New Covenant Echoes in Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians
I have not said much about the physical effects of the New covenant so far. That is because these effects come to pass as a result of the restorative work of the Holy Spirit which hinge upon the arrival of Jesus Christ and the “glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:21 cf. 19). To put it differently, the created realm awaits its restoration; its palingenesia (Matt. 19:28) which is contingent upon the saints receiving their new bodies (Rom. 8:23). As verse 19 puts it, “the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God.”
So, the earth is depicted as being on tenterhooks awaiting the “revealing” of the saints. By implication, this is triggered by the return of Christ and brought to pass by the Holy Spirit at that time:
we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. – Romans 8:23.
I take this reference to “firstfruits” as the resurrection of the saints (1 Cor. 15:23). What has all this to do with the New covenant? It is the link between the regeneration of the earth and the resurrection of the body via the Spirit. Anyone familiar with the standard New covenant texts knows that they can include the transformation of the earth, for example Fredrickson (61), gives Deut. 30:1-6; Isa. 32:9-20; Jer. 31:27-40; 32:36-44; Ezek. 36:22-38; 37:21-28; 39:25-29; Joel 2:28-3:8; Zech. 12:6-14. I would add Isaiah 62:1-4 and Amos 9:11-15 to these passages, and I think they fit the eschatology of Romans 8:19-23, with the Spirit coming into prominence, well.
It could be said that the regeneration of the world is linked to the Noahic and the Abrahamic covenants. Both concern the issue of land. What the New covenant brings is the power of physical transformation which comes through the redemption in Christ. This physical representation in the New covenant comes through the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection, we must remind ourselves, deals with the material side of salvation. It harbors the physical change of our bodies at the return of Christ (see 1 Jn, 3:2). Thus, Paul says to the Corinthians, “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.” (1 Cor. 11:26). So I think I am justified in including Romans 8, with its themes of restoration, spiritual renewal, and the Holy Spirit’s work both now and in the future all being essential to the New covenant.
What is the Covenant that makes us Free in Galatians 4?
Galatians 4:21-31 sees the apostle comparing two covenants within an allegorical framework. In verses 22-25 Paul identifies the Mosaic covenant (the Law), which he goes on to, rather confusingly, equate with Hagar, whose child Ishmael through Abraham was not the child of promise. He contrasts this Law covenant with the covenant with Abraham. He then in the next verse introduces two “Jerusalems.” The first Jerusalem is earthly Jerusalem in his day, and this he matches with Hagar (v. 25), who in turn corresponds to the Mosaic covenant. But Paul also mentions “Jerusalem above” that is “free” (v. 26). This second Jerusalem is connected to the child of promise (Isaac), who comes from “the freewoman” (v. 22), that is, Sarah. So we have two covenants, the Mosaic and the Abrahamic.
If we recall the Abrahamic covenant we remember that God put Himself under oath to bring forth a seed through the patriarch and his wife Sarah, and also to give the descendants of that offspring a land (Gen. 15). Abraham was put under no obligation to fulfill the oath of the covenant. All he had to do was to observe the token of the covenant – circumcision (Gen. 17), which he did.
Very well, but then the apostle introduces a quotation from Isaiah 54:1 in Gal. 4:27. This passage in Isaiah has Yahweh addressing Israel as His wife (cf. Isa. 51). Like Sarah, Israel is “barren,” but blessings will attend her (Isa. 54:4, 7-8). God will make a “covenant of peace” with His people (Isa. 54:10), which shall endure in the same manner the Noahic covenant shall endure (Isa. 54:9).
But what is this covenant of peace? Is it the Abrahamic covenant? Correct me if I’m wrong but I know of no commentator who says so. Most scholars connect Isaiah 54 with Isaiah 53 and the suffering Servant who brings shalom by His own sacrifice. Larry Pettegrew is representative of the majority when he identifies the “covenant of peace” here with the New covenant (The New Covenant Ministry of the Holy Spirit, 216). If it is the New covenant one would expect the topic of redemption to be close by; and it is:
With a little wrath I hid My face from you for a moment;
But with everlasting kindness I will have mercy on you,”
Says the LORD, your Redeemer. – Isaiah 54:8 (cf. vv.5, 14).
So why does Paul quote from a New covenant chapter in Galatians 4 and not a dealing squarely with the Abrahamic covenant? It is not because the Abrahamic covenant is out of view (see e.g., Gal 3:16, 26-29), it is because the New covenant emerges from the Abrahamic covenant. So Paul cites Genesis 12:3/22:18 in Galatians 3:8 and adds the reception of the Spirit through faith in Galatians 3:2-5, 14 and 4:6 (the mention of the Spirit in relation to the birth of Isaac in Gal. 4:29 concerns his miraculous birth, not regeneration). This receiving of the Holy Spirit is a key New covenant blessing, as Isaiah 32:18; 59:21; Ezek. 36:27; Joel 2:28-29 signify.
Therefore, the covenant that makes us free in Galatians 4 (cf. 5:1) is, I believe, the New covenant as it emerges from the covenant with Abraham, particularly the third part of the promise: “in you all the peoples of the earth will be blessed.”
The New Covenant and The Covenants of Promise
Ephesians 2:12 says, “that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.”
The question I want to ask is whether the New covenant is one of “the covenants of promise” of which Paul speaks. The fact that he says “covenants” and not the single “covenant” does damage to covenant theology’s insistence on us being under one covenant of grace. But what could these covenants be? Are Gentiles included in these covenants? They must be. Paul is, at least in part, addressing them.
The answer might include the Noahic covenant, which was promised before there ever was any nation of Israel. But this is not so much a covenant “of promise.” I think we must turn to Genesis 12:3 and 22:28 where we see that whatever Yahweh is going to do with the descendants of Abraham through Isaac, He has a covenantal placeholder for the Gentiles (which is why Paul can say what he says in Rom. 4 and Gal. 3). The Abrahamic covenants, then, is one of “the covenants of promise” into which the Gentiles would no longer be “strangers.” But we need at least one more covenant. That covenant is not the Mosaic covenant, since it was a bilateral covenant made with the children of Israel. It is not the Priestly covenant that God made with Phinehas (Num. 25), and it really can’t be the Davidic covenant since that covenant covers the reign of the Davidic king over Israel. We may say that Messiah’s reign will be more than over Israel – which is true enough – but that does not mean Gentiles are under the Davidic covenant since the one nation among the nations from where He will rule is Jerusalem in Israel.
What then are we left with? We are left with the New covenant, about which we are told by some that Gentiles are not included. But we need the New covenant if we are to make sense of Paul in Ephesians 2:12!
When we exclude the New covenant from the Church we introduce incongruities into our theology.
