'Why we are not under the New Covenant'
5 April 2017
I have tried below to give a most basic outline, it is by no means exhaustive, though may prove exhausting. ;-)
In Luke 7 John the Baptist was disillusioned because he was expecting a King and a Kingdom but what he could see happening before him was a Lamb going to the slaughter. This should ring alarm bells with us because they had all the OT prophets telling them what to expect and yet what they got was turning into something quite different, Why? Unbelief (Matt 11:14). Indeed all of the disciples - and the twelve in particular - were expecting Jesus to throw off the Roman oppression and become their long awaited and prophesied King. Peter still believed this when he said that he would never deny the Lord, but when he got into the palace and saw how things were going he very quickly lost his resolve, three times. (Matt 26. Mk 14. Lk 22 & Jn 18). The disciples expectation of a kingdom is confirmed after His resurrection when they asked Him (Acts 1:6) saying; "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (God has promised them a kingdom and it will be restored to them, but not yet). Jesus himself had not disenfranchised them of that expectation but the old had to pass before the new could be given, this was prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31-35;
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, (Acts 15:16) saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
There are three things to note in particular about this passage and it's quotation in Hebrews 8. Firstly it is addressed specifically and exclusively to Israel and Judah and secondly, it's proper place in time, the text and context provide both of these. Hebrews 9:16,17 shows that the covenant was not of any effect until Christ's death, so proving that while Jesus' life and teachings are for the New Covenant, they are not the New Covenant. Thirdly, and most importantly, there is no way that Jeremiah 31:31-35 or Hebrews 8:8-13 can in any way be interpreted as 'fulfilled', not in Israel, not in the gentiles, not in you and certainly not in me. They are evidently and demonstrably yet future, to suggest otherwise is to do gross violence to the scriptures, born of unbelief. I do not here question anyone's belief in Jesus as their saviour, nor their belief in the Bible in general terms, but unbelief of the Bible in it's particulars. Jeremiah 31 is used to support our inclusion, when in fact it assures our EXclusion. The Bible says what it means and it means what it says; if it says "Israel" it means "Israel", if it says "Israel and Judah" it means "Israel and Judah", to the exclusion of all others.
The Old Covenant of the Law is set aside and if the kingdom is yet future, so is the New Covenant as they are inseparable. What's more, both covenants are made exclusively with Israel (the text in every instance demands it), so where are we? Under Grace; that is, freedom from ALL rules, regulations and traditions. It really is quite liberating. It is also very simple, now you can just read your Bible and believe it, now the Holy Spirit can teach you. No more being lead astray by the teachings of men, contortions and wrestling with the text, it says what it means.
I am finding that the Bible is divided along many different lines and rather than try to make them agree I am allowing them (2 Tim 2:15) to go to their own conclusions. Three themes in particular have presented themselves to me, namely;
1. Time past/But now/Ages to come.
2. Prophesy/Mystery.
3. The 'tenses' in which the gospel is presented, Past/Future.
"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: but this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, (Acts 15:16) saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
There are three things to note in particular about this passage and it's quotation in Hebrews 8. Firstly it is addressed specifically and exclusively to Israel and Judah and secondly, it's proper place in time, the text and context provide both of these. Hebrews 9:16,17 shows that the covenant was not of any effect until Christ's death, so proving that while Jesus' life and teachings are for the New Covenant, they are not the New Covenant. Thirdly, and most importantly, there is no way that Jeremiah 31:31-35 or Hebrews 8:8-13 can in any way be interpreted as 'fulfilled', not in Israel, not in the gentiles, not in you and certainly not in me. They are evidently and demonstrably yet future, to suggest otherwise is to do gross violence to the scriptures, born of unbelief. I do not here question anyone's belief in Jesus as their saviour, nor their belief in the Bible in general terms, but unbelief of the Bible in it's particulars. Jeremiah 31 is used to support our inclusion, when in fact it assures our EXclusion. The Bible says what it means and it means what it says; if it says "Israel" it means "Israel", if it says "Israel and Judah" it means "Israel and Judah", to the exclusion of all others.
The Old Covenant of the Law is set aside and if the kingdom is yet future, so is the New Covenant as they are inseparable. What's more, both covenants are made exclusively with Israel (the text in every instance demands it), so where are we? Under Grace; that is, freedom from ALL rules, regulations and traditions. It really is quite liberating. It is also very simple, now you can just read your Bible and believe it, now the Holy Spirit can teach you. No more being lead astray by the teachings of men, contortions and wrestling with the text, it says what it means.
I am finding that the Bible is divided along many different lines and rather than try to make them agree I am allowing them (2 Tim 2:15) to go to their own conclusions. Three themes in particular have presented themselves to me, namely;
1. Time past/But now/Ages to come.
2. Prophesy/Mystery.
3. The 'tenses' in which the gospel is presented, Past/Future.
|
This can only be grasped by reading the Bible in simple faith, preachers don't preach it, teachers don't teach it, it cannot be taught, you cannot get it through a theological college education (in fact that will more likely hide it from you), you have to get it for yourself. I can only point you to it. Have a look at the chart, they say a picture speaks a thousand words. |
|
I find many other divisions too, such as; Circumcision/uncircumcision, Jew/Gentile, Bride/Body, Kingdom of heaven/Kingdom of God, Earthly/Spiritual blessings and many others besides, they have irreconcilable differences. Does Jesus divide or unite? (Luke 12:51) The Bible is truly a book of divisions. From Genesis to the Revelation one cannot ignore the divisions, they are all-pervading.
Therefore, I need first to understand the interpretation before I can even think about any possible applications, to do otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. I think this is the point where I feel I'm singing from a different hymn sheet; almost everybody today is interested only in application, how it relates to me and my experiences, but scripture should illuminate my experience, not the other way around. Biblical interpretation must come first, then and only then, can it be applied.
I find that if I take Paul out of the Bible I take the Body of Christ out with him, and I'm left with a kingdom;
The Kingdom - Prophesied by the prophets in the OT
The Kingdom - Presented by Jesus in the Gospels
The Kingdom - Offered to and Rejected by Israel in the Acts
The Body - Romans to Philemon (everywhere else it is a MYSTERY, "which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God" (Eph 3:9))
The Kingdom - Re-offered to Israel in Hebrews to Jude
The Kingdom - Realised in Revelation
They (Israel) were supposed to bind the sacrifice to the altar (Genesis 22:9 & Psalm 118:27) in faith, not nail Him to a cross in envy. Israel falls and "through their fall salvation is come unto the gentiles" (Romans 11:11). The kingdom theme is taken up again in the epistle to the Hebrews (because, as we have seen, it belongs exclusively to them), from here on the canon of scripture is again related by Peter, James and John, apostles of (not to) the circumcision (Gal 2:6-10).
Why do so few comprehend what is so clearly taught in scripture? Churchianity today is not seeing the mystery for exactly the same reasons that Israel could not see their messiah - unbelief (the Scribes and Pharisees etc simply refused to believe what the scriptures said about Jesus). Failure to believe the Bible leads to all sorts of wrong teaching. Until we believe the Bible we cannot "rightly divide" it and sadly that is generally the state of the pulpit today. Again, I speak of unbelief of the Bible in it's particulars, not of Jesus as Saviour.
Therefore, I need first to understand the interpretation before I can even think about any possible applications, to do otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. I think this is the point where I feel I'm singing from a different hymn sheet; almost everybody today is interested only in application, how it relates to me and my experiences, but scripture should illuminate my experience, not the other way around. Biblical interpretation must come first, then and only then, can it be applied.
I find that if I take Paul out of the Bible I take the Body of Christ out with him, and I'm left with a kingdom;
The Kingdom - Prophesied by the prophets in the OT
The Kingdom - Presented by Jesus in the Gospels
The Kingdom - Offered to and Rejected by Israel in the Acts
The Body - Romans to Philemon (everywhere else it is a MYSTERY, "which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God" (Eph 3:9))
The Kingdom - Re-offered to Israel in Hebrews to Jude
The Kingdom - Realised in Revelation
They (Israel) were supposed to bind the sacrifice to the altar (Genesis 22:9 & Psalm 118:27) in faith, not nail Him to a cross in envy. Israel falls and "through their fall salvation is come unto the gentiles" (Romans 11:11). The kingdom theme is taken up again in the epistle to the Hebrews (because, as we have seen, it belongs exclusively to them), from here on the canon of scripture is again related by Peter, James and John, apostles of (not to) the circumcision (Gal 2:6-10).
Why do so few comprehend what is so clearly taught in scripture? Churchianity today is not seeing the mystery for exactly the same reasons that Israel could not see their messiah - unbelief (the Scribes and Pharisees etc simply refused to believe what the scriptures said about Jesus). Failure to believe the Bible leads to all sorts of wrong teaching. Until we believe the Bible we cannot "rightly divide" it and sadly that is generally the state of the pulpit today. Again, I speak of unbelief of the Bible in it's particulars, not of Jesus as Saviour.