Verse 28
For the law maketh men high priests - The Jewish priests have need of these repeated offerings and sacrifices, because they are fallible, sinful men: but the word of the oath (still referring to [Psa 110:4]) which was since the law; for David, who mentions this, lived nearly 500 years after the giving of the law, and consequently that oath, constituting another priesthood, abrogates the law; and by this the Son is consecrated, τετελειωμενον, is perfected, for evermore. Being a high priest without blemish, immaculately holy, every way perfect, immortal, and eternal, He is a priest εις τον αιωνα, to Eternity.
I. There are several respects in which the apostle shows the priesthood of Christ to be more excellent than that of the Jews, which priesthood was typified by that of Melchisedec.
1. Being after the order of Melchisedec, there was no need of a rigorous examination of his genealogy to show his right.
2. He has an eternal priesthood; whereas theirs was but temporal.
3. The other priests, as a token of the dignity of their office, and their state of dependence on God, received tithes from the people. Melchisedec, a priest and king, after whose order Christ comes, tithed Abraham, δεδεκατωκε τον Αβρααμ, the father of the patriarchs; Jesus, infinitely greater than all, having an absolute and independent life, needs none. He is no man's debtor, but all receive out of his fullness.
4. He alone can bless the people, not by praying for their good merely, but by communicating the good which is necessary.
5. As another priesthood, different from that of Aaron, was promised, it necessarily implies that the Levitical priesthood was insufficient; the priesthood of Christ, being that promised, must be greater than that of Aaron.
6. That which God has appointed and consecrated with an oath, as to endure for ever, must be greater than that which he has appointed simply for a time: but the priesthood of Christ is thus appointed; therefore, etc.
7. All the Levitical priests were fallible and sinful men; but Christ was holy and undefiled.
8. The Levitical priests were only by their office distinguished from the rest of their brethren, being equally frail, mortal, and corruptible; but Jesus, our high priest, is higher than the heavens. The statements from which these differences are drawn are all laid down in this chapter.
II. As the word surety, εγγυος, in [Heb 7:22], has been often abused, or used in an unscriptural and dangerous sense, it may not be amiss to inquire a little farther into its meaning. The Greek word εγγυος, from εγγυη, a pledge, is supposed to be so called from being lodged εν γυιοις, in the hands of the creditor. It is nearly of the same meaning with bail, and signifies an engagement made by C. with A. that B. shall fulfill certain conditions then and there specified, for which C. makes himself answerable; if, therefore, B. fails, C. becomes wholly responsible to A. In such suretiship it is never designed that C. shall pay any debt or fulfill any engagement that belongs to B.; but, if B. fail, then C. becomes responsible, because he had pledged himself for B. In this scheme A. is the person legally empowered to take the bail or pledge, B. the debtor, and C. the surety. The idea therefore of B. paying his own debt, is necessarily implied in taking the surety. Were it once to be supposed that the surety undertakes absolutely to pay the debt, his suretiship is at an end, and he becomes the debtor; and the real debtor is no longer bound. Thus the nature of the transaction becomes entirely changed, and we find nothing but debtor and creditor in the case. In this sense, therefore, the word εγγυος, which we translate surety, cannot be applied in the above case, for Christ never became surety that, if men did not fulfill the conditions of this better covenant, i.e. repent of sin, turn from it, believe on the Son of God, and having received grace walk as children of the light, and be faithful unto death, he would do all these things for them himself! This would be both absurd and impossible: and hence the gloss of some here is both absurd and dangerous, viz., "That Christ was the surety of the first covenant to pay the debt; of the second, to perform the duty." That it cannot have this meaning in the passage in question is sufficiently proved by Dr. Macknight; and instead of extending my own reasoning on the subject, I shall transcribe his note. "The Greek commentators explain this word εγγυος very properly by μεσιτης, a mediator, which is its etymological meaning; for it comes from εγγυς, near, and signifies one who draws near, or who causes another to draw near. Now, as in this passage a comparison is stated between Jesus as a high priest, and the Levitical high priests; and as these were justly considered by the apostle as the mediators of the Sinaitic covenant, because through their mediation the Israelites worshipped God with sacrifices, and received from him, as their king, a political pardon, in consequence of the sacrifices offered by the high priest on the day of atonement; it is evident that the apostle in this passage calls Jesus the High Priest, or Mediator of the better covenant, because through his mediation, that is, through the sacrifice of himself which he offered to God, believers receive all the blessings of the better covenant. And as the apostle has said, [Heb 7:19], that by the introduction of a better hope, εγγιζομεν, we draw near to God; he in this verse very properly calls Jesus εγγυος, rather than μεσιτης, to denote the effect of his mediation. See [Heb 7:25]. Our translators indeed, following the Vulgate and Beza, have rendered εγγυος by the word surety, a sense which it has, Ecclus. 29:16, and which naturally enough follows from its etymological meaning; for the person who becomes surety for the good behavior of another, or for his performing something stipulated, brings that other near to the party to whom he gives the security; he reconciles the two. But in this sense the word εγγυος is not applicable to the Jewish high priests; for to be a proper surety, one must either have power to compel the party to perform that for which he has become his surety; or, in case of his not performing it, he must be able to perform it himself. This being the ease, will any one say that the Jewish high priests were sureties to God for the Israelites performing their part of the covenant of the law! Or to the people for God's performing his part of the covenant! As little is the appellation, surety of the new covenant, applicable to Jesus. For since the new covenant does not require perfect obedience, but only the obedience of faith; if the obedience of faith be not given by men themselves, it cannot be given by another in their room; unless we suppose that men can be saved without personal faith. I must therefore infer, that those who speak of Jesus as the surety of the new covenant, must hold that it requires perfect obedience; which, not being in the power of believers to give, Jesus has performed for them. But is not this to make the covenant of grace a covenant of works, contrary to the whole tenor of Scripture! For these reasons I think the Greek commentators have given the true meaning of the word εγγυος , in this passage, when they explain it by μεσιτης, mediator."
The chief difference lies here. The old covenant required perfect obedience from the very commencement of life; this is impossible, because man comes into the world depraved. The new covenant declares God's righteousness for the remission of sins that are past; and furnishes grace to enable all true believers to live up to all the requisitions of the moral law, as found in the gospels. But in this sense Christ cannot be called the surety, for the reasons given above; for he does not perform the obedience or faith in behalf of any man. It is the highest privilege of believers to love God with all their hearts, and to serve him with all their strength; and to remove their obligation to keep this moral law would be to deprive them of the highest happiness they can possibly have on this side heaven.
Introduction
The sum, or chief articles, of what the apostle has spoken, concerning the eternal priesthood of Christ, [Heb 8:1-5] : The excellency of the new covenant beyond that of the old, [Heb 8:6-9]. The nature and perfection of the new covenant stated from the predictions of the prophets, [Heb 8:10-12]. By this new covenant the old is abolished, [Heb 8:13].
Verse 2
A minister of the sanctuary - Των ἁγιων λειτουργος· A public minister of the holy things or places. The word λειτουργος, from λειτος, public, and εργον, a work or office, means a person who officiated for the public, a public officer; in whom, and his work, all the people had a common right: hence our word liturgy, the public work of prayer and praise, designed for the people at large; all having a right to attend it, and each having an equal interest in it. Properly speaking, the Jewish priest was the servant of the public; he transacted the business of the people with God. Jesus Christ is also the same kind of public officer; both as Priest and Mediator he transacts the business of the whole human race with God. He performs the holy things or acts in the true tabernacle, Heaven, of which the Jewish tabernacle was the type. The tabernacle was the place among the Jews where God, by the symbol of his presence, dwelt. This could only typify heaven, where God, in his essential glory, dwells, and is manifest to angels and glorified saints; and hence heaven is called here the true tabernacle, to distinguish it from the type.
Which the Lord pitched - The Jewish tabernacle was man's work, though made by God's direction; the heavens, this true tabernacle, the work of God alone, and infinitely more glorious than that of the Jews. The tabernacle was also a type of the human nature of Christ, [Joh 1:14] : And the word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, και εσκηνωσεν εν ἡμιν and tabernacled among us; for, as the Divine presence dwelt in the tabernacle, so the fullness of the Godhead, bodily, dwelt in the man Christ Jesus. And this human body was the peculiar work of God, as it came not in the way of natural generation.
Verse 3
Every high priest is ordained - Καθισταται, Is set apart, for this especial work.
Gifts and sacrifices - Δωρα τε και θυσιας· Eucharistic offerings, and sacrifices for sin. By the former, God's government of the universe, and his benevolence to his creatures in providing for their support, were acknowledged. By the latter, the destructive and ruinous nature of sin, and the necessity of an atonement, were confessed.
Wherefore - of necessity - If Christ be a high priest, and it be essential to the office of a high priest to offer atoning sacrifices to God, Jesus must offer such. Now it is manifest that, as he is the public minister, officiating in the true tabernacle as high priest, he must make an atonement; and his being at the right hand of the throne shows that he has offered, and continues to offer, such an atonement.
Verse 4
For if he were on earth - As the Jewish temple was standing when this epistle was written, the whole temple service continued to be performed by the legal priests, descendants of Aaron, of the tribe of Levi; therefore if Christ had been then on earth, he could not have performed the office of a priest, being of the tribe of Judah, to which tribe the office of the priesthood did not appertain.
There are priests that offer gifts - This is an additional proof that this epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem. As the word θυσιαι, sacrifices, is not added here as it is in [Heb 8:3], is it any evidence that bloody sacrifices had then ceased to be offered? Or, are both kinds included in the word δωρα, gifts? But is δωρον, a gift, ever used to express a bloody sacrifice? I believe the Septuagint never used it for זבח zebach, which signifies an animal offered to God in sacrifice.
Verse 5
Who serve - Οἱτινες λατρευουσι· Who perform Divine worship.
Unto the example and shadow - Υποδειγματι και σκιᾳ, With the representation and shadow; this is Dr. Macknight's translation, and probably the true one.
The whole Levitical service was a representation and shadow of heavenly things; it appears, therefore, absurd to say that the priests served Unto an example or representation of heavenly things; they served rather unto the substance of those things, With appropriate representations and shadows.
As Moses was admonished - Καθως κεχρηματισται Μωσης· As Moses was Divinely warned or admonished of God.
According to the pattern - Κατα τον τυπον· According to the type, plan, or form. It is very likely that God gave a regular plan and specification of the tabernacle and all its parts to Moses; and that from this Divine plan the whole was constructed. See on [Exo 25:40] (note).
Verse 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.
Verse 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.
Verse 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.
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.
Verse 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.
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.
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.