Coromandel Baptist Church

Sunday 15 June Hebrews 8:7-13

A Better Covenant

The letter to the Hebrews is built around the central reality that God has inaugurated a new covenant in and through his Son. In the latter part of Hebrews 8, the writer indicates that this new covenant is, in fact, that which God had promised through his prophets. While there are many indications in the Old Testament of the new covenant’s coming (e.g. Is. 42:6; 49:8; 55:3; Ezk. 11:19f.; 34:23ff.; 36:22ff.; Jer. 31:31ff.; 33:20ff.), the writer here quotes extensively from Jeremiah 31, which is the clearest expression of the nature and efficacy of the new covenant to be found in the Old Testament.

While there were many Old Testament covenants (e.g. with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and David) the writer to the Hebrews has only one in view here. It is clear from Hebrews 8:9 that when he refers to the first covenant which is now obsolete (Heb. 8:13) the writer has in mind the Mosaic covenant. This if further reinforced by the whole structure of Hebrews, which is built around the theme of shadow and substance, where the ‘shadow’ is always those elements attached to the Mosaic covenant’s arrangements (such as Tabernacle, Levitical priesthood and the related sacrificial system). The whole event of the exodus, which culminated in the establishing of the covenant at Mt Sinai, is now recapitulated in Christ. His is the true exodus, culminating in the new covenant of Calvary.

God’s Old Testament people had consistently broken all their covenant obligations, but God had never broken his. Even the exile and the destruction of the Temple were in accord with the terms of the covenant curses described in Deuteronomy 28-29, for example. When God brought this judgement upon his people it was not because he had broken his word to them, but because he was faithful to it. And his judgements were not the last word. They were enacted with a view to the return of the cleansed remnant of his people. Beyond this return, they were enacted to lead into the fullness of times that would see the establishment of the new covenant in his Son.

The utterly unilateral nature of God’s covenants in the Old Testament is beyond doubt (in that he took the initiative, he declared the promises embodied in the covenant, and he also set down the obligations of the covenant and took responsibility for superintending the covenants), but this is nowhere clearer than in the promise of the new covenant. This new covenant is a covenant beyond the broken covenant. It is a covenant beyond all the wreckage of human sin and rebellion, and is manifestly a covenant of grace.

This covenant is superior to the old one in that it has been based on ‘better promises’ (Heb. 8:6). The promises attached to the Mosaic covenant were immense (e.g. the dwelling of God with his people; the blessings pronounced from Mt. Gerizim in Deut. 28; the gifts of law, worship, sonship etc. as enumerated by Paul in Rom. 9:1ff.; etc.), so in what way were the new covenant promises better than these? Or, to ask the same thing differently, what was wrong wit the first covenant?

On the one hand the answer has already been given to us: the first was a covenant of shadows. It pointed beyond itself to the reality of the Light to come. In relation to this, the shadows all finally, had to do with one thing: the forgiveness of sins. The first covenant indicated that forgiveness was possible, but it had to point beyond its own inability to provide such forgiveness. The ‘once for all’ forgiveness of the new covenant is new.

But on the other hand, the first covenant had no inherent fault within it. It was appointed by God in all its fine detail, and it did exactly what God had allotted it to do. Its failure was not in its essential nature, but in the hearts of those to whom it was given. God was not pleased with them the people, (not ‘it’ the covenant), as is made plain in Hebrews 8:8(a) and 8:9. The first covenant showed up the exceeding sinfulness of sin in the human heart (to speak in Paul’s terms). The newness of the new is in the inherent power of the new to bring about a new heart and obedient disposition among the people of God. All of this was prefigured in the language of having a circumcised heart. In places such as Deuteronomy 10:16 and Jeremiah 4:4 such a command was given, but it proved impossible for the people to do. Their stubborn, hard heartedness did not allow it. Despite their avowals that they would keep the covenant (e.g. Ex. 24:7) they never had a heart do so (e.g. Deut. 29:4), and indeed kept walking in the stubbornness of their hard hearts right though to Jeremiah’s day (e.g. Jer. 24:24-26) when the promise of the new covenant is given.

What Israel (and all humanity) could not do, God himself promises to do (e.g. Deut. 30:6 cf. Rom. 2:28-29; Col. 2:11), and this is in fact what happens in the inauguration of the new covenant. He changes the hearts of his people to love and obey him (Heb. 8:10-11). The reason for this is the total cleansing from sin (the ‘for’ is important in Heb. 8:12), and this becomes the burden of the rest of the writer’s exposition of the superiority of the new (from Heb. 8 right through to Heb.10).

Two things finally need to be noted. Firstly, is plain that the ‘failure’ of the first covenant was in accord with the express plan and purpose of God. He never gave Moses’ people a heart to obey him (Deut. 29:4). Here we find ourselves exposed to the ‘mystery’ of God’s will. It is important that this mystery always be rooted on the Godward side rather than the human side. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty demands it, and any other alternative leaves the final outcome of his plan and purpose hinge in the mystery of sinful iniquity. The consequences of this are unthinkable.