Why was a second covenant needed if the first covenant was given by God?
A second covenant was needed because the first covenant, the Mosaic Law, was faultless from God’s perspective but not from mankind’s. Man could not keep it, and the Law had no power to help him obey it; it could only condemn. Since the first covenant was faulty in that sense, God announced a new covenant.
Les explains that Hebrews 8:7-8 argues that if the first covenant—the covenant of Law, the Law of Moses—had been faultless, there would have been no place sought for the second. It was perfect from God’s perspective but not from mankind’s. Finding fault with them, God said He would make a new covenant with Israel and Judah, not according to the covenant He made with their fathers. Les emphasizes that the Mosaic Law from man’s perspective was faulty: man could not keep it, and the Law had no power to help him keep it, no power to stop stealing or adultery. It could only condemn. Romans 8 then contrasts living under the Law with living under the Law of the Spirit, because the Spirit indwells believers.
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.