Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 3:2

Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house.

2. who was faithful ] Lit., “Being faithful,” i.e. as Cranmer excellently rendered it, “how that he is faithful.” The word is suggested by the following contrast between Christ and Moses, of whom it had been said “My servant Moses is not so, who was faithful in all mine house,” Num 12:7.

to him that appointed him ] Lit., “to Him that made Him.” There can be little doubt that the expression means, as in the A.V. “to Him that made Him such,” i.e. made Him an Apostle and High Priest. For the phrase is doubtless suggested by 1Sa 12:6, where the LXX. has “He that made Moses and Aaron” (A.V. “advanced”); comp. Mar 3:14, “And He made ( ) Twelve, that they should be with Him.” Act 2:36, “God made Him Lord and Christ.” The rendering “appointed” is therefore a perfectly faithful one. Still the peculiarity of the phrase was eagerly seized upon by Arians to prove that Christ was a created Being, and this was one of the causes which retarded the general acceptance of the Epistle. Yet even if “made” was not here used in the sense of “appointed” the Arians would have had no vantage ground; for the word might have been applied to the Incarnation (so Athanasius, and Primasius), though not (as Bleek and Lnemann take it) to the Eternal Generation of the Son. Theodoret and Chrysostom understood it as our Version does.

as also Moses in all his house ] Rather, “in all His (God’s) house,” Num 12:7. The house is God’s house or household, i.e. the theocratic family of which the Tabernacle was a symbol “the house of God which is the Church of the living God,” 1Ti 3:15. The “faithfulness” of Moses consisted in teaching the Israelites all that God had commanded him (Deu 4:5) and himself “doing according to all that the Lord commanded him” (Exo 40:16).

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Who was faithful – see the note, Heb 2:17. He performed with fidelity all the functions entrusted to him.

To him that appointed him – Margin, made. The word made, however, is used in the sense of constituted, or appointed. The meaning is, that he was faithful to God. Perhaps Paul urges on them the necessity of considering his fidelity in order to keep them from the danger of apostasy. A leading object of this Epistle was to preserve those whom he had addressed from apostatizing from God amidst the temptations and trials to which they were exposed. In doing this, what could be a more powerful argument than to direct their attention to the unwavering constancy and fidelity of the Lord Jesus? The importance of such a virtue in the Saviour is manifest. It is seen everywhere; and all the great interests of the world depend on it. A husband should maintain inviolate fidelity toward a wife, and a wife toward her husband; a child should be faithful to a parent, a clerk and apprentice to his employer, a lawyer to his client, a physician to his patient, an ambassador to the government that commissions him.

No matter what may be the temptations in the way, in all these, and in all other relations, there should be inviolate fidelity. The welfare of the world depended on the faithfulness of the Lord Jesus. Had he failed in that, all would have been lost. His fidelity was worthy of the more attentive consideration from the numerous temptations which beset his path, and the attempts which were made to turn him aside from his devotedness to God. Amidst all the temptations of the adversary, and all the trials through which he passed, he never for a moment swerved from fidelity to the great trust which had been committed to his hands. What better example to preserve them from the temptations to apostasy could the apostle propose to the Christians whom he addressed? What, in these temptations and trials, could be more appropriate than for them to consider the example of the great apostle and high priest of their profession? What more proper for us now in the trials and temptations of our lives, than to keep that great and glorious example continually before our eyes?

As also Moses was faithful – Fidelity to God was remarkable in Moses. In all the provocations and rebellions of the Jews, he was firm and unwavering. This is affirmed of him in Num 12:7, to which place the apostle here alludes, My servant, Moses, is not so, who is faithful in all his house. The word house, as applied to Moses, is used probably in the sense of family, as it often is, and refers to the family over which he presided – that is, the Jewish nation. The whole Jewish people were a household, or the family of God, and Moses was appointed to preside over it, and was faithful in the functions of his office there.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Heb 3:2

Faithful to Him that appointed Him

Fidelity in personal duties

The general prosperity of human life and the peace and comfort of individuals greatly depend on the diligence, the cheerfulness, and the spirit with which our personal duties are fulfilled.

I. I mention as the first, AN HABITUAL AND PRACTICAL REMEMBRANCE THAT GOD HATH APPOINTED US OUR DIFFERENT CONDITIONS, and that a proper discharge of the duties resulting from them, from a regard to His authority, is service due and done to God. Christianity thus brings religion home to the most minute departments of human life, to the house and to the field, to the shop and to the farm; and intimately unites earth to heaven.

II. Personal fidelity includes HONEST AND ASSIDUOUS ENDEAVOURS TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENT DUTIES OF OUR SEVERAL CALLINGS OR CONDITIONS, AND TO ACQUIRE THE TALENTS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THEM WELL. But I must observe that a knowledge of the duties of a calling, and even the best talents for discharging them, are not sufficient. Personal fidelity chiefly consists in the diligence, animated by religious motives, which produces the activity which our separate duties require; and therefore I remark

III. That men discover their fidelity when they MARE CONSCIENCE OF THE MORE DIFFICULT AND BURDENSOME, as well as of the more easy duties of their particular callings.

IV. Men show their fidelity in their personal duties, when they do NOT NEGLECT, FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASURES, THEIR PROPER BUSINESS OR EMPLOYMENTS.

V. Fidelity to Him who hath appointed men their respective callings, requires that they shall Do AS MUCH GOOD IN THEM AS THEY HAVE THE

MEANS OR OPPORTUNITY TO DO; and that they shall manage them to the best advantage, for which their knowledge or abilities have qualified them.

VI. Personal fidelity requires that men REGARD AND FULFIL ALL THE DUTIES OF THEIR CALLINGS OR SITUATIONS, AND NOT MERELY A PART OF THEM.

VII. Personal fidelity requires that men shall do the duties of their proper stations, ALTHOUGH EVERY WORLDLY MOTIVE SHOULD TEMPT THEM TO NEGLECT OR TO VIOLATE THEM.

VIII. Fidelity in the duties of our proper callings ought ever to be ACCOMPANIED WITH PRAYER TO GOD, AND AN HABITUAL AND DEVOUT DEPENDENCE ON HIM FOR HIS BLESSING. I conclude with observing, that if a faithful discharge of social duties were the whole of religion, even on such terms no man could be justified by works. In fidelity to conscience, and in zealous endeavours for promoting the glory of God and the good of mankind, Archbishop Usher was perhaps exceeded by few of his own, or of any other order, Yet we find among his last, what were certainly none of his worst words, Lord, forgive my sins of omission. Even in the discharge of their secular callings, men of the worthiest characters are far from being already perfect, and after all their best attainments have need to pray, Lord, enter not into judgment with Thy servants. (John Erskine, D. D.)

Christ the Son and Moses the servant

1. And here that it is said, God appointed Him, we see the root of this love, that Christ should come a Saviour among us. And as we must give unto our Saviour Christ the glory of our redemption, in the sacrifice of His body, so we must give unto the Father the praise of His mercy, that hath freely loved us, and predestinated us eternally unto life; for as this is our profession, that Christ hath done the deed, so this is our profession, that God the Father hath appointed Him unto it.

2. The second thing here witnessed of Christ, and in which we are assured He is our only Prophet, and are provoked to hearken unto Him, is that lie was faithful in all the house of God. This faithfulness is truth and integrity in discharge of this office committed to Him, wherein He set all His care and industry, that He might be found faultless, that like as He was sent of God to be a Prophet to reveal His will, so He did faithfully perform it, teaching only doctrine and ordinances of His Father (Joh 7:16; Joh 8:28; Joh 17:8). How diligently then ought we to hear such a Prophet as hath so faithfully spoken. And here we have all a very good lesson taught us, in the person of Christ, to what calling soever we be called of God, in the same let us be faithful; if we be preachers, faithful preachers; if we be princes, faithful princes; if we be judges, faithful judges; if we be treasurers, faithful treasurers; if we be merchants, faithful merchants; whatsoever we be, faithfulness must be our praise.

3. It followeth, He was faithful as Moses in all His house. What was the faithfulness commended in Moses? That he did in every point according to that which God had commanded. This was then the faithfulness of Christ, to do nothing but at the will of His Father; and this St. John witnesseth expressly in many places. Here is the image of this faithful minister, like unto Christ, one that preacheth nothing but the Word of God, nor for any cause but Gods glory. Now, more touching this comparison here made between Christ and Moses, there is no doubt but the apostle useth it to join the Hebrews unto Christ; for how they accounted of Moses he knew well, and whatsoever was spoken of him they did willingly apply themselves to mark, and his praise did win their affections to be more equally bent to learn Christ. Taking this occasion, he beginneth his comparison, making this as common both to Christ and Moses: that either of them ruled in the house of God, and either of them was faithful in his charge, but yet so, as Christ was much more honourable, and therefore to be of us acknowledged our only Prophet. Now, lest the comparison should seem equal, or Moses should be accounted as great as Christ, he showeth the great excellence of Christ above Moses, that the Jews may also learn to honour their Messias as it becometh them. It followeth now in the fifth verse, And Moses was faithful in all His house, as a servant for the testimony of the things which should be spoken, but Christ as the Son is Ruler of His house. Now, how much more honour the son hath in his fathers house than he that is a servant, so far Christ is above Moses, and above all. And in this the apostle needed not use many words, for that Moses was a servant, all confessed that God calleth him oft His servant Moses. And that Christ was the Son no man doubted, and the Scripture giveth Him plainly the title of the Son of God. Here we have all taught us a lesson of good humility, and how to know ourselves, and what place we have in the Church of God. It followeth, For a testimony of the things which should after be spoken. For this purpose Moses was a servant, and in the performance of this duty was faithful: he was a servant to bear witness unto the people of all the words which God should speak unto them, that is, a servant faithfully declaring all the law of God. And Moses also himself did bear witness of Christ. And Moses, the most renowned of all prophets, what was he? a servant to declare unto the people all that the Lord had spoken. Who is he now will presume above Moses, to speak of his own head, ordinances, and laws? Who will establish decrees of his own in the house of God? Whosoever he be he shall carry his judgments. He is not a servant, as Moses was; but he exalteth himself to be a master; for if he were a servant he would do the work of a servant, and bear witness what his Master had said. It followeth, But Christ as the Son is over His house. So that, being the Son of God, who is heir of all things, He ruleth in this house as Lord and Governor, whose commandment alone doth stand. And again, being the Son of God, eternally begotten of His Father, He ever did, and shall do to the end, rule and have the sovereignty in His own house. Therefore, even as before the apostle made his exhortation, that they would consider this Apostle and High Priest of their profession, even so let us humble ourselves under this High Lord in the House of God; let us obey His voice, let us be all faithful in our calling, that before Him we may have a good account, especially the minister, that he will be a faithful servant, keeping his fellowship in the Church of God, and bearing witness of all that the Lord hath spoken. (E. Deering, B. D.)

Christ and Moses

Every word here is an echo of something going before, and is instinct with persuasive virtue. Brethren of Him who in a fraternal spirit identified Himself with the unholy, and for their sakes took flesh and tasted death. Holy, at least in standing, in virtue of the priestly action of the Sanctifier; and because holy in this sense, under obligation to make their consecration to God a reality by living a truly Christian life. Partakers of a heavenly calling–thus described, at once with truth and with rhetorical skill, with a backward glance at the greatness of the Christians hope as the destined lord of the future world, and with a mental reference to the contrast between that glorious prospect and the present state of believers as partakers of flesh and blood, and subject to death and the fear thereof; reminding them at the same time of the blessed truth that as Christ became partaker of their present lot, so they were destined to be partakers of His glorious inheritance, the unity and fellowship between Him and His people being on both sides perfect and complete. The titles here ascribed to Jesus also arise out of the previous context, and are full of significance. Specially noteworthy is the former of the two, Apostle, here only applied to Christ. The basis for the title is such a text as Exo 3:10 : Come now therefore, and I will send thee [, Sept.] unto Pharaoh, that thou mayest bring forth My people the children of Israel out of Egypt. Moses was an apostle, as one sent by God on the important mission of leading the enslaved race of Israel out of Egypt into Canaan. Christ was our Apostle, as one sent by God to be the Leader in the great salvation. The Apostle of our Christian confession and the Captain of salvation are synonymous designations. Consider the Apostle means, consider for practical purposes a subject already sufficiently understood; consider the High Priest means, consider the doctrine of Christs priesthood, that ye may first understand it and then prove its practical value. Christ the Apostle is the immediate subject of contemplation. That aspect is in view throughout the third and fourth chapters, the priestly aspect being presented at the close of the latter, as an introduction to the long discussion which commences with the fifth chapter and extends to the tenth. Consider the Apostle of our confession is the rubric of this new section. To guide consideration, a point of view is suggested congruous to the practical aim. The aim being to promote steadfastness in the Christian faith and life, the selected point of view is the fidelity of Jesus our Apostle. God made Jesus by giving Him His unique place in the worlds history, as the chief agent in the work of redemption. And Jesus was faithful to God by discharging faithfully the high duties entrusted to Him. What the Hebrews are invited to do, therefore, is to consider Jesus as the faithful Captain of salvation, who never betrayed His trust, shirked His responsibilities, or neglected duty to escape personal suffering, and who at the last great crisis said, Not My will, but Thine be done. For of course the theatre in which Christs fidelity was displayed was His earthly life of trial and temptation. He has already held up Jesus as Priest, as one who is faithful to the interests of those for whom He transacts before God, and therefore entitled to their confidence. The two views supplement each other, and complete the picture of the Faithful One. Faithful as Priest to men in virtue of sympathies learned on earth, faithful as Apostle to God in the execution of the arduous mission on which He was sent to the world; in the one aspect inspiring trust, in the other exciting admiration and inciting to imitation. The following comparison between Christ and Moses at once serves the general end of the Epistle by contributing to the proof of the superiority of Christianity to Judaism, and the special end of the present exhortation by affording the opportunity of extracting wholesome lessons from the fate of the people whom Moses led out of Egypt. In doing this, he simply does justice to the familiar historical record of the Jewish heros life, and to Gods own testimony borne on a memorable occasion, the substance of which he repeats in the words, as also Moses [was faithful] in His house. My servant Moses, faithful in all My house, he, God had said emphatically, to silence murmuring against him on the part of his brother Aaron and his sister Miriam. He lays hold of the suggestive words house and servant, and turns them to account for his purpose, saying in effect, Moses was as faithful as any servant in a house can be: still he was only a servant, while He of whom I now speak was not a mere servant in the house, but a Son; and that makes all the difference. Verses 3 to 6 are substantially just the working out of this thought. But it may be asked, the subject of comparison being the respective fidelities of the two apostles, is not a reference to their positions irrelevant? What does it matter whether Moses was son or servant, if he was faithful in all Gods house, in all parts of his work as the leader of Israel? If one were comparing two commanders in respect of bravery and military genius, would it not be an irrelevance to say of one of them, he was the better man, for he was the kings son? The question is pertinent, but it admits of a satisfactory answer. Reference to the superior dignity of Christ is relevant, if His position as Son tended to enhance His fidelity. That it did the writer doubtless meant to suggest. Farther on we find him saying. Though He was a Son, yet learned He obedience. Similarly he says here in effect: Christ, though a Son, was faithful to His vocation amid trial. It is a just thought. Beyond doubt we have in Christ as Son a more sublime moral spectacle of fidelity than in any ordinary man called to play a great and responsible part in history. To the fidelities which He has in common with other men, the Son adds this other: resolute resistance to the temptation to use His sonship as an excuse for declining arduous heroic tasks. But there is more than this to be said. The reference to the dignity of Christ looks beyond the immediate parenetic purpose to the ultimate aim of the whole Epistle It is designed to insinuate the great truth that Christianity is the absolute, eternal religion. This idea casts its shadow on the page at three different points

1. In the contrast between Moses and Jesus as respectively servant and Son.

2. In the representation of the Ministry of Moses as being for a testimony of things to be spoken afterwards (Heb 3:5).

3. In the representation of Christians as pre-eminently though not exclusively Gods, Christs, house (Heb 3:6). The assertion manifestly implies the transiency of the Mosaic system. It suggests the thought that the house aa it stood m the time of Moses was but a rude, temporary model of the true, eternal house of God; good enough to furnish shelter from the elements, so to speak, but unfit to be the everlasting dwelling place of the children of the Most High, therefore destined to be superseded by a more glorious structure, having the Spirit of God for its architect, which should be to the old fabric as was the magnifical temple of Solomon to the puny tabernacle in the wilderness. At Heb 3:6 transition is naturally made from Moses to the lessons of the wilderness life of Israel. The writer is haunted by the fear lest the tragic fate of the generation of the Exodus should be repeated in the experience of the Hebrew Christians. He hopes that the powerful motives arising out of the truths he has stated may bring about a better result. But he cannot hide from himself that another issue is possible. For the future fortunes of Christianity he has no anxiety; he is firmly persuaded that it will prosper, though the Hebrew Church, or even the whole Hebrew nation, should perish. That fatal catastrophe he dreads; therefore with great solemnity he proceeds to represent retention of their position in the house of God as conditional: Whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the boasting of the hope. (A. B. Bruce, D. D.)

Faithful services

What God requires is faithfulness to that which He has entrusted to us. A poor man is responsible for the little of his poverty, and sins if he withhold his mite. The Church needs the gifts of the poor; the gifts of the industrial and labouring classes. She needs the influence of those who think they have no influence. She needs the sympathies and prayers of those who can only stammer out of their sin-burdened hearts, God be merciful to me a sinner. The most fertile summer showers are composed of unpretending little drops. Water-spouts are farless beneficial than the steady, soaking, noiseless rain.

Importance of fidelity in the Christian life

Though in the life and character of Moses there are many striking excellencies, the faithfulness of Moses is the feature on which the apostle dwells. It is, indeed, the most important feature in our character as servants of God. And well were it for us if we laid more stress on faithfulness, and thought less of gifts and talents, or of success and results. For while it belongs to God to appoint unto each of us severally our positions, to distribute gifts according to His wisdom, and to reward us with results hundredfold, sixtyfold, or thirtyfold, it belongs to us to be faithful to God wherever He has placed us, and in the gift and task which His love assigns. We see the summary and result of the true disciples life in the decisive words of the Master (Mat 25:21). (A. Saphir.)

Moses and the Jews

More than Luther is to Germany, more than Napoleon is to France, more than Alfred, or Elizabeth, or Cromwell, or William III. is to England, Moses was to the Jewish people–prophet, patriot, warrior, lawgiver, all in one. (R. W. Dale, LL. D.)

A faithful mother

The Bishop of Machester was giving the prizes one day to the scholars, in a school with which he is connected. A large number of the parents and friends of the scholars were present. They all knew and loved the bishop, as a good, and learned, and very useful man. In the midst of their exercises, as he stood surrounded by the scholars, the good bishop was led to speak of his mother. She was a widow, said he, with some children to support and educate. God helped her to be faithful. She sacrificed her own ease and comfort for the good of her children. Her home was a poor one. She had to struggle hard for our support. But she managed to make that home the brightest and the happiest place to us. Her children through her faithful efforts have since risen to positions of honour and usefulness, where they are helping to make the world better. She is now, said the bishop, and here his voice was broken with deep feeling–She is now living in my house, paralysed, speechless, helpless, but every time I look at her dear face, I thank God for giving me such a mother. All that I am, and all that I have I owe to her.

Faithful to duty

In the terrible April gale of 1851, the lighthouse on Minors Ledge, near Boston, was destroyed. Two men were in it at the time, and a vast multitude were gathered upon the shore, waiting in anxious distress for the expected catastrophe. Every hour, however, the bell tolled the time, and ever the light pierced the dark rating storm, and bid the sailor beware. No howling blast could silence the one nor rising wave extinguish the other. At last one giant wave, mightier than the rest, rose up and threw its arms around the tower, and laid it low in the waves. Then alone was the bell silent, then alone did the light cease to shine. (J. M.Reid.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 2. Who was faithful to him] In Nu 12:7, God gives this testimony to Moses: My servant Moses – is faithful in all my house; and to this testimony the apostle alludes. House not only means the place where a family dwells, but also the family itself. The whole congregation of Israel was the house or family of God, and God is represented as dwelling among them; and Moses was his steward, and was faithful in the discharge of his office; strictly enforcing the Divine rights; zealously maintaining God’s honour; carefully delivering the mind and will of God to the people; proclaiming his promises, and denouncing his judgments, with the most inflexible integrity, though often at the risk of his life. Jesus Christ has his house – the whole great family of mankind, for all of whom he offered his sacrificial blood to God; and the Christian Church, which is especially his own household, is composed of his own children and servants, among and in whom he lives and constantly resides. He has been faithful to the trust reposed in him as the apostle of God; he has faithfully proclaimed the will of the Most High; vindicated the Divine honour against the corrupters of God’s worship; testified against them at the continual hazard of his life; and, at last, not only died as a victim to cancel sin, but also as a martyr to his faithfulness. Christ’s faithfulness, says Leigh, consists in this: “That he has as fully revealed unto us the doctrine of the Gospel, as Moses did that of the law; and that he hath faithfully performed and fulfilled all the types of himself and all the things signified by Moses’ ceremonies, as Moses hath faithfully and distinctly set them down.”

But there is a sense given to the word neeman, Nu 12:7, which we translate faithful, by several of the Jewish writers, which is well worthy of note: it signifies, say they, “one to whom secrets are confided, with the utmost confidence of their being safely and conscientiously kept.” The secret of God was with Moses, but all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge were in Christ. Life and immortality were comparatively secrets till Christ revealed and illustrated them, and even the Divine nature was but little known, and especially the Divine philanthropy, till Jesus Christ came; and it was Jesus alone who declared that GOD whom no man had ever seen. Moses received the secrets of God, and faithfully taught them to the people; Jesus revealed the whole will of God to mankind. Moses was thus faithful to a small part of mankind, viz. the Jewish people; but in this sense Jesus was faithful to all mankind: for he was the light to enlighten the Gentiles, and the glory of his people Israel.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The Spirit enforceth the duty counselled on them from the fidelity of that grand gospel Minister in his offices; exemplified in a parallel with Moses, whom he did exceed.

Who was faithful to him that appointed him; he did most exactly perform all he was intrusted with, according to the intention and end of his commission. He did most faithfully reveal God, Joh 1:18, and his whole saving will, to whom God sent him, Joh 3:31-34; 5:34; Joh 8:28,38; as his great Prophet, Act 3:22. He as faithfully discharged the office of his priesthood in sacrificing himself to atone God for sinners, and as faithfully intercedes for all with him unto this day, and will do so for ever, with all truth and fidelity discharging his trust, Heb 7:24-28; 9:11,12,14,24,26. He was faithful in fulfilling all his types, and in changing and finishing all the ceremonial constitutions, and filling them up with gospel ones, according to Gods will revealed to him about it. He was true to his Father, who appointed and constituted him to these offices, and solemnly invested him in them; here not signifying the making of a creature, but the making of an officer, the person existing before; he puts him into this special charge and office by anointing him for it, Act 2:36.

As also Moses was faithful in all his house: Moses was the Jewish mediator, and brought them the law moral, judicial, and ceremonial from God; as he was highly esteemed by them, so God testifieth of his fidelity. Christ was not only like to him in fidelity, but, as to both the truth and degree of it, exceeding him. Moses kept to his pattern shown him in the mount, and Christ fulfilled entirely his Fathers will, Joh 5:30; 6:38, and is preferred to him. Moses was so in the whole church of Israel, set out by this metaphor of a house; but Christ ill all Gods house and family both in heaven and in earth; not the least thing that concerned the family, but Christ fulfilled; not the meanest person in it, but he careth for and saveth.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

2. He first notes the feature ofresemblance between Moses and Christ, in order to conciliatethe Hebrew Christians whom He addressed, and who still entertained avery high opinion of Moses; he afterwards brings forward Christ’ssuperiority to Moses.

Who was faithfulTheGreek implies also that He still is faithful, namely, as ourmediating High Priest, faithful to the trust God has assigned Him(Heb 2:17). So Moses in God’shouse (Nu 12:7).

appointed him“madeHim” HIGH PRIEST;to be supplied from the preceding context. Greek, “made”;so in Heb 5:5; 1Sa 12:6,Margin; Ac 2:36; so theGreek fathers. Not as ALFORD,with AMBROSE and theLatins, “created Him,” that is, as man, in Hisincarnation. The likeness of Moses to Messiah was foretold by Moseshimself (De 18:15). Otherprophets only explained Moses, who was in this respectsuperior to them; but Christ was like Moses, yet superior.

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Who was faithful to him that appointed him,…. Or “made him”; Christ, as man, was made, but not as God; nor is the apostle speaking of the divine nature of Christ, but of his offices: wherefore this phrase designs the constitution and settlement of him in office; which may take in the eternal appointment of him as Mediator; the open promise of him in time; his mission, unction, and attestation from God; and his manifestation and declaration as such, at his ascension and session at God’s right hand, when he was made Lord and Christ. Now, as Mediator, he had a trust reposed in him; as the persons of all God’s elect, and a fulness of all grace for them; the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, and eternal life and happiness; and also the glory of God in their salvation: which trust he has faithfully discharged as an apostle, and high priest; in a declaration of the whole will of God; in acknowledging it was his Father’s doctrine he brought, and in seeking not his own, but his Father’s glory; in redeeming and saving the persons committed to him; in distributing his grace to them; and in bringing them safe to glory; and in taking care of things pertaining to God:

as also Moses was faithful in all his house; the passage referred to is in Nu 12:7 and which seems not so much to intend the fidelity of Moses in managing the affairs of God’s house, as the largeness of the trust reposed in him, the dignity and honour conferred on him, and the power and authority he was invested with, in having the whole house of Israel committed to his care and charge, in which he exceeded all other prophets; and so the faithfulness of Christ is not so much to be understood of the discharge of his trust, as of the trust itself; and the sense is, that he was trusted much by God the Father, who constituted him Mediator, even as Moses was; and this sense best agrees with Heb 3:5. And De Dieu has observed, that the Hebrew word , in Misnic writings t, signifies, as it does, one that is trusted, or is fit to be trusted, as Christ and Moses were; though the former is much more worthy than the latter, as follows.

t Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 3. sect. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Who was faithful ( ). Present active participle with predicate accusative agreeing with , “as being faithful.”

That appointed him ( ). See 1Sa 12:6. Dative case of the articular participle (aorist active) of and the reference is to God. Note as in 2:17.

As also was Moses ( ). The author makes no depreciatory remarks about Moses as he did not about the prophets and the angels. He cheerfully admits that Moses was faithful “in all his house” ( ), an allusion to Nu 12:7 ( ) about Moses. The “his” is God’s. The use of for the people (family) of God, not the building, but the group (1Ti 3:15) in which God is the Father. But wherein is Jesus superior to Moses? The argument is keen and skilful.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

Who was faithful [ ] . Rend. “is faithful.” A general designation of inherent character. He is faithful as he ever was. To him that appointed him [ ] . Constituted him apostle and high priest. Some render created, referring to Christ ‘s humanity or to his eternal generation. So the Old Latin, creatori suo; but this does not suit the context. Poiein often in Class. in the sense of institute, as sacrifices, funerals, assemblies, etc., and in the middle voice of adoption as a son. See 1Sa 12:6; Mr 3:14; Act 2:36. As also Moses [ ] . The highest example of human fidelity known to the readers.

In all his house [ ] . Const. with was faithful. Jesus was faithful even as Moses was faithful.

The subject of the high – priesthood of Christ, introduced in this verse, is not carried out in detail by showing the superiority of Jesus to earthly high priests. This is reserved for chs. 5 – 7. Instead, the writer proceeds to show that Christ is superior to Moses, as he has already shown his superiority to angels. He will thus have shown Christ ‘s superiority to both the agencies by which the old covenant was mediated. The subject is a delicate one to treat for Jewish readers to whom Moses was the object of the deepest veneration; but the treatment displays tact by placing Moses in the foreground beside Christ as an example of fidelity to his commission. Justice is thus done to the familiar historical record, and to God ‘s own testimony, Num 12:7. The general sense of the comparison is that Moses was as faithful as any servant in a house can be, while Christ was not a servant in the house, but a son, and displayed his fidelity in that capacity.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Who was faithful to him that appointed him,” (piston onta to poiesanti auton) “As being (or existing) faithful to the one making him,” to be an High Priest – He, Jesus, was and is faithful to the Father. He said to his church, whom he had chosen (Joh 15:16) “as my Father hath sent me, so send I you,” Joh 20:21. He was faithful to the Father in trials, suffering, and obedience, in life and death, till he had finished his work, Joh 8:29; Joh 17:4; Joh 19:30; Dan 9:24.

2) “As also Moses was faithful in all his house,” (hos kai Mouses in (olo) to oiko autou) “Even as Moses (was faithful) in all his household,” Num 12:7; Deu 4:4-6, his duties and responsibilities to his people in obedience to his Divine call to lead and serve them in establishing and overseeing the program of Divine Law Worship, Isa 5:7; Our Lord’s house is the church of the living God today, Mar 13:34-37; 1Ti 3:14-15. As such it is a visible, physical, earthly assembly of scripturally baptized believers who are in covenant fellowship to carry on a program of worship, soul winning, and teaching for the Lord, Mat 28:18-20; Eph 2:19-22; Eph 3:21.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

2. Who was, or is faithful, etc. This is a commendation of the apostleship of Christ, in order that the faithful may securely acquiesce in him; and he commends it on two grounds, because the Father has set him to be over us as our teacher, and because Christ himself has faithfully performed the office committed to him. These two things are always necessary to secure authority to a doctrine; for God alone ought to be attended to, as the whole Scripture testifies; hence Christ declares, that the doctrine which he delivered was not his own, but the Father’s, (Joh 7:16😉 and in another place he says, “He who received me, receiveth him who has sent me.” (Luk 9:48.) For we say of Christ, that as he is clothed with our flesh, he is the Father’s minister to execute his commands. To the calling of God is added the faithful and upright performance of duty on the part of Christ; and this is required in true ministers, in order that they may obtain credence in the Church. Since these two things are found in Christ, doubtless he cannot be disregarded without despising God in him.

As also Moses, etc. Omitting for a while the priesthood, he speaks here of his apostleship. For as there are two parts in God’s covenant, the promulgation of the truth, and so to speak, its real confirmation, the full perfection of the covenant would not appear in Christ, were not both parts found in him. Hence the writer of the epistle, after having mentioned both, roused attention by a brief exhortation. But he now enters on a longer discussion, and begins with the office of a teacher: he therefore now compares Christ only with Moses. The words, in all his house, may be applied to Moses; but I prefer to apply them to Christ, as he may be said to be faithful to his Father in ruling his whole house. It hence follows, that none belong to the Church of God except those who acknowledge Christ. (57)

(57) This testimony as to Moses is found in Num 12:7. God says there “in all mine house;” we ought therefore to consider “his” here as referring to God or to Christ, and not to Moses.

“

For this man,” οὖτος; it is better to render it here he, as it is sometimes rendered, and is so rendered in this place by Doddridge, Macknight and Stuart. The connection is with “consider,” in the first verse; “for,” a reason is given for the exhortation; “for he,” i.e., the apostle and high priest before mentioned, etc. — Ed.

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(2) Who was.Rather, as being; or that He was. Not merely, fix your thought on Jesus; but also (and especially), think of Him as faithful to God (Heb. 2:17).

Appointed him.Literally, made Him, an expression which some ancient (Ambrose and other Latin fathers,apparently also Athanasius) and many modern writers have understood as relating to the creation of the human nature of our Lord. It is probable, however, that 1Sa. 12:6 is in the writers mind. It is the Lord that made Moses and Aaron, and that brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt. As there Samuel speaks of the raising up of Moses and Aaron, constituted by God deliverers of the people; so here our thought must rest on Him who constituted Jesus Apostle and High Priest.

As also Moses.These words, which give the key to the following verses, are quoted from Num. 12:7, where Moses is placed in contrast with prophets in Israel to whom the Lord will make Himself known by vision or dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth. The house or household is Gods. people Israel. To others will God reveal Himself in various ways in regard to the many parts of the house, the many concerns of the household. Throughout the whole house Moses was the recipient of the divine commands, and was faithfulfaithful (as one of the Targums paraphrases), as chief of the chiefs of my court.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

2. Faithful Perfectly and absolutely true to all his trusts as legate.

Appointed Literally, made. Allusion is here had to 1Sa 12:6, where it is said, “the Lord that advanced (Gr. Septuagint, made) Moses and Aaron.” The word, as here applied to Christ, should not be rendered created, as by Alford, but constituted, including, doubtless, his being brought into incarnate existence, not merely his appointment to his legation.

As also Moses This image of a house is suggested by Num 12:7: “My servant Moses is faithful in all mine house.” The word house symbolizes the dispensation, or theocratic kingdom. Here is an analogy between Moses and Christ; they are similar in faithfulness, yet there is a great superiority on one side.

House In this whole passage (Heb 3:2-6) the Greek word for house includes not only the building or material structure, but all the furnishings, family and servants, it contains to make it a complete establishment. And so the word builded, in the following verses, includes not merely the architecture, but the complete establishing, of the house and its contents.

His Many commentators refer here, as in Heb 3:6, to God; but a more natural construction refers them to Moses and to Christ. Each of these divine legates had, under God, (Heb 3:4,) his own house; yet successively, under Moses and Christ, the house is the same one house, and Christ, as Son, is underlying proprietor even of the house of Moses, who is but servant or steward.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

‘Who was faithful to him who appointed him, as also was Moses in all his house.’

But he does not want to them think of this as a battle between Jesus and Moses. Indeed there can be no such battle. Both were appointed by God, and both were faithful to God. Both must be honoured for fulfilling God’s will. Any contrast therefore is between them as seen in this light. He intends to bring no dishonour on Moses, or to depreciate him in any way, even though he must now demonstrate the superiority of Jesus even to Moses.

For the truth is that Moses was faithful ‘in all his house’ (compare Num 12:7). By ‘his house’ is meant the people to whom he belonged and over whom he was appointed. Among all of them he was the one who was so faithful that God spoke to him mouth to mouth. He was from his beginning one with them, and yet it was from among them that he was called out to serve them by being in authority over them. And it was for this that his people honoured him.

He was, as one of that people, chosen out from among his people, almost from birth, in order to be God’s representative to, and on behalf of, his people. In his own way he was a ‘sent one’ (apostello – compare Exo 3:12 LXX (exapostello); Exo 3:13-15; Exo 5:22 (apostello); and Exo 7:16 (exapostello)), sent by God for the fulfilling of his purpose in the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, but while acting as priest on behalf of the people prior to the appointment of Aaron, he was never officially appointed High Priest under the Law. He was the lesser of which Jesus was the Greater.

For, as the writer has already demonstrated, Jesus was greater. He was not chosen from among His people, working on behalf of a people who were already in existence. He was rather chosen by God long before any people existed, before all ages, and sent forth from Heaven itself to act on behalf of those whom He then made His people, building His own house, drawing together His people to Himself so that they were ‘in Christ’. Thus was He deserving of the greater honour.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Heb 3:2. That appointed him, Heylin reads, who constituted him [in that office]. The next words are taken from Num 12:7. The word house is used, not only for a building, but for such as dwell in it;a family, a people: And as God is said to dwell among the children of Israel, hence they are called his house; that is, his servants, his people. When the apostle says his house, he does not mean Moses’s, but his house who appointed Moses; that is, God’s house.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 3:2 . The discourse takes a turn, by virtue of a further alleging of reasons for the , to the comparison of Jesus with Moses, in that first of all the relation of parity between the two is brought prominently forward. The O. T. passage which the author here has under consideration is Num 12:7 , where Moses is designated by God as faithful in all His house.

] characterizes the being faithful as an inherent property; the sense of a strict present is not to be asserted for the participle (with Seb. Schmidt and Bleek), according to which we should have to think only of an exalted Christ; rather does attach itself as well to the notion as to the notion ; embraces, therefore, equally the time from which Christ, as the incarnate Son of God, had appeared upon earth, and the time from which He, invested with the high-priestly dignity, has returned to the Father, and now continues to fulfil in heaven His high-priestly office.

] Periphrasis of God: Him who created Him . Only this sense of the calling forth into existence can the word have when placed absolutely; comp. LXX. Isa 17:7 ; Isa 43:1 ; Isa 51:13 ; Hos 8:14 ; Job 35:10 ; Psa 95:6 ; Psa 149:2 ; Sir 7:30 , al . Rightly is this accepted by the early Latin translation of the codd. D E (fidelem esse creatori suo), Ambrose ( de fide , 3. 11), Vigilius Tapsensis ( contra Varimadum , p. 729), Primasius, Schulz, Bleek, Alford, Kurtz, and Hofmann. Contrary to linguistic usage for an appeal cannot be made to 1Sa 12:6 (where ( ) has its ordinary signification), and still less to Mar 3:14 (where a nearer defining is given to the verb by means of . . .), or to Act 2:36 (where a double accusative is found) do Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylact, Vatablus, Clarius [Calvin], Cameron, Piscator, Grotius, Owen, Wolf, Bengel, Bhme, Kuinoel, de Wette, Stengel, Tholuck, Stuart, Ebrard, Bisping, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr. p. 286 f.), Reuss, Maier, Kluge, Moll, M‘Caul, Woerner, and the majority, interpret either by: who appointed Him thereto (sc. Apostle and High Priest), or ordained Him thereto; or what amounts to the same thing explaining the supplementing of a second accusative to as unnecessary, by: who set Him forth upon the stage of history. Whether, for the rest, the author referred the notion of having created to the incarnation of Christ, as the above-mentioned early ecclesiastical writers suppose, or to His premundane generation as the First-born (cf. Heb 1:5-6 ), which Bleek rightly regards as at least possible, cannot be determined. [55]

] sc . .

] does not belong to , in such wise that we have, with Calvin, Paulus, Bleek, Ebrard, and Hofmann, to enclose within commas, but is to be comprehended with (de Wette, Kurtz, and the majority). For not only, Num 12:7 , do the words appended: , stand in special relation to Moses, so that the author might very well derive from that place the same addition with the same special reference to Moses, but also the equal reference of to Christ, as to Moses, would be unsuitable to the connection with that which follows, since the author, Heb 3:5 and Heb 3:6 , definitely distinguishes the place occupied by Moses, as the position of a servant , from the place occupied by Christ, as a position of ruler ; and in harmony with this distinction, already Heb 3:3 characterizes Moses as merely a member of the itself; Christ, on the other hand, as the founder of the .

] refers neither to Christ (Bleek) nor to Moses (Oecumenius and others), but, as is also determined by the form of the expression with the LXX. ( ), to God .

But the house of God is the people of God, or the kingdom of God; and denotes the province, in the administration of which the was made manifest.

[55] That which Delitzsch urges against either possibility, namely, that “although the man Jesus as such, so far as that which is essential in the notion of creation is the state of beginning in time, must be regarded as a creature, there could be no more unsuitable expression because one almost unmeaningly colourless, or even indecorous for the matchless and unique act of the formation of the humanity of the Son in the womb of Mary, than the term , for the use of which, in this sense, no instances can on that very account be adduced;” and that “after the author has, Heb 1:2 , employed as expression of the pure idea of creation, he could surely not now have employed it of the sublimer genesis of the Mediator of the world’s creation,” falls to pieces, because it rests upon mere subjectivity. For it is nothing more than a pronouncing upon the mind of the writer from the standpoint of the critic’s own ready-formed dogmatics.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

2 Who was faithful to him that appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.

Ver. 2. As also Moses was faithful ] And yet how unworthily handled by the author of the Marrow of Modern Divinity, that sly Antinomian, in various passages of his book, as might easily be instanced. How much better (herein at least) Bellarmine! Moses vir Deo longe acceptissimus, saith he, quo nihil habuit antiqua aetas mitius, satientius, sanctius: Moses a man highly accepted in heaven for his meekness, wisdom, holiness.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

2 .] First, a point of likeness between our Lord and Moses is brought out, and that by a reference to an O. T. declaration respecting the latter ( . , , , , , c.), who is (not, ‘ was .’ The present participle may always be contemporary with a previously expressed verb, of any tense, provided that verb be absolutely in construction with the participle, as , “ he, being blind, received sight ” = he was blind and received sight. But a present participle standing absolutely, or with a present verb, must retain its present force; as , “ I, being a blind man, now see ,” = ‘whereas I am (by infirmity, as every one knows, not, “whereas I was ,” as in E. V. in loco, Joh 9:25 ) blind, now I see.’ And so the present sense must be retained here. Then a question arises: are we to understand it strictly of present time, of Christ now in heaven, or as in the case cited, of general designation? Clearly, I think, of the latter: Jesus, whose character it is, that He is . For the strict present would, to say nothing of other objections, not apply to the portion of the Lord’s office, but only to the . It, as Lnemann has well expressed it, charakterisirt das Treusein als inhrirende Eigenschaft ) faithful (it is questioned, whether or not this word refers back to the of ch. Heb 2:18 . The sense is certainly not the same: the faithfulness there being the fidelity wherewith He being like His brethren would, so to speak, reproduce their wants before God, that here spoken of being His faithfulness to God, over whose house He is set, Heb 3:6 . Still I cannot help thinking that the word itself is led to by, and takes up that other. That regarded more the sacerdotal , this regards the apostolic office of Christ) to him that made him (so we must render , not, “ that appointed him .” And so D-lat., “fidelem esse creatori suo,” Ambrose, de Fide iii. 11, vol. ii. (iii. Migne) p. 512 (quoting as above, he adds, “Videtis in quo creatum dicit; in quo assumsit, inquit, semen Abrah, corporalem utique generationem asserit”), Vigil-taps [21] (contra Varimadum, i. 4, Migne, Patr. Lat. vol. lxii. p. 366, “fidelem existentem ei qui creavit eum”), Primasius (“qui fidelis est eidem Deo Patri qui fecit eum (so vulg.), juxta quod alibi dicitur: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem ( Rom 1:3 ).” ibid.), Schulz, Bleek, Lnemann. The ordinary rendering, “who appointed Him” (viz. . ) does not seem to me to be sufficiently substantiated by any of the passages brought in its defence. That with two accusatives signifies to appoint, to make into , of course no one doubts: cf. Gen 27:37 ; Exo 18:25 ; Joh 6:15 ; Act 2:36 . But our question is not of such constructions: we want to know whether can ever be filled up with a second accusative out of the context. Two passages are most frequently alleged to prove the affirmative. One is ref. 1 Kings, ( ), . But here Bleek, against Gesenius and De Wette, holds fast, and I think rightly, to the original sense of , and renders “ who made Moses and Aaron .” The other place, Mar 3:14 , , is less still to the point, because there the . . . qualifies the verb, and gives the second accusative, q. d. . . . And the phrase , for God the Creator, is so common in the LXX, that had our Writer had that other meaning in his view, his readers would have been sure to misunderstand him. Bleek accumulates instances: cf. Isa 17:7 ; Isa 43:1 ; Isa 51:13 ; Isa 54:5 ; Hos 8:14 ; Job 35:10 ; Psa 94:6 ( Psa 95:7 ); Psa 149:2 ; Sir 7:30 ; Sir 10:12 ; Sir 39:5 , and many other places. He also presses the fact that in the Hellenistic Greek of Philo is the constant designation of God as the Creator. The word thus taken, is of course to be understood of that constitution of our Lord as our Apostle and High Priest in which He, being human, was made by the Father: not of Him as the eternal Word (as even Bleek and Lnemann, explaining it of His generation before the worlds), which would be irrelevant here, besides being against all Scripture precedent. Even Athanasius himself, though arguing against this unwarranted inference of the Arians from the phrases, seems to have understood it as we have done above: for he says, Contra Arianos ii. (iii.) 8, vol. i. (ii. Migne), p. 376, , , , . And so also the orthodox Latins, Ambrose, Vigil-taps [22] , Primasius, explaining “ creatio ” by “ corporalis generatio .” The Greek Fathers, generally, repudiate strongly this view, as was natural, living as they did in the midst of the strife. Chrys. says, ; . , , . And so c. and Thl. Thdrt. even more plainly, , . And Epiphan. Hr. lxix. 38. 39, vol. ii. (Migne), p. 761, distinctly denies any reference even to the humanity of Christ as created, , , , . See other testimonies from the Fathers in Suicer, ii. p. 788), as also ( , to take another instance of faithfulness: thus, with every circumstance of honour, is Moses introduced, before any disparagement of him is entered upon) ( was ) Moses in all His house (from ref. Num., . 1. It may be well to remark, that the substitution of for at once indicates to whom is to be referred: viz. to God, : see also below on Heb 3:6 . And so most ancient and modern Commentators. Ebrard would make it both times reflexive “his house,” i. e. the house to which he belongs: Bleek, both times to refer to Christ, whose house, as a Son, it is: Thl. gives the alternative, , , , , , . , . But this last expression had a special reference, and did not represent a general truth. 2. The circumstance of the quotation makes it far more natural to refer . to Moses directly, and not to Christ, as Ebrard, al., putting a comma at . 3. The ellipsis is to be filled up by after , as in the place cited. 4. The signification of is well illustrated by 1Ti 3:15 , , . It imports the Church of God: and is one and the same here and in Heb 3:6 ; not two different houses, but the same, in the case of Moses taken at one time only, in that of Christ, in its whole existence and development).

[21] Vigil ius of Thapsus , 484

[22] Vigil ius of Thapsus , 484

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Heb 3:2 . The characteristic, or particular, qualification of Jesus which is to hold their attention is His trustworthiness or fidelity. might be rendered “as being faithful”. The fidelity here in view, though indirectly to men and encouraging them to trust, is directly to Him who made Him, sc ., Apostle and High Priest. . The objection urged by Bleek, Lnemann and Alford that can mean “appoint” only when followed by two accusatives is not valid. The second accusative may be understood; and in 1Sa 12:6 we find , words which may have been in the writer’s mind. The Arian translation, “to Him that created Him,” is out of place. Appointment to office finds its correlative in faithfulness, creation scarcely suggests that idea. The fidelity of Jesus is illustrated not by incidents from His life nor by the crowning proof given in His death, nor is it argued from the admitted perfections of His character, but in accordance with the plan of the Epistle it is merely compared to that of Moses, and its superiority is implied in the superiority of the Son to the servant. He was faithful “as also Moses in all His house,” this being the crowning instance of fidelity testified to by God Himself, (Num 12:7 ), where the context throws the emphasis on . “The ‘house of God’ is the organised society in which He dwells” (Westcott), cf. 1Ti 3:15 . Weiss says that the words “necessarily belong” to . This is questionable, because the writer’s point is that Jesus is faithful not “in” but “over” the house of God (Heb 3:6 ).

Heb 3:3 . The reason is now assigned why Jesus and His fidelity should eclipse in their consideration that of Moses. The reason is that “this man” ( , “the person who is the subject of our consideration”) “has been and is deemed worthy of greater glory (‘amplioris gloriae,’ Vulg. , qualitative as in Heb 11:4 ) than Moses, in proportion as he that built the house has more honour than the house.” The genitive follows the comparative . The “greater glory” is seen in the more important place occupied by Him in the fulfilment of God’s purpose of salvation. This glory of Jesus is as much greater than that of Moses, as the cause is greater than the effect, the builder than the house. [The principle is stated by Philo ( De Plant. , c. 16. In Wendland’s ed., ii. 147) , and by Menander and other comic poets as quoted by Justin ( Apol. , i. 20) . Weiss, however, is of opinion that it is not a general principle that is being stated, but that refers directly to the house of God.] includes all that belongs to the completion of a house, from its inception and plan in the mind of the architect to its building and furnishing and filling with a household. Originally the word means to equip or furnish, , Diog. L. Heb 3:14 . So . Plato, Rep. , 363 C. , Demosth., Polyc. , 1208. Thence, like our word “furnish” or “prepare,” it took the wider meaning of “making” or “building” or “providing”. Thus the shipbuilder . the ship; the mason . the tower. So in Heb 11:7 , cf. 1Pe 3:20 . (Further, see Stephanus and Bleek). In the present verse it has its most comprehensive meaning, and includes the planning, building, and filling of the house with furniture and with a household. The household is more directly in view than the house. The argument involves that Jesus is identified with the builder of the house, while Moses is considered a part of the house. It is the Son (who in those last Days has spoken God’s word to men through the lips of Jesus), who in former times also fulfilled God’s purpose by building His house and creating for Him a people. And lest the readers of the epistle should object that Moses was as much the builder of the old as Jesus of the new, the writer lifts their mind from the management of the system or Church to the creation of it.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

faithful. Greek. pistos. App-150.

also Moses = Moses also. See Rom 5:14. The name occurs eleven times in Hebrews.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

2.] First, a point of likeness between our Lord and Moses is brought out, and that by a reference to an O. T. declaration respecting the latter ( . , , , , , c.), who is (not, was. The present participle may always be contemporary with a previously expressed verb, of any tense, provided that verb be absolutely in construction with the participle, as , he, being blind, received sight = he was blind and received sight. But a present participle standing absolutely, or with a present verb, must retain its present force; as , I, being a blind man, now see, = whereas I am (by infirmity, as every one knows, not, whereas I was, as in E. V. in loco, Joh 9:25) blind, now I see. And so the present sense must be retained here. Then a question arises: are we to understand it strictly of present time, of Christ now in heaven,-or as in the case cited, of general designation? Clearly, I think, of the latter: Jesus, whose character it is, that He is . For the strict present would, to say nothing of other objections, not apply to the portion of the Lords office, but only to the . It, as Lnemann has well expressed it, charakterisirt das Treusein als inhrirende Eigenschaft) faithful (it is questioned, whether or not this word refers back to the of ch. Heb 2:18. The sense is certainly not the same: the faithfulness there being the fidelity wherewith He being like His brethren would, so to speak, reproduce their wants before God,-that here spoken of being His faithfulness to God, over whose house He is set, Heb 3:6. Still I cannot help thinking that the word itself is led to by, and takes up that other. That regarded more the sacerdotal, this regards the apostolic office of Christ) to him that made him (so we must render , not, that appointed him. And so D-lat., fidelem esse creatori suo, Ambrose, de Fide iii. 11, vol. ii. (iii. Migne) p. 512 (quoting as above, he adds, Videtis in quo creatum dicit; in quo assumsit, inquit, semen Abrah, corporalem utique generationem asserit), Vigil-taps[21] (contra Varimadum, i. 4, Migne, Patr. Lat. vol. lxii. p. 366, fidelem existentem ei qui creavit eum), Primasius (qui fidelis est eidem Deo Patri qui fecit eum (so vulg.), juxta quod alibi dicitur: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem (Rom 1:3). ibid.), Schulz, Bleek, Lnemann. The ordinary rendering, who appointed Him (viz. . ) does not seem to me to be sufficiently substantiated by any of the passages brought in its defence. That with two accusatives signifies to appoint, to make into, of course no one doubts: cf. Gen 27:37; Exo 18:25; Joh 6:15; Act 2:36. But our question is not of such constructions: we want to know whether can ever be filled up with a second accusative out of the context. Two passages are most frequently alleged to prove the affirmative. One is ref. 1 Kings, ( ), . But here Bleek, against Gesenius and De Wette, holds fast, and I think rightly, to the original sense of , and renders who made Moses and Aaron. The other place, Mar 3:14, , is less still to the point, because there the … qualifies the verb, and gives the second accusative, q. d. … And the phrase , for God the Creator, is so common in the LXX, that had our Writer had that other meaning in his view, his readers would have been sure to misunderstand him. Bleek accumulates instances: cf. Isa 17:7; Isa 43:1; Isa 51:13; Isa 54:5; Hos 8:14; Job 35:10; Psa 94:6 (Psa 95:7); Psa 149:2; Sir 7:30; Sir 10:12; Sir 39:5, and many other places. He also presses the fact that in the Hellenistic Greek of Philo is the constant designation of God as the Creator. The word thus taken, is of course to be understood of that constitution of our Lord as our Apostle and High Priest in which He, being human, was made by the Father: not of Him as the eternal Word (as even Bleek and Lnemann, explaining it of His generation before the worlds), which would be irrelevant here, besides being against all Scripture precedent. Even Athanasius himself, though arguing against this unwarranted inference of the Arians from the phrases, seems to have understood it as we have done above: for he says, Contra Arianos ii. (iii.) 8, vol. i. (ii. Migne), p. 376, , , , . And so also the orthodox Latins, Ambrose, Vigil-taps[22], Primasius, explaining creatio by corporalis generatio. The Greek Fathers, generally, repudiate strongly this view, as was natural, living as they did in the midst of the strife. Chrys. says, ; . , , . And so c. and Thl. Thdrt. even more plainly, , . And Epiphan. Hr. lxix. 38. 39, vol. ii. (Migne), p. 761, distinctly denies any reference even to the humanity of Christ as created,- , , , . See other testimonies from the Fathers in Suicer, ii. p. 788), as also (, to take another instance of faithfulness: thus, with every circumstance of honour, is Moses introduced, before any disparagement of him is entered upon) (was) Moses in all His house (from ref. Num., . 1. It may be well to remark, that the substitution of for at once indicates to whom is to be referred: viz. to God, : see also below on Heb 3:6. And so most ancient and modern Commentators. Ebrard would make it both times reflexive-his house, i. e. the house to which he belongs: Bleek, both times to refer to Christ, whose house, as a Son, it is: Thl. gives the alternative, , , , , , . , . But this last expression had a special reference, and did not represent a general truth. 2. The circumstance of the quotation makes it far more natural to refer . to Moses directly, and not to Christ, as Ebrard, al., putting a comma at . 3. The ellipsis is to be filled up by after , as in the place cited. 4. The signification of is well illustrated by 1Ti 3:15, , . It imports the Church of God: and is one and the same here and in Heb 3:6; not two different houses, but the same, in the case of Moses taken at one time only,-in that of Christ, in its whole existence and development).

[21] Vigilius of Thapsus, 484

[22] Vigilius of Thapsus, 484

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 3:2. , who is faithful) Num 12:7, at the end, , LXX., (comp. presently afterwards, Heb 3:5) . He calls him faithful, who is both himself so, and is acknowledged to be so by GOD, and is praised on that account. From this flows faithfulness in office, and the faith of the hearers without exception, for this very reason that Moses is ; comp. Num. same chap., Heb 3:8, likewise at the end.- , to Him that appointed Him) His heavenly Father made or appointed Jesus Christ to be both His Apostle and High Priest, ch. Heb 5:5; where , to be made, viz. by the word of the Lord, corresponds to . Add Act 2:36. And this rouses us to the exercise of faith. There is an expression which very much resembles this in 1Sa 12:6; 1Sa 12:8 : It is the Lord who made [Engl. Vers., advanced] (LXX., ) and sent Moses and Aaron.- , as also Moses) So Deu 18:15. He praises Moses, and thus conciliates the Jews, before that he prefers Christ to him; although he has prepared their minds for hearing it, by his preferring the same Jesus even to angels.-, in His house) A rare appellation in the time of Moses.-, His, of Him) of GOD, Heb 3:6, note.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

faithful: Heb 2:17, Joh 6:38-40, Joh 7:18, Joh 8:29, Joh 15:10, Joh 17:4

appointed: Gr. made, 1Sa 12:6

as: Heb 3:5, Num 12:7, Deu 4:5, 1Ti 1:12

all: Heb 3:6, Eph 2:22, 1Ti 3:15

Reciprocal: Exo 39:32 – according Exo 40:33 – So Moses Num 29:40 – General Deu 18:15 – like unto me Deu 18:18 – like unto Deu 31:30 – General Psa 99:7 – kept Luk 16:10 – faithful in Joh 3:30 – but Joh 8:53 – thou greater Joh 9:29 – know Act 6:11 – against Moses 1Co 10:2 – General Col 1:7 – a 2Ti 2:2 – faithful 2Ti 2:20 – in a Rev 17:14 – and they

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Heb 3:2. Who was faithful . . . as also Moses. All of the good points about Moses were equalled and some of them were excelled by Christ. They were equal as to being faithful over their own houses or religious institutions.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 3:2. Who was faithful; rather, consider Him, he being faithfulin that He is faithful. His faithfulness is the quality we are to contemplate, a fresh reason why we should trust Him and be faithful too. . . . The sphere of the service of Moses was a restricted economythe house of Israel. Christs is a wider economy, and includes all things. The maker must be greater than the work, and He that made all things must be Divine. Moses was part of the economy, the house in which he served. The economy, moreover, was a rough outline onlya shadowy intimation of the higher economy of grace. Christ was faithful over His house as Sonthat house His own (see on Heb 3:6), and the completed universal kingdom to which the old type gave witness. And all this is oursthe house, the kingdomif we remain faithful and stedfast (Heb 3:1-6).

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Because the Jews had generally too high an opinion of Moses, our apostle here enters upon a comparison between Christ and Moses, thus, “As Moses was faithful, so was Christ in declaring the will, the whole will, of God unto his church. Was Moses universally faithful, faithful in all his house; so did the faithfulness of Christ extend itself to all the church. Did Moses do everything according to the institution and appointment of God; so was Christ faithful to him that appointed him, doing all that in and for the church which God had commanded him, and nothing else.”

Learn hence, That the worship of God in his household and family, the church, is, for the substance of it, no less perfectly and completely ordered and ordained by our Lord Jesus Christ, now under the gospel, than it was by Moses of old under the law; I say, as to the substance of it, not as to every particular circumstance.

As, for example, the manner of celebrating the passover in every minute circumstance of it is set down by Moses, how it must be killed, and how eaten; but Christ has not set down by Moses, how it must be killed, and how eaten; but Christ has not set down so for the sacrament.

A general command we have to do this in remembrance of him; but neither the time when, nor place where, nor gesture in which, is particularly and expressly mentioned. The gospel, which teaches us a more spiritual way of serving God, is not so particular in the circumstantials of worship as the law was; and yet Christ was faithful to him that appointed him, as Moses was faithful in all his house.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Heb 3:2. Who was faithful to him that appointed him The sacred penman, entering upon a comparison between Moses and Christ, as he was the apostle of God, or one sent by him to reveal his will, he recommends him to the faith of the Hebrews, under the principal qualification of a person in that office; he was faithful, which faithfulness he further describes by its respect to that act whereby he was appointed by God to the office. Gods apostle is the chief steward or dispenser of his mysteries; and it is principally required in stewards that a man be found faithful. Now the fidelity of a legate, ambassador, or apostle consists principally in the full declaration of the mind and will of him who sent him, as to those ends for which he is sent. Faithfulness respects trust. Our Lord, therefore, must have had a trust committed to him wherein he was faithful. Accordingly he sought not his own glory, but the glory of him that sent him; declaring that he came not in his own, but in his Fathers name, Joh 5:43. He moreover sealed that truth with his blood, which he came into the world to bear witness to, Joh 18:37; and greater faithfulness could not be expressed. As also Moses was faithful in all his house The church of Israel, then the peculiar family of God. The words are an allusion to the testimony which God bare to Moses, Num 12:7, My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all my house. It is true, Moses failed personally in his faith, and was charged of God that he believed him not, Num 20:12; but this was no impeachment of his faithfulness in the special office intended. As he was to reveal Jehovahs mind, and institute his worship, he was universally faithful; for according to all that God appointed him so did he, Exo 40:16. He did not conceal any of the divine laws, on account of their disagreeableness to the Israelites; nor did he alter them in the least, to make them acceptable, but delivered the whole law as it was spoken to himself, and formed the tabernacle and the ritual of the worship exactly according to the pattern showed him. In like manner, Christs faithfulness consisted in his teaching the doctrines, appointing the laws, and establishing the worship which his Father had ordained for the church.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

2. Christ is perfect man and perfect God. The man Jesus was created by the Almighty like all other creatures. The God Christ, uncreated, existed from all eternity.

Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament

Verse 2

His house; his charge; the community imbodied under the system of institutions committed to his administration. It is called metaphorically a house, in the same manner as the Christian church is often spoken of as a building.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament

3:2 {2} Who was faithful to him that {c} appointed him, {3} as also Moses [was faithful] in all his house.

(2) He confirms his exhortation with two reasons, first of all because Christ Jesus was appointed as such by God: secondly, because he thoroughly executed the offices that his Father commanded him.

(c) Apostle and High Priest.

(3) Now he comes to the comparison with Moses, and he makes them like one another other in this, that they were both appointed rulers over God’s house, and executed faithfully their office: but he later shows that there is great dissimilarity in the same comparison.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

We should probably translate this verse to tie it in directly to Heb 3:1 rather than making it a separate statement. The idea is that Jesus Christ is now faithful, not that He was in the past. He is faithful now as Moses was in the past. We can see Moses’ faithfulness in how he served regarding God’s "house," the tabernacle, and regarding God’s "household," Israel. He served exactly as God instructed him (cf. Num 12:7; 1Sa 2:35; 1Ch 17:14). The Greek word oikos can mean "house" and "household."

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)