one is a question in deeds: This I do
to thee, what doest thou to me?--It will now be possible to determine
in what sense the Old Covenant is here contrasted with the New, The
point in question cannot be a new and more perfect revelation of the
Law of God; for that is common to both the dispensations. No jot or
tittle of it can be lost under the New Testament, and as little can a
jot or tittle be added. God's law is based on His nature, and that is
eternal and unchangeable, compare Mal. iii. 22 (iv. 4). The revelation
of the Law does not belong to the going out from Egypt, to which the
making of the former covenant is here attributed, but to Sinai. As
little can the discourse be of the introduction of an entirely new
relation, which is not founded at all upon the former one. On this
subject, _David Kimchi's_ remark is quite pertinent: "It will not be
the newness of the covenant, but its stability." The covenant with
Israel is an everlasting covenant. Jehovah would not be Jehovah, if an
entirely new commencement could take place; [Greek: lego de]--so the
Apostle writes in Rom. xv. 8--[Greek: Iesoun Christon diakonon
gegenesthai peritomes huper aletheias theou eis to bebaiosai tas
epangelias ton pateron. ta de ethne huper eleous doxasai ton theon].
The sending of Christ with His gifts and blessings, the making of the
New Covenant, is thus the consequence of the covenant-faithfulness of
God. If then the Old and New Covenants are here contrasted, the former
cannot designate the relation of God to Israel _per se_, and in its
whole extent, but it must rather designate the former mode only, in
which this relation was manifested,--that whereby the Lord had, up to
the time of the Prophet, manifested himself as the God of Israel. With
this former imperfect form, the future more perfect form is here
contrasted, under the name of the New Covenant. The New Covenant which
is to take the place of the Old, when looking to the form (comp. Heb.
viii. 13: [Greek: en to legein. Kainen, pepalaioke ten proten. to de
palaioumenon kai geraskon, engus aphanismou]), is, in substance, the
realization of the Old. These remarks are in perfect harmony with that
which was formerly said concerning the meaning of [Hebrew: krt brit].
We saw that this expression does not designate an act only once done,
[Pg 433] by which a covenant is solemnly sanctioned, but rather that it
is used of every action, by which a covenant-relation is instituted or
confirmed.