Albert Barnes Commentary Hebrews 8

CHAPTER VIII.

ANALYSIS OF THE CHAPTER.

This chapter is a continuation of the argument that has been pursued in the previous chapters concerning the priesthood of Christ. The apostle had demonstrated that He was to be a priest, and that He was to be not of the Levitical order, but of the order of Melchizedek. As a consequence, He had proved that this involved a change of the law appointing a priesthood, and that, regarding permanency and beneficial moral influence, the priesthood of Christ far surpassed the Jewish one. He pursues this thought in this chapter and shows particularly that it involved a change in the nature of the covenant between God and His people. In pursuing this, He:

1. States the sum or principal point of the whole matter under discussion—that the priesthood of Christ was real and permanent, while that of the Hebrew economy was typical and destined in its own nature to be temporary (Hebrews 8:1–3).
2. Shows there was a fitness and propriety in His being removed to heaven to perform the functions of His office there—since if He had remained on earth, He could not have officiated as priest, that duty being by the law of Moses entrusted to others pertaining to another tribe (Hebrews 8:4–5).
3. Explains that Christ had obtained a more exalted ministry than the Jewish priests held because He was the Mediator in a better covenant—a covenant that related more to the heart than to external observances (Hebrews 8:6–13). This new covenant excelled the old in the following respects:
   1. It was established on better promises (Hebrews 8:6).
   2. It was not a covenant requiring mainly external observances, but pertained to the soul, and the law of that covenant was written there (Hebrews 8:7–10).
   3. It was connected with the diffusion of the knowledge of the Lord among all classes, from the highest to the lowest (Hebrews 8:11).
   4. The evidence of forgiveness could be made clearer than it was under the old dispensation, and the way in which sins are pardoned could be much better understood (Hebrews 8:12). These considerations also involved the consequence stated in Hebrews 8:13: that the old covenant was, of necessity, about to vanish away.

Now of the things which we have spoken. Or, “of the things of which we are speaking” (Stuart); or, as we would say, of what is said. The Greek does not necessarily mean things that had been spoken, but may refer to all that He (the apostle) was saying, taking the whole subject into consideration.

This is the sum. Or, this is the principal thing; referring to what He was about to say, not what He had said. Our translators seem to have understood this as referring to a summing up, or recapitulation of what He had said—and there can be no doubt that the Greek would bear this interpretation.

But another exposition has been proposed, adopted by Bloomfield, Stuart, Michaelis, and Storr, among modern commentators, and found also in Suidas, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others, among ancient commentators. It is that which regards the word rendered sum—kefalaion—as meaning the principal thing; the chief matter; the most important point.

The reason for this interpretation is that the apostle, in fact, goes into no recapitulation of what He had said, but enters on a new topic relating to the priesthood of Christ. Instead of going over what He had demonstrated, He enters on a more important point: that the priesthood of Christ is performed in heaven, and that He has entered into the true tabernacle there.

All that preceded was type and shadow; this was what the former economy had foreshadowed. In the previous chapters, the apostle had shown that He who sustained this office was superior in rank to the Jewish priests. He demonstrated that they were frail and dying, and that the office in their hands was changing from one to another, but that Christ’s office was permanent and abiding.

He now comes to consider the real nature of the office itself: the sacrifice that was offered, the substance of which all in the former dispensation was the type. This was the principal thing—kefalaion, the head—the most important matter; and the consideration of this is pursued through chapters 8–10.

We have such an High Priest. That is settled, proved, indisputable. The Christian system is not destitute of that which was regarded as so essential to the old dispensation—the office of a high priest.

Who is set on the right hand of a throne, etc. He is exalted to honor and glory before God. The right hand was regarded as the place of principal honor; and when it is said that Christ is at the right hand of God, the meaning is that He is exalted to the highest honor in the universe (Philippians 2:9).

Of course, the language is figurative—as God has no hands literally—but the language conveys an important meaning: that He is near to God, is high in His affection and love, and is raised to the most elevated situation in heaven.

A minister of the sanctuary. The marginal note reads, "or holy things." The Greek, twn agiwn, may mean either the sanctuary—denoting the Holy of Holies—or holy things. The word sanctuary—Hebrew, kodesh—was applied to the tabernacle or temple as a holy place. The plural form used here—ta agia—was given to the Most Holy Place preeminently, the full form of the name being—Hebrew, kodesh kodushim, or Greek, agia agiwn hagia hagion (Jahn's Archaeology, section 328), or, as it is used here, simply ta agia. The connection seems to require us to understand it as the Most Holy Place, and not as holy things. The idea is that the Lord Jesus, the great High Priest, has entered into the Holy of Holies in heaven, of which the one in the tabernacle was an emblem. For a description of the Most Holy Place in the temple, see Barnes on Matthew 21:12.

And of the true tabernacle. This refers to the real tabernacle in heaven, of which the one among the Hebrews was but its type. The word tabernacle (Greek, skhnh) properly means a booth, hut, or tent, and was applied to the tent Moses was directed to build as the place for the worship of God. That tabernacle, like the temple later, was regarded as the special dwelling place of God on earth. Here, the reference is to heaven as the dwelling place of God, of which that earthly tabernacle was the emblem or symbol. It is called the "true tabernacle" because it is the real dwelling of God, of which the one made by Moses was only the emblem. It is not movable and perishable like that made by humans, but is unchanging and eternal.

Which the Lord pitched, and not man. The word pitched is fitting to describe the setting up of a tent. When it is said that "the Lord pitched the true tabernacle"—that is, the permanent dwelling in heaven—the meaning is that heaven has been prepared by God Himself, and that whatever is necessary to make it a suitable dwelling for the Divine Majesty has been done by Him. The Redeemer has been received into that glorious dwelling, and there He performs the office of High Priest on behalf of humanity. The apostle explains how He does this in the remainder of this chapter and in chapters 9 and 10.

For every High Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices. This is a general statement about the functions of the high priest. It was the peculiarity of the office; it constituted its essence that some gift or sacrifice was to be presented. This was indisputable in regard to the Jewish high priest, and this is involved in the nature of the priestly office everywhere. A priest is one who offers sacrifice, mainly in behalf of others. The principles involved in the office are:

1. That there is a need that some offering or atonement should be made for sin; and,
2. That there is a fitness or propriety that someone should be designated to do it.

If this idea that a priest must offer sacrifice is correct, then it follows that the name priest should not be given to anyone who is not appointed to offer sacrifice. It should not therefore be given to the ministers of the gospel, for it is no part of their work to offer sacrifice—the great sacrifice for sin having been once offered by the Lord Jesus, and is not to be repeated again.

Accordingly, the writers in the New Testament are perfectly uniform and consistent on this point. The name priest is never once given to the ministers of the gospel there. They are called ministers, ambassadors, pastors, bishops, overseers, etc., but never priests. Nor should they be so called in the Christian church.

The name priest, as applied to Christian ministers, has been derived from the papists. They hold that the priest does offer as a sacrifice the real body and blood of Christ in the mass, and holding this, the name priest is given to the minister who does it consistently. It is not indeed right or Scriptural—for the whole doctrine on which it is based is absurd and false—but while that doctrine is held the name is consistent. But with what show of consistency or propriety can the name be given to a Protestant minister of the gospel?

Wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer. That the Lord Jesus should make an offering. That is, since he is declared to be a priest, and since it is essential to the office that a priest should make an offering, it is indispensable that he should bring a sacrifice to God. He could not be a priest, on the acknowledged principles on which that office is held, unless he did it. What the offering was which the Lord Jesus made the apostle specifies more fully in Hebrews 9:11-14; Hebrews 9:25–26.

For if he were on earth, he should not be a Priest. He could not perform that office. The design of this is to show a reason why he was removed to heaven. The reason was that on earth there were those who were set apart to that office, and that he, not being of the same tribe as them, could not officiate as priest. There was an order of men here on earth consecrated already to that office, and hence it was necessary that the Lord Jesus, in performing the functions of the office, should be removed to another sphere.

Who serve unto the example. They perform their service using the mere example and shadow of the heavenly things, or in a tabernacle and in a way that is merely the emblem of the reality existing in heaven. The reference is to the tabernacle, which was a mere example or copy of heaven. The word translated here as example, upodeigma, means a copy, likeness, or imitation. The tabernacle was made according to a pattern that was shown to Moses; it was made to have some faint resemblance to the reality in heaven, and in that copy, or example, they were appointed to officiate. Their service, therefore, had some resemblance to that in heaven.

And shadow. That is, in the tabernacle where they served there was a mere shadow of what was real and substantial. Compared with what is in heaven, it was what the shadow is compared with the substance. A shadow—as of a man, a house, or a tree—will indicate the form, the outline, and the size of the object, but it has no substance or reality. So it was with the rites of the Jewish religion. They were designed merely as a shadow of the substantial realities of the true religion, or to present the dim outlines of what is true and real in heaven .

(Hebrews 10:1).

The word shadow here, skia, is used in distinction from the body or reality, swma , and also from eikwn—a perfect image or resemblance .

Of heavenly things. Of the heavenly sanctuary; of what is real and substantial in heaven. That is, a reality exists in heaven, of which the service in the Jewish sanctuary was merely the outline. The reference is, undoubtedly, to the service that the Lord Jesus performs there as the great High Priest of his people.

As Moses was admonished of God. As he was divinely instructed. The word used here—crhmatizw—properly means to give oracular responses, to make communications to people in a supernatural way—by dreams, by direct revelations, etc. (Matthew 2:12, 22; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22; Hebrews 11:7).

For, See, saith he (Exodus 25:9, 40; Exodus 26:30).

In Exodus 40, it is also repeatedly said that Moses executed all the work of the tabernacle as he had been commanded. Great care was taken that an exact copy should be shown to him of all that he was to make, and that the work should be exactly like the pattern.

The reason, undoubtedly, was that since the Jewish service was to be typical, only God could judge the form the tabernacle should take. It was not to be an edifice of architectural beauty, skill, or taste, but was designed to adumbrate important realities known only to God. Therefore, it was necessary that the exact model of them should be given to Moses and that it should be scrupulously followed.

That thou make all things. This included not only the tabernacle itself, but also the altars, the ark, the candlestick, etc. The form and materials for each were specified, and the exact pattern shown to Moses in the Mount.

According to the pattern. Greek: tupon—type; that is, figure, form. The word tupov (type) properly means anything produced by the agency of blows (from tuptw—to strike). Hence, it can mean a mark, stamp, print, or impression—such as that made by driving nails in the hands (John 20:25). It can then mean a figure or form, as of an image or statue (Acts 7:43); or the form of a doctrine or opinion (Romans 6:17). It can also mean an example to be imitated or followed (1 Corinthians 10:6, 17; Philippians 3:17; 1 Thessalonians 1:7; 2 Thessalonians 3:9). And hence, it means a pattern or model after which anything is to be made (Acts 7:44).

This is the meaning here. The allusion is to a pattern such as an architect or sculptor uses: a drawing or figure made in wood or clay, after which the work is to be modeled. The idea is that some such drawing or model was shown to Moses by God on Mount Sinai, so that he might have an exact idea of the tabernacle that was to be made.

A similar drawing or model of the temple was given by David to Solomon (1 Chronicles 28:11–12). We are not, indeed, to suppose that in the case of the pattern shown to Moses, there was any miniature model of wood or stone actually created and shown. Rather, the form of the tabernacle was shown to Moses in a vision (Isaiah 1:1), or was so vividly impressed on his mind that he would have a distinct view of the edifice that was to be constructed.

In the Mount. In Mount Sinai; for it was while Moses was there, in the presence of God, that these communications were made.