Who are the Partakers of the New Covenant?
Jeremiah 31
31 "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."
Jeremiah 31
31 "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."
This passage is pregnant with meaning. A couple things that are clear from a quick look are that: it is a prophecy of an event future to the writer, and it is a different covenant from the one God made with the people when He brought them out of Egypt (the Mosaic Covenant); it is “new” in reference to 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.
Possibly the largest hurdle for a theologian steeped in Dispensational tradition to get over is the fact that the New Testament authors apply the term “Israel of God” to a group that includes ethnic Jews and Gentiles, and above is probably the prime Old Testament reference; located in verse 33 it is stated this way, But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. Prominent preacher and defender of the truth, John Macarthur said in his recent diatribe against Covenant Theology at large and Amillennialism specifically, that we can never understand references to the house of Israel or Judah as ever meaning anything but the physical form of those houses as being primarily represented by ethnic Jews. At this point, I would like to direct you to a work that has been done online: the chapter in Sam Waldron's book regarding John Macarthur's misrepresentation of Amillennialism called "The Israel of God" is helpful information here as well when he considers the New Testament understanding of the Church as the elect remnant. I don’t believe that I could answer Macarthur’s or any other form of dispensational objection to the covenantal use of the term in the New Testament any better that Dr. Waldron has already done.
In Luke 22 Christ uses the cup of wine in the upper room as a picture of the cup of God’s wrath which He must drink on the cross—Christ drank it and we must partake of Christ, so as a sacred meal which signifies the body and blood of Christ, we do the same until His return to renew our faith in the invisible Word by the visible means of the covenant meal. We can appropriate this for us today because when Christ instituted the meal, He referenced Jeremiah 31 in the gospel account: Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul then interprets the gospel accounts of this event for us, 1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. So Christ institutes the sacrament of communion for New Covenant members, then Paul places us into the group of New Covenant members by applying this institution to us.
In chapter 8, the writer of Hebrews quotes the entire passage from Jeremiah 31 regarding the New Covenant and names Christ as its mediator. So with Christ as it’s mediator, and with the way the New testament speaks of “the Israel of God’, the “true circumcision”, and Abraham’s offspring” as inclusive of all races, Christ’s declaration to His disciples that the New Covenant is in His blood, and with Paul’s application of communion to Christians today, we can safely say that the New Covenant (spoken of through the prophet Jeremiah) is a covenant God made with all believers. This covenant was confirmed on the cross; the cutting of that covenant spanned millennia and it most certainly does include all those who believe. Even though the prophet spoke of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, we must understand that the correct interpretation of those houses expands far beyond the historical/grammatical and goes (like all prophecy) into the redemptive historical “meta-narrative” and, in the broad sense, God would have us to understand through the Scriptures, that those houses included all those who believe and who are counted righteous in Christ.
Well, if you are a Dispensationalist you might want to call that Replacement Theology, and that term might be accurate if what was being said by Covenant theologians was that, the group (of which all believers in this post incarnation age are included) to whom this new covenant is made are getting the promises that were made to the people who God brought out of Egypt because they were unfaithful, and that God decided not to fulfill those promises He made through Moses to the nation of Israel, but instead He “replaced” them with another group, one which would certainly obey; if that was what Covenant theologians were saying, then the term "Replacement Theology" might stick. The fact remains that Covenant theologians have not, are not and will not say that. The unconditional promises made to Abraham will certainly be kept, and they will be kept with those to whom God always intended— Abraham’s seed, those in Christ; so God remains faithful. Those promises were not the same as the conditional promises which were made to Moses and the people who God brought out of Egypt—they broke the covenant and thus God did keep His promise to curse those in that covenant for corporate disobedience, the promises made to Abraham were never intended to be fulfilled through, and were not reiterated in the Mosaic Covenant, instead, the promises made to Abraham and his offspring (as stated very clearly in Romans 4) did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith, so that the beneficiaries of those promises are all of those who have faith, either in the coming Messiah or the Messiah who came, thus God can say through Paul that His promises have not failed because not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, so there are Israelites who will not be saved, and an “Israel” who will.
As I have heard it described by Kim Riddlebarger, one of the hosts of “The White Horse Inn”, it may be helpful to think of it this way, there could have been an ethnic Jew under the Mosaic Covenant who was personally obedient to the law of Moses and who was enjoying the blessings that were afforded to that covenant (enjoying milk and honey in the promised physical land) but who, at the same time, was a child of God’s wrath because he was without faith. There also could have been an ethnic Jew whose family was killed in the Babylonian invasion and who was carried off into exile and captivity, and who was no longer able to keep the temple laws but who, at the same time, was a child of God who would eventually enjoy the rest of Christ in the promised spiritual land because of the real sacrifice of Christ and because of his faith in that future Messiah, thus in eternity he would worship by the real Temple which is Christ Himself.
Possibly the largest hurdle for a theologian steeped in Dispensational tradition to get over is the fact that the New Testament authors apply the term “Israel of God” to a group that includes ethnic Jews and Gentiles, and above is probably the prime Old Testament reference; located in verse 33 it is stated this way, But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. Prominent preacher and defender of the truth, John Macarthur said in his recent diatribe against Covenant Theology at large and Amillennialism specifically, that we can never understand references to the house of Israel or Judah as ever meaning anything but the physical form of those houses as being primarily represented by ethnic Jews. At this point, I would like to direct you to a work that has been done online: the chapter in Sam Waldron's book regarding John Macarthur's misrepresentation of Amillennialism called "The Israel of God" is helpful information here as well when he considers the New Testament understanding of the Church as the elect remnant. I don’t believe that I could answer Macarthur’s or any other form of dispensational objection to the covenantal use of the term in the New Testament any better that Dr. Waldron has already done.
In Luke 22 Christ uses the cup of wine in the upper room as a picture of the cup of God’s wrath which He must drink on the cross—Christ drank it and we must partake of Christ, so as a sacred meal which signifies the body and blood of Christ, we do the same until His return to renew our faith in the invisible Word by the visible means of the covenant meal. We can appropriate this for us today because when Christ instituted the meal, He referenced Jeremiah 31 in the gospel account: Luke 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul then interprets the gospel accounts of this event for us, 1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." 25 In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes. So Christ institutes the sacrament of communion for New Covenant members, then Paul places us into the group of New Covenant members by applying this institution to us.
In chapter 8, the writer of Hebrews quotes the entire passage from Jeremiah 31 regarding the New Covenant and names Christ as its mediator. So with Christ as it’s mediator, and with the way the New testament speaks of “the Israel of God’, the “true circumcision”, and Abraham’s offspring” as inclusive of all races, Christ’s declaration to His disciples that the New Covenant is in His blood, and with Paul’s application of communion to Christians today, we can safely say that the New Covenant (spoken of through the prophet Jeremiah) is a covenant God made with all believers. This covenant was confirmed on the cross; the cutting of that covenant spanned millennia and it most certainly does include all those who believe. Even though the prophet spoke of the house of Israel and the house of Judah, we must understand that the correct interpretation of those houses expands far beyond the historical/grammatical and goes (like all prophecy) into the redemptive historical “meta-narrative” and, in the broad sense, God would have us to understand through the Scriptures, that those houses included all those who believe and who are counted righteous in Christ.
Well, if you are a Dispensationalist you might want to call that Replacement Theology, and that term might be accurate if what was being said by Covenant theologians was that, the group (of which all believers in this post incarnation age are included) to whom this new covenant is made are getting the promises that were made to the people who God brought out of Egypt because they were unfaithful, and that God decided not to fulfill those promises He made through Moses to the nation of Israel, but instead He “replaced” them with another group, one which would certainly obey; if that was what Covenant theologians were saying, then the term "Replacement Theology" might stick. The fact remains that Covenant theologians have not, are not and will not say that. The unconditional promises made to Abraham will certainly be kept, and they will be kept with those to whom God always intended— Abraham’s seed, those in Christ; so God remains faithful. Those promises were not the same as the conditional promises which were made to Moses and the people who God brought out of Egypt—they broke the covenant and thus God did keep His promise to curse those in that covenant for corporate disobedience, the promises made to Abraham were never intended to be fulfilled through, and were not reiterated in the Mosaic Covenant, instead, the promises made to Abraham and his offspring (as stated very clearly in Romans 4) did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith, so that the beneficiaries of those promises are all of those who have faith, either in the coming Messiah or the Messiah who came, thus God can say through Paul that His promises have not failed because not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, so there are Israelites who will not be saved, and an “Israel” who will.
As I have heard it described by Kim Riddlebarger, one of the hosts of “The White Horse Inn”, it may be helpful to think of it this way, there could have been an ethnic Jew under the Mosaic Covenant who was personally obedient to the law of Moses and who was enjoying the blessings that were afforded to that covenant (enjoying milk and honey in the promised physical land) but who, at the same time, was a child of God’s wrath because he was without faith. There also could have been an ethnic Jew whose family was killed in the Babylonian invasion and who was carried off into exile and captivity, and who was no longer able to keep the temple laws but who, at the same time, was a child of God who would eventually enjoy the rest of Christ in the promised spiritual land because of the real sacrifice of Christ and because of his faith in that future Messiah, thus in eternity he would worship by the real Temple which is Christ Himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment