Jeremiah 31 and the
"One Covenant" Controversy
Jeremiah predicted the following in Jeremiah 31:31-34: "Behold, the days come, saith Jehovah, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith Jehovah. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith Jehovah: I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know Jehovah; for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith Jehovah: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more."
This prophecy figures prominently in the present controversy of whether there is one continuous (Eternal) covenant from Abraham, through Moses, through the New Covenant of Christ or whether the covenants given to Abraham (Gen. 12;2f); to Israel through Moses (Dt. 5:1-3) and to spiritual Israel through Christ (Heb. 8:7-13) are distinct, separate covenants. Those who hold to "one covenant" argue that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant of Jesus were "renewals" of the Abrahamic Covenant; insisting that the prophecy uttered by Jeremiah actually was fulfilled when the Jews returned from Babylonian exile (circa 536 BC). Hear them:
"Indeed, Jeremiah's famous new (renewed) covenant of 31:31-34, first prophesied in about 593 BC was realized about 60 years later when God's people in the houses of Judah and Israel, to whom the covenant oracle was specifically addressed, returned from Babylonian exile"
(Stanley Paher, The Eternal Covenant, p. 78).
New Covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 refers to God renewing his covenant first when the Jews came out of Babylonian captivity. To put the law in their hearts refers to Jer. 17:1. God's law would replace the sin in their heart. There is no reference to the Old Law and the New Law"
(Jim Puterbaugh, Tape of "The Covenant", 2-6-'95).
Neither man denies that Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled in the death of Christ; each denies that the covenant of Jesus of Hebrews 8:6-13 was the exclusive fulfillment of Jeremiah 31. They rather view the prophecy as a sort of "dual" prophecy, with Hebrews eight being a secondary fulfillment rather than the primary one.
The strong emphasis made by both writers that Jeremiah 31 was fulfilled at the return from Babylonian exile, underscores the significant role the passage plays in their thinking. If the passage points exclusively to the New Covenant of Christ, it indicates both a difference between the two covenants (thus not a continuous one) and, according to the Hebrew writer, a ceasing of one with the commencing of the second (Heb. 8:13). Since both points are denied by advocates of the "One Eternal Covenant" it is imperative that they address Jeremiah 31 and remove the implications that are present if the New Covenant of Jesus is an exclusive fulfillment of Jeremiah 31.
None that I know of disputes the fact that some prophecies were of dual fulfillment. A prophecy of such nature is found in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, God's promise to David to set his heir upon his throne.. This was first fulfilled when Solomon ascended the throne of his father David. It was fulfilled a second time when Christ, after ascending to heaven after his resurrection, sat down at the right hand of God (Acts 2:36).
While it may be granted there are a few instances of dual fulfillment of prophecy, not all prophecies can be so categorized. With many, a prophecy had only one fulfillment. Look at Daniel 2:44. God promised to set up an everlasting kingdom in the days of Roman kings. The confusion and mass error spawned by the Premillennialists exists because they want to make Daniel 2:44 a "postponed" prophecy. Consider Joel 2:28. Joel predicted that in later times God would pour forth His Spirit upon "all flesh". According to Peter, that prophecy was fulfilled at Pentecost in the phenomenon of tongue speaking (Acts 2:16-21). Aside from the era of the first century church, where has that prophecy ever been fulfilled either before or since? Zechariah 6:12-13 is a prophecy concerning a temple which Messiah (the man called the branch) would build. Christ has built one temple (His church, 1 Cor. 3:16). Is the prophecy to be fulfilled again by Jesus building a physical temple in Jerusalem? The Premillennialists think so.
What about Jeremiah 31? Because the Hebrew writer quotes the prophecy in Chapter 8:7-13, applying it to the New Covenant of Jesus, clearly the Jeremiah prophecy was fulfilled in the work of Christ. Who dares to affirm that the Hebrew writer's application of Jeremiah 31 to the work of Jesus was incorrect? To the more important question: "Does Jeremiah 31:31-34 have exclusive reference to the New Covenant of Jesus?" The answer is "Yes," for the following reasons:
Part of the reason why great efforts are made to prove that the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34 was fulfilled at the time of the return from Babylonian Exile can be seen from this statement: "...To put the law in their hearts refers to Jeremiah 17:1. God's law would replace the sin in their heart. There is no reference to the Old Law and the New Law (my emphasis, jm)" (Tape: "The Covenant," Jim Puterbaugh). According to the "one-covenant" theory, there was no contrast between an old law and a new law; no removing of an old law by the giving of a new one for, to them, a covenant is not law, although it may have law. It is most needful, to sustain their theory, that when God promised "I will put my law into their hearts" He only referred to an existent law; not a different one. Yet, Hebrews 7:12 specifically states that a new priesthood demanded that the law be changed. Contrary to their contentions, "covenant" and "law" are used synonymously. "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even the ten commandments (my emphasis, jm); and he wrote them upon two tables of stone" (Dt. 4:13). "And there have I set a place for the ark, wherein is the covenant of Jehovah, which he made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt" (1 Kings 8:21). Hilkiah the high priest said "I have found the book of the law in the house of Jehovah" yet in their ears were read all "the words of the book of the covenant which was found in the house of Jehovah" (2 Kngs. 22:8; 23:2). These passages show that the covenant is called "law" and the law is called "covenant". Yes, a covenant includes a relationship but it may include more than that; it may include law. To confine a covenant solely to a relationship is to fall into the same error as the Calvinists who insist we are saved by faith only. We are saved by faith, but not faith only. And while a covenant includes a relationship, there is often more to a covenant that relationship; oftentimes it is law as it was with the Old Covenant and as it is with the New.
It is interesting to note that Hebrews 9:15 says: "And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance" and that Hebrews 12:24 tells that we are come "..to Jesus the mediator of a new covenant." Both passages mention a "new covenant" but while in both instances the word covenant is the same Greek word (diatheke); the word "new" (which modifies "covenant") is not the same Greek word. The word "new" in Hebrews 9:15 is kainos which "denotes new, of that which is unaccustomed or unused, not new in time, recent, but new as to form or quality, of different nature from what is contrasted as old.." (W. E. Vines, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Vol. III, p. 109). The word "new" in Hebrews 12:24 is neos which "signifies new in respect of time, that which is recent it is used of the young..." (IBID., Vol. III, p. 110). Mr. Vines makes this comment on the use of these two different words to modify "covenant." "The New Covenant in Heb. 12:24 is new (neos) compared with the Mosaic, nearly fifteen hundred years before; it is new (kainos) compared with the Mosaic, which is old in character, ineffective,..." (IBID., Vol. III, p. 110). The New Covenant of Jesus is different from the Old Covenant given by Moses in both time and character.
Contact this author at: Jim McDonald ~ P.O. Box 155032 ~ Lufkin, Texas 75915-5032
return to February index
Return to Watchman Front Page