vv. 1-13 In Hebrews 8 we have a synopsis of the new covenant in prophetic form. Since the new covenant is true Christianity, this passage, although not exhaustive, sums up the essence of what it means to be a Christian. […]

Let us consider what the new covenant is. It is, as expressed above, grounded in Judaism (8:10). Consequently, any adequate understanding of Christianity must grasp its Jewish roots and the implication of those roots for Christian belief. It is about the internalization of religion, not merely the external practice of religion (8:10). God’s laws are written on the minds and hearts of true Christians. As such, transformation and intrinsic motivation form powerful, foundational elements of Christian life and living. The new covenant is about relationship with God (8:10 – 11), not merely service for God. Finally, the forgiveness of sins forms the basis for this new covenant relationship (8:12).

Any conception of Christianity, therefore, that neglects the idea of sin and forgiveness has departed from the understanding of covenant expressed in Hebrews 8 via the prophet Jeremiah. So the new covenant, in essence, has to do with a relationship with God established by the forgiveness of sins, lived out by the internalization of God’s laws, and conceptually set against the backdrop of God’s working through the people of Israel.

We should also pause to reflect on misconceptions about Christianity that could flow from a misuse of this passage.

The new covenant does not mean that Christians need not give attention to external practices such as morality, kindness, and church attendance. Hebrews 8 cannot be used to suggest that believers should just “follow their hearts” in attempting to discern proper behavior. For example, the author of Hebrews later challenges his hearers to love fellow believers in tangible terms, to be sexually pure, and to reject greed (13:1 – 6). Believers are encouraged to perform “good deeds” (10:24; 13:16), with which God is well pleased.

[…] when Jeremiah proclaims that God forgives the wickedness of those under the new covenant and remembers their sins no more, this neither implies that true Christians cease from sin completely nor provides us with a license to sin. Elsewhere the author encourage us to “throw off … the sin that so easily entangles us” (12:1) and warns that a flippant attitude toward sin brings about imminent judgment (10:26 – 27). Moreover, that those under the new covenant “know the Lord” does not remove our need to grow in our relationship with God, since growth is a hallmark of true Christian faith (e.g., 5:11 – 6:3).

*Commentary from: Guthrie, George H. “Hebrews 8:1 – 13” In The NIV Application Commentary: Hebrews. By George H. Guthrie, 277-296. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, © 1998.

vv.1-2 Following a common exegetical practice known as “argument from silence,” the author capitalizes on Genesis 14’s lack of any reference to Melchizedek’s ancestry, birth, or death. His point is not that Melchizedek exists as some form of supernatural being. Rather, he focuses on the details of what the narrative does and does not say.

[…] Since the Genesis text says nothing of this priest’s genealogy, birth, or death, his priesthood has neither the qualifications nor the parameters one finds concerning the Levitical priesthood in the law of Moses. The Levites were priests by virtue of heritage and ceased from the office upon death. Scripture places no such limitations on Melchizedek’s priesthood. For the author of Hebrews, therefore, the Genesis narrative confirms what is clearly stated in Psalm 110:4 — a priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek lasts forever.

vv.4-10 By virtue of his greater position, Melchizedek in turn blessed Abraham. When the author states, “And without a doubt the lesser person is blessed by the greater,” he is not giving a maxim that assumes only superiors give blessings. […] Our author, based on his broader argument concerning the tithe and the eternality of Melchizedek’s priesthood, parenthetically proclaims (rather than argues for) the superiority of Melchizedek in connection with the blessing offered by him. Melchizedek’s superiority to the Levites primarily rests on his having received a tenth of the spoils from Abraham and the fact that Scripture gives no indication of his death.

Continue reading Hebrews 7 Commentary →

vv.1-4 “Certain qualifications for high-priesthood under the old covenant are highlighted here as a basis for explaining more fully how Jesus can be the high priest of the new covenant. High priests were selected and appointed to act as mediators between the people of Israel and God. They were to represent them in matters related to God, specifically, but not exclusively, in offering gifts and sacrifices for sins. On the Day of Atonement, the high priest was to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people (cf. Lv. 16:6; 11–14). This was an indication that the high priest was subject to weakness, like the rest of the community, and in need of cleansing from sin. Such a ritual should have encouraged him to deal gently with those who are ignorant and are going astray. The Greek verb translated ‘to deal gently’ means literally ‘to moderate anger’. The comparison and contrast with Christ is clear: Jewish high priests were at least to control their anger when dealing with those who sinned, but our high priest will actively sympathise with our weaknesses (4:15). From a statement about the general function of the high priest in the Israelite community and a comment about a necessary quality in his ministry, the writer turns to his calling. The honour of such an office is given by God alone: one must be called by God, just as Aaron was (cf. Ex. 28:1; Lv. 8:1; Nu. 16–18).” ^[1]

Continue reading Hebrews 5 Commentary →

vv.1-10 “The author argues that the purposes of God are not frustrated because Israel of old disobeyed him and failed to enter the rest he had promised his people. The promise remains. If the ancient Israelites did not enter God’s rest, then someone else will, namely the Christians. But this should not lead to complacency. If the Israelites of an earlier day, with all their advantages, failed to enter the rest, Christians ought not to think there will be automatic acceptance for them. They must take care lest they, too, fail to enter the blessing.”[1]

v.2 “The parallel between those Israelites and the people of God in the new age is impressive enough for the disaster which befell the former to serve as a warning to the latter. The Israelites of those earlier days had good news proclaimed to them, just as the readers of this epistle had good news proclaimed to them. (cf. 2:3f.). But the hearing of the good news brought no lasting benefit to those earlier Israelites; it did not ensure their attainment of the goal for which they set out. Why? Because they did not appropriate the good news by faith when they heard it. The good news which was proclaimed to them, summarized in such Old Testament passages as Ex. 19:3-6; 23;20-33, told them how the God of their fathers, who had delivered them from Egypt, would bring them safely to the promised land and give them possession of it, and would make them ‘a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation’ to himself, if only they would obey his voice and keep his covenant. The reason why this message did not do them as much good it was designed to do was that, in spite of their serious undertaking, they did not obey his voice or keep his covenant: ‘they brought no admixture of faith to the hearing of it’ (NEB). The practical implication is clear: it is not the hearing of the gospel by itself that brings final salvation, but its appropriation by faith; and if that faith is a genuine faith, it will be a persistent faith.”[2]

Continue reading Hebrews 4 Commentary →