Overall Context of Hebrews 9
by Curtis Forrester
Previously we said that it was important that we understand the context of Hebrews 9. “A text without a context is a pretext” – generally a pretext to prove something that the original author didn’t say, and to prove something that the Bible in general doesn’t intend to teach. We said that the main theme seen running through this letter to the Hebrews is Jesus and who He is, what He did, and what He has actually achieved for us. We also saw that there was this theme of contrasting concepts one against the other, but that mostly the author seemed to be interested in illuminating Christ’s true position.
Whereas last time we looked at the broader context of the whole letter, I now want to start sharpening our focus onto chapter 9. Looking on verse 1 of chapter 9 we need to ask ourselves, “how did we get here?”
Chapters 7-10 form something of a connected unit of thought. The goal is to contrast the new against the old. Chapter 7 focuses on the priesthood and the older and newer laws, chapter 8 highlights that the earthly was never intended to be the end, but was rather the shadow of the reality – the reality found in the High Priest who has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. Chapter 9 continues the contrast with an illustration and reinforces the superiority of the new. Chapter 10 reinforces the inferiority of the old.
Chapter 7, then, expands the theme of the lineage of the priesthood. By law in ancient Israel, only those of the tribe of Levi were to be priests, and only some of them actually officiated as priests. Only one of them would be elected to be the standing High Priest. No one from among the other tribes was allowed to serve as priest.
Jesus was a descendent of David, of the tribe of Judah. This suggests something of a problem, since he was not a Levite. How could Jesus serve as our High Priest? And so in chapter 7 the writer expands on a person who has previously been mentioned, but not explained. The logic is this: Abraham, who is highly esteemed among the Hebrews as the father of their nation, paid tithe to the King of Salem, Melchizedek. Abraham (7:4), the one to whom the promises of God had been made (7:6), showing, by paying tithe, that this other was greater than he. The Levitical priesthood was appointed to serve as priests in God’s earthly sanctuary to represent and to intercede for the people. The Levitical priesthood was of the lineage of Levi, who was a descendant of Abraham. In Abraham they, then, paid tithe to Melchizedek (7:9). Therefore, this Melchizedek, who is called priest of the Most High God (7:1), was a greater priest than they.
Jesus, who was a descendant of David of the tribe of Judah, was a priest according to the order of Melchizedek (5:6, 10; 6:20; 7:10, 15, 17), “of whom it is witnessed that he lives on.” (7:8) The point is to establish that Jesus, as High Priest, stood higher than the Levitical priests, and that His office was more important than theirs because of “the power of an indestructible life.” (7:16)
And so this theme, sophisticated and somewhat mystical, contrasts an Earthly realm with the divine. Christ is positioned where He should be, higher than the Earthly.
Another example of this theme of contrasts is introduced in 7:11.
This more clearly states that the order of the Levitical priesthood, and their ministry, was limited and insufficient. With the words, “…need was there for another priest to arise…” there is the understanding that another did arise, and that it was necessary.
The contrasting theme shows that the new is better than the old – a contrast of quality. Another aspect to this contrasting theme is the idea of replacement – a doing away with the older because it was insufficient, and replacing it with a newer which is better and fully sufficient. Note verse 12:
The priesthood is changed, and of necessity the law is changed also. The writer explains in verses 18 and the first part of 19:
This is a continuation of the theme that the former was weak, insufficient, useless, and just couldn’t do what was necessary. This included the priests, the laws, and the whole deal. On the other hand, “…there is a bringing in of a better hope…Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.” (v.19b, 22)
The covenant that God made, through Moses, was essentially to lay before Israel a set of laws and commandments, and:
If they obeyed the commandments, they lived. If they didn’t, they lost the favor of God and suffered His wrath. It was that simple. Paul, in Galatians 3, reminds that “he [one who is circumcised in trying to be justified by law (v.3a, 4)] is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” It should be obvious to all of us by now that this is impossible, and this is the point of the law. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), there is none righteous (Rom 3:10), “because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight: for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3:20) The purpose of the Law is to reveal our sinfulness and to make us accountable to God. (Rom. 3:19) But “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us – for it is written ‘Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree.’” (Gal 3:13) The good news is that no one was expected to justify themselves by the works of the Law. Instead, the law was like a tutor, or taskmaster, to drive us to Christ that we may be justified by faith.” (Gal 3:24)
But we digress.
The writer of Hebrews knows these wonderful themes, and is working to establish that what we have in Christ is much better than we had in the former laws and ceremonies. As the discussion progresses in chapter 8 the writer becomes more assertive in the contrast. There is a heavenly sanctuary that was the pattern for the earthly. Jesus is a minister in that tabernacle. The earthly was a copy made by Moses after the instruction of God. The sanctuary, and the priesthood, is shown opposite to the eternal counterpart.
So, on the one hand we have the former: the Levitical priesthood, the set of laws and commandments, the earthly sanctuary, Moses, and a first covenant. These, as a group, are under the category of (from this perspective) the Old Covenant. On the other hand there is a New Covenant of which Jesus is the mediator. It has better promises, is a more excellent ministry, is rooted in the heavenly sanctuary, but most importantly, the old is being replaced by the new.
In verse 8 the writer declares that God found fault with them, and he quotes from the Old Testament in verses 8-12. God will effect “a new covenant” that is not like the older covenant that He made with their fathers. Rather than prop up a set of laws and commandments written in stone and demand obedience, now God put His laws right into their minds and upon their hearts – He will be their God, and they His people.” This sounds a lot like Paul in Ephesians:
So, the author is comparing and contrasting between old and new. There’s an old covenant and all of its script and actors, and there is this new covenant with Christ as the central player and theme. Yet, even though we see this old/new theme, the exact relationship between the two does not become clear until chapter 8, where the writer positions the old with the earthly – as a copy – and the new as the heavenly. In a sense, since the “old” was constructed as a copy of the heavenly, which is termed the “new”, really a copy is a newer invention patterned after the “old”. Yet, to the mind of the Hebrew, the “old” was that which had been in place all these 1000+ years. The “new” was here now, so what was to become of the “old”?
Notice the language here. The old is called the “first”, and it is obsolete, growing old, and is ready to disappear. The new covenant, on the other hand, is what made the first obsolete. This new covenant is the “more excellent ministry…enacted on better promises. (8:6)” The first covenant (the old one) was not faultless (obviously), and so there was a need for a second. (8:7)
On the one hand there was the old, the first, flawed, obsolete, and ready to disappear.
On the other hand there is now the new, the second, better, making the first obsolete, and with Jesus as the minister of it.
Do you see the patterns? Catch the message? Old vs. New, First vs. Second. Obsolete vs. Better.
This, then, is the immediate context that leads us directly into the section of the letter that we have numbered chapter 9. With this all as the foundation, the writer is about to illustrate his thesis with a word picture that uses the very familiar sanctuary as the backdrop, and the apartments as metaphors. This will be the discussion for next time.
PDF Version