Discourse
on the Preterist' Mindset
An Exegesis
on Hebrews 8:13
The
New Covenant is in His Blood
There are times when I am astonished. This is one of those times.
Having read some explanations of how some Preterists¹ interpret Hebrews 8:13, I felt another exegesis was due. Hebrews 8:13,
“In
that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is
becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”
The Preterists referred
to interpret Hebrews 8:13 as though the context for “Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away”
is written in present tense²—current events at the time
of the writing. Hence, they understand that the author of Hebrews is writing,
standing in present tense, saying at that point (post Cross and Resurrection)
the first Covenant is—at that point—becoming obsolete and growing old, and at
that present time, ready to vanish away.
I know that is a
mouthful. Let’s break it down. Here is the context for verse 8:13 starting at
the beginning of the paragraph in verse 6,
6
But now [at this very moment] He [Jesus] has obtained³
a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is² also Mediator of a better
covenant, which was³ established on better promises.
7
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been
sought for a second.
8
Because finding fault with them, He says: “Behold, the days are coming, says
the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
house of Judah —
9
“not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I
took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did
not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.
10
“For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those
days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their
hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11
“None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the
LORD,’ for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12
“For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their
lawless deeds I will remember no more.”
13
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is
becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”
Hebrews 8:8b-12 is a
restated prophecy from Jeremiah 31:31-34; in Hebrews it is preceded by and
followed by the author’s explanation. Beginning in 8:6-8a, the author leads
into Jeremiah’s prophecy of the New Covenant, then wraps it up by concluding
the explanation in 8:13. Hebrews 9 goes on to bring revelation to types and
shadows—how they speak of and point to Christ.
Often in Biblical
literature tenses are confusing to our English mindsets. Tenses do not always
translate directly from Greek to English. In Hebrews 8:13 the author uses “He
says,” “has made,” “is becoming,” and “is ready” all in relation to the Old
Covenant. Let’s look again at Hebrews 8:13 as the author quotes from Jeremiah
31:
“13
In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is
becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”
Hebrews 8:13 spans from
the time when Jeremiah wrote the prophecy to the death of Jesus. The author of
Hebrews is quoting Jeremiah’s prophecy as if standing in 600 BC with Jeremiah,
viewing the prophecy as they look forward to the New Covenant. They are
watching the timeline. As the New Covenant approaches the Old Covenant is
becoming obsolete and growing old. At the same time they acknowledge, as they
view the New Covenant from 600 BC, God giving a New Covenant means the Old
vanished. That was what happened on the Cross!
The
pinnacle of how to understand Hebrews 8:13 is within itself: “In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has
made the first obsolete.” Meaning, when the New comes, the Old is obsolete.
And from the time of Jeremiah’s prophecy, the Old was becoming obsolete,
growing old, and ready to vanish. The word “obsolete” is perfect tense. Perfect
tense “describes an action which is viewed as having been completed in the
past, once and for all, not needing to be repeated.” (Greek Online Lexicon) The
Preterists’ view I conflict with believe the destruction of the Temple in
Jerusalem, in 70 AD by Titus, is what made the Old obsolete and completely
vanished. However, as the writer of Hebrews is plainly stating, the Old was
already obsolete at the time of the writing of Hebrews—predating 70AD; note the
wording, “In that He says, “A new
covenant,” He has made the first obsolete.” The Old is automatically
obsolete when the New comes. Again, the tense is “perfect” meaning, it “describes an
action which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all,
not needing to be repeated.” (Greek Online Lexicon)
How do we know the Old
was already obsolete at the time of Hebrew’s writing?
The Bible is clear the
New Covenant was in Jesus’ Blood. Luke 22:20 states, “Likewise He [Jesus] also took the cup after supper, saying, This cup
is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.” This is what
Communion is all about. 1 Corinthians 11:25-26, “In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This
cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in
remembrance of Me. For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you
proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”
Also Hebrews 9:16-17, “For where there is a testament, there must
also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is in force
after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.”
Therefore, on the Cross when Jesus said, “It is finished” and breathed His
last, the New Covenant began—before the resurrection, before Pentecost, before
the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD—on the Cross, at the last beat of Jesus’
heart, as He breathed His last saying “It is finished.”
Furthermore, Hebrews
10:8-10, “Previously saying, “Sacrifice
and offering, burnt offerings, and offerings for sin You did not desire, nor
had pleasure in them” (which are offered according to the law), 9 then He said,
“Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first [most
commentators agree this refers to the old way entirely—covenant, law,
priesthood, dispensation: the old order] that
He may establish the second [covenant, law, priesthood, dispensation]. 10 By that will we have been sanctified
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Note again,
it is the body—the blood sacrifice—of Jesus Christ on the Cross. Again
demolishing any argument that it was Titus in 70 AD who completely
obliterated the Old Covenant! To say otherwise would be to give Titus
the power to accomplish what Jesus could not.
It was Christ Jesus—His
blood, His sacrifice!
I encourage everyone to
read through Hebrews over and over.
Footnotes:
2. Present Tense: “The present tense represents a simple statement of fact or
reality viewed as occurring in actual time.
In most cases this corresponds directly with the English present tense.”
“Some phrases which might be rendered as past tense in
English will often occur in the present tense in Greek. These are termed "historical
presents," and such occurrences dramatize the event described as if the
reader were there watching the event occur. Some English translations render such
historical presents in the English past tense, while others permit the tense to
remain in the present.” (Online Greek Lexicon)
Examples of present tense in Hebrews 8:13 are “He
says”, “what is becoming obsolete”, and “growing old.”
3.
Perfect Tense: “The perfect tense
in Greek corresponds to the perfect tense in English, and describes an action
which is viewed as having been completed in the past, once and for all, not
needing to be repeated.”
“Jesus’ last cry from the cross, TETELESTAI (“It is finished!”),
is a good example of the perfect tense used in this sense, namely “It [the
atonement] has been accomplished, completely, once and for all time.””
“Certain antiquated verb forms in Greek, such as those related
to seeing (eidw) or knowing (oida) will use the perfect tense in a manner
equivalent to the normal past tense.
These few cases are exception to the normal rule and do not alter the
normal connotation of the perfect tense stated above.”
