New "Covenant"?

Many people reading the Bible today are unaware of exactly how much interpretation goes into making a translation. There is a reason that there are dozens of English versions floating around in Christianity. By and large, these translations are attempting to do their best to actually translate the text honestly. The problem is, how do you accomplish this while staying true to the text itself?

Some translations prefer to try and stay as literal as possible, word-for-word, although an actual “word-for-word” translation is not at all possible technically speaking. Nevertheless, that's the goal.

Others try to convey the meaning of the text in our modern vernacular in a way that we will come to understand the intention of the text in the same way the ancient readers did. This is usually called thought-for-thought. The downside to this is the translator has done all the exegetical work for you, and you’re trusting his interpretation. You also sacrifice the word-for-word’s biggest positive: the ability to study the words themselves and see how the translation decided on how to interpret any given word.

So, what does any of the above have to do with Hebrews 8:13? Actually, quite a lot. Just about every major Christian translation of Hebrews 8:13, whether it’s “word-for-word” or “thought-for-thought,” has inserted a word into the text that isn’t present. In other words, both styles of translations have interpreted the meaning of this verse on your behalf whether you realize it or not.

"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." Hebrews 8:13 ESV

The word in question is “covenant.” In fact, the same is true also of Hebrews 8:7, “covenant” is not in the text. It is present in verse 6 (Greek word is ‘diathéikeis’) and it is also present in the Jeremiah quotation from verse 8 through 12. So, if that’s the case, then obviously the lack of “covenant” in verse 13 doesn’t really matter, and the context dictates that “covenant” is implied right? Not so fast. This would only be true if Hebrews 8:7-13 were in a vacuum. The reality, however, is that this is only a small snippet of the whole conversation taking place in Hebrews.

While exploring the contextual arguments of Hebrews 8:13, I will demonstrate that the word “covenant” is, at best, misleading and provide an interpretation of Hebrews 8, based on all the available evidence from the text itself and, where it is relevant, any historical evidence as well. This article will show you my whole process of thought as we explore the true meaning of Hebrews 8:13.

In order to gain the full contextual picture of the verse in question, we should go all the way to the beginning of the topic when it is first brought up. If we venture to the first few verses of chapter 8 we will see that we are talking about Yeshua (Jesus) as the high priest.

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. Hebrews 8:1-2 ESV

This is the ending part of a much bigger discussion about the office of the high priest which began in Chapter 4’s last few verses. The idea is to compare the current earthly high priest to the superiority of Yeshua as a high priest. But we have a problem now. Yeshua is from the line of David, the tribe of Judah. This means, according to the Torah, he is literally not allowed to be the high priest. Only Aaron and his sons can become high priests. This is called the Aaronic covenant because God explicitly made a covenant with Aaron that his lineage would forever inherit the high priesthood. Numbers chapter 18 repeats often how this covenant is “an eternal covenant” and a “permanent statute” for all generations.

Then the LORD spoke to Aaron, “Look, I have put you in charge of the contributions brought to me. As for all the holy offerings of the Israelites, I have given them to you and your sons as a portion and a permanent statute. Numbers 18:8 CSB

There is no getting around this. God made a promise to the Levitical tribe, a permanent

one at that, and unless we think God is a liar who does not keep his promises, then Yeshua simply cannot ever be a high priest to replace the Aaronic priesthood. If he did, this would be an open violation of the Torah, and would therefore disqualify him from being the Messiah.

Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. Hebrews 8:4 ESV

This is why the writer of Hebrews must specify that his priesthood is “in the order of Melchizedek” (Hebrew: Malchi- Tzedek = “king of righteousness”). This is a completely different priesthood altogether. And I should once again stress that this priesthood by the order of Melchizedek also cannot replace the Aaronic priesthood either. In fact, Hebrews chapter 7 seems to make this very clear as well. This is why the writer brings up the fact that Melchizedek doesn’t appear to have a lineage in the Torah. The writer of Hebrews seems to be making the case that because Melchizedek’s lineage goes without any mention in the Torah, this shows that his inheritance for the priesthood is from Heaven. Hebrews is attempting to draw a parallel here by inferring Yeshua also received his priesthood from Heaven. It is, therefore, a “Heavenly priesthood” and not an earthly one.

So then, how are we to understand Hebrews 7:18?

“for on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness.” Hebrews 7:18 ESV

Does this not mean to say that the former command of the Aaronic priesthood has been “set aside?” As we like to say in Hebrew, “Chas v’sholom, Heaven Forbid!” In Tim Hegg’s Commentary on The Book of Hebrews on this verse he writes:

“…those laws given in the Torah to regulate and define the priestly service upon the earth do not apply to the priestly service of Yeshua in Heaven.”

In other words, the rules and regulations governing the heavenly Temple’s priesthood are different in some aspects, chiefly the lineage and inheritance. The earthly temple was always meant to be a “shadow” of the heavenly temple, and therefore, in most ways, the laws for the heavenly temple and the earthly temple will be nearly the exact same set of laws. However, because the “jurisdiction” for the heavenly temple is different, and we are making a direct comparison to the earthly temple, then we have to “set aside” the commandment of the Aaronic inheritance because, for this context, it is a useless law. It’s a law that only governs the earthly temple and has no application within the heavenly Temple.

The primary concern in chapter 7 here is the priesthood. Keeping that context in mind, it doesn’t seem to make any sense that the writer of Hebrews would suddenly shift his talking point to “setting aside the entire Torah” and using the issue of the priesthood as his proof text. We see that the Torah is the foundation upon which the writer builds his case. The writer of Hebrews affirms the Torah’s current and active authority by stating in 8:4

“now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all…” Hebrews 8:4 ESV

Notice we have entered the beginning of Hebrews 8, and we are still talking about the priesthood. Verses 1-5 very clearly still speak about the priesthood and how this Heavenly priesthood is superior (but not a replacement) to the Aaronic priesthood for several reasons.

Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” Hebrews 8:1-5 ESV

Now let’s read verse 6 with this in mind:

“But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, to the extent that he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.” Hebrews 8:6 NASB

Now, we already acknowledged that the word “covenant” is present in this verse, but keeping in mind the full picture of what we have already discussed, what “covenant” are we talking about? The Mosaic covenant? Indeed not; no mention of the Mosaic covenant has yet to appear. It would be strange for it to suddenly appear now right in the middle of our heavenly priesthood discussion.

I propose that the “covenant” in question that Yeshua has obtained, which is better, is the priesthood covenant. I would like to offer an “amplified” translation of Hebrews 8:6 NASB (my additions in parenthesis):

But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry (ministry meaning “service” or “liturgy” he has obtained a more excellent Temple service), to the extent that he is also the mediator of a better covenant (a better priesthood), which has been enacted on better promises.

Now, instead of inserting the word “covenant” into 8:7, which isn’t there to begin

with, read it word for word as per the NASB, omitting the word “covenant”:

“For if that first had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.”

I would also like to note that the writer mentions “a second” and not a replacement! And if we remove the word “covenant” from verse 7 and replace it with “priesthood,” the flow of the conversation is consistent. There is no sudden change to a different subject, and within its own context, the text continues to make sense following its logical chain.

“For if that first priesthood had been free of fault, no circumstances would have been sought for a second.” Hebrews 8:7 NASB (Emphasis added)

The next part, however, does seem to create a little bit of confusion, and rightly so. To the average reader, the following quote from Jeremiah about the “new covenant” seems to reorient the discussion now to the idea of a “replacement covenant” for the entire Mosaic covenant. Regardless of how sudden and out of place this shift might seem, the implications appear to be on the side of the normative Christian view. The reason for this is that we know for a fact that Jeremiah 31:31 is NOT talking about a new priesthood. It is speaking explicitly about a new covenant. But another complication arises from the passage being brought up. What’s the point? If we have been trying to justify the heavenly priesthood of Yeshua this whole time, why aren’t we trying to cite verses that pertain to this that are prophetic to this happening?

One issue is there aren’t actually any verses in the Tanakh (the Hebrew name for the “Old Testament,” a phrase I do not use or agree with) that prophetically state a need for a second priesthood. However, the method of exegesis being used here is incredibly consistent with typical Jewish methods of hermeneutics. The particular method in question, in my opinion, is called a "D’rash,” which means something like “to puzzle together” or “connect.” Jewish Hermeneutics have an acronym for the 4 different types of study typically used in Hebrew thought.

The term is called "PaRDeS" from “P’shat” (plain/direct meaning), “Remez” (implied/hinted meaning), “D’rash” (alternate/sought meaning), and “Sod” (mystical/esoteric meaning). The method of D’rash is to be comparative and seek out meanings of the text through similar wordings or even whole phrases. By “connecting” the passages together in this way, one can find teachings or meanings to help clarify the passage or extract some other understanding from the texts. This method is so standard in Jewish exegesis that multiple book sets have been dedicated to this method as it applies to the entire Tanakh. The most popular one is the Midrash Rabbah, the word “Midrash” coming from the root word D’rash. “Mi-D’rash” It is widespread in the method of D’rash to sometimes ignore the direct context of the passage in question, not to extrapolate something unrelated, but to help drive the point home the one making the D’rash is trying to illustrate.

Paul used this method very often in his letters, and atheists often like to point out that Paul often ignores the quoted passage's context. But that’s not the point of the D’rash method; the point is to set a precedent for the doctrine being formulated by showing that alternate meanings can be applied to similar words or phrases elsewhere in the Bible. This happens to be the case in Hebrews chapter 8 when quoting Jeremiah 31.

The writer of Hebrews sets the stage for this d’rash by mentioning the word covenant two verses prior in the context of the priesthood covenant. So, for now, the word “covenant” means “priesthood” for the purpose of this d’rash, and he will now make the connection to the “covenant” in Jeremiah’s prophecy. The Greek here is pretty clear that the writer intends to make this connection with the priesthood by the opening phrase in 8:8

“for finding fault with THEM…”

Who is the “them” in this passage? None other than the Aaronic priesthood we just got done speaking about in the previous verses. The primary reason for bringing up the Jeremiah passage is to make the connection that this future “better” new covenant needs a “better” priesthood to establish it. Simply put, the writer of Hebrews is using Jeremiah as a d’rash by connecting the word “covenant” in the context of the priesthood covenant. He’s using the passage to support his argument that Yeshua's Heavenly priesthood establishes the “new covenant” in heaven.

Interestingly, the actual context of the Jeremiah passage indicates that the “new covenant” is simply the Torah being written on the hearts of the people, that essentially the Torah will be so ingrained into us that nobody will have to teach one another of the Torah precepts and commands.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my Torah(in Hebrew) 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. Hebrews 8:10-11 quoting Jeremiah 31:33-34 ESV

This Jeremiah passage further supports the eternality of the Torah, and if the writer of Hebrews were using this verse as a case to illustrate the eventual nullification of Torah, he has picked a poor verse, perhaps the worst verse in which to do so.

This brings us finally to Hebrews 8:13:

“in saying ‘new,’ he has treated the first as old; but what is being made old and aging is close to vanishing.” Hebrews 8:13 TLV

It’s important to note that the word “covenant” does not appear in the original manuscripts, and the language used here is in the future tense. If the “old covenant” (a phrase never found in the Bible) had been done away with at Messiah's death and resurrection, then shouldn’t the language here be in the past tense? The typical Christian thought is that when Yeshua said, “it is finished,” he spoke of this “old covenant.” However, this does not appear to be the belief of the writer of Hebrews. Given the language, it seems this “old” thing is still in effect at the time of his writing, for the time being, anyway.

However, if we continue to maintain the flow of thought following the d’rash of Jeremiah with the priesthood, then there is no difficulty here. The earthly priesthood is still in effect, and the only thing that can possibly render it “passed away” is when the Heavenly Temple descends from Heaven in the “new Heaven and new earth.” Here is my amplified version for clarification:

“in saying ‘new,’ he has treated the first (priesthood) as old; but what is being made old and aging is close to vanishing. (When the Messiah returns)” (Hebrews 8:13 TLV parenthesis mine).

But this is a future event that has not yet happened, and in the mind of the first-century believer, the end times were right around the corner. So, it stands to reason that the writer would seem to indicate the termination of the earthly priesthood is happening very soon. The writer seems also to echo the words of the Messiah from Matthew 5:18:

“for truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or one stroke of a letter will pass away from the [Torah] until all things are accomplished.” Matthew 5:18 CSB

Until heaven and earth pass away, the permanent covenant made with Aaron and the priesthood still stands, regardless of how soon it might be concluding. In fact, the only reason his covenant would come to a conclusion would be because there would be no earthly temple in which to serve. The covenant remains totally unbroken; as long as there remains an earthly temple, the Levites are the priests who will serve in it. But if there is no earthly temple, an earthly priesthood is obviously unnecessary.

Unfortunately, the current reality is that there is no standing temple today. Christians have mistakenly thought this to be a sign that this fact fulfills the passage in Hebrews 8:13. But the promises made to Aaron are still in effect until, as the Master said, “heaven and earth pass away.” Were a temple to be built soon, the Levitical priesthood would be in its service as promised. The sacrificial system would continue, and the Jewish people worldwide would flock to it three times a year for the high holy days.

In the days of the apostles, they did not see an issue with the sacrificial system at the temple at all. They instructed Paul to perform offerings at the temple to prove the rumors about him were false. They even asked him to pay for four others also to do the same to prove further still that the false rumors that he was teaching against the Torah were completely unfounded (See Acts 21:24 and Numbers 6:17-19) unless we are to believe the apostles are caving into peer pressure and purposely being deceitful. These are the same apostles who, at the threat of being arrested again, openly defied the Sanhedrin (high court) in Acts 5:29, which said:

“…We must obey God rather than men.”

Given their character and their unwavering faith in the Messiah in the face of death and torture, it seems highly unlikely they would care to be deceitful or give into peer pressure against what they believed to be the truth! Something worth noting also is the above event happens in Acts 21, which scholars agree takes place about 20 years after Yeshua’s death. So, this is well after a “transitionary period” for the apostles. By this point, the apostles had been believers in the Messiah, studying the scriptures daily at the temple complex for longer than many of us had ever been believers. Furthermore, they spent personal time with the Master. If at any point Yeshua hinted at or maybe secretly taught them that the offerings would go away in the future and they wouldn’t have to worry about them again, one would think they would have made this teaching known by now. But as it stands, the apostles do not believe this at all. Therefore, they either didn’t understand the Master’s teachings or the Master never even hinted at the abolition of the sacrificial system to his disciples, whether publicly or privately.

The conversation about the priesthood doesn’t end here, by the way. This subject is continued all the way to and through chapter 10 in Hebrews. So, if we take a step back and look at the whole text from chapter 6 through chapter 10, it wouldn’t make sense to diverge suddenly from the subject right in the middle of this discussion to talk about nullifying the Mosaic covenant. To try and justify the nullification of the Torah, one would probably need to spend an entire book dedicated to that subject, being careful to try and illustrate precedence for it, citing proof texts and carefully explaining the position, much like many Christian theologians do today on the subject. No writer in the New Testament can state the "Torah is done away with” without consequence. To say something like that would be grounds for stoning by the Sanhedrin. Any references used as a proof text to try and support this position should be carefully examined. Instead of accepting it at the apparent face value, one should ask, “Does this statement have enough substance to stand alone as proof of a massive theological change?”

I believe we have, throughout this journey, discovered the real meaning of Hebrews chapter 8 by remaining faithful to the text and to the context in which the text was produced. When taken in its totality, it is clear that the primary subject the writer of Hebrews is trying to deal with is the issue of Yeshua’s priesthood. Any proof texts or references to the “covenant” are to the priesthood covenant and are used to support the writer’s point: the earthly priesthood is inadequate for the heavenly temple. Hebrews 8 was never meant in any way to be used as a proof text for the nullification of the Torah, and if it were meant to do so, it does a very poor job of it. The earthly Temple and its priesthood are a shadow of the heavenly temple, and by looking at the shadow, we can get a glimpse of the substance, which we look forward to seeing every day!

May the temple be rebuilt speedily in our days, and may our eyes behold your Messiah, your salvation, and your return to Zion!