What does it mean that the old covenant “is ready to vanish away”?

Explanation:

After quoting from the prophet Jeremiah, the author of Hebrews now adds his commentary. He explains that when God spoke of a new covenant, he made the first covenant obsolete. An analysis of the original Greek brings out the force of what the author is saying. First, he writes in speaking of a new covenant. This prepositional phrase begins with in and can be taken as temporal or instrumental.⁵ The author is explaining either “when God spoke of the new covenant” or “because God spoke of a new covenant,” some result followed. And what was that result? He makes the first one obsolete. In other words, either when God spoke the new covenant, or because God spoke of the new covenant, God’s speaking made the old Mosaic covenant obsolete. What is interesting to note is that the verb to make old is in the perfect tense, which implies a completed action with ongoing effects. As such, the perfect tense is often used to denote the permanent effect of God’s speaking.⁶

So we know that God made the old covenant obsolete when he spoke to Jeremiah. And when was the new covenant ushered in? Hebrews 10:9 states that it was ushered in by Jesus’ ministry. Jesus came to do God’s will, and by living so, he abolished the first covenant to establish the new covenant.      

Counterargument:

It cannot be the case that when God spoke about the new covenant, the old covenant was made obsolete. God spoke about the old covenant approximately six hundred years before the time of Christ, and yet Jesus encourages people to follow through on aspects of the old covenant on multiple occasions. For example, after he heals a leper, he instructs the man to go to the priest and offer the gifts that Moses commanded (Matthew 8:4). The instructions from Moses concerning the cleansing of skin diseases was a lengthy process that involved examination by the priest, sacrificing animals, and being cleansed with water (Leviticus 14:1–32). On another occasion, the tax collectors from the temple ask Peter if Jesus pays the temple tax. The temple tax is first introduced in Exodus 30:11–16 and is meant to be a collection for the service of the tent of meeting. Although Jesus indicates that because he is the Son of God, he is technically exempt from the temple tax, he miraculously produces a shekel in the mouth of a fish so that he and Peter can pay the tax to avoid being an offence (Matthew 17:24–27).

Jeremiah prophesied somewhere between 626 and 587 BC, so it is hard to see how the old covenant is obsolete during the sixth century BC when Jesus encourages people to follow through with old covenant practices in the first century AD.

Response to counterargument:

When the author says that God made the old covenant obsolete by speaking of the new covenant, it might be best to say that the old covenant for all intents and purposes was obsolete. Such nuance does no harm to the verb παλαιόω, which does not necessarily denote a hard and fast obsoletion but can also be taken more subtly as in wear out/become old. We should not forget that redemptive history is a process that unfolds over time, and God always acts with a sufficient purpose. This implies that the Mosaic covenant had a sufficient purpose and there was a time when the old covenant was new to Israel (Exodus 20:1–20). Scripture explains that God used the old covenant as a sort of guardian because of sin until the time of Christ (Galatians 3:19). The notion is that God first trained the Israelites as his people through the old covenant in anticipation of Christ’s future ministry. According to his sufficient timing, God declared to Jeremiah that he would make a new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31–34). Since God’s plan develops over time, we do not need to think that the old covenant was instantly annihilated. Rather, God was stating that, for all intents and purposes, the old covenant had run its course, and a new, better covenant would be established. Still, the elements of the old covenant remained in practice until the new covenant was established by Christ’s ministry.

Explanation:

The author states that when God declared a new covenant to Jeremiah, the old became (for all intents and purposes) obsolete. Even though the author is not entirely clear when traces of the old covenant will vanish entirely (Hebrews 8:13), he is clear that the new covenant has been inaugurated by Jesus’ ministry. First, we read that there was a problem with the old covenant, so it is set aside (Hebrews 7:18) for a better covenant mediated by Jesus (Hebrews 7:22). Further, he explains that Jesus’ ministry is more excellent than the ministry of the priests in the old covenant, just as the covenant he mediates is better (Hebrews 8:6). Next, he describes some of the elements of the old covenant, including animal sacrifice, and why these fall short of cleansing the conscience. Jesus on the other hand is able to cleanse the conscience perfectly by his blood. Therefore, the author states, he is the mediator of a better covenant (Hebrews 9:15). Finally, in case there is any doubt, the author states that because Jesus came to do God’s will, he abolishes the old covenant to establish the new covenant (Hebrews 10:9). Taken as a whole, we see that Jesus’ ministry ushers in the new covenant; that is, the new covenant is a present reality for the readers of Hebrews.

Counterargument:

While it might be that Jesus inaugurates the new covenant, there is a sense in which the old covenant remains active, even after Jesus’ ministry. For example, after Jesus’ ascension, we read in the book of Acts how the apostles, including Paul, began spreading the gospel. In Acts 15:1–41 we read that some men came down from Judea and tried to tell the people that they had to be circumcised according to the law of Moses to be saved (Acts 15:1). Paul and Barnabas object and bring the matter to the apostles in Jerusalem to decide on how to handle the matter (Acts 15:4–6). Next, Peter states that Paul and Barnabas are right, because circumcision is a burden, and no one will be saved except through faith (Acts 15:7–11). So far, it sounds like the old covenant is vanishing.

Still, things take an interesting turn, because when the apostles draft a letter to the Gentile church with instructions on their decision, while they exclude the need for circumcision, they include other aspects of the old covenant, including abstaining from eating blood and what has been strangled (Acts 15:29).

Response to counterargument:

Even though the old covenant has been made obsolete, some elements remain in practice at the time Hebrews is written (Hebrews 8:13). This seems to be a matter of fact and might be due to the fact that the old covenant practices have been in force for approximately 1500 years. No wonder these practices lingered after Jesus’ ministry. When the apostles ask the Gentiles to abstain from eating meat and blood, this could be for any number of reasons, including keeping peace with their Jewish friends and neighbours. Added to this, the command not to eat blood predates Moses by an untold measure, first given to Noah (Genesis 9:4). The apostles are not suggesting that one must refrain from eating strangled meat and blood to be saved, for salvation is through faith by grace. Rather, they seem to offer pastoral counsel to the Gentiles so that they will not upset their Jewish brothers and sisters. In the end, just because the old covenant is obsolete, does not mean that elements of the covenant are not beneficial practices.

Possible weakness:

The one weakness with this view is that the author of Hebrews has been clear that Jesus is the complete high priest, whose sacrifice cleanses the sinner once and for all. With this in mind, one would think that Jesus’ sacrifice makes the old covenant disappear immediately. Instead, the text says that it is only near to disappearing. Still, this problem is not unresolvable, it simply means that the exegete must wrestle with why the old covenant lingers even after the new covenant is established.

Explanation:

God made a covenant with Israel through Moses, but when the Israelites disobeyed in the wilderness the inadequacy of the first covenant was revealed.⁷ After several centuries, God declared to Jeremiah that he would establish a new covenant. The author of Hebrews quotes from Jeremiah 31:31–34 to show that Jesus’ ministry ushers in the new covenant. He then comments on the passage from the perspective of Jeremiah. The old covenant was obsolete when God spoke about the new. Ever since that day, the covenant had been growing old, and from Jeremiah’s perspective, it was near to disappearing.⁸ Now that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father, there is no doubt that the old covenant has vanished completely.⁹

Counterargument:

It might be convenient to think that the author of Hebrews is speaking from Jeremiah’s perspective because up until now, he has been clear that Jesus ushers in an entirely new covenant. And if Jesus ushers in a new covenant, it is hard to see how the old covenant is only ἐγγὺς ἀφανισμοῦ (near disappearance), and not entirely disappeared. Still, it will not do to say that the author of Hebrews is speaking from the perspective of Jeremiah because this is not a conventional method of commentary. Rather, when one comments on Scripture, or other literature written centuries prior, we expect one to comment from a contemporary perspective. If the author of Hebrews were commenting from the perspective of Jeremiah, we should expect him to say so. He might state, From Jeremiah’s perspective the old covenant is nearly disappeared. Of course, the author does not do this but seems to comment from his own perspective. While this forces us to explain what it means that the old covenant seems to linger even after Jesus’ ministry, this is the most sensible way to take the author.

Possible weakness:

The problem with this view is that it breaks from the plain reading of the text in an arbitrary fashion. Sometimes the plain meaning of a text might pose difficulties with broader theological themes, and when this is the case, one might have to decide on a meaning that goes against the grain of the plainest meaning. Still, in a historical-grammatical interpretative framework, such interpretive moves should be something of a last resort, requiring special argumentation. In the case of Hebrews 8:13, there are plausible reasons why aspects of the old covenant would linger even after Jesus inaugurates the new, so we should be careful not to bruise the plain meaning of the text.