The New Covenant and the Righteousness of Zechariah and Elizabeth

Your question presses on an important inconsistency in much contemporary theology. Many evangelicals speak freely of "being under the New Covenant," of "New Covenant churches," "New Covenant seminaries," and similar expressions. In many evangelical regions, you could visit church after church and rarely find a pastor who does not assume we are presently under the New Covenant. Yet the biblical description of the New Covenant does not match what we see in the life of the church today.

subsection*The Biblical Description of the New Covenant

Jeremiah 31 gives the foundational Old Testament description of the New Covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Key features include:

"After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts... And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them..." Jeremiah 31:33–34

Hebrews 8 quotes this passage and applies it to the New Covenant, retaining the same features: the law written on hearts, an internalized obedience, and a universal knowledge of the Lord among the covenant people.

Two implications stand out:

1. Under the New Covenant, there is no need for mutual exhortation to "know the LORD," because all covenant participants already know him.
2. Obedience is internal and pervasive, not spotty or partial. The law is written on the heart; the covenant people are characterized by consistent righteousness.

subsection*Zechariah and Elizabeth Under the Old Covenant

Luke describes Zechariah and Elizabeth in striking terms:

"And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless." Luke 1:6

They are exemplary Old Covenant saints, walking blamelessly in God's commandments and ordinances. Yet by standard evangelical reckoning, they lived before the New Covenant was inaugurated.

If one claims that the church today is living in the fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8, then one must compare the actual spiritual condition of contemporary believers with both (1) the biblical description of New Covenant life and (2) the described obedience of Old Covenant saints like Zechariah and Elizabeth.

subsection*The Tension You Highlight

Your question essentially asks: If modern Christians claim to be under the New Covenant, which promises internalized law and universal knowledge of God among the covenant people, are they thereby implying that they live at a higher level of obedience than Zechariah and Elizabeth? Most would recoil from such a claim. They know their congregations; they know themselves.

Yet they also insist on being "New Covenant people," while their actual experience bears little resemblance to the New Covenant reality as described:

• Churches must still teach one another to "know the Lord."
• Believers struggle with sin, disobedience, and immaturity.
• Law is not perfectly and universally written on their hearts in a way that renders outward instruction obsolete.

This is more than a minor tension; it is a serious mismatch between professed covenant status and observed spiritual condition.

subsection*Theological Inconsistency and Group Assumptions

Many who affirm "we are under the New Covenant" also profess to take Scripture literally and to honor every word. Yet when one lays Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 alongside the day-to-day life of the church, the fit is poor.

Instead of letting that discrepancy drive them back to reexamine their covenant theology, many simply live with two contradictory ideas:

1. We are New Covenant people.
2. Our experience is nothing like the New Covenant's promised conditions.

Theological systems, denominational traditions, and seminary training often smooth over this inconsistency. Concepts such as "already but not yet," or redefinitions of Israel and the church, or spiritualizing the New Covenant promises are brought in to allow the language to stand while emptying it of its concrete meaning.

Your question exposes the dissonance: if they take their own claim seriously, they must think contemporary believers are, in some meaningful sense, operating at a higher covenantal obedience than exemplary Old Covenant saints like Zechariah and Elizabeth. Scripture does not support that conclusion.

subsection*A Better Way Forward

A more coherent approach is to let Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 mean what they say about the New Covenant with Israel and Judah, and to recognize that what is described there is not now fully realized in the global church.

Under this approach:

• The New Covenant is a specific promise to Israel and Judah, tied to their future restoration and kingdom blessings.
• The church today enjoys spiritual blessings flowing from Christ's blood, but is not the direct, exhaustive fulfillment of Jeremiah 31.
• Old Covenant saints like Zechariah and Elizabeth remain exemplary models of righteousness in their own dispensation, without being subordinated to a presumed superior spirituality of modern believers.

This reading removes the need to treat the New Covenant language as partially fulfilled, spiritualized, or redefined. It allows Zechariah and Elizabeth to stand as genuinely righteous Old Covenant saints, while preserving the integrity of the promised New Covenant realities still to come for Israel.

Your question is therefore a sharp and valid critique of much contemporary evangelical covenant language. It reveals that many who claim New Covenant status have not carefully aligned their claims with the actual biblical descriptions, nor with the realities they see in their own congregations.

% === 022526.tex ===