The New Covenant & Israel

The New Covenant


31 “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord. 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”


Jeremiah 31:31-34
 
Here is stated God's promise to form a new covenant with Israel. The Church is not in view here. We would no more say that God made the new covenant with the church in this passage than we would say that God gave the LAW of Moses to the Church at Mount Sinai. Clearly the Lord is addressing the people who have violated the Law and are in danger of coming judgment. I want to exegete the features of this covenant to see what God has promised the nation, and what is involved in the new covenant.
 
First, it is a Jewish covenant. As stated above, Gentiles are not here spoken of. The object of the covenant is the "house of Israel and the house of Judah". The kingdom was still divided. This cannot be the church. It cannot be Gentile. Sounds Jewish to me.

2. The covenant was still future. God did not institute it at the time it was spoken, but only spoke of it's impending replacement of the old covenant.

3. That brings me to the next point. The new covenant will be new in that it will not be like the Sinai Covenant. Israel broke that covenant. The blessings of it are conditioned on the obedience of the people, and it's clear they had violated from the start. The new covenant will be characterized by dissimilarity and discontinuity with the old covenant. Like a wayward wife, Israel was unfaithful to God, characterized by spiritual idolatry of the pagans around her and the breaking of her Sabbaths.

4. The New Covenant will bring the law into their hearts. This is in contrast to the old covenant written by the finger of God on stone tablets.(Exodus 24:12;  Deuteronomy 4:13)

5. Israel will be God's people. They will all know the Lord. There won't be any ignorance of God or spiritual separation. Israel will fulfill her true role as the elect nation, because of the spiritual work of God in their hearts.

6. The covenant is unilateral. God alone will fulfill the terms of the Covenant. There is no mention of any duty on the part of the people to fulfill the terms.

7. Similar to #6, the New Covenant is unconditional. Since God alone will act to perform the terms of the covenant, it's blessings come on the basis of His promises, it doesn't depend on Israel's obedience.

8. The law will be fulfilled by God putting it into people's heart. This will be based on the forgiveness of their sins, never again to be counted against them. Already we see the aspects of justification and regeneration promised in this covenant.

9. The promises of the new Covenant are comprehensive. They are all-encompassing to the people of Israel. Words like "no longer", "all" and "no more" are applied to the nation collectively. This speaks to the total blessing of all of God's remnant people.

From the least to the greatest, Israel will finally walk with God. All shall know him. This hasn't happened yet. There is still a future fulfillment of these things. Though it has begun already. And that will be for a another post.

Messianic Errors of John Hagee

John Hagee is the charismatic preacher, and Christian Zionist, who wrote, In Defense Of Israel (Publisher:Front Line, 2007). Hagee is a Premillenial Dispensationalist, which is the theological underpinning for the modern prophecy movement. However, Hagee goes far beyond what most PDs believe concerning Israel and the Messiah.

In his book, like most DPs,he attempts to build a case for why Christians need to support Israel. Also, like most DPs he claims that God blesses those who bless the Jewish people. However, he goes much further and tries to convince us that the Jewish people cannot be blamed for the death of Jesus, because they never rejected him as The Messiah. IOW, Jesus never came to be the Messiah.

In Chapter 10 of In Defense of Israel, "Answering Christian Critics", he states:"Most evangelicals believe that the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah and therefore qualify for God's eternal judgment. Replacement theologians have said that "the covenant with Israel was broken because she would not accept Jesus Christ whom God sent.""
Hagee then goes on to ask several questions to refute this statement about the Jewish rejection of Jesus. The main one I want to pick up on is on page 132 of the same chapter: "Did the words of Jesus or his actions convey the message that he wanted to be Messiah?"
After stating that God had a sovereign will for the life of Jesus which included being a "light to the Gentiles", Luke 2:27-32, and dying for sinners, he writes that the Jewish leaders plotted his death, and Jesus refused to be the Messiah, and be Israel's political Saviour. On page 135, he states five major points that he claims need to be understood to see that the Jews did not reject Jesus as Messiah:

1. Jesus had to live to be the Messiah
2. If it was God's will for Jesus to die from the beginning...
3If it was Jesus (sic) intention to be obedient unto death...
4. If there is not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament that says Jesus came to be the Messiah...
5. And if Jesus refused by his words or actions to claim to be the Messiah to the Jews, then how can the Jews be blamed for rejecting what was never offered?
Amazingly, before stating that "there is not one verse of Scripture in the New Testament that says Jesus came to be the Messiah", and " ...Jesus refused by his words or actions to claim to be the Messiah to the Jews", he quotes from the Gospel of Luke, Luke 24:45-46 "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them,"Thus it is written, THAT THE CHRIST SHOULD SUFFER AND ON THE THIRD DAY RISE FROM THE DEAD....".
This verse, quoted in his own book, on page 135, utterly refutes his claims about the Messianic claims of Jesus. Jesus did not have to only live to BE the Messiah. Jesus himself states that the CHRIST, the Greek rendering of the Hebrew term, had to DIE to fulfil the Scriptures.

When Andrew, one of John the Baptist's disciples who had heard John call Jesus "The Lamb of God" a sacrificial title, and one which even Hagee admits "Every Jewish person who heard John's words knew there was only one thing you could do with a young male lamb:kill it!" p. 134., he recognized Jesus as "The Messiah(which is translated, the Christ). John 1:41.
Is it true that only the Jewish leaders determined to kill Jesus? They did plot and conspire to put him to death. However, the unbelief of the Jewish nation was part of the sovereign plan of God in accomplishing the Crucifixion. John 12:37-40 explains the mass rejection of Christ by the unbelieving Jewish people. This was prophesied centuries before, especially in Isaiah. In John 6:66 we see that the people could not accept the hard truths of Christ. They sought a King who would cause an insurrection against the Roman occupation. Jesus did not commit himself to the people, NOT because he did not intend to be their Messiah, but because AS MESSIAH he demanded a commitment to Himself, by faith.

Hagee's claims are simply biblically false. In so many words, John Hagee is actually denying Jesus as the Christ, or Messiah to Israel. If Jesus did not come to Israel as their Messiah, then the Messiah did not die for anyone. He may not believe that, but that is the logical implication of his bad theology.

Bibliography

John Hagee, In Defense of Israel: The Bible's Mandate For Supporting the Jewish State (Front Line, 2007)