Four Reasons Why the New Covenant is Better than the Old One.

The Old and New Testaments of our Bible testify, and I am speaking very simply, to two major “covenants” or what we more commonly refer to as “contracts”.  The old contract was between God and a group of specifically chosen people, and the new contract was between God and anyone who agreed to his terms.  Along with this “specific versus universal” difference, when the two contracts are compared, they are quite interesting; especially when it comes to salvation and mediation.

A contract is a legally binding document, typically made up of two or more parties, that has a beginning and end date, with a set of terms or requirements in between those dates.  If the terms are satisfied, or broken, the contract ends.  In the Old Testament, we read that God made a contract between himself and the descendants of Abraham (to whom God promised to make a great nation), and that these descendants were to worship him exclusively.  The agreement came after their deliverance from Egypt and in the form of a written Law (given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai). The terms were both unconditional (e.g. You Shall Not Kill), as well as conditional, or sort of quid pro quo (e.g. “If you do this, I will do this”).  Before a conditional promise of God could be granted, the chosen people had to obey; first. 

In addition to the Law, God chose Moses’ brother Aaron to be the High Priest who would intercede (mediate) between the people and God.  The people could only approach God on his terms and through his High Priest, and later ancillary priests from Aaron’s tribe of Levi.  Of the twelve tribes of Israel that descended from Abraham, through Isaac then Jacob, only the Levites could serve as priests to the Most High God.  These priests would intercede between God and the people, and one form of that mediation was daily animal sacrifices.  Because, “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins,” the priests had to regularly sacrifice animals on their behalf, as well as that of the people to atone for their collective and individual sins.  Now, this old contract was not a perfect agreement by any stretch, but it was a beginning, and while the people often failed in keeping up their part of the bargain, God, who was fully aware, also promised that one day in the future a contract with better terms would come into effect; one that would include a Messiah.  (I should mention here that “better” does not mean morally better, but effectively, as we will see).   Until that time arrived, however, the Hebrews were to obey the Law of Moses and maintain a forward-looking faith in the coming Messiah and the new contract.

Fast forward to the advent of Jesus Christ, and the old contract begins to crumble.  Not simply because Jesus arrived (as the promised Messiah of God), but because the chosen people rejected him.  He finally arrived – and they did not want him!  Why?  Somewhere along the line of Hebrew history the concept of the “coming Messiah” began to take the shape of a promised political ruler who would free the people from their temporal subjection to foreign rulers; like the Greeks and Romans.  At first, everyone but the Sadducees, Pharisees and Herodians were excited about Jesus who did miracles and spoke with authority.  They simply assumed he would become a King on earth, but they were wrong, for as Jesus told Pontius Pilot, “My kingdom is not of this world.” It was a bitter disappointment to what was left of Abraham’s descendants. Their rejection, however, of the terms of the old contract, proved to be beneficial for the entire world.   Here I will offer four examples.

First, the old contract, was exclusively between God and Israel; it did not include anyone outside the “family” so to speak.  Under the new contract, the parties shifted between God and Israel to God and Anyone – who believed and followed him.  The path to salvation was no longer through the Mosaic Law and solely for the Hebrews and converts, but became available to everyone!

Second, the old agreement offered conditional terms to be followed that were often motivated by fear (e.g. consequences of disobedience).  Bad things happened to both individuals and groups of people when they did not obey, for example, you were stoned to death for adultery.  The new agreement, still espoused a moral code, such as the Ten Commandments, but without temporal punishment as the motivation. Obedience changed from out of fear to out of love, for Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”   

Third, the method of worship would alter dramatically with the new agreement.  Under the old contract, worship revolved around the Temple at Jerusalem, where we have already mentioned the daily sacrifice of animals for the forgiveness of sins.  Under the terms of the new contract, physical worship would no longer be tied to a specific place, and animal sacrifice would cease completely because Jesus, as the perfect “Lamb of God” was slain for the sins of the world, and his blood sacrifice pacified God, once-and-for-all-time.   

Lastly, and this ties in with worship, there was no further need for a Levitical priesthood or High Priest to serve God at the Temple (which was destroyed in 70 A.D.), and that only makes sense, but here is the interesting part; we maintained the position of a High Priest, but not a Levite.  From the beginning it was only the Levites who served as priests, but with the advent of Jesus Christ – who was born from the tribe of Judah – the entire concept of High Priest changed as well.  Jesus was ordained after the Order of Melchizedek.  The role of High Priest altered from purely human to mirror human and divine, and this was more accurately reflected in the person of Melchizedek.  So who was Melchizedek?

Melchizedek (Genesis 14) was something of an anomaly, but in a good way, for he came to represent, beforehand, the new role of High Priest in the new agreement.  Sacred Scripture tells us that he was the King of Salem (Salem means “Peace”), and priest of El Elyon or the “Most High God.”  While Abram (whose name had not yet changed to Abraham) was busy fighting for the land God had given him, this king and priest blessed him, and in return, Abram gave him a tenth of his treasure. Melchizedek’s tie to Jesus Christ comes by his life and position.  Like Jesus, he was both a King and High Priest.  In addition, because there was no record of his birth or death (or even lineage), he appeared as one who was eternal, and as the scripture says, “like the Son of God.” So, unlike the Levitical High Priest who was born, served temporarily, and died, the life of Melchizedek better exemplified that of an “eternal King and High Priest,” and thus was Jesus ordained.   

To sum up, the new contract is effectively better than the old because, a) salvation is now available to the whole world; b) love, rather than fear, has become the motivation for obedience; c) one perfect sacrifice pleased God for all time; and d) a temporary and purely human High Priest was replaced forever by a perfect and eternal one; Jesus Christ, who we may approach directly.

The segue between the Old and New Covenants is a fascinating study in the salvific history of humanity.  If interested, a good place to start is with the Book of Hebrews.