Hebrews Old Covenant
What is Hebrews "Old Covenant"?
Hebrews,
Old Covenant, Old Covenant comparison
|
Major Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hebrews is one of only two books of the
Bible that specifically mentions an 'Old Covenant' as such. Of course not all of Hebrews directly deals
with any covenant. In Hebrews 1-6, the
word is not mentioned. First
let's take a closer look at some of the more often quoted and
critical text. We'll keep count of the
number of comparisons between the new order and the old order, or Old
Covenant, and note anything that allows us to identify the covenant under
discussion.
We need to look at Hebrews very
carefully. It talks directly about the
new covenant and the old.
Hebrews 8:7 indicates that the covenant at
fault was the 'first'. Wouldn't this
indicate the Sinai or Horeb covenant? The Greek for 'first' here and also in verses 13, 9:1, 15
& 18 is prote, a special
form of proto which is the typical word for first in Greek. It indicates a series or group.
In this case 'the first of two' (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon of
the New Testament, p 555) since Hebrews is only talking of two
covenants. This is not referring to
the Sinai covenant in opposition to the Moab covenant, but rather the first
of the two under discussion here in Hebrews, i.e. the old covenant, and the
new covenant. There is no direct
connection between either the Moab covenant or the Sinai covenant in this use
of the word 'first'. One must look
elsewhere in the context to determine which, if any, of those covenants is
intended.
Especially important is Hebrews 9:16-28,
which contrasts the dedication of the old blood covenant with the new blood
covenant. The sprinkling of blood on
the scroll and the people and the tabernacle and the vessels all occurred at
the dedication of this 'first', "old covenant". The subject is the
dedication, which required blood. "Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without
blood" (Heb 9:18). "And almost all things
are purged with blood" (vs.:22). Hebrews 9:18-22 is all one thought, describing the event of the
dedication of this 'first' covenant. We looked at this description earlier, but let's do it again. Be sure
to examine exactly what the Law is as well if you have not already
looked at that.
Vs. 18 again uses the designation, prote,
'first of two' or 'former'. So Hebrews
is about to describe some very
specific details that will identify this 'first' covenant, the
covenant of Hebrews 8:13, that was growing old.
Vs. 19 indicates that at the dedication of
this old covenant Moses explained 'every
precept' of the Law. That law
is the Book of the Law or Law of Moses. 'The law'
, being referred to here, didn't exist at the time of the Sinai
covenant. The Sinai covenant consisted
of Exodus 20-23. It was over 39 years
after the Sinai covenant before the Law of Moses was confirmed. Moses gave the Law to the Levites at the
time of the Moab covenant (Deut. 31:9, 24-26). This was after explaining it to the people
as recorded in Deuteronomy.
Deuteronomy does not explain every detail
of the law. It covers the main
points. It does not include all detail
by itself. It assumes the existence of
the other books of the Law (Deut 1:3). For some things Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and even Genesis, must be
consulted to get the whole picture. The 'words' of Deuteronomy are the Words of the Moab covenant and a
summary of the precepts of the Pentateuch, the Law. This is exactly as Hebrews states it. "...Moses
spoke to the children of Israel according to all that the Lord had given him
as commandments to them...Moses began to explain this law". (Deut 1:3c,
5b) "For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according
to the law" (Heb 9:19a).
On the other hand, at the confirming of the Sinai covenant, Moses "took the Book of the Covenant and read in the hearing of the people" (Ex 24:7, 3). He read all the terms of the Sinai covenant in total. Many of the precepts of the law were not included, i.e. sin offerings, the priesthood of Levi, central worship before the temple or tabernacle and the curses of the law. These are very important precepts in the Law. They are absent from the Sinai covenant and what was read to the people at that time. Why did Moses read the Sinai covenant, but speak the precepts of the law for the Moab covenant? Because reading Exodus 20-23 is one thing, reading Genesis 1 through Numbers 36 along with pieces of Deuteronomy, is something else again.
There is no detailed description of the
actual offering, or cutting of the Moab covenant in the Old Testament. However, the confirmation took place on a
new moon. The new moon sacrifices included at least two calves and a
goat. That is very similar to the sacrifices recorded in Hebrews 9:19.
This covenant at Moab is the only one that could possibly qualify
as the Old Covenant, since it is the only one where every precept of 'the
law' was covered. It is clear that this covenant came from God, through
Moses (Deut 26:16-18, 29:1, 9-12 & 30:15-16, 19).
The books of the Law didn't exist at the time of the Sinai
covenant. When they did exist they had to
be summarized for the book of Deuteronomy, the second law. For whatever reason, God chose not to
record this event in total detail in Deuteronomy. However much of it is described in
Deuteronomy 26:16-27:1 & chapters 29-33.
Hebrews 8:19 then says the people and the
book were sprinkled with the blood of calves and goats, and water. The Horeb covenant was dedicated with ox
(probably more accurately young bull) blood (Ex 24:5), not calf or goat
blood. Horeb 0, Moab 2.
Hebrews also quotes Moses as he sprinkled
the blood of the covenant on the people. It indicates Although there seems to be some differences with the
Sinai covenant dedication, this could be due to translation. The basic meanings seem to be very
similar. Of course this could easily
apply to the Moab covenant as well. So
this quote would not be unique to the Sinai covenant. Similar words could apply to any blood
covenant made with God.
Hebrews says Moses then sprinkled the
tabernacle and all the vessels. Of
course neither the Tabernacle nor the vessels existed at the time of the
Horeb covenant or the Exodus 24 account. The design was explained to Moses after the Sinai covenant was
confirmed. It wasn't completed until
about nine months later. On the other
hand, at the time of the Moab covenant the tabernacle had been in service for
almost 39 years.
Some try to place the sprinkling of the
tabernacle and utensils after Exodus 24, but before Deuteronomy. There is
no event recorded in scripture that might fit with what Moses is doing here,
except in Deuteronomy. The tabernacle was originally consecrated with oil,
not blood (Lev 8). In fact, a later date makes no sense at all unless it is
at the confirmation of another covenant, which is exactly what Deuteronomy
is. From Hebrews 7:22 on past chapter 10, the entire discussion revolves
around covenants. This sprinkling with blood of the Tabernacle and utensils
at the dedication of the Old Covenant is a major focus of this chapter
(see vss.13-14, 18). It makes no sense in this context to think that the
covenant is the Sinai covenant, but this sprinkling of blood took place months
after the covenant was confirmed. In the immediate context the covenant
dedication is only mentioned because it was connected to the shedding of
blood used in the sprinkling. If we consider the Moab covenant is the covenant
being described, the pieces fit with no conflicts. Horeb 0, Moab 3.
So Hebrews is either very sloppy and
confused about this matter, in which case we can't trust what it says, or the
author is clearly referring to the dedication of some covenant OTHER than the
Horeb/Sinai covenant. The author
evidently had a source outside of the Book of the Law that documented some
details of the dedication of the Moab Covenant more completely than
Deuteronomy did. This should not be a
surprise. Many historical works have
been found in the Dead Sea area, which were heretofore unknown. The law, the Tabernacle and all the
associated vessels only existed at the confirmation of the Moab covenant, not
the Sinai. Oxen or young bulls were offered at the Sinai covenant. Calves and goats were offered at the dedication
of the Old Covenant. The Moab covenant
is the only covenant that could fit this description.
Hebrews 8:9, "Not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the
hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt...'. Is the Sinai covenant indicated here?
Of course Hebrews 8:9 continues, "because
they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them..." this obviously is referring to the covenant
that was placed in the arc as the foundation of the Sinai covenant. However, it is not being treated as
something to be cast off like the Old Covenant. It is being distinguished from the old
covenant.
A reasonable place to start a detailed examination is Hebrews
7. So let's go though the entire
section of Hebrews that deals with the Old Covenant and the changes that
resulted from its being replaced.
Hebrews 7 starts off discussing
Melchizedek and here compares him to the Priesthood of Levi (vs. 5). Aaron was not a priest until about the time
of Exodus 40, about nine months after the Sinai covenant was confirmed. The most
complete description of the ordination is in Leviticus 8. This is at or after
the completion of the Tabernacle. The Levites in general also started
serving after the tabernacle was constructed (Num 1:50, Num 8:5-20, 18:5-6). The Levites had no priesthood at the time
of the Horeb covenant. Horeb covenant
0, Moab 5.
Hebrews 7 also mentions tithes are paid to
Levi (vs. 5). You won't find anything
about tithing to Levi in the Sinai covenant, but you can find such things in
the Moab covenant; Num 18:21-4, and other places. Horeb covenant 0, Moab 6.
Hebrews 7:11-12 when closely examined
indicates the "law" was based upon the Levitical priesthood. (see NIV,
Philips, Alford or EGNT) Again the
Levites held no position as priests at the time of the Sinai covenant. So this "law" is also not the Sinai
covenant. However, the Law was given
under the Levitical priesthood and indeed the participation of the Levite is
fundamental to its operation. Specifically, this law was received in Deuteronomy 31:9, 24-25 and
given to the Levites by Moses at that time. So this particular law was not the Sinai Covenant law, but that
recorded in Deuteronomy. Horeb 0, Moab
7.
Hebrews 7:13 says no one from Judah
attended the altar. This is a reference
to the altar of the tabernacle. >No
tribe was prevented from personally offering before the altars allowed under
the Sinai covenant (Ex 20:24-26). Offering was only restricted by the Moab covenant (Lev 17:8-9, Deut
12:13-14). Horeb covenant 0, Moab 8
Hebrews 7:16 contrasts a "fleshly
commandment" with the "power of an endless life". I take this to mean again the priesthood of
the physical family of Aaron and Levi as opposed to the spiritual and eternal
priesthood of Christ according to the order of Melchizedek. Again, there is no mention of a priesthood
in the Sinai covenant. However,
Leviticus 8, Numbers 25:11-13, & Deuteronomy 18 should be sufficient to
confirm mention of the House of Levi as the fleshly family set aside as
priests within the Book of the Law, the Moab covenant.
Now I suppose this could be considered a
repeat of one or more of the points above and therefore might not be
counted. However since we are going
though examining changes, to find what is changing, I think if Hebrews makes
a comparison or contrast we ought to note it too. That being the case, Horeb 0, Moab 9.
Hebrews 7:18 & 19 refer to an
annulling of the former commandment and that law. This it seems is a direct referral to our previous
point regarding the law of the Levitical priesthood, so we won't score that
one.
Hebrews 7:20-22 talks of taking an oath of
office for the priesthood. Christ was
evidently made priest by an oath. The
Levites were not. So it's not likely
we would find much about an oath anywhere for Levi, since according to
Hebrews, they didn't have one. My
concordance bears this out. I can find
none. However as we have seen, the
Book of the Law clearly indicates the Priesthood came by family lineage, and
mentions nothing of an oath. The Sinai
covenant says nothing on the subject at all. So the Book of the Law agrees with Hebrews and confirms the subject at
hand, Horeb 0, Moab 10.
Hebrews 7:27 the High Priest had to offer
sacrifices for his sins and then for the people. Details of this can be found in Leviticus
6:20-23, Exodus 29:38-45 &, Leviticus 9:7, 15. There is no reference to these functions in
the Sinai covenant. Horeb 0, Moab 11.
Hebrews 8:3-5 contrasts the offerings done
by the Levites in the physical temple with the offerings of Christ in the
heavenly temple. You can find the
description of the physical temple in Exodus 26, & 36-39. Most of the descriptions of the offerings
are scattered throughout Leviticus and Numbers. There is no description of the temple or
the Levitical priesthood in the Sinai covenant. Horeb 0, Moab 12.
Hebrews 8:6 talks about the covenant being
based on better promises. Of course
you will find a significant amount of text in Deuteronomy 27 & 28 devoted
to promises, good and bad. There are
also promises at the end of the Sinai covenant beginning in Exodus
23:20. So, as a means of
identification this comparison does not definitively identify either
covenant. Every covenant had promises
or there would be no reason to make a covenant.
Hebrews 8:10, says the new covenant will
be written on the mind and heart of those that are His people. The Moab covenant prescribed a blue thread
in a tassel and writing the law on the door post (Deut 6:9, 11:20, Num
15:38). Deuteronomy 29:4 specifically
says God didn't give them the heart they needed to keep 'this covenant',
which again was the Moab covenant. The
Sinai covenant says nothing of this. It assumed obedience. So again
we have only a comparison connection between the Old Covenant and the Moab
covenant. The Sinai covenant assumes
obedience more like the New Covenant. Horeb 0, Moab 13.
Hebrews 8:11 doesn't have a comparison,
but it is interesting that in the fullness of the new covenant everyone will
know the one true God. It's fairly
obvious this isn't the case now. So
the new covenant is evidently not fully here. This is interesting because vs. 13 indicates the old is still in the
process of disappearing as of the writing of Hebrews.
One needs to remember that more than
likely, Herod's temple still stood at the time Hebrews was written. As a matter of fact it seems fairly obvious
that Hebrews is addressing the discouragement of the church in Judea because
they had just been kicked out of the Temple area. Although there is apparently no direct
historical evidence of this, the context of the whole book and especially the
last few chapters makes it pretty clear.
Within a short time, the Romans destroyed
the temple itself in 70 AD. Without
the temple it became very difficult to fulfill the Moab covenant. The Sinai covenant, on the other hand, can
still be fully observed.
Hebrews 9:1 says the first, or prior
covenant had ordinances of divine service and a tabernacle with all its
accoutrements, etc. Of course nowhere
in the Sinai covenant is there any word about any tabernacle. By the time of the covenant in Moab, the
Tabernacle had been in use for almost 39 years. So the discussion here has no connection to
the Sinai covenant. It obviously does
with the Moab covenant. Horeb 0, Moab
14
After describing all the various
accoutrements of the Tabernacle and the temple itself, Hebrews then mentions
the service of the priests and specifically the service on the Day of
Atonement. This was symbolic for a later
time (vs.9). The work of the priests
is not described at all in the Sinai covenant. It is mentioned in scriptures already
quoted and Numbers 18 in the Moab covenant. The priestly service on Atonement is prescribed in Leviticus 16. Horeb 0, Moab 15.
In vs. 11 another comparison is done
between Christ and the temple. You can
find the plans for the accoutrements and Temple described in Exodus 25-26
& 36-8. This is after the Sinai covenant
was confirmed. There is no indication
of this in the Sinai covenant. The
tabernacle was integral to the covenant at Moab attended to by the
Levites. The Sinai covenant did not
mention it. We scored this comparison
in the last two paragraphs.
Now Hebrews 9:4 mentions the tablets of
the covenant. Does that link them with
the OLD Covenant that is under discussion here? Certainly if it said the "tablets of the
old covenant" it would have. However,
the tablets of the covenant were commonly known as, "tablets of the covenant". So since Hebrews was talking about the
various physical items associated with the temple the best description for
them was "tablets of the covenant". It
might have helped us if Hebrews had said either tablets of the Horeb or Old
Covenant, but it doesn't. Hebrews got
its point across; i.e. there was physical stuff in the temple. That's all it intended to do. The only comparison is between physical
things associated with the temple and "good things to come". I take this to mean New Jerusalem or a
temple therein, which we already scored.
Hebrews 9:13-14 contrasts the cleansing
brought about by blood. You can find
heifer ashes used to cleanse in Numbers 19:16-18. Other animals were also offered for sin
(Lev 4-7). There is no mention of sin
offerings in the Sinai covenant. The
Sinai covenant does mention 'peace' and 'burnt' offerings, both of which were
freewill offerings and not sin offerings. So, there is no connection with blood
cleansing in the Sinai covenant. Cleansing was done regularly as part of
the tabernacle service by the Levites within the purview of the Moab covenant.
Horeb 0, Moab 16
Hebrews 9:25-26 compares the sacrifice on
the Day of Atonement every year, with that done by Christ just once. The occasion of Atonement is not directly
mentioned in the Sinai covenant. The
pilgrimage festivals are designated (Ex 23:14-16). Sacrifices for sin are not mentioned at
all in the Sinai covenant nor is the priesthood to carry them out. Certainly they are in the Moab covenant
(Lev 16). Horeb 0, Moab 17.
In Hebrews 10:1-13 the law that prescribes
sacrifices cannot perfect the worshiper, but reminds them of their
imperfection. Christ has superseded
that law offering the sacrifice of his own blood. Again, there are many such recommendations
for sacrifice throughout the Book of the Law. There are no offerings for sin mentioned in the Sinai covenant. Horeb 0, Moab 18.
In Hebrews 10:17-18 the new way promotes
forgiveness, the old way called for sacrifices of atonement. The Sinai covenant mentions nothing of
sacrifices for atonement. The Book of
the Law does (Lev 4-6). Horeb 0, Moab
19.
Hebrews 10:19 describes the new way into
the presence of our High Priest. Although not directly mentioned, this contrasts with the Levitical
high priest entering the Holy Place of the temple once a year on
Atonement. This can be found in
Leviticus 16. Nothing like it is
mentioned in the Sinai covenant. Horeb
0, Moab 20.
Hebrews 10:26-31, describes the caveat of
the new covenant. If one rejects it,
one may end up dead spiritually and permanently, whereas a rejection of the
law of Moses, the Book of the Law, only ends in physical death. This instruction can be found in
Deuteronomy 17:2-6. The Law of Moses
is summarized in the Moab covenant, as explained above. Horeb 0, Moab 21.
That covers the covenant comparisons in
Hebrews. So just how difficult is it
to determine which covenant is the Old Covenant based on the discussion in
Hebrews? There is nothing that
indicates the Sinai covenant is the Old Covenant. There are a few things that could apply to
both covenants. Generally these could
apply to any blood covenant. Apart
from what can apply to any covenant, everything is totally unique to the
covenant made at Moab. That is the
covenant that is 'ready to vanish away'. Even with this though, Hebrews does not say it is 'done away', but
seems to be on the verge of being unworkable. Indeed, with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem its
requirements could no longer be met.