THE NEWNESS OF THE NEW COVENANT:

Better Covenant, Better Mediator, Better Sacrifice,

Better Ministry, Better Hope, Better Promises

James R. White[1]

The epistle to the Hebrews embodies one of the strongest apologetic defenses of the supremacy of Christ?s work in all of the NT. The purpose of the book, its intended audience, its historical setting, and its deep use of the OT, provides a rich treasure of inspired teaching on the work of Christ, especially in his office as High Priest.

For those who take seriously the consistency of God?s self-glorification in his establishment and continuance of the covenant of grace, through all its manifestations down through time, the discussion of the diaqh,kh kainh,, the new covenant, drawn from Jer. 31:31-34, must be given its due prominence in answering the question, ?Exactly what is the nature of the covenant in the blood of Christ (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 13:20), and how does it differ from other administrations of the covenant of grace?? A full-orbed investigation into the nature of the New Covenant has led many to conclude that the ?newness? of this covenant leads inevitably to conclusions that impact many other areas of theological inquiry. If this New Covenant is, in fact, based upon better promises, and has a better Mediator, with a better ministry, who offers a better sacrifice, resulting in a better hope, so that all those who are within the boundaries marked out by its very identification as a covenant made in the blood of Christ know him and experience the forgiveness of their sins, then it follows that such issues as covenant membership, its relationship to the external church, and our understanding of apostasy, must start with these truths. If we approach the topic backwards, beginning with traditions regarding covenant membership, signs, or a particular view of apostasy, we run a great danger of turning the direct and plain exegesis of the text of Hebrews upon its head.

Recent Developments

P&R Publishing released a compendium of articles edited by Gregg Strawbridge titled The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism in 2003. In this work the issue of the nature of the New Covenant comes up often and is in fact the subject of an entire chapter, written by Pastor Jeffrey D. Niell of Emmanuel Covenant Church (CRE), Phoenix, Arizona, titled ?The Newness of the New Covenant.? Pastor Niell and I co-authored a publication for Bethany House Publishers, The Same Sex Controversy, which was released in 2002. We are both graduates of the same college (both having an emphasis in the study of Greek under the same professor, one year apart from one another) and seminary, and both came into a knowledge of, and acceptance of, the doctrines of grace at the same time. He visited the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church with me before I became a member, and I was involved in his ordination. To say that we ?go back? a long way is to make an understatement. And yet our journeys in Reformed theology have taken us to very different conclusions regarding the nature of the New Covenant, and hence to disagreement on the membership of the covenant, the nature of apostasy, and the giving of the covenant sign. It is my hope to model proper Christian disagreement between brothers, based upon a common belief in the ultimate authority of God?s Word, its perspicuity, and the over-riding need to engage in consistent exegesis of the inspired text so as to lay the only foundation upon which disagreements can be resolved.

    In this two-part article[2] we will examine the concept of the New Covenant in the context of Hebrews, focusing upon its classic expression in chapter eight, but likewise noting other passages (especially 10:10-22) that directly impact our understanding of this vital truth. We will look at the broad contextual background, specifics regarding significant textual variants, and the relevance of the theme of the ?better? in this section of Hebrews. Then the key passages will be exegeted. Exegesis will be followed by interpretational conclusions. Then we will respond to the presentation made by Pastor Niell, and contrast some comments offered by Richard Pratt of Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) in his chapter in the same volume.

Hebrews: There is Nothing to Go Back To ? Christ is All in All

The context of the book of Hebrews is, obviously, central to a proper understanding of such phrases as diaqh,kh kainh,, new covenant, or krei,ttonoj diaqh,khj, better covenant. This is an apologia, a defense offered in the form of an exhortation to those Hebrew Christians who would be subject to the pressures created by their cultural context. That is, the work is written to those who would hear the siren call of the old ways and, upon seeing the difficulties inherent in following Christ, be tempted to give in and ?go back? to the old ways. The constant emphasis upon exhortation to continuance and perseverance speaks directly to this issue, and explains the format of the book?s progressive explanation of Christ?s superiority to each of the chief aspects of the ?old way? of a Judaism that stood firmly opposed to the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. By demonstrating the superiority of Christ to all aspects of the old ways, and that by arguing from the Holy Scriptures themselves, the writer to the Hebrews provides a solid foundation upon which to stand against the temptation to ?go back.? When one is truly convinced in one?s soul that Jesus Christ is superior to every aspect of the old Judaism, the heart of the temptation is removed, and the call to go back is rendered powerless.

Any work of apologetic weight, however, must provide some kind of compelling argumentation. And when one examines a major element of such an apologetic argument, a simple question suggests itself, one that should always be asked of any interpretation offered. ?What is the role of this particular concept or passage in the over-all apologetic of the author? And does my interpretation strengthen, or weaken, the attempted argumentation?? This is important in examining the New Covenant concept in Hebrews, for surely it is part of the writer?s demonstration of the supremacy of the work of Christ over the ?old.? If we allow deeply held traditions to influence our exegesis, so that the apologetic element of the author?s presentation of the New Covenant is compromised, we can see by this that we have erred and must ?practice what we preach? and alter our views in accordance with our motto, semper reformanda.

    The narrative context is that of the fulfillment of the types and shadows, and in particular, those embodied in the priesthood and the sacrifices of the tabernacle, in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The author has opened and addressed numerous aspects of Christ?s superiority as High Priest, interweaving various themes around the major presentation of Christ as the one and only perfect High Priest. Practical exhortations and warnings are attached to each aspect of Christ?s priesthood as it is presented. After presenting Christ?s priesthood after the order of Mechizedek in chapter five, for example, the warnings of 6:1-8 follow, concluded by the encouragement and exhortation of 6:9-12, where we read in closing,

And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

The text then moves back into another demonstration of an important aspect of Christ?s superiority, in this instance moving toward the extended discussion of the supremacy of the work of the one High Priest, which forms the substance of chapters seven through ten. The discussion of the New Covenant is inextricably linked with this demonstration of the supremacy of Christ?s priesthood and salvific work (7:22-25; 9:15, 23-25; 10:10-18). It is important to follow the connections inherent in the text itself. Considering the covenant apart from such issues as Christ?s priesthood, mediation, sacrifice, and resultant salvific work, is to mis-handle the author?s words and to isolate one contextual element to the detriment of the others. Our author thinks holistically, not in the Western ?pigeon hole? style wherein doctrines and beliefs exist separately from one another and do not come together to form a coherent fabric of truth. As such, his view of the New Covenant as ?better? must be seen in light of the perfection of Christ?s work of mediation and every other aspect of the argument as he presents it.

Exegetically Significant Textual Variants

In focusing upon the description of the New Covenant in chapters eight through ten of Hebrews, we encounter two highly significant textual variants that directly impact the translation, and hence interpretation, of the text. The first is found in 8:8a, and the second involves a variant between the Massoretic Hebrew (MT) text and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). None of the other variants in the relevant passages are overly difficult to decide.[3]

The first variant touches on whether the text is indicating that God was finding fault ?with them,? i.e., with those who had lived under the Old Covenant in the days of Jeremiah, as most translations have it, or, whether it would be better to render the text as, ?For, finding fault [with the Old Covenant], He says to them?.? The difference in the reading is between auvtou.j and  auvtoi/j, between the accusative plural and the dative plural. While some see little difference between the readings,[4] it is important to consider the possibilities inherent in the two readings.  The external data can be argued either direction,[5] and internal argumentation can go both ways as well, making it a particularly difficult variant. The NA27/UBS4 texts adopt auvtou.j, while Philip Hughes argues for auvtoi/j.[6]

I would like to suggest that one aspect of this variant needs to be allowed consideration in the exegetical process. In Heb. 8:7 the writer uses the Greek term a;memptoj, blameless, which, of course, is merely the negation of me,myij, which in its verbal form is me,mfomai, the very term which appears at the beginning of v. 8 and which may, if we read the variant as auvtoi/j, govern the translation, as the verb me,mfomai can take its object in the dative or the accusative (hence the translations ?finding fault with them? or ?finding fault, he said to them?). The connection between saying the first covenant (the term diaqh,kh does not appear and is understood) was not without fault (a;memptoj) is maintained strongly by reading the dative auvtoi/j and rendering it, ?For finding fault [with the first covenant] he says to them.? The only other way to make a meaningful connection with ?finding fault? (me,mfomai) in 8:8a is to connect it with ?for they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them? at the end of v. 9. But the connection here is much more tenuous, both for the reason that the terminology differs substantially as well as the fact that the phrase ?I did not care for them? is a variant between the MT and the LXX (the second major variant we will examine). While this is not enough to make a firm decision, it is relevant to the statement of the writer that the first covenant was to be faulted, while the New Covenant is placed in a position of direct contrast thereto. As we will note in the exegesis, the Old Covenant was ?faulted? in that ?they did not continue in My covenant? hence, for the New Covenant to be superior, it would have to be inviolable, as the exegesis itself suggests. This point is strengthened if we take the dative plural auvtoi/j and read it with le,gei, ?he says to them.?

     The second major variant involves the always challenging area of differences between the Hebrew MT and the Greek LXX. It is important to note this variant, as this author has encountered Jewish apologists who refer to it as a means of attacking the veracity and accuracy of the NT text. Given the general ignorance of even trained ministers on the subject of textual criticism and the textual history of the OT, springing such a surprise (using the differing translations found in Jer. and in Heb.) can result in a very awkward, difficult situation. Though the variant seems quite major (in the sense made of the passage), in reality it is probably based upon a single letter in the Hebrew. As rendered by the NASB, the MT reads, ??My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,? declares the LORD.?  However, the LXX, cited in Heb. 8:9, reads, ??for they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them,? says the LORD.? The difference between ?I was a husband to them? and ?I did not care for them? could be construed as presenting a complete opposite. Now, it is true that the writer to the Hebrews does not repeat the phrase, nor base any particular statement upon it. However, it does seem that the LXX rendering could be seen as more consistent with the point being made, especially with the strong contrast between the Old and New Covenants and those who participate therein.

But the variant can be fairly easily explained, as suggested by the textual apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The verb ?to be a husband to? in the MT is yTil.[;?'. One may recognize the root ba-al, here, to be master, lord, husband. But there is another verb in Hebrew, ga-al, or as it would possibly have appeared here, yTil.[;?', which means ?to despise, abhor.? The visual similarity of B with G is clear to anyone. This might explain the origination of the LXX reading. But the question arises, did the writer to the Hebrews know of the variant, and if so, would this not mean the choice of the LXX was purposeful? But if the LXX is simply the ?default? translation being used, one could not put any weight upon the variation. These issues go beyond our scope here, but they do touch upon a number of important passages in the New Testament.

Better: No, Really

When a writer repeats a particular term we must always take into consideration the possibility that he is indeed seeking to communicate a particular concept through that term. The writer to the Hebrews uses the term ?better? in key passages throughout his work. This is hardly surprising, in light of the fact that the writer is engaged in a comparison of the old and the new, the old law and its fulfillment in Christ. Looking at the comparative form, better, here are those things which are ?better? in Hebrews:

?having become as much better than the angels, as He inherited a more excellent name than they? (Heb. 1:4)

?We are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation? (Heb. 6:9)

?and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God? (Heb. 7:19)

?so much more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant? (Heb. 7:22)

?But 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? (Heb. 8:6)

?Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these? (Heb. 9:23)

?But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one? (Heb. 11:16)

?Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;? (Heb. 11:35)

?And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect? (Heb 11:39, 40)

?and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel? (Heb 12:24)

The term ?better? can be understood in various ways. One can argue that one item in a class is ?better? than another item in the same class. That is, one can argue that one kind of motorcycle is superior to, better than, another kind of motorcycle. Both, however, are motorcycles by nature. Or, one could say that something is better qualitatively. One might say that a high quality diamond is better than a cubic zirconium, and such a statement would be making a comparison differentiating between the items on the ground of nature. The nature of the diamond is better than that of the cubic zirconium.

When we look at the use of this term in Hebrews, the kind of ?betterness? can be clearly discerned. When the writer says that Jesus is ?better than? the angels (1:4), is he not saying that Jesus is better than the angels qualitatively, on the level of being? Surely he is not saying that Jesus and the angels are in the same category, and Jesus is simply a better kind of angel than any others. In 6:9 the writer refers to ?better things concerning you, things which accompany salvation.? There the distinction is between things which do not of necessity accompany salvation and things which do. Are actions which accompany salvation merely ?better works? than those which are non-salvific, or is there a qualitative difference? In 7:19, is the ?better hope? ushered in by Christ just a larger, grander hope than that provided by law, but a hope of the same kind? Could anyone truly draw near to God by means of the law? No, for ?the Law made nothing perfect.? The hope inaugurated by Christ is qualitatively different. In 11:16, when they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one, is the heavenly country of the same kind as an earthly country? Is it just better as in bigger, or brighter? Or is the heavenly country better on the level of nature and quality?

The reason for these considerations comes into play when we consider what it means to speak of better promises, better sacrifices, and a better covenant. When Christ is said to be the guarantee of a better covenant in 7:22, is the covenant that is here described as ?better? merely better in the sense of being ?bigger? or ?larger? or ?more grand,? or is it better on a substantial, qualitative basis? Does this really mean that there are just more of the elect in the ?better? covenant, and this is why it is ?better?? Or is there a more fundamental distinction? Likewise, in 8:6 the term appears twice. First, Jesus is said to be the mediator of a better covenant which is based upon better promises. This is all placed in the context of describing a ?more excellent ministry.? Is this ministry simply of the same kind as the ministry of the old priests, only, in some fashion, ?more excellent?? Or is the point of the passage that the Messiah?s ministry, the covenant in his blood, and the promises upon which the covenant stands ? all these things are substantially different, better, than that which came before?

This is plainly brought out in 9:23 when the writer speaks of the ?better sacrifices? by which the heavenly things are cleansed. Here Christ?s sacrifice (as the following context makes plain) is said to be ?better? than the animal sacrifices, those of goats and bulls. Surely, at this point there can be no argument that the betterness of the sacrifice of Christ is qualitatively superior to that of the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant. His death is not just more effective or in some fashion greater than the sacrifice of a lamb or a bull. That sacrifice differs on a fundamental, foundational level. It is better by nature and definition.

This is important to our examination of the New Covenant, for it is said to be a better covenant, with a better mediator, with better promises, based upon a better sacrifice, resulting in a better hope. So when we look at the description of the New Covenant in Heb. 8:8ff, we must see how each of these elements of the New Covenant are better than that which existed under the old administration.

Exegesis of Hebrews 8:6-13

The immediately preceding argument, leading to the key presentation of the New Covenant in Heb. 8:6-13, flows from the identification of Christ with the superior priesthood of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4, cited in Heb. 7:17, 21), leading to the description of Christ as the e;gguoj (guarantee/guarantor)[7] of  the New Covenant, and also bringing the first use of  krei,ttonoj diaqh,khj, better covenant, in 7:22, ?so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.? Heb. 7:23-8:5 comprises a demonstration of the basis for the apologetic assertion that the New Covenant is, in fact, a better covenant (part and parcel of the purpose of the letter), one that flows from the priestly nature of Christ?s work. Heb. 7:23-25 proves this by the contrast of the mortal priests with the one priest, Jesus Christ; and 7:26-28 does so in light of the sinfulness of the many priests and hence their repeated sacrifices versus the singular sacrifice of the innocent, undefiled Christ. Heb. 8:1-6, then, provides first a summary statement of the preceding arguments (i.e., our one high priest has entered into the heavenlies) and then provides the thesis statement for the description of the superiority of the New Covenant from Jer. 31 with the assertion that Christ has obtained ?a more excellent ministry? than that of the old priests, that he is the mediator (in contrast, in context, to Moses, v. 5; Gal. 3:19; Jn. 1:17) of a ?better covenant? enacted on ?better promises.? Some brief comments should be offered exegetically on these texts.

First, Christ?s role as singular and never dying high priest, and the resulting assurance of the perfection of his work, is seen by the writer as part of the demonstration of why the covenant of which he is the guarantee is ?better? (7:23-25). While our English translations normally say something like, ?The former priests existed in greater numbers? at 7:23, the literal reading is simply, ?the priests,? contrasting[8] the plural with the singular ?he? (oi` vs. o`) in v. 24. The work of the many priests is, of necessity, imperfect, for they are ?prevented by death? from ?continuing? or ?abiding.? But, in contrast, he ?abides forever,? he is no longer subject to death. Hence, he, unlike the old priests under the Old Covenant, holds his priesthood (which has been shown to be superior in the preceding arguments) avpara,baton, permanently, or, in some sources, without successor. Both translations fit the context, for he never lays aside this priesthood, hence, it is ?permanent? in contrast to the former priests. But likewise he has no successor in his office. The entire concept is meant to be in contrast to the old priests and their inherently temporary nature. As a result of the permanence of his priestly position,[9] Christ has an ability the old priests did not possess. He is able to save. The profundity of the words may deflect proper attention. The permanence of his life and position as high priest grants to him the ability to save. He is active in saving, and he is capable of so doing. As noted above, the soteriological content of the superiority of Christ?s work as high priest and of the New Covenant cannot be dismissed or overlooked. The extent of his salvific work is noted by the phrase eivj to. pantele.j, which can be translated ?forever? in the sense of permanence, or ?to the uttermost? in the sense of completely, similar, in fact, to avpara,baton above. Owen noted the propriety of seeing both senses in the text:

Take the word in the first sense, and the meaning is, that he will not effect or work out this or that part of our salvation, do one thing or another that belongs unto it, and leave what remains unto ourselves or others; but ?he is our Rock, and his work is perfect.? Whatever belongs unto our entire, complete salvation, he is able to effect it. The general notion of the most that are called Christians lies directly against this truth?.That this salvation is durable, perpetual, eternal? and there is nothing hinders but that we may take the words in such a comprehensive sense as to include the meaning of both these interpretations. He is able to save completely as to all parts, fully as to all causes, and for ever in duration.[10]

Just as the Father?s will for the Son revealed in Jn. 6:38, 39 demands perfection in his role as Savior, so too here the very same soteriological perfection and completion is central to the work of the eternal high priest. This is brought out with strong force in the rest of the verse, for the author indicates both the object of the salvific work and the basis thereof, and both are intensely ?priestly? statements. The singular priest saves ?those who draw near to God through Him.? This clearly harkens back to the people who drew near in worship to God in the temple, and their representative, the high priest on the day of atonement. There is specificity to the salvific work of the priest. He does not make a general plan of salvation available, he saves a specific people (cf. Matt. 1:21). And secondly, ?He always lives to make intercession for them? points to the same perfection of the high priest. His indestructible life means he never lays aside his priestly role, hence, since the high priest interceded (evntugca,nein, Rom. 8:34) for those for whom he offered sacrifice, Christ ever lives to make intercession for those who draw near to God through him, resulting in the perfection of their salvation. The work of intercession guarantees the salvation of a specific people in this passage. This is vital to remember as we look at the key text in Heb. 8.

Similar themes appear in Heb. 7:26-28, including the perfect character of the high priest (v. 26), which establishes another element of his supremacy over the old priests, for he does not have to offer sacrifice for his own sins, and then the sins of the people. But here also appears a concept that will be expanded upon greatly at a later point, for the author says, ?because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.? Self-offering is yet another aspect of what sets the priesthood of Christ apart, for obvious reasons, from the priesthood of old. The high priest presents the offering in his own body, a concept expanded upon in chapter nine. But he did so ?once for all.? The sacrifice is a singularity in time, for the author uses the temporal adverb, evfa,pax, to strongly emphasize this concept. The old priests sacrificed often for themselves, while Christ offered one sacrifice (himself) for the people.

     Chapter eight begins with a summary of the preceding argument, focusing upon the ascended Savior who has ?taken His seat? (v. 1) in heaven itself. The writer then notes that in light of the parallels he is drawing, the heavenly Priest would need to have ?something to offer? (v. 3) just as the old priests did. While he would not have been a priest while on earth (v. 4), he has ?obtained a more excellent ministry? (v. 6). How is it a better ministry? And how is this related to his sacrifice, which is clearly in the preceding context (see above) as well as in that which follows? To that we now turn in exegesis.