You will find this understanding true all throughout scripture when it talks about old and new covenant, old and new man, etc.

The old and new covenants are a state of condition, not a table of content, for the content remains the same since there is only one Covenant: the Torah, the Messiah. Who we are in relation to him is the only difference between “old” and “new” covenant. Let me state that again. WHO we are in relationship to the Perfectly Obedient Standard for Righteousness, the Messiah himself, is the only difference between what scripture calls old covenant and new covenant.

1. One party breaks it (by his own righteousness, which is nothing), and is cursed to death. (old man) (old Covenant that is broken)

2. G-d renews the Covenant to a different party (new man), while Himself remains faithful to the Covenant.

3. The second party keeps it (by Messiah’s righteousness), and is blessed with eternal life. (new Covenant that is kept)

In short, I guess you could say that G-d makes his Covenant, and each time he makes it with another party, it is called “new.” That is all there is to understanding the difference between the old and new covenant.

If we have died in Christ, then we are dead. When G-d makes his Covenant with us, to us (as new man) it is new. Thus that is why it is called “new” or “renewed,” because we are the new man to whom the Covenant is made and are given eternal life because of Messiah’s righteousness, and look back on the old man to whom the same Covenant was made and put that old man to death because of that sinful man’s own righteousness, which is really no righteousness at all – that is why we thus call that the “old” Covenant. The definition of “old” and “new” then is a matter of perspective, based on our new relationship to the Covenant (the Torah, the Messiah).

Email from reader:
The Old Covenant:
Exodus 20:1-26 (Moral)
Exodus 21:1-24 (Civil)
Exodus 25:1-40 (Ceremonial)

What right do you have to call Exodus 21:1-24 and Exodus 25:1-40 not moral? If G-d commands something, is it not moral? If Jesus says all the Law hangs from “love G-d” and from “love your neighbor” then what commandment or instruction in the Torah is not found in both of those categories?

The New Covenant:
Jeremiah 31:27-37
Hebrews 8:7-13

This does not work as a definition for new covenant diametrically different than what you posted as the old covenant, because the Torah is what is written on hearts at the End of the Age. By definition you can’t exclude Exodus 20, 21, and 25 from the Torah and still have the Torah in the new Covenant. Therefore your definitions for old and new covenant are contradictory. You can’t exclude the Torah from the new Covenant, for you can’t exclude the Covenant from the Covenant.

Moses Law, including the Temple & Levitical priesthood is forever-an everlasting statute, a statute forever, and til the end of generations.

Messiah Jesus was a prophet during His first coming, a Priest between His two comings, and a King when He comes again.

You are correct.

Email from reader:
On another note: There was also a change in the “priesthood” because of Yeshua’s atonement as described in Hebrews. Thus, with the Old Covenant, the Levitical priesthood is superceded by the New Covenant Melchizedek Priesthood, an eternal one which Yeshua is our Eternal High Priest:

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law (Hebrews 7:10-12)

The “change” is a change in area of application, and is not a change of replacement or nullification. After all Jesus does not replace the High Priest on earth and thus serve in the earthly Temple. And obviously the priest on earth can not officiate in heaven. Both can and did co-exist, even 40 years after Messiah’s ascension (and will co-exist in the future). The earthly tabernacle exists as the co-existing copy of the Heavenly tabernacle, and thus so does the earthly High-Priest exist as a co-existing copy of the Heavenly High Priest. When you realize that both co-exist, then you will understand what is meant by the writer’s use of the word change is emphasizing more on “where there is a change in law…” than on “where there is a change in law.”

Email from reader:
The writer of Hebrews is referencing the now resurrected Yeshua being on earth. In other words, when Yeshua HaMashiach is back on earth during the Millennial reign, what position will He have? Do you think there will be a need to have Temple high priests offering blood of bulls at that time?

Until there is no more death, yes. Ezekiel is clear as to what the Messiah does during that time – himself even offering sacrifices as King of Israel.

Email from reader:
Under the Old Covenant, the blood of bulls was an ongoing offer by the high priests for the atonement of sin;

Under the New Covenant, the Blood of Yeshua HaMashiach became the acceptable offering once and for all and He is now our Eternal High Priest.

If the content does not change between old and new covenant, but only the parties change, then the “blood of bulls” is found even in the new covenant! How is this so? Because Messiah’s work does not compete with the “blood of bulls” because his blood was never offered in the earthly Temple. He always was the High Priest in heaven, always was the Lamb Slain Before the Foundation of the World, for that is what the High Priest on earth is a model of, and the tamid sacrifices are a model of. Because there is no competition, both the heavenly tabernacle and the earthly temple co-exist! So too the High Priest in heaven co-exists with the High Priest on earth! So too the sacrifice brought into the heavenly tabernacle co-exists with the sacrifice brought into the earthly tabernacle. So then, this is why the writer of Hebrews clearly says that if Messiah were on earth, he would not be a priest since there are already priests (on earth) who offer sacrifices!