Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Hebrews 8:1 - 8:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
______
THIS PRIESTHOOD CHRIST ACCOMPLISHES, AS HEAVENLY KING AND MEDIATOR OF THE NEW COVENANT, A COVENANT PREDICTED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT
I
As High-priest of the true sanctuary which God reared and not man, Christ hath taken His seat at the right hand of Majesty in the heavens
Heb_8:1-5
[Heb_8:1.— ÊåöÜëáéïí äÝ , and as a capital point, not the “sum;” for he is not summing up the preceding, but advancing to a new discussion.— ἐðὶ ôïῖò ëåãïìÝíïéò , over, respecting the things which are being said=the points under discussion; not over the things which we have spoken (as if summing up what had been said) which would require ôïῖò åἰñçìÝíïéò .— ἐêÜèéóåí , sat down, took his seat.
Heb_8:2.— ἀëçèéíῆò , true=genuine, archetypal, not the shadow or copy.
Heb_8:3.— åἰò ôὸ ðñïóöÝñåéí , for the offering, in order to offer.— ὅèåí ἀíáãêáῖïí , whence (not, wherefore) it is, or was necessary.— êáὶ ôïῦôïí , also this, scil., high-priest.
Heb_8:4.— Åἰ ìὲí ãὰñ ἦí , for if indeed he were much better, in my judgment, than the reading åἰ ìὲí ïὖí , if, indeed, now.— ïὐä ’ ἂí ἦí ὶåñåýò , not even would he be a priest; no emphasis on ἱåñåýò , as contrasted with ἀñ÷éåñåýò , but the ïὐäὲ emphasizes ἦí , not even would he be.— ὄíôùí ôῶí ðñïóöåñüíôùí , there being=inasmuch as there are, those who are offering.
Heb_8:5.— ïἵôéíåò , characteristic, as those who.— ὑðïäåßãìáôé , to a copy; sometimes ὑðïäåéã .=pattern. Ὑðüäåéãìá , a thing shown under, i.e., in subserviency to, something else whether as model or copy.— ôῶí ἐðïõñáíßùí , of the heavenly, scil., ðñáãìÜôùí , things, or, as I think, better, ἁëßùí , sanctuary— êáèὼò êå÷ñçìÜôéóôáé , according as Moses has been divinely instructed.— ìÝëëùí ἐðéôåëåῖí , being about to accomplish, hence, complete, carry through the construction of.—K.].
Heb_8:2. As minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle.—The Adj. ἀëçèéíç ̄ ò is commonly, by Zeugma, referred also to ἀãßùí . But we have thus either a tautology, or a difficulty in distinguishing ἁãßùí and óêçíῆò , if the former word be regarded as neuter. The distinction drawn by Chr. F. Schmid, who makes ôὰ ἄãéá denote the whole temple, and óêçíÞ the holiest of all, is entirely arbitrary. The reverse distinction would be much more in accordance with the general usage of the author, who uniformly, except Heb_9:3, designates the holiest of all by the simple ἅãéá . But why thus distinguish the part from the whole, if this part again is to be included in the whole? We should rather infer that the óêçíÞ could also designate only a part of the entire sanctuary, and of course the part separated from the ‘holiest of all,’ which Heb_9:2 is called óêçíὴ ἡ ðñþôç . But what application shall we make of this distinction? According to Del. ôὰ ἄãéá would seem to designate the throne of God situated above and beyond all the heavens, the eternal äüîá of God Himself, into which Christ has entered, and where He appears as mediator on our behalf; but óêçíÞ , the heaven of angels and of all the blessed saints, where Christ rules with mediatorial sway. This view is refuted—to say nothing of other objections—by the very language of our passage, in which Christ, as minister ôῶí ἁãßùí , has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of Majesty in the heavens. Few, however, will be inclined, with Hofm. (Weiss. II. 189 ff.; Schriftbeweis II. 1, 405), to understand, after Beza, Gerhard, etc., by óêçíÞ , the glorified body of Christ, or in a broader sense, after Calov, Braun, etc., the Christian church. It were more natural to refer ôὰ ἅãéá , though not with Seb. Schmidt, Braun, Rambach, to the employments and utensils required for the priestly service, yet, with Luth. and others, to the holy and true goods and possessions. But this explanation is discountenanced alike by the word óêçíÞ and the word ëåéôïõñãüò , which latter in this connection, instead of its original signification of a public officer acting for the good of the people, has, doubtless, in accordance with the usage of the Sept. a special relation to the position and office of priest. If now we abandon the idea of a zeugma in the construction, we shall still not be obliged, either with Hofm., to resort to the unnatural construction of ἐí ôïῑò ïὐñÜíïéò with ôῶí ἁã . ëåéôïõñãüò , nor to retain, with Primas. and Œcum., the masc. construction of ôῶí ἀãßùí , a construction illy harmonizing with the designation of Christ as ëåéôïõñãüò . We need but take êáß explicatively, and all difficulty vanishes.
[The last sentence undoubtedly suggests the true solution of this much vexed question. The term ἅãéá , holy place, sanctuary, is first naturally used with reference to the character and use of the tabernacle as consecrated to God, and a place of religious and priestly service. The word óêçíÞ is then added to designate the structure, and to bring it into more distinct relation to the tabernacle of Moses. The added êáὶ ôῆò óêçíῆò ἀëçè . is then a sort of loose synonyme or fuller statement of the idea conveyed by the ôὰ ἅãéá . Delitzsch’s notion, that the ἡ óêçíÞ is the heaven of the glorified saints, and Hofmann’s that it is the glorified body of Christ, are both utterly unfounded conceits—that of Hofmann preëminently so; while the view of Alford, which undertakes to combine the two, with a preponderance in favor of Hofmann’s, labors under the double difficulty of adopting two views, both of which are alike without support in the Epistle, and without a particle of intrinsic probability, and which are also irreconcilable with each other. Every interpretation that undertakes to carry into the heaven of the New Testament the distinction between the inner and the outer sanctuary of the Mosaic tabernacle, ignores the very fundamental idea of that distinction, and leads to inextricable difficulties in interpretation, as has been illustrated in the numerous hypotheses, purely conceits, which the attempt to fix the nature of that heavenly outer tabernacle has originated. And if it be urged that the Mosaic tabernacle was itself but the copy of the heavenly tabernacle, and that, therefore, the antitype must have the same divisions as are found in the pattern, I reply that this is pressing unduly the figurative language of the author. The real actual pattern of the Mosaic tabernacle was that which God showed to Moses in Mount Sinai, an exact model after which he was to construct his earthly material tabernacle, and nothing more. Now that the author again should make a figurative application of that literal language, need not surprise, and should not mislead us. Literally that tabernacle was modelled precisely after the pattern or the direction which God had given Moses in the mount. Figuratively that tabernacle becomes a copy or type of the heavenly tabernacle or sanctuary, inasmuch as the high-priest ministering there in a symbolical expiation and removal of sin, typifies the heavenly High-priest officiating on high in a real expiation and forgiveness of sins. But that we are thence to carry all the special features of the earthly tabernacle into the figurative, heavenly New Testament tabernacle, does not follow; and is in fact impossible. For the essential characteristic of the outer tabernacle as distinguished from the inner—the very thing which it denoted was, as we shall subsequently see, separation from God. The veil of the temple, answering to the veil of the tabernacle, was rent at the death of the Son of God. The separation between outer and inner tabernacle, was done away—never to be renewed.—K.].—“ ἈëçèÞò excludes the untrue and unreal, ἀëçèéíüò excludes that which does not correspond to its idea. The measure of the ἀëçèÞò is the actual, the measure of the ἀëçèéíüò is the ideal. In ἀëçèÞò the idea corresponds to the object, in ἀëçèéíüò the object corresponds to the idea” (Kahnis Eucharist, p. 119). For a parallel in thought see Wis_9:8.
Heb_8:3. For every high-priest, etc.—Many expositors take Heb_8:3, which Camer., Beng., etc., enclose in a parenthesis as an incidental remark, unnecessary to the connection (Michael.), or disturbing the train of thought (De W.), or introducing a train of ideas that is again crowded out by others (Thol.), or merely explanatory of the word ëåéôïõñãüò (Lün.). But the purpose of the author is not to show that Christ must be a Priest of sacrifice. Since the ëåéôïõñãåῑí or dealing in sacrifices is essential to the function of every high-priest (Lün.); he rather proceeds to prove that the ëåéôïõñãßá of Christ can be exercised only in a heavenly sanctuary, which corresponds to the idea of the sanctuary that in type and figure was presented in the Mosaic tabernacle. It was already demonstrated from Scripture, that the Messiah is appointed of God to be alike King and Priest. As High-priest He must necessarily have somewhat that he may offer. In what this consists, remains as yet unstated, and it is a purely arbitrary and embarrassing hypothesis, which limits ëåéôïõñãåῑí and ðñïóöÝñåéí exclusively to offering sacrifices. We are but pointed (as already observed by Justiniani, Este., etc.) to the necessity of priestly functions and acts to be accomplished by Christ. But in the legal economy where the Levitical priests have their function, there was absolutely no place for the priesthood of Christ; He needs, consequently, for the exercise of His priestly vocation, a heavenly sanctuary, and one which fulfils the entire idea of a sanctuary. Hence we are to supply with ἀíáãêáῑïí not ἦí (Peshito, Bez., Beng., Bl., De W., Lün.), but ἐóôßí (Vulg., Luth., Calv., etc.), and to refer the ðñïóöÝñåéí not to the sacrifice, offered once for all, of the body of Christ on the cross. The Aor. requires neither that we translate with Lün.: “for which reason it was necessary that also this one should have something which he might offer;” nor with Hofm.: “for which reason it is necessary that he have something which he may have offered.” To read ῳ =where for ὅ is totally unnecessary.
[I cannot but conceive that the true connection of the thought in Heb_8:3 has escaped nearly, or quite all the interpreters. That many of them have failed to detect it, is certain from the diversity of their explanations. Some, with Bengel, would put it in parenthesis. Michaelis regards it as entirely unessential to the connection; De Wette, as a disturbing intruder; Tholuck as turning to a thought that was again crowded out by others; Lönemann as added to explain the import of ëåéôïõñãüò ; Alford, after Delitzsch, as belonging here only incidentally; while Moll regards it as simply a general statement of the high-priestly function of Christ as introductory to the proof that He is ministering in a heavenly tabernacle. In this general and wide diversity of views, all but one must be, and all may be, wrong. The following may perhaps only increase by one the number of opinions to be rejected. I think, however, that it will be found that a close analysis will sustain the view that the passage is neither parenthetical, nor irrelevant, nor incidental, but introduces the grand thought which forms the theme of discussion through this and the following chapter, and that in fact this states, and states in its proper place, what is the vital point of the whole Epistle. Christ’s Melchisedek Priesthood has been previously considered; now comes the consideration of His Aaronic high-priesthood. This is vital to the subject; for His mere Melchisedek priesthood, however intrinsically majestic and glorious, would be of no avail to sinners; He must minister in the heavenly sanctuary as the counterpart of Aaron, the Levitical high-priest, and, as such, in correspondence with this relation, He must have something to offer. What this is, is the point now to be stated, and of which the author only apparently loses sight, the point toward which he pursues a constant though somewhat indirect course from this to Hebrews 9. Heb_8:11. Let us follow the course of thought. So important is it that He have something to offer, that if He were on earth, He could not even be a priest, inasmuch as there there is a regularly ordained priesthood for all the offerings of the Mosaic law, and which cannot there be superceded. But in fact He has a Priesthood in the heavenly tabernacle, and a Priesthood as much superior to the Levitical as the Covenant which He guarantees is superior to that under which they served. This leads to a natural digression—a digression from the immediate point under discussion, but standing in intimate vital connection with the general theme of the Epistle—in illustrating the superiority of the New Covenant, of which Christ was High-priestly Mediator and surety, over that Old Covenant of which the Levitical priests were servants. This illustration is effected by the apposite and beautiful citation from Jeremiah, which unfolds the better promises that characterize the New Covenant. This topic finished, the author resumes with Hebrews 9. the inquiry, what the New Testament High-Priest has to offer. He recurs, therefore, to the arrangements of that Old Covenant, whose high-priestly service was typical of that of the New. He naturally goes back to the tabernacle in which that service was performed (“to the first Covenant now there belonged,” etc.), dwells somewhat minutely on its features (in order, by delineating its majesty, to enhance the glory of the Covenant which it but symbolizes), and then adds the facts to which all this description is but introductory, viz., that while the ordinary priests enter daily into the outer sanctuary, into the inner the high-priest enters but once a year, alone, and not without blood. Thus we are prepared for the statement at Heb_8:11, to which all this has tended, viz., that Christ must enter the heavenly tabernacle also with blood, and here the author reaches the point which he had in mind at Heb_8:3, and which he has not since lost sight of. If this analysis be correct, it will be seen that Moll’s general division of the Epistle, which makes Hebrews 9 commence a new capital section, is vicious, inasmuch as it cuts right in two a chain of argument whose links are most closely connected. The same is true of Ebrard’s analysis, who begins, as it were, a new and independent section with the description of the Mosaic tabernacle, and neither Delitzsch nor Alford has made any improvement on them. In fact, this description of the Mosaic tabernacle, Hebrews 9, is merely incidental, or rather a subordinate link in a chain of reasoning by which the author is showing what the New Testament High-priest has to offer. Thus Heb_8:3 of Hebrews 8 formally introduces the topic around which the whole discussion turns from this point to Heb_10:19, where, in reality, the grand argument of the Epistle terminates.—K.].
Heb_8:4. For if to be sure [ åἰ ìὲí ãÜñ ] he were on earth.— Åἰ ἦí cannot here mean “if he had been” (Böhme, Kuinoel; nor is anything to be supplied, as e. g., either ìüíïí , Grot., etc.), or ἱåñåýò (Zeger, Beng., Carpz, etc.). The ïὐäÝ belongs to ἦí , not to ἱåñåýò . Had the author intended to say that in the case supposed Christ could not be even a priest, much less a high-priest, (Bl., Bisp., Hofm.), he would have written ïὐä ’ ἱåñåὺò ἂí ἦí .
Heb_8:5. As those who minister to a copy and shadow of the heavenly.— Ëáôñåýåéí stands indeed commonly with the Dat. of the person whom one serves, yet is found also with the Dat. of the thing in which (not with which) one serves, as also Heb_13:10. The proper signification of ὑðüäåéãìá is that of an embodying, representative image; for which reason the word can be used, Heb_4:11, as= ðáñÜäåéãìá , example, model, and here as at Heb_9:23, and more usually, denotes copy, with the subordinate idea of an outline simply drawn from memory. ÓêéÜ , shadow, may stand in antithesis to óῶìá , body (as at Col_2:17), in which case it simply opposes the non-essential to the essence; or in antithesis to åἰêþí (as Heb_10:1), in which case it suggests to the imagination the obscurity of the shadowy image. With ôῶí ïὐñáíßùí we need not, with Lönemann, supply ἁãßùí ; for the following chapters show clearly that not heavenly localities, but heavenly relations and Divine ideas, as realized in Christ, are regarded as the archetype symbolized by the Mosaic sanctuary: [so Alford: “the things in heaven, in the heavenly sanctuary.” But the author, though treating of heavenly facts, relations, etc., yet does it under the imagery drawn from the earthly tabernacle. He has already employed that imagery, transferring to heaven the figure of the tabernacle (Heb_8:2), and to this he ever and anon returns (Heb_9:24), and in view especially of this passage just referred to, I incline to adopt Lönemann’s view. This, of course, need not prejudice the fact that the thing essentially aimed at is ideas and relations.—K.]. So also Exo_25:40. We need not assume an actual temple as archetype of the tabernacle which Moses from Sinai may be supposed to have beheld, standing in heaven, nor any original structure which God Himself had reared as a model upon Sinai, where, according to the later Rabbins, it was to stand forever, but a, pattern structure, which was shown to Moses in prophetic vision, and is described in the words of God, Exo_26:26-30. This signification, model building, the word úַּáְðִéú (which Jos_22:28 denotes architecture, Deu_4:17, denotes sculpture of every kind, and Psa_144:12 points to a plastic model), will very well bear at Exo_25:40. But it by no means accords with the prophetic survey of a model building which expresses heavenly relations, to assume, with Ebrard, a mere drawing or outline edifice, although such a drawing might in itself apply to the word in question according to 2Ch_16:10, where it signifies sketch, outline, and 1Ch_28:11 ff., where it signifies ground plot. The typical signification comes out strongly at Isa_44:13, inasmuch as there, at Isa_8:14, the wood is to be sought for the carrying out and realization of the pattern structure given in Heb_8:13.
2. Since the Melchisedek priesthood is of a different order from the Levitico-Aaronical, this cannot refer to an offering of Christ in heaven, but only to a Priestly function, by which the High-Priestly sacrifice that was previously, and once for all, offered upon the cross, is rendered prevalent with God, efficacious with respect to men. Yet this priestly function in making intercession and in bestowing blessings, Christ exercises as a High-Priest who sits upon the Throne of God, i.e, on the ground of His sacrificial death upon the cross, and by virtue of His position as glorified God-man. “The blood of Christ has indeed been, in His sacrifice, poured out upon the earth, and so been separated from the sacrificial body, as was done with animals in the typical sacrifice. But still it behooved that it should not barely be sprinkled upon the earth, but be borne to the sanctuary of God to sprinkle the throne of grace. And after it has been once borne in thither, and sprinkled in a divine way, it belongs now to the office of our High-Priest whom we have in the sanctuary, to sprinkle it also upon our hearts and consciences, and this life of ours, still, indeed, having its source in blood, but not in the love of God, again to unite with the true life of Divine love.” (Steinhofer).
3. Since, according to the Scriptures, the Priesthood belongs essentially to the Messiah, He must necessarily always exercise Priestly functions of essential significance; but it thence by no means follows that He must be conceived as in an act of perpetual sacrifice, as those do who understand by the heavenly offering either the person of the glorified God-man, and thence deduce the sacrifice of mass (as still recently Thalhofer) or regard the believers of all generations as the sacrificial offering of Christ to God, (Theodor. Mops., Chrys., Cyrill. Alex.). Nor even does it follow that in the offering which He makes we need specially think of blood. (Del.). Since if we, with justice, distinguish this act from the slaying of the victim, and in a detailed comparison of Christ with the Aaronic high-priests, as chaps. 9 and 10, refer the slaying specially to the crucifixion, and the offering to the sprinkling of the throne of God with the sacrificial blood, we must still, in the case of the expiation wrought in the death of Christ, refrain from pushing too far the points of comparison; and particularly we must not forget that these acts immediately followed one another on the day of atonement, belong, in fact, inseparably together, and work in the objective sense an expiation which is essentially distinguished from the reconciliation which is to be obtained by the subject only on this ground, and in consequence of this. In this relation the offering of Christ by His sacrifice of Himself on the cross, is an offering once for all, whereby He has effected an eternal redemption.
4. But to the priestly functions there belongs also a sanctuary. The earthly sanctuary, however, built by human hands, cannot be that in which Christ has His Priesthood. There, men minister who are from a stock to which Jesus, who is Christ, does not belong. Moreover, this sanctuary in its very erection was already designated as a mere copy. There must thus be a heavenly sanctuary, to which the Messianic priestly king belongs, and in which he exercises a priestly office. All endeavors, however, to fix such a sanctuary as a separate locality in heaven, which locality is the real archetype of the Mosaic tabernacle, fail, in the fact, that “the different attributes here assigned to Christ, taken literally, exclude one another,” (Thol.), and that according to Exodus 25., not only the tabernacle but also all its utensils were to be made after the heavenly model. We must thus regard this expression as a sensible embodiment of the idea of the reconciliation and restoration of our fellowship with God, wrought through Christ, introduced by the designation of Christ’s mission as a Priestly one, for which reason also Luther, with most of the ancients, understood by the sanctuary simply the spiritual blessings belonging to the kingdom of God.
Starke:—Thanks be to God that we have a High-Priest who sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high, and whose sacrifice and intercession have, therefore, unlimited power.—Christ is the fosterer of His Church. He Himself communicates the holy and heavenly gift. Would that we with perfect faith might hasten to this faithful High-Priest, and from the fulness of His grace, bring forth a real treasure and amplitude of heavenly blessings.—Precisely for the reason that Christ, after His one completed sacrifice, sits at the right hand of God, He fills all in all.—Whoever offers to God only the outward and corporeal, offers a Jewish, and not a Christian sacrifice.
Rieger:—We have a Priest, such as we need. The Father has prepared Him; love and obedience have drawn Him into His office; He is perfected according to all that which was written aforetime with regard to Him; He is set before us in the Gospel, and faith lays hold upon Him.—As God has prepared to Himself a seat of Majesty, a central point of His Government, and of the bestowment of His life and His glory; He has also reared a dwelling, or holy tabernacle, in which is the seat of Majesty, and in which He receives the priestly service and worship of those who draw near to Him.—The Saviour has made use of the temple, as His Father’s house, for instruction, and cleansed this house of prayer for all nations, from abuses; but on Golgotha, not at the foot of the altar, flowed His blood, shed upon the wood of His cross.
Hahn:—We must follow with our gaze the dear Saviour on His course of suffering clear up into heaven.
Heubner:—Were not Christ in this inconceivably close connection with God in heaven, He could not, in proper and complete authority, impart the forgiveness of sins, truly annihilate sin, and arrest its consequences.—Our service of God and priesthood should be an imitation and copy of the service of God in heaven.
Footnotes:
Heb_8:2.— Êáß is to be expunged after Sin. B. D*. E*., 17.
Heb_8:4.—Instead of åἰ ìὲí ãÜñ , should be read with Sin. A. B. D*., 17, 73, 80, 137, åἰ ìὲí ïὖí . [Tisch. retains åἰ ìὲí ãÜñ , which seems to me much more accordant with the connection. The substitution of ïὖí , for ãÜñ , though strongly supported and favored by most modern editors, I cannot but regard as the result of a misunderstanding of the connection.—K.].
Heb_8:4.—The words ôῶí ἱåñÝùí before ôῶí ðñïóöåñüíôùí , are not found in Sin. A. B. D*. E*., 17, 73, 137, and are to be regarded as a gloss, which Grotius, Mill, and Griesbach were inclined to expunge. The Art. before íüìïí is wanting in Sin. A. B., 57, 80.
Heb_8:5.—Instead of ðïéÞóῃò , all the best authorities require us to read ðïéÞóåéò .