Hebrews 7:11-9:7
In order that any subject found in the Epistle to the (Messianic) Hebrews, it would be of value to briefly set the milieu of the author, date and destination the Epistle.
Author: The author is not mentioned in any part of Scripture, but it is evident that the author was Jewish, well versed in the practices of Judaism (Fruchtenbaum p.3) and having full knowledge of the Septuagint (Tasker p.30). Several suggestions have been put forward, but Roth states that it was Rav Sha`ul (Paul of Tarsus) on the evidence of early Aramaic references to a post-script in his name (Roth p.814), similar to those found in the Letters to the Galatian, Ephesian, Philippian Messianic Assemblies and the use of Timothy to deliver the messages as per 1 Thessolonians. This is also the conclusion drawn by Sir Robert Anderson (Anderson R. p.16) and Matthew Henry (Henry p.1240). Although the author was fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, when discussing a technical matter, it s usual for the writer to revert to the language most suited to the theme.
The theme of warning not to return to the sacrificial system can be seen in both this Epistle and that of to the Galatians.
Date: The suggestions of commentators widely differ, especially as the author cannot be confirmed. However, a date circa 62-65 C.E. seems to be reasonably accurate given internal and external textual evidence (Fruchtenbaum p.6; Henry p.1240; Roth p.815; Tasker p.39). The significance of this date is that, within a few years (70 C.E.), the Temple would be destroyed.
Destination: The Epistle was written to a community of Messianic Believers. The contents would have been difficult to understand to those without an intimate knowledge of the Temple sacrificial system, and close enough to may be considering a return to that system. This would probably indicate a small community living near to Yerushalayim (Fruchtenbaum p.5).
Therefore, the Epistle to (Messianic) Hebrews must be read with a 1st. Century Judaic and not Hellenistic paradigm.
It is my consideration that there has been, is and will ever only be one Covenant (Jer. 31:33; Eze. 11:20; Heb. 8:10). However, the use of ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Covenants/Testaments have been almost universally accepted.
It has been stated:
The ‘old’ covenant was brought into force by the giving of the ‘first’ written Law at Mt. Sinai. This ‘first’ Law was supposed to convict people of their sin and how to turn back to the righteous YHWH. However, the ‘first’ Law clearly failed as only a very small minority of people turned back to YHWH. To Jews, there was no need for a ‘second’ Law or ‘better Covenant’, (as the Oral Law was considered to have been given along with the Written Law at Mt. Sinai) and therefore there was nothing that needed to be added. The Law (Tanakh) was all-sufficient.
Nevertheless, because the Law obviously failed, YHWH deemed it necessary to introduce a ‘better’ or ‘superior’ Covenant enacted by the Law of Grace (Jer. 31:33; Rom. 6:14). All are now under Grace and not Law because of the completed work. To many Christians, the Law has been done away with and replaced by the ‘superior’ grace.
This can be seen as the Christian justification for the ending of the ‘first’, ‘inferior’ Law by the ‘second’ ‘superior’ Grace.
However, if the ‘first’ Law failed because of the lack of people turning back to YHWH, then it is only right to apply the same criteria to the ‘second’ Law of Grace. In this age of Grace, can it be said that most, the majority or even at least a large minority have turned back to YHWH through Grace?
The answer must clearly be no.
Therefore, applying the same criteria, YHWH must now deem a ‘third’ yet more ‘superior’ Law to be necessary. Although Christians believe that Scripture clearly shows there is no ‘third’ Law, but this is what was said by the Jews with the ‘first’ Law. They were blind to the Law of Grace, so why should not Christians be equally blinded to a ‘third’ Law?
The above argument also does not take into account of people who lived pre-Sinai.
Therefore, I would suggest that there is only one superior Law that is applicable to all people for all times. The Master Himself stated as such (John 14:6). The ‘first’ Covenant looked forward to the sacerdotal work the Messiah Yeshua whilst the ‘second’ Covenant looks back at the same work. It is by faith that all (pre- and post- Sinai and post-Golgotha) that secures salvation (Rom. 5:1, 9; Gal. 3:11). The Law (with all its attending sacrifices) could not and cannot save, but then it was never intended too (Gal. 3:24).
The single Covenant forms the basis of a ketubah, a marriage contract between YHWH `Elohiym as the Son and Man. Throughout the ages, YHWH has progressively revealed Himself by His Word. At critical stages in the development of Mankind, YHWH has given a new, additional aspect of His character. This is what I believe is the purpose of the Adamic, Noachic, Avrahamic, Mosheic, Davidic and finally Messianic Covenants. The Noachic does not replace the Adamic, the Avrahamic replacing the Noachic etc. Each subsequent ‘covenant’ is the re-iteration of the previous ‘covenant’ plus the additional revelation of YHWH until finally, the Messianic covenant erroneously termed the ‘New Covenant’.
During the fourteen generations between the King David and the incarnation of YHWH in the Son constitutes a period of continual decline whereby the (Adamic+Noachic+Avrahamic+Mosheic+Davidic) Covenant was neglected in favour of the Oral Law. These traditions of the Judaic fathers (Gal. 1:13, 14) were considered of equal primacy with the Written Law (and still does in modern Orthodox Judaism). YHWH sent His prophets to turn back His people to Him (Luke 11:47; Acts 7:52).
At no time was the covenant annulled, a git the certificate of divorce ever issued. Even when the ultimate, full self-revelation of YHWH in the Son was made known, the people still turned away from YHWH (cf. Matt. 21:33-46; 1 Thess. 2:15). As each successive revelation required a reviewing and renewing ‘of the marriage vows’, the full ketubah was only reviewed, renewed and finalised with the Messiah’s death. There can be no further ‘covenants’ as there is no longer anything Man needs to know of YHWH.
I thought that this was a critical point to bring to bear on the subject passage, removing complications around the misuse or insertion of the term ‘covenant’.
“Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another Kohen to arise after the order of Malki-Tzedek, and not be called after the order of Aharon?” (Heb. 7:11).
Given the stance of a single Covenant, then there must have been a priesthood in place to oversee this Covenant. Can this be seen in Scripture? From the forming of Adam (Gen. 3:7) to the expulsion of Kayin (Gen. 4:16) Scripture informs us that YHWH `Elohiym was His own High Priest (Gen. 3:21). From Kayin to Sinai here was no Written Law to empower the Levitical Priesthood. Therefore, there must have been in place a Malki-Tzedekian priesthood of which the King of Shalem was the High Priest at the time of his accounter with Avram (Gen. 14:18). It was this priesthood that all heads of households were YHWH-called to perform prior to Sinai (Gen. 22:1-19), of which Malki-Tzedek was the High Priest. The akeida (binding of Yitz`chak – Gen. 22:9) is confirmation and of type of this priesthood rather than the Levitical priesthood (Roth p.816).
From Sinai to the Crucifixion the Law empowered the Levitical priesthood.
From the Crucifixion to the Return of the Messiah the priesthood would be of the order of Malki-Tzedek. However, the Levitical priesthood would be re-instated by Man some time prior to the revelation of the Abomination that causes desolation (Dan. 12:10; Matt. 24:15) in the Sanctuary not ordained by YHWH (Isa. 66:1, 2).
From the Return to the Great White Throne Judgement, there will be a sacrificial system in place. However, there will only be votive offerings as the requirement for expiatory offerings is annulled by the lack of sin (Zeph. 3:13). This must be officiated by the Levitical priesthood in the Millennial Temple (cf Eze. 40:1-44:31) wherein the Prince, the Messiah Yeshua, also goes up to the Temple, provides the offerings, but it will be a priest, not Him, that will handle the sacrifices (Eze. 45:19).
In the New Yerushalayim there will no longer be sacrifices as there will be no Sanctuary for YHWH and the Lamb will be the Sanctuary (Rev. 21:22).
“Therefore, if it had been possible to reach the goal through the system of cohanim derived from Levi (since, in connection with it, the people were given the Torah), what need would there have been for another, different kind of cohen, the one spoken of as to be compared with Malki-Tzedek and not to be compared with Aharon?” (Heb. 7:11 Stern).
Stern’s Complete Jewish Bible translation above states that the giving of the Torah, and its associated Levitical priesthood, was to reach a specific target. This target was the standard set by YHWH for its people to come into His presence to worship. Therefore, it was the purpose of the Levitical priesthood to show and facilitate this process (cf. Jer. 31:31-34; 2 Cor. 3:1-18). Unfortunately, the imperfect could not bring about the perfect (Matt. 15:14).
Nevertheless, the Law was given as that standard of perfection made known (Psa. 19:7-10). Therefore in order to accomplish this perfection, only a system of perfection can bring about perfection.
Consider the process of Jer. 31:31-34 and 2 Cor. 3:1-18. This standard has now been written by Ruach HaKodesh (YHWH’s Spirit) as part of His indwelling presence. This can be liken to the Written Law and requires the facilitation of One who is perfect. For the Believer to be made perfect (in the image of the Master, Yeshua) HaRuach has given five offices to Man (Eph. 4:8-13).
- Apostle – the Master was called by the Father ( 10:40).
- Prophet – the Master was raised up by the Father ( 18:15, 18; John 7:40).
- Preacher – the Master proclaimed the Father’s Good News message (Luke 10:16).
- Pastor – the Master was the Good Shepherd ( 5:3; Matt. 2:6; Heb. 13:20).
- Teacher – the Master was recognised as such (Mark 10:17, 18; John 20:16).
These offices were given to Man to carry out in the role of priest (1 Pt. 2:5, 9), with the Messiah as its Malki-Tzedekian High Priest, as was the Law through the Levitical priesthood and its Aharonic High Priest, for the instruction (Torah) onto righteousness.
“For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he said, “Behold, the days come,” says the Lord, “That I will make a new covenant with the house of Yisra’el and with the house of Yehudah;” (Heb. 8:7, 8).
How can a YHWH-given Covenant be faulty?
The common man-made insertion of ‘covenant’ is indicative of the false teachings of the early Church Fathers and Roman Catholic Church, requiring a theological reason why the ‘first’ covenant (erroneously labelled the Old Testament) had to be annulled by a ‘second’ covenant (New Testament). This ‘new’ covenant had to be enacted by the shed Blood of the Messiah Yeshua, so that Christians could be shown as being ‘superior’ to Jews because of their ‘superior’ covenant.
The ‘second’ ministry was necessary to show the short-comings, not the failure of the ‘first’ ministry. The ‘first’ ministry carried out the ordinances of YHWH, although imperfectly, according to the Law and these sacrifices were found acceptable, in the greater part, by YHWH. Torah was required to show sin as sin (Rom. 7:13). Sin has been ever-present since the Fall (Gen. 3:7; Rom. 5:12), so therefore must be the expiation (Gen. 3:21) and priests to officiate the offerings (ref. Household priesthood above).
Why can the Law not ‘change the hearts of men’? If there was no recognition of sin without Torah, then when Torah (Psa. 18:28, 119:105; Prov. 6:23) illuminates the sin in a person’s life, then, and only then, can a person repent.
Vanhoye suggests that it was the Law at fault in not being able to bring about the perfection of Man (Anderson C. Quoting Vanhoye). Dr. Anderson suggests that it was not the Law but the flawed Levitical priesthood ministering the Written Law that was at fault. Dr. Anderson further suggests that it is the case of rejecting the ‘faulty’ ministers of the ‘old’ Covenant in favour of the ‘new’ (superior) Minister.
Consider the role of a minister:
Middle English (in minister (sense 2 of the noun)); also in the sense ‘a person acting under the authority of another’): from Old French ministre (noun), ministrer (verb), from Latin minister ‘servant’, from minus ‘less’. (www.lexico.com).
In the ‘old’ Covenant, the minister was the anointed High Priest (and his associated priests) who was the servant of YHWH, bringing about reconciliation between YHWH and Man by way of the earthly sanctuary sacrifices designated by the Law (Heb. 5:1-4; 9:6, 7). When these sacrifices were offered up in the right attitude by the supplicant and priest, they were found to be acceptable to YHWH. Then again, is this not the same function of the anointed Messiah Yeshua, bringing about reconciliation between YHWH and Man by way of the heavenly Sanctuary sacrifices designated by the same Law (Heb. 7:26, 27)? The earthly sacrifices were but a type (Heb. 9:18-23; 10:1), the Anti-type being the Messiah Himself (Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:4, 5; 9:11, 12).
The Resurrection is proof that the correct Sacrifice (one without spot or blemish – Exod. 12:5; 1 Pt. 1:19) offered to YHWH in the required attitude and was found acceptable by YHWH. It can be seen that it was not the system of sacrifice that was different, but the quality of the Sacrifice that was eternally effectual (Fruchtenbaum p.118).
Therefore, the only way a person appropriated the salvation of YHWH is through faith in the full atonement found in the birth, life, humiliation, death and resurrection of the Messiah Yeshua according to Torah and the Prophets. Pre-crucifixion, this was the faith in the Messiah Yeshua as indicated in the typical sacrifices. Post-crucifixion this was faith in the Messiah Yeshua as indicated by the Anti-typical Sacrifice (John 14:6).
“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first old. But that which is becoming old and grows aged is near to vanishing away.’” (Heb. 8:13
Fruchtenbaum makes the distinction between the two Greek words for ‘old’:
ἀρχαῖος archaios – old in time, ancient, past (Bromiley p.83) and παλαιός palaios – old, obsolete, transitional process (Bromiley p.769) (Fruchtenbaum p.112).
Likewise there is the distinction between the two Greek words for ‘new’:
νέος neos – new in time (Bromiley p.628) and καινός kainos – new in nature (Bromiley p.388).
In Heb. 8:13, καινός is uncommonly contrasted with παλαιός and would have drawn the attention of the reader/listener. παλαιός would denote that something was waxing old as the lunar cycle was caused by that which was totally καινός. This allusion to the lunar cycle is confirmed by the usage of inserting the word ‘fresh’ after the word ‘new’ (Sanford p.854) whereas νέος would have been the appropriate adjective, by Fruchtenbaum (p.112) and by Dr. Anderson (p.10; para 2).
The ‘new moon’ of the Levitical priesthood was at the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, instigating the ministry circa 1440 B.C.E. The pinnacle of the priesthood the ‘full moon’ of this cycle would be found at the end of King Shlomo’s (Solomon’s) reign in 900 B.C.E. The full waxing would be found when the Second Temple was destroyed in 70 C.E. Nevertheless, this is not the termination of the Levitical priesthood ‘cycle’ as the re-instatement of sacrifices (ref. Page 3; para 3 above) and find the Chiliastic zenith immediately prior to the Great White Throne judgement.
Although YHWH did not desire the shedding of the innocent blood of animals, it was necessary to prescribe instructions to do so but never losing sight of the goal i.e. the crucified Messiah. It was YHWH’s will that no person should sin, but Mankind was not capable of accomplishing this feat (cf. Slavery – Lev. 21:1-11; Dt. 15: 12-18; kingship – 1 Sam. 8:1-22).
“Now indeed even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and an earthly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle prepared. In the first part were the menorah, the table, and the show bread; which is called the Set Apart Place…Now these things having been thus prepared, the Kohanim go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services, but into the second the Kohen Gadol alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offers for himself, and for the errors of the people.” (Heb. 9:1-7).
The first (outer) tabernacle was the serving place of the Levitical priesthood and the second (inner) tabernacle was the dwelling place of YHWH. Roth rightly suggests that there is a danger of using the word ‘holy’ to mean being like Y`shua (Roth p.142 #46). The use of the first and second veils is to set apart that which is of Man and that which is of YHWH.
There is significance with the Epistle’s author referring to the Tabernacle and not of the Temple. The readers/listeners would have had occasion to wonder at the phraseology of the Temple institution with the ministry of the Levitical priests and Aharonic High Priest within the Tabernacle. The Temple was considered YHWH’s dwelling place superseding the Tabernacle, but it was the prophetic message of the author preparing the community for the destruction of the Temple, only a few years into the future.
The High Priest alone could enter the Kedosh Kadoshim and then only once a year (Exod. 30:10; Lev. 16:3). It was not the office of High Priest that gave entry into the Sanctuary but with the types of passing through of the veils and applying the shed blood of the sacrifice. Believers can now approach YHWH through the Anti-type of the broken body of the Messiah and His shed blood (Anderson R. p.74). It was for this reason that the author informs the Believers that the Sanctuary will no longer be available and besides, a different, superior, way has been made possible (Anderson R. p.76). This is what was prophesised to the Samaritan woman by the Master (John 4:1-26).
‘This present age’, `Olam Hazeh, is a technical phrase that would have been well known to the readers/listeners of the Epistle. This would refer to the current situation of the Believers (cf. Luke 12:56; Gal. 1:4) and to their earthly existence (cf. Mark 10:30) and would constitute one of he four stages of history:
- Age of Tohu – Adam to Avraham;
- Age of Torah – Avraham to the Coming (Return) of the Messiah – `Olam Hazeh;
- Age of the Messiah – Yemot HaMashiach – Millennial Reign;
- Future Age – Athid Lavo – the New Heavens and New Yerushalayim. (hebroots.com).
YHWH took no pleasure in the burnt and sin offerings as these were a constant reminder of the sin of Man and, therefore, His Son’s sacrifice. Nevertheless, these were, like His Son’s sacrifice, necessary. This is not a question of YHWH disliking sacrifices as such and devised a second, superior system but that the time of the Messiah Yeshua’s incarnation was part of the process of progressive revelation.
References and Credits
In using these references, it is in no way agreeing to or condoning the theological viewpoint of the authors. However, the historical, cultural, linguistic and academic scholarship of the authors is universally considered to be of the highest order.
Anderson Dr. C.M. (2020) Proposal Paper for The Society of Biblical Literature, 2020 Call for Papers Hebrews Open Section, Critical Hook in Hebrews 10:9 Culminates the Author’s Message in Reference to Christ’s Physical Body.
Anderson Sir R. (1984) Types in Hebrews, Kregel Press, U.S.A.
Bromiley G.W. (1988) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Eerdmans Pub., Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.
Fruchtenbaum A.G. (2005) The Messianic Epistles, Hebrews, James, I & II Peter, Jude, Ariel Ministries, Tustin, CA, U.S.A.
Henry. Rev. M. (1828) An Exposition of the Old and the New Testament, Vol. III, J.R. & C. Childs, London.
Roth A.G. (2008) Aramaic English New Testament, 4th. ed., Netzari Press, U.S.A.
Sanford W.H. (2018) The Messianic Aleph Tav Interlinear Scriptures, 5th. Vol. ed. of Acts – Revelation, CCB Pub, B.C., Canada.
Stern D.H. (1998) Complete Jewish Bible, Jewish New Testament Pubs., Clarksville, MD, U.S.A.
Tasker Rev. T.H. (1991) The Epistle To The Hebrews, Tyndale Press, Eerdmans Pub., G Grand Rapids, MI, U.S.A.
First Generation Assembly 