Chapter:         “The New Covenant”

Author:           John F. Walvoord

Book Title:             Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands

Book Subtitle:       Biblical and Leadership Studies in Honor of Donald K. Campbell. 

Editors:                 Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck

Publisher:              Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI 49516

Pages:                    186-200                  

Date:                       1994

 

 

 

Introduction

 

General Considerations

 

The concept of divine covenants in the Bible has long been a subject for theological discussion and biblical exegesis. From the early centuries of the Christian era and probably before, a number of God’s promises in the Bible are referred to as biblical covenants. From Genesis to Revelation there is con­stant reference to covenants, some of them by name, as in the ease of Noah, and others in the form of general and sweeping promises, as in the case of Adam and Eve. It is rather obvious that when God promises something, whether it is in the form of a covenant or not, it becomes an important con­sideration in understanding biblical revelation.

 

A survey of the literature in the field reveals that this subject has been dis­cussed for centuries, and it would be a major undertaking even to summarize all the writings on it from the time of the early church until now. Unfortunately, the variety of subjects and premises involved has led to theological confusion rather than theological clarity, and it is important to ask basic questions about what the Bible actually teaches and what the principles that govern its interpretation are.

 

 

Major Issues

 

In a preliminary way certain major issues emerge in the study of biblical covenants. One such issue is the distinction advocated by Augustine of Hippo that biblical covenants are of two major kinds. First, there are biblical covenants in which God pronounces promises in a formal way, which con­tinue to govern his relationship to humankind throughout the centuries. Sec­ond, there are moral covenants or legal requirements that may or may not be directly connected with the covenants but whose connections are often implied. The distinction between covenants, which God promises in a sover­eign way, and moral covenants, which are often conditional on the part of humankind, is most important to observe in the study of the subject.

 

Prominent features of God’s covenants with humanity are his righteous­ness that governs his moral requirements and his mission of grace for human beings and their sin. These two lines of thought should not he confused, even though they are often related.

 

When examining covenants relating to God’s moral requirements for humankind, progressive revelation in the various dispensations of God’s government must be observed. The concept of progressive revelation is essen­tial to any coherent view of the Bible since obligations in different periods are not the same. This is illustrated particularly in the Mosaic period when God instituted more than six hundred laws to govern Israel’s behavior.

 

In connection with moral covenants, it should he observed that human thinking is inherently legalistic. This is illustrated in heathen religions in which worshipers attempt to please God and curry his favor. It is important to separate this from the Christian concept of grace in which God alone is able to forgive in spite of humanity’s lack of merit. Grace is a peculiarity of the Scriptures.

 

In connection with the gracious element of God’s covenant with human­ity, two major covenants are often distinguished. One is the covenant of redemption, which embraces the work of God in Christ’s death on the cross, making possible our forgiveness. The other is the covenant of grace, which is usually considered as humanward, in contrast to redemption, which is God-ward. In this covenant God promises grace to human beings who are without merit and who in no way deserve God’s grace.  In the consideration of the covenants, attention should also be paid to the increased clarification on this subject in the New Testament in contrast to the less clear revelation of the Old Testament.

 

 

The Biblical Covenants

 

In the Old Testament the term berit is used of a covenant. In the New Tes­tament the word diatheke is used. The first reference to a covenant in the Bible is in God’s relationship to Noah (Gen. 6:18). Some have suggested, however, that other covenants preceded this one, though they are not [explicitly] called covenants [in the Hebrew Scriptures].

 

 

The Edenic Covenant

 

Before Adam and Eve fell into sin, God made a proposition to them that some have regarded as a covenant, as stated in Genesis 1:26—31 and 2:16— 17. God gave Adam authority over the creatures of the world, commanded him to be fruitful, and gave him permission to eat from every green plant.  The only restriction was that Adam and Eve not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for if they did so they would surely die (2:16—17). Basi­cally, the covenant was conditional, requiring obedience; but it also declared God’s purpose to elevate humanity to a place of authority and prominence, ultimately fulfilled by Christ.

 

 

The Adamic Covenant

 

Adam and Eve failed, however, to observe the restrictions of the Edenic covenant. Innocence was lost and conscience was born. The result was also that God would judge the world, as stated in his word to Adam (3:14-15) and to Eve (3:16). Adam was told that the ground was cursed and that he would find food with difficulty (3:17—19).

 

Having failed under the Edenic covenant, human beings were then faced with the provisions of the Adamic covenant. That covenant was uncondi­tional in the sense that Adam and Eve’s descendants would be unable by human effort to escape the consequences of sin. God judged not only Adam and Eve but also Satan (Gen. 3:14; Rom. 16:20; 2 Cor. 11:3, 14; Rev. 12:9).

 

A ray of light is provided, however, in the Adamic covenant because God promised that a redeemer would come. As stated briefly in Genesis 3:1 5, God promised to crush the head of Satan, though Satan would be allowed to strike the heel of the woman’s seed, a reference to Christ. This is the intro­duction of the great theme of grace and redemption found in the Scriptures.

 

The Adamic covenant continues to be fulfilled in human history as indi­viduals struggle to earn food, and as life ends in sorrow and death (3:19). Unless tempered by the grace of God and changed by subsequent promises, people continue to the present time to labor under the provisions of the Adamic covenant.

 

 

The Noahic Covenant

 

In dealing with Noah and the preflood period, God made certain promises that are declared to be in the form of a covenant (Gen. 6:18; 9:9—16). After stating his purpose to wipe out the human race because of its sin, except for Noah and his family, God gave Noah instructions on how to build the ark in anticipation of the time when the flood would cause everyone except those in the ark to perish. God established this whole situation as a covenant:

 

“But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you” (6:18).

 

In making a covenant with Noah, God illustrated a very important point. While covenants between individuals are normally a matter of compromise between two parties who are equals, in God’s covenants the parties to the covenant are unequal, for God is sovereign and all-powerful and humankind is weak and helpless. The covenant with Noah is entirely unconditional rather than a conditional covenant, as in the Edenic situation. The certainty of the fulfillment of the covenant with Noah rested entirely with God and not with Noah. As this point is somewhat obscured in current discussion on the covenants of Scripture, it is important to distinguish covenants that are con­ditional from those that are unconditional. Conditional covenants depend on the recipients meeting the conditions imposed by God. Unconditional cove­nants declare that God’s purpose will be fulfilled regardless of an individual’s response. The fact that the covenant is one-sided—from God to human­kind—does not mean that there is no response on the part of humankind. But the point is that the response is anticipated and does not leave the fulfillment of the covenant in doubt.

 

The covenant with Noah is amplified in the period after the flood, as recorded in Genesis 9:9—17. In this statement God declared in his covenant with Noah and the entire creaturely world that he would never again destroy the world with a flood. In keeping with this promise, he established the rain­bow as “the sign of the covenant between me and the earth” (9:13). The unconditional nature of this covenant is clear, even though Noah failed God by getting drunk (9:20—23) and his three sons became the progenitors of a sinful race. The promise is nevertheless sure and unconditional, unrelated to human worthiness.

 

 

The Abrahamic Covenant

 

Covenants preceding Abraham dealt with the entire human race, though because of the flood their fulfillment is limited to Noah and his three sons. Beginning with the covenant with Abraham, God selected certain individuals and groups to inherit promises that were not for the entire human race. In the discussion of the Abrahamic covenant, major disagreements emerge regarding the premises and fulfillment of these covenants. This is caused partly by the different approach of Calvinists and Arminians, but more par­ticularly by the premillennial versus the amillennial and postmillennial inter­pretations of eschatology. All branches of theology find it necessary to con­sider the Abrahamic covenant and how its provisions relate to their theological presuppositions.

 

The Abrahamic covenant involves promises along several lines. First, God promised Abraham that he would become a great man and would be the father of a great nation (Gen. 12:1—2). Second, God promised that Abra­ham’s progenitors would produce a great nation, referring to Israel (v. 2). Later Abraham became the father of more than the nation Israel, including some of the Arabs who descend from Abraham. A third major provision, however, is that God would bless all peoples of the earth through Abraham (v. 3). This is generally interpreted to refer to the salvation and grace that come through Christ.

 

As these promises have already been literally fulfilled, it does not allow much freedom to interpret them other than in their literal sense. These prom­ises that God has made are certain of fulfillment regardless of human response. Important in all these promises, however, is the fact that they- do not govern the whole race, as some of them relate only to Israel, though the whole race is promised to be blessed through Abraham. Even this general promise, however, is limited to fulfillment to those who come to God in faith.

 

The provision that God will bless those who bless Abraham and curse those who do not (Gen. 12:3) introduces a conditional element that figures largely in Israel’s history. Not only was Israel blessed or cursed in accord with her obedience to God in the Old Testament, but this also extended to other nations as well arid their relationship to Israel. As history has graphi­cally demonstrated, every nation that has persecuted Israel has paid a price for it in subsequent history.

Thee major area of theological conflict, however, is in the promise of God to Abraham, “To your offspring I will give this land” (12:7). This promise is so transparently a reference to the land to which God had directed Abraham after he left Ur of Chaldees that it would seem almost impossible to question its intent.

 

A number of interpretive problems surface, however.  Amillenari­ans and postmillenarians do not believe that Israel will ever inherit the land. This contrasts with the premillennial interpretation, which holds that this promise will be fulfilled in the millennial kingdom after the second coming of Christ. Amillenarians offer several alternative solutions. The most com­mon view is that the promise is about heaven, not a literal land.

 

Postmillena­rians also offer this view. This nonliteral interpretation, however, has no scriptural support since every reference to the land in Scripture refers literally to the land of Israel. A more modern explanation is that its promise is literal but conditional on Israel’s obedience.

 

The problem is further amplified by the fact that even though the ultimate fulfillment seems certain, any given generation of Israel could enjoy the land only if obedient to God. In the Old Testament period as well as in the New, Israel was not allowed possession of the land unless she deserved it. Accord­ingly, while the Israelites went down to Egypt and left the land as God prom­ised in Genesis 15:13, they were also promised blessing if they went back to the land, as recorded in Exodus and later books of the Old Testament. In their return, however, Moses stated specifically in Deuteronomy 28 that their possession of the land depended on their obedience to God. If they were obe­dient, God would bless them physically and in other ways. If they disobeyed, they would he driven out of the land and would he subject to frightful perse­cutions. This has tragically been fulfilled in history in the Babylonian and Assyrian captivities and in the worldwide dispersion that occurred after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

In view of these difficulties, in what sense is the Abrahamic covenant unconditional? The point here, which has often been misunderstood, is that while the fulfillment of any particular generation of Israel depended on obe­dience to God, the ultimate possession ft the land is promised uncondition­ally to Israel even though she does not deserve it. Scripture prophesies that a godly remnant of Israel will be the ultimate possessors of the land at the sec­ond coming (Ezek. 20:33—38).

 

Premillenarians hold that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional in the sense that its ultimate fulfillment is absolutely certain and is specifically pre­dicted in the Old Testament. It depends on God’s faithfulness and grace rather than on the merit of the people of Israel.

 

Most significant, Jeremiah in the midst of Israel’s apostasy predicted their return from Babylon and Assyria and in addition promised their ultimate return to the land subsequent to the second coming of Christ (23:5—8; 3 1:4— 11). Further, Ezekiel predicted the partition of the land to the twelve tribes of Israel after the second coming (chaps. 47—48).

 

This is based on divine grace rather than Israel’s worthiness. This is sup­ported by many promises of the glorious kingdom on earth, which will fol­low the coming of the Messiah King that premillenarians relate to his second coming. Obviously the Abrahamic covenant is a covenant of grace that depends on God’s faithfulness and promise. Humankind’s enjoyment of it prior to its ultimate fulfillment, however, is conditioned on the faith of any particular generation. But the ultimate fulfillment is absolutely certain.

 

 

The Mosaic Covenant

 

The covenant with Moses occupies most of the Old Testament because, beginning in the Book of Exodus and continuing throughout the rest of the Old Testament, the Mosaic covenant was the dominant factor affecting Israel’s history.

 

This covenant related only to the people of Israel, nor the entire human race. This factor is often overlooked. Though the Mosaic covenant did reveal God’s moral nature and his will concerning moral issues, the Mosaic cove­nant was not the basis of judgment on the surrounding nations. To some extent the Mosaic covenant was a partial outgrowth of the Abrahamic cov­enant because it described the application of this earlier covenant during the entire period of the Old Testament.

The major difference between the Mosaic covenant and the Abrahamic covenant is that the former was conditional and also was ad interim, that is, it was a covenant for a limited period, beginning with Moses and ending with Christ. Basically it was a sovereign covenant in which God declared his will for Israel. Though Israel did indicate a preliminary willingness to obey it, they certainly failed, as history records.

 

In contrast to the other covenants, the Mosaic covenant, though it had provisions for grace and forgiveness, nevertheless builds on the idea that obe­dience to God is necessary for blessing. While this to some extent is true in every dispensation, the Mosaic covenant was basically a works covenant rather than a grace covenant. The works principle, however, was limited to the matter of blessing in this life and was not related at all to the question of salvation for eternity.

The ultimate application of the Mosaic covenant is stated in Leviticus 19:2: "Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.”

 

Basic to the covenant idea, however, is the fact that this covenant was imposed by God whether or not the people of Israel accepted it. It is therefore a sovereign series of promises as to what God would do under varied circum­stances according to Israel’s response.

 

Israel’s experiences under the Mosaic covenant were intended by God to be an illustration of how God deals with the people he considers holy to him­self. Both her punishments and blessings are related to this basic principle. The limitations of the Mosaic covenant also should be emphasized. The cov­enant did not relate to eternal life and was not a basis for grace. Instead, compliance meant that God would bless Israel, much as a father would bless a child who is obedient.

 

 

The Davidic Covenant

 

Both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants had a certain group of people as their objects, though part of the Abrahamic covenant had worldwide rel­evance. The Davidic covenant, however, selected a particular family, that is, the descendants of David. God’s covenant made certain promises to David’s descendants that by their nature affect Israel, but nevertheless do not extend to the entire human race. The basic statement of the covenant is found in 2 Samuel 7, with details also given in 1 Chronicles 17. Confirma­tion of the Davidic covenant is also found in Psalm 89. This psalm reiterates the fact that the Davidic covenant will be fulfilled regardless of human response. As the promises of the Davidic covenant go far beyond what David deserved, it is obviously a gracious covenant that in its ultimate ful­fillment is unconditional.

 

The provisions of the Davidic covenant were, first, that God would pro­vide through David and his physical posterity a person who would sit on the throne of the kingdom forever (2 Sam. 7:13). God promised that under no circumstances would this covenant ever be rescinded (vv. 15—16). Even David recognized that this was an unusual covenant because it was everlast­ing, based entirely on God’s promises and not on human worthiness.

 

All conservative interpreters of the Bible recognize that the promise has its ultimate fulfillment in Christ. Again the amillennial and premillennial differences in explaining eschatology come to the fore, however. The amillennial position is that Christ is flow on the throne of David in heaven, equating the heavenly throne with the earthly throne of David, whereas the traditional premillennial view is that the Davidic throne will be occupied at the second coming of Christ when Christ assumes his rule in Jerusalem.

 

As in the case of David, Christ was appointed heir to the throne of David long before he will occupy it. The throne should not be considered a physical chair but a sphere of rule that cannot in the nature of the case be fulfilled until God has restored Israel as a nation and established Christ as king on the earth. Again the major issue is whether the details of a covenant are to be understood in their normal and literal sense or whether they are to he spiri­tualized, given another meaning, or made conditional and therefore never fulfilled.

 

Amillennial interpreters affirm that the promises in the Davidic covenant cannot he taken literally or, if taken literally, are conditional. Neither of these assertions, however, is supported by the facts. Premillenarians, how­ever point to the many passages that not only reiterate that the Davidic throne will be on earth in Jerusalem and will continue forever, but also to the fact that this is related to the second coming of Christ at which time he will establish his millennial reign on earth, a situation that is not true at the present time. This is supported in such passages as Psalm 72, Jeremiah 23:5— 8, and the many passages that speak of Israel’s ultimate regathering, as in Ezekiel 39:25—29 and Jeremiah 30:5—9, and the New Testament confirma­tion of a millennial kingdom in Revelation 20. A literal fulfillment of the Davidic covenant necessarily presumes a second coming of Christ, the resto­ration of Israel, and the establishment of God’s authoritative rule on earth.

 

 

The New Covenant

 

The issues raised in the eschatological interpretation in the preceding cov­enants come to a head in the prediction of a new covenant in both the Old and New Testaments. Here there is diversity of opinion among Amillenarians and Premillenarians.

 

The Contrast Between the Old and New Testaments

 

One of the most obvious differences in Scripture is the division of the Bible into the Old and New Testaments, or Old and New Covenants. This division recognizes that the covenants of the Old Testament will be climaxed by a new covenant, which will have its ultimate fulfillment in the New Testament. En contrast to the Mosaic covenant, which had a legalistic emphasis and was tem­porary, the new covenant is unconditional and is clearly a result of the grace of God that has its full manifestation in Christ in history and in prophecy.

 

The New Covenant Contrasted to Previous Biblical Covenants

 

The new covenant is far-reaching in its divine revelation of God’s purpose to bestow his grace on humanity. The Mosaic covenant dominated the Old Testament and was a temporary covenant to he superseded by the new covenant. The Mosaic covenant was legalistic in contrast to the essential feature of the new covenant, which is grace.

 

The new covenant is God’s affirmation of his intention to extend grace and blessing to those who do not deserve it. The new covenant is basically a unilateral agreement in which God pronounced what he will do even though there is failure and lack of merit on the part of the human race. A predomi­nant feature of the Old Testament was God’s revelation of his faithfulness to his promises, whether of judgment or of mercy. The new covenant is a gra­cious declaration of God’s mercy to those who put their trust in him but are otherwise unworthy of blessing.

 

The Old Testament revealed that it was possible for individuals to gain favor with God (but not salvation) by obedience to the law. By contrast, the new covenant offers grace and blessing apart from legal justification in human acts. This is stated clearly in passages such as Romans 3:21—24. Even though salvation was impossible by the keeping of the law, Paul revealed the great principle of justification by faith. Paul wrote,

 

“But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the law and the prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

 

Righteousness comes not from works but through faith in Christ, and believers are justified, declared righteous, without cost because of the grace of God that has come through the redemption provided by Christ Jesus. This redemption was accomplished when Christ died on the cross for the sins of the world.

 

This is further stated in Romans 3:25—26:

 

“God presented him as a sacri­fice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

 

Old Testament believers were forgiven and saved on credit, as it were, and this debt had to he paid by Jesus Christ when he died as the Redeemer. So in the death of Christ God demonstrated his justice in that he recognizes that Christ is the Sin-bearer and the Sin Offering. Therefore, God is just in declar­ing a believer righteous because he sees the individual in the person and work of his Son.

 

This same truth of redemption through Christ is stated in other passages such as Ephesians 2:4—7:

 

“But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus is.”

 

This grace of God is man­ifested in the present age. Also in eternity believers in Christ who have been justified by the grace of God will be illustrations of what the grace of God can accomplish.

It is obvious that this is not through works but through faith in Christ, as stated in Ephesians 2:8—10:

 

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”

 

The gospel message, of course, based on the new covenant, is the message that people in spite of their best efforts are not acceptable to God apart from the righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. Salvation is not something earned, deserved, or attained; but is a gift of God to those who place their trust in Christ. Believers in Christ are “God’s workmanship,” heirs of all the blessings that belong to a child of God.

 

The New Covenant as Revealed in the Old Testament

 

One of the principal Old Testament passages on the new covenant is Jer­emiah 31:31—37:

 

“The time is coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the cov­enant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will he their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the LORD. “For will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by clay, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the LORD Almighty is his name: “Only if these decrees van­ish from my sight,” declares the LORD, “will the descendants of Israel ever cease to be a nation before me.” This is what the LORD says: “Only if the heavens above can he measured and the foundations of the earth below be searched out will I reject all the descendants of Israel because of all they have done,” declares

the LORD.

 

Certain salient features stand out in this covenant:

 

1.         The new covenant will be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.

2.         The new covenant will be in contrast to the covenant made with Moses.

3.         The new covenant will not he written on tables of stone but in the hearts of believers.

4.         It will have its fulfillment as far as Israel is concerned at a time when everyone from the least to the greatest will know the Lord.

5.         The major provision is that God will forgive Israel’s wickedness and not remember their sins.

6.         The covenant is irrevocable and does not depend on human response.

7.         As a result, Israel will be a nation forever.

8.         The absolute certainty of the new covenant is compared to the impos­sibility of measuring the heavens or the foundations of the earth.

 

Though there have been many attempts to apply this covenant in a general way to those other than Israel, it is obvious that the particulars of the cove­nant require a special situation that has never occurred. Accordingly, the covenant has not yet been completely fulfilled.

Further revelation of the new covenant is given in Isaiah 6 1:8—9, which states essentially that Israel will be recognized as a people blessed by God.

 

Jeremiah again took up this theme in Jeremiah 32:27—41. God declared that Israel will “be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them sin­gleness of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them” (vv. 38—39). As in Jeremiah 31, this passage again asserts that this covenant is everlasting.

 

Ezekiel gave an extended discourse on the new covenant. In addition to repeating some of the facts given to Jeremiah, other promises were made. God declared, “I will take the Israelites out of the nations where they have gone. I will gather them from all around and bring them back into their own land. I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel” (Ezek. 37:1—22). This requires fulfillment in an earthly millennium.

 

God promised, according to Ezekiel, that Israel will be one nation with one king and will never again be divided as they were in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (37:22). Further, God will keep them from sinning against him by worshiping idols and backsliding (v. 23). A new factor is introduced in verse 24: "My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees.” This is reinforced in verse 25: “They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever.”

 

The fulfillment of God’s promise requires the resurrection of David at Christ’s second coming. As in other references to the new covenant, Ezekiel declared that this covenant will be everlasting. In addition, God promised to put his sanctuary among them (v. 26) and to dwell with them (v. 27). As in the other passages, all nations will know that Israel is considered holy before God. These passages indicate that the promises are directed to Israel, not to Gentiles, and therefore cannot be made universal in their application.

 

Because Amillenarians generally deny a future for Israel, which these pas­sages require, it is necessary for them to accommodate this passage in proph­ecy either by making the church the inheritor of Israel’s promises, which the Bible never does, or to make these promises conditional on Israel’s obedi­ence, which is also foreign to these passages. All these promises were sovereignly given and will be fulfilled in God’s time. Premillenarians point out that these passages imply and demand a kingdom after the second coming in which these promises will have their literal fulfillment.

 

New Testament References to the New Covenant

 

In the New Testament the new covenant takes on extended meaning. The best known reference to this, of course, is in the record of Lord’s Supper, which celebrates the death of Christ. As stated in Luke 22:20, Christ said,

 

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”

 

Here the new covenant is clearly applicable to the church, a fact that is sup­ported by other references, such as Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24. In 1 Corinthians 11:25 Paul wrote that in reference to the cup at the Lord’s Sup­per, Christ said,

 

“This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, when­ever you drink it, in remembrance of me.”

 

In these references to the new covenant in relation to the church, however, there is no detail that connects it with the new covenant with Israel, and this has created a diversity of opinions even among premillenarians.

 

Premillennial Interpretations of the New Covenant

 

In the theology of the church, whether premillennial or otherwise, there has been considerable confusion as to how the new covenant relates to dif­ferent classes of believers. Amillenarians tend to make the church the fulfiller of God’s promises to Israel. This is not universally held by Amillenarians, however, because while the church may inherit sonic blessings similar to Israel’s, they do not inherit Israel’s curses, and one cannot be separated from the other.

 

Among premillenarians there is also diversity in understanding of the new covenant as it relates to Israel. Some insist that the new covenant is exclu­sively for Israel, but that the church inherits the blessings of the blood of the new covenant. A popular view is that while the new covenant is preeminently for Israel as revealed in the Old Testament, the church receives an oblique application of it. The problem here is that the Bible seldom blurs the prom­ises to Israel and the church even though some of these promises may he sim­ilar. Lewis Sperry Chafer held that there were two new covenants—one for Israel and one for the church.

 

This diversity of explanation, however, is resolved, in this author’s view, by making a distinction between the covenant of redemption and the cove­nant of grace. The covenant of redemption involves the promise that Christ would redeem many by his death on the cross, and the covenant of grace pro­vides that Cod will extend grace on the basis of this sacrifice to those who trust in Christ as their Savior. This concept of salvation through redemption in Christ is probably the key to understanding this whole doctrine.

 

If it is understood that Christ by his death on the cross provided grace, then it can be understood that this grace of God is extended to various classes and individuals. In fact, everyone who is saved from Adam on was saved by the grace of God, not by human works, and the covenant of grace to that extent provides the salvation of all who trust in the Lord.

 

The prominence of the new covenant in the prophecies concerning Israel in the Old Testament arises from the obvious fact that Cod has a special plan and purpose for Israel that has its culmination, according to premillenarians, in the future millennial kingdom following the second coming. Accordingly the Old Testament promises, detailed as they are, will be literally fulfilled in that period. In the New Testament, in which the new covenant is related to the church, it is the grace of God as it applies to the church. While none of the major features of the covenant for Israel are repeated, nevertheless the church has a new covenant in contrast to her former estate in Adam, just as Israel has a new covenant in contrast to her former position under the Mosaic covenant.

 

Other References to the New Covenant in the New Testament

 

One of the principal passages that has often been misinterpreted is Hebrews 8:8—12. Here in the discussion with Hebrew Christians, the prom­ise found in Jeremiah 31 is repeated in detail. Amillenarians seize on this pas­sage as proof that the covenant with Israel in Jeremiah 31 applies to the church. A careful reading of the passage, however, does not reveal support for this.

 

The argument of Hebrews 8 is that Christ is superior to Moses, and that the promises given to the church are superior to the promises given to Israel. This is stated in Hebrews 8:6:

 

“But the ministry Jesus has received is as supe­rior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.”

 

In the verses that follow, the argu­ment is made that if the Mosaic covenant had been sufficient, God would not have promised a new covenant. This is why Jeremiah 31 is quoted. The point is that even the Old Testament anticipated the temporary character of the Mosaic covenant. So Jews who clung to the Mosaic covenant were informed that even the Old Testament anticipated the Mosaic covenant would pass away and the new covenant for Israel would he installed. This was proof that the Mosaic covenant was only temporary and insufficient.

 

No statement is made in Hebrews 8 to the effect that the new covenant of Jeremiah is applied to the church. The only application is made in Hebrews 8: 13: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.” In other words, the promise of the new covenant makes clear that the Mosaic covenant in time would become obsolete and would he done away with. So here as well as in other references in Hebrews to the new covenant (10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20), there is no evidence that the church is ever regarded as fulfilling the many details of the new covenant in the Old Testament relating to Israel.

 

The Major Features of the New Covenant in Relation to Salvation

 

As previously stated, the major point of the new covenant as revealed in the New Testament is that salvation is not by works but by grace. This is true for the church. It is also true for Israel. It is true for every child of God, regardless of the dispensation.

 

Not only is salvation not by works, but it is entirely by grace as a gift of God. Though works are recognizable and will be judged at the judgment seat of Christ for Christians, works are never made the basis for salvation in any dispensation, for salvation has always been by the grace of God.

 

Also the new covenant makes clear that human effort is not the point in securing salvation, but rather the act of one’s will in trusting God’s promises of salvation results in the individual becoming a child of God. As stated in John 1:12—13, a child of God becomes such not by any work of merit or effort on his or her part, but by the grace of God. This also leads to the fact that once a person is saved he or she is saved forever as it is a work of God, a work of spiritual resurrection, a work of new birth, a work of new creation.

 

Few doctrines of Scripture are more important or more central to under­standing the Scriptures than the new covenant. Properly understood, the doc­trine of grace extends to the church, to Israel, and to every child of God in every dispensation. Its full revelation, however, was made in the New Testament, and its further revelation will be in eternity as God points out the won­ders of his grace.