HEBREWS 8:  AN ANALYSIS

Someone sent me a copy of an article entitled "Changed View of Judaism Faces Church Leadership" by George W. Cornell, religion writer for Associated Press. The article discusses the views of Dr. Paul M. Van Buren, a noted theologian of Temple University in Philadelphia. A few statements from the article will introduce our study of Hebrews 8. Van Buren says: "The covenant between God and the Jewish people is eternal." Cornell comments on Van Buren's views of Judaism: "Concerning Jesus' saying that only through him can people come to the Father, Van Buren notes the view that the 'Jewish people do not have to come to the Father because they are already and always with him.'" There is absolutely no way to reconcile Paul Van Buren's views of Judaism and the teachings of the New Testament. I invite you to turn to Hebrews 8 and study that chapter with me.

Hebrews 8: 1-7 discusses "The More Excellent Ministry of Christ." The author of Hebrews affirms: "Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens" (Heb. 8:1). The word "sum" comes from the Greek kephale meaning head. Is the author of Hebrews saying, "Now to summarize?" or is he saying, "The main point of our discussion is?" He seems to be teaching what the main point of his teaching up to this point is. "The main point" or the "chief point" seems to fit the context.

The Holy Spirit directed the author of Hebrews to write: "We have such a high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the majesty in the heavens." It is evident from this verse that we are not under the Mosaic covenant since Jesus could not be a priest under that covenant. He came from the tribe of Judah. The priests under the Law of Moses came from the tribe of Levi (Heb. 7:12-14). Our high priest has ascended to the Father and now sits on the right of the majesty in the heavens. The Apostle Peter used similar language on the day of Pentecost. "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear" (Acts 2:33).

According to the author of Hebrews, Jesus Christ is "a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man" (Heb. 8:2). The word "minister" (leitourgos in the Greek) refers to one who performs rituals and ceremonies in worship services. The word was used among the Greeks of one who discharged his office at his own expense. Paul used the word of himself. "That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit" (Rom. 15:16). Incidentally, the word "true" of the tabernacle which the Lord pitched is not contrasted with a false tabernacle, but with the shadow or the picture. The tabernacle in the wilderness was a type; the true tabernacle is the antitype.

The author of Hebrews next provides insight into the work of the high priest. "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat to offer" (Heb. 8:3). Since Christ is our high priest, he had to have somewhat to offer. He did not offer animals in sacrifice to God; he offered his own blood. The Apostle Peter explains: "Forasmuch as you know that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet. 1: 18-19).

"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests who offer gifts according to the law" (Heb. 8:4). Does this language suggest that God had a pattern for the old covenant that even the Son of God could not ignore? The reason Christ could not have been a priest under the Jewish covenant is very plain. He came from the wrong tribe. Does all of this sound rather trivial to modern men? I have no obligation to understand or to explain God's ways. Our responsibility as Bible believers is to accept and to follow what the scriptures teach. There were priests under the Mosaic covenant who offered gifts and sacrifices. Jesus Christ was not one of them; nor could he have been. Did you take note of the expression, "according to the law?" That term suggests the authority men must follow if they would please God. The principle applied even to the Son of God.

The Jewish priests, the offerings and sacrifices "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, says he, that you make all things according to the pattern shown to you in the mount" (Heb. 8:5). The word "example" signifies a copy. The word means an example to imitate. The Mosaic covenant was a shadow. "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of those things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect" (Heb. 10:1). Paul wrote concerning the ordinances of the law: They are a "shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:17).

There are teachers in all religious groups who warn against what they call "pattern theology." When Moses was preparing to build the tabernacle, the Lord admonished him: "For, see, says he, that you make all things according to the pattern shown to you in the mount." Did the Lord really mean that Moses had a sacred obligation to make the tabernacle according to the pattern? After giving a detailed pattern for the tabernacle, the Lord said to Moses: "And look that you make them after the pattern, which was shown you in the mount" (Ex. 25:40). God gave Noah a pattern for building the ark. "Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he" (Gen. 6:22). That is what it means to walk by faith (Heb. 11:7).

In the New Testament, God has given a pattern for the church's organization, for the teaching that must be done if the church cares about having God's approval, for the acts of worship that please God, for the plan of salvation and for the moral values we must honor. Pattern theology is not man's idea, but God's. For example, when the Apostle Peter commanded the believing Jews: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Christ for the remission of sins," is that not a pattern? It is utterly foolish to oppose pattern theology.

While there were positions Jesus could not hold under the Jewish covenant, all of that has changed with the giving the new covenant. "But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been established on better promises" (Heb. 8:6). The priests of the Mosaic covenant had a special ministry. That ministry should have been honored - both by those who were actually involved in it and by other Israelites. But the ministry of Christ is infinitely better. The new covenant was "established on better promises." The promises of the gospel are primarily spiritual - not physical. We can have complete forgiveness of our sins, freedom from the bondage of the Law of Moses and the blessings of eternal life.

While the Law of Moses came from the very mind of God, it was not designed to be binding forever. "For if the first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for a second" (Heb. 8:7). If the Law of Moses had faults, why would the Psalmist write: "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul" (Psa. 19:7)? Two comments are in order. The word "perfect" means that the law accomplished the purposes for which it was given. The word "fault" does not mean error or mistake. What were the faults of the first covenant and why did not God give a faultless law? Did the faults lie with God's inability to give a perfect law or with man's inability to receive it? Paul told the Romans: "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). If the first covenant could have accomplished all that God desired for us, then there would have been no need for a second covenant or law.

The second section of Hebrews 8 explains that the gospel of Christ replaces the Law of Moses (Heb. 8:8-13). I am aware of theologians like John Hagee who deny what they call "replacement theology." But there is not even the slightest doubt that the church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people and the gospel has replaced the Law of Moses. If you have ever wondered about those facts, please study with me this section of Hebrews 8.

It troubles me that most Jewish scholars and some Protestant scholars either do not believe or choose to ignore the prophecy of Jeremiah, one of the Old Testament's greatest prophets. The author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 to establish the fact that we do not live under the Mosaic covenant but under the gospel of Christ. I shall read the entire passage before I begin an analysis of it. "For finding fault with them, he says, Behold, the days come, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that 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, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put my laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, 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" (Heb. 8:8-12).

Jeremiah does not provide a date when the new covenant would be given, but the author of Hebrews established the fact the new covenant is the gospel of Christ. We know the new covenant began on the day of Pentecost, but neither Jeremiah or the author of Hebrews mentions the beginning time nor place of the gospel of Christ.

God himself found faults with the Mosaic covenant. We must not forget that the law was good since it came from God, but it could not provide all that God had in his mind for us. When modern scholars express surprise over the removal of the Law of Moses and the gospel's being given to all men - Jew and Gentile alike - they show ignorance of the Old Testament or disregard for the prophecies in that testament. Stephen L. Carter is professor of law at Yale University Law School. Dr. Carter is an outstanding law professor and an excellent writer. His book, The Culture of Disbelief: How American Law and Politics Trivialize Religious Devotion (New York: Basic Books, 1993), became a national bestseller. One statement from Stephen Carter's book will have to suffice for this lesson. He affirms: "As a Christian, I have no doubt of the continuing validity of God's covenant with Israel (see Romans 11:29) or of my own spiritual inheritance from the Old Testament tradition. I am perplexed by the insistence of many Christians that Jews can find salvation only by rejecting the special covenant that has nurtured them through centuries of hostility and horror" (p. 88). If Dr. Carter's observation were scriptural, why did Jesus tell some of his fellow Jews: "Except you believe that I am he, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24)?

David Edwards, a very liberal Anglican preacher, and Dr. John R. W. Stott, an evangelical, produced a book with the title, Evangelical Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988). Dr. Edwards affirms: "For the Jews are the people who have always reminded the Christians that God does not deal savingly only with the church or only with those who have accepted Christ as Lord and Savior" (p. 289). If the Jews could be saved outside of Christ, why did Paul pray: "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be saved" (Rom. 10: I)? God gave the gospel to all - both Jews and Gentiles. The gospel alone is God's power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16-17).

The author of Hebrews quotes what Jeremiah tells us about some of the differences between new covenant and the old. The new covenant will "not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers 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, says the Lord" (Heb. 8:9). The Law of Moses was adapted to the way the Israelites would live until the Messiah came into the world. Incidentally, if God's law has not changed - as some of our religious neighbors believe - how can we explain what Jeremiah predicted in this verse? He said, in effect, that the new covenant will not be like the old.

Jeremiah tells us one of the reasons the old covenant was abolished. The Jews continued not in the Lord's covenant and God no longer regarded them as his people. The King James Version and the English Standard Version say the Jews "broke" the Lord's covenant with the Jews (Jer. 31:32). John Hagee's book, Jerusalem Countdown: A Warning to the World (Lake Mary, FL: FrontLine, 2006), says that God never breaks covenant (p. 130). That is absolutely true, but the Jews broke God's covenant and "he regarded them not." As long as the Israelites kept the law, God would honor his covenant with them. But when they turned to other gods, they broke the covenant. God cannot be accused of being unfaithful since it was the Jews who violated the terms of the agreement. A careful reading of Deuteronomy 30:15-20 should convince anyone of that truth.

Jeremiah provides further insight into the nature of the new covenant. "For this is my covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts: and will be to them a God and they shall be to me a people" (Heb. 8:10). "The house of Israel" would include all who accept the terms of the new covenant - Jews and Gentiles alike. Adherents of the new covenant would not be members of the Lord's church by tradition. They would have God's word in their hearts and minds.

Under the new covenant, parents, preachers and others would "not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Heb. 8:11). Jeremiah was not downplaying the importance of teaching in the new covenant. Without adequate teaching men and women cannot come to God. The Son of God himself told some of his fellow Jews: "No man can come to me, except the Father who sent me draw him: and I will raise him up in the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall all be taught of God. Every man therefore who has heard, and has learned of the Father comes unto me" (John 6:44-45).

I have two questions for you to consider. When did a Jewish person under the old covenant become a son or daughter of God? What did the person have to do to become a child of God? Circumcision did not make a Jewish male a child of God. It was a sign that he was already a son of God. When a Jewish child came into the world he or she was a son or daughter of God. That is not true of the new covenant. Christ's conversation with Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, tells us that being born the first time does not make us Christians. We have to be born again (or from above) to be a child of God (John 3:3-5). For any human being to be a part of the new covenant, he has to know the Lord first. That demonstrates just how important teaching is in the scheme of human redemption. The book of Acts continually stresses teaching, preaching, announcing, heralding and such like. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Rom. 10:17).

God promised: "I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more" (Heb. 8: 12). There is nothing in the new covenant that promises men and women freedom from sin. We all sin and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). But the death of Christ made provisions for the complete forgiveness of our sins.

The author of Hebrews concludes this chapter: "In that he says a new covenant, he has made the first old. Now that which decays and waxes old is ready to vanish away" (Heb. 8:13). If you ever had any doubt about the fact that God has changed his law, this verse should remove that doubt forever. There is no question about the passing of the Law of Moses - all of it - including the Ten Commandments. The Law of Moses was great because it came from God. But it could not fully provide for the human family what God desired for us. But what the law could not provide, the new covenant does.

Paul Van Buren, David Edwards and Stephen Carter are wrong when they teach that God has a continuing covenant with Israel. That covenant grew obsolete and was removed forever. Only the new covenant is binding on men and women.

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334