On The New Covenant (Part 2)

by on July 25, 2025

Having looked at Jeremiah 31 in the last part, we now turn to specific New Testament passages that shape our understanding of the new covenant as essentially a new administration of the Abrahamic covenant.

2 Corinthians 3

The New Testament view of the “new covenant” becomes clearer in 2 Corinthians 3 when, as part of his self-defense (v. 1), Paul appeals to the nature of the new covenant in order to vindicate his fidelity to his office and to the Corinthians. The Corinthian congregation itself is Paul’s “letter of recommendation” (v. 2). That letter is “written on our hearts.” As he invokes the imagery from Jeremiah 31 he creates an analogy that he completes through the passage. The congregation is a letter written by the Holy Spirit (v. 3) not on tablets of stone, but on fleshy tablets. One should not miss the significance of the contrast here between “tablets of stone” (Moses, the Sinaitic covenant) and “tablets of flesh.” The contrast established is not between Abraham (or Noah) and the new covenant, but between Moses and the new covenant. This is the conceptual background in place when Paul finally uses the expression “new covenant” in verse 6. The old covenant was such that it could be broken, but the new covenant cannot be broken. Paul is a minister of an immutable covenant, and he connects his trustworthiness to the nature of the covenant. This is the conceptual framework within which one must read the contrast between “Spirit” (the Holy Spirit) and “letter.” The letter is the Mosaic law, the old covenant. The Mosaic law was intended to drive sinners to the knowledge of their sin and to cause them to seek a Savior. The Spirit gives (new) life. He sovereignly regenerates. And now, in the new covenant, we live in light of the fulfillment of the promises embedded in the typological revelation generally and in the Mosaic (old) covenant specifically.

Again, this sort of contrast is not utterly new. The promise of “tablets of flesh” and the contrast between them and “tablets of stone” come from Ezekiel 11:9 and 36:26. In the old, Mosaic covenant itself, Yahweh called the Israelites to “circumcise the foreskin of your hearts” (Deut 10:16) and promised that he himself would “circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live” (Deut 30:6). Thus, the promises and the realities, for those who believe, are not utterly new.

Hebrews

The writer to the Hebrews, facing the possibility of the defection of Jewish Christians back to the Mosaic system and to Judaism, argues that the Mosaic law, “a former commandment,” has been “set aside because of its weakness and uselessness” (Heb 7:19). Indeed, the argument of this section of the epistle to the Hebrew Christians is an extended case for the superiority of the new covenant to the old, and thus it is important to note how he thinks of the “old covenant” (to use Paul’s language). According to Hebrews, Jesus is the “surety of a better covenant” (Heb 7:22). He argues from the inferiority of the old covenant priesthood for the superiority of Christ’s priesthood (Heb 7:27–8:5).

In Hebrews 8:6 the writer argues, “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.” Here we see Hebrews equating the old promises to the old covenant. The new covenant has better promises and is, to the same degree the promises are superior, a better covenant. The old covenant here refers not to Abraham or to Noah but to Moses. Failure to observe this distinction will result in significant confusion about the message of the writer to the Hebrews. Remember, he is writing to Jewish Christians who are being tempted to become Judaizers, to place themselves back under the Mosaic law, to forget that the Mosaic law/covenant/priesthood was intentionally temporary and, having been fulfilled by Christ, has expired. Indeed, the Ebionite movement in the early church testifies to the fact that not a few Hebrew Christians succumbed to the temptation to go back to Moses.

We do not have to wonder about the true meaning of Jeremiah 31:31 since the writer to the Hebrews gives us a divinely inspired interpretation of the passage. In verses 8–12 he quotes Jeremiah. In verse 7 he says that if the “first [covenant]” had been “faultless,” there would have been no need for a second covenant. It is clear in context that the “first covenant” here refers to the covenant described in verse 6. The only covenant under consideration here, apart from the new, better covenant, is the Mosaic, old, obsolete, inferior covenant. These are the sorts of adjectives Hebrews uses in 8:13. The old covenant is “worn out” and “old.” Here the writer to the Hebrews uses the same distinction as Paul, but he intensifies it.

We can be sure that Hebrews has Moses in mind because in chapter 9 he begins to illustrate the old, worn out, inferior covenant by describing the tabernacle. The tent of meeting and subsequent developments were part of the Mosaic cultus (worship), not the Abrahamic or Noahic. He calls this the regulations for worship belonging to the “first” [covenant]. It is so obvious to the writer that he simply uses the adjective, because the noun to be qualified, covenant, is implied. In 9:4 he speaks of the “tablets of the covenant” and the “ark of the covenant.” He pursues this line of argumentation in 9:15. This is a difficult passage to be sure, but for our purposes we need only observe that the contrast here is between the “new covenant” and “the first covenant.” In 10:16 he closes this major section of the letter (sermon?) by going back to the passage with which he began, Jeremiah 31:31. Throughout the entire section, the contrast has been between the “new covenant” (which is made with blood) and the “first covenant” which is “old,” “worn out,” and “inferior.” None of these adjectives are used to describe the promise given to Abraham. The problem is not inherent to the Abrahamic (or Noahic) promises, but the Mosaic covenant can be described thus because it was (Gal 3) never intended to be anything but temporary.

The fundamental contrast here is between typology (illustration of something to come) and reality or fulfillment. This is why Hebrews 12:26 contrasts the blood of Christ, the blood of the new covenant, with the blood of Abel (a pre-Mosaic character). It makes the distinction because Abel was a martyr looking forward to the reality, to Christ by faith. Unlike Abel, we have the reality. The point here is to contrast even righteous Abel with the even more holy, more righteous, and ultimately efficacious death of Jesus the Mediator. One might argue that the inclusion of Abel in the “old covenant” is implied by the use of the expression “new covenant,” but that would miss the point of his inclusion. It comes at the end of an explicit contrast between Sinai (which is, strictly speaking “the old covenant” throughout Hebrews and elsewhere in the New Testament) and Zion. In verse 23 he associates the “assembly of the firstborn” in heaven with the “spirits of the righteous made perfect” with Jesus “the mediator of the new covenant.” The invocation of Jesus as the covenant mediator (opposite Moses) leads him to the “sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.” By the end of verse 24 his attention has arguably moved beyond the contrast between Moses and Sinai to a broader contrast between all typological elements and the reality in Christ. The invocation of Abel here does not change the essential identification of the “old covenant” with Moses and Sinai.

Whatever potential difficulties might be created for the general thesis of this essay by the inclusion of Abel, the overwhelming evidence from 2 Corinthians 3 and from Hebrews chapters 7–10 is that the New Testament identifies the “old covenant” with Moses and with Sinai. The figure of Abraham and the promises of the new covenant, expressed in the old covenant in typological terms and quoted in the New Testament, function rather differently. Abraham is the paradigm of the new covenant Christian. Paul uses him so explicitly in Romans 4. Abraham is the father of gentile Christians because he believed before he was circumcised, and he is the father of Jewish Christians because he believed after he was circumcised. Abraham is Paul’s proof that circumcision is immaterial to justification (acceptance with God). What matters is faith, and Abraham is the father all Christians, of all believers.

Galatians Chapters 3–4

The Galatian Christians faced a grave threat to their spiritual life. Judaizing Christians wanted not only to take them back to the Mosaic laws and ceremonies, but they made obedience to them a condition of justification (acceptance with God). They did not overtly deny the need to trust in Jesus, but they marginalized him by attempting to add the Mosaic ceremonies to his finished work as the sole ground of acceptance with God. In chapter 2 Paul brutally exposes their error and its effects, even going so far as to highlight the apostle Peter’s fall into theological error. In our politically correct culture, were one to write such a letter he would certainly find himself facing ecclesiastical charges for violating the ninth commandment. After all, Peter was only being selective in his choice of dinner companions. Who was Paul to judge? Apparently, Peter took a rather different view and he repented of his corruption of the gospel of Christ.

In chapter 3 Paul puts the question directly. Either the Galatians stand before the righteous God on the basis of their doing or by trusting in the finished work of Christ for sinners. As in Romans 4, the paradigm of the believing sinner justified by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith (resting and receiving) alone (sola fide), is Abraham (Gal 3:6). Of course the Scribes and Pharisees laid claim to being Abraham’s children (John 8). Jesus denied their claim. He called them children of Satan because they were not trusting in Christ but in their own, inherent righteousness. Paul takes up our Lord’s prosecution of moralism and legalism. It is not those who want to present themselves to God on the basis of their doing who are Abraham’s children (Gal 3:7). Rather it is those, whether Jew or gentile, who trust in Jesus alone for their righteousness who are Abraham’s children (v.8).

Again, it is the blessing of Abraham (v. 14) who comes to those sinners who trust in Jesus’ finished work. As in 2 Corinthians 3, to illustrate and confirm his case, Paul appeals to the nature of covenants and then to the history of redemption. In verse 15 he establishes his first premise. Covenants, in their nature, are inviolable. Once in place, covenants do what they do because they are what they are.

The second premise is that God made an immutable covenant with Abraham (v. 16). For Paul, the Abrahamic covenant is, if you will, the baseline account of the covenant of grace. This does not mean that there are no other manifestations of the covenant of grace in redemptive history but rather that when he wants to explain the covenant of grace and give its clearest manifestation he appeals to the Abrahamic covenant—the promises God made to Abraham: I will be your God and a God to your offspring (seed). Contrary to the Judaizers (John 8), national Israel is not the seed. Jesus is the seed, that is, the fulfillment of the promise. Whatever blessing there is to be had from God, whatever blessings there are in the covenant, are by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

From these two premises Paul tackles the inevitable Judaizing question: But what about Moses? What about the Sinai covenant? Did not God make an inviolable covenant with us through Moses? In other words, like many American evangelicals and a few Reformed folk, the Judaizers want to make the Abrahamic covenant temporary and the Mosaic, Sinaitic, old covenant permanent.

Paul, however, has it the other way round. The Abrahamic covenant is the baseline and the Mosaic covenant, as important as it was, is subordinate to it. The law, that is, the Mosaic covenant (as becomes clear in chapter 4) which came four hundred years later, cannot annul the Abrahamic covenant. Paul leverages Moses with Abraham. On the basis of Galatians 3:15 we might even say that if the Abrahamic covenant is the definition of “covenant” then the Mosaic law was not a “covenant,” at least not in the same sense. Paul’s point here is that, in the terms in which he is speaking about Moses and Abraham, they operate on utterly different principles. The law, the Mosaic covenant, says “Do this and live.” The Abrahamic covenant says, “Receive freely, through faith alone, benefits you have not earned but that were earned for you by another.”

It would not follow at all to conclude that, for Paul, those under Moses were saved by works. That would contradict his basic principle in 3:18. The inheritance can only come to sinners by grace alone, through faith alone (see 2:16). For Paul, the legal nature of the law (the old, Mosaic covenant) was fundamentally pedagogical. It was intended to teach sinners that they could not meet the terms of the law and to drive them to seek a Savior outside of themselves. This becomes clearer in verse 19. The law was added, that is, it was superimposed upon the Abrahamic covenant of grace. In its nature it was temporary and pedagogical. It was not intended to nor could it change the essentially gracious nature of the Abrahamic covenant. It had a specific function. It was designed to be obsolete. The pedagogical function and intent of the Mosaic (old) covenant is evident in the words: “Because of transgressions.” The temporary character of the Mosaic covenant is evident in the words, “until the seed should come.” That Sinai is in view is clear in the phrase “through angels.” This is a reference to the giving of the law at Sinai, at which angels were said to be present (see Heb 1–2).

The Mosaic law is not contrary to the promises (v. 21). In God they cohere completely! For us sinners, however, the law could not give life (v. 21). Righteousness before God by the law is not possible for sinners. To make the law a vehicle for life, for sinners, is to turn the world on its head. “Scripture imprisoned everything under sin” by the law. Righteousness and life are given to sinners only “by faith in Jesus Christ” (v. 22). The Mosaic law was a schoolmaster, a harsh tutor (vv. 23–24). The intent of the law was that we might turn to Christ and be “justified by faith” (v. 24).

The great point of Galatians chapter 4 is to illustrate and elaborate on the tutorial, temporary, pedagogical function of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant was a restatement of the law given to Adam. This is why Paul calls the law the stoicheia (creational principle; see also v. 9). The Mosaic covenant was temporary, but Jesus came in the “fullness of time” (v. 4). The Mosaic covenant is contrasted with the arrival of the reality. Jesus came to redeem those who were under the law, whether expressed in creational or Mosaic terms. Ultimately, it is all the same thing: do this and live. Adam was under a “do this and live eschatologically” principle. He failed. The Second Adam was born of a woman, under the (Mosaic and creational) law to fulfill it and to dispense to us sinners a gracious adoption (vv. 5–6).

He completes his contrast between Moses and Abraham by turning back to the story of Abraham. He had two sons, one from Hagar and one from Sarah (vv. 21–22). One is of “the flesh” and the other “of promise.” He makes Hagar stand for law and doing, and Sarah, the sinner, to stand for the covenant of grace. He makes it explicit. Hagar equals Sinai (Moses and the old covenant), who gives birth to slaves (vv. 24–25). Those who are obsessed with the earthly Jerusalem (the Judaizers) are still in slavery. Those who have received the promises of the covenant of grace, through faith alone, look to the true Jerusalem, the real Jerusalem, in heaven (v. 26).

Again, everyone who was justified under Moses was justified (accepted by God) solely by grace alone, through faith alone. Hebrews chapters 11 and 12 say that all the believers who lived during the typology, before Moses and under Moses, were looking forward to Christ. The covenant of grace is the only way sinners are justified and, after Adam’s fall and in Adam’s fall, we are all sinners (Romans 3). The Abrahamic covenant was operative under and during the temporary, typological Mosaic covenant. They co-existed temporarily to accomplish a specific purpose.

These are rich chapters, but remember the point here is that at every point Paul norms the Mosaic, old covenant with the Abrahamic covenant. To return to Hebrews for a moment, this is essentially the same argument made there. In Hebrews 3:1–6 the writer says, in effect, that the Judaizers want to make Jesus work for Moses. Not at all. Moses works for Jesus. The old covenant serves the new covenant. Moses was a servant in God’s house, but Jesus is the eternally begotten, consubstantial Son of the builder. By analogy, the model for the new covenant is the Abrahamic covenant. The Mosaic covenant was intended to do nothing more than to serve as a historical footlight, to bring attention to the covenant of grace. More than that, the substance of the new covenant is the Abrahamic covenant.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Heidelblog in 2011.

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

You can find the whole series here. 

RESOURCES

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

    Post authored by:

  • R. Scott Clark
    Author Image

    R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.

    More by R. Scott Clark ›

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!