Ebrei 8:7 Commento

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).

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.

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.

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. 11); so also here he used the same syllogism, saying "For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second"; that is, if it made men "faultless." For it is because he is speaking of this that he did not say, "But finding fault with" it, but "But finding fault with them." And "faultless"; that is, useful; not as though it the old Covenant was obnoxious to any charges, but as not being sufficient. He used a familiar form of speech. As if one should say, the house is not faultless, that is, it has some defect, it is decayed: the garment is not faultless, that is, it is coming to pieces. He does not therefore here speak of it as evil, but only as having some fault and deficiency.

Behold the order! He said that the covenant according to Christ is superior to the old one. And how is this evident? Because, he says, it is established on better promises. For if the promises and the recompenses are better, it is clear that the covenant is also better, and the commandments more divine. But how is it evident that the promises are better? From this, he says, that the former was set aside, but this one has taken its place. For this reason, the New covenant prevails, because it is better and more perfect. For if the former had been faultless, that is, if it had nothing lacking, if it made people blameless—then no second covenant would have been introduced.

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? From the fact, he says, that the former was abolished, and this one was introduced in its place. For the New Testament has preeminence because it is better and more perfect. "If the first covenant had been without fault," that is, if it had made people blameless, then a second covenant would not have been introduced. As we commonly say: the house is not without faults, instead of saying: it is falling into decay, it is growing old; so also concerning the Old Testament he said that it was not without fault, not as being bad, but as not having the power to make people better, as having been given to infants.

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 on the other hand it says in Romans (7:7): 'Is the law sin? God forbid.' Therefore, it is incorrect to say that it is not faultless. I answer that something can belong to the Law in two ways: either according to its end, and then it is good; or by reason of those to whom it was given, and then it is said to have a fault in two ways: first, because it did not confer the power to cleanse one's sins: 'It is impossible that with the blood of oxen and goats sin should be taken away' (Heb. 10:4). Secondly, because it did not give a helping grace to avoid sins, but merely to recognize them; hence, it was an occasion of sin: 'For I had not known concupiscence, if the law did not say: Thou salt not covet' (Rom. 7:7). And so it is said not to have been faultless, because in it men remained in their sins. But he says, there would have been no occasion for a second. For just as a body is never altogether at rest but is always changing until it reaches its due place, so, as long as something is had imperfectly, desire does not rest but always stretches beyond, until it comes to what is perfect. Therefore, the place for a second was sought by man, who desired, but much more by God, Who is said to seek because of his desire for our salvation.

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.

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.

CHRIST, THE HIGH PRIEST IN THE TRUE SANCTUARY, SUPERSEDING THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD; THE NEW RENDERS OBSOLETE THE OLD COVENANT. (Heb 8:1-13) the sum--rather, "the principal point"; for the participle is present, not past, which would be required if the meaning were "the sum." "The chief point in (or, 'in the case'; so the Greek, Heb 9:10, Heb 9:15, Heb 9:17) the things which we are speaking," literally, "which are being spoken." such--so transcendently pre-eminent, namely in this respect, that "He is set on the right hand of," &c. Infinitely above all other priests in this one grand respect, He exercises His priesthood IN HEAVEN, not in the earthly "holiest place" (Heb 10:12). The Levitical high priests, even when they entered the Holiest Place once a year, only STOOD for a brief space before the symbol of God's throne; but Jesus SITS on the throne of the Divine Majesty in the heaven itself, and this for ever (Heb 10:11-12).

Same reasoning as in Heb 7:11. faultless--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"). should no place have been sought--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.