To what does “laws” refer here?

Explanation:

We know that when God established a covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai he gave them laws (Exodus 20:1 – 23:19). These laws included the Ten Commandments and a host of ceremonial and moral laws that were meant to train Israel how to live in a loving relationship with the holy God, Yahweh, and each other. The laws themselves were good, but Israel was not able to keep them because of their hardness of heart (Hebrews 3:8–10). Jeremiah prophesied that because of Israel’s failure to keep the covenant, God would establish a new covenant. When the author of Hebrews describes the covenant, he uses adjectives such as better (Hebrews 8:6), new (Hebrews 8:13), first (Hebrews 8:13), and second (Hebrews 10:9) to characterize it. On the other hand, he never states that there would be better laws or new laws, etc.⁵ The implication is that while the covenant is new, the laws are the same.

Counterargument:

We know from Exodus that the sacrificial system was commanded by God and therefore part of Israelite law (Exodus 29:38–42). The author of Hebrews goes to some length explaining that aspects of the old covenant, including the sacrificial system, were deficient because the old covenant only deals with earthly regulations and can never cleanse the conscience of the sinner (Hebrews 10:9–10). It seems clear that there is a problem with not only the old covenant but also the law. This implies that with the new covenant, there are new laws.

Response to counterargument:

The author clearly shows that the sacrificial element of the ceremonial law does not need to change because it is fulfilled by Jesus Christ. The author explains that under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and in fact there simply is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Hebrews 10:9–10). Still, the problem is not that the law requires the shedding of blood, but that the type of sacrifice, namely, the sacrifice of animals by sinful humans, was not sufficient. This is why the ministry of Jesus is superior.

What Jesus offered to the Father was his own perfect self as an atoning sacrifice for sin. The nature of Jesus’ sacrifice is such that, because he is blameless, there is no need for him to sacrifice himself more than once (Hebrews 9:26). The fact that Jesus offered his own blood as a sacrifice shows that the law established by God does not change, but since his one sacrifice is sufficient, the aspect of animal sacrifice is no longer necessary.

Explanation:

The author of Hebrews quotes Jeremiah 31:31–34, which states that the law will be written on people’s hearts. We can be sure that the law refers to the Mosaic law because that law is the law that God gave to Israel. The old covenant was established on the Mosaic laws given at Mount Sinai, and God was clear that if Israel obeyed the laws, they would be blessed (Deuteronomy 28:14), but if they did not, they would be cursed (Deuteronomy 28:14).

We also know from Scripture that God’s law does not change. Jesus makes this clear in Matthew 5. There, Jesus states explicitly that he did not come to abolish the law; in fact, not one dot or iota of the law will pass away until heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5:17–18). Clearly, the law cannot change. Jesus also explains that the whole law is a lengthy extrapolation, the substance of which can be summarized in two commands. These are the commands to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and to love your neighbour as yourself (Matthew 22:37–40). The apostle Paul speaks similarly. In Romans 13:8–10 he writes that the whole law can be summarized in the command to love one another. And in Galatians 5:17 he writes that the entire law is fulfilled in the command to love one’s neighbour.

All of this to say that since the law established by God with Israel is the Mosaic law, and since the substance of God laws never change, the law mentioned in Hebrews 8:10 is the Mosaic law.

Counterargument:

When we review the laws of Israel, we notice that there are ceremonial and moral laws. The ceremonial laws include keeping festivals (Exodus 23:14–17), sacrificing animals (Leviticus 1:1 – 7:38), and circumcising all infant males (Leviticus 12:3). While Jesus sacrifice might have fulfilled the animal sacrificial system, other New Testament writers, such as Paul, suggest that if one were to follow the law by getting circumcised, Christ would be of no value (Galatians 5:2). Paul also writes that no one will be justified by works of the law but only through faith in Christ (Galatians 2:16). This seems to imply that aspects of the law must be different in the new covenant.

Response to counterargument:

It is true that there were both moral and ceremonial aspects to the old covenant. It is also true that the ceremonial aspects are described as insufficient and so God establishes a new, better covenant. Still, while the outward ceremonies have changed, the substance of the law remains the same. Paul himself explains this in Romans when he writes that circumcision is not a matter of flesh and blood but a matter of the heart by the Spirit (Romans 2:28–29). In other words, the one who is truly circumcised is the one who is set apart inwardly, not outwardly. The festivals too were a reminder to Israel of God’s grace toward them, but with the laws now written on their hearts (Hebrews 8:10), the festivals are no longer applicable.

Possible weakness:

The possible weakness of this view is that it depends on a broad level of scriptural knowledge. Given the immediate context, it seems as though the ushering in of a new covenant involves the ushering in of a new law as well. Hebrews 8:4 states that if Jesus were on earth, he would not be a priest because priests offer gifts according to the law. This seems to imply that the covenant of which Jesus is priest has to do with different laws. Also, Hebrews 9:1–28 describes in detail that the earthly rituals and worship of the old covenant had to do with practices that were in place until the time of reformation (Hebrews 9:10). And the practices described are clearly practices that were initiated when the law was given at Mount Sinai. Unless one has some knowledge about the fact that the critical aspect of the law is the substance and not the outward practice, one might not easily come to grips with this interpretation. Of course the difficulty or sophistication of an interpretation does imply that it does not align most closely with the original author’s intention.

Explanation:

In Hebrews 7:12 it states that when there is a change in the priesthood, necessarily there is a change in the law. The author of Hebrews has made it clear that Jesus is the new high priest of a better covenant (Hebrews 8:6). This means that the priesthood has changed, and so the law must necessarily change. The author of Hebrews is not clear what this new law might entail, but it is clear that the law must be new in some respect.

Counterargument:

The passage from Hebrews 7:12 does not state that when the priesthood changes there is a new law. Rather, the Greek noun that the author uses to describe what happens to the law when a new priesthood is established is μετάθεσις, which can be translated change. The notion that Jesus’ priesthood entails a change concerning the law is not in question. In fact, the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31–34, which the author of Hebrews quotes in Hebrews 8:10 states precisely that there is a change regarding the law in the sense that it will now be written on the hearts and minds of the people. Still, nowhere does it state that there will be a new law.

Possible weakness:

The problem with this view is that it is based on faulty logic. It simply does not follow that when there is a change in the law this implies that the substance of the law changes so that there is a new law. Rather, a change in the law could entail a change in the way people relate to the law, as is the case in Hebrews 8:10. It could also refer to a change in how the law is enforced, understood, or carried out. In the end, there is nothing in Hebrews to suggest that the substance of God’s law changes.