Thomas Aquinas Commentary Hebrews 8:1-5

"Now in the things which we are saying the chief point [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, not man. 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. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are those who offer the gifts according to the law; 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." — Hebrews 8:1-5 (ASV)

Having proven the excellence of Christ’s priesthood over the Levitical priesthood regarding the person of the priest, the Apostle now proves the same regarding the priesthood itself. In this regard he does two things: first, he shows in general terms that Christ’s priesthood is more excellent than that of the Old Law; secondly, he does so in detail (chapter 9). The first part is divided into two sections: first, he states his thesis; secondly, he explains it (verse 3). Regarding the first, he does two things: first, he states the way in which he will present his teaching; secondly, he introduces what he intends to say (verse 1b).

He says, therefore: Now the main point of what we are saying is this [recapitulation]. A recapitulation is a brief synthesis containing many things. The word comes from ‘caput’ or ‘head,’ because just as in the head are virtually and, in a way, summarily contained all the things which are in the body, so a recapitulation contains everything that has been said.

Then (verse 1b) he introduces what he intends to say: first, the dignity of this priesthood; secondly, its office (verse 2).

Its dignity is that we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. The throne signifies judicial power, which is fitting for certain persons as ministers of God, such as all kings—All the kings of the earth will adore him (Psalms 71:11)—and all prelates: Let a man so account of us as of Christ’s ministers (1 Corinthians 4:1).

Therefore, because Christ has judicial power, he is said to sit: For the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22). But because he has this power in the most excellent manner after God, he sits at the right hand of majesty in the heavens—that is, in the most prominent goods: He sits on the right hand of the majesty on high (Hebrews 1:3).

The expression, “is seated,” can be referred to Christ as God, and then he is seated in this way because he has the same authority as the Father, although distinct in person; and so “majesty” is taken for the person of the Father. Or, it can be referred to Christ as a man, and this is more in keeping with the Apostle’s intention, because he is speaking about the high priesthood of Christ, who is a high priest as a man. So he is seated in this way because the assumed humanity has a certain association with the Godhead, and he sits at the right hand to judge: Your majesty has been elevated above the heavens (Psalms 8:3); He gave him power to judge, because he is the Son of man (John 5:27).

Then when he says, a minister of the sanctuary, he shows the dignity of Christ's office. He is the minister of the holy precincts, that is, of the sanctuary. For the ministers of old received the ministry of guarding sacred things and serving the tabernacle. But Christ had this in a more excellent manner, because he is a minister not insofar as he is God—for then he is the author—but insofar as he is a man: And passing he will minister unto them (Luke 12:37). The humanity of Christ is an instrument of the divinity. Therefore, he is the minister of the holy things because he administers the sacraments of grace in the present life and of glory in the future.

He is also the minister of the true tent that cannot be removed (Isaiah 33:20); Lord, who shall dwell in your tabernacle? (Psalms 14:1). The man Christ is a minister because all the goods of glory are dispensed by him. The author says it is the true tent for two reasons. First, to differentiate it from the old one, which was a figure of it: Now all these things happened to them in figure (1 Corinthians 10:11). The New Covenant, therefore, is the truth of the former. It is true, that is, containing the truth in relation to the figure.

Secondly, the former tabernacle was made by a man, but the other—namely, that of grace and glory—is made by God alone: The Lord will give grace and glory (Psalms 83:12); The grace of God, life everlasting (Romans 6:23). Hence, the Apostle says it is a tent which is set up not by man but by the Lord. As it is written, We know, if our earthly house of this habitation be dissolved, that we have a building of God not made with hands, eternal in heaven (2 Corinthians 5:1).

Then (verse 3) he explains in detail. In this regard he does three things: first, he shows that Christ is a minister of certain holy things; secondly, that they are not of the Old Law (verse 4); thirdly, that he is a minister of greater things (verse 6).

He forms the following argument: Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, and in this respect he is called a minister of holy things. But Christ is a high priest, as was stated above. Therefore, it is necessary that he have something to offer: Every priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that He may offer up gifts and sacrifices for sin (Hebrews 5:1). A sacrifice is offered with animals; gifts are offered with anything else: They offer the burnt offerings of the Lord and the bread of their God (Leviticus 21:6).

Because it was necessary that Christ have something to offer, he offered himself. It was a clean oblation, because his flesh had no stain of sin: And it shall be a lamb without blemish, a male, of one year (Exodus 12:5). Furthermore, it was suitable, because it was fitting that a man should make satisfaction for humanity: He offered himself unspotted unto God (Hebrews 9:14).

It was also suitable for sacrifice, because his flesh was mortal: God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh and sin (Romans 8:3). Also, he was the same as the one to whom he was offered: I and the Father are one (John 10:30). And he unites to God those for whom he is offered: That they may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us (John 17:21).

Then (verse 4) he shows that Christ is not a minister of the sacrifices of the Law. In this regard he does three things: first, he presents a consequence; secondly, he gives the reason for it (verse 4b); thirdly, he proves it with a scriptural authority (verse 4c).

The consequence is this: If he were on earth (this is the antecedent), he would not be a priest at all (this is the consequent). Hence, the consequence is a single conditional proposition. It is read in a number of ways. First, according to a gloss: “if that which is offered were on earth, he would not be a priest.” This can be understood in two ways.

In one way, the sense would be: If that which is offered were something earthly, Christ would not be a priest. As if to say: There would be no need for such a priesthood, because there would be many to offer such things. But was not the flesh of Christ earthly? I answer that materially speaking it was earthly: The earth is given into the hand of the wicked (Job 9:24). But it is said not to be earthly because of the union: He that comes from heaven is above all (John 3:31)—that is, the Son of God, who united it to himself. It is also not earthly because of the active power of the Holy Spirit, who formed it, and because of its fruit, for his oblation is not ordained for obtaining something earthly: You are of this world; I am not of this world (John 8:23). This is the first and better explanation.

The second way of understanding it is this: “Even if,” that is, although that which is offered “is on earth”—because it is necessary that something be offered—“he would not be a priest,” but someone worthy, because no one could be found worthy to offer it.

There are three other readings in which the focus is on the one who offers. First, in general, the sense is this: If there were another earthly priest who could offer heavenly things, Christ would not be a priest. Second, specifically about Christ: If Christ were an earthly priest, the right of the priesthood would not belong to him, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. Third, the following: If Christ were still on earth, in the sense that he had not yet ascended, he would not be a priest, because he would not have completed his priesthood.

But according to the first explanation, the reading continues in the following way: There would be many who, according to the law, would offer such gifts, namely, those who serve a copy and shadow of heavenly things. The sacraments of the Old Law were figures of other things in two respects: first, regarding knowledge, and second, regarding fulfillment. Regarding knowledge, he says exemplar, because in the Old Law, as in an exemplar, one could read that to which our knowledge should be led.

But it seems that he is speaking in an improper sense, for an exemplar is prior to that of which it is an example. Heavenly things, however, are prior and were not made in the likeness of the Old Law; rather, the reverse is true. I answer that something is said to be prior in two ways: in one way, in an absolute sense, which is what the objection assumes; in another way, in relation to its purpose, and then it is true that those things are not prior. Regarding the second respect, he says a shadow, because just as a shadow represents a body without ever becoming a body, so those things represented the New Testament: For the Law, having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things (Hebrews 10:1).

Then he proves the reasoning behind the consequence when he says that, as when Moses was about to erect the tabernacle, he was instructed by God, who said, See that you make everything according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain (Exodus 25:40), because inferior things naturally tend toward a likeness of superior things. For the Lord wished to lead us by sensible things to intelligible and spiritual things: Do you know the order of heaven, and can you set down the reason of it on the earth? (Job 38:33).