Lastly. The efficient cause of this true tabernacle is declared both positively and negatively; ‘ which God hath pitched and not man,’ nv ἐπηξἕεν ὃ Kugioc. It is in the article ἣν, confined to the tabernacle, and extends not to the sanctuary mentioned before. ‘Of the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched.’ And hereby this tabernacle is distinguished from both the sanctuaries, the typical here below, and the real above, even heaven itself. For it was not of the same building with either of them, as the apostle declares, Heb. ix. 11.
Eznéev, ‘pitched,’ ‘ fixed.’ It is a word proper unto the erection and establishment of a tabernacle. The fixing of stakes and pillars, with the fastening of cords thereunto, was the principal means of setting up a tabernacle, Isa. liv. 2. The preparation of the human nature or body of Christ is that which is intended. ‘ A body hast thou prepared me, Heb. x.5. And this body was to be taken down, and folded up for a season, and afterwards to be erected again, without the breaking or loss of any part of it.. This of all buildings was peculiar to a tabernacle, and so was it with the body of Christ in his death and resurrection.
Ὁ Kuewoc. The author of this work was ‘the Lord.’ This is the word or name whereby the writers of the New Testament do express the name of Jehovah. And whereas, in the revelation of that name, God declared that self-subsisting firmitude and unchangeableness οἵ his nature, whereby he would infallibly give subsistence unto his word, and accomplishment unto his promises, the apostle hath respect unto it in this great work, wherein all the promises of God became yea and Amen. How this tabernacle was prepared and fixed immediately by the Holy Ghost, acting the infinite power of God alone therein, I have at large elsewhere declared.
It is added negatively, καὶ οὐκ ανϑῦρωπος, ‘and not man.’ Some suppose a pleonasm in the words, and that this expression is redundant. For to say it was pitched by God, sufficiently includes that it was not done by man. But the expression is emphatical, and the apostle hath an especial design init. For,
1. The old tabernacle itself may in some sense be said to be pitched by God. It was done by his command, order, and direction, as were all other ordinances of his appointment. But it cannot be said that God pitched it and not man, which excludes the whole service and ministry of nian. For the ministry of men was used in the preparation, framing, and erection of it. But the pitching of this true tabernacle was the work of God alone, without any ministry or service of men. ‘A body hast thou prepared me.’
2. The apostle hath an especial respect to the incarnation of Christ, without the concurrence of man in natural generation. This is expressed in answer to that inquiry of the blessed virgin, ‘ How shall this be, seeing I know not a man 2’ Luke i. 34, 35.
This was the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched, and whereof Christ is the minister. And we may observe,
Obs. II. That all spiritually sacred and holy things are laid up in Christ. —All the utensils of holy worship of old, all means of sacred light and purification, were al] placed and laid up in the tabernacle. And these were all patterns of the heavenly things themselves, which are all laid up in Christ the true tabernacle. They are all inclosed in him, and it will be in vain to seek for them elsewhere.
Obs. III. He hath the ministration of all these holy things committed to him.—He is the minister both of the sanctuary and tabernacle, and of all things contained in them. Herein he stands in no need of help or assistance, nor can any take his work out of his hand.
Obs. IV. The human nature of Christ is the only true tabernacle, wherein God would dwell personally and substantially.—The dwelling of God with men, was ever looked on as an infinite condescension. So Solomon expressed it in his prayer at the dedication of the temple. ‘ But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven, and heaven of heavens, cannot contain thee,’ 1 Kings viii. 27. But there are various degrees of this condescension, various kinds of this inhabitation of God among men. Under the Old Testament he dwelt in the tabernacle and temple, by many symbols and pledges of his glorious presence. Such in especial was the ark and mercy-seat; whence that which was done before the ark, is said to be done before the Lord, Exod. xxx. 8. This was, as Solomon expresseth it, a great condescension in the infinite, incomprehensible God, and there was a great glory accompanying this his presence. Under the New Testament, God dwelleth in his saints by his Spirit, whereby they become an holy templeto him. And of this inhabitation of God, I have treated elsewhere. But his dwelling in the human nature of Christ is quite of another nature than either of these, and his love, with his condescension, inconceivably more conspicuous than in them. Hence is that expression of our apostle, ‘In him dwelt the fulness of the Godhead bodily,’ Col. 1.9. It is not any sign or token, it is not any effect of the divine power, goodness, and grace, that dwells in him, but the fulness of the Godhead, that is, the divine nature itself. And this dwelleth in him bodily, that is, by the assumption of the body, or the human nature into personal subsistence with the Son of God. How glorious should this be in our eyes! How did they admire the condescension of God of old, in his dwelling in the tabernacle and temple by the glorious signs of his presence! And yet was it all but a dark representation and shadow of this glorious love and grace, whereby he dwells in our nature in Christ.
Obs. V. The church hath lost nothing by the removal of the old tabernacle and temple, all being supplied by this sanctuary, true tabernacle, and minister thereof.—The glory and worship of the temple, was that which the Jews would by no means part withal. They chose rather to reject Christ and the gospel, than to part witli the temple, and its outward pompous worship. And it is almost incredible how the vain mind of man is addicted unto an outward beauty and splendour in religious worship. Take it away, and with the most you destroy all religion itself: as if there were no beauty but in painting, no evidence of health, or vigour of body, but in warts andwens. The Christians of old suffered in nothing more from the prejudice of the whole world, Jews and Gentiles, than in this, that they had a religion, without temples, altars, images, or any solemnity of worship. And in latter ages men ceased not, until they had brought into Christianity itself a worship vying for external order, ceremony, pomp, and painting, with whatever was in the tabernacle or temple of old, coming short of it principally in this, that that was of God’s institution for a time, this of the invention of weak, superstitious, and foolish men. Thus is it in the church of Rome. And a hard thing it is to raise the minds of men, unto a satisfaction in things merely spiritual and heavenly. They suppose they cannot make a worse change, nor more to their disadvantage, than to part with what is a present object and entertainment unto their senses, fancies, carnal affections, and superstitions, for that which they can have no benefit by, nor satisfaction in, but only in the exercise of faith and love, inclining us to that within the veil. Hence is there at this day so great a contest in the world, about tabernacles and temples, modes of worship and ceremonies, which men have found out in the room of those which they cannot deny but God would have removed. For so they judge that he will be satisfied with
- their carnal ordinances in the church, when the time is come that he would bear his own no longer. But unto them that believe, Christ is precious. This true tabernacle, with his ministration, in their estimation far excels all the old pompous ceremonies and services of divine institution, much more, all the superstitious observances of human invention. | |
Obs. VI. We are to look for the gracious presence of God in Christ only.—Of old, all the tokens and symbols of God’s; presence were confined unto, and included in the tabernacle. There were they to be found, and nowhere else. Many altars the people of old did erect elsewhere, many high places they found out and prepared, but they were all sin and misery unto them; God granted his presence unto none of them all, Hos. viii. 11, xii. 11. And many ways there are whereby men may and do seek after the presence of God, after his favour and acceptance with him, not in and by this true tabernacle. But they labour in vain, and spend their strength for that which doth. not profit. Neither the love, nor grace, nor goodness, nor mercy of God, are elsewhere to be found, nor can we by any other way be made partakers of them.
Obs. VII. It is by Christ alone that we can make our approach unto God in his worship.—All sacrifices of old were to be brought unto the door of the tabernacle. What was offered elsewhere, was an abomination to the Lord. With the instruments, with the fire, with the incense that belonged unto the tabernacle, were they to be offered, and no otherwise. And it is now by Christ alone, that we have an access in one Spirit unto the Father, Eph. 11. 18. He is the only way of going to him, John xiv. 6. And it is in and by his blood, that he hath consecrated a new and living way unto the holy place, ch. x. 19,20.
Obs. VIII. It was an institution of God, that the people in all their distresses should look unto and make their supplications towards the tabernacle, or holy temple, 1 Kings viii. 29, 30.—And it is unto the Lord Christ alone, who is both the true tabernacle, and the minister thereof, that we are to look in all our spiritual distresses.
Obs. IX. If any one else can offer the body of Christ, he also is the minister of the true tabernacle——For the Lord Christ did no more. He did but offer himself; and they that can offer him, do put themselves in his place.
The summary description of our high priest designed, is carried on in this verse. And the apostle manifests, that as he wanted nothing which any other high priest had, that was necessary unto the discharge of his office, so he had it all in a more eminent manner than any other had. ‘ priest who standeth (at the altar) that he may offer gifts and sacrifices;’ therefore,
Kat ϑυσιας. Syr. xnav, that is, om, ‘sacrifices.’ Vulg. hostias; and the Rhemists, ‘ hosts,’ it may be to countenance their name of the host in the mass.
Avaycaov. Syr. mit xpi, justum erat, equum erat; ‘it was just and equal.’ Vul. Necesse est, in the present tense, ‘it is necessary,’ Beza, Necesse fuit, ‘it was necessary,’ properly; and so the Syriac renders the verb substantive understood in the original, or included in the infinitive mood following, in the preter-imperfect tense.
ἔχειν, habere, hunc habere; Syr. [ΤΡ svt yom, huic ut esset ei; ‘to this man that there should be to him,’ or with him.
VER. 3.—For every high priest is ordained (appointed) to offer gifts and sacrifices; wherefore it is of necessity (it was necessary) that this man (should) have somewhat also to offer.
The connexion of these words unto what was before asserted, which giveth us the design of the apostle in them, is expressed in the causal conjunction, yap, ‘ for.’ He both giveth a confirmation of what he had before affirmed, namely, that Christ was the minister of the true tabernacle, that is, of his body, aud rendereth a reason why it should so be: and this he farther confirms in the verses ensuing, The reason he insists on, is taken from the general nature of the office of every high priest. ‘That the Lord Christ is our high priest, he had sufticiently demonstrated and confirmed before; this therefore he now assumes as granted. And hereon what belongs unto him, as such, he farther manifests, by showing what the nature of that-office required, and what did necessarily belong unto every one that was partaker thereof.
riest. Ε II. A particular inference from thence, of what did necessarily belong unto the Lord Christ in the susception and discharge of this office.
1. In the first, 1. The universality of the expression is to be observed. Πας apytepeve, ‘every high priest.’ By the context, this universal is cast under a limitation with respect unto the law; every high priest, that is, made or appointed by the law, for of those alone the apostle treateth. There was indeed never any high priest accepted of God, but those ordained by the law; yet was it necessary unto the apostle to make mention of the law also. And although they were many of them, yet were they all of the same order and office, and so were all alike authorized and obliged unto the same duties. Wherefore the apostle thus expresseth it by ‘every high priest,’ to evidence that there lay no exception against his argument, sceing that in the whole multitude of high priests in their succession from first to last, there was no one but he was appointed unto this end, and had this duty incumbent on him. Yea, it is not one especial duty of their office that might be omitted, which he insisteth on, but the general end for which they were ordained; as he expresseth it in the next word.
2. KaSiorara, ‘is ordained;’ that is, appointed of God by the law. Of the sense of this word, I have spoken before, as also of the thing intended: see ch. v. 12.
Obs. I. God’s ordination or appointment gives rules, measures, and ends unto all sacred offices and employments.— Whoever undertakes any thing in religion or divine worship, without it, besides it, beyond it, is a transgressor, and therein worshippeth God in vain. He whom God doth not ardain in his service, is an mtruder; and that which he doth not appoint is an usurpation. Nor will he accept of any duties, but what he himself hath made so. |
3. The principal end why the high priests were ordained of God is expressed: it was to offer, dwpa τε καὶ ϑύσιας, ‘gifts and sacrifices.’ This appears in their original institution, Exod. xxviii. xxix.
First. They were ‘ to offer.’ God appointed Aaron and his successors, on purpose to offer gifts and sacrifices for the whole people.
Secondly. None but they, that is, none but the priests, were tooffer; none but they might approach unto God, to offer any thing sacredly unto him. The people might bring their offerings unto God, but they could not offer them on the altar. And some offerings, as those at the feast of expiation, were appropriated unto the high priests only. So is the case stated by Azariah, the high priest, 2 Chron. xxvi. 18, “ Not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense unto the Lord, but to the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated,’ from Exod. xxx. 7; Num. xviil. 7. God hereby taught the people, that nothing should ever be accepted from them, but in and by the hand of the great high priest, who was to'come. And this is that which we are here taught thereby. And whoever he be, if as great and prosperous as king Uzziah, who shall think to approach to God immediately, without the interposition of this high priest, he is smitten with the plague of spiritual leprosy.
4, What they were to offer is also declared: ‘ gifts and sacrifices.’ Δωρα, munera, donaria, dona. Sometimes all map, ‘ the Corbanim,’ in general, are intended by this word. For all sacred offerings, of what sort soever, are so called at their first institution, Lev.1.2. ‘If any one among you bring his Corban unto the Lord.’ And thereon the especial kinds of offerings and sacrifices are enumerated, which in general were all Corbans. So every thing that is brought unto the altar is called δωρον, Matt. v. 23, 24. Προσφερῃς τὸ δωρον, ‘when thou bringest thy gift;’ that is, ΤΩΞῚΡ apr bx, ‘ to offer gifts,’ sacred gifts of all sorts, especially sacrifices properly so called. Or by dwoa, the mma, ‘ Minchoth, may be intended, as by ϑύυσιας, the ‘Zebachim’ are. For these two contain the whole complex of sacred offerings.
For Zebachim, or ϑυσιαι, are ‘ bloody sacrifices; sacrifices by immolation or killing, of what sort soever the matter of it was, or unto what especial end soever it was designed. And the Minchoth were offerings of dead things, as of corn, oil, meats, and drinks. To offer all these was the office of the priesthood ordained. And we are taught thereby, that,
Obs. II. There is no approach unto God without continual respect unto sacrifice and atonement.—The principal end of sacrifices was to make atonement for sin. And so necessary was this to be done, that the office of the priesthood was appointed for it. Men do but dream of the pardon of sin, or acceptance with God, without atonement. This the apostle layeth down as that which was necessary for every high priest by God’s institution. There never was any high priest, but his office and duty it was to offer gifts and sacrifices, for unto that end was he ordained of God.
Hence he infers, that it was necessary that ‘this man should have somewhat to offer.’ For being a minister of the heavenly sanctuary, and the true tabernacle, a high priest he was. But this he could not be, unless he had somewhat to offer unto God. A priest that had nothing to offer, that was not ordained unto that end, is indeed no priest at all.
And in this assumption of the apostle, we may observe, 1. The note of inference. ‘ Wherefore.’ 2. The designation of the person spoken of, ‘this man. 3. The manner of the ascription made unto him: he ‘must have.’ 4. The matter of it, ‘somewhat to offer.’
1. The note of inference is, ὅϑεν, ‘wherefore.’ It is frequently used by the apostle, in this Epistle, when he proves his present assertions, from the old institutions of the law, and their signification, ch. 11. 17, ii. 1, vil. 25, ix. 18. And the whole force of this inference, especially that in this place, depends on this supposition, that all the old typical institutions did represent what was really to be accomplished in Christ; whence it was necessary, that he should be what they did signify and represent. Hence it is often observed in the gospel, that he did or suffered such things, or in such a manner, because things were so ordered under the law.
2. The designation of the person is expressed, τούτον, ‘ this man,’ he of whom we speak, this high priest of the New Testament, whom he had before described, and specified by his name Jesus, and by his dignity, the Son of God. ‘That ‘this man,’ this Jesus, the high priest of the New Testament.
3. The subject being stated, that which he affirms thereof, is, that he, this priest, must ‘ have somewhat to offer.” And this was ἀναγκαῖον, ‘of necessity,’ that so it should be. For whatever otherwise this glorious person were or might be, yet a high priest he could not be, unless he had somewhat to offer; for to offer gifts and sacrifices, is the sole end of that office. This necessity, then, was absolute. For without this, no office of priesthood could be discharged, and consequently no atonement be made, nor could we be brought unto God. And it 15 said that it was thus necessary, eyeav, ‘ that he should have.) And it is not possession only that is intended, but possession with respect unto use. He was so to have somewhat to offer, as to offer it accord-— ingly. For it would not avail the church to have a priest that should have somewhat to offer, if it were not actually offered. Wherefore, respect is had, both to the meetness of Christ unto his office, and his faithfulness therein. He had what to offer, and he did offer it.
4. The matter of his offering is expressed, τι ὃ προσενεγκῃ;, ‘somewhat to offer,’ that is, in sacrifice unto God. The apostle expresseth it indefinitely, 7.6; but what it is, which he was to have, he doth not as yet declare. He was not engaged farther by his present argument. But he elsewhere declares expressly what this was that he had to offer, what was the matter of his sacrifice, and what it was necessary that it should be. And this was himself, his whole human nature, soul, and body.
It may be it will be said, that it doth not necessarily follow, that if he have somewhat to offer, it must be himself. For he might offer somewhat else out of the flocks and herds, as they did of old. Nor indeed doth the apostle intend directly to prove it in this place, namely, that it must be himself which he must offer. But it doth necessarily follow from the arguments before insisted on, ch. vil. For whatever else God had appointed or approved of to be offered in sacrifice, he had ordained the Levitical priesthood to offer, and appropriated the offering of it unto them, so as no such sacrifice could ever be offered by any who was not of the seed of Aaron. Whereas, therefore, our high priest was not of the tribe of Levi, but of Judah, it is evident that he could not offer any of the things which were appropriated unto their ministry and service. And hence our apostle in the next verse, affirms directly, that if he were on the earth, that is, to officiate in his office with the things of the earth, after the manner of other priests, he could not be so much as a priest at all, seeing all such services were appropriated unto, and performed by the priests of another order. Again, if he might have done so, and accordingly had done so, our apostle manifests that his priesthood must have been ineffectual as to the proper ends of it. For the law could make nothing perfect; not only because of the infirmity and imperfection of its priests, but also because of the insufficiency of its sacrifices unto the great ends of expiating sin, by whomsoever they were offered. ‘ For it is impossible,’ as he declares, ‘ that the blood of bulls or goats should ever take away sin, or purge the conscience of the sinner,’ ch. x. 1—3, &c. Wherefore, as it was necessary that he should have somewhat to offer, so it was necessary that this somewhat should be himself, and nothing else.
Something must yet be added as unto the reading of the words themselves, which influenceth their proper sense. Avaykacov, ‘necessary, ‘of necessity,’ must have the verb substantive added to determine its signification. Erasmus adds, est, ‘it is necessary;’ and we render it, ‘it is of necessity.’ Beza supplies fuit, as doth the Syriac interpreter, sim, fuit, erat, ‘it was necessary.’ And so he renders ὃ προσεν- eyxn, by quod offerret, ‘which he should offer,’ in both respecting the time past. Others render it by quod offerat, ‘which he may offer,’ with respect unto the time present or to come. And Beza gives this account of his translation, namely, that the apostle having respect unto the sacrifice of Christ which was past, affirms, thatit was necessary that he should have somewhat that he might offer, and not that it is necessary that he should have somewhat to offer. And although I will not deny, but that the Lord, by reason of the perpetual efficacy of his oblation, and the representation of it in his intercession, may be said to offer himself, yet his sacrifice and oblation of himself, were properly on the earth, as I have fully proved elsewhere.
This text being urged by Grotius with respect unto the offering and sacrifice of Christ, Crellius replies, Concludit scriptor divinus ex eo quod Christus sit sacerdos, necesse fuisse ut habeat quod offerat; non, ut loquitur Grotius, necesse fuisse ut haberet quod offerret, quasi de re preterita loquatur,’ Respons. ad cap. x. But as Beza very well observes, the apostle had before mentioned the one offering of Christ, as already perfected and completed, Heb. vii. 97. He cannot, therefore, speak of it now, but as that which was past; and here he only shows how necessary it was that he should have himself to offer, and so to offer himself, as he had done. And from these words we may
Obs. III. That there was no salvation to be had for us, no not by Jesus Christ himself, without his sacrifice and oblation. It was of necessity that he should have somewhat to offer, as well as those priests had of old according to the law. Some would have it, that the Lord Christ is our Saviour, because he declared unto us the way of salvation; and gave us an example of the way whereby we may attain it, in his own personal obedience. But whence, then, was it of necessity that he must have somewhat to offer unto God as our priest, that is, for us? For this belongeth neither unto his doctrine nor example. It was necessary that he should have somewhat to offer, in answer unto those sacrifices of old, which were offered for the expiation of sin. Nor would our salvation be otherwise effected, by any other acts or duties of our high priest. For the church could not be saved without taking away the guilt of sin. The whole design of the priests and sacrifices of old, was to teach and instruct the church, how ‘alone this might be performed; and this was only by making atonement for it by sacrifice, wherein the beast sacrificed, did suffer in the room of the sinner, and did by God’s institution, bear his iniquity. This our apostle hath respect unto, and the realizing of all those typical representations in Christ, without which, his whole discourse is useless and vain. Wherefore, there was no other way for our salvation, but by a real propitiation or atonement made for our sins, And whosoever looketh for it otherwise, but in the faith and virtue thereof, will be deceived.
Obs. IV. As God designed unto the Lord Christ, the work which he had to do, so he provided for him, and furnished him with, whatever was necessary thereunto.—Somewhat he must have to offer. And this could not be any thing which was the matter of the sacrifices of the priests of old. For all those sacrifices were appropriated unto the discharge of the priesthood. And besides, they were none of them able to effect that which he was designed to do. Where- fore, a body did God prepare for him, as is declared at large, Heb. x. 1—8, &c.
Obs. V. The Lord Christ being to save the church in the way of office, he was not to be spared in any thing necessary thereunto. And in conformity unto him,
Obs. VI. Whatever state or condition we are called unto, what is necessary unto that state, is indispensably required of us. So is holiness and obedience required unto a state of reconciliation and peace
Vul. Lat. Si esset super terram; all others, in terra, to the same purpose. Syr. xywwa, ‘in the earth.’ Ovo ay nv ἱερευς, ND ND ὮΝ nim, ‘even also he should not be a priest.” Ovrwy τῶν ἱερεων, the Vulgar omits ἱερεων, and renders the words, cum essent qui offerrent. Rhem. ‘whereas there were who did offer.’ The Syriac agrees with the original; Beza, manentibus illis sacerdotibus; quum sint alii sacerdotes.
In the preceding discourses the apostle hath fully proved, that the introduction of this new priesthood under the gospel, had put an end unto the old; and that it was necessary that so it should do, because, as he had abundantly discovered in many instances, it was utterly insufficient to bring us unto God, or to make the church-state perfect. And withal he had declared the nature of this new priesthood. In _ particular he hath shown, that although this high priest offered his great expiatory sacrifice once for all, yet the consummation of this sacrifice, and the derivation of the benefits of it to the church, depended on the following discharge of lis office, with his personal state and condition therein. For so was it with the high priest under the law, as unto his great anniversary sacrifice at the feast of expiation, whose efficacy depended on his entrance afterwards into the holy place. Wherefore, he declares this state of our high priest to be spiritual and heavenly, as consisting in the ministry of his own body in the sanctuary of heaven.
Having fully manifested these things, unfolding the mystery of them, he proceeds in this verse to show how necessary it was that so it should be, namely, that he should neither offer the things appointed in the law, nor yet abide in the state and condition of a priest here on earth, as those other priests did. In brief, he proves that he was not in any thing to take on him the administration of holy things in the church, aecording as they were then established by law. For, whereas it might be objected,—If the Lord Christ was a high priest as he pleaded, why then did he not administer the holy things of the church, according to the duty of a priest? to which he replies, that so he was not to do; yea, a supposition that he might do so, was inconsistent with his office, and destructive both of the law and the gospel. For it would utterly overthrow the law, for one that was not of the line of Aaron to officiate in the holy place; and God had by the law made provision of others, so that there was neither room nor place for his ministry. And the gospel also would have been of no use thereby, seeing the sacrifice which it is built upon, would have been of the same nature with those underthe law. This the apostle confirms in this verse.
Ver. 4.— For indeed if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.
The words are an hypothetical proposition, with the reason or confirmation of it. The proposition is in the former part of the verse; ‘ for if indeed he were on the earth, he should not be a priest.’ And the remainder of the words, is the reason or confirmation of this, ‘seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according unto the law.’
We may consider first the causal connexion, yap, ‘ for,’ which relates unto what he had discoursed immediately before, as introducing a reason why things ought to be, as he had declared. He had in sundry instances manifested his present state and condition, with the way and manner of the discharge of his office. A priest he was, and therefore he must have somewhat to offer, which must be somewhat of his own, seeing the law would not accommodate him with a sacrifice, nor yet the whole creation; the law having prepossessed unto its own use, all that was clean and fit to be offered unto God. A sanctuary he must also have wherein to officiate, and this was to be heaven itself, because he was himself exalted into heaven, and set down at the right hand of God. And of all this there was yet another especial reason; ‘for if he were on the earth,’ &e. |
‘If indeed he were onearth.’? Ex ev. The emphasis of the particle is not to be omitted. If really it were so; or therein is force granted unto the concession that the apostle here makes; truly it must be so.
1. His continuance and abode on the earth. If he were not exalted into heaven in the discharge of his office,—if he were not at the right | hand of God,—if he were not entered into the heavenly sanctuary, but could have discharged his whole office here‘on the earth without any of these things. If he were thus on the earth, or thus to have been on the earth. |
2. The state and condition of his priesthood. If he were on the earth, or had a priesthood of the same order and constitution with that of the law,—if he were to have offered the same sacrifices, or of the same kind with them, which were to be perfected on the earth,—if he were not to have offered himself, wherein his sacrifice could not be absolutely consummated without the presentation of himself in the most holy place, not made with hands.,
These two things the apostle was treating of, 1. His present state and condition as to the sanctuary wherein he administered, which was heavenly. 2. His sacrifice and tabernacle, which was himself; in opposition unto both these, is this supposition made, ‘If he were on
This, therefore, is the full sense of this supposition, which is well to be observed to clear the meaning of the whole verse, which the Socinians endeavour with all their skill and force, to wrest unto their heresy.—‘ If we did aver him to have such a priesthood, as in the discharge thereof he were always to continue on the earth, and to administer in the sanctuary of the tabernacle or temple with the blood of legal sacrifices.’ On this supposition the apostle grants that ‘he could not be a priest,’ ove’ av nv iepeve. He had not been, or could not be so much as a priest, or a priest at all in any sense. That a priest he was to be, and that of necessity he must be so, he had proved before, And on the occasion thereof he declares the nature of his sacrifice, tabernacle, and sanctuary; and now proves that they were so necessary for him, that without them he could not have been a priest.
It will be said, that he was a priest on the earth, and that therein he offered his great expiatory sacrifice in and by his own blood. And it is true. But, 1. This was not on the earth in the sense of the law, which alone appointed the sacrifices on the earth; it was not in the way, nor after the manner of the sacrifices of the law, which are expressed by that phrase, ‘on the earth.’ 2. Although his oblation or sacrifice of himself was complete on the earth, yet the whole service belonging thereunto, to make it effectual in the behalf of them for whom it was offered, could not be accomplished on the earth. Had he not entered into heaven to make a representation of his sacrifice in the holy place, he could not have been the high priest of the church from that oflering of himself; because the church could have enjoyed no benefit thereby. Nor would he ever have offered that sacrifice, if he had been to abide on the earth, and not afterwards to enter the heavenly sanctuary to make it effectual. The high priest on the great day of expiation, perfected his sacrifice for his own sin, and the sins of the people, without the tabernacle. But yet he neither could, nor would, nor oucht to have attempted the offering of it, had it not been with a design to carry the blood into the holy place, to sprinkle it before the ark and mercy-seat, the throne of grace. So was Christ to enter into the holy place not made with hands, or he could not have been ἃ priest. '
The reason of this assertion and concession is added in the latter part of the verse, ‘seeing there are priests that offer gifts according to the law.’;
Ὄντων τῶν isoswv, Sacerdotibus existentibus, cum sint sacerdotes, ‘whereas there are priests.’ The apostle doth not grant that at that time when he wrote this Epistle, there were legal priests de jure, offering sacrifices according to the law. De facto, indeed, there were yet such priests ministering in the temple, which was yet standing. But in this whole-Epistle, as to right and acceptance with God, he proves that their otlice had ceased, and that their ministrations were useless. Wherefore οντων, respects the legal institution of the priests, and their right to officiate then when the Lord Christ offered his sacrifice. Then there were priests who had a right to officiate in their office, and to offer gifts according to the law.
Two things are to be inquired into, to give us the sense of these words, and the force of the reason in them.
1. Why might not the Lord Christ be a priest, and offer his sacrifice, continuing on the earth, to consummate it, notwithstanding the continuance of these priests according to the law?
2. Why did he not in the first place take away and abolish this order of priests, and so make way for the introduction of his own priesthood?
I. I answer to the first, that if he had been a priest on the earth, to have discharged the whole work of his priesthood here below, whilst they were priests also, then he must either have been of the same order with them, or of another; and have offered sacrifices of the same kind as they did, or sacrifices of another kind. But neither of these could be. For he could not be of the same order with them. This the apostle proves because he was of the tribe of Judah, which was excluded from the priesthood, in that it was appropriated to the tribe of Levi, and family of Aaron. And, therefore also, he could not offer the same sacrifices with them, for none might do so by the law but themselves. And of another order together with them he could not be. For there is nothing foretold of priests of several orders in the church at the same time. Yea, as we have proved before, the introduction of a priesthood of another order was not only inconsistent with that priesthood, but destructive of the law itself, and all its institutions. Wherefore, whilst they continued priests according to the law, Christ could not be a priest among them, neither of their order nor of another; that is, if the whole administration of his office had been on the earth together with theirs, he could not bea priest among them. y
2. Unto the second inquiry, I say the Lord Christ could not by any means take away that other priesthood, until he himself had accomplished all that ever was signified thereby, according unto God’s institution. The whole end and design of God in its institution had been frustrated, if the office had ceased, de jure, before the whole of what. was prefigured by its being, duties, and offices, was fulfilled. And, therefore, although there was an intercision of its administrations for seventy: years, during the Babylonish captivity, yet was the oflice itself continued in its right and dignity, because what it designed to prefigure was not yet attained. And this was not done till the Lord Christ ascended into the heavenly sanctuary, to administer in the presence of God for the church. For until then, the high priest’s entering into the holy place in the tabernacle once a year, had not an accomplishment in what was prefigured thereby. Wherefore, there was not an end put unto their office and ministration by the oblation of Christ on the cross, but they still continued to offer sacrifices according to the law. For there yet remained unto the fulfilling of what was designed in their whole office, his entering into the holy place above. | Wherefore, they were still to continue, priests, until he had completed the whole service prefigured by them, in the oblation of himself, and entering thereon into the heavenly sanctuary.
This, therefore, is the sense of the apostle’s reasoning in this place. The priests of the order of Aaron continued, de jure, their administrations of holy things, or were so to do, until all was accomplished that was signified thereby. This was not done until the ascension of Christ into heaven, For the first tabernacle was to stand until the way was made open into the holiest of all, as we shall see afterwards. Now, the Lord Christ was not a priest after their order, nor could he offer the sacrifices appointed by the law. Hence, it is evident that he could not have been a priest, had he been to continue in the earth, and to administer on the earth, for so their priesthood with which his was inconsistent, could never have had an end. For this could not be without his entrance as a priest into the heavenly sanctuary.
It appears, therefore, how vain the pretence of the Socinians is, from this place to prove, that the Lord Christ did not offer his expiatory saerifice here on the earth. For the apostle speaks nothing of his oblation, which he had before declared to have been once for all, before he entered into heaven to make intercession for us. But he speaks only of the order of his priesthood, and the state and condition wherein the present administration of it was to be continued.
Obs. I. God’s institutions, rightly stated, do never interfere.—So we see those of the ancient priesthood, and that of Christ did not. They had both of them their: proper bounds and seasons, nor could the latter completely commence and take place, until the former was ex- — pired. The entrance of Christ into the holy place, which stated him in that condition wherein he was to continue the exercise of his priesthood unto the consummation of all things, put an absolute period unto the former priesthood by accomplishing all that was signified thereby, with a due and seasonable end unto all legal worship, as to right and efficacy. When he had done all that was figured by them, he took the whole work into his own hand.
Obs. II. The discharge of all the parts and duties of the priestly office of Christ, in their proper order, was needful unto the salvation of the church.—His oblation was to be on the earth, but the continuation of the discharge of his office was to be in heaven. Without this the former would not profit us; if he had done no more he could not have been a priest. For, 1. As this dependeth on the infinite wisdom of God, ordering and disposing all things that concern the discharge of this office unto their proper times and seasons; so, 2. Believers do find in their own experience, how all things are suited unto their conditions and wants. Unless the foundation of a propitiation for their sins be first laid, they can have no hopes of acceptance with God. This, therefore, was first done in the offering of the body of Christ once forall. But when this is done, unless they have a continual application of the efficacy of it unto their souls, neither their peace with God, nor their access unto God, can be maintained. And this is done by the ministration of his office in the heavenly sanctuary, which ensues thereon.
Ver. 5.—Who serve (in sacred worship) unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, even as Moses was admonished of God, when he was about to make the tabernacle; for see, (saith he) that thou make all things according to the pattern shown to thee in the mount.
1. We must first consider the reading of these words, by reason of the testimony which the apostle quotes out of the law, and his rendering thereof. The words in the original, Exod. xxv. 40, are, My) TAT) “77 TANTO MAN Wr ὈΠΌΞΠΣ, ‘And look (or take heed) and make after their pattern which was shown thee in the mount.’ The apostle adds, πάντα, ‘all things,’ which is not in the original, nor in the version of the LXX. But 1. He might take it from ver. 9, of the chapter, where the word is expressed, qmx TNT ‘28 TWN 555, ‘ according unto all that I shall show thee.’ 2. Things indefinitely expressed, are to be expounded universally. 1 Kings viii.39, ‘and to give to every man according to his ways, that is, 2 Chron. vi. 30, ‘and render to every man according to all his ways.’ Deut. xix. 15, ‘At the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established,’ that is, 2 Cor. xiii. 1, ‘shall every word be established.’ Ps. cx. 1, ‘Until I make thine enemies thy footstool,’ that is, 1 Cor. xv. 25, ‘all thine enemies.’ Wherefore, the apostle by the addition of παντα, ‘ all things,’ says no more but what is expressed in one place, and necessarily understood in the other.
2. The connexion of these words with the preceding discourse, which gives us the general design of the apostle, is next to be considered. He had before intimated two things. 1. That the high priests, according to the law, did net minister the heavenly things. 2. That the Lord Christ alone did so; whence he concludes his dignity and preeminence above them, which is the argument he hath in hand.
Both these he confirms"in these words. For he confines their ministry unto the types of heavenly things, exclusively of the heavenly things themselves. And by showing, as in the verse preceding, that if Christ had been to continue on the earth, he could not have been a priest, he manifests that he alone was to administer those heavenly things.
3. The argument in general whereby the apostle proves that they served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, that is, only so and no more, is taken from the words of God to Moses. And the force of the argument is evident. For God in those words declares that there was something above and beyond that material tabernacle, which was prescribed unto him. For he showed him either an original or an exemplar on the top of the mount, which, what he was to do below, did but shadow and represent. And therefore, they who ministered in what he was to make, could serve only therein to be the example and shadow of heavenly things. This, therefore, is the apostle’s argument from this testimony: If God showed unto Moses on the top of the mount that which was heavenly, and he was made an example or shadow of it, then they that ministered therein served only unto the example and shadow of heavenly things. In the words may be observed, 1. ‘The persons spoken of, ‘who.’ 2. What is ascribed unto them, ‘ they serve.’ 3. The limitation of that service; wherein there is, Ist. The present immediate object of it, ‘an example and shadow.’ 2d. The ultimate things intended, ‘heavenly things.’ 4. The proof of the whole assertion, from the words of God to Moses; wherein there is, Ist. The manner of the instruction given him, ‘he was warned of God. 2dly. The instruction or warning itself, ‘ see that thou make,’ &c.
1. There is the persons spoken of, οἵτινες, ‘who.’ It refers unto the priests mentioned, ver. 4, ‘Seeing there are priests that offer gifts; who.’ But although that expression comprised the whole order of Levitical priests, yet it refers in particular unto the high priests, ver. 3, πας yap αρχίερευς, ‘ every high priest, ‘which high priests.’
2. What is ascribed unto them; λατρευουσι, ‘ do serve.’ The general signification of the English word ‘to serve,’ is not intended, as any thing doth serve for an end, or one person serves another. For it is a sacred word, and signifies only to minister in sacred worship and service, as the Syriac translation renders it. And in particular it respects here all the δικαιωματα Aarpeac, the ordinances of divine service,’ which were appointed under the first tabernacle, ch. ix. 1, ‘they do serve:’ they do according unto the law officiate in sacred things; that is, they did so, de jure, in their first institution, and continued, de facto, so to do still. And the word λατρεύω, is applied both unto the inward spiritual, and outward instituted holy worship of God; see Matt. iv. 10; Acts vii. 7; Rom.i.9. It respects, therefore, all that the high priests did, or had to do, in the worship of God, in the tabernacle or temple.
set forth for an example,’ speaking of Sodom and Gomorrah, or a particular instance of what would be God’s dealing with provoking sinners at the last day. Δειγματιζω, which is framed of δειγμα, is but once used in the New Testament, Col. 11. 15, where we render it to make a show, that is, a representation of what was done: ὑποδείγμα, the word here used is an example showing or declaring any thing in a way of instance. John xii. 15, ὑποδειγμα ἐδωκα ὑμιν, “1 have given you an example,’ saith our Saviour, when he had washed his disciples’ feet; that is, shown you in what I have done, what you ought to do also. So James v. 10, ‘ Take, my brethren, the prophets for an example.’ But whereas, principally and commonly, examples are patterns of other things, that which they are to be conformed to, as in the places cited, John xii. 15; James v. 10, this cannot be the sense of it in this place. For the heavenly things were not framed and fashioned after the example of these, but on the contrary. Wherefore, examples are of two sorts, efligiantia and effigiata, that 15, tpororuma and exru7a; such as other things are framed by, or such as are framed by other things, In this latter sense it is here used; and I would choose to render it by a vesemblance. It is less than devyua, simile quiddam, an obscure representation. Hence is added,
Καὶ oxea, ‘and the shadow.’ Some suppose a shadow is taken artificially, and opposed unto an express image or complete celineation of any thing, by a similitude taken from the first lines and shadows of any thing that is afterwards to be drawn to the life; and so they say it is used, ch. x. 1, ‘The law had only a shadow of good things to come, and not the express image of the things themselves,’ But properly it is taken naturally, and opposed unto a body or substance, Col. ἢ. 17, ‘Which things have a shadow of things to come; but the body is Christ.’ It is indifferent in whether sense we here take the word, for what is affirmed is true in both. If we take it in the first way, it intends that obscure delineation of heavenly mysteries, which was in the legal institutions. They did represent and teach them, and so were taught and represented in the divine service of those priests. But it was so obscurely, that none could see their beauty and excellency therein. If it be used in the latter way, then it declares that the substance of what God intended in all his worship, was not contained nor comprised in the services of those priests. There were some lines and shadows to represent the body, but the body itself was not there. There was something above them and beyond them, which they reached not unto.
4. The things themselves whence they are restrained by this limitation, are expressed, τῶν ἐπουρανίων, ‘ of heavenly things.’ The things intended in these words, are no other than what God showed unto Moses in the mount; and therefore we shall defer our inquiry into them, until we come unto those words. ‘This therefore is the meaning of the words. The whole ministry of the priests of old, was in and about earthly things, which had in them only a resemblance and shadow of things above.. And we may observe by the way,
Obs. I. God alone limits the signification and use of all his own institutions. — We ought not to derogate from them, nor to take any thing out of them, which God hath put into them; nor can we put any thing into them, that God hath not furnished them withal. And we are apt to err in both extremes. The Jews to this day believe, that the ministration of their priests contained the heavenly things themselves. They do so, contrary to the nature and end of them, which the Scripture so often speaks unto. This is one occasion of their obstinacy and unbelief. They will imagine that there was nothing above or beyond their legal institutions, no other heavenly mysteries of grace and truth, but what is comprised in them. They put more in them than ever God furnished them withal, and perish in their vain confidence. |
It hath so fallen out also under the New Testament. God hath instituted his holy sacraments, and hath put this virtue into them, that they should represent and exhibit unto the faith of believers, the grace which he intendeth and designeth by them. But men have not been contented herewith, and therefore they will put more into them, than God hath furnished them withal. They will have them to contain the grace in them, which they exhibit in the way of a promise, and to communicate it unto all sorts of persons, that are partakers of them. Thus, some would have baptism to be regeneration itself, and that there is no other evangelical regeneration but that alone, with the profession which is made: thereon. Every one who is baptized, is thereby regenerated. The sign and figure of grace, they would have to be the grace itself. Nothing can be invented more pernicious unto the souls of men. For all sorts of persons may be brought to a ruinous security about their spiritual condition by it, and diverted from endeavours after that real internal work, in the change of their hearts and natures, without which, none shall see God. This is to put that into it, which Ged never placed there. Some suppose it to be such a distinguishing, or rather separating ordinance, that the administration of it in such a way or such a season, is the fundamental rule of all church fellowship and communion; whereas God never designed it unto any such end.
In the supper of the Lord, the church of Rome in particular, is not contented that we have a representation and instituted memorial of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ, in the signs of his body as broken, and his blood as shed for us, with an exhibition of grace in the word of promise or the gospel; but they will have the natural body and blood of Christ, his flesh and bones, to be contained therein, and to be eaten or devoured by all that partake of the outward signs. This is to put that into an ordinance, which God‘never put into it, and so to overthrow it. And there are two grounds or ends of what they do. The first is, to turn the wisdom of faith into a carnal imagination. It requires the light and wisdom of faith, to apprehend the spiritual exhibition of Christ in the sacrament unto us. It is a great spiritual mystery, not at all to be apprehended, but by the supernatural light of faith. This, the vain darkened minds of men like not, they cannot away with it, it is a foolishness unto them. Wherefore, under the name of a mystery, they have invented the most horrible and monstrous figments, that ever befel the minds of men. This is easily received and admitted by a mere act of carnal imagination; and the more blind and dark men are, the more are they pleased with it. 2. They do it to exclude the exercise of faith in the participation of it. As they deal with the wisdom of faith as to its nature, so they do with the exercise of faith as to its use. God hath given this measure unto this ordinance, that it shall exhibit and communicate nothing unto us, that we shall receive no benefit by it, but in the actual exercise of faith. This the carnal minds and hearts of men like not. It requires a peculiar exercise of this grace, and that ina peculiar manner, unto a participation of any benefit by it. But this, under the notion of bringing more into the ordinance than ever God put into it, they exclude and ease all men of. Let them but bring their mouths and their teeth, and they fail not of eating the body, and drinking the very blood of Christ. So, undera pretence of putting that in the ordinance, which God never put into it, they have cast out of the hearts of men, the necessity of those duties, which alone render it useful and beneficial.
Some, on the other side, do derogate from them, and will not allow them that station or use, which God hath appointed unto them in the_ church. 1. Some derogate from their dignity. This they do, by joining their own appointments unto them, as of equal worth and dignity with them. 2. Some derogate from their necessity, practically setting light by them, or disregarding the participation of them. 3. Some derogate from their use, openly denying their continuance in the church of God.
The reasons why men are so prone to deviate from the will of God in his institutions, and to despise the measures he hath given them, are, 1. Want of faith in its principal power and act, which is submission and resignation of soul unto the sovereignty of God. Faith alone renders that an all-sufficient reason of obedience. 2 Want of spiritual wisdom and understanding to discern the mystery of the wisdom and grace of God in them.
Obs. II. It is an honour to be employed in any sacred service, that belongs unto the worship of God, though it be of an inferior nature unto other parts of it.—It is so, I say, if we are called of God thereunto. This was the greatest honour that any were made partakers of under the Old Testament, that they served unto the example and shadow of heavenly things only. And if now God call any of us unto his service, wherein yet by the meanness of our gifts, or want of opportunities, we cannot serve him in so eminent a manner as some others do, yet if we abide in our station and duty, there is great honour in the meanest divine service.
Obs. II]. So great was the glory of heavenly ministration, in the mediation of Jesus Christ, that God would not at once bring it forth in the church, until he had prepared the minds of men by types, shadows, examples, and representations of it—This was the end of ail legal institutions of divine worship and service. And in these institutions, the wisdom of God provided what was necessary to suit the cases of his people at the time. First, he filled these institutions with glory and beauty, that they might affect the minds of men with an admiration and expectation of that greater glory, which they represented and pointed unto. And this they did among all them who truly believed, so that they continually looked and longed after the coming of him, the glory of whose ministry was represented in them. In these two things did their faith principally act itself. 1. In a diligent inquiry into the mediation and ministry of Christ, with the glory which it was to be accompanied withal, 1 Pet.i.10, 11. 2. In earnest desires after the enjoyment of what they saw afar off, which was obscurely represented unto them, Cant. ii. 17, iv. 6. From both these arose that fervent love unto, zeal for, and delight in those ordinances of worship, which did so lead them unto these things that were so glorious, which in the Scripture are every-where expressed, and which were so well-pleasing unto God.
Secondly. On the other hand, because these institutions were to be so glorious, that they might be shadows of heavenly things, and the people unto whom they were given, were carnal, and given to rest themselves in present outward appearances, God was pleased to intermix with them, many services that were hard to be borne, and many laws with penalties severe and dreadful. ‘This provision was laid ἴῃ. by divine wisdom, that they might not rest in what he designed only to prepare their minds, for the introduction of that which was far more glorious. And well is it for us, if we have a due apprehension of the glory of the heavenly ministration of Christ, now it is introduced. It is too evident that with many, yea, with most that are called Christians, it is far otherwise. For they are still seeking after the outward glory of a carnal worship, as though they had no view of the spiritual glory of the heavenly ministration of the gospel, in the hand of Jesus_ Christ our high priest. Nor willit be otherwise with any of us, unless we are enabled by faith to look within the veil, and see the beauty of the appearance of Christ at the right hand of God. The apostle tells us, that the ministration of the law was glorious; yet had it no glory in comparison of that which doth excel. But if we are not able to discern this more excellent glory, and satisfy ourselves therein, it is a great sign that we ourselves are carnal, and therefore are delighted with those things that are so. But we must proceed with our exposition.
5. The proof of the foregoing assertion is added by the apostle, in the words which God spake unto Moses with respect to his building the tabernacle, which was the seat of all the divine service they were to administer. And there are two things to be considered in this testimony. 1. The manner of its introduction. 2. The words of the testimony itself.
was designed unto the child Jesus, Matt. ii. 22, as the wise men were to avoid going unto Herod, ver. 12; so Heb. xi. 7. ‘ Noah being, χρηματισϑεις, divinely warned,’ was moved with fear. Yet sometimes it is used for any immediate private revelation, Luke 11. 26; Acts x. 22. Wherefore, two things are intended in this expression. 1. That Moses had an immediate word, command, or oracle from God, to the purpose intended. And 2, That he was to use great caution and heed about what was enjoined him, that there might be no miscarriage or mistake. ‘ Admonished of God.’ And the manner of the expression in the original, carrieth admonition in it; ΤΟ myn, ‘and look to it and do,’ Exod. xxv. 40; take diligent care about it. The same is the sense of ὁρα when thus used, ‘ take heed,’ ‘ look well to it.’ When John upon surprisal would have fallen down before the angel to worship him, he replied, ὁρα pn, “566 thou do it not,’ avoid it with care, Rev. xxii. 9. The matter was of the greatest importance, and the utmost diligence was to be used about it, whence the divine oracle was given out in a way of charge and admonition, as we have well rendered the word. And we may observe,
Obs. IV. That our utmost care and diligence in the consideration of the mind of God, is required in all that we do about his worship.— There is nothing wherein men for the most part are more careless. Some suppose it belongs unto their own wisdom to order things in the worship of God, as it seems most meet unto them; an apprehension that I shall leave this world in admiration of, that ever it should befal the minds of so many good and honest men as it hath done. But the power of prejudice is inexpressible. Some think they are no farther concerned in these things, than only to follow the traditions of their fathers. This, to the community of Christians, is the only rule of divine worship. ‘To suppose that it is their duty to inquire into the way and manner of the worship of God, the grounds and reasons of what they practise therein, is most remote from them. It was Moses that had the command to take care about the making of the tabernacle, and not the people. ‘There was nothing left unto them, but to do and observe what he had appointed. And it is true, when God first reveals the way of his worship immediately from himself, as he did first by Moses, and last of all by his Son Jesus Christ, the people have nothing to do therewith, but only to observe and do what is appointed, as our Saviour expressly declares, Matt. xxvii, 20. But when his worship is so revealed and declared, there is not the meanest person who professeth obedience unto him, who is exempted from this command of taking most diligent care about the due discharge of their duty herein. And this care and diligence is necessary,
First. From the aptness and proneness of the minds of men to run into pernicious extremes in this matter. For,
1. The generality of men have been stupidly negligent herein, as if it were a matter wherein they were not at all concerned. What is provided for them, what is proposed to them, what comes in the ordinary way to which they have been accustomed, whatever it be, that they follow. And as they take it on light grounds, so they observe it with slight spirits. And this hath been the true cause of that inundation of profaneness which is come on the Christian world. For when once men come to such a want of concern in the worship of God, as to engage in it they know not well why, and to perform it they know not how, all manner of impiety will ensue in their lives, as is manifest in experience beyond the evidence of a thousand arguments.
2. Many in all ages have been prone to indulge their own imaginations and inventions in the disposal of divine worship. And this bitter root hath sprung up into all the superstition and idolatry, that the earth is filled withal at this day. From these two poisoned springs, hath proceeded that woeful apostasy from Christ and evangelical worship, which the world groans under. Wherefore our utmost care and diligence is required herein.
Secondly. The concernment of the glory of God calls for the same care in like manner. It were no hard thing to demonstrate, that the principal way and means whereby God expects that we should give glory to him in this world, is by a due observance of the divine worship that he hath appointed. For herein do we in an especial manner ascribe to him the glory of his sovereignty, of his wisdom, of his grace and holiness, when in his worship we bow down our souls under his authority alone, when we see such an impress of divine wisdom on all his institutions, as to judge all other ways folly in comparison of them, when we have experience of the grace represented and exhibited in them, then do we glorify God aright. And without these things, whatever we pretend, we honour him not in the solemnities of our worship. But we return.
In the charge given to Moses two things are observable. 1. The time when it was given him. 2. The charge itself.
1, The time when it was given. MedAAwv επίτελειν τὴν σκηνην; ‘when he was about to make the tabernacle.” Μελλων, expresseth that which is immediately future. He was in procinctu, in readiness for that work; just as it were taking it in hand, and going about it. This made the divine warning seasonable. It was given him on the entrance of his work, that it might make an effectual impression on his mind. And it is our duty on an entrance into any work we are called to, to charge our consciences with a divine admonition. What immediate revelation was to Moses, that the written word is to us. To charge our consciences with rule from it, and with its authority, will preserve us in whatever may fal] out in the way of our duty, and nothing else will do it.
The warning and charge itself is, that he should make all things according to the pattern shown bim in the mount. What this pattern was, how it was shown to Moses, and how he was to make all things according to it, are all of them things not easy to be explained.
In general, it is certain, that God intended to declare hereby, that the work which Moses had to do, the tabernacle he was to erect, and the worship thereof, was not, either in the whole, or in any part of it, or in any thing that belonged to it, a matter of his own invention or contrivance, nor what he set on by chance, but an exact representation of what God had instructed him in, and shown to him. This was the foundation of all the worship of God under the Old Testament, and the security of the worshippers. Hence, at the finishing of this work, it is eight times repeated in one chapter, that all things were done as God commanded Moses. And herein was that truth fully consecrated to the perpetual use of the church in all ages, that the will and command of God is the sole reason, rule, and measure, of all religious worship.
For the pattern itself, expositors generally agree, that on the top of the mount, God caused to appear to Moses, the form, fashion, dimensions, and utensils of that tabernacle which he was to erect. Whether this representation was made to Moses by the way of internal vision, as the temple was represented to Ezekiel, or whether there was an ethereal fabric proposed to his bodily senses, is hard to determine. And this man, ‘exemplar,’ or ‘pattern,’ our apostle here calls heavenly things. For to prove that the priests served only to the resemblance and shadow of heavenly things, he produceth this testimony, that Moses was to make all things according to the pattern shown him in the mount. And this pattern, with all that belonged to it, is called heavenly things, because it was made to appear in the air on the top of the mount, with respect to that which was to be made beneath. Or it may be called heavenly, because it was the immediate effect of
‘the power of God, who worketh from heaven. But supposing such an ethereal tabernacle represented to Moses, yet it cannot be said.that it was the substance of the heavenly things themselves, but only a shadow or representation of them. The heavenly things themselves, in the mind of God, were of another nature, and this pattern on the mount was but an external representation of them. So that here must be three things intended.
3. The tabernacle made by Moses in imitation thereof. Wherefore this tabernacle and its worship, wherein the Levitical priests administered their office, was so far from being the substance of the heavenly things themselves, as that they were but a shadow, of that shadow of them which was represented in the mount.
I know not that there is any thing in this exposition of the words that is contrary to the analogy of faith, or inconsistent with the design of the apostle. But withal I must acknowledge, that these things seem to me exceedingly difficult, and such as I know not how fully to embrace, and that for the reasons following.
1. If such a representation were made to Moses in the mount, and that be the pattern intended, then the tabernacle, with all its ministry, was a shadow thereof. But this is contrary to our apostle in another place, who tells us that indeed all legal institutions were only a shadow, but withal that the substance or body was of Christ, Col. 11.17.
And it is the body that the shadow doth immediately depend on and represent. But according to this exposition, this figure or appearance made in the mount, must be the body or substance which those legal institutions did represent. But this figure was not Christ. And it is hard to say, that this figure was the body which the tabernacle below was the shadow of, and that body was the shadow of Christ. But that Christ himself, his mediation and his church, that is, his mystical body, were not immediately represented by the tabernacle, and the service of it, but somewhat else that was a figure of them, is contrary to the whole dispute of the apostle in this place, and the analogy of faith. |
2. I do not see how the priests could minister in the earthly tabernacle as an example and shadow of such an ethereal tabernacle. For if there were any such thing, it immediately vanished after its appearance; it ceased to be any thing, and therefore could not be any longer a heavenly thing.. Wherefore, with respect thereunto, they could net continue to serve to the example of heavenly things, which were not.
3. No tolerable account can be given of the reason or use of such a representation. For God doth not dwell in any such tabernacle in heaven, that it should be thought to represent his holy habitation. And as to that which was to be made on the earth, he had given such punctual instructions to Moses, confirming the remembrance and knowledge of them in his mind by the Holy Spirit, by whom he was acted and guided, as that he needed no help from his imagination, in the view of the representation of such a fabric.
4, Whatever Moses did, it was for a testimony to the things which were to be spoken afterwards, ch. ili. δ. But these were the things of Christ and the gospel, which therefore he was to have an immediate respect to.
5. The sense of the words must be determined from the apostle himself. And it is evident,
1, That the heavenly things, to the resemblance of which the legal priests did minister, and the pattern shown to Moses in the mount, were the same. Hereon depends the whole force of his proof from this testimony.
2. ‘These heavenly things, he expressly tells us, were those which were consecrated, dedicated to God, and purified by the sacrifice of the blood of Christ, ch. ix. 23.. |
3. That Christ by his sacrifice did dedicate both himself, the whole church and its worship to God. From these things it follows,
4, That God did spiritually and mystically represent to Moses, the incarnation and mediation of Christ with the church of the elect, and ‘its spiritual worship, which was to be gathered thereby. And more~ over he let him know how the tabernacle, and.all that belonged thereunto, did represent him and them.
For the tabernacle that Moses made was a sign and figure of the body of Christ. This we have proved in the exposition of the second verse of this chapter, and it is positively affirmed by the apostle, Col. ii. 17. For therein would God dwell really and substantially, Col. ii. 9, “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.’ And the tabernacle was but to represent this habitation of God in Christ. Therefore did he dwell therein typically by sundry pledges of his presence, that he might represent the real substantial mbhabitation of the Godhead in the body, or human nature of Christ. ‘This therefore was the apxeruroc, whereunto the tabernacle was to be framed, and this was that which was shown to Moses on the top of the mount. These were the heavenly things, which they served to the resemblance and shadow of. It is therefore most probable and most agreeable to the mystery of the wisdom of God in these things, that before the building of the tabernacle below, God did show to Moses what was to be signified and represented thereby, and what he would introduce when that was to be taken away. He first showed the true tabernacle, then appointed a figure of it, which was to abide and serve the worship of the church, till that true one was to be introduced, when this was to be taken down and removed out of the way, which is the substance of what the apostle designeth to prove.
It will be said, that what was shown unto Moses in the mount, was only man and τυπος, as here, that is, a likeness, similitude, and type of other things. This therefore could not be Christ himself and his mediation, which are the substance of heavenly things, and not a resemblance of them.
I answer, First. All representations of Christ himself, antecedent unto his actual exhibition in the flesh, (as his appearance in human shape of old,) were but resemblances and types of what should be afterwards.
Secondly. His manifestation unto Moses, is so called, not that it was atype of any other things above, but because it was the prototype of all that was to be done below. |
1. This was the foundation of the faith of the church of Israel in all generations. Their faith in God was not confined unto the outward things they enjoyed, but on Christ in them, and represented by them. They believed that they were only resemblances of him and his mediation, which when they lost the faith of, they lost all acceptance with God in their worship. The relation of their ordinances unto him, their expression of him, as their prototype and substance, was the line of life, wisdom, beauty, glory, and usefulness that ran through them all. This being now taken away, they are all as a dead thing. When Christ was in them, they were the delight of God, and the joy of the souls of his saints. Now he hath unclothed himself of them, and left them to be rolled up as a vesture, as a monument of the garments he thought meet to wear in the immature age of the church, they are of no more use at all. Who now can see any beauty, any blory in the old temple administrations, should they be revived? Where Christ is, there is glory, if we have the light of faith to discern it; and we may say of every thing where he is not, be it ever so pom:
pous unto the eyes of flesh, Ichabod; where is the glory of it, or it hath no glory.
Jude tells us of a contest between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses, ver. 9. It is generally thought that the devil would have hindered the burial of it, that in process of time it might have been an occasion of idolatry among that people. But that which was signified hereby, was the contest he made to keep the body of Moses, the whole system of Mosaical worship and ceremonies, from being buried, when the life and soul of it was departed. And this hath proved the ruin of the Jews unto this day. | _ _ 2. Consider the progress of these heavenly things; that is, of Jesus
1. The idea, the original pattern or exemplar of them, was in the mind, the counsel, the wisdom, and will of God, Eph. i. 5—9.
2. Hereof God made various accidental representations, preparatory for the full expression of the glorious eternal idea of his mind. So he did in the appearance of Christ in the form of human nature to Abraham, Jacob, and others; so he did in the pattern he showed to Moses in the mount, which infused a spirit of life into all that was made to a resemblance unto it..So he did in the tabernacle and temple, as will be more fully declared afterwards. |
3. He gave a substantial representation of the eternal idea of his wisdom and grace, in the incarnation of the Son, in whom the fulness of the Godhead dwelt subtantially, and in the discharge of his work of mediation. irs
4. An exposition of the whole is given us in the gospel, which is God’s means of instructing us in the eternal counsels of his wisdom, love, and grace, as revealed in Jesus Christ, 2 Cor. iii. 18.
The actings of faith with respect to these heavenly things, do begin where the divine progress of them doth end, and end where it begins. Faith, in the first place, respects and receives the revelation of the gospel, which is the means of its receiving and resting in Christ himself. And through Christ our faith is in God, 1 Pet. i. 20, as the eternal spring and fountain of all grace and glory.
There is no material difference in any translators, ancient or modern; in the rendering of these words; their signification in particular will be given in the exposition.
Ver. 6.—But now he hath obtained a more excellent muustry, by how much also he is thé mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
{In this verse beginneth the second part of the chapter, concerning the difference between the two covenants, the old and the new, with the preeminence of the latter above the former, and of the ministry of Christ above the high priests on that account. The whole churchstate of the Jews, with all the ordinances and worship of it, and the privileges annexed to it, depended wholly on the covenant that God made with them at Sinai. But the introduction of this new priesthood whereof the apostle is discoursing, did necessarily abolish that covenant, and put an end to all sacred ministrations that belonged to it. And this could not well be offered to them, without the supply of another covenant, which would excel the former in privileges and advantages. For it was granted among them, that is, was the design of God to carry on the church to a perfect state, as hath been declared on ch. vii. Wherefore we would not lead it backward, nor deprive it of any thing it had enjoyed, without provision of what was better in its room. This therefore the apostle undertakes to declare. And he doth it after his wonted manner, from such principles and testimonies as were admitted among themselves.
Two things to this purpose he proves by express testimonies out of the prophet Jeremiah. Aes:
1. That besides the covenant made with their fathers in Sinai, God had promised to make another covenant with the church, in his appointed time and season.
2. That this other promised covenant should be of another nature than the former, and much more excellent as to spiritual advantages to them who were taken into it.
From both these fully proved, the apostle infers the necessity of the abrogation of that first covenant, wherein they trusted, and to which they adhered, when the appointed time was come. And hereon he takes occasion to declare the nature of the two covenants in sundry instances, and wherein the differences betwecn them did consist. This is the substance of the remainder of this chapter.
This verse is a transition from one subject to another; namely, from the excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of the law, to the excellency of the new covenant above the old. And herein also the apostle artificially compriseth and confirmeth his last argument, of the preeminence of Christ, his priesthood and ministry, above those of the law. And this he doth from the nature and excellency of that covenant whereof he was the mediator in the discharge of his office.,
I. An assertion of the excellency of the ministry of Christ. And this he expresseth by way of comparison, ‘ He hath obtained a more excellent ministry:’ and after, declareth the degree of that comparison, “ by how much also.’
11. He annexeth the proof of this assertion, in that he is the mediator of a better covenant, established on better or more excellent promises.
2. What is ascribed in the assertion to the Lord Christ, and tliat is a ‘ministry.’
5. The measure and degree of this excellency, ‘ By how much also:’ all which must be spoken to, for the opening of the words.
1. The introduction of the assertion is by the particles, vuv δὲ, ‘but now. Nov, ‘now,’ is a note of time, of the present time. But there are instances where these adverbial particles thus conjoined, do not seem to denote any time or season, but are merely adversative, Rom. vii. 17; 1 Cor. v. 11, vii. 14, But even in those places there seems a respect to time also, and therefore I know not why it should be here excluded. As therefore there is an opposition intended to the old covenant, and the Levitical priesthood, so the season is intimated of the introduction of that covenant, and the better ministry wherewith it was accompanied. ‘Now, at this time, which is the season that God hath appointed for the introduction of the new covenant and ministry. To the same purpose the apostle expresseth himself, treating of the same subject, Rom. 111. 26, ‘to declare, ev tw vuv Kapow, ‘at this instant season,’ now the gospel is preached, ‘his righteousness.’ For,;
Obs. I. God in his infinite wisdom gives proper times and seasons, to ail his dispensations to and towards the church.—So the accomplishment of these things was in the fulness of times, Epb. 1. 10; that is, when all things rendered it seasonable and suitable to the condition of the church, and for the manifestation of his own glory. He hasteneth all his works of grace in their own appointed time, Isa. Ix. 22. And our duty it is, to leave the ordering of all the concerns of the church in the accomplishment of promises, to God in his own time, Acts 1. 7.
2. That which is ascribed to the Lord Christ is λειτουργία, a “ ministry.’” The priests of old had a ministry, they ministered at the altar, as in the foregoing verse. And the Lord Christ was a minister also; so the apostle had said before, he was λειτουργος των aywy, ver. 2, ‘a minister of the holy things.” Wherefore he had a liturgy,: ministry, a service committed to him. And two things are included
Ist. That it was an office of ministry that the Lord Christ undertook. He is not called a minister with respect to one particular act of ministration; so are we said to minister to the necessity of the saints, which yet denotes no office in them that do so. But he had a standing office committed to him, as the word imports. In that sense also he is called διάκονος, a minister in office, Rom. xv. 8.
2dly. Subordination to God is included herein. With respect to the church, his office is supreme, accompanied with sovereign power and | authority; he is Lord over his own house. But he holds his office in subordination to God, being faithful to him that appointed him. So the angels are said to minister to God, Dan. vii. 10; that is, to do all things according to his will, and at his command. So had the Lord Christ a ministry. And we may observe, | plishment of the will and dispensation of the grace of God.—For these ends was his ministry committed to him. We can never sufficiently admire the love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, in undertaking this office for us. The greatness and glory of the duties which he performed in the discharge thereof, with the benefits we receive thereby, are unspeakable, being the immediate cause of all grace and glory. Yet we are not absolutely to rest in them, but to ascend by faith to the eternal spring of them. ‘This is the grace, the love, the mercy of God, all exerted in a way of sovereign power. ‘These are every-where in the Scripture represented as the original spring of all grace, and the ultimate object of our faith, with respect to the benefits which we receive by the mediation of Christ. His office was committed to him of God, even the Father, and his will did he do in the discharge of it. Yet also,
Obs. III. The condescension of the Son of God to undertake the office of the ministry on our behalf, is unspeakable, and for ever to be admired.—Especially will it appear so to be, when we consider who it was who undertook it, what it cost him, what he did and underwent in the pursuance and discharge of it, as it is all expressed, Phil. ii. 6— 8. Not only what he continueth to do in heaven at the right hand of God, belongeth to this ministry, but all that he suffered also on the earth. His ministry in the undertaking of it, was not a dignity, a promotion, a revenue, Matt. xx. 28. It is true, it is issued in glory, but not till he had undergone all the evils that human nature is capable of undergoing. And we ought to undergo any thing cheerfully for him who underwent this ministry for us.
Obs. IV. The Lord Christ, by undertaking this office of the ministry, hath consecrated and made honourable that office unto all, that are rightly called unto it, and do rightly discharge it.—It is true his ministry and ours are not of the same kind and nature; but they agree in this, that they are both of them a ministry unto God, in the holy things of his worship. And considering that Christ himself was God’s minister, we have far greater reason to tremble in ourselves, on an apprehension of our own insufficiency for such an office, than to be discouraged with all the hardships and contests we meet withal in the world, upon the account of it.
3. The general way whereby our Lord Christ came unto this ministry, is expressed, τέτευχε, ‘he obtained it.’ Tevevye is either sorte contingo, ‘to have a lot or portion,’ or to have any thing befal a man, as it were by accident; or assequor, obtineo, to ‘attain,’ or obtain any thing which before we had not. But the apostle designeth not to express in this word, the especial call of Christ, or the particular way whereby he came unto his ministry, but only in general, that he had it, and was possessed of it, in the appointed season, which before he ~had not. The way whereby he entered on the whole office and work of his mediation, he expresseth by κεκληρονομηκε, ch. 1. 4, he had it by ‘inheritance,’ that is, by free grant and perpetual donation, made unto him as the Son. See the exposition on that place.
There were two things that concurred unto his obtaining this ministry. 1. The eternal purpose and counsel of God, designing him tlicreunto;
an act of the divine will, accompanied with infinite wisdom, love, and power. 2. The actual call of God, whereunto many things did concur, especially his unction with the Spirit above measure, for the holy discharge of his whole office. Thus did he obtain this ministry, and not by any legal constitution, succession, or carnal rite, as did the priests of old. And we may see, that,
Obs. V. The exaltation of the human nature of Christ, into the office of this glorious ministry, depended solely on the sovereign wisdom, grace, and love of God. When the human nature of Christ was united unto the divine, it became, in the person of the Son of God, meet and capable to make satisfaction for the sins of the church, and to procure righteousness and life eternal for all that do believe. But it did not merit that union, nor could do so. For as it was utterly impossible that any created nature, by any act of its own, should merit the hypostatical union; so it was granted unto the human nature of Christ, antecedently unto any act of its own in way of obedience unto God. For it was united unto the person of the Son by virtue of that union. Wherefore, antecedently unto it, it could merit nothing. Hence its whole exaltation, and the ministry that was discharged therein, depended solely on the sovereign wisdom and pleasure of God. And in this election and designation of the human nature of Christ unto grace and glory, we may see the pattern and example of our own. For it was not upon the consideration or foresight of the obedience of the human nature of Christ, that he was predestinated and chosen unto the grace of the hypostatical union, with the ministry and glory which depended thereon, but of the mere sovereign grace of God; how much less could a foresight of any thing in us, be the cause why God should choose us in him, before the foundation of the world, unto grace and glory!
4. The quality of this ministry, thus obtained, as unto a comparative excellency, 1s also expressed, duadopwrepac, ‘more excellent.’ The word is used only in this Epistle, in this sense, ch. 1. 4, and in this place. The original word denotes only a difference from other things; but in the comparative degree, as here used, it signifies a difference with a preference, or a comparative excellency. The ministry of the Levitical priests, was good and useful in its time and season. ‘This of our Lord Jesus Christ so differed from it, as to be better than it, and ~ more excellent, woAAw ἀμεινον. And,
5. There is added hereunto, the degree of this preeminence, so far as it is intended in this place, and the present argument, in the word ὅσῳ, ‘by how much.’ So much more excellent, by how much. The excellency of his ministry above that of the Levitical priests, bears proportion with the excellency of the covenant whereof he was the mediator, above the old covenant wherein they administered; whereof afterwards.
._ Sohave we explained the apostle’s assertion, concerning the excellency of the ministry of Christ. And herewith he closeth his discourse which he had so long engaged in, about the preeminence of Christ in his office above the high priests of old. And indeed, this being the very hinge whereon his whole controversy with the Jews did depend, he could not give it too much evidence, nor too full a confirmation. ae as unto what concerns ourselves at present, we are taught thereby, that,
Obs. VI. It is our duty and our safety to acquiesce universally and absolutely in the ministry of Jesus Christ—That which he was so designed unto, in the infinite wisdom and grace of God; that which he was so furnished for the discharge of, by the communication of the Spirit unto him in all fulness; that which all other priesthoods were removed to make way for, must needs be sufficient and equal for all the ends unto which it is designed. It is said, this is that which all men do; all that are called Christians, do acquiesce in the ministry of Jesus Christ. But if it be so, why do we hear the bleating of another sort of cattle? What mean those other priests, and reiterated sacrifices, which make up the worship of the church of Rome? If they rest in the ministry of Christ, why do they appoint one of their own to do the same things that he hath done, namely, to offer sacrifice uuto God?
The proof of this assertion lies in the latter part of these words, * By how much he was the mediator of a better covenant, established on better promises.’ The words are so disposed, that some think the apostle intends not to prove the excellency of the covenant, from the excellency of his ministry therein. But the other sense is more suited unto the scope of the place, and the nature of the argument which the apostle presseth the Hebrews withal. For on supposition that there was indeed another, and that a better covenant to be introduced and established, than that which the Levitical priests served in, which they could not deny; it plainly follows, that he on whose ministry the dispensation of that covenant did depend, must of necessity be more excellent in that ministry, than they who appertained unto that covenant which was to be abolished. However, it may be granted, that these things do mutually testify unto, and illustrate one another. Such as the priest is, such is the covenant; such as the covenant is in dignity, such is the priest also. |
1. What is in general ascribed unto Christ, declaring the nature of his ministry; ‘ He was a mediator.’
2, The determination of his mediatory office, unto the new covenant; ‘of a better covenant.’
3. The proof or demonstration of the nature of this covenant as unto its excellency; ‘it was estabiished on better promises.’
1. His office is that of a mediator, μεσίτης, one that interposed between God and man, for the doing of all those things whereby a covenant might be established between them, and made effectual. Slichtingius on the place, gives this description of a mediator, ‘ Mediatorem federis esse nihil aliud est, quam Dei esse interpretem, et internuntium in federe cum hominibus pangendo; per quem scilicet et Deus voluntatem suam hominibus declaret, et illi vicissim divine voluntatis notitia instructi ad Deum accedant, cumque eo reconciliati, pacem in posterum colant.’? And Grotius speaks much to the same
But this description of a mediator, is wholly applicable unto Moses, and suited unto his office in giving of the law, see Exod. xx. 19. Deut. v. 27, 28. What is said by them, doth indeed immediately belong unto the mediatory office of Christ, but it is not confined thereunto, yea, it is exclusive of the principal parts’of his mediation. And whereas, there is nothing in it, but what belongs unto the prophetical office of Christ, which the apostle here doth not principally intend, it is most improperly applied as a description of such a mediator as he doth intend. And therefore when he comes afterwards to declare.in particular, what belonged unto such a mediator of the covenant as he designed, he expressly placeth it in his death for the redemption of ᾿ transgressions, Heb. ix. 15, affirming that for ‘that cause he was a mediator.’ But hereof there is nothing at all in the description they give us of this office. But this the apostle doth in his, elsewhere, 1 Tim. ἢ. 4,6. ‘There is one God, and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all.’ The principal part of his mediation, consisted in the giving himself a ransom, or a price of redemption for the whole church. Wherefore, this description of a mediator of the New Testament, is feigned only to exclude his satisfaction, or his offering himself unto God im hisdeath and blood-shedding, with the atonement made thereby.
The Lord Christ, then, in his ministry, is called μεσίτης, the ‘ mediator’ of the covenant, in the same sense as he is called, eyyvoc, the ‘surety;) whereof, see the exposition on ch. vii. 22. He is in the new covenant, the mediator, the surety, the priest, the sacrifice, all in his own person. The ignorance and want of a due consideration hereof, is the great evidence of the degeneracy of Christian religion.
Whereas this is the first general notion of the office of Christ, that which compriseth the whole ministry committed unto him, and containeth in itself, the especial offices of king, priest, and prophet, whereby he dischargeth his mediation, some things must be mentioned, that are declarative of its nature and use. And we may unto this purpose,
1. That unto the office of a mediator, it is required, that there be different persons concerned in the covenant, and that by their own wills, as it must be in every compact of what sort soever. So saith our apostle, ‘a mediator is not of one, bet God is one,’ Gal. 11. 20; that is, if there were none but God concerned in this matiter, as it is in an absolute promise or sovereign precept, there would be no need of, no place for a mediator, such a mediator as Christ is. "Wherefore, our consent in and unto the covenant, is required in the very notion of a mediator. -
2. That the persons entering into covenant, be in such a state and condition, as that it is no way convenient or morally possible, that they should treat immediately with each other, as to the ends of the covenant. For if they are so, a mediator to go between is altogether needless. So was it in the original covenant with Adam, which had no mediator. But in the giving of the law, which was to be a covenant between God and the people, they found themselves utterly insufficient for an immediate treaty with God, and therefore desired that they might have an internuntius to go between God and them, to bring his proposals, and carry back their consent, Deut. v. 23—27. And this is the voice of all men, really convinced of the holiness of God, and of their own condition; such is the state between God and sinners. The law and the curse of it did so interpose between them, that they could not enter into any immediate treaty with God, Ps. ν. 3—6., This made a mediator necessary, that the new covenant might be established, whereof we shall speak afterwards.
3. That he who is this mediator, be accepted, trusted, and rested in on both sides, or by both the parties mutually entering into covenant. And absolute trust must be reposed in him, so that each party may be everlastingly obliged in what he undertaketh on their behalf; and such as admit not of his terms, can have no benefit by, no interest in the covenant. So was it with the Lord Christ in this matter. On the part of God, he reposed the whole trust of all the concernments of the covenant in him, and absolutely rested therein. ‘ Behold,’ saith he of him, ‘my servant whom [ uphold, mine elect in whom my soul delighteth,’ or ‘is well pleased,’ ev ᾧ evdoxnoa, Matt. 1.17, When he undertook this office, and said, ‘ Lo I come to do thy will O God,’ the soul of God rested in him, Exod. xxii. 21; John v. 20—22. And to him he gives an account at last, of his discharge of this thing, John xvil. 4, And on our part, unless we resign ourselves absolutely unto an universal trust in him, and reliance on him, and unless we accept of all the terms of the covenant as by him proposed, and engage to stand unto all that he hath undertaken on our behalf, we can have neither share nor interest in this matter.
4, A mediator must be a middle person between both parties entering into covenant, and if they be of different natures, a perfect, complete mediator ought to partake of each of their natures in the same person. The necessity hereof, and the glorious wisdom of God herein, I have elsewhere at large demonstrated, and shall not, therefore, here again insist upon it.
5. A mediator must be one who voluntarily, and of his own accord, undertaketh the work of mediation. This is required of every one who will effectually mediate between any persons at variance, to bring them unto an agreement on equal terms. So it was required that the will and consent of Christ should concur in his susception of this office; and that they did so, himself expressly testifieth, Heb. x. 5— 10. It is true, he was designed and appointed by the Father unto this office, whence he is called his servant, and constantly witnesseth of himself, that he came to do the will and commandment of him that sent him. But he had that todo in the discharge of this office, which could not according unto any rules of divine righteousness, be imposed on him without his own voluntary consent. And this was the ground of the eternal compact that was between the Father and the Son, with respect unto his mediation, which I have elsewhere explained. And the testification of his own will, grace and love in the susception of this office, is a principal motive unto that faith and trust which the church placeth in him, as the mediator between God and them. Upon this his voluntary undertaking, doth the soul of God rest in him, and he reposeth the whole trust in him, of accomplishing his will and pleasure, or the design of his love and grace in this covenant, Isa. lin. 10—12. And the faith of the church, whereon salvation doth depend, must have love unto his person inseparably accompanying of it. Love unto Christ is no less necessary unto salvation, thag faith in him. And as faith is resolved into the sovereign wisdom and grace of God in sending him, and his own ability to save to the uttermost, those that come to God by him; so love ariseth from the consideration of his own love and grace, in his voluntary undertaking of this office, and the discharge of it.
First. That he should remove and take out of the way, whatever kept the covenanters at distance, or was a cause of enmity between them. For it is supposed that such an enmity there was, or there had been no need of a mediator. Therefore’ in the covenant made with, Adam, there having been no variance between God and man, nor any distance, but what necessarily ensued from the distinct natures of the Creator and a creature, there was no mediator. But the design of this covenant, was to make reconciliation and peace. Hereon therefore depended the necessity of satisfaction, redemption, and the making of atonement by sacrifice. For man having sinned and apostatized from the rule of God, making himself thereby obnoxious unto his wrath, according unto the eternal rule of righteousness, and in particular unto the curse of the law, there could be no new peace and agreement made with God, unless. due satisfaction were made for, those things. For although God was willing in infinite love, grace, and mercy, to enter into a new covenant with fallen man, yet would he not do it unto the prejudice of his righteousness, the dishonour of his rule, and the contempt of his law. Wherefore none could undertake to be a mediator of this covenant, but hé that was able to satisfy the justice of God, glorify his government, and fulfil the law. And this could be done by none but him, concerning whom it might he said, that God purchased his church with his own blood.