If the New Covenant was made with Judah and Israel, how does it apply to Gentile Christians?

[jamespyles]

I've been following and commenting in a couple of discussions including Did Jesus tell us to follow Moses 10 commandments? and GENTILES OR CHRISTIANS PRACTICING THE SABBATH ? and I struggle to make what I consider valid points of response without writing long essays.

I've blogged on topics such as Hebrew Roots and Messianic Judaism and how they interact with and sometimes oppose traditional Protestant theology and doctrine, so I've got a lot of material to draw from.

For your consideration, I'd like to ask the question that given the New Covenant language we find in Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 36 where God specifically makes that covenant with the House of Judah and the House of Israel, how exactly does that covenant apply to the rest of the world?

The mechanism isn't specifically defined in the Bible. Even Jesus's comments in Matthew 26, Luke 22, and Mark 14 about "This cup is the new covenant in my blood" (usually rendered in the Greek as just "covenant") doesn't make the connection. In other words, there's no direct tie in between what we read in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Jesus's statement in the Gospels.

I believe there is an answer. It's a long one, longer than I care to post here, but you can read a summary of my thoughts here: Briefly Revisiting Gentiles and the New Covenant.

I'm partially creating this thread to read how others think about all this (no flame wars, please), but mainly to put the idea out there that how the Church has traditionally considered the New Covenant and interpreted the Bible to support their doctrine may be missing a few things.

Let me know what you think. Thanks.

 

[Dave-W]

The mechanism is described in Rom 11. We gentiles get grafted into the cultivated olive tree which is Israel.

 

[Hank77]

Galatians 3

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The new covenant is the same as all the other everlasting covenants God has made with His people, just understood and applied in a new way. Because God is the same yesterday. today and tomorrow, He has always required obedience from His people according as the light given them. Adam and Eve, the Antideluvians, the Abrahamic , the Israelite and now the Christian dispensations are all the same to God and He has instructed His people in all these ages with obedience, each dispensation being added to in terms of understanding of the requirements of God... of understanding His Character.

 

[jamespyles]

The mechanism is described in Rom 11. We gentiles get grafted into the cultivated olive tree which is Israel.

It always bothered me that there was such a disconnect from the Old Testament to the New Testament. If God meant to graft the nations into Israel (and the nature of that grafting is a conversation in and of itself), why wasn't it explicitly prophesied?

 

[jamespyles]

Galatians 3

My understanding of Galatians 3 was that Paul was rebuking a group on non-Jewish disciples who had mistakenly been convinced (by whom exactly is up for grabs) that in order to participate in the New Covenant, they had to undergo the proselyte ritual and convert to Judaism. Paul was saying that conversion was absolutely unnecessary, however, I don't think this chapter in Galatians builds a direct bridge back to Jer. 31 and Ez. 36.

 

[jamespyles]

The new covenant is the same as all the other everlasting covenants God has made with His people, just understood and applied in a new way. Because God is the same yesterday. today and tomorrow, He has always required obedience from His people according as the light given them. Adam and Eve, the Antideluvians, the Abrahamic , the Israelite and now the Christian dispensations are all the same to God and He has instructed His people in all these ages with obedience, each dispensation being added to in terms of understanding of the requirements of God... of understanding His Character.

I can agree with part of that, but I'm not much of a dispensationalist. I agree that the New Covenant didn't change any of the conditions or commandments in the Sinai covenant. God said what was new is that the Torah (Law) would be written on Israel's hearts, not on stone tablets or scrolls, so it would become second nature for them to obey. Instead of God's commandments being delivered externally, they would be woven into Jewish nature itself.

As near as I can figure out, and given the legal nature of covenants, non-Jewish disciples get to benefit from the blessings of the New Covenant only through devotion to and obedience of Jesus as the Messiah of Israel. It's like we've been granted an honorary position solely through God's grace and mercy.

 

[Dave-W]

If God meant to graft the nations into Israel (and the nature of that grafting is a conversation in and of itself), why wasn't it explicitly prophesied?

Paul calls it a mystery:

Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,

Ephesians 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;

There are another half-dozen or so verses where Paul mentions this. It was "hidden" during the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant eras. It was revealed first to Paul and then at Acts 15 to the rest of the apostles.

God has his reasons for hiding a truth for a time and then later revealing it. Jesus told His disciples to not reveal his Messiahship before a particular time. He also refused to deal with gentiles (with some hard case exceptions) before Acts 1. IMO it is the same with this topic.

 

[jamespyles]

Paul calls it a mystery:

Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,

Ephesians 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;

I'm willing to go along with that as far as it goes, however, people I've talked to in the Church generally believe they actually are named participants in the New Covenant, so they don't seem to be treating it as a mystery.

Oh, I just want to mention, if you haven't clicked the link to my source material and read the article on my blog, please do so. It will go a long way to explaining my reasoning.

Thanks.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm willing to go along with that as far as it goes, however, people I've talked to in the Church generally believe they actually are named participants in the New Covenant, so they don't seem to be treating it as a mystery.

That is often due to replacement theology. They do not discern the distinctions between the Gentile Church and Israel.

 

[jamespyles]

That is often due to replacement theology. They do not discern the distinctions between the Gentile Church and Israel.

Thank you. My point exactly. The Church, that is, the body of non-Jewish disciples of Jesus stands alongside Israel, we don't become Israel. John 4:22 says "Salvation comes from the Jews." Without Israel and God's covenant relationship with her, there would be no hope for the rest of the world.

 

[Hank77]

That is often due to replacement theology. They do not discern the distinctions between the Gentile Church and Israel.

My understanding....
Replacement theology says that the church both gentiles and Jews (messianic Jews) replace Israel rather than being adopted into Israel, Israel that is righteous by faith, such as Abraham.
They set a firm dividing line between the OT and NT rather than seeing a continuity from one to the other.

 

[jamespyles]

My understanding....
Replacement theology says that the church both gentiles and Jews (messianic Jews) replace Israel rather than being adopted into Israel, Israel that is righteous by faith, such as Abraham.
They set a firm dividing line between the OT and NT rather than seeing a continuity from one to the other.

I'm sure there are some variations but that's basically correct. All of the New Covenant promises are allegory stating that the Church, not the House of Israel and the House of Judah, will be the beneficiaries.

The irony is that, according to that theology, a Jew has to give up his/her covenant relationship with God including all Jewish praxis in order to worship the Jewish Messiah King.

 

[BABerean2]

there's no direct tie in between what we read in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and Jesus's statement in the Gospels.

From the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America.

Daniel 9:27
And he (a) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

...................................................................
Who Confirmed The Covenant?
James Lloyd
http://christianmediaresearch.com/node/1023

.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm sure there are some variations but that's basically correct. All of the New Covenant promises are allegory stating that the Church, not the House of Israel and the House of Judah, will be the beneficiaries.

That is correct only in that it well describes part of the error known as replacement theology.

The irony is that, according to that theology, a Jew has to give up his/her covenant relationship with God including all Jewish praxis in order to worship the Jewish Messiah King.

Which is where that error starts to show up to be what it is.

It is totally nonsensical, from a covenant viewpoint, to abandon something only to go on into the next step of the very same thing.

 

[jamespyles]

From the 1599 Geneva Bible, which is the Bible the Pilgrims brought to America.

Daniel 9:27
And he (a) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to (b) cease, (c) and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

(a) By the preaching of the Gospel he affirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles.

(b) Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection.

(c) Meaning that Jerusalem and the sanctuary would be utterly destroyed because of their rebellion against God, and their idolatry: or as some read, that the plague will be so great, that they will all be astonished at them.

Or, put another way:

“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

-Daniel 9:24-27 (NASB)

I felt compelled to do some checking using different translations at Biblehub.com. I also checked the Jewish interpretation of these verses at Jews for Judaism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I just want to make sure we are looking at this from all possible angles rather than let our own desire for wish fulfillment to get out of hand. Pardon me for saying this, but Christianity has been wrong before.

That said, this does seem to be apparent linkage between Daniel and the Gospels. The thing is, you really, really have to search the Tanakh (Old Testament) to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and when you do, the picture revealed isn't a lot like how most churches preach the nature of the New Covenant, the role of Messiah, and now we people of the nations fit in.

Oh, by the way, good find. This was a piece missing from my puzzle. Thanks.

 

[Sine Nomine]

I'm sure there are some variations but that's basically correct. All of the New Covenant promises are allegory stating that the Church, not the House of Israel and the House of Judah, will be the beneficiaries.

The irony is that, according to that theology, a Jew has to give up his/her covenant relationship with God including all Jewish praxis in order to worship the Jewish Messiah King.

Replacement Theology, the covenant of Christ is new and replaces the old, emerged very early in Christian thought (2nd century at the latest). It's less clear to me what this requires Jews to do, except to say that Peter had some struggles related to his Jewishness that were specifically prompted by Christ. The early dispute about circumcision and dietary laws suggests that the 1st century Christian Jews followed Mosaic Laws but Gentile Christians were exempt--shades of Noahic requirements, but not stated in those terms. This episode alone argues for two different ways.

I've come to believe strongly that God loves diversity--there may be a danger of excessive uniformity in thinking that there is only one external form that God wants. Peter found it very hard to accept as "clean" what Christ called "clean". The full benefits of Judaism weren't available to the Ethiopian eunuch, despite OT promises. But, the full benefits of Christ were. In his parable, Jesus didn't say the wedding feast was empty, but rather, not full and sent for those who weren't invited. However, I suspect that Jewish Christians would or do appropriate some of the new covenant, e.g. given restoration of the Temple, would Christian Jews resume animal sacrifice or view Christ's sacrifice as abrogating that practice?

 

[jamespyles]

Replacement Theology, the covenant of Christ is new and replaces the old, emerged very early in Christian thought (2nd century at the latest). It's less clear to me what this requires Jews to do, except to say that Peter had some struggles related to his Jewishness that were specifically prompted by Christ. The early dispute about circumcision and dietary laws suggests that the 1st century Christian Jews followed Mosaic Laws but Gentile Christians were exempt--shades of Noahic requirements, but not stated in those terms. This episode alone argues for two different ways.

I've come to believe strongly that God loves diversity--there may be a danger of excessive uniformity in thinking that there is only one external form that God wants. Peter found it very hard to accept as "clean" what Christ called "clean". The full benefits of Judaism weren't available to the Ethiopian eunuch, despite OT promises. But, the full benefits of Christ were. In his parable, Jesus didn't say the wedding feast was empty, but rather, not full and sent for those who weren't invited. However, I suspect that Jewish Christians would or do appropriate some of the new covenant, e.g. given restoration of the Temple, would Christian Jews resume animal sacrifice or view Christ's sacrifice as abrogating that practice?

People. Acts 10 is talking about people, non-Jewish people, not food. Once you read it in that context, it makes perfect sense. The Torah never instructed Jews that Gentiles were unclean, but tradition crept into the mix, especially given that at the time, Israel was occupied by Rome, Jews didn't have a lot of motivation for interacting with Gentiles. Peter's vision was to instruct him that Gentile people are not unclean.

The Ethiopian Eunuch (he might not literally have been castrated) is complex, but I heard one interpretation that he was Jewish (it's a long story).

My opinion is that covenants are additive, not substitutionary. The Sinai and New Covenants are not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. The New Covenant just builds on the Sinai, and in a unique way. In the New Covenant language, there is nothing said about changing or eliminating the 613 mitzvot (commandments). The only thing that changes is where they are written. Previously, they are external, written on tablets and scrolls. Under the emerging New Covenant, they are written on the hearts of the Jewish people.

The nations of the world, by the grace and mercy of God, are allowed to participate somewhat indirectly but as equal beneficiaries. Since Acts 15 makes it clear that non-Jews are not obligated to observe all of the conditions of the Sinai Covenant (and thus do not have to do so under the New Covenant), we're "off the hook," so to speak. However, since those conditions are unchanging, Jews, even believing Jews, remain obligated to the mitzvot, including keeping kosher, observing Shabbat, the whole shooting match.

That's why I make a distinction between Hebrew Christians, those who have converted to the normative Church and behave as Gentile Christians (worshiping on Sunday, eating ham), and Messianic Jews who recognize Jesus as "Rav Yeshua" and maintain a Jewish praxis.

 

[BABerean2]

Or, put another way:

“Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy place. So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”

-Daniel 9:24-27 (NASB)

I felt compelled to do some checking using different translations at Biblehub.com. I also checked the Jewish interpretation of these verses at Jews for Judaism.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I just want to make sure we are looking at this from all possible angles rather than let our own desire for wish fulfillment to get out of hand. Pardon me for saying this, but Christianity has been wrong before.

That said, this does seem to be apparent linkage between Daniel and the Gospels. The thing is, you really, really have to search the Tanakh (Old Testament) to put the pieces of the puzzle together, and when you do, the picture revealed isn't a lot like how most churches preach the nature of the New Covenant, the role of Messiah, and now we people of the nations fit in.

Oh, by the way, good find. This was a piece missing from my puzzle. Thanks.

You are very welcome.

When I first posted the information on this forum, there were many who talked to me like I was an idiot because they had never heard this interpretation. Very few modern Christians have ever heard a sermon or a Sunday school lesson on the New Covenant. I continue to learn each day.

Here are a few other things to consider about Daniel 9:27.

Daniel was reading from the Book of Jeremiah when Gabriel appeared. The New Covenant had already been given in Jeremiah 31:31-34. There is a connection between the two passages with the reference to sin and iniquity in both passages.

The covenant with the many is found in Matthew 26:28.

Christ commanded that the Gospel be taken to Daniel's people first.
Those promoting a future 70th week of Daniel must ignore this time period and add an antichrist not found in the chapter and add an unknown "gap" of time to a time prophecy. And they claim to hold to a "literal" interpretation of scripture.

In the parable of the vineyard from Matthew chapter 21 it is Christ who is the heir to all of the Old Testament promises. He is the messenger of the covenant found in Malachi chapter 3. He is the heir and remnant of Israel in Matthew 21:38.


The most import genealogy in the Bible is found in Matthew chapter 1, which starts with Abraham and ends with Christ. In Matthew 3:9 John the Baptist warns the Jews not to put their faith in being the seed of Abraham.

Some are attempting to replace the one seed in Galatians 3:16 with the many seeds.

They are attempting to replace the children of the promise with the children of the flesh in Romans 9:6-8.

They are attempting to replace the New Covenant Church made up of Israelite branches and Gentile branches grafted together in Romans chapter 11 with a Church made up only of Gentiles.

In Acts chapter 2 Peter addressed the crowd as "men of Judea", then later as "men of Israel" and in Acts 2:36 as "all the house of Israel". Remember that in Jeremiah 31:31-34 the New Covenant is promised to Israel and Judah. On the day of Pentecost about 3,000 Israelites accepted the New Covenant. It is found fulfilled in Hebrews 8:6-13. It is applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:18-24, and it is "everlasting" at Hebrews 13:20.

.

 

[Soyeong]

Paul calls it a mystery:

Romans 16:25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past,

Ephesians 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things;

There are another half-dozen or so verses where Paul mentions this. It was "hidden" during the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant eras. It was revealed first to Paul and then at Acts 15 to the rest of the apostles.

God has his reasons for hiding a truth for a time and then later revealing it. Jesus told His disciples to not reveal his Messiahship before a particular time. He also refused to deal with gentiles (with some hard case exceptions) before Acts 1. IMO it is the same with this topic.

Jews traditionally used a method of interpretation abbreviated as "Pardes". It stood for Peshat, which is the surface or literal meaning, the Remez, which hints at a deeper symbolic meaning behind the literal sense, the Derash, which is to seek or compare with other similar occurrences, and the Sod, which is the secret or mystery given through inspiration or revelation. However, the deeper meanings never went against the straightforward literal meaning. When Paul was talking about the mystery, he was referring to the Sod, and when we find the deepest meaning of the text, we will always find the truth about Messiah. The Messiah is the goal of the Torah (Romans 8:4) because at its deepest meaning it is entirely about him.