James R. White, D.Min., Th.D., is an Elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, Phoenix, AZ, Adjunct Professor of Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and Columbia Evangelical Seminary, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, and author of many books.
The epistle to the Hebrews embodies one of the strongest apologetic defenses of the supremacy of Christ’s work in all of the NT. The purpose of the book, its intended audience, its historical setting, and its deep use of the OT, provides a rich treasure of inspired teaching on the work of Christ, especially in his office as High Priest.
For those who take seriously the consistency of God’s self-glorification in his establishment and continuance of the covenant of grace, through all its manifestations down through time, the discussion of the διαθήκη καινή, the new covenant, drawn from Jer. 31:31–34, must be given its due prominence in answering the question, “Exactly what is the nature of the covenant in the blood of Christ (Lk. 22:20; Heb. 13:20), and how does it differ from other administrations of the covenant of grace?” A full-orbed investigation into the nature of the New Covenant has led many to conclude that the “newness” of this covenant leads inevitably to conclusions that impact many other areas of theological inquiry. If this New Covenant is, in fact, based upon better promises, and has a better Mediator, with a better ministry, who offers a better sacrifice, resulting in a better hope, so that all those who are within the boundaries marked out by its very identification as a covenant made in the blood of Christ know him and experience the forgiveness of their sins, then it follows that such issues as covenant membership, its relationship to the external church, and our understanding of apostasy, must start with these truths. If we approach the topic backwards, beginning with traditions regarding covenant membership, signs, or a particular view of apostasy, we run a great danger of turning the direct and plain exegesis of the text of Hebrews upon its head.
Recent Developments
P&R Publishing released a compendium of articles edited by Gregg Strawbridge titled The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism in 2003. In this work the issue of the nature of the New Covenant comes up often and is in fact the subject of an entire chapter, written by Pastor Jeffrey D. Niell of Emmanuel Covenant Church (CRE), Phoenix, Arizona, titled “The Newness of the New Covenant.” Pastor Niell and I co-authored a publication for Bethany House Publishers, The Same Sex Controversy, which was released in 2002. We are both graduates of the same college (both having an emphasis in the study of Greek under the same professor, one year apart from one another) and seminary, and both came into a knowledge of, and acceptance of, the doctrines of grace at the same time. He visited the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church with me before I became a member, and I was involved in his ordination. To say that we “go back” a long way is to make an understatement. And yet our journeys in Reformed theology have taken us to very different conclusions regarding the nature of the New Covenant, and hence to disagreement on the membership of the covenant, the nature of apostasy, and the giving of the covenant sign. It is my hope to model proper Christian disagreement between brothers, based upon a common belief in the ultimate authority of God’s Word, its perspicuity, and the over-riding need to engage in consistent exegesis of the inspired text so as to lay the only foundation upon which disagreements can be resolved.
In this two-part article[1] we will examine the concept of the New Covenant in the context of Hebrews, focusing upon its classic expression in chapter eight, but likewise noting other passages (especially 10:10–22) that directly impact our understanding of this vital truth. We will look at the broad contextual background, specifics regarding significant textual variants, and the relevance of the theme of the “better” in this section of Hebrews. Then the key passages will be exegeted. Exegesis will be followed by interpretational conclusions. Then we will respond to the presentation made by Pastor Niell, and contrast some comments offered by Richard Pratt of Reformed Theological Seminary (Orlando) in his chapter in the same volume.
Hebrews: There Is Nothing To Go Back To – Christ Is All In All
The context of the book of Hebrews is, obviously, central to a proper understanding of such phrases as διαθήκη καινή, new covenant, or κρείττονος διαθήκης, better covenant. This is an apologia, a defense offered in the form of an exhortation to those Hebrew Christians who would be subject to the pressures created by their cultural context. That is, the work is written to those who would hear the siren call of the old ways and, upon seeing the difficulties inherent in following Christ, be tempted to give in and “go back” to the old ways. The constant emphasis upon exhortation to continuance and perseverance speaks directly to this issue, and explains the format of the book’s progressive explanation of Christ’s superiority to each of the chief aspects of the “old way” of a Judaism that stood firmly opposed to the Messiahship of Jesus Christ. By demonstrating the superiority of Christ to all aspects of the old ways, and that by arguing from the Holy Scriptures themselves, the writer to the Hebrews provides a solid foundation upon which to stand against the temptation to “go back.” When one is truly convinced in one’s soul that Jesus Christ is superior to every aspect of the old Judaism, the heart of the temptation is removed, and the call to go back is rendered powerless.
Any work of apologetic weight, however, must provide some kind of compelling argumentation. And when one examines a major element of such an apologetic argument, a simple question suggests itself, one that should always be asked of any interpretation offered. “What is the role of this particular concept or passage in the over-all apologetic of the author? And does my interpretation strengthen, or weaken, the attempted argumentation?” This is important in examining the New Covenant concept in Hebrews, for surely it is part of the writer’s demonstration of the supremacy of the work of Christ over the “old.” If we allow deeply held traditions to influence our exegesis, so that the apologetic element of the author’s presentation of the New Covenant is compromised, we can see by this that we have erred and must “practice what we preach” and alter our views in accordance with our motto, semper reformanda.
The narrative context is that of the fulfillment of the types and shadows, and in particular, those embodied in the priesthood and the sacrifices of the tabernacle, in the Messiah, Jesus Christ. The author has opened and addressed numerous aspects of Christ’s superiority as High Priest, interweaving various themes around the major presentation of Christ as the one and only perfect High Priest. Practical exhortations and warnings are attached to each aspect of Christ’s priesthood as it is presented. After presenting Christ’s priesthood after the order of Mechizedek in chapter five, for example, the warnings of 6:1–8 follow, concluded by the encouragement and exhortation of 6:9–12, where we read in closing,
And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence so as to realize the full assurance of hope until the end, so that you will not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.The text then moves back into another demonstration of an important aspect of Christ’s superiority, in this instance moving toward the extended discussion of the supremacy of the work of the one High Priest, which forms the substance of chapters seven through ten. The discussion of the New Covenant is inextricably linked with this demonstration of the supremacy of Christ’s priesthood and salvific work (7:22–25; 9:15, 23–25; 10:10–18). It is important to follow the connections inherent in the text itself. Considering the covenant apart from such issues as Christ’s priesthood, mediation, sacrifice, and resultant salvific work, is to mishandle the author’s words and to isolate one contextual element to the detriment of the others. Our author thinks holistically, not in the Western “pigeon hole” style wherein doctrines and beliefs exist separately from one another and do not come together to form a coherent fabric of truth. As such, his view of the New Covenant as “better” must be seen in light of the perfection of Christ’s work of mediation and every other aspect of the argument as he presents it.
Exegetically Significant Textual Variants
In focusing upon the description of the New Covenant in chapters eight through ten of Hebrews, we encounter two highly significant textual variants that directly impact the translation, and hence interpretation, of the text. The first is found in 8:8a, and the second involves a variant between the Massoretic Hebrew (MT) text and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). None of the other variants in the relevant passages are overly difficult to decide.[2]
The first variant touches on whether the text is indicating that God was finding fault “with them,” i.e., with those who had lived under the Old Covenant in the days of Jeremiah, as most translations have it, or, whether it would be better to render the text as, “For, finding fault [with the Old Covenant], He says to them….” The difference in the reading is between αὐτοὺς and αὐτοῖς, between the accusative plural and the dative plural. While some see little difference between the readings,[3] it is important to consider the possibilities inherent in the two readings. The external data can be argued either direction,4 and internal argumentation can go both ways as well, making it a particularly difficult variant. The NA27/UBS[4] texts adopt αὐτοὺς, while Philip Hughes argues for αὐτοῖς.[5]
I would like to suggest that one aspect of this variant needs to be allowed consideration in the exegetical process. In Heb. 8:7 the writer uses the Greek term ἄμεμπτος, blameless, which, of course, is merely the negation of μέμψις, which in its verbal form is μέμφομαι, the very term which appears at the beginning of v. 8 and which may, if we read the variant as αὐτοῖς, govern the translation, as the verb μέμφομαι can take its object in the dative or the accusative (hence the translations “finding fault with them” or “finding fault, he said to them”). The connection between saying the first covenant (the term διαθήκη does not appear and is understood) was not without fault (ἄμεμπτος) is maintained strongly by reading the dative αὐτοῖς and rendering it, “For finding fault [with the first covenant] he says to them.” The only other way to make a meaningful connection with “finding fault” (μέμφομαι) in 8:8a is to connect it with “for they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them” at the end of v. 9. But the connection here is much more tenuous, both for the reason that the terminology differs substantially as well as the fact that the phrase “I did not care for them” is a variant between the MT and the LXX (the second major variant we will examine). While this is not enough to make a firm decision, it is relevant to the statement of the writer that the first covenant was to be faulted, while the New Covenant is placed in a position of direct contrast thereto. As we will note in the exegesis, the Old Covenant was “faulted” in that “they did not continue in My covenant” hence, for the New Covenant to be superior, it would have to be inviolable, as the exegesis itself suggests. This point is strengthened if we take the dative plural αὐτοῖς and read it with λέγει, “he says to them.”
The second major variant involves the always challenging area of differences between the Hebrew MT and the Greek LXX. It is important to note this variant, as this author has encountered Jewish apologists who refer to it as a means of attacking the veracity and accuracy of the NT text. Given the general ignorance of even trained ministers on the subject of textual criticism and the textual history of the OT, springing such a surprise (using the differing translations found in Jer. and in Heb.) can result in a very awkward, difficult situation. Though the variant seems quite major (in the sense made of the passage), in reality it is probably based upon a single letter in the Hebrew. As rendered by the NASB, the MT reads, “‘My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,’ declares the LORD.” However, the LXX, cited in Heb. 8:9, reads, “‘for they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them,’ says the LORD.” The difference between “I was a husband to them” and “I did not care for them” could be construed as presenting a complete opposite. Now, it is true that the writer to the Hebrews does not repeat the phrase, nor base any particular statement upon it. However, it does seem that the LXX rendering could be seen as more consistent with the point being made, especially with the strong contrast between the Old and New Covenants and those who participate therein.
But the variant can be fairly easily explained, as suggested by the textual apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. The verb “to be a husband to” in the MT is בָּעַלְתִּי. One may recognize the root ba-al, here, to be master, lord, husband. But there is another verb in Hebrew, ga-al, or as it would possibly have appeared here, גָּעַלְתִּי, which means “to despise, abhor.” The visual similarity of בּ with גּ is clear to anyone. This might explain the origination of the LXX reading. But the question arises, did the writer to the Hebrews know of the variant, and if so, would this not mean the choice of the LXX was purposeful? But if the LXX is simply the “default” translation being used, one could not put any weight upon the variation. These issues go beyond our scope here, but they do touch upon a number of important passages in the New Testament.
Better: No, Really
When a writer repeats a particular term we must always take into consideration the possibility that he is indeed seeking to communicate a particular concept through that term. The writer to the Hebrews uses the term “better” in key passages throughout his work. This is hardly surprising, in light of the fact that the writer is engaged in a comparison of the old and the new, the old law and its fulfillment in Christ. Looking at the comparative form, better, here are those things which are “better” in Hebrews:
- “having become as much better than the angels, as He inherited a more excellent name than they” (Heb. 1:4)
- “We are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation” (Heb. 6:9)
- “and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God” (Heb. 7:19)
- “so much more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant” (Heb. 7:22)
- “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6)
- “Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Heb. 9:23)
- “But as it is, they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Heb. 11:16)
- “Women received back their dead by resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their release, so that they might obtain a better resurrection;” (Heb. 11:35)
- “And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect” (Heb 11:39, 40)
- “and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:24)
When we look at the use of this term in Hebrews, the kind of “betterness” can be clearly discerned. When the writer says that Jesus is “better than” the angels (1:4), is he not saying that Jesus is better than the angels qualitatively, on the level of being? Surely he is not saying that Jesus and the angels are in the same category, and Jesus is simply a better kind of angel than any others. In 6:9 the writer refers to “better things concerning you, things which accompany salvation.” There the distinction is between things which do not of necessity accompany salvation and things which do. Are actions which accompany salvation merely “better works” than those which are non-salvific, or is there a qualitative difference? In 7:19, is the “better hope” ushered in by Christ just a larger, grander hope than that provided by law, but a hope of the same kind? Could anyone truly draw near to God by means of the law? No, for “the Law made nothing perfect.” The hope inaugurated by Christ is qualitatively different. In 11:16, when they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one, is the heavenly country of the same kind as an earthly country? Is it just better as in bigger, or brighter? Or is the heavenly country better on the level of nature and quality?
The reason for these considerations comes into play when we consider what it means to speak of better promises, better sacrifices, and a better covenant. When Christ is said to be the guarantee of a better covenant in 7:22, is the covenant that is here described as “better” merely better in the sense of being “bigger” or “larger” or “more grand,” or is it better on a substantial, qualitative basis? Does this really mean that there are just more of the elect in the “better” covenant, and this is why it is “better”? Or is there a more fundamental distinction? Likewise, in 8:6 the term appears twice. First, Jesus is said to be the mediator of a better covenant which is based upon better promises. This is all placed in the context of describing a “more excellent ministry.” Is this ministry simply of the same kind as the ministry of the old priests, only, in some fashion, “more excellent”? Or is the point of the passage that the Messiah’s ministry, the covenant in his blood, and the promises upon which the covenant stands – all these things are substantially different, better, than that which came before?
This is plainly brought out in 9:23 when the writer speaks of the “better sacrifices” by which the heavenly things are cleansed. Here Christ’s sacrifice (as the following context makes plain) is said to be “better” than the animal sacrifices, those of goats and bulls. Surely, at this point there can be no argument that the betterness of the sacrifice of Christ is qualitatively superior to that of the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant. His death is not just more effective or in some fashion greater than the sacrifice of a lamb or a bull. That sacrifice differs on a fundamental, foundational level. It is better by nature and definition.
This is important to our examination of the New Covenant, for it is said to be a better covenant, with a better mediator, with better promises, based upon a better sacrifice, resulting in a better hope. So when we look at the description of the New Covenant in Heb. 8:8ff, we must see how each of these elements of the New Covenant are better than that which existed under the old administration.
Exegesis Of Hebrews 8:6-13
The immediately preceding argument, leading to the key presentation of the New Covenant in Heb. 8:6–13, flows from the identification of Christ with the superior priesthood of Melchizedek (Ps. 110:4, cited in Heb. 7:17, 21), leading to the description of Christ as the ἔγγυος (guarantee/guarantor)6 of the New Covenant, and also bringing the first use of κρείττονος διαθήκης, better covenant, in 7:22, “so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.” Heb. 7:23–8:5 comprises a demonstration of the basis for the apologetic assertion that the New Covenant is, in fact, a better covenant (part and parcel of the purpose of the letter), one that flows from the priestly nature of Christ’s work. Heb. 7:23–25 proves this by the contrast of the mortal priests with the one priest, Jesus Christ; and 7:26–28 does so in light of the sinfulness of the many priests and hence their repeated sacrifices versus the singular sacrifice of the innocent, undefiled Christ. Heb. 8:1–6, then, provides first a summary statement of the preceding arguments (i.e., our one high priest has entered into the heavenlies) and then provides the thesis statement for the description of the superiority of the New Covenant from Jer. 31 with the assertion that Christ has obtained “a more excellent ministry” than that of the old priests, that he is the mediator (in contrast, in context, to Moses, v. 5; Gal. 3:19; Jn. 1:17) of a “better covenant” enacted on “better promises.” Some brief comments should be offered exegetically on these texts.
First, Christ’s role as singular and never dying high priest, and the resulting assurance of the perfection of his work, is seen by the writer as part of the demonstration of why the covenant of which he is the guarantee is “better” (7:23–25). While our English translations normally say something like, “The former priests existed in greater numbers” at 7:23, the literal reading is simply, “the priests,” contrasting[7] the plural with the singular “he” (οἱ vs. ὁ) in v. 24. The work of the many priests is, of necessity, imperfect, for they are “prevented by death” from “continuing” or “abiding.” But, in contrast, he “abides forever,” he is no longer subject to death. Hence, he, unlike the old priests under the Old Covenant, holds his priesthood (which has been shown to be superior in the preceding arguments) ἀπαράβατον, permanently, or, in some sources, without successor. Both translations fit the context, for he never lays aside this priesthood, hence, it is “permanent” in contrast to the former priests. But likewise he has no successor in his office. The entire concept is meant to be in contrast to the old priests and their inherently temporary nature. As a result of the permanence of his priestly position,[8] Christ has an ability the old priests did not possess. He is able to save. The profundity of the words may deflect proper attention. The permanence of his life and position as high priest grants to him the ability to save. He is active in saving, and he is capable of so doing. As noted above, the soteriological content of the superiority of Christ’s work as high priest and of the New Covenant cannot be dismissed or overlooked. The extent of his salvific work is noted by the phrase εἰς τὸ παντελὲς, which can be translated “forever” in the sense of permanence, or “to the uttermost” in the sense of completely, similar, in fact, to ἀπαράβατον above. Owen noted the propriety of seeing both senses in the text:
Take the word in the first sense, and the meaning is, that he will not effect or work out this or that part of our salvation, do one thing or another that belongs unto it, and leave what remains unto ourselves or others; but “he is our Rock, and his work is perfect.” Whatever belongs unto our entire, complete salvation, he is able to effect it. The general notion of the most that are called Christians lies directly against this truth….That this salvation is durable, perpetual, eternal… and there is nothing hinders but that we may take the words in such a comprehensive sense as to include the meaning of both these interpretations. He is able to save completely as to all parts, fully as to all causes, and for ever in duration.[9]Just as the Father’s will for the Son revealed in Jn. 6:38, 39 demands perfection in his role as Savior, so too here the very same soteriological perfection and completion is central to the work of the eternal high priest. This is brought out with strong force in the rest of the verse, for the author indicates both the object of the salvific work and the basis thereof, and both are intensely “priestly” statements. The singular priest saves “those who draw near to God through Him.” This clearly harkens back to the people who drew near in worship to God in the temple, and their representative, the high priest on the day of atonement. There is specificity to the salvific work of the priest. He does not make a general plan of salvation available, he saves a specific people (cf. Matt. 1:21). And secondly, “He always lives to make intercession for them” points to the same perfection of the high priest. His indestructible life means he never lays aside his priestly role, hence, since the high priest interceded (ἐντυγχάνειν, Rom. 8:34) for those for whom he offered sacrifice, Christ ever lives to make intercession for those who draw near to God through him, resulting in the perfection of their salvation. The work of intercession guarantees the salvation of a specific people in this passage. This is vital to remember as we look at the key text in Heb. 8.
Similar themes appear in Heb. 7:26–28, including the perfect character of the high priest (v. 26), which establishes another element of his supremacy over the old priests, for he does not have to offer sacrifice for his own sins, and then the sins of the people. But here also appears a concept that will be expanded upon greatly at a later point, for the author says, “because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” Self-offering is yet another aspect of what sets the priesthood of Christ apart, for obvious reasons, from the priesthood of old. The high priest presents the offering in his own body, a concept expanded upon in chapter nine. But he did so “once for all.” The sacrifice is a singularity in time, for the author uses the temporal adverb, ἐφάπαξ, to strongly emphasize this concept. The old priests sacrificed often for themselves, while Christ offered one sacrifice (himself) for the people.
Chapter eight begins with a summary of the preceding argument, focusing upon the ascended Savior who has “taken His seat” (v. 1) in heaven itself. The writer then notes that in light of the parallels he is drawing, the heavenly Priest would need to have “something to offer” (v. 3) just as the old priests did. While he would not have been a priest while on earth (v. 4), he has “obtained a more excellent ministry” (v. 6). How is it a better ministry? And how is this related to his sacrifice, which is clearly in the preceding context (see above) as well as in that which follows? To that we now turn in exegesis.
Hebrews 8:6
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.The writer is contrasting the priestly ministry in the tabernacle with the heavenly ministry of Christ, using the technical term λειτουργίας. This is the term used in the LXX for the priestly “service” in the tabernacle. It is not only “more excellent,” but the term διαφορωτέρας also contains within its lexical meaning the idea of “difference” and “distinction,” so that we have grounds to say it is not just superior but of the same kind but superior and greater in kind as well (which fits with the discussion of “better” presented above). How much more excellent is this ministry of the single high priest? The ESV captures the essence of the comparison (using the correlative pronoun ὅσῳ) by rendering the phrase, “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises.” That is, his ministry is as much more excellent as the covenant he mediates is better. This is truly the phrase that transitions the text into the citation of Jer. 31, for it draws a direct parallel between the superior nature of Christ’s priestly ministry and connects it firmly to the “betterness” of the New Covenant.
Some comment must be made on the use of the term μεσίτης, “mediator.”[10] The term appears with reference to Christ specifically in 1 Tim. 2:5, 6, “For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time,” and three times in Hebrews (8:6; 9:15; 12:24). The use in 9:15 establishes that the “better covenant” with “better promises” is indeed the New Covenant, by saying,
For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.Note as well the consistency of the author in connecting mediation, the New Covenant, Christ’s work as high priest, his death, and redemption of transgressions (cf. Heb. 8:12), with the result that “those who have been called” may receive the promise. Here it is difficult to argue against the conclusion that the author is consistently connecting the work of Christ in atonement (mediation, intercession), which “perfects” those for whom the atonement is made (10:10, 14), with the electing grace of God (“those who are called”). We will note this further in our conclusions.
That it is the intention of the author to connect the superior nature of Christ’s priestly ministry with the “betterness” of the New Covenant is further borne out by the fact that he then insists that this better covenant of which Christ is mediator “has been enacted” on better promises. It is important to see that for the writer, the New Covenant has been, as a past-tense action, officially enacted. The term used is νενομοθέτηται, the perfect passive of νομοθετέομαι, “to enact on the basis of legal sanction, ordain, found by law” (BDAG). The New Covenant is not something that will someday be established but has already, as a completed action, been founded, established, enacted, and that upon “better promises” than “the first” (v. 6). There is nothing in the text that would lead us to believe that the full establishment of this covenant is yet future, for such would destroy the present apologetic concern of the author; likewise, he will complete his citation of Jer. 31 by asserting the obsolete nature of the first covenant, which leaves one to have to theorize, without textual basis, about some kind of intermediate covenantal state if one does not accept the full establishment of the New Covenant as seen in the term νενομοθέτηται.
For the moment, we emphasize that the author lays, as the groundwork of his citation of Jer. 31:31–34, a solid foundation in the assertion that Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, based upon better sacrifices, with a more excellent ministry, based upon better promises, which include, he will later assert, the very promise of the eternal inheritance for those in the New Covenant (9:15), which has been established: it is a present reality. This is the immediate context of the citation, and must be allowed to have its determinative status.
Hebrews 8:7
Verse 7 contains the expansion of the implied apologetic claim of v. 6: if Christ has obtained a better ministry, is mediator of a better covenant, enacted on better promises, then that which is “better” means that which is “less” is, by definition, inferior. Hence the writer simply draws out the only logical conclusion, for if “that first” (the term “covenant” is not included in the text, but is implied by the use of the article with “first”) “had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.” Here the writer moves us to the context of Jer. 31:31–34, and indicates that the passage he is about to cite amounts to a seeking for a second, faultless covenant. But there would be no need for this if, in fact, the first covenant was ἄμεμπτος, without fault or blame. What is the nature of this blame in a covenant that was established by God himself? The answer can be discerned by recalling the preceding context; Christ’s ministry is more excellent, though it is being compared to a ministry established by God as a picture of the greater fulfillment to come; even so the New Covenant is better than the Old, though the Old had likewise been established by God and served a particular purpose. But the contrast with the New Covenant about to be described from Jeremiah explains the “fault” of the Old: that which the New Covenant provides in perfection the Old only provided in part or in picture. Those aspects of the New Covenant about to be enumerated must be seen in the light of this context: where something is found in both covenants, it will be seen to be partial and incomplete in the Old, finished, total, and perfect in the New.
Hebrews 8:8
The first question posed by the text of v. 8 is related to the textual variant noted above. I will proceed on the grounds that the best logical connection, in light of the fairly evenly balanced external and internal considerations, is to read, “For finding fault, He says to them,” following the thought of the preceding verse. The idea then is that the scriptural citation about to be provided, almost word-for-word from the LXX in Jer. 31, encompasses a finding of “fault” in the first covenant, announcing in the coming covenant which is “not like” the first (v. 9) the perfection not found in the Old. The meaning is not greatly altered if we read the other variant, “for finding fault with them, He says,” though we would be in error to think that the fault then spoken of, which is in contrast to the New Covenant, was specific only to the context of those in Jeremiah’s day. The contrast between Old and New is firm no matter how the variant is read in light of the first words of v. 9, but the continuity of the text is better served reading as suggested.
The citations of the LXX are almost verbatim aside from the interesting replacement of the normal LXX reading of διαθήσομαι with συντελέσω. The first term is actually a cognate of “covenant,” while the verb the author of Hebrews chooses is related more strongly to the categories of finishing, establishing, or completing. The difference may be purposeful, textual, or stylistic.
Thus begins the citation of Jeremiah. Verse 8 announces, on the authority of Yahweh himself, that he will establish “a new covenant.” It is his work, his initiative, and it is born of divine and sovereign freedom. He will make this covenant “with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,” a united kingdom, obviously transcending the political divisions of the days of Jeremiah, pointing to the future singular people of God.
Hebrews 8:9
The New Covenant announced by Yahweh is οὐ κατὰ, “not like,” the covenant made with their fathers at Sinai. The force of the phraseology cannot be diminished. The phrase continues the context of contrast from vv. 6 and 7, and in fact explains how the New differs from the Old in what follows. While God had initiated the Old Covenant as well (“I took them by the hand”) and did so in power (the Exodus), “they did not continue in My covenant, and I did not care for them.” The Old Covenant was, by nature, breakable. Why? Because it did not, in and of itself, effect the change in the heart and mind of each member thereof that would cause them to “continue” therein. We have noted the variation between the MT and the LXX at this point. Following the reading in Hebrews, there is, as a result of the defection and faithlessness of the people a resultant response from God, as there always is in response to sin. A violated covenant brings the curses promised in Dt. 28, 29. The history of Israel illustrates the constant cycle of judgment, repentance, blessing, and violation. While there were those who knew the Lord and followed his statutes, they were the remnant, not the norm. For every David there were a dozen Ahabs, though all were part of the Old Covenant. So how does the New Covenant differ? How is the New Covenant not like the Old? What is the result of a more excellent priestly ministry, better sacrifices, a better mediator, better promises, all comprising a better covenant? The next three verses lay out the answer.
Hebrews 8:10
The language used in v. 10 is well-known covenantal language, used by Yahweh in establishing the very covenant to which he is now drawing a contrast (Exod. 6:7; 29:45, 46; Dt. 26:18), just as the priestly, sacrificial language up to this point in the book has been taken over, expanded, and gloriously fulfilled, in Christ. In the great fulfillment of God’s purposes with Israel (“after those days”) God promises to “put My laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts.” Here we encounter a vital exegetical key to a proper understanding of the function of this text for the author: in v. 9 (and possibly v. 8 in the variant) we see “them,” those under the Old Covenant, those who did not continue in his covenant, those for whom God did not care (“I did not care for them”). Verse 10 introduces a new “them” that is in view consistently in vv. 10–12. The “them” here are those in the New Covenant, the “house of Israel” with whom God makes this new and better covenant (v. 10a). A consistent reading of the text then reveals the following actions on God’s part in this verse: 1) God puts his laws in their minds; 2) God writes his laws on their hearts; 3) God will be their God; and 4) they will be God’s people. The contrast then is seen in the all-extensive nature of the New Covenant, for the text demands the continuation of the contrast begun in v. 6, expanded in v. 7, and boldly proclaimed in v. 9. What the Old Covenant had only pictured and hinted at, but failed to produce in them, God fulfills in the better covenant with the better sacrifices and better promises and better mediator. All those with whom he makes this covenant experience what the remnant experienced under the old: true internal conversion resulting in a love for God’s law and a true relationship with him. Quite simply, there is no “remnant” in the New Covenant, and all those with whom God makes this covenant experience its fulfillment. This is why it is better, and hence proves the author’s apologetic presentation of the supremacy of Christ over the old ways.
Hebrews 8:11
The faithful ones in the Old Covenant by nature sought to speak about their God and call those around them to repentance and faith in him. The entire ministry of the prophets of old could be summed up in the constant revelation of the knowledge of God to a hard-hearted and stubborn people. The phrase “know the Lord” or “did not know the Lord” appears a number of times in the Scriptures (Exod. 5:2; Jdg. 2:10; 1 Sam. 2:12; 3:7; Is. 19:21; Hos. 2:20; 5:4; 6:3). Interestingly, though Eli’s sons were members of the Old Covenant, and in fact, were priests, they did not “know the LORD” (1 Sam. 2:12). Obviously, Eli’s sons knew the name of Yahweh; they knew of his “existence.” But they did not know him. The only meaningful way of seeing this is that they knew him externally, but not internally. In Is. 19:21 a prophecy is found in which even the Egyptians come to know the Lord and engage in worship. The Egyptians surely knew about Yahweh (he had despoiled their gods in the Exodus) but they did not know him personally and internally, so this prophecy of a future healing in which the Egyptians will know the Lord would indicate a personal knowledge, an internal knowledge, leading to true worship. Likewise, the phrase appears in Hos. 2:20; 5:4; and 6:3, in the same kind of context, where knowing the Lord is internal, salvific, while not knowing him is likened to a “spirit of harlotry” that precludes them from returning “to their God.” So while members of the Old Covenant could bear the name of Yahweh, and even serve as priests in his worship, and still not know him, the New Covenant will not be like this.
Rather than the natural desire to announce the truth of Yahweh that would exist in the hearts of the remnant in the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant this internal, salvific knowledge of the Lord is universal. “For all will know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.” The great contrast with the Old Covenant, that contained some who did know the Lord, but so many more who did not, is that the covenant that has a better mediator, better sacrifices, better promises, and a better hope, is made with the people of God who know Him, each and every one, “from the least to the greatest of them.” Surely this is the continued contrast that is carried on from the preceding context, and this is seen because of the continuation of the same audience: “and they shall be my people” posits the same audience as “from the least to the greatest of them.” The audience does not all of a sudden change in mid-citation, indeed, it continues, consistently, into the next verse, “For I will be merciful to their iniquities.” The knowledge obviously, then, is as salvific and full as the mercy shown to the iniquities of the very same people. And, as we saw by following the soteriological thought from chapter seven into this discussion, the relationship of “better covenant” with “better mediator” and “intercession,” clearly comes into play here as well. The contrast drawn here between the old “faulted” covenant and the new faultless one is simple: the New Covenant brings salvific knowledge and relationship to all who are in it, “from the least to the greatest of them.” This would be a vital apologetic assertion, again harmonizing with the text perfectly. A New Covenant that did not bring the fullness of the knowledge of God to the covenant members would hardly be superior to the old, and we must always remember that this book was written for a particular purpose with a particular audience in view. The Old Covenant should not attract one who understands the supremacy and perfection of the new. All of these contextual issues establish the simple reading of the text as the best: salvific knowledge is universal in the new, better covenant that God has established in the work of Christ.
Hebrews 8:12
The citation of Jeremiah concludes with the fullest expression of salvific accomplishment. It is important to see that the connection between “they shall know Me” and “I will be merciful to their iniquities” is expressed very strongly through the use of ὅτι, “for I will be merciful….” The reason all in the New Covenant know the Lord savingly is because God will be merciful to their iniquities and will remember their sins no more. How else can the ὅτι be understood? This soteriological fulfillment of the promised covenant explains how the law can be written upon the hearts and minds of those in its fellowship, and how he will be their God and they his people in a fashion superior to and greater than the first covenant. The writer plainly sees in these words a prophetic proclamation of what Christ, the one high priest, would accomplish through his better sacrifice so as to initiate a better covenant based upon better promises leading to a better hope. The singular offering of Christ (Heb. 7:27) and the acceptance of that offering pictured in his entrance into the Holy Place and his being seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens (Heb. 8:1) has made it possible for God to be merciful to the iniquities of those for whom the High Priest now intercedes (Heb. 7:24–25). This will be expanded upon and illustrated in chapters nine and ten as well.
Hebrews 8:13
The writer, having concluded the citation, begins his application. The reference to “the new” (καινὴν) means “the first” (πρώτην) has been made obsolete (πεπαλαίωκεν, perfect active, “to declare old, obsolete”). The word “covenant” does not appear in the text. The very enunciation in Jeremiah of God’s intention to enact the New Covenant indicates that the old will be rendered “obsolete.” There is some discussion as to whether we should take the viewpoint of Jeremiah, or of the writer to the Hebrews, here and in v. 8, though there is little difference in the resulting meanings either direction. Some see in the present participle παλαιούμενον, becoming obsolete, a historical reference that places Hebrews prior to the destruction of the Temple in A.D. 70. In any case, apologetically, the writer is establishing the fact that one cannot return to the old ways for they are growing old, obsolete, and are passing away. The new has come, and the new has replaced the old. It is superior in every way, and thus the writer to the Hebrews encourages believers to remain steadfast in their confession of Christ.
The New Covenant And The Singular Sacrifice That Perfects
The announcement of the New Covenant in Jeremiah re-appears in the argument of the writer in the presentation encapsulated in 10:15–18. Between its appearance in the latter half of chapter eight and its reappearance in chapter ten, the writer has developed his argument on a broad plane. He has delved into the arrangement of the sacred furnishings in the tabernacle, the significance of the Holy Place, all as part of the Spirit’s demonstration of the preparatory and incomplete nature of the shadows and types that were the substance of the Old Covenant “until a time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10). He focuses upon the fulfillment of these types and shadows in the perfect ministry of Christ who has entered into the Holy Place in heaven. His mediation of the New Covenant continues to hold central place (Heb. 9:15). The cleansing of the earthly sanctuary, which is but a shadow, with the sacrifices of goats and bulls, is contrasted with the “better sacrifice” of Christ.
The emphasis then moves to the singularity of that sacrifice in time over against the repetitive sacrifices of the Old Covenant (Heb. 9:25–10:4). Verses 5 through 9 form a biblical argument drawn from Ps. 40:6–8 (as found in the LXX). The argument is fairly simple, for the writer sees in this passage the same contrast that he has just drawn in the first four verses. Specifically, he contrasts the sacrifices and burnt offerings, which he points out were offered in accordance with the law, with the coming of the one who does God’s “will.” He concludes that he (Christ) takes away the first (the offerings and sacrifices) “in order to” (ἵνα, purpose clause) establish the second, which would be the “will” of God accomplished in the death of Christ.
We have already established the deeply soteriological nature of the New Covenant. This is displayed in the very section of Hebrews that argues so strongly for the perfection of the atoning work of Christ. Hence we will invest some space in establishing that connection in the immediate context of Hebrews chapter ten.
The author concludes his argument in v. 10 by stating that it is by “this will” (ἐν ᾧ θελήματι, the will of God for Christ, interpreted by the writer as having “taken away” the first which was made up of the old offerings and sacrifices) that “we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” The writer is speaking within the context of sacrifice and tabernacle, offering and cleansing, and we should not, as a result, immediately import a systematized meaning into the text. That is, many will think of the idea of “progressive sanctification,” whereby we are conformed to the image of Christ and our fleshly lusts mortified. But this is surely not the intention of the writer, nor is that the meaning of the term as it is used in Hebrews. To sanctify something, within the context of the tabernacle and sacrifice, is to set it aside as holy unto God. We note two other important aspects of interpreting this term: as it is used here it is the immediate result of the sacrificial offering of the physical body of Jesus Christ, and this is a once-for-all, singular event (expressed by ἐφάπαξ). These considerations are important for this is something that has been accomplished by the death of Christ.
The specific construction the author uses is called a periphrastic. The phrase is ἡγιασμένοι ἐσμὲν, we have been sanctified. One of the key elements in grasping the tremendous message of Hebrews chapter ten is to hear it not in the modern parlance but in the ancient context, as the author intended. The phrase the author uses to describe the result of Christ’s work carries a particular meaning. Periphrastics combine the ever-expressive Greek participle with a finite verbal form (normally ofεἰμί). The result is an enhanced or emphasized “tense meaning.” In this case, when you combine a perfect participle with a present tense form of εἰμί, the result is a perfect tense periphrastic construction.
While some grammarians today do not see the periphrastic as containing an added emphasis, many do. In this case, the periphrastic would emphasize the completedness of the action (which makes perfect sense in light of the argument the author is presenting). The writer is then emphasizing the fact that the “will” fulfilled or accomplished by Christ in his offering of his own body upon Calvary has sanctified us as a completed action in the past. This is not a conditional statement. It is not a provisional statement. It is not a theoretical statement. It is a statement of fact, placed firmly in the past with perfective emphasis. “We have been sanctified.” We have been made holy, we have been set apart unto God. This must be kept in mind when we read v. 14 and its description of those who are sanctified.
Exegesis Of Hebrews 10:11-18
Verses 11 through 13 form a parentheses, repeating in another fashion the argument already enunciated regarding the Old Covenant and its repetitious sacrifices. The same sacrifices are offered over and over and over again, all in accordance with God’s law. The writer will contrast the standing priest (ἕστηκεν) whose work is never done with the seated Savior whose work is finished and accomplished. He likewise makes sure the on-going, repetitive nature of the old sacrifices is seen (καθ᾿ ἡμέραν λειτουργῶν) by including “daily” and using the present tense of the participle “ministering.” He piles term upon term to make sure we see the entirety of the long line of priests, offering sacrifices that can never take away sins. How can the congregants go back to a system such as this, when they have come to understand the singularity of the finished sacrifice of Christ? These repetitive sacrifices lack the power or ability to take away sins (οὐδέποτε δύνανται).
In v. 12 we have the very purposeful “but He” in contrast to “every priest.” Christ “offered,” past tense (προσενέγκας) one sacrifice for sins forever, this over against the regular offering of the priests of the Old Covenant. And the contrast is made complete in stating that Christ sat down at the right hand of God, fulfilling, in v. 13, the great Messianic Psalm 110. He does not go in and out, as the old priests, but he waits, rests, his work as High Priest now defined as the passive presentation of his finished work in his own body: indeed, he is the Lamb “standing, as if slain” before the throne (Rev. 5:6). His work of intercession is not a further work that adds to his sacrifice: his people are united to him in his death, and his death avails for them. As the risen Victor he is seated at the right hand of the Father, his ever-present resurrected body still bearing the marks of the sacrifice, “pleading effectual prayers” in the words of the hymn writer, the constant testimony to the finished work accomplished on Calvary.
Verse 14 is closely related to v. 10. Both verses speak of the offering of Christ. Both emphasize the singularity of the event, v. 10 by using “once for all” and v. 14 using “one [offering].” Verse 10 tells us the offering of the body of Jesus Christ “sanctifies” as a perfective action; v. 14 says it “perfects” or “completes,” this time using the perfect tense verb, τετελείωκεν. The intriguing difference between the verbs is the use of “sanctified.” In v. 10 it is the result of the “will” of God fulfilled through the offering of the body of Christ. “We have been sanctified.” But in v. 14 it becomes the identifier of the objects of the action of making perfect, “those who are sanctified.” So the question becomes, how can the offering of Christ be the means of creating the group who are sanctified and also be the means of perfecting that same group? The participle “those who are sanctified” should be understood in light of the emphasis that has already been made regarding the perfective result of the work of Christ: “we have been sanctified,” and hence, we are sanctified. It is a simple statement of fact: this singular offering perfects those who are sanctified. It is not the author’s intention for the participle to add a further statement about the nature of sanctification, as that has already been stated in v. 10. So the NASB’s translation correctly identifies the function of the participle with the rendering, “those who are sanctified.”
Having announced the tremendous perfection of the work of Christ (plainly a soteriological context), the writer calls upon the Scriptures as another witness in vv. 15–18. He does so, however, by identifying the words of Jer. 31 as the very testimony of the Holy Spirit (an impressive witness to the view of the writers of Scripture themselves regarding the nature of the Word). The New Covenant passage from Jeremiah is again cited, with minor variations from the form found in Heb. 8,[11] but the material embodied in Heb. 8:11 is not repeated. The introductory statement, “for after saying,” has led the NASB to insert the phrase “He then says” in italics prior to v. 17 and the final element of the Jeremiah citation regarding the forgiveness of sins. This insertion would be based upon the need to complete the thought in English implied by the introduction, “after saying.” It seems logical to see the break in the citation of Jeremiah as the place to insert “He then says.”
The point in the use of the text regarding the New Covenant is focused upon the soteriological element. Just as we saw in examining the text of Heb. 8, so here the placing of the law upon the heart and writing it upon the mind is connected directly to the forgiveness of sins. The same audience is in view throughout the text. In Heb. 10:16–18 the point of the writer is to see in the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy in the priestly ministry and offering of Christ the very ending of all of the types and shadows that reflected that coming singular sacrifice that “perfected for all time those who are sanctified.” The writer says, “where there is forgiveness of these things” (τούτων), referring to the substance of v. 17, “there is no longer any offering for sin.” Such argumentation makes no sense unless this covenant has been established and is thereby rendering the old obsolete, so that there is no longer any offering for sin outside of the completed, finished work of Christ. The old ways cannot attract the true believer, for there is no longer any sacrifice for sin in the old system. It has been done away, fulfilled, in the one-time-offering of Jesus Christ. This then lays the foundation for the author’s encouragement to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus (v. 19), for the work is finished, the better covenant is in place, and its promises valid and applicable. Truly we see here the fulfillment of the words of our faithful High Priest on the night of his betrayal, when he established the covenant meal for his people, “This is the new covenant in My blood” (Lk. 22:20).
Exegetical Summary
To summarize what we have seen on the basis of the text:
- The context of Hebrews as a whole is apologetic and exhortational: it is seeking to encourage fidelity to the faith through the demonstration of the supremacy of Christ in every aspect of his ministry and person. Any interpretation that leads away from such an argument has missed the thrust of the epistle.
- The use of the term “better” by the author is part of his apologetic approach. The complex of phrases seen in “mediator of a better covenant,” “better sacrifices,” “better promises,” “better hope,” and “more excellent ministry” are tied intimately to the work of Christ and to the establishment, nature, application, and fulfillment of the New Covenant. The New Covenant has distinct, unquestionably soteriological ramifications.
- The audiences addressed in the citation from Jeremiah remain consistent throughout: those who were under the Old Covenant are not confused with those under the New. Beginning in v. 10 the same audience is in view throughout the rest of the citation. This means that those who have the law written upon their hearts and minds (v. 10) are those who know the Lord savingly (v. 11) and who have their sins forgiven (v. 12). There is no textual basis (linguistically or contextually) for positing separate, distinct audiences for differing descriptions of God’s activities as recorded in Heb. 8:10–12.
- As a result of the third point, we discover that all who are in the New Covenant, “from the least to the greatest of them,” experience the fullness of the covenant. There is no “remnant” as with the Old Covenant, but, due to its soteriological nature, those in the New Covenant receive remission of sins and know the Lord savingly. This is part and parcel of the New Covenant’s superiority to the old.
- This consistent theme is continued on and comes to expression again in chapter ten when the New Covenant passage from Jeremiah is again cited and attached directly to the finished, sanctifying, perfecting work of Christ in his once for all offering of himself. The ending of offerings for sin is proven by reference to the fact that Christ has offered himself once for all, and that this, through the testimony of the Holy Spirit regarding the New Covenant, brings about remission of sins.
The relevance of the preceding exegetical inquiry for Reformed Baptists is rather obvious. One of the key issues separating credobaptists from paedobaptists is the nature of the New Covenant, and its relationship to the Covenant of Grace. In my work as an apologist, I have engaged in more than three dozen moderated, public debates against Roman Catholic apologists, and a number of those have been focused upon the issue of the Mass. As an elder in a Reformed Baptist Church, I have approached the issue as one seeking to be consistent in my defense of the faith, but realizing that I must create my apologetic based upon a fully biblical and consistent theology. I believe in particular redemption, and hence am automatically drawn to Heb. 10 in defining the perfection of the work of Christ in behalf of his people. But it was in pondering this very truth in light of the Roman Catholic claim that the Mass is a re-presentation of the one sacrifice of Calvary (and hence not a re-sacrificing of Christ) that I was struck by the inconsistency of holding to both the concept of particular redemption and to the idea that the New Covenant, the covenant in Christ’s blood, the better covenant with a better mediator, a mediator whose intercession saves to the uttermost, could be entered into by those who will fail to receive eternal salvation. And so it was natural for me to see the truths of Christ’s mediatorial perfection and his sacrificial offering in behalf of the members of the New Covenant as standing in opposition to those who would on the one hand affirm particular redemption but, then, make the covenant in Christ’s blood one that, like the Old Covenant, contained both regenerate and unregenerate individuals.
In the second part of this article we will examine some of the arguments presented in defense of making the New Covenant a mixed covenant, containing both regenerate and unregenerate people. As noted in the introduction, we will do this with reference to The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism, focusing primarily on the presentation of Pastor Jeff Niell, but also contrasting the perspective offered by Richard Pratt. Specifically, Pastor Niell insists that the newness of the New Covenant is to be construed in a tremendously more limited fashion than our exegesis has indicated. We will present a number of citations directly from the work, and interact with them based upon the exegesis just provided.
Notes
- The second part of this article is scheduled to be printed in RBTR 2:1, January 2005.
- Most of the variants in the actual citation of the LXX flow from later scribes possessing a different “stream” of Septuagint readings and seeking harmonization on that basis. There are some interesting, but not overly relevant, variants in how the text is cited in Heb. 8 and 10, but these do not impact the exegesis.
- Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994), 597, says the variant “makes very little difference in sense, though the latter may be construed with either μεμφόμενος or λέγει.”
- αὐτοὺς is the original reading of א, A, the original reading of D, some early uncials, most early versions in other languages, and a few early Fathers. αὐτοῖς is the corrected reading of א and D, and is the reading of the early papyrus p46, along with B, 1749, 1881, and is the reading of the vast bulk of later minuscule manuscripts. Metzger indicated that “the direction in which scribal corrections moved” determined the acceptance of αὐτοὺς by the UBS translation committee (Metzger, Textual Commentary, 597), but one is left wondering what factors influenced such a general “directional” tendency. The conjunction of p46, B, the early correction of א, and the consideration that other ancient language translations would not necessarily reflect an understanding of the fact that μέμφομαι can take its object in the dative or the accusative, seems to this writer to give a slight edge to αὐτοῖς.
- Philip Edgecombe Hughes, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 298, 299.
- ἔγγυος is a hapax legomena in the NT, appearing only in the Apocryphal books of Sirach and 2 Maccabees prior to this. It has semantic connections to ἀρραβὼν (down payment) in Eph. 1:14, for in common secular usage it refers to providing security or a guarantee, normally in a financial or business transaction. The guarantee then of the better covenant is introduced here within the context of Christ’s superior priesthood, his indestructible life, and divine ability to save to the uttermost (Heb. 7:24–25).
- Using the common μὲν/δὲ form translated “on the one hand/on the other hand.”
- ὅθεν, “for which reason.”
- John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in The Works of John Owen, ed., William Goold, ed. (Ages Digital Library, 2000), 20:646, 647.
- See the extended discussion of Owen in Ibid., 21:66ff.
- The differences raise a number of issues regarding the citation of translations, the role of the LXX in the New Testament, etc. In this instance, given the reorganization of the material of Jer. 31:34 (38:34 LXX) and the fact that the more literal rendering found in the LXX is found just a little earlier at Heb. 8:12, it would seem that the form of Heb. 10:17 is best explained as a paraphrase focusing attention upon sins and lawless deeds in a more compact statement, leading to the conclusion in v. 18.
