BLOG

Jeremiah’s New Covenant, part 1

Jeremiah 31 is where the New Covenant is mentioned by name in the Old Testament. This covenant has been with us since Adam, of course, and so we see examples of it with Abraham in the book of Genesis. Moses too talks about heart circumcision (Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6), which the Apostle Paul says is evidence of the New Covenant (Romans 2:29). Yet neither Abraham nor Moses speak of the New Covenant in those words.

Deuteronomy 29:1 speaks of a “second covenant,” which is then set forth in verses 12-15. This is the New Covenant, but Moses does not use this term. David was another New Covenant prophet and king, but he does not speak of a New Covenant by name. Isaiah 40-66 is full of New Covenant promises, but even he does not use this term. It remains for Jeremiah to receive revelation of a “New Covenant” (Jeremiah 31:31).

Deuteronomy 29:1 and Jeremiah 31:32 say specifically that this New Covenant is distinct from the covenant that was made with Israel in Exodus 19:8. Hence, it is clear that there are two covenants, which we call Old and New. This designation is somewhat misleading, because the New Covenant was established formally with Abraham some centuries before the Old Covenant with Moses. The reason the Old Covenant is “old” is not because it came first but because it is “obsolete and growing old (and) is ready to disappear” (Hebrews 8:13).

It is not just the covenant itself that is “ready to disappear,” but an entire way of worshiping God and a mindset that is formed by daily habit ingrained through such worship. If we do not properly understand the difference between the two covenants, we will surely fail to distinguish between them, and this will put us in danger of adopting elements of both covenants. This creates double mindedness (James 1:8).

The distinction

The Old Covenant is man’s vow to God (Exodus 19:8); the New Covenant is God’s vow to man (Deuteronomy 29:12). The Old Covenant requires a commitment from man to be obedient to the law, which sets forth the character, nature, and the will of God (Romans 2:18). Mortal man, however, finds it impossible to fulfill his vow perfectly, because making such a vow does not change the heart, nor does it empower him to keep the law perfectly.

But, you say, even New Covenant Christians find it impossible to be perfectly obedient. That is indeed true, but yet the New Covenant is God’s vow to write His laws on our hearts—a little at a time as we receive the revelation of the law by the Spirit—until His nature becomes our nature. Whereas the Old Covenant can only regulate behavior, the New Covenant changes the heart.

Some say that under Moses men were saved through the Old Covenant through their obedience to the law. I say that no one has ever been saved through the Old Covenant. Paul says, “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). We read in 1 John 3:4, “sin is lawlessness.” Hence, all have been lawless, falling short of God’s glory (and nature) and cannot be saved by the Old Covenant.

Salvation Under Moses

The Israelites under Moses were saved only through New Covenant faith, as we read in Romans 4:21, 22,

²¹ and [Abraham] being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform. ²² Therefore it was also credited to him as righteousness.

To be saved in the time of Moses, men had to believe what God had promised. They had to believe that He was able to do what He had promised. That is Abrahamic faith. That is New Covenant faith. By contrast, Old Covenant faith is where men have faith that their own vow of obedience saves them. Yet their own well-intentioned vows can only save them if they are able to remain sinless in word, thought, and deed.

Perhaps that is why there was only a remnant of grace—7,000 men—in the time of Elijah. These are the ones who did not bow to Baal, and these also believed the promise of God. The promise of God puts the responsibility upon God, rather than men, because he who makes a promise or vow is the one responsible to keep it. If He cannot save us (on account of our will being too strong for Him to overcome), then God should not have made such a vow.

God’s New Covenant promise was given to the Israelites as well as to “the alien who is within your camps” (Deuteronomy 29:11). God goes further, saying in Deuteronomy 29:14, 15,

¹⁴ Now not with you alone am I making this covenant and this oath, ¹⁵ but both with those who stand here with us today in the presence of the Lord our God and with those who are not with us here today.

There were only two classes of people in the world at that time: (1) those who had gathered together at the Mount, and (2) those who lived elsewhere, along with future generations. This presents to us the impartial God who has made an oath to turn them all into His people. Not many believers share Paul’s assurance that God is able to perform what He has promised. Most people have too much faith in the power of man’s will. But God is bringing forth sons, not according to any particular bloodline, “nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God,” i.e., God’s will alone.

Changes in the Law

The New Covenant necessarily brought with it a change of law. Hebrews 7:12 says,

¹² For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

This referred specifically to the law of priesthood from Aaron to the Melchizedek Order. Jesus, who was born of the tribe of Judah, was a priest after the Order of Melchizedek (Hebrews 7:17), as was His ancestor, David. Jesus did not qualify as a priest of Aaron. So the law had to be changed to authorize this new order of priesthood that replaced the Aaronic Order.

The book of Hebrews gives many more examples of changes in the law. The animal sacrifices were replaced by the one true Sacrifice, Jesus Christ. Temples made of wood and stone were replaced by a spiritual temple built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ as the chief corner stone (Ephesians 2:20). Under the New Covenant, each of us is a temple of God in our own right (1 Corinthians 3:16), because the Holy Spirit now indwells us.

So when Scripture refers to the temple in an Old Covenant context, it points to the temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. But when Scripture refers to the temple in a New Covenant context, a new definition of temple is required. The same term is used of both temples, but we must discern which one the Scripture is referencing.

The Promised Land

Again, Hebrews 11:9 speaks of “the land of promise,” which, under the Old Covenant, referred to the land of Canaan as their inheritance. But Abraham had the hope of “a better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Hebrews 1:16). Further, since we are also made of the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7), our true land inheritance—our Promised Land—is the glorified body that was lost when Adam sinned. So Paul speaks of “the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:23).

Therefore, when the Bible speaks of the land God has promised, under the Old Covenant this was the land of Canaan, but under the New Covenant it is the glorified body. The Israelites never fully inherited the land of Canaan, nor could they retain what they did possess on account of their sin. Their exile from the land proves their inadequacy. That inheritance depended upon their obedience to their Old Covenant vow. But our New Covenant inheritance depends fully upon the promise, oath, and vow of God Himself. This cannot fail, though it may take a long time.

In each case the word “land” is used, but it is our responsibility to discern which “land” is being referenced in Scripture. Canaan was a prophetic type and shadow of greater things to come, things not readily understood until the Holy Spirit came to lead us into all truth (John 16:13).

The Old Testament prophets often speak of New Covenant promises using the same terms that describe Old Covenant practices. When they prophesy about the end times in terms of Old Covenant temple practices (such as sacrifices), we cannot assume that they prophesy that animal sacrifices will be reinstituted. Jesus Christ is the one true Sacrifice, and He will not be replaced by animal sacrifices in the age to come.

An Aaronic Order will not replace the Melchizedek Order, for if this were to happen, then Jesus Christ would not qualify as its high priest.

A rebuilt temple in Jerusalem will never replace the spiritual temple that God is building, for He has chosen to indwell human flesh now.

Jerusalem

When the prophets speak of Jerusalem, we must again discern which city is being discussed. There are two cities by the same name, an earthly city and a heavenly city (Galatians 4:25, 26). In fact, Jerusalem (in Hebrew) is Yeru-shalayim, which means “two Jerusalems.” The ending -ayim is a dual, meaning precisely two.

Paul understood the distinction in Galatians 4:25, 26. John understood this as well, for in Revelation 21:24 he speaks of the heavenly city, quoting Isaiah 60:3 and 55:5. Yet not once does Isaiah distinguish between the two cities. John discerned the difference, and we ourselves are responsible to do the same. Again, Revelation 21:25 is a reference to Isaiah 60:11.

So when the Old Testament prophets speak of Jerusalem, we who of the New Covenant must discern by the Holy Spirit which city is being referenced. We cannot assume that it is the earthly city.

As a general rule of thumb, when Scripture speaks negatively of Jerusalem, it is about the earthly city, which the prophets often condemned for its idolatry and for murdering the prophets. When Scripture speaks of the coming glory of Jerusalem, it is a New Covenant promise that is fulfilled in the heavenly city. Sometimes the prophets (such as Zechariah) weave a tapestry between the two, making it difficult to distinguish. Zechariah requires high-level discernment through the Holy Spirit.

With this foundation in mind, let us now study Jeremiah 31.