Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 3:5
And Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
5. in all his house ] i.e. in all God’s house. Two “houses” are contemplated, Mosaism and Christianity, the Law and the Gospel. Both were established by God. In the household of the Law, Moses was the faithful minister; in the household of the Gospel, Christ took on Him, indeed, “the form of a slave,” and as such was faithful even unto death, but yet was Son over the House. This seems a more natural explanation than that the writer regards both the covenants as one Household, in which Moses was a servant, and over which Christ was a Son.
as a servant ] The word used is not doulos “slave,” nor diakonos “minister,” but therapn “voluntary attendant.” It is also applied to Moses in the Ep. of Barnabas and in Exo 14:31 (LXX.).
for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after ] They were to be spoken afterwards by Christ, the Prophet to whom Moses had pointed, Deu 18:15. The Law and the Prophets did but witness to the righteousness of God which was to be fully revealed in Christ (Rom 3:21). They were but a shadow of the coming reality (Heb 10:1). But although it is natural for us to understand the expression in this way, the author possibly meant no more than that the faithfulness of Moses was an attestation of the Law which was about to be delivered.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Moses was faithful …as a servant – Not as the head of the dispensation; not as having originated it; but as in the employ and under the direction of its great Founder and Author – the Messiah. As such a servant he deserves all the honor for fidelity which has ever been claimed for him, but it cannot be the honor which is due to him who is at the head of the family or house. Paul assumed that Moses was a servant, and argued on that supposition, without attempting to prove it, because it was so often affirmed in the Old Testament, and must have been conceded by all the Jews. In numerous instances he is spoken of as the servant of the Lord; see Jos 1:1-2; Jos 9:24; 1Ch 6:49; 2Ch 24:9; Neh 10:29; Dan 9:11; Exo 14:31; 1Ki 8:56; Psa 105:26. As this point was undisputed, it was only necessary to show that the Messiah was superior to a servant, in order to make the argument clear.
For a testimony – To bear witness to those truths which were to be revealed; that is, he was the instrument of the divine communications to the people, or the medium by which God made his will known. He did not originate the truths himself; but he was the mere medium by which God made known his truth to his people – a servant whom He employed to make his will known. The word after here is not necessary in order to a just translation of this passage, and obscures the sense. It does not mean that he was a witness of those truths which were to be spoken subsequently to his time under another dispensation, nor those truths which the apostle proposed to consider in another part of the Epistle, as Doddridge supposes; but it means merely that Moses stood forth as a public witness of the truths which God designed to reveal, or which were to be spoken. God did not speak to his people directly, and face to face, but he spoke through Moses as an organ, or medium. The sense is, Moses was a mere servant of God to communicate his will to man.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 5. As a servant] The fidelity of Moses was the fidelity of a servant; he was not the framer of that Church or house; he was employed, under God, to arrange and order it: he was steward to the Builder and Owner.
For a testimony of those things] Every ordinance under the law was typical; every thing bore a testimony to the things which were to be spoken after; i.e. to Jesus Christ, his suffering, death, and the glory which should follow; and to his Gospel in all its parts. The faithfulness of Moses consisted in his scrupulous attention to every ordinance of God; his framing every thing according to the pattern showed him by the Lord; and his referring all to that Christ of whom he spoke as the prophet who should come after him, and should be raised up from among themselves; whom they should attentively hear and obey, on pain of being cut off from being the people of the Lord. Hence our Lord told the Jews, Joh 5:46: If ye had believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me; “namely;” says Dr. Macknight, “in the figures, but especially in the prophecies, of the law, where the Gospel dispensation, the coming of its Author, and his character as Messiah, are all described with a precision which adds the greatest lustre of evidence to Jesus and to his Gospel.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The gospel Minister doth not only excel Moses as much as a builder doth his work, but as a son doth a servant, proved in this and Heb 3:6.
And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant; your great legal prophet, in whom many of you Hebrews trust, Joh 5:45, did truly and fully reveal and do what God charged him, in ministering his will to his church, Exo 40:16-33; he did not diminish from, nor add the least to, Gods charge, , Num 12:7. As a minister, Moses was as faithful as any God had; not a slave or a drudge, but a free, willing, ingenuous servant, most entirely and obsequiously addicting himself in that honourable place and office of great trust, to which God called him; a stewardly servant, a prophet and a prince, inspecting and ordering all according to Gods will; in all Christs house and family, his church, he is but a servant.
For a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after: his faithfulness was evident in his bearing true witness to the church, of all God made known to him, that they might not be uncertain of the truth; even all that truth, which was more fully and clearly to be spoken by the prophets after him, and by Christ and his apostles; but which the Spirit shall speak to them further concerning Christ and his church in this Epistle, Joh 5:46. In which is insinuated, that Christ was the truth himself witnessed to by Moses, who was a witness of an inferior degree, though in his work faithful, and conformed unto Christ.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
5. faithful in all his housethatis in all GOD’S house (Heb3:4).
servantnot here theGreek for “slave,” but “a ministeringattendant”; marking the high office of Moses towards God, thoughinferior to Christ, a kind of steward.
for a testimony of, c.inorder that he might in his typical institutions give “testimony”to Israel “of the things” of the Gospel “which were tobe spoken afterwards” by Christ (Heb 8:5Heb 9:8; Heb 9:23;Heb 10:1).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant,…. Moses was not only a servant to the Israelites, but he was also the Lord’s servant, a servant of his choosing, sending, and approving; he was a servant in holy things, and served the Lord heartily, sincerely, and ingenuously, with all becoming fear and reverence, respect, and honour, and with all ready and cheerful obedience; the house in which he was a servant, was not his own, but belonged to God, even the Son of God, as appears from the following verse; he was not a servant in the world, and with respect to civil things, and the affairs of Providence, but in the church of God, and in divine things; and he was faithful here, and that in all things; he did all things exactly according to the pattern showed him in the Mount; and the apostle strongly affirms all this, as well he might, since there was full proof of it, and God himself had bore a testimony to it: and the end of his being a servant here was,
for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; these words may regard his faithful testification of God’s will to the people of Israel, after he was fixed as a servant in God’s house; or what he said afterwards concerning the Messiah, of whom he spake and wrote, and of whom he bore an honourable testimony, De 18:1 or they may have respect to the things spoken after Moses’s time, by the prophets, Christ, and his apostles, which agreed with the testimony of Moses; or to the things afterwards spoken of in this epistle; to which may be added, that Moses in his office was typical of things to be spoken and done by the Messiah, when he came; as his deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt; his leading them through the Red sea and wilderness, to Canaan’s land; his giving them the law from Mount Sinai; the erection of the tabernacle, with all its furniture, and the institution of sacrifices and the like.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
And Moses ( ). “Now Moses indeed on his part” ( contrasted with ).
In (). Moses was in “God’s house” “as a servant” ( ). Old word, in LXX, only here in N.T. and quoted from Nu 12:7f. Kin to the verb , to serve, to heal, and , service (Lu 9:11) and a group of servants (Lu 12:42).
For a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken ( ). Objective genitive of the articular future passive participle of . It is not certain what it means whether the “testimony” () is to Moses or to God and whether it points on to Christ. In 9:9 see applied to the old dispensation as a symbol pointing to Christ and Christianity.
But Christ ( ). In contrast with Moses ( in verse 5).
As a son ( ). Instead of a (servant).
Over his house ( ). The difference between and added to that between and . It is very neat and quite conclusive, especially when we recall the high place occupied by Moses in Jewish thought. In Ac 7:11 the Jews accused Stephen of speaking “blasphemous words against Moses and God” (putting Moses on a par with God).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
And Moses. Kai and introduces the further development of the thought of vers. 2, 3 – fidelity, and the corresponding honor. It is not a second proof of the superiority of Christ to Moses. See Num 12:7. A servant [] . N. T. o. Comp. Rev 14:3. Often in LXX, mostly as translation of ‘eber, servant, slave, bondman. Also, when coupled with the name of a deity, a worshipper, devotee. Sometimes applied to angels or prophets. Of Moses, qerapwn kuriou servant of the Lord, Wisd. 10 16. In Class. and N. T. the word emphasizes the performance of a present service, without reference to the condition of the doer, whether bond or free. An ethical character attaches to it, as to the kindred verb qerapeuein : service of an affectionate, hearty character, performed with care and fidelity. Hence the relation of the qerapwn is of a nobler and freer character than that of the doulov or bondservant. The verb is used of a physician ‘s tendance of the sick. Xenophon (Mem. 4 3, 9) uses it of the gods taking care of men, and, on the other hand, of men’s worshipping the gods (ii. 1. 28). See Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1105; and on heal, Mt 8:7; Luk 10:15, and on is worshipped, Act 17:25. For a testimony of those things which were to be spoken [ ] . jEiv for, with the whole preceding clause. Moses ‘ faithful service in God ‘s house was for a testimony, etc. The things which were to be spoken are the revelations afterward to be given in Christ. Others, however, explain of the things which Moses himself was afterward to speak to the people by God ‘s command, referring to Num 12:8. According to this explanation, the fidelity hitherto exhibited by Moses ought to command respect for all that he might say in future. But (1) in the present connection that thought is insignificant.
(2) It would be an exaggeration to speak of Moses ‘s fidelity to God throughout his whole official career as a witness of the things which he was to speak to the people by God ‘s command.
(3) The future participle requires a reference to a time subsequent to Moses ‘s ministry. The meaning is that Moses, in his entire ministry, was but a testimony to what was to be spoken in the future by another and a greater than he. Comp. Deu 18:15, explained of Christ in Act 3:22, 23.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “As Moses verily was,” (kai Mouses men) “And Moses was (existed), on the one hand,” in one area of factual consideration, Exo 32:9-14. Greatness exists in compassionate care for others. As those of the Law showed it for lost brethren how much more should we emulate that compassion of Christ for the lost and his church Luk 19:10; Mat 11:28; Joh 6:37; Eph 5:25; .
2) “Faithful in all his house,” (pistos en holo to oiko autou) “Faithful in his whole household,” in his duties over the household of his people, Israel,” very faithful, even to stand in the breach in intercession for them, when God would have blotted them out of existence, Psa 106:23. Tho they murmured against him and God, Moses interceded.
3) “As a servant,” (hos therapon) “As a special kind of servant,” Num 12:7; Deu 4:4-6; Isa 5:7. Jesus taught that the Greatest in the church must be willing to be servant of all,” Mat 20:25-28; Mat 23:11; Mar 10:42-45.
4) “For a testimony,” (eis marturion) “For a martyr-willing testator,” or testimony. Moses offered to die in the stead of Israel who had sinned so obstinately against God, Exo 32:30-32. Paul expressed this love also for his sinning kinsmen, Rom 9:1-3.
5)“Of those things which were to bespoken after,” (ton ialethesomenon) “Of the things being spoken, with reference to the future; that were yet certain to be fulfilled, Deu 18:15-18; The repeated sacrifices of Moses’ house of law-worship never cleansed any person of sin, Rom 3:21-22, else they would not have to be offered repeatedly, year after year, and Jesus would not have had to die, if remission or sins could have come by those offerings, Heb 10:1-3.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
5. And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, etc. The second difference is, that to Moses was committed a doctrine to which he, in common with others, was to submit; but Christ, though he put on the form of a servant, is yet Master and Lord, to whom all ought to be subject; for, as we found in Heb 1:2, he is constituted heir of all things.
For a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after, or which were afterwards to be said or declared. I explain this simply in this way, — that Moses, while a herald of that doctrine which was to be published for a time to the ancient people, did at the same time render a testimony to the Gospel, the publication of which was not as yet to be made; for it is doubtless evident, that the end and completion of the Law is that perfection of wisdom contained in the Gospel. This exposition seems to comport with the future tense of the participle. The meaning indeed is, that Moses faithfully delivered to the people what the Lord had committed to him, but that limits were prescribed to him which it was not lawful for him to pass. God formerly spoke at different times and in various ways by the prophets, but he deferred to the fullness of time the complete revelation of the Gospel.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) As a servant.What was before implied is now clearly expressed. Heb. 3:3 associated Moses with the house, Jesus with Him who builded it; of what nature this relation was, is stated in this verse and the next. Moses was in Gods house; however exalted his position, he was in the house as a servant. The Greek word used here does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, but is taken from the LXX. version of Num. 12:7. There is nothing special in the Hebrew word in that place, but the translators seem to have felt that bond-servant was less suitable in such a context than attendant or minister. The object of his service was that he might bear testimony of the things that should hereafter be spoken. Are we to understand by these the divine commands that would from time to time be given to Moses? If so, then the statement Moses was faithful must be regarded as a pure quotation, equivalent to Moses was at that time declared faithful. This does not seem probable. If, however, the words of Num. 12:7 are taken as descriptive of the whole life of Moses, his witness must relate to the things spoken in these last days; of these, by his writings, his acts, his life, Moses bore constant witness. (See Heb. 3:2; Heb. 8:5; Heb. 9:19; Heb. 11:26; Joh. 5:46, et al.) The latter interpretation is confirmed by Heb. 3:6, in which the name given to our Lord is not Jesus, as in Heb. 3:1, but Christ.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
5. Was faithful Against the Marcionites, who renounced Moses and the old dispensation, our author is generous and just to Moses. He depreciates not him; he only exalts Christ. The Hebrews are not shocked by any repudiation of their great founder; they are only pointed to a greater.
As a servant Not a slave, but a steward, superior to the family domestics, yet subordinate to the Son.
Things spoken after Namely, the revelations made in the after, or gospel, dispensation. It was the office of Moses to establish a dispensation which should be a testimony, a witness, a memento of future things to be done and spoken after his dispensation was past. Hence, he is prior in time but subordinate in position and purpose. And our gospel dispensation verifies itself by his testimony.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Moses indeed was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were afterward to be spoken, but Christ (Messiah) as a son, over his house.’
So, he declares, Moses was indeed great. As the servant of Yahweh (one who ‘renders willing service’ – therapon) he was faithful in his responsibilities to the nation from which he sprang, and from which he was called by God in order to be over them. And it was as so faithful that he gave forth a testimony of the things which were to be afterwards spoken, that is, of God’s Instruction and God’s covenant, and was a mediator in establishing that covenant, and could testify to all that was connected with it, and as to what was its true meaning. Truly Moses was great. He was the great Lawgiver, the great revealer of God’s ways, the great spokesman. He was the great Trek leader who called God’s people and both initiated and then led the great Trek towards deliverance. But another (Joshua, but even he failed – Heb 4:8) completed the Trek for he proved insufficient. And his insufficiency was demonstrated in that he pointed ahead to another yet to come, another like himself (Deu 18:18-19), and to a vision of a greater future (Gen 49:10-12; Num 24:17). He did not see himself as the be all and end all. Everything did not point to him
For even greater than Moses was the Messiah. He, as the writer has already revealed, was not a servant in the house but a Son over His house. He came not from the wilderness but from Heaven. He is the One, as he has already demonstrated, Who works all things on behalf of the house, He is their Source and Trek Leader from the beginning who will complete the Trek by bringing many sons to glory, He is their Sanctifier, their High Priest, and their Saviour, and in a unique sense their Elder Brother, and all as One Who as Son came from God. He is not of the house, but One Who is established over the house, that He might save them and thereby make them His house by uniting Himself with them.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Heb 3:5. And Moses verily was faithful, &c. Moses did nothing but under the direction and government of a superior, and acted merely as a servant under a master in the house, or church, or family of God. He was faithful even to his declaration of those things, which were afterwards more particularly spoken of. He declared that one should arise like himself, to whom they were to hearken. By testimony is meant a truth published or declared: Moses therefore did not speak of himself, as if he were the person in whom the promise made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, was to be fulfilled; but he was faithful as a servant, to testify what he was told of his Master; namely, that Christ was to come, and to be obeyed, when it should please the Father to send him. He faithfully delivered the will of his Master, so far as God was pleased to convey the knowledge of such a Person to him; but a much greater information was granted to them that came after, who described the manner, the times, and circumstances of his appearance. See Act 26:22. Luk 24:44. Joh 5:46-47.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Heb 3:5 as far as , Heb 3:6 . Return to the point of comparison between Christ and Moses, Heb 3:2 ( ), and the exaltedness of the former above the latter, Heb 3:3 ( , , ).
] is the more sharply-defining “and indeed;” whereas serves to bring into relief the personal name , and finds in , Heb 3:6 , its emphatic opposition. Heb 3:5-6 init . does not, accordingly, contain a second proof for the superiority of Christ to Moses (Calvin, Bengel, Tholuck, Ebrard, Woerner), but is only a more detailed unfolding of the thoughts, Heb 3:2 and Heb 3:3 .
] sc . , or else , in connection with which latter mode of supplementing, the thought would be less of the historic fact as such, than of the fact as it still continues present in the O. T. narrative.
] refers not to (as Ebrard assumes, since he starts with the erroneous presupposition that the author speaks of a twofold , and that the design of Heb 3:5-6 was just that of rendering clearly apparent the difference of the house entrusted to Moses on the one hand, and that entrusted to Christ on the other), but to , Heb 3:4 .
] in his capacity as servant , comp. Num 12:7 . Upon this, as upon the preceding , rests the emphasis of Heb 3:5 .
] belongs to . It is unnaturally referred back by Estius, Seb. Schmidt, Stengel, and others to
] to give testimony to that which should be spoken , or proclaimed to the people. are not the revelations afterwards to be given in Christ (Erasmus, Calvin, Cameron, Calov, Seb. Schmidt, Owen, Limborch, Wolf, Wetstein, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Ewald, M‘Caul, Woerner, and others), which must have been more precisely specified; and still less does the expression indicate: “dicenda a nobis in hac epistola de cerimoniis earumque significatione et usu” (Pareus), but the law to be proclaimed by Moses, at the mandate of God, to the Jewish people is intended.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
DISCOURSE: 2279
CHRISTS SUPERIORITY TO MOSES
Heb 3:5-6. Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.
IN order to have a just conception of the Christian dispensation, we must above all things acquire scriptural views of the person of Christ, as God and man, and of his mediatorial character, as Emmanuel, God with us. It is in this latter view more especially, that we are led to contemplate him throughout this whole epistle. As God, he is the brightness of his Fathers glory, and the express image of his person; whilst, as man, he has purged our sins, and is set down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [Note: Heb 1:3.]: but it is as God and man in one Christ that his sacrifice becomes effectual for this great end. It is in his mediatorial capacity, as God-man, that he is exalted above all the angels in heaven, who are expressly enjoined to worship him [Note: Heb 1:4-6.]. And it is in the same capacity that we are now called upon to consider him as the Apostle and High-priest of our profession [Note: ver. 1.]. As the Apostle of our profession, sent like Moses, to instruct us in the mind and will of God, he is superior to Moses, whose instructions he is sent to supersede. And, in like manner, will his superiority to Aaron also be declared, when we shall come, in a subsequent part of this epistle, to consider his priesthood. It is the comparison between him and Moses which alone we have to notice at this time.
We proceed then to mark,
I.
The superiority of Christ to Moses
The character given of Moses is most exalted
[He was faithful in all Gods house [Note: Num 12:7.]. From the first moment of his undertaking the office that was assigned him, he was faithful in the discharge of it. Whatever was commanded him to do, he did; adding nothing, omitting nothing, neglecting nothing. Whether the commands were moral or ceremonial, he was observant of every the minutest direction that was given him. He was aware that all which he was commissioned to say or do, had respect to a future period, and was intended to shadow forth something under a future dispensation: and so accurate was he in every particular, that there is not the smallest want of agreement between the Jewish and Christian codes, the one answering to the other, as the coin to the die by which it is stamped. As the tabernacle, even to the smallest pin, was made according to the pattern shew to him in the mount; so was that whole dispensation in perfect accordance with that under which we live.
Much he had to try him, and to shake his fidelity: but he was immoveable. Nothing could for a moment divert him from his duty, or cause him to relax his efforts in his Masters cause. And in this fidelity he stood alone. Aaron and Miriam both turned aside from the path of duty; yea, both confederated even against Moses himself. But Moses was steadfast to the end, unmoved, unwearied, unrestrained.]
But Christ in this respect was exalted infinitely above him
[Christ also was faithful in all his house. He delivered nothing which he had not previously heard and learned of his Father: but all which had been given him either to do or teach, he did and taught with all imaginable fidelity: yea, and what he was ordained to suffer also for the sins of men, he patiently endured, drinking the bitter cup even to the dregs, and never stopping till he could say, in relation to it all, Tis finished.
Thus far the two may be supposed to have been upon an equality. But there are some points of difference between them, which exalt the office and character of Christ far above that of Moses. Moses was a servant in the house of another: Christ was a Son, or Lord, over his own house. Moses only instructed his house: but Christ was the very source and builder of the house he governed; every member of it having been created by his power, and redeemed by his blood, and converted by his grace. The house itself would have had no existence but for him. Now, as the builder of a house, whether in a literal, political, or religious sense, must be far above the work which he has prepared; so must Christ, who formed his house, be far above every member of it: and as being the only true source of every thing in the Church, he must be truly and properly God [Note: ver. 4.]; and consequently have infinitely higher glory than Moses, who was only a member of the very house which he himself was appointed to instruct and govern.]
That this superiority of his is not a mere speculative point, will appear, if we consider,
II.
Our interest in it
We are his house
[The Church is called in Scripture the house of God [Note: 1Ti 3:15.]: and if we have truly believed in Christ, we are that house. We are those for whom all the wonders of redeeming love were planned; those for whom all that Christ has ever executed was undertaken; those for whose sake he has hitherto ordered all things both in heaven and earth; those over whom he still watches as his peculiar care; and those for whom he is engaged to complete the work he has begun. Wonderful thought! We are his house, his family, his peculiar people!. What an honour! what a privilege! what a blessing!
But it is here taken for granted, that we have believed in him, and made him the one foundation of all our hopes, and boldly confessed him in the presence of an ungodly world:]
And under this character we have appropriate duties and obligations
[We must hold fast our confidence, and the rejoicing of our hope firm unto the end. We shall have difficulties to encounter, even as Moses and Christ had: but we must endure like them, being steadfast, unmoveable, and always abounding in the work of the Lord. Whatever we may meet with, we must not for a moment be moved away from the hope of the Gospel: we must stand fast in our principles [Note: Eph 4:14.] our practice [Note: Heb 10:26.] our profession [Note: Heb 10:23.] for on our steadfastness in these things our ultimate acceptance with him depends. If we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: but if we deny him, he will deny us. And if we believe not (either the one or other of these sayings), yet he abideth faithful (to his word); he cannot deny himself [Note: 2Ti 2:12.]; He will be with us, whilst we are with him: if we seek him, he will he found of us: but if we forsake him, he will forsake us [Note: 2Ch 15:2.].]
Improvement
1.
Let us put ourselves under his direction
[Christ is the great Head and Lord of all. From him we must receive directions, as he did from his Father, and as Moses did also. Nothing is to be done by us but according to his word; nothing to be done which he has forbidden; nothing to be omitted which he has commanded: no deviation is to be admitted in a way of excess or defect. If doubt at any time arise respecting the path of duty, we must consult him, and not proceed, till we have attained, so far as we can attain, the knowledge of his will. Human opinions are to have no weight with us in opposition to his word. And if we see not as yet the reasons of his commands, as Moses certainly did not in relation to the ceremonial law, we are not on that account to disobey them, but in all humility to comply with them, saying, What I know not now, I shall know hereafter [Note: Joh 13:6-7.]. Nor are we to complain of any commandment as difficult or self-denying; but to disregard even life itself, if by the sacrifice of it He may be glorified [Note: Php 1:20.]. Admirable was the lesson which the Jews were taught in the wilderness: if the pillar and the cloud moved for several days and nights together, they continued to follow it: and if it was stationary for a year together, they were stationary also. Thus it should be with us: we should move when, and where, and as the Lord prescribes, and in that way alone, to the latest hour of our lives.]
2.
Let us endeavour to approve ourselves to him in our respective spheres
[He walked amongst the seven golden candlesticks, the seven Churches of Asia, and declared to each of them, I know thy works. And still are his eyes as a flame of fire to penetrate the inmost recesses of our hearts. We must not therefore be satisfied with walking irreproachably before men, but must labour to approve ourselves to Him who searcheth the heart and trieth the reins. We must be attentive not to our actions only, but to our motives and principles, that, if possible, every thought may be brought into captivity to his will. We must seek to obtain from God that testimony which he bore to Moses, that we are faithful in all our house. Let us look to it, that as parents and children, masters and servants, rulers and subjects, we do all that he has required of us. Let us labour to serve him with a perfect heart; so that in all our commerce with men, and in our secret walk with God, we may have the witness of his Spirit that we please him [Note: Heb 11:5.]; and may receive from him in the last day that testimony of his approbation, Well done, good and faithful servants, enter ye into the joy of your Lord.]
3.
Let us expect from him all that he has undertaken for us
[Still does he superintend the concerns of his Church: and though he has wrought much for us, yet is there much that yet remains to be done, and much that he has promised to be accomplished. But his promises are sure to all his seed [Note: Rom 4:16.]: not one of them shall ever fail: nor shall even the least member of his house ever have occasion to complain that he was disappointed of his hope. Joshuas testimony shall be that of all the Church in the last day, that of all which God has promised, not one thing has failed [Note: Jos 23:14.]. Take hold then of his promises, and plead them before him. If they appear too great to be fulfilled, stagger not at them, but hope against hope, and be strong in faith, giving glory to God [Note: Rom 4:18; Rom 4:20.]. If your tribulations be great, let them not for a moment obstruct your rejoicing in him; but maintain your glorying firm unto the end. See the utmost desires of a bleeding soul all concentrated in one short prayer; and, for the accomplishment of them, rest not merely on the love and power of Jesus, but on his fidelity: and when you have been praying that the very God of peace would sanctify you wholly, and that your whole spirit, and soul, and body, may be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, then add, Faithful is He that hath called me, who also will do it [Note: 1Th 5:23-24.].]
Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)
5 And Moses verily was faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
Ver. 5. As a servant ] Famulus ingenuus, a servant of the better sort, a man of worship, as the word seemet.h to import ( , ex verbo ); though it be honour enough to be Christ’s servant, of the meaner in his family. Constantinus, Valentinianus, and Theodosius, three emperors, called themselves Vassallos Christi, the vassals of Christ as Socrates testifieth.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5 .] The argument proceeds, resuming the common ground of Heb 3:2 ; and Moses indeed (inasmuch as following has the effect of bringing out, and thus emphasizing, , this may almost be treated as a particle of disparagement: cf. Isocr. Panegyr. p. 178, , “which is called indeed but really is ”) ( was ) faithful in all His (God’s, cf. above the words of the citation, on Heb 3:2 ) house, as a servant (cf. as above; the word (see reff.) is often applied by the LXX to Moses. So also Wis 10:16 ; Barnabas, Ep. c. 14, ( ), . differs from , in embracing all who are, whether by occasion or by office, subservient to another: thus the Etym. Mag.: , , , , “ ” , , “ .” Wetst., who also cites Apollonius, Ammonius, and Eustathius, to the same effect. This of course would allow the same person to be called by both names, as Moses is in Jos 1:1-2 F. (not A), and al. Bleek well remarks here, that , had it been used of Moses in the place cited, would have served the Writer’s purpose here just as well for the argument, but not for the words . , which here follow, indicating the nature of his ), for testimony of the things which were to be (afterwards) spoken (these words are not to be joined with , as Bleek, Ln., al., nor, as Estius, al., with ; but with the whole preceding sentence: the purpose of the faithful service of Moses in God’s house was, . . . . In considering the meaning of the words, surely we must look further than the commonly received shallow interpretation which refers them to the things which Moses himself was to speak to the people by God’s command. For how could his fidelity , comprehending as it does the whole of his official life, be said to be by him to the people? It seems to me that neither ( ) nor ( ) will bear such an interpretation. And yet it is acquiesced in by Syr. (“in testimonium eorum qu loquenda erant in ejus manu”), Chrys. (not perhaps exactly: , ; , , , : but this surely will not suit the gen. .), Thdrt. ( , . , . .), Thl. ( , . ), c., Primas., Est., Corn.-a-Lap., Grot., Hamm., &c., Stuart, De W., Bleek, Lnem. But, 1. the with seems best to express an ulterior purpose of the whole of that which is spoken of in the preceding clause: cf. the same combination in reff. Gospp.: 2. the neut. gen. after is best understood of that to which the testimony referred, as in Act 4:33 ; 1Co 1:6 ; 1Co 2:1 ; 2Ti 1:8 : and 3. the future participle requires that the should be referred to a time wholly subsequent to the ministry of Moses. This has been felt by some of the expositors, and curiously evaded: e. g. by Jac. Cappellus, “Rationi consentaneum erat ut statim initio fidelissimus comperiretur Moses, quo fide dignius esset testimonium quod postea perhibiturus erat in monte Sinai.” But unfortunately for this view, the incident from which this divine testimony to Moses is quoted, was long subsequent to the delivery of the law from Sinai. If then we are pointed onward to future time for , what are they? What, but the matter of the divine of our ch. Heb 1:1 ? The whole ministry of Moses was, of these . And when Bleek says that the participle would not be put thus absolutely with such a signification, but would be qualified by , or , or the like, or expressed , we may well answer that the Writer, having in ch. Heb 1:1 laid down as a common term for the revelations of the two dispensations, and again taken it up ch. Heb 2:2-3 , had no need again to qualify it further than by the future participle. I interpret it then to mean the Gospel, with Calvin (“Moses, dum est ejus doctrin prco, qu pro temporis ratione veteri populo erat prdicanda, simul testimonium Evangelio, cujus nondum matura prdicatio erat, reddidit. Nam certe constat, finem et complementum legis esse hanc perfectionem sapienti qu evangelio continetur. Atque hanc expositionem exigere viaetur futurum participii tempus”), Owen (“ . represents things future unto what he did in his whole ministry. This our translation rightly observes, rendering it, ‘the things that should be spoken after.’ And this as well the order of the words as the import of them doth require. In his ministry he was a testimony, or, by what he did in the service of the house he gave testimony: whereunto? to the things that were afterwards to be spoken, viz. in the fulness of time, the appointed season, by the Messiah: i. e. the things of the gospel. And this indeed was the proper end of all that Moses did or ordered in the house of God”), Cameron, Calov., Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Wolf, Peirce, Wetstein, Cramer, Baumg., al., Ebrard, and, as I have found since writing the above note, Hofmann and Delitzsch): but Christ (scil. ( ), to correspond with the , . . . above, Heb 3:2 . Some would supply only, as Erasm. (paraphr.), “At Christus, ut conditor ac filius, administravit suam ipsius domum:” but thus the parallelism would be broken. Then, supplying , are we to join it with . , as in Mat 25:21 ; Mat 25:23 , , or to insert it before , and take it absolutely? Certainly the latter, as shewn by the order of the words in the previous sentence; the ellipsis here being, to judge by that order, between and , not between and ) as a Son over his house ( here again of God , not primarily, though of course by inference, of Christ. The house is God’s throughout: but Christ is of primary authority and glory in it, inasmuch as He is the Son in the house, and actually established the house. This, which I am persuaded is required by the context, is shewn decisively by ch. Heb 10:21 , . So Chrys. ( , ), Thdrt. (on the following words: , . . .), D-lat. (but with “ in ,” “Christus autem tanquam filius in domo ejus:” vulg. has “in domo sua”), Jerome (Ep. 18, ad Damas. 5, vol. i. p. 49, “Christus autem ut filius super domum ejus”), Corn.-a-Lap., Schlichting, Peirce, Bengel, Storr, Morus, Abresch, Dindorf, al.: and recently, Stuart (but only as a question between and , and apparently without being aware that may have both meanings), and Lnemann. The greater number of Commentators refer it to Christ: many of them writing it , to which Bleek well replies, that had the Writer intended the emphatic reflexive pronoun to be understood, writing as he did without accents, he would certainly have used , in a matter so easily confused. Of the rest, some, e. g. Ebrard, take as referring to Christ: and others, as simply the reflexive pronoun after the generic : “as a son over his (own) house:” thus Bhme, Bleek, De Wette, al. But thus the parallelism is destroyed, and in fact the identity of the house in the two cases, on which depends the strictness of the comparison between Moses and Christ. Most of the expositors have not felt this: but Ebrard has distinctly maintained that two houses are intended: “In the one house serves Moses for a testimony of the future revelations of God, the itself being part of the : the other , the of Christ, are we : it is a living house, built of living stones.” But this introduces a complicated comparison, and to my mind infinitely weakens the argument. There is but one house throughout, and that one, the Church of God, in which both are faithful; one as a servant, the other as a son: this house was Israel, this house are we, if we are found faithful in the covenant. So also I am glad to see Delitzsch takes the sentence. Dec. 31, 1858), whose (not (except by inference) Christ’s , as c., Jac. Cappellus, Estius, Owen, Bleek, De Wette, Ebrard, al., but, God’s , as Chrys. ( , , . . .), Thdrt. (see above on ), Thl. (as Chrys., recognizing, however, Christ also, as the possessor of the house, , ), Calvin (“Additur hc admonitio, tunc eos in Dei familia locum habituros, si Christo pareant”), al., and Delitzsch. Besides the considerations urged above as affecting the question, we have the strong argument from Scripture analogy, cf. besides reff., 1Co 3:16-17 ; 2Co 6:16 ; Eph 2:22 ; ch. Heb 10:21 ; Heb 12:22 ; Rev 3:12 ; which alone, especially ch. Heb 10:21 , would go very far with me to decide the question) house (some, e. g. Bengel who would read , urge the omission of the article here as against : adducing such expressions as , , , , , , , . But in every one of these the subject is distributed: whereas here and are not commensurate, the proposition merely expressing categorical inclusion, and God’s house being far wider than . Compare the precisely similar passage, 1Pe 3:6 , ( ) . . .) are we (the Writer and his Hebrew readers: = of whose house we are, even as Moses was), if we hold fast (reff. Bleek objects to the shorter text here, that the Writer has twice besides used this verb, and both times with a tertiary adjectival predicate: see reff. But such a consideration can hardly override critical evidence) the confidence (reff.: not, “ free and open confession ,” as Grot. (“professio Christianismi aperta”), Hamm., Limborch, al., which would not suit , a purely subjective word) and the (notice the article, which shews that this second noun is not merely explicative of the first, nor To Be Ranked In The Same category with it) matter of boasting (the concrete: not here to be confounded (although the confusion certainly did take place sometimes) with , the abstract, as is done by Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, &c. As was subjective, our confidence , so is this objective, the object whereon that confidence is founded : see notes on reff. 2 Cor., where the same mistake has been made. And is no objection to this: we may ‘hold fast’ an object of faith, though (see above) we could not ‘hold fast,’ except in a very far-off sense, an outward practice, such as a bold profession) of our hope ( , , : Chrys. See reff. and Rom 5:2 ).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 3:5 . . Another reason for expecting to find fidelity in Jesus and for ascribing to Him greater glory. Moses was faithful as a servant in the house ( ), Christ as a Son over ( ) his house. denotes a free servant in an honourable position and is the word applied to Moses in Num 12:7 . [“Apud Homerum nomen est non servile sed ministros significat voluntarios, nec raro de viris dicitur nobili genere natis” (Stephanus). It is especially used of those who serve the gods. See Pindar Olymp . iii. 29.] Both the fidelity and the inferior position of Moses are indicated in the words which occur like a refrain in Exodus: “According to all that the Lord commanded, so did he”. Nothing was left to his own initiative; he had to be instructed and commanded; but all that was entrusted to him, he executed with absolute exactness. The crowning proof of his fidelity was given in the extraordinary scene (Exo 37 ), where Moses refused to be “made a great nation” in room of Israel. He is said to have been faithful . The meaning is, the testimony to his faithfulness which God had pronounced was the guarantee of the trustworthiness of the report he gave of what the Lord afterwards spoke to him. This meaning seems to be determined by the context in Num 12 . “My servant Moses is faithful in all my house. I will speak to him mouth to mouth, apparently and not in dark speeches.” Grotius says “ut pronuntiaret populo ea quae Deus ei dicenda quoquo tempore mandabat”. Bleek and Davidson refer the to Moses not to God. “He was a servant for a testimony, i.e. , to bear testimony of those things which were to be spoken, i.e. , from time to time revealed. Reference might be made to Barnabas viii. 3, . . The meaning advocated by Calvin, Delitzsch, Westcott and others is attractive. They understand the words as referring to the things which were to be spoken by Christ, and that the whole of Moses’ work was for a testimony of those things. Thus Westcott translates “for a testimony of the things which should be spoken by God through the prophets and finally through Christ”. This gives a fine range to the words, but the context in Numbers is decisively against it. The idea seems to be that Moses being but a needed a testimonial to his fidelity that the people might trust him; and also that he had no initiative but could only report to the people the words that God might speak to him. In contrast to this position of Moses, , Christ’s fidelity was that of “a Son over his house”. It was not the fidelity which exactly performs what another commands and faithfully enters into and fulfils His will. It is the fidelity of one who himself is possessed by the same love and conceives the same purposes as the Father. The interests of the house and the family are the Son’s interests. “We are His house” and in Christ we see that the interests of God and man, of the Father and the family are one. [Grotius quotes the jurisconsults: “etiam vivente patre filium quodam modo dominum esse rerum paternarum”.] But this house so faithfully administered by the Son Himself is the body of Christian people, , we are those on whom this fidelity is spent. The relative finds its antecedent in . The “house of God” is, in the Gospels, the Temple; but in 1Pe 4:17 and 1Ti 3:15 it has the same meaning as here, the people or Church of God. “Whose house are we,” but with a condition , “if we shall have held fast our confidence and the glorying of our hope firm to the end”. For, as throughout the Epistle, so here, all turns on perseverance, originally “frank speech,” hence the boldness which prompts it. Cf. Heb 4:16 , Heb 10:19 ; Heb 10:35 ; so in Paul and John. , not as the form of the word might indicate, “the object of boasting,” but the disposition as in 1Co 5:6 : and 2Co 5:12 : . [ Cf. the interchange of and in Joh 4:32 ; Joh 4:34 , and Jannaris, Hist. Gk. Gram. , 1021 and 1155.] Whether belongs to both substantives is doubtful. The Christian’s hope of a heavenly inheritance (Heb 3:1 ), of perfected fellowship with God, should be so sure that it confidently proclaims itself, and instead of being shamefaced glories in the future it anticipates. And this attitude must be maintained , until difficulty and trial are past and hope has become possession. In agreement with the remoter substantive, which might give some colour to the idea that the expression was lifted from Heb 3:14 and inserted here; but Bleek shows by several instances that the construction is legitimate.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
servant. Greek. therapon. App-190. Used of Moses. EX. Heb 14:31 (Septuagint)
to be spoken after = about to be spoken. Greek. laleo. App-121.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5.] The argument proceeds, resuming the common ground of Heb 3:2; and Moses indeed (inasmuch as following has the effect of bringing out, and thus emphasizing, , this may almost be treated as a particle of disparagement: cf. Isocr. Panegyr. p. 178, , -which is called indeed but really is ) (was) faithful in all His (Gods, cf. above the words of the citation, on Heb 3:2) house, as a servant (cf. as above; the word (see reff.) is often applied by the LXX to Moses. So also Wis 10:16; Barnabas, Ep. c. 14, ( ), . differs from , in embracing all who are, whether by occasion or by office, subservient to another: thus the Etym. Mag.: , , , , , , . Wetst., who also cites Apollonius, Ammonius, and Eustathius, to the same effect. This of course would allow the same person to be called by both names, as Moses is in Jos 1:1-2 F. (not A), and al. Bleek well remarks here, that , had it been used of Moses in the place cited, would have served the Writers purpose here just as well for the argument, but not for the words . , which here follow, indicating the nature of his ), for testimony of the things which were to be (afterwards) spoken (these words are not to be joined with , as Bleek, Ln., al., nor, as Estius, al., with ; but with the whole preceding sentence: the purpose of the faithful service of Moses in Gods house was, . … In considering the meaning of the words, surely we must look further than the commonly received shallow interpretation which refers them to the things which Moses himself was to speak to the people by Gods command. For how could his fidelity , comprehending as it does the whole of his official life, be said to be by him to the people? It seems to me that neither ( ) nor ( ) will bear such an interpretation. And yet it is acquiesced in by Syr. (in testimonium eorum qu loquenda erant in ejus manu), Chrys. (not perhaps exactly: , ; , , , : but this surely will not suit the gen. .), Thdrt. ( , . , . .), Thl. ( , . ), c., Primas., Est., Corn.-a-Lap., Grot., Hamm., &c., Stuart, De W., Bleek, Lnem. But, 1. the with seems best to express an ulterior purpose of the whole of that which is spoken of in the preceding clause: cf. the same combination in reff. Gospp.:-2. the neut. gen. after is best understood of that to which the testimony referred, as in Act 4:33; 1Co 1:6; 1Co 2:1; 2Ti 1:8 :-and 3. the future participle requires that the should be referred to a time wholly subsequent to the ministry of Moses. This has been felt by some of the expositors, and curiously evaded: e. g. by Jac. Cappellus, Rationi consentaneum erat ut statim initio fidelissimus comperiretur Moses, quo fide dignius esset testimonium quod postea perhibiturus erat in monte Sinai. But unfortunately for this view, the incident from which this divine testimony to Moses is quoted, was long subsequent to the delivery of the law from Sinai. If then we are pointed onward to future time for , what are they? What, but the matter of the divine of our ch. Heb 1:1? The whole ministry of Moses was, of these . And when Bleek says that the participle would not be put thus absolutely with such a signification, but would be qualified by , or , or the like, or expressed , we may well answer that the Writer, having in ch. Heb 1:1 laid down as a common term for the revelations of the two dispensations, and again taken it up ch. Heb 2:2-3, had no need again to qualify it further than by the future participle. I interpret it then to mean the Gospel, with Calvin (Moses, dum est ejus doctrin prco, qu pro temporis ratione veteri populo erat prdicanda, simul testimonium Evangelio, cujus nondum matura prdicatio erat, reddidit. Nam certe constat, finem et complementum legis esse hanc perfectionem sapienti qu evangelio continetur. Atque hanc expositionem exigere viaetur futurum participii tempus), Owen (. represents things future unto what he did in his whole ministry. This our translation rightly observes, rendering it, the things that should be spoken after. And this as well the order of the words as the import of them doth require. In his ministry he was a testimony, or, by what he did in the service of the house he gave testimony: whereunto? to the things that were afterwards to be spoken, viz. in the fulness of time, the appointed season, by the Messiah: i. e. the things of the gospel. And this indeed was the proper end of all that Moses did or ordered in the house of God), Cameron, Calov., Seb. Schmidt, Limborch, Wolf, Peirce, Wetstein, Cramer, Baumg., al., Ebrard, and, as I have found since writing the above note, Hofmann and Delitzsch): but Christ (scil. (), to correspond with the , … above, Heb 3:2. Some would supply only, as Erasm. (paraphr.), At Christus, ut conditor ac filius, administravit suam ipsius domum: but thus the parallelism would be broken. Then, supplying , are we to join it with . , as in Mat 25:21; Mat 25:23, , or to insert it before , and take it absolutely? Certainly the latter, as shewn by the order of the words in the previous sentence; the ellipsis here being, to judge by that order, between and , not between and ) as a Son over his house ( here again of God,-not primarily, though of course by inference, of Christ. The house is Gods throughout: but Christ is of primary authority and glory in it, inasmuch as He is the Son in the house, and actually established the house. This, which I am persuaded is required by the context, is shewn decisively by ch. Heb 10:21, . So Chrys. ( , ), Thdrt. (on the following words: , …), D-lat. (but with in,-Christus autem tanquam filius in domo ejus: vulg. has in domo sua), Jerome (Ep. 18, ad Damas. 5, vol. i. p. 49, Christus autem ut filius super domum ejus), Corn.-a-Lap., Schlichting, Peirce, Bengel, Storr, Morus, Abresch, Dindorf, al.: and recently, Stuart (but only as a question between and , and apparently without being aware that may have both meanings), and Lnemann. The greater number of Commentators refer it to Christ: many of them writing it , to which Bleek well replies, that had the Writer intended the emphatic reflexive pronoun to be understood, writing as he did without accents, he would certainly have used , in a matter so easily confused. Of the rest, some, e. g. Ebrard, take as referring to Christ: and others, as simply the reflexive pronoun after the generic : as a son over his (own) house: thus Bhme, Bleek, De Wette, al. But thus the parallelism is destroyed, and in fact the identity of the house in the two cases, on which depends the strictness of the comparison between Moses and Christ. Most of the expositors have not felt this: but Ebrard has distinctly maintained that two houses are intended: In the one house serves Moses for a testimony of the future revelations of God, the itself being part of the : the other , the of Christ, are we: it is a living house, built of living stones. But this introduces a complicated comparison, and to my mind infinitely weakens the argument. There is but one house throughout, and that one, the Church of God, in which both are faithful; one as a servant, the other as a son: this house was Israel, this house are we, if we are found faithful in the covenant. So also I am glad to see Delitzsch takes the sentence. Dec. 31, 1858), whose (not (except by inference) Christs, as c., Jac. Cappellus, Estius, Owen, Bleek, De Wette, Ebrard, al., but, Gods,-as Chrys. ( , , …), Thdrt. (see above on ), Thl. (as Chrys., recognizing, however, Christ also, as the possessor of the house, , ), Calvin (Additur hc admonitio, tunc eos in Dei familia locum habituros, si Christo pareant), al., and Delitzsch. Besides the considerations urged above as affecting the question, we have the strong argument from Scripture analogy, cf. besides reff., 1Co 3:16-17; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:22; ch. Heb 10:21; Heb 12:22; Rev 3:12; which alone, especially ch. Heb 10:21, would go very far with me to decide the question) house (some, e. g. Bengel who would read , urge the omission of the article here as against : adducing such expressions as , , , , , , , . But in every one of these the subject is distributed: whereas here and are not commensurate, the proposition merely expressing categorical inclusion, and Gods house being far wider than . Compare the precisely similar passage, 1Pe 3:6, () …) are we (the Writer and his Hebrew readers: = of whose house we are, even as Moses was), if we hold fast (reff. Bleek objects to the shorter text here, that the Writer has twice besides used this verb, and both times with a tertiary adjectival predicate: see reff. But such a consideration can hardly override critical evidence) the confidence (reff.: not, free and open confession, as Grot. (professio Christianismi aperta), Hamm., Limborch, al., which would not suit , a purely subjective word) and the (notice the article, which shews that this second noun is not merely explicative of the first, nor To Be Ranked In The Same category with it) matter of boasting (the concrete: not here to be confounded (although the confusion certainly did take place sometimes) with , the abstract, as is done by Bleek, De Wette, Tholuck, &c. As was subjective, our confidence, so is this objective, the object whereon that confidence is founded: see notes on reff. 2 Cor., where the same mistake has been made. And is no objection to this: we may hold fast an object of faith, though (see above) we could not hold fast, except in a very far-off sense, an outward practice, such as a bold profession) of our hope ( , , : Chrys. See reff. and Rom 5:2).
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Heb 3:5. , and) Another reason for the superiority of Christ to Moses.-, servant) So the LXX., Num 12:7. This intimates the excellence of Moses in comparison with all other prophets; but again it speaks of Moses as inferior to Christ the Lord.-, for) He was a servant, in order that testimony should be given by him.- , of those things which were to be spoken) which Moses was to speak (ch. Heb 9:19), chiefly of Christ; and subsequently Christ Himself was about to speak. In ch. Heb 9:19, there is a verbal parallelism, which however at the same time infers a like reason, viz. what Moses, in accordance with the time, Numbers 12, both had spoken and was about to speak. Miriam did not assail the authority of Moses respecting the past; but she wished to claim just as much for herself for the future, on account of certain past specimens (of God speaking by her and Aaron).
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
faithful: Heb 3:2, Num 12:7, Mat 24:45, Mat 25:21, Luk 12:42, Luk 16:10-12, 1Co 4:2, 1Ti 1:12
as: Exo 14:31, Deu 3:24, Deu 34:5, Jos 1:2, Jos 1:7, Jos 1:15, Jos 8:31, Jos 8:33, Neh 9:14, Psa 105:26
for: Heb 8:5, Heb 9:8-13, Heb 9:24, Deu 18:15-19, Luk 24:27, Luk 24:44, Joh 5:39, Joh 5:46, Joh 5:47, Act 3:22, Act 3:23, Act 7:37, Act 28:23, Rom 3:21, 1Pe 1:10-12
Reciprocal: Num 9:5 – according Num 9:8 – I will Num 29:40 – General Deu 4:5 – General Deu 31:30 – General Deu 34:10 – there arose 2Ki 18:12 – Moses Isa 8:16 – the testimony Mat 12:41 – behold Joh 1:17 – the law Joh 8:35 – but 2Co 3:9 – exceed Heb 2:17 – a merciful Heb 4:14 – a great Rev 15:3 – the servant
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Heb 3:5. Moses did not build the house (Jewish nation), but he was given the honor of being a servant over it. Since he was a faithful servant, his behaviour and teaching became a testimony or background for the things which were to be spoken afterward, meaning the ordinances under Christ. (See Rom 15:4.)
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 3:5. In all his house, i.e Gods house.
Fox a testimony, i.e his work was preparatory, testifying as He did to things that were afterwards to be revealed (chap. Heb 1:2).
As a servant. The word for servant in this verse, which is often applied in O. T. to Moses, includes all the work that naturally falls to an attendant on another, even what is most confidential.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Heb 3:5-6. And Moses verily Another proof of the pre-eminence of Christ above Moses; was faithful in all his house as a servant , minister, or officer. In describing the faithfulness of Moses, when, under God, he built the Jewish Church, God called him, (Num 12:7,) My servant Moses. From this the apostle justly inferred that Moses was not a legislator, but only a messenger from the legislator, or his minister. This was his place, this his dignity and honour; and it was amplified by the considerations, that he was faithful in his service was a servant in the house of God and was not thus employed, and thus faithful, in this or that part, this or that service of Gods house, but in his whole house, and all the concernments of it. Herein was he different from all others in the same service in the Old Testament; one was employed in one part of it, another in another; one to instruct, another to reform it, one to renew a neglected ordinance, another to give new instructions; no one but he was used in the service of the whole house. For a testimony of the things, &c. That is, because the Jewish Church was designed for a testimony of the things which were afterward to be spoken by Christ and his apostles. This shows that Mosess faithfulness consisted not only in forming the tabernacle and its services, according to the pattern showed him by God, but in recording all the preceding revelations, exactly as they were discovered to him by the Spirit. For these revelations, equally with the types and figures of the Levitical ritual, were intended to exhibit the things afterward to be spoken by Christ. Hence our Lord said to the Jews, (Joh 5:46,) Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me; namely, in the figures, but especially in the prophecies of his law, where the gospel dispensation, the coming of its author, and his character as Messiah, are all described with a precision which adds the greatest lustre of evidence to Jesus and his gospel. See Luk 24:44. But Christ as a Son That is, was faithful as a Son; over his own house Every word proves the asserted pre-eminence of Christ; he is a Son, Moses a servant; he over the house, Moses in the house; he over his own house, Moses in the house of another. The argument of the apostle therefore is obvious. Owen. But Pierce objects to this version, over his own house, and thinks the reading ought to be his, that is, Gods house; 1st, Because if the church be Christs own house, to speak of him as a Son was improper, by reason that he would have presided over it as its master. 2d, Because the apostles argument requires that Christ be faithful to the same person as a Son, to whom Moses was faithful as a servant. Wherefore his house, he thinks, in this verse, is Gods house or church. Inasmuch, however, as Christ is the heir of all things, it may with the utmost propriety be said that the church is his own house, that is, the house in which he hath not only a trust and office, but also a property; which is appointed for him to inhabit and preside over, and which is still more especially his own, as it was purchased with his own blood, Act 20:28. Whose house we All true believers; are Or shall make it appear that we are, namely, lively stones in the spiritual temple built upon him, 1Pe 2:5; and inhabited by him, Eph 2:20-22; 1Co 3:16; 1Co 6:19; and true members of his family, his servants, yea, even his brethren and sisters; if we hold fast the confidence , properly, the liberty of speech; that is, that bold profession of the Christian faith which in the first age was so dangerous, exposing those who made it frequently to imprisonment and martyrdom, but which was absolutely necessary to the continuance of the gospel in the world; and therefore it was expressly required by Christ, Mat 10:32-33. See Heb 10:22-23. The apostle uses another word, namely, , to express confidence, as Heb 3:14. And the rejoicing Or, glorying, as signifies; of hope Hope of eternal life founded on Gods promises, namely, the hope which we professed at our baptism; firm Without declining from or being shaken in it; keeping it up against all that fluctuating uncertainty of mind, which is apt to invade and possess unstable persons; unto the end That is, as long as we live; not for the present season only, but in all future occurrences until we come to the end of our faith, the final salvation of our souls. Now, in order to this, great care and watchfulness, zeal, diligence, and resolution must be exercised, because of the opposition and violence that will be used to wrest them from us. Hence the exhortation contained in the following paragraph.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
3:5 And {5} Moses verily [was] faithful in all his house, as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after;
(5) Another comparison: Moses was a faithful servant in this house, that is, in the Church, serving the Lord that was to come, but Christ rules and governs his house as Lord.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Moses functioned as a servant (Gr. therapon, one who freely renders personal service) preparing something that would serve as a model for a later time. The tabernacle was a model of the real temple from which Jesus Christ will reign eventually (cf. Heb 1:8-13; Heb 2:8), first in the Millennium and then in the new heavens and earth. It is a spiritual temple in contrast with the physical tabernacle. Messiah’s rule over the earth was a revelation about which the prophets who followed Moses spoke more fully. Jesus Christ will not serve. He will reign. He is not God’s servant but God’s Son. As such, He sits. He does not stand like a servant. He is the possessor of all things, not one who makes preparation for things, as Moses did.
"By defining Moses’ service in this way, the writer indicates that Moses’ status as servant corresponds to that of the angels, who are servants to the heirs of salvation (see . . . Heb 1:14)." [Note: Ibid., p. 78.]
God’s house over which Jesus Christ sits in authority represents the whole system of worship that our Lord inaugurated with the New Covenant. He sits in God’s place, the holy of holies of this house. The tabernacle foreshadowed this final system of worship in which Jesus rules as King Priest. The tabernacle was a microcosm of God’s greater house. Moses served in the model (prototype) faithfully. Jesus rules over the larger house faithfully, not as a servant, but as God’s Son with full authority.
"In some sections of Jewish Christianity Christ’s role was envisaged as primarily that of a second Moses; here He is presented as being much more than that." [Note: Bruce, p. 58.]