Listen to the audio discussion
The Consequences of Misunderstanding Hebrews 8
“Then HaShem your G-d will bring you to the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it. He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers. And HaShem your G-d will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love HaShem your G-d with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Also HaShem your G-d will put all these curses on your enemies and on those who hate you, who persecuted you. And you will again obey the voice of HaShem and do all His commandments which I command you today.”
Deuteronomy 30:5-8
Replacement, By Any Other Name, Is Still Replacement
- There are many who repudiate “Replacement Theology” and yet still hold on to the concept that the “New Covenant” is a replacement for the “Sinai Covenant” – a view which creates a theological monstrosity. Even Dispensationalists, who repudiate “Replacement Theology” still lean heavily upon this concept. Sadly, even some so-called “Messianics” fall prey to the same trap.
- Of course, “Replacement Theology” is very dependant upon Hebrews 8 for its main argument. The problem however, is not Hebrews 8, but a selective reading of Hebrews 8 – and a reading that fails to dig deeper than surface level of the English.
- These “Replacement” readers see the book of Hebrews as teaching:
- Moses = Old, Jesus = New
- Aaronic Priesthood = Old, Order of Melchizedek = New
- Temple = Old, Heaven (or our hearts) = New
- Sacrifices = Old, Jesus at the cross = New
- Commandments = Old, Forgiveness = New
- Law = Old, Grace = New
- Old people = Israel, New people = the Church
- There are many problems with this line of thinking, not the least of which that is not what Hebrews is teaching.
- Hebrews uses kal v’chomer, a rabbinic interpretative method. Yeshua used it extensively in His teaching. It is “light to heavy.” If something is true in the “light” instance” it will MORE so in the “heavy” instance. It is often characterized by the phrase, “How much more…” – in theological language it is called “a fortiori” [Latin “from the stronger”].
- Using kal v’chomer makes it extremely important for the reader of Hebrews to be able to tell the difference between comparison and contrast.
- The “Replacement” reader sees it all as contrast – to his detriment. For example: Hebrews 8:8-12 is quoting (paraphrasing) Jeremiah 31:31-34. Let’s remember, the writer is quoting Jeremiah the prophet. In light of Deut 12:32-13:6, could Jeremiah possibly be prophesying about the “replacement” for the Torah? If so, then the Torah itself says the prophesy would be invalid. No, and the writer of the book of Hebrews is not saying that either. He is using Jeremiah 31 to show the “first” covenant as an explanation and valuation for the New Covenant. In other words, “How much more…” – not “replacement.”
- The “all or nothing” argument that antinomians use is a straw man that except for a few Scriptures out of context is unsustainable. The faithful of Hebrews 11 received their reward – even though they were not sinless according to the Torah – and yet they are known by their faithfulness to the commandments of HaShem. Also, those who make such arguments still argue (correctly) for what they call the “moral” laws like “do not lie, do not murder, do not commit adultery” – so, for them, is it really “all or nothing”? – no. HaShem rewards for obedience. Scripture is clear on this point. Selective obedience is what the antinomian is teaching, not us.
The Tabernacle Metaphor
- The Tabernacle imagery in Hebrews 9 is used to point to the relationship between the visible and the invisible – because the discussion which began in chapter 8 and continues in chapter 10 is about the New Covenant, and Yeshua being the Mediator – and the writer is trying to teach us what “first” and “second” and what “old” and “new” are supposed mean to us.
- 9:2: The “Replacement” reader reads “first” [protos] as referring to “the First Tabernacle.” In their minds then the see the “Old Covenant” done away with just like the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE. Wrong. “Protos” is being used to correlate the relationship between the “first” Covenant and the New Covenant. The metaphor uses the parts of the Tabernacle to make this case.
- The “first” part of the Tabernacle in Hebrews 9 refers to the visible part. Likewise, the “second” [deuteros] is not referring to the “Second Tabernacle [heaven] = New Covenant.” Instead, the “second” part refers to the invisible part of the Tabernacle, the Holy of Holies.
- Both the visible and the invisible comprise reality. They are not exclusive of each other – the invisible is enclosed within the visible. This is a key point to the discussion of Hebrews 8-10.
- Since the Tabernacle is being used in a homiletic way to understand the reality of “seen” and “unseen” – it is important to explore that same method of looking at the “Old” and New Covenant.
- Overlooked by those who claim “New replaces ‘Old’” is Heb 8:4: If Yeshua’s priesthood does not replace Aaron’s (present tense, if Yeshua were on earth He would NOT be a priest) – why assume that the covenants being discussed are in opposition – why not correctly assume that what is under examination is the relationship between Sinai and the New Covenant?
- Answer: Because it does not fit the original antinomian theological model… which is all about selective obedience.
The Torah is Not a Covenant
- Heb 7:12: nomos does not always mean “Torah”. In this verse it does not. It is speaking of the “rule” which makes priests (8:4).
- Rom 3:20: nomos = Torah.
- Rom 7: some Torah, some “law” or “principle.”
- James 4:11-12: A doer of Torah, or a judge of it?
- Matt 5:17-19: Not a replacement, but a manifestation.
- 2Peter 3:15-17: If people handle the TaNaKh incorrectly, they will handle Paul’s writings incorrectly. No later passage trumps an earlier one – EVER. All must conform. G-d does not change His mind.
- 2Tim 3:16-17: Doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. How does Leviticus 11 offer doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness to the majority of Christianity? It doesn’t. Why?
Temporal and Aged
- Heb 8:13: obsolete? Growing old? Ready to vanish? If these words are correct – why in the present tense?
- palaioo: decays. Notice that the word is first used in 8:13 in the prefect tense. In other words the “first” was made (i.e. always was) palaioo. Heb 1:10-11: the Earth and the Heavens were made palaioo.
- Deut 29:5: clothing wears out.
- Ps 102:26; Is 51:6: the Earth and the Heavens wear out (same Greek phrase in the Septuagint). Remember, the Torah is NOT the “first covenant”! HaShem’s righteousness will not be abolished!
- palaioo: is saying that the “first” was made temporal. And because of that, what is [present tense] palaioo-ing, and will be hidden [aphanismos = to not see, to be hidden].
- This is not saying the “first” is obsolete (NJKV)! This is not saying that it has been annulled or abolished. It pertains to the temporal – and will be hidden at some time in the future!
- Gal 3:15: G-d’s covenants do not replace each other.
The New Covenant
- If “New” means chronological, when did/does it go into effect? Heb 8:8-11 quotes Jer 31.
- Jer 31:23-37:
- With Israel and Judah
- Not like the one their fathers broke when He took them out of Egypt.
- After those days
- Torah in their minds and their hearts
- Their G-d, His people
- All of them will know G-d
- Not yet fulfilled!
- Ezk 36:22-31; 37:12-27:
- All Israel (two houses made one)
- Taken out of the nations and bring to the Land
- A new heart and a new spirit
- My people, your G-d
- Repentance
- Cleansed of sin
- David as King
- You will obey My statutes and judgments
- A sign: Sanctuary in your midst forever
- In both of these passages, which goes away: commandments/statues or sin? The valid replacement is that sin is replaced by perfect obedience!
- Deut 30:5-8: The promise of the New Covenant, within the Torah itself.
Compare and Contrast
- “First” and “New” the same G-d, the same people.
- “First” and “New” the same standards of righteousness.
- “First” and “New” similar but expanded promises regarding the Land.
- “First” and “New” a perfect King to reign over us.
- “First” vs “New” a different place to write those statutes – from stone to our hearts.
- “First” vs “New” a different effect (perfect obedience).
- “First” vs “New” His sanctuary in our midst forever.
Summary
- Understanding that the writer of Hebrews is not denigrating the Covenants at Sinai, or anything else in Scripture is important. Once we understand that, we can begin to truthfully answer the burning question that the writer is answering for those First Century believers: what is so great about the New Covenant – since we have a covenant with G-d already?
- The answer: The New Covenant is better. The “first” is visible now, but one day the New Covenant like the “hidden Holy of Holies” will be manifested and like turning a sock inside out, what is now hidden will be visible, and what is now visible will be hidden.
- The New is inside the “first.”