The Types and Shadows of Christ
Hebrews 8
1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain."
The Future Temple?
To suggest that the earthly priests will one day make sacrifices again is to suggest either that, they will once again service the stipulations of that old and terrible covenant, or that a third covenant after the New Covenant must be set up for them to mediate. The former cannot be true because it would cause a digression in spite of God’s revelation and the author says this in verse 4, “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.” If in a Dispensational millennium, earthly priests are offering gifts according to the law in an earthly temple, and Christ is present on earth with them, then based on what is said in verse 4 He would not be a priest at all. It is significant that the author of Hebrews quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 here and thus there cannot be a third covenant after the New Covenant for the earthly high priest to mediate because “the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” There couldn’t be a clearer statement than the one in verse four to cause us to believe that once Christ has come in the flesh, and especially after His return, there will never be any reestablishment of the Levitical priesthood because if Christ were on earth at the time when (as Dispensationalism claims) Ezekiel’s temple is built and priests after the order of Aaron are making sacrifices, “he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law”
The Dispensational view of the kingdom, the temple, and the future earthly high priests is that, in the institution of this new covenant, the old one vanishes. It is not postponed or put off for a little while, it completely vanishes because Christ’s incarnation never ceases. Unless one suggests that the phrase “vanish away” means that it will only temporarily disappear, then its meaning here cannot be rightly understood in the confines of that dispensational perspective (a coming time when God will resume His dealings with ethnic Israel in the Old Covenant, giving them the blessings of that covenant—which above it is said to have vanished). I believe that some have recommended that the covenant spoken of in Jeremiah is a covenant renewal connected to what Paul also spoke of in Romans 11, where it is said that, in this way, all Israel will be saved. But to consign the New Covenant (the covenant prophesied by Jeremiah) exclusively to ethnic Israel is to deny all references to the New Covenant in the Apostolic writings, in fact it is a denial of the New Testament all together because that is the purpose of the canon of post incarnation scriptures—to proclaim the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in Christ; to show Christ as the substance of former shadows and the archetype of former types, and to name the New covenant as a contrast to the Old Mosaic covenant. Therefore when the author of the book of Hebrews uses the word “vanishes”, he means to say that the Old Covenant is finished and over because the new and better covenant has been fulfilled in Christ.
6 But as it is, 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. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 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.
Because we are captive to our culture and confine ourselves by our own literary intuitions, we get hung up on the chronology in verse 10. Speaking about the covenant prophesied in Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews makes the statement, “…after those days…” and it offends our sensibilities to suggest that Jeremiah and the author here could possibly be talking about the Abrahamic covenant, because, chronologically speaking, that covenant came before those days, because those days refers to the days of the Old Mosaic Covenant; the days when God brought them out of Egypt. But it is neither right nor good to draw such a hard line here, yes it is very true that God cut the covenant with Abraham before He brought the people out of the land of Egypt but the promises of that covenant, and all its blessings were not distributed before the exodus; the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and its fulfillment is most certainly after those days, and it is therefore perfectly alright for the author of Hebrews to speak of it that way. So we can say that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant’s promises. We know that God made His covenant with Abraham prior to the Mosaic Covenant, but in verse 13 the author says that this New Covenant makes the first one obsolete. The Mosaic Covenant is the first one being spoken of here, even though it is second coming after Abrahamic covenant. The point is that in relationship to the New Covenant, the Old covenant is the first one, and my specific point here is to say that we should not be confused by thinking that this is contradictory language because in reality it is language that is relative—the Mosaic to the New.
I think that if we look very carefully at the meaning of the Hebrews 8 passage above, we will see only two covenants represented: the Old Covenant and the New; the Mosaic covenant which was a reinstitution (or fulfillment of sorts) of the covenant made with Adam and the covenant in Christ’s blood (which in part, is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant). It is said that Christ obtained a more excellent ministry in His high priestly position than that of the earthly priests because He mediates a covenant with better promises—promises of life, while the covenant mediated by the earthly priests promised only physical land under the condition of obedience to the whole law, and condemnation through the law upon their corporate disobedience. So the promises of the Mosaic (Old) Covenant, though they did point to the better promises of the New Covenant, were but shadows of the promises God has made to His people in the New Covenant.
The True Israel of God
One of the reasons why covenant theologians say that the church is the true Israel of God is because the New Testament places us gentiles in the New Covenant, and it relates the New Covenant with the sacrament of communion. The covenant spoken of in Jeremiah is the new covenant in Christ’s blood. The days which are coming (spoken of in Jeremiah) are inaugurated by the days after Christ has come in the flesh and the people with whom the covenant is made, according to the prophecy in Jeremiah, are the house of Judah and Israel, but according to the author of Hebrews (and the rest of the pertinent verses in the New Testament) the members of that group ultimately include more than just the physical descendants of Abraham. So the questions we must ask ourselves now is, does the New Testament author contradict the Old by applying the terms Judah and Israel to non-ethnic Jews, or does the author misinterpret the Old Testament verses by applying the terms Judah and Israel to non-ethnic Jews, or does the New Testament author actually give us the fuller revelation of those verses by expanding their meaning? I submit that the later is the right answer. One of the promises of the New Covenant is that the law will be written on the hearts of everyone who partakes in that covenant, a writing which was typified in the Old Covenant by the writing of the law on stone tablets. They will not need to teach their neighbors and brothers like the remnant of saints (true Israelites) had to do in the Old Covenant because they were members of two groups—they were the children of God because they shared in the faith that Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised, and they were part off the physical nation of Israel who received the benefits of the physical land by way of the Old Covenant, but those old saints might also have been witnesses to other Old Covenant members who may have been their physical brothers who shared with them in the Mosaic covenant blessings but with whom they were not spiritual brothers because they had not been born of God. So it is right to say that in the Mosaic covenant not all its partakers were of the true Israel of God but all those in this New Covenant will be part of the True Israel of God, the seed of Abraham; they are the true circumcision.
Conclusion
So in essence, the Old Covenant is only a type which foreshadows the new just like the old Sabbath rest is only a shadow of the substantial rest we have in Christ.
Hebrews 8
1 Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, 2 a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. 3 For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. 5 They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain."
The Future Temple?
To suggest that the earthly priests will one day make sacrifices again is to suggest either that, they will once again service the stipulations of that old and terrible covenant, or that a third covenant after the New Covenant must be set up for them to mediate. The former cannot be true because it would cause a digression in spite of God’s revelation and the author says this in verse 4, “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law.” If in a Dispensational millennium, earthly priests are offering gifts according to the law in an earthly temple, and Christ is present on earth with them, then based on what is said in verse 4 He would not be a priest at all. It is significant that the author of Hebrews quoted Jeremiah 31:31-34 here and thus there cannot be a third covenant after the New Covenant for the earthly high priest to mediate because “the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” There couldn’t be a clearer statement than the one in verse four to cause us to believe that once Christ has come in the flesh, and especially after His return, there will never be any reestablishment of the Levitical priesthood because if Christ were on earth at the time when (as Dispensationalism claims) Ezekiel’s temple is built and priests after the order of Aaron are making sacrifices, “he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law”
The Dispensational view of the kingdom, the temple, and the future earthly high priests is that, in the institution of this new covenant, the old one vanishes. It is not postponed or put off for a little while, it completely vanishes because Christ’s incarnation never ceases. Unless one suggests that the phrase “vanish away” means that it will only temporarily disappear, then its meaning here cannot be rightly understood in the confines of that dispensational perspective (a coming time when God will resume His dealings with ethnic Israel in the Old Covenant, giving them the blessings of that covenant—which above it is said to have vanished). I believe that some have recommended that the covenant spoken of in Jeremiah is a covenant renewal connected to what Paul also spoke of in Romans 11, where it is said that, in this way, all Israel will be saved. But to consign the New Covenant (the covenant prophesied by Jeremiah) exclusively to ethnic Israel is to deny all references to the New Covenant in the Apostolic writings, in fact it is a denial of the New Testament all together because that is the purpose of the canon of post incarnation scriptures—to proclaim the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in Christ; to show Christ as the substance of former shadows and the archetype of former types, and to name the New covenant as a contrast to the Old Mosaic covenant. Therefore when the author of the book of Hebrews uses the word “vanishes”, he means to say that the Old Covenant is finished and over because the new and better covenant has been fulfilled in Christ.
6 But as it is, 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. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. 8 For he finds fault with them when he says: "Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 9 not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 11 And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." 13 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.
Because we are captive to our culture and confine ourselves by our own literary intuitions, we get hung up on the chronology in verse 10. Speaking about the covenant prophesied in Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews makes the statement, “…after those days…” and it offends our sensibilities to suggest that Jeremiah and the author here could possibly be talking about the Abrahamic covenant, because, chronologically speaking, that covenant came before those days, because those days refers to the days of the Old Mosaic Covenant; the days when God brought them out of Egypt. But it is neither right nor good to draw such a hard line here, yes it is very true that God cut the covenant with Abraham before He brought the people out of the land of Egypt but the promises of that covenant, and all its blessings were not distributed before the exodus; the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and its fulfillment is most certainly after those days, and it is therefore perfectly alright for the author of Hebrews to speak of it that way. So we can say that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant’s promises. We know that God made His covenant with Abraham prior to the Mosaic Covenant, but in verse 13 the author says that this New Covenant makes the first one obsolete. The Mosaic Covenant is the first one being spoken of here, even though it is second coming after Abrahamic covenant. The point is that in relationship to the New Covenant, the Old covenant is the first one, and my specific point here is to say that we should not be confused by thinking that this is contradictory language because in reality it is language that is relative—the Mosaic to the New.
I think that if we look very carefully at the meaning of the Hebrews 8 passage above, we will see only two covenants represented: the Old Covenant and the New; the Mosaic covenant which was a reinstitution (or fulfillment of sorts) of the covenant made with Adam and the covenant in Christ’s blood (which in part, is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant). It is said that Christ obtained a more excellent ministry in His high priestly position than that of the earthly priests because He mediates a covenant with better promises—promises of life, while the covenant mediated by the earthly priests promised only physical land under the condition of obedience to the whole law, and condemnation through the law upon their corporate disobedience. So the promises of the Mosaic (Old) Covenant, though they did point to the better promises of the New Covenant, were but shadows of the promises God has made to His people in the New Covenant.
The True Israel of God
One of the reasons why covenant theologians say that the church is the true Israel of God is because the New Testament places us gentiles in the New Covenant, and it relates the New Covenant with the sacrament of communion. The covenant spoken of in Jeremiah is the new covenant in Christ’s blood. The days which are coming (spoken of in Jeremiah) are inaugurated by the days after Christ has come in the flesh and the people with whom the covenant is made, according to the prophecy in Jeremiah, are the house of Judah and Israel, but according to the author of Hebrews (and the rest of the pertinent verses in the New Testament) the members of that group ultimately include more than just the physical descendants of Abraham. So the questions we must ask ourselves now is, does the New Testament author contradict the Old by applying the terms Judah and Israel to non-ethnic Jews, or does the author misinterpret the Old Testament verses by applying the terms Judah and Israel to non-ethnic Jews, or does the New Testament author actually give us the fuller revelation of those verses by expanding their meaning? I submit that the later is the right answer. One of the promises of the New Covenant is that the law will be written on the hearts of everyone who partakes in that covenant, a writing which was typified in the Old Covenant by the writing of the law on stone tablets. They will not need to teach their neighbors and brothers like the remnant of saints (true Israelites) had to do in the Old Covenant because they were members of two groups—they were the children of God because they shared in the faith that Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised, and they were part off the physical nation of Israel who received the benefits of the physical land by way of the Old Covenant, but those old saints might also have been witnesses to other Old Covenant members who may have been their physical brothers who shared with them in the Mosaic covenant blessings but with whom they were not spiritual brothers because they had not been born of God. So it is right to say that in the Mosaic covenant not all its partakers were of the true Israel of God but all those in this New Covenant will be part of the True Israel of God, the seed of Abraham; they are the true circumcision.
Conclusion
So in essence, the Old Covenant is only a type which foreshadows the new just like the old Sabbath rest is only a shadow of the substantial rest we have in Christ.
No comments:
Post a Comment