Why did a perfect God make two very different covenants, like a plan A and plan B?

it is interesting to look at the covenants. In fact, god made many covenants. He made one with Noah, Abraham, The CHildren of Israel, Us, etc. THis whole idea of a covenant is not new. THere are certain elements in the covenant that form it. First the Ruling party: GOd. Next the Cooperating partners, Israel, me or you etc. Then the sign of the covenant: baptism, circumcision, etc. putting all those things together we have a covenant.

what was the problem with the first covenant. God said, obey and live

Is this a biblical position? It is just as important to understand what the Old Covenant was not, as to know what it was. Right now, let us look at three absolute proofs that the covenant which disappeared was not the Ten Commandments. Then we will determine by comparing scripture with scripture just what the Old Covenant was.

First of all, we notice that the Old Covenant had some poor promises in it. The New Covenant, we are told, "was established upon better promises." Verse 6. Tell me, has anyone ever been able to point out any poor promises in the Ten Commandments? Never. On the contrary, Paul declares that they were very good. "Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth." Ephesians 6:1-3.

This declaration alone is sufficient to show that the writer of Hebrews was not charging the moral law with any weak promises. The Old Covenant, whatever else it might be, could never be the Ten Commandments.

The second thing wrong with the Old Covenant was that it was faulty. The Bible says, "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Hebrews 8:7. Let me ask you a question: Has any man ever been able to find a fault or a flaw in the handwriting of God? The psalmist declared, "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Psalm 19:7. Paul wrote, "Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." Romans 7:12.

Does that sound like something weak and imperfect? No law could be perfect and faulty at the same time. It becomes more and more apparent that the Old Covenant could not have been the Ten Commandments.

Finally, though, we read the most dramatic thing about the Old Covenant - it was to be abolished! "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Hebrews 8:13. Now we can ask a serious question that should settle every doubt on this matter. Did the great moral law of Ten Commandments vanish away? Anyone who has read the New Testament must answer, Absolutely not. Paul affirms the exact opposite about the law. He asked, "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." Romans 3:31.

Does the Bible contradict itself? Can something vanish away and be established at the same time? Did the same writer say opposite things about the same law? Just to be certain that Paul was not saying that the Old Covenant was the law, let us insert the words "Old Covenant" instead of the word "law" into Romans 3:31. "Do we than make void the Old Covenant through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Old Covenant."

That doesn't sound right at all, does it? We know that the Old Covenant had vanished away and could never be spoken of in this way. Very clearly, then, we can see that the covenant which came to an end could not have been the Ten Commandments.

What Was the Old Covenant?

Having found what the Old Covenant was not, we are now ready to identify it specifically from the Word. To do so we must go back in the Bible to the book of Exodus. Many people have failed to see that there was more than one covenant involved at Mt. Sinai. God called Moses up into the mountain before He gave the law and proposed a covenant between Him and His people: "And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel; ... if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me ... an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel." Exodus 19:3-6.

Notice how God asked Moses to present His offer to the people. Here are all the elements of a true covenant. Conditions and promises are laid down for both sides. If the children of Israel accept God's proposal, a covenant will be established. How did they respond to the divine offer? "And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord." Exodus 19:7, 8.

Just as soon as that answer went back to God, the basis for the Old Covenant was set up. But before it could go into formal operation there had to be a sealing or ratifying of the pact. This ritualistic service involved the sprinkling of the blood of an ox on the people and is described in Exodus 24:4-8: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children of Israel which ... sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words."

Again we are reminded that this covenant was not the law itself but was made "concerning all these words." The Ten Commandments were the basis for the agreement. The people promised to keep that law, and God promised to bless them in return. The crucial weakness in the whole arrangement revolved around the way Israel promised. There was no suggestion that they could not fully conform to every requirement of God. Neither was there any application for divine assistance. "We can do it," they insisted. Here is a perfect example of leaning on the flesh and trusting human strength. The words are filled with self-confidence. "All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient."

Were they able to keep that promise? In spite of their repeated assurances, they miserably broke their word before Moses could even get off the mountain with the tables of stone. Do we begin to see where the poor promises lay in the Old Covenant?

The book of Hebrews begins to unfold. There God is reported as "finding fault with them." Hebrews 8:8. He said, "Because they continued not in my covenant ... I regarded them not." Verse 9. The blame is placed squarely upon the human side of the mutual pact. Thus, we can see exactly why Paul wrote as he did about this Old Covenant in Hebrews 8. It did gender to bondage, it proved faulty, had poor promises, and vanished away - all because the people failed to obey their part of the agreement. Putting all these things together we can see why a new covenant was desperately needed, which would have better promises.

How were the New Covenant promises better? Because God made them, and they guaranteed successful obedience through His strength alone. "I will put my laws into their mind ... I will be to them a God ... I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." Hebrews 8:10-12.

How was the New Covenant ratified? In the same manner that the Old was confirmed - by the shedding of blood. But instead of an ox having to shed its blood, the sinless Son of God would provide the blood of sprinkling: "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ." Hebrews 13:20, 21.

What a contrast to the weak promises of the flesh made by Israel at Sinai. Instead of the people's "we will do," God's New Covenant promise is to "make you perfect in every good work ... working in you." It is no longer human effort. It is not so much you working, but Him "working in you." And how is this power made available? "Through the blood of the everlasting covenant." Because of what Jesus did on the cross.

Since the New Covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, it obviously could not have gone into effect until after Jesus died on the cross. This crucial fact must not be overlooked. Eternal life or death could hinge upon the proper understanding of this key point. Paul wrote, "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth." Hebrews 9:16, 17. The word "testament" is the same as the word "covenant." Only after a man's last will and testament has been ratified by his death can the provisions be executed. In the same way, Christ's covenant or testament would begin to operate just as soon as He had confirmed the covenant by His death at Calvary.

Another text leaves no question on this issue: "Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto." Galatians 3:15. Paul is saying here that after a man's death, his will or covenant cannot be changed. Not one new addition can be made after the death of the testator. The covenant stands forever exactly as it stood when the testator died. After the death of Christ, no change whatsoever could be made in His provisions to save mankind. The conditions were all sealed and ratified by the shedding of blood. Every requirement had been laid down clearly by the perfect pattern of His sinless life and provision had been made for the writing of His magnified law, by the Holy Spirit, upon the mind of each believer.

Under the terms of that New Covenant not one soul would be left to struggle helplessly against the powerful urges of a fallen nature. "Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Romans 5:20. Eternal promises rooted in the changeless nature of God would provide power to overcome every inherited and cultivated weakness. No wonder the Bible emphasizes the "better promises" of this glorious new agreement!

Now it is easy to understand some of the things Jesus did just before He died. For example, why did He institute the Lord's Supper before His body had been broken? On the Thursday night before His agonizing death on Friday, Jesus met with His disciples in that upper room. Holding the cup in His hands, He said, "This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Matthew 26:28.

Isn't it curious that Christ would say those words before His blood had been shed? He was commanding a memorial for an event which had not even happened yet! Why? Because it had to be introduced before His death in order to come under the New Covenant. Nothing could be added after His death.

Now, let me come back to the story I started to tell at the beginning of the book. I had just finished preaching on the subject of the Sabbath in one of my evangelistic crusades. As I stepped off the platform to greet the people as they left, three young men blocked my way in the aisle. One of them addressed me in quite a loud voice - loud enough to cause about fifty people near the front of the auditorium to stop and listen.

"Brother Joe," he said, "we were disappointed tonight with the way you put us back under the Old Covenant. Don't you realize that we are living under the New Covenant now, and should keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath?"

Although most of the congregation were leaving the building, the group near the front gathered closer to hear all that the young men were saying. It was obvious that I would have to take the time to answer this trio's challenging question. As I suspected they turned out to be young seminarians in training at a local Bible college. Eagerly they held their Bibles in their hands and waited triumphantly for me to answer.

Usually, I do not like to debate controversial matters in a public forum, for fear of stirring combative natures, but there seemed no way to avoid dealing with these ministerial students. Anyway, they had my path completely blocked, and the circle of listeners looked at me expectantly for some explanation.

"Well, it seems as though you have studied the subject of the covenants quite deeply," I suggested.

"Oh, yes," they affirmed, "we know all about the covenants."

"Good," I replied. "You undoubtedly know when the Old Covenant was instituted." One of them spoke up quickly, "It was started at Mt. Sinai."

"And how was it ratified?" I asked. Without a moment's hesitation one of them answered, "By the sprinkling of the blood of an ox."

"Very good," I commented, "and how was the New Covenant ratified?" All three chorused the answer, "By the blood of Jesus on the cross."

I commended the young men for their knowledge of the Scriptures and asked them to read me two verses out of their own Bibles - Hebrews 9:16, 17 and Galatians 3:15. They responded eagerly to the invitation, and read the verses, commenting on each one after reading. "We agree that the New Covenant did not go into effect until after Christ died, and nothing can be added or taken away after He ratified it on he cross," the spokesman for the group asserted. All three nodded their heads emphatically over this point.

I said, "Now you must answer two more questions for me. Here's the first one, and you must think carefully to give me the correct answer: When did Sunday-keeping begin?" There was a moment of shocked silence, and then another, and another. The boys looked at each other, and then down at their feet, and then back at me. I gently prodded them for the answer, "Surely you can tell me the answer to this question. You have known all the others, and have answered correctly. When and why do you think people began keeping Sunday?"

Finally, one of them said, "We keep Sunday in honor of the resurrection of Jesus." I said, "Then I must ask you my last question. How could Sundaykeeping be a part of the New Covenant? You just stated that nothing could be added after the death of Christ. He died on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday. If Sunday was added after Jesus died, it could never be a part of the New Covenant, could it?"

The three young men shuffled their feet, looked helplessly around, and one of them said, "We'll study into that and talk to you later." Then they fled from that auditorium as fast as they could go. I can assure you, also, that they never returned to talk further about the covenants.

The fact is that Sundaykeeping, even if it had started on the day of the resurrection, would have been three days too late to get into the New Covenant. Both Bible and history prove that Sunday was never observed by the apostolic church. It was added much, much later as a result of the gradual apostasy which developed in the early centuries of the church and which culminated in the pagan accommodation of Constantine in 330 A.D.

Millions of modern church members regard Sunday as a sacred day which memorializes the resurrection of Christ. It is certainly true that Christ arose on the first day of the week, but nowhere in the Bible are we commanded to keep that day holy. Events such as the crucifixion and resurrection should mean much to every Christian, but not one intimation is given in the Bible for observing either Friday or Sunday. The only day ever commanded for weekly worship is the seventh day of the week - the same Sabbath Jesus kept during creation week and the one He will keep with His people throughout all eternity. Genesis 2:1-3; Isaiah 66:22, 23.

The very strongest reason for rejecting Sunday worship is that it was not included in the New Covenant requirements which were ratified by the death of Jesus. If Christ had desired His resurrection to be memori- alized by Sundaykeeping, He could have introduced it on that same Thursday night of the Last Supper. Then it would have become a part of the New Covenant, along with the Communion service and foot-washing. Jesus did not hesitate to command the observance of His death, even though it had not taken place yet. Just as easily He could have commanded the observance of His resurrection, which was still future, in order that it might become a New Covenant requirement. But He did not! And no one else ever did either, until Paul's prophecy began to be fulfilled about an apostasy following his departure. Acts 20:29, 30. He spoke also of a falling away which would lead to the enthronement of Antichrist. 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4. But true it is that no hint of any change of the law is given in the Scriptures. The unchangeable moral law was preserved in both Old and New Covenants as the perfect revelation of God's will.

so to wrap things up, why two covenants, different people and and promises to fit their need. One rejected, but God wanted to work with them. In the end, we accept and works with us.

Because it was an example for the future. To show us that we can't keep God's laws.Only a perfect person could and none of us is perfect.Abraham had it made,he walked by faith.When Moses took the children of Israel out of Egypt,God asked "Are they willing to keep my laws?"

They should have said ,"We can't Lord,it is too hard! We'd rather walk like Abraham". But they didn't.They egotisticly said "All that the Lord says we will do".

And before Moses could even come down from the mountain,they were already sinning grieviously.

He didn't turn himself into Jesus.Jesus is the same essence but a separate personality(John 1,Collosians1 ,Hebrews 1)

What the New Testament shows is ,we can't do it .We need a Savior.Someone better than us to stand in for us. Jesus did this willingly "For the joy that would be set before Him"..Hebrews says.

Now as Paul says in Galatians 3 and Collosians 2,we walk by the Spirit not by the law.The Spirit of God controls our life(if we let Him).God has written His laws on our hearts now,not on tablets of stone.Ezekial says.

God made man. They worshiped Him. He gave them rules to live by ( which the principles we still live by ) Some people pulled away from God. But the ones that stuck with him were the Jews. But even they kept leaving Him. So he would allow other nations to take them captive. They would pray for God to help them and he eventually did each time.

God sent his son, not himself, to teach mankind (the Jews) how they can worship God to be approved by him. They rejected Jesus and killed him. God turned his back on the organized Jewish nation.

He made a new covenant with all the inhabitants of the world since Jesus death fulfilled the Old Law Covenant. All those bringing their lives into harmony with Jesus teachings will become part of the Kingdom arrangement.

Now we are under the Messianic Kingdom Government rule. Jesus is the King for 1000 years to straighten all things out.

And like his sacrifice of his life he will offer the perfect earth, with perfect mankind to his father to be blessed. And Jehovah will once again rule as Sovereign of the Universe with God abiding subjects.

God carved 10 of those laws into stone & those 10 still stand today- never did Jesus say to abolish the the commandments-- the ceremonial laws were abolished at the cross because-Jesus acting as our perfect Lamb for sacrifice-- eliminated the need to have the animal sacrifices-- His death covered us all with his grace- however he instructs us throughout the New Testament-- to follow his Commandments- so according to Jesus --both ARE required for salvation- even to the end of

time-- (Rev 12:17, Rev 14:12)

If you were to but read the letters of Paul, you would find the answer to your question.

Is reading so difficult for you?

Hint: The focus is not the law, but the heart. Israel collectively didn't have the heart to follow God, and their resultant lawlessness only proved it.

Your question also demonstrates a total lack of understanding concerning the new covenant.

Furthermore, there are more than just these two covenants made by God in Scripture.

Now I'll ask you a question... why are so many like you content to remain so ignorant regarding Scripture?

.

in accordance to the Trinity doctrine, Jesus is God, yet a separate man or woman from the father. The doctrine teaches that there are 3 separate persons -- the father, The Son and The Holy Spirit -- who all contain one God. If this coaching is actual, there should not be any scripture interior the Bible that portrays Jesus as an entity separate and diverse from God -- separate and diverse from the father, sure; yet no longer separate and diverse from God. by way of assessment, be conscious that there is not any scripture interior the Bible that portrays the father as a separate and diverse entity from God. it could be completely ridiculous, complicated, pointless and contradictory for the Bible to lower back and lower back consult with Jesus as an entity separate and diverse from God, if Jesus is God. however the scriptures you quoted do merely that. frequently they talk of Jesus being on the appropriate hand of, no longer the father, yet God, subsequently contradicting the Trinity doctrine. because of the fact the Bible is God's be attentive to reality, the actuality that it so oftentimes contradicts the Trinity doctrine can recommend in basic terms one factor -- the Trinity doctrine is fake. (John 17:17) i think -- because of the fact i think maximum folk have a minimum of a modicum of intelligence -- that deep down, many Trinitarians understand that the doctrine is fake. yet delight and/or a want to extra wholesome in with the 'Christian' crowd compels them to play alongside, pretending or convincing themselves that they think it. Many are subsequently in a state of denial approximately this falsehood. merely look at how they answer the question. Many won't even address the particular concern you have raised, head on -- because of the fact they are in a position to't. Their in basic terms option is to overlook approximately it and quote different so called 'evidence texts'. it is not because of the fact they lack intelligence. it is using the fact there is not any credible and passable argument to disprove what the Bible -- God's authoritative be attentive to reality -- very blatantly shows.

God had to prepare the world for the perfect time to send His Son. The first covenant was a way of showing people that we are not capable of living up to God's perfect standards, and we need another way. Thanks to God, He gave us that other way in His Son!

Because its mans nature to try to go against the rules and laws. Maybe God in monotheism is nearsighted, haha.

Lucipher rebelled and that changed things....then Adam rebelled....then the ppl of Moses....humans were constantly screwing everything up....so He made a way for everyone to live again..

If god wants a ridiculous plan, so be it, he's god who are we to criticize how stupid it is?

you are clearly very confused.. go and have a lie down..

am kiddin' ... there is no deviation from any plan...

good luck

emma x