The Hidden Assumption Behind Future Sacrifices (Part 1): Does Hebrews Teach Two Separate Covenant Systems?
Prefer listening instead of reading? Click here to listen to an AI-generated podcast discussion of this article.
I recently had a discussion on social media with a friend regarding the validity of the Levitical priesthood, specifically as it relates to offerings and sacrifices. He challenged the common Reformed and evangelical view that Christ, as the great high priest after the order of Melchizedek, fulfills and thereby renders obsolete the Aaronic priesthood.
His argument is grounded in Jeremiah 33:17–18, where the Lord declares that David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel and that the Levitical priests will never lack a man before him to offer sacrifices. The argument is straightforward: if Christians rightly believe God has fulfilled the promise regarding the Davidic king in Christ, then how is God also fulfilling the promise concerning the Levitical priesthood? Since Christ is not a Levitical priest but comes from the tribe of Judah, the promise appears to require some ongoing validity for the Aaronic priesthood.
The argument gains additional force from Hebrews 9:13–14. There the author acknowledges that “the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow” sanctified “for the purification of the flesh.” While these sacrifices did not cleanse the conscience or remove sin in the ultimate sense, they nevertheless accomplished something real within Israel’s worship. Christ’s sacrifice, by contrast, cleanses the conscience and grants access to God in a way the Levitical system never could. The conclusion drawn from this is that the two priesthoods need not be viewed as competitors. Christ’s priesthood accomplishes one thing, while the Levitical priesthood accomplishes another. Therefore, the Aaronic priesthood and its sacrifices remain valid within their own sphere, even if subordinate to Christ’s greater work.
This line of reasoning eventually leads to the expectation of a future temple and renewed sacrifices. I want to say at the outset that I think this is a compelling argument. It is thoughtful, biblical, and deserves serious consideration. Because of that, I spent a considerable amount of time working through the source material behind it, particularly the writings of D. Thomas Lancaster in his sermons on Hebrews1 and his book Sacrifices.2
The more I read Lancaster, the more I understood why people find his position persuasive. He is a careful thinker, and his system possesses a certain internal consistency. Yet I became increasingly convinced that the real issue is not Jeremiah 33, future sacrifices, or even Hebrews 9. The real issue lies deeper. Lancaster’s conclusions depend upon a larger interpretive framework that he brings to Hebrews, a framework he calls the protos/deuteros paradigm.
According to Lancaster, protos and deuteros are not merely the ordinary words “first” and “second.” Rather, they distinguish two covenantal spheres. The protos refers to this present world, the Sinai covenant, the earthly sanctuary, and Levitical service. The deuteros refers to the World to Come, the New Covenant, the heavenly sanctuary, and Messiah’s priesthood. Once this framework is accepted, many of Lancaster’s conclusions begin to make sense. The Levitical priesthood can continue in one sphere while Christ ministers in another. Future sacrifices become plausible. A restored temple becomes conceivable.
Lancaster’s conclusions regarding future sacrifices, the continuing validity of the Aaronic priesthood, and the ongoing relevance of Temple worship depend upon a protos/deuteros framework that Hebrews itself never explicitly establishes. The issue is not whether those conclusions are possible if the framework is granted, but whether the framework can be demonstrated from the text.
That is the purpose of this 3-part article. My goal is not to dismiss Lancaster or caricature his position. On the contrary, I think he raises important questions and offers one of the more sophisticated defenses of future sacrifices currently available. Nevertheless, I believe his entire system stands or falls on the protos/deuteros paradigm. Before we debate future temples, future sacrifices, or the continuing validity of the Aaronic priesthood, we must first ask a more fundamental question: does Hebrews itself teach the protos/deuteros framework that Lancaster claims it does? Lancaster develops this framework primarily through Hebrews 8, 9, and 13. In this first article, I will focus on Hebrews 8, since it is here that the foundations of his paradigm are first laid.
Lancaster’s Reading of Hebrews 8:7–13
We will begin our analysis of Lancaster’s protos/deuteros framework in chapter 23 of his sermons on Hebrews.3 Before doing so, it is important to recognize one of the larger concerns driving his interpretation. Throughout his work, Lancaster is attempting to push back against what he understands to be replacement theology. In his view, much of Western evangelicalism, including large portions of the Reformed tradition, has interpreted the New Testament in a way that effectively replaces Israel with the church and strips Israel of any ongoing theological significance within God’s redemptive purposes.
Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, it is important to understand that this concern forms part of the backdrop for his reading of Hebrews. As Lancaster introduces Hebrews 9, he writes, “The contents of Hebrews 9 seem to challenge the Messianic Jewish perspective on the continuity of the Torah’s authority because passages from this chapter have been heavily utilized to justify replacement theology” (Hebrews, 85). From the outset, therefore, he is attempting to offer an alternative reading of Hebrews that preserves continuity between the Torah, the Levitical system, and the work of Messiah.
On page 86, Lancaster begins his exposition of Hebrews 8:7–8: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them.” He notes that the word covenant does not actually appear in the Greek text of Hebrews 8:7, even though English translations rightly supply it because the context clearly concerns the covenant quoted from Jeremiah 31. Up to this point, there is little controversy. The more significant claim comes immediately afterward. Lancaster argues that supplying the word covenant can oversimplify the discussion because, according to him, Hebrews is doing more than merely contrasting two covenants. He writes that at various points the author uses the terms first and second not only for covenantal categories but also to contrast “the present world and the world to come.”
This is where the foundation of Lancaster’s system begins to emerge. He writes: “Two simple Greek words unlock the meaning of Hebrews 8–9.” Those two words are protos (“first”) and deuteros (“second”). According to Lancaster, these words become the key for understanding not only the relationship between the old covenant and the new covenant, but also the relationship between the earthly sanctuary and the heavenly sanctuary, mortal existence and resurrection existence, and ultimately this present world and the World to Come.
On page 87 is where he inserts the categories of protos and deuteros into the discussion, which is certainly legitimate at one level because those are the actual Greek terms being used by the author. He argues that the weakness of the first covenant was not due to any defect in God’s law but rather to the weakness of the covenant partner (Hebrews, 87). As he explains, fallen and imperfect human beings failed to keep the covenant even though God remained faithful to his obligations.
I find little to disagree with. In fact, this is largely the point being made by Hebrews itself. Lancaster is correct. The problem was not God’s standard. God does not lower the bar, change his character, or abandon righteousness. The weakness lay in sinful humanity. Therefore, the solution is not a reduction of God’s requirements but the transformation of God’s people. He then contrasts the protos and deuteros covenants. The first covenant results in condemnation for covenant breakers, whereas the second results in the recreation of sinners through God’s work of writing the Torah upon human hearts (Hebrews, 87). Again, there is much here that reflects the language of Jeremiah 31 and the argument of Hebrews. So far, the discussion remains relatively uncontroversial.
At this point, the author of Hebrews is clearly contrasting a first covenant and a second covenant. That much is beyond dispute. But Lancaster is beginning to move toward a larger framework in which protos and deuteros become more than covenantal labels. They become categories that encompass entire realms of existence. This becomes more apparent on page 88 when Lancaster discusses Hebrews 8:13 and the question of obsolescence. He rightly argues that the old covenant should not simply be equated with the Old Testament. I agree. The Hebrew Scriptures remain the foundation of God’s revelation and continue to function authoritatively within the New Testament. Likewise, I agree that the new covenant is grounded in the promises and expectations of the Old Testament itself.
The more significant claim comes when Lancaster writes that the second, or deuteros, covenant is a promise regarding a new relationship between God and Israel to be enacted in the Messianic Era and in the World to Come. Under this arrangement, God’s Spirit writes the Torah upon human hearts and grants forgiveness to his people. As a Christian, I affirm those realities. The difficulty is not the content of the promise but the framework being constructed around it. Lancaster increasingly speaks of the first covenant as belonging to “this present world” and the second covenant as belonging to “the World to Come.” At this stage, however, those categories appear more asserted than demonstrated.
Lancaster next turns to Hebrews 8:13: “What is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” His concern is understandable. He rightly rejects the idea that the Torah itself is becoming obsolete, aging, and disappearing. God has not abandoned his righteousness, nor has he revoked his revelation. Consequently, Lancaster argues that what is becoming obsolete is not the Torah, the Temple, or the priesthood. Rather, he says that what is becoming obsolete is the protos itself, that is, this present world. This is where the argument takes a significant turn.
According to Lancaster (Hebrews, 89):
The thing that we are to understand as becoming obsolete and growing old and ready to vanish away is not the Torah, the Temple, or the priesthood, rather it is the first, that is the protos, this present world. This meaning becomes explicitly clear when the writer of the book of Hebrews explains the protos ‘is symbolic for the present age’ (Heb. 9:9).
However, Lancaster is no longer merely interpreting Hebrews. He is importing a larger framework into the text. The author of Hebrews certainly speaks about the “present age” or “present time,” but Lancaster assumes that the present age mentioned in Hebrews is identical to the age that continues today and extends throughout the Messianic era. That assumption becomes even more apparent when he writes: “The exhorter never distinguishes between the transitional state of the Messianic Era and the permanent state of the World to Come, but if he did, he would be in a position to further elaborate on what is becoming obsolete and growing old” (Hebrews, 89).
At this juncture, let’s consider the language of Hebrews 8:13 itself. The verb palaioō (“to make old” or “to render obsolete”) does not necessarily denote immediate abolition. Its semantic range includes the ideas of aging, wearing out, and becoming obsolete. Hebrews 1:11 uses the same verb to describe creation wearing out like a garment. Yet Hebrews 8:13 does not employ palaioō in isolation. The author intensifies the description by pairing it with gēraskō (“growing old”) and the idea of imminent disappearance. The picture is not merely that something is old. It is that something has grown old, continues aging, and stands near its removal.
This observation is important because it guards against two extremes. On the one hand, Hebrews does not teach that the old covenant order vanished the moment Christ died or rose from the dead. The continued existence of the Temple and priesthood in the apostolic period demonstrates that some form of transition was taking place. On the other hand, the language of Hebrews 8:13 points toward disappearance, not indefinite continuation. The author’s emphasis is not that the old order will remain alongside the new forever, but that it has entered a state moving toward its appointed end. But notice what has happened. The categories of “Messianic Era,” “transitional state,” and “permanent state of the World to Come” are not drawn from Hebrews itself. They are theological categories that Lancaster brings to Hebrews to explain the text. The author never discusses a transitional Messianic era that exists between the old world and the final state. Yet that concept becomes essential to Lancaster’s interpretation.
From here on out, the argument depends on the claim that the protos is this present world, which continues throughout the Messianic era, while the deuteros is the World to Come that arrives in its fullness only at the end of history. Consequently, Lancaster argues that the Temple, priesthood, and sacrificial system continue to belong to the protos and therefore remain valid until the final arrival of the deuteros.
Yet this raises an obvious historical problem. If the Levitical system remains valid throughout the continuing protos, why did God dismantle the very institutions necessary for its operation? Why was the Temple destroyed, the priesthood rendered inoperative, and the altar and sanctuary removed? Though Lancaster emphasizes that the Apostles continued participating in Temple practices to substantiate his argument, Apostolic participation should not be read as evidence that they believed the Temple cultus retained permanent redemptive validity. Rather, it serves as evidence that the old covenant order remained historically operative during a divinely appointed transitional period in which the apostles continued to minister within Israel’s covenant structures while proclaiming their fulfillment in the crucified, risen, and exalted Messiah. More on this later.
The disappearance of the Temple cultus for nearly two thousand years becomes not merely a historical curiosity but a theological anomaly. The overwhelming majority of Jewish believers throughout the Christian era have been unable to perform the very institutions Lancaster argues remain covenantally relevant. That historical reality raises questions the protos/deuteros framework does not appear to answer.
Before concluding, it is worth briefly interacting with Lancaster’s excursus on 2 Corinthians 3 (Hebrews, 74–77), since it provides the broader New Testament support for his interpretation of Hebrews 8:13. Lancaster argues that Paul is not contrasting the Torah with the gospel or declaring the Mosaic covenant abolished. Rather, the contrast is between the fading glory of this present world and the permanent glory of the World to Come. In his reading, the old covenant is an “administration of death” because it belongs to the present world of mortality, whereas the new covenant belongs to the World to Come, where sins are forgiven and the Torah is written on the heart. Accordingly, the “obsolete,” “growing old,” and “vanishing away” language of Hebrews 8:13 refers not to the Torah, Temple, or priesthood, but to the passing of the present world itself. Thus, Lancaster employs 2 Corinthians 3 as a hermeneutical lens through which to interpret Hebrews 8:13.
On the surface, Lancaster’s argument is plausible. Nevertheless, his reading appears exegetically strained because it filters Paul’s argument through a protos/deuteros paradigm that is absent from the text. He prefers the NASB and NIV, which describe Moses’ glory as “fading,” over translations such as the ESV, which state that it “was being brought to an end.” According to Lancaster, “the fading of the light represents the fading quality of this present world” (Hebrews, 75). He therefore contends that the ESV “pushes a theological agenda by translating 2 Cor 3:11 to say the old covenant ‘was being brought to an end.’ That’s a translation based on presuppositions of replacement theology” (Hebrews, 77). He further appeals to Jewish mystical traditions concerning “the supernal, heavenly Torah” (Hebrews, 76) to support his interpretation. Yet while Lancaster criticizes the ESV for theological presuppositions, his own reading likewise depends upon an interpretive framework that extends beyond Paul’s argument.
With that said, the question remains, does Lancaster’s translation preference carry the theological weight that he claims, or even more importantly, is his preference contextually accurate? In his rigorous study of 2 Corinthians 3:7–11,4 S. J. Hafemann provides a lengthy lexical study of the verb καταργέω in the NT and the ancient world, in which he demonstrates that the verb consistently denotes to render inoperative, ineffective, “with explicit or implicit corresponding effects of that which has or has not been made ineffective.”5 In the case of 2 Corinthians 3, it is the end of the Old Covenant ministry under discussion. Hafemann notes, “in no case” (outside of 2 Cor 3) do the Pauline usages of the verb, passive or active, “refer to the gradual ‘fading away’ of some aspect of reality. The inbreaking of the kingdom does not bring that which it abolishes to a gradual end, but is decisive in its destruction. . . . The lexica and scholars who adopt this reading can rely only on this one context for such a rendering.”6
Hafemann’s conclusions must not be overlooked; he is not merely saying the καταργέω implies the abolishing of something; rather, in every case the object still exists (at least temporarily), but its operative function has fundamentally changed. Therefore, what is “abolished” may continue to exist, but it no longer functions in its former capacity, as illustrated by Paul’s use of the verb for the believer’s former bondage to sin (Rom. 6:6), the devil’s power over death (Heb. 2:14), death itself (2 Tim. 1:10), and the temporary gifts of prophecy and tongues (1 Cor. 13). The emphasis, therefore, falls not on whether something still exists, but on whether it continues to exercise its former function.
Hafemann addresses the veil argument from Exodus 34 and provides the context to support his interpretation of 2 Cor 3:7 (a contextual consideration largely absent from Lancaster’s discussion). If we allow the “universally attested referent of καταργέω” to be assigned to 2 Cor 3:7c, Hafemann writes, “the meaning of Paul’s result clause becomes, ‘so that the sons of Israel were not able to gaze intently into the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, which was being rendered inoperative’ (with special regard for the effects of such an action).”7 He notes that “the most important point to be made about Paul’s use of the participle καταργουμένην is not its attributive function or its position in the sentence, but the fact that it is passive.”8 We must ask who or what is the expressed subject of the action? “It must be Moses’ veil.”9 Paul’s argument in 2 Corinthians 3:7 is grounded in Exodus 32–34. The glory reflected in Moses’ face was veiled because Israel’s stiff-necked condition rendered them unable to endure God’s presence. The veil therefore functioned to preserve the people even as God’s glory once again dwelt in their midst.10
This observation proves crucial for understanding Paul’s argument. The contrast in 2 Corinthians 3 is not primarily between two cosmic realms or two worlds, but between two ministries. Moses’ ministry was indeed glorious, yet because it ministered condemnation to a sinful people, that glory had to be veiled. By contrast, the ministry of the Spirit enables believers to encounter the glory of God without destruction. As Hafemann concludes, Paul’s point is that the ministry of the Spirit, “unlike Moses’ ministry of death, makes it possible to encounter the glory of God without being destroyed.”11
If Hafemann is correct, then Lancaster’s appeal to 2 Corinthians 3 cannot sustain the interpretive weight he places upon it. Rather than supporting a protos/deuteros distinction between this present world and the World to Come, Paul’s argument concerns the surpassing glory of the new covenant ministry over the ministry of the old covenant. The contrast is covenantal and ministerial, not between parallel priestly systems operating simultaneously in different eschatological spheres.
In the next article (Part 2), we will examine Lancaster’s exegesis of Hebrews 9:1–14, where the heart of his paradigm receives its fullest exposition.
Romans 11:33
______________________________
1. D. Thomas Lancaster, The Holy Epistle to the Hebrews: 8–13, vol. 2 of Sermons on a Messianic Jewish Approach (First Fruits of Zion, 2025).
2. D. Thomas Lancaster, Sacrifices from a Messianic Jewish Perspective, 2nd ed., What About? (First Fruits of Zion, 2024).
3. Lancaster, Hebrews, 85–89.
Comments