The Epistle to the Hebrews

[Resource Manager]

Before we pass on to the further reasoning of the epistle, it is necessary to notice a break in the argument. It reaches from chapter 5:11, to the end of chapter vi. The circumstance which led to this digression was the inability of the Hebrews to receive all that might have been written in reference to the high priest after the order of Melchizedek. It will not need much in the way of exposition as, generally speaking, the meaning is apparent.

 

Like many others of all ages and races, the Hebrew Christians appear to have been a mixed community, although the Apostle could speak of their work, their love for the Name of God, and their ministration to the saints (chap. 6:10), he nevertheless had to chide them with being “dull of hearing” (chap. 5:11). When they ought to have been teachers, they needed that one should again teach them the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God. Such a condition called for censure, and the rebuke which was given for this lack of growth in Divine things should serve as a warning to the believers of the twentieth century. To know the truth is only a first step; there must be growth unless we are to fail of the purpose for which we are called to God’s kingdom and glory.

 

There are “first principles.” They are composed of the elementary truths which are first learned when the Scriptures are studied by a searcher after truth. They comprise the teaching concerning God, Christ, sin and death, the hope of Israel and the Kingdom of God, and the essentials of salvation, and are familiarly and conveniently summed up as “the things concerning the Kingdom of God and the Name of Jesus Christ.”

 

It seems strange that believers of these things should ever require to be taught them again (Heb. 5:12). Elementary truths on most subjects, having been once learned, are usually stored up in the memory, ready for use whenever required. Why should it be different with the first principles of the oracles of God? The answer is found in the fact that the carnal mind, which is the thinking of the flesh, is enmity against God, and that consequently, if that mind is allowed to develop on its own lines, its thoughts will inevitably stray from God. The only safe course is to keep the thoughts in check by the discipline of reading, listening to, and meditating upon, the Word of God, wherein those first principles are made known. This process will keep the thoughts in the right direction. Paul was speaking with true philosophy when he wrote: “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honourable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on [or take account of] these things” (Phil. 4:8). It is a fact of universal application that the mind will assimilate that upon which it habitually dwells; a kind of second nature will be set up which will, eventually, almost subconsciously affect the mind, and therefore the actions. For let it ever be remembered that actions are but thoughts turned into deeds. The Hebrews had not acted on the principle recommended to the Philippians, and as a result they continued to be babes, stunted and dwarfed, needing to be fed with milk when they ought to have been partaking of solid food. “Every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But solid food is for full-grown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil” (Heb. 5:13 and 14).

 

It is a disappointing thing to see growth arrested, to see a child remain intellectually undeveloped. It is even worse when it reaches man’s estate with the mind of a babe. The warning is one which is needed in these times. There is much to pamper the child of God. When the acceptance of the Truth involved the coming-out from all previous associations and fellowship with a despised and sometimes persecuted few, it needed an amount of robust faith to bring one to the initial act of obedience. It is otherwise to-day, and the danger is that the very ease of the position may induce a satisfaction with babyhood in the faith. It is for all who think of the future to examine themselves in this respect that they may be amongst those who grow up to full maturity of manhood and womanhood in Christ Jesus.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER VI

 

Doctrine of baptisms—Perfection—Dangers of apostasy—A parable from nature—Faith and patience—The sworn promise—Obtaining the promise.

 

FOLLOWING the comparison of babes and those of full age, we continue the exhortation: “Wherefore let us cease to speak of the first principles of Christ, and press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying-on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment” (Heb. 6:1 and 2).

 

Of these first principles generally it is not necessary to speak. Repentance, faith, resurrection, and judgment are all elementary phases of the Truth, exhaustively treated of elsewhere. The use of the plural term in regard to baptism, however, calls for note. The word used here is not the one which usually occurs for baptism, although it is closely allied thereto. It occurs in Mark 7:4 and 8 (washing), Heb. 6:2; 9:10 (washings). In view of the use of the plural word in the passage before us it would appear that the intention was to contrast the “divers” washings of the past with the Christian doctrine of baptism, with probably a further reference to “the washing of water by the Word” (Eph. 5:26). It is by the washing of water by the Word of Truth, faithfully received, evidenced by baptism in water, whereby the conscience is cleansed (1 Pet. 3:21), and the constant cleansing influence of the Word of God (John 15:3) daily applied that we may be fitted for the Kingdom of God. Hence the use of the plural “baptisms.” As regards the laying-on of hands, it refers to an apostolic practice whereby men were initiated into a particular office in early times, but a practice which lost its importance and became a mere form when the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the ecclesias (see Acts 8:18; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).

 

“Leaving, or ceasing to speak of, the first principles of Christ,” or the doctrine of Christ, or the oracles of God, does not mean that those principles are to be abandoned, otherwise there would be no meaning in the rebuke administered. It does not imply leaving the Truth, nor ceasing to speak of the Truth. What it does mean is that we should cease to dwell solely on the elementary matters of the Faith and go onward to the understanding of the deeper things of the Spirit, endeavouring to arrive at that perfection of knowledge which the Scriptures are able to impart. Every effort in this direction will constantly remind us that there are profounder depths in the Bible than have yet been sounded. A study of the Epistle to the Hebrews is an excellent illustration of the truth of this saying, for it contains a never-failing supply of material for wider and deeper knowledge. And yet after all this epistle is but an exemplification of the Scriptures generally.

 

Thy Word is like a deep, deep mine,

And jewels rich and rare Are hidden in its mighty depths

For every searcher there.

 

The danger of ceasing to care for the first principles is indicated by the warning which follows:

 

For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. (Heb. 6:4-6.)

 

There may be some difficulty in determining how far this warning may be applicable to present-day conditions. Believers now are not “made partakers of the Holy Spirit” as were those of apostolic times. They do not “taste the powers of the age to come,” and to this extent it may be contended that the severity of the warnings should be modified. At the same time it is dangerous to under-estimate the evil and danger of such a course, and wisdom counsels the maintenance of the doctrine of Christ and the pressing-on unto perfection. The only reasonable attitude is that of the Apostle: “And this will we do, if God permit” (Heb. 6:3). The Truth is a revelation from God, it tells of His love and condescension in providing all that was needful for man’s salvation, and man, in humble reverence, should accept it, and abide by and in it, come what may. It needs constant care and watchfulness over self, and a kindly regard for others to pursue the right course in such matters in relation to individuals and ecclesias. “Restore such a one in a spirit of meekness; looking to thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal. 6:1) is a wise and appropriate exhortation when such occasions arise. Happy are they who, avoiding the dangers of the times, continue, as we read in this connection, to be imitators of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.

 

An interesting parable from nature is used in relation to the point before us. It is akin somewhat to Christ’s Parable of the Sower, and shows how much depends upon the nature of the soil and the appropriate preparation thereof. “For the land which hath drunk the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth blessing from God: but if it beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected, and nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned” (Heb. 6:7 and 8). The rain falls on all soil alike, but how different is the produce! Thorns and thistles are part of the curse which came upon the earth consequent on the entrance of sin, and thorns and thistles seem to abound everywhere. Even cultivated land will bring forth an abundant crop of them unless those who till it take the necessary steps to keep such growths under. If this is not done, they will flourish to such an extent as to hinder, if not to entirely prevent, the growth of the desired grain or herbs. The moral is obvious: even good ground prepared to receive good seed may fail to produce the desired harvest if the weeds are allowed to grow unchecked. But as any observant person may see, there is much ground that is quite unfit for culture; yet even there brambles and thistles will often flourish. Such land is barren, and, though finding a place in the economy of nature, it does not minister directly to the higher aims of nature—the sustenance of the human race. How true this parable is in its application to the human race! All mankind is one, for God “made of one every nation of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth”; yet there are many varieties of capacity and disposition, and consequently the potential produce varies in kind and quantity. Some individuals are absolutely useless for the cultivation of anything higher than that which is of the earth; they are “earthly, sensual, demonish.” They are a necessary part of the economy of God’s arrangements now, but they have no part in the future harvest. Others are capable of bringing forth good and useful fruit, but they require constant attention lest the thorns and thistles thrive and choke the good seed. The simplicity of the parable is evident, and its proper application is easy to be seen. An appreciation of the lesson will help one to be amongst the class the apostle had in mind when he continued: “But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak.” This persuasion was the outcome of the past faithfulness of the Hebrew Christians, their labour of love, ministrations, and diligence, and it led to a desire that those characteristics should continue so that they should ultimately be of those who through faith and patience shall eventually inherit the promises.

[Resource Manager]

The “better things” referred to are those already mentioned—the things that call for blessing from God, like the approval that comes upon the ground that brings forth the produce desired by the cultivator. The association with faith and patience which is made in the chapter is a natural one. The same association of patience with the cultivation of the ground is found in James: “Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient over it, until it receive the early and latter rain” (chap. 5:7). As the husbandman works in faith and in due time receives the reward of his cultivation and patience— a patience which found expression in labour which he performed in full faith of the results being secured— so the Hebrews were to work and wait, and thus be “imitators of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” The husbandman must plough and sow, keep down the weeds, and generally labour with a view to the hoped-for harvest; and saints who hope for future blessings in the Kingdom of God must work out their own salvation with the patience begotten of faith.

 

There is no greater incentive to work and patience than a constant reminder of the promises, and a full assurance of their ultimate realisation. Even of Christ himself it is recorded that “for the joy that was set before him [he] endured the cross, despising the shame.” It is therefore fitting that the apostle should immediately turn to the promises of God, and that he should emphasise their stability and certainty. Those promises had not only been made, they had also been pledged, for God had sworn by Himself, saying, “Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.” The quotation is from Gen. 22, where the record shows how the promise was renewed to Abraham after he had proved his faithfulness by his willingness to sacrifice even his well-beloved son if God so required. The terms of the promise then sworn are sufficiently important to warrant being set out:

 

By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because thou hast obeyed My voice. (Gen. 22:16-18.)

 

There is a peculiar mixture of singular and plural in this sworn promise, the singular seed on which Paul lays so much stress in his letter to the Galatians— where his argument is evidently based upon the foregoing passage—and the plural, as numerous as the stars or as the sand. There is no contradiction in this strange combination; the idea is one, for the multiplicity depends upon the One who is pre-eminently the Seed of Abraham. “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his seed. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. ... If ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:16 and 29).

 

One cannot but be impressed by the force of the language used in the epistle in relation to this promise. It serves to emphasise the position of the Abrahamic or New Covenant in the purpose of God.

 

Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of His counsel, interposed with an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. (Heb. 6:17 and 18.)

 

More forcible language could hardly be imagined. It is as if God had gone out of His way, not only to declare His purpose, but to so emphasise it that there should be no possibility of mistaking His intention. And yet a professedly Christian world and its religious leaders can coolly reject or ignore all these promises, and suggest by their beliefs, if not in actual words, that in so making promises, entering into covenant to perform them, swearing by His own existence to emphasise them, He neither said what He meant, nor meant what He said. To such depths can men descend when they forsake the first principles of the Oracles of God. Happy are they who have been released from such a position by a knowledge of the truth, and who have thereby “a hope both sure and stedfast, and entering into that within the veil,” a reference which anticipates the future development of the argument of chapter 9.

 

Before leaving this digression from the main argument of the epistle, it may be well to notice a difficulty which may be experienced in relation to the statement concerning Abraham: “And thus, having patiently endured, he obtained the promise” (verse 15). Yet in the same epistle it is said that he “died in faith, not having received the promises” (Heb. 11:13). That a writer such as the author of the epistle should thus contradict himself is unthinkable; there must be some way in which the two statements can be reconciled. As is usually the case in difficulties of this kind, the first necessity is to observe the context. In chapter 6 the essential feature of the promise is the blessing and the multiplied seed, the blessing being directly connected with the seed in the record of the making of this promise. In chapter xi the essential feature is the land. This difference in standpoint leads to the explanation. Neither Abraham nor his seed inherited the land. That is an unquestionable fact. As regards the multiplication of his seed, the one thing necessary in the time of Abraham was the provision of a seed to an old and childless man. And this, “after he had patiently endured,” he received:

 

And without being weakened in faith he considered his own body as good as dead (he being a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yea, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised He was able also to perform. (Rom. 4:19-21.)

 

“And so” he received the promise in its incipient stage in the birth of Isaac. All that was promised depended upon this first step, and its fulfilment became a pledge of what was to follow.

 

This incipient fulfilment lends weight to the conclusion expressed at the end of the chapter, where the “hope” is likened to “an anchor of the soul” reaching into “that which is within the veil,” where Jesus as a forerunner has already entered—a high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER VII

 

Melchizedek—Without genealogy—The duration of the priesthood— Melchizedek and Abraham: Tithes—The change of priesthood—A priesthood based on oath—The oaths of God—An unchangeable priesthood—For ever—One sacrifice, once for all—A perfect priest— Perfection for others.

 

To any Jew who had carefully followed the argument the main object of the epistle was now established. But as it is desirable to establish all conclusions on the widest possible basis, it is necessary for us to follow the various arguments which are adduced in support of the main thesis. They may be summed up as follows: The superiority of the priesthood of Jesus when compared with that of Aaron is evidenced by the facts a. that it is of a higher order; b. that it was established by an oath; c. that it is unchangeable; d. that its offerings were of a better and more efficacious character; e. that Jesus himself was perfect; and f. that it ensures the perfection of others.

 

Such are the points which we have now to consider. Other points arise in relation to these, but they fall for treatment in association with other phases of the argument.

 

Taking the points in the order enumerated, it is necessary to show a. that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to that of Aaron because it is of a higher order—the order of Melchizedek.

 

As we have seen, prophecy required that a priest should arise who would be of another order, that of Melchizedek. This order must necessarily be higher than that of Aaron, inasmuch as it was to be occupied by the Messiah himself. Wherein, then, does the superiority of the order consist? In answering this question, we enter upon considerations of deep interest and have to consider matters which are spoken of as “hard of interpretation,” matters to which the Hebrews could not rise, because they needed that someone should teach them again the first principles of the oracles of God. The things in question constitute “solid food” as compared with “milk.”

 

The initial difficulty arises from the slight knowledge we have of Melchizedek. He appears before us just for a moment, as it were, in history, and just once in prophecy, and is never again referred to until he reappears in the argument of the epistle before us. The record in the history is as follows:

 

And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine; and he was priest of God Most High. And he blessed him and said, Blessed be Abram of God Most High, possessor of heaven and earth: and blessed be God Most High, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him a tenth of all. (Gen. 14:18-20; Heb. 7:1 and 2.)

 

Who was Melchizedek? The question is a natural one, and is much easier to put than to answer. Some have assumed that he was Shem, and there is no inherent impossibility in the suggestion. Shem was a contemporary of Abraham, and as a survivor of the Flood would occupy a unique position in patriarchal times. One cannot help thinking, however, that if Shem had thus been introduced into the history of Abraham the fact would have been recorded, and as nothing definite is stated, we must be content to remain unaware of the identity of this remarkable individual. All we can do is to consider what is written of him. These are (1) that his name means king of righteousness; (2) that his title and place of rule (Salem) indicated that he was king of peace; (3) that he was without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life; (4) that his priesthood was a continuing one; (5) that he received tithes (or a tenth) from Abraham, and blessed him.

 

The combination of king of righteousness and king of peace in one who was also a priest of God Most High (El Elyon) is in accord with other prophecies besides the one in the Psalm, and it definitely indicates that he must be considered as a type of the Messiah. Zechariah, for example, has written:

 

Behold the man whose name is the Branch; and he shall grow up out of his place, and he shall build the temple of the Lord: even he shall build the temple of the Lord; and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his throne: and he shall be a priest upon his throne: and the counsel of peace shall be between them both. (Zech. 6:12 and 13.)

 

Little as Israel appear to have understood it, this prediction, together with the remarkable statements in the closing chapters of Ezekiel regarding the shepherd-king-prince-priest of the age to come, necessarily involve the setting-up of a higher order of priesthood than the Aaronic, and consequently the changing of the Law. So much is apparent from statements (1) and (2) referred to above.

 

When we examine the third statement we are confronted with expressions which are difficult to understand, and which have led to some extraordinary efforts in interpretation. How is it to be explained that Melchizedek was “without father, without mother”? Some have suggested that he must have been what they term “the Eternal Son.” Apart from the fact that the very expression is a contradiction in terms in the sense in which it is used, this interpretation would introduce the peculiar idea that Melchizedek was “like unto” himself (Heb. 7:3), an argument so absurd that it could not be attributed to a writer who reasons as the writer of the epistle does. The supposition is even more impossible when it is recognised that he wrote under the influence of Divine inspiration. A more prosaic and rational interpretation must be sought for the saying. Fortunately, in modern times a discovery has been made which throws considerable light upon the remarkable language which is used, and enables us to understand and apply the expressions before us.

[Resource Manager]

The Tel-el-Amarna tablets take us back practically to the times of Abraham and Melchizedek. They may be dated somewhere between Abraham and the Exodus, and therefore introduce us to contemporary conditions in Palestine. Among these tablets there are some from one Ebed-Tob, who may have been a successor of Melchizedek, at any rate in that phase of the latter’s official position which is defined as “King of Salem.” In these tablets we find language which is almost identical with that of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In one he says:

 

Lo, in so far as I am concerned, it was not my father who installed me in this place, nor my mother, but the arm of the mighty King has allowed me to enter into my ancestral house.

 

In another he writes:

 

Lo, in regard to the region of this city of Jerusalem, it was not my father, not my mother, who gave it to me, but the arm of the mighty King gave it me.

 

The meaning of these expressions is evident. Ebed-Tob had attained to his position not by reason of descent or genealogy, but because he had been appointed thereto by the Mighty King, a title which some Assyriologists, at any rate, refer to God. Applying the same principle to Melchizedek, it will be seen that what the statement implies is that he held his position as priest of God Most High, not to any fleshly descent or carnal ordinance, but because he had been appointed thereto by a Divine call. “No man taketh the honour unto himself, but when he is called of God.”

 

The great contrast between the two orders of priests in this respect is strongly emphasised by an incident recorded in connection with the restoration from Babylon. In enumerating those who went up to Jerusalem, it is stated:

 

And of the priests ... these sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but it was not found: therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim. (Neh. 7:63-65.)

 

Genealogy was of prime importance, for a priest under the Law must be able to prove his descent from Aaron. In the Melchizedek order this is not so. They are not dependent upon genealogy, they are priests “without descent.” In this respect, therefore, the Melchizedek was the higher order; it had to do with an arrangement which was “not after the law of a carnal [fleshly] commandment,” not according to physical descent, but by reason of a direct personal appointment from God Most High. Its superiority was therefore established.

 

The further reference to “having neither beginning of days nor end of life” must be understood in reference to the foregoing. A literal application is not only inadmissible, it is impossible. Such exceptional cases as Enoch and Elijah might be adduced to illustrate the latter portion of the saying, but no example of the former could be produced. Unqualified eternity in relation to both past and future can only be predicated of God Himself. It is evident, therefore, that the reference must apply to the official position of Melchizedek as the priest of God Most High. In the Levitical institution an age-limit was fixed which applied at both ends of the careers of the Levites, although there is no corresponding rule regarding the priests. There is no hint of such a limitation in regard to Melchizedek, and consequently there is none in reference to him who was to be a priest after that order. Indeed, he had a life which was indissoluble. The inference is obvious, and leads again to the conclusion which the Apostle sets out to prove—the superiority of the priesthood of Jesus over the priests of the Law. By a logical reasoning which could not be gainsaid, the Jew was forced to admit that a “change of the Law” was inevitable.

 

The fourth point, the continuity of the priesthood of Melchizedek, scarcely calls for comment; it necessarily arises from the foregoing, and conveys its lesson in relation to the high priest who now “stands in Aaron’s place.” The whole argument thus far developed finds its application in the reference which is suggested by the fifth point. It is twofold in its bearing: firstly Melchizedek blessed Abraham, and secondly Abraham paid him tithes, or a tenth. These facts form the basis of the following statement and argument:

 

Now consider how great this man was, unto whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth out of the chief spoils. And they indeed of the sons of Levi that receive the priest’s office have commandment to take tithes of the people according to the Law, that is, of their brethren, though these have come out of the loins of Abraham: but he whose genealogy is not counted from them hath taken tithes of Abraham, and hath blessed him that hath the promises. But without any dispute the less is blessed of the better. And here men that die receive tithes; but there one of whom it is witnessed that he liveth. And so to say, through Abraham even Levi, who receiveth tithes, hath paid tithes; for he was yet in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him. (Heb. 7:4-10.)

 

Again the argument was unanswerable. The Jews’ proudest boast was, “We be Abraham’s seed” (John 8:33), “Our father is Abraham” (verse 39). Yet here, by the logic of history, the whole point of their boastings was overturned. Abraham, their father, had paid tithes to Melchizedek. Abraham had been blessed by the King of Salem; and both these actions involved the supremacy of the king-priest. Their Psalmist had foretold that the Messiah should be a priest after the order of Melchizedek, and being thereby superior in position to Abraham, he was necessarily superior to the Law and its priestly ordinances. It followed, therefore, that the Mosaic institutions were not perfect, and required to be superseded by others. This was precisely what was involved in the Christian teaching. How the point enters into the essentials of the Christian religion may be seen by an examination of the Epistles to the Romans, the Galatians, and the Colossians. The Law was but a schoolmaster, or pedagogue; it contained weak and beggarly rudiments, being but a shadow of things to come, and condemning all who came under its sway. This could not be the end of God’s dealings with man, and the historical parable of Abraham and Melchizedek was a standing proof of the truth of this conclusion. The reasoning is excellent, for it could not be overthrown, and it confounded Jewish objectors by reasons which their zeal and reverence for the Law and the Scriptures would not permit them to dispute even if they desired to do so.

[Resource Manager]

Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron? For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests. ... For there is a disannulling of a foregoing commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness. (Heb. 7:11-18.)

 

This is the argument which the writer applies on the basis of the facts he has reviewed. His reasoning in chapter vii, 11-19, brings out most effectively the conclusion to be drawn from the reasoning he has advanced in connection with the choice of a new order of priesthood. It necessitated “a change also of the law,” for the high priest after the order of Melchizedek was of the tribe of Judah. This high priest, too, had attained unto the Divine nature, being made “after the power of an endless life” in striking contrast to the priests of old, who were made “after the law of a carnal commandment”—that is, a commandment which depended on fleshly descent. The disannulling of the old Law implied its weakness and unprofitableness—had it been otherwise, it would not need to be superseded by another. All the history of the past indicated that the Law made nothing perfect, and showed the necessity of a better hope based on the New Covenant in Christ.

 

Continuing the argument concerning the superiority of Jesus to the high priest, we notice the second proposition before us, b. that it is established by an oath. The reason may not seem very cogent, yet considerable weight is evidently attached to it in the epistle. The argument is as follows:

 

And inasmuch as it is not without the taking of an oath (for they indeed have been made priests without an oath; but he with an oath by him that saith of him, The Lord sware and will not repent Himself, Thou art a priest for ever);by so much also hath Jesus become the surety of a better covenant. ... For the law appointeth men high priests having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a son, perfected for evermore. (Heb. vii, 20-22 and 28.)

 

Why should so much importance be attached to this contrast between the two orders? An answer will be suggested if we note some of the occasions when God is represented as swearing by an oath. The first incident is found in the life of Abraham. “By Myself have I sworn, saith the Lord ... thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies” (Gen. 22:16-18). In the record concerning Isaac it is alluded to thus: “Sojourn in this land [Canaan], and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I sware unto Abraham, thy father ... and I will give unto thy seed all these lands” (Gen. 26:3 and 4). Frequent references to this oath will be found in connection with this promise of the land to Abraham and his seed, the Christ. Later on in the history of Israel we read: “I have made a covenant with my chosen. I have sworn unto David, my servant. Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations” (Psalm 89:3 and 4; also 35 and 36). Alluding to the time when these promises shall be fulfilled, it is written, “By Myself have I sworn, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear” (Isa. 45:23). In connection with the future deliverance of Jerusalem, which is a necessary event for the accomplishment of the foregoing, another reference is made to an oath of God: “The Lord hath sworn by His right hand, and by the arm of His strength” (Isa. 62:8). All these may be viewed as summed up in the closing words of Micah’s prophecy: “Thou wilt perform the truth to Jacob, and the mercy to Abraham, which Thou hast sworn unto our fathers from the days of old” (Mic. 7:20). The same time and purpose are suggested by another form of reference which involves God’s oath: “As truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the Lord” (Num. 14:21). These illustrations associate the oath of God with the fulfilment of His purposes in the establishment of the Kingdom. In the New Testament the same truth is discerned. Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, associated the birth of Jesus with “the oath which he swore unto Abraham our father” (Luke 1:73). Peter referred to the fact that God had sworn unto David concerning his son and throne (Acts 2:30).

 

The connection of this with the matter before us is indicated in the passage in the epistle which leads up to the main reference to Melchizedek:

 

For when God made promise to Abraham, since He could sware by none greater, He sware by Himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And thus, having patiently endured, He obtained the promise. For men swear by the greater: and in every dispute of theirs the oath is final for confirmation. Wherein God, being minded to show more abundantly unto the heirs of the promise the immutability of His counsel, interposed with an oath: that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to he, we may have a strong encouragement, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us; which we have as an anchor of the soul, a hope both sure and stedfast and entering into that which is within the veil; whether as a forerunner Jesus entered for us, having become a high priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. (Heb. 6:13-20.)

 

In view of the foregoing references to oaths, it is most suggestive that in the only allusion in prophecy to the high priest after the order of Melchizedek, an oath is specifically associated with it:

 

The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,

Thou art a priest for ever After the order of Melchizedek.

(Psa. 110: 4.)

 

Impressive as the ceremonies connected with the consecration of the priests of the house of Aaron were, no such form of speech was used, and the reference to an oath in this prophecy must have suggested to the reflective Jew that the priesthood in question must be related to the subject-matter of the other oaths, that is, to the Kingdom of God, to the new covenant connected therewith, and to the position of the Son in relation to the Kingdom and the priesthood (Heb. 7:28; Psa. 89:4, 27, and 35).

[Resource Manager]

Passing to the third proposition, we have to note that c. the priesthood of Jesus is superior to that of Aaron because it is unchangeable. The argument is thus expressed: “And they indeed have been made priests many in number, because that by death they are hindered from continuing: but he, because he abideth for ever, hath his priesthood unchangeable” (Heb. 7:23 and 24). The correct meaning of the term “unchangeable” is, as the argument suggests, not transferable. The marginal note in the Revised Version indicates this: “Or hath a priesthood that doth not pass to another.” The superiority of such a priesthood is obvious. However good a high priest of the old order might be, his life was but brief; death was inevitable, and his successor might be careless of the forms of the Law and lacking in sympathy for the people. “Like priest, like people,” is a proverb well illustrated in the history of Israel. The result was seen in the constant declension of the nation. The priests, whose lips should keep knowledge, so that the people might seek the Law from their mouth (Mal. 2:7), too frequently fed upon the sin of the people, and set then-hearts upon their iniquity (Hosea 4:8). This was a grievous drawback in the old system, but under the new no such contingency could arise. Its priest was to endure “for ever “; it had been so promised concerning the one who was to sit at the right hand of Yahweh (Psalm 110). Of this priest it is testified that he was “holy, guileless, separated from sinners,” “a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God.” It is therefore impossible for the old difficulties to arise, for there was a superlatively good high priest, whose priesthood was continuing, or for ever.

 

In view of what has been said in reference to the connection between sin and priesthood, it will be recognised that the term “for ever” is not to be understood of unlimited duration in the case of priesthood. Such an interpretation would imply the eternity of sin, an idea quite out of accord with the declared purpose of God. In the Hebrew of the Psalm the word is olahm, and in the Greek of the quotation it is aion. The former is defined as “time hidden or concealed from man, as well as indefinite and eternal.” ¹ It is derived from a root signifying “to hide” or “conceal.” The Greek is equally wide in its application. Its meaning is given: “I. (1) A period of time, especially a lifetime, life; (2) one’s time of life, age, the age of man; (3) an age, generation; (4) one’s lot in life. II. A long space of time, eternity. III. A space of time clearly defined and marked out, an era, age, period of a dispensation.” ² “Duration, or continuance of time, but with great variety.” ³ It will be seen that both the Hebrew and the Greek imply a period undefined in length, the duration varying according to the cycle of the person or thing to which they are applied. In the instance before us the duration is limited by the necessities of the case. Priesthood is required because of sin. Abolish sin, and priesthood is not required. When God is all in all, mediation is out of the question, for “a mediator is not of one.” It therefore follows that the duration of “for ever” in this case can only be until the end of the millennial reign. In the millennium there will be need for priesthood, for although sin is to be restrained during that time, it is not abolished until the end, when the Son will deliver up the Kingdom to the Father. Until then the Messiah is both king and priest (Zech. 6:13).

 

The personal application of the word of the oath is indisputable. The Messianic application of the Psalm needs no proof, Jesus himself having used it in his contentions with the Pharisees (Mark 12:35-37). “THOU art a priest for ever,” clearly involved the bringing-in of a priesthood far superior to the Aaronic. Such a statement could not be made of any of the priests of the house of Aaron, and no greater evidence could be asked for in proving the betterness of the new covenant. The argument is conclusive. The new high priest must continue for ever. He was made “after the power of an endless life”—an indissoluble life, as the Greek implies—and thus once again the argument is triumphantly upheld by the use of Messianic arguments which the Jew could not dispute.

 

There are far-reaching conclusions arising out of this consideration. We cannot do better than set them out in the words of the epistle, immediately following those quoted in introducing this phase of the argument:

 

Wherefore also he is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself. For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore. (Heb. 7:25-28.)

 

In this section we have the first, indirect, reference to the Day of Atonement that later on forms an important phase of the argument. Several points invite comment, but, as they will be more conveniently considered in relation to the references to sacrifices, they may be left until that phase of the argument is reached, and we can therefore pass on to the next consideration, namely d. that the offerings associated with the Melchizedek priesthood are better and more efficacious than those of the Aaronic.

 

Although it is not necessary to elaborate this argument at present, it is desirable to call attention to the general bearing of this reason. The constant repetition of the Mosaic sacrifices, daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly, indicated that there was no final efficacy in them. The offering of sacrifice is an essential duty of a priesthood. “Every high priest, being taken from among men, is appointed for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins” (Heb. 5:1). If, therefore, in this primary duty the Aaronic priests could only obtain what was evidently but a temporary, or provisional, efficacy, there was necessity for a more perfect result to be achieved. This is the real point of the argument under this heading. Without entering upon the details, we may notice the reasoning in the epistle:

 

And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God ... for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. (Heb. 10: 11-14.)

 

-------

¹ Parkhurst, Hebrew and English Lexicon.

² Liddell and Scott: Greek-English Lexicon.

³ Parkhurst: Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament. See also Eureka, vol. 1 pp 125-131, for an exposition of both terms.

[Resource Manager]

The contrast is striking, and, as in the previous phases of the argument, the point is established by reference to statements which the Jews could not dispute. The quotation relied upon in this connection is from Jeremiah, who, speaking of the time to come, said:

 

Publish ye, praise ye, and say, O Lord, save Thy people, the remnant of Israel. Behold, I will bring them from the north country, and gather them from the uttermost parts of the earth. ... He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock. ... Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. ... This is the new covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it, and I will be their God and they shall be my people ... for I will forgive their iniquity and their sin will I remember no more. (Jer. 31; Heb. 8.)

 

The Law had no provision which could accomplish this. In that system there was “a remembrance made of sins year by year.” Unless, therefore, something more efficacious were to be provided, the most cherished hopes of Israel in relation to their promised Messiah were doomed to complete failure. Admiration of the argument grows as we advance along the course of the reasoning. Surely the enemy was already silenced, and yet much more remained to be brought forward before the end was reached.

 

We have next to consider the reason e. that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to that of Aaron because he (Jesus) was perfect. This is not merely a reason, it is also a conclusion forced upon us by the various lines of thought we have followed in this connection. This and the next phase are really the logical results to be deduced from the argument.

 

That the Law could not produce perfection is evident. All Israel’s history proved it. The frequent references to the making of a new covenant, and various matters connected therewith, also proved it. Had perfection been possible under the covenant of the Law, there would have been no need to speak of its supercession by another system, and yet it had been demonstrated that such a development was to take place. That a perfect system should be abolished was unthinkable; and nothing but a perfect system could produce perfection. The deficiencies of the old order are apparent. There is no person among the priests mentioned in the Old Testament of whom perfection could be predicated. There had been good priests; some of them stand out as excellent examples of what priests under the Law should have been. But they were not perfect. As a matter of fact, the priests were, generally speaking, failures.

 

The contrast between the two orders is thus expressed. “For the law appointeth men high priests, having infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected for evermore” (Heb. 7:28). It will be noted that he had been “perfected,” an expression which involves that there was a time when perfection could not be attributed to him. This is in accord with several testimonies. “For it became him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the author of their salvation perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10). “Though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became, unto all them that obey him, the author of eternal salvation” (Heb. 5:8 and 9). In the first place his perfection was only moral. He did always those things which pleased his Father; it was as his meat and drink to do God’s will. By such a course treasure was developed in his earthen vessel, a perfect character resulting from his obedience to the commandments of the Father, even unto the death of the cross. In this perfection of moral beauty he exhibited the character of God to men, and passing through the sorrows and sufferings of human life, including the contradiction of sinners against himself, he was “perfected” in physical beauty also. By his faithfulness he attained unto the power of an endless life, being made a partaker of the Divine nature, to be thenceforth the Lord the Spirit, “perfected for evermore.” How greatly such a high priest transcended the priests of the Aaronic order everyone must see who considers it. After all, what more can be said? Perfection is itself superlative, it brings before us the highest possible ideal in the priest of the new order—the apostle and high priest of our confession—Christ Jesus.

 

The last point arises out of this, for it furnishes the corollary to it, namely, f. that the priesthood of Jesus is superior to that of Aaron, because the result of his ministrations is the perfection of those who are benefited thereby. The means being perfect, the result may be also. On the other hand, it follows as a necessity of the case that, the old priesthood being imperfect, it could not produce perfection for others. But the Son, being a perfect high priest, became the author of eternal salvation. He is able to “save to the uttermost” (verse 25). Such will be the result of his priestly intercession: complete salvation for those who draw near unto God through him. Like him they will become participants in the Divine nature, constituents of the kingly-priestly constitution of the world to come (Rev. 5:9 and 10), and constituents in that great finality of the redemptive process when God shall be all in all. Here we finish our survey of the main argument of the epistle: the betterness of Jesus when compared with angels, Moses, and the high priests. Much remains to be considered before the reasoning is completed, but no one who has carefully followed it so far can have the slightest hesitation in acknowledging that the writer has succeeded in proving that Christianity entirely overshadowed the Mosaic institutions, and that the new covenant was fit to supersede the old.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER VIII

 

The Divine pattern—The true tabernacle—Covenants—Covenant-making—Some Scriptural examples: Noah—The Abrahamic covenant —Cutting a covenant—Messiah given for a covenant—The covenant repast—Berith {covenant)—Diatheke—A new covenant—The first covenant—The covenant broken—Prophecies of a new covenant— Written in the heart—No remembrance of sins—An everlasting covenant.

 

WITH the eighth chapter we enter upon a new phase of the epistle. From the ministers, mediator, and high priests of the Law we turn more to the Law itself and its ordinances in order that it may be proved that in this respect also the superiority is with the Covenant associated with Jesus. These matters arise out of what has been considered before. Hence they are introduced by a summing-up:

 

Now in the things which we are saying the chief point is this: We have such a high priest who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. (Heb. 8:1 and 2.)

 

There are interesting and important matters arising out of this reference to the tabernacle The purpose for which a tabernacle was provided was that there should be a place where God and man might meet. In view of the fact which made such a provision necessary, it was essential that such a place should be fashioned in strict accordance with Divinely-given instructions. Man was an offender, and needed forgiveness. The way of approach must be indicated by God, whose law had been broken. This fact was constantly indicated in the instructions for the making of the tabernacle, and in the record of its construction.

 

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they take for Me an offering: of every man whose heart maketh him willing ye shall take My offering … And let them make Me a sanctuary; that I may dwell among them. According to all that I shew thee, the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of the furniture thereof, even so shall ye make it. … And see that thou make them after their pattern which hath been shewed thee in the mount. (Exod. 25:1-9, 40.)

 

When the required materials had been obtained, and the tabernacle and its contents and the garments of the priests were prepared, we read the constantly-recurring phrase that all had been done “as the Lord commanded Moses” (Exod. 39:1, 5, 7, 21, 26, 29, 31), “and the children of Israel did according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so did they” (verse 32). This is the point emphasised in the chapter now before us (Heb. 8:5). There can be no mistaking the truth which this constant reiteration of a phrase implies. It is the truth, so unpalatable to modern sectaries, that God will only be approached in the way that He may indicate, and that the oft-claimed right to serve God as one likes is really no right at all.

 

It was in this tabernacle, constructed in obedience to God’s directions, that the priests of the old order ministered. However valuable the materials may have been, they consisted of lifeless matter. The glory of the place was material, save for the fact that from time to time the glory of God shone forth above the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat.

 

But all this was only a figure (Heb. 8:5). To what extent did Israel realise this? It is impossible to say, but thoughtful minds must have been impressed by the Apostle’s words: “Into the second [i.e. the most holy part of the tabernacle] the high priest alone [entered], once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the errors of the people; the Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way unto the holy place hath not yet been made manifest, while as the first tabernacle is yet standing” (Heb. 9:7 and 8). These words leave a deep sense of a serious lack on the part of the old constitution. The approach unto the Divine presence, communion with the Deity, was for one and one alone, and that but once a year! That surely could not be the final arrangement which God purposed to institute? The Jew who seriously thought about the ways of God to man must have felt that some development, better, greater, and more soul-satisfying than this, would be provided. And there was, and that better and greater thing was foreshadowed in the weaknesses and shortcomings of the first tabernacle and its services.

 

These greater things are alluded to in the summing-up referred to above, and again in the reference to “a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation” (Heb. 9:11). What is the more perfect tabernacle in which the antitypical high priest was to minister? The tabernacle was spoken of as “the house of the Lord thy God” (Exod. 23:19). So was the temple: “The glory of the Lord filled the Lord’s house” (2 Chron. 7:2). In the epistle before us Jesus is spoken of as “a great priest over the house of God” (Heb. 10:21). The figure has been before us already in considering the contrasts between Christ and Moses. ¹ There the house of God was seen to be the ecclesia of God. The figure is a familiar one. “Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood [margin, a spiritual house for a holy priesthood], to offer up spiritual sacrifices” (1 Pet. 2:5). “We are a temple of the living God; even as God said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people” (2 Cor. 6:16). “Know ye not that ye are a temple of God?” (1 Cor. 3:16). “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone; in whom each several building, fitly framed together, groweth into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God in the Spirit” (Eph. 2:20-22). These expressions will indicate the character of the antitypical temple in which the high priest of the new covenant will officiate. Every stone thereof will be a saint, taken from the human quarry, fashioned by the operation of the Divinely-revealed truth, and polished by the tribulation of a probation for life eternal. The glory of this “greater and more perfect tabernacle” is a moral one, and therefore far above the mere material glory of gold or precious stones, reflecting the light given by the lightstand or the effulgence of the Schekinah. It is the living reflection of the character of God compared with the lifeless brilliance of metals and gems. When this tabernacle, or temple, in all its perfection is complete, it will be realised how far it transcends all that was before it in the Old Testament type.

 

-------

¹ See p. 72

[Resource Manager]

The allusion to the gifts and sacrifices offered by high priests, and the application of the fact to the “apostle and high priest of our profession,” is another illustration of the argument sustained through the epistle. Shadows involve substance, and the substance is Christ; consequently that which was shadowy or typical must be moved, that the real things might be manifested. In these Jesus had “obtained a ministry the more excellent,” being “the mediator of a better covenant” “enacted upon better promises” (verse 6).

 

To the attentive reader of the Epistle to the Hebrews it will be evident that the crisis of the argument is reached in that section which discusses the Old and New Covenants, and the sacrifices connected therewith. It is obvious that this must be so, for the object in view was to show that the national covenant of Israel (the Mosaic) was not a finality, that it was to be abrogated, and that, therefore, Christianity, with its message of a new covenant was just what was to be expected if the Scripture was to be fulfilled. It only remained to show that the covenant with which Christian teaching was connected was predicted by the prophets, who declared that such a new covenant should be brought in; and that this covenant was better than the old.

 

In view of the importance of the matters which are now to engage our attention, it will be useful to look first of all at the subject of covenants and covenant-making in general, particularly in the early ages of mankind, when the covenants in question were first made.

 

A covenant may be defined as a mutual agreement, entered into by two or more parties who undertake certain obligations towards each other. In English law it is an agreement or promise under seal, contained in a deed duly signed by the parties thereto. Provided the proper legal forms have been complied with, such an agreement becomes binding upon all who are party to it, and its terms may be enforced by process of law.

 

In the early times of mankind the method of covenant-making was very different from that which appertains to-day. The ceremonies that were gone through seem to have had a twofold object: firstly, to give a religious basis or sanction to the matter; and, secondly, to imply that, should either of the parties fail to comply with the covenanted conditions, the one who broke them recognised that he was liable to the retribution suggested by the ritual which had been performed.

 

The ceremonies varied in different times and places, but those that were usual in the lands with which the early history of the people of the Bible is concerned are set out in the following extracts:

 

Almost all nations, in forming alliances, etc., made their covenants or contracts in the same way. A sacrifice was provided, its throat was cut, and its blood poured out before God; then the whole carcass was divided through the spinal marrow from the head to the rump, so as to make exactly two equal parts; these were placed opposite to each other, and the contracting parties passed between them, or entering at opposite ends met in the centre and there took the covenant oath.

¹

 

Thus we find that in a covenant were these seven particulars: (1) The parties about to contract were considered as being hitherto separated. (2) They now agree to enter into a state of close and permanent amity. (3) They meet together in a solemn manner for this purpose. (4) A sacrifice is offered to God on the occasion: for the whole is a religious act. (5) The victim is separated exactly into two equal parts, the separation being in the direction of the spine; and these parts are laid opposite to each other, sufficient room being allowed for the contracting parties to pass between them. (6) The contracting parties meet in the victim, and the conditions of the covenant by which they are to be mutually bound are recited. (7) An oath is taken by these parties that they shall punctually and faithfully perform their respective conditions, and thus the covenant is made and ratified. ²

 

For whatever purpose a covenant was made, it was ever ratified by a sacrifice offered to God; and the passing between the divided parts of the victim appears to have signified that each agreed, if they broke their engagements, to submit to the punishment of being cut asunder, which we find from Matthew 24:51, Luke 12:46, was an ancient mode of punishment. ³

 

The forms thus described, no doubt modified in various ways by different peoples, are known to have existed in Chaldea, they were practised in Greece, and also in Rome. Israel also adopted the custom, and one of their Rabbis, Solomon Jarchi, is quoted by Clarke as saying, “It was a custom with those who entered into covenant with each other to take a heifer and cut it in two, and then the contracting parties passed between the pieces.”

 

 

-------

¹ Adam Clarke on Gen. 6:18

² Adam Clarke on Deut 29:12.

³ Ibid.., on Gen. 15:10.

[Resource Manager]

Although nothing is known definitely of the origin of these customs, it seems probable that they arose in connection with the transactions in Eden after the entrance of sin into the world. Adam and Eve made coverings of fig-leaves for themselves, whereas God provided for them coats of skins, a fact which necessitated the slaying of animals. A review of a few illustrations of covenant-making as recorded in the Scriptures will be useful, and will serve to establish the suggestion that in the events in Eden are to be found the origin of sacrifice and its association with covenants. The first reference to a covenant is in the record of the Flood. After giving instructions for an ark to be made, God said to Noah, “I will establish My covenant with thee.” Although the term does not necessarily involve it, it appears to imply that a covenant already existed. When all flesh had corrupted “the way” of God, this covenant had, doubtless, been obscured; with Noah it was to be established.

 

Consequently, after the waters of the flood had subsided, the record goes on to tell how Noah and his family left the ark, “and Noah builded an altar unto the Lord ... and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” The promise was then given that the necessary ordinances of the earth should continue, and then “God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish My covenant with you, and with your seed after you ... the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh” (Gen. 9:8-16). Sacrifice and a covenant are here intimately connected, and, without any forced interpretation, they may be linked up with the first slaying of animals in Eden. It should also be noticed that a token was given which was to be a constant reminder of the relationship thus established. That token was the rainbow, which afterwards enters into the symbols of the Bible as a reminder of God’s covenant concerning the redemption of the earth.

 

The next reference to a covenant is in connection with the symbolic events mentioned in Gen. xv, where it is recorded that God made a covenant with Abraham. In response to Abraham’s question, “O Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it [the land]?” he was commanded to take a heifer, a she-goat, and a ram, a turtledove and a pigeon. The animals were divided in the midst, each half being laid over against the other. Afterwards a deep sleep fell upon Abraham. “And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a flaming torch that passed between these pieces. In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram” (Gen. 15). It is easy to see in this an adoption of the recognised forms of covenant-making. One could not expect God Himself to take part in the ceremonies, but in the flaming torch which passed between the divided portions of the sacrificial animals there was a symbolic representation of the Spirit of the Deity. By this typical ceremony God entered into covenant with Abraham, and gave for the assurance of the patriarch a ratification of the terms of the promise. The type found its antitype in connection with the passing of the Spirit of God into the body of the seed—who was also the sacrifice, or covenant victim, of the promises—on the third day after he was crucified. By this the seed became “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, that he might confirm the promises given unto the fathers, and that the Gentiles might glorify God for His mercy” (Rom. 15:8 and 9). The Gentiles who thus glorified God became by faith and obedience Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise.

 

It is not necessary to enlarge upon this aspect of the matter, but there is one very pertinent reference to covenant-making which is worth noting here, as it illustrates the ceremony described. In the closing days of the kingdom of Judah, just prior to the Babylonian captivity, Zedekiah made a covenant with all the people at Jerusalem to proclaim liberty to their brethren, so that every Hebrew bondman and maidservant might be released from servitude. The covenant was evidently made during a passing wave of contrition, born of the troubled times. The mood soon passed, and the people again caused the servants and handmaids to be brought into bondage. Jeremiah was therefore charged with a message to them:

 

Therefore thus saith the Lord: Ye have not hearkened unto Me, to proclaim liberty, every man to his brother, and every man to his neighbour; behold, I proclaim unto you a liberty, saith the Lord, to the sword; to the pestilence, and to the famine; and I will give you to be tossed to and fro among all the kingdoms of the earth. And I will give the men that have transgressed My covenant, which have not performed the words of the covenant which they made before Me, when they cut the calf in twain and passed between the parts thereof; the princes of Judah, and the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, and the priests, and all the people of the land, which passed between the parts of the calf; I will even give them into the hand of their enemies, and into the hand of them that seek their life: and then dead bodies shall be for meat unto the fowls of the heaven, and to the beasts of the earth. (Jer. 34:17-20.)

 

This will give a clear indication of that aspect of the ceremony which involved the death of a sacrificial victim, and the passing-between the parts thereof, in order that a covenant should be made and ratified.

 

The fundamental idea of the foregoing enters into the language of the Bible in its many references to covenants. It does not come out, unfortunately, in the Authorised or the Revised Version, but in the Hebrew reference is constantly made to “cutting a covenant.” The word is karath, to cut off, a cutting-off, to cut in pieces. Thus it is recorded of Abraham and Abimelech “they two cut a covenant” (Gen. 21:27). Joshua and the princes of Israel “cut a covenant” with the Gibeonites (Josh. 9:15 and 16), Jonathan and David, too, “cut a covenant” or “cut a league” (1 Sam. 18:3; 22:8) with each other, and many similar expressions might be referred to. Similar language is used when God is said to have made covenants. “In that day the Lord cut a covenant with Abraham” (Gen. 15:18).

 

“After the tenor of these words I have cut a covenant with thee and Israel” (Exod. 34:27). “I have cut a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn unto David, My servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever” (Psa. 89:3 and 4). There is an interesting variation in the language used in a passage in Deuteronomy, where Moses, speaking to Israel, said: “Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God ... that thou shouldest enter into [literally, pass through] the covenant of the Lord thy God, and into His oath, which the Lord thy God cutteth with thee this day” (Deut. 29:10-12). In this case we have reference to both aspects of the covenant-making ceremony—the cutting of the animal into halves, and the passing-through the pieces.

[Resource Manager]

It will be gathered from the foregoing that as the act of cutting became associated with the covenant, so the slain animals were spoken of as if they were the covenant itself, for the act of passing between the divided portions of the animal was spoken of as passing through the covenant. This fact illustrates an important allusion to the Messiah in the prophecy of Isaiah:

 

Thus saith God the Lord, He that created the heavens, and stretched them forth; He that spread abroad the earth and that which cometh out of it; He that giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein: I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house. (Isa. 42:5-7.)

 

Later on in the same prophet we read:

 

Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I answered thee, and in a day of salvation have I helped thee: and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to raise up the land, to make them inherit the desolate heritages: saying to them that are bound, Go forth; to them that are in darkness, Show yourselves. (Isa. 49:8 and 9.)

 

The import of these two passages, taken in connection with the context, will be apparent. The Servant of Jehovah, who would not break a bruised reed (Matt. 12:18-21), but whose dominion was to be world-wide (Isa. 42:1-4), was to be given for a covenant, that occupants of the prison-house (of death) might be released (comp. Zech. 9:11 and 12). He was to be Yahweh’s salvation unto the end of the earth, yet his visage was to be marred, and himself would be a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief (Isa. 42-53). Being given for a covenant implied that he should undergo a violent death, be cut off, otherwise there was no meaning in such an expression. Daniel specifically foretold this: “And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing” (chap. 9:26). An examination of the whole passage in Isaiah will repay attention in this connection, and will show that Israel was “without excuse” when in due time the Messiah came and was “wounded,” “cut off out of the land of the living,” when he “poured out his soul unto death.” All this was necessary that he might “see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied.”

 

In addition to the ceremonies already indicated, it was usual for the parties who made a covenant to eat together, the food being, at least in part, taken from the sacrifices. A familiar instance of this is found in the agreement made between Jacob and Laban, when the former had fled from his servitude. Laban said, “And now come, let us cut a covenant, I and thou.” A memorial was prepared, the terms of the covenant were recited, and the parties swore by their Gods; Jacob offered a sacrifice in the mountain “and called his brethren to eat bread: and they did eat bread and tarried all night in the mountain” (Gen. 31:44-54). It must be borne in mind that “bread” in such passages does not bear the confined meaning attached to it to-day, but stands for food generally. There is no reason to doubt that in the case before us the food was a portion of the sacrifice.

 

A similar case is found, but on a higher plane, when Israel entered into covenant with God at Sinai. After Moses had said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath cut with you,” it is recorded: “Then went up Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel ... and they beheld God, and did eat and drink” (Exod. 24). It seems probable that out of this custom arose the fact that to partake of food with certain people in Eastern lands was a guarantee of protection from any evil they might otherwise devise against the eater.

 

When we turn from ceremonies to the word itself as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, the same outstanding features are seen. The word is berith, which is derived from barah. The following definitions or comments on the word will be interesting:

 

PARKHURST.

Barah

—to feed, eat, or take food.

Berith

—a purifier, purification, or purification-sacrifice. Referring to the word in his Greek Lexicon, he says, after suggesting that it does not mean, strictly speaking, a covenant, “though

kereth berith

— cutting off or in pieces, a purification-sacrifice—be indeed sometimes equivalent to making a covenant, because that was the usual sacrificial rite on such occasions.” Writing under

kereth

he says: “Hence the phrase

kereth berith

implies the making of a league or covenant, and doubtless a sacrifice was generally offered on these occasions.”

 

DAVIDSON.

Barah

—properly to cut, hence to eat, to choose, select.

Berith

—agreement, league, covenant (from the idea of cutting).

 

GESENIUS defines it as a covenant, so called from the idea of cutting, etc.; hence also an eating together, since among Orientals to eat together is almost the same as to make a covenant of friendship. He further gives it as the conditions of a covenant from a root meaning “to cut,” “to hew,” from which comes

barath

—to pass through, to cut through.

 

FUERST.

Berith

—properly, cutting in pieces of the sacrificial animal, hence covenant, league.

Berit

(not used)—to cut into; both coming from the root

brth

— to cut in pieces, to separate.

 

It will be seen that in these comments of lexicographers there are the twofold applications already noted—that of cutting the covenant (victim) and the partaking of (sacrificial) food.

[Resource Manager]

Before passing to the argument of the epistle, we may examine the word which is used in the Greek of the New Testament for the berith of the Old. The word is diatheke, which occurs thirty-three times in the Greek, and is translated in the Authorised Version twenty times by “covenant,” and thirteen times “testament.” In the Revised Version this difference almost disappears, the word “testament” only occurring twice (Heb. 9:16 and 17), and even in these two instances the American revision adopts the term “covenant.” It is much to be regretted that uniformity has not been followed, and one cannot help thinking that doctrinal bias is responsible for the failure, especially as some who recognise that “covenant” is the better word, strongly contend for “testament” in these two verses. As a matter of fact, the adoption of “testament” breaks the continuity of the argument (compare Heb. 9:18-20, with Exod. 24:8). So far as this exposition is concerned, the word “covenant” will be used consistently, except when for convenience the terms Old or New Testament may be used to designate the two portions of the Scriptures popularly so described.

 

Following the system adopted in relation to berith, we call attention to the following definitions of diatheke:

 

PARKHURST. I. A disposition, dispensation, institution, or appointment of God to man. II. A personal title of Christ (this is a questionable interpretation, although it has some support from the use of

berith

in Isaiah 42 and 49). III. A solemn dispensation or appointment of man.

 

STRONG. Properly a disposition, specially a contract, especially a devisory will.

 

LIDDELL AND SCOTT. I. A disposition of property by will; a will and testament. ... III. A convention or arrangement between two parties; covenant.

 

It might be argued with much weight that the foregoing definitions of diatheke are much more in harmony with the term “testament” than “covenant.” It must be remembered, however, that the Bible, being a Jewish book, is to be interpreted on a Hebrew basis, and the evident adoption of diatheke as the equivalent of berith must be allowed for in any explanation of the terms.

 

Some writers have pointed out that in the language of the Greeks the proper word for “covenant” is syntheke.

 

This word is never used in the New Testament, and only infrequently in the Septuagint Version of the Old, and then it is as the representative of the Hebrew berith when used in relation to covenants made between men. It is never used in reference to a covenant made by God.

 

It is evident from this that the writer to the Hebrews would not have used the word diatheke if he had intended to convey the idea of a covenant entered into between equals. The word is derived from dia, through the channel by which a thing is done, and themi, to place; so that the main idea which the word is intended to convey is something through which a thing is placed, or done. Bearing in mind that it is God’s covenant, not man’s (Gal. 3:15), we must regard it as something by, or through, which God purposes to accomplish something which he designs. This conclusion, which excludes the idea of an ordinary mutual covenant, is borne out by a reference to the old covenant. After having sprinkled “the blood of the covenant” on the book and the people, Moses said: “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward” (Heb. 9:20). It clearly involves the superior position of God in the whole transaction, but it is not a “will” in the ordinary acceptation of that term.

 

The combination of the Hebrew and Greek words enables us to get a clear idea of the meaning of the term in the Scriptures. As berith is used in the Old Testament to define human covenants, such as that between Joshua and the Gibeonites, the word must carry something of the mutual obligations connected with such an arrangement. With the use of the New Testament diatheke, emphasis is laid upon the Divine side of the matter, and we realise that God commands, or enjoins, in connection with His arrangements to place or accomplish through His promises and covenants the consummation which He has purposed.

 

This is a somewhat lengthy introduction to the subject of the old and new covenants as they are discussed in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The importance of the matter, however, is a sufficient reason for the time involved, for a knowledge of the terms used will add much to our appreciation of the argument.

 

In introducing the section which compares the two covenants, the reasoning employed is somewhat parallel to that used in regard to the priesthood. It will be remembered that in dealing with that phase of the matter it was argued that, as the Jewish Scriptures foretold the uprise of one who was to be a high priest after the order of Melchizedek, it followed that the Aaronic priesthood must pass away, and that, having regard to the purposes of God, it was impossible to think otherwise than that the new must be better than the old. There would be no reason in supposing that a superior should be moved out of the way to make room for an inferior, or even an equal for an equal. So also in regard to the covenant.

[Resource Manager]

For if that first covenant had been faultless, then would no place have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt ... In that he saith, A new covenant, He hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away. (Heb. 8:7-13.)

 

The argument is incontrovertible; it followed, therefore, that the Jewish objector, met by the testimony of his own Scriptures, must find his position untenable. That the prophets had foretold the making of such a new covenant was indisputable. Jeremiah and Ezekiel ¹ both had made pointed references to such an event, and both associated it with the coming of the Messiah. In these predictions it was indicated that everything in connection with the new covenant would be better than that associated with the old. That being so, the principal thing necessary to complete the vindication of the Christian position was to prove that it provided what was necessary to answer to the terms of the predictions. The argument circles around the word “better,” which is applied to the medium upon which the writing in connection with the covenant was impressed, the services in connection with its ratification, the sacrifices, and the person of the mediator.

 

The first covenant had been made at Sinai, and a brief review of the ceremonies connected with its institution will form a suitable introduction to the matter generally. It will be found that allusions are made to each of the items mentioned above, and that in the transactions everything that has been spoken of as essential to covenant-making took place.

 

In the third month after leaving Egypt the children of Israel arrived at Sinai, and there received from God the ten commandments which constituted the central feature of the Law. These were pronounced by God Himself in the audience of the people. To these were added sundry enactments which were given to Moses for him to set before Israel: “And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the judgments, and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath spoken will we do” (Exod. 24:3). Following this, Moses wrote all the words of the Lord in a book. He then built an altar, upon which young men of the children of Israel, acting as priests, offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings unto the Lord. The blood being sprinkled upon the altar, the words of the book, called the Book of the Covenant, were read in the ears of the people, who again declared, “All that the Lord hath spoken will we do, and be obedient.” Moses then sprinkled of the blood on the people, saying, “Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made [cut] with you concerning all these words.” Following this it is recorded, as already mentioned, ² that Moses, Aaron and his sons, and seventy of the elders of Israel, ascended the mount, where they saw the elohim of Israel, and did eat and drink. After this Moses ascended still higher up the mountain, and there received two tables of stone on which God had inscribed the ten commandments which He had pronounced. He likewise received particulars of the tabernacle which was to be prepared as the centre of Israel’s worship in the wilderness (Exod. 24).

 

In reviewing these circumstances, the only practice which may be deemed to have been wanting is the passing of the contracting parties through the divided parts of the covenant victim. This is accounted for by the circumstances of the case. It would not have been practicable for the whole of the assembly to have passed between the portions, and it may be assumed that the sprinkling of the blood upon the people took the place of the more usual custom.

 

Alas for the vanity of human engagements! The people, who had voluntarily entered into covenant relationship with God, were almost immediately afterwards worshipping a golden calf. From that day their whole history, with a few brief exceptions, is a record of covenant-breaking. Instead of doing all that the Lord had spoken, they turned their backs upon Him, and became rebellious, hard-hearted rejectors of the covenant of their God. They were thereby liable to the fate of covenant-breakers. In accordance with the ritual of the ceremony, the penalty was that they should be cut off. And that was the fate which finally overtook them; for Israel and Judah were cut off by the Assyrians and Babylonians respectively. The covenant had failed, not owing to any fault inherent in itself, but because of the evil disposition of the people.

 

It was “finding fault with them” (i.e. the people) that God foretold of a new covenant (Heb. 8:8). The law which formed the main feature of the covenant was, “holy, righteous, and good” (Rom. 7:12). It was “weak through the flesh,” the carnal mind was too strong, and the cutting-off of Israel and Judah resulted.

 

It was just about the time of their cutting-off that the prophecies alluded to ³ were pronounced. The following may be taken as two of the principal predictions in this connection:

 

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah. ... This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more. (Jer. 31:31-34.)

-------

¹ Jer. 31, 32; Ezek. 34, 37. 156

² See p. 150. 158

³ See p. 156.

[Resource Manager]

This is the prediction quoted in Heb. 8:8-12.

 

Through Ezekiel the words are:

 

I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; and I will place them and multiply them, and will set My sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. And the nations shall know that I am the Lord that sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore. (Ezek. 37:26-28.)

 

These passages serve to illustrate the different medium upon which the new covenant was to be written, as compared with that which received the impress of the old. They also established the superiority of the end to be attained, both in regard to its nature and duration.

 

With regard to the medium of the writing. The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God on tables of stone (Exod. 32:16; Deut. 5:22). There is no question as to the impressive character of this fact. Nevertheless, however good laws may be, and however reflective of the wisdom of the lawgiver, they depend for their success upon the attitude of the people for whom they are enacted. The “glory” of such a law is found in a willing and loving subjection to its terms by those who come under it. In this the Law failed, and God, speaking through Jeremiah, had to say, “which My covenant they brake.” Engraven on stone, it found no response of a lasting kind from Israel. Their hard hearts received little or no impression from the graving-tool. The new covenant was not to be graven on stone or tablets, but “in their inward parts,” “in their hearts.” Written there by the finger of God, the result will be different: it will produce a unity between the Law and the individual which will produce a very different result from the previous writing. Hearts of flesh will succeed the hearts of stone, and on them the works of the Law will be written. In the Hebrew idiom, and in our own use of language, the heart is the seat of the affections, and the writing on the heart will result in the affections being influenced by the writing. What was in the past “a ministration of death” will be replaced by “a ministration of righteousness.” The Law, the old covenant, had failed to accomplish this. Christianity, however, had succeeded in so doing, even its enemies being witness. Thus Paul wrote: “Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all men; being made manifest that ye are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in tables that are hearts of flesh” (2 Cor. 3:2 and 3; see also verses 6 and 14 for the connection of his statement with the old and new covenants).

 

Thus in the controversy between Judaism and Christianity the point was established that the new covenant exceeded the old in its effects upon the character of its adherents, and it was shown that the coming of such a new covenant was in accord with the writings of Israel’s prophets.

 

When we turn from the medium of the writing to the end to be achieved, the same superiority is manifest. The old covenant was to be a law for Israel, to guide them in their dealings with each other, and it constituted the terms on which their national occupation of the land of Canaan was to depend. Individually the Law could give them no future; something more was needed to effect this. Sin was a fatal barrier which needed to be removed, and the Law only contained typical enactments which “can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh.” In those sacrifices there was “a remembrance made of sins year by year.” The new covenant was to go far beyond this. “Their sins will I remember no more.” The old covenant made no provision sufficient for this. It could not, therefore, bring about the realisation of the covenants made with Abraham and David, both of which necessitated the removal of sin in order that the eternal life, which each of them involved, might be made possible. By a process of reasoning, logical and irresistible, it was thus shown that the doctrines of Christianity alone provided the things necessary to enable the predictions of the Jewish Scriptures to be fulfilled. By so much, therefore, was Christianity superior to Judaism, for it told of “one sacrifice for sins for ever.”

 

As regards the duration of the results little need be said. The Law promised long life, the new covenant promised aionian life in the Kingdom of God. Although the term “aionian” need not necessarily involve the idea of an everlasting future, it is implied by the terms used. “Sins remembered no more” suggest that the consequence of sin, namely death, will be removed. “They that are accounted worthy to attain to that aion, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage; for neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are sons of God” (Luke 20:35 and 36). Life everlasting, equality with the angels, participation in the Divine nature—these are the essential features of the hope enkindled by the promises of the new covenant which was superseding the old, already prepared to vanish away.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER IX

 

The Day of Atonement—The ordinances of the old covenant—Christ and redemption—The mediators of the covenants—Testament or covenant—The covenant-victim—Why the “new” covenant?—The ordinances of the new covenant.

 

THE supreme ceremonies of the old covenant were those which were associated with the Day of Atonement. To complete the vindication of Christianity over Judaism, it was necessary, therefore, to show that in regard to the matters associated with that day the former had the antitype of the latter. This is the subject-matter of much of the ninth chapter, and a brief review of the ordinances of that day will be a useful introduction to the consideration of the chapter. The day was the tenth of the seventh month (Lev. 23:27; Num. 29:7). On that day the high priest, divested of his special garments “for glory and for beauty,” and clothed in fine linen (the emblem of righteousness, Rev. 19:8), after washing his flesh in water, offered a sin-offering to make atonement for himself and his house. Then, with a censer of fire from the altar of incense and with incense in his hands, he took the blood of the sin-offering and sprinkled it upon the mercy seat. Then followed the sin-offering for the

 

people, with the same ceremonies. These completed, he put on again his holy garments and came out (Lev. 16). He alone entered into the Most Holy Place. ¹

 

To enable the foregoing and other stipulated offerings to be carried out, the old covenant was associated with various articles and ordinances. These are referred to in the opening verses of the chapter now before us:

 

Now even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world. For there was a tabernacle prepared, the first, wherein were the candlestick, and the table, and the Shewbread: which is called the Holy Place. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies: having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and above it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat, of which things we cannot now speak severally. (Heb. 9:1-5.)

 

Of the typical significance of the various things thus referred to it is not needful to speak now. They do not enter into the actual argument of the epistle. They are mentioned, no doubt, because of their intimate connection with the Mosaic ordinances for the forgiveness of sins, and their association, so far as most of them are concerned, with the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, to which reference is immediately afterwards made. After pointing out that the Holy Place was open to the priests for the service they were appointed to fulfil, the readers were reminded that the Most Holy Place was only entered once every year— that is, on the Day of Atonement, as previously shown. The High Priest went there “not without blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the errors of the people.” The application of this is that, so long as these ceremonies were enacted year after year, it indicated that the way into the Holiest was not then made manifest. The veil was still there, and until it was rent the way was not open. All was temporary, depending on carnal ordinances which could not make perfect those who took part in the old worship.

 

In contrast with these features, the new covenant, which centred in Christ, was related to eternal things.

 

But Christ having come a high priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation, nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption. (Heb. 9:11 and 12.)

 

Here was the antitype—the high priests of old entered into the Most Holy once every year, thereby obtaining a temporary covering for sins on behalf of themselves and also of the people. Christ, through his own blood, entered in once for all and obtained eternal redemption. In what way, and to what extent, can it be said that there was in this an antitype of the high priest who offered “first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people”? Certainly not to the extent that the high priest after the order of Melchizedek needed any sacrifice for his own sins, for it is testified of him that he did no sin. Yet the construction of the passage involves that he participated in the benefit of the sacrifice. Moreover, the Scriptures frequently testify to the same fact. In prophecy it was foretold of him that he should be just and saved (Zech. 9:9, margin). An apostle declared of him that he slew the enmity in himself (Eph. 2:16, A.V. margin); whilst in the epistle before us it is testified that he prayed to be saved out of death and was heard for his godly fear, and that he was brought again from the dead by the blood of the everlasting covenant. As a possessor of sinful flesh, he needed to be redeemed therefrom, and so “he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” There is no need to stumble at such a fact; indeed, it is only when the truth involved herein is rightly understood that the true value of Jesus’ obedience to his Father can be fully appreciated. An impeccable man, or one who was entirely free from sin, as was Adam before the Fall, could not present such an example to members of a sin-stricken race.

 

In dealing with the comparison between the two covenants, attention must be directed to, among other matters, the two mediators. The mediator of the first covenant was Moses; that of the new was Jesus. As we have already considered the superiority of Jesus over Moses, it is unnecessary to pursue that point further. We may just refer to one statement in the argument which will serve to emphasise the matter:

 

For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And for this cause

he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. (Heb. 9:13-15.)

 

-------

¹ For a detailed account of the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, see Christadelphian, 1907, p. 492.

[Resource Manager]

Of Moses such a statement could not be made; “without blemish” is a description applicable only to him who was the mediator of the new covenant and the antitype of the paschal lamb. A perfect mediator, yet withal one who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, because tempted in all points as we are, Jesus as the antitype of Moses in his mediatorial work excels him as an antitype must excel the type.

 

The immediate context of the foregoing quotation brings before us one of the most interesting sections of the epistle, and one that has been the theme of much controversy among expositors. It reads as follows:

 

For where a testament is, there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. For a testament is of force where there hath been death: for doth it ever avail while He that made it liveth? Wherefore even the first covenant hath not been dedicated without blood. For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses unto all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself, and all the people, saying: This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded to you-ward. Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry he sprinkled in like manner with the blood. And according to the law, I may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and apart from shedding of blood there is no remission. It was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. (Heb. 9:16-23.)

 

Reference has already been made to the unsatisfactory translation of the earlier portion of this quotation. A little attention to the argument of the whole section will show that to use the term “testament” in verses 16 and 17 changes an illuminating contrast into a comparison of things that have no connection, except that in the Greek language the same word happened to be used for them. Such a flaw in the argument is unthinkable, and as a matter of fact no such flaw occurs.

 

Having regard to the importance of the passage, it will be helpful to note a few of the various translations which have been made. The alternative marginal renderings of the Revised Version give:

 

For where a covenant is there must of necessity be brought the death of him that made it. For a covenant is of force over the dead; for it doth never avail while he that made it liveth.

 

Other renderings are:

 

For where a covenant is, there must also of necessity be brought in the death of the covenant-victim. For a covenant is stable over the dead; otherwise it is of no strength at all while the covenant-victim liveth. (Newbury.)

 

(A footnote is appended—” The Hebrew word

berith

is ‘covenant’; the Greek word

diatheke

is ‘testament.’ Hence in these verses the words may have a double sense.” As will be gathered, there is no necessity for this note; the whole passage is full of meaning when the words are consistently rendered “covenant.” The “double sense” introduces confusion.)

 

For where a covenant is, the death of the covenant-victim to come in is necessary, for a covenant over dead victims is stedfast, since it is no force at all when the covenant-victim liveth. (Young’s Literal Translation.)

 

Where for a covenant death necessary to be produced of that having been appointed; a covenant for over dead ones firm, since never it is strong when lives that having been appointed. (Emphatic Diaglott—interlinear.)

 

For where a covenant exists, the death of that which has ratified it is necessary to be produced, because a covenant is firm over dead victims, since it is never valid when that which ratifies it is alive. (Ibid., marginal.)

 

For where a covenant, there is a necessity that the death of the appointed sacrifice be brought in. For a covenant is firm over dead sacrifices, seeing it never hath force while the appointed sacrifice liveth. (Macknight.)

 

This is paraphrased as follows:

 

For, to show the propriety of Christ’s dying to ratify the new covenant, I observe, that where a covenant is made by sacrifice, there is a necessity that the death of the appointed sacrifice be produced. For, according to the practice both of God and man a covenant is made firm over dead sacrifices, seeing it never hath force whilst the goat, calf, or bullock, appointed as the sacrifice of ratification liveth.

 

The following note from Weymouth may also be useful:

 

It is possible that the real meaning of verses 16 and 17 is, “For where a covenant is made, there must be evidence of the death of the covenant-victim. For a covenant is only of force over dead bodies, because it is not binding as long as the covenant-victim lives.” Some maintain that to introduce the Gentile notion of a “will” here would be out of place in an essentially Jewish letter.

 

An examination of these renderings will indicate that, notwithstanding the endeavour of the majority of modern commentators to give the passage the application of a will, there is plenty of support for the rendering adopted in our exposition. The two important words are diatheke and diatithemai. The former has been already examined ¹ and seen to be the equivalent of the Hebrew berith. The latter combines dia, through, and tithemi, to place, and is thus intimately connected with diatheke. The argument turns on a comparison between two covenants and the ratification-sacrifices associated with them. The old had been dedicated by the blood of the sacrifices which were offered, and it is evident from the record that the usual covenant ceremonies were carried out. What, then, of the new?

 

-------

¹ See p. 153.

[Resource Manager]

Were the same ceremonies, in any way, adopted for its ratification? Unquestionably so, though in a higher form than applied in the case of the old. Death took place, blood was shed; not the blood of bulls and calves, but the “precious blood of Christ,” the Lamb of God. In the case of the old, Moses had told the people all the words of the Lord and His judgments; so before the new was ratified, Jesus, the prophet like unto Moses, had proclaimed the principles upon which those who so desired could participate in the blessings of the covenant. The Sermon on the Mount, as it is called, may be taken as a characteristic declaration of these principles. The sacrifice then took place. His body was “broken,” the “blood of sprinkling” was shed. Thus the covenant was confirmed, or ratified, and Jesus became “a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, that he might confirm the promises [the covenants of promise] given unto the fathers” (Rom. 15:8). To all who enter into the covenant in the appointed way, “the blood of sprinkling” is applied by faith, and Jesus himself indicates the nature of the covenant repast which is also required by the typical proceedings of the past:

 

My Father giveth you the true bread out of heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down out of heaven, and giveth life unto the world. ... I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst. ... If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: yea and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world. ... He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. (John 6:32-55.)

 

That Jesus is the covenant-victim of the new covenant, the ratification-sacrifice, is evident from various references to him in the New Testament. Thus in relation to his prospective birth, it was said by Zecharias, the father of John the Baptist, that God had raised up a horn of salvation in the house of David, “to shew mercy towards our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant; the oath which he sware unto Abraham” (Luke 1:72 and 73). Paul’s reference in Romans 15:8, has already been quoted. The same association of ideas is apparent in Peter’s words: “Ye are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with your fathers. ... Unto you first God, having raised up his servant, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities” (Acts 3:25 and 26). This confirmation fulfilled the type of the transactions connected with the sacrifices offered by Abraham (Gen. 15). The passing of the flaming torch between the divided pieces on the altar found its antitype when the “body prepared,” having been broken, was quickened by the spirit of God which, as it were, passed through his body, which thus became a “body repaired”; “declared to be the son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead” (Rom. 1:4).

 

If the foregoing association of the death of Christ with the covenant made with Abraham be true, it will be apparent that what is termed the new covenant is really older in its terms than the old. The latter was made at Sinai four centuries after the promise was given to Abraham. The apparent anachronism is easily explained. “A covenant is of force over the dead”; consequently the Abrahamic covenant could not come into force until its appointed sacrifice was offered—hence the appropriateness of the term “new.”

 

The points which we have thus reviewed will enable us to enter more fully into the meaning of the two ordinances connected with Christianity—baptism and the breaking of bread. It is deeply significant that baptism is particularly associated with Jesus in that phase of his mission which shows him to be the antitype of the sacrifices of old. “All we who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death. We are buried therefore with him through baptism into death. ... We have become united with him by the likeness of his death” (Rom. 6:3-5). Baptism therefore inducts into the bonds of the covenant. Hence Paul could write, “For as many of you as were baptised into Christ did put on Christ. ... And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise” (Gal. 3:27 and 29)—the promise enshrined in the covenant of promise. The results which flow from this fact are of first importance, and have to do with every phase of the experience of all those who have been so “buried.”

 

So also in regard to the breaking of bread. As the parties to a covenant partook of the sacrificial food together, so week by week those who forsake not the assembling of themselves together partake of the covenant meal, proclaiming thereby their intention to conform to the terms of the covenant. In the bread we discern “the broken body,” and in the wine “the blood of the covenant.” Jesus referred to this when he said,” Take this and eat it: it is my body. ... Drink from it, all of you: for this is my blood which is to be poured out for many for the remission of sins—the blood which ratifies the covenant” (Matt. 26:27 and 28, Weymouth’s translation).

 

The ordinances of the past had shown the necessity for the shedding of blood. The “copies of things in the heavens” used in association with the old covenant had all been cleansed by the blood of the sacrifices of the past. Better sacrifices, or rather a better sacrifice, even that of Christ himself, was the appointed means for the cleansing of the heavenly things themselves. By that sacrifice and the necessary shedding of blood he entered into heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God for us, not once each year, but “once at the end of the ages” he was manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

 

In the typical things of the Day of Atonement the return of the high priest from the Most Holy intimated the acceptance of the annual sacrifice for the sins of the people. So, in the antitype, it waits for the return of our Great High Priest from heaven to intimate to the faithful their acceptance of the Father, and their consequential change from mortal to immortal nature, and a participation of the Divine nature. “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation” (verse 28). Thus the type will be completely fulfilled, but with results so far exceeding the past that the whole effects of sin will be for ever eradicated from all those who thus “look for him” and receive the blessing of the high priest after the order of Melchizedek.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER X

 

The origin of sacrifice—The shedding of blood—Putting away sin —What is sin?—Christ and sin—Establishing the will of God—A body prepared and ears digged—The blood of the covenant—The two constitutions—The application.

 

In passing to the tenth chapter we enter very closely on the subject of sacrifice. It has been before us in earlier portions of the epistle, but now it forms the essential subject of the argument.

 

It is therefore necessary to look more particularly at the subject of sacrifice, with the object of ascertaining wherein it was that the sacrifice which ratified the new covenant was better than those which were offered in connection with the old. The matter has been touched upon in the argument concerning priesthood, but it needs to be further considered at this stage of our study.

 

Sacrifice is the earliest appointment of religion; its origin is found in the opening chapter of human history. Sin, which caused a breach between God and man, made a means of approach to God necessary, and from the earliest times sacrifice has been that means. It evidently took place first in the Garden of Eden.

 

Throughout early times it was practised by Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Job. With the institution of the Mosaic Law it became incorporated by Divine enactment in the national code of Israel. Daily, weekly, monthly, and annual sacrifices were commanded, and every festival and fast had their accompanying offerings.

 

This constant repetition of offerings contained in itself a lesson as to the weakness of the institution in relation to the purpose of taking away sin. How far this may have been realised by thoughtful Israelites is not clear. The fact that prophecies spoke of a time when sins should be remembered no more probably caused some to recognise that something more was needed, and to see in the constant offerings types of something greater to come. It is only in the New Testament that the full answer to any such queries is to be found.

 

The foundation-truth to be remembered in this connection is that “apart from shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22). This was no new doctrine, for the Law clearly declared the same truth. “The life of the flesh is in the blood ... it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life” (Lev. 17:11). In accord with this, blood was constantly shed in Israel’s sacrifices. Yet it is testified that “it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.”

 

The law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the very image of the things, they can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect them that draw nigh. ... For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. ... And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins. (Heb. 10:1, 4, 11.)

 

Here, then, is the problem before us: Shedding of blood was essential to the remission of sins; blood was continually being shed in accordance with the Mosaic legislation; yet it did not avail to the end in view. Why?

 

The answer to this question is of primary importance, and nowhere is it more effectively answered than in the Epistle to the Hebrews. There are two closely-related passages, one of which occurs in the previous chapter, but which it is desirable to have before us in this connection.

 

But now once in the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. ... Having been once offered to bear the sins of many, [he] shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him, unto salvation.” (Heb. 9:26 and 28.) Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare for me . then said I, Lo, I am come ... to do thy will, O God.” (Heb. 10:5 and 7.)

 

Two points stand out in these testimonies. They are: (a) that Jesus put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and (b) that he established the will of God, which he came to do. These two statements bring before us the great difference between the blood-shedding under old and new covenants. The former could not take away sin because, by the sacrifice of an animal, there was no putting-away of sin, and in the life of an animal there could be no doing the will of God. Moreover, there was no association, except a ceremonial one, between the sinner and the sacrifice. It was precisely because there was this association in the case of Jesus, and because the two requirements set out above were fulfilled in him, that the sacrifice of Christ effected what whole hecatombs of animal sacrifices could not do.

 

It will be necessary to look at these two sayings somewhat closely, as they form the essence of the argument of the section now before us.

[Resource Manager]

(a) In the offering of himself Jesus put away sin. In orthodox circles this is supposed to mean that in some way, which cannot be defined, the accumulated sins of mankind were placed upon Jesus by imputation, and that consequently they were taken away by his death, a death which he suffered as a substitute for others. Any further meaning is ignored. And yet a little reflection should show that such a limited interpretation fails to meet the facts of the case. If all that was required to “put away sins” was that the sins of mankind should be “imputed” to the sacrifice, why should the blood of bulls and goats not have availed? Could not sins have been “imputed” to them? As a matter of fact, so far as the imputation of sins was possible, they were so imputed to the sacrifice by the ceremonies connected with it. If, therefore, that were the principle involved, there would be no difference in this respect between the sacrifices of the old and new covenants. Consequently this cannot be the meaning of the statement before us. Besides, the Law was only a shadow of good things to come, not the very image of them. If the association between Jesus and sin were precisely the same as that between the Mosaic sacrifices and sin, then shadow and substance would be alike on one of their most important points, and that would be absurd. No shadow can ever equal the substance; the substance is real, the shadow is intangible. The statement that “he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” evidently implies that in some way sin was associated with Jesus. Yet it is testified of him that he was “holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners,” though it is also declared that he was the antitype of the high priest who offered first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people (Heb. 7:27).

 

The difficulty, if such it may be termed, is only apparent. Sin is a term of double import in the Scriptures; it has a physical as well as a moral application. When Adam and Eve were first created, sin had no association with them in any way. They were very good. When, however, by the sophistry of the serpent, they were led to disobey God’s command, a principle was established in them which, later, is defined as the law of sin and death. Their nature became defiled, and on the principle that none can bring a clean thing out of an unclean, all descended from them became partakers of their defiled or sin-stricken nature. The Apostle Paul is very precise in his references to sin as a physical principle inherent in human flesh. He speaks of “the body of sin” (Rom. 6:6), and says in relation to it, “Sin, finding occasion, wrought in me, through the commandment, all manner of coveting.” “Sin revived.” “Sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me.” “Sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me ... that sin might become exceeding sinful.” “So now it is no more I that do it but sin which dwelleth in me.” “The law of sin which is in my members” (Rom. 7). Sin as spoken of in these verses must necessarily be considered as something different from actual transgression. It is “sin” within that leads to sin in action. The following quotations are much to the point:

 

The word “sin” is used in two principal acceptations in the Scripture. It signifies, in the first place, “the transgression of law,” and in the next it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh “which has the power of death”; and it is called sin because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled “sinful flesh,” that is, flesh full of sin; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man. In human flesh “dwells no good thing”; and all the evil a man does is the result of this principle dwelling in him. ¹

 

Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature. Hence the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean. It is therefore written: “How can he be clean who is born of a woman?” “Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.” “What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous?” ... This view of sin in the flesh is enlightening in the things concerning Jesus. The apostle says, “God made him sin for us, who knew no sin”; and this he explains in another place by saying that “He sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” in the offering of his body once. Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those he died for; for he was born of a woman, and “not one” can bring a clean body out of a defiled body: for “that,” says Jesus himself, “which is born of the flesh is flesh.” ²

 

The importance of this teaching cannot be overestimated. John’s warning in relation to it is most explicit: “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God: and this is the spirit of the antichrist” (1 John 4:2 and 3). As a member of the race, partaking of sin’s flesh, Jesus was in a position to receive in himself the sentence pronounced against sin, in harmony with the righteousness of God, which, indeed, was declared thereby (Rom. 3:25). In his death “he died unto sin once” (Rom. 6:10), and “what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3).

 

The matter is illustrated by the analogous case of the curse of the Law. That rested upon every Jew, and was an effective barrier to eternal life. That curse must therefore be removed, and the method whereby this was effected is indicated by Paul when he wrote, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). By means over which he had no control, which involved no shadow of fault or responsibility, and which were in fact incurred by his obedience to the Father’s will, he came under the curse of the Law, and was thereby able to bear it away. His birth brought him into relation with the Adamic curse, his death with the Mosaic, and thus the one final act of obedience enabled him to become the Redeemer from both.

 

-------

¹ Elpis Israel, p. 113.

² Ibid:, p. 114.

[Resource Manager]

Over this doctrine orthodoxy completely stumbles; so do some who ought to know better. It is considered that the suggestion is derogatory to Christ. Why should it be? No one can be held responsible for the circumstances into which he is born. The possession of sin’s flesh is no disgrace, and implies no stigma. The real effect of the reception of this doctrine is to enhance our appreciation of Jesus. The temptation of an impeccable and immaculate Jesus would convey but little comfort to one who was struggling against the enticements of lust (Jas. 1:14), whereas the triumphant emergence of one who could be tempted in all points, like as we are, is a real incentive to every earnest follower who is learning, amid many failures, to crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts:

 

He once temptation knew, That he might truly find A fellow-feeling true For every tempted mind.

 

There are many considerations which arise out of this fact concerning Jesus Christ which deserve attention, but this is not the place to follow them out. The reception of the truth on this point will enable one to realise the beauty of the Divine plan of atonement— a plan which, above all else, reflects the glory of God, and teaches true humility to man. It will lead to the frame of mind exhibited by the apostle when he wrote: “O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past tracing out. ... For of Him, and through Him, and unto Him are all things. To Him be the glory for ever. Amen. (Rom. 11:33-36.)

 

Having considered the first of the points which indicate in what ways the sacrifice in connection with the new covenant is better than those relating to the old, we may now pass to the second.

 

(b) In the offering of himself Jesus established the will of God. That sacrifice in itself was not sufficient to take away sin and ensure the acceptance of the sinner by God had long been indicated in the Scriptures. Prophets and psalmists combine to declare this very clearly. “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifice unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he-goats” (Isa. 1:11). “I desire mercy and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings” (Hosea 6:6). “Thou delightest not in sacrifice; else would I give it: Thou hast no pleasure in burnt offering” (Psalm 51:16). Something more was necessary. How could it be thought that merely sacrificing a bullock or a ram should put away the guilt of transgression? All the cattle on a thousand hills were His; how could the death of one of them be supposed to give satisfaction to their owner? Though they had their place in the economy of the Mosaic arrangements, it was evident that something more was required.

 

In considering this matter, we come to the essential features of an acceptable sacrifice that should be efficacious in removing sin, for after having declared that “it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins,” the apostle continues:

 

Wherefore when he cometh into the world he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body didst thou prepare for me. In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hadst no pleasure. Then said I, Lo, I am come (in the roll of the book it is written of me) to do Thy will, O God. ... He taketh away the first that he may establish the second. (Heb. 10:5-9.)

 

Here are the essential features—a body prepared and a will done. Of the “body prepared” we have already spoken. “God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, “made” in the likeness of sinful flesh “that therein sin might be condemned. Now we have to consider the other feature—the doing of the will of God. In this all had failed. No matter how earnest and upright many of the Old Testament characters had been, of none of them could it be said, without qualification, he had done God’s will.” There is none righteous, no, not one,” was the Divine summing-up of all the generations of the past. Hence there had never been one who could furnish the two requirements of acceptable sacrifice. Where the Mosaic system had failed because of the weakness of the flesh, Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant succeeded. He did God’s will perfectly. He said, “My meat is to do the will of Him that sent me” (John 4:34). He sought the will of Him that sent him (ch. 5:30), and in so doing his obedience was absolute. Thus what was written of him “in the roll of the book” was fulfilled, and the “body prepared” became a fit sacrifice “to take away the sin of the world.” Nothing could more emphatically testify to the superiority of the “better sacrifices” of the new covenant.

 

There is a peculiar variation in the quotation in the Hebrews when compared with the language of the Psalm from which it comes. Instead of a “body didst Thou prepare for me,” we read in the Psalm: “Mine ears hast Thou opened” (Psa. 40:6). The margin gives as an alternative “Heb. Ears hast Thou digged (or pierced) for me.” Digged ears—for the Hebrew clearly means “to dig”—is a peculiar idea which has given rise to much discussion amongst commentators. Yet the use made of it in Hebrews is evidently explanatory of the Psalm. Ears digged are ears opened, and to open the ears is evidently to prepare them to receive intended instruction. One whose ears were digged would thus “hear.” In Scriptural language, to hear is to profit by the words spoken. Thus Samuel said to Saul, “Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams” (1 Sam. 25:22). The parallelism here indicates that hearing and obeying are intended to convey identical meanings. “The body prepared” was thus a “body” ready to hear and to do the will of God. “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient, even unto death, yea, the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8). He was thereby the sinless bearer of sinful nature, an innocent member of a sinful race. In his death God condemned sin in the flesh, while at the same time declaring His own righteousness. Christ’s faithfulness to the Divine commandments ensured a resurrection from the dead, whereby being “delivered up for our trespasses [he] was raised for our justification.”

[Resource Manager]

A recognition of these two principles will enable us to understand why the sacrifice whereby the blood of the new covenant was shed was superior to all those of the old dispensation. It also enables us to understand the true meaning of many expressions in the Hebrews which are stumbling-blocks to orthodox readers. We read, for example, “Christ ... through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12). How much this passage is misunderstood is evidenced by the addition in the Authorised Version of the words “for us.” These words are not merely unnecessary, they are opposed to the construction of the passage, which implies that he obtained it for himself; even as the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, which form the basis of the reasoning of the ninth chapter, imply. That he needed a personal salvation is evidenced by another saying:

 

Who in the days of his flesh, having offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from [margin, out of] death, and having been heard for his godly fear, though he was a Son, yet learned obedience by the things which he suffered; and having been made perfect, he became unto all them that obey Him, the author [margin, Gr. cause] of eternal salvation. (Heb. 5:7-9.)

 

He was “brought again from the dead” “with [or by] the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20). The types connected with the first covenant set forth this fact in many ways. The “copies of the things in the heavens” needed to be purified; the tabernacle, even the altar itself, were purified by the sprinkled blood of the sacrifices, and so “the heavenly things themselves,” including the altar (Heb. 13:10), were “purified” by the better sacrifice, when “he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” How much does a realisation of the truth upon this matter add to the force of the words!

 

For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself.” (Heb. 7:26 and 27.)

 

The teaching of these testimonies is most important. It was not as a substitute that Jesus died; God’s plan has nothing of such an idea. He was a representative, a prospective federal head. As death passed upon all men because their first progenitor was a sinner who had earned the wages of sin, and they die in him (1 Cor. 15:12), for by nature they are in him; so life eternal may be obtained by all who become “the children” of Christ (Heb. 2:13) by being baptised into him (Gal. 3:27) who “loved righteousness and hated iniquity,” and who thereafter “abide in him.” To such he says, as to his disciples long ago, “Because I live ye shall live also.” Thus, “As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” Upon the basis thus laid down God in His forbearance forgives their sins. He regards those who are, and abide, in Christ as righteous. Such teaching is beautiful, and reflective of the glory of the great Creator who arranged such a wondrous plan of salvation. That plan in its outlines may be summed up in a few sentences. Christ, as a member of a race condemned to death, died under that condemnation. Being perfectly righteous, he was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father. The sin-nature having been destroyed, and Jesus having attained unto life and immortality, can bestow the same gift upon others on conditions clearly expressed in the Scriptures. Those who conform to those conditions will at the last receive the gift of life eternal by a physical deliverance from the power of sin and death.

 

A recognition of these principles will lead to an appreciation of the summing-up of the matter. The priests of old offered oftentimes, Christ offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, and thereby “perfected for ever them that are sanctified “ (Heb. 10:11-14). All this had been involved by the prediction of a covenant under which sins and iniquities should be remembered no more (verses 15-17).

 

The exhortations with which this section closes are intimately connected with the matters which have been considered. By “a new and living way”—an expression which really means “a newly-slain and living way,” opened up “through the veil” of his flesh, by the Great High Priest over the house of God—we may with boldness, and in full assurance of faith, enter into the holy place, with hearts sprinkled by the blood of the covenant victim and bodies washed with pure water in accord with the doctrine of baptisms. Therefore, “let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another: and so much the more as ye see the day drawing nigh” (Heb. 10:24 and 25). The “assembling together” is for the purpose of jointly partaking of the covenant meal, the bread which represents the “body prepared,” the wine, the “blood of the everlasting covenant.” Such expressions take on a deeper meaning when they are seen to be associated with the reasoning out of which they were developed.

 

The other side of the matter is exhibited in the same connection in reference to wilful sins on the part of those who have entered into the bonds of the covenant. As the Law of Moses could not be trifled with without dire results, so it is to an even greater degree with the new covenant. Treading underfoot the Son of God, esteeming as unholy the blood of the covenant whereby sanctification was obtained, are courses which no one can view without feeling how heinous they must be in the sight of God. Alas for those who have so acted, for “it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” Happy are they who, enduring affliction, holding companionship with the persecuted, realise that they have “a better possession and an abiding one”— the life eternal to be bestowed when “he that cometh shall come.” Such had been the attitude of the Hebrew Christians during trial and tribulation, so that it could be said they were not of those that shrunk back into perdition, but were followers of God’s “righteous one” and who, therefore, lived by faith, a faith that leads to the saving of the soul.

[Resource Manager]

CHAPTER XI

 

Substance and conviction—Past and Present—The effects of faith— Examples of men of faith—Noah—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—Moses —The Exodus, etc.— “And what shall I more say?”

 

THE reference to faith at the end of the tenth chapter leads to the definition of that quality in the succeeding section of the epistle. What is this faith by which a righteous one may live? All will be familiar with the definition as given in the Authorised Version. The words of the Revised are less well known: “Now faith is the assurance [margin, or the giving substance to] of things hoped for, the proving [margin, test] of things not seen.” Dr. Thomas has rendered it, “Faith is a confident anticipation of things hoped for, a full persuasion of events not seen, “which he elsewhere explains by saying:

 

Here faith, or belief, is said to be

hypostasis

and

elenchos

; that is, faith is reality and proof. The person who has it embraces certain things promised as realities, and certain transactions as things proved. Hence faith is the assured hope of things promised, the conviction of the truth of transactions not witnessed by the believer.

¹

 

Such a faith takes hold of the entire mentality of the individual who has it, transforms the life, and forms the foundation of a character which will bring the possessor of it to the perfection spoken of in the last verse of the chapter before us.

 

The two words hypostasis and elegchos ² are worthy of attention. The former has already been considered in its usage in reference to the Son. ³ It is a combination of hypo, under, through, and histemi, to stand. It is rendered confidence (2 Cor. 9:4; 11:17; Heb. 3:14), substance (Heb. 1:3), and now assurance (Heb. 11:1). These are the only occurrences of the word in the New Testament, and if they are compared with the previous comments, they will assist us to gain a clear idea of the meaning. Elegchos is from elegcho. It means a proof, Latin argumentum, an evident demonstration or manifestation. It only occurs in the passage under notice and 2 Tim. 3:16 (reproof). Elegko occurs several times and is rendered convict [John 8:9 (not in Revised Version) and 46; 16:8; Titus 1:9; James 2:9; Jude 15], to show (i.e. a fault, Matt. 18:15), and reprove (Luke 3:19; John 3:20; 1 Cor. 14:24; Eph. 5:11 and 13; 1 Tim 5:20; Titus 1:13; 2:15; Heb. 12:5). It will be seen that conviction is the underlying idea of the word as used in the Scriptures.

 

Bearing in mind the twofold aspect of the faith thus declared, we may note the language of the chapter concerning it. It is an essential qualification for an acceptable approach to God. “He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that seek after Him” (Heb. 11:6). The “invisible God” cannot be seen, but faith apprehends the evident demonstration of His existence and power, and therefore trusts in Him. It is not a mere vague or shadowy belief, there is a real substance in it. The believer consequently trusts in Him, and, hearing of the promised reward, faith is manifested in a confident anticipation of the time of realisation.

 

The various examples of faith set forth in the chapter give examples of both aspects of the definition: the things hoped for (concerned mainly with the future), and those not seen (relating to the past and also to the present).

 

In regard to the past, faith is manifested in the reception of the testimony that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. “By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.... For He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast” (Psa. 33:6 and 9). No one was there to see, yet faith accepts the statement, not as a matter of credulity, but as the result of a conviction based on reason and the record in the Scriptures. The present application is shown by acceptance of the declaration of an overruling providence of God, which gives an assurance that “to them that love God, all things work together for good” (Rom. 8:28). This truth is expressed by the Psalmist when he says:

 

The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear Him, And delivereth them. The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, And His ears are open unto their cry. (Psa. 34:7 and 15.)

 

Angelic agency is unseen, yet faith recognises it. This recognition is not a credulous acceptance of a mere statement; it is based upon a conviction, assured by a consideration of the “ways of Providence” as exemplified in many cases of the past. We thus believe that angels are “ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation.” The reception of this truth enables all who believe it to say with the apostle, “If God is for us, who is against us?” and thereby rejoice in the fact that nothing “shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:31 and 39).

 

In a very beautiful passage of his prophecies Isaiah joins all three applications—past, present, and future —into one:

 

Hast thou not known? Hast thou not heard? The everlasting God, the Lord, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary; there is no searching of His understanding. He giveth power to the faint; and to him that hath no might He increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the young men shall utterly fall: but they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; they shall walk, and not faint. (Isa. 40:28-31.)

 

Here we have faith manifested in regard to the past, for God is spoken of as the Creator; in regard to the present, for “He giveth power unto the faint” (“My grace is sufficient for thee; for My power is made perfect in weakness”: 2 Cor. 12:9); and in regard to the future, for the renewed strength is the strength of immortality. The same combination of times is seen in Paul’s address on Mars’ Hill:

 

God that made the world, and all things therein, He, being Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands: neither is He served by men’s hands, as though He needed anything, seeing He Himself giveth to all life, and breath, and all things. ... For in Him we live, and move, and have our being. ... He hath appointed a day in the which He will judge the world in righteousness by the man whom He hath ordained: whereof He hath given assurance unto all men, in that He hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:24-31.)

 

-------

¹ Eureka, vol. 1, p. 284.

² This is the actual spelling of the word pronounced elenchos.

³ Ante, p. 16.

[Resource Manager]

The list of worthies whose faith exemplifies the definition given commences with Abel, and includes examples from many a succeeding age. An examination of the illustrations will show that their faith was not like that spoken of by Reformation leaders and modern so-called evangelical preachers. Theirs was a faith that worked, for “faith without works is dead.” A brief survey of the examples given will show this very clearly. Abel “offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Heb. 11:4). Noah, warned by God, “prepared an ark to the saving of his house” (verse 7). Abraham, “when he was called, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance” (verse 8), and “being tried [he] offered up Isaac” (verse 17). Moses “refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to be evil entreated with the people of God than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season”; “he forsook Egypt” and “kept the passover” (verses 24-28). Israel compassed the walls of Jericho (verse 30); Rahab “received the spies with peace” (verse 31). When we reach the end of the chapter we read in a summary form of those who “subdued kingdoms,” “wrought righteousness,” “waxed mighty in war,” “turned to flight armies of aliens.”

 

There is no suggestion here of the emasculated thing called faith in the religious circles of to-day.

 

The faith that made the saints of old In patience to endure—

 

was very different from that which modern religionists speak of when they sing, “O to be nothing, nothing!” It was a robust belief in Divine things which caused its possessors to do what was commanded by God. Those who have it now “work out their own salvation with fear and trembling,” whilst at the same time they recognise that “it is God which worketh in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12 and 13), they “give diligence” to enter into the rest that remaineth for the people of God (Heb. 4:11).

 

It is not necessary to dwell at length on the various examples referred to in the chapter, but there are a few points to which attention may be directed with profit. Thus Abel’s sacrifice, foreshadowing the death of the “Lamb of God,” was an act of faith, indicating the belief of the offerer in the promise given in Eden, in contrast to his brother’s action. By that act of obedience, the outcome of faith in God, he, being dead, yet speaketh (Heb. 11:4). Enoch’s translation “that he should not see death” was a proof of his faithfulness. It testifies that he did the things commanded by God because he had faith in God. This is evidenced by the fact that “without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto Him” (verses 5 and 6).

 

Noah’s faith was based upon a warning of the approaching flood, and found its expression in the fact that, “moved with godly fear,” he prepared an ark in accordance with the directions of God. By this action he “condemned the world.” This is an interesting allusion in view of the application of the principle to our own times. The world necessarily dislikes, even if it does not hate, those who are more righteous than its own constituents. Noah, by preaching and practising righteousness, gave offence to his contemporaries. The attitude of separation adopted by a righteous person is instinctively felt to be a condemnation of the free-and-easy way of the world generally. Noah’s attitude was fully vindicated when the threatened judgment arrived; a fact of encouraging import when we bear in mind the saying of Jesus: “And as it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of Man” (Luke 17:26).

 

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are associated together in the record of the faithful as heirs of the land of promise. Abraham’s removal from Ur of the Chaldees was a clear indication of his faith in the God who called him thence to journey to an unknown land. Referring thereto, it is said that Abraham “looked for the city which hath the foundations, whose Builder [or Architect] and Maker is God.” “They confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” “They that say such things make it manifest that they are seeking a country of their own.” In these references there are two points to be noted. The statement that they looked for a city with foundations needs to be contrasted with the fact that they dwelt in tents. They thereby indicated their belief that the promises made to them were not intended for immediate realisation. Had it been otherwise, they would have endeavoured to found a polity in the land of promise, instead of which they journeyed from place to place as occasion required. They thereby testified that the fulfilment was a long way off; they “greeted them [the promises] from afar” (verse 13). The word for “country” in this connection is very significant. It is patois (from pater, father), a father-land. It is generally used in the sense of a native town, but in this passage it can only be used in the sense of a fatherland. Abraham left his native town, Ur of the Chaldees, to seek a country. No fleshly association can account for it being called a fatherland. It can only be so termed because it was in an especial way the land of the Father—God. Such an application is familiar to every believer of the Truth. “When ye come into the land which I give you ... the land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is Mine” (Lev. 25:2, 23). “A land which the Lord thy God careth for; the eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it” (Deut. 11:12). “If ye turn away and forsake My statutes ... then will I pluck them up by the roots out of My land which I have given them” (2 Chron. 7:19 and 20). In the prophets Jehovah speaks of that land as “My land” (Joel 1:6), and referring to the future invasion of the Gogian hosts He says, “I will bring thee against My land” (Ezek. 38:16), at which time “the Lord shall be jealous for His 1and” (Joel 2:18). This was the fatherland for which Abraham looked; in it “the city which hath the foundations, whose Builder and Maker is God,” “the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High” (Psa. 46:4) will be established “at the dawn of the morning” (verse 5, margin). Such a country, with such a metropolis, may well be called heavenly. Sarah is associated with Abraham in the exhibition of faith in the promises of a seed in whom all families should be blessed (verses 11 and 12). The severest test of all was in the command to offer up the seed on whom so much depended. Yet it was unhesitatingly obeyed, because he “accounted that God was able to raise up, even from the dead.” It was not merely the raising-up of Isaac, it was resurrection in general that was in Abraham’s mind. He recognised that the promises involved resurrection and the bestowal of eternal life, and testified his faith in God in this relation by his willingness to sacrifice his son.

[Resource Manager]

Passing over the blessing of Jacob and Esau by Isaac, and the sons of Joseph by Jacob, also Joseph’s commandment concerning the removal of his bones to the land of promise—each a proof of faith—we come to the case of Moses. After referring to the faith of his parents, who trusted him to the providence of God, it is said that Moses accounted “the reproach of [the] Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.” Such a reference implies a clear recognition of the part Israel was to play in the purpose of God, and of the Messianic hopes bound up with Israel’s future. From the lips of his mother he would doubtless have heard of the promises concerning the seed of Abraham in whom all nations should be blessed, and of the seed of the woman who was to be bruised, and yet should destroy the bruising power. He recognised that this seed must arise in the line of Israel, not of Egypt, and therefore he refused the treasures and prospects which Egypt had to offer, and identified himself with Yahweh’s “firstborn” (Exod. 4:22), who was to be called out of Egypt. It needed faith indeed to refuse to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, and to see in the association with the Israelitish bond-slaves that which should lead to a great recompense of reward. To all natural appearance such an idea must have seemed preposterous. Egypt was a great kingdom; Israel a multitude of slaves. But the promise of the seed, the Anointed, or Christ, contained far greater riches than Egypt could supply, for it pointed to a time when the Promised One should sit in the gate of his enemies, when all nations, yea, all the families of the earth, shall be blessed. True, Moses miscalculated the times, he judged from a human point of view, and had to learn by experience that God’s time and God’s way are best; but even in his mistake it was his faith in the ultimate triumph that made him anticipate the fore-ordained time.

 

“By faith he forsook Egypt.” A question arises as to the application of these words—do they apply to his flight, or to the Exodus? It is usually assumed that the reference is to the former, yet in relation to this event it is testified that “Moses feared ... and fled from the face of Pharaoh.” On the whole it would seem rather to apply to the incidents associated with the Exodus, as the word used is more in keeping with an action settled upon as a course determined on as a part of policy, not the hurried flight of a fugitive.

 

A few references follow dealing with specific events. The slaying of the passover lamb, the sprinkling of blood in obedience to command was a signal example of faith. The crossing of the Red Sea was another although it was accompanied at first with fear of the pursuing Egyptians. The fall of Jericho and the salvation of Rahab are other incidents in which the faith of Israelites and of a Gentile were evidenced.

 

And here the detailed list ends. It could have been extended to a great length, as the next few verses show. All past history could have been laid under tribute for sterling examples of actions which presupposed the faith of the actors. Little purpose would have been served by such a lengthening of the list, and so the writer says, “And what shall I more say?” And so one feels in trying to carry on the thoughts suggested by the chapter. The names mentioned, and many another, rise to the mind and array before us the choicest of the sons of men, who by faith had become the sons of God, and who have supplied striking examples of the faith that pleased God. Gideon and Barak, Samson and Jephthah, David and Samuel are alluded to by name. The prophets generally are included. They furnish illustrations of men who “through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the power of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, from weakness were made strong, waxed mighty in war, turned to flight armies of aliens.” Taking a mental survey from the early times of Israel’s history to the last revival under the Maccabees, many a hero stands forth upon the pages of inspired and apocryphal history to illustrate these varying items. Men of action, because men of faith; that is the clear purpose of the reference to them. Its lesson for these last times is obvious—faith must work by love.

 

Important as this phase of faith is, however, it is not a complete exhibition of its results in those who possess it. Faith not only leads to action, it also leads to endurance. And so we read, “Women received their dead by a resurrection; and others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection; and others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment; they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were tempted, they were slain with the sword; they went about in sheepskins, in. goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, evil entreated; wandering in deserts and mountains, and caves and the holes of the earth.” What a summary! And yet how many cases could be cited, not only in Old Testament times, but also in the New; and how many more have perished unknown and unrecorded (save for the book of life of the Lamb that hath been slain from the foundation of the world) in after-times when the dragon waxed wroth with the woman and went away to make “war with the rest of her seed which keep the commandments of God and hold the testimony of Jesus,” and when the Babylonian Mother of Harlots was “drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rev. 12:17, and 17:6). As we look back on the bloodstained record of the past we recognise that our lines have fallen in comparatively easy places. The ease has its dangers; it is soothing, it needs that we take heed lest it lull us to satisfaction with the present, and so cause us to have little desire for the better thing provided when all shall be made perfect together.

 

Of those whose names and doings mention is made it is recorded the world was not worthy. Despised and destitute; scourged, imprisoned, and killed; deemed to be the “offscouring of all things,” the whole kosmos of human institutions did not approach them in worth. And why? Because they pleased God, and of all such, whether of antediluvian, patriarchal, Mosaic, or Christian ages, the apostle’s saying is true,” all things are yours” (1 Cor. 3:21). Human pomp and human pride are vain and fleeting things, destined to pass away to make room for that Divine constitution in which those who now and in the past are and have been lightly esteemed shall take their places as the rulers of the age to come, the associates of the Lord from heaven. Such will be the results of faith manifested in days of evil, but receiving its recompense of reward when faith shall have been turned to realised hopes. The galaxy of stars then associated with the bright and morning star (Rev. 22:16) will include those summed up in the closing words, “these all having witness borne to them through their faith, received not the promise, God having provided some better thing concerning us that apart from us they should not be made perfect.”