TEXT: Hebrews 8:1-13

SUBJECT: Exposition of Hebrews #8: Christ and the Covenants

The subject of Hebrews is Christ Over All. In chapters 1-3, He is placed over the prophets, over the angels, and over Moses. His is "the Name above every name". These chapters, however, are but preliminary to the central comparison of the Book. In chapters 4-10, the Lord Jesus is compared to Aaron--and what he stands for--the priesthood of Israel.

The Lord's priesthood is better--the arguments go--because of its nature, its qualifications, and its duration. It springs from Melchizedek to whom Abraham (and Aaron) paid tribute. Its occupant is "holy, harmless, undefiled, and made higher than the heavens" and is, therefore, morally superior to Aaron and his progeny. His priesthood is maintained by "the power of an endless life" while Aaron's men must retire at the age of 50.

These are the arguments up to this point. In chapter 8, the writer adds two more. The Lord's priesthood is over Aaron's because of its better place of service and because of the better Covenant to which it is connected. Let's look at each, in turn.

Firstly, The Lord's priesthood is superior to Aaron's because of its better place of service, 8:1-5. "Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest, who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both the gifts and sacrifices. Therefore, it is necessary that this One also have something to offer. For if He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the Law; who serve as the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, `See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain'".

The subject is introduced with a practical remark, one meant to encourage the Lord's people, v.1a. "We have such a High Priest". The word, "we" stands in the emphatic position. Hence, the Lord Jesus is not merely "the" High Priest, but "our" High Priest. Hence, we mustn't merely know the doctrine of Christ's priesthood, we must feel it and rejoice in it. He's not describing an abstract idea, but a Living Savior, Whom all believers own.

"Blessed Assurance,

Jesus is mine"

In vv.1b-5, we're told something about Him. He is "seated at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens". The priests of Israel are now somewhere in Jerusalem, the city of God. But our High Priest is somewhere better: heaven. What priest would you rather have? One on earth or One in heaven? In heaven, of course. Therefore, the Lord's priesthood is better than Aaron's.

He is also "a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not men". All priests served in the "sanctuary" put up first as a Tent in the days of Moses, and later, built as a Temple. The place they served was the holiest place in the world, "the joy of the whole earth". But the Lord serves in a better place. He never entered the "sanctuary" in Jerusalem; He was barred from it. But not to worry: He entered "the true tabernacle", on which the earthly sanctuaries were modelled. They weren't original with Moses, but copied from the design He had seen of heaven. Hence, the priests of Israel served in the derivative sanctuary, the Lord Jesus in the original! Therefore, His priesthood must be better than Aaron's.

Think about it. Which would you rather own: The Mona Lisa or a print of Da Vinci's masterpiece? The former is priceless; the latter, quite cheap. Even the finest duplicate is worth nothing compared to the original. And so, neither can the earthly tabernacle be compared to the heavenly; nor its priests to our High Priest.

Secondly, the Lord's priesthood is superior to Aaron's because of the better covenant to which it is connected, 8:6-13. "But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. For if the first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He 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--not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them' says the LORD. `For 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 mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother saying `know the LORD', for they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more'". In that He says, `a new covenant', He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away".

In these words, a comparison is made between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.

The Old Covenant was good. About it, we find: The priests of Israel served God under the "Old Covenant". "Covenant" means "arrangement" or "system". It was "old" because it preceded the coming of Christ and the new age He ushered in. V.9 identifies the Old Covenant with the Mosaic Law.

Under the Mosaic Law, the priests served as "mediators". They "stood between" the Holy God and a sinful nation. How? They brought sacrifices to God and prayed for the people. When done well, their work pleased God, averted His judgments, and brought His blessing.

Their work was good and necessary--but it was not perfect. Why not? Because they were all hypocrites? No. Some of the priests were true men of God. Phinehas, for example, made a daring atonement for Israel; Jehoiada saved the monarchy for David's line; Zacharias "walked in all the ordinances and commandments of the LORD blamelessly". And so, the fault did not lie with the priests of the Old Covenant, but with the Old Covenant itself. V.7 reminds us that it was "faulty". How can this be? Because God made it that way. It wasn't meant to be permanent. It was designed to serve a limited purpose for a set time--and then to fade away.

The New Covenant is far better. God finds no fault with it. Why not? Vv.10-12 give three reasons: (1) the Old Covenant engraved the Law of God on tables of stone; the New Covenant puts it in our minds and hearts. (2) The Old Covenant revealed God to a select few of His people; the New Covenant makes Him known to all of His people. (3) The Old Covenant ended in damnation; the New Covenant ends in salvation. Therefore, the New Covenant must be different than and superior to the Old Covenant. In II Corinthians 3:6, Paul sees the two as different as life and death: the former "kills" and the latter "makes alive".

It is, therefore, "established on better promises". The Old Covenant promised a land, long life, many children, health, and peace. The New Covenant promises "an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, that fades not away, reserved in heaven for you". Therefore...

If the New Covenant is so much greater than the Old, then its Mediator must be greater than the old ones, also. And who is He? V.6 leaves no doubt: The Lord Jesus Christ.

Is Christ above Aaron? Only insofar as heaven is above earth and the New Covenant above the Old. Yes He is. "There is one God and one Mediator between man and God, the Man Christ Jesus".

From this chapter, let me draw two closing applications.

The first is practical: We must beware of placing our hope of salvation in anything but Christ. This was Israel's perennial temptation, the one Hebrews was written against. In what did they hope? It was not pagan gods or philosophies, but in divine objects. They looked to the Law for salvation; to the Temple; to the Brazen Serpent. But look as they might, they found no salvation in any of them. Why not? Not because these objects weren't from God--they were--but because they weren't meant to save. And could not. They pointed to Christ in Whom--alone--there is salvation.

We, of course, don't look to these things. But we may look to others. Some look for salvation in the Bible; some look for it in the Church; some look for it in the ordinances. But none of these are saving. The Lord Jesus does not point to the Bible--the Bible points to Him. He doesn't testify of the Church--the Church testifies to Him. His death doesn't remind us of baptism and the Lord's Supper--they remind us of His death. Beware, therefore, on pinning your hopes to anyone/anything but Christ. "Neither is there salvation in any other, for there is no other Name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved".

The second is theological: The Old Covenant is identical to the Mosaic Law. If the former has become obsolete (as v.13 says), so has the latter. This does not mean that it is uninspired, untrue, or unprofitable. It simply means that it is not binding on the Christian. None of it is. Does this mean, therefore, that we are now "lawless" (as some claim)? It does not. It means that we are under "the law of Christ". Has He lowered the standard for holiness? He has not; read the Sermon on the Mount. But more than this--Christ, unlike Moses, has given us not only the Law to keep, but the grace to keep it.

The Church, therefore, has become, what Israel could never be: "A kingdom of priests and a Holy Nation".

Let us, therefore, bless God for the work He has done in Christ; and let us never return to "the weak and beggarly elements into which (some) desire to be in bondage".