Comments on Chapter 8

INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS

GOD REVEALS TO US IN MANY WAYS

People have never had a common view of religion. “God,” said Tennyson, “reveals himself to us in different ways.” And George Russell put it this way: “There are as many ways to climb to the stars as there are people who dare to climb to them.” One famous and beautiful saying says: “God has His own key to every heart.” In general terms, four concepts of religion can be distinguished.

1. For some people, religion is it is inner friendship with God. This is such a union with Christ that we can say that the Christian lives in Christ, and Christ lives in the Christian. This is how Paul understood religion. For him, religion was what mysteriously united him with God.

2. For others, religion is the model by which they should build their lives and the strength that allows them to achieve this model. This is how James and Peter viewed religion. They saw in religion a model according to which they should build their lives, and it gave them strength to achieve this model.

3. Others see religion satisfaction of your intellectual searches. Their mind searches and searches until they realize that their mind can rest in God. Plato also says that an unexamined life is not worthy of living. There are people who must either understand or perish. The first chapter of the Gospel of John represents the world's greatest attempt to satisfy the demands and demands of the human mind.

4. There are also people for whom religion is a path that leads into the presence of God. She removes barriers and opens doors to Him. This is exactly how the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews understood religion. He was completely absorbed in this thought. In Jesus he found the One who could bring him into the immediate presence of God. IN Heb. 10.19-23 a great idea about religion is presented.

“Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter into the sanctuary through the blood of Jesus Christ, in a new and living way, which He again revealed to us through the veil, that is, His flesh... Let us approach with a sincere heart, with full faith...”

TWO WAYS OF THINKING

The concept of the author of Hebrews fit into both contemporary modes of thinking. On the one hand, this is the Greek way of thinking. Even from Plato, that is, for five centuries, the consciousness of the Greeks was preoccupied with the contradictions between the real and the unreal, the visible and the invisible, the transitory and the eternal. It was the Greeks who had the idea of ​​the existence somewhere of a real world, of which our world is only a weak reflection. Plato believed that somewhere out there there was a world of perfect forms, ideas, or samples. Plato said: “The Creator of the world planned his creation and executed it according to an imperishable and eternal pattern, of which this world is a copy.” Philo of Alexandria, who borrowed his ideas from Plato, said: “God knew from the very beginning that an excellent copy could be made only by having an excellent example, and that objects, having decided to create this visible world, He first created an ideal world in order to create an objective corporeal world according to an incorporeal and divine pattern." Cicero spoke about the laws known to people and applied by them on earth: “We have nothing remotely similar to real law and true justice; what we have is only a shadow and crumbs.”

This idea of ​​the existence of a real world somewhere out there, of which our world is an imperfect copy, can be found among all thinkers of antiquity. In this world we can only guess and search by touch; here we can only work with copies and imperfect objects. And all real and real objects are located in a world invisible to us. On the tombstone of the famous theologian there is a Latin inscription: “Away from shadows and appearances to the truth.” If this is so, then it is quite obvious that the purpose of our life in this world is to get away from shadows and imperfection and reach reality. And this is precisely what the author of Hebrews claims, that Jesus Christ gives us such an ability. The writer of Hebrews tells the Greeks, "All your life you have been trying to escape the shadows and come to the truth. Jesus Christ is giving you the opportunity to do this."

JEWISH WAY OF THINKING

But the author of Hebrews also shares Jewish way of thinking. In Judaism it was dangerous to approach God. “Man,” God said to Moses, “cannot see Me and live.” (Ex. 33:20). Jacob was extremely surprised at Penuel: “I saw God face to face, and my soul was preserved.” (Gen. 32:30). When Manoah realized who his guest was, he said to his wife in horror: “Surely we will die; for we have seen God.” (Judges 13:22). One of the most important religious holidays of the Jews was the Day of Atonement. Only on this day did the high priest enter the Holy of Holies, where, according to the Jews, God lived. No one except the high priest ever entered the Holy of Holies, and only on this day. The law made it clear that when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, he should not linger there long, “lest he bring terror upon Israel.” It was dangerous to enter into the presence of God; anyone who stayed there too long could be killed.

That is why the idea of covenant. God, in His mercy and without any merit on the part of the Jews, turned to the people of Israel and invited them to enter into a special relationship with Him. But this special relationship was conditioned by compliance with the law given to him. In a dramatic scene in Ref. 24.3-8 it shows how the people of Israel entered into this relationship and accepted this law.

From that moment on, Israel had access to God, but only if he follows the law. Breaking the law is sin, and sin erected a barrier between Israel and God and denied them access to Him. And to remove this obstacle, the entire system of Levitical priesthood and sacrifices was created. God gave Israel a law; people sinned; therefore a barrier arose between Israel and God; sacrifices were made to remove barriers to God. But life has shown that sacrifice is not able to do this. This served as proof that the whole system of ongoing sacrifices was hopeless. This battle was doomed to defeat and its very goal - to eliminate the barrier between man and God erected by human sin - was unattainable.

THE PERFECT PRIEST AND THE PERFECT SACRIFICE

The people needed the perfect priest and the perfect sacrifice. What was needed was someone capable of making a sacrifice to God that would once and for all open the way and access to Him. And that is exactly what Christ did, says the author of Hebrews. He is a perfect high priest because He is both a perfect man and a perfect God. In His human form He brought people to God, and in His divinity He brings God to people. There is no sin on Him. The perfect sacrifice He offered to God is Himself - a sacrifice so perfect that it never needs to be offered again.

To the Jews, the author of Hebrews said, “You have been looking all your life for the perfect priest who could offer the perfect sacrifice and give you access to God. You have received Him in Jesus Christ and Him alone.” And to the Greek the author of Hebrews said: “You are looking for the way from shadows to reality: you will find it in Jesus Christ.”

Jesus was the One who opened people's access to reality and to God - this is the main idea of ​​​​this message.

THE RIDDLE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Everything is clear so far. All other questions that arise in connection with the study and interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews are shrouded in mystery. E. F. Scott wrote: “The book of Hebrews is in many respects the puzzle of the New Testament.” We can only guess the answers to the questions when it was written, to whom and who wrote it. The history of this message shows how the mystery surrounding it led to it being treated with caution and suspicion. It took a long time before the message was finally and indisputably included among the books of the New Testament. In the Muratorian Canon, compiled around 170, it is not mentioned at all. The great scholars of Alexandria, Clement and Origen, knew and loved him, but agreed that his place among the books of Holy Scripture was debatable. As for the North African Church Fathers, Cyprian never mentions it, and Tertullian knows that its place among Scripture is disputed. Eusebius, the Church historian, said that among controversial books, this epistle stands out for its high qualities. It was not until the time of Athanasius, in the mid-fourth century, that the Epistle to the Hebrews was finally included in the New Testament, but even Luther was not completely convinced of the correctness of this decision. It is strange that this important document waited so long for recognition!

WHEN WAS IT WRITTEN

We can only glean information about this from the message itself. It was undoubtedly written in an era that can be called the second generation of Christianity (2,3). Events are presented to the listeners by those who themselves heard the Lord. To the people addressed by this message, the Christian faith was not new; in all likelihood, they had to be mature people and trained listeners (5,12). They must have had a long history because the author refers to events from days past (10,32). Behind them were a great past and heroic martyrs to which they had to look and draw inspiration. (13,7).

In establishing the date of the message, the first thing that can help us is the mention of persecution. It is clear from the message that at one time their mentors and leaders died for their faith (13,7). The addressees of the message themselves have not yet been persecuted, because they “have not yet fought to the point of blood” (12,4). It is also clear that they experienced suffering because they had to "accept the plunder of their property" (10,32-34). In general, the message gives the impression that the recipients are in danger of persecution. Based on this, we can say with confidence that the message was written in the period between two waves of persecution: in days when Christians were not directly persecuted, but were not loved among their fellow countrymen.

The first persecution of Christians took place in 64, during the time of Nero, and the second in 85, under Emperor Domitian. Somewhere between these two dates the book of Hebrews was written, most likely closer to the reign of Emperor Domitian. In all likelihood, the message was written around the year 80.

TO WHOM WAS THE MESSAGE WRITTEN?

And here we too must limit ourselves to the information and hints that we find in the message itself. One fact is clear - the message could not have been written to a large church community, for then its name would not have completely disappeared from memory. First let's stick firmly to what we know. The message was written to a church community that had a long history (5,12), which at some time in the past suffered persecution (10,32-34). It was written to a church that had great times and great teachers and preachers. (13,7). It was written to a church that was not founded by the apostles themselves (2,3), a church distinguished by its generosity and open-mindedness (6,10).

The message also contains a direct hint. Among the greetings that conclude the message we find the following sentence: “The Italians greet you.” (13,24). [Barkley: "Those who come from Italy greet you"]. Taken separately, this phrase can mean that the letter was either sent from Italy, or V Italy; it is more likely that it was written V Italy. Suppose a person writes a letter from Leningrad abroad, he probably will not write: “Everyone from Leningrad greets you,” but rather: “Everyone in Leningrad greets you.” If he is abroad and there are other Leningraders with him, he may well write: “All Leningraders greet you.” Therefore we can say that the message was written to Italy, and if so, then it is very likely that it was written in Rom.

But, quite clearly, it was not written to the entire Roman church, then it would never have lost its name. Further, it gives the impression that it was written to a small group of like-minded people, probably a group of scientists. From 5,72 we see that they studied and prepared for a long time to become teachers of the Christian faith. In addition, reading the book of Hebrews requires such knowledge of the Old Testament that it could only have been written by a learned scholar.

Putting it all together, the book of Hebrews was written by a major preacher and teacher of the Church to a small group or school of Christians in Rome. He was their teacher. But at the present time he was away from them, and since he was afraid that they were leaving the path of faith, he wrote this message. It's not so much a message as it is a conversation. It does not begin as a letter from Paul, although it ends with a greeting, like any letter. The author himself calls it a word of exhortation, a sermon.

WHO WAS THE LETTER WRITTEN?

Apparently, the most intractable issue is the issue of authorship. And it was precisely this uncertainty that was the reason that they did not dare to include it in the New Testament. In those days it was simply called "Jews." No authorship was attributed to him; no one connected him directly with the name of the Apostle Paul. Clement of Alexandria admitted that it was written by Paul in Aramaic, and Luke translated it because the style was completely different from Paul's. Origen famously said, “Only God knows who wrote the book of Hebrews.” Tertullian considered Barnabas its author. Jerome said that the Roman Catholic Church did not consider it to be the epistle of Paul and went on to say: “Whoever was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews...”. Augustine treated him the same way. Luther stated that Paul could not have been its author because he had a different way of thinking. Calvin said that he could not bring himself to believe that this epistle was written by the Apostle Paul.

Throughout the history of the Church, no one has ever seriously accepted that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. But how did the message get its name? It happened very simply. When the New Testament was finally taking shape and taking on its modern form, disputes arose about which books to include in it and which not. To make the final decision, a check was carried out: was the book or letter written by an apostle or a person who had close relationships with the apostles? By this time the book of Hebrews was known throughout the Church. Many, like Origen, who believed that God alone knew who wrote it, read and loved this epistle and wished for it to be included in the New Testament. This could only be done by including it along with the thirteen letters of the Apostle Paul. Hebrews took its place among the books of the New Testament because of its own greatness, but to be included it had to belong to the letters of Paul. People even then knew well that it was not written by Paul, but they considered it Paul’s, because no one knew its author and it had to be included in the New Testament.

AUTHOR OF HEBREWS

1. Tertullian believed that Barnabas wrote it. Barnabas was a native of Cyprus; The Cypriots were known for their excellent Greek language, and the book of Hebrews was written in the best Greek in the New Testament. Barnabas was a Levite (Acts 4:36) and had among the writers of the New Testament the most precise knowledge of the priesthood and sacrifice, on which the epistle is based. He was called "son of consolation" in Greek paraclesis: the author of Hebrews also calls the epistle a word exhortations, paraclesis (13,22). Barnabas was one of those few who were accepted by Jews and Greeks because he was familiar with both the Jewish and Greek ways of thinking. Perhaps Barnabas really wrote this letter, but why then did his name disappear from its pages?

2. Luther believed that Apollos was the author of Hebrews. According to the New Testament, Apollos was a Jew, originally from Alexandria, an eloquent man and versed in the Scriptures (Acts 18:24; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:4). The man who wrote Hebrews was well versed in the Scriptures and eloquent; he thought and argued like the educated inhabitants of Alexandria. Undoubtedly the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was a man similar in origin and way of thinking to Apollos.

3. A romantic guess was expressed by Harnack, a prominent German theologian. He suggested that these could be the thoughts of Aquila and Priscilla. They were teachers (Acts 18:26). Their home in Rome was a church (Rom. 16:5). Harnack believes that this is why the letter begins without greetings and why the name of the author disappeared - the main part of the message was written by a woman, and she did not have the right to teach.

But even after considering all the guesses and assumptions, we are forced to say, as Origen said seventeen centuries ago, that only God knows who wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews. For us, the author remains only a voice; but we can thank God for the work of this great nameless one, who with incomparable skill and beauty wrote about Jesus, who is the way to reality and the way to God.

THE PATH TO REALITY (Heb. 8:1-6)

The writer of Hebrews gave a description of the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek in all its glory. He described it as a priesthood eternal, imperishable, without beginning and without end, confirmed by oath, based on personal greatness, and not on right, appointment or racial origin. A priesthood which death can have no effect on, capable of offering a sacrifice once and for all, so pure that it does not need to offer a sacrifice for its sins. And so the author makes the following statement, emphasizing its significance: in Jesus we have such a Priest.

And he emphasizes two sayings about Jesus:

1. He is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. This is the final proof of His glory. There can be no glory greater than that which the risen and ascended Jesus was awarded.

2. Jesus is the priest of the sanctuary, says the author. This is the proof of His service. He is alone in His greatness and in His service.

Jesus never viewed greatness as selfish self-gratification. Marcus Aurelius, one of the greatest Roman emperors, was an unsurpassed ruler, died at fifty-nine years old from zeal in serving his people. When, at the appropriate time, the choice fell on him and he had to accept imperial power, then, according to his biographer, he was more frightened than overwhelmed with joy. When he was told that he must move into the house of the late Emperor Hadrian, he reluctantly left his mother's house. And when his relatives asked about the reasons for his sadness, Marcus Aurelius listed to them the difficult concerns associated with the supreme power. Marcus Aurelius saw in the royal title not greatness, but service.

The author of the message expresses a thought that has always occupied him. Religion was his way to God , and therefore the highest task of the priest is to give people access to Him. The priest helps to remove barriers that have arisen between God and man. He builds a bridge over which man can enter into the presence of God. This can also be expressed a little differently. Instead of talking about access to God we can talk about access to reality. Every writer writing about religion must choose words so that the readers understand him. He must present his message in such language and in such thoughts that it achieves its goal, because it is both understandable and familiar to the reader, or at least touches his heart and mind.

The Greeks had a certain understanding of the world. They believed that our world in space and time is only a pale shadow, a copy of the really existing world. This was the basis of the philosophy of Plato, the greatest Greek philosopher. He created the doctrine of ideas. Somewhere there is a world in which perfect, ideal people actually exist. prototypes. Moreover, our real world of things is very imperfect copies of these ideal prototypes. Sometimes Plato calls these images ideas (types). Somewhere out there there is an idea of ​​a chair, of which all existing chairs are imperfect copies. Somewhere out there is the idea of ​​a horse, of which all horses are an imperfect, distorted reflection. The Greeks were fascinated by this theory of the real world, a very imperfect and even distorted copy of which our world is. In this world we walk among shadows; somewhere out there is the real world, reality. The great problem of life is to move from this world of shadows to another world - the world of realities. And this theory is used by the author of Hebrews.

The earthly temple is only a pale copy of the temple of God. Earthly worship is only a distant reflection of real worship. The earthly priesthood is only a distorted shadow of the real priesthood. All these things themselves point to the realities of which they are shadows. The writer of Hebrews even finds this idea in the Old Testament. When Moses received commands from God to build the sanctuary, the tabernacle and all its furniture, God said to him: “See that you make them according to this pattern, which was shown to you on the mountain.” (Ex. 25:40). God showed Moses the true example, the shadow of which is all earthly worship. Thus the writer of Hebrews says that the earthly priests serve as images and shadows of the heavenly. For expression image and shadow the author uses two Greek words - hypodeigma, what does a sample, an instance, or even better, a schematic plan mean, and skia, which means shadow, reflection, ghost, silhouette. The earthly priesthood is unreal and cannot bring people to reality, but Jesus can. We can say that Jesus brings us into the presence of God, or that He leads us into reality - which is the same thing. The writer of Hebrews spoke about reality in a language that his contemporaries understood and that they themselves spoke.

Even the highest examples that can be found in this world bear the imprint of imperfection. They never reach the level we imagine. Nothing we experience or achieve in this world reaches the ideal we seek. The real world is on the other side. As Robert Browning said: "A man must reach farther than he can grasp, otherwise what is heaven for?" You can call it heaven; possible - reality; perhaps - an idea or a prototype; anyway, all this is outside our world.

Only Jesus, as the author of Hebrews saw it, can lead us out of the depressing reality into the all-satisfying reality. And he calls Him intercessor, in Greek - mixes. This word mixes derived from mesos, which in this case means in the middle. Mesites - a person who stands between two people and connects, reconciles them. Desperate to bring his problems to God, Job desperately cries, “There is no mediator between us.” (mesites), who would lay his hand on both of us" (Job 9:33). The Apostle Paul calls Moses the mediator who brought the law from God to the people. In classical antiquity, there was a special body in Athens - all citizens who had reached sixty years of age could be called upon to act as a mediator. If a dispute arose between two citizens, the mediator's task was to try, first of all, to achieve reconciliation. Were in Rome arbitrators. The judge decided criminal cases involving misdemeanors with criminal law; arbitrators they resolved issues of equity, that is, problems of private law; they lacked corpus delicti, and it was necessary to fairly resolve the dispute between citizens. Moreover, in Greek legal jargon mixes meant guarantor, trustee, pledge. A man vouched for a comrade who was on trial; he guaranteed payment of a debt or repayment of a loan. Mesites there was a man willing to pay his friend's debt to settle the matter.

Mesites - this is a person who stands between two sides and reconciles them. Jesus is our ideal and perfect messes, intermediary. He stands between us and God. He opens the way to reality and to God, and only He can bring about reconciliation between man and God; between real and unreal. In other words, only Jesus can bring us real life.

NEW RELATIONSHIPS (Heb. 8:7-13)

And now the author of Hebrews moves on to one of the main themes of the Bible - the question covenant. The Bible always uses the Greek word in this connection diathek; there was a special reason for the choice of this unusual word. Typically, a covenant means an agreement between two people. This agreement is subject to certain conditions that they both accept; and if one of them violates these conditions, the covenant loses its force. In the Old Testament the word is sometimes used in this simple sense. For example, it is used in relation to the alliance that the Gibeonites wanted to conclude with Joshua (Josh. 9:6); to a forbidden alliance with the Canaanites (Judges 2.2); to the alliance that David made with Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:3). But this word was especially used to designate the relationship between Israel and God. “Take heed lest ye forget the covenant of the Lord your God.” (Deut. 4:23). In the New Testament, this word is also used to designate the relationship between God and people.

But there is an interesting point here that requires special explanation. In Greek the word commonly used to denote an agreement is sunteke, which denotes a marriage union or marriage bond, as well as an agreement between two countries. And the word diathek in Greek it usually means not an agreement, but a will, a will. Why then did this word begin to be used in the New Testament to mean covenant? The reason is this: sunteke means an agreement made on equal terms. Parties entering into sunteke are equal and each of them can dress up and bargain. But God and man do not enter into an agreement on equal terms. A covenant, as used in the Bible, means an agreement that comes entirely from God. Man cannot bargain or dress up with Him; he cannot challenge the terms of the covenant, but only accept or reject the offer made by God. A striking example of such an agreement is by will. The terms of a will are not made on equal terms. They are determined and established exclusively by one party, namely the testator, and the other party cannot change them, but only accept the conditions or refuse the bequeathed inheritance.

For the following reason, our relationship with God is designated by the word diateke: it is a covenant, the author of the terms, the initiator of which is only one party. This relationship is offered to us solely through the initiative and mercy of God. As Philo of Alexandria said: “It can be given by God, but accepted by a wise man.” If we use the word covenant, we must always remember that this does not mean that a person dressed up with God and made a deal with Him on equal terms. This means that all initiative came entirely from God; the conditions were established by Him and man cannot change them one iota.

The ancient covenant, so well known to the Jews, was made with the people after the law had been given to them. God generously approached the people of Israel and invited them to enter into a very special relationship with Him, but this relationship was entirely dependent on the people's observance of the law. We see from Ref. 24.1-8, that the people of Israel accepted this condition. And so the author of Hebrews claims that this covenant has lost its power, and that Jesus brought people a new relationship with God.

From this passage we can deduce some features of the covenant brought to the people by Jesus.

1. The author of the letter first of all points out that the essence of the new covenant was not something completely new. It is already present in Jer. 31.31-34, that the author quotes in full. Moreover, the very fact that Scripture speaks of a new covenant shows that the old covenant did not fully satisfy its objectives. Otherwise there would be no need to even mention the new one. It is clear from Scripture that there was a search for a new covenant, and this already indicates that the old covenant was not perfect.

2. This covenant will be different in essence from the old covenant. In Greek there are two words with the meaning new. Neos characterizes a thing new in time. It may be an exact copy of many that preceded it, but since it was made after them, it is new. Kainos characterizes a new thing or phenomenon not only in terms of time, but also qualitatively. A thing reproduced according to the old principle can be neos, but not kainos. The covenant that Jesus brings to people - kainos, not only neos; it is qualitatively different from the old covenant. The author of Hebrews uses two words to designate the old covenant. He defines it as geraskon, which means not just aging, but declining, destroying, decaying. The author also says that the old covenant is close to aphanism. This word is used to convey the meaning of destroying, wiping out a city, erasing an inscription, or repealing a law. Thus, the covenant brought by Jesus is qualitatively new and completely cancels and annuls the effect of the old.

3. What is new about this covenant? It lies in the scope of its action. He must be concluded with both the house of Israel and the house of Judah. A thousand years earlier, during the time of Rehoboam, the kingdom was divided into two parts, Israel, which included ten tribes, and Judah, which included two tribes, and these two parts have not been reunited since then. The new covenant must end the division and the former enemies must be united.

4. In its versatility. Everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know God. This was something completely new for the Jews, because in everyday life they were completely separated. On the one side were the Pharisees and orthodox Jews, who strictly observed the law; on the other hand, there were those who were contemptuously called “hillbillies,” ordinary people who did not so strictly observe the requirements of the ritual law. They were simply despised. It was forbidden to make friends with them; marrying your daughter to such a man was worse than throwing her to be devoured by wild animals; it was forbidden to go on the road with them; If possible, it was forbidden even to work or do business with them. For Orthodox Jews, who strictly observed the law, ordinary people simply did not exist. And in the New Testament this division was supposed to end. All people, wise and simple, great and small, will know God. The doors, hitherto closed, will open wide.

5. But there is one even more fundamental difference between the old covenant and the new. The Old Testament was based on obedience to the laws that regulated the outer life of man. The new covenant imprinted on the hearts and minds of people. People obey God not out of fear of punishment, but out of love for Him. They obey Him not because the law forces them to do so against their will, but because the desire to obey is imprinted on their hearts.

6. This new covenant will really give people forgiveness. And this is how this forgiveness will come true. God said that He will be merciful to their iniquities and will remember their sins and iniquities no more. That is, everything will be from God. The new relationship will be based entirely on His love. Under the old covenant, a person could maintain a relationship only by obeying the law, that is, through his accomplishments. Now everything depends not on human aspirations, but on the mercy of God. The New Testament establishes a relationship between people and God, who, although he remains God the Judge, whose justice was drowned in His love. The most amazing thing about the new covenant is that man's relationship with God no longer depends on human obedience, but solely on the love of God.

One more thing remains to be said. There is nothing about sacrifice in Jeremiah's words about the new covenant. One might think that Jeremiah believed that in the new era sacrifice would be abolished as unnecessary; the mind of the author of Hebrews cannot tear himself away from the (old) sacrificial system, and he will soon begin to talk again about Jesus as the perfect sacrifice that He made for people, and that His death allowed people to enter into a new covenant.

Commentary (introduction) to the entire book of Hebrews

Comments on Chapter 8

There is no other book in the Scriptures about the author of which there would be so much controversy and the inspiration of which would be so indisputable. Conybear and Howson

Introduction

I. SPECIAL MECTO IN THE CANON

Hebrews is unique in the NT in many ways. Its beginning is completely uncharacteristic of the epistolary genre, which cannot be said about the end; it is quite obvious that it was sent either to Italy or from Italy (13:24) and was addressed to a specific group, in all likelihood, Jewish Christians. It has been suggested that it was originally addressed to a small house church and for this reason was not known to large and famous congregations who would have preserved traditions about its origin and addressee. The style of the Epistle is the most literary of all the books of the New Testament. It is poetic, full of quotations from the Septuagint. The author of the Epistle had a large vocabulary and strictly adhered to the rules of the Greek language regarding tense forms of the verb and other details.

Being in some sense very Jewish(it is often compared to the book of Leviticus), writing is very important for Christendom as a warning against leaving the true essence of the death of Christ for empty religious ritual.

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is unknown, although in many editions of the Synodal Translation of the Bible the name of the Apostle Paul is present in the title of the book. In the early Eastern Church (Dionysius and Clement, both from Alexandria) it was suggested that the author of the Epistle was Paul. After much hesitation, this point of view prevailed (starting with Athanasius), and in the end the West agreed with it.

However, in our time it is unlikely that anyone would argue that the author of the Epistle was Paul. Origen admitted that content the letters, as well as some details, were characteristically Pavlovian, but the style of the original is completely different from Paul’s style. (This is not, however, excludes the possibility that Paul was its author, because a literary genius can change his style.) Over the centuries, authorship has been attributed to seven different people: Luke, whose style is very similar to that of the Epistle and who was well acquainted with Paul's preaching; Barnabas, Silas, Philip and even Aquila and Priscilla.

Luther suggested that the author was Apollos, a man who was capable of writing a book of similar content and style: he knew the Scriptures of the OT very well and mastered the art of eloquence (he was from Alexandria, which was famous for its school of rhetoric). The argument against this theory is that this is not mentioned in any Alexandrian legend, which would hardly have been possible if a native of Alexandria had written this Epistle.

For some reason, the Lord found it necessary to leave the author's name unknown. It may well be that it was Paul who wrote this letter, but deliberately concealed his authorship due to the prejudice the Jews had towards him. And therefore, no one in all the centuries has added anything to the words of Origen, spoken in antiquity: “Who wrote this Epistle, only God knows with certainty.”

III. WRITING TIME

Although Human, the writer of the Message is unknown, time its spelling can be determined quite accurately.

External evidence suggests its appearance in the first century, since this book was used by Clement of Rome (circa 95). Although Polycarp and Justin Martyr quote from the Epistle, they do not name the author. Dionysius of Alexandria cites Hebrews as the work of Paul, Clement of Alexandria states that Paul wrote the letter in Hebrew and Luke translated it. (However, the book itself does not look like a translation.) Irenaeus and Hippolytus believed that Paul was not the author of the Epistle, while Tertullian believed that Barnabas was the author.

Based internal evidence gives the impression that the author is a second generation Christian (2.3; 13.7), so it is unlikely that it was written Very early, say, simultaneously with the Epistle of James or 1 Thessalonians (cf. 10:32). Since there is no mention of the Jewish Wars (which began in 66 AD) and, apparently, sacrifices were still being performed in the temple (8.4; 9.6; 12.27; 13.10), this letter was written before 66 AD And, without any doubt until the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD).

Persecution is mentioned, but the believers “have not yet fought to the point of blood.”

If the letter was sent to Italy, then due to the bloody persecutions unleashed by Nero (64 AD), the date of writing of the Epistle moves to mid-64 AD at the latest.

It seems quite probable to us 63-65 AD.

IV. PURPOSE OF WRITING AND TOPIC

Overall, the book of Hebrews deals with the incredible struggles that accompany the transition from one religious system to another. This includes the pain of breaking old ties, the stress and tension of alienation, and the enormous pressure put on the apostate to force him to return.

But the problem at the center of this Message is not simply the transition from the old system to a new one that is equivalent to it. No, the question here was about the transition from Judaism to Christianity and, as the author shows, about leaving the shadow for the sake of substance, the ritual for the sake of the true essence, the preliminary for the final, the temporary for the permanent - in short, the good for the best.

But it was also a problem of moving away from the popular to the unpopular, from the majority to the minority, from the oppressors to the oppressed. And this gave rise to many serious difficulties.

The message was addressed to people of Jewish origin. These Jews heard the Gospel preached by the apostles and evangelists at the dawn of the Church, and saw the great miracles of the Holy Spirit that supported this preaching. They responded to the Good News in different ways.

Some believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and sincerely converted to Christianity.

Some claimed to have become Christians, were baptized, and took their place in local communities. Yet they were never regenerated by the Holy Spirit of God.

Others resolutely rejected the message of salvation.

The Message deals with the first two groups - Jews who truly found salvation, but who were far from Christianity.

When a Jew abandoned the faith of his fathers, he was looked upon as a renegade and apostate (“meshumed”), and faced one or more punishments: - disinheritance; - exclusion from the religious brotherhood of Israel; - job loss; - deprivation of property; - "psycho-terror" and physical torture; - becoming an object of universal ridicule; - imprisonment; - martyrdom.

There remained, of course, a road to retreat. If he renounces Christ and returns to Judaism, he will be freed from further persecution. Between the lines of this Message we read about some of the arguments that were used to convince the “renegade” to return to Judaism: - the rich traditions of the prophets; - the outstanding ministry of angels in the history of the ancient people of God; - intimacy with the famous lawgiver Moses; - national ties connecting a Jew with the brilliant military leader Joshua; - the glory of the Aaronic priesthood; - The Holy of Holies, the place chosen by God to dwell among His people; - the covenant of law given by God through Moses; - the God-ordained structure of the sanctuary and the magnificent veil; - services in the sanctuary and especially the ritual on the great Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur - the most important day in the Jewish calendar).

Before our eyes vividly rises the image of a Jew who lived at the dawn of our era, who describes all the glory of his ancient, rich in rituals religion, and then with a contemptuous grin asks: “What do you, Christians, have? We have all this. What do you have?” you? Nothing but an unpretentious upper room and a table with bread and wine on it! Do you really mean to say that you left all that for the sake of this?"

The book of Hebrews is actually an answer to the question: "What do you have?" And this answer is formulated in one word: "Christ". In him we have:

- The One who is greater than the prophets;

- The One who is greater than the angels;

- One who is greater than Moses;

- One who is greater than Joshua;

- Him whose priesthood is higher than the priesthood of Aaron;

- One who serves in a much better sanctuary;

- The One who introduced a much better covenant;

- Him Whose type was the construction of the tabernacle and the veil;

- The One whose sacrifice of Himself, completed once and for all, stands above the repeated sacrifices of bulls and goats.

Just as the stars fade in the rays of a sun brighter than themselves, so the types and shadows of Judaism fade in the rays of a more glorious person and work of the Lord Jesus than themselves.

But there was also the problem of persecution.

Those who declared their affiliation with the Lord Jesus faced fierce fanatical opposition. In view of this, true believers were in danger of losing heart and falling into despair. This means that they needed to be encouraged, encouraged not to lose faith in the promises of God. They must endure everything patiently in view of the coming reward.

Those who merely called themselves Christians were in danger of apostasy. Having once declared that they had accepted Christ, they could now categorically renounce Him and return to ritual religion. This is tantamount to trampling the Son of God underfoot, desecrating His Blood and insulting the Holy Spirit. There was no repentance or forgiveness for such a deliberate sin. The book of Hebrews warns against this sin again and again. 2:1 says that he who commits this sin disappears from the message of Christ; in 3:7-19 - that he rebels against God, or hardens his heart.

In 6.6 it is named fallen away or an apostate. In 10.25 this sin is called sin leaving the meeting, in 10.26 - sin arbitrary, or intentional. In 12:16 this sin is spoken of as selling his birthright for one food. Finally, at 12.25 he is named refusal to listen The One who speaks from heaven. But all these warnings are directed against different aspects of the same sin - sin apostasy.

The book of Hebrews is as relevant today as it was in the early days of the Church.

We need constant reminders of the eternal privileges and blessings that are ours in Christ. We need exhortation to endure everything patiently, regardless of any difficulties or opposition. All who call themselves Christians need a warning: do not return to ritual religion after you have tasted and seen how good the Lord is.

Plan

I. THE SUPERIORITY OF THE PERSON OF JESUS ​​(1.1 - 4.13)

A. The superiority of Jesus over the prophets (1:1-3)

B. The superiority of Jesus over the angels (1.4 - 2.18)

C. The superiority of Jesus over Moses and Joshua (3.1 - 4.13)

II. THE SUPERIORITY OF THE PRIESTHOOD OF JESUS ​​(4.14 - 10.18)

A. The superiority of the high priesthood of Jesus over the high priesthood of Aaron (4:14 - 7:28)

B. The Superiority of Jesus' Ministry over Aaron's (Chapter 8)

C. The superiority of Christ's sacrifice over the sacrifices of the Old Testament (9.1 - 10.18)

III. WARNING AND ADSURES (10.19 - 13.17)

A. Warning not to despise Christ (10:19-39)

B. An exhortation to faith using examples from the Old Testament (Chapter 11)

C. An Exhortation to Trust in Christ (Chapter 12)

D. Exhortation on various Christian virtues (13:1-17)

IV. FINAL BLESSING (13,18-25)

8,1 The following verses show that Christ's ministry is superior to Aaron's because both the sanctuary in which He does it (vv. 1-5) and the covenant under which He does it (vv. 7-13) are better. Now the author comes to the main thing in the chain of their evidence. He does not summarize everything that was said before, but formulates his main thesis, to which he led the reader from the very beginning of the Epistle.

We have such a High Priest.

In words "we have" triumph sounds.

They are the answer to those Jews who let the first Christians down: "We have the tabernacle of meeting; we have the priesthood; we have sacrifices; we have traditions; we have the temple and the beautiful vestments of the priests." In response, believers confidently say: “Yes, you have shadows, but we have their embodiment. You have traditions, we have Christ. You have illustrations, we have a Person. And our High Priest sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven. No high priest ever occupied such a place of honor and power."

8,2 He serves the people sanctuary heaven This - true tabernacle, and the earthly tabernacle of meeting was only a copy or image of it. It was the Lord who erected the true tabernacle, not man, as was the case with the earthly tabernacle.

8,3 Since one of the main responsibilities high priest- offering gifts and sacrifices, then, therefore, our High Priest must do this.

Gifts is a general term covering all types of sacrifices offered to God. Victims- these are the gifts that entailed the death of the animal.

What does Christ bring? This question is not directly answered until Chapter 9.

8,4 This verse omits the answer to the question of what Christ brings and simply reminds us that on earth he would had no right to offer gifts in the tabernacle of meeting or in the temple. Our Lord was from the tribe of Judah, not the tribe of Levi or the family of Aaron. Therefore He was not fit to serve in the earthly sanctuary. Reading in the Gospels that Jesus entered the temple (see Luke 19:45), one must understand that He was on its territory, but He did not enter either the sanctuary or the Holy of Holies.

Here the question naturally arises: did Christ perform any of the functions of the high priest while He was on earth, or did He begin His priestly work only after His Ascension? The main point of verse 4 is that on earth He was not qualified to serve as a Levitical priest and couldn't serve in the Jerusalem temple. But this does not mean that He could not fulfill functions of a priest according to the order of Melchizedek. After all, His prayer in Heb. John 17 is the prayer of the high priest, and His offering of Himself on Calvary as the perfect sacrifice was undoubtedly a priestly act (see 2:17).

8,5 The Tabernacle of Meeting on earth was an exact replica heavenly Tabernacles Its layout indicated how God's covenant people could approach God in worship. First came the door of the outer court, then the altar of burnt offering, then the laver.

After this, the priests entered the sanctuary, and the high priest entered the Holy of Holies, where God revealed Himself.

Tabernacles of Meeting the role of the final sanctuary was never assigned.

She was only image and shadow. When God called Moses to Mount Sinai and ordered him to build the tabernacle of meeting. He gave him a detailed diagram to follow.

This image was a symbol of a higher heavenly, spiritual reality.

Why does the author emphasize this with such force? He wants to convey to anyone who is tempted to return to Judaism that instead of going from the shadow to reality, he is leaving reality for the shadow.

Verse 5 clearly teaches that all the institutions of the OT were symbols of heavenly reality; Thus, this confirms the validity of the doctrine based on symbols, if, of course, it does not contradict Scripture and does not become very fanciful.

8,6 This verse is a bridge between the topic of the best sanctuary and the discussion better covenant.

First comes the comparison. The ministry of Christ is superior to the ministry of the priests after the order of Aaron, just as covenant, Of which He is the mediator, it is superior to the former covenant.

The reason is also given: this the covenant is better because established on better promises.

Service Christ is immeasurably better. He sacrificed Himself, not an animal. He paid with His Blood, not with the blood of goats and bulls. He washed away sins, not just covered them.

He gave believers a clear conscience, not an annual reminder of their sins. He opened a way for us to come into the presence of God rather than stand at a distance.

He also Intercessor for a better covenant. How Intercessor, He stands between God and man, bridging the abyss of alienation. Griffith Thomas gives a brief comparison of covenants: “This covenant is better because it places absolutely no conditions, because it is spiritual and not carnal, universal and not private, eternal and not temporary, individual and not national, internal and not external.”(W. H. Griffith Thomas, Hebrews: A Devotional Commentary, p. 103.)

He the best testament because it is based on the best promises. The covenant of the law promised blessing for obedience, but threatened death for disobedience. He demanded righteousness, but did not impart the ability to produce it.

The new covenant is a covenant of grace that does not impose any conditions. He credits righteousness where there is none. He teaches people to live righteously, gives them the strength to do this and rewards them if they live this way.

8,7 First Testament was not perfect, that is, he was not successful in building an ideal relationship between man and God. But it was not intended as a final covenant, but as a preparation for the coming of Christ. Link to another the covenant testifies that first was far from ideal.

8,8 However, the problem is not in the first covenant as such: “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy, and righteous, and good” (Rom. 7:12). The problem is the people to whom it was given; The law was given useless material to work with.

This is what it says here: "But the prophet, reproaching them, says..." The Lord did not rebuke the covenant, but His covenant people. The first covenant was based on man's promise to obey (Ex. 19:8; 24:7), and therefore his fate was short-lived.

The New Testament is, from beginning to end, a statement of what God undertakes to do; this is his strength.

The author now quotes Jeremiah (31:31-34) to show that in the Hebrew Scriptures God promised to give a new covenant. The whole proof is built around the word "new". If the old was enough, then why introduce a new one? But God made a very specific promise make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. As already stated, New Testament relates primarily to the people of Israel, and not to the Church. It will be fully fulfilled when Christ returns to reign over a repentant and redeemed people. In the meantime, some of the blessings of the covenant are enjoyed by all believers. Therefore, handing over the cup of wine to His disciples, the Savior said: “This cup is the new covenant in My Blood; do this, as often as you drink, in remembrance of Me” (1 Cor. 11:25).

Henderson writes: "We therefore distinguish between the primary interpretation for Israel and the secondary, spiritual application for the Church today. We now, by the power of the Holy Spirit, enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant, and yet, following God's promises, the future will bring further manifestations of the covenant for Israel."(Henderson, Hebrews, p. 92.)

8,9 God specifically promised that the new covenant would not be like the one He concluded with the Israelis when He led them out of Egypt by the hand. What is their difference? He doesn't say this, but perhaps the answer is implied in the rest of the verse: "... because they did not continue in my covenant, and I despised them, says the Lord." The covenant of law failed because it imposed conditions; he demanded obedience from a people who could not show it. Having made the New Covenant a covenant of grace, not putting forward any conditions, God excluded any possibility of its failure, because the fulfillment of the covenant depends only on Himself; Failures are unknown to God.

Some words from Jeremiah have undergone radical changes. The Hebrew text of Jeremiah 31:32 says, “though I remained in league with them.” Some early translations of Jeremiah say, “and I despised them (or turned away from them).” The Holy Spirit, who inspired these words in Jeremiah and oversaw the preservation of the Bible, directed the author of Hebrews to choose this alternative text.

8,10 The Old Testament talks about what man should do, the New Testament talks about what God did. After the days of Israel's disobedience were over, He will invest Their laws in their thoughts so that they know them, and in their hearts so that they love them. They will want to obey, not out of fear of punishment, but out of love for Him. The laws will not be written on stone, but on the fleshy tablets of the heart.

I will be their God and they will be My people. This speaks of intimacy. The OT ordered the man to stand at a distance; grace tells him to come closer. This demonstrates an inextricable relationship and unconditional security. Nothing will ever break these bonds paid for in Blood.

8,11 The New Testament also includes universal knowledge of the Lord. During the glorious reign of Christ no one will need to teach your neighbor and your brother, saying: Know the Lord. In each from small to large, the consciousness of God will live: “... the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Is. 11:9).

8,12 And what is most beautiful is that the New Testament promises unrighteous people mercy and eternal oblivion their sins. The law was cruel and unbending: “... every crime and disobedience received a righteous reward” (Heb. 2:2).

Moreover, the law could not eradicate sin. He provided the opportunity to atone for sins, but not to be washed from them (the Hebrew word for “atonement” comes from the verb "cover"). The sacrifices prescribed by law purified a person ritually, that is, they gave him the right to participate in the religious life of the nation. But this ritual purity was only superficial; it did not affect the inner life of a person. She gave him neither moral purification nor a clear conscience.

8,13 The fact that God introduces new covenant means that first already dilapidated. If this is so, there is no point in thinking about going back to the law. And this was precisely the temptation that faced some of those who called themselves believers. The author warns them that the covenant of the law is already outdated; a better covenant has been provided to the people. They had to align their intentions with God's plans.

The main one (i.e. head, - Note ed.) is always called the most important; when someone wants to convey the most essential in a little, he says that he pays attention to this at the head of everything, just as the head, although small in size, is the most important part of the body. So now the apostle says: the main thing is what we are talking about, that is, I will express the most important and briefly encompassing many things: - we have God as our High Priest. For sitting is not characteristic of anyone else except God. Notice how, having said a lot of humiliated things, namely: the High Priest intercedes with the Father, and what is characteristic of humanity ascends to the high and to what is characteristic of the Divine. He always does this, just as his Mentor does in the Gospel, in order to guide the listener through humiliation, so that he perceives the word: for otherwise the listener does not understand unless he ascends gradually; through the sublime he teaches that the humiliated was condescension. The throne of greatness calls the throne of the Father, either because the Father could be called greatness for Him, or simply because throne of majesty there is the highest throne.

Just as the earthly high priests served when entering the Holy of Holies, so He truly is the minister of the holy, true, heavenly sanctuaries. It would seem that Paul is contradicting himself here. For at the beginning he said: To whom did God ever say from the Angels, Sit at My right hand? Are they not all ministering spirits?(Heb. 1:13 -14), as if making it clear that it is not proper for a minister to sit. Now, having said: sat down at the right hand of the throne, again represents Him as a servant. So, how does he say this, if not out of complete condescension towards the listeners, and mixing the humiliating with the high? And some understood: servant of the saints, i.e. people sanctified by Him. For, says (Apostle Paul, - Note Transl.), He is our High Priest.

Here he encourages the believing Jews. For since, probably, they were perplexed, saying: we do not have such a tabernacle, then, he says, a greater and true tabernacle is heaven itself. For the Old Testament tabernacle was an image of this: and that one was erected by man, or by Bezalel (Ex. 31:2), or by Moses, but this one by God. Note here, according to St. John Chrysostom, that the sky neither moves nor is spherical: for the expression: erected excludes both.

As he said: sat down(Heb. 8:1), so that you do not consider it a deception that he called Him a priest, he says that although he sat down, he did not therefore cease to be the High Priest; for He has everything that belongs to the high priests, and just as they offered sacrifices, so He offered Himself as a sacrifice. To sit at the right hand belongs to His dignity, but the high priesthood is a matter of great love for mankind. And besides, since some asked why He died, if He really was the Son and eternal, He resolves this bewilderment and says: since He was a Priest, and a priest does not exist without sacrifice, then it was necessary that Sey also had something to bring. This was nothing other than the body of Himself. So He had to die. Between for nothing And victims, in the precise sense, there is a difference. For sacrifices include offerings of blood and meat, or more precisely, everything that is burned by fire. For the word θυσία - sacrifice actually comes from the word θύεσθαι, that is, to be burned. Gifts, such as fruits and the like, are bloodless and cannot be burned. However, in Scripture both are used indifferently, as for example: and the Lord looked upon Abel and his gift, although the gift was precisely from the firstborn sheep. But he did not look upon Cain or his gift, although the gift was from the fruits of the ground (Gen.4:3-5). If someone tries to reconcile this with empty reasoning, which we ourselves have heard, then I still do not see how he will free himself from the reproach of inattentively reading the Scriptures. For often in other places this is used indifferently, and I could cite countless places if I did not consider it unnecessary. However, it will be enough for us that the apostle himself further called in general everything sacrificed as gifts. Listen here.

It also confirms that although he has a tabernacle not on earth, it is in heaven; however, this does not make him an obstacle to being a priest. And notice the wisdom. On the basis of which someone could especially assert that He is not a priest, I mean, of course, that He has no place on earth where He priested - on the basis of this, He himself most asserts that He is a Priest, and says that for this very reason He is a Priest, because He had no place on earth. If He had remained on earth, He would not have been a priest.. For there were other priests on earth, and this circumstance would seem to be a refutation. Now, having a place - heaven, and having lifted up his own body there, there He intercedes for us before the Father. Hence, since He is in heaven, He is therefore primarily a Priest.

Here shows the advantage of the priesthood of Christ, calling the Old Testament priesthood image and shadow, ours is heavenly. For when there is nothing earthly, on the contrary, everything is spiritual, that is in the sacraments, where are the angelic hymns, where are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the remission of sins, and again the binding; when our residence is in heaven, how can our priesthood not be heavenly? Therefore, this heavenly priesthood served as a prototype and example, that is, a dark example and, as it were, a shadow outline, what was revealed to Moses in the Old Testament.

Since we comprehend more quickly what we see with our eyes than what we learn through hearing, therefore God showed Everything is to Moses, not only the construction of the tabernacle, but also that which concerns the sacrifices and the entire service.

This follows from that very thought: if He had remained on earth, He would not have been a priest. Now, he says, not being on earth, but having heaven as the place of sacred rites, He received the best service, that is, His ministry is not such as is characteristic of earthly high priests, but heavenly, since the place of its performance is heaven.

Having exalted the priesthood of Christ according to place, and according to priest, and according to sacrifice, he openly exposes it in the same way according to the covenant. And although he had previously said that the Old Testament was weak and unhelpful due to the infancy of the listeners, he soon stopped talking about it. Now he lingers for a long time on reasoning about this, and shows that the New Testament is better than that, that is, the Gospel, its intercessor and giver is Christ; for He Himself has become for us a minister of the Gospel, taking the form of a slave as Moses is the mediator of the law.

Suggests what was especially encouraging to the Jewish believers, namely, that the promises of our covenant are better promises. For it is not the blessings of the earth, nor the blessings of posterity, nor the abundance of children, but the Kingdom of Heaven that is promised to those who keep the Gospel. Therefore, do not be faint-hearted: the promises of the gospel are better; It is unwise for those who have the best to be discouraged.

Notice the order. He said that the covenant of Christ is better than the Old. Where can you see this? From what he says that established on better promises. For if the promises and rewards are better, then it is quite clear that the covenant is better and the commandments more divine. How can we see that the promises are better? From this, he says that that one was canceled, and this one was introduced in its place. For the New Testament has superiority because it is better and more perfect. If the first covenant had been without defect, that is, if he had made people blameless, then the second covenant would not have been introduced. As we usually say: a house is not without shortcomings, instead of saying: it is falling into disrepair, falling into disrepair; So he said about the Old Testament that it was not without a defect, not as bad, but as not having the power to make people better, as given to infants.

He did not say: reproaching him, that is, a covenant, but reproaching them, that is, Jews who could not improve through the commandments of the law.

This shows more clearly that the Old Testament has been abolished. For he introduces God, who says through Jeremiah that I will make a new covenant(Jer.31:31 -34), that is, completely new: not as the Jews understand, that Ezra updated the Scriptures. For the Scripture did not become new, but remained ancient, although it was restored by him.

So that no one would think that the covenant that was concluded with Abraham was being canceled, he added: the time I took them by the hand. For, he says, I desire to abolish the covenant spoken of in the book of Exodus, the covenant given on Mount Sinai to your fathers who brought together the calf, whereas it was the covenant with Abraham in Christ that was fulfilled. For will be blessed, speaks, in your seed are all nations(Gen. 22:18), that is, in Christ.

You see that the beginning of evil is from us. They, speaks, didn't stay, and therefore I neglected them. On the contrary, goods and benefits originate from Him. As if justifying himself, he gives the reason why He leaves them, precisely because of their inconstancy.

8:1 The main thing about what we are talking about is this: we have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven
So, the new spiritual High Priest - the resurrected Jesus Christ - has many advantages compared to the high priests from the tribe of Aaron. But its main advantage is that the new high priest sits at the right hand of God in heaven; he himself does not need to undergo many cleansing procedures in order to cry out to God from earth in the hope of being heard. He is close to God and can talk to Him at any moment.

8:2 and [is] a minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
In addition, Jesus has the opportunity to officiate in the true sanctuary of God, located in heaven and built by God himself. The earthly sanctuary was erected by people, therefore the heavenly sanctuary is as much superior to the earthly as God's ability to create and create is superior to human ability in this.

8:3 Every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; and therefore it was necessary that He also had something to bring.
But since the High Priest of the earthly sanctuary was intended to offer gifts and sacrifices to God, the new spiritual High Priest must also not appear to God empty-handed, but with the blood of an atoning sacrifice. Jesus had this blood by sacrificing himself as a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6)

8:4 If He had remained on earth, He would not have been a priest, because [here] there are priests who, according to the law, bring gifts,
If Jesus had remained on earth, he could not have been a priest according to the law: this man was not from the line of Aaron; Jesus would not have the right to officiate in the tabernacle of the earthly dispensation

8:5 who serve the image and shadow of the heavenly, but the earthly priesthood before God is just a “shadow” that the heavenly priesthood “casts,” and earthly priests are only an imperfect copy of the heavenly priesthood, failing as much in reflecting the true essence as man himself fails in reflecting the essence of God.

as it was said to Moses when he began to complete the tabernacle: look, it is said, do everything according to the image shown to you on the mountain.
The earthly sanctuary and the process of sacred rites were arranged by Moses according to the model that was shown to him on Mount Sinai. That is, the earthly temple structure for the sacred service of God is an attempt by Moses, with the help of God, to “copy” the heavenly structure as accurately as possible under earthly conditions using earthly priests and earthly attributes.

We can say that on earth there is just a tiny model of God’s structure of a society of intelligent individuals who worship God. And in heaven is the very structure, the very essence of the things of God’s world order.

8:6 But this [High Priest] received a more excellent service, inasmuch as He was a better intercessor for the covenant, which was established on better promises.
But the new High Priest Jesus Christ received the opportunity to minister before God and intercede for sinful people under conditions that surpass the conditions of the Old Testament as much as the New Testament of God with people itself surpasses the Old (the new covenant has better promises, it will lead all God-fearing humanity to eternal life: to spiritual and physical perfection)

8:7 For if the first [testament] had been without deficiency, there would have been no need to look for a place for another.
The Old Testament could not provide salvation from sin and death to God-fearing humanity, although it was needed at a certain stage in human history. But since God’s intention includes precisely the salvation of mankind from sin and death (1 Tim. 2:4), He provided for the introduction of a New Testament capable of fulfilling his plan.

8:8 But [the prophet], rebuking them, says: Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
The people of God of antiquity knew from their prophets that the former (old) covenant with the descendants of Israel (10-tribe state) and Judah (Judah) would be replaced by a new one (Jer. 31:31-34). Therefore, Jewish Christians should not be surprised at the introduction of another covenant with God, in which the resurrected Jesus Christ is appointed as the High Priest for all of God's people in the new covenant era.

8:9 not such a covenant as I made with their fathers at the time when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, because they did not continue in that covenant of mine, and I despised them, says the Lord.
The new covenant will have to be different from the previous one, concluded with Israel according to the flesh after their withdrawal from Egypt. The Jews had to understand that the Mosaic Law was not the only and not the final covenant of God with His people, since it would be replaced by another.

8:10 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they will be My people.
The New Testament will have to help change the inner essence of God's people, improve their conscience, and not just dictate points of rules for life, like the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law could be fulfilled by both good and evil people, both those who love and those who do not love God and people - in order to avoid the punishment of death.

The New Testament will contribute to the growth in them of a spiritual personality, warm-hearted, kind and loving both God himself and the way of life that He offers to humanity for all eternity: not a single evil person will be able to become a participant in the New Testament (or he will have to change his essence to good, or he will be crossed out from the lists of God’s existence)

8:11 And every man shall not teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; because everyone, from the least of them to the greatest, will know Me,
The Law of God, written on the hearts and embedded in the conscience of man, will guarantee that every “heartfelt” participant in the New Testament will know how to act correctly, according to his conscience, in all life situations, and for this he will not have to “shovel” mountains waste paper clauses of the law in the hope of finding in them a description of how he should do the right thing in his situation.

Not a single law in the form of prescriptions has the ability to describe ALL possible everyday situations for a believer, but the conscience, trained by God himself, will prompt him correctly in any situation, for every person, having known God’s spirit, will know exactly how in his situation God would do it. This means that He should do the same. This is spiritual perfection, when the mind of Christ and the spirit of God are known to perfection.
Achieving spiritual perfection is the apogee of the influence of the New Testament on humanity, it will be achieved at the end of the Millennium: and I will be their God, and they will be My people (Rev.21:3,7)

8:12 because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Why will New Covenant participants be able to achieve spiritual perfection? Because because of the atonement of Christ, God will have every reason to forgive them all their sins (Rom. 3:24,25)
The forgiveness of sins will make them righteous in the eyes of God. This, in turn, will allow Him to graciously bring the purified people closer to Himself so that they have the opportunity to be “fed” with His holy spirit and completely change their inner essence.

Such closeness to God under the conditions of the previous covenant was impossible due to the fact that the blood of animals did not cleanse the conscience of sinners to a state of righteousness (Heb. 10:1,4), and God is far from the wicked (Proverbs 15:29) and does not could break His law, bringing closer to himself those who sinned and at the same time believed that the blood of animals would wash away their sins.

8:13 By saying “new,” he showed the dilapidation of the first; and the decaying and aging is close to destruction.
The Jews had to understand that if God appointed a new high priest and enacted the New Covenant, then the previous covenant, by which they were accustomed to live and consider themselves righteous (the Mosaic Law), had already been “spent”, having exhausted itself, and had lost its significance for God. people.

8:1-2 The ministry of the High Priest “perfect forever” is connected with the sacred rites “in the sanctuary and true tabernacle” erected by God.

8:3 had something to bring. Jesus sacrificed Himself: His blood (9:12) and body (10:10).

8:4 would not have been a priest either. On earth, Jesus could not be a priest due to the Law of Moses (7:13). The priestly ministry of Jesus is thus carried out according to other laws, not earthly, but heavenly.

8:5 image and shadow. The tablets given to Moses contained only a vague reflection of Jesus' future ministry. Both the tablets and the regulations about worship served one purpose - they pointed to Jesus.

8:6 The new covenant is better because it is made with an oath (7:22), and also because it contains better promises (vv. 8-12). For both reasons, the new covenant ministry is "most excellent."

intercessor. A mediator is a person representing both contracting parties. Moses is characterized as the mediator (intercessor) of the law (Gal. 3:19.20). The essence of Christ's mediation is that He offered Himself as an atoning sacrifice for sin (9:14.15; 12:24; 1 Tim. 2:5.6).

8:7-13 The promise of the new covenant in Jer. 31:31-34 is the unifying theme of verses 8:7-10.18, in which the word translated "covenant" appears fourteen times. For comparison, we note that it occurs three more times in the Epistle to the Hebrews (7.22; 12.24; 13.20) and sixteen times in the rest of the books of the New Testament.

8:7 God's promise of a new covenant through Jeremiah shows that the former covenant was not final.

8:9 did not continue in that covenant. One of the reasons that determined the need for a new covenant is that the people “did not abide” in the previous covenant, i.e. the law that accompanied the covenant also violated it.

8:10 I will put My laws in their minds. Unlike the sanctification provided for by the law, the death of Christ cleanses the conscience (9:9-14), so we are able to do the will of God (keep His laws in our thoughts).

8:11 everyone... will know me. The law prohibited anyone except the high priest from entering the Holy of Holies (the presence of God). Under the new covenant, everyone can come to God through Jesus Christ (10:19-22).

8:12 Their sins... I will not remember. Unlike the constantly repeated sacrifices required by the law as an annual reminder of sin (10:3), the sacrifice of Jesus brought forgiveness of sins and sanctification and was completed once and for all (10:10.13.18).

2. HIGHER SERVICE (8:1 - 10:18)

As the author further develops his thoughts, he makes it clear that the basis of the new priestly ministry is the New Testament.

A. Entry into Higher Ministry (8:1-6)

Heb. 8:1-2. The first half of verse 1 seems to summarize what was said above in order to move on to the development of new thoughts. The author speaks of the Lord Jesus, who as High Priest is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, in almost the same words as in 1:3 (compare 10:12; 12:2). This topic will be developed in detail further.

In the words of the sacred act of the sanctuary and the true tabernacle, he touches on some provisions that he briefly touched on before, but speaks about them in different words. The idea of ​​"sacred rites" (yaeitourgos) lies at the heart of the new theme. The “true tabernacle” refers to the heavenly sphere where this “sacred rite” takes place.

Heb. 8:3-6. Since the function of the High Priest was to offer gifts and sacrifices, it was necessary that the new High Priest also have something to offer. Remaining on earth, He could not have been the High Priest, since the performance of Levitical rituals in the temple continued (these words indicate that the letter was written before the destruction of the temple).

However, the sanctuary in which the Levites served was only a type (compare 9:23-24) and a shadow (compare 10:1) of the heavenly sanctuary in which the new High Priest ministered. This is confirmed by the words that Moses heard from above when he began the construction of the spasha (preceding the temple) under God's guidance (8:5).

And the ministry performed by Jesus in the heavenly "tabernacle" is as much superior to the ministry of the Levites as the covenant of which He is the Mediator is the ray of their covenant (i.e., the law). (The author uses the word “intercessor” three times here - in 8:6; 9:15; 12:24.)

The word service (leitourgia) again carries the main semantic load here; the superiority of the new priestly ministry is connected, as already noted, with the superiority of the new covenant, which is established on better promises. It is to the consideration of this covenant and its promise that the author now proceeds.

b. The "most excellent" covenant (8:7 - 9:15)

Heb. 8:7. To prove that the New Covenant was promised of old, the author will shortly refer to the book of Jeremiah (31:31-34). In this promise he sees evidence of the failure of the previous covenant.

Heb. 8:8-12. The promise of the New Testament was given, the author points out, when God, through the mouth of a prophet, rebuked the people. The Old Testament “failed” because of the sinfulness of the people, for which it had no remedy. The New Testament has such a remedy.

The text quoted here from the book of Jeremiah first foretells the establishment of a new covenant (verse 8); then comes the forceful declaration that it will be different from the previous one (verse 9). Then comes a description of the “most excellent” results that will result from the making of the promised covenant.

These are: 1) an internal tendency to obedience “God will put His laws in their thoughts and write them on their hearts”; 2) a stable relationship with God “and I will be their God, and they will be My people”; 3) knowledge of God “all... will know Me” and 4) forgiveness of sins “I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” These are all the “better promises” mentioned in verse 6.

It is clear that they all belong to people reborn from above, no matter how many of them have lived on earth since the Savior’s death on the cross. And although the new covenant is primarily focused on Israel (“the house of Israel and the house of Judah” in Jer. 31:31), there is no doubt that Christians of all times are included in the blessings mentioned (Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; 2 Cor. 3:6). This understanding does not at all lead to an erroneous confusion between Israel and the Church.

The New Covenant is the instrument chosen by God to bring about the blessings promised to Israel in Abraham. But in the covenant of God with Abraham, the blessing of “all nations” was intended, so that the new covenant thereby becomes God’s means of salvation for all who believe in Him from the time of the Cross. To say this is, in essence, to say nothing more than what was announced by Jesus Himself: “ For salvation comes from the Jews" (John 4:22).

The Savior’s words, however, in no way contradict the perception of the Christian Church as a unique phenomenon, as a kind of spiritual body, closely connected with Christ and significantly different from the phenomenon of the Israeli people. But since salvation as a whole is accomplished through the cross of Christ, it is impossible apart from the blood of the New Testament.

Heb. 8:13. From the Old Testament prophecy he just quoted, the author makes a fair conclusion that the Old Testament is something decaying and aging, and, therefore, close to destruction. The rituals still performed according to it (verses 4-5) are a spiritual anachronism; at this moment the author could remember Jesus' prophecy about the destruction of the Jerusalem temple (Matt. 24:1-2). This prophecy was probably fulfilled shortly after the writing of the Epistle to the Hebrews. And then the destruction of the temple was a dramatic confirmation of the author’s thoughts about the Old Testament.