The New Covenant and the Bible
By
Dallas M. Roark
I want to argue that there is a central event in the Bible that separates the Bible into two parts, a before and after, an old and a new, law and grace, prophecy and fulfillment. This central event is the death and resurrection of Jesus. In the process of this event, Jesus declares that in his death there is the New Covenant brought into existence by his death, prophesied by the prophet Jeremiah. This new covenant is what we call the Christian documents, the New Testament, in contrast to the old covenant, or Old Testament books. We recognize this in theory but largely ignore it in our use and interpretation of Scripture.
The Old Covenant prophet Jeremiah declared God’s words that the time was coming in which he would make a new covenant, because Israel had broken the old one. The author of Hebrews applies this idea in his comment:
"For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second."Hebrews.8:7 RSV) This quote is then followed by the words of Jeremiah. (31:31)
If we are to take the New Covenant seriously, we will bring a serious scrutiny to the way we use the Bible. For example, consider the way that Christians have regarded the Old Testament. In some ways, they reflect some influence of the New Covenant but in other ways they do not. For example, why do not Christians keep the Levitical Law in the Old Testament? One response from a Christian teacher might be: "We don’t do that because Christ is the end of the law, its fulfillment, and what has been completed, we do not observe." That is well and good, but what about other issues? Let’s think of war, for example. The average conservative Christian has a view about war pretty much the same as the Israelis had in the Old Covenant. A good feeling is had when we go and whip somebody showing our rightness and their wrongness. But what about turning the other check? Many of us have had the attitude of Khrushchev responding to the idea of turning the check, that if someone hit him, he would return the blow so hard that he would not think of doing it again.
This raises the question of chronology in using the New Covenant that Jesus established as an interpreting standard. Even though the New Covenant comes at the end of Jesus' life there is much said before that is of great importance, and there are some things said that reflect the best of Judaism. The best of Judaism may be seen in the words of Jesus concerning what are the two great commandments. His answer captures the essence of Judaism and is in agreement with the rabbis of his day. There are no implications for the New Covenant in such an answer. But there are implications--far reaching ones--in his answer to the person who asked what he must do to have eternal life. That answer yet influences the Roman Catholic tradition with its emphasis on keeping the law and religious works, in contrast to the Reformed position of God’s free grace. lf we are to take the words of Jesus as instructive for all mankind, we have a serious contradiction to the New Covenant and the essence of the Gospel, the good news, that brought the Church into existence.
The answer to how one may have eternal life is different in the words of Jesus and the preached words of the apostles after the New Covenant was founded as well as the wondrous event of his resurrection. That answer then became, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." (Acts 16:31)
While we can point to some examples of Jesus’ words that have no more validity for the believer in the New Covenant, by no means must we conclude that everything Jesus said up to that point is of no value. There is nothing argued here that would make the Sermon on the Mount of little value. On the contrary, the Sermon on the Mount paves the way for a new direction of life and has its validation in the New Covenant event of the crucifixion and resurrection.
On the other hand, other experiences, such as the encounters with lepers who were healed and directed to the priest for the Mosaic affirmation would not be related to the New Covenant.
ln the same way, we must be guided by the New Covenant in observing and noting Old Covenant practices in the New Testament documents as well as the early church. There are some things advised in the letters of Paul that are not consistent with the New Covenant. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we will be able to deal with some of the present issues in the church. We are familiar with the criticism of Peter when he was waffling on the matter of fellowship with the Gentiles. Peter was inconsistent. We need to recognize that although Paul criticized Peter on this occasion, he, himself was inconsistent on his views of the role of women. How else can we explain his comments on women in 1 Cor. 14:33? He tells the church at Corinth that women should be silent in the church. Why? His reason is that the Law says they should be silent. What does this have to do with the New Covenant?Paul’s resorting to "the Law" is inconsistent with his theological conclusions set forth so strongly in Galatians. Consider the following.
ln Galatians we find a strong statement that accused the Galatians of going back to a different gospel and Paul even says that if anyone preached a contrary gospel to what he had preached, let them be accursed. That is pretty strong stuff. The letter continues to contrast the law and grace. A person cannot be justified, or accepted by God, on the basis of law, but of faith and grace, and he strongly concluded that "if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose."(Gal.2:2l RSV)
The argument continues to develop in the first chapters and Paul declares that the law was given as a caretaker, a teacher, to bring us to faith in Christ. Then he has this powerful conclusion: "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a custodian; for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:24-28) This is no single small sentence spoken in a moment of weakness, it is the conclusion of a body of material involving three chapters.
What else can be concluded in contrasting this great theological passage with the off-the-cuff advice about the women in Corinth. How can he throw in "as the law says?" Surely this is contrary to the new Covenant and the theology of grace as preached by Paul, not only in Galatians, but in Romans, his major exposition of the Christian faith. lf Peter can be inconsistent, why can't we say that Paul was inconsistent?
What is to be gained by such a model, the concept of the New Covenant, for interpreting the Bible? What does this mean for use of the Old Testament? First, it certainly makes the old covenant, old, and therefore transcended by the new covenant. The Old Testament is the background out of which the New Covenant came. The Old predicts the New. There are at least three areas that are of importance in the Old Testament as we think of the New Covenant model of interpretation.
1) Creation. The creation is an important theological article of faith for both Covenants. We do have new insight into the Creation from the standpoint of the one who made the New Covenant. We are told in various places that he is the One through whom Creation has come. This is a revelation of the New Covenant person and theology. We can now see why the world was created. There is a world because God loves. Love is creative, expansive, and initiating. Moreover, we learn in the New Covenant founder, the Logos lncarnate, that "all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." (John 1:13)
2) The Messiah. A good bit of the Old Testament relates to the Jewish people who were chosen to be God’s servants proclaiming and preparing the world for the coming Messiah. The messianic concept begins in Genesis and is a thread through the rest of the Old Covenant. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, and the fulfillment of the prophecy about a New Covenant. This is important for there is a background to the Messianic hope as well as indication from the Old Covenant books themselves that there are better things to come and there will one day be the establishment of a new and better covenant. In contrast to this, there is no background for a Messiah coming from Korea as in the claim of the Moonies.
3) The Covenant. We are shown in the Old Testament that God created a covenant for his people. It had privileges and responsibilities. The perpetual breaking of the covenant on the part of the people brought about the promise of a new covenant, a different kind of covenant, in which God would forgive his peoples’ sins and the covenant would be written upon their hearts, not upon stone. This remarkable passage in Jeremiah 31:31ff was viewed by the writers of the Gospels as fulfilled by Jesus’ words (Mt. 26:28;l Mk.14:24; Lk.22.20) repeated by Paul as part of what he had received (l Cor.11:25) and underscored again in the second letter to the Corinthians (3:6). It receives repeated emphasis and application in the book of Hebrews.
It should be noted that none of these three things really relate to the law. We do not need the legalism that has come forth expressed in the Talmud. While Christians know little of the Talmud, they have not escaped some of the features of legalism. We are legalist in our interpretation of the Bible, our practices in church politics and in ethical decisions. Consequently, we have lost the freedom of love expressed in the example of Jesus and the New Covenant. The writer of l John reminds his readers that "whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."( 1 John 4:8) Paul acknowledges in Romans 13:8 that love is the fulfilling of the Law.
lf we transcend the Old Covenant, and recognize that much of the Old Testament is irrelevant for us, then we can see that the holy war concept in ancient Israel is over. One cannot imagine Jesus instituting a holy war. There is a relationship to what Mohammed learned about ancient Judaism and the Muslim attitude about the non-Muslims in their midst. Not only has this attitude been true in Islam, but also the attitude behind the Crusades in the Christian framework. The real truth is that people cannot be forced to worship God. lf worship is not a free will act based on love, it is not worship. God is not deceived by such forceful worship. Jesus declared that the true worshiper of God will -worship in the Spirit (John 4:24) which was not confined to Jerusalem, a feature of the law.
Some theological issues would be solved by beginning with the words of Jesus concerning the New Covenant and his death. One of these is the meaning of his death. in his words at the Last Supper Jesus clearly tells us the meaning of his death. (Matt. 26:26). Yet theologians throughout history have somehow managed to ignore completely or blindly skip over His words and have developed all manner of theories for what the atonement means and why it was necessary. These theories create more problems than they solve beginning with the early ransom theory on to Abelard, Anselm, and Calvin. Nothing of these theories, especially, Anselm and Calvin, have anything to say about the words of Jesus concerning his own death. Both of them impose concepts related to the Old Testament as well as the medieval feudal framework on the statements of the New Testament. Calvin builds his view about a substitutionary atonement on the passage in Isaiah 53. Anselm builds his theory on the lack of honor given to God by humans. lf we take seriously the words of Jesus about the meaning of his death , that is, to establish a new covenant, we have an explanation for the forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, and a new beginning without the legalism of the Old Covenant.
Looking at it from this viewpoint, it is hard to understand why the church has become so entangled in the theories of theologians while neglecting the simply though profound answer of Jesus himself and of the New Testament scriptures concerning the meaning of his death and the establishment of the new covenant. Many Christians do not realize how much of their theology has come from Calvin’s interpretation of Scripture. Perhaps to say that the writings of John Calvin have been unknowingly elevated to a par with St. Paul in the practice of Christians would be too strong a statement, but certainly it is time to take a new look at his influence on our thinking. In so doing, perhaps we can recapture the meaning and implications of Jesus’ words about the New Covenant.
We need to take a new look at the implications of the New Covenant for many issues facing the church today. Concerning the position of women in the church, Christians must carry through on the view that women are equal. We cannot go back to the framework of the law. The statements about the position of women in Corinthians and other books of the New Testament reflect a view of the synagogue and rabbis, not the theology of the New Covenant. This doctrine elevates women to their rightful place in the Christian community. Equality in Christ means nothing less than equality. (Gal. 3:28)
The concept of a new covenant gives a new look at revelation. It is revelation of a person and purpose. Christians talk about progressive revelation and this tends to put the Old Testament on the same level as the New. But the contrast is stark. In the Old Testament God spoke by his prophets, and by dreams, but in the New Covenant, God comes to us in the person of his Son. What can we conclude except that the Old was inadequate as Paul does in Galatians and Romans.
We have the Creator, God of the Old Covenant, coming in Christ, coming to us and making a New Covenant with us. Again, if we take seriously the words of Jesus that a New Covenant has been given to us, then we have to be careful on returning to the Old. We cannot begin with the Old Covenant and force its meaning on the New. We must begin with the New and see how to interpret the Old in light of the New. Very quickly we will conclude that there is little that relates to the New Covenant except as a background of preparation for the New Covenant.
If the Son has come, we must listen to him, for there is no other to come. Returning to a prophet like Mohammed is like going back to Judaism. Listening to a specious prophet like Joseph Smith is a return to paganism and polytheism. The parable Jesus told about the vineyard farmed out to tenants illustrates what He was about. He is the Son sent and the Son that was killed by the tenants. Dying was one of the most important features of his mission. As the parable quotes in a different metaphor, he is the most important stone of all the building materials. (Matt.2l :33ff)
There is another matter that is of importance about how we use the Bible because of the New Covenant and that relates to Eschatology. We have a body of millennial thought and controversy about the return of Jesus and the matter of-the Jews and their future. When one begins to read Daniel and Ezekiel as some writers do, there is a tremendous future for Israel as these Christians explain it. The temple will be rebuilt, and the nation of Israel is of importance as a sign of the end of the age.
It would appear that much of this has no basis in the theology of the New Covenant. We have already referred to Paul’s long argument in Galatians and the conclusion that there is neither Jew nor Gentile, but all are one in Christ. The letter to the Ephesians duplicates the same conclusion: "For Christ himself has brought us peace by making Jews and Gentiles people. With his own body he broke down the wall that separated them and kept them enemies. He abolished the Jewish Law with its commandments and rules, in order to create out of two races one new people in union with himself; in this way making peace." (Eph. 2:14-15.GoodNews) Similar applications follow in this passage. The book of Philippians follows a different pattern but the same conclusion exists. Obedience to the Law was Paul’s first goal, but now he casts it away as mere garbage, "so that l might gain Christ and be completely united with him." (3:7ff.) ln Col 3 there is the parallel statement to Ephesians that God has created a new being (v.1O) and because of this there is no longer any distinction between Gentile and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarians, savages, slaves, and free men, but Christ is all, Christ is in all." (v.1 1)
What kind of eschatology can you make when the Jews have their fulfillment in the new being in Christ? What significance is there in a new Israel when the New Covenant does not talk about a national existence, but the spiritual existence of the Kingdom of God? Instead of a physical geographical entity, we are given the spiritual body of Christ. Being united with him is without regard to a political future. lf my life is in Christ, where Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, there am l with him.(Co|.3:l-3) ln contrast, it is very difficult to see any possibilities of the various fragments of millennialism without the use of Old Testament passage and ignoring the meaning of the New Covenant in Christ’s body. If we retain the Old Testament passages and force their meaning on the New, we have rejected the New Covenant and its implications for our life in Christ.
All of this may sound revolutionary at first, but Christians have been doing a little of this kind of reading of the Bible for a long time. This becomes very obvious when evangelicals discuss the matter of salvation. We immediately sort out the important passages about this, and they all come from post-resurrection passages. We follow Paul very well because he wrote the most on the implications of the death of Jesus. But we have not been consistent in applying the New Covenant method of interpreting to other areas.
Some of the areas are considered above and they are the necessary implications of the New Covenant for many other areas of our life also. We need to live in the New Covenant as followers of Christ and not in the Old, otherwise we make the cross of Christ of no regard.