The Form of a Divine Covenant
Both Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 include a messianic prediction of the Servant of Yahweh being “made as a covenant.” However, one quite often reads the objection “a person cannot be a covenant.” When I read such a statement I wonder to myself what it is about a covenant that prohibits a person from being one? Is a covenant a piece of paper with some writing and signatures? Or is it the ancient equivalent of a clay or stone tablet with the parties names inscribed over the terms? If it is then none but the Mosaic covenant qualifies as a covenant in Scripture (we must recall here John Sailhamer’s warning about conflating what is written about an event with the event itself – Introduction to OT Theology, ch. 2).
What form did a biblical covenant take? Well, what it is not is a tablet or written document. Divine covenants in the Bible are disclosures from God to man which concern specific actions that God is going to perform in His Creation Project. The covenant with Noah concerned an external geo-physical catastrophe. That with Abraham was about a physical heir and descendants, a specified land grant, and blessing upon the families of the earth stemming from those descendants. The Davidic covenant related to the offspring of David inheriting his throne. Although they are recorded in the OT, they were verbal disclosures of Yahweh’s intentions to do specific things in history. Apart from the Mosaic covenant they were one-sided as far as their central oaths were concerned. They were about what God would do.
But what about the New covenant? The New covenant relates especially to salvation and rejuvenation. Although New covenant passages may include mention of the throne or of the land of Israel, these, as we shall see, are not inherent in the New covenant itself, but are rather the effect of the New covenant upon the other covenants.
Surveying the some of the main New covenant passages, we find this emphasis:
Deuteronomy 30:6 refers to a new heart given to Israel by Yahweh.
Hosea 2:14-23 at its core speaks of Israel being reconciled (married) to Yahweh “in righteousness and justice.” The covenant that is spoken of brings about peace.
Isaiah 32:15-17 includes the gift of the Spirit, which will bless and regenerate the land and bring in righteousness and peace. The regeneration of the land is surely tied to the regeneration of the people.
Isaiah 59:16-21 is about salvation, the Spirit, and vengeance upon Israel’s enemies. The covenant concerns the fist two.
Jeremiah 31:31-34 is about God changing the hearts of His people and forgiving them.
Jeremiah 32:37-41 speaks of God bringing His people back to their land, and putting the fear of Him in their hearts so that they will not depart from Him. The regathering is antecedent of their covenant renewing.
Ezekiel 16:60-63 has Yahweh establishing covenant with Israel that involves Him making an atonement for them.
Ezekiel 36:24-36 includes the elements of regathering and rejuvenation of the land, but this is the before and after effects of God’s cleansing them of sin and putting His Spirit in them.
Ezekiel 37:11-28 refer to Yahweh regathering and reuniting the tribes of Israel and placing His Spirit within them. An everlasting covenant will be made with them and they will be sanctified and dwell in the land with the temple in their midst.
Joel 2:28-32 contains promises of the Spirit and salvation to those who call upon Yahweh. The passage contains scenes closely associated with eschatological God’s judgment, which means the deliverance comes before the Spirit’s blessings.
Zechariah 12:7-14 deals with the mourning of the families of Israel as they realize whom they have pierced. This is answered by “the Spirit of grace and supplication” being given by God.
One could add other texts but these showcase the important elements of salvation being provided by Yahweh through the gift of the Holy Spirit. The knock-on effects of productivity and peace are by-products of the New covenant.
Please notice the connection of the Person of the Holy Spirit with this covenant. No Spirit, no covenant. The covenant and the Spirit are intertwined. We have also seen previously that the Messiah-Redeemer is intimately connected with the covenantal work of the Spirit in Isaiah 59:20-21. In this covenant we have not just the word of God and the power of God, we also have the personal presence of God in the covenant itself! Now we are ready to look again at Isaiah 42 and 49.
How is the Servant of Isaiah 42 & 49 made “as a Covenant”?
Now that we have seen the strong connection of the Holy Spirit with the New covenant using Isaiah 59, I want to look at the connection of the Messiah with the New covenant starting with the first two Servant Songs. I have already said something about these texts and how Paul uses them. Now we must enquire about how the Servant (who is Jesus Christ) can be made “as a covenant to the people, as a light to the Gentiles.”
To those who say a man cannot be a covenant (or made as a covenant) I want to draw out some necessary things to consider:
- The New covenant is all about salvation and restoration.
- Jesus (‘God is salvation’) is the Messenger of the [New] covenant of Malachi 3. The message was about Himself.
- Jesus’ blood is ‘the blood of the New covenant’ of Lk. 22:20 & 1 Cor. 11:25.
- Jesus is the Mediator of the New covenant of Hebrews 9:15.
- The Gospel of reconciliation is preached by Paul and his companions to Gentiles as ministers of the New covenant in 2 Cor. 3:6.
- The communion cup which both Jew and Gentile Christians drink from represents Christ’s blood which is New covenant blood.
- The message of the New covenant would be utterly vacuous unless Jesus was at the center of it.
- Jesus is our High Priest and He officiates the New covenant in Heb. 10:12-18 (which cites Jer. 31:33-34).
- Jesus is the covenant “animal” whose self-sacrifice was offered to God on our behalf in Heb. 9:16-17, 26.
Let me summarize in a sentence: The message of the New covenant is the message about Jesus; about His shed blood, about His priestly intercession, about His reconciliation and about salvation and restoration in Him!
If anyone is uneasy about saying Jesus is the New covenant incarnate, or better, the embodiment of the New covenant, they will at least have to admit the tremendously close affinity between the New covenant and Christ.
But I am not finished. According to Hebrews 9:14 Jesus “through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God.” And here I want to remind you of Isaiah 59:20-21, (which almost every interpreter identifies with the New covenant), and the close association of the Redeemer (Christ) and the Spirit, an association that Paul utilizes in Romans 11:26-27, and John, though employing figurative language, does the same in Revelation 5:6.
The formal correspondence (i.e. more literal) translations like NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, CSB, and even the NIV, all render Isaiah 42:6/49:8 “and give You as a covenant to [of] the people” or something very close. Practically all the main commentaries do the same, as do the Jewish translations and the LXX. This is not controversial. The jussive mood requires that the Servant be made or designated as a covenant.
But some have presented other renderings. That is the position of some paraphrases like The Message (“I have set you among my people to bind them to me”), and the New Living Translation (“I will give you to my people, Israel, as a symbol of my covenant with them”). It is also done by the NET Bible (“I will protect you and make you a covenant mediator for people”). Although this supports the New covenant being made with the Gentile nations, it is rendered so because the editors cannot bring themselves to believe a person can embody a covenant. Yet none of these loose renderings disengage the Servant – covenant connection.
So how is the Servant of Isaiah 42:6 and 49:8 made as a covenant? The answer is that He made the New covenant by the sacrifice of Himself (Heb. 9:14-15), and the terms of the New covenant are all about Him! (compare Zech. 12:10; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2 Cor. 3:3-6; 4:5).
Which covenant is He? He is not (as e.g., I. Duguid suggests) the Noahic covenant. That unexplainably neglects the NT use of these passages. He is not the Abrahamic covenant or the Davidic covenant, because they are yet to be fulfilled, and He cannot fulfill the covenant with Phinehas because He is from Judah and His priesthood is that of Melchizedek (Psa. 110:1-4). No, the covenant embodied by Christ is this:
“This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”- Luke 22:20.
It’s as clear as day.
11 comments On A Consideration of New Covenant Passages (Pt. 4)
Dr. Henebury,
You raise a fascinating point – what is a covenant. I read a fascinating book once that contrasted the modern idea of the law which is the concept (murdering is illegal) with the pre-renaissance idea that the law was the written document signed by the king which stated the concept. For instance, a pocket constitution that some politicians carry is not the binding constitution of the US – only the document signed and ratified is the constitution holding the power to bind our government. In the more traditional view, Moses broke the law when he shattered the stones in Exodus 32. He could not simply recall what God had written and re-write it, but rather had to get a newly written law to replace the law he broke. The concept was only as meaningful as stones on which they were written. In this case, it is possible that the wounds on Jesus body might be the new covenant which God cut (interesting that verb is used with covenants) with man.
Break – new thought/question
To know what the New Covenant is and when it comes into effect, could we answer the same questions about the Old Covenant and look for parallels. I’ve spent almost 15 minutes trying to do this, and the answer is not completely clear. Let me say why.
It is clear what the Abrahamic Covenant is and when it went into effect: There was a ceremony in Genesis 15 at which time the covenant was cut. The words of the covenant are stated in Genesis 17, and there was a seal given of circumcision. The covenant itself is concise, only 5 verses.
Similarly, the Noahic covenant is concisely 2 sentences. There is also a cutting on the altar and a sign in the rainbow.
The Davidic covenant is concise: 5 verses. I don’t see it’s ceremony or seal, but again, I only have studied this for 15 minutes.
Now as for the Mosaic covenant, what is it? Most things that I’ve seen say it is “the law”. I find this hard to believe because this is not concise. For a contract to be legal, it must be clear what is in the contract and what is not. “The law” is interspersed with narrative which is not covenant. I would offer that the Mosaic covenant is 2 verses: “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” The if-then formulation state: your requirement, my obligation. If you obey, you will be my… This covenant had a ceremony in Exodus 24, and the seal was the ark which literally sealed the book of the covenant. If this is the case, the Law is an appendix to the covenant: If you keep my law (see appendix a), you will be my treasured possessions and priests and holy nation.
Why is this important?
There are many passages that describe the New covenant. Indeed, Genesis 12 describes and promises the Abrahamic covenant, but it is not the covenant. Genesis 6:18 foreshadows the Noahic covenant, but it is not the covenant. It would make sense to me that the Old and New covenants would be concise and compact, not unwieldy and interspersed with commentary and narrative. While the passages you listed are the commentary on the New Covenant, the New covenant is stated in Jeremiah 31:33-34. There are many implications of the Covenant, but they are not the covenant proper. Also, the law (appendix A if you will), does not seem to have changed. It appears that the New Covenant is a new “if” clause to the Old. Instead of “If you fully obey me” we see “You will be able to fully obey me.”
What does that mean for us as Gentiles? I see 2 things.
First, the blood that sealed the covenant was powerful and did many things apart from the covenant proper. It marked the death and resurrection of Christ which defeated and made possible the forgiveness of sin. It defeated Death and allowed the Son of David to rule the creation intended for Adam. The blood that established the covenant is powerful beyond the covenant.
Second, it will allow Israel to be the holy nation of priests, the purpose for which God set them apart. This will allow us a Gentiles to grab onto their robe as in Zechariah 8:23 and so be blessed. The Jews were made to be a blessing. A Jew fulfills his Jewishness by executing the law, but a Jew cannot Jew unless he is made new. This is Romans 2:28. It was not saying that only new birth made a Jew a Jew. It was saying that new birth made it so a Jew could Jew, be a blessing to me and you.
So my conclusion of all this is that the New Covenant is to the Jews. It has been proposed, but I think it will be established later (probably in Zechariah 12). We will be blessed by it, but it is not to us. We are now being blessed by the blood that established it even thought it is not yet in effect (since Jews still need to be taught.)
I apologize for the ramblings. I was honored that you read and responded to my other post. No expectation of that in the future- I enjoy the stimulation your blog gives my mind and spirit.
Matthew,
I do not have time to respond at length to you. Here are two thoughts:
1. It is not wise to go outside Scripture to interpret Scripture. You can easily import foreign meanings into your exegesis. E.g., the Magna Carta of 1215 is a hugely important document for Western politics. But that document places the king under law as well as his subjects. Ergo, it is not comparable with the relation of God to law in the Bible. The law is firstly a theocratic law.
2. As I argue in Pt 2 of the series, Jeremiah 31 is not a locus classicus for the New covenant. In fact, it is a prophecy of a new covenant to be made in the future. I am attempting to prove that since all Christ’s blood is New covenant blood, Gentiles must be cleansed through the New covenant or they are not cleansed at all. There is more to come of course, but one cannot circumvent Isa. 42 & 49 and its uses in the NT. Nor can they get around 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:3-6, and Christ’s High Priesthood.
Thank you for your thoughts and God bless.
Dr. Henebury,
I have greatly profited from reading your first book and I have now nearly finished reading your second volume. I have also read the book edited by Mike Stallard on the 3 views and the book edited by Christopher Cone on whether or not the church participates in the New Covenant. In addition to those books, I have read Roy E. Beacham’s articles. At his point in time, I find that the arguments against the church not participating are a bit stronger for the following reasons.
1, You say that the oath is cut when God swears in Heb. 5:6 “Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedec”. It appears that– since the parties named in a covenant must take part in the swearing of the oath and the parties are God, the house of Israel and the house of Judah– the New Covenant is cut when In Hosea 2:23 God says “I will say to them which were not my people, thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.” This also fits in with the timing of the New Covenant “after those days”.
2. You say “Gentiles must be cleansed through the New covenant or they are not cleansed at all.” Yet Hebrews 9 and 10 make it abundantly clear that it is by the blood of Christ that we are cleansed and draw near to God. In addition, In Gal. 3, it is said that the nations are connected to the 7th component of the Abrahamic covenant through the “seed”.
3. Your arguments seem to hinge greatly on Isa. 42:6 & 49:6. Yet Chritopher Cone makes the case that in Isa. 42:6 “the phrasing and syntax leaves us with a few possible readings:
(1) And I give you to a covenant-people, to light-nations.
(2) And I give you to a covenant-people, a light to nations.
(3) And I give as a covenant to a people, as a light to nations.”
Also in Isa. 46:6, it is stated the Messiah has a dual purpose and those two purposes are distinct. Cone makes the statement that it is evident that the Messiah has a covenant relationship with Israel, but not with the gentiles.
In addition Roy Beacham makes the following statement: “Here the New Covenant is linked experientially to the Davidic Covenant―”the sure mercies of David”–for the ultimate King of the Davidic Covenant will rule over national Israel in mediation of the New Covenant. The King himself is described in metaphor as a ―covenant of the people‖ (see Isaiah 42:6; 49:8).
4. You conclude that the church participates in the NC, yet as Roy Beachan says: “If the church participates in the NC by virtue of participating in the blood of Christ, then every person redeemed since the creation of the world participates in the NC, because every regenerate person of all time participates in the blood of Christ.” It would be hard to see how every regenerate person of all time participates in the New Covenant unless one believes in a covenant of grace.
Much more could be said regarding the Lord’s supper, ministers of a new covenant etc. but I have already taken up much space.
I will add that I have read your critique of Roy Beacham’s view, yet based on the 4 points above, it appears that Christopher Cone and Roy Beacham arguments are just as strong as yours and dare I say possibly even stronger.
In all, I have profited greatly from your site as well as your books., a fact for which I have you to thank.
Patti,
If you don’t mind me asking, where did you get the Cone citation re Isa. 42:6/49:8 from? I cannot locate it in his NC book.
Dr. Henebury,
It can be accecced here.
https://drcone.com/?s=Isaiah+42%3A6
Patti, I am failing to see the 3 renderings you impute to Dr Cone in the article you linked to. You cited him rendering the texts thus:
“(1) And I give you to a covenant-people, to light-nations.
(2) And I give you to a covenant-people, a light to nations.
(3) And I give as a covenant to a people, as a light to nations.”
Where can I find Cone’s argument?
Patti,
My thanks for your comment. I hope you will not mind me responding in a post rather than in the comments section? From my point of view you have not comprehended my argument. But I shall elaborate further in this series. I plan to answer objections later in the series.
Dr. Henebury,
I don’t mind at all waiting for your response in a post. What I would like to see is a response that not only includes a response to Dr. Cone’s view on Isa. 42 & 49, but that also includes a response to Roy Beacham’s comment on Isa. 42:6 which can be accessed below under footnote 100. Maybe this would clarify why I may or may not have comprehended your argument.
https://dispensationalcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/09_Roy_Beacham_ANE-Covenants-and-NC.pdf
That’s great Patti. Many thanks.
Patti,
I will quickly address your two points (although more needs to be said).
1. Dr Cone’s view on the syntax is more of an evasion. The translation is straightforward and is agreed upon by most authorities, including the Jewish translation of the texts and the LXX.
2. Dr Beacham’s translation of the text challenges Dr Cone’s assertion. But Dr Beacham has committed a transference fallacy in stating about Isa. 42:6 and 49:8 that “The King himself is described in metaphor as a ―covenant of the people‖ (see Isaiah 42:6; 49:8).” But Isa 42:6 and 49:8 are not about Christ as King, but Christ as the Servant. Yes, there is overlap, but the differentiation in roles is important. Beacham conflates these texts with Isa. 55:3. But further, Isa. 55:5 includes the nations in the covenantal context of the passage.
As I said, there is more to be expounded. I have included a note about Cone’s assertions re. Isa 42 & 49 in this article.
Dr. Henebury,
Thank you for addressing those two points. I look forward to reading more of your articles as I have greatly benefited from reading your posts.