Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 3

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER

The Jews valued their religion for many reasons. One was that it had been given through the agency of distinguished prophets sent from God, and by the means of angels. The apostle, in the previous chapters, had shown that, in these respects, the Christian religion had the advantage over theirs, for it had been communicated by one who was superior to any of the prophets and who had a rank above the angels.

Next to this, they valued their religion because it had been imparted by a lawgiver as eminent as Moses—a man more distinguished than anyone else on earth as a legislator. To him they looked with pride as the founder of their system and the means through whom God had given them their distinctive laws.

Next to him, their high priest was the most important official in the nation. He was at the head of their religion and served to distinguish it from all others, for their high priest was recognized. The apostle, therefore, proceeds to show that in these respects the Christian religion had lost nothing but had the complete advantage—that it was founded by one superior to Moses, and that Christ, as high priest, was far superior to the high priest of the Jews.

This chapter, and Hebrews 4:1-13, relate to the first of these points and are occupied with showing the superiority of the Redeemer to Moses and the consequences that result from admitting that fact. It consists, therefore, of two parts.

1. The first is employed in showing that if the Author of the Christian religion is compared with Moses, He has the preference (Hebrews 3:1–6). Moses was indeed faithful, but it was as a servant. Christ was faithful as a Son. He had a rank as much above that of Moses as one who builds a house has over the house itself.
2. The consequences that resulted from that (Hebrews 3:7–19 and Hebrews 4:1-13). The general doctrine here is that there would be special danger in apostasizing from the Christian religion—danger far superior to that which was threatened to the Israelites if they were disobedient to Moses. In illustrating this, the apostle is naturally led to a statement of the warnings against defection under Moses and of the consequences of unbelief and rebellion there. He entreats them, therefore:
   1. Not to harden their hearts against God, as the Israelites did, who were excluded from Canaan (Hebrews 3:7–11).
   2. To be on their guard against unbelief (Hebrews 3:12).
   3. To exhort one another constantly and to stimulate one another, that they might not fall away (Hebrews 3:13).
   4. To hold the beginning of their confidence steadfast to the end, and not to provoke God, as those who came out of Egypt did (Hebrews 3:14–19). In the following chapter (Hebrews 4:1–13) he completes the exhortation by showing them that many who came out of Egypt were excluded from the promised land and that there was equal danger now. He then proceeds with the comparison of Christ with the Jewish high priest and extends that comparison through the remainder of the doctrinal part of the epistle.

Wherefore. That is, since Christ sustains such a character as has been stated in the previous chapter; since He is so able to help those who need assistance; since He assumed our nature that He might be a merciful and faithful high priest, His character ought to be attentively considered, and we ought to try fully to understand it.

Holy brethren. The name brethren is often given to Christians to denote that they are of one family. It is possible, also, that the apostle may have used the word here in a double sense—denoting that they were his brethren as Christians and as Jews.

The word holy is applied to them to denote that they were set apart to God or that they were sanctified. The Jews were often called a "holy people," as being consecrated to God; and Christians are holy, not only as consecrated to God but also as sanctified.

Partakers of the heavenly calling. On the meaning of the word calling, see the notes on Ephesians 4:1.

The "heavenly calling" denotes the calling that was given to them from heaven, or that was of a heavenly nature. It pertained to heaven, not to earth; it came from heaven, not from earth; it was a calling to the reward and happiness of heaven, and not to the pleasures and honors of the world.

Consider. Attentively ponder all that is said of the Messiah. Think of His rank, His dignity, His holiness, His sufferings, His death, His resurrection, ascension, and intercession. Think of Him, that you may see the claims to a holy life, that you may learn to bear trials, and that you may be kept from apostasy.

The character and work of the Son of God are worthy of the profound and prayerful consideration of everyone; and especially, every Christian should reflect much on Him. Of the friend that we love we think much; but what friend do we have like the Lord Jesus?

The Apostle. The word apostle is nowhere else applied to the Lord Jesus. The word means one who is sent—and in this sense it might be applied to the Redeemer as one sent by God, or as by way of eminence THE one sent by Him.

But the connection seems to demand that there should be some allusion here to one who sustained a similar rank among the Jews. It is probable that the allusion is to Moses, as having been the great apostle of God to the Jewish people, and that Paul here means to say that the Lord Jesus, under the new dispensation, filled the place of Moses and of the high priest under the old, and that the office of "apostle" and "high priest," instead of being now separated, as it was between Moses and Aaron under the old dispensation, was now blended in the Messiah.

The name apostle is not indeed given to Moses directly in the Old Testament, but the verb from which the Hebrew word for apostle is derived is frequently applied to him. Thus, in Exodus 3:10, it is said, Come now, therefore, and I will send thee unto Pharaoh. And in Exodus 3:13, it is said, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you. So also in Exodus 3:14-15 of the same chapter. From the Hebrew word used there (meaning to send), the Hebrew term for apostle is derived. It is not improbable that Moses would be regarded as being, by way of eminence, THE one sent by God. Further, the Jews applied the Hebrew word for apostle to the minister of the synagogue—to him who presided over its affairs and who had the general charge of the services there. In this sense, it might be applied by way of eminence to Moses as being the general director and controller of the religious affairs of the nation and as sent for that purpose. The object of Paul is to show that the Lord Jesus, in the Christian system—as the great apostle sent from God—sustained a rank and office similar to this but superior in dignity and authority.

And High Priest. One great object of this epistle is to compare the Lord Jesus with the high priest of the Jews and to show that He was in all respects superior. This was important because the office of high priest was that which eminently distinguished the Jewish religion, and because the Christian religion proposed to abolish that office.

It therefore became necessary to show that all that was dignified and valuable in that office was to be found in the Christian system. This was done by showing that in the Lord Jesus were found all the characteristics of a high priest, that all the functions that had been performed in the Jewish ritual were performed by Him, and that all which had been prefigured by the Jewish high priest was fulfilled in Him. The apostle here merely alludes to Him, or names Him as the high priest, and then postpones the consideration of His character in that respect until after he has compared Him with Moses.

Of our profession. Of our religion; of that religion that we profess. The apostle and high priest whom we confessed as ours when we embraced the Christian religion.

Who was faithful. See the discussion on Hebrews 2:17.

He performed with fidelity all the functions entrusted to him.

To him that appointed him. (Marginal note: Made). The word made, however, is used in the sense of constituted or appointed. The meaning is that he was faithful to God. Perhaps Paul urges them to consider his fidelity to keep them from the danger of apostasy.

A leading object of this epistle was to preserve those whom he addressed from apostatizing from God, amid the temptations and trials to which they were exposed. In doing this, what could be a more powerful argument than to direct their attention to the unwavering constancy and fidelity of the Lord Jesus?

The importance of such a virtue in the Savior is manifest. It is seen everywhere, and all the great interests of the world depend on it. A husband should maintain inviolate fidelity towards a wife, and a wife towards her husband; a child should be faithful to a parent, a clerk and apprentice to his employer, a lawyer to his client, a physician to his patient, an ambassador to the government that commissions him.

No matter what temptations may be in the way, in all these and in all other relations, there should be inviolate fidelity. The welfare of the world depended on the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus. Had he failed in that, all would have been lost. His fidelity was worthy of more attentive consideration, given the numerous temptations which beset his path and the attempts made to turn him aside from his devotedness to God.

Amid all the temptations of the adversary, and all the trials through which he passed, he never for a moment swerved from fidelity to the great trust committed to his hands. What better example to preserve them from the temptations to apostasy could the apostle propose to the Christians whom he addressed?

What, in these temptations and trials, could be more appropriate than for them to consider the example of the great Apostle and High Priest of their profession? What more proper for us now, in the trials and temptations of our lives, than to keep that great and glorious example continually before our eyes?

As also Moses was faithful, Fidelity to God was remarkable in Moses. In all the provocations and rebellions of the Jews, he was firm and unwavering. This is affirmed of him in Numbers 12:7, to which place the apostle here alludes: My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all his house. The word house, as applied to Moses, is used probably in the sense of family, as it often is, and refers to the family over which he presided—that is, the Jewish nation. The whole Jewish people were a household, or the family of God. Moses was appointed to preside over it and was faithful in the functions of his office there.

For this man. The Lord Jesus. The word "man" is understood, but there can be no doubt that he is referred to.

Was counted worthy. Was more worthy, or is more worthy. The word used here does not refer to anything that had been said of him, or to any estimate that had been made of him. It means simply that he was worthy of more honor than Moses. How he was so, Paul proceeds to show.

Of more glory (doxa). Honor, dignity, regard. He really had a higher rank and was worthy of more respect. This was saying much for the Messiah, and Paul proceeds to show that it was proper to say this. He did not attempt in any way to undervalue Moses and his institutions. He gave him all the honor which the Jews themselves were disposed to render him. He admitted that he had been eminently faithful in the station where God had placed him; and he then proceeds to show that the Lord Jesus was entitled to honor superior to that, and that therefore the Christian religion had more to attach its friends to it than the Jewish religion had.

Inasmuch as he who has built the house. The idea here is either that he who is the maker of a house—the architect—is worthy of more respect than the house itself, or that he who is the founder of a family is worthy of more honor than the family of which he is the founder.

It seems to me that the former is the meaning, for the latter is not always true. The founder of a family may be really deserving of much less respect than some of his descendants. But it is always true that the architect is worthy of more respect than the house he builds.

He exhibits intellect and skill; the house, however splendid, has neither. The plan of the house was drawn by him. Its beauty, its proportions, and its ornaments are what he made them; indeed, without him, they would not have existed.

Michael Angelo was worthy of more honor than St. Peter's in Rome, and Sir Christopher Wren was worthy of more than St. Paul's in London. Galileo is more worthy of praise than the telescope, and Fulton more than a steam engine.

All the evidence of skill and fitness in an invention originates with the inventor. All the beauty of a statue or a temple originates in the mind of the one who designed it. An author is worthy of more honor than a book, and one who creates a work of art is worthy of more respect than the work itself.

This is the idea here. Paul assumes that all things owed their origin to the Son of God (Hebrews 1:2, 8, 10).

He was the Author of the universe, the Source of all wise and well-founded systems, and the Originator of the Jewish dispensation, over which Moses presided. Whatever beauty or excellence there might have been, therefore, in that system was to be traced to him; and whatever ability even Moses displayed was imparted by him. Christ is really the head of the family over which Moses presided and therefore has claims to higher honor as such.

For every house is builded by some man. The words in this verse are plain, and the sentiment in it clear. The only difficulty is in seeing the connection, and in understanding how it is intended to bear on what precedes, or on what follows. It is clear that every house must have a builder, and equally clear that God is the Creator of all things. But what is the meaning of this passage in this connection? What is its bearing on the argument? If the verse were entirely omitted, and the fifth verse read in connection with the third, there would be apparently nothing lacking to complete the sense of the writer, or to finish the comparison which he had begun. Various ways have been adopted to explain the difficulty. Perhaps the following observations may remove it, and express the true sense.

1. Every family must have a founder; every dispensation an author; every house a builder. There must be someone, therefore, over all dispensations—the old and the new—the Jewish and the Christian.

2. Paul assumes that the Lord Jesus was Divine. He had demonstrated this in Hebrews 1; and he argues as if this were so, without now stopping to prove it, or even to affirm it expressly.

3. God must be over all things. He is Creator of all; and he must therefore be over all. As the Lord Jesus, therefore, is Divine, he must be over the Jewish dispensation as well as the Christian—or he must, as God, have been at the head of that—or over his own family or household.

4. As such, he must have a glory and honour which could not belong to Moses. He, in his Divine character, was the Author of both the Jewish and the Christian dispensations; and he must, therefore, have a rank far superior to that of Moses—which was the point which the apostle designed to illustrate.

The meaning of the whole may be thus expressed: "The Lord Jesus is worthy of more honour than Moses. He is so, as the maker of a house deserves more honour than the house. He is Divine. In the beginning he laid the foundation of the earth, and was the agent in the creation of all things, Hebrews 1:2, 10. He presides, therefore, over everything; and was over the Jewish and Christian dispensations—for there must have been someone over them, or the author of them, as truly as it must be true that every house is built by some person. Being, therefore, over all things, and at the head of all dispensations, he MUST be more exalted than Moses."

This seems to me to be the argument—an argument based on the supposition that he is at the head of all things, and that he was the agent in the creation of all worlds.

This view will make all consistent. The Lord Jesus will be seen to have a claim to a far higher honour than Moses, and Moses will be seen to have derived his honour as a servant of the Mediator, in the economy which he had appointed.

Moses was faithful—as a servant. Not as the head of the dispensation; not as having originated it; but as in the employ and under the direction of its great Founder and Author—the Messiah. As such a servant, he deserves all the honour for fidelity which has ever been claimed for him, but it cannot be the honour which is due to him who is at the head of the family or house. Paul assumed that Moses was a servant, and argued on that supposition, without attempting to prove it, because it was so often affirmed in the Old Testament, and must have been conceded by all the Jews. In numerous instances, he is spoken of as "THE servant of the Lord." See Joshua 1:1-2; Joshua 9:24; 1 Chronicles 6:49; 2 Chronicles 24:9; Nehemiah 10:29; Daniel 9:11; Exodus 14:31; 1 Kings 8:56; Psalms 105:26.

As this point was undisputed, it was only necessary to show that the Messiah was superior to a servant, in order to make the argument clear.

For a testimony. To bear witness to those truths which were to be revealed; that is, he was the instrument of the Divine communications to the people, or the medium by which God made his will known. He did not originate the truths himself; but he was the mere medium by which God made known his truth to his people—a servant whom he employed to make his will known.

The word "after" here is not necessary for an accurate translation of this passage, and obscures the sense. It does not mean that he was a witness of those truths which were to be spoken subsequently to his time, under another dispensation; nor those truths which the apostle proposed to consider in another part of the epistle, as Doddridge supposes; but it means merely that Moses stood forth as a public witness of the truths which God designed to reveal, or which were to be spoken. God did not speak to his people directly, and face to face, but he spoke through Moses, as an organ or medium. The sense is, Moses was a mere servant of God to communicate his will to man.