Re: Naked Bible 193: Hebrews 8
In order to do this justice, I need to establish something fundamental to the thinking used by the author of Hebrews. Westerners who are pickled in Hellenism are going to see some parallels in this chapter to Plato. But there are very substantial differences between Hellenism and Hebrew.
For Plato, mankind is the measure of all things. While most people can’t be bothered to rise above their mundane daily existence, there exists a realm of idealism to which mankind can aspire. The difference between ideal versus real is a matter of potential. The whole thing pushes mankind to do better, to strive for perfection. Mankind is perfectible.
In the Hebrew world, this would be impossible. It’s not merely a difference in words, but for the Hebrew mind the real is eternal, while this world is a shadow, an unperfectible corruption of the real. Ultimate reality is entirely unknowable without divine revelation. Mankind cannot on its own even be aware of the real without divine intervention.
Thus, the writer of Hebrews starts off this chapter with a Christ as the real High Priest. Moreover, He is sitting on His throne, unlike the Mosaic priests who must frequently offer sacrifices for themselves and the people. Jesus was the real offering, who now serves in the real Tabernacle, not the one Moses had assembled. The Tabernacle in the Wilderness was based on the real thing, but it could never displace it. Rather, the real thing displaces the earthly model. Thus, Christ’s service as High Priest is the real thing, not the simulation organized under Moses.
The New Covenant is the real thing, and the promises are eternal. The Old Covenant was handed down from God as a placeholder for the one that was coming. We note that the writer prefers the image of the Tabernacle instead of the Temple still standing in Jerusalem for this reason. He’s pointing out that at no time was the Tabernacle and its rituals, from the very beginning, the real deal.
Also, the writer chose the Greek word leitourgein in verse 2 specifically to denote a public ritual service someone performs at their own expense. Christ provides the means for the worship the whole world owes to God.
Heiser notes that this chapter has a dualism that is more than simply a contrast between above versus below (metaphysical), but also first versus final (temporal). This would be critical in Hebrew thinking, particularly when the author was steeped in Alexandrian education. It’s more than the typical Hellenized dualism, but the Hebrew outlook, as well. It echoes Paul in Colossians 2:17.
Thus, the strict Sabbath observance and dietary laws are part of that shadowy symbolism of the real thing that has finally come. How could anyone go back? There’s nothing wrong with most Jewish habits, but they are not a supplement that the New Covenant needs. God completed all things in His Son.
The writer quotes from Jeremiah 31, where the prophet declares the New Covenant was coming, back during the time Babylon came and took Israel into Exile. It is the longest OT quote in the NT. The ideas link to the Servant passages in Isaiah and “covenant of peace” mentioned in 54:10. Ezekiel mentioned it, as well, in 11:19; 36:26-27. The Old Covenant never had the power to change hearts. The Torah is passing away; it’s atrophied already.
The Old Covenant was weak; it’s only purpose was to show Israel that she needed a Savior. Then, Israel was supposed to tell the whole world. Think about all that Israel could have had if she had only stayed on track. So, when Paul says in Galatians 3:23-29 that the old was a form of captivity, who would want to go back to that? Are you going to surrender the Presence of His Holy Spirit?
