Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Regarding (Hebrews 8:10); when God puts his Law in the mind and writes it in the heart... is this prophecy referring to the discernment inside (Matthew 7:12)?
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you. (Matthew 7:12; NASB 1995)
The simple answer is "no." First, Hebrews is a Christian text, and from a Christian viewpoint the New Covenant is not one of Law in any sense, even a summary of it. It is one of blood shed by Jesus on the Cross. It involves primarily faith, not good deeds such as loving one's neighbor or doing unto others as you would have them do to you. Good works consistent with the Law result, of course, but the Christian version of the New Covenant is not one involving deeds.
Hebrews itself takes a similar viewpoint, calling works of the Law "dead."
Matthew 7:12 is essentially a reiteration of an "Old" commandment:
It is also a reiteration of a teaching of Rabbi Hillel in the generation just prior to Jesus:
There is another problem with seeing Jesus' teaching in Matthew as closely related the the teaching of Hebrews. Matthew presents a very different understanding from Hebrews regarding the importance of the Law. Heb. 8 says the "old" covenant based on the Law is being made "obsolete" (8:13) but in the Gospel of Matthew, the Law is not obsolete. Jesus wants us to do even more than the OT asks. In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus consistently emphasizes that his followers should not only follow the Law of Moses but must go beyond it: not only "do not murder" but do not even be angry; not only "do not commit adultery" but don't even look lustfully upon a woman, etc. (see Mt. 5-6) Moreover, Jesus strongly criticizes those who would undermine even the finest point of the OT Law:
Finally, at the time when Jesus taught, the New Covenant of Jeremiah was understood as a writing of God's Law on people's hearts, not a replacement of the Law by a summary of it. This is the plain meaning of the text:
The prophet doesn't speak of a one-sentence condensed version of the Law here. Of course, the summaries by Jesus and Hillel are important and profound, but we should not presume that they were taught as a substitute for the entire law, especially given Jesus' insistence in the Sermon on the Mount that not even the smallest point should be removed from the Law.
Thus, to interpret Hebrews' doctrine of the New Covenant as an expression of Jesus' teaching in the gospel of Matthew is problematic. Mt. 7:12 is a kind of summary of the Law; and Matthew indeed presents Jesus as a New Moses, but not as someone who makes the OT Covenant obsolete.
The writer of Hebrews twice refers to the prophecy in Jeremiah and the reference is surprising as will become apparent:
Heb 8:8-12 - 8 But God found fault with the people and said: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not abide by My covenant, and I disregarded them, declares the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their minds and inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people. 11 No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest. 12 For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.”
Heb 10:16, 17 - “This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their hearts and inscribe them on their minds.” Then He adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.”
Jer 31:31-34 - 31 Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt— a covenant they broke, though I was a husband to them,” declares the LORD. 33 “But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD. I will put My law [תּוֹרָה = "Torah" or "law"] in their minds and inscribe it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people. 34 No longer will each man teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins no more.”
The New Covenant
The "new Covenant" is referenced a number of times in the NT - Matt 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, 2 Cor 3:6, Heb 7:77, 8:6-13, 9:15, 10:16, 29, 12:24, 13:20, (Jer 31:31, 33), an eternal covenant (Heb 13:20).
One of the best and most succinct summaries of the New Covenant is found in 1 Peter 1, 2.
There is no direct lingustic link (other than a theological link) between the New Covenant and the Matt 7:12; except that we have earlier in the same sermon of Jesus the statement in Matt 5:17-19 -
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. For I tell you truly, until heaven and earth pass away, not a single jot, not a stroke of a pen, will disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. So then, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do likewise will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever practices and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
APPENDIX - Old Covenant was a Covenant of the heart
In Ex 19 Moses is instructed in the Covenant directly by God. Moses then conveys the content of the covenant to the people which is recorded in Ex 20:1-17 as the 10 Commandments, and then explained and amplified in Ex 20:22-23:33. The people answered, three times, “whatever the Lord has said we will do”, Ex 19:8, 24:3, 7, thus creating the Israelite covenant. [Later they rejected the Covenant and a New Covenant had to be instituted with Christians with the same content.] This Covenant was open to all people from its inception and was voluntary. See “Israel”.
This Israelite Covenant consisted of the following:
This purpose of the covenant was stated in other ways as, “I will take you as my own people, and I will be your God. Then you will know that I am the LORD your God, … ” Ex 6:7. This is stated repeatedly: Lev 26:9-12, Deut 29:9-13, 2 Sam 7:24, 1 Chron 11:2, Ps 50:7, 95:7, 100:3, Isa 40:1, Jer 7:23, 11:1-4, 24:7, 30:9, 22, 31:1, 33, 32:38-40, Eze 11:20, 34:30, 31, 36:26-28, 37:23, 24, Hos 1:9, 4:6, Joel 2:26, 27, Zech 8:8. It is significant that the first of the 10 Commandments is a decree to have only ONE God, the LORD, Ex 20:3, Deut, 5:7, 6:4-6.
This same idea is also expressed another way – creating a people who would be “called by the name of the LORD”, or, “called by my name”, 2 Chron 7:14, Isa 43:7, 65:1; that is, to bear the character of a gracious, loving, kind God. The Jerusalem Temple was also a symbol of this covenant because it was “called by my Name”, 1 Kings 8:13, Jer 7:10, 11, 14, 32:34, 34:15. Such people, God declared, “out of all nations you will be my treasured possession … a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” Ex 19:5, 6. See also Ruth 1:16.
Significantly, in Eze 36:16-38, the LORD sternly rebukes Israel because, “they profaned My holy name, because it was said of them, ‘These are the people of the LORD, yet they had to leave His land.’ But I had concern for My holy name, which the house of Israel had profaned among the nations to which they had gone. (v22, 23). That is, Israel had profaned the name of God by sinning.
The requirements of the Israelite covenant are the 10 Commandments as recorded on the tablets of stone and amplified in Ex 20:22-23:33, the book of Deuteronomy and elsewhere such as Lev 17-19, 26. This is shown by the following facts:
Later Views on the Israelite Covenant
On numerous occasions, the Israelite Covenant, or “Old Covenant” was presented as fulfilling, or at least an extension of the covenant God had made with Abraham. Ex 2:24, Lev 26:42, Deut 29:13, 2 Kings 13:23, 1 Chron 16:16, Ps 105:9. See also Luke 1:73, Acts 3:25, 7:8, Gal 3:17, etc. This older covenant was the origin of the promises concerning the land of Canaan. This was fulfilled when Israel conquered Canaan. See 1 Kings 4:20, 21, 2 Chron 9:26.
The ancient Israelites were often reprimanded for assuming that God’s covenant with them was a mere matter of ceremonies, the stone tablets and the temple. 1 Sam 15:22, Ps 40:6-8, 51:16, 17, Prov 15:8, 21:3, Isa 1:10-17, Jer 6:3-6, 20, Hos 6:6, Micah 6:6-8, etc. That is, they confused the Levitical and Moral Covenant. More particularly, the Israelites were repeatedly told that the conditions of the Covenant were a matter for the heart and NOT external regulations (Deut 6:5, Ps 40:8, Jer 24:7, 31:1, 33, 34, 32:38-40, 36, 26-28), because God initiated the covenant to save Israel; it was a covenant of transforming grace and forgiveness! Isa 59:21 says the covenant is the eternal gift of the Spirit. That this Israelite Covenant was a covenant of transforming grace is confirmed by several ideas:
Note: Most of the confusion about the various covenants arises because people confuse the Israelite Covenant with the Levitical Covenant, or, assume that the Levitical Covenant and the Davidic Covenant are part of the Israelite (Old) Covenant. This confusion is perpetuated by the (erroneous) practice of labelling the Israelite and Levitical covenants, “Mosaic”, as if they are the same thing.
The golden rule says to apply the same standards to others as yourself -to use a single objective standard, not a double standard - and so it's a distillation of a key attribute of the law, which is supposed to be something above us that we submit to, and not something that we rise above in rebellion to manipulate. In this sense, it's like the other teachings against double standards in Matthew, and should be interpret as such:
Matt 6.14-15 (KJV): For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Matthew 7:1–5 (LEB):
“Do not judge, so that you will not be judged. For by what judgment you judge, you will be judged, and by what measure you measure out, it will be measured out to you.And why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the beam of wood in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to remove the speck from your eye,’ and behold, the beam of wood is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the beam of wood from your own eye and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye!
But think about what it would take for a person to be obedient to a single external standard, instead of a double standard. It would mean that they are no longer rebelling against God by trying to justify themselves or making their own rules. They no longer have a little lawyer that excuses why something shouldn't apply to them.
It would also mean that they do not project their own failings onto others, which means they do not give pre-eminence to their own selves. Someone who could do this would overcome the fallen nature, and therefore no one can do it.
Thus the golden rule is a distillation of the undigestible part of the law - the part no one can keep - because human nature is to throw the dart and then draw a bullseye around it, therefore always treating yourself differently from others.
This was basically the Pharisees, who created vast and elaborate systems of interpretations as well as institutions to promulgate them in order to smooth out and control the law. For example, one of my favorite passages in the Talmud is the following struggle to smooth Leviticus 19.18a ("Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge") by arguing that revenge was good, actually, and different from bearing a grudge (which was bad), and that Leviticus 19.18 did not apply to matters of honor.
R. Johanan in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak said again: A scholar who is not revengeful and remembers not injuries as a serpent, cannot be called “Talmud Hakham” (a teacher). But it is written [Lev. 19:18]: “Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge”? There precautionary matters are spoken of (but in regard to bodily pain or honor it is different).
(See also Mark 7.6-13 for a New Testament example).
Here the goal is not to pick on the Pharisees, because they were just living examples of the human condition, but to show that it really is impossible for man to abide by any objective external standards because man always wants to be a little god that makes his own law. If that part could be overcome, the rest of the law would be automatically met. This is why Jesus said "For this is the law and the prophets".
From all of the above, we can see why the golden rule is not an example of "inward discernment" - but rather it is a profound attack on the sin nature.
The relationship between the golden rule and Jeremiah's covenant is not that the standards of behavior are different, but that the former sets the standard (which man did not meet, but Christ met) and the latter provides for a mechanism of meeting the same standard (by God renewing our minds so that we have the mind of Christ). They are closely related, but not in the way the question suggests.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people. Hebrews 8:10 KJV
It is the same laws. But now it's possible to meet the law, because Christ met the law and is our life. But it's not a different law, rather it's a different covenant.
Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text, Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 6a (Boston, MA: The Talmud Society, 1918), 32–33.
