Homer Kent, Jr., believes that today Christians are partakers of Israel's New Covenant, saying that "the crucial passages on the New Covenant in Hebrews are addressed to Christians. They may well have been Jewish Christians, but the essential fact is that they were Christians" (Kent,"The New Covenant and the Church," Grace Theological Journal, 6:2, Fall, 1985, p.297).

A close examination of the passages to which Kent makes reference reveals that at no time are the blessings of Israel's New Covenant applied to the Jewish Christians. For this study I will quote from Rodney Decker's paper titled The Law, The New Covenant, and the Christian: Studies in Hebrews 7-10. This paper was delievered to the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, September, 2009.

"For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament (diatheke)" (Heb.7:19-22).

Decker says, "The specific covenant has not yet been named, but the argument to this point has now equated the 'better hope,' which has been introduced in place of the annulled law, as a covenant—in particular, a 'better covenant'...Thus the means by which the Christian draws near to God is a better covenant than the 'former regulation' (the law, i.e., the old covenant). The writer will identify the covenant explicitly in the next chapter (at this point he may be assuming that its identity is understood and obvious)" (p.9-10).

According to Decker the "better hope" is equated with a "better covenant." It may be true that the "better hope" is equated with a better diatheke but Decker gives no evidence whatsoever that the diatheke spoken of is a "covenant" and not a "testament."

These verses are set in the context of Christ's heavenly High Pristhood. But during the millennium, when Israel's New Covenant will be in force, Christ's High Priesthood will be associated with an earthly temple. Here we read that the Lord Jesus will occupy the inner court of that temple:

"While the man was standing beside me, I heard someone speaking to me from inside the temple. He said: 'Son of man, this is the place of my throne and the place for the soles of my feet. This is where I will live among the Israelites forever. The house of Israel will never again defile my holy name - neither they nor their kings - by their prostitution and the lifeless idols of their kings at their high places' " (Ezk.43:6-7; NIV).

The Jewish recipients of Hebrews would certainly understand that when Israel's New Covenant comes into force then all of the Jewish believers "according to the flesh" will have their place within Judaism. However, the author tells them to go "to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore" (Heb.13:13; NIV).

The words "outside the camp" refer to leaving the camp of Judaism. Zane C. Hodges says that the readers "should not hesitate to share in the disgrace He bore (cf. 12:2) by abandoning the camp of Judaism and identifying with Him" (Walvoord & Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary; New Testament, p.812).

Therefore the original recipients of Hebrews would know that Israel's New Covenant was not then in force and therefore was not the covenant referred to as the "better diatheke."

"But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better 'diatheke,' which was established upon better promises. For if that first 'diatheke' had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah"(Heb.8:6-8).

Decker says that "The author then cites Jer 31:31 - 34 (= Heb 8:8b - 12), which can only be understood in this context to be a reference to that second covenant of which Jesus is the mediator, which replaced the earlier, faulty, first covenant" (p.13).

There is no evidence that when the author quotes Jeremiah 31:31-24 that the reference is is to the second diatheke of which the Lord Jesus is a Mediator.

John Walvoord understands this to be true, writing that "The argument hangs on the point that the Mosaic covenant was not faultless-was never intended to be an everlasting covenant (Heb. 8:7). In confirmation of this point, the new covenant of Jeremiah is cited at length, proving that the Old Testament itself anticipated the end of the Mosaic law in that a new covenant is predicted to supplant it...A further statement is made that the old covenant is 'becoming old' and is 'nigh unto vanishing away.' It should be noted that nowhere in this passage is the new covenant with Israel declared to be in force. The only argument is that which was always true-the prediction of a new covenant automatically declares the Mosaic covenant as a temporary, not an eternal covenant" [emphasis added] (Walvoord, "The New Covenant with Israel," Bibliotheca Sacra 110 [July 1953], p.201).

Decker writes that "After describing his high priestly work (11 - 14), the writer concludes that 'for this reason Christ is the mediator of the new covenant...The time reference is present: Jesus is presently the mediator of this covenant" (p.16 - 17).

Again, Decker fails to provide any evidence that Israel's New Covenant is tied to Christ being the Mediator of a New Diatheke.

Christ's role as Mediator of the New Diatheke was fulfilled at the Cross. The Greek word translated "mediator" is mesites and it means "one who intervenes between two, either in order to make or restore peace and friendship, or form a compact, or for ratifying a covenant" (Joseph Thayer, A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 401). His death provided that intervention, a reconciliation between God and man and the purpose of that death is the heart and soul of the New Testament, the word of reconciliation" (2 Cor.5:19). John Chrysostom (347-407) wrote, "How did He become Mediator? He brought words from Him and brought them to us, conveying over what came from the Father to us, and adding His own death thereto. We had offended: we ought to have died: He died for us and made us worthy of the Testament. By this is the Testament secure, in that henceforward it is not made for the unworthy" (Philip Schaff, ed., Homilies on the Gospel of St. John and the Epistle to the Hebrews by St. Chrysostom; Homily XVI [Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library] 736).

Decker says that "The significance of this discussion is laid out in vv. 15 - 18. The author is making twopoints. First, he is shifting the discussion from OT believers (who were the focus of vv. 1 - 14, being contrasted with Jesus' obedience) to NT believers. Second, he is arguing that the new covenant text of Jer 31 is relevant to this discussion...The basis on which we are 'made perfect forever' (v. 14) is the new covenant. So that the point is not missed, following the second part of the quotation (v. 17), the writer summarizes again, 'where these have been forgiven, there is no longerany offering for sin' (v. 18)" (p.24-25).

Let us take a close look at the following verses that are in regard to a New Covenant:

"The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds...Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more" (Heb.10:16-17; NIV).

Here the author of Hebrews changes the wording of the verse from the O.T. that speaks of Israel's New Covenant so that the Jewish Christians would not be left with the impression that the blessings of Israel's New Covenant were being applied to them.

The words from the OT which read "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel" (Jer.31:33) are changed to "this is the covenant that I will make with them."

So the author writes that "the Holy Spirit testifies to us...this is the covenant that I will make with them."

The author quotes the "type," knowing that those who received this epistle would understand this and apply the antitype to themselves. This literary device is not uncommon in the Scriptures. For instance, consider Paul's words here that are set in the context of teaching concerning the Body of Christ:

"Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God" (Ro.9:24-26).

Paul quotes two verses from the book of Hosea (2:23; 1:10) and both of these verses refer to the northern kingdom of Israel:

"Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God" (Hosea 1:10).

Despite the fact that the verses Paul quoted are in regard to the northern kingdom he applies them indirectly to those in the Body of Christ. He looked back at the OT revelations concerning Israel's past and future relationship with God and saw an analogy between Israel and the Body of Christ. In other words, he saw a "typological" relationship between the two. However, he adds words so that the readers know that the verses do not apply to them directly:

"And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved" (Ro.9:26-27).

Paul makes it plain to his readers that the verses he quoted apply directly to Israel and not to them. He quoted those verses because he saw a "typological" relationship between Israel and those in the Body of Christ.

Charles Ryrie wrote the following in regard to Hebrews 10:16-17: "The argument here is that the sacrifice of Christ supersedes the sacrifices under the Mosaic covenant, and the appeal to the new covenant with Israel is to show that the Old Testament Scriptures promised that sins would be remembered no more. The passage does not state that the new covenant with Israel is identical with the new covenant with the church or that it is fulfilled by the Church (Ryrie, The Basis of the Premillennial Faith" [Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953], p.121-122).

Next