Note: nothing in this text includes theology, although it may sound so. This entire definition relates only to the very meaningful grammatical rule of definiteness.
The ‘Ha’ (the) at the beginning of this name makes the covenant a definite one. ‘Ha’ is the definite article in Hebrew. It pertains to a specific covenant that was originally contracted between God and Israel. ‘Ha•brit Ha•cha•da•sha’ is then relating to the old one (without mentioning it), but the definiteness infers that it is the same covenant with God (and not any other covenant), except for it is a new one. If we inherently understand that God is a part of this covenant without mentioning Him, then who is the other party in this covenant? Is it still the same Israel? But it is well known that Israel today does not recognize this new covenant. Many believers believe and would say with much faith that ‘Israel does not recognize it yet.’ These many believers have never given up on Israel and are waiting for the nation to join the new covenant. As such, the believers today are a body that extends the boundaries of the original term: ‘Israel.’ With the inclusion of the original Israel (even though it is yet to join), the term ‘Ha•brit Ha•cha•da•sha,’ ‘The New Covenant,’ is valid and viable. Without the original Israel, it could not logically be called ‘The New Covenant’ but rather, ‘A New Covenant.’ ‘The’ alludes to something specific that was established before: the covenant between God and Israel. The one who wants to use the term ‘The New Covenant,’ or ‘The New Testament’ needs also to know that Israel is in. If it is out, then it should be ‘A New Testament.’
Note 1: ‘a new covenant’ – before it was made:
“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'”
Note 2: ‘The New Covenant’ – a definite covenant after it was made:
“‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood…’”