At this point in our study, Jesus is about to leave the upper room. Both he and his disciples shared the evening meal together. It would be the disciples’ final meal with Jesus, while he was still in the world with them. Judas had left the group, after Jesus had washed his feet, and while Judas finalized his arrangement with the chief priests and Pharisees to betray him, the Lord revealed many things to the remaining disciples in what we know as the Upper Room Discourse. The whole evening was wrapped in a very somber veil, as Jesus not only told his disciples he would be betrayed by one of the Twelve, but also mentioned he would be leaving them, and returning to his Father. Just before leaving the room, Jesus raised his eyes to heaven and prayed. He began by disclosing that both he and the Father had entered into a covenant together (John 17:1-5). Jesus had fulfilled his part of that covenant, and now it was up to the Father to fulfill what he had promised to do.
This was the New Covenant, a bilateral covenant made between the Father and his Son, and it would replace the Mosaic Covenant, which was also bilateral, but was broken by Israel. Bilateral covenants are made between two (or more) parties, whereby each party is treated as equal to the other party, and both must fulfill their part of the agreement, if the covenant is to remain valid. If either of the parties breaks the covenant, it becomes null and void. The problem with doing away with the Mosaic Covenant was, by doing so the Lord would have to renege on his covenant with Abraham, because, if he destroyed Israel (consequence of their breaking the Mosaic Covenant), God would be unable to keep his promise to Abraham to make him a nation that would bless all nations. By the terms of the Mosaic Covenant, God could cast Israel out of his sight and destroy her as a nation, scattering her children among the gentile nations. He did this with the House of Israel, the ten northern tribes. The Lord destroyed them by scattering them among the nations, and they were never brought back to the land.
Moreover, the House of Judah, the two southern tribes, had corrupted themselves even more than did their sister tribes to the north. Nevertheless, if the Lord was to remain faithful to David, he couldn’t destroy Judah until the coming of the Messiah. However, since the Messiah had come in the first century AD in the person of Jesus, the Jews, who were miraculously brought back from Babylon after the Lord had destroyed Jerusalem and the first Temple, continued to rebel against God, so he would destroy them in 70 AD, according to what he had revealed to Moses in Deuteronomy 31:16-18. There the Lord described to Moses how there would come a time when all of Israel would betray the covenant and go after other gods. Therefore, the Lord would forsake them destroying their nation and casting them out of the land This would occur in what Moses describes as the latter days (Deuteronomy 31:29), which means the latter days of the Mosaic Covenant or the end of the age, not the end of time, as is supposed by many today.
The problem with destroying the Mosaic Covenant and scattering the remaining Jews throughout the nations is, that would cause God to break his covenant with Abraham, which was a unilateral covenant. A unilateral covenant is made between two (or more) parties, whereby one party dictates the terms of the covenant to the other party. The second party can only agree, but he has no other input in the covenant. When the Lord made his covenant with Abraham, he caused Abraham to go into a deep sleep. Then the Lord woke Abraham, who witnessed the Lord ratifying the covenant alone, as he walked through the slain carcasses by himself. By doing so, the Lord made himself (alone) responsible for keeping the covenant with Abraham and his children. It was impossible for Abraham to break this covenant, because it was unilateral. Only one party, God, was responsible for its success. How could God keep his covenant with Abraham and carry out the justice demanded by Israel breaking the Mosaic Covenant?
According to Jeremiah 31:31-34, God would make a New Covenant with Israel, but it wouldn’t be according to the terms of the Mosaic Covenant! According to the terms of the New Covenant, God’s demands would be written upon the hearts of his people not upon stone. Moreover, they would be taught by God not by men, and this is the Covenant the Father made with his Son. Although it, too, was bilateral, namely, between the Messiah and God, it was also unilateral in that the Messiah was God’s own Son, and, therefore, God in the flesh. So, as long as Jesus fulfilled the human terms of the Covenant, the Father would be able to fulfill its divine terms without there being any possibility of the Covenant ever to be corrupted or destroyed. It was bilateral, as was the Mosaic Covenant, in that it was between God and man, the Messiah. However, it was also unilateral in that the Messiah is the Son of God, and God himself. Therefore, just as is the case of the Lord’s unilateral covenant with Abraham, God, alone, was responsible for this covenant’s success!
Moreover, because faithful Israel embraced the New Covenant, the Lord could replace the Mosaic Covenant with the New Covenant without reneging on the covenant the Lord made with Abraham (Genesis 15). Finally, because the New Covenant was a covenant of faith and embrace both Jewish and gentile believers, all nations were blessed through Abraham’s covenant with God, just as the Lord promised him.
Smoodock's Blog 