Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 9:4

Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein [was] the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

4. the golden censer ] The Greek word is thumiaterion, and it has been long disputed whether it means Censer or Altar of Incense. It does not occur in the Greek version of the Pentateuch (except as a various reading) where the “altar of incense” is rendered by thusiasterion thumiamatos (Exo 31:8; comp. Luk 1:11); but it is used by the LXX. in 2Ch 26:19; Eze 8:11, and there means “censer;” and the Rabbis say that “a golden censer” was used by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement only ( Yoma, iv. 4). “Censer” accordingly is the rendering of the word in this place in the Vulgate, Syriac, Arabic and thiopic versions; and the word is so understood by many commentators ancient and modern. On the other hand (which is very important) both in Josephus ( Antt. iii. 6 8) and in Philo (Opp. i. 504) the word thumiaterion means “ the Altar of Incense,” which, like the table, might be called “golden,” because it was overlaid with gold; and this is the sense of the word in other Hellenistic writers of this period down to Clemens of Alexandria. The Altar of Incense was so important that it is most unlikely to have been left unmentioned. Further, it is observable that we are not told of any censer kept in the Tabernacle, but only in the Temple. The incense in the days of the Tabernacle was burnt in a machettah ( , “brazier,” Lev 16:12); nor could the censer have been kept in the Holiest Place, for then the High Priest must have gone in to fetch it before kindling the incense, which would have been contrary to all the symbolism of the ritual.

But it is asserted that the writer is in any case mistaken, for that neither the censer nor the “altar of incense” were in the Holiest.

But this is not certain as regards the censer. It is possible that some golden censer-stand may have stood in the Holiest, on which the High Priest placed the small golden brazier ( machettah, LXX. pureion), which he carried with him. There is indeed no doubt that the “Altar of Incense” was not in the Holiest Place, but as all authorities combine in telling us, in the Holy Place. But there was a possibility of mistake about the point because in Exo 26:35 only the table and the lamp-stand are mentioned; and Exo 30:6 is a little vague. Yet the writer does not say that the altar of incense was in the Holiest It was impossible that any Jew should have made such a mistake, unless he were, as Delitzsch says, “a monster of ignorance;” and if he had been unaware of the fact otherwise, he would have found from Philo in several places ( De Victim Offer. 4; Quis Rer. Div. Haer. 46) that the Altar (which Philo also calls thumiaterion) was outside the Holiest. Josephus also mentions this, and it was universally notorious ( B. J. Heb 9:5, 5). Accordingly, the writer only says that the Holiest “ had ” the Altar of Incense, in other words that the Altar in some sense belonged to it. And this is rigidly accurate; for in 1Ki 6:22 the altar is described as “belonging to” the Oracle (lit. “the Altar which was to the Oracle,” laddebr), and on the Day of Atonement the curtain was drawn, and the Altar was intimately associated with the High Priest’s service in the Holiest Place. Indeed the Altar of Incense (since incense was supposed to have an atoning power, Num 16:47) was itself called “Holy of Holies” (A. V. “most holy,” Exo 30:10) and is expressly said (Exo 30:6; Exo 40:5) to be placed “ before the mercy-seat.” In Isa 6:1-8 a seraph flies from above the mercy-seat to the Altar. The writer then, though he is not entering into details with pedantic minuteness, has not made any mistake; nor is there the smallest ground for the idle conjecture that he was thinking of the Jewish Temple at Leontopolis. The close connection of the Altar of Incense with the service of the Day of Atonement in the Holiest Place is illustrated by 2Ma 2:1-8, where the Altar is mentioned in connexion with the Ark.

the ark of the covenant ] This, as we have seen, applies only to the Tabernacle and to Solomon’s Temple. “There was nothing whatever,” as Josephus tells us, in the Holiest Place of the Temple after the Exile ( B. J. Heb 9:5. 5). The stone on which the ark had once stood, called by the Rabbis “the stone of the Foundation,” alone was visible.

overlaid round about with gold ] The word “round about” means literally “on all sides,” i.e. “within and without” (Exo 25:11).

with gold ] The diminutive here used for gold seems to imply nothing distinctive. Diminutives always tend to displace the simple forms in late dialects.

the golden pot that had manna ] The Palestine Targum says that it was an earthen jar, but Jewish tradition asserted that it was of gold. The LXX. inserts the word “golden” in Exo 16:33 and so does Philo. It contained an “omer” of the manna, which was the daily portion for each person. The writer distinctly seems to imply that the Ark contained three things a golden jar ( stamnos) containing a specimen of the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the Stone Tables of the Decalogue. Here again it is asserted that he made a mistake. Certainly the Stone Tables were in the Ark, and the whole symbolism of the Ark represented the Cherubim bending in adoration over the blood-sprinkled propitiatory which covered the tables of the broken moral law. But Moses was only bidden to lay up the jar and the rod “ before the Testimony ” not “ in the Ark;” and in 1Ki 8:9; 2Ch 5:10 we are somewhat emphatically informed that “there was nothing in the Ark” except these two tables, which we are told (Deu 10:2; Deu 10:5) that Moses placed there. All that can be said is that the writer is not thinking of the Temple of Solomon at all, and that there is nothing impossible in the Jewish tradition here followed, which supposes that “before the Testimony” was interpreted to mean “in the Ark.” Rabbis like Levi Ben Gershom and Abarbanel had certainly no desire to vindicate the accuracy of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and yet they say that the pot and the rod were actually at one time in the Ark, though they had been removed from it before the days of Solomon.

Aaron’s rod that budded ] Num 17:6-10.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Which had the golden censer – The censer was a fire-pan, made for the purpose of carrying fire, in order to burn incense on it in the place of worship. The forms of the censer were various. Some difficulty has been felt respecting the statement of Paul here that the golden censer was in the most holy place, from the fact that no such utensil is mentioned by Moses as pertaining to the tabernacle, nor in the description of Solomons temple, which was modelled after the tabernacle, is there any account of it given. But the following considerations will probably remove the difficulty.

(1) Paul was a Jew, and was familiar with what pertained to the temple, and gave such a description of it as would be in accordance with what actually existed in his time. The fact that Moses does not expressly mention it, does not prove that in fact no such censer was laid up in the most holy place.

(2) Aaron and his successors were expressly commanded to burn incense in a censer in the most holy place before the mercy-seat. This was to be done on the great day of atonement, and but once in a year; Lev 16:12-13.

(3) There is every probability that the censer that was used on such an occasion was made of gold. All the implements that were employed in the most holy place were made of gold, or overlaid with gold, and it is in the highest degree improbable that the high priest would use any other on so solemn an occasion; compare 1Ki 7:50.

(4) As the golden censer was to be used only once in a year, it would naturally be laid away in some secure situation, and none would so obviously occur as the most holy place. There it would be perfectly safe. No one was permitted to enter there but the high priest, and being preserved there it would be always ready for his use. The statement of Paul, therefore, has the highest probability, and undoubtedly accords with what actually occurred in the tabernacle and the temple. The object of the incense burned in worship was to produce an agreeable fragrance or smell; see notes on Luk 1:9.

And the ark of the covenant – This ark or chest was made of shittim-wood, was two cubits and a half long, a cubit and a half broad, and the same in height; Exo 25:10. It was completely covered with gold, and had a lid, which was called the mercy-seat, on which rested the Shekinah, the symbol of the divine presence, between the outstretched wings of the cherubim. It was called the ark of the covenant, because within it were the two tables of the covenant, or the Law of God written on tables of stone. It was a simple chest, coffer, or box, with little ornament, though rich in its materials. A golden crown or molding ran around the top, and it had rings and staves in its sides by which it might be borne; Exo 25:12-16. This ark was regarded as the most sacred of all the appendages of the tabernacle. Containing the Law, and being the place where the symbol of the divine presence was manifested, it was regarded as especially holy, and in the various wars and revolutions in the Hebrew commonwealth, it was guarded with special care.

After the passage over the Jordan it remained for some time at Gilgal Jos 4:19, whence it was removed to Shiloh; 1Sa 1:3. From hence, the Israelites took it to their camp, apparently to animate them in battle, but it was taken by the Philistines; 1 Sam. 4. The Philistines, however, oppressed by the hand of God, resolved to return it, and sent it to Kirjath-Jearim; 1Sa 7:1. In the reign of Saul it was at Nob. David conveyed it to the house of Obededom, and thence to his palace on Mount Zion; 2 Sam. 6. At the dedication of the temple it was placed in the Holy of Holies by Solomon, where it remained for many years. Subsequently, it is said, the wicked kings of Judah, abandoning themselves to idolatry, established idols in the most holy place itself, and the priests removed the ark, and bore it from place to place to secure it from profanation. Calmet. When Josiah ascended the throne he commanded the priests to restore the ark to its place in the sanctuary, and forbade them to carry it about from one place to another as they had before done; 2Ch 35:3. The subsequent history of the ark is unknown. It is probable that it was either destroyed when the city of Jerusalem was taken by Nebuchadnezzar, or that it was carried with other spoils to Babylon, There is no good reason to suppose that it was ever in the second temple, and it is generally admitted by the Jews that the ark of the covenant was one of the things that were wanting there. Abarbanel says, that the Jews flatter themselves that it will be restored by the Messiah.

Wherein – That is, in the ark – for so the construction naturally requires. In 1Ki 8:9, however, it is said that there was nothing in the ark, save the two tables of stone which Moses put there at Horeb, and it has been supposed by some that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were not in the ark, but that they were in capsules, or ledges made on its sides for their safe keeping, and that this should be rendered by the ark. But the apostle uses the same language respecting the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron which he does about the two tables of stone, and as they were certainly in the ark, the fair construction here is that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were in it also. The account in Exo 16:32-34; Num 17:10, is, that they were laid up in the most holy place, before the testimony, and there is no improbability whatever in the supposition that they were in the ark. Indeed, that would be the most safe place to keep them, as the tabernacle was often taken down and removed from place to place. It is clear from the passage in 1Ki 8:9, that they were not in the ark in the temple, but there is no improbability in the supposition that before the temple was built they might have been removed from the ark and lost. When the ark was carried from place to place, or during its captivity by the Philistines, it is probable that they were lost, as we never hear of them afterward.

The golden pot – In Exo 16:33, it is simply a pot, without specifying the material. In the Septuagint it is rendered golden pot, and as the other utensils of the sanctuary were of gold, it may be fairly presumed that this was also.

That had manna – A small quantity of manna which was to be preserved as a perpetual remembrancer of the food which they had eaten in their long journey in the wilderness, and of the goodness of God in miraculously supplying their wants. As the manna, also, would not of itself keep, Exo 16:20, the fact that this was to be laid up to be preserved from age to age, was a perpetual miracle in proof of the presence and faithfulness of God. On the subject of the manna, see Bushs notes on Exo 16:15.

And Aarons rod that budded – That budded and blossomed as a proof that God had chosen him to minister to him. The princes of the tribes were disposed to rebel, and to call in question the authority of Aaron. To settle the matter, each one was required to take a rod or staff of office, and to bring it to Moses with the name of the tribe to which it appertained written on it. These were laid up by Moses in the tabernacle, and it was found on the next day that the rod marked with the name of Levi had budded and blossomed, and produced almonds. In perpetual remembrance of this miracle, the rod was preserved in the ark; Num 17:1-13. Its subsequent history is unknown. It was not in the ark when the temple was built, nor is there any reason to suppose that it was preserved to that time.

And the tables of the covenant – The two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written. They were expressly called the words of the covenant in Exo 34:28. On the word covenant; see notes on Heb 9:16 and 17 of this chapter. These two tables were in the ark at the time the temple was dedicated. 1Ki 8:9. Their subsequent history is unknown. It is probable that they shared the fate of the ark, and were either carried to Babylon, or were destroyed when the city was taken by Nebuchadnezzar.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 4. Which had the golden censer] It is evident that the apostle speaks here of the tabernacle built by Moses, and of the state and contents of that tabernacle as they were during the lifetime of Moses. For, as Calmet remarks, in the temple which was afterwards built there were many things added which were not in the tabernacle, and several things left out. The ark of the covenant and the two tables of the law were never found after the return from the Babylonish captivity. We have no proof that, even in the time of Solomon, the golden pot of manna, or the rod of Aaron, was either in or near the ark. In Solomon’s temple the holy place was separated from the holy of holies by a solid wall, instead of a veil, and by strong wooden doors, 1Kg 6:31-33. In the same temple there was a large vestibule before the holy place; and round about this and the holy of holies there were many chambers in three stories, 1Kg 6:5-6. But there was nothing of all this in the Mosaic tabernacle; therefore, says Calmet, we need not trouble ourselves to reconcile the various scriptures which mention this subject; some of which refer to the tabernacle, others to Solomon’s temple, and others to the temple built by Zorobabel; which places were very different from each other.

The apostle says that the golden censer was in the holy of holies; but this is nowhere mentioned by Moses. But he tells us that the high priest went in, once every year, with the golden censer to burn incense; and Calmet thinks this censer was left there all the year, and that its place was supplied by a new one, brought in by the priest the year following. Others think it was left just within the veil, so that the priest, by putting his hand under the curtain, could take it out, and prepare it for his next entrance into the holiest.

The ark of the covenant] This was a sort of chest overlaid with plates of gold, in which the two tables of the law, Aaron’s rod, the pot of manna, &c., were deposited. Its top, or lid, was the propitiatory or mercy-seat.

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

Which had the golden censer; in the holy of holiest was reserved the golden censer, on which the high priest put the incense when annually he entered there, (see Lev 16:12,13) that the cloud of it might cover the mercy-seat, and so was kept for that service in it: see Joseph. Antiq. lib. 3. 7. Many would refer this to the golden altar of incense that stood before the veil in the holy place, Exo 30:6-8; and so they read it, having the golden altar of incense before it for its service, and not within it; signifying the Godhead, by which Christ maketh his intercession, sanctifying and perfuming his own, and all offerings made in his name.

And the ark of the covenant; it was a coffer or chest of shittim wood, plated all over with gold, Exo 25:10-22; 37:1,6; 40:20,21. This chest had for its cover a mercy-seat, listed or verged with a crown of gold round it; and is called the ark of the covenant, because the tables of testimony were laid up in it, Exo 25:16; 40:20; those two stone tables wrought by Moses, and carried up into the mount, (after he had on the idolatry of Israel broken those of Gods own making, and on which God had written the ten laws, the terms of his covenant with them), on which God wrote afresh his laws, and renewed his covenant with them, Exo 34:1,2,28,29; compare Exo 31:18. This ark was a type of Christ interposing between God and us, who had broken the covenant of his laws.

Wherein was the golden pot that had manna; , wherein, refers not to the ark mentioned just before, for in it was nothing pnt but the two tables of the covenant; but the tabernacle, called the holy of holiest, in which was reserved the golden censer, pot of manna, provided by Gods charge before the giving of the law, and laid up afterwards in that archive by Gods order, Exo 16:32-34. This manna was the bread God fed Israel in his church with forty years in the wilderness, and is called angels food, Psa 78:25; a type of Christ the true bread, that God gave from heaven to his church, Joh 6:31-58.

And Aarons rod that budded; which was by Gods order put before the testimony in the holy of holiest, and not into the ark, for it was to be in view there as a token of the true priesthood, the type of Christs, against all after-murmurers and usurpers: see Num 17:1-11.

And the tables of the covenant; and as these, the urn of manna and rod of Aaron, were in the holy of holiest; so especially the two tables of the covenant were there too, but laid up in the ark which was in that place: see 1Ki 8:9; 2Ch 5:10. Oters think the preposition is to be read, by which, or about, near which ark, as it is used of Christs sitting , Heb 1:3; and so notes, as to the pot of manna and Aarons rod, an apposition of them to or by the ark, when the tables of the covenant were undeniably put into it.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

4. golden censerThe Greek,must not be translated “altar of incense,” for itwas not in “the holiest” place “after the secondveil,” but in “the holy place”; but as in 2Ch 26:19;Eze 8:11, “censer”: soVulgate and Syriac. This GOLDENcenser was only used on the day of atonement (other kinds of censerson other days), and is therefore associated with the holiestplace, as being taken into it on that anniversary by the highpriest. The expression “which had,” does not mean that thegolden censer was deposited there, for in that case the high priestwould have had to go in and bring it out before burning incense init; but that the golden censer was one of the articles belongingto, and used for, the yearly service in the holiest place. Hevirtually supposes (without specifying) the existence of the “altarof incense” in the anterior holy place, by mentioning thegolden censer filled with incense from it: the incense answers tothe prayers of the saints; and the altar though outside theholiest place, is connected with it (standing close by the secondveil, directly before the ark of the covenant), even as we findan antitypical altar in heaven. The rending of the veil by Christ hasbrought the antitypes to the altar, candlestick, and showbread of theanterior holy place into the holiest place, heaven. In 1Ki6:22, Hebrew, “the altar” is said tobelong to the oracle, or holiest place (compare Ex30:6).

arkof shittim wood,that is, acacia. Not in the second temple, but in its stead was astone basement (called “the stone of foundation”), threefingers high.

pot“golden,”added in the Septuagint, and sanctioned by Paul.

mannaan omer, eachman’s daily portion. In 1Ki 8:9;2Ch 5:10, it is said there wasnothing in the ark of Solomon’s temple save the two stone tables ofthe law put in by Moses. But the expression that there was nothingTHEN therein save the twotables, leaves the inference to be drawn that formerly there were theother things mentioned by the Rabbis and by Paul here, the pot ofmanna (the memorial of God’s providential care of Israel) and the rodof Aaron, the memorial of the lawful priesthood (Num 17:3;Num 17:5; Num 17:7;Num 17:10). The expressions”before the Lord” (Ex16:32), and “before the testimony” (Nu17:10) thus mean, “INthe ark.” “In,” however, may be used here (as thecorresponding Hebrew word) as to things attached to theark as appendages, as the book of the law was put “in theside of the ark,” and so the golden jewels offered by thePhilistines (1Sa 6:8).

tables of the covenant(Deu 9:9; Deu 10:2).

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

Which had the golden censer,…. There were various censers used by the priests in the daily service, but this was a peculiar one, which was used by the high priest on the day of atonement; on other days he used a silver censer, but on that day a golden one, and with it he entered into the holy of holies y; and though Moses does not call it a golden one, Le 16:12 yet Josephus does z; and so do the Jewish doctors in the place referred to, with whom the apostle agrees, and to this the allusion is in Re 8:3 but here a difficulty arises, how this can be said to have been in the holy of holies, and within the vail, when, according to Moses, it was without the vail, and was only carried within on the day of atonement; and so Philo the Jew a places it in the other part of the tabernacle; and it seems as if it was to avoid this difficulty, that the Ethiopic version has removed it from this verse to verse the second, and put it among the things that were in the holy place; but there is no need of this, nor to say that the altar of incense is intended, for that is never so called, and, besides, was without the vail too. It should be observed, that the apostle does not say, that the golden censer was laid up in the holy of holies, and kept there, but that it “had” it; as it had it on the day of atonement, when it was carried in there by the high priest, who there made use of it; and it was for the use of it in that place, that it was peculiarly designed. What was done by it was this, burning coals were with it taken off from the altar before the Lord, and were brought in within the vail, where incense was put upon them, which covered the mercy seat, that so the high priest died not. The burning coals signify the very great sufferings of Christ, not only the sufferings of his body, which were very painful, but those of his soul, when the wrath and hot displeasure of God was poured out upon him; and those coals being taken off from the altar before the Lord, show that the sufferings of Christ were according to the will of God, were grateful to him, and always before him; and their being brought within the vail, does not denote that Christ is now in a suffering state, though he is in the midst of the throne, as a lamb that had been slain; but the continued virtue and efficacy of his sufferings, and that our faith and hope, which enter within the vail, have to do with his blood and sacrifice thither carried. And the incense, which was carried in with those coals, typified the intercession of Christ in heaven, which is pure and holy, sweet, fragrant, and perpetual; and the priest having his hands full of it, expresses the fulness of Christ’s intercession for all his elect, and for all things for them, and his fulness of merit to plead, which makes his intercession efficacious and prevalent; and hence, through his much incense, the prayers of his people become odorous and acceptable: and the incense being put upon the burning coals in the censer, shows that Christ’s intercession proceeds upon the foot of his blood and sacrifice, his sufferings and death; and hence it becomes grateful, and has its influence; the smoke of it covers the mercy seat, or throne of grace, and makes that accessible; and as the priest, who offers it, never dies, so none of those for whom he intercedes.

And the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold; this is called the ark of the covenant, because the tables of the covenant, afterwards mentioned, were put into it; and that it was overlaid with gold round about, is certain from Ex 25:11 where it is said to be overlaid with pure gold, within and without; and that the ark was within the vail, and in the most holy place, is manifest from

Ex 40:21 that this was wanting in the second temple, is generally agreed b; but who took it away, where it was put, or what became of it various are the sentiments of the Jewish writers: some say c, it was carried away by Nebuchadnezzar into Babylon, and is meant by the goodly vessels of the house of the Lord,

2Ch 36:10 others say d, that Jeremiah the prophet took it, and hid it in a cave on Mount Nebo; but the more generally received opinion is, that it was hid by King Josiah in some hidden and deep place, which Solomon had built for that purpose under ground, knowing, that the temple would be destroyed e; and it is often said, that it was hid under the pavement of a room in the temple, called , “the wood room” f. The ark is, by some, thought to be a type of the church, which is the ark of God, of his building, and where he dwells; the ark of the covenant, or testimony, where the oracles of God, his word and ordinances, are: its being made of Shittim wood may denote the incorruption and duration of it: and its being covered with gold within and without is expressive of its glory; and its being portable, and carried from place to place, shows that the church is not always in one place; its rings, staves, and priests that bore it, may point at the Gospel, and the ministers of it, the instruments of moving it; and its moving from place to place, and falling into the hands of enemies, were emblematical of the church’s afflictions; as its rest at last, in Solomon’s temple, may signify the church’s rest here and hereafter: but the ark is rather to be considered as a type of Christ; its various names agree with Christ, as the ark of God, the ark of his strength, the glory of God, the face of God, the holy ark, the ark of the covenant, or testimony, yea, Jehovah, and God himself: the time of its making is observable, it was made before the tabernacle, and the tabernacle for the sake of it; Christ is before all creatures, and was set up as Mediator before anything existed, and all things are for his sake; it being made of Shittim wood, covered with gold, may denote both the incorruption and glory of Christ; and its several decorations, the graces with which he was adorned, as man and Mediator; its staves and rings may design the word, ordinances, and ministers, whereby he is carried into the several places of the world; here God granted his presence, and counsel was asked of him, and it was brought forth in time of war, as a security from enemies, all which is applicable to Christ; by it wonders were done, as the dividing of Jordan for the Israelites to pass into the land of Canaan, the falling of the walls of Jericho, and the fall of Dagon; so Christ has opened the way for his people to heaven, has spoiled principalities and powers, and his Gospel is powerful to the pulling down the strongholds of sin and Satan; the moving of the ark from place to place, and its rest in the temple, may signify the rest of Christ, after his many fatigues in this world.

Wherein was the golden pot that had manna; which Aaron filled with manna by the direction of Moses, who gave it at the appointment of God, that it might be preserved to future ages, as a memorial of the goodness, care, and power of God in feeding the Israelites with it in the wilderness, Ex 16:33. This pot held an omer, which was more than three pints and a half; some say six pints: and though Moses does not call it a golden pot, yet it is so called, not only by the Septuagint in Ex 16:33 but also by Philo the Jew g; nor is it reasonable to think, with some Jewish writers h, that it should be made of earth, which was to continue for ages to come: this also was wanting in the second temple i; and this, with Aaron’s rod, after mentioned, and other things, is said to be hid when the ark was, and along with it k: but how this pot, as well as Aaron’s rod, can be said to be in the ark, when it is asserted, at the bringing of the ark into the temple, at the dedication of it by Solomon, that there was nothing in it but two tables of stone, 1Ki 8:9 and both the pot of “manna”, and Aaron’s rod, are said to be before the testimony, Ex 16:34 and not in it, is a difficulty. Some, in order to remove it, observe, that the phrase, “wherein”, refers not to the ark, but to the tabernacle; but since the tables of the covenant were in the ark, and these are mentioned with it, and the phrase, “over it”, in the next verse, cannot be understood of the tabernacle, but of the ark, this solution is not satisfactory. Others have observed, that they might be in the ark in Moses’s time and in Jeremiah’s time, when they are said to be hid, though they were not in Solomon’s: and others have taken notice, that the preposition sometimes signifies “at”, or “with”, as in Col 3:1 and so the sense is, that these were near unto it in the most holy place, and might be in the sides of it, though not within it; for there were places in the sides of the ark to put things into, De 31:26. And certain it is from the above account from Scripture, that they were near it; and so, by the Jewish writers, they are always mentioned along with it: when that was carried away, and hid, they were hid with it; but what a certain Jewish commentator l observes on 1Ki 8:9 is so express, as if it was designed to vindicate our apostle: his remark is this:

“the intention of this is not to deny that there were not the things mentioned in the law, for they were , “left in it”, as Aaron’s “rod”, and “the pot of manna”, only to deny, hereby, that there was not anything of the law, save the decalogue.”

And it should be observed, that it is not said of these, that they were put before the ark, but “before the testimony”; that is, before the tables of the covenant, which were within the ark. The “manna”, in this pot, was typical of Christ; in the signification of its name, whether it comes from , “manah”, which signifies to appoint, prepare, and distribute, Christ being appointed, prepared, and distributed, as food for his people; or from , “man hu”, what is it? the words said by the Israelites, when they first saw it, not knowing what it was; so Christ is unknown to his people until revealed to them, and remains unknown to all natural and unregenerate men: the manna came from heaven, from God, and was a free gift of his, and so Christ: it was round in form, and may be expressive of Christ’s perfection, and eternity: it was in colour white, which may signify his purity and innocence; it was sweet in taste, and so is Christ, his fruits, his word and ordinances: it was small in quantity, which may denote the meanness and despicableness of Christ in the eyes of the world: the people went out and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in mortars, and baked it, and ate, which may be typical of the apprehension, sufferings, and death of Christ, in order to be fit food for the faith of believers. The persons that were fed by it were the Israelites, who were brought out of Egypt, and then in the wilderness, a large number, and men of all sorts, rich, and poor, and who had an equal portion, though very undeserving; so those who are fed by Christ, and nourished with him, the bread of life, are the spiritual Israel of God, whom Christ has redeemed from worse than Egyptian bondage and darkness, though they are yet in the wilderness of this world; and they are a large number, the whole family of God, who receive out of Christ’s fulness grace for grace; and there is no difference of high and low, rich and poor, bond or free, male or female; they are all one in Christ, and Christ is all in all; and they have all a whole Christ, though they are very undeserving, being by nature children of wrath as others. And as the Israelites had the manna every day, and all the while they were in the wilderness, so Christ is the daily bread of believers; by him, in his word and ordinances, is his church nourished in the wilderness, to whom he gives to eat of the hidden manna, the food of the wilderness. The “pot”, in which this manna was kept, was typical of the ordinances of the Gospel; in its matter, being made of gold, denoting the preciousness and duration of them; in the size of it, holding an “omer”, showing that these contain plenty of good things to satisfaction; in the situation of it before the ark, signifying the presence of Christ with his ordinances; and in its use to hold manna, and be a memorial of it to ages to come, as the ordinances have in them food for souls, and are the means of remembering Christ in future generations, till his second coming.

And Aaron’s rod that budded; and not only budded, but bloomed; blossomed, and yielded almonds, Nu 17:8. This also was laid before the ark of the testimony, Heb 9:10, and may be said to be in it, or with it, in the same sense as the pot of manna was; it was likewise wanting in the second temple m, and is said to be hid with the pot of manna, and other things, as before observed: it was a type of Christ: it is affirmed by the Jews, that in the days of the Messiah, the priesthood shall return, and the rod of Aaron shall flourish n; it was, very probably, as some have thought o, an almond tree stick, as that in Jer 1:11. The almond tree has its name, in Hebrew, from a word which signifies haste and vigilance; it being, as Pliny says p, the first of trees that buds and blossoms, and is very hasty in putting them forth. An almond tree rod may be a proper emblem of Christ’s speedy incarnation in the fulness of time; and Aaron’s almond tree rod, of his right to the priesthood, and his vigilance in it: this was first a dry rod or stick, and may design the mean descent and appearance of Christ, being born of mean parents, living a mean and obscure life; his entrance on his public ministry, and continuance in it, were without any pomp or grandeur; he was as a root out of a dry ground; and though he did many miracles, these were treated with contempt; and he was at last apprehended, arraigned, and condemned as a malefactor, and died a shameful and an accursed death: it looked very unlikely and unpromising, that he should be the King Messiah; that he should have all power in heaven and in earth; that he should have the wisdom he had, and do the miracles he did; and that he should be the author of eternal salvation; and that such fruits of grace, peace, pardon, and righteousness, should spring from him, as that Aaron’s dry rod should bud, blossom, and bear almonds, in which it was a lively figure of Christ; that lying among other rods, and perhaps being like them, may denote Christ’s assuming the common nature of men, or an individual of human nature in all things like to man: and this being cut off from the tree, and being a dry stick, may represent the death of Christ; and its budding and blossoming may point at the resurrection of Christ from the dead; and as Aaron’s priesthood was confirmed by the budding and blossoming of his rod, so the deity and Messiahship of Christ are confirmed by his resurrection; and its bringing forth almonds may design the fruits of Christ’s death and resurrection; and moreover, the almond tree being, as Philo the Jew says q the first of trees that buds and blossoms in the spring, and the last that casts its leaves, it may be, as he observes, a symbol of the priestly tribe; and it may be a figure of the perpetuity of Christ, and his priesthood:

and the tables of the covenant; the same with the testimony which was ordered to be put into the ark, and accordingly was,

Ex 25:16. About this there is no controversy; though it is a matter of dispute with the Jews, whether the book of the law was in the ark or not: some say it was in the side of it, and others within it r; but Maimonides s says, that Moses wrote the whole law with his own hand before he died, and gave a book (or copy) to every tribe, and one copy he put , “in the ark”: so Jarchi says t, that the book of the law of Moses was put into the midst of the ark, and the ark was glorious and beautiful by that which was , “within it”. These tables were made of stone, an emblem of the hardness of man’s heart, which is destitute of spiritual life and motion, senseless and stupid, impenitent, stubborn, and inflexible, and on which no impressions can be made but by powerful and efficacious grace; and also of the stability and duration of the law, as moral, which is not antiquated by another, nor made void by the Gospel, nor altered in its nature and terms, but remains the same as to the matter of it; though it is now no covenant of works to believers, and they are freed from the curse and condemnation of it: the number of these tables is two; the whole law is reduced by our Lord to two grand precepts of it, Mt 22:37 and the fleshly tables, on which it is reinscribed in regeneration, are the heart and mind, 2Co 3:3. The place where these tables were put is the ark, which was typical of the law being in Christ, not only in his hands, but in his heart, Ps 40:8 and in his keeping of which he is the fulfilling end; for he being the surety of his people, and becoming man, answered every part of the law; in the holiness of his nature, in the perfect obedience of his life, and in his sufferings and death, in which he bore the penalty of it: and these tables are called the tables of the covenant, because the law on Mount Sinai was a covenant made with the people of Israel; and was typical of the covenant, of which Christ is the surety and Mediator, and which is ratified by his blood.

y Misn. Yoma, c. 4. sect. 4. Maimon. Yom Hacippurim, c. 2. sect. 5. z Antiqu. l. 3. c. 8. sect. 3. a De Vita Mosis, l. 3. p. 668. b T. Bab. Menachot, fol. 27. 2. & Yoma, fol. 21. 2. Menasseh ben Israel Concil. in Gen. qu. 41. Kimchi in Hagg. i. 8. c T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 53. 2. Seder Olam Rabba, c. 25. T. Hieros. Shekalim, fol. 49. 3. d Joseph ben Gorion, l. 1. c. 17. 2 Maccab. ii. 4, 5. e T. Hieros. Sota, fol. 22. 3. T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 5. 2. Maimon. Beth Habbechira, c. 4. sect. 1. f Misn. Shekalim, c. 6. sect. 1, 2. T. Hieros. Shekalim, fol. 49. 3. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 54. 1. g De Cong. Quaer. Erud. Gratia, p. 438. h Mechilta, fol. 20. 1. & Tanchuma, fol. 29. 4. i Menasseh ben Israel Conciliat. in Gen. qu. 41. k T. Hieros. Shekalim, fol. 49. 3. & Sota, fol. 22. 3. T. Bab. Ceritot, fol. 5. 2. & Horayot, fol. 12. 1. Maimon. Beth Habbechira, c. 4. sect. 1. l R. Levi ben Gersom in 1 Kings viii. 9. so others in Laniado Celi, Yekar in loc. m Menasseh ben Israel Conciliat. in Gen. qu. 41. n Baal Hatturim in Numb. xvii. 5. o Joseph. Antiqu. l. 4. c. 4. sect. 2. Aben Ezra in Numb. xvii. 8. p Nat. Hist. l. 16. c. 25. q De Vita Mosis, l. 3. p. 681. r T. Bab. Bava Bathra, fol. 14. 1, 2. Jarchi in Deut. xxxi. 26. s Praefat. in Yad Chazaka in principio. t Gloss. on T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 24. 2.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Having a golden censer ( ). The present active participle (feminine singular) agrees with (the Holy of Holies). It is not certain whether here means censer or altar of incense. In the LXX (2Chr 26:19; Exod 8:11; IV Macc. 7:11) it means censer and apparently so in the inscriptions and papyri. But in Philo and Josephus it means altar of incense for which the LXX has (Ex 30:1-10). Apparently the altar of incense was in the Holy Place, though in Ex 30:1-10 it is left quite vague. B puts it in verse 2. So we leave the discrepancy unsettled. At any rate the altar of incense was used for the Holy of Holies (“its ritual associations,” Dods).

The ark of the covenant ( ). A box or chest four feet long, two and a half broad and high (Ex 25:10f.). The Scotch have a “meal-ark.”

Wherein ( ). In the ark. There were three treasures in the ark of the covenant (a pot of manna, Aaron’s rod, the tables of the covenant). For the pot of manna (golden added in the LXX) see Ex 16:32-34. For Aaron’s rod that budded ( , first aorist active participle of ) see Nu 17:1-11. For the tables of the covenant see Exod 25:16; Exod 31:18; Deut 9:9; Deut 10:5. Not definitely clear about these items in the ark, but on front, except that 1Ki 8:9 states that it did contain the tables of the covenant. For (tables) see 2Co 3:3 (only other N.T. example).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

The golden censer [ ] . The noun N. T. o. It may mean either censer or altar of incense. In LXX the altar of incense is called qusiasthrion qumiamatov Exo 30:1, 27; Lev 4:7; comp. Luk 1:11. Qumiathrion is used of a censer, 2Ch 26:19; Eze 8:11; 4 Macc. 7 11. These are the only instances of the word in LXX : accordingly, never in LXX of the altar of incense. Josephus uses it for both. The golden censer is not mentioned in O. T. as a part of the furniture of the holy of holies. The facts of the case then are as follows :

(a) according to Exodus 31 the incense – altar was in the holy place, not in the holy of holies;

(b) Philo and Josephus use qumiathrion for the altar of incense; 208

(c) there is no mention in O. T. Of a censer set apart for the day of atonement;

(d) the high priest was to enter with incense, so that the ark might be veiled by the smoke (Lev 16:12). Hence the censer could not have been kept in the holy of holies;

(e) the writer clearly speaks of an abiding – place of the qumiathrionin a particular division of the tabernacle.

There is evidently a discrepancy, probably owing to the fact that the writer drew his information from the O. T. by which he might have been led into error. Thus Exo 26:35, there are mentioned in the holy place without the veil only the candlestick and the table, and not the incense – altar. Again, when the standing – place of the incense altar was mentioned, the expressions were open to misconstruction : see Exo 30:6; Exo 40:5. On the day of atonement, the incense – altar, like the most holy place, was sprinkled with blood. This might have given rise to the impression that it was in the holy of holies.

With gold [] . Properly, wrought gold.

Wherein [ ] . But according to Exo 16:34; Num 17:10, neither the pot of manna nor Aaron ‘s rod was in the ark, but “before the testimony “; while in Exo 25:16, Moses was commanded to put only the tables of the law into the ark; and in 1Ki 8:9 it is said of the ark in the temple,” there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone. ” The writer follows the rabbinical tradition that the pot of manna and the rod were inside of the ark.

Golden pot (stamov crush). Stamov, N. T. o, a few times in LXX, rare in Class. Golden is an addition of the LXX Comp. Exo 16:33.

Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament

1) “Which had the golden censer,” (chrusoun echousa thumiaterion) “Having or containing a golden censer,” inside the veil of the Holy of Holies; Each piece of furniture was made by a pattern God gave to Israel, Exo 25:8-9. The censer was an ash pan, container, to hold ashes from burning of incense, 1Ki 7:50.

2) “And the ark of the covenant,” (kai ten kiboton tes diathekes) “And (as well as) the ark of the covenant,” Exo 25:10. The size was two and one half cubits long, two and one half cubits in breadth, and a cubit and an half in height. On the golden mercy seat lid of the ark, covering the broken law within the ark, blood was sprinkled between the two cherubims looking upon the blood, on which basis God pardoned the sins of his people. The “when I see the blood I will pass over you,” is a divine trust still, Exo 12:13.

3) “Overlaid round about with gold,” (perikekalummeneen pantothen chrusio) “Which was having been covered all around (on every side) with gold,” Exo 25:11; Exo 37:1-2.

4) “Wherein was the golden pot that had manna,” (en he stammos chruse echousa to manna) “In which was located a golden pot having or holding the manna; Exo 16:33-34, commemorating manna from heaven divinely provided for Israel’s need in her wandering in the wilderness, typifying God’s care for his own, Heb 13:5; Php_4:19.

5) “And Aaron’s rod that budded,” (kai he hrabdos Aaron he blastesasa) “And the rod of Aaron which budded,” brought forth blooms, and yielded almonds, signifying God’s Divine choice of Levi as the tribe to oversee his law worship and service rites, Num 17:10.

6) “And the tables of the covenants,” (kai hai plakestes diathekes) “And the plaques (tablets) of the covenant,” the first or law covenant, Exo 25:16; Exo 25:21; Exo 34:27-28; Exo 40:20; Deu 10:2-5; 1Ki 8:5-9; Aaron’s rod and the pot of manna were gone 485 years later, at Solomon’s temple dedication, 2Ch 5:10.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

(4) Having a golden censer.Or, having a golden altar of incense. Hardly any passage in the Epistle has given rise to more controversy than this; and even now opinions are greatly divided. The question raised does not merely concern the interpretation of a single verse, but has been brought into prominence in all recent discussions as to the authorship of the Epistle. It will be possible to notice all important points in the controversy without entering into any discussion of the Greek, for it is allowed on both sides that the word here usedthumiaterion (which simply means an instrument or a place connected with the offering of incense)will admit of either rendering. The usage of the LXX., in most cases peculiarly helpful in this Epistle, throws little light on the matter; for this word is entirely absent from the descriptions in the Pentateuch, and occurs twice only in later books (Eze. 8:11; 2Ch. 26:19both times for censer). The Pentateuch, indeed, makes no mention of a special censer for the use of the high priest on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16:12); but, as we learn from the Mishna, the later law not only prescribed a censer of gold, but laid stress on the particular kind of gold. On the other hand, in Philo and Josephus the word here used is the regular designation of the altar of incense. That altar, it is true, was not of gold, only overlaid with gold; but as one of its names in common use was the golden altar (Exo. 40:5, et al.) this point is of no moment. If we look at internal probabilities, it is hard to decide which would be more surprisingthe special mention of the censer (by the side of the ark and the cherubim) in this description of the Most Holy Place, or the absence of all notice of the incense-altar, which held so important a place in connection with the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement. Hence, though censer has (mainly through the influence of the Vulgate) been the more familiar rendering, the most eminent modern commentators have, with some marked exceptions, adopted the other view. Probably there would be little difference of opinion on the question, were it not that the words here used seem to assign to the altar of incense a place within the veil. As, however, there are the strongest reasons for believing that the golden censer was not kept in the Holiest Place, this difficulty applies almost equally to both interpretations. At first sight the difficulty is very great. The incense-altar and the ark are coupled together, and the word which describes their relation to the Holiest Place is that which, a little later in this verse, distinctly signifies containing. So weighty is this consideration that many have been unable to avoid the conclusion that the writer has erred in this matter of detail; and various suppositions have been resorted to in explanation of his mistake. (See Introduction.) But, to take the lowest ground, surely ignorance on such a point is inconceivable. Not only are the notices in Exodus perfectly plain, but passages in Philo and Josephus show how customary in the writers own age it was to speak of the three sacred objects in the Holy Placethe candlestick, the table, and the golden altar. There must exist some special reason for this connection of the altar with the Most Holy Placea connection which (we may well believe) would have been otherwise expressed had the writer held it possible that readers, familiar with the facts, could regard his language as even ambiguous. Such a reason will be found to be suggested by the language of the Pentateuch, and by the ceremonial of the Day of Atonement. In Exo. 30:6, Moses receives special injunction to place the altar of incense before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony; similarly in Exo. 40:5. The purification of this altar is most expressly associated with the purification of the Holiest Place on the Day of Atonement: this stands out in strong relief both in the Pentateuch (see Exo. 30:10; Lev. 16:18) and in the Mishna. The typical significance of the altar of incense (comp. Rev. 8:3-4; Rev. 9:13) we might also show to be in full harmony with the thought here presented. There is, however, one passage in the Old Testament (1Ki. 6:22) which appears to give direct expression to what these other passages imply; for there the true translation must be, also the whole altar that belongeth to the oracle he overlaid with gold.[10]

[10] Some interesting remarks on this passage will be found in a paper by Dr. Milligan in the Bible Educator (vol. iii., p. 230). His suggestion is that the writer, having in mind the Day of Atonement, sees the Tabernacle with its inner veil withdrawn.

Ark of the covenant (Num. 10:33; Deu. 31:26, et al.), often called the ark of the testimony, i.e., the ark containing the tables of the Ten Commandments, which were the symbol of the covenant of God with the people. (See Exo. 25:10-16.)

Wherein was . . .Rather, wherein are (see Heb. 9:2) a golden pot having the manna, &c. In Exo. 16:33-34, and Num. 17:10-11, the pot containing an omer of manna and also Aarons rod are said to have been laid up before the testimony. This is often understood as meaning before the ark of the testimony; but it is as natural to suppose that these memorials were placed inside the ark, in front of the tables. 1Ki. 8:9 clearly suggests that the ark had at one time contained more than the tables of stone, and so it has been understood by Jewish commentators. There is no mention of a golden vessel in the Hebrew of Exo. 16:33; the word is added in the LXX. It will be observed that this epithet is mentioned three times in the verse: such splendour was natural in the sanctuary of this world (Heb. 9:1).

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

4. Golden censer A censer (a shortened form of incenser) was a vessel for containing the ritual incense. The Greek word here ( thumiaterion) may signify any bearer of incense, whether vessel or altar. Delitzsch affirms that the censer proper (though appearing, incorrectly, in our translation) is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, but only the coal pan in which were the embers for burning incense. On the great day of atonement the priest entered the holy of holies, with the coal pan containing coals from the Great Brazen Altar in his left hand, and the censer in the right; and, setting down the former before the ark, he shook the incense over the coals, producing the fragrant vapour. Twice only is the censer in the temple of Solomon called thumiaterion; but in the age of our apostle, by Philo and Josephus the term is applied to the golden altar of incense. There can be no reasonable doubt that such is its meaning here.

For it can hardly be supposed that our apostle would specify so incidental a utensil as the censer, and omit so important an object as the golden altar of incense.

The main reason against the altar is, that it seems to be said to stand in the holy of holies, whereas a glance at our diagram shows that it is a central object in the holy place. But it is equally true that the censer was not in the holiest, being usually kept in the utensil room; a silver one for daily use, and a golden for the great day of atonement, when it was taken by the high priest into the holiest, used, brought back, and returned to the utensil room. But it is not really said, or truly meant, that the thumiaterion was in the holiest. The wherein of Heb 9:2 is significantly changed to had in Heb 9:4. Now had is the more generic term, and may mean either that the object was in the holiest, or was appropriated to the use of the holiest; and the latter was the fact with the incense altar. There are points that show that, in the mind of a Hebrew, the altar belonged to the holiest. 1. Its position was directly in front of the position of the ark of the covenant. Hence in 1Ki 6:22, it is called “the altar which was by the oracle;” or, more literally, the altar belonging to the inner apartment, the very phrase by which a Hebrew would say that the inner apartment had the altar. 2. On the day of atonement the altar, as well as the inner shrine of the holiest, was sprinkled with blood.

The altar of incense was called golden to distinguish it from the great brazen altar of burnt offerings, placed in front of the tabernacle, and afterwards temple, under the open sky. No victim was offered upon the golden altar, but on the great day of atonement the blood of the sin offering was sprinkled upon its four horns. This golden altar was made of the durable acacia, overlaid entire with pure gold, and was one cubit in length and breadth, and two in height. It had a horn projecting upwards from each of its four corners, and a border lining its top to keep things from failing off.

The sacred incense (the English word is from incendio, to burn) was composed of ingredients divinely prescribed in Exo 30:34. Of this composition all other than the holy use was severely forbidden. Morning and evening, daily, was the incense offered. See note on Luk 1:9. On the great day of atonement the incense was offered, and the blood sprinkled, by the high priest alone.

King Jehovah was at first sole sovereign of Israel, and the tabernacle, as afterwards the temple, was symbolically his house; and his personal abode was, as we shall soon more fully see, in the holiest. To symbolize his presence, in the solemn absence of all idol, image, or visible form, was his bread upon the table, his candlestick, and his fragrant perfumery. And this last, the incense, becomes a beautiful image of devout emotions and prayers, issuing from the censer as from a glowing heart, upward in its movement, and acceptably reaching the divine Receiver.

Ark of the covenant The sacred ark, or chest, in which was deposited the covenant, or decalogue, and other things soon to be mentioned. Exo 25:10-16. As the decalogue is sometimes called covenant, and sometimes testimony, so we have the epithets, ark of the covenant, ark of the testimony. It was made of acacia, gold-plated without and within, was two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half broad, and a cubit and a half high. It had borders, rings, and staves, like the table. Its lid, of pure gold, served both as the cover of the ark and the throne of Jehovah, whose glory there attested his presence. As it was here that the high priest approached with his incense and sacrificial blood for mercy, so this lid was called “the mercy-seat.”

Gold The most precious of metals, and so symbolizing that our best is to be consecrated to God.

Golden pot Exo 16:34. The pot, or urn, containing a memorial specimen of the miraculous manna, was deposited “before the testimony,” that is, by the decalogue in the ark. But by Solomon’s time (1Ki 8:9) the vessel had disappeared. Our author follows the Septuagint, and applies to the pot the epithet golden, which is not found in our copies of the Hebrew. According to the Gemara tradition, after the ark was taken by the Philistines, (1Sa 4:11,) disappeared the pot, the cruse of anointing oil, Aaron’s rod, and the coffer which the Philistines sent as a present to the God of Israel.

Rod that blossomed Blossomed miraculously, to attest Aaron’s right to the priesthood. Num 17:10.

Tables of the covenant The two stone tables of the decalogue.

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

Heb 9:4. Which had the golden censer, Some have started a difficulty here; “Whence is it that the holy of holies is said to have this golden censer, as part of the things deposited in it, whereas Moses mentions only the ark, the pot of manna, Aaron’s rod, the two tables of the law, laid up in or near the ark, the propitiatory, or cover of the ark, and the cherubims?” This difficulty has been increased, in their judgment, from the observation that is made 1Ki 8:9. There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone which Moses put there in Horeb: compare 2Ch 5:10. But let it be observed, that the apostle is speaking of what was put into the holy of holies by Moses, and not of what was placed there by Solomon in after times: nor is it any objection to what the apostle says, that all those things which Moses put there, were not replaced when Solomon built his temple. His professed design is, to speak of the tabernacle in the wilderness, not of the temple in Jerusalem; and therefore he is concerned only with the furniture of the holy of holies, as it was in the days of Moses. Now it is true, that in the books of Moses, no mention is made of this golden censer, as deposited within the veil, and thence to be taken out on the great day of expiation; yet, supposing it to be put within the veil, within easy reach, so that the priest could take it, without going within the veil to get at it,this would answer all that the apostle says. It is certain that the high-priest was not allowed to enter into the holy of holies but with a censer, or dish of burning coals from off the altar before the Lord; and he was obliged to put incense upon the fire, that the cloud of the incense might cover the mercy seat, that he die not. Lev 16:12-13. He could not therefore enter into the holy of holies without incensing it; and he must have had this golden censer to put the incense on. It lay, therefore, most probably, behind the curtain, and within the high-priest’sreach, without his entering the place to get at it. Now this golden censer, and the other things enumerated were all , utensils, or furniture, suited to the customs and practices of this world. It matters little to inquire, whether all these things were laid up in the ark, or whether they were put in proper places near the ark,as the Greek which we render wherein, will well express;by which, or near which, or where;that is, in the tabernacle. They made up the furniture of the holy of holies, and they were all made of gold, and stone, and wood; just as the goods of this world are;and this is what the apostle was to shew. See Num 17:10.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Heb 9:4 . ] is either interpreted as altar of incense or as censer . The latter, and indeed as a golden censer , which was employed by the high priest on the great day of atonement, is thought of by Luther, Grotius, de Dieu, Calov, Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Whitby, Schulz, Bhme, M‘Lean, Stuart, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, Bisping, Alford, M‘Caul, and others, after the precedent of the Peshito, Vulgate ( turibulum ), and Theophylact. The altar of incense , on the other hand ( or ), of which mention is made as a constituent part in the Mosaic tabernacle, Exo 30:1-10 ; Exo 37:25-28 ; Exo 40:5 ; Exo 40:26 , as a constituent part in the temple of Solomon, 1Ki 7:48 , 2Ch 4:19 , and as a constituent part in the Herodian temple (Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5), is understood in the case of the Latin translation in D E (altare), as well as by Oecumenius (ad Heb 9:7 ), Calvin, Justinian, Piscator, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Gerhard, Brochmann, Mynster (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 342 ff.), Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr: p. 489 f., Obs.), Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Conybeare, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. Instances from the classical writers in favour of either reference, see in Bleek, II. 2, p. 480 f. That a censer is intended may be urged from the language of the LXX., since with them for the indication of the altar of incense the expressions: (Exo 30:1 ; Exo 30:27 ; Lev 4:7 ), (1 Chronicles (1Chr. 7:49) 1Ch 6:49 , 1Ch 28:18 ; 2Ch 26:16 ; 2Ch 26:19 ), (Exo 40:5 ; Exo 40:26 , al.), ( ) (Lev 16:12 ; Lev 16:18 ); and, where the altar intended is clear from the context, merely (Lev 16:20 , al.), are regularly employed, and only in unimportant MSS. of the same presents itself in some few passages as a variation of reading. To this usage of the LXX., however, is to be opposed the equally important fact of the usage of Philo and Josephus, according to which, at their time, was quite the ordinary appellation of the altar of incense. Comp. Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres. p. 511 sq. (with Mangey, I. p. 504): , , , ; De vita Mos. p. 668 (II. p. 149): , , , , , . . . .; Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5 : , , , Antiq. iii. 6, 8 : ( ) , . . ., al. Of the altar of incense, accordingly, the expression must be understood in our passage. For the manner in which the is mentioned, as a parallel member to , shows that the former must be an object of equally great importance as the latter. But, since that is so, something as non-essential as a golden censer cannot be meant, but only the altar of incense, which formed an essential constituent part of the tabernacle. Besides, there is nowhere any mention in the O. T. (not Lev 16:12 either) of a particular censer, which had been set apart for the service on the great day of atonement. About the existence of such a censer at the time of the Mosaic tabernacle, which the author after all has mainly before his mind, nothing is known with certainty. Only from the Mishna, tract. Joma, iv. 4, [89] do we learn something about it. Moreover, according to tract. Joma , v. 1, vii. 4, this censer was first fetched out of the storehouse, carried by the high priest into the Most Holy Place, and upon the completion of the service again carried forth therefrom; even as it would be a priori improbable in the highest degree that such instrument should be kept within the Holy of Holies. For, according to Lev 16:12-13 , the high priest was first to enter with incense into the Most Holy Place, in order that through the cloud thereof the glory of God, enthroned above the cover of the ark of the covenant, might become invisible to him, to the end that he died not. And yet compels us to think of an abiding place of the ; to explain of the mere appertaining of the to the Most Holy Place as an object of use for the latter, as is usually done by the one class of expositors (but also by some advocates of the opposite view, as Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, Owen, Mynster, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Conybeare, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebrerbr . p. 490, Obs .; Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and Woerner, with an appeal to , 1Ki 6:22 ), is inasmuch as the author sharply separates from each other in his description the two main divisions of the O. T. sanctuary, as well as the objects peculiar to each of these divisions, by means of , Heb 9:3 , and thus , Heb 9:4 , unmistakably corresponds to the , Heb 9:2 altogether arbitrary. If, then, we understand of the altar of incense, as we are compelled to do, there arises the archaeological difficulty that this altar had its standing-place not in the Most Holy Place, as is here presupposed by the author, but, on the contrary, in the Holy Place (Exo 30:1 ff.). This point of inconsistency with historic truth is to be admitted, and therefrom the conclusion to be drawn, that the author did not himself live in the vicinity of the Jewish sanctuary, but had drawn his knowledge with regard to the same only from the Scriptures of the O. T., whence the possibility of an error is explicable. In favour of this possibility, Bleek rightly urges the following considerations: first, that Exo 26:35 there are mentioned as standing within the Holy Place only the table and the candlestick, but not the altar of incense also. Then, that where the standing place of this altar is actually spoken of, the form of expression chosen certainly, by reason of its indefiniteness, admitted of misconstruction. So Exo 30:6 : , ; ibid . Exo 40:5 : ; Heb 9:26 : ; Lev 4:7 ; Lev 16:12 ; Lev 16:18 : or . Finally, that in the Mosaic law the altar of incense was brought into peculiar significance in connection with the solemnity of the atonement, since on this day it was sprinkled and cleansed by the high priest with the same blood which the high priest had carried into the Most Holy Place (Exo 30:10 ; Lev 16:18 f.).

] since the emphasis rests on it, is prefixed. The article, however, is wanting, because the sense is: a golden altar, namely, the altar of incense , in distinction from the brazen altar existing in the court, namely, the altar of burnt-offering.

] and the ark of the covenant ; comp. Exo 25:10 ff; Exo 37:1-9 .

] overlaid on every side (within and without; comp. Exo 25:11 ) with gold (plating of fine gold). According to 1Ki 8 , the ark of the covenant was also brought into the temple of Solomon. On the destruction of this temple by the Chaldeans it was lost, and the second temple was without an ark. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud . v. 5. 5 : , , .

. . .] wherein was a golden pot with the manna, and Aaron’s rod which had budded, and the tables of the covenant . does not refer back to , Heb 9:3 (Ribera, Justinian, Pyle, Peirce, and others), for to the , Heb 9:4 , the , Heb 9:5 , forms an opposition, but it refers to . On the pot of manna, comp. Exo 16:32-34 ; on Aaron’s rod, Num. 17:16 26 (Num 18:1-11 ); on the tables of the covenant, Exo 25:16 ; Deu 10:1-2 . According to 1Ki 8:9 , there was nothing more in the ark of the covenant, at the time of its removal into the temple, than the two tables of the law; and according to Exo 16:33 , Num. 17:25 (Num 18:10 ), the two first-mentioned objects were not to have their place within , but before the ark of the covenant. The same opinion, however, which the author here expresses as to the place of the preservation of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, is found likewise with later Rabbins, as with R. Levi Ben Gerson at 1Ki 8:9 and at Num 17:10 , and Abarbanel at 1Ki 8:9 . See Wetstein on our passage.

[89] Omnibus diebus reliquis suffitum facturus de altari accepit in turibulo argenteo hoc vero die in aureo.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

4 Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Ver. 4. The golden censer ] Or the altar of incense, which though it belonged to the most holy place, yet was placed without the veil,Exo 30:6Exo 30:6 , &c., that it might be of daily use, the sweet incense offered thereon easily piercing through the veil, and filling the most holy with its savour.

Wherein was the golden pot, &c. ] In or near to the ark of the covenant was this golden pot of manna, and Aaron’s rod, and the tables of the Testament, and the propitiatory or covering, and a crown of gold around it. To insinuate thus much, saith one, that we must be like the ark of the covenant, being builded and reared up still toward the mark; not only when the Lord feedeth us with the sweet manna of his mercy, but also when he afflicteth us with the sharp rod of his correction, and always keep the tables of the Testament, which are the commandments, that by faith in Christ, who is the propitiation for our sins, we may obtain the golden crown of eternal life.

And the table of the covenant ] It may here be objected, that,1Ki 8:91Ki 8:9 ; 2Ch 5:10 , it is said there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone. For answer, , “in which,” relates not to ark, but tabernacle; so Junius observeth and reconeileth. Calvin and Pareus give other answers. Videsis, their conceit is not to be misliked, that say the ark is the Church, the tables the word, the manna the sacraments, and the rod the discipline.

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

4 .] having (on , see below) a golden censer (or, altar of incense ) (“Maxima totius epistol difficultas in verbis hisce consistit, atque hic locus fortasse prter cteros dubium apud veteres reddidit hujus epistol auctoritatem.” Calmet, in Tholuck. The first difficulty is respecting the meaning of the word . And here the etymology gives us no help. For the word is a neut. adj., importing any thing having regard to or employed in the burning of incense. It may therefore mean either an altar upon which , or a censer in which , incense was burnt. The latter meaning is found in Demosth. p. 617. 3, , . . .: Thuc. vi. 46, , . . .: and so LXX, reff.:Josephus, Antt. iv. 2. 4, . The former, in Herod. iv. 162, , : lian, V. H. xii. 51, ( ) ( ), . It is true, the LXX have generally called the altar of incense or – , cf. Exo 30:1 ; Exo 30:27 ; Lev 4:7 ; 1Ch 6:49 ; 1Ch 28:18 ; 2Ch 26:16 ; 2Ch 26:19 ; or , Exo 40:5 ; Exo 40:24 (Exo 40:26 ; Num 4:11; Numbers 3 Kings 7:48; 2Ch 4:19 ; or . , Lev 16:12 ; Lev 16:18 ; or merely , where the context shews which altar is meant, Lev 16:20 ; Num 4:13-14 ; Deu 33:10 . Deu 33:3 Kin gs 6:20 an d also , where both the altars, of burnt-offering and of incense, are intended, Exo 31:8 ; Num 3:31 . But later, the more appropriate word became the usual Hellenistic name for the altar of incense. So Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Hr. 46, vol. i. p. 504, , , , , . . .: and id. Vita Mos. iii. 7, vol. ii. p. 149, , , , , , . And Josephus, Antt. iii. 6. 8; iii. 8. 2, 3: B. J. v. 5. 5, . , , , . So also Clem.-alex [47] Strom. v. 6. 33, pp. 665 f. P., and other Fathers. And thus it has been taken here by the old lat. in D, by c. on Heb 9:7 ( , , . . .), and of later expositors Tostatus (on Exo 25 qu. 6; on 1Ki 6 qu. 16), Calvin, Justiniani, Estius, Corn. a-Lap., La Cerda (Adverss. c. 81, p. 112), Schlichting, Junius, J. Cappellus, Gerhard, Brochmann, Mynster, Owen, Bleek, De Wette, Ebrard, Lnemann, Delitzsch. On the other hand, the meaning “ censer ” is adopted by Syr., vulg. (“ turibulum ”), Thl. ( , on Heb 9:7 ), Anselm, Th. Aquin., Lyra, Luther, Grot., Villalpandus (on Ezek.), Hammond, De Dieu, Calov., Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetst., Carpzov, Deyling, Michaelis, Schulz, Bhme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Von Gerlach, Stier, Bisping, al. And on this side of the question it is remarkable, that much stress is laid by the Mischna upon the censer to be used on the day of expiation , as distinguished from that used on any other day: on the fact of its being of gold , and of a particular and precious kind of gold. I give nearly the whole passage from Surenhusius, Ordo Festorum, ii. 229, as certainly forming an important element in deciding the difficulty. “In omni die deprompsit thuribulo argenteo et in aureum infundebat: hodie deprompsit aureo, et intrabat cum eo. In omni die deprompsit thuribulo quod quatuor cabos continebat, et in alterum infundebat quod tres cabos capiebat: hodie deprompsit thuribulo quod tres cabos capiebat, et intrabat cum eo. In omni die grave, hodie leve: in omni die manus ejus brevis erat, hodie longa: in omni die aurum ejus viride erat, hodie rufum” (on which Sheringham notes, “Thuribulum quo singulis diebus odores incendebantur, ex auro viridi constabat, quod minus pretiosum erat, sed pretiosum tamen. Martial. xii. 15, ‘miratur Scythicas virentis auri Flammas Jupiter, et stupet superbi Regis delicias.’ Sed in die expiationis thuribulum rutilante auro coruscabat, quod genus auri pretiosissimum et prstantissimum fuit, et , ut aiunt Talmudici, vocabatur, quia juvencorum sanguinem specie referebat. Quamvis verisimilius videtur a nomine loci sic vocari: vide 2Ch 3:6 ”). See also the citation below on . If this latter interpretation be adopted, we are involved in the following difficulty. This golden censer is no where named in the law: the word rendered “ censer ” by E. V., in Lev 16:12 , is , a shallow basin, in which the high priest on the day of atonement was to take incense from the incense-altar into the holy place: and is called in the LXX , not . Besides which, it is not specified as golden; nor was it kept in the holy of holies. Indeed it could not have been, or the high priest would have been obliged to fetch it from thence before burning incense in it, which is most improbable. Of these, the first-mentioned objection is not decisive; for our Writer is speaking, not of Mosaic usage only, but of several things outside the provisions of the law itself; and thus our explanation of any difficulty need not be sought in the provisions of the law only, but also in subsequent Jewish usage. This especially against Delitzsch, who, strictly confining us to Mosaic ordinance here , and asserting that the Writer speaks of it and nothing else, yet below , on the pot of manna, &c., confesses that he follows tradition. If now, influenced by the above difficulties, we adopt the interpretation ‘ altar of incense ,’ for , a difficulty arises, certainly not less than any of those adduced above. On the one hand the word at first sight seems to admit of no other meaning than a local one, ‘ containing .’ The parallelism with above appears to demand this, and the fact that the other things mentioned are beyond question intended to be in , not merely belonging to, the Holy of holies. On this, see more below. Taking it as our first impression, we are startled by the fact, that the altar of incense was not in the Holy of holies, but outside it , , as Philo de Vict. Off. 4, vol. ii. p. 253. Hence Bleek, De Wette, and Lnemann, suppose that the Writer has fallen into a mistake, and Bleek infers from this that he was not an inhabitant of Palestine, but an Alexandrine. But as Delitzsch observes, whichever he were, he must have been a Monstrum von Unwissenheit , to have fallen into any such error. “Then,” continues Delitzsch, “since we cannot submit him to such an imputation, is there any intent which our Writer may have had, inducing him to ascribe the altar of incense to the Holy of holies, notwithstanding that he knew its local situation to be in the Holy place?” There is such an intent, recognized even by Bleek himself. “The Author,” says Bleek, and after him Tholuck, “treats the Holy of holies, irrespective of the veil, as symbolical of the heavenly sanctuary, and had also a motive to include in it the altar of incense, whose offerings of incense are the symbol of the prayers of the saints, Rev 8:3 f.” And even so it is. Not only the N. T. writings, but the O. T. also, Isa 6:6 , speak of a heavenly altar, which is the antitype there of the earthly . Considering the fact that this antitypical altar belonged to the Holy of holies, into which Christ entered through the torn veil, it was obvious for our Writer to reckon the typical altar also among the things belonging to the Holy of holies. Philo, who regarded the as the type of heaven, the as , (Vita Mos. iii. 10, vol. ii. p. 251), had no such motive. Our second question then is, whether our Writer is justified, having this motive, in reckoning the altar of incense among the furniture of the Holy of holies. And our answer is, Entirely so: but not for the reason given by Ebrard, because the smoke of the incense was not intended to roll backwards, but to penetrate into the holiest place as the symbol of supplication and homage: which reason is none at all (but see below), seeing that the same might be said of the smoke of the fat of the altar of burnt-offering, and in the same way the golden table and the shewbread might be reckoned in the Holy of holies; for the cakes, a thank-offering of the twelve tribes for the blessing bestowed on them, lay on the table, that He who sat between the cherubim might behold them. Nor can we refer to Exo 26:35 , where the only reason for the altar of incense not being named among the furniture outside the veil, is, that its construction was not yet prescribed; nor can we adduce the fact of its being called in Exo 30:10 , , holy of holies, seeing that the altar of burnt-offering is in Exo 40:10 , distinguished by the same name. But the following considerations have weight: . that the altar of incense, by Exo 30:6 ; Exo 40:5 , is to be placed before the ark of the covenant or before the Capporeth (mercy-seat), i. e. in the middle between the candlestick on the right and the table of shewbread on the left, so that its place is subordinate to the ark of the covenant: . that on the day of atonement, it, as well as the mercy-seat, was sprinkled with the blood of the sin-offering: . that in 1Ki 6:22 , as well as by our Writer, it is reckoned to the Holy of holies, being there called , the altar belonging to the sanctuary (E. V., “ the altar that was by the oracle ”). Thenius indeed holds to be an error for , “before the sanctuary,” but Keil maintains rightly that that passage of Kings and our passage here mutually defend and explain one another. The solution to be gathered from this would be, that the altar of incense, being appointed by the Mosaic ordinance to stand in immediate contiguity to the veil separating the Holy of holies, and being destined in its use especially for the service of the Holy of holics (for this, notwithstanding the objection brought by Delitzsch, might have weight; the exterior altar of burnt-offering did not belong in any such strict sense to the sanctuary and mercy-seat), and being described in more than one place of Scripture (e. g. Exo 30:6 ; 1Ki 6:22 ) as connected with the sanctuary, is taken by the Writer as appertaining to the Holy of holies: he choosing, thus to describe it, the somewhat ambiguous word , and not as before. For we may set off against what was just now said about the strict parallel at first sight between in the former clause and in this, that it may be fairly alleged, that the very fact of variation of terms, in such a parallelism, points to some variation of meaning also. I have thus given both views of the solution to be sought: and will now state the result. 1. On either hypothesis, cannot be kept to its stricter meaning of containing . For neither the censer nor the incense-altar was kept in the holy of holies. 2. The language of the Mischna concerning the golden censer is very strong, and more weight still is given to it when we reflect that it is especially of the day of expiation that our Writer is preparing to speak. 3. The word should not be overlooked in the consideration. When the ark of the covenant by and by is spoken of, which like the altar of incense was overlaid with gold, it is not said to be , but only . And this predicate being thus emphatically thrown forward, it is hardly possible to help feeling that a stress is laid on it, and it is not used without design. And if we enquire what this design is, we can hardly find fault with the reply which says that it is to distinguish a from some other kinds of . 4. On the whole then I should say that the balance inclines towards the ‘censer’ interpretation, though I do not feel by any means that the difficulty is removed, and should hail any new solution which might clear it still further) and the ark of the covenant (see Exo 25:10 ff; Exo 37:1 ff.: called by this name, , Jos 3:6 and passim) covered round on all sides ( , Exo 25:11 ) with gold ( , not , perhaps for a portion of gold, or perhaps, as Delitzsch, for wrought gold. See Palm and Rost’s Lex. But all distinction between the words seems to have been lost before Hellenistio Greek arose, and the tendency of all later forms of speech is to adopt diminutives where the elder forms used the primitives. The ark, a chest, was of shittim (acacia) wood, overlaid with plates of fine gold, Exod. l. c. The ark of the covenant was in the Holy of holies in the Mosaic tabernacle, and in the temple of Solomon, 1Ki 8:4 ; 1Ki 8:6 . In the sack by the Chaldeans, it disappeared. See a legend respecting its fate in Mal 2:1-8Mal 2:1-8 , where curiously enough are classed together. The second temple did not contain it, but it was represented by a stone basement three fingers high, called , “the stone of foundation” (Delitzsch: see Gesen. Thesaurus, under , iii.). So in the Mischna, “Ex quo abducta est arca, lapis ibi erat a diebus priorum prophetarum, et lapis fundationis fuit vocatus; altus e terra tribus digitis, et super ipsum thuribulum collocabat.” So Jos. B. J. v. 5. 5, of the sanctuary, in his time, . , . . , ), in which (was) a golden pot (Exo 16:32-34 . The word ‘ golden ,’ , is added by the LXX: so also Philo de Congr. Qur. Erud. Gr. 18, vol. i. p. 533, : the Heb. has merely “a pot,” as E. V.) containing the manna (viz. an omer, each man’s daily share, laid up for a memorial, cf. Exo 16:32 with Exo 16:16 . That this pot was to be placed in the ark , is not said there, but it was gathered probably from the words “before the Lord.” In 1Ki 8:9 and 2Ch 5:10 , it is stated that there was nothing in the ark in Solomon’s temple, except the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb. But this, as Delitzsch observes, will not prove any thing against the pot of manna and the rod having once been there; nay rather, from the express declaration that there was then nothing but the tables of stone, it would seem that formerly there had been other things there. The Rabbis certainly treat of the pot of manna as of the rod, as being in the ark : see the testimonies of Levi ben Gershom and Abarbanel in Wetst., h. 1.), and the rod of Aaron which budded (see Num 17:1-11 . It was to be laid up “before the testimony,” in which Ben Gershom sees a proof that it was in the ark: “ex eo autem, quod dicit coram testimonio potius quam coram area, discimus, intra arcam fuisse.” Abarbanel refers to “traditio qudam Rabbinorum nostrorum.” See Wetst. as above. The Gemara (Joma 52 b) mentions a tradition that with the ark disappeared the pot of manna, and the cruse of anointing oil, and the rod of Aaron with its almonds and blossoms, and the chest which the Philistines sent for a trespass-offering, 1Sa 6:4 ; 1Sa 6:8 ), and the tables of the covenant (viz. the tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written by the finger of God, Exo 25:16 ; Exo 31:18 ; Deu 10:1-5 ; 1Ki 8:9 ; 2Ch 5:10 , as above. It will be seen from these references, that these tables were ordered to be put in the ark):

[47]-alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Heb 9:4 . . The inner tent is characterised by its furnishings, a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant. f1 is rendered both in A.V. and R.V. by “censer” following the Vulgate, “aureum habens thuribulum;” Grotius “ : hic non est mensa, sed impositum mensae batillum ;” and others. In doing so the usage of the LXX is followed, for in 2Ch 26:19 , Eze 8:11 , 4Ma 7:11 the only instances of its occurrence it renders = censer; while “altar of incense” is rendered by , see Lev 4:7 , 1Ch 7:4-9 , etc. But Philo (p. 512 A, 668, C), Josephus Ant. , iii. 6, 8, and the versions of Symmachus and Theodotion in Exo 31 use for “altar of incense”. Besides, the form of the word indicates that it could be used of anything on which incense is offered. It was, therefore, understood of the “altar” by Clement Alex. and other fathers; by Calvin, who says, “quo nomine altare suffitus vel thymiamatis potius intelligo quam thuribulum;” and by most modern scholars. As has frequently been urged it is incredible that in describing the furniture of the tabernacle there should be no mention of the altar of incense. Difficulty has been felt regarding the position here assigned to it, for in fact it stood outside the veil; and the author has been charged with error. But the change from of Heb 9:2 to is significant, and indicates that it was not precisely its local relations he had in view, but rather its ritual associations, “its close connection with the ministry of the Holy of Holies on the day of atonement, of which he is speaking” (Davidson). The altar was indeed so strictly connected with the Sancta Sanctorum that in the directions originally given for its construction this was brought out (Exo 30:1-6 ). “Thou shalt set it before the veil ( . ) that is over the ark of the testimony,” and in Heb 9:10 , “it is most holy ( ) to the Lord”. In 1Ki 6:20 it is also said of Solomon that he made the altar of incense “in front of the oracle,” which brings it into direct connection with the ark Cf. also 1Ki 9:25 . , although made of shittim wood it was overlaid with gold and is often called “golden”. Here emphasis is laid upon its golden appearance as being worthy of its use. “and the ark of the covenant covered all over with gold”. , a box or chest (in Aristoph. Wasps , 1056, wardrobe) or ark (a word still used in Scotland, where the meal-chest is known as the meal-ark). In LXX and N.T. appropriated to the chest in the Holy of Holies or to the ark in which Noah was rescued. For its construction see Exo 25:10 . . representing “inside and outside” of Exo 25:11 . Here called because in it were kept . “the tables of the covenant” on which were written the ten commandments, the sum of the terms to which the people swore on entering the covenant. Therefore called in Exo 31:18 . These tables were, in LXX, first spoken of as ( , Exo 24:12 ). They are called in Exo 31:18 . Paul also uses this word in contrasting the stone tables of the Law with the of the heart. In 1Ki 8:9 it is stated that when Solomon’s Temple was dedicated these tables were the sole contents of the ark. In the tabernacle, however, as here described the ark also contained “a golden jar containing manna,” as directed in Exo 16:33-34 , Moses said to Aaron , where it is masculine; in Aristoph. Plut . 545, feminine (see Stephanus, s.v.). Usually it was of earthenware and used for holding wine, honey, etc. in Exod. is the form used; in the other books . , as related in Num 17:1-10 , when the rods of the tribes were laid up before the Lord to determine who were the legitimate priests, . Chrysostom remarks that the contents of the ark were venerable and significant memorials of Israel’s rebellion; the tables of the covenant for the first were broken on account of their sin; the manna reminding them of their murmuring; the rod that budded of their jealousy of Aaron.

“And over it [the ark] Cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercyseat” [“obumbrantia propitiatorium” (Vulg.)]. According to Exo 25:18-22 , the Cherubim were to be two in number, made of gold, one at each end of the ark, looking towards one another, and overshadowing the mercy seat with their wings [ ]. The Cherubim seem to have symbolised, in the manner of the Assyrians and Egyptians, the creatures of God, all that is best in creation, by a combination of excellences found in no single creature. In Eze 1:10 they have four faces, of a man, a lion, an ox, and an eagle, representing respectively intelligence, strength, steadfastness, rapidity. But cf. Davidson, p. 173 and Cheyne’s art. in Encycl. Bibl . , the Cherubim are here called “of glory,” probably because closely attached to and, as it were, attendant upon, the place of the manifestation of the divine glory. [“Als Trger der Herrlichkeit, in welcher die gttliche Gnadengegenwart sich kund that” (Weiss).] . In Exo 25:17 Moses is instructed to make a golden cover [ ] to be laid upon the lid of the ark, and this instruction the LXX renders by the words f1 . The word alone, without any qualifying adjective, would have been an adequate translation of , for both words mean “a cover”. But is nowhere else used in the LXX to translate , which is regularly translated by , although this word does not express the idea of a material covering. [Philo more than once remarks upon this. In De Profug. , 19, in speaking of symbols, he says , . And in Vit. Mos . iii. 68, .] The reason of this usage is to be found in the fact that this “cover” was sprinkled with blood on the day of atonement, and came, therefore, to be associated with the covering of sin. Indeed, the Hebrew word which denotes the material covering is that which is regularly used to express the covering of sin. The original thus became a and finally . (See Deissmann, Bibelstud . p. 121 132.) “of which we cannot now speak in detail”. , as commonly in classical Greek = . = one by one. Examples in Wetstein and Bleek (see especially Plato, Theaet . 157B, where it is opposed to ).

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

censer. Greek. thumiaterion. Only here.

ark. See Exo 25:10-22.

covenant. See Heb 8:6. Exo 25:10-22.

pot. Gr. stamnos. Only here. See Exo 16:32-34.

budded. Greek. blastano. Here; Mat 13:26. Mar 4:27. Jam 5:18. See Num 17:8. tables. Greek. plax. Only here and 2Co 3:3. See Exo 25:16.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

4.] having (on , see below) a golden censer (or, altar of incense) (Maxima totius epistol difficultas in verbis hisce consistit, atque hic locus fortasse prter cteros dubium apud veteres reddidit hujus epistol auctoritatem. Calmet, in Tholuck. The first difficulty is respecting the meaning of the word . And here the etymology gives us no help. For the word is a neut. adj., importing any thing having regard to or employed in the burning of incense. It may therefore mean either an altar upon which, or a censer in which, incense was burnt. The latter meaning is found in Demosth. p. 617. 3, , …: Thuc. vi. 46, , …: and so LXX, reff.:Josephus, Antt. iv. 2. 4, . The former, in Herod. iv. 162, , : lian, V. H. xii. 51, () (), . It is true, the LXX have generally called the altar of incense or -, cf. Exo 30:1; Exo 30:27; Lev 4:7; 1Ch 6:49; 1Ch 28:18; 2Ch 26:16; 2Ch 26:19; or , Exo 40:5; Exo 40:24 (Exo 40:26; Num 4:11; Numbers 3 Kings 7:48; 2Ch 4:19; or . , Lev 16:12; Lev 16:18; or merely , where the context shews which altar is meant, Lev 16:20; Num 4:13-14; Deu 33:10. 3 Kings 6:20 and also , where both the altars, of burnt-offering and of incense, are intended, Exo 31:8; Num 3:31. But later, the more appropriate word became the usual Hellenistic name for the altar of incense. So Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Hr. 46, vol. i. p. 504, , , , , …: and id. Vita Mos. iii. 7, vol. ii. p. 149, , , , , , . And Josephus, Antt. iii. 6. 8; iii. 8. 2, 3: B. J. v. 5. 5, . , , , . So also Clem.-alex[47] Strom. v. 6. 33, pp. 665 f. P., and other Fathers. And thus it has been taken here by the old lat. in D, by c. on Heb 9:7 ( , , …), and of later expositors Tostatus (on Exodus 25 qu. 6; on 1 Kings 6 qu. 16), Calvin, Justiniani, Estius, Corn. a-Lap., La Cerda (Adverss. c. 81, p. 112), Schlichting, Junius, J. Cappellus, Gerhard, Brochmann, Mynster, Owen, Bleek, De Wette, Ebrard, Lnemann, Delitzsch. On the other hand, the meaning censer is adopted by Syr., vulg. (turibulum), Thl. ( , on Heb 9:7), Anselm, Th. Aquin., Lyra, Luther, Grot., Villalpandus (on Ezek.), Hammond, De Dieu, Calov., Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetst., Carpzov, Deyling, Michaelis, Schulz, Bhme, Stuart, Kuinoel, Von Gerlach, Stier, Bisping, al. And on this side of the question it is remarkable, that much stress is laid by the Mischna upon the censer to be used on the day of expiation, as distinguished from that used on any other day: on the fact of its being of gold, and of a particular and precious kind of gold. I give nearly the whole passage from Surenhusius, Ordo Festorum, ii. 229, as certainly forming an important element in deciding the difficulty. In omni die deprompsit thuribulo argenteo et in aureum infundebat: hodie deprompsit aureo, et intrabat cum eo. In omni die deprompsit thuribulo quod quatuor cabos continebat, et in alterum infundebat quod tres cabos capiebat: hodie deprompsit thuribulo quod tres cabos capiebat, et intrabat cum eo. In omni die grave, hodie leve: in omni die manus ejus brevis erat, hodie longa: in omni die aurum ejus viride erat, hodie rufum (on which Sheringham notes, Thuribulum quo singulis diebus odores incendebantur, ex auro viridi constabat, quod minus pretiosum erat, sed pretiosum tamen. Martial. xii. 15, miratur Scythicas virentis auri Flammas Jupiter, et stupet superbi Regis delicias. Sed in die expiationis thuribulum rutilante auro coruscabat, quod genus auri pretiosissimum et prstantissimum fuit, et , ut aiunt Talmudici, vocabatur, quia juvencorum sanguinem specie referebat. Quamvis verisimilius videtur a nomine loci sic vocari: vide 2Ch 3:6). See also the citation below on . If this latter interpretation be adopted, we are involved in the following difficulty. This golden censer is no where named in the law: the word rendered censer by E. V., in Lev 16:12, is , a shallow basin, in which the high priest on the day of atonement was to take incense from the incense-altar into the holy place: and is called in the LXX , not . Besides which, it is not specified as golden; nor was it kept in the holy of holies. Indeed it could not have been, or the high priest would have been obliged to fetch it from thence before burning incense in it, which is most improbable. Of these, the first-mentioned objection is not decisive; for our Writer is speaking, not of Mosaic usage only, but of several things outside the provisions of the law itself; and thus our explanation of any difficulty need not be sought in the provisions of the law only, but also in subsequent Jewish usage. This especially against Delitzsch, who, strictly confining us to Mosaic ordinance here, and asserting that the Writer speaks of it and nothing else, yet below, on the pot of manna, &c., confesses that he follows tradition. If now, influenced by the above difficulties, we adopt the interpretation altar of incense, for , a difficulty arises, certainly not less than any of those adduced above. On the one hand the word at first sight seems to admit of no other meaning than a local one, containing. The parallelism with above appears to demand this, and the fact that the other things mentioned are beyond question intended to be in, not merely belonging to, the Holy of holies. On this, see more below. Taking it as our first impression, we are startled by the fact, that the altar of incense was not in the Holy of holies, but outside it, , as Philo de Vict. Off. 4, vol. ii. p. 253. Hence Bleek, De Wette, and Lnemann, suppose that the Writer has fallen into a mistake, and Bleek infers from this that he was not an inhabitant of Palestine, but an Alexandrine. But as Delitzsch observes, whichever he were, he must have been a Monstrum von Unwissenheit, to have fallen into any such error. Then, continues Delitzsch, since we cannot submit him to such an imputation, is there any intent which our Writer may have had, inducing him to ascribe the altar of incense to the Holy of holies, notwithstanding that he knew its local situation to be in the Holy place? There is such an intent, recognized even by Bleek himself. The Author, says Bleek, and after him Tholuck, treats the Holy of holies, irrespective of the veil, as symbolical of the heavenly sanctuary, and had also a motive to include in it the altar of incense, whose offerings of incense are the symbol of the prayers of the saints, Rev 8:3 f. And even so it is. Not only the N. T. writings, but the O. T. also, Isa 6:6, speak of a heavenly altar, which is the antitype there of the earthly . Considering the fact that this antitypical altar belonged to the Holy of holies, into which Christ entered through the torn veil, it was obvious for our Writer to reckon the typical altar also among the things belonging to the Holy of holies. Philo, who regarded the as the type of heaven, the as , (Vita Mos. iii. 10, vol. ii. p. 251), had no such motive. Our second question then is, whether our Writer is justified, having this motive, in reckoning the altar of incense among the furniture of the Holy of holies. And our answer is, Entirely so: but not for the reason given by Ebrard, because the smoke of the incense was not intended to roll backwards, but to penetrate into the holiest place as the symbol of supplication and homage: which reason is none at all (but see below), seeing that the same might be said of the smoke of the fat of the altar of burnt-offering, and in the same way the golden table and the shewbread might be reckoned in the Holy of holies; for the cakes, a thank-offering of the twelve tribes for the blessing bestowed on them, lay on the table, that He who sat between the cherubim might behold them. Nor can we refer to Exo 26:35, where the only reason for the altar of incense not being named among the furniture outside the veil, is, that its construction was not yet prescribed;-nor can we adduce the fact of its being called in Exo 30:10, , holy of holies, seeing that the altar of burnt-offering is in Exo 40:10, distinguished by the same name. But the following considerations have weight: . that the altar of incense, by Exo 30:6; Exo 40:5, is to be placed before the ark of the covenant or before the Capporeth (mercy-seat), i. e. in the middle between the candlestick on the right and the table of shewbread on the left, so that its place is subordinate to the ark of the covenant: . that on the day of atonement, it, as well as the mercy-seat, was sprinkled with the blood of the sin-offering: . that in 1Ki 6:22, as well as by our Writer, it is reckoned to the Holy of holies, being there called , the altar belonging to the sanctuary (E. V., the altar that was by the oracle). Thenius indeed holds to be an error for , before the sanctuary, but Keil maintains rightly that that passage of Kings and our passage here mutually defend and explain one another. The solution to be gathered from this would be, that the altar of incense, being appointed by the Mosaic ordinance to stand in immediate contiguity to the veil separating the Holy of holies, and being destined in its use especially for the service of the Holy of holics (for this, notwithstanding the objection brought by Delitzsch, might have weight; the exterior altar of burnt-offering did not belong in any such strict sense to the sanctuary and mercy-seat), and being described in more than one place of Scripture (e. g. Exo 30:6; 1Ki 6:22) as connected with the sanctuary, is taken by the Writer as appertaining to the Holy of holies: he choosing, thus to describe it, the somewhat ambiguous word , and not as before. For we may set off against what was just now said about the strict parallel at first sight between in the former clause and in this, that it may be fairly alleged, that the very fact of variation of terms, in such a parallelism, points to some variation of meaning also. I have thus given both views of the solution to be sought: and will now state the result. 1. On either hypothesis, cannot be kept to its stricter meaning of containing. For neither the censer nor the incense-altar was kept in the holy of holies. 2. The language of the Mischna concerning the golden censer is very strong, and more weight still is given to it when we reflect that it is especially of the day of expiation that our Writer is preparing to speak. 3. The word should not be overlooked in the consideration. When the ark of the covenant by and by is spoken of, which like the altar of incense was overlaid with gold, it is not said to be , but only . And this predicate being thus emphatically thrown forward, it is hardly possible to help feeling that a stress is laid on it, and it is not used without design. And if we enquire what this design is, we can hardly find fault with the reply which says that it is to distinguish a from some other kinds of . 4. On the whole then I should say that the balance inclines towards the censer interpretation, though I do not feel by any means that the difficulty is removed, and should hail any new solution which might clear it still further) and the ark of the covenant (see Exo 25:10 ff; Exo 37:1 ff.: called by this name, , Jos 3:6 and passim) covered round on all sides ( , Exo 25:11) with gold (, not , perhaps for a portion of gold, or perhaps, as Delitzsch, for wrought gold. See Palm and Rosts Lex. But all distinction between the words seems to have been lost before Hellenistio Greek arose, and the tendency of all later forms of speech is to adopt diminutives where the elder forms used the primitives. The ark, a chest, was of shittim (acacia) wood, overlaid with plates of fine gold, Exod. l. c. The ark of the covenant was in the Holy of holies in the Mosaic tabernacle, and in the temple of Solomon, 1Ki 8:4; 1Ki 8:6. In the sack by the Chaldeans, it disappeared. See a legend respecting its fate in 2Ma 2:1-8, where curiously enough are classed together. The second temple did not contain it, but it was represented by a stone basement three fingers high, called , the stone of foundation (Delitzsch: see Gesen. Thesaurus, under , iii.). So in the Mischna, Ex quo abducta est arca, lapis ibi erat a diebus priorum prophetarum, et lapis fundationis fuit vocatus; altus e terra tribus digitis, et super ipsum thuribulum collocabat. So Jos. B. J. v. 5. 5, of the sanctuary, in his time, . , . . , ), in which (was) a golden pot (Exo 16:32-34. The word golden, , is added by the LXX: so also Philo de Congr. Qur. Erud. Gr. 18, vol. i. p. 533, : the Heb. has merely a pot, as E. V.) containing the manna (viz. an omer, each mans daily share, laid up for a memorial, cf. Exo 16:32 with Exo 16:16. That this pot was to be placed in the ark, is not said there, but it was gathered probably from the words before the Lord. In 1Ki 8:9 and 2Ch 5:10, it is stated that there was nothing in the ark in Solomons temple, except the two tables which Moses put therein at Horeb. But this, as Delitzsch observes, will not prove any thing against the pot of manna and the rod having once been there; nay rather, from the express declaration that there was then nothing but the tables of stone, it would seem that formerly there had been other things there. The Rabbis certainly treat of the pot of manna as of the rod, as being in the ark: see the testimonies of Levi ben Gershom and Abarbanel in Wetst., h. 1.), and the rod of Aaron which budded (see Num 17:1-11. It was to be laid up before the testimony, in which Ben Gershom sees a proof that it was in the ark: ex eo autem, quod dicit coram testimonio potius quam coram area, discimus, intra arcam fuisse. Abarbanel refers to traditio qudam Rabbinorum nostrorum. See Wetst. as above. The Gemara (Joma 52 b) mentions a tradition that with the ark disappeared the pot of manna, and the cruse of anointing oil, and the rod of Aaron with its almonds and blossoms, and the chest which the Philistines sent for a trespass-offering, 1Sa 6:4; 1Sa 6:8), and the tables of the covenant (viz. the tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written by the finger of God, Exo 25:16; Exo 31:18; Deu 10:1-5; 1Ki 8:9; 2Ch 5:10, as above. It will be seen from these references, that these tables were ordered to be put in the ark):

[47]-alex. Clement of Alexandria, fl. 194

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Heb 9:4. , golden) The apostle uses such words as signify something precious and glorious, as , of glory, Heb 9:5.-) censer. So the LXX. express , a censer for frankincense; not the ALTAR of incense, which had no more need to be mentioned than the altar of whole burnt-offering, which is not mentioned. But the censer alone, along with the ark of the covenant, is named in this verse, because it was the principal part of the furniture which the high priest used on the day of expiation; and although it was on that day alone that he both carried in and again carried out the censer, yet the participle , having, is consonant with the fact.[49] Further, this is put first, because a description of the ark follows at greater length.- , in which) namely, , the ark; for to it also is to be referred , over it, Heb 9:5.- , the golden pot that had manna) , manna, has the article, not , the pot; for the thing contained was of more importance than the golden vessel which contained it. Exo 16:33, ; LXX. . Some suspect that this pot and rod of Aaron, two most remarkable memorials, which were furnished with a perpetual miracle, had been taken out of the ark before the building of the temple; others, that they were put in not until afterwards, because in 1Ki 8:9 mention is only made of the tables laid up in the ark. But in the same passage it is distinctly affirmed, that Solomon acted according to the example of Moses; and the apostle refers to the times of Moses, Heb 9:6, at the beginning; ch. Heb 8:5 : comp. ch. Heb 13:11, where there is no mention made of the city, as here none of the temple. What then shall we say? The tables were alone in the ark itself, but the pot and the rod , before the testimony, and therefore before the ark, Exo 16:34; Num. 17:25, in the Hebr., very near the ark, as appendages to it; in the same way that the book of the law and the deposits of the Philistines [the five golden emerods and mice] were put on the side of the ark: Deu 31:26; 1Sa 6:8. Therefore in this passage is used with some latitude, as Luk 9:31, etc.- , the manna) A memorial of Gods providential care of Israel.- , the rod) A memorial of a lawful priesthood, Num. 17:16, etc., in the Hebr.- , the tables of the covenant) Deu 9:9. These are put in the last place by gradation.

[49] The Holy of Holies continually had the censer; though it was only on the day of atonement that the high priest used it.-ED.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

Inside The Ark

Come into the Holiest of all, by the golden censer of our Saviors merits, asking God to show you Christ our Ark as he was portrayed in that Old Testament type. What can be found in the ark? Lets do by faith what no mortal man could ever do in those days of types and shadows. Lets lift up the mercy-seat and look inside the ark. Remember, the ark was but a picture of the Lord Jesus Christ. What do we see in the ark? We see the two tables of the law of God, which we have broken. The broken law, our sins, is under the mercy-seat, under the blood.

Gods Purpose

Those broken tables of the law, under the blood, represent Gods purpose of grace. The law was written upon tables of stone, representing both the hardness of our hearts and the inflexibility of Gods law. The law represents our curse and condemnation by reason of sin. The tables of Gods broken law were always kept in the ark, under the mercy-seat (Exo 25:16; Exo 25:21), representing perfect redemption by Christ. That perfect redemption of his elect is the purpose of God (Rom 8:28-31). The law of God, being perfectly satisfied by Christ, cries as strongly for our salvation as the grace of God. We are, in Christ, free from the law, because the laws demands have been fully met for us by Christs obedience and blood.

Gods Power

Look again, there is something else inside the ark. There is Aarons rod that budded. That rod represents Gods power. Aarons rod that budded portrayed the gospel of Christ, the Man whom God has chosen (Num 17:10). Christ, the Rock of our salvation, was smitten by Moses rod, which represented Gods holy law. The water of life flows out to sinners by Aarons rod, the gospel, which is the power of God before which Dagon must fall, the power of God unto salvation (Rom 1:16-17).

Gods Provision

There is one more thing inside the ark, the golden pot that had manna. That is a picture of Christ, Gods Provision (Exo 16:33-34). It was a golden pot, portraying the richness of Gods free grace in Christ. It was a big pot, holding an omer of manna; and Christ is a great Savior, a bounteous store of mercy and grace! This golden pot had manna, the bread of heaven, portraying Christ, the Bread of Life. All Gods provision for sinners is in Christ Jesus. His name is Jehovah-jireh, the Lord will provide (Eph 1:3). All the provisions of grace, of providence, and of eternity are in Christ! Come to the Ark Christ Jesus. The way is open. All who come to God by Christ are forever saved. All we need, all God requires, all that heaven can bestow is in Christ, the Ark. Come to the Ark!

Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible

the golden: Lev 16:12, 1Ki 7:50, Rev 8:3

the ark: Exo 25:10-16, Exo 26:33, Exo 37:1-5, Exo 39:35, Exo 40:3, Exo 40:21

was: Exo 16:33, Exo 16:34

and Aaron’s: Num 17:5, Num 17:8, Num 17:10, Psa 110:2, Psa 110:3

and the: Exo 25:16, Exo 25:21, Exo 26:33, Exo 34:29, Exo 40:3, Exo 40:20, Exo 40:21, Deu 10:2-5, 1Ki 8:9, 1Ki 8:21, 2Ch 5:10

Reciprocal: Exo 16:15 – It is manna Exo 24:12 – tables Exo 30:6 – veil Lev 10:1 – censer Deu 4:13 – he wrote Deu 9:11 – the tables of the covenant Deu 10:1 – make thee Jos 3:14 – bearing the ark 1Sa 4:3 – the ark 1Ki 6:19 – to set 1Ch 15:29 – as the ark 2Ch 5:7 – to the oracle 2Ch 6:11 – I put the ark 2Co 3:7 – written Rev 11:19 – the ark

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

THE SYMBOLISM OF AARONS ROD

Aarons rod that budded.

Heb 9:4

We can be at no loss to learn the lesson which the budding of Aarons rod is intended to convey to us as Christians. It is that of the supernatural fruitfulness of all Gods ordinances and means of grace. Viewed in themselves they seem mere dead wood, like the rod of Aaron, which was just like those of the rest of the peoplemere dead wood without life or sap.

I. The Priesthood of the Church.Viewed in themselves, Christs priests are merely men, as Aaron was. But by Gods appointment they are channels of grace from Christ the Head, and through them He produces fruit for His people which must clearly come from Him, so quickly is it produced. Not even a living tree could have produced blossoms and fruit in a single night, as Aarons rod did.

II. The Ministrations of Gods priests.Received in faith, as Gods ordinances, these ministrations bear fruit with a speed which is clearly Gods doing and not mans; and the type of Aarons rod is fulfilled every day in the history of our churches and our parishes.

III. Our Sacraments.Viewed in themselves, what is less than the sacramental elements of bread and wine?

(a) What is less than the water of baptism? Yet God has chosen them to be His instruments of grace. Even as He chose Aaron to be His priest, and the Passover to be the seal and sign of His salvation from the Destroying Angel in Egypt.

(b) It is curious to notice, too, horn in the case of the Holy Communion God chose again to carry out the same rule we have observed above, and to take care that the first time it was treated as common bread and common wine the same visible punishment should follow as when His apostles were treated as if they bore no spiritual character. In 1Co 11:29-30, when St. Paul has to rebuke the Corinthians for profaning the Sacrament, as if it were a mere human institution, he tells them that for this cause many are weak and sickly among you and many sleepclearly pointing to some judgment by which God was punishing those who were guilty of this sin, that they might see His displeasure and amend their ways, and having once shown His displeasure, if after that men will not amend He leaves them to bear the consequences. He does not interfere again.

Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary

Heb 9:4. Golden censer. According to Lev 16:12 the high priest burned incense in the most holy place on the day of atonement. A censer is a vessel to be carried in the hand and used in the manner of fumigating. This instrument was necessary because the golden altar of incense was in the first room or holy place of the tabernacle. As proof of this we read in Exo 40:24 that the candlestick was placed in the “tent” of the congregation. Then in verse 26 it says the golden altar also was in the “tent” or the same place where the candlestick was. Hence, the golden altar of incense was in the holy place or first room of the tabernacle, making it necessary to have this censer in the most holy place. Ark of the covenant is so called because it contained the tables of the covenant (Deu 10:1-2). For the history of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, see Exo 16:32-34 and Num 17:1-11.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Heb 9:4-5. Which had the golden censer Used by the high-priest only on the great day of atonement. The apostle may have learned from the priests that this censer was of gold, and that it was left by him in the inward tabernacle, so near to the veil, that when he was about to officiate next year, by putting his hand under the veil he could draw it out to fill it with burning coals, before he entered into the most holy place to burn the incense, agreeably to the direction, Lev 16:12-13; where see the note. And the ark of the covenant This, with the mercy-seat wherewith it was covered, was the most glorious and mysterious utensil of the tabernacle, and afterward of the temple, the most eminent pledge of Gods presence, and the most mysterious representation of the divine attributes in Christ. This being the heart, so to speak, of all divine services, was first formed; all other things in the Jewish worship had a relation to it, Exo 25:10-11. Sometimes it is called the ark of the testimony, because God called the tables of the covenant lodged in it by the name of his testimony, or that which testified his will to the people, and which, by the peoples acceptance of the terms of it, was to be a perpetual witness between God and them. On the same account it is called the ark of the covenant, and lastly, it is called the ark of God, because it was the most eminent pledge of the special presence of God among the people. As to its fabric, it was , every way, within and without, overlaid with plates of beaten gold. This being the most sacred and glorious instrument of the sanctuary, all neglects about it, and contempt of it, were most severely punished. From the tabernacle it was carried into the temple built by Solomon, wherein it continued until the Babylonish captivity, and what became of it afterward is altogether uncertain. Wherein was the golden pot that had manna The monument of Gods care over Israel. When the manna first fell, every one was commanded to gather an omer for his own eating, (Exo 16:16,) and God appointed that an omer of it should be put into a pot, and kept in the tabernacle before the Lord, Exo 16:33 : there it was miraculously preserved from putrefaction, whereas otherwise it would have putrefied in less than two days. The pot was to be made of that which was most durable, as being to be kept for a memorial throughout all generations. Because it is said, 1Ki 8:9, there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, the words , here used by the apostle, may be translated, nigh to which. Or the difficulty may be removed by supposing that the pronoun , which, relates to , tabernacle, in which tabernacle also was the golden pot: or because it is said, Deu 31:26, Take this book of the law and put it in the side of the ark, we may conjecture that the book was put into some repository fixed to the side of the ark, and that the pot of manna was laid up before the Lord in the same manner. Aarons rod that budded The monument of a regular priesthood. The apostle affirms only that it budded, but in the sacred story concerning the trial about the priesthood, recorded Num 17:2-10, it is added, that it brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds, being originally cut from an almond-tree. This rod Moses took from before the testimony when he was to smite the rock and work a miracle, of which this was consecrated to be the outward sign; and the tables of the covenant The two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written by the finger of God; the most venerable monument of all. And over it Over the ark; the cherubim of glory Cherubim being the name of an order of angels, (Gen 3:24,) the figures called cherubim, placed on the sides of the mercy-seat, with the glory of the Lord resting between them, represented the angels who surround the manifestation of the divine presence in heaven. These figures, therefore, were fitly termed the cherubim of glory; and by this glory constantly abiding in the inward tabernacle, and by the figures of the cherubim, that tabernacle was rendered a fit image of heaven. Shadowing With outspread wings; the mercy-seat And represented as looking down upon it; a posture significative of the desire of angels to look into the mysteries of mans redemption, of which the mercy-seat, or propitiatory, being a plate of gold covering the ark, was an emblem, 1Pe 1:12. See also notes on Exo 25:17-22, where the making and frame both of the mercy-seat and the cherubim are described,

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Verse 4

The ark; Exodus 25:10-16.–Manna; Exodus 16:33.–Aaron’s rod; Numbers 17:1-10.–The tables of the covenant; the two tables of stone, on which the ten commandments were engraven.

Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament