Assessing the Argument for Restricting the New Covenant to Israel
J. Dwight Pentecost is a respected Dispensational scholar who wrote a fine book entitled Thy Kingdom Come.[1] In this work he covers the New covenant in on pages 164 to 177. The main passages Pentecost cites as referring to the New covenant are Isa. 61:8; Jer. 31:31-34; 32:37-42; Ezek. 16:60-62; 36:24-32; and 37:26. He believes that the New covenant was made with Israel alone.[2] He gives several reasons for his position. The first is that the New covenant was said to be made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:8).[3] The second reason for restricting the New covenant to Israel is that “it must of necessity be made with the same people with whom the original Mosaic Covenant had been made.”[4] Thirdly, Israel will not receive the benefits of the New covenant until the second coming.[5] I have the utmost respect for Dr. Pentecost and have personally much to thank him for, but I do not think any of these reasons are decisive.
It is true that Jeremiah (and the author of Hebrews) limits his New covenant prophecy to Israel and Judah, and that is because in that OT setting Yahweh was referring to them. But that fact does not mean that other passages do not include the Gentiles. Pentecost’s selective choice of New covenant passages look cherry-picked, for many interpreters, Dispensationalists among them, identify as New covenant texts those that include Gentiles within them.[6] There are many other passages which, although they do not name the covenant as the New covenant, are rightly considered to be important OT New covenant passages. These include e.g., Deut. 30:1-6; Isa. 32:9-20; 42:1-7; 49:1-13; 52:10-53:12; 55:3; 59:15b-21; 61:8; Jer. 32:36:44; Ezek. 16:53-63; 36:22-38; 37:21-28; Hos. 2:18-20; Joel 2:28–3:8; Mic. 7:18-20; Zech. 9:10; and 12:6-14. These passages contain many of the same elements which within Pentecost’s group of texts mentioned above, but some of them bring the Gentiles into the picture.
The next reason for restricting the New covenant to Israel is that it must be coextensive with the “old” Mosaic covenant. But this does not follow, for if Yahweh were to reach out to the nations in the OT, He would have had to do it through the Law. There would be no other conceivable way to do it. But that would fail. Ergo, if the Gentiles are to be saved it must be through a New covenant. Since the New covenant is in Christ’s blood, and it is that blood that gives all sinners access to the grace of God (Acts 20:28; Rom. 3:24-25; Eph. 1:7; 2:13), there appears to be a major disconnect with those who wish to deny the Gentiles entry into the New covenant. And this only gets intensified once 1 Corinthians 11:25 and 2 Corinthians 3:6 are recalled.
As for the third reason, that Israel will not benefit from the New covenant until the second coming, it is readily granted. But what difference does that make? If salvation going out to the Gentiles is one way “to provoke [Israel] to jealousy” (Rom. 11:11), then the Gentiles entering into the benefits of the New covenant before the nation of Israel would be a good way to do just that.
A major problem here to my mind is that Pentecost has not perceived that the New covenant is the salvation covenant – there is no other! Further, he has not sufficiently understood the affinity of the New covenant with the person of Jesus Christ. Finally, although he cites them, he does not engage with either 2 Corinthians 3:6 or 1 Corinthians 11:25. His arguments look artificial in light of these considerations.
To repeat; the question that arises is whether those passages alone refer to the New covenant or whether there are other very similar texts that have been omitted solely because they make reference to the Gentiles. I have already been at pains to assert that the New covenant is the salvation covenant. None of the other covenants deal with soteriological matters. In Volume One of this work I wrote,
I believe that if we allow redemption passages like Isaiah 49:6; 54:5; 66:19; Micah 4:2; Zechariah 8:7-8, 20-23; Malachi 3:12 to be New covenant passages, just as those we have listed above (e.g. Deut. 30:1-8) then we simply cannot restrict the New covenant to Israel. Surely the smiting and expanding stone of Daniel 2:35 and 44, and the “Son of Man” character of Daniel 7:13-14 presuppose salvation among the nations? As I have tried to demonstrate in my comments on Isaiah 42 and 49,19 the Servant who is made a covenant is Christ, and He is made a covenant of salvation. In Isaiah 49:6-8 the One who saves Israel and the nations and who is made a covenant cannot be a covenant of salvation only to Israel, while the nations are saved in a different way.[7]
Another less delicate way of saying this is that I believe Dispensationalists especially, since they so adamantly advocate for a literal hermeneutic, need to reevaluate the New covenant passages in both Testaments. Jeremiah 31:31-34 has been allowed to blinker many fine Dispensational interpreters into assigning the New covenant to Israel alone. My plea is that they would come to realize that the main ingredient in the New covenant is salvation, or more broadly, reconciliation in the form of redemption and restoration. Everything else that is purported to be found in the New covenant is in actuality the several aspects of the other unilateral covenants of God; the promises which have been revived because of the transforming power of Christ, which will come to fruition in a literal way by passing through the New covenant in Him.
[1] J. Dwight Pentecost, Thy Kingdom Come: Tracing God’s Kingdom Program and Covenant Promises Throughout History, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1995. A more recent book with several contributors who deny any relation of the New covenant to the church is An Introduction to the New Covenant, edited by Christopher Cone, Hurst, TX: Tyndale Seminary Press, 2013. The book is a sterling effort by good men, but it fails to convince.
[2] Ibid, 173.
[3] Ibid, 171.
[4] Ibid, 172.
[5] Ibid, 172-173.
[6] See Appendix…”The Terms of the New Covenant and Its Parties.” By “terms” I mean those things that God promised in New covenant texts; specifically, those promises that were not already covered by the oaths of the other unconditional covenants.
[7] Paul Martin Henebury, The Words of the Covenant: Old Testament Expectation, 273.
7 comments On Covenant Connections in Paul (4)
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
I just ordered your book on Amazon
Thank you! I hope you enjoy it and would be honored if you could review it sometime.
🙂👍
Thanks very much for this Paul. Two things puzzle me.
1) You say that Pentecost believes the New Covenant was made with Israel alone and you cite his Thy Kingdom Come. You add in the footnote “A more recent book with several contributors who deny any relation of the New covenant to the church is An Introduction to the New Covenant,” etc.
Are you suggesting that Pentecost also denies any relationship to the New Covenant or are you just adding a note about those who do (although not suggesting that Pentecost denies it)?
In Thy Kingdom Come, Pentecost writes that there are those who say that “the church has no relationship to the New Covenant whatsoever….the church must be entirely unrelated to the New Covenant. However, because of our Lord’s statement to the Eleven in the upper room on the eve of the Crucifixion, it seems impossible to say that the church has no relationship to the New Covenant….there are benefits from the enactment of that covenant of which the church (comprising both Jews and Gentiles) partake….Thus while the New Covenant was made with the covenant nation at the time of the death of Christ, benefits from that covenant may be applied to those outside the nation….this covenant is Israel’s covenant but on the basis of the blood of the covenant, those outside that nation likewise may experience the removal of guilt and the forgiveness of sins ” (p.175)
So Pentecost does acknowledge a relationship to the New Covenant. He thinks the NC was made with Israel alone but he doesn’t deny there is a relationship to the church inasmuch as the church is sharing in the spiritual aspects of the NC but not the physical blessings. The position is admittedly confusing because on the one hand it states the NC was made with Israel alone but that there is provision for Gentiles! Is that right?
2) In Things to Come (pp. 121-125), Pentecost says there are three views. The church has no relationship to the New Covenant (Darby); two-fold application: one to Israel in the future and one to the church now (Scofield); the two-covenant view (Chafer). He says they all agree that the New Covenant is not fulfilled in the church. Pentecost takes a fourth view, ie. the NC was made with Israel but the church is sharing in the spiritual aspects of the New Covenant but not the physical blessings. This is also Fruchtenbaum’s position.
You take the view that the New Covenant was not made with Israel alone but avowedly with Gentiles as well. So this is a fifth view. Am I stating this properly?
Many thanks
Justin,
Yes, I should have distinguished Pentecost from the Cone book more clearly. I too find Pentecost’s (and Fruchtenbaum’s) position incoherent. You can’t say the blood of the covenant is applied to those who are outside the covenant, and you can’t admit outsiders into covenant blessings willy-nilly. Otherwise, why not allow them access to all the blessings?
My position is summed up here: https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2022/01/03/jesus-is-the-new-covenant/
with a longer argument here: https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/my-take-on-the-new-covenant-pt-1/
Splendid, thanks very much for clarifying that Pentecost wasn’t in the “no relationship” camp but that there is still difficulty with his own position. And thanks too for the links. I’ll revisit those. Much obliged.