|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:22:21 GMT -5
B. Superior to Israelite Covenant (8:1-10:39)
The beginning of chapter 8 serves as a transition in the flow of the epistle. It draws from the
preceding context, as the writer summarized his main argument in comparing Jesus’ priesthood
with its Aaronic counterpart (8:1-5). At the same time, he made clear that he had a larger concern
in drawing this comparison: the superiority of Jesus’ enduring priesthood underscores and
illumines the superiority of the covenant upon which it is founded and which it serves. This
covenant theme, then, dominates the rest of chapter 8 and all of chapters 9-10. The writer’s
approach follows his typical pattern: First, he presented his readers with a pointed comparison of
the old (Israelite) and new covenants, and then concluded his instruction with an appropriate
exhortation (10:19-39).
1. Again, the first five verses of chapter 8 form a transition in which the writer summarized
how it is that Jesus’ priesthood transcends the Levitical counterpart. And the heart of that
distinction is that it is the substance of which the Levitical priesthood was the preparatory
and prophetic shadow. And so the relation between the two priesthoods and priestly
ministrations is that of promise and fulfillment. The Levitical system prefigured and
anticipated the consummate priesthood that belongs to Jesus. As with every feature of the
salvation history, priesthood and priestly ministration are “yes and amen” in the Messiah.
The superiority of Jesus’ priesthood/priestly ministration derives from the superiority of
His person and work, which the writer aptly described in terms of the Melchizedekian
categories of kingship and priesthood: He is the unique high priest “who has taken His
seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens” (8:1). The primary
thing that sets Jesus’ priesthood above its Israelite counterpart is that He executes it with
all power and authority as God’s enthroned Image-Son (ref. again 1:1-13, 2:1-13). Jesus’
status as King-Priest distinguishes Him from the Levitical priests, and yet He, too, is
God’s ordained Priest, and so administers His priestly work in connection with God’s
sanctuary – His dwelling place. This truth, considered with the fact of Jesus’
enthronement “in the heavenlies,” indicates that He carries out His priestly ministration
in connection with a different sort of sanctuary, one that also exists “in the heavenlies.”
This is precisely what the writer had in mind in verse 2: Jesus is “a minister of the holy
places, that is, the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man” (cf. 9:11, 24).
Just as the relationship between Jesus and the Aaronic priests is one of promise and
fulfillment, so it is with the respective sanctuaries associated with their priestly work.
Aaron and his descendents ministered in an earthly sanctuary (first, the portable
tabernacle, and later the Jerusalem temple), whereas Jesus ministers in a “heavenly”
counterpart. But, again, the two are intimately related as shadow and substance (8:4-5).
This dynamic – which is fundamental to biblical prophecy – is crucial to the writer’s
perspective and argument, and so must be properly understood.
- First of all, the relationship between shadow and substance is intentional and
analogical. It’s determined and ordered by God such that the shadow reflects the
substance and points to it. The shadow isn’t the substance, but it corresponds to it
(as an analogy), so that one learns truth about the substance from its shadow.
136
- Secondly, a shadow requires the prior existence of the substance associated with
it; a thing must exist before it can cast a shadow. The reason this is so important is
that the scriptural record seems to reverse this order: In the flow of the salvation
history, the shadow comes first, and then the substance, even as a promise
precedes its fulfillment. So, in the present instance, the earthly sanctuary preceded
the one associated with Jesus’ ministration, which raises the question of how the
writer could regard the prior one as a shadow of the one that came later. The
answer is that he recognized the first sanctuary to be a copy – an earthly
expression of a heavenly counterpart after which it was patterned. This is the
sense in which it was a shadow; it reflected another entity that stood behind it.
This is the reason that God dictated every detail of the tabernacle’s structure and
contents, and then empowered craftsmen by His Spirit to fabricate what He
prescribed (Exodus 35-39). Many have sought to find spiritual meaning in the
various details of the tabernacle and its materials and contents, but the simple
meaning is that Yahweh, through human instruments filled with His Spirit, was
replicating on earth a copy of the heavenly reality known only to Him; a copy that
reflected as a shadow the preexisting heavenly substance.
Shadows reflect the substance behind them, and yet the Scripture treats them as
promising their substance (ref. 10:1; cf. also Colossians 2:16-17). But how can a
shadow presuppose a thing, while also predicting that same thing? In the present
instance, the earthly tabernacle prefigured – and so promised – a future heavenly
sanctuary, and yet the Hebrews writer insisted that it was a copy of that sanctuary.
In this sense, then, the fulfillment preceded the promise. But if something already
exists, how can there be a promise of its future existence? All of this may appear
terribly complicated and confusing, but the solution is really very simple: The key
is recognizing that the “substance” (fulfillment) exists first as a matter of eternal
design and determination, which God sovereignly brings into material existence
as the culmination of a process involving preparatory “shadows” (promise).
Thus shadows are prophetic entities that reflect and express the substance that
already exists in God’s eternal “now,” but as promising the eventual material
realization (fulfillment) of that substance. And so, it’s true on the one hand that
promise precedes fulfillment, but it’s equally true that God’s promises presuppose
the existence (in His determination) of that which He pledges. Thus Paul could
insist that God’s grace in Christ is an eternal bestowal, but one which has now
been materially manifested in the appearing of the Messiah (2 Timothy 1:8-10).
- One final thing to note about the shadow/substance (promise/fulfillment) dynamic
is that it involves typology, not allegory. Typology is a form of prophecy in which
an actual entity (person, place, thing, event, etc.) depicts, and so predicts, a future
corresponding entity (known as the antitype). And being a prophetic device, the
correspondence between a type and its antitype isn’t arbitrary or subjective, but
divinely determined and disclosed. This is in contrast to allegory, in which men
assign correspondence as they see fit (consider Pilgrim’s Progress).
137
In terms of the concepts of shadow and substance, the shadow is the type, and the
substance is the antitype. The type, then, draws upon the reality of the eternallydecreed antitype, as it points forward to the material actualization of the antitype.
And, consistent with all forms and expressions of biblical prophecy, types and
their antitypes are messianic; they pertain in some way to Jesus’ person and work.
The fact that Jesus carries out His priesthood as God’s Priest-King enthroned in the
heavenly realm (cf. Zechariah 6:9-15 with Psalm 110 and Romans 8:33-34) indicates that
the sanctuary He ministers in is not an earthly one. Again, the writer suggested the same
thing when he stated that this sanctuary is God’s true tabernacle, the dwelling place that
He constructed. So also he described this sanctuary as a heavenly one, and the ultimate
reality of which the Israelite sanctuary was only a copy and shadow. But there is another
proof that Jesus’ priestly ministration involves an other-worldly sanctuary, namely the
fact that He is a priest of a different order (5:5-10, 7:11-17). He couldn’t serve in the
earthly sanctuary even if He wanted to, because He isn’t a descendent of Aaron (8:4).
The writer recognized that the Israelite tabernacle (and the later temple) was a shadow of
God’s true dwelling place, but the same was true of the priestly ministration that occurred
in connection with it. The Levitical priests “served a copy and shadow of the heavenly
things.” As a shadow, their ministration reflected a heavenly “substance” that preexisted
it and stood behind it. At the same time, that ministration served a promissory function,
anticipating another priest and priestly order typified in Melchizedek (ref. again 7:11-17).
But if the earthly sanctuary and its priestly ministration reflected a heavenly counterpart,
this suggests the same thing regarding the sacrificial dimension of that ministration. And
indeed, that’s precisely the case: The sacrificial work at the center of the Levitical
ministration, along with every aspect of that priesthood and the earthly sanctuary, was a
copy and shadow of a heavenly counterpart to be materially realized in connection with
the promised Melchizedekian king-priest (ref. 9:22-24).
The Hebrews writer understood this, and so emphasized to his readers that Jesus, the
Melchizedekian High Priest, isn’t exempt from the obligation that distinguished Israel’s
high priests. Their work involved offering sacrifices and gifts to God within His
sanctuary, and the same is true of Jesus (8:3). But if He is a priest of a different order
who ministers in a different sort of sanctuary – a heavenly sanctuary in which He is
enthroned as Priest-King, it follows that His offerings are also of a different sort. Most
significantly, they (whatever they are) cannot be earthbound, since they are presented
within a heavenly sanctuary. Israel’s high priests brought the blood of bulls and goats into
a physical, earthly structure (Leviticus 16), but such an offering is impossible in the case
of a sanctuary that doesn’t rest on earth, but is situated in the heavenly realm.
The writer will return to this theme and flesh it out later in his letter (9:11-10:14; note
also 7:26-27), but for now it’s sufficient to observe that the priestly offerings associated
with Jesus’ priesthood must suit the nature, realm, and uniqueness of His ministration.
They must accord with the fact that He is the glorified Image-Son enthroned in the
heavenly realm, the ever-abiding Priest-King who performs His priestly work from the
place of absolute dominion at the right hand of the Majesty on high
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:23:55 GMT -5
2. The superiority of Jesus’ priesthood is captured in the fact that He is uniquely a priest
according to the order of Melchizedek: He is the singular King-Priest, performing His
priestly ministration as the enthroned King of kings in the true sanctuary where God
Himself presides as Lord over all. For their part, the Levitical priests ministered in a
sanctuary where Yahweh was symbolically enthroned – the place where the heavenly and
earthly realms intersected and from which God exercised His dominion in the world (cf.
Psalm 80:1, 99:1, 132:7; Isaiah 66:1). They served the divine Lord and King in a
symbolic throne room as consecrated priests; the Messiah performs His priestly work as
sharing Yahweh’s throne. The Levitical priests and their ministration was a matter of
shadow and copy (8:4-5); Messiah’s priesthood and ministration is the substance from
which theirs derived and in which theirs has found its destiny and fulfillment.
Thus Jesus “has obtained a more excellent ministry” (8:6a). And yet, it isn’t superior
merely because it’s untainted by sin, is more efficacious, and endures forever. Nor is it
simply that it fulfills what the Levitical ministration portrayed and promised. All of that
is true, but the real issue in the superiority of Jesus’ priesthood and priestly ministration is
what it embodies and represents: It forms the essential core of God’s realization of His
eternal purposes for His creation, namely binding everything in His creation to Himself
and His wise and loving lordship in and through man, His image-son. That purpose,
depicted in the structure and order of the original creation (Genesis 1-2), has become “yes
and amen” in the new creation centered in the True Man – the regal and priestly ImageSon, Jesus the Messiah (8:1-2; cf. Ephesians 1:9-10; Colossians 1:19-20).
Perfect and entire intimacy with His creation through man, the creaturely image-bearing
son, was God’s eternal design. And that relationship, defined, ordered and lived out in
perfect truth, is what covenant is all about. This is why the Sinai Covenant was based in
the Levitical priesthood. The covenant defined and prescribed the relationship between
the Israelite people and their God, and the priests mediated that relationship as
representing both parties. And because of the inherent alienation between Yahweh and
His covenant people, this mediation involved oblation, atonement and reconciliation.
Without it, there could be no relationship; the priesthood was the basis of the Law (7:11).
This means that the inauguration of a new priesthood – a priesthood of an entirely
different order – implies the inauguration of a new covenant appropriate to it. In the
words of the Hebrews writer, the High Priest of this new priestly order mediates a better
covenant that corresponds to the superior excellence of His ministration. And though this
new covenant surpasses its predecessor in numerous ways, the writer chose to highlight
one particular dimension of that superiority: Divine promise is the foundation of both
covenants, but the better covenant stands upon better promises (8:6b).
But what exactly does he mean by this? How are God’s covenants founded on promises?
And what are the promises underlying the Israelite covenant and its messianic
counterpart, and how are the latter promises “better”? The place to begin is the fact that
God’s covenants are defined and purposeful relational structures that He establishes to
disclose and advance His designs for His creation. These designs are foreordained
outcomes, and so are promissory. It’s in this sense that covenants stand upon promises.
139
In the case of the Israelite (Sinai) covenant, the foundational promise underlying it was
itself articulated in the form of a covenant, namely God’s covenant with Abraham
(Exodus 6:1-8). And that covenant, in turn, was founded on God’s pledge and oath to
achieve His restorative and consummative purpose for the world through Abraham and
his offspring (Genesis 12:1-3, 22:15-18, 28:10-14). The children of Israel were that
offspring, and thus the promises underlying God’s covenant with them pertained, not so
much to the nation as such, but to their role in His purposes: God’s promise to Israel was
that they were to be His instrument for blessing all of mankind. This blessing would
entail human beings coming to know their Creator-Father in truth by observing His life
and likeness manifested in His image-children. Abraham’s offspring would fulfill their
calling through their faithful sonship, and it was unto this end that God established His
covenant with them – the covenant that both defined and prescribed that sonship.
Behind the Israelite covenant stood the promise of universal blessing through faithful
sonship, but the covenant couldn’t bring to pass the promise it promoted. The simple
reason was that Israel was incapable of fulfilling its sonship; indeed, the covenant
children shared the same predicament they were called to resolve. They couldn’t bring
the blessing of true knowledge of God to the nations when they themselves lacked that
knowledge. Israel was in need of the very blessing they were called to mediate to others.
This is the sense in which the first covenant wasn’t “faultless.” The fault resided, not with
the covenant itself, but with the human parties to it. Thus the Hebrews writer: It was
because He found fault with them – the sons of the covenant – that God pledged a new
covenant (8:7-8). The readers should have understood these things, having embraced
Jesus as Messiah. But the New Testament writings show that the early Jewish Christians
wrestled with the implications of Jesus’ messiahship – not just for the Gentiles, but for
themselves and their Jewish countrymen. Jesus’ first disciples were all Jews and
proselytes to Judaism, and they embraced Him with the conviction that He was Israel’s
long-awaited Messiah. His death and resurrection forced them to rethink many things
they had believed about the messianic person, work and kingdom, but this process of
rethinking was slow and difficult, especially as it involved the defining issues of Jewish
covenant life. Thus the disputes regarding circumcision and Torah, which reached a crisis
point as more and more Gentiles embraced Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 15; Galatians 1-3).
The early Church’s struggle with Torah observance shows that there was uncertainty
about the impact of Jesus’ death and resurrection on the Law of Moses (the Sinai
Covenant). Israel’s unfaithfulness had fractured the covenant relationship with Yahweh,
resulting in His departure, His destruction of His sanctuary, and the nation’s exile from
the covenant land. But He’d promised through His prophets that the Messiah would
rectify all of that and renew the covenant by securing forgiveness and cleansing, so that
Yahweh would return to again dwell in their midst (ref. Ezekiel 36; Zechariah 2-3; etc.).
The prophets promised covenant renewal, but in a way that fueled the expectation that
Messiah was going to restore the former covenant order associated with David’s kingdom
(cf. 2 Samuel 7 with Isaiah 9:1-7, 11:1-12; Jeremiah 23:1-8, 33:1-26; Ezekiel 34:1-25,
37:1-28; Amos 9:11-15; etc.). And so, while Jesus’ Jewish disciples recognized that He’d
renewed the covenant as promised, it was easy to misjudge what this renewal entailed.
140
One might argue that all of this confusion and difficulty could have been avoided if God
had simply been clear about His intent for His Messiah and what He was to accomplish.
Why give the impression that the goal was the restoration of the Israelite theocracy
(David’s kingdom) under the Law of Moses, if this wasn’t the case? Why present the
future messianic renewal in terms of the existing covenantal order, if it actually involved
a whole new order of things? But God wasn’t careless – let alone deceptive – in choosing
to frame His promises in this manner. Indeed, speaking the truth about the Messiah and
the messianic work demanded this sort of presentation. At the same time, God was
careful to make clear that Messiah wouldn’t simply restore the former order; hence the
Hebrews writer was able to draw from Jeremiah’s prophecy – issued nearly six hundred
years before Jesus’ birth – to demonstrate the newness in Messiah’s covenant renewal.
God expressed His future intentions in Israelite terms, not so much because He was
addressing Israelites, but because his designs pertained, in the first instance, to the Jewish
people as Abraham’s covenant children. And the Jews were primary in God’s purposes in
that He’d chosen them in Abraham to be the instrument for accomplishing His purposes
for the human world and the entire creation. Salvation (reconciliation and renewal) was to
come through Israel (John 4:22), but only as Israel was itself “saved” through Messiah’s
triumphal intervention (ref. again Isaiah 11:1-12; also 49:1-7, 53:1-55:5; Micah 5:1-4).
When Israel became Israel in truth, then it would be equipped and able to fulfill its
mission as the covenant seed of Abraham; then Israel would become the vehicle of
Yahweh’s blessing for all the world. This is what Paul had in mind when he affirmed that
the power of God – now embodied and manifested in the gospel of the kingdom – is to
the Jew first, and then to the Gentile (Romans 1:16; cf. also Zechariah 8:18-23). And so
the prophets spoke in Israelite terms because they spoke of a future renewal having Israel
at its heart, a cosmic renewal that would spring from the renewal of the Abrahamic seed.
The prophets spoke of a renewal in which Israel would become Israel indeed: the “son of
God” as defined and required by the Mosaic Covenant; the faithful image-son through
whom Yahweh would mediate His blessing to every tribe, tongue, nation and people, just
as He pledged to Abraham. Thus God promised covenant renewal, but a renewal in which
the covenant relationship of Father and son would be truly and fully realized. The Mosaic
Covenant prescribed this relationship, but was unable to secure it. And so, simply
reviving this covenant would only revive the same problem. Israel needed to be renewed
(made new), not restored, and so enabled to fulfill its election. Thus the renewing of the
covenant involved the formation of a new covenant relationship, and this was precisely
what God promised through the prophet Jeremiah.
This, then, explains how the covenant Jesus mediates stands on better promises: The
Sinai Covenant was enacted on the Abrahamic Covenant and its promises, but it was
unable to see those promises realized. It prescribed Israel’s faithfulness to its calling, but
couldn’t secure what it required. The New Covenant presupposes those same promises
and their obligations, but stands on the further pledge that Yahweh would see those
promises and their obligations fulfilled in an Israelite indeed – a true son of Abraham
through whom God would reclaim and bless the world of men (Galatians 3:19-4:6).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:25:06 GMT -5
Jesus’ superior priesthood implies a corresponding superior covenant (7:11-12). And, just
as His priesthood fulfills and accomplishes what its predecessor foreshadowed, so it is
with the covenant that stands upon it; it is a better covenant enacted on better promises –
promises that it upholds and sees fully realized in the experience of those under it. The
Sinai Covenant also was enacted on promises, which promises reflected and reiterated the
promises associated with the Abrahamic Covenant. For the covenant at Sinai was simply
God’s ratification of the Abrahamic covenantal relationship with the Israelite people
descended from Abraham and his covenant son and grandson; it was His faithfulness to
His covenant pledge to Abraham (ref. again Genesis 15 with Exodus 6:1-8, 19:1-6).
- In this respect, both covenants stood on the same divine intent and promise, but
the former covenant and its promises were inferior in the sense that they were
unable to bring to realization what they pledged.
- But, given that the Sinai Covenant acted to affirm and advance the Abrahamic
Covenant, it’s clear that the weakness and inability couldn’t have resided with the
covenant itself; the fault must have lain with the parties to it. This is precisely
what the Hebrews writer affirmed: The failure of the Sinai covenant was the
failure of the covenant house of Israel (8:7-8).
Thus the need for a “better covenant enacted on better promises” was inherent in Israel’s
failure under the Sinai Covenant. Anything less would result in God’s promises to
Abraham remaining unfulfilled. But He’d sworn with an oath, and He would prove
faithful. He would see to it that Abraham’s offspring realized their covenant identity and
calling; He would see to it that Israel became Israel indeed – son, servant, disciple and
witness to the world, and this meant renewing the covenant relationship.
All of this may appear remote and superfluous to contemporary Christians, but it was
crucially significant to the early Jewish-Christian community. On the one hand, these
Jewish believers had to come to grips with the fulfillment and transformation that had
come in Jesus as Israel’s Messiah; on the other, they had to deal with the contradiction
and opposition of their Jewish countrymen and the various pressures exerted on them to
return to the Israelite fold and Israel’s covenant. And so these issues of priesthood and
covenant weren’t for them a matter of abstract theological theorizing, but of vital, living
truths that were as real and practical as their daily lives. These were matters they
absolutely needed to get right and rightly apply; their well-being and continuance as
Jesus’ disciples depended on it.
At bottom, they needed to understand that there was no Mosaic Judaism to return to. It
had served its pedagogical role in God’s purposes bound up in Abraham (ref. Galatians
3:1-4:5), and had now yielded to the Seed to whom the promises pertained – the One in
whom all of God’s promises have their “yes and amen.” What the Sinai Covenant had
been unable to realize, the covenant God had now realized in His Son and the covenant
enacted on the basis of His regal priesthood (cf. Romans 8:1-4). There was a remarkable
and unforeseen quality to this fulfillment, but God hadn’t been silent about what He
intended to do; He’d revealed that the messianic work would involve a new covenant.
142
3. The Hebrews writer could have pointed to any number of passages to demonstrate this
(cf. Isaiah 42:1-9, 49:1-13, 53:1-55:13, 59:1-21, 61:1-11; Jeremiah 32:36-41, 50:1-5;
Ezekiel 34:1-31, 37:1-28; Daniel 9:1-27; Hosea 1:1-3:5; Zechariah 9:9-17; etc.), but he
chose a prophetic utterance from Jeremiah (31:31-34). This citation is eminently
appropriate, first because it explicitly promises a new covenant that stands upon Israel’s
covenant. But it also describes in detail how the latter covenant surpasses its predecessor
– how it sees realized in truth the covenant relationship that the Law of Moses prescribed.
This is why the writer cited the entire passage; he wanted his readers to see with their
own eyes what God had pledged and now brought to pass in Jesus the Messiah.
a. The writer’s citation is part of a larger prophetic context, and must be interpreted
within its historical and salvation-historical setting, for it’s within that setting that
the prophecy means what it means. Jeremiah was the last of Judah’s pre-exilic
prophets, men whose prophetic ministry preceded the conquest and desolation of
the remnant of David’s once-glorious kingdom. Jeremiah prophesied in the final
decades leading up to the Babylonian conquest (1:1-3), but he also survived the
slaughter and desolation and continued to speak as Yahweh’s mouthpiece, even
after being taken to Egypt along with other surviving Jews (40:1-44:30).
Like all of the pre-exilic prophets, Jeremiah’s utterances focused on the Lord’s
impending judgment on His unfaithful, covenant-breaking people. Yahweh had
warned of this before the children of Israel even entered the land of Canaan
(Deuteronomy 28-29), and the northern sub-kingdom of Israel experienced this
judgment at the hand of the Assyrians a century before Jeremiah’s ministry
commenced (2 Kings 18:9-12). The people of Judah had watched the destruction
of Samaria and the exile of their Israelite brethren in the north, and yet failed to
learn from their rebellion, leaving them with even greater guilt (Jeremiah 3:6-11;
cf. Ezekiel 16, 23). And though Yahweh continued to plead for their repentance,
sending His prophets generation after generation, Judah largely turned a deaf ear,
believing that they and the holy city would be spared Israel’s calamity. Now the
day of repentance had passed, and David’s depleted kingdom was consigned to
Israel’s fate (Jeremiah 7:21-34). Within a few decades, Jerusalem and its temple
would lie desolate and without inhabitants. This was the shocking and unthinkable
message Jeremiah was called to bring to Judah and its rulers, a message that
would cost him dearly (cf. 1:1-19 with 19:1-20:18, 37:1-38:28, 42:1-43:7, etc.).
This tragic outcome was a long time coming, being the culmination of a process
of judgment that began four centuries earlier with David’s unfaithfulness. His
actions brought Yahweh’s dividing sword upon his house (2 Samuel 12:1-12),
which commenced with his immediate household (2 Samuel 13-18), and then
extended to his kingdom during the reign of his grandson Rehoboam (1 Kings 11-
12). Now, the sword had finally reached David’s dynastic house, as Jeremiah
pronounced Yahweh’s determination to forever sever the Davidic royal line
(Jeremiah 22:24-30). With that pronouncement, the sword’s work on David’s
house was complete; all that remained was for Yahweh to wield it against the
trappings of his reign and kingdom, namely Jerusalem and its temple.
143
Judah’s destruction would bring David’s kingdom (the Abrahamic covenant
kingdom) to an end, but this wasn’t to be the last word. Israel’s unfaithfulness
fractured the covenant relationship, but it didn’t alter Yahweh’s determination and
commitment; He’d covenanted with Abraham to bless the world through his
offspring, and He would see this goal realized. Somehow, He would give life to
the whole house of Israel (Ezekiel 37:1-14), raise up David’s fallen tabernacle,
and restore his throne and kingdom (cf. Psalm 89 with Ezekiel 34:1-31, 37:15-28;
Amos 9:11-15), so that Israel would finally fulfill its vocation on behalf of the
world. Thus destruction, desolation and exile would yield to liberation, renewal
and ingathering, and this meant the renewing of the covenant relationship between
Yahweh and Abraham’s offspring. But such renewal implied forgiveness and
cleansing; there could be no reconciliation without addressing the violation that
had fractured the covenant relationship and provoked Yahweh’s withdrawal and
retribution (cf. Ezekiel 16:60-63, 36:16-38; Hosea 2:1-3:5; Zechariah 13:1-2).
b. This two-fold message of impending destruction and subsequent restoration
reached a climax in Jeremiah’s ministration. Like the prophets before him, he
proclaimed desolation and exile along with the promise of future renewal, but
unlike them, he was going to experience the calamity he heralded. Jeremiah didn’t
prophesy as a distant and disinterested observer; his words pertained to himself as
much as to his countrymen. He, too, was compelled to endure divine wrath, but in
the sure hope of future mercy. One day the Lord would restore His desolate
heritage and banish the enmity – not only between Himself and His covenant
people, but between the two houses of Israel. When Yahweh arose to reconcile
Abraham’s household to Himself, He would also reconstitute it. Most importantly,
He was going to do this through the royal descendent promised to David (ref.
again Ezekiel 37:1-28; Hosea 1:1-3:5; also Isaiah 11:1-13).
This is the marrow of Jeremiah’s prophetic insights recorded in chapters 30-33.
This section forms a single unit in terms of its core message, but it consists of six
separate “words” (demarcated by the phrase, “the word of Yahweh came to
Jeremiah…”) given to Jeremiah on what appears to be three different occasions.
The latter five “words” came to Jeremiah in close proximity while he was
confined by Zedekiah in the early days of Nebuchadnezzar’s siege on Jerusalem
(ref. 32:1-2, 33:1). In contrast, the occasion of the first “word” isn’t specified, but
that utterance is the most extensive and elaborate of the six (30:1-31:40). It’s also
distinguished by the Lord’s directive to capture His words in writing. He clearly
wanted them to survive the calamity about to fall on Judah, but the message itself
points to a specific reason and goal. The prophecy pledged future restoration and
blessing for both houses of Israel, and this implied that the coming destruction
would be neither entire nor permanent. A remnant from Judah would survive, just
as had a remnant of Israel, and Yahweh wanted those survivors, throughout their
generations, to keep His word of promise before their eyes and inscribe it on their
hearts. In spite of all they would experience for centuries to come, the Lord who
had sworn to Abraham and David would prove faithful, and the covenant children
needed to hold fast to that truth in all faith and hope (32:6-15, 33:19-26).
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 31, 2023 11:26:07 GMT -5
c. The historical and salvation-historical contexts are critical to Jeremiah’s
prophecy, and all the more so because the topic of a new covenant is important in
both of the predominant western theological systems (Dispensationalism and
Covenant Theology). Each system has its own understanding of the new covenant
based on certain a priori premises, with the result that dispensational and
reformed Christians typically interpret Jeremiah’s prophecy differently.
- Dispensationalists treat Jeremiah 31:31-34 as predicting a future new
covenant for the Israelite people. An early tradition in Dispensationalism
excluded the Church entirely from this covenant, but most
dispensationalists see some form or expression of a “new covenant” as
applying to the Church. But however they interpret the Hebrews writer’s
citation, dispensationalists generally read Jeremiah’s prophecy as
pertaining first and foremost (if not entirely) to the Jewish people.
- Covenant (Reformed) Theology brings its own a priori assumption to bear
on this passage, which is the premise that all of the scriptural covenants –
including the new covenant – are administrations of one “grace covenant.”
Two ramifications of this premise bear heavily on Jeremiah’s prophecy
and its interpretation. The first involves the relation between the promised
“new covenant” and the Sinai Covenant contrasted with it, given that
Covenant Theology regards these two covenants as essentially the same.
The second involves the subjects of the covenant. Jeremiah was explicit
that this covenant pertains to Israel and Judah, and Covenant Theology
regards Israel under the Law of Moses and Christ’s Church as the same
covenant community in every important respect (because they are related
to God through the one and same “covenant of grace”).
Dispensational and Reformed premises greatly affect the way Jeremiah’s
prophecy is understood, and this applies to the timing and occasion of this
promised new covenant. Because Dispensationalism assigns this covenant to the
Israelite people, it sees the prophecy being fulfilled at the time of Jesus’ Parousia
and His (supposed) establishment of His millennial kingdom and reign. For it’s at
that time that Israel, as a nation, will be reconciled to God and brought into
renewed covenant relationship with Him. Dispensationalists ground the new
covenant in Christ’s atoning work, but believe it won’t be enacted (at least fully)
until He returns at the end of the age and inaugurates His millennial rule over the
earth. For their part, reformed Christians see the new covenant being enacted with
Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection (promise yielding to fulfillment). But,
inasmuch as this covenant is a new administration of the one “covenant of grace,”
which is said to have originated in Eden with God’s promise of a triumphal
“seed” (Genesis 3:15), the new covenant reaches back to the time of the fall.
But what did Yahweh have in mind when He spoke of a future time for this new
covenant with Israel and Judah? And how do we reconcile the two phrases,
“Behold days are coming” (31:31) and “after those days” (31:33)?
145
In context, the prophecy pertains to the time of renewal when the Abrahamic
people would experience liberation, cleansing, forgiveness, and reconciliation to
their God and one another – the future time when Yahweh would at last return to
Zion, renew His covenant relationship with His own, and establish His everlasting
kingdom through His messianic servant-king. This “day” – the Day of Yahweh –
was the central theme that bound together all of God’s prophets, whether they
prophesied before, during or after the exiles of Israel and Judah. Together, they
proclaimed that Yahweh would yet fulfill His pledge to restore His desolate
heritage and renew all things in the “seed” promised to Eve, Abraham and David.
That’s the occasion indicated by the declaration, “Behold days are coming when I
will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”
But, why did Yahweh then say that He was going to make this covenant after
those days? Clearly “those days” cannot refer to the “coming days,” since they
stand in different relation to the referenced covenant: The “coming days” are the
time when Yahweh makes this covenant; “those days” precede the covenant.
One explanation is that Yahweh was promising two distinct covenants: a covenant
with Israel and Judah in coming days, and a separate covenant with Israel after
that. However, the prophecy is clearly referring to one covenant, and the mention
of only Israel in the second instance underscores the fact that this new covenant
would see both houses of Israel (Israel and Judah) reunited in a reconstituted
covenant household (ref. 31:1-11, 35-37; cf. Ezekiel 37).
Thus the phrases, “days are coming” and “after those days” refer to different
times. The second phrase denotes the era of Israel’s life under the Sinai Covenant
– the era characterized by rebellion against Yahweh’s covenant and the
relationship He’d established with them (31:32-33a). When those “days” of
unfaithfulness and alienation were fully accomplished, Yahweh was going to arise
and fulfill His promises to Abraham and David (cf. Galatians 3:15-4:5). He was
going to renew the covenant relationship through a sovereign work of purging,
forgiveness and reconciliation, such that Israel would at last fulfill its covenant
election as son, servant, disciple and witness for the sake of the world.
Once again, this is the sense in which this new covenant is associated with “better
promises”: It sees God Himself bringing into existence and perfecting the
covenant household, covenant relationship, and covenant ministration that His
previous covenants identified and prescribed. Jeremiah’s prophecy pledged this
outcome, which he described in its various aspects, and the Hebrews writer
perceived that it has now been realized in Jesus the Messiah.
1) Foremost, God has accomplished His design to have a people for Himself.
This determination was at the heart of His covenant with Abraham (“I will
be their God and they will be My people”), and so was reaffirmed
throughout Israel’s history until Messiah’s coming (cf. 8:33b with Genesis
17:1-7; Exodus 6:1-7; Jeremiah 11:1-5, 30:12-22; Ezekiel 36:16-28; etc.).
146
2) The Sinai Covenant defined Israel as this people, but the reality always
eluded them. For God’s intent in calling Abraham and his “seed” wasn’t to
secure for Himself a nation of compliant subjects, but to produce a human
family of image-children who share in and manifest His life and likeness
wisely and lovingly in His creation as priestly rulers. The household of
Israel could never satisfy this intent, because they, like all of Adam’s race,
were alienated from God in their minds and hearts (ref. Ezekiel 20:1-28).
For all its assertions and efforts, Israel was unfaithful to its covenant vows,
though Yahweh remained a faithful Husband (Jeremiah 31:32; note that
the Hebrews writer cited the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew text).
3) Israel’s failure under the covenant meant the failure of God’s purposes for
the human world and the wider creation. Banishing the curse and restoring
the creation depended on Israel fulfilling its election as image-son, and
thus God’s faithfulness to His own will and covenant oath obliged Him to
somehow cause Israel to be what He’d consecrated it to be. He
accomplished this in Jesus the Messiah, embodying the Abrahamic “seed”
in His incarnate Son. Jesus came as Israel in truth, with the goal of
reconstituting the Abrahamic household in Himself.
As True Israel, Jesus is the faithful Son, Servant, Disciple and Witness
immersed in and governed by Yahweh’s Torah (God’s revealed truth) –
not begrudgingly out of compulsion or fear, but in sincere devotion and
eager, undistracted faithfulness. He embodies in Himself what Israel’s
covenant embodied and required; Jesus is “the covenant of the people”
(Isaiah 42:6-7, 49:1-9, also 59:15-21), so that all who share in Him are
true covenant children who share His relationship with Torah (31:33).
4) The fundamental and distinguishing truth of the enacted new covenant is
that it has its essential substance in Jesus, the enthroned, priestly ImageSon. He embodies the covenantal reality, so that every human being who
stands in covenantal relation to God – all whom He designates His people
– does so as sharing in Jesus’ life and likeness. This is the premise behind
the declaration that all in this covenantal relation with God know Him;
they know Him, not as a matter of doctrinal instruction or symbolic action
(Israel’s priests were charged with teaching truth to the people), but in the
inner man in true and living knowledge mediated by the Spirit (31:34a).
The covenant children are those who know the living God in the inner
person by virtue of sharing in the life of the One who is both Image-Son
and Incarnate Logos (Colossians 1:15-18, 2:9-10, 3:1-4; cf. 2 Corinthians
3:17-18; Ephesians 1:22-23). They are the new and everlasting sanctuary,
the “dwelling of God in the Spirit” (Ephesians 2:1-4, 19-22), and this
intimate union and communion are grounded in reconciliation: Yahweh’s
children have entered His family and become His dwelling place as
beneficiaries of His cleansing and forgiving mercy (31:34b).
147
Jeremiah’s depiction of the New Covenant – especially as the Hebrews writer
locates its fulfillment and substance in the resurrected and enthroned Priest-King
– shows how it is a “better covenant enacted on better promises.” When at last,
in the fullness of the times, Yahweh arose to enact this covenant, it would see
Abraham’s offspring become His people indeed, bound to Him in true knowledge
and authentic devotion through His Torah being woven into the very fabric of
their being. This covenant union would see His house filled with true imagechildren who share in His life and likeness, even as He took their sin, iniquity, and
alienation upon Himself so as to put it behind Him and remember it no more. In
sum, this new covenant would herald the full and everlasting realization of God’s
eternal purpose for His creation, first pledged in Eden and reiterated throughout
Israel’s history culminating with the birth of the seed promised to Eve, Abraham
and David – the seed in whom all of God’s promises are “yes and amen.”
d. This is the lens through which the writer’s summary observation must be
understood (8:13). The new covenant in the Messiah is inseparable from the
preceding salvation history and the covenant structures that carried it forward
toward its foreordained goal. The new covenant’s meaning derives from what
preceded it and prepared for it, including the covenant at Sinai. At the same time,
it is a new covenant – not new in terms of degree, timing, or administration, but as
a new sort having a new quality; it is a covenant unlike all that existed before it.
Therefore, the New Covenant doesn’t build on, or in any way perpetuate, the
covenant made with Israel at Sinai; the nature and scope of its newness renders
that former covenant obsolete. Nothing of it continues alongside (or as part of) the
new covenant, but this obsolescence doesn’t in any way depreciate or delegitimize
it. The Sinai Covenant served a crucial purpose in the salvation history, which
Paul described in terms of the relationship between a child and his pedagogue.
The pedagogue is critical to the child’s formation and preparation to assume his
ordained place in the house as son and heir. But when the preparatory season is
complete, the pedagogue gladly and proudly steps aside, handing over his charge
and the fruit of his labors to the Father who commissioned him. So it was with the
Law of Moses: It assumed custody of the appointed heirs – Abraham’s covenant
offspring – and administered their season of preparation until the time of maturity
when the promised seed arrived (Galatians 3:15-4:5), the One in whom the
offspring were to attain their full status as sons and heirs (Romans 8:1-17).
Some argue that the closing statement of verse 13 suggests some continuing
relevance of the Mosaic Law in the present age. Others take it as further evidence
that the epistle was written prior to 70 A.D. But the writer was speaking in terms
of God’s word to Jeremiah. His point was that, when Yahweh promised a future
new covenant, He was thereby declaring the transience – the eventual
obsolescence – of the Sinai Covenant then governing His people (similar to His
revelation to David of a new regal priesthood in Psalm 110). God’s promise to
Jeremiah implied that Israel’s covenant was ordained to grow old and disappear,
and that destiny has now been realized in the Messiah and His new covenant.
|
|
