Text -- Hebrews 8:6-13 (NET)

8:6 But now Jesus has obtained a superior ministry, since the covenant that he mediates is also better and is enacted on better promises. 8:7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, no one would have looked for a second one. 8:8 But showing its fault, God says to them, “Look, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will complete a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 8:9 “It will not be like the covenant that I made with their fathers, on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not continue in my covenant and I had no regard for them, says the Lord. 8:10 “For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people. 8:11 “And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest. 8:12 “For I will be merciful toward their evil deeds, and their sins I will remember no longer.” 8:13 When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear.

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Heb 8:6

But now ( nun de ).

Logical use of nun , as the case now stands, with Jesus as high priest in heaven.

Robertson: Heb 8:6

Hath he obtained ( tetuchen ).

Perfect active indicative of tugchanō with the genitive, a rare and late form for teteuchen (also teteuchēken ), old verb to hit the mark, to attain.

Robertson: Heb 8:6

A ministry the more excellent ( diaphorōteras leitourgias ).

"A more excellent ministry."For the comparative of diaphoros see Heb 1:4. This remark applies to all the five points of superiority over the Levitical priesthood.

Robertson: Heb 8:6

By how much ( hosōi ).

Instrumental case of the relative hosos between two comparative adjectives as in Heb 1:4.

Robertson: Heb 8:6

The mediator ( mesitēs ).

Late word from mesos (amid) and so a middle man (arbitrator). Already in Gal 3:19. and see 1Ti 2:5. See Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24 for further use with diathēkē .

Robertson: Heb 8:6

Of a better covenant ( kreittonos diathēkēs ).

Called "new"(kainēs ,neas in Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24). For diathēkē see Mat 26:28; Luk 1:72; Gal 3:17, etc. This idea he will discuss in Heb 8:7-13.

Robertson: Heb 8:6

Hath been enacted ( nenomothetētai ).

Perfect passive indicative of nomotheteō as in Heb 7:11 which see.

Robertson: Heb 8:6

Upon better promises ( epi kreittosin epaggeliais ).

Upon the basis of (epi ). But how "better"if the earlier were also from God? This idea, alluded to in Heb 6:12-17, Will be developed in 10:19-12:3 with great passion and power. Thus it is seen that "better"(kreissōn ) is the keynote of the Epistle. At every point Christianity is better than Judaism.

Robertson: Heb 8:7

That first covenant ( hē prōtē ekeinē ).

The word diathēkē (covenant) is not expressed, but clearly meant by the feminine gender prōtē .

Robertson: Heb 8:7

Faultless ( amemptos ).

Old compound adjective for which see Luk 1:6; Phi 2:15. The condition is second class and assumes that the old covenant was not "blameless,"apparently a serious charge which he hastens to explain.

Robertson: Heb 8:7

For a second ( deuteras ).

Objective genitive with diathēkēs understood. The conclusion with an and the imperfect passive indicative (ezēteito ) is clearly a second-class condition. See a like argument in Heb 7:11.

Robertson: Heb 8:8

Finding fault with them ( memphomenos autous ).

Present middle participle of memphomai (cf. amemptos ), old verb, in N.T. only here and Rom 9:19. The covenant was all right, but the Jews failed to keep it. Hence God made a new one of grace in place of law. Why do marriage covenants so often fail to hold? The author quotes in Heb 8:8-12; Jer 31:31-34 (in lxx 38:31-34) in full which calls for little explanation or application to prove his point (Heb 8:13).

Robertson: Heb 8:8

I will make ( suntelesō ).

Future active of sunteleō , old compound verb to accomplish as in Mar 13:4; Rom 9:28.

Robertson: Heb 8:8

A new covenant ( diathēkēn kainēn ).

In Heb 12:24 we have diathēkēs neas , but kainēs in 1Co 11:25. Kainos is fresh, on new lines as opposed to the old (palaios ) as in 2Co 3:6, 2Co 3:14; neos is young or not yet old.

Robertson: Heb 8:9

In the day that I took them ( en hēmerāi epilabomenou mou ).

Genitive absolute (mou and second aorist middle participle of epilambanō ), "a Hellenistic innovation"(Moffatt) in imitation of the Hebrew after hēmerāi in place of en hēi epelabomen , occurring also in Barn. 2:28.

Robertson: Heb 8:9

By the hand ( tēs cheiros ).

Technical use of the genitive of the part affected.

Robertson: Heb 8:9

To lead them forth ( exagagein autous ).

Second aorist active infinitive of exagō to denote purpose.

Robertson: Heb 8:9

For they continued not ( hoti autoi ouk enemeinan ).

First aorist active indicative of emmenō , old verb to remain in (Act 14:22). The Israelites broke the covenant. Then God annulled it.

Robertson: Heb 8:9

I regarded not ( ēmelēsa ).

"I neglected"as in Heb 2:3. The covenant was void when they broke it.

Robertson: Heb 8:10

This ( hautē ).

The "new"one of Heb 8:8.

Robertson: Heb 8:10

That I will make ( hēn diathēsomai ).

Future middle of diatithēmi , "that I will covenant,"cognate accusative (hēn ), using the same root in the verb as in diathēkē .

Robertson: Heb 8:10

I will put ( didous ).

"Giving,"present active participle of didōmi , to give.

Robertson: Heb 8:10

Into their mind ( eis tēn dianoian autōn ).

Their intellect, their moral understanding, all the intellect as in Aristotle (Col 1:21; Eph 4:18).

Robertson: Heb 8:10

On their heart ( epi kardias autōn ).

Either genitive singular or accusative plural. Kardia is the seat of man’ s personal life (Westcott), the two terms covering the whole of man’ s inward nature.

Robertson: Heb 8:10

A god ( eis theon ).

Note the Hebraistic use of eis in the predicate instead of the usual nominative theos as in "a people"(eis laon ). This was the ideal of the old covenant (Exo 6:7), now at last to be a fact.

Robertson: Heb 8:11

They shall not teach ( ou mē didaxōsin ).

Strong double negative (ou mē ) with the first aorist active (futuristic) subjunctive of didaskō .

Robertson: Heb 8:11

His fellow-citizen ( ton politēn autou ).

See Luk 15:15; Luk 19:14.

Robertson: Heb 8:11

Know the Lord ( Gnōthi ton kurion ).

Second aorist active imperative of ginōskō . In the new covenant all will be taught of God (Isa 54:13; Joh 6:45), whereas under the old only the educated scribe could understand the minutiae of the law (Dods). See Paul’ s comparison in 2Co 3:7-18.

Robertson: Heb 8:11

Shall know ( eidēsousin ).

Future perfect active, old form of oida (note ginōskō just before of recognizing God), one of the rare future perfects (cf. Heb 2:13, esomai pepoithōs ).

Robertson: Heb 8:12

Merciful ( hileōs ).

Old Attic adjective for hilaos , common in the lxx, only here in N.T., from which hilaskomai comes (Luk 18:13).

Robertson: Heb 8:12

Will I remember no more ( ou mē mnēsthō eti ).

Double negative ou mē with first aorist passive subjunctive (volitive) of mimnēskō , to recall.

Robertson: Heb 8:13

In that he saith ( en tōi legein ).

Locative case of the articular present active infinitive of legō , "in the saying as to him."

Robertson: Heb 8:13

He hath made the first old ( pepalaiōken tēn prōtēn ).

Perfect active indicative of palaioō , old verb from palaios (in contrast with kainos , fresh, new), to treat as old and out of date. The conclusion is to the point.

Robertson: Heb 8:13

That which is becoming old and waxeth aged ( to palaioumenon kai gēraskon ).

Gēraskō is old verb from gēras (age) like gerōn (old man) and refers to the decay of old age so that both ideas appear here in opposition to kainos (palaios ) and neos (geraios ).

Robertson: Heb 8:13

Is nigh unto vanishing away ( eggus aphanismou ).

Genitive case with eggus and late word for disappearance (from aphanizō , Mat 6:19), here only in the N.T. The author writes as if the Old Testament legal and ceremonial system were about to vanish before the new covenant of grace. If he wrote after a.d. 70, would he not have written "has vanished away"?

Vincent: Heb 8:6

But now ( νῦν δὲ )

Νῦν is logical: as the case now stands. The statement of Heb 8:4 is taken up. " If he were on earth he could not be a priest," etc., but now , since Christ is a priest, and must have a sanctuary and an offering, he has a more excellent ministry.

Vincent: Heb 8:6

He hath obtained a more excellent ministry ( διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας )

The ministry of the heavenly sanctuary.

Vincent: Heb 8:6

He is the mediator of a better covenant ( κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης )

For μεσίτης mediator , see on Gal 3:19. Both here and in the following chapter, the ideas of the sanctuary and the covenant are closely united. God's covenant was embodied in the sanctuary. The ark was " the ark of the covenant" ; the tables of the law were " the tables of the covenant." The essence of a covenant is the establishment of a relationship. The sanctuary was the meeting-place of God and man. The ritual of sacrifice adjusted the sinner's relation to a holy God. All the furniture and all the ordinances of the tabernacle assumed the covenant between God and his people. Thus the two ideas belong together. The minister of the Levitical sanctuary was the mediator of the old covenant. A new covenant implies a new ministry, a better covenant implies a better ministry. Christ's priesthood implies a sanctuary. The new sanctuary implies a new covenant. This covenant is a better covenant because it

Vincent: Heb 8:6

Was established upon better promises ( ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται )

For established rend. enacted . Νομοθετεῖν to enact a law , only here and Heb 7:11. A few times in lxx : Νομοθεσία enacting , only Rom 9:4 νομοθέτης lawgiver , only Jam 4:12. The better covenant was enacted as truly as was the law. See Heb 8:10. The new covenant was a new law - the perfect law, the law of liberty, Jam 1:25.

Vincent: Heb 8:7

The statement that a better covenant was enacted upon better promises is justified by the very existence of that second covenant. " If that first covenant had been faultless, there would no place have been sought for a second." The argument is like that in Heb 7:11 (see note). Notice the imperfect tense ἐξητείτο , lit. would have been being sought . A search would not have been going on. This implies a sense of dissatisfaction while the old covenant was still in force, and a looking about for something better. This hint is now expanded. It is to be shown that the Levitical system answered to a covenant which was recognized as imperfect and transitory by an O.T. prophet, since he spoke of a divine purpose to establish a new covenant.

Vincent: Heb 8:8

For finding fault with them ( μεμφόμενος αὐτοὺς )

Them signifies the possessors of the first covenant. The prophet says what follows by way of blame. The passage cited is Jeremiah 38:31-34, lxx (A.V. Jer 31:31-34). The writer assumes that Jeremiah's new covenant means the Christian covenant.

Vincent: Heb 8:8

I will make ( συντελέσω )

Rend. I will conclude or consummate . See on Luk 4:13. Only here in Hebrews, and once in Paul, Rom 9:28, a citation.

Vincent: Heb 8:8

With the house ( ἐπὶ )

The preposition marking direction toward.

Vincent: Heb 8:8

A new covenant ( διαθήκην καινήν )

Always καινὴ in the phrase new covenant , except Heb 12:24, where we have νέα . For the distinction see note there, and see on Mat 26:29.

Vincent: Heb 8:9

In the day when I took ( ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου )

An unusual construction. Lit. in the day of me having taken hold . Comp. Joh 4:39.

Vincent: Heb 8:10

The covenant which I will make ( ἡ διαθήκη ἣν δοαθήσομαι )

The noun and the verb are cognate - the arrangement which I will arrange . A covenant (διαθήκη ) is something arranged (διατίθεσθαι ) between two parties. See the same combination, Act 3:25.

Vincent: Heb 8:10

I will put my laws ( διδοὺς νόμους μου )

Lit. giving my laws: const. with I will make: " the covenant which I will make by giving my laws."

Vincent: Heb 8:10

Mind ( διάνοιαν )

The moral understanding. See on Mar 12:30; see on Luk 1:51. Hearts , καρδίας , see on Rom 1:21; see on Rom 10:10.

Vincent: Heb 8:10

A God - a people ( εἰς θεόν - εἰς λαόν )

Lit. unto a God, etc. A Hebraistic form of expression, εἰς signifying the destination of the substantive verb. The sense is, I will be to them to serve as a God; or my being as related to them will amount to my being a God to them. Comp. Mat 19:5; 2Co 6:18; Heb 1:5.

Vincent: Heb 8:11

His neighbor ( τὸν πολίτην )

Lit. his citizen : his fellow-citizen .

Vincent: Heb 8:11

Know the Lord ( γνῶθι τὸν κύριον )

As if commending God to the knowledge of one who is ignorant of him.

Vincent: Heb 8:11

All shall know ( πάντες εἰδήσουσιν )

Observe the two words for know: γνῶθι of the recognition of a stranger; εἰδήσουσιν of an absolute acquaintance as of one born under God's covenant.

Vincent: Heb 8:11

From the least to the greatest ( ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν ).

Lit. from the little unto the great of them . This knowledge of God will be without distinction of age or station.

Vincent: Heb 8:12

Merciful ( ἵλεως )

Only here and Mat 16:22, see note.

Vincent: Heb 8:12

Unrighteousness ( ἀδικίαις )

Unrighteousnesses . The only occurrence of the word in the plural. For ἀδικία see on 2Pe 2:13.

Vincent: Heb 8:12

Their sins and their iniquities ( τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν αὐτῶν )

Omit and their iniquities . For ἁμαρτία sin , see on Mat 1:21; and for both ἀδικία and ἁμαρτία , see on 1Jo 1:9. Comp. 1Jo 5:17.

Vincent: Heb 8:12

Will I remember no more ( οὐ μὴ μνησθῷ ἔτι )

Lit. I will by no means remember any more .

Vincent: Heb 8:13

In that he saith a new covenant ( ἐν τῷ λέγειν καινήν )

Lit. " in his saying new ."

Vincent: Heb 8:13

He hath made the first old ( πεπαλαίωκεν τὴν πρώτην )

Παλαιοῦν to make old , only in Hebrews and Luk 12:33. Comp. Heb 1:11.

Vincent: Heb 8:13

Now that which decayeth and waxeth old ( τὸ δὲ παλαιούμενου καὶ γηράσκον )

Rend. but that which is becoming old and waxing aged . Γηράσκειν (only here and Joh 21:18) adds the idea of infirmity to that of age .

Vincent: Heb 8:13

Is ready to vanish away ( ἐγγύς ἀφανισμοῦ )

Lit. is nigh unto vanishing . Ἀφανισμός vanishing , N.T.o . Often in lxx. Class. rare and late. The whole statement indicates that the writer regarded the Sinaitic covenant, even in Jeremiah's time, as obsolete, and that Jeremiah himself so regarded it. When God announced a new covenant he proclaimed the insufficiency of the old, and the promise of a new covenant carried with it the promise of the abrogation of the old. The new covenant is so shaped as to avoid the defects of the old one, and some one has remarked that, in one aspect, it is a criticism of the Sinaitic covenant. The following are its provisions: (1) The law will no more be merely external, but a law written in the heart. Comp. 2Co 3:8. (2) The people will be on intimate and affectionate terms with God, so that the knowledge of God will be general. (3) Sin will be dealt with more radically and effectively.

Wesley: Heb 8:6

His priesthood as much excels theirs, as the promises of the gospel (whereof he is a surety) excels those of the law. These better promises are specified, Heb 8:10-11: those in the law were mostly temporal promises.

Wesley: Heb 8:7

If that dispensation had answered all God's designs and man's wants, if it had not been weak and unprofitable unable to make anything perfect, no place would have been for a second.

Wesley: Heb 8:8

Who were under the old covenant he saith, I make a new covenant with the house of Israel - With all the Israel of God, in all ages and nations. It is new in many respects, though not as to the substance of it: Being ratified by the death of Christ. Freed from those burdensome rites and ceremonies. Containing a more full and clear account of spiritual religion. Attended with larger influences of the Spirit Extended to all men. And, Never to be abolished. Jer 31:31, &c.

Wesley: Heb 8:9

With the care and tenderness of a parent. And just while this was fresh in their memory, they obeyed; but presently after they shook off the yoke. They continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not - So that covenant was soon broken in pieces.

Wesley: Heb 8:10

After the Mosaic dispensation is abolished.

Wesley: Heb 8:10

I will open their eyes, and enlighten their understanding, to see the true, full, spiritual meaning thereof.

Wesley: Heb 8:10

So that they shall inwardly experience whatever I have commanded.

Wesley: Heb 8:10

Their all - sufficient portion, and exceeding great reward.

Wesley: Heb 8:10

My treasure, my beloved, loving, and obedient children.

Wesley: Heb 8:11

All real Christians.

Wesley: Heb 8:11

In this order the saving knowledge of God ever did and ever will proceed; not first to the greatest, and then to the least. But "the Lord shall save the tents," the poorest, "of Judah first, that the glory of the house of David," the royal seed, "and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem," the nobles and the rich citizens, "do not magnify themselves," Zec 12:7.

Wesley: Heb 8:12

For I will justify them, which is the root of all true knowledge of God. This, therefore, is God's method. First, a sinner is pardoned: then he knows God, as gracious and merciful then God's laws are written on his heart: he is God's, and God is his.

Wesley: Heb 8:13

Hath shown that it is disannulled, and out of date.

Wesley: Heb 8:13

As it did quickly after, when the temple was destroyed.

JFB: Heb 8:6

Not time; but "as it is."

JFB: Heb 8:6

Than any earthly ministry.

JFB: Heb 8:6

In proportion as.

JFB: Heb 8:6

Coming between us and God, to carry into effect God's covenant with us. "The messenger (angel) of the covenant."

JFB: Heb 8:6

Greek, "one which" [ALFORD]: inasmuch as being one which.

JFB: Heb 8:6

Greek, "enacted as a law." So Rom 3:27, "law of faith"; and Rom 8:2; Rom 9:31, apply "law" to the Gospel covenant. It is implied hereby, the Gospel is founded on the law, in the spirit and essence of the latter.

JFB: Heb 8:6

Resting upon.

JFB: Heb 8:6

Enumerated Heb 8:10-11. The Old Testament promises were mainly of earthly, the New Testament promises, of heavenly blessings: the exact fulfilment of the earthly promises was a pledge of the fulfilment of the heavenly. "Like a physician who prescribes a certain diet to a patient, and then when the patient is beginning to recover, changes the diet, permitting what he had before forbidden; or as a teacher gives his pupil an elementary lesson at first; preparatory to leading him to a higher stage": so Rabbi Albo in his Ikkarim. Compare Jer 7:21-22, which shows that God's original design in the old covenant ritual system was, that it should be pedagogical, as a schoolmaster leading and preparing men for Christ.

JFB: Heb 8:7

Same reasoning as in Heb 7:11.

JFB: Heb 8:7

Perfect in all its parts, so as not to be found fault with as wanting anything which ought to be there: answering all the purposes of a law. The law in its morality was blameless (Greek, "amomos"); but in saving us it was defective, and so not faultless (Greek, "amemptos").

JFB: Heb 8:7

As it has to be now; and as it is sought in the prophecy (Heb 8:8-11). The old covenant would have anticipated all man's wants, so as to give no occasion for seeking something more perfectly adequate. Compare on the phrase "place . . . sought," Heb 12:17.

JFB: Heb 8:8

The people of the old covenant, who were not made "faultless" by it (Heb 8:7); and whose disregard of God's covenant made Him to "regard them not" (Heb 8:9). The law is not in itself blamed, but the people who had not observed it.

JFB: Heb 8:8

(Jer 31:31-34; compare Eze 11:19; Eze 36:25-27). At Rama, the headquarters of Nebuzar-adan, whither the captives of Jerusalem had been led, Jeremiah uttered this prophecy of Israel's restoration under another David, whereby Rachel, wailing for her lost children, shall be comforted; literally in part fulfilled at the restoration under Zerubbabel, and more fully to be hereafter at Israel's return to their own land; spiritually fulfilled in the Gospel covenant, whereby God forgives absolutely His people's sins, and writes His law by His Spirit on the hearts of believers, the true Israel. "This prophecy forms the third part of the third trilogy of the three great trilogies into which Jeremiah's prophecies may be divided: Jeremiah 21-25, against the shepherds of the people; Jeremiah 26-29, against the false prophets; Jeremiah 30 and 31, the book of restoration" [DELITZSCH in ALFORD].

JFB: Heb 8:8

The frequent formula introducing a Messianic prophecy.

JFB: Heb 8:8

Greek, "perfect"; "consummate." A suitable expression as to the new covenant, which perfected what the old could not (compare end of Heb 8:9, with end of Heb 8:10).

JFB: Heb 8:8

Therefore, the ten tribes, as well as Judah, share in the new covenant. As both shared the exile, so both shall share the literal and spiritual restoration.

JFB: Heb 8:9

Very different from, and far superior to, the old covenant, which only "worked wrath" (Rom 4:15) through man's "not regarding" it. The new covenant enables us to obey by the Spirit's inward impulse producing love because of the forgiveness of our sins.

JFB: Heb 8:9

Rather as Greek, "made to": the Israelites being only recipients, not coagents [ALFORD] with God.

JFB: Heb 8:9

As a father takes his child by the hand to support and guide his steps. "There are three periods: (1) that of the promise; (2) that of the pedagogical instruction; (3) that of fulfilment" [BENGEL]. The second, that of the pedagogical pupilage, began at the exodus from Egypt.

JFB: Heb 8:9

English Version, Jer 31:32, translates, "Although I was an husband unto them." Paul's translation here is supported by the Septuagint, Syriac, and GESENIUS, and accords with the kindred Arabic. The Hebrews regarded not God, so God, in righteous retribution, regarded them not. On "continued not in my covenant," Schelling observes: The law was in fact the mere ideal of a religious constitution: in practice, the Jews were throughout, before the captivity, more or less polytheists, except in the time of David, and the first years of Solomon (the type of Messiah's reign). Even after the return from Babylon, idolatry was succeeded by what was not much better, formalism and hypocrisy (Mat 12:43). The law was (1) a typical picture, tracing out the features of the glorious Gospel to be revealed; (2) it had a delegated virtue from the Gospel, which ceased, therefore, when the Gospel came.

JFB: Heb 8:10

Greek, "make unto."

JFB: Heb 8:10

Comprising the before disunited (Heb 8:8) ten tribes' kingdom, and that of Judah. They are united in the spiritual Israel, the elect Church, now: they shall be so in the literal restored kingdom of Israel to come.

JFB: Heb 8:10

Literally, "(I) giving." This is the first of the "better promises" (Heb 8:6).

JFB: Heb 8:10

Their intelligent faculty.

JFB: Heb 8:10

Rather, " ON their hearts." Not on tables of stone as the law (2Co 3:3).

JFB: Heb 8:10

Greek, "inscribe."

JFB: Heb 8:10

Fulfilled first in the outward kingdom of God. Next, in the inward Gospel kingdom. Thirdly, in the kingdom at once outward and inward, the spiritual being manifested outwardly (Rev 21:3). Compare a similar progression as to the priesthood (1) Exo 19:6; (2) 1Pe 2:5; (3) Isa 61:6; Rev 1:6. This progressive advance of the significance of the Old Testament institutions, &c., says THOLUCK, shows the transparency and prophetic character which runs throughout the whole.

JFB: Heb 8:11

Second of the "better promises" (Heb 8:6).

JFB: Heb 8:11

"they shall not have to teach" [ALFORD].

JFB: Heb 8:11

So Vulgate reads; but the oldest manuscripts have "his (fellow) citizen."

JFB: Heb 8:11

A closer and more endearing relation than fellow citizen.

JFB: Heb 8:11

Greek, "from the little one to the great one." Zec 12:8, "He that is feeble among them shall be as David." Under the old covenant, the priest's lips were to keep knowledge, and at his mouth the people were to seek the law: under the new covenant, the Holy Spirit teaches every believer. Not that the mutual teaching of brethren is excluded while the covenant is being promulgated; but when once the Holy Spirit shall have fully taught all the remission of their sins and inward sanctification, then there shall be no further' need of man teaching his fellow man. Compare 1Th 4:9; 1Th 5:1, an earnest of that perfect state to come. On the way to that perfect state every man should teach his neighbor. "The teaching is not hard and forced, because grace renders all teachable; for it is not the ministry of the letter, but of the spirit (2Co 3:6). The believer's firmness does not depend on the authority of human teachers. God Himself teaches" [BENGEL]. The New Testament is shorter than the Old Testament, because, instead of the details of an outward letter law, it gives the all-embracing principles of the spiritual law written on the conscience, leading one to spontaneous instinctive obedience in outward details. None save the Lord can teach effectually, "know the Lord."

JFB: Heb 8:12

The third of "the better promises" (Heb 8:6). The forgiveness of sins is, and will be, the root of this new state of inward grace and knowledge of the Lord. Sin being abolished, sinners obtain grace.

JFB: Heb 8:12

Greek, "propitious"; the Hebrew, "salach," is always used of God only in relation to men.

JFB: Heb 8:12

Not found in Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, and one oldest Greek manuscript; but most oldest manuscripts have the words (compare Heb 10:17).

JFB: Heb 8:12

Contrast the law, Heb 10:3.

JFB: Heb 8:13

God.

JFB: Heb 8:13

"hath (at the time of speaking the prophecy) antiquated the first covenant." From the time of God's mention of a NEW covenant (since God's words are all realities) the first covenant might be regarded as ever dwindling away, until its complete abolition on the actual introduction of the Gospel. Both covenants cannot exist side by side. Mark how verbal inspiration is proved in Paul's argument turning wholly on the one word "NEW" (covenant), occurring but once in the Old Testament.

JFB: Heb 8:13

Greek, "that which is being antiquated," namely, at the time when Jeremiah spake. For in Paul's time, according to his view, the new had absolutely set aside the old covenant. The Greek for (Kaine) New (Testament) implies that it is of a different kind and supersedes the old: not merely recent (Greek, "nea"). Compare Hos 3:4-5.

Clarke: Heb 8:6

Now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry - His office of priesthood is more excellent than the Levitical, because the covenant is better, and established on better promises: the old covenant referred to earthly things; the new covenant, to heavenly. The old covenant had promises of secular good; the new covenant, of spiritual and eternal blessings. As far as Christianity is preferable to Judaism, as far as Christ is preferable to Moses, as far as spiritual blessings are preferable to earthly blessings, and as far as the enjoyment of God throughout eternity is preferable to the communication of earthly good during time; so far does the new covenant exceed the old.

Clarke: Heb 8:7

If that first had been faultless - This is nearly the same argument with that in Heb 7:11. The simple meaning is: If the first covenant had made a provision for and actually conferred pardon and purity, and given a title to eternal life, then there could have been no need for a second; but the first covenant did not give these things, therefore a second was necessary; and the covenant that gives these things is the Christian covenant.

Clarke: Heb 8:8

For finding fault with them - The meaning is evidently this: God, in order to show that the first covenant was inefficient, saith to them, the Israelites, Behold, the days come when I will make a new covenant, etc. He found fault with the covenant, and addressed the people concerning his purpose of giving another covenant, that should be such as the necessities of mankind required. As this place refers to Jer 31:31-34, the words finding fault with them may refer to the Jewish people, of whom the Lord complains that they had broken his covenant though he was a husband to them. See below

Clarke: Heb 8:8

With the house of Israel and with the house of Judah - That is, with all the descendants of the twelve sons of Jacob. This is thought to be a promise of the conversion of all the Jews to Christianity; both of the lost tribes, and of those who are known to exist in Asiatic and European countries.

Clarke: Heb 8:9

Not according to the covenant - The new covenant is of a widely different nature to that of the old; it was only temporal and earthly in itself, though it pointed out spiritual and eternal things. The new covenant is totally different from this, as we have already seen; and such a covenant, or system of religion, the Jews should have been prepared to expect, as the Prophet Jeremiah had, in the above place, so clearly foretold it

Clarke: Heb 8:9

They continued not in my covenant - It should be observed that the word διαθηκη, which we translate covenant, often means religion itself; and its various precepts. The old covenant in general stated, on God’ s side, I will be your God; on the Israelites’ side, We will be thy people. This covenant they brake; they served other gods, and neglected the precepts of that holy religion which God had delivered to them

Clarke: Heb 8:9

And I regarded them not - Καγω ημελησα αυτων· And I neglected them or despised them; but the words in the Hebrew text of the prophet are ואנכי בעלתי בם veanochi baalti bam , which we translate, although I was a husband to them. If our translation be correct, is it possible to account for this most strange difference between the apostle and the prophet? Could the Spirit of God be the author of such a strange, not to say contradictory, translation of the same words? Let it be observed

1.    That the apostle quotes from the Septuagint; and in quoting a version accredited by and commonly used among the Jews, he ought to give the text as he found it, unless the Spirit of God dictated an extension of meaning, as is sometimes the case; but in the present case there seems to be no necessity to alter the meaning

2.    The Hebrew words will bear a translation much nearer to the Septuagint and the apostle than our translation intimates. The words might be literally rendered, And I was Lord over them, or I lorded or ruled over them; i.e., I chastised them for their transgressions, and punished them for their iniquities; ημελησα, I took no farther care of them, and gave them up into the hands of their enemies, and so they were carried away into captivity. This pretty nearly reconciles the Hebrew and the Greek, as it shows the act of God in reference to them is nearly the same when the proper meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words is considered

Some suppose that the letter ע ain in בעלתי is changed for ח cheth , and that the word should be read בחלתי bachalti , I have hated or despised them. An ancient and learned Jew, Rab. Parchon, has these remarkable words on this passage

´´ ואנכי בעלתי בם׃ פ

´ שנאתים וזו העין מתחלבה כחית שג

´´ וגם נכשם כחלה בי׃ פ

שנאה אותי

and I baalti baam , translate, I hated them; for ע ain is here changed and stands for ח cheth , as it is said, their soul bachalah bi , translate, hath hated me."None of the Hebrew MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Rossi give any various reading on this word. Some of the versions have used as much latitude in their translations of the Hebrew as the Septuagint. But it is unnecessary to discuss this subject any farther; the word בעל baal itself, by the consent of the most learned men, signifies to disdain or despise, and this is pretty nearly the sense of the apostle’ s expression.

Clarke: Heb 8:10

This is the covenant - This is the nature of that glorious system of religion which I shall publish among them after those days, i.e., in the times of the Gospel

Clarke: Heb 8:10

I will put my laws into their mind - I will influence them with the principles of law, truth, holiness, etc.; and their understandings shall he fully enlightened to comprehend them

Clarke: Heb 8:10

And write them in their hearts - All their affections, passions, and appetites, shall be purified and filled with holiness and love to God and man; so that they shall willingly obey, and feel that love is the fulfilling of the law: instead of being written on tables of stone, they shall be written on the fleshly tables of their hearts

Clarke: Heb 8:10

I will be to them a God - These are the two grand conditions by which the parties in this covenant or agreement are bound

1.    I will be your God

2.    Ye shall be my people

As the object of religious adoration to any man is that Being from whom he expects light, direction, defense, support, and happiness: so God, promising to be their God, promises in effect to give them all these great and good things. To be God’ s people implies that they should give God their whole hearts, serve him with all their light and strength, and have no other object of worship or dependence but himself. Any of these conditions broken, the covenant is rendered null and void, and the other party absolved from his engagement.

Clarke: Heb 8:11

They shall not teach every man his neighbor - Under the old covenant, properly speaking, there was no public instruction; before the erection of synagogues all worship was confined at first to the tabernacle, afterwards to the temple. When synagogues were established they were used principally for the bare reading of the law and the prophets; and scarcely any such thing as a public ministry for the continual instruction of the common people was found in the land till the time of John the Baptist, our Lord, and his apostles. It is true there were prophets who were a sort of general teachers, but neither was their ministry extended through all the people; and there were schools of the prophets and schools of the rabbins, but these were for the instruction of select persons. Hence it was necessary that every man should do what he could, under that dispensation, to instruct his neighbor and brother. But the prophecy here indicates that there should be, under the Gospel dispensation, a profusion of Divine light; and this we find to be the case by the plentiful diffusion of the sacred writings, and by an abundant Gospel ministry: and these blessings are not confined to temples or palaces, but are found in every corner of the land; so that, literally, all the people, from the least to the greatest, know and acknowledge the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. Almost every man, at least in this land, has a Bible, and can read it; and there is not a family that has not the opportunity of hearing the Gospel preached, explained, and enforced

Some have thought that from the least to the greatest is intended to signify the order in which God proceeds with a work of grace; he generally begins with the poor, and through these the great and the high often hear the Gospel of Christ.

Clarke: Heb 8:12

I will be merciful to their unrighteousness - In order to be their God, as mentioned under the preceding verse, it is requisite that their iniquity should be pardoned; this is provided for by the immolation of Jesus Christ as the covenant sacrifice. By his blood, redemption has been purchased, and all who with penitent hearts believe on the Lord Jesus receive remission of sins, and God remembers their iniquities no more against them so as to punish them on that account. All spiritual evil against the nature and law of God is represented here under the following terms: -

1.    Unrighteousness, αδικια, injustice or wrong. This is against God, his neighbor, and himself

2.    Sin, ἁμαρτια, deviation from the Divine law; Missing the Mark; aiming at happiness but never attaining it, because sought out of God, and in the breach of his laws

3.    Iniquity, ανομια, lawlessness, not having, knowing, or acknowledging, a law; having no law written in their hearts, and restrained by none in the conduct of their lives. All these are to be removed by God’ s mercy; and this is to be understood of his mercy in Christ Jesus.

Clarke: Heb 8:13

He hath made the first old - That is: He has considered it as antiquated, and as being no longer of any force

Clarke: Heb 8:13

That which decayeth and waxeth old - Here is an allusion to the ancient laws, which either had perished from the tables on which they were written through old age, or were fallen into disuse, or were abrogated

Clarke: Heb 8:13

Is ready to vanish away - Εγγυς αφανισμου· Is about to be abolished. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, speaking of the laws of Numa, which had been written on oak boards, says: Ἁς αφανισθηναι συνεβη τῳ χρονῳ· "which had perished through old age."And the word αφανιζειν is used to express the abolition of the law. The apostle, therefore, intimates that the old covenant was just about to be abolished; but he expresses himself cautiously and tenderly, that he might not give unnecessary offense

When the apostle said, All shall know the Lord, from the least to the greatest, under the new covenant, he had copious authority for saying so from the rabbins themselves. In Sohar Chadash, fol. 42, it is said: "In the days of the Messiah knowledge shall be renewed in the world, and the law shall be made plain among all; as it is written, Jer 31:33, All shall know me, from the least to the greatest."We find the following legend in Midrash Yalcut Simeoni, part 2, fol. 46: "The holy blessed God shall sit in paradise and explain the law; all the righteous shall sit before him, and the whole heavenly family shall stand on their feet; and the holy blessed God shall sit, and the new law, which be is to give by the Messiah, shall be interpreted.

In Sohar Genes., fol. 74, col. 291, we find these remarkable words: "When the days of the Messiah shall approach, even the little children in this world shall find out the hidden things of wisdom; and in that time all things shall be revealed to all men.

And in Sohar Levit., fol. 24, col. 95: "There shall be no time like this till the Messiah comes, and then the knowledge of God shall be found in every part of the world.

This day are all these sayings fulfilled in our ears: the word of God is multiplied; many run to and fro, and knowledge is increased; all the nations of the earth are receiving the book of God; and men of every clime, and of every degree - Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites; the dwellers in Mesopotamia, in Judea, in Cappadocia, in Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, in Egypt, in Libya; strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes; Cretes and Arabians; Americans, Indians, and Chinese - hear, in their own tongues, the wonderful works of God.

Calvin: Heb 8:6

6.=== But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry, === etc. As he had before inferred the excellency of the covenant from the dignity of the priesthood, so also now he maintains that Christ’s priesthood is more excellent than that of Aaron, because he is the interpreter and Mediator of a better covenant. Both were necessary, for the Jews were to be led away from the superstitious observance of rituals, by which they were prevented from advancing directly forward to the attainment of the real and pure truth of the Gospel. The Apostle says now that it was but right that Moses and Aaron should give way to Christ as to one more excellent, because the gospel is a more excellent covenant than the Law, and also because the death of Christ was a nobler sacrifice than the victims under the Law.

But what he adds is not without some difficulty, — that the covenant of the Gospel was proclaimed on better promises; ¹³¹ for it is certain that the fathers who lived under the Law had the same hope of eternal life set before them as we have, as they had the grace of adoption in common with us, then faith must have rested on the same promises. But the comparison made by the Apostle refers to the form rather than to the substance; for though God promised to them the same salvation which he at this day promises to us, yet neither the manner nor the character of the revelation is the same or equal to what we enjoy. If anyone wishes to know more on this subject, let him read the 4^th and 5^th chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians and my Institutes.

Calvin: Heb 8:7

7.=== For if that first, === etc. He confirms what he had said of the excellency of the covenant which God has made with us through Christ; and he confirms it on this ground, because the covenant of the Law was neither valid nor permanent; for if nothing was wanting in it, why was another substituted for it? But another has been substituted; and from this it is evident that the old covenant was not in every respect perfect. To prove this he adduces the testimony of Jeremiah, which we shall presently examine.

But it seems hardly consistent to say, that after having said that no place would have been sought for the second covenant, had the first been faultless, he should then say that the people were at fault, and that for this cause the new covenant was introduced as a remedy; and thus it appears unjust, that if the blame was in the people it should be transferred to God’s covenant. Then the argument seems not valid, for though God might have a hundred times blamed the people, yet the covenant could not on that account be deemed faulty. The answer to this objection may be easily given. Though the crime of violating the covenant was justly imputed to the people, who had through their own perfidy departed from God, yet the weakness of the covenant is also pointed out, because it was not written in their hearts. Then, to render it perfect and valid, God declares that it needed an amendment. It was not, therefore, without reason that the Apostle contended that a place was to be sought for a second. ¹³²

Calvin: Heb 8:8

8.=== Behold, the days come, === etc. (Jer 31:31.) The Prophet speaks of future time; he arraigns the people of perfidy, because they continued not faithful after having received the Law. The Law, then, was the covenant which was broken, as God complains, by the people. To remedy this evil, he promised a new and a different covenant, the fulfillment of which prophecy was the abrogation of the old covenant.

But it may be said, the Apostle seems unreasonably to turn this prophecy to suit his own purpose; for here the question is respecting ceremonies, but the Prophet speaks of the whole Law: what has it to do with ceremonies, when God inscribes on the heart the rule of a godly and holy life, delivered by the voice and teaching of men? To this I reply that the argument is applied from the whole to a part. There is no doubt but that the Prophet includes the whole dispensation of Moses when he says, “I have made with you a covenant which you have not kept.” Besides, the Law was in a manner clothed with ceremonies; now when the body is dead, what is the use of garments? It is a common saying that the accessory is of the same character with his principal. No wonder, then, that the ceremonies, which are nothing more than appendages to the old covenant, should come to an end, together with the whole dispensation of Moses. Nor is it unusual with the Apostles, when they speak of ceremonies, to discuss the general question respecting the whole Law. Though, then, the prophet Jeremiah extends wider than to ceremonies, yet as it includes them under the name of the old covenant, it may be fitly applied to the present subject.

Now, by the days which the prophet mentions, all agree that Christ’s kingdom is signified; it hence follows, that the old covenant was changed by the coming of Christ. And he names the house of Israel and the house of Judah, because the posterity of Abraham had been divided into two kingdoms. So the promise is to gather again all the elect together into one body, however separated they may have been formerly.

Calvin: Heb 8:9

9.=== Not according to the covenant, === etc. Here is expressed the difference between the covenant which then existed and the new one which he caused them to expect. The Prophet might have otherwise said only: “I will renew the covenant which through your fault has come to nothing;” but he now expressly declares that it would be one unlike the former. By saying that the covenant was made in the day when he laid holds on their hand to rescue them from bondage, he enhanced the sin of defection by thus reminding them of so great a benefit. At the same time he did not accuse one age only of ingratitude; but as these very men who had been delivered immediately fell away, and as their posterity after their example continually relapsed, hence the whole nation had become covenant­breakers.

By saying that he disregarded them or cared not for them, he intimates that it would profit them nothing to have been once adopted as his people, unless he succored them by this new kind of remedy. At the same time the Prophet expresses in Hebrew something more; but this has little to do with the present question. ¹³³

Calvin: Heb 8:10

10.=== For this is the covenant that I will make, === etc. There are two main parts in this covenant; the first regards the gratuitous remission of sins; and the other, the inward renovation of the heart; there is a third which depends on the second, and that is the illumination of the mind as to the knowledge of God. There are here many things most deserving of notice.

The first is, that God calls us to himself without effect as long as he speaks to us in no other way than by the voice of man. He indeed teaches us and commands what is right but he speaks to the deaf; for when we seem to hear anything, our ears are only struck by an empty sound; and the heart, full of depravity and perverseness, rejects every wholesome doctrine. In short, the word of God never penetrates into our hearts, for they are iron and stone until they are softened by him; nay, they have engraven on them a contrary law, for perverse passions rule within, which lead us to rebellion. In vain then does God proclaim his Law by the voice of man, unless he writes it by his Spirit on our hearts, that is, unless he forms and prepares us for obedience. It hence appears of what avail is freewill and the uprightness of nature before God regenerates us. We will indeed and choose freely; but our will is carried away by a sort of insane impulse to resist God. Thus it comes that the Law is ruinous and fatal to us as long as it remains written only on tables of stone, as Paul also teaches us. (2Co 3:3.) In short, we then only obediently embrace what God commands, when by his Spirit he changes and corrects the natural pravity of our hearts; otherwise he finds nothing in us but corrupt affections and a heart wholly given up to evil. The declaration indeed is clear, that a new covenant is made according to which God engraves his laws on our hearts, for otherwise it would be in vain and of no effect. ¹³⁴

The second particular refers to the gratuitous pardon of sins. Though they have sinned, saith the Lord, yet I will pardon them. This part is also most necessary; for God never so forms us for obedience to his righteousness, but that many corrupt affections of the flesh still remain; nay, it is only in part that the viciousness of our nature is corrected; so that evil lusts break out now and then. And hence is that contest of which Paul complains, when the godly do not obey God as they ought, but in various ways offend. (Rom 7:13.) Whatever desire then there may be in us to live righteously, we are still guilty of eternal death before God, because our life is ever very far from the perfection which the Law requires. There would then be no stability in the covenant, except God gratuitously forgave our sins. But it is the peculiar privilege of the faithful who have once embraced the covenant offered to them in Christ, that they feel assured that God is propitious to them; nor is the sin to which they are liable, a hindrance to them, for they have the promise of pardon.

And it must be observed that this pardon is promised to them, not for one day only, but to the very end of life, so that they have a daily reconciliation with God. For this favor is extended to the whole of Christ’s kingdom, as Paul abundantly proves in the fifth chapter of his second Epistle to the Corinthians. And doubtless this is the only true asylum of our faith, to which if we flee not, constant despair must be our lot. For we are all of us guilty; nor can we be otherwise released then by fleeing to God’s mercy, which alone can pardon us.

===And they shall be to me, === etc. It is the fruit of the covenant, that God chooses us for his people, and assures us that he will be the guardian of our salvation. This is indeed the meaning of these words, And I will be to them a God; for he is not the God of the dead, nor does he take us under his protection, but that he may make us partakers of righteousness and of life, so that David justly exclaims, “Blessed are the people to whom the Lord is God (Psa 144:15.) There is further no doubt but that this truth belongs also to us; for though the Israelites had the first place, and are the proper and legitimate heirs of the covenant, yet their prerogative does not hinder us from having also a title to it. In short, however far and wide the kingdom of Christ extends, this covenant of salvation is of the same extent.

But it may be asked, whether there was under the Law a sure and certain promise of salvation, whether the fathers had the gift of the Spirit, whether they enjoyed God’s paternal favor through the remission of sins? Yes, it is evident that they worshipped God with a sincere heart and a pure conscience, and that they walked in his commandments, and this could not have been the case except they had been inwardly taught by the Spirit; and it is also evident, that whenever they thought of their sins, they were raised up by the assurance of a gratuitous pardon. And yet the Apostle, by referring the prophecy of Jeremiah to the coming of Christ, seems to rob them of these blessings. To this I reply, that he does not expressly deny that God formerly wrote his Law on their hearts and pardoned their sins, but he makes a comparison between the less and the greater. As then the Father has put forth more fully the power of his Spirit under the kingdom of Christ, and has poured forth more abundantly his mercy on mankind, this exuberance renders insignificant the small portion of grace which he had been pleased to bestow on the fathers. We also see that the promises were then obscure and intricate, so that they shone only like the moon and stars in comparison with the clear light of the Gospel which shines brightly on us.

If it be objected and said, that the faith and obedience of Abraham so excelled, that hardly any such an example can at this day be found in the whole world; my answer is this, that the question here is not about persons, but that reference is made to the economical condition of the Church. Besides, whatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them. Hence it was not without reason that the Apostle, in comparing the Gospel with the Law, took away from the latter what is peculiar to the former. There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question.

Calvin: Heb 8:11

11.=== And they shall not teach, === etc. We have said that the third point is as it were a part of the second, included in these words, I will put my laws in their mind; for it is the work of the Spirit of God to illuminate our minds, so that we may know what the will of God is, and also to bend our hearts to obedience. For the right knowledge of God is a wisdom which far surpasses the comprehension of man’s understanding; therefore, to attain it no one is able except through the secret revelation of the Spirit. Hence Isaiah, in speaking of the restoration of the Church, says, that all God’s children would be his disciples or scholars. (Isa 28:16.) The meaning of our Prophet is the same when he introduces God as saying, They shall know me. For God does not promise what is in our own power, but what he alone can perform for us. In short, these words of the Prophet are the same as though he had said, that our minds are blind and destitute of all right understanding until they are illuminated by the Spirit of God. Thus God is rightly known by those alone to whom he has been pleased by a special favor to reveal himself.

By saying, From the least to the greatest, he first intimates that God’s grace would be poured on all ranks of men, so that no class would be without it. He, secondly, reminds us that no rude and ignorant men are precluded from this heavenly wisdom, and that the great and the noble cannot attain it by their own acuteness or by the help of learning. Thus God connects the meanest and the lowest with the highest, so that their ignorance is no impediment to the one, nor can the other ascend so high by their own acumen; but the one Spirit is equally the teacher of them all.

Fanatical men take hence the occasion to do away with public preaching, as though it were of no use in Christ’s kingdom; but their madness may be easily exposed. Their objection is this: “After the coming of Christ every one is to teach his neighbor; away then with the external ministry, that a place may be given to the internal inspiration of God.” But they pass by this, that the Prophet does not wholly deny that they would teach one another, but his words are these, They shall not teach, saying, Know the Lord; as though he had said, “Ignorance shall not as heretofore so possess the minds of men as not to know who God is.” But we know that the use of teaching is twofold; first, that they who are wholly ignorant may learn the first elements; and secondly, that those who are initiated may make progress. As then Christians, as long as they live, ought to make progress, it cannot surely be said, that any one is so wise that he needs not to be taught; so that no small part of our wisdom is a teachable spirit. And what is the way of making progress if we desire to be the disciples of Christ? This is shown to us by Paul when he says, that Christ gave pastors and teachers. (Eph 4:11.) It hence appears that nothing less was thought of by the Prophet than to rob the Church of such a benefit. ¹³⁵ His only object was to show that God would make himself known to small and great, according to what was also predicted by Joe 2:28. It ought also in passing to be noticed, that this light of sacred knowledge is promised peculiarly to the Church; hence this passage belongs to none but to the household of faith. ¹³⁶

Calvin: Heb 8:13

13.=== In that he saith, A new, === etc. From the fact of one covenant being established, he infers the subversion of the other; and by calling it the old covenant, he assumes that it was to be abrogated; for what is old tends to a decay. ¹³⁷ Besides, as the new is substituted, it must be that the former has come to an end; for the second, as it has been said, is of another character. But if the whole dispensation of Moses, as far as it was opposed to the dispensation of Christ, has passed away, then the ceremonies also must have ceased.

Defender: Heb 8:6

With reference to Christ's function as "mediator" of the new covenant, see Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24. As mediator between men and God, He has revealed and implemented the new covenant."

Defender: Heb 8:8

Heb 8:8-12 constitute a quotation from Jer 31:31-34. Note that this "new covenant" is specifically affirmed, both by Jeremiah and here in the book of Hebrews, to be with Israel and Judah, not with the Christian church. However, since the covenant includes the promise of eternal forgiveness (Heb 8:12), it is evident that it applies only to those in Israel and Judah who have been redeemed through faith in Christ, not only as their Messiah, but also as their Savior. See Jer 31:31-37, note, Rom 11:25-26, note, and Eze 36:24-28, note. The promise must be fulfilled in the coming millennium, after "the time of Jacob's trouble" (Jer 30:7-9) during the "great tribulation" (Mat 24:21). At the climax of that terrible time, the people of Israel still living will all believe on Him "whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him" (Zec 12:10). "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness" (Zec 13:1). At the same time, since believers from both Israel and the Gentiles have been made one in Christ (Eph 2:11-18), the "new covenant," or "new testament," becomes applicable also to Gentile believers (Mat 26:28; 1Co 11:25; Heb 9:15; Heb 12:24)."

Defender: Heb 8:13

In effect, the old covenant with Israel, a conditional covenant made at the time of Moses and the Ten Commandments (Exo 19:5-8), began to decay when Israel rejected Christ (Luk 19:37-44) and finally vanished away completely with the destruction of the temple in a.d. 70."

TSK: Heb 8:6

obtained : Heb 8:7-13; 2Co 3:6-11

the mediator : Heb 7:22, Heb 12:24; Gal 3:19, Gal 3:20

covenant : or, testament, Heb 7:22, Heb 9:15-20

was established : Νενομοθηται [Strong’ s G3549], ""was ordained (or established) by law."

upon : Heb 8:10-12; Rom 9:4; Gal 3:16-21; Tit 1:2; 2Pe 1:4

TSK: Heb 8:7

had : Heb 8:6, Heb 7:11, Heb 7:18; Gal 3:21

TSK: Heb 8:8

he saith : Jer 31:31-34

the days : Heb 10:16, Heb 10:17; Jer 23:5, Jer 23:7, Jer 30:3, Jer 31:27, Jer 31:31-34, Jer 31:38; Luk 17:22

a new : Heb 9:15, Heb 12:24; Mat 26:28; Mar 14:24; Luk 22:20; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6

covenant : Isa 55:3; Jer 32:40, Jer 33:24-26; Eze 16:60,Eze 16:61, Eze 37:26

TSK: Heb 8:9

the covenant : Heb 9:18-20; Exo 24:3-11, Exo 34:10,Exo 34:27, Exo 34:28; Deu 5:2, Deu 5:3, Deu 29:1, Deu 29:12; Gal 3:15-19; Gal 4:24

I took : Gen 19:16; Job 8:20 *marg. Son 8:5; Isa 41:13, Isa 51:18; Mar 8:23; Act 9:8, Act 13:11

to lead : Exo 19:4, Exo 19:5; Psa 77:20, Psa 78:52-54, Psa 105:43, Psa 136:11-14; Isa 40:11, Isa 63:9; Isa 63:11-13

they continued : Exo 32:8; Deu 29:25, Deu 31:16-18; Jos 23:15, Jos 23:16; 2Ki 17:15-18; Psa 78:10; Psa 78:11, Psa 78:57; Isa 24:5, Isa 24:6; Jer 11:7, Jer 11:8, Jer 22:8, Jer 22:9, Jer 31:32; Eze 16:8, Eze 16:59; Eze 20:37, Eze 20:38

regarded : Jdg 10:13, Jdg 10:14; Lam 4:16; Amo 5:22; Mal 2:13

TSK: Heb 8:10

this is : Heb 10:16, Heb 10:17

I will put : Gr. I will give, Exo 24:4, Exo 24:7, Exo 34:1, Exo 34:27; Deu 30:6; Jer 31:33, Jer 32:40; Eze 11:19, Eze 36:26, Eze 36:27; 2Co 3:3, 2Co 3:7, 2Co 3:8; Jam 1:18, Jam 1:21; 1Pe 1:23

in : or, upon

I will be : Heb 11:16; Gen 17:7, Gen 17:8; Son 2:16; Jer 24:7, Jer 31:1, Jer 31:33, Jer 32:38; Eze 11:20, Eze 36:28; Eze 37:27, Eze 39:22; Hos 1:10, Hos 2:23; Zec 8:8, Zec 13:9; Mat 22:32; 1Co 6:16

they shall : Exo 19:5, Exo 19:6; Rom 9:25, Rom 9:26; Tit 2:14; 1Pe 2:9

TSK: Heb 8:11

they shall : Isa 2:3, Isa 54:13; Jer 31:34; Joh 6:45; 1Jo 2:27

Know the : 2Ki 17:27, 2Ki 17:28; 1Ch 28:9; 2Ch 30:22; Ezr 7:25

for all : Isa 54:13; Jer 24:7; Eze 34:30; Hab 2:14; 1Jo 5:20

from : Jer 6:13, Jer 42:1, Jer 42:8, Jer 44:12; Act 8:10

TSK: Heb 8:12

Heb 10:16, Heb 10:17; Psa 25:7, Psa 65:3; Isa 43:25, Isa 44:22; Jer 33:8, Jer 50:20; Mic 7:19; Act 13:38, Act 13:39; Rom 11:27; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1Jo 1:7-9, 1Jo 2:1, 1Jo 2:2; Rev 1:5

TSK: Heb 8:13

A new : Heb 8:8

he hath : Heb 7:11, Heb 7:12, Heb 7:18, Heb 7:19, Heb 9:9, Heb 9:10

ready : Isa 51:6; Mat 24:35; 1Co 13:8; 2Co 5:17

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Heb 8:6

But now hath he obtained - That is, Christ.

A more excellent ministry - A service of a higher order, or of a more exalted nature. It was the real and substantial service of which the other was but the emblem; it pertained to things in heaven, while that was concerned with the earthly tabernacle; it was enduring, while that was to vanish away; see the notes on 2Co 3:6-9.

By how much - By as much as the new covenant is more important than the old, by so much does his ministry exceed in dignity that under the ancient dispensation.

He is the mediator - see the notes on Gal 3:19-20, where the word "mediator"is explained. It means here that Christ officiates between God and man according to the arrangements of the new covenant.

Of a better covenant - Margin, "Or testament."This word properly denotes a "disposition, arrangement, or ordering"of things; and in the Scriptures is employed to describe the arrangement which God has made to secure the maintenance of his worship on earth, and the salvation of people. It is uniformly used in the Septuagint and in the New Testament to denote the covenant which God makes with people. The word which "properly"denotes a "covenant or compact"- συνθήκη sunthēkē - "suntheke"is never used. The writers of the New Testament evidently derived its use from the Septuagint, but why the authors of that version employed it as denoting a "will"rather than the proper one denoting a "compact,"is unknown. It has been supposed by some, and the conjecture is not wholly improbable, that it was because they were unwilling to represent God as making a "compact"or "agreement"with people, but chose rather to represent him as making a mere "arrangement or ordering of things;"compare the notes on Heb 8:8, and Heb 9:16-17. This is a better covenant than the old, inasmuch as it relates mainly to the pardon of sin; to a spiritual and holy religion; see Heb 8:10. The former related more to external rites and observances, and was destined to vanish away; see Heb 8:13.

Which was established upon better promises - The promises in the first covenant pertained mainly to the present life. They were promises of length of days; of increase of numbers; of seed time and harvest; of national privileges, and of extraordinary peace, abunance, and prosperity. That there was also the promise of eternal life, it would be wrong to doubt; but this was not the main thing. In the new covenant, however, the promise of spiritual blessings becomes the principal thing. The mind is directed to heaven; the heart is cheered with the hopes of immortal life, the favor of God and the anticipation of heaven are secured in the most ample and solemn manner.

Barnes: Heb 8:7

For if that first covenant had been faultless - see the note on Heb 7:11. It is implied here that God had said that that covenant was not perfect or faultless. The meaning is not that that first covenant made under Moses had any real faults - or inculcated what was wrong, but that it did not contain the ample provision for the pardon of sin and the salvation of the soul which was desirable. It was merely "preparatory"to the gospel.

Then should no place have been sought for the second - There could not have been - inasmuch as in that case it would have been impossible to have bettered it, and any change would have been only for the worse.

Barnes: Heb 8:8

For finding fault with them - Or rather, "finding fault, he says to them."The difference is only in the punctuation, and this change is required by the passage itself. This is commonly interpreted as meaning that the fault was not found with "them"- that is, with the Jewish people, for they had had nothing to do in giving the covenant, but "with the covenant itself.""Stating its defects, he had said to them that he would give them one more perfect, and of which that was only preparatory."So Grotius, Stuart, Rosenmuller, and Erasmus understand it. Doddridge, Koppe, and many others understand it as it is in our translation, as implying that the fault was found with the people, and they refer to the passage quoted from Jeremiah for proof, where the complaint is of the people. The Greek may bear either construction; but may we not adopt a somewhat different interpretation still?

May not this be the meaning? For using the language of complaint, or language that implied that there was defect or error, he speaks of another covenant. According to this, the idea would be, not that he found fault specifically either with the covenant or the people, but generally that he used language which implied that there was defect somewhere when he promised another and a better covenant. The word rendered "finding fault"properly means to censure, or to blame. It is rendered in Mar 7:2, "they found fault,"to wit, with those who ate with unwashed hands; in Rom 9:19, "why doth he yet find fault?"It occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, It is language used where wrong has been done; where there is ground of complaint; where it is desirable that there should be a change. In the passage here quoted from Jeremiah, it is not expressly stated that God found fault either with the covenant or with the people, but that he promised that he would give another covenant, and that it should be "different"from what he gave them when they came out of Egypt - implying that there was defect in that, or that it was not "faultless."The whole meaning is, that there was a deficiency which the giving of a new covenant would remove.

He saith - In Jer 31:31-34. The apostle has not quoted the passage literally as it is in the Hebrew, but he has retained the substance, and the sense is not essentially varied. The quotation appears to have been made partly from the Septuagint, and partly from memory. This often occurs in the New Testament.

Behold - This particle is designed to call attention to what was about to be said as important, or as having some special claim to notice. It is of very frequent occurrence in the Scriptures, being much more freely used by the sacred writers than it is in the classic authors.

The days come - The time is coming. This refers doubtless to the times of the Messiah. Phrases such as these, "in the last days,""in after times,"and "the time is coming,"are often used in the Old Testament to denote the last dispensation of the world - the dispensation when the affairs of the world would be wound up; see the phrase explained in the Heb 1:2 note, and Isa 2:2 note. There can be no doubt that as it is used by Jeremiah it refers to the times of the gospel.

When I will make a new covenant - A covenant that shall contemplate somewhat different ends; that shall have different conditions, and that shall be more effective in restraining from sin. The word "covenant"here refers to the arrangement, plan, or dispensation into which he would enter in his dealings with people. On the meaning of the word, see the Act 7:8 note, and Heb 9:16-17 notes. The word "covenant"with us commonly denotes a compact or agreement between two parties that are equal, and who are free to enter into the agreement or not. In this sense, of course, it cannot be used in relation to the arrangement which God makes with man. There is:

(1)\caps1     n\caps0 o equality between them, and,

(2)\caps1     m\caps0 an is not at liberty to reject any proposal which God shall make.

The word, therefore, is used in a more general sense, and more in accordance with the original meaning of the Greek word. It has been above remarked (see the notes on Heb 8:6), that the "proper"word to denote "covenant,"or "compact"- συνθηκη sunthēkē - "syntheke"- is never used either in the Septuagint or in the New Testament - another word - διαθήκη diathēkē - "diatheke"- being carefully employed. Whether the reason there suggested for the adoption of this word in the Septuagint be the real one or not, the fact is indisputable. I may be allowed to suggest as possible here an additional reason why this so uniformly occurs in the New Testament. It is, that the writers of the New Testament never meant to represent the transactions between God and man as a "compact or covenant"properly so called. They have studiously avoided it, and their uniform practice, in making this nice distinction between the two words, may show the real sense in which the Hebrew word rendered "covenant"- בּרית b^e riyt - is used in the Old Testament. The word which they employ - διαθήκη diathēkē - never means a compact or agreement as between equals.

It remotely and secondarily means a "will, or testament"- and hence, our phrase "New Testament."But this is not the sense in which it is used in the Bible - for God has never made a will in the sense of a testamentary disposition of what belongs to him. We are referred; therefore, in order to arrive at the true Scripture view of this whole matter, to the original meaning of the word - διαθήκη diathēkē - as denoting a "disposition, arrangement, plan;"then what is ordered, a law, precept, promise, etc. Unhappily we have no single word which expresses the idea, and hence, a constant error has existed in the church - either keeping up the notion of a "compact"- as if God could make one with people; or the idea of a will - equally repugnant to truth. The word διαθήκη diathēkē is derived from a verb - διατίθημι diatithēmi - meaning to place apart, to set in order; and then to appoint, to make over, to make an arrangement with. Hence, the word διαθήκη diathēkē - means properly the "arrangement or disposition"which God made with people in regard to salvation; the system of statutes, directions, laws, and promises by which people are to become subject to him, and to be saved. The meaning here is, that he would make a "new"arrangement, contemplating as a primary thing that the Law should be written in the "heart;"an arrangement which would be especially spiritual in its character, and which would be attended with the diffusion of just views of the Lord.

With the house of Israel - The family, or race of Israel, for so the word "house"is often used in the Scriptures and elsewhere. The word "Israel"is used in the Scriptures in the following senses:

(1)\caps1     a\caps0 s a name given to Jacob because he wrestled with the angel of God and prevailed as a prince; Gen 32:28.

(2)\caps1     a\caps0 s denoting all who were descended from him - called "the children of Israel"- or the Jewish nation.

(3)\caps1     a\caps0 s denoting the kingdom of the ten tribes - or the kingdom of Samaria, or Ephraim - that kingdom having taken the name Israel in contradistinction from the other kingdom, which was called "Judah."

(4)\caps1     a\caps0 s denoting the people of God in general - his true and sincere friends - his church; see the notes on Rom 2:28-29; Rom 9:6.

In this place quoted from Jeremiah, it seems to be used to denote the kingdom of Israel in contradistinction from that of Judah, and "together they denote the whole people of God, or the whole Hebrew nation."This arrangement was ratified and confirmed by the gift of the Messiah, and by implanting his laws in the heart. It is not necessary to understand this as referring to the whole of the Jews, or to the restoration of the ten tribes; but the words "Israel"and "Judah"are used to denote the people of God in general, and the idea is, that with the true Israel under the Messiah the laws of God would be written in the heart rather than be mere external observances.

And with the house of Judah - The kingdom of Judah. This kingdom consisted of two tribes - Judah and Benjamin. The tribe of Benjamin was, however, small, and the name was lost in that of Judah.

Barnes: Heb 8:9

Not according to the covenant ... - An arrangement or dispensation relating mainly to outward observances, and to temporal blessings. The meaning is, that the new dispensation would be different from what was made with them when they came out of Egypt. In what respects it would differ is specified in Heb 8:10-12.

Because they continued not in my covenant - In Jeremiah, in the Hebrew, this is, "while my covenant they brake."That is, they failed to comply with the conditions on which I promised to bestow blessings upon them. In Jeremiah this is stated as a simple fact; in the manner in which the apostle quotes it, it is given as a reason why he would give a new arrangement. The apostle has quoted it literally from the Septuagint, and the sense is not materially varied. The word rendered "because"- ὅτι hoti - may mean "since"- "since they did not obey that covenant, and it was ineffectual in keeping them from sin, showing that it was not perfect or complete in regard to what was needful to be done for man, a new arrangement shall be made that will be without defect."This accords with the reasoning of the apostle; and the idea is, simply, that an arrangement may be made for man adapted to produce important ends in one state of society or one age of the world, which would not be well adapted to him in another, and which would not accomplish all which it would be desirable to accomplish for the race. So an arrangement may be made for teaching children which would not answer the purpose of instructing those of mature years, and which at that time of life may be superseded by another. A system of measures may be adapted to the infancy of society, or to a comparatively rude period of the world, which would be ill adapted to a more advanced state of society. Such was the Hebrew system. It was well adapted to the Jewish community in their circumstances, and answered the end then in view. It served to keep them separate from other people; to preserve the knowledge and the worship of the true God, and to introduce the gospel dispensation.

And I regarded them not - In Jeremiah this is, "Although I was an husband unto them."The Septuagint is as it is quoted here by Paul. The Hebrew is, ואנכי בצלתי בם wa'aanokiy baa‛altiy baam - which may be rendered, "although I was their Lord;"or as it is translated by Gesenius, "and I rejected them."The word בּצל bàal - means:

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 o be lord or master over anything Isa 26:13;

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 o become the husband of anyone Deu 21:13; Deu 24:1;

(3)\caps1     w\caps0 ith b^a -, "to disdain, to reject"; so Jer 3:14. It is very probable that this is the meaning here, for it is not only adopted by the Septuagint, but by the Syriac. So Abulwalid, Kimchi, and Rabbi Tanchum understood it.

The Arabic word means "to reject, to loath, to disdain."All that is necessary to observe here is, that it cannot be demonstrated that the apostle has not given the true sense of the prophet. The probability is, that the Septuagint translators would give the meaning which was commonly understood to be correct, and there is still more probability that the Syriac translator would adopt the true sense, for.

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 he Syriac and Hebrew languages strongly resemble each other; and,

(2)\caps1     t\caps0 he old Syriac version - the Peshito - is incomparably a better translation than the Septuagint.

If this, therefore, be the correct translation, the meaning is, that since they did not regard and obey the laws which he gave them, God would reject them as his people, and give new laws better adapted to save people. Instead of regarding and treating them as his friends, he would punish them for their offences, and visit them with calamities.

Barnes: Heb 8:10

For this is the covenant - This is the arrangement, or the dispensation which shall succeed the old one. "With the house of Israel."With the true Israel; that is, with all those whom he will regard and treat as his friends.

After those days - This may either mean, "after those days I will put my laws in their hearts,"or, "I will make this covenant with them after those days."This difference is merely in the punctuation, and the sense is not materially affected. It seems, to me, however, that the meaning of the Hebrew in Jeremiah is, "in those after days"(compare notes on Isa 2:1)\}.

I will put my laws into their mind - that is, in that subsequent period, called in Scripture "the after times,""the last days,""the ages to come,"meaning the last dispensation of the world. Thus interpreted, the sense is, that this would be done in the times of the Messiah. "I will put my laws into their mind."Margin, "Give."The word "give"in Hebrew is often used in the sense of "put."The meaning here is, that they would not be mere external observances, but would affect the conscience and the heart. The laws of the Hebrews pertained mainly to external rites and ceremonies; the laws of the new dispensation would relate particularly to the inner man, and be designed to control the heart. The grand uniqueness of the Christian system is, that it regulates the conscience and the principles of the soul rather than external matters. It prescribes few external rites, and those are exceedingly simple, and are merely the proper expressions of the pious feelings supposed to be in the heart; and all attempts either to increase the number of these rites, or to make them imposing by their gorgeousness, have done just so much to mar the simplicity of the gospel, and to corrupt religion.

And write them in their hearts - Margin, "Upon."Not on fables of stone or brass, but on the soul itself. That is, the obedience rendered will not be external. The law of the new system will have living power, and bind the faculties of the soul to obedience. The commandment there will be written in more lasting characters than if engraved on fables of stone.

And I will be to them a God - This is quoted literally from the Hebrew. The meaning is, that he would sustain to them the appropriate relation of a God; or, if the expression may be allowed, he would be to them what a God should be, or what it is desirable that people should find in a God. We speak of a father’ s acting in a manner appropriate to the character of a father; and the meaning here is, that he would be to his people all that is properly implied in the name of God. He would be their Lawgiver, their counsellor, their protector, their Redeemer, their guide. He would provide for their wants, defend them in danger, pardon their sins, comfort them in trials, and save their souls. He would be a faithful friend, and would never leave them nor forsake them. It is one of the inestimable privileges of his people that Jehovah is their God. The living and ever-blessed Being who made the heavens sustains to them the relation of a Protector and a Friend, and they may look up to heaven feeling that he is all which they could desire in the character of a God.

And they shall be to me a people - This is not merely stated as a "fact,"but as a "privilege."It is an inestimable blessing to be regarded as one of the people of God, and to feel that we belong to him - that we are associated with those whom he loves, and whom he treats as his friends.

Barnes: Heb 8:11

And they shall not teach every man his neighbor ... - That is, no one shall be under a necessity of imparting instruction to another, or of exhorting him to become acquainted with the Lord. This is designed to set forth another of the advantages which would attend the new dispensation. In the previous verse it had been said that one advantage of that economy would be, that the Law would be written on the heart, and that they who were thus blessed would be regarded as the people of God. Another advantage over the "old"arrangement or covenant is here stated. It is, that the knowledge of the Lord and of the true religion would be deeply engraved on the minds of all, and that there would be no necessity for mutual exhortation and counsel. "They shall have a much more certain and effectual teaching than they can derive from another.""Doddridge."This passage does not refer to the fact that the true religion will be universally diffused, but that among those who are interested in the blessings of the new covenant there would be an accurate and just knowledge of the Lord. In some way they would be so taught respecting his character that they would not need the aid to be derived from others. All under that dispensation, or sustaining to him the relation of "a people,"would in fact have a correct knowledge of the Lord. This could not be said of the old dispensation, for.

(1)\caps1     t\caps0 heir religion consisted much in outward observances.

(2)\caps1     i\caps0 t was not to such an extent as the new system a dispensation of the Holy Spirit.

(3)\caps1     t\caps0 here were not as many means as now for learning the true character of God.

(4)\caps1     t\caps0 he fullest revelations had not been made to them of that character. That was reserved for the coming of the Saviour, and under him it was intended that there should be communicated the full knowledge of the character of God.

Many mss., and those among the best, here have πολίτην politēn - "citizen;""fellow-citizen,"instead of πλησίον plēsion , "neighbor,"and this is adopted by Griesbach, Tittman, Rosenmuller, Knapp, Stuart, and by many of the fathers. It is also in the version of the Septuagint in the place quoted from Jeremiah. It is not easy to determine the true reading, but the word "neighbor"better agrees with the meaning of the Hebrew - רץ rēà - and there is strong authority from the mss. and the versions for this reading.

And every man his brother - Another form of expression, meaning that there would be no necessity that one should teach another.

Saying, Know the Lord - That is, become acquainted with God; learn his character and his will. The idea is, that the true knowledge of Yahweh would prevail as a characteristic of those times.

For all shall know me - That is, all those referred to; all who are interested in the new covenant, and who are partakers of its blessings. It does not mean that all persons, in all lands, would then know the Lord - though the time will come when that will be true; but the expression is to be limited by the point under discussion. That point is not that the knowledge of the Lord will fill the whole world, but that all who are interested in the new dispensation will have a much more full and clear knowledge of God than was possessed under the old. Of the truth of this no one can doubt. Christians have a much more perfect knowledge of God and of his government than could have been learned merely from the revelations of the Old Testament.

Barnes: Heb 8:12

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness ... - That is, the blessing of "pardon"will be much more richly enjoyed under the new dispensation than it was under the old. This is the "fourth"circumstance adduced in which the new covenant will surpass the old. That was comparatively severe in its inflictions (see Heb 10:28); marked every offence with strictness, and employed the language of mercy much less frequently than that of justice. It was a system where law and justice reigned; not where mercy was the crowning and prevalent attribute. It was true that it contemplated pardon, and made arrangements for it; but it is still true that this is much more prominent in the new dispensation than in the old. It is there the leading idea. It is what separates it from all other systems. The entire arrangement is one for the pardon of sin in a manner consistent with the claims of law and justice, and it bestows the benefit of forgiveness in the most ample and perfect manner on all who are interested in the plan. In fact, the uniqueness by which the gospel is distinguished from all other systems, ancient and modern, philosophic and moral, pagan and deistical, is that it is a system making provision for the forgiveness of sin, and actually bestowing pardon on the guilty. This is the center, the crown, the glory of the new dispensation. God is merciful to the unrighteousness of people and their sins are remembered no more.

Will I remember no more - This is evidently spoken after the manner of men, and in accordance with human apprehension. It cannot mean literally that God forgets that people are sinners, but it means that he treats them as if this were forgotten. Their sins are not charged upon them, and they are no more punished than if they had passed entirely out of the recollection. God treats them with just as much kindness, and regards them with as sincere affection, as if their sins ceased wholly to be remembered, or which is the same thing, as if they had never sinned.

Barnes: Heb 8:13

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old - That is, the use of the word "new"implies that the one which it was to supersede was "old."New and old stand in contradistinction from each other. Thus, we speak of a new and old house, a new and old garment, etc. The object of the apostle is to show that by the very fact of the arrangement for a new dispensation differing so much from the old, it was implied of necessity that that was to be superseded, and would vanish away. This was one of the leading points at which he arrived.

Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away - This is a general truth which would be undisputed, and which Paul applies to the case under consideration. An old house, or garment; an ancient tree; an aged man, all have indications that they are soon to disappear. They cannot be expected to remain long. The very fact of their growing old is an indication that they will soon be gone. So Paul says it was with the dispensation that was represented as old. It had symptoms of decay. It had lost the vigour which it had when it was fresh and new; it had every mark of an antiquated and a declining system; and it had been expressly declared that a new and more perfect dispensation was to be given to the world. Paul concluded, therefore, that the Jewish system must soon disappear.

Remarks

1. The fact that we have a high priest, is suited to impart consolation to the pious mind; Heb 8:1-5. He ever lives, and is ever the same. He is a minister of the true sanctuary, and is ever before the mercy-seat. He enters there not once a year only, but has entered there to abide there for ever. We can never approach the throne of mercy without having a high priest there - for he at all times, day and night, appears before God. The merits of his sacrifice are never exhausted, and God is never wearied with hearing his pleadings in behalf of his people. He is the same that he was when he gave himself on the cross. He has the same love and the same compassion which he had then, and that love which led him to make the atonement, will lead him always to regard with tenderness those for whom he died.

2. It is a privilege to live under the blessings of the Christian system; Heb 8:6. We have a better covenant than the old one was - one less expensive and less burdensome, and one that is established upon better promises. Now the sacrifice is made, and we do not have to renew it every day. It was made once for all, and need never be repeated. Having now a high priest in heaven who has made the sacrifice, we may approach him in any part of the earth, and at all times, and feel that our offering will be acceptable to him. If there is any blessing for which we ought to be thankful, it is for the Christian religion; for we have only to look at any portion of the pagan world, or even to the condition of the people of God under the comparatively dark and obscure Jewish dispensation, to see abundant reasons for thanksgiving for what we enjoy.

3. Let us often contemplate the mercies of the new dispensation with which we are favored - the favors of that religion whose smiles and sunshine we are permitted to enjoy; Heb 8:10-12. It contains all that we want, and is exactly adapted to our condition. It has that for which every man should be thankful; and has not one thing which should lead a man to reject it. It furnishes all the security which we could desire for our salvation; lays upon us no oppressive burdens or charges; and accomplishes all which we ought to desire in our souls. Let us contemplate a moment the arrangements of that "covenant,"and see how suited it is to make man blessed and happy.

First, It writes the laws of God on the mind and the heart; Heb 8:10. It not only reveals them, but it secures their observance. It has made arrangements for disposing people to keep the laws a thing which has not been introduced into any other system. Legislators may enact good laws, but they cannot induce others to obey them; parents may utter good precepts, but they cannot engrave them on the hearts of their children; and sages may express sound maxims and just precepts in morals, but there is no security that they will be regarded. So in all the pagan world - there is no power to inscribe good maxims and rules of living on the heart. They may be written; recorded on tablets; hung up in temples; but still people will not regard them. They will still give indulgence to evil passions, and lead wicked lives. But it is not so with the arrangement which God has made in the plan of salvation. One of the very first provisions of that plan is, that the laws shall be inscribed on the heart, and that there shall be a disposition to obey. Such a systcm is what man wants, and such a system he can nowhere else find.

Secondly, This new arrangement "reveals to us"a God such as we need; Heb 8:10. It contains the promise that he will be "our God."He will be to his people all that can be "desired in God;"all that man could wish. He is just such a God as the human mind, when it is pure, most loves; has all the attributes which it could be desired there should be in his character; has done all that we could desire a God to do; and is ready to do all that we could wish a God to perform. "Man wants a God;"a God in whom he can put confidence, and on whom he can rely. The ancient Greek philosopher wanted a God - and he would then have made a beautiful and efficient system of morals; the pagan want a God - to dwell in their empty temples, and in their corrupt hearts; the Atheist wants a God to make him calm, contented, and happy in this life - for he has no God now, and man everywhere, wretched, sinful, suffering, dying, wants a God. Such a God is revealed in the Bible - one whose character we may contemplate with ever-increasing admiration; one who has all the attributes which we can desire; one who will minister to us all the consolation which we need in this world; and one who will be to us the same God forever and ever.

Thirdly, The new covenant contemplates the diffusion of "knowledge;"Heb 8:11. This too was what man needed, for everywhere else he has been ignorant of God and of the way of salvation. The whole pagan world is sunk in ignorance, and indeed all people, except as they are enlightened by the gospel, are in profound darkness on the great questions which most nearly pertain to their welfare. But it is not so with the new arrangement which God has made with his people. It is a fact that they know the Lord, and a dispensation which would produce that is just what man needed. There are two things hinted at in Heb 8:11, which are worthy of more than a passing notice, illustrating the excellency of the Christian religion. The first is, that in the new dispensation "all would know the Lord."The matter of fact is, that the obscurest and most unlettered Christian often has a knowledge of God which sages never had, and which is never obtained except by the teachings of the Spirit of God. However this may be accounted for, the fact cannot be denied.

There is a clear and elevating view of God; a knowledge of him which exerts a practical influence on the heart, and which transforms the soul; and a correctness of apprehension in regard to what truth is, possessed by the humble Christian, though a peasant, which philosophy never imparted to its votaries. Many a sage would be instructed in the truths of religion if he would sit down and converse with the comparatively unlearned Christian, who has no book but his Bible. The other thing hinted at here is, that all would know the Lord "from the least to the greatest."Children and youth, as well as age and experience, would have an acquaintance with God. This promise is remarkably verified under the new dispensation. One of the most striking things of the system is, the attention which it pays to the young; one of its most wonderful effects is the knowledge which it is the means of imparting to those in early life. Many a child in the Sunday School has a knowledge of God which Grecian sages never had; many a youth in the Church has a more consistent acquaintance with God’ s real plan of governing and saving people, than all the teachings which philosophy could ever furnish.

Fourthly, The new dispensation contemplates the pardon of sin, and is, therefore, suited to the condition of man; Heb 8:12. It is what man needs. The knowledge of some way of pardon is what human nature has been sighing for for ages; which has been sought in every system of religion, and by every bloody offering; but which has never been found elsewhere. The philosopher had no assurance that God would pardon, and indeed one of the chief aims of the philosopher has been to convince himself that he had no need of pardon. The pagan have had no assurance that their offerings have availed to put away the divine anger, and to obtain forgiveness. "The only assurance anywhere furnished that sin may be forgiven, is in the Bible."This is the great uniqueness of the system recorded there, and this it is which renders it so valuable above all the other systems. It furnishes the assurance that sins may be pardoned, and shows how it may be done. This is what we must have, or perish. And why, since Christianity reveals a way of forgiveness - a way honorable to God and not degrading to man - why should any man reject it? Why should not the guilty embrace a system which proclaims pardon to the guilty, and which assures all that, if they will embrace him who is the "Mediator of the new covenant,""God will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and will remember their iniquities no more."

Poole: Heb 8:6

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry: but is here adversative, setting this High Priest over against and above the Aaronical, on the account both of his ministry and covenant, of which theirs were but types and shadows. The Lord Christ hath now really and fully obtained, and doth possess as the gospel High Priest, a public ministration, which, as to its glorious effects, transcendently excels the Levitical, Heb 9:11,12,14 10:12,14,18 .

By how much also he is the mediator by how much he is Mediator of a better covenant, by so much he hath a more excellent ministry, so that this is a proof of the former. Mesithv is a middler, one that interposeth, not only between persons at distance, but at enmity: his parleying between God and sinners could profit little, God being so highly injured by and offended with them; and therefore he mediates here as a Surety, as Heb 7:22 , and so undertakes for sinners to satisfy God, wronged by them, by sacrificing himself for them, and so secure the performance of his covenant mercy to them. By which sacrifice he purchaseth and merits the Holy Spirit, to enable man to perform the conditions which God requireth from him; to repent, and believe, and obey the Redeemer, and wholly to rely upon his sacrifice for God’ s favour; as by his intercession he secures to them all the blessings of God’ s covenant for time and eternity, as proved, Heb 9:1-28 .

Of a better covenant the gospel covenant, which was a solemn agreement between an offended God and sinners; wherein he binds himself to give forth pardon and life to them upon certain conditions; and they bind themselves to perform, in order to the obtaining these. Which covenant was brought about by the intercession of Christ the Mediator between them, who became a Surety for the performance of it, and solemnly ratified and confirmed it by the sacrifice of himself; as other covenants were by the blood of federal sacrifices, of which we have frequent mention in the Scripture; called better than the Mosaical covenant, not for the matter of it, but for the manner of exhibition, Heb 7:22 , being comparatively a greater good than that which was less, Gal 3:17 .

Which was established upon better promises which gospel covenant was nenomoyethtai , as the Mosaical one, confirmed, ratified, and established by the blood of the sacrifice according to the law, Heb 9:18-21 . This was its sanction, it was by it settled unchangeable, attended with and founded on the best promises, such as were more spiritual, clear, extensive, and universal, than those in the Mosaical covenant were.

Poole: Heb 8:7

This proves the gospel covenant better than the Mosaical, for if it had not, there would have been no second.

For if that first covenant had been faultless: that first covenant, of which Moses was the mediator, as to the administration of it, (as to the matter of it, it was the same from Adam throughout all ages), was faulty; not because God made it, though it was a less perfect good than what succeeded it; it was able to save those who would rightly use it, and come unto Christ by it, Gal 3:24 ; but accidentally, by reason of the priests’ faults, and people’ s sinfulness, it became wholly ineffectual to them for saving them; therefore the blame and fault of it is charged on them, Heb 8:8 .

Then should no place have been sought for the second: the question here is vehemently assertive; if that covenant in its Mosaical administration had reached effectually its end, brought all that were under it to Christ, to be saved by him, no place nor room was there, that then being so perfect, for another to succeed it, God would have rested there; but his excellent wisdom and counsel determined to put in being the second, and to set it in the place of the first, that was faulty, and which was to be abrogated by it, Gal 3:21 .

Poole: Heb 8:8

This is the proof of the faultiness of the Mosaical covenant, from the right cause of it, those who did abuse it.

For finding fault with them: the Lord, by the prophet Jeremiah, being distasted and offended, accuseth, and with complaints and aggravations chargeth the houses of Israel and Judah, both priests and people, for frustrating God’ s covenant with them by their unbelief, mistaking God’ s mind in it, and using it to justify them, and not bring them unto Christ, who justifieth the ungodly. That the covenant was not faulty in itself, but only accidentally, is evident; for it was given to change hearts, though its spiritual efficacy was not so fully revealed, Deu 10:16 30:6 ; for Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, were saved by the right use of it. It did not bind them by works to obtain justification, for it was delivered with blood, which taught them it was to be had only by faith in Christ’ s blood. But when they would not be led to Christ by it, they were faulty, and not the covenant, and so they perished in their gainsaying. The administration of this covenant by men being so defective, he finds fault with them, and resolves on the change of the administration.

Behold, the days come: Behold, imports attention to and observation of the rare, excellent, and important thing proposed in the word to the eye and mind of those for whom it was written, and to whom it is sent: so is this here, in Jer 31:31 ; the days of the Messiah’ s coming in the flesh, when a woman shall compass a man, as Jer 31:22 ; the known times of grace, Jer 23:5,6 . A time to come when the prophet wrote it, past when the apostle quotes it here; so ordered by God to teach those there the imperfection of that covenant administration, so as they might make out to Christ by it, and not rest in it, as he had revealed him to them in the prophecy; and to strengthen believers in their faith in Christ when come, and to convince and leave inexcusable such Jews as would not believe in him, and further to confirm his priesthood.

Saith the Lord: this is not an invention of the prophet, but a revelation of the Supreme Lord to him. It is his certain, true, and infallible speech, illuminating his mind by it, and directing him in his words and writings for to convey it to those to whom he sent him; so that the word is firm, and worthy of all acceptation; and the more of the Hebrews, because sent by Jeremiah, a Levitical priest, to them.

I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: I will make perfect and complete. In the prophet it is ytrkw I will strike or cut, because in covenant-making the sacrifices were cut asunder; and thence is it transferred figuratively, to signify covenant-making. A covenant, for form and manner of administration, second, later, better, stronger, and more excellent than the Mosaical; such as should be effectual to God’ s saving ends in the ministry of Christ, with the whole seed of Jacob, the visible church of God, when the prophet wrote this, divided into two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and that of Israel removed afar off by the Assyrian, and seemingly lost, but by this covenant to be made one people again, and to be saved by Christ, David their King, Jer 23:5,6 Eze 37:21-28 .

Poole: Heb 8:9

The Spirit proceedeth to show the form of the covenant denied.

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers not the same covenant for habit or form, nor any like unto the same for the manner of its administration, as was made by the Lord with the Hebrews their progenitors, when they were strangers in Egypt, and under great bondage there.

In the day when I took them by the hand the day that I laid my hand on them, and took hold of theirs, even the last day of the four hundred and thirty years foretold to Abraham, Gen 15:13,16 ; compare Exo 12:40,41 ; as a father takes hold of his child to pluck it out of danger. It is a metaphor setting out God’ s special act of providence, in their miraculous deliverance out of Egypt, keeping them in his hand, while he was smiting their enemies; setting them at liberty, and then striking covenant with them, and binding them by it to be his obedient people, as such redemption mercy did deserve. At which time the covenant was unlike the promise or gospel one for external habit and form only, as carried on by a ceremonial law and priesthood, over which Christ’ s was to have the pre-eminency for power and efficacy of administration.

Because they continued not in my covenant these unbelieving Hebrews, under that administration of the covenant, continued not faithful to it, as by their own word and consent they bound themselves to it, but apostatized from God and his truth, Deu 5:27 . The word used by the prophet Nrph signifieth the breaking and making void the covenant. The administration of it did not hold them in close to God, but they frustrated all God’ s ordinances, turned idolaters, forsook the Lord, and worshipped the gods of the nations round about.

And I regarded them not hmelhsa , I took no care of them, I did neither esteem nor regard them, but cast them off from being my people for their lewd, treacherous covenant-breaking with me; they would not return unto me, and I rejected them from being my people, or a people as they were before. Who knows where the nine tribes and the half are? And in what a dispersed, shattered condition are the remaining Jews to this day! The apostle in this follows the Septuagint, who read the effect of their sin, their rejection, for what was their sin itself, which by the prophet is expressed yhleb ybzaw should I be a Lord or Husband to them; which is an aggravation of their sin from God’ s dominion over them or marriage-relation to them; yet did they break his marriage-covenant with them according to their lewd and whorish heart: see Eze 16:1-63,23:1-49 . But in this quotation by the apostle, and translation of the Septuagint, it is a metonymy of the effect for the cause, to reject, cast off, or neglect them for their treachery to him in their marriage covenant, which was the true cause of it. The verb itself leb may signify to neglect or despise; and so Kimchi reads it, Jer 3:1 , and is so rendered in this place by other rabbies, and so it signifieth in other languages.

Saith the Lord: this is God’ s irrevocable word, used four times by the prophet, Jer 31:31-34 , and three times repeated by the apostle here, as proper only to the Lord; none can speak so truly, certainly, infallibly, as he.

Poole: Heb 8:10

For this is the covenant that I will make : for, showeth it should not be such a covenant-form as was given on Mount Sinai, it being wholly different, and that denied before, being carnal and ceremonious, full of types and shadows, and through their sin ineffectual to them. This is the firm administration of the covenant which I will strike. To which three words answer is in this scripture, I will perfect, make, and dispose; which last is the root from whence the notion of a covenant in the Greek is derived, diayhsomai .

With the house of Israel: Israel is the comprehensive name of all the twelve tribes, as Heb 8:8 ; compare Exo 16:31 40:38 ; and is so used by the Lord himself Mat 10:6 , and by Peter, Act 2:36 .

After those days in the prophet it is, after those days of their delivery from Babylon, Jer 31:1,8,11,16,21 , but especially when those days of the first administration of the covenant are accomplished, when the fulness of time for the Messiah’ s revelation is come, Gal 4:4 . To this God again puts his seal, he saith it.

I will put my laws into their mind the great God, the Redeemer himself the infinitely wise, and good, and powerful Spirit, who only can reach the soul, will make impressions, and write clear characters of Divine truth on it, 2Co 3:3 . None can alter, new mould, frame, and temper a spirit, but him, who hath a true original right of all the good he promiseth, which he will freely, graciously dispense from himself, Joh 4:10,14 . All the doctrines of the gospel, which include in them the moral law, as now managed by Christ, all the will of God concerning our salvation, promises, and commands; and these in their spirit and power, which God not only ratified in, but conveyed to the world by, Jesus Christ, and especially into the mind. dianoian renders the Hebrew Mbrqb the inward parts, in the prophet’ s text. The mind or understanding being the innermost part of the soul, is capable of receiving impresses of Divine truth, and its characters are by it made legible to the soul; which as promised here, is so prayed for by the apostle, Eph 1:17,18 .

And write them in their hearts: epigraqw is a metaphor setting out a real, actual, powerful work of the Spirit of Christ, which leaveth the express characters of all God’ s saving mind and will upon the heart or soul as plain as writing upon paper, or engraving upon stones; such an operation of the Spirit of Christ on the souls of them, as whereby is conveyed into them a new light, life, power, so that they are made by it partakers of a Divine nature; and though they are not other faculties, yet they are quite other things than they were for qualities and operations, so as they are enabled to know, observe, and keep his laws, which are set up in authority and dominion in their souls, ruling and ordering all there, Eze 11:19,20 36:26,27 2Co 3:3,8,9,10,18 .

And I will be to them a God: as in the former word was the promise of conversion, regeneration, and renovation, so joined with it is the promise of adoption. In which God engageth in Christ to be to penitent believers, Rom 9:6,8 , a God, i.e. the cause and author of all good, Gen 15:1-21,17:1,7 ; what he is, hath, or can do for them of good, is all theirs, and himself terminating all the knowledge, faith, and worship of them. He will exercise all his wisdom, power, and goodness to deliver them from all evil, and to make them eternally happy and blessed in himself.

And they shall be to me a people and to him this true Israel shall be a true, spiritual, eternal, adopted seed and people, partakers of all that he hath promised to them or they can desire of him; so as their name is better than the name of sons or daughters, an everlasting one, not to be cut off, Isa 56:5 . They, as his people, attend on, witness to, and contend for, him and his glory, are always at his beck, being purchased, made, and covenanted so for his use and service, that they are not their own, but wholly at his disposal, Jer 23:7 32:20 Eze 11:20 37:23,27 Zec 8:8 2Co 6:16 .

Poole: Heb 8:11

And they shall not teach: the subject implied in the plural verb, and by a partitive particle expressed, they, and every man, is in Jeremiah’ s text vya a man, even every truly covenanted one who hath the knowledge of the Lord.

And they shall teach no more, in Jer 31:34 . A double negative supplieth it in this verse, ou mn denying that weak and fruitless kind of teaching which was under the Mosaical covenant administration, whereby souls were not savingly edified in the knowledge of God, there was imperfection both in their knowledge and teaching, which should not be under the gospel.

Every man his neighbour such as are nearer to each other in society or commerce, a fellow citizen; or are near by relation, by nature or alliance, by consanguinity or affinity, one near at hand, ignorant of the Lord; and that needs instruction, one capable and possible to be taught.

Saying, Know the Lord: this intimates the manner of teaching denied, a formal, customary way of teaching, saying; it was proverbial with them; and so was the matter of it: Know the Lord; as they used to say: The temple of the Lord, Jer 7:4 ; The burden of the Lord, Jer 23:34 : The day of the Lord, Amo 5:18 : or otherwise, not to teach them to know the Lord notionally only, without any influence on their heart, without believing, loving, fearing, or obeying him, 1Jo 2:3,4 ; or to teach them to know the Lord, as redeeming and delivering of them out of Egypt, or out of the land of the north, that is, bringing them back from their captivity in Babylon, as they were taught, Exo 20:2 Jer 23:7,8 ; but as delivering them from sin, the curse, wrath, and hell. Or, they shall not teach one another so darkly, slenderly, and imperfectly in the meaning of types, shadows, and ceremonies, that they might know the Lord in truth, and worship him according to his mind; or to take so much pains to instruct them concerning the Lord and his worship, as they took with the Gentiles when they proselyted them.

For all shall know me, from the least to the greatest for under the gospel administration all the covenanted ones, the infant in the church and the aged, Isa 65:20 , all ages in Christ, children, fathers, and young men, as 1Jo 2:12-14 , young and old, shall have his laws put into their mind’ s, and written on their hearts, the true saving knowledge of him in Christ in the fulness of it, as Isa 11:9 : they shall so perfectly know him, as not to depart from him; he shall be theirs and they his by an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure; by the plentiful effusion of his Spirit in all the gifts and graces of it through his gospel institutions on them; they shall be so enlightened in gospel truths, that they shall know their duties, and perform them, as if they were immediately enlightened from above, rather than by the common methods of teaching by his word; that they shall not need so much cautioning, threatening, correcting as they did under the law; but shall entirely cleave to him, without a disposition to revolt.

Poole: Heb 8:12

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness: this for states the cause of all the former acts promised in the gospel covenant, as regenerating, illuminating, adopting, and God’ s gracious removing all sins that might hinder the communication of these and all other good to his covenanted ones; God, in and by the administration of this covenant, ratified by his blood, propitiating him, will of his free mercy pardon, blot out, and take away, Heb 2:17 , and thereby free them from the guilt, power, and punishment of their original and actual unrighteousness; implying his reconciliation to, and free acceptance of, their persons in Jesus Christ, on whose account it is he dealeth so graciously with them in all things, Isa 55:7-9 1Jo 4:9 .

And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more all the breaches of God’ s law by commissions or omissions, whatever they may be for number or for aggravation, he will always through Christ save his covenanted ones from them all, Mat 1:21 Rom 3:21-26 . All of these shall not only be for the present blotted out, but his mercy will be so great and certain through Christ, that he will neither punish them for them, nor charge them to them; he will abundantly pardon, and for ever take them away, so as if they be sought for they shall not be found, Heb 10:3,14 Isa 43:25 Mic 7:18,19 . And when he forgets their sins, he will have their persons in everlasting remembrance, Psa 112:6 .

Poole: Heb 8:13

In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old: the inference from what was before said, Heb 8:8 , (in the Lord’ s saying this by the prophet Jeremiah, that he would make a new covenant, for form and manner of administration later and better, even the last and best he will make, and in which he will have penitent, believing sinners to acquiesce), is this: That the Mosaical one, though first in respect of the gospel, hath lost its power, strength, and vigour, its binding force; and so, by God’ s instituting another, is abrogated, as useless, needless, and imperfect.

Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away this Mosaical one, thus grown old, weak, and decrepit, and by the institution of the new gospel covenant abrogated, may continue for a while, but in no force; and so gradually moulder and decay by little and little, till it at last vanish and totally cease. It was near to it upon finishing of the ministry of the gospel High Priest on earth, when by his death he fulfilled the truth of this typical one, and so virtually nulled it; and, as to its binding force, vanished, when the gospel was published throughout the world, Rom 10:16-18 ; compare 2Co 5:17 ; as is owned by the apostolical synod, Act 15:1-41 . It was high time for these Hebrews to cease from that vanishing Mosaical one, and effectually to close with the gospel priesthood and covenant, which must remain and continue for ever; see Dan 9:24,26,27 ; which if they did not, must end in the total destruction of them, their temple and city, which came to pass not many years after the apostle wrote this Epistle.

PBC: Heb 8:6

The New vs. The Old Covenant

Heb 8:6-9:10; Isa 1:1-66:24} Abrahamic, {Ge 15:8-21} Sinaitic, and Davidic {2Sa 23:5; Ps 89:1-52} covenants, etc.), but in another sense, He has only made oneThe Everlasting Covenant, or, if you will, the Covenant of Grace {Heb 13:20} -an agreement between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, regarding the eternal destiny of the elect, before the foundation of the world. {Eph 1:4; 2Ti 1:9; 1Co 2:7} The Everlasting Covenant was a one-sided (or unilateral) covenant in which God voluntarily obligated Himself to fulfill its stipulations and guarantee its benefits to His people. The responsibility for keeping the covenant of grace, in other words, rests solely upon the Lord. In this covenant, the Father gave a people to the Son {Joh 6:37; 17:2,24} and the Son agreed to secure their redemption and make atonement for their sins. {Isa 48:16; Ro 5:6-11; 2Co 5:21} The Spirit agreed to regenerate all who were chosen by the Father and redeemed by the Son, {Ga 4:6} so that all that God planned to deliver from eternal condemnation, according to His eternal purpose, would in fact be saved and ultimately conformed to the perfect image of Jesus Christ. {Eph 1:5,11; Ro 8:29-30}

The everlasting covenant, then, is a covenant of redemption. It is a Divine contract with man that carries with it eternal ramifications. We learn about its various features by observing the covenants that the Lord has made with men like Abraham, David, and Noah, covenants of a temporal, rather than an eternal, nature. In other words, God has revealed bits and pieces of the covenant of redemption through the covenants he made with men like Abraham, David, and Noah.

Still, in another sense, there are two covenants -the Old Covenant (or the Law) and the New Covenant (or the Gospel). The Old Covenant was given to Moses and the children of Israel at Mt. Sinai. The New Covenant was inaugurated by the Lord Jesus Christ at the cross of Calvary.

It is important to understand that both the Old and the New Covenants are covenants of worship and service. Unlike the Everlasting Covenant, which is a covenant of redemption, they do not have eternal ramifications. The only two covenants that have eternal consequence are the covenant God gave to Adam (the Adamic covenant Ge 2:16-17) and the covenant He made with the Son before the world began. The Old and New Covenants are, in other words, arrangements by which God has revealed Himself to man and by which man may draw near in personal adoration, fellowship and service to that God. Under the Law, the Israelites approached a Holy God on the basis of their own obedience to His laws. Because they were sinners, their fellowship with Him was impeded. Under Grace, all of God’s people, both Jew and Gentile, can approach a Holy God on the basis of the cross of Jesus Christ. Because He is our righteousness -because He is our Great High Priest -our acceptance before God is guaranteed.

The New Covenant is really the Oldest Covenant that has ever existed. It is the Everlasting Covenant, fully and finally revealed through Jesus Christ. In other words, the provision God made for redemption before time began has now been accomplished through Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. We, as believers in Him, can now worship and serve our God through the merits of His blood and under the shadow of His cross. In the New Covenant, we can enjoy the benefits of the Everlasting Covenant in advance, a heaven on earth if you please " the earnest of our inheritance."

385

Haydock: Heb 8:6

But now Christ, the Messias, being come, hath ordained a more excellent ministry and priesthood, being the great Mediator betwixt God and man of a better and more excellent testament, accompanied with greater graces and blessings, and established with better and more ample promises, not of temporal blessings, as the former, but of eternal happiness. (Witham)

Haydock: Heb 8:7

For if that first testament had been faultless: if it had not been imperfect, and all those sacrifices and ceremonies insufficient for the justification, salvation, and redemption of mankind, there would have been no need of a second. (Witham)

Haydock: Heb 8:8

For finding fault with them. It is not said here, blaming the law, says St. John Chrysostom, which in itself was good, just, and holy, (see Romans vii. 12.) but blaming the breakers and transgressors of it; not but that men were saved in the time of the law, who by God's grace believed in their Redeemer that was to come, and lived well. And the mercies of God were so great, even towards sinners, that he made them a solemn promise, clearly expressed in the prophet Jeremias, (Chap. xxxi. 31. &c.) The days shall come, saith the Lord, and I will make a new covenant,...not according to the covenant (or not such a one) as I made to their fathers, at the time when I took them as it were by the hand to lead them out of....Egypt, &c. with signs and prodigies: I then made choice of them to be my people, but they were always transgressing against this testament, this covenant, which I had made with them: and for their transgressions I neglected them, punished them from time to time, and, what was the greatest punishment of all, permitted such ungrateful and obstinate offenders to run on in their own sinful ways to their own ruin. (Witham)

Haydock: Heb 8:10

For this is the testament which I will make with the house of Israel, and with all nations, as I promised to Abraham, I will give (literally, by giving) my laws into their mind, and I will write this new law, not as the former, in tables of stone, but in their hearts, and to them I will be a merciful God, and they shall be my elect people. (Witham) ---

The Jews were like slaves, and God ruled them as a master; Christians are his children, and God rules them as a father: and so great is the efficacy of this divine teacher, that by means of a short and easy catechism, children are now taught to know God more perfectly than the first sages of antiquity by their abstruse and erudite disquisitions. We moreover observe under the new law the grace and spirit of love, engrafted in the hearts of the faithful by the Holy Ghost working in the sacraments and sacrifice of the new law to that effect....This covenant was made at the last supper, and ratified the next day by the death of the Testator on the cross, when he exclaimed, "consummatum est," all is consummated. [John xix. 30.]

Haydock: Heb 8:11

They shall not teach, &c. So great shall be the light and grace of the new testament, that it shall not be necessary to inculcate to the faithful the belief and knowledge of the true God, for they shall all know him. (Challoner) ---

All shall know me, &c. This seems to signify that by the truths which Christ preached, and which the apostles published to all nations, the faithful in the new law should have a greater knowledge of God, of the true manner of worshipping him, and of heavenly things, and also greater and more abundant graces than they had before Christ's coming. They shall also serve God with greater fidelity, by considering his mercy in sending them a Redeemer to free them from the slavery of sin and damnation, of which they stood guilty. (Witham)

Haydock: Heb 8:13

In calling this testament a new one, he hath made the former old. This is to put the Hebrews in mind that the former law, as to its ceremonies and sacrifices, is now to be laid aside, and the new law or testament to be received and complied with. (Witham) ---

Thus the first alliance was to end according to the testimony of Scripture itself, and make place for the second, which is infinitely more perfect. To be fully satisfied of this, it is merely necessary to compare the one with the other. (Bible de Vence.)

Gill: Heb 8:6

But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry,.... Christ has a ministry, he is the minister of the sanctuary, Heb 8:2 he has "obtained" this ministry of his Father; he was called unto it and engaged in it by him; and he has "now" obtained it; for though he was called to it from eternity, it was in time he came an high priest of good things, to come; and his ministry is

a more excellent one than that of the priests, who offered gifts according to the law and served to the example and shadow of heavenly things; as abundantly appears from the preceding chapter, and from this, as well, as from what follows:

by how much also he is the Mediator of a better covenant; the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation; which is not only better than the covenant of works, that being conditional, this absolute; that stood on the foot of works, this on the foot of grace, and is established in Christ; that being broken and made void, this continues; and not only better than the covenant of the Levitical priesthood, which was but a typical one, and is now ceased, but also than the covenant of grace, as administered under the legal dispensation; being better than that, as to the manner of its manifestation, which is more full and clear; and as to the extent of its administration, reaching to Gentiles as well as Jews; and as to the ratification of it by the blood of Christ, called from thence the blood of the everlasting covenant; and as to the promises of it, here said to be better:

which was established upon better promises; which are not now delivered out as before, under the figure of earthly and temporal things; nor under a condition to be performed nor confined to a particular people and nation; and which are attended with a greater measure of the Spirit, to open and apply them; and are all secured in Christ Jesus, and confirmed by his blood: and now of this covenant Christ is the "Mediator"; a mediator is of more persons than one, and of these at variance; and he is a middle person between both; and his business is to bring both parties together, and make peace between them: the two parties in this case are God and man, set at a distance from each other by the sin of man, whereby man is become enmity to God; Christ is the Mediator between God and man, a middle person between both, being both God and man, the daysman, who lays his hands on both; who brings men to God that were afar off, and makes peace for them by the blood of his cross, and satisfies the justice of God, which he has done by the sacrifice of himself; and now appears in the presence of God for them, and intercedes for them, and applies the blessings of the covenant to them by his Spirit, and keeps and preserves them safe to his everlasting kingdom; and for this office he is every way fit, and in this he excels the Levitical priests, and has a ministry superior to theirs, since he is such a Mediator, and a Mediator of such a covenant,

Gill: Heb 8:7

For if that first covenant had been faultless,.... Not the covenant of works; that was made in paradise, this on Mount Sinai; that was made with Adam and his posterity, this with the Jews only; that had no mediator, this had one, Moses; that was not dedicated with blood, this was; that had no forgiveness of sin in it, this had; under that saints are not, but they were under this; to be under that was no privilege, but to be under this it was, as to the Israelites, who on this account were preferable to all other nations: nor is the pure covenant of grace as administered under the Gospel, meant; for though that was first made, yet is the second in administration; that includes the elect of God among the Gentiles, this only the Jews; that is made only with them, and is made known to them whom God calls by his grace in time, this was made with good and bad; that was of pure grace, this required works in order to life and the enjoyment of its blessings; that is an everlasting covenant, this is done away; and the one is manifestly distinguished from the other in this chapter: but the covenant here designed is the covenant of grace, as administered under the legal dispensation, and which was a typical one; the people with whom it was made were typical of the true Israel of God; the blessings promised in it were shadows of good things to come; the works it required were typical of Christ's obedience to the law, in the room and stead of his people, by which he fulfilled it; the sacrifices on which it was established were types of the sacrifice and death of Christ; the mediator of it. Moses, was a type of Christ, the Mediator of the new covenant; and it was confirmed by the blood of beasts, which was typical of the blood of Christ: this covenant was not "faultless", but was faulty or blameworthy; not that there was anything sinful and criminal in it, but it was deficient; there was a weakness in it; its sacrifices could not make men perfect, nor take away sin; there wanted a larger supply of the grace of the Spirit to write the law of God upon the heart, and to enable men to keep it; there was not in it so full a revelation of the mind and will of God, and of his love and grace, as has since been made; nor did it exhibit a free and full pardon for all sins, unclogged of every condition; the persons that were under it were faulty; hence it follows, that God found fault with them, they could not answer the requirements and end of it: had it been faultless,

then should no place have been sought for the second; the covenant of grace unveiled in the Gospel dispensation, called the better testament, the better covenant, and the new covenant; in order to, introduce which, the first was removed, that this might succeed it; just as because there was no perfection by the Levitical priesthood, it became necessary that another priest should arise, of another order.

Gill: Heb 8:8

For finding fault with them,.... Both with the covenant, which had its faults, and with the people who continued not in it, and were therefore disregarded by the Lord, Heb 8:9

he saith, behold, the days come (saith the Lord) when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; the words are cited from Jer 31:31 in which God promises a "new covenant"; so called, not because newly made; for with respect to its original constitution, it was made from eternity; Christ the Mediator of it, and with whom it was made, was set up from everlasting; and promises and blessings of grace were put into his hands before the world began: nor is it newly revealed, for it was made known to Adam, and in some measure to all the Old Testament saints, though it is more clearly revealed than it was; but it is so called in distinction from the former administration of it, which is waxen old, and vanished away; and with respect to the order of succession, it taking place upon the former being removed; and on account of the time of its more clear revelation and establishment being in the last days; and because of its mode of administration, which is different from the former, in a new way, and by the use of new ordinances; and because it is always new, its vigour and efficacy are perpetual; it will never be antiquated, or give place to another; and it provides for, and promises new things, a new heart, a new spirit, &c. to which may be added, that it is a famous, excellent covenant, there is none like it; just as an excellent song is called a new song. The persons with whom this covenant is promised to be made, are the houses of Israel and Judah; which being literally taken, had its fulfilment in the first times of the Gospel, through the ministry of John the Baptist, Christ, and his apostles, by whom this covenant was made known to God's elect among the twelve tribes; but being mystically understood, includes both Jews and Gentiles, the whole Israel of God; Israel not after the flesh, but after the Spirit; such as were Jews inwardly; God's elect of every nation: the word συντελεσω, rendered, "I will make", signifies, I will consummate, or finish, or end, or fulfil it; which shows the perfection of this covenant, and the imperfection of the former; and that what was typified in the first is fulfilled in this; and that it is now established and ratified by Christ; and is so finished, as to the manifestation and administration of it, that there will be no alteration made in it, nor any addition to it: the time of doing all this is called "the days to come"; the last days, the days of the Messiah, which were future in Jeremiah's time: and a "behold" is prefixed to the whole, as a note of attention, this being an affair of great moment and importance; and as a note of demonstration, or as pointing to something that was desired and expected; and as a note of admiration, it containing things wonderful and marvellous.

Gill: Heb 8:9

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers,.... The ancestors of the Jews at Mount Sinai:

in the day when I took then, by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; which is mentioned, not only to observe the time when the former covenant was made with the Israelites, which was just upon their deliverance out of Egypt; but also to show their weakness and inability to have delivered themselves, and the tenderness of God towards them; they were like children, they could not help themselves when God took them by the hand, and brought them forth with an outstretched arm; and likewise to expose their ingratitude, and vindicate his conduct towards them:

because they continued not in my covenant; though they promised, at the reading of it, that all that the Lord had said, they would hear and do; but their hearts were not right with God, and they were not steadfast in his covenant, and therefore their carcasses fell in the wilderness:

and I regarded them not, saith the Lord; the words in Jer 31:32 are very differently rendered in our translation, "although I was an husband unto them": and so it becomes an aggravation of their sin of ingratitude, in not continuing in his covenant: in the margin it is rendered interrogatively, "should I have continued an husband unto them?" that is, after they had so treated him, no; as if he should say, I will not behave towards them as such; I will reject them, and disregard them. The Chaldee paraphrase is just the reverse of the apostle's translation, "and I was well pleased with them": some render them, "I ruled over them", as a lord over his servants, in a very severe manner. Others, observing the great difference there is between the Hebrew text, and the apostle's version, have supposed a different Hebrew copy from the present, used by the Septuagint, or the apostle, in which, instead of בעלתי, it was read either בחלתי, or געלתי; but there is no need of such a supposition, since Dr. Pocock ^g has shown, that בעל, in the Arabic language, signifies to loath and abhor, and so to disregard; and Kimchi ^h relates it as a rule laid down by his father, that wherever this word is used in construction with ב, it is to be taken in an ill part, and signifies the same as בחלתי, "I have loathed"; in which sense that word is used in Zec 11:8 and so here, I have loathed them, I abhorred them, I rejected them, I took no care of them, disregarded them, left their house desolate, and suffered wrath to come upon them to the uttermost.

Gill: Heb 8:10

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel,.... That is, this is the sum and substance of the covenant, which God promised to make with, or to make manifest and known to his chosen people, the true Israelites, under the Gospel dispensation; or the following are the several articles of that covenant, he proposed to consummate or finish, as before:

after those days, saith the Lord; after the times of the Old Testament, when the Messiah shall be come, and the Gospel day shall take place. So the Jews ⁱ apply these days, when they represent the Israelites saying to Moses, O that he (God) would reveal (himself or will) to us a second time! O that he would kiss us with the kisses of his mouth, and that the doctrine of the law was fixed in our hearts; when he (Moses) said to them, this is not to be done now, but לעתיד לבא, in the time to come, (i.e. in the times of the Messiah,) as it is said, Jer 31:33.

I will put my law, &c. and so ^k they are elsewhere applied to the same times. And the first article in it is,

I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; by the laws of God are meant not the precepts of the ceremonial law, which were now abrogated, but either the moral law, and its commands; which is a transcript of the divine nature, was inscribed on Adam's heart in innocence, and some remains of it are even in the Gentiles, but greatly obliterated through the sin of man; and there is in men naturally a contrary disposition to it; in regeneration it is reinscribed by the Spirit of God; and great respect is had to it by regenerate persons, in which lies one part of their conformity to Christ: or else, since the word "law" signifies sometimes no other than a doctrine, an instruction, the doctrines of grace, of repentance towards God, of faith in Christ, and love to him, and every other doctrine may be intended; and the tables where, according to the tenor of this covenant, these are put and written, are two tables, as before, the "mind" and "heart"; but not two tables of stone, on which the law of Moses was written, partly that it might not be lost, through defect of memory, and partly to denote the firmness and stability of it, as also to point at the hardness of man's heart; but the fleshly tables of the heart; not that part of our flesh that is called the heart; but the souls of men, such hearts as are regenerated and sanctified by the Spirit of God, and such minds as are renewed by him: and the "putting" of them into the mind, designs the knowledge of them, which God gives; as of the moral law, of its spirituality and perfection, showing that there is no life and righteousness by it, that it is fulfilled by Christ, and is a rule of conversation to the saints; and of all other laws, ordinances, and doctrines of Christ: and the "writing" them in, or on the heart, intends a filling the soul with love and affection to them, so that it regards them singly and heartily; and a powerful inclination of the heart to be subject to them, through the efficacious grace of God; and which is done not with the ink of nature's power, but with the Spirit of the living God, 2Co 3:3.

And I will be to them a God; not in such sense as he is the God of all mankind, or as he was the God of Israel in a distinguishing manner, but as he is the God of Christ, and of all the elect in him; and he is their God, not merely as the God of nature and providence, but as the God of all grace; he is so in a covenant way, and as in Christ, and by virtue of electing grace, and which is made manifest in the effectual calling; and as such, he has set his heart on them, and set them apart for himself; he saves them by his Son, adopts and regenerates them, justifies and sanctifies them, provides for them, protects and preserves them; and happy are they that are interested in this blessing of the covenant, which is preferable to everything else; they have everything, and can want no good thing; they need fear no enemy; all things work together for their good; and God continues to be their God in life and in death; so that they may depend on his love, be secure of his power, expect every needful supply of grace, and to be carried through every duty and trial, and to share in the first resurrection, and to enjoy eternal happiness:

and they shall be to me a people; not in such sense as all mankind are, or the Jews were in a more peculiar respect, but as all God's elect are, whether Jews or Gentiles; and who are such whom God has loved with a special love, has chose in Christ, and given to him, and with whom he has made a covenant in him; whom Christ saves from their sins by his blood, and calls them by his grace and Spirit, and who give up themselves to him; these are a distinct and peculiar people, a people near unto the Lord, and who are all righteous in Christ, and are made willing in the day of his power on their souls.

Gill: Heb 8:11

And they shall not teach every man his neighbour,.... The Alexandrian copy reads, "citizen"; that is, fellow citizen; and so the Syriac and Arabic versions: "and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord": this is not to be understood, so as to set aside the external and public ministry of the word, which is a standing ordinance of God under the Gospel dispensation; or even the, private instructions of saints one to another, in Christian conversation, whereby they may build up one another in their most holy faith; but the sense is, that men should not only teach, but the Spirit of God should teach with them, and by them; and it stands opposed to particular and pretended revelations, and especially to magisterial dictates; and denotes the abundance of knowledge that should be in Gospel times, which should not be restrained to particular persons, and sets of men, but should be shared by all believers, more or less:

for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest; from babes to fathers in Christ; not with a natural, but with a spiritual knowledge; not with general knowledge of him, that he is, but with a special knowledge of him, that he is theirs; not with a legal, but with an evangelical knowledge; not with the knowledge of him in, and through the creatures, but in Christ; and that not speculative, but experimental; such as is attended with faith in him, fear of him, love to him, and a cheerful obedience to his will: the knowledge of the Lord, under the New Testament dispensation, is greater than under the former dispensation; the subject matter of it is more distinct; God is more known in the persons of the Father, Son, and Spirit, in the perfections of his nature, in his titles and characters, and in his Son; the manner of it is more clear, open, and perspicuous; the persons to whom it is communicated are more numerous; it is not restrained to Jews, but is given to the Gentiles; and all this owing to a greater effusion of the Spirit; see 1Jo 2:27.

Gill: Heb 8:12

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness,.... That is, sin; for all unrighteousness is sin, being contrary to the justice of God, and his righteous law: and the phrase is expressive of God's forgiveness of it, which is a very considerable article of the covenant of grace; mercy is the spring and original of pardon; it is what God delights in, and therefore he pardons freely; it is large and abundant, and hence he pardons fully; and this lays a foundation for hope in sensible sinners: and the way and means, in and by which God pardons, is the propitiatory sacrifice of his Son; and the word here rendered "merciful", signifies "propitious"; God pardons none but those to whom he is pacified, or rendered propitious by Christ; there is no mercy, nor pardon, but through him; he pardons on the foot of reconciliation and satisfaction for sin by Christ; so that forgiveness of sin is an act of justice, as well as of mercy; or it is an act of mercy streaming through the blood and sacrifice of Christ.

And their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more; by which are meant all kind of sin, original and actual; sins before and after conversion; every sin but that against the Holy Ghost, and that God's covenant people are never guilty of; these God remembers no more; he casts them behind his back, and into the depths of the sea, so that when they are sought for, they shall not be found; God will never charge them with them, or punish them for them: this is another phrase to express the forgiveness of sins, and distinguishes the new covenant from the old one, or the former dispensation; in which, though there were many typical sacrifices, and a typical removal of sin, yet there was a remembrance of it every year.

Gill: Heb 8:13

In that he saith a new covenant,.... In the above prophecy, Heb 8:8

he hath made the first old; this naturally follows from hence; if the second is new, the first must be old; which is called so, not on account of its date and duration; for the covenant of grace itself is older than this mode of administration of it, and the manifestation of that to the patriarchs was before this covenant, and so was the covenant of works before it; but on the account of its faultiness and deficiency, its weakness, and unprofitableness, and especially its being antiquated, and made to give way to another.

Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away; the apostle argues from the first covenant, being old, to its being near to dissolution, or a disappearance; and the dissolution or disappearance of this covenant was gradual; it began when the Chaldeans seized the land of Canaan; and the ark, an eminent type of Christ, being wanting in the second temple, gave a hint of its waxing old; and both the civil and ecclesiastical government of the Jews were in great confusion under the second temple, at least towards the close of it; and even before the times of Christ, John the Baptist came, and proclaimed the near approach of the Messiah, and his kingdom: this covenant was of right abolished at the time of Christ's death; upon his ascension the Spirit was given, and the Gospel published among all nations, by which it more and more disappeared; and in fact it quite vanished away, when the city and temple of Jerusalem were destroyed, which was in a little time after the writing of this epistle; so that the apostle, with great propriety, says, it is "ready to vanish away".

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Heb 8:6

¹ sn The Greek text indicates a contrast between vv. 4-5 and v. 6 that is difficult to render in English: Jesus’ status in the old order of priests (vv. 4-5) versus his superior ministry (v. 6).

² tn Grk “he”; in the translation the referent (Jesus) has been specified for clarity.

³ tn Grk “to the degree that.”

⁴ tn Grk “which is enacted.”

⁵ sn This linkage of the change in priesthood with a change in the law or the covenant goes back to Heb 7:12, 22 and is picked up again in Heb 9:6-15 and 10:1-18.

NET Notes: Heb 8:7

¹ tn Grk “no occasion for a second one would have been sought.”

NET Notes: Heb 8:8

¹ tn Grk “for,” but providing an explanation of the God-intended limitation of the first covenant from v. 7.

² sn The “fault” or limitation in the first covenant was not in its inherent righteousness, but in its design from God himself. It was never intended to be his final revelation or provision for mankind; it was provisional, always pointing toward the fulfillment to come in Christ.

³ tn Grk “he”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

⁴ tc ‡ Several witnesses (א* A D* I K P Ψ 33 81 326 365 1505 2464 al latt co Cyr) have αὐτούς (autous) here, “[in finding fault with] them, [he says],” alluding to Israel’s failings mentioned in v. 9b. (The verb μέμφομαι [memfomai, “to find fault with”] can take an accusative or dative direct object.) The reading behind the text above (αὐτοίς, autoi"), supported by Ì⁴⁶ א² B D² 0278 1739 1881 Ï, is perhaps a harder reading theologically, and is more ambiguous in meaning. If αὐτοίς goes with μεμφόμενος (memfomeno", here translated “showing its fault”), the clause could be translated “in finding fault with them” or “in showing [its] faults to them.” If αὐτοίς goes with the following λέγει (legei, “he says”), the clause is best translated, “in finding/showing [its] faults, he says to them.” The accusative pronoun suffers no such ambiguity, for it must be the object of μεμφόμενος rather than λέγει. Although a decision is difficult, the dative form of the pronoun best explains the rise of the other reading and is thus more likely to be original.

NET Notes: Heb 8:9

¹ tn Grk “not like the covenant,” continuing the description of v. 8b.

NET Notes: Heb 8:10

¹ tn Grk “putting…I will inscribe.”

² tn Grk “mind.”

³ tn Grk “I will be to them for a God and they will be to me for a people,” following the Hebrew constructions of Jer 31.

NET Notes: Heb 8:11

¹ tn Grk “they will not teach, each one his fellow citizen…” The Greek makes this negation emphatic: “they will certainly not teach.”

² tn Grk “from the small to the great.”

NET Notes: Heb 8:12

¹ sn A quotation from Jer 31:31-34.

NET Notes: Heb 8:13

¹ tn Grk “when he says, ‘new,’” (referring to the covenant).

² tn Grk “near to disappearing.”

Geneva Bible: Heb 8:6

^{( 6 )} But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.

^{( 6 )} He enters into the comparison of the old and transitory Testament or covenant, being but for a time, of which the Levitical priests were mediators, with the new, the everlasting Mediator of which is Christ, to show that this is not only better than that in all respects, but also that that was made void by this.

Geneva Bible: Heb 8:7

^{( 7 )} For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

^{( 7 )} He proves by the testimony of Jeremiah that there is a second Testament or covenant, and therefore that the first was not perfect.

Geneva Bible: Heb 8:8

For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the ^{( c )} house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

^{( c )} He calls it a house, as it were one family of the whole kingdom: for while the kingdom of David was divided into two sections, the Prophet would have us understand that through the new Testament they shall be joined together again in one.

Geneva Bible: Heb 8:13

^{( 8 )} In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.

^{( 8 )} The conclusion: Therefore by the later and the new, the first and old is taken away, for it could not be called new, if it did not differ from the old. Again, that same is at length taken away, which is subject to corruption, and therefore imperfect.

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Heb 8:1-13

1 By the eternal priesthood of Christ the Levitical priesthood of Aaron is abolished;

7 and the temporal covenant with the fathers, by the eternal covenant of the Gospel.

Combined Bible: Heb 8:6-9

Two Covenants   

(Hebrews 8:6-9)   

In the 7th chapter the apostle has demonstrated by irrefutable logic and upon the authority of Holy Scripture that the priesthood of Christ has superceded the Aaronic order. Here in chapter 8 he makes manifest the superior ministry of our great High Priest. First, He is "seated" (verse 1). Second, He is seated on the throne of Deity (verse 1). Third, He is a Minister of the heavenly sanctuary (verse 2). Fourth, His own person provides the antitype of the tabernacle (verse 2). Fifth, He is presenting before God a more excellent sacrifice (verses 3-6). Sixth, He is Mediator of a superior covenant (verse 6). Seventh, that covenant has to do with "better promises" (verse 6). That upon which the Holy Spirit would here have us focalize our attention is the place where our High Priest ministers, and the immeasurable superiority of the economy which He is now administering.  

This 8th chapter of Hebrews treats of two things: the sphere of our High Priest’ s ministry and the better covenant with which it is connected: the one being in suited accord with the other. The 6th verse gives the connecting link between them. The apostle’ s object in introducing the "new covenant" at this stage of his argument is obvious. It was to the old covenant that the whole administration of the Levitical priesthood was confined. The entire church-state of the Jews, with all the ordinances and worship of it, and all the privileges connected with it, depended wholly on the covenant which God made with them at Sinai. But the introduction of the new Priesthood necessarily abolished that covenant, and put an end to all the sacred ministrations which belong to it. This it is which the apostle here undertakes to prove.  

"The question which troubled the minds and hearts of the Hebrews was their relation to the Levitical priesthood, and to the old dispensation. The temple was still in Jerusalem, and the Levitical ordinances appointed by Moses were still being observed. Although the Sun had risen, the moon had not yet disappeared. It was waning; it was ready to vanish away. Now it became an urgent necessity for the Hebrew Christians to understand that Christ was the true and eternal High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary, and that the new and everlasting covenant with Judah and Israel was connected with the gospel promise, and not with the law. God Himself had made the first covenant old by promising the new. And now that Christ had entered into the holy of holies by His own blood, the old covenant had passed away; and yet the promises of God to His chosen people remained firm and unchanged" (Adolph Saphir).  

That God had "changed" the order of priesthood (Heb. 7:12) was, as we have seen, clearly evidenced by His causing Christ to spring from the tribe of Judah (Heb. 7:14). God’ s raising up of a Priest from that tribe necessarily excluded those belonging to the house of Aaron from the sacerdotal office, just as God’ s raising up David to sit upon the throne, forever set aside the descendants of Saul from the regal office. Herein we may discern one reason why Jehovah ordained and gave such strict regulations for the distribution of Israel into their tribes, namely, that He might provide for their instruction as to the continuance of the legal worship among them, which could no longer be continued than while the priesthood was reserved unto the tribe of Levi.  

This Divine change in the order of priesthood necessarily entailed a change of covenant or economy, as a change of the royal family denotes a new dynasty, or as a new president involves a change of government. The economy with which Christ is connected as far excels the old order of things as His sacerdotal office exceeded that of Aaron’ s. Thus the apostle is here really advancing one more argument or proof for the pre-eminence of our Lord’ s priesthood. As a Minister or public functionary Jesus Christ is as far superior in dignity to the Levites as the dispensation over which He presides is of a far superior order than the dispensation in which they served.  

In approaching the subject of the two covenants, the old and the new, it should be pointed out that it is not always an easy matter to determine whether the "old covenant" designates the Mosaic economy or the covenant of works which God made with Adam (Hos. 6:7 margin); nor to decide whether the "new covenant" refers to the Gospel dispensation introduced by Christ, or to the covenant of grace which was inaugurated by the first promise made to Adam (Gen. 3:15) and confirmed to Abraham (Gen. 17). In each case the context must decide. We may add that the principal passages where the two covenants are described and contrasted are found in 2 Corinthians chapter 3, Galatians chapter 3 and 4, Hebrews chapters 8, 9 and 12.  

"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises" (verse 6). "This verse is a transition from one subject to another; namely, from the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, to the excellency of the new covenant above the old. And herein also the apostle artificially compriseth and confirmeth his last argument, of the pre-eminence of Christ, His priesthood and ministry, above that of the law. And this He doth from the nature and excellency of that covenant whereof He was the Mediator in the discharge of His office" (John Owen).  

"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry." The apostle here introduces his important assertion by a time-mark, the "But now" signifying at this season. It points a contrast from the period of the Mosaic dispensation, when Israel’ s priests served "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things" (verse 5). A close parallel is found in Romans 3:21, "but now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested," which is defined in verse 26 as "to declare at this time His righteousness: that He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Jesus" (verse 26). God in His infinite wisdom gives proper times and seasons to all His dispensations toward His Church. The Lord hastens or consummates all His works of grace in their own appointed time: see Isaiah 60:22. Our duty is to leave the ordering of all the concerns of His people, in the accomplishment of His promises, to God in His own good time: Acts 1:7.  

That which is here ascribed unto Christ is "a more excellent ministry." The priests of old had a ministry, and an excellent one, for it was by Divine appointment they served at the altar (verse 5). So Christ has a ministry, and "a more excellent" one. In verse 2 He is designated "a Minister of the sanctuary." He is called such not with respect unto one particular act of administration, but because a standing office has been committed to Him. The service to which Christ has been called is of a higher order and more excellent nature than any which Aaron ever discharged. It is a "more excellent ministry" because it is the real and substantial one, of which the Levitical was but the emblem; it pertains to things in heaven, while theirs was restricted to the earthly tabernacle; it is enduring while theirs was but temporary.  

This more excellent ministry Christ is here said to have "obtained." The way whereby the Lord Jesus entered on the whole office and work of His mediation has been expressed in Hebrews 1:4 as by "inheritance": that is, by free grant and perpetual donation, made unto Him as the Son— compare our comments on that verse. There were two things which concurred unto His obtaining this ministry: first, the eternal purpose and counsel of God, decreeing Him thereunto (1 Pet. 1:20, Revelation 13:8). Second, the actual call of God (Heb. 5:4, 5), which carried with it His unction of the Spirit above measure (Ps. 45:7), for the holy discharge of His whole office. Thus, Christ obtained this ministry not by any legal constitution, fleshly succession, or carnal ordination, as did the Levitical priests. The exaltation of the human nature of Christ into union with His Deity, for the office of this glorious ministry, depended solely upon the sovereign wisdom, grace, and love of God.  

"But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant." The particular point which the apostle here makes, or rather the conclusion which he here draws from the premises laid down, had been anticipated and intimated in what he said in Hebrews 7:20, 22. There he had declared that the excellency of the covenant of which Christ has been made Surety and Mediator has a proportion with the pre-eminence of His priesthood above that of Aaron’ s. His being made a Priest by Divine oath (which the Levites were not) fitted Him to be the Surety of a better economy. Conversely, the covenant of which He is Surety must needs be better than the old regime because He who was the Surety of it had been made so by Divine oath. Thus, the dignity of Christ’ s priesthood is demonstrated by the excellency of the new covenant, and declaratively the new covenant sets forth the dignity of Christ’ s priesthood.  

"He is the Mediator of a better covenant." It is most important to recognize that Christ is a sacerdotal Mediator. This is made clear by 1 Timothy 2:5, 6, "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." The mediating Priest intervenes with sacrifice and intercession for the reconciling of God and sinners. As we shall (D.V.) yet see, Hebrews 9:15 expressly declares that Christ’ s priestly work was the very purpose of His being appointed Mediator. So in Hebrews 12:24 His sacrifice is again made prominent in connection with His mediation. Thus the sacerdotal character of His mediation cannot be scripturally gainsaid.  

Christ has obtained a more excellent priestly ministry corresponding to the superior dispensation of which He is the Mediator. "But now (in this Christian dispensation) hath He (as ‘ Priest’ ) obtained (from God) a more excellent ministry (than Aaron’ s) by how much also He is the Mediator of a better covenant." He is not only Priest, but Mediator; Priest because He is Mediator, Mediator because He is Priest. It is by His priestly office and work that He exercises His mediatorship, standing between two parties and reconciling them. He thus combines in His own person what was divided between two under the old economy, Moses being the typical mediator, Aaron the typical surety. As "Surety" Christ pledged Himself to see that the terms of the covenant were faithfully carried out; as "Mediator," He is negotiating for His people’ s blessing. The word "covenant" in this chapter signifies an arrangement or constitution of things, an economy or dispensation. The "old covenant" was that peculiar order of things under which the Jewish people were placed in consequence of the transactions at Sinai. The "new" or "better covenant" is that order of things which has been introduced by Jesus Christ, namely, the Christian dispensation.  

"He is the Mediator of a better covenant." A mediator is a middle person between two parties entering into covenant, and if they be of different natures, a perfect mediator would have to partake of each of their natures in his own person. This Christ has done. Such mediation presupposes that the two parties are at such variance they cannot treat directly with the other; unless this were so, a go-between would be needless. See this fact illustrated in Deuteronomy 5:23-27. In voluntarily undertaking to serve as Mediator, two things were required of Christ: first, that He should remove whatever kept the covenanters at a distance, taking away the cause of enmity between them. Second, that He should purchase and procure, in a way suited to the glory of God, the actual communication of all the good things prepared and proposed in this covenant (grace and glory) unto those on whose behalf He acts as Surety. Finally, He who is this Mediator must be accepted, trusted, and rested in by both parties entering into covenant. On God’ s part, He has openly declared that He is "well pleased" with Christ (Matthew 3:17); on the part of His elect, they are made willing "in the day of His power" (Ps. 110:3).  

"Which was established upon better promises." Every covenant between God and man, must be founded on and resolved into promises. Hence, essentially, a promise and a covenant are all one, and God calls an absolute promise founded on an absolute decree, His covenant, Genesis 9:11. And His purpose for the continuation of the course of nature to the end of the world, He calls His covenant with day and night, Jeremiah 33:20. The being and essence of a Divine covenant lies in the promise. Hence are they called ‘ the covenants of promise,’ Ephesians 2:12. Such as are founded on and consist in promises. And it is necessary that so it should be" (John Owen).  

"Which was established upon better promises." The word "established" here is important to note, for it plainly intimates to us that the apostle is not here treating of the Everlasting Covenant absolutely, and as it had been virtually administered from the foundation of the world in the way of a promise; but relatively, as it had been formally introduced on earth as a new dispensation or economy. In the Divine administration of the Everlasting Covenant it has now been reduced to a fixed statute or ordinance. The term "established" signifies legally established, formally established as by a law. All is now fixed in the Church by Divine arrangement and secured by inviolable sanctions. In Hebrews 7:11 the Greek verb here rendered "established" is translated "received the law"— compare our comments thereon. "The covenant to which the priesthood of Christ refers has been also established by law. It has been promulgated by Divine authority. The truth with regard to it has been ‘ spoken by the Son of God, and confirmed to us by those who heard Him; and God has borne witness with signs and miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit,’ according to His own will" (John Brown).  

"Established upon better promises." Caution requires to be exercised and great care taken at this point lest we err in our understanding of the particular contrast which is here pointed by the word "better." "The promises in the first covenant pertained mainly to the present life. They were promises of length of days; of increase of numbers; of seed time and harvest; of national privileges, and of extraordinary peace, abundance and prosperity. That there was also the promise of eternal life, it would be wrong to doubt; but this was not the main thing. In the new covenant, however, the promise of spiritual blessings become the principal thing. The mind is directed to heaven; the heart is cheered with the hopes of immortal life; the favor of God and the anticipation of heaven are secured in the most ample and solemn manner" (A. Barnes). Observe well the two words which are emphasized in the above quotation. In Old Testament times God "commanded the blessing, life forever more" (Ps. 133:3), not only temporal life in Canaan; while His people in New Testament times have "promise of the life that now is," as well as "of that which is to come" (1 Tim. 4:8)!  

Rightly did Adolph Saphir point out, "The contrast between the old and the new would be viewed in a false light, if we forgot that in the old dispensation spiritual reality and blessings were presented, and were actually embraced in faith by the people of God. The law had a positive or evangelical aspect, although herein also it was elementary and transitory, it acted as a guardian and a tutor; as the snow is not merely an indication of winter, and a contrast to the bright and genial sunshine, and the refreshing verdure of summer, but is also a beneficent protection, cherishing and preparing the soil for the approaching blessings from above. But now the winter is passed, the fullness has come."  

The "better promises" are described in verses 10-13: they are summed up in justification and sanctification, or more briefly still, in redemption. "But what he adds is not without some difficulty,— that the covenant of the Gospel was proclaimed on better promises; for it is certain that the fathers who lived under the Law had the same hope of eternal life set before them as we have, as they had the grace of adoption in common with us, then faith must have rested on the same promises. But the comparison made by the apostle refers to the form rather than to the substance; for though God promised to them the same salvation which He at this day promises to us, yet neither the manner nor the character of the revelation is the same or equal to what we enjoy" (John Calvin). Thus, the "promises" with which the new covenant is concerned are "better" in that they mainly respect spiritual and eternal blessings, rather than earthly and temporal ones; in that they have been ratified by the blood-shedding of Christ; in that they are now openly proclaimed to God’ s elect among the Gentiles as well as the Jews.  

"For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second" (verse 7). The covenant which is here referred to is that into which Jehovah entered with Israel at Sinai: see Exodus 19:5; 34:27, 28; Deuteronomy 4:13. Israel’ s response is recorded in Exodus 19:8, 24:3. It was ratified by blood: Exodus 24:4-8. This was not the "first" covenant absolutely, but the first made with Israel nationally. Previously, God had made a covenant with Adam (Hos. 6:7), and in some respects the Covenant at Sinai adumbrated it, for it was chiefly one of works. So too He had made a covenant with Abraham, which in some respects adumbrated the Everlasting Covenant, inasmuch as it was one purely of grace. Prior to Sinai, God dealt with Israel on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, as is clear from Exodus 2:24; 6:3, 4. But it was on the ground of the Sinaitic covenant that Israel entered Canaan: see Joshua 7:11, 15; Judges 2:19-21; 1 Kings 11:11; Jeremiah 34:18, 19.  

"For if that first covenant had been faultless then should no place have been sought for the second." The connection between this and the preceding verse, intimated by the opening "For" is as follows: there the apostle had affirmed that the Christian covenant is superior to the Judaic; here, he demonstrates the same thing by arguing from the fact that the old covenant must have been defective, otherwise the new had been superfluous. It is an inference drawn from the facts of the situation. If there was need for a second, the first could not have been perfect, failing to secure that which was most desirable. A parallel is found in Galatians 3:21.  

"For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second." Wherein lay its "faultiness?" It was wholly external, accompanied by no internal efficacy. It set before Israel an objective standard but supplied no power to measure up to it. It treated with men in the flesh, and therefore the law was impotent through the weakness of the flesh (Rom. 8:3). It provided a sacrifice for sin, but the value thereof was only ceremonial and transient, failing to actually put away sin. It was unable to secure actual redemption. Hence because of its inadequacy, a new and better covenant was needed.  

"Every work of God is perfect, viewed in connection with the purpose which He means it to serve. In this point of view, the ‘ first covenant’ was faultless. But when viewed in the light in which the Jews generally considered it, as a saving economy, in all the extent of that word, it was not ‘ faultless.’ It could not expiate moral guilt; it could not wash away moral pollution; it could not justify, it could not sanctify, it could not save. Its priesthood were not perfected— they were weak and inefficient; its sacrifices ‘ could not take away sin,’ make perfect as concerning the conscience, or procure ‘ access with freedom into the holiest of all.’ In one word, ‘ it made nothing perfect’ " (John Brown).  

"For finding fault with them, He saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (verse 8). The opening "For" denotes that the apostle now confirms what he had just affirmed in verses 6, 7: the proof is found in what immediately follows. The "finding fault" may refer either to the old covenant, or to the people themselves who were under it: finding fault "with it" or "with them." In view of what is added in verse 9 the translation of the A.V. is to be preferred. It was against the people that God complained for their having broken His covenant.  

"He saith, Behold, the days come," etc. The word "Behold" announces the importance of what follows, and calls to a diligent and admiring attention of the same. "Behold" bids us be filled with wonderment at this marvel of grace. It is indeed striking to observe that the apostle did not rely upon logical deductions and inferences, conclusive though they were. A change of priesthood necessarily involved a change of covenant, or dispensational administration. Nevertheless, obvious as this was, Paul rested not until he proved his assertions with a definite and pertinent "thus saith the Lord." He would not have the faith of the Hebrews stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God. Blessed example for God’ s servants today to follow. Alas that so many people are contented with the dogmatic assertions of some man who "ought to know what he is saying," instead of demanding clear proof from the Scriptures.  

The text which the apostle here quotes in proof of his assertion is taken from Jeremiah 31:31. It is most blessed to note the time when God gave this precious promise to His people. Beautifully has Adolph Saphir pointed out, "It is in the night of adversity that the Lord sends forth bright stars of consoling hope. When the darkest clouds of woe were gathering above Jerusalem, and the prophet himself was in the lowest depths of sorrow, God gave to him the most glorious prophecies of Judah’ s great redemption and future blessedness. The advent and reign of Messiah, the Lord our righteousness the royal dominion and priesthood of Israel’ s Redeemer, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the renewal and restoration of God’ s chosen people, the days of unbroken prosperity and blessedness— all the golden Messianic future was predicted in the last days of Jerusalem, when the magnificent fabric of its temple was about to sink into the dust, and its walls and palaces were about to be thrown prostrate on the ground."  

This new covenant God promised to make with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." The word, "Israel" is used in the Scriptures in no less than four distinct senses. First, it is the name which God gave to Jacob when he wrestled with the angel and prevailed as a prince (Gen. 32:28). Second, it denotes his fleshly descendants called "the children of Israel," that is, the Jewish nation. Third, it is employed of the ten tribes, the kingdom of Samaria or Ephraim, in contradistinction from the kingdom of Judah, and this, after the Nation was rent asunder in the days of Jeroboam. Fourth, it is applied spiritually to the whole of God’ s people (Gal. 6:16). To which we may add, Fifth, in Isaiah 49:3 (note the verses which follow) it appears to be applied to Christ Himself, as identified with His people. Personally, we believe that it is the second and the fourth of these usages that obtain in our present passage.  

The law of first mention helps us here. The initial occurrence of any expression or word in Scripture defines its scope and fixes, very largely, its consequent significance. So it is in this case. The name "Israel" was first given to Jacob: from that point onwards he is the man with a double name, sometimes being referred to as Jacob, sometimes as Israel, according as the "old man" or "new man" was uppermost within him. This more than hints at the double application of this name; oftentimes it is applied to Jacob’ s natural descendants, at other times to his spiritual brethren. When Christ affirmed of Nathanael "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile" (John 1:47), it was the same as though He had said, "Behold a true Israelite, a spiritual prince with God." To insist that "Israel" always signifies the fleshly descendants of Jacob betrays excuseless ignorance: why does the Holy Spirit speak of "Israel after the flesh" in 1 Corinthians 10:18 if there be no Israel after the spirit!  

The writer has no doubt whatever in his mind that the time is not far distant when God is going to resume His dealings with the Jewish people, restore them unto their own land, send back their Messiah and Redeemer, save them from their sins, and fulfill to them His ancient promise through Jeremiah. Nevertheless, we are fully assured that it is a serious mistake to limit the prophecy of Jeremiah (or any other prediction) to a single fulfillment. It is abundantly clear from 2 Corinthians 3 that Christians in this dispensation are already enjoying the good of the new covenant which God has made with them. Moreover, are we not reminded at the Lord’ s table of our Savior’ s words, "This cup is the new testament," or "covenant in My blood" (1 Cor. 11:25)?  

It should be pointed out that Old Testament Israel were typical and mystically significant of the whole Church of God. For that reason were the promises of grace under the old economy given unto the saints of God under the name of "Israel," "Judah," etc. (carefully compare Romans 2:28, 29), because they were types of those who should really and effectually be made partakers of them. Hence it is that in 2 Corinthians 1:20 we are told that "All the promises of God in Him (Christ) are Yea, and in Him Amen, unto the glory of God by us." Hence it is we read that "Jesus Christ was a Minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy" (Rom. 15:8,9). And hence it is that the apostle Paul writing to Christians says, "Having therefore these promises"— the preceding verses quoting from Leviticus 26:12, etc! For the same reason in Hebrews 13:6 the Christian is assured that the promise which the Lord made to Joshua belongs to him too.  

Thus, by "the house of Israel" and the "house of Judah" in Hebrews 8:8 we understand, first, the mystical and spiritual Israel and Judah; second, the application of this covenant to the literal and fleshly Israel and Judah in the day to come. In other words, we regard those expressions as denominating the whole Church of elect believers, typified of old, by the fleshly descendants of Abraham. Nor is it without reason that the Holy Spirit has here used both these names: we believe His (veiled) design was to take in God’ s elect among the Jews and the Gentiles. Our reason for believing this is because that in the very first inspired sermon preached after the new covenant had been established, Peter said to the convicted Jews, "the promise is unto you, and to your children (descendants) and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39). It is indeed remarkable that the two emphasized words have a double reference. First, they applied to the literal house of Israel, who were then outside the land, in the dispersion (Dan. 9:7); Second, to elect Gentiles, away from God: see Ephesians 2:13!  

At the time God announced His purpose and promise through Jeremiah, the fleshly descendants of Abraham were divided in two hostile groups. They had separate kings and separate centers of worship. They were at enmity with one another. As such they fitly adumbrated the great division between God’ s elect among the Jews and the Gentiles in their natural and dispensational state. There was a middle wall or partition between them (Eph. 2:14). There was "enmity" between them (Eph. 2:16). But just as God announced through Ezekiel (37:16, 17) that the diversified houses of Judah and Israel should "become one," so His elect among the Jews and the Gentiles are now one in Christ (Eph. 2:14-18)! Therefore are all born-again believers designated the "children" and "seed" of Abraham (Gal. 3:7, 29), and thus are they "blessed with faithful Abraham" (Gal. 3:9).  

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord" (verse 9). The contrast between the two covenants is first expressed negatively: "not according." The differences between them are many and great. The former was mainly typical, the latter has the substance. The one was administered under an imperfect priesthood, the latter under a perfect one. The one had to do, primarily, with that which was external; the other is, mainly, internal. The Mosaic covenant was restricted to one nation, the Christian is international in its scope.  

The old covenant is spoken of as dating from the day when the Lord took Israel, "by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." This language emphasizes the woeful and helpless condition that Israel was then in: unable to deliver themselves out of their bondage, like children incapable of walking unless supported and led. As Deuteronomy 1:31 says, "The Lord thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went." So in Hosea 11:3 God says, "I taught them to go, taking them by the arms." Such expressions also accentuate the infinite condescension of God toward His people: that He should (so to speak) bow down Himself to reach them in their lowly estate.  

"But they continued not in My covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord." "They soon forgat God’ s works, they waited not for His counsel" (Ps. 106:13). The principal reference is to Israel’ s conduct at Sinai, when during the absence of Moses in the mount, they "thrust Him from them" (Acts 7:39), and made and worshipped the golden calf. That was but prophetic or indicative of their whole history. Their shameful conduct is mentioned here for the purpose of magnifying that marvelous grace that shall yet make the new covenant with such a people. "I regarded them not" refers to God’ s governmental dealings with Israel: the severity He exercised, consuming them in the wilderness. In view of which we may well heed that searching word, "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall" (1 Cor. 10:12).  

  

  

Combined Bible: Heb 8:10-13

Two Covenants   

(Hebrews 8:10-13)   

The subject of the two covenants supplies the principal key which unlocks for us the meaning of God’ s dispensational dealings with His people here on earth. Its importance and blessedness is not surpassed by anything within the entire range of Divine revelation. Yet, sad to say, it is something which is scarcely known at all today by the majority of professing Christians. Covenant-relationship has always been the basis on which God has dealt with His people. The foundation of all is the Everlasting Covenant, a compact or agreement which God made with Christ as the Head and Representative of the whole election of grace. We would refer the interested reader unto two articles upon it, which appeared in the January and February 1930 issues of this magazine. What we shall here endeavor to treat of is the administration of that covenant, as it was made known by God, and the various forms in which it was established among His saints.  

There was an original covenant made with Adam and all mankind in him: see Hosea 6:7 margin. This consisted of an agreement between God and man concerning obedience and disobedience, reward and punishment. To that covenant were annexed promises and threatenings, which were expressed in visible signs or symbols; the first, in the tree of life; the latter in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. By these did God establish the original law of creation as a covenant. On the part of man, it was required that he should accept of this law. It was a covenant of works, and had no mediator. That arrangement or constitution formed the basis on which God dealt with Adam, but it ceased as soon as sin entered the world. God had provided a way of salvation for His own elect apart from their personal obligation to sinless obedience as the condition of life, and that through their Surety discharging all their responsibilities in His own person. This was made known in the first promise God proclaimed: Genesis 3:15. All who receive the grace which is tendered through the promises of the Gospel, are delivered from the curse of that covenant which Adam, their legal representative, broke.  

But though this first earthly covenant is no longer administered as a "covenant," nevertheless, all those of Adam’ s descendants who receive not the grace of God as it is tendered to them in the promises of the Gospel, are under the law and curse of the Adamic covenant, because the obedience which it requires of the creature unto the Creator, and the penalty which it threatens and the curse it pronounces upon the disobedient, has never been met for them by a substitute. Therefore, if any man believe not, the wrath of God (not "cometh," but) abideth on him (John 3:36), and this, because the command and curse, which result from the relation between man and his Maker, and the inflexible righteousness of God as the supreme Governor and Judge of all mankind, must be fulfilled.  

Now the children of Israel were not formally placed under the Adamic covenant absolutely, as a covenant of life, for, from the days of Abraham the promise (a renewal of Genesis 3:15; see Genesis 12:1-3, 17:6-8, etc.) was given unto him and his seed. Let it be carefully noted that in Galatians 3:17 the apostle proves that no "law" would afterwards be given, nor covenant made, that should or could disannul that promise. Had Israel been brought under the Adamic covenant of works it would have disannulled the promise, for that covenant and the promise of Grace are diametrically opposed. Moreover, had Israel come formally under the Adamic covenant of works they were all under the curse, and so had all perished eternally.  

That there were other federal transactions between God and His Church before the giving of the law at Sinai, is abundantly clear from the book of Genesis. God entered into covenant with Abraham, making him promises on behalf of his descendants, and appointing a solemn outward seal for its confirmation and establishment. That covenant contained the very nature and essence of what is termed the "new covenant." Proof of this is found in the fact that the Lord Jesus is said to be "a Mediator of the circumcision, for the truth of God to confirm the promises made to the fathers" (Rom. 15:8). As He was the Mediator of the new covenant, so far was He from rescinding the promises which God made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that it belonged to His office to ratify and establish them. But it was at Sinai that the Lord entered formally into covenant with Israel as a nation (Heb. 8:9), a covenant which had all the institutions of Divine worship annexed to it (Heb. 9:1-6).  

In contrast from the covenant which God made with Israel at Sinai, Christ is made "the Mediator of a better covenant" (Heb. 8:6). This is the covenant of grace, being so called in contrast from that of works, which was made with us in Adam. For these two, grace and works, do divide the ways of our relation to God, being opposite the one to the other (Rom. 11:6). Of this covenant of grace Christ was its Mediator from the beginning of the world, namely, from the giving of the first promise in Genesis 3:15, for that promise was given in view of His incarnation and all that He should accomplish by His future and actual mediation. Christ was as truly the Surety of Abel as He was of the apostle Paul, and God had "respect unto" (was favorable toward and accepted) the one on the ground of Christ’ s surety-ship as much as He did the other. To this it may be replied, If such be the case, then wherein lies the superior privilege of the Gospel-dispensation over that of the Mosaic?  

In seeking an answer to the above question, it is needful to recognize (as was pointed out in our last article) that the "new covenant" referred to in Hebrews 8 is not the new covenant absolutely considered, and as it had been virtually administered from the days of Genesis 3:15 in a way of promise. For considered thus it was quite consistent with the covenant that God made with Israel at Sinai: in Galatians 3:17 the apostle proves that the renewal of the covenant (as a promise) to Abraham, was in no way abrogated by the giving of the law. Instead, in Hebrews 8 the apostle is treating of such an establishment of the new covenant as demanded the revocation of the Sinaitic constitution. What this "establishment" was, is made clear in Hebrews 9 and 10: it was the ordinances of worship connected with it.  

When Christianity had been formally established by God, not only was the old covenant annulled, but the entire system of sacred worship whereby it was administered, was set aside. When the "new covenant" was first given in the way of a promise (Gen. 3:15, renewed Genesis 12, 17, etc.), it did not introduce a system of worship and privileges expressive of the same. But the promise of the new covenant was included in the Mosaic covenant, nor was it inconsistent with its rights and ceremonies, nay not even with them composed into a yoke of bondage. And why? Because all those rites and ceremonies were added after the making of the covenant in Exodus chapters 19 and 24; nevertheless what was added did not and could not overthrow the promise. As the Mosaic system was completed, then all the worship of the Church was to proceed from it and to be conformed to it.  

No sinner was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant and the mediation of Christ therein. The new covenant of grace (in contrast from the old covenant of works made with the human race in Adam) was extant and effectual throughout the Old Testament era. Then what is the "better covenant" with its "better promises" which the death of Christ has inaugurated? We say again, it is not a new covenant absolutely considered. There are many plain passages in the Psalms and the Prophets which show that the Church of old knew and believed the blessed truth of justification and salvation by Christ, and walked with God in the faith thereof: compare Romans 4:3-9. Let those who have access to the incomparable and immortal "Institutes" of Calvin read carefully chapters 9endash 11 in book 2.  

"The Church under the Old Testament, had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in Him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means that believers have under the New. And whereas the essence and substance of the covenant consists in these things, they are not said to be under another covenant, but only a different administration of it. But this was so different from that which is established in the Gospel after the coming of Christ, that it hath the appearance and name of another covenant" (John Owen).  

The leading differences between the two administrations of the covenant of grace may be reduced to the following heads. First, the manner in which the love of God in Christ is made known. The miracle recorded in Mark 8:23, 24 illustrates and adumbrates the two states. The Old Testament saints had sight, but the Object set before their faith was seen at a distance, and through clouds and shadows. The New Testament saints "with open face behold the glory of God in a mirror" (2 Cor. 3:18). Second, in its more plentiful communication of grace unto the Church: John 1:16. Old Testament believers had grace given to them (Gen. 6:8, etc.), but we an "abundance of grace" (Rom. 5:17). Third, in our access to God. The revelation of God at Sinai filled the people with terror; His revelation of Himself in Christ, fills us with joy. They were shut out from the holy place; we have freedom to approach His throne (Heb. 4:16). Fourth, the extent of the dispensation of Divine grace. Under the Old Testament it was restricted to one nation; now it extends to all nations.  

The covenant of grace was the same, as to its substance, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and efficacy, unalterable, everlasting, "ordered in all things and sure." The covenant of grace considered absolutely was the promise of grace in and by Christ Jesus (2 Tim. 1:9, Titus 1:2), and that was the only way and means of salvation unto the elect from the entrance of sin. Absolutely, in Old Testament times, the covenant consisted only in promise, and as such is referred to in Acts 2:39, Hebrews 6:14-16. The full and lawful "establishment" of it (Heb. 8:6), whence it became formally a "covenant" unto the whole Church, was future only. Two things were needed to change the "promise" into a "new covenant": the shedding of the blood of the only Sacrifice which belonged to it, and the institution of that worship in keeping therewith.  

Whilst the Old Testament Church enjoyed all the spiritual benefits of the promise, wherein the substance of the covenant is contained, before it was confirmed and made the sole rule of worship unto the Church, it was not inconsistent with the holiness and wisdom of God to bring His people under any other covenant, or prescribe unto them what forms of worship He pleased, for they did not render ineffectual the promise before given. Nor did the institutions of the Mosaic covenant divert from, but rather led to, the future establishment of the promise. Yea, the laws and worship of the Mosaic economy were of present use and advantage to the Church while it remained in its state of minority (Gal. 4). For much of the above we are indebted, under God, to the writings of John Owen (1670 A.D.). We now turn again to our passage.  

"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people" (verse 10). "The design of the apostle, or what is the general argument which he is in pursuit of, must still be borne in mind, while considering the testimonies which he produceth in the confirmation of it. His design is to prove that the Lord Christ is the Mediator and Surety of a better covenant, than that wherein the service of God was managed by the high priests according to the law. For hence it follows, that His priesthood is greater and far more excellent than theirs. To this end he doth not only prove that God promised to make such a covenant, but also declares the nature and properties of it, in the words of the prophets. And so, by comparing it with the former covenant, he manifests its excellency above it. In particular, in this testimony, the imperfection of that covenant is demonstrated from its issue. For it did not effectually maintain peace and mutual love between God and the people; but being broken by them, they were thereon rejected of God. This rendered all the other benefits and advantages of it, useless. Wherefore, the apostle insists from the prophet, on those promises of this other covenant, which infallibly prevent the like issue, securing the people’ s obedience forever, and so the love and relation of God unto them as their God" (John Owen).  

The apostle is here contrasting the Christian dispensation from the Mosaic. Having in the previous verse declared in general the abrogation of the old covenant, because of its inadequacy through the weakness of the flesh, he here describes the new covenant which has supplanted it. He shows it to be so excellent in its constitution that none should object against its substitution in place of the old: such is the force of the opening "For." The formal "this is the covenant" announces that it is the duty of Christians to make themselves distinctly and fully informed in the privileges belonging unto them. It was for this very end that the writings of the evangelists and apostles were added to those of the prophets. This new covenant is made with "the house of Israel," which we understand mystically, comprising under it all the people of God. It is taken spiritually for the whole Church, the "Israel of God" (Gal. 6:16).  

"After those days" is in antithesis from "in the day" of verse 9, which was an indefinite expression covering the interval between God’ s sending Moses into Egypt and the arrival of Israel before Sinai. "After those days" means, following the Old Testament era. The dispensation which succeeds that is called "the time of reformation" in Hebrews 9:10. Now just as God’ s making of the first covenant with Israel was preceded by many things that were preparatory to the solemn establishment of the same— such as His sending of Moses to announce unto them His designs of grace, His delivering them out of the house of bondage, His miraculous conducting of them through the Red Sea, His making known His law at Sinai— so the new covenant was gradually made and established, and that by sundry acts preparatory for it or confirmatory of it. As this is so little understood we must enter into details.  

First, the introduction of the new covenant was made by the ministry of John the Baptist (Luke 16:16). He was sent to prepare the way of the Lord. Until his appearing the Jews were bound absolutely unto the covenant at Sinai, without any alteration or addition to any ordinance of worship. But John’ s ministry was "the beginning of the Gospel" (Mark 1:1,2). He called the people off from resting in the privileges of the old covenant (Matthew 3:8-10), and instituted a new ordinance of worship, baptism. He pointed away from Moses to the Lamb of God. Thus, his ministry was the beginning of the accomplishment of God’ s promise through Jeremiah. Second, the incarnation and ministry of the Lord Jesus was a further advance unto the same. His appearing in the flesh laid an axe to the root of the whole Mosaic dispensation (Matthew 3:10), though the tree was not immediately cut down. By His miracles and teaching Christ furnished abundant proof that He was the Mediator of the new covenant.  

Third, the way for the introduction of the new covenant having been prepared, it was solemnly enacted and confirmed in and by Christ’ s death: thereby the "promise" became a "testament" (Heb. 9:14-16). From that time onwards, the old covenant and its administration had received its full accomplishment (Eph. 2:14-16, Colossians 2:14, 15), and it continued to abide only in the longsuffering of God, to be taken out of the way in His own time and manner. Fourth, the new covenant was further established in the resurrection of Christ. The old covenant could not be abrogated till its curse had been borne, and that was discharged absolutely when Christ was "loosed from the pains of death" and delivered from the grave. Fifth, the new covenant was promulgated and confirmed on the day of Pentecost, answering to the promulgation of the law at Sinai, some weeks after Israel had been delivered out of Egypt. From Pentecost onwards the whole Church of God was absolved from any duty with respect unto the old covenant and the worship of it (although it was not manifest as yet unto their consciences), and the ordinances of worship and all the institutions of the new covenant now became obligatory upon them. Sixth, the question was formally and officially raised as to the continuance of the obligatory form of the old covenant, and the contrary was expressly affirmed by the apostles under the infallible superintendence of the Holy Spirit: Acts 15:1-29.  

But at this point a difficulty, already noticed, may recur to our minds: Were not the things mentioned in Hebrews 8:10-13, the grace and mercy therein expressed, actually communicated to God’ s elect both before Sinai and afterwards? Did not all who truly believed and feared God enjoy these same identical blessings? Unquestionably. What then is the solution? This: the apostle is not here contrasting the internal operations of Divine grace in the Old and New Testament saints, but as Calvin rightly taught, the "reference is to the economical condition of the Church." The contrast is between that which characterized the Judaic and the Christian dispensations in the outward confirmation of the covenant. While there were individuals like David and Daniel, perhaps many such, in whom the Spirit wrought effectually, yet it is evident that the great majority of Abraham’ s natural descendants had no experimental acquaintance with the external revelation God had given.  

"I will put My laws into their minds, and write them in their hearts." That this is not an experience peculiar to Christians or restored Christians is clear from Psalm 37:30, 31, "The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. The law of His God is in his heart." So, too in Psalm 19:7, 8, we read, "The law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul... the statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart." But that the major portion of Israel, or even a considerable number of them, were regenerated, at any period in the lengthy history of that nation, there is nothing whatever to show: instead, there is very much to the contrary. This experience is enjoyed by none save God’ s elect, and in every age they have been but a "little flock."  

"I will put My laws into their minds." These words have reference to the effectual operations of the Spirit in His supernatural and saving illumination of our understandings, whereby they are made habitually conformable unto the whole law of God, which is our rule of obedience in the new covenant. The carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to His law, neither indeed can be (Rom. 8:7). But when we are renewed by the Spirit, He works in us a submission to the authority and revealed will of God. As the Lord opened the heart of Lydia "that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul" (Acts 16:14), so in the miracle of the new birth, the Christian is given an ear to heed and a mind to perceive the holiness, justice, and goodness of God’ s law. Yea, that law is effectually applied to him, so that it becomes the former of his thoughts, the subject of his meditation, and the regulator of his ways.  

The preacher may announce the law of God to the outward ear, but only the Spirit can engrave it on the mind. The realization of this fact ought to drive every minister to his knees. No matter how diligently he has prepared his sermon, no matter how clearly and faithfully he expounds God’ s truth, no matter how solemnly and searchingly he endeavors to press it on the individual’ s conscience, unless God Himself gives His Word an entrance into the soul, nothing spiritual and eternal is accomplished. Nowhere is the deadness of the "churches" more plainly evidenced today than by the absence of concerted and definite prayer immediately before and immediately after the Word is preached: the "song service" has been substituted for the prayer service. O that God’ s own people might be aroused to the need of their coming together and crying, "Lord, open the eyes of these men" (2 Kings 6:20).  

"And write them in their hearts." It is this which renders the former part actually effectual. The "heart" as distinguished from the "mind" comprises the affections and the will. First, the understanding is informed, and then the heart is reformed. An active principle of obedience is imparted, and this is nothing else than a love for God Himself. Where there is a real love for God, there is a genuine desire and determination to please Him. The heart of the natural man is "alienated" from God and opposed to His authority. That is why, at Sinai, God wrote the commandments upon stones— not so much to secure the outward letter of them, as to represent the hardness of the hearts of the people unto whom they were given. But at regeneration God takes away the heart of stone, and gives a heart of flesh (Ezek. 36:26)— pliable, living, responsive.  

Let each reader pause here and lift up his or her heart to God, asking for grace and wisdom to honestly examine themselves in the light of this verse. You may sit under a sound and scriptural ministry every Sabbath, but what effect has it upon your inner man? You may be well acquainted with the letter of the Word, but how far is it directing the details of your daily walk? Does your mind dwell most on temporal or eternal things, material or spiritual? What engages your thoughts in your seasons of recreation? Is your heart fixed upon God or upon the world? There are thousands of professing Christians who can talk glibly of the Scriptures, but whose lives give no evidence that God has written His laws in their hearts. Are you one of this class?  

"And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people." This expresses covenant-relationship. It is placed in the center of these promises because it is the spring from which the grace of the other blessings doth proceed. The wicked are living in this world "without God, and without hope" (Eph. 2:12), but unto the righteous He says, "I am thy Shield, thy exceeding great Reward" (Gen. 15:1). "Happy is that people, that is in such a case, happy is that people, whose God is the Lord" (Ps. 144:15). When He says "I will be to them a God" it means that He will act toward His people according to all that is implied in the name of God. He will be their Lawgiver, their Counselor, their Protector, their Guide. He will supply all their needs, deliver from all dangers, and bring them unto everlasting felicity. He will be faithful and longsuffering, bearing with their frailties, never leaving nor forsaking them. "And they shall be My people" expresses both a dignity and a duty. Their dignity is set forth in 1 Peter 2:9; their duty in the verses which follow.  

"And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest" (verse 11). These words point a contrast from the general spiritual ignorance which obtained among the Jews: cf. Isaiah 1:3, etc. "The words in the 11th verse are not to be understood absolutely, but comparatively. They intimate, that under that covenant there shall be a striking contrast to the ignorance which characterized the great body of those who were under the Old Covenant; that the revelation of the Divine will shall be far more extensive and clear under the new than under the old economy; and that there shall be a correspondingly enlarged communication of the enlightened influences of the Holy Spirit. They probably also are intended to suggest the idea, that that kind of knowledge which is the peculiar glory of the New Covenant is a kind of knowledge which cannot be communicated by brother teaching brother, but comes directly from Him— the great Teacher, whose grand characteristic is this, that whom He teaches, He makes apt to learn" (John Brown).  

"And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord." During the Mosaic economy, and particularly in the last century before Christ, there was an external teaching of the Law, which the people trusted and rested in without any regard for God’ s teaching by the inward circumcision of the heart. Such teaching had degenerated into rival schools and sects, such as the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Essenes, etc., and they made void the Word of God through their traditions (Mark 7:13). It was against such the last of Israel’ s prophets had announced. "The Lord will cut off... the master and the scholar out of the tabernacles of Jacob" (Mal. 2:12). Or, our verse probably has more direct reference to the general knowledge of God which obtained during the Mosaic economy, when He revealed Himself under types and shadows, and was known through "parables and dark sayings." These were now supplanted by the full blaze of the Gospel’ s light.  

"For all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest." God is now known in the full revelation which He has made of Himself in the person of His incarnate Son: John 1:18. As we are told in 1 John 5:20, "And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true": "know Him" in the sense that we recognize, own, and practically obey Him as God. This spiritual, experimental, vital, saving knowledge of God is now communicated unto all of His elect. As the Savior announced, "They shall be all taught of God" (John 6:45): taught His will and all the mysteries of godliness, which by the Word are revealed. This "knowledge" of God cannot be imparted by any external teaching alone, but is the result of the Spirit’ s operations, though He frequently, yea generally, uses the oral and written ministry of God’ s servants as His instruments therein.  

"For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more" (verse 12). "This is the great foundational promise and grace of the new covenant. For though it be last expressed, yet, in order of nature, it precedeth the other mercies and privileges mentioned, and is the foundation of the communication of them unto us. This the casual ‘ for’ at the beginning of the verse doth demonstrate. What I have spoken, saith the Lord, shall be accomplished, ‘ For I will be merciful,’ etc., without which there could be no participation of the other things mentioned. Wherefore, not only an addition of new grace and mercy is expressed in these words, but a reason also is rendered why, or on what grounds, He would bestow on them those other mercies" (John Owen).  

In verse 12 a reason is given why God bestows the wondrous blessings enumerated in verses 10, 11. The word here rendered "merciful" is propitious, for it is not absolute mercy without any satisfaction having been taken by justice, but grace shown on the ground of a propitiation: cf. Romans 3:24, 25. Christ died to render God propitious toward sinners (Heb. 2:17), and in and through Him alone is God merciful toward the sins of His people. Just so long as Christ is rejected, the sinner is under the curse. But as soon as He is received, the blessings described in verses 10-12 become his. Note there are just seven blessings named, which exemplifies the perfection of the new covenant.  

It is to be noted that no less than three terms are used in verse 12 to describe the fearful evils of which the sinner is guilty, thus emphasizing his obnoxiousness to the holy God, and magnifying the grace which saves him. "Unrighteousness" signifies a wrong done unto God, against man’ s sovereign Ruler and Benefactor. "Sin" is a missing of the mark, the glorifying of God, which is what ought ever to be aimed at. "Iniquity" has the force of lawlessness, a setting up of my will against God’ s, a living to please self rather than for His glory. How marvelous is the propitious favor of God toward those who are guilty of such multiplied enormities! The apostle’ s object was to point another contrast between the covenants. That which characterized Judaism was a reign of law and justice: that which distinguishes Christianity is the "Throne of Grace." Note that no "conditions" are here stipulated. But does not the new covenant require repentance and faith? Assuredly: Mark 1:15. But He who requires these has promised also to work them in His people: Acts 5:31.  

"In that He saith, A new, He hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (verse 13). That the translators failed to perceive the drift of the apostle’ s reasoning here is evident from their adding the word "covenant" in italics. This was not only unnecessary, but its introduction serves to hide the force of the first half of this verse. In it the apostle draws an inference from what God had said through Jeremiah. He singles out one word, "new," and on it bases an argument: because Christianity is the "establishment" of the new covenant, then the preceding economy must have grown "old," and "old" is significative of that which draws near its end! How this shows us, once more, that every jot and tittle of Scripture is authoritative, full of meaning, and of sufficient evidence for what may be deduced from it!  

"Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." Here is the conclusion of the apostle’ s argument. If the first covenant had been adequate no place had been sought for a second (verse 7). But place was sought for the second (verse 8), therefore the first covenant was not faultless. The old covenant had continued for fifteen hundred years, from Moses to Christ; but its purpose had now been served. God gave Israel more than a hint that the Mosaic economy would not last forever, when his providence permitted the nation to be carried down into Babylon. Upon their return from captivity, neither the temple nor its priesthood were ever restored to their pristine glory. And now, as the apostle wrote, in less than ten years Jerusalem and the temple were completely destroyed. If then the Jewish covenant was abolished because it was "old," how much more ought the "old man" to be put off (Eph. 4:24), and the "old leaven" purged out (1 Cor. 5:7)!  

  

  

Maclaren: Heb 8:10

I. God's Writing On The Heart

The Articles Of The New Covenant

I will put My laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.'--Heb. 8:10.

WE can scarcely estimate the shock to a primitive Hebrew Christian when he discovered that Judaism was to fade away. Such an earthquake might seem to leave nothing standing. Now, the great object of this Epistle is to insist on that truth, and to calm the early Hebrew Christians under it, by showing them that the disappearance of the older system left them no poorer but infinitely richer, inasmuch as all that was in it was more perfectly in Christ's gospel. The writer has accordingly been giving his strength to showing that, all along the line, Christianity is the perfecting of Judaism, in its Founder, in its priesthood, in its ceremonies, in its Sabbath. Here he touches the great central thought of the covenant between God and man, and he falls back upon the strange words of one of the old prophets. Jeremiah had declared as emphatically as he, the writer, has been declaring, that the ancient system was to melt away and be absorbed in a new covenant between God and man. Is there any other instance of a religion which, on the one side. proclaims its own eternal duration--the Word of the Lord endureth for ever'--and on the other side declares that it is to be abrogated, antiquated, and done away? The writer of the Epistle had learned from sacreder lips than Jeremiah's the same lesson, for the Master said at the most solemn hour of His career, This is the blood of the New Covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.'

These articles of the New Covenant go very deep into the essence of Christianity, and may well be thoughtfully pondered by us all, if we wish to know what the specific differences between the ultimate revelation in Jesus Christ, and all other systems are. The words I have read for my text are the first of these articles.

I. Let Us Try To Ascertain What Exactly Is The Meaning Of This Great Promise.

Now it seems to me that the two clauses which I have read for my text are not precisely parallel, but parallel with a difference. I take it, that mind' here means very much what we make it mean in our popular phraseology, a kind of synonym for the understanding, or the intellectual part of a man's nature; and that heart,' on the other hand, means something a little wider than it does in our popular phraseology, and indicates not only the affections, but the centre of personality in the human will, as well as the seat of love. So these two clauses will mean, you see, if we carry that distinction with us, two things--the clear perception of the will of God, and the coincidence of that will with our inclinations and desires. In men's natural consciences, there is the law written on their minds, but alas! we all know that there is an awful chasm between perception and inclination, and that it is one thing to know our duty, and quite another to wish to do it. So the heart of this great promise of my text is that these two things shall coincide in a Christian man, shall cover precisely the same ground; as two of Euclid's triangles having the same angles will, if laid upon each other, coincide line for line and angle for angle. Thus, says this great promise, it is possible--and, if we observe the conditions, it will be actual in us--that knowledge and will shall cover absolutely and exactly the same ground. Inclination will be duty, and duty will be inclination and delight. Nothing short of such a thought lies here.

And how is that wonderful change upon men to be accomplished? I will put, I will write.' Only He can do it. We all know, by our own experience, the schism that gapes between the two things. Every man in the world knows a vast deal more of duty than any man in the world does. The worst of us has a standard that rebukes his evil, and the best of us has a standard that transcends his goodness, and, alas! often transcends his inclination. But the gospel of our Lord and Saviour comes armed with sufficient power to make this miracle an actuality for us all.

For it comes, does it not, to substitute for all other motives to obedience, the one motive of love? They but half understand the gospel who dwell upon its sanctions of reward and punishment, and would seek to frighten men into goodness by brandishing the whip of law before them, and uncovering the lid that shuts in the smoke of a hell. And they misinterpret it almost as much, if there be any such, who find the chief motive for Christian obedience in the glories of the heavenly state. These are subordinate and legitimate in their secondary place, but the gospel appeals to men, not merely nor chiefly on the ground of self-interest, but it comes to them with the one appeal, If ye love Me, keep My commandments.' That is how the law is written on the heart. Wherever there is love, there is a supreme delight in divining and in satisfying the wish and will of the beloved. His lightest word is law to the loving heart; his looks are spells and commandments. And if it is so in regard of our poor, imperfect, human loves, how infinitely more so is it where the heart is touched by true affection for His own infinite love's sake, of that Jesus' who is most desired!' The secret of Christian morality is that duty is changed into choice, because love is made the motive for obedience.

And, still further, let me remind you how this great promise is fulfilled in the Christian life, because to have Christ shrined in the heart is the heart of Christianity, and Christ Himself is our law. So, in another sense than that which I have been already touching, the law is written on the heart on which, by faith and self-surrender, the name of Christ is written. And when it becomes our whole duty to become like Him, then He being throned in our hearts, our law is within, and Himself to His darlings' shall be, as the poet has it about another matter,' both law and impulse.' Write His name upon your hearts, and your law of life is thereby written there.

And, still further, let me remind you that this great promise is fulfilled, because the very specific gift of Christianity to men is the gift of a new nature which is created in righteousness and holiness that flows from truth.' The communication of a divine life kindred with, and percipient of, and submissive to, the divine will is the gift that Christianity--or, rather, let us put away the abstraction and say that Christ--offers to us all, and gives to every man who will accept it. And thus, and in other ways on which I cannot dwell now, this great article of the New Covenant lies at the very foundation of the Christian life, and gives its peculiar tinge and cast to all Christian morality, commandment, and obligation.

But let me remind you how this great truth has to be held with caution. The evidence of this letter itself shows that, whilst the writer regarded it as a distinctive characteristic of the gospel, that by it men's wills were stamped with a delight in the law of God, and a transcript thereof, he still regarded these wills as unstable, as capable of losing the sharp lettering, of having the writing of God obliterated, and still regarded it as possible that there should be apostasy and departure.

So there is nothing in this promise which suspends the need for effort and for conflict. Still the flesh lusteth against the spirit.' Still there are parts of the nature on which that law is not written. It is the final triumph, that the whole man, body, soul, and spirit is, through and through, penetrated with, and joyfully obedient to, the commandments of the Lord. There is need, too, not only for continuous progress, effort, conflict, in order to keep our hearts open for His handwriting, but also for much caution, lest at any time we should mistake our own self-will for the utterance of the divine voice. Love, and do what thou wilt,' said a great Christian teacher. It is an unguarded statement, but profoundly true as in some respects it is, it is only absolutely true if we have made sure that the thou' which wills' is the heart on which God has written His law.

Only God can do this for us. The Israelites of old were bidden' these things which I command thee this day shall be on thy heart,' and they were to write them on their hand, and on the frontlet between their eyes, and on their doorposts. The latter commands were obeyed, having been hardened into a form; and phylacteries on the arm, and scrolls on the lintel, were the miserable obedience which was given to them. But the complete writing on the heart was beyond the power of unaided man. A psalmist said,' I delight to do Thy will, and Thy law is within my heart.' But a verse or two after, in the same psalm, he wailed, Mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up. They are more than the hairs of my head. Therefore my heart faileth me.' One Man has transcribed the divine will on His will, without blurring a letter, or omitting a clause. One Man has been able to say, in the presence of the most fearful temptations, Not My will, but Thine, be done.' One Man has so completely written, perceived, and obeyed the law of His Father, that, looking back on all His life, He was conscious of no defect or divergence, either in motive or in act, and could affirm on the Cross, It is finished.' He who thus perfectly kept that divine law will give to us, if we ask Him, His spirit, to write it upon our hearts, and' the law of the spirit of life which was in Christ Jesus shall make us free from the law of sin and death.'

II. Now, Secondly, Note The Impassable Gulf Which This Fulfilled Promise Makes Between Christianity And All Other Systems.

It is a new covenant, undoubtedly--an altogether new thing in the world. For whatever other laws have been promulgated among men have had this in common, that they have stood over against the Will with a whip in one hand, and a box of sweets in the other, and have tried to influence desires and inclinations, first by the setting forth of duty, then by threatening, and then by promises to obedience. There is the inherent weakness of all which is merely law. You do not make men good by telling them in what goodness consists, nor yet by setting forth the bitter consequences that may result from wrong-doing. All that is surface work. But there is a power which says that it deals with the will as from within, and moves, and moulds, and revolutionises it. You cannot make men sober by act of parliament,' people say. Well! I do not believe the conclusion which is generally drawn from that statement, but it is perfectly true in itself. To tell a man what he ought to do is very, very little help towards his doing it. I do not under-estimate the value of a clear perception of duty, but I say that, apart from Christianity, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, that clear perception of duty is like a clear opening of a great gulf between a man and safety, which only makes him recoil in despair with the thought, how can I ever leap across that?' But the peculiarity of the gospel is that it gives both the knowledge of what we ought to be; and with and in the knowledge, the desire, and with and in the knowledge and the desire, the power to be what God would have us to be.

All other systems, whether the laws of a nation, or the principles of a scientific morality, or the solemn voice that speaks in our minds proclaiming some version of God's law to every man- all these are comparatively impotent. They are like bill-stickers going about a rebellious province posting the king's proclamation. Unless they have soldiers at their back, the proclamation is not worth the paper it is printed upon. But Christianity comes, and gives us that which it requires from us. So, in his epigrammatic way, St. Augustine penetrated to the very heart of this article when he prayed, Give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt.'

III. Note The Freedom And Blessedness Of This Fulfilled Promise.

Not to do wrong may be the mark of a slave's timid obedience. Not to wish to do wrong is the charter of a son's free and blessed service. There is a higher possibility yet, reserved for heaven--not to be able to do wrong. Freedom does not consist in doing what I like--that turns out, in the long run, to be the most abject slavery, under the severest tyrants. But it consists in liking to do what I ought. When my wishes and God's will are absolutely coincident, then and only then, am I free. That is no prison, out of which we do not wish to go. Not to be confined against our wills, but voluntarily to elect to move only within the sacred, charmed, sweet circle of the discerned will of God, is the service and liberty of the sons of God.

Alas! there are a great many Christians, so-called, who know very little about such blessedness. To many of us religion is a burden. It consists of a number of prohibitions and restrictions and commandments equally unwelcome. Do not do this,' and all the while I would like to do it. Do that,' and all the while I do not want to do it. Pray, because it is your duty; go to chapel, because you think it is God's will; give money that you would much rather keep in your pockets: abstain from certain things that you hunger for; do other things that you do not at all desire to do, nor find any pleasure in doing.' That is the religion of hosts of people. They have need to ask themselves whether their religion is Christ's religion. Ah! brethren!--My yoke is easy and My burden light; not because the things that He bids and forbids are less or lighter than those which the world's morality requires of its followers, but because, so to speak, the yoke is padded with the velvet of love, and inclination coincides, in the measure of our true religion, with the discerned will of God.

IV. Lastly, One Word About The Condition Of The Fulfilment Of This Promise To Us.

As I have been saying, it is sadly far ahead of the experience-of crowds of so-called Christians. There are still great numbers of professing Christians, and I doubt not that I speak to some such, on whose hearts only a very few of the syllables of God's will are written, and these very faintly and blotted. But remember that the fundamental idea of this whole context is that of a covenant, and a covenant implies two parties, and duties and obligations on the part of each. If God is in covenant with you, you are in covenant with God. If He makes a promise, there is something for you to do in order that that promise may be fulfilled to you.

What is there to do? First, and last, and midst, keep close to Jesus Christ. In the measure in which we keep ourselves in continual touch with Him, will His law be written upon our hearts. If we are for ever twitching away the paper; if we are for ever flinging blots and mud upon it, how can we expect the transcript to be clear and legible? We must keep still that God may write. We must wait habitually in His presence. When the astronomer wishes to get the image of some far-off star, invisible to the eye of sense, he regulates the motion of his sensitive plate, so that for hours it shall continue right beneath the unseen beam. So we have to still our hearts, and keep their plates--the fleshy tables of them--exposed to the heavens. Then the likeness of God will be stamped there.

Be faithful to what is written there, which is the Christian shape of the heathen commandment--Do the duty that lies nearest thee; so shall the next become plainer.' Be faithful to the line that is written,' and there will be more on the tablet to-morrow.

Now this is a promise for us all. However blotted and blurred and defaced by crooked, scrawling letters, like a child's copy-book, with its first pot-hooks and hangers, our hearts may be, there is no need for any of us to say despairingly, as we look on the smeared page, What I have written I have written.' He is able to blot it all out, to take away the hand-writing '--our own--that is against us, nailing it to His Cross,' and to give us, in our inmost spirits, a better knowledge of, and a glad obedience to, His discerned and holy will. So that each of us, if we choose, and will observe the conditions, may be able to say with all humility, Lo! I come, in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do Thy will, yea! Thy law is within my heart.'

II. Their God, My People

I will be to them a God, and they shall be to Me a people.' Heb. 8:10.

TWO mirrors set over against each other reflect one another and themselves in each other, in long perspective. Two hearts that love, with similar reciprocation of influence, mirror back to each other their own affections. I am thine; thou art mine,' is the very mother-tongue of love, and the source of blessedness. All loving hearts know that. That mutual surrender, and, in surrender, reciprocal possession, is lifted up here into the highest regions. I will be their God, they shall be My people.' That was the fundamental promise of the Mosaic dispensation, laid. at Sinai--Ye shall be unto Me a people for a possession.' All through the Old Testament we find it re-echoed; and yet the interpenetration of God and the people was imperfect and external in that ancient covenant.

So the writer here, falling back upon the marvellous prophecy of Jeremiah, regards this as being one of the characteristics of Christianity, that what was shadowed in Israel's possession of God and God's possession of Israel, is, in substance, blessedly and permanently realised in the relations of God to Christian souls, and of Christian souls to God.

Not only is there this mutual possession, as expressed by the two halves of my text, but each half, when cleft and analysed, reveals the necessity for a similar reciprocity. For God's giving of Himself to us is nothing to us without our taking of God for ours; and, in like manner, our giving of ourselves to God, would be all incomplete, unless in His strange love, He stooped from amidst the praises of Israel to accept the poor gifts that we bring.

So the duality of my text breaks up into a double dualism, and we have God giving Himself to us, and His gift realised in our acceptance of Him for ours; and then we have our giving of ourselves to God, and the gift realised and ratified in His acceptance of us for His. And to these four points, briefly, I wish to turn.

I. I Will Be To Them A God.' That Is God's Gift Of Himself To Us.

The words go far deeper than the necessary divine relation to all His creatures. He is a God to every star that burns, and to every worm that creeps, and to every gnat that dances for a moment. But there is a closer relation, and more blessed than that. He is a God to every man that lives, lavishing upon him manifestations of His divinity, and sustaining him in life. But besides these great and wondrous universal relations which spring from the very fact of creative power and creatural independence, there is a tenderer, a truer relationship of heart to heart, of spirit to spirit, which is set forth here as the prerogative of the men who trust in Jesus Christ. The special does not contradict or deny the universal, the universal does not exclude the special--I will be a God to them,' in a deeper, more blessed, soul-satisfying, and vital sense than to others around them.

And what lies in that great promise passes the wit of man and the tongues of angels fully to conceive and tell. All that lies in that majestic monosyllable, which is shorthand for life, and light, and all perfectness, lived in a living person who has a heart, that word God--all that is included in that name, God will be to youand me, if we like to have Him for such. I will be a God to them '--then round about them shall be cast the bulwark of the everlasting arm and the everlasting purpose. I will be a God to them'--then in all dark places there will be a light, and in all perplexities there will be a path, and in all anxieties there will be quietness, and in all troubles there will be a hidden light of joy, and in every circumstance life will be saturated with an almighty presence, which shall make the rough places plain and the crooked things straight. I will be a God to them'--then their desires, their hungerings after blessedness, their seekings after good, need no longer roam open-mouthed and empty, throughout a waste world where there is only scanty fodder enough to keep them from expiring but never food enough to satisfy them; but in Him longings and hopes will all find their appropriate satisfaction. And there will be rest in God, and whatsoever aspirations after loftier goodness may have robe cherished, and whatsoever base hankerings still lingering have to be fought, the strength of a present God will enable us to aspire, and not to be disappointed, and to cast ourselves into the conflict, and be ever victorious. I will be to them a God,' is the same as to say that everything which my complex nature can require I shall find in Him.

It says, too, that all that Godhood, in all the incomprehensible sweep of its attributes, is on my side, if I will. They tell us that there are rays in the spectrum which no eye can see, but which yet have mightier chemical and other influences than those that are visible. The spectrum of God is not all visible, but beyond the limits of comprehension there lie dark energies which are full of blessedness and of power for us I will be to them a God" We can understand something of what that name signifies; and all that is enlisted for us. There is much which that name signifies that we do not understand, and all that, too, is working on our side.

Now, remember, that this giving of God to us by Himself is all concentrated in one historical act. He gave Himself to us, when He spared not His only begotten Son. My text is one of the articles of the New Covenant. And what sealed and confirmed all the articles of that Covenant? The blood of Jesus Christ. It was when God spared not His own Son,' and when the Son spared not Himself, on that Cross of Calvary, that there came to pass the ratifying and filling out and perfecting of.the ancient, typical promise,' I will be to them a God.' There was the unspeakable gift in which God was given to humanity.

II. And Now We Have To Take The Giving God And Make Him Our God.

I need not do more than just glance for a moment at that thought, for it is familiar enough to us all. Here is a treasure of gold lying in the road. Anybody that picks it up may have it; the man who does not pick it up does not get it, though it is there for him to lay his fingers on. Here is a river flowing past your door. You may put a pipe into it, and bring all its wealth and refreshment into your house, and use it for the quenching of your thirst, for the cleansing of your person, for the cooking of your victuals, for the watering of your gardens. And here is all the fulness of God welling past us, but Niagara may thunder close by a man's door, and he may perish of thirst. I will be to them a God.' What does that matter if I do not turn round and say: O Lord! Thou art my God'? Nothing! Beggars come to your door, and you give them a bit of bread, and they go away, and you find it flung into the mud round the corner. God gives us Himself. I wonder how many of us have tossed the gift over the first hedge, and left it there. Yet all the while we are dying for want of it, and do not know that we are.

Brethren! you have to enclose a bit of the prairie for your very own, and put a hedge round it, and cultivate it, and you will get abundant fruits. You have to translate their' into the singular possessive pronoun, and say mine,' and put out the hand of faith, and make Him in very deed yours. Then, and only then, is this giving perfected.

III. In The Third Place, We Have To Give Ourselves To God.

We begin--as our text, profoundly, with all its simplicity, begins--with an act of God to us. He enters into loving relations with me, and it is only when I am melted and encouraged by the perception and reception of these relations that there comes the answering throb in my heart. The mirror in our spirit has the other one reflected upon it; then it flings back its own reflection to the parent glass. God comes first with the love that He pours over us poor creatures, and when we have known and believed the love that God hath to us,' then, and only then, do we throb back the reflected, ay, the kindred love. For love is the same thing in the divine heart and in my heart. In the other bonds that unite men to God, what is man's corresponds to what is God's. My faith corresponds to His faithfulness. My dependence corresponds to His sufficiency. My weak clinging answers to His strong grasp; my obedience to His commanding. But my love not only corresponds to, as the concave does to the convex, but it assimilates to, and is the likeliest thing in the creature to, the love of the Creator. And so there is a parallel, wonderful and blessed, between the giving love which says I will be to them a God,' and the recipient love which responds, We are to Thee a people.'

Remember, too, that not only is there this general resemblance, but that our love manifests itself to God --I was going to say, just as God's love manifests itself to us, though, of course, there are differences that I do not need to touch upon here, in the act of self-surrender. He gave Himself to us. Ay! and we may use another form of speech still more emphatic, and say, He gave up Himself. For, surely, difficult as it may be for us to keep our footing in those lofty heights where the atmosphere is so rare, the gift of Jesus Christ was surrender; when the Father spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all.

And, brethren, what is the surrender of the man who receives the love of God? In what region of my nature is that giving up of myself most imperative and blessed? In my will. The will is the man. The centre-point of every human being is the will, and it is no use for us to talk about our having given ourselves to God, in response and in thankfulness to His gift of Himself to us, unless we come and say Lord! not my will, but Thine'; and bow ourselves in un-reluctant and constant submission to His commandments, and to all His will. Brethren, we give ourselves to God when, moved by His giving of Himself to us, we yield up our love to Him, and love never rests until it has yielded up its will to the beloved. He, indeed, gives, asking for nothing; but He gives in a still deeper sense, asking for everything; and that everything is myself. And I yield myself to Him in the measure in which I set my thankful love upon Him, and then bow myself as His servant, in humble consecration to Himself, with all my heart and soul and mind and strength.

IV. Lastly, God Takes Us For His.

They shall be My people.' That is wonderful. It is strange that we can imitate God, in a certain fashion, in the gift of self; but it is yet more strange and blessed that God accepts that gift, and counts it as one of His treasures to possess us. One of the psalmists had a deep insight into the miracle of the divine condescension when he said He was extolled with my tongue.' Strange that the loftiest of creatures should be lifted higher by the poor tremulous lever of my praises! and yet He is so. He takes as His, such poor creatures, full of imperfection, and tremulous faith, and disproved love, as you and I know ourselves to be, and He says My people.' They shall be Mine,' My jewels, says He, in the day which I make.' Oh, brethren! it sometimes seems to me that it is more wonderful that God should take me for His, than that He should give me Himself for mine.

Have you given yourself to Him? Have you begun where He begins, taking first the gift that is freely given to you of God, even Jesus Christ, in whom God dwells, and who makes all the Godhead yours, for your very own? Have you taken God for yours, by faith in that Lord who loved me, and gave Himself for me?' And then smitten by His love and having the chains of self melted by the fire of His great mercy, have you said, Lo! truly I am Thy servant. Thou hast loosed my bonds'? Dear brethren, you never own yourselves till you give yourselves away; and you never will give yourselves to God, to be His, unless with all your heart and strength you cling to the rock-truth, that God has given Himself to every man who will take Him, in Jesus Christ, to be that man's God for ever and ever.

Maclaren: Heb 8:11

III. All Shall Know Me'

They shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest.'--Heb. 8:11.

IN former sermons I have tried to bring out the force of the preceding two articles of the New Covenant.' These two were the substitution of inward inclination and impulse for the rigid bonds of an external commandment, and the substitution of a real, spiritual, mutual possession of God and His people for the mere outward relationship that existed between Israel and Jehovah. My text is the third article of the New Covenant. It lays hold, like the other two, of something that characterised the ancient dispensation, declares its imperfection, recognises its prophetic aspect, and asserts that all which the former merely shadowed and foretold is accomplished in Jesus Christ.

In old days there had been some direct communication between God and a chosen few, the spiritual aristocracy of the nation, and they spake the things that they had heard of God to the multitude who had had no such communication. My text says that all this is swept away, and that the prerogative of every Christian man is direct access to, communication with, and instruction from, God Himself. The text has two things in it; the promise, which is the essence of it, and a consequence which is deduced from that promise, and sets forth its results in a graphic manner. They all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest'; that is the real promise. They shall no more teach every man his neighbour, saying, Know the Lord,' is but a result thereof.

I. Now, I Ask You To Look With Me At What This Great Promise Means.

They shall know Me.' Perhaps I can best explain what I take it to mean by commencing with an analogy or two which may help us to apprehend what is the significance of these words. We all know the difference between hearsay and sight. We may have read books of travel, and tell of some scene of great natural beauty or historic interest, and may think that we understand all about it, but it is always an epoch when our own eyes look for the first time at the snowy summit of an Alp, or for the first time at the Parthenon on its rocky height. We all know the difference between hearsay and experience. We read books of the poets that portray love and sorrow, and the other emotions that make up our throbbing, changeful life; but we need to go through the mill ourselves before we understand what the grip of the iron teeth of the harrow of affliction is, and we need to have had our own hearts dilated by a true and blessed affection, before we know the sweetness of love. Men may tell us about it, but we have to feel it ourselves before we know.

To come still closer to the force of my text, we all know the difference between hearing about a man and making his acquaintance. We may have been told much about him, and be familiar with his character, as we think, but, when we come face to face with him, and actually for ourselves experience the magnetism of his presence, or fall under the direct influence of his character, then we know that our former acquaintance with him, by means of hearsay, was but superficial and shadowy. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eyes see thee.' Can you say that? If so, you understand my text--They shall no more teach every man, his brother, saying, Know the Lord, and make acquaintance with Him' as if He were a stranger--for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest.'

There is all the difference between knowing about God and knowing God; just the difference that there is between dogma and life, between theology and religion. We may have all articles of the Christian creed clear in our understandings, and may owe our possession of them to other people's teaching; we may even, in a sense, believe them, and yet they may be absolutely outside of our lives, and it is only when they pass into the very substance of our being, and influence the springs of our conduct--it is only then that we know God.

Now, I maintain that this acquaintance with Him is what is meant in our text. It may not include any more intellectual propositions about Him than a man had before he knew Him, but it has turned doctrines into fact, and instead of the mere hearsay and traditional religion, which is the only religion of millions, it has brought the true heart, grasp of Him, which is the only thing worth calling a knowledge of God. For let me remind you that, whilst we may know a science or proposition by the exercise of our understandings in appropriate ways, that is not how we know people. And God is a person, and to know Him does not mean to understand about Him, but to be on speaking terms with Him, to have a familiar acquaintance with Him, to summer and winter' with Him, and so, by experience, to verify the things that before were mere doctrines. Now, at least the large majority of you call yourselves believers in Christianity. I want you to ask yourselves, and I would ask myself, whether my religion is knowing about God or knowing Him; whether it is all made up of a set of truths which I assent to, mainly because I am not sufficiently interested in them to contradict them, or whether these truths have become the very substance of my life. I do not believe in a religion without a dogma--I was going to say, I believe still less in a dogma without religion; and that is the Christianity of hosts of professing Christians. It is as useless as are the dried seeds that rattle in the withered head of a poppy in the autumn, or as the shrivelled kernel that sounds in the hollowness of a half-empty nut.

Remember, dear brethren, that to know God is to become acquainted with Him, and that only on the path of such familiar, friendly, loving intercourse and communion with Him, can men find the confirmation of the truths about Him which make up the eternal revelation of Him in the gospel. We know'--that is a valid certainty, arising from experience, and it has as good a right to call itself knowledge as have the processes by which men come to be sure about the physical facts of this material universe. Nay! I would even go further, and say that the fact that such a continual stream of witnesses, through all the generations, have been able to say,' I have tasted and I have seen that God is good,' is to be taken into account by all impartial searchers after truth. And if men want to square their creeds with all the facts of humanity, let them not omit, in their consideration of the claims of Christian evidence, this fact, that from generation to generation men have said, and their lives have witnessed to its truths, We know in whom we have believed, and that He is able to keep us. We know that we are of God.' Dear brethren! the whole case for Christianity cannot be appreciated from outside. Taste and see.' My text shows us the more true way. If we will accept that covenant we shall know the Lord in the depths of our hearts.

II. Notice How Far This Promise Extends.

They all, from the least to the greatest, shall know.' There is to be no distinction of rank or age, or endowment, which shall result in some of the people of God having a position from which any of the others are altogether shut out.

The writer is, of course, contrasting in his mind, though he does not express the contrast, the condition of things of old, when, as I said, the spiritual aristocracy of the nation received communications which they then imparted to their fellows. In the morning dawn the highest summits catch the rays first, but as the sun rises it floods the lower levels, and at mid-day shines right down into the depths of the cavities. So the world is now flooded with the light of Christ; and all Christian men and women, by virtue of their Christian character, do possess the unction from the Holy One, in which lie the potency and the promise of the knowledge of all things that are needful to be known for life and godliness. This is the true democracy of the gospel--the universal possession of the life of Christ through the Spirit.

Now, if that be so, then it is by no means a truth to be kept simply for the purpose of fighting against ecclesiastical or sacerdotal encroachments and denials of it, but it ought to be taken as the candle of the Lord, by each of us, and in the light of it we ought to search very rigidly, and very often, our own Christian character and experiences. You, dear brethren, with whom I am most closely associated here, you professing Christians of this congregation--do you know anything about that inward knowledge of God which comes from friendship with Him, and speaks irrefragable certainties in the heart which receives it? If any man have not the spirit of Christ, he is none of His.' If you owe all your knowledge of, and your faith in, the great verities of the gospel, and the loving personality of God, to the mere report of others, if you cannot verify these by your own experience, if you cannot say,' Many things I know not; you can easily puzzle me with critical and philosophical subtleties, but this one thing I do know, that whereas I was blind, now I see'--if you cannot say that, I pray you, bethink yourselves whether your religion is not mainly a form, and how far it has any life in it at all.

But whilst thus the great promise of my text, in its very blessedness and fulness, does carry with it some solemn suggestions for searching self-examination, it also points in another direction. For consider what it excludes and what it permits, in the way of brotherly help and guidance. It certainly excludes on the one hand, all assumption of authority over the consciences and the understandings of Christian people, on the part either of churches or individuals, and it makes short work of all claims that there continues a class of persons officially distinguished from their brethren, and having closer access to God than they. The true understanding of these words of my text, the recognition of the universality of the knowledge of God in all Christian people, has great revolutionary work yet to do amongst the churches of Christendom. For I do not know that there are any of them that have sufficiently recognised this principle. Not only in a church where there is a priesthood and an infallible head of the Church on earth, nor only in churches that are bound by human creeds imposed on them by men, but also in churches like ours, where there is no formal recognition of either of these two errors, the practical contradiction of this article of the New Covenant is apt to creep in. It is a great deal more the fault of the people than of the priest, a great deal more the fault of the congregation than of the pastor, when they are lazily contented to take all their religion at second-hand from him, and to shuffle all the responsibility off their own shoulders on to his. If my text obliges me, and all men who stand in my position, to say with the Apostle, Not for that we have dominion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy,' it obliges you, dear brethren, to take nothing from me, or any man, on our bare words, nor to exalt any of us into a position which would contradict the great principle of my text, but yourselves, at first hand, to go to God, and get straight from Him the teaching which He only can give. Dominion and subjection, authority and submission to men, in any part of the church are shut out by such words as these.

But brotherly help is not shut out. If a party of men are climbing a hill, and one is in advance of his fellows, when he reaches the summit he may look down and call to those below, and tell them how fair and wide the view is, and beckon them to come and give them a helping hand up. So, because Christian men vary in the extent to which they possess and utilise the one gift of knowledge of God, and some of them are in advance of the others, it is all in accordance with the principle of my text that they that are in advance should help their brethren, and give them a brotherly hand. Not as if my brother's word can give me the inward knowledge of God, but it may help me to get that knowledge for myself. We--I speak now as a member of the preaching class--we can but do what the friend of the bridegroom does; he brings the bride to her lover, and then he shuts the door and leaves the two to themselves. That is all that any of us can do. You must yourself draw the water from the well of salvation. We can only tell you, there is the well, and the water is sweet.'

III. Lastly, The Means By Which This Promise Is Fulfilled.

I have already pointed out, in previous sermons, that the conception of the gospel as a new covenant was endorsed by Jesus Christ Himself in words which tell us how all these blessings that are set forth in this context are secured and brought to men, when in the institution of the Lord's Supper, He spoke of' the New Covenant in His blood.' So I set first and foremost, above all other means, this one great truth, that all this inward knowledge of God, which is the prerogative of every Christian man, is made possible and actual for any of us, only by and through the mission, and especially the death, of Jesus Christ our Lord. For therein does He set forth God to be known as nothing else but that supreme suffering and supreme self-surrender upon the Cross, ever can do or has done. We know God as He would have us know Him, only when we see Jesus suffering and dying for us; and then adoringly, as one in the presence of a mystery into which he can but look a little way, say that even there and then' he that hath seen that Christ hath seen the Father.'

Jesus Christ's blood, the seal of the Covenant, is the great means by which this promise is fulfilled, inasmuch as in that death He sweeps away all the hindrances which bar us out from the knowledge of God. The great dark wall of my sin rises between me and my Father. Christ's blood, like some magic drops upon a fortification, causes all the black barrier to melt away like a cloud; and the access to the throne of God is patent, even for sinful creatures like us. The veil is rent, and by that blood we have access into the holiest of all.

Christ is the source of this knowledge of God, inasmuch, further, as by His mission and death there is given to the whole world, if it will receive it, and to all who exercise faith in His name, the gift of that Divine Spirit who teaches to our inmost spirit the true knowledge of His Son.

And so, dear brethren, since it is in the incarnate and dying Christ that all knowledge of God is brought to men, that all possibility of friendship and communion between men and God is rooted, and that the Divine Spirit who leads us into the deep things of God is granted to each of us, there follows the plain conclusion that the one way by which every man and woman on earth may find him and herself included within that all, from the least to the greatest,' is simply trust in Christ Jesus, in whom, in whose life, in whose death, God is made known, our alienation is swept away, and the Spirit of God, the Divine Teacher, is granted to us all.

Only, remember that my text stands in close connection with the preceding articles of this covenant, and that to delight in the law of the Lord is the sure way to know more of the Lord. One act of obedience from the heart will teach us more of God than all the sages can. It is more illuminating simply to do as He willed than to read and think and speculate and study. if any man wills to do His will, he shall know of the teaching.' And mutual possession of God by us, and of us by God, leads to fuller knowledge. To possess God is to love Him; and he that loveth knoweth God, yea! rather is known of God.'

So, dear brethren, do not be content with traditional religion, with a hearsay Christianity. Acquaint now thyself with Him,' and be at peace. Oh! there is nothing sweeter to a true preacher of Christ and His salvation than that those to whom he preaches should be able to do without him. It is my business to point you away from myself, however much I prize your love and confidence, as I ought to do; and to beseech you, for your own soul's sake, that you would by faith in Christ attain that knowledge of the only true God which He is sent to give. Then you will be able to say, Now, we believe not because of thy saying, for we have heard Him ourselves, and know that this is, indeed, the Christ, the Saviour of the world.'

Maclaren: Heb 8:12

IV. Forgiveness The Fundamental Blessing

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.'--Heb. 8:12.

WE have been considering, in successive sermons, the great promises preceding my text, which are the articles of the New Covenant. We reach the last of these in this discourse. It is last in order of enumeration because it is first in order of fulfilment. The foundation is dug down to and discovered last, because the stones of it were laid first. The introductory' for' in my text shows that the fulfilment of all the preceding great promises depends upon and follows the fulfilment of this, the greatest of them. Forgiveness is the keystone of the arch. Strike it out, and the whole tumbles into ruin. Forgiveness is the first gift to be received from the great cornucopiae of blessings which the gospel brings for men. The writer is tracing the stream upwards, and therefore he comes last to that which first gushes out from the divine heart. All these previous promises of delight in the law of the Lord, mutual possession between God and His people, knowledge of God which is based upon love, are consequences of this final article,' I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their iniquities will I remember no more.'

I. So, Then, We Remark, First, That Forgiveness Deals With Man's Deepest Need.

It is fundamental, because it grapples with the true evil of humanity, which is not sorrow, but is sin. All men have come short of the glory of God,' and that fact, the fact of universal sinfulness, is the gravest fact of man's condition; for it affects his whole nature, and it disturbs and perverts all his relations to God. And so, if men would rightly diagnose the disease of humanity, they must recognise something far deeper than skin-deep symptoms, and discover that it is sin which is the source of all human misery and sorrow. To deal with humanity and to forget or ignore the true source of all the misery in the world--namely, the fact that we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God, is absurd. Miserable comforters are ye all,' if pottering over the patient, you apply ointment to pimples when he is dying of cancer. I know, of course, that a great deal may be done, and that a great deal is to-day being done, to diminish the sum of human wretchedness; and I am not the man to say one word that shall seem to under-estimate or pour cold water upon any of these various schemes of improvement--philanthropic, social, economic, or political; but I do humbly venture to say that any of them, and all of them put together, if they do not grapple with this fact of man's sin, are dealing with the surface and leaving the centre untouched. Sin does not come only from ignorance, and therefore it cannot be swept away by knowledge. It does not come only from environment, and therefore it cannot be taken out of human history by improvement of circumstances. It does not come from poverty, and therefore economical changes will not annihilate it. The root of it lies far deeper than any of these things. The power which is to make humanity blessed must dig down to the root and grasp that, and tear it up, and eject it from the heart of man before society can be thoroughly healed.

Now, what does Christianity do with this central part of human experience? My text tells us partly, and only partly, I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.' Of course, the divine oblivion is a strong metaphor for the treatment of man's sins as non-exist-ent. It is the same figure, in a somewhat different application, as is found in the great promise, I will cast their sins behind My back into the depths of the sea.' It is the same metaphor as is suggested in a somewhat different application, by the other saying,' Blessed is the man whose sin is covered.' And the fact that underlies the metaphors of forgetfulness or burying in the ocean depths, or covering over so as to be invisible, is just this, that God's love flows out to the sinful' man, unhindered by the fact of his transgression.

If Christian people, and doubters about Christian truth, would understand the depth and loftiness of the Christian idea of forgiveness, there would be less difficulty felt about it. For pardon is not the same thing as the removal of the consequences of wrong-doing. It is so in regard of the mere outward judicial procedure of nations, but it is not so in the family. A father often pardons, and says that he does so before he punishes, and it is the same with God. The true notion and essence of forgiveness, as the Bible conceives it, is not the putting aside of consequences, but the flow of the Father's heart to the erring child.

Sin is a great black dam, built up across the stream, but the flood of love from God's heart rises over it, and pours across it, and buries it beneath the victorious, full waters of the river of God.' Here is a world wrapped in mist, and high above the mist the unbroken sunshine of the divine love pours down upon the upper layer, and thins and thins and thins it until it disappears, and the full sunshine floods the rejoicing world, and the ragged fragments of the mist melt into the blue. I have blotted out as a cloud thy sins and as a thick cloud thy transgressions.' The outward consequences of forgiven sin may have to be reaped. If a man has lived a sensuous life, no repentance, no forgiveness, will prevent the drunkard's hand from trembling, or cure the corrugations of his liver. If a man has sinned, no divine forgiveness will ever take the memory of his transgressions, nor their effects, out of his character. But the divine forgiveness may so modify the effects as that, instead of past sin being a source of torment or a tyrant which compels to future similar transgressions, pardoned sin will become a source of lowly self-distrust, and may even tend to increase in goodness and righteousness. When bees cannot remove some corruption out of the hive they cover it over with wax, and then it is harmless, and they can build upon it honey-bearing cells. Thus it is possible that, by pardon, the consequences which must be reaped may be turned into occasions for good.

But the act of the divine forgiveness does annihilate the deepest and the most serious consequences of my sin; for hell is separation from God, the sense of discord and alienation between Him and me; and all these are swept away.

So here is the foundation blessing, which meets man's deepest need. And be sure of this, that any system which cannot grapple with that need will never avail for the necessities of a sinful world. Unless our new evangelists can come to us with as clear an utterance as this of my text, they will work their enchantments in vain; and the world will be the old, sad, miserable world, after all that they can do.

II. This Forgiveness Is Attained Through Christ, And Through Him Only.

I have tried to show in former sermons, that the whole of these promises of what our writer calls' the New Covenant,' are, as our Lord Himself said, sealed' in His blood.' And that is especially true in reference to this promise of forgiveness. It is in Christ Jesus, and in Christ Jesus alone, that that pardon which my text speaks of is secured to men.

I need not dwell upon the Scriptural statements to this effect, but I desire to emphasise this thought, that the Christian teaching of forgiveness is based upon the conception of Christ's work and especially of Christ's death, as being the atonement for the world's sin. It is because, and only because, He bore our sins in His own body on the tree,' that the full-toned gospel proclamation can be rung out to men, that God remembers their transgressions no more.' Unless that foundation be firmly laid in the New Testament conception of the meaning and power of the death of Christ, I know not where there is a basis for the proclamation to man of divine forgiveness.

Of course, my text itself does show that the very common misrepresentation of the New Testament evangelical teaching about this matter is a misrepresentation. It is often objected to that teaching that it alleges that Christ's sacrifice effected a change in the divine heart and disposition, and made God love men whom He did not love before. The mighty I will' of my text makes no specific reference to Christ's death, and rather implies what is the true relation between the love of God and the death of Jesus Christ, that God's love was the originating cause, of which Christ's death was the redeeming effect. He so loved the world that He gave His… Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should … have eternal life.' And no wise evangelical teacher ever has asserted, or does assert, anything else than that the mission of Jesus Christ is the consequence, and not the cause, of the Father's love to sinful men.

But that being kept distinctly in view, I suppose I need not remind you how, like the strand that runs through the cables of the Royal Navy, the red thread of Christ's sacrifice for the sins of the whole world runs through the whole of the New Testament. It is fashionable nowadays to say that no theory of the atonement is needed in order that men should receive the benefit of Christ's work. That is partially true, in so far as that no human conceptions will exhaust the fulness of that great work, nor can penetrate to all its depths. But it is not true, as I humbly take it, inasmuch as if a man is to get the forgiveness that comes through Jesus Christ, he must have this theory, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.' And that is the teaching of the whole New Testament.

I need not remind you how all Paul's writing is saturated with it, but I may remind you that to people who were very lynx-eyed critics of him and of his teaching, he said, about that very statement that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures--whether it were they or I, so we preach.' And his appeal to the consensus and unanimity of the apostles is amply vindicated by the documents that still remain. We are told that there are types of teaching in the New Testament. There are, and very beautifully they vary, and very harmoniously they blend. But there are no diversities in regard to this matter. If Paul says,' In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of our sins,' Peter says, He bare our sins in His own body on the tree'; and John says, He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for our sins only but also for the sins of the whole world.' And if, as I believe, the Book of the Revelation is his, the vision that John saw in the heavens was the vision of a Lamb as it had been slain'; and the song which he heard rising from immortal lips was of praise unto Him that' hath loosed us from our sins by His own blood.'

So they preached.' God grant that it may be true of all of us; so we believe.' For, brethren, this clear, certain statement of the gospel of forgiveness through Jesus Christ is the characteristic glory of the whole revelation. Without it, apart from Him and His Cross, I do not know how the hope of forgiveness can be more than dim and doubtful. I know not how any man that has once felt the grip of evil on his inclinations, and the responsibility and guilt which he has drawn down upon his head by his transgressions, can find a firm footing for his assurance of pardon, apart from the Cross of Jesus Christ. Without that, the divine forgiveness is but a peradventure, sometimes a hope, sometimes an illusion. The men that reject Christianity for the most part proclaim the gospel of despair. Whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap,' in such a sense as to annihilate the possibility of pardon. But in Christ we understand that we may reap these fruits, and yet be pardoned. Thou wast a God that forgavest them, and tookest vengeance of their inventions.' Forgiveness apart from Christ stands, as it seems to me, in no intelligible relation to the divine character. And, apart from Christ, forgiveness is apt to dwindle down, and to be degraded into mere lazy tolerance of evil, and to make God a good-natured, indifferent Sovereign, who does not so very much mind whether His subjects do His will or not.

But when we can say, He died for my sins,' then we can see that the divine righteousness and the divine love are but two names for one thing, and forgiveness lifts us into a region of higher purity. Christianity alone teaches the loftiest ideal of human righteousness, the loftiest conception of the divine character, the absolute inflexibility of the divine law and withal full, free pardon. It stands alone in the sombre aspect under which it contemplates humanity, and the bound less hope of its possibilities which it entertains. It stands alone in that forgiveness is the means to higher holiness; and in that, pardoning, .it heals, and whispers Go thy way; sin no more, lest a worse thing befall thee.' Therefore is it a gospel; therefore is it the New Covenant in His blood.

III. Lastly, This Forgiveness Is Fundamental To All Other Christian Blessings.

As I have said, the very structure of our text shows that that was the writer's idea. There can be no delight in the law of the Lord,' which is the first of the articles of the New Covenant, until there is the taking away of the sin which deepens aversion to God's law, and until the Lawgiver has become beloved for the sake of His received forgiveness. Then we shall delight in the law when we love the lips that proclaim it, because before they issued commandments they decreed absolution, and declared' Neither do I condemn thee.'

Forgiveness precedes the second of these covenant blessings--viz., mutual possession between God and His people. For so long as there remains unforgiven sin in a man's heart, it comes like a film of atmospheric air or grains of dust between two polished metal plates, forbidding their adhesion; and only when it is taken away will they come together and abide united. It lies at the foundation of, and must precede, all that true knowledge of God, which is the third of the articles of the covenant, and is a consequence of love and communion. For how can two walk together except they be agreed?' Until my sin is taken from me the eyes of my soul are dim; and I know not God in deep reciprocal possession and continual love. And so with all other of the blessings and the hopes which Christian men are entitled to cherish by reason of this covenant of God's changeless love.

I need not dwell upon them, but I would leave with you these thoughts. A Christianity which does not begin with the proclamation of forgiveness is impotent. Again, a Christianity which does not base forgiveness on Christ's sacrifice is also impotent. The history of the Church shows that preachers and teachers and churches that do not know what to say when a poor soul comes to them and asks,' What must I do to be saved?' are of no use, or next to none The man in whom there are devils says to such maimed representations of the gospel, Jesus I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?' and leaps upon them, and overcomes them. The whole experience of the past demonstrates that. And so one laments the vagueness and the faltering in proclaiming this truth so common in this day. Brethren, I, for my part, believe that the only type of Christianity which will win men's hearts is that modelled on the pattern of the New Testament teaching, which begins with the fact of sin, and, having dealt with that, then goes on to bestow all other blessings.

But do not forget another thing, that a Christianity which does not build holiness, delight in God's law, conscious possession of Him and possession by Him, and deep, blessed knowledge of Him, on forgiveness, is wofully imperfect. And that is the Christianity of a great many of us. Here is the first round of the ladder: I will remember their iniquities no more.' Put your foot upon that and then begin to ascend; and do not stop till you have reached the top, whence His face looks down, and whence you can step on to the stable standing-ground beside His very throne. Begin with forgiveness, and all these blessings shall be added unto you, if you keep the covenant of your God.

MHCC: Heb 8:1-6

The substance, or summary, of what had been declared was, that Christians had such a High Priest as they needed. He took upon himself human nature, appeared on earth, and there gave himself as a sacrifice to God for the sins of his people. We must not dare to approach God, or to present any thing to him, but in and through Christ, depending upon his merits and mediation; for we are accepted only in the Beloved. In all obedience and worship, we should keep close to God's word, which is the only and perfect standard. Christ is the substance and end of the law of righteousness. But the covenant here referred to, was that made with Israel as a nation, securing temporal benefits to them. The promises of all spiritual blessings, and of eternal life, revealed in the gospel, and made sure through Christ, are of infinitely greater value. Let us bless God that we have a High Priest that suits our helpless condition.

MHCC: Heb 8:7-13

The superior excellence of the priesthood of Christ, above that of Aaron, is shown from that covenant of grace, of which Christ was Mediator. The law not only made all subject to it, liable to be condemned for the guilt of sin, but also was unable to remove that guilt, and clear the conscience from the sense and terror of it. Whereas, by the blood of Christ, a full remission of sins was provided, so that God would remember them no more. God once wrote his laws to his people, now he will write his laws in them; he will give them understanding to know and to believe his laws; he will give them memories to retain them; he will give them hearts to love them, courage to profess them, and power to put them in practice. This is the foundation of the covenant; and when this is laid, duty will be done wisely, sincerely, readily, easily, resolutely, constantly, and with comfort. A plentiful outpouring of the Spirit of God will make the ministration of the gospel so effectual, that there shall be a mighty increase and spreading of Christian knowledge in persons of all sorts. Oh that this promise might be fulfilled in our days, that the hand of God may be with his ministers so that great numbers may believe, and be turned to the Lord! The pardon of sin will always be found to accompany the true knowledge of God. Notice the freeness of this pardon; its fulness; its fixedness. This pardoning mercy is connected with all other spiritual mercies: unpardoned sin hinders mercy, and pulls down judgments; but the pardon of sin prevents judgment, and opens a wide door to all spiritual blessings. Let us search whether we are taught by the Holy Spirit to know Christ, so as uprightly to love, fear, trust, and obey him. All worldly vanities, outward privileges, or mere notions of religion, will soon vanish away, and leave those who trust in them miserable for ever.

Matthew Henry: Heb 8:6-13

In this part of the chapter, the apostle illustrates and confirms the superior excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of Aaron, from the excellency of that covenant, or that dispensation of the covenant of grace, of which Christ was the Mediator (Heb 8:6): his ministry is more excellent, by how much he is the Mediator of a better covenant. The body and soul too of all divinity (as some observe) consist very much in rightly distinguishing between the two covenants - the covenant of works and the covenant of grace; and between the two dispensations of the covenant of grace - that under the Old Testament and that under the New. Now observe,

I. What is here said of the old covenant, or rather of the old dispensation of the covenant of grace: of this it is said, 1. That it was made with the fathers of the Jewish nation at mount Sinai (Heb 8:9), and Moses was the Mediator of that covenant, when God took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which intimates the great affection, condescension, and tender care of God towards them. 2. That this covenant was not found faultless (Heb 8:7, Heb 8:8); it was a dispensation of darkness and dread, tending to bondage, and only a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; it was perfect in its kind, and fitted to answer its end, but very imperfect in comparison of the gospel. 3. That it was not sure or stedfast; for the Jews continued not in that covenant, and the Lord regarded them not, Heb 8:9. They dealt ungratefully with their God, and cruelly with themselves, and fell under God's displeasure. God will regard those who remain in his covenant, but will reject those who cast away his yoke from them. 4. That it is decayed, grown old, and vanisheth away, Heb 8:13. It is antiquated, canceled, out of date, of no more use in gospel times than candles are when the sun has risen. Some think the covenant of peculiarity did not quite decay till the destruction of Jerusalem, though it was forfeited at the death of Christ, and was made old, and was now to vanish and perish, and the Levitical priesthood vanished with it.

II. What is here said of the New Testament dispensation, to prove the superior excellency of Christ's ministry. It is said,

1. That it is a better covenant (Heb 8:6), a more clear and comfortable dispensation and discovery of the grace of God to sinners, bringing in holy light and liberty to the soul. It is without fault, well ordered in all things. It requires nothing but what it promises grace to perform. It accepts of godly sincerity, accounting it gospel perfection. Every transgression does not turn us out of covenant; all is put into a good and safe hand.

2. That it is established upon better promises, more clear and express, more spiritual, more absolute. The promises of spiritual and eternal blessings are in this covenant positive and absolute; the promises of temporal blessings are with a wise and kind proviso, as far as shall be for God's glory and his people's good. This covenant contains in it promises of assistance and acceptance in duty, promises of progress and perseverance in grace and holiness, of bliss and glory in heaven, which were more obscurely shadowed forth by the promises of the land of Canaan, a type of heaven.

3. It is a new covenant, even that new covenant that God long ago declared he would make with the house of Israel, that is, all the Israel of God; this was promised in Jer 31:31, Jer 31:32, and accomplished in Christ. This will always be a new covenant, in which all who truly take hold of it shall be always found preserved by the power of God. It is God's covenant; his mercy, love, and grace moved for it; his wisdom devised it; his Son purchased it; his wisdom devised it; his Son purchased it; his Spirit brings souls into it, and builds them up in it.

4. The articles of this covenant are very extraordinary, which are sealed between God and his people by baptism and the Lord's supper; whereby they bind themselves to their part, and God assures them he will do his part; and his is the main and principal part, on which his people depend for grace and strength to do theirs. Here,

(1.) God articles with his people that he will put his laws into their minds and write them in their hearts, Heb 8:10. He once wrote his laws to them, now he will write his laws in them; that is, he will give them understanding to know and to believe his law; he will give them memories to retain them; he will give them hearts to love them and consciences to recognize them; he will give them courage to profess them and power to put them in practice; the whole habit and frame of their souls shall be a table and transcript of the law of God. This is the foundation of the covenant; and, when this is laid, duty will be done wisely, sincerely, readily, easily, resolutely, constantly, and comfortably.

(2.) He articles with them to take them into a near and very honourable relation to himself. [1.] He will be to them a God; that is, he will be all that to them, and do all that for them, that God can be and do. Nothing more can be said in a thousand volumes than is comprehended in these few words: I will be a God to them. [2.] They shall be to him a people, to love, honour, observe, and obey him in all things; complying with his cautions, conforming to his commands, comporting with his providences, copying out his example, taking complacency in his favour. This those must do and will do who have God for their God; this they are bound to do as their part of the contract; this they shall do, for God will enable them to do it, as an evidence that he is their God and that they are his people; for it is God himself who first founds the relation, and then fills it up with grace suitable and sufficient, and helps them in their measure to fill it up with love and duty; so that God engages both for himself and them.

(3.) He articles with them that they shall grow more and more acquainted with their God (Heb 8:11): They shall all know me from the least to the greatest, insomuch that there shall not be so much need of one neighbour teaching another the knowledge of God. Here observe, [1.] In the want of better instruction, one neighbour should be teaching another to know the Lord, as they have ability and opportunity for it. [2.] This private instruction shall not be so necessary under the New Testament as it was under the Old. The old dispensation was shadowy, dark, ritual, and less understood; their priests preached but seldom, and but a few at a time, and the Spirit of God was more sparingly given out. But under the new dispensation there shall be such abundance of public qualified preachers of the gospel, and dispensers of ordinances statedly in the solemn assemblies, and so great a flocking to them, as doves to their windows, and such a plentiful effusion of the Spirit of God to make the ministration of the gospel effectual, that there shall be a mighty increase and spreading of Christian knowledge in persons of all sorts, of each sex, and of all ages. O that this promise might be fulfilled in our days, that the hand of God may be with his ministers, that a great number may believe and be turned to the Lord!

(4.) God articles with them about the pardon of their sins, as what always accompanies the true knowledge of God (Heb 8:12): For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, etc. Observe, [1.] The freeness of this pardon. It does not result from merit in man, but from mercy in God; he pardons for his own name's sake. [2.] The fullness of this pardon; it extends to their unrighteousness, sins, and iniquities; to all kinds of sin, to sins highly aggravated. [3.] The fixedness of this pardon. It is so final and so fixed that God will remember their sins no more; he will not recall his pardon; he will not only forgive their sins, but forget them, treat them as if he had forgotten them. This pardoning mercy is connected with all other spiritual mercies. Unpardoned sin prevents mercy, and pulls down judgments; but the pardon of sin prevents judgment, and opens a wide door to all spiritual blessings; it is the effect of that mercy that is from everlasting, and the earnest of that mercy that shall be to everlasting. This is the excellency of the new dispensation, and these are the articles of it; and therefore we have no reason to repine, but great reason to rejoice that the former dispensation is antiquated and has vanished away.

Barclay: Heb 8:1-6

The writer to the Hebrews has finished describing the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek in all its glory. He has described it as the priesthood which is for ever, without beginning and without end; the priesthood that God confirmed with an oath; the priesthood that is founded on personal greatness and not on any legal appointment or racial qualification; the priesthood which death cannot touch; the priesthood which is able to offer a sacrifice that never needs to be repeated; the priesthood which is so pure that it has no necessity to offer sacrifice for any sins of its own. Now he makes and underlines his great claim. "It is." he says, "a priest precisely like that that we have in Jesus."

He goes on to say two things about Jesus. (i) He took his scat at the right hand of the throne of majesty in the heavens. That is the final proof of his glory.

"The highest place that heaven affords

Is his, is his by right,

The King of kings, and Lord of lords,

And heaven's eternal light."

There can be no glory greater than that of the ascended and exalted Jesus. (ii) He says that Jesus is a minister of the sanctuary. That is the proof of his service. He is unique both in majesty and in service.

Jesus never looked on majesty as something to be selfishly enjoyed. One of the greatest of the Roman Emperors was Marcus Aurelius; as an administrator he was unsurpassed. He died at fifty-nine, having worked himself to death in the service of his people. He was one of the Stoic saints. When chosen to succeed in due time to the imperial power, his biographer Capitolinus tells us, "he was appalled rather than overjoyed, and when he was told to move to the private house of Hadrian, the Emperor, it was with reluctance that he departed from his mother's villa. And when the members of the household asked him why he was sorry to receive the royal adoption, he enumerated to them the toils which sovereignty involved." Marcus Aurelius saw kingship in terms of service and not of majesty.

Jesus is the unique example of divine majesty and divine service combined. He knew that he had been given his supreme position, not jealously to guard it in splendid isolation, but rather to enable others to attain to it and to share it. In him the supreme majesty and the supreme service met.

Now there enters into the picture a thought that was never far from the mind of the writer to the Hebrews. Religion to him, remember, was access to God; therefore the supreme function of any priest was to open the way to God for men. He removed the barriers between God and man; he built a bridge across which man could go into the presence of God. But we could put this another way. Instead of talking about access to God we might talk about access to reality. Every religious writer has to search for terms which his readers will understand. He has to present his message in language and in thoughts which will get home because they are familiar or at least will strike a chord in the reader's mind. The Greeks had a basic thought about the universe. They thought in terms of two worlds, the real and the unreal. They believed that this world of space and time was only a pale copy of the real world. That was the basic doctrine of Plato, the greatest of all the Greek thinkers. He believed in what he called forms. Somewhere there was a world where there was laid up the perfect forms of which everything in this world is an imperfect copy. Sometimes he called the forms ideas. Somewhere there is the idea of a chair of which all actual chairs are imperfect copies. Somewhere there is an idea of a horse of which all actual horses are inadequate reflections. The Greeks were fascinated by this conception of a real world of which this world is only a flickering, imperfect copy. In this world we walk in shadows; somewhere there is reality. The great problem in life is how to pass from this world of shadows to the other world of realities. That is the idea of which the writer to the Hebrews makes use.

The earthly Temple is a pale copy of the real Temple of God; earthly worship is a remote reflection of real worship; the earthly priesthood is an inadequate shadow of the real priesthood. All these things point beyond themselves to the reality of which they are the shadows. The writer to the Hebrews even finds that idea in the Old Testament itself. When Moses had received from God instructions about the construction of the tabernacle and all its furnishings, God said to him: "And see that you make them after the pattern for them, which is being shown you on the mountain" (Exo 25:40). God had shown Moses the real pattern of which all earthly worship is the ghost-like copy. So then the writer to the Hebrews says that the earthly priests have a service which is but a shadowy outline of the heavenly order. For shadowy outline he combines two Greek words, hupodeigma (5262), which means a specimen, or, still better, a sketch-plan, and skia (4639), which means a shadow, a reflection, a phantom, a silhouette. The earthly priesthood is unreal and cannot lead men into reality; but Jesus can. We can say that Jesus leads us into the presence of God or we can say that Jesus leads us into reality; it means the same thing. When the writer to the Hebrews spoke of reality he was using language that his contemporaries used and understood.

In the highest that this world can offer there is some imperfection. It never quite reaches what we know the thing might be. Nothing we ever experience or achieve here quite reaches the ideal that haunts us. The real world is beyond. As Browning had it: "A man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" Call it heaven, call it reality, call it the idea or the form, call it God--it is beyond.

As the writer to the Hebrews saw it, only Jesus can lead us out of the frustrating actuality into the all-satisfying real. So he calls him the mediator, the mesites (3316). Mesites comes from mesos (3319), which, in this case, means in the middle. A mesites (3316) is, therefore, one who stands in the middle between two people and brings them together. When Job is desperately anxious that somehow he should be able to put his case to God, he cries out hopelessly: "There is no umpire, mesites (3316), between us" (Job 9:33). Paul calls Moses the mesites (3316) (Gal 3:19) in that he was the one between who brought the law from God to men. In Athens in classical times there was a body of men--all citizens in their sixtieth year--who could be called upon to act as mediators when there was a dispute between two citizens, and their first duty was to effect a reconciliation. In Rome there were arbitri. The judge settled points of law; but the arbitri settled matters of equity; and it was their duty to bring disputes to an end. Further, in legal Greek a mesites (3316) was a sponsor, a guarantor or a surely. He went bail for a friend who was on trial; he guaranteed a debt or an overdraft. The mesites (3316) was the man who was willing to pay his friend's debt to make things right again.

The mesites (3316) is the man who stands between and brings together two other parties in reconciliation. Jesus is our perfect mesites (3316); he stands between us and God. He opens the way to reality and to God and is the only person who can effect reconciliation between man and God, between the real and the unreal. In other words, Jesus is the only person who can bring us real life.

Barclay: Heb 8:7-13

Here Hebrews begins to deal with one of the great biblical ideas--that of a covenant. In the Bible the Greek word that is always used for a covenant is diatheke (1242) and there was a special reason for the choice of this rather unusual word. Ordinarily a covenant is an agreement entered into by two people. It is dependent on conditions on which they mutually agree; and if either should break the conditions the covenant becomes void. It is sometimes used in that simple sense in the Old Testament. For instance, it is used of the league that the Gibeonites wished to make with Joshua (Jos 9:6); of the forbidden league with the Canaanites (Jdg 2:2); and of David's covenant with Jonathan (1Sa 23:18). But its distinctive use is to describe the relationship between Israel and God. "Take heed to yourselves, lest you forget the covenant of the Lord your God" (Deu 4:23). In the New Testament the word is also used to describe the relationship between God and man.

But there is a strange point which requires explanation. For all normal uses the Greek word for an agreement is suntheke which is the word for a marriage covenant or bond and for an agreement between two states. Further, in all normal Greek diatheke (1242) means not an agreement, but a will. Why should the New Testament use this word for a covenant? The reason is this--suntheke always describes an agreement entered into on equal terms. The parties to a suntheke are on the one level and each can bargain with the other. But God and man do not meet on equal terms. In the biblical sense of a covenant, the whole approach comes from God. Man cannot bargain with God; he cannot argue about the terms of the covenant; he can only accept or reject the offer that God makes.

The supreme example of such an agreement is a will. The conditions of a will are not made on equal terms. They are made entirely by one person, the testator, and the other party cannot alter them but can only accept or refuse the inheritance offered.

That is why our relationship to God is described as a diatheke (1242), a covenant for the terms of which only one person is responsible. That relationship is offered us solely on the initiative and the grace of God. As Philo said: "It is fitting for God to give and for a wise man to receive." When we use the word covenant, we must always remember that it does not mean that man made a bargain with God on equal terms. It always means that the whole initiative is with God; the terms are his and man cannot alter them in the slightest.

The ancient covenant, so well known to the Jews, was the one made with the people after the giving of the law. God graciously approached the people of Israel. He offered them a unique relationship to himself; but that relationship was entirely dependent on the keeping of the law. We see the Israelites accepting that condition in Exo 24:1-8. The argument of the writer to the Hebrews is that that old covenant is done away with and that Jesus has brought a new relationship with God.

In this passage we can distinguish certain marks of the new covenant which Jesus brought.

(i) The writer begins by pointing out that the idea of a new covenant is not something revolutionary. It is already there in Jer 31:31-34, which he quotes in full. Further, the very fact that scripture speaks of the new covenant shows that the old was not fully satisfactory. Had it been, a new covenant would never have needed to be mentioned. Scripture looked to a new covenant and therefore itself indicated that the old covenant was not perfect.

(ii) This covenant will not only be new; it will be different in quality and in kind. In Greek there are two words for new. Neos (3501) describes a thing as being new in point of time. It might be a precise copy of its predecessors, but since it has been made after the others, it is neos (3501). Kainos (2537) means not only new in point of time, but new in point of quality. A thing which is simply a reproduction of what went before may be neos (3501) but it is not kainos (2537). This covenant which Jesus introduces is kainos (2537), not merely neos (3501); it is different in quality from the old covenant. The writer to the Hebrews uses two words to describe the old covenant. He says that it is geraskon (1095), which means not only ageing, but ageing into decay. He says that it is near to aphanismos (854). Aphanismos is the word that is used for wiping out a city, obliterating an inscription, or abolishing a law. So the covenant which Jesus brings is new in quality and completely cancels the old.

(iii) Wherein is this covenant new? It is new in its scope. It is going to include the house of Israel and the house of Judah. One thousand years before this, in the days of Rehoboam, the kingdom had split apart, into Israel with the ten tribes and Judah with the two, and these two sections had never come together again. The new covenant is going to unite that which has been divided; in it the old enemies will be at one.

(iv) It is new in its universality. All men would know God from the least to the greatest. That was something quite new. In the ordinary life of the Jews there was a complete cleavage. On the one hand there were the Pharisees and the orthodox who kept the law; on the other hand there were what were contemptuously called The People of the Land, the ordinary people who did not fully observe the details of the ceremonial law. They were completely despised. It was forbidden to have any fellowship with them; to marry one's daughter to one of them was worse than to throw her to a wild beast; it was forbidden to go on a journey with them; it was even forbidden, as far as it was possible, to have any trade or business dealings with them. To the rigid observers of the law the ordinary people were beyond the pale. But in the new covenant these breaches would no longer exist. All men, wise and simple, great and small, would know the Lord. The doors which had been shut were thrown wide open.

(v) There is one even more fundamental difference. The old covenant depended on obedience to an externally imposed law. The new covenant is to be written upon men's hearts and minds. Men would obey God not because of the terror of punishment, but because they loved him. They would obey him not because the law compelled them unwillingly to do so, but because the desire to obey him was written on their hearts.

(vi) It will be a covenant which will really effect forgiveness. See how that forgiveness is to come. God said that he would be gracious to their iniquities and could forget their sins. Now it is all of God. The new relationship is based entirely on his love. Under the old covenant a man could keep this relationship to God only by obeying the law; that is, by his own efforts. Now everything is dependent not on man's efforts, but solely on the grace of God. The new covenant puts men into relationship with a God who is still a God of justice but whose justice has been swallowed up in his love. The most tremendous thing about the new covenant is that it makes man's relationship to God no longer dependent on man's obedience but entirely dependent on God's love.

One thing remains to say. In Jeremiah's words about the new covenant there is no mention of sacrifice. It would seem that Jeremiah believed that in the new age sacrifice would be abolished as irrelevant; but the writer to the Hebrews cannot think except in terms of the sacrificial system and very shortly he will go on to speak of Jesus as himself the perfect sacrifice, whose death alone made the new covenant possible for men.

Constable: Heb 5:11--11:1

III. The High Priestly Office of the Son 5:11--10:39

The transition from exposition (4:15-5:10) to exhortation (5:11-6:20) marks the beginning of a new division in this sermon. The structure of this division is as follows.¹⁵⁸

a Preliminary exhortation (5:11-6:20)

A The priest like Melchizedek (7:1-28)

B The single, personal sacrifice for sins (8:1-9:28)

C The achievement of eternal salvation (10:1-18)

a' Concluding exhortation (10:19-39)

A central theme of Hebrews, redemptive sacrifice, comes into prominence in this section of the text.

Constable: Heb 7:1--10:19

C. The Son's High Priestly Ministry 7:1-10:18

The great resource of Christians when tempted to apostatize is our high priest, Jesus Christ. The writer therefore spent considerable time and space expounding His high priesthood to enable his readers to benefit from their resource. This section of the book continues to glorify Jesus Christ so the readers would appreciate Him sufficiently and not turn from. Him.

"In Hebrews 7, the writer argued that Christ's priesthood, like Melchizedek's, is superior in its order. In Hebrews 8, the emphasis is on Christ's better covenant; in Hebrews 9, it is His better sanctuary; and Hebrews 10 concludes the section by arguing for Christ's better sacrifice."²¹¹

Constable: Heb 8:1--9:28

2. The work of our high priest chs. 8-9

The writer developed in this new section of the text topics that he had announced thematically in 7:26-28.

"The unit introduced in 8:1-2 consists entirely of exposition. Its limits are indicated by an inclusio: corresponding to the statement in 8:3 that every high priest is appointed to offer (prospherein) gifts and sacrifices is the complementary declaration that Christ was offered (prosenechtheis) once to take away the sins of the people in 9:28. These limits are confirmed by the observation that the theme of Christ's entrance into the heavenly sanctuary, which is announced in 8:1-2, is actually developed in 9:11-28. The new unit extends from 8:1-9:28 and constitutes the central section within the compositional structure of the sermon. Its place at the center indicates the importance that the writer ascribed to this facet of his message . . ."²³⁵

The ministry of Jesus Christ as our High Priest involves a particular kind of service that includes a covenant, a sanctuary, and a sacrifice. The writer explained the service that Jesus Christ renders to help his readers understand His adequacy as our High Priest. The writer moved from explaining the person of our great High Priest to expounding His work. In all this he was contrasting the superiority of Christianity with the inferiority of Judaism.

One writer observed a chiastic structure in 8:1-9:28.²³⁶

A The old worship, earthly and figurative (8:1-6)

B The first covenant, imperfect and provisioned (8:7-13)

C The old and powerless institution of worship (9:1-10)

C' The new, efficacious institutions (9:11-14)

B' The new covenant (9:15-23)

A' The entrance to heaven (9:24-28)

Constable: Heb 8:1-13

The new ministry and covenant ch. 8

The writer's discussion of the new ministry and the New Covenant in chapter 8 introduces his fuller development of those themes in chapter 9. His flow of thought proceeded as follows.

A Christ, the ministering priest (8:1-5)

1. A new ministry (8:1-2)

2. which is set in opposition to the old (8:3-5)

B. Christ, the mediator of the new covenant (8:6-13)

1. The new ministry is associated with a better covenant (8:6)

2. which is set in opposition to the old (8:7-13)²³⁷

"In 7:11-28 the writer drew attention to certain deficiencies in the Levitical arrangement. Among these were the mortality of the ministering priests (7:23) and the necessity of repeating sacrifices for sins, both of the priests and the people (7:27). Two further weaknesses of the Levitical arrangement are demonstrated on the basis of Scripture in 8:1-13. First, the contrast between the heavenly and earthly tabernacle is introduced to supplement the distinction between the new and the old. Levitical priests serve only a shadowy suggestion of the heavenly sanctuary in which Christ exercises his ministry. To the degree that the earthly sanctuary with its ministry only imperfectly corresponds to the ministry conducted in the presence of God, it is marked by deficiency. Secondly, the covenant under which the Levitical arrangement was instituted has been treated by God as obsolete. The mediation of the new covenant demonstrates the eschatological superiority of Christ's ministry and the divine intention to replace the old arrangement with another that is eschatologically new."²³⁸

Constable: Heb 8:6-13

The better covenant 8:6-13

The writer proceeded to explain the superiority of the New Covenant that Jesus Christ ratified with His blood that is better than the Old Mosaic Covenant that He terminated when He died. He first explained the reason for the change in covenants (vv. 6-9), then he quoted the four superior promises of the New Covenant (vv. 10-12), and finally he underlined the certainty of the change (v. 13).

8:6 The superiority of Jesus' ministry as our High Priest rests also on the superiority of the covenant that forms the basis of that ministry. That covenant in turn rests on superior promises compared with the Mosaic Covenant promises and on a superior mediator, namely, Jesus Christ, compared with the angels and Moses (Gal. 3:19).

8:7 As with the priesthood (7:11-12), so it is with the covenant and its promises. Had the first been adequate God would not have promised a second. Add "and its promises" after "covenant," which the translators have supplied, in this verse since "them" in verse 8 is plural.

8:8-12 God gave the promise of a new covenant because the people of Israel had failed Him. He also did so because the Old Mosaic Covenant did not have the power to enable them to remain faithful to God. The New Covenant has the power whereby God's people may remain faithful, namely, the presence of God living within the believer. This is one way in which it differs from the Old Covenant (v. 9).²⁴⁸

God promised that the New Covenant would enable the Israelites to do four things. They would know and desire to do God's will (v. 10b), enjoy a privileged, unique relationship with God (v. 10c), know God directly (v. 11), and experience permanent forgiveness of their sins (v. 12). These are the "better promises" the writer referred to earlier (v. 6).

". . . new covenant promises are not yet fully realized. The promises in Jeremiah, Isaiah, and Ezekiel describe a people who have the law written in their hearts, who walk in the way of the Lord, fully under the control of the Holy Spirit. These same promises look to a people who are raised from the dead [cf. Ezek. 37], enjoying the blessings of an eternal inheritance with God dwelling with them and in them forever."²⁴⁹

8:13 The writer contrasted the New Covenant with the Old Covenant, namely, the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant is now "obsolete" and even as the writer wrote the Book of Hebrews it was also "growing old." It virtually disappeared in A.D. 70 when the Romans destroyed the temple, terminated its ritual, and scattered the Jews throughout the world (cf. Matt. 24:1-2).

The New Covenant is a branch of the Abrahamic Covenant. In the Abrahamic Covenant, God promised Abraham a piece of real estate for his descendants, an incalculable number of descendants, and blessing for his descendants and for all people through his descendants (Gen. 12:1-7; et al.). Deuteronomy 29-30, sometimes called the Palestinian Covenant, gave more information about the land God had promised to Abraham. The Davidic Covenant gave more information about God's promises regarding descendants (2 Sam. 7). The New Covenant revealed the particulars of the promised blessing (Jer. 31). Each of these later covenants relates to the Abrahamic Covenant organically. In contrast the Mosaic (Old) Covenant does not relate organically but "was added" (Gal. 3:19). It explained how the Israelites could maximize the benefits God had promised in the Abrahamic Covenant. Consequently when God terminated the Old Covenant it did not eliminate anything He had promised Abraham.

Dispensational commentators have taken various positions on the relationship of the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 to the New Testament references to the New Covenant. Was it the same covenant, or is a second New Covenant in view? Some believe there are two new covenants, one with Israel and one with the church.²⁵⁰ This position rests on the fact that the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31 was specifically with the house of Israel and the house of Judah (Jer. 31:31). Those who hold this view take the New Covenant under which Christians live as a different New Covenant (2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:8; 9:15). They regard Jesus' references to the New Covenant as to a New Covenant with the church (Luke 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:25).

Most dispensationalists believe there is only one New Covenant.²⁵¹ Most of those who hold this view believe that the church enters into the blessings of this covenant. Even though the New Covenant was "with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah" (Jer. 31:31), many of the benefits promised extended to all believers after Jesus Christ died (cf. Isa. 19:24-25; 42:6; 49:6; Rom. 15:9-12). Christians experience the blessings referred to in a measure now, but God will fulfill the covenant completely in the Millennium when the Jews will experience all the blessings promised fully (Rom. 11:25-32).²⁵² According to this view, when Jesus said the cup at the Lord's Supper represented His blood that is the New Covenant, He meant this. His death was the basis for the fulfillment of the promises that the New Covenant contained. I prefer this view mainly because I do not believe there is adequate basis in the text for applying the term "New Covenant" to two different covenants. There are few writers who hold the two New Covenants view today.

Covenant theologians explain how the church benefits from the New Covenant promises by saying that the church is spiritual Israel. These promises, they claim, belong to Abraham's spiritual seed, not his physical seed. It is clear from Galatians 3:13-29 that Christians are the spiritual seed of Abraham, but that is not the same as saying the church is spiritual Israel.

"Once we are permitted to make such plain words as Israel' and Judah' mean something else, there is no end to how we might interpret the Bible!"²⁵³

College: Heb 8:1-13

HEBREWS 8

V. THE NEW COVENANT BROUGHT BY JESUS OUR HIGH PRIEST IS SUPERIOR

TO THE OLD COVENANT (8:1-13)

We have now reached a very important junction in the letter. The heart of the document consists of two main ideas under the unifying head of the new covenant. Jesus is our high priest (chapters 5-7) as well as our sacrifice (chapters 9-10). These two dimensions of Jesus' ministry define the new covenant (chapter 8). Chapter 8 expounds Jeremiah 31:31-34 in much the same manner that chapters 5-7 expound Psalm 110:4. Verse 6 represents the summit of the document.

A. OUR HIGH PRIEST REIGNS AND SERVES IN

THE TRUE TABERNACLE, PREFIGURED BY

OLD TESTAMENT SHADOWS (8:1-5)

¹ The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, ² and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

³ Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer. ⁴ If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law. ⁵ They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain." ^a

^a 5 Exodus 25:40

8:1 The point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,

The whole discussion about our high priest is brought into focus just prior to our writer's discussion of the new covenant. Bauer defines kefavlaion ( kephalaion , "point" or "sum") as "main thing, main point, summary, synopsis (limited to the main points)" and translates this first phrase, "the main point in what has been said [is this]." The main point: that "such a high priest" who "meets our need" (7:26) has, in fact, not only come but has now taken his place at the right hand of God and serves in the heavenly sanctuary on our behalf.

These two features of his priesthood preview the remainder of this section which uses them to introduce his description of the new covenant. The first of these features describes when Jesus became our high priest (when he "sat down at the right hand") and the second, what he does as our high priest (he "serves in the sanctuary"). Both describe where he serves ("in heaven," "the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not man").

Royal imagery ("throne," "Majesty") recalls the parallel to Melchizedek who was both king and priest (7:1). Jesus, similarly, is both king and priest. The one who rules the universe also serves his "brothers" (2:11). This entire phrase recalls 1:3 and suggests that the "sum" thus takes in the entire scope of the letter. The comments on that verse suggested that "the Majesty" is a substitute for the name of God and that New Testament references to Jesus sitting at the right hand of God tend to emphasize his power and authority.

8:2 and who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

Though much has and will yet be made of the role of the priest in both covenants, this is the first direct reference to the "tabernacle." What is meant by "true" tabernacle (ajlhqivno" , alçthinos , "real" vs. "apparent") will be explained further in verse 5 and in detail in chapter 9. Yet another dimension of the readers' beloved heritage is introduced to demonstrate the greatness of their Savior and his covenant.

8:3 Every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, and so it was necessary for this one also to have something to offer.

The reference to "every high priest" being "appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices" is precisely the statement first made in 5:1. There, however, our writer was more concerned about what it meant for the priest to be "from among men" and thus "able to deal gently" with them. He referred to the "weakness" of the priest and thus to his need to offer a sacrifice for his own sins (5:2,3). Without commenting further upon the significance of the sacrifice, our author then turned his attention to (1) the necessity for a priest to be appointed by God and the scriptural proof of Jesus' appointment (5:4-10), (2) a digression to challenge his readers to grow spiritually (5:11-6:12), and (3) a return to the parallel with Melchizedek and subsequent significance of the oath and resurrection (6:13-7:25). Only at the end of chapter 7 has he returned to the significance of the sacrifice, completing the contrast between every other priest who needed to offer sacrifices for their own sins and Jesus who did not (7:26-28). Once placed in the larger context of tabernacle ritual and the new covenant promised through Jeremiah, Jesus' sacrifice will be presented as the ultimate proof of the superiority of the "new order" (9:10) and the defining event of the "new covenant" (9:15), themes which will be explained and applied throughout chapters 9 and 10.

It is, of course, our sin which made it necessary for Jesus to offer his sacrifice, just as sin created the need for the gifts and sacrifices presented under the old covenant. However, the language here (o{qen , hothen , "so" or "therefore") suggests that our writer is referring to the necessity created by his classification argument (what is true of "every" priest must also be true of the "one" if, in fact, he is a priest).

8:4 If he were on earth, he would not be a priest, for there are already men who offer the gifts prescribed by the law.

This next verse, however, suggests that although Jesus was like other priests in that he offered a "gift," his ministry is yet different from theirs. "If he were on earth," he would have been a priest as they were. But we know that he sits at the right hand of God's throne in heaven. It was not during his incarnation but following his ascension that he began to serve in the sanctuary of the "true" tabernacle.

The present tense verbs here and in verse 5 ("there are already men who offer . . .They serve . . .") may suggest that our author writes before the destruction of the temple in AD 70. However, it is also possible that here, as in 5:1ff., the present tense is used as a customary way of making broad, general statements which serve as argumentative premises, (1) since the references are to the tabernacle, a "type" which would still provide the exegetical foundation for the argument apart from the fate of the temple and (2) as unlikely as it may have been for the author to overlook its destruction altogether.

8:5 They serve at a sanctuary that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven. This is why Moses was warned when he was about to build the tabernacle: "See to it that you make everything according to the pattern shown you on the mountain."

Here is a key difference between the service of Jesus and that of the priests on earth. He serves at a "true" (or "real," cf. verses 1-2) sanctuary "set up by the Lord" while they serve at one set up "by man" (v. 2) which is merely "a copy and a shadow of what is in heaven."

ΤUpodeivgma ( hypodeigma , "copy") is sometimes translated "example" (in John 13:15 of that which Jesus set when washing the feet of his disciples, in James 5:10 when he mentions the "example" of the prophets in the face of suffering, and in 2 Peter 2:6 of the "example" which God made of Sodom and Gomorrah), even in Hebrews (4:11, of disobedience, by the Israelites in the wilderness). The rendering "copy" (or "imitation") seems a better fit for the context here, as well as in 9:23 (again in reference to the tabernacle but also to everything used in its ceremonies, 9:21-22). Skiva ( skia , "shadow") can be used in a literal sense (as in Acts 5:15, of Peter's shadow which fell on those whom he passed, and as in Mark 4:32 of the "shade" provided by the branches of a tree). There is, of course, some transference in the figurative sense. Paul uses the term to refer to the legalistic rituals which are a "shadow" of things to come as opposed to the "reality" (sw'ma , sôma , "body") found in Christ (Col 2:17). In 10:1, our writer similarly points out that the law is a "shadow" of the good things that are coming, not the "realities" (ei[kwn , eikôn , "image") themselves. Some see here the influence of Philo and his Platonic ideas but, in the context, it seems more likely that these terms merely serve as an apt metaphor to describe our writer's typological exegesis (since the two terms are here used opposite "pattern," tuvpo" [ typos ], which appears later in the verse).

As proof that the tabernacle and its rituals are to be so interpreted, our writer offers the warning given to Moses in Exodus 25:40 (LXX). The fact that Moses was warned to make everything according to the pattern - which had been provided by God himself - is offered as a sign that God intentionally designed the tabernacle and its rituals to imitate what he knew Jesus would someday do. The word "everything" is not present in the text of the LXX but is added by our writer, presumably to suggest his point in appealing to the verse. Typos ("pattern") means "form, figure, pattern, model" but is sometimes specifically used of the " types given by God as an indication of the future, in the form of persons or things." The details of the pattern will be developed in chapter 9.

B. OUR HIGH PRIEST IS MEDIATOR OF THE

NEW COVENANT, PROMISED THROUGH

THE PROPHET JEREMIAH (8:6-13)

⁶ But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

⁷ For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. ⁸ But God found fault with the people and said ^a :

"The time is coming, declares the Lord,

when I will make a new covenant

with the house of Israel

and with the house of Judah.

⁹ It will not be like the covenant

I made with their forefathers

when I took them by the hand

to lead them out of Egypt,

because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,

and I turned away from them,

declares the Lord.

¹⁰ This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel

after that time, declares the Lord.

I will put my laws in their minds

and write them on their hearts.

I will be their God,

and they will be my people.

¹¹ No longer will a man teach his neighbor,

or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'

because they will all know me,

from the least of them to the greatest.

¹² For I will forgive their wickedness

and will remember their sins no more." ^b

¹³ By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

^a 8 Some manuscripts may be translated fault and said to the people. ^b 12 Jer. 31:31-34

8:6 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

It is no exaggeration to suggest that this verse is the centerpiece of the letter. "Ministry" translates the feminine form (leitourgiva , leitourgia , "service, ministry") of the masculine noun translated "serves" in v. 2 (leitourgov" , leitourgos , "servant, minister"; lit., "who is a servant" in 8:2). Now that the superiority of Jesus' priesthood has been discussed in spatial (where) and temporal (when) senses, our writer points us to the inherent superiority of his service (what).

As in 1:4, the term "superior" translates two different Greek terms (first diaforwvtero" , diaphorôteros , "greater," then kreivttwn , kreittôn , "better"). There is little to distinguish between the significance of the terms (hence the NIV rendering) yet this is a good example of accumulating comparative terms for emphasis and to establish a coordinate relationship between the greatness of two different things (in 1:4, the Son and his name; here, his ministry and his covenant). This is another in the series of "better" comparisons made throughout the letter (see comments on 1:4).

Diaqhvkh (diathçkç ) is clearly a key term in chapter 8-10, as well as within the scheme of the document as a whole. Bauer suggests that, in the New Testament, the term represents "the declaration of one person's will, not the result of an agreement between two parties, like a compact or contract." In other words, as in the case of a testament or a will (9:16), the one who creates the will or covenant sets the conditions and they are absolute, not subject to negotiation with another party. The following chart summarizes significant occurrences of the word in Hebrews as well as the important themes in its various contexts:

Key Occurrences of diaqhvkh in Hebrews

The • better • 7:22; 8:6 Covenant • founded on better promises • 8:16 is . . . • new (kaivnh ) • 8:8 (Jer 31:31); 8:13 (implied); 9:15 • (neva" ) • 12:24 • not like that made with forefathers • 8:9 (Jer 31:32) • prophesied for "that time" • 8:10; 10:16 (Jer 31:33) • like a "will," in force at the death of the one who made it • 9:16, 17 • put into effect with the blood of Christ • 9:20; 10:29; 13:20 • eternal • 13:20 Jesus • guarantee • 7:22 is . . . • mediator • 8:6; 9:15; 12:24 • the one who made it [and whose death put it into effect] • 9:17 Those who receive the promised are called . . . • eternal inheritance • 9:15 • are set free from sin • 10:29 The one who treats the blood of the covenant as an unholy thing • deserves severe punishment covenant as an unholy thing • 9:15 Each dimension of the covenant will be commented upon in due course, but taken together we see that Hebrews presents a well-rounded description of the nature of the new covenant which God offers to believers.

Two key features of the new and superior covenant are mentioned in the present verse. First, Jesus is our "mediator." In Hebrews, mesivth" (mesitçs ) is used only of Jesus' role in the new covenant (also in 9:15 and 12:24) in the same manner that Paul uses it of him in 1 Timothy 2:5. According to Bauer, it describes "one who mediates between two parties to remove a disagreement or reach a common goal." In the papyri, the word was commonly used of the "arbiter" in legal and business transactions, including those in which someone may serve as "surety" for a debt. Bruce offers the rendering "go-between" but the references to his death ("ransom" in 9:15 and 1 Tim 2:5; "blood" in 12:24) are so prominent in New Testament contexts that Ellingworth appears to be correct in observing that Christ's mediation is unilateral, i.e., it runs in one direction - from God to us. In no way, however, does this verse diminish the intercessory dimension of Christ's ministry described elsewhere (7:25; Rom 8:24).

Second, this covenant is "founded on better promises." In 7:22 we learned that God's oath made Jesus the guarantee of a better covenant but comments on chapter six noted that the oath was added to "what was promised" as confirmation. What, then, are the "promises"?

In Hebrews, ejpaggeliva ( epangelia ) is always associated with the promises God made to Abraham - the promised land and the rest it offers - and with the final salvation of believers which that land and rest typify. 4:1 spoke of "the promise of entering his rest" which the Israelites failed to receive because, as a result of their rebellion, the promised land was refused to them. Yet that promise "still stands" (4:1), there remains another "Sabbath-rest for the people of God" (4:9), and the readers are exhorted to "make every effort to enter that rest" (4:11). 6:12, 15, 17 and 7:6 referred to "what was promised" to Abraham who, in one sense "received" it (6:15), although we later read that, while he would "receive as his inheritance" the "promised land" (11:8, 9), neither he, Isaac nor Jacob received "the things promised" but only "saw them from a distance," "admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth" and longed "for a better country - a heavenly one" (11:13). Similarly, though in one sense the heroes of faith mentioned in 11:32 "gained what was promised" (11:33, they "conquered kingdoms"), yet none received "what had been promised" (11:39) for "God planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect (teleiovw , teleioô )" (11:40).

It is probably more than a coincidence that in 11:40 our writer would use that term which is so prominent in his own theology of salvation (see comments on 7:11). When we consider (1) the use of epangelia to describe the promises to Abraham, (2) the typological significance accorded to those promises, (3) the reference to our "promised eternal inheritance" in 9:15 (cf. 11:8-9), and (4) the contextual evidence (10:37-39) that the phrase "what he has promised" in 10:36 is a reference to the eschatological salvation of all believers, our writer's "theology of promise" becomes clear. What was first promised to Abraham in an earthly sense is also promised in an eternal and heavenly sense to all who belong to the community of faith - including believers today as well as the men and women of faith who lived under the old covenant. The promise is sure and together we will be "made perfect" so that we can receive our eternal inheritance - heaven and its rest, prepared for us by God (11:16)

8:7 For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8:8 But God found fault with the people and said:

The sign argument in verse 7 follows the pattern of that offered in 7:11. The protasis ("if" clause) assumes the condition to be true (for the sake of argument, apart from its objective truth or falsity) and the apodosis (second clause) suggests the conclusion. Again, the argument is one of counter-condition in relation to what was predicted by the prophet (v. 8ff.). The fact that another, "new" covenant was prophesied is a sign that God did see a place for another covenant and thus that something was wrong with the "first" covenant. Why else would God plan and predict another?

The significance of this verse extends beyond its argumentative function in the letter, however. There are those today who would suggest that the "new" covenant was not much more than an afterthought in the purpose of God, a "Plan B" which followed the failure of "Plan A," a provisional measure made necessary by the temporary failure of Israel for whom God will still fulfill his promises in an earthly and literal sense following a heavenly rapture of the new covenant community. What our writer seems to suggest here is that the new covenant was, all along, a part of God's purpose for "that time" which was coming (8:8, 10), a time when the first covenant would become "obsolete" and "disappear" (see v. 13 below).

It is true that God "found fault with the people" and this is precisely what was "wrong with that first covenant" (8:7). Dealing only with "external regulations applying until the time of the new order" (9:10) rather than with internal realities (8:10), neither its law (7:18-19) nor its priesthood (7:11) could make people perfect.

"The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. 8:9 It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

Our writer cites Jeremiah 31:31-34 in its entirety to demonstrate that God had included in his plan a place for another covenant (8:7), one which would be "new" and "not like" the covenant which he "made with their forefathers." ΤHmevra (hçmera ) is often translated "day" but in the plural refers to a longer period of time, possibly "the time of a decisive event," but clearly a time which has now come in the view of our author. The prophecy cited not only announces the coming of the new covenant but describes it. The features prophesied for it are worth noting.

8:10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

(1) The new covenant creates internal realities in the minds and hearts of believers, not just external regulations. The laws of that old covenant were written on tablets of stone (24:12; 34:1) but now God says he will put his laws in the minds and hearts of his people. We are no longer subject to the guardianship or trusteeship of that law for God has now sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts to make us sons and heirs (Gal 4:2-7). The regulations of the law could moderate our outward behaviors (without making us righteous, Gal 3:21, cf. Heb 7:19), but the ministry of the Spirit which is part of the new covenant transforms us into his likeness (2 Cor 3:7-8, 18). In the new covenant, we are not simply told how to live a righteous life; in Christ we are new creations (2 Cor 5:17) who grow to be righteous through the sanctifying work of his Spirit.

(2) The new covenant restores fellowship between God and his people. "I will be their God, and they will be my people," said the Lord through his prophet Jeremiah. He had said the same through his prophet Ezekiel when he promised to put a new spirit in his people, to "remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh" (11:19-20). The real change of heart and mind created by the ministry of the Spirit in the new covenant makes possible that restoration of our fellowship with God which is the entire purpose of his plan of redemption. God had desired nothing less with Israel under that old covenant (Exod 19:15f.) but the inability of its rituals and regulations to effect real change in them was manifest in their failure to "remain faithful," a failure which forced God to turn away from them (v. 9). This happened as God knew it would but his ultimate plan was for a new and different covenant which could restore that fellowship through the perfection of those who would draw near to him (7:19; 10:1ff.).

8:11 No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.

(3) The new covenant offers knowledge of God to all. As the restoration of fellowship with God grows out of the real spiritual regeneration of his people, so their personal knowledge of him grows out of the restoration of fellowship. Verse 11 should not be taken to suggest that there will be no need for teaching within the new covenant community but that there will be no need for that teaching which leads people to "know" the Lord. The new covenant promises a personal relationship with God to all who enter it. The universality of the promise is conveyed by the progression from the more general term "neighbor" (polivth" , politçs , "fellow-citizen, fellow-townsman") to the more intimate term "brother" and by the inclusive phrase, "from the least of them to the greatest." That our author would pen this letter demonstrates his belief in the need for teaching within the new covenant community. Nevertheless, there is no spiritual "elite" within that community upon whom the rest are dependent for their personal knowledge of and relationship with God.

8:12 For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

(4) The new covenant promises complete and final forgiveness for believers. Whereas relationship grows out of restoration and restoration out of re-creation, the "for" which introduces verse 12 renders a conjunction that suggests the underlying cause of all the above. The complete experience of features (1) - (3) is, of course, eschatological. In the meantime, we continue to have opportunity to teach those outside of the covenant community to "know the Lord," continue to experience the limits which our imperfections place upon our ability to draw near to God, and continue to struggle to become more like him. During this interim which ends only with our final, eschatological perfection, however, God has provided for our justification through that sacrifice which Jesus has made of his own life. As a result, we can even now begin to experience the first and growing fruits of that salvation provided by the new covenant. For his sacrifice not only satisfied the law's demands but has changed the way God views believers.

8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

From the literal sense of the word "new" in Jeremiah 31:31, our writer draws a chain of inferences to characterize the "first" covenant. By contrast, it is first "obsolete," then "obsolete and aging" and soon it will "disappear." Now that the "new order" has arrived, it is no longer needed and its regulations no longer apply (9:10). God himself has cancelled it (palaiovw , palaioô , for which Moulton and Milligan suggest "abrogate" when used intransitively). If his readers were considering a return to that first covenant, they would now have no reason to do so. This is one of the occasions in the letter when a reference to the destruction of the temple would certainly have strengthened our writer's argument, if it had already taken place. However, the argument does not depend upon this, for the temple had been destroyed before without the disappearance of the covenant or the law.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

Commentary -- Other

Evidence: Heb 8:6

SPRINGBOARDS FOR PREACHING AND WITNESSING

Solid Ice

There once was a man who was traveling on foot through a snowstorm in a strange country. He had to get to a certain town by nightfall and was somewhat perturbed when he came to an ice-covered river. How thick was the ice? Could he trust it to hold him? He began crawling on the ice on his stomach, inch-by-inch, tapping with his fingers. Sweat poured from his forehead. He was filled with the fear that at any moment he could plunge to an icy death.

An hour later, he had progressed only about 40 feet. He suddenly stopped crawling. He could hear singing! He turned his head to see a horse and cart, laden with people. The driver was singing at the top of his voice as he drove his cart across the ice. The driver knew that lake was solid ice and his faith was such that he had total confidence, with not an ounce of fear. Such are the solid promises of God.

Evidence: Heb 8:10

God puts His Law into our minds, giving us a new mind—the " mind of Christ" ( 1Co 2:16 ), and renewing us in the " spirit" of our minds. He gives us a " new and living way" ( Heb 10:20 ). Now God’s ways are our ways and God’s thoughts become our thoughts. We are led by the Spirit, walking " in his ways" ( Psa 119:3 ). This is the miracle of the new birth. We are completely new creatures in Christ ( 2Co 5:17 ).

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

The Epistle to the Hebrews

By Way of Introduction

Unsettled Problems

Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

The Picture of Christ

At once we are challenged by the bold stand taken by the author concerning the Person of Christ as superior to the prophets of the Old Testament because he is the Son of God through whom God has spoken in the new dispensation (Heb_1:1-3), this Son who is God’s Agent in the work of creation and of grace as we see it stated in Phi_2:5-11; Col_1:13-20; John 1:1-18. This high doctrine of Jesus as God’s Son with the glory and stamp of God’s nature is never lowered, for as God’s Son he is superior to angels (Heb 1:4-2:4), though the humanity of Jesus is recognized as one proof of the glory of Jesus (Heb_2:5-18). Jesus is shown to be superior to Moses as God’s Son over God’s house (Heb 3:1-4:13), But the chief portion of the Epistle is devoted to the superiority of Jesus Christ as priest to the work of Aaron and the whole Levitical line (Heb 4:14-12:3). Here the author with consummate skill, though with rabbinical refinements at times, shows that Jesus is like Melchizedek and so superior to Aaron (Heb 4:14-7:28), works under a better covenant of grace (Heb_8:1-13), works in a better sanctuary which is in heaven (Heb_9:1-12), offers a better sacrifice which is his own blood (Heb 9:13-10:18), and gives us better promises for the fulfilment of his task (Heb 10:19-12:3). Hence this Epistle deserves to be called the Epistle of the Priesthood of Christ. So W. P. Du Bose calls his exposition of the book, High Priesthood and Sacrifice (1908). This conception of Christ as our Priest who offered himself on the Cross and as our Advocate with the Father runs all through the New Testament (Mar_10:46; Mat_20:28; Joh_10:17; Mat_26:28; Rom_8:32; 1Pe_1:18.; 1Jo_2:1.; Rev_5:9, etc.). But it is in Hebrews that we have the full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as our Priest and Redeemer. The Glory of Jesus runs through the whole book.

The Style

It is called an epistle and so it is, but of a peculiar kind. In fact, as has been said, it begins like a treatise, proceeds like a sermon, and concludes like a letter. It is, in fact, more like a literary composition than any other New Testament book as Deissmann shows: " It points to the fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews, with its more definitely artistic, more literary language (corresponding to its more theological subject matter), constituted an epoch in the history of the new religion. Christianity is beginning to lay hands on the instruments of culture; the literary and theological period has begun" ( Light from the Ancient East , pp. 70f.). But Blass ( Die Rhythmen der asianischen und romischen Kunstprosa , 1905) argues that the author of Hebrews certainly and Paul probably were students of Greek oratory and rhetoric. He is clearly wrong about Paul and probably so about the author of Hebrews. There is in Hebrews more of " a studied rhetorical periodicity" (Thayer), but with many " parenthetical involutions" (Westcott) and with less of " the impetuous eloquence of Paul." The eleventh chapter reveals a studied style and as a whole the Epistle belongs to the literary Koiné rather than to the vernacular. Moulton ( Cambridge Biblical Essays , p. 483) thinks that the author did not know Hebrew but follows the Septuagint throughout in his abundant use of the Old Testament.

The Author

Origen bluntly wrote: " Who wrote the Epistle God only knows certainly" as quoted by Eusebius. Origen held that the thoughts were Paul’s while Clement of Rome or Luke may have written the book. Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius says) thought that Paul wrote it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it into Greek. No early writer apparently attributed the Greek text to Paul. Eusebius thought it was originally written in Hebrew whether by Paul or not and translated by Clement of Rome. But there is no certainty anywhere in the early centuries. It was accepted first in the east and later in the west which first rejected it. But Jerome and Augustine accepted it. When the Renaissance came Erasmus had doubts, Luther attributed it to Apollos, Calvin denied the Pauline authorship. In North Africa it was attributed to Barnabas. In modern times Harnack has suggested Priscilla, but the masculine participle in Heb_11:32 ( me diēgoumenon ) disposes of that theory. The oldest Greek MSS. (Aleph A B) have simply Pros Hebraious as the title, but they place it before the Pastoral Epistles, while the Textus Receptus puts it after the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon. In the light of all the facts one can only make a guess without a sense of certainty. For myself I should with Luther guess Apollos as the most likely author of this book which is full of the Spirit of God.

The Recipients

If the title is allowed to be genuine or a fair interpretation of the Epistle, then it is addressed to Jewish (Hebrew) Christians in a local church somewhere. Dr. James Moffatt in his Commentary (pp. xv to xvii) challenges the title and insists that the book is written for Gentile Christians as truly as First Peter. He argues this largely from the author’s use of the lxx. For myself Dr. Moffatt’s reasons are not convincing. The traditional view that the author is addressing Jewish Christians in a definite locality, whether a large church or a small household church, is true, I believe. The author seems clearly to refer to a definite church in the experiences alluded to in Heb_10:32-34. The church in Jerusalem had undergone sufferings like these, but we really do not know where the church was. Apparently the author is in Italy when he writes (Heb_13:24), though " they of Italy" ( hoi apo tēs Italias ) can mean those who have come from Italy. These Jewish Christians may even have lived in Rome itself.

The Date

Here again modern scholars differ widely. Westcott places it between a.d. 64 and 67. Harnack and Holtzmann prefer a date between a.d. 81 and 96. Marcus Dods argues strongly that the Epistle was written while the temple was still standing. If it was already destroyed, it is hard to understand how the author could have written Heb_10:1.: " Else would they not have ceased to be offered?" And in Heb_8:13 " nigh to vanishing away" ( eggus aphanismou ) is only intelligible with the temple service still going on. The author makes use of the tabernacle instead of the temple because the temple was patterned after the tabernacle. On the other hand, the mention of Timothy in Heb_13:23 as being " set free" ( apolelumenon ) raises an inquiry concerning Paul’s last plea to Timothy to come to him in Rome (2Ti_4:11-13). Apparently Timothy came and was put in prison. If so, since Paul was put to death before Nero’s own death (June 8, a.d. 68), there is left only the years 67 to 69 a.d. as probable or even possible. It is thus the last of the New Testament books before the Johannine Writings all of which come towards the close of the century and after the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Purpose

The author states it repeatedly. He urges the Jewish Christians to hold fast the confession which they have made in Jesus as Messiah and Saviour. Their Jewish neighbours have urged them to give up Christ and Christianity and to come back to Judaism. The Judaizers tried to make Jews out of Gentile Christians and to fasten Judaism upon Christianity with a purely sacramental type of religion as the result. Paul won freedom for evangelical and spiritual Christianity against the Judaizers as shown in the Corinthian Epistles, Galatians, and Romans. The Gnostics in subtle fashion tried to dilute Christianity with their philosophy and esoteric mysteries and here again Paul won his fight for the supremacy of Christ over all these imaginary aeons (Colossians and Ephesians). But in Hebrews the author is battling to stop a stampede from Christ back to Judaism, a revolt (apostasy) in truth from the living God. These Jews argued that the prophets were superior to Jesus, the law came by the ministry of angels, Moses was greater than Jesus, and Aaron than Jesus. The author turns the argument on the Jews and boldly champions the Glory of Jesus as superior at every point to all that Judaism had, as God’s Son and man’s Saviour, the crown and glory of the Old Testament prophecy, the hope of mankind. It is the first great apologetic for Christianity and has never been surpassed. Moffatt terms it " a profound homily."

JFB: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

CANONICITY AND AUTHORSHIP.--CLEMENT OF ROME, at the end of the first century (A.D), copiously uses it, adopting its words just as he does those of the other books of the New Testament; not indeed giving to either the term "Scripture," which he reserves for the Old Testament (the canon of the New Testament not yet having been formally established), but certainly not ranking it below the other New Testament acknowledged Epistles. As our Epistle claims authority on the part of the writer, CLEMENT'S adoption of extracts from it is virtually sanctioning its authority, and this in the apostolic age. JUSTIN MARTYR quotes it as divinely authoritative, to establish the titles "apostle," as well as "angel," as applied to the Son of God. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA refers it expressly to Paul, on the authority of Pantænus, chief of the Catechetical school in Alexandria, in the middle of the second century, saying, that as Jesus is termed in it the "apostle" sent to the Hebrews, Paul, through humility, does not in it call himself apostle of the Hebrews, being apostle to the Gentiles. CLEMENT also says that Paul, as the Hebrews were prejudiced against him, prudently omitted to put forward his name in the beginning; also, that it was originally written in Hebrew for the Hebrews, and that Luke translated it into Greek for the Greeks, whence the style is similar to that of Acts. He, however, quotes frequently the words of the existing Greek Epistle as Paul's words. ORIGEN similarly quotes it as Paul's Epistle. However, in his Homilies, he regards the style as distinct from that of Paul, and as "more Grecian," but the thoughts as the apostle's; adding that the "ancients who have handed down the tradition of its Pauline authorship, must have had good reason for doing so, though God alone knows the certainty who was the actual writer" (that is, probably "transcriber" of the apostle's thoughts). In the African Church, in the beginning of the third century, TERTULLIAN ascribes it to Barnabas. IRENÆUS, bishop of Lyons, is mentioned in EUSEBIUS, as quoting from this Epistle, though without expressly referring it to Paul. About the same period, Caius, the presbyter, in the Church of Rome, mentions only thirteen Epistles of Paul, whereas, if the Epistle to the Hebrews were included, there would be fourteen. So the canon fragment of the end of the second century, or beginning of the third, published by MURATORI, apparently omits mentioning it. And so the Latin Church did not recognize it as Paul's till a considerable time after the beginning of the third century. Thus, also, NOVATIAN OF ROME, CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE, and VICTORINUS, also of the Latin Church. But in the fourth century, HILARY OF POITIERS (A.D. 368), LUCIFER OF CAGLIARI (A.D. 371), AMBROSE OF MILAN (A.D. 397) and other Latins, quote it as Paul's; and the fifth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419) formally reckons it among his fourteen Epistles.

As to the similarity of its style to that of Luke's writings, this is due to his having been so long the companion of Paul. CHRYSOSTOM, comparing Luke and Mark, says, "Each imitated his teacher: Luke imitated Paul flowing along with more than river fulness; but Mark imitated Peter, who studied brevity of style." Besides, there is a greater predominance of Jewish feeling and familiarity with the peculiarities of the Jewish schools apparent in this Epistle than in Luke's writings. There is no clear evidence for attributing the authorship to him, or to Apollos, whom ALFORD upholds as the author. The grounds alleged for the latter view are its supposed Alexandrian phraseology and modes of thought. But these are such as any Palestinian Jew might have used; and Paul, from his Hebræo-Hellenistic education at Jerusalem and Tarsus, would be familiar with PHILO'S modes of thought, which are not, as some think, necessarily all derived from his Alexandrian, but also from his Jewish, education. It would be unlikely that the Alexandrian Church should have so undoubtingly asserted the Pauline authorship, if Apollos, their own countryman, had really been the author. The eloquence of its style and rhetoric, a characteristic of Apollos' at Corinth, whereas Paul there spoke in words unadorned by man's wisdom, are doubtless designedly adapted to the minds of those whom Paul in this Epistle addresses. To the Greek Corinthians, who were in danger of idolizing human eloquence and wisdom, he writes in an unadorned style, in order to fix their attention more wholly on the Gospel itself. But the Hebrews were in no such danger. And his Hebræo-Grecian education would enable him to write in a style attractive to the Hebrews at Alexandria, where Greek philosophy had been blended with Judaism. The Septuagint translation framed at Alexandria had formed a connecting link between the latter and the former; and it is remarkable that all the quotations from the Old Testament, excepting two (Heb 10:30; Heb 13:5), are taken from the Septuagint. The fact that the peculiarities of the Septuagint are interwoven into the argument proves that the Greek Epistle is an original, not a translation; had the original been Hebrew, the quotations would have been from the Hebrew Old Testament. The same conclusion follows from the plays on similarly sounding words in the Greek, and alliterations, and rhythmically constructed periods. CALVIN observes, If the Epistle had been written in Hebrew, Heb 9:15-17 would lose all its point, which consists in the play upon the double meaning of the Greek "diathece," a "covenant," or a "testament," whereas the Hebrew "berith" means only "covenant."

Internal evidence favors the Pauline authorship. Thus the topic so fully handled in this Epistle, that Christianity is superior to Judaism, inasmuch as the reality exceeds the type which gives place to it, is a favorite one with Paul (compare 2Co 3:6-18; Gal 3:23-25; Gal 4:1-9, Gal 4:21-31, wherein the allegorical mode of interpretation appears in its divinely sanctioned application--a mode pushed to an unwarrantable excess in the Alexandrian school). So the Divine Son appears in Heb 1:3, &c., as in other Epistles of Paul (Phi 2:6; Col 1:15-20), as the Image, or manifestation of the Deity. His lowering of Himself for man's sake similarly, compare Heb 2:9, with 2Co 8:9; Phi 2:7-8. Also His final exaltation, compare Heb 2:8; Heb 10:13; Heb 12:2, with 1Co 15:25, 1Co 15:27. The word "Mediator" is peculiar to Paul alone, compare Heb 8:6, with Gal 3:19-20. Christ's death is represented as the sacrifice for sin prefigured by the Jewish sacrifices, compare Rom 3:22-26; 1Co 5:7, with Heb. 7:1-10:39. The phrase, "God of Peace," is peculiar to Paul, compare Heb 13:20; Rom 15:33; 1Th 5:23. Also, compare Heb 2:4, Margin, 1Co 12:4. Justification, or "righteousness by faith." appears in Heb 11:7; Heb 10:38, as in Rom 1:17; Rom 4:22; Rom 5:1; Gal 3:11; Phi 3:9. The word of God is the "sword of the Spirit," compare Heb 4:12, with Eph 6:17. Inexperienced Christians are children needing milk, that is, instruction in the elements, whereas riper Christians, as full-grown men, require strong meat, compare Heb 5:12-13; Heb 6:1, with 1Co 3:1-2; 1Co 14:20 Gal 4:9; Col 3:14. Salvation is represented as a boldness of access to God by Christ, compare Heb 10:19, with Rom 5:2; Eph 2:18; Eph 3:12. Afflictions are a fight, Heb 10:32; compare Phi 1:30; Col 2:1. The Christian life is a race, Heb 12:1; compare 1Co 9:24; Phi 3:12-14. The Jewish ritual is a service, Rom 9:4; compare Heb 9:1, Heb 9:6. Compare "subject to bondage," Heb 2:15, with Gal 5:1. Other characteristics of Paul's style appear in this Epistle; namely, a propensity "to go off at a word" and enter on a long parenthesis suggested by that word, a fondness for play upon words of similar sound, and a disposition to repeat some favorite word. Frequent appeals to the Old Testament, and quotations linked by "and again," compare Heb 1:5; Heb 2:12-13, with Rom 15:9-12. Also quotations in a peculiar application, compare Heb 2:8, with 1Co 15:27; Eph 1:22. Also the same passage quoted in a form not agreeing with the Septuagint, and with the addition "saith the Lord," not found in the Hebrew, in Heb 10:30; Rom 12:19.

The supposed Alexandrian (which are rather Philon-like) characteristics of the Epistle are probably due to the fact that the Hebrews were generally then imbued with the Alexandrian modes of thought of Philo, &c., and Paul, without coloring or altering Gospel truth "to the Jews, became (in style) as a Jew, that he might win the Jews" (1Co 9:20). This will account for its being recognized as Paul's Epistle in the Alexandrian and Jerusalem churches unanimously, to the Hebrews of whom probably it was addressed. Not one Greek father ascribes the Epistle to any but Paul, whereas in the Western and Latin churches, which it did not reach for some time, it was for long doubted, owing to its anonymous form, and generally less distinctively Pauline style. Their reason for not accepting it as Paul's, or indeed as canonical, for the first three centuries, was negative, insufficient evidence for it, not positive evidence against it. The positive evidence is generally for its Pauline origin. In the Latin churches, owing to their distance from the churches to whom belonged the Hebrews addressed, there was no generally received tradition on the subject. The Epistle was in fact but little known at all, whence we find it is not mentioned at all in the Canon of Muratori. When at last, in the fourth century, the Latins found that it was received as Pauline and canonical on good grounds in the Greek churches, they universally acknowledged it as such.

The personal notices all favor its Pauline authorship, namely, his intention to visit those addressed, shortly, along with Timothy, styled "our brother," Heb 13:23; his being then in prison, Heb 13:19; his formerly having been imprisoned in Palestine, according to English Version reading, Heb 10:34; the salutations transmitted to them from believers of Italy, Heb 13:24. A reason for not prefixing the name may be the rhetorical character of the Epistle which led the author to waive the usual form of epistolary address.

DESIGN.--His aim is to show the superiority of Christianity over Judaism, in that it was introduced by one far higher than the angels or Moses, through whom the Jews received the law, and in that its priesthood and sacrifices are far less perfecting as to salvation than those of Christ; that He is the substance of which the former are but the shadow, and that the type necessarily gives place to the antitype; and that now we no longer are kept at a comparative distance as under the law, but have freedom of access through the opened veil, that is, Christ's flesh; hence he warns them of the danger of apostasy, to which Jewish converts were tempted, when they saw Christians persecuted, while Judaism was tolerated by the Roman authorities. He infers the obligations to a life of faith, of which, even in the less perfect Old Testament dispensation, the Jewish history contained bright examples. He concludes in the usual Pauline mode, with practical exhortations and pious prayers for them.

HIS MODE OF ADDRESS is in it hortatory rather than commanding, just as we might have expected from Paul addressing the Jews. He does not write to the rulers of the Jewish Christians, for in fact there was no exclusively Jewish Church; and his Epistle, though primarily addressed to the Palestinian Jews, was intended to include the Hebrews of all adjoining churches. He inculcates obedience and respect in relation to their rulers (Heb 13:7, Heb 13:17, Heb 13:24); a tacit obviating of the objection that he was by writing this Epistle interfering with the prerogative of Peter the apostle of the circumcision, and James the bishop of Jerusalem. Hence arises his gentle and delicate mode of dealing with them (Heb 13:22). So far from being surprised at discrepancy of style between an Epistle to Hebrews and Epistles to Gentile Christians, it is just what we should expect. The Holy Spirit guided him to choose means best suited to the nature of the ends aimed at. WORDSWORTH notices a peculiar Pauline Greek construction, Rom 12:9, literally, "Let your love be without dissimulation, ye abhorring . . . evil, cleaving to . . . good," which is found nowhere else save Heb 13:5, literally, "Let your conversation be without covetousness, ye being content with," &c. (a noun singular feminine nominative absolute, suddenly passing into a participle masculine nominative plural absolute). So in quoting Old Testament Scripture, the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews quotes it as a Jew writing to Jews would, "God spoke to our fathers," not, "it is written." So Heb 13:18, "We trust we have a good conscience" is an altogether Pauline sentiment (Act 23:1; Act 24:16; 2Co 1:12; 2Co 4:2; 2Ti 1:3). Though he has not prefixed his name, he has given at the close his universal token to identify him, namely, his apostolic salutation, "Grace be with you all"; this "salutation with his own hand" he declared (2Th 3:17-18) to be "his token in every Epistle": so 1Co 16:21, 1Co 16:23; Col 4:18. The same prayer of greeting closes every one of his Epistles, and is not found in any one of the Epistles of the other apostles written in Paul's lifetime; but it is found in the last book of the New Testament Revelation, and subsequently in the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME. This proves that, by whomsoever the body of the Epistle was committed to writing (whether a mere amanuensis writing by dictation, or a companion of Paul by the Spirit's gift of interpreting tongues, 1Co 12:10, transfusing Paul's Spirit-taught sentiments into his own Spirit-guided diction), Paul at the close sets his seal to the whole as really his, and sanctioned by him as such. The churches of the East, and Jerusalem, their center, to which quarter it was first sent, received it as Paul's from the earliest times according to Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem (A.D. 349). JEROME, though bringing with him from Rome the prejudices of the Latins against the Epistle to the Hebrews, aggravated, doubtless, by its seeming sanction of the Novatian heresy (Heb 6:4-6), was constrained by the force of facts to receive it as Paul's, on the almost unanimous testimony of all Greek Christians from the earliest times; and was probably the main instrument in correcting the past error of Rome in rejecting it. The testimony of the Alexandrian Church is peculiarly valuable, for it was founded by Mark, who was with Paul at Rome in his first confinement, when this Epistle seems to have been written (Col 4:10), and who possibly was the bearer of this Epistle, at the same time visiting Colosse on the way to Jerusalem (where Mark's mother lived), and thence to Alexandria. Moreover, 2Pe 3:15-16, written shortly before Peter's death, and like his first Epistle written by him, "the apostle of the circumcision," to the "Hebrew" Christians dispersed in the East, says, "As our beloved brother Paul hath written unto you" (2Pe 3:15), that is, to the Hebrews; also the words added, "As also in all his Epistles" (2Pe 3:16), distinguish the Epistle to the Hebrews from the rest; then he further speaks of it as on a level with "other Scriptures," thus asserting at once its Pauline authorship and divine inspiration. An interesting illustration of the power of Christian faith and love; Peter, who had been openly rebuked by Paul (Gal 2:7-14), fully adopted what Paul wrote; there was no difference in the Gospel of the apostle of the circumcision and that of the apostle of the uncircumcision. It strikingly shows God's sovereignty that He chose as the instrument to confirm the Hebrews, Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles (Rom 11:13); and on the other hand, Peter to open the Gospel door to the Gentiles (Act 10:1, &c.), though being the apostle of the Jews; thus perfect unity reigns amidst the diversity of agencies.

Rome, in the person of CLEMENT OF ROME, originally received this Epistle. Then followed a period in which it ceased to be received by the Roman churches. Then, in the fourth century, Rome retracted her error. A plain proof she is not unchangeable or infallible. As far as Rome is concerned, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not only lost for three centuries, but never would have been recovered at all but for the Eastern churches; it is therefore a happy thing for Christendom that Rome is not the Catholic Church.

It plainly was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which would have been mentioned in the Epistle had that event gone before, compare Heb 13:10; and probably to churches in which the Jewish members were the more numerous, as those in Judea, and perhaps Alexandria. In the latter city were the greatest number of resident Jews next to Jerusalem. In Leontopolis, in Egypt, was another temple, with the arrangements of which, WIESELER thinks the notices in this Epistle more nearly corresponded than with those in Jerusalem. It was from Alexandria that the Epistle appears first to have come to the knowledge of Christendom. Moreover, "the Epistle to the Alexandrians," mentioned in the Canon of Muratori, may possibly be this Epistle to the Hebrews. He addresses the Jews as peculiarly "the people of God" (Heb 2:17; Heb 4:9; Heb 13:12), "the seed of Abraham," that is, as the primary stock on which Gentile believers are grafted, to which Rom 11:16-24 corresponds; but he urges them to come out of the carnal earthly Jerusalem and to realize their spiritual union to "the heavenly Jerusalem" (Heb 12:18-23; Heb 13:13).

The use of Greek rather than Hebrew is doubtless due to the Epistle being intended, not merely for the Hebrew, but for the Hellenistic Jew converts, not only in Palestine, but elsewhere; a view confirmed by the use of the Septuagint. BENGEL thinks, probably (compare 2Pe 3:15-16, explained above), the Jews primarily, though not exclusively, addressed, were those who had left Jerusalem on account of the war and were settled in Asia Minor.

The notion of its having been originally in Hebrew arose probably from its Hebrew tone, method, and topics. It is reckoned among the Epistles, not at first generally acknowledged, along with James, Second Peter, Second and Third John, Jude, and Revelation. A beautiful link exists between these Epistles and the universally acknowledged Epistles. Hebrews unites the ordinances of Leviticus with their antitypical Gospel fulfilment. James is the link between the highest doctrines of Christianity and the universal law of moral duty--a commentary on the Sermon on the Mount--harmonizing the decalogue law of Moses, and the revelation to Job and Elias, with the Christian law of liberty. Second Peter links the teaching of Peter with that of Paul. Jude links the earliest unwritten to the latest written Revelation. The two shorter Epistles to John, like Philemon, apply Christianity to the minute details of the Christian life, showing that Christianity can sanctify all earthly relations.

JFB: Hebrews (Outline)

• THE HIGHEST OF ALL REVELATIONS IS GIVEN US NOW IN THE SON OF GOD, WHO IS GREATER THAN THE ANGELS, AND WHO, HAVING COMPLETED REDEMPTION, SITS ENTHRONED AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND. (Heb 1:1-14)
• DANGER OF NEGLECTING SO GREAT SALVATION, FIRST SPOKEN BY CHRIST; TO WHOM, NOT TO ANGELS, THE NEW DISPENSATION WAS SUBJECTED; THOUGH HE WAS FOR A TIME HUMBLED BELOW THE ANGELS: THIS HUMILIATION TOOK PLACE BY DIVINE NECESSITY FOR OUR SALVATION. (Heb. 2:1-18)
• THE SON OF GOD GREATER THAN MOSES, WHEREFORE UNBELIEF TOWARDS HIM WILL INCUR A HEAVIER PUNISHMENT THAN BEFELL UNBELIEVING ISRAEL IN THE WILDERNESS. (Heb. 3:1-19)
• THE PROMISE OF GOD'S REST IS FULLY REALIZED THROUGH CHRIST: LET US STRIVE TO OBTAIN IT BY HIM, OUR SYMPATHIZING HIGH PRIEST. (Heb. 4:1-16)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD; NEEDED QUALIFICATIONS; MUST BE A MAN; MUST NOT HAVE ASSUMED THE DIGNITY HIMSELF, BUT HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY GOD; THEIR LOW SPIRITUAL PERCEPTIONS A BAR TO PAUL'S SAYING ALL HE MIGHT ON CHRIST'S MELCHISEDEC-LIKE PRIESTHOOD. (Heb 5:1-14)
• WARNING AGAINST RETROGRADING, WHICH SOON LEADS TO APOSTASY; ENCOURAGEMENT TO STEADFASTNESS FROM GOD'S FAITHFULNESS TO HIS WORD AND OATH. (Heb 6:1-14)
• CHRIST'S HIGH PRIESTHOOD AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEC SUPERIOR TO AARON'S. (Heb. 7:1-28)
• CHRIST, THE HIGH PRIEST IN THE TRUE SANCTUARY, SUPERSEDING THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD; THE NEW RENDERS OBSOLETE THE OLD COVENANT. (Heb 8:1-13)
• INFERIORITY OF THE OLD TO THE NEW COVENANT IN THE MEANS OF ACCESS TO GOD: THE BLOOD OF BULLS AND GOATS OF NO REAL AVAIL: THE BLOOD OF CHRIST ALL-SUFFICIENT TO PURGE AWAY SIN, WHENCE FLOWS OUR HOPE OF HIS APPEARING AGAIN FOR OUR PERFECT SALVATION. (Heb. 9:1-28)
• PROOF OF AND ENLARGEMENT ON, THE "ETERNAL REDEMPTION" MENTIONED IN. Heb 9:12 (Heb. 9:13-28)
• CONCLUSION OF THE FOREGOING ARGUMENT. THE YEARLY RECURRING LAW SACRIFICES CANNOT PERFECT THE WORSHIPPER, BUT CHRIST'S ONCE-FOR-ALL OFFERING CAN. (Heb. 10:1-39) Previously the oneness of Christ's offering was shown; now is shown its perfection as contrasted with the law sacrifices.
• DEFINITION OF THE FAITH JUST SPOKEN OF (Heb 10:39): EXAMPLES FROM THE OLD COVENANT FOR OUR PERSEVERANCE IN FAITH. (Heb. 11:1-40) Description of the great things which faith (in its widest sense: not here restricted to faith in the Gospel sense) does for us. Not a full definition of faith in its whole nature, but a description of its great characteristics in relation to the subject of Paul's exhortation here, namely, to perseverance.
• EXHORTATION TO FOLLOW THE WITNESSES OF FAITH JUST MENTIONED: NOT TO FAINT IN TRIALS: TO REMOVE ALL BITTER ROOTS OF SIN: FOR WE ARE UNDER, NOT A LAW OF TERROR, BUT THE GOSPEL OF GRACE, TO DESPISE WHICH WILL BRING THE HEAVIER PENALTIES, IN PROPORTION TO OUR GREATER PRIVILEGES. (Heb. 12:1-29)
• EXHORTATION TO VARIOUS GRACES, ESPECIALLY CONSTANCY IN FAITH, FOLLOWING JESUS AMIDST REPROACHES. CONCLUSION, WITH PIECES OF INTELLIGENCE AND SALUTATIONS. (Heb. 13:1-25)

TSK: Hebrews 8 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Heb 8:1, By the eternal priesthood of Christ the Levitical priesthood of Aaron is abolished; Heb 8:7, and the temporal covenant with the fathers, by the eternal covenant of the Gospel.

Poole: Hebrews 8 (Chapter Introduction)

CHAPTER 8

MHCC: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

This epistle shows Christ as the end, foundation, body, and truth of the figures of the law, which of themselves were no virtue for the soul. The great truth set forth in this epistle is that Jesus of Nazareth is the true God. The unconverted Jews used many arguments to draw their converted brethren from the Christian faith. They represented the law of Moses as superior to the Christian dispensation, and spoke against every thing connected with the Saviour. The apostle, therefore, shows the superiority of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Son of God, and the benefits from his sufferings and death as the sacrifice for sin, so that the Christian religion is much more excellent and perfect than that of Moses. And the principal design seems to be, to bring the converted Hebrews forward in the knowledge of the gospel, and thus to establish them in the Christian faith, and to prevent their turning from it, against which they are earnestly warned. But while it contains many things suitable to the Hebrews of early times, it also contains many which can never cease to interest the church of God; for the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the very marrow and kernel of all the Scriptures. The ceremonial law is full of Christ, and all the gospel is full of Christ; the blessed lines of both Testaments meet in Him; and how they both agree and sweetly unite in Jesus Christ, is the chief object of the epistle to the Hebrews to discover.

MHCC: Hebrews 8 (Chapter Introduction)

(Heb 8:1-6) The excellence of Christ's priesthood above that of Aaron is shown.

(Heb 8:7-13) The great excellence of the new covenant above the former.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Epistle to the Hebrews

Concerning this epistle we must enquire, I. Into the divine authority of it; for this has been questioned by some, whose distempered eyes could not bear the light of it, or whose errors have been confuted by it; such as the Arians, who deny the Godhead and self-existence of Christ; and the Socinians, who deny his satisfaction; but, after all the attempts of such men to disparage this epistle, the divine original of it shines forth with such strong and unclouded rays that he who runs may read it is an eminent part of the canon of scripture. The divinity of the matter, the sublimity of the style, the excellency of the design, the harmony of this with other parts of scripture, and its general reception in the church of God in all ages - these are the evidences of its divine authority. II. As to the divine amanuensis or penman of this epistle, we are not so certain; it does not bear the name of any in the front of it, as the rest of the epistles do, and there has been some dispute among the learned to whom they should ascribe it. Some have assigned it to Clemens of Rome; other to Luke; and many to Barnabas, thinking that the style and manner of expression is very agreeable to the zealous, authoritative, affectionate temper that Barnabas appears to be of, in the account we have of him in the acts of the Apostles; and one ancient father quotes an expression out of this epistle as the words of Barnabas. But it is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul's name in the title. In the primitive times it was generally ascribed to him, and the style and scope of it very well agree with his spirit, who was a person of a clear head and a warm heart, whose main end and endeavour it was to exalt Christ. Some think that the apostle Peter refers to this epistle, and proves Paul to be the penman of it, by telling the Hebrews, to whom he wrote, of Paul's having written to them, 2Pe 3:15. We read of no other epistle that he ever wrote to them but this. And though it has been objected that, since Paul put his name to all his other epistles, he would not have omitted it here; yet others have well answered that he, being the apostle of the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, might think fit to conceal his name, lest their prejudices against him might hinder them from reading and weighing it as they ought to do. III. As to the scope and design of this epistle, it is very evident that it was clearly to inform the minds, and strongly to confirm the judgment, of the Hebrews in the transcendent excellency of the gospel above the law, and so to take them off from the ceremonies of the law, to which they were so wedded, of which they were so fond, that they even doted on them, and those of them who were Christians retained too much of the old leaven, and needed to be purged from it. The design of this epistle was to persuade and press the believing Hebrews to a constant adherence to the Christian faith, and perseverance in it, notwithstanding all the sufferings they might meet with in so doing. In order to this, the apostle speaks much of the excellency of the author of the gospel, the glorious Jesus, whose honour he advances, and whom he justly prefers before all others, showing him to be all in all, and this in lofty strains of holy rhetoric. It must be acknowledged that there are many things in this epistle hard to be understood, but the sweetness we shall find therein will make us abundant amends for all the pains we take to understand it. And indeed, if we compare all the epistles of the New Testament, we shall not find any of them more replenished with divine, heavenly matter than this to the Hebrews.

Matthew Henry: Hebrews 8 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter the apostle pursues his former subject, the priesthood of Christ. And, I. He sums up what he had already said (Heb 8:1, Heb 8:2). II. He sets before them the necessary parts of the priestly office (Heb 8:3-5). And, III. Largely illustrates the excellency of the priesthood of Christ, by considering the excellency of that new dispensation or covenant for which Christ is the Mediator (Heb 8:6 to the end).

Barclay: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE LETTER TO THE HEBREWS

God Fulfils Himself In Many Ways

Religion has never been the same thing to all men. "God," as Tennyson said, "fulfils himself in many ways." George Russell said: "There are as many ways of climbing to the stars as there are people to climb." There is a well-known saying which tells us very truly and very beautifully that "God has his own secret stairway into every heart." Broadly speaking, there have been four great conceptions of religion.

(i) To some men it is inward fellowship with God. It is a union with Christ so close and so intimate that the Christian can be said to live in Christ and Christ to live in him. That was Paulconception of religion. To him it was something which mystically united him with God.

(ii) To some religion is what gives a man a standard for life and a power to reach that standard. On the whole that is what religion was to James and to Peter. It was something which showed them what life ought to be and which enabled them to attain it.

(iii) To some men religion is the highest satisfaction of their minds. Their minds seek and seek until they find that they can rest in God. It was Plato who said that "the unexamined life is the life not worth living." There are some men who must understand or perish. On the whole that is what religion was to John. The first chapter of his gospel is one of the greatest attempts in the world to state religion in a way that really satisfies the mind.

(iv) To some men religion is access to God. It is that which removes the barriers and opens the door to his living presence. That is what religion was to the writer of the Letter to the Hebrews. With that idea his mind was dominated. He found in Christ the one person who could take him into the very presence of God. His whole idea of religion is summed up in the great passage in Heb_10:19-23 .

"Therefore, since we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way which he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith."

If the writer to the Hebrews had one text it was: "Let us draw near."

The Double Background

The writer to the Hebrews had a double background into both of which this idea came. He had a Greek background. Ever since the time of Plato, five hundred years before, the Greeks had been haunted by the contrast between the real and the unreal, the seen and the unseen, the temporal and the eternal. It was the Greek idea that somewhere there was a real world of which this was only a shadowy and imperfect copy. Plato had the idea that somewhere there was a world of perfect forms or ideas or patterns, of which everything in this world was an imperfect copy. To take a simple instance, somewhere there was laid up the pattern of a perfect chair of which all the chairs in this world were inadequate copies. Plato said: "The Creator of the world had designed and carried out his work according to an unchangeable and eternal pattern of which the world is but a copy." Philo, who took his ideas from Plato, said: "God knew from the beginning that a fair copy could never come into being apart from a fair pattern; and that none of the objects perceivable by sense could be flawless which was not modelled after an archetype and spiritual idea, and thus, when he prepared to create this visible world, he shaped beforehand the ideal world in order to constitute the corporeal after the incorporeal and godlike pattern." When Cicero was talking of the laws men know and use on earth, he said: "We have no real and life-like likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is a shadow and a sketch."

The thinkers of the ancient world all had this idea that somewhere there is a real world of which this one is only a kind of imperfect copy. Here we can only guess and grope; here we can work only with copies and imperfect things. But in the unseen world there are the real and perfect things. When Newman died they erected a statue to him, and on the pedestal of it are the Latin words: Ab umbris et imaginibus ad veritatem, "Away from the shadows and the semblances to the truth." If that be so, clearly the great task of this life is to get away from the shadows and the imperfections and to reach reality. This is exactly what the writer to the Hebrews claims that Jesus Christ can enable us to do. To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been trying to get from the shadows to the truth. That is just what Jesus Christ can enable you to do."

The Hebrew Background

But the writer to the Hebrews also had a Jewish background. To the Jew it was always dangerous to come too near to God. "Man," said God to Moses, "shall not see me and live" (Exo_33:20 ). It was Jacobastonished exclamation at Peniel: "I have seen god face to face and yet my life is preserved" (Gen_32:30 ). When Manoah realised who his visitor had been, he said in terror to his wife: "We shall surely die, for we have seen God." The great day of Jewish worship was the Day of Atonement. That was the one day of all the year when the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies where the very presence of God was held to dwell. No man ever entered in except the High Priest, and he only on that day. When he did, the law laid it down that he must not linger in the Holy Place for long "lest he put Israel in terror." It was dangerous to enter the presence of God and if a man waited too long he might be struck dead.

In view of this there entered into Jewish thought the idea of a covenant. God, in his grace and in a way that was quite unmerited, approached the nation of Israel and offered them a special relationship with himself. But this unique access to God was conditional on the observance by the people of the law that he gave to them. We can see this relationship being entered into and this law being accepted in the dramatic scene in Exo_24:3-8 .

So then Israel had access to God, but only if she kept the law. To break the law was sin, and sin put up a barrier which stopped the way to God. It was to take away that barrier that the system of the Levitical priesthood and sacrifices was constructed. The law was given; man sinned; the barrier was up; the sacrifice was made; and the sacrifice was designed to open the closed way to God. But the experience of life was that this was precisely what sacrifice could not do. It was proof of the ineffectiveness of the whole system that sacrifice had to go on and on and on. It was a losing and ineffective battle to remove the barrier that sin had erected between man and God.

The Perfect Priest And The Perfect Sacrifice

What men needed was a perfect priest and a perfect sacrifice, someone who was such that he could bring to God a sacrifice which once and for all opened the way of access to him. That, said the writer to the Hebrews, is exactly what Christ did. He is the perfect priest because he is at once perfectly man and perfectly God. In his manhood he can take man to God and in his Godhead he can take God to man. He has no sin. The perfect sacrifice he brings is the sacrifice of himself, a sacrifice so perfect that it never needs to be made again. To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "All your lives you have been looking for the perfect priest who can bring the perfect sacrifice and give you access to God. You have him in Jesus Christ and in him alone."

To the Greek the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for the way from the shadows to reality; you will find it in Jesus Christ." To the Jew the writer to the Hebrews said: "You are looking for that perfect sacrifice which will open the way to God which your sins have closed; you will find it in Jesus Christ." Jesus was the one person who gave access to reality and access to God. That is the key-thought of this letter.

The Riddle Of The New Testament

So much is clear but when we turn to the other questions of introduction Hebrews is wrapped in mystery. E. F. Scott wrote: "The Epistle to the Hebrews is in many respects the riddle of the New Testament." When it was written, to whom it was written, and who wrote it are questions at which we can only guess. The very history of the letter shows how its mystery is to be treated with a certain reserve and suspicion. It was a long time before it became an unquestioned New Testament book. The first list of New Testament books, The Muratorian Canon, compiled about A.D. 170, does not mention it at all. The great Alexandrian scholars. Clement and Origen, knew it and loved it but agreed that its place as scripture was disputed. Of the great African fathers, Cyprian never mentions it and Tertullian knows that its place was disputed. Eusebius, the great Church historian, says that it ranked among the disputed books. It was not until the time of Athanasius, in the middle of the fourth century, that Hebrews was definitely accepted as a New Testament book, and even Luther was not too sure about it. It is strange to think how long this great book had to wait for full recognition.

When Was It Written?

The only information we have comes from the letter itself. Clearly it is written for what we might call second generation Christians (Heb_2:3 ). The story was transmitted to its recipients by those who had heard the Lord. The community to whom it was written were not new to the Christian faith; they ought to have been mature (Heb_5:12 ). They must have had a long history for they are summoned to look back on the former days (Heb_10:32 ). They had a great history behind them and heroic martyr figures on which they ought to look back for inspiration (Heb_13:7 ).

The thing that will help us most in dating the letter is its references to persecution. It is clear that at one time their leaders had died for their faith (Heb_13:7 ). It is clear that they themselves had not yet suffered persecution, for they had not yet resisted to the point of shedding their blood (Heb_12:4 ). It is also clear that they have had ill-treatment to suffer for they have had to undergo the pillaging of their goods (Heb_10:32-34 ). And it is clear from the outlook of the letter that there is a risk of persecution about to come. From all that it is safe to say that this letter must have been written between two persecutions, in days when Christians were not actually persecuted, but were none the less unpopular with their fellow-men. Now the first persecution was in the time of Nero in the year A.D. 64; and the next was in the time of Domitian about A.D. 85. Somewhere between these dates this letter was written, more likely nearer to Domitian. If we take the date as A.D. 80 we shall not be far wrong.

To Whom Was It Written?

Once again we have to be dependent on such hints as we get from the letter itself. One thing is certain--it cannot have been written to any of the great Churches or the name of the place could not have so completely vanished. Let us set down what we know. The letter was written to a long-established Church (Heb_5:12 ). It was written to a Church which had at some time in the past suffered persecution (Heb_10:32-34 ). It was written to a Church which had had great days and great teachers and leaders (Heb_13:7 ). It was written to a Church which had not been directly founded by the apostles (Heb_2:3 ). It was written to a Church which had been marked by generosity and liberality (Heb_6:10 ).

We do have one direct hint. Amongst the closing greetings we find the sentence, as the Revised Standard Version translates it: "Those who come from Italy send you greetings" (Heb_13:24 ). Taken by itself that phrase could mean either that the letter was written from Italy or that it was written to Italy, the greater likelihood is that it was written to Italy. Suppose I am in Glasgow and am writing to some place abroad. I would not be likely to say, "All the people from Glasgow greet you." I would be much more likely to say, "All the people in Glasgow greet you." But suppose I am somewhere abroad where there is a little colony of Glaswegians, I might well say, "All the people from Glasgow send you their greetings." So then we may say that the letter was written to Italy; and if it was written to Italy it was almost certainly written to Rome.

But quite certainly it was not written to the Church at Rome as a whole. If it had been it would never have lost its title. Furthermore, it gives the unmistakable impression that it was written to a small body of like-minded persons. Moreover, it was obviously written to a scholarly group. From Heb_5:12 we can see that they had long been under instruction and were preparing themselves to become teachers of the Christian faith. Still further, Hebrews demands such a knowledge of the Old Testament that it must always have been a book written by a scholar for scholars.

When we sum it all up, we can say that Hebrews is a letter written by a great teacher to a little group or college of Christians in Rome. He was their teacher; at the moment he was separated from them and was afraid that they were drifting away from the faith; and so he wrote this letter to them. It is not so much a letter as a talk. It does not begin like Paulletters do, although it ends with greetings as a letter does. The writer himself calls it "a word of exhortation."

By Whom Was It Written?

Perhaps the most insoluble problem of all is the problem of its authorship. It was precisely that uncertainty which kept it so long on the fringes of the New Testament. The title in the earliest days was simply, "To the Hebrews." No authorname was given, no one connected it directly with the name of Paul. Clement of Alexandria used to think that Paul might have written it in Hebrew and that Luke translated it, for the style is quite different from that of Paul. Origen made a famous remark, "who wrote the Letter to the Hebrews only God knows for certain." Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Jerome said the Latin Church did not receive it as Pauland speaking of the author said, "the writer to the Hebrews whoever he was." Augustine felt the same way about it. Luther declared that Paul could never have written it because the thought was not his. Calvin said that he could not bring himself to think that this letter was a letter of Paul.

At no time in the history of the Church did men ever really think that Paul wrote Hebrews. How then did it get attached to his name? It happened very simply. When the New Testament came into its final form there was of course argument about which books were to be included and which were not. To settle it one test was used. Was a book the work of an apostle or at least the work of one who had been in direct contact with the apostles? By this time Hebrews was known and loved throughout the Church. Most people felt like Origen that God alone knew who wrote it, but they wanted it. They felt it must go into the New Testament and the only way to ensure that was to include it with the thirteen letters of Paul. Hebrews won its way into the New Testament on the grounds of its own greatness, but to get in it had to be included with the letters of Paul and come under his name. People knew quite well that it was not Paulbut they included it among his letters because no man knew who wrote it and yet it must go in.

The Author Of Hebrews

Can we guess who the author was? Many candidates have been put forward. We can only glance at three of the many suggestions.

(i) Tertullian thought that Barnabas wrote it. Barnabas was a native of Cyprus; the people of Cyprus were famous for the excellence of the Greek they spoke; and Hebrews is written in the best Greek in the New Testament. He was a Levite (Act_4:36 ) and of all men in the New Testament he would have had the closest knowledge of the priestly and sacrificial system on which the whole thought of the letter is based. He is called a son of encouragement; the Greek word is paraklesis (G3874); and Hebrews calls itself a word of paraklesis (G3874) (Heb_13:22 ). He was one of the few men acceptable to both Jews and Greeks and at home in both worlds of thought. It might be that Barnabas wrote this letter, but if so it is strange that his name should vanish in connection with it.

(ii) Luther was sure that Apollos was the author. Apollos, according to the New Testament mention of him, was a Jew, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the scriptures (Act_18:24 ; 1Co_1:12 ; 1Co_3:4 ). The man who wrote this letter knew the scriptures; he was eloquent; and he thought and argued in the way that a cultured Alexandrian would. The man who wrote Hebrews was certainly a man like Apollos in thought and in background.

(iii) The most romantic of all conjectures is that of Harnack, the great German scholar. He thought that maybe Aquila and Priscilla wrote it between them. Aquila was a teacher (Act_18:26 ). Their house in Rome was a Church in itself (Rom_16:5 ). Harnack thought that that is why the letter begins with no greetings and why the writername has vanished--because the main author of Hebrews was a woman and a woman was not allowed to teach.

But when we come to the end of conjecture, we are compelled to say as Origen said seventeen hundred years ago, that only God knows who wrote Hebrews. To us the author must remain a voice and nothing more; but we can be thankful to God for the work of this great nameless one who wrote with incomparable skill and beauty about the Jesus who is the way to reality and the way to God.

FURTHER READING

Hebrews

J. Moffatt, Hebrews (ICC; G)

W. Neil, Hebrews (Tch: E)

J. H. Robinson, Hebrews (MC; E)

Abbreviations

ICC: International Critical Commentary

MC: Moffatt Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Hebrews 8 (Chapter Introduction)

The Way To Reality (Heb_8:1-6)

The New Relationship (Heb_8:7-13)

Constable: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Historical background

The writer said that he and those to whom he wrote had come to faith in Jesus Christ through the preaching of others who had heard Jesus (2:3-4). Apparently those preachers had since died (13:7). The original readers had been Christians for an extended period of time (5:12). So probably the earliest possible date of composition was about A.D. 60.

Some scholars believe that the book must have been written before A.D. 70 since the writer spoke of the sacrifices as being offered when he wrote (7:27-28; 8:3-5; 9:7-8, 25; 10:1-3, 8; 13:10-11). However, the writer showed no interest in the temple but spoke of the sacrifices as the Israelites offered them when the tabernacle stood. He evidently used the present tense to give these reference a timeless quality rather than indicating that temple worship was still in practice. Nevertheless a date of composition before A.D. 70 seems probable.¹

"The best argument for the supersession of the old covenant would have been the destruction of the Temple."²

The reference to Timothy's release from imprisonment (13:23) appears to date the book later in the life of that outstanding man.³ No other New Testament writer mentioned his imprisonment. The imprisonment of Christians seems to have been a well-known fact of life (10:34; 13:3). This was true after Nero launched an empire-wide persecution in A.D. 64. All of these factors when taken together seem to point to a writing date near A.D. 68-69.

As to authorship, most students of this subject are not dogmatic or even certain for good reason.⁴ As early as Origen, the Alexandrian church father who died about A.D. 255, no one knew who the writer was for sure. After careful study of the authorship of Hebrews, Origen wrote, "But who it was that really wrote the epistle, God only knows."⁵

"The language of the Epistle is both in vocabulary and style purer and more vigorous than that of any other book of the New Testament.

". . . The vocabulary is singularly copious. It includes a large number of words which are not found elsewhere in the apostolic writings, very many of which occur in this book only among the Greek Scriptures . . ."⁶

"All that can be said with certainty is that Hebrews was composed by a creative theologian who was well trained in the exposition of the Greek Scriptures. . . . He was surely a hellenistic Jewish-Christian."⁷

Commentators have made cases for the writer being Paul, Apollos, Barnabas, Luke, Peter, Jude, Stephen, Silvanus (Silas), Epaphras (Epaphroditus), Philip the Evangelist, Priscilla, Mary the mother of Jesus, Clement of Rome, Aristion, and others.⁸ None of these suggestions has found enthusiastic general reception for various reasons. Probably we should be content to share Origen's agnosticism on this question and look forward to getting the answer in heaven.⁹

The early Christians originally accepted all the New Testament books as inspired by God because they contained apostolic teaching. For this reason the writer was probably either an apostle or a close associate of at least one of the apostles (cf. 13:23).

The original recipients of the epistle are also unknown. The title "The Epistle to the Hebrews" implies that they were Jewish Christians. This title is ancient and is probably a safe guide to the identity of the first readers. References in the epistle also suggest that the original readers were mainly Jewish. The writer assumed that they were very familiar with the institutions of Judaism. The warnings against turning away from Jesus Christ back to the Old Covenant also imply this identity. Other indications are the emphasis on the superior priesthood of Jesus and the many appeals to the authority of the Hebrew Scriptures. However the brand of Judaism in view seems to have been Hellenistic rather than Palestinian.

The reference to the generosity of the readers and their helping other believers (6:10) suggests that the original audience did not live in Palestine. The Palestinian churches had a reputation for needing material assistance rather than for giving it to other Christians (cf. Rom. 15:25-31; 1 Cor. 16:3). Probably they were Jews of the Diaspora therefore. This conclusion has support in the writer's consistent use of the Septuagint Old Testament version. Hellenistic Jews used this translation widely, but Palestinian Jews did not use it as much.¹⁰

In most of the New Testament churches there was a mixture of Jewish and Gentile believers. The appeal of this epistle would certainly have been great to Gentiles tempted to return to paganism as it would have been to Jews facing temptation to return to Judaism. However the writer's primary concern appears to have been that his Jewish readers were failing to appreciate that Christianity is the divinely revealed successor to Judaism. He did not want them to abandon Christianity and return to Judaism.

Probably the letter originally went to a house-church outside Palestine that had a strong Hellenistic Jewish population. This church may have been in or near Galatia in view of conditions that existed there that the Epistle to the Galatians reflects. However they may very well have lived in another area. Many scholars believe that the letter went first to a church in or near Rome.¹¹

In view of 13:24b it has seemed to some scholars that the writer was in Italy when he sent this epistle, perhaps in Rome. However the expression "from Italy" in that verse probably refers to those living outside Italy, such as Priscilla and Aquilla who were Jews forced to leave Rome by Emperor Claudius' edict in A.D. 49 (Acts 18:2).¹² This expression suggests that the writer was not in Italy when he wrote.

Purpose

Many students of the book have observed that Hebrews is more of a sermon in written form than an epistle in the traditional New Testament sense.¹³ The writer even described it as a "word of exhortation" (13:22). He urged the original readers to persevere in their faith rather than turning from Christianity and returning to Judaism. A note of urgency and pastoral concern permeates the whole letter. This tone comes through especially strongly in the five warning passages and in the encouragements that follow these warnings.

". . . the purpose of the writer to the Hebrews is not to give us an interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. . . . Using material not from the prophets but primarily from the Psalms, with other materials added to elaborate the argument, the writer's goal was to establish the superiority of the gospel in contrast to all that went before, particularly the levitical system. The primary evidence of the supremacy of Christianity is presented in its finality. Coming to Christ means final access to God without any barrier."¹⁴

". . . Hebrews is a sermon rooted in actual life. It is addressed to a local gathering of men and women who discovered that they could be penetrated by adverse circumstances over which they exercised no control. It throbs with an awareness of the privilege and the cost of discipleship. It is a sensitive pastoral response to the sagging faith of older and tired individuals who were in danger of relinquishing their Christian commitment. It seeks to strengthen them in the face of a new crisis so that they may stand firm in their faith. It warns them of the judgment of God they would incur if they were to waver in their commitment. Exhortations to covenant fidelity and perseverance are grounded in a fresh understanding of the significance of Jesus and his sacrifice."¹⁵

Message¹⁶

We could summarize the message of this epistle in the following words. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him in this life.

The ultimate goal that the writer had in view was our full eternal reward as believers. I do not believe it was the conversion of the unsaved members of his audience. He addressed his readers consistently as believers. He wrote to encourage Christians to persevere faithfully so we will receive all that God wants to give us at the judgment seat of Christ. Our rewards are at issue in this letter. He did not want us to suffer loss but to enter into our full inheritance, our full rest, our full salvation.

To do this he wrote that we must know one thing and do two things, one positive and one negative.

We must know the greatness of Jesus Christ. In this epistle the writer presented Him as the greatest revelation that God has given mankind. God's revelation in His Son is superior to all other revelations He has given in three respects.

1. It supersedes all other revelations: God's revelation through angels (the Mosaic Law), His revelation through humans (the prophets), and His revelation through rituals (the Old Covenant). When Jesus Christ came to reveal God, He brought revelation that superseded what had preceded Him.

2. God's revelation in His Son is sufficient to meet every basic human need. God spoke through His Son, so the need for a prophet (a revealer of God) no longer exists. He established a new Covenant, so the need for a priest (a mediator for man) no longer exists. Moreover He exalted His Son to His right hand, so the need for a king (a righteous ruler) no longer exists.

3. God's revelation in His Son insures final victory in every basic sphere. The individual (the human order) attains perfection through the Son. Society (the social order) will experience perfection through the Son. The universe (the cosmic order) will reach perfection through the Son.

This is what we need to know objectively to do subjectively what is necessary to gain our full reward as believers.

What we must do is continue to trust God. Hebrews places great emphasis on the importance of living by faith. It teaches us three things about faith.

1. Hebrews defines faith. Faith is volitional surrender and obedience to God regardless of appearances. It is not just intellectual conviction. It is the action of the will that expresses intellectual conviction. This epistle regards unbelief as disobedience as does all of Scripture. People in the past who lived by faith made decisions and acted because they believed God in spite of appearances (ch. 11).

2. Hebrews also illustrates faith. It describes faith as doing, as suffering, and as waiting. These are the primary activities of faith that the writer of Hebrews emphasized. They are progressively more difficult. It is harder to suffer persecution for our faith than it is to obey God when obedience does not involve suffering. It is most difficult to keep on trusting God when suffering does not end. Waiting for God to fulfill His promises is hardest of all when our hopes do not materialize (e.g., Christ's return).

3. In addition, Hebrews vindicates faith. It assures us of the ultimate triumph of faith. People in the past who acted in faith achieved. People who suffered for their faith triumphed. People who waited in faith received their reward.

On the positive side we need to continue to trust God to realize our full reward as believers.

What we must not do is turn away from God. This is the negative responsibility that the letter also stresses. If we apostatize, we will lose our full reward. Hebrews teaches us three things about apostasy (as it does about faith).

1. This epistle defines apostasy descriptively. It is the opposite of faith. It consists of disobedience because of appearances (e.g., the 10 spies; cf. Jude). Apostasy for a Christian is turning away from faith having previously embraced faith. An apostate, however, can be a believer or an unbeliever.

2. Hebrews also illustrates apostasy in the same three ways it illustrates faith. Apostasy acts. It involves a deliberate turning away. It also suffers, not now but in the future because of what the apostate loses. It also waits, even though it lives for the present rather than for the future.

3. Likewise Hebrews condemns apostasy. It assures us of the ultimate tragedy of apostasy. Apostates may achieve what they want in the present, namely success, but they lose what is far more valuable in the future. They may avoid suffering now, but later they will be sorry. They may not want to wait for their reward now, but they will wait forever for it later and never get it.

This is the central message of the epistle. We will only realize our full eternal reward as believers if we appreciate the greatness of Jesus Christ and continue to trust God rather than turning away from Him.

The writer urged his readers to persevere in faith by using two appeals, one negative and one positive.

The first appeal is negative: the warnings. There are five warning passages in Hebrews. Each one warns of the danger of apostasy from a different angle.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) warns of the danger of drifting away from the truth (2:1). It pictures a ship dragging its anchor. The tides of our age can draw us away from our moorings. We need to keep on standing firm in faith (cf. Col. 1:23).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) warns of the danger of disbelief (3:12). Disbelief results in heart hardening (3:13). We need to keep on believing rather than ceasing to believe (cf. Luke 17:3).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) warns of the danger of immaturity (5:12). When we do not put truth into practice, we do not just remain in the same spiritual state. We regress. Therefore we need to keep on growing (cf. 2 Pet. 3:18).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) warns of the danger of willful sinning (10:26-27). If we abandon confidence in the efficacy of Jesus Christ's sacrifice, there is no other sacrifice that can protect us from God's judgment as believers. We need to keep on submitting to God (cf. Rom. 6:16).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) warns of the danger of unresponsiveness (12:25). The message of this letter demands positive response. If we do not respond positively, we will lose part of our reward (12:17). We need to keep on obeying God (cf. Titus 3:8).

The second appeal is positive: the encouragements. Accompanying each of the warning passages is at least one word of encouragement. The writer balanced his negative warnings with positive words of encouragement.

1. The first passage (2:1-4) encourages with a reminder of God's confirming His promises with miracles in the apostolic age (2:3b-4).

2. The second passage (3:7-19) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of faithfulness (3:1-6) and our resources as believers (4:12-16).

3. The third passage (5:11-6:12) encourages with a reminder of the readers' past faithfulness (6:9-12) and God's firm promises (6:13-20).

4. The fourth passage (10:19-39) also encourages with a reminder of the readers' past perseverance (10:32-39).

5. The fifth passage (12:14-29) encourages by reminding us of Jesus' example of perseverance (12:1-2) and the divine reason for discipline (12:3-11).

By way of application let me make three observations based on the three major revelations in the epistle.

1. An appreciation for Jesus Christ is foundational to faithful perseverance. The reason many Christians turn away from the Lord is that they do not appreciate His greatness. Preach Christ in your ministry.

2. We need to emphasize the Christian's hope more in our ministries. We live in a present oriented culture that values immediate self-gratification. Many Christians are apostatizing because they do not appreciate the reward they will receive if they remain faithful to the Lord. This life is preparation for the next.

3. We need to realize that God will judge Christians who apostatize. We will not lose our salvation, but we will lose much that we will wish we never gave up if we stop walking by faith.

Outline¹⁷

I. The culminating revelation of God 1:1-2:18

A. The agent of God's final revelation 1:1-4

B. The superiority of the Son 1:5-14

C. The danger of negligence (the first warning) 2:1-4

D. The humiliation and glory of God's Son 2:5-9

E. The Son's solidarity with humanity 2:10-18

II. The high priestly character of the Son 3:1-5:10

A. The faithfulness of the Son 3:1-6

B. The danger of disbelief (the second warning) 3:7-19

C. The possibility of rest for God's people 4:1-14

D. The compassion of the Son 4:15-5:10

III. The high priestly office of the Son 5:11-10:39

A. The danger of immaturity (the third warning) 5:11-6:12

1. The readers' condition 5:11-14

2. The needed remedy 6:1-3

3. The dreadful alternative 6:4-8

4. The encouraging prospect 6:9-12

B. The basis for confidence and steadfastness 6:13-20

C. The Son's high priestly ministry 7:1-10:18

1. The person of our high priest ch. 7

2. The work of our high priest chs. 8-9

3. The accomplishment of our high priest 10:1-18

D. The danger of willful sinning (the fourth warning) 10:19-39

1. The three-fold admonition 10:19-25

2. The warning of judgment 10:26-31

3. The encouragement to persevere 10:32-39

IV. The proper response 11:1-12:13

A. Perseverance in faith ch. 11

1. Faith in the antediluvian era 11:1-7

2. Faith in the patriarchal era 11:8-22

3. Faith in the Mosaic era 11:23-31

4. Faith in subsequent eras 11:32-40

B. Demonstrating necessary endurance 12:1-13

1. The example of Jesus 12:1-3

2. The proper view of trials 12:4-11

3. The need for greater strength 12:12-13

V. Life in a hostile world 12:14-13:25

A. The danger of unresponsiveness (the fifth warning) 12:14-29

1. The goal of peace 12:14-17

2. The superiority of the New Covenant 12:18-24

3. The consequences of apostasy 12:25-29

B. Life within the church ch. 13

1. Pastoral reminders 13:1-21

2. Personal explanations 13:22-25

Constable: Hebrews

Hebrews

Bibliography

Andersen, Ward. "The Believer's Rest (Hebrews 4)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):31-38.

Bailey, Mark L., and Thomas L. Constable. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing Co., 1999.

Barclay, William. The Letter to the Hebrews. Daily Study Bible series. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1963.

Bateman, Herbert W., IV. "Two First-Century Messianic Uses of the OT: Heb 1:5-13 and 4QFlor 1.1-19." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:1 (March 1995):11-27.

Baylis, Charles P. "The Author of Hebrews' Use of Melchizedek from the Context of Genesis." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1989.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1965.

Black, David Alan. "A Note on the Structure of Hebrews 12, 1-2." Biblica 68:4 (1987):543-51.

_____. "The Problem of the Literary Structure of Hebrews: An Evaluation and a Proposal." Grace Theological Journal 7:2 (Fall 1986):163-77.

Blaising, Craig A. "The Fulfillment of the Biblical Covenants." In Progressive Dispensationalism, pp. 174-211. By Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Wheaton: Victor Books, 1993.

Bligh, John. "The Structure of Hebrews." Heythrop Journal 5 (April 1964):170-77.

Blomberg, Craig L. "Degrees of Reward in the Kingdom of Heaven?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35:2 (June 1992):159-72.

Bornkamm, Gunther. Early Christian Experience. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

Bruce, F. F. The Epistle to the Hebrews. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964.

_____. "The Kerygma of Hebrews." Interpretation 23:1 (January 1969):3-19.

Burns, J. Lanier. "A Reemphasis on the Purpose of Tongues." Bibliotheca Sacra 132:527 (July-September 1975):242-49.

Casey, J. M. "Eschatology in Heb 12:14-29: An Exegetical Study." Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven, 1977.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology. 8 vols. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1947-48.

Chitwood, Arlen L. Judgment Seat of Christ. Norman, Okla.: The Lamp Broadcast, Inc., 1986.

Cockerill, G. L. The Melchizedek Christology in Heb. 7:1-28. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International, 1979.

Cole, Timothy J. "Enoch, a Man Who Walked with God." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:591 (July-September 1991):288-97.

Colijn, Brenda B. "Let Us Approach': Soteriology in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 39:4 (December 1996):571-86.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament." Paper submitted for course 686 Analysis of Bible Books--New Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1968.

____. "The Substitutionary Death of Christ in Hebrews." Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966.

Cosby, M. R. "The Rhetorical Composition and Function of Hebrews 11 in Light of Example-lists in Antiquity." Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1985.

Cross, Frank M. "The Tabernacle." Biblical Archaeologist 10:3 (September 1947):45-68.

Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Revised ed. Translated by Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A. M. Hall. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.

Custer, Stewart. "The Awfulness of Apostasy (Hebrews 6)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):45-50.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Church's Relationship to the New Covenant." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:607 (July-September 1995):290-305; 608 (October-December 1995):431-56.

Dictionary of the Apostolic Church. Edited by James Hastings. 1915 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by F. S. Marsh.

Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1910 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to," by A. B. Bruce.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. New York: Norton, 1965.

Dunham, Duane A. "An Exegetical Examination of the Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Th.D. dissertation, Grace Theological Seminary, 1974.

Dunn, J. D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Translated by Christian Frederick Cruse. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Ellingworth, Paul. The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; and Carlisle, England: Paternoster Press, 1993.

Elliott, J. H. Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

English, E. Schuyler. Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Neptune, N.J.: Loizeaux Brothers, 1976.

Estes, Daniel J. "Looking for Abraham's City." Bibliotheca Sacra 147:588 (October-December 1990):399-413.

Fanning, Buist M. "A Theology of Hebrews." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 369-415.

Farrar, F. W. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge: University Press, 1894.

Filson, Floyd V. "Yesterday": A Study of Hebrews in the Light of Chapter 13. Studies in Biblical Theology 2nd series 4. Naperville, Ill.: Allenson, 1967.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gleason, Randall C. "The Old Testament Background of Rest in Hebrews 3:7-4:11." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:627 (July-September 2000):281-303.

_____. "The Old Testament Background of the Warning in Hebrews 6:4-8." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):62-91.

Glenn, Donald R. "Psalm 8 and Hebrews 2: A Case Study in Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Theology." In Walvoord: A Tribute, pp. 39-51. Edited by Donald K. Campbell. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Gourgues, M. "Lecture christologique du Psaume CX et fête de la Pentecôte." Revue Biblique 83 (1976):5-24.

Govett, Robert. Entrance into the Kingdom. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1978.

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. By C. G. Wilke. Revised by C. L. Wilibald Grimm. Translated, revised and enlarged by Joseph Henry Thayer, 1889.

Gromacki, Robert G. Stand Bold in Grace. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1984.

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Leicester, England: InterVarsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. New Testament Introduction. 3 vols. 2nd ed. London: Tyndale Press, 1966.

Harrison, Everett F. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:484 (October-December 1964):333-40.

Hay, D. M. Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity. Society of Biblical Literature Monograph Series 18. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1973.

Hewitt, Thomas. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

Hodges, Zane C. The Gospel Under Siege. Dallas: Redencion Viva, 1981.

_____. "Hebrews." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 777-813. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Hook, H. Phillip. "A Biblical Definition of Faith." Bibliotheca Sacra 121:482 (April-June 1964):133-40.

Horning, Estella B. "Chiasmus, Creedal Structure, and Christology in Hebrews 12:1-2. Biblical Research 23 (1978):37-48.

Hughes, Philip Edgcumbe. "The Blood of Jesus and His Heavenly Priesthood in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):99-109; 519 (July-September 1973):195-212; 520 (October-December 1973):305-14; 131:521 (January-March 1974):26-33.

_____. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

_____. "Hebrews 6:4-6 and the Peril of Apostasy." Westminster Theological Journal 35 (1973):137-55.

Hughes, R. Kent. Hebrews: An Anchor for the Soul. 2 vols. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1993.

International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. Edited by James Orr. 1957 ed. S.v. "Hebrews, Epistle to the," by T. Rees.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. "The Promise Theme and the Theology of Rest." Bibliotheca Sacra 130:518 (April-June 1973):135-50.

Kendall, R. T. Once Saved, Always Saved. Chicago: Moody Press, 1985.

Kent, Homer A., Jr. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

_____. Hebrews 9-13. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lang, G. H. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Paternoster Press, 1951.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol 11: Galatians--Hebrews, by Otto Schmoller, Karl Braume, C. A. Auberlen, C. J. Riggenbach, J. J. Van Oosterzee, and Carl Bernhard Moll. Translated by C. C. Starbuck, M. B. Riddle, Horatio B. Hackett, John Lillie, E. A. Washburn, E. Harwood, George E. Day, and A. C. Kendrick.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and The Epistle of James. Reprint ed. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1963.

Lewis, C. S. Mere Christianity. New York: Macmillan, 1976.

_____. The Problem of Pain. 1940. Reprint ed. London: Collins Press, Fontana Books, 1959.

Lindars, Barnabas. The Theology of the Letter to the Hebrews. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Lovelace, Richard F. Dynamics of Spiritual Life: An Evangelical Theology of Renewal. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1979.

MacArthur, John F., Jr. Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

_____. Hebrews. Chicago: Moody Press, 1983.

MacDonald, William. Hebrews from Shadow to Substance. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1962.

Mackay, Cameron. "The Argument of Hebrews." Church Quarterly

Review 168 (1967):325-38.

MacLeod, David J. "The Cleansing of the True Tabernacle." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:605 (January-March 1995):60-63.

_____. "The Doctrinal Center of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:583 (July-September 1989):291-300.

_____. "The Literary Structure of the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 146:582 (April-June 1989):185-97.

_____. "The Present Work of Christ in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 148:590 (April-June 1991):184-200.

_____. "The Theology of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Introduction, Prolegomena, and Doctrinal Center." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1987.

MacRae, G. W. "Heavenly Temple and Eschatology in the Letter to the Hebrews." Semeia 12 (1978):179-99.

Man, Ronald E. "The Value of Chiasm for New Testament Interpretation." Bibliotheca Sacra 141:562 (April-June 1984):146-57.

Manson, W. The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Historical and Theological Reconsideration. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1951.

Marshall, I. Howard. Kept by the Power of God. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1969.

_____. "New Wine in Old Wine-Skins: V. The Biblical Use of the Word Ekklesia.'" Expository Times 84:12 (1973):359-64.

Master, John R. "The New Covenant." In Issues in Dispensationalism, pp. 93-110. Edited by Wesley R. Willis and John R. Master. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Mauro, Philip. God's Pilgrims. Revised ed. New York: Gospel Publishing House, n.d.

McCullough, J. C. "The Impossibility of a Second Repentance in Hebrews." Biblical Theology 20 (1974):1-7.

McNeile, A. H. An Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2nd ed. Revised by C. S. C. Williams. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965.

Millar, Merland Ray. "What Is the Literary Form of Hebrews 11?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:4 (December 1986):411-17.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Moffatt, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. International Critical Commentary series. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1963.

Montefiore, H. W. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Black, 1964.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morris, Leon. "Hebrews." In Hebrews-Revelation. Vol. 12 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981.

Mugridge, Alan. "Warnings in the Epistle to the Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 46:3 (September-December 1987):74-82.

Neal, Marshall. "The New Covenant (Hebrews 8)." Biblical Viewpoint 24:1 (April 1990):59-65.

Neighbor, R. E. If They Shall Fall Away. Reprint ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Conley and Schoettle, 1984.

Newell, William R. Hebrews Verse by Verse. Chicago: Moody Press, 1947.

Oberholtzer, Thomas Kem. "The Warning Passages in Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 145:577 (January-March 1988):83-97; 578 (April-June 1988):185-96; 579 (July-September 1988):319-28; 580 (October-December 1988):410-19; 146:581 (January-March 1989):67-75.

Parsons, Mikael C. "Son and High Priest: A Study in the Christology of Hebrews." Evangelical Quarterly 60:3 (July 1988):195-215.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. "The Apostles' Use of Jesus' Predictions of Judgment on Jerusalem in A.D. 70." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 134-43. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

_____. A Faith That Endures. Grand Rapids: Discovery House Publishers. 1992.

_____. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958.

_____. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press, Victor Books, 1990.

Peters, George N. H. The Theocratic Kingdom. 3 vols. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1884; reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1972.

Peterson, D. G. "An Examination of the Concept of Perfection' in the Epistle to the Hebrews.'" Ph.D. dissertation, University of Manchester, 1978.

_____. "The Prophecy of the New Covenant in the Argument of Hebrews." Reformed Theological Review 38 (1979):74-81.

Pink, Arthur W. An Exposition of Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Reich, Max I. The Glories of Christ in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Moody Correspondence Course series. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Bible Institute, 1960.

Rhee, Victor (Sung Yul). "Chiasm and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 11." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):327-45.

_____. "Christology and the Concept of Faith in Hebrews 5:11-6:20." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:1 (March 2000):83-96.

Rice, George E. "Apostasy As a Motif and Its Effect on the Structure of Hebrews." Andrews University Seminary Studies 23:1 (Spring 1985):29-35.

Ridout, Samuel. Lectures on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 6th ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1943.

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1931.

Robinson, S. E. "The Apocraphal Story of Melchizedek." Journal for the Study of Judaism 18:1 (June 1987):26-39.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March 1994):71-84.

Ross, Robert W. "Hebrews." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 1401-27. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Ryken, Leland. The Literature of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. The Basis of the Premillennial Faith. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Brothers, 1953.

_____. "The End of the Law." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):239-47.

Saucy, Robert L. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993.

Scofield, C. I., ed. The Scofield Reference Bible. New ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1909.

Scott, Brett R. "Jesus' Superiority over Moses in Hebrews 3:1-6." Bibliotheca Sacra 155:618 (April-June 1998):201-10.

Scott, J. Julius, Jr. "Archegos in the Salvation History of the Epistle to the Hebrews." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29:1 (March 1986):47-54.

Selby, Gary S. "The Meaning and Function of Suneidesis in Hebrews 9 and 10." Restoration Quarterly 28:3 (Third Quarter 1985/86):145-54.

Sharp, Jeffrey R. "Typology and the Message of Hebrews." East Asia Journal of Theology 4:2 (1986):95-103.

Smith, T. C. "An Exegesis of Hebrews 13:1-17." Faith and Mission 7:1 (Fall 1989):70-78.

Soden, John. "The Use of Psalm 45:7-8 (6-7) in Hebrews 1:8-9." Exegesis and Exposition 2:1 (Summer 1987):51-70.

Spencer, William David. "Christ's Sacrifice as Apologetic: An Application of Heb 10:1-18." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:2 (June 1997):189-97.

Stanton, Gerald B. Kept from the Hour. Fourth ed. Miami Springs, Fla.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1991.

Stedman, Ray C. What More Can God Say? Bible Commentary for Laymen series. Reprint ed. Glendale, Calif.: Gospel Light Publications, Regal Books, 1977.

Swete, H. B. The Ascended Christ. London: Macmillan and Co., 1916.

Swetnam, James. "Form and Content in Hebrews 1-6." Biblica 53 (1972):368-85.

_____. "Form and Content in Hebrews 7-13." Biblica 55 (1974):333-48.

Tenney, Merrill C. "A New Approach to the Book of Hebrews." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:491 (July-September 1966):230-36.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Fredrich. Translated and edited by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, 1964-74. S. V. "aphistemi, apostasia, dichostasia," by Heinrich Schlier, 1 (1964):512-14.

Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962.

Thomas, W. H. Griffith. Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1984.

Thompson, J. W. The Beginnings of Christian Philosophy: The Epistle to the Hebrews. Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 13. Washington: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.

Toussaint, Stanley D. "The Exchatology of the Warning Passages in the Book of Hebrews." Grace Theological Journal 3:1 (Spring 1982):67-80.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpreting the Epistle to the Hebrews. Guides to New Testament Exegesis series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1997.

Vanhoye, Albert. A Structureal Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Translated by James Swetnam. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964.

Wall, Joe L. Going for the Gold. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

Waltke, Bruce K. "Cain and His Offering." Westminster Theological Journal 48:2 (Fall 1986):363-72.

Walvoord, John F. Major Bible Prophecies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.

_____. The Millennial Kingdom. Revised ed. Findlay, Oh: Dunham Publishing Co., 1963.

Ware, Bruce A. "The New Covenant and the People(s) of God." In Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church: The Search for Definition, pp. 68-97. Edited by Craig A. Blaising and Darrell L. Bock. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Westcott, Brooke Foss. The Epistle to the Hebrews. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., n.d.

Wills, L. "The Form of the Sermon in Hellenistic Judaism and Early Christianity." Harvard Theological Review 77 (1984):277-99.

Wright, G. Ernest. "The Significance of the Temple in the Ancient Near East. Part III: The Temple in Palestine-Syria." Biblical Archaeologist 7:4 (December 1944):65-77.

Wuest, Kenneth S. "Hebrews Six in the Greek New Testament." Bibliotheca Sacra 119:473 (January-March 1962):45-53.

Zuck, Roy B. "The Doctrine of Conscience." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):329-40.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL, THE APOSTLE,

TO THE HEBREWS.

INTRODUCTION.

The Catholic Church hath received and declared this Epistle to be part of the Canonical Scriptures of the New Testament, though some doubted of it in the first ages [centuries], especially in the Latin Church, witness St. Jerome on the 8th chap. of Isaias; Luther and most of his followers reject it, but the Calvinists and the Church of England have received it. Others, who received this Epistle in the first ages [centuries], doubted whether it was written by St. Paul, but thought it was written by St. Barnabas, or by St. Clement, or St. Luke, or at least that St. Paul only furnished the matter and the order of it, and that St. Luke wrote it, and St. Paul afterwards read it and approved it. It was doubted again, whether this Epistle was first written in Hebrew (that is, in Syro-Chaldaic, then spoken by the Jews) or in Greek, as Estius pretends. The ancient writers say it was written in Hebrew, but that it was very soon after translated into Greek either by St. Luke or St. Clement, pope and martyr. Cornelius a Lapide thinks the Syriac which we have in the Polyglot to have been the original; but this is commonly rejected. See Tillemont on St. Paul, Art. 46, and note 72; P. Alleman on the first to the Hebrews, &c. St. Paul wrote this letter about the year 63, and either at Rome or in Italy. See Chap. xii. 24. He wrote it to the Christians in Palestine, who had most of them been Jews before. This seems the reason why he puts not his name to it, nor calls himself their apostle, his name being rather odious to the Jews, and because he was chosen to be the apostle of the Gentiles. The main design is to shew that every one's justification and salvation is to be hoped for by the grace and merits of Christ, and not from the law of Moses, as he had shewn in his Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans, where we many observe this kind of difference: To the Galatians he shews, that true justice cannot be had from circumcision and the ceremonies of the law: to the Romans, that even the moral precepts and works of the law were insufficient without the grace of Christ: and in this to the Hebrews, he shews that our justice could not be had from the sacrifices of the old law. As to the chief contents: He exhorts them to the faith of Christ, by shewing his dignity and pre-eminence above the Angels, and above Moses, Chap. i, ii, iii.; that Christ's priesthood was above that of Aaron, from the 4th to the 8th chap. ver. 6; that the new law and testament is preferable to the old, form thence to the middle of chap. x.; he commends faith by the example of the ancient Fathers, Chap. xi. and in the beginning of the twelfth; then he exhorts them to patience, constancy, brotherly love, &c. The like exhortations are mixed in other parts of this Epistle. (Witham) --- We must here remark, that our separated brethren, relying solely upon tradition, admit in general this Epistle into their canon of Scriptures, though they are necessitated to allow that for some centuries great doubts were entertained on the subject. According to Mr. Rogers, in his Defence of the Thirty-nine Articles, whilst several among the Protestants have rejected as apocryphal the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of James, the 2nd and 3rd of John, and Jude, others have as strenuously maintained that they ought to be admitted into the sacred canon. The Catholic Church admits them as deutero-canonical books, and of equal authority with the proto-canonical books....After the arguments had been justly weighed on both sides, they seem to have been admitted by the general consent of the Latin Church, as they had all along been admitted by the Greek Church. The canon, as it now stands, both of the Old and New Testament, we find enumerated in Pope Innocent's letter to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse, an. 405 [the year A.D. 405], in St. Augustine, (lib. ii. de doct. christ. chap. viii.) and in the decrees of an African Council, an. 419 [the year A.D. 419], consisting of 217 bishops, who declare that in giving a catalogue of the Holy Scriptures, they only confirm and ratify what they have received from their Fathers. This canon is attributed to the third Council of Carthage, an. 397 [the year A.D. 397]. Dr. Cosin, an eminent Protestant divine, tells us in his canon of Scripture, p. 4, "that to know the books of Scripture, there is no safer course to be taken than to follow the public voice and the universal testimony of the Church." The sixth of the thirty-nine articles gives a similar rule, which excludes private judgment. And "what is this," asks Hooker, "but to acknowledge ecclesiastical tradition?" The mind of man, naturally fickle and unsettled, stands in need of a guide in the road to eternal life. I shall never hesitate, says a spirited author, to take for my guide the Catholic Church, which contains in herself the authority of past and future ages. The Syriac version of the Old and New Testament, which is deservedly allowed to be of greatest antiquity and authority, comprises the same deutero-canonical books as the canon of the Council of Trent; a convincing proof that the Church of Syria, immediately after the times of the apostles, considered them as part of the sacred canon, no less than the Catholics of the present day. For a very satisfactory account respecting the authenticity and inspiration of this Epistle, as also for an excellent commentary with notes moral, doctrinal, and critical, see a late work entitled, An Explanation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews, by the Rev. Henry Rutter. --- What can be the reason why Protestants admit the deutero-canonical books of the New and reject those of the Old Testament? --- This Epistle merits the particular attention of Christians of every denomination, since it points out to them their various duties in respect to the necessity of faith and the practice of a holy life. In opposition to the Socinians, it tends to shew not only the divinity of Jesus Christ, but also that his death was a true and real sacrifice of atonement for the sins of mankind. See Chap. i, ver. 5, &c. In opposition to other sectarists, it proves that the bloody sacrifice of Christ, once offered on the cross, though a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice of redemption, does not exclude the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass, by which he is a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech. See Chap. v, &c. It is no less applicable to Catholics, in order to confirm them in the faith once delivered to the saints, and to point out the dreadful consequences of abandoning that religion which Jesus Christ came to establish in the world. The just man lives by faith; but if he draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. Let us, therefore, hold fast the confession of our hope, without wavering, or forsaking our assembly, the Catholic Church, as many have done to follow Luther, Calvin, Wesley, and other separatists. But we, says the apostle, are not of them who draw back unto perdition, but of them who have faith unto the saving of the soul. (Hebrews x. 39.)

====================

Gill: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS

That this epistle was written very early appears from hence, that it was imitated by Clement of Rome, in his epistle to the Corinthians, who took whole sentences out of it; and therefore it could not be a new work, as Eusebius ^a observes: it has been denied to be authentic by some heretics, as the Marcionites and Arians, but has been generally received as such by the orthodox: some indeed doubted of it, because it was not received by the Roman church, as an epistle of the Apostle Paul ^b; though others, who have thought it was not his, as Origen, yet looked upon it as genuine ^c. It has been ascribed to different persons, as to Barnabas, to Apollos, to Luke the Evangelist, and to Clement of Rome, but without any just reason. Clement of Alexandria, a very ancient writer, asserts it to be the Apostle Paul's ^d; and his name stands in the title of it, in all R. Stephens's exemplars, and in all Beza's copies, excepting one, and so it does in the Vulgate Latin and Arabic versions; and that it is his, is highly probable from the agreement there is between this, and other epistles of his; compare Heb 1:2 with Col 1:15 and Heb 5:12 with 1Co 3:1 and Heb 12:1 with 1Co 9:24 and Heb 13:7 with 1Th 5:11, and Heb 13:9 with Eph 4:14 and Heb 13:18 with 2Co 1:12 and Heb 13:20 with Rom 15:13 and many other places; and also from the order and method of it, first treating of doctrines, and then proceeding to practical exhortations, which is the common form of Paul's epistles: to which may be added various circumstances; as that it was written from Italy, where Paul was a prisoner; and the mention the author of it makes of his bonds, and of Timothy, as well known unto him, who was Paul's companion; besides, the token of his epistles appears in this, namely, his usual salutation to the churches; see Heb 13:23. But above all, the testimony of the Apostle Peter is greatly in favour of its being his, 2Pe 3:15 from whence it clearly appears, that the Apostle Paul did write an epistle to the Hebrews; for to them Peter wrote; see 1Pe 1:1 and what epistle could it be but this? and what Peter refers to is to be found in it; see Heb 10:25 and which is written with great wisdom; in none of Paul's epistles is there a greater discovery of his knowledge of divine mysteries than in this; and in it also are things hard to be understood, Heb 5:11. The common objections to its being his are, its not bearing his name, the diversity of its style, and the author of it seeming to be not an apostle, but a disciple of the apostle's: as to his not setting his name to it, the reasons might be, because he was the apostle of the Gentiles, and not so much of the Jews; and because of the prejudice of the Jews against him, both believers, and unbelievers; wherefore had his name been to it, it might have prevented the usefulness of it to the one, and have stirred up the rage of the other: as to the difference of style, different subjects require a different style; and yet in many things there is a likeness, as before observed: and as to the author's not being an apostle, which is concluded from Heb 2:3 the word "us" there is to be understood of the believing Hebrews, the disciples of the apostle, and not inclusive of the author, by a figurative way of speaking often used by Paul; and besides, the apostle received a confirmation of the Gospel from Ananias, who might have been an hearer of Christ, though he was at first taught it by Christ himself; add to this, that whoever was the writer of it, it was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, and when several of the apostles were living, and therefore he could never design by those words to put himself in a succeeding generation. The persons to whom this epistle was written were Hebrews, or Jews; so called, as some think, from the name of Abraham, the father of them; or, as others, from his passing over the river Euphrates, when he came out of Chaldea into Palestine. So Abram the Hebrew, in Gen 14:13 is by the Septuagint rendered, perathv, "one that passes over", taking it to come from the word rbe, which signifies to "pass over"; with this compare Jos 24:3 and this is the opinion of some of the Jewish Rabbins ^e; though it seems rather that they were called so from Heber, who lived at the time of the confusion of languages; see Gen 10:21. And this is the sense of many Jewish writers, ancient and modern, of Josephus ^f, of Jonathan ben Uzziel ^g, of R. Nehemiah ^h, of Aben Ezra ⁱ, and Kimchi ^k, and others; 2Co 11:22. And these were the Hebrews that dwelt in the land of Judea, and particularly at Jerusalem; nor were they the unbelieving inhabitants of those parts, but believers in Christ, who were embodied in a Gospel church state, It was a tradition of the ancients ^l, that this epistle was written originally in Hebrew, and was translated into Greek, either by Luke the Evangelist, or by Clement of Rome. But for this there is no foundation; no Hebrew copy can be produced; Munster's edition of it in Hebrew is a translation from the Greek, in which it was, no doubt, originally written, that being the common language, and well known to the Jews; and which appears from the citations in it out of the Old Testament, which are made, not from the Hebrew text, but from the Greek version; and besides, had it been written in Hebrew, the writer would not have interpreted the Hebrew words, Melchizedek and Salem, as he does, in Heb 7:1. The time of its writing was before the destruction of Jerusalem, which in this book is signified by the coming of the Lord, and the day approaching; and after Timothy was released from prison, and some time within the two years of his own imprisonment at Rome; when he hoped for a release, as his epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon show. Dr. Lightfoot places it in the year 62, and in the eighth of Nero. And the occasion and design of it is, to set forth the superior excellency of Christ to angels and men, to Moses, to Joshua, to Aaron, and his sons, and the preferableness of his priesthood and sacrifice to the Levitical priesthood and its sacrifices; to teach the Hebrews the true knowledge of the mysteries of their law; to point out to them the design, use, and abrogation of its ceremonies; and to prepare them for what afflictions and persecutions they would be called to endure for Christ; and to exhort them to perseverance, and to strengthen them against apostasy, as well as to instruct them in the various duties of religion.

Gill: Hebrews 8 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO HEBREWS 8

The apostle observing that the priesthood of Christ is the sum of what he had treated of in the preceding chapter, proceeds to show the superior excellency of it in other instances, particularly in the place where Christ now officiates, which is in heaven; he being set down at the right hand of God there, and so was a minister of the sanctuary, and true tabernacle pitched by God, and not man; whereas the priests of Aaron's line only ministered on earth, and in the typical sanctuary and tabernacle, Heb 8:1 and after he had observed that Christ must have something to offer, meaning his body, to answer to the gifts and sacrifices priests were ordained to offer, Heb 8:3 he proves the necessity of his ministering in heaven, because if he was on earth he would not be a priest, a complete one, and would have been useless and needless, Heb 8:4 and besides, it was proper that he should go up to heaven, and minister there, as the antitype of the priests, who, to the example and shadow of heavenly things, served in the tabernacle which was made by Moses, by the order of God, and according to the pattern showed him in the Mount, Heb 8:5 and that the ministry of Christ in the true sanctuary is much more excellent than the ministry of the priests in the shadowy one, is evident from his being the Mediator of a better covenant, Heb 8:6 and that the covenant he is the Mediator of is the better covenant, appears froth the better promises of which it consists, and from the faultiness of the former covenant, Heb 8:6 and that that was faulty, and succeeded by another, he proves from a passage in Jer 31:31 in which mention is made of a new covenant, and as distinct from that made with the Jewish fathers, and violated by them; and several of the promises of this new and second covenant are rehearsed, and which manifestly appear to be better than what were in the former, Heb 8:8 from all which the apostle concludes, that a new covenant being made, the old one must be antiquated; and that whereas it was decaying and waxing old, it was just ready to vanish away, Heb 8:13.

College: Hebrews (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION

It is difficult to overestimate the significance of Hebrews for understanding the nature of the new covenant. No other document in the New Testament canon comments as directly and extensively upon this covenant as does Hebrews. Its description of Jesus as the great high priest of the believer is a unique contribution to New Testament Christology.

Yet Hebrews is perhaps as well known for the difficulties it presents as it is for its distinctive contributions to our understanding of the ministry of Jesus and the nature of our salvation. It is difficult to be certain about who wrote it, when and to whom. It is a letter and not quite a letter. Many find its line of argument intricate and complex, its theology abstract and obscure, and its use of the Old Testament puzzling if not problematic. This commentary will begin by addressing some of these considerations.

AUTHORSHIP

Over the years, most of the debate about the authorship of Hebrews has focused on whether or not Paul wrote this letter. Arguments have been made for other possible authors as well. What we can know for certain about the author is best gleaned from the letter itself, but many will want to know how this debate affects our confidence in the authority and inspiration of the letter.

Did Paul write the Letter to the Hebrews?

Though few defend Pauline authorship of Hebrews today, in the past this view has enjoyed the support of significant church leaders and traditions. The earliest extant copy of Hebrews (early third century) has been received as part of a collection of Paul's letters, in which it was placed after Romans. Pauline authorship was defended by notable church fathers in the East, e.g., Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.215) and Origen (185-253) who, despite reservations, defended it as essentially Pauline, at least in part on the weight of what was then received tradition. Later, Jerome and Augustine helped to shift opinion in the West and the Sixth Synod of Carthage (419) established a tradition of support for Pauline authorship which lasted until the Reformation.

However, the weight of the evidence - both historical and texual - is far from clear. Early church opinion was far from universal. In the West, prior to Jerome and Augustine, such leaders as Irenaeus and Hippolytus of Rome did not accept Hebrews as Pauline. The Muratorian Canon (a list of documents accepted as New Testament Scripture, c. 170) included thirteen letters identified as Pauline but excluded Hebrews. When reformers such as Calvin and Luther reexamined the question centuries later, neither concluded that Paul was its author. Contemporary critics consider Pauline authorship implausible in light of clear differences between the vocabulary and style of Hebrews and epistles known to be Pauline. Further, it has been argued as improbable for Paul to refer to himself as the author does in 2:3 ("This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him") in light of what he says of himself in Galatians 1:11-12 ("I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ").

Who else could have written the letter to the Hebrews?

As early as the second century, Tertullian identified Barnabas as the author of the letter. Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:26), and there is much about levitical ritual in the epistle. He was also a Hellenistic Jew, a member of the Jerusalem church and a missionary partner of Paul (Acts 9:27; 11:30; 12:1-14:28). All of this evidence is circumstantial, however, and nothing but Tertullian's opinion connects him to the letter directly.

Clement of Alexandria first suggested that Luke translated a Hebrew text written by Paul. Calvin affirmed this possiblity centuries later. There are some similarities in the Greek style of Luke-Acts and Hebrews. But there is little other evidence and there are also some differences in style. Calvin also suggested Clement of Rome as a possibility. However, Clement of Rome widely quoted from the letter himself. It is unlikely that he would quote himself and his use of the Old Testament is often at variance with that in Hebrews.

Luther was the first to suggest Apollos as the possible author of Hebrews, a view which continues to enjoy some popularity. He was a "learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures" who "vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ" (Acts 18:24-28). Presumably, he would have been capable of the careful handling of the LXX found in Hebrews. Also, he probably had some connection to the Pauline mission (1 Corinthians 1-4). But concluding that he was therefore the author of Hebrews is, at best, conjecture.

Among others, arguments have been made for Peter, Jude, Stephen, Aristion, Priscilla, Silas, Timothy, Epaphras, Philip and Mary the mother of Jesus as possible authors of Hebrews. Two other possibilities remain. An associate of Paul could have written the letter for him (a view first suggested by Origen in 220). It is also possible that Hebrews was written by some other anonymous Christian unknown to us. The letter itself does not clearly identify its author. Perhaps the fairest conclusion is that advanced by Origen, in spite of his inclination to defend Pauline authorship: "who wrote the Epistle, God only knows the truth."

How does the debate about authorship affect our view of the letter?

It is important to note that, although the debate over authorship has extended over the centuries, the question of the letter's canonicity (i.e., its inspiration and authority) has not. Even though church fathers in the East may have had doubts about its authorship, there is no evidence that they ever questioned its canonicity. Though the Muratorian Canon excluded Hebrews (as well as James and 1-2 Peter), all four books were included in the New Testament canon by the Synod of Hippo (393) and the Third (397) and Sixth (419) Synods of Carthage. Subsequent questions about its authorship during the Reformation had no effect at all upon the reformers' view of its authority or inspiration.

It is clear that apostolicity, as well as other issues such as universality and the "rule of faith," were important in the early decisions about the New Testament canon. We must keep in mind, however, that a document's "canonical" status is the result of a human process which does not bestow divine authority or inspiration upon a document but recognizes the authority and inspiration which it inherently possesses because it has been "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16). In other words, if it is true that Hebrews is a divinely inspired and authoritative document, its inspiration and authority remain factual in an objective sense apart from our own inability to clearly discern the identity of its author. In his providence, God bore witness to the inspiration and authority of this letter in a manner that left little room for doubt, as Hebrews persistently silenced the questions of men who soon found that it "is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17).

What do we know about the author?

Though the question of authorship is not determinative of either the letter's inspiration or authority, it is significant for our interpretation of Hebrews. Knowing as much as we can about the author can be helpful for discerning the meaning of a text. We may not be able to know the identify of our author with any degree of certainty, but there is much that we can know about him.

He was probably a Hellenistic Jew for he was both steeped in the LXX and possessed of an excellent vocabulary and a polished style for writing in the Greek language. Presumably, then, he was well educated. He was probably a second generation Christian (2:3) but one with direct connection to apostolic influence since he was a companion of Timothy (13:23) and thus possibly an associate of Paul. It is possible that he wrote from Italy, although 13:24 could also be taken to mean that the recipients were in Italy and some in his own party were from there as well. The rhetoric of the letter and his description of it as "my word of exhortation" (13:22) suggest that he was probably a preacher. His "short letter" reveals a compassionate pastor, a keen theologian and a superior logician who applies all the resources of revelation and rhetoric at his command so that his dear friends will "not drift away" (2:1).

DATE, DESTINATION AND PURPOSE

Three important facts suggest at least a general date for the letter. First, Clement of Rome cited Hebrews frequently. 1 Clement was written in A.D. 95 or 96 and thus Hebrews would not only have been completed but well circulated by this date. Second, there is thus little reason to doubt that the Timothy of 13:23 was the associate of Paul referred to elsewhere in the New Testament. Though we do not know how old Timothy was when he joined Paul in his work, it is unlikely that this reference would place the letter very late in the first century. Finally, much is made of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. Although it is possible that the author would not have referred to this event if it had happened by the time of writing, it seems improbable that he would omit reference to an event that not only had a significant effect on the lives of first-century Jews (including Christians) but would have added great force to his own argument. Further, he refers to old covenant worship rituals in the present tense (8:4-5; 10:1-3).

Other considerations as to the probable date of the letter pertain to the identity and location of its recipients. The title "To the Hebrews" may have been added later and reflect later opinions about its contents but it accompanies the letter in all of the oldest Greek manuscripts and there is no evidence that the letter ever bore any other title. Some suggest that the phrase could be translated "against the Hebrews" but it is the same formula used in Paul's letters which were hardly "against" the Romans, Galatians, etc. The title of the letter thus suggests that its recipients were Jewish, and the content that they were both Jewish and Christian.

The letter itself indicates that its recipients were enduring persecution (10:33-34; 12:4; 13:3, 23). The more natural reading of 13:24 suggests that the author wrote to Italy rather than from Italy (for which the expression "those in Italy send you their greetings" would have been more appropriate). The Edict of Claudius had expelled Jews from Rome in 49 but many had returned by the time of the persecution begun by Nero in 64. Since our earliest quotes of Hebrews come to us from Clement of Rome, its circulation there was likely at an early date. The cumulative evidence thus suggests that the letter was addressed to Jewish Christians in Rome who suffered under the persecutions of Nero.

The combination of these circumstances and statements in the letter suggest its purpose. Though some have suggested that Hebrews was written foremost to combat an early Jewish perversion of Christian doctrine or as a generic tract to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity, key verses in the letter suggest that it was addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need. The following verses are all suggestive:

Passage Exhortation End in View

2:1 We must pay more careful attention so that we do not . . . to what we have heard drift away

3:1 fix your thoughts on Jesus (cp. 12:2)

3:6 hold on to our courage and the

3:6 hope of which we boast

3:12 See to it . . . that none of you has a

. . . heart that turns away from the

living God

3:13 encourage one another daily so that none of you

may be hardened by

sin's deceitfulness

3:14 . . . if we hold firmly till the end the We have come to

confidence we had at first share in Christ . . .

4:1 let us be careful that none of you be

found to have fallen

short of it [rest]

4:11 Let us . . . make every effort to enter so that no one will

that rest fall

4:14 let us hold firmly to the faith we

profess

6:11 show this same diligence to the very in order to make your

end hope sure

10:23 Let us hold unswervingly to the

hope we profess

10:35 So do not throw away your it will be richly

confidence rewarded

10:36 You need to persevere so that when you

have done the will of

God, you will receive

what he has promised.

12:1 Let us run with perseverance the

12:1 race marked out for us

12:2 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus (cp. 3:1)

12:3 Consider him who endured such so that you will not

opposition from sinful men grow weary and lose

heart

Hebrews is, without doubt, a theologically valuable document which presents a well arranged argument in defense of the superiority of the new covenant. Yet these verses suggest that the author had an immediate purpose in mind for his theology and his rhetoric - the encouragement of Christian brothers and sisters who, suffering under persecutions which threatened even martyrdom, were tempted to abandon their strength. In the midst of their suffering, our author sends his "short letter" and "word of exhortation" (13:22) that they might fix their eyes on Jesus (3:1; 12:2), whose greatness he demonstrates from their own beloved Scriptures and cherished heritage.

FORM AND STRUCTURE

Since Hebrews includes some of the formal features of an epistle (e.g., personal greetings and closing formula) but not others (e.g., typical introductory greeting or address), there has been much debate as to whether it is more of a letter or a sermon. However, this particular formulation of the genre question probably reads a sharper distinction between written and oral communication back into an era when rhetoric rarely made such a rigid separation. Other epistles in the New Testament were clearly written in the knowledge that they would be read in the presence of congregations. It is thus possible to argue that, though written, they should be viewed primarily as oral documents. Writing lengthy treatises with significant oral features was a typical "rhetorical" practice for the ancients (e.g., the "template" or model speeches of Isocrates and others). Hence, Hebrews could well have been constructed as a "written homily," i.e., a letter with sermonic features.

This is to propose a variation of Deissmann's suggestion that Hebrews could have been an example of Christian literary art (i.e., a kind of treatise). Guthrie's criticism - that the writer's purpose was too serious to be regarded in this light - assumes that literary art cannot be addressed to particular communities and urgent occasions, when in fact, rhetoric is chiefly defined by (1) its "addressed" nature and (2) its "contingent" character. The fact that it is addressed to specific communities, their circumstances and the demands of those circumstances is precisely what, according to Aristotle, distinguishes "rhetoric" from its counterpart "dialect." It is quite in keeping with at least one significant ancient rhetorical tradition to regard Hebrews as a written homily - an extended written treatise with significant oral features, addressed to a particular community with a view to responding to an urgent need.

Of what import is this conclusion? There is little value in examining Hebrews for exact correspondence to any particular classical scheme of rhetoric as some have done for (1) a strong case has been made that there is no single classical tradition of rhetoric and (2) our uncertainty about the identity of the author makes it impossible for us to do anything more than speculate about the possible significance of any such similarities.

There are several values, however, in recognizing the "rhetorical" nature of the document. First, this encourages us to keep in mind that, above all, Hebrews is an attempt to persuade its recipients (to take action, i.e., a case of deliberative rhetoric). Close attention should thus be paid to its argumentative dimensions. Also, as we attempt to follow the writer's development of thought, we should be alert for the use of rhetorical devices which signal transitions from argumentative sections to hortatory sections that address the contingiences of the community's situation. Further, apart from the complexities which separated competing rhetorical traditions in the ancient world, it is not inappropriate to look for evidence of the kinds of topoi (argumentative commonplaces) more widely employed and with which a well educated author was likely to be familiar. This should aid our understanding of the nature of the proofs employed by our author. Finally, it reminds us to seek the relevance of the subject matter of Hebrews in relationship to particular sets of life circumstances (persecution, suffering, temptation, and discouragement among them).

Hebrews is organized around a series of quotations from the Old Testament which are not only presented as argument but also developed with a variety of exegetical procedures (see below). If we use these quotations as a guideline for discerning its structure, the following picture of Hebrews emerges.

Chapter One is an introduction. This chapter is full of Old Testament quotations demonstrating Jesus' superiority over angels.

Chapter Two appeals to Psalm 8. Jesus rescues man by coming down beneath angels, joining man in flesh and blood, dying, and then returning to his place of exaltation above the angels. All who cling to him in faith return with him to the throne.

Chapters Three and Four deal with Psalm 95. God offers rest to all who trust him. The land of Canaan was not that rest, for this Psalm spoke of a rest long after the Israelites who wandered in the desert hardened their hearts and lost the rest which God offered to them. God's rest is still available for all who believe him.

Chapters Five, Six and Seven are organized around Psalm 110. Jesus is a priest like Melchizedek, who was also superior to the priesthood of the old covenant. Jesus, in fact, is a priest forever by God's oath.

Chapter Eight introduces Jeremiah 31. The new covenant, created by Jesus our great high priest, is superior to the old covenant. It is founded on better promises than the old covenant, which was a mere copy and shadow of this new covenant.

Chapters Nine and Ten treat Psalm 40. Jesus' living sacrifice of himself through obedience is far superior to the Old Testament sacrifices of dead bulls and goats repeatedly offered in the old tabernacle. Jesus took this sacrifice into the very presence of God, thus fully taking away sins and cleansing our consciences.

Chapter Eleven develops a theme from Habakkuk 2, that the righteous will live by faith. This principle by which we live is illustrated by numerous examples of people living by faith.

Chapter Twelve treats Proverbs 3. We must accept the discipline God brings upon us, for God disciplines those he loves.

Chapter Thirteen is the conclusion. It is full of exhortations on how to give ourselves to God in the life of faith.

Remove the introductory and concluding chapters for a moment and an interesting picture of the structure of the main body of thought emerges. The new covenant (chapter 8) is central, tying together his priesthood (chapters 5-7) and his sacrifice (chapters 9-10). This is prepared for by the offer of rescue (chapter 2) and rest (chapters 3-4) and followed by the re

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aristotle. The "Art" of Rhetoric . Loeb Classical Library. Translated by J. H. Freese. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926.

____________ . On Rhetoric . Edited and translated by George A. Kennedy. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews . Hermeneia Commentaries. Edited by Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Translated by William Arndt and F.W. Gingrich. 2nd ed. Revised and augmented by F.W. Gingrich and F.W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. "Baptism." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 1. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Bietenhard, H. "Name." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . Vol. 2. Edited by Colin Brown. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Blass, F., A. Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.

Blowers, Paul. "Patterns of Perfection in Hebrews." Unpublished paper presented to a Fellowship of Professors at Johnson Bible College in Knoxville, Tennessee, September. 21, 1990.

Boatman, Don Earl. Helps From Hebrews . Bible Study Textbook. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1960.

Bromiley, Geoffery, ed. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia . 4 Vols. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology . 3 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975.

Brown, Francis, et al . The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon . Lafayette, IN: Associated Publishers and Authors, Inc., 1980.

Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . New International Critical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Calvin, John. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews . Trans. by William B. Johnston. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1963.

Carson, D.A., Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament . Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Chamberlain, William. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1941. Reprinted 1979.

Crouch, Owen. God Has Spoken: Expository Preaching and Teaching - Hebrews . Joplin, MO: College Press, 1983. Reprinted 1990.

Davidson, A.B. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n.d.

Dods, Marcus. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Vol. IV in The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910.

Douglas, J.D., ed. The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd. Ed. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1992.

Ellingworth, Paul. Commentary on Hebrews . New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Elwell, Walter, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology . Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Enos, Theresa, ed. Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication From Ancient Times to the Information Age . New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Fant, Clyde E. and Pinson, William E., eds. Twenty Centuries of Great Preaching: An Encyclopedia of Preaching . 23 Vols. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1971.

Feinberg, C.L. "Tithe." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Fensham, F.C. "Oath." International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. III, ed. by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Fiensy, David. New Testament Introduction . The College Press NIV Commentary. Joplin, MO: College Press, 1994.

Gooding, D.W. and D.J. Wiseman. "Censer." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Edited by J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Gregory, T.M. "Oath." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Guthrie, Donald. "Epistle to the Hebrews," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia , Vol. 2. Edited by G. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

____________ . Hebrews . Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

____________ . New Testament Introduction . 3rd ed. rev. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1970.

Hatch, Edwin and Henry Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint . Two Volumes including supplement. Graz, Austria: Akademische Druck - Univ. Verlagstalt, 1954.

Héring, Jean. The Epistle to the Hebrews. London: Epworth Press, 1970.

Josephus. Jewish Antiquities . Books I-IV. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1930.

____________ . The Jewish War . Books IV-VII. Loeb Classical Library. Translated by H. St. J. Thackeray. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1928.

Kittel, Gerhard and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament . 10 Vols. Translated and edited by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76.

Kistemaker, Simon. Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews . New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984.

Konig, Eduard. "Tabernacle." The Jewish Encyclopedia . Ed. by Isadore Singer. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Lane, William L. Hebrews 1-8 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D. W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

____________ . Hebrews 9-13 . Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 47A. Edited by David A. Hubbard, John D.W. Watts and Ralph P. Martin. Dallas: Word Books, 1991.

Lenski, R.C.H. The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of James . Minneapolis: Augsburg Press, 1966.

Liddell, Henry George and Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon . 9th ed. Rev. and augmented by Sir Henry Stuart Jones. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940.

Lindars, Barnabas. "The Rhetorical Structure of Hebrews." New Testament Studies Vol. 35 (1989), pp. 382-406.

Louw, Johannes and Eugene A. Nida, eds. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains . 2 Vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1988.

Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students . 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek Testament . New York, London: United Bible Societies, 1971, corrected edition, 1975.

Meyer, F.B. The Way into the Holiest: Expositions of the Epistle to the Hebrews . Fort Washington, PA: Christian Literature Crusade, 1982.

Milligan, R. Epistle to the Hebrews . The New Testament Commentary, Vol. IX. Cincinnati: Standard Pub., n.d.

Moffat, James. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews . The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1924. Reprinted 1968.

Montefiore, Hugh. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1964. Reprinted 1987.

Morris, Leon, et al. The Expositor's Bible Commentary , Volume 12. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.

Moule, Charles F. Idiom Book of New Testament Greek . 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

Moulton, James H. and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources . Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1930. Reprinted 1980.

Moulton, James H., Wilbert F. Howard and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek . 4 Vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963-79.

Moulton, W.F. and A.S. Geden. A Concordance to the Greek Testament . Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1897. 5th ed., 1978.

Nairne, A. The Epistle to the Hebrews . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921.

Paterson, J. H. "Sea." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 5. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974-76.

Rahlfs, Alfred, ed. Septuaginta . 2 vols. in 1. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibel Stiftung, 1935.

Schiappa, Edward. "Protagoras." Encyclopedia of Rhetoric and Composition: Communication . ed. by Theresa Enos. New York: Garland Pub., 1996.

Silva, Moises. "Perfection and Eschatology in Hebrews." Westminster Theological Journal . Vol. 39 (1976), pp. 60-71.

Singer, Isadore, ed. The Jewish Encyclopedia . New York: Ktav Publishing House, Inc., n.d.

Spicq, C. L'Épitre Aux Hebreux . Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1952.

Soulen, Richard. Handbook of Biblical Criticism . 2nd ed. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1976, 1981.

Swetnam, J. "Sacrifice and Revelation in the Epistle to the Hebrews: Observations and Surmises on Hebrew 9, 26." Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 30 (1968), pp. 227-254.

Tenney, Merrill C., ed. The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . 5 Vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974-76.

Thayer, Joseph. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament . 4th Edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901.

Thompson, James. The Letter to the Hebrews . The Living Word Commentary. Edited by Everett Ferguson. Austin, TX: R.B. Sweet Co., 1971.

Trotter, Andrew H., Jr. Interpeting the Epistle to the Hebrews . Guides to New Testament Exegesis. Edited by Scot McKnight. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996.

Waltke, B.K. "Melchizedek." The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible . Vol. 4. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975-76.

Westcott, B.F. The Epistle to the Hebrews . 2nd Edition. 1892. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. 1994.

Wiseman, D.J. "Weights and Measures." The New Bible Dictionary . 2nd ed. Ed. By J.D. Douglas. Leicester, England: InterVarsity, 1982.

Zodhiates, Spiros. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament . Rev. ed. Chattanooga, TN: AMG Press, 1993.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary

BAGD Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker Greek Lexicon (2nd. ed.)

BDB New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English

Lexicon

BDF Blass-Debrunner-Funk Greek Grammar

ISBE International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Bromiley)

KJV King James Version

LN Louw & Nida's Lexicon Based on Semantic Domains

LSJ Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek Lexicon

LXX Septuagint

MHT Moulton-Howard-Turner Greek Grammar

MM Moulton & Milligan's Vocabulary of Greek Testament

NASB New American Standard Bible

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament

Theology

NJB New Jerusalem Bible

RSV Revised Standard Version

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by

Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich

ZPED Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Hebrews (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE ANGELS - 1:1-14

A. The Preeminence of the Son - 1:1-4

B. The Son Superior to the Angels - 1:5-14

II. JESUS RESCUES MAN - 2:1-18

A. Warning Not to Ignore Such a Great Salvation - 2:1-4

B. Jesus Became a Man to Bring Men to Glory - 2:5-18

III. GOD OFFERS REST TO ALL WHO TRUST HIM - 3:1-4:16

A. Jesus Is Superior to Moses - 3:1-6

B. Psalm 95:7-11 - 3:7-11

C. Hold Firm to the End - 3:12-15

D. Unbelieving Israelites Fell in the Desert - 3:16-19

E. A Sabbath-Rest for the People of God - 4:1-5

F. A Sabbath-Rest Remains - 4:6-11

G. The Message from God Does Its Part to Save Us - 4:12-13

H. Jesus, the Great High Priest - 4:14-16

IV. JESUS IS SUPERIOR TO THE PRIESTHOOD OF THE OLD COVENANT AND A PRIEST FOREVER BY GOD'S OATH - 5:1-7:28

A. Requirements of the High Priest - 5:1-4

B. Jesus Fulfills the Requirements and Offers Eternal Salvation - 5:5-10

C. [Excursus: Responding to God] - 5:11-6:12

1. Still Infants - 5:11-14

2. On to Maturity - 6:1-3

3. Those Who Fall Away - 6:4-8

4. Confident of Better Things - 6:9-12

D. God's Oath Makes His Purpose Sure - 6:13-20

E. Melchizedek Like the Son of God - 7:1-3

F. Melchizedek Greater than Abraham - 7:4-10

G. Jesus Is High Priest Based on His Resurrection which Introduces a Better Hope - 7:11-19

H. Jesus Is High Priest Based on God's Oath which Produces a Better Covenant - 7:20-22

I. Jesus' Resurrection Creates a Permanent Priesthood - 7:23-25

J. Jesus' Death Provides the Perfect Sacrifice - 7:26-28

V. THE NEW COVENANT BROUGHT BY JESUS OUR HIGH PRIEST IS SUPERIOR TO THE OLD COVENANT - 8:1-13

A. Our High Priest Reigns and Serves in the True Tabernacle, Prefigured by Old Testament Shadows - 8:1-5

B. Our High Priest Is Mediator of the New Covenant, Promised through the Prophet Jeremiah - 8:6-13

VI. JESUS' SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF IS SUPERIOR TO THE SACRIFICES OF THE OLD COVENANT AND SETS US FREE FROM SIN - 9:1-10:39

A. The Tabernacle and Its Tools - 9:1-5

B. The Day of Atonement - 9:6-10

C. Jesus' Sacrifice Cleanses Our Conscience - 9:11-14

D. Jesus' Death Inaugurates the New Covenant - 9:15-22

E. Jesus' Sacrifice Was Once for All - 9:23-28

F. Old Covenant Sacrifices Could Not Take Away Sin - 10:1-4

G. Christ Offered His Body to Make Us Holy - 10:5-10

H. Our High Priest Now Reigns - 10:11-14

I. Witness of the Holy Spirit through Jeremiah - 10:15-18

J. Let Us Draw Near to God and Spur One Another On - 10:19-25

K. The Judgment of God on Those Who Keep Sinning - 10:26-31

L. Reminder of Earlier Suffering - 10:32-34

M. The Need to Persevere - 10:35-39

VII. GOD EXPECTS US TO SHOW FAITH - 11:1-40

A. The Nature of Faith - 11:1-3

B. Faith Illustrated by Abel, Enoch, and Noah - 11:4-7

C. Faith Illustrated by Abraham - 11:8-19

D. Faith Illustrated by Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph- 11:20-22

E. Faith Illustrated by Moses - 11:23-28

F. Faith Illustrated in Israel - 11:29-38

G. God Planned to Make Them Perfect with Us - 11:39-40

VIII. GOD EXPECTS US TO ENDURE DISCIPLINE - 12:1-29

A. A Call to Perseverance - 12:1-3

B. The Word of Encouragement - 12:4-6

C. God Disciplines His Children - 12:7-11

D. Practical Actions - 12:12-17

E. Terrifying Mt. Sinai - 12:18-21

F. Mt. Zion, the Heavenly Jerusalem - 12:22-24

G. A Kingdom which Cannot Be Shaken - 12:25-29

IX. CONCLUDING EXHORTATIONS - 13:1-25

A. Keep Loving Each Other - 13:1-3

B. Stay Pure - 13:4-6

C. Remember Your Leaders - 13:7-8

D. Counterparts to Old Covenant Practices - 13:9-16

E. Obey Your Leaders and Pray for Us - 13:17-19

F. Benediction and Closing Exhortations - 13:20-22

G. Personal Greetings - 13:23-25

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV