The Superior Priesthood of Christ

Hebrews 8.9
Meat
March 23rd 2014

Welcome . . . we stream our gatherings out live via the internet so be aware and share this with other interested parties. Let’s begin with a word of prayer, then we’ll sing the Word of God set to music, and after sitting in silence for a few moments come back to Hebrews chapter 8 beginning at verse 1.

Prayer
Music
Silence

The Continuation of the Argument

Okay, chapter eight is a continuation of the argument that the priesthood of Christ is superior (better) than the Levitical priesthood and the priests that came with it. Previously, the writer has demonstrated that Jesus was to be a priest but not of the Levitical order but “after the order of Melchizedek.” (A point we have beat to deathSeparation from God—now overcome. Physical death remains, but it no longer separates us from life with God.).

But along the way the writer has also proven that as a consequence of Jesus (from the tribe of Judah) being a priest not after Levi or Aaron, also created a change in the Law (which came with Moses and the Levitical priesthood). Obviously, this change would be a marked improvement over the strictures of the Law and all it demanded. It is this thought that the writer continues to pursue here in chapter eight – and today we are going to cover the first nine verses of it.

So let’s embark on these verses and see what the writer is trying to tell us. (verse 1)

Hebrews 8:1-5

Hebrews 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

The New Covenant

6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

Understanding Hebrews 8:1

Alright, back to one – let’s break it down.

Hebrews 8:1 Now, (he says, after his articulations in chapter 7) of the things which we have spoken this is the sum:

Ready? Here is the sum of what we have been talking about (there are six main points)

“We have such an high priest . . .”
“who is set 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.”

“We have such an High Priest.”

The writer has been addressing Jewish converts to Christianity. And they have been tempted (or have actually gone back to the elements of the Law) and his epistle to them is to get them to see that such a move is an inferior one.

Here, after comparing the Old System from the Levitical order, with its ceremonies and rites and human priests the writer reiterates to the reader (and to us) the fact that we, as believers, have not lost the position of High Priest that was present in the Old Covenant.

We have one too . . . except ours is better.

And he gives us some reasons how our high priest is better than those who came before Him, saying:

“We have such a High Priest who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens.”

In other words, and as we’ve explained, the Lord Jesus is no ordinary high priest of flesh and blood, who dies, but

The Heavenly High Priest

ours overcame sinMissing the mark of faith and love—no punishment, just lost growth or peace., death and the grave and now is set on the “right hand” of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens. Of course the right hand is symbolic for the principle place of heavenly honor, and on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the Heavens pretty much leaves no room for any other priest, high priest, or intermediary to be superior.

In the third line Christ is described as: “A minister of the sanctuary.” There are a few ways to read this but I would suggest that the writer is speaking of Christ being the minister (officiator, high priest) who has entered into the Holy of Holies (not made by man as a picture or type of the heavenly Holy of Holies) but has entered the Holy of Holies on high (in the heavens) and to emphasize the preeminent of this place the writer adds:

The True Tabernacle

“And of the true tabernacle.” What he is getting to is the holy of holies in the earthly temple was simply a type for the real article on heaven to come. And he is saying that the sum of his whole argument is that our high priest has entered into this holy place, of the true (or eternal tabernacle) of which the Hebrew’s was but a type. The word tabernacle means a booth, hut, or tent, and (of course) was applied to the tent which Moses was directed to build as the place for the worship of God. This earthly tabernacle was regarded as the peculiar abode of God on earth. The “true tabernacle,” however, as the eternal dwelling place of God is unlike the one Moses (or Solomon, or Herod) created out of material things but is unchanging and eternal and is the one where our High Priest performs on our behalf.

He adds: “Which the Lord pitched, and not man.” Referring to the tent of the oldest Mosaic tabernacle, the writer uses the word “pitched.” We could easily say “built” here – as well as pitched referring to Solomon’s temple and the Holy of Holies found therein where the High Priest would enter once a year. Here in Utah – and many other parts of the World we have temples pitched or built by man. I would suggest that temples made (or pitched) by man (since Christ) are akin to people today doing math on stone tablets with a mallet and chisel instead of their state-of-the-art laptop. I mean God Himself has a holy of Holies where our High Priest Christ Jesus sits on the right hand of power – this is an eternally, unchanging locale (if you will) and men are still pitching tents made with hands of flesh and blood?

The Function of High Priests

Chapters 9 and 10 detail exactly the work our High Priest does therein, by the way. The writer continues and speaking of human high priests in temporal temples, says:

3 For every (human) high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

I think the writer is generally describing the functions of the earthly high priest And relative to his office he presented gifts (flour and other offerings) and sacrifices (animals and their blood). This was indisputable to a devout Jew – high priest job was to offer up such things. Here seems to be the point of the writer: there was a need that some offering or atonement should be made for sin; and, for this to happen someone had to do it. Those who do such offerings of gifts and sacrifices were called priests (and high priests) and nobody else was to take on such a name (unless they too were offering up gifts and sacrifices). The writer is showing that to be one of these selected priests there had to be a purpose connected to offering up sacrifices and that the name “priest” should not be given to anyone who is not properly appointed to offer SACRIFICE!

(As a side note we ought to make note that the term priest (and therefore HIGH PRIEST) is not EVER used in the New Testament unless it refers to the Levitical order OR Melchizedek. What I mean by this is nowhere in all of Paul’s or Peter’s or James’s or John’s epistles is the term priest ever used to describe a minister or pastor or teacher or elder. The only New Testament book after acts that uses the term is Hebrews – and for obvious reasons. The point is priesthoods of men are

The Role of Jesus as High Priest

The offering up of sacrifices is over because of Jesus and His finished work here on earth, as well as His continuing and perfect work in the Holy of Holies on high. This point automatically challenges the use of the term "priest" in some religious contexts today, such as among Catholics, Anglicans, Episcopalians, LDS, and apparently Lutherans.

The Title of Priest

The writers in the New Testament are perfectly uniform and consistent on this point. The name priest is never once given to the ministers of the gospel there. They are called ministers, ambassadors, pastors, bishops, overseers, etc., but never priests. They never should be in the Christian church unless the writer of Hebrews' point is not an important one. Quite frankly, the name "priest," used in the Christian church, came from the Catholics because they hold to the idea that their priests really are offering up the real body and blood of Christ in the mass. So, in terms of consistency, they are at least congruent with the writer's point here in Hebrews. But in terms of sound biblical understanding, calling a man a priest and having such a man still offering up blood and flesh is counter to the finished work of Christ. I really don’t know how such religions prosper in light of books like Hebrews.

Jesus' Unique Offering

The writer adds an interesting line, saying in verse 4: “Wherefore it is of necessity that this man (Jesus) have somewhat also to offer.” In other words, since Jesus is declared to be a high priest, and offering gifts and sacrifices is part of the title, we must assume that He too must offer sacrifice to God.

Hebrews 9:11-14 and 25-26 articulates what offerings He made, saying first in Hebrews 9:11-14:

Hebrews 9:11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

And then in verse 25-26:

Hebrews 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

(That’s an interesting way to put that isn’t it? Speaking of Christ and saying…but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself…) ANNNNYYYWAY…

The writer continues, and speaking of Christ says in verse 4:

4 For if he (Jesus) were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:

In other words, if Jesus were on earth, He could NOT be a priest here nor perform that office. Maybe the writer says this to give us more of a reason why He was removed up to heaven – that is from where He reigns, and not from a Kingdom pitched in the material. In other words, the former priesthood was operated by men set apart to that office of a special lineage of which Christ was not a part. So He, the final and great High Priest, moved to a more permanent, heavenly location.

The Heavenly Reign

But we might ask ourselves, why did Jesus leave and reign from on high, sitting in the Holy Place at the right hand of Glory? Why not just overcome the grave, and assume His place on an earthly throne in Jerusalem – like people say He will do when He returns again? Why rule from on high instead of "down low"? I have a few thoughts on this – for whatever they are worth. First, I would strongly suggest, again, that Jesus came for the House of Israel, that He returned at the end of the ageThe close of the old covenant era, fulfilled in 70 A.D.—not the end of the world., and wrapped the whole matter up with judgment falling on them.

Spiritual Kingdom and Earthly Shadows

In 70 AD.

Secondly, I would suggest that He did not stay around on His return (as Matthew 24 describes) but took believers with Him at that time to heaven.

Third, Jesus plainly said:

“My kingdom is not of this world,” and so therefore there was no reason for Him to reign over it then, now, or for a thousand years in the future. His kingdom is spiritual, and He reigns over those who are His spiritually that have believed on Him by virtue of the Holy Spirit, who works as a spirit agent, so to speak, drawing all men to Him.

Dreamy and fanciful eschatologies, created by men like Darby and Scofield back in the 1830’s make little sense for me in light of these questions and observations. To me, if He was going to reign He would have begun reigning at His resurrection . . . or at the latest in 70 AD at the end of the age.

But the writer of Hebrews lets us in on something here – He does not and would not reign from earth – His priesthood is not earthy but spiritual administered from heaven and on the hearts and minds of man . . . and not their flesh and economies.

Earthly Priests as Reflections

Speaking again of these earthly priests the writer continues in verse five saying:

5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

Simply put, all that the writer is saying is that Moses made or had the tabernacle crafted after heavenly things, and that it was God who told him to make the tabernacle according to His exact specifications, and that the priests were working or serving in a place created as an example (or shadow) of where Christ would ultimately reign.

I like the use of the word “shadow” here to describe the Old Covenant tabernacle. When we think about it, we might conclude that the Old Testament material temple and the material priests (etc) were materially more like the real thing since the heavenly tabernacle is spiritual. But in terms of true meaning, in terms of God and eternality and value and real significance it is wholly fitting that the old Testament material tabernacle was nothing but a shadow compared to the eternal significance of the invisible holy of Holies on high.

Materialism vs. Spiritualism

I mean, here on earth, a shadow—that of a house, or man, or a temple – can indicate the outline and form and size of the thing represented, right but we would never rely on a shadow to give us shelter, or to protect us. It is interesting that the writer uses the material tabernacle as the inferior form (the shadow) when comparing it to the real thing to come (that of spiritual substance).

For me this is a fascinating point of view. AS humans we are tempted to think that what is here and now matters – it’s a lie. The here and now – the gold, and looks, and beggarly matters are but shadows of the most amazingly substantive things to come. But the God of this world has gotten us to think otherwise – and to justify our thinking using all manner of rationale.

At the heart of atheism, if you have ever really looked at it, is materialism. Marx, a Jew turned protestant (for survival sake) who turned atheist (because that’s what he was at heart), took material and made it the only thing by which man ought to value or judge things – conjuring up for us what has come to be known as “dialectical materialism.” Christianity might otherwise be considered, from my perspective at least, the opposite in terms of substance, but known as “dialectical spiritualism.”

Joseph Smith borrowed from the premise of material value and said things like “matter cannot be created or destroyed,” and “that anything that can be considered real is made of matter,” and everything else that is non-material is evil – and fictional. From this Smith postulated that matter is eternal, and that God himself could not create it from nothing. But this is not what the writer of Hebrews implies here for us. Here he is telling us that the rites of the Jewish religion (which were material and based on material priests performing the rites in a material locale) were but a shadow (in terms of value and significance) when compared to the eternal significance…

The Superior Ministry of Christ

Great and final high priest who reigns from a kingdom invisible to the human eye and absent from human touch. Step back just for a moment and do yourself a personal favor – examine this material life. Where are all the people who lived on this earth say, one hundred and twenty years ago? They are materially dead. Where have they been since death? What have they been doing since death? How about those who were born in 1880, 1730, 1590 and back to Adam and Eve? It has been estimated (by secular scientists, mind you) that there have been 108 billion people who have ever lived on earth. Today there are maybe 6 billion. Where are the rest? Look how long have they been absent from this earth? Taking this into account, what truly is the eternal value of material accomplishment without God, of a life’s focus on things that are not eternal?

In terms of the soul the greatest investment with the greatest return on investment is an investment in knowing and loving God and loving Man in His name. Period. Everything else is has the value of “a shadow” by comparison. In fact, in comparing Christ and His place and priesthood to the shadowy former, the writer says: (verse 6)

6 But now hath He obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. Better, better, better.

The New Covenant's Superiority

Speaking of Christ the writer says: “But now hath He obtained a more excellent (a better) ministry (than the one that preceded Him as a shadow and type . . .) “by how much also He is the mediator of a better covenant . . .” (than all the mediators called high priests who were merely men materially before) . . . . . .”which was established upon better promises,” (than the promises of the Law which said, “obey and you will be blessed, disobey and you will be cursed.”) I want to take a minute and explain this a bit better.

We get “the Old Covenant ministers” he is speaking of – fleshly and yet sinful men who were washed and cleansed and dressed and made worthy by animal sacrifice to enter into the holy of Holies once a year . . . that they acted as “mediators between the invisible God and Man,” offering up the blood of animals and other gifts to make atonement for sinful people. Now while this spiritual and religious economy upon which this was all based certainly had spiritual and eternal implications, the “promises” of the Law were primarily focused on the present world, on the material, on the physical well being of those who complied.

Old Covenant vs. New Covenant

Associated with those promises were the “length of ones days;” of an increase of important figures and numbers (like the number of sheep or acres of land one owned); of “an increased seed-time and harvest;” of “national privileges and protection,” of times of extraordinary peace, abundance, and prosperity. Again, under the Law promises of life eternal were present but not primary – the present and material were primary. The writer here says four times (in two different ways) that Christ “as high priest, mediator, and minister” is better.

Appealing to His arguments, I have to believe then that it is a better promise relative to some things presently but is geared mostly to future spiritual blessings found on high, dispensed from our High Priest who is on High, and who is a King and priest reigning over a kingdom on high. Anyway I look at it, the Christian Kingdom (in other words) is NOT of this world. Where the Old Covenant blessings were mostly “presently based” admitting “some on high,” the reverse is true for the Christian, with most blessings waiting on high and only some presently shining forth materially. This is what makes this mediator better, and His promises better – they bear eternal significance by and through spiritual means, not material – which will fade away in time and space.

The writer adds:

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. By now we know the fault of the first covenant was that it interacted with faulty man, not that it was faulty by its own merits. But it was not the best primarily because it did not contain the grace-filled provisions to pardon of sin and bring about the salvation of the human soul.

For this reason

The New Covenant and Its Implications

The discussion here revolves around the promises of a new and better covenant which were anticipated to supersede the old ways under the law. The writer begins by acknowledging the limitations of the law and how it served only as a precursor to the Good News. This discussion points towards a significant shift prophesied in the scripture:

8 For finding fault with them (meaning with people or human kind – the Jewish nation, specifically) he saith, “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

In other words, the law, failing when put face to face with the Nation of Israel, caused God to promise a better way. And the writer quotes from Jeremiah 31:31-34 to describe what new better covenant God would provide. Note that the writer takes liberties and does not quote the Hebrew Jeremiah verbatim (probably because he cited it more from the Greek Septuagint) than from the Hebrew. Nevertheless, the sense of the passages is retained.

Understanding the Prophetic Timeline

The “days would come” when the Lord would make a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. What days or time was He speaking of? I would say this was speaking Messianically. Throughout the scripture, when phrases like "in the last days", "in after times", and "the time is coming" are used, they often describe the last dispensation of the age of the Nation of Israel (often written “the end of the world”) and they are speaking of when the dispensation when the affairs of the age of God dealing with “Israel’s world” would be wound up. The question remains, did these days happen when Christ returned in 70 AD or are they still hanging out there to occur at a later date?

The way Isaiah describes it, it’s hard to imagine that this has occurred yet as he says in Isaiah 2:2-3:

“And it shall come to pass in the last daysThe final years of the old covenant age—fulfilled in the first century, not future end times., that the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it.
3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”

Some things to think about. But we do know that there was a promise given – whether fulfilled in 70AD or is still being fulfilled today that God would “make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.”

The Definition of Israel and Judah

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

1. As a name given to Jacob, because he wrestled with the angel of God and prevailed as a prince, Ge 32:28.

2. As denoting all who were descended from him–called "the children of Israel"–or the Jewish nation.

3. As denoting the kingdom of the ten tribes–or the kingdom of Samaria, or Ephraim–that kingdom having taken the name Israel in contradistinction from the other kingdom, which was called Judah.

4. As denoting the people of God in general–his true and sincere friends–his church. See Barnes for Ro 2:28, See Barnes for Ro 2:29; See Barnes for Ro 9:6. In this place, quoted from Jeremiah, it seems to be used to denote the kingdom of Israel in contradistinction from that of Judah, and together they denote the whole people of God, or the whole Hebrew nation. This arrangement was ratified and confirmed by the gift of the Messiah, and by implanting his laws in the heart. It is not necessary to understand this as referring to the whole of the Jews, or to the restoration of the ten tribes; but the words Israel and Judah are used to denote the people of God in general; and the idea is, that with the true Israel under the Messiah the laws of God would be written in the heart, rather than be mere external observances.

And with the house of Judah. The kingdom of Judah. This kingdom consisted of two tribes–Judah and Benjamin.

Tribe of Benjamin

Tribe of Benjamin was, however, small, and the name was lost in that of Judah.