Hebrews 8:13 is often cited by Christians as positive proof that the Mosaic laws have been abolished.  Typical of this opinion is the statement from Wayne Jackson:

“The vast majority of the Jewish community had rejected the Messiah and his New Covenant arrangement. Hence, they continued to rely upon the Levitical system. But such was a futile hope, for the entire Jewish economy (civil and sacerdotal) was on the verge of passing away. This eventuality would be realized in the downfall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — which was imminent when this letter was penned. Some scholars take this to be the significance of the present tense forms in Hebrews 8:13.”   (Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier)

Jackson’s interpretation of this passage in the letter to the Hebrews represents the typical conservative Christian understanding of the text.  It suggests that the author argues the Jewish system based on Torah has been set aside with the coming of Jesus Christ.  As a consequence, the Christian doctrine of grace will soon replace the outmoded sacrificial framework of the Jews.  Christians generally believe that today this announcement has been fulfilled.  Christians are no longer obligated to the Torah in any way.

Obviously, if Jackson is right about the text, proposals concerning the place of Torah in the lives of contemporary believers is seriously mistaken and perhaps even heretical.  Investigation is certainly warranted.

Let’s start by looking at the translation problems.  Here are several English translations:

In the saying “new,” He has made the first old.  And the thing having been made old and growing aged is near disappearing. (J. Green literal translation)

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete.  But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (NASB)

In the fact that He says, New in quality, He has permanently antiquated the first.  Now, that which is being antiquated and is waning in strength, is near to the point of vanishing away. (Wuest expanded translation)

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (NIV)

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (ESV)

Clearly there are some differences in these translations.  While the general though might be comparable, the introduction of words like “covenant” and “obsolete” make the passage much stronger than “old” and “new.”  “Old” and “new” may be nothing more than descriptions of temporal location, but “obsolete” and “antiquated” mean something quite a bit more.  Before we get completely distracted by the nuances in English, we need to look at the Greek text itself.

Transliterated:  en to legein Kainen pepalaioken ten proten to de palaioumenon kai gersakon engus aphanismou

Now we can go to work.

The first thing to notice is that opening phrase, en to legein.  The verb is a present active infinitive form of lego, but here it is preceded by the singular definite article, to (the).  Thus the NASB and NIV seem completely off base by turning this into a verbal adjective (“when”) or a prepositional phrase (“by”).  These attempts might carry the meaning of the verse but they do not express the grammatical structure or the actual vocabulary.  In other words, the NASB and the NIV English is a theological interpretation, not a translation.  How this affects the overall sense of the verse will be demonstrated in a moment.

Wuest’s translation the next word, Kainen, attempts to capture the fact that the Greek word describes something new in its nature, not merely new temporally.  In the New Testament, kainos is used for “not yet used,” “new in kind,” and “unusual.”  This is distinguished from the Greek neos which is about something new in time.  You can think of the use of neos in the movie The Matrix.  The hero, Neo, is not a completely new person.  He is the same person later in time, after he has been awakened.  If his name were Kainen rather than Neo, he would be a completely new person, not seen before. While the translation “new” is correct, the English word does not allow us to see this distinction.  The Greek suggests that whatever this adjective modifies, that thing is new in the sense of different, not simply new in the sense of temporally later.

But the problem is that this is an adjective without the presence of the modified noun.  In other words, the text actually reads, “In the speaking (saying) new.”  It does not read “new covenant.”  The word covenant has been added to the English translation.  Someone might argue that the idea of covenant is implied in this construction since the topic under discussion is covenant.  That context must come from verse 6 since it is the only occurrence of the Greek word diathekes (diatheke) in the entire chapter, outside of the citation of Jeremiah 31 in Hebrews 8:8-12.  The author of our Greek text only uses the Greek word in his own writing in verse 6.  The Jeremiah citation uses the Greek as a translation of the Hebrew berit.  If translators are going to introduce this term into the text, then we better understand exactly what diathekes means.

Immediately we have a problem.  Diatheke in classical Greek always means the disposition of a person’s property in anticipation of his death.  In other words, in classical Greek it is about a last will and testament, not an eternal sacred agreement between parties. Of course, the Greek in the New Testament is influenced by the LXX translation of the Hebrew text. ^[1] In the LXX, diatheke is used to translate tyrb (beriyth), the Hebrew word for “covenant.”  The Hebrew concept of covenant is very rich.  It extends beyond the formal, legal framework (but it does not eliminate this framework) by including two distinct but related ideas.  The first is the idea of an established formal (and often legal) agreement between God and man or between men.  The second idea is a partially legal and partially cultic (sacred) form of fellowship between persons, whether divine or human.  These two ideas share the concept of a rightly ordered relationship, but the applications are very different.  The first is a matter for the courts; the second a matter for the priests.  What is important is that both prescribe a proper pattern for interaction.  The first deals primarily with the relationships and obligations of men.  The second deals primarily with the proper standing before God.  It is very important to determine the proper application of meaning from the context.

When it comes to the first use of beriyth, some cultural background helps.  All of the cultures surrounding Israel practiced a form of covenant that was the basis of legal agreements between parties.  Many of these practices involved rituals (like meals, oaths and physical symbols of the agreement – see Genesis 31:44 ff).  Israel’s covenants were not new.  They were simply modified in some cases.  These Semitic covenants seem to be based first and foremost of blood relations.  Even in their formal and legal sense, they established connections between the parties as if the agreement were between members of the same family.  Semitic cultures simply assumed that family members protected each other so once a “covenant” commitment was in place, the parties could expect to be treated as if they were family.  The objective of the covenant is shalom between the parties.

This familial connection is also present in the cultic use of beriyth.  The use of blood in the covenant between God and Israel establishes a blood relation between God and His people.  What this means in the Semitic world is that God and His people are now one!  They are of the same family, tied together for eternity by blood.  The symbolic use of blood sprinkled on the people and the altar establishes the unalterable, permanent, inviolable, legal connection.  From this point forward, Israel is God’s son and it is no more possible to break this relationship than it is to break the genealogical relationship between any father and son.  Quell writes, “The most that we can say is that this material gives a certain plausibility to the view that even in the custom of Israel we are dealing with blood rites which have nothing to do with sacrifice but which are designed to establish a fellowship of substance between covenant partners.”[2]

Therefore, God’s covenant with Israel is as permanent as a father’s genealogical connection to his son.  There is no possibility of a replacement.  Even if someone else is adopted as a son, the blood relation to the progeny of the father cannot be erased.  While the legal sense of beriyth is conditional, i.e. each party agrees to certain conditions which, if violated, would abrogate the agreement, the cultic sense of covenant sometimes does not include this possibility.  The covenant of Abraham cannot be broken because it rests only on the integrity and performance of God Himself.  The Mosaic covenant contains contingencies concerning performance but its continued existence is assured by God (as Yeshua recognizes in His statement that Torah will not pass away until heaven and earth pass away).  The sacred beriyth of Israel rests on the unalterable, inviolable and eternal promise of God to Abraham, exhibited in God’s election of Israel in the exodus.  Biblical perspective on the covenant must include the idea that God chose Israel as His own people and declared Himself to be their suzerain Lord.

Since the New Testament use of diatheke is influenced by the application of the term in the LXX, it is important to note that diatheke is used for “disposition, ordinance” and for “covenant” in the cultic sense.  That is to say, like beriyth, diatheke “hovers between” these two meanings.  Consequently, it is crucial in the exegesis of a passage to determine from the context which of the two meanings the author has in mind.  Simply because the text uses the term diatheke does not mean the sense “covenant” is the appropriate translation.  This is particularly important for our text in Hebrews.  Behm points out that “diatheke is everywhere used in Hebrews in the sense of “disposition”” except in 9:6 and following.[3] You will notice that the English translations above make no attempt to distinguish these senses of diatheke and furthermore, they consistently translated the Greek as “covenant” rather than “disposition” or “ordinance.”  One might wonder why the translators ignored Behm’s observation.

The answer to this question is found in the theological framework of the translator, not in the text itself.  For example, Wayne Jackson reveals this framework when he writes, “The vast majority of the Jewish community had rejected the Messiah and his New Covenant arrangement. Hence, they continued to rely upon the Levitical system. But such was a futile hope, for the entire Jewish economy (civil and sacerdotal) was on the verge of passing away. This eventuality would be realized in the downfall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — which was imminent when this letter was penned. Some scholars take this to be the significance of the present tense forms in Hebrews 8:13.”[4]

We must object to Jackson’s assumption that the “vast majority” of the Jewish community rejected the Messiah and the new covenant and that the Jewish system was passing away.  This is nothing but replacement theology disguised as exegesis.  Historical estimates suggest that at least 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem were Messianic and there is no indubitable evidence in Scripture that the Jewish system was passing away unless verses like Hebrews 8:13 is read to support this claim.  But that would be a circular argument.  In order to understand what the text actually says and base our interpretation only on the text, we will have to dig deeper.

Let’s return the to text of Hebrews 8:13 and look at the rest of the vocabulary.  There is little doubt that the Hebrew background of the Greek word kainos (Kainen) is the word hadash.  North’s discussion of hadash/ hodesh in the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament[5] makes it abundantly clear that the vast majority of the uses of this root are concerned with the temporal reoccurrence of the “new” moon.  While the remaining uses sometimes include the idea of something that did not exist before (e.g. a new house is built), nearly all of the cultic uses of the term deal with renewal or reoccurrence, not with essential new creations.  Even the seminal passage of Jeremiah 31, which “furnishes our chief clue to the theological value of newness in the Bible,”[6] does not describe something entirely new (essentially new) but rather the “interiorization of religion” with the writing of the already-existing Torah on the hearts of men.  What is new is the methodology of providing God’s instructions – inscribed on the heart rather than on tablets of stone.  There is no suggestion that the Torah is to be set aside.  It would be impossible for the author of Hebrews to overlook this fact of Jeremiah’s prophecy about the “new” covenant.  North points out that Ezekiel echoes this thought by suggesting that the change is not a brand new creation but rather the separation of the individual from the community in terms of salvation (Ezekiel 18:31).  We do not suppose that Ezekiel’s instruction to cast away our transgressions and get a new heart implies that we schedule ourselves for heart transplant surgery.  A new heart is the result of personal repentance and a change in direction, but we are still the same, although now renewed, person.  We should notice that Ezekiel portrays this as a cooperative human effort, not completely dependent on the compassion of the Lord.

In general we may conclude that the root hds in Hebrew speaks of renewal and eschatological newness.  North describes the fundamental meaning of hds in terms like “renewal,” “revitalized form,” and “continuity rather than replacement.”  It is new in the sense that it is a heretofore hidden unfolding, a “continuous transformation.”  In a telling comment, North writes:  “All these suggestions of eschatological and spiritual renewal foreshadow but fall far short of the emphasis on kainos as a Christian theological value.”[7] Perhaps without realizing it, North has indicated that the Christian theological understanding of kainos (new) exceeds the Hebrew view.  One must wonder how the author of the letter to the Hebrews could have employed this theologically distinct idea when he relied so completely on the Tanakh.  North concludes, “’new’ itself becomes a synonym for the recognition of God’s redemption within the historical context.”[8] This places the Hebraic use of “new” squarely within the continuity of God’s interaction with the world.  In fact, in North’s view, the “new” heaven and the “new” earth are only reminders of God’s continuous election of the community of Israel.  They are not to be taken as a secondary creation.

In the text of Hebrews 8:13, the Hebraic background of the word “new” cannot be taken in the sense of essentially new or completely new.  If we are to understand kainen as a modifier of beriyth, then the best that we can derive from a Hebraic point of view is that this new element, whatever it is, was previously out of sight and is now coming into view.  It is not something newly created.  It is the revelation of what was always present but unperceived.  Only by divorcing kainen from its Hebraic influence can we conclude that this represents an entirely unprecedented creative act.  Translators who suggest that “new” in this text means “not existing beforehand” have ignored the LXX’s influence, a particularly awkward error since the author cites his quotations from the LXX.  Continuity is fundamental to the Jewish understanding of the nature of God.  Translating kainen as if it breaks this continuity is to misrepresent everything a Jew would believe.  If this is what the author of Hebrews intended, then his letter “to the Hebrews” would have been considered blasphemy!  Even a notable Greek scholar like Guthrie seems to miss this point when he suggests that the original Old Testament context of the passage in Jeremiah means “God’s rejection of the old covenant is explained in terms of the lack of faithfulness ot the covenant on the part of its recipients’ and that “the first covenant was flawed.”[9] Hosea stands in stark contrast to such a claim and Yeshua clearly states that the Torah is fully adequate to accomplish its intended purposes in spite of man’s failure to implement it.

Let’s review the translations:

In the saying “new,” He has made the first old.  And the thing having been made old and growing aged is near disappearing. (J. Green literal translation)

When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete.  But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (NASB)

In the fact that He says, New in quality, He has permanently antiquated the first.  Now, that which is being antiquated and is waning in strength, is near to the point of vanishing away. (Wuest expanded translation)

By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. (NIV)

In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (ESV)

We can see that Wuest’s translation treats “new” (kainen) as essentially Greek, ignoring the Hebrew background.  This translation is inadequate.  What can we say about the NASB, the NIV and the ESV.  While they do not give us the fuller context of “new” and “covenant,” and while they ignore the Hebrew background that suggests the word “covenant” should be translated as “ordinance” or “disposition” in order to distinguish it from the cultic term “covenant,” the real issue with these translations is their use of the term “obsolete.”  The Greek verb here is palaioo.  It is found seven times in the New Testament  and twenty-eight times in the LXX (e.g. Leviticus 13:11, Deuteronomy 29:4, Joshua 9:2, five times in Job, four times in Psalms and in Isaiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel and Daniel).  Several different Hebrews words are translated with palaioo but none of them have theological significance.  They are mostly concerned with temporal descriptions (what is old, ancient, past), but without implying something no longer suitable except when the Greek word translates the Hebrew balah (to wear out, to waste away).  In figurative use, the Hebrew concept of wearing out is applied to a man’s life and his production as well as the very heavens and the earth (Isaiah 51:6).  Daniel 7:9 demonstrates the importance of this figurative use when it claims that God Himself causes the time of the world to grow old.

In Classical Greek, context must determine the sense of “old” as there is no distinction between what was and has now ceased to be and what has been for a long time.  Paul uses the term in the contrast of the “new” man with the “old” man but the New Testament usage does not distinguish sharply between the man who has always been there but is now renewed and the man who now ceases to be because he is replaced.  A form of palaioo which means “what is outdated” is used only in Romans 7:6 where Paul contrasts the old and the new.  In Hebrews 8:13, the form of the verb means “to make old” or “to declare obsolete.”  Other than twice in Hebrew 8:13, this verbal form is found only in Luke 12:33 and Hebrews 1:11.  But the instance in Hebrews 1:11 is a quotation from the LXX version of Psalm101:26 (English 102:26) where the Hebrew word is once gain balah.  It is difficult to imagine that the author of Hebrews would use the LXX citation without knowing that the Hebrew balah stood behind pepalaioken.  We can certainly assume that he did know this.  Therefore, he must have also known that the figurative use of balah in his citation does not imply ceasing to exist but rather outmoded in usefulness.  That is, in fact, exactly the metaphor from the Psalm that the author employs – old clothes that have worn out.  They still exist but they are no longer useful.  If this is the framework of “old,” then “new” cannot mean “newly existing” but rather “newly replaced.”  With this in mind, Wuest’s expanded translation must be rejected.

What about the NASB, NIV and ESV choice of “obsolete?” The citation from Psalm 101:26 (English 102:26) is about the continuity of God, His eternal and imperishable character.  The psalmist contrasts this with everything else, even the heavens and the earth, which will eventually wear away.  God will change the heavens like a man changes clothes that are no longer serviceable.  But notice the end of the psalm: “The children of Your servants will continue, and their descendents will be established before You.”  Even in the midst of wearing out, the family of God will continue.  Is the use of this passage in Hebrews an indication of something ceasing to exist or is it a hint at continuity in spite of aging?  If the Torah is eternal because it reflects the nature and character of God, even the aging of the creation will not make the Torah obsolete.  At least this is the religious belief of the Jews.  The rabbis contend that Torah existed before the creation.  That should give us some glimmer of how permanent Jews believe Torah is.

Notice that the choice of “obsolete” in the NASB, NIV and ESV pushes the nuance of meaning away from simply old toward no longer of any value.  This might be a legitimate translation of the Greek palaioo, but it glosses the alternative of simply growing old and no longer being serviceable.  My 8-track player might be obsolete but my clothes just wear out.

Now that we have examined the critical vocabulary, we should notice that there is nothing within the vocabulary itself that demands the replacement of the Torah.  In fact, what we have learned is that the meaning of this verse must be determined by a larger context.  The verse itself does not speak directly of Torah.  In fact, it doesn’t even include the word “covenant.”  The assumption that this verse substantiates the Christian claim that God has made Torah and the original covenant obsolete is not supported by this text alone.  In order to draw this conclusion, the text must be read within a supporting paradigm.  But there are other paradigms that also offer reasonable explanations of the vocabulary found here.

We must be aware of the paradigm we bring to the text.  As an example, notice how David Stern evaluates precisely the same verse:

“The author is not criticizing the Mosaic Covenant but merely making explicit what Jeremiah implied.  Sha’ul had already used the phrase, “Old Covenant,” at 2C 3:14.  Is one to infer that the Jewish holidays, Shabbath, kashrut, civil laws, and moral laws of the Mosaic Covenant are on the verge of vanishing altogether?  No, for the author could hardly have been unaware that the Mosaic Covenant presents itself as eternal; also the context shows that he is speaking only of its system of priests and sacrifices, not its other aspects.  Sine the laws concerning the cultus constitute the majority of the Mosaic prescriptions, it is not an inappropriate figure of speech to say that the Old Covenant itself is aging and about to disappear.  In this verse, the verb tenses are important.  The Mosaic Covenant has already been made . . old, but it is not already aged and it has not already vanished.  It is in the process of aging, and one the verge of vanishing in the same sense that “This world’s leaders  . . . are in the process of passing away” (2C 2:6).  This world’s leaders are still with us, and so is the Mosaic Covenant.  Even Christians whose theology posits the abrogation or passage of the Mosaic Covenant in its entirely must therefore acknowledge that it has not yet vanished but sill exists.  Some have inferred for this language that at the time the author wrote, the Temple was still standing and the author was predicting what Yeshua had already prophesied (Mt 24:2, Mk 13:2, Lk 21:2), that the Temple would soon be destroyed by the Romans in 70 C.E., at which time the sacrifices would cease and the priesthood would be left without work to do.  This is a possible interpretation, although against it is the fact that the author never refers to the Temple but always to the Tent (Tabernacle), which has passes out of existence a thousand years earlier.  He is more interested in the system as the Mosaic Covenant specifies it than in its current mode of implementation. . . . What is actually on the verge of vanishing is the old priesthood, not the old covenant – or, perhaps we may say, not God’s unchangeable nature which stands behind the old covenant.  The priesthood is the subject of the whole section, . . . and it is this which is about to disappear, or, at the very least, take on a very much transformed role.”[10]

As examples of most Christian theology, Ritenbaugh, Jackson and Guthrie attempt to read the verse with an entirely different paradigm, causing them to “discover” an entirely different meaning.  Clearly the issue is not to be settled in the text itself.  If the same verse can be read in both directions, then it will take a higher lever view to determine what the verse really means.  Messianic Hebraic believers follow men like David Stern, arguing that the text does not and cannot apply to Torah as a whole but only to the operational considerations surrounding the Temple.  Obviously, once the Temple was destroyed in 70CE, it is no longer possible to keep all of Torah.  But even if the author is not talking about the destruction of the Temple, his argument strictly applies to the priests, not to the moral and civil code of the Torah.

Obviously, the second use of the Greek verb palaioo retains the same exegetical problems.  Things having been made old or growing aged does not imply that they are now obsolete or have now completely disappeared.  The NASB and NIV translations accurately relate this “as-yet-unfinished” fact with their use of participles, i.e. “growing aged” and “ becoming obsolete.”  The old will soon disappear, but in biblical time, that does not mean tomorrow.  The Lord’s return will be soon, but we have now waited 2000 years.  What will soon disappear or vanish away does not fix any specific temporal point.  Since Yeshua has already told us that the Torah will exist at least until heaven and earth pass away, there seems to be no reasonable evidence to claim that Torah disappeared with the destruction of the Temple or with the death of Yeshua.  As far as I can tell, heaven and earth are still with us.

What can we conclude?  First, we notice that the idea of the covenant must be imported into the sense of this verse.  Second, we see that the term “covenant” has at least two different meanings.  Its specific meaning for this verse cannot be determined from the vocabulary alone.  Third, we see that the sense of kainos does not fit precisely with the Hebrew hadash and this presents an additional exegetical problem since the author is writing to Hebrews and relying on Hebrew citations as his authority.  Fourth, we find that there is no compelling exegetical reason to assume that palaioo must be read in the sense of “completed” or “finished.”  The sense of the verse can be adequately understood as an indication that we are moving toward a time of completion, but there is no reason to assume that this has already occurred.  It certainly had not occurred when the text was written.

Therefore, we can accept the NASB, NIV and ESV translations with these caveats.  We must reject Wuest’s attempt entirely since it does not allow the inherent ambiguity in the text.  J Green’s literal translation is also acceptable with the same caveats.

The real question is not the precise meaning found in Hebrews 8:13.  As a proof text for replacement theology or the inadequacy of the old covenant, the verse fails.  Its meaning depends on the paradigm one brings to the text.  The real issue is much bigger.  It is the issue of the entire theological perspective that sees the Church as God’s replacement for Israel and that views the work of Christ as the “end” (abolition) of the Law.  There are significant problems for such a view in spite of its longevity within Christian circles.  Not least among these are Paul’s own declaration of Torah observance, Yeshua’s statements about the permanence of the Torah and the general consensus of theological opinion of the first century Jews that Torah is eternal.  A considerable number of prominent contemporary theologians are rethinking this paradigmatic issue.  All we can confidently say about Hebrews 8:13 is this:  “It depends.”  Hebrews 8:13 cannot be used as positive and unassailable proof of the demise of Torah or the old covenant.  It has to fit into a much larger argument.  Until we resolve the larger issue, we will not be able to provide a definitive exegesis of this passage in the letter to the Hebrews.

[1] Some writers have ignored the fact that diatheke in the New Testament is significantly influenced by the LXX and its Hebraic orientation.  This leads them to draw the wrong conclusions about diatheke in Hebrews.  For example, Ritenbaugh writes, “Is there a difference between a testament and a covenant? The word “testament” does not even appear in English translations of the Old Testament, but it appears thirteen times in the New Testament. The Greek word in quite interesting because it does not even mean “covenant” as we think of it. In fact, researchers have been able to find only one usage outside of the Bible—in classical Greek—in which this word is used in the same way that the English and the Hebrew words are. The Greek word is diatheke, and it is the equivalent of our English word “testament” or “will”—not “covenant.”

A covenant is an agreement between two parties. The emphasis in on the words “agreement” and “parties.” However, a diatheke is a testament or will. As in English, it is a unilateral—a one-sided—declaration of the disposition of property that a person makes in anticipation of his death. Before we die, we usually draw up a declaration of what we want done with our property, and most people do not consult with the people they want to leave their possessions to. It is usually a private matter.

Paul used this singular word—diatheke—where two different words normally would have been used. The interesting thing is that the Greeks have a word for a covenant, suntheke, “a bilateral agreement,” but the apostle did not use it.

The use of diatheke—which seemingly does not fit—has given the translators great difficulty trying to determine when Paul meant “covenant” and when he meant “will” or “testament.” Why did he even do this when he could have used suntheke? The overall reason is very encouraging. Paul wanted to emphasize how much God has done unilaterally—that is, that He took upon Himself to do without consulting with others involved in the covenant—to tip the scales drastically in our favor for the purpose of our keeping the covenant and making it into His Kingdom.

For instance, “God so loved the world that He gave” Jesus Christ in our stead! It was a completely voluntary act on His part. God gives us grace and forgives our sins, and we are justified on the basis of that sacrifice and on the declaration of our faith and repentance. God gives us access to Him in prayer, again on the basis of the work of Jesus Christ. God gives us the very faith that saves. God gives us His Spirit, which is a downpayment of eternal life and empowers us to keep His laws. God gives us gifts, by that same Spirit, to serve Him and the church. He promises never to give us a trial that is too great—which translates into Him giving personal attention to each of His children! He promises never to forsake us and to complete the work that He has begun in us.

Now, brethren, some of these—in a very limited form—appear in the Old Covenant. But it is no wonder that Paul wanted to emphasize better rather than “new.” The Old Covenant (because of what God has unilaterally done) is but a pale shadow of the new (covenant) in terms of what God is working out. It is nothing more than a pale shadow of the promises and of the hope that is derived by those of us who understand the New Covenant’s terms.

To the unconverted who read the Bible—who look into these things—these terms are so enticing that it lures them into saying that there is nothing that we have to do. Some will go that far! They will say that it has all been done for us. They can read the terms, but they reach the wrong conclusion. It leads people to say, “There is no law,” and “You don’t have to keep the Sabbath. It’s just ceremonial.” However, the truth is that it is so one-sided, so much to our benefit, that it leaves us without excuse for failure to keep the terms—and those terms include lawkeeping.” John Ritenbaugh, The Covenants, Grace and Law (Part 10).

[2] Quell, TDNT, Vol. 2, p. 115.

[3] Behm, TDNT, Vol. 2, p. 132.

[4] Wayne Jackson, Christian Courier, http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/490-why-does-hebrews-8-13-use-the-present-tense

[5] North, TDOT, Vol. IV, pp. 225-244.

[6] North, TDOT, Vol. IV, p. 237.

[7] North, TDOT, Vol. 4., p. 241.

[8] North, TDOT, Vol. 4., p. 244.

[9] George Guthrie, “Hebrews” in Carson and Beale, A Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, p. 971.

[10] David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 691.