|

POSTED
26 NOVEMBER, 2009
What is the
New Covenant?
by
J.K. McKee
editor@tnnonline.net
Everyone who expresses trust in Yeshua the Messiah (Jesus Christ)
believes that we are a part of what is commonly
called “New Covenant faith.” But what is New
Covenant faith? We all recognize that at the
Last Supper, our Lord said, “This
cup which is poured out for you is the new
covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). The
sacrificial work of Yeshua has surely
inaugurated the reality of the New Covenant,
which includes complete forgiveness and
redemption from the power of sin, as well as
people being filled and empowered by the Holy
Spirit. Yet, not enough evangelical Christians
today are familiar with the fact that the
expectation of the New Covenant, as it is
commonly called, is something rooted within some
distinct prophecies of the Hebrew Bible or
Tanach.
Messianic Believers, who are of the
conviction that God’s Torah remains relevant
instruction for all of His people today, are
often refuted with the concept that since we are
living in the age of the New Covenant—the Old
Covenant or the Old Testament is not something
that is to really govern or control our lives,
or even inform us that much about proper
spirituality. The problem with this commonly
held opinion is that even though a transition
has surely taken place for those of us in this
post-resurrection era, it is not a transition
that completely divorces us from the Law of
Moses, and certainly not from the Tanach. Yeshua
explicitly said that He did not come to abolish
the Torah (Matthew 5:17-19), immediately after
saying for His followers to demonstrate good
works to the world at large (Matthew 5:14-16).
The witness of the Tanach is to point us to Him
(Luke 24:44).
It is important that we take a look at some of the main Scripture
passages, which specifically deal with what the
“New Covenant” is, in both the Tanach and
Apostolic Writings. What have some of us perhaps
missed or overlooked in our reading of the
Bible? Is the New Covenant something completely
separate from the Torah? How much continuity is
there throughout the Scriptures, and what new
things has this post-resurrection period
specifically brought to God’s people? What are
some of the similarities and differences between
the Sinai Covenant and this New Covenant?
We will be examining five specific areas of Scripture (Jeremiah
31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27; Romans 11:26-27;
Hebrews 8:7-13; Hebrews 10:14-18), a selection of the
main passages that articulate concept the of the
“New Covenant.”[1]
We will discuss the previous ministry of death
or condemnation, which composed the “Old
Covenant.” We will also consider the dynamics of
the New Covenant, how we might properly consider
them in relation to the current development of
today’s Messianic community, and how we should
approach the subject of “Torah” for the future.
Jeremiah 31:31-34
“‘Behold, days are coming,’ declares the
Lord,
‘when I will make a new covenant with the house
of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like
the covenant which I made with their fathers in
the day I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they
broke, although I was a husband to them,’
declares the
Lord. ‘But this is the covenant which I will make with the
house of Israel after those days,’ declares the
Lord,
‘I will put My law within them and on their
heart I will write it; and I will be their God,
and they shall be My people. They will not teach
again, each man his neighbor and each man his
brother, saying, “Know the
Lord,”
for they will all know Me, from the least of
them to the greatest of them,’ declares the
Lord,
‘for I will forgive their iniquity, and their
sin I will remember no more.’”
Jeremiah 31:31-34 is the only place in the Tanach or Hebrew Bible
where you will find the explicit term “new
covenant” or b’rit chadashah (hvdx tyrB)
used. Christian commentators are often very
interested in this prophecy, and how it is
applied by the Apostles. Somewhat contrary to
this, many lay people seem to just throw the
term “New Covenant” around, without any
framework or basis for where this term actually
originates in Israel’s Scriptures.[2]
Given how important the concept of the “New
Covenant” is to those of us who believe in
Israel’s Messiah, what was originally prophesied
by Jeremiah?
The overall context of Jeremiah 31 squarely places its enactment
with the promise that Israel’s Kingdom will be
restored in the Last Days. This includes the
word that “I will be the God of all the families
of Israel, and they shall be My people”
(Jeremiah 31:1). They will be permanently
restored from their captivity and scattering,
with song and jubilation (Jeremiah 31:2-14,
21-26, 38-40). This will include not only the
exiles of the Southern Kingdom of Judah, but
also those of the scattered Northern Kingdom of
Israel/Ephraim (Jeremiah 31:15-20). There is,
however, the problem of Israel’s sin that will
need to be punished (Jeremiah 31:27-30). The
answer to rectifying the punishment that has had
to be meted upon Israel is the New Covenant
(Jeremiah 31:31-34), whereby sins can be
forgiven and the people of Israel can enter into
the right relationship that God desires with
them.
While the concept of the New Covenant is featured throughout the
Apostolic Scriptures, it is something deeply
rooted in the Tanach, and does have continuity
with the Sinai Covenant that preceded it (Exodus
19:1-24:11). The prophecy of the New Covenant is
given within a series of promises about the
restoration of Israel, meaning that it is not
some vague, unknown idea, only revealed in the
First Century C.E. by Yeshua and the Apostles.
The full realization of the New Covenant is
the means by which the schism of Judah and
Israel/Ephraim will be finally fixed, and how
they will be restored to the Promised Land in
the eschaton.
The New Covenant was originally promised to a restored Israel, and
so a big issue in theological examination is how
non-Jewish Believers would actually benefit from
this. Are they at all participants in Israel’s
restoration, or are they the recipients of the
side-effects of Israel’s restoration? A major
issue at stake has been in trying to avoid any
replacement theology, recognizing that there are
some real promises concurrent with those of
forgiveness (Jeremiah 31:34b), concerning a
return of people to the Land of Israel. An
obvious answer would be that Believers in
Israel’s Messiah are grafted into Israel’s
olive tree (Romans 11), and so just as the
nations at large are affected by the arrival of
Israel’s Messiah, so are they too affected by
the inauguration of the New Covenant. But not
all see non-Jewish Believers being made a part
of Israel’s polity (Ephesians 2:11-12; 3:6), and
this is why Charles L. Feinberg specifically
argues, “The NT is careful to state in each
instance what elements in the blessings promised
Israel may be transferred to the common
enjoyment of Israel and the church,”[3]
holding to a distinction between Israel and the
so-called “Church.” Our position on ecclesiology
allows us to recognize that the restoration of
Israel is bigger than just the Jewish people,
also including the scattered Northern Kingdom of
Israel/Ephraim and various “companions” of the
nations (Ezekiel 37:16, 19)—all of whom in the
end make up the “Israel of God” (cf. Galatians
6:16). The New Covenant similarly affects all
people who call upon the Creator God.
The original agreement that had been made with Ancient Israel at
Mount Sinai (Exodus 24:3-8) had been broken by
the people. This is not an observation that this
agreement or covenant was bad or “evil” by any
means, but rather how the people succumbed to
the weaknesses of sin, and fell into
rebellion—although God Himself remained
faithful, like He were Israel’s husband
(Jeremiah 31:32). The consistent message of the
Prophets seen in the Tanach is to call the
rebellious people back to the Lord, and for them
to repent for their breaking of the Torah (i.e.,
Jeremiah 11:10; 32:40; Ezekiel 37:26). The sins
that were most especially grievous to the Lord
were how Israelite worship had devolved into a
syncretistic form of covenant obligation, with a
great deal of outward doings (cf. Isaiah
1:11-18), with a mixing in of many Canaanite
religious practices.[4]
The decree is issued that a time is coming when a new agreement
will be made “with the house of Israel and with
the house of Judah” (Jeremiah 31:31). These are
nationalistic designations, indicating that the
national sins of Israel and Judah—with the
Northern Kingdom notably judged before the
Southern Kingdom—have required God to take this
important action.
It is promised that this New Covenant will not be “like the
covenant which I made with their fathers,” when
the Lord led Ancient Israel out of Egypt and to
Mount Sinai (Jeremiah 31:32a). Does this denote
a significant discontinuity with the Sinai
Covenant? God was faithful to the agreement, and
is clear to label the Sinai Covenant as “My
covenant which they broke” (Jeremiah 31:32b).
How are we to understand the labeling of the New
Covenant as lo k’b’rit (tyrBk al), or “not like/according the covenant”?
Is there to be any similarity between the
promised New Covenant and the Sinai Covenant
that preceded it? Some say no, but others
say yes.
One cannot expect there to be a complete one-for-one transference
of what God and Ancient Israel established at
Mount Sinai to be seen in the New Covenant,
otherwise why would the New Covenant need to be
made in the first place? Yet to argue that the
New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is
something completely inconsistent with what was
originally agreed upon by God and Ancient
Israel, at Mount Sinai, runs contrary to what
Jeremiah details. The New Covenant is not
entirely different or disparate from what
has preceded it in the Mosaic Covenant. The
essential components of both covenants remain
the same; the major difference is that the
faithfulness of the people to this agreement
will remain consistent, and permanent
forgiveness for sins will be available (Jeremiah
31:34). Originally, the Mosaic Covenant was just
written on stone tablets (Exodus 19:3-8; 24:3-8;
31:18; Deuteronomy 4:13; 29:1-29; 2 Corinthians
3:3), whereas the New Covenant will be a reality
written on and manifested by human hearts.
The idea that the New Covenant is something completely divorced
from the Torah—and Christians today should not
be following any of the Law of Moses—is entirely
unsupportable when Jeremiah 31:33 is read. The
Lord plainly declares, nattati et-Torati
b’qirbam v’al-l’bam aktavennah (hNbTka
~Bl-l[w ~BrqB ytrAT-ta yTtn),
“such
is the covenant I will make with the House of
Israel after these days...I will put My
Teaching into their inmost being and inscribe it
upon their hearts” (NJPS). One of the
essential realities of the New Covenant is God
writing the Law onto the hearts of His people!
Disobedience to the Torah is what brought the
division of Israel and His required punishment,
and so obedience to the Lord is surely to be a
tangible reversal of this sorry condition. H.
Freedman further observes,
“God will make a new covenant with Israel which,
unlike the old, will be permanent, because it
will be transcribed on their hearts. There is
nothing here to suggest that the new covenant
would differ in nature from the old...The
prophet only makes the assertion that unlike the
past, Israel will henceforth remain faithful to
God, while He in turn will never reject them.”[5]
A major thrust of the New Covenant is that the Lord will Divinely
write His Torah onto the hearts of His people.
Anyone who says that the New Covenant is
something completely disparate from either the
Law of Moses or the Old Testament has claimed
something that is contrary to the claim of the
text. J.A. Thompson confirms, “He will set his
law (tôrâ) within them and write it on
their heart, that is, on their minds and wills.”[6]
The difference between this New Covenant and the prior Mosaic
Covenant is not the relevance of God’s
commandments for proper living, but the
permanence of His people being His: “I will be
their God and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah
31:33b). When the New Covenant is inaugurated,
God is no longer going to cast off His people.
There will be a definitive, internalized reality
of how His people will be able to obey Him,
unlike the previous Mosaic Covenant which was
relatively external and required fierce
punishments (Numbers 15:30). Such a sin problem
will have been dealt with, and God’s
commandments will no longer just be some distant
rules and regulations written on either stone or
parchment.
As described elsewhere (Ezekiel 36:25-27), God’s people being given
a new heart is the essence of the New Covenant.
Feinberg is correct when explaining, “The core
of the new covenant is God’s gift of a new heart
(cf. Ezek 36:25-27). Herein lies the sufficient
motivation for obeying God’s law. Basic to
obedience is inner knowledge of God’s will
coupled with an enablement to perform it, all
founded on the assurance that sins are
forgiven.”[7]
Balancing Ezekiel’s expectations (discussed
further) with Jeremiah’s, Patrick D. Miller
comments, “For Ezekiel, obedience will derive
from a new spirit and a new heart; for Jeremiah,
it will stem from God’s writing the law on the
heart.”[8]
The only real dissenting opinion about the positive aspects of God
writing His Torah onto the hearts of His people
is from R.E. Clements. He first says, rightly,
“God will, by the very creative power of his
love, write the law of the covenant upon the
hearts of the men and women who make up Israel,”
but then he goes on to say, “The old covenant of
the law is dead; instead there will be an inner
power and motivation towards obedience on the
part of Israel written on the very hearts of the
People of God, not on tablets of stone.”[9]
What does he mean by referring to “The old
covenant of the law” being dead? Is this a
reference to the Torah as a whole, or the
original agreement which defined how God’s
commandments were to be regulated—now moving
forward to the New Covenant? Clements answers
this with, “A new law is not properly envisaged
at all, but only a new way of knowing and
keeping the existing law of the covenant made on
Sinai.”[10]
Perhaps some things have changed in the New
Covenant, but paying attention to God’s Torah is
still undeniably required of His people. Walter
Brueggemann further indicates,
“The new covenant will not be resisted, because the torah—the same
commandments at Sinai—will be written on the
hearts. That is, the commandments will not be an
external rule which invites hostility, but now
will be an embraced, internal identity-giving
mark, so that obeying will be as normal and as
readily accepted as breathing and eating.”[11]
It is not enough for anyone to just conclude that the New Covenant
is God writing the Torah onto the hearts of His
people, as important and as overlooked as
this may be. God’s people will be His!
There will be a definite shift from how the
Ancient Israelites were originally commanded to
circumcise their hearts (Deuteronomy 10:16), to
how God will circumcise their hearts and make
them quite receptive to His will (Deuteronomy
30:6). Miller notes, “God will affect the human
heart so that people can keep the covenant
requirements.”[12]
The New Covenant will bring the real enactment
of Deuteronomy 6:6 in the Shema: “These
words, which I am commanding you today, shall be
on your heart.”
Also quite important is the broad-sweeping effect that the New
Covenant will have on a restored Israel. The
Lord says, “No
longer will they teach their neighbors, or say
to one another, ‘Know the
Lord,’
because they will all know me” (Jeremiah 31:34a,
TNIV). A wide array of people will be touched by
the New Covenant, so much so that it is not
difficult to detect that even though it is made
with Judah and Israel, there is more of a
person-to-person emphasis with the New Covenant
than what was seen in the prior Sinai Covenant.
All of the people will “know” the Lord, with the
verb yada ([dy) here concerning a great
intimacy restored with Him, especially given the
previous reference to the Lord as a husband
(Jeremiah 31:32b). According to Thompson, “The
verb know here probably carries its most
profound connotation, the intimate person
knowledge which arises between two persons who
are committed wholly to one another in a
relationship that touches mind, emotion, and
will. In such a relationship the past is
forgiven and forgotten.”[13]
Who will be affected by the New Covenant? All will know the Lord,
m’qetannam v’ad-gedolam (~lAdG-d[w
~Njqm),
or “from their smallest to their greatest”
(Jeremiah 31:34[33], Keter Crown Bible).
Brueggemann observes how, “There will be common,
shared access to this knowledge which evidences
fundamental egalitarianism in the community. On
the crucial matter of connection to God, the
least and greatest stand on equal footing. No
one has superior, elitist access, and no one
lacks what is required. All share fully in the
new relation. All know the story, all accept the
sovereignty, and all embrace the commands.”[14]
A new status of equality for God’s people will
arise out of the inauguration of the New
Covenant, one where His power to change
people—so that they might obey Him and
accomplish His purposes—knows no boundaries (cf.
Colossians 3:11).
The status prior to the New Covenant was, “We
know our wickedness, O
Lord,
the iniquity of our fathers, for we have sinned
against You” (Jeremiah
14:20). The promised New Covenant reverses this,
not only by writing God’s Torah onto the
peoples’ hearts, but also in how “I will forgive
their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no
more” (Jeremiah 31:34b). The Psalmist exclaims,
“He
will not always strive with us, nor will
He keep His anger forever” (Psalm 103:9).
While there is continuity between the Mosaic
Covenant and the New Covenant, the major
difference is that permanent forgiveness and
restitution for sins has been enacted. There
is also an internalization of the Torah written
upon the heart, as opposed to being just an
external listing of rules to follow, that is
also emphasized. R.K. Harrison also suggests
that the New Covenant is something that is more
individualistic, summarizing,
“Probably the most significant contribution
which Jeremiah made to religious thought was
inherent in his insistence that the new covenant
involved a one-to-one relationship of the
spirit. When the new covenant was inaugurated by
the work of Jesus Christ on Calvary, this
important development of personal, as opposed to
corporate, faith and spirituality was made real
for the whole of mankind.”[15]
Appeals to the promise of the New Covenant are made in Hebrews chs.
8 and 10, as the author of Hebrews writes about
how the priestly work of Yeshua the Messiah has
brought the permanent atonement and forgiveness
of sins that were prophesied. While there are
other things that are involved with the New
Covenant, including the repatriation of an
exiled Israel to the Promised Land, the
viewpoint of the Apostolic Scriptures is
definitely that the essential reality of the New
Covenant is already present in the lives of
God’s people—via what is commonly called
realized eschatology. In the estimation of J.
Andrew Dearman, the references to the Jeremiah
31 New Covenant, seen in the Apostolic
Scriptures, hold to “a belief that the future
redemption promised by God through
Jeremiah....has dawned in the ministry of Jesus
Christ.”[16]
He further describes how,
“[This] will be brought to an ultimate fulfillment in his second
coming at the end of the age...Because of
Christ’s advent and through the continuing
ministry of the Spirit...[we have] tasted an
‘already’ of the future Jeremiah foresaw.”[17]
The essential reality of the New Covenant is realized in the lives
of redeemed Believers today, as the Lord writes
His commandments on our hearts via the power of
the Spirit, because the work of Yeshua the Messiah
at Golgotha has provided final forgiveness for
our sins. This will enable us, as His people, to
be loyal to Him, to obey Him, and most
importantly demonstrate His love and goodness to
all we encounter. Still, we cannot forget how
more of the promises of the New Covenant, as
they concern the restoration of Israel’s
Kingdom, await us in the future. We are people
of that Kingdom who are waiting for the complete
fulfillment of prophecies issued by Jeremiah. We
can be assured of God’s faithfulness toward
Israel, and that all of what the New
Covenant encompasses will come to pass:
“Thus
says the
Lord, who gives the sun for light by day
and the fixed order of the moon and the stars
for light by night, who stirs up the sea so that
its waves roar; the
Lord
of hosts is His name: ‘If this fixed order
departs from before Me,’ declares the
Lord, ‘Then the offspring of Israel also will cease from
being a nation before Me forever.’ Thus says the
Lord, ‘If the heavens above can be measured and the
foundations of the earth searched out below,
then I will also cast off all the offspring of
Israel for all that they have done,’ declares
the Lord”
(Jeremiah 31:35-37).
The Lord basically says that if the universe is not as vast as it
is, then Israel will cease being His chosen
people. Yet the universe will never be fully
measured, and a rebuilding of Israel will occur
(Jeremiah 31:38-39). Those places where the
Israelites had once committed their sins of
idolatry and abomination against Him, will
actually be considered holy (Jeremiah 31:40).
Ezekiel 36:25-27
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and
you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all
your filthiness and from all your idols.
Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a
new spirit within you; and I will remove the
heart of stone from your flesh and give you a
heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you
and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you
will be careful to observe My ordinances.”
While the term “new covenant” is not used in this oracle delivered
by the Prophet Ezekiel, these verses are the
next most associated promise of the New Covenant
from the Tanach Scriptures after Jeremiah
31:31-34. Joseph Blenkinsopp indicates, “it
comes to clearest expression in a passage in
Jeremiah that Ezekiel almost certainly had in
mind.”[18]
The Prophet Ezekiel’s message specifically
focuses on the dynamic of God washing His people
clean of their sins, giving them a new heart,
and transforming them by the unique power of His
Spirit.
This prophecy appears within a scope of promises detailing the
future restoration of Israel, as the Lord once
again is depicted as having to rectify the
problem of why Ancient Israel had to be judged.
Ezekiel is told by God, “when
the house of Israel was living in their own
land, they defiled it by their ways and their
deeds; their way before Me was like the
uncleanness of a woman in her impurity” (Ezekiel
36:17). The sinful state of Israel is depicted
like the uncleanness (Heb. tumah,
hamj) of a woman in her menstrual cycle—but here
envisioned as something that is more than just
for a short period of the month—requiring God to
almost separate Himself. But while the point of
comparison is that of a woman in continual
uncleanness, the sin that God has to judge is
not specified as being sexual, but instead one
of murder and idolatry committed in His Land
(Ezekiel 36:18) and even in the areas
where Israel was scattered (Ezekiel 36:19-21).
Because of His own holiness and fidelity to His people, God has a
plan to act on behalf of Israel. Definite
missional imperatives can be seen in the word, “It
is not for your sake, O house of Israel, that I
am about to act, but for My holy name, which you
have profaned among the nations where you went”
(Ezekiel 36:22, cf. vs. 35-36), as this
restoration will affect more than just Israel
itself. God Himself has to sovereignly interject
Himself into a situation where sinful humans
have defamed Him, an intervention that will be
seen in the eyes of the whole world as Israel is
regathered (Ezekiel 36:23-24).
The essential reality of what God will do with
His people is declared in Ezekiel 36:25-27, as
the state of uncleanness is radically reversed
to one of purity and obedience. The oracle ends
with God’s people being brought back into the
Promised Land, rebuilding what was torn down,
and greatly prospering with His blessing
(Ezekiel 36:28-38).
The New Covenant promise from the Lord, delivered by Ezekiel, is
that “I
will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you
shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and
from all your idols I will cleanse you” (Ezekiel
36:25, RSV). It is not difficult to see how
there is a typological connection with this
spiritual cleansing by the Lord, and various
purification rituals seen in the Torah, such as:
those for priests (Exodus 29:4), Levites
(Numbers 8:7), the cleansing of the high priest
on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:4, 24,
26), or the ceremonial washing of clothes
(Exodus 19:10).[19]
In Daniel I. Block’s estimation, “The description mixes the metaphors of priestly
cleansing rituals and blood sprinkling
ceremonies.”[20]
The specific problem to be reversed is how
Israel “shed
blood in the land and...had defiled it with
their idols” (Ezekiel 36:18, NIV). While murder
and idolatry are certainly in view, offering
sacrifices to idols may also be considered.
The words of the Psalmist are poignant to consider here: “Behold,
the man who would not make God his refuge, but
trusted in the abundance of his riches and
was strong in his evil desire. But as
for me, I am like a green olive tree in the
house of God; I trust in the lovingkindness of
God forever and ever” (Psalm 52:7-8). Those of
us who have placed our trust in Yeshua the
Messiah, and His sacrificial work, believe that
just as Ezekiel 36:25 specifies, we have been
cleansed by God from any sinful activities that
once separated us from His presence. According
to 1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, He is
faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins
and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” The
all-encompassing work of God to cleanse sinners
of their defilements is further appealed to by
Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will
not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be
deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters,
nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor
drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will
inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of
you; but you were washed, but you were
sanctified, but you were justified in the name
of the Lord Yeshua the Messiah and in the Spirit
of our God.”
The gravity of Yeshua’s atoning work for us is referenced by the
author of Hebrews, who encourages Believers, “let
us draw near with a sincere heart in full
assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled
clean from an evil conscience and our
bodies washed with pure water” (Hebrews 10:22).
Also not to be overlooked is how the Father
showed Peter in a vision that all people are
made clean by the work of His Son (Acts 10:15),
provided they acknowledge Him as Savior.
The theme of Ezekiel 36:25 is something that not only affected the
language or emphases of the Apostles, but also
Jewish theology present in the broad First
Century period. The Mishnah indicates, “Happy
are you, O Israel. Before whom are you made
clean, and who makes you clean? It is your
Father in heaven [Ezekiel 36:25]...Just as the
immersion pool cleans the unclean, so the Holy
One, blessed be he, clean Israel” (m.Yoma
8:9).[21]
Similarly, the Dead Sea Scrolls reflect how
“This spirit encourages...glorious purity
combined with visceral hatred of impurity in its
every guise” (1QS 4.5).[22]
The Biblical emphasis on purification via water, seen in Ezekiel
36:25 with the reference to mayim tehorim
(~yrAhj
~ym),
has led to diverse views and traditions in both
Judaism and Christianity. Without going into
detail about rituals ranging from proselyte
immersion to Believer’s baptism to infant
baptism,[23]
Blenkinsopp simply summarizes, “Whatever the
historical antecedents of Christian baptism,
whether an initiatory cleansing of the Qumran
type, or proselyte baptism, or a combination of
different features, the basic pattern is already
detectable in Ezekiel’s promise.”[24]
The metaphor of water cleansing people, whose
sins have caused God to separate from them, has
been employed to support both Jewish and
Christian practices where an immersion in water
represents being restored to fellowship with
Him. In the Apostolic Scriptures, in particular,
water immersion is a ritual that is accessible
by all, and unlike physical circumcision is not
bound by a particular gender (Galatians
3:27-28).
Of course, it is not enough for God’s people to simply be cleansed
by Him, as though they are only undergoing a
purification ritual via water. Ezekiel’s
prophecy continues, stating, “A
new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I
will put within you; and I will take out of your
flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of
flesh” (Ezekiel 36:26), as those restored to Him
will notably receive a lev chadash (vdx bl) or “new heart.” But
it is not only a new heart
they will receive, as they will also have a
ruach chadashah (hvdx xWr) or “new
spirit.” It has been rightly observed how the
heart is the location of the human mind, and the
spirit reflects the inner emotions. Christopher
J.H. Wright comments, “Israel
will have to think differently, and
feel differently.”[25]
With Israel promised a new heart, the Deuteronomy 30:6 decree about
the Lord circumcising the heart should be
considered. However, Wright thinks that from
Ezekiel’s perspective, “Much more radical
surgery is needed now....He will remove the
heart of stone, which has made Israel hard,
cold, unresponsive and dead to [the Lord’s]
words of command or of appeal. And he will
implant in its place a heart of flesh—flesh
which is living, warm, and soft.”[26]
By the Divine activity that will cleanse people,
implanting within them a new way of relating to
God, a restored, intimate relationship with the
Creator will come forth. The lev basar (rfB bl) or “heart of flesh” is not to be thought in
its frequent Pauline context of “flesh” relating
to base human nature, but rather represents a
positive aspect of being a living and vital part
of existence. Block concurs, “The only answer is
the removal of the petrified organ and its
replacement with a warm, sensitive, and
responsible heart of flesh (bāśār)”[27]
(cf. Ezekiel 11:19).
The work that takes place in changing one’s heart is something that
only comes about by the work of God’s Spirit, as
it is asserted “I
will put My Spirit within you...” (Ezekiel
36:27a),
v’et-ruachi ettein b’qirbekhem
(~kBrqB
!Ta yxWr-taw). This is a
clearer emphasis than what is seen in the
previous word from Jeremiah 31:31-34, because
although the presence of God’s Spirit is
certainly seen there, it is not specifically
mentioned as in Ezekiel 36:25-27. Consequently,
not only do we see an emphasis on water
immersion in the Apostolic Scriptures
representing the transformation of people, but
we also definitely see an emphasis on the work
of the Holy Spirit.
Yet what will the Spirit cause God’s people to do? As just stated,
it will change their hearts and minds to be more
oriented toward Him, making the restored
relationship much more intimate than it was
before (Ezekiel 36:26). But once again, just as
takes place with Jeremiah 31:31-34, a
significantly overlooked aspect of the New
Covenant by many Christians is, “I
will put My Spirit within you and cause you
to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful
to observe My ordinances” (Ezekiel 36:27),
v’asiti et asher-b’chuqai teileiku
u’mishpatai tishmeru v’asitem (~tyf[w WrmvT yjPvmW WklT yQxB-rva
ta ytyf[w). The Spirit will cause God’s people
to “follow My laws and faithfully observe My
commandments” (Leviticus 26:3, NJPS).
The Hebrew of Ezekiel 36:27 is a bit stronger
than just “I
will...move you to follow” (NIV) the
commandments. The verb asiti (ytyf[) regards how God will “make” (ATS, NRSV) such obedience possible.
Katheryn Pfisterer Darr describes, “This is no
turn of heart on the Israelites’ part but a
heart transplant performed unilaterally by
Yahweh to insure the people’s utter and unending
obedience”[28]
The New Covenant promise of Ezekiel 36:25-27 concurs perfectly with
the picture of redemption we are given in the
Apostolic Scriptures. According to Ephesians
2:8-9 we are only saved by God’s grace, but
following in Ephesians 2:10 we are told that God
created us for good works. Iain M. Duguid can
only confirm how “The people who are saved not
by works are saved through God’s
work, for good works.”[29]
Echoes of this are seen in the work of the Holy
Spirit within Believers, which according to the
Apostle Paul causes people who have been
redeemed from the Torah’s curse, to fulfill the
Torah’s proper intention:
“Therefore
there is now no condemnation for those who are
in Messiah Yeshua. For the law of the Spirit of
life in Messiah Yeshua has set you free from the
law of sin and of death. For what the Law could
not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God
did: sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh and as an offering for sin,
He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the
requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us,
who do not walk according to the flesh but
according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:1-4).
Given the New Covenant’s emphasis on being cleansed by water
(Ezekiel 36:25), and the activity of the Spirit
(Ezekiel 36:27), we can see a few overlooked
pieces of Yeshua’s teaching, “Truly,
truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water
and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God” (John 3:5). One has to be purified of
sin and filled with the Holy Spirit, guided upon
a life of obedience, if he or she ever hopes to
enter into God’s Kingdom.
It is unfortunate that among Christian commentaries, there is not a
huge amount of reflection on Ezekiel 36:27,
which clearly states how the work of God’s
Spirit will cause His people to obey His
commandments. This aligns with the Jeremiah
31:31-34 New Covenant promise of God writing His
Torah onto their hearts. What detail is seen
among Christian commentators, however, does
confirm how via the power of God’s Spirit,
people will be able to follow His Law. Ralph P.
Alexander summarizes,
“[I]n the new covenant the people would receive a new spirit, God’s
Holy Spirit...who would enable them to live
God’s law, strengthening them to follow the
Mosaic covenant’s commandments (v.27; cf. Rom
7:7-8:4; Heb, 8:6-10:39). The old Mosaic
covenant would be written on the heart of those
living under the new covenant (Jer 31:33).
Therefore, the new covenant replaced the Mosaic
covenant by adding those things that made it
better, but not by eliminating the good,
righteous, and godly Mosaic stipulations that
described how to live a godly life. The new
covenant provided forgiveness of sin once and
for all and the Holy Spirit’s indwelling.”[30]
In Ezekiel 36:25-27 we see how the promised New Covenant is not at
all something completely divorced or separated
from the Torah of Moses. There might be some
different features seen in the New Covenant,
that were not seen in the previous Mosaic
Covenant, notably including: a permanent
cleansing of sin, a new heart and spirit
implanted into people, and an internalizing of
God’s Instruction. Yet, in contrast to the
common thought that the New Covenant includes no
commandments, an obedience to the Torah via the
working of God’s Spirit, in order to live a holy
and sanctified life, is clearly present.
Furthermore, in comparing and contrasting the
previous perspective of Jeremiah 31:31-34 with
this oracle, the only significant difference is
that for Ezekiel the role of God’s Spirit in
causing people to obey Him is now unambiguous,
as Block states, “Jeremiah and Ezekiel obviously
have the same covenant renewal in mind, but what
Jeremiah attributes to the divine Torah, Ezekiel
ascribes to the infusion of the divine
rûaḥ.”[31]
Like Jeremiah’s previous oracle of the New Covenant, the essential
reality of what Ezekiel describes is already
present within the lives of born again Believers
today, as a kind of realized eschatology. There
is certainly more to come as God’s wider
prophetic plan manifests itself, but it is quite
difficult to argue against how the Apostles saw
the work of Yeshua bringing both purification
from sin, and a new heart and spirit, to those
who have placed their trust in Him. By receiving
the Holy Spirit, redeemed individuals have been
given a guarantee or a pledge of the things to
come as they wait for the future age to fully
come (Ephesians 1:14). We can receive the new
heart of the flesh, and experience an intimate
relationship with our Creator now, prior to
complete restoration of Israel.
Even though the main part of the New Covenant depicted by the
Prophet Ezekiel is accessible now, more awaits
us. Only with individual people possessing new
hearts can a redeemed Israel be eventually
returned to the Promised Land and to prosperity.
John B. Taylor notes how, “For [Ezekiel]...the
restoration of Israel was the beginning of the
last days, the age of the Messiah. In keeping
with that idea, therefore, the covenant
relationship between God and Israel would be
renewed.”[32]
As more and more people are not only given new
hearts by the Lord, but as He sovereignly brings
His people together and they recognize
themselves as a part of Israel being restored,
we will see the eventual completion of Ezekiel
36:28: “You
will live in the land that I gave to your
forefathers; so you will be My people, and I
will be your God.” The individual enactment of
cleansing from sin, being given a new heart, and
a Spirit-led Torah obedience will inevitably
lead toward the future and corporate restoration
of Israel.
Romans 11:26-27
“and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is
written, ‘The
Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove
ungodliness from Jacob. This
is My covenant with them, when I take away their
sins.”
Romans 11:26-27 is one of the most easy references to overlook
regarding the New Covenant, although the New
American Standard is a notable English version
that indicates quotations from the Tanach or Old
Testament in
small
capital letters, meaning that some of you
may have run across this before. Romans 11:26-27
includes quotations from Isaiah 27:9 and
Jeremiah 31:33-34.[33]
The allusion that we see to the New Covenant appears within a
densely-loaded section of Paul’s letter to the
Romans. Paul considers some of the First Century
realities of his Jewish brethren largely
rejecting the good news, and addresses the
proper attitude that the non-Jewish Believers in
Rome are to have, lest they think that God is
completely finished with the Jews as they
are the ones who have largely received the good
news. Consequently, there exist many different
views of Romans 11:25-36 in both today’s
Christianity and the Messianic movement, each of
which is going to be controversial in some way.[34]
The only thing that is probably clear from Romans 11:25-36 is that
Paul labels it a “mystery” (Romans 11:25), with
many rightly agreed that Paul is discussing the
plan of God, some parts of which were only then
taking shape in his day. The challenge, of
course, is that anything that is specified as a
“mystery” is going to create a diverse number of
interpretations and conclusions, because these
events are largely futuristic. For the purposes
of our examination here, we are most concerned
about the role of the prophesied New Covenant
within this mystery, and the character of God’s
people that is supposed to be demonstrated as a
result of its enactment—bringing about the
restoration of “all Israel” (Romans 11:26).
In Romans 11:25-36 the Apostle Paul summarizes some important parts
of God’s salvation-historical plan. He observes
how only by the coming in of the “fullness of
the Gentiles” (Romans 11:25) will the full
salvation and restoration anticipated to Israel
come to pass (Romans 11:26). This plan of
salvation and restoration is substantiated in
Romans 11:26-27 with direct allusions made from
the Tanach. The non-Jewish Believers who receive
Israel’s Messiah have a responsibility within
this salvation-historical plan to recognize the
high value and original calling of the Jewish
people (Romans 11:28-29), and how God will show
them mercy (Romans 11:31). Implied in this is
how this calling, which the First Century Jews
should have been accomplishing—will now, because
of circumstance, largely be accomplished by
non-Jewish Believers. Nowhere is a replacement
of the calling upon the Jewish people implied,
but emphasized instead is how God’s gifts to
them and calling upon them are “irrevocable”
(Romans 11:29).
What gifts and calling would Paul be referring to? Somehow it is
affected by his assertion, “From
the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies
for your sake, but from the standpoint of
God's choice they are beloved for the sake
of the fathers” (Romans 11:28). In the Tanach,
the calling upon Ancient Israel was to be a
kingdom of priests (Exodus 19:5-6) and a light
to the nations (Isaiah 42:6), which in the
Apostolic Scriptures are roles that both Jewish
and non-Jewish Believers get to
accomplish (1 Peter 2:9).[35]
Those who would largely be receptive and open to
the gospel message of salvation would naturally
be those who would accomplish the calling and
use the gifts of a spiritual priesthood and a
holy nation. Paul recognizes the nations’
reception of the gospel as a part of God’s plan—but
is quite concerned that no arrogance be
expressed by them toward his own Jewish people
(cf. Romans 11:17-21).
If in God’s plan non-Jewish Believers are those who have largely
been receiving the gospel of Yeshua’s salvation,
accomplishing the spiritual call originally
given to Ancient Israel, and have become
beneficiaries of the New Covenant—what does this
mean? Paul expresses how “For
just as you once were disobedient to God, but
now have been shown mercy because of their
disobedience, so these also now have been
disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to
you they also may now be shown mercy” (Romans
11:30-31). Recognizing how God’s mercy has been
expressed to the nations—because of a widescale
Jewish rejection of Messiah Yeshua—should
manifest itself by these people, in
accomplishing the calling, being great
vessels of His mercy to the Jewish people. The
Lord, after all, has to use redeemed people in
order to demonstrate His mercy toward Jews who
do not yet acknowledge His Son as Savior. And,
those of the nations, having once been
disobedient, should be grateful enough to
express mercy, kindness, and love to the people
who gave them the Savior. They are not at all to
be arrogant or spiteful—and especially not
“rejoice”—over a widescale Jewish rejection
of the Messiah. They are to rather be moved by
the Spirit to rectify such circumstances!
The controlling theme that Paul is discussing is, “I
do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of
this mystery—so that you will not be wise in
your own estimation—that a partial hardening has
happened to Israel until the fullness of the
Gentiles has come in” (Romans 11:25). Many
versions render the clause to plērōma tōn
ethnōn (to plhrwma twn eqnwn) as “the
full number of the Gentiles” (RSV, NIV, NRSV),
reflecting a Calvinistic idea that this is a
pre-determined or predestined number of people
who will receive salvation—but it is a view that
is incorrect. Most important, for interpreting
Romans 11:25, is the immediate prior usage of
plērōma (plhrwma) in Romans 11:12—“their
fullness” (NIV)—as regarding what D.S. Lim calls
a “moral or spiritual consummation.”[36]
From a lexical standpoint plērōma can
indeed mean “that which is brought to
fullness or completion” (BDAG),[37]
and the most significant part of being the
“fullness of the nations” is a high moral,
ethical, or spiritual quality that has been
reached.[38]
God’s salvation-historical plan is to restore “all
Israel” (Romans 11:26), His composite nation of
Jewish and non-Jewish people as one ruled by the
Messiah. This will not be accomplished, however,
until the nations who have acknowledged Yeshua
reach an extremely high level of spiritual
maturity.[39]
The salvation-historical plan regarding the salvation of “all
Israel” is seen in partial quotations that Paul
makes from both Isaiah and Jeremiah in Romans
11:26-27:
“‘A Redeemer will come to Zion, and to those who
turn from transgression in Jacob,’ declares the
Lord.
‘As for Me, this is My covenant with them,’ says
the Lord:
‘My Spirit which is upon you, and My words which
I have put in your mouth shall not depart from
your mouth, nor from the mouth of your
offspring, nor from the mouth of your
offspring's offspring,’ says the
Lord,
‘from now and forever’” (Isaiah 59:20-21).
“Therefore through this Jacob's iniquity will be
forgiven; and this will be the full price of the
pardoning of his sin: When he makes all the
altar stones like pulverized chalk stones; when
Asherim and incense altars will not
stand” (Isaiah 27:9).
“‘But this is the covenant which I will make
with the house of Israel after those days,’
declares the
Lord,
‘I will put My law within them and on their
heart I will write it; and I will be their God,
and they shall be My people. They will not teach
again, each man his neighbor and each man his
brother, saying, “Know the
Lord,”
for they will all know Me, from the least of
them to the greatest of them,’ declares the
Lord,
‘for I will forgive their iniquity, and their
sin I will remember no more’” (Jeremiah
31:33-34).
These prophecies are referred to by Paul because they give an
essential summation of what is to be inaugurated
by the work of the Messiah: a complete
forgiveness of sins and restoration of Israel to
a right standing before the Lord. The need
for this forgiveness is compounded not only as
it concerns previous idolatry by Ancient Israel,
but now it will concern a widescale Jewish
rejection of the Messiah. While Paul surely
believed in the fulfillment of the physical
promises of Israel’s restoration, Everett F.
Harrison observes, “The effect...is not couched
in terms of material prosperity or marital
invincibility, but purely in spiritual terms, in
the forsaking of godlessness and the removal of
sins by the Lord God. The references to covenant
suggests that Jeremiah 31:31-34 was in the mind
of the apostle along with the passages from
Isaiah.”[40]
N.T. Wright further states,
“This language of covenant renewal, replete with echoes of Joel 2,
Ezekiel 36, and Jeremiah 31, also sends us back
to Deuteronomy 30...[T]he substance of the
covenant is this: God will take away Israel’s
sins....[T]he hope of salvation lies in the
Messiah as the
teloß nomou
(telos nomou), the Torah’s true goal
[Romans 10:4], and in the renewal that remains
available through him. God’s salvation must be
found where God has accomplished it, revealed
it, and proclaimed it.”[41]
Once “the fullness of the nations” arrives is on the scene—which we
are concluding to be non-Jewish Believers
accomplishing the highest level of spiritual
maturity possible, truly demonstrating who
Yeshua is by the power of the New Covenant—then
the salvation of all Israel will be manifested
in the corporate forgiveness of all Israel as
these prophecies foretell. The role of referring
to these verses from Isaiah and Jeremiah, by
Paul, serves to represent a spiritual reality
that even today has yet to fully manifest
itself in corporate Israel. The basic reality of
what is expected, though, is already present
within the life of any individual who partakes
of Yeshua’s salvation. And if it has been truly
partaken of, then the work of God’s Spirit
within a person is to cause him or her to be
greatly thankful, and not arrogant and haughty.
Because of a widescale Jewish rejection of Yeshua, non-Jewish
Believers who have received Yeshua are largely
going to accomplish Ancient Israel’s original
calling of demonstrating God’s goodness to the
world (cf. Galatians 3:8; Genesis 12:3). In
spite of non-Jewish Believers being those who
will principally accomplish this call and
operate in the gifts, the calling cannot be
revoked from Paul’s Jewish people (Romans
11:29). So, non-Jewish Believers not only in
gratitude but also because of Biblical history,
have to be highly respectful of the Jewish Roots
of their Messiah faith. Douglas J. Moo notes how
Paul’s word “counters a tendency for Gentiles to
appropriate for themselves exclusively the
rights and titles of ‘God’s people,”[42]
and this has to be shared regardless of the
(small) number of Jewish Believers. Perhaps
non-Jewish Believers are a part of Israel via
their faith in Israel’s Messiah (Ephesians
2:11-12; 3:6), but this by no means allows them
to express gross disrespect toward Jews who
reject Him—a problem confronted in much of the
Epistle to the Romans. Ben Witherington III
specifies this as, “His largely Gentile audience
seems to follow the normal Roman understanding
of Jews, namely that Jews are an inferior race
and, more to the point, a religiously inferior
race.”[43]
Paul’s non-Jewish Roman audience—and by extension many of us
today—have benefited from the promise of the New
Covenant in no small part due to the widescale
Jewish rejection of Yeshua. Too widely
overlooked within the promises of the New
Covenant is how it is to involve a significant
obedience to God’s Torah. When people are
forgiven of their sins and filled with the Holy
Spirit, the Lord is able to bring us into a
proper obedience to His Law (Romans 8:1-4). Paul
would not have opposed a proper keeping of the
Torah by non-Jewish Believers, because it
first involves being transformed by God’s
love (Romans 13:9-10) and hence being vessels of
mercy toward his Jewish brethren who had yet to
acknowledge Yeshua as Savior (Romans 11:31).
Secondly, consider the testimony of non-Jewish
Believers partaking of their heritage in Israel,
following God’s Torah beyond some basic issues
of ethics or morality. If done properly with
honor expressed toward Judaism, would this at
all provoke some Jews to jealousy for faith in
the Messiah (cf. Romans 11:11)?
The Christian community claims to have received the spiritual
forgiveness and reconciliation that the Isaianic
and Jeremianic prophecies decree. Sadly, in
viewing a great deal of Christian history, not
enough non-Jewish Believers have probably
followed Paul’s expectation of allowing the Holy
Spirit to inaugurate the New Covenant, being
able vessels of His mercy toward the Jewish
people (Romans 11:31). Not enough respect and
honor, at least until the latter half of the
previous century (after the Holocaust), was
expressed toward the New Covenant’s origins and
our Messiah faith’s heritage in Judaism. Today,
via the advent of not only interfaith dialogue
by the growth of the Messianic movement, it is
quite possible we are beginning to see
Paul’s expectation in Romans 11:25-36 come to
pass.
In the course of religious history, if more of an emphasis had
been placed by Church leaders on following God’s
commandments as a part of the New
Covenant—requiring people to study and
appreciate the message of the Tanach—then
perhaps fewer conflicts between the Church and
Synagogue would have been present. In Romans
11:25, Paul specifically targets non-Jewish
arrogance or haughtiness toward the Jewish
people—and so if we are non-Jewish Believers, we
have to always remember the source from which
our salvation comes—a Jewish people still
deserving of being called “Israel.” We have the
responsibility to implement the New Covenant in
our lives, obeying God’s Torah by His Spirit,
and provoking Jews to jealousy for faith in the
Messiah (Romans 11:11)—stimulating them to ask
questions as to why we follow God’s
commandments. For, it is only by receiving
Yeshua that any of us—and most especially for
Paul, his own Jewish people—can have forgiveness
from our sins. In Wright’s estimation, “Paul’s
kinfolk can, he hopes and believes, be provoked
into seeing [mercy] by being ‘jealous’ of the
way in which Israel’s privileges are being
enjoyed by Gentiles.”[44]
It has not been easy, even in today’s broad Messianic community, to
see Paul’s desire really come to pass. Many
non-Jewish Believers who have embraced their
Hebraic Roots have taken it upon themselves to
“correct” what they think are the many errors
of Judaism, which often are just miscellaneous
nit-picking issues about mainline traditions
that they have not really investigated.[45]
As a result, it is not only various Christians
who have some anti-Semitic issues to work
through, and have failed to show honor and
respect toward the Jewish people—but even a few
Messianic non-Jews have shown arrogant
sentiments. Contrary to this, those who have
truly experienced God’s mercy at the expense of
those whom Paul labels as “enemies” of the good
news—should be conduits of God’s same mercy
to see those people come to salvation. If
the calling originally given Ancient Israel is
now largely being fulfilled by non-Jews, why
should we not express God’s love and goodness to
the people who gave us the Messiah—especially if
such a calling has not been nullified? Likewise,
if we are mature Believers, we should also try
to understand the diverse contours of Jewish
religion before criticizing them.
The kind of evangelism of the Jewish people that is required in our
generation is not at all the popular variety
that we might see of passing out tracts on the
streets of Tel Aviv. It is one directly related
to the New Covenant promise of God writing His
Torah onto our hearts, and in demonstrating good
works to people at large (Matthew 5:16). This is
a much more passive kind of gospel proclamation
via acts of kindness, love, and service toward
the Jewish people—as they witness the weightier
matters of the Torah in action and God blessing
us for our obedience. Evidencing who the Messiah
is by Torah-required acts of goodness, the same
calling that was originally upon Ancient Israel,
will enable non-Jewish Believers to truly become
that “fullness of the nations” (Romans 11:25)—spiritually
mature people who can be present to accomplish
their role in the restoration of Israel.
When is this restoration going to make place? Moo comments,
“Israel’s partial hardening will last only
until the fullness of the Gentiles comes
in—and then it will be removed.”[46]
It is too little to say that this is just some
random group of people out in the world that
will one day be integrated into the community of
Israel. On the contrary, this people of God,
taken from the nations, must be of an extremely
high spiritual quality in order for His
salvation-historical plan to come to pass. They
must embody in their lives what Paul refers to
in Romans 11:26-27, in order for the Jewish
people, who do not yet recognize Yeshua, to want
the same forgiveness of God that they
experience. The self-inflicted hardening that
might be on these non-Jewish Believers, blinded
to the necessity to honor the Jewish people
(Romans 11:29), must be removed. Following this,
the hardening that the Jewish people themselves
have experienced, in largely rejecting Yeshua,
then needs to be lifted by Yeshua’s salvation.
In Wright’s words this means, “Either the person
comes to their senses, recognizes God’s
forbearance, and repents; or they are fitted the
more fully for the judgment that will ensue.”[47]
This only intensifies the need for those of us
who know the Messiah of Israel to represent Him
properly, especially to Jews who do not
yet know Him!
Paul’s response to everything that he says in this vignette of
Romans is, “Oh,
the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His
judgments and unfathomable His ways!” (Romans
11:33). This is followed
by a doxology in Romans 11:34-36, in which a
variety of Tanach passages are quoted (Isaiah
40:13; Job 15:8; Jeremiah 23:18; Job 41:3).[48]
In spite of the many unknown details, the effect
of this is obvious: Believers are to be
driven to the Almighty to see that they are not
arrogant toward the Jewish people, and that they
are filled with His love and mercy toward them.
From this vantage point, the emphasis on being
plērōma or “fullness” (Romans 11:25)
places a very high responsibility on non-Jewish
Believers to be spiritually mature
people—especially those who feel a strong
connection to Israel and the Jewish people. They
might be a part of Israel via their faith, but
the salvation of “all Israel” (Romans 11:26)
that is coming includes the full nation restored
via the Messiah and many Jews coming to
acknowledge Him as King.
Only when a high level of spiritual maturity is reached by
non-Jewish Believers, can the wider plan of
Israel’s restoration be enacted. It includes a
renewed respect for the Jewish people and
Judaism on behalf of those from the nations.
And, it most especially includes a more
conscious enactment of the New Covenant of God’s
writing the Law onto the hearts of His people.
Not only will this enable non-Jewish Believers
to be proper vessels of Yeshua’s love and grace
demonstrated toward Jews (Romans 11:31), but the
incumbent greater obedience to the Torah that
will come will bring all of the redeemed
together as a unique, composite nation of
Israel, as was the Father’s original intention
all along. Then and only then will the
physical, and not just spiritual realities, of
the New Covenant begin to manifest. Working
toward this in our day has not always been easy,
but as the Messianic movement grows and matures,
God’s plan will undoubtedly move forward more
steadily.
Hebrews 8:7-13
“For if that first
covenant had been
faultless, there would have been no occasion
sought for a second. For finding fault with
them, He says, ‘Behold,
days are coming, says the Lord, when I will
effect a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah; not like the
covenant which I made with their fathers on the
day when I took them by the hand to lead them
out of the land of Egypt; for they did not
continue in My covenant, and I did not care for
them, 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 I will write them on their
hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall
be My people. And they shall not teach everyone
his fellow citizen, and everyone his brother,
saying, “Know the Lord,” for all will know Me,
from the least to the greatest of them. For I
will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will
remember their sins no more.’ When He
said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the
first obsolete. But whatever is becoming
obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.”
Hebrews 8:7-13 is probably the most important passage in the whole
of the Apostolic Scriptures as it concerns the
New Covenant, specifically because it involves a
direct quotation from Jeremiah 31:31-34,
actually noted by Paul Ellingworth to be “the
longest quotation in the NT”[49]
from the Tanach. What is the role of Jeremiah 31
within the argument of Hebrews? To a theologian
like Leon Morris it means, “This long quotation
from Jeremiah 31:31-34 makes the point that the
old covenant under which Israel has had its
religious experience is now superseded by a new
covenant.”[50]
It certainly is unavoidable that the author of
Hebrews believes that the New Covenant is a
reality that has now been inaugurated, but it is
also easily observed that not enough readers or
interpreters pay close attention to what he
actually says. Some details, both in terms of
the translation of Hebrews 8:7-13 and its
surrounding verses, and opinions of what this
passage means, have to be weighed together.
When many of today’s Christian Bible readers encounter the New
Covenant of Hebrews 8:7-13, the fact that it
includes such a large quotation from the
Tanach or Old Testament is often glossed over.
Such a quotation is not there to just “liven” up
the words of the author’s argument or message,
but is there to make a serious theological
point. The New Covenant is something that was
anticipated by Israel’s Prophets and has now
been brought to the lives of Believers by the
work of Israel’s Messiah.
The challenge in evaluating the role of Hebrews 8:7-13, which
quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34, is that too many
people approach the Epistle to the Hebrews with
the wrong presuppositions. First of all, Hebrews
was probably composed so that it could have been
read out loud as some kind of a sermon or a
speech, which means that it is rhetorically
packed with information. Secondly, Hebrews was
put together to analyze some very serious First
Century issues, in particular for Jewish
Believers. While modern interpreters commonly
think that Hebrews pits an old Judaism against a
new Christianity, and thus they consider God’s
Torah to be old and obsolete—if more attention
were given to detail then these conclusions
would be shown to be quite anachronistic.
Certainly, while Yeshua the Messiah is uplifted
in Hebrews as superior to all things, the author
employs a significant number of qal v’chomer
or a fortiori arguments, “how much
more...” These arguments demonstrate Yeshua’s
supremacy over individuals like Abraham, Moses,
or King David, or the Levitical priesthood and
Tabernacle—but these figures of faith and the
Levitical priesthood have to be highly lauded
and respected in order for Yeshua’s supremacy to
stand.
A main feature of the Epistle to the Hebrews is the shift that has
occurred via the sacrificial work of Yeshua on
the cross, from the Levitical priesthood to
Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood, detailed
previously in Hebrews 7:1-8:6. Hebrews 9:1-10:18
following, further describes how highly the
author views the previous Levitical order,
including many of the details of the Tabernacle
and sacrificial service, comparing and
contrasting it to the sacrifice and priestly
ministry of Yeshua in Heaven. It is only by
Yeshua’s sacrifice and priestly ministry that
permanent atonement for sin can be made, which
the Levitical priesthood ultimately could not
provide.
Many First Century Messianic Jews, and even non-Jews who had come
to faith in Yeshua, would have be shaken up if
the Temple and Levitical priesthood had just
stopped operating. Many of these Believers lived
in the Diaspora, and they placed their trust in
the final sacrifice of the Messiah—but
they still knew that sacrifices were taking
place all the way back in Jerusalem. If the
Temple and Levitical priesthood were gone, could
they exclusively rely on the sacrifice of
Yeshua for the permanent atonement of their
sins—without the safety net of thinking that at
least something was continuing in Jerusalem?
This was uncharted territory for the First
Century ekklēsia that the author of
Hebrews addresses. The seriousness of it is
noted by Ellingworth:
“The concept of the new covenant is co-ordinate...with that of
Christ’s priesthood, and serves to show that it
is not an isolated phenomenon but part of a
total re-ordering by God of his dealings with
his people.”[51]
Too frequently, we think that the author of Hebrews is writing
directly to us, and we totally forget what his
words meant to First Century people who looked
to Jerusalem and to the Temple as the total
center of their religious belief. This is quite
contrary to many of us today, who have seen the
worldwide spread of the good news, and are more
consciously aware of “The
earth is the
Lord's,
and all it contains, the world, and those who
dwell in it” (Psalm 24:1). Unlike many of the
First Century Believers, even subconsciously,
most of us do not see God as somehow being
constrained to a specific location on the
planet. We consider our Creator to compose far
more than just the Temple or Jerusalem or even
the Land of Israel. The author of Hebrews,
writing in the mid-to-late 60s C.E., was perhaps
seeing the Jewish revolt and destruction of the
Temple on the horizon, and knew that what would
come of it was going to shake the faith of many
Believers.
Hebrews 8:7 opens up the author’s quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34
with the word, “For
if that first covenant had been
faultless, there would have been no occasion
sought for a second.” There is an immediate
question to be asked, because in a version like
the NASU which employs italics for words
added by the translators, it is easily seen that
“covenant” is not in the original
reading.[52]
And indeed, the Greek does read Ei gar hē
prōtē ekeinē ēn amemptos (Ei gar
h prwth
ekeinh hn amemptoß), with the term
diathēkē (diaqhkh) or “covenant” noticeably
missing from v. 7: “for if that first were
faultless” (YLT). While the New Covenant is
something that features within the author’s
discussion, what is hē prōtē really
connected to? Is adding “covenant” an
inappropriate value judgment, as made by most
Bible translators? Grammatically speaking, given
the surrounding cotext, there are four possible
feminine nouns that can be associated with hē
prōtē. Diathēkē or “covenant” is
certainly one of them, but so are skēnē
(skhnh) or “tabernacle,” hierōsunē
(ierwsunh) or “priesthood,” or even
leitourgia (leitourgia) or “ministry.” The
latter three would be used as referents to the
Levitical sacrificial system, which the author
of Hebrews affirms is surpassed in effectiveness
by the Melchizedekian priesthood of Yeshua.
Hebrews 8:6, immediately preceding, does indicate how “now
He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as
much as He is also the mediator of a better
covenant, which has been enacted on better
promises.” It affirms how Yeshua is
kreittonos estin diathēkēs mesitēs
(kreittonoß estin diaqhkhß mesithß), “he is
the mediator of a greater covenant” (Lattimore).
The author’s argument, though, is that it is
only by the enactment of Yeshua’s ministry or
priesthood, resultant of His sacrifice for
sinful humanity and exaltation in Heaven, has
the era of New Covenant actually been
inaugurated. This is confirmed in the preceding
words of Hebrews 8:1-4:
“Now the main point in what has been said is
this: we have such a high priest, who has
taken His seat at the right hand of the throne
of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the
sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the
Lord pitched, not man. For every high priest is
appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so
it is necessary that this high priest
also have something to offer. Now if He were on
earth, He would not be a priest at all, since
there are those who offer the gifts according to
the Law.”
Hebrews 8:1, in particular, is frequently left out of readers’
evaluations of what of Hebrews 8:7-13 really
communicates—even though it clearly controls
what the author is trying to communicate. What
does he label what he is about to discuss? He
calls it kephalaion (kefalaion)—“Now
this is my main point” (NEB). The discussion in
Hebrews 8:7-13 is controlled by the change in
priesthoods that Yeshua has brought by His
sacrifice, which in turn enacts the power of the
New Covenant. As William L. Lane describes, “By
his life of perfect obedience and his death,
Jesus inaugurated the new covenant of Jer
31:31-34. His entrance into the heavenly
sanctuary guarantees God’s acceptance of his
sacrifice and the actualization of the
provisions of the superior covenant he
mediated.”[53]
Only by the priesthood of Yeshua in Heaven can
the enactment of the New Covenant be realized.
Why is it important to recognize that the discussion of the New
Covenant is placed within an overarching
discussion about a change in priesthoods? It is
because it affects how we read v. 7: “For
if that first...had been faultless, there would
have been no occasion sought for a second”
(NASU). Is this the “first covenant,”
meaning the Mosaic Covenant that had been
delivered by God at Mount Sinai to His people?
Or is this the “first
priesthood/tabernacle/ministry,” which had
been occupied by sinful human beings? The
perspective of the author of Hebrews is that the
Levitical priesthood was the problem, because it
could not offer the permanent redemption that
Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood offers
(Hebrews 7:11, 28). No statement is ever given
that the Law given by God is somehow bad or is
somehow the problem, rather it is those sinful
men who occupied the office of Levitical priest
(Hebrews 7:27; 10:11) that requires the change.
With Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood now in
place, the essential reality of the New Covenant
can be partaken of.
The New Covenant is inaugurated because God “find[s]
fault with them” (Hebrews 8:8a). While it might
be thought that this is mainly speaking of “the
people” (NIV), it is more likely that “them”
relates to “the priests” (Hebrews 8:4,
RSV/NIV/NRSV/ESV) referred to earlier. However,
such sinful and weak human priests do have “to
offer up sacrifices, first for [their] own sins
and then for the sins of the people”
(Hebrews 7:27), so the sins of the people at
large are still in the equation. Principally, in
light of the wider issues, the New Covenant is
inaugurated because of the poorness of the
Levitical priests—not difficult to assert in the
First Century C.E. due to the corrupt
Sadducees—and secondly relates to the people at
large. Yeshua exalted in Heaven now serves the
people after His Melchizedkian order, bringing
the essential reality of the Jeremiah 31:31-34
prophecy to those who were once served by the
Levitical order. F.F. Bruce summarizes these
expectations as:
“[T]he people’s life would be reconstituted on a
new basis, and a new relationship between them
and their God would be brought into being. This
new relationship would involve three things in
particular (a) the implanting of God’s
law in their hearts; (b) the knowledge of
God as a matter of personal experience; (c)
the blotting out of their sins.”[54]
It is at the point, in Hebrews 8:8b-12, where Jeremiah 31:31-34 is
quoted by the author. Many pastors and lay
readers quickly jump through the verses that
describe the New Covenant or diathēkēn kainēn
(diaqhkhn
kainhn),
expelling very little time and energy thinking
through or contemplating what the New Covenant
specifically involves. So, when glossing through
the single longest quote from the Old Testament
in the New Testament, many of today’s Christians
errantly think that the Torah has no more
validity or relevance in the post-resurrection
era—when this is not at all what the Jeremiah
31:31-34 promise says! Furthermore, the author
of Hebrews fully upholds how the New Covenant is
delivered “with
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah” (Hebrews 8:8b), and not to any separate “Church” entity. While
the New Covenant affects all people, it is only
accessible through Israel.
Something that we also have to remember is that Jeremiah 31:31-34
is quoted by the author of Hebrews from the
Greek Septuagint, the ancient translation of the
Hebrew Tanach employed by the Diaspora Jewish
Synagogue (among as many as thirty-five quotes
or allusions to the LXX are seen in Hebrews).[55]
We should by no means make the mistake of
thinking, when we go to look up a Jeremiah
31:31-34 in our Bibles, translated from the
Hebrew Masoretic Text, that the author of
Hebrews has somehow made a misquotation if
things do not totally match up. (This is also
true of other places in the Gospels or Apostolic
Epistles where the Greek LXX, and not Hebrew MT,
is quoted.). Witherington points out what we
need to be aware of in Hebrews 8:8b-13:
“The Septuagint changes the Hebrew twice: it omits from Jeremiah
31:32 the phrase although I was like a
husband to them, and in Jeremiah 31:33
‘within them’ becomes ‘in their minds’ in the
Septuagint.”[56]
Hebrews 8:9, quoting from Jeremiah 31:32, specifies the reason why
the New Covenant is to be enacted. The Lord says
that it is “not
like the covenant which I made with their
fathers on the day when I took them by the hand
to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they
did not continue in My covenant, and I did not
care for them, says the Lord.”
The LXX translation largely conforms to what is
seen in the MT, with the exception of the final
phrase. The actual Hebrew of this clause in
Jeremiah 31:32 reads with v’anoki ba’alti bam
(~b yTl[B
yknaw), meaning “though I
was their husband” (RSV) or “though I espoused
them” (NJPS). The Greek LXX, employed in
Hebrews, contrasts this and has kai egō
hēmelēsa autōn (kai egw hmelhsa
autwn), “I had no concern for them” (NRSV).
Ellingworth thinks that “Hmelhsa
is an LXX
mistranslation of the Hebrew ‘although I was a
husband to them,’”[57]
even though he is examining it entirely from a
text-critical point of view. It is certainly
possible that the Septuagint Rabbis translated
ba’alti as hēmelēsa to interject a
theological opinion of God not concerning
Himself with Israel for a season after they
broke His covenant. But it is also very possible
that the Greek LXX is translating an overlooked
and ancient definition of the Hebrew verb
ba’al. Gesenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee
Lexicon, for example, offers the definition
“to loathe, reject,” absent from most
lexicons. It compares the verb ba’al to
its Semitic cognates in Arabic, and notes that
“there are also other verbs, in which the sense
of subduing, being high over, ruling, is applied
to the signification of looking down upon,
despising, condemning,”[58]
hence by extension not having any concern or
regard. This is obviously not a permanent
action, because if it were, then the Lord would
not seek to establish this New Covenant with His
people. But it does indicate that for the season
in which Jeremiah prophesied, Israel did need to
be punished and He did look down on them with
some strong displeasure.
Hebrews 8:10 continues with quoting Jeremiah’s oracle from the LXX,
where we also encounter some variation with the
MT: “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 I will
write them on their hearts.”
In either the Hebrew or the Greek the overwhelming consensus is
that the critical part of the New Covenant is
that God says, “I
will place My Torah within them and I will write
it onto their heart” (Jeremiah 31:32, ATS). The
Hebrew reads
nattati et-Torati b’qirbam
(~BrqB ytrAT-ta yTtn), “I will put
my law within them” (RSV). Sometimes this is
rendered with “inmost being” (NJPS) or “inward
parts” (JBK). The Greek, however, adds a
distinct dimension to this, reading didous
dōsō nomous mou eis tēn dianoian (didouß
dwsw nomouß mou eiß thn dianoian). The NIV
of Jeremiah 31:32 follows the LXX reading in
part and has “I will put my law in their minds.”
Whether the Torah is written on the inward
parts, heart, and/or minds—still implies that it
is written onto the very psyche of God’s people
A second difference, while less notable but quite important,
between the Hebrew MT and Greek LXX of Jeremiah
31:33, is that the Hebrew only employs torati
(ytrAT) meaning “My Torah” (ATS) or “My
Teaching” (NJPS),[59]
in the singular, and the Greek uses nomous
(nomouß) or “laws,” in the plural. Why does
“laws” appear in the plural in the Greek? Donald
Guthrie suggests, “It may be that the translator
wished to emphasize the separate parts of God’s
law to distinguish these parts from the law of
Moses as a complete unity,”[60]
which would certainly be the view of a Reformed
theology that artificially sub-divides the Torah
into moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Still,
the plural “laws” might better suggest that as
the Holy Spirit writes God’s commandments onto
the heart via the New Covenant, it is not
something that happens all at once, and only
takes place at the speed of an individual’s
sanctification—a speed only to be determined
by the Spirit.
The contrast between the previous Mosaic Covenant, and the New
Covenant inaugurated by Yeshua’s priesthood, is
that God’s commandments would no longer just be
written on stone (Exodus 32:15-16), but now on
the heart. We see a definite shift from an
external to an internal emphasis. The unique
rendering of the LXX, adding how God’s laws will
be written on the human dianoia (dianoia), only further buttresses how significant the
New Covenant is. Not only will redeemed people
be empowered by hearts that love God, but they
will have minds that can compute who God is that
will appreciate the value of His Law.
It is quite sad to see how many Bible readers just skip over the
fact that the New Covenant promise includes an
implantation of God’s laws onto the psyche of
His people. Permanent forgiveness for sins and a
restored relationship with God are offered for
sure (Hebrews 8:11-12)—and that is why the New
Covenant is superior to anything which had
preceded it! But, the New Covenant most
definitely includes the clear imperative for
those affected by it to obey God. Bruce makes a
direct reference to Romans 8:1-4, about the work
of the Spirit inside of Believers accomplishing
“the requirement of the Law,” also noting a
variety of Tanach passages that describe
obedience to the Torah (Deuteronomy 6:6-9;
Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26; Exodus 24:7).[61]
It is interesting to observe the viewpoints that
are made by Hebrews commentators, who have to
recognize, that to some degree or another, the
Torah is connected to the enactment of the New
Covenant (Hebrews 8:10; Jeremiah 31:33), as
opposed to the two being at odds with one
another:
●
William L. Lane: “The quality of newness intrinsic to the new
covenant consists in the new manner of
presenting God’s law and not in newness of
content.”[62]
●
David A. deSilva: “it speaks of an internalization of God’s
commandments, an internal knowledge of, and
commitment to do, God’s laws.”[63]
●
Fred B. Craddock: “It is enough here to observe that the new
covenant promises the inscribing God’s law on
the hearts of believers and the forgiveness of
sins. There is no offer of new content but a new
manner of the law’s being presented and being
appropriated.”[64]
●
Ben Witherington III: “The stress is on the new covenant,
which will accomplish three new
things...[including] God will put his ‘torah’
into their very minds/consciences/hearts, which
stresses the inwardness or inward effect of this
new sort of instruction.”[65]
Generally speaking, while commentators like these have to
acknowledge some role that the Torah or Law
plays within the dynamics of the New Covenant,
they then move on without paying a great deal of
attention to it. No time is really spent
discussing what it means for a redeemed
person—as mentioned in Hebrews—to have the laws
of God written on the heart and mind.
What “laws” (nomous,
nomouß) are written onto the hearts and minds of
God’s people? No mature Believer disagrees with
the fact that what is Divinely implanted into
their psyche is the requirement to love God and
neighbor, considered by our Lord Yeshua to be
the foremost of the commandments.[66]
The bulk of the Torah’s commandments relate to
such a love imperative, and detail what the
proper ethics and morality of God’s people are
to be, and how people are to interact with one
another, showing one another value and respect.
The real issue, as Yeshua’s Melchizedekian
priesthood has inaugurated the New Covenant, is
whether this signals an end to things like the
Sabbath rest, appointed times, or a kosher
diet—all of which today’s Messianic movement
believes were not annulled by Yeshua or the
Apostles.
In principle, the Torah does certainly remain in effect for this
era of the New Covenant, but with Yeshua’s
priesthood there has come “a change of law”
(Hebrews 7:12), as there are new
post-resurrection realities to be considered.
The thoughts of Old Testament theologian Walter
C. Kaiser should be well taken here. He says,
“Only those laws from which Christ releases his
church may be jettisoned,”[67]
meaning those things directly impacted by the
Messiah’s sacrificial work. Kaiser and today’s
Messianics actually have no disagreement on the
validity of the Torah; we just differ on the
matter of how much actually has changed
with Yeshua’s arrival.
Issues like Shabbat, the appointed times, the kosher laws,
circumcision, etc.—and passages within the
Apostolic Scriptures that have been frequently
interpreted as speaking against the
passages—need to be worked through contextually
and historically, and with patience. Have
these things really been rendered inoperative in
this era of the New Covenant, or have Bible readers
possibly missed certain things from First
Century Judaism, which can affect our
interpretation of certain verses? This requires
further study and research of the Gospels and
Apostolic Epistles on the part of today’s
Messianic going well beyond the scope of this
article.
The great irony of common Christian interpretations and views of
Hebrews 8:8b-11, quoting from Jeremiah 31:31-34,
is that while many haphazardly jump through the
text and do not sit down to consider it
closely—and many Christian theologians, pastors,
and teachers strongly insist that the Torah has
been abolished—most spiritual, evangelical
Christians actually keep the majority of the Law
of Moses. Those who come from holiness and
pietistic traditions have always looked to the
Torah’s instructions on how to be godly, ethical
people who follow Christ. There are actually only
a few course corrections that have to be
enacted in terms of things which have often been
viewed as just being “Jewish”—which today’s
Messianic movement is being positioned to
present to our brothers and sisters in the
institutional Church, as relevant for their
lives, in the future. Specifically, these are
areas that only an historically and
Jewish-conscious reading of the Apostolic
Scriptures will reveal, and often includes the
consideration of data and research that previous
generations did not have access to. (Learning
how to approach this constructively with other
Believers, guided by the Torah’s imperative to
love, may be a challenge in the short term.)
The greatest emphasis of the New Covenant promise, anticipated by
Jeremiah 31:34, and quoted in Hebrews 8:11-12,
is the intimate knowing of God and the permanent
forgiveness He provides by the work of His Son:
“And
I will be their God, and they shall be My
people. And they shall not teach everyone his
fellow citizen, and everyone his brother,
saying, “Know the Lord,” for all will know Me,
from the least to the greatest of them. For I
will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will
remember their sins no more.’”
Yeshua the Messiah’s priestly work is what has
brought this reality into the lives of those
affected by the gospel. It is perfectly
valid, in the sentiments of evangelical
Christianity, to recognize that the New
Covenant brings one into a personal relationship
with Jesus Christ. Knowing the Lord does not
just involve knowing about Him or being reckoned
as a member of His people, but brings a new
standing of intimacy and being with Him, where
we can approach Him with all of our needs (cf.
Hebrews 4:16).
Similar to the translation issues of Hebrews
8:7, where diathēkē or “covenant” (noted
in the NASU by italics) does not appear
in the source text, so is this issue present in
the closing remark of Hebrews 8:13a: “[I]n the
saying ‘new’” (YLT), en tō legein kainēn
(en
tw legein kainhn). Commentators are
widely agreed that the vantage point is the
author of Hebrews observing how the destruction
of Jerusalem and the Temple are soon on the
horizon,[68]
and with this we observe how the “setting aside”
(Hebrews 7:18) of the Levitical priesthood (at
least until the Last Days and future Abomination
of Desolation) would occur. Witherington notes
how “a few scribes (81, 104, 376) took the word first to
refer to the ‘first tent,’ in Heb 8:13,”[69]
indicating how not everyone has interpreted
“covenant” to be the only subject matter.
With Yeshua’s new priesthood, or perhaps
also ministry or even (Heavenly)
tabernacle service, the Levitical service
was
going to fade into history.
For the remainder of Hebrews 8:13, there are
also translation issues. The NASU renders this
with “He has made the first obsolete. But
whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is
ready to disappear,” yet there are actually two
Greek verbs, with one of them used twice, both
relating to growing old, that should be
translated along “ageing” lines. The first of
these is pepalaiōken (pepalaiwken), and
as Ellingworth notes, “the active voice means
‘declare old,”[70]
as opposed to the more common “obsolete.” The
second usage that concerns us is the clause
palaioumenon kai gēraskon (palaioumenon
kai ghraskon), employing the previous verb
palaioō (palaiow), and another verb,
gēraskō (ghraskw). Just as palaioō
means “to be old or antiquated” (LS),[71]
so does gēraskō similarly mean “to
bring to old age” (LS).[72]
Most Bibles render these two participles
together as “becoming obsolete and growing old”
(NASU) or “old and worn out” (Good News Bible). But a more accurate
rendition of these two verbs is simply “growing
old and ageing” (NEB).[73]
LITV offers a good translation of Hebrews 8:13
in its entirety:
“In
the saying, New, He has made the first old. And
the thing being made old and growing aged is
near disappearing.”
And what was preparing to disappear? If Hebrews
was indeed written in the mid-to-late 60s C.E.,
then these are observations made between the
thirty to forty year period after the
sacrifice of Yeshua, His ascension into Heaven,
and Yeshua’s Melchizedekian priesthood
inaugurating the era of New Covenant. As a
result of this, the Levitical priesthood is
considered to be “old,” and looking back on this
two millennia later, it did disappear with the
destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. The First
Century Believers need not have been disturbed
because the new priesthood of Yeshua was already
ministering for them before the Father in
Heaven, with a still-functioning Levitical
priesthood that was “growing old and ageing”
(Hebrews 8:13, NEB).
Yeshua’s Melchizedkian priesthood inaugurating
the era of New Covenant is affirmed by the
context of Hebrews ch. 9, which compares and
contrasts the Levitical Tabernacle with the
Heavenly service of Yeshua. Like Hebrews 8:7 and
8:13, most English translations of Hebrews 9:1
add “covenant” to their renderings, as seen in
the NASU: “Now even the first covenant
had regulations of divine worship and the
earthly sanctuary.” All the Greek has is
Eiche men oun [kai] hē prōtē (Eice men
oun
[kai]
h prwth), leaving hē prōtē
or “the first...” by itself. However, the
subject matter of Hebrews 9 is easily discerned
to be the Levitical priesthood, the Tabernacle,
and sacrificial system. The author of Hebrews
surely respects these things, and is quite
knowledgeable of them, but they do take second
place to what the Messiah has accomplished and
what His new, or second priesthood has brought.
Because of the Messiah’s work, the essential
reality of the New Covenant is already present
via His priestly ministry functioning in Heaven
for us. Yet just as the New Covenant promises of
Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel 36:25-27
anticipate, so does the author of Hebrews
himself affirm how more is to come in the
future. As he specifies later,
“Every priest stands daily ministering and
offering time after time the same sacrifices,
which can never take away sins; but He, having
offered one sacrifice for sins for all time,
sat down
at the right hand of God, waiting from
that time onward
until His
enemies be made a footstool for His feet”
(Hebrews 10:11-13; cf. Psalm 110:1).
Here, the author of Hebrews mentions Yeshua’s
single sacrifice as providing a permanent
atonement for sins, unlike the Levitical
priesthood which could not offer such permanent
atonement. He also affirms how at Yeshua’s
ascension, He sat down at the right hand of His
Father, and how we are awaiting His return from
Heaven for His enemies to finally be defeated.
The author also states, “so Messiah also, having
been offered once to bear the sins of many, will
appear a second time for salvation without
reference to sin, to those who eagerly await
Him” (Hebrews 9:28), a reference to the
resurrection of deceased Believers and the full
consummation of a person’s salvation when the
whole human being is restored (Romans 8:23). In
the future Millennial age, the “setting aside”
(Hebrews 7:28) of the Levitical priesthood will
be over, as there will be Levites who oversee a
restored Temple (Ezekiel chs. 40-44), which
functions under the Messiah’s direct oversight
(and who will be present to explain it to us!).
Such will be the time when the physical promises
of the New Covenant come to fruition, as
corporate Israel is gathered together and
restored to prosperity.
Hebrews 10:14-18
“For by one offering He has perfected for all
time those who are sanctified. And the Holy
Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying, ‘This
is the covenant that I will make with them after
those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws
upon their heart, and on their mind I will write
them,’ He then says, ‘And
their sins and their lawless deeds I will
remember no more.’ Now where there is
forgiveness of these things, there is no longer
any offering for sin.”
Hebrews 10:14-18 repeats a quotation from Jeremiah 31:33-34, even
though it is a bit shorter than what was quoted
previously in Hebrews 8:7-13. Ellingworth labels
this section as “The new covenant again.”[74]
This appeal to the New Covenant prophesied by
Jeremiah appears within the overall discussion
of Yeshua’s priesthood, and the unique things
that His priestly service has inaugurated
(Hebrews 7:1-10:18). Prior to this second
quotation of Jeremiah 31:33-34, the author of
Hebrews asserts that Yeshua’s single offering of
Himself has taken away sins (Hebrews 10:11-12a),
and that He has sat at the right hand of His
Father in Heaven, supreme, waiting for His
return to Earth to finally defeat His enemies
(Hebrews 10:12b-13).
While the previous quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 8:7-13
serves to establish how Yeshua’s Melchizedkian
priesthood has inaugurated the era of New
Covenant, the quotation we see here further
considers how Yeshua’s offering up of Himself
has inaugurated the New Covenant and the
permanent forgiveness of sins now available for
people. The author recognizes, “For
by one offering He has perfected for all time
those who are sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14). This
is the single sacrifice of the Messiah for
sinful humanity; it is not as though He has to
be sacrificed over and over again for sins, nor
that the presentation of Himself before the
Father in Heaven as an acceptable sacrifice has
to be continuous. Yeshua’s single prosphora
(prosfora) was accomplished at His ascension
into Heaven, and now we live in the era of the New
Covenant with permanent forgiveness and
reconciliation with God accessible to us. While
the comparing and contrasting themes of the
Levitical priesthood and Yeshua’s priesthood are
to be considered, the important point made
here has to do more with the Messiah’s
self-sacrifice. As Bruce summarizes,
“Christ...by his self-oblation has accomplished
once for all what generations of Levitical
sacrifices had never done...The sacrifice of
Christ has purified his people from the moral
defilement of sin and assured them of permanent
maintenance in a right relationship with God.”[75]
While Yeshua’s priesthood is considered superior to the Levitical
priesthood, if for no other reason that our Lord
performs important intercessory work before His
Father in Heaven (Hebrews 4:14-16; 7:23-25), the
superiority of Yeshua’s priesthood to the
Levitical priesthood is intensified by us
recognizing the Messiah’s permanent atoning
sacrifice on sinners’ behalf. Yeshua’s one
sacrifice has brought a permanent perfection to
the saints that the sacrifices offered over
and over again by the Levitical priesthood
could not bring. This perfection is a permanent
action, seen in the perfect verb teteleiōken
(teteleiwken),
whereas being made holy or sanctified is a
continual action performed upon Believers by the
Spirit, seen in the present passive participle
hagiazomenous (agiazomenouß).
The ESV captures the verb tenses a little
better: “by
a single offering he has perfected for all time
those who are being sanctified.”
Ellingworth also might clarify for you what the
“perfection” brought actually concerns: “teleio,w
[teleioō] implies the fulfillment of
the...goal, namely an access to God which was
formerly open only to the high priest.”[76]
Asserting how the single offering of Yeshua has brought permanent
perfection and reconciliation with God, the
author of Hebrews prefaces his Jeremiah 31 quote
with the word, “the
Holy Spirit also testifies to us...” (Hebrews
10:15). While the Prophet Jeremiah originally
delivered the oracle quoted, the author
ultimately regards it to be a Divine word.
What was promised in the past by God is now to
be realized in the present. Lane states, “What
was a future expectation in the time of Jeremiah
has become a present reality as a result of the
event of Christ’s death on the cross.”[77]
Hebrews 10:16-17 only offers selective quotations from Jeremiah
31:33-34, partially because a longer quote has
been offered previously. Morris considers how
“most commentators think the writer is here
quoting from memory and giving the general sense
of Jeremiah’s words.”[78]
The only major change that is actually made by
the author, perhaps writing from memory, is his
usage of “with them” (pros autous,
proß autouß)
instead of “the
house of Israel and...the house of Judah”
(Hebrews 8:10). In Hebrews 10:16a the author
writes, “This
is the covenant that I will make with them after
those days, says the Lord,”
as Yeshua’s single sacrifice has started the era
of the New Covenant, the main substance of which is
detailed in Hebrews 10:17.
We should not read too much into the author of Hebrews only using
“with them” in Hebrews 10:16. In Ellingworth’s
estimation, this may have been done to emphasize
the broad-sweeping effects of the New Covenant,
lest anyone think that the New Covenant was only
promised to Jews. He comments, “in v. 16a,
tw oikw Israhl
[tō oikō Israēl] is replaced by
proß autouß, thereby making it easier to apply the text to readers some of
whom may be gentiles...There is, however, no
discontinuity between the old Israel and the
new; indeed, such language is never used in
Hebrews.”[79]
At the same time, given the fact that non-Jewish
Believers are considered a part of the community
of Israel (Ephesians 2:11-12; 3:6) in Messiah,
and since this is a repetition of a previously
quoted passage, the readers or audience already
know who the “with them” (Hebrews 8:10) pertains
to. Our author is more concerned about the
essential reality of the New Covenant here, and
less concerned with the people to whom it was
originally promised. The New Covenant affects
everyone.
If the author of Hebrews really wanted to express complete
discontinuity between Yeshua’s Melchizedkian
priesthood, the previous Levitical priesthood,
and the Torah or Law of Moses—treating the Law
as being totally abolished—then given the
shortening of quotations here in Hebrews
10:16-17, he could have skipped over the
reference seen to “laws” and gone right to the
New Covenant’s promise of forgiveness. But this
is not something the author of Hebrews does.
After affirming the New Covenant that the Lord
will make, he affirms what He has spoken: “I
will put My laws upon their heart, and on their
mind I will write them”
(Hebrews 10:16b). The fact that the Lord is
going to write His laws onto the hearts of His
people, immediately after His promise of a New
Covenant is asserted, is pretty significant to
just overlook. And do recall that the author of
Hebrews recognizes that it is the Holy Spirit
speaking this (Hebrews 10:15), as opposed to
just a human man like Jeremiah. Bruce further
describes,
“The new covenant, according to Jeremiah’s prophecy, not only
involved the implanting of God’s laws, together
with the will and power to carry them out, in
the hearts of his people; it also conveyed the
assurance that their past sins and iniquities
would be externally blotted out.”[80]
The Levitical priesthood was put in place to deal with the
transgression of God’s laws, and so the question
can be asked: With permanent atonement now in
place by Yeshua’s sacrifice, has God’s standard
of holiness in the Torah been nullified as
well? Lane considers Hebrews 10:14-18 to regard
how “the old cultus and the law that prescribed
it have been set aside,”[81]
although his reference to “the law that
prescribed it” could be viewed as only
pertaining to the Levitical priesthood and
Tabernacle, and not the Torah as a whole.
deSilva observes how the previous state of
continually offering the Levitical sacrifices,
“necessitated the new covenant with its new
rites.”[82]
But what are those new rites?
According to the author of Hebrews, the rites of the New Covenant
compose the “laws” of God. Even if we consider
these “laws” to basically be the Torah written
onto the hearts of His people, excluding the
added commandments regulating the Levitical
service (cf. Galatians 3:19)—that is still a
considerable bulk of the Law! Yet all deSilva
can define as the so-called new rites of the New
Covenant is “the inscribing of the way of God
upon the heart—[which is] fulfilled in Christ’s
ministry.”[83]
I do not disagree with this, as Believers surely
are to emulate Yeshua’s ministry and obedience
to the Father (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:11). The
problem is that many interpreters and
commentators leave out the specifics of what
this means, and they fail to define what it
means for the “laws” of God to be written on the
hearts of the redeemed. The author of Hebrews
surely expected “laws” to be principally
understood as the Lord’s high standard of
ethics and morality delivered in the Torah, and
how responsible people are to conduct
themselves—especially considering how permanent
atonement has been offered, cleansing the
conscience (cf. Hebrews 9:9, 14; cf. 12:24).
Further in Hebrews 10:24, the author admonishes
his audience, “let
us consider how to stimulate one another to love
and good deeds,” a major part of being made holy
or sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). Such “good works”
(RSV/NLT/ESV/HCSB) of helps and service are
those first required of God’s people in the
Torah.
Every Hebrews commentator has to deal with the claim that the New
Covenant involves the writing of the laws of God
onto the hearts of those redeemed by the work of
Yeshua, even though what such “laws” really are
often remain quite vague for them. About as
negative as the comments get in regard to this,
is a little disparaging of Jewish tradition as
seen by Lane. He thinks, “the people of God are
no longer confronted by an exterior law. It may
also suggest that God’s word will no longer be
carried in phylacteries upon the head and arms
(Exod 14:16; Deut 6:8; Matt 23:5) precisely
because it is impressed upon the center of human
volition.”[84]
I do not think any of us can honestly disagree
with how the New Covenant does have more of an
emphasis of impressing the message of God’s
commandments onto the human psyche, than what
preceded it in the past when it could at most be
placed on durable stone. The challenge is that
the Jewish tradition of wrapping tefillin
(!yLpT) every day is just as outward a rite as is
Christian communion, which evangelical
commentators are not going to look at
negatively. And today, wearing a What Would
Jesus Do? bracelet is not quantitatively
different from the command to physically bind
God’s word on the hand.[85]
The purpose of the author of Hebrews appealing to the New Covenant
promise is that the sacrifices of the Levitical
priesthood could not offer the permanent
forgiveness that Yeshua’s sacrifice now
provides. This is not something in discontinuity
with the Torah, precisely because the New
Covenant involves the writing of the Torah onto
the hearts of God’s people. And, even those who
fall into the paradigm of thinking that the
Torah has somehow been done away with or
abolished by Yeshua’s Melchizedkian priesthood,
still have to recognize how the overall issue
being considered is not the Law—but how the
Levitical priesthood could not offer permanent
atonement for sin via its sacrifices. Guthrie
puts it this way:
“It cannot be doubted that since this main section of the epistle
ends in this way, the perfection of the offering
which Christ has made is intended finally to
dispose of the continuous performance of the old
cultus. A new era has dawned. A new covenant is
in force which makes the Leviticus sacrifices
obsolete.”[86]
deSilva similarly has to recognize how the issue discussed is the
Levitical sacrificial system:
“The old covenant’s rituals were a perpetual reminder of the
restrictions on access to God, and access to the
holy place was never broadened to the worshipers
no matter how many sacrifices and sin offerings
were performed.”[87]
Lane’s thoughts are a bit clearer than Guthrie’s and deSilva’s,
even though he works from the incorrect premise
of the “Old” and “New Covenant” being analyzed
in Hebrews 7:1-10:18, and not the first and
second priesthoods. In his words, the author of
Hebrews, “recognized that the finished work of
Christ on Calvary was the actual realization of
the divine intention towards which the
sacrificial cult and the prophecy were both
pointing...The fact that the old sacrifices had
been superseded by the unique offering of Christ
implied that the old covenant...has been
replaced by the promised new covenantal
arrangement.”[88]
If Guthrie, deSilva, and Lane had all employed terms like “old
priesthood,” then they would do significantly
more justice to the words seen in the
surrounding cotext of Hebrews 10. Not to be
overlooked here would be Hebrews 10:11, which
notes how “Every
priest stands daily ministering and offering
time after time the same sacrifices, which can
never take away sins.” This is to be contrasted
to the self-offering of Yeshua, permanently
atoning for sin, and inaugurating the New
Covenant where God’s Law is written on the
heart. Most importantly, Yeshua’s offering and
the New Covenant provide the fulfillment of
God’s promise, “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more”
(Hebrews 10:17). By the sinful sacrifice of
Yeshua, sinful humanity’s anomiōn
(anomiwn), literally “lawlessnesses,” will be
forgotten by the Heavenly Father.
What is meant by the author of Hebrews, after appealing to the
New Covenant promises, saying, “Now
where there is forgiveness of these things,
there is no longer any offering for sin”
(Hebrews 10:18)? He is saying now that Yeshua’s
single offering has provided permanent
forgiveness “sacrifice for sin is no longer
necessary” (TNIV). The sacrifices of the
Levitical priesthood at most would be redundant
memorials of what they pointed to in Yeshua’s
permanent sacrifice, but with such everlasting
atonement offered by Him—should the Temple be
destroyed—Hebrews’ audience need not be too
overly concerned or worried.
For a commentator like Witherington, what Hebrews 10:18 means is,
“Christians cannot go back to the old way of
doing things, for it is in Jesus’ community
that...complete forgiveness...[is] now in
effect.”[89]
The reality provided by the work of Yeshua is
ouketi prosphora peri hamartias (ouketi
prosfora peri amartiaß), “an
offering for sins is no longer needed” (CJB). As
such, any major changes regarding the Torah in
this New Covenant era relate to the sacrificial
system and priesthood (Hebrews 7:12). The
Messiah’s work has definitely brought about a
new spiritual economy. Any changes in relation
to the prior order do not at all concern the
basic rules of how God wants His people to obey
Him—the foremost of which would be the Ten
Commandments. These would be some of the
principal “laws” in the Torah that are written
on the hearts of people by the New Covenant
(Hebrews 10:17), which are contrasted in Hebrews
10:18 with the “lawlessnesses” that must be
forgiven.
Craddock thinks that given the permanent sacrifice of Yeshua, and
the fact that sacrifices need not be offered for
the atonement of sins, that there is “no longer
any need for the continuation of cultic acts
that by their very repetition testified to their
ineffectiveness.”[90]
He is correct in his assertion that the
repetition of the Levitical sacrifices is an
indication that they were ultimately ineffectual
in providing permanent atonement. The challenge
is with those of us who as pre-millennialists
believe that animal sacrifices, will in fact, be
restored to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem one
day. Do we believe this because we think that
Yeshua’s sacrifice is ineffectual? No. We
believe this will occur because of what we read
to be unfulfilled Abomination of Desolation
prophecies (i.e., Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15; 2
Thessalonians 2:4). The prophetic fulfillment of
these words requires an operating sacrificial
system and Temple in Jerusalem.
The perspective of the Epistle to the Hebrews, written to Believers
in the mid 60s C.E., concerns what they would
think and do with their faith in Yeshua should
the Levitical sacrifices suddenly end. This
occurred in 70 C.E. with the destruction of the
Temple. Would they really be able to recognize
Yeshua’s sacrifice as final for their sins? The
author of Hebrews says that they can have confidence
in Yeshua’s single offering.
The perspective of those of us living today is different. What will
Believers think should animal sacrifices be
restored to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem
sometime in the future—even if it is just a part
of the fulfillment of an important state in
God’s plan? They might not be required for the
atonement of sins, but are we going to treat
them as some kind of an affront to God? The
author of Hebrews does not at all have the
perspective that animal sacrifices themselves
are bad or evil or sacrilegious; he just says
that they cannot provide what Yeshua Himself has
provided by His single sacrifice. These
sacrifices, as he says, are “a
shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews
10:1-2ff).
Many of today’s Christians, because of a mis-appreciation of the
Tanach or Old Testament, would claim that any
animal sacrifices offered on the Temple Mount
would themselves actually be an “abomination.”
They forget the fact that for almost forty years
after the final sacrifice of Yeshua, the
Levitical priesthood and sacrifices were still
operating, and the Apostles—while looking to
their Lord’s single offering as final
atonement—did not at all consider an operating
Levitical system to be an “abomination.” They
also lived in a Mediterranean world where the
contemporary Greco-Roman also offered animal
sacrifices, unlike those of us living today for
whom it is quite taboo. Thankfully, though, most
pre-millennialists would consider declaring the
restoration of sacrifices on the Temple Mount,
to be an “abomination,” as actually speaking
against the sovereign plan of God as laid out in
prophecy—even if they do not fully understand
such a plan.
If you struggle with the idea that in the future, animal sacrifices
will be seen on the Temple Mount as a part of
end-time prophecy, try to consider the place of
many religious Jews who have prayed for the
reconstruction of the Temple for many centuries.
Once such a Temple and Levitical system are
restored, will religious Jews really feel the
“forgiveness” of God that such sacrifices are to
presumably offer them? Or, will such a
restoration of the Levitical system seem
somewhat hollow or empty, not really offering
them the restitution or spiritual fulfillment
for which they have been praying for so long?
This is no different than the person who really
sets his eyes on something that he really wants
quite badly, but then once he is able to get it,
the object he wanted is not as impressive as it
was thought to be. In a similar vein, consider
how the reinitiating of a Levitical sacrificial
system may be what it takes to see the salvation
of many religious Jews. As we wait for this, let
us refine our understanding of the New Covenant,
and make sure that those foundational Torah laws
of love for God and neighbor, and service for
others, are being practiced by us![91]
The Bondwoman: Throwing Out the Mosaic Covenant?
When today’s Christians encounter the various New Covenant promises
in both the Tanach and Apostolic Scriptures, it
can frequently come as a shock that the New
Covenant most definitely involves God
writing the commandments of His Torah onto the
hearts of His people. Recognizing how this
begins with the imperatives to love Him and
neighbor, and thus treating other people with
respect, I would say that most in principle do
not have a problem with consciously recognizing
that the New Covenant involves forgiveness from
one’s sins, and being supernaturally
empowered to obey the Lord. But, there are
certainly a few people who do not appreciate
being told that the New Covenant requires
obedience to God’s Law, and they will insist
that some passages in the Apostolic Scriptures
confirm this point of view.
A few verses seen in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, regarding the
covenants made by God with His people, do get
some traction when this subject matter comes up.
It is not uncommon for today’s Messianics to be
refuted with the word: “for
these women are two covenants: one
proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children
who are to be slaves; she is Hagar...But what
does the Scripture say? ‘Cast
out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of
the bondwoman shall not be an heir with the son
of the free woman’” (Galatians 4:24, 30;
cf. Genesis 21:10). Paul says that the Mosaic
Covenant made at Mount Sinai with Ancient Israel
is like Hagar, and that Hagar and Ishmael were
supposed to be cast out. So, we must completely
dispense with the Mosaic Covenant and the Law
(and possibly even the Ten Commandments). In
extreme cases, Galatians 4:30 is grossly
misapplied to one thinking that the Tanach or
Old Testament Scriptures should be excised from
our regimen of Bible study and discipleship
(which would notably run contrary to the
imperative of 2 Timothy 3:16).
This is a classic case of not reading Galatians 4:22-31 closely
enough, and placing it within the overall
argument of the Epistle to the Galatians. In his
writing to the Galatians, the Apostle Paul
refutes the idea that the new, non-Jewish
Believers he has recently ministered to (Acts
13:13-14:28) must become circumcised as Jewish
proselytes to be fully incorporated into the
Body of Messiah. This, he strongly argues,
occurs on the basis of faith—just as it always
has, affirmed by the Tanach Scriptures
(Galatians 3:11; cf. Habakkuk 2:4). Paul’s
letter includes a great deal of clarification on
the proper role of the Torah, principally in how it
is to show people their need for the Messiah
(Galatians 2:21; 3:13, 24). Yeshua the Messiah
came into the world to redeem sinful people who
stood under the Torah’s condemnation (Galatians
4:4-5), and if the Galatians follow those
outsiders errantly influencing them, then they
will somehow find themselves back under that
same condemnation (Galatians 4:21; cf. 6:13).
Within this part of Paul’s letter, he uses an analogy to explain
the Galatians’ predicament, using the two sons
of Abraham—Ishmael and Isaac—as his vantage
point of comparison (Galatians 4:22). Ishmael
represents a work of the flesh, and Isaac
represents freedom and the promise (Galatians
4:23). Paul makes the very important point,
which is too often overlooked: “This
is allegorically speaking” (Galatians 3:24a),
“These things may be taken figuratively” (NIV),
or “These things are illustrations” (HCSB).[92]
In describing how “these women are two
covenants [duo diathēkai,
duo
diaqhkai]” (Galatians 3:24b), and how the first
of these is the bondwoman Hagar associated with
the Sinai Covenant, Paul is by no means
intending to associate the Sinai Covenant as
being something whose original intention was to
breed nothing but Ishmael-type children. This is
evident in Galatians 3:25, because in his
analogy, Paul says,
“Now this Hagar is Mount Sinai...and corresponds
to the present Jerusalem, for she is in
slavery with her children.”
Too easily jumped over is how the Sinai Covenant is claimed to
relate to tē nun Ierousalēm (th nun Ierousalhm)
or “the now Jerusalem” (my translation), with
nun regarding
“the present time” (LS).[93]
The Sinai agreement between Ancient Israel and
God, which was originally supposed to be a great
blessing to Ancient Israel and which included
the Levitical sacrificial system, by this point
in the First Century had become something that
was largely making slaves because of the
religious leadership.
Paul is making an observation in his present day
that the Sinai Covenant, as it was currently
practiced by those in Jerusalem, is proving
to be insufficient—especially now that Yeshua
the Messiah has come on the scene, who provides
permanent atonement (Galatians 2:20; 6:14).
If the non-Jewish Galatians went through ritual
proselyte conversion, they would become part of
something that would make them spiritual slaves.
Yeshua’s word to the Pharisaical leaders, “Woe
to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,
because you travel around on sea and land to
make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you
make him twice as much a son of hell as
yourselves” (Matthew 23:15), should be well
taken here.
Contrary to the Galatians seeking such a negative status, Paul
affirms to them how “the
Jerusalem above is free; she is our mother”
(Galatians 4:26), appealing to the Tanach on how
Isaac was the child of promise (Galatians
4:27-28; cf. Isaiah 54:1). Isaac was conceived
by the natural relations of Abraham and Sarah,
as opposed to the forced relations of Abraham
and Hagar. To go through the forced proselyte
circumcision of the Judaizers/Influencers would
be like Abraham and Hagar being joined together,
and giving birth to a problem child like Ishmael
(Galatians 4:29), contrary to the natural
activity of the Holy Spirit in maturing
Believers (Galatians 5:22-26). So the appeal is,
cast out this Hagar or present Jerusalem,
and recognize yourself as a child of promise
like Isaac (Galatians 3:31). The Galatians were
to eject from their assemblies the Influencers
that derided Paul’s apostleship (cf. Galatians
1:1), and would require the non-Jewish Believers
among them to become proselytes to a system that
would largely not aid them spiritually.
If Hagar represents the Sinai Covenant having
devolved in the First Century to the point
of producing slaves—because of the religious
leadership in Jerusalem—then what is this second
covenant that Sarah and the Heavenly Jerusalem
are supposed to represent? Richard N.
Longenecker rightly indicates what it is: “the
New Covenant that is Christ-centered, which Paul
proclaimed.”[94]
This is the New Covenant that offers complete
forgiveness from sins, complete reconciliation
with the Father in Heaven, has a definite
emphasis on love for God and neighbor (Galatians
5:14)—and includes an attendant, natural
obedience to Him provided by the Spirit
(Galatians 6:2), the “hearing of faith”
(Galatians 3:2, 5, YLT). From Paul’s point of
view, Believers live in the era where true
leadership is found in the Heavenly Jerusalem
where Yeshua the Messiah reigns supreme.
Things have certainly changed with the arrival,
sacrifice, resurrection, and then ascension of
Yeshua into Heaven. Paul is connecting the
Jerusalem above with the New Covenant. Yet
the issue in Paul’s mind is not the ethos or
morality of the Torah’s commandments, or even
practices such as Shabbat, the appointed
times, and kosher laws. The issue is how the
Sinai Covenant—especially considering how it
became abused by the First Century—has now
naturally given way to the New Covenant as
salvation history has progressed forward. The
essence of the New Covenant promise is that
God’s Law can be written on the hearts of His
people via the power of the Holy Spirit
(Jeremiah 31:31-34; Ezekiel 36:25-27). Paul’s
instruction to the Galatians is, “Bear one
another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law
of Messiah” (Galatians 6:2), meaning that they
were to surely follow the Torah, but follow it
with the Messiah’s example in mind and with good
works of love and service as paramount
(Galatians 6:9-10). A life truly guided by the
Spirit will not be one of condemnation under
Torah’s penalties (Galatians 5:18).
It was never the intention of the God of Israel
for the Sinai Covenant to place people into
bondage, and lead to spiritual (bastard)
children like Ishmael being produced. This is
something that came about via fallen humans
packaging it into a conversion-by-circumcision
ideal many centuries later, frequently placing
one’s ethnic status ahead of faith in God. When
Paul asserts that the Jerusalem above is what
the Galatians should be focusing on, a city that
is “free,” he expects the Galatians to have the
New Covenant enacted within their hearts via
God’s Holy Spirit. By no means is this a
dismissal of the Torah’s code of holiness,
but it is a recognition that obedience to it
comes via the indwelling of His presence inside
of the heart, as inaugurated by the work of
Yeshua and the full power of the gospel. This
obedience not only brings true freedom and
liberty for God’s people from the power of sin,
but it also empowers them to fulfill His purpose
for the Earth in being a blessing to all
(Galatians 3:8; cf. Genesis 12:3).[95]
The Ministry of Death versus the Ministry of the
Spirit
Everyone who has come to faith in Messiah Yeshua, being cleansed of
his or her sins and spiritually regenerated, has
partaken of the New Covenant—a reality that has
clearly dawned in this post-resurrection era,
and is accessible to all who cry out to the
Lord. Yet the New Covenant can only be
enacted in the lives of those who receive
Yeshua. The New Covenant is not some separate
part of Scripture, but is, rather, a
spiritual condition or force to be reckoned
with. If a person has not partaken of the
New Covenant promises of reconciliation with God
and permanent forgiveness, now accessible by the
sacrificial work of Yeshua, then what would such
unregenerated people be affected by? The
spiritual condition or force they would
logically be affected by would be the ministry
of death, or the condemnation pronounced upon
unrepentant sinners. This is a spiritual
condition of hostility toward, and exile from,
God.
Even though it is common for one to hear a great deal of talk about
the differences between the New Covenant and the
Old Covenant, too frequently what the “Old
Covenant” specifically composes or represents is
misdiagnosed. The term “old covenant” (Grk.
tēs palaias diathēkēs,
thß palaiaß diaqhkhß)
only appears once in the Apostolic Scriptures,
in 2 Corinthians 3:14:
“But
their minds were hardened; for until this very
day at the reading of the old covenant the same
veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in
Messiah.”
Most people who see Paul’s assertion here, simply assume that “the
reading of the old covenant” means “the
reading of the Old Testament” (NKJV), either the
Tanach Scriptures or perhaps just the Torah of
Moses. It might be concluded or thought that
people who only read these Scriptures cannot see
the Messiah whose life is recorded in the
so-called “New Covenant,” but we have to
remember that when Paul made this statement
there was no “New Testament” written.[96]
While today’s Messianics often use terms like
Old and New Testament, in piecemeal, to refer to
parts of Scripture, because these are
familiar terms used by scholars and laypersons
alike—neither the Tanach nor Apostolic
Writings make up a “covenant,” but are simply
the inspired words of God delivered through His
human vessels. Furthermore, it cannot be
overlooked that the terminology “old covenant”
is not employed again until the late Second
Century C.E., in the writing of Melito of
Sardis—a gap of around 140 years.[97]
Could the good Apostle Paul have used “old
covenant” to mean something a little different
than just the Tanach Scriptures?
We have to make some strong efforts to
understand what the “Old Covenant” is
specifically defined by Paul to be in the
larger cotext of 2 Corinthians 3:2-18. It is
correctly noted, in part, by J. Paul Sampley,
how Paul is describing “that contemporary,
non-believing Jews have hardened minds...when
they read the ‘old covenant,’”[98]
meaning that many of Paul’s Jewish brethren have
some kind of an inability to see the Messiah.
But whether this “Old Covenant” is actually the
Torah proper—God’s Instruction to His people for
holy living—should be disputed. Is the “Old
Covenant” really the Mosaic Torah? Or, in
contrast to the “New Covenant” of permanent
forgiveness and reconciliation, is the “Old
Covenant” the ministry of death and condemnation
upon unrepentant sinners?
In his writing to the Corinthians, Paul commends
his audience on how the unique work of the Holy
Spirit has transformed their lives. He claims
that they are like a letter, “known and read
by everybody” (2 Corinthians 3:2, NIV). They
“are a letter of Messiah, cared for by us,
written not with ink but with the Spirit of the
living God, not on tablets of stone but on
tablets of human hearts” (2 Corinthians 3:3).
Immediately in 2 Corinthians 3, we see allusions
to the New Covenant promise of Jeremiah 31:31-34
and Ezekiel 36:25-27, and the unique work of the
Holy Spirit.[99]
Paul then claims that the Corinthians’
confidence can only come through the Messiah,
the same as it is with him and his close
associates (2 Corinthians 3:4-5). Their
“adequacy is from God” (2 Corinthians 3:5b).
From this point, in 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Paul compares and
contrasts what might be labeled as “A Tale of
Two Ministries.”[100]
He claims that the Lord “also
made us adequate as servants of a new
covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit;
for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”
(2 Corinthians 3:6). The point is made that the
absolute letter of the Law will kill someone, as
the Torah frequently prescribes a death penalty
to those who violate its most serious
commandments. Furthermore, any human-driven
obedience to the Torah is futile in order to
bring one redemption, and being driven by one’s
flesh to be “Torah observant” will not really
bring one great blessings in life. Contrary to
this, Paul and his associates are ministers of
the promised New Covenant, which attendant with
God’s Spirit will bring one not just eternal
life and restored communion with Him—but a
blessed life on Earth.
Colin Kruse concludes that a proper obedience to
God is a part of the ministry of the New
Covenant, and that Paul’s words are aimed
against an improper usage of the Torah:
“The answer seems to be that...[the law] kills
when it is used improperly, i.e. as a set
of rules to be observed in order to establish
one’s own righteousness...To use the law in this
way inevitably leads to death, for no-one can
satisfy its demands and therefore all come under
its condemnation...However, the ministry of the
Spirit is quite different. It is a ministry of
the new covenant under which sins are forgiven
and remembered no more, and people are motivated
and enabled by the Spirit to do what the
improper application of the law could never
achieve (cf. Je. 31:31-34; Ezk. 36:25-27;
Rom. 8:3-4).”[101]
The New Covenant is not the ministry of death or condemnation that
Paul will proceed to detail (2 Corinthians 3:7,
9). But, Paul does recognize the Divine origins
and value of this ministry of death, because
without it the superiority of the New Covenant
could not be realized. He observes, “But
if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on
stones, came with glory, so that the sons of
Israel could not look intently at the face of
Moses because of the glory of his face, fading
as it was, how will the ministry of the
Spirit fail to be even more with glory?” (2
Corinthians 3:7-8). When the Ten Commandments
were delivered to Ancient Israel (Exodus
34:29-32), they surely were given via the
awesome presence of God’s glory that was
reflected from Moses as His agent to the people.
Yet when they were given to the people, all the
people could do was be afraid, recognizing that
if these statues were violated, it could be
their death—as high penalties are frequently
detailed throughout the Pentateuch to those who
violate its most severe commandments,
especially the Ten Words.
From Paul’s perspective, what Moses originally
brought down from Mount Sinai, could at most be
written on stone tablets. Only remaining
engraved on stone tablets, all it
could largely be used for would be as a ministry
of condemnation. He does tell the
Corinthians, though, “if the ministry of
condemnation has glory, much more does the
ministry of righteousness abound in glory” (2
Corinthians 3:9). The previous ministry of
condemnation had glory, but it is far surpassed
by the ministry of righteousness now present in
the New Covenant—which has the ability to
supernaturally write God’s Instruction via the
Holy Spirit onto hearts (2 Corinthians 3:2-3).
The fact that the previous era, dominated by the
ministry of condemnation—is now over—is
seen by Paul’s continuing remark, “For indeed
what had glory, in this case has no glory
because of the glory that surpasses it”
(2 Corinthians 3:10).
In 2 Corinthians 3:11, Paul asserts how “if
that which fades away was with glory,
much more that which remains is in
glory.” So, if the ministry of condemnation,
which at best could be engraved onto lifeless
albeit durable stone, had glory and Divine
origins—then the New Covenant of the Spirit
writing God’s Instruction onto redeemed hearts
surely has glory as it has the same Divine
origins.
Too frequently overlooked here is that what Paul
describes as being “brought to an end” (2
Corinthians 3:11, ESV)—in contrast to something
that is “permanent” (ESV)—is the “ministry of
death” or “ministry of condemnation” (2
Corinthians 3:7, 9). This ministry or
diakonia (diakonia), is the “performance
of a service” (BDAG).[102]
While the ministry of condemnation is rendered
inoperative in the era where Yeshua’s sacrifice
offers final atonement for sin, and the
penalties of condemnation have been remitted
(Colossians 2:14)—the standard of God’s
holiness in the Torah is still with us. To
equate the holy commandments of God’s Torah as
being the “ministry of condemnation,” would fail
to remember how the New Covenant promises
actually include the Law being supernaturally
written on the heart by the Spirit. Kruse
astutely observes,
“It is important to recognize that Paul does not
imply that the law itself was fading away. The
law as the expression of the will of God for
human conduct is still valid. In fact, Paul says
the purpose of God in bringing in the new
covenant of the Spirit was precisely that the
righteous demands of the law might be fulfilled
in those who walk by the Spirit (Rom. 8:4).”[103]
Kruse further remarks that “the time of the ministry of the law has
come to an end,”[104]
which would not regard the Torah as a standard
of how people are to live, but instead the
“ministry of death” or “ministry of
condemnation” that prescribed capital
punishment. In the post-resurrection era, Yeshua
the Messiah’s sacrifice for sinful humans has
nullified this condemnation—He has “canceled
out the certificate of debt consisting of
decrees against us...having nailed it to the
cross” (Colossians 2:14)—inaugurating the New Covenant with permanent
atonement and forgiveness.
In 2 Corinthians 3:11, Paul employs the verb katargeō (katargew), “to
cause someth. to come to an end or to be no
longer in existence”
(BDAG),[105]
describing how the ministry of condemnation is
no more: “if that which fades away [katargeō]
was with glory...” It notably also
appears in his assertion of Romans 3:31, where
Paul asks, “Do we then overthrow [katargeō]
the law by this faith? By no means! On the
contrary, we uphold the law” (RSV). Born again
Believers are very much called to recognize the
importance of God’s Torah, but how we uphold its
validity is by the new “ministry of
righteousness” (2 Corinthians 3:9) brought about
by the Messiah’s work and example left for us
(Matthew 5:16-17ff).
Those who are redeemed people of the New Covenant are to possess
the spiritual confidence that comes with it,
like Paul and his associates who declare the
good news (2 Corinthians 3:12). Their work is
contrasted with previous servants of God like
Moses, “who
used to put a veil over his face so that the
sons of Israel would not look intently at the
end of what was fading away” (2 Corinthians
3:13), as Moses had to shield himself because of
the glory shining forth from his face having
been in God’s presence (Exodus 34:33-35). And
why did Moses have to wear this veil or
covering? An extremely important thought, as
offered by Peter Enns, is “we may think of
Moses’ veil functioning in a similar way to the
veil or curtain in the tabernacle. Just as the
people could not enter the Most Holy Place to
behold God’s glory, now they cannot behold the
glory of God reflected in Moses.”[106]
The main reason Moses had to wear a veil was
because of the sinfulness of the people, for whom
he had to frequently go and intercede before the
Lord as mediator.[107]
The glory on Moses’ face would eventually fade,
simply because Moses was a human and would die.
But, the description that Paul provides, with
something having to block people and God’s full
presence, is well taken, notably because at
Yeshua’s crucifixion the veil in the Temple
separating out the Holy of Holies ripped in two
(Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45),
depicting how access to God’s intimate presence
is now accessible. Paul’s analogy is that in
being unable to fully behold the glory
resonating off of Moses’ face, the Ancient
Israelites could “not gaze at the outcome of
what was being brought to an end” (2 Corinthians
3:13, ESV). Moses wore a veil that represented
how the presence of sin separates people from
the presence of God. Paul makes the point that
with such a veil, the Ancient Israelites were
unable to clearly see the telos (teloß)
or culmination of what would be accomplished by
the Messiah’s ministry (cf. Romans 10:4, Grk.),
the permanent atonement they needed—a future
ministry for which Moses’ ministry served as a
prototype.
The sad observation that the Apostle Paul made in the First
Century, was that it was not just the Ancient
Israelites in the wilderness who could not see
the Redeemer’s ultimate ministry coming. 2
Corinthians 3:14 includes some loaded words:
“But
their minds were hardened; for until this very
day at the reading of the old covenant the same
veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in
Messiah.”
The Ancient Israelites had hardened minds,
lacking the spiritual sensitivity required to
acknowledge how Moses wearing a veil depicted
how God’s holiness must be separate from sin.
The dilemma for Paul was how this existed even
in his time, as his own Jewish people largely
were separated from God’s presence because of
the same reason.
When most people read 2 Corinthians 3:14, they
simply assume that “reading of the old covenant”
means hearing the Torah or Tanach Scriptures, as
opposed to hearing the Torah or Tanach
Scriptures from a particular vantage point
or spiritual state. Do keep in mind that the New
Covenant involves the internalization of such
Tanach Scriptures upon a regenerated heart, and
how Paul has previously defined what the New
Covenant is: a “ministry of righteousness” (2
Corinthians 3:9) and not some new part of
Scripture. Quite contrary to this, the Old
Covenant would be the “ministry of death” or
“ministry of condemnation” (2 Corinthians 3:7,
9).
When Paul claims that the Old Covenant is read,
the ministry of death—he is speaking of the
condemning aspects of the Torah pronounced upon
sinners. When spiritually sensitive people
hear such a ministry of condemnation read, they
are cut to the quick by the convicting grace of
God to repent of their sins, and are drawn to
Yeshua’s sacrifice at Golgotha (Calvary), which
has removed the veil separating us from the
Father’s presence, but has to be removed from
our individual, sinful hearts via personal
salvation. Contrary to this, those who are
hardened, still have a kind of veil or barrier
separating themselves from the Creator:
“But to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil
lies over their heart” (2 Corinthians 3:15).
All the Torah could function as, for most of
Paul’s First Century Jewish brethren, was the
Old Covenant ministry of condemnation, which
Moses came to administer. They largely lacked
the new heart promised by the New Covenant
(Ezekiel 36:25-27).
The status of having a veil or barrier placed between a person and
God is not just a Jewish problem, but can be the
problem of any unregenerated person
hearing the Law read. When unregenerated or
unsaved people hear from Moses’ Teaching, all
they can really do is be condemned. They
suffer from the power known as the Old Covenant,
not having the New Covenant’s final atonement
and permanent forgiveness present in their
lives. Yet, as Paul so clearly states, it is
obvious: “whenever
a person turns to the Lord, the veil is taken
away” (2 Corinthians 3:16). The power of the Old
Covenant of death and condemnation—exiling one
from God—can be removed by the transforming
power of the gospel, and the reality of the New
Covenant of the Holy Spirit teaching His people
can be enacted. Too often, though, many of
today’s Believers (even some well-meaning
theologians) only see God’s Torah as being
something that can condemn people, in spite of
it being “holy and righteous and good” (Romans
7:12). Paul’s perspective, however, is that sin
takes advantage of the Torah by causing people
to break it, which in turn is what separates
people from God (cf. Romans 7:7-11). The issue
of sin, and not some problem with God’s holy
Law, is what has been fixed by Yeshua’s sacrifice.
Kaiser, an Old Testament theologian, naturally has a very high view
of the Torah for Christians today. He recognizes
how only faith in Jesus can render the barrier,
curtain, or veil placed between God and sinful
people inoperative. He describes how, “This
blindness can only be remedied and Moses’ veil
‘lifted’ and the glory...revealed in its
ultimate significance...whenever men and women
turn to the Lord. Only then is the veil
‘removed’ (v. 14). Thus it is the ‘veil’ that is to be ‘abrogated’ or ‘removed’ according to
Paul...”[108]
The veil does not then, represent God’s holy
standard of conduct in the Law, but is the sad
consequence of how a holy Creator must be
separate from the presence of sin. Moses, as
God’s representative (2 Corinthians 3:13), had
to be shielded because of the Israelites’ sin.
Similarly, unregenerated people have to auto
kalumma (to auto kalumma)
or “the same veil” (2 Corinthians 3:14) over
their hearts. But contrary to having to shield
others, like the presence of God radiating off
of Moses, the barrier on a sinner separates the
heart from God. Only by appropriating the
sacrifice of Yeshua, can people have this
barrier removed and can full communion with the
Creator be restored.
Witherington disagrees that it is the veil which is nullified by faith
in the Messiah, noting some grammatical points
from 2 Corinthians. He states, “The neuter
participle to katargoumenon [to katargoumenon],
‘annulled,’ agrees with ‘that which was
glorified’ in v. 10 and so applies to the
whole of the old covenant...Therefore, what is
spoke of as annulled through Christ in v. 14
is probably the Old Covenant rather than the
veil.”[109]
The grammatical points being what they are,
Witherington’s mistake is in failing to identify
the Old Covenant not as God’s standard of
holiness contained in the Ten Commandments or
Moses’ Teaching—but with the ministry of death
or condemnation which Yeshua has nullified. This
Old Covenant would be the Torah’s capital
punishment declared upon sinners, a consequence
which comes from violating the commandments now
to be written upon the heart by the power of the
New Covenant. The veil that Moses wore, like the
curtain in the Tabernacle and Temple, is simply
the epitomization of what the ministry of
condemnation causes: separation from God.
The power of the New Covenant notably goes well beyond the Torah’s
commandments being written on the heart, and
even the availability of permanent forgiveness
with God. The New Covenant inaugurated in one’s
life enables us to fully see the Lord—as any
heavy veil or barrier separating us from His
presence, which existed over our hearts when we
were unregenerated sinners—is now to be gone!
The Holy Spirit offers Believers great freedom,
as the ministry of condemnation is no more (2
Corinthians 3:17; cf. Romans 4:6-8; 8:1). This
is why Paul can say how he and his ministry
associates, unlike Moses who wore a veil
representing God, can now in the New Covenant
era go about bearing His presence as though they
are unveiled (2 Corinthians 3:18a; cf. 3:6).
Paul himself, after all, had an epiphany of the
Lord on the road to Damascus that changed him
from within (Acts 9:1-18). All Believers, as
they grow in faith and knowledge of Yeshua, “are
being transformed into the same image from glory
to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit” (2
Corinthians 3:18b). We should possess the
confidence to speak forth what He has done
within us (2 Corinthians 3:12). And in bearing
the Lord, the New Covenant imperative of proper
obedience should certainly be present—as we
should possess the ability to see the importance
of Moses’ Teaching with the veil removed!
We should also recognize how prior to the ministry and sacrifice of
Yeshua the Messiah, the most the Torah could
really be manifest as was condemning statutes
written on stone (2 Corinthians 3:3a). Now via
ministry of righteousness and reconciliation He
has brought, God’s Instruction can be written “in
fleshy tables of the heart” (2 Corinthians 3:3b,
KJV). Feinberg explains how, “Since the inward dynamic was absent in the old covenant, it could
not be effective. There must be an inner force,
a new power.”[110]
The old covenant ministry of condemnation would
need to be nullified in order for an era when
all of God’s people could fully obey Him by His
Spirit, and be fully reconciled to Him.
Of course, when we consider the perspectives of the ministry of
death/condemnation versus the ministry of
righteousness brought about by Yeshua, there are
naturally questions about the people who lived
before the current era of the New Covenant. We
knowingly benefit from Yeshua’s sacrifice,
but how could they be saved? The testimony of
the Apostolic Scriptures is clear that those who
sincerely believed in the promises of God and
redemption, did not die condemned to eternal
punishment. Significant figures of faith are
lauded in chapters like Hebrews 11, and the
Messiah Himself speaks of sitting in the Kingdom
with “with
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” (Matthew 8:11), and
“all the prophets” (Luke 13:28). Interestingly
enough, the hardships Moses endured in Egypt are
claimed to be on behalf of the yet-to-arrive
Messiah (Hebrews 11:25-26).[111]
Significant figures of faith who we read about in the Tanach
Scriptures might not have lived in the time when
permanent forgiveness and atonement were
available via Yeshua, but we see the promise of
a Redeemer delivered all the way back in Eden
(Genesis 3:15). Faithful men and women of God,
who would cling to the then-future promise of
permanent restitution and cried out to Him for
mercy, are those who would be considered
“saved.” They placed their trust in permanent
forgiveness being provided one day, the same way
that we believe that permanent forgiveness is
now accessible. If we find this difficult, then
the long and short answer—for any generation—is
that only God gets to determine who
enters into God’s Kingdom. This is true of a
person who lived in the previous era dominated
by the ministry of condemnation, or in
the present age dominated by the ministry of
righteousness.
A “Renewed” Covenant?
It is quite frequent in quarters of today’s Messianic community to
not hear the term “New Covenant” used in
reference to the Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Ezekiel
36:25-27 promises, but instead hear the term
“Renewed Covenant.” Many people, including
myself once, have innocently used the term
“Renewed Covenant,” without thinking it through
clearly enough. Using the terminology “Renewed
Covenant” is a tempting solution for people
wishing to emphasize continuity between the
promised b’rit chadashah (hvdx tyrB)
and the previous Sinai Covenant (Jeremiah
31:31), because for some people the term “New
Covenant” equates to something completely
removed and separate from the Tanach Scriptures.
But, using the term “Renewed Covenant” actually
creates some rather tenuous issues when fully
evaluated.[112]
From a semantic standpoint, those who think that “Renewed Covenant”
is what we should use, like to argue that the
Hebrew adjective chadash (vdx),
often frequently defined as just “new” (BDB),[113]
should be considered “renewed.” Its related
verb, chadash (vdx), can mean “renew,
repair” (BDB),[114]
and so b’rit chadashah should be “renewed
covenant” to emphasize how it aligns with the
character of the previous covenants.
No one who reads the promises of Jeremiah
31:31-34 or Ezekiel 36:25-27 can discount the
continuity between the previous Sinai agreement
and this anticipated agreement. There is far
more in common between the two than what many of
today’s Christians realize. Yet, the uniqueness
of this B’rit Chadashah is that permanent
atonement and forgiveness are offered—which we
believe has been provided by Yeshua’s sacrifice.
Within such a promise, God has no intention
of renewing the ministry of death or
condemnation (2 Corinthians 2:7, 9), which
Yeshua’s death has now rendered inoperative
(Colossians 2:14).
Also to be considered regarding the usage of chadash is what
is to be made of God giving His people lev
chadash v’ruach chadashah (hvdx xWrw vdx bl).
Is this to actually be taken as being a “renewed
heart and a renewed spirit”? Think about this:
is the Lord simply going to take an old heart,
not filled with love for Him and neighbor,
and then make a few small fixes, “renewing” it?
Of course not! God is not going to renew a
sinful and unregenerate heart, performing the
spiritual equivalent of bypass surgery, but
still leaving the same old heart and old way of
thinking inside of a person. Because of the
presence of sin within us, we have to be given
an entirely new heart and spirit by the Lord.
This new heart, transplanted within us, will
enable us to “walk
by faith, not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7), and
desire above all else to be in the will and
presence of our Savior.
Referring to the promised B’rit Chadashah as the “Renewed
Covenant” and not the “New Covenant,” in wanting
to express continuity with the Torah and Tanach,
is a misdiagnosis of the problem, and is even a
bit superficial. The reason it is superficial,
is that it largely misses the substance of what
Jeremiah 31:31-33 and Ezekiel 36:25-27 promise.
Both of these prophecies detail how God will
supernaturally write His commandments onto the
hearts of His people. In explaining the
relevance of the Torah for all Believers today,
should we not direct the attention of Bible
readers to these prophecies? What does it
mean for God to write the Law onto the heart?
People need to read these prophecies
verse-by-verse, and not skip over them any more.
They need to carefully valuate what the B’rit
Chadashah actually is as stated in the text.
There is a sad misunderstanding in that people today often equate
“new” to meaning that something is completely
different, when it is not. When somebody goes
out and buys a new car—a new car is still a
car. A new car still has a chassis, wheels,
and a motor—even if it might have some
additional features, a different paint job, and
other improvements that your previous car did
not have. Similarly, the New Covenant is going
to have quite a bit in common with the Sinai
Covenant that preceded it. Kaiser recognizes,
“Some have argued that it was the Lord’s original intent to replace
the old with a new covenant, but if that were
true in every respect, then why does the new
covenant repeat almost three-fourths of what had
been in the Abrahamic-Davidic covenants? Rather
than superseding the covenants of promise
that had preceded it, it affirmed them as well
as supplemented them.”[115]
Many commentaries on Jeremiah and Hebrews, where the terms torah
(hrAT)
and nomos (nomoß)
appear relating to God’s “law” (Jeremiah 31:33;
Hebrews 8:10; 10:16), are often silent about
what the transcription this Instruction onto the
heart really means. It is naïve of any Bible
reader to think that the Lord is only concerned
about us expressing love for Him and neighbor,
and this is the furthest extent of what it means
for the Law to be written onto the heart. Even
though these are surely the most important of
commandments,[116]
more obedience to the Torah than just “love” is
undoubtedly required. Dearman rightly describes
how the Torah is “the verbal expression of
[God’s] will.”[117]
Remarking on Ezekiel 36:25-27, another Christian
commentator, Miller, observes,
“[T]he Lord will make a new covenant and will effect in the minds
and hearts of the people the will to obey, to
live as God’s people, to acknowledge the Lord as
their master, the one who secures their lives
and provides for them.”[118]
Rather than use the term “Renewed Covenant,” today’s Messianic
Believers need to focus on how obedience to God
is a definite part of the Jeremiah 31:31-34 and
Ezekiel 36:25-27 promises. Such obedience does
indeed begin with manifesting His great love to
all, but it should also be present in concrete
actions of service to others (i.e., James 1:27),
and in our daily lives as we strive to really
understand what “Torah” is.
What has changed in this era of the New
Covenant?
The New Covenant does share most of the features of the Sinai
Covenant that preceded it, but there are
certainly some changes that have taken place as
well. The author of Hebrews observes how “For
when the priesthood is changed, of necessity
there takes place a change of law also” (Hebrews
7:12), with nomou metathesis (nomou
metaqesiß) perhaps more precisely rendered by
the CJB’s “a transformation of Torah.”
Any changes that have occurred in the
relationship of God’s people to His Law in the
era of the New Covenant, are mostly qualitative as
opposed to quantitative. The same Torah
commandments remain in basic effect—and they all
remain useful for study and reflection (1
Timothy 1:8)—although in light of what has come
via the sacrificial work of Yeshua and His
priestly service, there would be various
amendments to consider.
For regenerated Believers who recognize Yeshua’s work for us, the
presence of the Holy Spirit inside of Believers
is to cause them to mature in faith, and as such
the Torah’s principles will be steadily written
upon the heart via the process of sanctification
(Ezekiel 36:27). While the Holy Spirit could
certainly move on people like various kings of
Israel or the Prophets, prior to Yeshua’s
sacrifice and Shavuot/Pentecost, it is
more clearly evident in this post-resurrection and
post-Shavuot/Pentecost era. Morris
indicates how, “The life, death, resurrection,
and ascension of Jesus mean that God has acted
decisively to save a people. The God who saves
people in Christ is the God of his redeemed in a
new and decisive way.”[119]
Yet, even though we now are all affected by with
this sacrificial work of Yeshua, such work is
undeniably consistent with God’s character
seen all the way from the beginning of the
Tanach.
The “change of law” seen in this era of New Covenant would include
a reorganization of various Torah commandments,
but not some total widespread abrogation where
all that is left is the command to love God and
neighbor. Most of the Torah commandments that
have run their course regulate an Ancient Near
Eastern economy and technological level that no
longer exists, which even the Jewish community
today would recognize as defunct (even though
they are relevant and quite beneficial for
study).[120]
The commandments regulating the Levitical
priesthood have been set aside (Hebrews 7:18)
until the future fulfillment of various
prophecies, and the Millennial Temple operating
with Yeshua’s oversight. Believers today benefit
from the Melchizedekian priesthood of Yeshua in
Heaven (Hebrews 4:16; 10:19-22). The death
penalty for high crimes in the Torah has been
absorbed in the sacrifice of Yeshua—the only
possible exception being the death penalty for
murder as a Creation ordinance (Genesis 9:5),
even though that should be used quite
infrequently.
Messianic non-Jewish Believers, who come from either a Reformed
(Calvinist) or Wesleyan/holiness background,
will have fewer difficulties than some others in
integrating a Torah obedient life. These two
theological traditions have historically
believed that the moral law of the Old Testament
is to be followed as a standard of Christian
holiness and piety. Commenting on Matthew 5:17,
John Wesley remarked that Jesus Christ came to
fulfill “the moral law...To establish,
illustrate, and explain its highest meaning,
both by [His] life and doctrine.”[121]
And, most of the Torah’s commandments deal
directly with ethical and moral matters, even
though a Messianic viewpoint recognizes that the
sub-divisions of Torah’s commandments into the
“moral law” and “ceremonial law” are largely
artificial.
Those Christians who presently follow what they consider to be the
“moral law” of the Torah, have only a few more
things to add to their regimen of
obedience—those areas being various outward
things that today’s Messianic movement believes
God is restoring to His people like Shabbat,
the appointed times, and kosher. As a Wesleyan,
I have found a Messianic perspective on Torah
observance to be quite compatible with my
upbringing. I have also learned to not only
appreciate the Torah as a special part of God’s
revelation to humanity, but also how obeying God
by His Spirit can be a great joy. In the words
of the Psalmist,
“I
hate and despise falsehood, but I love
Your law. Seven times a day I praise You,
because of Your righteous ordinances. Those who
love Your law have great peace, and nothing
causes them to stumble. I hope for Your
salvation, O
Lord,
and do Your commandments. My soul keeps Your
testimonies, and I love them exceedingly. I keep
Your precepts and Your testimonies, for all my
ways are before You” (Psalm 119:163-168).
These are words from someone who is grateful because of the Torah,
not someone who frowns upon having to keep it as
some kind of an impossible burden or
inconvenience. These are the words of someone who
recognizes his salvation in God, but how God
expects us to obey Him.
Challenges do erupt when today’s Messianic Believers focus too much
on “Torah observance” exclusively involving
things like the seventh-day Sabbath, appointed
times, or kosher eating. James the brother of
the Lord taught, “Pure
and undefiled religion in the sight of our
God and Father is this: to visit orphans and
widows in their distress, and to keep
oneself unstained by the world” (James 1:27). A
true Torah observance will properly balance the
keeping of various outward and inward
commandments. Not much is achieved in our faith
community today if we spend more time trying to
figure out the best way to tie our
tzit-tzityot, but our understanding of the
Twenty-First Century’s significant ethical and
moral controversies remains plebian. Dearman
properly recognizes, “What
is ‘new’ about the new covenant is not the
covenant partner but the quality of the
community created by God’s amazing acts.”[122]
I know that as a teacher I diligently work to
help create that Messianic movement which has
experienced the transformative power of the New
Covenant, where God’s Torah manifesting itself
by His love welcomes all into His presence. This
is also a community where we have the Torah
transcribed on our minds, so as to properly
compute and discern the will of God for our
complex modern and post-modern times.
Contrary to this, ancient Jewish groups like the Qumran community
anticipated the New Covenant to simply be a more
rigidly-enforced Torah upon Israel (CD 6.19;
8.21; 1QS 8.5; 9.3). Thompson describes, “The
sectarians of Qumran understood themselves to be
the men of the New Covenant. But the New
Covenant for them was nothing more than the
Mosaic Covenant with strong legalistic
tendencies.”[123]
Ellingworth also comments, “it was understood as
a more rigorous re-establishment of Torah
observance, with additional rules.”[124]
The New Covenant period was intended to be one
where the corrupt Saddusaical priesthood and
sacrificial system were to be replaced with one
that was not corrupt,[125]
and the kind of lifestyle the Qumran community
idealized could be enforced over all of the
Jewish people—in what Morris calls as “a kind of
ritualist’s paradise.”[126]
For some of those who make up the self-labeled “Torah movement” in
today’s Messianic community, what the Qumran
community saw the New Covenant to be is not that
dissimilar from what they see it to be. The
intended spiritual and service dynamics of the
New Covenant enacted by the love of God, are
instead overlooked (and replaced) with a rigid
and staunch legalism impressed, and fiercely
judgmental attitudes toward others run rampant.
The transforming power of the gospel is
secondary to the Torah. Having a
relationship with the Law is more important than
having a relationship with the Lawgiver.
Not enough grace and mercy are extended to
people who do not see the Torah in the same way
as they do—even other Messianics
sometimes. Too many of those in the “Torah
movement” judge the salvation of others,
appropriating a job that is only occupied by the
Lord Himself, as Yeshua alone can determine who
is really “lawless” in the end (Matthew 7:23;
13:41).
The New Covenant era is marked expressly as an age of the Spirit,
with the Holy Spirit writing God’s commandments
onto the hearts of all His people. It is
something that affects kol-basar (rfB-lK)
or “all flesh” (Joel 2:28, RSV)—not only a
select few like kings or Prophets—and enables
them to do more than just obey God’s
commandments, but will cause people to “prophesy...dream
dreams...[and] see visions” (Joel 2:28). Only by
new hearts implanted by the Spirit can people
extend God’s grace and mercy to those who need
it.
A serious issue
for some of today’s Messianics who consider
themselves Torah observant, will be that for
various people the Spirit’s process of writing
God’s commandments onto their hearts might occur
faster or slower than those of other
people.
Both the Septuagint
and Hebrews note how “laws” (Jeremiah 31:33;
Hebrews 8:10; 10:16) are written onto the
conscience of a Believer—indicating that the
Holy Spirit’s process might occur in stages,
as opposed to the whole Torah being written all
at once. And none of us has the right to
interfere in the Spirit’s distinct and unique
work within a person. But what we can do is
have Messianic assemblies where the leaders
encourage their members to provide for a place
where God’s presence and great love fill the
hall, and where Believers can grow and mature
properly in faith in a (safe) environment of
love—and not an environment surrounded by
fiercely judgmental and mean-spirited people!
Such a place should stimulate a steady and
stable spiritual growth.
The New Covenant, in slight contrast to the Sinai Covenant, does
include a more individualistic emphasis
(Jeremiah 31:34a). Also present in this era of
New Covenant is a definite equalizing of the
applicability of commandments, in light of the
new status of people in the Messiah (Galatians
3:28; cf. Colossians 3:11)—which would not just
include non-Jewish male Believers incorporated
into the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), but
also women being brought up to the same level as
men. Pentateuchal commandments that are not
specifically determined by one’s sexual anatomy,
and which were originally given to Ancient
Israelite men in the Ancient Near East, should
now be halachically extended to women. No
male in his right mind would try to honestly
argue that in the era of the New Covenant, that
only husbands are allowed to divorce their wives
for infidelity (i.e., Deuteronomy 24:1), and
wives have to remain wed to a disloyal
husband—as wives should be allowed to divorce
their husbands for the exact same reason! Also
to be considered is that if a husband and wife
are to be equal partners in marriage, in
submission to each other (Ephesians 5:21ff),[127]
while a husband possesses the ability to cancel
the foolish words of his wife and daughters
(i.e., Numbers 30:10-14)—wives should be allowed
to challenge the foolish words of their husbands
and sons. These are appropriate “changes” in
Torah, which uphold the relevance of the
commandments, but also recognize the egalitarian
ideal of the New Covenant.
As we consider the unique dynamics of the New Covenant, and how it
is “a
better covenant, which has been enacted on
better promises” (Hebrews 8:6), there will be a
need for us to do more study and research into
the Scriptures. When we read the Torah’s
commandments, we have the rather serious
responsibility to first read them in their
original ANE context and how significant they
were in comparison to the law codes of Ancient
Israel’s neighbors. We then have to consider the
Torah in light of the halachah of Yeshua
and the teachings of the Apostles. Only after we
do this, can we then consider their proper
application in the Twenty-First Century. It
might take a great deal of work and
investigation for some of us, but that is why
the New Covenant involves the presence of the
Holy Spirit to guide the thoughts and inner
workings of God’s people.
And what should we do if we violate the Torah? The very reason the New Covenant has been enacted is
precisely because permanent atonement for sin is
now available! Human nature is such that we
will, at times—either knowingly or
unknowingly—violate the Torah. Yet, having made
that strong declaration “Yeshua is Lord” (Romans
10:9), we can claim His sacrifice when we are
confronted with our mistakes. Many, if not most
of these mistakes, occur just as new Believers
commit themselves to a life of holiness and
discipleship. Some people, recently turning
their backs on sinful habits and behaviors—new
babes in the Lord—fall back into doing
inappropriate things in the process of early
maturation. Paul might speak of such a person in
Romans 7:19: “For
the good that I want, I do not do, but I
practice the very evil that I do not want.”
This is how important it is to have loving
Messianic communities where people can be
properly discipled and encouraged to grow.
Trustworthy leaders and counselors, who have
matured beyond the Romans 7 dilemma, can be
there to aid the still-maturing.[128]
As always, we should remember the steadfast
fact,
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and
righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse
us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
And should we be confronted with some sin, even
as relatively mature Believers, the Lord is
there to offer us forgiveness and proper
cleansing.
Current and Future Expectations
The reality of the New Covenant is something quite important to us
as men and women of faith, who believe that
Yeshua’s sacrifice at Golgotha (Calvary) is the
impetus that has inaugurated it. As our Lord
Himself declared on that night two millennia
ago, “This
cup which is poured out for you is the new
covenant in My blood” (Luke 22:20). While
today’s Messianics are rightfully keen to
emphasize how this declaration was made at a
Passover sedar, how often do we underplay
that the New Covenant has been enacted in His
blood? Yeshua’s humiliation on the cross for
sinful humanity and the pain He endured for us,
is what has brought us final forgiveness.
Recognizing this and being supernaturally
transformed, should naturally manifest
itself in proper obedience. Obeying the Lord is
the least we can do following the appropriation
of His sacrifice, considering that our human
disobedience nailed Yeshua to the cross
(Colossians 2:14).
The New Covenant promises each of us a new
heart, a conscience that has been cleansed from
sin, and a new life where obedience to the
Lord’s commandments and commitment to His
mandate are manifest. This mandate primarily
regards the accomplishment of the Torah’s
proto-gospel message: “in you all the families
of the earth will be blessed” (Genesis 12:3; cf.
Galatians 3:8). Ancient Israel was given the
commission, “So keep and do them, for
that is your wisdom and your understanding in
the sight of the peoples who will hear all these
statutes and say, ‘Surely this great nation is a
wise and understanding people’” (Deuteronomy
4:6). In the era of New Covenant when such
commandments can be supernaturally imprinted on
the heart and mind—should not our obedience to
God result in us, at least passively,
testifying to the salvation we have in Yeshua by
our actions (cf. Matthew 6:16)?
The New Covenant promises, of course, do not
just include profound spiritual realities that
born again Believers have benefited from since
the First Century. There are prophecies of
Israel’s Kingdom being restored directly
connected to the New Covenant. The essential
reality of the New Covenant might be present
today among the saints, but more awaits
us in the future. How long it will be until we
see those physical promises of all Israel
brought into the Promised Land, and prospering
once again—with the Messiah reigning as King—is
a great question. Today’s generation of
Messianic Believers, both Jewish and
non-Jewish—with one group frequently
demonstrating arrogance and suspicion toward the
other group—may not be alive to see
the Second Coming. Only the generation that has
fully considered the ramifications of the New
Covenant, not only in the restoration of the
Torah to God’s people—but also in possessing
cleansed hearts and minds empowered by the
Spirit, and guided by Yeshua’s love—will be
those who get to see the wider promises come to
fulfillment.
J.K. McKee (B.A., University of Oklahoma; M.A., Asbury
Theological Seminary) is the editor of TNN Online (www.tnnonline.net)
and is a Messianic apologist. He is author of several books,
including: The New Testament Validates Torah, Torah In the
Balance, Volume I, and When Will the Messiah Return?.
He has also written many articles on the Two Houses of Israel
and Biblical theology, and is presently focusing on Messianic
commentaries on various books of the Bible.
NOTES
[1]
More passages that could be examined
for complimentary study, include:
Isaiah 55:3; 59:21; Jeremiah
32:37-41; Ezekiel 16:60; Hosea 2:18.
[2]
Do note that Walter
Brueggemann, A Commentary on
Jeremiah: Exile & Homecoming
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),pp
291-295, probably goes a bit too far
in the opposite direction, in only
wanting to emphasize the Tanach
perspective of the New Covenant. He
is a liberal Christian theologian
who seems to only want to read the
New Covenant promise as relevant
toward Judaism, discounting some of
how it is applied in the Apostolic
Scriptures.
[3]
Charles L. Feinberg,
“Jeremiah,” in Frank E. Gaebelein,
ed. et. al.,
Expositor’s Bible
Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986),
6:575.
[4]
Cf. R.K. Harrison,
Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries:
Jeremiah & Lamentations (Downers
Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1973), pp
138-139.
[5]
H. Freedman,
Soncino Books of the Bible: Jeremiah
(London: Soncino, 1968), 211.
[6]
J.A. Thompson, New
International Commentary on the Old
Testament: The Book of Jeremiah
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 581.
[7]
Feinberg, in EXP,
6:576.
[8]
Patrick D. Miller,
“The Book of Jeremiah,” in Leander
E. Keck, ed., et. al., New
Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 6
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 6:812.
[9]
R.E. Clements,
Interpretation, A Bible Commentary
for Teaching and Preaching: Jeremiah
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988),
190.
[10]
Ibid., 191.
[11]
Brueggemann, 293.
[12]
Miller, in NIB,
6:812.
[13]
Thompson, 581.
[14]
Brueggemann, 294.
[15]
Harrison, 140.
Do note that Rabbinic
opinion in the Talmud does suggest
that the Sinai Covenant was made
with individuals (b.Sotah
37b), and not just with Israel
corporately.
[16]
J. Andrew Dearman,
NIV Application Commentary:
Jeremiah/Lamentations (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 289.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
Joseph Blenkinsopp,
Interpretation, A Bible
Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching: Ezekiel (Louisville,
KY: John Knox Press, 1990), 169; cf.
Daniel I. Block, New
International Commentary on the Old
Testament: The Book of Ezekiel,
Chapters 25-48 (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1998), pp 356-357.
[19]
Also to be considered
could certainly be: Exodus 30:17-21;
Leviticus 14:52; Numbers 19:17-19.
[20]
Block, 354.
[21]
Jacob Neusner,
trans., The Mishnah: A New
Translation (New Haven and
London: Yale University Press,
1988), 279.
[22]
Michael Wise, Martin
Abegg, Jr., and Edward Cook, trans.,
The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New
Translation (San Francisco:
HarperCollins, 1996), 130.
[23]
Some of this is
explored by Iain M. Duguid, NIV
Application Commentary: Ezekiel
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), pp
422-423.
The issue of the
mikveh (hwqm)
is planned to be discussed in the
editor’s forthcoming book
Torah In the Balance,
Volume II.
[24]
Blenkinsopp, 167.
[25]
Christopher J.H.
Wright, The Message of Ezekiel
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
2001), 296.
[26]
Ibid.
[27]
Block, 355.
[28]
Katheryn Pfisterer
Darr, “The Book of Ezekiel,” in
Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al.,
New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 6
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 1492.
[29]
Duguid, 421.
[30]
Ralph P. Alexander,
“Ezekiel,” in EXP, 6:922; cf.
Ezekiel 11:19-20; 18:31; 37:14;
39:29; Joel 2:28-29; Acts 2:17-18; 2
Corinthians 3:6-18.
[31]
Block, 357.
[32]
John B. Taylor,
Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries:
Ezekiel (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity, 1969), 232.
[33]
Kurt Aland, et. al.,
The Greek New Testament, Fourth
Revised Edition (Stuttgart:
Deutche Bibelgesellschaft/United
Bible Societies, 1998), 551.
Douglas J. Moo,
New International Commentary on the
New Testament: The Epistle to the
Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1996), 728 fn#76, is not totally
convinced that Jeremiah 31:31-34 is
in view.
[34]
N.T. Wright, “The
Letter to the Romans,” in Leander E.
Keck, ed., et. al., New
Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 10
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2002), 688.
[35]
Cf. Deuteronomy 7:6;
10:15; Exodus 19:6; Isaiah 61:6;
43:21; Deuteronomy 4:20; 14:2; and
Hosea 2:23.
[36]
D.S. Lim, “Fullness,”
in Gerald F. Hawthorne, Ralph P.
Martin, and Daniel G. Reid, eds.,
Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity,
1993), 319.
[37]
Frederick William
Danker, ed., et. al.,
A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature,
third edition (Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 2000), 829.
[38]
Something that is
possibly captured in the CJB
rendering “until the Gentile world
enters in its fullness.”
[39]
There is certainly a
linguistic connection between the
Greek
to plērōma tōn ethnōn
and the Hebrew melo-ha’goyim
(~yAGh-alm), used by the
Patriarch Jacob when describing the
descendants of Ephraim (Genesis
48:19).
Paul’s primary
concern in Romans 11:25ff is the
spiritual attitudes of non-Jewish
Believers, but a secondary reference
is probably the return of scattered
Israel/Ephraim out in the nations to
the fold of Israel, which also has
to take place in order for all
Israel to be restored. But this is
only a secondary thought of
his, to the more pressing issue of
the proper attitudes that non-Jewish
Believers should have toward Paul’s
own Jewish brethren who have largely
rejected Yeshua—yet are still
entirely deserving of being called
“Israel.” The salvation of the Jews
is something over which Paul was
frequently anguished (Romans 9:3),
which any true Believer should
anguish over as well.
[40]
Everett F. Harrison,
“Romans,” in EXP, 10:124.
[41]
Wright, in NIB,
10:692.
[42]
Moo, 721.
[43]
Ben Witherington III,
Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A
Socio-Historical Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 279.
[44]
Wright, in NIB,
10:694.
[45]
Consult the editor’s
article “Anti-Semitism in the
Two-House Movement.”
[46]
Moo, 717.
[47]
Wright, in NIB,
10:688.
[48]
Aland, GNT,
552.
[49]
Paul Ellingworth,
New International
Greek Testament Commentary: The
Epistle to the Hebrews
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 412.
[50]
Leon Morris,
“Hebrews,” in EXP, 12:77.
[51]
Ellingworth, 409.
[52]
Ben Witherington III,
Letters and Homilies for Jewish
Christians: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on Hebrews, James and
Jude (Downers Grove, IL: IVP
Academic, 2007), 259, places
“covenant” in parenthesis ().
[53]
William L. Lane,
Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews
1-8, Vol. 47a (Nashville: Nelson
Reference and Electronic, 1991),
208.
[54]
F.F. Bruce, New
International Commentary on the New
Testament: The Epistle to the
Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1990), 189.
[55]
Cf. Ellingworth, pp
37-42.
[56]
Witherington,
Hebrews-James-Jude, 262.
[57]
Ellingworth, 416.
[58]
H.F.W. Gesenius:
Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to
the Old Testament, trans. Samuel
Prideaux Tregelles (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1979), 130.
[59]
Note that the UBSHNT,
while largely being a modern Hebrew
translation of the GNT, follows the
Hebrew of Jeremiah 31:33 in Hebrews
8:10, employing torati. The
CJB follows suit, having “my
Torah.”
[60]
Donald Guthrie,
Tyndale New Testament Commentaries:
The Letter to the Hebrews (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), 174.
[61]
Bruce, 189, fn #54.
He also points out
the Greek of Revelation 21:3, which
employs the plural laoi (laoi)
or “peoples,” meaning that Israel
proper is not the only beneficiary
of the New Covenant promise (Ibid.,
pp 189-190).
[62]
Lane, 47a:209.
[63]
David A. deSilva,
Perseverance in
Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on the Epistle “to the
Hebrews”
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 285.
[64]
Fred B. Craddock,
“The Letter to the Hebrews,” in
Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al.,
New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 12
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 101.
[65]
Witherington,
Hebrews-James-Jude, 262.
[66]
Deuteronomy 6:5;
Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19;
22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27;
Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James
2:8.
[67]
Walter C. Kaiser,
Toward Old Testament Ethics
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983),
312.
[68]
Guthrie, 178; Bruce,
195-196; Craddock, in NIB,
12:101; Witherington,
Hebrews-James-Jude, 263.
[69]
Witherington,
Hebrews-James-Jude, 259 fn #489.
Witherington does,
though, argue for “covenant” being
the real subject matter.
[70]
Ellingworth, 418.
[71]
H.G. Lidell and R.
Scott, An Intermediate
Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1994), 586.
[72]
Ibid., 164.
[73]
Similarly appearing
as “growing old and aging” in Bruce,
187.
[74]
Ellingworth, 512.
[75]
Bruce, pp 246, 247.
[76]
Ellingworth, 511.
[77]
William L. Lane,
Word Biblical Commentary: Hebrews
9-13, Vol. 47b (Nashville:
Nelson Reference and Electronic,
1991), 268.
[78]
Morris, in EXP,
12:102.
[79]
Ellingworth, 513.
[80]
Bruce, pp 247-248.
[81]
Lane, 47b:270.
[82]
deSilva, 324.
[83]
Ibid., 327.
[84]
Lane, 47b:268.
Further, Lane,
47b:268-269, seems to frown on any
kind of continued remembrance of the
Day of Atonement.
[85]
Religious Jews only
wrap tefillin during their
morning prayers. Ironically, those
who wear WWJD bracelets often do so
all the time, including during their
sleep.
[86]
Guthrie, 209.
[87]
deSilva, 324.
[88]
Lane, Hebrews,
47b:268.
[89]
Witherington,
Hebrews-James-Jude, 280.
[90]
Craddock, in NIB,
12:116.
[91]
For a further
analysis of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, consult the editor’s
commentary
Hebrews for the Practical Messianic.
[92]
The CJB has, “Now, to
make a midrash on these
things.”
[93]
LS,
537.
[94]
Richard N.
Longenecker, Word Biblical
Commentary: Galatians, Vol. 41
(Nashville: Nelson Reference &
Electronic, 1990), 211.
[95]
For a further
discussion, consult the editor’s
article “The Message of Galatians”
and his commentary
Galatians for the
Practical Messianic.
[96]
Witherington points
out, “Paul is not claming to be a
minister of the New Testament,
which did not yet exist” (Conflict
& Community in Corinth: A
Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and
2 Corinthians [Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1995], 379 fn#12).
[97]
Ralph P. Martin
describes, “Paul evidently coined
the expression,” yet has to note,
“its next occurrence is as late as
Melito of Sardis, On the Passion
(before A.D. 190)” (Word Biblical
Commentary: 2 Corinthians, Vol
40 [Waco, TX: Word Books, 1986],
69).
Witherington
similarly confirms, “The next” usage
of this terminology “seems to be
from Melito of Sardis late in the
second century” (1&2 Corinthians,
381 fn#21).
[98]
J. Paul Sampley, “The
Second Letter to the Corinthians,”
in Leander E. Keck, ed., et. al.,
New Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 11
(Nashville: Abingdon, 2000), 68.
[99]
This is something
acknowledged in various degrees by 2
Corinthians commentators:
Murray J. Harris, “2
Corinthians,” in EXP, 10:334;
Martin, 52; Colin Kruse, Tyndale
New Testament Commentaries: 2
Corinthians (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987), 91; Sampley, in
NIB, 11:64.
[100]
Witherington, 1&2
Corinthians, 375.
[101]
Kruse, pp 92-93.
[102]
BDAG,
230.
[103]
Kruse, 96.
[104]
Ibid.
[105]
BDAG,
525.
[106]
Peter Enns, The
NIV Application Commentary: Exodus
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000),
587.
[107]
Kruse notes how,
“Rabbinic writings of c. AD
150 say that it was the effects of
Israel’s sin in making the golden
calf while Moses was on the mount
which resulted in their being unable
through fear to look upon the
brightness of Moses’ face” (p 97).
[108]
Kaiser, 313.
[109]
Witherington, 1&2
Corinthians, 380.
[110]
Feinberg, in EXP,
6:576.
[111]
Also to be considered
is how there are righteous persons
depicted in Abraham’s bosom (Luke
16:22ff), the former holding place
for the righteous deceased who are
now in Heaven following the
ascension of the Messiah (Ephesians
4:8-9), awaiting the resurrection.
For a further
discussion, consult the editor’s
article “To Be Absent from the
Body.”
[112]
On an additional
note, referring to the Apostolic
Scriptures as the B’rit Chadashah
also complicates things, because the
Apostolic Scriptures or Writings
compose the inspired texts of the
First Century Messianic
Believers—and do not necessarily
make up a “covenant” between God and
His people. Those who use the term
“New Testament,” infrequently, in
the Messianic community, do so only
for the familiarity of those who are
not that acquainted to neutral terms
like Apostolic Scriptures/Writings
or Messianic Scriptures/Writings.
More problematic,
though, is that by referring to the
Apostolic Scriptures/Writings as the
B’rit Chadashah, various
sectors of the Messianic movement
have helped propagate the
historically and textually invalid
belief that the Apostolic
Scriptures/Writings were all
originally written in Hebrew.
[113]
Francis Brown, S.R.
Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, A
Hebrew and English Lexicon of the
Old Testament (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1979), 294.
[114]
Ibid.
[115]
Walter C. Kaiser,
The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical
Theology of the Old and New
Testaments (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2008), 367.
[116]
Deuteronomy 6:5;
Leviticus 19:18; cf. Matthew 19:19;
22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27;
Romans 13:9; Galatians 5:14; James
2:8.
[117]
Dearman, 287.
[118]
Miller, in NIB,
6:812.
[119]
Morris, in EXP,
12:78.
[120]
Consult the editor’s
article “Addressing the Frequently
Avoided Issues Messianics Encounter
in the Torah.”
[121]
John Wesley,
Explanatory Notes Upon the New
Testament, reprint
(Peterborough, UK: Epworth Press,
2000), 30.
[122]
Dearman, 287.
[123]
Thompson, 580.
[124]
Ellingworth, pp
414-415.
[125]
Bruce, 193.
[126]
Morris, in EXP,
12:79.
[127]
This is addressed
more fully from an egalitarian
perspective in the editor’s
commentary
Ephesians for the
Practical Messianic.
[128]
Be aware of how many
Romans interpreters today are agreed
that the “I” of Romans 7 is a
hypothetical sinner, and not
necessarily the Apostle Paul giving
us autobiographical information. For
a summary of this, consult J.M.
Everts, “Conversion and Call of
Paul,” in Dictionary of Paul and
His Letters, 158; and the
editor’s article “The Message of
Romans.”
|