Tackling Tradition 87: “The New Covenant”

The term “The New Covenant” is a title traditionally ascribed to a particular administration of the Covenant of Grace.  As a matter of biblical nomenclature, what does the Bible say? 

Answer

There is no text in the Bible that mandates we call the Johannine administration of the Covenant of Grace “The New Covenant,” & at no point does the Bible call it “The New Covenant” as a proper name/title. 

Objection 

The Bible itself calls it the new covenant (Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 8:8-13; Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 12:24). 12:24. 

Answer

• This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.  (Luke 22:20, ESV)

Yeshua is using as descriptor & refers to its usage in the OT.  “I will make a new covenant…”   The text uses the article *the* in Luke to emphasize that the promise was being fulfilled in their sight.   He isn’t declaring the title of the covenant.   He is pointing out that the time of the fulfillment has come & the cup in His hand represents it.    It’s also worth noting that you are interpreting “the” as a confessional title without interpreting “is” the same way.   Why?  Because you’re not Roman Catholic.  At least the Roman Catholic’s hermeneutical approach is consistent.  

• 1 Corinthians 11:26 simply repeats the same language.   Paul is just quoting Christ not instructing OP Robertson to use the term “The New Covenant.”   He can do so if he wants but the truth is the Bible itself doesn’t demand we do so.  

• Hebrews 8:8 - 13 repeats the language of Jeremiah.   The article *a* not *the* is used with the adjective “new.*

οἶκον Ἰούδα διαθήκην καινήν = House of Judah a covenant new 

• Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, (Hebrews 9:15, ESV)

Once again the article is *a* not *the* & the author is not using the term as a title. 

• and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.  (Hebrews 12:24, ESV)

Yet again the article is *a* not *the.*

As many times as the disputant’s prooftexts use the article *a* not *the* when paired with the word *new,*  it is plainly evident that the disputant has presented us with a classic case of semantic anachronism, an exegetical fallacy in which a disputant maps dogmatic usage back onto Biblical usage, then appeals to Biblical usage, thus redefined, to disprove his opponent’s dogmatic usage. 

In this case it is plainly evident that the disputatant is reading back confessional language into the biblical text by mistaking the term “new covenant’ with a theological title for a particular administration of the wider Covenant of Grace. 

These are the names of the Covenants traditionally ascribed to the biblical covenants:   Works/Edenic, Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New.  

The term “The New Covenant” is derived from Historical Theology, not anything prescriptive in the Bible that instructs us to name what the Bible repeatedly calls “a new covenant” **the** New Covenant as a proper name/title, consequently, in order to be congruent with the nomenclature for the titles of these covenants, the proper name is Johannine, insofar as John the Baptist is its Administrator.