The Everlasting Covenant

The Everlasting Covenant

"Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." Jeremiah 31:31-34

Is Jeremiah referring here to the Mosaic Covenant as the “new covenant?” According to many Jewish authorities he is! One writes:

“By any objective reading of the text, one fails to see any reference to a substitution of a new covenant which will supersede the old. There is nothing in Jeremiah’s statement to suggest that the new covenant will contain any changes in the Law (the Mosaic Covenant).”[1]

However, since Jeremiah writes that God will establish a “new covenant,” wouldn’t this explicitly rule out the Mosaic Covenant, which Israel continued to break (31:31-32)? Not according to Gerald Sigal, who had spent “over twenty-five years studying the doctrines and beliefs of fundamentalist missionaries!”

“Obviously, Jeremiah’s ‘new covenant’ is not to be viewed as a replacement of the existing (Mosaic) covenant, but merely as a figure of speech for the reinvigoration and revitalization of the old (Mosaic) covenant.”[2]

According to Sigal, the new covenant is the Mosaic covenant with a bit of a face-lift. If his interpretation is correct, then the New Testament is wrong, and we Christians are sadly deluded. According to the Book of Hebrews, elaborating upon this very prophecy, the New actually replaced the Old (8:13)! However, when we reexamine Jeremiah, it becomes clear why the New Testament authors came to such a conclusion. We find that this “new covenant” will not resemble the Old (31:32). Why not? Because it was a failure, at least from the perspective of Israel’s obedience to it! Israel “broke it” as naturally as breathing. It had to be scrapped and replaced by something new.

Furthermore, when we examine the features of the “new,” we find that they represent more than a mere face-lift, but a major overhaul. There will be laws, but they would be inscribed upon the heart, and forgiveness will be permanent, whereas under the Mosaic scheme, sacrificial offerings had to be made on a continual basis for the sins of the people. The “new” carried a guarantee of success! Clearly, Jeremiah was prophesying about a radically new order.

What type of evidence does Sigal offer in defense of his seemingly improbable interpretation? For one thing, he says that many prophetic writings indicate that Israel would ultimately keep God’s ordinances. In support of this, he cites Ezekiel 11:19-20.

“Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.”

Sigal wrongly assumes that this transplant would occur under the Mosaic administration. However, Ezekiel’s prophecy bears a strong resemblance to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the “new covenant” which also alludes to a change in heart.

In an attempt to prove his point, Sigal cites Psalm 111:7-8 and Isaiah 40:8; both maintain that God’s Word doesn’t change.[3] However, a change in covenants doesn’t imply that God’s Word had changed or had been wrong. It just implies that a new time and situation might demand a new course of action. When Israel crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land, God’s activity changed--the manna ceased falling—but God’s Word hadn’t changed! He never promised that manna would always fall from heaven. Likewise, God anointed Saul as king; then He removed him and anointed David in his place. This didn’t imply that God had violated His Word, but merely that Saul had failed to be faithful to God. If a change in dynasty doesn’t suggest that God’s Word had changed, why then should a change in covenants?

We Christians also believe that the Law is perfect and holy (Rom. 7:12) and that it reflects God’s unchanging character. As a result of this understanding, we should always endeavor to follow God’s judgments but perhaps not in their theocratic, literal, Mosaic form. We no longer offer animal sacrifices. They had already been fulfilled, but we still offer the sacrifice of our lives to God’s ultimate Sacrifice (Rom. 12:1). This too doesn’t represent a change God’s Word but instead a change in our understanding and application of it!

Sigal’s other defense is more to the point:

“That the covenant of old is of eternal duration, never to be rescinded or to be superseded by a new covenant, is clearly stated in Leviticus 26:44-45.”[4]

If Sigal is correct, this verse offers powerful support for his contention that the Mosaic covenant can never be superseded, and he would then be somewhat justified in his awkward interpretation to Jeremiah.

“Yet for all that, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, nor shall I abhor them, to utterly destroy them and break My covenant with them; for I am the Lord their God. But for their sake I will remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations, that I might be their God: I am the Lord." (26:44-45).

What is meant by the “covenant of their ancestors?” Is it the Mosaic covenant? Although this citation doesn’t explicitly refer to this covenant as “eternal,” it does suggest that there is something unbreakable about this covenant. It also looks towards this covenant as the source of promise and hope. This is in opposition to a Christian understanding that the Mosaic Covenant brought condemnation rather than consolation (Gal. 3:11; Rom. 3:19-20) because this was the covenant of the Law, of blessing and curse, of reaping what you sow. It was not the covenant of unconditional promise, but the covenant of keeping conditions. Blessing was the product of obedience; punishment was the product of a lack of obedience—any obedience (Deut. 27:26).

This is in sharp contrast to the Abrahamic, Noahic, and Davidic covenants. Abraham was given an unconditional promise of influence, progeny, and land. Noah was promised that God would never again destroy the world by water and was given the rainbow as a guarantee. David was promised an unending kingdom. Although there might have been some conditional elements within these covenants, the outcome of God’s promises wasn’t uncertain. To Abraham, God had even guaranteed that outcome with His own life (Gen. 15:8-21).

This covenant with the “ancestors” must refer to those who came before Moses, the author of Leviticus, to the Patriarchs--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Hebrew word for “ancestors” (“rishone”) meaning the “first” further solidifies this conclusion. It was the Patriarchs who had been the first Hebrews and the first to receive the Promise.

Had we no other context than the above two verses, this would be enough to dismiss Sigal’s assertion. However, the preceding context allows us to pin down the meaning of “covenant of their ancestors,” even more precisely:

“Then I will remember My covenant with Jacob, and My covenant with Isaac and My covenant with Abraham I will remember;…they will accept their guilt, because they despised My judgments and because their soul abhorred My statutes,” (Lev. 26:42-43).

This clearly is not the Mosaic covenant, but the covenant that God had made with the Patriarchs, one that was still in effect. It’s because of God’s unchanging promises to the Patriarchs that Israel had hope, not because of the Mosaic Covenant which brought condemnation to Israel according to her deeds. This was the prime purpose of the Mosaic Covenant—to show Israel in neon lights the extent of her damning sins and thereby to impress upon her the need of a Savior (Gal. 3:22-24).

How could Sigal have made such a mistake? Weren’t there some other verses to which he could have appealed to make his case that the Mosaic Covenant was everlasting? If so, he doesn’t seem to be aware of them. Did they exist? Was there any evidence that the Mosaic was everlasting and therefore wouldn’t be replaced? If not, this would become a powerful argument that the writers of the New Testament had the Mosaic properly pegged. It would demonstrate the internal consistency of the Old Testament in a way that had long eluded me.

I became intrigued with this question and decided to investigate whether or not the New Testament had overstated its case. Paul had written that, while the promises made to Abraham (and also to others) were everlasting (Gal. 3:14, 17-18), the Mosaic Covenant was not (3:25). Do the Hebrew Scriptures bear out this contention? For clarity, I have broken the results of my investigation into three lines of evidence.

The Mosaic Covenant was only temporary while others were “everlasting.”
The Mosaic Covenant was inadequate and showed many indications that it would be superseded.
The Mosaic Covenant finds no role within the prophetic portrait of Israel’s future blessedness, whereas the New Covenant is the source of everlasting hope and blessedness.

THE MOSAIC COVENANT WAS ONLY TEMPORARY.

As already mentioned, Jeremiah prophesied that God would make a “new covenant” that would not be like the Old one. Would the Old remain side-by-side with the New? No!

“’Return, O backsliding children,’ says the Lord; ‘for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding. Then it shall come to pass, when you are multiplied and increased in the land in those days,’ says the Lord, ‘that they will say no more, 'The ark of the covenant of the Lord.' It shall not come to mind, nor shall they remember it, nor shall they visit it, nor shall it be made anymore,’” (Jer. 3:14-16).

The “ark of the covenant” represented the Mosaic Covenant. It was the receptacle for the two tablets of the Ten Commandments, the flagship of the Mosaic institution. When Jeremiah said that the “ark of the covenant” will “not come to mind,” he was symbolically referring to the Mosaic Covenant. Why will it not come to mind? Because it will be replaced by another system which will “feed you with knowledge and understanding!” If it will not be remembered, then it will certainly not be in effect!

The next piece of evidence is a little more oblique. Scripture foresees a new and different priesthood, not the Levitical priesthood established under the Mosaic covenant. There will be a new High Priest in line with the priesthood of the enigmatic Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4), as opposed to the Levitical priesthood which required that all priests had to come from the tribe of Levi. This “King of Righteousness” only took the Scriptural stage once—three verses worth (Gen. 14:18-20)—but he made an enduring impact. One reason that he is enigmatic is that he is both a king and a priest, something forbidden under Mosaic Law. This suggests a change in guard.

Zechariah prophesied about a distant individual who would also be a “priest on His throne.” This Person will “build the temple of the Lord,” (Zech. 6:13). Christianity understands that Jesus “built” this very temple through His incarnation, taking on the form of a man and “tabernacling” among us (John 1:14; 2:19).

Along with a radically different High Priest, a new priesthood is prophesied. Israel was promised that she would be a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6; Isa. 61:6), something she had never experienced. This nation of priests would have to replace the Levitical order that restricted priesthood to Levites.

At first glance, this seemed to come into conflict with the New Testament promise that all believers would be priests (1Pet. 2:5, 9; Rev. 1:6). How could Israel assume the promised priesthood while that was a standing promise to the believers? This is easily understood by recognizing that Israel must also come to a faith in Christ in order to receive their promised priesthood along with all other believers.

This understanding also helps us reconcile the more difficult verses. Jeremiah said that to the degree that God’s promises to David are unshakable, they are equally unshakable to the Levites (33:18, 20-21; Num. 25:12-13). On the surface, this is troubling for the Christian and for the case I was trying to build. If the Levitical priesthood remains, so too the Mosaic Covenant! However, the prophecies do not say that the Levitical priesthood will remain unchanged! They merely state that God will remain faithful to the Levitical priests. How will He remain faithful to them? They would become priests according to the same promise that would make all Israel priests. As we’ve seen, there are others ways to function as priests besides offering animal sacrifices. God instructed Israel to offer the “sacrifice (literally “calves”) of our lips” as her offering of repentance (Hosea 14:2; also Psalm 69:30-31; 50:13-14), not actual calves.

Another piece of evidence in favor of the impermanence of the Mosaic Covenant is the fact that it’s never referred to as “everlasting” or by any other term to that effect. This isn’t because covenants, in general, are seldom referred as everlasting. Many covenants are so referenced, but never the Mosaic!

The first time that the term “covenant” is used is in regards to the covenant with Noah. This would be an “everlasting” covenant.

“The rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will look on it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth," (Genesis 9:16; Isaiah 54:9-10).

The next reference to “covenant” was the one made with Abraham, which was subsequently extended to Isaac and Jacob. This too was an “everlasting” covenant.

“Then God said: ‘No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him,’” (Gen. 17:19, 13; Psalm 105:9-10, 42; 1 Chron. 16:15-17).[5]

So far, we’re two for two. The Mosaic Covenant is the next at bat. This one formed the center of Israelite thought and practice and had center stage throughout the bulk of the Hebrew Scriptures. However, it is never referred to as “everlasting,” “eternal,” or by any other term to that effect.[6] This absence is profound in light of the prominent place of this covenant and also that all the other divinely appointed covenants are everlasting!

The next covenant we encounter was a “perpetual covenant” given within the framework of the Mosaic.

“Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. ¹⁷It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed,” (Exo. 31:16-17).

I found this mention of a “perpetual” covenant troubling, not because it seemed to signify that the Mosaic also was “perpetual.” This wasn’t my concern. Had the Mosaic been understood in this sense, it would have been entirely unnecessary to specify that the various features found within it as perpetual or eternal. The very fact that this covenant is termed “perpetual” suggests that it had to be distinguished from the Mosaic, which wasn’t.

My problem was different. I had been finding an exciting pattern—a covenant that ultimately depended upon humankind for its success couldn’t be everlasting; however, one that depended upon God’s promises could be guaranteed and therefore called “everlasting.” But this “perpetual covenant” seemed to violate my hypothesis.

Looking closer, however, I began to ask what exactly was perpetual about this covenant. Would Israel perpetually keep the Sabbaths? Certainly not! There were many periods of apostasy in which Israel failed to keep the Sabbaths. It became increasingly clear to me that it was the “sign” that was perpetual. The covenant wasn’t the substance, rather it was a sign of something else—the promise of an eventual Sabbath rest for Israel.

God had given Abraham ironclad guarantees that He would perform His promises. Nevertheless, as part of the “everlasting covenant” (Gen. 17:13), Abraham was required to circumcise his entire male household as a “sign” (17:11) of the covenant. Anyone who failed to submit to circumcision would be “cut off” (17:14).

As the mandatory circumcision was a sign of God’s promises that He guaranteed to the Patriarchs, so too was the Sabbath a sign that God would eventually give Israel rest as He too had rested after His six days of work. Similarly, if any Israelite desecrated the Sabbath, he would be subject to death (Exo. 31:14). However, this didn’t mean that God’s promise of rest (“Sabbath”) for Israel would be placed into jeopardy.[7]

The next mention of a “covenant” is also found within the context of the Mosaic Covenant. This was the promise to Phinehas of a “covenant of an everlasting priesthood” (Num. 25:13). However, this covenant also stood in contrast with the Mosaic Covenant. Had the Mosaic also been “everlasting,” it would have been redundant to offer Phinehas, the Levite, an everlasting priesthood since all the specifications of the Mosaic would have already been understood as everlasting including the provision of an everlasting priesthood for the Levites. This covenant was also called “everlasting” because its promise was a done deal. The promise would ultimately be fulfilled in the priesthood of all believers (Exo. 19:6; 1 Pet. 2:5).

The next mention of a divinely commissioned covenant was in regards to David. This too was an “everlasting covenant.”

"Although my house is not so with God, yet He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure. For this is all my salvation and all my desire; will He not make it increase?” (2 Sam. 23:5; Isa. 55:3).

It seems as if the Mosaic covenant was in deliberate contrast with the others. Why is it that a covenant so important and central is the one not regarded as everlasting? Fulfillment of the other covenants depended upon one thing—the faithfulness of God. The Mosaic depended upon the faithfulness of humankind. Scripture always places these two types of faithfulness into radical contrast. God is always faithful while humankind has perverted themselves into a twisted mess.

THE MOSAIC COVENANT WAS INADEQUATE AND SHOWED MANY INDICATIONS THAT IT WOULD BE SUPERSEDED.

The New Testament maintains that although the Mosaic Covenant wasn’t flawed, it was inadequate (Rom. 8:3; 7:5; Heb. 7:18-19; 10:1). A hammer might be perfectly crafted. However, it wasn’t made to drill a hole. Likewise, the Mosaic Covenant was perfect, but it wasn’t equipped to cut through sin and backsliding. Is this understanding a pious Christian invention, or is this what we also encounter within the Hebrew Scriptures? The more I investigated the question, the more I was assured that the Apostles got it right.

It should be obvious that the Mosaic covenant was conditional. If Israel was obedient, she would receive blessing, if disobedient, she would be cursed (Lev. 26). The entire Book of Deuteronomy reflects this truth. This Covenant didn’t assert that God would be gracious apart from Israel’s obedience as the everlasting covenants had asserted. For instance, the Noahic covenant promised that God would never again destroy the world with a flood as he had done saving only Noah and his family. This was an unconditional promise. It would stand as such despite the extent of sin upon the earth. In contrast to this, the Mosaic “promises” depended upon the obedience of Israel to God’s commands.

This meant that when sinful Israel required God’s mercy, she could not appeal to the provisions of the Mosaic Covenant. These would only bring condemnation and the “I told you so” reminder. Israel had to appeal to former promises.

“When you are in distress, and all these things come upon you in the latter days, when you turn to the Lord your God and obey His voice (for the Lord your God is a merciful God), He will not forsake you nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant of your fathers which He swore to them,” (Deut. 4:30-31, also Lev. 26:42-45).

Moses knew that the covenant that he had helped to institute was grace-deficient. It wouldn’t take Israel to the ultimate place God had prepared for her. Instead, he instructed Israel to look toward a different set of promises, to the “covenant of your fathers.” Which covenant was this? Undeniably, this was the covenant of the Patriarchs.[8] We find no Hebrew prophet crying out, “God will remember the covenant that He made with Moses and have mercy upon you!” However, just about all of the prophets explicitly proclaim the restoration of Israel, but this will not be based upon Israel’s obedience to the Law. Instead, the Law had brought condemnation. Its requirement, that the curses had to be brought upon Israel, would have to be set aside in order for Israel to find mercy.

The Law was inadequate. It could never provide what Israel needed. Israel’s problems were much deeper. They required more than rules upheld by positive and negative reinforcements. They required a change of heart, but this was the very thing they lacked. Moses had promised “stiff-necked” Israel that sometime in the future God would “circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul that you may live,” (Deut. 30:6). Israel would need a “circumcised” heart in order to love God and live, but that this hadn’t happened yet! This was like telling Israel that she was doomed to failure!

Even more to the point, Moses told them, “Yet the Lord has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day,” (Deut. 29:4). Something had to change! Israel lacked the heart for God despite all of her proclamations otherwise. She would turn her heart from the Covenant, and tragedy would overtake her. Moses was prophetically explicit about this in the Song he taught her.

"But Jeshurun (Israel) grew fat and kicked…Then he forsook God who made him,

and scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; with abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they did not know, to new gods, new arrivals that your fathers did not fear. Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, and have forgotten the God who fathered you,” (Deut. 32:15-18).

Despite all the Mosaic warnings, this is exactly what Israel would do in the future. Moses was sure of it. “For I know that after my death you will become utterly corrupt, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days, because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands," (Deut. 31:29).

Joshua reiterated this message of gloom to Israel in the midst of Israel’s protestations to the contrary (Josh. 24:19). The Mosaic Covenant couldn’t be everlasting. It would have been an everlasting flop. It had to be replaced, but Israel had to learn her lesson first, the hard way.

This evidence drove me to my knees! As far as I am aware, these types of statements are not to be found in other religious or political literature. What politician ever put forth a program and then stated, without any equivocation, that it was doomed to fail? What religious leader ever tried to promote a religion and then declared that it wouldn’t work, and the followers wouldn’t receive anything they wanted? Why would Hebrew Scriptures contain such negative messages unless they were true and that the people were divinely convinced that they were God’s very words, even though they didn’t like the messages? Why didn’t Israel reject Moses and establish another religion or at least exorcise these messages from their Scriptures? They must have been convinced of their veracity!

Israel was becoming increasingly aware that something else, something better, had to follow. Although they tried to deny this fact, there were so many indications that the Mosaic covenant wouldn’t do for them what they needed. Even though they were promised that they would be a nation of priests (Exo. 19:6) and that God would dwell in their midst (Lev. 26:11-12; Joel 3:17, 21), their present situation stood in direct contradiction to these promises. They couldn’t bear God’s presence (Exo. 20:19), and He couldn’t bear theirs (Exo. 33:2-3). Although He would meet with Moses in the tent of meeting, this tent was placed far outside the camp and no one apart of Moses and Joshua could approach it (Exo. 33:7).

The temple also communicated the same forbidding presence of the Lord. Only the priests could enter into the Holy Place, and only the High Priest could enter into the High Holy Place, and only once a year. When they did enter, it could only be after they had fulfilled every specification (Lev. 16:2). God’s presence was a terrifying reality. This was a far cry from what Israel had been promised. Israel would be so intimate with God, it was described as a marriage (Hosea 2:18-19; Isa. 62:4). For this portrait to be realized, the Law and its temple curtain of separation would have to come down.

The institution of the temple offerings also conveyed the inadequacy of the Mosaic Law and Covenant. The fact that they had to be continually offered meant that they never covered subsequent sins. This meant that whenever an Israelite entertained a covetous thought, he was again in sin and therefore deserved to be cursed. This placed them continuously under God’s condemnation. Nor did these offerings remove the discomfort of the thought of this terrifying God. Indeed, discomfort should have been there. Israel was promised curses for any and every infraction (Deut. 27:15-26).

Perhaps most significantly, the Mosaic Covenant never offered the promise of eternal life. If Law-keeping couldn’t guarantee eternal life, what good was it? Paul had stated that Christians were the most pitiful people if there wasn’t a heaven (1 Cor. 15:19). It wasn’t that there wasn’t any indication of eternal life within the Mosaic revelation. Jesus had corrected the anti-resurrection beliefs of the Sadducees with Exodus 3:6: “I am the God of your father--the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." This proved that the three Patriarchs were still living. God doesn’t say that He was their God, but that He is their God! Instead, the Law was disturbingly silent in regards to how to obtain this eternal life.

Once we arrive at the Psalms, there are abundant references to dwelling eternally with God (Psalm 23:6). Why then does the Law not promise such? It promises long life, fertility, and divine protection. Why not eternal life—the most important thing of all? Evidently, this was another way that God covertly hinted to Israel that this Mosaic Covenant was just temporary and would be superseded by a new covenant that would guarantee eternal life.

THE MOSAIC COVENANT WOULD HAVE NO ROLE IN ISRAEL’S FUTURE DELIVERANCE.

The Mosaic Covenant is not pictured as part of the ultimate answer. The portrait that emerges from Hebrew Scriptures does not show Israel as finally developing more self-control and obedience to perform the Mosaic Law successfully in order to secure blessing and deliverance. According to prophecy, God’s eventual deliverance will not come because Israel wakes up, smells the coffee, and repents on her own. God will have to initiate Israel’s return, and it will not occur because Israel will eventually deserve God’s blessings. Rather, God will have mercy upon Israel.

"For the Lord will judge His people and have compassion on His servants, when He sees that their power is gone, and there is no one remaining, bond or free,” (Deut. 32:36).

Instead of doing something positive to warrant God’s mercy, it’s Israel’s destitution that will move God. It’s only in Israel’s abject brokenness that God can exalt her without it going to her head. According to Moses, Israel will violate the Mosaic Covenant and bring down upon herself the promised curses. It is God who then will have “compassion.” How will He do this? According to Jeremiah, it will be through a “new covenant” (Jer. 31:31-34), but it will also be done in a radically different way. Moses knew that Israel would fail and that her problem was one of the heart, and if Israel had a heart problem, she would need a heart answer.

“And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live,” (Deut. 30:6).

Without a changed heart, Israel inevitably went astray. They needed to be born again with a new heart. They needed a covenant that would go far further than the Mosaic. This covenant is just what the Prophets prophesied that God would provide. Ezekiel states that even though Israel consistently disgraced God before the other nations, God would act lovingly on her behalf. Ezekiel writes, “I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you… (36:25-27; 11:19-20).

The very thing Israel had lacked under the Old, they would receive under the New—a new heart and the indwelling Holy Spirit. Jeremiah associates this necessary change with a new and permanent covenant.

“Then I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever, for the good of them and their children after them. And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from doing them good; but I will put My fear in their hearts so that they will not depart from Me,” (Jer. 32:39-40).

There is the guarantee of a hope here that isn’t found under the Mosaic Covenant. As a result of God’s grace, “they will not depart from me.” This is why the Mosaic couldn’t be called “eternal.” As long as blessing depended upon Israel, no guarantee could be made, but if it depended upon God, He could make an ironclad guarantee. God would succeed in securing Israel’s love only through changing her.

In contrast to Israel’s cycle of rebellion and devastation, the new covenant would be characterized by unending peace.

“Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people,” (Ezekiel 37:26-27; 34:25-26; Isaiah 54:9-10).[9]

There’s no reason to regard “sanctuary” and “tabernacle” as literal buildings. The intimacy between God and His people makes a building unnecessary and counterproductive. He will be the sanctuary! Walls will no longer separate. God will enter into the most intimate form of relationship with His people. Hosea points to a future, radical covenant that would ensure God’s unfailing love.

“In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field…I will betroth you to Me forever; Yes, I will betroth you to Me in righteousness and justice, in lovingkindness and mercy,” (Hosea 2:18-19; Isa. 62:4).

This would be a “forever” covenant. It wasn’t a covenant that had already been in place. Hosea says, “I will make a covenant!” He lays down no conditions that Israel must fulfill in order to enter into her blessedness as had been characteristic of the Mosaic Covenant. Instead, God will enter into a permanent relationship with Israel; He will marry His people. As Hosea had been instructed to take his adulterous wife Gomer into seclusion, God would unilaterally do the same for Israel.

The idea of a marriage with God must have seemed somewhat blasphemous to Mosaic Israel. Her experience had been characterized by God’s words to Moses-- "Tell Aaron your brother not to come at just any time into the Holy Place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, lest he die” (Lev. 16:2)—a far cry from sharing the same bedroom!

Isaiah concurs that this “yet to be” covenant would be “everlasting.”

“And will make with them an everlasting covenant. Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles, and their offspring among the people. All who see them shall acknowledge them, that they are the posterity whom the Lord has blessed," (Isa. 61:8-9).

Under the Law, the rule of the day had been separation from the contaminating influence of other peoples. Under the New, God’s people would be among the nations.

The Mosaic Covenant was never the source of hope and blessing. Sigal had offered one set of verses to show that on the basis of the Mosaic Covenant God would remember His people and rescue them. However, as shown above, this covenant was the one God had made with the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Lev. 26:42-45).

Furthermore, while there are many verses that state that God will have mercy upon His people, there are no verses that affirm that God will have mercy by virtue of the covenant He made with Moses! Instead, His mercy is predicated upon something radically different. The prophetic passages look beyond a redemption based upon the offerings mediated by the Levitical priesthood, to God’s unmediated intervention. The Prophets look beyond Moses to a God who Himself will redeem.

Deuteronomy 32 contains a song God directed Moses to teach to Israel. It represented both a disturbing warning and a prophetic overview of Israel’s blessing, rebellion, and eventual deliverance. Surprisingly, the song ends on a positive note.

"Rejoice, O Gentiles, with His people; for He will avenge the blood of His servants, and render vengeance to His adversaries; He will provide atonement for His land and His people," (Deut. 32:43).

If the Mosaic system had been adequate, why didn’t this task of “atonement” fall upon the Levites, who had been divinely commissioned to provide atonement? Where are the Levites and the Mosaic system at the time of Israel’s eventual deliverance? It is never this system that comes to the rescue but God Himself.

“Help us, O God of our salvation, for the glory of Your name; and deliver us, and provide atonement for our sins, for Your name's sake!” (Psalm 79:9; also 65:3).

God somehow had to pay the price of “atonement.” Levitical atonement was sorely inadequate. It was this “atonement” that would provide the basis of the “everlasting covenant.”

“I will deal with you as you have done, who despised the oath by breaking the covenant. Nevertheless I will remember My (Abrahamic) covenant with you in the days of your youth, and I will establish an everlasting covenant with you. Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed, when you receive your older and your younger sisters; for I will give them to you for daughters, but not because of My (Mosaic) covenant with you. And I will establish My covenant with you. Then you shall know that I am the Lord, that you may remember and be ashamed, and never open your mouth anymore because of your shame, when I provide you an atonement for all you have done,"(Ezekiel 16:59-63 ).

This covenant will not be established on the basis of any Levitical ministrations, but on the basis of the unilateral grace of God as promised in the covenant God made with Abraham. However, Ezekiel mentions another covenant here, which he disclaims had anything to do with the grace of God. This must be the Mosaic Covenant, which he is contrasting with the
Abrahamic.

Israel’s hope had always been Messianic, not Mosaic. It looked towards a Redeemer who would refine the Israel with His “fire,” rather than the sprinkling of the blood of animals, which God never really desired (Psalm 51:16-17).

"’Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, even the Messenger of the covenant, in whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,’ says the Lord of hosts. ‘But who can endure the day of His coming? And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner's fire and like launderer's soap.’” (Malachi 3:1-2).

“The Messenger of the covenant” is no less than God Himself, coming to make His atonement. He is “the Lord,” and it’s “His” temple. He is the “refiner’s fire;” He will purify His people! The Levites are no longer in sight. There’s no animal sacrifice because the Lord is the sacrifice!

God’s atonement is so closely associated with this “everlasting covenant” that Isaiah refers to the covenant as a person rather than a set of conditions!

“Thus says the Lord: ‘In an acceptable time I have heard You, and in the day of salvation I have helped You; I will preserve You and give You as a covenant to the people, to restore the earth, to cause them to inherit the desolate heritages,’” (Isaiah 49:8; 42:6).

Under Moses, the covenant was a matter of keeping God’s commands. Under the New Covenant, it is a matter receiving a Person who has already fulfilled all of God’s commands. When we have the Person, we have the covenant in all its fullness.

It’s clear that Israel’s hope wasn’t in the Mosaic system but in a Savior who Himself would provide atonement. That’s why He is often called the “Redeemer” (Job 19:25; Psalm 19:14, 78:35; Isaiah 41:14, 43:14, 44:6, 24; 47:4…). It is the Redeemer who will ultimately provide the payment to deliver His people from sin (Psalm 49:15). That’s why His people are called the “ransomed” or the “redeemed” (Isaiah 35:9-10; 51:11; 62:12).

How does the Mosaic Covenant fit into this gracious portrait? It doesn’t! It’s never portrayed as the source of hope. Yes, it was potentially the source of blessing, but Israel consistently failed to be obedient. Instead, this covenant became the source of condemnation.

“For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident…" (Gal. 3:10-11 quoting Deut. 27:26).

Admittedly, Israel’s day to day experience wasn’t one of enduring continual curses which she deserved. In the midst of the harsh Law, God was mercifully dispatching the curse only when all else failed. However, this mercy was never extended by virtue of the Law.

I hope that this chapter was able to present the relationship of the various covenants in a consistent and harmonious pattern. If this portrait stands, it points to a grand design, one that I think requires a Grand Designer. If the Hebrew Scriptures were merely the product of various independent writers sharing a common faith, such a harmonious design wouldn’t have been possible.

Not only are the Hebrew Scriptures elegantly crafted among themselves, they are also in lock step with the New Testament. To behold this is awe-inspiring; it’s like seeing the face of God.