The Two Covenants

WE find the distinct promise of the new covenant in Jer. 31. What did Jeremiah mean by the old covenant—or the covenant made with Israel when God led them out of Egypt?

When Jeremiah predicts the establishment of a new covenant with Israel and Judah, he uses the following language respecting the old covenant. Thus he says:—

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord." Jer. 31:32.

This text sheds much light on the nature of the covenant to which Jeremiah refers. But it is remarkable that Jeremiah, in another place preceding this, has defined with great precision what he means by the covenant made when God led Israel out of Egypt. Thus we read, Jer. 11:3, 4:—

"Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all which I command you; so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God."

Here we have Jeremiah's own definition of what constituted that covenant which the children of Israel had, by their disobedience, dissolved. And it identifies this covenant with the solemn contract between God and Israel, which Paul designates as the first covenant. For Jeremiah makes the essential feature of this covenant to consist in one grand stipulation on the part of God toward his people; viz., "Obey my voice; . . . so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God." Now it is a remarkable fact that this is the very stipulation, and the only one, made by God in entering into solemn contract with Israel. It is a stipulation exacting obedience to the voice of God, which was about to utter the ten commandments. Thus the contract was opened by the God of Heaven: "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people." Ex. 19:5. We cannot, therefore, fail to identify the covenant to which Jeremiah refers. It is not the ten commandments, but the solemn contract made between God and Israel respecting those commandments.

But the words of Jer. 31:32, are entitled to particular attention in determining what the prophet understood by this covenant of which he spoke. He says: "Which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them." The expression sheds great light on the nature of the covenant in question. Was that covenant simply the law of God? or was it the solemn contract between God and Israel by which the people pledged themselves to obey that law, and God pledged himself on that condition to accept them as his people, and to be their God? Surely, we cannot mistake here. The first covenant made God the husband of his people. The solemn contract between them and himself was that whereby he espoused, or married, that people. Jer. 2:2. There can be no mistake, therefore, that a contract was requisite, in order that God should become the husband of that people; and that contract is found in Ex. 19 and 24. He could be their lawgiver, by virtue of proclaiming his law to them; but to be their husband he must enter into contract with them, and it is precisely this relation that he sustains to Israel by virtue of the covenant of which Jeremiah speaks. See Webster's second definition of contract, previously quoted.

And this distinction properly introduces a further argument on the nature of this covenant, from Rom. 9:4: "Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promies." Paul elsewhere informs us that there are two "covenants." Gal. 4:24. Here he distinguishes between the giving of the law and the covenants. Our opponents claim that the giving of the law was the making of the first covenant. We say, Not so; for that covenant was the solemn contract between God and Israel which preceded and followed the "giving of the law;" and that the law of God was that which the people covenanted to obey, when it should be spoken by the voice of God. This text preserves the distinction between the law of God and each of the two covenants.

And this distinction between the law of God and the first covenant is further shown by another important fact. The new covenant was made because the first covenant had been destroyed by the sins of the people, and because God still desired to save them. The first covenant was rendered null and void by the disobedience of the people. "Because," says Paul, "they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." Heb. 8:9. "Which my covenant they brake, should I have continued an husband unto them? saith the Lord." Jer. 31:32, margin. If, therefore, we hold, as do many at the present day, that the covenant between God and Israel was simply the ten commandments, then we have the people of Israel weaken, and finally bring to an end, the law of God, simply by disobeying it! So that the law of God did depend for its strength upon the obedience of the people, and not upon the authority of the Lawgiver! But let us test the other view of this subject. It has been shown from Moses, from Paul, and from Jeremiah, that the first covenant was the mutual agreement between God and Israel respecting the ten commandments. This is a covenant in the primary sense of the term. This covenant it was in the power of the people to destroy, by violating its conditions, i. e., by breaking the law of God. This transgression could not in the slightest degree weaken the authority of the law of God; but it could, and did, render null and void the contract which made God a husband unto them. The truth on this point may be expressed in a word: Men could not release themselves from the obligation to obey God's law by breaking that law; but they could release the God of Heaven from the obligation he had taken upon himself, toward them in the first covenant, by violating its condition, and thus bringing the covenant to an end. Hence the distinction is palpable between the law of God and the solemn contract made respecting that law. One could be destroyed by a failure on the part of the people to fulfill its conditions. The other can neither be destroyed, nor even weakened, by such transgression; and it will, in due time, demand the death of all its transgressors.

The law of the Lord is perfect. Ps. 19:7-11; 111:7, 8; 119:96; James 1:25; 2:8-12. It is God's great rule of right by which sin is shown. 1 John 3:4, 5; Rom. 3:19, 20; 7:12, 13. But the first covenant is declared by Paul not to have been faultless. Heb. 8:7. This is another palpable proof of a distinction between the moral law and the covenant which God entered into with Israel respecting it. Nor is this to be met by the statement that Paul pronounces the law itself to be faulty, and therefore the law and the covenant may be identical. For the law thus designated by Paul was not the ten commandments; but the Levitical law. And here are a few points out of many in proof of this assertion:—

1. This law was received under the Levitical priesthood. Heb. 7:11. But the ten commandments were received before that priesthood had been appointed. Compare Ex. 20 with Ex. 28.

2. This was a law relating to priesthood, tithes, and offerings. Heb. 7:5, 12, 28. But the ten commandments said nothing concerning this.

3. It was a law which required that the priesthood should be of the tribe of Levi, and which had to be changed in order to have a priest arise out of the tribe of Judah. Heb. 7:12-14. But the ten commandments had no precept that related to the subject, or that needed to be changed for that reason.

Finally, with one further proof of the distinction between the moral law and the first covenant, this point of the argument shall be closed. The first covenant having waxed old and vanished away, the new covenant is made by God in its place. Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-13. And now observe the grand promise of the new covenant: "But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts." Jer. 31:33. It is therefore certain that the dissolution of the first covenant is not the abrogation of the law of God. That which was the law of God in the days of Jeremiah, six hundred years before Christ, is the subject of this prediction. This law was not only to survive the dissolution of the first covenant, but it was to continue to exist under the new covenant, and to sustain even a more sacred relation to the people of God under the new, than under the old, covenant. Here the argument, on this part of the subject is rested. It has been shown,

1. That the first, or old, covenant, was not the law of God, but the contract between God and Israel concerning that law.

2. That the law of God is a covenant only in a secondary sense; viz., in that it constituted the condition of that agreement or contract by which God became a husband to Israel.

3. That when the old covenant vanishes away, the law of God remains in full force, and is ready to enter into the most sacred relations with the people of God under the new.