Monthly Archives: September 2008

Perspective on the New Covenant, Part I

Jeremiah 31:31-33 31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Jeremiah 31:31-33 is recognized by theologians of all stripes as the promise of the New Covenant. While orthodox believers agree on the end result of the New Covenant (namely, that it will contain only believers), not everyone is agreed on the temporal administration of the Covenant. There are voluminous books and articles on the substance and scope of the New Covenant. For the average Christian these works are written at 30,000 feet and sometimes difficult to digest. The purpose of this blog is to take theology and make it succinct and readable for all. Not every Christian is a seminary graduate but ever Christian is a theologian. In other words, all of us need to understand not only who we believe in but what we believe in. The New Covenant is not a simply a doctrine, it is a reality that effects all believers. A proper understanding of the Covenant can be a source of great joy for the Christian. So, let’s frame the discussion by asking a few questions.

What is the New Covenant?

The Old Covenant is introduced in Jeremiah 31:32

“not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, MY covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD.

The Old Covenant was a promise by God, to bless the people of Israel if they obeyed the requirements of the Covenant. It was contingent. The Old Covenant was codified in the Decalogue (the Ten Commandments, Exodus 20), but it was more fully explained in Deuteronomy 28. The Old Covenant contained blessings and cursing. Blessing for obedience and cursing for disobedience. Some examples of the blessings of obedience:

Deuteronomy 28:3-7 “Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the country. 4 “Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground and the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. 5 “Blessed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 6 “Blessed shall you be when you come in, and blessed shall you be when you go out. 7 “The LORD shall cause your enemies who rise up against you to be defeated before you; they will come out against you one way and will flee before you seven ways.

Some examples of the cursing of disobedience:

Deuteronomy 28:16-20 16 “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. 17 “Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. 18 “Cursed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. 19 “Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out. 20 “The LORD will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me.

The Old Covenant was holy and good (Leviticus 7:1), but it was not able to impart righteousness because it required the obedience of mankind (Galatians 3:21). If mankind was measured against the standard of the Old Covenant alone it would be without hope because the Law cannot save. The Old Covenant (synonymous with the Law) was meant to be a tutor, to lead us to Christ. Paul writes:

Galatians 3:24 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

There was a foreshadowing of the promise of the New Covenant in Genesis 3:

Genesis 3:15 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.

The seed of the woman would become the guarantor of the New Covenant explained in Jeremiah 31. Whereas the Old Covenant could not be kept perfectly by man, the New Covenant was made possible by the perfect obedience of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Jeremiah 31 does not tell us this but the New Testament does:

Hebrews 8:6-13 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second. 8 For finding fault with them, He says, “BEHOLD, DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH; 9 NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT; FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT, AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD. 10 “FOR THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS INTO THEIR MINDS, AND I WILL WRITE THEM ON THEIR HEARTS. AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 11 “AND THEY SHALL NOT TEACH EVERYONE HIS FELLOW CITIZEN, AND EVERYONE HIS BROTHER, SAYING, ‘KNOW THE LORD,’ FOR ALL WILL KNOW ME, FROM THE LEAST TO THE GREATEST OF THEM. 12 “FOR I WILL BE MERCIFUL TO THEIR INIQUITIES, AND I WILL REMEMBER THEIR SINS NO MORE.” 13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

Next, the recipients of the New Covenant

The 1689 London Baptist Confession on Scripture

What is the basis for the Christian faith?  Ask that question and you’ll receive a myriad of answers.  Perhaps the better question is, “Who is the basis of the Christian faith?”  According to scripture, it is Jesus Christ.  According to scripture.  In our post-modern world few people will be so “narrow” minded to rest their spiritual convictions on scripture alone.  The latin phrase for “scripture alone” is sola scriptura.  It has been one of the hallmarks of christianity since the beginning of the Reformation and the Protestant movement.  One of the great confessions of the Christian faith is the 1689 London Baptist Confession.  This confession champions sola scriptura in chapter 1.1:

The Holy Scripture is the all-sufficient, certain and infallible rule or standard of the knowledge, faith and obedience that constitute salvation.

The framers of the confession elaborate further in chapter 1.10:

All religious controversies are to be settled by Scripture, and Scripture alone.  All decrees of Councils, opinions of ancient writers, and doctrines of men collectively or individually, are similarly to be accepted or rejected according to the verdict of the Scripture given to us by the Holy Spirit.  In that verdict faith finds its final rest.

In drafting these words, the confession includes a “poison pill” proviso.  The confession itself is subject to the scrutiny of scripture.  It’s validity and accuracy on any single point of doctrine is determined by scripture and nothing else.  If the confession fails the test of scripture, it simply fails and loses all value.  By this position confessional Christianity differs from Romish theology.  About the Romish view, A.A. Hodge wrote:

The Romish theory is that the complete rule of faith and practice consists of Scripture and tradition, or the oral teaching of Christ and his apostles, handed down through the Church. Tradition they hold to be necessary, 1st, to teach additional truth not contained in the Scriptures; and, 2nd, to interpret Scripture. The Church being the divinely constituted depository and judge of both Scripture and tradition.–” Decrees of Council of Trent,” Session IV, and “Dens Theo.,” Tom. 2., N. 80 and 81.

Tradition is helpful in handing down a legacy of sound doctrine so long as both are based on scripture, not human decree.  At his defense at Worms, Martin Luther stated:

Unless I am convinced by the testimonies of the Holy Scriptures or evident reason (for I believe in neither the Pope nor councils alone, since it has been established that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures that I have adduced, and my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God…

If our faith is not based on scripture alone, it ceases to be objective faith and becomes a subjective faith.  Subjective to each individual based on as they see fit.

Role of the Church in the World

In his article, “A Tale of Two Kingdoms” Michael Horton writes, “In our Christian circles in the United States today, we can discern a “Christendom” view, where some imagine America to be a Christian nation invested with a divine commission to bring freedom to the ends of the earth.  Of course, Christians have an obligation both to proclaim the heavenly and everlasting freedom of the Gospel and the earthly and temporal freedom from injustice.  But they are different.  When we confuse them, we take the kingdom into our own hands, transforming it from a kingdom of grace into a kingdom of glory and power.  We recognize an opposite view, more characteristic of the Anabaptist perspective, as evangelist D.L. Moody asserted, “I look upon this world as a wrecked vessel.  God has given me a lifeboat and said to me, ‘Moody, save all you can.'”  In this view, improving the lot of our neighbors in the world is like polishing the brass of a sinking ship.  Christians are often encouraged to focus almost exclusively on personal salvation (their own as well as that of others), unsure of the value of their secular vocations.”

Horton’s article is a ressurection of Augustine’s “two kingdoms” doctrine; namely that God has a role for the temporal world (the city of man) as well as the church (the city of God).  In his article Horton describes the Anabaptist perspective which, in his opinion, “regarded the earthly city as simply evil and unworthy of Christian involvement.”  Was D.L. Moody actually sharing the Anabaptist mindset?  Are we sharing with it if we view a strict dichotomy between the world and the church?  If this dichotomy exists, does it necessarily follow that those who hold to it advocate total separation from the world?  

The Apostle John wrote, “Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.  For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.  The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.” (1 John 2:15-17)  Horton and Augustine would accept as an axiom that the world is passing away.  I believe the Apostle meant the physical world and it’s works.  This is the world that Moody saw when he made his comment that the world is a “wrecked vessel.”  While the world is passing away and exhibits all the evidence of a wrecked vessel, does that mean society has no redeeming role today?  Can the temporal co-exist with the eternal, and if so, how is the church to view its role in the world?

In Matthew 13, our Lord tells the parable of the wheat and the tares.  The sons of the kingdom co-exist side by side with the sons of the evil one.  At the end of the age the sons of the evil one are removed, bound and judged.  These two “sons” co-exist with each other in the current temporal world.  We breathe the same air, walk on the same planet and are warmed by the same sun.  This co-existence does not mean a marriage of ideals, although there may be commonality in areas that both groups share.  Both groups have reason to want lawful government, clean air and strong economies.  The fact that these things appeal to both groups and that both groups may work together to achieve them does not mean sons of the kingdom have blurred the lines of disctinction.   Total depravity teaches that all men are fallen in their nature; although they may not always act as depraved as they can be.  The prevalent society today is equally depraved (Moody’s “wrecked vessel” analogy), but that does not mean it doesn’t function in some form.  The fact that Moody verbalized the stark differences between the church and the world, and the urgency of preaching the gospel, does not mean he was advocating the Anabaptist perspective.  On the contrary, Moody understood the peril the sons of this present world faced.  While the sons of both kingdoms live together, work together and play together – the sons of the devil are on borrowed time.