CHAPTER VIII - Lenski
The Fifth Main Part
The Sacrificial Work of Jesus:
In Six Great Comparisons, 8:1–10:18
The Preamble: the Main Point, v. 1, 2.
1) It is interesting to note how different men divide this epistle. There is but little divergence of viewpoint. This is due to the fact that the writer steadily elaborates his rather closely linked line of thought and inserts scarcely any marks of division. One might make 8:1, 2 the end of the previous section instead of the preamble of the new section. These matters are formal to a large extent, and we moderns like them because we are scholastics in this respect. Let us, then, say that we think that our division into chapters is properly made at this point and that v. 1, 2 form the preamble to what follows until 10:18. We add that this material seems to divide itself into six minor parts, in each of which a comparison is drawn.
1) The two Ministries Compared;
2) The two Testaments Compared;
3) The two Tabernacles Compared;
4) The two Kinds of Blood Compared;
5) The Two Kinds of Sacrifice Compared;
6) The Final Comparison regarding the Removal of Sins.
we trust that this outline of the thought will serve our purpose in understanding this section.
Now the main point in the discussion (is this): Such a High Priest we have as sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, as a ministrant of the Holy Place and of the true Tabernacle, which the Lord erected, not man.
Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 248
In Gal. 3:19 “mediator” is used with reference to Moses, but he is such in the sense of being Israel’s representative who receives the law from God and brings it to Israel; he is a mediator only in this way (see the author’s exposition of Gal. 3:19, 20). Some think that in our passage Jesus is presented as being such a mediator as Moses was and not such as the Jewish high priests were. But Jesus is not our representative to bring God’s testament and its promises down to us. This “better testament” is the old testament which God made with Abraham, which is now carried into execution because it is now sealed with Jesus’ blood. The law brought to Israel by Moses is also called a testament and as such is also sealed with blood (9:15–20), but only with the blood of calves and goats. This law-testament was temporal and came to an end. The law came in 430 years after the testament that was made for Abraham (Gal. 3:17); and Israel lost its promises because of transgression so that this law-testament came to an end.
Jesus is the Mediator of a better testament in a far higher and different sense than Moses was a mediator, the law was given to Israel only ἐν χειρὶ μεσίτου, “at the hand of a mediator” (Israel’s representative). The mediatorship of Jesus consists in this that he offered up “himself once for all” (v. 27). He is the one Mediator “who gave himself as a ransom for all” (1 Tim. 2:5, 6). He stepped in the middle and by his blood made the better testament better indeed and effective according to this testament’s own provisions. The testamentary promises could not be fulfilled without his blood.
Since the testament is entirely one-sided, made for us by God, when Jesus serves as the Mediator he acts for God. We only receive the testament and the blood that seals it and makes it effective. Only in this sense is he “our” Mediator. We may say that all of the prophetic work of Jesus belongs to his mediatorship (1:1, etc.; 2:3), for the preaching of Jesus reveals him as the Mediator. So also the active obedience of Jesus, which is inseparable from the passive, belongs to his mediation. But the supreme point is the High-priestly sacrifice of himself by which he entered into the Holy of Holies in heaven to become our Mediator forever. Moses was not a high priest; Moses did not go behind the veil with blood on the Day of Atonement. This Aaron and his successors did so that they are the types of Jesus in this his mediatorship.
Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 258
The third great mark of the new testament is the forgiveness it bestows on all who are placed under it: “Because I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins will I not remember any longer.” The Hebrew word which is translated “unrighteousness” signifies “guilt,” “guiltiness.” This deserves full punishment, yet God says that he will be ἵλεως, “merciful,” and will thus not punish. The synonymous line says still more, namely that God will no longer remember the sins. They will be blotted from his mind and his memory as if he had never known them. The idea is not that God arbitrarily forgives and forgets any man’s sins. “Blessed is he … whose sin is covered,” Ps. 32:1. “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us,” Ps. 103:12. “Thou wilt cast all our sins into the depths of the sea,” Micah 7:19. It is the expiating power of Jesus’ blood that covers, removes, and casts into the depths our sins; then they are, indeed, erased from the memory of God. This is divine forgiveness, the greatest mark of the new testament.
The Sinaitic testament should not be conceived as a mere set of laws that resulted in transgressions while the new testament is gospel and thus filled with pardon. Then the old would really be no testament at all. If it is claimed that the Jews had to keep the law in order to be saved, then none were saved before Jesus came. The Sinaitic laws of ritual are full of forgiveness. “Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah,” Ps. 32:5. “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities,” Ps. 103:3. “If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,” Ps. 130:3, 4. The difference does not lie along this line. Christ’s expiation on the cross was just as effective for contrite sinners who lived before Calvary as it is for those who live after Calvary, before Christ entered the Holy of Holies in heaven as well as after he entered it (v. 1, 2).
The difference lies in this fact: the old testament was given to a nation. It was thus that the bulk of this nation ever and again proved obdurate; “they did not remain in my testament” (v. 9). When this old Mosaic testament was brought to them because of their transgressions (Gal. 3:17, 19), they did not let even its threats and its judgments halt them and keep them true. The new testament is not intended for a nation. All that is national, temporal, preparatory, as far as preserving one nation as God’s people is concerned, has disappeared. The new testament is intended for all men, no matter in what nation they may be found, who by contrition, repentance, faith, and holy obedience do remain in this testament and thus do obtain all that its testamentary provisions convey: enlightenment (v. 11), holiness (v. 10), and above all forgiveness (v. 12). As v. 8 states it with the word συντελεῖν, the new testament is actually consummated or accomplished, brought to its goal.
13) Yet it is not the universality or any other of the many great things contained in the word of God quoted from Jeremiah that the writer wishes to stress. For his readers, who are thinking of throwing away the new testament and its Mediator in the heavenly Holy of Holies and going back to the old national testament, the writer selects only this one decisive point from the quotation: In saying a new one he has declared the first one old. Now the thing declared old and becoming aged (is) near to vanishing away.
Lenski, R. C. H.: The Interpretation of the Epistle to the Hebrews and of the Epistle of James. Columbus, O. : Lutheran book concern, 1938, S. 269.
---
A. Berean has
left a new comment on your post "
Hebrews
8 - Lenski Commentary And Norma Boeckler's...":
Interesting that
Lenski starts off with Hebrews 8:12. If we see who the Lord is making this
covenant with, that is Israel and Judah, we can't use 8:12 for every single
person in the world, believer and unbeliever. However, Scripture does describe
who the true Israel is (Romans 9:6, 8; Galatians 3:29) and this promise of the
New Covenant would apply to them.
I've been dodged a few times when I
ask, "well to whom does this prophesy apply? Can I speak of everyone included in
verse 12?"
Just an observation...
By lying, Joe Paterno betrayed himself, his legacy, his university and, most of all, the children who were victims of Jerry Sandusky's serial pedophilia, writes Gene Wojciechowski. 
In the aftermath of the damaging Freeh report, the NCAA needs to come down -- and come down hard -- on Penn State, writes Mark Schlabach.
The Freeh report makes it clear that Penn State no longer should be allowed to have a football team, writes Howard Bryant.
If the NCAA is going to act on Penn State, it is time for it to sanction those who were supposed to lead the university, writes Jay Bilas. 
In the wake of the Penn State scandal, the question now is whether educators have the guts to fight powerhouse sports programs running amok, writes Ian O'Connor.
Rick Reilly admits that he was fooled all along by Joe Paterno, who was not the saint everyone thought he was. 
