admits, “If the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises as contained in the new covenant or anywhere in Scripture, then premillennialism is weakened” (p. 118). The Church presently fulfills everything that Jeremiah prophesied about the new covenant:
· The church is called “Israel” in the New Testament (Galatians 6:15-16).
· The church is called a “nation”, and what was said about Israel in the Old Testament is said about the church in the New Testament (1 Peter 2:9-10).
· Jewish believers in Christ, Christians are called “the twelve tribes” (James 1:1).
· The church is the sum total of God’s people in the New Testament (Acts 2:47).
· Christians are Abraham’s offspring and inherit the promise made to him (Galatians 3:26-29).
· God’s laws are presently written upon the minds and hearts of Christians (Hebrews 8:10; 2 Corinthians 3:1-3).
· Christians are presently the people of God (1 Peter 2:9-10).
· Those who become Christians already know about God even before they are baptized (Hebrews 8:11; Acts 8:35).
· The New Testament church is the relationship in which the forgiveness of sins is enjoyed (Hebrews 8:12). If the blood of Christ was shed for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:29), and if the church is purchased with that blood (Acts 20:28),then those added to the church upon their baptism (Acts 2:41,46) are forgiven of their sins. “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins” (Colossians 1:13-14).
The Lord’s Supper
“For this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:28); “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). The very fact that the Lord’s Supper was observed by congregations in the first century (Acts 2:42; 1 Corinthians 11:23ff) is proof that the apostles understood that the covenant promised by Jeremiah that included the forgiveness of sins had been established and was not something future. Notice the term “many” in the above passage. The very fact that Jesus commanded the apostles to preach to the entire creation (Mark 16:15), which included both Jews and Gentiles and proclaim to them the conditions for the forgiveness of sins is another proof that the new covenant was in force following His resurrection and that this covenant did not exclusively belong to Israel.
Premillennial Claims
· The physical nation of Israel must first be regathered and restored to the land of Palestine and then they will experience the blessings of the new covenant in the land. Her complete restoration is demanded by the new covenant.
Where does Jeremiah 31:31-34 teach that? Actually, the promise of the land, the conditions for keeping the land of Canaan, and the conditions for coming back to the land after their unfaithfulness were associated with the Mosaic covenantDeuteronomy 28-30) and God said that the new covenant would not be like that covenant.
· The Temple being rebuilt in Jerusalem is part of the new covenant.
Where does Jeremiah 31:31-34 say anything like that? In fact, the tabernacle (and the temple that replaced it) is specifically mentioned as being part of the first covenant, a covenant that is now obsolete (Hebrews 8:13-9:4). The Holy Spirit says that the priests who served in the tabernacle and the temple were only serving in a copy and shadow of heavenly realities (Hebrews 8:5). In fact, the writer argues that while the tabernacle/temple was still standing as valid institutions, the Holy Spirit was plainly teaching that the way into heaven had not yet been fully disclosed (9:8). Hebrews chapters 8 and 9 make it perfectly clear that the tabernacle/temple belonged to the first covenant (9:1).
· The New Covenant in the Hebrew letter is not identical with the New Covenant promised by Jeremiah.
“The passage states that a ‘better covenant’ than the Mosaic covenant has been introduced (Hebrews 8:6), but it does not state here or anywhere that this better covenant is identical to the ‘new covenant with the house of Israel’ or that the new covenant with Israel has been introduced. The argument of the passage does not hinge on this point at all, but rather on whether the Old Testament in any way anticipated an end to the Mosaic covenant. This the Old Testament does, but it does not follow that the new covenant of the Old Testament is identical with the better covenant of Hebrews. There is no appeal at all to the content of the new covenant with Israel as being identical with the better covenant of which Hebrews speaks” (Ryrie pp. 120-121). Yet the Holy Spirit does directly link the better covenant of Hebrews with the new covenant promised by Jeremiah (8:6-7). The “new” covenant is also clearly the covenant that follows the end of the first covenant (8:13), and this new covenant was immediately established when the first covenant was removed (10:9).
Mark Dunagan/Beaverton Church of Christ/503-644-9017
www.beavertonchurchofchrist.net/mdunagan@easystreet.com
