Paul tells us that Christ’s High Priesthood is founded upon a more excellent ministry, through which he mediates a better covenant that is founded upon better promises (Hebrews 8:6). How does Paul know this, and why should his readers believe him? Consider his argument for a moment. He claims the Law and the things therein, including the ministry of the Levitical priesthood, are but shadows of matters to come (Hebrews 8:5; cf. Colossians 2:17). We saw that the Tabernacle was a copy of a copy of the Reality (Exodus 25:9, 40), and, therefore, a shadow of something else. Logic concludes that the Reality must come before the shadow. In order for a shadow to exist at all, there must exist something of substance in the first place in order to cast it. So, which is greater, the shadow or the substance that casts the shadow? Obviously, it is the thing of substance or the reality, which in the context of Paul’s argument is Christ, the High Priest.
In other words, before the Law was revealed, the One who became Christ existed as High Priest and cast the shadow that Moses was commanded to build, and which the Levitical priesthood was commanded to serve. Once again, therefore, we have Paul implying that Jesus was Melchizedek, whom Abraham submitted to and gave tithes of all the spoils of the war (Hebrews 7:1-8).
Obviously, if Jesus’ ministry is the Reality, which the Levitical priesthood imitated or shadowed, he wouldn’t mediate the Mosaic Covenant, which was all about shadows. Instead, he ascended into heaven and there mediated a new covenant, whereby he was able to guarantee our salvation through the offering of his own life’s blood (Hebrews 2:17; 3:1; 4:14-15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1, 3; 9:11, 25). Whereupon, instead of leaving the presence of God in order to continue sacrificing animal blood for men’s sins, as the Levitical priesthood was apt to do, Jesus, our High Priest, sat down at the right hand of God on the throne of God (Hebrews 8:1; cf. Hebrews 1:3, 13; 9:24; 10:12; 12:2), which was ‘shadowed’ by the Mercy Seat in the Tabernacle made by Moses. Thus, just as, when God completed his work of creation, he rested to indicate his creative work was complete, so, too, after he offered his life’s blood, Jesus sat down and rested from his work of redemption, indicating that his work of salvation was complete. Therefore, there is nothing left to be done.
In a previous study[1] I presented a logical argument showing why the New Covenant was better than the Mosaic Covenant or the Old Covenant. The problem with the Old Covenant stemmed from the fact that it was a bilateral covenant. That is, in order for it to be successful, it depended upon the integrity of both parties. Both parties making the covenant not only had to be able to do the thing they promised to do (cf. Deuteronomy 30:11-14), but they had to actually do the thing they promised, and therein lay the problem. Although men were willing to obey God, they were too weak, through the flesh, to obey him (Matthew 26:41; Romans 8:3), and at the end of the day the Scripture says of men: they are unable to serve the Lord (Joshua 24:19).
On the other hand, the New Covenant is **not** a bilateral covenant. Rather it is a unilateral covenant. In other words, its success is totally dependent upon one party’s integrity and ability to fulfill its commands. Its type can be seen in the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15:7-18. There, while Abraham slept, God, alone, passed through the slain animals, just as Jesus, by himself, washed us from our sins (Hebrews 1:3) through his crucifixion and death (Hebrews 2:17; 12:2). This is the new and better covenant, of which Jesus has been made a surety (cf. Hebrews 7:22), showing us what God is like (John 1:18; Hebrews 1:3a).
________________________________________
[1] See my study: Jesus, the Surety of the Covenant.
Smoodock's Blog 