The new covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31 was with Israel, and not Gentiles. Can you elaborate on your reasons for saying that the new covenant is for us Christians who are Gentiles?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘God’s Power for Salvation’ (2005).

I would agree one hundred percent with the proposition that the covenant as given by God through Jeremiah was to be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. 'Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah . . .' (Jeremiah 31:31). I have no objection to stressing that that means, 'with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah'. I believe it absolutely.

When was the promise of the new covenant fulfilled?

My first question would be: when was the covenant actually set up? When was that promise fulfilled: 'I will make a covenant . . .'? When was the covenant made? That would be the question I would then ask. When did it cease to be a promise, and was passed into law?

Translating Hebrews 8:6

The answer to that seems to my mind to be, without any doubt whatsoever, found in Hebrews 8:6: 'But now has he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which [now notice the next verb and its tense] has been enacted upon better promises.' It is not true to Scripture to say (here in the present in the year 2005) that 'God will now in the future make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah', because Scripture says he has done it already. The new covenant has been enacted. Darby has: "which is established".' A great scholar was Mr Darby, but you should remember that he was a Victorian. Though I am not a Victorian, I was brought up much nearer his time than you were. The uses of English then sometimes deceive modern members of the British race. In older English the perfect tense of a verb is often expressed with the present tense of the verb 'to be' as the auxiliary. What do I mean by that? If you say, 'the covenant is enacted', in older English you were saying what now in modern English we would say, 'the covenant has been enacted'.

The French for 'I have come', is je suis venu—'I am come'. That is good French. With certain verbs, you use the verb 'to be' for the perfect, whereas for other things you would use the verb 'to have': j'ai jeté—'I have thrown'. But with other verbs you use the verb 'to be' as the perfect, as in 'I am come'.

Now listen to Martha talking to Mary in good old Authorized English: 'the Master is come and calleth for thee,' (John 11:28), meaning in modern English, 'the teacher has come'. Or listen to the Authorized Version in Romans 6: 'our old man is crucified' (Romans 6:6). And some energetic preachers have used the verse to exhort us to keep on crucifying our old man, thinking that 'is crucified' means it is constantly being crucified. No, no! The Greek tense is past. What the Authorized means by 'our old man is crucified' is old English for what we would now say in modern English, 'our old man has been crucified'. It is not that the Authorized is incorrect there. It is good old English; but it is old English. The modern equivalent of it is, 'our old man has been crucified'. The old English, 'our old man is crucified' is a past tense: it is a perfect tense. 'I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse' (Songs of Solomon 5:1). 'I am come'? I don't think you say that when you arrive home: 'I am come home, my dear!' I think not.

So when Mr Darby says, 'which is established,' he is a good Englishman using the present tense of the verb 'to be' for a perfect tense. That is good English, though it is grievously misunderstood in modern English by people who never did learn the old English to start with. But let me quote Hebrews 8:6 to you, if I may:

But now he has obtained . . .

Perfect tense: tetychen.

a ministry the more excellent, inasmuch as he is the mediator of a better covenant, which . . .

And the Greek verb is nenomothetētai. It is a perfect passive tense of the verb nomotheteo, and it means 'to lay down in law'.

Now, our Prime Minister has ideas, of course, but he has this particular idea, so he gets a 'bill' as you would call it, and a bill is presented to Parliament. It is not law yet; it is only a bill. It won't become law until Parliament votes on it. And if a majority vote for it, then it passes into law. So it is then no longer merely a promise; it passes into law. It is no longer merely a suggestion; it now passes into law. That process, nomotheteo—laying it down as a law—is what the Greek is talking about. And this new covenant 'has been', says the Greek—perfect passive of the verb—'has been passed into law'.

Making covenants

If you doubt that, consider how in the Old Testament covenants were formed. Read in Genesis 15 again about the covenant God made with Abraham. The covenant was not just a promise; the covenant guaranteed the promise. The covenant was made when the covenant sacrifice was offered. So Abraham was told to take some animals and some birds and cut them in pieces and put them in two rows (that was one way they had of doing it in those days). The covenant was made when those who were party to the covenant (in the sense that they had conditions to fulfil) walked between the pieces. So Abraham killed the animals, and he cut them apart. He didn't divide the birds, but he put them in two rows. 'In that day God made a covenant with him' (Genesis 15:18). And the presence of God walking between the two rows was indicated by a great fire and flame and so forth, walking between the pieces. Abraham didn't walk between the pieces (he was fast asleep); but God walked. The covenant was made when the covenant victims were killed and sacrificed.

There can't be a covenant, says Hebrews 9:17, without the death of the covenant maker. When was the new covenant made? Yes, when the covenant sacrifice was offered. Hence the Hebrew phrase, 'you cut a covenant'. And the Epistle to the Hebrews is telling you straight that it was Christ by his blood who made the new covenant. Listen to him; compare him with Moses. Moses took the blood of the covenant sacrifices and put it in a basin. He sprinkled both the book and the people. He said, 'this is the blood of the covenant which God is making with you'—a sacrifice offered (see Exodus 24:8). And Christ took the cup and said, 'This is my blood of the new covenant' (see Matthew 26:28). What do you mean by 'the blood of the covenant'? Well, the blood of the covenant that signs, seals and settles and sets up the covenant. 'This is the cup of the new covenant,' he says.

So, if you ask me, 'was the covenant to be made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah?' I say, Amen, absolutely so. When was it made? It was made when the covenant sacrifice was offered; that is, when our Lord died at Calvary, which he himself points out. As you come to the Lord's Supper, Christ will, so to speak, offer you the cup and tell you what it is. We read it in 1 Corinthians 11:25, which is talking to a Gentile church. Every time he hands you the cup, our Lord says, 'this is the new covenant in my blood'.

Forgiveness on the ground of the new covenant

Now, a third line on these matters. Consider the Hebrews, to whom the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. Could we all agree that they were Hebrews? I don't think that is stretching anybody's imagination. They were Hebrews—Jews, therefore. We don't know which particular Jews. It could have been people like Mary, Martha, Lazarus, Paul, Peter, James, John, Philip, Matthew, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and a good many more besides. Can we agree they were forgiven? By the time the writer wrote to them, they were believers and had been forgiven. On what ground were they forgiven? Was it on the ground of the sacrifices of the old covenant, or the sacrifice of the new covenant? Does anybody here vote for the idea that these Jews, these Hebrews—Martha, Mary, John, Peter, Jude and company—were forgiven on the ground of the old covenant? I think not! The whole of the Epistle to the Hebrews is telling you they weren't. That old covenant, with its tabernacle, animal sacrifices and ordinary human priesthood was finished!

Look at Hebrews 8:13. 'In that he says "a new covenant . . .".' We had better get that right too. Does your translation read here: 'he will make old the first one'? Or does your translation read, 'he has made old the first one'? What does the Authorized say? 'He hath made old'. Yes, 'he hath made old'. It is a Greek perfect tense, like that other verb we discussed: 'it has passed into law'. So here, 'he has made old the first one. And that which is waxing old and getting aged is nigh unto vanishing away' (Hebrews 8:13). It was indeed. The temple was still there in AD 64 when this letter is likely to have been written. Six years later the Romans would destroy it and the priesthood would be gone forever, and the sacrifices were gone forever.

'He has made it old', and those Hebrews that have forgiveness, they were forgiven on the basis of the new covenant. How do we know that? Because the Holy Spirit says so in chapter 10. They have forgiveness so much so that they don't need to offer any further sacrifices:

For by one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified. And the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us: for after he has said, 'This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord; I will put my laws on their heart, and upon their mind also will I write them'; then he says, 'And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more'. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin (Hebrews 10:14–18).

The writer to these Hebrews says: 'You have complete forgiveness of sins, so much so that you don't need to offer anything at all in order to get forgiveness of sins. There is no more process of offering to get forgiveness of sins.'

How is that?

'Well, the Holy Spirit is witness to you. Listen to what he says: "their sins and iniquities will I remember no more".'

That is the new covenant. Now, therefore, see the force of this part of the reasoning. Martha, Mary, John, Jude, Matthew, Thomas, Philip and all the rest of them—by this time there were some thousands of them. Three thousand were converted on the day of Pentecost, largely Jews. A few days later, the number had risen to five thousand—all Jews. On what ground were they forgiven? It couldn't be on the ground of the old covenant. Well, on what ground then? The chapter is telling you: on the grounds of the new covenant. And they were Jews!

Listen to Paul in Romans: 'Do you suppose God had thrust away his ancient people whom he foreknew? He certainly hasn't!' (see Romans 11:1). How do you know that, Paul? He says, 'I am one!' Not, 'I was an Israelite,' but 'I am an Israelite'. Would it be wrong for Paul to say, 'The Lord has made his covenant with us Israelites; and on the basis of it I am forgiven'?

You say, 'But that leaves the whole question: what about us Gentiles?'

My final suggestion there is this, and I submit it to your judgment (not to raise up controversies, so to speak, but to finish the argument). What about us who are Gentiles and not Israelites (or Judahites for that matter)?

Paul, talking to us Gentiles in Ephesians says:

Wherefore remember, that aforetime you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called 'Uncircumcision' by that which is called Circumcision, in the flesh, made by hands; that you were at that time separate from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. (Ephesians 2:11–12)

'You were'. Do you agree with that? Are you now? I have to tell you, you are still Gentiles. Are you now separate from Christ? No!

But now in Christ Jesus you that once were far off are made nigh . . . (Ephesians 2:13)

You 'were once alienated from the commonwealth of Israel'. Are you still? Well, no, of course not. And you were 'strangers from the covenants of promise'. The new covenant was a covenant of promise, of course: 'I will make a covenant' (Jeremiah 31:31). You were once strangers from it. Are you now? Because you are Gentiles, are you still strangers from the covenants of promise, and therefore from the new covenant? Surely not! In fact, this is what has Paul hopping around his cell in great excitement!

If so be that you have heard of the dispensation of that grace of God which was given to me . . . which in other generations was not made known unto the sons of men, as it has now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit; that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel. (see Ephesians 3:2–6)

So, Gentiles are brought in. Through Christ we are no longer strangers from the covenants of promise.

At least, that is what I believe. I submit it to your good judgment, so that you will ponder these things; because unfortunately, for many a decade now there has been divergence of thought amongst God's people about this. And godly men (many more godly than I am) have held the opposite view: that the new covenant is yet to be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. They say that when the promise says, 'with the house of Israel and the house of Judah', it means 'the house of Israel and the house of Judah'.

I do believe that one hundred percent! My question is: when was it made? And, secondly, at one time we Gentiles were strangers from all that; but we are not now.

But some have said, as even the excellent and revered Mr J. N. Darby, when faced with 2 Corinthians 3 and Paul saying, 'It is God that has made us sufficient [competent] as ministers of a new covenant . . .' (see 2 Corinthians 3:5–6) has to say, 'Well, no, not of "the" new covenant but of a thing like the new covenant.' It is because he holds that the new covenant is not yet made, and will be made in the future with Israel, when Israel is restored.

That is a thing that you must make up your own minds about; and whatever you think, don't count me as an enemy, nor even as an incipient apostate from the truth. It is a thing to think about and to pray about. It is a thing of some importance. 'The law written on our hearts', in 2 Corinthians 3:2 is a promise of the new covenant. 'Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more' (Hebrews 10:17). If you believe it, do notice that it is a promise of the new covenant.