A Consideration of New Covenant Passages (Pt. 12) – A Summary of Points Made

Part 11

We are now in a position to tackle the main objections to the view that the Church is a full party (with future Israel) in the New covenant. As we will see, for this to be so it must be established that the New covenant is in effect now. I intend to try to prove that by looking again at the salient passages, noting how the “Israel-only” arguments are unsatisfactory. But before I do that I want to highlight the main points I have made in this series:

My Reasons For Including the Church in the New Covenant

1. We should take care not to ascribe promises to the New covenant which belong to the other covenants (e.g., land – Abrahamic covenant; kingship – Davidic covenant). If we do this we will, in effect, dissolve these covenants by transferring their promises to the New covenant.
2. The New covenant deals with redemption and restoration, which none of the other covenants do. The New covenant is the salvation covenant. The other covenants do not contain soteriological terms.
3. The promise of the New covenant is of spiritual regeneration and redemption through the Holy Spirit. This inner transformation is what enables the saints to abide by God’s word. This spiritual regeneration effects the physical transformation of the world (e.g., its fecundity and peace).
4. Plenty of OT passages which have been identified as New covenant passages contain the promise of Gentile salvation (e.g., Isa. 11:9-12; 26:8-9; 42:6; 59:20-21).
5. Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not the locus classicus for the New covenant. Vital as it is, it does not comprehend all that must be said about the New covenant (e.g., the role of the Spirit). Moreover, it is a prophecy, it is not an oath.
6. In Scripture, the permanent gift of the Holy Spirit is connected to the New covenant.
7. According to Isaiah 59:20-21 Jesus is the Redeemer who saves by the Spirit. The passage specifically refers to a covenant, which is the New covenant. In my opinion Isaiah 59:20-21 is a more comprehensive New covenant passage than Jeremiah 31:31-34.
8. When the Lord initiated the Lord’s Supper in Luke 22 He told the disciples His New covenant blood was shed for them (Lk. 22:20). Hence, the New covenant had to be in force when the blood was applied to the disciples/apostles.
9. Luke 22:20 declares that Jesus’ told His disciples, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.” According to Ephesians 2:19-20 the Church is built upon the Apostles as a foundation. If the Church is not party to the New covenant why is it built upon a New covenant foundation?
10. Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 point to the fact that Jesus (the Servant) is to be made “as a covenant” of salvation for both Jews and Gentiles. This is how the passage is used in Matthew 12:18-21; Luke 2:32; Acts 13:47; and 26:47. Especially in the letter passages, Paul seems to view his ministry as an extension of Jesus’ New covenant ministry.
11. Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 seem to identify Jesus (the Servant) as the embodiment of the New covenant, as many scholars interpret those texts. If this assertion is true, then to be “in Christ” is to be vitally connected to the New covenant. If this is accurate it is difficult to conceive of saved people in the Church not being parties to the New covenant. Isaiah 52:15 declares, “So shall He sprinkle many nations.”
12. The message of the New covenant is the message about Jesus; about His shed blood, about His priestly intercession, about His reconciliation and about salvation and restoration in Him!
13. Gentiles keeping the Feast of Tabernacles in Zechariah 14 shows that progressive revelation can add Gentiles to a subject previously believed to be restricted to Israel. Just so with the addition of the Church in the New covenant.
14. In 1 Corinthians 10:16 “the cup of blessing which we bless” ties it in with the blood of the New covenant in 1 Corinthians 11:25. The “blessing” connected with the “cup” appears to be the New covenant.
15. 2 Corinthians 3:3-6 is as clear as can be in its association of the New covenant with Paul’s ministry. Moreover, the connection between 2 Corinthians 3:3 and Jeremiah 31:33 is patently obvious.
16. We need the New covenant if we are to make sense of Paul in Ephesians 2:12. This is because along with the Abrahamic covenant, we need another covenant to make up the “covenants of promise” Paul speaks about in the verse.
17. The High Priesthood of Christ is directly tied to the New covenant in Hebrews 7:20-22; 8:1-6; and 9:13-14. Hence, if one is party to the New covenant then Christ is your High Priest. This also means that if one is not a party to the New covenant then Christ is not your High Priest. These texts also tell us that Christ is mediating the New covenant now.
18. The correct interpretation of Christ’s intercessory ministry must be the same in Romans 8 as it is in Hebrews 7, and that the logic demands of us that the only way Christ can intercede for Gentile saints in the Church is as Mediator of the New covenant.

These are the major points I have raised in the previous posts. I believe they are cogent arguments for the Church being included in the New covenant, and that they also disallow the view that the Church has no relationship to the New covenant. We are now in a position to address objections to this position.