In this contribution, the notion that the concept of ‘law’ in the Letter to the Hebrews only pertains to the cultic domain is challenged against the discourse on law in the whole letter. Apart from instances in which the law includes moral aspects of the law, the broader theological context in which the concept of ‘law’ is set in Hebrews suggests that the whole Mosaic system is in view throughout the letter. Such a conclusion is drawn on the basis of pertinent contrasts in the letter between the old and new covenants, between the different sources of revelation, between Moses and Jesus, between the ways in which priesthood and sacrifices function in relation to sin, between the outward or physical and the inward or spiritual, and between die earthly and heavenly domains of the respective covenantal systems.
This article primarily makes a contribution in respect of biblical exegesis and New Testament theology. In addition, the article reconsiders the discourse on law in the Letter to the Hebrews, which impacts the way in which Christians understand their relationship to the Mosaic Law. It thus impacts the field of systematic theology. The relationship of the believer with the Mosaic Law in Hebrews also impacts church history: It provides us with information on the position of the early church towards the Mosaic Law, as well as how we understand the so-called ‘parting of the ways’ between Christianity and Judaism.
Traditionally, the majority of interpreters understand νόμος (‘law’) in the Letter to the Hebrews (Heb 7:5, 12, 16, 19, 28; 8:4, 10; 9:19, 22; 10:1, 8, 16, 28) as referring to the whole Mosaic Law (e.g. Bruce
Mary Schmitt (
Regev (
Similarly, Thiessen (
In preparing to answer the above approach, it has to be noted that right through the Letter to the Hebrews, an underlying contrast between the Jesus’ ministry and the Mosaic system can be detected. This basic contrast involves more than a contrast between the nature of the priestly ministry and the sacrificial system under Moses and Jesus, but seems to stretch much wider. As discussed below, various specific contrasts can be identified in this regard, which can be divided into four main aspects: (1) a contrast between the sources of revelation; (2) a contrast between the glory of Moses and Jesus; (3) a contrast between the two covenantal systems; and (4) finally, the way in which the author speaks about Sabbath and foods seems to be at odds with the continued observance of Sabbath days and food laws.
Right at the start of the Letter to the Hebrews, God who spoke to the patriarchs by the prophets is contrasted with God speaking by his Son in the last days (Heb 1:1–2), which implies a contrast between the source(s) of revelation of the old and the new epoch. Cockerill (
The most explicit contrast between Moses and Jesus comes in Hebrews 3:3, in which the author states that Jesus has been counted worthy of more ‘glory’ (δόξα) than Moses. The glory of Jesus is not only of a higher degree but also of a superior kind, which the author illustrates by a common proverb of comparing Jesus’ glory with the builder of a house whose glory surpasses that of the house. Whereas Moses was part of the house (God’s people) being built by God, the image points to the house being established by Christ as God in the new era. Christ thus provides redemption and thereby surpasses Moses, just as the Redeemer surpasses the redeemed (Cockerill
In Hebrews, the contrast between the two covenantal systems in the old and new era is probably the most profound contrast to be noticed in the letter. This contrast consists of several aspects, which can be categorised as follows: (1) the way in which the two covenantal systems are characterised; (2) the different realms in which they function; (3) the way in which works, transgressions and morality operate; and (4) the way in which priesthood, sacrifices and forgiveness of sin function, and (5) the way in which salvation functions.
In respect of the way in which the two covenants are characterised, there are some explicit contrasting descriptions in the letter. The concept of διαθήκη, which can be translated as either ‘covenant’ or ‘testament’, depending on the context, is used 17 times in the Letter to the Hebrews (7:22; 8:6, 8, 9 [X2], 10; 9:4 [X2], 15 [X2], 16, 17, 20; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20; cf. Johnson
There are, however, other descriptions that are not explicitly linked to the concept of διαθήκη, but, given the context in which they occur, are also characterising the respective covenantal systems. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that the concepts of νόμος (‘law’) and ἐντολή (‘commandment’) are identified or at least in close relationship with the concept of διαθήκη, which especially becomes clear in Hebrews 7:22. After the author reported on the changing of νόμος (7:12), contrasted ‘the law of a fleshly commandment’ (νόμον ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης) with ‘the power of an endless life’ (δύναμιν ζωῆς ἀκαταλύτου, 7:16), stated that the ‘former commandment’ (προαγούσης ἐντολῆς) is annulled (7:18) and declared that ‘the law’ (νόμος) made nothing perfect (7:19), he states that ‘Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant’ (7:22). The ‘better covenant’ (κρείττονος διαθήκης) is directly contrasted with high priesthood under the Mosaic system (cf. Hughes
Probably most significantly, however, in quoting Jeremiah 31:33 (38:33, LXX) in both 8:10 and 10:16, a pertinent connection is established between God’s laws (νόμους μου: ‘My laws’) and the new διαθήκη that God will make with his people in the last days. Whilst some argue that the writing of Gods’ laws in people’s hearts and minds in 8:10 and 10:16 simply refers to a reaffirmation of the Mosaic laws (e.g. Allen
In several instances, the Mosaic sacrificial system is characterised as inferior to the dispensation under Christ’s high priesthood. In Hebrews 7:11, the Levitical priesthood is portrayed is imperfect. According to 8:4–5, the gifts that the priests offer ‘according to the law’ (κατὰ νόμον, v. 4) are considered to be ‘the copy and the shadow of the heavenly things’ (ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ … τῶν ἐπουρανίων, v. 5). As a consequence, in 8:7, the first covenant is portrayed as not being ‘faultless’ (ἄμεμπτος). In 9:8–9, the Holiest of All in the tabernacle is portrayed as ‘symbolic for the present time’ (παραβολὴ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν τὸν ἐνεστηκότα, v. 9), which seems to be a wider concept than merely a reference to the cultic realm. It points to a situation where external, fleshly ordinances are of no significance (9:10) and includes a new conscience (9:9, 14), implying a new way of relating to God in which God’s holy presence does not have a cultic status any more (cf. Lane
In contrast with the way in which the Mosaic system is characterised, the author’s emphases on faith (6:12; 10:22; 11:1–39), grace (4:16; 12:15; 13:25) and endless life (7:16; 10:26) are all akin to the new covenant. These aspects also overlap with an implicit contrast between love and good works (10:24) on the one side, and dead works (6:1; 9:14) on the other (see below).
The second aspect of the contrast between the two covenantal systems pertains to the different realms in which they function. Believers’ calling is portrayed as being ‘heavenly’ (ἐπουράνιος, 3:1). The Holy Spirit is considered to be a ‘heavenly’ (6:4) gift. Christ, the new high priest, is seated in ‘heaven’ (οὐρανός) at God’s right hand (8:1), and he has entered ‘heaven’ in the presence of God on believers’ behalf (9:24). Conversely, the old covenant is pictured as a copy and shadow of the ‘heavenly’ things (8:5), and the sacrificial system ‘according to the law’ (κατὰ τὸν νόμον) is considered as copies of the ‘heavenly’ things (9:22–23). The land promise under the old covenant is contrasted with a ‘better’ (κρείσσων), ‘heavenly’ land (11:16). Significantly, believers are pictured as having come to the Mount Zion of the living God and the ‘heavenly’ Jerusalem, which is compared with the earthly Mount Sinai (12:20–22). As a consequence, believers are now enrolled in ‘heaven’ (12:23). This contrast between the earthly and heavenly mountains is noteworthy, in that Mount Sinai signified the reception of the Mosaic Law, which includes all the moral laws, and thus, stretches wider than the cultic sphere. Conversely, Jesus’ high priesthood is pictured as not being on ‘earth’ (γῆ, 8:4), and the first covenant is pictured as having an ‘earthly’ or ‘worldly’ (κοσμικός) place of holiness (9:1). Under the Mosaic system, people were warned from ‘earth’, whereas God’s people are now warned from ‘heaven’ (12:25). Finally, the ‘human’ or ‘earthly’ (σάρξ) fathers who disciplined the people is compared with the Father ‘of spirits’ (τῶν πνευμάτων) who disciplined his people in the new covenant. There thus exists a clear contrast between the earthly realm of the old covenant and the heavenly realm of the new covenant.
In a similar way, the Levitical priesthood is portrayed as being subject to a ‘fleshly commandment’ (ἐντολῆς σαρκίνης, 7:16), which relates to the high priest under the Mosaic system being subjected to human genealogy (7:3, 6). In the same way, cultic rituals are pictured as being ‘fleshly ordinances’ (δικαιώματα σαρκὸς, 9:10) in contrast with Christ who came as High Priest ‘of the good things that have come’ (τῶν γενομένων ἀγαθῶν) of the greater, more perfect tabernacle (9:11), which implies a heavenly, spiritual ministry.
The third aspect of the contrast between the two covenantal systems concerns the way in which works, transgressions and morality operate. In Hebrews, the idea is advanced that people in the new covenant repent or cleanse their conscience ‘from dead works’ (ἀπὸ νεκρῶν ἔργων, 6:1; 9:14). The ‘dead works’ could be associated with the Levitical priesthood, such as washings and fleshly ordinances (see esp. 9:10; e.g. Lane
It is significant that according to Hebrews 10:19–20, which follows the quotation from Jeremiah 31:33–34 (38:33–34, LXX), the addressees are invited to enter the Holiest with boldness ‘by a new and living way’ (ὁδὸν πρόσφατον καὶ ζῶσαν), which implies that the way in which God’s laws in the new covenant are fulfilled, coheres with a new way of relating to God, which includes assurance of faith, a clean conscience, a confession of hope, love and good works (10:22–24). There is no appeal to a renewed commitment to the precepts of the Mosaic Law, which arguably suggests that the precepts of the Mosaic Law belong to the previous era. Rather than an appeal to the addressees to adhere to the Mosaic Law, they are called to do ‘God’s will’ (10:7, 9; 10:36; 13:21) and to exercise their senses to discern good and evil (5:14).
The fourth aspect of the difference between the two covenantal systems is the way in which priesthood, sacrifices and forgiveness of sin function. An important factor in this equation is the fact that there exists a pertinent link between the sacrificial and moral dimensions of the Mosaic Law. This link starts with the fact that the sacrificial practice under the Mosaic system was in place to atone for the sins of the people. Sin, in turn, was primarily associated with the transgression of the Mosaic written code. In this regard, in Hebrews 10:3, the author points out that sacrifices were a reminder of sin every year. According to 10:8, offerings were made for sin according to the Law. However, ultimately Jesus ended the sacrificial practice by offering himself once and for all (7:27). The Son is appointed by the word of oath that came ‘later than the law’ (μετὰ τὸν νόμον), and thus, superseded the Mosaic system. The fact that Christ as the high priest sanctified believers through his offering (10:10) and perfected forever those being sanctified (10:14) also exemplifies the link between the sacrificial system and the moral law. In other words, it is not merely the high priest that has changed; the function of the high priest has changed from sacrificing to God on behalf of the people’s moral transgressions to cleansing the people themselves by perfecting and sanctifying them. As O’Brien (
In contrast with the sacrificial system under the Mosaic system, God’s people now offer a sacrifice of praise (13:15), which is regarded as a ‘fruit’ of the new life under Christ’s high priesthood. This idea is similar to the fruit of the Spirit to which Paul refers in Galatians 5:22, in that it flows forth from God’s work in and through believers (Heb 13:21). Similarly, good deeds are regarded as sacrifices in themselves (13:16), which spring forth from the new covenant and from God making believers complete in every good work (13:21). In other words, in the new covenant, the idea of a sacrifice is transferred from the cultic domain to the moral domain (cf. Attridge
Under the old covenant, the high priest ‘can never take away sins’ (οὐδέποτε δύνανται περιελεῖν ἁμαρτίας, 10:11), which in itself establishes the close relationship between the cultic and the moral law. However, probably more importantly, nowhere in the New Testament is there any fundamental distinction(s) drawn between different kinds of (Mosaic) laws, such as the moral, cultic and/or purity laws. References to the Mosaic Law normally include all of these aspects. In this regard, the reference in 9:19 to the sacrifices that Moses offered to God after he had spoken ‘every commandment’ (πάσης ἐντολῆς) to the people, refers to Moses’ offering after receiving the
The last notable aspect of the way in which the new covenant is pictured different from the old is the concept of salvation, which is specifically associated with the new covenant and not with the old one. The salvation (σωτηρία) the Lord spoke, which is described as ‘so great’ (τηλικοῦτος) in Hebrews 2:3, ‘is more than a “word” that requires obedience and pronounces judgement. It is a provision for obedience that delivers from judgement and brings the faithful into fellowship with God’ (Cockerill
Apart from the way in which the qualifier αἰώνιος binds the above-mentioned concepts together, a pertinent link between salvation and the new covenant is established in 7:22–25, in which Jesus is portrayed as providing ‘surety’ (ἔγγυος) for a better covenant based on an unchangeable priesthood that lasts forever (vv. 22–24). Based on this priesthood, the author in verse 25 concludes as follows: ‘therefore, he is also able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him’ (ὅθεν καὶ σῴζειν εἰς τὸ παντελὲς δύναται τοὺς προσερχομένους διʼ αὐτοῦ τῷ θεῷ). Jesus’ high priesthood is thus the basis for this great salvation, which is akin to the new covenant. The ultimate eschatological reality of salvation is made explicit by 9:28 (e.g. Lane
In Hebrews 3–4, the author mostly uses the word κατάπαυσις (3:11, 18; 4:1, 3, 5, 10, 11) for addressing the true rest, which believers must enter. Yet, in 4:9, the word σαββατισμός is used, which has to do with Sabbath observances and could point to the seventh day as a day of rest or the Sabbath celebration day (Koester
In Hebrews 9:10, the author renders food laws (Lv 11; Dt 14), laws that accompany sacrifices (Nm 6:15, 17; 28:7–8) and various rites of bodily cleansing (Ex 29:4; Lv 8:6; 16:14; see O’Brien
When reassessing Hebrews 7 in light of the way in which law and covenant are pictured in the whole letter, one is, indeed, hard pressed to confine the author’s discourse on law to the specific law(s) about priesthood, as some argue (Regev
To come back to the references to νόμος in 7:12 and 19, although the focus of chapter 7 is certainly on laws pertaining to priesthood, it is not so much that the author
The last issue to be addressed is the author’s reference in Hebrews 10:28 to a person who rejected ‘Moses’ Law’ (νόμον Μωϋσέως) to be put to death (Dt 17:2–7). As noted earlier, some argued that this verse is evidence of the continued validity of the Mosaic Law (Regev
In reference to the concept of ‘law’ in the Letter to the Hebrews, there are instances where the author focuses on sacrificial and priestly laws, especially in chapter 7. However, if the discourse on law in the whole letter is considered, references to ‘law’ that focus on sacrificial or priestly laws (esp. 7:5, 16, 28; 8:4; 9: 22; 10:8) have to be interpreted against the bigger picture of the abrogation of the old covenant, which includes the whole Mosaic legal system. As there are clear references to ‘law’ that stretches beyond the cultic realm (e.g. 8:10, 19:19 and 10:16), one is hard pressed to
The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
The author declares that he is the sole author of this article.
This study followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated agency of the author.
Bauer et al. (
Kissi and Van Eck (
Johnson (
Haber argued that according to Hebrews there is no new law and that the law belongs to the old order.
Kistemaker and Burce argued that the author draws an implicit comparison between the severity of physical death under the old covenant and spiritual death under the new.