Smoodock's Blog

Paul tells his readers that the Lord found fault with the first covenant and, therefore, sought to replace it (Hebrews 8:7), which suggests the question: did God offer Israel a faulty covenant? No, but how is this understood? First of all, God had a purpose for offering the first covenant, but salvation wasn’t it (Romans 7:12; Hebrews 8:8). The real problem with the Mosaic Covenant had nothing to do with what God offered Israel, it had to do with them. God found fault with his people (Hebrews 8:8; Jeremiah 31:32).

The covenant, as I mentioned in a previous study was a bilateral agreement, made between two equal parties. That is, both parties had equal responsibility to keep it. If either party broke the covenant, it could be declared null and void by the second party. So, the problem with the Old Covenant was not with what God presented to Israel, but the problem was with the flesh (Matthew 26:41; Romans 8:3). Men simply cannot overcome their own fleshy weaknesses without divine help. If we could, men would have ceased to sin a long time ago, but I believe it is quite obvious that has not occurred.

Paul proves to his readers that it had been God’s intention to set aside the Mosaic Covenant in favor of a new covenant with Israel by quoting the prophet, Jeremiah (Hebrews 8:8-12; Jeremiah 31:32-34; compare Isaiah 55:3; Jeremiah 32:40; 33:24-26 and Ezekiel 37:26). This new covenant would not be like the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:9), because that covenant could be broken, and in doing so it resulted in God judging the offending party and annulling the covenant.

If the Old Covenant was problematic due to the flesh, then logic tells us that the New Covenant must not have a problem with the flesh. That is, the covenant couldn’t be broken through the weakness of men’s hearts. Therefore, the covenant must not be a bilateral covenant, which made both parties equally responsible to keep the agreement. Rather, it is a unilateral covenant like the one God made with Abraham (Genesis 15:7-18). Under the New Covenant, total responsibility for its success falls upon the shoulders of the Lord. He takes men with their weaknesses, which results in evil behavior, all upon himself. He bore our sins at the cross, taking the punishment that was due our behavior (Hebrews 1:3; 12:2), and saved us.

When we compare the covenant God made with Abraham (Genesis 15:7-18) with that made with Israel under Moses (Exodus 19:1-8) we are able to see that the Mosaic Covenant was definitely bilateral. Its success depended both upon man and God, while God took sole responsibility for the success of the Abrahamic covenant, making it unilateral. In other words, neither Abraham nor his descendants could break the unilateral covenant God made with them. God promised to deliver and he did everything he promised to do. The Mosaic Covenant, on the other hand, depended upon the obedience of the people (Deuteronomy 5:29; 28:1-2, 15; 30:15-19; 31:26-29).

Despite its weakness of depending upon the integrity of man for its success, Paul claimed that, if there was a law that would have produced righteousness in man, righteousness would have come through the Law or the Mosaic Covenant (Galatians 3:21). In other words there was nothing wrong with what God gave man to do in that covenant. Neither was there anything contained in the agreement that was too difficult to do or too complex to understand (Deuteronomy 30:11-15). What, then was the purpose of the Mosaic Covenant? If God knew men wouldn’t keep it, what purpose did it serve in bringing us to Christ? Paul tells us that it was our schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24), but what does that mean?

Before God gave the Law to Moses, what did man’s conscience look like? Before Sinai, what did men do to be understood as righteous or good? Kings made laws and the lawful who were loyal to the word of the king were considered loyal and men of integrity. Abraham, for example, obeyed the Code of Hammurabi, as did Jacob and Joseph after him.[1] Yet, obedience to such a code of men could never be considered moral, nor could rejecting such a code be considered immoral. On the other hand, the Law of God taught men what sin is (Romans 7:7). It was given at Sinai both to teach men what righteous men don’t do and to show that men were too weak to be righteous without divine help (Galatians 3:24; Romans 7:8-10; 14-23; cf. Joshua 24:19-20), and they need to cry out for a Savior (Romans 7:24-25). The Law, then, educated consciences of men, whereby he now understands his obligation to do good and to be ashamed when he does evil.

_________________________________________

[1] Taking a slave for one’s wife (Genesis 16:1-4; 30:1-5, 9-10) was in accordance with the Code of Hammurabi #146, and not being able to sell her after she bore her master a child (Genesis 21:10, 14), see #119. The judgment of death for stealing (Genesis 31:32; 44:9) was in accordance with code #6.