Hebrews 8:2

‘A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.’

And in this new position He is a minister (leitourgos - official state appointee but used of priestly service in LXX, therefore God’s official appointee) of the heavenly sanctuary, the true tabernacle where the perfect work necessary for our continuing salvation can be accomplished. This is the true tabernacle of which the earthly was but a copy. It is the heavenly tabernacle, pitched by God and not man, without fault, permanent and secure and necessarily perfect. It is the tabernacle which will never need again to be removed. It is in Heaven itself indicating the place of God’s presence on His throne. There is therefore not only a new and superior High Priest, but He ministers in a superior sanctuary and a superior tabernacle. This High Priest does not involve Himself with copies and shadows. He ministers within the real thing, in Heaven itself.

‘The sanctuary’ was the place where God could be met with, thus here it is the place where God is present in His glory (Hebrews 9:24; Hebrews 10:19; Psalms 102:19).

‘The true (as contrasted with the copy) tabernacle which the Lord pitched.’ Some have seen this as indicating Christ’s body through His incarnation (compare John 2:21). That was also made without hands (see Hebrews 9:11; compare Mark 14:58), and the heavenly veil is spoken of as Christ’s flesh (Hebrews 10:19-20). But that interferes with the picture here, for Christ is seen as the minister of the tabernacle. The picture seems more to indicate the perfect divine provision for approach to God in Heaven, ‘the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation’ (Hebrews 9:11 compare Acts 7:48), where genuine reconciliation and atonement could be made. It would then be seen as explaining the idea of the true sanctuary and as including the aspect of intercession. As such it is His holy ‘dwellingplace’ (the literal meaning of ‘tabernacle’ in the Old Testament) which includes the sanctuary. This was what the tabernacle had indicated on earth, God’s dwellingplace in His extreme holiness, but then with His approachability limited by the veil. Now ‘the true tabernacle’ is God’s dwellingplace in Heaven, and the veil is removed. The holy God can be approached directly, through Jesus.

If ‘the Lord’ here is seen as signifying Jesus, as it appears to do in Hebrews outside quotations (Hebrews 2:3; Hebrews 7:14), that would seem to count against the tabernacle as here representing His body.

It should be noted that here reference is made to the tabernacle not the temple. The tabernacle was the ‘perfect’ representation of what it symbolised, being itself temporary and passing, awaiting the better tabernacle, of which it was a copy, pointing upward to the heavenly. It made no claim to permanence. It was suitable for those whose presence on earth was temporary, but who were looking for something better.

The temple on the other hand was of man's devising (2 Samuel 7:5-7). Man wanted God and himself to be firmly lodged permanently on earth. It is true that Solomon did recognise that God was in Heaven and that even the Heaven of heavens could not contain Him (1 Kings 8:27). But he wanted his temple to be a gateway to Heaven (1 Kings 8:29, etc.), while being a permanent fixture on earth. Now, says the writer, all this is done away. We must desert the earthly for the heavenly. We must away with the temple and seek to God’s tabernacle in Heaven. That was what Ezekiel’s heavenly temple descending to earth had symbolised, a temple not made with hands and not of this creation to which Israel should look. Now its message was being fulfilled.

On the other hand the explanation may be even simpler. If the writer had little connection with the temple, but a deep knowledge of the Law of Moses, this would well explain why he thought in terms of the latter, seeing it as the true original. For as we have seen earlier much of his teaching connects directly with the Pentateuch (e.g. Hebrews 3:7-19), and it was the Law there that would be quoted against him. He appears little interested in the Temple. Some have suggested that this might be because he wrote some time after the temple had been destroyed. But in view of the strong arguments for his case which he could have drawn from that destruction, this does not seem likely.