| iBi |
|
Content Level: Seminary |
|
Library Home Library Card Index Previous Page Next Page Page 1 of 9 |
|
INTRODUCTION What was the basis for God's relationship to His people in the past? What is the basis for God's relationship to His people today? What will be the basis for God's relationship to His people in the future? These are easy questions to ask. However, there is still considerable debate among theologians today. While there may seem to be more than simple tolerance of others with differing systems of thought on the matter, there nevertheless remains a significant separation between the differing perspectives. Hebrews chapter 8 contains the longest Old Testament quotation found in the New Testament. The author of Hebrews quotes from a portion of the New Covenant passage in Jeremiah 31. This section of Jeremiah is highly significant. In Jeremiah chapters 31 and 33 references are made to all four of the major covenants between the Lord and His people: The Abrahamic Covenant, The Davidic Covenant, The Mosaic Covenant, and the New Covenant. In the New Testament, particularly in Hebrews 8, and 10, the New Covenant of the Jeremiah passage is shown to be the basis for the Lord's current relationship to His people in the church. Thus, the use of Jeremiah's "New Covenant" passage by the author of Hebrews provides both strong elements of continuity and strong elements of discontinuity between the Nation of Israel and the Church. As the context of the Jeremiah passage demonstrates, the New Covenant is addressed specifically to the nation of Israel and is interminable. The Lord specifically and repeatedly asserts with the strongest of analogies that the Nation of Israel will not perish from before the Lord. All four of the great covenants between the Lord and his people are referred to. Their interrelationships are discussed. Their resulting implications for the future are mentioned. It must be absolutely clear that from the perspective of the writer of this passage, Jeremiah, that the Lord intended these words to be applied literally to the nation of Israel. These are points of strong discontinuity between the Church and Israel. However, in Hebrews the author there uses one of the new covenant passages from Jeremiah (31:31-34) clearly as the basis for the church's relationship to the Lord. There is no mistaking the intended meaning of the writer. He inserts the longest quotation of the Old Testament found anywhere in the New Testament. The promise of the coming New Covenant, which was specifically, repeatedly and strongly stated to be the possession of the nation of Israel is now proclaimed to be the foundation for the church's relationship to the Lord now. This provides strong continuity between the Church and Israel. Thus, one aspect of the Jeremiah passages which non-premillennialists might contend poses problems for the premillennialists' understanding of the role of a future nation of Israel is the application of the New Covenant in the New Testament. Which is it, they might ask. If the New Covenant is specifically shown to be the basis for the believers' relationship with the Lord now in the church, how can premillennialists contend that its presence in the discussion in Jeremiah 31-33 still requires a future nation of Israel? Does this not provide evidence that the church is, in fact, the sole heir of Israel's blessings, which they forfeited by disobedience? Should we not take the passages which deal with the eternality of the Abrahamic and Davidic Covenants as being realized by the church today? After all does not Galatians reminds us that we are all Abraham's descendants if we come to God by faith? Is not the current rule of Christ over His church the fulfillment of the Davidic covenant through this Davidic Messiah in heaven? Is it not on the weight of nothing less than the authority of the New Testament testimony itself that we must reject the notion of the premillennialists that there must be a future physical nation in Palestine composed of people of ethnic Jewish origin? Shouldn't Jeremiah be interpreted in light of the clear statements in the New Testament, instead of interpreting the clear statements of the New Testament in light of a supposed interpretation of Jeremiah? Such questions and statements remind students of scripture of the important role that presuppositions play in biblical interpretation. In this instance the point of departure for the two interpretational views in the hermeneutic question. Should we interpret relatively unclear statements in the New Testament on the basis of the testimony of the Old Testament? Or should we interpret the relatively unclear statements in the Old Testament on the basis of the testimony of the New Testament? What about the use of typology? The way a student of scripture answers this question will be a major factor in the determination of which millennial system is best supported by scripture. Obviously only one portion of this debate can be examined in a short paper such as this. Rather than entering into an extended discussion about the systems of the various viewpoints in this paper, an examination of a significant biblical text will be made in an attempt to gain further biblical insight into this issue. Some presentation of various viewpoints arising out of this passage will be introduced in summary form. |
|
(continued on next page) |
|
Copyright © 2000 by Lowell B. Hudson
Revised: 26 December, 2006
|