FOR IF THAT FIRST HAD BEEN FAULTLESS THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION SOUGHT FOR A SECOND: Ei gar hê prôtê ekeinê en (3SIAI) amemptos ouk an deuteras ezeteito (3SIPI) topos: (Hebrews 8:6; 7:11,18; Galatians 3:21)

Recommended Resource: For an excellent review of Hebrews 8:1-13 listen to  Dr S Lewis Johnson (former professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary) - Right Click here - download and listen on your computer or Ipod - ~61 minutes but well worth the time - Hint: Listen in a setting where you can take a few notes.

If - This if is a condition of the second class which assumes that the old covenant was not faultless. This would be perceived as quite a serious accusation and so the writer hastens to explain his reasons for such a "blasphemous" (not in truth but possibly to ears of some of his Jewish hearers) statement.

The writer had made a similar statement regarding the "inadequacy" of the Levitical priesthood writing...

Now if perfection (Ed note: making man acceptable to God giving him complete communion with God - the sacrificial Levitical system never achieved this goal) was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? (see note Hebrews 7:11)

Pastor Steven Cole writes...

As I mentioned in our study of Heb 7:11-19, the idea of the Law of Moses being defective in any way would have been unthinkable for the Jews! The Law was the foundation of their entire way of life. It was the basis of their religious worship, which was the very warp and woof of being a Jew. In chapter 7, the author argued that the change of the priesthood required a change of the law also, since the two were inextricably bound together. He used Psalm 110:4 to show that David had predicted the change of the priesthood. Here, he cites Jeremiah 31 to show that the Old Testament itself also predicted a new covenant that would replace the old, Mosaic covenant. The reason for replacing the old covenant was that it was defective. (A Better Priest for a Better Covenant)

That first - That first covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Old Covenant, the covenant of Law.

Faultless (273) (amemptos from a = negative + mémphomai = find fault) means irreproachable, faultless, without defect or blemish, not being able to find fault in someone or some thing.  The idea is that the Old Covenant was not flawless.

What was the fault? Although the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good (see note Romans 7:12), the law could never save a person, but could only lead him or her to see their need for salvation. To seek to obey the law in an attempt to merit salvation is to arouse the flesh and put one's self in a yoke of bondage to the Law. As sinners, we are unable to keep God’s holy Law. The Old Covenant did not supply the new heart or the enabling ministry of the Spirit without which we cannot obey the Law. The old covenant failed to bind Israel to their God, but as he explains in the next verse, the ultimate cause of this failure lay in the character of the people, not in character of the covenant.

Writing to the believers in Galatia who were being tempted by the Judaizers to come under the yoke of the law (the Old Covenant), Paul reasoned rhetorically...

Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. (Galatians 3:21) (See related notes on the Purpose/Effect of the Law)

See related studies on Covenant...

Covenant: New Covenant in the Old Testament
Covenant: Why the New is Better
Covenant: Abrahamic vs Old vs New

FOR FINDING FAULT WITH THEM HE SAYS: memphomenos (PMPMSN) gar autous legei (3SPAI) :

Finding fault (3201) (memphomai from momphe = blame, reproach, complaint) means to blame, find fault with, accuse, impute as blameworthy. The present tense indicates God was continually finding fault with His chosen people, who repeatedly rebelled against Him like an unfaithful wife (see verse 32 in the Jeremiah 31 passage below). The problem with the Old Covenant was not bad laws, but bad hearts!

With them - Notice the writer's shift of language from the covenant to the people. After saying the Old Covenant was not faultless,  he comes to the essence of the problem and finds fault with the people. The primary problem was not the Old Covenant per se, but the failure of the Jews to keep the Old Covenant...

for they did not continue (persevere in, hold fast to, remain true to, or abide) in (God's old) covenant (see note Hebrews 8:9).

He says - God says - He spoke prophetically through Jeremiah of a new covenant based on grace which would replace the first covenant based on law. The writer quotes God's declaration in Jeremiah 31:31-34 (note that the quotation is not from the Hebrew text but from the Greek Septuagint - LXX) which reads...

31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt (Old Covenant, Mosaic Covenant, "the law"), My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them (Israel is the wife of Jehovah - cp Isa 54:4 addressed to Israel - "your husband is your Maker")," declares the LORD.
33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
34 "And they shall not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,"

(The following are not quoted here but are vitally important passages for evangelicals to understand) 35 Thus says the LORD, Who gives the sun for light by day, and the fixed order of the moon and the stars for light by night, Who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar; The LORD of hosts is His name:
36 "If this fixed order (sun, moon, stars) departs from before Me," declares the LORD, "Then the offspring of Israel also shall cease From being a nation before Me forever." (Classic "if...then" passage)
37 Thus says the LORD, "If the heavens above can be measured, And the foundations of the earth searched out below, Then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel For all that they have done," declares the LORD. (God's point is that He has not cast Israel aside, even today when most of the Jews in Israel are not "religious". He is not finished with Israel as so many teach today, but these promises will be completely and literally fulfilled at the Second Coming of the Messiah. Notice that the following passages for example are part of God's covenant promise -- albeit not mentioned in the NT -- and they will be fulfilled.)
38 "Behold, days are coming (this time phrase is identical to verse 31 - this is the same covenant!)," declares the LORD, "when the city shall be rebuilt for the LORD from the Tower of Hananel to the Corner Gate.
39 "And the measuring line shall go out farther straight ahead to the hill Gareb; then it will turn to Goah.
40 "And the whole valley of the dead bodies and of the ashes, and all the fields as far as the brook Kidron, to the corner of the Horse Gate toward the east, shall be holy to the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, or overthrown anymore forever."

The writer considers this passage so important for his readers to grasp that he reiterates the covenant promises in part in Hebrews 10:16; 17...

THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD: I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART, AND UPON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM," He then says, 17 "AND THEIR SINS AND THEIR LAWLESS DEEDS I WILL REMEMBER NO MORE." (see notes Hebrews 10:16; 17)

Notice the writer's logic (compare similar line of reasoning in Hebrews 4:8; Hebrews 7:11; Hebrews 8:4) -- The writer declares that if there had been nothing wrong with the first covenant, there would have been no need for another covenant. But in fact as already suggested the first covenant was not faultless because the Jews could not keep their promises to fulfill it as they vowed in Exodus 24...

Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances (The Old Covenant, the First Covenant); and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!" (Exodus 24:3)

The first covenant lacked the power to energize their obedience because it was on tablets of stone, not on the tablets of their heart and mind as in the New Covenant. Although not stated in this section, another critical promise of the New Covenant was a new "Person" Who would provide a new power to fulfill the requirements of the Law, God prophesying in Ezekiel...

Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (Ezekiel 36:26,27)

In short, the old covenant was faulty because it did not provide enabling power for the people to live up to the terms or conditions of the Law. In other words, the old covenant did not include a provision for their inherent faultiness.

BEHOLD DAYS ARE COMING SAYS THE LORD: Idou hemerai erchontai legei kurios: (Jeremiah 31:31-34) (Heb 10:16,17; Jeremiah 23:5,7; 30:3; 31:27,31-34, 38; Luke 17:22)

Behold - An interjection in the form of a command (aorist imperative) which is an urgent call for the hearer or reader to pay attention to what follows. This is important!

As New Testament believers it is vitally important that we remember to whom God was addressing the covenant with its promises in Jeremiah 31:31-34. The recipients of the New Covenant prophecy were Jews, the very ones who witnessed the Jew, Jesus, inaugurate the covenant at His last Passover meal with them. These truths are important to keep in mind because there is a widespread tendency in the modern evangelical world to do away with God's promises to Israel, and to say that the NT church has replaced Israel, as the "Israel of God" (see discussion of this topic - Israel of God). This is not what Scripture teaches as Paul tries to explain in Romans 11, lest the wild olive branches (the Gentiles who are grafted into the rich root of the Abrahamic Covenant) become arrogant or conceited (see Ro 11:18-note;  Ro 11:20-note).

The writer's logic is "brilliant" (because it is inspired). He appeals to one of their own prophets which means the Jewish readers would have to reject the veracity and assurance of the Old Testament, if they refused to accept the New Testament teaching on the New Covenant which is found in the Old Covenant! To reject the New Covenant, would be tantamount to rejecting their own prophet Jeremiah. Thus the writer builds his argument upon the Old Testament Scriptures, the very Word of God his readers professed to believe. This is a good example for all who would preach or teach the Word of God - base your "arguments" on the firm foundation of God's Word, including the Old Testament. There is a distinct bias I fear in modern evangelicalism to "shy away from" preaching on the Old Testament. Those pastors who shy away from teaching the Old, would be wise to remember that this was the only "Bible" the apostles and early disciples (most common term for believers in Acts) had access to. Many who applaud the oratorical, expositional skills of the prince of preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon, would be wise (and blessed) to emulate his example of frequent forays into the Old Testament Scriptures (for example, witness his 57 messages on the seldom taught book of Ezekiel!)

Days are coming - What days? When? I agree with others who favor a "dual" fulfillment, theologically speaking a soteriological and an eschatological fulfillment. The first fulfillment is related to the application of the truth in Jeremiah 31. Although the covenant was initially given to Israel, it is clearly applicable to Gentiles who enter it by grace through faith. In other words, in terms of applying the truth of the Jeremiah passage, whenever anyone is saved, Jew or Gentile, the day has come that the New Covenant has become a reality in that person's life. On the other hand, if one views this passage to Israel through "prophetic glasses", it will be most completely fulfilled at the time of the Lord's return, when "all Israel will be saved".

Says the Lord - As noted elsewhere but worth reiterating, this passage teaches that it was God Himself Who initiated the covenant, not man. As far as we know, Israel never asked God how it was that He would be able to fulfill the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant (which is ultimately made possible by the payment of Christ's sacrificial blood in the New Covenant, which paid the price of redemption, the very truth we celebrate when we partake of communion) to themselves who were sinners and who needed a Redeemer. But God saw their need and He provided for their need by initiating ("says the Lord")  the New Covenant, which Jesus referred to as the "New Covenant in My blood" (Luke 22:20) which alludes to the need for redemption by a satisfactory Goel or Kinsman Redeemer.

In Romans, Paul explains (like the writer of Hebrews, appealing to the the Old Testament Scriptures to validate his argument)...

thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, "The Deliverer (the Messiah) will come from Zion. He will turn godlessness away from Jacob. And this is My covenant with them when I take away their sins." (see notes Romans 11:26; 11:27).

Spurgeon writes that...

His divine decree has made the covenant of his grace a settled and eternal institution: redemption by blood proves that the covenant cannot be altered, for it ratifies and establishes it beyond all recall. This, too, is reason for the loudest praise. Redemption is a fit theme for the heartiest music, and when it is seen to be connected with gracious engagements from which the Lord's truth cannot swerve, it becomes a subject fitted to arouse the soul to an ecstasy of gratitude. Redemption and the covenant are enough to make the tongue of the dumb sing.

In Revelation 19 we see the Deliverer returning at the end of the Great Tribulation (see notes beginning with Revelation 19:11 and read through the subsequent verse notes) and the beginning of the 1000 year reign of Messiah, the Millennium or Messianic Age (see also notes beginning with Revelation 20:4). It is at this future time that Zechariah's prophecy will "dovetail" with Jeremiah's prophecy, God predicting that...

"And it will come about in all the land," Declares Jehovah, "That two parts in it will be cut off and perish; but the third will be left in it. And I will bring the third part through the fire, Refine them as silver is refined, and test them as gold is tested. They will call on My name (cp, the New Covenant promise "they shall all know Me"), and I will answer them; I will say, 'They are My people,' And they will say, 'The LORD is my God.'" (cp, God's promise in Jeremiah's prophecy in Jer 31:33 - "I will be their God, and they shall be My people.") (Zechariah 13:8,9)

The third part that Jehovah brings through the fire will be those who by grace through faith receive the Messiah as their Deliverer and their Redeemer, and all of this one third will be saved. (If you are interested in this somewhat complex, sometimes controversial subject of "What Happens to the Jews?" read the notes on Romans 11:26; 11:27) (My friend in Christ, Tony Garland, also has a lucid, logical discussion of these passages you can listen to on Mp3 - click here for Mp3, click Pdf of his summary notes in Pdf or Html Document) (Or listen to his 14+ hour Mp3 series on Israel)

WHEN I WILL EFFECT A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND THE HOUSE OF JUDAH: kai sunteleso (1SFAI) epi ton oikon Israel kai epi ton oikon Iouda diatheken kainen: (Hebrews 9:15; 12:24; Mt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1Cor 11:25; 2Cor 3:6) (Is 55:3; Jer 32:40; 33:24, 25, 26; Ezekiel 16:60,61; 37:26)

When I will effect - As discussed elsewhere in these notes, the New Covenant was made with Israel but clearly is applicable to Gentiles. But the benefits of the New Covenant are like a health insurance policy we own but in ignorance still end up paying for medications, etc, simply because we did not understand our benefits or were "too lazy" to check the policy. How many believers really understand the benefits that are granted to them in Christ Jesus by virtue of being in (new) covenant with Him? Are you plagued by guilt for past sins you have confessed? No problem because in the New Covenant God says your sins I will remember no more. If the Holy God won't remember them, why are experience a sense of guilt? Perhaps, we don't completely comprehend the benefits of the New Covenant. Or take many believers who are running the race of grace well and then begin to be put under rules or laws or "do's and don'ts" instead of remembering that God has clearly stated that He would place the law on our heart and mind. So instead of living a life of freedom, they bring themselves under a yoke of bondage to legalism in its various forms (listen to Ray Stedman's very helpful summary of Legalism or read the transcript)

I will - God initiates the covenant. Israel did not seek it. God's grace is always initiating grace. Yes, God had found the people at fault and they deserved nothing but condemnation and yet He promises a new covenant.

Spurgeon comments...

Now, rolling up that old covenant as a useless thing out of which no salvation can ever develop, God comes to us in another way and says, “I will make a new covenant with you, not like the old one at all.” (Hebrews 8:8-13.) It is a covenant of grace, a covenant made, not with the worthy, but with the unworthy; a covenant not made upon conditions, but unconditionally, every supposed condition having been fulfilled by our great Representative and Surety, the Lord Jesus Christ; a covenant without an if or a but in it; “an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure” (2 Samuel 23:5); a covenant of shalls and wills, in which God says, “I will, and you shall”; a covenant suited to our broken-down, helpless condition; a covenant that will land everyone who has an interest in it in heaven. No other covenant will ever do this.

Will effect (4931) (sunteleo from sun = with + telos = goal) means  to end together or at the same time. To end completely; to bring to an end, finish, complete. In speaking of an activity it means to bring to an end and so to complete or finish the activity. Sunteleo means to carry out or bring into being something that has been promised or expected and thus to carry it out, fulfill it or accomplish it.

The writer seems to have chosen sunteleo rather than poieo “to make,” in order to emphasize more clearly the conclusive perfecting power of the New Testament.

WHAT IS NEW ABOUT
THE NEW COVENANT?

A new covenant - It is new in that it is fresh and it contains the "freshness of the redemptive promises". Even the other great unconditional covenants in the Old Testament, the Abrahamic and the Davidic, did not in themselves explicitly elaborate on the redemptive promises implicit in the New Covenant, promises which form the basis for the fulfillment of the other unconditional covenants. In other words, the Abrahamic covenant needed the completion of the redemptive sacrifice of Christ to make it possible for this Old Testament covenant to have the certainty and assurance of its ultimate fulfillment. It pointed to the Seed, Christ, but it did not explain the redemptive aspect of Christ as did the New Covenant (cf, the better promise of the New Covenant "I will remember their sins no more" which equates with forgiveness.) There had to be the death and spillage of blood of a suitable sacrifice to bring about redemption. This is what Jesus was referring to when He stated that this is the blood of the (New) Covenant which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. Without His payment of the price of His precious blood (i.e., redemption - payment of price to buy slaves out of bondage, etc), forgiveness would not have been possible and the Abrahamic Covenant would not have had a foundation for its fulfillment.

In the New Covenant God explains its better promises which are centered in the forgiveness of sins and the divine enablement (God's laws are now within = when we by grace through faith enter the New Covenant, God's Spirit gives us a "new inner control center"). When one studies the promises of the Abrahamic covenant (and the Davidic), one concludes that what God says in Jeremiah 31 about the New Covenant is essentially a "repetition" (Dr S Lewis Johnson's term) or an "extension" of these other unconditional covenants. And so this new or fresh covenant repeats or extends the Abrahamic (and Davidic) but adds the redemptive grounds for the Abrahamic (and Davidic) covenant.

WITH WHOM IS
THE NEW COVENANT MADE?

With the house of Israel and the house of Judah - Note carefully that because two divisions of the kingdom are distinguished, this is clearly a literal promise, and should silence the false teaching that the church has replaced Israel. In other words, it would be ridiculous to teach that the church was "the house of Israel and the house of Judah". To repeat, the New Covenant is made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not with the Church. Why would the writer of Hebrews emphasize the two houses? Remember that the letter is addressed to Hebrew professing believers and he is seeking to deliver them from the danger that they would depart from the faith that they had professed. What better way to jolt them back to reality, then to remind the Hebrew professing believers of the great covenant that was given to Jeremiah to the Jewish people.

This distinction is vitally important because most of us are of neither Jewish house. The question arises then "How did we Gentiles "get in" if this New Covenant was not given to us?" How do we qualify? As explained elsewhere in these notes, the New Covenant is essentially a repetition or extension of the Abrahamic promises, then we can understand how Gentile believers might be the recipients of those promises. Stated another way, one can understand the New Covenant as the grounds of fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. And if you look at the Abrahamic covenant, you will note that even in this covenant, provision was made for Gentile believers...

And I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. (Genesis 12:3)

All the families would include Jews and Gentiles and so provision was made for Gentiles even in the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant provides for and explains the redemptive grounds for the Abrahamic Covenant (which is an "everlasting covenant", e.g., see Genesis 17:7,8, cp the unconditional Davidic covenant which is also "an everlasting covenant" - see 2Sa 23:5). And so we see that these unconditional covenants while distinct are not wholly separate covenants but are related as part of God's so-called "covenantal program" (the everlasting Davidic covenant is also part of this "program"). And in this covenantal program, the gracious God has made provision for both Jews and Gentiles to enter into the covenant promises. Without going into great detail at this time, it should be added that Paul further explains how Gentiles ("wild olive branches") are grafted in to the rich root of the natural olive tree, this rich root representing the Abrahamic covenant that promised blessing to both Jew and Gentile through the coming Redeemer, Jesus Christ. (See Romans 11:17 note, cp Galatians 3:7 "be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham" where Paul speaks of Abraham's spiritual descendants as those who believe in Christ for salvation.)

At risk of becoming too detailed, the Gentile believer who carefully reads these notes and studies the Abrahamic covenant, will conclude that although Gentile believers are spiritual descendants of Abraham, we do not inherit the specific promises of the Land (Ge 15:18ff) that God made to Abraham that were passed on to Abraham's son Isaac and then to Isaac's son Jacob (God later changed his name to Israel), and in turn passed through Jacob (Israel) to the physical Israelites who would come to believe in their Jewish Messiah (see related topic - believing Jewish remnant). The promises of the Land of Israel will be fulfilled to those believing physical/biological Jews at the return of Messiah to set up His 1000 year kingdom (see Millennium). State another way, believing Gentiles do not inherit the promises made to physical/biological Jews who become believers, as is often taught by those who hold to amillennialism and believe the phrase the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16) refers to the church (see discussion of the phrase Israel of God). Believing Gentiles do not become Jews and the believing church does not become Israel. When Messiah returns at the end of the Great Tribulation to defeat the antichrist and the world forces arrayed against Him (and against the nation of Israel), He will establish His kingdom and bring about the final fulfillment of the covenant promises of "the Land" (of Israel - first promised in Genesis 15:18ff).

Covenant (1242) (diatheke from dia = two + tithemi = to place pictures that which is placed between two Thus, a covenant is something placed between two, an arrangement between two parties.) was a commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to define a legal transaction in settling an inheritance. 

Diatheke denotes an irrevocable decision, which cannot be cancelled by anyone. A prerequisite of its effectiveness before the law is the death of the disposer and thus diatheke was like a "final will and testament".  In reference to the divine covenants, such as the Abrahamic covenant, diatheke is not a covenant in the sense that God came to agreement or compromise with fallen man as if signing a contract. Rather, it involves declaration of God’s unconditional promise to make Abraham and his seed the recipients of certain blessings.

Ray Stedman warns that...

Though the writer of Hebrews undoubtedly applies this new covenant to the church, those commentators who deny its future application to the nation of Israel ignore great areas of Old and New Testament prophecy. (Hebrews 8:1-13 The New Covenant)

NOT LIKE THE COVENANT WHICH I MADE WITH THEIR FATHERS ON THE DAY WHEN I TOOK THEM BY THE HAND TO LEAD THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT: ou kata ten diatheken, en epoiesa (1SAAI) tois patrasin auton en hemera epilabomenou (AMPMSG) mou tes cheiros auton exagagein (AAN) autous ek ges Aiguptou: (Hebrews 9:18, 19, 20; Exodus 24:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11; 34:10,27,28; Deuteronomy 5:2,3; 29:1,12; Galatians 3:15, 16, 17, 18, 19; Galatians 4:24) (Genesis 19:16; Job 8:20; Song of Solomon 8:5; Isaiah 41:13; 51:18; Mark 8:23; Acts 9:8; 13:11) (Exodus 19:4,5; Psalms 77:20; 78:52, 53, 54; 105:43; 136:11, 12, 13, 14; Isaiah 40:11; 63:9; Isaiah 63:11, 12, 13)

Not like the covenant - This is a clear reference to the Old Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant. This New Covenant is different and distinct. It is a "fresh" covenant with a new quality compared to the Old Covenant.

Cole writes that...

The emphasis here is on discontinuity, not on continuity. God says, “Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers….” This is a major problem, in my estimation, for Covenant Theology, which views the old and new covenants as two different administrations of the same covenant of grace. The emphasis in that view is on the unity and continuity of the covenant throughout history (The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. by Walter Elwell [Baker], p. 280), whereas the emphasis here is clearly on discontinuity. (A Better Priest for a Better Covenant - Pdf)

(In another sermon Cole argues that) since the Bible never uses the title, “covenant of grace,” and since there is obviously a great distinction between the old and new covenants (Heb 8:7, 8, 9), I am not inclined to that system. On the other hand, dispensational theologians point out that the new covenant is to be made “with the house of Israel and … Judah” (Heb 8:8), and so many of them insist that the new covenant that Jesus inaugurated at the Last Supper was different than this new covenant. But, plainly, the church today partakes of the one new covenant that Jeremiah predicted. The author of Hebrews (and Paul in 2Cor 3:1ff) obviously views the new covenant of Jeremiah as in effect now. (The Better Covenant - Pdf)

The table below is based on Pastor Cole's sermon The Better Covenant - Pdf in which he discusses 12 distinctions between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, basing his discussion in turn on John Owen's original discussion of 17 distinctions.

Covenant (1242) (diatheke from dia = two + tithemi = to place pictures that which is placed between two Thus, a covenant is something placed between two, an arrangement between two parties.) was a commonly used in the Greco-Roman world to define a legal transaction in settling an inheritance. Diatheke denotes an irrevocable decision, which cannot be cancelled by anyone.

Delitzsch quotes from Schelling

The Law appears to be the mere ideal of a religious constitution, as it has never existed in fact: in practice, the Jews were almost throughout polytheists. The substance of their national feeling was formed by heathendom: the accidents only, by revelation. From the queen of heaven down to the abominations of the Phoenicians, and even Cybele, the Jews passed through every grade of paganism.

Delitzsch adds,

In fact, there is no period of the history of Israel before the captivity, in which more or less idolatry was not united with the worship of Jehovah, except the time of David and the first years of Solomon, during which the influence of Samuel still continued to be felt.

FOR THEY DID NOT CONTINUE IN MY COVENANT AND I DID NOT CARE FOR THEM, SAYS THE LORD: hoti autoi ouk enemeinan (3PAAI) en te diatheke mou, kago emelesa (1SAAI) auton, legei (3SPAI) kurios:  (Exodus 32:8; Deuteronomy 29:25; 31:16, 17, 18; Joshua 23:15,16; 2Kings 17:15, 16, 17, 18; Psalms 78:10; Psalms 78:11, 57; Isaiah 24:5,6; Jeremiah 11:7,8; 22:8,9; 31:32; Ezekiel 16:8,59; Ezekiel 20:37,38) (Judges 10:13,14; Lam 4:16; Amos 5:22; Malachi 2:13)

They did not continue - The Greek word for not (ou) indicates absolute negation -- they absolutely did not continue in obedience to the Mosaic Covenant as they had promised at Mt Sinai, but continually went astray (e.g., the book of Judges describes 300+ years of cycling through periods of sin, discipline, repentance and deliverance.)

Continue (1696) (emmeno) means literally to remain in. In Acts 14:22 Paul visited the new disciples in Asia [Minor] - "encouraging them to continue in the faith". In striking contrast, the Israelites repeatedly broke covenant and when they did God annulled it making the covenant void.

I did not care for them (272) (ameleo from a = without + melo = to care for, to show concern, forethought or interest) means literally without care and thus showing no concern. To be careless. To be unconcerned about or to care nothing for something or someone.

Ameleo describes the opposite attitude or response to the parallel verb prosecho (used in Hebrews 2:1-note) which calls for one to be in a continuous state of readiness to learn of a danger, need, error, etc, and to respond appropriately.

Here the writer quotes form the Septuagint where ameleo is used to describe Jehovah's reaction to Israel's "neglect" of their promise to obey all of the laws of the Old Covenant. He explains that now the New Covenant is...

not according to the covenant (Mosaic) which I made with their fathers in the day when I took hold of their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they abode not in my covenant, and I disregarded (ameleo) them, saith the Lord." (Jeremiah 31:32) (This is Brenton's English translation of the Septuagint and is the translated almost verbatim in Hebrews 8:9 - see below. The writer explains to his readers that Israel had been careless, neglectful and unconcerned about fulfilling their side of the covenant promises and as a result God in a sense repaid them by disregarding them.)

Below are the 4 uses of ameleo in NT:

Matthew 22:5 "But they paid no attention and went their way, one to his own farm, another to his business,

1 Timothy 4:14 Do not neglect  (present imperative - stop doing this) the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed upon you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.

Hebrews 2:3 (note) how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard,

Hebrews 8:9 (note) Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers On the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord.

THE DANGER OF NEGLECTING
GOD'S COVENANT

What is the problem if we neglect? Here are a few illustrative (and some very tragic) examples...

The devil and his cohorts were devising plans to get people to reject the Gospel. “Let’s go to them and say there is no God,” proposed one. Silence prevailed. Every devil knew that most people believe in a supreme being. “Let’s tell them there is no hell, no future punishment for the wicked.” offered another. That was turned down, because men obviously have consciences which tell them that sin must be punished. The concave was going to end in failure when there came a voice from the rear: “Tell them there is a God, there is a hell and that the Bible is the Word of God. But tell them there is plenty of time to decide the question. Let them ‘neglect’ the Gospel, until it is too late.” All hell erupted with ghoulish glee, for they knew that if a person procrastinated on Christ, they usually never accept Him.  (10000 Sermon Illustrations. Dallas: Biblical Studies Press)

><> ><> ><>

An incident from the American Revolution illustrates what tragedy can result from neglect. Colonel Rahl, commander of the British troops in Trenton, New Jersey, was playing cards when a courier brought an urgent message stating that General George Washington was crossing the Delaware River. Rahl put the letter in his pocket and didn't bother to read it until the game was finished. Then, realizing the seriousness of the situation, he hurriedly tried to rally his men to meet the coming attack, but his neglect was his undoing. He and many of his men were killed and the rest of the regiment were capture. Nolbert Quayle said, "Only a few minutes' delay cost him his life, his honor, and the liberty of his soldiers." Earth's history is strewn with the wrecks of half-finished plans and unexecuted resolutions. 'Tomorrow' is the excuse of the lazy and refuge of the incompetent. (from Our Daily Bread)

><> ><> ><>

The Cost of Not Putting a Finger in the Dike - For most of the last decade, Chicagoans who worked in the Loop, the booming downtown business district, could easily ignore the city's budget crisis; Washington's cutback of aid to cities didn't seem to hurt business. Last week, they learned one price of neglecting the underpinnings of all that economic growth. A quarter billion gallons of murky Chicago River water gushed into a 60-mile network of turn-of-the-century freight tunnels under the Loop and brought nearly all businesses to a soggy halt. It turned out that a top city official had known about the leak, but, acting for a cash-strapped government, had delayed repairs costing only about $50,000. The final cost of the damage caused by this neglect was estimated to be more than $1 billion. (From U.S. News & World Report, April 27, 1992.)

><> ><> ><>

We often fail to consider the gradual, cumulative effect of sin in our lives. In Saint Louis in 1984, an unemployed cleaning woman noticed a few bees buzzing around the attic of her home. Since there were only a few, she made no effort to deal with them. Over the summer the bees continued to fly in and out the attic vent while the woman remained unconcerned, unaware of the growing city of bees. The whole attic became a hive, and the ceiling of the second- floor bedroom finally caved in under the weight of hundreds of pounds of honey and thousands of angry bees. While the woman escaped serious injury, she was unable to repair the damage of her accumulated neglect. (Robert T Wenz)

><> ><> ><>

A 64-year-old woman, whose decomposed body was found in her dilapidated Houston home recently, was discovered frozen to death for five months. She was forgotten (neglected) all winter and spring by neighbors and family members. Neighbors described her as someone who "didn't have anything to do with anybody, and nobody had anything to do with her." This occurred after her children had grown up and moved away, and then her husband's death. She had two children, one of whom lived about 10 miles from his mother's house.