Why was a second covenant needed if the first covenant was faulty?
A second covenant was needed because the first covenant—the Mosaic Law—was faulty from mankind’s perspective. Man could not keep it, and the Law had no power to help him obey; it could only condemn. God therefore promised a new covenant with Israel and Judah, not according to the covenant made with their fathers.
Les teaches from Hebrews 8:7–8 that if the first covenant, the Law of Moses, had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. The word “if” implies it was faulty. Though it was perfect from God’s perspective, it was not faultless from mankind’s perspective because man could not keep it. The Law had no power to help mankind keep the Law; it had no power to keep a man from stealing, committing adultery, and the like. All it could do was condemn him. Then verse 8 says that finding fault with them, God promised a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the covenant He made with their fathers. Les also connects this to Romans 8: living under the Law of the Spirit is different because the Spirit indwells us, as seen in 1 Corinthians 3 and 6.
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
More Questions
What does the wording 'if that first covenant had been faultless' imply?
When the Bible says 'if that first covenant had been faultless,' it implies that the first covenant was not faultless; it was faulty.
Does Hebrews 8:7 imply that the first covenant was faulty?
The wording of Hebrews 8:7—'if that first covenant had been faultless'—implies that the first covenant, the Law of Moses, was not faultless; it was faulty.