Why would there be no second covenant if the first covenant was perfect?
If the first covenant of Law had been faultless, no second covenant would be sought, because a perfect covenant would need no replacement and would leave nothing to remedy. Yet the Mosaic Law was faulty from mankind’s perspective: man could not keep it, and it had no power to help him, only to condemn.
Les teaches from Hebrews 8:7 that if the first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for the second. The word “if” implies it was not faultless; it was faulty. The first covenant is the covenant of Law, the Law of Moses. It was perfect from God’s perspective, but not from mankind’s, because man could not keep it. God found fault with them and promised a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. The Law had no power to help mankind keep it; it could not stop stealing or adultery, but could only condemn. By contrast, Romans 8 speaks of living under the Law of the Spirit, with the Spirit indwelling us, as seen in I 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 phrase 'if that first covenant had been faultless' imply in Hebrews 8:7?
When Scripture says 'if that first covenant had been faultless,' it implies that the first covenant was not faultless but 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.