Examining the New Covenant

by Nathan A. Long

A standard teaching of Christianity, emphasized in the last 150-200 years but present over the centuries
since the death of the Apostles, is that the New Covenant, established by Jesus' death and resurrection
has replaced the Old Covenant made with Israel at Sinai. Unfortunately, this idea has been broadened to
such a degree that the so-called Old Testament, and more specifically the Pentateuch or Torah has often
been relegated to a place of secondary importance (when it ought to be given foundational
significance).

More recent expansions on this idea have resulted in the dividing of Scripture into anywhere from two
primary sections (the Old and New Testament--another way of saying Old & New Covenant) to more
extreme divisions which view even the New Testament as being divided in its applicability. Within those
movements arguments range from everything after Acts chapter 2 is applicable today, to those who
make the divide in Acts 10, 19, 28, and those who claim only the writings of Paul are applicable to
modern-day believers, and even some of those are disparaged as representing an evolution in Paul’s
own thinking, resulting in only his “later” writings being immediately in force.

Regardless of extreme positions, mainstream Christianity generally holds the view that the “New
Testament” comprises the primary Scriptures for the believer in our times, whereas the “Old
Testament” only provides background and illustration for what the “NT” explicitly teaches. Many are
familiar with the maxim: “the New is in the Old contained; the Old is by the New explained.” As a result,
many Christians hold the position that they are required to obey what the NT teaches, but that the
requirements of the OT are no longer applicable.

The question I would like to undertake is whether this represents an accurate understanding of the New
Covenant. Is the New Covenant a replacement for the Old-as contained in the Torah, the Prophets and
the Writings? Let’s consider what the Bible itself says about the New Covenant.

The only time the New Covenant is mentioned by name in the “Old Testament” is in Jeremiah 31:31-34.

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the
house of Israel and the house of Judah, (32) not like the covenant that I made with their fathers
on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant
that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. (33) But this is the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law
within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my
people. (34) And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know
the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD.
For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."1

I believe it is significant that God begins with noting that He will make a new covenant with the House of
Israel and the House of Judah, but later in the passage, says, “this is the covenant that I will make with

1
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®),
copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All
rights reserved.
the house of Israel after those days.” By this we perceive that God foresaw the re-uniting of Judah and
Israel into a single nation. Perhaps more important for our purposes is the fact that this indicates the
realization of the new covenant will not transpire until after the house of Israel and house of Judah have
been united as one. This means that the new covenant was not inaugurated at the resurrection of
Messiah, nor at Pentecost as recorded for us in Acts chapter 2.

Does the modern-day state of Israel qualify as a re-unification of Israel and Judah? I doubt it. For one
thing, Israel (the secular state) has recently relinquished much of the lands allotted to Judah.
Furthermore, it seems likely that when re-united they will once again be ruled over by a King—in this
case, by an eternally ruling King Messiah.

What else can we deduce by observing this passage carefully? Jeremiah considered the New Covenant
to be a still future event. The covenant described is national in scope; by extension we would say that it
is to be made with the physical offspring of Jacob and those who through faith in Messiah have joined
her (the ger or “sojourner” who is among you).

Jeremiah records God noting that the new covenant will be different than the one enacted in Sinai. A
careful exegesis reveals that, contrary to popular assumption, the contrast is made between how Israel
receives the covenant, not between the content of the covenants themselves. Whereas the nation
rebelled against the covenant given at Sinai, Israel will collectively embrace the new covenant.

Beside the evidence of the text itself, how can we be certain of this? As far as God is concerned the
covenant he made with Israel at Sinai is eternal. While the nation herself may be unfaithful and forfeit
the blessings of the covenant, the covenant itself remains intact because it relies on the faithfulness of
God’s promise—God’s righteousness.

"You are to speak to the people of Israel and say, 'Above all you shall keep my Sabbaths,
for this is a sign between me and you throughout your generations, that you may know
that I, the LORD, sanctify you…. Therefore the people of Israel shall keep the Sabbath,
observing the Sabbath throughout their generations, as a covenant forever.” (Exodus
31:13, 16)

“For the assembly, there shall be one statute for you and for the stranger who sojourns
with you, a statute forever throughout your generations. You and the sojourner shall be
alike before the LORD. (16) One law and one rule shall be for you and for the stranger who
sojourns with you." (Numbers 15:15-16)

When affirming that the content of the two covenants is the same, it is important to note that God
delivered the “law” to Israel at Sinai, as verse 33 records that God will also do via the new covenant—
the significant difference in relation to God being that this time He Himself will write His torah on their
hearts, rather than delivering the torah to them via a mediator and writing it on stone tablets or in the
“Book of the Law.” The same Torah against which Israel rebelled will be the Torah that is written upon
her heart when God enacts the New Covenant; the evidence of her new heart will be her obedience to
God’s commands, statutes and ordinances. Only God can change hearts, and He promises to do so for
Israel—note also the time period that this reiteration of the New Covenant lends itself to:

“Thus says the Lord GOD: I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the
 countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.' (18) And when
they come there, they will remove from it all its detestable things and all its abominations. (19)
And I will give them one heart, and a new spirit I will put within them. I will remove the heart of
stone from their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, (20) that they may walk in my statutes and
keep my rules and obey them. And they shall be my people, and I will be their God.” (Ezekiel
11:17-20)

At the end of Jeremiah 31:33, God says “I will be their God, and they shall be My people,” tying the new
covenant once again to the Sinai covenant. An exploration of Exodus 6:7-8 will not only amplify the
connection to verse 33 of the Jeremiah passage, but also provide yet another tie in.

I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD
your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. (8) I will bring you
into the land that I swore to give to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. I will give it to you for a
possession. I am the LORD.'" (Exodus 6:7-8)

Note that not only is the same idea I will be your God and you will be my people expressed, but when
this becomes really interesting is in an analysis of the language “I will take you to be my people.”
Ancient Hebrew had no word for marriage, the expression of this idea was v’lekach ti or “I will take you”.
So we see that not only does God say in Jeremiah 31:32, “I was a husband to them.”, but in Exodus 6 He
says “I will take you (the people of Israel) to be my bride.” Fixing once again the idea that while Israel’s
response to the “old” and new covenant will be different, the content of the covenants is not contrasted
but harmonized.

It is also significant to note the connection made in Exodus 6 to the Abrahamic covenant. Notice that the
Sinai is connected to the Abrahamic and the New is connected to the Sinai covenant. As are all of God’s
covenants. We ought not to look on them as individualized, unique contracts, but as progressively
revealed and contiguously related. The core message of God’s promise is revealed in Genesis, then
expanded and amplified throughout the rest of the Scriptures.

Walter Kaiser expressed this very well, ““The progress of revelation has an organic aspect in which the
identity of the germ contained in the earliest mention of a theme continues in the buildup of that theme
as the same seminal idea takes on a more developed form in later revelation.” 2

I refer you once again to Jeremiah 31, to note with even more particular care the phrase, “I will be their
God and they shall be my people.” We have all ready noted that this ties the New Covenant back to the
Sinai Covenant, but it must also be understood that this ties the New Covenant to God’s eternal plan.

“And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with
man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as
their God.” (Revelation 21:3)

The New Covenant will also be different because Israel’s obedience to God will be on a national scale,
“they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” While acceptance of the covenant by

2
Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Moises Silva, An Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1994), p 143
Israel and obedience to God’s stipulations will be national, it is equally significant that the covenant will
be based on God’s forgiveness of Israel’s sin—this also will be a whole-scale, national condition. Verse
34 says, “For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

So we have a couple indicators that the New Covenant has not yet been completely fulfilled:

1. The dispersed people of Israel have not yet been reunited as a single nation under God
2. As a people, Israel has not yet evidenced faithful obedience to God
3. As a people, Israel has not yet recognized Jesus as the Messiah, in order that they might be
eternally forgiven for their violations of the Covenant terms (Torah-lessness).

So far we’ve focused primarily on ways in which the New Covenant has not yet been fulfilled. What
about ways that it has been or is currently fulfilled?

First of all, I think the New Covenant pertains to the Remnant that has existed in every generation in a
first fruits sort of way. In every generation God has proven his faithfulness to his promises by preserving
the Remnant. In Genesis we find Joseph telling his brothers what God has revealed to him:

“And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive
for you many survivors.” (Genesis 45:7)

In Judges, a time of fluctuating obedience and disobedience, when every man did as was right in his own
eyes there was still a remnant:

“Then down marched the remnant of the noble; the people of the LORD marched down
for me against the mighty.” (Judges 5:13)

In 2 Kings 19 we find still a remnant even after years and years of wicked kings. In the days of Ezra and
Nehemiah there is still a remnant (Ezra 9); the prophets are filled with discussion regarding the
gathering again of the remnant of Israel to Himself. In Acts we find that this remnant will include
believing Gentiles:

“And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will
return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will
restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are
called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’” (Acts
15:15-18)

And the Apostle Paul confirms this for us in the letter to the congregation in Rome, chapters 9 and 11.

So we see that the remnant in every generation is like first fruits of the New Covenant. The Spirit is
writing God’s law on their hearts, or it may even be accurate to say that He has done so with those who
have been buried and raised in Messiah as new creation. So this remnant prefigures the return of Israel
proper to God as a nation. But in that prefiguring we are supposed to see the first fruits of “the least to
the greatest” knowing the Lord, a foretaste of walking in His rules and being careful to obey His
statutes.3

As one author has put it, “The remnant participates in the realities of the New Covenant in anticipation
of its future fulfillment in the nation of Israel.” (T. Hegg, unpublished paper).

This is a difficult concept to apprehend. D.T. Lancaster explained it this way:

In 2 Corinthians 3:14 Paul referred to the Torah of Moses as the old covenant so long as
it was read without the realization of Messiah. He said that once we are in Messiah, the
veil is “removed.” The Torah remains, but the veil concealing Messiah within it is
removed. Similarly, the book of Hebrews quotes the prophet Jeremiah to prove that in
the new covenant, the Torah is written upon our hearts.4

Perhaps it could be summarized this way:

 Old Covenant: The attempt to keep the Torah according to the covenant at Sinai without
realization of Messiah, resulting in condemnation.
 New Covenant: The writing of the Torah on our hearts through the realization of Messiah
according to the covenant in Jeremiah 31, resulting in salvation.

As New Covenant members in Jesus, we are part of the faithful remnant of Israel, having been baptized
into the same body, by the same Spirit. Therefore, being first fruits of the New Covenant, part of the
remnant of Israel, our lives out to be characterized by obedience to that Torah which has been/is being
written on our hearts.

Jeremiah’s (ca. 600 B.C.) new covenant prophecy for Israel and Judah was, among other
particulars, that the Torah would be written “on their hearts” (Jer. 31:33). The idea of the Torah
within the people of Israel’s hearts was not novel– it goes back to Moses’ words in
Deuteronomy (ca. 1405 B.C.):

“If you … keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this BOOK OF
THE LAW, …. But the word is very near you, in your mouth and IN YOUR HEART, that you
may do it” Deuteronomy 30:10-14, emphasis mine (NKJV).

Likewise David wrote of the righteous person in his day (ca. 1000 B.C.) that …

“… the LAW of his God IS IN HIS HEART …” (Psalm 37:31, emphasis mine — see also
Psalm 40:8)

Isaiah (ca. 740 B.C.) addressed the remnant in Israel with these words:

“Listen to me, you who know righteousness, the people IN WHOSE HEART IS MY LAW
(torah );” (Isaiah 51:7a)

3
Ezekiel 37:24 (ESV)
4
D. Thomas Lancaster, Restoration:Returning the Torah of God to the Disciples of Jesus, p 33.
We get more insight into what Jeremiah meant when we see how the idiom was used throughout the
Tanakh. For instance Psalm 119:11 …

“I have stored up your word in my heart, that I might not sin against you.”

… shows us that before the new covenant was inaugurated it was incumbent upon the individual to
store the Torah in his own heart, with the result that he would be less inclined to sin. The new covenant
emphasizes God’s instrumentality in the placement process , but we may assume that the result would
be something similar.

Isaiah demonstrates through synonymous parallelism that those in whose heart is God’s Torah are also
those “who know [Heb. yada -- i.e., have experiential knowledge of ...] righteousness”

This word “righteousness” could either be pointing to what people do as a result of having the Torah in
their hearts, or it could be suggesting a “righteousness” similar to how Paul uses the word in his letters,
as in justification (i.e. “right-wising”). I’m inclined toward seeing the ideas as indivisible:

“you who have experiential knowledge of justification” (are the same as those who do
Torah, are the same as those in whose heart is God’s Torah.”

Either way, Paul’s Galatian readers could expect this same experience with righteousness as Isaiah’s
readers. The person whom David wrote about, with the Torah in his heart, had his moral steps made
sure (Psa. 37:31). So could the new covenant believer. In Psalm 40:8 we see a psalm with messianic
ramifications, but it still has application to Paul’s Galatian audience … and to us:

“I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart”.

This internalizing of the Torah was characterized by an urge to do God’s will, through His
commandments. That is what the parallel structure of the above psalm suggests. Those under the new
covenant can expect a similar desire to actualize what God requires of them, through His
commandments.

Under the old covenant the onus is on the individual and nation to place God’s Torah in their own
hearts. Under the new covenant it is God’s responsibility. What the condemnation of the Law proved
was that no one but God could successfully write God’s law on their heart. For New Covenant
participants, however,

“There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Messiah Yeshua. For the
law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Messiah Yeshua from the law of sin and death.
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in
order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.” (Romans 8:1-4)

The “law of the Spirit of life” then is the same Torah as before, but now it is written on your heart, made
a part of your nature. Therefore walk according to the Spirit-filled man, not according to your fleshly
self.
Likewise, those “Old Testament” saints who had God’s Law in their hearts still found a copy of the
“external” Law immensely valuable. The Torah inside them demonstrated where the written Torah
stood in relation to their hierarchy of values.

It is clear from history and experience that present day believers also need the “external” Torah. A saint
without the word of God is a dangerous person. He/she needs the stability that studying and applying
the Law can bring–and the discipline it engenders.

That is one reason why Paul cannot be arguing against people in Galatia simply obeying the Torah. The
idiom of “Law in your heart” does not discount the need for external regulations. It just demonstrates a
person’s disposition toward obeying the one eternal Torah. Written or resurrected.

“Thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will take the people of Israel from the nations among
which they have gone, and will gather them from all around, and bring them to their
own land. And I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel. And
one king shall be king over them all, and they shall be no longer two nations, and no
longer divided into two kingdoms. They shall not defile themselves anymore with their
idols and their detestable things, or with any of their transgressions. But I will save them
from all the backslidings in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them; and they
shall be my people, and I will be their God. “My servant David shall be king over them,
and they shall all have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey
my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob, where your
fathers lived. They and their children and their children’s children shall dwell there
forever, and David my servant shall be their prince forever. I will make a covenant of
peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in
their land and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My
dwelling place shall be with them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Then the nations will know that I am the LORD who sanctifies Israel, when my sanctuary
is in their midst forevermore.” (Ezekiel 37:21-28)

If this is true [the validity of Torah to our present lives]…how did Christians miss it for long (and so many
still do)?

It occurs to me that when we ask that question we are assuming the same thing has been believed since
shortly after Yeshua walked the earth. That is simply not the case. Why don’t we ask the question, “How
did 1500 years of Godly men miss the truths that God revealed to Luther, Zwingli and Calvin?” Of course,
there are a lot of answers to that question. Similarly, there are a lot of answers to why did the
Reformers and most theologians since miss the applicability of the Old Testament to our lives?

I think it is vital to focus on the evolution of theology. We tend to think that what we believe is what
most Christians have believed for centuries, but that is simply not the case. Dispensationalism, the
theology behind what many of us take for granted, is a very recent development. It didn’t even appear
on the scene until the late 1890′s and didn’t become a force to be reckoned with in Christianity until the
1940-50′s. (see “Considering Dispensationalism”)

Progressive Revelation is very important to answering this question. I find it helpful to focus on the
covenants; while Paul makes it very clear that a later covenant cannot annul a previous covenant (Gal.
3:17), what God does in each of His covenants, even in each subsequent stating of the same covenant, is
get more specific as to all the details of His eternal plan. For example, Abraham knew that God was
going to bless all nations through his Seed. Moses finds out that God intended to inaugurate a very
special, covenant relationship with a group of people. David finds out that not only is the promise of God
going to be fulfilled through Israel, God’s covenant people, but that it will be through David’s family line.
Yeshua reveals the specifics of how God is going to redeem us from our spiritual Egypt. This progressive
revelation of information seems to be a consistent practice with God.

Note that throughout history God has incrementally added more and more books to His Word to us.
Abraham may have had a form of the book of Job. Moses writes the Pentateuch. Samuel contributes
more. By the time of Ezra there is a skeleton of our Old Testament. By 367 CE there is a general
acknowledgement of the books that we now call the New Testament. But for 300 years after Christ,
believers did without the New Testament–at least as a codified, reliable collection of Scripture.

Here’s a possible reason that seems to make sense, but that I can’t prove. Perhaps God allowed the
“partial blinding” or “partial hardening” of hearts to certain truths for a time in order to facilitate a
massive infusion of Gentiles to His covenant people. There is certainly established precedent of God
doing this. Paul tells us that God veiled the eyes of the Israelites at Sinai so that they would not
understand the fullness of His covenant with them (2 Corinthians 3:12-16). In Romans Paul tells us that
God has partially hardened the Jews until the fullness of the Gentiles have come in (Romans 11:25).

Perhaps He did the reverse to allow large numbers of Gentiles to come in—Gentiles who would have
been hesitant if Christianity had been widely perceived as a “Jewish” religion over the centuries. After
all, prior to Pentecost, though there had always been Gentiles (strangers, aliens, sojourners) among the
congregation of Israel (God-fearers), they were a small minority. Conversely, by the time Paul wrote the
letter to the Roman congregation, it appears that 80% of the synagogue in Rome may have been Gentile
(based on the list of names in Chapter 16 of Romans – thank you, Mark Nanos, for that idea).