Hebrews 8:13

The writer contrasted the New Covenant with the Old Covenant, namely, the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is now "obsolete" and even as the writer wrote the Book of Hebrews it was also "growing old." It virtually disappeared in A.D. 70 when the Romans destroyed the temple, terminated its ritual and officiants, and scattered the Jews throughout the world (cf. Matthew 24:1-2).

The New Covenant is a branch of the Abrahamic Covenant. In the Abrahamic Covenant, God promised Abraham a piece of real estate for his descendants, an incalculable number of descendants, and blessing for his descendants and for all people through his descendants (Genesis 12:1-7; et al.). Deuteronomy 29-30, sometimes called the Palestinian Covenant, gave more information about the land God had promised to Abraham. The Davidic Covenant gave more information about God’s promises regarding descendants (2 Samuel 7). The New Covenant revealed the particulars of the promised blessing (Jeremiah 31). Each of these later covenants relates to the Abrahamic Covenant organically; they were outgrowths of it. In contrast, the Mosaic (Old) Covenant does not relate organically but "was added" (Galatians 3:19), as an appendage. It explained how the Israelites could maximize the benefits God had promised in the Abrahamic Covenant. Consequently when God terminated the Old Covenant it did not eliminate anything He had promised Abraham. Another difference is that the Mosaic Covenant was bilateral and conditional ("If you will do this, then I will do this."). The other biblical covenants are unilateral and unconditional ("I will do this."), though they sometimes contain conditional elements subsumed under the divine promises.

Dispensational commentators have taken various positions on the relationship of the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 to the New Testament references to the New Covenant. Was it the same covenant, or is a second New Covenant in view? Some believe there are two new covenants, one with Israel and one with the church. [Note: E.g., L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:325; J. F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, pp. 208-20; C. C. Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith, pp. 105-25; and John R. Master, "The New Covenant," in Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110.] This position rests on the fact that the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 was specifically with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31). Those who hold this view take the New Covenant under which Christians live as a different New Covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6; Hebrews 8:8; Hebrews 9:15). They regard Jesus’ references to the New Covenant as to a New Covenant with the church (Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:25).

Most dispensationalists believe there is only one New Covenant. [Note: E.g., J. N. Darby, Synopsis of the Books of the Bible, 5:286; C. I. Scofield, ed., The Scofield Reference Bible, new ed., p. 1297; J. D. Pentecost, Things to Come, pp. 116-28; and Hodges, "Hebrews," p. 800. Walvoord and Ryrie also adopted this view after publishing their books cited in the previous footnote.] Most of those who hold this view believe that the church enters into the blessings of this covenant. Even though the New Covenant was "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jeremiah 31:31), many of the benefits promised extended to all believers after Jesus Christ died (cf. Isaiah 19:24-25; Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6; Romans 15:9-12). Christians experience the blessings referred to in a measure now, but God will fulfill the covenant completely in the Millennium when the Jews will experience all the blessings promised fully (Romans 11:25-32). [Note: Thomas, p. 107.] According to this view, when Jesus said the cup at the Lord’s Supper represented His blood that is the New Covenant, He meant the following. His death was the basis for the fulfillment of the promises that the New Covenant contained. I prefer this view mainly because I do not believe there is adequate basis in the text for applying the term "New Covenant" to two different covenants. There are few writers who hold the two New Covenants view today.

Covenant theologians explain how the church benefits from the New Covenant promises by saying that the church is spiritual Israel. These promises, they claim, belong to Abraham’s spiritual seed, not his physical seed. It is clear from Galatians 3:13-29 that Christians are the spiritual seed of Abraham, but that is not the same as saying the church is spiritual Israel.

"Once we are permitted to make such plain words as ’Israel’ and ’Judah’ mean something else, there is no end to how we might interpret the Bible!" [Note: Wiersbe, 2:306.]