THE CHURCH’S RELATIONSHIP TO THE NEW COVENANT
by
Cody Montandon*
*Cody Montandon is a graduate student at Tyndale Theological Seminary
Scripture taken from the THE NEW SCOFIELD REFERENCE
BIBLE, AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION, WITH WORD CHANGES IN THE TEXT TO HELP THE
READER, COPYRIGHT © 1967 By Oxford University Press, Inc.
Much disagreement has existed and
exists between traditional dispensationalists as to the nature of the church’s
relationship to the new covenant. All dispensationalists agree that the new
covenant was originally made between God and Israel. It is agreed that Israel
is distinct from the church, and will remain a distinct nation for all of
eternity. It is also agreed that the new covenant will see a literal earthly
fulfillment in national Israel after the Messiah returns to set up His kingdom
on earth following Daniel’s seventieth week. However, there are differences of
opinion among dispensationalists as to how the church fits in to all of this.
The New Testament clearly teaches that Christ is the mediator of the new
covenant, and some passages seem to indicate that the church enjoys many of its
blessings. Some will deny that the passages in question should be interpreted
in that way, and argue that the church has no part in the new covenant. Other
dispensational scholars believe that there are actually two new covenants, one
for Israel and another, referenced in the New Testament, for the church. Some
take the position that the new covenant is not fulfilled in the church, but that
the church enjoys some of its blessings due to its relationship with the
covenant’s Mediator.[1]
This paper will not seek to serve as a survey of dispensational thought on this
issue, as much has been written on the subject already. Instead it is the
author’s aim to present his own view, after spending the better part of the
last twenty years as a dispensationalist. Additionally, it should be said that
Scriptural references to the new covenant are vast, and cannot all be covered
in a paper of this size. Therefore, a handful of representative passages have
been selected for the purposes of providing a Biblical foundation to the
arguments made.
Many dispensationalists may be
afraid to see any relation of the church to the new covenant. After all, it has
traditionally been covenant theologians who have done so, and in fact this
relationship is central to their theology. However, when covenant theologians
state that the new covenant is related to the church, they mean that the new
covenant is completely fulfilled in the church, with no future fulfillment for
national Israel.[2]
This is the foundation of replacement theology, and no dispensationalist would
want to flirt with anything remotely related to such an unbiblical notion. To
do so may allow one to fall over the edge! Not to mention that walking near it
may bring an alarming response from fellow dispensationalists, and few would
want to be misunderstood or condemned by one’s colleagues! As a result, it
seems that many otherwise sound theologians have worked over time to try and
distance the church from the new covenant. No matter how admirable one’s
intentions may be, if his conclusions are not biblically defensible, those
conclusions must be rejected.
The author agrees that the new
covenant was made with the nation of Israel, and that it will be fulfilled at a
future time in the nation of Israel, and in all of the literal ways described
in Scripture. It is also agreed that there is a clear distinction between the
church and Israel. This paper, however, will take the position that the church
does in fact benefit from the new covenant, and is related to the new covenant
by means of her union with the covenant’s Mediator, Jesus Christ. In Him, we
enjoy many of the blessings promised to national Israel under the new covenant.
Jesus, Himself, intimated as much in Matthew 15:21-28 when the Canaanite woman
came to Him asking for mercy for her demon possessed daughter. As a gentile,
outside of the nation of Israel, she had no right to ask the Messiah of Israel
for blessings that He came to bring the Jews. In fact, when she addresses Jesus
as Israel’s Messiah, He ignores her. He then plainly tells her that He had come
exclusively to the lost sheep of Israel (v.24). He had a new covenant to keep
with Israel, and was under no obligation to share its blessings with this
Canaanite woman. However, when she came to him by faith, worshipping Him as
Lord, He responded. He allowed the woman to partake of the crumbs of the meal
He had prepared for Israel, and as result this Canaanite sinner enjoyed the blessings
of the Jewish table.[3]
What a beautiful picture of the church’s relationship to the new covenant. She
has no rights to it. It wasn’t promised to her. She wasn’t even invited to the
meal. But because of the loving relationship the Host has with her, He allows
her to partake freely of the meal prepared for others. This, of course, does
not mean that the original guests are uninvited, or that His plans for them
have changed at all. The entire meal was prepared for them! They will still
arrive right on time, and enjoy the fullness of the meal promised long ago, and
prepared just for them.
In Jeremiah 31:31-34 the new
covenant is promised to Israel (v.31). By implication the covenant they were
under at that time is what can be called the old covenant. That covenant was,
of course, the Mosaic covenant. God specifically states that there will be two
parties to this forthcoming covenant: Himself, and Israel. It was not made with
the church. As the late, great dispensational scholar Charles L. Feinberg
rightly points out, the church did not exist. No old covenant had been made
with the church, and therefore no new covenant could be made with her! This,
however, in no way means that the church has no part in it. Feinberg argues:
Does this mean that
believers today have no part in the new covenant? Surely not,
for the same death of
Christ that implemented the new covenant for Israel does so
for all sinners for all
time. The testimony of the NT is too clear on this point to be
misunderstood. Because
Israel rejected the covenant in the first advent, Gentiles
availed themselves of
its provisions (cf. Rom 0:30-13:1); and Israel will yet ratify
it at the climax of her
history (cf. Zech 12:10-13:1). Thus it is correct to say that
all believers in Christ
are by virtue of this covenant grafted into the stock of
Abraham (cf. Rom
11:16-24)... Though Jeremiah 31 does not state it, the making
of the new covenant was
inextricably bound up with the crucifixion of Christ for all
mankind... salvation is possible only through the death of Christ, and this is
the
basis for of the new
covenant. All sinful mankind is thus in view in this covenant.
Finally, Israel as a
nation will ratify the covenant after the “full number of
Gentiles has come in”
(Rom 11:25-27).[4]
Though
one may take issue with Feinberg’s statement that “all mankind was in view”
when God made His covenant with Israel, the implication is right on. While God
made His covenant with Israel, it was indeed always His plan to bring salvation
to non Jews by way of the Mediator of the new covenant. So, while the new
covenant will see its ultimate fulfillment in Israel at a future date, during
the millennial reign of Christ, the church is today participating in some of
the benefits of that covenant. The new covenant was inaugurated at cross
(Matthew 26:27-28), and the church, by virtue of her union with Christ shares
many of its spiritual benefits.[5]
MacArthur concurs:
In principle, this
covenant, also announced by Jesus Christ (Luke 22:20), begins
to be fulfilled
spiritually by Jewish and Gentile believers in the church era (1
Cor 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6;
Heb 8:7-13; 9:15; 10:14-17; 12:24; 13:20). It has already
begun to take effect
with “the remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom.
11:5). it will be
realized by the people of Israel in the last days, including the regathering to their ancient land, Palestine (chps.
30-33). The streams of the
Abrahamic, Davidic, and
New Covenants find their confluence in the millennial kingdom
ruled by the Messiah.[6]
MacArthur makes an important point
when he says that the new covenant begins to be fulfilled spiritually in the present dispensation.
Though the author agrees with MacArthur’s general premise (that the church is
enjoying some of the blessings of the new covenant today), he is not sure if
MacArthur’s statement that the new covenant is beginning to be fulfilled in the present age is the best
way to state the fact. The new covenant will be fulfilled in Israel, at a
future date. Period. To argue that the church enjoys and participates in its
blessings in the present age does not negate this important fact.
A survey of a handful of Old
Testament passages announcing the new covenant is in order:
Behold, the days come,
saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel, and
with the house of Judah, Not according to the covenant I
made with their fathers
in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out
of the land of Egypt,
which, my covenant, they broke, although I was a husband
unto them, saith the
Lord; But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the
house of Israel: after
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward
parts, and write it in
their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my
people. And they shall
teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his
brother, saying, Know
the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them
unto the greatest of
them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will
remember their sin no
more (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
Walvoord
notes that it is easy to see that the promises listed in this passage have no
literal fulfillment in the present age. However, they certainly correspond to the
spiritual blessings realized by the church. It is clear from the above passage
(the only one in the Old Testament that specifically refers to the new covenant by name), that the covenant is
with Israel, and that one cannot argue that it has been fulfilled in any way in
the present age.[7] It is, however, obvious, that
the promised blessing of forgiveness that was promised to Israel is already
being enjoyed by the church! In Jeremiah 32:37-40, God expands upon the new
covenant, providing the reader additional information. Not only will God be
Israel’s intimate Lord, and not only will He write His law on their hearts, and
not only will all
know him (another
promise that has not yet been fulfilled), but the new covenant includes a
promise that national Israel will be regathered to her ancient land (v.37), and
will dwell in that land forever (v.41). These are physical blessings that only
Israel can enjoy, and therefore can only be fulfilled in Israel. In Isaiah
61:8-9, God promises that under the new covenant that Israel will be publicly blessed in front of all the peoples of
the world. Only national Israel can enjoy the fulfillment of this promise, and
the fulfillment can only be future.[8] This, it seems, is true of all
of the physical promises of the new covenant.
The claim should not be made that
the new covenant is currently being fulfilled, or even that it has begun to be
filled. This can only happen in the nation of Israel and the fulfillment will
be literal. However, the New Testament is clear that the spiritual blessings
that the new covenant will bring are already being enjoyed by the church. In
Hebrews chapter 8, the author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 while
speaking to Jewish Christians. As Dr. Fruchtenbaum points out in his excellent
exegesis of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews did not do so in order to claim that
the promises of the new covenant were fulfilled in the church, or that the
church replaced Israel, but to demonstrate the supremacy of the new covenant
over the old, and that the old covenant was temporary.[9] The New
Covenant brought the promise of the forgiveness of sins, which would lead to
internal change, which would lead to a new relationship with God. The author of
Hebrews is arguing that his audience should take advantage of this, and realize
that this promise could be realized by them, at that time![10] He goes
on to argue that when Jesus died, the old covenant was rendered inoperative,
and that his readers could now enjoy the benefits of the new covenant that God
would make with Israel. Everything had been accomplished that needed to be in
order for the new covenant to take effect, and in fact chapter nine goes on to
demonstrate that Christ is already serving as the high priest, replacing the
high priest of the old covenant, and serving in the heavenly tabernacle that
the old tabernacle was a type of! Under the old covenant an earthly priest
would purify the earthly tabernacle with blood, but the new High Priest has
purified the true, heavenly tabernacle with His perfect blood (Hebrews 9:23),
and now because of His perfect sacrifice He has put away sin (v.26), just as promised would be the case under
the new covenant. It is important to remember that the context of this entire
section of Hebrews is a dissertation on the superiority of the new covenant
over the old. One cannot escape that conclusion that the salvation that the
twenty-sixth verse speaks of is a blessing that was promised to Israel under
the new covenant that is enjoyed today by both Jewish and gentile believers in
Christ, which clearly proves the point that the church enjoys blessings of the
new covenant. In fact, this is so very clear that many dispensationalists of
the past have actually invented a “second” new covenant for the church. In
their understandable attempt to stay away from the cliff of replacement
theology that the covenant theologian falls over, and therefore to ensure that
a proper difference is discerned between the church and Israel, they concluded
that there must be another new
covenant, since the
new testament is so clear that the church benefits from a new covenant!
However, as stated earlier, the church was never under an old covenant,
therefore what new
covenant could this
possibly referring to, if not the one Israel was under formerly? The obvious
conclusion is that the AH must be talking about God’s old covenant with Israel,
and he makes this crystal clear in Hebrews chapters 8-10. The salvation that
the church enjoys is none other than the salvation promised under the new
covenant, bought and paid for by the new covenant’s mediator, Jesus Christ.
It should be noted that nowhere does
Hebrews, or any other New Testament passage state that the new covenant has
been fulfilled. It is this author’s opinion that if one is to use a consistent
literal-grammatical-historical hermeneutic, then the fulfillment of the new
covenant can only take place when Israel is regathered to her ancestral land,
and Christ returns to set up His millennial kingdom (Jeremiah 32:37-41). This
will take place after the
fullness of the Gentiles be come in (Romans
11:25). At that time, all
Israel will be saved
(Romans 11:26), experiencing the forgiveness of sins promised in Jeremiah
31:34. God will write His law on their hearts, and they will enjoy an intimate
relationship with Him as their God that will be unique to that dispensation.
Israel will dwell in complete peace and safety in their land (Jeremiah 32:37),
and unlike in the past the nation will be completely faithful to their God
(Jeremiah 32:40). When these promises that God made to the nation of Israel are
fulfilled literally, then one will be able to say
that the new covenant has been fulfilled. In the meantime, saved Jews,
and saved gentiles enjoy the forgiveness of sins, and the indwelling presence
of the Holy Spirit that the new covenant will bring Israel during the kingdom.
While preparing this paper the
author invited some friends over for dinner. A grand feast of grilled
hamburgers, sausages, and hot dogs was promised. A date was set. Guests marked
their calendars for the appropriate time on the appropriate day. While
preparing the meal, the host noticed that there was going to be plenty of
delicious meat for everyone, multiple times over. The smell was incredible. The
host wasn’t the only one who thought so. His loyal dogs, Yogi and Teddy, sat
eagerly next to the grill with watering tongues hanging out. They, from past
experience, were aware that the chef was prone to drop meat while moving it
from the grill to the plate, and they were ready. They were not disappointed!
Not only did their master drop some, but because of his love for them he
actually gave them some on purpose. Then, after the meal, when the guests had
left, Yogi and Teddy got leftovers. They enjoyed so much grilled and seasoned
meat that night they were laying belly up on the hardwood floor in the living
room in a total and complete food coma. Looking over at them, the author
thought about the church and the new covenant. That meal was not promised to
those dogs. They weren’t even invited to the party! In fact, the promise of the
party wasn’t fulfilled until the guests arrived, and it was fulfilled only then. But the food had to be
prepared for the invited guests. And, because of their intimate relationship
with the host, and his affection for them, those dogs had one of the best
nights of their lives. They got to eat the crumbs that fell from the table of
the party. And guess what? The friends who were originally promised the meal
got all they wanted to eat, as well.
God didn’t promise a new covenant to
the church. He promised it to Israel. And one day that promise will be
literally fulfilled. But in the meantime, like those dogs, the church gets to
live under the new covenant today, and enjoy some of its blessings.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Decker, Rodney J. “Why Do
Dispensationalists Have Such a Hard Time Agreeing on the New Covenant?” Paper Presented at the Council on
Dispensational Hermeneutics,
Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania, September
2008.
Dyer, Charles. “Jeremiah,”
The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament. ed.
John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck.
USA: Victor Books, 1987.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold J. Ariel’s
Bible Commentary: The Messianic Jewish Epistles. San Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2005.
Feinberg, Charles L. “Jeremiah,”
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 6, ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein.
Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1981.
MacArthur, John. The
MacArthur Bible Commentary. Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas
Nelson, 2005.
Pettegrew, Larry D. “The New Covenant” The
Master’s Seminary Journal. 10/2 (Fall 1999), 251-270.
Toussaint, Stanley D. Behold
The King: A Study of Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: 1980.
Walvoord, John F. The
New Covenant With Israel, from the series Eschatological
Problems, www.walvoord.com.
[1]
Rodney J. Decker, “Why Do
Dispensationalists Have Such a Hard Time Agreeing on the New Covenant?,” Paper
Presented at the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania,
September 2008.
[3]
Stanley D. Toussaint. Behold The King: A Study
In Matthew. (Grand
Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1980), 194-195.
[4]
Charles L. Feinberg. “Jeremiah,”
The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 6 . (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986, 575.
[5]
Charles Dyer, “Jeremiah,” The Bible
Knowledge Commentary. Old Testament. ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. (USA: Victor Books, 1987).
1171-1172.
[7]
John F. Walvoord. “The New Covenant With
Israel,” in the Eschatological Problems series. www.walvoord.com.
[9]
Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Ariel’s Bible Commentary,
The Messianic Jewish Epistles. (San
Antonio, TX: Ariel Ministries, 2005), 112.
No comments:
Post a Comment