For if that first was faultless, place had not been sought for a second.
The writer of Hebrews has just called Christ the mediator of a better covenant. God's promise of a second covenant is itself proof that the first one fell short — but how can a covenant God Himself gave at Sinai be less than faultless?
The argument needs no outside evidence. It works from Israel's own Scriptures.
This verse presents a wonderfully disarming argument: "For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second." The very need of a second, or new, covenant showed the imperfection of the first or old! Anyone familiar with Jeremiah's message understands this. He had to deliver a hard message. The people had disobeyed. They would lose the land and become captives. All this was because they had been unfaithful under the old covenant (Jer. 31:32). It was the breakdown of the first covenant that gave occasion to the second.
"Faultless" does not mean the law itself was flawed. The weakness lay on the human side.
As verse 7 shows, the first covenant of law was not faultless. There was no fault in the law. The covenant was faulty because everything depended on faulty man. So God sets it aside in favour of the second, which rests on God's purpose and God's work.
The next verse shows where God laid the blame. Watch the wording.
The first covenant was not faultless, because it could secure no blessing for those who broke it. And of course the people who received it proved themselves far from faultless. So there was plenty of room for a new covenant, and real need of one. Notice that verse 8 says God "finds fault with them," not with the covenant.
If the covenant was bound to fail, why give it at all? And may God simply drop what He once set up?
It is useless for men to argue against the word of God in the abstract. God Himself set up the covenant of Sinai. It confronted the self-confidence of fallen man. Used rightly, it would have convicted him of his evil and forced him to look to Christ, the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. But Israel, like other natural men, twisted the law to build a false righteousness of their own, and to cover their sins under the smoke of their sacrifices. God is free to set aside the old and bring in the new. He never does this on a whim, but in goodness, wisdom, and holiness worthy of Himself.
The two covenants aim at the same privileges. They differ in who guarantees the outcome.
The new covenant promises the same high privileges as the old. But it also secures them by the grace of God, once the people had proved they could not reach them by their own obedience. "If you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." That is how the old covenant ran. Its promises depended on their obedience. But "the better covenant," based on "better promises," speaks like this: "This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws on their hearts, and write them on their minds." Here all is done by God Himself, and so the promises are sure to follow.
These first readers still clung to the older system. This verse was the lever to move them.
The real aim was to draw the Hebrews away from Judaism. For why make a new covenant if the first was faultless? (Heb. 8:7). And if God is going to make a new one, He has made the first one old. "What is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (13). So why stay tied to what is passing away and ready to vanish?
So does the new covenant belong to Christians?
This does not mean the new covenant is addressed to Christians, any more than the old one was. Both are Jewish. Verses 7 to 10 show this clearly. And we are not under a covenant in any way. Still, God ministers the blessings of the new covenant to Christians by pure grace, through Him who is Mediator of the new covenant. This is grace. The branches of blessing spread out over the wall of Jewish separation and reach Gentiles.
- Fault — There was no fault in the law. The covenant was faulty because everything hung on faulty man. Verse 8 says God finds fault "with them," not with the covenant.
- Purpose — Sinai was still God's own work: rightly used, it would have exposed man's evil and driven him to Christ.
- Grace — The better covenant promises the same privileges but secures them, because "all is done by God Himself."
- Reach — The covenants speak to Israel. Yet God ministers their blessings to believers now by pure grace, through the same Mediator.
For finding fault, he says to them, Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I will consummate a new covenant as regards the house of Israel, and as regards the house of Juda;
The writer of Hebrews has just said that Christ's ministry rests on a better covenant. Now he proves it from Israel's own Scriptures, quoting Jeremiah: God finds fault, and He names two houses.
One short phrase in this verse settles who is at fault:
The first covenant was not faultless, because it could win no blessing for those who broke it. And of course the people who received it proved themselves far from faultless. So there was ample room for a new covenant, and need of one. Notice that verse 8 says, "finding fault with them," not with the covenant.
That failure did more than expose the people. It brought the new covenant in.
But how could the old covenant, given by God, not be "faultless"? Because the fault lay with the sin and weakness of one party to the covenant: Israel. As with the law as a whole, there was no problem with what God had given (the law was good) but with the weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3). The new covenant was occasioned by the very failure of the old.
The promise of something new is itself the argument:
The argument is simple. A promised new covenant shows that the old covenant was not enough... It could not do what was in God's heart — to bring His people into the closest and nearest relationship with Himself.
A question follows: is God free to set aside what He Himself gave?
God is free to set aside the old and bring in the new. He never does this on a whim, but in goodness, wisdom, and holiness worthy of Himself... God is sovereign. That sovereignty is the blessed resource of His nature. It vindicates His name when men wrong and insult Him, and it delivers guilty man from his own evil and Satan's power.
The Greek word chosen here is not about recent date but about a different kind of thing:
The word used for "new" here is "kainos" — new in kind, fresh, in contrast with what has been before. It is the word used in most places where the term new covenant occurs. Another word, "neos", means new in the sense of recent or young. The new covenant is of a different character, marked by God taking all responsibility and promising blessing. This comes out beautifully in the "I will" in this verse (and throughout the new covenant section of Jeremiah 30–32).
Hebrews quotes Jeremiah with one small change, and the change carries weight:
Note that our verse (8:8) quotes from Jeremiah 31:31, but with a slight variation: instead of saying "with" it says "as regards" the house of Israel. This makes clear that Israel receives the good of the new covenant. Israel is not a party placed under an obligation by it (see also Heb. 10:16). Yet it is also clear that it is "as regards" the house of Israel and the house of Judah, and not the church.
The verse names two houses, not one, because the nation had broken in two long before:
Both are mentioned because of the division of the ten tribes from the two in Rehoboam's time. The new covenant will leave out no tribe: in that order of things God Himself will heal the division.
If the covenant is promised to Israel, what does it mean for a Christian today? Commentators answer by separating the covenant from its blessings:
The new covenant, as such, is made not with believers now, but with Israel. But all its spiritual blessings are ministered to us through the Spirit. That is why the apostle speaks of himself and his fellow-workers as "ministers of the new covenant."
This distinction matters in practice:
If you were under the new covenant in the letter, you would get into bondage again... Israel will then be ready to enjoy the reign of Christ. They will have the forgiveness of sins, and the Holy Spirit will be in them. But their blessing does not include the sense of sonship and union with Christ. We have all that they will have, and much more. We enjoy the blessings of the new covenant through the ministry of it, without being under it. We must always remember that all Israel's blessing in the coming day is on earth, while we are blessed with all spiritual blessings in the heavenly places in Christ.
- Fault — The blame falls on them, not on the covenant; the law was good, and human weakness broke it.
- Proof — A second covenant was promised. That alone shows the first could not do what God's heart intended.
- Freedom — God is not locked in by what He once gave. He sets aside the old and brings in the new in goodness and holiness, never on a whim.
- Kind — "New" here means new in character. It is a covenant of "I will," where God carries the whole responsibility.
- Reach — It is promised to Israel and Judah, and it heals their old split. Believers today are not under it, yet receive its blessings through the Spirit.
not according to the covenant which I made to their fathers in [the] day of my taking their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because *they* did not continue in my covenant, and *I* did not regard them, saith [the] Lord.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
Because this [is] the covenant that I will covenant to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord Giving my laws into their mind, I will write them also upon their hearts; and I will be to them for God, and *they* shall be to me for people.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.