Bible Commentaries
Hebrews 8

Verses 1-99

1 The point of all this is, we do have such a highpriest, one who is “seated at the right hand” of the throne of Majesty (see 1:3) in the heavens, 2 and who officiates in the sanctuary or “true tabernacle set up by the Lord” and not by man. 3 Now, as every highpriest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices, he too must have something to offer. 4 Were he on earth, he would not be a priest at all, for there are priests already to offer the gifts prescribed by Law (5 men who serve a mere outline and shadow of the heavenly—as Moses was instructed when he was about to execute the building of the tabernacle: “see,” God said, “that (sc. ὅπως) you make everything on the pattern shown you upon the mountain”). 6 As it is, however, the divine service he has obtained is superior, owing to the fact that he mediates a superior covenant, enacted with superior promises.

The terseness of the clause ἢν ἔπηξεν ὁ κύριος, οὐκ ἄνθρωπος (v. 1) is spoiled by the insertion of καί before οὐκ (A K L P vg boh syr arm eth Cosm). In v. 4 οὖν becomes γάρ in Dc K L syrhkl arm Chrys. Theod., and a similar group of authorities add ἱερέων after ὄντων. Τόν is prefixed needlessly to νόμον by אc D K L P Chrys. Dam. to conform to the usage in 7:5, 9:22; but the sense is really unaffected, for the only legal regulation conceivable is that of the Law. In v. 6. νῦν and νυνί (9:26) are both attested; the former is more common in the papyri. The Hellenistic (from Aristotle onwards) form τέτευχεν (אc B Dc 5 226, 487, 623, 920, 927, 1311, 1827, 1836, 1873, 2004, 2143, etc.: or τέτυχεν, אc A D* K L) has been corrected in P Ψ 6, 33, 1908 Orig. to the Attic τετύχηκεν. Before κρείττονός, καί is omitted by D* 69, 436, 462 arm Thdt.

Κεφάλαιον (“the pith,” Coverdale), which is nominative absolute, is used as in Cic. ad Attic. v.18: “et multa, immo omnia, quorum κεφάλαιον,” etc., Dem. 13:36: ἔστι δʼ, ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι, κεφάλαιον ἁπάντων τῶν εἰρημένων (at the close of a speech); Musonius (ed. Hense, 67 f.) βίου καὶ γενέσεως παίδων κοινωνίαν κεφάλαιον εἶναι γάμου, etc. The word in this sense is common throughout literature and the more colloquial papyri, here with ἐπὶ τοῖς λεγομένοις (concerning what has been said). In passing from the intricate argument about the Melchizedek priesthood, which is now dropped, the writer disentangles the salient and central truth of the discussion, in order to continue his exposition of Jesus as highpriest. “Such, I have said, was the�Romans 12:1f.), by arguing that devotion to God is the real highpriesthood (τὸ γὰρ θεραπευτικὸν γένος�

The phrase in v. 2 τῶν ἁγίων λειτουργός, offers two points of interest. First, the linguistic form λειτουργός. The ει form stands between the older η or ηι, which waned apparently from the third cent. b.c., and the later ι form; “λειτουργός sim. socios habet omnium temporum papyros praeter perpaucas recentiores quae sacris fere cum libris conspirantes λιτουργὸς λιτουργία scribunt” (Crönert, Memoria Graeca Hercul. 39). Then, the meaning of τῶν ἁγίων. Philo has the phrase, in Leg. Alleg. iii. 46, τοιοῦτος δὲ ὁ θεραπευτὴς καὶ λειτουργὸς τῶν ἁγίων, where τῶν ἁγίων means “sacred things,” as in de Fug. 17, where the Levites are described as priests οἷς ἡ τῶν ἁγίων�Numbers 24:6 σκηναὶ ἃς ἔπηξεν Κύριος, and of Exodus 33:7 καὶ λαβὼν Μωυσῆς τὴν σκηνὴν αὐτοῦ ἔπηξεν). The reality and authenticity of the writer’s faith come out in a term like�

Instead of contrasting at this point (v. 4) τἀ δῶρα (sacrifices, as in 11:4) of the levitical priests with the spiritual sacrifice of Jesus, he hints that the mere fact of these sacrifices being made ἐπὶ γῆς is a proof of their inferiority. This is put into a parenthesis (v. 5); but, though a grammatical aside, it contains one of the writer’s fundamental ideas about religion (Eusebius, in Praep. Evang. xii.19, after quoting Hebrews 8:5, refers to the similar Platonic view in the sixth book of the Republic). Such priests (οἵτινες, the simple relative as in 9:2, 10:8, 11, 12:5) λατρεύουσι (with dative as in 13:10) ὑποδείγματι καὶ σκιᾷ τῶν ἐπουρανίων (cp. 9:23). Ὑπόδειγμα here as in 9:23 is a mere outline or copy (the only analogous instance in the LXX being Ezekiel 42:15 τὸ ὑπόδειγμα τοῦ οἴκου); the phrase is practically a hendiadys for “a shadowy outline,” a second-hand, inferior reproduction. The proof of this is given in a reference to Exodus 25:40: Καθὼς κεχρημάτισται Μωυσῆς— χρηματίζω,2 as often in the LXX and the papyri, of divine revelations as well as of royal instructions—μέλλων ἐπιτελεῖν τὴν σκηνήν. The subject of the φησι is God, understood from κεχρημάτισται, and the γάρ1 introduces the quotation, in which the writer, following Philo (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), as probably codex Ambrosianus (F) of the LXX followed him, adds πάντα. He also substitutes δειχθέντα for δεδειγμένον, which Philo keeps (κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα τὸ δεδειγμένον σοι ἐν τῷ ὄρει πάντα ποιήσεις), and retains the LXX τύπον (like Stephen in Acts 7:44). The idea was current in Alexandrian Judaism, under the influence of Platonism, that this σκηνή on earth had been but a reproduction of the pre-existent heavenly sanctuary. Thus the author of Wisdom makes Solomon remind God that he had been told to build the temple (νάον … καὶ θυσιαστήριον) as μίμημα σκηνῆς ἁγίας ἣν προητοίμασας�

Such ideas were not unknown in other circles. Seneca (Ep. lviii.18-19) had just explained to Lucilius that the Platonic ideas were “what all visible things were created from, and what formed the pattern for all things,” quoting the Parmenides, 132 D, to prove that the Platonic idea was the everlasting pattern of all things in nature. The metaphor is more than once used by Cicero, e.g. Tusc. iii.2. 3, and in de Officiis, 3:17, where he writes: “We have no real and life-like (solidam et expressam effigiem) likeness of real law and genuine justice; all we enjoy is shadow and sketch (umbra et imaginibus). Would that we were true even to these! For they are taken from the excellent patterns provided by nature and truth.” But our author’s thought is deeper. In the contemporary Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch the idea of Exodus 25:40 is developed into the thought that the heavenly Jerusalem was also revealed to Moses along with the patterns of the σκηνή and its utensils (4:4f.); God also showed Moses “the pattern of Zion and its measures, in the pattern of which the sanctuary of the present time was to be made” (Charles’ tr.). The origin of this notion is very ancient; it goes back to Sumerian sources, for Gudea the prince-priest of Lagash (c. 3000 b.c.) receives in a vision the plan of the temple which he is commanded to build (cp. A. Jeremias, Babylonisches im NT, pp. 62 f.). It is to this fundamental conception that the author of Πρὸς Ἑβραίους recurs, only to elaborate it in an altogether new form, which went far beyond Philo. Philo’s argument (Leg. Alleg. iii. 33), on this very verse of Exodus, is that Bezaleel only constructed an imitation (μιμήματα) of τὰ�

He then continues (v. 6 νῦν δέ, logical as in 2:8, 9:26, answering to εἰ μέν in v. 4) the thought of Christ’s superior λειτουργία by describing him again (cp. 7:22) in connexion with the superior διαθήκη, and using now not ἔγγυος but μεσίτης. Μεσίτης (see on Galatians 3:19) commonly means an arbitrator (e.g. Job 9:33, ReinP 44:3 [a.d. 104] ὁ κατασταθεὶς κριτὴς μεσίτης) or intermediary in some civil transaction (OP 1298:19); but this writer’s use of it, always in connexion with διαθήκη (9:15, 12:24)1 and always as a description of Jesus (as in 1 Timothy 2:5), implies that it is practically (see on 7:22) a synonym for ἔγγυος. Indeed, linguistically, it is a Hellenistic equivalent for the Attic μετέγγυος, and in Diod. Siculus, iv. 54 (τοῦτον γὰρ μεσίτην γεγονότα τῶν ὁμολογιῶν ἐν Κόλχοις ἐπηγγέλθαι βοηθήσειν αὐτῇ παρασπονδουμένῃ), its meaning corresponds to that of ἔγγυος. The sense is plain, even before the writer develops his ideas about the new διαθήκη, for, whenever the idea of reconciliation emerges, terms like μεσίτης and μεσιτεύειν are natural. Μεσίτης καὶ διαλλακτής is Philo’s phrase2 for Moses (Vit. Mos. iii:19). And as a διαθήκη was a gracious order of religious fellowship, inaugurated upon some historical occasion by sacrifice, it was natural to speak of Jesus as the One who mediated this new διαθήκη of Christianity. He gave it (Theophyl. μεσίτης καὶ δότης); he it was who realized it for men and who maintains it for men. All that the writer has to say meantime about the διαθήκη is that it has been enacted (v. 6) ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις. This passive use of νομοθετεῖν is not unexampled; cf. e.g. OGIS. 493:55 (ii a.d.) καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὑμεῖν ὀρθῶς καὶ καλῶς … νενομοθετήσθω. It is implied, of course, that God is ὁ νομοθετῶν (as in LXX Psalms 83:7). What the “better promises” are, he now proceeds to explain, by a contrast between their διαθήκη and its predecessor. The superiority of the new διαθήκη is shown by the fact that God thereby superseded the διαθήκη with which the levitical cultus was bound up; the writer quotes an oracle from Jeremiah, again laying stress on the fact that it came after the older διαθήκη (vv. 7-13), and enumerating its promises ascontained in a new διαθήκη.

7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion for a second. 8 Whereas God does find fault with the people of that covenant, when he says:

“The day is coming, saith the Lord,

when I will conclude a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.

9 It will not be on the lines of the covenant I made with their fathers,

on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt’s Land;

for they would not hold to my covenant,

so I left them alone, saith the Lord,

10 This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel when that (“the day” of v. 8) day comes, saith the Lord;

I will set my laws within their mind,

inscribing them upon their hearts;

I will be a God (εἰς θεόν, i.e. all that men can expect a God to be) to them,

and they shall be a People to me;

11 one citizen will no longer teach his fellow,

one man will no longer teach his brother (τὸν�Exodus 10:23),

saying, “Know the Lord.”

for all shall know me, low and high together.

12 I will be merciful to their iniquities,

and remember their sins no more.

13 By saying “a new covenant,” he antiquates the first. And whatever is antiquated and aged is on the verge of vanishing.

The contents of the prediction of a καινὴ διαθήκη by God, and the very fact that such was necessary, prove the defectiveness of the first διαθήκη. The writer is struck by the mention of a new διαθήκη even in the OT itself, and he now explains the significance of this. As for ἡ πρώτη (sc. διαθήκη) ἐκείνη, εἰ … ἄμεμπτος (if no fault could have been found with it), οὐκ�Matthew 21:30), δεύτερος is the term chosen in 10:9, and B* is far too slender evidence by itself. Ζητεῖν τόπον is one of those idiomatic phrases, like εὑρεῖν τόπον and λαβεῖν τόπον, of which the writer was fond. The force of the γάρ after μεμφὀμενος is: “and there was occasion for a second διαθήκη, the first was not ἄμεμπτος, since,” etc. It need make little or no difference to the sense whether we read αὐτοῖς (אc B Dc L 6, 38, 88, 104, 256, 436, 487, 999, 1311, 1319, 1739, 1837, 1845, 1912, 2004, 2127 Origen) or αὐτούς (א* A D* K P W 33 vg arm), for μεμφόμενος can take a dative as well as an accusative (cf. Arist. Rhet. i.6. 24, Κορινθίοις δʼ οὐ μέμφεται τὸ Ἴλιον: Aesch. Prom. 63, οὐδεὶς ἐνδίκως μέμψαιτο μοι) in the sense of “censuring” or “finding fault with,” and μεμφόμενος naturally goes with αὐτοῖς or αὐτούς. The objection to taking αὐτοῖς with λέγει1 is that the quotation is not addressed directly to the people, but spoken at large. Thus the parallel from 2 Malachi 2:7 (μεμψάμενος αὐτοῖς εἶπεν) is not decisive, and the vg is probably correct in rendering “vituperans enim eos dicit.” The context explains here as in 4:8 and 11:28 who are meant by αὐτούς. The real interest of the writer in this Jeremianic oracle is shown when he returns to it in 10:16-18; what arrests him is the promise of a free, full pardon at the close. But he quotes it at length, partly because it did imply the supersession of the older διαθήκη and partly because it contained high promises (vv. 10-12), higher than had yet been given to the People. No doubt it also contains a warning (v. 9), like the text from the 95th psalm (3:7f.), but this is not why he recites it (see p. xl).

The text of Jer 38:31-34 (31:31-34) as he read it in his bible (i.e. in A) ran thus:

ἰδοὺ ἡμέραι ἔρχονται, λέγει Κύριος,

καὶ διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκω Ἰσραὴλ καὶ τῷ οἶκῳ Ἰούδα διαθήκην καινήν,

οὐ κατὰ τὴν διαθήκην ἣν διεθέμην τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν

ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπιλαβομένου μου τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῶν ἐξαγαγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου,

ὅτι αὐτοὶ οὐκ ἐνέμειναν ἐν τῇ διαθήκῃ μου,

κἀγὼ ἠμέλησα αὐτῶν, φησὶν Κύριος.

ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραήλ

μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, φησὶν Κύριος,

διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν

καὶ ἐπιγράψω αὐτοὺς ἐπὶ τὰς καρδίας αὐτῶν,

καὶ ὄψομαι αὐτοὺς

καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεὸν.

καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν.

καὶ οὐ μὴ1 διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν�

Συντελέσω διαθήκην, a literary LXX variant for ποιήσω διαθήκην, recalls the phrase συντελέσαι διαθήκην (Jeremiah 41:8 (34:8), and, as 12:24 (νέας διαθήκης) shows, the writer draws no distinction between καινός and νέος (v. 8). In v. 9 the genitive absolute (ἐπιλαβομένου μου) after ἡμέρα,ͅ instead of ἐν ᾗ ἐπελαβόμην (as Justin correctly puts it, Dial. xi.), is a Hellenistic innovation, due here to translation, but paralleled in Bar 2:28 ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐντειλαμένου σου αὐτῷ); in ὅτι (causal only here and in v. 10) … ἐνέμειναν, the latter is our “abide by,” in the sense of obey or practise, exactly as in Isokrates, κατὰ τῶν Σοφιστῶν, 20: οἷς εἰ τις ἐπὶ τῶν πράξεων ἐμμείνειεν. Bengel has a crisp comment on αὐτοὶ … κἀγώ here and on ἔσομαι … καὶ αὐτοί (“correlata … sed ratione inversa; populus fecerat initium tollendi foederis prius, in novo omnia et incipit et perficit Deus”); and, as it happens, there is a dramatic contrast between ἠμέλησα here and the only other use of the verb in this epistle (2:3). In v. 10 διδούς, by the omission of δώσω, is left hanging in the air; but (cp. Moulton, 222) such participles could be taken as finite verbs in popular Greek of the period (cp. e.g. χειροτονηθείς in 2 Corinthians 8:19). The καινὴ διαθήκη is to be on entirely fresh lines, not a mere revival of the past; it is to realize a knowledge of God which is inward and intuitive (vv. 10, 11). There is significance in the promise, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς … εἰς λαόν. A διαθήκη was always between God and his people, and this had been the object even of the former διαθήκη (Exodus 6:7); now it is to be realized at last. Philo’s sentence (“even if we are sluggish, however, He is not sluggish about taking to Himself those who are fit for His service; for He says, ‘I will take you to be a people for myself, and I will be your God,’” De Sacrif. Abelis et Caini, 26) is an apt comment; but our author, who sees the new διαθήκη fulfilled in Christianity, has his own views about how such a promise and purpose was attainable, for while the oracle ignores the sacrificial ritual altogether, he cannot conceive any pardon apart from sacrifice, nor any διαθήκη apart from a basal sacrifice. These ideas he is to develop in his next paragraphs, for it is the closing promise of pardon1 which is to him the supreme boon. Meanwhile, before passing on to explain how this had been mediated by Jesus, he (v. 13) drives home the truth of the contrast between old and new (see Introd., p. xxxix). Ἐν τῷ λέγειν (same construction as in 2:8)—when the word καινὴν (sc. διαθήκην) was pronounced, it sealed the doom of the old διαθήκη. Παλαιόω (πεπαλαίωκε) in this transitive sense (“he hath abrogat,” Tyndale) is known to the LXX (Job 9:5, Lamentations 3:4, both times of God in action); γηράσκειν is practically equivalent to μαραίνεσθαι, and implies decay (see Wilamowitz on Eur. Herakles, 1223). The two words ἐγγὺς (as in 6:8)�

But the new διαθήκη is also superior to the old by its sacrifice (9:1f.), sacrifice being essential to any forgiveness such as has been promised. The older διαθήκη had its sanctuary and ritual (vv. 1-5), but even these (vv. 6f.) indicated a defect.









A [02: δ 4].

K [018:1:1].

L [020: α 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.

P [025: α 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.

boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.

Cosm Cosmas Indicopleustes (ed. E. O. Winstedt, CAmbridge, 1909)

D [06: α 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly* reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, §§ 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of Πρὸς Ἐβραίους has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.

Theod. Theodore of Mospsuestia

אԠ[01: δ 2).

B [03: δ 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.

5 [δ 453]

226 [δ 156]

487 [α 171]

623 [α 173]

920 [α 55]

927 [δ 251]

1311 [α 170]

1827 [α 367]

1836 [α 65]

1873 [α 252]

2004 [α 56]

2143 [α 184]

Ψ̠[044: δ 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.

6 [δ 356] cont. 1:1-9:3 10:22-13:25

33 [δ 48] Hort’s 17

1908 [O π 103]

69 [δ 505]

436 [α 172]

462 [α 502]

Thdt. Theodoret

Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).

LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).

OGIS Dittenberger’s Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selectae (1903-1905).

1 ἥν is not assimilated, though ἧς might have been written; the practice varied (cp. e.g. Deuteronomy 5:31 ἐν τῇ γῇ ἥν ἐγὼ δίδωμι, and 12:1 ἐν τῇ γῇ ῃ Κύριος δίδωσιν).

Radermacher Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietzmann’s Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (vol. i.).

2 Passively in the NT in Acts 10:22, but the exact parallel is in Josephus, Ant. iii.8. 8, Μωϋσῆς … εἰς τὴν σκηνὴν εἰσιὼν ἐχρηματίζετο περὶ ὧν ἐδεῖτο παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ.

1 Put before φησι, because the point is not that the oracle was given, but what the oracle contained.

ReinP Papyrus Grecs et Démotiques (Paris, 1905), ed. Th. Reinach.

OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).

1 In these two latter passages, at least, there may be an allusion to the contemporary description of Moses as “mediator of the covenant” (“arbiter testamenti,” Ass. Mosis, i.14). The writer does not contrast Jesus with Michael, who was the great angelic mediator in some circles of Jewish piety (cp. Jub 1:29, Test. Dan_6).

2 Josephus (Ant. xvi.2. 2) says that Herod τῶν παρʼ Ἀγρίππα τισὶν ἐπιζητουμένων μεσίτης ἦν, and that his influence moved πρὸς τὰς εὐεργεσίας οὐ βραδύνοντα τὸν Ἀγρίππαν. Ἰλιεῦσι μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν διήλλαξεν ὀργιζόμενον.

Weiss B. Weiss, “Textkritik der paulinischen Briefe” (in Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, vol. xiv. 3), also Der Hebräerbrief in Zeitgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (1910).

Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, völlig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebräer, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).

38 [δ 355]

88 [α 200]

104 [α 103]

256 [α 216]

999 [δ 353]

1319 [δ 180]

1739 [α 78]

1837 [α 192]

1845 [α 64]

1912 [α 1066]

2127 [δ 202]

W [I] cont. 1:1-3, 9-12. 2:4-7, 12-14. 3:4-6, 14-16 4:3-6, 12-14 5:5-7 6:1-3, 10-13, 20 7:1-2, 7-11, 18-20, 27-28 8:1, 7-9 9:1-4, 9-11, 16-19, 25-27 10:5-8, 16-18, 26-29, 35-38 11:6-7, 12-15, 22-24, 31-33, 38-40 12:1, 7-9, 16-18, 25-27 13:7-9, 16-18, 23-25: NT MSS in Freer Collection, The Washington MS of the Epp. of Paul (1918), pp. 294-306. Supports Alexandrian text, and is “quite free from Western readings.”

1 μεμφόμενος is then “by way of censure,” and some think the writer purposely avoided adding αὐτήν. Which, in view of what he says in v. 13, is doubtful; besides, he has just said that the former διαθήκη was not ἄμεμπτος.

1 οὐ μή only occurs in Hebrews in quotations (here, 10:17, 13:5); out of about ninety-six occurrences in the NT, only eight are with the future.

Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909).

vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.

1 That ἐπί takes the accusative here is shown by 10:16; καρδίας cannot be the genitive singular alongside of an accusative.

C [04: δ 3] cont. 2:4-7:26 9:15-10:24 12:16-13:25.

206 [α 365]

218 [δ 300]

257 [α 466]

547 [δ 157]

642 [α 552] cont. 1:1-7:18 9:13-13:25

1288 [α 162]

326 [α 257]

Moulton J. H. Moulton’s Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).

1 With τῶν ἁμαρτῖων αὐτῶν οὐ μὴ μνησθῶ ἔτι compare the parable of R. Jochanan and R. Eliezer on God’s readiness to forget the sinful nature of his servants: “There is a parable concerning a king of flesh and blood, who said to his servants, Build me a great palace on the dunghill. They went and built it for him. It was not thenceforward the king’s pleasure to remember the dunghill which had been there” (Chagiga, 16 a. i. 27).