Content Level:  Seminary

Library      Home     Library Card Index     Previous Page     Next Page       Page 5 of 9

The theological topic of "the Kingdom of God" is indeed a very broad category.¹⁴ The number of books and articles written and published in just this field of study alone is immense. "The Kingdom of God" is seen by many as the unifying theme of the scriptures. If, as some say, the unifying theme of scripture is the theme of "the Kingdom of God", or at least if it is agreed that the Kingdom of God is a unifying factor for scripture, and at the same time it is true that God is no longer dealing with His people through the mediatorial kingdom of Israel, but is instead presently at work through the church, then some questions naturally arise, such as: (1) What is the nature of God's kingdom which allows for such a shift from Israel to the Church? (2) How does the operation of the Church today fit into the present outworking of the Kingdom of God. (3) What is the relationship between the Kingdom of God presently at work in the world and the Israelite people? (4) What role, if any, will the Israelite people have in God's Kingdom in the future?

The ecclessial domain of the Kingdom of God exists as the reign of God over an earthly people living in covenant relationship with him. The Mosaic Covenant was given for the purpose of administering the provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant on a national scale to Israel. Under the Mosaic Covenant the people of God existed as those who were Jews by birth or by conversion who also were living in covenantal relationship with God. However, not all of the Jews who observed the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant were among the people of God and numbered as citizens of God's Ecclessial Kingdom. There were two requirements to be a citizen of the kingdom.

The two requirements for inclusion into the Kingdom of God under the operation of the Mosaic Covenant were (1) being Jewish by birth or by conversion, and (2) living in covenantal relationship with God, experiencing God's grace by receiving his provision of salvation by means of faith alone (Abrahamic Covenant).

With the Coming of Christ and the accomplishment of the substitutionary atonement on the cross a new era was forth coming. The nation of Israel with it's Mosaic Covenant was to prepare a people in expectancy for the coming of the Messiah. With His coming and the completion of His work the role of the Mosaic Covenant was fulfilled and the New Covenant was inaugurated. Thus the requirement of being a Jew (by birth or by conversion) in order to be included in the Kingdom was not necessary because the Mosaic Covenant had been fulfilled and replaced. Faith in the work of God for the provision of salvation still, however, was a necessity for being included in the Kingdom of God (Abrahamic Covenant).

The continuity between the operation of the Kingdom of God under the Mosaic Covenant and the operation of the Kingdom under the New Covenant can be witnessed in this respect: The truly essential element for salvation and Kingdom blessing is the same; Faith in the full provision of God for the salvation of the individual (Abrahamic Covenant). Salvation, which was available exclusively through the nation of Israel, is now available outside of being Jewish. In addition, many of the promises which the Jews possessed are now also being made applicable to non-Jews. The Jews possessed certain covenantal promises from God, although in reality these promises were restricted to Jewish citizens of the Kingdom. Many of these same promises are possessed by the citizens of the Kingdom today, however, the possessors of the promises today need not be Jewish.

It can be seen later in various New Testament texts that the Church today has inherited promises and blessings which were once the sole possession of Israel. Salvation for the Church today is not obtained in a different manner than it was when the Kingdom of God operated from the context of the Mosaic Covenant. Does this mean that the Church is simply the recipient of the promises and spiritual blessings of Israel? Or, does the present operation of the Kingdom, as seen in the Church, also display new aspects which were not seen in the Kingdom under the Mosaic Covenant?

The issue of discontinuity turns on this question: Do all of the promises given to the Kingdom citizens under the operation of the Mosaic Covenant apply to the current citizens of the Kingdom who have entered under the operation of the New Covenant? Are there still some promises given to the Jews which remain unfulfilled as of today? If so what are they, and why do they not apply to the Kingdom as it is in force today?

Various Theories

The question remains then: Who are the members of the new covenant? Who enjoys its blessings? Four major views are current today regarding the relation of the church to the new covenant

The Originally Intended Participants (Israel) 
have been Permanently Replaced by the Church

This would be the view of covenant theology. Israel has been permanently replaced by the church as the heir of the blessings of all her promises, especially of those of the new covenant. The following comments by O.T. Allis would are indicative of this view.

The passage (Heb 8:7-13) speaks of the new covenant. It declares that this new covenant has been already introduced and that by virtue of the fact that it is called "new" it has made the one which it is replacing "old" and that the old is about to vanish away. It would be hard to find a clearer reference to the gospel age in the Old Testament than in these verses in Jeremiah.¹⁵

Bruce Waltke states the same point, but with much greater force:

Not one clear NT passage mentions the restoration of Israel as a political nation or predicts an earthly reign of Christ before his final appearing. None depicts the consummate glory of Christ as an earthly king ruling over the restored nation of Israel. The Spirit's silence is deafening.

As the obverse side of the NT coin bears the hard imprint that no clear passage teaches the restoration of national Israel, its reverse side is imprinted with the hard fact that national Israel and its law have been permanently replaced by the church and the New Covenant. Without wresting Matt 15:13 and Mark 12:1-9, our LORD announced in these passages that the Jewish nation no longer has a place as the special people of God; that place has been taken by the Christian community which fulfills God's purpose for Israel. The writer of Hebrews, after establishing that the New Covenant administration has superseded the Old, writes: "By calling this covenant `new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear" (Heb 8:13).¹⁶

The interpretation expressed by the first view then must maintain that "the house of Israel and the house of Judah," in the quotation from Jeremiah must be used by the writer of Hebrews to refer to the church.

The New Covenant is Only for the Nation of Israel

This view interprets the words of Jeremiah as quoted by the writer of Hebrews as referring to the nation of Israel not to a substituted church. However, in this interpretation the new testament church is excluded. J.N. Darby would represent this view:

The first covenant was made with Israel; the second must be so likewise, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah ...

We enjoy indeed all the essential privileges of the new covenant, its foundation being laid on God's part in the blood of Christ, but we do so in spirit, not according to the letter.

The new covenant will be established formally with Israel in the millennium.¹⁷

... the foundation of the new has been laid in the blood of the mediator. It is not to us that the terms of the covenant, quoted from Jeremiah by the apostle, have been fulfilled, or that we are upon the obedience of a living people, to whom the blessing thereupon was to come, and the blood of a victim shed by a living mediator, but upon the obedience unto death of the Mediator Himself, on which (as its secure, unalterable foundation of grace) the covenant is founded.¹⁸

The two view above represent the extremes - one seeing the church exclusively in new covenant, and the other seeing Israel only.

There are Two "New Covenants"

This view does recognize that the new covenant of the Jeremiah passage is addressed to the nation of Israel, whose purpose in the plan of God is interminable. At the same time adherents of this view also see correctly that many of the New Testament passages clearly demonstrate the church's relation to a new covenant with God. The solution to this dilemma is that there must be two new covenants; one for the nation of Israel, referred to in the Jeremiah passage, and one under which the church operates today. This view was expressed by Chafer as follows:

Reference at this point is to the new covenant yet to be made with Israel and not to the new covenant now in force in the Church.

There remains to be recognized a heavenly covenant for the heavenly people, which is also styled like the preceding one for Israel a "new covenant." It is made in the blood of Christ (cf. Mark 14:24) and continues in effect throughout this age, whereas the new covenant made with Israel happens to be future in its application. To suppose that these two covenants - one for Israel and one for the Church - are the same is to assume that there is a latitude of common interest between God's purpose for Israel and His purpose for the Church. Israel's covenant, however, is new only because it replaces the Mosaic, but the Church's covenant is new because it introduces that which is God's mysterious and unrelated purpose. Israel's new covenant rests specifically on the sovereign "I will" of Jehovah, while the new covenant for the Church is made in Christ's blood.¹⁹

And yet Chafer still recognized some continuity between these two new covenants in regard to the blessings they would provide.

If note is taken of the four blessings which this covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) promises, it will be seen that they - and vastly more - are the present possession of those who comprise the Church.²⁰

Everything that Israel will yet have, to supply another contrast, is the present possession of the Church - and infinitely more.²¹

Among others holding this view are C. C. Ryrie:

There can be no question as to whom pertains the law. It is for Israel alone, and since this old covenant was made with Israel, the new covenant is made with the same people, no other group or nation being in view. ²²

and J. F. Walvoord.

The concept of two new covenants is a better analysis of the problem and more consistent with premillennialism as a whole. ... It provides a sensible reason for establishing the LORD's supper for believers in this age in commemoration of the blood of the new covenant.²³

This view requires one to differentiate from among the New Testament references those referring to the new covenant which was promised to Israel from those referring to the new covenant which is being currently experienced by the church.

Dr. Homer Kent comments upon the methodology involved in this view with some surprising incredulogy:

It is surprising that some dispensationalists who strongly argue that "Israel" must be interpreted consistently where it is found, abandon that principle when it comes to interpreting the term "new covenant." For example, Ryrie says, "If language means anything at all, this means the natural descendants of Abraham through Jacob"; yet he concludes that the "new covenant" is the name given to two distinct covenants (Basis of Premillennial Faith, pp. 124, 125).²⁴

The new covenant promised to the nation of Israel, being unconditional in nature still has its ultimate fulfillment awaiting a restored nation of Israel. However, the church today, though not replacing Israel as the covenanted people of God, has come into existence by, and maintains her relationship with her LORD through, the provisions made by the new covenant.

Thus this view recognizes that Christ's death provides the basis for instituting the new covenant, as well as also recognizing the unconditional character that Jeremiah's prophecy leaves no room for Israel's forfeiture and abandonment. It also notes that the New Testament passages definitely relate New Testament church to this covenant. C.I. Scofield is perhaps the best known representative of this position. At Hebrews 8:8 the following notes appear:

The New Covenant secures the personal revelation of the LORD to every believer (v. 11): ... and secures the perpetuity, future conversion, and blessing of Israel.²⁵

The New Covenant rests upon the sacrifice of Christ, and secures the eternal blessedness, under the Abrahamic Covenant (Gal 3:13-29), of all who believe.²⁶

Lincoln further states:

The blood of the New Covenant shed upon the cross of Calvary is the basis of all of the blessings of the believer in the present age. The believer, therefore, participates in the worth to the sinner of the New Covenant, so that he partakes of the LORD's supper in remembrance of the blood of the New Covenant, (1 Cor. 11:25), and he is also a minister of the New Covenant, (2 Cor 3:6). It is also said of the believer that he is a child of Abraham because he is of faith (Gal. 3:7), and of Christ, (Gal. 3:29). He is also said to partake of the root and fatness of the olive tree, which is abraham and Israel, (Rom 11:17). So too, though as an unbelieving Gentile he is an "alien" and a "stranger," (Eph 2:12), he is no longer such, (Eph 2:13). He benefits in the New Covenant as a fellow-citizen of the saints and of the household of God, (Eph 2:19), and not as a member of the commonwealth of Israel, (Eph 2:12).²⁷

Solution Offered

All things considered, the fourth view alone offers the least hermeneutical problems. The new covenant in this view allows the new covenant as announced for Israel by Jeremiah to find its glorious fulfillment with the nation at the time of Christ's return. At the same time, this view also recognizes that the church depends upon the death of Christ symbolized by his shed blood (which instituted the new covenant) for all of her present blessings.

Among the reasons supporting this interpretation are the following:

1. The author of Hebrews is writing to Christians when he mentions the new covenant as he quotes from Jeremiah's New Covenant passage. They are Jewish Christians it is admitted, but the fact remains that they are Christians. Why would the Christian author of Hebrews, writing to Christians make use of the longest Old Testament quotation, one which refers to the "new covenant" if in fact this "new covenant" had no relationship to them in its particulars?

2. To assign to the New Testament references of the new covenant either to Israel exclusively or to the church exclusively, implying the existence of two new covenants, finds difficulty at Hebrews 12:23, 24. Here both the church ("church of the firstborn") and Old Testament saints ("spirits just men made perfect") are related to the new covenant (not two covenants).

3. Hebrews 8 argues that the title "new Covenant" implies a corresponding "old covenant." The Mosaic covenant is obviously the old covenant insofar as Israel's relation to the new covenant is concerned. If the church has a totally separate new covenant, what is its "old covenant"?

Dr. Homer Kent provides the following summary:

The analogy of the Abrahamic covenant, in which present believers through their union with Christ (the "Seed" of Abraham, Gal 3:16) enjoy God's blessing as "Abraham's seed" (Gal 3:29) even though the Abrahamic covenant will not find its complete fulfillment until the millennium so Christian believers depend for their blessing upon the blood of Christ which instituted the new covenant. Romans 11:17 ff. depicts the same truth as Gentile believers are described as grafted into the good olive tree (and at present the natural branches - Israel- are broken off), Yet the Jewish branches will someday be grafted back in (Rom 11:24), and God's new covenant will find its fulfillment as Jeremiah predicted.²⁸

(continued on next page)

¹⁴ Why introduce the topic of "The Kingdom of God" at this point? The use here of the kingdom of God is limited to what has been called the "Ecclessial Kingdom" which is defined as the reign of God over an earthly people living in covenant relationship with him. Thus the relationship between God and his people is defined at any particular moment in human history by the covenants in force at that time. This relationship of God to his people throughout history by means of the covenants is defined as the Ecclesial Kingdom of God. Thus its significance for the present discussion.

¹⁵ Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1945), p. 154.

16 Bruce Waltke, "Kingdom Promises as Spiritual" in Continuity and Discontinuity:Essays in Honor of S. Lewis Johnson, ed. by John S. Feinberg. (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1988), pp. 273, 275.

17 J.N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, 5 Vols. London: G. Morrish, n.d., 5:329-330.

Home        Library Card Index        Previous Page       Next Page

Copyright © 2000 by Lowell B. Hudson                                                                                         Revised: 26 December, 2006
All rights reserved.  This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed 
without the express permission of the author.