NASB rendering of Hebrews 8:13

[_thrombomodulin]

I am looking for some help regarding Hebrews 8:13.

The NIV says

By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear

The NASB says

When He said, "A new {covenant,}" He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.

I have been corresponding with someone named Jerry who is a reader of the NASB version. Jerry had asked me "so is [the old covenant] obsolete or not?". I had replied "Yes, as 'made' here is the past tense". I further explained that I understand the "vanishing" clause as applying to the physical destruction of the then obsolete temple hardware.

Jerry found this answer inadequate because I neglected to account for the NASB use of the word "becoming". This word implies that the old covenant has not yet been made obsolete, which seems to contradict the first part of the verse. I would appreciate if anyone could comment from the original langague about why the NASB translators used the word "becoming" and about the apparent contradiction in this verse if the word is used.

Thanks
Peter

6/18/2008 , corrected from NKVJ to NIV.

[Guest]

I'm not sure I understand. If the letter was written before 70AD then it would seem to make sense the way you described it. If covenant has been replaced, the temple that was the "house" of the stone tablets (at least technically) was going to soon disappear since it was no longer valid. Hence "is becoming obsolete". When 70AD hit, it (the old covenant) had become physically and visibly obsolete.

I would point to other verses in Hebrews to make the case:

Hbr 7:12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.

Hbr 7:18 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God

Hbr 7:22 by so much more Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant.

Hbr 7:28 For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

Hbr 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.


So when the Son came and said:
Mat 26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
The old covenant was replaced.

Just some thoughts. The whole jist of Hebrews 7 that leads into Hebrews 8 is about how much greater the new covenant is over the old one that Jesus replaced by confirming the new covenant.

[_thrombomodulin]

Sean,

Thanks for your reply. Jerry holds the view that both covenants, excepting mosaic ceremonial law, are perpetual. Thus he does not share the view of so-called "replacement theology", but rather he accepts the view that the Jews and Gentiles are forever distinct.

He had dismissed the destruction of the temple as not legally significant regarding the applicability of the old covenant.

He has not yet shared how he interprets this passage. I think he is trying to make a case that the passage contains an apparent contradiction, and is thus hard to understand, and therefore not profitable for doctrine.

Peter

[Guest]

Sean,

Thanks for your reply. Jerry holds the view that both covenants, excepting mosaic ceremonial law, are perpetual. Thus he does not share the view of so-called "replacement theology", but rather he accepts the view that the Jews and Gentiles are forever distinct.

Have you pointed out that Ephesians 2 and Galatians 3 & 4 flatly contradict this? Besides, what good is the old covenant if it cannot take away sins? Is there some value in the Jews holding onto the old covenant where they will die in their sins?

[_thrombomodulin]

I have not raised these points. These are good points, and I'll inquire a little more to be sure I haven't misrepresented his position.

Pete

[Guest]

To get back to your original question, Pete:
First I am surprised that you quoted the following as the NKJV rendering:

By calling this covenant new, he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear

I have found this to be the translation of the NIV. The NKJV reads:

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.

However, “obsolete” isn’t quite the meaning of the verb “palaioō”. In this case, the traditional translations are more accurate. The following (with my limited knowldege of Greek) would be my translation:

In saying “a new”, He has made the first old. Now that which is being made old and is becoming old, is near to vanishing away.

The first use of the verb is in the perfect tense. This indicates that the action was completed, but the effects continue. The second sentence indicates that the first covenant was still being made old at the time the author penned the words, and thus was continuing to age. But the time would come, yet future to the author, when the first covenant, because of “oldness” would vanish away entirely.

[_thrombomodulin]

Thanks Paidion, I was hoping you would answer. Indeed somehow I did get the version name wrong.

Do you have any particular opinion about what exactly was completed, and what are the effects continue?

Peter

[Guest]

I don't hold a very strong opinion about it, Peter. The passage doesn't seem to be really clear.

I am inclined to think that the very fact that God introduced a New Covenant rendered the First Covenant "old". Thus, being "old", it continued to become even older, so that eventually it would pass away.

I wonder whether that as long as there are people in the Jewish religion who adhere to the First Covenant, it has not completely passed away. But perhaps that attempt to hold onto the First Covenant is not recogized by God, since those of the Jewish religion are not disciples of Christ. Perhaps it did not completely pass away as long as there were Jewish disciples of Christ who were still observing its tenets in some fashion. Yet, I am still a bit confused since in our day there are even Christians who believe they should practise the injuctions of the First Covenant. Would that mean that the Old Covenant still has not died?