To what does “better promises” refer?

Explanation:

The author of Hebrews states that the new covenant that is mediated by Jesus is established on better promises than the old covenant. He goes on to explain that there was something faulty about the old covenant, before quoting from Jeremiah 31:31–34. There, the prophet explains that even though God made a covenant with the Israelites, he found fault with them because they did not continue in the covenant. By reflecting on the old covenant, we see that the promise God offers is that if Israel obeys God’s commands things will go well, and if they do not, things will go drastically wrong. For example, in Deuteronomy 28:1–14 we read that if the Israelites obey all that God has commanded them the blessings will be so abundant that they will overtake the Israelites. On the other hand, if the Israelites do not obey God’s commandments, they will be overcome with curses (Deuteronomy 28:15–68). In other words, God makes the promise to Israel that if they willingly obey God’s commands, they will be blessed.

The author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:32 to show that even though God was ready to shower them with blessing, the Israelites were unable to maintain their end of the covenant. The implication is that curses followed. The promise of blessing in exchange for obedience fails, not because God’s promises are not good, but because humans cannot uphold their end. Still, Jeremiah was not finished prophesying, and explains that because Israel continually failed to uphold their end of the covenant, God in his mercy, established a new more superior covenant that is enacted by better promises.³ And what are these better promises? God will write his law on people’s minds and hearts, and all will know God. Also, God will remember their sins no more.

Counterargument:

The problem with this interpretation is that the passage from Jeremiah is presented as a divine complaint.⁴ The author of Hebrews states that God had found fault with the people and then he quotes from Jeremiah 31:1–40 where it says that the people did not obey God’s commands. The author is not revealing better promises but rather is showing that there was a problem with the old covenant. We should expect to learn the content of the better promises in the following sections.

Response to counterargument:

While it is the case that Jeremiah 31:31–32 is a divine complaint against the people, if the author of Hebrews simply wanted to point out the flaws of the old covenant, he would not have included Jeremiah 31:33–34. There God clearly states that because the Israelites were unable to keep the old covenant, he established a new covenant. Since the author of Hebrews has stated that Jesus is the mediator of a better covenant which is enacted on better promises (Hebrews 8:6), the covenant terminology of Jeremiah is a signal for us to pay attention. In Jeremiah 31:33–34 (quoted in Hebrews 8:10–12) we learn that in the new covenant, the law of God will be written on the hearts and minds of all people. This is in contrast with the old covenant, which depended on the Israelites’ willing cooperation, but without the law written on their hearts and minds. The point is, the author of Hebrews does not include the divine complaint as a standalone concept; rather, he includes it in order to contrast the inferiority of the promises of the old covenant with the better promises of the new covenant.

Explanation:

When the author of Hebrews states that the new covenant mediated by Jesus is enabled by better promises, he quotes Jeremiah 31:31–34 to explain that the better promises have to do with the fact that the law of God will be written on people’s hearts and minds. Still, there is more to the better promises, and this is stated most clearly in Hebrews 10:12–18.⁵ There we find the author explaining that in the old covenant, the priests had to make sacrifices day after day, while Jesus makes one sacrifice which is enough to perfect those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10:12–14). The author then connects Jesus’ perfect sacrifice with Jeremiah 31:1–40 by once again quoting Jeremiah 31:33–34, which states that in the new covenant, God will write his law on our hearts and minds and will remember our sins no more.

Next, the author of Hebrews highlights the final line of Jeremiah 31:34, which states that God will remember their sins no more, before pointing out that where there is forgiveness there is no longer any offering for sin (Hebrews 10:18). This is a strong endorsement of the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice and brings clarity to the better promise that God will remember our sins no more (Jeremiah 31:34). Here, we learn that the reason God will remember our sins no more is because of the work of the perfect offering of Jesus Christ. In other words, the better promise is not only that the law will be written on all people’s hearts and minds, but also that because of Christ’s one sacrifice, God will no longer remember our sins.

Counterargument:

The author of Hebrews introduced the notion of better promises in Hebrews 8:6 so it is hard to see how he would finally reveal the content of the better promises no less than two chapters later. It is a principle of interpretation to look to the direct context for clarity on a passage, and the midpoint of chapter Hebrews 10:1–39 is too far afield to look for clarity. We are better to assume that the better promises are not clearly stated than to force clarity from disconnected passages.

Response to counterargument:

No principle of interpretation is broken when we find clarity for the meaning of a phrase in subsequent chapters. Principles of interpretation call for us to look not only to the immediate grammatical construction and sentence but also to the paragraph and wider literary themes that an author is developing.⁶ When there is ambiguity in the meaning of a phrase, we are right to look for literary clues that might offer clarity. This is especially the case with the better promises in Hebrews 8:6. It is not right away clear what these promises might be until we note the contrast and covenantal terminology that links the quote from Jeremiah 31 with Hebrews 8:6. Now, we might be tempted once we find some clarity for an ambiguous phrase to consider the matter closed, but this will not do in the case of Hebrews 8:6. The reason is that the author of Hebrews spends time developing the difference between the old covenant and Jesus’ ministry before quoting the exact same passage from Jeremiah 31:33–34. He even calls specific attention to the last line of Jeremiah 31:34 to show that Jesus’ perfect sacrifice is the reason that God remembers our sin no more. By producing the quote from Jeremiah 31:33–34 twice, with clarifying content in between, the author refines our understanding of the better promises in light of the efficacy of Jesus’ sacrifice.

Possible weakness:

The problem with this view is that it does not sit on the surface of the text. The author is simply not clear as to the nature or content of the better promise. This means that the only way to make a decision is through inference, and in the case of Interpretation 1 this involves comparing the elements of the old covenant with the new covenant to draw out differences that might point to how the new covenant is established on better promises. Still, there seems enough information in the text to suggest that the author wants us to understand that the promise of the new covenant is better due to its nature, and not necessarily its content. In other words, it is not that the substance of the laws change, but that the way we understand the laws, and our access to the Father through Christ, has changed the nature of the covenant.

Explanation:

The author of Hebrews does not explicitly state why the new promises are better than the old. To come to an understanding of what he might mean by better promises we will evaluate the old promises and compare them with the new. If we detect a strong difference, this difference might be the candidate that explains why the new promises are better.

To understand the promises of the old covenant we can turn to Deuteronomy 28:1–68. There we read that if the Israelites keep the commands of God, God promises to bless them (see Deuteronomy 1:1–2). And what sort of blessing will they receive? Temporal blessing, as Moses states: Blessed shall you be in the city, and blessed shall you be in the field. Blessed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground and the fruit of your cattle, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock (Deuteronomy 1:3–4). And what if the Israelites do not obey the commands of God? Not surprisingly, Deuteronomy 28:15–68 explains that Israel will receive temporal cursing. Temporal curses include pestilence consuming the land (Deuteronomy 28:21), fevers, drought (Deuteronomy 28:22), defeat at the hands of enemies (Deuteronomy 28:25), madness, blindness, (Deuteronomy 28:28), plagues, and exile (Deuteronomy 28:36–39). In other words, God promises Israel temporal blessing if they obey and temporal curse if they disobey.

And what are the promises of the new covenant and how do these compare? Hebrews 9:1 explains that the first covenant had to do with an earthly sanctuary, contrasting that with the new covenant where Jesus stands in the presence of God in heaven (Hebrews 9:11–12). And what sort of blessing does he secure for us? He secures for us eternal redemption by the sprinkling of his blood (Hebrews 9:12). In other words, the blessings obtained by the new covenant are heavenly.⁷

So we see that the old covenant had to do with temporal promises and the new covenant has to do with heavenly promises. Since temporal promises are transitory and heavenly promises are eternal, we can see that the promises of the new covenant are better because they are heavenly and eternal, as opposed to temporal and transitory.

Counterargument:

While God did offer Israel temporal blessing in exchange for their obedience to the covenant, the context seems to indicate that the promise is God’s offer for a relationship in general, not the specific blessings that the relationship might obtain (see Interpretation 1). This is brought out most forcefully by the Greek and the context.

First, the author introduces the notion of better promises with the perfect passive form of the verb to impose a law/give laws. The verb carries the sense of enacting or imposing a law. In other words, the author is not referring to the content of the promises but the nature of the promises. The new covenant is superior because the nature, not the content, of the promises is better.

Next, the author specifies what it is about the nature of the promises that makes them better. Just after explaining that the new covenant is established on better promises, he states that the old covenant had faults (Hebrews 8:7). And what are these faults? The faults are found with the Israelites who did not continue in the covenant (Hebrews 8:9). In other words, the nature of the old promise was inferior because it depended on the obedience of the Israelites who could not follow through with God’s commands. So, God establishes a new covenant based on better promises outlined in Hebrews 8:10–12.

Possible weakness:

The problem with this view is that it overlooks the context. The author has been explaining that the sacrificial system of the old covenant was never adequate because the priests had to offer sacrifices for sins daily. On the other hand, the sacrifice of Christ perfects the conscience of the sinner once and for all (Hebrews 9:12). His point is that the system that was meant to bring Israel into a closer relationship with God was never able to accomplish this purpose, while Jesus does. There is no mention of temporal reward in contrast with heavenly ones. Rather, the old promise fell short because of Israel’s disobedience, while the new promise is better because Christ never falls short.