Turn in your Bibles, if you would,
to Galatians, the third chapter. We'll talk about contracts in
the Bible. One of the most interesting courses
I had in school was contract law. And even though we trashed
the lawyers a lot in talk, it's a really interesting subject,
contracts. And there's plenty of contracts
in the Bible. And what I'd like to talk to you this afternoon
about is the Abrahamic covenant and whether it's a contract or
not. Contract law for humans has been
throughout history. And it's a very interesting part
of history. There have been all kinds of agreements between people,
nations, individuals, and so forth. And there's plenty of
that in the Old Testament also. The Hebrew word for contract
or covenant is berith. And it means a contract between
two parties most of the time. Either between nations, between
individuals, Marriage is a contract. We deal in contracts every day
and don't even know it. In modern history, England was the
one that really established contract law like it is now. Contracts are very simple. There
are three aspects to a normal bilateral contract between two
parties. One is you have to have an offer. The second thing is you have
to have an acceptance of that offer. And thirdly, you have
to have a consideration, which is some kind of value exchange.
For instance, let's say you're going to sell your car. First
of all, you're going to set a price on it, or you probably will. That's not the offer. The offer
has to come from someone else to you. So that person reads
the offer you're suggesting. just like when you go into a
McDonald's and you see the sign board up there for food, you're
going to offer them the price that they're suggesting. They're
going to offer, the buyer of your car is going to offer the
price you're suggesting, usually. Maybe not. And so the offer is
made, then there is an acceptance, and they call this the mirror
image rule. The acceptance has to be for
exactly the offer. So if you offer something less
for the car you want to buy, then the person says, well, no,
we're not at mirror image yet. And they give you an option for
something lower. You say that exact amount, you're
finally at the mirror image, and you have the offer and the
acceptance being equal. And then the Consideration is the payment. Have you ever sold a car to a
relative or a friend for a dollar? Why did you sell it for a dollar?
Well, that's telling the legal entities that consideration was
made. The consideration does not have
to be for the real value of the object. It's just the fact that
you have considered the value in the exchange. acceptance and
consideration. What about covenants between
God and man? Now let's go to the Bible. In
our society, most of religious society believes that salvation
is a contract between man and God. that man does certain things
and God saves him as a result. It's a contract between two parties.
We know that it's not that way in the Bible and it's a very
interesting study to study the Abrahamic covenant and the covenant
of salvation and to see exactly what's going on there. Salvation
is not a contract in the sense of what I just explained to you.
It never has been in history. So what is it? Remember what
I told you about bilateral contracts. There is what's called a unilateral
contract in contract law. And it's not an offer and an
acceptance, but it's just the deal. They give the example of
a reward for a lost dog. I don't think that's the best
example, but it is an example of a unilateral contract. You
just post a sign and you say, $100 if you find my dog. Bring him to me, I'll give you
the $100. Now, there's not an offer and an agreement in the
consideration. There is just the reward. There's a sense in which that's
not perfect because the party is doing something, bringing
you the dog, and you're giving something back in return. So
that's not the best example. A true unilateral contract is
just something, it's an imposition of the will of someone onto someone
else. And so that's what salvation
is. It's really a promise. A unilateral
contract is just a promise. Now, the word for contract or
covenant in the Septuagint Greek Old Testament and in the New
Testament is diatheke. It is used an abundance of times
in the Old Testament and it's used a lot, 20 or 30 times in
the New Testament. Here are its definitions. Listen
closely to the definitions of diatheke or covenant or contract
in Greek. Number one definition is last
will and testament. requiring a death. When you make
out a will, that is a form of unilateral contract. It's a promise
that you're going to give so-and-so this and so-and-so that. They
don't have to do anything, but you're promising that upon your
death, you're going to do that. So it's a form of unilateral
contract. So that's the first definition
of death vacay. The second definition is the
declaration of one person's will not a contract between two people.
So it's the declaration of someone's will on a subject. That's the second definition
of diatheke. And the third, only the third
definition, is a compact or contract between two parties. So which
of these is the definition for diatheke in the in the New Testament. Let's now go to Galatians 3 verses
15-18. 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. To Abraham and his seed were
the promises made. Notice the word promises. You
can see that word three times. That's not the word diatheke,
but it's explaining what we're all about here. He says not,
and to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which
is Christ. And this I say, that the covenant
that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which
was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that
it should make the promise of none effect. For if the inheritance
be of the law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to
Abraham by promise. So what the Abrahamic Covenant
was, it was a promise. That's all it was. It was not
a bilateral covenant between God and Abraham. God did not
say to Abraham, I'm going to bless you and your seed forever
if you do this for me. He just said to him, I'm going
to bless you and your seed. That's the Abrahamic Covenant.
It was made 430 years before to Abraham before the law came
along. So what was the law? Well, continue
reading in Galatians 3.19-25. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions,
till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made. And
it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a
mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Is the law
then against the promises of God? God forbid. For if there
had been a law given, which could have given life, verily righteousness
should have been by the law. But the scripture has concluded,
all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might
be given to them that believe. He goes on to say a little more.
But he's essentially saying the reason for the law, 430 years
after this promise, was just to show man his deep sin. That's
the main purpose of the law, to show us our sin, to convict
us of sin, to drive us to Christ and to the promise. I find the
law, the Mosaic law, very interesting. And I would submit to you that
the law is a bilateral contract, but
not for salvation. Not for salvation. Never has
been for salvation. When you read the Old Testament
and all of the words about the law, and I'm just now in Deuteronomy
and reading and Moses is repeating the law, he goes on and on and
on about the fact that if you do these commandments, it's going
to be these blessings for If you don't do the commandments,
it's going to be these curses for you. That's a bilateral covenant. God said, through Moses, if you,
my people, will obey my laws, you're going to be blessed. If
you don't obey my laws, you're going to be cursed. But it had
nothing to do with our salvation. And remember, the main purpose
of the law was to show our sin because we don't keep those commandments. The Israelites didn't keep them.
We don't keep them. But they're very, very important
for us to understand where we're at in our journey and the fact
that we sin constantly. Alright, then it's clear that
the main thing here is a promise to Abraham and that it was fulfilled
when Jesus Christ came along. Now, what I'd like to do is to
take you through a few verses all using the word diatheke.
Now, you remember a minute ago we said there's three definitions
to what diatheke means. Number one, last will and testament.
We haven't really talked a lot about that yet. Last will and
testament, it's a form of promise with a death involved. Secondly,
just a pure promise, a declaration of somebody's will. And number
three, a bilateral contract, which it's not in the New Testament. Let's go through the Bible and
New Testament in a few verses. These are all using the word
diatheke. Matthew 26, 28. My purpose in this is to show
you that all these verses relate to a promise, not a bilateral
contract. Matthew 26, 28. For this is my blood of the New
Testament. New diatheke. which is shed for
many for the remission of sins. So there's the blood having to
do with the death. And so I believe what our Lord
is saying mainly here is the definition having to do with
a last will and testament. So this is the new, why do we
call this the New Testament? We don't call it the New Covenant,
do we? We call it the New Testament because it's related to a will. Last will and testament and the
death was of Jesus Christ to put that in effect. Still a promise. Mark 14.24 says the same thing. We won't go there. Look at Luke
22.20. So much of what God has done
for us is grounded in forensics. or legalities. And so even our
Lord Jesus, when he's talking about all this, it's grounded
in contract law. It's about wills. Luke 22 20. Likewise also the cup after supper
saying, this cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for
you. The new will. My last will and
testament. First Corinthians 11.25. 1 Corinthians
11.25 says, After the same manner also he took the cup when he
had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood,
this do ye as often as you drink it in remembrance of me." Now, let's go to Hebrews. Hebrews
uses the word diatheke about 17 times starting in chapter
7. And it's all related to a will,
a last will, the new will, the New Testament. Hebrews 7.22, By so much was Jesus made a surety
of a better testament. So Jesus is the surety. He's
the testator. He's the one whose name goes
on the promise. He's the surety, but he's also
the death required in a will. So it's a promise. Now, notice
in verses 20 and 21 ahead of this. Inasmuch as not without
an oath he was made priest, for those priests, the old ones,
were made without an oath, but this with an oath by him that
said unto him, the Lord swear and will not repent, thou art
a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. What's an oath? An oath is a promise. And the
oath was that Jesus Christ would be the order of Melchizedek from
then on, the high priest, the only high priest. Now look at
Hebrews 8.6. You really have to read Hebrews
8, 9, and 10 all together, actually 7, 8, 9, and 10 to see this whole
flow, which we don't have time to do. But I'm just going to
pick out a few verses in here. You remember that Hebrews is
the book of better things, so this is the better testament,
the New Testament. In 8.6 it says, but now hath
he obtained a more excellent ministry by how much also he
is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better
promises. Better promises. Now look at
verses 7 through 13. This is really the crux of the
matter right here. For if that first covenant, that's
an italicized word, it's not really there, but that's what
it means. For if that first had been faultless, then should no
place have been sought for a second. What do we learn from that? The
first covenant had faults. Why did it have faults? Was it
on God's side? Of course not. Was it on man's
side? Yes. That's why it had a fault.
It was a bilateral contract. It had to have a fault because
man was involved on the other side of the contract. If that first had been faultless,
then should no place have been sought for a second. For finding
fault with them, he saith, behold, the days come saith the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and
with the house of Judah. Now he's quoting Jeremiah. He's
quoting an Old Testament passage. Remember that. Jeremiah 31, 33.
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of
the land of Egypt, because they continued not in my covenant,
and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. In other words, they
broke the covenant. For this is the covenant that
I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith
the Lord. I will put my laws into their
mind and write them in their hearts. And I will be to them
a God and they shall be to me a people. Is that bilateral? No, it's a promise. I'm going
to do this to the elect. I'm going to put these things
right in their mind and heart. And they shall not teach every
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the
Lord. For all shall know me, that's
all the elect, from the least to the greatest. For I will be
merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities
will I remember no more. 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." The old covenant had faults because
it had people involved in it. Humans didn't uphold it. You
know the whole story. God sent the nation of Israel
into captivity because they didn't keep his covenant. And then he
brought them back and so forth. Chapter 9 of Hebrews, we're not
going to go through it, but chapter 9 is telling us that the first
covenant had these limitations. First of all, the tabernacle.
It was a great design tabernacle. It's wonderful to read about
it and all the exact proportions of everything and how it was
put together and dismantled and then taken on the road and put
back up again. But that tabernacle had limitations. It was just a physical thing.
It was a type of the real thing in heaven. So it had limitations.
Second limitation was the sacrifices. All of that blood and gore in
the Old Testament, God wanted it. I mean, it's not bad, but
the sacrifice of animals never did anything permanent. They
had to come back every year to the Holy of Holies and do the
Day of Atonement, the big day of the sacrifice. And it was
a constant reminder of their sin, but it never paid for their
sins. Then the The priests themselves, they
were imperfect and they weren't great priests for the people. They were just types of the real
priest, the high priest Jesus Christ who came later. The blood
of animals versus, that was imperfect, versus the blood of Christ which
is perfect and infinite and payment. So chapter nine is all about
the imperfections of the first covenant. In chapter 9 verse
15 it says, And for this cause he is the mediator of a new testament,
that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions
that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive
the promise of eternal inheritance. Now look at verses 16 through
18. 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 no strength at all while the
testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament
was dedicated without blood." And he goes on to explain how
the blood worked and how the death had to happen. but that
was imperfect and now with the New Testament it's a perfect
death. Look at chapter 10 verses 11 through 16. And every priest stands daily
ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices which can
never take away sins. But this man, after he had offered
one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of
God. from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his
footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected forever them
that are sanctified." That's in the present tense. Them that
are being sanctified. I love this verse because it's
got the aorist in the first part of the verse. For by one offering
he hath perfected. It's done. forever, them that
are being sanctified." So what does it mean? It means if we're
true Christians, we are being sanctified, but we are already
perfect because of the sacrifice. We're not perfect outwardly.
We're perfect in salvation. That's all. Okay, then, where did we leave
off? Yeah. For by one offering he
hath perfected forever them that are being sanctified. Whereof
the Holy Spirit also is a witness to us. For after that he had
said before, this is the covenant I will make with them after those
days, saith the Lord. I will put my laws into their
hearts and in their minds will I write them." That's real sanctification. And that's the quote of Jeremiah.
Finally in Hebrews 13.20. 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, etc. I want to go through four more
various verses in the Bible and we're done. Turn to 2 Corinthians
3. Verse 6, who also hath made us able ministers
of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the Spirit.
For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Then compare
that with verse 14, but their minds were blind. This is back
to Moses' days. But their minds were blinded,
for until this day remains the same veil untaken away in the
reading of the Old Testament, which veil is done away in Christ."
Now, Galatians 4.24. Back to our Galatians, but later
on in the book, letter. Galatians 4.21-31 is talking
about the two covenants being two mounts. You remember that
passage. We won't go through the whole thing. But in 424, which things are an allegory?
For these are the two covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai,
which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is Mount
Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem, which now is, and
is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem, which is above,
is free, which is the mother of us all. So he's comparing
the two covenants there. One is a covenant of freedom
from the bondage of sin. One is a bondage. Luke 172 is Zechariah's prayer. And I thought it was interesting that he says in his prayer, Zacharias,
to perform the mercy promised to our fathers and to remember
his holy covenant. Remember the Abrahamic covenant.
The oath which he swore to our father Abraham. That he would
grant unto us that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies
might serve him without fear. So, Zacharias is talking about
the new covenant. And finally, in Romans 11.27, Romans 9, 10, and 11 is talking
about the dealings with Israel. And in Romans 11, 27, let's actually
pick it up in verse 25. For I would not, brethren, that
ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise
in your own conceits, that blindness in part has happened to Israel
until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel
shall be saved. As it is written, there shall
come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness
from Jacob. For this is my covenant unto
them, when I shall take away their sins. So in conclusion, of the three
types of covenants that there are, Last Will and Testament,
a pure promise or a bilateral contract. We've seen that the
promise to Abraham, which was fulfilled in our salvation through
Christ, was a pure promise. Nothing bilateral about it. Nothing
for man to fulfill. It's all God's doing. And that
the law came in 430 years later and it had elements of a true
covenant, but it had nothing to do with our salvation. And
the salvation goes back to the promise.