19. A NEW LOOK AT A NEW COVENANT MINISTRY

Reopening The Case, Re-Examining The Evidence Part I

There are many claims about a ministry of the New Covenant beginning at the cross. Here is a list terms which many use to describe a functioning New Covenant ministry.

The New Covenant is said to be :

Inaugurated, initiated, enacted, instituted, in effect, in force, operative, active, being fulfilled, made, executed, partially fulfilled, preliminary fulfillment, and/or functioning.

These claims are sincere, but the arguments are not overwhelmingly convincing.

In fact, the arguments appear strained, weak and do not mesh with the story in Acts, with Peter and the others. This article will attempt to demonstrate an alternate view than what others (Darby, Chafer, Scofield, Pentecost, Ryrie ) may have understood as the Biblical place of the New Covenant in the Acts of the Apostles and After.

The idea that the New Covenant has had ministry since the cross, in this writer's opinion, cannot be substantiated by the unfolding actions, preaching and teaching that is found in the Acts of the Apostles or the epistles written during and after the Acts time period. The Darby and Chafer positions are correct concerning the point that the New Covenant is exclusive by being promised to and to be made only with the two houses of Judah and Israel. C.R. Stam may have slightly overstated his case by saying, " And God did make this new covenant with Israel and Judah at Calvary ( Matt. 26:28 : The Fundamentals of Dispensationalism , page 268 ). This seems unlikely by the fact that there is no evidence that Israel and Judah had entered into a new Covenant. At that time they were totally unaware of entering into such a covenant. Certainly the foundation was laid, by the shedding of the blood. But the actions and understanding of the believers during Acts does not give supporting understanding, leading to a belief that indeed the New Covenant is now functioning. It is recognized that the twelve were given a promise to sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel ( Matt. 19:28 ). But that promise would not become a fulfillment until the coronation of the Son of Man in the Kingdom, when He sits on the throne of His glory. "To say," the Lord 'made' the New Covenant with these same twelve representatives of the two houses of Judah and Israel "and" that this New Covenant was activated after the cross and operative after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, is just that, coming to a searcher's ears, plain "Hear-say" , without supportive evidence. But it is not heresy.

Peter's Sermon in Acts 2

There is no mention at all of the 'new covenant' in Peter's first sermon in Acts. If a New Covenant ministry started at the cross, surely it should be revealed in the first sermon. But, in a broken record style, there is no mention of the 'new covenant' or the blood of the 'new covenant'.

The Lord Jesus came preaching repentance, return, and restitution unto a nation which, as sheep, had wandered far from the pasture and the shepherd. His ministry was one of confirmation (Rom. 15:8 ) concerning promises made to the fathers; even so, Peter was on a crusade to fulfill that same mission : …as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you…" ( John 20:21)

Some have claimed here a 're-offer of the kingdom', a continuation of the message found in the ministries of the Lord and his Apostles/disciples in the Gospels ; others speak just of an 'offer of the kingdom' (as it were offered in Acts for the first time) which follows the general outline of the mountain tops of prophecy. First, the sufferings of Christ, at the cross and then the glory that follows. Cf. Luke 24:26; Acts 3:18-21 & I Peter 1:10-11 ) But regardless of which scenario one takes, ( offer or re-offer ) the developing argument in Acts 2 does not go in the direction one would expect, IF there was in truth an active new covenant ministry. For if the new covenant was preached as the program of salvation throughout the New Testament times, where is the evidence that in Acts 2, the blood of the New covenant is the basis for the forgiveness of sins ? Peter never refers to the death of Christ in a redemptive manner in this first sermon. In Acts 2:23, Peter claims that the Lord was taken by the men of Israel and by wicked hands had been crucified and slain.

This was all done through the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. This was the permissive will of God. But there is no new covenant explanation of this death by crucifixion, but only, as it were, in passing contrast to what God did after what they did.

They put the Lord to death. God made this same Jesus both Lord and Christ. The emphasis of Peter in his explanation of what has happened is that the men of Israel rejected Jesus through crucifixion, but God endorsed this same Jesus, by resurrection and exaltation and declared him both Lord and Christ.

Peter began by explaining the question, "what meaneth this ?" in regard to the coming of the Spirit and the hearing in many tongues the wonderful works of God. He explains that Jesus caused all of this by shedding forth this from heaven, which they see and hear. Although the men of Israel had taken and by wicked hands had crucified and slain this same Jesus (2:23,36 ), God had raised him up (2:24, 32) and from God's right hand, this same Jesus had poured forth the promise of the Holy Spirit. This same Jesus has been made both Lord and Christ. The listeners were pricked in the heart and asked, "Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" Peter's answer is NOT to accept their wicked work of crucifixion as the shedding of the blood of the 'new covenant' and now by accepting this repentance, receive the forgiveness of their sins because of the shedding this blood. No, no !!!

Peter sounds much like an echo of John the Baptist, the Lord in his ministry in the Gospel records and like himself, in the ministry of preaching the gospel of the kingdom before the cross. His answer is : "Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" ( Acts 2:38 ). We search in vain for any mention or explanation of the new covenant in reference to the forgiveness of sins.

Peter's Second Sermon, Acts 3

The healing of the lame man is the basis for the sermon because of the great amount of wondering among the people. Peter addresses this wonder and whether by their own power or holiness, Peter and John, had caused this man to walk. Peter attributes the cause of healing to the one named Jesus, whom God glorified. Jesus is called here 'the servant of him' (God).

This same Jesus was delivered up ( to Pilate ) and they denied him (Jesus ) in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him ( Jesus ) go. But they denied the Holy One and the Just., and desired a murderer to be granted unto them; and they killed the Prince of Life, whom God raised from the dead. But they killed in ignorance ( 3:17).

And God had foretold in the prophets that this would happen and that Christ would suffer and this had now been fulfilled ( 3:18 ). Peter again gives an opportunity to repent and be converted, that their sins may be blotted out ( 3:19a ). But there is no reference to the blood of the 'new covenant' to wipe out and blot out those sins. Peter closes this sermon with a reference, NOT to the 'new covenant' , but to the Abrahamic covenant ( 3:25 ). He states again that God has raised up 'the servant of him' , Jesus, to bless them, in turning away every one of them from his iniquities. Peter does not explore how this will come about through any reference to the 'new covenant', the blood of that covenant, or the cross.

Peter's Sermonette in Acts 4

The sermon ends in Acts 3, but the story continues to expand and unfold in Acts 4. It begins with the grieving of the priests and Sadducees because they ( Peter and John ) preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead. ( 4:1-2 ). Peter and John, then, were placed in the hold till the next day. Peter answers the question from the leaders, as by what power or by what name they had done this- the healing of the lame man. Peter explains that what they did was a good deed for this man, that he was made whole, (saved, healed, delivered ). Peter states that this was done by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom they had crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him ( this same Jesus) doth this man stand before you whole ( 4:9-10 ).

Peter continues, in 4:12, "Neither is there salvation in any other…" Neither is there healing in any other. This salvation is the HEALING OF THE LAME MAN. "…for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved"; that is, be HEALED, DELIVERED, MADE WHOLE OR SAVED FROM A PHYSICAL CALAMITY.

This concerned a resurrected Lord and Christ, who performed a wonder, a deliverance, a salvation, a healing. This was a miracle of physical healing. Peter is not making a case for redemption by the blood of the new covenant.

The Prayer Of Acts 4

Peter and John are released and they returned to their own people and told them what the chief priests and elders had said to them. Then all the people lifted up their voice to God in prayer. In that prayer context ( 4:24-30 ), they again mention Jesus as 'the servant of thee ' (God), as his anointed, both Herod and Pilate with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together against Jesus, to do whatsoever thy (God's) hand and thy counsel determined before to be done. Notice that Jesus was the 'servant of God' before the cross. Matt. 12:9-21 brings this out clearly. Jesus had performed a miracle of healing to a man with a withered hand, and then he healed a great multitude.

Then the passage in Isaiah 42:1-3 is quoted, which contains the word 'servant'. We must take notice that this is again a context of healing by this servant. In Matthew 12, there was no knowledge revealed by the Lord at this time, that his 'servant-hood' would be connected with suffering and death, with a revelation that this included vicarious and redemptive truth. It was in Matt. 16:21 that the Lord began to tell of the fact of his coming death : "From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed…".

He only told them the fact of his death. He did not expound on it as a work of redemption. Both of the references to 'the servant of him' ( God ), as used of the Lord in Acts 3:13 and 26, are in the context of the healing of the lame man. The last reference in Acts 4:30, also has references to signs and wonders to be done by the name of Jesus, 'the holy servant of thee'. This reference to the signs and wonders is preceded with the words, 'by stretching forth thine hand to HEAL'. The point here is that there is no reference to 'servant' in a redemptive context in Matthew or in Acts 2,3,4. All of the 'servant' texts are related to signs wonders and healings, and not to any covenant and a redemptive connotation. ( It has already been acknowledged that the healing is a 'salvation or deliverance' in that limited and restricted capacity due to the exposition of the context).

Stephen's Sermon, Acts 7

The history of Israel is dealt with from Abraham to Solomon. Stephen relates how the brothers of Joseph rejected and sold him into Egypt. ( 7:8-9 ) He also shows how the fathers rejected Moses ( 7:23-25, 35 ). Both of these men can be seen as types of a rejected Christ, but Stephen does not enlarge upon this. He closes with a charge that his listeners were betrayers and murderers of the 'Just One', and that they received the Law by the disposition of angels and have not kept it. He continues no further. He was attacked and taken out of the city and killed. But what was the legacy of his message? He mentions the covenants of circumcision and the Law (7:8, 38, 53 ). He never mentions the new covenant or the blood of the new covenant. Since he did not finish his message, we will say no more.

Peter's Sermon To Cornelius, Acts 10

Consider Peter's meeting with Cornelius. When Peter visits Cornelius, he goes on the basis of a special vision from heaven, not on the basis of the so-called 'great commission' ( cf. Acts 10:9-16; 11:5-12; 15:7-11) What did Peter know at this time? Was he aware that he was not UNDER LAW but was now under the 'new covenant', when he saw the common and unclean beasts, fowls and creeping things coming down from heaven in the sheet ? But why did he refuse when the command came to 'rise, Peter; kill and eat ' ?

Does he sound like someone who has been informed that he is not UNDER LAW, but under the 'new covenant' or under Grace, if indeed he was supposed to be under a 'new covenant' ministry' ? So, how does Peter portray himself ( cf. 10:28 ) ? Does he see himself as a Jew? A believing Jew, but still a Jew ? He did not consider himself a 'Christian' '(Jew)' because that was a name later used in Acts 11, not by believers about believers but used by unbelievers about believers, not as a term of devotion but derision.

The Council Meeting Of Acts 15

At this council meeting, how could there be a group ( a certain sect of the Pharisee which BELIEVED ) make this statement, "That it was needful to circumcise them ( Gentiles ) and command them to keep the Law of Moses" ( Acts 15:5) ? Had they never received any teaching that they were not under Law THEMSELVES but were now under the 'new covenant' ? And, in the final decision by this entire group, why was there no reference to some 'new covenant' guideline that had been in place since Calvary ? OR, was there no guidelines AND no new covenant ministry to make a reference to ?

The Zealous Jewish Believers of Acts 21

In Acts 21, there were thousands of Jews who believed, but they were all zealous of the Law. How could this be ? How could this be after all these years ? Did the teachings of the 'new covenant' go unheeded ? Was there liberty to accept or reject it ? Or, in fact, was there no 'new covenant' inaugurated, instituted, enacted, in effect, in force, operating, active, or presently then being fulfilled since Calvary ?

( to be continued as Part II )

Return to Index of Jerry's Writings

e-mail Jerry Sterchi