Why was a second covenant needed if the first covenant of the Law was faultless?
A second covenant was needed because the first covenant of Law proved faulty from mankind’s perspective. Although it was perfect from God’s perspective, the Law had no power to help people obey it; it could only condemn. Because God found fault with them, He promised a new covenant, not like the covenant made with their fathers.
Les explains from Hebrews 8:7 that if the first covenant, the covenant of Law, had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. But it was not faultless. Oh, it was perfect from God’s perspective, but not from mankind’s. Verse 8 says God was “finding fault with them” and 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 teaches that the Mosaic Law from man’s perspective was faulty because man could not keep it. The Law had no power to help mankind keep the Law; it could not keep a man from stealing or committing adultery. All it could do was condemn him. By contrast, Romans chapter 8 speaks of living under the Law of the Spirit, and 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.