THE NEW COVENANT IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS

Introduction

The concept of the New Covenant has been referenced and defined many times over by scholars and theologians. Its contents have been expounded upon by pastors and hoped on by Christians around the world. However, there have been some who have misconstrued the meaning of the New Covenant and have taken it out of its proper context. This author seeks to unfold a biblical view and understanding of the New Covenant, its development in both the Old and New Testaments, as well as addressing some of the critical issues surrounding its fulfillment. It is with these goals in mind that one should have a better understanding of the New Covenant and how it applies to life today.

What is the New Covenant?

The “New Covenant” can be found in the book of Jeremiah 31:31-34. The New Covenant is given as a breath of fresh air to the constant prophecies of Israel’s destruction due to their habitual disobedience and unfaithfulness (Jer. 7:30-34; 11:1-23). In defining the “New Covenant,” it seems that there have been various things implied, or added to that are not a part of Jer. 31:31-34. One definition is stated as:

The new agreement God has made with mankind, based on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The concept of a new covenant originated with the promise of the prophet Jeremiah that God would accomplish for His people what the old covenant had failed to do (Jer. 31:31–34). Under this new covenant, God would write His Law on human hearts. This promised action suggested a new level of obedience, a new knowledge of the Lord, and a new forgiveness of sin.^[1]

In order to accept this definition, one would have to understand the Mosaic Covenant (Jer. 31:32) as being applied to all of human existence and not to Israel only (Ex. 20:2, 22; 24:1, 7, 9, 11, 17; 25:2). This definition seems to present problems in that all of mankind is not listed as one of the parties of which this covenant was made, neither is there a “new level of obedience” that would need to be in place on the part of mankind because of the unconditional nature of the covenant, and the specific recipients of which the New Covenant is addressed. While the “new covenant” as defined in the New Testament will be addressed, the references are made to the Jeremiah passage as a basis, and must be dealt with accordingly.

Wayne Grudem defines the new covenant as,

The administration of the covenant of grace established after the death and resurrection of Christ, a covenant in which Christ’s atoning death covers all of the believer’s sins and the Holy Spirit empowers the believer to fulfill the righteous demands of the law.[2]

Grudem equates the new covenant with the covenant of grace. Even though there is no mention concerning the Holy Spirit, or “believers” in Jer. 31:31-34, the author applies the covenant to them. In describing this covenant, Grudem states that the parties involved are “God and the people whom he will redeem.”[3] The condition for “participation in the covenant is faith in the work of Christ as redeemer (Rom. 1:17; 5:1; et al.).”[4] This becomes a confusing statement considering that Abraham “believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; also Gal. 3:7-9) and this occurred years before the institution of the law (Ex. 20). Also, Grudem’s assertion that the Holy Spirit empowers a believer to fulfill the righteous demands of the law seems to be a very unbiblical statement when verses like Rom. 3:20, 10:4, and Gal. 3:18 (to name a few) are considered. If the law is fulfilled by the death of Christ, how can a believer be expected to do anything more? Would this not nullify faith alone in Christ alone?

Another definition has been stated as:

The term given by Jeremiah to a new arrangement between God and human beings in which the law would be written in their hearts rather than on tablets of stone (Jer. 31:31-33). It is also an alternate translation of the Greek words (kainē diathēkē) that are normally translated ‘New Testament.’ Christians see in Christ the beginning of the new covenant between God and human beings of which Jeremiah spoke.^[5]

Again, the “house of Judah” and the “house of Israel” are specific phrases that have been glazed over in favor of the assumption that the New Covenant is all-inclusive regarding mankind. This seems to be a hermeneutical error that has been allowed and even accepted on a scholarly level. In addressing this problem, Olander writes,

When any theological system denies or is not consistent with God’s biblical covenants as to their literal meaning and outworking, then they also will confuse God’s biblically covenanted program for the destiny of men and Israel, especially relating to the kingdom. If God did not really mean what He said in the biblical covenants, that is if He used types or allegories, how is anyone to understand anything in the Word of God?[6]

It seems that a general belief and acceptance that the New Testament Christian is a part of the nation of Israel has allowed for such an understanding of this covenant. However, the contents of Jer. 31:31-34 do not seem to allow for such a conclusion. By examining the specific contents of the text, one may be able to come to a better and biblically honest conclusion regarding the nature of the New Covenant.

Walking Through the Contents

In examining the contents of the covenant itself, one will find that at a future time, the Lord will make a covenant “with the house of Israel and the house of Judah”[7] (Jer. 31:31). The Lord makes a great distinction between this “new covenant” and the covenant that was made with the children of Israel during the Exodus (31:32). The Lord makes mention that this old covenant (known as the Mosaic Covenant) was broken by the children of Israel, even though God had been like a “husband” to Israel, signifying that it was conditional in nature (31:32). This is important due to the continuing description of the new covenant as stating that God will be the one who brings all of the new promises to pass, signifying the unconditional nature of this new covenant (31:33-34). God speaks of writing His law on the hearts of the house of Israel, being their God and they being His people, no longer having a need to teach others to “know the Lord” because all will know Him, and He will “forgive their iniquity” and “remember their sin no more” (31:33-34).

Before proceeding, some important, defining observations must be made regarding this covenant. First, the covenant has a specific audience of whom it is tailored to. Not only is God speaking to Judah (31:1; 23-24; 27) and Israel (31:1; 27), but He names the “house of Israel” twice (31:31, 33) and the “house of Judah” once (31:31) within the prophecy itself. Second, there is a clear distinction made in this new covenant that it will not be upon the people of Israel to uphold it, as seen in the contrast given with the previous (Mosaic) covenant (31:32). Instead, this new covenant would be the responsibility of God alone. This is blatantly obvious from the seven “I will” statements made in 31:31-34. Lastly, there is something eternal about the fulfillment of this covenant. In verse 34, it is stated that there will be no need for someone to teach others about God because “they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” God goes on to state that He will “forgive their (Israel’s) iniquity” and “remember their (Israel’s) sin no more.” For there to be no need of teaching, and no need of exhortation for people to come to the knowledge of God, must surely signify an eternal fulfillment, rather than a present day reality. Each of these sections has become a great point of contention within evangelicalism and will be dealt with later in this paper.

The “New Covenant” in the New Testament

In the definitions of the “New Covenant” that have been considered, there has been a redemptive understanding that has caused some to conclude that Jesus’ atoning work for sins is the work that has instituted the “New Covenant” into present being and therefore the new covenant is presently in effect. While frequent mention is made regarding the death and resurrection of Christ being a “new covenant,” and even Jesus’ mentioning during the Last Supper that the wine is a symbol of the “covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:28), there is not a mention of the fulfillment of the specifics that are laid out in Jer. 31:31-34. In order to attribute the new covenant to having fulfillment in the death of Christ, one would need to disregard the specifics of the covenant (law written on hearts, no need to teach others, all will know the Lord), the recipients of the covenant (Israel and Judah), and allegorize the teachings of the New Testament (personal fulfillment of the law despite Christ’s work- Rom. 10:4). In fact, in doing a study upon the phrase “new covenant” in the New Testament, there are seven mentions that are given: one of them in Luke 22:20 (referring to the shedding of Christ’s blood and of which some manuscripts have omitted this verse all together), 1 Cor. 11:25 (which uses the phrase specifically referring to the blood that was shed without regard to Jer. 31:31-34), 2 Cor. 3:6 (where Paul speaks of being a minister of a new covenant without mentioning Jer. 31:31-34), and four mentions in Hebrews (all of which speak of Jer. 31:31-34 or are within the context of this passage, as it is stated again in Heb. 8:8-12). This may seem to make for a confusing conclusion regarding the use of the phrase “new covenant” in the New Testament, but looking to the book of Hebrews will provide for a greater understanding.

The “New Covenant” in the Epistle to the Hebrews

The book of Hebrews is written to Judaic Christians who were under pressure to revert back to Judaism. The writer of Hebrews brings constant exhortation to the recipients in proclaiming that Christ is better than any symbol or tradition that Judaism would have to offer because He is all sufficient. After proclaiming the superiority of the heavenly priesthood of which Christ belongs to (Heb. 7:1-8:4), the writer of Hebrews speaks of Christ being the mediator of a better covenant compared to the Mosaic covenant (8:5-7). The writer makes it clear that the former (Mosaic) covenant was not faultless and a new covenant was needed (8:7). It is important to understand that the reason for the “faulty” nature of the Mosaic Covenant was not due to the covenant itself, but to the inability for humans to keep it due to the sinful nature of the flesh (Rom. 3:20). In finding fault with “them,” the author of Hebrews quotes Jer. 31:31-34 in Heb. 8:8-12. The summary statement in 8:13 says, “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” The new covenant described here will supersede the Mosaic covenant.

Moving forward in the book of Hebrews, the writer is speaking of the death of Christ as “securing an eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12) and being the “mediator of a new covenant” (9:15, also in Heb. 12:24). It becomes obvious from this section that the new covenant was “ratified through the Messiah’s sacrifice.”[8] Ger explains:

The Mosaic covenant, called here “the first covenant,” was not designed to provide apolutrosin, “redemption,” as was the new covenant. Whereas the new covenant’s raison d’itre was the definitive removal of sin (Jer. 31:34, Heb. 8:12), the Mosaic covenant’s limitations only allowed for the covering of sin.[9]

In concluding that the death of Christ has ratified the new covenant, by no means should one rush forward and see this as a fulfillment. The specifics of the new covenant still raise issue as not having a literal fulfillment. Walvoord explains:

Though Hebrews 8:7–12 refers to Jeremiah’s covenant (Jer. 31:31–34), the Book of Hebrews does not claim that the New Covenant is being fulfilled today in its entirety, as amillenarians suggest. The facts are that many details of the covenant are not being fulfilled today: everyone does not know the Lord today; there is no widespread spiritual revival; Israel has not reclaimed all the land God promised her; and God’s laws are not in the hearts of Israel. The writer of Hebrews quoted Jeremiah 31:31–34 simply to show that the Mosaic Covenant had been abolished, and something better will come.^[10]

It does not seem like a difficult matter to grasp regarding the outworking of this new covenant. The promises of God are either literal and should be taken at face value, or they are up in the air and any “reasonable” guess will suffice. This latter method allows for violence to be done to the text and disregards the specifics in hopes of a general placement.

How Should Believers Interpret the New Covenant?

So, where does this leave the believer who is working through these passages and scratching his or her head? A good rule of thumb has always been that if the text makes sense, why would one seek another sense? One who would hold to a Covenant position would understand the church to be the eventual fulfillment of the promises made to Israel, while the Dispensationalist would disagree, choosing to keep the church and Israel separate. In order to understand the church as being the means of fulfillment for promises made to Israel, one would have to resort to the very allegorical method that has caused such confusion in the definitions that have been observed. This seems to be the case when any author (Covenant or Dispensational) has a theological axe to grind. By taking the text in a plain reading, it seems that the Dispensational hermeneutic will suffice in providing a reasonable conclusion. Arnold Fruchtenbaum notes that,

In Dispensationalism it is possible to believe in only one New Covenant, already ratified by the blood of the Messiah with the spiritual blessings available to Jewish and Gentile believers today, but with the national, material, and spiritual blessings for Israel still awaiting a future fulfillment. As with the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants, not all provisions of each covenant go immediately into effect upon ratification.[11]

This seems to be a plausible argument when one takes into consideration passages like Romans 11:25-27 which shows that Israel is presently in a state of “partial hardening.” However, “all Israel will be saved,” and this is demonstrated from a quotation from Isaiah which explains that “the Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins” (Rom. 11:26-27, emphasis mine). It seems evident from the language implied that the “covenant” and the taking “away their sins” are the same as the promises mentioned in Jer. 31:34. By removing the ungodliness from Jacob (Israel), the Deliverer (Christ) will ensure that all of Israel will be saved. Again, by taking the Scriptures for what they say and working accordingly, there is much less confusion and more of a complete understanding regarding the meaning of the text.

The Points of Contention

The points of contention that may be found in Jer. 31:31-34 are as follows: the recipients of the prophecy (v.31), the contrast between the Mosaic and the New covenants (v.32), and the specifics mentioned in verse 34 regarding the writing of the law on the hearts of the people, there being no need to teach others to know the Lord, and the removal of sin. Each point must be dealt with in order to show a sufficient harmony between the understanding of the Scriptures as a unit and how one should interpret them in light of this understanding. It is only with this type of understanding that one will be able to have a confident argument in interpreting Jer. 31:31-34.

The Church and Israel

The difference between the church and Israel is most notable in the Scriptures and the distinctions become quite clear the longer one reads. It can be seen during the ministry of Jesus when He commanded His disciples to “go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 10:5-6). It is obvious here that the Gentiles and the Samaritans (half-breeds) are seen as separate in Jesus’ plan and that a special call was being issued to the Jews: that of the “kingdom of heaven being at hand” (v.7). In Acts 2, there is a blatant beginning of a new entity that is seen as separate from Israel because of its mention of converts on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem (Acts 2:36-41). It would seem absurd for such a call to repentance to land these converts right back into the midst of Judaism. Again, a distinction can be seen by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 10:32 is saying, “Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.” It is obvious here that the distinction between the Greeks (Gentiles), Jews (Israel), and the church are necessary. By taking these distinctions at face value, one aligns themselves with Dispensational hermeneutics. Ryrie writes,

The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealings with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.^[12]

While labels may throw the average bible student, the plain reading of the text, or the “historical-grammatical” means of interpretation is what is employed by the Dispensationalist in reading the Scriptures. This allows for consistency in keeping the church and Israel separate.

Conditional vs. Unconditional

The nature of the unconditional covenant in Scripture is one that is resting upon God for its accomplishment. This unconditional nature can be seen most notably in the covenant that is made with Abram in Genesis 15 with God passing through the sacrifices laid out by Abram (Gen. 15:17) and the promise of the land being laid contingent on the Lord’s faithfulness alone (v. 18-21). (This land promise (v.18) is still awaiting fulfillment, seeing that the boundary markers mentioned have never been accomplished in Israel’s lifetime.) The unconditional nature of this covenant is similar to that made in Jer. 31:33-34 where it can been seen that God repeats “I will” five time signifying that the result rest upon His faithfulness and not upon the performance of Israel.

The essence of the conditional covenant is seen as an agreement between God and the children of Israel as found in the giving of the Law (Ex. 20:1-23:33). In Exodus 24:3, 7, the children of Israel agree to uphold their end of the covenant that they had received by acts of obedience. In their failure (Jer. 11:10; Ezek. 44:7), God was no longer obligated to protect Israel and ensure her safety. This demonstrates the contrast mentioned in Jer. 31:32 regarding the conditional nature of the Mosaic covenant as opposed to this new covenant being made.

The Specifics of Jeremiah 31:34

The natural sense of interpreting Jer. 31:31-34 would be to take into account the recipients, the contrasts, and the specifics as noted earlier. This would allow for the reader to understand how and where the new covenant fits within the grand scheme of God’s plan. This plain and literal approach seems to yield the greatest benefits in one’s Bible study. For instance, in looking at Jer. 31:31-34, Dr. Joseph C. Dillow remarks that,

It is obvious that v.34 is in no way fulfilled at the present time. Certainly it is not true that all know the Lord and that there is no longer a need for personal evangelism. The New Covenant was certainly inaugurated at the cross, and we enter in to some of its benefits at the time we believe. But its final fulfillment has not yet taken place and indeed will not until the coming kingdom and the eternal state. Similarly, the ultimate writing of His law upon our hearts and minds will be characteristic of the believer when he has achieved the goal of his justification, glorification. Complete sanctification comes when we receive our resurrection body and not before.[13]

It is precisely this issue that is at the forefront of the new covenant. While Christ’s death and resurrection may ratify the covenant, it in no way merits automatic fulfillment. This allows for the contention found in dealing with the specifics (Jer. 31:34) to be resolved without committing biblical fraud. To understand this passage as written is to conclude something of a national revival on the part of the house of Israel. Without a need to teach or evangelize, because “they shall all know me” (v.34), this seems to have an eternal fulfillment due to the all-enlightening nature of these specifics. While it would be easy to disregard these as non-essentials, the text deals with great issues, particularly that of forgiveness of sin and a national (Israel) understanding of God.

Conclusion

While the New Covenant as mentioned in Jer. 31:31-34 has suffered from much scholarly spiritualization, it should not be seen as more than what it is. Theological systems will not allow for the flexibility that one would reach on purely hermeneutical conclusions. This is why allowing the Bible to dictate one’s theology is crucial to the understanding of the Scriptures as a unit and not only in part. While there can be an agreement that the new covenant is ratified by the death and resurrection of Christ, in no way should one take the liberty to assume an automatic fulfillment. In doing so, the miraculous nature and the accomplishment of the prophecy when it comes to fruition, is covered up by rationalizations and the desire to cram the church into the wedding gown of Israel. This prophecy will be breathtaking when it is fulfilled, so why not allow for its fulfillment, just as the text says.

---

^[1] Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, R. K. Harrison and Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nelson's New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville: T. Nelson, 1995).

[2] Wayne Grudem. Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishers, 2004), 1249.

[3] Ibid. 519.

[4] Ibid.

^[5] Paul J. Achtemeier, Publishers Harper & Row and Society of Biblical Literature, Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1st ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 698.

[6] David E. Olander. Vol. 9, The Conservative Theological Journal Volume 97, 327 Ft. Worth, TX: Tyndale Theological Seminary, 2005.

[7] This distinction is made due to the dividing of the nation of Israel that occurred after the death of Solomon and the unwise decision of his successor Rehoboam in looking to enforce greater stipulations on the people of Israel (1 Kings 12:1-15). Israel revolted and was divided in to “Israel” in the north and “Judah” in the south (1 Kings 12:16-24).

[8] Steven Ger. The Book of Hebrews: Christ Is Greater ed. Mal Couch & Ed Hindson (Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2009), 154.

[9] Ibid. 155.

^[10] John F. Walvoord., Understanding Christian Theology ed. Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck (Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003), 1300.

[11] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum. Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology (Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 2001), 363.

^[12] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Dispensationalism, Rev. and expanded. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995), 48.

[13] Joseph C. Dillow. The Reign of the Servant Kings:A Study of Eternal Security and the Final Significance of Man (Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle Publishing, 1992), 149-150.