In Jeremiah 31:31 the prophet introduces one of the most significant revelations in all the Scriptures: “Behold, the days are coming, says Yahweh, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” This promise for the people of Israel and Judah included the forgiveness of sins and regeneration, a message of hope for a generation being judged for repeatedly violating the covenant God had made with their ancestors.
To assure the people of Jeremiah’s day that he would indeed protect their national identity and fulfill his promise to give them this new covenant, the Lord called the heavens and earth themselves to serve as witnesses. He said, “If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, says Yahweh” (31:37).
What are we to make of Jesus’ words, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood,” spoken first to his disciples on the night he was betrayed and quoted by the apostle Paul to the predominantly Gentile church at Corinth? And what of the way Paul describes his ministry to those same believers: the “new covenant” ministry of the Spirit. It would seem that the NT speaks of the church in some way participating in the new covenant, which the OT had promised to Israel.
Does this mean, as some believe, that the church has taken Israel’s place in the blessings promised by God? Or does the church represent the true Israel of God, a body which has always existed consisting of those who were children of faith not merely biological offspring of Abraham?
Premillennialists are not in agreement about the precise relationship between the church and the new covenant. I am not planning to discuss that issue in detail here, but I would like to examine the position taken by Charles Ryrie in The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. He writes that there are two new covenants, one with Israel and a different one with the church. The new covenant with Israel will be fulfilled at Christ’s Second Coming, while the church experiences its own new covenant in this age.
The church could conceivably receive the same new covenant blessings as Israel without jeopardizing Israel’s hope for the future literal fulfillment of those promises.
He notes that Jesus extended the covenant beyond Jewish people when he instituted the Lord’s Supper (“for many” in Matt. 26:28; Mk 14:24). And he says, “One cannot deny that the Church receives similar blessings to those of the new covenant with Israel,” speaking of being born again, receiving the indwelling and teaching of the Holy Spirit, and having our sins forgiven. “But,” Ryrie contends, “similarity is not fulfillment.” Just because the blessings are similar does not mean Israel’s new covenant is fulfilled in the church.
Is Ryrie correct? Are the spiritual blessings we have in Christ merely similar to those promised to Israel by the OT prophets? This is certainly possible, but it does not have to be so. The church could conceivably receive the same new covenant blessings as Israel without jeopardizing Israel’s hope for the future literal fulfillment of those promises.
Does the OT restrict the new covenant to Israel alone, as Ryrie believes? He says, “If the church does not have a new covenant [i.e. her own] then she is fulfilling Israel’s promises, for it has been shown that the OT teaches that the new covenant is for Israel alone.” But Ryrie goes too far here. Yes, Jeremiah plainly states that the new covenant will be made with the houses of Israel and Judah, but he does not say that it is limited only to the one ethnic people to the exclusion of all others. The OT does not exclude the church from the new covenant, but this is to be expected, since the church is a mystery only revealed with Jesus’ coming and the NT writings.
Ryrie does acknowledge that there could be another view, namely, that the new covenant contains more than just the Jewish aspect, but he dismisses this view too quickly in my opinion. He accepts the amillennialist criticism that for the church to participate in the new covenant as well as ethnic Israel, the covenant is then “fulfilled in and to the Church.”1 But Allis is wrong here (and Ryrie is mistaken to accept his critique), because it does not jeopardize Israel’s position to suggest that the church may also benefit from the same covenant through her head, which is Jesus Christ.
Ryrie prioritizes his system over the text in order to avoid the amillennialist criticism.
In summarizing his argument in favor of two new covenants, Ryrie says, “since the NT will support two new covenants, is it not more consistent premillennialism to consider that Israel and the Church each has a new covenant?” Despite his claim to offer a “more consistent premillennialism”, this represents an inconsistency on Ryrie’s part. He has argued that premillennialists seek to interpret the Bible according to the normal use of language and do so consistently. But here he prioritizes his system over the text in order to avoid the amillennialist criticism.
Mere plausibility is not a good look for any system of theology, especially one which prides itself on being built from the explicit statements of God’s word. Ryrie argues that this is a strength, however, saying in conclusion, “The induction that there are two new covenants strengthens the premillennial position and does not permit the amillennialist to say that the Church is fulfilling Israel’s promises.” But reason and history both demonstrate that introducing a novel concept like the two new covenants theory weakens one’s position. Like his argument that Matthew’s kingdom of heaven is distinct from kingdom of God, this distracts from the strong arguments in favor of premillennial over against the other views.
All in all, Ryrie’s little book is one I recommend. His explanation of Bible interpretation is excellent and his discussions of the major covenants are generally helpful. This book is intended to aid the average Christian in reading his Bible and thinking about theology. Even if you disagree with him, you will be better off for having read and wrestled with his views.
1Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, p.155