Examining the New Covenant_Draft

8/9/2019 Examining the New Covenant_Draft

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/examining-the-new-covenantdraft 1/8

Examining the New Covenantby Nathan A. Long

A standard teaching of Christianity, emphasized in the last 150-200 years but present over the centuries

since the death of the Apostles, is that the New Covenant, established by Jesus' death and resurrection

has replaced the Old Covenant made with Israel at Sinai. Unfortunately, this idea has been broadened to

such a degree that the so-called Old Testament, and more specifically the Pentateuch or Torah has often

been relegated to a place of secondary importance (when it ought to be given foundational

significance).

More recent expansions on this idea have resulted in the dividing of Scripture into anywhere from two

primary sections (the Old and New Testament--another way of saying Old & New Covenant) to more

extreme divisions which view even the New Testament as being divided in its applicability. Within those

movements arguments range from everything after Acts chapter 2 is applicable today, to those who

make the divide in Acts 10, 19, 28, and those who claim only the writings of Paul are applicable tomodern-day believers, and even some of those are disparaged as representing an evolution in Paul’s

own thinking, resulting in only his “later” writings being immediately in force.

Regardless of extreme positions, mainstream Christianity generally holds the view that the “New

Testament” comprises the primary Scriptures for the believer in our times, whereas the “Old

Testament” only provides background and illustration for what the “NT” explicitly teaches. Many are

familiar with the maxim: “the New is in the Old contained; the Old is by the New explained.” As a result,

many Christians hold the position that they are required to obey what the NT teaches, but that the

requirements of the OT are no longer applicable.

The question I would like to undertake is whether this represents an accurate understanding of the NewCovenant. Is the New Covenant a replacement for the Old-as contained in the Torah, the Prophets and

the Writings? Let’s consider what the Bible itself says about the New Covenant.

The only time the New Covenant is mentioned by name in the “Old Testament” is in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the

house of Israel and the house of Judah, (32) not like the covenant that I made with their fathers

on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant

that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. (33) But this is the covenant

that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law

within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my

people. (34) And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know

the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD.

For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." 1

I believe it is significant that God begins with noting that He will make a new covenant with the House of

Israel and the House of Judah, but later in the passage, says, “this is the covenant that I will make with

1Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®),

copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All

rights reserved.



the house of Israel after those days.” By this we perceive that God foresaw the re-uniting of Judah and

Israel into a single nation. Perhaps more important for our purposes is the fact that this indicates the

realization of the new covenant will not transpire until after the house of Israel and house of Judah have

been united as one. This means that the new covenant was not inaugurated at the resurrection of Messiah, nor at Pentecost as recorded for us in Acts chapter 2.

Does the modern-day state of Israel qualify as a re-unification of Israel and Judah? I doubt it. For one

thing, Israel (the secular state) has recently relinquished much of the lands allotted to Judah.

Furthermore, it seems likely that when re-united they will once again be ruled over by a King—in this

case, by an eternally ruling King Messiah.

What else can we deduce by observing this passage carefully? Jeremiah considered the New Covenant

to be a still future event. The covenant described is national in scope; by extension we would say that it

is to be made with the physical offspring of Jacob and those who through faith in Messiah have joined

her (the ger or “sojourner” who is among you).

Jeremiah records God noting that the new covenant will be different than the one enacted in Sinai. A

careful exegesis reveals that, contrary to popular assumption, the contrast is made between how Israel

receives the covenant, not between the content of the covenants themselves. Whereas the nation

rebelled against the covenant given at Sinai, Israel will collectively embrace the new covenant.

Beside the evidence of the text itself, how can we be certain of this? As far as God is concerned the

covenant he made with Israel at Sinai is eternal. While the nation herself may be unfaithful and forfeit

the blessings of the covenant, the covenant itself remains intact because it relies on the faithfulness of

God’s promise—God’s righteousness.

"You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths,

for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know

that I, the LORD, sanctify you…. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath,

observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.” (Exodus

31:13, 16)

“For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns

with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be

alike before the LORD. (16) One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who

sojourns with you." (Numbers 15:15-16)

When affirming that the content of the two covenants is the same, it is important to note that God

delivered the “law” to Israel at Sinai, as verse 33 records that God will also do via the new covenant—

the significant difference in relation to God being that this time He Himself will write His torah on their

hearts, rather than delivering the torah to them via a mediator and writing it on stone tablets or in the

“Book of the Law.” The same Torah against which Israel rebelled will be the Torah that is written upon

her heart when God enacts the New Covenant; the evidence of her new heart will be her obedience to

God’s commands, statutes and ordinances. Only God can change hearts, and He promises to do so for

Israel—note also the time period that this reiteration of the New Covenant lends itself to:

“Thus says the Lord GOD: I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the



countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.' (18) And when

they come there, they will remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations. (19)

And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of

stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, (20) that they may walk in my statutes and

keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.” (Ezekiel

11:17-20)

At the end of Jeremiah 31:33, God says “I will be their God, and they shall be My people,” tying the new

covenant once again to the Sinai covenant. An exploration of Exodus 6:7-8 will not only amplify the

connection to verse 33 of the Jeremiah passage, but also provide yet another tie in.

I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD

your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. (8) I will bring you

into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a

possession. I am the LORD.'" (Exodus 6:7-8)

Note that not only is the same idea I will be your God and you will be my people expressed, but when

this becomes really interesting is in an analysis of the language “I will take you to be my people.”

Ancient Hebrew had no word for marriage, the expression of this idea was v’lekach ti or “I will take you”.

So we see that not only does God say in Jeremiah 31:32, “I was a husband to them.”, but in Exodus 6 He

says “I will take you (the people of Israel) to be my bride.” Fixing once again the idea that while Israel’s

response to the “old” and new covenant will be different, the content of the covenants is not contrasted

but harmonized.

It is also significant to note the connection made in Exodus 6 to the Abrahamic covenant. Notice that the

Sinai is connected to the Abrahamic and the New is connected to the Sinai covenant. As are all of God’scovenants. We ought not to look on them as individualized, unique contracts, but as progressively

revealed and contiguously related. The core message of God’s promise is revealed in Genesis, then

expanded and amplified throughout the rest of the Scriptures.

Walter Kaiser expressed this very well, ““The progress of revelation has an organic aspect in which the

identity of the germ contained in the earliest mention of a theme continues in the buildup of that theme

as the same seminal idea takes on a more developed form in later revelation.”2

I refer you once again to Jeremiah 31, to note with even more particular care the phrase, “I will be their

God and they shall be my people.” We have all ready noted that this ties the New Covenant back to the

Sinai Covenant, but it must also be understood that this ties the New Covenant to God’s eternal plan.

“And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with

man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as

their God.” (Revelation 21:3)

The New Covenant will also be different because Israel’s obedience to God will be on a national scale,

“they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” While acceptance of the covenant by

2Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan

Publishing House, 1994), p 143



Israel and obedience to God’s stipulations will be national, it is equally significant that the covenant will

be based on God’s forgiveness of Israel’s sin—this also will be a whole-scale, national condition. Verse

34 says, “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

So we have a couple indicators that the New Covenant has not yet been completely fulfilled:

1. The dispersed people of Israel have not yet been reunited as a single nation under God

2. As a people, Israel has not yet evidenced faithful obedience to God

3. As a people, Israel has not yet recognized Jesus as the Messiah, in order that they might be

eternally forgiven for their violations of the Covenant terms (Torah-lessness).

So far we’ve focused primarily on ways in which the New Covenant has not yet been fulfilled. What

about ways that it has been or is currently fulfilled?

First of all, I think the New Covenant pertains to the Remnant that has existed in every generation in afirst fruits sort of way. In every generation God has proven his faithfulness to his promises by preserving

the Remnant. In Genesis we find Joseph telling his brothers what God has revealed to him:

“And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive

for you many survivors.” (Genesis 45:7)

In Judges, a time of fluctuating obedience and disobedience, when every man did as was right in his own

eyes there was still a remnant:

“Then down marched the remnant of the noble; the people of the LORD marched down

for me against the mighty.” (Judges 5:13)

In 2 Kings 19 we find still a remnant even after years and years of wicked kings. In the days of Ezra and

Nehemiah there is still a remnant (Ezra 9); the prophets are filled with discussion regarding the

gathering again of the remnant of Israel to Himself. In Acts we find that this remnant will include

believing Gentiles:

“And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will

return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will

restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are

called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’” (Acts

15:15-18)

And the Apostle Paul confirms this for us in the letter to the congregation in Rome, chapters 9 and 11.

So we see that the remnant in every generation is like first fruits of the New Covenant. The Spirit is

writing God’s law on their hearts, or it may even be accurate to say that He has done so with those who

have been buried and raised in Messiah as new creation. So this remnant prefigures the return of Israel

proper to God as a nation. But in that prefiguring we are supposed to see the first fruits of “the least to



the greatest” knowing the Lord, a foretaste of walking in His rules and being careful to obey His

statutes.3

As one author has put it, “The remnant participates in the realities of the New Covenant in anticipation

of its future fulfillment in the nation of Israel.” (T. Hegg, unpublished paper).

This is a difficult concept to apprehend. D.T. Lancaster explained it this way:

In 2 Corinthians 3:14 Paul referred to the Torah of Moses as the old covenant so long as

it was read without the realization of Messiah. He said that once we are in Messiah, the

veil is “removed.” The Torah remains, but the veil concealing Messiah within it is

removed. Similarly, the book of Hebrews quotes the prophet Jeremiah to prove that in

the new covenant, the Torah is written upon our hearts.4

Perhaps it could be summarized this way:

Old Covenant: The attempt to keep the Torah according to the covenant at Sinai without

realization of Messiah, resulting in condemnation.

New Covenant: The writing of the Torah on our hearts through the realization of Messiah

according to the covenant in Jeremiah 31, resulting in salvation.

As New Covenant members in Jesus, we are part of the faithful remnant of Israel, having been baptized

into the same body, by the same Spirit. Therefore, being first fruits of the New Covenant, part of the

remnant of Israel, our lives out to be characterized by obedience to that Torah which has been/is being

written on our hearts.

Jeremiah’s (ca. 600 B.C.) new covenant prophecy for Israel and Judah was, among other

particulars, that the Torah would be written “on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). The idea of the Torah

within the people of Israel’s hearts was not novel– it goes back to Moses’ words in

Deuteronomy (ca. 1405 B.C.):

“If you … keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this BOOK OF

THE LAW, …. But the word is very near you, in your mouth and IN YOUR HEART, that you

may do it” Deuteronomy 30:10-14, emphasis mine (NKJV).

Likewise David wrote of the righteous person in his day (ca. 1000 B.C.) that …

“… the LAW of his God IS IN HIS HEART …” (Psalm 37:31, emphasis mine — see also

Psalm 40:8)

Isaiah (ca. 740 B.C.) addressed the remnant in Israel with these words:

“Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people IN WHOSE HEART IS MY LAW

(torah );” (Isaiah 51:7a)

3 Ezekiel 37:24 (ESV)4

D. Thomas Lancaster, Restoration:Returning the Torah of God to the Disciples of Jesus , p 33.



We get more insight into what Jeremiah meant when we see how the idiom was used throughout the

Tanakh. For instance Psalm 119:11 …

“I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.”

… shows us that before the new covenant was inaugurated it was incumbent upon the individual to

store the Torah in his own heart, with the result that he would be less inclined to sin. The new covenant

emphasizes God’s instrumentality in the placement process , but we may assume that the result would

be something similar.

Isaiah demonstrates through synonymous parallelism that those in whose heart is God’s Torah are also

those “who know [Heb. yada -- i.e., have experiential knowledge of ...] righteousness”

This word “righteousness” could either be pointing to what people do as a result of having the Torah in

their hearts, or it could be suggesting a “righteousness” similar to how Paul uses the word in his letters,as in justification (i.e. “right-wising”). I’m inclined toward seeing the ideas as indivisible:

“you who have experiential knowledge of justification” (are the same as those who do

Torah, are the same as those in whose heart is God’s Torah.”

Either way, Paul’s Galatian readers could expect this same experience with righteousness as Isaiah’s

readers. The person whom David wrote about, with the Torah in his heart, had his moral steps made

sure (Psa. 37:31). So could the new covenant believer. In Psalm 40:8 we see a psalm with messianic

ramifications, but it still has application to Paul’s Galatian audience … and to us:

“I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart”.

This internalizing of the Torah was characterized by an urge to do God’s will, through His

commandments. That is what the parallel structure of the above psalm suggests. Those under the new

covenant can expect a similar desire to actualize what God requires of them, through His

commandments.

Under the old covenant the onus is on the individual and nation to place God’s Torah in their own

hearts. Under the new covenant it is God’s responsibility. What the condemnation of the Law proved

was that no one but God could successfully write God’s law on their heart. For New Covenant

participants, however,

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua. For the

law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Messiah Yeshua from the law of sin and death.

For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his

own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in

order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not

according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1-4)

The “law of the Spirit of life” then is the same Torah as before, but now it is written on your heart, made

a part of your nature. Therefore walk according to the Spirit-filled man, not according to your fleshly

self.



Likewise, those “Old Testament” saints who had God’s Law in their hearts still found a copy of the

“external” Law immensely valuable. The Torah inside them demonstrated where the written Torah

stood in relation to their hierarchy of values.

It is clear from history and experience that present day believers also need the “external” Torah. A saint

without the word of God is a dangerous person. He/she needs the stability that studying and applying

the Law can bring–and the discipline it engenders.

That is one reason why Paul cannot be arguing against people in Galatia simply obeying the Torah. The

idiom of “Law in your heart” does not discount the need for external regulations. It just demonstrates a

person’s disposition toward obeying the one eternal Torah. Written or resurrected.

“Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among

which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their

own land. And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. Andone king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no

longer divided into two kingdoms. They shall not defile themselves anymore with their

idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them

from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they

shall be my people, and I will be their God. “My servant David shall be king over them,

and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey

my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your

fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there

forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of

peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in

their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. Mydwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary

is in their midst forevermore.” (Ezekiel 37:21-28)

If this is true [the validity of Torah to our present lives]…how did Christians miss it for long (and so many

still do)?

It occurs to me that when we ask that question we are assuming the same thing has been believed since

shortly after Yeshua walked the earth. That is simply not the case. Why don’t we ask the question, “How

did 1500 years of Godly men miss the truths that God revealed to Luther, Zwingli and Calvin?” Of course,

there are a lot of answers to that question. Similarly, there are a lot of answers to why did the

Reformers and most theologians since miss the applicability of the Old Testament to our lives?

I think it is vital to focus on the evolution of theology. We tend to think that what we believe is what

most Christians have believed for centuries, but that is simply not the case. Dispensationalism, the

theology behind what many of us take for granted, is a very recent development. It didn’t even appear

on the scene until the late 1890′s and didn’t become a force to be reckoned with in Christianity until the

1940-50′s. (see “Considering Dispensationalism”)

Progressive Revelation is very important to answering this question. I find it helpful to focus on the

covenants; while Paul makes it very clear that a later covenant cannot annul a previous covenant (Gal.



3:17), what God does in each of His covenants, even in each subsequent stating of the same covenant, is

get more specific as to all the details of His eternal plan. For example, Abraham knew that God was

going to bless all nations through his Seed. Moses finds out that God intended to inaugurate a very

special, covenant relationship with a group of people. David finds out that not only is the promise of Godgoing to be fulfilled through Israel, God’s covenant people, but that it will be through David’s family line.

Yeshua reveals the specifics of how God is going to redeem us from our spiritual Egypt. This progressive

revelation of information seems to be a consistent practice with God.

Note that throughout history God has incrementally added more and more books to His Word to us.

Abraham may have had a form of the book of Job. Moses writes the Pentateuch. Samuel contributes

more. By the time of Ezra there is a skeleton of our Old Testament. By 367 CE there is a general

acknowledgement of the books that we now call the New Testament. But for 300 years after Christ,

believers did without the New Testament–at least as a codified, reliable collection of Scripture.

Here’s a possible reason that seems to make sense, but that I can’t prove. Perhaps God allowed the“partial blinding” or “partial hardening” of hearts to certain truths for a time in order to facilitate a

massive infusion of Gentiles to His covenant people. There is certainly established precedent of God

doing this. Paul tells us that God veiled the eyes of the Israelites at Sinai so that they would not

understand the fullness of His covenant with them (2 Corinthians 3:12-16). In Romans Paul tells us that

God has partially hardened the Jews until the fullness of the Gentiles have come in (Romans 11:25).

Perhaps He did the reverse to allow large numbers of Gentiles to come in—Gentiles who would have

been hesitant if Christianity had been widely perceived as a “Jewish” religion over the centuries. After

all, prior to Pentecost, though there had always been Gentiles (strangers, aliens, sojourners) among the

congregation of Israel (God-fearers), they were a small minority. Conversely, by the time Paul wrote the

letter to the Roman congregation, it appears that 80% of the synagogue in Rome may have been Gentile(based on the list of names in Chapter 16 of Romans – thank you, Mark Nanos, for that idea).

Examining the New Covenant_Draft

Documents

Transcript of Examining the New Covenant_Draft