Hebrews 8

Robert Milligan Commentary On Hebrews 8THE OF CHRIST’ S FURTHER FROM THE HIGHER AND BETTER SPHERE OF HIS Heb_8:1-5 Hebrews 8:1 —Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum. Or more literally: But the crown upon the things spoken [is this]; we have such a High Priest who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; a Minister of the Sanctuary and of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man.— The word rendered sum (kephalaion) means (1) that which is chief or principal; (2) the sum or result of numbers added together and set down at the head of the column; (3) the crown or that which gives completeness to anything, and (4) the division of a book, as a chapter or section. The object of the Apostle is not to give a summary of what was said before, for in the next verse, he states as an additional argument, the sublime fact that Jesus is now a Minister of the heavenly Sanctuary and of the true Tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not man. His idea therefore seems to be this: that in what follows we have not only the chief, but also the crowning point of the whole argument. It all culminates in the glorious and important fact that Jesus is now a High Priest and Minister, not of the typical economy, but of the real; not of the shadow, but of the substance.

Hebrews 8:1—who is set on the right hand, etc.—Who sat down (ekath- isen) : that is, when he made his one offering in the heavenly Sanc­tuary. The best commentary on these words is given by the Apos­tle himself in Hebrews 10:11-13. “ Every High Priest,” he says, [belong­ing to the Levitical order] “ standeth daily ministering and offer­ing oftentimes the same sacrifices which can never take away sins. But this man after he had offered one sacrifice for sins, forever sat down on the right hand of God; from henceforth expecting till his enemies he made his footstool.” Hebrews 8:2 —A minister of the sanctuary,— The word rendered minister (leitonrgos) means a public officer of high and honorable rank, whether civil, military, or religious. It is here applied to Christ, as the High Priest of the New Covenant. The word sanctuary (ta hagia) means Heaven itself, the archetype of the Most Holy Place of the ancient Tabernacle. In this sense, the same Greek words are used in Hebrews 9:8 Hebrews 9:12 Hebrews 9:24-25 Hebrews 10:19 Hebrews 13:11.

Hebrews 8:2 —and of the true tabernacle,— The adjective true (alethinos) denotes not only the real as opposed to the false (as alethes), but also, and more particularly, the perfect and substantial, as opposed to the imperfect and unsubstantial. The Tabernacle of Moses was a real structure, formed and fashioned according to the exact model which was shown to him in the mount. But nevertheless it was a mere shadow of the true; the type of that in which Christ now officiates as our High Priest. The former was made by human hands, and was constructed of perishable materials; but the latter is the workmanship of God himself, a Bethel that will never wax old.

What, then, is this true Tabernacle, of which Christ has become the prime Minister?

Some, as Moll and Kendrick, maintain that it is identical with the Sanctuary; and that the term true tabernacle is therefore but another name for Heaven itself, into which Christ has for us en­tered. They argue that the rending of the Vail, when Christ was crucified, was a virtual removal of all distinctions between the Holy Place and the Most Holy; and that henceforth they were to be regarded as one and the same; so that the name, true tabernacle, is used here but as an explanatory synonym of the word sanctuary. But to this it may be objected (1) that the rending of the Vail did not in any way change the local relations and objects of the two apartments. It only indicated that henceforth the way from the Holy Place into the Most Holy was made manifest. See 9: 8. (2) Moll’ s view is inconsistent with the most natural construction and obvious meaning of the sentence. The first impression of any one on reading the text would be that the Apostle refers here to two separate and distinct apartments. (3) It is opposed to the ttsus loquendi of the Hebrews, for whose special benefit the Epistle was written. Sometimes indeed the word tabernacle (skene) is used as the name of the whole structure, including both the Holy Place and the Most Holy; and sometimes it is used to denote ei­ther of these apartments. But when it is used, as here, in connec­tion with the word sanctuary (to hagion or ta hagia) it means simply the east room of the Tabernacle, or that of which this was a type.

See Leviticus 16:16-17 Leviticus 16:20 Leviticus 16:23 Leviticus 16:33, etc. And (4) in 9: 11, 12, our author evidently keeps up a distinction between the Tabernacle and the Holy of holies; for Christ, he says, according to the most approved rendering of the passage, passed through the true or more perfect Tabernacle into the Most Holy Place. For these and other like reasons, most expositors justly maintain that there is still a difference between the Sanctuary and the true Tabernacle. But if there is a difference, what is it ?

Macknight, following Josephus and Philo, makes the whole Tab­ernacle a symbolical representation of the universe; alleging that the Most Holy Place was symbolical of Heaven, and that the Holy Place was a symbol of the whole Earth. See Jos. Ant. iii. 7.3. This hypothesis originated in an attempt on the part of Jose­phus, Philo, and others, to make the symbolical system of Moses harmonize with the tenets and speculations of Gentile philosophy. It has no foundation whatever in the word of God. Delitzsch maintains, as we have seen (Hebrews 7:26), that the Sanctu­ary was a symbol of the uncreated Holy of holies of the Divine na­ture, into which Christ entered when he ascended from Mount Olivet; and that the Tabernacle proper or Holy Place was a sym­bol of the highest created heaven, where dwell the angels and the spirits of the just made perfect. But this again is too fanciful, and without scriptural support.

A more plausible hypothesis is that of Hofmann and others, who maintain that by the true Tabernacle is meant here the glorified body, or, as some say, the human nature, of Christ. In support of this hypothesis it is alleged (1) that in John 1:14, it is said, “ The Word was made flesh and dwelt (eskenosen, tabernacled) among us” ; (2) that in John 2:21, Christ himself speaks of his body as a tabernacle or temple (3) that in Hebrews 10:20, the Vail of the Temple is represented as a symbol of his flesh; and (4) that in Ephesians 2:19-22, Christ and the Church are together compared to a holy temple. All this is quite plausible, but by no means conclusive. That Christ’s body may be properly compared to a tabernacle, no one, of course, doubts who believes the Bible to be the word of God. But this is not the question. The point to be determined is, not whether there is any analogy between the body of Christ and a tabernacle, but whether it is the antitype for the symbolizing of which the Jewish Tabernacle was constructed. That it is not, seems probable for several reasons; but chiefly for this, that the true Tabernacle is here represented not as a part of Christ, but simply as the sphere in which he, in his full and proper personality performs his ministry.

Is then the Church of Christ the true Tabernacle? In favor of this hypothesis it may be said (1) that the Church sustains the same relation to Heaven that the Holy Place of the Tabernacle and Temple did to the Most Holy. God’ s only re­vealed way of entering into Heaven is through the Church. (2) The Holy Place of the Tabernacle had ordinances corresponding with the ordinances of the Church. In it was the Table supplied constantly with the twelve loaves emblematical of the bread of life, of which we partake, not in, but through, the ordinances of the Church, particularly the Lord’ s Supper. See John 6:33 John 6:35 John 6:48 John 6:50 John 6:53-56. There, too, was the Altar of incense, corresponding with the altar of prayer (Psalms 141:2; Luke 1:9-10; Revelation 5:8 Revelation 8:3-4) ; and there was the light of the seven lamps of the golden Candlestick, corresponding with the light of the Holy Spirit, by means of which the Church is made the light of the world (Isaiah 60:1; Matthew 5:14; Revelation 1:20). (3) The Church of Christ is compared in Acts 15:16-17, to a booth or tent (skene), so en­larged that the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, may find shelter and protection under it. Compare Isaiah 54:1-4. (4) In 1 Corinthians 3:16, Paul says to the Corinthian brethren, “ Know ye not that ye are the Temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?” And in 2 Corinthians 6:16, he says, “ Ye are the Temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” And again the same Apostle says in his Epistle to the Ephesians (2: 19-22), “ Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone; in whom all the build­ing fitly framed together groweth into a holy Temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit.” In like manner, writing to Timothy, he calls the Church the house of God (1 Timothy 3:15) ; and so he does also in Hebrews 3:6 Hebrews 10:21.

The same thought is also expressed in 1 Peter 2:5. From all of which we are constrained to believe that the true Tabernacle and the Church of Christ cannot be separated: they are certainly identical in whole or in part.

But to this view, it is proper to say, there is this apparent objec­tion. The Church of Christ did not exist as a distinct organization till the Day of Pentecost, A.D. 34, about ten days after Christ’ s ascension. That God had a people even from the beginning, and that Christ had followers from the beginning of his public ministry, is of course conceded. But not till the Pentecost that next fol­lowed after his resurrection, was he publicly proclaimed the anointed Sovereign of the universe (Acts 2:36) ; not till then was any one baptized by his authority into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38) ; and not till then was the Spirit given to animate the body (John 7:37-39). And yet it is said in Hebrews 9:11-12, that Christ entered through a greater and more perfect Tabernacle (than that of Moses) into the Most Holy Place. Now I think it must be conceded that this greater and more perfect Tabernacle is identical with the true Tabernacle of our text; and if the true Tabernacle is identical with the Church, then how could it be said with propriety that Christ went up through the Church ten days before it had a distinct organic existence ?

Perhaps a reference to Christ’ s mode of teaching by parables may assist us in solving this confessedly difficult problem. At one time he compares the kingdom of Heaven to a grain of mustard seed; at another, to leaven; at another, to a dragnet; at another, to ten virgins, etc.; his object being in all these cases to illustrate only some one element or characteristic of his Kingdom. Seldom, if ever, does he include in his comparisons all that belongs to it as a complete and perfect organization. May not Paul then, in like manner, speak by synecdoche of the greater and more perfect Tab­ernacle, having reference at the same time to some of the elements of the Church of Christ? The Church is the same thing as the Kingdom of Christ on earth, only viewed under different aspects. It, as well as the Kingdom, has its essential elements.

Christ is its head; believers anointed with the Holy Spirit are its members: the promise given to Abraham concerning Christ (Galatians 3:17) may be regarded as its constitution; the rules and regulations given by the Apostles are its laws and ordinances; Apostles, Prophets, Evange­lists, Elders, and Deacons, are its officers; the sanctified portion of the Earth is its territory, and the blue vault of heaven, covered with cherubim, may perhaps be regarded as an emblem of its can­opy or inner curtain. Now as Christ so often speaks of his Church or Kingdom by synecdoche, putting a part for the whole; and as the inner curtain of the Tabernacle is often put for the Tabernacle itself (see, for instance, Exodus 40:19), may we not with propriety regard the sky, covered as it is with the wings of angels and the protecting shield of God’ s providence, as emblematical of the greater and more perfect Tabernacle referred to in Hebrews 9:11 ? And is not this view corroborated by what is said in Hebrews 4:14? See notes on Hebrews 9:11.

If this view of the matter is correct, it may serve to explain that precept of the Law which required that no one should be in the Tabernacle while the High Priest went into the Holy of holies to make an atonement for the people. (Leviticus 16:17.) When Christ went up through the heavens (Hebrews 4:14) into the Most Holy Place, on the fortieth day after his resurrection, he left behind him many sincere and devoted followers; but it was not until after that he had made expiation for the sins of the world, and came out to bless the people by his Spirit on the following Pentecost, that the Church was fully organized and prepared for a habitation of God through the Spirit. Then, for the first time, believers were received into it on condition of their repenting and being baptized into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 8:3 —For every high priest is ordained, etc.— The logical train of thought in this connection is well stated by Delitzsch as follows: “ Christ is a priest in the heavenly archetypal Sanctuary (verses 1, 2), for there is no priest without some sacrificial function (verse 3);; and if here on earth he would not be a priest at all (verse 4), where there are priests already who serve the typical and shadowy Sanctuary (verse 5). The priestly functions of Christ must therefore be discharged in a higher sphere, and so it is.” Or to express the same train of thought syllogistically, “ A priest’ s office is to offer sacrifice; Christ is a priest; and therefore he must have some­thing to offer. The sphere in which Christ’ s priestly office is dis­charged must be either an earthly or a heavenly one; but an earthly one it cannot be, inasmuch as on earth (in the material Tabernacle) there are other priests officiating according to the law, and therefore Christ’ s sphere of priestly operation must be a heav­enly one.”

To this view of the matter it has been objected that Christ is thus represented as making frequent and continual offerings like the Levitical priests, whereas our author says distinctly that he has made but one offering, and that this has been made once for all, never again to be repeated. See Hebrews 7:27 Hebrews 9:12 Hebrews 9:26 Hebrews 9:28 Hebrews 10:12.

But the allegation does not logically follow from the premises, for the Apostle speaks here indefinitely with regard to time, and the whole expression may be rendered thus: “ Wherefore it [was] necessary that this [Priest] should also have something which he might offer” (prosenegke). So the passage is translated by Beza, Bengel, Bleek, De Wette, Lunemann, Hofmann, Macknight, and others. And hence the reference may be simply to the one offering which Christ made of himself in the heavenly Sanctuary after his ascension. But as this one offering of Christ, by means of which he made an atonement for the sins of the world, is the ground of his continued ministry in our behalf, I am inclined to think with Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, and others, that the Apostle refers here particularly to the constant use and application of the one offering of Christ, as the only means of procuring our pardon, justification, and sanctification. Christ’ s one offering is, in fact, a continual of­fering; an offering the efficacy of which will endure forever. So that while he officiates as a minister in the heavenly Sanctuary, and in the true Tabernacle, he will always have to offer what is fully adequate to the justification and salvation of all who come unto God by him.

Hebrews 8:4 —For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest,—The meaning of this verse is quite obvious from what precedes. As Christ was not of the house of Aaron, he could not lawfully offici­ate as a priest on earth. (Numbers 18:1-7.) True, indeed, as our au­thor shows in 7: 11-19, the law had ere this been abolished. As a religious institution, it was abrogated when Christ was crucified. (Colossians 2:14.) But no other law creating a new order of earthly priesthood had been enacted in its place. And as, for wise and be­nevolent reasons, God allowed the law of Moses to continue for a time as a civil institution, it was, in fact, the only existing law on earth, of Divine appointment, according to which gifts and sacri­fices could be rightfully offered. This point of the argument was, of course, well understood and appreciated by the Hebrew breth­ren.

Hebrews 8:5 —Who serve unto the example, etc.— Or more literally and correctly: Who serve the delineation and shadow of heavenly things. The word rendered delineation (hupodeigma) means (1) a private sign or secret token, and (2) a delineation or copy of anything. Here, it denotes that the Jewish Tabernacle, with all that pertained to it, was but a faint symbolical representation of the heavenly Sanctuary and the true Tabernacle. The word shadow (skia) is added with the view of intensifying the thought; thus in­dicating that the given representation was wholly destitute of the substance which is inherent in the heavenly realities.

Hebrews 8:5 —as Moses was admonished of God, etc.— The Apostle now submits as proof of the above allegation, the fact recorded in Exodus 25:40, that when Moses was about to make the Tabernacle, God directed him to frame it according to the exact pattern (tupos) showed to him in the mount. In order that this symbolical struc­ture might exactly correspond in its shadowy outlines with the heavenly archetypes, God, it seems, caused Moses to see in vision a just representation of these on Mount Sinai, and then instructed him to make the Tabernacle according to this pattern. And hence, according to the testimony of Moses, the Jewish Tabernacle was not an original structure, but only a copy of the representation which God gave to him of the heavenly Sanctuary and of the true Tabernacle. From all of which it is evident that the sphere of Christ’ s ministry is greatly superior to that in which Aaron and his successors performed their services, and consequently that his priesthood is also greatly superior to theirs.

It is no objection to the view above taken of the true Taberna­cle, that it is here ranked and classified with the “ heavenly things,” of which the Jewish Tabernacle was but a shadowy representation. For the Church of Christ is in no proper sense a worldly institu­tion. It is in all its essential elements identical with the kingdom of heaven, and hence those who become members of it are said to sit down together “ in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” See Ephesians 1:3 Ephesians 2:6; Hebrews 9:23. 1. How true it is that the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Hebrews 7:1-10.) Who, without the aid of the Holy Spirit, would have ever thought that the fourteenth chapter of Genesis has any reference to Christ? But it is even so. God who sees the end from the beginning, knows always by what means his ends and purposes can be best accomplished.

To effect these, he often turns the hearts of kings as the rivers of water (Proverbs 21:1), and makes the history of individuals and of nations fill up the exact measure of his benevolent intentions. Thus it was, for instance, that he made Hagar a type of the Old Covenant, and Sarah a type of the New (Galatians 4:21-31) ; and thus it was that he made Melchisedec a type of Christ; so that in the ages to come he might make it manifest to all that he is himself the author of the whole plan of re¬demption, and that his son, Jesus Christ, is the Alpha and Omega of the whole Bible.

2. As Jesus had no predecessor, so also he has no successor in office (verses 16, 17). Like Melchisedec, he remains a priest upon his throne perpetually. Not that he has to offer daily, w’ eekly, monthly, and yearly sacrifices, like the Levitical priests; for by one offering he has made full and complete expiation for the sins of the world. But as he ever lives to make intercession for us, so also he must of necessity be continually presenting the one offering of himself to God, as the ground of his intercessions, and as the only means of our justification. This priestly function can never be transferred to another. And consequently the word of the oath which was since the Law maketh him a priest forevermore.

3. The Old Testament is not “a fable devised by learned and crafty Hebrews,” but a revelation from God, given to us by holy men of old, as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:20-21.) What Jew would ever ot his own accord have predicted the rise of another priest after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron? What, but the Spirit of the Almighty, could have ever induced David to utter a prophecy involving the abroga¬tion of the whole Jewish economy? Truly, ‘‘ all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.”

4. None who believe in Christ need ever be dismayed at the approach of death or anything else, for he is both able and willing “ to save to the uttermost all who come unto God through him, seeing he ever lives to make intercession for us” (Hebrews 7:5). All other helps will fail, sooner or later. Our friends may now comfort us in many ways; and physicians by their skill and timely remedies may greatly relieve our present sufferings. But death will soon separate us all, and put an end to all our kind offices here in behalf of one another. For no man can redeem his brother from death, nor save him from the corruption of the grave.

But Jesus never forsakes those who trust in him. (Hebrews 13:5.) Having washed us from our sins in his own precious blood, he will not desert us in the hour of death, nor will he then allow any calamity to overcome us; so that we may say confidently with David, “ Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.” (Psalms 23:4.) And with Paul we may exclaim, “ O Death, where is thy sting? O Grave, where is thy victory?” (1 Corinthians 15:55.) But what else than the religion of Jesus can fill the soul with such con¬fidence and consolation ?

What has infidelity to offer in the hour of death to her many votaries? What has she ever done, and what can she do, to enlighten the understanding and fill the heart with confidence in reference to the future? What skeptic was ever known to say, as does Paul, “ We know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens” ? Who but the Christian can say with confidence, “ To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord” ? And again, “ It is better to depart and to be with Christ” ? And still again, “ There is a rest which remains for the people of God” ? This is the language of him, and of him only, who knows in whom he has believed, and who is fully persuaded that he is able to keep that which he has committed to him. (2 Timothy 1:12.)

5. The religion of the Lord Jesus is just such a religion as we all need (Hebrews 7:26-27). Notwithstanding all that infidels and scoffers have said against it, it so happens that the man who understands and obeys it most perfectly, is always, other things being equal, the most happy and the most useful member of society. And so, also, it is with whole communities and nations. Those that are most completely under the influence of the religion of Christ, are always the most happy and prosperous. The religions of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, and Goths, all failed because of their incapacity to make men happy.

There was nothing in them to satisfy the longing desires of the human heart. And for the same reason, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Mahometanism, and all other systems of false religion, are now waxing old and “ are ready to vanish away.” But Christianity is constantly gaining more power and influence over mankind, as civilization advances. And it is doing so simply because it presents to us a perfect Savior; one who is “ holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” It reveals to us the only proper antidote for sin, the only atonement that is at all adequate to so meet and satisfy the claims of the Divine government, that God can be just in justifying those who believe in Jesus. It presents to us just such motives as best serve to make us hate sin, love holiness, do justice, and walk humbly, righteously, and godly in this present world. And, finally, it offers to us on the simple conditions of faith and obedience, just such a salvation as the heart of every man desires: a salvation from sin, death, hell, and the grave. And, in a word, it withholds from us nothing that is calculated to elevate, refine, and purify the heart; to make us like God; to fit us for doing his will here, and for enjoying his presence hereafter.

Can such a religion be a falsehood? Judge the tree by its fruit.

6. How infinitely glorious and exalted is the great High Priest of our confession! (Hebrews 8:1-2.) Having by the grace of God tasted death for every man, and made an atonement for the sins of the world, he now sits as a priest upon his throne, and officiates as a minister of the heavenly Sanctuary and the true Tabernacle. No wonder, then, that all heaven is filled with his praises, while the angels and the redeemed behold his glory and think of his conde¬scending love in providing for the ransom of millions, who without his atoning sacrifice must have perished forever.

“ But angels can never express, Nor saints who sit nearest his throne, How rich are his treasures of grace; No, this is a secret unknown.” SECTION SEVENHeb 8:6-13 In this short section, we have another partial digression from the main line of argument. Having stated in the closing paragraph of the last section that the sphere of Christ’ s ministry is the heavenly Sanctuary and the true Tabernacle, our author is naturally led to consider in the next place the superior efficacy of his ministry. And this point he actually introduces in the sixth verse of this (the eighth) chapter as the next subject for discussion. Christ, he says, has obtained a ministry as much superior to that of the Levitical priests, as the Covenant of which he is the Mediator is superior to the Old Covenant of which Moses and the Levitical priests were the mediators. But having mentioned the subject of the two covenants, his thoughts are at once wholly engrossed with this as his main theme. The ministry of Christ falls for awhile into the back¬ground, and the active and comprehensive mind of our author is wholly occupied with the superior excellencies of the New Covenant. He argues from Jeremiah 31:31-34, that it excels the Old Covenant in each of the following particulars:

I. The Old Covenant was faulty, but the New is faultless (Hebrews 8:7-8). That is, relatively so. In one sense, the Old Cove¬nant was just as perfect as the New. Each of them was perfectly adapted to the end for which it was designed. But the former never did and never could justify, sanctify, or save anyone. In these respects it was relatively faulty, and the New is faultless.

II. The Old Covenant was written on stone, but the New is written on the understanding and the heart (Hebrews 8:10. Compare 2 Corinthians 3:3 2 Corinthians 3:7). And hence the latter is far more efficacious in forming the character and controlling the lives of its subjects than the former. It is of but little service that we have the truth writ¬ten on marble or parchment, unless it is also put into the under¬standing and engraven on the hearts of the people.

III. The subjects of the Old Covenant were not all pious. Many of them were really aliens to God, while enjoying all the temporal and civil privileges of the Theocracy. But not so with the subjects of the New Covenant. They must all, of necessity, serve Jehovah as their God, for he says: “ I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” (Hebrews 8:10).

IV. Most of the subjects of the Old Covenant became such by a birth of flesh (Genesis 15:18 Genesis 17:7-8, etc.) ; but the subjects of the New Covenant must all be bprn of water and of the Spirit (John 3:5). They must all be begotten by the Holy Spirit through the word of truth, the good seed of the kingdom, before they can be admitted to the rights and privileges of the New Institution. (1 Corinthians 4:14-15; James 1:18, etc.) And hence they must all know the Lord, from the least of them even to the greatest of them (Hebrews 8:11).

V. There was nothing in the Old Covenant that could really take away sin. (Hebrews 10:4.) And hence, notwithstanding the many daily, weekly, and monthly sacrifices that were offered to make purification for the sins of the people, these sins were all called into remembrance again on the Day of Atonement. (Leviticus 16.) But not so under the New Covenant. The blood of Christ procures for all its faithful and obedient subjects, free, full, and everlasting forgive¬ness. And hence, on the Day of Judgment, the faithful in Christ will all be treated as if they had never sinned (Hebrews 8:12).

VI. The Old Covenant was abolished as a religious institution when Christ was crucified (Ephesians 2:14-17; Colossians 2:14; Hebrews 7:11¬19) ; but the New Covenant will continue while time endures (Hebrews 8:13). OF THE NEW Heb_8:6-13 Heb 8:6 —But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,—That is, a ministry more excellent than that of the Levitical priests. The degree of this superior excellence is measured, as our author now proceeds to show, by the superior excellence of the new and better covenant of which Christ has become the Mediator. The word mediator (mesitcs) means one who intervenes or goes between two parties, as an interpreter, a reconciler, an internuncio, or an inter­cessor. “ In all ages, and in all parts of the world,” says Calmet, “ there has constantly prevailed such a sense of the infinite holiness of the supreme Divinity, with so deep a conviction of the imperfec­tions of human nature and the guilt of man, as to deter worshipers from coming directly into the presence of a being so awful; and recourse has therefore been had to mediators. Among the Sabi- ans, the celestial intelligences were constituted mediators; among other idolaters, their various idols; and this notion still prevails in Hindostan and elsewhere. Sacrifices were thought to be a kind of mediator; and, in short, there has been a universal feeling, a senti­ment never forgotten, of the necessity of an interpreter or mediator between God and man.”

Under the Old Covenant, the office of mediator was filled pri­marily by Moses (Exodus 20:19-21 Exodus 24; Galatians 3:19-20) ; and after him it seems that the high priest discharged the duties of a media­tor, standing, as he ever did, between God and the people, espe­cially on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). But under the New Covenant there is but “ one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5.) He stands as security on the part of God, that he will graciously fulfill all his promises to man (Hebrews 7:22) ; and on the part of man he appears before God, not only to plead our cause, but also to make purification for our sins, with his own blood, according to the Scriptures. Through him God can now be just in pardoning and justifying every obedient penitent believer; and through him, unworthy as we are, we can now come to God, as children to a father, and obtain mercy and find grace for seasonable help. (Hebrews 4:16.)

The superior excellencies of the “ better covenant" and the “ bet­ter promises" will become more obvious as we proceed with the exegesis of the following verses.

Hebrews 8:7 —For if that first covenant had been faultless, etc.— The form of the argument which our author uses here is the same which he has employed in Hebrews 7:11. If the first covenant had been sufficient to accomplish God’ s purposes with respect to the salva­tion of man, then most assuredly he would never have set it aside and made way for another. “ For if," as Paul argues in his epistle to the Galatians (Galatians 3:21), “ there had been given a law that was able to give life, then, indeed, righteousness would have been by law” ; and the New Covenant in that event would never have been inaugurated. But when it was fully demonstrated by the deeds of law no flesh could be justified before God (Romans 3:20; Galatians 2:16 Galatians 3:11) ; then it pleased God to give to his people a new and better covenant, which is established on better promises. Let it not be supposed, however, that God was in any way disap­pointed in his purposes with respect to the Old Covenant. He can never be disappointed, as man is often disappointed; for known unto him are all his works from eternity (apo aionos). Acts 15:18.) The fact is that the Law, or Old Covenant, was never given for the purpose of justifying any man. It was added simply “ on account of transgressions, till the seed should come, to whom the promise was made"; and it was intended to serve as a schoolmas­ter in bringing us to Christ. (Galatians 3:19 Galatians 3:24.) But the Holy Spirit often speaks of things relatively, according to our conceptions of them. See, for example, Matthew 19:17 and John 1:21. And just so it is in this case.

The Jews all looked upon the Old Covenant as the power of God for the salvation of the seed of Abraham ac­cording to the flesh. And viewed in this light, it was of course faulty; for by it no man ever was or ever could be saved. And hence when God had accomplished his benevolent purpose in giving it to the people, he then took it out of the way, and gave to them a better covenant “ established on better promises.”

Hebrews 8:8 —For finding fault with them—Or as it may be rendered in more exact harmony with the context: For finding fault he saith to them. God found fault with the Covenant, as above explained, and he also found fault with the people, for they were constantly transgressing the laws and requirements of the Covenant; and it, as a consequence, was constantly condemning them. Such an ar¬rangement, therefore, however necessary as a preliminary measure, was never intended to accomplish fully God’ s benevolent designs and purposes with regard to the salvation of the world. And hence after the conquest of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, about 588 B.C., while the captives were detained at Ramah, God revived the hearts of his disconsolate children by giving to them the very en¬couraging series of prophecies found in Jeremiah 30-31, from which our author makes the beautiful extract given in the following verses.

Hebrews 8:8 —Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make, etc.—Or more literally: Behold, the days are coming, saith the Lord, when I will accomplish (sunteleso) upon the house of Is¬rael and upon the house of Judah a new covenant. Man makes a covenant with his fellow-man; but God perfects his arrangements according to the counsel of his own will, and then bestows them on (epi) his people. And hence the idea of the prophet seems to be this: that in the last days, under the reign of the Messiah, God would himself complete and bestow upon the house of Israel and upon the house of Judah the arrangement (diatheke) which, though hid for ages, was really intended from the beginning for the benefit of mankind.

The name Israel means “ He will be a prince with God.” It was given (1) to Jacob himself, Genesis 32:28; (2) to all the descen¬dants of Jacob taken collectively, Exodus 4:22; (3) to the ten tribes that revolted from Rehoboam, 1 Kings 12:19-20; and (4) to all believers in Christ, Romans 9:6. The term “ house of Israel,” as used in our text, means evidently the ten tribes that revolted from the line of David, and made Jeroboam their king, 975 B.C. Most of them were carried away captive into Assyria by Shalmaneser, 721 B.C. But some of them remained in Canaan (2 Chronicles 30 , etc.) ; and others, it seems, returned thither at different periods. See Jeremiah 1:4-7; Ezra 2:70 Ezra 6:16¬18; 8: 35, etc.

The name Judah means “ praise,” or he will be praised. It was given (1) to the fourth son of Jacob by Leah, Genesis 29:35; (2) to his descendants, called also the tribe of Judah, Numbers 1:7; (3) to all who followed Rehoboam, including the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and some also from the tribes of Simeon and Dan. (4) After the captivity the name Jew was applied indiscriminately to all who were known to be of any of the tribes of Israel, and even to Jewish proselytes. And (5) it is used by Paul to denote any believer in Christ. (Romans 2:29.) In our text the appellations “ house of Israel” and “ house of Judah” are manifestly used, as in the time of Jeremiah, to denote all the descendants of Israel. With these and for these God prom¬ised by that prophet that he would, in the latter days, make a new and better covenant than he had made with their fathers at Mount Sinai. But not with them as separate and distinct houses, nor even as tribes; but simply as individuals. All tribal and family distinctions are now lost in Israel; and all who now enter into cov¬enant with God become members of the one household of faith, in which there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, nei¬ther male nor female; but all are one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28.)

But why is this called a new covenant? Is it not the same as that of which Paul speaks in Galatians 3:17; and which he says was given to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the law was given from Mount Sinai ? In order to answer these questions properly it is necessary to go back to the time when God called Abraham out of Ur of Chaldea, and examine the promise which God then made to this illustrious patriarch, in connection with all its subsequent developments. The first account of this promise is given in Genesis 12:1-3, as follows: “ Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of thy coun¬try, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’ s house, unto a land that I will show thee; and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” The same promise is variously repeated and somewhat amplified in, etc.

Now, it is true that in these several passages we have given what may be regarded as four distinct promises. These are (1) a promise that Abraham should have a numerous offspring; (2) that God would be a God to him and to his seed after him; (3) that he would give to him and to his seed an everlasting possession; and (4) that he would bless all the nations of the earth through him and his seed. These may of course be considered as so many separate and distinct promises; but it is more in harmony with the design of the Spirit and the general tenor of the Holy Scriptures to consider them as but elementary parts of the one general promise (Ephesians 2:12) ; having, however, a double reference; the one side of it looking to what was carnal and temporal, and the other to what was spiritual and eternal. The first element of this promise, for instance, was a pledge to Abraham that he should have a numerous family; first, according to the flesh; and secondly, according to the Spirit: the second that God would be a God to both of these families, though in a far higher sense to the latter than to the former: the third, that each of them should become heirs of an everlasting inheritance: and the fourth, that through each of them the world would be blessed.

For awhile, the spiritual side of the promise was almost wholly concealed in the distance behind the carnal; which from time to time became more and more prominent by sundry new developments. The most important of these was the covenant of circumcision, given in Genesis 17:9-14. This was a sign of the more general and comprehensive covenant which God made with Abraham in reference to his natural posterity. It served to distinguish the He¬brew race from all others; and it was to all of them, save those only who were excepted by special enactment, a pledge of the promised inheritance; while it had at the same time, like other ele-ments of the carnal promise, a typical significance, looking to the spiritual circumcision of the family of the faithful. See Romans 2:28-29; Ephesians 1:13-14; Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:9-12. At length, just four hundred and thirty years after the giving of this twofold promise to Abraham, the carnal side of it was fully developed into the Old or Sinaitic Covenant.

In this were of course embraced many various and distinct elements, such as the laws and ordinances relating to the different kinds of sacrifices, the consecration of the Levites, the covenant of the priesthood, etc.; all serving, however, to form and perfect one great national Institution, answering all the ends and purposes of civil government; and serving at the same time to check the progress of idolatry, to illustrate the exceeding heinousness of sin and the necessity of holiness, and also to typify and adumbrate the glorious realities embraced in the spiritual side of the Abrahamic promise, which in due time was also to be developed into a far more gracious and comprehensive Institution. In the meantime the carnal was the stay and support of the spiritual, while the spiritual served also to preserve and sanctify the carnal. They were united, but not blended together: for “ the Law is not of faith,” says Paul (Galatians 3:12) ; and again he says in substance, Faith is not of the Law (Romans 9:6).

So matters stood until Christ came, “ made of a woman made under the Law, to redeem them that were under the law.” (Galatians 4:4-5.) For about three and a half years he instructed the people, and, by his personal ministry, developed to a great extent the beauties, riches, and superlative excellencies of the spiritual ele¬ment of the Abrahamic promise. But still it was in an imperfect state, not yet having received its full and proper development. Nor could this be done really while the first Institution was stand¬ing. It was necessary that the Old Covenant should be abrogated before the New could be fully inaugurated. This was done at the death of Christ. Then the Law of Moses was taken out of the way, being nailed to the cross. (Colossians 2:14.) After that it was no longer binding on any one as a religious Institution; though it was through the forbearance of God allowed to remain as a civil Institution, for about thirty-six years longer, until the destruction of Je¬rusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70.

In the meantime the spiritual element of the Abrahamic promise was fully developed in the Church of Christ, which was set up as a separate and distinct In¬stitution on the Day of Pentecost which next followed after his death, burial, and resurrection. Then, for the first time, he was publicly proclaimed to the world as the anointed Sovereign of the universe (Acts 2:36) ; and then also believing penitents were first required to be baptized by his authority into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Compare Matthew 28:19 with Acts 2:38. From that time forward, the Church of Christ is repeatedly spoken of as an existing reality, a distinct and independent body, enjoying the many blessings and privileges of the New Covenant. See Acts 2:47 Acts 5:11 Acts 8:1 Acts 8:3 Acts 9:31 Acts 11:15; Colossians 1:13, etc.

It will now be an easy matter for the reader to reconcile Galatians 3:17 with Jeremiah 31:31. When Paul, writing to the Galatians, says, the covenant concerning Christ (eis Christon) was given to Abraham four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the Law upon Mount Sinai, he refers simply to the spiritual elements of the Abrahamic promise. But when with Jeremiah, he speaks of the constitution, laws, and ordinances of the Church of Christ, as a new covenant, he then manifestly refers to the full and perfect development of the spiritual side of the aforesaid promise under the personal reign and administration of the Lord Jesus. They were identical in the sense in which an oak is identical with the acorn from which it is produced; and in like manner they were also very different. But in no proper sense was either of them identical with the Old Covenant; the Old being to the New as the shadow is to the substance, or as the type is to the antitype. (Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 10:1.) All this may perhaps be made still more evident to some of my youthful readers by means of the following diagram : Hebrews 8:9 —Not according to the covenant—That is, the Sinaitic Cove¬nant into which the carnal element of the Abrahamic promise was finally expanded. The word day is here used metaphorically for the period during which God led the people on their way from Egypt to Canaan.

Certain pledges were of course given to them before they left Egypt, but the Covenant was made at Sinai. See references.

Hebrews 8:9 —because they continued not in my covenant,—God here gives the reason why he was about to accomplish upon the house of Is¬rael and the house of Judah a new covenant. It had now become manifest that by the Old Covenant no flesh could be justified be¬fore God: for the people were continually violating its require¬ments, and consequently God was under the necessity, so to speak, of rejecting them.

Hebrews 8:9 —and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.—Because they re¬jected me and my covenant, saith Jehovah, I also rejected them. The Hebrew may be literally rendered as follows; For they broke my covenant, and I was a lord to them. That is, I treated them as a lord treats his unfaithful servants : I rejected them.

Hebrews 8:10 —For this is the covenant, etc.—The Apostle now proceeds to state, according to the prophecy of Jeremiah, the several points of difference between the Old and the New Covenant: the first of which consists in the carnal externality of the former, and the spir¬itual internality of the latter.

Hebrews 8:10 —I will put my laws into their minds, etc.—The ten fundamental precepts of the Old Covenant were written on two tables of stone (Exodus 34:1 Exodus 34:28; Deuteronomy 10:1-5; 2 Corinthians 3:7), and the other laws and ordinances most likely on skins prepared for the purpose (Exodus 24:7; Hebrews 9:19 Hebrews 10:7). Many of the pious Hebrews no doubt, like David, treasured up these laws in their minds and in their hearts (Psalms 119:11) ; and, like Abraham, they were justified by faith through the covenant concerning Christ. But multitudes of those who lived under the Old Covenant never received the impress of God’ s law upon either their understanding or their hearts. And hence it was always to them but as a letter inscribed on stone, and not as an indwelling and life-giving power inscribed on their hearts. (2 Corinthians 3:6.) But not so under the New Cove¬nant. For unless a man is begotten by the Spirit, through the word of truth, the good seed of the kingdom, he cannot become a member of it, nor can he be a partaker of its benefits. Compare John 3:3 and John 3:5, with 1 Corinthians 4:15; James 1:18; 1 Peter 1:23.

God first enlightens the understanding by means of his inspired word, and then he inscribes it on the heart. Through the heart, the truth affects the will, and through the will it controls and sanctifies the life, so that all the members of the New Covenant are really “ voluntary offerings,” according to the promise of God to his Son. (Psalms 110:3.) It is not therefore “ the letter,” but it is “ the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” that constrains us to do the will of God from the heart.

Hebrews 8:10 —and I will be to them a God, etc.—This is the second of the “ better promises” on which the New Covenant is established. Under the Old Covenant, there were of course many true believers who, like Abraham, took Jehovah to be their God, all of whom he received and acknowledged as his people. (Exodus 19:5; Leviticus 26:12.) But many, now knowing their right hands from their left, were of course incapable of so receiving him, and others were not willing to do so, preferring the worship of Baal, and other heathen idols, to the worship of the only living and true God. “ The fact is,” says Delitzsch, “ there is no period in the history of Israel before the captivity, in which more or less idolatry was not united with the worship of Jehovah, except it be in the time of David and the first years of Solomon, during which the influence of Samuel continued to be felt. And when, by the captivity, idol worship was completely eradicated from the people, as far at least as regards that part of it which returned, it is well known that a hypocritical letter worship got the mastery over them, which was very little better.” But under the New Economy, no such state of things is at all possible. No one can really become a member of the New Covenant, except by faith and obedience (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, etc.), and no one can continue to be a member of it except on the same conditions (6: 4-6; 10: 26-31; 2 Peter 1:1-11). “ Know ye therefore,” says Paul, “ that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:7 Galatians 3:29.) To all such, God is now a God in even a higher sense than he was to the ancient patriarchs, for to none of them was the Holy Spirit given, as it is now given to all the subjects of the New Covenant, because that Jesus was not then glorified. (John 7:37-39.) But now we are not only brought nearer to God by the offering of Christ, but we are also filled with his Spirit, through which we are enabled to cry “ Abba, Father.” (Galatians 4:6.) Thus it is that Jehovah is now our God, and that we are his people “ in truth and in righteousness.” (Zechariah 8:8.) Hebrews 8:11 —And they shall teach every man his neighbor, etc.— The word polites means a citizen, and with the possessive pronoun his (autou), as in our text, it means a fellow-citizen. And hence the whole verse may be properly rendered as follows: And they shall not teach every one his fellow-citizen, and every one his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all will know me from the least to the greatest of them.

But of whom does the Lord speak when he says, They will all know me? Evidently, of the members of the New Covenant, and of these only. They must all know the Lord from the least of them even to the greatest of them. And hence we have given here a very striking point of contrast between the Old and the New Covenant. For if we except the few Gentile proselytes, who on condition of their being circumcised, were admitted to some of the rights and privileges of the Theocracy, all the subjects of the Old Covenant had to be taught to know the Lord. But not so under the New Covenant. No one, ignorant of Jehovah, can possibly become a member of it: “ for he that cometh to God must believe that he is,and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrews 11:40) The ground of this difference will become more obvious if we reflect for a moment on the relation which the Old Covenant sus­tained to the New, and also on the leading object for which the Old was instituted. Be it observed, then, that to communicate to mankind, in a clear and intelligible way, the whole plan of redemp­tion through Christ, was a very difficult and intricate problem; difficult in itself on account of its unique and supernatural charac­ter ; difficult on account of the many imperfections of the languages through which it had to be communicated; and difficult also on account of the preternatural blindness and depravity of the human heart. Now, in order to overcome these and other like obstacles, as far as possible, and to make the scheme of redemption plain and intelligible to all, it pleased God to explain and illustrate it by means of a series of material signs and symbols, which none of course but a Being of infinite knowledge was capable of inventing. For this purpose, he made Abraham the father of two families, the first embracing all his posterity according to the flesh, save such only as God himself saw fit to eliminate by special enactment, and the second embracing all who have the faith of Abraham. The first were made types of the second with respect to their birth, their circumcision, their inheritance, etc. The first became members of the Old Covenant, whether in its incipiency or in its fully devel­oped state, by virtue of their natural birth, just as all mankind are by their natural birth made subject to the conditions of the Adamic covenant, and as the descendants of Levi were by virtue of their birth made subject to the conditions of the Levitical covenant.

This is evident from such considerations as the following: (1) from the terms of the covenant which God made with Abraham respecting himself and his posterity (Genesis 17:7-8) ; (2) from the fact that every male that was found to be uncircumcised after the eighth day was to be regarded and treated as a transgressor of the covenant (Genesis 17:14) ; (3) from the fact that all females of the stock of Abraham, through Jacob, were from their birth regarded as mem­bers of the Covenant (see, for instance, Numbers 36) ; (4) from the fact that this is everywhere conceded by Christ and his Apostles, as well as by the ancient prophets (see Matthew 3:9; John 8:33 John 8:37, etc.) ; and (5) from the existing analogies between the Old and the New Covenant. As the family of the faithful now become members of the New Covenant by being born of water and of the Spirit (John 3:3 and John 3:5), so also the children of Abraham, by natural de­scent, became members of the Old Covenant by being born of the flesh.

Now this being so, one of the first lessons which the subjects of the Old Covenant had to learn was to know the Lord. But this necessity does not, and cannot, exist under the New Covenant, for its subjects are “ born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13.) God begets us, not by natural generation, but by means of “ the word of truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of his creatures.” (James 1:18.) And hence it is evident that all the subjects of the New Covenant must know the Lord. True, indeed, they are required to grow in knowledge, as well as in the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 3:18.) Leaving the rudiments of the doctrine of Christ, we must go on to perfection, but not by learning again to know the Lord. This is the Alpha of the Christian Religion, with­out which no one ever did or ever can become a subject of the New Covenant, and a partaker of its benefits.

Hebrews 8:12 —For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness,— This is given as the fourth of the “ better promises” on which the New Covenant is established. The law having a mere shadow of the good things pertaining to the New Covenant, could never with its bloody rites take away the sins of the people. (10: 4.) And hence, on the Day of Atonement all the sins of the year, for which many sacrifices had already been offered, were again called into remem­brance. But under the New Covenant the case is wholly different, for the blood of Christ cleanses us thoroughly from all our sins. (1 John 1:7.) It is to the moral government of the universe what the blood of bulls and of goats was to the symbolical government of the Jews. It meets fully and satisfactorily the claims of the Divine government against every penitent believer, and procures for him, on given conditions, free, full, and absolute forgiveness. And hence it is that those who are justified by faith through the blood of Christ, have no more consciousness of their past sins. God treats them as if they had never sinned, for he says: “ Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” That is, he deals with the justified as if their sins were wholly forgotten, so that no one can ever successfully prefer a charge against the elect of God. See Isaiah 54:17; Romans 8:33.

Hebrews 8:13 —In that he saith, A new covenant, etc.—The terms old and new are relative. And hence the Apostle argues that the use of the epithet new implies that the first had become old. Nay more, he further insists that the Old Covenant was even then “ ready to van­ish away.” As a religious Institution, it was, as we have seen, abolished when Christ was crucified. He then took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. (Colossians 2:14.) And as a civil Institu­tion it continued for only about seven years after the writing of this Epistle. God then took it entirely out of the way, forever abolishing at the same time the whole Tabernacle service in order to stay more effectually the hand of persecution, and correct the extreme judaizing tendencies that were then threatening to corrupt the simplicity of the Gospel, especially throughout Palestine.

1. What a blessed thing it is to be a subject of the new and better covenant: to enjoy its rights and privileges here, and its eternal honors and rewards hereafter (verse 6). To have Jehovah for our God, to have his laws and ordinances inscribed as a living power on our hearts, and to have our sins and iniquities all blotted out through the blood of Christ, knowing at the same time that if “ our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens”— what more could we desire than this ?

2. No irresponsible persons, whether they be infants or idiots, can become members of the New Covenant (verse 11). For God himself says of its subjects that they will all know him, from the least even to the greatest of them. But such knowledge is above the capacity of infants and idiots. And hence they can never be lawfully received as members of the church of Christ. True, in¬deed, all who were of the seed of Abraham and of the stock of Is¬rael, became members of the Old Covenant by virtue of their birth. But these were but types of those who by a birth of water and of the Spirit put on Christ and receive the sign and seal of the New Covenant. (Romans 2:28-29; Philippians 3:3; Colossians 2:9-12; Ephesians 1:13-14.) The babes of the New Covenant are therefore the new con¬verts who believe in Christ and obey his commandments. (Matthew 18:6.)

3. Let it not be supposed, however, that those who die in their infancy are excluded from the benefits of Christ’ s death and media¬tion. By no means: for we say with truth, as did Paul (Romans 5:15-17), “ In him the tribes of Adam boast more blessings than their fathers lost.” Though infants are not proper subjects of the New Covenant, they are nevertheless all embraced in the more comprehensive arrangement of the Godhead, made for the benefit of all classes of mankind. Those, therefore, who die in their in¬fancy will be saved, unconditionally on their part, through the sac¬rifice and mediation of the Lord Jesus. “ For as by the one man’ s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the obedience of the one shall the many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19) ; that is, so far as it respects the Adamic covenant. And hence it follows that all mankind will in due time be saved, through Christ, from the effects of the first transgression. And then will be fulfilled in its fullest sense the saying of the Psalmist, “ Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength, because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.” (Psalms 8:2.)

4. The New Covenant was framed for the benefit of those, and only those, who have attained to the years of responsibility. In it and through it we have given all that is really necessary to the at¬tainment of life and godliness. He who believes, repents, and is baptized by the authority of Christ into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, has the fullest possible as¬surance that his past sins are all forgiven (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38) ; and if, giving all diligence, he continue in well doing, he has then also the assurance that in the end he will receive an abundant entrance into God’ s everlasting kingdom (2 Peter 1:5-11). But he who, on the other hand, willfully neglects these laws and ordi nances of the New Covenant, will just as certainly be banished with an everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power. (Mark 16:16; 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9.) And hence it follows that everyone who has in his possession the Holy Scriptures, may even now read and understand his destiny. On this point there can be no mistake or failure so far as it respects God. “ He is not a man that he should lie, nor is he the Son of man that he should repent.” What a man sows, he will most as¬suredly reap: “ He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” (Galatians 6:8.)

5. But how is it with the millions who have no knowledge of God, nor of the gracious provisions of the New Covenant? Will they be saved, or will they be lost? If lost, it will not be on account of the Adamic transgression, for as we have seen, all will be finally saved from it through Christ. Nor will it be on the ground that they have rejected Christ, and the offer of salvation through him; for this they have not done. But it will be simply owing to their own personal transgressions, many of which they have all committed (Romans 1:18-32) ; and from which there is no salvation but through Christ (Acts 4:12).

6. If saved at all, then, it must be by means of the Gospel. But how can they be saved by that of which they have no knowledge? Does not Paul say that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to every one that believeth, because in it is revealed God’ s plan of justification by faith in order to faith? (Romans 1:16-17.) And does not the commission given by Christ to his apostles, and through them to the church (Matthew 28:18-20), clearly indicate that there is no salvation for those who are dead in trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1-3), except through the knowledge and faith of the Gospel? And did not the apostles act constantly under the influ¬ence of this conviction? When charged, as they doubtless often were, with being beside themselves in their great zeal to save the world from sin and death, the defense which Paul makes in his own behalf and also in behalf of his brethren is simply this; “ The love of Christ constrains us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead; and that he died for all, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again.” (2 Corinthians 5:14-15.) On no other hypothesis can we explain the labors and teachings of the apostles than they looked upon the whole heathen world as lost, eter¬nally and irrecoverably lost, unless saved by the Gospel.

That some men may still, under extraordinary circumstances, be saved, as were the ancient patriarchs, with a very limited knowledge of God and of his Gospel, we may, I think, joyfully concede. But that any one who lives and dies in idolatry, can ever be admitted to a participation in the honors and privileges of God’ s everlasting kingdom, seems to me to be quite impossible; for “ this is eternal life, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3.)

7. We see, then, the wisdom and benevolence of God in making the church the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15) ; the golden candlestick that is to dispense the light of the Gospel to the benighted nations of the earth (Matthew 5:14; Philippians 2:15; Revelation 1:20). Let her then faithfully fulfill her mission, as did the apostles, and very soon the idols of the heathen will be cast “ to the moles and to the bats,” and the whole earth will be filled with the knowl¬edge and the glory of the Lord. (Isaiah 11:6-9.)

Commentary On Hebrews 8 Verse 1 THE HIGH PRIEST ON HIGH; THE ; TO THE PATTERN; FIRST ; ‘S OF THE NEW Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this: we have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. (Hebrews 8:1-2) Jerden notes that: This passage does not present a recapitulation of topics already considered; it emphasizes as the crowning topic in connection with our Lord’s priesthood, the fact that he has been made higher than the heavens.[1]Two words in these verses challenge our attention because of the paradox, Hebrews 8:1 presenting our Lord as “seated,” whereas Hebrews 8:2 hails him as a “minister of the sanctuary,” that is, “a servant.” Both seated and serving, therefore, our Lord is contrasted with the temporal high priests who found no chair within the Holy of Holies, thus never being seated, and never permitted to remain except for a short period of time. The seated and serving Christ, on the other hand, abides in perfect and eternal control of the ministry on behalf of man which does not require that he busy himself with this or that, but which service has already been essentially completed, requiring only his presence upon the throne of God to assure its perfect administration and efficacy. THE TEMPLE IN HEAVENThe reference in this place to existence of a heavenly temple or tabernacle requires that any notion of a literal or actual temple or court in some particular locale beyond the earth’s atmosphere be refuted. It is the conviction of this writer that such language is used by the Holy Spirit in order to bring down to the level of human comprehension those heavenly realities which are not capable of any complete finite understanding, and that the eloquent words used in the sacred text are accommodated to man’s weakness and limitations, and that the marvelous realities thus described are fantastically beyond the total human knowledge of them, the very power and ability of language itself, as a means of communication, being helpless to transmit anything more than a typical or suggestive outline of the things that are in the heavens. Therefore, with the deepest reverence and humility, people should strive in these matters to think God’s thoughts after Him, and not to crush the knowledge of that upper and better world into the straitjacket of its revealing metaphor. The whole earth is seen as God’s temple in Psalms 29, and a mighty thunderstorm in the wilderness is envisioned as actually taking place within the temple. “In his temple doth every one speak of his glory. The Lord sitteth upon the flood; yea, the Lord sitteth King forever” (Psalms 29:9-10). Micaiah saw a vision of the Almighty hold court in heaven: “I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left” (1 Kings 22:19). Isaiah’s vision of God’s throne (Isaiah 6:1 ff) located it within the temple and stressed the service of the seraphim, mentioning the Lord’s train, the smoke of incense, and the live coals on the altar. Ezekiel beheld God’s throne above the firmament as having the appearance of a sapphire stone, and as the appearance of fire, and as of the brightness of the rainbow, a very high eminence, being invariably above even the heads of the cherubim (Ezekiel 1:26-28 Ezekiel 10:1). Psalms 11:4 has “The Lord is in his holy temple; the Lord’s throne is in heaven.” Micah saw the Lord’s “holy temple” as far above the earth from which the Lord would come down and tread “upon the high places of the earth” (Micah 1:2-3).

Habakkuk has the renowned call to worship, “But the Lord is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him” (Habakkuk 2:20). From all these and many other references, should it be concluded that there is literally a temple in heaven? No. These revelations symbolize and typify facts and realities beyond any intellectual grasp. That such a conclusion is true appears from the surpassingly extensive vision of the apostle John concerning the Holy City coming down from God out of heaven, in which it is categorically stated, “I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God the Almighty, and the Lamb, are the temple thereof” (Revelation 21:22). We have such a high priest refers to our Lord whose character and office have already been shown to be so far above that of any other. An excellent summary of the superiority of our high priest is that of Garbett, appended here. In human priests, if the most extravagant claims were admitted, it would yet be true that the dignity is only in the office, and not in the men. But when we turn to the true High Priest, how different it is! Here is not only the glory of the office, but the glory of the Person, infinitely qualified in his deity to stand between the justice of God and the whole human race. He is no mere dying man like an earthly high priest, but clothed with “the power of an endless life.” He was not made after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the oath of God himself, “a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” He hath not entered into the tabernacle made with hands, with the blood of bulls and goats, “but with his own blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” He is not one among many, like earthly high priests, but is alone in his own single, unequaled majesty, “the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.” He does not fill a delegated office, like earthly priests, but fulfills his own office, and that so perfectly that he “is able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him.” He needs not daily, as earthly priests, to seek forgiveness for his own sins, but is “holy, harmless, and undefiled, and separate from sinners.” He does not minister afar off from God, like earthly priests, but is already “made higher than the heavens,” and at the right hand of his Father pleads evermore for us. He needs not to repeat his daily offerings, as earthly priests, but has made atonement, once, “when he offered up himself.” And lastly, He has no infirmity, like earthly priests, but is the Son of God, himself God, blessed forevermore - omnipotent, omnipresent, infinite! Who perfect as he? and what wonder that, thus perfect, he should govern as well as atone? - not only priest, but King - nay, bearing on his head the triple crown of glory - Prophet, Priest, King.[2]At this point, the author of Hebrews had overwhelmingly proved that any of the Jewish Christians, tempted to revert to Judaism, had received in such a high priest as Jesus far more than they had given up through renunciation of Judaism. He does not stop here, however, but goes ahead with an analysis of certain other contrasts between Jesus and the Levitical high priest. [1] C. Jerden, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 21, Hebrews, p. 212. [2] Garbett, Biblical Illustrator (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1967), Vol. 1, Hebrews, p. 616. Verse 3 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.The ambiguity of this verse is attested by monumental mistranslation of it by an author whose sincerity and scholarship are above question, namely, J. B. Phillips, in his “Letters to Young Churches,” who translates thus, “It follows, therefore, that in these holy places this man has something that he is offering."[3” translation="">Hebrews 8:3).">[3] This cannot be correct, because our author rejects any idea of a continual offering on the part of our Lord who offered his blood “once for all” (Hebrews 7:27). Bruce noted that the tense and mood of the Greek verb “to offer” in this clause also exclude the idea of a continual offering.[4] He also calls attention to a footnote in the New English Bible (1961) with a suggested rendition of the clause that would make the situation completely unambiguous: “this one too must have had something to offer."[5]For notes on “gifts and sacrifices” see under Hebrews 5:1. [3” translation="">Hebrews 8:3).">[3] Phillips’ New Testament (Hebrews 8:3). [4] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967), p. 164. [5] Ibid., p. 164. Verse 4 Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer gifts according to the law.Jesus could not have been a priest on earth because he did not belong to the priestly family, nor even to the tribe from which that family descended. Christ’s priesthood was of a different order altogether, being after the order of Melchizedek. The importance of this is in the bearing it has on the purpose for which the Son of God came into the world. It had absolutely nothing to do with being a priestly Messiah on earth, as some supposed; nor was it to reign upon the earth as a secular monarch. Dr. James D. Bales noted that “Christ could not possibly have been crowned king on earth during his personal ministry, since the law could not have been taken away prior to his death (Colossians 2:14; Ephesians 2:13-16)."[6] Bales indicated the true reason why Jesus came, not to be priest, not to reign as a literal king on a throne on earth, “but to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Hebrews 9:26-27). Verse 5 Who serve that which is a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses is warned of God when he is about to make the tabernacle; for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern that was showed thee in the mount.ALL THINGS TO THE PATTERNAll things according to the pattern must be hailed as one of the most significant statements in Hebrews. The instructions of God to Moses to which reference is here made are found in Exodus 25:40; and this reiteration of them in the New Testament is of the utmost consequence. If God required Moses to proceed exactly according to the pattern God showed him, it is also required of worshipers today that they do all things according to the pattern God has revealed. It is of no great concern how God showed Moses the pattern; and we may therefore reject the speculations of people on that point and dwell upon the far more important fact that there was a pattern and that God required the strictest adherence to it in the things Moses made. One of the great delusions of modern worshipers is the fallacy that there is no pattern, actually, and that it makes no difference what people do religiously, just so they are sincere in it; but this text reveals God as a pattern-minded God. How could God be supposed to be otherwise? If God made a mosquito or an eclipse of the sun, the divine pattern is always followed. God never created a round snowflake, nor a cubical planet, nor a quadramaculatus mosquito without four spots on his wings. The tiniest bird is constructed according to an invariable pattern; and of all the billions of South Carolina wrens that God ever made, every single one of them warbled his plaintive little melody in the key of G. Dr.

Leonidas Holland of David Lipscomb College discovered that about the wrens during thirty-five years of study. If God takes such care in his making of birds, or of working honey bees, not one of which was ever discovered without a sting, how could it ever be thought true that God does not care about how men shall worship? Even of those types and shadows made by Moses, God was jealous of the strict adherence to the divine pattern; and a part of the wickedness of Ahaz, king of Israel, was his rejection of the divine pattern of the altar and fashioning one like the pagan altar in Damascus (2 Kings 16:10-11). And if God cared about that, does he not care if the prayers of which that altar was only a type shall be offered through the one Mediator God established, and not through the saints of all ages? Applying the principle of a divine pattern to the realities of the new covenant, one can be certain that there is a plan of salvation, even if it is not called that in the New Testament. That “plan of salvation” can be discovered by studying the examples of conversion recorded in the book of Acts; and, from this, it appears that every person converted under the preaching of the apostles and inspired evangelists, without exception: (1) heard the word of God; (2) believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; (3) confessed the Saviour’s name before people; (4) repented of their sins; (5) were baptized into Christ; (6) became members of the body of Christ; and (7) received the Holy Spirit, continuing stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and in the breaking of bread and in prayers. If there is any other way to be saved from alien sins, the scriptures have no record of it. See more on this, including scripture text under Hebrews 10:26. And regarding the worship, is there a pattern of scriptural worship? Of course there is. The New Testament declares that God must be worshiped “in Spirit and in truth” (John 4:24); that teaching human commandments for doctrine constitutes “vain worship” (Mark 7:7); that “God is not worshipped with men’s hands” (Acts 17:24-25); that man shall not “add unto these things” (Revelation 22:18); that one who “abideth not in the teaching of Christ hath not God” (2 John 1:9); that men “make the commandment of God of none effect” by their traditions (Matthew 15:6); and that all Christians should learn “not to go beyond the things which are written” (1 Corinthians 4:6). If such scriptures as these do not provide warning against departure from God’s pattern of worship, it is hard to imagine how a warning could be stated. But what is that pattern? God is to be worshipped: (1) through prayers (Acts 2:46; 2 Thessalonians 5:17; 1 Corinthians 14:15); (2) through observance of the Lord’s Supper (Acts 20:7 Acts 2:46; 1 Corinthians 11:28); (3) by giving of one’s means to support the truth (Acts 20:35; 1 Corinthians 16:2; 2 Corinthians 8:7-14); (4) in reading, studying, teaching and preaching God’s word (Acts 2:46 Acts 20:7; 2 Timothy 4:2); and (5) by the singing of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs unto God (Colossians 3:16; Ephesians 5:19; 1 Corinthians 14:15). Furthermore, there is a clearly revealed pattern for every component of Christian worship, as for example, the singing. Not even all singing is acceptable, for God requires only psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. Unspiritual songs do not meet the requirements; and, as for instrumental music, it was never part of the worship of Christians until centuries after Christ. There is a pattern for baptism; and for details on that, see under “Six Fundamentals” in Hebrews 6. The Lord’s Supper also was designed with regard to a heavenly pattern. The so-called emblems are not many but only two, bread and wine; and the primitive church observed it not every day, but upon a fixed day.

Pliny the Younger (A.D. 63-112), in his letter to the Emperor Trajan stated that the guilt of Christians had amounted only to this, “that on an appointed day … they had been accustomed to meet before daybreak, and to recite a hymn antiphonally to Christ as God, etc."[7] Thus from the shadow of the first century comes the certain word that the Christians met on a fixed or “appointed day,” just like they still do; and the New Testament reveals that day to have been on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Pliny’s letter goes on to say that the Christians, at those appointed meetings, partook of food “of an ordinary and harmless kind”; and thus it may be concluded that from apostolic times, the Lord’s Supper was observed weekly by Christians on the first day of every week. Nor is that all. There is a pattern of Christian living, a pattern to be observed in giving of one’s means to support the gospel, a pattern of prayers, which must be “in the name of” Christ, a pattern of preaching, and a pattern of decency and decorum for public worship, and even specific instructions for ushers at the public assemblies of the church! (James 2:1-3). It is the life-work of every Christian to learn and follow the pattern of heavenly things in the religion of Christ. [6] James D. Bales, Hebrews Sermonized (Searcy, Arkansas: Bales Book Store, 1955), p. 43. [7] Henry Bettenson, Documents of the Christian Church (New York and London: Oxford University Press, 1947), p. 6. Verse 6 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.Particularly interesting in these two verses is the mention of two, and only two, covenants, designated “the first” and “the second.” Now God made a covenant with Noah (Genesis 6:18 Genesis 9:9), and two covenants with Abraham (Genesis 17:2 Genesis 17:10 Genesis 15:18 ff), and a covenant of salt (Numbers 18:19; Leviticus 2:13), and a covenant of the everlasting priesthood (Numbers 25:13); but the “first covenant” of these verses is none of these covenants. It is the covenant so great and extensive that it overshadows all such lesser covenants and is known as “the first covenant.” The student needs to identify that first covenant in order to know which was annulled. That first covenant was made with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jeremiah 31:31 ff), the mention of the house of Judah being significant to distinguish that first covenant from anything pertaining exclusively to the priesthood, the covenant of the priesthood having been made with the house of Levi, not with the house of Judah. The first covenant may be further identified in that it was the covenant that had the Decalogue. Note, “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone” (Deuteronomy 4:13).

That this ten commandments covenant is the one in view by the author of Hebrews is evident and becomes certain in the light of his mention of “the tables of the covenant” being placed within the ark of the covenant (Hebrews 9:4). The first covenant was identified by Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:31 ff), as the one made when God took Israel by the hand to lead them out of Egypt; and God’s instructions to Moses regarding the Decalogue specifically identified the tables of stone (on which the Decalogue was inscribed) as basic components of that first covenant. And the Lord said unto Moses, Write thou these words; for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with the house of Israel. And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments (Exodus 34:2 Exodus 34:28). Summarizing these marks of identification of “the first covenant,” the one which was annulled, we have the following: (1) It was the one made with Israel AND JUDAH. (2) It was the one that had the Decalogue as a basic component. (3) It was the one made at the time of Israel’s coming out of Egypt. (4) It was the one said by God himself to be with Moses (with “thee”), as well as with Israel (Exodus 24:27). Therefore, “the first covenant,” as used in these verses, means the whole religious system of the Jews, the Decalogue, the priesthood, the sacrifices, the tabernacle ritual, the temple services (as later developed), the statutes, and the judgments, and the commandments, and embracing the entire ceremonial and moral constitution of Judaism. (See under Hebrews 7:11-12.) The thesis of the author of Hebrews in the verses before us is that a second, or new, covenant has superseded and replaced the first, or old, covenant. This was accomplished when Jesus Christ appeared, suffered, died, rose from the dead, ascended on high, and gathered up in himself all that was of any value in the old covenant, making his teachings alone to be the basis of eternal redemption. Whatever moral precepts of the Old Testament were brought over into the New Testament (and there were many of these, such as prohibitions against murder, adultery, theft, covetousness, etc.), those precepts now derive their authority from Christ, not Moses. Just so, those things of the Old Testament that did not find their place in the new institution, such as sabbath keeping, animal sacrifice, burning of incense, etc., are therefore now void of any authority at all and are to be totally rejected. The author of Hebrews at this point defends himself against a reaction of shock in the minds of his readers at so bold and forthright a proposition that the entire old covenant had been abolished; and he does this by an appeal to Jeremiah’s famous prophecy which had foretold this very thing. That magnificent, comprehensive prophecy of Jeremiah should have been well known to all Israel, especially to that portion which had accepted Christianity; but the widespread ignorance of it even today suggests that many had simply overlooked it. The author will now quote Jeremiah’s prophecy; but before taking up a discussion of it, one other matter should be noted, and that is the implication of fault in the old covenant. How could it have been at fault, seeing God himself had given it? Its fault lay in the temporary character of it, the law being “added because of transgression until the seed should come” (Galatians 3:19 ff), and never being intended as a permanent solution of man’s spiritual problems. Just as a contractor first builds a scaffold around a building to be erected, removing the scaffolding when the building is completed; just so, God erected the law as a scaffold which, from the first, was designed to be removed as soon as “the seed” which is Christ should appear. Next is Jeremiah’s prophecy. Verse 8 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; Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers In the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they continued not in my covenant, And I regarded them not, saith the Lord.This is from Jeremiah 31:31 ff and is quoted by the author as scriptural proof that the abrogation of the old covenant is nothing which should shock his readers, since God long ago had prophesied in this very place that it would be abrogated and replaced with a new covenant. To be sure, the author could have quoted some very convincing and powerful words of Christ and his apostles as sufficient authority for hailing the old covenant as obsolete and abolished; but it should be kept in mind that he was addressing a group of people who had a strong emotional tie with the Old Testament, and it was therefore better procedure on his part to prove his proposition from the Old Testament. For proper identification of the “covenant” Jeremiah had in mind, the one to be abrogated, see under Hebrews 8:1-7. Two basic reasons why the old covenant was abolished are: (1) God promised that he would make a new one, which he would not have done if the old one had been faultless. (2) Israel themselves had broken the old covenant by not continuing in it; and it is pertinent to observe that it was preponderantly the “moral” part of the covenant that Israel had so wantonly violated. The ceremonial was precisely the part of the law they kept best; and, since it was their breaking of the covenant that God made one of the reasons for changing it, it is most illogical to suppose God abrogated only the ritual, or ceremonial, or priestly part of the covenant. It would require a volume to recount the extent of Israel’s rebellion, stubbornness, idolatry, murder, adultery, and wickedness of every description, and their perpetual unwillingness to honor the covenant God had given them. Rather than attempting it, we shall allow the words of one of their most illustrious prophets to stand uncontradicted to the effect that Israel certainly failed to keep the covenant. “For they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.” In the KJV, the last clause of 9 reads, “Although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord” (Jeremiah 31:32 KJV). We shall leave it to the translators to choose between the renditions, but the thought from the KJV is quite significant. It stresses the tender and intimate relationship between God and Israel, as represented under the metaphor of a husband and his wife; and Paul shows that God honored that spiritual marriage to the extent of dying upon the cross (in the person of his Son) in order to bring about the legal cancellation of the marriage contract with Israel (Romans 7:1-4). After discussing God’s law on marriage, Paul said, “Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ” (Romans 7:4). Thus, sinful as Israel was, God did not dissolve his marriage with them except on the basis of his own death in the person of Christ. Verse 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 on their heart also will I write them: And I will be to them a God, And they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his fellow-citizen, And every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: For all shall know me, From the least to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away.Here is given the balance of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant, recorded in Jeremiah 31:31-34. Although said to be made “with the house of Israel,” this new covenant has a much wider application than the old, the new Israel being in no way limited to the physical descendants of Abraham (Galatians 3:29, etc.); and yet, significantly, Israel is not excluded. The more spiritual nature of the new covenant is stressed, being founded upon the spirit rather than upon the letter; but perhaps the most astounding thing in the prophecy is the statement that there will be no need to teach men, saying, “Know the Lord,” since all will already know him.

How can such a thing be? Only by the requirement that one must know the Lord BEFORE he can enter his kingdom, can these words be true. This focuses attention upon the vast difference between the old and new covenants with regard to the manner of entering them. Men were physically born into the old covenant, circumcised the eighth day, and thus grew up as members of that religious community; and, as a result, all manner of irreligious and unconverted persons were legally associated with the old Israel. Thus it can never be in the new covenant. Infant membership in the new covenant is impossible, for one must know the Lord before he can enter the kingdom.

As the apostle John expressed it, But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God (John 1:12-13). Only in the light of what is required BEFORE a person can become a child of God, and which requirement totally excludes infants and all others not of accountable age, do the words of Jeremiah’s remarkable prophecy become clear. Nigh unto vanishing away affords the strongest possible evidence that Hebrews was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the cessation of the temple services; for if those events had already happened, it would be absolutely unaccountable how the author could have made such a statement as this. What a remarkable proof of his inspiration came in the sudden, total, and summary removal of all the salient features of the old economy when Jerusalem was destroyed so soon after these words were written. Our author said that it was “nigh unto vanishing away”; and within a span of five years, all that impressive ceremonial was utterly wiped away from the face of the earth, never to appear again!

“THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS”

Chapter Eight Having demonstrated Jesus’ superiority to prophets, angels, Moses, and Levi, the author summarizes: we have a High Priest at God’ s right hand who is Minister and Mediator of a better covenant established on better promises (Hebrews 8:1-6). Our attention is then directed toward that New Covenant which has replaced the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:7-13).

POINTS TO PONDER

• The main point of all that has been said: “We have such a High Priest…”

• The two covenants (the first and old, replaced by the second and new)

REVIEW

1. What are the main points of this chapter?- The new ministry of Christ - Hebrews 8:1-6- The new covenant of Christ - Hebrews 8:7-13

2. Where is our High Priest? In what does He minister? (Hebrews 8:1-2)- Seated at the right hand of God; the sanctuary and true tabernacle build by God

3. If Jesus were on earth, what could He not be? (4)- A priest

4. What served as a copy and shadow of the true tabernacle? (Hebrews 8:5)- The earthly tabernacle Moses was instructed to build

5. In what way has Jesus obtained a more excellent ministry? (Hebrews 8:6)- He is the Mediator of a better covenant, established on better promises

6. Why was it necessary to replace the first covenant with the second? (Hebrews 8:7-8)- The first was not faultless; there was fault with those under the first

7. Which covenant was the first, old covenant? (Hebrews 8:9)- That made with Israel when God led them out of Egypt (i.e., Mosaic Covenant)

8. List characteristics of God’ s new covenant foretold by Jeremiah. (Hebrews 8:10-12)- God’ s laws will be in their minds and written on their hearts

• He will be their God, and they shall be His people
• None shall teach his neighbor to know the Lord, for all will know Him
• He will be merciful, and remember their sins no more

9. With the new covenant, what happened to the old covenant? (Hebrews 8:13)- It had been made obsolete, old, and ready to vanish away

Questions by E.M. Zerr On Hebrews 81. What does Paul now do as to the things spoken 2. State what he says we have. 3. Where is he set? 4. In what place did priests of Aaron serve? 5. Of what is Christ the minister? 6. How was it the Lord pitched and not man? 7. What is this tabernacle? 8. For what is every high priest ordained? 9. Who is “ this man” in verse three ? 10. Why should he not serve as priest on earth? 11. Under what law did Christ live? 12. Compare this thought with Matt. 8: 4. 13. When did Christ become priest? 14. By what offering did he become such ? 15. Of what was the old priesthood a shadow ? 16. State the source of the pattern or substance. 17. State the injunction God gave Moses? 18. Who is meant by “ he” verse 6 ? 19. For whom is the mediator? 20. What are the better promises referred to here ? 21. How was the first covenant found to be ? 22. What fault was found with it ? 23. State what he promised to make. 24. Why with houses of Israel and Judah ? 25. Was it to be like the first one ? 26. In what day did he make the first one? 27. Who are meant by the fathers ? 28. How had they treated God’ s covenant ? 29. In turn how had he regarded them? 30. What is the house of Israel here meant? 31. In what place will the law be put? 32. Contrast this with placing of Mosaic law. 33. Where will the new law be written? 34. What part of man is this ? 35. At what age could first brotherhood be entered ? 36. Does above teaching exclude paper from use ? 37. Can the heart of an infant receive law? 38. Must all this house of Israel receive the law? 39. Will this permit infants as members? 40. They will not teach what? 41. Whom shall they not teach this? 42. All who shall know the Lord? 43. What must one know to become a brother now? 44. Was this true of the brotherhood of circumcision? 45. How can there be least and greatest in the Church? 46. In what manner will unrighteousness be treated ? 47. Does he promise not to remember against them? 48. What does “ new covenant” imply? 49. Were both in force at the same time? 50. State the fate of that which is decayed with age

Hebrews 8:1

Hebrews 8:1. Sum is from which Thayer defines, “The chief or main point, the principal thing.” It refers to what Paul said in the: preceding chapter, together with w h at follows in the present one, concerning the priesthood of Christ. Such an high priest has virtually the same significance as sum. The Levitical priests served in Jerusalem while Christ is at the right hand of his Father. Majesty pertains to the greatness of the throne of God. In the heavens has the same significance as “higher than t h e heavens” in chapter 7:26.

Hebrews 8:2

Hebrews 8:2. The building used in the Mosaic system was regarded as a sanctuary (holy place) and a tabernacle as truly as is the one in the service under Christ. The difference is in the description given in the rest of this verse. True tabernacle means that of which the first one was a type. tched is defined by Thayer as follows: “To make fast, to fix; to fasten together, to build by fastening together.” The Lord directed the building of the Old Testament tabernacle, but it was made of literal material and the work was actually done by human hands (See Exodus 36-40.) The last tabernacle employed the services of man also, but the materials were not literal and the formation of the system was the handiwork of God.

Hebrews 8:3

Hebrews 8:3. Every high priest refers to those under the Old Testament line. Thayer defines ordained, “To appoint one to administer an office.” Gifts and sacrifices were in the same general class, but the first refers especially to articles that were not intended to be used as victims on the altar. This man means Christ who was called upon to make a somewhat offering. That is, Christ offered many contributions to the New Testament service, and then made the “supreme sacrifice” of himself on the cross just before ascending from earth to his Father in Heaven.

Hebrews 8:4

Hebrews 8:4. If he were on earth. This means as long as Christ was on earth he could not act as a priest. That is because the law was in force all the time He was on earth, and it already had its priests to offer according to that law.

Hebrews 8:5

Hebrews 8:5. The institutions of the Mosaic system were examples and shadows (patterns or types) of the heavenly things (t h e institutions under Christ). Who means the priests mentioned in the preceding verse. In Exodus 25:40 is the instruction that God gave Moses to make all things according to the “pattern” shown to him in the mount. The idea is that when God mentioned this pattern for the tabernacle service, He had in mind that it was to be a type or pattern of the greater things to come, as well as to serve the purpose of that first dispensation.

Hebrews 8:6

Hebrews 8:6. Several words of comparison in the second degree are used in this verse which should not be misapplied. God never made any mistakes and all that He ever did was good from the standpoint of being righteous. But the purposes to be accomplished by His plans were not always considered as final. He had a terminal to be reached in the preparation of mankind for the Hereafter, and until the final plan had been reached (that which was “perfect” 1 Corinthians 13:10), each step in the unfolding of the divine plan may be considered as looking forward to something ‘more excellent and better.

Hebrews 8:7

Hebrews 8:7. A part of the fault of which the Lord complained was concerning the shortcomings of the people. They did not do even as well as they could with the system which God had given them. However, God has always been inclined to give His creatures every opportunity for developing a desirable character. In view of this, He regarded the old law as not the best that could be accomplished in the future, and in that sense He would not consider the old covenant to be faultless.

Hebrews 8:8

Hebrews 8:8. (recorded in 1 Kings 12). The tribes were destined to be reunited after the captivity, but the two parts are named to show that every Jew (as well as the Gentiles) was to be included in the new covenant.

Hebrews 8:9

Hebrews 8:9. The day refers to the period in general when Sinai was the principal place of interest. (See Jeremiah 34:13-14.) The shortcomings of the Israelites was the reason on the human side for a change. (See verse 7.)

Hebrews 8:10

Hebrews 8:10 : This verse states one of the main differences between the old and the, new covenant. When a male child was eight clays old he was cir-cumcized. and that made him a full member of the covenant, notwithstanding he had no mind to receive anything: the law was put in the flesh instead of the mind. The new covenant laws were to be put in the mind (or heart) instead of the flesh.

Hebrews 8:11

Hebrews 8:11. Samuel was a full “brother” to Eli although he “did not yet know the Lord” (1 Samuel 3:7); his circumcision introduced him into the brotherhood (Genesis 17:9-14). That is why it was necessary for Eli to make his brother Samuel acquainted with the Lord. It was done in verse 9 of the same chapter where he told Samuel to say, “Speak, Lord: for thy servant heareth,” which is the same as know the Lord in our present verse. Such an introduction in the brotherhood under Christ will not be necessary because all shall know me from the least to the greatest. That is because under the New Testament system a person cannot become a member until he is old enough and has mind enough to receive the law of Christ intelligently.

This would completely rule out all such conditions as “cradle rolls” or infant church membership in the New Testament church. All must have mind enough to “know the Lord” through the law of the Gospel before they can come into the church.

Hebrews 8:12

Hebrews 8:12. This verse contains a likeness and a contrast between the two covenants. God showed mercy under the old, and the passages that show It are too numerous to mention. (It should be stated what was overlooked at verse 10, that another likeness between them is that in each case the relation of God and people holds good.) The contrast in this verse is that the sins would be remembered no more. The word “against” Is often added in quoting this subject which is incorrect, for God never did remember a sin against a man after he had been forgiven. This point will be dealt with in detail by the comments on chapter 10:3.

Hebrews 8:13

Hebrews 8:13. The main point in this verse is a conclusion based on the term new covenant: it proves that the other one was considered old. Since old things are expected to disappear. the conclusion is that the old covenant was to be replaced by the New Testament.