Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 10:20

"by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;" — Hebrews 10:20 (ASV)

By a new and living way. By a new method or manner. It was a mode of access that was until then unknown. No doubt many were saved before the Redeemer came, but the method by which they approached God was imperfect and difficult. The word rendered here as new — prosfaton — occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. It properly means slain, or killed thereto; i.e., newly killed, just dead; and then fresh, recent. Passow. It does not so much convey the idea that it is new in the sense that it had never existed before, as new in the sense that it is recent, or fresh. It was a way which was recently disclosed, and which had all the freshness of novelty.

It is called a "living way" because it is a method that imparts life or because it leads to life and happiness. Doddridge renders it "ever living way," and supposes, in accordance with the opinion of Dr. Owen, that the allusion is to the fact that under the old dispensation the blood was to be offered as soon as it was shed, and could not be offered when it was cold and coagulated.

The way by Christ was, however, always open. His blood was, as it were, always warm, and as if it had been recently shed. This interpretation seems to derive some support from the word rendered as "new" (see above).

The word "living" also often has the sense of perennial or perpetual, as when applied to a fountain always running, in opposition to a pool that dries up (see Barnes on John 4:10). The new way to heaven may be called living in all these respects.

It is a way that conducts to life. It is ever-living — as if the blood that was shed always retained the freshness of that which is flowing from the vein. And it is perpetual and constant — like a fountain that always flows — for it is by a sacrifice whose power is perpetual and unchanging.

Which he hath consecrated for us. The marginal reading is, "or, new made." The word used here properly means to renew, and then to initiate, to consecrate, to sanction. The idea is that he has dedicated this way for our use, as if a temple or house were set apart for our service. It is a path consecrated by him for the service and salvation of man, a way of access to the eternal sanctuary for the sinner, which has been set apart by the Redeemer for this service alone.

Through the veil, that is to say, his flesh. The Jewish high priest entered the Most Holy Place through the veil that divided the Holy Place from the Most Holy Place. This entrance was made by his drawing the veil aside, thus laying open the interior sanctuary. However, considerable difficulty has been felt regarding the meaning of the expression used here.

The plain meaning is that the way to heaven was opened by means of, or through, the veil (that is, his body), or through the medium of the flesh of Jesus, sacrificed for sin. This is analogous to how the Most Holy Place in the temple was entered by means of, or through, the veil.

We are not to suppose, however, that the apostle meant to say there was, in all respects, a resemblance between the veil and the flesh of Jesus, nor that the veil was in any manner typical of his body. Rather, there was a resemblance in the respect under consideration — namely, in the fact that the Holy Place was rendered accessible by withdrawing the veil, and that heaven was rendered accessible through the slain body of Jesus.

The idea is that, by means of both the veil of the temple and the body of Jesus, there is a medium of access to God. God dwelt in the Most Holy Place in the temple behind the veil by visible symbols and was to be approached by removing the veil. Similarly, God dwells in heaven, in the Most Holy Place there, and is to be approached only through the offering of the body of Christ.

Professor Stuart supposes that the point of the comparison may be that the veil of the temple operated as a screen to hide the visible symbol of God's presence from human view. In like manner, the body of Jesus might be regarded as a "kind of temporary tabernacle, or veil of the Divine nature which dwelt within him." He further suggests that "as the veil of the tabernacle concealed the glory of Jehovah in the Holy of Holies from the view of men, so Christ's flesh or body screened or concealed the higher nature from our view, which dwelt within this veil, as God did within the veil of the temple." (See this and other views explained at length in the larger commentaries.)

It does not seem necessary to me to attempt to carry out the point of the comparison in all respects. The simple idea which seems to have been in the apostle's mind was that the veil of the temple and the body of Jesus were alike in this respect: they were the medium of access to God.

It is by the offering of the body of Jesus — by the fact that he was clothed with flesh, that in his body he made all atonement for sin, and that with his body, raised from the dead, he has ascended to heaven — that we now have access to the throne of mercy.