I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened , so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. (Eph 1:18,19 NASB)
But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people: that you may declare his virtues, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light; (1Peter 2:9 DRB)
But you are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for possession, so that you may openly speak of the virtues of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; (1 Peter 2:9 LITV)
An elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people, and God’s possession—chosen ministers of a new royal priesthood, God’s own possession assisting Christ in the distribution of His inheritance to a holy nation. Is this the definition of the new covenant we have traditionally been taught?
As far as I can determine, the new covenant has always been defined by comparing it with the traditional understanding of what is the old covenant. This is pretty much consistent among professing Christians at large, including those who observe Sabbath.
The old covenant is considered to be solely the covenant the people made with God at Mount Sinai, referred to by many as the Mosaic Covenant. Larry D. Pettegrew, Professor of Theology, writes the following in “The Masters Seminary Journal” under the chapter The New Covenant:
Two significant characteristics of the New Covenant promised to Israel are its newness in replacing the Mosaic Covenant and its everlasting and irrevocable nature.
In the same article Pettegrew quotes another theologian, Brevard S. Child:
The new covenant . . . is not simply a renewal of the Sinai covenant .. . [Brevard S. Child s, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (London: SCM, 1960)]
And according to GotQuestions.org, under the article What is the New Covenant?:
The old covenant that God had established with His people required obedience to the Old Testament Mosaic law.
Those who hold to this interpretation that the old covenant is solely the covenant made at Mount Sinai, what they call the “Mosaic Covenant,” and that this is what the new covenant replaces, generally point to Jeremiah chapter 31 for their support, the same text the author of Hebrews references. They simply quote Jeremiah and Hebrews and state their definition as if it is a self-evident fact; derived I assume from the text in Hebrews which says, “not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day of My taking hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” Pettegrew writes:
In the Book of Hebrews, Christ is called the “mediator of a better covenant” (Heb 8:6), which is identified as the New Covenant that has replaced the first (Mosaic) covenant (Heb 8:7-13). [The New Covenant, supra]
This conclusion appears to be drawn on an assumption that there was only one covenant made with the Israelites in the day God led them out of the land of Egypt. As we shall see, that is not the case.
Besides the references in Jeremiah and Hebrews, the term new covenant is also used by Jesus during the Passover meal before his death, where He defines the wine as representing His blood of the new covenant. The new covenant is also mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians in describing the same event, and it is mentioned in 2 Corinthians where Paul tells the Corinthians they are “ministers of a new covenant.” But nowhere in Scripture does anyone specifically define the new covenant as opposed to the old covenant except for the author of Hebrews.
It is important to notice that in chapter 8 of Hebrews, Jeremiah is being quoted to give support to the author’s understanding of what is the old covenant and what is the new covenant. In other words, the author of Hebrews, in what he has previously written in Chapters 7 & 8, is interpreting Jeremiah 31 for us; and, he is further expounding on his understanding in the verses following his quote of Jeremiah. To say it another way, Jeremiah is not interpreting the writer of Hebrews. The writer of Hebrews is interpreting Jeremiah.
The subject matter of the letter to the Hebrews is undeniably the priesthood. The words priest or priesthood are mentioned 37 times in 34 verses in 10 of the letter’s 13 chapters. Preceding Chapter 8, in which Jeremiah 31 is quoted, the priesthood is mentioned 17 times in over half of the 28 verses of Chapter 7, and following chapter 8 the priesthood is mentioned 7 times in Chapters 9 & 10.
In Chapter 8 itself, the priesthood is mentioned four times just before the author quotes Jeremiah. These four chapters alone contain 28 of the 37 references to the priesthood. It would be of great benefit to our understanding if we would read Jeremiah in the context the author of Hebrews placed it. After all, he uses Jeremiah’s prophecy to support his definition of both what is new as opposed to what is old and becoming obsolete.
Hebrews Chapter 8, verses 6 though 8 lead the reader into the quote of Jeremiah:
But now hath he obtained a ministry the more excellent, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which hath been enacted upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
In their defense of the law, I have heard Sabbatarians make reference to verse 7 and point out that the fault was not with the law but with the people; that is, the fault was with the people of Israel. However, the people of Israel & Judah are not the antecedent to the pronoun “them” which is used here. The antecedent of a pronoun is the noun or other pronoun it refers to.
For example: Ron makes his home in California; Ron is the antecedent to his. Californians value his work for them; Californians is the antecedent to them. Since a pronoun derives its meaning from its antecedent, the two must agree in person, number, and gender.
We know the pronoun them refers to Californians and not to Ron, because Californians precedes the pronoun them and agrees in number. Californians is the antecedent. Please forgive me if I hammer away at this point, but it is an extremely important point which some have overlooked. The antecedent to the plural pronoun them, used in verse 7 of Hebrews, is “every high priest”, as found in Hebrews Chapter 8 verses 3 and 4:
For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is necessary that this high priest also have somewhat to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law;
The plural pronoun those in verse 4 refers to the plural antecedent every high priest in verse 3; and likewise, the plural pronoun them in verse 7 refers to every high priest. So we should properly read verse 8 to say, “For finding fault with the high priests…” We should not read it to say finding fault with the people of Israel in general.
Let’s use the proper antecedent and continue reading verse 8 with this understanding—that God found fault with the priests. The rest of verse 8 begins the quote from Jeremiah.
For finding fault with [every high priest], he saith, ‘Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah;
Before we go on, we need to remind ourselves that the author is writing Chapter 8 and quoting Jeremiah to support everything he has written previously. Just as the author says in Chapter 8 verse 1, “Now the main point in what has been said is this…” So, when Jeremiah mentions this new covenant, it must be the covenant that the author of Hebrews has previously discussed. After all, that’s the reason he’s using the quote, to support his position on this covenant.
A covenant is first mentioned in Chapter 7 verse 22: “by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant.” This is the new covenant the author has been discussing prior to Chapter 8 and continues to discuss through Chapter 10. Now notice some key verses of Chapter 7, starting at verse 11:
Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood . . .what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law . . . For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah . . . for it is witnessed of him, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek . . . For on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment . . . and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope. . . inasmuch as it was not without an oath… The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, Thou art a priest forever… so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable. (Hebrews 7:11-24)
When he says Messiah’s priesthood is unchangeable, he implies the old priesthood was changeable and that the new priesthood is eternal. And the author of Hebrew’s says just that in Chapter 13 verses 20 & 21: “Now the God of peace, who brought again from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep with the blood of an eternal covenant, even our Lord Jesus, make you perfect in every good thing to do his will, working in us.”
That which is old is the covenant of the Levitical priesthood and its attendant regulations of divine worship and the earthly tabernacle. And that which is new is the covenant of Christ’s priesthood and its regulations of divine worship and the heavenly tabernacle. This definition of what is the new and old covenant is expounded on in more detail in Hebrews Chapter 9.
Beginning from the end of Chapter 8 and reading through Chapter 9 verse 10:
When He said , ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. Now even the first covenant [i.e. the old covenant] had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.
The author of Hebrews continues to define the new covenant by comparing and contrasting it with its old predecessor. The laws of divine worship were carried out under the covenant of the Levitical priesthood. This is made clear in verse 11 of Chapter 7 and verse 1 of Chapter 10:
If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law. . .
For the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh.
But if the covenant made at Sinai isn’t the old covenant the author of Hebrews is referring to, but is instead the Levitical priesthood—then was the priesthood a covenant? Nehemiah 13:29 says it was: “Remember them, O my God, because they have defiled the priesthood, and the covenant of the priesthood, and of the Levites.” In his book The Salt Covenant, on page 15, H. Clay Trumbull says,
A ‘covenant of salt’ seems to stand quite by itself in the Bible record . . . [it] is spoken of only three times, and in every one of these cases as if it were of peculiar and sacred significance . .. The Lord speaks of his covenant with Aaron and his sons, in the privileges of the priesthood . . . as such a covenant. To [Aaron] he says: ‘All the heave offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer unto the Lord, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, as a due for ever: it is a covenant of salt for ever before the Lord unto thee and to thy seed with thee. [Numbers 18:19]
And God says in Malachi, a book which was written to the priests, not the people:
And now, this commandment is for you, O priests. If you do not listen, and if you do not take it to heart to give honor to My name,’ says the LORD of hosts, ‘then I will send the curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings . . . Then you will know that I have sent this commandment to you, that My covenant may continue with Levi,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him as an object of reverence . . . But as for you, you have turned aside from the way; you have caused many to stumble by the instruction; you have corrupted the covenant of Levi,’ says the LORD of hosts. ‘So I also have made you despised and abased before all the people, just as you are not keeping My ways, but are showing partiality in the instruction (Malachi 2:1-9)
I have not forgotten the quote of Jeremiah in Chapter 8 of Hebrews. And I will get to it later. But I want to continue looking at the book of Hebrews’ definition so we don’t get confused by the use of the word covenant in Jeremiah’s prophecy—because the prophecy mentions more than one covenant.
Has anyone been confused by this verse in Hebrews 9:
And for this cause he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth (Heb. 9:15).
The word translated testament in these verses is the same word translated as covenant in the previous verses. It is translated this way because the word means disposition. The word testament is “a term that refers to the disposition of personal property by will.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, Testament)
So, in Hebrews we are dealing with the instrument by which an inheritance is disposed of by being distributed to the heirs. Just as Hebrews 9:15 says, “they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance,” referring to Jesus as the mediator, that is to say, as the executor of a new covenant.
This type of covenant is called Letters Testamentary. “The formal instrument of authority and appointment given to an executor by the proper court . . . empowering him to enter upon the discharge of his office as executor.” (Black’s)
Is the new priesthood covenant the instrument by which the LORD distributes His estate? If it is, then it should be similar in type and function of the old covenant of the Levitical priesthood. As Hebrews 8:5 and 10:1 mention, “[they served] a copy and shadow of the heavenly things… [and] the law having a shadow of the good things to come. . .”
As it turns out, the scriptures say that the priesthood’s duty is exactly that. As Hebrews 8:5 & 10:1 imply, the tabernacle represents God’s house, His estate if you will. We know that all the earth and everything in it belongs to Him as His property, including the people. The LORD tells Moses in Numbers Chapter 3 verses 6-8:
Bring the tribe of Levi, and make them stand in the sight of Aaron the priest to minister to him, and let them watch, And observe whatsoever appertaineth to the service of the multitude before the tabernacle of the testimony, And let them keep the vessels of the tabernacle, serving in the ministry thereof. (DRB)
Further, concerning the distribution of the land to the sons of Israel the scripture says:
(Num 32:5) And they said, If we have found favor in your eyes, let this land be given to your servants for a possession. Do not make us pass over the Jordan.
(Num 32:28) And Moses commanded Eleazar the priest concerning them, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the sons of Israel;
(Num 32:29) even Moses said to them, If the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben pass over the Jordan with you each armed for battle before Jehovah, and the land shall be subdued before you, then you shall give to them the land of Gilead for a possession.
(Num 34:17) These are the names of the men that shall divide the land unto you for inheritance: Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun.
Is it any coincidence that it is the priesthood and Joshua (whose name means God saves) who are charged with distributing the inheritance? And finally in the book of Joshua:
These are the inheritances which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers of the tribes of the sons of Israel divided for an inheritance by lot in Shiloh before Jehovah, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. So they finished dividing the country.(Joshua 19:51)
It should be evident by now that the priesthood was the instrument by which the LORD intended the inheritance to be distributed. Although Joshua was involved in acquiring the inheritance, for he had to fight for them to take possession of the land, and although the heads of households would subdivide it among themselves, it was all done under the authority and mediation of the priesthood.
We also see this in Ezekiel 47:21-22 where the LORD tells Ezekiel, a priest of the LORD representing the priesthood, to distribute the inheritance:
And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you and to the strangers that sojourn among you, who shall beget children among you; and they shall be unto you as the home-born among the children of Israel; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel.
The priesthood is charged with keeping the administration of God’s household—His estate, including His word. The new priesthood covenant is the “Letters Testamentary”, just like the old covenant.
Then what is our inheritance? Under the old Levitical priesthood covenant, the Levites had no inheritance of land. “And Jehovah said to Aaron, You shall have no inheritance in their land, nor shall you have any portion among them (Numbers 18:20)
Then what does the LORD say? “I am your portion and your inheritance among the sons of Israel.”
And further the scripture says:
But Moses did not give an inheritance to the tribe of Levi. Jehovah the God of Israel Himself is their inheritance, as He has spoken to them. (Joshua 13:33) . . . For there shall be no portion to the Levites among you, for the priesthood of Jehovah is their inheritance. (Joshua18:7)
And so it is with the new covenant of the Royal Priesthood. Those who are chosen to inherit that Royal Priesthood, the elect, shall assist with distributing an inheritance to a holy nation. And most importantly, God Himself is their inheritance; they shall inherit His divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). And not only that, they are also His inheritance!
Calling the gospels and the epistles “the new testament”, and calling everything written before them “the old testament”, is incorrect. And it obscures what they really are.
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened , so that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. (Eph 1:18,19 NASB)
For the benefit of the reader, the following is a list of some scriptures regarding what the priests, the elect of God, will be administering when Christ returns.
The priesthood reigns and instructs the nation in God’s law, makes judgments regarding the law, blesses the nations, & are peace makers:
- Deuteronomy 21:5; 33:8-11
- Malachi 2:4-7
- Psalm 149:5-9
- Matthew 5:9
- Luke 12:44
- 1 Cor. 6:2,3
- Revelation 20:6
The priests are the executors—that is to say, they distribute the inheritance:
- Numbers 27:1-4; 32:1-5, 32:28-30, 33; 34:16-29
- Joshua 14:1,2
- Psalm 149:5-9
- John 7:38
- Revelation 22:17
Article first written April 2009; update 2026
This work by century72.com is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. When quoting give attribution to century72.com with link.