Covenant Complications
Hebrews 8:7, 8 says, "For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said..." You can read the rest using the link provided at the beginning of the post. What Old Testament prophet does Paul quote from in the following four verses? He quotes from the prophet Jeremiah chapter 31:31-34 which says that there is coming day when the Lord will make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. In that day the Lord will write the law on their hearts and put it in their minds. Let's go back to Hebrews for a moment to verse 8, Paul says, "But God finding fault with the people..." Who did God find fault with? The people. There was no problem with the covenant, the problem was with the people. Why? The problem was with the people because Israel and Judah could not remain faithful their Lord and went astray following after other gods from distant nations. The prophet Ezekiel prophesies of Israel's apostasy in 16:30-34 speaking of their affairs with other gods (the Lord calls them "prostitutes"). The good news from Paul is that the Lord didn't leave them in their exiled state. He didn't desert them in their time of rebellion. No. Indeed, He promised that He would take the law that was given to them on tablets of stone and write it on their hearts. Ezekiel 36:26 says, that the Lord will put in them a heart of flesh and remove their heart of stone. How will this happen? It will happen through the sacrifice of a pure, spotless, lamb. A sacrifice that will once for all (Heb. 9:26) . The Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, is and was the goal of all that was written in the prophets and the law. It will be through His death the law will be written on their hearts.
The Abrahamic Covenant was not cancelled out by the Noahic Covenant. The Noahic Covenant was not cancelled by the Mosaic Covenant. All of the covenants build on one another. If the covenant God made with us through Christ cancelled out the covenant made with Abraham, what would be the foundation of our faith? It is written that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. How do we believe? We believe on Jesus Christ and we recieve the same righteousness Abraham did. Paul speaks of Abraham in his letter to the Galatians chapter 3:7-11. If the covenants cancel each other out, why does the Abrahamic Covenant still stand? The Abrahamic covenant still stands because it was made by faith.
Remember, the problem was with the people (us) and not the covenant. Why did Jesus come to earth? Jesus came to earth because the covenant was broken and the people needed to be restored to right relationship with God through a perfect sacrifice. The blood of an animal spilled many times over could not accomplish what Christ accomplished in one divine appointment.
posted by Matt @ 5:05 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Matt, I think you are right when you say that God did not break the covenant. However, you make it clear in your post that the people did. It seems to me that you are trying to defend yourself against God's breaking of the covenant, when I don’t really think anyone would argue that God broke the covenant. That’s the fallacy of a Straw Man argument. A Straw Man is an argument that fails to take into account the opponents strongest position and instead advance a position that no one would really argue, in this case, the point that Jesus came as the redemptive Lamb to RESTORE the covenant broken by the people.
So Jesus came and he built on the old covenants. They were always there. But they had been broken, and the people had broken them. In any legal contract, the contract is binding on both parties, not just one. So if one party breaks the contract, doesn't it follow that the contract had been broken? One party may still be living up to his part of the bargain, but if the other party does not, then legally speaking, the contact has been broken and the original party is entitled to remuneration. Only in the case of God, he knew that we could never pay that remuneration, so he provided a way for us to hold our end of the bargain.
That ‘paying the price’ is a NEW covenant. The Abrahamic, Davidic, Noahic and Mosaic covenants were all breakable, because they involved works – any human being trying to match up to God’s standard (perfection {Lev 19:2; 1 Peter 1:15-16; Matt 5:48}) would necessarily fail, as a result of Adam and Eve’s sin. They were only breakable by men, because after all, God, who is by his very nature perfect, cannot fail. So of course the covenant was not broken by God. It would be foolish to think that it had been. However, men had broken it. But God, in his great mercy, still wanted to provide a way for us to meet our end of the bargain. He knew it could not be by way of works – that had been tried and found wanting – it is the law after all which allows us to be conscious of sin (Rom 3:19-21). So he established a new covenant based on grace such that we no longer live under the law but under grace (Rom 6:13-15). In fact, Paul tells us that man is justified by faith APART from observing the law (Rom 3:28). A couple of lines later he reiterates that the law is still upheld (Rom 3:31). Why is it upheld? It is upheld because it is what makes us conscious of our sin and the need for redemption, and because it reminds us of that failure of the law by itself to save (for reasons explained above). So in the new covenant, the law still serves a purpose – to allow us to be conscious of our sin and recognize the need for the grace of God and the forgiveness that he offers.
I have never maintained that the old covenants were destroyed by God. I don’t think you will find any evangelical who argues that they were. In that way, I think that argument is a straw man. If your argument is that there is one continuous covenant (as I understand it to be), I think you are mistaken, by reasons you yourself admit to; the covenant was broken when the people sinned. Put simply, the old covenants were not good enough. The people did not uphold their end of the bargain. God had to find a fail-safe way to ensure that, short of outright freewill rejection of him (I’ll argue that we can lose our salvation another day), we could uphold out end of the bargain. The only way to accomplish that was to extend his grace and make us perfect, upon acceptance of him. So therein lies a new covenant. Jesus is the New Covenant, because he came and gave his life that we may enter in to a personal relationship with him, through his mercy and his grace, by faith. The old covenants become obsolete, because they are impossible for humans to live up to. They are still useful, as they serve to remind of our sin and make us conscious of our need for Jesus, but other than that, they do nothing. The blood of Jesus does everything. As the old hymn goes
“What can wash away my sin? – Nothing but the Blood of Jesus” The law can’t touch my sin, as I know you will agree to. So if the law can’t touch that, and the New Covenant of his Blood (1 Cor 11:25) can, which do you think is more important?
In short – you’re right. God didn’t break the covenant – the people did. But you’re also wrong – there is a new covenant that was established, the new covenant of Christ’s blood, his mercy and his grace, one that we can live up to by faith. This new covenant exists precisely for the reasons you give – we, the people, have broken the original covenants with God.
Very well thought out argument Peter. I enjoyed reading it. My argument is not that there is one continuous covenant. I know that is not scriptural. The patter is that Israel and Judah and us continually broke our covenant with God. I agree..apart from Christ there is no salvation. When you quote a verse like Romans 6:14, ask the question what law is Paul speaking of. Christ did away with the law of sin and death, not the Torah. When Paul says were no longer under law, he means the law of sin and death, not the Torah. Paul was a torah-observant Jew. Torah was never given for salvation. Torah was given for the teaching and instruction of God's people, which is us. "Teaching and instruction, direction" is what the word "torah" means. It is the hebrew word for law. Therefore, it is not a means of salvation. It is teaching and instruction. We often use the term legalism alongside "keeping the law". How dare we call God's Law, His Torah legalism! Legalism is following man's rules not God's. Apart from the power that Christ gives, we can't keep the law. Christ gives us the power to do so. He did it...why shouldn't we?
Post a Comment
<< Home