Hebrews 8 · The Lantern

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,

For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners.

We must here again observe that he (Paul) speaks of the Tabernacle which was pitched by God, namely heaven, as the true. Moreover he calls heaven that perfect Tabernacle not made with hands, as it was created by God. For he calls the Tabernacle which Moses prepared made with hands.

377. – Having proved the excellence of Christ's priesthood over that of the Levitical on the part of the person, the Apostle now proves the same on the part of the priesthood itself. In regard to this he does two things: first, he shows in a general way that Christ's priesthood is more excellent than that of the Old Law; secondly, in detail (chap. 9).

and who ministers in the sanctuary and true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by man.

Let men therefore learn and understand why the Most High God, when He sent His ambassador and messenger to instruct mortals with the precepts of His righteousness, willed that He should be clothed with mortal flesh, and be afflicted with torture, and be sentenced to death.

"a minister of the sanctuary." The High Priest, he says, is of men who have been sanctified by him. For he is our High Priest. If he sat at the right hand of the Father, how is he a minister? For it is proper for ministers to stand and serve; but to sit is the role of God to whom the ministry is rendered.

382. – Then when he says, a minister of the holies, he shows the dignity of his office. He says, minister of the sanctuary [holies], i.e., of the holy precincts, namely, of the sanctuary. For the ministers of old received the ministry of guarding sacred things and serving the tabernacle.

And since every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices, it was necessary for this One also to have something to offer.

For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are already priests who offer gifts according to the law.

And in another way; Having said that He is on high, he affirms and proves that He is a Priest from every consideration, from Melchisedec, from the oath, from offering sacrifice. From this he also frames another and necessary syllogism.

"For if he were on earth." This was the case, if he had not died, nor had he been taken up after rising. "he would not be a priest at all." For there would be others, even a rebellion would be present. But now he has died, so that he may offer the sacrifice. Rising from the dead, he was taken up, so that he might have a place in heaven, where he must serve as a priest.

385. – Then (v. 4) he shows that Christ is not a minister of the sacrifices of the Law. In regard to this he does three things: first, he introduces a consequence; secondly, he gives the reason (v. 4b); thirdly, he proves it by an authority (v. 4c). 386.

The place where they serve 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.”

Since, however, "when he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken," we must admit, as far as the literal meaning is concerned, that, after the Lord was raised from the dead, the disciples understood that the things said about the temple refer to his passion and resurrection, and…

The divine apostle, by "shadow of the heavenly things" referred to the worship according to the law and confirms his statement with a scriptural testimony.

388. – But according to the first explanation the reading is continued in the following way: There would be many who according to the law would offer such gifts, namely, those who serve a copy [exemplar] and shadow of heavenly things. The sacraments of the Old Law were figures of other things in two respects: first, in regard to knowledge; secondly, in regard to fulfillment.

Now, however, Jesus has received a much more excellent ministry, just as the covenant He mediates is better and is founded on better promises.

"It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these." Both in the verse before us, then, and throughout, does he ascribe the word better to the Lord, who is better and other than originated things.

"But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry." Now, he says, since it is not on earth, but in heaven, a better ministry has been attained, that is, the high priest is for a better ministry. See how he engages with the humble because of the weakness of those who are listening.

390. – Having proved that Christ is a high priest and, consequently, a minister of holy things, but not according to the Old Law, the Apostle now shows that He is a minister of greater and better things than they had been. In regard to this he does three things: first, he prefaces his intent; secondly, he assigns its cause (v. 6b); thirdly, he proves (v. 7). 391.

For if that first covenant had been without fault, no place would have been sought for a second.

Whence does appear? In that this the one was cast out, and the other introduced in its place: for it is therefore of force because it is better. For as he says, "If perfection were by" it, "what further need was there, that another priest should rise, after the order of Melchisedec?" (Heb. vii.

Observe the order. He said that the covenant of Christ is better than the Old. And from where is this evident? From the fact, he says, that it "is established upon better promises." For if the promises and rewards are better, then it is perfectly clear that the covenant is also better, and the commandments more divine. And from where is it evident that the promises are better?

393. – Then when he says, For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second, he proves that the testament of which Christ is mediator is better for the following reason: If the first testament were faultless, another would not be sought to correct its defects. But another is sought, therefore, etc.

But God found fault with the people and said: “Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

For we find in the Scriptures, as the Lord says: "Behold, I make with you a new covenant, not as I made with your fathers in Mount Horeb." He made a new covenant with us; for what belonged to the Greeks and Jews is old. But we, who worship Him in a new way, in the third form, are Christians.

[The Lord] ascended into the retirement of a neighboring mountain and called his apostles to him there. From the height of that mystical seat he could instruct them in the loftier doctrines, signifying from the very nature of the place and act that it was he who had once honored Moses by speaking to him.

394. – Then (v. 8) he proves the truth of the consequent, namely, that a place is sought for a testament; and this on the authority of Jeremiah (3:31): The days will come, says the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. In regard to this he does two things: first, he prefaces the authority; secondly, he argues from it.

It will not be like the covenant I made with their fathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not abide by My covenant, and I disregarded them, declares the Lord.

"in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." So that they do not suppose that the exodus is according to the covenant with Abraham; for it has occurred in Christ, "For to your seed," he says, "who is Christ;" (Gal. 3:16) it brings forth what kind of covenant the exodus has become. That of the Exodus, he says, made through Moses.

Lest anyone think that the covenant which was made with Abraham is being annulled, he added: "in the day when I took them by the hand." For, he says, I wish to annul the covenant spoken of in the book of Exodus, the covenant given on Mount Sinai to your fathers who cast the calf, whereas it is precisely the covenant with Abraham that received its fulfillment in Christ.

398. – Then (v. 9) he describes the New Covenant: first, by its difference from the Old; secondly, by its own qualities. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows the distinction between the Old and New Testaments; secondly, the infirmity of the Old (v. 9b). 399. – For someone could ask: Is the New like the Old?

For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord. I will put My laws in their minds and inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they will be My people.

Having bestowed on us the truly great, divine, and inalienable inheritance of the Father, deifying man by heavenly teaching, putting His laws into our minds, and writing them on our hearts. What laws does He inscribe?

"For this is the covenant." Which one? The New one. That is to say, "after those days." Which days? Some say, those of the Exodus, in which the Mosaic law was given; but it seems to me that it speaks of those days mentioned above: "Behold, the days are coming." After those days have passed, I will make such a covenant as you will hear next.

403. – Then (v. 10) he describes the qualities of the New Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he describes the way it was announced; secondly, its effect (v. 10b). 404. – He says, therefore, This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days.

No longer will each one teach his neighbor or his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest.

Let no one, then, flatter himself on the ground of being assigned to the "recruit-classes" of learners, as if on that account he have a licence even now to sin. As soon as you "know the Lord, you should fear Him; as soon as you have gazed on Him, you should reverence Him.

"And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor." Here it speaks of a teaching that is more laborious. For behold, we see that there is no need for more words for those whose minds are healthy, to persuade them to believe in Christ. For all men are taught by God; for Christ has written His laws upon our hearts.

407. – Then when he says, And they shall not teach every one his fellow, he lays down the second effect of the New Testament. In regard to this he does two things: first, he gives the sign of that effect; secondly, the effect itself (v. 11b). 408.

For I will forgive their iniquities and will remember their sins and lawless acts no more.”

By speaking of a new covenant, He has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

As the prophet Jeremiah testifies when he speaks such things: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new testament to the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not according to the testament which I made to their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; for they continued not in my testament, and I disregarde…

"In speaking of a new covenant." For to call it altogether new has made the first covenant old. "And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away." Now, having taken boldness from the prophet, he himself declares. This, he says, is new, but that one is old. The old is being abolished, he says.

412. – Then when he says, in speaking of a new covenant, he argues as though from an authority he cited. And he forms this argument: A new is said only in relation to an old. But whatever is called old is, as it were, close to cessation. Therefore, in speaking of a new covenant, he treats the first as obsolete, i.e., it gives us to understand that the former is old.

Hebrews8