Hebrews 8:6 is one of the most important verses in the Book of Hebrews, actually in the whole New Testament, for giving us a summary of New Covenant Theology. Hebrews 8:1 informs us that this section is a statement of summary and review.
The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, (Heb. 8:1).
New covenant believers have, in our Lord Jesus Christ, the very Priest we need. He has accomplished and forever finished the work that Aaron could never have accomplished. Our High Priest has entered the Most Holy Place and has taken up permanent residence there. He has also made it possible that we poor sinners can also enter that same Most Holy Place at any time of any day or night. We have been given a “perfect clearance and total acceptance pass” into his Father’s presence (Rom. 5:1-3). The Lord Jesus Christ, acting as our older brother and representative, has forever accomplished what Aaron and the blood of millions of bulls and goats could never accomplish.
Hebrews 8:6 is a summary statement of three comparisons. The verse compares two priestly ministries, two different covenants and two sets of promises upon which the two covenants are based. These three comparisons demonstrate why Aaron’s priestly ministry failed and Christ’s priestly ministry succeeds. I have added numbers to the following quotation in order to emphasize the three comparisons.
But the (1) ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the (2) covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on (3) better promises (Heb. 8:6).
This verse is vital to any discussion of Christ as our High Priest. The writer of Hebrews sets forth three distinct comparisons of “better” things to show why the new covenant, set forth in verses 7-11 as the fulfillment of the prophecy of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34, was so essential and is so superior. These three contrasts provide the sum and substance not only of the Book of Hebrews but also of (1) the heart of the religion of the new covenant compared to the religion of the old covenant, or the basic difference between Judaism and Christianity; and (2) the vital difference between the old and new covenants as covenants. Each comparison grows out of the previous comparison, and all three are straightforward and uncomplicated.
First, our Lord performs a “better ministry” than Aaron. The obvious question raised by such a statement is this: “Why is Christ’s ministry as High Priest so much better than Aaron’s ministry?” The answer: Christ’s ministry is better than Aaron’s ministry because it is based on a “better covenant.” The next obvious question then is this: “Why is the new covenant that Christ established so much better than the old covenant that it replaced?” The answer: Because it is based upon “better promises.” That leads to the third question: “What are those better promises and why are they so much better?” The answer: The old covenant under which Aaron ministered promised life on the grounds of obedience to the law and the new covenant under which Christ ministers says “it is finished, only believe.” The old covenant is based on works and the new covenant is based on grace. The old covenant was deliberately designed to be a “killing covenant.” The stated purpose of that covenant was to convict sinners of their guilt and drive them to the Abrahamic covenant to be justified by faith.
All of the three statements are quite clear. We who live under the new covenant have the benefits of a better ministry that was accomplished under a better covenant based on better promises. To identify the nature, purpose, and function of the two contrasted covenants is to understand the biblical relationship of law and grace. Immediately upon making these three comparisons and drawing out the logical meaning and implications of them, the writer of Hebrews reminds us of why the old covenant had to be discarded (Heb.8:7-8.). The old covenant could not meet the sinner’s need. It could not effect justification. None of Aaron’s work could bring the sinner into God’s presence. The writer of Hebrews then quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 to prove that the change of covenants that was necessary in order for God to accomplish his redemptive purpose was clearly prophesied in the Old Testament Scriptures. This new covenant that was prophesied was God’s intended purpose ever since eternity began and was made known at the dawn of sin in Genesis 3:15. Israel and the Mosaic covenant were never intended to be permanent. They were announced as ending when Christ came. As we noted in the preceding chapter, the nation of Israel and the religion of Judaism upon which it was based, was a parenthesis in God’s one unchaining redemptive purpose of sovereign grace for his one elect people.
For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said: “The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.” By calling this covenant “new,” he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear (Heb. 8:7-13).
Any attempt to exegete Jeremiah 31:31-34 without looking at how a new covenant apostle understood that specific prophecy is simply not good hermeneutics, yet this is just what most covenant theologians do. We must not start with Jeremiah, but with how the writer of Hebrews understood Jeremiah. This means that we do not first establish a rigid meaning of Jeremiah 31:31-34, and then make the Book of Hebrews fit into that interpretation. We first understand the theological point that the writer to the Hebrews is making and then ask why he chose to use Jeremiah 31:31-34 to prove that point. This is another clear example of the basic difference in our hermeneutics from that of both Covenant Theology and dispensationalism. This example demonstrates what we mean when we insist that the new covenant Scriptures must interpret the old covenant Scriptures and not the other way around.
It is impossible to understand a comparison if we do not understand both of the things being compared. For instance, if I were to say to you, “Oranges are much sweeter than lemons” and you had never tasted a lemon, my statement would be meaningless. For my statement to make sense you must know what both a lemon and orange taste like. If the writer of Hebrews exalts the ministry of Christ as better than the ministry of Aaron, and we do not have a clear picture of, (1) exactly what Aaron’s ministry was; (2) why that ministry failed; and, (3) why the Old Covenant, upon which Aaron’s entire ministry was based, had to be replaced with a new and better covenant instead of just patched up, then we cannot understand passages like Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. There is no clear understanding of the greatness of the new covenant until there is a clear understanding of the inherent weakness of the old covenant.
First, we must ask, “Exactly what was Aaron’s ministry as high priest?” His greatest single duty was to make sacrifice for the people and then make intercession for them as he sprinkled the mercy seat with animal blood on the Day of Atonement. Hebrews 5:1 states that Aaron “offered gifts and sacrifice for sins.” He represented Israel before God with a blood sacrifice and then represented them in intercession. This two-fold ministry of sacrifice and intercession is co-extensive. Aaron prays only for those for whom he shed blood and made intercession. Aaron did not offer any lambs for the Egyptians, nor did he pray for the Philistines. The same is true under the new covenant. Christ died for and prayed for his own elect people. He died for his sheep and prays for those same sheep. How could he state this more clearly?
I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep (John 10:11).
I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours (John 17:9).
Was Aaron’s ministry successful? Did his efforts of sacrifice and intercession pay the sinner’s debt and cleanse his conscience from sin? Was Aaron able to bring the sinner into the presence of God “without fear”? The answer to all of these questions is no. However, we must quickly add that the failure to accomplish these things was not because of any sin or lack of either effort or faith on Aaron’s part. He used, correctly and in good faith, every means that was available to him to do his job. So why does Jesus prevail in his priestly work and succeed in performing the same functions in which Aaron failed? Our Lord, like Aaron, also offers a sacrifice and makes intercession. However, unlike Aaron, Christ can and does bring the sinner, without fear and with a clear conscience, into the presence of the thrice-holy God. Why does Christ’s one offering of blood and his intercession on the ground of that blood accomplish what all of Aaron’s offerings of shed blood and his prayers could never effect in a single instance. Both Aaron and Christ pleaded with God on the ground of the blood they shed. Why did one succeed and the other fail?
Part of the answer is given in Hebrews 10 when the writer reminds us of the great difference between an animal’s blood and the blood of Christ. However, in Hebrews 8 he uses a different angle to make the same point: that which makes the intercession of Christ effective is not just the better blood that was shed; it also involves the “better” covenant that his once-for-all sacrifice established. Christ’s ministry is successful because of the “better covenant” from which he ministers. The covenant terms, not just the kind of blood, make all the difference. We must see that the blood established the new covenant and the new covenant terms were based on grace while the old covenant terms were based on works.
This leads to the second of the three comparisons in Hebrews 8:6, which begs us to ask, “Why is this new covenant that Christ administers so much better than the covenant under which Aaron ministered? What is the weakness of the old covenant upon which Aaron’s ministry was based, and what are the strengths of the new covenant from which Christ ministers?” The writer immediately answers; “The new covenant is based on ‘better promises’ than the old covenant.” If the two covenants were based on the same promises, then Hebrews 8:6 would not make sense. If, as Covenant Theology insists, the new covenant and the old covenant are the same in “nature and substance,” then they are not substantially different at all, and again, Hebrews 8:6 becomes words without meaning. If there is not a radically new, totally different and very distinctly better covenant based on new, different, and better promises or better terms than the old covenant was based upon, then, I repeat, the words have lost their meaning. A failure to interpret Jeremiah’s prophecy in the light of the Book of Hebrews highlights the different views of the message in Hebrews.
We insist that there was nothing at all bad or wrong with either the old covenant or Aaron as a priest. The old covenant terms were not unfair or too rigid, but, on the contrary, they were “holy, just and good.” The old covenant failed simply because it could not produce the very necessary things that are guaranteed in the new covenant. That is what Jeremiah 31:31-34 is all about. The main point of the promise in Jeremiah 31:31-34 is not that God is going to tattoo the Ten Commandments on a new covenant believer’s heart nor is it that God is going to write a ‘new and different set of rules’ on the heart. It is neither of those things. The glory and expectation of the promises in the new covenant, as promised in Jeremiah 31, is that our blessed Savior is going to accomplish what Aaron and the law covenant given through Moses never could accomplish. Christ is going to affect inwardly what Aaron and the law covenant never could accomplish. Jeremiah 31:31-34, as can be seen from Hebrews 8 and 10, is not a law-centered passage, but it is a Christ-centered passage. John MacArthur is correct when he comments on Hebrews 8:10:
The New Covenant will have a different sort of law—an internal not an external law. Everything under the old economy was primarily external. Under the Old Covenant obedience was out of fear of punishment. Under the New it is to be out of adoring love and worshiping thanksgiving. Formerly God’s law was given on stone tablets and was to be written on wrists and foreheads and doorposts as reminders (Deut. 6:8, 9). Even when the old law was given, of course, it was intended to be in His people’s hearts (Deut. 6:6). But the people could not write on their hearts like they could write on their doorposts. And at this time the Holy Spirit, the only changer of hearts, was not yet given to believers. Now, however, the Spirit writes God’s law in the minds and hearts of those who belong to him. In the New Covenant true worship is internal, not external, real, not ritual (cf. Ezek. 11:19-20, 36:26, 27; John 14:17).[1]
I ask again, why did Aaron’s ministry fail? What was it that he could not effectually accomplish? In a nutshell, Aaron and the priests from his line could not meet the just and holy demands of the covenant terms, the Ten Commandments written on the tables of the covenant housed in the Ark of the Covenant. The blessings promised in that covenant (Ex. 19:5- 6) depended on compliance with the covenant terms written on the tables of the covenant. Neither Aaron nor the sinner could meet those terms. 1) They could not obey the covenant terms and earn the life that was promised, and 2) once the covenant terms were broken, they could not bring a sacrifice that could pay for the sin and satisfy both God’s holy character and the sinner’s conscience. Aaron’s inability to effect entrance into God’s presence had nothing to do with his godliness or his consistency and perseverance. He did all he could do and all that was expected of him. His ministry still failed and had to be replaced. Hebrews 8:7 does not say, or imply, “because Aaron failed to faithfully perform his work.” The real problem is the old covenant terms and the sinner’s inability to meet them. Jesus succeeds in the same ministry where Aaron failed. The new covenant constantly emphasizes that Christ “finished” the work of redemption. He offered a “once forever” sacrifice that satisfied God’s covenant terms.
How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant (Heb. 9:14-15).
For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God’s presence. Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him (Heb. 9:24-28).
It has been noted that there were no chairs in the tabernacle because the priestly work of sacrifice was never finished. After our Lord made his once-for-all-time sacrifice, he “sat down” because his sacrificial work was done.
After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19; cf. Heb. 8:1).
We have looked at the first of the three comparisons in Hebrews 8:6. We have seen how the first comparison insists that Christ’s ministry of High Priest is better than Aaron’s ministry. We will now look at the second comparison.
The second comparison in Hebrews 8:6 is between the two covenants. The writer states that the primary reason Christ’s ministry succeeded where Aaron’s ministry failed is because Christ’s ministry as High Priest is based on a better covenant. Everything depends on the nature of the covenant under which a priest ministers. Christ succeeds where Aaron failed simply because of Aaron’s inability to meet the terms of the covenant under which he ministered. Our Lord perfectly fulfills the demands of the old covenant and then establishes a new and better covenant based on better terms. The new covenant under which Christ ministered is based on grace, but the old covenant under which Aaron ministered was based on works. The efficacy of the sacrifice and the intercession can only be as effective as the covenant under which that work is done. What was needed was a new covenant not merely a new administration of the same covenant. What was the major weakness in the old covenant that necessitated it being totally replaced with a new and better covenant? The answer is quite simple. Aaron could not meet the terms of the old covenant for either himself or for those he represented.
First of all, Aaron could not present to God the holy, sinless, law-keeping, righteous life that the old covenant terms justly demanded. Aaron was a sinner who represented other sinners. He could not provide for himself or for those he represented the perfect righteous life that the “just, good, holy” law covenant demanded, nor could he offer an acceptable sacrifice that could pay the sinner’s debt to a holy God. The people Aaron represented, along with Aaron himself, were under the curse of God because they had broken the terms of the covenant, written both on the tablets of the covenant housed in the Ark of the Covenant and in the book of the covenant (Ex. 24:7-8) and sealed with blood.
Secondly, once those covenant terms were broken, that law covenant demanded an acceptable sacrifice to pay for sin. Aaron could no more bring such a sacrifice than he could have brought a righteous sinless life. He could make no true atonement for sin any more than he could earn life by obedience. All he could do was sacrifice an animal and sprinkle its blood on the altar and plead with God to “cover the sin” with the animal’s blood until One came who could and would make a true atonement. Our Lord accomplished both of the things that Aaron could not accomplish. He obeyed the law and earned the righteousness that it promised, and then he endured its just curse on the Cross. His righteous life is imputed to all for whom he died just as the sin of those same people is imputed to Christ and fully paid for by him on the cross.
I trust the reader has begun to see the truth of the glory of the new covenant. We have looked at why Christ’s ministry as our High Priest is so much better than Aaron’s ministry as High Priest. Christ’s ministry is based on a better covenant. We now look at the third comparison in Hebrews 8:6.
The third comparison is between the different promises upon which the two covenants rest. Again the writer answers the logical question raised by the second comparison. Why is the new covenant from which Christ ministers so much better than the covenant from which Aaron ministers? The answer is the third comparison. Christ’s ministry is better than Aaron’s because the old covenant from which Aaron ministered was totally inferior to the new covenant. The old covenant is inferior because it is based on inferior promises. Both covenants promised eternal life but the old covenant required the sinner to obey the law in order to earn the promised life. The new covenant assures the poor sinner that Christ has earned the promised life for us. Aaron could only give sinners a temporary relief. He could not offer a sacrifice that paid for sin and guilt. The covering only lasted for one year, and then there must be another Day of Atonement.
We must remember that there was no real atonement for sin until the cross. That is the first time that sin was actually punished. Every drop of animal blood on the old covenant altars was like an ‘I owe you’ note. At Calvary, our Lord picked up and paid in full every one of those ‘IOUs.’ Someone has said, “The old covenant believer was ‘saved on credit.” We need to clearly understand the nature, function and promises upon which the old covenant was based before we can understand why that old covenant had to be replaced with a new and better covenant. The old covenant is the covenant made with the nation of Israel at Mount Sinai. It was a covenant based on works. It was based on a big “if.” IF the Israelite obeyed the terms of the covenant in the Ark of the Covenant, THEN they would receive the blessings promised in the covenant.
Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Ex. 19:5-6).
No child of Adam could keep those terms thus all were condemned under the terms of that covenant. The blessings of the new covenant are established on Gospel terms. They are not based on works but on grace. They tell a sinner to believe, not work.
The three comparisons mentioned in Hebrews 8:6 are not the only comparisons in the Book of Hebrews. The whole book is a series of contrasts between the “better things” believers have under the new covenant. John MacArthur has given the best short summary of the heart of the message of Hebrews that I have ever read.
The epistle to the Hebrews is a study in contrast, between the imperfect and incomplete provisions of the Old Covenant, given under Moses, and the infinitely better provisions of the New Covenant offered by the perfect High-Priest, God’s only Son the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Included in the “better” provisions are: a better hope, testament, promise, sacrifice, substance, country, and resurrection. Those who belong 4to the New Covenant dwell in a completely new and heavenly atmosphere, they worship a heavenly Savior, have a heavenly calling, receive a heavenly gift, are citizens of a heavenly country, look forward to a heavenly Jerusalem, and have their names written in heaven.
One of the key theology themes in Hebrews is that all believers now have direct access to God under the New Covenant and, therefore may approach the throne of God boldly (4:16; 10:22). One’s hope is in the very presence of God, into which he follows the Savior 6:19; 10:19, 20). The primary teaching symbolized by the tabernacle service was that believers under the covenant of law did not have direct access to the presence of God (9:8), but were shut out of the Most Holy Place. The Book of Hebrews may briefly be summarized in this way: Believers in Jesus Christ, as God’s perfect sacrifice for sin, have the perfect High Priest through whose ministry everything is new and better than under the covenant of law. [2]
MacArthur’s statement, with which I totally agree, “The primary teaching symbolized by the tabernacle service was that believers under the covenant of law did not have direct access to the presence of God (9:8), but were shut out of the Holy of Holies,” is in total disagreement with the Westminster Confession. Covenant theology’s view of continuity/discontinuity necessitates that Israel had all of the blessings that the Church has but not to the same degree.
The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.[3]
The first half of that statement listing the blessings of believers living under the gospel is an excellent summary. It sounds like these blessing are unique to new covenant believers; however, the confession then upends everything it has just stated. “All which were common also to believers under the law.” To say that new covenant believers “had greater boldness of access to the throne of grace” is like saying the veil was partially closed under the old covenant and more opened under the new covenant Scripture is explicit in stating that the veil totally closed off entrance into the Most Holy place. To speak of an old covenant believer having any “boldness of access to the throne of grace “is to add to Scripture. I am sure the framers of the Westminster Confession never intended to minimize the glory of the new covenant, but they could not have done so any better if they had deliberately tried! In chapter 6 we will look at the rending of the veil the day our Lord cried, “It is finished.” We will see, among other things, just how wrong the Westminster Confession is on “access into the Most Holy Place.”