Chapter 9: Israel – Heir of the New Covenant

Chapter 9

ISRAEL – HEIR OF THE NEW COVENANT

HE Christian Church is commonly identified as the chief inheritor of the new covenant that Jesus Christ inaugurated, according to His own declaration before the eleven disciples, Judas having left the upper room. Thus, “He took the cup after they had eaten [the distributed bread], saying, ‘This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood’” (Luke 22:20). That band of Galileans were nevertheless well versed in the Old Testament, the Tanak according to Hebrew understanding, and it is important to consider what they would have understood upon their hearing of that term “new covenant.” Undoubtedly their minds would have recollected the only passage in the Tanak where this expression is recorded, namely Jeremiah 31:31-37. But at the same time they would also have remembered the parallel passages of Ezekiel 11:14-21; 36:2 32. And while the disciples would have undoubtedly been mystified concerning Jesus’ sacrificial identification with this prophetic portion, nevertheless

it would also have immediately engendered optimistic thoughts concerning Israel’s ultimate prospects and glorious future.

However, let us return to a prima facie consideration of Jeremiah 31:31-37 without any importation of subsequent New Testament revelation. In other words, let us simply interpret the passage according to the accepted literal, grammatical, historical principles of orthodox hermeneutics.

A. The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-40.

1. The context of Jeremiah 31:15-26.

The preceding context of Jeremiah 31:15-26 envisages national Israel experiencing “lamentation and bitter weeping” on account of severe chastisement,” vs. 15, 18 Nevertheless the Lord declares that there is “hope for your future,” v. 17, on account of sincere repentance, but preeminently because “‘My heart yearns for him [Ephraim My dear son]; I will surely have mercy on him,’ declares the L ORD.” As a consequence, a reversal of circumstances will come about whereby the blessing of the L ORD will be so outpoured upon His people “in the land of Judah” that everyone will be refreshed in the environment of His righteousness, vs. 23-25. Perhaps the awakening of v. may be likened to an appropriate pause, a “selah,” that anticipates something o monumental importance.

2. The New Covenant promises sweet restoration in place of sour judgment, vs. 27-30.

“Days are coming” announces that for national Israel there is coming a reversal circumstances of apocalyptic proportions (23:5-6; 31:31, 38) in which “I will fulfill the good word which I have spoken concerning the house of Israel and the house of Judah. In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. In those days Judah will be saved and Jerusalem will dwell safely, and this is the name by which she will be called: the LORD is our righteousness” (33:14-16).

T

a. God will invest both Israel and Judah with fruitfulness, v. 27.

In the place of desolation, God will initiate spiritual and material prosperity. “For behold, I am for you, and I will turn to you, and you will be cultivated and sown” (Ezek. 36:9). “I will sow her for Myself in the Land. I will also have compassion on her who had not obtained compassion, and I will say to those who were not My people, ‘You are My people!’ And they will say, ‘You are my God’ (Ho 2:23).

b. God will reconstruct both Israel and Judah, v. 28.

To the degree that God has judicially punished His people with sword and famine and exile, “I will set My eyes on them for good, and I will bring them again to this land; and I will build them up and not overthrow them, and I will plant them and not pluck them up” (25:6).

c. God will refresh both Israel and Judah with national security, vs. 29-30.

The proverb, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are s on edge,” was used to described national, and not simply individual, participatio in the punishment that God inflicted upon His people (Lam. 5:7). But this circumstance will change when there is national restoration and blessing for Isra v. 29. Of course, such a glorious prospect will not eliminate individual responsibility, v. 30.

3. The New Covenant promises law on the heart in place of tables of stone, vs. 31-34.

The introduction of the thought of an eschatological “new covenant,” hv*d*j& berit khadashah, LXX diaq»khn kain»n, diath¯ ek¯en kain¯ en, must have appeared as revolutionary to the Hebrew reader, particularly when it is qualified as supplanting th revered Mosaic covenant.

a. The New covenant incorporates Israel and Judah, v. 31.

This new agreement introduces what is often thought to be perhaps Jerem most significant contribution. It is intriguing in that its lack of stipulations invites speculation that does not find satisfactory fulfillment until the advent of Messiah the Branch, who Jeremiah does anticipate (23:5; 33:15; cf. Isa. 4:2; Zech. 6:12). Although the unilateral nature of this covenant is implicit at this stage, it becomes more explicit in v. 33. Both the nations of Israel and Judah, the unification also being implicit, are the specific objects of the L ORD’S saving design, not the Christian church. Yet the Gentiles, wild olive branches, will be engrafted into “the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom. 11:17).

1

1 The indication of common misunderstanding here on the part of Christians is illustrated by a ser Charles Simeon on Jeremiah 31:31-34 titled “The New Covenant.” In the whole message there is not one reference to Israel or Judah while the new covenant is twice called the Christian covenant. The subsequen sermon on Jeremiah 31:35-37 is titled “The Church’s Security.” However, Simeon’s pro-Semitism is clearly indicated in the following sermon titled “The Future Conversion Of The Jews,” based on Jeremiah 32:37-42 in which he clearly expresses his belief in the restoration of Israel to the land. There is the spec b. The New Covenant transcends the Old Covenant, v. 32.

The main thrust of Hebrews would seem to have its genesis here, namely th better character of the second covenant over the first covenant (Heb. 7:19, 8:6; 9:23; 10:9; 12:24). So the new covenant will essentially be unlike the o covenant that was cut with the fathers (Exod. 24:3-18), the leaders of Israel (Exod. 24:1-2). There the basic stipulations were externally engraved by the finger of God on tablets of stone. The redemption of God whereby He brought His people out of Egyptian bondage was based upon the fact that He “heard th groaning; and God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Exod. 2:24; 3:13-17). Following the exodus, and due to sin such as murmuring, prior to arrival at Mt. Sinai the Law “was added because of transgressions” (Gal. 3:19; cf. Jer. 11:8; Rom. 5:20). However the external commandments were impotent (Heb. 7:18) insofar as effecting heartfelt conformity to the righteousness of God was concerned. Further, the external regard of God for Israel as a husband for His wife did not produce faithfulness (Isa. 54:5; Ezek. 16:8; Hos. 1:2; 3:1-3).

c. The New Covenant engraves the law on the heart, v. 33.

However “after those days” of old covenant incompetence, God will cut a new covenant with “the house of Israel,” using His same finger, yet engraving th transcript of His righteousness upon “their heart.” Thus “My law” will be internalized within the souls of the Hebrew nation. This will not simply be a biblical data download from heaven that invades the intellect, but the transplant of a “heart of flesh” for a “heart of stone” (Ezek. 36:26) that results in a godly transformation of the intellect, will, and emotions (II Cor. 3:3). Here the unilateral element is most obvious. This is the identical emphasis concerning the radica dynamic of the new covenant in Hebrews 9:9-14 whereby the conscience is able to be cleansed. Thus the new covenant is not a warmed over version of the o covenant but a radically distinct covenant that better communicates the sam essential righteousness that the old covenant demanded but could in no way produce. Thus the new covenant communicates the New Torah of the God o Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. In terms of its addressees, the new covenant is plainly established with the nation of Israel through its Messiah who was “cut,” that is “pierced through for our transgressions, . . . crushed for our iniquities” (Isa. 53:5). Yet through this new covenant will “all the families of the earth be blessed” (Gen. 12:3) as “wild olive branches” engrafted into “the rich root of the olive tree (Rom. 11:17). Then shall the Gentiles enter into new covenant blessings.

d. The New Covenant implants the knowledge of God in the heart, v. 34.

Here the radical nature of the preceding divine surgery is explained in terms of its cause and effects. There is a logical order here that is of vital importance. concerns the truth that sin voids the true knowledge of God by man; sin brings disjunction so that communication is impossible (Isa. 59:2); sin causes heavy static

qualification that “this diffusion of piety will not precede, but follow, their [Israel’s] restoration to their own land.” Then they will be “an holy people unto the Lord.” Horæ Homileticæ, IX, pp. 236-255.

whereby the transmission process between God and man results in a garb distorted message.

1. The radical forgiveness of sin according to the grace of God, v. 34b.

Here is the ground upon which a restored knowledge of God by man is made possible. Clearly atonement is necessary though here its form is not specifie The point is that this work of propitiation will cool the anger of God toward His sinful people. Thus He will be righteously disposed to pour out His Spirit upon the nation of Israel, which baptism Ezekiel describes: “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes” (36:27), “I will put My Spirit within you and you will come to life” (37:14).

2. The radical impartation of the knowledge of God, v. 34a.

The intensity, even fanatical devotion of Israel’s quest for the knowledge of God is legendary, particularly with regard to its study of the Tanak a Talmud. But at the same time this zeal for the Law proved to be deadening t the soul, as Paul himself indicates (Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14), even blindin Cor. 3:14). Hence it is this condition that will change upon the conversion of national Israel. Rather, as Keil clarifies:

The knowledge of Jahveh, of which the prophet speaks, is not the theore knowledge which is imparted and acquired by means of religious instruction; it is rather knowledge of divine grace based upon the inward experience of the heart, which knowledge the Holy Spirit works in the heart by assuring th sinner that he has indeed been adopted as a son of God through the forgivenes of his sins.

2

Further there will be no elitism, no intellectual class consciousness, si “they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of the Hence the attitude of the Jew toward the Gentile will be one of humb fellowship.

4. The New Covenant promises certainty guaranteed in creation, vs. 35-37.

Centuries are to pass before such a wondrous promised hope will be fulfilled. Hence, assurance must be upheld when the nation of Israel “passes through the waters” and “walks through the fire” of tribulation (Isa. 43:1-2). Consequently the following graphic scenario is one of Scripture’s most compelling portrayals of God’s cov faithfulness. With this in mind, it is wholly inappropriate for the proponents of replacement theology to subtly change the details of the preceding new coven particularly concerning its explicitly named addressees, “the house of Israel an house of Judah,” while maintaining that exegetical faithfulness to the text is upheld.

a. The visible creative tokens of God’s covenant faithfulness, v. 35.

Here the vision is of the mighty creative hand of God, but especially those items which are connected with the fixed sequence of day and night and tides. These a

2 C. F. Keil, The Prophecies of Jeremiah, II, p. 40.

related to the regular appearance of the sun, moon, and stars, as well as the rise and fall of the oceans. Every day and every night man can observe the fixity, the dependability of these sequential matters.

b. The inviolate guarantee of God’s covenant in the fixed order of creation, v. 36.

If the preceding unvarying order should give way to chaos, then and only then is it conceivable that the children of Israel should cease to exist through the invalidation of the new covenant. However every day provides the opportunity for contemplation of God’s faithfulness concerning His keeping of His covenant with Noah (Gen. 8:22); thus His dependability with regard to the new covenant should be undoubted.

c. The inviolate guarantee of God’s covenant in the immensity of creation, v. 37.

From the realm of orderly sequence we move to that of dimensional limits. Only if the finite can plumb the depths of the infinite, if man can discover the boundaries of heaven and the cornerstone of the earth, if a speck of humanity can estimate the immensity of God, only then is it possible for Him to forever disannul the new covenant and thus disinherit His children.

5. The New Covenant promises the restoration of Jerusalem, vs. 38-40.

The significance of the restoration of the land to new glory (Ezek. 11:17-18; 36:28-36), as an inevitable consequence of the new covenant, is indicated by the focus upon the glory that the new Jerusalem will experience.

a. The restoration will be for the L ORD, vs. 38-39.

This construction will have dimensions greater than any previous building of Jerusalem that will overshadow former places of death, paganism, and shame. But the preeminent character of the city will be its God-centered focus in view of the enthronement of Messiah as “king over all the earth” (Zech. 14:9).

b. The restoration will be holy to the L ORD, v. 40.

The soil previously seeded with unholy “dead bodies and ashes” shall give way to a holy topography that shall be seeded with the living, blessed, Messiah worshipping children of God. Thus Keil rightly concludes:

From this description of Jerusalem which is to be built anew, so that the whole city, including the unclean places now outside of it, shall be holy, or a sanctuary of the Lord, it is very evident that this prophecy does not refer to the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the exile, but, under the figure of Jerusalem, as the center of th kingdom of God under the Old Testament, announces the erection of a more spiritual kingdom of God in the Messianic age (Zech. 14:10-11 ).

3

3 Ibid., pp. 46-47.

B. The New Covenant of Hebrews 8:7-13.

Whereas in Appendix C a study of Galatians 6, Ephesians 2, Philippians 3, Hebrews 8, and Peter 2 is made with regard to synthesis concerning the primary text of Romans 11, here consideration of Hebrews 8 is with more exegetical detail concerning its focus on promised new covenant. The analysis of Hebrews requires the understanding of ce characteristics that are quite distinctive. To begin with its Greek style is probably the mos difficult to grasp in all of the New Testament. Then there is the manner in which Testament quotations appear to be related to the author’s teaching. Concerning th difficulty, John Owen warns us: “There is not any thing in this Epistle that is attended with more difficulty than the citation of the testimonies out of the Old Testament that are made use of in it.”

4 This being the case, we should tread carefully in such instances, and

presume that the illustrative use in Hebrews of an Old Testament passage invalid original intent and establishes some new fixed New Testament hermeneutical principle.

1. The New Covenant established, Hebrews 8:1-13.

Since both the One who offers and the Offering are the same, Jesus Christ the High Priest is first introduced in vs. 1-6 as He who will be “cut” according to the promise o the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, vs. 7-13. Reference to the New “Covenant/ Testament [diaq»kh, diath¯ ek¯e]” is made seven times in the New Testament (Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8, 13; 9:15; 12:24). The qualifying “New” is kainÒj, kainos, with the exception of nšoj, neos (Heb. 12:24). It is twice called “better,” kre…sswn, kreiss ¯ on, covenant (Heb. 7:22; 8:6). Carl Hoch, Jr. further explains: “Only one New Testament passage uses the terminology “old covenant” (II Cor. 3:14). The Book of Hebrews does use the word ‘covenant’ in connection with the old covenant, but never with the adjective ‘old.’ The writer calls the old covenant the ‘first’ covenant (Heb. 8:7, 13; 9:1, 15, 18).”

5

a. By a superior high priesthood, vs. 1-6.

The enlightened Jewishness of the author cannot be restrained, even thou has made the earthly/heavenly contrast many times before. Once again th contrast between what transpires “in the heavens,” v. 1, and “on earth,” vs. 4-5 It should be noted that the revealed Hebrew categories of “priesthood,” “tabernacle,” “sanctuary,” “law,” “sacrifice,” and “covenant,” have not bee done away with; they have simply been raised to an eternal and heavenl perspective in contrast with that which is temporal and earthly.

1. This high priest is seated in the heavens, vs. 1-2.

Here the distinctive, elevated, exalted location of Jesus Christ as high priest emphasized. This is the dominant theme of Hebrews, namely that Jesu Christ is better in terms of who He is, where He is, and what He ha

4 John Owen, An Exposition of Hebrews, I, p. 106. 5 Carl Hoch, Jr., All Things New, p. 92.

accomplished. The Law, 7:28, as embodied in Moses and Aaron, is inferior in terms of who Moses and Aaron are, where the Law was established, and what it accomplished.

2. This high priest officiates in the heavens, vs. 3-5.

While the high priesthood of Jesus Christ has a lineage, via Melchizedek and the tribe of Judah, that is both infinitely superior and radically different, 7:13-17, yet for the sake of the author’s addressees who have been steeped in the lineage of Moses, Aaron, and Levi, contrast continues to be made so that separation from the weak elements of the past is understood as a vital, inevitable, practical necessity. But further, we are being led from the realm of priestly office to priestly accomplishment, from Jesus Christ’s high priestly position to His high priestly cutting of a second, better, irrevocable, everlasting covenant through His blood.

3. This high priest mediates a better covenant, v. 6.

“But now He [God] has obtained a more excellent/distinctively surpassing [diaforèteroj, diaphor ¯ oteros, cf. 1:4] religious ministry/sacred service, inasmuch as the covenant mediation/arbitration/go between [mes…thj, mesit¯ es] is better, which has been legally enacted [perfect of nomoqetšw nomothete ¯ o, cf. Rom. 9:4]

6 on better promises.” Here is the lead-in to the

subsequent emphasis on the second/new covenant. A better or transcendently superior ministry, even as heaven transcends earth, even as Christ’s mediation transcends that of Moses, vs. 1-5, also incorporates a “better covenant” with regard to the first covenant, based upon “better promises” with regard to the conditionality, the blessings and cursings, especially in an earthly sense, promised to God’s people under Moses. The specifics of these “better promises,” which regulate covenant fixity, are now detailed in a prime example found in Jeremiah 31, a post-Mosaic revelation, even as was Psalm 110:4.

Again, how was the second covenant to be better than the first? It certainly was not with regard to a better plan of salvation, or the incorporation o much more grace than law. We should remember that since the Fall, sinners have always been saved by grace through faith in a holy and merciful God. Rather it was as Calvin explains:

[I]t is certain that the fathers who lived under the Law had the same hope of eternal life set before them as we have, as they had the grace of adoption in common with us, then faith must have rested on the same promises. But the comparison made by the Apostle refers to the form rather than to the substance; for though God promised to them the same salvation which he at this day promises to us, yet neither the manner or the character of the revelation is the same or equal to what we enjoy.

7

6 David Stern refers here to the enactment of Torah, though more appropriate would be “new Torah enactment,” Jewish New Testament Commentary, pp. 687-89. 7 Calvin, Hebrews, p. 185.

This distinction may be likened to a bride’s hope in a photograph of bridegroom that he has provided and her eventual marriage to her beloved. From an engagement promise and ring to fulfillment, the plan is the same. The photograph has a relatively weak and limited role compared to th better relationship that the actual wedding ceremony will inaugurate; it is a lifeless representation, it encourages hope, but it is vastly inferior to eventual union based upon a better, final promise and vows signified by wedding ring. So the second covenant, representing progress of revelation i history, declares what God has consummately done in such a better fashion in these “last days,” in comparison with what “He spoke long ago” (1:1-2).

a. By a superior promise, vs. 7-13.

To the Jewish mind, the mere suggestion of a second covenant is a radical truth embrace; it suggests the necessity of a new Moses, a new Torah, a new priestho The preceding exposition has frankly unmasked the inherent weaknesses o first Moses, the first Torah, the first priesthood, and the first gathering of people of God. However, the recently explained, vast superiority of Jesus’ Christ’ priesthood over that of Aaron has also paved the way for even clearer explanatio of a necessary second covenant, but especially as it is plainly revealed in the po Mosaic revelation of Jeremiah 31.

1. It is necessitated by an inferior promise, v. 7.

“For if that first [covenant] was blameless/faultless [¥memptoj, amemptos, c 7:18, though this was not the case], there would have been no place/necess to seek a second [covenant, cf. 7:11; Gal. 3:21].” The “first covenant” here i the Mosaic covenant in its totality, not merely the civil and ceremonia aspects (Exod. 19:5; 34:27-28; Deut. 4:13), to which bilateral agreeme Israel agreed (Exod. 19:8; 24:3), and witnessed through “the blood of covenant” (Exod. 24:4-8; Jer. 34:18). The fault or blame here concerns, not intrinsic fault, but mainly the Law’s inability to effect change in the children of Israel, its lack of dynamic (Rom. 8:3-4). As Hughes explains: “The ‘fault’ of the old covenant lay, not in its essence, which, as we have said, presente God’s standard of righteousness and was propounded as an instrument of lif to those who should keep it, but in its inability to justify and renew those who failed to keep it, namely the totality of fallen mankind.”

8 The

misunderstanding here of the purpose of the Law, in the form of a Jewish Galatianism (cf. Luke 18:11-12; Gal. 3:1-3), the synergism of faith and works, simply magnified the sin of self-righteousness. However, should Israe have rightly understood the main purpose of the Law (Rom. 5:20; Gal. 3:19) in no way would this have invalidated the need of the gospel initiated by the second covenant. A right understanding of the Law within Israel would have resulted in the Jews calling for gospel mercy. Here, misunderstanding purpose by the Jews, regarding the Law’s divinely ordained design, nevertheless resulted in sin becoming even more prominent.

8 Hughes, Hebrews, pp. 297-98.

2. It is revealed by Jeremiah, vs. 8-12.

We need to remember, once again, that the Jewish author of Hebrews is addressing Jewish Christians who well know Jeremiah 31:31-34, which passage from the Old Testament is the largest such unit employed in the New Testament. Not for a moment does he redefine and broaden the focus of this passage here for the sake of Gentile inclusion and perception, though he does enlarge our understanding by means of gospel spectacles, 9:11-16; 10:14-18, 29; 12:24; 13:20. At this juncture, it is probably well to appreciate also the words of the Lord Jesus to His disciples when they participated in the Passover supper: “This cup, which is poured out for you, is the new covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). Undoubtedly the Son of God was establishing Himself as the ground of the promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34, and the band of Jews gathered around Him would have instantly made the connection, though of course their understanding remained dim until post-resurrection instruction by Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

The context of Jeremiah 31 is important. Here the rebellious, sinful people of God are on the brink of disaster, that is the sudden intervention of God judgment. Following the promise that Judah would be captive in Babylon for seventy years (25:8-11; cf. Isa. 10:5-34), and that the captives were to submit to this temporary residence (29:4-7), there also follows the promise of th judgment of Babylon (25:12-14) and the eventual restoration of the exile back to Jerusalem (29:10-14; 30:1-3, 18-22). The language here first appears to describe that immediate exilic return which was initiated under Zerubbabel, Ezra, and Nehemiah (537-445 B.C.), yet the subsequent description of 31:1-26 seems to transport us to a far more comprehensive, blissful and settled return from even “the remote parts of the earth,” v. 8, than hitherto experienced. Furthermore, the introduction of a “new covenant” similarly describes a far more glorious future economy than that which spanned the return from Babylon to the savage subjection of the Hasmonean dynasty that resulted from the Roman conquest of Israel and profanation of the Temple by Pompey in 63 B.C. The mention of both “the house of Israel,” separately exiled to Assyria in 722 B.C., and “the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31), indeed all of vs. 31-34, plainly indicate a far more distant, inclusive, and glorious horizon.

(a) The New Covenant promised (Jeremiah 31:31), v. 8.

“For in finding fault [with the first covenant] He says [in Jeremiah 31:31-34] to them [the Israelites]

9 ‘Behold, days are coming, says the

Lord, I will bring to completion/establish on the House of Israel and on the House of Judah, a new covenant.’”

10 For Jeremiah, the expression

“days are coming” is always related to the return of scattered Israel to

9 This translation, contrary to the NIV, that so much better relates to the preceding verse, uses the quite well supported aÙto‹j rather than aÙtoÚj Surely the “finding fault” concerns the first covenant rather than the Israelites. So Brown, Farrar, Hughes. 10 This quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34, by the author, does not exactly follow the Massoretic Hebrew text or the Septuagint, and for this reason it may well be based upon memory.

“the land” (23:7-8; 30:3; 31:27-28, 38) and the reign of Christ in New covenant relationship with Israel in the land (Jer. 23:5; 31:31 Two crucial matters are raised here that have vast ramifications.

The first matter concerns the meaning of the phrases, “the House Israel” and “the House of Judah.” One view is described by O. Palmer Robertson:

Part of the solution to the problem of the identification of “Israel” involves recognizing that the term has more than one use in Scripture. . . . However, one significant usage of the term that may be helpful for the question of Jeremiah’s prophecy should be noted. Old Covenant Israe may be regarded as a typological representation of the elect people God. This assertion does not intend to suggest that Israel functioned merely in a typological role. But from an old covenant perspective, one significant aspect of Israel’s existence was the nation’s typological representation of the chosen of Yahveh. The old covenant “serpent of brass” typologically anticipated the new covenant Christ cursed on the cross. The old covenant tabernacle typologically anticipated the new covenant reality of the chosen people of God. When Jeremiah specifically indicates that the new covenant will be made “with the house of Judah and with the house of Israel,” this perspective must be kept in mind. If the new covenant people of God are the actualized realization of a typological form, and the new covenant now is in effect, those constituting the people of God in the present circumstances must be recognized as the “Israel of God.” As a unif people, the participants of the new covenant today are “Israel.”

11

This covenantal interpretation, being essentially as old as Augustine, is supercessionist. In other words, any thought of literal national Isra and literal Judah here ought to be superceded by the idea that this vers now speaks of the people of God under the New Covenant, that is the church as the spiritual Israel. It is significant that Robertson conspicuously makes no mention of the fact that the overwhelmin usage of the terms “Israel” and “Judah” is with regard to literal “Israel” and literal “Judah.” For instance this holds true even in Romans where ’Isra»l, Isra¯el, ’Israhl…thj, Isra¯ elit ¯ es, are used thirteen times, and never once with regard to any people or person other than those who physically descended from Jacob. Hence, concerning the analogous use of the serpent of brass and the tabernacle, the New Testament makes n such analogy with regard to Israel, notwithstanding the only refug being taken in Galatians 6:16.

12 Thus J. C. Ryle rejects this spiritualizing

hermeneutic as follows.

11 O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ Of The Covenants, pp. 288-89. Also refer to this author’s The Israel Of God which, in a classic supercessionist manner, declares: “Rather than understanding predictions about th ‘return’ of ‘Israel’ to the ‘land’ in terms of a geopolitical re-establishment of the state of Israel, prophecies are more properly interpreted as finding consummate fulfillment of the ‘restoration of all thing that will accompany the resurrection of believers at the return of Christ (Acts 3:21; Rom. 8:22-23),” p. 194 12 The continuative “and” ka…, kai, is contextually and statistically preferable when compared with the ascensive “even.” Most commonly the translation is, “and upon the Israel of God” (NASB), in which case

The word “Israel” is used nearly seven hundred times in the Bible. I can only discover three senses in which it is used. First, it is one of the names of Jacob, the father of the twelve tribes; a name specially given to him by God. Secondly, it is a name given to the ten tribes which separated from Judah and Benjamin in the days of Rehoboam, and became a distinct kingdom. This kingdom is often called Israel in contradistinction to the kingdom of Judah. Thirdly and lastly, it is a name given to the whole Jewish nation, to all members of the twelve tribes which sprung from Jacob, and were brought out of Egypt into the land of Canaan. This is by far the most common signification of the word in the Bible. It is the only signification in which I can find the word “Israel” used throughout the whole New Testament. It is the same in which the word is used in the text which I am considering this day [Jer. 31:10]. That Israel, which God has scattered and will yet gather again, is the whole Jewish nation. Now, why do I dwell upon this point? To some readers it may appear mere waste of time and words to say so much about it. The things I have been saying sound to them like truisms. That Israel means Israel is a matter on which they never felt a doubt. If this be the mind of many of you whose hands this address has fallen, I am thankful for it. But unhappily there are many Christians who do not see the subject with your eyes. For their sakes I must dwell on this point a little longer. For many centuries there has prevailed in the Churches of Christ a strange, and to my mind, an unwarrantable mode of dealing with this word “Israel.” It has been interpreted in many passages of the Psalms and Prophets, as if it meant nothing more than Christian believers. Have promises been held out to Israel? Men have been told continually that they are addressed to Gentile saints. Have glorious things been described as laid up in store for Israel? Man have been incessantly told that they describe the victories and triumphs of the gospel in Christian churches. The proofs of these things are too many to require quotation. No man can read the immense majority of commentaries and popular hymns without seeing this system of interpretation to which I now refer.

13 Against that system I have long protested, and I hope I shall always protest as long as I live. I do not deny that Israel was a peculiar typical people, and that God’s relations to Israel were meant to be a type of His relations to His believing people all over the world. I would have it most distinctly understood that God’s dealings with individual Jews and Gentiles are precisely one and the same. Without repentance, faith in Christ and holiness of heart, no individual Jew or Gentile shall ever be saved.

Hebrew Christians retain a distinct identity, while the minority translation reads, “even upon the Israel of God” (NIV), in which case the church, comprising all of the people of God, is simply given a refined title, it being the spiritual Israel of God. However consider that in the New Testament of the KJV, “and” occurs approximately 9225 times (97%), while “even” occurs approximately 275 times (3%). 13 It hardly needs mentioning that these volumes are almost exclusively Gentile in authorship.

What I protest against is, the habit of allegorizing plain sayings of t Word of God concerning the future history of the nation of Israel, and explaining away the fullness of their contents in order to accommodate them to the Gentile Church. I believe the habit to be unwarranted b anything in Scripture, and to draw after it a long train of evil consequences.

14

Hence the promise here specifically concerns the nations of Israel and Judah, eventually to be united (Ezek. 37:15-28).

15 This is confirmed by

most of the related Old Testament references to an “everlasting covenant.” Certainly the Hebrew Christian addressees of Hebrews would readily appreciate this truth, which also indicates a present reality for the nation of Israel.

16 But if this is so, then how is it possible

for the Gentiles to participate in this distinctive New Covenant blessing? By the incorporation of “[Gentile] wild olive branches” into “the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom. 11:17), that is the Abrahamic Covenant. As Walter Kaiser explains: “The church is grafted into Israel, not Israel into the church. The new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 was made with ‘the house of Judah and the house of Israel,’ not with the church. It is not a covenant made with all humanity, but all humanity may be grafted into it.”

17 Hence Gentile Christians are warned: “Do not be

arrogant toward the [humiliated, detached Jewish] branches; but if you are arrogant [in claiming to have superceded, more worthily, unbelieving national Israel], remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you” (Rom. 11:18).

The second matter concerns the meaning of the phrase, “a new covenant” (cf. Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25; Heb. 8:13; 9:15; 12:24), which is also named in Hebrews as a “better covenant” (8:6), a “second” covenant (10:9), an “eternal covenant” (13:20; cf. Jer. 32:40). Is it an “essentially new” or “newer, renewed” covenant? The preceding context of 7:1-28, especially the absolute disjunction between Jesu Christ of Judah, as a priest after Melchizedek, and the Aaronic priesthood, would indicate that the New Covenant is essentially,

14 J. C. Ryle, Are You Ready For The End Of Time? pp. 106-107. The concluding comment here appears to allude to those centuries following Augustine in which Christian anti-Semitism was, and continues to be, a consequence of supercessionism. Also refer to the similar opinion of Horatius Bonar concerning the meani of “Israel,” Prophetical Landmarks, pp. 247-249; 256-258. 15 Horatius Bonar confirms this when he writes: “[A]s this passage [Jer. 31:8, 31] asserts, that it was, in the f place, with the literal Israel that this new covenant was to be made, so we find it to have been. Messiah, w He came, “confirmed the covenant with many for one week” (Dan. 9:27). He confirmed His own ministry t the Jews.” Prophetical Landmarks, p. 272. 16 In other words, if it is presupposed in the New Testament that the ancient nation of Israel has superceded by the new spiritual Israel, comprised of all people of God within the Christian church, then it necessary to import an inclusive meaning into Jeremiah 31:31. This methodology is especially evi Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants, pp. 222-23, 288-89, and The Israel of God, p. 189; also W. J. Grier, The Momentous Event, p. 47, who fail to appreciate that the addressees of Hebrews, such as the “us” in 10:15, are Hebrew Christians. 17 Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., “An Epangelical Response,” Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church, eds. Blaising and Bock, p. 361. Here Kaiser indicates his indebtedness to Daniel Gruber, The Church and The Jews, pp. 77-85, 99-104, 334-339. Also refer to David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 684.

fundamentally new when compared with the old Mosaic covenant.

18

This is certainly affirmed here in v. 29. However, we must continue to remember, concerning the Abrahamic Covenant and indeed the adjunct Davidic Covenant, that the New Covenant is the ultimate fulfillment of the original promise. This point is upheld when we consider much of the Old Testament terminology regarding an “everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:7, 13; II Sam. 23:5; I Chron. 16:17; Ps. 105:10; Is. 55:3; 61:6-9; Jer. 32:36-41; 50:4-5; Ezek. 16:60-63; 37:24-28).

Here then is the ultimate, explicit challenge, not only to Judaism that sees the Mosaic covenant and Torah as having a supposed eternal existence, but also to those Christians who attempt to maintain a partnership between Moses and Jesus Christ. This is in spite of a most clear statement here that comes to a climax, v. 13, namely that the old covenant has become “obsolete,” and “is ready to disappear.” Here, at the same time, the superior glory of this New Covenant is inextricably bound to that restoration of glory which shall come to the nation of Israel in their promised land (Gen. 12:1-3; Jer. 31:23-25; 32:37-41).

(b) The Old Covenant broken (Jeremiah 31:32), v. 9.

“Not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, on the day of my having taken them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not abide in my covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord.” The language continues to focus on national Israel and Judah, but especially their distinctive Mosaic legacy. Especially note Jeremiah’s recollection concerning Israel’s commitment to and yet violation of this bilateral covenant (7:23-26; 34:17-18; cf. Exod. 24:3-8), which the author now also recollects. Consequently, God abandoned His people, yet not forever. The features of weakness, shadowiness, and faultiness, previously mentioned (7:18; 8:5, 7), that characterized the old covenant, now lead us to the distinguishing strengths or categories of “newness” that are incorporated in the New Covenant, vs. 10-12.

(c) The New Covenant defined (Jer. 31:33-34), vs. 10-12.

The contrasting unilateral nature of this covenant, its address to the heart of the human problem, its implementation through sole sovereign initiative, its fulfillment that is unconditionally certain, is as sure as the fixity of the sun, the moon, and the stars in the heavens; only if finite man can reach into and measure the infinite will Israel “cease to be a nation” and be required to give account for its sins (Jer. 31: 35-37).

18 Refer to the greater detail of Carl Hoch’s seven reasons giving support to this perspective. All Things New, pp. 105-107.

1. It is God’s inscription on the hearts of Israel (Jer. 31:33), v. 10.

“For this covenant [is that] which I shall covenant with the house of Israel after those days, ‘says the L ORD,’ [gratuitously/ graciously] placing My laws [nÒmouj mou, nomous mou]

19 into their

understanding/mind [di£noia, dianoia], and I will inscribe [™pigr£fw, epigraph¯ o] them on their hearts.” In other words, God will supernaturally invade the souls of His rebellious people according to His divine, merciful initiative. By this means, saving faith will be granted to Israel; the result will be the will to believe, to admire, to praise, to worship, to obey; there will be nation regeneration (Ezek. 36:22-31) and national repentance (Zech. 12:10-14). As John Brown comments:

Others consider it [here] as a prediction referring to the new economy generally, and that the phrases, “house of Israel,” and “house of Judah,” are to be understood mystically of the true Israel, whether Jews or Gentiles. But it seems to me quite plain, that the words are a prophecy of that general conversion of the Jews to Christianity which we are warranted to look for from many Old Testament predictions, and from the express declaration of the Apostle, that a period is coming when “all Israel shall be saved [Rom. 11:26]. It may indeed be said, How does the passage, in this view, answer the Apostle’s object? The answer is easy. The covenant which in the last days of the Christian dispensation th Jews generally are to be brought under, is substantially the sam covenant which, ratified in the blood of Jesus, has been, during the course of eighteen centuries, diffusing its blessings to an innumerable multitude of individuals, of every kindred, and people, and tongue, and nation.

20

The law of the old covenant was misconstrued as a revelation that was wrongly presumed to have an intrinsic, sanctifying dynam Similarly there was a wrong presumption concerning man’s supposed possession of an intrinsic, volitional ability that enabled him to obey this same law. Notice the right order here first o God’s sovereign covenant commitment, “I will put My laws, . . . I

19 Does this simply mean that the Mosaic code, Torah, will be internalized as some suggest, such as Richard Barcellos, In Defense of the Decalogue, pp. 15-24; Walter Kaiser, Old Testament Theology, p. 233; and Reconstructionists? David Stern comments that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 has become Tora cf. Heb. 8:6b, Jewish New Testament Commentary, pp. 687-89. Given that this may be so, neverthele would it not be more correct then to speak of “New Torah”? But this does not answer our original question The “laws of God” here are not distinguished as “moral laws,” as Decalogue only. Hence, a new code of th righteousness of God must be intended. Further, as Moo explains, “[T]here are references in the prophets tôrâ that will be established in the last days and that probably does not refer to the Mosaic law as such (Isa 2:3; 42:4; 51:4, 7; Mic. 4:2). This ‘Zion Torah,’ perhaps to be understood as a fresh publication of God’s wi for His people, in continuity with but not identical to the ‘Sinai torah,’ may be what is envisaged in Jeremia 31:33-34 and the Ezekiel texts.” Bahnsen, Kaiser Jr., Moo, Strickland, VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 346. 20 Brown, Hebrews, I, p. 372.

will write them, . . . I will be their God.” Then, as a consequence, all will know Me,” v. 11. The heart of legalism is a proud presumption, by polluted man, concerning confidence in nonexistent, moral human ability.

Of course the Gentiles will enter into this same regeneration, conversion, and justification according to that great gospel age in which the “wild olive branches” are engrafted into “the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom. 11:17); this runs parallel with that period when “the fullness of the Gentiles” will come to pass (Luke 21:24; Rom. 11:25). Following this will be the great Jewish ingathering (Rom. 11:15, 23-26): “This is My covenant with them, when I take away their sins” (Rom. 11:27).

2. It is God’s revelation of Himself to Israel (Jer. 31:34a), v. 11.

“And they will [definitely] not teach everyone, his fellow citizen, and everyone, his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’ [as in times past], because all will know Me from the least to the greatest of them [Isa. 54:13].” As Farrar explains, a further New Covenant distinctive “is that there shall be no appropriation of knowledge;

no sacerdotal exclusiveness; no learned caste that shall monopolize the keys of knowledge, and lock out those who desire to enter in.”

21 In other words, there will be an anointed priesthood of all

believers (I Pet. 2:9). Formerly, there had been an emphasis upon the efficacy of cerebral biblical education by means of an elite class of rabbis through synagogues, akin to a sterile church membership class. Pink adds:

During the Mosaic economy, and particularly in the last century before Christ, there was an external teaching of the Law, which the people trusted and rested in without any regard for God’s teaching by the inward circumcision of the heart. Such teaching had degenerated into rival schools and sects, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, etc., and they made void the word of God through their traditions (Mark 7:13). It was against such the last of Israel’s prophets had announced: ‘The Lord will cut off . . . the master and scholar out of the tabernacles of David’ (Mal. 2:12).

22

3. It is God’s revelation of mercy to Israel (Jer. 31:34b), v. 12.

“Because I shall be merciful/propitious [†lewj, hile¯ os; cf. 2:17, by sacrificial satisfaction, akin to propitiation; Rom. 3:24-26] to their unrighteousnesses, and their sins I shall [definitely] remember no longer/ever again.” In contrast with the Old Covenant, which was bilateral according to obedience or disobedience, the fundamental basis of the New Covenant is God’s unilateral, merciful, effectual

21 Farrar, Hebrews, p. 131. 22 Pink, Hebrews, I, p. 457.

intent that triumphantly confronts the “unrighteousnesses” and “sins” of those sinners He has set His heart upon. Notwithstanding the absence of any comment here by Calvin, this ve conveys the supreme distinction between these two covenants (John 1:17; Heb. 1:1-2), which the Apostle Paul boldly preached to the Jews in the synagogue at Pisidian Antioch: “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him [Jesus Christ] forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which yo could not be freed through the Law of Moses” (Acts 13:38-39).

3. It is surpassing, v. 13.

“In which He said, ‘[a] new [covenant],’ He has made old/obsolete [palaiÒw, palaio ¯ o] the former [prîtoj, pr¯otos; covenant]; but in being made old it is also growing old [being] near to disappearance/abolition [¢fanismÒj, aphanismos]. Here now is the author’s summation of the preceding quotatio concerning what he has been focusing on from the beginning. Both covenan having been ordained of God, it is wholly His prerogative, according to the gracious movement and progressive plan of His will, to replace an infe order with a superior order. We could say of a garment, “That which is by its very nature destined to become old/obsolete is presently becoming old to th point where it is about ready to be discarded.” So the old covenant, “being made old [prone to failure/obsolescence]. . . is also [presently] growing old [ the point where it is about to be discarded].” Assuming that the Jerusalem temple is still standing and operative, then there is here, according to Jesus (Mark 13:2; cf. John 2:19) and Stephen (Acts 6:14), anticipation of the immanent destruction of Herod’s temple and the whole sacrificial order. Gre Bahnsen illustrates the difficulty here of the Theonomist when he write “[T]he coming of Christ has brought a change of law regarding the priesthood (Heb. 7:12), and the administrative [as opposed to the mor order of the old covenant is vanishing away (Heb. 8:13).”

23 However, where

in the Bible do the terms “first [covenant], ” v. 1, or “old [covenant],” v. 13, ever indicate the human designations of only civil and ceremonial law to the exclusion of the moral law? Furthermore, as Hoch, Jr. explains in the light of 7:12, “the new order belongs to a different law than the old order. To change Aaron is to change Aaron’s system. If Aaron goes, the covenant that designates him as its high priest also goes.”

24 Hence it is the whole Sinaitic

dispensation that has become superceded. It is “the ministry of death letters engraved on stones [even the moral law so called], . . . the ministry o condemnation, . . . which fades away” (II Cor. 3:7, 9, 11). In accord with Galatians 3:24-25, this old covenant system has prepared the way over the centuries as “a tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith But now [in the continuity of history] that faith [particularly its object] has come, we are no longer under a tutor” (Rom. 7:1-4). Thus Owen concludes his comment on this verse: “All the glorious institutions of the law were at

23 Bahnsen, Kaiser Jr., Moo, Strickland, VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel, p. 104. 24 Hoch, Jr., All Things New, p. 123.

best but as stars in the firmament of the church, and therefore were all disappear at the rising of the Sun of Righteousness. Tù Qeù dÒxa [T¯ o The¯o doxa], To God, [let there be] glory].”

25

C. The New Covenant for Jewish and Gentile Christians.

1. The new covenant confronts Jewish Christians (Luke 22:20).

As has already been indicated, the context of Jesus’ declaration to the eleven disciples in the upper room, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood,” is that of Messiah as “the King of the Jews” (John 19:19) addressing eleven believing Jews. In a proleptic manner of speaking, the Son of God proclaims to representatives of “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31), dire benefactors of the new covenant, that He Himself is about to cut this new agreement with His own blood. To point this out is in no way intended to stimulate Gentile aggravation any more than the fact that the Abrahamic covenant was exclusively cut with Abraham (Gen. 15:1-21) and not in conjunction with a Gentile. However, as the Abrahamic covenant was to result in blessing to “all the families of the earth” (Gen. 12:3), so the new covenant similarly is to result in the incorporation of “other sheep” (John 10:16), that is “wild olive branches” by means of their being engrafted into “the rich root of the olive tree” (Rom. 11:17).

1. The new covenant confronts Gentile Christians (Acts 10-11, 15).

While the conversion of Paul anticipates the proclamation of Christ “before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel” (Acts 9:15), it is Peter’s encounter with the conve household of Cornelius (Acts 10) that sets the stage for the definitive proclamation from the Jewish church at Jerusalem that “God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life. [That] He made no distinction between us [Jews] and them [Gentiles], cleansing their hearts by faith” (Acts 11:18; 15:9). Hence the letter sent from the Jewish church in Jerusalem to the Gentile church in Antioch was an astonishing acknowledgment by Jewish Christians that there was no necessity for Gentile Christians to become Jewish Christians (Acts 15:22-30), and the resultant rejoicing on the part of the Gentile Christians was demonstrative acknowledgment of this truth (Acts 15:31). However, the thought that while Gentile Christians were free to enjoy their liberty as Gentiles, the Jewish Christians should give up their Jewishness, would have been unthinkable at Antioch. Yet such been the sad historic development that for centuries Gentile Christians have been harshly enforcing their liberty upon Jewish Christians and disenfranchising them of national and geographic identity. This ought not to be.

25 Owen, Hebrews, IV, p. 177. In a posthumous treatise on The Dominion Of Sin And Grace based on Romans 6:14, published in 1688, Owen further provides four reasons why the Christian is not under law. “1. The law giveth no strength against sin unto them that are under it, but grace doth. . . . 2. The law gives no liberty of any kind; it gendereth unto bondage, and so cannot free us from any dominion. . . . 3. The law doth not supply us with effectual motives and encouragements to endeavor the ruin of the dominion of sin in a way of duty. . . . It works only by fear and dread, with threatenings and terrors of destruction. . . . 4. Christ is not in the law; he is not proposed in it, not communicated by it,—we are not made partakers of him thereby. This is the work of grace, of the gospel. . . He [Christ] alone ruins the kingdom of Satan, whose power is acted in the rule of sin.” Works, VII, pp. 542-51.

2. The new covenant celebrated by Jewish and Gentile Christians (I Corinthians 11:25).

Paul instructs us that the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was “received from the Lord That is, the Apostle intends to convey that these specific directions had been directly related to him, and this being the case, connection with Luke 22:20 should be readily understandable. Hence, when Paul relates the words of the Lord Jesus in I Corinthian 11:25, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me,” doubtless he well appreciates the source of the terminology he from Jeremiah 31:31. However it is plain that he is communicating the importance of this new covenant celebration to not only Jews, but also a preponderance of Gentiles amongst his addressees at Corinth. Thus the Lord’s Supper is for the “remnan according to God’s gracious choice” (Rom. 11:5), that is branches of the rich root of the olive tree (Rom. 11:17), as well as “wild olive branches” engrafted into that same root of Abraham (Rom. 11:17; Gal. 3:29).

3. The new covenant operative in Jewish and Gentile Christians (II Cor. 3:1-18).

Paul delights to point out the intrinsic, distinctive character of the new covenant that Jes Christ has inaugurated. Like the author of Hebrews, he uses a fortiori argumentation to stress the surpassing greatness of that which Jeremiah 31:31 promised. Thus ther contrast between:

The distinguishing effect of the new covenant is heartwork, upon both Jew and Genti whereby the formerly concealed glory of God is revealed to the end that the child of God, in beholding the glory of the Lord, Jesus Christ, is “being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit,” v. 18.

THE OLD COVENANT

Tablets of stone, v. 3
The letter kills, v. 6
The ministry of death, v. 7
The ministry of condemnation, v. 9
The fading glory, vs. 10-11
Veiled heart, vs. 13-15

THE NEW COVENANT

Tablets of the human heart, v. 3 The Spirit gives life, v. 6 The ministry of the Spirit, v. 8 The ministry of righteousness, v. 9 The remaining glory, v. 11 Unveiled heart, vs. 16-18