What Does the New Covenant Make Obsolete?
Click to Download Audio MP3 File.
I’ve chosen to unpack a problematic chapter for Christians interested in reconnecting with the Jewish roots of Christianity. Hebrews chapter 8 says “That which is obsolete and growing old is near destruction.” Traditionally, Christian teachers have taken this to mean that all communal aspects of Israel’s worship are obsolete. They’ve furthermore taught that all ritual aspects of Israel’s obedience are obsolete. According to traditional interpretation, the only Torah practices which carry over into the era of the new covenant are those itemized in the Decalogue and certain ethical norms which Christians may deem to be sufficiently universal. The remainder of the Hebrew Bible continues as Holy Scripture, but it functions as a mute witness to the past, rather than as a normative expression of God’s current expectations.
If you go to the website of the BRI, which is the department of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists overseeing our theology and Bible interpretation, you’ll find a position paper by Frank Holbrook affirming the inherited tradition. What the BRI disseminates is regarded as semi-official among Seventh-day Adventists. The said position paper, entitled, “Should Christians Observe the Israelite Festivals?” has been circulated in an attempt to discredit what we’re attempting to do here at Beth Shalom Seventh-day Adventist in Thousand Oaks. I’d like to put forward a few alternatives for understanding Hebrews chapter 8.
First I want to register the problem created by traditional interpretation. The historical evidence doesn’t give the impression of such radical discontinuity. The Apostolic Writings give the impression that Israel’s God-given identity, Israel’s covenant, Israel’s mission task, Israel’s distinct obedience are all matters of on-going importance. Even the communal institutions which support them seem to be regarded as perfectly valid.
In the Book of Acts, the Jerusalem temple continues to be the geographical center of the remnant of Israel reconstituted around Jesus. The Apostles are daily in the temple (Acts 5:42).
Acts 2:42 notes that those who’d been immersed in Jesus’ name were steadfast in the prayers. In a Jewish context “the prayers” would mean the recitation of Israel’s formal communal prayers, particularly the amida.
In Acts 20:6 the Apostle Paul delays his departure from Philippi, sailing only after the Feast of matzot. In Acts 20:16 he decides to skip the city of Ephesus, because he’s in a hurry to arrive in Jerusalem in time for the Feast of shavuot. In 1Corthinians (16:8) Paul says he will tarry in Ephesus until the Feast of shavuot.
In Acts 16 Paul circumcises Timothy. In 1Corinthians 7:17 he instructs that if God calls a Jewish man, he should remain circumcised. In Galatians 5:3 Paul testifies that circumcised men are obligated to observe the entire Torah. The implication is that circumcised Jews should continue to behave like observant Jews. Acts 21:20 attests to tens of thousands of Jews who have believed in Jesus “all of them having zeal for the Torah!” In Acts 21:21 Paul is accused of teaching Diaspora Jews not to circumcise their boys, but the apostles do their best to help him dispel this slanderous accusation. He takes a Nazirite vow which can only be discharged in the temple by a ritual which includes animal sacrifice (21:26).
One of the false accusations brought against Stephen is that he allegedly said Jesus would change the customs Moses gave Israel (Acts 6:14). If Stephen had actually said any such thing, it’s not likely Luke would present it as a false accusation. In the company of the Jewish community leaders in Rome (Acts 28:17) Paul claims never to have done anything to contrary to Jewish custom.
Both in the Book of Acts (26:5) and in Philippians (3:5) Paul claims to be a practicing Pharisee. On five occasions (2Corinthians 11:24), he accepts the forty stripes save one, the maximum punishment which the synagogue could impose on a member. If Paul regards the synagogue as an obsolete institution, he certainly pays dearly to belong!
In Acts 15 the issue comes up how non-Jews who’ve confessed Jesus and received the Holy Spirit should accommodate Israel’s purity laws. If Israel’s purity laws were considered obsolete, it’s odd they should be accorded accommodation of any sort.
This isn’t meant to be an exhaustive inventory, but the cumulative evidence is pretty impressive. The apostles don’t act like Israel’s Torah practice is obsolete.
Some Christian teachers have argued apostolic behavior was a temporary fluke; as soon as the temple was destroyed Jesus’ followers would realize the Torah was obsolete and start acting like Christians.
But most of Israel’s Torah practices aren’t contingent on the temple. I’m referring to practices such as circumcision, redemption of firstborn, ritual family purity, ritual food purity, lighting lamps on the preparation day, havdala after Shabbat, commemorative holidays, tassels, forbidden fabric, phylacteries, door mzuzot, shma recitation, grace after meals, and formal blessings when performing commandments. Already during the 2nd temple period these rituals were practiced far away in the Diaspora by Jews who didn’t have frequent opportunity to go up to Jerusalem. After the destruction of the temple they continued to accompany the Jewish people in their walk with God during their exile. They’ve expressed Israel’s devotion and hope. Undoubtedly they’ve also helped preserve Israel’s distinctiveness as a chosen people.
At this point I’d like us to read through Hebrews chapter 8 to get a sense of the wider context. We can then discuss possibilities for squaring it with apostolic behavior. Hebrews 8:1-13.
“The main point in what has been said: we have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of Majesty in heaven. A minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle, which HaShem pitched, not humanity. For each High Priest is appointed for the purpose of offering gifts and sacrifices. Hence it is also necessary that this one also should have something to offer. Were he on earth, he wouldn’t be a priest, being that there are those who offer gifts in accordance with the Torah. They minister the copy and shadow of the heavenly, just as Moshe was enjoined when he was about to construct the tabernacle. For he said, ‘See’ he says, ‘That you make all according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain.’ But now he has gained a more excellent ministry, insofar as he is mediator of a better covenant, which is enacted Torah νενομοθε,τηται upon better promises. For if the first had been flawless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because, finding fault with them, he says, ‘Behold, the days of coming, oracle of HaShem, and I shall cut with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant, not like the covenant I made with their fathers the day I took them by the hand to bring them from the Land of Egypt. For they did not remain in my covenant, and I neglected them, oracle of HaShem. For this is the covenant which I shall cut with the house of Israel after those days, oracle of HaShem, I shall put my Torah in their midst and write it on their heart, and I shall be God to them, and they shall be people to me. And no more shall each teach his neighbor, and each his brother, saying, “Know HaShem.” For all of them shall know me, from their least to their greatest. For I shall forgive their iniquity and remember their sins no more.’ 13In saying new he makes the first obsolete. And that which is becoming obsolete and growing old is near destruction.”
The first observation I’d like to make from Hebrews chapter 8 is that it’s primarily concerned with the sacrificial rituals of the temple, the serving priesthood, and the necessary infrastructure. This holds true for the wider context as well. In chapters 5, 7, 9, and 10 the Epistle to the Hebrews is concerned with the temple, its sacrifices, and its priesthood. The topic under discussion isn’t Israel’s purpose in the plan of salvation. We need to be cautious about applying the obsolescence of the sanctuary, priesthood, and sacrificial system categorically across the board to everything Jewish. The context doesn’t warrant that sort of over-generalization.
A second observation. Although the Epistle to the Hebrews talks about a new covenant, it doesn’t talk about a new Torah. It talks about a changed Torah. Hebrews 8:6, in fact, employs the verbal form of the Greek word for Torah: νομοθετε,,ω. Jewish Greek for Torah is νο,μος. I’ve attempted to capture the force of the Greek by rendering νομοθετε,,ω “to enact Torah.”
“But now he has gained a more excellent ministry, insofar as he is mediator of a better covenant, which is enacted Torah νενομοθε,τηται upon better promises.”
In other words, the new covenant has Torah too. This observation is reinforced by the quotation from Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant. “I shall put my Torah in their midst and write it on their heart.” Of course, the Epistle to the Hebrews doesn’t say the Torah will be exactly the same. Hebrews 7:12 speaks of a change of Torah.
“For a change of priesthood, of necessity, is a change of Torah.”
The contrast between old and new then, is not that one covenant has Torah and the other doesn’t. The Epistle to the Hebrews doesn’t advocate antinomianism. But the simple fact that Hebrews chapter 8 terms the Torah of the new covenant Torah implies it has some continuity with the Torah of the old covenant. There may be a good deal of overlap.
A third observation is that Hebrews chapter 8 is explicitly based on the prophecy of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31. This quotation is the biggest chunk of the Hebrew Bible quoted anywhere in the Apostolic Writings. Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant was already six hundred years old when the Epistle to the Hebrews was penned.
What Hebrews 8:13 says in the 1st century CE about the new covenant was already valid back in the 6th century BCE when Jeremiah originally prophesied the new covenant. Once God says “new” he makes the first obsolete. In the 1st century CE Israel had been managing for six hundred years with an obsolete covenant! Everybody in Israel knew God had something better in store. But an obsolete covenant doesn’t mean a dysfunctional covenant. The covenant was due for a major update, but the system hadn’t crashed. God still met with his children on the basis of that obsolete covenant. God still forgave confessed sin on the basis of that obsolete covenant. God still rewarded obedience on the basis of that obsolete covenant. When Jesus appeared he showed nothing but respect for that obsolete covenant. Jesus said, “Whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do so shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:19). This has profound implications for how we understand the old covenant’s obsolescence in Hebrews 8:13.
“In saying new he makes the first obsolete. And that which is becoming obsolete and growing old is near destruction.”
Hebrews 10:9 suggests there’s a definite cut-off point for the old covenant.
“When he says, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will,’ he removes the first in order that he might establish the second.”
Some Christians have suggested the cut-off point was at the cross, or at the outpouring of the Spirit, or at the destruction of the 2nd temple. But the Epistle to the Hebrews doesn’t suggest what the cut-off point might be. An obsolete covenant that has kept on going for six hundred years, albeit decrepit, may still go on for quite some time. The Epistle to the Hebrews doesn’t say the moment the new covenant is inaugurated the old is immediately invalided.
The Epistle speaks evocatively of the patriarchs and waiting heroes of faith in Hebrews 11:13.
“These all died in faith, not having received the promises. But from afar they saw and embraced them. They confessed that they were strangers and exiles on earth.”
Perhaps Jews who don’t currently accept Jesus are included among those who saw the promises “from afar” and embraced them. The Epistle to the Hebrews doesn’t rule out the possibility that the old and new covenants may continue simultaneously for some time together. The Epistle states that for the second to be established the first must eventually give way. In the meantime, the Epistle urges its readers to value the new, because it’s better than the old.
Fourth observation. Although Christians believe that on the night Jesus was betrayed he inaugurated the new covenant by his own blood, we don’t yet enjoy the full reality of the new covenant. In many respects the new covenant is still more of a promise than a present reality. Jeremiah prophesies, and the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes him approvingly,
“None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know HaShem,’ for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.’“
Sad to say, we haven’t attained that yet. In case you didn’t notice, we’re not living in the era of universal enlightenment. Judaism still requires teachers. Christianity hasn’t exactly made evangelism obsolete either. There are still plenty of people out there who don’t know the L-rd. We can’t rest on our laurels. According to the prophetic specifications none of us today are fully living under the new covenant! This should caution us against triumphalism or claiming the new covenant for our own faction. Evidently, the better promises must be better realized before the old covenant can be totally obsolete. We’re not there yet; we haven’t arrived at the cut-off point. The new covenant, like the old, is primarily about hope rather than consummation. The Epistle to the Hebrews itself admits as much. Hebrews 7:18-19.
“For on the one hand, there is annulment αvθε,τησις of a previous commandment on account of its weakness and uselessness, for the Torah consummated nothing. On the other hand, there is the introduction of a better hope, through which we approach God.”
Fifth observation. The difference between the old and new covenant is not the difference between Jews and Gentiles, or the difference between the synagogue and the church. Jeremiah specifies that the new covenant is with united Israel, and the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes him on that score.
“Behold, the days of coming, oracle of HaShem, and I shall cut with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant.”
Christians have been tempted to equate the new covenant with the schism between the church and Israel. Christians have been tempted to equate the new covenant with supersessionism. This isn’t what the text is saying.
Sixth observation. Since the Epistle to the Hebrews embeds such a large chunk of Jeremiah’s prophecy, interpretation of Hebrews chapter 8 entitles us to take Jeremiah’s prophecy into consideration even though the Epistle to the Hebrews doesn’t quote the whole thing. This is what we mean by intertextuality. We can assume the writer to the Hebrews and his intended audience would have been familiar with Jeremiah’s entire prophecy of the new covenant. The prophecy of the new covenant continues in Jeremiah 31:35-37.
“Thus HaShem has said, who gives the sun for light by day, the ordinances of moon and stars to for light by night, who disturbs the sea and its waves roar, HaShem of armies is his name. ‘Should these ordinances cease from before me,’ oracle of Hahem, ‘Then also shall the seed of Israel desist from being a nation before me all the days.’ Thus HaShem has said, ‘Should the heavens above be measured, should the foundations of the earth below be searched, then also will I reject the entire seed of Israel on account of what they have done,’ oracle of HaShem.”
Jeremiah’s prophecy eliminates the possibility that the new covenant spells Israel’s rejection. Jeremiah is well aware of Israel’s unfaithfulness. But the covenant is not pegged to Israel’s performance. The covenant was never a matter of what Israel brought to the table. Both the old covenant and the new covenant are a matter of pure grace. God bases the new covenant on his own great name, on his own reputation. God anchors the new covenant to the existence of the created universe.
Two chapters further on in Jeremiah there’s another prophetic oracle which reinforces the assertion that God’s covenant is anchored to his physical creation, not to Israel’s successes and failures. Jeremiah 33:23-26.
“It so occurred that the word of HaShem was to Jeremiah, saying, ‘Have you not seen what this people have said?’ ‘The two families which HaShem chose he has rejected.’ In this fashion they have despised my people from any longer being a nation before them. Thus HaShem has spoken, ‘Should my covenant not continue day and night, then I have not established the ordinances of heaven and earth. Also the seed of Jacob and my servant David will I reject, not taking from his seed rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will return their captivity and show mercy on them.’”
The above six observations help us square obsolescence in Hebrews 8:13 with the wider context of Scripture and with apostolic behavior. Unfortunately, Holbrook’s position paper doesn’t see any of these observations. Holbrook asserts the new covenant makes all ritual aspects of Israel’s covenant obedience obsolete. He fails to see that preserving Israel’s God-given identity actually serves the plan of salvation. He concludes that since Israel’s Torah practice isn’t a matter of individual salvation and it isn’t incumbent on non-Jews, it’s redundant. Without analyzing the 1st century situation or the texts, Holbrook merely affirms traditional interpretation.
The goal of the old and the new covenants is the same: God’s determination to reconcile the Gentiles and to bring them to his service. Both the old and the new covenants are about God’s recovery of his lost world. God loves the lost world and he’s absolutely committed to it. The difference between the old and the new covenant is the level of cooperation between God and his chosen servants. In the new covenant God’s Spirit is poured out on Jews and Gentiles alike. In the new covenant the mitzvot are so internalized that they can be creatively implemented within non-Jewish culture and still retain their normative function as covenant stipulations. The new covenant is simply a better deal.
What about non-Jews who may voluntarily wish to participate in Israel’s worship? Does the obsolescence of the old covenant preclude Christians from connecting with their Jewish roots or from joining Israel in singing God’s praise? What about Christians who live in Israel? What about Christians who have one or more Jewish parents? Does the obsolescence of the old coveant preclude Christians from praying the Book of Psalms? Does Holbrook’s position paper really discredit what Seventh-day Adventists are doing in Thousand Oaks?
In our multi-cultural world individuals are frequently required to choose their communal identity among several possibilities or even create their own. Not many of us are born anymore into a comfortable ethnic monopoly, where momma and daddy and grandma and grampa were all from the same place and all spoke the same language. Most of today are of mixed ancestry. We have to choose which group we will reference and with which we’ll most identify. Without wishing to convert to Judaism, we at Beth Shalom Seventh-day Adventist have Jewish family and friends, or we speak Hebrew, or we enjoy Jewish culture, or we’re fascinated by Jewish history. For whatever reason, some of us favor Israel as our preferred communal identity.
I think here we need to highlight the difference between an obligation and a voluntary choice. When Christians enrich their spiritual life with elements of Israel’s Torah practice, it’s not obedience. When Christians encourage Jews to return to Israel’s God along the Jewish pathway, it’s not obedience. It may be good evangelism, but it’s not obedience. Doing what God doesn’t command you to do isn’t obedience. When Christians participate in Israel’s worship they’re not discharging any covenant obligations, not even when there’s Bible verses commanding others to do so. Christians should be very clear about that.
As much as I disagree with Holbrook’s assumptions, I have to agree with his title: “Should Christians Observe the Israel’s Festivals?” The answer is obviously not. They couldn’t if they wanted to.
The question I’ve attempted to address is whether Hebrews 8:13 precludes Jews who confess Jesus from Israel’s Torah practice. I don’t believe it does. I further don’t believe it precludes Christian participation in Israel’s Torah practice, provided Christians realize that for them it’s not Torah practice.
Remember, the new covenant isn’t supposed to make problems. It’s supposed to make life with God better. If we perceive it as an obstacle, it may be that we’ve misunderstood the gift.
