Is the New Covenant new?

[Herald]

Is the New Covenant actually a new covenant, or is it a refreshed covenant? The refreshed covenant is the position taken by Dr. C. Matt McMahon in his book, “A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology.” Dr. McMahon writes, “The Hebrew word is not just the simple “new” but also holds in it the idea of “renew” or “refresh.” (A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology, page 66). Dr. McMahon’s book is a side by side comparison of Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism that is articulated in a student to professor conversation between the fictional “Thomas” and “Professor Jacobs.” I found the book engaging and helpful. I also agreed with many, but not every conclusion made by “Professor Jacobs.” The subject of the New Covenant has generated most of my questions.

I do not pretend to possess the level of scholarship of Dr. McMahon, but that has not dissuaded me from articulating my observations and questions. In the next few paragraphs I would like to lay out a case as to why I believe the New Covenant is actually a brand new covenant, not a refreshed or renewed covenant. My contention is that a brand new “New” Covenant is not necessarily exclusive to dispensationalism. To be sure, dispensationalism considers the New Covenant to be a brand new covenant, but accepting this as fact does not make one a dispensationalist.

[bible]Jeremiah 31:31-34[/bible]

The word “new” is an adjective. The Hebrew word for “new” in Jeremiah 31:31 is chadash. It simply means “new.” Dr. McMahon contends that in the context of Jeremiah 31 it does not mean brand new. Instead it is his opinion that chadash means renewed or refreshed. He cites the following passages as evidence: Isaiah 61:4; 2 Chronicles 24:4; 2 Chronicles 24:12; Psalm 51:10-12; Lamentations 5:21; 1 Samuel 11:14; 2 Chronicles 15:8; Job 10:17; Psalm 104:30 and Psalm 103:5. In these passages chadash does mean to other than brand new. But that is not the only way the word is used in the Old Testament. Numbers 28:26; 29:6; Deuteronomy 20:5; 22:8; 24:5; Joshua 9:13; Judges 15:13; 16:11; 16:12; 1 Samuel 6:7; 2 Samuel 21:16; Job 29:17; Isaiah 42:9; 43:15; 48:6; 62:2 and 65:17 are just some of the passages were chadash alludes to brand new or a first time experience.

The LORD is going to write His law on the heart of His elect. Nothing like this has ever happened before. There is no precedent in Old Testament scripture for this action. Instead of a covenant which could be broken (and was broken), the Lord would institute a covenant that could not be broken. In a broad sense one could say this was an improvement over the first covenant. But that does not mean it was the same old covenant simply refreshed, repaired or renewed. The first covenant was initiated with Abram with the blood of animals (Genesis 15:1-21). The New Covenant was consummated with the blood of a Lamb, spotless and pure, the blood of Christ (Luke 22:20). Both covenants are rooted in blood, but the New Covenant is unlike the old covenant. Hebrews 8:13 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. I have a difficult time seeing the refreshed or renewed aspect of the New Covenant. The New Covenant may have had shadows in the old, but according to Hebrews 8 those shadows grew old and disappeared.

There is more to write but this is not an exhaustive treatise. I am leaving much out for the sake of discussion among the PB community.

 

[Herald]

Okay Josh. I wasn't sure whether it should go there since I'm not coming at this discussion from a CT position. But...no problem. Off to CT land it goes.

 

[jolivetti]

This is fresh in my head because I preached on Jeremiah 31 just yesterday, strongly contending for a continuity of the covenant of grace throughout Scripture. Matthew Henry remarks of Jeremiah 31 that God is not comparing two different covenants, but two dispensations of the same covenant; the Mosaic dispensation of the covenant of grace is a "darker" dispensation, less fulfilled, less powerful (thus able to be broken).

Though we have no recorded event of God writing the law on people's heart in the old(er) covenant of grace, I would point us to Psalm 119, David's ginormous love song for the law of God. How did it happen that he came to love the law of God with such passion? Certainly not just because it was in his head! You and I have the law of God written in our hearts in a far more powerful way, thanks to Pentecost, but in a lesser/darker way, so did King David.

I appreciate, too, your work with "new" - but...I think there's another exegetical step or two to take - which you may have held out for length's sake. That is, you clearly proved that chadash is used in both senses (brand-spanking new and more fulfilled new), but didn't try to develop any sense between the two types of passages as to how we decided one way or the other.

If such a rule for decision between "new" and "new" can't be found and isn't in the context, I suggest we go with a theological argument: If the saints of the Old Testament were saved through grace by faith in Christ as we are, they must have been partakers of the covenant of grace.

 

[Coram Deo]

BaptistinCrisis,

I agree with you that the New Covenant is New, not just a refreshed covenant.. But the question remains what is new about the New Covenant?

You mentioned the Law written on the heart if believers to be new.. You said nothing like this has ever happened before.. I disagree.. The law was written on Old Testament Saints in the same exact way as in the New Testament.. The holy spirit indwelled in the same exact way in the Old testament saint in the same exact way as in the New Testament.. If the I will be their God and they shall be my people is Not new..

So what is new? Well first starters the temple and temple Ordinances are done away with, i.e Sacrifices, Priest, Altars, Musical Instruments, choirs, etc..

But there is something more that is new to the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31 that most Paedobaptist overlook.. They Shall all know me This is what Jeremiah 31 tells us is new.. This is one of the main aspects of the newness of the New Covenant. It is guaranteeing that no member of the New Covenant will ever break the New Covenant. Jer 32:40.

In the New covenant Baptism is a sign or badge of participation within this New Covenant.. The only ground for giving the sacrements in the New Covenant is a Saving knowledge of the Lord

Now before anyone go's and tells that the "They shall all know me" is a future aspect of the New Covenant in consummated in the age to come., It is being fulfilled now and will be completed in the consummated age to come.... It has been inaugurated in this age and will be completed... Jeremiah 31, John 6:45 Isaiah 54:13..

Of course I can in no way to this topic with complete justice... I recommand Samuel Waldrons book (A Reformed Baptist Manifesto), Under the Paedobaptist section he gives all this in detail and much more....

Coram Deo
Michael

Is the New Covenant actually a new covenant, or is it a refreshed covenant?

The LORD is going to write His law on the heart of His elect. Nothing like this has ever happened before. There is no precedent in Old Testament scripture for this action. Instead of a covenant which could be broken (and was broken), the Lord would institute a covenant that could not be broken. In a broad sense one could say this was an improvement over the first covenant.

 

[Herald]

Jared, seeing as you just finished teaching on this passage I can appreciate how fresh it must be to you. Thank you for your reply. You're correct when you wonder whether I have left some things out for length's sake. I did. I wanted my OP to end with plenty left to discuss. Hopefully it will spur profitable discussion that will assist us in getting a better understanding of the New Covenant.

I believe that grace was at work in the Old Testament. Salvation has always been by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8). Your suggestion to approach this discussion theologically is wise. Theological constructs should be based on a proper understanding of the text. Thus, when the term “Covenant of Grace” is used we should exercise caution using that as a filter for the text we are studying. During our discussion we may concur that, indeed, a particular text is part of the larger Covenant of Grace. I’m in the mode of explorer. I’m seeking in order to find something. The “something” I am looking for is a proper understanding of the New Covenant.

Matthew Henry remarks of Jeremiah 31 that God is not comparing two different covenants, but two dispensations of the same covenant; the Mosaic dispensation of the covenant of grace is a "darker" dispensation, less fulfilled, less powerful (thus able to be broken).

Though we have no recorded event of God writing the law on people's heart in the old(er) covenant of grace, I would point us to Psalm 119, David's ginormous love song for the law of God. How did it happen that he came to love the law of God with such passion? Certainly not just because it was in his head! You and I have the law of God written in our hearts in a far more powerful way, thanks to Pentecost, but in a lesser/darker way, so did King David.

Matthew Henry notwithstanding, I would like to go back to the text, which should be the supporting infrastructure of the Covenant of Grace.

Jared, you wrote:

…you clearly proved that chadash is used in both senses (brand-spanking new and more fulfilled new), but didn’t try to develop any sense between the two passages as to how we decided one way or the other.

You’re right, I didn’t. But this exactly what I will presently address.
I believe the exact meaning of chadash is determined by the context. In other words, the word bends to the context, not the context to the word. Let’s use one of the passages that are quoted to defend the renewed covenant.

[bible]Isaiah 61:4[/bible]

It is clear from the passage that the “ancient ruins”, “former devastations” and the “ruined cities” were things that existed before. They also existed in the present, albeit as nothing more than heaps of rubble. Chadash is translated as “repair” in this passage and rightfully so. What was once whole would be made whole again. The emphasis seems to be on restoration.
Let’s look at another passage:

[bible]2 Chronicles 24:1-4[/bible]

Chadash is translated as “restore” in this passage. What was being restored? The house of the Lord. Was this a new house of the Lord, or an existing house that had fallen on sorry times? It was an existing house, Solomon’s temple. Through disobedience and idolatry the glory of the Lord had been trampled on. Joash sought to restore the temple, the house of the Lord. Once again, chadash is translated properly. This was not a new temple. Joash simply sought to return the temple to the true worship of Yahweh.

One final passage:

[bible]Psalm 51:10-12[/bible]

Is David asking for a new heart? Is he making a new call for salvation? Or could it be that David understood his sin (Psalm 51:1-9)? Did David recognize that his sin had separated him from fellowship with God? Even though grace was operative, he was still under the law. So was David asking for something brand new? I don’t think that is the intent of the text. David was looking for that which once existed to exist again.

Back to Matthew Henry’s take on all of this. I’m not able to wrestle with his handling of the text based on your quote. I am not setting myself up as an expert on the scriptures. Au contraire. There is so much that I do not know, but I am trying to frame this discussion within the confines of scripture.

 

[MW]

Bill, blessings brother.

I wonder how you are understanding the description of the new covenant. Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.

Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.

 

[Herald]

Brother Matthew - forgive the tardy reply to your post. I consider the New Covenant to be an important topic and wanted to have some serious study and thought in preparing my response.

I wonder how you are understanding the description of the new covenant.

The New Covenant is a blood covenant.

[bible]Hebrews 9:11-12[/bible]

Interestingly our Lord stated that the New Covenant was not initiated by His body, but by His blood (Luke 22:19-20). Therefore any discussion about the substance of the New Covenant must, by necessity, be viewed through the shedding of blood.

The New Covenant is the realization of the promise (Genesis 3:15). The New Covenant is so much better than the sacrificial system, because the payment for the New Covenant was complete (τελέω).

The author of Hebrews writes:

[bible]Hebrews 8:13[/bible]

The first covenant is obsolete. It no longer works. It fulfilled its role, but it was temporal. The Old Covenant is described as "ready to disappear." More literally it means it is vanishing. Hebrews 9:15 describes the New Covenant as the means by which the elect will receive, "the promise of the eternal inheritance." The New Covenant is efficacious to those who died under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was fleshly (Hebrews 9:13); the New Covenant is spiritual (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.

Matthew, both covenants were enacted by blood. If that is what you mean by substance, I would concur. But as I said before, the Old Covenant was fleshly and temporal, the New Covenant is spiritual and eternal. Is the substance (all of His divine attributes) just better than goats, bulls and heifers, or is it completely different? I grant you that the shadow of the New Covenant was in the Old Covenant. But just as the Law was our tutor, pointing towards Christ (Galatians 3:24), so was the Old Covenant a shadow of that which would replace it, the New Covenant.

The administration of the covenant has changed. You are correct when you state that we do not require a yearly sacrifice. But the administration of the covenant is not the only thing that changed. The very essence of the covenant has changed. The New Covenant has become that which the Old Covenant could never aspire. From flesh to spirit. From temporal to eternal. These are not just improvements, they are new. Promised in times past? Certainly. But not realized until Jesus Christ.

For the sake of brevity I'll skip the majority of your second paragraph and concentrate on your conclusion.

So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.

Brother Matthew, this is where I see it differently. You're back to describing the change in covenants as being one of administration, not substance. I believe that the key issue is the change in substance. How do you support that Old Testament saints where able to come into the presence of God, just as New Testament believers are able? The spiritual promise of the New Covenant was there, I grant you that. But the present reality of Old Testament saints was much different. The litmus test of coming into God's presence is found in a comparison of the mediatorial roles of the Levitical priesthood and the Melchizedekian priesthood. The Levitical priest entered into the holy of holies one day each year. Thus, the child of God in the Old Testament, while having the promise, was represented by the priest. Not so with the Melchizedekian priesthood. We have access at all times through our mediator, Jesus Christ, a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek. I should have included this in my previous paragraph, but Hebrews 7:18-19 describes the Old (though the Law) as weak and useless compared to the New Covenant.

Matthew, in short I believe our difference of opinion is found in the substance of the covenants, not just the administration.

 

[MW]

Matthew, in short I believe our difference of opinion is found in the substance of the covenants, not just the administration.

Actually, Bill, the way you have stated it, you have only shown a difference in administration, that is, in the manner in which the blessings of the covenant of grace are dispensed to the saints. Unless you deny that Old Testament saints received the forgiveness of sins and had access to the presence of God, you are maintaining that the substance of the two covenants is the same. I don't believe you could be that dispensational, but you might surprise me. Blessings!

 

[Herald]

I don't believe you could be that dispensational, but you might surprise me.

Don't ask me why, but I got a good chuckle out of that comment.

Matthew - obviously we see it differently. I believe I dealt with the text as I understand it. I'm kind of surprised that this thread didn't get more action from other participants. While I have made a promise to myself to avoid baptism threads (the acrimony isn't edifying In my humble opinion), I think both sides (paedo and credo) would agree that what one believes about the New Covenant would be in keeping with their baptismal position.

I don't intend to weaken my own agrument by my next statement, but if I am going to remain intellecutally honest I need to say it. I have never wrestled with the New Covenant before. I've always swallowed the dispensational Kool-Aide (for your Aussie's it means I have always followed the company line). I've made a break from dispensationalism, but I don't believe my understanding of the New Covenant makes me a dispensationalist.

Anyway, I've appreciated the exchange brother Matthew.

 

[Herald]

Hey, fellow Baptists...care to weigh in?

 

[panta dokimazete]

Interesting reading, Bill - my pastor and I are chatting about covenant theology in our weekly meetings.

Based on your logic and this thread - just for my understanding - have you determined that it is truly a new covenant with some elements that are similar to the old covenant or the old covenant "renewed", "refreshed" or "perfected"?

 

[Herald]

Interesting reading, Bill - my pastor and I are chatting about covenant theology in our weekly meetings.

Based on your logic and this thread - just for my understanding - have you determined that it is truly a new covenant with some elements that are similar to the old covenant or the old covenant "renewed", "refreshed" or "perfected"?

JD - it is my understanding that the New Covenant was alluded to in the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was a shadow of the New, but it never could aspire to more because it is, "...obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." (Hebrews 8:13). There are similarities in the two covenants. Blood sacrifice and forgiveness of sin. But the blood of the New Covenant was perfect (the blood of Christ), and the forgiveness was eternal, not temporal.

In summary, I believe it is a new covenant even though it shadows reach back into the old.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Thank you - I concur.