---

A covenant is properly an agreement between two parties, who bind themselves by certain conditions with the view of attaining some object. A covenant may be between equals, as that between Abraham and Abimelech (Genesis 21:32), or between parties of whom one is superior to the other, as that between Joshua and the Gibeonites (Joshua 9.). The covenant relation between God and men is of the latter kind, for God imposes the covenant (Hebrews 8:8-10). None the less both parties lay themselves under obligations and contemplate an object by the covenant. A covenant between God and men cannot possibly have any other meaning than that He will be their God and they His people (Hebrews 8:10). The Epistle contemplates religion or the relation of God and men under this aspect of a covenant. It distinguishes two covenants, that made at Sinai (Hebrews 8:9), and that made through Christ (Hebrews 9:15). The former is called the first covenant (Hebrews 8:7; Hebrews 9:1, 18); it is not named the " old " covenant, although it is said that God, in announcing a new covenant, has made the first old (Hebrews 8:13). The latter is called a seceded (Hebrews 8:7), a better (Hebrews 7:22; Hebrews 8:6), a new as having different contents (Hebrews 8:8. 9:15), and also new as being recent (Hebrews 12:24), and an eternal covenant (Hebrews 13:20, comp. Hebrews 7:22). The first covenant was not faultless — so mildly does the author express Himself (Hebrews 8:7); the second is enacted upon better promises (Hebrews 8:6, 10-12). The Epistle does not speak of a covenant with Abraham, as the Pauline epistles do (Galatians 3:15, 17); it knows of promises to Abraham (Hebrews 6:13; Hebrews 7:6), which the first covenant was ineffectual to realise (Hebrews 11:39), which, however, are realised through the second (Hebrews 9:15). The covenant relation is not its own end. It is rather a relation within which the people are being matured for that final blessedness which God has destined for them. No doubt this maturing of them always more fully realises the covenant relation, and this of itself is a great and blessed end. But it is chiefly regarded as the means to that which lies beyond, which is the bringing of the people to a sphere of existence that shall fully correspond to their capacities and needs. This end is variously described: it is inheriting the promises (Hebrews 6:12), or receiving the promise of the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15); reaching the heavenly country (Hebrews 11:16), or the city that hath the foundations (Hebrews 11:10); or, receiving the kingdom that cannot be shaken (Hebrews 12:28); or entering into the rest of God (Hebrews 3:4); or, having the world to come ,put into subjection to them (Hebrews 2:5, &c.). The covenants are means adopted for realising promises and gracious purposes, the announcement of which was prior to both of them. The new covenant is only a more effectual means of accomplishing the same object pursued in the first. A covenant between God and men is a state of relation in which He is their God and they His people. By being His people is meant that they are dedicated to His service (Hebrews 9:14). that they ale His worshipping people. And the means by which they are translated into this relation of fit worshippers is important. The term that expresses this change is " sanctify" (Hebrews 2:11; Hebrews 10:10, 29; Hebrews 13:12). Having a conscience defiled by sin, they felt debarred from free access to God so as to serve Him (Hebrews 9:9, 14; Hebrews 10:2, 22), and for the same reason of their defilement God could not permit Himself to be approached. This defilement of sin is purified away by sacrifice, the blood of which is the blood of the covenant (Hebrews 9:14, 18; Hebrews 10:29; Hebrews 13:20), and thus the people are sanctified for the service of God. As the end had in view and the covenant itself, which is the means towards it, are alike due to the grace of God (Hebrews 2:9), the sacrifice which effects the sanctification of the people is no less an institution of His provision. Though within the covenant, the people are not supposed to be sinless. They err and are out of the way; they are compassed with infirmity and labour under various "ignorances" (Hebrews 5:2; Hebrews 7:28; Hebrews 9:7: comp. Hebrews 4:15). Such errors, though sins and transgressions (Hebrews 9:15), and interruptions of the covenant relation, are not absolutely incompatible with its maintenance, provided they are taken away. A means of removing such sins of infirmity was provided in the sacrificial system. This is the meaning of this system. It was appointed of God for removing sins committed within the covenant. The Epistle does not speculate how it is that men in covenant still continue to sin; it accepts the fact without referring it to any principle such as "the flesh" of St. Paul. Its distinction of sins of infirmity and "wilful" sins is unknown to the latter apostle, to whom all sins are deadly and infer the curse (Galatians 3:10). This is revolved in His mode of regarding the law as a commandment of works to be obeyed in order to justification. Any transgression of it is its breach in principle, and makes an end of all pretensions on man's part to be righteous before God. The condition of the continuance of the covenant was the keeping of the law. But here a double defect manifested itself in the first covenant. On the one hand, the people abode not in it (Hebrews 8:9), and on the other hand, its institutions could not remove the transgressions done under it (Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 10:4). In the new covenant God promises to write His law on the people's heart (Hebrews 8:10), as on the other hand the death of Christ redeems the transgressions under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:15), and God remembers them no more (Hebrews 10:17). Though in the new covenant the law be written on the people's heart, their wills are still practically regarded as mutable; they may sin wilfully (Hebrews 10:26), and fall away from the living God (Hebrews 3:12), and they need all the safeguards which their own patient endurance (Hebrews 6:12), the example of those who have gone before (Hebrews 6:12; Hebrews 12:1; Hebrews 13:7), mutual exhortation (Hebrews 3:13; Hebrews 10:24), memory of past attainments (Hebrews 10:32, &c.), and the "throne of grace" (Hebrews 2:18; Hebrews 4:14; Hebrews 7:23-25) can afford, to enable them to hold fast the beginning of their confidence from unto the end. Thus the first covenant failed, and God caused to arise upon the people the light of the promise of a new covenant. The first covenant indeed was conscious of its own Imperfection; hence it gave forth fro,, within itself the promise of " another priest" (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 7:14), of a "better sacrifice" (Psalm 40:7; Hebrews 9:23; Hebrews 10:9), and even of a "new covenant" (Jeremiah 31:31; Hebrews 8:8). The structure of the Tabernacle was a perpetual witness to the inability of its ministry to open the way for the worshippers into the presence of God, a witness borne by the Holy Ghost (Hebrews 9:8). And the very continual repetition of the sacrifices year by year was a constant remembrance of sin, and proclamation of their inefficacy to take it away (Hebrews 10:3). The Epistle is a detailed contrast between the two covenants showing that in all those points where the first failed the second realises the purpose of the covenant. That which gives eternal validity or absoluteness to the new covenant is the person, the Son of God, who in all points carries it through — who reveals, mediates, and sustains it. As initiating the covenant through His blood (Hebrews 9:20; Hebrews 10:29), He is the mediator of a new covenant (Hebrews 9:15); and as sitting at the right hand of God, before His face, for ever, as high-priestly representative of the people, He is the surety of it (Hebrews 7:22). the Old Testament holy places and all the vessels of the ministry were made according to the pattern showed in the mount (Hebrews 8:5), and are thus the copies of the things in the heavens (Hebrews 9:23). Again, the law had a shadow of the good things that were to come (Hebrews 10:1, 9, 11). Thus the first covenant lay, as a sphere of dim representations, between two regions filled with realities — heaven, the region of the true things themselves, on the one side, and the new covenant, realising the very image of the good things that were to come, on the other. These two regions correspond to one another (Hebrews 12:22). Yet the first covenant having a shadow of the good things that were to come was in truth the introduction of the new covenant, though in a shadowy form. Hence the second covenant, though called new, is new only in a modified sense. The promises on which it was enacted are virtually nothing more than the promise truly to realise the great objects aimed at in the first covenant (see Hebrews 8:6). It contemplates the same end with the first, the bringing of men into the rest of God and the promised inheritance (Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 4:3). And it was made with the same persons as the first. These are the people (Hebrews 2:17 13:121, the people of God (Hebrews 4:9, comp. Hebrews 7:27), or, the seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16). It is by no means easy to understand what is said in the Epistle in regard to the relations of the two covenants. Two points may be alluded to.

1. The author speaks in a very disparaging way of the Old Testament sacrifices, saying that they could never take away sins (Hebrews 10:11), nor perfect those offering them as to the conscience (Hebrews 9:9; Hebrews 10:1, 2), and that they were carnal ordinances and useless (Hebrews 7:18): His language implies that Old Testament saints were burdened with a conscience of sin (Hebrews 9:9, 14; Hebrews 10:2, 22), consequently that they were oppressed by the sense of the inefficacy of their sacrifices to remove sin, from which it seems to follow that they had no clear light as to any connection of these sacrifices with another the virtue of which they conveyed. To the same effect is the view that the transgressions under the first covenant were left outstanding and only removed by the sacrifice of Christ (Hebrews 9:15). All this, however, bears directly only on the question before him of the value of the Old Testament sacrifices in themselves, and whether they effected a true objective atonement. Old Testament saints felt they could not do so, and hence they were burdened with a sense of sin which, among ether things, manifested itself in a bondage from the fear of death (Hebrews 2:15).

2. Again, when the author says that blood of bulls could never take away sins (Hebrews 10:4), and on the other hand that it sanctified in reference to the purity of the flesh (Hebrews 9:13), it is certainly very far from being his intention to draw a distinction between one class of offences called "sins" to which the Old Testament sacrifices were inapplicable, and another class that might be named ceremonial defilements which they did remove, and so to erect a general theory of the Old Testament constitution to the effect that it consisted of two spheres, one of ceremonial observances and external government, within which sacrifices had a real validity, and another the sphere of true spiritual relations to God, within which they had no force. The sacrifices were offered for sins (Hebrews 5:1, 3; Hebrews 9:7; Hebrews 10:8, 11), and if they could have effected the purpose for which they were offered, the worshipper would have had no more conscience of sins (Hebrews 10:2), a condition which the offering of Christ brings about (Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:17). The Old Testament sacrifices could not go further than to purify the flesh.

(A. B. Davidson, LL. D.)

---

---

KJV: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

WEB: For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second.