HEBREWS CHAPTER 8
8:1-5
Chapter eight opens by comparing a heavenly reality and an earthly shadow. Jesus is our high priest, seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven (8:1); in contrast, the Levites function as priests on earth (8:4). Note the concurrent role of both priesthoods: “Now if [Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law” (8:4). This says there are currently priests on earth who offer gifts according to the law. At the same time, Jesus functions as high priest in heaven, not on earth. In fact, 8:4 states that he cannot be a priest on earth. He is of a different priesthood. And yet, the earthly priesthood is not disconnected from the heavenly; it serves as a sketch and shadow of what is in heaven (8:5). Thus, the two priesthoods serve concurrently--one on earth, one in heaven. We see this at work in the early church, when Paul offered sacrifices under the earthly priesthood in Acts 21, even though Jesus had already ascended into heaven and was working as the heavenly high priest. We will discuss Acts 21 in more detail in chapter ten.
In addition to contrasting the heavenly and earthly priesthoods, the author likewise compares the “true tent (or tabernacle)” in heaven (8:2) with Moses’ tent (8:5). Here “true” is used not in the sense of “true and false” but rather in the sense of the original, the reality, and the source. It is the genuine, authentic, real tabernacle, upon which the earthly copy is based. Moses was to make the earthly tabernacle according to the pattern that was shown him on Mount Sinai (8:5). This pattern is based on and points to the true, heavenly tabernacle. The writer will continue to develop these same ideas in chapter nine.
8:6-12
The comparison continues, now focusing on the old and new covenants: “But as it is, 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” (8:6).
Christ’s ministry as high priest is superior to the Levitical priesthood; moreover, the covenant he mediates is superior to the old covenant. In the style of our author, he loops back to a theme he has already touched on in 7:22, where he says that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant. We have already established that his covenant is better because he as high priest is effective, eternal, and perfect. The author now further develops the superiority of the new covenant by explaining that it is enacted upon better promises (8:6).
The promises are indeed better because the first covenant had fault: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them” (8:7-8a, emphasis ours).
Note that the fault was not with the old covenant per se, but rather with the covenant keepers. The fault was the peoples’. Cockerill comments on this, saying,
Chapter eight opens by comparing a heavenly reality and an earthly shadow. Jesus is our high priest, seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven (8:1); in contrast, the Levites function as priests on earth (8:4). Note the concurrent role of both priesthoods: “Now if [Jesus] were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law” (8:4). This says there are currently priests on earth who offer gifts according to the law. At the same time, Jesus functions as high priest in heaven, not on earth. In fact, 8:4 states that he cannot be a priest on earth. He is of a different priesthood. And yet, the earthly priesthood is not disconnected from the heavenly; it serves as a sketch and shadow of what is in heaven (8:5). Thus, the two priesthoods serve concurrently--one on earth, one in heaven. We see this at work in the early church, when Paul offered sacrifices under the earthly priesthood in Acts 21, even though Jesus had already ascended into heaven and was working as the heavenly high priest. We will discuss Acts 21 in more detail in chapter ten.
In addition to contrasting the heavenly and earthly priesthoods, the author likewise compares the “true tent (or tabernacle)” in heaven (8:2) with Moses’ tent (8:5). Here “true” is used not in the sense of “true and false” but rather in the sense of the original, the reality, and the source. It is the genuine, authentic, real tabernacle, upon which the earthly copy is based. Moses was to make the earthly tabernacle according to the pattern that was shown him on Mount Sinai (8:5). This pattern is based on and points to the true, heavenly tabernacle. The writer will continue to develop these same ideas in chapter nine.
8:6-12
The comparison continues, now focusing on the old and new covenants: “But as it is, 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” (8:6).
Christ’s ministry as high priest is superior to the Levitical priesthood; moreover, the covenant he mediates is superior to the old covenant. In the style of our author, he loops back to a theme he has already touched on in 7:22, where he says that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant. We have already established that his covenant is better because he as high priest is effective, eternal, and perfect. The author now further develops the superiority of the new covenant by explaining that it is enacted upon better promises (8:6).
The promises are indeed better because the first covenant had fault: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them” (8:7-8a, emphasis ours).
Note that the fault was not with the old covenant per se, but rather with the covenant keepers. The fault was the peoples’. Cockerill comments on this, saying,
The words with which the Jeremiah passage is introduced, “for finding fault with them he says” (v. 8a), point directly to God’s criticism of the wilderness generation in Jer 31:32 (Heb 8:9). It is their failure that evidences the insufficiency of the Old Covenant. The pastor would not describe the deficiency of the Old Covenant in such a way as to relieve the wilderness generation of responsibility for their disobedience. It is not their inability to obey but their refusal to obey that demonstrates the insufficiency of the first covenant to adequately transform the human heart (366).
The Israelites in the wilderness were held responsible for their disobedience to the covenant. They made the choice to disobey because they had hardened, untransformed hearts.
Quoting Jeremiah 31, the author of Hebrews demonstrates this point:
Quoting Jeremiah 31, the author of Hebrews demonstrates this point:
For he finds fault with them when he says: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord (8:8–9).
God says that the new covenant will not be like the old in which the people did not obey. Jeremiah prophesied at a desperate time in Israel’s history. Judah was headed into exile. They repeatedly had disobeyed God and were not living in relationship with him, and now they would experience the most severe of consequences. They had failed at keeping their covenant with God.
But they are not left without hope. Our author continues to quote Jeremiah 31:
But they are not left without hope. Our author continues to quote Jeremiah 31:
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more (8:10–12).
Now we see the better promises referred to in 8:6. God will put his laws on the hearts and minds of his people (8:10). Each will directly know God, needing no teacher (8:11). God will remember their sins no more (8:12). With the old covenant, the people had the law, but the law was not within them, in their hearts and minds. The new covenant is indeed superior, for its commandments are ingrained on the hearts of God’s people. Therefore they will not need to be taught, for they will already know, even in their very inmost being.
8:13
This brings us to one of the most commonly used verses to show the abrogation, or annulment, of the old covenant: “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (8:13). Lane comments on this verse:
8:13
This brings us to one of the most commonly used verses to show the abrogation, or annulment, of the old covenant: “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (8:13). Lane comments on this verse:
God himself has cancelled [the old covenant’s] validity. He intends to make no further use of the old covenant and the forms through which it operated to achieve his redemptive purpose for his people (210).
Similarly, Bruce states:
The very words “a new covenant” antiquate the previous one … And if the covenant of Moses’ day is antiquated, our author further implies, so must be the Aaronic priesthood, the earthly sanctuary, and the Levitical sacrifices, which were all established under that covenant. The age of the law and the prophets is past; the age of the Son is here, and here to stay (195).
Thus, the common understanding of 8:13 is that, because of Christ’s redemptive work, the old covenant is antiquated, cancelled, and belonging to the past. But note the tension in this verse. The first part seems to clearly state that the old covenant is now obsolete, and yet the tense changes in the second part of the verse: “And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (emphasis ours). The author can speak of the old covenant as if it were a thing of the past, and yet there is a sense in which it is still active and present, but is near to passing away.
In response to the latter part of 8:13, some commentators say that the author is writing from the viewpoint of Jeremiah, since the passage quoted is from Jeremiah:
In response to the latter part of 8:13, some commentators say that the author is writing from the viewpoint of Jeremiah, since the passage quoted is from Jeremiah:
The pastor is speaking from Jeremiah’s point of view. As soon as God promised a “new” covenant, the Old was “near to passing away.” Since the New has come in Christ, the Old is no longer “near to” but has definitively passed away as a way of relating to God (Cockerill, 370).
In other words, from Jeremiah’s vantage point, centuries before the coming of Christ, the old covenant was near to passing, but now that Christ has come, the old covenant has truly passed away and been made obsolete.
Ellingworth, however, disagrees with this interpretation:
Ellingworth, however, disagrees with this interpretation:
The language of this verse is sufficiently general to leave open the question whether the author thought of the first covenant as old and moribund already from the time of Jeremiah’s declaration, or only from the time of Christ’s coming and/or death. General considerations suggest that the author was more concerned with the time in which he and his readers were living. Statements about the supersession of the old dispensation appear to grow generally bolder as the argument progresses (cf. 7:18f.; 10:9, 18); yet the continued existence of the first covenant is never completely denied (418).
We agree with Ellingworth. Just a few verses prior, the author stated that there is currently a priesthood functioning on earth (8:4-5). This earthly priesthood is Levitical, from the old covenant, which therefore must still be current. Its existence is not denied. But there is something greater that we have already tasted, that we are looking forward to: a heavenly priesthood and a new covenant. It is here, but it is not fully here.
In our introduction, we discussed the “already-not yet” tension in the book of Hebrews. Repeatedly, the author of Hebrews sets forth a tension between what will come and what already is. A clear example is Hebrews 2:7-8:
In our introduction, we discussed the “already-not yet” tension in the book of Hebrews. Repeatedly, the author of Hebrews sets forth a tension between what will come and what already is. A clear example is Hebrews 2:7-8:
You made him for a little while lower than the angels; you have crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him (emphasis ours).
Note that everything is put in subjection to Christ, and yet at present we do not yet see this played out. Another example is in Hebrews four, when the author talks about the rest that we enter. In 4:3 he says, “we who have believed enter that rest,” and yet a few verses later, he says, “Let us therefore strive to enter that rest” (4:11). In one sense, we have already entered that rest, and yet in another, we must continually strive and press forward, looking forward to the rest as the goal.
8:13 fits our author’s pattern of writing: we are in the new covenant, and therefore we can consider the old obsolete. And yet in another sense, we cannot. It still plays a role. Further, when we look at the Jeremiah 31 description of the new covenant, does it seem to describe the present age? Or does it depict a future time? If it is future, what role does the old covenant have today?
8:13 fits our author’s pattern of writing: we are in the new covenant, and therefore we can consider the old obsolete. And yet in another sense, we cannot. It still plays a role. Further, when we look at the Jeremiah 31 description of the new covenant, does it seem to describe the present age? Or does it depict a future time? If it is future, what role does the old covenant have today?