Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hebrews 9:1
Then verily the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
1. Then verily the first tabernacle had also ordinances ] Rather, “To resume then, even the first ( covenant) had its ordinances.” No substantive is expressed with “first,” but the train of reasoning in the last chapter sufficiently shews that “Covenant,” not “Tabernacle,” is the word to be supplied.
had ] Although he often refers to the Levitic ordinances as still continuing, he here contemplates them as obsolete and practically annulled.
and a worldly sanctuary ] Rather, “and its sanctuary a material one.” The word kosmikon, rendered “worldly,” means that the Jewish Sanctuary was visible and temporary a mundane structure in contrast to the Heavenly, Eternal Sanctuary. The adjective “worldly” only occurs here and in Tit 2:12.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Then verily – Or, moreover. The object is to describe the tabernacle in which the service of God was celebrated under the former dispensation, and to show that it had a reference to what was future, and was only an imperfect representation of the reality. It was important to show this, as the Jews regarded the ordinances of the tabernacle and of the whole Levitical service as of divine appointment, and of perpetual obligation. The object of Paul is to prove that they were to give place to a more perfect system, and hence, it was necessary to discuss their real nature.
The first covenant – The word covenant is not in the Greek, but is not improperly supplied. The meaning is, that the former arrangement or dispensation had religious rites and services connected with it.
Had also ordinances – Margin, Ceremonies. The Greek word means laws, precepts, ordinances; and the idea is, that there were laws regulating the worship of God. The Jewish institutions abounded with such laws.
And a worldly sanctuary – The word sanctuary means a holy place, and is applied to a house of worship, or a temple. Here it may refer either to the temple or to the tabernacle. As the temple was constructed after the same form as the tabernacle, and had the same furniture, the description of the apostle may be regarded as applicable to either of them, and it is difficult to determine which he had in his eye. The term worldly, applied to sanctuary, here means that it pertained to this world; it was contradistinguished from the heavenly sanctuary not made with hands where Christ was now gone; compare Heb 9:11-24. It does not mean that it was worldly in the sense in which that word is now used as denoting the opposite of spiritual, serious, religious; but worldly in the sense that it belonged to the earth rather than to heaven; it was made by human hands, not directly by the hands of God.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Heb 9:1-10
The first covenant had also ordinances
The ancient tabernacle
The writer now proceeds to compare the old and the new covenants with reference to their respective provisions for religious communion between man and God, his purpose being to show the superiority of the priestly ministry of Christ over that of the Levitical priesthood.
In the first five verses he gives an inventory of the furniture of the tabernacle pitched in the wilderness; in the next five he describes the religious services there carried on. Now [our leading back to Heb 8:5] the first [covenant] had ordinances of Divine service and its mundane sanctuary. The epithet here applied to the tabernacle evidently signifies belonging to this material world, in opposition to the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 8:11) not made with hands out of things visible and tangible. The purpose of the writer is to point out that the tabernacle belonged to this earth, and therefore possessed the attributes of all things earthly, materiality and perishableness. The materials might be fine and costly; still they were material, and as such were liable to wax old and vanish away. In Heb 8:2-5 is given a detailed description of the arrangements and furniture of this cosmic sanctuary. No valuator could be more careful to make an inventory of household furniture perfectly accurate than our author is to give an exhaustive list of the articles to be found in the Jewish tabernacle, whether in the holy place or in the most holy. Indeed, so careful is he to make the list complete, not only in his own judgment, but in the judgment of his readers, that he includes things which had no connection with religious worship, bat were merely put into the tabernacle for safe custody, as valuable mementos of incidents in Israels history–e.g., the golden pot of manna, and Aarons rod that budded. It is further to be noted in regard to these articles, that they are: represented as being within the ark of the covenant, though it is nowhere in the Old Testament said that they were, the direction given being merely that they should be placed before the testimony, and it being expressly stated in regard to the ark in Solomons temple that there was nothing in it save the two tables on which the ten commandments were inscribed. Whether these things ever had been in the ark we do not know. The fact that they are here represented to have been does not settle the point. While his doctrine is that the ancient tabernacle was at best but a poor, shadowy affair, he takes pains to show that in his judgment it was as good as it was possible for a cosmic sanctuary to be. Its articles of furniture were of the best material; the ark of fine wood covered all over with gold, the altar of incense of similar materials, the pot with manna of pure gold. He feels he can afford to describe in generous terms the furniture of the tabernacle, because, after all, he will have no difficulty in showing the immeasurable superiority of the true tabernacle wherein Christ ministers. One single phrase settles the point (Heb 8:11). The old tabernacle and all its furniture were made by the hands of men out of perishable materials. The gold, and silver, and brass, &c., were all liable to destruction by the devouring tooth of time, that spares nothing visible and tangible. This eulogistic style of describing the furniture of the cosmic tabernacle was not only generous, but politic. The more the furniture ,was praised, the more the religious service carried on in the tent so furnished was in effect depreciated by the contrast inevitably suggested. The emphasis laid on the excellent quality of these really signifies the inferiority of the whole Levitical system. Looking now at the inventory distributively, let us note what articles are placed in either compartment of the tabernacle respectively. In the first are located the candlestick, the table, and the shewbread, which was arranged in two rows on the table; to the second are assigned what is called the , and the ark of the covenant, containing, as is said, the manna pot, Aarons rod, and the tables of the covenant, and surmounted by the Cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat, or lid of the ark. The only article of which there is any need to speak particularly is the , concerning which there are two questions to be considered: What is it? and with what propriety is it assigned to the most holy place? As to the former, the word may mean either the altar of incense, as I have rendered it, or the golden censer, as translated in the Authorised and Revised Versions. I do not suppose there would be any hesitation on the subject, were it not for the consideration, that by deciding that the altar of incense is intended we seem to make the writer guilty of an inaccuracy in assigning it to the inner shrine of the tabernacle. I have little doubt that this consideration had its own weight with our Revisers in leading them to retain the old rendering, the golden censer; and the fact detracts from the value of their judgment, as based, not on the merits of the question, but on the ground of theological prudence. A clearer insight into the mind of the writer would have shown them that this well-meant solicitude for his infallibility was uncalled for. This brings us to the question as to the propriety of placing the altar of incense among the things belonging to the most holy place. The fact is, that the altar of incense was a puzzle to one who was called on to state to which part of the tabernacle it belonged. Hence the peculiar manner in which the writer expresses himself in reference to the things assigned to the most holy place. He does not say, as in connection with the first division, in which were ( ), but represents it as having () certain things. The phrase is chosen with special reference to the altar of incense. Of all the other articles it might have been said in which were, but not of it. Nothing more could be said than that it belonged to the second division. The question is, whether even so much could be said, and why the writer preferred to say this rather than to say that the altar of incense stood outside the veil in the first division. Now as to the former part of the question, in so putting the matter cur author was only following an Old Testament precedent, the altar of incense being in 1Ki 6:22 called the altar that was by the oracle, or more correctly, as in the Revised Version, the altar that belonged to the oracle. Then the directions given for fixing its position, as recorded in Exo 30:6, are very significant. The purport of this directory seems to be: outside the veil for daily use (for within it could not be used save once a year), but tending inwards, indicating by its very situation a wish to get in, standing there, so to speak, at the door of the most holy place, petitioning for admission. So the eloquent eulogist of the better ministry of the new covenant appears to have understood it. He thinks of the altar of incense as praying for admission into the inner shrine, and waiting for the removal of the envious veil which forbad entrance. And he so far sympathises with its silent prayer as to admit it within the veil before the time, or at least to acknowledge that, while materially without, it belonged in spirit and function to the most holy place. In stating the case as he does our author was not only following usage, but utilising the double relations of the altar of incense for the purpose of his apologetic. He wanted to make it felt that the position of that altar was difficult to define, that it was both without and within the veil, that you could not place it exclusively in either position without leaving out something that should be added to make the account complete. And he wished to press home the question, What was the cause of the difficulty? The radical evil, he would suggest, was the existence of the veil. It was the symbol of an imperfect religion, which denied men free access to God, and so was the parent of this anomaly, that the altar of incense had to be in two places at the same time: within the veil, as there were the mercy-seat and the Hearer of prayer; without the veil, because the incense of prayer must be offered daily, and yet no one might go within save the high priest, and he only once a year. How thankful, then, should we be that the veil is done away, so that the distinction of without and within no longer exists, and we may come daily to offer the incense of our prayers in the presence of God, without fear of evil, with perfect assurance to be heard! After the inventory of its furniture comes an account of the ministry carried on in the Jewish sanctuary (verses 6-10); the description of which, coming after the former, has all the effect of an anticlimax. One can hardly fail to say to himself, What a fall is here! The furniture was precious, but the worship how poor f Every one capable of reflection feels that a religious system in which the vessels of the sanctuary are so much superior to the service cannot be the final and permanent form of mans communion with God, but only a type or parable for the time of better things to come, that could last only till the era of reformation arrived. This truth, however, the writer does not leave to be inferred, but expressly points out and proves. On two things he insists, as tending to show the insufficiency and therefore the transitiveness of the Levitical system, and all that pertained to it. First, he asserts that the mere division of the tabernacle into an accessible holy place and an inaccessible most holy place proved the imperfection of the worship there carried on; and, secondly, he points out the disproportion between the great end of religion and the means employed for reaching it under the Levitical system. (A. B. Bruce, D. D.)
The earthly sanctuary
I. EVERY COVENANT OF GOD HAD ITS PROPER PRIVILEGES AND ADVANTAGES. Even the first covenant had so, and those such as were excellent in themselves, though not comparable with them of the new. For to make any covenant with men is an eminent fruit of grace and condescension in God, whereon He will annex such privileges thereunto as may evince it so to be.
II. THERE WAS NEVER ANY COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND MAN BUT IT HAD SOME ORDINANCES, OR ARBITRARY INSTITUTIONS OF EXTERNAL DIVINE WORSHIP ANNEXED UNTO IT. The original covenant of works had the ordinances of the tree of life, and of the knowledge of good and evil, the laws whereof belonged not unto that of natural light and reason. The covenant of Sinai, whereof the apostle speaks, had a multiplication of them. Nor is the new covenant destitute of them or of their necessary observance. All public worship and the sacraments of the Church are of this nature.
III. IT IS A HARD AND RARE THING TO HAVE THE MINDS OF MEN KEPT UPRIGHT WITH GOD IN THE OBSERVANCE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF DIVINE WORSHIP. By some they are neglected, by some corrupted, and by some they are exalted above their proper place and use, and are turning into an occasion of neglecting more important duties. And the reason of this difficulty is, because faith hath not that assistance from innate principles of reason, and sensible experience of this kind of obedience, as it hath in that which is moral, internal, and spiritual.
IV. THAT THESE ORDINANCES OF DIVINE WORSHIP MIGHT BE DULY OBSERVED AND RIGHTLY PERFORMED UNDER THE FIRST COVENANT, THERE WAS A PLACE APPOINTED OF GOD FOR THEIR SOLEMNISATION.
1. This tabernacle with what belonged thereunto was a visible pledge of the presence of God among the people, owning, blessing, and protecting them. And it was a pledge of Gods own institution, in imitation whereof the superstitious heathens invented ways of obliging their idol-gods, to be present among them for the same ends.
2. It was the pledge and means of Gods dwelling among them, which expresseth the peculiar manner of His presence mentioned in general before.
3. It was a fixed seat of all Divine worship, wherein the truth and purity of it was to be preserved.
4. It was principally the privilege and glory of the Church of Israel, in that it was a continual representation of the incarnation of the Son of God; a type of His coming in the flesh to dwell among us, and by the one sacrifice of Himself to make reconciliation with God, and atonement for sins. It was such an expression of the idea of the mind of God, concerning the person and meditation of Christ, as in His wisdom and grace He thought meet to intrust the Church withal. Hence was that severe injunction, that all things concerning it should be made according unto the pattern shown in the Mount. For what could the wisdom of men do in the prefiguration of that mystery, of which they had no comprehension? But yet the sanctuary the apostle calls , worldly.
(1) The place of it was on the earth in this world, in opposition whereunto the sanctuary of the new covenant is in heaven (Heb 8:2).
(2) Although the materials of it were as durable as anything in that kind could be procured, as gold and Shittim wood, yet were they worldly; that is, perishing things, as are all things of the world, God intimating thereby that they were not to have an everlasting continuance. Gold, and wood, and silk, and hair, however curiously wrought and carefully preserved, are but for a time.
(3) All the services of it, all its sacrifices in themselves, separated from their typical representative use, were all worldly; and their efficacy extended only unto worldly things, as the apostle proves in this chapter.
(4) On these accounts the apostle calls it worldly; yet not absolutely so, but in opposition unto that which is heavenly. All things in the ministration of the new covenant are heavenly. So is the priest, his sacrifice, tabernacle, and altar, as we shall see in the process of the apostles discourse. And we may observe from the whole
V. THAT DIVINE INSTITUTION ALONE IS THAT WHICH RENDERS ANYTHING ACCEPTABLE UNTO GOD. Although the things that belonged unto the sanctuary, and the sanctuary itself, were in themselves but worldly, yet being Divine ordinances, they had a glory in them, and were in their season accepted with God.
VI. GOD CAN ANIMATE OUTWARD CARNAL THINGS WITH A HIDDEN INVISIBLE SPRING OF GLORY AND EFFICACY. SO He did their sanctuary with its relation unto Christ; which was an object of faith which no eye of flesh could behold. (John Owens, D. D.)
The simplicity of Christian ritual
The language of sign or symbol enters very largely into all the affairs of life. The human spirit craves and finds embodiment for its impalpable, evanescent ideas and emotions, not merely in sounds that die away upon the ear, but in acts and observances that arrest the eye, and stamp themselves upon the memory, or in shapes and forms and symbols that possess a material and palpable continuity. The superiority of sign or symbol as a vehicle of thought is in some sort implied in the very fact that it is the language of nature, the first which man learns, or rather which, with instinctive and universal intelligence, he employs. There is something, again, in a visible and tangible sign, or in a significant or symbolic act, which, by its very nature, appeals more impressively to the mind than mere vocables that vibrate for a moment on the organ of hearing and then pass away. Embody thought in a material representation or memorial, and it stands before you with a distinct and palpable continuity; it can become the object of prolonged contemplation; it is permanently embalmed to the senses. Moreover, it deserves to be considered that the language of symbol lies nearer to thought than that of verbal expression. As no man can look into anothers mind and have direct cognisance of anothers thoughts, we can only convey to others what is passing in our own minds, by selecting and pointing out some object or phenomenon of the outward world that bears an analogy to the thought or feeling within our breasts. And if further proof of the utility and importance of symbol were wanting, it might he found in the fact that all nature is but one grand symbol by which God shadows forth His own invisible Being and character. The principle on which symbolic language depends being thus deeply seated in mans nature, it might be anticipated that its influence would be apparent in that religion which is so marvellously adapted to his sympathies and wants. But when we turn to that religious economy under which we live, by nothing are we so much struck as by the simplicity of its external worship–the scantiness, unobtrusiveness, and seeming poverty of its ritual observances. And this absence of symbol in the Christian worship becomes all the more singular when contrasted with the sensuous beauty and splendour of the heathen religions amidst which Christianity was developed, and with the imposing ceremonial, the elaborate symbolism, of that earlier dispensation from which it took its rise.
I. The simplicity of worship in the Christian Church is a sign of spiritual advancement, inasmuch as it arises, in some measure, from the fact THAT THE GOSPEL RITES ARE COMMEMORATIVE, WHILST THOSE OF THE FORMER DISPENSATION WERE ANTICIPATIVE. TO THE Hebrew in ancient times Christ was a Being of whose person and character and work he had but the most vague and undefined conceptions; to the Christian worshipper He is no shadowy dream of the future, no vague and visionary personage of a distant age, but the best beloved of friends, whose beautiful life stands forth before the mind with all the distinctness of history–whose glorious person and mission is the treasured and familiar contemplation of his secret thoughts. The former, accordingly, needed all the elaborate formality of type and ceremony, of temple and altar and sacrifice–of symbolic persons and objects and actions, to help out his idea of the Messiah and of His mighty work and mission. But to enable the latter to recall his Lord, no more is required than a few drops of water, a bit of broken bread, or a cup of wine. Around these simplest outward memorials, a host of thoughts, reflections, remembrances, are ready to gather. Deity incarnate, infinite self-sacrifice, reconciliation with God, pardon, purity, peace, eternal life through the blood of Jesus, union with Christ, and in Him with all good and holy beings,–these are some of the great Christian ideas already lodged in each devout worshippers mind, and which awake at the suggestive touch of the sacramental symbols to invest them with a value altogether incommensurate with their outward worth. The very simplicity of these material symbols implies that the senses have less and the mind far more to do in the process of spiritual conception than in a system of more imposing and obtrusive materialism.
II. The simple and unimposing character of the Christian ritual is an indication of spiritual advancement again, inasmuch as it arises from the fact, THAT WHILST THE RIGHTS OF JUDAISM WERE MAINLY DISCIPLINARY, THOSE OF CHRISTIANITY ARE SPONTANEOUS AND EXPRESSIVE. The Jew could not eat or drink, or dress, or sow or reap, or buy or sell, arrange his household, hold intercourse with neighbour or friend, perform any one function of individual or social life, without being met by restrictions, forms, observances, which forced religious impression upon him, and, in combination with the more solemn ceremonial of the temple, left a constant deposit of spiritual thought upon the mind, and drilled the worshipper into religious habits. In a more spiritual and reflective age, on the other hand, in which the spiritual perceptions have become developed, and the mind has become receptive of direct religious instruction, such sensible helps to the formation of thought are no longer necessary. The mind in which truth has become an intuition needs no longer to spell out its conviction by the aid of a picture-book. The avenue of spirit thrown open to the worshipper, he no more requires to climb slowly up to the presence-chamber of the king by the circuitous route of sense. But if ritual may in such an age be dispensed with in great measure as a means of instruction, it still performs an important function as a means of expression. No longer necessary as a mould for the shaping of thought, it has still its use as a form in which religious thought and feeling may find vent. If the necessity for a visible temple and sanctuary to symbolise Gods residence with man has ceased, now that He who is the brightness of the Fathers glory and the express image of His person has dwelt amongst us-if to prompt our minds in conceiving of sin and sacrifice, no scenic show of victims slain and lifes blood drenching earthly altars be needed, now that the stainless, sinless, all-holy One hath once for all offered up the sacrifice of a perfect life to God–still there is in the Christian heart the demand for outward forms andrites to embody the reverence, the gratitude, the devotion, the love of which it is inwardly conscious. The soul, in its relation to an unseen Father, still craves for some outer medium of expression that shall give form to feeling–that shall tell forth its devotion to the heavenly Friend as the smile, the look, the grasp of the hand, the meeting at the festive board, the gifts and tokens of affection, externalise and express our sentiments towards those we love on earth. And the conclusion to which, from this argument, we are led is obviously this, that the glory of our Christian ritual lies in its very simplicity. For the manifestation of our common life in God, and of our common faith in Christ, the mind craves some outward badge or symbol; and so, in gracious condescension to our needs, our Lord has instituted the two sacramental rites; but even these He has prescribed but in outline, leaving all accessories to be filled in, as the varied needs of His people, in different times and places and circumstances, should dictate. And in this lies the very grandeur of its worship, that in the chartered freedom of our Christian ritual, each nation and community, each separate society and church and individual, lifting up its own note of adoration, all axe found to blend in the one accordant anthem, the one manifold yet harmonious tribute of the universal Churchs praise. I conclude with the remark, that the simplicity of the Christian rites serves as a safeguard against those obvious dangers which are incident to all ritual worship.
1. The chief of these is the tendency in the unspiritual mind to stop short at the symbol–in other words, to transfer to the visible sign feelings appropriate only to the things signified, or to rest content with the performance of outward ceremonial acts, apart from the exercise of those devout feelings which lend to such acts any real value. A religion in which ritual holds a prominent place is notoriously liable to degenerate into formalism. The true way to avoid this error is, obviously, to remove as much as possible its cause. Let there be no arbitrary and needless intervention between the soul of the worshipper and the Divine object of its homage. Let the eye of faith gaze on the Invisible through the simplest and purest medium-Deprive it of all excuse to trifle curiously with the telescope, instead of using it in order to see. And forasmuch as, to earthly worship, formal aids are indispensable, let it ever be remembered that that form is the best which least diverts attention to itself, and best helps the soul to hold fellowship with God.
2. Moreover, the danger thus incident to an elaborate ceremonial, of substituting ritual for religion, is increased by the too common tendency to mistake aesthetic emotion for religious feeling. Awe, reverence, rapt contemplation, the kindling of heart and swelling of soul, which the grand objects of faith are adapted to excite, may, in a man of sensitive mind or delicate organisation, find a close imitation in the feelings called forth by a tasteful and splendid ceremonial. The soul that is devoid of true reverence towards God may be rapt into a spurious elation, while in rich and solemn tones the loud-voiced organ peals forth His praise. The heart that never felt one throb of love to Christ may thrill with an ecstasy of sentimental tenderness, whilst soft voices, now blending, now dividing, in combined or responsive strains, celebrate the glories of redeeming love. It is easy to admire the sheen of the sapphire throne, while we leave its glorious Occupant unreverenced and unrecognised. Banish from the service of God all coarseness and rudeness–all that would distract by offending the taste of the worshipper, just as much as all that would disturb by subjecting him to bodily discomfort, and you leave the spirit free for its own pure and glorious exercise. But too studiously adorn the sanctuary and its services; obtrude an artificial beauty on the eye and sense of the worshipper, and you will surely lead to formalism and self-deception. (J. Caird, D. D.)
Christian sanctuaries material, but not worldly:
I. THE ERECTION OF THE WORLDLY SANCTUARY. In contemplating the character of their worldly sanctuary whether in the wilderness or on Mount Zion–we behold God dealing with men in a manner accordant with the character of the covenant under which He saw fit to place them. For whether we review the history of our world at large, or the history of Gods dealings with His Church, we find it to be a law of the Divine Procedure, that, in civilisation and scientific discovery, and in the attainments of knowledge and of arts, no less than in matters directly spiritual, He allows period of lengthened infancy and childhood. In no respect does He allow men to attain at once to maturity. Thus, in mere secular things, how old was our world ere printing was invented, ere the powers of steam were discovered! Railways and electric telegraphs are but of yesterday, it is with the world at large and with individual nations, intellectually and socially, as with the individual man physically. We are born, not men and women, but babes; we speak, and think, and understand as children; we attain manhood slowly. It has been so with human society: it has been so with our own favoured land, where once savages swarmed, and Druids offered their bloody rites. The history of man in every country had been different had not this principle pervaded Gods designs and government–intellectual and social infancy–growth from infancy to childhood–from childhood to manhood–the manhood of intellect, and science and art, and civilisation; from the Rome of Romulus and Numa to the Rome of Augustus from the Gauls of Caesars day to the French of the nineteenth century; from the England of Roman conquest and Saxon rule and Norman triumph to the England of our birth. Apply this principle to the subject before us. Israel, long familiarised with material temples and carnal rites in Egypt, was spiritually a nation of children: their worship was wisely and mercifully adapted to their spiritual age and attainment. For the simple worship of the more spiritual dispensation they were wholly unprepared. Form and ceremony–material and sensuous splendour–were needful. To have elevated and simplified their minds and tastes for our simpler worship would have been, in fact, to have forstalled the progress of ages, and changed the whole course of Gods procedure with His Church and with our world.
II. THE CONTRAST BETWEEN THE WORLDLY SANCTUARY AND THE SPIRITUAL WORSHIP OF THE GOSPEL DISPENSATION. The blessed truth, that He who was at once the sacrificial Victim and the sacrificing Priest, by His one offering of Himself, hath made an end of sacrifice, and for ever perfected His people, as touching their justification–these truths discerned, experienced, bring with them true spirituality of mind and heart and life. The believer, while he rejoices in Christ Jesus, and has no confidence in the flesh, exhibits also the other feature of the apostles portraiture–he worships God in the Spirit. The temple with which his eye and heart are filled is the spiritual temple, in which himself is a lively stone–the Chinch of the Fathers election, of the Spirits sanctifying. The glory of Christianity is not in tabernacles or temples, in carnal ordinances. The glory of Christianity is Christ; the glory of the gospel, its message, God is love! And in accordance with the spirit of simplicity which characterises its doctrines should be the spirit of its worship. (J. C. Miller, M. A.)
The candlestick
The gospel of the golden candlestick:
I. A type of the CHURCH (Rev 1:20).
1. The end and use of the Church is to give light, and to hold forth the Php 2:15; 1Ti 3:15).
2. The matter of the Church. As the candlestick was of gold, so the matter of the Church is saints.
3. The discipline of the Church as the golden snuffers (Exo 25:38) did cut off the snuff of the candle, so discipline and censures cut off corruption and corrupt members.
4. The union and distinction of Churches. Several branches and seven lamps–therefore distinct; but all growing on one shaft–therefore one.
II. A type of the MINISTRY. As the candlestick supports the lamp and the light., so does the Church the ministry; and as the lamp or candle shines in the candlestick, so does the ministry in the Church.
III. A type of the WORD (Psa 119:105; Psa 19:10; 2Pe 1:19).
IV. A type of the SPIRIT (Rev 4:5).
1. The lamps of the candlestick did shine and give light. So the Holy Spirit is a Spirit of light and illumination (Eph 1:19).
2. The lamps were fed with off (Exo 27:20). Now this oil is the Spirit (Isa 61:1; Act 10:38). Of a softening and healing nature.
3. The sacred lamps were ever burning, and never went out (Ex Lev 24:3). So it is with the Spirit of God in the hearts of His people. The true believer cannot fall away totally and finally.
4. The dressing and trimming of the lamps signified the revivings of the work of the Spirit, in the hearts of His people, when it begins, or is in danger to decline. This teaches us both the Lords goodness and our duty Mat 12:20; 2Ti 1:6). Also Church discipline and mortification are taught us hereby (Mat 25:7).
Lessons:
1. Learn to prize and see the worth and excellency of Church society.
2. Prize the ministry.
3. Prize the Word.
4. Labour to find the Spirit burning and working in your hearts.
(1) Get fresh supplies of oil (Psa 92:10). Jesus Christ is the Fountain, and the Holy Ghost the immediate Dispenser of it Zec 4:12).
(2) Stir up that which you have (2Ti 1:6; Rev 3:2).
(3) Snuff the wick (Jam 1:23). (S. Mather.)
The candlestick:
If the priests had had any duties to discharge at night in the holy place, I should have felt no necessity to make any inquiry at all about the significance of the seven lights; the impossibility of performing the sacred functions in total darkness would have been an adequate explanation. But there was no midnight ritual; why then, when the curtain, which was thrown aside during the day to admit the light of heaven, was closed for the night, was not the holy place left in darkness? There seems to me to be a perfectly obvious and natural answer. The holy place was in the thoughts of every devout Jew when he longed for the mercy of God to forgive his sin, or cried to Him for consolation in time of trouble. It was there that, day by day, the priest offered the incense, which was the visible symbol of all supplication and worship. That was the chamber in which the Lord received the prayers and homage of the nation, as the most holy place was His secret shine. And would not the lamps that burnt there during the darkness, and filled it with light, seem to say to every troubled soul, that God never slumbered nor slept; that the darkness and light are both alike to Him, and that at all times He is waiting to listen to the prayers of His people? (R. W. Dale, LL. D.)
The tabernacle.
The tabernacle, and its three antitypes
The tabernacle, of course, was a type. What did it typify? Some say that it typified Christ, and, particularly, that it typified His incarnation (Joh 1:14). Others hold that the tabernacle represented the Christian Church. Yet a third opinion is that the tabernacle signified heaven. Which of these opinions shall we choose? We shall not choose any one of them to the exclusion of the others. We incline to adopt all three, and to hold that the tabernacle was a type of Christ, and of the Church, and of heaven. The Man Christ Jesus is Gods tabernacle; so is the Church; so is heaven. God dwells most wondrously in Christ: He dwells most graciously in the Church; and He dwells most gloriously in heaven. Christ is Gods tabernacle to the eye of the Church; the Church is Gods tabernacle before the world; heaven is, and, with the gathered company of the redeemed set round the throne for ever will be Gods tabernacle before the universe. (Andrew Gray.)
The golden censer
The golden censer:
You will have noticed the peculiarity of the expression at the commencement of the Heb 9:4; which–i.e., the Holiest of all, had the golden censer, or rather, the golden altar of incense. Of the holy place it is said, in Heb 9:2, Wherein was the candlestick and the table, &c. The change of expression is significant. The writer does not mean to say that the altar of incense was within the holy of holies, but that the altar of incense belonged to it. The altar actually stood in the holy place, but more truly belonged to the holy of holies itself. It is very wonderful that any man who had read this Epistle intelligently could imagine for a moment that it was possible for the writer to have been so ill-informed as to have believed that the altar was actually within the most sacred inclosure. Apart altogether from inspiration, the intimate and profound knowledge of the Jewish system which the whole of the Epistle indicates, renders it absurd to suppose that on such a simple matter as the.position of the altar of incense the writer could have blundered. It would, to my mind, be just as reasonable to infer from some peculiarity of expression in Lord Macaulay, that the great historian had erroneously imagined that the Spanish Armada came against this country in the reign of Charles I., or to infer on similar grounds that Dr. Livingstone was under the impression that the island of Madagascar formed part of the African continent. (R. W. Dale, LL. D.)
The ark of the covenant
Christ typified by the ark of the covenant
I. THE ARK TYPIFIED THE DIGNITY AND PURITY OF CHRISTS PERSON. It was made of incorruptible wood; was overlaid with pure gold; and had crowns of gold wrought round about it. Here is distinctly pointed out to us
1. The holiness and incorruptibility of Christs human nature.
2. The divinity of Jesus.
3. The regal glory of Jesus.
II. THE CONTENTS OF THE ARK TYPIFIED THE FULNESS AND WORK OF CHRIST.
1. In it were the two tables of the law. In Jesus these laws were embodied. He had them in His heart. He exemplified them in their fullest extent.
2. In it was the golden pot of manna. So in Jesus is the bread of life. His flesh is meat indeed. He is the souls satisfying portion.
3. In it was Aarons rod that budded. Typifying Christs exalted and abiding priesthood.
III. THE ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE ARK TYPIFIED THE VICTORIES OF CHRIST.
1. The ark opened a passage through Jordan to the promised land. So by Christ a way has been opened through the grave to the heavenly Canaan.
2. By the arks compassing the walls of Jericho they were thrown down. So Jesus by His Divine power spoiled the powers of darkness, and He shall finally overthrow all the bulwarks of Satans empire.
3. The presence of the ark broke the idol Dagon to pieces. So shall the Saviour cast down all the idols of the heathen.
IV. THE MOVEMENTS OF THE ARK TYPIFIED THE PROGRESS AND CONSUMMATION OF CHRISTS KINGDOM. The ark was possessed by the Israelites, then it was in the hands of the Philistines, and finally it was laid up in Solomons temple. Thus Christ was first preached to the Jews, the gospel kingdom was first set up among them, afterwards it was extended to the Gentiles; and when consummated, it shall consist of all nations in the heavenly temple, there to be permanently glourious for ever and ever. Application: Learn
1. The privilege you possess in having Christ the true ark with you. In it you have treasured up a fulness of all spiritual blessings.
2. With believing reverence draw near to it, and receive mercy, enjoy fellowship with God, and obtain grace to help you in every time of need.
3. Despisers of Christ must inevitably perish. (J. Burns, D. D.)
The holy chest:
What was the lesson taught by this wonderful article of tabernacle furniture? Are we not to look upon it as a picture of Jesus?
I. Let us consider the OUTSIDE. What do we see? a chest most likely about three feet long, by eighteen inches wide, and eighteen inches deep. It is a box made of common wood, but covered with fine gold; and is not our Jesus both human and Divine? Both are there, and you cannot separate them; just as the ark was not perfect, though the right shape and size, till it was covered with fine gold, so Christ could not be Jesus without the gold of divinity. Still we do not overlook the wood, though it is covered with gold. It is sweet to know that Christ shares our nature. He passed over the cedar of angelic life, and took the common shittim, the tree of the wilderness. When we think of our sins, we are thankful that our Saviour was Divine, and therefore able to save to the uttermost; but when we think of our future, we are glad that we are to spend our eternity with the Man Christ Jesus. He is one of ourselves. Do you notice that at each corner there is a ring of gold? What are these rings for? To receive the staves which are passed through the rings. By these gold-covered staves the Levites carried the ark on their shoulders. The holy thing was portable; it went before, and led the people on their march. They were sure to be safe if they went where the ark led them. It would be a blessed thing if the Church of God would be persuaded to go only where Christ would have gone. But what are these figures which stand at each end of the ark–winged creatures, whose faces are looking with such earnestness at the gold oh the top of the ark? These are the cherubim, the representatives of the angelic world. They gaze with interest upon the mercy-seat. Is it not Jesus who links heaven to earth? Upon what are the cherubim gazing so intently? Follow the direction of their eyes, and what see you? There is a spot of blood! Blood? Yes, blood. Blood on the pure gold? Yes, this ark is the meeting-place between God and man–the only place where the Holy God can be approached by Him who represents sinners.
II. We will now lift the lid of the ark and look INSIDE. What do we see? The golden pot. A vessel of gold filled with manna! Does not this teach that in Christ we have spiritual food? Just as the manna fell all the time the children of Israel were in the wilderness, so Jesus is the bread of life to us, all the time we are on this side Jordan. Have another peep inside, and what meets your gaze? The rod that budded (Num 17:1-13.). What does this teach us? That in Christ is the true, God-chosen, God-honoured, God-prevalent priesthood. Look again. What see you now? The tables of the covenant. The stones upon which God wrote the law. Not the first tables: they were broken. Moses did not pick up the fragments and patch them together and put them in the ark. No, it was the new, unbroken tables which were put in the ark. And is not Christ Jesus our righteousness? Do we not glory in the fact that our Substitute was sinless? We have no righteousness to plead, but we have a perfect Saviour. Our efforts at reformation are but a clumsy piecing of the broken tables, but in Christ we have a perfect law. (T. Champness.)
The golden pot
The pot of manna
I. THE MANNA (Exo 16:11).
II. THE GOLDEN POT IN WHICH IT WAS CONTAINED may be applied
1. To the Divine Word; which is more precious than gold, and which is the Word of Christ, every part of which is full of Him.
2. To the holy ordinances; where He is so strikingly exhibited.
3. To the preached gospel; where Christ is the Alpha and Omega.
4. To the believers heart.
5. To the holiest place; where He ever dwells in all His glory, as the infinite source of all the blessedness of the heavenly world. Application:
(1) Be thankful for this heavenly bread.
(2) Receive it with all cordiality and joy.
(3) Constantly seek it in those means where His presence and blessing are promised.
(4) Despisers of Christ must starve and die. (J. Burns, D. D.)
The cherubims of glory.–The cherubim and the mercy-seat
I. We are taught by this sacred symbol, an ark thus constructed and accompanied, that THERE IS NOW, UNDER THE EVANGELICAL DISPENSATION, A RELATION BETWIXT LAW AND GRACE.
1. The law was there because it is eternal, and must therefore harmonise with every dispensation of religion to man.
2. The tables of the law are there in the ark, and connected with evangelical symbols representing the dispensation of mercy to mankind, because it was the violation of the law by which the dispensation of mercy was rendered necessary.
3. But we see the tables of the law thus connected with evangelical symbols, to intimate to us another truth, that the grand end of the administration of grace to man is the re-establishment of the laws dominion over him.
4. This connection between the law and the mercy-seat indicates, finally, that the administration of grace is in every part consistent with law.
II. There was not only a connection between the tables of the law and the mercy-seat, but over this mercy-seat the cherubims of glory were placed. We are therefore instructed in the fact, that THERE IS AN HARMONIOUS RELATION BETWIXT THE DISPENSATION OF GRACE TO MAN AND THE HEAVENLY WORLD.
1. We may, therefore, observe, with respect to the angelic powers, of whom the cherubim were the emblems, that they have an intellectual interest in this great subject.
2. We may go farther, and say, that we have evidence from Scripture that the connection of the angelic world with the Christian system is not one of mere intellectual curiosity and gratification, but likewise of large and important moral benefit.
3. There is another view in which we may regard the connection between the angelic world and the Church: they are angels and ministers; ministers to the Church, and ministers to individuals.
III. THERE WAS THE PRESENCE OF GOD CROWNING THE WHOLE. In the sanctuary you have not only the ark of the covenant, the tables of the law, the mercy-seat, and the cherubim shadowing it, but the visible symbol of the Divine presence. God was there. And thus are we shown that all things are of Him, and by Him, and for Him. The tables of the law declared His will; the covenant sprang from His everlasting wisdom and love; the mercy-seat was His throne; the cherubim were His servants; the holiest of all was His resting-place (2Ch 6:41). The people came to worship Him, and were dismissed with His blessing. As creation itself is from the will of God, so is redemption. All is the result of His benevolence. The whole plan of mercy sprang from the depths of His eternal love, and all its arrangements were fixed according to the treasures of His own knowledge and wisdom. This indicates, too, the necessity of Divine agency. As He originated the whole scheme of redemption, so must He be present with it to give it power and efficacy. (R. Watson.)
Of which we cannot now speak particularly
The inexpediency of dwelling on curious questions:
Sundry other things there were about the tabernacle, the narration whereof might have delighted the reader. But St. Paul here is a moderator to himself: you are desirous to hear more, but it is expedient to cut them off. Wherein he may be a precedent to all teachers. Though the discussing of curious and intricate questions would more delight the auditory, yet we must not feed their humour that way. Let us give them but a taste of them, and a whole mouthful of sound and wholesome food. Some, peradventure, in this place would have said, Oh, Paul, why dost thou so slightly handle the things belonging to the tabernacle? Repeat, I pray thee, every particular to us; it doth us good to hear of them. Yet he doth not satisfy their itching ears in that. St. Paul hath more necessary matter. Let us especially be desirous to hear of Christ our High Priest and Bishop of our souls, of repentance, of faith in Him, of making our calling sure by good works, of the true sanctuary of heaven, than of those earthly things: these are more profitable for us. The Spirit of God passeth over sundry other things about the tabernacle, because He had more substantial points in hand tending to our salvation by Christ. (W. Jones, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
CHAPTER IX.
Of the first covenant, and its ordinances, 1.
The tabernacle, candlestick, table, show-bread, veil, holy of
holies, censer, ark, pot of manna, Aaron’s rod, tables of the
covenant, cherubim of glory, and mercy seat, 2-5.
How the priests served, 6, 7.
What was signified by the service, 8-10.
The superior excellency of Christ’s ministry and sacrifice, and
the efficacy of his blood, 11-26.
As men must once die and be judged, so Christ was once offered
to bear the sins of many, and shall come without a
sin-offering, a second time, to them that expect him, 27, 28.
NOTES ON CHAP. IX.
Verse 1. The first covenant had also ordinances] Our translators have introduced the word covenant, as if had been, if not originally in the text, yet in the apostle’s mind. Several MSS., but not of good note, as well as printed editions, with the Coptic version, have tabernacle; but this is omitted by ABDE, several others, both the Syriac, AEthiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, some copies of the Itala, and several of the Greek fathers; it is in all probability a spurious reading, the whole context showing that covenant is that to which the apostle refers, as that was the subject in the preceding chapter, and this is a continuation of the same discourse.
Ordinances] . Rites and ceremonies.
A worldly sanctuary.] . It is supposed that the term worldly, here, is opposed to the term heavenly, Heb 8:5; and that the whole should be referred to the carnality or secular nature of the tabernacle service. But I think there is nothing plainer than that the apostle is speaking here in praise of this sublimely emblematic service, and hence he proceeds to enumerate the various things contained in the first tabernacle, which added vastly to its splendour and importance; such as the table of the show-bread, the golden candlestick, the golden censer, the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, in which was the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the two tables which God had written with his own finger: hence I am led to believe that is here taken in its proper, natural meaning, and signifies adorned, embellished, splendid; and hence , the world: Tota hujus universi machina, coelum et terram complectens et quicquid utroque contineter, dicitur, quod nihil ea est mundius, pulchrius, et ornatius. “The whole machine of this universe, comprehending the heavens and the earth, and whatsoever is contained in both, is called , because nothing is more beautiful, more fair, and more elegant.” So Pliny, Hist. Nat., l. ii. c. 5: Nam quem Graeci nomine ornamenti appellaverunt, eum nos a perfecta absolutaque elegantia, MUNDUM. “That which the Greeks call , ornament, we, (the Latins,) from its perfect and absolute elegance call mundum, world.” See on “Ge 2:1“.
The Jews believe that the tabernacle was an epitome of the world; and it is remarkable, when speaking of their city, that they express this sentiment by the same Greek word, in Hebrew letters, which the apostle uses here: so in Bereshith Rabba, s. 19, fol. 19: col kozmikon () shelo sham hu. “All his world is placed there.” Philo says much to the same purpose.
If my exposition be not admitted, the next most likely is, that God has a worldly tabernacle as well as a heavenly one; that he as truly dwelt in the Jewish tabernacle as he did in the heaven of heavens; the one being his worldly house, the other his heavenly house.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The Holy Spirit, Heb 9:1-10:18, is illustrating his two last arguments taken from the tabernacle and covenant administrations, about which both the Aaronical priests and the gospel High Priest did minister; in both which Christ hath beyond all comparison the pre-eminence, which the Spirit proves by an argument drawn a comparatis, of the tabernacle and service of the Aaronical priests, and the tabernacle and work of Christ. He beginneth with a proposition of the adjuncts of the first covenant from Heb 9:1-10; The three particles introducing it, , , and , agree, the one in connecting, the other demonstrating, and the last in asserting, that which followeth to depend on what went before, as: And then truly the first.
The first covenant: is an ellipsis, nothing is in the Greek text joined with it, though some Greek copies add , the first tabernacle; but this is to make the same thing a property of itself, and it is absurd to read, the first tabernacle had a tabernacle; it is therefore better supplied from that which first relates to in Heb 8:7,13, viz. the Mosaical covenant administration, which had or possessed, as its proper adjuncts, even those three distinct ones following.
Had also ordinances; , we read ordinances; others, ceremonies or rites. It is derived from a passive verb, and may signify, a righteous sentence or ordinance of God, or a righteous event that answers that law or decree, as Rom 8:4. In the plural it notes jura, the laws of God, but especially here the ceremonial laws, these just constitutions for ministry which God gave by Moses to the Aaronical priesthood.
Of divine service; , which our translators make of the genitive case singular; but this is repugnant to the next words connected to it, which should strictly be of the same case; it is therefore best rendered in the accusative case plural, and by apposition to ordinances, and so is read services or worship, which because it refers to God, our translators have added to it the word Divine. How various this worship was in the ministry of the high priest and ordinary priests, the apostle showeth afterward, and therefore most properly to be rendered services.
And a worldy sanctuary: was the sanctuary where these services were performed, called the holy, from its relation to God and his service. It consisted of two tabernacles, as is described, Heb 9:2,3. It is styled , being externally decent, beautiful, and glorious, as is evident by its description, Exo 26:1-37. Made it was after Gods own model, a mystical structure, and a type of a better; yet though that were so pleasing to the eye of the world, its materials were, like it, frail, brittle, and passing away, as things made with hands make way for better, Heb 9:24.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
1. Then verilyGreek,“Accordingly then.” Resuming the subject from Heb8:5. In accordance with the command given to Moses, “thefirst covenant had,” c.
hadnot “has,”for as a covenant it no longer existed, though its rites wereobserved till the destruction of Jerusalem.
ordinancesof divineright and institution.
serviceworship.
a worldly sanctuaryGreek,“its (literally, ‘the‘) sanctuary worldly,” mundaneconsisting of the elements of the visible world. Contrasted with theheavenly sanctuary. Compare Heb 9:11;Heb 9:12, “not of thisbuilding,” Heb 9:24.Material, outward, perishing (however precious its materials were),and also defective religiously. In Heb9:2-5, “the worldly sanctuary” is discussed; inHeb 9:6, c., the”ordinances of worship.” The outer tabernacle the Jewsbelieved, signified this world the Holy of Holies, heaven.JOSEPHUS calls the outer,divided into two parts, “a secular and common place,”answering to “the earth and sea”; and the inner holiestplace, the third part, appropriated to God and not accessible to men.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then verily the first covenant had ordinances of divine service,…. The design of the apostle in this chapter, as it stands in connection with what goes before, is to show the pre-eminence of Christ, from the tabernacle, and the things in it; as well as from the priesthood and covenant; and as also the abrogation of the Levitical ceremonies in particular, as well as the first covenant in general; and that they were all types and figures of Christ, and had their fulfilment in him: the word “first”, here used, designs not the tabernacle, but the covenant; therefore it is rightly thus supplied in our version, as it is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions: which is said to have “ordinances of divine service”; belonging to the service of God, which was performed both by the priests, and by the people; and these ordinances were no other than the carnal ordinances, or rites of the ceremonial law: the word used signifies “righteousnesses”; and they are so called, because they were appointed by a righteous God; and were imposed on the people of the Jews in a righteous way; and by them men became externally and typically righteous; for they were figures and types of justification by the righteousness of Christ, though no complete, perfect, real righteousness, came by them.
And a worldly sanctuary. Philo the Jew says l, it was a type of the world, and of the various things in it; though it was rather either a type of the church, or of heaven, or of Christ’s human nature: the better reason of its being so called is, because it consisted of earthly matter, and worldly things; it was in the world, and only had its use in the world, and so is opposed to the heavenly sanctuary; for the Jews often speak of , “a sanctuary above”, and , “a sanctuary below” m, and of , “a tabernacle above”, and , “a tabernacle below” n; which answered to one another: the words may be rendered “a beautiful sanctuary”, a well adorned one; and such especially was the temple, or sanctuary built by Solomon, rebuilt by Zerubbabel, and repaired and adorned by Herod, Lu 21:5. And the Jews say, that he that never saw Herod’s building, meaning the temple, never saw a beautiful building; see Lu 21:5.
l De Vita Mosis, p. 667. m Jarchi in Gen. xxviii. 17. n Zohar in Exod. fol. 65. 4. & 94. 4. & 96. 2. & in Lev. fol. 1. 3.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Furniture of the Tabernacle. | A. D. 62. |
1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. 2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary. 3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 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; 5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. 6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. 7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Here, I. The apostle gives an account of the tabernacle, that place of worship which God appointed to be pitched on earth; it is called a worldly sanctuary, wholly of this world, as to the materials of which it was built, and a building that must be taken down; it is called a worldly sanctuary, because it was the court and palace of the King of Israel. God was their King, and, as other kings, had his court or place of residence, and attendants, furniture, and provision, suitable thereto. This tabernacle (of which we have the model, Exod. xxv.-xxvii.) was a moving temple, shadowing forth the unsettled state of the church militant, and the human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily. Now of this tabernacle it is said that it was divided into two parts, called a first and a second tabernacle, an inner and an outer part, representing the two states of the church militant and triumphant, and the two natures of Christ, human and divine. We are also told what was placed in each part of the tabernacle.
1. In the outer part: and there were several things, of which you have here a sort of schedule. (1.) The candlestick; doubtless not an empty and unlighted one, but where the lamps were always burning. And there was need of it, for there were no windows in the sanctuary; and this was to convince the Jews of the darkness and the mysterious nature of that dispensation. Their light was only candle-light, in comparison of the fullness of light which Christ, the Sun of righteousness, would bring along with him, and communicate to his people; for all our light is derived from him the fountain of light. (2.) The table and the show-bread set upon it. This table was set directly opposite to the candlestick, which shows that by light from Christ we must have communion with him and with one another. We must not come in the dark to his table, but by light from Christ must discern the Lord’s body. On this table were placed twelve loaves for the twelve tribes of Israel, a loaf for a tribe, which stood from sabbath to sabbath, and on that day were renewed. This show-bread may be considered either as the provision of the palace (though the King of Israel needed it not, yet, in resemblance of the palaces of earthly kings, there must be this provision laid in weekly), or the provision made in Christ for the souls of his people, suitable to the wants and to the relief of their souls. He is the bread of life; in our Father’s house there is bread enough and to spare; we may have fresh supplies from Christ, especially every Lord’s day. This outer part is called the sanctuary or holy, because erected to the worship of a holy God, to represent a holy Jesus, and to entertain a holy people, for their further improvement in holiness.
2. We have an account of what was in the inner part of the sanctuary, which was within the second veil, and is called the holiest of all. This second veil, which divided between the holy and the most holy place, was a type of the body of Christ, by the rending whereof not only a view, but a way, was opened for us into the holiest of all, the type of heaven itself. Now in this part were, (1.) The golden censer, which was to hold the incense, or the golden altar set up to burn the incense upon; both the one and the other were typical of Christ, of his pleasing and prevailing intercession which he makes in heaven, grounded upon the merits and satisfaction of his sacrifice, upon which we are to depend for acceptance and the blessing from God. (2.) The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with pure gold, v. 4. This typified Christ, his perfect obedience to the law and his fulfilling of all righteousness for us. Now here we are told both what was in this ark and what was over it. [1.] What was in it. First, The golden pot that had manna, which, when preserved by the Israelites in their own houses, contrary to the command of God, presently putrefied; but now, being by God’s appointment deposited here in this house, was kept from putrefaction, always pure and sweet; and this to teach us that it is only in Christ that our persons, our graces, our performances are kept pure. It was also a type of the bread of life we have in Christ, the true ambrosia that gives immortality. This was also a memorial of God’s miraculously feeding his people in the wilderness, that they might never forget such signal favour, nor distrust God for the time to come. Secondly, Aaron’s rod that budded, and thereby showed that God had chosen him of the tribe of Levi to minister before him of all the tribes of Israel, and so an end was put to the murmuring of the people, and to their attempt to invade the priest’s office, Num. xvii. This was that rod of God with which Moses and Aaron wrought such wonders; and this was a type of Christ, who is styled the man, the branch (Zech. vi. 12), by whom God has wrought wonders for the spiritual deliverance, defence, and supply of his people, and for the destruction of their enemies. It was a type of divine justice, by which Christ the Rock was smitten, and from whom the cool refreshing waters of life flow into our souls. Thirdly, The tables of the covenant, in which the moral law was written, signifying the regard God has to the preservation of his holy law, and the care we all ought to have that we keep the law of God–that this we can only do in and through Christ, by strength from him nor can our obedience by accepted but through him. [2.] What was over the ark (v. 5): Over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat. First, The mercy-seat, which was the covering of the ark; it was called the propitiatory, and it was of pure gold, as long and as broad as the ark in which the tables of the law were laid. It was an eminent type of Christ, and of his perfect righteousness, ever adequate to the dimensions of the law of God, and covering all our transgressions, interposing between the Shechinah, or symbol of God’s presence, and our sinful failures, and covering them. Secondly, The cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat, representing the holy angels of God, who take pleasure in looking into the great work of our redemption by Christ, and are ready to perform every good office, under the Redeemer, for those who are the heirs of salvation. The angels attended Christ at his birth, in his temptation, under his agonies, at his resurrection, and in his ascension, and will attend his second coming. God manifest in the flesh was seen, observed, visited, by the angels.
II. From the description of the place of worship in the Old-Testament dispensation, the apostle proceeds to speak of the duties and services performed in those places, v. 6. When the several parts and furniture of the tabernacle were thus settled, then what was to be done there?
1. The ordinary priests went always into the first tabernacle, to accomplish the service of God. Observe, (1.) None but priests were to enter into the first part of the tabernacle, and this to teach us all that persons not qualified, not called of God, must not intrude into the office and work of the ministry. (2.) The ordinary priests were only to enter into the first part of the tabernacle, it would have been fatal presumption in them to have gone into the holiest of all; and this teaches us that even ministers themselves must know and keep in their proper stations, and not presume to usurp the prerogative of Christ, by offering up incense of their own, or adding their own inventions to the ordinances of Christ, or lording it over men’s consciences. (3.) These ordinary priests were to enter into the first tabernacle always; that is, they were to devote themselves and all their time to the work of their office, and not alienate themselves at any time from it; they were to be in an habitual readiness for the discharge of their office, and at all stated appointed times were actually to attend to their work. (4.) The ordinary priests must enter into the first tabernacle, that they might there accomplish the service of God. They must not do the work of God partially or by halves, but stand complete in the whole of his will and counsel; not only beginning well, but proceeding well, and persevering to the end, fulfilling the ministry they had received.
2. Into the second, the interior part, went the high priest along, v. 7. This part was an emblem of heaven, and Christ’s ascension thither. Here observe, (1.) None but the high priest must go into the holiest; so none but Christ could enter into heaven in his own name, by his own right, and by his own merits. (2.) In entering into the holiest, the high priest must first go through the outer sanctuary, and through the veil, signifying that Christ went to heaven through a holy life and a violent death; the veil of his flesh was rent asunder. (3.) The high priest entered but once a year into the holiest, and in this the antitype excels the type (as in every thing else), for he has entered once for all, during the whole dispensation of the gospel. (4.) The high priest must not enter without blood, signifying that Christ, having undertaken to be our high priest, could not have been admitted into heaven without shedding his blood for us, and that none of us can enter either into God’s gracious presence here or his glorious presence hereafter, but by the blood of Jesus. (5.) The high priest, under the law, entering into the holiest, offered up that blood for himself and his own errors first, and then for the errors of the people, v. 7. This teaches us that Christ is a more excellent person and high priest than any under the law, for he has no errors of his own to offer for. And it teaches us that ministers, when in the name of Christ they intercede for others, must first apply the blood of Christ to themselves for their pardon. (6.) When the legal high priest had offered for himself, he must not stop there, but must also offer for the errors of the people. Our high priest, though he needs not to offer for himself, yet forgets not to offer for his people; he pleads the merit of his sufferings for the benefit of his people on earth. Observe, [1.] Sins are errors, and great errors, both in judgment and practice. We greatly err when we sin against God; and who can understand all his errors? [2.] They are such errors as leave guilt upon the conscience, not to be washed away but by the blood of Christ; and the sinful errors of priests and people must be all done away by the same means, the application of the blood of Christ; we must plead this blood on earth, while he is pleading it in heaven for us.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Even the first covenant ( ). (even) is doubtful. No word for covenant with (cf. 8:7).
Had (). Imperfect active, used to have.
Ordinances (). Regulations (from ) as in Luke 1:6; Rom 5:16.
Of divine service (). No word for “divine,” though worship is meant as in Rom 9:4; Phil 3:3. Genitive case.
And its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world ( ). By the author describes the whole sanctuary (Exod 36:3; Num 3:38) like in 8:2. is a late adjective (Aristotle, Plutarch) from , relating to this world, like (upon earth) of 8:4. It is in the predicate position, not attributive.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Ordinances of divine service [ ] . For dikaiwma ordinance, see on Rom 5:16. For latreia service, see on Luk 1:74; Rev 22:3; Phi 3:3; 2Ti 1:3. The meaning is ordinances directed to or adapted for divine service.
A worldly sanctuary [ ] . The A. V. misses the force of the article. Rend. and its sanctuary a sanctuary of this world. To agion in the sense of sanctuary only here. Elsewhere the plural ta agia. of this world in contrast with the heavenly sanctuary to be mentioned later. 207
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
RITES AND BLOOD SACRIFICES OF THE LAW, V. 1-10
1) “Then verily the first covenant,” (men oun ho prote) “So then the first (in the order) covenant; In consideration of the Old Testament in comparison with the new, it was first of the two in chronological order, not in rank of importance. The new is better than the old or the first in respect to: a) the priesthood, b) the tabernacle, and c) the program of worship and service.
2) “Had also ordinances of divine service,” (kai dikaiomata latreias) “Had both ordinances of divine service,” or ceremonies of Divine worship services, that regulated services of worship, Exo 29:42-44. At the door of sanctuary he promised to meet Moses and communicate with him before the continual burnt offering.
3) “And a worldly sanctuary,” (to te hagion kosmikon) “And a worldly holy place,” a sanctuary after the world order, made by man’s hands, Exo 25:8; Exo 36:1-6. Aholiab and Bezaleel were two special men in whom God put wisdom to help in effective construction and art work of the sanctuary of the first covenant (Mosaic) order of worship. This worldly sanctuary was in contrast with the heavenly, where Christ appears and offers his own blood in perpetuity, Heb 7:25; Heb 9:24; Heb 9:28.
The Kohathites transplanted and set up the tabernacle sanctuary from place to place, Num 10:17; Num 10:21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
1 Then verily the first, etc (138) After having spoken generally of the abrogation of the old covenant, he now refers specially to the ceremonies. His object is to show that there was nothing practiced then to which Christ’s coming has not put an end. He says first, that under the old covenant there was a specific form of divine worship, and that it was peculiarly adapted to that time. It will hereafter appear by the comparison what kind of things were those rituals prescribed under the Law.
Some copies read, πρώτη σκηνὴ the first tabernacle; but I suspect that there is a mistake as to the word “tabernacle;” nor do I doubt but that some unlearned reader, not finding a noun to the adjective, and in his ignorance applying to the tabernacle what had been said of the covenant, unwisely added the word σκηνὴ tabernacle. I indeed greatly wonder that the mistake had so prevailed, that it is found in the Greek copies almost universally. (139) But necessity constrains me to follow the ancient reading. For the Apostle, as I have said, had been speaking of the old covenant; he now comes to ceremonies, which were additions, as it were, to it. He then intimates that all the rites of the Mosaic Law were a part of the old covenant, and that they partook of the same ancientness, and were therefore to perish.
Many take the word λατρείας as an accusative plural. I agree with those who connect the two words together, δικαιώματα λατρείας for institutes or rites, which the Hebrews call חוקים, and the Greeks have rendered by the word δικαιώματα ordinances. The sense is, that the whole form or manner of worshipping God was annexed to the old covenant, and that it consisted of sacrifices, ablutions, and other symbols, together with the sanctuary. And he calls it a worldly sanctuary, because there was no heavenly truth or reality in those rites; for though the sanctuary was the effigy of the original pattern which had been shown to Moses; yet an effigy or image is a different thing from the reality, and especially when they are compared, as here, as things opposed to each other. Hence the sanctuary in itself was indeed earthly, and is rightly classed among the elements of the world, it was yet heavenly as to what it signified. (140)
(138) Rather, “Yet even the first,” etc. It is connected with the last verse of the preceding chapter; as though he had said, — “Though the covenant is become antiquated, yet it had many things divinely appointed connected with it.” Μὲν οὖν mean “yet,” or however. See Art. 8:4. Macknight has “Now verily;” and Stuart, “Moreover.” — Ed
(139) It has since been discovered that it is not found in many of the best MSS., and is dismissed from the text by Griesbach and all modern critics. The noun understood is evidently “covenant,” spoken of in the preceding chapter. — Ed.
(140) Many, such as Grotius, Beza, etc., consider that “ordinances” and “services” (not service) are distinct, and both in the objective case, and render the words “rituals, services, and a wordly sanctuary.” And if the sequel is duly examined, it will be found that this is the right construction. The Apostle, according to the manner of the prophet, reverses the order, and speaks distinctly of these three particulars, — first, “the wordly sanctuary” — the tabernacle in Heb 9:2; secondly, “the services” in Heb 9:6; and thirdly, “the rituals” in Heb 9:10, where the word “ordinances” again occur. There can therefore be hardly a doubt as to the construction of the first verse. The sanctuary is called worldly in contrast with what is heavenly or divine, not made with hands: see Heb 9:11. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
CHRIST IS THE END OF THE LAW
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES
THE writer proceeds to compare, or rather contrast, the ordinances of ministration under the two priesthoods.
1. The older ceremonial indicated that the way into the holiest was not made plain. In Christ it is made plain.
2. The whole service of Judaism was outward and ceremonial. That of Christ is spiritual.
3. The older sacrifices were of unwilling beasts. That of Christ was the sacrifice of His own will, His own consenting personality.
4. Salvation and pardon were associated with blood or yielded life. This is, in the deepest, the most spiritual sense, true of Christs salvation.
5. The older sacrifices were numerous. Christs was a single sacrifice, and offered once for all.
6. The old sacrifices had their spiritual power only as typical of Christs sacrifice. Christs sacrifice is the antitype.
7. The cleansing efficacy of the old sacrifice was only partial and temporary. In Christ is perfect and final cleansing.
8. The old priests were ever at the altar. Christ, having offered, is seated on His throne. Heb. 9:1-10 contain descriptions of the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies; but it should be noticed that only a brief, not a complete, recapitulation of the furniture and service of the Temple is attempted.
Heb. 9:1. Then verily.Or, to resume our comparison then. The first.Some would supply the word tent, tabernacle, but the word covenant is preferable. See Heb. 8:6-7; Heb. 8:13. Ordinances of Divine service.Or, a service conducted by definite rules. signifies the public service of the tabernacle; the formal rules which regulated it. Worldly.Or material, as opposed to heavenly, or spiritual. A rhetorical description of the enclosed sacred area, with its tent, in which the daily Divine service was carried on. means, of a terrestrial nature. If the meaning had been ornate, elegant, the adjectival form would have been .
Heb. 9:2. Tabernacle.This was made after the pattern showed to Moses in the mount; the later Temples were but enlarged copies of it. It is to the point, therefore, that the writer should take his illustrations from the original work. It was an oblong tent divided, by thick veils, into two chambers. The first.Not the most important one, but the one that presents itself first to a visitor. For the furniture of the , see Exo. 25:23-29; Exo. 25:31-39; Exo. 37:17-24; Lev. 24:4-9; 1 Kings 6. The altar of incense is omitted, and the altar of burnt-offering. This was in front of the tent, not within it. Candlestick.Exo. 25:31-39; Exo. 37:17-24. Table.Exo. 25:23-29; bread consecrated to Jehovah was regularly placed upon it. For exhibition of the bread, see Exo. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9. The earlier Hebrew name was presence-bread. Sanctuary., Holy Place. Distinguished from of Heb. 9:3.
Heb. 9:3. Second veil.One was at the outer door of the Holy Place; the second, which was a double one, divided the Holy Place from the Most Holy. The Hebrew name of the inner veil is given in Exo. 26:31-33; Lev. 16:2. The Hebrew name of the outer veil is given, Exo. 26:31-33; Exo. 36:35-36. Holiest of all.R.V. Holy of Holies; . A common form of expression in Hebrew, in order to denote intensity. This apartment was regarded as the earthly dwelling-place of Jehovah. In Solomons Temple the inner chamber was called the Oracle.
Heb. 9:4. Golden censer.No such utensil is mentioned by Moses. Moulton renders having a golden altar of incense, but the altar of incense was in the Holy Place, not in the Holy of Holies. The Rabbins say that a golden censer was used by the high priest on the Day of Atonement. Alford suggests reading having belonging to it, rather than having in it. Farrar suggests some sort of stand on which the priest placed the incense-pot, or censer. Or the altar of incense may be referred to, and treated as belonging to the special ceremonies of the Holy of Holies. See 1Ki. 6:22. Ark of the covenant. a chest made of wood, and covered with lamin of gold (Exo. 25:10-16; Exo. 37:1-5). Within it were placed the two tables of the covenant, and the lid was regarded as the mercy-seat. Golden pot.See Exo. 16:32-34. It is not spoken of as golden in the Hebrew, but the LXX. render . Other ancient religions represent their supreme mystery by a closed box. The idea may have been Egyptian. It is disputable whether the pot and the rod were within the box, or placed beside itbut this writer distinctly understands the original arrangement to have included all within the box. Aarons rod.See Num. 17:1-10. The manna and the rod were Divine covenant seals. Tables.Stone tablets; best represented by modern slates.
Heb. 9:5. Cherubims of glory.Stuart, splendid cherubim. Barker, not splendid cherubim, but cherubim that were recipients of the glory, i.e. of the Divine manifestation, the Shekinah. Farrar, cherubim of the Shekinah. (Exo. 25:18-22; Exo. 29:43; Num. 7:89; Eze. 10:19-20.) The glory-cloud was the visible symbol of Gods presence, and was regarded as resting, protected by the outspread wings of these representative figures. The cherubim were emblems of all that was highest and best in animated naturethe grandest products of creation combined in one living angelic symbol. Mercy-seat.The lid or covering of the ark, which was of pure gold (Exo. 25:17; Exo. 25:21). The place of propitiation whence mercy was dispensed. Over this mercy-seat the Divine glory was seen, i.e. a supernatural, excessive brightness, and hence God was supposed to be seated on it, as His throne, and from it to dispense His mercy, when atonement was made for the sins of the people, by sprinkling it with blood. Particularly.In minute detail. The writer does not propose to deal with all the Mosaic service; he can illustrate his point from the greatest day of the ritualthe Day of Atonement.
MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.Heb. 9:1-5
The Mission of the Symbolical.It must have been a cause of much pain to the pious Jews that it had been found impossible fully to restore the old tabernacle conditions in the Temple built after the Captivity. When Pompey profanely forced his way into the Holy of Holies, he found, to his great astonishment, nothing whatever (vacua omnia) This writer does not therefore refer to any of the Templesnot even to Solomonsbut deals only with the original tabernacle of Moses, that was fully fashioned and furnished according to the pattern shewn him in the mount. There only could the symbolic system be seen in its completeness. In making comparison between the old material and the new spiritual dispensations, it was quite possible for the writer to leave the impression that he underrated the old, and this impression might cause offence, and hinder men from receiving his teachings and persuasions. Christian teachers need to be anxious not only concerning the precision with which they state the truth, but also concerning the impressions that are received, and the ideas that are taken up, by those who hear them. They should watchfully avoid all occasions of offence, while keeping absolutely loyal to Gods truth. This fear influences the writer here, and leads him to give, in a very reverent and sympathetic way, his estimate of the real value and significance, as religious teaching, of the old symbolic system. True, it was temporary, educative, and preparatory, but it was the precisely fitting thing for its time and place; and it enshrined the great primary truths connected with Gods actual and possible relations with men, that could be liberated, illustrated, glorified, and made the universal heritage of men, when the spiritual High Priest had come, and had taken His place in the spiritual and eternal temple. This paragraph brings before us the furniture of the two chambers of the first tabernacle, and reminds us that each article carried a spiritual suggestion.
I. The symbolical meanings of the things in the first chamber, or Holy Place.It is singular that the writer does not mention the altar of incense, which stood in the centre of the Holy Place, immediately before the veil, but brings in the golden censer, which carried fire from this altar into the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, and so was thought of as properly belonging to the Most Holy Place. There were three principal articles of furniture in the first chamber, or Holy Place.
1. The altar of incense. A double cube, with horns, made of shittim-wood, overlaid with gold. No burnt-offering, meat-offering, or drink-offering was to be laid upon it; but the blood of the sin-offering of atonement was sprinkled upon its horns once a year. Incense, a sacred composition of spices, was offered by burning every morning and evening, as a symbol of the daily thanksgiving and prayer of the people.
2. The table of shewbread. This was placed on the right, or north side of the chamber. The table was oblong, and stood on legs. It was of shittim-wood, and was furnished with dishes, spoons, covers, and bowls, of pure gold. Upon this table were placed, every Sabbath Day, twelve cakes of fine flour, in two rows of six each, with frankincense upon each row. This constant offering of a representative of the peoples food before the Lord sanctified their common eating and drinking. Mans time was consecrated to God by the separation of the Sabbath for His entire service. Mans body was consecrated to God by the devotion of his possessions as sacrifices. Mans food was sanctified by the presentation of this shewbread, this representative bread, before the Lord.
How can I, Lord, withhold
Lifes brightest hour
From Thee; or gathered gold,
Or any power?
Why should I keep one precious thing from Thee,
When Thou hast given Thine own dear Self for me?
C. E. Mudie.
3. The golden candlestick. Placed on the left or south side of the altar of incense. Made of pure beaten gold, having a straight centre rising from the stand, and three curved branches on either side. The lamps were lighted at the time of the evening oblation. The Rabbins say that only the central lamp was kept alight during the daytime. The famous figure of the candlestick on the Arch of Titus cannot be an exact representation, seeing that it has marine monsters carved upon its pediment, which would have been a direct violation of the second commandment. As in a house light is as necessary as food, and the lampstand with its lighted lamp was a piece of furniture as necessary as the bread-vessel, so in the house of Jehovah the candlestick symbolised the spiritual light of life, which He gives to His servants with the words by which they live. The candlestick symbolised the people, who were thus represented as always in the presence of Jehovah, and as always alight, with the light of their faith, and love, and obedience.
II. The symbolical meanings of the things in the second chamber, the Holy of Holies.That chamber itself represented the truth that, while mans sin had not so broken relations with God that he might not offer worship, or the service of his life, it had made impossible those close relations of personal friendship which God gave His creatures in Eden. Mans sin had made the veil necessary, which could be passed only on well-defined conditions, and only representatively by the priest. The chamber was without windows, or ventilators, and absolutely dark, save for the glory of the Shekinah-cloud. The ark was the chief thing in it. It symbolised Jehovahs throne; the cover was the seat, or mercy-seat; the cherubims represented the attendants on the throne; and the tables of the law inside the ark declared the foundation principles on which He who sat on the throne ruled His people and dispensed His mercy. Justice and judgment are the habitation of His throne. The golden pot with the manna, and Aarons rod that budded, may have been placed beside the ark, rather than within it, and were representative of the history of Gods people, and of His special dealings with them. They, as it were, kept God reminded of the peoples needs and the peoples frailties. Perhaps the golden censer is mentioned with a special purpose. The writer wants to make clear how limited access to God was under the old system, and how free it is under the new; so he reminds us that even the old high priest could not go into the Holy of Holies without the shading of the glory of God with the smoke of incense. He must take the censer, and put incense on the coals just as he took the veil aside, so that he might not see undimmed the glory over the mercy-seat. The old symbols dealt with the primary truths that are now fully brought to light by Jesus Christ.
SUGGESTIVE NOTES AND SERMON SKETCHES
Heb. 9:2. Types in the Holy Place.The candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread. The furniture of the court was connected with sacrifice, that of the sanctuary itself with the deeper mysteries of mediation and access to God. The first sanctuary contained three objects: the altar of incense in the centre, so as to be directly in front of the ark of the covenant; the table of shewbread on its right or north side; and the golden candlestick on the left or south side. These objects were all considered as being placed before the presence of Jehovah, who dwelt in the Holiest of all, though with the veil between. The daily rite for the altar of incense was as follows: The priest took some of the sacred fire off the altar of burnt-offering in his censer, and threw the incense upon it; then, entering the Holy Place, he emptied the censer upon the altar, prayed, and performed the other duties of his office. Meanwhile the people prayed outside; and thus was typified the intercession of Christ in heaven, making His peoples prayers on earth acceptable. The shewbread (and, connected with it, the drink-offering of wine placed in the covered bowls upon the table) represented under the old covenant the same truths which are set forth by the sacrament of the Lords Supper under the new.From Students Scripture History.
Ministry in the Holy Place.The Holy Place was used for the more delicate sacrifices which the priests alone offered, and the rest of the people, including the Levites, never saw with their own eyes. The Holy Place was a dark chamber, and a lamp was necessary to enable the priests to discharge their functions. The golden altar became an altar for the priests alone, at which nothing but the most delicate substances might be offerednamely, incense. It is significant that the shewbread was called bread of the face, bread of the Divine presence, loaves of the setting-forth.
Heb. 9:3. The Typology of the Veils.Inside, the Holy of Holies was separated off only by a drop-curtain. This was made of byssus, and was fastened by golden hooks to four pillars of acacia-wood, which, like the planks, were covered with gold-leaf, and carefully secured in the ground with silver sockets. The drop-curtain was undoubtedly fixed behind them, so that the pillars would stand outside the ten ells, while a trifle farther to the front hung the ornamental junction of the curtains of byssus. In front of the whole tabernacle an outer drop-curtain of greater strength, probably twofold, was hung on to five pillars of acacia wood, which were set up across the entire breadth of the tabernacle. It displayed the same colours as the internal curtain, but no embroidered cherubs; the pillars were in other respects adorned like the four internal ones, but had only brazen sockets.Ewald.
The Use of Veils.Curtains, or veils, must be studied in view of their use, and of the sentiments concerning them in tent life. They were in effect as our shut and locked doors. They represent
1. Claim to privacy
2. Hindrance to admittance, which can be only on conditions.
3. And they suggest mystery, something purposely hidden from view.
Heb. 9:4. Types in the Holy of Holies.There was but one object, the ark of the covenant, a sacred chest, containing the two tables of the law, the cover of it being called the mercy-seat, and the cherub figures making a sort of canopy over it. The cover was a plate of pure gold. This was the very throne of Jehovah, who was therefore said to dwell between the cherubim. It was also called the mercy-seat, or propitiatory, because Jehovah there revealed Himself, especially on the great Day of Atonement, as God pardoning iniquity, transgression, and sin. Nor was it without the profoundest allusion to the coming dispensation of the gospel that Gods throne of mercy covered and hid the tables of the law. The attitude of the cherubim was significant of the desire of angels to learn the gospel mysteries that were hidden in the law.
Contents of the Ark.Nothing is more characteristic of the earliest Jahveism, nor yet of greater historical truth and certainty, than that in place of the idols in which common heathenism took delight, and of certain artificial symbols which served the same purpose for a heathenism which was aiming at something higher, it was only the documents of these purest truths, and of these contracts, concluded as it were for all eternity, which acquired the most precious value, and the highest sanctity, by being placed in the sacred chest.Ewald.
Heb. 9:5. The Suggestion of the Cherubim.No actual knowledge of the forms of the figures which shadowed the mercy-seat can be obtained. The common Jewish tradition is, that they were human figures, each having two wings. They must have been of small size, proportioned to the area of the mercy-seat. Comparing the different references to form, in this verse, in 2Sa. 22:11 (Psa. 18:10); Ezekiel 1, 10; Revelation 4, it would appear that the name cherub was applied to various combinations of animal forms. Similar combinations were made by most ancient peoples in order to represent conceivable combinations of powers, such as are denied to man in his earthly state of existence. It is remarkable that amongst the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and the Greeks, as well as the Hebrews, the creatures by very far most frequently introduced into these composite figures were man, the ox, the lion, and the eagle. These are evidently types of the most important of familiarly known classes of living material beings. The Rabbinists recognised this in the cherubim as described by Ezekiel, which they regarded as representing the whole creation engaged in the worship and service of God (Rev. 4:9-11; Rev. 5:13). It would be in harmony with this view to suppose that the more strictly human shape of the cherubim of the mercy-seat represented the highest form of created intelligence engaged in the devout contemplation of the Divine law of love and justice (1Pe. 1:12). They were thus symbols of worship rendered by the creature in the most exalted condition. It is worthy of notice that the golden cherubim, from between which Jehovah spoke to His people, bore witness, by their place on the mercy-seat, to His redeeming mercy; while the cherubim that took their stand with the flaming sword at the gate of Eden, to keep the way of the tree of life, witnessed to His condemnation of sin in man. The most perfect finite intelligence seems thus to be yielding assent to the Divine law in its twofold manifestation.Speakers Commentary.
The Offices of Cherubim.The special offices of the cherubic figures in the tabernacle appear to have been, first, the watching and guarding of the ark, and the sacred law deposited within the ark, towards which they are represented as looking, and over which they spread their outstretched wings; and, secondly, to attend and bear up that mystic presence of God which appeared in the cloud of glory over the mercy-seat. When the tabernacle is set up, the law is deposited in the ark, the cloud is promised to rest upon the covering of the ark, and, as the cherubim guard the law, and the testimony of God, so they may be supposed reverently to surround the throne of His glory, perhaps they were supposed to bear up the throne of God upon their wings, and to carry Him when He appeared in His glory.Ibid.
Cherubim as Guardians.As this chest was to have contents so precious, two cherubim were fixed over it, to symbolise the fact that Jahveh had, as it were, descended upon it, and eternally protected what was contained in the chest. For the cherub signified in the first instance the descent of the Deity, and consequently the spot whither it had descended and would again descend perpetually, and there manifest itself. In this symbolical application the cherub was also much utilised elsewherein the sacred tent and in the Temple. But its primary and most significant position was over the ark of the covenant, where, for artistic reasons, two were placed face to face, and in this application they indicate, in the first instance, how strict is Jahvehs watch and guard over the sacred words contained therein. So far, no doubt, the sphynxes lying facing one another over a sacred shrine or sepulchre, etc., are very similar. There is a remarkable representation of Garuda (i.e. a cherub) as the altar for the ancient Indian horse-sacrifice, Rmyana. But the greatest resemblance of all is found in some lately discovered Assyrian pictures. See Layard.Ewald.
Cherubim as Representative Worshippers.The cherubim were representatives of the angelic hierarchy worshipping the Divine Majesty, and adoring His love to man in Christ, and devoutly looking down into the mysteries of the gospel. Josephus says that they were not like any creatures ever seen on earth by human eyes, but that Moses had seen their prototypes near the throne of God.Bishop Wordsworth.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
F.
He is a Priest in a better tabernacle. Heb. 9:1-28.
1.
The old tabernacle and its imperfect services. Heb. 9:1-10.
Text
Heb. 9:1-10
Heb. 9:1 Now even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, and its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world. Heb. 9:2 For there was a tabernacle prepared, the first, wherein were the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the Holy place.
Heb. 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of holies: Heb. 9:4 having a golden altar of incense, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was a golden pot holding the manna, and Aarons rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; Heb. 9:5 and above it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; of which things we cannot now speak severally. Heb. 9:6 Now these things having been thus prepared, the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services; Heb. 9:7 but into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself, and for the errors of the people: Heb. 9:8 the Holy Spirit this signifying, that the way into the holy place hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle is yet standing; Heb. 9:9 which is a figure for the time present; according to which are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshipper perfect, Heb. 9:10 being only (with meats and drinks and divers washings) carnal ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation.
Paraphrase
Heb. 9:1 Now verily, although the first covenant is to be laid aside, I acknowledge it had both ordinances of worship, and a worldly Holy place appointed by God. But the former being merely an emblem of the services of Christ in heaven, and the latter a shadow of the world or universe, the covenant of which they are the ordinances is become useless, now that Christ hath performed the services of heaven.
Heb. 9:2 For the outward tabernacle, which is called Holy, was built and furnished so as to represent the earth and the visible heavens, having both the golden candlestick towards the south, and the table with the show-bread towards the north, Exo. 26:35.
Heb. 9:3 And behind the innermost veil, the tabernacle, which is called the Most Holy Place, was in like manner built and furnished according to a pattern formed by God, so as to be a representation of heaven, the invisible habitation of the Deity;
Heb. 9:4 Having the golden censer, on which the high priest burned incense when he entered the Most Holy place, and the ark of the covenant, which was covered both on the inside and the out with gold; in which were the golden pot, having an omer of the manna wherewith the Israelites were fed in the wilderness, and Aarons rod which blossomed and bare almonds, and the tables of the covenant from which the ark had its name;
Heb. 9:5 And above the ark the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy-seat, and forming a magnificent throne for the glory of the Lord, which rested between them, (Exo. 25:22); concerning the meaning of which things I have not time at present to speak particularly, my design being to explain what was signified by the services of the tabernacles.
Heb. 9:6 Now the tabernacles with their utensils being thus constructed and arranged, the ordinary priests go at all times indeed into the first tabernacle, performing the services; of which the chief is their sprinkling the blood of the sin-offerings before the veil which concealed the symbol of the Divine Presence from their view:
Heb. 9:7 But into the inward tabernacle, which represents heaven, the high priest and no one else goeth; and he only one day in the year; not however without the blood of different sacrifices, which he offereth for his own, and for the peoples sins of ignorance.
Heb. 9:8 By the absolute exclusion of the priests and people from the inward tabernacle, the Holy Ghost, who formed the pattern of the tabernacles and of their services, showed this, that the way into the true holy places, represented by the inward tabernacle, was not yet laid open to men, while this world, represented by the outward tabernacle, still subsisteth;
Heb. 9:9 Which tabernacle with its services, whereby the worshipper was not brought into the immediate presence of the Deity, was a parabolical instruction concerning the time which is present, during which both gifts and sacrifices are offered, which cannot, by banishing the fear of punishment, make him perfect, with respect to conscience, who worshippeth God.
Heb. 9:10 With nothing but meats and drinks, and divers immersions and ordinances respecting the purifying of the body, imposed only until the time of the reformation of the worship of God by Christ, who was to abolish the Levitical services, and to introduce a worship in spirit and in truth, which may be performed in every place.
Comment
Now even the first covenant had ordinances of divine service
The point he is making is this:
a.
The whole form of worshipping God was annexed to the old covenant.
b.
It had sacrifices, ablutions and symbols connected with the sanctuary.
c.
They were divine services, for God planned them.
Exo. 31:1-10 states that Bezalel was given the Spirit of God in order to construct the tabernacle and design the clothes.
Ordinances: (Services)
a.
Milligan says that services is a verbal noun and means:
1.
A righteous action, an act by which righteousness is fulfilled. Rom. 5:18.
2.
A righteous judgment, indicating that a sinner is made righteous through the righteousness of Christ. Rom. 5:16.
3.
A righteous decree, or appointment, ordinance, law, rule.
b.
Milligan feels that the latter one (No. 3) is preferable here.
and its sanctuary a sanctuary of this world
These words are stated to draw a contrast between the earthly tabernacle services with the Holy of holies in heaven. The Holy of holies in heaven has a Priest who has finished the sacrifice and is seated at the right hand of God.
for there was a tabernacle prepared, the first, wherein were
The first is inserted. perhaps, to distinguish between the tabernacle and the temple, say some. The context indicates that the Holy place is referred to. Most authorities agree that this is the tabernacle, for the temple did not possess the tablets of stone after the captivity.
the candlestick
It was made of a talent of gold. Exo. 25:31-40. Rabbis say that it was four cubits high, had six branches. It stood on the south side.
and the table
This stood on the north opposite the candlestick. It was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. On it were placed the twelve loaves, changed each sabbath. The setting of the table with bread, once a week, is a type of the Lords table.
and the showbread
Also called the bread of the face, so-called because it was in the presence of God. On the table were placed every sabbath day by the high priest twelve cakes made of fine flour, six in a row, and on each row a cup of frankincense. Lev. 24:5-9.
which is called the Holy Place
The word first must refer to this place, In this section of the tabernacle, the priests worked continually.
and after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies
After the second veil refers to the veil that separated the Holy of Holies.
a.
The first was at the entrance to the Holy Place.
b.
The second refers to the one separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.
1.
The temple in Jerusalem at the time of Christ had a veil, for it was torn from the top to the bottom, Mat. 27:51.
2.
The temple of Solomon had wooden doors, 1Ki. 6:31-33, Into this second veil the priest entered but once a year. Heb. 9:7.
having a golden altar of incense
This is not mentioned by Moses as to location, some say, The high priest went in once a year to burn incense. Some think it was left just inside all year. This verse seems to locate it in the Holy of Holies.
McKnight says it was left in the Holy of Holies close enough so the priest could reach beneath the veil and pull it out. Newell says it was placed close to the veil in the holy place but is regarded by the Spirit of God, in Heb. 9:4, as belonging to the Holy of Holies. He says see Exo. 30:1; Exo. 30:6-7; Exo. 30:10; Exo. 40:5. Solomons building was like it. 1Ki. 6:19-22. The altars of incense represent prayer in the study of types.
and the ark of the covenant
The instructions for the building of this container: Deu. 10:1-5.
It was a sort of chest overlaid with gold.
a.
In it were the two tables of the law. 1Ki. 8:9.
b.
The things it contained are named in this verse, but the word wherein may not mean in the ark, but rather in the Holy of Holies.
c.
It was made of shittim wood (acacia) 2 cubits long and 1 cubits broad and deep.
overlaid round about with gold
God has always used beautiful things in worship to impress the people with its importance. God also makes wonderful use of simple things likewise, as seen in the emblems of the Lords Supper.
wherein was a golden pot holding the manna
See Exo. 16:32-34. Manna was kept from the wilderness journey.
a.
It contained an omer (seven pints).
Was the pot in the ark?
a.
No, says 1Ki. 8:9, only the tables of stone.
b.
By the time of Solomon, perhaps other contents had been lost, and so the time element enters into the problem here.
c.
McKnight suggests that the words may mean nigh to the pot, and the rod may have been a part of the ark, but not actually in it.
and Aarons rod that budded
See Num. 17:1-11It blossomed and bore ripe almonds. Clarke says that this was in the ark. However the reading may be understood to mean in the Holy of Holies. See 1Ki. 8:9 which says only the tables were in the ark. The time element should be considered.
and the tables of the covenant
Deu. 10:1-5 gives the account of the construction of it. 1Ki. 8:9 indicates that the pot of manna and Aarons rod had been removed from the ark and likely lost before the temple.
and above it cherubim of glory
Cherubim is plural of cherub. It means keeper, guardian. See Eze. 1:5-11; Eze. 1:13-14 for their physical appearance. Eze. 1:24; Eze. 10:5 : The sound of their wings was as the voice of God.
These were of gold, and were at each end of the mercy seat. Exo. 25:18-20. The cherubim seem to be an order of angels. Gen. 3:24. The word glory may be understood in the light that these angels surround God, so between them would be the peace of Gods glory.
overshadowing the mercy seat
They were at each end, facing each other, but looking down on the cover or the mercy seat, The presence of the angels abiding in figure form renders a fit image of heaven.
of which things we cannot now speak severally
Christ can be seen in each. He is the Light, Bread, Ark, the Word, Examination of details is not necessary to perceive the lesson gained, Detail is not desired, but contrast is the authors purpose.
Now these things having been thus prepared the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle accomplishing the services
The priest went into the Holy Place twice daily.
a.
There was the incense to burn in the morning.
b.
There was the evening sacrifice.
There was a continued task, Lev. 4:6.
Observe the contrasts that can be made:
a.
The high priest of Israel dared not go in at all times. Lev. 16:2.
b.
He went in only once a year. Lev. 16:12-15.
c.
He went in with blood; blood of animals, not his own.
d.
He had to repeat the sacrifice yearly, It was never finished.
e.
He had to pass through a veil that shut out all the people.
f.
He was subject to death, and his office passed to another, Heb. 7:23. Christs priesthood is forever. Heb. 7:24.
g.
The sacrifices of the priest made a remembrance of sins. Christ takes them away.
but into the second the high priest alone
Only the high priest entered, and once a year, but he could enter several times on that day. Leviticus 16. He alone had this privilege.
once in the year
This was a day prescribed by law. It was the tenth of the month Tisri, perhaps the 1st of October, for Tisri corresponds to our September and October.
Some say Lev. 16:12-15 shows he went in three times on that day, Jewish tradition says four times. One time may be for the purpose of bringing out the golden censer.
He brought in the incense and some say he placed it on the golden censer. Some say it was brought in too.
a.
if it were placed just inside, it could be reached from beneath the veil.
b.
Wherever the censer was placed, it was a part of the Holy of Holies.
not without blood
He brought the blood of a bullock.
a.
He sprinkled some portion of it seven times before the ark and the veil. Lev. 16:14.
b.
The blood was sprinkled in the inward tabernacle before the symbol of the divine presence.
Milligan says that this doesnt mean that he took blood all four times.
which he offereth for himself
Offered animal blood for himself since he was a sinner. It was not his own blood. See Heb. 9:25. Christ offered His own blood for all, but there was no need for offering blood for His sin, since He had none. Heb. 4:15.
and for the errors of the people
Clarke says, For the sins of which they were not conscioussins done in ignorance. See Num. 15:28-29. Of course no sacrifice existed for sin of high hand, in open defiance, contempt. See Num. 15:30-31. By this the people were absolved of all sin of the past year and now had access to the mercy seat.
the Holy Spirit this signifying
The Holy Spirit designed, but also served as an interpreter.
a.
We see in Heb. 10:14-22 the lesson that entrance has been made into heaven.
b.
While the old covenant was in existence, entrance had not been made.
The Holy Spirit could signify a new message after the temple veil was ripped at the time of Christs crucifixion.
that the way into the Holy Place hath not yet been made manifest
The fact that the priest could go in only once a year and then only if he had blood demonstrated that the way into heaven was not yet revealed,
a.
They in a sense had salvation.
1.
Exo. 3:6.
2.
2Ki. 2:1; 2Ki. 2:11.
3.
Dan. 12:13.
But all of it looked forward to Christ, which they did not understand. This suggests that it all was temporary; something better was in the future.
while the first tabernacle is yet standing
The Old Testament is a closed way; the heavens were not opened by it, The New Testament is an open way.
a.
Open veilThe old one was rent in twain.
b.
Open tomb.
c.
Open church.
d.
Open heavens.
which is a figure for the time present; according to which are offered both gifts and sacrifices that cannot, as touching the conscience, make the worshipper perfect
Even when the sacrifices were done and performed perfectly, yet now man knew he was a sinner.
It took the torn flesh of Christ to reveal the mercy seat of God.
a.
The temple veil being torn (Mat. 27:51) shows that God had now opened the Holy of Holies for man.
b.
These sacrifices reminded men of sin, but could not cleanse the conscience.
As touching the conscience:
a.
The law was to point out sin and to make men conscious of sin.
b.
These caused the sinner to be concerned. Heb. 10:3 : But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance made of sins year by year.
c.
We can have a cleansed conscience.
1.
Heb. 9:14 : Cleanse your conscience from dead works.
2.
Heb. 10:22 : . . . having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.
3.
1Ti. 3:9 : . . . holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
4.
1Pe. 3:21 : . . . but the answer of a good conscience toward God.
being only with meats
Commentators have practically nothing to say here except Milligan, who feels the language is difficult. The point is that all of this is carnal, and Milligan feels that mans conscience was clear only in respect to meats and drinks and washings. The gifts and sacrifices could not clear his conscience, says Milligan.
It seems to me that Hebrews says mans conscience could not be cleared with gifts and sacrifices, since it was done only with meats, drinks, etc.
and drinks
This refers to the drink offerings that accompanied the other offerings. See Exo. 29:40-41.
a.
According to Peloubet, this was excluded from the sin and trespass offering.
b.
At all set feasts the drink offering was presented. Lev. 23:13; Lev. 23:18; Lev. 23:37.
Other verses are: Num. 15:4-7; Numbers 10-21 : Num. 28:7-8; Numbers 9-10; Numbers 14-31; and Num. 29:6-39. We see in Lev. 10:9 that Aaron was forbidden the right to drink wine throughout his generations.
and divers washings
The washings were immersion in type. Here are some of them:
a.
Whole body was washed.
1.
The priests whole body was washed at the time of his consecration. Lev. 16:4.
2.
High priest on day of Atonement. Lev. 16:4; Lev. 16:24.
3.
Priest defiled with uncleanness. Lev. 22:6.
4.
Priest who officiated at the services of the red heifer. Num. 19:7.
5.
Man who burned the red heifer. Num. 19:8.
b.
Washing of hands and feet.
c.
Washing of garments.
d.
Washing of inwards and legs of burnt offerings.
e.
Washing of wooden vessels.
f.
Washing of spoils of war as could not pass through fire. Num. 31:21-23.
carnal ordinances
Some would depend upon them today.
1Ti. 4:1-3 : Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats.
These things made the flesh clean, not the spirit righteous.
imposed until a time of reformation
This may refer to the prophecy of Jer. 31:37, says one commentator. It is also translated time of rectifying. This refers to the coming of Christ and the new covenant.
Study Questions
1442.
What is referred to as the first covenant?
1443.
What was included in the divine services?
1444.
What is meant by ordinances?
1445.
What is meant by ablutions?
1446.
Who was instructed to construct the tabernacle and to make the priestly garments?
1447.
What was the sanctuary?
1448.
Why is it called of this world?
1449.
What other names did it have?
1450.
How was its construction financed? See Exo. 25:1-8; Exo. 35:4-29; Exo. 36:5-7.
1451.
Is there any significance to the word first?
1452.
Do other translations have the word?
1453.
Why could it not refer to Solomons temple?
1454.
Where was the location of the candlestick, table, and showbread?
1455.
Describe the tabernaclethe whole situation.
1456.
Where did one enter?
1457. What was the size?
1458.
How many parts did it have?
1459.
As you enter, what did you see first? Next? What next?
1460.
What was on the right side of it?
1461.
What was on the left side of it?
1462.
What was in the center?
1463.
What is seen next as you proceed?
1464.
What was in the Holy of Holies?
1465.
What was in the ark?
1466.
Which way did the tabernacle face?
1467.
How large was the tent of meeting, or the Holy Place?
1468.
Name the materials involved in construction of the whole tabernacle.
1469.
What were the walls of the court made of?
1470.
What were the walls of the Holy Place made of?
1471.
How were they held together?
1472.
We have a second veil mentioned. Where is it? Where was the first veil?
1473.
Did the temple at Jerusalem have a veil?
1474.
What was done to it? Mat. 27:51.
1475.
Did Solomons temple have a veil? See 1Ki. 6:31-33.
1476.
How often and who had the privilege to enter this second veil? See Heb. 9:7.
1477.
Where was the altar of incense located?
1478.
What had a golden altar of incense?
1479.
What are the opinions as to its location?
1480.
What does Exo. 30:1; Exo. 30:6-7; Exo. 30:10 and Exo. 40:5 says? Cf. Exo. 16:33; Num. 17:10; Lev. 16:12; Lev. 16:15.
1481.
Was it an expensive thing?
1482.
Does God always use beautiful and expensive things?
1483.
Describe the ark of the covenant.
1484.
Why do 1Ki. 8:9 and 2Ch. 5:10 differ in regard to the content of the ark of the covenant?
1485.
What did it contain?
1486.
How large was it?
1487.
Does the word wherein mean that the pot was in the ark or in the Holy of Holies?
1488.
What does 1Ki. 8:9 say?
1489.
Could the pot have been lost by the time of 1Ki. 8:9?
1490.
What do you think of McKnights explanation, saying, nigh to? Is this not the way the denominations deny water baptism?
1491.
Describe Aarons rod that budded.
1492.
Does 1Ki. 8:9 affect this?
1493.
Observe the Catholic Bible translation.
1494.
What did it bud with? Num. 17:1-11.
1495.
What is referred to by the tables of the covenant? Would this require the ark to be of sturdy construction to hold heavy tablets of stone?
1496.
What appears above the ark?
1497.
What is the meaning of the word seraphim?
1498.
Is there more than one?
1499.
Who were they? See Gen. 3:24.
1500.
What do we know about their appearance? See Eze. 1:5-11; Eze. 1:13-14.
1501.
Were the cherubim silent? Cf. Eze. 1:24; Eze. 10:5.
1502.
Were they alive above the ark? See Exo. 25:18-20.
1503.
If they had been alive, is it possible the interpretation of 1Ki. 8:9 means that articles were lost by the time of the temple?
1504.
Does the author feel that he has gone into the subject thoroughly according to Heb. 9:5?
1505.
What is meant by the expression that the priest go in continually?
1506.
How many times daily did they go in, and what did they do?
1507.
What continual task did they have? Lev. 4:6.
1508.
Where was this done?
1509.
Was the author of Hebrews speaking of the temple in Jerusalem, or the original tabernacle?
1510.
What is meant by the word second?
1511.
Contrast the work of the priest with that of the high priest.
1512.
Contrast his work with that of Christ.
1513.
What day was it that allowed the high priest to go into the Holy of Holies?
1514.
Did he go in more than once on this day? Cf. Lev. 16:12-15.
1515.
What did he have to possess when he went in?
1516.
Does this mean he took blood all four times, if he went in that many?
1517.
What persons were in need of the blood?
1518.
Compare Heb. 9:25 here.
1519.
Does Heb. 4:15 tell why Jesus didnt offer blood for Himself?
1520.
What does the errors of the people refer to?
1521.
Was it for sins of which they were ignorant? Cf. Num. 15:28-29.
1522.
Was there a sacrifice for deliberate sin? Cf. Num. 15:30-31.
1523.
What fringe was worn as a memorial to the breaking of one of the ten commandments? Cf. Num. 15:37-41.
1524.
What did the Holy Spirit signify?
1525.
Did these old covenant people realize that heaven was not open yet to man?
1526.
How long was heaven closed?
1527.
What did God do to show that heaven was open and that the old covenant no longer had a closed Holy of Holies?
1528.
What is meant by the word figure?
1529.
What did it prefigure?
1530.
What is meant by both gifts and sacrifices?
1531.
What effect did the sacrifices have on the conscience?
1532.
Could they make the conscience clear?
1533.
Read Heb. 10:3 for a discussion of the cleansing of sin.
1534.
Can the Christian have a clear conscience? Cf. Heb. 9:14; Heb. 10:22; 1Ti. 3:9; 1Pe. 3:21.
1535.
What kinds of attempts at reconciliation are mentioned in Heb. 9:10?
1536.
What does meats refer to?
1537.
What is referred to by drinks?
1538.
Was it an offering? Cf. Exo. 29:40-41.
1539.
What material was used in the drink offering? Lev. 23:13; Lev. 23:18; Lev. 23:37.
1540.
Does it accompany all the offerings?
1541.
Were all the priests allowed to drink wine in the drink offerings? Cf. Lev. 10:9.
1542.
What is meant by divers washings?
1543.
What things and persons were washed?
1544.
Were the priests washed after each sacrifice?
1545.
Were all sacrifices washed?
1546.
Define the meaning of carnal ordinances.
1547.
Do people depend upon carnal ordinances today for salvation? Cf. 1Ti. 4:1-3.
1548.
How long were these things to last?
1549.
What is meant by the word reformation?
1550.
Is this Luthers reformation or Campbells restoration?
1551.
What other word is used by translators?
1552.
How do we know what is meant?
1553.
Are these commandments ordained this side of the cross?
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
IX.
(1) The subject commenced in the last chapter (Heb. 9:1-6) is continued here. The mention of the more excellent ministry led to the description of the new covenant with which it is united (Heb. 9:6-13). This verse, then, attaches itself to the fifth and sixth verses of Hebrews 8 (Heb. 8:5-6): Even the first (covenant), then, had ordinances of divine service and its sanctuary, of this world. The service is spoken of again in Heb. 9:6; the ordinances in Heb. 9:10, where they are called carnal. Very similar is the language here, for the words so emphatically standing at the close of the verse are probably descriptive not of the sanctuary only, but also of the ordinances. Both place and ministrations belonged to this world, and thus stand in contrast with the heavenly things, of which the Tabernacle was a token and shadow. (See Note on Heb. 8:5.) The ordinary Greek text (here following the first printed Greek Testament) has the first Tabernacle, and this reading was followed by Tyndale and Coverdale. All ancient MSS. omit the word; and, as in a long succession of verses covenant has been the leading thought, the rendering of the Authorised version is certainly correct.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 9
THE GLORY OF THE TABERNACLE ( Heb 9:1-5 ) 9:1-5 So, then, the first tabernacle, too, had its ordinances of worship and its holy place, which was an earthly symbol of the divine realities. For the first tabernacle was constructed and in it there was the lampstand and the table with the shewbread, and it was called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain there was that part of the tabernacle which was called the Holy of Holies. It was approached by means of the golden altar of incense, and it had in it the ark of the covenant, which was covered all over with gold. In the ark there was the golden pot with the manna and Aaron’s rod which budded and the tables of the covenant. Above it there were the cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy seat; but this is not the place to speak about all these things in detail.
The writer to the Hebrews has just been thinking of Jesus as the one who leads us into reality. He has been using the idea that in this world we have only pale copies of what is truly real. The worship that men can offer is only a ghost-like shadow of the real worship which Jesus, the real High Priest, alone can offer. But even as he thinks of that his mind goes back to the Tabernacle (the Tabernacle, remember, not the Temple). Lovingly he remembers its beauty; lovingly he lingers on its priceless possessions. And the thought in his mind is this–if earthly worship was as beautiful as this, what must the true worship be like? If all the loveliness of the Tabernacle was only a shadow of reality, how surpassingly lovely the reality must be. He does not tell of the Tabernacle in detail; he only alludes to certain of its treasures. This was all he needed to do because his readers knew its glories and had them printed on their memories. But we do not know them; therefore, let us see what the beauty of the earthly Tabernacle was like, always remembering that it was only a pale copy of reality.
The main description of the Tabernacle in the wilderness is in Exo 25:1-40; Exo 26:1-37; Exo 27:1-21; Exo 28:1-43; Exo 29:1-46; Exo 30:1-38; Exo 31:1-18 and Exo 35:1-35; Exo 36:1-38; Exo 37:1-29; Exo 38:1-31; Exo 39:1-43; Exo 40:1-38. God said to Moses: “Make me a sanctuary that I may dwell in their midst” ( Exo 25:8). It was constructed out of the freewill offerings of the people ( Exo 25:1-7), who gave with such lavish generosity that a halt had to be called to their giving ( Exo 36:5-7).
The Court of the Tabernacle was 150 feet long and 75 feet wide. It was surrounded by a curtain-like fence of fine, twined linen 7 1/2 feet high. The white linen stood for the wall of holiness that surrounds the presence of God. The curtain was supported by twenty pillars on the north and south sides, and by ten on the east and west sides; and the pillars were set in sockets of brass and had tops of silver. There was only one gate. It was on the east side and it was 30 feet wide and 7 1/2 feet high. It was made of fine, twined linen wrought with blue and purple and scarlet. In the court there were two things. There was the Brazen Altar, 7 1/2 feet square and 4 1/2 feet high and made of acacia wood sheathed in brass. Its top was a brazen grating on which the sacrifice was laid; and it had four horns to which the offering was bound. There was The Laver. The laver was made from the brass mirrors of the women (glass mirrors did not exist at that time) but its dimensions are not given. The priests bathed themselves in the water in it before they carried out their sacred duties.
The Tabernacle itself was constructed of forty-eight acacia beams, 15 feet high and 2 feet 3 inches wide. They were overlaid with pure gold and rested in sockets of silver. They were bound together by outside connecting rods and by a wooden tie-beam which ran through their centre. The Tabernacle was divided into two parts. The first–two-thirds of the whole–was The Holy Place; the inner part–one-third of the whole–a cube 15 feet on each side, was The Holy of Holies. The curtain which hung in front of The Holy Place was supported on five brass pillars and made of fine linen wrought in blue, purple and scarlet.
The Holy Place contained three things. (i) There was The Golden Lampstand. It stood on the south side; it was beaten out of a talent of solid gold; the lamps were fed with pure olive oil, and were always lit. (ii) On the north side stood The Table of the Shewbread. It was made of acacia wood covered with gold; it was 3 feet long, 1 1/2 feet wide and 2 feet 3 inches high. On it there were laid every Sabbath twelve loaves made of the finest flour, in two rows of six. Only the priests could eat these loaves when they were removed. They were changed every Sabbath. (iii) There was The Altar of Incense. It was of acacia wood sheathed in gold; it was 1 1/2 feet square and 3 feet high. On it incense, symbolising the prayers of the people rising to God, was burned every morning and evening.
In front of The Holy of Holies there was The Veil which was made of fine, twined linen, embroidered in scarlet and purple and blue, and with the cherubim upon it. Into The Holy of Holies no one but the High Priest might enter, and he only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, and only after the most elaborate preparations. Within The Holy of Holies stood The Ark of the Covenant. It contained three things–the golden pot of the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the law. It was made of acacia wood sheathed outside and lined inside with gold. It was 3 feet 9 inches long, 2 feet 3 inches wide, and 2 feet 3 inches high. Its lid was called The Mercy Seat. On The Mercy Seat there were two cherubim of solid gold with overarching wings. It was there that the very presence of God rested, for he had said: “There I will meet with you, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim that are upon the ark of the testimony” ( Exo 25:22).
It was of all this beauty that the writer to the Hebrews was thinking–and yet it was only a shadow of reality. In his mind there was another thing of which he was to speak again–the ordinary Israelite could come only to the gate of the Tabernacle court; the priests and the Levites might enter the court; the priests alone might enter the Holy Place; and none but the High Priest might enter the Holy of Holies. There was beauty but it was a beauty in which the common man was barred from the inner presence of God. Jesus Christ took the barrier away and opened wide the way to God’s presence for every man.
THE ONLY ENTRY TO THE PRESENCE OF GOD ( Heb 9:6-10 ) 9:6-10 Since these preparations have been made, the priests continually enter into the first tabernacle as they perform the various acts of worship. But into the second tabernacle the High Priest alone enters, and that once a year and not without blood, which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people. By this the Holy Spirit is showing that the way into the Holy Place was not yet opened up so long as the first tabernacle stood. Now the first tabernacle stands for this present age, and according to its services sacrifices are offered which cannot perfect the conscience of the worshipper but which, since they are based on food and drink and various kinds of washings, are human regulations, laid down until the time of the new order should come.
Only the High Priest could enter into the Holy of Holies and that only on The Day of Atonement. It is of the ceremonies of that day that the writer to the Hebrews is here thinking. He did not need to describe them to his readers for they knew them. To them they were the most sacred religious ceremonies in all the world. If we are to understand the thought of the writer to the Hebrews we must have a picture of them in our minds. The main description is in Lev 16:1-34.
First, we must ask, what was the idea behind The Day of Atonement? As we have seen, the relationship between Israel and God was a covenant relationship. Sin on Israel’s part broke that relationship, and the whole system of sacrifice existed to make atonement for sin and to restore the broken relationship. But what if there were some sins still not atoned for? What if there were some sins of which a man was not conscious? What if by some chance the altar itself had become defiled? That is to say, what if the sacrificial system was not performing the function it should?
The summary of the Day of Atonement is given in Lev 16:33:
And he shall make atonement for the sanctuary; and he shall
make atonement for the tent of meeting, and for the altar,
and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the
people of the assembly.
It was one great comprehensive act of atonement for all sin. It was one grand day in which all things and all people were cleansed, so that the relationship between Israel and God should continue unbroken. To that end it was a day of humiliation. “You shall afflict yourselves” ( Lev 16:29). It was not a feast but a fast. The whole nation fasted all day, even the boys and girls; and the really devout Jew prepared himself for it by fasting for the ten days which went before. The Day of Atonement comes ten days after the opening of the Jewish New Year, about the beginning of September in our calendar. It was the greatest of all days in the life of the High Priest.
Let us then see what happened. Very early in the morning the High Priest cleansed himself by washing. He donned his gorgeous robes of office, worn only on that day. There were the white linen breeches and the long white undergarment reaching down to the feet, woven in one piece. There was The Robe of the Ephod. It was dark blue and was a long robe with at the foot a fringe of blue, purple and scarlet tassels made in the form of pomegranates, interspersed with an equal number of little golden bells. Over this robe he put The Ephod itself The Ephod was probably a kind of linen tunic, embroidered in scarlet and purple and gold, with an elaborate girdle. On its shoulders were two onyx stones. The names of six of the tribes were engraved on one and six on the other. On the tunic was The Breastplate, a span square. On it were twelve precious stones with the names of the twelve tribes engraved upon them. So the High Priest carried the people to God on his shoulders and on his heart. In the breastplate there was the Urim and the Thummim, which means lights and perfections ( Exo 28:30). What exactly the Urim and the Thummim was is not known. It is known that the High Priest consulted it when he wished to know the will of God. It may be that it was a precious diamond inscribed with the consonants Y-H-W-H which are the consonants of Yahweh ( H3068 and H3069) , the name of God. On his head the High Priest put the tall mitre, of fine linen; and on the mitre there was a gold plate bound by a band of blue ribbon, and on the plate were the words: “Holiness unto the Lord.” It is easy to imagine what a dazzling figure the High Priest must have presented on this his greatest day.
The High Priest began by doing the things that were done every day. He burned the morning incense, made the morning sacrifice, and attended to the trimming of the lamps on the seven-branched lampstand. Then came the first part of the special ritual of the day. Still dressed in his gorgeous robes, he sacrificed a bullock and seven lambs and one ram ( Num 29:7). Then he removed his gorgeous robes, cleansed himself again in water, and dressed himself in the simple purity of white linen. There was brought to him a bullock bought with his own resources. He placed his hands on its head and, standing there in the full sight of the people, confessed his own sin and the sin of his house:
“Ah, Lord God, I have committed iniquity: I have transgressed: I have sinned–I and my house. O Lord, I entreat thee, cover over (atone for) the iniquities, the transgressions, and the sins, which I have committed, transgressed, and sinned before thee, I and my house, even as it is written in the law of Moses, thy servant, ‘For in that day, he will cover over (atone) for you to make you clean. From all your transgressions before the Lord you shall be cleansed.'”
For the moment the bullock was left before the altar. And then followed one of the unique ceremonies of the Day of Atonement. Two goats were standing by, and beside the goats an urn with two lots in it. One lot was marked For Jehovah; the other was marked For Azazel, which is the phrase the King James Version translates The Scapegoat. The lots were drawn and laid one on the head of each goat. A tongue-shaped piece of scarlet was tied to the horn of the scapegoat. And for the moment the goats were left. Then the High Priest turned to the bullock which was beside the altar and killed it. its throat was slit and the blood caught by a priest in a basin. The basin was kept in motion so that the blood would not coagulate for soon it was to be used. Then came the first of the great moments. The High Priest took coals from the altar and put them in a censer; he took incense and put it in a special dish; and then he walked into the Holy of Holies to burn incense in the very presence of God. It was laid down that he must not stay too long “lest he put Israel in terror.” The people literally watched with bated breath; and when he came out from the presence of God still alive, there went up a sigh of relief like a gust of wind.
When the High Priest came out from the Holy of Holies, he took the basin of the bullock’s blood, went back into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled it seven times up and seven times down. He came out, killed the goat that was marked For Jehovah, with its blood re-entered the Holy of Holies and sprinkled again. Then he came out and mingled together the blood of the bullock and the goat and seven times sprinkled the horns of the altar of the incense and the altar itself. What remained of the blood was laid at the foot of the altar of the burnt offering. Thus the Holy of Holies and the altar were cleansed by blood from any defilement that might be on them.
Then came the most vivid ceremony. The scapegoat was brought forward. The High Priest laid his hands on it and confessed his own sin and the sin of the people; and the goat was led forth into the desert, “into a land not inhabited,” laden with the sins of the people and there it was killed.
The priest turned to the slain bullock and goat and prepared them for sacrifice. Still in his linen garments he read scripture– Lev 16:1-34; Lev 23:27-32, and repeated by heart Num 29:7-11. He then prayed for the priesthood and the people. Once again he cleansed himself in water and rearrayed himself in his gorgeous robes. He sacrificed, first, a kid of the goats for the sins of the people; then he made the normal evening sacrifice; then he sacrificed the already prepared parts of the bullock and the goat. Then once again he cleansed himself, took off his robes, and put on the white linen; and for the fourth and last time he entered the Holy of Holies to remove the censer of incense which still burned there. Once again he cleansed himself in water; once again he put on his vivid robes; then he burned the evening offering of incense, trimmed the lamps on the golden lampstand, and his work was done. In the evening he held a feast because he had been in the presence of God and had come out alive.
Such was the ritual of the Day of Atonement, the day designed to cleanse all things and all people from sin. That was the picture in the mind of the writer to the Hebrews and he was to make much of it. But there were certain things of which he was thinking at the moment.
Every year this ceremony had to be gone through again. Everyone but the High Priest was barred from the presence and even he entered in terror. The cleansing was a purely external one by baths of water. The sacrifice was that of bulls and goats and animal blood. The whole thing failed because such things cannot atone for sin. In it all the writer to the Hebrews sees a pale copy of the reality, a ghostly pattern of the one true sacrifice–the sacrifice of Christ. It was a noble ritual, a thing of dignity and beauty; but it was only an unavailing shadow. The only priest and the only sacrifice which can open the way to God for all men is Jesus Christ.
THE SACRIFICE WHICH OPENS THE WAY TO GOD ( Heb 9:11-14 ) 9:11-14 But when Christ arrived upon the scene, a high priest of the good things which are to come, by means of a tabernacle which was greater and better able to produce the results for which it was meant, a tabernacle not made by the hands of men–that is, a tabernacle which did not belong to this world order–and not by the blood of goats and bullocks but by his own blood, he entered once and for all into the Holy Place because he had secured for us an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer could by sprinkling cleanse those that were unclean so that their bodies became pure, how much more will the blood of Christ who, through the eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God, cleanse your conscience so that you will be able to leave the deeds that make for death in order to become the servants of the living God?
When we try to understand this passage, we must remember three things which are basic to the thought of the writer to the Hebrews. (i) Religion is access to God. Its function is to bring a man into God’s presence. (ii) This is a world of pale shadows and imperfect copies; beyond is the world of realities. The function of all worship is to bring men into contact with the eternal realities. That was what the worship of the Tabernacle was meant to do; but the earthly Tabernacle and its worship are pale copies of the real Tabernacle and its worship; and only the real Tabernacle and the real worship can give access to reality. (iii) There can be no religion without sacrifice. Purity is a costly thing; access to God demands purity; somehow man’s sin must be atoned for and his uncleanness cleansed. With these ideas in his mind the writer to the Hebrews goes on to show that Jesus is the only High Priest who brings a sacrifice that can open the way to God and that that sacrifice is himself.
To begin with, he refers to certain of the great sacrifices which the Jews were in the habit of making under the old covenant with God. (i) There was the sacrifice of bullocks and of goats. In this he is referring to two of the great sacrifices on The Day of Atonement–of the bullock which the High Priest offered for his own sins and of the scapegoat which was led away to the wilderness bearing the sins of the people ( Lev 16:15; Lev 16:21-22). (ii) There was the sacrifice of the red heifer. This strange ritual is described in Num 19:1-22. Under Jewish ceremonial law, if a man touched a dead body, he was unclean. He was barred from the worship of God, and everything and everyone he touched also became unclean. To deal with this there was a prescribed method of cleansing. A red heifer was slaughtered outside the camp. The priest sprinkled the blood of the heifer before the Tabernacle seven times. The body of the beast was then burned, together with cedar and hyssop and a piece of red cloth. The resulting ashes were laid up outside the camp in a clean place and constituted a purification for sin. This ritual must have been very ancient for both its origin and its meaning are wrapped in obscurity. The Jews themselves told that once a Gentile questioned Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai on the meaning of this rite, declaring that it sounded like pure superstition. The Rabbi’s answer was that it had been appointed by the Holy One and that men must not enquire into his reasons but should leave the matter there without explanation. In any event, the fact remains that it was one of the great rites of the Jews.
The writer to the Hebrews tells of these sacrifices and then declares that the sacrifice that Jesus brings is far greater and far more effective. We must first ask what he means by the greater and more effective tabernacle not made with hands? That is a question to which no one can give an answer which is beyond dispute. But the ancient scholars nearly all took it in one way and said that this new tabernacle which brought men into the very presence of God was nothing else than the body of Jesus. It would be another way of saying what John said: “He who has seen me has seen the Father” ( Joh 14:9). The worship of the ancient tabernacle was designed to bring men into the presence of God. That it could do only in the most shadowy and imperfect way. The coming of Jesus really brought men into the presence of God, because in him God entered this world of space and time in a human form and to see Jesus is to see what God is like.
The great superiority of the sacrifice Jesus brought lay in three things. (i) The ancient sacrifices cleansed a man’s body from ceremonial uncleanness; the sacrifice of Jesus cleansed his soul. We must always remember this–in theory all sacrifice cleansed from transgressions of the ritual law; it did not cleanse from sins of the presumptuous heart and the high hand. Take the case of the red heifer. It was not moral uncleanness that its sacrifice wiped out but the ceremonial uncleanness consequent upon touching a dead body. A man’s body might be clean ceremonially and yet his heart be torn with remorse. He might feel able to enter the tabernacle and yet far away from the presence of God. The sacrifice of Jesus takes the load of guilt from a man’s conscience. The animal sacrifices of the old covenant might well leave a man in estrangement from God; the sacrifice of Jesus shows us a God whose arms are always outstretched and in whose heart is only love.
(ii) The sacrifice of Jesus brought eternal redemption. The idea was that men were under the dominion of sin; and just as the purchase price had to be paid to free a man from slavery, so the purchase price had to be paid to free a man from sin.
(iii) The sacrifice of Christ enabled a man to leave the deeds of death and to become the servant of the living God. That is to say, he did not only win forgiveness for a man’s past sin, he enabled him in the future to live a godly life. The sacrifice of Jesus was not only the paying of a debt; it was the giving of a victory. What Jesus did puts a man right with God and what he does enables a man to stay right with God. The act of the Cross brings to men the love of God in a way that takes their terror of him away; the presence of the living Christ brings to them the power of God so that they can win a daily victory over sin.
Westcott outlines four ways in which Jesus’ sacrifice of himself differs from the animal sacrifices of the old covenant.
(i) The sacrifice of Jesus was voluntary. The animal’s life was taken from it; Jesus gave his life. He willingly laid it down for his friends.
(ii) The sacrifice of Jesus was spontaneous. Animal sacrifice was entirely the product of law; the sacrifice of Jesus was entirely the product of love. We pay our debts to a tradesman because we have to; we give a gift to our loved ones because we want to. It was not law but love that lay behind the sacrifice of Christ.
(iii) The sacrifice of Jesus was rational. The animal victim did not know what was happening; Jesus all the time knew what he was doing. He died, not as an ignorant victim caught up in circumstances over which he had no control and did not understand but with eyes wide open.
(iv) The sacrifice of Jesus was moral. Animal sacrifice was mechanical; but Jesus’ sacrifice was made, through the eternal Spirit. This thing on Calvary was not a matter of prescribed ritual mechanically carried out; it was a matter of Jesus obeying the will of God for the sake of men. Behind it there was not the mechanism of law but the choice of love.
THE ONLY WAY IN WHICH SINS CAN BE FORGIVEN ( Heb 9:15-22 ) 9:15-22 It is through him that there emerges a new covenant between God and man; and the purpose behind this new covenant is that those who have been called might receive the eternal inheritance which has been promised to them; but this could happen only after a death had taken place, the purpose of which was to rescue them from the consequences of the transgressions which had been committed under the conditions of the old covenant. For where there is a will, it is necessary that there should be evidence of the death of the testator before the will is valid. It is in the case of dead people that a will is confirmed, since surely it cannot be operative when the testator is still alive. That is why even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. For, after every commandment which the law lays down had been announced by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, together with water and scarlet and hyssop, and sprinkled the book itself and all the people. And as he did so, he said: “This is the blood of the covenant whose conditions God commanded you to observe.” In like manner he sprinkled with blood the tabernacle also and all the instruments used in its worship. Under the conditions which the law lays down it is true to say that almost everything is cleansed by blood. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
This is one of the most difficult passages in the whole letter, although it would not be difficult to those who read the letter for the first time, for its methods of argument and expression and categories of thought would be familiar to them.
As we have seen, the idea of the covenant is basic to the thought of the writer, by which he meant a relationship between God and man. The first covenant was dependent on man’s keeping of the law; as soon as he broke the law the covenant became ineffective. Let us remember that to our writer religion means access to God. Therefore, the basic meaning of the new covenant, which Jesus inaugurated, is that men should have access to God or, to put it another way, have fellowship with him. But here is the difficulty. Men come to the new covenant already stained with the sins committed under the old covenant, for which the old sacrificial system was powerless to atone. So, the writer to the Hebrews has a tremendous thought and says that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is retroactive. That is to say, it is effective to wipe out the sins of men committed under the old covenant and to inaugurate the fellowship promised under the new.
All that seems very complicated but at the back of it there are two great eternal truths. First, the sacrifice of Jesus gains forgiveness for past sins. We ought to be punished for what we have done and shut out from God; but because of what Jesus did the debt is wiped out, the breach is forgiven and the barrier is taken away. Second, the sacrifice of Jesus opens a new life for the future. It opens the way to fellowship with God. The God whom our sins had made a stranger, the sacrifice of Christ has made a friend. Because of what he did the burden of the past is rolled away and life becomes life with God.
It is the next step in the argument which appears to us a fantastic way in which to argue. The question in the mind of the writer is why this new relationship with God should involve the death of Christ. He answers it in two ways.
(i) His first answer is–to us almost incredibly–founded on nothing other than a play on words. We have seen that the use of the word diatheke ( G1242) in the sense of covenant is characteristically Christian, and that its normal secular use was in the sense of will or testament. Up to Heb 9:16 the writer to the Hebrews has been using diatheke ( G1242) in the normal Christian sense of covenant; then, suddenly and without warning or explanation, he switches to the sense of will. Now a will does not become operative until the testator dies; so the writer to the Hebrews says that no diatheke ( G1242) , will, can be operative until the death of the testator so that the new diatheke ( G1242) , covenant, cannot become operative apart from the death of Christ. That is a merely verbal argument and is quite unconvincing to a modern mind; but it must be remembered that this founding of an argument on a play between two meanings of a word was a favourite method of the Alexandrian scholars in the time when this letter was written. In fact this very argument would have been considered in the days when the letter to the Hebrews was written an exceedingly clever piece of exposition.
(ii) His second answer goes back to the Hebrew sacrificial system and to Lev 17:11: “The life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement.” “Without the shedding of blood there can be no atonement for sin,” was actually a well-known Hebrew principle. So the writer to the Hebrews goes back to the inauguration of the first covenant under Moses, the occasion when the people accepted the law as the condition of their special relationship with God. We are told how sacrifice was made and how Moses “took half of the blood and put it in basins; and half of the blood he threw against the altar.” After the book of the law had been read and the people had signified their acceptance of it, Moses “took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words'” ( Exo 24:1-8). It is true that the memory of the writer to the Hebrews of that passage is not strictly accurate. He introduces calves and goats and scarlet and hyssop which come from the ritual of The Day of Atonement and he talks about the sprinkling of the Tabernacle, which at that time had not yet been built; but the reason is that these things are so much in his mind. His basic idea is that there can be no cleansing and no ratification of any covenant without the shedding of blood. Why that should be so he does not need to know. Scripture says it is so and that is enough for him. The probable reason is that blood is life, as the Hebrew saw it, and life is the most precious thing in the world; and man must offer his most precious thing to God.
All that goes back to a ritual which is only of antiquarian interest. But behind it there is an eternal principle–Forgiveness is a costly thing. Human forgiveness is costly. A son or a daughter may go wrong and a father or a mother may forgive; but that forgiveness brings tears, whiteness to the hair, lines to the face, a cutting anguish and then a long dull ache to the heart. It does not cost nothing. Divine forgiveness is costly. God is love but he is also holiness. He least of all can break the great moral laws on which the universe is built. Sin must have its punishment or the very structure of life disintegrates. And God alone can pay the terrible price that is necessary before men can be forgiven. Forgiveness is never a case of saying: “It’s all right; it doesn’t matter.” It is the most costly thing in the world. Without the shedding of heart’s blood there can be no forgiveness of sins. Nothing brings a man to his senses with such arresting violence as to see the effect of his sin on someone who loves him in this world or on the God who loves him for ever, and to say to himself: “It cost that to forgive my sin.” Where there is forgiveness someone must be crucified.
THE PERFECT PURIFICATION ( Heb 9:23-28 ) 9:23-28 So, then, if it was necessary that the things which are copies of the heavenly realities should be cleansed by processes like these, it is necessary that the heavenly realities themselves should be cleansed by finer sacrifices than those of which we have been thinking. It is not into a man-made sanctuary that Christ has entered–that would be a mere symbol of the things which are real. It is into heaven itself that he entered, now to appear on our behalf before the presence of God. It is not that he has to offer himself repeatedly, as the High Priest year by year enters into the Holy Place with a blood that is not his own. Were that so he would have had to suffer again and again since the world was founded. But now, as things are, once and for all, at the end of the ages, he has appeared with his sacrifice of himself so that our sins should be cancelled. And just as it is laid down for men to die once and for kill and then to face the judgment, so Christ, after being once and for all sacrificed to bear the burden of the sins of many, will appear a second time, not this time to deal with sin, but for the salvation of those who are waiting for him.
The writer to the Hebrews, still thinking of the supreme efficacy of the sacrifice which Jesus made, begins with a flight of thought which, even for so adventurous a writer as he, is amazing. Let us remember again the letter’s basic thought that the worship of this world is a pale copy of the real worship. The writer to the Hebrews says that in this world the Levitical sacrifices were designed to purify the means of worship. For instance, the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement purified the tabernacle and the altar and the Holy Place. Now he goes on to say that the work of Christ purifies not only earth but heaven. He has the tremendous thought of a kind of cosmic redemption that purified the whole universe, seen and unseen.
So he goes on to stress again the way in which the work and the sacrifice of Christ are supreme.
(i) Christ entered into no man-made Holy Place; he entered into the presence of God. We are to think of Christianity not in terms of Church membership but in terms of intimate fellowship with God.
(ii) Christ entered into the presence of God not only for his own sake but for ours. It was to open the way for us and plead our cause. In Christ there is the greatest paradox in the world, the paradox of the greatest glory and the greatest service, the paradox of one for whom the world exists and who exists for the world, the paradox of the eternal King and the eternal Servant.
(iii) The sacrifice of Christ never needs to be made again. Year after year the ritual of the Day of Atonement had to go on and the things that blocked the road to God had to be atoned for; but through Christ’s sacrifice the road to God is for ever open. Men were always sinners and always will be but that does not mean that Christ must go on offering himself again and again. The road is open once and for all. We can have a faint analogy of that. For long a certain surgical operation may be impossible. Then some surgeon finds a way round the difficulties. From that day that same road is open to all surgeons. We may put it this way–nothing need ever be added to what Jesus Christ has done to keep open the way to God’s love for sinning men.
Finally, the writer to the Hebrews draws a parallel between the life of man and the life of Christ.
(i) Man dies and then comes the judgment. That itself was a shock to the Greek for he tended to believe that death was final. “When earth once drinks the blood of a man,” said Aeschylus, “there is death once and for all and there is no resurrection.” Euripides says: “It cannot be the dead to light shall come.” “For the one loss is this that never mortal maketh good again the life of man–though wealth may be re-won.” Homer makes Achilles say when he reaches the shades: “Rather would I live upon the soil as the hireling of another, with a landless man whose livelihood was small, than bear sway among all the dead who are no more.” Mimnermus writes with a kind of despair:
“O Golden love, what life, what joy but thine?
Come death, when thou art gone, and make an end!”
There is a simple Greek epitaph:
“Farewell, tomb of Melite; the best of women lies here, who loved
her loving husband, Onesimus; thou wert most excellent, wherefore
he longs for thee after thy death, for thou wert the best of
wives. Farewell thou too, dearest husband, only love my children.”
As G. Lowes Dickinson points out, in the Greek, the first and the last word of that epitaph is “Farewell!” Death was the end. When Tacitus is writing the tribute of biography to the great Agricola all he can finish with is an “if.”
“If there be any habitation for the spirits of just men, if, as the
sages will have it, great souls perish not with the body, mayest
thou rest in peace.”
“If” is the only word. Marcus Aurelius can say that when a man dies and his spark goes back to be lost in God, all that is left is “dust, ashes, bones, and stench.” The significant thing about this passage of Hebrews is its basic assumption that a man will rise again. That is part of the certainty of the Christian creed; and the basic warning is that he rises to judgment.
(ii) With Christ it is different–he dies and rises and comes again, and he comes not to be judged but to judge. The early Church never forgot the hope of the Second Coming. It throbbed through their belief. But for the unbeliever that was a day of terror. As Enoch had it of the Day of the Lord, before Christ came: “For all you who are sinners there is no salvation, but upon you all will come destruction and a curse.” In some way the consummation must come. If in that day Christ comes as a friend, it can be only a day of glory; if he comes as a stranger or as one whom we have regarded as an enemy, it can be only a day of judgment. A man may look to the end of things with joyous expectation or with shuddering terror. What makes the difference is how his heart is with Christ.
-Barclay’s Daily Study Bible (NT)
Fuente: Barclay Daily Study Bible
a. The (twofold) tabernacle, with its gorgeous furniture, and its priestly and high priestly ritual, was without worth but as a type, Heb 9:1-10 .
1. Then verily the first covenant The word covenant, as the Italics show, is not in the Greek, but is rightly supplied by our translators from the last chapter.
Had As the tabernacle was first constituted by Moses.
Ordinances Literally, (Greek,) justifications; that is, arrangements justified by the divine will.
Worldly sanctuary That is, an earthly, in contrast with the true and heavenly sanctuary of which this was type; namely, the greater and more perfect tabernacle of Heb 9:11, the holy place of Heb 9:12, and the heaven itself into which Christ is entered of Heb 9:24. Indeed, in this last verse both sides of the antithesis are given, namely, the holy places made with hands, and the heaven itself. See note on Heb 8:5.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
A Consideration of The Old Ordinances Under Which Men Were Barred From Entering The Holy Presence of God. They Had To Worship From Afar Using Things of No Lasting Validity ( Heb 9:1-10 )
Heb 9:1
Even under the first covenant there were ‘ordinances of divine ministry’, and a ‘holy sanctuary’ (hagion). And they were admittedly genuine. But they were nevertheless ‘of this world’, they were made with hands. Thus they could not be as good as the reality. Nevertheless it must be accepted that they were both of God, and that for hundreds of years they had shaped the worship of God’s people. On the other hand it should be clear to all that being fulfilled on earth in things that were made by human hands, they could only be preparatory until something better should come. However glorious they were, they were earthly. They could not enter Heaven itself. They were ‘afar off’.
‘Had.’ Imperfect active signifying ‘used to have’, with the idea that they were now a thing of the past.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
A Description of the Sacrifices of the Earthly Tabernacle Under the Old Covenant Heb 9:1-10 gives a brief description of the ministry and sacrifices of the earthly Tabernacle under the old covenant. It also gives us an additional brief glimpse into the symbolic meaning of the Tabernacle as it reflects the redemptive work of Christ Jesus. We are given some insight into our access into this heavenly Tabernacle in Heb 10:19-22.
Heb 9:1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Heb 9:1
Comments Heb 9:1 give us a general summary of the book of Exodus once the children of Israel reached Mount Sinai, and of the book of Leviticus.
The First Covenant God made a covenant with the children of Israel, which is actually instituted in Exo 24:1-8, after the giving of the Ten Commandments in Exo 20:1-22, establishing the institution of the Decalogue (Moral Laws) into the government of the nation of Israel.
The Ordinances of Divine Service – Exo 20:22 to Exo 23:33 records the institution of the primary statutes (Civil Laws) that gives the children of Israel understanding in how to apply various aspects of the Ten Commandments to their daily lives. The book of Leviticus records the ordinances of divine service that were given to the Levites and priests as they served in the Tabernacle.
A Worldly Sanctuary Exo 24:9 to Exo 40:38 records the details of the construction of the Tabernacle of Moses, which the author refers to in Heb 9:1 as the “worldly sanctuary,” having told us that it was made after the pattern of the heavenly sanctuary (Heb 8:5).
Heb 8:5, “Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.”
Heb 9:2 For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary.
Heb 9:2
Exo 26:33, “And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.”
Heb 9:3 And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all;
Heb 9:3
The second room in the Tabernacles was called the (lit. Holy of Holies; thus, the Most Holy) (Exo 26:33), and in the New Testament the (lit. Holy of Holies; thus, the Holiest of all).
Exo 26:33, “And thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: and the vail shall divide unto you between the holy place and the most holy.”
Heb 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;
Heb 9:4
[235] A Handy Concordance of the Septuagint (London: S. Bagster and Sons Limited, n.d.), 117.
[236] F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews, in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 200.
Why is “the golden censer,” or golden altar, associated with the Holy of Holies in the book of Hebrews? Except for the Day of Atonement, this altar was where man communed with God. The ark represented God’s throne. The altar of incense, called the golden censer in this verse, represented our prayers. The second veil represented man’s separation from God, being done away with through Jesus Christ at the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews.
The golden altar was placed outside veil before the Holy of Holies (Exo 40:26, Lev 4:18). However, when Christ Jesus died, the veil was torn and the altar of incense found itself closer to the mercy seat than the two articles in the Holy Place.
Exo 40:26, “And he put the golden altar in the tent of the congregation before the vail:”
Lev 4:18, “And he shall put some of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the LORD , that is in the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall pour out all the blood at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.”
Heb 9:4 “wherein was the golden pot that had manna” Comments – Why did God feed the children of Israel manna for forty years? God wanted the children of Israel to know that man does not live by bread alone, but by the daily partaking of the Words of God.
Deu 8:3, “And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.”
Heb 9:4 “and Aaron’s rod that budded” Comments – The rod that Aaron carried was a dead tree. The fact that it budded was a sign that God creates life out of death. This was figurative of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Heb 9:5 And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
Heb 9:5
Heb 9:5 “of which we cannot now speak particularly” Comments – The author was capable of describing the symbolism of the articles of the Tabernacle, but the main point of this section is the significance of Jesus entering into the Holy of Holies once to make an atonement for the sins of mankind.
Heb 9:6 Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God.
Heb 9:6
Heb 9:7 But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:
Heb 9:7
“which he offered for himself” – Comments William Lane notes that the author of Hebrews uses the Greek word to describe how the High Priest “offered” the blood of the sacrifice in the Most Holy Place, in contrast to the LXX, which uses the words (to sprinkle) and (to apply). [237] Lane suggests this choice of words is Christological in that it prepares the readers for the offering ( ) of Christ in behalf of the sins of the world in Heb 10:10; Heb 10:14.
[237] William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 47b, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 3.0b [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2004), comments on Hebrews 9:9.
“and for the errors of the people” Word Study on “errors” BDAG and David Allen say the Greek word means, “sin committed in ignorance.” [238] This specific designation of unintentional sins appears to conflict with the details of the Day of Atonement in Lev 16:16, which says the high priest made an atonement for all of the sins of the people. The TDNT says it carries the broader meaning of “error” as well, being equivalent to the Hebrew word (error).
[238] David L. Allen, Hebrews, in The New American Commentary: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, vol. 35, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, Tennessee: B & H Publishing Group, 2010), 457.
Lev 16:16, “And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.”
Heb 9:7 Comments The lengthy description of the procedures for the High Priest on the Day of Atonement make a clear distinction between the sins of the priest and those of the people. In fact, the priest was required to offer a bull for his own sins prior to offering the goats and a ram for the sins of the people as a separate part of this annual ceremony (Lev 16:6-7). Thus, the write of Hebrews makes the same distinction by saying, “which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people.”
Lev 16:6-7, “And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.”
Heb 9:8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Heb 9:8
Heb 9:8 Comments The presence of God was now on earth again, not being manifested since Adam had fellowship with God in the Garden. Yet, a building was erected around the Holy of Holies so that man could not access it except once a year because man did not yet have free access to God.
Heb 9:9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
Heb 9:9
“that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience” – Comments Under the Mosaic Law the Jews remained conscience of their sins on a continual basis simply because they had to offer sacrifices for each transgression. Failure to continually offer these sacrifices would violate the Law. Thus, those under the Law lived with guilt each time they sinned. The Law was unable to cleanse the conscience of man (Heb 10:2), so the Jew lived a life of condemnation.
Heb 10:2, “For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.”
However, the life of David was an exception in that he learned how to fall into the hands of God through faith in His Word and repentance. David was the first individual in biblical history to call God by the name “Father,” as recorded in some of the psalms. David discovered that God and His presence was actually accessible to the pure in heart. Therefore, when he became king, he wore a priestly ephod and placed the ark of the covenant in a tent in Jerusalem where he could have direct access to the presence of God.
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Heb 9:10
Heb 9:10 Comments In Gal 3:24 Paul described the Law as our , our attendant, custodian, or guide ( BDAG) that brings us to Christ. The busy, endless ceremonies of the Law revealed to the Jews their sinful nature and need for a redeemer; for they could not fulfill the Law themselves. The Law gave them a continual awareness of their sinful nature, pointing them to the coming Messiah.
Gal 3:24, “Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Indoctrination: The Superior Priesthood of Jesus Christ Heb 6:1 to Heb 10:18 places emphasis upon our indoctrination as a part of our need to persevere in the Christian faith. This passage of Scripture offers us a theological discourse unlike any other in the Holy Scriptures. In order to persevere Jesus Christ made access to God’s throne freely available to all believers, by which we are exhorted to grow and mature in our spiritual journey (Heb 6:1-8). The author supports this exhortation with a doctrinal discourse on the analogy of the priesthood of Melchizedek with that of Jesus Christ (Heb 6:9 to Heb 10:18).
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. 3 rd Exhortation: Grow in Maturity Heb 6:1-8
2. 3 rd Doctrinal Discourse Heb 6:9 to Heb 10:18
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Third Doctrinal Discourse: The Superior Priesthood of Jesus Christ The author then leads the Hebrews into a revelation of the priestly office of the Lord Jesus Christ (Heb 6:9 to Heb 10:18), which reveals the need for indoctrination in order to persevere in the faith. He begins his doctrinal discourse by reminding them of their sure hope and promise by God of receiving eternal life (Heb 6:9-20).
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. God’s Sure Promises in Christ Jesus Heb 6:9-20
2. Jesus Offers Better Covenant Thru Superior Order Heb 7:1 to Heb 10:18
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Jesus Offers a New and Better Covenant through a Superior Priesthood and Sacrifice Jesus Christ offers a new and better covenant through a superior priesthood and a superior sacrifice. Heb 7:1-28 explains how the superior priesthood of Jesus Christ under the order of Melchizedek offers a new and better covenant for God’s people. Heb 8:1 to Heb 10:18 explains how Jesus Christ offers a new and better covenant through a superior sacrifice.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. A Superior Order of Melchizedek Heb 7:1-28
2. A Superior Sacrifice Heb 8:1 to Heb 10:18
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
Jesus Christ Offers a New and Better Covenant Through a Superior Sacrifice Having proven that Jesus Christ is the mediator of a better and more superior office of priesthood in Heb 7:1-28 under the order of Melchizedek, the author then proceeds to explain how this new covenant necessitated a better sacrifice as well by referring to Jer 31:31-34 in Heb 8:8-12. Therefore, Heb 8:1 to Heb 10:18 focuses upon the establishment of a new covenant through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ and a doing away of the old covenant, and it, and its serves largely as an exegesis of Jer 31:31-34.
Outline Here is a proposed outline:
1. A Summary Statement Heb 8:1-2
2. The Promise of a New Covenant Heb 8:3-13
3. Sacrifices Under the Old Covenant Heb 9:1-10
4. Sacrifice Under New Covenant Heb 9:11 to Heb 10:18
Scripture References:
Heb 8:7
Heb 8:13, “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”
Heb 9:15, “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”
Heb 10:9, “Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.”
Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures
The Old Testament Cult inferior to the Perfection of Christ’s Sacrifice.
Description of the Tabernacle and its appointments:
v. 1. Then, verily, the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary.
v. 2. For there was a Tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick and the table and the showbread, which is called the sanctuary.
v. 3. And after the second veil the Tabernacle, which is called the Holiest of all;
v. 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;
v. 5. and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. In this chapter the points which had been discussed but briefly in the foregoing paragraphs are taken up in greater detail, the first half of the chapter bringing the proof of the superiority of Christ’s office over the ministry of the Old Testament priests. This the author proceeds to prove by referring, first of all, to the place of worship and its appointments: Even the first covenant, indeed, had ordinances of worship and a worldly sanctuary. With these words a concession is made to the excellencies of the Old Testament covenant, such as they were, for the purpose of bringing out all the more strongly the beauties of the new covenant. There were regulations, ordinances respecting the worship, governing the public services in all its parts. The Jews also had a sanctuary, a place of worship, but, as the author immediately says, one pertaining to this world, suited for an external worship only, a tabernacle erected by man, constructed by human hands, with material of this earth.
He describes this sanctuary: For a tent was constructed, the fore-tent, in which were the candlestick and the table and the setting forth of the loaves, which is called the Holy Place. See Exo 25:23-39; Exo 26:35; Lev 24:5-9. The Tabernacle, which was erected at the command of God, consisted of two parts. The first part of the tent, that into which a person stepped from the Court of the Priests was called the Holy Place. In this eastern part of the Tabernacle were various articles of furniture, a lamp stand, or candlestick, made of gold, very beautiful, a table, which stood near the south wall. On the opposite side of the room stood the table of acacia wood, overlaid with gold, which served as a stand for the showbread or the dozen bread cakes, the bread of the countenance of the Lord, which were renewed every Sabbath.
The other part of the Tabernacle is also described: And after the second veil the tent, which is called Holy of Holies, having the golden altar of incense and the Ark of the Covenant, covered all over with gold, in which was a golden jar containing manna, and the rod of Aaron which had budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat, concerning which I need not now speak in detail. The second, or inner, tent was separated from the Holy Place by a second veil, the first one being that which hung before the Holy Place. This section of the Tabernacle was a shrine, the Most Holy Place, guarded with the greatest care against every profanation. At its entrance, at the place which was in the closest connection with the service of the Day of Atonement, in the center of the splendid curtain on the east side, stood the golden altar of incense with its golden censer, Exo 30:1-10; Exo 37:25-28. Here the priest designated for this special work was required to burn incense at both the morning and the evening sacrifice. Inside the curtain was the Ark of the Covenant, the only piece of furniture really inside of the Most Holy Place, Exo 25:10-16. This large chest of acacia wood was overlaid both inside and outside with gold. It served as a depository for several articles. There was a golden pot, or jar, in which three quarts of manna were preserved, Exo 16:33; there was the rod of Aaron which had budded at the time when some of the elders of the people had expressed their dissatisfaction with the Lord’s order ranking him a prince in Israel, Num 17:8-10; there were, above all, the two stone tables on which the Lord had written the words of the Law for the second time, with His own finger, Deu 31:25-26. The cover of the ark, or chest, was called the mercy-seat. It was made of gold and contained as its most prominent ornament two cherubim having their wings extended and facing each other over the center. They are called the cherubim of glory, because it was between them that the Lord appeared to Moses and communed with him, Exo 25:22. All these things the author mentions, not with the purpose of discussing them in detail, but simply for the purpose of showing that the old covenant also possessed a measure of glory. His readers were familiar with these articles of equipment, having been told of them since their youth.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
EXPOSITION
The sphere of Christ’s “more excellent ministry,” as the “Mediator of a better covenant,” having been shown to be elsewhere than in the earthly tabernacle, the ministry itself is now contrasted with that of the superseded priesthood. With this view the latter is described, and shown to express in itself its own insufficiency and to point to a more availing one to come.
Heb 9:1
Then verily (or, now indeed) the first covenant also (or, even the first covenant) had ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary (rather its sanctuary of this world ( ). The definite article points to the well-known one of the Mosaic dispensation, which, unlike the true one, was in its bearings, as well as locally and materially, of this world only). This sanctuary itself is now first described in necessary preparation for an account of priestly ministrations in it.
Heb 9:2-5
For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbead; which is called the holy place. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holy of holies; having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid with gold, wherein was a golden pot having the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat; of which things we cannot now speak particularly. The tabernacle as a whole is first spoken of; and then its two divisions, called respectively “the first ‘and “the second” tabernacle. The account of them is from the Pentateuch, and describes them as they originally were. In the then existing temple there were neither ark, mercy-seat, nor cherubim, though the ceremonies were continued as though they had been still there. The ark had been removed or destroyed in the sack by the Chaldeans, and was never replaced (for the Jewish tradition on the subject, see 2 Macc. 2:1-8). Josephus says (‘Bell. Jud.,’ 5.5. 5) that in the temple of his day there was nothing whatever behind the veil in the holy of holies; and Tacitus informs us (‘Hist.,’ 5 9) that, when Pompey entered the temple, he found there “vacuam sedem et inania arcana.” A stone basement is said by the rabbis to have occupied the ark’s place, called “lapis fundationis.” In the “first tabernacle,” called “the holy place” ( probably, not : i.e. a neuter plural, equivalent to “the holies”), the table of shewbread (with its twelve loaves in two rows, changed weekly) stood on the north side, i.e. the right as one approached the veil; and opposite to it, on the left, the seven-branched golden candlestick, or lamp-stand, carrying an oil-lamp on each branch (Exo 25:1-40; Exo 37:1-29; Exo 40:1-38). Between them, close to the veil stood the golden altar of incense (ibid); which, nevertheless, is not mentioned here as part of the furniture of the “first tabernacle,” being associated with the “second,” for reasons which will be seen. The “second veil” was that between the holy place and the holy of holies (Exo 36:35), the curtain at the entrance of the holy place (Exo 36:37) being regarded as the first. The inner sanctuary behind this second veil is spoken of as having () in the first place “a golden censer,” as the word is translated in the A.V. (so also in the Vulgate, thuribulum). But it assuredly means the” golden altar of incense,” though this stood locally outside the veil. For
(1) otherwise there would be no mention at all of this altar, which was so important in the symbolism of the tabernacle, and so prominent in the Pentateuch, from which the whole description is taken.
(2) The alternative view of its being a censer reserved for the use of the high priest, when he entered behind the veil on the Day of Atonement, has no support from the Pentateuch, in which no such censer is mentioned as part of the standing furniture of the tabernacle, and none of gold is spoken of at all; nor, had it been so, would it have been placed, any more than the altar of incense, within the veil, since the high priest required it before he entered.
(3) Though the word itself, , certainly means” censer,” and not “altar of incense,” in the LXX., yet in the Hellenistic writers it is otherwise. Philo and Josephus, and also Clemens Alexandrinus and Origen, always call the altar of incense ; and the language of the Epistle is Hellenistic.
(4) The wording does not of necessity imply that what is spoken of was locally within the veil: it is not said (as where the actual contents of the “first tabernacle” and of the ark are spoken of) wherein ( ), but having (), which need only mean having as belonging to it, as connected with its symbolism. It was an appendage to the holy of holies, though not actually inside it, in the same way (to use a homely illustration given by Delitzsch) as the sign-board of a shop belongs to the shop and not to the street. It is, indeed, so regarded in the Old Testament. See Exo 40:5, “Thou shalt set the altar of gold for the incense before the ark of the testimony;” also Exo 30:6, “Before the mercy-seat that is over the testimony;” and 1Ki 6:22, “The altar which was by the oracle,” or, “belonging to the oracle;” cf. also Isa 6:6 and Rev 8:3, where, in the visions of the heavenly temple based upon the symbolism of the earthly, the altar of incense is associated with the Divine throne. And it was also so associated in the ceremonial of the tabernacle. The smoke of the incense daily offered on it was supposed to penetrate the veil to the holy of holies, representing the sweet savor of intercession before the mercy-seat itself; and on the Day of Atonement, not only was its incense taken by the high priest within the veil, bat also it, as well as the mercy-seat, was sprinkled with the atoning blood. Of the rest of the things described as belonging to the holy of holies, it is to be observed that, though none of them were in it when the Epistle was written, yet all (except the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod) were essential to its significance, as will be seen; and all, with these two exceptions, were in Solomon’s temple as well as in the original tabernacle. An objection that has been raised to the accuracy of the description, on the ground that the pot and the rod are not said in the Pentateuch to have been placed inside the ark, is groundless. They were to be laid up “before the LORD” (Exo 16:33); “before the testimony” (Num 17:10); and “the testimony” elsewhere means the tables of the Law (Exo 25:16; Exo 31:18; Exo 40:20, etc), which were within the ark. It was most likely that they would be kept for safe preservation in the same place with the” testimony,” before which they were ever to be. Further, what is said (1Ki 8:9 and 2Ch 5:10) of there being nothing in the ark but the two tables of stone when it was moved into Solomon’s temple, is no proof that nothing else had been originally there. It seems, indeed, rather to favor the idea that there had been, as implying that something more might have been expected to be found there. The mercy-seat, as is well known, was the cover of the ark, over which the wings of the two cherubim were spread. The expression, “cherubim of glory,” probably has reference to the luminous cloud, significant of the Divine presence, which, occasionally at least (there is no sufficient ground for concluding it to have been a permanent manifestation), is said to have been seen above them. The cherubim, whatever their exact significance, are represented as accompaniments of the Divine glory (cf. Isa 6:1-13. and Eze 1:1-28. and 10).
Heb 9:6
Now these things being thus ordained (A.V; rather, arranged or constituted; it is the same word () as was used in Heb 9:2, “there was a tabernacle made;” also in Heb 3:3, Heb 3:4, of God’s “house;” on which see supra), the priests go in continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services. (Observe that here, where the ministrations are described, present tenses are used; perhaps because these ministrations were still going on when the Epistle was written) The continual services in the “first tabernacle” were
(1) lighting the lamps every evening, and trimming them every morning (Exo 27:21; Exo 30:8; Le Exo 24:3);
(2) renewing the twelve loaves of shewbread every sabbath (Le 24:5, etc);
(3) burning incense on the golden altar twice daily, when the lamps were trimmed and lighted (Exo 30:7, Exo 30:8), at the time of the morning and evening sacrifice, the people meanwhile praying outside (Luk 1:10).
Heb 9:7, Heb 9:8
But into the second the high priest alone, once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself and for the errors (literally, ignorances; cf. Heb 9:2) of the people. For the ceremonies on the Day of Atonement, see Lev 16:1-34. They may be summarized, in their main characteristics, thus:
(1) The high priest brought to the door of the tabernacle a bullock as a sin offering for himself, and two goats as a sin offering for the people; also a ram as a burnt offering for himself, and a ram as a burnt offering for the people.
(2) After washing and arraying himself in white linen garments (not the ordinary official dress), he cast lots on the two goats which were for the people’s sin offeringone lot being “for the LORD,” the other “for Azazel;” that on which the former lot fell being for sacrifice, the other to be set free.
(3) He sacrificed his own sin offering, entered the holy place with the blood thereof, filled a censer with burning coals from the golden altar, went with it within the veil, sprinkling incense on the coals, “that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy-seat, that he die not;” took also the blood within the veil, and sprinkled the mercy-seat therewith.
(4) He returned outside the tabernacle, sacrificed the people’s sin offering, i.e. the goat that was “for the LORD,” entered the holy place with its blood, and proceeded as before; sprinkling also the altar of incense, as well as the mercy-seat, with the blood of both sacrifices, to “hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.”
(5) He again returned outside the tabernacle, laid his hands on the head of the goat “for Azazel,” confessing over him “all the iniquities of the children of Israel, putting them on the head of the goat,” and sent him away to the wilderness, where he was to be let go.
(6) He again entered the tabernacle, where he put off his linen garments, and left them there, and then, after washing again, and putting on his ordinary official dress, sacrificed his own and the people’s burnt offering.
(7) The bodies of the two sin offerings (the bullock and the slain goat) were taken outside the camp, and there entirely consumed by fire. The points in this ceremonial here especially noted are:
(1) That the entrance within the veil was only “once in the year,” i.e. on one only day in the year; for on that day the high priest entered more than once. The meaning is that ordinarily, except on that single day, approach to the innermost shrine was closed to all.
(2) That even on that day the high priest alone entered; neither the people, nor even the priesthood generally, ever had approach to the holiest of all.
(3) That even he could not enter “without blood;” neither the daily sacrifices nor all the ordinary ceremonial of the Law availed for his access: he must take with him the blood of special sin offerings, or he still could not enter and live.
(4) This blood he offered “for himself and for the ignorances of the people;” for himself, since he too was “compassed with infirmity,” and required atonement (Lev 16:2), and also for the people’s ignorances. There is a significance in this word. It was not the sins done with a high hand that had to be atoned for on that day; these were either visited by “cutting off,” or atoned for in ways appointed for the purpose: it was the less definite and undetected sinfulness, infecting the whole community, and remaining after all ceremonial cleansing, so as to debar them from coming “boldly to the throne of grace,” that was yearly kept in remembrance on the Day of Atonement. Hence before even the high priest could enter and not die, the mercy-seat over “the testimony” which was within the ark must be enveloped with the cloud of incense and sprinkled with the blood which “covereth sin” (the verb translated “make atonement for” means properly “cover”). The sin was still not taken away, only “covered” for the time; for the holy of holies after the ceremony remained closed as before, and the same rites had to be repeated at each yearly entrance. All that was expressed was an ever-recurring need of atonement, not yet effected truly, though symbolically prefigured. The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all (so the A.V., giving the idea correctly, though the expression is simply , which might denote only the holy place, as in Lev 16:2, if we there read and not , but is used for the holy of holies in Lev 16:24, Lev 16:25, and for its heavenly antitype in Lev 16:13. This last, as typified in the earthly sanctuary, is what is intended here) hath not yet been made manifest, while as the first tabernacle is yet standing (or rather, has standing ( ); has a place in the symbolical representation). The “first tabernacle” here spoken of certainly does not mean the earthly one as opposed to the heavenly, but what the expression denotes throughout the chapter, the holy place in distinction from the holy of holies. How, then, is the continued existence of this a sign that the way to the heavenly holy of holies has not yet been made manifest? Obviously because it intervenes between the congregation and the holy of holies of the earthly tabernacle, debarring all approach to the latter, and even hiding it from their view. This debarring intervention signifies that there is no approach for them as yet to what the holy of holies symbolizes. Further, the ordinary ministry of the priests themselves did not extend beyond this “first tabernacle:” this alone was the sphere of the services which they accomplished daily; and so the very fact of its existing for this purpose expressed that even their mediation was not availing for access to the inner mercy-seat. And that this was so is intimated with peculiar significance by the direction that, when the high priest alone entered within the veil, none even of them should be in the holy place at all, so as to see beyond it: “And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place” (Le Lev 16:17).
Heb 9:9
Which (, with its usual force) is a parable for the time present (i.e. present as regarded from the standpoint of the old dispensation. The A.V., translating “then present,” and using past tenses throughout, though departing from literalism, still gives, we conceive, the idea correctly); according to which (referring to “parable,” if we adopt the best-supported reading, . The Textus Receptus, followed by the A.V., has , referring to “the time”) are offered both gifts and sacrifices (cf. Heb 9:1), which cannot, as pertaining to the conscience, make him that doth the service (or, “the worshipper,” the idea not being confined to the officiating priest; cf. Heb 10:2, where is translated “the worshippers”) perfect. The emphatic expression here is . The gifts and sacrifices of the Law availed in themselves only for external ceremonial purification; they did not reach, however typical, the sphere of man’s inner consciousness; they could not bring about that sense of spiritual accord with God which is spoken of in Jer 31:1-40. as marking the new covenant (see below, Jer 31:13, Jer 31:14).
Heb 9:10
Rendered in A.V.,” Which stood only in ( ) meats and drinks and divers washings, and carnal ordinances [ , Textus Receptus], imposed on them () until the time of reformation.” This is a satisfactory rendering of the Textus Receptus, before “meats,” etc., being taken in the sense of dependence, and necessarily as agreeing with “gifts and sacrifices” ( ) in Heb 9:9. But there are other readings, though none, any more than that of the Textus Receptus, to be decidedly preferred on the mere ground of manuscript authority. The best sense seems to be given by that of instead of , so that we may render ( being taken in the sense of addition), Being only (with meats and drinks and divers washings) carnal ordinances, imposed until the time of reformation. We thus have an obvious neuter plural () for to agree with, and we avoid the assertion that the “gifts and sacrifices” of the Law “stood only” in “meats,” etc. This was not so; their essential part was blood-shedding ( Heb 9:22) the other things here mentioned were but accompaniments and appendages. The “meats and drinks” spoken of may refer mainly to the distinctions between clean and unclean viands, which we know were made such a point of by the Jews of the apostolic ago. The “diverse washings” () may be taken to include both the ablutions of the priests before sacrifice, and those enjoined on the people in many parts of the Law after ceremonial defile-merit, which kind of washings had been further multiplied variously in the traditional law.
Heb 9:11, Heb 9:12
But Christ having come (, cf. Mat 3:1; Luk 12:51) a High Priest (or, as High Priest) of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation (), nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, entered in once for all () into the holy place, having obtained (, not necessarily antecedent to ) eternal redemption. On the futurity expressed (here and Heb 10:1) by “the good things to come“ (the reading being preferred to ), see under Heb 1:1 ( ) and Heb 2:5 ( ). Here, certainly, the period of the earthly tabernacle having been the temporal standpoint in all the preceding verses, futurity with regard to it may, without difficulty, be understood; and hence “the good things” may still be regarded as such as have already come in Christ. On the other hand, there is no difficulty in regarding them as still future. For the full and final result of even Christ’s perfected high priesthood is not yet come. But what is “the greater and more perfect tabernacle,” through which he entered the heavenly holy of holies? It seems evidently, in the first place, to be connected with , being regarded as the antitype of that “first tabernacle” through which the high priests on earth had passed in order to enter within the veil; having here a local, not an instrumental, sense. The instrumental sense of the same preposition in the next clause ( ) is not against this view. In English, “through his own blood he entered through the tabernacle” presents no difficulty, though “through” is used in two different senses. But what is exactly meant by the tabernacle through which Christ has passed? Bearing in mind what was said under Heb 8:2 of the prophetic visions of a heavenly templecorresponding to the earthly oneand that the epithet is applied also (verse 24) by implication to the counterpart of the holy of holies, and also the expression (Heb 4:14), “having passed through the heavens ( ),” we may regard it as denoting the heavenly region beyond this visible sphere of things ( ), intervening between the latter and the immediate presence, or “face,” of God. Thus “through the greater and more perfect tabernacle” of this verse answers to “having passed through the heavens” of Heb 4:14; and “entered once for all into the holy place” of Heb 4:12 to “entered into heaven itself” (the very heaven) of verse 24. Thus also the symbolical acts of the Day of Atonement are successively, and in due order, fulfilled. As the high priest first sacrificed the sin offering outside the tabernacle, and then passed through the holy to the holy of holies, so Christ first offered himself in this mundane sphere of things, and then passed through the heavens to the heaven of heavens. Delitzsch, taking this view, offers a still more definite explanation; thus: “The former ( ) is that eternal heaven of God himself ( ) which is his own self-manifested eternal glory (Joh 17:5), and existed before all worlds; the latter ( ) is the heaven of the blessed, in which he shines upon his creatures in ‘the light of love”the temple of the tabernacle of the testimony in heaven’ of Rev 15:5, which the apocalyptic seer beheld filled with incense-smoke from ‘the glory of God, and from his power.'” There are other views of what is meant by “the greater and more perfect tabernacle.” The most notable, as being that of Chrysostom and the Fathers generally, is that it means Christ’s human nature, which he assumed before passing to the throne of the Majesty on high. This view is suggested by his having himself spoken of the temple of his body (Joh 2:21), and calling it, if the “false witnesses” at his trial reported him truly, (Mar 14:58); by the expression (Joh 1:14), “The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled () among us;” by St. Paul’s speaking of the human body as a tabernacle (2Co 5:1, 2Co 5:4); and by Heb 10:19, Heb 10:20, where the “veil” through which we have “a new and living way into the holy place through the blood of Jesus” is said to be his flesh. There is thus abundant ground for thinking of Christ’s body as signified by a tabernacle; and the expression in Heb 10:19, Heb 10:20 goes some way to countenance such an interpretation here. The objection to it is that it seems neither suggested by the context nor conformable to the type of the high priest on the Day of Atonement. For, if the human body of Christ assumed at his birth is meant, he entered into that before, not after, his atoning sacrifice; and if, with Hofmann, we think rather of his glorified body, in what sense in accordance with the type can it be said that he entered through it? We should rather say that he ascended with it to the right hand of God. The further points of contrast between Christ’s entrance and that of the earthly high priests are:
(1) The instrumental medium was not the blood of goats and calves (specified here as having been the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement), but his own blood; he was both Priest and Victim.
(2) He entered, not yearly, but once for all; there was no need of continual repetition. And the conclusion is drawn flint the redemption he thus wrought is consequently complete and eternal. The first of these contrasts is enlarged on from Heb 10:13 to Heb 10:24; the second (denoted by ) is taken up at Heb 10:25. On the word “redemption” (: in some other passages ) it is to be observed that it means, according to its etymology, release obtained by payment of a ransom (), and thus in itself involves the doctrine of atonement according to the orthodox view. It is true that in many Scripture passages it is used (as also and ) in a more general sense to express deliverance only, but never where the redemption of mankind by Christ is spoken of. In such eases the is often distinctly specified, as in Mat 20:28 and Mar 10:45, “his life;” in 1Ti 2:6 and Tit 2:14, “himself;” in Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1Pe 1:19, “his blood;” cf. also infra, 1Pe 1:14. As to how the availing power of the atonement is to be understood, more will be said under the verses that follow.
Heb 9:13
For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling those that have been defiled (, cf. Mat 15:11, etc; Act 21:28), sancfifieth to the purifying (literally, unto the purity, ) of the flesh. In addition to the sin offerings of the Day of Atonement, mention is here made of the red heifer, whose ashes were to be mixed with water for the purification of such as had been ceremonially defiled by contact with dead bodies (for account of which see Num 19:1-22). They are classed together because both were general sin offerings for the whole congregation, representing the idea of continual and unavoidable defilements notwithstanding all the daily sacrifices; the difference between them being that the ashes were reserved for use in known cases of constantly recurring defilement, the sin offerings on the Day of Atonement were for general sin and defilement, known or unknown. But neither, in themselves, could from their very nature avail for more than outward ceremonial cleansing” the purity of the flesh.” This, however, they did avail for; and, if so, what -must the cleansing power of Christ’s offering be? Its deeper efficacy shall appear from consideration of what it was.
Heb 9:14
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purify your (al. our) conscience from dead works to serve the living God? As in Heb 9:11, Heb 9:12 Christ’s entrance was contrasted with that of the high priest, so here is the sacrifice itself, in virtue of which he entered, similarly contrasted. The points of contrast to which attention is drawn are these:
(1) It was the blood, not of beasts that perish, but of Christ himselfthe Christ, the Hope of Israel, whose Divine prerogatives have been set forth in the preceding chapters.
(2) He offered himself. His offering was a voluntary self-oblation, not the blood-shedding of passive victims.
(3) His offering was realty “spotless” () in the sense of sinlessthe only sense that can satisfy Divine justicesymbolized only by the absence of material blemish in the ancient sacrifices.
(4) And this he did “through the eternal Spirit.” This expression, which comes first in order, has an important bearing on the meaning of the whole passage, and calls for especial consideration. Be it observed, first, that the words are “the eternal Spirit,” not “the Holy Spirit.” It is not the usual designation of the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. (The reading for has not much authority in its favor, and is, besides, much more likely to have been substituted than the other) What, then, is meant by “the eternal Spirit,” through which Christ offered himself spotless? There are three notable texts in which the Spirit in Christ is opposed to the flesh: Rom 1:3, 1Ti 3:16, : 1Pe 3:18, . In all these passages the Spirit is that Divine element of life in Christ, distinct from the human nature which he assumed of the seed of David, in virtue of which he rose from the dead. In us men, too, according to St. Paul, there is the , as well as and (sometimes and alone are spoken of)the higher principle of life within us, in virtue of which we can have communion with God and be influenced by his Holy Spirit. Any act of acceptable sell oblation that we might be capable of would be done through the spirit that is in us, to which the flesh is subdued. Corresponding to this in Christ was “the eternal Spirit”a truly Divine spiritual Personality, conjoined with his assumed humanity. Through this he overcame death, it being impossible that he should be holden of it; through this, too he offered himself a willing sacrifice, submitting to the full penalty of human sin in obedience to the Father’s will. Thus is prominently brought to view the spiritual aspect of the atonement. Its especial virtue is said to lie, not in the mere suffering or the mere physical blood-shedding and death upon the cross, but in its being a voluntary act of perfect obedience on the part of him who was the Representative of man, and in whom “the eternal Spirit” triumphed over the weakness of humanity. The agony in the garden (see under 1Pe 3:7, etc) is illustrative of this view of the virtue of the atonement. There we perceive “the eternal Spirit” in the Savior completely victorious over natural human shrinking. The same view appears in the reference to Psa 40:1-17 in Heb 10:1-39., where “Lo, I come to do thy will, O God” expresses the essential principle of the availing sacrifice (see below on Heb 10:5, etc). Hence follows what is said next of the effect of such a sacrifice as this wasto purify, not the flesh, but the conscience (), meaning “man’s inner consciousness” with regard to God and our relations to him. It belonged essentially to the spiritual sphere of things, and in that sphere (as was not the case with the old sacrifices) must be, and is felt to be, its availing power. It was, in fact, just such a sacrifice as man’s conscience, if enlightened, feels to be due to God. Man, as he is now, cannot make it; but in the “Son of man” he sees it made, and thus finds at last the idea of a true atonement fulfilled. In the expression, “dead works,” there may be an intended allusion to the dead bodies from the pollution of which especially the “ashes of an heifer” purified; and in “to serve” ( ) there is an evident reference to the legal type. As the legal sin offering purified the flesh from the contamination of contact with the dead, so that the Israelites, thus cleansed, might offer acceptable worship, so Christ’s offering of himself fulfils what was thus typified; it purifies the “conscience” from the contamination of “dead works,” so that we may offer our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our (Rom 12:1). On , see under Heb 6:1. Here, the idea of general pollution pervading the whole congregation having been prominent in what precedes, we may, perhaps, take the expression as denoting all human works whatever “done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of his Spirit,” all being regarded as tainted with sin, and so dead for the purpose of justification. The purification from them which is spoken of involves (be it further observed) both justification through atonement and sanctification through grace: the first, since, otherwise, the very meaning of the old sin offerings would not be fulfilled; the second, as denoted by the concluding clause, “to serve,” etc. The second is the necessary sequence of the first. Believers are not only “cleansed from their former sins,” but also put into a position for offering an acceptable service. In the life of Christ in whom they live, and who ever liveth to make intercession for them, they can henceforth “serve the living God.” There is involved, in fact (to return to the account of the new covenant in Jer 31:1-40), both oblivion of past sins and a writing of the Law upon the heart.
Heb 9:15-17
And for this cause he is the Mediator of a new testament, that by means of death (literally, death having taken place), for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Here the view of the gospel as a new (introduced first in Heb 7:22, and enlarged on in Heb 8:6-13) is again brought in. For the word is still , though here, for reasons that will appear, rendered “testament” in the A.V. The connecting thought here isIt is because of Christ’s sacrifice having been such as has been described, that he is the Mediator of that new and better covenant; it qualified him for being so. A sacrifice, a death, was required for giving it validity (Heb 9:16-23), and the character of his sacrifice implies a better covenant than the old, even such a one as Jeremiah foretold. Further, the purpose of his death is said to be “for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant.” For in the passage of Jeremiah the defect of the first covenant was based on the transgression of its conditions by man, while under the new one, such transgressions were to be no more remembered. But this could not be without atonement for them; the whole ceremonial of the Law signified this; and also that such atonement could not be except by death. The death of Christ satisfied this requirement; and so the new covenant could come in. So far the course of thought is clear. Nor is there difficulty in understanding the purport of verse 18, etc., taken by itself, where the “blood-shedding” that inaugurated the first covenant is regarded as typical of that of Christ in the inauguration of the new one. But there is a difficulty about the intervening verses (16, 17), arising from the apparent use of the word in a new sense, not otherwise suggestedthat of testament rather than covenant. The verses are, as given in the A.V., For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be (. a word of which the exact meaning is not clear; some interpret “be brought in, or proved,” some “be understood, implied “) the death of the testator ( , equivalent to “him that made it”). For a testament is of force after men are dead ( ): otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth (or, for doth it ever avail while he theft made it liveth? : cf. Heb 10:2; Rom 3:6; 1Co 14:16; Joh 7:26; Luk 3:15). Now, the word itself undoubtedly may bear the sense of “testament.” Its general meaning is ” disposition,” or “settlement;” and it may denote either compact between living persons, or a will to take effect after the testator’s death. In the verses before us it appears to be used specifically in the latter sense. For they express general propositions, which are not true of all covenants, but are true (according to their most obvious sense) of all testaments. Further, this sense is distinctly applicable to the new , regarded as the dying Christ’s bequest to his Church. Hence, but for the context, we should naturally so understand it in these verses. The difficulties attending this sense are:
(1) The word is not used in this specific sense before or afterwards in this Epistle or in Jer 31:1-40., which is the basis of the whole argument, or elsewhere, apparently, either in the Old Testament or the New.
(2) The sense does not suit the case of the old , which was a covenant between the living God and his people; and there is no intimation of two senses being intended in the two cases: indeed, in the passage before us, the same sense seems to be distinctly implied, since the blood-shedding which inaugurated the old is at once (in Jer 31:17) spoken of as answering to the death which inaugurated the new, as though death inaugurated both in the same sense.
(3) The word, in the sense of covenant (equivalent to the Hebrew berith), is common in the LXX., expressing an idea familiar to Jews and Jewish Christians, while testamentary dispositions were, as far as we know, unfamiliar to the Hebrews; and, though the Roman testamentary law may have come into use when the Epistle was written, it is thought unlikely that the writer, addressing Hebrews, would have referred to it in illustration of a Divine dispensation, or, if he had, have used a word so well known to them in its traditional sense.
(4) Christ is called (here as well as in Heb 12:24 and Heb 13:20) the Mediator () of the new : but a testament does not require a Mediator, nor, if it has one, can the same person be both mediator and testator. If, however, the sense of testament should seem inevitable here, we may explain as follows. Though the word has been used so far in a general sense, yet the writer, on the suggestion of in verse 15, passes in thought at verse 16 to the specific sense of testament, as suiting the case of Christ, the language he uses being sufficient for carrying his readers with him in the transition. Further, though the old was not in itself a testament, yet it was typical of that which was; its whole ceremonial foreshadowed the future Testator’s death, and so, in a typical sense, it might also itself be called one. Consequently, in verse 18, the inaugurating sacrifices of the old dispensation are regarded as representing the death of the testator; for they prefigured Christ, through whose death the “eternal inheritance” is bequeathed to man. (In accordance with this view, the Vulgate renders testamentum throughout the Epistle, even when the old dispensation is referred to) As to (translated “the testator”), it is, according to this view, ultimately God the Father in the new , as well as in the old, though, of course, the Godhead could not die. But the Father having placed the whole inheritance destined for mankind in the hands of Christ as Mediator, in his human death the testator died. And thus one of the difficulties above mentioned may be met, viz. that of Christ being regarded both as Testator and Mediator. Christ was, in fact, bothTestator, in that, being one with God, he bequeathed through his death the kingdom appointed unto hint by the Father; Mediator, in that it was through his incarnation only that the “eternal inheritance” willed to us by the Father could be transmitted in the way of testament. So in effect Chrysostom explains. Apposite to this view of the subject are his own words (Luk 22:29), “And I appoint () unto you a kingdom, as my Father appointed () unto me.” Here we have the same verb () as is used in the Epistle. And though, in the passage from St. Luke, the idea of a testamentary appointment is not necessarily implied, yet it is naturally suggested where Christ is speaking on the eve of, and with reference to, his death. There is, however, another view taken (decidedly by Whitby, Ebrard, and in the recent ‘Speaker’s Commentary’), according to which the idea of a testament does not come in at all, the word retaining here, as elsewhere, its usual sense of covenant. The position is that, though the propositions of verses 16, 17 are not true of all covenants, yet there is a sense in which they are true of any covenant between God and man; which is the only kind of covenant that the writer has in view, or that his readers would be led to think of by the previous reference to Jer 31:1-40., or by the associations of the word as used in the Old Testament. The sense in which the propositions are true of such a covenant is thus expressed by Ebrard: “Whenever sinful man will enter into a covenant with the holy God, the man must first diemust first atone for his guilt by death (or must put in a substitute for himself).” This principle is expressed (it is alleged), not only by the sacrifices that inaugurated this covenant of the Law, but also wherever a covenant between God and man is spoken of in the Old Testament; e.g. in the covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:8, etc., and Gen 22:1-24). In the case of covenants between man and man (as between Abraham and Abimelech, and between Jacob and Laban) there was no need of slain victims, whoso life had to be given for that of one of the contracting parties; but there is always expressed such need in the case of a covenant between God and man. Further, the expression, , is, according to this view, illustrated by Psa 50:5, where the LXX. has (in the Vulgate, qui ordinant testamentum ejus super sacrificiis). The same preposition is used in both passages, and is supposed to express the same idea as . This passage from the psalm is certainly much to the point in support of the view before us, serving moreover to meet in some degree one principal objection to it, viz. that it requires to be understood of the human party to the covenant, and not of its Divine Author. Such is not the most obvious application of the word, nor the one sanctioned by the quotation from Jeremiah, or by other references to the Divine covenant (see supra, Heb 8:10, and also Gen 15:18; Deu 5:2, Deu 5:3; Luk 12:29; Act 3:25; as well as Exo 24:8, quoted below (verse 20), where , not , is the word in the LXX. But such is the application in Psa 50:5, and may be considered, therefore, not untenable. The writer may, indeed, have had the expression in the psalm in his mind when he wrote the verses before us. It appears from what has been said that difficulties attend both the views that have been above explained. It is not here attempted to decide between them.
Heb 9:18
Wherefore neither hath the first (testament, A.V; or, covenant) been dedicated without blood. Here the blood of slain victims, which had been essential for the first inauguration of the old , is referred to as expressing the principle of Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17, viz. that there must be death for a to take effect. Whichever view we take of the intended import of the word, the reference is equally apposite in support of the introductory proposition of Heb 9:15; which is to the effect that Christ’s death ( ), fulfilling the symbolism of the old inaugurating sacrifices, qualified him as Mediator of a new .
Heb 9:19, Heb 9:20
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water anti scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant (A.V. testament) which God enjoined unto you (strictly, to you-ward; i.e. enjoined to me for you). The reference is to Exo 24:3-9, where the account is given of the inauguration of the covenant between God and the Israelites through Moses. He “came and told the people all the words of the LORD, and all the judgments: and all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words which the LORD hath said will we do.” And then he wrote all the words of the LORD in a book, and builded an altar under the mount, and sacrifices were offered, and half of the blood was sprinkled on the altar, and the words were read from the book, and again the people undertook to observe them, and the other half of the blood was sprinkled on the people, and so the covenant was ratified. The essential part of the whole ceremony being the “blood-shedding,” it is of no importance for the general argument that the account in Exodus is not exactly followed. The variations from it are these:
(1) The mention of goats as well as calves or bullocksof waterof the scarlet wool and hyssopand of the sprinkling of the book, instead of the altar, as in Exodus.
(2) The words spoken by Moses are differently given, being substituted for for and for . On these variations we may observe that the mention of goats may have been suggested to the writer’s mind by the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement, previously alluded to; and it is not inconsistent with the account in Exodus, where the victims used for the “burnt offerings” are not specified, only the bullocks for “peace offerings.” Nor is there inconsistency in the other additions to the ceremonial. The scarlet wool and hyssop were the usual instruments of aspersion (a bunch of the latter being apparently bound by the former to a stick of cedar; cf. Exo 12:22; Le 14:50; Num 19:6, Num 19:18). It may have been usual to mix water with the blood used for aspersion, if only to prevent coagulation (see Lightfoot on Joh 19:34), though in some cases certainly also with a symbolical meaning (cf. Le Exo 14:5, 50); and, if the book was, as it was likely to be, on the altar when the latter was sprinkled (Exo 24:6, Exo 24:7), it would itself partake of this sprinkling, and, being thus consecrated, would be then taken from the altar to be read from to the people and to receive their assent, previously to the sprinkling of themselves with the moiety of the blood reserved. Probably the whole account, as here given, was the traditional one at the time of writing (see below, on verse 21). With regard to the slightly altered form of the words spoken by Moses, it is an interesting suggestion that the writer may have had in his mind our Lord’s corresponding words in the institution of the Eucharist, beginning in all the accounts with , and being thus worded: in St. Luke, : and in St. Matthew and St. Mark, , St. Matthew adding . That Christ in these words referred to those of Moses is obvious, speaking of his own outpoured blood as the antitype of that wherewith the old was dedicated; and it is likely that the writer of the Epistle would have Christ’s words in his mind.
Heb 9:21
Moreover the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry be sprinkled in like manner with the blood. This refers to a subsequent occasion, the tabernacle not having been constructed at the time of the inauguration of the covenant,probably to the dedication of the tabernacle, enjoined Exo 40:1-38., and described Lev 8:1-36. It is true that no sprinkling of the tabernacle or its furniture with blood is mentioned in the Pentateuch; only the anointing of them with oil (Le Lev 8:10). But the garments of Aaron and his sons are said on that occasion to have been sprinkled with the blood as well as with the anointing oil (Heb 8:1-13 :30), and Josephus (‘Ant.,’ 3.8. 6) says that this blood-sprinkling was extended also to the tabernacle and its vessels ( ). Here, as well as in Lev 8:19, our writer may be supposed to follow the traditional account, with which there is still nothing in the Pentateuch inconsistent. Be it observed again that the force of the argument does not depend on these added details, but on the general principle, abundantly expressed in the original record, which is assorted in the following verse.
Heb 9:22
And almost all things are according to the Law purified with blood; and without shedding of blood there is no remission. The essentiality of blood, which is “the life of all flesh,” for atonement and consequent remission, is emphatically asserted in Le 17:11, which expresses the principle of the whole sacrificial ritual. The idea seems to be that the life of man is forfeit to Divine justice (cf. Gen 2:17), and so blood, representing life, must be offered instead of his life for atonement.
Heb 9:23
It was therefore necessary (i.e. in accordance with the principle above expressed) that the patterns (rather, copies, see Heb 8:5, supra) of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. According to the view taken under Heb 8:2 and Heb 9:11, “the heavenly things” here must be taken to denote the corresponding realities in the heavenly sphere of things to which Christ has gone. But how can they themselves be said to require purification or cleansing? The mundane tabernacle did, being itself conceived as polluted by human sin; but how so of the unpolluted heavenly tabernacle? The answer may be that the expressions, chosen to suit the case of the earthly type, need not be pressed in all their details as applying to the heavenly sanctuary. With regard to the latter, they may he meant only to express that, though it be itself pure, yet man requires purification for access to it, and that for this purpose “better sacrifices” are required. “In hac apodosi verbum , mundari, subauditum, facit hypallagem: nam exleslia per se sunt pura, sed nos purificandi fuimus, ut ilia possemus capessere” (Bengel). The general meaning is obvious enough. Commentators sometimes raise needless difficulties, and may sometimes even miss the essential purport of a passage by the too constant application of the critical microscope. If, however, it be thought necessary to find a sense in which the heavenly sanctuary may be said to need purification, the idea may be the appeasing of Divine wrath which bars the entrance of mankind.
Heb 9:24
For not into holy places made with hands did Christ enter, which are figures (, antitypes) of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of (literally, before the face of) God for us. This verse confirms the view that “the heavenly things” of Heb 9:23 denoted the heavenly regions into which Christ is entered. at the beginning of the verse may be better translated “holy place” (as at Heb 9:12 and Heb 9:25) rather than “places,” since here the heavenly counterpart of the holy of holies, as distinguished from the” first tabernacle,” appears to be in view, viz. “heaven itself,” the heaven of heavens, the immediate presence or “face” of God, the “throne of the Majesty on high,” to which Christ passed through the intermediate heavens. There he now (the perpetual now of the new era of accomplished redemption), in his humanity, in behalf of and representing all humanity, beholds for ever the very face of the eternal God, which Moses could not see and live, and of which the typical high priest saw from year to year but the emblem, in transitory glimpses, through intervening clouds of incense. The word , like in Heb 9:23, expresses the idea of the earthly sanctuary being a visible representation answering to a heavenly reality. The original (type) was shown to Moses in the mount (Heb 8:5); what was constructed by him on the earth below was the antitype to it. The words and are elsewhere used to express respectively a prophetic figure of a fulfillment to come and the fulfillment itself (as in Rom 5:14 and 1Pe 3:21, baptism in the latter text being regarded as the of the Deluge), but still with the same idea of the type being prior to the antitype, the latter answering to the former.
Heb 9:25, Heb 9:26
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (i.e. blood not his own, ); for then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now (probably , not , meaning “as it is “) once at the end of the ages hath he appeared (rather, been manifested, ) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Here (as above noted) the idea of in Heb 9:12 is taken up. That Christ’s offering of himself is once for all, needing no repetition, follows from the view of it already given, viz. that it is a perpetual presentation of himself, after fully availing sacrifice of himself, before the very face of God. That this is of necessity once for all is now further shown by the consideration that repeated offerings of himself would involve the impossible condition of repeated deaths. Observe that “offer himself” in Heb 9:25 does not refer to the death upon the cross, but to the intercession before the eternal mercy-seat after accomplished atonement, answering to the high priest’s entrance, with the blood of previous sacrifice, within the veil. The death itself is denoted in Heb 9:26 by (“suffered”). The argument rests on the principle, already established as being signified by the whole of the ancient ritual, that, for acceptable intercession in behalf of man, previous death or blood-shedding is in every case required. But why add “since the foundation of the world”? We must supply the thought of the retrospective efficacy of Christ’s atonement. Ever since sin entered, man needed atonement, signified, but not effected, by the ancient sacrifices. Christ’s one offering of himself has supplied this primeval need, availing, not only for the present and future, but also for all past ages. This view was definitely expressed, with reference to “transgressions which were under the first covenant,” in Heb 9:15, and, though not repeated here, is prominent in the writer’s mind. This view accounts for “since the foundation of the world,” the idea being that, the transgressions requiring atonement having been since then, repeated deaths since then would have been needed had not Christ’s one offering of himself availed for all time, just as repeated sacrifices were needed for the high priest’s symbolical yearly intercessions. The question is not asked, nor is any reason given, why this one all-sufficient offering was deferred till so long after the need began. It is enough to know that such has been, in fact, the Divine will, viz. that not till the fullness of time was comenot till the end (or consummation) of the long preceding sinful agesshould the Redeemer once for all be manifested for atonement. The phrase, , seems certainly to imply the idea, otherwise known to have been prevalent in the apostolic age, of the end of all things being close at hand; and this expectation further accounts for the reference to the past rather than the future in the expression, “since the foundation of the world.” For, with regard to the future, the second coming of Christ was the one great idea present to the minds of Christians, the intervening time being regarded by them as but the dawn of coming day (see, on this head, what was said under Heb 1:2). The strong expression, (for the sense of , cf. Heb 7:18, where it means “abrogation”), used as it here is with reference to all the transgressions of the ages past, though not to be pressed so as to invalidate what is elsewhere said of the future penal consequences of all willful and unrepented sin, may still be cited among the texts supporting the view of those who “trust the larger hope.”
Heb 9:27, Heb 9:28
And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this judgment: so the Christ also, once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, without sin, to them that look for him, unto salvation. The Divine ordinance concerning mankind in general has its analogy in the truth concerning Christ, who was made like unto us in all things, and who represents humanity. As human life, with all its works, comes to an end in death, and only judgment fellows, so Christ’s death once for all completed his ministerial work, and nothing remains for him to do but to return as Judge in gloryhe judicaturus, men judicandi. “To bear the sins of many” is taken from Isa 53:12. For similar use of the word , el. Num 14:33, LXX; and especially 1Pe 2:24, , which expresses the idea of Christ’s taking our sins upon himself and bearing them up to the cross, and so removing them. The ideas of bearing and of taking away may thus be both implied. In contrast with this is the (“without, or apart from, sin”) when he shall appear again. For then he will have been, as he is now, removed from it altogetherfrom its burden and its surroundings; it is in glory only that he will then appear. And so also “to them that look for him” his appearing will be “unto salvation” only. They, too, will have done with sin. The insertion of the words, “to them that look for him,” precludes the conclusion that it will be so to all. The many passages that express the doom of those who shall be set on the left hand, whatever they imply, retain their awful meaning (cf. especially infra, Heb 10:27).
HOMILETICS
Heb 9:1-10
Arrangements of the first covenant.
The Epistle to the Hebrews is the New Testament Leviticus. In itself, the book of the Jewish ritual is rather dry reading. “Nothing can well be duller or more dingy than the appearance of a stained-glass cathedral window to one who is looking on it from the outside of the building; but, when you enter and gaze at it from within, the whole is aglow with beauty” (Dr. W.M. Taylor). Now, from this Epistle we learn to read Leviticus with the bright gospel sunlight for a background, and we thus discover how rich that ancient Scripture is, in instruction regarding the way of access to God, and the means of fellowship with him.
I. THE HEBREW SANCTUARY. (Verses 1-5) The tabernacle was the Divine palace, the symbol of Jehovah’s residence among his ancient people. There was a gracious presence of God in Israel which other nations did not enjoy. Mention is made here of the two chambers of the sacred tent, each of which had a “veil” covering the entrance, and of the principal articles of furniture in these two chambers respectively.
1. The holy place. (Verse 2) This anterior apartment was oblong in shape, being thirty feet in length, fifteen in width, and fifteen in height. Three articles are named as belonging to it.
(1) The lamp-stand: symbol of the spiritual light which Christ imparts to his Church.
(2) The table, with
(3) the shewbread: symbol of the spiritual meat provided by God to strengthen for his service.
2. The holy of holies. (Verses 3-5) This innermost recess of the sanctuary, separated from the outer chamber by a richly wrought curtain, was the dwelling-place of Jehovah. It was a smaller apartment than the other, measuring fifteen feet in length, breadth, and height, and thus forming a perfect square. Seven things are named as belonging to it.
(1) The golden censer. Whether we understand by this the altar of incense itself, which stood in the holy place close to “the second veil,” or the actual censer which was carried from the altar into the holy of holies on the Day of Atonementin either case the symbol is that of the heart’s devotion.
(2) The ark. This was the most sacred piece of furniture in the tabernacle; indeed, the purpose of the whole structure was just to accommodate the ark, as the central symbol of the presence and majesty of the covenant God of Israel.
(3) The loot of manna: emblem of the true Bread from heaven, which feeds the mind with truth, the conscience with righteousness, and the heart with love.
(4) Aaron’s staff: a type of the intransferable priesthood of Christ, and a symbol of the spiritual priesthood of believers.
(5) The two tables of the Law: the revelation to the Jews of Jehovah’s righteous will, which should be written on the hearts of men.
(6) The cherubim: representing the angels, and surrounding the luminous cloud of “glory” which appeared above the ark.
(7) The mercy-seat: the footstool of God, and the propitiatory lid of the ark; which, sprinkled with atoning blood, covered the sins of the people, by concealing from the Divine eye the Law which they had violated. The Hebrew sanctuary in its innermost symbolism thus represented the wondrous scheme of redemption. It shows us God’s throne of grace standing upon his righteousness (Psa 85:10).
II. ITS SERVICES. (Verses 6, 7) While the outer court of the tabernacle was open to the whole congregation of Israel, except to such as might at any time be ceremonially unclean, only the sons of Aaron were allowed to minister at the altar, or within the sanctuary proper.
1. The holy place was for the daily ministration of the ordinary priests. (Verse 6) Their duties were such as these: They sprinkled the blood of the sin offerings before the “second veil;” they lighted and fed and trimmed the seven lamps of the candelabrum; they offered incense upon the golden altar; they changed the shewbread every sabbath day.
2. The holy of holies was for the annual ministration of the high priest alone. (Verse 7) None of the ordinary priests ever dared to enter the inner sanctuary, or even to look into it. And even the high priest could only do so on one day in the yearon the great annual fast day, the Day of Atonement. In the course of that day, however, he went into the holy of holies at least three times: first, with the censer and incense; secondly, with the blood of the bullock, for his own and the priests’ sins; and, thirdly, with the blood of the goat, for the people’s sins. He went in “not without blood,” the presentation of the blood being necessary to the completion of the sacrifice.
III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF BOTH. (Verses 8-10) These verses remind us that the institutions of Judaism were established by the Holy Spirit himself as a symbol of Old Testament facts, and as a prefiguration of the privileges of the new covenant spoken of in Heb 8:8-12. It was not Moses who ordained the Levitical ceremonial; it was the Holy Ghost. And by this means the Spirit taught the great truth that on the ground of nature access to God is barred for all sinful men; and that even under the “first covenant” of grace this blessing was only most imperfectly realized. The division of the sacred tent into two apartments, and the exclusion of the ordinary priests from the holy of holies, illustrated the great defect of the old covenant. The nature of the services, too, reflected its imperfections. The rites of Judaism cleansed the body from ceremonial defilement; but they could not wash the soul from sin. They involved, indeed, a continual remembrance of sins, rather than a putting away of sins forever. And yet, notwithstanding this, the tabernacle-worship was a bright promise and prophecy of the “opening of the kingdom of heaven to all believers” at the time of rectification foretold by Jeremiah (Jer 31:31-34).
Heb 9:11-14
Superiority of the new covenant.
The advent of the Messiah has removed the defects suggested by the Mosaic ritual. He has obtained for the true Israel those great spiritual blessings which “the first covenant” was powerless to bestow. These verses indicate various elements of superiority. The new covenant has provided
I. A BETTER HIGH PRIEST. (Heb 9:11) Our priestly Mediator is “Christ,” the Anointed. He has been divinely ordained, equipped, and accredited. He is a better High Priest than Aaron, because the Minister of a better dispensation. The “good things” denote the blessings of the new covenant; and these are described as “to come,” because they had been always premised and expected in connection with the advent of the Messiah. How joyful the tidings to our guilty, sin-deflowered, distracted world, that its true Priest has “come”! He has assumed our nature; he has lived and died; he has risen and ascended; he has “entered in once for all” into the true sanctuary.
II. A NOBLER TABERNACLE. (Heb 9:11) The sacred tent of the Hebrews had, doubtless, many excellences. It was a costly erection. Its arrangements were “a parable” (Heb 9:9) which instructed the Jews in spiritual truth. The ark was an emblem of the Divine majesty. The cherubic figures were “cherubim of glory,” for Jehovah dwelt in symbol between them. Yet, after all, the Jewish tabernacle was only an earthly structure. It was “made with hands.” But our High Priest ministers in “the greater and more perfect tabernacle.” The place of his priestly service is the highest heavens. The true tabernacle is “not of this creation;” it is in the unseenin the immediate presence of Jehovah. And the work of Christ there is to interpose and intercede for his people. Every act of saving power results directly from the expression of his will, as our Advocate at the bar of God.
III. A RICHER SACRIFICE. (Heb 9:12-14) Salvation comes to us as the result of satisfaction rendered to Divine justice. We are not saved by receiving Christ’s doctrine, or by observing a Christian ritual, or by following Christ’s example, or by imbibing moral influence from him as a Teacher and Martyr. Christ saves us “by the sacrifice of himself.” As he laid down his life for us, and as “the blood is the life,” he is said to have “entered into the holy place” “through his own blood.” How much richer and more powerful is this blood than that which was shed upon the brazen altar of the tabernacle! The latter contained only the principle of brute life. But Christ’s is:
1. Human blood. Our High Priest is a real man, woman-bornour own mother’s Son. He is “bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh.” So he yielded himself up intelligently and voluntarily as our Sacrifice.
2. Holy blood. Jesus “offered himself without blemish unto God” (Heb 9:14). His earthly life was absolutely faultless. He is the only perfect specimen of humanity that has ever lived upon earththe one “Son of man” who did not share in human corruption and condemnation.
3. Heavenly blood. The Man Christ Jesus had an “eternal Spirit” (Heb 9:14); i.e. he possessed the Divine nature. He is personally and literally God. And it is his Deity that gives to his death its marvelous significance. No creature-blood could atone for our sins; but the sacrifice of Christ is of infinite value, because there resides in him” the power of an endless life.”
IV. A MORE THOROUGH CLEANSING. (Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14) The writer concedes that the Levitical sin offerings did purify. One purpose of their appointment was that they might effect legal or ceremonial cleansing. “The blood of goats and bulls,” which was presented for the collected guilt of Israel once a year, consecrated the Jew ceremonially to the worship and service of Jehovah. In like manner the sprinkling of “the ashes of a red heifer,” mixed with water, removed legal defilement from the person who had touched a dead body (Num 19:2-9). But the blood of Christ purifies from a deeper pollution. It cleanses the “conscience.” It is the God-provided solvent for the stains of sin. It can
“Cleanse the stuff’d bosom of that perilous stuff
Which weighs upon the heart.”
This blood purifies from “dead works”those deeds which are done by dead souls, and which, however excellent some of them may appear when viewed in themselves, are yet of no avail to recommend to the Divine favor. Under the new covenant the conscience is cleansed so thoroughly that the service of God becomes a constant joy to the believer’s soul. The Divine statutes become his “songs,” and he learns to “run in the way of God’s commandments.”
V. A MORE BLESSED REDEMPTION. Some of the positive elements of the Christian salvation are indicated in these verses. Those had not been “made manifest” under the old covenant.
1. Perfect access to God. The subject of access is the nerve-thought of this whole section of the treatise. The worshipper under the new covenant, being cleansed through the “one offering” of Christ, is admitted into the immediate presence of Jehovah. He stands within the “second veil,” that veil being now “rent in twain” (Rom 5:1, Rom 5:2).
2. Full freedom to serve God. (Heb 9:14) A guilt-stained soul can perform only “dead works;” but the spirit that is washed in the blood of Christ’s atonement begins immediately to be of use to its Redeemer. Oar High Priest has shed his blood, not only to render us safe, but to make us holy; not only to deliver us from God’s wrath, but from our own wickedness. So soon as Christ destroys “the body of sin” within us, we discover that it is our “reasonable service” to present our persons “a living sacrifice.”
3. The gift of eternal life. (Heb 9:12) The gospel salvation redeems both soul and body, finally and for ever. It saves, not only from the curse of the Law, but from all evil. “Eternal redemption” expresses the sum total of the benefits which accrue from Christ’s mediation, and includes the consummation of the plan of grace in the heavenly world. It denotes “the salvation which is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.”
Heb 9:15-22
Ratification by blood.
Here the writer pauses in his argument regarding the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice to the sacrifices of the Law, and directs attention to an important point of similarity between the old covenant and the new. This passage is a serious crux. It has perplexed the most eminent commentators. The great question is, whether should be translated “covenant” or “testament:” in Heb 9:16 and Heb 9:17. For ourselves, we have come to the conclusion that as this Greek word does not bear the meaning of “testament” or “will” in any other part of Scripture, and as it is unquestionably used in the sense of “covenant” in the immediate context (Heb 8:6-13), as well as in Heb 9:15, Heb 9:18-20 of this very passage, we are compelled, in spite of opposing considerations, to attach to the word the sense of “covenant” in Heb 9:16 and Heb 9:17 also. Moses did not make a will at Mount Sinai, the provisions of which could only be carried into effect after his death. Neither did Christ speak of a will when he instituted the Lord’s Supper in the upper roomusing the words of Moses. The one reference throughout the paragraph before us is to a covenant, or rather to the two covenants which are being compared and contrasted in this section of the treatise. It is most unfortunate that the two great parts into which Holy Scripture is divided should be designated among the English-speaking nations by the word “testaments,” which is confessedly a mistranslation. Rather, the Hebrew oracles ought to have been called “The Book of the Old Covenant;” and the Christian Scriptures “The Book of the New Covenant.”
I. IN OLDEN TIMES COVENANTS WERE SEALED BY THE DEATH OF VICTIMS. “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the ratifying victim. For a covenant is of force where there hath been death; for doth it ever avail while the ratifying victim liveth?” (Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17). The Hebrew word for a covenant means primarily “a cutting;” the reference being to a common custom among the ancients of dividing into two the animals slain for the purpose of ratification, that the contracting parties might pass between the pieces (Gen 15:9, Gen 15:10, Gen 15:17; Jer 34:18, Jer 34:19). It is certain that in the oldest times of Scripture history, covenants were sealed by means of sacrifice. God’s covenant with Noah (Ge 8:20-9:17), and his covenant with Abraham (Gen 15:9-21), were thus ratified. And it is probable that the prevalent custom among both Jews and Gentiles of confirming contracts in this manner originated in the Divine appointment of animal sacrifice as a type of the atonement of Christ.
II. THE “FIRST” OR MOSAIC COVENANT WAS THUS SEALED. (Heb 9:18-22) This old covenant, made at Mount Sinai, comprised the Ten Commandments and the body of laws contained in Exo 21:1-36.- 23. These laws were called “The Book of the Covenant.” They were the first rough outline of the Mosaic code which Jehovah gave to his people. In Exo 24:3-8 there is a description of the ceremonial which is here referred to. The awe-stricken people were gathered before an altar erected at the foot of the mountain. The book of the covenant was read over to them. Twelve young men, acting as priests, shed the blood of certain propitiatory victims. Then Moses sprinkled half of the blood upon the altar and upon the book of the covenant, and the other half upon the assembled multitude. Some of the circumstances of the ceremonial which are alluded to in verse 19 are not mentioned in the narrative of Exodus; but the writer of our Epistle refers to them as matter of well-known and thoroughly authenticated Hebrew tradition. This solemn ratification of the Sinaitic Law shows that God and the sinner can only be made “at one” through a covenant of blood; and thus, the words spoken by Moses when he sprinkled the blood (verse 20) were adopted by the Savior in instituting the Lord’s Supper (Mat 26:28), to signify the confirmation of the “new” and “eternal covenant” through the shedding of his own blood. But, besides this, the tabernacle and its furniture were dedicated with the sprinkling of blood; and blood continued to be used in connection with nearly all the rites of which the tabernacle was the center (verses 21, 22). The ceremonial Law was, in fact, one vast system of blood-symbols. The crimson streams never ceased to flow upon the brazen altar; blood was put upon the altar of incense; the holy of holies itself was sprinkled with it. There was blood everywhere;no access to God except by blood. The Jews were thus taught, with solemn and continual iteration, that the forgiveness of sins can only be obtained by means of a substitutionary atonement.
III. THE NEW COVENANT HAS BEEN SEALED BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. (Verse 15) This death was at once a sacrifice for sin and a covenant offering. The blood of Jesus has done for the new covenant, in sealing it, what the blood of the Mosaic sacrifices did for the old. His death as the ratifying Victim took place “of necessity.” It was necessary, not certainly because of the ancient custom of sealing covenants by sacrifice; rather, God had appointed sacrifice, and employed it in his gracious communications with his ancient people, in order to prefigure thereby the true meaning and purpose of the death of Christ. The necessity of the atonement was neither hypothetical, nor governmental, nor a necessity of expediency. It arose out of the nature of God, as infinitely holy, just, and righteous. “For this cause” that by his death he has paid a full ransom for human sin, “he is the Mediator of a new covenant”of that better economy promised long before by Jeremiah (Heb 8:8-13). The sacrifice of Christ is of such transcendent efficacy that it has availed to wash away the guilt of all God’s people who lived under the former imperfect covenant; as well as to secure for all saints, whether Jewish or Christian, the inestimable gift of eternal life.
LESSONS.
1. We should avail ourselves of the benefits of the new covenant.
2. Have confidence that all its promises will be fulfilled.
3. Cherish grateful love to the Lord Jesus, who has sealed the covenant with his blood.
4. Celebrate the Lord’s Supper with intelligence and joy.
5. Consecrate our lives to the service of our Redeemer.
Heb 9:23-28
Perfection of Christ’s atonement.
In these verses the writer contrasts the incompleteness of the Mosaic sacrifices with the finality which attaches to the sacrificial work of the Lord Jesus.
I. THREE GREAT CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES. These rest respectively upon three facts, viz. the death and the ascension of Christ, which are matters of history; and the second advent, which is still future.
1. Christ died as a Sacrifice for sin. (Heb 9:28) His death was a stupendous eventbeing that of a Divine Person. It did not occur as the result of disease, or of natural decay. It was not an accidental death. It was judicially inflicted. Sentence was pronounced upon Jesus, not merely in the high priest’s palace and in Pilate’s judgment-hall, but in the court of heaven. “It pleased the Lord to bruise him; ‘The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.'”
2. He ascended to heaven as our Priest. (Heb 9:24) Of the three offices which Jesus executes, the prophetical occupied the most prominent place while he was on earth; his priestly office has seemed to come into the foreground now that he has gone to heaven; and his kingly functions will appear to be most fully discharged after the second advent. Why was it necessary that he should enter heaven as our Priest?
(1) To purify the heavenly tabernacle. (Heb 9:23) The Hebrew sanctuary was sprinkled with blood to cleanse it from ceremonial pollution. The true tabernacle may be said to be purified with Christ’s blood in this sense, that his atonement has made it a righteous thing for God to receive sinful men into his favor, and to give them grace and glory.
(2) To present himself before God as our Representative. (Heb 9:24) He appears “before the face of God for us.” His very presence in heaven is a perpetual and prevalent intercession. On the basis of his own finished work he introduces each believer to the Father, and acts as his Advocate before the throne. He lifts up in heaven his nail-pierced hand, and pleads for “mercy” to us, and for “grace to help.”
3. He shall come again to consummate the salvation of his people. (Heb 9:28) On the Day of Atonement, after Aaron had sprinkled the mercy-seat with the blood, he came forth from the holy of holies, reclothed himself in his splendid vestments of blue and red and purple, trimmed with pomegranates and golden bells, and appeared outside to bless the waiting multitudes. So our High Priest, although he still tarries in the heavenly tabernacle, filling it with the fragrant incense of his intercession, shall appear at the end of the ages, wearing the robes of his immortal glory, to say to his expectant people, “Come, ye blessed of my Father.” He shall appear “apart from sin.” When he came the first time, he was “made to be sin on our behalf,” although he “knew no sin;” but at his second advent he shall not again assume the dreadful burden. He shall appear “unto salvation,” i.e. to complete the redemption of his people. By his first coming he saved their souls; at his second coming, he shall save their bodies. Or, rather, at his first coming he paid down the ransom-price of our redemption; while at his second coining he shall receive the final installment of his purchased possession.
II. THE DOCTRINAL FOCUS OF THE PASSAGE. The chief point of thought for the sake of which these three doctrines are adduced is marked by the repetition of the word “once” in Heb 9:26-28; and by the contrast between this “once” and the “often” or “year by year” of Heb 9:25. Christ died only once; he ascended only once; he shall come again only once. Why is it that, while Aaron entered the Hebrew holy of holies every year, Jesus Christ has gone into the heavenly sanctuary “once for all”? Two reasons are assigned: the one, that to repeat his sacrifice would be unnatural; and the other, that to do so is unnecessary.
1. It would be unnatural. (Heb 9:27, Heb 9:28) Jesus Christ is the Son of man, and in all things he has been “made like unto his brethren.” Now, it is a human thing to die once; and the death of every child of Adam will be followed by his appearance at the general judgment. So “it was in harmony with the law of mortality in this world that Christ should die but once. There would have been something unnatural in his dying and rising, and dying and rising, again and again without end” (Dr. Lindsay). The Lord’s death and his second advent are parallel arrangements to what is the common lot of man.
2. It is unnecessary. This reason is still more satisfying, and it receives great prominence in the verses before us. It was not needful that Christ should die and ascend and come again oftener than once; for:
(1) He has effected a real atonement for sin. (Heb 9:26) By his death he has “put away sin.” He has accomplished its abolition. That is to say, he has reconciled a guilty world to God, and procured peace of conscience for the believer. His obedience and sufferings were those of a Divine Personof him who is “the Effulgence of God’s glory, and the very Image of his substance;” and therefore his death constituted an atonement, not only of transcendent magnificence, but of infinite merit.
(2) The efficacy of the atonement extends over all the past. (Heb 9:26) Its saving influence has been retrospective. Daniel and David, Elijah and Enoch, Abraham and Adam, and all the Old Testament saints, lived really under the shadow of Calvary. The cross of Christ has been powerful to redeem from “the transgressions that were under the first covenant” (verse 15). And any devout men belonging to the vast heathen world whom God may have accepted notwithstanding that they had never heard the gospel, have been saved on the ground of that one atonement. But if the blood which was shed once had virtue to cover all sin in the past, its efficacy may be expected to extend equally into the future.
(3) Christ’s atonement has opened the door of mercy to the world. (Verse 28) The Savior has borne “the sins of many,” i.e. of myriads, of mankind in general. Although he cherishes a special love for his own people, and although he gave himself in a special sense for them, he is “the Propitiation for the whole world” (1Jn 2:2). His cross points out the way of life to all men, and invites every one to walk in that way. Not one sinner shall finally perish because no room could be found for him in the great atonement. The perdition of every lost man shall be entirely his own fault. And, seeing all these things are so, it is evident that Christ needed to offer himself but once.
HOMILIES BY W. JONES
Heb 9:4, Heb 9:5
The ark of the covenant, a symbol of redemptive truth.
“The ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein were the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy-seat.” Jewish solemnities were types of Christian truths and relations. The furniture of their sacred courts possessed symbolical significance. Their religious institutions were parables of spiritual and saving truths. Deep significance of this kind attached to the ark of the covenant. We shall regard it as setting forth certain facts and features of God’s redemptive relations with men. In it we discover
I. THE RECOGNITION OF LAW IN GOD‘S REDEMPTIVE RELATIONS WITH MEN. “The ark of the covenant, wherein were the tables of the covenant.” The two tables containing the ten commandments, in accordance with Divine directions, were deposited in the ark (Exo 25:16, Exo 25:21; Exo 40:20). Thus Law was recognized and honored there:
1. As a sacred thing. The tables were in the most holy place and in the most venerated receptacle which that place contained. Law is a benevolent thing, a holy thing. It is at the very center of all things. In the material universe, in human history, and in Divine redemption, law is present everywhere, and operative everywhere. It is of a religions nature, of a Divine nature.
2. As a permanent thing. Ceremonial laws pass away; moral laws are abiding. The “ten words” given on Sinai in their essential characteristics are as binding now as they were under the earlier dispensation. Our Lord endorsed and enforced them. He said, “Thou shall love the Lord thy God,” etc. (Mat 22:37-40). The everlasting continuance of law is essential to the order and well-being of the universe of God. The redemption which is by Christ Jesus aims at the establishment of the Law of God in blessed and perpetual supremacy, and the inspiration and confirmation in man of the spirit and habit of cheerful conformity to that Law. There is law in heaven. The ark of the covenant is there. “And there was opened the temple of God that is heaven; and there was seen in his temple the ark of his covenant” (Rev 11:19).
3. As a witness against man. Man had broken this holy Law. In his fallen and sinful condition he could not thoroughly keep it. Hence it bore witness against him. The tables of the covenant were also called “the two tables of testimony,” and they testified to the transgressions and failures of men. “By the Law is the knowledge of sin.” And in this way the Law witnessed to man’s need of mercy and forgiveness and spiritual power.
II. THE MANIFESTATION OF GRACE IN GOD‘S REDEMPTIVE RELATIONS WITH MEN. The ark of the covenant was covered, and the covering was called “the mercy-seat.” The word which is here rendered “mercy-seat” is applied to our Savior: “Whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation,” etc. (Rom 3:25). There was a manifestation of grace:
1. In the mercy-seat itself. It was the lid of the chest which contained the tables of the Law. Those tables testified against man, and the mercy-seat hid, as it were, their testimony from the eyes of the Holy One who dwelt between the cherubim. The mercy-seat covered and concealed the accusing tables. Hence arose the poetical view of forgiveness as a covering of sin. “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.”
2. In the symbolical atonement which was made upon the mercy-seat. The covering of the tables of testimony was not in itself sufficient to put away the guilt of the people. For this atonement also was necessary. Hence on the great Day of Atonement the high priest was required to sprinkle the blood of the sin offerings upon the mercy-seat to “make an atonement, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins” (Le 16:11-16). To the mercy-seat in this aspect there is reference in several verses of the Scripture, or at least the verb used in these verses (kaphar) suggests such a reference. “Our transgressions, thou shalt purge them away” (Psa 65:3); “He, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity” (Psa 78:38); “To make reconciliation for iniquity” (Dan 9:24). In this the mercy-seat pointed to the Christ, the great Atonement, the true Propitiatory, “whom God set forth to be a Propitiation, through faith by his blood” (Rom 3:24-26). Thus the manifestation of the grace of God in his redemptive relations with man was symbolized in the covering of the ark of the covenant. Moreover, grace and Law appear here as connected and harmonious. Rightly understood, Law itself is an expression of Divine grace, and Divine grace aims to establish the universal reign of Law, which is but another word for the reign of God. The mercy-seat was “God’s throne of grace founded upon Law.” Here “mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other.”
III. THE ATTITUDE AND ACTION OF ANGELS IN RESPECT TO GOD‘S REDEMPTIVE RELATIONS WITH MEN. “Above it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy-seat.” We regard the cherubim as emblems of angelic powers; and their position here suggests that they are:
1. The solemn guardians of God’s holy Law. They kept constant watch over the “tables of testimony.” They are deeply interested in the maintenance of moral law. They “are in Scripture evermore the attendants, and bearers up, of the throne of God.” When man rebelled against the authority of that throne, they were appointed ministers for punishing the transgressors (Gen 3:24).
2. The interested students of God’s redemptive relations with men. The cherubim were represented as looking intently and constantly upon the ark of the covenant. “Toward the mercy-seat shall the faces of the cherubim be,” etc. (Exo 25:20, Exo 25:21). “Which things the angels desire to look into” (1Pe 1:12). “Unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places is made known through the Church the manifold wisdom of God” (Eph 3:10).
3. The willing servants in promoting the successful issue of God’s redemptive relations with men. “Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to do service for the sake of them that shall inherit salvation?” (see on Heb 1:14).
IV. THE REVELATION OF THE PRESENCE OF GOD IN HIS REDEMPTIVE RELATIONS WITH MEN. “Cherubim of glory.” They were so called because they appeared to bear up the visible symbol of the presence of God, which in the Old Testament is sometimes called “the glory.” God promised to commune with his people “from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony” (Exo 25:22). “Moses heard the voice of one speaking unto him from between the two cherubim” (Num 7:89). God was said to “dwell between the cherubim” (1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 6:2; Psa 80:1; Psa 99:1). God sometimes manifested his presence here in a luminous cloud, which the Jews called the Shechinah, and here he was always thought of as present. Jesus Christ our Redeemer is the true Shechinah. He is “the Effulgence of the Father’s glory, and the very Image of his substance.” He is the truest, the highest, the fullest manifestation of God to man. And in spiritual presence God dwells with his people now. The Holy Spirit is present with every godly soul. And Christians are inspired by the mighty and blessed hope that when this life in the body ends, they will follow their Forerunner within the veil and see God “even as he is.”W.J.
Heb 9:11, Heb 9:12
The pre-eminent priesthood.
“But Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come,” etc. Our Lord is here represented as the pre-eminent High Priest in three respects.
I. IN THE TEMPLE IN WHICH HE MINISTERS.
1. The temple in which he ministers is itself pre-eminent. He has “entered in once for all into the holy place.” He ministers in the true holy of holies, of which the Jewish one was only a figure. He is not in the symbolized, but in the veritable and immediate presence of God. “A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.” “Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pattern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us.”
2. The access to this temple is pre-eminent. The Jewish high priest entered the holy of holies through the holy place. Our Lord passed into the true holy of holies “through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands.” It seems to us that “the greater and more perfect tabernacle” cannot mean either
(1) our Lord’s human body or his human nature; or
(2) his holy life, “his perfect inward fulfillment of the Law;” or
(3) his glorified body; or
(4) the Church on earth.
No interpretation of this part of our text is without its difficulties; but that which seems to us to be the true one is, that he passed through the visible heavens as through an outer sanctuary into the inner sanctuary of “heaven itself.” Our “great High Priest hath passed through the heavens” (Heb 4:14), and “sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.” The outer sanctuary of the Jewish temple was “made with hands,” small and imperfect; but the heavens which Christ passed through were created by the Divine fiat, and they are immeasurably vast and unspeakably glorious.
II. IN THE ATONEMENT WHICH HE MADE. “Nor yet through the blood of goats and calves, but through his own blood, he entered in once for all into the holy place.” The entering in through blood refers to the blood which the high priests took into the holy of holies to” make an atonement” (cf. Le 16:14-16). Christ is represented as entering the heavenly sanctuary through blood. Not literally, but figuratively, must we accept this. He complied with the condition of entrance into the perfect sanctuary as our great High Priest. He made atonement for sin previous to his appearing “before the face of God for us.” But, unlike the Aaronic high priests, he needed not to make atonement for himself. For us and for all men he made the pre-eminent atonementthe perfect atonement. How?
1. By the sacrifice of the highest life. Not animal, but human life. Not a sinful or imperfect human life, but a pure, holy, perfect one. He gave his own lifethe undefiled, the highest, the sublimest, the supremely beautiful lifeas an atonement for the sin of the world.
2. By the voluntary sacrifice of the highest life. Christ did not die as an unwilling Victim. He freely gave himself for us. “I lay down my life, that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from me,” etc. (Joh 10:17, Joh 10:18). “Through his own blood,” which was willingly shed for us, he effected human redemption, and then ascended to his mediatorial throne.
III. IN THE BLESSINGS WHICH HE OBTAINED FOR MAN.
1. He has obtained eternal redemption for us. Man was in bondage. Wicked powers had enslaved him. He was the thrall of corrupt passions and sinful habits; “sold under sin;” “the slave of sin;” the “bond-servant of corruption.” Christ redeemed man from this bondage. He paid our ransom-price. “Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, with silver or gold; but with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot, even the blood of Christ.” He is the great Emancipator. He “proclaims liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to the bound.” He delivers from the condemnation, from the guilt, from the defilement, and from the sovereignty of sin. “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” And this redemption is eternal. Its benefits endure forever. It introduces man into everlasting liberty and light, and starts him upon a career of endless progress and blessedness.
2. He is “a High Priest of the good things to come.“ These good things are the blessings of the gospel age, the privileges which Christians now enjoy. Under the former covenant they were in the future; now they are a present possession. They who lived during that dispensation had the figures of gospel blessings; we have the very blessings themselves. But there is more than that here. Christ is a High Priest of good things yet to come. There are blessings which we hope for in the future, and shall obtain through his glorious priesthood. We look forward to the time when we shall enter upon “the inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled,” etc. (1Pe 1:4, 1Pe 1:5). The blessings which flow to man from his priesthood are inexhaustible and infinite. Through him there will ever be “good things to come” for those who by faith are interested in his gracious and blessed mediation.W.J.
Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14
Ceremonial and spiritual cleansing.
“For if the blood of bulls and of goats,” etc.
I. THE HUMAN NEED OF CLEANSING. By implication our text teaches the moral defilement of man. Both under the Mosaic and under the Christian dispensation the impurity was moral. But in the earlier dispensation the external and ceremonial uncleanness was made most conspicuous. A very small thing led to this defilement. If a man unwittingly walked over a grave, or touched a dead human body, he was accounted unclean seven days (cf. Num 19:11-22). This was designed as a parable of spiritual uncleanness. It was intended to lead men to feel the contamination of sin. So in the Christian economy it is the internal and moral impurity that is exhibited, and the need of spiritual cleansing that is insisted upon. Sin is the corrupting, defiling, separating thing. The great need is a clean heart and a right spirit.
II. THE DIVINE METHODS OF CLEANSING. Our text brings before us two methods, that of the Mosaic economy and that of the Christian, the ceremonial and the spiritual.
(1) Both were of Divine origin.
(2) Both involved sacrifice as an essential element.
But in other respects these methods were widely different. Let us notice the method:
1. In the earlier dispensation.
(1) The sacrifices were of animal life. “The blood of goats and of bulls, and the ashes of a heifer.”
(2) The application of the sacrifices was external or corporeal. The use of the blood of goats and bulls was external and visible (Lev 16:1-34). The use of the ashes of the red heifer was external and corporeal (Num 19:1-22). Both the sacrifices themselves and the application of them came within the region of the senses.
2. In the Christian dispensation.
(1) As to the sacrifice.
(a) It was the sacrifice of a human life. “The blood of Christ, who offered himself.”
(b) It was the sacrifice of a holy human life. “Christ offered himself without blemish unto God”(cf. Heb 7:26, Heb 7:27; 1Pe 1:18, 1Pe 1:19).
(c) It was the sacrifice of the holy human life of a Divine Person. “The blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God.” By “the eternal Spirit” we understand, “not the Spirit of the Father dwelling in Christ, nor the Holy Spirit given without measure to Christ, but the Divine Spirit of the Godhead which Christ himself had, and was in his inner personality” (Alford, in loco). Our Lord’s Divine nature acquiesced in the redemptive plan and purpose, and contributed to its fulfillment. “It was ‘the blood of Christ; ‘of the whole and undivided Christ,” as Richard Watson observes, “who was both God and man. For though a Divine nature could not bleed and die, a Divine person could. This distinction is to be kept in mind: for, the person being one, the acts and sufferings of each nature are the acts and sufferings of the same person, and are spoken of interchangeably.” “His blood, though not the blood of God, yet was the blood of him that was God.” The chief value of our Savior’s sacrifice was not in the physical life which was offered, although that was perfect, but in the spirit in which it was offered, tie shed his blood for us in the spirit of uttermost and perfect obedience to the Divine Father, and of willing sacrifice for the accomplishment of human salvation. And this spirit of obedience and self-sacrificing love was eternal; not a transient mood or a temporary feeling, but his eternal disposition. “The sacrifice of Christ,” says Ebrard, “could only be offered in the power of eternal spirit. Only the eternal spirit of absolute love, holiness, wisdom, and compassion was capable of enduring that sacrificial death.”
(2) The application of this sacrifice is spiritual. Its efficacy can be realized only by faith. Not literally has the Christ carried his blood into the true holy of holies. Not literally is it sprinkled upon the consciences of men for their purification. The redemptive power of the death of Christ is a spiritual force, and must be spiritually appropriated. We realize it by the exercise of faith in him (Rom 3:24-26).
III. THE EFFICACY OF THESE METHODS OF CLEANSING.
1. The sacrifices of the Jewish ritual were efficacious in producing ritualistic purity. Doubtless there were persons who, regarding these sacrifices as types of a far higher sacrifice, and these cleansings as figures of a spiritual cleansing, derived spiritual and saving benefits through them. To these benefits the text does not refer, but to the national and ceremonial use of these institutions. They “sanctified unto the cleanness of the flesh.” By means of them ceremonial impurity was removed, the separation consequent upon that impurity was brought to an end, and the cleansed person was restored to the congregation of Israel.
2. The sacrifice of Christ is far more efficacious in producing spiritual purity. “How much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse your conscience?” etc. By “conscience” in this place we do not understand any one faculty of our spiritual nature, but our entire moral consciousness in relation to God, our religious soul. “Dead works” are those which are regarded as meritorious in themselves, and apart from the disposition and motive which prompted them. They do not proceed from a heart alive by faith and love. No living spiritual sentiment breathes through them. And their influence on the soul is not inspiring, but depressing. They have no fitness for quickening spiritual affections and powers, but for crushing and killing them. They, moreover, tend to defile man’s religious nature. As the touching of a corpse, or the bone of a dead body, or treading upon a grave, defiled a man under the Mosaic Law, so the contact of these dead works with man’s soul contaminates it. The moral influence of the blood of Christ cleanses away this contamination (cf. 1Jn 1:6-9). The holy and infinite love of God manifested in the death of Christ for us, when it is realized by us, burns up base passions and impure human affections and unholy desires. It acts within us as a fervent and purifying fire. And it inspires the soul for true spiritual service. It “cleanses the conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” The word used to express this service indicates its religiousness. It “denotes in the New Testament the priestly consecration and offering up of the whole man to the service of God. the willing priestly offering of one’s self to God.” It does not signify service which is limited to religious duties, but the performance of every duty and all duties in a religious spirit. The whole life is consecrated to the living God, and all its occupations become exalted into a Divine service (cf. 1Co 10:31; Col 3:17). “How much more,” then, “shall the blood of Christ?” etc. In the ceremonial cleansings the connection between the means and the end was merely symbolical and arbitrary; but in the redemptive influences of the gospel there is a beautiful and sublime fitness for the accomplishment of their end. The infinite righteousness and love manifested in the great self-sacrifice of the Savior are eminently adapted to redeem and purify man’s soul from sin, and to inspire and invigorate him for the willing service of the living God. Our text corrects two errors concerning the sacrifice of Christ.
1. It corrects the error of those who make the essence of that sacrifice to consist in the physical sufferings and death of our Lord. God has no delight in mere pain, or blood-shedding, or death. In themselves these things cannot be pleasing to God. It was the spirit in which Christ suffered and died that made his death a Divine sacrifice and a mighty power of spiritual redemption.
2. It corrects the error of those who depreciate the expression of the Divine spirit of self-sacrifice in the life and death of our Lord. It was morally necessary that he should give himself as a sacrifice for us, in order that the mighty influence of the Divine righteousness and love might be brought to bear upon us and redeem us. “Behooved it not the Christ to suffer these things?” “Thus it behooved the Christ to suffer,” etc. (Luk 24:26, Luk 24:46, Luk 24:47).W.J.
Heb 9:22
Forgiveness through sacrifice.
“Without shedding of blood is no remission.” This is as true in Christianity as it was in Judaism. The text suggests
I. A SAD FACT. Implied in the text and in the whole of the present section of the Epistle is the sad fact that men are sinners, needing forgiveness of sin and cleansing of soul. Men endeavor by various methods to get rid of this fact of sin. Some attribute what the Bible calls sin to defective social arrangements. Men, say they, are parts of a very imperfect and faulty organization, and their errors are to be charged against the organization, not against the individuals composing it. Others denominate sin “misdirection” or mistake, thus eliminating the element of will and moral responsibility. Others speak of it as “imperfect development.” Others charge all personal wrongdoing upon the force of temptation, or the pressure of circumstances, ignoring the fact that solicitation is not compulsion. With these theories, how are we to account for the self-reproaches which men heap upon themselves after wrong-doingfor the fact that men do blame themselves for wrong-doing? We feel that we have sinned, that we are morally free and responsible individually, that we have broken a holy law, that we deserve punishment. The penitent heart cries, “Against thee, thee only, have I sinned,” etc; “God be merciful to me the sinner.” It is a terrible fact that sin is in the world, that we individually are sinners.
II. A GREAT WANT. Remission of sinsforgiveness. Man everywhere is consciously guilty before God; everywhere his heart cries out for reconciliation with him, and forgiveness from him. Altars, sacrifices, pilgrimages, penances, all witness to this. Evidences of this deep need are in our personal experience. The guilt, the consciousness that we have offended God, the dread of the stroke of his just wrath, the aching want of his forgiveness,these things we have felt. Who shall roll away the burden of our guilt? Who will give us peace? etc. Oh, very deep is this need, and wide as the world!
III. A DIVINE CONDITION. “Apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.” Under the Mosaic economy atonement for sin was made and ceremonial cleansing obtained by the shedding and the sprinkling of blood. And the text teaches that forgiveness of sin is attainable, but only through the shedding of blood. What is the reason for this condition? The sacred Scriptures assert that “the blood is the life” (Deu 12:23). “The life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Le 17:11). Now, life is our most precious possession. “All that a man hath will he give for his life.” Thus the “shedding of blood’ is equivalent to the giving of the life. And to say that we are “redeemed by the precious blood of Christ” is to express the truth that we are redeemed by the sacrifice of his pure and precious and perfect life. But why should forgiveness of sin rest upon this condition of sacrifice? How the atonement of the death of Christ is related to the Divine Being and government we know not. But in relation to man and the forgiveness of sin we may without presumption offer one or two observations. Forgiveness cannot be granted at the sacrifice of law and moral order. “The Law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Man must be brought to recognize this, or to pardon him would be to license wrong-doing. A forgiveness which did not respect and honor the law and order of God would sap the foundations of his government, blight his universe, and prove an injury to man himself. How shall the Law be maintained and honored and man be forgiven? God has supplied the answer. He gave his only begotten Son to shed his blood and give up his life for us sinners, as a grand declaration that Law is holy and righteous and good, and must be maintained, and that the Lawgiver is the righteous and loving Father, who is willing to forgive all men who turn from sin and trust the Savior. Through the death of Christ God proclaims the wickedness of sin, the goodness, beauty, and majesty of Law, and his own infinite righteousness and love. “Apart from shedding of blood there is no remission.” This is not an arbitrarily imposed condition of forgiveness of sin. The necessities of the case demand it. It is gracious on the part of God so clearly to declare it. And he who declares it has himself provided for its fulfillment. “Herein is love,” etc. (1Jn 4:9, 1Jn 4:10); “God commendeth his own love toward us,” etc. (Rom 5:8). “Forgiveness of sin through the shedding of blood, the salvation of the sinner through the sacrifice of the Savior, is the Divine and the only true method. The atonement of the cross is a comprehensive force in the actual redemption of the world from evil.”
IV. A GLORIOUS FACT. Forgiveness is attainable unto all men. The blood has been shed, Jesus the Christ has offered up his most precious life as a sacrifice for sin, the Divine condition of forgiveness is fulfilled, and forgiveness is now within the reach of every man. It is freely offered to all men, and upon conditions which render it available unto every man. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts,” etc. (Isa 55:6, Isa 55:7). “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” “If we confess our sins,” etc. (1Jn 1:9).
CONCLUSION.
1. There is no forgiveness for us apart from Jesus Christ. Our works cannot merit it. Presumptuous trust in the mercy of God, as though he were regardless of law and order, will not meet with it. Future obedience as an atonement for past sins cannot secure it. Apart from Christ we cannot obtain it.
2. Accept heartily the forgiveness which is offered to us through him.W.J.
Heb 9:24
“Heaven itself.”
“For Christ entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” Our text teaches
I. THAT HEAVEN ITSELF IS A LOCALITY. It is spoken of here as a place into which Christ entered. In his glorified body he entered there, and we cannot conceive of the existence of a body apart from space and place. Body cannot exist apart from place. Our Lord said to his disciples, “I go to prepare a place for you.” Doubtless the blessedness of heaven is chiefly a thing of moral condition, not of circumstances; of character, not of locality. If a person’s soul be impure, sinful, and possessed by wicked passions, no place could afford him joy. To such a one “heaven itself” would be a place of intolerable misery. Heaven as a state is in the holy soul; but there is also heaven as a place in which the holy dwell. We know not where this place is. We know it is not in the visible, stellar heavens; for Christ passed through them (Heb 4:14) into heaven itself. But where it is situated we know not. We know not its aspects or the character of its scenery. But we are convinced that it must be supremely beautiful. There are scenes of exquisite beauty and glorious grandeur and awful sublimity in this world. And we cannot but believe that in this respect heaven will, at least, be not less beautiful, or grand, or sublime. Rather, does not every consideration encourage the belief that it will present scenes that for beauty and sublimity, grandeur and glory, will immeasurably surpass everything that we know at present?
II. THAT HEAVEN ITSELF IS THE SCENE OF THE SUPREME MANIFESTATION OF GOD. “The presence of God” is manifested there. “The face of God” is seen there. Moses said unto Jehovah, “I beseech thee, show me thy glory;” and he was answered, “Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live Thou shalt see my back parts; but my face shall not be seen” (Exo 33:18-23). It must, we conceive, in one sense remain forever true that no man shall see the unveiled face of God, and live. “Whom no man hath seen, nor can see” (1Ti 6:16). But it is also true that in the future there will be granted unto his people a spiritual vision of God of much greater clearness and fullness than any which they have in this present state. Their “future life will be spent in God’s presence, in a sense which does not apply to our present life.” For this the intensely religious soul of David yearned. “As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness,” etc. (Psa 17:15). With ardent desire St. Paul anticipated that he should see him “face to face” (1Co 13:12). And St. John was thrilled with the sublime and sanctifying hope that he should “see him as he is” (1Jn 3:2). At present we see him through his works. Creation is a revelation of his might and majesty, his wisdom and goodness. But a nearer and clearer vision of him awaits us in the future. In that future our perceptions will doubtless be more quick and true, more comprehensive and strong, than they are at present. Here and now some men discern signs of the Divine presence and catch sounds of the Divine voice, where others recognize nothing Divine.
“Cleon sees no charms in naturein a daisy, I;
Cleon hears no anthem ringing in the sea and sky:
Nature sings to me for everearnest listener, I.”
But the perceptions of even the spiritual and thoughtful man here are dim to what they will be hereafter. Then we shall see him, not through the veil of flesh, not through the clouds which our doubts and sins interpose between us and him, but with the clarified vision of the pure heart (Mat 5:8). This vision is promised unto his servants. “His servants shall serve him; and they shall see his face “(Rev 22:3, Rev 22:4; see also Revelations Rev 7:15; Rev 21:3). This vision of God is:
1. Enrapturing. “In thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore.”
2. Transforming. When Moses came down from Mount Sinai, after forty days’ communion with God, “the skin of his face shone.” He had caught something of the glory of the august and awful Being with whom he had been in communication. How much more will the saints in heaven receive of his glory! For
(1) Moses saw only his “back parts,” but “they shall see his face”
(2) Moses saw him and caught of his glory in his fleshly and mortal body, but they shall see him in their spiritual and immortal bodies.
(3) Moses was with him but for forty days, but they shall be with him forever. For this vision is:
3. Abiding. In heaven itself the manifestation of God will not be occasional or intermittent, but regular and constant. “He will dwell with them,” etc. (Rev 21:3).
III. THAT HEAVEN ITSELF IS THE ABODE OF THE CHRIST AND THE SCENE OF HIS PRESENT MINISTRY. “Christ entered into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us.” He is there in his mediatorial glory (Heb 1:3; Heb 8:1).
1. He is there as the Representative of man. The expression, “to appear in the presence of God for us,” suggests that he is in heaven as our Representative or Advocate (cf. Heb 7:25; Rom 8:34). As the Aaronic high priest, on the great Day of Atonement, went into the holy of holies as the representative of the people; so our Savior, “when he had made purification of sins,” “entered into heaven itself,” etc.
2. He is there continuously as the Representative of man. The meaning of the “now” is, “from the point of time when he entered heaven as our High Priest, onward indefinitely.” It implies the continuance of his appearance before the face of God for us.
3. He is there as the Forerunner of man. (Cf. Heb 6:20; Joh 14:2, Joh 14:3)
CONCLUSION. Let us seek for heaven in the soul, or we can never be admitted into heaven itself. “Blessed are the pure in heart,” etc. (Mat 5:8). “Follow after holiness,” etc. (Heb 12:14).W.J.
Heb 9:27, Heb 9:28
The two deaths, and the two appearings after death.
“And as it is appointed unto men once to die,” etc. The writer is still treating of the completeness of the sacrifice of our Savior. That sacrifice was offered once for all. Being perfect, it needed no repetition. And now he shows that its repetition was impossible. Notice
I. THE TWO DEATHS. The death of man, and the death of the Christ. They are mentioned together here to bring out the fact that Christ’s offering of himself will not be repeated. Notice these two deaths in the order in which they are here mentioned.
1. The death of man.
(1) The event itself. Seneca asks, “What is death, but a ceasing to be what we were before? We were kindled and put out; we die daily.” “The cessation of the vital activities is death, which is simply another name for discontinuance,” says Grindon. And Longfellow, “‘Tis the cessation of our breath.” It is dissolution, the separation of the soul and body. “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was,” etc. (Ecc 12:7). It leads to great and momentous changes in the mode and conditions of our life.
(2) The certainty of the event. “It is appointed unto men,” etc. It is the lot assigned to us by the great Sovereign of being. God, says Gurnall, “to prevent all escape, hath sown the seeds of death in our very constitution and nature, so that we can as soon run from ourselves as run from death. We need no feller to come with a hand of violence and hew us down; there is in the tree a worm, which grows out of its own substance, that will destroy it; so in us, those infirmities of nature that will bring us down to the dust.” “No man hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit,” etc. (Ecc 8:8; cf. Psa 49:6-10).
(3) The solitariness of the event. “It is appointed unto men once to die.” This death occurs but once. It is an event which can never be repeated. In this fact we have a reason why we should pre- pare for it. Many actions are done often in a lifetime, and if their earliest performance be not satisfactory, we may do them better afterwards. Some of our experiences occur often, and if at first we were not prepared for them, and passed through them without advantage, or with disadvantage, we may prepare for their recurrence, and then pass through them with decided benefit. But death is an experience which never recurs; let us, then, prepare for it. It is a journey which we shall travel only once” the way whence we shall not return;” therefore let us be in readiness for it.
2. The death of the Christ. “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”
(1) He died as a Sacrifice for sin. “Offered to bear the sins.” He bore our sins in his feeling. In his heart he had such a deep sense of the wickedness of human sin as was possible only to a Being of perfect holiness. He mourned over sin with deepest sorrow; he condemned it as utterly wicked; and he sought to deliver men from it. He also bore our sins in his sufferings and in his death upon the cross. Here he was offered to bear the sins of many. “His own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree by whose stripes ye were healed” (1Pe 2:24). “He was wounded for our transgressions,” etc. (Isa 53:5, Isa 53:6, Isa 53:12).
(2) He died as a Sacrifice for the sins of all men. “To bear the sins of many.” The “many” signifies men in general; all men, as in Heb 2:9 : “By the grace of God he should taste death for every man.” So also teaches St. Paul: “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all.” “And he died for all.” “Who gave himself a Ransom for all.” So also St. John (1Jn 2:2). And our Lord himself (Joh 3:15, Joh 3:16; Joh 12:32).
(3) He died as a Sacrifice which is never to be repeated.
(a) Its repetition is impossible. As man can die only once, so the Christ can only be offered in death once.
(b) Its repetition is unnecessary. His offering was perfect in itself and in its efficacy; its efficacy, moreover, is perpetual, so that it need not be repeated. Heaven asks no more. Man needs no more.
“His precious blood
Shall never lose its power,
Till the whole ransomed Church of God
Be saved, to sin no more.”
(Cowper)
II. THE TWO APPEARINGS AFTER DEATH.
1. The appearing of man after death. “It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this, judgment.” “We must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,” etc. (2Co 5:10). The fact of human responsibility to God suggests the coming of a great day of account. The Divine government of the world, and the inequalities between the characters and conditions and circumstances of men, which are so many and remarkable at present, point to the necessity of such a day. The holy Bible declares it as a certainty (cf. Ecc 12:14; Mat 25:31-46; Act 17:31; Rom 14:10-12). How unutterably solemn the consideration that all the myriads of the dead shall appear again in the great day, and before the awful and holy tribunal of the Son of God and Son of man.
2. The appearing of the Christ after death. “The Christ, also, having been offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time,” etc.
(1) He will appear again. “The Christ shall appear a second time.” “This Jesus, which was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner,” etc. (Act 1:11). He promised his disciples, “I will come again,” etc. (Joh 14:3; and cf. Mat 16:27; Mat 24:30; 1Th 1:10; 1Th 4:16; 2Th 1:10; Rev 1:7).
(2) He will appear again “apart from sin.“ His first coming was distinctly related to sin. “Him who knew no sin, God made to be sin on our behalf” (2Co 5:21). That relation and character is completed, fulfilled. “Having been once offered to bear the sin of many,” his personal connection with it is ended. He has done with it. His next coming will be apart from sin, and in great glory. “The Son of man shall come in his glory,” etc. (Mat 25:31). “Looking for the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.”
(3) He will appear to perfect the salvation of his people. “Unto salvation.” Here are two points:
(a) The attitude of his people in relation to his coming. “Them that wait for him” This implies:
() Faith in his coming. “We look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,” etc. (Php 3:20, Php 3:21).
() Desire for his coming. “Even so, come, Lord Jesus.”
() Expectation of his coming. They “wait for God’s Son from heaven,” etc. (1Th 1:10).
(b) The object of his coming in relation to his people. “Unto salvation.” To perfect their salvation. He will raise their bodies, reunite body and soul, receive them into his glory. He will say unto them, “Come, ye blessed of my Father,” etc. They shall enter into the joy of their Lord. “Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things,” etc. (2Pe 3:14).W.J.
HOMILIES BY C. NEW
Heb 9:1-5
Passing reference to the symbolism of the Jewish tabernacle.
The third deduction from the fact that Christ, infinitely greater than Aaron, is High Priest at the right hand of God: The abolition of the Jewish types by their fulfillment in the Redeemer. This occupies Hebrews 9-10:18.
SubjectPassing reference to the symbolism of the Jewish tabernacle. The importance of the tabernacle is obvious, since thirty-seven chapters are devoted to describe it and its services, and seven times it is said to have been made according to the heavenly pattern; so much so that when the writer of this Epistle has to refer to what was typical in the old economy, he does not speak of the temple, but of the original sanctuary. Moreover, but for the tabernacle and its services, much of what is most important in the New Testament would be unintelligiblethe veil, mercy-seat, priest, atonement, Lamb of God, etc. The tabernacle standing in its sacred enclosure in the midst of the vast encampment, with the cloudy pillar resting upon it, was the dwelling-place of Israel’s King. At Sinai God and Israel entered into solemn covenant. He was to be their King, and they a people peculiarly his own, and from that time he made his visible abode among them. But what was the purpose of the particular form this abode assumed? They were ignorant of him, and in so low a condition that abstract truth was insufficient for their teaching; they needed heavenly things in pictures. The tabernacle, therefore, was doubtless designed in its construction to meet this need. It would convey to them very plainly that God is real, one, theirs, holy, only approachable to man by sacrifice. But the New Testament throws additional light on this ancient sanctuary, by which its details are seen to be profoundly symbolic of New Testament truth, and Christians may better understand, because of it, their position in Christ. The Jewish tabernacle is the type of the Christian Church (1Co 3:16, 1Co 3:17; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:20-22). The Church, founded on “the atonement money” (Scripture name for the hundred silver sockets which were the foundation of the tabernacle); the Church, habitation of God through the Spirit; the Church, witness to the world of the reality, character, and grace of God.
I. THE SYMBOLISM. IN THE JEWISH TABERNACLE. The tabernacle consisted of two apartments separated by the veil, the inner one called “the holy of holies.”
1. The relation of Jehovah to the Church, as seen in the holy of holies. Described in Heb 10:3-5. A symbol of heaven, as in Apocalypse: “The city lieth four square, and the length,” etc; “And the city had no need of the sun, for the,” etc. Most glorious place, seat and throne of the King, where celestial beings bow in his presence! Most holy place, hidden from human gaze, inaccessible save through the atonement, inaccessible yet so near; only a veil between, which a breath might almost waft aside, and which the incense of prayer can penetrate! Most blessed place, for there our great High Priest ever carries on his work on our behalf! How well is the tabernacle a type of this! There was the ark of the covenant, and nothing more, save that the walls and ceiling were draped with curtains embroidered with cherubic figures. What did this typify? That
(1) God’s dealings with his people are based on Law. The tables of stone, “tables of the covenant,” were the essential contents of the ark (the pot of manna and the rod were not there originally, nor were they found there when the ark was placed in the temple). God’s relation to man is that of Sovereign; from his throne issue the commands concerning what man should be and do; and at his feet lie ever the requirements he makes of man.
(2) Provision has been made for covering over the broken Law from the sight of the King. The mercy-scat on the ark, the golden slab on which was sprinkled the sacrificial blood on the Day of Atonement. “Mercy-seat;” literally, “an expiatory covering.” Looking down on his Law, the King sees the Sacrifice, and where he used to hear a testimony of guilt, he now hears a plea for mercy.
(3) The result of this provision is the perfection of his people in his presence. The cherubim bowing before his glory with no fear but that of reverence. The cherubim set forth the highest creature perfectionhead of man, body of lion, wings of eagle, feet of ox; representing perfect intelligence, strength, flight, obedience; picture of man perfected, fallen humanity in its restored condition, eternal fellowship with God with completed powers. “We have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” that is the broken Law. “Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus;” that is the mercy-seat. “Whom he justified, them he also glorified;” that is the cherubim.
2. The relation of the Church to Jehovah, as seen in the holy place. (Heb 10:2) The golden altar, candlestick, shewbread-table, occupied this apartment. (Note, no mention of the golden altar in the text, but in the fourth verse the word “censer” signifies anything that holds incense, and probably should be rendered “altar,” as we read of no censer belonging to the holy of holies. It is not said in Heb 10:4 that this was within the holy of holies, but only that it belonged to it; it stood close to the veil, its incense passed through the veil, its work was within whilst its form was without) These are also part of the type of the Church; the Church below, as the former the Church above. What do they teach about the Church on earth? Righteous mercy raising us to perfection with him. That is God’s part of the covenant. What is ours?
(1) The altar, that is, the worship of the Church. Incense in Scripture a type of prayer. The altar sprinkled with atoning blood before incense could be offered; the incense rekindled daily by the holy fire; the fragrant odor passing to the mercy-seat, a sacrifice acceptable. What a type of prayer smoldering in the heart all through the day, kindled morning and evening, acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
(2) The candlestick, that is, the work of the Church. “Ye are the light of the world.” It is the world’s night. God lights his lamps, that thereby the world may see what it would see of spiritual realities if it were not night. “Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord.”
(3) The shewbread, that is, the consecration of the Church. Bread represents life. These twelve loaves, one for each tribe, set forth the Divine demand for the dedication to him of all his people. He redeems us that we may be his. “For to this end Christ both died, and rose,” etc. “Truly our fellowship is with the Father;” that is the attar. “Ye were sometime darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord;” that is the candlestick. “I beseech you, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye,” etc; that is the shewbread.
II. THE CHRISTIAN LESSONS IN THE SYMBOLISM.
1. That the Church is the dwelling-place of God. The symbolism is abolished; what is left? The Christian Church, the spiritual temple, which is to be in the world what the tabernacle was in Israel. As once God dwelt in a consecrated temple, now he dwells in consecrated lives; no more worshipped by sacred forms, but by devout hearts. Symbolism has given place to spirituality.
2. That the true Church is that which embodies the teaching of the holy and most holy places. Or, in other words, the true Christian. You believe in what is done for you within the veil, the Godward aspect of Christian life; but to that do you add the manwardworship, service, consecration?
3. That the way into the Church is symbolized in the types of the old sanctuary. Between the entrance to the tabernacle and the gate of the court, stood the brazen altar on which rite sacrifices were offered, and the brazen laver. No entrance to the Church but by Christ’s work and the Spirit’sthe atoning blood and the laver of regeneration.C.N.
Heb 9:6-10
The symbolism of the Jewish sacrifices.
Only a partial reference, but enough to call up to the Hebrew mind the round of sacred offerings prescribed in Leviticus.
I. PRELIMINARY INQUIRIES AS TO SACRIFICE IN GENERAL.
1. What was the origin of the sacrificial act? Did it originate with man or God? In favor of the former, there is the fact that it is not recorded that the first sacrifice was the result of a Divine call. But against this, we are told that the first recorded sacrifice was offered “by faith” (Heb 11:4), and faith implies a Divine revelation”faith cometh by hearing, and hearing,” etc. The Divine origin of the act is, therefore, implied. Moreover, the act of religious sacrifice is practically universal. Does not that imply a principle wrought into human nature by its Creator, especially when it is remembered that the act is one repugnant to human feeling? But, more than all, God’s covenant with men is based on sacrifice, and it is surely incredible that Jehovah adopted for so supreme an end what man had first suggested.
2. What was the meaning the Jew attached to sacrificial rites? Whatever shades of meaning attached to different offerings, and however much or little spiritual significance to any of them, it must, at least, have been impressed on the Hebrew mind with great clearness that “without the shedding of blood there was no remission of sins,” that God’s people only remained in covenant with him through the efficacy of a substitutionary victim. That was the basis of the Jewish system, and was before the people in various forms every day, and could hardly be missed. How far the average few regarded these as types of a perfect sacrifice to be made hereafter, or how far he trusted in them, cannot be said; but at least the pious amongst them understood that unless the physical act had a spiritual antitype it was unacceptable (Psa 40:6-8; Psa 50:7-15; Isa 1:11-15; Isa 53:1-12; Jer 7:21-23; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:7-8).
3. What are the particular truths symbolized in the various sacrifices? The offerings (except those which applied to special and personal matters) were of five kindssin, trespass, burnt, meat, and peace offerings. It must be remembered that these were the offerings of those living under the privileges of the Day of Atonement; in other words, of a people already in covenant with Jehovah. The Day of Atonement was the one day on which expiation was made for all sin, and Jehovah showed himself still their God. That day was unique, and was to the nation what that day is to the believer when, on his first faith in Christ, he is admitted into God’s family. By the services of that day the people stood justified before God, in covenant relation with him. No doubt the sum of the five offerings is the Lord Jesus. He is essentially the Sacrifice in whom all these typical sacrifices are gathered, up, and they are so many different aspects of his work. But beside this, and growing out of it, they have reference to different aspects of the worshipper’s position. On the Day of Atonement the sacrifices were offered for the people. The high priest did it all; but in these other offerings the people appear as actors, and there is a sense in which these were not made for them, but by them. The penitent sinner has only to receive; that is the Day of Atonement. The redeemed saint has to give; that is represented by these five offerings. The sacrifices, therefore, set forth different aspects of Christ’s work, revealing different aspects of the saint’s position.
II. WITH THIS IDEA OF THE MEANING OF THE SACRIFICES, GLANCE AT THEM SEPARATELY. When a complete round of sacrificial offerings was required, they were generally made in a specified order: sin, or trespass, or occasionally both; burnt; meat; peace. We may divide these into three groups.
1. Sin and trespass offerings setting forth the worshipper’s need off expiation. The prominent idea in both these is expiation. Israel stood before God in a state of reconciliation, yet needing constant pardon for offences committed in that state. These offerings were to meet that need. “He that is cleansed needeth not save to,” etc; but he needs that. In the law of these offerings (Lev 4:1-35. and 5) we have sin confessed, judged, requiring blood-shed-ding, atoned for, and pardoned. The peculiarity of the trespass offering was that it was for sins which admitted of some sort of restitution. The teaching of these offerings is that for the Christian’s sins there is pardon through the blood of the Lamb, but the condition of which is penitence which tries to undo the wrong done. “I lay my sins on Jesus,” etc; that is the sin offering. “Lord, if I have wronged any man, I restore unto him fourfold;” that is the trespass offering. Where these are combined” it shall be forgiven him” (Lev 4:1-35).
2. Burnt and meat offerings expressing the worshipper’s desire for dedication. These are classed together in Scripture (Num 15:3, Num 15:4), and, unlike the former, they were both “sweet savor offerings unto the Lord.” The law of the burnt offering is in Lev 1:1-17. This was the perpetual offering of God’s covenant people, being offered every morning and evening. Every sabbath, every month, and at all the annual festivals, and indeed all through the night, when the altar was required for no other use, this sacrifice was slowly consuming. The idea of sin needing expiation was here, but was not the prominent one. This could hardly refer to less than that perpetual self-dedication which is the natural result of acceptance by Geol. (Heads, legs, and inwards all burntthoughts, walk, affections) With this was joined the meat offering. “Meat,” equivalent to “food.” Man’s food is symbolic of man’s life. Here we have the burnt offering over again, but with this additionpart of it was bestowed on the priest. See here the Christian law of dedicationa whole life given to God, but in being given to him given to his people. Christ was both Burnt Offering and Meat Offering. “I beseech you.., present yourselves,” etc; that is the burnt offering. “To do good and to communicate,” etc; that is the meat offering.
3. The peace offering representing the worshipper’s enjoyment of fellowship. (Lev 3:1-17) Its peculiarity is that it was divided into three parts; one burnt as God’s portion, one given to priests, and one retained by the offerer, who might invite his friends to partake of it. The idea of unworthiness was represented with the imposition of hands and sprinkled blood; but the great idea was that, notwithstanding unworthiness, peace with God was realized, verified, enjoyed in fellowship. It was the token that the offerer was admitted to a standing in God’s house, a seat at his table, communion and friendship. How much is involved when a man can eat together with God and his family! This is fulfilled in Christ; in him God and man find common food; and when we partake of him we are drawn into closest nearness to the Father. This is the peace offering”Truly our fellowship is with the Father.” Expiation, dedication, fellowship, complete Christian life.
III. SUM UP ALL THIS IN THREE PRACTICAL WORDS.
1. The privileges here symbolized are to be fulfilled by the Christian Church. “See here,” says God to us, “the blessings you believers may enjoy!” Do we enjoy them? Unless we do we are no better for living under the Christian dispensation, and the Jew was as rich as we.
2. These privileges were only possible at the sacrificial altar. All five offerings were made at the brazen altar used on the Day of Atonement. All our Christian privileges flow from the cross of Christ, and can only be fulfilled as we fulfill them there.
3. These privileges only belong to those for whom the Day of Atonement avails. Only for thembut for them. If we cannot offer the unpardoned sinner these, we can offer him a share in the great essential preceding atoning work.C.N.
Heb 9:6-13
The Day of Atonement fulfilled, and its imperfect blessings perfected in Christ.
In dealing with the abolition of the types of the old economy since their fulfillment in the high priesthood of Christ (Heb 9:1-28; Heb 10:18), the writer comes here to dwell on the Jewish Day of Atonement. That day is the key to these and following verses, and the most forcible illustration of our Lord’s high priestly work. This day was at the basis of the Jewish system; by its services, Israel’s covenant relation to Jehovah was re-established and affirmed. The other offerings of the year were dependent on this, representing the various spiritual privileges of those who are at peace with the Most High. On that day, not only was atonement made for the people, but also for the priesthood, and the altar on which the other sacrifices were offered, and the tabernacle and its furniture, implying that the privileges these represented were only possible through the atonement made then. Had there been no Day of Atonement it would have involved the extinction of their peculiar privileges as the chosen people. That day was to Israel what to the believer that day is when in faith he first lays his sins on Christ, and enters the number of the redeemed. SubjectThe Day of Atonement fulfilled, and its imperfect blessings perfected in Christ.
I. THE IMPERFECTION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT TYPE. (Heb 9:6-10) It is here said that the Divine Spirit was the Author of these arrangements, that they were a representation of sacred truth, and that in every part of them we have the utterance of a thought of Godso much so that there is, probably, no fundamental doctrine of the New Testament whose striking symbol we cannot find in one or other of these ancient ordinances. Describe the Day of Atonementthe penitence which was to usher it in; the services conducted entirely by the high priest; the two sets of sacrifices, the sin and burnt offerings for himself and his house, and those for the people; the slaying the sin offering for himself, and his entrance within the veil with the blood of sprinkling; the slaying the sin offering for the people, and his second entrance within the veil, sprinkling also the furniture of the holy place as he passed out; the confession of sins over the head of the scapegoat and its being sent away into the wilderness; the putting on of his gorgeous robes and presenting the burnt offerings (dedication after expiation); the closing of the ceremony with the high priestly benediction. Now, what was the use of all this?
1. It was perfect as a type. It is not possible to imagine a more perfect parallel than exists between this and New Testament truth. On the sinner’s side, repentance, faith, holiness; on the Savior’s side, the substitutionary offering of himself, the passing into the Father’s presence to plead his sacrifice, and then “as far as the east is from the west, so far,” etc.
2. It was perfect as a means of legal and ceremonial cleansing. God has in all ages but one means of atonement. The nation was not a nation of saved persons after the Day of Atonement; the fact that this was repeated annually showed that “it was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin.” This day “sanctified unto the purifying of the flesh” (Heb 9:13)”flesh” as opposed to spirit; it removed legal and ceremonial defilement, and retained the nation in its legal standing with Jehovah.
3. But it was imperfect for giving access to God. “The Holy Ghost this,” etc. Conscience knows that no formalism, no human works, can atone for sin and admit to the Divine favor; that when the Day of Atonement has done its best, the spirit of man is left as far from Jehovah as it was before; that the true veil remained unrent.
II. THE PERFECTION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT TYPE. Heb 9:11, Heb 9:12, and Heb 9:14 display the wonderful perfection of our Lord’s sacrifice.
1. His Divine appointment. The various titles of the Savior are not used at random. Here he is called Christ, the Anointed Onehe who was promised by God, and for whom the ages have been looking. The substitution of another in our stead depends for its efficacy on whether God will accept him in that capacity. But God “gave his Son;” God” made him to be a Sin Offering for us;” God “hath set him forth to be a Propitiation.” “My son, God will provide himself a lamb;” twenty centuries later, “Behold the Lamb of God!”
2. His Divine nature. “Christ, who through the eternal Spirit,” etc. Does this refer to the Holy Ghost? We think not. That name is given to him nowhere else, and it is not easy to see the bearing of that idea on the argument. We take it as referring to the eternal nature of Christ, as opposed to his fleshly nature. “Made of the seed of David according to the flesh, but declared to be the Son of God according,” etc; “A Priest, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.” According to the flesh, he is Son of man; according to his eternal spirit, he is Son of God. The efficacy of his sacrifice was due to the eternal spirit of Godhead, the most extraordinary feature in his person. He who poured out his soul unto death at the world’s great altar for man’s sin was God himself, making the atonement his righteousness required. Hence the infinite efficacy of that atonement.
3. His Divine sinlessness. “Without spot.” He can bear our sins because he had none of his own.
III. THE ACCOMPLISHMENT BY THE PERFECT REALITY OF WHAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO THE IMPERFECT TYPE. (Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14) (The word “serve” refers to religious ministration, worship) Mark the contrast: Let the silver trumpets herald in the Day of Atonement, let its inspired solemnities be all fulfilled; and, though the nation is legally, ceremonially cleansed thereby, this has not met the needs nor silenced the fears of a single contrite soul; not one of their number is spiritually nearer to God, and the most holy place is still inaccessible. Now turn to Calvary, the reality to which these types pointed, and what is the result?
1. Our conscience is satisfiedsatisfied because it knows God is satisfied. The atonement, then, meets every requirement of the Divine Law; not even Divine righteousness could demand a greater. In it every claim of our conscience is intelligently and abundantly met.
2. The way into the Divine presence is opened. Sin separates between God and us; but, with a conscience satisfied that sin is put away, we can look into God’s face, venture to his side, bow at his feet, confide in his welcome. The veil of the temple fell to as before, and God was still hidden from man, after the great Jewish day; but when the true atonement had been made, the veil was rent in twain, the way into the holiest was made manifest. To the question, “How much more?” the utmost thought of man can give no answer.C.N.
HOMILIES BY J.S. BRIGHT
Heb 9:1-5
Symbolism of the tabernacle.
It is remarkable that in the Epistle to the Hebrews there is a constant reference to the tabernacle, while the glory of the temple is not noticed and explained. This may arise from several causes, of which the following may be named as the most probable. It was the original form of Divine worship. It had the attraction of antiquity. It was connected with the personal history of Moses and Aaron. It was unpolluted by idolatry. Here the writer mentions the nature and furniture of the tabernacle, which expressed Divine ideas alone. Moses was, to use a modern phrase, “master of the works;” but the plan was Divine, and supplied by him who sees the end from the beginning. The principal thoughts which this passage supplies are:
1. The covenant had a material or worldly tabernacle which denotes approachableness. The ever-blessed God placed his tent in the midst of the tents of Israel that they might come to him, and use the ordinances of Divine service for their forgiveness, peace, and intercourse with the Father of spirits. It proclaims the truth which our Lord announced to the woman of Samaria, that God seeketh men to worship him. “He is not,” said Paul,” far from every one of us.” This is plainly taught by the incarnation of our Lord, who is ImmanuelGod with us.
2. The next thought is that of mystery, for God dwelt in the thick darkness, and once a year the solemn service of the high priest was performed with sacred awe. Within the second veil Jehovah dwelt, and taught men that, how gracious soever he was to come near, he must be had in reverence by all them that are round about him.
3. The appointment of the candlestick signifies illumination for service. It must be confessed that while there are vast and inscrutable mysteries, those things which are requisite for our salvation and growth in grace are very plainly revealed. The mystery of the inner holy place is not for us to understand; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and our children, that we may do all the words of this Law. Our Lord said to a man, probably of a serious temper, who desired to know if few were saved, “Strive to enter in at the strait gate.” The light of the lamp was for the service of the priest, and Scripture is given that the man of God may be throughly furnished unto all good works.
4. Then appears the thought of spiritual supply. The tables of shewbread were furnished every week, and the priests ate of the loaves which had stood seven days before God in his tabernacle. God blessed the provision of his house; but the arrangement foreshadowed that supply which Christ claimed to be when he called himself “the Bread of life.” “My God,” said Paul, “shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus” (Php 4:19).
5. The pot of manna and Aaron’s rod presented memorials of Divine power. The one reminded worshippers of that all-sufficiency which supplied the wants of myriads with daily bread, and the other was a miraculous act which terminated all disputes about the priesthood. Believers now can look up to the throne and see more illustrious proofs of power in the glory of the Redeemer, who was proved to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection from the dead, and by the sight of the number of “spirits of just men made perfect,” who have come out of tribulation, and are in the joy and felicity of heaven.
6. Then follows the acceptableness of prayer, which is denoted by the golden censer; and the odors represent the prayers of the saints. Prayers are pleasant to God from the sense of our need, and therefore humility of soul; our faith in his interest in us, and our desire to glorify his Name. The angel said to Cornelius, “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.”
7. And, lastly, this furniture signifies mercy and adoration. There was the mercy-seat, under which, in the most sacred place, was the Divine Law. Between the Law and God came the cover of the ark, which was sprinkled with sacrificial blood, and through faith in the arrangement sins were forgiven. This is realized in the Redeemer, who is our Propitiation; through whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness of sins. Then the cherubim overshadowed the mercy-seat; for the angels desire to look into these things, and bow with reverence and love in the presence of God. The object of all revelation, all sacrifice, all the work of the Son of God, and all the sacred power of the Spirit, is to prepare believers by the experiences of earth for the adoration of heaven.B.
Heb 9:6-10
Symbolism of the sacrifices.
The writer declares that the past dispensation of the Law was a parable or figure. The whole of this Epistle turns upon the interpretation of this parable. Our Lord employed many parables to set forth the nature of his kingdom. He presented many aspects and features and processes of the gospel; and the meaning of these things he explained to the humble and docile spirit of his disciples. In the condition of the Jews under the Law, there was the exclusion of the people from the first tabernacle, and the exclusion of the priests from the second, or holy of holies. The high priest, once a year, entered with awe into the presence of God. There were constant repetitions of the same service which could not take away sin. There was much that was external and ceremonial, and had respect to washingspurification from the defilement that arose from touching certain objectsand there was a sharp division with reference to meats and drinks. All these things were parables, and when the times of reformation came, their object was seen, because a parable must be lifted to the higher region of the truth which it is designed to illustrate. It must be inferior to the object. Here was a sinful priest who offered his errors, and therefore we need one who was sinless and Divine. The repetition of the sacrifice suggests the need of One who by one offering should take away sin. It suggested the need of greater light, for there was a veil which hid the interior of the holy of holies. This veil was rent at the death of Christ, and heaven is now open to faith and worship.
“The smoke of thine atonement here
Darkened the sun and rent the veil,
Made the new way to heaven appear,
And showed the great Invisible:
Well pleased in thee, our God looks down,
And calls his rebels to a crown.”
It leads us to consider the removal of all exclusiveness; and while formerly priest and high priest alone could minister in the tabernacle, all believers are now kings and priests unto God. It teaches us how needful was a spiritual system to displace that which had to do with the outward washing and distinctions of food; and to make us know that the kingdom of God is not in meats and drinks, but in “righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.”B.
Heb 9:11, Heb 9:12
Christ’s eternal priesthood.
Over against the imperfection and material character of the laws of Moses which concerned meats, drinks, and divers washings, there is here introduced the exalted nature and efficiency of the Redeemer’s priesthood.
I. This appears IN THE FUTURE AND ENDURING EFFECTS OF HIS SACRIFICE. All his office relates chiefly to eternity, whereas the work of the Levitical priesthood had to do with annual atonement, purity of person, and temporal blessings. Our Lord directs our thoughts and hopes to the immeasurable future in which are to be found spiritual life, holy peace, perfection of worship, and the everlasting presence of God. These blessings will always be good things to come; for with God is the Fountain of life, and in his light shall believers always see light.
II. THE EXALTED SPHERE OF HIS MINISTRY. The old tabernacle was made with hands. The genius of Aholiab and Bezaleel, the work of carpenter, spinner, and weaver, were applied to make the holy tent. It was a narrow and perishable fabric. Our Lord is now in heaven, which is not made with hands and by the assistance of men or angels. It is the direct creation of the infinite and all-sufficient power of Jehovah, where his holy angels and archangels dwell and worship. The place is suitable for the matchless dignity of the priest. The earthly tabernacle is fit for the weakness and sin of the earthly minister, but heaven with its brightness and purity is the proper tabernacle for the Son of God.
III. THE SUPERIORITY OF HIS ATONING BLOOD. The victims whose blood was shed were unconscious of any purpose in their death. There was no willingness and no sympathy with the object of the sacrifice, and there was consequently nothing more than subjection to physical force, which deprived the death of moral value. Our Lord offered himself a willing Sacrifice, and his voluntary surrender to death has imparted to his work of suffering an inconceivable value and power. He is “the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world.” He is now in the holy place as the one, all-sufficient High Priest, whose one sacrificial act has a vital and indestructible force in the government of God and the system of Divine grace.
IV. THE FINALITY AND ISSUES OF HIS SACRIFICE. He entered once, and is therefore unlike the Jewish priest, who went in to the holiest of all year after year. It is the glory of Christ to do this thing once, and there needs no more sacrifice for sin. The redemption is not from year to year, but it has eternal issues which, beginning by faith in him, now advances in constant acts of redemption through life, by which believers are redeemed from evil in its various forms, from the penal stroke of death, and from all the effects, traces, and influences of evil for evermore.B.
Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14
Ceremonial and spiritual purification.
There are here
I. THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR CEREMONIAL PURIFICATION. A red heiferthe color of red signifying the inflaming nature of sinwas to be slain by a priest; but not the high priest, who was to abstain from all contact with death. And the body and the blood were to be burnt outside the camp. Some of the blood was sprinkled towards the tabernacle, and during the process of burning, cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet wool were thrown into the fire. The ashes were laid up for use by those who had become ceremonially unclean by touching the dead, and for the purification of the house, furniture, and utensils where a death had occurred. Being mixed with water and sprinkled upon such persons and homes, on the third and seventh day the defilement was removed. This was the Divine arrangement for the purity of Israel, and those who complied with the will of God enjoyed liberty of approach to his courts, and a share in the blessings of the tabernacle and priesthood.
II. THE SUPERIOR GLORY AND EFFECT OF THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST. The writer had previously noticed the inferior nature and limited effect of animal sacrifices; and here he rises from the blood of slain beasts, and the bodily cleansing they secured, to the Divine nature of our Lord, which gives an untold importance to his death, and ensures the highest spiritual results in the purification of the conscience. By the “eternal Spirit” is commonly understood that glory which is described in the commencement of the Gospel of John. It is probable that the writer looked back to the passage in which he declares that Jesus is “the Brightness of the Father’s glory, and express Image of his person.” It reminds us of his transfiguration, and the glimpses of his superhuman dignity and power which lighted up his earthly ministry. It is a thought before which we stand in silent and essential wonder, and feel that it lifts the sacrifice of our Lord to a height of glory which transcends our clearest vision. This sacrifice cleanses the conscience from “dead works.” Death in the Old Testament always suggests pollution. The conscience which is defiled by dead works sheds a clear and penetrating light on the disqualifying nature of sin, and the exclusion from the service of God which it produces. The precious blood of Christ, which cleanses the conscience, makes it full of the life of love, gratitude, and filial service. The fruit which comes from life is holiness now, and hereafter it is everlasting fire. It opens the prospect of fellowship with God, who is the “living God,” and communes with his people from off the mercy-seat. The life of those who are forgiven turns to God, and the living God holds fellowship with them, which is the high privilege of believers now, and the pledge of its continuance in the world to come.B.
Heb 9:15-22
“The Mediator of the new testament.”
The ideas contained in this section are
I. THE TWOFOLD EFFECT OF THE DEATH OF OUR LORD. The free surrender of his life was the means of removing, in the case of believers, the burden of those sins which the Mosaic Law could not take away. The sins committed under the first covenant were not forgiven by acts of sacrifice and the aid of priestly service, which, though ordained by Jehovah, were unequal to produce peace and purity of conscience. It may be that there is a retrospective effect of the death of Christ which furnished the ground of the dispensation of mercy before the mystery of his atonement was revealed. Considering the stress which is laid upon the value of forgiveness in the Scripture, the glory of Jesus Christ shines in the fact that he is the cause, by his death and mediatorial office, of its safe and secure enjoyment. The next effect is to be traced in the vocation of believers to an eternal inheritance, which is to stand in sublime contrast to Canaan, respecting which the Jews say (Isa 63:18), “The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while.” That inheritance was defiled by idolatry, desolated by heathen invaders, and ruled over by the pagan power of Rome; but that to which our Lord calls his followers is an “inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and fadeth net away.” There is a sublime harmony here between the death and mediation of our Lord, and the everlasting effects which they produce and secure.
II. THE VITAL FORCE OF THE COVENANT ARISES FROM THE DEATH OF CHRIST. Here the writer passes over to the idea of a testament or will which is of force when the testator dies. The covenant is a Divine arrangement which includes two parties, for a mediator is not a mediator of one; but God is One, and his people are those who, through his condescending mercy, stand on the other side as those who accept and rejoice in the arrangement. The mention of the inheritance suggests the thought of a testament, by which, as soon as the testator dies, the heir enters upon the enjoyment of the inheritance. This is an auxiliary illustration which aids us to understand the mighty love of the Son of God, who was ready to endure the woe and agony of the cross, to bequeath to us the blessing of forgiveness now, and the enjoyment of the imperishable inheritance of heaven in the future life.
III. THE CONFIRMATION OF THE NEW COVENANT ILLUSTRATED BY HISTORICAL FACTS.
The allusion in Heb 9:18-22 is to the original establishment of the covenant with Israel at Sinai. There are several deviations from the Mosaic narrative in this section. In the account in Exodus there is no mention of goats, hyssop, scarlet wool, the book, the tabernacle and its vessels, and therefore there may be here a traditional account; or the writer combined several subsequent acts of Levitical services which had the same signification and object. The essential truth contained in this solemn transaction was the application of blood to ratify the covenant which was made between God and his people at Sinai. It was the Divine will that such should be the method, according to which the old tabernacle, the chosen nation, and the first covenant should be consecrated, and should foretell and typify future events of the highest importance for the world. “Without shedding of blood there was no remission.” This voice was heard century after century in the services of the Jewish Law; and now that Christ has become “the Lamb of God, who taketh away the sin of the world,” the truth has received a more solemn confirmation. If he is rejected, “there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins.” If he is received and trusted in, there is peace with God, and hope of eternal life. The phrase which Moses used, “This is the blood of the covenant,” recalls the sacred words of Jesus, who said when he took the cup at the Passover feast, and looked forward to the covenant of grace, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto the remission of sins.”B.
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG
Heb 9:1
The orderly arrangements of the new covenant.
Evidently a double meaning is possible to the adjective . The sanctuary sheltered within the tabernacle was a sanctuary of this world; but is that all the writer means by the word he uses here? Surely we must remember the antithesis between cosmos and chaos. The furniture of the sanctuary was not a collection of objects placed anywhere and anyhow. There was as much symbolism in the order and relation of these objects as in the objects themselves. All worship and holy service had to be according to Divine regulations. And as all was in the visible, symbolic, temporary sanctuary, so all must also be in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle.
I. WE MUST RECOGNIZE CHRIST‘S PLACE IN THIS SANCTUARY. The new covenant has its sanctuary, even as the old, and that sanctuary is to be found wherever Christ is manifesting himself to take away sin. It is the presence of Christ that makes the holiest place we know, and there is no making of a truly holy place without him. In the old covenant, everything was gathered round the tables of the Law as a center. They expressed the will of God. And so now the center of our religious life, around which all is to be gathered in orderly relations, is to be found in Christat once a High Priest to enter into the true holy of holies, and One to show the Law of God in actual working, as something not too high for human attainment. We are to worship and serve God through Christ, and there is no other way whereby we may become faultless in the presence of his glory.
II. WE MUST RECOGNIZE OUR OWN PLACE IN THE SANCTUARY. What are we doing in the way of orderly, well-considered daily service? Is the lamp of our life shining forth every day? Do we help to spread a table for the varied necessities of men, remembering that whatsoever we do for them is done for Christ, and whatsoever is done for Christ is done for God? There is to be a measure of order in our own personal religious liferepentance leading to faith, and faith opening up the way to all that is holy, pure, and Christ-like.Y.
Heb 9:9
The parabolic function of the tabernacle services.
The tabernacle, with its contents and its institutions, was one great parable embracing and uniting many subordinate parables. A parable looking towards the time of the new covenantthe “present time,” as the writer calls it; or, as we might even more closely render it, the impending season. For in God’s economy the new state of things is to be ever looked at as impending. So Christ would have us, who rejoice in his first advent, to be ever making ready for his second one. And in the same way the men of the old covenant had to be on the look-out for the initiation of the new. Rejoicing in what Moses had given them, they looked eagerly for what Messiah had to give; and in the mean time Moses had given them parables through the eye, even as in after times Christ gave his disciples parables in words. Such mode was suitable for the time and the purpose. What parabolic teaching was there, then, in the tabernacle and the things connected with it?
I. THE REALITY OF GOD‘S DWELLING WITH MEN. Each Israelite family had its tent, and Jehovah’s tent was in the midst of all, a center of unity, protection, and glory. Jehovah was the Companion of his people in all their pilgrimage and vicissitudes. It is only as we recollect this that we get at the full significance of John’s expression concerning the Word becoming flesh and tabernacling among us, full of grace and truth (Joh 1:14). The glory that belonged to the tabernacle was thus a parable of the Incarnation glory.
II. THE POSSIBILITY OF SATISFACTORY INTERCOURSE BETWEEN GOD AND MAN. It was dangerous for a man to meddle in Divine things according to his own inclination and his own wisdom. Yet he could not stand aside and neglect Divine things altogether. Such a course was equally dangerous with the other. But if he would only submit to the way of Jehovah’s appointment, attending to every detail, and striving to comprehend the undoubted purpose in it, then he-was assuredly in the way of safety. He was doing what God wanted him to do with the resources then within his reach. And though an obedience of this kind, an obedience in certain external rites, could not take away all trouble of conscience, yet when a man comprehended that Jehovah had even this in view, he would feel that what he enjoyed not now he would enjoy hereafter. Though the blood of bulls and goats could not put away sin and wash out the heart’s deep defilement, yet the blood-shedding was not in vain, if it intimated the coming of something that would take away sin.
III. THE POSSIBILITY OF REAL SERVICE. In itself, the elaborate ritual of the tabernacle was nothing. Save as it was parabolic and provocative of hope and aspiration, it could not be called other than a waste of time. “What mean ye by this service?” was a question which might well be put to every Levitical person every day.
But when the service of the high priest looked forward to the sacrificial cleansing service of Christ in perpetuity, and when the service of all the subordinate attendants looked forward to the daily obedience of Christians, faithful in little things, then assuredly the service of the tabernacle gets lifted above a mechanical routine. Under the old covenant, a whole tribe, separated for ritual observance, serving Jehovah in formal religious ordinances, was thereby serving, not only a nation, but all mankind. Serving God in appearance, the Levite served men in reality. Now, under the new covenant, we serve God in serving men. The Christian, because he is a Christian, has most power of all men to serve his brother man.Y.
Heb 9:12
The eternal redemption.
One cannot but be struck with the occurrence three times within four verses of the word “eternal.” There is the eternal redemption, the eternal Spirit, the eternal inheritance. The change from the old covenant to the new was also an escape from the temporary to the abiding. In the old covenant there had to be a constant succession of things, each lasting for a little time, and then by the nature of it giving way, and needing something new to fill its place. “Now,” the writer of this Epistle seems to say, “all good things have become eternal.” And first there is the eternal redemption. By contrast, then, we have to think of
I. A REDEMPTION WHICH IS NOT ETERNAL. This idea of redemption and ransom happily an unfamiliar one to us. But there was a time when people perfectly comprehended the continual risk to themselves and their property from the attacks of strong robber-tribes, who would take a man away and keep him in captivity till his friends provided a ransom. And that ransom did only for the special occasion; there might come another captivity which would need its own ransom. So it was with the services of the old covenant. At no time was Israel allowed to think that enough of beasts had been slain on the altar. No sooner was one accumulation of defilement cleansed away than another began to appear. And thus, also, no sooner did the priest wipe away the blood of one beast than he began to make ready for shedding the blood of another. The task was endless, and no satisfaction or peace came out of it, save the satisfaction of knowing that if this redemption had not been attended to, things would have been infinitely worse.
II. THE REDEMPTION WHICH IS ETERNAL. Christ entered once for all into the holy place, and there he remains in perpetual and profoundly fruitful mediation between God and man. How different from the Jewish priest, slaying his victim, and then before long asking for another! The whole conditions of sacrifice and obedience are altered. Under the old covenant the people themselves had to provide the sacrifices; but now Jesus comes, providing the sacrifice himself, not asking us to do anything save to accept, humbly and gratefully, the completeness of his own service. We cannot provide an eternal redemption for ourselves. All we can do is to escape for the time, and to-morrow we must face to-morrow’s dangers. What a grand thing to understand in our very hearts that Jesus is emphatically, the Redeemer! We are not ungrateful for the temporary redemptions of life, and the minor redeemers; but we must ever take care lest, in our natural solicitude for these matters, we neglect the eternal redemption and the eternal Redeemer. If we are safe in vital union with him, then what are all other captivities and all other losses?Y.
Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14
Christ a self-presented offering to purify the consciences of men.
I. AN ARGUMENT FROM THE LESS TO THE GREATER. The writer reminds his readers of a kind of cleansing already practiced by them, and believed to be efficacious for its purpose. From their point of view, they had no difficulty in believing that something was really done when defiled people were sprinkled with the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer. Whatever had communicated the defilement was thus removedin a mysterious way, it is true, and so that there might be no visible sign; but still there was the feeling and the faith that things were really made different. If, then, it was so easy to believe that the sacrifice of brute-life produced such results, what profound and permanent results might not be expected to flow from the cleansing application of the blood of Christ? For in the one, case it was the blood of a brute beast poured out and then done with for ever, available for only one occasion, and needing for the next occasion that another beast should be slain. But here is the shedding of the blood of Christ, the continuous and accurate presentation of the Christ’s own life by Christ himself. Surely the writer here is thinking of something more than the shedding of the blood of Christ’s natural life on the cross. He is thinking of what Christ is doing behind the veil, on the eternal, invisible scene. The work, whatever it is, is the work done by Christ through an eternal Spirit. He is continually pouring forth his life to cleanse the consciences of believers. Christ’s death was a passing into the holy of holies, to go on with the deep realities of which the holiest offerings of the old covenant were only feeble symbols. The writer of the Epistle, therefore, wanted his readers to appropriate the ineffably great results of what Christ was doing.
II. THE MEANS OF APPROPROATION. Clearly the appropriation was by faith. Indeed, all the good that could come through any cleansing ceremony of the old covenant came by faithoften superstitious enough, no doubt, and having little or no result in the improvement of character; but still it was faith. Faith was the element keeping these ceremonials in existence from generation to generation. If nothing more, there was at least the faith that something dreadful would happen if the ceremonials were discontinued. If, then, men will only labor to keep themselves in living connection with the ever-loving Christ, whose life is all the more fruitful since he vanished from the eye of sense, what great things they may expect! Belief in Christ is Christ’s own instrument for cleansing the heart, so that there may not any more go out of it the things that defile a man. What wonder that before he closes his Epistle the writer should be so copious in extolling the triumphs of faith, and enforcing the need of it in all the relations of Christian life!Y.
Heb 9:15
The eternal inheritance.
I. CONSIDER THE TEMPORAL INHERITANCE. The land of Canaan, which was connected with the old covenant. This land could only be called an inheritance in a typical sense, for the satisfactions which Israel was taught to expect did not come in reality. For as the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, so neither could any mere terrestrial possession ever satisfy a human spirit. This land was but the standing-ground for a time, the place of discipline and revelation. It is always necessary to show by a sufficient experience and consideration the inadequacy of earthly things for those whose proper kinship is with heaven; and the more clearly this inadequacy appears, the more clearly will it appear that somewhere there must be something entirely satisfying. The earthly inheritance proved to Israel a constant scene of struggle, temptation, and loss; and if, by some happy period of lull, an Israelite had something that might not untruly be called satisfaction out of his inheritance, yet the day came when he had to leave it. The inheritance was a more abiding thing than the possessor. Thus, in any message of comfort from God to his people, it could not fail to be pointed out that the best of earthly possessions fall far short of what a loving God intends for his separated and obedient people.
II. THE ATTAINMENT OF THE ETERNAL INHERITANCE, This inheritance may well be considered in a twofold aspect. It may be considered as something within us, and also as something without. The Israelite possession of the land of Canaan would have deserved something nearer the name of reality if only the Israelite had been first of all in possession of himself. But he was at the mercy of his lusts and selfish inclinations. Real self-possession means heart-submission to God. If we would enter on the real and satisfying inheritance, God must first of all enter upon his proper inheritance in us. Self-control, which suggests something like the caging of a wild beast, must be exchanged for self-surrender. And all this is to come through the searching redemption and cleansing effected by Christ. Then are we ready for that eternal inheritance, which is also external. Christ only can redeem us from present limitations and corruptions, and how great those limitations and corruptions are we have as yet no sufficient perception. It is noteworthy how the of Heb 9:12 is strengthened into the of Heb 9:15. We shall enter on an eternal inheritance, suited to the spirit of manan infinite, inexhaustible possession; where every one will have exceeding abundance, from which he can never be parted, and of which he will never grow tired. In comparison with that reality, the most real things of this world will thin away into dreams. In comparison with its everlastingness, the everlasting hills will be as dissolving clouds.Y.
Heb 9:22
The death of Jesus the seal of the new covenant.
In this passage there is allusion to an ancient, cherished custom of making a covenant over a slain animal. In the light of this custom probably we must explain Gen 15:1-21. There Abram is represented as dividing a heifer, a goat, and a ram, and when darkness came a smoking furnace and a burning lamp passed between the pieces. Then follows the significant statement that in the same day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram. The idea in the English version of a testament and a testator is not so much misleading as meaningless, for there is no reason at all why a testament should be referred to, but every reason why the writer should go on expounding and illustrating the new covenant as compared with the old. To us, of course, the custom here mentioned is hardly intelligible, but the mention of it would throw a great deal of light on the subject at the time the reference was made. The custom may even have been still in vogue, and human customs have ever been subordinated to Divine ends. Hence we have here a special aspect of the death of Christ. It is presented as
THE SEAL OF A SOLEMN COVENANT BETWEEN GOD AND MAN, The very existence of Christ is a covenant between the Divine and the human. The glorious things that were in Christ because of the Divine Spirit dwelling in him are promised to us by their very presence in Christ. All the good things coming to Christ because of his humanity are equally offered to us because of our humanity; and all that Christ did in his humanity makes us responsible for doing the same. The promises of God are yea and amen in Christ Jesus. We may also add that the obligations of man are defined and settled in Christ Jesus. Thus there is a covenant, and we may well look on the death of Christ as giving that covenant shape in a formal transaction. For there God gave his well-beloved Son to death, the pledge of all that he is willing to give. And Jesus surrendered himself to death, giving the greatest proof of obedience and devotion which a human being can give. Christ’s death becomes our death, the pledge of an individual covenant on our part, if only we choose to enter into it. The death of Christ points out a solemn duty and a large expectation. And if the death of Christ is a seal of the covenant, how much is the significance of that seal added to by the resurrection and the ascension into glory!Y.
Heb 9:28
The difference between Christ’s first and second advent.
I. THE FIRST ADVENT. Here Christ shares the common lot of men; he dies, and dies once for all. There is no dying and rising and dying again. He is offered as a Sacrifice once for all, to bear the sins of many. And here, of course, the death of Christ must be taken as representing the whole of his life in the flesh. His life in every hour and every faculty was vicarious. He was ever striving to show that he could neutralize the consequence of sins committed, and prevent the commission of sins to come. His great aim was, in every sense of the expression, to take away sin. And from his place of power and glory on high this is his aim still. No matter how laden the conscience may be with guilt and the remembrance of folly, no matter how full of weakness the life, Christ has all fullness of power and steadiness of disposition to restore strength, rectitude, and purity. Let it be remembered that this is Christ’s present work. Christ is in his Church continually, that his Church may have success in setting him forth as taking away the sin of the world. Whenever we come across sin, in ourselves or in others, we should ever view it in relation to Christ. Then we shall be filled with a sense both of responsibility and hope. Sin is not a burden to be sullenly endured, but to be removed by faith in Christ.
II. THE SECOND ADVENT. In Christ’s first coming everything is connected with sin. He is lifted up to draw sinners to him. All the energy of the Spirit and all the agencies of the gospel are employed to persuade sinners to accept the sin-bearing, sin-removing work of Christ. But he is coming a second time, altogether apart from sincoming to deliver into everlasting security those who have believed in him. The completeness of salvation is always looked upon in the New Testament as a thing yet to come. The promise is of immediate safety, as far as it can be given in our present surroundings. It is our own fault if we are not safe from backsliding, temptation, and doctrinal error. But in the fullest sense of the word salvation, we are saved, as Paul says, by hope. We are hoping for full possession of every good, full security from every evil. When Christ has taken away the sin of the world, he will take away the peril, the insecurity, of the world.Y.
Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary
Heb 9:1 . ] sc . . Against the supplementing of (Cameron, Peirce, Whitby, Wetstein, Semler), see the critical remark.
] had . is not written by the author, although the cultus of the Old Covenant was still continuing at the time when he wrote, not so much because as is shown by Heb 9:2 it was his intention to describe the primitive arrangement thereof (comp. Heb 8:5 ), which is the opinion of Bhme, Kuinoel, Stengel, and Tholuck, as, what is more naturally suggested by the coherence with Heb 8:13 , because the Old Covenant had already been declared by God in the time of Jeremiah to be feeble with age and nigh unto disappearing, and consequently now, after the actual appearance of the promised New Covenant, has no longer any valid claim to existence. Chrysostom: , , , . , , .
] now truly . Admission that that which the author is about to detail is indeed something relatively exalted. The antithesis, by which again this admission is deprived of its value and significance, is then introduced by Heb 9:6 (not first with Heb 9:11 , as is supposed by Piscator, Owen, Carpzov, Cramer, Stuart, Bloomfield, Bisping, Maier, M‘Caul, and others); yet in such wise that the material antithesis itself is first contained in the statement, Heb 9:8 , which is connected syntactically only as a parenthetic clause.
] also . Indication that with the Old Covenant the New is compared, and possessions of the former are enumerated, which also (although, it is true, in a more perfect form) are proper to the latter.
] legal ordinances [87] in regard to worship, i.e. regulations made by virtue of divine authority respecting the cultus.
] is genitive . To take the expression as accusative (Cameron, Grotius, Hammond, al .), according to which , , and would as three members be made co-ordinate with each other, is untenable; because the signification of in itself would be too extensive to fit in with the further development of Heb 9:1 , to which the author himself at once passes over, from Heb 9:2 onwards. For as the statement receives its more full explication by means of Heb 9:2-5 , so does the discourse in Heb 9:6-7 return to the unfolding of the twofold , blended as this is in a logical respect into a unity of idea.
] and the mundane sanctuary . Since, in accordance with the , possessions of the Old Covenant are to be mentioned, such as this has in common with the New, while to the New Covenant there pertains no mundane, earthly sanctuary,
must be regarded as a concise mode of designation for , , “and a sanctuary, namely the mundane.” That such is the meaning of the author, is indicated by the fact that the article is placed before this second member, although it ought properly to have been inserted before also. Yet the omission of the article in the case of adjectives placed after their substantives is not a thing unknown among other writers of the later period. See Bernhardy, Synt . p. 323; Winer, Gramm. , 7 Aufl. p. 126. Forced is the explanation of Delitzsch, with the adherence of Kurtz and Woerner, that as an adjectival predicate is to be taken in association with : “the first covenant had likewise , and its sanctuary as mundane, i.e. a sanctuary of mundane nature.” Had the author intended the readers to suppose such a conjoining, he would also equally as Heb 7:24 , Heb 5:14 have indicated the same to them by the position of the words. He must, in order to be understood, at least have written: . Under an entire misapprehension, further, does Hofmann ( Schriftbew . II. 1, p. 408 f., 2 Anfl.) suppose that is not to be taken as a second object attaching itself to the , but as a second subject joining itself on to , a construction which, upon the presupposition of the Recepta being the correct reading, already Olearius adopted (comp. Wolf ad loc .), and upon the same supposition also more recently M‘Caul maintained, in connection with which, however, would limp behind in an intolerable manner, and would afford evidence of a negligence of style, such as the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews would least of all have been guilty of.
The view of Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Zeger, Carpzov, and others, that is to be taken not in the local sense (sanctuary), but in the ethical sense (holiness, , sanctitas, mundities), is altogether erroneous; since the expression chosen would be a remarkable one, the immediate sequel does not point thereto, and the more exalted seat of the cultus of the New Covenant forms the theme of the fresh train of thought opened up with the beginning of chap. 8
Quite as much to be disapproved is the opinion of Wolf, who will have to mean “vasa sacra totumque apparatum Leviticum.”
] means: belonging to the world, worldly, mundanus . Comp. Tit 2:12 . The expression is equivalent to , and to it stands opposed, as in general in the N. T. very frequently has its tacit contrast in . is consequently nothing else than , (comp. Heb 8:2 ), or , (comp. Heb 9:11 ), or (Heb 9:24 ), and a twofold idea is expressed in the adjective, first, that the sanctuary of the Old Covenant is one existing in the terrestrial world, then, that it is accordingly something only temporary and imperfect in its nature. Remote from the connection are the suppositions of Chrysostom, Theophylact, Erasmus, and others: that the Jewish sanctuary was called , because the access to the same stood open to the , i.e. the Gentiles; a statement, moreover, which possesses historic truth only with reference to a part thereof, the court of the Gentiles (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud . v. 5. 2; Act 21:28 ), while here the sanctuary as a whole must be indicated; of Theodorus Mopsuesten., Theodoret, [88] Grotius, Hammond, Wetstein, Bhme, Paulus, and others: because the Jewish sanctuary symbolically represented the universe; the holy place, earth; the most holy, heaven; and the curtain before the latter, the firmament; of Kypke, because the sense is: toto terrarum orbe celebratum (comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud . iv. 5. 2, where the Jerusalem high priests, Ananus and Jesus, are represented as , ), which, however, could only be said with reference to the temple, not with reference to the tabernacle itself, of which the author is here specially thinking.
Entirely baseless, finally, is the opinion of Homberg, that is to be apprehended in the sense of “adorned, well-ordered.” For only , , and are used for the expression of this notion; never is put for it. See the Lexicons.
[87] Wrongly Stengel: “Means of justification.”
[88] , . , , . , . .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Heb 9:1-5 . Description of the arrangement of the O. T. sanctuary as regards its essential component parts.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
Heb 9:1-14 . The author has in chap. 8 insisted upon the fact, as a second main particular of the superiority of Christ as a high priest over the Levitical high priests, that the sanctuary in which He ministers is a more excellent one, namely, the heavenly sanctuary. He has made good this proposition by the consideration that no place would be found for Christ, as regards priestly service, in the earthly sanctuary; and then has proceeded to show the naturalness of the fact that He accomplishes His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, by the proof that He is the Mediator of a better covenant. This train of thought is still pursued in the beginning of chap. 9, in that attention is now finally called to the fact that in the arrangement of the Mosaic sanctuary itself, and the order of the priestly service corresponding thereto, there lies an indication on the part of God that Mosaism is not itself the perfect religion, but only an institution preparatory thereto (Heb 9:1-8 ). With this, however, is then connected, by means of one of those sudden transitions of which the author is so fond, the reference to the further truth, that, indeed, the Levitical sacrifices also, since they belong to the domain of fleshly ordinance, are not able really to atone; whereas the sacrifice presented by Christ, by means of His own blood, possesses, by virtue of an eternal Spirit, everlasting power of atonement (Heb 9:9-14 ), and thus a third main point in the high-priestly superiority of Christ is introduced , the development of which occupies the author as far as Heb 10:18 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
PART THIRD
Superiority of the New Covenant mediated by Jesus Christ
_________
FIRST SECTION
THE NEW COVENANT PRODUCES FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD, WHICH THE OLD ONLY FIGURATIVELY REPRESENTS AND PROMISES
______
I
The typical and symbolical character of the Mosaic sanctuary points in itself to but an imperfect communion with God
Heb 9:1-10
1Then verily [There belonged indeed now even to ] the first1 covenant had also [om. had also] ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary [its sanctuary as one belonging to this world]. 2For there was a tabernacle made [, constructed and fitted out, Heb 3:4]; the first [foremost], wherein was the candlestick, and the table, 3and the shewbread; which is called the [om. the] sanctuary. And after [, after =behind] the second vail, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all; 4Which had the golden censer [a golden altar of incense, ], and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aarons rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; 5And over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which [things] we cannot now speak particularly. 6Now when these things were thus ordained [And these things having been thus arranged], the priests went [enter indeed] always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God [their ministrations, ,]; 7But into the second went [enters] the high priest alone once every year [in, the year], not without blood, which he offered [offers] for himself, and for the errors of the people: 8The Holy Ghost this signifying [signifying this], that the way into the holiest of all [the sanctuary, ] was not [has not been] yet made manifest, while as [om. 9as] the first [foremost] tabernacle was [is] yet standing: Which was [is] a figure for the time then [om. then] present, in which [according to which, viz., figure]2 were [are] offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not [cannot] make him that did the service [him that renders the service, ] perfect, as pertaining to the 10conscience; Which stood only in [standing merely in connection with] meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances,3 imposed on them until the time of reformation.
[ , had indeed, to be sure, now. , as usual, links the coming discussion with, what precedes; the concessive intimates that the prerogatives here conceded to the Old Covenant, are to find by and by their limitations, as at Heb 9:6, or at Heb 9:11. The then verily of the Eng. ver. has no warrant either in the original or in the context. Alfords rendering now accordingly, is very little better. not, and a worldly sanctuary, but and its sanctuary, as one belonging to the world. It is difficult to take the words as= ., the, or its, worldly sanctuary. It is also hard here to take as purely predicative, via., its sanctuary a worldly one=the sanctuary which it had belonged to the world. Better, perhaps, to regard it as quasi predicative, as a sort of after thought=and its sanctuary, to wit, one belonging to the world.
Heb 9:2., was constructed, reared, established, not exactly, made, holy place, sanctuary, not, the sanctuary.
Heb 9:3., probably not censer, but altar of incense. (See below).
Heb 9:6. ., and these things having been thus arranged,the priests enter, etc. This construction is scarcely a solecism, as Alford calls it, but is, I think, perfectly good English, although being thus arranged, would here express nearly the same idea, and would give the sense with sufficient exactness., not went, but enter, as Heb 9:7., not offered, but offers, and so of other verbs in this passage. And the explanation is not that the author conceives of the whole system and arrangement as still subsisting, but simply employs the historical present, transporting himself back into the past, and indicating that the priestly and high-priestly entrances which he describes, followed upon the previously described arrangements. It seems extraordinary that this simple and obvious, and only natural explanation of the passage, should have been so generally lost sight of, and the author charged with ignorance and mistakes which in such a writer, to say nothing of his inspiration, are utterly inconceivable, and which are in fact purely factitious, being chargeable only on the failure of his critics to recognize a natural and elegant rhetorical usage. The idea that the author fancied that the sacred articles above described were found either in the then existing temple, or even in the temple of Solomon, is countenanced by nothing in the text. There is no good reason for supposing that his mind past beyond the Mosaic tabernacle, the original and proper symbol of the Old Covenant, whose grand leading features indeed were reproduced in the temple, of which, however, the author makes no mention.
Heb 9:7. , which he offers , on behalf of himself.
Heb 9:8., has been (not was) made manifest, the Perf. in keeping with the Pres. , and , and (Heb 9:9). ,the foremost tabernacle. , holding or retaining its standing, place, position.
Heb 9:9., as usual characteristic; as one which=quippe qu. (, understood), is a likeness, similitude, figure: supply is, not was (), because the whole construction is in the historical present. , for the present, or existing season, viz., not that of the time of the writer (as supposed by some), but that of the Old Economy of which and for which the outer tabernacle was a ; and the Part, keeps up the figure of the present time, as in the verb , etc. To make this . refer to the Messianic period, even with Alfords explanation, that it is not a figure of, but for the present time, is still to deprive it of nearly all its significance, and, when taken in connection with the following , is inextricably to confuse the whole passage. , according to which, scil. , figure, or emblem., are being offered in this present ante-Christian time into which the author has thrown himself back.
Heb 9:10. , only conditioned upon, or, as Moll, standing in connection with; hardly, with Alf. and Eng. ver., consisting in, or standing in, which could scarcely be affirmed of the gifts and sacrifices. They stood connected with them, or as it were conditioned upon them. , until the season of rectification., lying upon, as burdens.K.].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Heb 9:1. There belonged, indeed, now also to the first, etc.The , also or even, points to a parallel instituted between the Old and the New Covenant. intimates that, in accordance with the preceding representation, this actual result is to be recognized, that the concession here made of the excellencies of the Old Covenant [ , had to be sure, had, I grant] is to be followed by its limitations, which reduce these arrangements of the Old Covenant to their true value, and at Heb 9:6 ff. bring out the contrasted features of the New Covenant. The preterites and prove not that the destruction of the temple has as yet actually taken place, but refer, the former to the covenant which God Himself has made antiquated (, Heb 8:13), the other to that Mosaic sanctuary which stood connected with it, and was copied after the heavenly pattern. As the language has to do with arrangements for worship, the word , ordinances, needs a more precise limitation. Hence we are not, with Luth., Grot., etc., to take as Acc. plur., but as Gen. sing. The . are thus characterized as ordinances of divine worship, and are, by the particle , closely attached to . This word should not, therefore, with Luth., Carpz., and others, be taken in an ethical sense; but designates the sanctuary whose constituent parts are immediately recounted. Previously, however, it is more exactly characterized by the adj. , which either, according to later usage, is connected with the noun without the article (Bernhardy Synt., p. 323), or, since it is common to connect with a definite object, and a predicative adj. without the article (Madvig 12), and since this construction is also familiar to our author (Heb 5:14; Heb 7:23), gives predicatively the characteristic quality of the sanctuary in question. A comparison with Heb 9:11; Heb 9:24, shows that it stands in contrast with , and hence can mean only sculare (Vulg.), belonging to this world; not, accessible to the whole world, and thus even to the heathen (Chrys., Erasm., and others)which, in fact, was true of only a part of the sanctuary, the court of the Gentilesnor celebrated throughout the whole world (Kypke); nor adorned, decorated, well-furnished and arranged (Homberg); nor symbolizing the universe (as Theodor. Mops., Theodoret, Grot., and others).
Heb 9:2. For a tabernacle, etc.The author designates the two parts of the tabernacle, separated by a veil, the holy place, and the Holy of holies, as two tabernacles (Heb 9:2-3); hence , added to define the preceding general word , is here not temporal, but local, and the neut. plur. stands contrasted with the . It is erroneously taken by Erasm., Luth., and others, as fem. sing. . In the temple of Solomon there were ten candlesticks, 1Ki 7:49; 2Ch 4:7; in that of Herod, on the contrary (after Exo 25:31 ff; Exo 37:17 ff.), only one (Joseph. Bell. Jud., Heb 9:5; Heb 9:5; VII. 5, 5) of fine gold with seven branches, standing on the south side. On the north side stood the table of cedar-wood, overlaid with gold plates, two cubits long, one broad, one cubit and a-half high, with golden rings at its feet for two poles by which it was carried. On this table were the censers and the loaves of the presence (shew bread), i.e., twelve cakes of finest meal, each six palms long, five broad, and a finger in thickness, which lay supported on golden forks and cross-pieces, and were each week eaten by the priests. Our author appears to name, not the things themselves, but their sacred use, viz., , the setting forth of the loaves. Since the LXX., however, use this expression, 2Ch 13:11, for the translation of , the keeping up of the bread, we need not, with Bl., De W., and Ln., maintain against Thol., that the passive meaning is, perhaps, possible in Heb. and Lat. (strues), but not in Greek. Nor may we, with Grot., Beng., and others, assume a hypallage, nor a hendyadis with Valckenaer.
Heb 9:3. And behind the second veil.In this verse the author appears to commit an archological error in transferring to the inner sanctuary the altar of incense. For Joseph. (Bell. Jud., Heb 9:5; Heb 9:5) and Philo (Ed. Mang., I. 504) place the altar of incense (two cubits high, a cubit in length, and a cubit in breadth, and overlaid with gold), consisting of acacia wood (in the temple of Solomon of cedar wood, 1Ki 6:20), in the holy place between the candlestick and the table. The great importance of this springs from the fact that Exo 30:10, this, as well as at Exo 40:10, the altar of burnt offering, is designated by the name , and that, on the annual great day of atonement, this was purified by the high-priest with the same blood which he bore into the Holiest of all, Lev 16:18. Also it is called, Exo 40:5; Exo 40:24; Num 4:11, . It is hence inadmissible to suppose that our author has entirely omitted to mention this altar, and that may denote the censer (Pesh., Vulg., Theoph., Luth., Grot., Wets., Beng., Stier, Bisp., etc.). These expositors (including some profoundly versed in Heb. antiquities, as Reland, De Dieu, Braun, Deyling, J. D. Michael.) appeal, indeed, to the fact that the altar of incense is commonly called , while the censer on the other hand is called (Eze 8:11; 2Ch 26:19; Joseph. Antt. IHebrews Heb 9:2; Heb 9:4) . From this, however, we can draw no certain inference, as we can point out no constant and uniform mode of designating these utensils. The word appears in Joseph., Philo, Clem. Alex., Orig., as the common term for the altar of incense, and is even found several times as a various reading in the Sept. Besides, the golden censer is only mentioned in the ritual of the second temple, under the name of , but not in the Law, to which alone our author refers. There is only a shovel-formed basin mentioned Lev 16:12, with which the high-priest brought the coals from the altar of burnt offering, and this is called , , and is not spoken of as gold. Nor need we attach any weight to the fact that Joseph. (Bell. Jud. I. 7, 6; Antt. XIHebrews Heb 9:4; Heb 9:4), in enumerating the objects which Pompey saw in the sanctuary, mentions only the golden table and candlestick, the abundance of incense and the sacred presents, but not the altar; and (Bell. Jud., Heb 9:5; Heb 9:5) speaks only of the carrying away of the candlestick and table. For, however surprising it may be, that even on the triumphal arch of Titus are sculptured only the golden table, the candlesticks, and the vessels of incense, still all this proves nothing for our passage, in which the author is speaking of the divinely instituted arrangements of the tabernacle, not describing the later temple; for in this temple were found no longer, even in the time of Solomon (1Ki 8:6), the here mentioned pot of manna, the budding rod of Aaron, and, after the loss of the ark of the Covenant, its place was indicated in the temple of Herod only by a stone. Bleek, Ln., and others, therefore, assume, in explanation of the error which they charge upon our author regarding the position of the altar of incense, that, a stranger to Jerusalem, he has drawn his knowledge of the sanctuary of Israel only from the writings of the Old Testament, and has been led astray, 1, by Exo 26:35, where only table and candlestick are mentioned as furniture of the sanctuary; 2, by the indefinite and easily misunderstood statement regarding the position of the altar, Exo 30:6; Exo 40:5; Exo 40:26; Lev 4:7; Lev 16:12; Lev 16:18; Leviticus , 3, by the special distinguishing of the altar of incense at the great day of atonement. But it is scarcely conceivable, that in matters so generally known, and in a communication to the Hebrews so carefully elaborated, and so intrinsically important, the author should have allowed himself in so gross an error as that of placing the altar of incense behind the second veil (which was called in distinction from the first, the ). Add to this that the author would then have involved himself in contradiction with another well-known fact, and even with himself. For at Heb 9:7 he notices the fact that the high-priest went but once a year into the holiest of all. Must he, then, not have known that on the altar of incense the incense offering was daily made as symbol of prayer (Rev 8:3), not merely by the priests on whom the lot fell (Luk 1:9), but frequently by the high-priest himself? Most unquestionably, since Heb 9:6 he himself refers to this service of the priests. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that the author does not refer here to local position (for which he uses ) but that the part. , having, may probably denote the idea of belonging to, which in Heb. is denoted by . This explanation is, in fact, adopted by many of those interpreters, who, referring it, indeed, to the censer, yet suppose that this latter had its permanent place not in the Most Holy place, but in the utensil chamber (Theophyl., Grot., Beng., Menken, Stier, etc.), since, according to Lev 16:13, the precise purpose of the incense was to prevent the high-priest from beholding the Capporeth, and it seemed unnatural to suppose that the high-priest had let the incense-vessel remain over the whole year in the inner sanctuary, and then on the day of atonement should have exchanged it with the one recently brought from the utensil chamber of the temple; or that the high-priest should have brought in incense and coals in a golden vessel, and shaken these upon a special incense-vessel, which had its fixed place in the inner sanctuary (Peirce). Surrendering the local sense of (as we certainly must, Heb 9:1), it is assuredly more natural to refer the term to the far more important altar of incense; and we may point in confirmation to the fact, that not only Isa 6:6 introduces an altar belonging to the heavenly sanctuary, but that at 1Ki 6:22, the connection between the altar of incense and the holy of holies is expressed by the form = the altar belonging to the inner shrine, the adytum (Keil against Thenius: so also Ebr., Del., Riehm); so also according to Exo 30:6; Deut. 40:5, it would seem to have been placed over against the ark of the Covenant, and on the day of atonement to have been, like the Capporeth, sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice (Lev 16:18). The only ground of doubt would lie in the circumstance that the mention of the ark of the Covenant immediately follows (connected by ), and that this most unquestionably had its place (Exo 26:34) in the holiest of all. But we must not forget that though the ark of the Covenant was, indeed, brought (1 Kings 8) into the temple of Solomon, yet it perished in the destruction of that temple by the Chaldeans, so that the second temple had, in its most holy place, absolutely none of these articles, as Joseph. (Bell. Jud. Heb 9:5; Heb 9:5) expressly testifies ( ). This also confirms our belief that the purpose of the author is not to describe the holy localities and furniture of the second temple, but that these things are mentioned only in order to exhibit that which mirrored forth the peculiar nature and dignity, and especially the symbolical and typical character, of the Mosaic sanctuary. The assumption of Wieseler, that the temple at Leontopolis had precisely the arrangement here mentioned, and possessed sacred objects and utensils, modelled after the pattern of those here enumerated, is a hypothesis quite destitute of any historical proof.
In which was a golden pot, etc. refers not to (Justiniani, Pyle, Peirce), but to , and stands in contrast with . The same idea that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were kept in the ark of the Covenant itself, is found with later writers, who appeal to the authority of tradition (see Wetst.); and the expressions of Scripture make rather for than against it. The locality is indeed, Exo 16:33, left undetermined by the mere regulation that the pot shall be kept for a memorial before Jehovah. But it is said of it, Exo 9:34, and, Numb. 17:25, of the rod of Aaron, that they were placed before the testimony. This term, however, never denotes the ark, but often designates the law. Besides the tables of the law, such objects might perhaps well have their most fitting place in the sacred ark, as being essentially memorials and symbols of the miraculous interpositions of Divine grace (Ebr.), and not mere contrasts to those fruits and products of the earth which were daily or weekly presented in the sanctuary. In the sojourn of the ark among the Philistines, these objects, fraught indeed with religious significance, yet not belonging to the rites of worship, might have disappeared, since we are told, 1Ki 8:9, that on the removal of the ark into the temple of Solomon, it contained nothing but the two tables of the law.
Heb 9:5. The cherubim of glory.The article before , in Griesb. and Schultz, is, according to all the uncial MSS., to be expunged The Gen., however, serves here not to designate the glorious or splendid quality of the two symbolical figures, wrought massively out of fine gold, which occupied the two extremities of the cover of the ark of the Covenant, upon which, with faces turned toward each other, they looked down, and which they covered with their outspread wings. We must rather refer it to the , which also stands at 1Sa 4:22; Sir 49:8, without an article, because regarded as a proper name, and which was throned above the cherubim, 1Sa 4:4; 2Sa 6:2; 2Ki 19:15; Isa 37:16. But the throne of God is called, Eze 9:3; Eze 10:4; Eze 10:18-19, a throne of glory, . But from this throne of the sacred service God was pleased also to speak to Moses, Exo 25:22; Num 7:89. For the massive golden cover of the ark of the Covenant (which ark itself was overlaid within and without with plates of gold) had essentially the significance of a mediation between the ark of the Covenant and the God who was enthroned above it, 1Ch 28:2; Psa 99:5; Psa 132:7; Isa 66:1; Lam. Jer 2:1. Primarily it was the footstool of the throne, whose bearers or symbols are the cherubim, and which rests upon the covenant of the law. For equity and righteousness, as revealed in the law of God, form the pillars of this throne, Psa 89:15; Psa 97:2; whence also the sanctuary, and particularly the ark of the Covenant itself, is the throne of Jehovah, Exo 15:17; 1Ki 8:13. By the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering, however, the Capporeth becomes not so much the cover to that law which worketh the wrath of God (Hofm. after Hengst.), as a , propitiatory covering, Exo 25:16, and then a in general, according to Lev 16:15 ff. The idea of covering has transformed itself into that of expiation, i.e., covering of sin, whence also, 1Ch 28:11, the most holy place is called . While Josephus writes and , and Philo always , the LXX. fluctuate between the ordinary form of the neut. and the rarer one of the masc. The closing syllable also varies between , , , and . The neut. springs from the fact of their being regarded as , Eze 10:15. The , concerning which things, refers not (as Ebr.) merely to the cherubim.
Heb 9:6. Once in the year, etc.Since the high-priest, on the tenth day of the seventh month, Tisri, the day of atonement ( ), was obliged to go at least twice into the inner sanctuary, Lev 16:12 ff.; according to the Mishna tract., Joma Heb 9:1; vii. 4, four times,, once, is best understood of what took place once in a year, although consisting of several separate acts,a sense belonging to the words at 3 Macc. 11:1; Joseph. Bell. Jud. Heb 9:5; Heb 9:7. To this view we are also led by the following verses. For with the blood of the heifer the high-priest made expiation for his own sin; with the blood of the goat expiation for the sins of the congregation; and this distinction is here made, and this rightly so, that the sins are called ; see at Heb 5:2. The accomplishment of this twofold expiation required, however, a twofold entrance into the inner sanctuary, both of which principal acts were preceded by an entrance with a dish of coals and a censer of incense, and followed by a fourth after the evening sacrifice for the bringing out of these utensils. In accordance with his hypothesis, Wieseler connects the words not without blood, etc., closely with the leading clause; which produces, however, an entirely false contrast with Heb 9:6. Nor are we necessarily to infer from the Perf. Part. to be referred, at all events, to Heb 9:2that the author regards the two grand divisions of the Mosaic sanctuary, together with their contents, as also still existing in the Jewish temple of his time (Ln.), nor do the present tenses, and , of themselves lead necessarily to the conclusion that the author wrote before the destruction of the temple. We need only suppose that this form of expression in its connection with the context implies that the legal worship was still in existence, and that on the basis of the old Mosaic arrangements, reaching down into the time of the author, while the preservation or loss of certain vessels or utensils of the service is a matter of as profound indifference as the replacing of the tabernacle by the temple of Solomon, and the differences in this before and after the exile.
Blood which he offers, etc.The expression, , Lev 1:5; Lev 7:33; Eze 44:7; Eze 44:15, points to the sprinkling (), which was made once upwards, and seven times downwards, towards the Capporeth. This was followed by the , besmearing of the horns of the altar of incense with the mingled blood of the heifer and goat, with which the altar itself was seven times sprinkled; then the (, Pouring out on the altar of burnt offering. The slaughter () connected with the laying on of the hand () merely rendered possible the offering of the blood; but this, in that it was the means of expiation, rendered possible that presentation of the gift upon the altar, or offering (), which was acceptable to God. On the strength of this blood-accomplished expiation, the priests could, throughout the year, present in the sanctuary the daily and weekly offerings. The absence of the article before proves that this word is not (with the Vulg., Luth., Calv., Grot., and others) to be made dependent on .
Heb 9:8. The Holy Spirit showing this, etc.The refers to the following Acc. with Inf., and is used here of prophecy by act or symbol, while at Heb 12:27; 1Pe 1:11, it is used of prophetic foreshowing by word (Heb 9:12). The , too, refers not to persons (Peshito, Schultz), but to the true sanctuary (Heb 10:19). The Gen. stands, as Jer 2:18, , and Mat 10:5, , of the end or goal of the way. designates here not the first Jewish sanctuaryfirst in time (as Grot., Carpz., Beng., Bhme, etc.), but the first or forward tabernacle, in contrast with that behind it (the second, Heb 9:7).
Heb 9:9. Which is an image for the time, etc.Erasm., Beng., etc., refer in the sense of to the entire preceding clause, and explain the fem. by the attraction of : the thus becomes the time in which the author wrote; and the circumstance that the outer and the inner sanctuary stood separated beside and distinct from each other, is regarded as an image of that time in which the yet undestroyed Theocracy of Israel forms, as it were, the outer space and locality for the Christianity which has sprung up within its bosom. The same view is shared by Boehme and Klee, yet with the difference that they connect with , and make it, as such, the subject of the clause=which figure or symbol applies to the present time. De W. adheres to the latter construction, but=with most intpp., explains the . . of the antechristian period extending down into the present, thus= , Gal 1:4. Granting the possibility of this meaning of the phrase (which Del. on insufficient grounds controverts), it is still more natural to refer to , not to (Chr. F. Schmid), nor by any means to (Cramer). For if the author has previously designated the Holy of holies as , likeness, emblem (Luth., erroneously, type), of the Christian economy, why should not he now designate the holy place as an emblem of the Jewish economy, especially as it is his precise purpose to state in how far Judaism, as a merely intermediate system, appeared precisely represented by the sanctuary? (Thol. against De Wette). In still closer correspondence with the mere words, indeed, we might (with Del. and Alf., after John Damasc. and Primas.) refer the . to the present time, as commencing with the inauguration of the New Covenant, and interpret it of the , and either with Carpz., Hermann and others, translate clear down to the present time [or, with Alf., render for, in reference to, the present time].4 But this is forbidden by the context (Riehm, Reiche, Ln.), inasmuch as the , Heb 9:10, or the time of restoration and rectification appointed of God, is here evidently the Christian period of the worlds history, and with it stands contrasted the , whose emblem is the outer sanctuary, separated from the All-holy by a veil, and in accordance with which figure or there exist, of course, only external and merely ceremonial institutions for securing perfection. Lnemann less fittingly refers the to . [There can be no doubt that in the first place, is here, as at Heb 9:2, the first in place, the foremost, tabernacle, as distinguished from the second one, the Holy of holies. In the second place, , with the author, refers properly to , and marks the as a proper symbol and emblem of Judaism, which it precisely was. The foremost tabernacle or sanctuary was cut off from the second by a veil, which none could pass but the high-priest alone, and he only once a year, and for but the briefest stay within. The first tabernacle, therefore, stood there confronting, and indeed formed by, that awful veil, and the dread Holy Presence behind it, as a standing reminder to priests and people of their separation from God; that the way into the most holy place was not yet made manifest, and of course that the Jewish ritual, in connection with which they stood, was utterly unable to secure true forgiveness, and bring in the needed perfection. That foremost tabernacle, then, was the emblem and figure of Judaism. In the third place, the refers decidedly (as against Del. and Alf.) not to the now present time of the writer, the time of fulfilment and completion, but to the antechristian period, the era of Judaism, in reference to which and for which this outer tabernacle stood as an emblem. Nor need we, with many, and apparently Moll, suppose this time to be represented as extending down to the present, and thus explain the . Like all the tenses of the passage in this connection, it stands of the past conceived as present, the author throwing himself back in the whole representation into the past, although I would not deny the justice of the view that perhaps the author the more readily adopted this figure because the Jewish sacrifices had even yet a lingering existence: though I see no necessity for this. Thus this outer tabernacle is a , an emblem of the imperfect character of Judaism for the existing time, etc.K.].
To render perfect as to the conscience, etc.The idea of (E. V., conscience), is more comprehensive on the one hand than that of conscience, on the other than that of internal consciousness. The word designates the inmost conviction of our moral self-consciousness, so that Heb 10:2, we can have the words , and 1Pe 2:19, . The words thus refer not merely to the quieting of an accusing conscience (Theodoret, Calov, etc.), and not merely to the moral perfection of the consciousness (Schultz, Bl., De W.), but to the fact that the worshipper could not by the presentation of his offerings, attain his end in a way that met the demands of his moral and religious self-consciousness, could not, that is to say, attain to .
Heb 9:10. Purely in connection with meats, etc. designates not the objects for the sake of which the offerings are to be brought (Schlicht., Limb., etc.), or in respect of which a Levitical perfection actually takes place, as an outward and provisional means of justification. For is to be connected neither with (Schlicht., Ebr.), nor with (Luth., Este, etc.), but with , which stands parallel with , and as, along with this participle, it refers to , might on account of the intervening clauses, be easily changed to the neuter. It is by no means to be referred, with the Vulg., to , being thus taken=. Nor with the amended text is it either necessary or proper to take as apposition to , and refer to this latter word (Ln.). can, to be sure, express the adding or accession of something to something else, or outward neighborhood or proximity. But meats and drinks are notas neither are ordinances regarding foodequivalent to forbidden meats. Quite as little does the term refer to sacrificial feasts (Peirce, Storr, Heinr., etc.), or to the Paschal supper (Bl., De W.). For are not means of justification, but ordinances, and precisely such, and referring to the flesh, are the of the Old Testament. with the dat. signifies commonly the foundation on which, and at the same time, the circumstances connected with which, any thing is done. The Gen. may also denote that the things bear in themselves the nature of the trap . We should here refer the term to the historical superficiality and perishableness of these legal institutions (Heb 7:16), but that the connection indicates the Gen. as referring here not to the quality, but to that which is the object of the ordinances, as 1Sa 8:9; 1Sa 8:11; 1Sa 10:25, denotes the Divine ordinance regarding the king.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. From the fact that God Himself has declared the Old Covenant incapable of attaining its purpose of salvation, and doomed it to abrogation, it still does not follow that its peculiar ordinances of Divine worship were therefore valueless. Nor, on the other hand, does the fact that they owe their origin to Divine revelation, and hence have an authority transcending that of any mere human arrangements, prove that they are binding upon the subjects of the New Covenant, or put them on the same level with its institutions of grace. They have rather, in accordance with the character of the Old Covenant, partly a typical and symbolical nature, partly a pedagogical and disciplinary significance, and as such possessed a high value.
2. With all the glory evinced in the furnishing of the Holy place and the Holy of holies, and with all the sacredness and majesty of the acts of religious service which transpired within them, still the entire arrangement of the vessels of the service, the separation of the outer from the inner sanctuary by the veil which concealed the latter, the distinction of people, priests and high-priests, the nature of the sacred acts which each separate class was characteristically to perform, their ritual and ceremonial character, incontrovertibly show that reconciliation with God and the dwelling of God with His people, here existed only in mere representation, promise, and symbolical expression.
3. This relation of the Old Testament sanctuary and worship as a type and emblem, to the actual communion of redeemed men with the holy God in the time of the real and actual restablishment of right relations, is no arbitrary one, but is prophetically announced and made known by the Holy Spirit Himself. In this lies the Scriptural ground and justification of a historical treatment which seeks the typical reference in the symbols of the Old Covenant itself. Still the principle must be judiciously and cautiously applied.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
We need no longer seek the way to the heavenly sanctuary as if it were unknown, and may not complain, as if it were closed to us; rather we can and should walk on the way which has been opened to us.What the Holy Spirit has instituted and produced, can only through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, be rightly understood and treated.No outward splendor of religious worship can make good the absence of true communion with God.By its employment in the service of God even the earthly and the outward comes into relation to the eternal, and stands connected with the inner life of man.Nature, value, and use of the means supplied by Divine worship for our spiritual well being.
Starke:No service of God can be without ceremonies; but that is the most excellent which has cast off external parade and has the most of the power of the Spirit.If the Lords house on earth has been glorious, much more is that above in heaven.If every Christian is under obligation to serve God publicly in His temple, much more must preachers be always at hand when the public worship of God is celebrated.Heaven stands open; but the place is holy; nothing common and impure will be admitted, Rev 21:27.Preachers bear their treasure in earthen vessels; they too are sinners, and must, like others, seek the cleansing away of their sins.The outward worship of God is nothing without the inward; it then becomes only sin to him who renders the service, and ministers condemnation rather than salvation.Under the New Covenant we may, without violating the conscience, eat and drink that which contributes to our enjoyment; only with moderation and thanksgiving, Col 2:16; 1Ti 4:3.Outward and bodily washing and cleansing stand in no proper relation to Divine worship. But as neatness and cleanliness are always becoming and attractive, it behooves us also to appear before and serve God in outward purity, 1Ti 2:9.The outward chastening of the body is but a miserable service of God; but to crucify the flesh with its lusts and desires, is pleasing to God, 1Co 4:8; Gal 5:24.
Rieger:The higher blessing bestowed on our age is to be sought not in doing away but in fulfilling the commandments.
Heubner:A survey of the institutions of the Old Testament is not without utility to the Christian; it shows him the prerogatives which he possesses, viz., no longer merely the shadow, but real, essential blessings.The whole ancient world is crying out after a Reconciler; the modern world will not have Him.In Christianity lies the germ of the general improvement and perfection of the entire condition of humanity.The tranquillizing of the conscience is the end of all sacrifices. The more the conscience was awakened, the less could sacrifices appease and satisfy it.
Footnotes:
[1]Heb 9:1.The word of the lect. rec. is, according to all authorities, to be stricken out, and is not, with Peirce, Wetst., Seml., to be understood. The capital thought is , covenant [and this as, in Eng. ver., is clearly to be supplied in thought with ].
[2]Heb 9:9.For the Rec. , we are, with Sin. A. B. D*., 17, 23*, 27, to read [referring to ].
[3]Heb 9:10.For the Rec. , the reading was approved by Grot., Mill and Beng., recommended by Griesb., and by all recent editors is received into the text. The is wanting in Sin. A. D*., 6, 17, 27, 31, and , is found in Sin. A. B. and ten minusc., the sing. in D*.
[4][So I fill out the apparently imperfect sentence of the original.K.].
[5]Heb 9:11.Lachmanns reading instead of is not sufficiently vouched for by B. D*., although followed by Chrys., cum., Ital. Pesh. Philox.
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
CONTENTS
We have in this Chapter some Account of the Furniture of the Old Tabernacle in the Wilderness. To this succeeds a most blessed Account of Christ, whom the Holy Ghost meant to prefigure by this worldly Sanctuary.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
(1) Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. (2) For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread; which is called the sanctuary. (3) And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all; (4) Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid roundabout with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; (5) And over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.
How gracious was it in God the Holy Ghost, to give the Church an account, as he hath here done, of the furniture of the tabernacle and so blessedly explained the subject, as he hath hereafter done in this chapter, in relation to Christ. Oh! the goodness and condescension of God the Spirit! Truly was it said, by our dear Lord, concerning him, when teaching his disciples to be on the lookout for his coming after Christ’s departure, he shall not speak of himself, And where do we find the blessed Spirit speaking of himself? But he shall glorify me, said Jesus. And, oh! Reader, how doth the Holy Ghost indeed glorify my Lord to my poor soul, when Ha shews me more and more the plague of my own heart; and that there is none in heaven or earth that can bring a remedy for it, but the Lord Jesus Christ Joh 16:13-14 . I do hope, before we close this Chapter, both, the Writer and Reader (if it be the Lord’s holy will) may find cause to raise a renewed monument of praise to the Holy Spirit, for what He hath here revealed of all-precious Jesus!
I desire the Reader, one by one, to observe the several articles here enumerated, in what belonged to what is called the first covenant. All were costly. And as all was of God’s own appointment in divine service, and yet were but typical and preparatory to the Gospel Church of Christ, they serve the more to shew of what vast importance in God’s sight must have been, and still is, that glorious dispensation by Christ, which was thus set forth with such a world of attention? The first court, which was called the holy place, and used in daily service, contained the candlestick, to intimate, perhaps, that as the light there shining communicates brightness around, so Christ, in his Church, is the sole light of his Church. The table, which is said to have been made of Shittim-wood, Exo 25:10 , and which was not liable to be worm-eaten, was perhaps typical of the incorruptible nature of Christ’s humanity, which, though subject to death, as the sacrifice for sin, yet not to corruption, Psa 16 . And as a table is a place of fellowship in families, where the several members partake of the same viands, it is probable that the Holy Ghost might intend to convey, by this representation, the communion and fellowship Christ and his members have with each other. All these were, in what was called the sanctuary, or holy place, to distinguish it both from the world without, and the Holy of Holies within. Here was performed all the ordinary service of the priests, in their daily ministration. Christ must be the daily light, and life, and food, and communion of his people. To Him do all his redeemed; whom he hath made kings and priests to the Father, duly come, and by him offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to his name, Heb 13:15 .
By the second vail is meant within the vail, for there was but one veil in the sanctuary, Exo 26:33 , and which was rent in the moment of Christ’s death, to imply that all intervening obstructions, which kept the people of God from the Lord, was now done away by that death. Jesus had then removed forever the vail spread over all nations, Isa 25:6-8 ; Col 2:14 . Hence the call to draw nigh, Heb 10:19-23 . The furniture within this vail, which was called the holy of holies, was, no doubt, highly significant also; but, as the Apostle’s speaking of those things in full declared that he could not now speak particularly, so may we. That they were all typical, seems to be without all doubt, for the law itself was a shadow of good things to come. But there is a certain obscurity thrown over such things as are not immediately necessary to be known, for wise and good purposes. We can, and do, through divine teaching, behold the figure of Christ, in the golden Censer: see Rev 8:3-4 . and in the Ark also, there could be no other than Christ intended, who is to all his elect as the Ark was to Noah, into which the Patriarch entered by faith, Heb 11:7 . The Pot that had manna, which in its nature is so perishing, and yet so wonderfully preserved by this means, very strongly, and aptly represented Christ, preserving our nature. And the Rod that budded, pointed to Him, who is Jehovah’s rod of strength, and the everlasting bud, blossom, and fruit of Jehovah’s eternal love, to all his people forever, Psa 110:2 . The tables of the Covenant, perhaps had an allusion to God’s New Testament dispensation, when God promised to write them in the living tables of the heart of his people, Heb 8:10 ; 2Co 3:3 . And the Cherubim of glory, could mean no other than what from the first, at the gate of Eden, represented the glorious Persons in Jehovah. Through all the word of God it is plain, the Cherubim could have allusion to none but the Lord. Reader! think with what a vast preparation the Gospel of Christ hath been ushered in, and how infinitely important, therefore, it must be? Oh! for grace, to contemplate more and more, the Person of the Lord Jesus, in, whom all centre, and who is the sum and substance of all!
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
On Modernising Christianity
Heb 9:10
While in a very real sense Christianity was a new religion in the days of St Paul, in another, following his suggestion, it was a corrective, a revision and a modernisation of the old. The centuries have moved onward and our faith is no longer young. There are those among us who think that Christianity is now over-antiquated, that she is too old-fashioned, and that possibly there ought to be done for her what she in her youth did for the Jewish religion and for the cults of the pagan world. How far, then, and in what particulars is the Church bound to respect the time-spirit? Or, to phrase it differently, in what ways and within what restrictions is the modernising process allowable?
I. What are the changes needed? (1) Christianity should modernise her speech. Now, as on the day of Pentecost, every man has the right to hear the Gospel in the current language of the day, and the folly of talking in an unknown tongue is as pronounced now as when St Paul condemned it. (2) Christianity, likewise, should modernise her thought I do not say that she should abandon it, corrupt it, hide it, or in any way betray it. She can preserve it practically intact, and yet by rendering it less antiquated commend it to the time-spirit of the twentieth century. (3) Christianity ought further to modernise her activities. ‘New occasions teach new duties,’ and she, with open eyes for the vision, should not hesitate to employ whatever legitimate weapons are within her reach.
II. Let me point out some restrictions, some limitations, which may guard us from the excesses and from the extravagances that scandalise and vitiate the movement we are commending. (1) Christianity must be careful not so to modernise herself as to obscure her distinctive character. She is of the heavens, heavenly, and has no business to become earthy. It is no more necessary to be untrue to herself than it is for a man to be false to his deepest convictions. (2) Christianity, while preserving her character, must be mindful not so to modernise herself as to conceal her essential message. St. Paul gloried in the cross; and it will be a bitter day for humanity when the Church shall hide it, apologise for it, and explain away its only possible meaning as though it were her shame. (3) Christianity, finally, must be heedful not so to modernise herself as to becloud her supreme object That the Church should strive for social amelioration, that she should do her utmost to improve temporal conditions, and that she should antagonise each specific evil and wrong of the time is cheerfully conceded. But she has a programme of her own. Her theory is: Cleanse the sources and the river will be pure; maintain the power in the power-house and traffic will keep on the move; supply and fill the reservoir and the homes of the citizens will not lack for water. This is her supreme object.
G. C. Lorimer, The Modern Crisis in Religion, p. 13.
References. IX. 10. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. p. 46; ibid. (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 398. IX. 11. H. Alford, Sermons on Christian Doctrine, p. 193.
Our Lord’s Sacrifice
Heb 9:11-12
I. The idea of sacrifice is almost co-extensive with the idea of God. The universality of the sacrificial idea can only be accounted for either by some primeval revelation from God, or by the fact that God, who endowed man with the religious instinct, implanted in him the notion of sacrifice.
Before the Fall, when man’s conscience was unclouded by sin, sacrifice was the expression of love alone. Now that man’s heart is stained by sin, sacrifice is the expression of penitence, and yet still of love; for all true penitence is the utterance of love, telling God of sorrow, not for what the penitent has lost, not for the punishment incurred, but of that sorrow which is the expression of love in the presence of sin.
Sacrifice consists of an inward and an outward part, of which, while the inward may be the more important, the outward is absolutely necessary to perfect the sacrifice. True sacrifices are those inward feelings of love and obedience which form the very foundation of religion; but those feelings are not in themselves proper sacrifices: in order that they may become so, they must find some external means of expression. A true sacrifice is one in which the religion of the heart is expressed by some outward symbol or rite acceptable to God.
In our Lord Jesus Christ the inward part was present from the first moment of His incarnate life (Heb 10:9 ). It was the life of perfect love and unwavering obedience, which, as the inward part, found its outward expression in the death upon the cross, and made our Lord’s a proper sacrifice ‘a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world’.
II. In the Epistle to the Hebrews our Lord’s sacrifice upon the cross is compared with the sacrifices under the Jewish law. Let us observe how perfectly our Lord fulfilled the sacrificial types, and where His sacrifice differs both from the Jewish sacrifices and the ritual of the Day of Atonement.
(a) There was the presentation of the victim by the offerer (Lev 1:3 ). Two points here demand attention: the offering was to be without blemish, and it was to be a voluntary offering (Heb 9:14 ). It was, then, a voluntary offering; and the act of presentation may be referred either to our Lord’s high-priestly prayer (John XVII.), or to that prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mar 14:26 ); or we may consider both these actions to belong to the presentation of the victim.
(b) The second stage in the offering of the Jewish sacrifice was the identification of the victim with the offerer (Lev 1:4 ). By this action the offerer expressed his desire that the offering should be accepted in his place. The victim, however, was only a symbolic substitute for the offerer; but our Lord was, in the truest sense, representative of the human race. The sacrificial offering offered by Christ is a real and equivalent substitute for all mankind, on whose behalf it is sacrificed.
(c) Then came the effusion of the blood. The offerer himself slew the victim. The priest took the blood and sprinkled it (Lev 4:5-7 ). The blood of each sin-offering was sprinkled against the veil, and symbolised the separation which sin had caused between God and man that there was no free access to God. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin, and so the blood was sprinkled, but the veil remained unmoved. The precious blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin, so when it was sprinkled the veil of the Temple was rent in twain, signifying that the barrier between God and man was removed, and access to God secured through the precious Blood of Christ.
(d) There was the burning upon the altar of certain parts of the victim, which thus went up as a sweet savour to God. And so our Lord (Eph 5:2 ).
(e) There was a feast upon the sacrifice, and this is fulfilled by our Lord’s gift of His Holy Body and Blood to be our food in the Eucharist. There we feast upon the Christian sacrifice.
III. Holy Scripture teaches to associate the idea of life with the blood, and therefore forbade the Jews ever to eat blood (Lev 17:10-11 ). So that, as all sacrifice pointed to our Lord’s sacrifice, this injunction pointed to the fact that it was the precious Blood which was to make atonement for sin, which was to redeem the world.
By this inauguration of the new dispensation, a new and living way is opened to the Throne of God, opened by the precious Blood. From that Blood each baptism gains its efficacy, from it each absolution derives its power; the precious Blood of Christ the means of redemption, applied to our souls through the Sacraments of the Church.
A. G. Mortimer, Lenten Preaching.
The Priesthood of Christ
Heb 9:11-12
The priestly work of the Lord Jesus is the glorious theme of our text, but more especially the superiority of His Priesthood over that of Aaron. Four points of superiority are alluded to in the text Superiority of the Person, the Place, the Plea, the Privileges.
I. The Superiority of the Person. The allusion in the text is to the high priest and to his work, especially on the Great Day of Atonement The Levitical law made high priests of those who had infirmities, moral defects. Hence the high priest had to observe manifold and solemn rites of purification before he entered on the duties of the Great Day of Atonement All these rites indicated his natural unfitness for the duties of his holy office. But Christ our High Priest had no need of ceremonial cleansing: He was clean already.
II. The Superiority of the Place where our High Priest Officiates. ‘A greater and more perfect tabernacle.” (1) ‘Greater.’ The figures of our arithmetic fail to describe its vastness. There will be as much room for the inhabitants to roam without colliding as there is in space for the stars to wander. (2) Not only greater but also a ‘more perfect’ tabernacle. No human art helped to build the tabernacle where our High Priest sits enthroned: no angel hand ever put a stone into it. The Builder and Maker is God.
III. The Plea of our High Priest is Superior to that of the Aaronic Priesthood. ‘Not the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood.’ One man is of more value than all animals, but this was the blood of the God-man.
IV. Under Christ we have Superior Privileges. He is ‘the High Priest of good things to come’. (1) The things under the law were only shadows: the good things under the Gospel are substantial and enduring. (2) Immediate access to God is one of the good things brought to us by Christ. (3) Christ hath obtained eternal redemption eternal freedom. Freedom from what? (a) Freedom from the ceremonial law with all its burdensome and costly rites. (b) Christ hath obtained for us eternal freedom from sin.
Richard Roberts, My Closing Ministry, p. 224.
References. IX. 11, 12. Expositor (4th Series), vol. ii. p. 280; ibid. (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 225. IX. 11-14. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. i. p. 148. G. Body, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlix. p. 185, and vol. lix. p. 192. A. Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture Hebrews, p. 72. IX. 12. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxv. No. 2076. Expositor (6th Series), vol. x. p. 444; ibid. (7th Series), vol. v. p. 390. IX. 13, 14. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxv. No. 1481, and vol. xxxi. No. 1846.
Heb 9:14
We know not the truth of humanity we know only its perversions while we are living the life of self and enmity and are as gods to ourselves. What it is to be a man, what we possess in humanity, we never know until we see humanity in Him who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God.
McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement (pp. 147, 148).
Heb 9:14
‘We know,’ says Faber, ‘that the service of God is the grand thing, or rather that it is the only thing about us which is great at all.’
References. IX. 14. Bishop Alexander, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xlviii. p. 134. W. M. Clow, The Cross in Christian Experience, p. 206. Walter Lock, The Guardian, 27th January, 1911. Expositor (4th Series), vol. i. pp. 34, 442; ibid. vol. ii. pp. 138-142; ibid. (5th Series), vol. ix. p. 405. IX. 16. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. i. p. 34. IX. 15-28. Ibid. p. 351. IX. 16. Ibid. (5th Series), vol. vii. p. 373. IX. 20. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi. No. 1567.
Gethsemane, the Rose Garden of God
Heb 9:22
I do not use the complete sentence. It is true even upon the lowest plane that without shedding of blood there is nothing, no mighty result, no achievement, no triumph. Every worthy deed costs something; no high thing can be done easily. No great thing can be accomplished without the shedding of blood. Life is just our chance of making this great and strange discovery. Many of us never make it. We begin by trifling, by working with a fraction of our strength. We soon see that nothing comes of that. At last, if we are wise, we see that all the strength is needed. What have we besides this? We must disrobe ourselves. We do it; yet our object remains ungained. What more have we to give? We have our blood. So at last the blood is shed, the life is parted with, and the goal is reached. We are happy if we know that everything noble and enduring in this world is accomplished by the shedding of blood, not merely the concentration of the heart and soul and mind on one object, but the pruning and even the maiming of life. Young men are being taught this lesson now, and unless all signs are false they will be taught it more sternly in the future.
I. Blessing comes from blood-shedding; that is, our power to bless in the highest sense comes from our shedding, as it were, great drops of blood. We need not shed them literally, though the Church has justly placed the martyrs first. The Church of Rome never prays for the martyrs, but makes request for their prayers. The martyrs it sees before Christ in robes of crimson, and the saints in white. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church. We cannot atone, but we can bless. We cannot have a share in the one perfect Oblation, the Evening Sacrifice of the world, but we fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ. Of every great servant of Christ it is true that the Lord says, ‘I will show him how great things he must suffer for My Name’s sake’. It would not be right to say that it is the suffering that counts, and not the labour. What is true is that the labour without the suffering does not count, that the two in a fruitful life are indissolubly joined. We are familiar with the great passages in which the Apostle is driven to use the awful language of the Passion, where he says, ‘I am crucified with Christ, I die daily’. And it is true that all along the way there are sacrifice and blood-shedding. But I believe it is equally true that there is but one great Gethsemane in the lives of Christ’s blessed servants. Many have none, and their work comes to little, but the elect have one that stands above all, one shedding of blood, one death, after which the rest seems easy. The Gethsemane may be, and often is, the rooting out of some cherished ambition that has filled the heart and occupied every thought. It may be the shattering of some song, the breaking of some dream. It may be, and often is, the great rending of the affections, the cutting of the soul free from some detaining human tenderness. Anyhow, the full agony cannot last more than a little, though the heartache may persist through a lifetime. ‘Could ye not watch with Me one hour? ‘ I sometimes think that blood-sheddings are far more common than we are apt to imagine, and that they take place in the most unlikely lives. In the memoir of Dr. Raleigh, a prosperous suburban minister with every earthly ambition realised, there is a significant passage. When he was at the zenith of his fame he said that ministers came and looked round at his crowded church, and envied his position. ‘They do not know what it cost me to come to this.’ So, in James Hamilton’s life, we are permitted to see how he parted, for Christ’s sake, with his great ambition. He wished to write a life of Erasmus, and devoted many years to preparation, but other claims came and baulked him of his long desire. He says: ‘So this day, with a certain touch of tenderness, I restored the eleven tall folios to the shelf, and tied up my memoranda, and took leave of a project which has sometimes cheered the hours of exhaustion, and the mere thought of which has always been enough to overcome my natural indolence. It is well. It was a chance, the only one I ever had, of attaining a small measure of literary distinction, and where there is so much pride and haughtiness of heart it is better to remain unknown.’ I think we may easily see where the Gethsemane was in Henry Martvn’s life, and I think one may also see it in John Wesley’s life, though I should not care to indicate it. But the heart knoweth its own bitterness. What we know is that the Gethsemanes in the Christian life come in the course of duty, and in obedience to God’s will as it is revealed from day to day.
II. The bloom and perfection of life to the missionary come from the shedding of blood. Observe that I am not speaking here of the blessing to others, but of the blessing that is meant to come to ourselves in the great enrichment of the spiritual life that should follow, and abundantly make up for, the impoverishment and expenditure of the natural life. What comes after the parting with the natural life, after the shedding of blood, after the death to the world? Various things come, but what ought to come is the resurrection life, which the shedding of blood has made room for.
It does not always come even to the servants of God whose lives are faithful. Their work is fruitful, never without result, but they themselves have not the full blessing of the resurrection life.
(1) Often the Gethsemane of the soul means a brief tarrying in this world. It seems as if too much had gone, as if the spirit could not recover its energies. There are a few books peculiarly dear to the heart of the Church which I may call Gethsemane books. The chief are the lives of Brainerd, Martyn, and McCheyne. All of these died young, not without signs of the Divine blessing, but prematurely rich and fervid natures exhausted and burnt out I do not overlook physical causes and reasons, but in each case there was a Gethsemane.
(2) Sometimes the earthly life parted with is not fully replaced by the resurrection life, and a long drawn melancholy ensues. It is so, I venture to think, in the life of Charles Wesley. It will be granted by the most ardent admirers of that great saint and supreme Christian poet that the last thirty years of his life will not compare with those of his mighty, strenuous, ardent youth. They were sad years in the main, spent in comparative inaction, and with many weary, listless, discontented days. The text of Charles Wesley’s later years, the text that must ever be associated with his name, was, ‘I will bring the third part through the fire’. He thought that one third part of Methodists would endure to the end. He never sought an abundant entrance for himself into the heavenly kingdom, never asked more than that ‘I may escape safe to land on a broken piece of the ship. This is my daily and hourly prayer, that I may escape safe to land.’ Our Gethsemanes are not meant to end in gloom and melancholy. They are meant to give us, by the grace of God, a richer, even an eternal life in the place of that which we have lost. Our sufferings must be well used, for ‘in this mortal journey wasted shade is worse than wasted sunshine’.
(3) No, the bloom of life should come out of death. The resurrection life should pour into the depleted veins, and fill them with strength and peace. That was eminently the experience of John Wesley. Branch after branch was withered, but every time the new life rushed through all the arid fibres, and they bloomed again. There is no book, I humbly think, in all the world like John Wesley’s Journal. It is pre-eminently the book of the resurrection life lived in this world. It has very few companions. Indeed, it stands out solitary in all Christian literature, clear, detached, columnar. It is a tree that is ever green before the Lord.
When the world has become one great Gethsemane, we shall see over it all the flowers that grow, and grow only, in the garden where Christ’s brow dropped blood. The Church of Christ must be in an agony, praying more earnestly, sweating, as it were, great drops of blood, before the world can be brought to Christ. We give nothing, until we give what it costs us to give, life. There is no life without death. Gethsemane is the rose garden of God.
W. Robertson Nicoll, The Lamp of Sacrifice, p. 55.
References. IX. 22. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Sunday Sermonettes for a Year, p. 134. M. Biggs, Practical Sermons on Old Testament Subjects, p. 43. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. iii. No. 118, and vol. li. No. 2951. Expositor (6th Series), vol. vi. p. 462. IX. 23. Bishop Bickersteth, Sermons, p. 182. IX. 24. J. B. Mozley, University Sermons, p. 277.
Heb 9:26
No fact in man’s moral history is more certain than this, that the simple statement of Scripture, ‘Christ has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,’ has been found efficacious to reach down to the lowest depths of men’s souls beyond any other truth ever uttered on this earth.
J. C. Shairp, Studies in Poetry and Philosophy, pp. 419, 420.
References. IX. 26. S. Bentley, Pariah Sermons, p. 100. E. A. Stuart, The One Mediator and other Sermons, vol. xi. p. 201. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii. No. 759, vol. xvi. Nos. 911, 962, and vol. xxxviii. No. 2283. Expositor (4th Series), vol. vi. p. 139; ibid. (5th Series), vol. iv. p. 277. ibid. (6th Series), vol. vi. p. 458; ibid. vol. x. p. 319; ibid. (7th Series), vol. vi. p. 428. IX. 26-28. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxxvii. No. 2194.
Heb 9:27
Speaking of Plato’s three great myths, Jowett, in his introduction to the Gorgias, observes that they ‘are a substitute for poetry and mythology; and they are also a reform of mythology. The moral of them may be summed up in a word or two: After death the Judgment; and There is some better thing remaining for the good than for the evil’.
We must die and give an account of our life; here in all its simplicity is the teaching of sickness!
Amiel.
I looked then, and saw a man named Evangelist, coming to him, and asked, Wherefore dost thou cry? He answered, Sir, I perceive by the Book in my hand, that I am condemned to die, and after that to come to Judgment, and I find that I am not willing to do the first, nor able to do the second.’
Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress (pt 1).
‘The hope of a future life,’ says Sir John Seeley in Natural Religion (pt 2Ch 3 ), ‘is still strong in men’s minds, and has, perhaps, been expressed with more ardour in this age than in any other. But the legal and penal ideas which used to be connected with it have almost disappeared. “In Memoriam” speaks in every line of a future state, but of a future judgment it is absolutely silent.’
References. IX. 27. Christian World Pulpit, vol. xliii. p. 102. J. Keble, Sermons for Advent to Christmas Eve, p. 68. R. Scott, Oxford Lent Sermons, 1868, p. 113. G. W. Brameld, Practical Sermons, p. 15. F. E. Paget, Helps and Hindrances to the Christian Life, vol. i. p. 104. IX. 27, 28. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. viii. No. 430. IX. 28. H. Bushnell, Christ and His Salvation, p. 352. X. 1. T. F. Crosse, Sermons (2nd Series), p. 53. X. 1-3. Expositor (6th Series), vol. viii. p. 338; X. 1-18. Ibid. (4th Series), vol. i. p. 436. X. 2. H. Bushnell, Christ and His Salvation, p. 260. X. 3. Expositor (7th Series), vol. v. p. 348.
Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson
XXII
THE BETTER PROMISES OF THE NEW COVENANT
Heb 8:6-10:39
The promises of the new covenant are as follows:
1. The promise of the Holy Spirit to renew and sanctify their souls and glorify their bodies, in order to enable them ultimately to keep God’s law individually, and to become collectively a holy nation for God’s own possession. The first promise, then, relates to the work of the Holy Spirit.
2. The promise of a Surety, who would stand for them until the work of the Spirit is completed. For instance, say you were converted, you were regenerated, and yet, even though regenerated, your soul is not yet sanctified, your body is not yet prepared so that the entire man, body, soul, and spirit, will perfectly keep the law of God. You need a surety to stand for you until the Spirit’s work is completed, and so that is the second promise as expressed in Heb 7:22 : “Jesus hath become the surety of a better covenant.”
3. The promise of one Expiatory Sacrifice, whose dignity and intrinsic merit and all-sufficiency would, when once offered, really and forever atone for sin.
4. The priesthood of every subject of the covenant, thus forever dispensing with the human go-betweens, or third parties, and enabling him (the sinner) to approach God directly for himself at all times, in all places, and in all emergencies, and the substitution of spiritual sacrifices for all the cumbersome nonexpiating sacrifices of the old covenant, so that each Christian, himself a priest, offers these spiritual sacrifices. You see, the promise has relation to two kinds of sacrifices, one expiatory sacrifice, and then spiritual sacrifices that take the place of the old covenant nonexpiating sacrifices for instance, all meat offerings, and all the unbloody offerings of the old covenant.
5. The final and glorious advent of our Lord, not as a sin offering but as judge of the world.
6. A glorious outcome into a heavenly country and a heavenly city, and eternal rest, peace, and joy, into everlasting companionship with God and with all the holy angels.
7. A better festival. We will have a good time when we get to that better festival. How proud was the Jew of his festivals, the great annual feasts. We find that immediately after the consummation of the covenant in Exodus, that a covenant feast was held, and that Aaron, Moses, and Joshua, and the elders went up on the side of the mountain and feasted and held communion with God. But the new covenant has a better festival.
I will briefly restate these:
1. The promise of the Holy Spirit.
2. The promise of a surety who will stand for them until the work of the Spirit shall be completed.
3. The promise of one expiatory sacrifice.
4. The priesthood of every subject of the new covenant, and the substitution of spiritual sacrifices that this priesthood would offer.
5. The promise of our Lord’s final advent, not as a sinoffering.
6. The glorious outcome in heaven.
7. The better festival.
These are the better promises of the new covenant, and it is our business now to show from the text in detail the very scriptures which embody these seven better promises, and therefore we commence at the prophecy of Jeremiah quoted in chapter 8: “Behold , the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah! not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; for they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord, (now we come to the first promise), I will put my laws into their mind, and on their hearts also will I write them.” This is the internal writing contrasted with the law externally written on stone, and is by the Holy Spirit, and is equivalent to regeneration, as Paul expresses it in 2Co 3:3 : “Ye are an epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not on tables of stone, but on tables that are hearts of flesh.” The connection on that passage is as follows:
Who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant; not of the letter [that is, of the letter traced on the tables of stones] but of the Spirit; for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the children of Israel could not look steadfastly upon the face of Moses for the glory of his face; which glory was passing away: how shall not rather the ministration of the Spirit be with glory? For if the ministration of condemnation hath glory, much rather doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For verily that which hath been made glorious hath not been made glorious in this respect, by reason of the glory that surpasseth. For if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory. Having therefore such a hope, we use great boldness of speech [that is, simplicity of speech], and are not as Moses, who put a veil upon his face, that the children of Israel should not look steadfastly on the end of that which was passing away: but their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth, it not being revealed to them that it is done away in Christ. But unto this day, whensoever Moses is read, a veil lieth upon their heart. But whensoever it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away [As he will be in the final deliverance of all Israel]. Now the Lord is the Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, and transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit. 2Co 3:3-18 .
This passage should very solemnly impress upon our hearts that the first great promise in the new covenant relates to the writing inside of us by the Spirit of God.
The regeneration in its quickening, or renewal, part (and it always consists of two parts; the second one we will bring out presently) makes alive and gives a holy disposition to I the mind, inclining to love God and desiring to obey. The did not keep that old covenant; they continued not in it. Why? They did not have the heart to do it. Thus regeneration is the antitype of circumcision.
Some people talk about baptism coming in place of circumcision. Let us consider what Paul says of circumcision: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that-of-the-heart, in the spirit, not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God.” So that spiritual circumcision qualifies one to be a true subject of God.
As an example of this writing on the heart under the new covenant, take Act 2 , where Peter preached that great sermon on the Messiah that day when the Holy Spirit came down. That is the Spirit of promise (we are on the first promise of the new covenant): “Tarry ye at Jerusalem, until I send you the promise of the Father.” On that day while Peter was preaching, the record shows they were “pricked in their heart” and cried out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” There is the handwriting on the heart. A much more marvelous example is yet in the future earth never saw anything like it. It is in the salvation of the whole Jewish nation in one day by the Spirit’s regenerating power. The Jewish nation stood at Sinai, and the law was written on tables of stone, outside of them, and affected’ them not.
There will come a time when the same Jewish nation, in their descendants, will be gathered together from all the nations of the earth where they have been dispersed, and the flash of an eye God will write the new covenant on their hearts.
Ezekiel discusses it in the famous thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh chapters of his prophecy, where he says, “Not for your sakes do I this, but for my own name sake I will gather you together out of all the nations where you have profaned my name, and I will take away your stony heart and give you a heart of flesh, and I will put my Spirit within you and then you will keep my commandments.” In order to show the stupendous nature of that writing on the heart a picture of it is given in the imagery of “the valley of dry bones” very many and very dry. God asked the prophet the question: “Can these dry bones live?” “Not by any human power, Lord, thou knowest.” Then said God, “Stand over them and prophesy.” “What shall I prophesy?” “Say, Come, O Spirit, and breathe on these slain.” And the Spirit came and breathed on the slain, and the bones lived, and stood up a great army. I have selected these two examples because one, i.e., the 3,000 Jews saved at Pentecost, is the first fruits, and the final salvation of all Israel is the harvest.
There is a striking reference to this harvest in the closing part of Zec 12 and Zec 13:1 . After referring to their barrenness in their dispersion, he says, “In the last days it shall come to pass that I will pour out on my people, Israel, the spirit of grace and supplication, and as soon as that comes upon them they shall mourn as one mourning for his first-born; they shall look upon him whom they pierced, with an eye of faith, and in that day shall be a fountain opened for sin and for uncleanness.” I cannot help wishing that I could live to see it. Isaiah, in talking about it, says, “Hath the earth ever heard of such a thing? Has anybody ever seen such a thing, that a nation is born in a day?”
Let’s see how Paul continues his discussion of this promise of the Spirit. What is the result? “And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” i.e., “When they are regenerated, I will be to them a God in reality, and they shall be to me a people in reality.” Let’s see how this is expressed elsewhere. In 1Pe 2:8 we have this statement; “A stone of stumbling, a rock of offence was Christ, for they stumbled at the word being disobedient, whereunto they were also appointed. But ye [that is, ye new covenant people] are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession,” as here in Hebrews he says, “I will be their God and they will be my people.” How does Paul elsewhere express the same thoughts? In Tit 2:14 he says, “He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto himself a people for his own possession, zealous of good works.”
The result, then, of the work of the Holy Spirit is that God in reality becomes their God, and they become in reality his people. That leads us to consider the culmination of that very thing. The Spirit’s work is not completed at once. We are God’s people now because we are regenerated; but suppose we turn to the culmination of this covenant as presented in Rev 21:3 : “And I heard a great voice out of the throne saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he shall dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God; and he shall wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying, nor pain, any more; the first things are passed away.” So that when he says, as the first result of that regenerating work, “I shall be their God, and they shall be my people,” it means his being our God as we now are, and his being our God when we are perfect in heaven. That is the first result of the Spirit’s work.
The second result. Let us consider the passage quoted from Jeremiah, Heb 8:11 : “And they shall not teach every man his fellow citizen, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest of them.” That is the second result. This personal spiritual knowledge of God is a characteristic of the subjects of the new covenant. Paul thus expresses the same thought in the letter to the Rom 8:14 it is very important “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God. For ye received not the spirit of bondage again unto fear; but you received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit himself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and join theirs with Christ.”
To every subject of the new covenant there comes an experimental knowledge of God. In the light of this personal experience witnessed by the Holy Spirit, an ignorant Negro is more than a match for the most highly cultured and educated infidel. I heard of such a case. The infidel said, “That is all foolishness; there is no such thing inside of you.” The old Negro said, “You ought to say, ‘There is no such thing as you knows of.’ “
The humblest son of earth, with that internal, personal knowledge of God that comes through his regeneration, is stronger than the greatest infidel or the strongest demon in hell.
A reason then is assigned attesting the character of this knowledge. Let’s see what it is. He says, “For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins will I remember no more” (Heb 8:12 ). There he is referring to their subjective knowledge the effect on their conscience that he had been merciful to their iniquities, and that he will not remember these iniquities any more forever. This means that the sense of guilt and condemnation awakened by the Spirit’s conviction of sin is followed by a sense of peace and rest) through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, so that being justified by faith we have peace with God, and the sins being thus removed never more trouble the conscience. God has forever blotted them out; as far as the East is from the West he has removed them.
Knowing this, I have employed it as a test in the inquiry room. Three preachers once came to me, bothered over a certain case; they could not tell whether he was converter or not, and wanted me to talk to him. I sat down by hint and put these questions: “Have you a sensitive conscience?” “Yes, sir.” “Does that conscience trouble you on account of sins?” “Yes, sir.” “Do you remember when the sense of guilt and condemnation as a sinner first came on you.” “Well, yes, I do.” “Do you remember what became of it?” “Well,” he says, “when I believed on Jesus Christ it just fled away like a cloud.” Here comes my crucial question: “In your present trouble of conscience on account of sins, does your conscience go back to take up the burden of those old sins committed since I became a Christian.” “Sir, if you were not converted, it would go back and take up the burden of the sins committed since that time?” He said, “The sins committed since I became a Christian.” “Sir, if you were not converted, it would go back and take up that old burden and emphasize that as the chief burden.”
That is one of the best tests I ever saw. “I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more” “I never will bring those sins up against you.” A man’s justification is instantaneous and forever, and that peace that comes in justification will outlast all the stars in the heavens. That burden never can be assumed again. So far, I have referred to the promise of the Spirit as the first promise of the new covenant, and we have considered the work of the Spirit in one element of regeneration only the renewing, or quickening, or making alive but there is another element of the Spirit’s work that is brought out clearly in the next chapter, startgin with Heb 9:13 : “For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinking them that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”
That element of regeneration is the application of the blood of Christ to the soul. Some believe I am cranky on the two elements in regeneration. Take Eze 36:25-27 , “And I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep mine ordinances, and do them.” David brings out the two elements: “Purify with hyssop” you see, that water of purification was sprinkled with hyssop “wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow, and renew a right spirit within me” that is the other part of it.
To the same effect is Tit 3:5-6 : “Not by works done in righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to his mercy he saved us, through the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit.” So the first thing the washing, or cleansing and renewing s from the application of the blood of Christ; the Spirit does that in regeneration ‘s just where faith takes hold. The Spirit regenerates in the sense of renewing, or first cleanses and then renews that is the order. There can be no renewal brought about until the Spirit applies the blood of Christ, and then he renews the nature. That is exactly what is meant in John, “Except a man may be born of water and “Pint,” which means except that a man be cleansed by the blood of Christ and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. The two together make the new birth, or, as it is expressed in the letter to the Ephesians: “Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it, that, having cleansed it by the washing of the water through the word,” and then goes on to tell that he makes it holy, without blemish in love.
Let the reader study that passage in Numbers concerning the red heifer, and how her ashes are mingled with water, making lye, thus making the water of cleansing which represents the application of Christ’s blood.
QUESTIONS
1. What are the promises of the new covenant?
2. What is the work of the Holy Spirit under the new covenant?
3. What scriptures show this first promise, and what other scriptures show its fulfilment?
4. What is the relation of the conversion of 3,000 at Pentecost and the conversion of the Jews as a nation?
5. What is the first result of this work of the Spirit, and how is this thought elsewhere expressed in the New Testament?
6. What is the second result, and how is this thought elsewhere ex- pressed by Paul?
7. Explain the difference in experimental knowledge between the subjects of the two covenants, Heb 8:11 .
8. What is the illustration by the author?
9. What reason is assigned attesting the character of this knowledge, and what its meaning?
10. How would you apply Heb 10:17 as a test in an inquiry room to determine a case of doubtful conversion?
11. What are the two distinct elements in regeneration?
12. Show these two elements in Eze 36:25-27 .
13. Show the same in Tit 3:5 .
14. Also in Joh 3:5 .
15.Eph 5:26 .
16. What Old Testament type of applying the blood of this one sacrifice, and where found? Explain fully.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
XXIII
THE PROMISE OF THE SURETY AND OF THE SACRIFICE
Heb 8:6-10:39
We have seen in the preceding chapter that the coming of the Holy Spirit is the first great promise of the new covenant, that is, in the order of Paul’s argument, and that the objects of the Spirit’s work is to secure a perfect obedience to the law. That this is accomplished by (1) regeneration in its two elements, cleansing by the application of Christ’s blood to the sinner and by renewing the mind; (2) by certifying in the experience of its subject the remission of sins and sonship; and (3) by complete sanctification of the soul and the glorification of the body.
The second great promise of the new covenant is:
The surety of the new covenant. This doctrine is thus expressed: “By so much also hath Jesus become the surety of the better covenant.” That is in Heb 7:22 , but because this is the second idea, or High Priest idea, or the suretyship of Jesus, discussion was deferred when we were on Heb 7 until we came to the first, or legal, idea of the suretyship, so as to present the two together. Webster thus defines the legal idea: “In law, one that is bound with and for another,” and he cites the words of Judah to Joseph: “Thy servant became surety for the lad to my father” (Gen 44:22 ), and further says that the surety is compellable to pay the debt of the original debtor.
The legal idea is even stronger when the surety becomes an instant substitute for the original debtor by having the debt charged to the surety and the debtor released. In this case there is remission to the debtor before the surety actually pays the debt to the creditor. For instance, Paul writes Philemon concerning Onesimus: “But if he oweth thee aught, put that to mine account; I Paul writeth with mine own hand, I will pay it.” This is a legal bond assuming the debt, and Onesimus is legally released when the debt is transferred to Paul’s account, though it may be quite a while before Paul pays it. As the author of Hebrews expresses the thought elsewhere: “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not reckoning unto them their trespasses” He is putting them to the account of the surety, not reckoning their trespasses to them. Or, as in the case of Abraham himself: “And he believed in Jehovah, and he reckoned it unto him for righteousness.”
In this way only could the sins of the Old Testament saints (see chapter II) be remitted and consciousness of remission given by the Holy Spirit before the expiation of sins was made to God on the cross. As our old “Philadelphia Confession of Faith” expresses it (Art. 8, Sec. 6): “Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof was communicated to the elect in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed and signified to be the Seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and today, and forever.” That is what our Baptist Articles of Confession say. One cannot be a sound theologian if he fail to master this legal idea of the suretyship of our Lord. It is precisely at this point that many great heresies have arisen, two of which I now state:
1. That Old Testament saints, after death, were sidetracked into a half-way place until after Christ’s death, and then he announced to them their deliverance, and took them with him into heaven a conceit derived from uninspired apocryphal books, written in part, perhaps, before Christ came, and the rest after his death, yet this error prevails with many till this day.
2. The second heresy is very modern, and is most thoroughly set forth by Mr. Ezell, a Campbellite preacher, in a book which treats the new covenant as Christ’s last will and testament which could not become effective until after Christ’s death, his object being to shut off consideration of all cases of pardon as recorded in the gospels as not now applicable, and make Act 2:38 the one and only “law of pardon.” His argument is based on Heb 9:16-17 . Before a will or testament is effective there must of necessity be the death of him that made it. On which we remark (1) that the Greek word, diatheke , means “covenant,” and the only place in the Bible where it may be translated “testament” is in Heb 9:16-17 , which would show, not that the new covenant is a will, or testament, but that in one point only a will is analogous to the covenant, namely, there must be a death to ratify it. He takes a will to illustrate this one point of the covenant. The fallacy of Ezell’s whole argument lies in his failure to see that through the surety of the new covenant being accounted in God’s mind “a Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,” the benefits of the covenant may accrue to any believer before the debt is actually paid Godward, as our argument has just shown, and as the whole of chapter II will demonstrate.
The second idea of the suretyship is based on the passage showing the high priesthood of Christ, who, by ever living to intercede for his people, secures the remission of sins committed after justification, as the legal idea of suretyship secured the remission of sins committed before justification. Hence the conclusion of the author of Hebrews: “He is able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto God through him, seeing he ever liveth to intercede for them.” The first idea of surety covers all past sins up to justification, as we see clearly set forth in Rom 3:25 , and the second idea covers all sins to the uttermost that is after justification until we pass out of the world. This entire argument is in Rom 8:33-39 , where he says, “Who can lay any charge to God’s elect?” .First, Christ has died for us; second, he is risen; third, he is exalted to the right hand of the majesty on high; fourth, he ever liveth to intercede for us. And that passage in the first letter of John: “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous . . . If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.” We see the double idea of a surety the legal idea, covering sin up to justification, and the High Priest idea, covering sin after justification.
Let us compare some Old Testament verses that bring out the idea of the surety. First, the prayer of Job: “Give now a pledge, be surety for me with myself”; second, Psa 119:122 : “Be surety for thy servant for good; let not the proud oppress me;” third, the prayer of Hezekiah when he was so sick: “Like a swallow or a crane did I chatter; I did moan as a dove; mine eyes fail with looking upward: O Lord, I am oppressed, be thou my surety.” We see that every one of these, in a dark hour, desired a surety that is above human power; they wanted a divine surety.
We now come to the third great promise of the new covenant, as set forth in Heb 10:1-18 , that is
The one expiating sacrifice. This scripture contrasts them by first showing that the law was merely a shadow of the substance that was to come. As the poet, Campbell, expresses it in the words of the wizard warning Lochiel before the battle of Culloden: “Tis the sunset of life gives me mystical lore, And coming events cast their shadows before.
If early in the morning on a bright day one starts toward the West, he casts his shadow before him, the sun is behind him and the shadow before him. And just so the real things in heaven cast before a model or rough outline like shadow. And that constituted the typical part of the old covenant it was the shadow of the reality in heaven. That is the first point.
The second point is that the constant repetition of these shadows year by year, say on the great day of atonement every year, could not make those who drew nigh to God perfect.
His third idea is that sacrifices without intrinsic merit cannot take away sin “it is impossible for the blood of bullocks and goats to take away sin.” The blood of a brute cannot take away a human sin, and the principle involved in that declaration is very far-reaching. We may apply that principle this way: It is impossible on account of the lack of intrinsic merit that the water of baptism, or the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper, shall take away sin.
The next point is the testimony of the prophets, and the prophet he cites is David in Psa 40 , but he quotes this from the Septuagint, which in the second line gives a different idea from the Hebrew and gives the true idea, too. Let us consider Psa 40 , commencing with Psa 40:6 : “Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight in.” The translation of the Hebrew reads: “Mine ears hast thou bored.” But Paul says, “Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body didst thou prepare for me,” and Paul follows the Septuagint in quoting; there is not so very much difference in the two meanings. When a man voluntarily preferred slavery under the old law, his ear was nailed to a post as a badge of slavery; or the literal Hebrew, “Mine ears hast thou digged,” which might, mean “ears to hear.” That is the old Scripture idea; but the Septuagint idea is: “And a body hast thou prepared for me.” And that agrees with Luk 1:35 : “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the most high shall overshadow thee; wherefore also the holy one which is begotten shall be called the Son of God.” And it is in perfect harmony with Joh 1:14 : “And the Word that was God was manifest and became flesh” incarnate, took on body.
And it is in perfect accord with what we have already found in Heb 2:14 : “Since then the children are sharers in flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the same, that through his death he might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;” and it is still more clearly brought out in 1Pe 2:24 , where he says: “Who his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree.”
So that the quotation from the Septuagint gives the Spirit idea: “Sacrifices and offerings thou wouldst not, but a body didst thou prepare for me.” According to the prophecy of Isaiah: “What unto me is the multitude of your sacrifices? said Jehovah: I have had enough of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs, or of he-goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to trample my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; new moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with the iniquity and the solemn meeting. Your new moon and appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I am weary of bearing them. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will” hide mine eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear; your hands are full of blood” (Isa 1:11-15 ). That is the testimony of one of the prophets. David in Psa 40:6 : “Sacrifice and offering thou hast no delight in; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I am come; in the roll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O my God.”
But I want to give you the testimony of other prophets, including David in another place, as to the relative merit of the Old Testament and the New Testament sacrifices. First, Psa 51:16 : “For thou delightest not in sacrifice, else would I give it; thou hast no pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.” Note here that the sacrifices of God are a broken spirit and a contrite heart. Second, a passage from Samuel, the prophet, (1Sa 15:22-23 ): “And Samuel said, Hath Jehovah as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Jehovah? Behold, to obey is better than to sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” Samuel is talking to Saul. Third, that remarkable prophecy in Jer 7:22 : “For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people; and walk ye in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.” Fourth, the prophecy from Hos 6:6 : “For I desire goodness and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. But they, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously against me.” Fifth, the passage from Mic 6:6-8 : “Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? Will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?”
My object is to follow out the thoughts of the author of Hebrews here in order to show that the prophets of the Old Testament, who were the true spiritual interpreters, understood that these Old Testament offerings were to cease; they never had any doubt in their minds about it, and indeed some higher critics contend that God never meant for Moses to institute sacrifices at all in which the higher critics are far astray. But it does make plain this point: That there was preparation of mind for a new covenant, in which the better sacrifice should take the place of the shadowy sacrifice of the old covenant.
For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of the dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness and when we see him there is no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our grief and carried our sorrows, yet we did not esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. All we, like sheep, have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way, and Jehovah hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, yet when he was afflicted be opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before his shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away, and as for his generation, who among them consider that he was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgressions of my people to whom the stroke was due? And they made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich man in his death; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him: he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities.” Isa 53:2-12 .
That is a picture of Christ, and it is as good a picture of him as one who lived in his time could have painted. I present one other idea of this sacrifice the leading sacrificial idea of the old covenant the festival lamb, or Passover lamb, whose blood was sprinkled on the doorposts to secure the passing of the angel of death. In 1Co 5:7 Paul says: “Christ, our Passover Lamb, is sacrificed for us,” and in Joh 1:29 , John the Baptist sees Jesus coming and points at him and says, “Behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.”
A last thought on the sacrifice is this that Christ’s offering is repeatedly stated in this book to be once for all, in contrast with the year by year sacrifices of the Old Testament he would never die but the one time. He would make but one expiation of sin by his death, and then take a seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, and ever live to intercede for us.
Just here I must call attention to a heresy of the gravest character the Romanist heresy of the doctrine of the Mass. They say that whenever their priest consecrates the wafer and the wine, that he actually creates God, and that in the offering of that wine and bread there is a real sacrifice of the Son of God. That is fixing upon him what he expressly declared should not be that there would be no repetition of this sacrifice that it was to be once for all. They tell their people that when they take the wafer on their lips (the priests do not give them any of the wine; they Just give them the wafer) that they masticate God, and they base it upon that word of our Lord when he held out the bread: “This is my body, broken for you,” whereas, there is no clearer meaning of the verb “to be” than the sense of represent. For instance, in Genesis, Joseph says, “The seven lean kine and the seven poor ears of corn which you dreamed about, are seven years of famine.” There is the verb “to be” “are,” that is, they represent seven years of famine. When I go into a picture gallery and say, “This is Washington, that is Webster, that is Henry Clay,” I do not mean to say that my word creates these men, but that the pictures represent them.
I do not know of any other heresy equal to this one.
And they expressly declare that whoever denies that that action of the priest does create God, and that whoever denies that there is a real sacrifice of Christ every time the priest consecrates these elements, will not be saved. And they expressly declare in the Council of Trent that no man can be saved who does not believe what they teach on this subject. That is what is called transubstantiation a change of substance. Transubstantiation that is the name of their doctrine that there is in the elements of bread and wine a real person and blood, hence they carry these elements in procession, and they teach that as they carry them, whoever does not kneel down and worship them sins against the Holy Ghost. That is what is called the “Procession of the Host,” which one must adore as God, and if he does not believe that, he will go to hell. That is the teaching of every Romanist in the world.
The Lutheran doctrine also contradicts the statement here of the sacrifice of Christ once for all. Luther denies that there is a change of substance. He calls his doctrine “Con- substantiation” not transubstantiation. He says that; every time the Lord’s Supper is observed there is in the elements the real presence of God, and his favorite illustration is this: “I take a piece of iron cold, dark iron and put it into the fire, I do not change the substance, but when I take it out there is something in it that was not in it before and that is heat and it looks different from what it did before; so it is practically the same thing.” And Luther bases his arguments upon exactly the same scripture, thus: “‘This is my body.’ When we consecrate the bread, there enters a real presence of a person that was not in it before, just like putting the iron into the fire puts heat into it that was not in it before.”
This doctrine of Luther split the Reformation into the German camp and the Genevan, or French camp. The Huguenots denied the doctrine of consubstantiation on the principle of Christ’s sacrifice once for all. The Prince of Hesse Cassel was very much disturbed over the divisions of the Protestants, so he invited Luther and Melancthon on one side, and Zwingli and Ecolampadius on the other side, to meet in his palace and discuss this until they could come together and they were about like some juries the longer they discussed it the wider apart they were. So in order to keep down a row, Philip of Hesse, knowing that Zwingli was fiery and that Luther was fiery) put Ecolampadius to debate with Luther, and put Melancthon to debate with Zwingli. But after they had debated for a while, the two fiery men left their mild opponents and rushed up to each other. Luther said, “I affirm, in the words of the Bible: ‘This is my body,’ ” to which Zwingli replied: “You quote a Latin translation, and I oppose it with the doctrine: Ascendit in Coelum; his body cannot be in two places at the same time.” They had a time of it. That is one of the most interesting incidents of the Reformation that fight between Zwingli and Luther.
QUESTIONS
1. Explain the surety of the new covenant.
2. What is Webster’s definition of “surety,” and what is his illustration of its use?
3. Under what conditions is the legal phase of this subject strongest, and how does Paul illustrate this thought?
4. What bearing has this on the remission of the sins of Old Testament saints?
5. What is the article of faith in the old Philadelphia Confession of Faith on this point?
6. State and elaborate two heresies arising at this point.
7. What is the second idea of suretyship, and what the New Testament scriptures proving it?
8. What Old Testament scriptures bear on the idea of the surety?
9. Explain “the shadow,” or “the pattern,” or “copy,” characteristic of the old covenant, and cite a poetic illustration (Heb 10:1 ).
10. Expound Heb 10:1-14 , bringing out clearly the dignity and intrinsic merit of the one great vicarious sacrifice of the new covenant, citing parallel passages in both Testaments.
11. Apply the logic of Heb 10:4 to the doctrine of baptismal remission or other sacramental means of salvation, and cite the Campbellite and Romanist views.
12. What distinct office of our Lord involved in Heb 10:5-7 ?
13. What is the striking testimony of the prophets on the inefficacy and transitory character of the sin offerings of the old covenant?
14. Where do we get the true idea of sacrifice in the Old Testament, and how is it expressed there?
15. What is the great type of the one sacrifice in the Pentateuch, and what is the New Testament identification of it?
16. What New Testament festival of the altar (Heb 13:10 ) commemorating this one sacrifice, and where, in another letter, does Paul enforce this close communion?
17. What is the difference in effect on gins between the one sacrifice, once for all, of the new covenant, and the many sacrifices, oft repeated, of the old covenant?
18. Apply the logic of Heb 10:12-14 to the Romanist transubstantiation and the Lutheran consubstantiation, and cite on the latter the debate between Luther and Zwingli.
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
XXIV
PROMISES OF THE NEW COVENANT
Heb 8:6-10:39
The fourth promise of the new covenant is that all Christians shall be priests unto God, and shall directly offer to him spiritual, nonexpiatory sacrifices, anywhere, at any time, and in all places. The negative value of this promise is itself incalculable. It forever set aside and dispenses with:
1. The old covenant’s one place of meeting God. Whether tabernacle, temple, earthly Jerusalem, or land of Canaan, their mission and sanctity are ended forever. Holiness no longer attaches to any of them. All are as empty as the sepulcher of our Lord. The efforts of the Crusades to recover a city and land no longer holy was a foolish quest. As says our Lord himself to the woman of Samaria: “Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when neither in this mountain [i.e., Gerizirn, the site of the Samaritan temple] nor in Jerusalem shall ye worship the Father . . . The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth: for such doth the Father seek to be his worshipers. God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth” (Joh 4:21-24 ).
2. It dispenses with all the third party human go-betweens that officiated between the soul and its God. The Greek and Romanist priestly hierarchies of human gobetweens, and all their imitations in other denominations, are sinful degenerations into the obsolete and superseded old covenant.
3. It sets aside all the doctrines of consubstantiation and transubstantiation, which in any form affirm and repeat and adore a real expiatory sacrifice in the Memorial Supper of our Lord, or attach saving efficacy to the memorial rite of baptism. In other words, connecting two and three it sweeps away the whole system of sacredotalism which makes the office of a human third party necessary to the salvation of the sinner.
4. All the Old Testament sabbatic cycle, whether seventh day, lunar, annual, seventh year, or fiftieth year the limited fixed times in which to come before the Lord.
5. All the Old Testament nonexpiating sacrifices.
6. Israel according to the flesh as the people of God.
POSITIVELY
1. It affirms a spiritual Israel, every one of whom is a priest unto God. In the book of Hebrews this doctrine ‘if embodied in the phrase: “church of the first-born” (Heb 12:23 )., which means that the Old Testament type, which gave to the first-born of a family the right of primogeniture, including the authority of priesthood, and which was exchanged for the tribe of Levi, is fulfilled in each one born of the Holy Spirit under the new covenant. In other words, every one born of the Holy Spirit is a priest who may at all times, m( all places, and under all emergencies go for himself directly to God.
The doctrine of this new and spiritual Israel a people of God’s own possession is elsewhere presented by Paul (2Co 6:17-7:1 ; Tit 2:14 ). Here the language of Peter is the most explicit: “Ye, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ . . . Ye are an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that ye may show forth the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.” To these we may add: “And he made us to be a kingdom, to be priests unto his God and Father; to him be the glory and dominion forever and ever, Amen.” Rev 1:6 ). “And makest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests, and they reign upon the earth” (Rev 5:10 ). “Blessed is he that hath part in the first resurrection; over these the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years” (Rev 20:6 ).
(1) Our own selves: “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service.” And concerning the Macedonians Paul says, “And this, not as we had hoped, but first they gave their own selves unto the Lord, and to us through the will of God” (2Co 8:5 ).
(2) Contribution to Christ in his cause and people. We recall the case of the Philippians: “And ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only; for even in Thessalonica ye sent once and again unto my need. Not that I seek for the gift, but I seek for the fruit that increaseth to your account. But I have all things and abound: I am filled, having received from Epaphroditus the things that come from you, an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God” (Phi 4:15-18 ).
(3) The testimony of this letter: “Through him then let us offer up a sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of lips which make confession to his name. But to do good, and to communicate forget not, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased” (Heb 13:15-16 ).
(4) All the testimonies from the prophets introduced in the last chapter (See Job 17:3 ; Psa 119 ; Isa 38:14 ; 1Sa 15:22 ; Psa 51:16-17 ; Isa 1:11-17 ; Jer 7:21-23 ; Hos 6:6 ; Mic 6:6-8 .)
But this idea of the priesthood of all Christians is so closely associated with another thought that we cannot separate them. One of the passages cited says, “A royal priesthood”; another says, “He has made us a kingdom and priests,” while this letter says, in commenting on the service of the Christian priesthood, “Wherefore, receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us have grace, whereby we may offer service well pleasing to God with reverence and awe.” Everything relating to the old covenant was shaken, and soon, in the destruction of Jerusalem, would pass away forever. But this royal priesthood would continue this kingdom would never be moved. As Daniel prophesied, the kingdom set up by the God of heaven would be an everlasting kingdom and would never pass to another people. Or, as our Lord expresses it: “The gates of hell shall never prevail against the church he established. These priests are all kings, and their kingdom is eternal!”
The fifth great promise of the new covenant is the final advent of our Lord to raise the dead and judge the world. The passages in this letter are very striking: “So Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time, apart from sin, to them that wait for him unto salvation.”
1. On this passage particularly note the negative: “apart from sin,” i.e., not this last time as a sin offering. That was the object of his first advent. There is no gospel to be preached after this final advent no intercession for he vacates the mediatorial throne and the high priest advocacy
2. “Not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as ye see the day drawing nigh. . . . For ye have need of patience, that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise” (Heb 10:25-37 ).
Here the speediness of his coming is emphasized, as in very many other New Testament passages. But it is not “quickly” as man counts, but “quickly” as he counts, “with whom a thousand years is as a day.” As Peter declares:
Knowing this first, that in the last days mockers shall come with mockery, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for from the day that the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they wilfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word, have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. But forget not this one thing, beloved, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is long-suffering to youward, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with a fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing that these things are thus all to be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy living and godliness, looking for and earnestly desiring the coming of the day of God, by reason of which the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? But according to his promise, we look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2Pe 3:3-13 .
It was the apparent tardiness of his coming, as men Judged, that was tempting these Asia Minor Jews to apostatize. And it is in this very connection and on this precise point that Peter bears the direct testimony of Paul’s authorship to this letter: “And account that the long suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote unto you” (2Pe 3:15 ).
3. He comes in his last office, not as a prophet, sacrifice, priest, and not even as king to continue his mediatorial session at God’s right hand, for he will turn over the kingdom to the Father ( 1Co 15:24-25 ), but he comes as judge to wind up earth’s affairs.
(1) In the dissolution of the material universe: “And thou, Lord, in the beginning, didst lay the foundation of the earth and the heavens are the works of thy hands: they shall perish, but thou continuest; and they shall wax old as doth a garment; and a mantle shall thou roll them up, as a garment, and they shall be changed; but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail” (Heb 1:10-12 ). “But immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken” (Mat 24:29 ). “And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was found no place for them” (Rev 20:11 ); and particularly: “But the heavens that now are and the earth, by the same word, have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. . . . But the day of the Lord will come as a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up” (2Pe 3:7-10 ).
(2) In the everlasting punishment of the wicked: “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries. A man that hath set at naught Moses’ law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses; of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? For we know him that said: Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:26-31 ).
“For the land which hath drunk the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth blessings from God; but if it beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned” (Heb 6:7-8 ).’ “How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? which having at first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard” (Heb 2:3 ). “See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not when they refused him that warned them on earth, much more shall not we escape who turn away from him that warneth from heaven: whose voice then shook the earth, but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more will I make to tremble not the earth only, but also the heaven. . . . For our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:25-26 ; Heb 12:29 ).
4. In the better resurrection of the righteous: “Women received their dead by a resurrection: and others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection” (Heb 11:35 ), and the consummation of their salvation: “For not unto angels did he subject the world to come, whereof We speak. . . . And again I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold, I and the children God hath given me. . . . For ye have need of patience, that, having done the will of God, ye may receive the promise” (Heb 2:5 ; Heb 2:13 ; Heb 10:36 ).
On two and three as simultaneous: “The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon: and behold, a greater than Solomon is here” (Mat 12:41-42 ). “But when the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit on the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all the nations; and he shall separate them one fro goats; and he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand: Come ye, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. . . . Then shall he say also unto them on his left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels. . . . And these shall go away into eternal punishment; and the righteous into eternal life” (Mat 25:31-46 ).
“And to you that are afflicted rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ from heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus; who shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all them that believed (because our testimony unto you was believed) in that day” (2Th 1:7-10 ).
“And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heavens fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, the great and small, standing before the throne; and books were opened; and another book was opened, which was the book of life, and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hades gave up the dead that were in them, and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hades were cast into the lake of fire. And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire” (Rev 20:11-15 ).
QUESTIONS
1. What is the fourth promise of the new covenant?
2. What is the negative value of this promise?
3. What its positive value?
4. What passage in the book affirms the first element of positive value?
5. Cite passages from other New Testament books supporting this view?
6. What new and additional idea attaches to this priesthood, what the proof of it, and what the conclusion therefrom?
7. What are the spiritual sacrifices offered by this new priesthood?
8. What is the fifth great promise of the new covenant?
9. What, passage shows the negative object of his coming, and what the explanation of it?
10. Cite the passages which emphasize the speediness of his coming?
11. Is this a speediness in man’s sight or God’s sight, and what the proof from Peter?
12. Prove from Peter on this point that Paul wrote the letter to the Hebrews.
13. In what offices does he not come, and the resultant doctrines?
14. In what office does he come?
15. What, without citing passages, the three objects of his final advent?
16. What passage in this book shows the effect of his coming on the material universe, and what correlative passages from other books?
17. What passage from this book show that he comes to judge and punish the wicked?
18. What the passages in this book which show that he comes for the consummation of the salvation of the righteous?
19. Cite passages from other New Testament books that the salvation in glory of the righteous is simultaneous with the everlasting punishment of the wicked.
20. In view of the fourth promise, will there ever be a restoration of the Jews, as Jews, and a restoration of the earthly Jerusalem and its temple worship?
21. What then, is the meaning of the restoration of the Jews as a nation?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
Ver. 1. Then verily the first covenant ] Here the apostle proveth what he had propounded,Heb 8:5Heb 8:5 , that this assertion might be sound, such as cannot be condemned, Tit 2:8 .
Ordinances ] Gr. justifications, viz. ceremonial, ritual, typical.
A worldly sanctuary ] i.e. earthly and shadowy, opposed to true and heavenly.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
1 5 .] The liturgical appliances of the first covenant .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1 .] The chief train of thought and argument, although in the main forwarded, has been for the present somewhat broken, by the long citation in the last chapter. It is now resumed. Christ is the High Priest of a heavenly tabernacle, the Mediator of a covenant established upon better promises. This latter has been shewn out of Scripture: and it has been proved that the old covenant was by that Scripture pronounced to be transitory and near its end. As such, it is now compared in detail with this second and better one, as to its liturgical apparatus, and proffered means of access to God . These are detailed somewhat minutely, mention being even made of some which are not insisted on, nor their symbolism explained: and the main point of comparison, the access into the holiest place, is hastened on. In this particular especially the infinite superiority of the new covenant is insisted on: and the whole access of Christ into God’s presence for us is elaborately contrasted with the former insufficient ceremonial access by means of animal sacrifices. In one point, above all, is this contrast brought out: the supreme efficacy of the blood of Christ, as set against the nullity of the blood of bulls and of goats to purge away sin . Then the subject of the heavenly tabernacle and holy place is recurred to, and the future prospect of Christ’s re-appearing from thence opened.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
1 .] Now accordingly ( answers to Heb 9:6 , not to Heb 9:11 , see there.
takes up the thought of ch. Heb 8:5 , where the command is recited directing Moses to make the tabernacle after the pattern shewn him in the mount. In pursuance of that command it was that . . .) the first (covenant) (not, the first tabernacle , as the rec. wrongly and clumsily glosses. There is no question between a first and second tabernacle : the is a prototype, not an after-thought. The gloss has probably arisen from a blunder in interpreting in Heb 9:8 ; see there) had (it was no longer subsisting in the Writer’s time as a covenant , however its observances might be still surviving. , , , . , , . Chrys. Or perhaps the may refer back to the time indicated in ch. Heb 8:5 , when Moses made the tabernacle: had, when its liturgical appliances were first provided. But I prefer the other view) also (as well as this second and more perfect covenant: not that this has all the things below mentioned, but that it too possesses its corresponding liturgical appliances, though of a higher kind) ordinances (“The vulg. renders ‘ justificationes cultur .’ But the idea of is ever passive. It imports always the product of either right appointment, or righteous judgment, or righteous conduct: the ordinance having the force of right (ref. Luke), the righteously uttered judgment ( Rom 5:16 ), the decree according to righteousness ( Rev 15:4 ), the righteous performance ( Rom 5:18 ); here beyond doubt, and Heb 9:10 , in the first of these senses, in which the LXX have it for , and their synonyms. It is from , to give the force of law, to make of legal obligation. The old covenant also had liturgical ordinances, which were ‘juris divini,’ ordinances which rested their obligatory right upon revelation from God and declaration of His will.” Delitzsch) of service ( worship : see ch. Heb 8:5 and note), and its (or, the : see below) worldly sanctuary (Thom. Aq., Luther, al. take not in a local but in an ethical sense, = : Wolf understands by it “vasa sacra totumque apparatum Leviticum.” But as the whole passage treats of the distinction between two sanctuaries, one into which the Levitical priests entered, and the other into which Christ is entered, it is certain that the signification must be local only. As regards the meaning of , it must not be taken with Homberg as = , 1Ti 2:9 ; 1Ti 3:2 , for both usage and the art. are against this: nor again, with Theodor.-mops., Thdrt., c.(alt.), Grot., Wetst., Hammond, as : nor again as Kypke, “toto terrarum orbe celebratum,” as Jos. B. J. iv. 5. 2, where the high priests Ananus and Jesus are described as , , a meaning which would apply only to the temple, not to the tabernacle, which, from Heb 9:2 , is here spoken of: nor again as Chrys. ( , ), Thl., Erasmus, al., which would only be true of a part of the , viz. the court of the Gentiles: but as in ref., and constantly in the Fathers, “ mundanus ,” belonging to this world. So Plut., Consol. in Bl., . : Hierocl. Carm. Aur. 126, . So that it stands opposed to , and is an epithet distinguishing the sanctuary of the first covenant from that of the second, not one common to the two. This is also shewn by the art. , to the consideration of which we now come. The art. itself is remarkable, as is also the non-repetition of it before . And this latter circumstance has induced some, among whom is Delitzsch, to take as a predicate, “and its (or, the) sanctuary, a worldly one.” For the necessity or veri similitude of this, usage is alleged, and such passages as , where we have with a definite subst. as an object, and an indefinite predicate attached. But if I do not mistake, the peculiar arrangement of the clause here forbids such a rendering. For, 1. is not peculiar to this clause, but common to the two of which the sentence consists: and we should therefore expect, especially from a writer so careful of rhetorical equilibrium, that the objects in the two clauses should correspond: not that the first of them should be merely objective, and the second predicative. Again, 2. the use and position of the copula seems to forbid any such disjoining of substantive and epithet: being, however loosely used in later Greek, a closer copula than . I conceive the article to be rather used to distribute the object and epithet which follow it: the first covenant had not merely a worldly sanctuary, but the only sanctuary which was upon earth: that one which was constructed after the pattern of things in the heavens. Possibly another reason for inserting it might be, to define beyond doubt the substantival use of the neuter adj. when joined with an epithet such as . As to the omission of the art. before , it is no bar to rendering the adj. as an epithet: cf. , Gal 1:4 ).
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
CHAP. Heb 5:1 to Heb 10:18 .] THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST: and this in several points of view. That which has before been twice by anticipation hinted at, ch. Heb 2:17 ; Heb 3:1 ; Heb 4:14-15 , is now taken up and thoroughly discussed. First of all, Heb 5:1-10 , two necessary qualifications of a high priest are stated, and Christ is proved to have fulfilled both: . Heb 5:1-3 , he must be taken from among men, capable, in respect of infirmity, of feeling for men , and, . Heb 5:4-10 , he must not have taken the dignity upon himself, but have been appointed by God .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
CHAP. Heb 7:1 to Heb 10:18 .] THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST AFTER THE ORDER OF MELCHISEDEK, SET FORTH IN ITS DISTINCTION FROM THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD: THE NEW COVENANT BROUGHT IN BY CHRIST, IN ITS DISTINCTION FROM THE OLD: AND THE FULL PROPITIATION WROUGHT BY HIM, IN DISTINCTION FROM THE PROPITIATORY SACRIFICES FORMERLY OFFERED. And herein,
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Heb 9:1-14 . The insufficiency of the first covenant is further illustrated from the character of its ordinances. For it was not devoid of elaborate and impressive appointments and regulations for worship, but these only pictured their own inefficiency. Especially did the exclusion from the holiest place of all but the High Priest, who himself could only enter once a year and with blood, signify that so long as these ordinances remained there could be no perfect approach of the worshipper to God. But this approach was achieved by Christ who ministered in the tabernacle not made with hands, and by His own blood cleansed the conscience and thus brought men into true fellowship with God.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Heb 9:1 . “Even the first covenant, however, had ordinances of worship and the holy place suitable to this world,” i.e. , as hinted in Heb 8:2 , a tent pitched by man, constructed with earthly materials, “of this creation,” Heb 9:11 , and thus appealing to sense. Farrar renders “and its sanctuary a material one”. is continuative, and might almost be rendered “to resume”. find its correlative in Heb 9:6 ; the first covenant had, indeed, a sanctuary with elaborate arrangements, but after all it was only a symbol. That , not , is to be understood after , is demanded by the context and is now universally recognised. So Chrysostom, , ; . Of the reading Calvin says, “nec dubito, quin aliquis indoctus lector, pro sua inscitia perperam addiderit.” at first sight seems to require us to date the epistle after the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is quite possible that, as Delitzsch says, the writer is looking back upon the old from the platform of the new covenant. “The author in saying had merely looks back from his own historical position to the Mosaic tabernacle and its ordinances, which are everywhere assumed as the standard of the O.T. things; the past ‘had’ no more implies that the O.T. ministry had passed away in fact or even in principle, than the present ‘go in’ (Heb 9:6 ) implies the reverse” (Davidson.) . is used, because the writer wishes to draw attention to the fact that the ritual of the first covenant was divinely appointed. He does this because he means to point out (Heb 9:8-9 ) that the Holy Spirit intended these arrangements to be a parable of their own incompetence and transitory nature. is best illustrated in Rendel Harris’ Teaching of the Apostles , p. 71 ff. He has collected a number of passages from early Christian writers which show that a “cosmic” mystery or symbol was “a symbol or action wrought upon the stage of this world to illustrate what was doing or to be done on a higher plane”. His quotation from Athanasius is especially convincing , . , , . This significant word standing at the close of the sentence sufficiently indicates the incompetence of the whole. The first covenant had its holy place but it was . For the same reason he goes on to enumerate the articles contained in the . He wishes to bring before us the care with which all its arrangements were made: nothing was haphazard and meaningless. The succeeding verses are indeed the resumption of Heb 8:5 , “See that you make all things according to the type shown thee in the mount”.
Heb 9:2 . “For a tent was constructed, the fore-tent, in which were” its appropriate contents. , a tent. “Observandum est in primis hanc descriptionem non ad templum sed ad tabernaculum accommodari; quia nimirum noster hic scriptor ea proprie quae Moses secundum exemplar ipsi in monte propositum fabricavit, cum rebus ipsis coelestibus comparat” (Beza). On the construction in which the noun is first conceived indefinitely and is then more clearly defined by the attributive, whose import thus receives special prominence, see Winer, p. 174. , the outer, that into which anyone first entered, twice the size of the inner and entered from the east (see Macgregor on Exodus, and appendix by Gillies on construction of tabernacle). Large tents were usually divided into an outer and an inner, a first and a second. And a tent being windowless, was a necessary article of furniture; the lamp-stand, or “candlestick” reminding men that the light of day, the light common to all, was not sufficient to guide to God. Cf. Exo 25:31-39 ; and Zech., c. 4. for the making of the table instructions are recorded in Exo 25:23-30 , concluding with the injunction “Thou shalt set upon the table showbread before me alway.” In Lev 24:6 it is called “the pure table,” because made of “pure” gold. “and the setting forth of the loaves” called in Exo 40:23 (P.) “loaves of the setting forth”. In Exo 25:30 the command is given . , the loaves here being called bread of the face or presence. In Lev 24:5-9 minute instructions for their composition are given and for their “setting forth,” and it is added . . In 1 Chron. the loaves are called . translating bread of the row. On the meaning of the “show bread” see Robertson Smith’s Religion of the Semites , 207 ff. “The table of show bread has its closest parallel in the lectisternia of ancient heathenism, when a table laden with meats was spread beside the idol.” “But the idea that the gods actually consume the solid food that is deposited at their shrines is too crude to subsist without modification beyond the savage state of society; the ritual may survive, but the sacrificial gifts will come to be the perquisite of the priests”. Cf. Warde Fowler’s Roman Festivals , 215 20. . “The qualitative relative directs attention to the features of the place which determine its name as ‘Holy’ ” (Westcott). is neuter plural, as in Heb 9:3 . So Theodoret rejecting the reading . For this name see Lev 10:4 ; Num 3:22 ; but in LXX always with the article, here omitted, possibly, to bring out more prominently the holy character of the place.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Hebrews Chapter 9
The apostle proceeds to draw out, in contrast with the principles of the first covenant, that which the prophet declared should take its place, or rather that which is the Christian’s portion now that Christ is dead, risen, and ascended. It is the way into the holies now made manifest; the conscience purged by the blood of Christ from dead works to serve the living God; and the eternal inheritance of which they that are called receive the promise.
“The first [covenant] therefore also had ordinances of divine service, and the sanctuary a worldly one. For a tabernacle was formed, the first in which [were] both the candlestick, and the table and the setting forth of the loaves (or, the show-bread), which is called Holy [place]; but after the second veil a tabernacle that is called Holy of holies, having a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid all round about with gold, in which [were] a golden pot holding the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded, and the tables of the covenant, and above over it cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; of which things one cannot now speak in detail” (verses 1-5).
Ordinances of divine service the first covenant had in abundance, and most instructive; yet the sanctuary was and could not but be a worldly one. For God was not manifested in flesh here below, nor was man received up in glory. The infinite sacrifice for sin had yet to be offered, in which God is glorified, and whereby He can bless the believer to the uttermost, sin being fully judged in the cross. The veil therefore was still unrent, and the way into the holies neither available nor manifest. As the sanctuary was of the world (verse 6), so the ordinance was carnal (verse 10). All was of the first creation, shadowy and provisional, at best the witness of good things to come, as the tabernacle itself was of testimony, not one thing there of intrinsic excellency or divinely efficacious.
Such is ritualism. Only it is now beyond measure evil for faith and practice: because it is condemned and annulled by the cross of Christ It is despite of the Spirit of grace sent down from heaven; it is the gainsaying of Korah against the true Moses and Aaron – even Christ now on high. The Jewish system had divine sanction till Christ came, accomplished His work, and took His seat on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens. Ritualism in the Christian congregation is not only ignorance “but contempt, however unwitting, of the gospel as well as of the church, and what is graver still, of Christ’s work and priesthood. The grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ is virtually denied, yea, and destroyed by it, so far as falsehood can.
When we come to particulars, the character of the first covenant which we have traced generally is no less evident. Thus attention is here drawn briefly to its two divisions, the Holy place (verse 2), and the Holy of Holies, each severed by a door or veil, as we read for the holiest of all, “after the second veil.” Door and veil barred the entrance of man as such. Even the high priest could only enter where the cherubim of glory overshadowed judicially, to put blood on and before the propitiatory, and not without clouds of incense “lest he die.” How contrasted with the bold access by faith we have as a settled title into this grace wherein we stand! For now the veil is rent in twain from top to bottom, ever since Jesus yielded up His spirit on the cross: the unambiguous proof on God’s part that the first covenant is ended, the barrier gone, and the way into the holies laid open to faith.
Not that either part of the tabernacle ceases to yield its instruction to faith: whether the outer, wherein were the candlestick, and the table, and the show-bread; or the inner, with golden censer and the ark of the covenant and its significant contents and surroundings. Of these it was not the Spirit’s purpose here to speak severally. Their import indeed is not uncertain when viewed in the light of Christ, to whom each and all bore witness. For He in the first was attested as both light in the sevenfold power of the Spirit, and nourishment in administrative fulness as Man and for man. In the second, to say nothing of that which maintained intercession, was the display of God in judgment and sovereign government, with the testimony of executive power to make good His will. Within the ark, underneath the throne where His glory shone, were the memorial of His people’s food when passing through the wilderness, the authoritative sign of that power of life and fruit in priestly grace which preserved from judgment, and the tables of the covenant which expressed the rule that menaced transgression with death.
How transcendent the chance when God no longer dwelt in thick darkness – but revealed Himself in Christ, the true Light, having sent Him not only as life but as propitiation for our sins!
The aim of the Holy Spirit, in referring to the first covenant with its ordinances, and especially its sanctuary, becomes now apparent. It was not to speak in detail of the contents of the tabernacle exterior or interior, however symbolically instructive, but of its distinctive contrast as a whole with Christianity. For this, not the church, is the subject of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as it abides a primary truth for any soul, Gentile no less than Jewish, without which (held simply, clearly, and intelligently the doctrine of the church is apt to be a danger rather than a blessing, as it surely is in itself instinct with the love and glory of Christ according to the counsels of God and made good by the indwelling Spirit who baptised all into one body. But where there is repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, the soul under the gospel becomes the object of that grace reigning through righteousness, which gives the access into this favour wherein we stand, as Rom 5:2 puts it, or, as in our Epistle, the way into the sanctuary, not the holy place but the holiest also, made manifest.
So characteristic of the gospel is this privilege that we find it since the cross almost everywhere, and claimed for all that now believe as their assured portion, by none so much as by the apostle Paul, set as he was for the defence of the gospel and its minister in all the largeness of its scope. Rom 5 we have just heard. 2Co 3:18 is no less explicit, contrasting the Christian with Israel who could not gaze even on the reflected glory which shone from Moses’ face and required a veil to hide it; whereas we all, beholding the glory of the Lord with unveiled face, are transformed accordingly even as from the Lord the Spirit. Again in Eph 2:13 , Eph 2:14 , Eph 2:18 , “But in Christ Jesus, ye that once were far off are made nigh by (or, in) the blood of Christ; for he is our peace . . . for through him we both have the access through one Spirit unto the Father.” No less plain and decisive is Col 1:12 , Col 1:13 : “Giving thanks to the Father, who made us meet for a share of the inheritance of the saints in light, who delivered us out of the power of darkness and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love.” 1Pe 2:9 declares that God called the Christian Jews “out of darkness into his marvellous light even as Christ wrought, who suffered for sins once, that He might bring us to God. Nor 1Jn 1:7 less to the point, where he lays down that, as walking in darkness is the status of those who falsely profess Christ and do not practise the truth, we (Christians) walk in the light as God is in the light, have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanseth us from all sin. No doubt he says “if “; but this condition is simply if we are real, not nominal merely, in following Christ, and so not walking in darkness but having the light of life (Joh 8:12 ).
“Now these things having been thus formed, the priests enter continually into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the services: but into the second the high priest alone once in the year, not without blood, which he offereth for himself and the errors of the people, the Holy Spirit this signifying that the way of (or into) the holies hath not yet been made manifest, while the first tabernacle had Yet a standing the which [is] a parable for the present time according to which* are offered both gifts and sacrifices, unable as to conscience to perfect the worshipper, [being] only with meats and drinks and divers washings, ordinances of flesh imposed till time of setting right” (verses 6-10).
*Text. Rec. has with several later uncials and most cursives, etc., meaning “in which” time; but the critics read JP with A B Dp.m. many cursives, etc., as in the version. In verse 10 the Text. Rec. or even B is unreliable.
It will be noticed that it is the present, which the Vulgate and the A.V. alike neglected, though Beza rendered it correctly; yet the present not historical but ethic; for the tabernacle in the wilderness is before the writer, not the temple: so we saw in Heb 3:4 , and so it is here and throughout. This is evident in the early verses of the chapter, summed up in “these things having been thus formed” or prepared, not only the tabernacle but its furniture; which differed in some essential respects from the temple, for it was the figure of the millennial kingdom and rest, as the tabernacle is of the resources of grace in Christ for the wilderness and its pilgrimage. Hence the ark when set in the temple had neither the golden pot with manna therein nor Aaron’s rod that budded (2Ch 5:10 ), which we find carefully named in verse 4. With such wisdom markedly divine was the scripture inspired in the O.T. as in the N.T.
Nevertheless the law, whatever shadows of heavenly things it afforded, made nothing perfect. And this is demonstrated here by the fact that the priests in their continual entrance go no farther than the first tabernacle or holy place; into the holiest only the high. priest once in the year, and then not apart from blood which he offers for himself and the errors of the people. How far from the gospel which goes out to the ungodly and lost, reconciling to God all that believe in the virtue of the death of His Son!
When Christ came, God was in Him reconciling the world to Himself; but Him both Jew and Gentile rejected and crucified. Under the law God did not reveal Himself, but barred even His people absolutely from His presence; for how could God, if He were dealing with them on the ground of their conduct, make them free of His presence? He dwelt in the thick darkness, and allowed the priests to approach no nearer than the holy place, the high priest alone (type of Christ) entering the holiest but once a year, and then (for he was but a type, and in fact a sinful man) with blood to offer for himself and the people’s sins of ignorance. The barrier was still maintained. But now, and only by the death of Christ, is the veil rent; and the Holy Spirit signifies thereby that the way into the holy places has been and is manifested. It was the death-knell of Judaism, but the foundation of better and heavenly blessing; and as man is put to shame in it, having no part but sins, God is glorified and can thereby work freely in sovereign grace to save alike Jew and Gentile. This is precisely what He is now carrying out in the gospel.
Thus the incarnation was God come to man in Christ; but by the cross man who believes is brought to God, and the way into the holiest in now manifested. In the incarnate Word was divine love and absolute obedience; but the work of atonement was solely in His death. For God was not before glorified as to evil, nor was sin judged to the full, nor consequently the righteous basis laid so that God could be just in justifying the believer: to say nothing of what was of the nearest interest to Himself the Father, raising Christ from the dead and setting Him, the glorified Man, at His own right hand on high, Head over all things to the church which is His body. Hence the notion that the Incarnation was the reconstitution of humanity is a fable opposed to and destructive of the truth: hence no less available to the rationalist than to the ritualist. For it is the alleged ground of blessing without Christ’s sacrifice, or God’s righteousness, or sin’s judgment, or the triumph of grace over evil and Satan in the death, resurrection, and ascension of the Saviour. But it is His death which Scripture reveals as the true groundwork of redemption, though no doubt the glory of His person, true God and perfect man, gave Him the competency, not only to redeem sinners, but to be the Head of the new creation and indeed over all things. Only as raised from the dead and exalted in the heavenly places, is He appointed Head over all things (Eph 1 ; Phi 2 ; Heb 1:2 ); and this, because, sin having ruined both the heirs and the inheritance, there could be no vindication of God, no adequate and everlasting deliverance for man, without the suffering of death (Heb 2 ). It is only thus He became the efficacious centre (Joh 12:24 , Joh 12:32 ). He is Son of God, and Son of man.. but all true faith stops not short of His death: else (whatever the motive) it would make light of sin and of the judgment. of God. Compare Joh 6:35 with 53-56, etc.; 1Jn 5:6 .
So here we see (verses 8, 9) that, under the law, as the way into the holiest was not manifested, so its gifts and sacrifices could not make the worshipper perfect as to conscience. Now the work, and nothing short of the work, of Christ meets both God and the worshipper, nay the darkest and most distant and defiled of sinners. “Such (or, these things) were some of you; but ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus and by () the Spirit of our God” (1Co 6 ). The provisions of the law, however admirable as a witness of man’s sinfulness and of a coming Redeemer, were but superficial and temporal, conditioned only by “meats and drinks and divers washings” of an external sort; and consistently they touched no deeper wants than “the errors of the people” (verse 7). They were, as here, styled “ordinances of flesh imposed till a time of rectifying.”
Thus the Holy Spirit pronounces the Levitical institutions, however instructive in their season, essentially provisional and temporary, adapted to man in his weakness, ignorance, and probation. Christ is the intervention of God in man, yet God’s own Son revealing Himself and saving the lost. As John puts it, the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came into being through Jesus Christ. Nor was it word only, even if this were, as it really is, God’s word. God has wrought in Christ. Instead of responsible man, tried in every way, and proved failing and guilty in all, we see now by faith the Second man in heaven set down on the right hand of the throne, sin judged in a perfect sacrifice, death vanquished, Satan’s power annulled, God glorified, and the way into the holiest now manifested, to the present blessedness of every believer here below. And these are and are declared to be everlasting realities, in contrast with Israel’s natural and transient privileges in the past, and before the day when they too, repentant and renewed, enter by divine mercy into their portion, even Messiah and the new covenant, which shall never pass away.
“But Christ having come high. priest of the good things to come,* by the better and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands (that is, not of this creation), nor yet by blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, entered once for all into the holies, having found an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and a heifer’s ashes sprinkling those that are defiled sanctifieth unto the cleanliness of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of the Christ, who by an eternal Spirit offered himself spotless to God, cleanse your [or our] conscience from dead works to serve a living God (verses 11-14)!
* Some ancient witnesses have already “come,” , which seems a correction to make the phrase exclusively Christian.
Some authorities add “and true”; but this appears to be imported from 1Th 1:9 , where it is quite appropriate for souls once heathen, while those who had been Jews needed to think of God as “living.” Copyists and Editors are divided between “our” and “your.”
The great, sure, and plain basis of the Epistle is Christ, not reigning yet as Son of David, but arrived at His actual heavenly position. He is High Priest not here below but in the heavenly places. It is no longer a figure in the hand of mortal man on earth, but God’s work of everlasting efficacy in His Son, yet man risen and ascended, by virtue of an atonement, the perfection of which God thus attested, as well as the glory of His person who suffered to the utmost in achieving it; for sin could only thus be absolutely judged and Satan triumphed over by such a sacrifice. Yet while the blessing is fully made known to the believer now, in order to place him in immediate access to God according to the rights of Christ’s glory and of redemption actually accomplished for the soul, the phraseology is purposely such as to hold out and ensure “the coming good things” for His people another day, like “the world to come” in Heb 2 , “the rest that remaineth for the people of God” in Heb 4 , “the age to come” in Heb 6 , and the implied exercise of the Melchizedek priesthood in Heb 7 , to say no more now. They were familiar as promised in the O.T. For the Christian the direct aim is to place him through Christ in present, known, and settled relationship with God in the holiest above.
Accordingly the text runs “by the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not hand-made, that is, not of this creation.” We may make allowance for the difficulty of presenting the force of both this clause. and the preceding one in Latin, which wants the definite article – but Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, and the Authorised ought to have adhered to the sense. The Rhemish, singular to say, has “the” good things to come, but “a” more ample and more perfect tabernacle: why they should have thus halted, it is hard to conceive. “The” greater and more perfect tabernacle is in contrast with the earthly one reared by human hands. High priest and sanctuary are in exact keeping. Christianity is “not of this creation” but divine and heavenly, though for believers here below; as Judaism could not rise above sinful dying man and the earth, whatever its solemn sanction or its rigid separateness. Hence it perfected nothing and could satisfy neither. God when He revealed Himself, nor man when the depth of his need on the one hand and the resources of grace on the other were fully made known. “Due time,” or “season of rectification,” came when Christ., rejected of man, became by His blood-shedding the ground of God’s righteousness. who thereby and forthwith proceeds to justify the believer through faith of Him. And this is here stated in terms of the Epistle to the Roman saints, that the thorough identity of the truth with that set before the Hebrew confessors may be shown without argument.
There is a curious erratum (almost certainly the printer’s) in the middle of Tyndale’s version of verse 12: “we” entered, for “he,” as it unquestionably should be. The error involves the deplorable connection of our having “founde eternall redemcion,” an idea as remote as possible from that faithful translator’s mind. Of course no ancient reading, or version, led to it, but a mere slip of typography overlooked in revision of the proof.
The “blood of goats and calves” was a grave object-lesson for Israel in the days when God condescended to deal with the ignorant and erring by the law and a worldly sanctuary and earthly rites and a high priest compassed with infirmity like the people. Now they slight the grace and truth which came ‘by Jesus Christ, and are pronounced, fruit as well as root and branch, the weak and beggarly elements to which some bearing Christ’s name desire to be in bondage Now the entire system is unbelief and ignorance of Christ who “by his own blood” entered once for all into the holies, having found eternal redemption (verse 12). “For us” is the gratuitous addition of the Geneva Version, followed by the Authorised. Abstractly the statement is no more than is in substance taught elsewhere, notably and yet more forcibly in Heb 10 of this Epistle. But here it is not only uncalled for as not so written, but improper as going beyond the actual aim of the Holy Ghost who is setting out the intrinsic value of the infinite sacrifice, not its application to any, which follows in its own due time and place.
It may be added that there is no good reason here to give the preposition translated “by” the mere local (10) or instrumental (12) notion of “through,” though capable of either when contextually required. But may and does when needed express the circumstantial condition, as in Rom 2:27 , and elsewhere. So it is best understood here. Into the holies (the veil being now rent) He entered once for all. There He abides without change or the need of repetition, indeed contrasted with any such thing; and His own blood was not for Himself, as if He required any sacrificial means of entrance: therewith it was an eternal redemption He found.
There had been of old a provisional value attached to the Levitical offerings. “The blood of goats and bulls,” on the day of atonement, etc., had an impressive significance; so had a heifer’s ashes sprinkling those that had been defiled in the wilderness (Num 19 ). But if these things sanctified “unto the cleanness of the flesh,” how much more shall the blood of the Christ cleanse your [or, our] conscience from dead works (as all the acts of a sinful nature must be) to serve religiously ( ) a living God? Only consider the Christ, glorious in Himself, in the character of His offering, “who by an eternal Spirit offered Himself spotless to God.” As He stands alone, so does that offering. of Himself and the Holy Spirit’s part in it is marked here as “an Eternal Spirit”: so does eternity characterise this Epistle, and so was the Christ as ever dependent on God thus, while offering Himself up without spot to bear our sins. For here it is the previous act: not but . Compare verse 28, where both occur and in their due relation of course.
Here the Holy Spirit reverts to Christ’s mediation, but avails Himself also of the revelation of inheritance in the close of verse 15 to introduce what was familiar to all, the allusion to a testamentary disposition or will, inasmuch as the Greek word for “covenant” had equally the sense of “testament” in ordinary usage. This accordingly serves to illustrate and confirm the all-importance of Christ’s death, as the hinge of present and everlasting blessing from God, alike the end of the old covenant, and the basis of the new, with the added truth that death as a fact is essential to give validity to a will, which has no operation as long as the devisor is alive. Such is the digression by the way in verses 16, 17.
“And on this account he is mediator of a new covenant, that, death having taken place for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, those that are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], the testator’s death must be brought in; for a testament [is] valid in case of dead persons, since it is never of force while the testator liveth” (verses 15-17).*
* There is no need in Hellenistic Greek to make the last clause a question, as Bengel, Lachmann, and Delitzsch; still less should one misconstrue the adverb like the Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Cranmer, the Genevese, and the Rhemish versions.
It will be observed, that notwithstanding the doubt cast on the rendering of “testament” in the last two verses by many eminent Christians and able scholars, there need be no hesitation in deciding for this sense, as here the sole tenable one. That “covenant” is meant everywhere else in the N.T. as in the O.T. is clear from contextual requirement. The same reason of the context here excludes “covenant” and demands “testament,” but here only. As there has already been given a general view of the other occurrences throughout the later scriptures, it is not needful to repeat it. Let it suffice, without a shade of disrespect for other commentators, to examine these three verses, with what follows them immediately, and judge if there be not proof, that the meaning in either case is certain from evidence as it were on the spot, ample and convincing for every soul subject to Scripture.
For as to verse 15 there ought never to have been a question that “a new covenant” is the real sense, not only because “new” is beyond controversy a reference to the prophecy of Jeremiah, who speaks of a “covenant” and not a testament, but without going from the same clause, because it has a “mediator.” Now a mediator was familiar to the Hebrews in connection with a “covenant.” Nobody, in any people, place, or age, heard of a mediator to a “will.” There is the further disproof in the same verse that we hear of “the first covenant,” which furnishes the reason for an explanation of “a new covenant” if there was to be redemption from the guilt and misery under the first. For the first covenant, as we are elsewhere taught, was a ministration of death and condemnation, as the new is of the Spirit and righteousness (2Co 3 ).
On every ground “testament” would be here out of place, indefensible, and misleading. “Covenant” alone satisfies every condition of the verse. Death (and what a death!) met “the transgressions that were under the first covenant,” and effected a redemption that answered to the glory of His person and the efficacy of His sacrifice. By virtue of His death Jehovah said according to the prophet (as we have it already cited and shall have it again), Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. such is the voice of the new covenant, in contrast with the old which could only claim obedience, and on failure sentences to die. But His death having taken place, so that law’s authority was established to the uttermost, grace could act freely and grant remission of sins, instead of keeping up their remembrance; yea more, it could righteously vindicate God’s forbearance in the past “for redemption of the transgressions” under the then legal condition, with its penalty of death for the offender. Now on the contrary, death having come in, Christ is Mediator of a new covenant, that the called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. All hangs on Christ and His efficacious death; and those that are called pay earnest heed to the glad tidings of God and await the eternal inheritance that is promised. For the blessing comes of faith, that it may be according to grace: no other way honours Christ to God’s glory, or puts man in his true place.
No less determinate is the meaning of what follows in verses 16, 17, the idea of the inheritance naturally suggesting a will, which comes into force by the death of him who made it. The general principle is laid down in the broadest terms – and these can only mean, without strain of known phraseology, a “testament,” not a covenant. “For where a testament [is], the testator’s death must be brought in; for a testament [is] valid in case of dead persons, since it is never of force while the testator liveth.” Now this, which is an axiom and universally applicable to a will, is notoriously untrue of covenants in general; so much so, that it would be hard to point out a single covenant so established among men. For it would assume the necessity of everyone’s death who made a covenant to ensure its operation. Who ever heard of such a covenant? Yet the rendering would imply that it is true of any covenant, and of all. Hence to understand “covenant” in these verses has led many from the appropriate sense of “the testator” to substitute for “the covenanter” (here obviously impossible) “the covenanting victim . . . . . that which establishes the covenant,” or some equivalent phrase; a sense which appears in no writing sacred or profane, and is easily shown to be ungrammatical, especially as being inconsistent with the middle voice. Quite as great violence is done to in verse 17, which cannot, express “over animals slain,” but “when men are dead,” or the like meaning.
Now our Lord in Luk 22:29 (to say nothing of Joh 14:27 ) prepares the way for the technical term here twice given as “testator.” There He was in the act of devising; here it is in its regular form and force, though of course not that exclusively. But no Greek, if he read the sentence simply as it stands in these two verses, would hesitate to take it substantially as given in the A. and R.Vv. It is the equally sure sense of covenant in verse 15, as before also; and no less clearly is covenant understood in verse 18 and expressed in verse 20 (as it should be) and in 10: 20. “Testament” here is through neglect of the context, which in every other place of Scripture, save verses 16, 17, needs “covenant.” What has a testament to do with blood-shedding? A hard and fast uniformity has its snares as well as a too great facility of change; both are to be shunned as unfaithful to the written word, which is as profound as it is simple, being God’s word.
From the digression, which avails itself of a testamentary disposal coming into force only after death to bring out the blessing from Christ’s death, we return to the far more usual notion of covenant in the verses which follow. Accordingly “blood” again resumes its place. This of course is quite foreign to the associations of a will, but most familiar to all acquainted with the ancient covenant of the law.
“Whence not even hath the first [covenant] been inaugurated without blood. For every injunction having been spoken according to law by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of the calves and the goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, This [is] the blood of the covenant which God enjoined as to you. And the tabernacle too and all the vessels of the ministry he likewise sprinkled with the blood. And almost all things are purified by blood according to the law, and apart from blood-shedding no remission taketh place” (verses 18-22).
There are here three distinct uses of blood in the Levitical economy, all of them solemn and momentous, the last of them leading the way into the fundamental blessing of the new covenant which the gospel announces to every believer.
1. The first covenant was inaugurated with blood, as we read in Exo 24 . This is not redemption, but in the strongest contrast with it. The type of redemption had been already given (Exo 12:14 ) in the blood of the paschal lamb, followed by the passage of the Red Sea: the blood which sheltered from the judgment of God; and the power which thereon set the people free from their enemies destroyed for ever. But now Israel far from God had accepted to stand on the condition of their own obedience, Exo 19 ; and God had spoken those ten words which would put the people to the proof. Here accordingly (Exo 24 ) the covenant receives its seal in blood. “And Moses took half of the blood and put it in a bason; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people; and they said, All that Jehovah hath spoken will we do and be obedient. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold, the blood of the covenant which Jehovah hath made with you concerning all these words.” It was the old covenant, not the new; the law, not redemption. The blood which, as this Epistle states, was sprinkled on the book and all the people, simply set forth death as the penalty of disobedience. Hence it was in no way propitiatory but penal.
2. Attention is drawn to Moses sprinkling the tabernacle also, and all the vessels of the ministry in like manner with the blood. That this is distinct from the inauguration of the law should be clear, if only from the fact that neither the tabernacle nor the vessels appertaining to it yet existed. There was of necessity this provision against the defilement of the meeting-place with God, and the vessels for service: without the sprinkling of the blood all must have contracted defilement, because a sinful people were concerned, and God was holy. And this was so true that it is added as a fact that with blood almost all things are purified according to the law. Yet it is not stated absolutely, for water was employed in some cases, fire in others; both figurative of death, and the latter in its extreme form as divine judgment. How blessed for us is the gift of grace where judgment was felt in a perfection unknown and impossible elsewhere! “This is be that came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not by () the water only, but by the water and by the blood.” He expiates as well as purifies, and both by virtue of His death. Out of His pierced side came blood and water.
“And apart from blood-shedding no remission taketh place.” Here we come in type to the grand truth which vindicated God in all His moral being and brings effectual blessing to guilty man if he bow to God. It is not sprinkling with blood here, but shedding of blood without which remission cannot be. It is the efficacy of the blood shed once for all, presented to God, and bringing to man remission: the ground of divine righteousness, when human righteousness had been proved wholly at fault – the righteousness of God unto all, and upon all those that believe, rolling away every distinction, that God may bless any, as He surely does all that believe.
We come next to most important inferences from the intervention of God in Christ, His death and blood-shedding. The typical institutions of the tabernacle are judged in their true character, as man is. The most solemn and instructive shadows, which confessed sin in man and looked for mercy in God, pointed to but were absorbed in the reality that is already come in Him, who suffered for sins on the cross, and is now risen and entered once for all into the true and heavenly sanctuary, having obtained everlasting redemption.
“[It was] necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ entered not into holy places made with hand, figures of the true, but into heaven itself now to appear before (to be shown to) the face of God for us; nor that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy places year by year with blood of others: else he must have often suffered since [the] world’s foundation. But now once at a consummation of the ages he hath been manifested for putting away of sin by his sacrifice. And inasmuch as it is laid-up for man once to die and after this judgment, so Christ also, having been once offered to bear [the] sins of many, shall a second time appear apart from sin to those that await him for salvation” (verses 23-27).
When God gave Israel under law a tabernacle of witness, it was of necessity, unless He would compromise His holiness, that the need of sacrifice should be everywhere impressed. Not only could not the Israelite approach God without a burnt-offering, even if he needed no sin-offering, but the earthly copies of the heavenly originals, which Moses saw on high and followed in the construction of the sanctuary and its contents, required purification. Yet the blood of earthly victims was but formal. It could not purge the conscience, only the flesh. Its purification was for a time and of an external character. It was therefore provisional at Lest, and could satisfy neither God nor conscience awakened to see sins in His light. Hence the veil subsisted, which signified that man could not draw near to God. But the death of Christ rent the veil, which signifies that the believer is free and invited to draw near boldly; for instead of his sins, the blood of Christ is before God.
This changes everything, not yet to sight as it will “be when Christ returns in power and glory, but to faith even now and for ever. For the everlasting effect of God’s work in Christ is a cardinal truth in this Epistle, as also is our association with Him on high. Hence there is defilement on that sanctuary as the effect of our connection with it whilst we are passing through the wilderness. Every need is met by the blood of Christ, which purified the sanctuary as completely as it cleanses us from all sin. Whatever sin or Satan could do to sully has been counteracted by sacrifices better than creature ever offered. And Christ entered heaven itself to be presented manifestly to the face of God on our behalf. There He is for us before God in all the efficacy of His work, in all the acceptance of His person. In Him God came out to replace shadows of good things, and alas! realities of evil, by His own work of redemption; and now in Him man is gone within the holiest. “Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him” (Joh 13:31 ); as our Lord added, “God shall glorify him in himself, and shall glorify him immediately.” This was done, and is true ever since His ascension, instead of being deferred to the day when His world-kingdom shall come, as come it will in due time (Rev 11:15 ). Such is our unchanging representative in the presence of God.
Mark also the pointed contrast with Jewish sacrifice in verses 25, 26. Repetition was the inevitable fact even in their weightiest rites, as on the great day of atonement. It is the blessed truth of the gospel that Christ’s one offering is complete and everlasting in its effect for everyone that believes. Indeed the Holy Spirit deigns to show the impossibility of a repeated offering on His part, because. it would also involve His often suffering. Even the feeble believers who crave a fresh work for each fresh failure must resent as intolerable all thought of His suffering again. Anything of repetition in His case is therefore a merely natural and unbelieving sentiment. The essence of the truth of His work is that now once at a consummation of the ages He has been manifested for putting away of sin by His sacrifice.
“In the end of the world” is surely as misleading as unwarrantable. All the older English versions are vague, if not precisely alike. Wiclif and the Rhemish would have done better if they had adhered yet more closely to the Vulgate; though it is pretty clear that Jerome did not understand the sense more than they. The Revisers have rightly given “of the ages.” These ages were the dispensations in which God had been putting to the proof sinful man, who had been tried in every possible way, and failed in each and all. There had been the promises, the law, the prophets, the kings, etc. God had sought fruit; but instead of paying His dues, His servants had received rebuff, mockery, and murder. Last of all He sent His Son. This gave occasion to a worse iniquity. Not only did men fail in duty, and spurn His envoys in contempt of Himself; they rejected the Christ of God, they turned God in His person out of the world, they crucified Him who was not only their own Messiah but divine love in Him, God in Him reconciling the world, not imputing their trespasses.
On that very cross where man slew the Lord Jesus, God by Him wrought redemption. His love rose above the world’s enmity, and now sends the glad tidings of His grace to His enemies: such is the virtue of Christ’s sacrifice, that it can bring to God the foulest without spot or stain. Yet so much the more ruinous will it be for those that believe not. Far better to be a heathen that never heard the gospel than to be a christened man neglecting so great salvation. The day will come when the new heavens and new earth will display the reconciling power of Christ’s sacrifice, for every trace of sin will then have vanished from the world. And this is the full force of Joh 1:29 , as of our verse 26 also. Yet the gospel meanwhile is the message of God to any and there is no difference of Jew or Greek, for the same Lord of all is rich toward all that call upon Him. The more you hate your sins, the better for your soul if you are at the feet of Jesus. The Holy Spirit in quickening discovers to us our exceeding evil, where previously we may have deceived ourselves and gone on hard or haughty. But through the sacrifice of Christ God can afford and loves to send forgiveness commensurate with His person and work. It is well to judge oneself for one’s sins; but God will act according to His own estimate of Christ’s death for us.
The last verse is little understood in general. There is a striking contrast between “men” as such and believers. Hence “judgment” is necessarily to be taken as destruction to the false hopes of nature. Compare Joh 5:22-29 , where it will “be apparent that anarthrous or not makes no difference in respect of its unutterable solemnity to the unbeliever. Not to see the opposition between men” as they are now naturally, and “those that await him is to be wholly unintelligent of the context. For it sets the portion of “men,” with death and judgment before them, in the most forcible comparison with those who have Christ once for all offered to bear the sins of many, and about to appear a second time apart from sin to those that await Him for salvation.
It is untrue that believers are all to die. 1Co 15:51 explicitly contradicts it; and 2Co 5 , imply the reverse. “We shall not all sleep.” Equally certain is it that the believer does not come into “judgment” (Joh 5:24 ), where also the word is anarthrous, as the meaning indeed requires in both scriptures. The believer shall be manifested, and give account, but come into judgment. of no kind whatever. His resurrection, if he die instead of being alive and changed, is “of life,” not “of judgment” like that of the wicked. So the prayer of Psa 143:2 expresses far more of truth than these low traditional views which confound men as such with believers, who await the Lord apart from sin for salvation. Christ’s one offering at His first advent was to bear the sins of many, i.e. of the believers. Hence when He comes a second time, He has no more to do with sin, having already been a sacrifice for it; but apart from it He shall appear to those that await Him, solely His own and not mankind indiscriminately, not for judgment. but for salvation, which is in contrast with it as distinctly as eternal life is in Joh 5
Fuente: William Kelly Major Works (New Testament)
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Heb 9:1-5
1Now even the first covenant had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary. 2For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place. 3Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, 4having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, in which was a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant; 5and above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat; but of these things we cannot now speak in detail.
9:1 “the first” The regulations for sacrifice and worship connected with the tabernacle are in Leviticus.
“covenant” This is not in the Greek text. Most English translations assume it. However, H. E. Dana, in his Jewish Christianity, p. 255, believes that it should be translated “first ministry” because chapter 9 is presenting another evidence of Christ’s superior ministry (cf. Heb 8:6). He also charts the comparison on p. 255.
The First MinistryThe Second Ministry
An earthly service “of this world.” Human equipment “there was a tabernacle constructed.” External effects “cannot as touching the conscience make the worshiped perfect.” Temporary in nature “carnal regulations set up pending a time of construction.”A heavenly service “not of this creation.” Divine equipment “not made with hands.” Internal effects “cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” Permanent in nature “the promise of the eternal inheritance.”
9:2 “a tabernacle” This refers to the portable tabernacle in the wilderness, which is described in detail in Exodus 25-27 and built in 36-38,40. The author of Hebrews refers to the inner tent as the first (outer) tabernacle (the holy place) and the second (inner) tabernacle (the Holy of Holies).
“the lampstand” This refers to one lamp with seven containers burning olive oil, located in the holy place. It is referred to in Exo 25:31-40 and Lev 24:1-4. It was called the Menorah, which is the Hebrew term for “lampstand.” Solomon expanded the lamp to ten arms (cf. 1Ki 7:49; 2Ch 4:7). It symbolizes the light of truth and revelation.
“table and the sacred bread” This was a table located in the holy place holding twelve large (15 lb.) loaves of bread. They were replaced weekly and became food for the Priests (cf. Exo 25:23-30; Exo 37:10-16; Lev 24:5-9). They represented God’s promised physical provision for the twelve tribes of Jacob.
“the holy place” This is the outer room of the tent in which the priests ministered daily. It measured 20 cubits by 10 cubits (cf. Exodus 25-27). The author of Hebrews usually uses this term (hagia) with the article (cf. Heb 9:8; Heb 9:25; Heb 13:11) and uses it for the inner or second part of the sacred tent called the Holy of Holies (cf. Heb 9:3) where the Ark was placed, but in this verse the article is absent and the term refers to the outer two-thirds of the sacred tent, called the holy place.
Heb 9:3 “second veil” This divided the tent into two compartments (cf. Exo 26:31-35). The Hebrews had two special names, one for the front curtain, which was usually partly open, and one for the inner curtain, which was never open. Only the high priest entered (twice) on the Day of Atonement (cf. Leviticus 16).
“the Holy of Holies” It was a perfect cube of 10 cubits. It contained the ark where YHWH symbolically dwelt between the wings of the cherubim. This ark was the physical symbol of the invisible God (after they entered the Promised Land).
Heb 9:4 “golden altar of incense” This was an altar-shaped piece of furniture where incense was placed in large quantities on the Day of Atonement to produce thick smoke which concealed YHWH’s presence over the ark. Our author seems to place it inside the Holy of Holies. This has caused commentators to take this phrase to refer to a “censer” because this is how the Septuagint translates this term (cf. Lev 16:12; 2Ch 26:19; Eze 8:11; 4Ma 7:11). However, Philo and Josephus use the same Greek word for the incense altar. In the OT the altar is closely identified with the Holy of Holies (cf. Exo 30:1-10; Exo 30:37; but especially 1Ki 6:22).
Coals were taken from the great sacrificial altar at the door of the tabernacle and placed on this small stand. Incense was then placed on the coals to produce a large amount of smoke. This wonderful smelling smoke obscured the high priest’s eyes from seeing YHWH, who dwelt over the ark of the covenant between the wings of the cherubim, in the Holy of Holies.
“the ark of the covenant” The ark is described in Exo 25:10-22; Exo 37:1-9.
SPECIAL TOPIC: THE ARK OF THE COVENANT
“a golden jar holding manna” The Septuagint and Philo have the adjective “golden,” but the Masoretic Hebrew Text does not (cf. Exo 16:31-36). Josephus says it held 4 pints. It was a miracle that the manna did not rot (cf. Exo 16:18-25).
“Aaron’s rod which budded” This rod was YHWH’s sign of confirming the leadership of Moses and Aaron during Korah’s rebellion (cf. Num 17:1-11; Num 20:8-11).
“the tables of the covenant” This refers to the two stone tablets with the decalog (ten words) written on them by the finger of God (cf. Exo 25:16; Deu 9:9; Deu 9:11; Deu 9:15; Deu 10:3-5; Deu 31:18; Deu 32:15). The book of Deuteronomy and Joshua 24 follow the treaty pattern of the Hittites (of the second millennium B.C.). Their covenants always had two copies, one for the vassal king to read yearly and one for the sanctuary of the deity. Therefore, the two stone tablets may have been duplicate copies.
Heb 9:5 “the cherubim of glory” This refers to the two angelic creatures on each end of the mercy seat (lid), whose wings overshadowed the ark (cf. Gen 3:24; Exo 25:18-22; Eze 10:14, but note that in Eze 41:18 they have two faces, not four). A new possibility from a History Channel video, “Decoding the Exodus” asserts that they were phoenixes. The Bible does not reveal much information about the angelic world. Our curiosity often runs far ahead of revealed truth. For the term “glory” see note at Heb 1:3.
“mercy seat” This refers to the golden lid of the wooden box called “the ark of the covenant.” It was a special place for “covering” sins. The symbolism seems to be
1. YHWH dwelt between the wings of the two angelic creatures (the rabbis said this was His footstool)
2. the box contained the “ten words” (decalog)
3. the high priest, on the Day of Atonement (cf. Leviticus 16), went into the Holy of Holies twice to place blood on the mercy seat, once for his own sin and once for the non-premeditated sins of the nations as a whole (cf. Heb 9:7)
The requirements of the Law were covered, obscured from YHWH’s eyes by the sacrificial blood of an unblemished animal (life is in the blood; sin requires a life).
“but of these things we cannot now speak in detail” This is a disclaimer. Our author uses details from the ancient tabernacle that are now unknown.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
Then verily . . . also = Now even.
covenant. No Greek. word. The ellipsis is rightly supplied by “covenant”.
ordinances. Greek. dikaioma. App-191.
divine service. Greek. latreia. App-190.
worldly = earthly. Greek. kosmikos. See Tit 2:12.
sanctuary. See Heb 8:2. Read “the sanctuary, an earthly one”.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
1-5.] The liturgical appliances of the first covenant.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Hebrews chapter 9.
In the eighth chapter of the book of Hebrews, he makes mention of the prophecy in Jeremiah where God said that in those days He was going to make a new covenant with the people, not like the old covenant which was written on the tables of stone. He was going to write His law on the fleshly tablets of their hearts. Now, in the declaration that God is going to make this new covenant, it means that the first covenant would be set aside in order that He might establish the new covenant.
When Jesus took the emblems of Passover, He said, “This cup is a new covenant in my blood which is shed for the remission of sins” ( Mat 26:28 ). So, the old covenant had the remission of sins through the offering of sacrifices by the priests and on the Day of Atonement by the high priest. But God has established a new covenant, not written on the tables of stone, but God writes His law right on the fleshly tablets of our hearts. So the first covenant has been set aside that God might inaugurate this new covenant through Jesus Christ.
So going on still in chapter 9, carrying over the thought of chapter 8, he is still talking about this new covenant relationship that we have with God and contrasting it with that first covenant that was under the law. Remember the covenant under the law, God said, “And if they will do them, they shall live by them.” The first covenant of the law was, “If you will obey Me and all of these statutes, then I will be your God.” And the first covenant was established on man’s obedience and man’s faithfulness. The new covenant is established on God’s faithfulness, the work that God has wrought for us through Jesus Christ. The old covenant failed, not because it was not good, not because it did not declare the truth, but it failed because man was weak and did not live by it. The new covenant is established forever, because it is the covenant that is predicated upon God’s faithfulness, and surely God is faithful.
Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary ( Heb 9:1 ).
So in that first covenant God established with Moses, he was to build the tabernacle, and they were to have sacrifices offered within the tabernacle, and there was to be the worship of God there within the tabernacle by the priests.
For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary [or often called the holy place in the Old Testament] ( Heb 9:2 ).
So, first of all, in this tabernacle, this tent that was made, it was forty-five feet long, and thirty feet wide, and fifteen feet tall, sort of a box-shaped tent, not a pitched tent like we usually think of, more box-shaped, fifteen feet from the corners tall and forty-five feet long and thirty feet wide.
Now, the inner part of the tent was divided into two sections. As you first entered into the tent from the veil that faced towards the east, the first thing that you would come upon in this room, it was thirty feet long and fifteen feet wide, over on your right-hand side would be a table, the table of showbread. On the table were twelve loaves of bread. One loaf representing each of the tribes of Israel.
Before you, and in front of the veil that went into the next room in the tent, there was the altar of incense where the priest would come and offer the incense, which was representative of the prayers of the people. He would offer them unto God.
On the left-hand side, as you came in the veil of the first tent, or the first room within the tent, there was this lamp stand with seven branches out of it. It was lit. There were little cups of oil and they would put the wicks in the oil and it was the light in this portion of the tent. These things are all representative of things that are in heaven. So in the menorah, or the lamp stand, with seven cups coming out of the one branch, you have the symbol of the seven-fold or complete working of the Holy Spirit. You have, of course, the altar of incense. So he talks here that in the first part of it the candlestick, the table with the showbread, which is called the sanctuary or the holy place.
Now after then you went into the second veil, it was called [the Holy of Holies, or translated here] the holiest of all; it had a golden censer, and the ark of the covenant that was 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 ( Heb 9:3-4 );
This Ark of the Covenant surely would be an interesting artifact to find. I don’t know if I’d want to touch it if I found it. But within it they preserved a jar of the manna that God fed their fathers with in the wilderness. They also preserved Aaron’s rod that budded, whereby God affirmed Aaron’s family to be the high priestly family, the Aaronic order established. Then also (and this is what I would absolutely love to see) the two tables of stone upon which God put the Ten Commandments. Oh, wouldn’t that be an exciting thing to behold? And so this was in the Ark of the Covenant, and it was the basis of the covenant of God with the nation; their obedience to the law and to the priesthood service under Aaron the High Priest.
Over this were the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat ( Heb 9:5 );
Now again, these are all a model of what the throne of God in heaven is like, surrounded by the cherubims.
And he said,
we cannot speak at this particular time about these things. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God ( Heb 9:5-6 ).
Daily the priests would go into this first part of the tent. Once a week they would change the loaves of bread on the table of showbread. Daily they would change and fill the oil in the cups and trim the wicks, and so forth, because God wanted that this light should burn before Him continually. Then they would come and offer the prayers of the people, these little golden bowls that they would have incense in. And when they had lit the fires and all for the sacrifices outside, they would take live coals, or burning coals out of the fire, put them in these little bowls of incense. And then they would go in, and these little bowls were on chains and they would go in and they would swing this incense before the altar there. It was a symbol of the prayers of the people ascending before God. And this they did daily.
There were a certain number of sacrifices and types of sacrifices that had to be offered every day. And then, of course, during the day the hundreds of people that would come with their various types of sacrifices to offer unto God. So the priest was kept busy all day long in these offerings unto the Lord, as well as the regular times of prayer when he would go before the Lord and all.
You remember in the gospel of Luke, it tells how that the father of John the Baptist, Zacharias, was a priest after the course of Abia. It was his duty at this particular time to offer the prayers and the incense before the altar of the Lord. Usually the priest would serve one month out of the year. They had a good thing going. Then the rest of the year they would go back to their homes and be with their families. While Zacharias was offering the incense before the altar of the Lord, Gabriel appeared unto him and informed him that his wife, Elizabeth, in her old age, was to bear a son. He was to be the forerunner of the Messiah.
So you can read a little bit about the service of God there within this holy place which was outside of the Holy of Holies.
But into the second [that is the holiest of all, or the Holy of Holies] went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people ( Heb 9:7 ):
The Holy of Holies where man met God was off limits to everyone except the high priest. He went in there only one day a year, the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. Which happened to be yesterday. However, with no tabernacle or no temple, they have changed Yom Kippur from the Day of Atonement to the Day of Reflection. But the high priest would go in only this one day and he would go in twice in the one day.
He would, first of all, have to bathe. And then he would offer an ox for his own sins as a sacrifice for his sins, and he would go into the Holy of Holies with the blood of the ox that he had sacrificed for his own sins. And he was to sprinkle, then, the blood on the mercy seat in a special order. Seven times in front of the mercy seat and put it on the corner and all, and there was a regular routine. The sixteenth chapter of Leviticus tells about the Day of Atonement and the things that the high priest had to do on that day. Having offered, then, the blood of the ox for his own sins, he would go back outside, bathe, change clothes, and then they would take two goats and they would cast lots on the two goats. The one upon which the lot fell was to be slain and offered before God for the sins of the nation. The other goat was to be led by one of the priests out into the wilderness area and turned loose.
They would confess the sins of the nation on these two goats. The one would then be slain and the high priest, for the second time, would go into the Holy of Holies and he would offer, then, for the sins of the nation on this one day the first goat upon which the lot had fallen. The other goat being led into the wilderness having the sins confessed upon it, led into the wilderness turned loose to run free. To get lost, really. The idea is the sacrifice for sins, the putting away of sins by the sacrifice. But then, actually, the separation from our sins, the goat being turned loose and disappearing into the wilderness. God has put away our sins and they’re not to be remembered again. And so the two goats, the one being slain, and the other being turned loose into the wilderness.
“Now into the second, the Holy of Holies, went the high priest alone once every year and not without blood which he offered first for himself and then the second time for the sins of the people.”
The Holy Spirit was thus signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was still standing ( Heb 9:8 ):
As long as the tabernacle was there and standing, the approach to God directly by man was impossible. This bore witness to the fact that man just could not come directly to God. There was this heavy veil that separated man from God.
It is significant that when Jesus was crucified, we read that this veil in the temple was torn from the top to the bottom. God ripped the thing. Had man ripped it, it would have been from the bottom to the top. But God ripped the veil at the death of Jesus Christ, signifying that the way into the presence of God is now available for all man. You and I can come now into the presence of God through Jesus Christ, this glorious sacrifice for our sins. And we can enter ourselves right into the very presence of God through His work on our behalf. And so as long as the first tabernacle stood, the Holy Spirit was signifying that the way into the holiest, into the very presence of God, was not yet manifested or open to man.
Which was a figure [that is the tabernacle] for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; Which stood only in meats and drinks, and in divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of [the change] the reformation [that is that was wrought by Jesus Christ]. But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us ( Heb 9:9-12 ).
The contrast is the high priest had to go in every year to offer first the offerings for his own sin, and then to offer for the sins of the people. And every year he had to do this. But Jesus once went into not the tabernacle made with hands, but entered into heaven itself, of which the earthly tabernacle was just a model. He entered into heaven itself and not with the blood of goats or of calves, but with His own blood He entered into that presence of God, having obtained eternal redemption for us. And so with His own blood He was then both the sacrifice and the sacrificer. He was both the offering and the one who offered.
Now you would bring your offering to the priest, he would offer it for you. Jesus became both; the offering itself, and the one who offered the offering unto God in entering into the presence of God with His own blood, and thus, redeemed man.
For if the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, would sanctify it to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ( Heb 9:13-14 ).
As he points out the weakness of the sacrifices made by the priests is that they could not really give us a clear conscience. They were a reminder of our sins. And the fact that they had to do it every year made us constantly conscious of our guilt. But Jesus Christ has now purified our consciences in that He has once and for all entered in to make an atonement for us with His blood, thus having offered Himself without spot.
When they brought a lamb to God, God wouldn’t accept the castoffs. Here is an old cow. It’s about ready to die. Let’s see if we can get some good out of it. Let’s give it to God. It is tragic, really, that so many times man wants to give the castoffs to God. “I can’t use it anymore. I might as well give it to God. It’s no good around here.”
I read of a farmer one time who came in to breakfast and announced to his wife that their cow had twin calves. He said, “I’m so excited about it. I want to give one to the Lord and keep one for myself.” She said, “Oh, I think that is a great idea.” And so as the calves were growing up he kept announcing that when they were old enough to sell one belonged to God and one belonged to him. She said, “Well, which one’s the Lord’s?” He said, “It doesn’t make any difference. One is the Lord’s and one’s mine.” So he would never put the finger on one of them being the Lord’s and one his. They just both were the same. But one morning he came in and said, “Terrible thing happened–God’s calf died.”
God wouldn’t accept the castoffs. He said when you offer a lamb it has to be without spot. Now a spot was an inherent defect in the lamb. It also had to be without blemish. A blemish was an acquired defect. The lamb born with spots was a genetic thing. A lamb with blemishes that was the result of an encounter with a wolf, or falling down a cliff or some getting caught and blemished. The lamb that was offered had to be both without the inherent defects and without acquired defects; without spot and blemish. Peter said, “For we are redeemed not with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, from our empty manner of life, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ, who was a lamb without spot and without blemish” ( 1Pe 1:18-19 ). It can really only be said of Jesus that He was without spot. He was born without the sinful nature. He had no inherent sin in Him.
It is an interesting thing that they have discovered that the gene factors that make up the blood in a child come basically from the father. Therefore, the gene factors creating the blood in Jesus Christ, coming from the Father, came directly from God and was not spotted by the inherent defectiveness in man. Jesus not only was born pure, but He remained pure. He was without blemish. And so He only could qualify as a sacrificial lamb. You see, you could never qualify as a sacrificial lamb before God. We were born with spots, but even if we weren’t, we have acquired blemishes, and thus, we would not be fit to be a sacrifice for sin. But Jesus, without spot or blemish, offered Himself to God that He might cleanse your conscience from the dead works that you might serve the living God.
Now there are people who are still trying to please God with their works. They are still seeking to offer God the works of their hands. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Jews are doing today. Yesterday, the Day of Atonement, there were no sacrifices for sins. There were no offerings. There were no lambs that were slain. There were no goats or bulls. But what they did was sit in their homes and reflect upon their lives and upon all of their good works. And they reflected also on their evil connivings. But as they reflected, they prayed that God would accept their good works and overlook their evil. And as long as their good works could overbalance their evil, they felt comfortable. Of course, many of them were racing around this past week trying to do a lot of good works so that it would be a comfortable day for them yesterday. Jesus Christ has purged us from these dead works that we might serve the living God.
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant ( Heb 9:15 ),
Now the high priest was the one who was the mediator in the Old Covenant, but Jesus is the mediator of the new covenant.
that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance ( Heb 9:15 ).
So Christ has become the mediator. “This cup is the new covenant in my blood shed for the remission of sins,” the New Testament. That by His death He has made the redemption for our transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, under the law. That we who have been called then might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Now back in verse Heb 9:12 , we had eternal redemption, and now the eternal inheritance for those who are eternally redeemed. How glorious it is, this eternal inheritance. Peter said, “Thanks be unto God who has caused us to be born again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. To an inheritance that is incorruptible, undefiled, and fades not away that is reserved in heaven for you. Who are kept by the power of God through faith” ( 1Pe 1:3-5 ). So this eternal inheritance that is ours in Christ.
Paul the apostle prayed for the Ephesians that they might know what is the hope of their calling. If you only knew the glories that God has in store for you in His eternal kingdom as you are the heirs of this eternal inheritance.
Now where a testament is [or where there is a will], there must of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth ( Heb 9:16-17 ).
So a person who makes out a will, the will does not come into force until they die. They’ve made out their last will and testament. This is what I want done with my things after I’m gone. But that will does not come into effect, it does not have any force until after the person who has made it is dead. Then it comes into force. Jesus established the covenant, but by His death the covenant came into force, so that we are now in that glorious covenant. Christ having died, the covenant now comes in force. It is something that we now benefit from because of the death of Christ.
Now neither the first covenant was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and he sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God has enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged [or cleansed] with blood; and without the shedding of blood is no remission ( Heb 9:18-22 ).
What an important declaration! When Moses established the whole thing, he killed the blood, and he killed the goats. He mixed it with water the blood, sprinkled the people, and he sprinkled the book, and he sprinkled the whole place to set it apart. “This is God’s testament.” It is now enforced, and enforced by the blood that has been shed, a blood covenant. It was through the blood that everything was cleansed. The Bible speaks about the blood of Jesus Christ cleansing us from all sin. So these things, the testament then being enforced, the shedding of blood, it now comes in force. He said, “For without the shedding of blood there is no remission.” That is, no remission of sins.
That is where I have great difficulty with the very devout Jews of the present day. I have no doubt or question of their sincerity. I believe that they do love God and I believe that they are very sincere in their worship of God. However, I cannot agree that by their works they can atone for their sins. That is totally against the scripture. So as I view it, they have one great problem. And that’s the great problem that plagues all men, the problem of sin. What do I do about my guilt? If there is no temple, if there are no sacrifices, if there is no shedding of blood, then how are their sins remitted? Or how can they be remitted if without the shedding of blood there is no remission? So that, to me, is the great problem that every Jew would have to face, because they are not keeping God’s first covenant that He established with them. Of course, they reject the second covenant, but they’re not keeping the first. Thus, having set aside the law of God, they teach the traditions of men for doctrine, just as they were doing in Jesus’ day. He said, “And you teach for doctrine the traditions of man,” and the traditions of man is that your good works should atone for your evil. Just be better than you are evil, gooder than you are bad, and you’ll be all right. But that is not what the scripture says. God established the ways by which their sins could be covered, and it was through the offerings.
I think it’s extremely significant that there have been no offerings for almost 2,000 years. Since shortly after the death of Christ, they ceased and have not begun again. They will apparently begin again in that seven-year period after the church has been taken out and God begins to work again with Israel. It would appear that their offerings and sacrifices will begin again, for the antichrist is going to come in the middle of that seven-year period and cause the daily oblations and sacrifices to cease. So they will establish a place of worship, and they will institute sacrifices again during that final seven-year cycle, which God has yet to accomplish on the nation of Israel. But right now they do not have a basis, scripturally, for the putting away of their sins.
It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these ( Heb 9:23 ).
In other words, this pattern down here, this model, it was important that it be cleansed in this manner; purified. But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than that of calves or goats or lambs.
For Christ did not enter into the holy places that were made with hands ( Heb 9:24 ),
He didn’t enter into temple, into the Holy of Holies there.
for these are only figures [or models] of the true; but he entered into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us ( Heb 9:24 ):
Our great High Priest there in presence of God representing us.
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entered into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation ( Heb 9:25-28 ).
And so Jesus came and He offered Himself as a sacrifice and then He entered into heaven itself that He might appear before God for us. His sacrifice was complete. That is why it only needed to happen once; once and for all. And so it’s been appointed unto man once to die after that the judgment; so Christ once offered to bear our sins.
“
Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary
1 Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.
An external sanctuary, a material structure, and therefore belonging to this world.
Heb 9:2. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread: which is called the sanctuary.
Or, the Holy Place.
Heb 9:3-8. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of All; 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 Aarons rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service of God. But into the Second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
Notice especially those words, Not without blood. There could be no approach to God under the old dispensation without the shedding of blood, and there is no access to the Lord now without the precious blood of Christ.
Heb 9:9-22. Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testators. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
That is the great gospel truth that was set forth by all the sacrifices under the law: without shedding of blood is no remission.
This exposition consisted of readings from Lev 16:1-31; And Heb 9:1-22.
Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible
Heb 9:1. , the first) Supply , testament or covenant; not , tabernacle. For the tabernacle itself was the worldly sanctuary, which we shall presently see. By a very elegant ellipsis, the word is left out, because it is rather appropriate to the New Testament; whence also, Heb 9:15, it is called , the substantive being put before the adjective. [We have here an admirable description of Christs entrance into the true sanctuary, as far as to ch. Heb 10:18.-V. g.]-, regular duties, or ordinances) those by which the duties of the sacred office were fulfilled [Heb 9:6]. The same word occurs, Heb 9:10.-, of worship) external.- , the worldly (mundiale) sanctuary) An Oxymoron. That sanctuary was worldly (which word [mundiale] of Sidonius is well fitted to express the idea material), or mundane [mundanum] (as Paul speaks of the elements of the world, Gal 4:3), and carnal, ch. Heb 7:16. It consisted of precious materials, but still it was material. This verse may be thus divided: first, the duties are set before us (as the Proposition), then the sanctuary; there follows the discussion, first, concerning the sanctuary, Heb 9:2-5, next concerning the duties, Heb 9:6, etc. (Paul has a very similar Chiasmus, 1Co 9:1, note): the antithesis to both is in Heb 9:11-12.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Heb 9:1-5
SECTION EIGHT
Heb 9: 1-28 and Heb 10:1-18
ANALYSIS
The Apostle having sufficiently considered the superiority of the New Covenant, proceeds now to demonstrate more fully and particularly the superiority of Christs ministry and sacrifice.
I. He begins the discussion by referring to the structure and furniture of the Jewish Tabernacle. (Heb 9: 1-5.) The first covenant, he says, had ordinances of Divine service and a worldly Sanctuary. This consisted of two apartments, each of which was also called a Sanctuary, in the first of which, commonly called the Holy Place, were the Candlestick, the Table of Shewbread, and the Altar of Incense; and in the second, known as the Most Holy Place, was the Ark of the Covenant, wherein were the golden vase that had manna, Aarons rod that budded, and the Tables of the Covenant; and over the Ark were the Cherubim of glory overshadowing the Mercy-seat.
II. He notices, in the second place, the services which were performed in these two apartments, and also the typical and transitory nature of the several ordinances which appertained to the Old Economy (verses 6-10).
1. The priests went into the Holy Place every day, performing the required services.
2. But into the Most Holy Place, the High Priest went alone, once every year, to make an atonement for himself and for the errors of the people, by which arrangement was divinely indicated the comparative darkness of that dispensation. For
3. The Tabernacle was but a figure for the time being, reaching down to the period of renovation, according to which were performed many carnal rites and ceremonies which never could purify the conscience of any one. For
(1.) Reason could perceive no moral or natural connection between the means and the ends.
(2.) God had not yet given to mankind any satisfactory explanation of these matters. And hence the necessity of the Inner Vail during that dispensation, to indicate that the way into heaven was not yet made manifest.
III. But Christ having appeared as the High Priest of the New Economy, entered through a greater and more perfect tabernacle into the heavenly Sanctuary, not with the blood of bulls and of goats, but with his own blood, thereby procuring eternal redemption for us, and purifying our consciences also from dead works (verses 11-14). Thus is indicated the superiority of Christs ministry in several ways. For
1. On his way into the heavenly Sanctuary, he passed through, not a material structure, such as the Holy Place of the Tabernacle and Temple, but through the true and spiritual Tabernacle of the new creation.
2. He went into heaven itself, and not into a mere symbol of it.
3. He went by means of his own blood, rendered infinitely efficacious by the eternal Spirit through which it was offered.
4. By means of this one offering he has procured for us eternal redemption, and purified our consciences from dead works, thereby qualifying us for the service of the living God.
The Apostle next contemplates Christ as the Mediator of the New Covenant, procuring, by means of his death, full forgiveness for all the faithful of the Old Covenant, and securing at the first of these points forms the scope of his argument in 10: 1-4. The Law, he says, having but a shadow, and not the exact image, of the good things to come, could never with its bloody sacrifices and carnal ordinances take away sins. This he proves from the fact that even those sins for which the daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly sacrifices had been offered, were again brought into remembrance on the Day of Atonement.
IV. But the sacrifice of Christ, fulfilling as it does the perfect will of God, enables him to be just in justifying every true believer. And hence it procures for all such free, full, and everlasting forgiveness (verses 5-18).
This section may be divided into the seven following paragraphs :
I. Heb 9:1-5. The structure, arrangement, and furniture of the ancient Tabernacle.
II. Heb 9:6-10. Symbolical services of the Tabernacle, indicating the comparative darkness of the Jewish age, and the insufficiency of its carnal rites and ordinances.
III. Heb 9:11-14. The higher, purer, and more perfect services of Christ.
IV. Heb 9:15-24. The eternal inheritance secured for the called and faithful of all ages, through the death and mediation of the Lord Jesus.
V. Heb 9:25-28. Further illustrations of the differences between the Levitical services and those rendered by Christ as the high priest of our confession.
VI. Heb 10:1-4. The utter moral inefficacy of the Levitical offerings.
VII. Heb 10:5-18. The all-sufficiency of the one offering of Christ shown (1) in its fulfilling the will of God; and (2) in the full and complete forgiveness which it procures for every obedient believer.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
.
Some things must be premised unto the reading of these words. , the first, doth in the original answer in gender unto all things which the apostle treats of, namely, the priesthood, the tabernacle, and the covenant. But many Greek copies do expressly read , the tabernacle. So is the text expressed in Stephens edition, wherein he followed sixteen ancient manuscripts, adhering generally unto the concurrent agreement of the greatest number; and the word is retained in the most common edition. But there are ancient copies also where it is omitted: and they are attested unto by all ancient translations, as the Syriac and Vulgar Latin; the Arabic supplying covenant, in the room of it. Wherefore Beza left it out, and is followed by the generality of expositors, as he is by our translators. Cameron contends for retaining it. But the reasons for its rejection are cogent and undeniable; as,
1. In the last verse of the preceding chapter, whereunto this immediately succeeds, the apostle mentioning the old covenant, calleth it absolutely , the first, without the addition of ; and immediately repeating , that is, that first, it is irrational to think that he refers it to another subject.
2. His design requires that the first covenant he intended; for he is not engaged in a comparison between the tabernacle and the new testament, but between the old covenant and the new. And the words of the text, with those that follow, contain a concession of what belonged unto the old covenant, particularly in the administration of divine worship; as is observed by Photius and OEcumenius.
3. The expression in the close of the verse, A worldly sanctuary, is no more nor less but the tabernacle; for it is that which the apostle immediately describes in its parts and furniture, which are the parts of the tabernacle, and no other. And if the word , the tabernacle, be here retained, the sense must be, And verily the first tabernacle had ordinances of worship and a tabernacle.
4. In the next verse, adding an account of what he had affirmed, he saith, For there was a tabernacle prepared; the first: which would render this sense to the context, For the first tabernacle had a tabernacle; for there was a tabernacle prepared.Wherefore I shall adhere unto the supplement made by our translators, the first covenant.
. Some read these words by an , and not in construction, from the ambiguity of the case and number of , which may be either of the genitive singular or accusative plural, ordinances, services. This it is supposed the following phrase of speech doth intimate, , And also a worldly sanctuary: which requires that the preceding words should be construed by apposition. And a difference there is between and ; but whereas it is evident that the apostle intends no or service here but what was performed , by virtue of ordinances or institutions, the word ought to be read in construction, ordinances of worship.
. Syr., but in the first there were in it; as the Arab., in the first covenant there was contained. Vulg. Lat., habuit quidem et prius, the comparative for the positive, unto the sense of the apostle: and the first truly had also. Beza, habuit igitur prius foedus et; transferring unto the words following: wherefore the first covenant had also; as we after him. Others, habuit igitur etiam prius. Most, in rendering the particles , have principal respect unto the note of inference , and include the assertory particle in it. I think the principal respect is to be had thereunto, as it is in the Vulgar Latin, and verily that first also had. . Syr., commands of ministry, or precepts; which gives us the plain sense and true meaning of the apostle, as we shall see afterwards. Ordinances concerning the administration of divine worship. Vulg. Lat., justificationes culturae; Rhem., justifications of service, most obscurely, and in words leading from the sense of the Holy Ghost. Others, ritus cultus; constitutos ritus cultuum, appointed rites of worship or service. All agree what it is the apostle intends, namely, the ordinances of Levitical worship; which are expressed in the Vulgar by justificationes culturae, both barbarously and beside the mind of the apostle.
. Syr., a worldly holy house. The tabernacle was frequently called the house of God, and the house of the sanctuary. Vulg., sanctum seculare; Rhem., a secular sanctuary: which the Interlinear changeth into mundanum. Seculare denotes duration; but it is not the design of the apostle to speak of the duration of that which he is proving to be ceased. Beza, sanctuarium mundanum. Some respect the particles , and render them illudque.[1]
[1] VARIOUS READING. An absurd jealousy against the critical amendment of the sacred text has sometimes been imputed to our author, from his controversy with Walton. The extent to which Owens views have been misapprehended has been indicated in vol. 16 of his miscellaneous works, p. 345. In this verse we have proof that his mind was under no servile thraldom to the textus receptus. That text inserts after . Our author omits it, and argues strongly for the omission of it. Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, agree in rejecting it. In Wrights edition of this work the word was inserted in the text of the verse, although Owen himself in the original edition had omitted it. ED.
Heb 9:1. Then verily even that first [covenant] had ordinances of worship, and also a worldly sanctuary.
Proceeding unto the comparison designed between the old covenant and the new, as unto the services and sacrifices wherewith the one and the other were established and confirmed, he introduceth the of the first by way of concession, as unto what really belonged thereunto. And this is the constant method of the apostle in all the comparisons he makes. He still allows full weight and measure unto that comparate which he prefers the other above. And as this, on the one hand, taketh away all cause of complaint, as though the worth and value of what he determineth against were concealed, so it tends unto the real exaltation of that which he gives the preference unto. It is an honor unto the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ, that they are so much more glorious and excellent than those of the old covenant, which yet were excellent and glorious also.
There is in this verse,
1. An introduction of the concession intended, . The contexture of these particles is somewhat unusual Hence some would have to be redundant: some join it in construction with that follows. This was the judgment of Beza, whom our translators follow; for the word also (had also ordinances) renders in the original: and thereon they omit it in the first place, not saying, and then verily, but then verily, that is, . If this be so, the assertion of the apostle seems to be built on a tacit supposition that the latter covenant hath ordinances of worship. Hence he grants the first had so also: Even that had also ordinances of worship, as the new hath.But I see not at all that any such supposition is here made by the apostle; yea, he doth rather oppose those ordinances of divine worship unto the privileges of the new covenant, than allow the same things to be under both. And this is evident in the worldly sanctuary which he ascribes unto the first covenant, for he had expressly denied that there was any such under the new, Heb 8:2. Wherefore although , and, seems to be redundant, yet it is emphatical, and increaseth the signification of the other particles, as it is often used in the Scripture. And the introduction of the concession, intimated by this contexture of the notes of it, then verily even that, shows both the reality of it and the weight that he lays upon it. we render then; most do it by igitur, therefore. But the connection unto the foregoing discourse is rather real than verbal. It is not an inference made from what was before declared, but a continuation of the same design. And yet moreover it is granted;or, therefore it is granted; verily so it was.And so serves unto the protasis of the comparison, whereunto answereth, verse 11, but Christ being come.
2. The subject spoken of is , the first, that is, ; that first covenant whereof we treat, the covenant made with the fathers at Sinai, which, as unto the administrations of it, the Hebrews as yet adhered unto. The nature of this covenant we have spoken unto at large on the foregoing chapter, and thither refer the reader.
3. Of this covenant it is affirmed in general, that it had two things:
(1.) Ordinances of worship;
(2.) A worldly sanctuary; and the relation of them unto it is, that it had them:
(1.) It had them, . It refers unto the time past. The apostle saith not it hath them, but it had them. That is,say some, it had so whilst that tabernacle was standing, and whilst these things were in force; but now the covenant is abolished, and it hath none of them.But this answers not the apostles intention. For he acknowledgeth that covenant and all its ordinances de facto to have been yet in being, in the patience and forbearance of God; only he affirms that it was , Heb 8:13, ready to disappear. Nor was he to take for granted what was the principal between him and the Hebrews, but to prove it; which he doth accordingly. Hence he grants that there were priests that offered gifts according to the law, Heb 8:4; and some served at the tabernacle, Heb 13:10. But the apostle hath respect unto the time wherein that covenant was first made. Then it had these things annexed unto it, which were the privileges and glory of it; for the apostle hath, in the whole discourse, continual respect unto the first making of the covenant, and the first institution of its administrations. It had them; that is, they belonged unto it, as those wherein its administration did consist.
Obs. 1. Every covenant of God had its proper privileges and advantages. Even the first covenant had so, and those such as were excellent in themselves, though not comparable with them of the new. For to make any covenant with men, is an eminent fruit of goodness, grace, and condescension in God; whereon he will annex such privileges thereunto as may evince it so to be.
(2.) This first covenant had two things in general:
[1.] . Both translations and interpreters have cast some difficulty on the meaning of these words, in themselves plain and evident. are . And the word is generally rendered by in the Greek versions, and next unto that by ; that which is legal and right. The Vulgar Latin renders it by justificationes; from the inclusion of jus, justum in the signification of it. In the New Testament it is used, Luk 1:6; Rom 1:32; Rom 2:26; Rom 5:16; Rom 8:4; Heb 9:1; Heb 9:10; Rev 15:4; Rev 19:8. And in no one place doth it signify institution; but it may be better rendered righteousness When alone we so translate it, Rom 5:16. In the context and construction wherein it is here placed, it can have no signification but that of ordinances, rites, institutions, statutes; the constant sense of , determined both by its derivation and invariable use. Wherefore all inquiries on these words, in what sense the rites of the law may be called justifications, or whether because the observation of them did justify before men, or were signs of our justification before God, are all useless and needless. What there is of just and right in the signification of the word, respects the right of God in the constitution and imposition of these ordinances. They were appointments of God, which he had right to prescribe; whence their observation on the part of the church was just and equal.
These ordinances or statutes were so , of service; that is, as we render it, divine service. is originally of as large a signification as , and denotes any service whatever. But it is here, and constantly in the New Testament, as is also the verb , restrained unto divine service, Joh 16:2; Rom 9:4; Rom 12:1; cultus, of worship: and so were it better rendered than by divine service. In one place it signifies by itself as much as doth here, Rom 9:4, Unto whom belongeth the giving of the law, , and the worship; that is, , the ordinances of worship, the ordinances of the ceremonial law. For although God was served in and according to the commands of the moral law, or the unchangeable prescriptions, the ten words; and also in the duties required in the due observance of the judicial law; yet this , or , was the immediate worship of the tabernacle, and the services of the priests that belonged thereunto. Hence the Jews call all idolatry and superstition , strange worship.
And this was that part of divine worship about which God had so many controversies with the people of Israel under the old testament; for they were always apt to run into noxious extremes about it. For the most part they were prone to neglect it, and to run into all manner of superstition and idolatry. For the law of this worship was a hedge that God had set about them, to keep them from those abominations; and if at any time they brake over it, or neglected it, and let it fall, they failed not to rush into the most abominable idolatry. On the other hand, ofttimes they placed all their trust and confidence, for their acceptance with God and blessing from him, on the external observance of the ordinances and institutions of it. And hereby they countenanced themselves not only in a neglect of moral duties and spiritual obedience, but in a course of flagitious sins and wickednesses. To repress these exorbitancies with respect unto both these extremes, the ministry of the prophets was in an especial manner directed. And we may observe some things here in our passage, as included in the apostles assertion, though not any part of his present design:
Obs. 2. There was never any covenant between God and man but it had some ordinances or arbitrary institutions of external divine worship annexed unto it. The original covenant of works had the ordinances of the tree of life, and of the knowledge of good and evil; the laws whereof belonged not unto that of natural light and reason. The covenant of Sinai, whereof the apostle speaks, had a multiplication of them. Nor is the new covenant destitute of them or their necessary observance. All public worship, and the sacraments of the church are of this nature. For whereas it is ingrafted in natural light that some external worship is to be given unto God, he would have it of his own prescription, and not, as unto the modes of it, left unto the inventions of men. And because God hath always, in every covenant, prescribed the external worship and all the duties of it which he will accept, it cannot but be dangerous for us to make any additions thereunto. Had he prescribed none at any time, seeing some are necessary in the light of nature, it would follow by just consequence that they were left unto the finding out and appointment of men; but he having done this himself, let not us add unto his words, lest he reprove us, and we be found liars. And in his institution of these ordinances of external worship there is both a demonstration of his sovereignty and an especial trial of our obedience, in things whereof we have no reason but his mere will and pleasure.
Obs. 3. It is a hard and rare thing to have the minds of men kept upright with God in the observation of the institutions of divine worship. Adam lost himself and us all by his failure therein. The old church seldom attained unto it, but continually wandered into one of the extremes mentioned before. And at this day there are very few in the world who judge a diligent observation of divine institutions to be a thing of any great importance. By some they are neglected, by some corrupted with additions of their own, and by some they are exalted above their proper place and use, and turned into an occasion of neglecting more important duties. And the reason of this difficulty is, because faith hath not that assistance and encouragement from innate principles of reason, and that sensible experience of this kind of obedience, as it hath in that which is moral, internal, and spiritual.
[2.] That these ordinances of divine worship might be duly observed and rightly performed under the first covenant, there was a place appointed of God for their solemnization. It had , also a worldly sanctuary. He renders by properly a holy place, a sanctuary And why he calls it , or worldly, we must inquire. And some things must be premised unto the exposition of these words:
1st. The apostle, treating of the services, sacrifices, and place of worship, under the old testament, doth not instance in nor insist upon the temple, with its fabric and the order of its services, but in the tabernacle set up by Moses in the wilderness And this he doth for the ensuing reasons:
(1st.) Because his principal design is to confirm the pre-eminence of the new covenant above the old. To this end he compares them together in their first introduction and establishment, with what did belong unto them therein. And as this in the new covenant was the priesthood, mediation, and sacrifice of Christ; so in the old it was the tabernacle with the services and sacrifices that belonged unto it. These the first covenant was accompanied with and established by; and therefore were they peculiarly to be compared with the tabernacle of Christ, and the sacrifice that he offered therein. This is the principal reason why in this disputation he hath all along respect unto the tabernacle, and not unto the temple.
(2dly.) Although the temple, with its glorious fabric and excellent order, added much unto the outward beauty and splendor of the sacred worship, yet was it no more but a large exemplification of what was virtually contained in the tabernacle and the institutions of it, from whence it derived all its glory; and therefore these Hebrews principally rested in and boasted of the revelation made unto Moses, and his institutions. And the excellency of the worship of the new covenant being manifested above that of the tabernacle, there is no plea left for the additional outward glory of the temple.
2dly. Designing to treat of this holy tent or tabernacle, he confines himself unto the first general distribution of it, Exo 26:33, And thou shalt hang up the veil under the taches, that thou mayest bring in thither within the veil the ark of the testimony: and the veil shall divide unto you between the holy and the most holy; the holy utensils of which two parts he afterwards distinctly describes. The whole was called ; which he renders by , the holy place, or sanctuary. The tabernacle of witness erected in the wilderness in two parts, the holy and the most holy, with the utensils of them, is that whose description he undertakes.
It is observed by the apostle, that the first covenant had this sanctuary;
1st. Because so soon as God had made that covenant with the people, he prescribed unto them the erection and making of this sanctuary, containing all the solemn means of the administration of the covenant itself.
2dly. Because it was the principal mercy, privilege, and advantage, that the people were made partakers of by virtue of that covenant. And it belongs unto the exposition of the text, as to the design of the apostle in it, that we consider what that privilege was, or wherein it did consist. And,
(1st.) This tabernacle, with what belonged thereunto, was a visible pledge of the presence of God among the people, owning, blessing, and protecting of them; and it was a pledge of Gods own institution. In imitation whereof, the superstitious heathens invented ways of obliging their idol gods to be present among them for the same ends. Hence was that prayer at the removal of the tabernacle and the ark therein, Num 10:35-36,
Rise up, LORD, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee.
And when it rested he said, Return, O LORD, unto the many thousands of Israel. And thence the ark was called the ark of Gods strength (see Psa 68:1-2; Psa 132:8; 2Ch 6:41), because it was a pledge of Gods putting forth his strength and power in the behalf of the people. And according unto this institution, it was a most effectual means to strengthen their faith and confidence in God; for what could they desire more, in reference thereunto, than to enjoy such a gracious earnest of his powerful presence among them? But when they ceased to trust in God, and put their confidence in the things themselves, which were no otherwise useful but as they were pledges of his presence, they proved their ruin. Hereof we have a fatal instance in their bringing the ark into the field, in their battle against the Philistines, 1Sa 4:3-11. And it will fare no better with others who shall rest satisfied with outward institutions of divine worship, neglecting the end of them all, which is faith and trust in God, Jer 7:4. But men of corrupt minds had rather place their trust in any thing but God: for they find that they can do so and yet continue in their sins; as those did in the prophet, verses 8-10. But none can trust in God unless he relinquish all sin whatever; all other pretended trust in him is but the entitling of him unto our own wickedness.
(2dly.) It was the pledge and means of Gods residence or dwelling among them, which expresseth the peculiar manner of his presence, mentioned in general before. The tabernacle was Gods house; nor did he promise at any time to dwell among them but with respect thereunto, Exo 15:17; Exo 25:8; Exo 29:44-46; Num 5:3. And the consideration hereof was a powerful motive unto holiness, fear, and reverence; unto which ends it is everywhere pressed in the Scripture.
(3dly.) It was a fixed seat of all divine worship, wherein the truth and purity of it were to be preserved. Had the observation of the ordinances of divine service been left unto the memories of private persons, it would quickly have issued in all manner of foolish practices, or have been utterly neglected; but God appointed this sanctuary for the preservation of the purity of his worship, as well as for the solemnity thereof. See Deu 12:8-11. Here was the book of the law laid up; according unto the prescript whereof the priests were obliged in all generations to take care of the public worship of God.
(4thly.) It was principally the privilege and glory of the church of Israel, in that it was a continual representation of the incarnation of the Son of God; a type of his coming in the flesh to dwell among us, and, by the one sacrifice of himself, to make reconciliation with God and atonement for sins. It was such an expression of the idea of the mind of God concerning the person and mediation of Christ, as in his wisdom and grace he thought meet to intrust the church withal. Hence was that severe injunction, that all things concerning it should be made according unto the pattern showed in the mount; for what could the wisdom of men do in the prefiguration of that mystery, which they had no comprehension of?
But yet this sanctuary the apostle calls , worldly. Expositors both ancient and modern do even weary themselves in their inquiries why the apostle calls this sanctuary worldly. But I think they do so without cause, the reason of the appellation being evident in his design and the context. And there is a difficulty added unto it by the Latin translation, which renders the word seculare, which denotes continuance or duration. This expresseth the Hebrew ; but that the apostle renders by , and not by , and therefore here hath no respect unto it. The sense that many fix upon is, that he intends the outward court of the temple, whereinto the Gentiles or men of the world were admitted, whence it was called worldly, and not sacred. But this exposition, though countenanced by many of the ancients, is contrary unto the whole design of the apostle. For,
1st. He speaks of the tabernacle, wherein was no such outward court; nor indeed was there any such belonging to the temple, whatever some pretend.
2dly. The whole sanctuary whereof he speaks he immediately distributes into two parts, as they were divided by the veil, namely, the holy and the most holy place; which were the two parts of the tabernacle itself.
3dly. He treats of the sanctuary only with respect unto the divine service to be performed in it by the priests, which they did not in any outward court whereinto the Gentiles might be admitted.
Wherefore the apostle terms this sanctuary worldly, because it was every way in and of this world. For,
1st. The place of it was on the earth, in this world; in opposition whereunto the sanctuary of the new covenant is in heaven, Heb 8:2.
2dly. Although the materials of it were as durable as any thing in that kind that could be procured, as gold and shittim-wood, because they were to be of a long continuance, yet were they worldly; that is, caduca, fading and perishing things, as are all things of the world; God intimating thereby that they were not to have an everlasting continuance. Gold, and wood, and silk, and hair, however curiously wrought and carefully preserved, are but for a time.
3dly. All the services of it, all its sacrifices, in themselves, separated from their typical, representative use, were all worldly; and their efficacy extended only unto worldly things, as the apostle proves in this chapter.
4thly. On these accounts the apostle calls it worldly; yet not absolutely so, but in opposition unto that which is heavenly. All things in the ministration of the new covenant are heavenly. So is the priest, his sacrifice, tabernacle, and altar, as we shall see in the process of the apostles discourse. And we may observe from the whole,
Obs. 4. That divine institution alone is that which renders any thing acceptable unto God. Although the things that belonged unto the sanctuary, and the sanctuary itself, were in themselves but worldly, yet being divine ordinances, they had a glory in them, and were in their season accepted with God.
Obs. 5. God can animate outward, carnal things with a hidden, invisible spring of glory and efficacy. So he did this sanctuary with its relation unto Christ; which was an object of faith, which no eye of flesh could behold.
Obs. 6. All divine service or worship must be resolved into divine ordination or institution. A worship not ordained of God is not accepted of God. It had ordinances of worship.
Obs. 7. A worldly sanctuary is enough for them whose service is worldly; and these things the men of the world are satisfied with.
Fuente: An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews
Because of the better priesthood and the better covenant a better worship is established. First, the sanctuary is described. Christ is set forth as the One who has entered into a greater Tabernacle through a greater service. His entry into the Holy Place is “once ‘ for all,” because He has for ever dealt with sin.
The superiority of the sacrifice is emphasized, for it is able to “cleanse the conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” The words used here to describe the central mystery of redemption are arresting. Christ is seen suggestively as Priest and Sacrifice. He offered Himself: “through the eternal Spirit.”
On the basis of this great sacrifice the new Priest had entered into the Holy Place. A testament or a covenant always becomes operative through death. Moses had initiated the service of the tabernacle of old by the shedding of blood. So Christ, “once at the end of the ages,” having “put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” initiated a new covenant of life through the gateway of death.
The pre-eminent thought in this section is that now in the priesthood of Christ a place of worship, unlocalized and unlimited, is provided. Wherever is found the soul who will come to God through Him, there He is as Priest, with the value of His own sacrifice, providing redemption and acceptance; and, moreover, having exhausted judgment in the process of His death, He hides from coming judgment all who trust in Him, changing the dread of that awful assize into the glorious hope of His own second appearing.
Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible
1 The first covenant had indeed its regulations for worship and a material sanctuary. 2 A tent was set up ( as in 3:3), the outer tent, containing the lampstand, the table, and the loaves of the Presence; this is called the Holy place. 3 But behind ( only here in NT of place) the second veil was the tent called the Holy of Holies, 4 containing the golden altar of incense, and also the ark of the covenant covered all over with gold, which held the golden pot of manna, the rod of Aaron that once blossomed, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 above this were the cherubim of the Glory overshadowing the mercy-seat-matters which (i.e. all in 2-5) it is impossible for me to discuss at present in detail.
The of 8:7-13 had been realized by the arrival of Christ (9:11); hence the older was superseded, and the writer speaks of it in the past tense, . As for (sc. ) of which he has been just speaking (8:13), the antithesis of the entire passage is between (vv. 1-10) and (vv. 11-22), as is explicitly stated in v. 15. The (om. B 38 206*. 216*. 489 547 1739 1827 boh pesh Origen) before emphasizes the fact that the old had this in common with the new, viz. worship and a sanctuary. This is, of course, out of keeping with the Jeremianic oracle of the new , which does not contemplate any such provision, but the writer takes a special view of which involves a celestial counterpart to the ritual provisions of the old order.
The former , then, embraced , i.e. regulations, as in Luk 1:6 and 1 Mac 2:21, 22 ( , ), rather than rights or privileges (as, e.g., OP. 1119:15 ), arrangements for the cultus. grammatically might be accusative plural (as in v. 6), but is probably the genitive, after , which it defines. or (as spelt in W) (cp. Thackeray, 87) is the cultus (Rom 9:4), or any specific part of it (Exo 12:25, Exo 12:27). The close connexion between worship and a sanctuary (already in 8:2, 3) leads to the addition of (as in 1:3, 6:5) . By the author means the entire sanctuary (so, e.g., Exo 36:3, Num 3:38), not the innermost sacred shrine or . This is clear. What is not so clear is the meaning of , and the meaning of its position after the noun without an article. Primarily here as in Tit 2:12 ( ) is an equivalent for (8:3), i.e. mundane or material, as opposed to or (v. 11). A fair parallel to this occurs in Test. Jos 17:8, . But did our author use it with a further suggestion? It would have been quite irrelevant to his purpose to suggest the public aspect of the sanctuary, although Jews like Philo and Josephus might speak of the temple as in this sense, i.e. in contrast to synagogues and , which were of local importance (Philo, ad Caium. 1019), or simply as a place of public worship (e.g. Jos. Bell. iv. 5, 2, , ). Neither would our author have called the sanctuary as symbolic of the , though Philo (Vit. Mosis, iii. 3-10) and Josephus (Ant. iii. 6, 4, iii. 7, 7, ) also play with this fancy. He views the sanctuary as a dim representation of the divine sanctuary, not of the universe. Yet he might have employed in a similar sense, if we interpret the obscure phrase in Did. 11:11 (see the notes of Dr. C. Taylor and Dr. Rendel Harris in their editions) as a spiritual or heavenly idea, depicted in the world of sense by emblematic actions or material objects, a symbol or action wrought upon the stage of this world to illustrate what was doing or to be done on a higher plane. Thus, in the context of the Didache, marriage would be a (cp. Eph 5:32) of the spiritual relation between Christ and his church. This early Christian usage may have determined the choice of here, the sanctuary being because it is the material representation or parabolic outward expression of the true, heavenly sanctuary. But at best it is a secondary suggestion; unless could be taken as ornamented, the controlling idea is that the sanctuary and its ritual were external and material ( , , ). The very position of denotes, as often in Greek, a stress such as might be conveyed in English by a sanctuary, material indeed.
The is now described (v. 2f.), after Ex 25-26. It consisted of two parts, each called a . The large outer tent, the first ( ) to be entered, was called (neut. plur., not fem. sing.). The phrase, 1 would have been in a better position immediately after , where, indeed, Chrysostom (followed by Blass) reads it, instead of after the list of the furniture. The lampstand stood in front (to the south) of the sacred table on which twelve loaves or cakes of wheaten flour were piled ( = ), the Hebrew counterpart of the well-known lectisternia: is a hendiadys for the table with its loaves of the Presence. Such was the furniture of the outer . Then (vv. 3-5) follows a larger catalogue (cp. Joma 2:4) of what lay inside the inner shrine ( ) behind the curtain (Exo 27:16) which screened this from the outer tent, and which is called , , because the first was a curtain hung at the entrance to the larger tent, and , either because that is the term used in Exo 26:31f. (the particular passage the writer has in mind here), the term elsewhere being usually or (Exo 26:36 etc.), or because Philo had expressly distinguished the outer curtain as , the inner as (de vita Mosis, iii. 9). This inner shrine contained (v. 4) , i.e. a wooden box, overlaid with gold, on which incense () was offered twice daily by the priests. The LXX calls this (Exo 30:1-10), but our writer follows the usage of Philo, which is also, on the whole, that of Josephus, in calling it (so Symm. Theodotion, Exo 30:1, Exo 31:8); , in the non-biblical papyri, denotes articles like censers in a sanctuary, but is never used in the LXX of levitical censers, though Josephus occasionally describes them thus, like the author of 4 Mac 7:11. The ordinary view was that this stood beside the and the sacred in the outer sanctuary. Both Philo (e.g. quis rer. div. 46, , , , : de vita Mos. iii. 9 f., in the outer tent, ) and Josephus (Ant, iii. 6. 4 f.; cp. viii. 4, for the reproduction in Solomons temple) are quite explicit on this. Indeed no other position was possible for an altar which required daily service from the priests; inside the it would have been useless. But another tradition, which appears in the contemporary (Syriac) apocalypse of Baruch (6:7), placed the altar of incense1 inside the , a view reflected as early as the Samaritan text of the pentateuch, which put Exo 30:1-10 (the description of the altar of incense) after 26:35, where logically it ought to stand, inserting a in Exo 40:27 (where the altar of incense is placed before the veil). The earliest hint of this tradition seems to be given in the Hebrew text of 1 K 6:22, where Solomon is said to have overlaid with gold the altar that is by the oracle (i.e. the ). But our author could not have been influenced by this, for it is absent from the LXX text. His inaccuracy was rendered possible by the vague language of the pentateuch about the position of the altar of incense, (Exo 30:6), where may mean opposite or close in front of the curtain-but on which side of it? In Exo_37 the , the , and the altar of incense are described successively after the items in the ; but then the LXX did not contain the section on the altar of incense, so that this passage offered no clue to our writer. In Exo 40:5 it is merely put . This vagueness is due to the fact that in the original source the sketch of the had no altar of incense at all; the latter is a later accretion, hence the curious position of Exo 30:1-10 in a sort of appendix, and the ambiguity about its site.
After all it is only an antiquarian detail for our author. It has been suggested that he regarded the , irrespective of the veil, as symbolizing the heavenly sanctuary, and that he therefore thought it must include the altar of incense as symbolizing the prayers of the saints. But there is no trace of such a symbolism elsewhere in the epistle; it is confined to the author of the Apocalypse (8:3f.). The suggestion that he meant to express only a close or ideal connexion between the inner shrine and the altar of incense, is popular (e.g. Delitzsch, Zahn, Peake, Seeberg) but quite unacceptable; as applied to the other items could not mean this,1 and what applies to them applies to the . Besides, the point of the whole passage is to distinguish between the contents of the two compartments. Still less tenable is the idea that really means censer or incense pan. This way out of the difficulty was started very early (in the peshita, the vulgate), but a censer is far too minor a utensil to be included in this inventory; even the censer afterwards used on atonement-day did not belong to the , neither was it golden. What the had was merely a brazier (, Lev 16:12). Since it is not possible that so important an object as the altar of incense could have been left out, we may assume without much hesitation that the writer did mean to describe it by ,2 and that the irregularity of placing it on the wrong side of the curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies in describing what he only knew from the text of the LXX. In B the slip is boldly corrected by the transference of () to v. 2, immediately after (so Blass).
The second item is covered with gold all over (: Philos phrase is , de Ebriet. 21), a chest or box about 4 feet long and 2 feet broad and high (Exo 25:10f.), which held three sacred treasures, (a) the golden pot (, Attic feminine) of manna (Exo 16:32-34); (b) Aarons rod (in the story of Num 17:1-11, which attested the sacerdotal monopoly of the clan of Levi); and (c) (Exo 25:16f. Exo 25:31:18), i.e. the two stone tablets on which the decalogue was written ( , Deu 9:9; , 10:5), the decalogue summarizing the terms of the for the People. In adding to the writer follows the later tradition of the LXX and of Philo (de congressu, 18); the pot is not golden in the Hebrew original. He also infers, as later Jewish tradition did, that the ark contained this pot, although, like Aarons rod, it simply lay in front of the ark (Exo 16:33, Exo 16:34, Num 17:10). He would gather from 1 K 8:9 that the ark contained the tablets of the covenant. He then (v. 5) mentions the (Aramaic form) or (Hebrew form) , two small winged figures (Exo 25:18-20), whose pinions extended over a rectangular gold slab, called , laid on the top of the ark, which it fitted exactly. They are called cherubim , which is like (1:3, 8:1) a divine title, applied to Jesus in Jam 2:1, but here used as in Rom 9:4. The cherubim on the represented the divine Presence as accessible in mercy; the mystery of this is suggested by the couplet in Sir 49:8(10):
,
.
Philos account of is given in de vita Mosis, iii. 8, , . Lower down, in the same paragraph, he speaks of , and is similarly used in De Cherub. 8 (on the basis of Exo 25:19). The or covering of the ark was splashed with blood on atonement-day; perhaps, even apart from that, its Hebrew original meant means of propitiation, and was not incorrectly named (cp. Deissmann in EBi 3027-3035), but our author simply uses it in its LXX sense of mercy-seat. He does not enter into any details about its significance; in his scheme of sacrificial thought such a conception had no place. Philo also allegorizes the overshadowing wings of the cherubim as a symbol of Gods creative and royal powers protecting the cosmos, and explains Exo 25:22 as follows (Quaest. in Exo 25:22): , . But our author does not enter into any such details. He has no time for further discussion of the furniture, he observes; whether he would have allegorized these items of antiquarian ritual, if or when he had leisure, we cannot tell. The only one he does employ mystically is the (10:20), and his use of it is not particularly happy. He now breaks off, almost as Philo does (quis rer. div. 45, ) on the same subject. is the ordinary literary phrase in this connexion (e.g. 2 Mac 2:30; Polybius, i. 67. 11, , and Poimandres [ed. Reitzenstein, p. 84] ). as in 1Co 11:20.
Worship in a sanctuary like this shows that access to God was defective (vv. 6-8), as was inevitable when the sacrifices were external (vv. 8-10). Having first shown this, the writer gets back to the main line of his argument (8:2), viz. the sacrifice of Jesus as pre-eminent and final (v. 11f.).
6 Such were the arrangements for worship. The priests constantly enter the first tent (v. 2) in the discharge of their ritual duties, 7 but the second tent is entered only once a year by the highpriest alone-and it must not be without blood, which he presents on behalf of (cp. 5:3) himself and the errors of the People. 8 By this the holy Spirit means that the way into the Holiest Presence was not yet disclosed so long as the first tent 9 (which foreshadowed the present age) was still standing, with its offerings of gifts and sacrifices which cannot ( as in 4:2) possibly make the conscience of the worshipper perfect, 10 since they relate (sc. ) merely to food and drink and a variety of ablutions-outward regulations for the body, that only hold till the period of the New Order.
In v. 6; = continually, as in BM i. 42 6 (ii b.c.) . (which might even be the present with a futuristic sense, the writer placing himself and his readers back at the inauguration of the sanctuary: Now, this being all ready, the priests will enter, etc.) (a regular sacerdotal or ritual term in Philo) (morning and evening, to trim the lamps and offer incense on the golden altar, Exo 27:21, Exo 30:7f. etc.; weekly, to change the bread of the Presence, Lev 24:8f., Jos. Ant. iii. 6, 6). The ritual of the inner shrine (v. 3) is now described (v. 7, cp. Joma 5:3); the place is entered by the highpriest , on the annual day of atonement (Lev 16:29, Lev 16:34, Exo 30:10): only once, and he must be alone (, Lev 16:17), this one individual out of all the priests. Even he dare not enter (Lev 16:14f.), i.e. without carrying in blood from the sacrifice offered for his own and the nations . In Gen 43:12 is an oversight, but in Jdg 5:20, Tob 3:3, 1 Mac 13:39, Sir 23:2 and sins are bracketed together (see above on 5:2), and the word occurs alone in Polyb. xxxviii. 1, 5. as an equivalent for offences or errors in the moral sense. There is no hint that people were not responsible for them, or that they were not serious; on the contrary, they had to be atoned for. .; for a similarly loose construction cp. 1Jn 2:2 ( [] , ).
Rabbi Ismael b. Elischa, the distinguished exegete of i-ii a.d., classified sins as follows (Tos. Joma 5:6): Transgressions of positive enactments were atoned for by repentance, involving a purpose of new obedience, according to Jer 22:23 (Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings). The day of atonement, however, was necessary for the full pardon of offences against divine prohibitions: according to Lev 16:30 (On that day shall the priest make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins). An offender whose wrongdoing deserved severe or capital punishment could only be restored by means of sufferings: according to Psa 89:32 (Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes). But desecration of the divine Name could not be atoned for by any of these three methods; death alone wiped out this sin (Jer 24:4).
The author now (v. 8) proceeds to find a spiritual significance in this ceremonial. is used of a divine meaning as in 12:27, here conveyed by outward facts. In 1 P 1:11 the verb is again used of the Spirit, and this is the idea here; Josephus (Ant. iii. 7, 7, ) uses the same verb for the mystic significance of the jewels worn by the highpriest, but our authors interpretation of the significance of the is naturally very different from that of Josephus, who regards the unapproachable character of the or inner shrine as symbolizing heaven itself (Ant. iii. 6, 4 and 7, 7, , ). For with gen. in sense of way to, cp. Gen 3:24 ( ), Jdg 5:14 ( ). here (like in vv. 12, 25, cp. 13:11) as in 10:19 means the very Presence of God, an archaic liturgical phrase suggested by the context. The word was not found by the writer in his text of the LXX; it only occurs in the LXX in Jer_40 (33):6, and the Latin phrase iter patefieri (e.g. Caesar, de Bello Gall. iii. i) is merely a verbal parallel. In (v. 9), the writer has chosen for the sake of assonance with , but is a good Greek phrase for to be in existence. The parenthesis 1 (here = , as Chrysostom saw) means that the first was merely provisional, as it did no more than adumbrate the heavenly reality, and provisional (as in Act 4:3 ) , i.e. the period in which the writer and his readers lived, the period inaugurated by the advent of Jesus with his new . This had meant the supersession of the older with its sanctuary and , which only lasted . But, so long as they lasted, they were intended by God to foreshadow the permanent order of religion; they were, as the writer says later (v. 23), , mere copies but still copies. This is why he calls the fore-tent a . For now, as he adds triumphantly, in a daring, imaginative expression, our has passed through his heavenly fore-tent (v. 11), and his heavenly sanctuary corresponds to a heavenly (i.e. a full and final) sacrifice. In the levitical ritual the high priest on atonement-day took the blood of the victim through the fore-tent into the inner shrine. Little that accomplished! It was but a dim emblem of what our highpriest was to do and has done, in the New Order of things.
When readers failed to see that was a parenthesis, it was natural that should be changed into (D c K L P, so Blass).
The failure of animal sacrifices (9b-10) lies . As the inner consciousness here is a consciousness of sin, conscience fairly represents the Greek term . Now, the levitical sacrifices were ineffective as regards the conscience of worshippers; they were merely , a striking phrase (cp. 13:9) of scorn for the mass of minute regulations about what might or might not be eaten or drunk, and about baths, etc. Food and ablutions are intelligible; a book like Leviticus is full of regulations about them. But ? Well, the writer adds this as naturally as the author of Ep. Aristeas does, in describing the levitical code. I suppose most people feel some curiosity about the enactments of our law (128); it was to safeguard us from pagan defilement that (142), (158). It is curious that this defence of the levitical code contains an allusion which is a verbal parallel to our writers disparaging remark here; the author asserts that intelligent Egyptian priests call the Jews men of God, a title only applicable to one who , since all others are , . (140, 141). Libations of wine accompanied certain levitical sacrifices (e.g. Num 5:15, Num 5:6:15, Num 5:17, Num 5:28:7f.), but no ritual regulations were laid down for them, and they were never offered independently (cp. EBi 4193, 4209). It is because the whole question of sacrifice is now to be restated that he throws in these disparaging comments upon the and their accompaniments in the older . Such sacrifices were part and parcel of a system connected with (v. 10) external ritual, and in concluding the discussion he catches up the term with which he had opened it: all such rites are , connected with the sensuous side of life and therefore provisional, . Here is prescribed, as in the description of workmen on strike, in TebtP 26:17 (114 b.c.) . means a reconstruction of religion, such as the new (8:13) involved; the use of the term in Polybius, iii. 118. 12 ( ), indicates how our author could seize on it for his own purposes.
The comma might be omitted after , and taken closely with : gifts and sacrifices, which ( . in apposition) are merely (the subject of) outward regulations for the body, being taken as cumulative (Luk 3:20) -besides, etc. This gets over the difficulty that the levitical offerings had a wider scope than food, drink, and ablutions; but is not natural in this sense here, and is not a parenthetical clause. The insertion of before (by c B Dc etc. vg hkl Chrys.), = even or in particular (which is the only natural sense), is pointless. (Dc K L vg hkl) was an easy conformation to the previous datives, which would logically involve (as the vg implies: et justitiis carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis), otherwise would be extremely awkward, after , in apposition to .
Now for the better sanctuary and especially the better sacrifice of Christ as our (vv. 11-28)!
11 But when Christ arrived as the highpriest of the bliss that was to be, he passed through the greater and more perfect tent which no hands had made (no part, that is to say, of the present order), 12 not ( = nor yet) taking any blood of goats and calves but his own blood, and entered once for all into the Holy place. He secured an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defiled persons, give them a holiness that bears on bodily purity, 14 how much more shall (, logical future) the blood of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve a living God.
This paragraph consists of two long sentences (vv. 11, 12, 13, 14). The second is an explanation of at the close of the first. In the first, the sphere, the action, and the object of the sacrifice are noted, as a parallel to vv. 6, 7; but in vv. 13, 14 the sphere is no longer mentioned, the stress falling upon the other two elements. The writer does not return to the question of the sphere till vv. 21f.
(v. 11). But Christ came on the scene,1 and all was changed. He arrived as , and the author carries on the thought by an imaginative description of him passing through the upper heavens (no hand-made, mundane fore-court this!) into the innermost Presence. It is a more detailed account of what he had meant by (4:14). , like (v. 24), means manufactured, not fictitious (as applied to idols or idol-temples by the LXX and Philo). reads like the gloss of a scribe, but the writer is fond of this phrase , and, though it adds nothing to , it may stand. , in this sense of creation or created order, was familiar to him (e.g. Wis 5:17, 19:6). , before , was soon altered into (by B D 1611 1739 2005 vt syr Orig. Chrys.), either owing to a scribe being misled by or owing to a pious feeling that here (though not in 10:1) was too eschatological. The were in a sense even for Christians, but already they had begun to be realized; e.g. in the . This full range was still to be disclosed (2:5, 13:14), but they were realities of which Christians had here and now some vital experience (see on 6:5).
Some editors (e.g. Rendall, Nairne) take with what follows, as if the writer meant to say that Christ appeared as highpriest of the good things which came by the greater and more perfect tabernacle (not made with hands-that is, not of this creation). This involves, (a) the interpretation of as = not by the blood of goats and calves either, the term carrying on ; and (b) in a double sense. There is no objection to (b), but (a) is weak; the bliss and benefit are mediated not through the sphere but through what Jesus does in the sphere of the eternal . Others (e.g. Westcott, von Soden, Dods, Seeberg) take with , Christ by means of the sanctuary. This sense of is better than that of (a) above, and it keeps the same for vv. 11 and 12. But the context ( ) points to the local use of in , rather than to the instrumental; and it is no objection that the writer immediately uses in another sense ( ), for this is one of his literary methods (cp. with gen. and accus. in 2:1, 2, 2:9, 10, 7:18, 19, 23, 24, 25).
Continuing the description of Christs sacrifice, he adds (v. 12) (for the People) (for himself), which according to the programme in Lev_16 the priest smeared on the east side of the . The later Jewish procedure is described in the Mishna tractate Joma, but our author simply draws upon the LXX text, though (like Aquila and Symmachus) he uses instead of . is graphically used in , as in , but the idea is the self-sacrifice, the surrender of his own life, in virtue of which1 he redeemed his People, the or sacrifice being redemptive as it was his. The single sacrifice had eternal value, owing to his personality. The term , a stronger form of , which is unknown to the LXX, is reserved by our author for the sacrifice of Jesus, which he now describes as issuing in a -an archaic religious term which he never uses elsewhere; it is practically the same as (v. 15), but he puts into it a much deeper meaning than the LXX or than Luke (1:68, 2:38), the only other NT writer who employs the term. Though he avoids the verb, his meaning is really that of 1 P 1:18 ( ) or of Tit 2:14 ( , ).
In this compressed phrase, , (a) offers the only instance of being modified in this epistle. (b) , in the sense of Dion. Hal. Ant. v. 293 ( ), and Jos. Ant. 1:19. 1 ( ), is a participle (for its form,2 cp. Moulton, 1. p. 51), which, though middle, is not meant to suggest any personal effort like by himself, much less for himself; the middle in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean what the active meant. what he secured, he secured for us (cp. Aelian, Var. Hist. iii. 17, ). The aorist has not a past sense; it either means to secure (like in 4 Mal 3:13 and in 2 Mac 11:36), after a verb of motion (cp. Act 25:13), or securing (by what grammarians call coincident action).
The last three words of v. 12 are now (vv. 13, 14) explained by an a fortiori argument. Why was Christs redemption eternal? What gave it this absolute character and final force? In v. 13 reverses the order in 10:4, and is now substituted for . The former led to being read (by the K L P group, Athanasius, Cyril, etc.), but the blood of goats and bulls was a biblical generalization (Psa 50:13, Isa 1:11), chosen here as a literary variation, perhaps for the sake of the alliteration, though some editors see in a subtle, deliberate antithesis to the feminine . According to the directions of Num 19:9f. a red cow was slaughtered and then burned; the ashes ( ) were mixed with fresh water and sprinkled upon any worshipper who had touched a dead body and thus incurred ceremonial impurity, contact with the dead being regarded as a disqualification for intercourse with men or God (see above on 6:1). This mixture was called . The rite supplies the metaphors of the argument in vv. 14, 15; it was one of the ablutions (v. 10) which restored the contaminated person ( ) to the worshipping community of the Lord. The cow is described as , the purified person as ; but our author goes ouside the LXX for , and even is rare in the LXX. The red colour of the cow and the scarlet cloth burnt on the pyre with the aromatic woods, suggest the colour of blood; the aromatic woods are also probably connected with primitive ideas of the cathartic value of odours such as they produce (R. A. S. Macalister in ERE xi. 36a). The lustration had no connexion whatever with atonement-day, and it was only in later rabbinic tradition that it was associated with the functions of the highpriest. According to Pesikta 40a, a pagan inquirer once pointed out to Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai the superstitious character of such rites. His disciples considered his reply unsatisfactory, and afterwards pressed him to explain to them the meaning of the ashes and the sprinkling, but all he could say was that it had been appointed by the Holy One, and that men must not inquire into His reasons (cp. Bachers Agada d. Pal. Amorer, i. 556; Agada der Tannaiten2, i. 37, 38). Our author does not go into details, like the author of Ep. Barnabas (8), who allegorizes the ritual freely in the light of the Jewish tradition; he merely points out that, according to the bible, the rite, like the similar rite of blood on atonement-day, restored the worshipper to outward communion with God. means this and no more.
The removal of the religious tabu upon persons contaminated by contact with the dead was familiar to non-Jews. The writer goes back to the OT for his illustration, but it would be quite intelligible to his Gentile Christian readers (cp. Maretts The Evolution of Religion, pp. 115f.; ERE iv. 434, x. 456, 483, 485, 501), in a world where physical contact with the dead was a . Philos exposition (de spec. legibus. i. , 1 f.) of the rite is that the primary concern is for the purity of the soul; the attention needed for securing that the victim is , or, as he says, , is a figurative expression for moral sensitiveness on the part of the worshipper; it is a regulation really intended for rational beings. , . The bodily cleansing is only secondary, and even this he ingeniously allegorizes into a demand for self-knowledge, since the water and ashes should remind us how worthless our natures are, and knowledge of this kind is a wholesome purge for conceit! Thus, according to Philo, the rite did purge soul as well as body: . Our author does not share this favourable view (cp. Seebergs Der Tod Christi, pp. 53 f.; O. Schmitzs Die Opferanschauung des spteren Judentums, pp. 281 f.). He would not have denied that the levitical cultus aimed at spiritual good; what he did deny was that it attained its end. Till a perfect sacrifice was offered, such an end was unattainable. The levitical cultus provided a ritual cleansing for the community, a cleansing which, for devout minds that could penetrate beneath the letter to the spirit, must have often meant a sense of restoration of Gods community. But at best the machinery was cumbrous: at best the pathway into Gods presence was dimly lighted (H. A. A. Kennedy, The Theology of the Epistles, p. 213).
Our author does not explain how the blood of goats and bulls could free the worshiper from ceremonial impurity; the cathartic efficacy of blood is assumed. From the comparative study of religion we know now that this belief was due to the notion that the animal that has been consecrated by contact with the altar becomes charged with a divine potency, and its sacred blood, poured over the impure man, absorbs and disperses his impurity (Marett, The Evolution of Religion, p. 121). But in , (a) though the blood of goats and bulls is applied to the people as well as to the altar, and is regarded as atoning (see below), the writer offers no rationale of sacrifice. . He does not argue, he takes for granted, that access to God involves sacrifice, i.e. blood shed. (b) He uses the rite of Num_19 to suggest the cathartic process, the point of this lustration being the use of water made holy by being mingled with the ashes of the heifer that had been burnt. The final point is reached, no doubt (Marett, op. cit. 123), when it is realized that the blood of bulls and goats cannot wash away sin, that nothing external can defile the heart or soul, but only evil thoughts and evil will. Yet our writer insists that even this inward defilement requires a sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christs blood. This is now (v. 14) urged in the phrase , where we at last see what was intended by in 8:3. We are not to think of the risen or ascended Christ presenting himself to God, but of his giving himself up to die as a sacrifice. The blood of Christ means his life given up for the sake of men. He did die, but it was a voluntary death-not the slaughter of an unconscious, reluctant victim; and he who died lives. More than that, he lives with the power of that death or sacrifice. This profound thought is further developed by (a) the term , which is in apposition to ; and (b) by , which goes with . (a) Paul calls Christians, or calls them to be, ; but our writer, like the author of 1 P (1:19), calls Christ as a victim. It is a poetic synonym for , taken over as the technical term (LXX) for the unblemished () animals which alone could be employed in sacrifice; here it denotes the stainless personality, the sinless nature which rendered the self-sacrifice of Jesus eternally valid. Then (b) the pregnant phrase , which qualifies , means that this sacrifice was offered in the realm or order of the inward spirit, not of the outward and material; it was no , but carried out , i.e. in, or in virtue of, his spiritual nature. What the author had called (7:16) he now calls . The sacrificial blood had a mystical efficacy; it resulted in an eternal because it operated in an eternal order of spirit, the sacrifice of Jesus purifying the inner personality ( ) because it was the action of a personality, and of a sinless personality which belonged by nature to the order of spirit or eternity. Christ was both priest and victim; as Son of God he was eternal and spiritual, unlike mortal highpriests (7:16), and, on the other side, unlike a mortal victim. The implication (which underlies all the epistle) is that even in his earthly life Jesus possessed eternal life. Hence what took place in time upon the cross, the writer means, took place really in the eternal, absolute order. Christ sacrificed himself , and the single sacrifice needed no repetition, since it possessed absolute, eternal value as the action of One who belonged to the eternal order. He died-he had to die-but only once (9:15-10:18), for his sacrifice, by its eternal significance, accomplished at a stroke what no amount of animal sacrifices could have secured, viz. the forgiveness of sins. It is as trivial to exhaust the meaning of in a contrast with the animal sacrifices of the levitical cultus as it is irrelevant to drag in the dogma of the trinity. closely describes (hence it has no article). What is in the writers mind is the truth that what Jesus did by dying can never be exhausted or transcended. His sacrifice, like his , like the or which he secures, is or lasting, because it is at the heart of things. It was because Jesus was what he was by nature that his sacrifice had such final value; its atoning significance lay in his vital connexion with the realm of absolute realities; it embodied all that his divine personality meant for men in relation to God. In short, his self-sacrifice was something beyond which nothing could be, or could be conceived to be, as a response to Gods mind and requirement in relation to sin an intelligent and loving response to the holy and gracious will of God, and to the terrible situation of man (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 228).
A later parallel from rabbinic religion occurs in the Midrash Tehillim on Psa 31: formerly you were redeemed with flesh and blood, which to-day is and to-morrow is buried; wherefore your redemption was temporal ( ). But now I will redeem you by myself, who live and remain for ever; wherefore your redemption will be eternal redemption ( , cp. Isa 45:17).
One or two minor textual items may be noted in v. 14.
] J. J. Reiskes conjecture (purity) is singularly prosaic. (* A B Dc K L syrvg hkl arm Ath) is altered into the conventional by c D* P 35. 88. 206. 326. 547, etc. lat boh Chrys. Cyril. Liturgical usage altered into (A D* P 5. 38. 218. 241. 256. 263. 378. 506. 1319. 1831. 1836*. 1912. 2004. 2127 vt syrvg boh Cyr.), and, to , (a gloss from 1Th 1:9) is added in A P 104 boh Chrys. etc.
In the closing words of v. 14 is a form which is rare (Mat 3:12, Jam 4:8?) in the NT, so rare that is read here by 206. 221. 1831 Did. Ath It is a Hellenistic verb, used in the inscriptions (with ) exactly in the ceremonial sense underlying the metaphor of this passage (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 216 f.). The cleansing of the conscience (cp. v. 9) is , from far more serious flaws and stains than ceremonial pollution by contact with a corpse (see above, and in 6:1). As Dods puts it, a pause might be made before , from dead-(not bodies but) works. The object is . The writer uses the sacerdotal term (8:5) here as in 10:2 and 12:28, probably like Paul in a general sense; if he thought of Christians as priests, i.e. as possessing the right of access to God, he never says so. Religion for him is access to God, and ritual metaphors are freely used to express the thought. When others would say fellowship, he says worship. It is fundamental for him that forgiveness is essential to such fellowship, and forgiveness is what is meant by purifying the conscience. As absolute forgiveness was the boon of the new (8:12), our author now proceeds (vv. 15f.) to show how Christs sacrifice was necessary and efficacious under that . A sacrifice, involving death, is essential to any : this principle, which applies to the new (v. 15), is illustrated first generally (vv. 16, 17) and then specifically, with reference to the former (vv. 18-22).
15 He mediates a new covenant for this reason, that those who have been called may obtain the eternal inheritances they have been promised, now that a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions involved in the first covenant. 16 Thus in the case of a will, the death of the testator must be announced. 17 A will only holds in cases of death, it is never valid so long as the testator is alive. 18 Hence even the first ( , sc. as in 9:1) covenant of Gods will was not inaugurated apart from blood; 19 for after Moses had announced every command in the Law to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, together with water, scarlet wool and hyssop, sprinkling the book and all the people, and saying, 20 This is the blood of that covenant which is Gods command for you. 21 He even ( , only here in Heb.) sprinkled with blood the tent and all the utensils of worship in the same way. 22 In fact, one might almost say that by Law everything is cleansed with blood. No blood shed no remission of sins!
The writer thus weaves together the idea of the new (9:15 echoes 8:6) and the idea of sacrifice which he has just been developing. In v. 15 carries a forward reference (now this is why Christ mediates a new , .), as, e.g., in Xen. Cyrop. ii. I. 21, . As the climax of the promises in the new is pardon (8:12), so here its purpose is described as , which obviously is equivalent to full forgiveness (Eph 1:7 , ). is like in 1:3. But pardon is only the means to fellowship, and the full scope of what has been promised is still to be realized. Yet it is now certain; the bliss to be is an eternal , assured by Christ. Note that the in is not exactly temporal = under, i.e. during the period of (cp. in v. 26), but causal. The transgressions, which had arisen in connexion with the first , like unbelief and disobedience, are conceived as having taken their place among men; they are the standing temptations of life towards God. The writer does not say, with Paul, that sin became guilt in view of the law, but this is near to his meaning; with the first sins started, the sins that haunt the People. They are removed, for the penitent, by the atoning death of Jesus, so that the People are now unencumbered. There is a similar thought in Act 13:38, Act 13:39, where Paul tells some Jews that through Jesus Christ , – , . For the sake of emphasis, is thrown forward, away from , like in the next verse.
, which in 11:35 is used in its non-technical sense of release from death (at the cost of some unworthy compliance), is used here in its LXX religious sense of a redemption which costs much, which can only be had at the cost of sacrifice. The primitive idea of ransom had already begun to fade out of it (cp. Dan 4:32; Philo, quod omnis probus, 17), leaving liberation at some cost as the predominant idea (so in Clem. Alex. Strom vii. 56). Here it is a synonym for (v. 12), or as Theophylact put it, for deliverance. But its reference is not eschatological; the retrospective reference is uppermost.
For the first and only time he employs to describe those whom he had already hailed as (3:1). To be called was indispensable to receiving Gods boon (11:8), so that here is an appropriate term for those who are no longer hampered by any obstacles of an inadequate pardon. The are the faithful People; the objects of redemption are united in one category, for the One and Only Sacrifice is not of the sphere of time (Wickham). It is not an aoristic perfect ( = ), as if the were simply those under the old , though these are included, for the sacrificial death of Jesus has a retrospective value; it clears off the accumulated offences of the past. The writer does not work out this, any more than Paul does in Rom 3:25f.; but it may be implied in 11:40, 12:23 (see below), where the perfecting of the older believers is connected with the atonement. However, the special point here of is that the death which inaugurates the new deals effectively with the hindrances left by the former . Not that this is its exclusive function. That the death inaugurates an order of grace in which forgiveness is still required and bestowed, is taken for granted (e.g. 4:16); but the , which from the beginning has been held out to the People of God, has only become attainable since the sacrifice of Jesus, and therefore (a) his death avails even for those who in the past hoped for it, yet could not obtain it, and also (b) deals with the set up by the older among men.
But how was a death necessary to a ? The answer is given in v. 16f. through a characteristic play on the term. In (sc. ) . he uses as equivalent to will or testamentary disposition, playing effectively upon the double sense of the term, as Paul had already done in Gal 3:15f.. The point of his illustration (vv. 16, 17) depends upon this; and are purposely used in a juristic sense, applicable to wills as well as to laws, and is the technical term for testator. The illustration has its defects, but only when it is pressed beyond what the writer means to imply. A will does not come into force during the lifetime of the testator, and yet Jesus was living! True, but he had died, and died inaugurating a in words which the writer has in mind (v. 20); indeed, according to one tradition he had spoken of himself figuratively as assigning rights to his disciples ( , Luk 22:29). The slight incongruity in this illustration is not more than that involved in making Jesus both priest and victim. It is a curious equivoque, this double use of , the common idea of both meanings being that benefits are disponed, and that the only takes effect after a death. The continuity of argument is less obvious in English, where no single word conveys the different nuances which bore for Greek readers. Hence in v. 18 some periphrasis like the first covenant of Gods will is desirable.
That in vv. 16, 17 is equivalent to testamentary disposition, is essential to the argument. No natural interpretation of vv. 15-20 is possible, when is understood rigidly either as covenant or as will. The classical juristic sense is richly illustrated in the papyri and contemporary Hellenistic Greek, while the covenant meaning prevails throughout the LXX; but Philo had already used it in both senses, and here the juristic sense of (v. 15) paved the way for the juristic sense which v. 17 demands. The linguistic materials are collected, with a variety of interpretations, by Norton in A Lexicographical and Historical Study of (Chicago, 1908), Behm (Der Begriff im Neuen Testament, Naumburg, 1912), Lohmeyer (: ein Beitrag zr Erklrung des Neutestamentlichen Begriffs, Leipzig, 1913), and G. Vos in Princeton Theological Review (1915, pp. 587 f.; 1916, pp. 1-61).
In v. 16 is announced, almost in the sense of proved (as often in Greek); in v. 17 (cp. on in 2:8) is not equivalent to (nondum, vg) but simply means never (non unquam), as, e.g., in Eurip. Hipp. 823, , here following the causal particle , like in Joh 3:18; it had begun to displace in later Greek. Moulton quotes BGU 530 (I a.d.), () , and Radermacher (171) suggests that the change was sometimes due to a desire of avoiding the hiatus. has the same force as in Gal 5:6, cp. OP 286:7 (ii a.d.) [] . Some needless difficulties have been felt with regard to the construction of the whole sentence. Thus (a) might be a question, it is urged: For is it ever valid so long as the testator is alive? In Joh 7:26 is so used interrogatively, but there it opens the sentence. This construction goes back to the Greek fathers Oecumenius and Theophylact; possibly it was due to the feeling that could not be used in a statement like this. (b) Isidore of Pelusium (Ep. iv. 113) declares that is a corruption of ( from T, a stroke being added by accident), and that he found . Two old MSS (* D*) do happen to preserve this reading, which is in reality a corruption of .
Why, it may be asked, finally, does not the writer refer outright to the new as inaugurated at the last supper? The reason is plain. Here as throughout the epistle he ignores the passover or eucharist. As a non-sacerdotal feast, the passover would not have suited his argument. Every Israelite was his own priest then, as Philo remarks (De Decalogo, 30, , .). Hence the absence of a passover ritual from the entire argument of the epistle, and also perhaps his failure to employ it here, where it would have been extremely apt.
Reverting now to the other and biblical sense of , the writer (vv. 18f.) recalls how the at Sinai was inaugurated with blood. -since and are correlative- (sc. ) (the verb here and in 10:20 being used in its ordinary LXX sense, e.g., 1 K 11:14 , 1 Mac 4:36 ). This fresh illustration of death or blood being required in order to inaugurate a , is taken from the story in Exo 24:3f., but he treats it with characteristic freedom. Five points may be noted. (i) He inserts1 , a slip which was conscientiously corrected by a number of MSS which omitted (c K L 5, 181, 203, 242, 487, 489, 506, 623, 794, 917, 1311, 1319, 1739, 1827, 1836, 1845, 1898, 2143) as well as by syr Origen and Chrysostom. Moses merely had slaughtered; our author adds goats, perhaps because the full phrase had become common for OT sacrifices (see on v. 13). (ii) He inserts , as these were associated in his mind with the general ritual of sprinkling; water, hyssop, and scarlet thread (), for example, he remembered from the description of another part of the ritual in Num_19. The water was used to dilute the blood; and stems of a small wall plant called hyssop were tied with scarlet wool ( ) to form a sprinkler in the rite of cleansing a leper (Lev 14:6f.), or for sprinkling blood (Exo 12:22). But of this wisp or bunch there is not a word in Exo 24:3f. (iii) Nor is it said in the OT that Moses sprinkled2 . He simply splashed half of the blood , (i.e. the scroll containing the primitive code) , read it aloud to the people, who promised obedience; whereupon . An ingenious but impracticable attempt to correct this error is to take with , but the goes with the next . The may have been included, since as a human product, for all its divine contents, it was considered to require cleansing; in which case the mention of it would lead up to v. 21, and might be rendered the book itself. This intensive use of occurs just below in . But may be, according to the usage of Hellenistic Greek, unemphatic, as, e.g., in 11:11 , Joh 2:24 . (iv) In quoting the LXX ( = ), he changes into (possibly a reminiscence of the synoptic tradition in Mar 14:22), into (after in v. 19; but the phrase occurs elsewhere, though with the dative, e.g. Jos 23:16), and into . This is a minor alteration. It is more significant that, (v) following a later Jewish tradition, which reappears in Josephus (Ant. iii. 8, 6 [Moses cleansed Aaron and his sons] , ), he makes Moses use blood to sprinkle the and all (a phrase from 1Ch 9:28). The account of Exo 40:9, Exo 40:10 mentions oil only; Josephus adds blood, because the tradition he followed fused the oil-dedication of the in Exo 40:9, Exo 40:10 with the (oil) sprinkling at the consecration of the priests (Lev 8:10f.), which was followed by a blood-sprinkling of the altar alone. Philo had previously combined the oil-dedication of the with the consecration of the priests (vit. Mos. iii. 17); but he, too, is careful to confine any blood-sprinkling to the altar. Our author, with his predilection for blood as a cathartic, omits the oil altogether, and extends the blood to everything.
This second illustration (vv. 18f.) is not quite parallel to the first; the death in the one case is of a human being in the course of nature, in the other case of animals slaughtered. But and were correlative terms for the writer. The vital necessity of in this connexion is reiterated in the summary of v. 22. , he begins-for there were exceptions to the rule that atonement for sins needed an animal sacrifice (e.g. Lev 5:11-13, where a poverty-stricken offender could get remission by presenting a handful of flour, and Num 31:22f., where certain articles, spoils of war, are purified by fire or water). But the general rule was that , i.e. everything connected with the ritual and every worshipper, priest, or layman, had to be ceremonially purified by means of blood ( as the result of ). The Greek readers of the epistle would be familiar with the similar rite of (Theokr. Epigr. i. 5, etc.). Finally, he sums up the position under the first by coining a term (from , 1 K 18:28 etc.) for the shedding of an animal victims blood in sacrifice; , i.e. even the limited pardon, in the shape of cleansing, which was possible under the old order. here as in Mar 3:29 has no genitive following, but the sense is indubitable, in view of 10:18 (i.e. of sins). The latter passage voices a feeling which seems to contradict the possibility of any forgiveness prior to the sacrifice of Christ (cp. 9:15, 10:4f.), but the writer knew from his bible that there had been an under the old rgime as the result of animal sacrifice; (or ) was the formula (cp. Lev 5:10, Lev 5:16, Lev 5:18 etc.). The underlying principle of the argument is practically (cp. Introd., p. xlii) that laid down in the Jewish tract Joma v. 1 (there is no expiation except by blood), which quotes Lev 17:11, a text known to the writer of Hebrews in this form: , . Blood as food is prohibited, since blood contains the vital principle; as there is a mysterious potency in it, which is to be reserved for rites of purification and expiation, by virtue of the life in it, this fluid is efficacious as an atonement. The Greek version would readily suggest to a reader like our author that the piacular efficacy of was valid universally, and that the or sacrificial death of Christ was required in order that human sin might be removed. Why such a sacrifice, why sacrifice at all, was essential, he did not ask. It was commanded by God in the bible; that was sufficient for him. The vital point for him was that, under this category of sacrifice, the of Christ superseded all previous arrangements for securing pardon.
After the swift aside of v. 22, the writer now pictures the appearance of Christ in the perfect sanctuary of heaven with the perfect sacrifice (vv. 25f.) which, being perfect or absolute, needs no repetition.
23 Now, while the copies of the heavenly things had (, sc. or ) to be cleansed with sacrifices like these, the heavenly things themselves required nobler sacrifices. 24 For Christ has not entered a holy place which human hands have made (a mere type of the reality!); he has entered heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it (sc. ) to offer himself repeatedly, like the highpriest entering the holy place every year with blood that was not his own: 26 for in that case he would have had to suffer repeatedly ever since the world was founded. Nay, once for all, at the end of the world, he has appeared with his self-sacrifice to abolish sin. 27 And just as it is appointed for men to die once and after that to be judged, 28 so Christ, after being once sacrificed to bear the sins of many, will appear again, not to deal with sin, but for the saving of those who look out for him.
The higher requires a nobler kind of sacrifice than its material copy on earth (v. 23).1 This would be intelligible enough; but when the writer pushes the analogy so far as to suggest that the sacrifice of Christ had, among other effects, to purify heaven itself, the idea becomes almost fantastic. The nearest parallel to this notion occurs in Col 1:20; but the idea here is really unique, as though the constant work of forgiving sinners in the upper rendered even that in some sense defiled. The slight touch of disparagement in ( = , Theodoret) may be conveyed by like these or such, and is the plural of category (like in v. 17). After this passing lapse into the prosaic, the writer quickly recovers himself in a passage of high insight (vv. 24f.) upon the nobler sacrifice of Jesus. Indeed, even as he compares it with the levitical sacrifices, its incomparable power becomes more and more evident. In v. 24 ( = vv. 11, 12) by he means a counterpart ( in reverse sense in 1 P 3:21) of reality (cp. 8:2), being a synonym here for , literally = answering to the which was shown to Moses (cp. 2 Clem. 14:3 ). Christ has entered the heavenly sphere (emphatic, now at last = 1:2) . In (cp. Psa 42:3 ) we have used in its Johannine sense (14:21, 22), though passively as in Wis 1:2 ( ). But the appearance is before God on behalf of men, and the meaning is brought out in 7:26, 10:12f. Christs sacrifice, it is held, provides men with a close and continuous access to God such as no cultus could effect; it is of absolute value, and therefore need not be repeated (vv. 25, 26), as the levitical sacrifices had to be. ] What is meant precisely by here (as in v. 14) is shown by in v. 26. There is no difference between entering in and offering. The act of entering in and offering is one highpriestly act (A. B. Davidson), and is inseparably connected with the suffering of death upon the cross. The contrast between his self-sacrifice and the highpriest entering with (as opposed to , v. 12) is thrown in, as a reminiscence of vv. 7f., but the writer does not dwell on this; it is the (cp. v. 12 and 1 P 3:18 ) which engrosses his mind in v. 26, (alioquin, vg) (the being omitted as, e.g., in 1Co 5:10 ) . According to his outlook, there would be no time to repeat Christs incarnation and sacrifice before the end of the world, for that was imminent; hence he uses the past, not the future, for his reductio ad absurdum argument. If Christs sacrifice had not been of absolute, final value, i.e. if it had merely availed for a brief time, as a temporary provision, it would have had to be done over and over again in previous ages, since from the first sinful man has needed sacrifice; whereas the only time he was seen on earth was once, late in the evening of the world. It is implied that Christ as the Son of God was eternal and pre-existent; also that when his sacrifice did take place, it covered sins of the past (see v. 15), the single sacrifice of Christ in our day availing for all sin, past as well as present and future. Had it not been so, God could not have left it till so late in the worlds history; it would have had to be done over and over again to meet the needs of men from the outset of history. (logical, as in 8:6, not temporal) (for which Blass arbitrarily reads ) ( = , 1:2) . is employed in its ordinary Hellenistic sense of conclusion (e.g. Test. Benj. xi. 3, : Test. Levi x. 2, ); in Matthews gospel, where alone in the NT it occurs, the genitive is . , as in the primitive hymn or confession of faith (1Ti 3:16 ); but the closest parallel is in 1 P 1:20 , . The object of the incarnation is, as in 2:9, the atonement.
The thought of the first appearance of Christ naturally suggests that of the second, and the thought of Jesus dying also suggests that men have to die as well. Hence the parenthesis of vv. 27, 28, for 10:1 carries on the argument from 9:26. It is a parenthesis, yet a parenthesis of central importance for the primitive religious eschatology which formed part of the writers inheritance, however inconsistent with his deeper views of faith and fellowship. As surely as men have once to die and then to face the judgment, so Christ, once sacrificed for the sins of men, will reappear to complete the salvation of his own. (cp. Longinus, de sublim. 9:7 , and 4 Mac 8:11 ) . The here is not by way of relief, although the Greeks consoled themselves by reflecting that they had not to die twice; as they could only live once, they drew from this the conclusion that life must be all the sweeter, as an experience that never can be repeated (A. C. Pearson on Sophocles Fragments, n. 67). But our author (see on 2:14) sees that death is not the last thing to be faced by men; . This was what added seriousness to the prospect of death for early Christians. The Greek mind was exempt from such a dread; for them death ended the anxieties of life, and if there was one thing of which the Greek was sure, it was that dead men rise up never. Aeschylus, for example, makes Apollo declare (Eumenides, 647, 648):
, .
Even in the sense of a return to life, there is no (Eurip. Heracles, 297; Alcestis, 1076; Supplices, 775). in Eph 1:7f. ( ), as the context shows, is the eschatological catastrophe which spares the elect on earth, just as in Eph 5:6, which parallels Heb 9:28, sinners are threatened thus: , . In 10:27 below means the doom of the rebellious, but that is due to the context; here it is judgment in general, to which all alike are liable (12:23 ). Only, some have the happy experience of Christs return (v. 28), in the saving power of his sacrifice. There is (as in 1 P 2:24) an echo of Isa 53:12 ( ) in (cp. above on 2:10) . may be chosen to parallel mens passive experience of death. At any rate his suffering of death was vicarious suffering; he took upon himself the consequences and responsibilities of our sins. Such is the Christ who . In 1 P 5:4 is used of the second appearance as well as of the first, but our author prefers a variety (see on v. 26) of expression. The striking phrase rests on the idea that the one atonement had been final ( ), and that Christ was now (7:26). He is not coming back to die, and without death sin could not be dealt with. The homiletic (from 2Ti 3:15) addition of (, 1611, 2005) , either after (by 38, 68, 218, 256, 263, 330, 436, 440, 462, 823, 1837 arm. etc.) or after (by A P 1245, 1898 syrhkl), is connected with the mistaken idea that goes with (cp. Php 3:20) instead of with . There is a very different kind of (10:27) for some , even for some who once belonged to the People!
He now resumes the idea of 9:25, 26, expanding it by showing how the personal sacrifice of Jesus was final. This is done by quoting a passage from the 40th psalm which predicted the supersession of animal sacrifices (vv. 5-10). The latter are inadequate, as is seen from the fact of their annual repetition; and they are annual because they are animal sacrifices.
B [03: 1] cont. 1:1-9:18: for remainder cp. cursive 293.
38 [ 355]
206 [ 365]
216 [ 469]
489 [ 459] Horts 102
547 [ 157]
1739 [ 78]
1827 [ 367]
boh The Coptic Version of the NT in the Northern Dialect (Oxford, 1905), vol. iii. pp. 472-555.
Thackeray H. St J. Thackeray, A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek (1909).
Philo Philonis Alexandriai Opera Quae Supersunt (recognoverunt L. Cohn et P. Wendland).
Josephus Flavii Josephi Opera Omnia post Immanuelem Bekkerum, recognovit S. A. Naber.
1 (B arm) is an attempt to reproduce exactly the LXX phrase.
Blass F. Blass, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch: vierte, vllig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner (1913); also, Brief an die Hebrer, Text mit Angabe der Rhythmen (1903).
LXX The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint Version (ed. H. B. Swete).
1 Whether the language means this or a censer is disputed.
Zahn Theodor Zahns Einleitung in das NT, 45-47.
1 The change from to is purely stylistic, and in both instances means containing.
2 lacks the article, like .
EBi The Encyclopaedia Biblica (1899-1903, ed. J. S. Black and T. K. Cheyne).
BM Greek Papyri in the British Museum (1893 f.).
1 Sc. . The construction was explained by the addition of after (so 69. 104. 330 436. 440. 462. 491. 823. 1319. 1836 1837 1898 2005. 2127 etc.).
D [06: 1026] cont. 1:1-13:20. Codex Claromontanus is a Graeco-Latin MS, whose Greek text is poorly* reproduced in the later (saec. ix.-x.) E = codex Sangermanensis. The Greek text of the latter (1:1-12:8) is therefore of no independent value (cp. Hort in WH, 335-337); for its Latin text, as well as for that of F=codex Augiensis (saec. ix.), whose Greek text of has not been preserved, see below, p. lxix.
K [018:1:1].
L [020: 5] cont. 1:1-13:10.
P [025: 3] cont. 1:1-12:8 12:11-13:25.
TebtP Tebtunis Papyri (ed. Grenfell and Hunt), 1902.
[01: 2).
1 (as Luk 12:51, Mat 3:1 suggest) is more active than the of v. 26.
1611 [ 208]
2005 [ 1436] cont. 1:1-7:2
1 The here as in suggest the state in which a certain thing is done, and inferentially the use becomes instrumental, as we say, he came in power.
293 [ 1574] cont. 9:14-13:25
2 The Attic form is preferred by D 226, 436, 920.
Moulton J. H. Moultons Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. i. (2nd edition, 1906).
ERE Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings).
A [02: 4].
35 [ 309]
88 [ 200]
326 [ 257]
5 [ 453]
218 [ 300]
241 [ 507]
256 [ 216]
263 [ 372]
378 [ 258]
506 [ 101]
1319 [ 180]
1831 [ 472]
1836 [ 65]
1912 [ 1066]
2004 [ 56]
2127 [ 202]
104 [ 103]
221 [ 69]
Ath Athanasius
BGU Aegyptische Urkunden (Griechisch Urkunden), ed. Wilcken (1895).
Radermacher Neutestamentliche Grammatik (1911), in Lietzmanns Handbuch zum Neuen Testament (vol. i.).
OP The Oxyrhynchus Papyri (ed. B. P. Grenfell and A. Hunt).
1 In (om. * K P) (lecto omni mandato legis, vg) the means throughout rather than by.
[044: 6] cont. 1:1-8:11 9:19-13:25.
181 [ 101]
203 [ 203]
242 [ 206]
487 [ 171]
623 [ 173]
794 [ 454]
917 [ 264]
1311 [ 170]
1845 [ 64]
1898 [ 70]
2143 [ 184]
2 For he substitutes , from , which is comparatively rare in the LXX (Lev 6:27, Lev 6:2 K 9:33, Psa 51:7, Aquila and Symm. in Isa 63:3, Aquila and Theodotion in Isa 52:15).
1 For an early variant was (D* 424** Origen), which Blass adopts. But our author prefers the nominative (v. 16) to the dative, and is no more than a conformation to the of v. 22. The , which some cursives (33. 1245. 2005) substitute for between and , is due to alliteration.
vg vg Vulgate, saec. iv.
330 [ 259]
436 [ 172]
440 [ 260]
462 [ 502]
823 [ 368]
1837 [ 192]
Fuente: International Critical Commentary New Testament
the Imperfect Way of Approach to God
Heb 9:1-10
With careful enumeration each item of the Tabernacle furniture is specified, because of each there is a spiritual equivalent in the unseen, spiritual Temple to which we belong. The veil that screened the Most Holy Place and forbade entrance, save once a year, taught that fellowship with God was not fully open. Ignorance, unbelief, unpreparedness of heart still weave a heavy veil which screens God from the souls gaze.
The altar of incense is here associated with the inner shrine, because it stood so near the veil. Its analogue is Rev 8:4. The Ark was an emblem of Christ: the wood, of His humanity; the gold, of His deity. He holds the manna of the world, and is the ever-budding plant of renown, beautiful and fruit-bearing through death. There is one gateway in St. Peters, Rome, through which the Pope passes only once a year; how glad we may be that our gates for prayer stand open day and night! Contrast the sadness of such passages as Psa 51:3-4 and Mic 6:6 with the joy of Eph 1:3-10.
Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary
Subdivision 3. Chaps. 9, 10
The Perfection of Christs Work
Section A. Heb 9:1-10
The Earthly Sanctuary a Shadow of the Heavenly
As we enter now into the very heart of this precious portion of Gods Word, the apostle at the outset directs our attention to the typical character of the sanctuary and its service under the former dispensation. It will be noted throughout that he has the tabernacle in view rather than the temple. This is not, as some have supposed, because the construction of the temple was any less divinely ordered than that of the tabernacle. David plainly declared to Solomon, in giving him the plan of the more permanent sanctuary, All this the Lord made me understand in writing by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern (1Ch 28:19). But the temple types evidently prefigure millennial glory and blessing and will be fully entered into and understood in that day of Jehovahs power. The tabernacle, on the other hand, which was a temporary dwelling-place, picturing truth for a pilgrim people, has its application to the present times when the Holy Spirit, typified by the cloudy pillar of old, is leading the new dispensation company through the wilderness of this world, on to the rest that remains for the people of God.
As the first covenant was but for a time, so with the first tabernacle. It had ordinances of divine service and a worldly sanctuary. By worldly we are not to understand unspiritual, but rather that which is in contrast with the heavenly.
The tabernacle itself was, as we well know, divided into two parts, the first called the Holy Place, and the second, the Holiest of all, separated by the sacred veil. And as the apostle points out the various pieces of furniture connected with each compartment, we have another most striking illustration of the absolute verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures; and this, in regard to a point which unbelievers have eagerly seized upon, claiming that it showed the very opposite, namely, apparent inaccuracy on the part of the sacred writer.
When he speaks of the first compartment, he says, Wherein was the candlestick and the table, and the showbread. He makes no mention of the golden altar of incense. Had he forgotten that this altar stood immediately before the veil? Or was there some divine reason for omitting mention of it in this connection?
All becomes very clear when we carefully note the next three verses: And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 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 Aarons rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy-seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly (Heb 9:3-5). Now observe carefully the change from the expression wherein to the altogether different term which had. And then notice that the golden censer is really the golden incense altar. The original is thumiasterion, which is the ordinary word for an incense altar. It is not at all the same as the word used in Rev 8:3; Rev 8:5 for a censer. This is libanotos. Any Ordinary reader of English can see how utterly different the two words are. There can be no question, then, but that censer here means the incense altar. But why did the writer not say it was in the Holy Place? Why does he plainly connect it with the Holiest? The answer is perfectly simple. It belonged to the Holiest because it typified Christs Person and intercessory work in the Holiest of all. But during all the Old Testament dispensation it must stand outside the veil where it could be approached by the priests, and yet so near the veil that the moment this curtain was rent in twain from the top to the bottom the fragrant smoke of the incense entered the Holiest. The apostle does not say it was in the Holiest, but he does declare it belonged to the Holiest which had the golden incense altar. So then the apparent imperfection is really a most beautiful evidence of the perfection of Holy Writ.
As long as the old dispensation lasted the priests had no access into the Holiest. They went only into the first tabernacle and accomplished the liturgical service. Once a year the high priest alone was permitted to enter the sacred inner chamber where the Shekinah hovered over the mercy-seat. Nor could he approach without atoning blood, which he offered first of all for himself as being but a sinful man, and also for the failures of the people.
By this arrangement, the Holy Spirit was declaring the solemn fact that the way into the immediate presence of God had not yet been made known, nor could be, so long as that first tabernacle had any standing before Him. The expression was yet standing is misleading. It would suggest that the way into the Holiest was not made known until the destruction of the temple about A.D. 70, and thus many have understood it. But it clearly means that the way into the Holiest was not opened up so long as God recognized the first tabernacle. The moment Christ Jesus died upon the cross the entire typical system ceased to have any standing before God. It was but a figure for a time then present, and the gifts and sacrifices offered in connection with it were simply picturing the offering up of the body of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross. In themselves, they were of no real value. They could not settle the sin question, and therefore could not perfect the consciences of those who brought them. The many ordinances in connection with meats and drinks and different baptisms, whether of persons or things, in fact all the fleshly observances which were connected with the first covenant, were only intended to serve a temporary purpose and to be in force until the time of reformation; that is, until Christ by His death and resurrection fulfilled them all and brought in the present new and glorious dispensation of the grace of God.
Section B. Heb 9:11-23
The Superiority of the Sacrifice of Christ to all those Offered under the Old Dispensation
The apostle now proceeds to show how marvelously the one offering of our Lord Jesus Christ transcends all the types and shadows of old. He is both High Priest and Victim. As High Priest of good things to come, whose ministry is linked with a greater and more perfect tabernacle, that is, with the eternal dwelling-place of God, He has by the presentation of His blood entered in once for all into the Holiest on the basis of an accomplished redemption. His work abides eternally before God. No failure on the part of His redeemed can touch the value of His finished work. Of old, every time an Israelite sinned he needed a new sacrifice; but Christs one perfect offering up of himself has settled the sin question for ever, and therefore no wandering of heart nor failure in life on the part of those who have availed themselves by faith of His atoning work can alter for one moment their standing before the throne of God.
That which can shake the cross
Can shake the peace it gave;
Which tells me Christ has never died,
Nor ever left the grave.
Because of the infinite value of His precious blood, He has fully met all the claims of divine justice and thus secured eternal redemption. The moment His blood was shed upon the cross its efficacy was recognized in Heaven, thus answering to the sprinkling of the blood upon the mercy-seat. But it is not only seen as sprinkled upon the throne of God but also upon the believer, who is thus purged from all uncleanness.
Heb 9:13 brings vividly before us the ordinance of the red heifer as given in Numbers 19. The heifer was burned to ashes, the ashes mixed with water, and this water of separation was sprinkled upon an unclean Israelite in order to make him fit for participation in the service of the earthly sanctuary. Ashes in this connection became eloquent indeed. They cried aloud, as did the expiring Saviour, It is finished! For ashes tell of fire burned out never to burn again. And so the failing believer has daily recourse to the washing of water by the Word, bringing afresh to his soul the truth of that finished work wherein every sin was settled for when Jesus died upon the tree. Therefore the apostle says, How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the Eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? He, the Sinless One, offered Himself to take the sinners place, and this in the power of the Eternal Spirit; and through the shedding of His blood our consciences are purged from works of death and we are set free to serve the living God. The Israelite of old who was defiled by coming in contact with the dead, had recourse to the water of separation. But all our best efforts were defiled by the fact that we ourselves in our unsaved state were dead in trespasses and in sins. Now, with all the past settled for, we are free to serve the living God in faith and in the power of a new life.
Christ is therefore the Mediator of the new covenant, which is founded upon His own death, whereby He settled for the transgressions of all who turned to God in faith during the times of the first covenant, that they, with us, might receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. This is undoubtedly the meaning of the expression, The redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant. The sins of Old Testament saints were not actually put away until Christ accomplished redemption on the cross. Then these came into all the blessing of the new covenant which He sealed with His own blood.
There has been much controversy as to whether the change from covenant to testament, in the sense of a will, is intended in the verses that follow. But the two are so intimately connected that there would seem to be no reason for difficulty in understanding the truth presented. The old covenant was Gods will for His people prior to the coming of Christ and was sealed by the blood of calves and goats, which Moses sprinkled upon the book and all the people saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. The new covenant is the will of our blessed Lord whereby He decrees that all who put their trust in Him should receive part in that eternal inheritance which He gladly shares with all believers. By His death this testament came into force. Apart from His death, there could be no such blessing for guilty sinners. A testament is in effect after men are dead. His death upon the cross puts this new covenant, or testament, or will, into operation, and inasmuch as it is a covenant of pure grace, all who believe enter into the good of it even before the day when it is to be openly confirmed with Israel and Judah, as we saw in the previous chapter. The blood of the covenant having already been shed, there is nothing to hinder the outflow of blessing. The sprinkling of the blood under the old dispensation confirmed that covenant, and was a warning to the people that death would result for its violation; while at the same time it typified the shedding of the blood of the new covenant Victim. Therefore we are told that Moses sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry, and almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without the shedding of blood there is no remission. This last statement is absolute. It is not restricted to the old covenant, as the verses that immediately follow make plain. It was necessary in the plan of God that the patterns and figures of things in the heavens should be purified with the blood of animal sacrifices, but the realities with better things than those of old. The heavenly things need purification because sin began in the heavens. It was there that Satan fell, and thus the heavens became unclean. Christs sacrifice is the basis for the purification of the polluted heavens and guarantees the bringing in of a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. Thus eventually, all in Heaven and all on earth will be reconciled to God through the blood of the cross.
This, of course, is not Universalism. It does not imply the salvation of all who have lived on earth, and certainly not of fallen angels who defiled the heavens. But it does speak of a time coming when sin and sinners will be banished from the earth and the heavens, and God be all in all.
Section C. Heb 9:24-28; Heb 10:1-22
The Way into the Holiest through the Blood of Jesus. His entrance the Pledge of Ours
The ground has now been laid which enables the Apostle to open up for us the special truth of the new dispensation, and to show how fully Christ has superseded all the types of old. In Heb 9:24-28 of this ninth chapter we have what some one has very aptly designated, the three appearings of our Lord Jesus Christ: He hath appeared, He doth appear, He shall appear. The order, however, is somewhat different, for the Holy Spirit dwells first on His present appearance as our Intercessor above, then turns our minds back to the time when He appeared to settle the sin question, and in the closing verses carries us forward to the glad hour when He shall appear the second time for our complete and glorious redemption.
In Heb 9:24, then, we look by faith into the true tabernacle which is above, the Holy Places not made with hands, and there we see our blessed risen Lord as He appears in the presence of God on our behalf. He is there to give us a perfect representation before the throne of God and we are accepted in Him. He is also there to make intercession for us in view of human frailty and tendency to err. And as the apostle John shows us, He is there as our Advocate with the Father, to undertake for us when actual failure has come in and broken communion. How full and complete is His present service as He officiates for us in the Holy Places! We often speak, and rightly so, of the finished work of Christ. This refers of course to His vicarious atonement which took place upon the cross. But it is just as scriptural to speak of His unfinished work, if we have in mind this special ministry of intercession which He has been carrying on in the Holiest ever since He was received up in glory, and which will never be finished so long as one needy saint is in the place of testing here on earth. His Cross work can never be repeated. No repetition is required, for He settled the sin question perfectly when He took our place in judgment. And in this we have the great distinction between the legal sacrifices and His one offering of Himself, when in the consummation of the ages He appeared to put away sin by His mighty sacrifice. The offerings of old had to be repeated again and again because they did not possess value sufficient to settle the sin question. But His precious blood poured forth for our redemption was of such infinite value that it is sacrilegious even to think of adding to it in any way. Having officiated at the altar, answering to the type of the great Day of Atonement, He has now gone into the sanctuary in the value of His own blood, and by and by He will come out to bless His people as did the priest of old.
And though a while He be
Hid from the eyes of men,
His people look to see
Their Great High Priest again.
Just as truly as men were under sentence of death with judgment beyond it, so Christ took that sentence upon Himself and was once offered to bear the sins of many. And just as certainly shall He appear unto them that look for Him the second time, altogether apart from the sin question, unto the complete and final salvation of all His own. Meantime the Holy Spirit has come forth to bear witness to the efficacy of His propitiatory work, while He Himself continues His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary.
It ought to be clear that the latter part of Heb 9:28 is not intended to teach that only those who have advanced in knowledge along prophetical lines, and therefore live in daily expectation of the second coming of the Saviour, shall be caught up to meet Him at His return. This is not at all what was in the mind of the writer, and is certainly not the teaching of the Holy Spirit elsewhere in Scripture. But just as all Israel could be said to look for the coming forth of the high priest who had sprinkled the mercy-seat with the blood of atonement, so all believers look for the coming again of our Lord Jesus. There may not be much intelligence as to the mode of His coming, nor in regard to the order of events, but the renewed heart cries, Come, Lord Jesus.
Fuente: Commentaries on the New Testament and Prophets
Heb 9:1
The Simplicity of Christian Ritual.
The simplicity of worship in the Christian Church is a sign of spiritual advancement-
I. Inasmuch as it arises, in some measure, from the fact that the Gospel rites are commemorative, whilst those of the former dispensation were anticipative.
II. Inasmuch as it arises from the fact that, whilst the rites of Judaism were mainly disciplinary, those of Christianity are spontaneous and expressive.
III. The simplicity of the Christian rites affords a safeguard against those obvious dangers which are incident to all ritual worship. (1) The first of these is the tendency of the unspiritual mind to stop short at the symbol; (2) the next is the too common tendency to mistake aesthetic emotion for religious feeling.
J. Caird, Sermons, p. 272.
Heb 9:1-5
Worship in Spirit and Truth.
I. Apart from revelation men have not the idea of God as Lord, Spirit, Father; and even after the light of Scripture has appeared, God is to many only an abstract word, by which they designate a complex of perfections rather than a real, living, loving, ever-present Lord, to whom we speak and of whom we ask the blessings that we need. Without revelation prayer is regarded not so much as asking God in order to receive from Him, but as an exercise of mind which elevates, ennobles, and comforts. It is a monologue.
II. Unto the Gentiles God never gave an Aaronic priesthood, an earthly tabernacle, a symbolical service. From the very commencement He taught them, as Jesus taught the woman of Samaria, that now all places are alike sacred; that the element in which God is worshipped is spirit and truth; that believers are children who call God Father; that they are a royal priesthood who through Jesus are brought nigh unto God, who enter into the holy of holies which is above. How difficult it is to rise from the spirit of paganism to the clear and bright atmosphere of the gospel! Priesthood, vestments, consecrated buildings, symbols, and observances all place Christ at a great distance, and cover the true, sinful, and guilty state of the heart which has not been brought nigh by the blood of Christ. The sinner believes, and as a child he is brought by Jesus unto the Father. High above all space, high above all created heavens, before the very throne of God, is the sanctuary in which we worship. Jesus presents us to the Father. We are beloved children, clothed in white robes, the garments of salvation, and the robes of righteousness. We are priests unto God.
A. Saphir, Lectures on Hebrews, vol. ii., p. 76.
Reference: Heb 9:1-12.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 469.
Heb 9:4
The Holy Chest.
“Of which we cannot now speak particularly,” said the author of the epistle. If he had gone into particulars further exposition would have been needless. What was the lesson taught by this wonderful article of tabernacle furniture? Are we not to look upon it as a picture of Christ?
I. Let us consider the outside. What do we see? A chest most likely about three feet long, by eighteen inches wide, and eighteen inches deep. It is a box made of common wood, but covered with fine gold. And is not our Jesus both human and Divine? Both are there, and you cannot separate them; just as the ark was not perfect, though the right shape and size, till it was covered with fine gold, so Christ could not be Jesus without the gold of divinity. The Jews stumbled here; they were ready to receive a human Messiah, but they would not have anything to do with the Divine element. Still we do not overlook the wood, though it is covered with gold. It is sweet to know that Jesus shares our nature. He passed over the cedar of angelic life, and took the common shittim, the tree of the wilderness. (1) At each corner there is a ring of gold to receive the staves by which the Levites carried the ark on their shoulders. The people were safe if they went where the ark went. It would be a blessed thing if the Church of God would be persuaded to go where Christ would have gone. (2) At each end of the ark are the cherubim, the representatives of the angelic world. They gaze with interest upon the mercy-seat. Is it not Jesus who links heaven to earth? As the cherubim gazed on the blood on the mercy-seat, so in heaven the Saviour is the centre of attraction, “a Lamb as it had been slain.”
II. We will now look inside the ark, and what do we see? (1) “The golden pot” filled with manna. Does not this teach that in Christ we have spiritual food? (2) The rod that budded convinced the people that Aaron was chosen priest. So Christ has the true, God-chosen, God-honoured, God-prevalent priesthood. (3) The tables of the covenant, the new, unbroken tables, remind us that in Christ we have a perfect law. He is our righteousness. (4) Wherever the ark went it meant destruction to the foes of the Almighty; so if Jesus be with us we shall win the day. And in the last struggle, when we cross the bridgeless river, we shall need Christ as the Israelites needed the ark when they crossed over Jordan.
T. Champness, New Coins from Old Gold, p. 45.
References: Heb 9:4.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. vi., p. 469. Heb 9:6-9.-R. W. Dale, The Jewish Temple and the Christian Church, p. 186.
Heb 9:7-14
Christ entered in by His own blood.
We who believe that Christ has entered by His own blood into the holy of holies have thereby received a fourfold assurance.
I. The redemption which Christ has obtained is eternal. Christ’s precious blood can never lose its power till all the chosen saints of God are gathered into glory. It is a real redemption from the guilt and power of sin, from the curse of the law, from the wrath of God, from the bondage of Satan, and from the second death; an eternal redemption, because sin is forgiven; Satan, death, and hell are vanquished; everlasting righteousness is brought in; we are saved for evermore.
II. We have now access to God; we are brought into the very presence of God; we enter into the Holy of Holies. The veil no longer conceals the counsel of God’s wonderful love; sin in the flesh no longer separates us from the presence of the Most High. Very awful, and yet most blessed and sweet, is this assurance. God is very near to each one of us. Though we see Him not, yet is He nearer to us than the very air we breathe; for our very being, and living, and moving are in Him.
III. Our consciences are purged by the blood of Christ to serve the living God. To us has been given what the old covenant saints did not possess-perfection, the absolution and remission of sins.
IV. The things to come are secured to us by Him who is the heir, and in whom even now all spiritual blessings in heavenly places are ours.
A. Saphir, Lectures on Hebrews, vol. ii., p. 123.
Heb 9:9
Love in the Ordinance of Sacrifice.
I. In order to be acceptable to God, self-sacrifice must be unreserved and complete. It must be the perfect rendering up of the will to His will, of the being to His disposal, of the energies to His obedience. No reserve can be for an instant thought of. Accordingly, all that was dedicated to Him under the law was fully and unreservedly His; not to be recalled for ordinary cases, not to be divided from His service.
II. Now it must be obvious to us that such full and entire rendering up to God is impossible on the part of a man whose will is corrupted by sin. Every victim was to be without blemish. If each man would not for himself fulfil the spiritual meaning of the sacrifice, the sacrifice itself taught him something of a substitute for himself who in his stead might be offered to God. And the law working on this continually familiarised the people to the idea of one such substitute for all.
III. Again, in the substitution indicated by the sacrifice there must be represented a transference of guilt from the offerer to the substitute. For this the law also took special care (the scapegoat).
IV. The next point which we require is, that some method of communication of the virtue of the sacrifice and its acceptableness to the offerer must be indicated. The offerers partook of the sacrifice. The law was not only a negative preparation for Christ in pulling down the stronghold of human pride and bringing men in guilty before God, but it was a positive preparation for Him, in indicating, as it did, His complete atoning sacrifice, and in announcing Him by repeated prophetic intimations. They who as yet knew not Him could not then perceive the full significance of them; but we, looking back from the foot of the cross and the light of God’s Spirit, can gather strong confirmation for our most holy faith from all this preparation and typical foreshadowing of Christ.
H. Alford, Quebec Chapel Sermons, vol. iv., p. 115.
References: Heb 9:10.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ii., p. 421. Heb 9:11-12.-Homilist, vol. i., p. 184.
Heb 9:13-14
Self-oblation the true idea of Obedience.
I. St. Paul here tells us that Christ “offered up Himself,” from which we may learn (1) that the act of offering was His own act, and (2) that the oblation was Himself. He was both Priest and Sacrifice; or, in a word, the atoning oblation was His perfect obedience, both in life and in death, to the will of His Father. His whole life was a part of the one sacrifice which, through the eternal Spirit, He offered to His Father; namely, the reasonable and spiritual sacrifice of a crucified will. We learn from this-(1) into what relation towards God the Church has been brought by the atonement of Christ. The whole mystical body is offered up to the Father as a kind of firstfruits of His creatures. The Church is gathered out of the world and offered up to God; it is made partaker of the atonement of Christ, of the self-oblation of the Word made flesh. (2) The nature of the sacraments. Under one aspect they are gifts of spiritual grace from God to us; under another they are acts of self-oblation on our part to God. He of His sovereign will bestows on us gifts which we, trusting in His promises, offer ourselves passively to receive.
II. We may learn from this view of the great act of atonement what is the nature of the faith by which we become partakers of it, or, in other words, by which we are justified. Plainly it is not a faith which indolently terminates in a belief that Christ died for us; or which intrusively assumes to itself the office of applying to its own needs the justifying grace of the atonement. Justifying grace is the trust of a willing heart, offered up in obedience to God; it is His will working in us, knitting us to Himself. Our faith, if we would endure unto the end, must be stern, unyielding, and severe. It must bear the impress of His passion, and make us seek the signs of our justification in the sharper tokens of His cross.
III. We learn what is the true point of sight from which to look at all the trials of life. We are not our own, but His; all that we call ours is His; and when He takes it from us-first one loved treasure and then another, till He makes us poor and naked and solitary-let us not sorrow that we are stripped of all we love, but rather rejoice for that God accepts us; let us not think that we are left here, as it were, unseasonably alone; but remember that, by our bereavements, we are in part translated to the world unseen. He is calling us away and sending on our treasures. The great law of sacrifice is embracing us, and must have its perfect work. Like Him, we must be made, “perfect through suffering.”
H. E. Manning, Sermons, vol. i., p. 242.
References: Heb 9:13, Heb 9:14.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxv., No. 1481; vol. xxxi., No. 1846; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 469; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., pp. 88, 89, 224; vol. vi., pp. 147, 333.
Heb 9:14
These words refer to, perhaps, the most remarkable of all the typical ordinances of the Old Testament. One of the chief defilements contracted under the law was that caused by contact with a dead body. So rigid was the law that the priests were forbidden to take part in funeral rites, except for the nearest relations, lest they should, by possible contact with the dead, be incapacitated for the ministerial office. It was a perpetual testimony to the truth that God made not death-that death is the strange thing superinduced by sin upon the rational creation. As Christ’s one death cleanses all sin even to the end, so the ashes of a single heifer served to the purifying of many generations. Now to this remarkable ordinance St. Paul alludes: If the sprinkling of the water containing a portion of the ashes of this slaughtered bull avail to remove the ceremonial defilement of death, and that not for one but for many generations, how much more shall the blood of Christ, shed once for all, purge the innermost conscience!
I. What are the dead works which, like the touch of a corpse, pollute the conscience of man, and disqualify him from standing up as a servant of the living God? They are twofold. First, you are to understand by the term all acts of false worship,-the homage paid by the heathen to their idols; secondly, all acts of low or unsound morality,-all acts are themselves vicious, or of semi-virtue. These are comprehended in the phrase “dead works.” They are works having, you see, a semblance of life, just as the soulless flesh will preserve awhile the hues of health, misleading some even as to the fact of death, and being nevertheless to the more experienced eye wholly devoid of the breath of existence. The conscience of the old world before Christ was defiled and weakened. Wherever the Christian Church was implanted, and the name of Christ adored, the conscience was, as it were, awakened from the dead.
II. There are two or three short lessons which grow out of the subject. (1) The first concerns the true character of the work which the Church of Christ has to do in a nation. Now, there are two ways of dealing with men in spiritual things. The one is that of accustoming them to lean entirely upon others; the second is that of teaching them with God’s help to walk by themselves. The surest sign of vigorous Church life is in the quickened and enlightened conscience of the people. (2) The whole argument brings out in undissoluble union the connection that exists between the doctrines of the gospel and the morality of the gospel. That which this modern world of ours wants is the public honesty, the domestic purity of Christian life, without mystery, and God manifest in the flesh. It may not be. The conscience of mankind has not been purged by a system of morals, but by the life and death of the incarnate God. (3) What a warning there is here against allowing ourselves in anything which has the least tendency to pollute the conscience.
J. R. Woodford, Penny Pulpit, new series, No. 496.
References: Heb 9:15-22.-Expositor, 1st series, vol. vii., p. 73. Heb 9:15-23.-Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 470. Heb 9:16, Heb 9:17.-Homilist, 2nd series, vol. i., p. 489. Heb 9:20.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi., No. 1567. Heb 9:22.-Ibid., vol. iii., No. 118; Ibid., Morning by Morning, p. 33; H. J. Wilmot Buxton, Sunday Sermonettes for a Year, p. 134; E. Cooper, Practical Sermons, vol. ii., p. 16; Bishop Crowther, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xi., p. 385; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. iv., p. 527.
Heb 9:24
I. and II. The sacrifice and intercession of Christ are, of course, distinct in idea; but, in fact, are so united that it is more convenient to consider them together. Sacrifice is intercession, not in word, but in act. It makes atonement for man with God, that is, sets God and man at one. It comes between: that is, in the literal sense of the word, intercedes, mediates between the two, reconciles them; all which terms apply with equal propriety to the one office as to the other, sacrifice and intercession. Every description of Christ’s High Priesthood establishes the truth that it is exercised now continually in heaven. The effect which the continued intercession of Christ must exercise over our destiny cannot be measured by any estimate of ours. His prayers are uttered night and day, hour by hour, whether men pray or whether they sleep. And then think how great a motive it is for men to pray, that their prayers may vibrate along the chords of His. We may take our prayers and have them moulded after His, and stamped with His name, and authorised by His image and superscription, as men carry to the royal mint the ingots of gold which their hands have dug out of the earth, and have them coined into money that shall pass current in the land.
III. Consider what comfort exists in the possession of the sympathy of Christ, and in the knowledge that He exists in the body of man, alive to all the human wants and natural infirmities of the heart. In heaven is the presence of One who has raised our nature to Himself to glory. And so long as He retains that nature (which is for ever) we believe that “there is no other thing which He will not effect for us.” For our souls He represents His all-sufficient sacrifice; our prayers He sustains by his intercession; our troubles He soothes by the comfort of His sympathy, and our whole body He will change that it may be like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able to subdue all things unto Himself.
C. W. Furse, Sermons at Richmond, p. 63.
Presence of Christ Incarnate in Heaven.
I. Consider first the question of a body possibly existing in heaven. If Adam had kept His state of innocence, he would not have died, nor would he, we imagine, have continued for ever in Paradise, among the trees and the beasts of the earth. We believe that he would have been translated in his body, glorified, to heaven. Enoch was thus removed, and afterwards Elijah. Again, Moses, though his body had been hidden in the earth, appeared after a thousand years, above a hill of Paradise, and was heard to talk. Whence did his body, and that of Elijah, come? None can say. It is enough for our purpose to admit that their presence at the Transfiguration is a proof that bodies can exist somewhere above the range of this lower earth.
II. “The Word was made flesh,” the manhood of Christ was perfect. He took not on Him the form of angels, but the seed of Abraham. It is a characteristic of human nature, that once man is man for ever. If, then, Christ is a perfect man, He is man for ever. The eternal Son, marrying Himself to our nature, became with it our flesh. Therefore in heaven, far above Paradise, the world of spirits, the Head of our race already lives in the form and fashion of man.
III. Consider the influence which the presence of Christ incarnate in heaven has upon man below, and the practical difference which this doctrine causes in our estimate of His work for us. (1) According to this doctrine, it is nothing strange, disparaging to the love of God in Christ, if we find that a special promise of grace is pledged to particular modes of seeking Him. If Christ be not really and spiritually present in the ordinances which He has instituted, in a sense of more close and intimate communion than can be applied to the generally diffused mercy and power of God, then the idea of any church is a fiction. Our acts of worship are not fictions, our sacraments are not representations. There is an electric current ever circulating from Christ incarnate through the members of His body, which is the Church.
C. W. Furse, Sermons at Richmond, p. 51.
Ascension Day.
I. What ought to be our feelings who know that our Lord and God, who reigns in heaven, is man too,-that He is man now, and will be for ever in the fulness of glorified human nature. Different feelings possess us as we contemplate this glorified human nature in Christ, our judge or our intercessor. Our judge is one who appeared as man upon earth, and who is man now, “with all things appertaining to the perfection of man’s nature in heaven.” He knew the secret motives upon which the Scribes and Pharisees acted, although these were covered by the most pious exterior. Their hidden thoughts were discovered to Him. Well, then, He who knew what was in man in the days of His flesh, He who judged man then, knows and weighs man now in heaven-even the Man Christ Jesus. He judges us now, though not openly; He looks into our hearts, He knows what is true and what is false there, what is sound and what is corrupt. Our hearts are open to one who is man; we are searched and tested by His infallible insight. If we fear the face of mere man, shall we not dread the face of Him who is both God and Man?
II. We celebrate, then, this day the Ascension of our great Judge into heaven, where He sits upon His throne and has all the world before Him; every human soul, with its desires and aims, its thoughts, words, and works, whether they be good or bad. Every man who is running now his mortal race is from first to last before the eye of Him who as on this day ascended with His human nature into heaven. But we also celebrate the entrance of Christ into heaven to sit there in another character, viz., as our Mediator, Intercessor, and Advocate. He sits there as High Priest, to present to the Father His own atonement and sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It is our Lord’s supreme place in the universe now, and His reign over all the worlds, visible and invisible, which we commemorate in His Ascension. We are especially told in Scripture never to think of our Lord as having gone away and left His Church; but always to think of Him as now reigning, now occupying His throne in heaven, and from thence ruling over all. He rules in His invisible dominions, among the spirits of just men made perfect; He rules in the Church here below, still in the flesh. There He receives a perfect obedience, here an imperfect one; but He still rules over all; and though we may, many of us, resist His will here, He overrules even that resistance to the good of the Church, and conducts all things and events by His spiritual providence to their great final issue. Let us worship our Lord Jesus Christ, then, both with fear and love; but also remembering that in those in whose heart He dwells, perfect love casteth out fear.
J. B. Mozley, University Sermons, p. 244.
References: Heb 9:24.-J. J. S. Perowne, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xxxi., p. 216; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 145; vol. iii., p. 44.
Heb 9:24-28
The Threefold Manifestation of the Redeemer.
I. The Redeemer’s first appearance in the world was His Incarnation in the fulness of time as a member of the human race, to endure the death appointed to sinners, and to obtain for us eternal redemption.
II. The Ascension entrance into the presence of God was the glorious end and consummation of the Redeemer’s atoning appearance on earth. There is a certain change in the word now employed by the writer that suggests a boundless difference between the humbled and the exalted state of our Lord Himself. He appears boldly and gloriously before God. His manifestation in time was throughout marked, not only by self-abasement, but also by visitation from above. But now is Christ risen and ascended back to His Father’s bosom. He has returned from the far country whither His love carried Him to seek and to find the lost. It was a prelude of this eternal complacency that glorified Him on the Mount of Transfiguration. But though He received honour and glory there, He saw in the distance that other mount, and descended again into the valley of humiliation to reach it. He goes up to be glorified eternally. He “appears in the presence of God to go out no more.” The emphasis rests on the words “for us.” Our Lord is in heaven the accepted propitiation for human sin. He pleads the virtue of His atonement, which is the virtue of His Divine-human self, as the glorious Anti-type of the typical High Priest entering the holiest on the day of atonement. For all who are His He receives the heavens. His presence there is the security that they shall be there also.
III. The Redeemer will appear a second time, without sin unto salvation. Here it must be remembered that a long chapter of the Church’s expectation is omitted. The millennial history that precedes His advent, the glorious circumstances of His coming, and many and wonderful events that derive their glory from it, are all passed by. The atonement is consummated, and that is all; it ends, for He comes without the cross: it is perfected in the salvation of His saints. Our Lord will appear, to those who have no other desire in heaven or earth but Himself, not for judgment, but for salvation. They died with Him, and they shall live with Him; they suffered with Him, and they shall reign with Him. Here, we are saved by hope. In this life, salvation is of the spirit; and that salvation is perfect, save as the spirit is the soul, encompassed about by the infirmities of the bodily organ. Many penalties of sin remain untaken away while we live below. In Paradise these are gone, but there remains the widowhood of the disembodied spirit. Not that the salvation is incomplete, but it is perfect only in part. When we receive Jesus, and are made partakers of Him for ever, then will salvation be full, “complete in Him.”
W. B. Pope, Sermons and Charges, p. 84.
References: Heb 9:26.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xiii., No. 759; vol. xvi., Nos. 911, 962; L. Mann, Life Problems, p. 55; Homilist, 4th series, vol. i., p. 39; R. Thomas, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xii., p. 330; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. x., p. 147.
Heb 9:27
I. It is appointed unto man once to die, but after that they are still men. No affection, no principle of human nature, is lost. The form of man is not lost. Before death, men are covered with the opaque earth-form, and therefore they cannot be judged. Death removes the earthly mask, and then they can be truly judged.
II. These two appearances of man correspond with the two appearances of Christ, the representative Man of the race. As Christ inherits to eternity what He acquired in His earthly humanity, so shall we. Our brief planetary existence is quite long enough for the inner and essential man to take the stamp, spirit, and general character of His endless after life. The progressive law of our being requires the opening of the books. Our lives make a nature in us, and as is the nature made, such will be the sphere of our existence, and such our associates.
III. A man is under no absolute necessity of considering the bearings of his present life, on his future standing in the eternal world. If he prefer he can allow himself to be fully absorbed, by desiring and minding the things that pertain to his ephemeral flesh. And if he does he will simply find himself, after death, made and formed according to this world, and wholly unfitted for association with kingdom of heaven men. There is no fear of his being judged unjustly. He will appear what he is. The dominant affections that are in him will manifest themselves whether we are made out of heaven, for heaven; or made out of more dusky elements, for the dusky world and its dusky associates. We shall have to keep the appointment that is made for us. All the laws without us and all the laws within us will urge us on to our own place.
IV. It is every way wise and friendly that time should close with us and eternity open. Time is the reign of appearances, eternity is the reign of truth. Death opens a new door, and we pass from behind our curtains and disguises into the great sunlight. God is the eternal sunlight. God is truth. If, with the unveiled face of our heart, we form the habit of beholding His face in Jesus, the glory of His face will change us into the same image, and our glorious Lord will be glorified in us.
J. Pulsford, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xv., p. 401.
I. There is no undoing the past altogether. When the books are opened, we shall be judged out of the things which are written in the books, notwithstanding the book of life. The days of swine-keeping leave their mark. The woman of the city, to whom much was forgiven, loved much. But who that knows what repentance is can doubt that in the deepest depths of her love dwelt ever an earnest longing, which nothing in the present or the future could satisfy,-a longing for the innocence that had been lost, and for a memory unscathed by sin?
II. There has set in of late a strange foolhardiness, as if in the present age it were an agreed point among all people of discernment that judgment to come is an idle tale. Very seductive this must be to the young. Even if there be a judgment after death, death to them seems a long way off; and they have heard that divines themselves do not nowadays paint the judgment so terribly as they used to do. God is good. May they not leave Him to bring goodness out of all things in the end?
III. Our Judge is human, not a piece of mechanism. But His judgment is even more exquisitely true than that of man’s most exquisite workmanship. Let us look to Him now, that we may fear Him then. Let us seek to be one with His righteousness now, that we may then be one with His sentence.
J. Foxley, Oxford and Cambridge Pulpit, Dec. 6th., 1883.
References: Heb 9:27.-W. Pulsford, Trinity Church Sermons, p. 182; Saturday Evening, p. 276; W. R. Thomas, Christian World. Pulpit, vol. xxxv., p. 37; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. x., p. 342. Heb 9:27, Heb 9:28.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. viii., No. 430; H. P. Liddon, Advent Sermons, vol. i., p. 69; Ibid., Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 369; J. Pulsford, Ibid., vol. xv., p. 401; Ibid., vol. xxvii., p. 374; Homiletic Magazine, vol. ix., p. 44. Heb 9:28.-Preacher’s Monthly, vol. x., p. 100; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ix., p. 278.
Fuente: The Sermon Bible
CHAPTER 9
1. The first tabernacle and its worship (Heb 9:1-10)
2. The blood and the perfect work accomplished (Heb 9:11-23)
3. The Priest in heaven (Heb 9:24-28)
Heb 9:1-10
The Spirit of God now brings forth the greatest and most blessed facts concerning Christ, the offering He brought, and what has been accomplished by that offering. First the worldly sanctuary, the tabernacle, which was connected with the old covenant is briefly mentioned. It was erected by divine command, exhibiting divine wisdom and foreshadowed, like the levitical priesthood, the better things to come. Yet it was a worldly sanctuary, that is, it was tangible according to this present world and built of materials of the earth. The antithesis to worldly is heavenly, uncreated, eternal. Everything in this tabernacle had a spiritual meaning. But it is not the purpose here to explain these things, the shadows of spiritual realities, for the apostle writes of which we cannot now speak particularly He does not give a complete description of the tabernacle at all. Nothing is said of the outer court, nor of the brazen altar, the golden altar of incense and other details. His object is not to explain the tabernacle but to demonstrate one great fact. He speaks of the two principal parts of the tabernacle, divided by the interior veil. Into the second the high priest entered in only once every year, not without blood–the Holy Spirit signifying this, that the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest, while the first tabernacle had yet its standing. This is the truth he demonstrates. the way into the holiest, into Gods presence was barred; the veil was in the way and concealed Him. All the gifts and sacrifices brought in that tabernacle could not give perfection as to the conscience–they could not lead the people into the holiest and give peace to the conscience.
Heb 9:11-23
With verse eleven begins the setting forth of the perfection which now has come. From here to the close of the tenth chapter we have the heart of this great epistle. The most blessed truth of the great work of Christ accomplished for His people is now gloriously displayed. The greatest contrast between the old things and the new is reached. Two little words of deep significance stand at the beginning of this section–But Christ. The gifts and offerings, the meats and drinks, the divine washings, the carnal ordinances, all and everything could not do anything for sinful man– but Christ. It is well for the understanding of what follows to give a summary of what is here taught. But Christ having come, a high priest of the good things that are come, by the better and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building (creation)–neither by the blood of goats and bulls, but by His own blood, He hath entered in once for all into the holy places, having found an eternal redemption. Christ having come, perfection has come through His own precious blood. The blood of Jesus; has opened the way into the Holiest and the believer is admitted into the presence of God by that new and living way which He has consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, His flesh. The next chapter brings this out more fully, that believers on earth have a free, a full, a perfect access to God. The believer can now go in perfect liberty, not into an earthly tabernacle, but into heaven where His holiness dwells and be perfectly at home there in virtue of the work of Christ and His own presence there. Such is the believers position in the presence of God through the entrance of our high priest into the heavenly sanctuary.
And the believer can go in without doubt and fear, for he has no more conscience of sin, his conscience is made perfect before God through Christ who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God. The question of sin is settled forever. A perfect conscience is not an innocent conscience which, happy in its unconsciousness, does not know evil, and does not know God revealed in holiness. A perfect conscience knows God; it is cleansed, and, having the knowledge of good and evil according to light of God Himself, it knows that it is purified from all evil according to His purity.
Now the blood of bulls and goats, and the washing repeated under the law, could never make the conscience perfect. They could sanctify carnally, so as to enable the worshipper to approach God outwardly, yet only afar off, with the veil still unrent. But a real purification from sin and sins, so that the soul can be in the presence of God Himself in the light without spot, with the consciousness of being so, the offerings under the law could never produce. They were but figures. But, thanks be to God, Christ has accomplished the work; and is present for us now in the heavenly and eternal sanctuary, He is the witness there that our sins are put away; so that all conscience of sin before God is destroyed, because we know that He who bore our sins is in the presence of God, after having accomplished the work of expiation. Thus we have the consciousness of being in the light without spot. We have the purification not only of sins but of the conscience, so that we can use this access to God in full liberty and joy, presenting ourselves before Him who has so loved us (Synopsis of the Bible).
And thus these Hebrews (as well as we) know that the true high priest is in the sanctuary above, not with the blood of sacrifices, but He has put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself As man on earth, in the perfection and value of His person, He offered Himself, by the eternal Spirit, without spot, to God. And therefore every sinner who comes to God through Him is purged from dead works to serve the living God. Being therefore perfectly cleansed, perfectly brought into Gods presence, in possession of an eternal (in contrast with earthly) redemption and an eternal inheritance, the believer can serve the living God. All this was unknown in the legal covenant. It is then that through the death of Christ and the subsequent bestowal of the Holy Spirit believers are constituted true worshippers in the heavenly sanctuary, a holy priesthood. Christ is the perfect mediator. And therefore no earthly priesthood is needed. The attempt to introduce priestly mediation of sinful men between Christ and His people, whom He is not ashamed to call brethren is anti-Christian, the offspring of Satan. Adolph Saphir, the author of an able exposition of Hebrews has exposed the Romish blasphemy in aping the defunct Judaism in words, which are worthy to be quoted.
What a marvellous confusion of Jewish, pagan, and Christian elements do we see here! Jewish things which have waxed old, and vanished away; preparatory and imperfect elements which the apostle does not scruple to call beggarly now that the fulness has come–revived without divine authority, and changed and perverted to suit circumstances for which they were never intended. Pagan things, appealing to the deep-seated and time-confirmed love of idolatry, and of sensuous and mere outward performances; the Babylonian worship of the Queen of Heaven; the intercession of saints and angels, the mechanical repetition of formulas, the superstitious regard of places, seasons, and relics. Buried among these elements are some relics of Christian truth, without which this ingenious fabric could not have existed so long, and influenced so many minds–a truth which in the merciful condescension of God is blessed to sustain the life of His chosen ones in the mystical Babylon .
This so-called church, vast and imposing, opens its door wide, except to those who honor the Scriptures, and who magnify the Lord Jesus. It can forgive sins, and grant pardons and indulgences, extending the astounding assumption of jurisdiction even beyond the grave; yet it cannot bring peace to the wounded conscience, and renewal to the aching heart, because it never fully and simply declares the efficacy of the blood of Jesus, by which we obtain perfect remission, and the power of the Holy Ghost, who joins us to Christ. This community speaks of sacrifice, of altars, of priesthood, and stands between the people and the sanctuary above, the only High Priest, who by His sacrifice has entered for us into the holy of holies. And in our day this great apostasy has reached a point which we would fain regard as its culminating point, when it places the Virgin Mary by the side of the Lord Jesus as sinless and pure, and when it arrogates for man infallible authority over the heritage of God.
(Dr. M. Luther describes the Romish harlot in these excellent words: The Church of Rome is not built upon the rock of the divine word, but on the sand of human reasoning. It is a rationalistic church. And Lutheranism, Episcopalianism and other sects are turning back to it and support the Satanic counterfeit of a man made priesthood.)
Heb 9:15-23
These verses introduce once more the question of covenant. The covenant of which the Lord Jesus Christ is the mediator is now identified with a testament of which He is the testator. When there is a testament there must also of necessity be the death of the testator, before the rights and possessions acquired in the testament can be possessed and enjoyed. The first covenant was inaugurated by blood. For when Moses had spoken every commandment to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of bulls and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop (Lev 14:4, Num 19:6) and sprinkled both the book and the people, saying, this is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined unto you. So also the tabernacle and the vessels were sprinkled with blood. Yea, almost all things are according to the law purified with blood and without shedding of blood is no remission. The blood was used in a threefold manner. The covenant itself is founded on the blood. Defilement is washed away by the blood and the guilt is taken away through the blood that hath been shed. And all this is only fully realized through the blood shed by the Lord Jesus Christ, He died and all the blessings of the new and better covenant are righteously willed to the believer.
Heb 9:24-28
For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us. After His great sacrifice He entered heaven itself, where He now is, appearing in the presence of God for His people. Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place every year with blood of others; for then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world, but now once in the consummation of the ages hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The sacrifice He brought needs not to be repeated, it is all-sufficient for all eternity. If He were to offer again it would be necessary also to suffer again. Both are impossible. (The Romish assumption of the Lords Supper being a sacrifice and that the blasphemous mass is an unbloody sacrifice are completely refuted by Heb 9:26, by this entire chapter and by the teaching of the New Testament.) At the completion of the ages of probation (the age before the law and the age under the law), when mans utter ruin and hopeless condition had been fully demonstrated, He appeared in the fullness of time (the completion of the ages) and put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And here let us remember that the full and complete results of this work are not yet manifested. Sin will ultimately be blotted out of Gods creation. The blessed words which came from His gracious lips, when He gave Himself on the cross–It is finished– will find their fullest meaning when all things are made new, when the first heaven and earth are passed away and a new heaven and new earth are come, when all things are made new. Then His voice will declare once more it is done (Rev 21:1-6).
But now for those who believe sin is put away. It is appointed unto men–natural men– once to die and after this the judgment. From the latter the believer is exempt. His own words He that heareth my words, and believeth in Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life (Joh 5:24) assure us of this. And when the believer dies, it is no longer as penalty. A day will come at last when it will be fulfilled Behold I show you a mystery, we shall not all sleep, but shall be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye. And He who was once offered to bear the sins of many (those who believe in Him) shall appear the second time. Unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time, apart from sin, for salvation. It is His second coming. When He comes again He has nothing to do with sin, as far as His people are concerned. This was settled forever in His first coming. But He comes for their salvation their complete deliverance from all the results of sin, and His own will be changed into His image.
(Without sin is in contrast with to bear the sins of many. But it will be remarked, that the taking up of the Church is not mentioned here. It is well to notice the language. The character of His second coming is the subject. He has been manifested once. Now He is seen by those who look for Him. The expression may apply to the deliverance of the Jews who wait for Him in the last days. He will appear for their deliverance. But we expect the Lord for this deliverance, and we shall see Him when He accomplishes it even for us. The apostle does not touch the question of the difference between this and our being caught up, and does not use the word which serves to announce His public manifestation. He will appear to those who expect Him. He is not seen by all the world, nor is it consequently the judgment, although that may follow. The Holy Ghost speaks only of them that look for the Lord. To them He will appear. By them He will be seen, and it will be the time of their deliverance; so that it is true for us, and also applicable to the Jewish remnant in the last days Synopsis of the Bible.)
Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)
The Ark of the Covenant
“Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the showbread; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all; 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; And over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. Heb 9:1-5
The purpose of the Holy Spirit in this chapter is to demonstrate three things. (1) Christ is preeminent over the Old Testament tabernacle, its furniture, priesthood and sacrifices. Those Old Testament types were all completely and perfectly fulfilled by our Savior. (2) That the Old Testament sacrifices and services of the tabernacle had no redeeming, saving efficacy (Heb 10:1-4). The Lord Jesus Christ alone is our sin-atoning High Priest and Sacrifice (Heb 10:5-14). (3) All the Levitical ceremonies, sacrifices, and services of the first covenant have come to their appointed end (Heb 10:9; Rom 10:4).
Christ Pictured
The most sacred of all things in the Jewish worship of the Old Testament was the Ark of the Covenant. Heb 9:1-5 describes the tabernacle, the ark, and those things which were in the ark: — the golden pot that had manna, — Aarons rod that budded, — the tables of the covenant, — the cherubims of glory, — and the mercy seat.
We have reason to thank God that no one has ever found that ark! If anyone were to find it, foolish men and women would make an idol of it, make pagan pilgrimages to the holy land to see it, and worship it. But in its day, under the ceremonial, typical religious service of the Old Testament, the Ark of the Covenant was one of those ordinances of divine service which beautifully typified and pictured the Lord Jesus Christ and our redemption by him.
All the ordinances of divine service, all the rites and ceremonies, and the worldly sanctuary itself, the tabernacle, were types of Christ. We can never understand the Old Testament Scriptures until we see that everything in the Old Testament Scriptures represents, points to, and pictures Christ, our Substitute (Luk 24:27; Luk 24:44-45).
Christ Preeminent
In these opening verse of Hebrews 9 the Holy Spirit uses the tabernacle and the furniture in it to show us the excellence, pre-eminence, and glory of Christ. The tabernacle portrayed Christ in that it was glorious within, though very humble without. The brazen altar was that place where our Lords sufferings and death were set forth. The laver spoke of Christ our Fountain, opened for cleansing. The candlestick pictured Christ as the Light of the world. The table of showbread represented Christ as the Bread of Life. The altar of incense portrayed the Lord Jesus Christ as our Intercessor. The veil was typical of Christ the Door, the Way, whereby sinners must come to God. The Ark of the Covenant spoke of Christ as our Reconciliation.
The Ark of the Covenant is a beautiful type of Christ. It was made out of shittim wood, overlaid on the inside and the outside with pure gold, representing both the incorruptible humanity and glorious deity of our Savior. The ark was the symbol of Gods holiness, power, and glory. It was carried about from place to place upon the shoulders of the priests by staves, fitted into rings attached to the ark. Even so, Christ is carried throughout the world upon the shoulders of chosen men, through the preaching of the gospel.
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
the first: Heb 8:7, Heb 8:13
had: Heb 9:10, Lev 18:3, Lev 18:4, Lev 18:30, Lev 22:9, Num 9:12, Eze 43:11, Luk 1:6
ordinances: or, ceremonies
and: Heb 9:10, Heb 9:11, Heb 8:2, Exo 25:8, Col 2:8
Reciprocal: Exo 12:22 – a bunch Isa 24:5 – changed Joh 3:31 – he that is Heb 9:15 – the first Rev 21:22 – the Lamb
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
CHAPTER 8 ends with the ominous words, ready to vanish away. Thus it was that the Holy Spirit, who inspired these words, prepared the minds of the Jewish disciples for the disappearance of their venerated religious system, which came to pass within a very few years by the destruction of Jerusalem. The temple being destroyed, the priesthood slain, the sacrifices stopped, Judaism has become but the pale and bloodless shadow of its former self. And in itself, and at its best, it was only a shadow of good things to come.
Yet we must not underestimate the value of the shadows connected with the law. They had very great value until the moment came in which the realities typified were revealed; just as the moon is of much value until the sun rises. At the heart of this typical system lay the tabernacle and its furniture, and the first five verses of chapter 9 summarize the details connected with this. It was the sanctuary, where God placed the cloud which signifies His presence, but it was a worldly one. So also were all the ordinances of the divine service connected with it. Hence it was not the object of the writer to speak particularly of these details.
His object was rather to point out that the tabernacle was in two parts, the holy place, and then the holiest of all, and that while the priests of Aarons line had full liberty to enter the former the latter was forbidden to them; into it they had no admittance at all. When once the divine glory had taken possession of the holiest no human foot trod there, with one exception. One man alone might enter, and he only once every year, and that under one stringent condition; he must approach, not without blood. If we turn to Lev 16:1-34 and read it, we shall get all the details of that solemn occasion.
What did it all mean? It doubtless foreshadowed the fact that the blood of Christ is the only ground of approach to God, yet what the Holy Ghost was really saying in the whole arrangement was that in the old dispensation there was no real approach to God at all. The way in was not yet made manifest. We shall find the wonderful contrast to this when we reach Heb 10:19. But as long as the first tabernacle had a standing before God the rule was no admittance.
We might say then that the law instituted the religion of the holy place, whereas the holiest of all characterizes Christianity. It was not that all Israelites had access to the holy place. We know they did not, as the sad case of Uzziah, king of Judah, recorded in 2Ch 26:1-23, shows. But the priests, who were the representatives of all Israel, had free access there. Still, even so, the real value of the whole thing lay in its typical significance, as we have seen.
This fact is again emphasized in verses Heb 9:9-10, where the tabernacle is a figure for the time then present, and the gifts and sacrifices are but meats and drinks and divers washings; all of which were but ordinances of a fleshly type as opposed to anything of a spiritual nature. Out of this there flow, as a result, two things.
The first thing is, that these sacrifices could not make perfect the one who approached by their means. Here again we meet with that word perfect; and this time not referring to Christ but to ourselves. The Jewish sacrifices, by reason of their very nature, could not make us perfect; and this fact we shall find repeated in Heb 10:1. Then passing on to the fourteenth verse of that chapter we find stated, by way of contrast, the glorious fact that, by one offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. The law not merely did not accomplish it, but could not; whereas Christ has done it.
But what is this perfection which has to do with ourselves? That question is answered for us here. It is a remarkable fact that the first time the word is used in this connection it is carefully defined for us by the Holy Spirit. The perfection has to do with our consciences. As we read on into Heb 10:1-39 we shall see more clearly what this signifies. It means having the whole weight of sin as an accusing load completely lifted off, so that the conscience is perfectly cleared in the presence of God.
Now this was something quite unknown under the law. If a Jew sinned it was his duty to bring to the tabernacle the appropriate sacrifice; and having done so he was clearly entitled to enjoy the relief afforded by the words, it shall be forgiven him (Lev 4:31). That one particular sin was forgiven when once the prescribed sacrifice was offered; but that was all. If he sinned again, again he had to bring a sacrifice: and so on and on, all through life. There was no such thought as a sacrifice being offered which could settle once and for ever the whole question of sin, and so perfect the sinners conscience.
The second thing is that the law with all its ordinances was only imposed upon Israel until the time of reformation, that is, until the time of setting things right. The law was after all a provisional measure. It proved beyond dispute that things needed setting right, by proving how wrong they were, but it did not put them right. When presently God blesses Israel under the new covenant the time of setting things right will have arrived. Meanwhile, as we have just seen, we have been blessed upon new covenant principles, as the result of the sacrifice of Christ; and there is no setting things right upon any other basis than that.
Verses Heb 9:11-14 furnish us with the contrast to that which we have in verses Heb 9:6-10. If we analyze the verses with a little care we shall see how complete and far-reaching the contrast is.
In the first place CHRIST is set before us, in contrast to the high priest of Aarons order.
Then, the Aaronic priest just had to administer the things that existed under his hand. Christ is an High Priest of good things to come.
Christ has entered into the true holiest in the heavens, a greater and more perfect tabernacle than that made with hands in the wilderness; and He entered in once, instead of every year, as with the high priest of old.
Not by the blood of goats and calves, which can never really put away sins, did He enter; but by His own blood which obtains redemption.
The blood of the sacrificial animals did sanctify to the purifying of the flesh: the blood of Christ alone can purify the conscience.
The purifying of the flesh which was accomplished by the Jewish sacrifices was but temporal: the redemption obtained by Christ is eternal.
Notice, moreover, the majesty which characterizes the one offering of Christ. All three Persons of the Godhead stand related to it. The spotless Son of God offered Himself. It was to God that He offered Himself; and it was by the eternal Spirit He did it. No wonder that all sin comes within its scope, and that its results abide for eternity.
The immediate effect of it, as far as we are concerned, is the purging or cleansing of our consciences. By that cleansing they are perfected and we turn from the dead works of law-dead, because done with the object of getting life-to serve the living God. If our consciences need cleansing from dead works, how much more do they need cleansing from wicked works!
The argument of the opening verses of chapter 9 reaches a climax in verse Heb 9:14, but the Spirit of God does not immediately carry us on to the results which flow from it. Instead of that He elaborates with great wealth of detail the point He had just been making; so that when we reach Heb 10:14, we find that we are back again at the point we had started from in Heb 9:14. And only then do we proceed to the consideration of its results.
From this we may learn the very great importance that attaches to the truth concerning the sacrifice of Christ. It lies at the foundation of everything, and until it is thoroughly apprehended by us we are not able to appreciate what follows from it. Let us pray for the understanding heart as we consider these verses, in which the main point of the Holy Spirit is so fully developed and supported.
The main point, then, is that the blood of Christ completely purges the believers conscience so that he is enabled to serve and worship the living God. Now this was an end utterly unattainable under the old covenant; hence it follows, as verse Heb 9:15 tells us, that the Lord Jesus became the Mediator not of the old but of the new. And hence, too, His death had a twofold bearing: bringing in redemption as regards the transgressions under the old covenant, and becoming the basis whereon is fulfilled the promise connected with the new. Something had to be done for the removing of the mighty mountain of transgressions which had accumulated under the law: and equally something was needed if God was to call people with an eternal inheritance in view. Both these great ends are reached by means of death, and that the death of Christ.
Verses Heb 9:16-17 are a parenthesis. The word translated testament here, and covenant in Heb 8:1-13, has both those meanings. Used in relation to God it is a disposition which He has made, on the ground of which man is to be in relationship with Him. In this short parenthesis the writer uses the word in the sense of a testament or will, which only is of force when the testator is dead. If viewed in this way, again we see the absolute necessity of the death of Christ.
There was no death of the testator under the old covenant, yet the necessity for death to take place was acknowledged in a typical way. If we turn to Exo 24:7-8, we shall find the incident referred to in verses Heb 9:19-20, and we may note a remarkable fact. Exodus records only the sprinkling of the people with blood; Hebrews adds that the book of the law was also sprinkled.
The significance of the sprinkling of the people would seem to be that they were thereby reminded that death was the penalty of disobedience. Any breach of its demands meant the death penalty on them. The significance of the sprinkling of the book would indicate, on the other hand, that death was necessary as the basis of everything. Hence even the law system was not dedicated without blood; and this fact is added here by the inspired writer since it is just the point of the argument in this epistle.
Moreover at different times in connection with the sacrifices the tabernacle vessels, and indeed almost all things, were purged with blood; and all this was intended to drive home into mens hearts the all-important lesson, that, Without shedding of blood is no remission.
In our twentieth century we might almost call this great statement-the most hated fact of Holy Scripture. Nothing so moves to wrath and contempt and ridicule the soul of the modem theologian as this. And why?
Not because his delicate sensibilities are shocked by the idea of blood being shed, for the average modernist enjoys his slice of roast beef as much as other average people. But because he knows what this fact really signifies. It means that the death-sentence lies on mankind as creatures hopelessly lost; and that only death can lift this death-sentence so that remission can reach the fallen creature. The solemn witness borne to the modernist, that as a sinful creature he is under the death-sentence before God, is what his soul loathes with an intensity that amounts to hate. The prouder he is the more he hates if.
Do we not all understand this quite well? Did we not all share those feelings until grace subdued our pride and brought us into an honest frame of mind before God? The modernist, of course, deludes himself into thinking that his aversion to this truth arises from his superior aesthetic or moral sense, and we may never have victimized ourselves with that particular little piece of vain conceit. If so, we may well thank God! The moment we were brought to honesty and humility of mind we grasped the absolute necessity of the death of Christ.
Of that necessity verse Heb 9:23 speaks. The blood of goats and calves sufficed to purify the tabernacle and its furniture, which were but patterns; the heavenly things themselves needed a better sacrifice. We might be surprised that heavenly things should need a sacrifice at all, did we not remember that Satan and the fallen angels have had their seat in the heavens, and have introduced the taint of sin there; and also that we, who are sinners and had our seat here, are destined as the fruit of redemption to take our seat in the heavens. As the fruit of the work of Christ not only shall there be purification wrought on earth but in the heavens also.
Consequently, in verses Heb 9:24-26 we are introduced to the work of Christ from a most exalted view-point. He appeared once at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and now, in virtue of His blood shed, has gone into the very heaven of Gods presence on our behalf. Let us mark that word, to put away sin. How comprehensive it is! The expiation of our sins is of course included, but it is not limited to that. The judgment of sin is included, but it is not limited to that. It includes sin in all its ramifications and bearings. Sin, the root, and all the sins which are the fruit; sin as it has affected man and the earth, and sin as it has affected the heavens; sin, in its totality; all put away by His sacrifice. And His sacrifice was the sacrifice of Himself!
In these verses again, the work of Christ comes before us as contrasted with the service of the high priest of old, and this it is which accounts for the way things are put in the last verse of our chapter. When the Jewish high priest had entered the holy place made with hands on the yearly day of atonement, carrying the blood of the goat, the people stood outside waiting for his reappearance. Very possibly they waited with a certain amount of trepidation for they knew that to enter wrongfully into the presence of God meant death. For him they were waiting, and they hailed his appearance with a sigh of relief. Now we, Christians-and this specially applies to the converted remnant of Jews, who were addressed in this epistle-are waiting for the re-appearance of our great High Priest. We look for or await Him, and when He comes it will be without sin or apart from sin. He so effectually dealt with sin at His first coming that He will have no need to touch that question at His second coming. He will appear unto the salvation of His people, and the deliverance of a groaning creation.
Thus we can see what a striking analogy exists between the actions of Aaron on the day of atonement and the great work of Christ; only with this complete contrast, that whereas Aarons actions were typical and confined to the patterns of heavenly things, and oft repeated, Christ has to do with the heavenly realities and His work in offering for sin has been accomplished once and for ever. It is the lot of sinful men once to die, and then to face the judgment of God. In keeping with that, Christ has once been offered to bear the sins of many, and therefore those that await Him look forward not to judgment but to salvation.
You notice that here it speaks of Christ bearing the sins of many, not of all. It is true that He died for all, as far as the scope and intention of His work is concerned. When however the actual effect of His work is in question, then He bore the sins of many, that is, of those who believe. You will notice also that the words, look for Him, have not really got the meaning so often imported into them, by which they are made to support the idea that only certain believers who are watchful are going to find salvation when the Lord comes again. The force of the whole passage the rather is, that sin has been so perfectly put away, and believers so perfectly cleared as to their consciences, and as to all liability to judgment, that they are left awaiting the coming forth of their High Priest from the heavenly sanctuary to their salvation from every adverse power.
With this thought before us, the opening words of chapter 10 carry us back to the days of the law, that once more we may realize the glory of the gospel as contrasted with it. Twice already that contrast has been laid open before us; first in Heb 10:6, Heb 10:14, and then again in verses Heb 9:23-28. In the earlier of these two passages the great point of the contrast seems to be as regards the nature and character of the law sacrifices contrasted with the sacrifice of Christ. In the later passage the contrast seems more to lie in the absolute sufficiency of Christs sacrifice, which is therefore one, and not a repeated thing like the sacrifices of old.
Fuente: F. B. Hole’s Old and New Testaments Commentary
Heb 9:1. The apostle now enters into more of the typical features of the Mosaic system. occasionally pointing out some of the places in which it differed from the one under Christ. Ordinances means ceremonies that were ordained to be observed in the service. Worldly sanctuary is used because that part of the tabernacle was a type of the church that is in this world, and not in Heaven where God lives.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Heb 9:1. This verse concedes the excellency of the old economy. It had ordinances of divine worship. The writer speaks in the past tense, because he looks back to the original institution and the first tabernacle, partly also because from the vantage ground of the new covenant the old teems obsoleteand its holy place of this world. As the writer is commending the first covenant, of this world can hardly be only depreciatory. The word used, when not used ethically, describes the world in its order and beauty; and this is part of the thought: of this world indeed, and yet costly and beautiful. Compare a similar word in 1Ti 3:2, orderly . . . The words at the beginning of the verseThe first covenant then indeedare concessive and resumptive, taking up the thought in chap. Heb 8:7; Heb 8:13.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Subdivision 3. (Heb 9:1-28; Heb 10:1-39.)
The Way into the Holiest made Manifest.
Thus we have had before us the Priest, and the covenant with which He is connected. The Priest is the Son of God, the One who as such is over the house of God, that is the whole universe, which was created by Him, and which He upholds by the word of His power. Sin having come in, it is He who necessarily comes forth in order to deliver His creation from it, and at the same time to glorify God by the declaration of His holiness and righteousness and love in regard to it. For this He has been down in the lowest depths, under the penalty of sin itself, to justify that penalty, and to bring in the love and light which God is into the midst of its darkest shadows. He has gone up, “passed through the heavens,” into the supreme place above all, with the power thus strangely acquired to bring in blessing according to the whole character of God Himself, justifying all God’s thoughts in the creation of man, and displaying in manhood itself a depth of wisdom in those thoughts by which He is glorified forever. The way is opened thus for redeemed and saved man into heaven itself, presently to be there in actual fact, but in the meanwhile, that he may enter there in spirit, in the way in which we have it shown here, into the holiest of all: a sanctuary which, while on earth, is the anticipation of the heavenly one. That which is before us now is just the manifestation of this way into the Holiest. The work is accomplished, but we have to see the application of it to man, the purging of his conscience by the offering made for him, and the setting him free so that he may draw near to God as fully manifested by “a new and living way” which is opened to him.
There are four sections here, and the fourth of these is an exhortation in view of all that is involved. The first three give the subject itself: the first speaking of the first tabernacle of the first covenant, and which shows the character of this, the way into the holiest not being made manifest. The second shows the removal of the hindrance to manifestation. The third, the sanctification of the worshiper for the opened sanctuary.
1. The first section carries us back to the tabernacle of old, to show briefly the disposition of things there; and here stress is laid upon the division into two parts, (virtually two tabernacles,) divided from each other by the interior veil. The outermost one was practically open as the place of continuous priestly service. The inner was, with the exception of the brief visit of the high priest on the Day of Atonement, as constantly closed. The things which had their place in each are mentioned, but without any purpose to speak particularly of them. The great point here is this strict separation of the two; the one shut off being the place in which, when things were right in Israel, the glory of God abode, so that no access to God was what the unrent veil proclaimed. This first tabernacle was characteristic, therefore, of the law; when even to Moses, the mediator, it was said: “Thou canst not see My face; for there shall no man see Me and live.” It was an image for the time then present, when gifts and sacrifices of such sort were being offered as could not perfect the conscience of the worshiper. In their very nature they could not. They were but “meats and drinks and divers baptisms,” “the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean,” sanctifying only to the purification of the flesh. Such a system plainly could not satisfy God, could not bring man near to God. No one, one would say, were not the facts so plainly against us in this, could even imagine it. It must therefore pass away.
This first covenant, then, had “ordinances of divine service and a world-sanctuary.” There has been a difficulty made of this last expression, but it seems, evidently, to have reference to what it was as a typical presentation of heavenly things which yet accompanied the people all the way through the wilderness. This is what is before us also, when we look at what it typified. We have such a world-sanctuary, that is to say, a place in which we can meet God and enter in faith, therefore, into heavenly things, while conscious that we are but passing through a world in which we are pilgrims and strangers. This is the sweetest grace, that such a sanctuary is open to us even here.
We must not, of course, attach the idea to any structure made with hands, nor, indeed, to anything which would imply any kind of ritualistic entrance into the presence of God. It is our joy to know that without mediation of any kind, except that of the heavenly High Priest Himself, we have ability to draw near to God, apart from all circumstances, all question even of the gatherings of His people; although here certainly we are privileged to realize to the full this heavenly worship. But we may remark that we are not here in the line of the first of Corinthians, and that Scripture itself has severed this thought of entrance into the Holiest from any idea of even our common remembrance of the Lord in His death, and of the fellowship which we enjoy as thus come together. Corinthians does not enter upon the topic of worship, even though it speaks of the Church as the temple of God; but this in regard to its holiness as such, and not to its being even a special sphere of worship. The epistle to the Hebrews is precisely that which does away with all connection of ritualistic service as necessary to the worship of God. The Jewish system pressed this very thing; but the Christian antitype to its shadows is here revealed as in absolute contrast to Judaism altogether. The holy place, with its candlestick, and table, and showbread, as to which the apostle has little to say in this connection, was Israel’s practical holy place. As such it is for us not abolished, except as to its being a “first” tabernacle, in contrast with the second one. For us, as we shall see, the two tabernacles are now one, the veil not having passed away, but being rent, so that Christ is now for us a Minister of “the holy places,” -both of them, -of “the true tabernacle, which the Lord hath pitched and not man.” It is important to remember this, which will find more development as we go on. The point here is simply that, while the first tabernacle had its standing, (had its place, therefore, as first,) the way into the holiest was not manifest. This characterized the law, and has come to an end for us forever.
2. The second section shows us the coming in of redemption, the putting away of sin from before God, that sin which hindered God’s manifestation of Himself as He desired. The things to which the Levitical system pointed are now fulfilled, the true Day of Atonement, the Great High Priest of a better tabernacle, who has entered the sanctuary, “not by the blood of bulls and goats, but by His own blood,” having found, not an atonement which would last a year, but “eternal redemption.” Thus the worshiper has at last his conscience purified from dead works, from that which had in it no savor of life; would not satisfy, therefore, the living God. The legalism of the old covenant has been replaced by the grace of the new. The eternal inheritance is secured to those who are called by the grace of the gospel. Christ is thus the High Priest of those good things which were typified in Judaism, things still to come, which its shadows pointed to, but nothing more. The tabernacle is a better and more perfect one, “not made with hands,” not belonging to the old creation. The blood of goats and bulls has been replaced by the value of His own blood, in virtue of which He has entered in once for all into the holy places, having found an “eternal redemption.” He entered in in the triumph of having done this.
There may be need of some additional clearing of the old types which are here interpreted for us, as well as of their application to the things of which they speak. The mercy-seat in the holiest, as being the “propitiatory,” or place of propitiation, propitiation or atonement (for the word is the same in the Hebrew of the Old Testament and in its translation in the Septuagint Greek) being made upon it once a year, the question cannot but be raised, How does this affect the question of propitiation for us being really made in heaven, in some sense at least, when our High Priest entered in? It is evident that for Israel the blood upon the mercy-seat was the fundamental condition of all their blessing. Atonement, or propitiation, was then made “for the holy sanctuary, and for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation” (Lev 16:33). Insomuch that this and this alone was the “day of atonement,” apart from which no other sacrifice could legally have been offered, or God have remained in their midst at all. Is there nothing, then, in the substance that answers to these shadows, that answers just to this putting of the blood upon the mercy-seat, equally fundamental, that the throne may be for us that “throne of grace” which we know it to be? Or, can this speak simply of the Cross, and what was done there? and was not the blood, in any sense, carried in so as to be presented for acceptance before God in heaven?
Now, there is another question that may be asked in return, which, simple as it is, deserves yet serious consideration. Does any one conceive of our blessed. Lord carrying in literally His blood into heaven? That will, of course, be denied at once, and wonder expressed even at the suggestion of it. These are figures, it will be rightly said, and must be figuratively conceived; and we may add, as the apostle declares of them, that they are not even “the very image” of what they represent. This must not be taken as license for any avoidance of honest, consistent observance of the very terms in which it has pleased God to reveal things to us, as has many times been said, yet it has to be considered and reckoned with none the less. What could the application of the blood to the various objects to which it was applied in the Levitical ritual mean with reference to us now? When the high priest had completed his work in the tabernacle, he went out to the altar (of burnt-offering) to apply the blood similarly there. Are we to conceive of this as some further presentation of it for acceptance in relation to what the altar typifies? It is plain that this cannot be. The altar was that from which the daily sacrifices went up for Israel, and the blood put upon it for propitiation simply set forth the righteousness of God in accepting what was done there. Just so by that upon the mercy-seat God’s righteousness was set forth in continuing to dwell among a sinful people. In each case it was the blood that made the propitiation (Lev 17:11); and the application of it gave it no new efficacy, but simply revealed its efficacy in particular relations. It was one of those object-lessons of which the ritualistic service consisted, and which may be easily strained in the endeavor to find in them a kind of exactness which does not belong to them. Thus, because the burning upon the altar followed the slaying of the victim, it was made by many to speak of atoning sufferings on the Lord’s part after death. It has been forgotten in all such cases that “no parable can teach doctrine.” We must find elsewhere the doctrine which the type illustrates, before we can find the ground for a just application.
Now it is here that the doctrine thought to be found in Scripture as to this fails so absolutely. Where shall we expect to find it if not in Hebrews, where confessedly the Day of Atonement is the text upon which the apostle is dwelling in all this part? And where is it to be found in Hebrews, or anywhere else in the New Testament, that Christ went into heaven to make propitiation there? to present His work to God for its acceptance, or in any sense to sprinkle the blood upon the Eternal Throne?
Quite another thing is, in fact, taught there, -namely, that Christ entered in once into the holy places, having obtained eternal redemption. As risen from the dead, raised up by the glory of the Father, He entered once, not the second time, propitiation therefore already accomplished, the resurrection the evidence of the ransom accepted, nothing remaining in this way to be done. The virtue of the blood revealed itself all the way, even as the typical veil of the sanctuary had been rent at the Cross already, before a step had been taken on the triumphant journey. All is as consistent as possible, and as plain as need be. And if it be said, Have we, then, nothing that answers more closely to this priestly action at the Throne? the answer is abundant, that the reality far transcends the type; for not only has the Throne been acting in power thus all along the road, but the Great High Priest, “having made by Himself purification of sins, He seated Himself” upon the Throne, “at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” No blood is needed further to assure us that the Throne whereon He sits who shed it is a Throne of triumphant, glorious grace. Christ there is, as we are told in the epistle to the Romans (Rom 3:25), “set forth a propitiatory” (or mercy-seat) “through faith, by His blood.” Christ is HIMSELF, in heaven, the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat. The New Testament, while confirming and interpreting the Old, goes yet far beyond it; and this is an important principle for its interpretation. Where should we find this more than in the light which thus streams out through these opened heavens?
There is a parenthesis added here, in which the covenant of which Christ is Mediator is identified with a testament of which Christ is the Testator. The word in the Greek means both of these, “covenant” and “testament;” and the covenant has, in fact, come to us in the shape of a testament which His death has made good. We have been so accustomed to this view of it that it has almost obscured the thought of the covenant itself which is, however, what the apostle dwells upon most earnestly throughout, and here he returns immediately to the thought of it.
The first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. The book and all the people were sprinkled with the blood of sacrifice. This seems strange, because the covenant was the legal one, and we can only view it in this character as affirming, as the blood of atonement did in fact affirm, the righteous penalty of the law for those under it. Christ affirmed this decisively when, to redeem us, He took the curse of the law, magnified it, and made it honorable; but this blood of sacrifice showed therefore in itself what must be the necessary issue of that first covenant. But not only so, the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry were in like manner sprinkled with blood; and here the typical meaning is evident. Almost all things according to the law were purified with blood. For remission of sins there was no other way. Thus the mere figurative representations bore witness; but the heavenly things needed a better Sacrifice than anything the law could furnish.
3. Christ has entered into heaven itself, and with a Sacrifice which never needs to be repeated. If He were to offer again, notice, He would have to suffer again; but neither is possible. It is clear that here the Romish notion of an unbloody offering is absolutely set aside. “Once for all,” at the completion of the ages of probation, when man’s ungodliness and hopelessness of self-recovery had been perfectly demonstrated, He was manifested for the putting away of sin by the sacrifice of Himself. The consequence for faith is a complete deliverance by His work from the common portion of men in death and judgment. Death itself is for man judgment in this sense, that it is the sentence of God upon a fallen condition; and thus the law used it as the “ministration of death,” as the second of Corinthians teaches us that it was. But while it was thus in itself the judgment of a fallen condition, there is for man as such a judgment afterwards which every awakened conscience prophesies to itself.
The necessary issue of this, also, is condemnation, if we personally enter into it, -that is, if we are to be judged according to such judgment as we find at the Great White Throne, every one receiving according to his works. The psalmist has already shown us that as to those even who are true servants of the Lord, they could not endure this. “Enter not into judgment with Thy servant, O Lord, for in Thy sight shall no flesh living be justified.” From this personal judgment Christ has entirely delivered us. His own words are that “He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but is passed from death unto life.” The appraisal of our works, when we give account of ourselves at the judgment-seat of Christ, is a wholly different matter. We are not delivered from this, because it would not be true blessing for us to be delivered from it; and grace will, after all, be most signally manifested with regard to this very judgment. From personally coming into judgment we are, by our Lord’s explicit assurance, forever exempt. Our condition is already pronounced upon, the Word of Life has come to us, as it were, by the very sentence of the One who will be the Judge in that day; and He cannot repent of it. There is no confusion of the world with His people, such confusion as people often make. There is no picking out by judgment of those that are His own from the world around. We are, in fact, taken up from the world which lies under judgment, to Christ Himself, when He appears, taken up in one special company, and already changed into His likeness before even we see Him.
Thus judgment, in the sense in which the apostle speaks of it here, there can be none. Death there may be, but it does not come now as penalty, as before it did. Here the Lord’s words again conic in to assure us that while he that believed on Him in the past, though he were dead, yet would live, he that now liveth and believeth in Him shall never die. Jordan is thus, for the Lord’s people, dried to the bottom. Thus, out of the whole condition of man as under penalty, the Christian is delivered; and, in place of death and judgment, the Christ who “once was offered to bear the sins of many shall appear to those that look for Him the second time, apart from sin, for salvation.” He comes apart from sin for our deliverance. He has nothing to do with sin then. He takes up no question of this kind when He comes for His people. His coming is simply deliverance: the full, realized salvation of the whole man, when we are delivered from the last remnant of evil and all that it implies, and changed into His own blessed likeness, to be with Him as the companions of His heart forever.
Our entrance already, in spirit, into all this is that which shows our perfect sanctification for worship in the holiest as the fruit of His glorious work. This, we are reminded, was impossible under the law. That was not even the image, the exact representation, of the good things it typified; and the repetition yearly of the day of atonement showed the inefficacy of these multiplied sacrifices: “For then,” asks the apostle, “would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.”
We must remember, in order to realize the completeness of this, that even in Israel no sacrifice was offered twice for the same sins, and that in Christendom the putting away of sins as they arise is the common thought. For this, not, indeed, a fresh sacrifice, but a fresh application of the blood is thought a necessity; but that is just what the apostle would call having “conscience of sins,” instead of the conscience being “once purged,” purged once for all. One who needs a fresh offering or a fresh application of the blood to cleanse him is not purged once for all; but nothing else would satisfy God’s heart for us or the need which, in fact, we have. How dreadful the presence of God would be for one who fully, accepted the thought of being left there an unpurged sinner, if only for a moment! No doubt, for the Christian, the thought of God’s grace, however contradictory to his system, prevents him from clearly realizing what this would mean; but the apostle plainly says here that to need a repetition of such purging would mean never having been purged according to God; for He could not leave so great a need less than perfectly met. The blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins at all; and that was what the repetition, the taking away of sin again and again, meant. It was not true purging that was accomplished in this way at all.
Christ therefore comes to substitute for these inefficacious sacrifices His own perfect one. This was what these typical ones foreshadowed. “In the volume of the book” they were written of Him. This does not refer to eternal counsels, but to the book of the law. Coming into the world He says this, not in eternity; and it is properly “Lo, I am come,” not “I come.” He sees the offerings going on, but with no divine satisfaction in them, and He brings them to an end by the accomplishment of His own work. This is our need, then, as worshipers, and thus it is met. The heart is free from everything that would cloud it in the presence of God, everything that would prevent the free pouring forth of praise and thanksgiving. We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
“A body hast Thou prepared Me,” which in this connection the apostle quotes from the Septuagint, shows how perfectly the offering had been cared for by God. The Hebrew original has, as is well known, “Ears hast Thou digged for Me;” which, no doubt, is, on the whole, equivalent in meaning. It does not, apparently, as it might seem at first, refer to the bored ear of the Hebrew servant, though it approaches so nearly to it as to make the distinguishing between them no great necessity. The bored ear was the token of perpetual service voluntarily assumed; the ears digged, of capacity and readiness for receiving the word of another. A body prepared implies the “form of a servant,” a nature assumed which is not, in fact, to be given up again. It is the link with the lowest rank of intelligent creaturehood, though with what possibilities of future development He alone who created them could make manifest as to them. They are the advance rank of a system with which the thought of development (though in quite another than the evolutionist sense) seems connected throughout. But in this advance the lower links do not drop off, but are raised and incorporated with the higher -a prophetic witness to that Highest which has now been revealed to us.
But the “body prepared” intimates something besides creative advance. The Fall had taken place, and the body of man, in the seeds of mortality and various derangement now inherent in it, is the manifest evidence of this. The Son of Man must be true man in all that constitutes manhood; deriving it, also, from a human mother, one of the fallen race. Who, then, can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? The power of God must come in here, as in our Lord’s case is expressly declared it did, and the very body of the blessed Doer of His Father’s will must be prepared Him. Thus we can see why the version of the Septuagint is accepted by the inspired writer; the body that was to be offered being thus shown to have the character of a perfect offering: “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”
This is the sanctification of the epistle to the Hebrews. It is not practical sanctification by the Spirit, but by sacrifice. It is not the anointing of the priest with oil, but with the blood. The oil can be only upon the blood, which is the foundation of everything; and thus the priestly family is set apart to God. The offering is offered, never to be repeated. Christ is, therefore, not busy in offering continual sacrifices, as the legal priesthood. He has sat down at the right hand of God. Blessed thing for us to realize, love is at rest! He needs not to rise any more on this account. He sits perpetually there, until the time comes for His enemies to be put under His feet. There is no more to be done as regards offering. “By one offering He has perfected in perpetuity” (as the word is) “those that are sanctified;” that is, there is never a moment in which they are not in the full value of that work before God. For this the apostle can appeal again to the inspired writings in the hands of the Jews themselves, and thus brings the testimony of the Holy Spirit to confirm what he is saying.
What is said as to this is not a reference to the coming out of the Spirit after the ascent of Christ to the right hand of God, as some have made it, but, as should be evident, an appeal to what the Spirit had uttered long before. The words of the new covenant itself show fully the cessation of sacrifices for the putting away of sin, for God says in it: “Their sins and iniquities I will remember no more.” But repetition of sacrifice for putting them away would be still a remembrance.
Now the point is reached to which the apostle has been so long in coming, and for which he has so carefully prepared the way. We have, therefore, now “boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, His flesh.”
There are things here which we need to consider attentively. First of all, let us notice that the word for “the holiest of all” is really “the holies,” or “holy places.” In our common translation it is “the holiest,” supposing the need of supplying “holy of” before “holies.” This has been done, also, in Heb 9:8-12, Heb 13:11, but “the holy of holies,” or “holiest,” is found once, and only once, in Heb 9:3. In Heb 9:24-25, it is “holy places,” though the Revised Version translates here, as elsewhere, “holy place” without any marginal indication of the change that has been made. There is absolutely no necessity for any such alterations. Scripture is perfect as it is. In Heb 9:3, where there is need to distinguish between “the holy place” and “the holy of holies,” the apostle uses the correct term for the latter; and where he has not done so, we may be sure that he had design in not distinguishing. Scripture is accurate here, as always.
In fact, to read here, as we should, that we have “boldness to enter into the holy places by the blood of Jesus,” destroys at once two statements that have been made, to the confusion of the interpretation of the epistle: -the first, that there is no rending of the veil in Hebrews; the second, that the first tabernacle, the outer holy place, is now entirely removed in Christianity, and only the holiest of all remains. As a consequence of the latter, neither the lamp of the sanctuary, nor the table of showbread, nor the incense altar, has anything to do with us. These are wholly Jewish, and to apply them to Christianity, it is said, is a grave mistake. Notice how this is set aside by simply taking Scripture as it is undeniably given us. We have boldness, it says, “to enter into the holy places (both of them, though now made one) by the blood of Jesus;” and thus it is established that the outer sanctuary abides for us as well as the inner, not as outer, no doubt. The two become one.
It will be asked how this consists with Heb 9:8, in which it is stated that the way into the holy places was not yet manifested as long as the first tabernacle had its standing: but this only leads us to the true statement as to the veil being rent; for the rending of the veil it is which makes both tabernacles one; so that, in fact, the first tabernacle has no standing, no existence as such. If we have come into the true tabernacle at all, we have come into the holiest. If the veil be not rent, then indeed we could go, on the contrary, into the outer sanctuary first, and worship afar off until we found our way, or were admitted into the holiest; but Hebrews knows nothing of this. There is but one entrance, “by the blood of Jesus,” into the united sanctuaries; and this is the access which is given us in the grace of Christianity. The veil is not removed, -that is never said, -and the mistake has resulted from the confusion, as has been already stated, with another and different veil which we have in the second of Corinthians, the veil over Moses’ face. That has been removed for us as Christians, and there is no veil over Christ’s face. That is true; but in the way things are stated here in Hebrews, we go through the veil, which is the flesh of Jesus. We go through, because it is rent for us to go through. “The new and living way” made through it is the thing which enables us to go through. This brings it sufficiently near to what we have in the Gospels; where, as soon as the Lord Jesus died, the veil of the sanctuary was rent in the midst. And the reference to this is more complete, in fact, than perhaps any translation can easily convey; for the word “new” in this expression, though one used in the sense of “recent,” has a fuller signification, which is its primary one. In the sense of “new” we should expect the word used in “new covenant”
(kainos), scarcely “recent,” a word used but once beside, adverbially, in the New Testament.* For what connection would there be between “recent” and “living”! and what force would there be in it if taken by itself? On the other hand, its full meaning of “newly slain” (prosphaton)** harmonizes contrastively with “and living,” which completes the thought. By death and resurrection has the way been made for us into the heavenly sanctuary, through the flesh, the human nature, of Jesus; and here the doctrine of the epistle is plainly interpretative of the fact in the Gospels.
{*Act 18:2, “lately arrived.”
**This is by no means an original thought. Moll, in Lange’s Commentary, says: “This entrance, which forms the gateway to the holiest of all, is in its nature an hodos prosphatos kai zosa, and as such has been consecrated for our use by Jesus. The epithet newly slaughtered ‘ points to the fact that, previously non-existent, it has been originated by the sacrificial death of Jesus (Theodoret with most) and not to its perpetual freshness (Ebrard).”}
The veil, therefore, is rent in Hebrews, and that is why, as has been said, it is not really having boldness to enter into the holiest, “but into the holy places;” because the two are thus united. Yet that does not mean, as it seems often to be taken to mean, that the veil is removed. It is by Jesus always that we draw near to God, and the veil has always its place. This very veil was in the type broidered with the emblems of the glory which is His as the result of His work accomplished. This is not removed, nor do we want it removed. Rent and removed are different things. By Him we draw near to God; but He had to die that it might be so. Look at the beautiful veil, and see what it implies.*
{*See Notes on Exodus.}
The drawing near has, of course, to be, with us, a spiritual realization. The ability to draw near is our privilege at all times. The conditions are given by the apostle. “Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” We have the way secured, and the living Person of the Great Priest over the house of God, Himself on the throne of God, One who in the tenderness of divine grace ministers to our infirmities, and lifts us up above ourselves. On our part, therefore, we are to approach “with a true heart, in full assurance of faith,” -that is the proper answer to the grace that has thus provided for us; with the “heart sprinkled from an evil conscience,” which is the Christian purification of the conscience previously insisted on as necessary for the practical opening of the sanctuary. The “body washed with pure water” refers to what was done at the consecration of the priests (Exo 29:4), and which answers to “the washing of regeneration” (Tit 3:5), the word of God bringing us out from a world in rampant insubjection to God, into whole-hearted allegiance to the Son of His love. This is the spiritual reality of which baptism is the expression outwardly; but “the washing of regeneration” is not baptism, which is the mere shadow, and not the substance.
Immediately, as we are brought to the question of responsibilities here, we recognize our weakness and the general need. We must hold fast unwaveringly the confession of our hope. We must “consider one another, to provoke to love and to good works.” We must “not forsake the assembling of ourselves together.” We must “encourage one another, and so much the more as we see the day approaching.” Ah, is it not just the drawing near to God that exposes our essential weakness? The presence of God is the only refuge from ourselves, from the power of things around; it is the very sanctuary, the place of holiness. But how feeble are we in the enjoyment of it! And our feebleness, instead of making us draw together for mutual help, tends to disorganize and make us drift asunder; and, instead of awakening pity and longing over one another, makes us, even to each other, the subject of unsparing criticism. We need the ability to “provoke to love and to good works.” If souls have got away from God, nothing but the power of the love of Christ can break down and restore.
It may seem strange to us at this time to think of Christians then seeing the day of Christ approaching; but the signs of the end, to observant eyes, soon began to show themselves. “The mystery of iniquity” was already at work; and when John writes his first epistle, many antichrists show it already to be the last time. Disheartening things these, but the apostle would tell us that we have not received the spirit of cowardice, but of power (2Ti 1:7), and we are not to be disheartened. Nothing more effectually cuts the nerve of activity than the loss of hope. The devil knows this well. Love itself will be reduced to idleness if assured there is no good in working. God is the God of all encouragement; and the moment we get to His side of things, we are on the winning side. Divine love invites us to draw on it without stint.
4. The warning which follows is one of those which in Hebrews are so frequent. The “wilful sin” here spoken of supposes, as in the sixth chapter, the knowledge of the truth, with the will in error. Sin is here, in the root-meaning of the word (hamartia), “missing the mark,” “going astray.” Here is a class whom he has to warn, as those before, against treading under foot the Son of God, going back to a Judaism all the impotence of which has been exposed, and which now, therefore, has manifestly “no more sacrifice for sins.” The sacrifices were still going on at Jerusalem, but there was no reality any more in anything there. They are not failing saints, but adversaries, who, as such, must expect sorer judgment than under Moses’ law, so much more as what they despised was greater. The blood of the covenant could not avail for one who had given it up as common, or having no virtue; and grace itself must fail those who insult the Spirit of grace. “Wherewith he was sanctified” is naturally a difficulty, though the reference to the day of atonement helps us to realize what is intended. The blood put before God then was the blood of the covenant as being that in virtue of which the relation between God and Israel was maintained: in God’s sight, the type of what truly sanctifies. Thus it sanctified the people, every one among them abiding in the value of it. The Christian assembly now abides under the blood of a better covenant, and of this assembly the person spoken of had formed a part. If his profession had not been true, he still had the responsibility of it in giving it up, as all the blessing of it had been open to him to enjoy. He is thus credited with that which on God’s part was never hindered being made good to him, and which he had claimed to be his own.
But again the apostle comforts those he is addressing with remembrance of what they had endured, and how the Lord’s grace had upheld them under it, and wrought experience, in which what had been trial becomes in result abiding blessing. Still, they had need of endurance, and would in due time find the recompense; for He who cometh will at last come. Meanwhile, “the just shall live by faith;” and he who draws back God can have no pleasure in him. The principle always remains true, but these are marked out by the apostle here as being really distinct classes. “We are not of those,” he says, “who draw back to perdition.” We are not of that class of people at all, “but of those who believe to the saving of the soul.”
Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary
In this, and the following verses, the Apostle gives us a particular and distinct view of the typical ordinances in the old covenant under the Mosaic dispensation, and also of their accomplishment in Jesus Christ:
And here in general he acquaints us, that the first covenant had an outward legal service, with sundry rites and ordinances of divine worship, and a wordlly sanctuary, raised by men, of earthly materials; a temporary tabernacle; verily the first covenant had ordinances of divine service, &c.
Observe here, That there never was any covenant between God and man, but it had some ordinances and institutions of divine worship annexed unto it; the original covenant of works had the ordinances of the tree of life, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The covenant of Sinai, whereof the apostle here speaks, had a multitude of them, and the gospel covenant is not destitute of them; witness our sacraments and public worship.
Observe, 2. That all ordinances for worship must be resolved into divine ordination or institution, as that which renders them acceptable and well pleasing unto God: A worship not ordained by God is not acceptable to God: it had ordinances of worship.
Observe lastly, How God can animate outward carnal things with an hidden invisible spring of glory and efficacy. So he did their sanctuary with its relation unto Christ, which was an object of faith, which no eye of flesh could behold.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Heb 9:1. To show that the old covenant was justly laid aside, the apostle judged it necessary to enter into a particular examination of the religious services which it enjoined, and to prove that these were designed not for cleansing the consciences of the worshippers, but to prefigure the services and blessings of the new or gospel covenant: so that the latter being come, there was no longer occasion for continuing the former to prefigure them. This chapter, therefore, is an illustration of chap. Heb 8:5, where the apostle affirms that the priests worshipped God in the tabernacles unto the example or pattern and shadow of heavenly things. And it was proper to explain this matter copiously, because it must have had a great influence in weaning the Hebrews from the Levitical services, and in reconciling them to the abrogation of a form of worship which, though of divine appointment, was now become useless, having accomplished its end.
Then verily the first covenant Many copies read here , the first tabernacle; but as that reading does not agree with Heb 9:2, Beza and Mill prefer the reading of the Alexandrian and other MSS. of good authority, which have , leaving the reader to supply , covenant, from the preceding verse. This reading our translators likewise have adopted. Had ceremonial ordinances of outward worship, and a worldly, that is, a visible, material sanctuary, or tabernacle. The meaning of the apostle is, that the Sinai covenant had these things annexed to it when it was first made, as its privileges and glory. For in the whole discourse he has continual respect to the first making of the covenant, and the first institution of its administrations; and this was that part of divine worship about which God had so many controversies with the people of Israel, under the Old Testament. The law of this worship was a hedge that God had set about them to keep them from superstition and idolatry. And, if at any time they brake over it, or neglected it, they failed not to rush into the most abominable idolatries. On the other hand, oftentimes they placed all their trust and confidence for their acceptance with God, and reception of blessings from him, on the external observance of its institutions. And hereby they countenanced themselves, not only in a neglect of moral duties and spiritual obedience, but in a course of flagitious sins, and various wickednesses. To repress these exorbitances, with respect to both extremes, the ministry of the prophets was, in an especial manner, directed.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Hebrews Chapter 9
The epistle, recounting some particular circumstances which characterised the first covenant shews that neither were sins put away, nor was the conscience purged by its means, nor the entrance into the holiest granted to the worshipers. The veil concealed God. The high priest went in once a year to make reconciliation-no one else. The way to God in holiness was barred. Perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, they could not be through the blood of bulls and of goats. These were but previsionary and figurative ordinances, until God took up the real work itself, in order to accomplish it fully and for ever.
But this brings us to the focus of the light which God gives us by the Holy Ghost in this epistle. Before proving by the scriptures of the Old Testament the doctrine that he announced and the discontinuance of the actual sacrifices-of all sacrifice for sin, the writer, with a heart full of the truth and of the importance of that truth, teaches the value and the extent of the sacrifice of Christ (still in contrast with the former offerings, but a contrast that rests on the intrinsic value of the offering of Christ). These three results are presented:-first, the opened way into the sanctuary was manifested, that is , access to God Himself, where He is, second, the purification of the conscience; third, and eternal redemption (I may add the promise of an eternal inheritance).
One feels the immense importance, the inestimable value, of the first. The believer is admitted into Gods own presence by a new and living way which he has consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; has constant access to God, immediate access to the place where He is, in the light. What complete salvation, what blessedness, what security! For how could we have access to God in the light, if everything that would separate us from Him, were not entirely taken away through Him who was once offered to bear the sins of many? But here it is the precious and perfect result, in this respect, which is revealed to us, and formally proved in chapter 10, as a right that we possess, that access to God Himself is entirely and freely open to us. We are not indeed told in this passage that we are seated there, for it is not our union with Christ that is the subject of this epistle, but our access to God in the sanctuary. And it is important to note this last, and it is as precious in its p]ace as the other. We are viewed as on earth and being on earth we have free and full access to God in the sanctuary. We go in perfect liberty to God, where His holiness dwells, and where nothing that is contrary to Him can be admitted. What happiness! What perfect grace! What a glorious result, supreme and complete! Could anything better be desired, remembering too that it is our dwelling-place? This is our position in the presence of God through the entrance of Christ into the sanctuary.
The second result shews us the personal state we are brought into, in order to the enjoyment of our position; that we may, on our part, enter in freely. It is that our Saviour has rendered our conscience perfect, so that we can go into the sanctuary without an idea of fear, without one question as to sin arising in our minds. A perfect conscience is not an innocent conscience which, happy in its unconsciousness, does not know evil, and does not know God revealed in holiness. A perfect conscience knows God; it is cleansed, and, having the knowledge of good and evil according to the light of God Himself, it knows that it is purified from all evil according to His purity. Now the blood of bulls and goats, and the washing repeated under the law, could never make the conscience perfect. They could sanctify carnally, so as to enable the worshiper to approach God outwardly, yet only afar off, with the veil still unrent. But a real purification from sin and sins, so that the soul can be in the presence of God Himself in the light without spot, with the consciousness of being so the offerings under the law could never produce. They were but figures. but, thanks be to God, Christ has accomplished the work; and, present for us now in the heavenly and eternal sanctuary, He is the witness there that our sins are put away; so that all conscience of sin before God is destroyed, because we know that He who bore our sins is in the presence of God, after having accomplished the work of expiation. Thus we have the consciousness of being in the light without spot. We have the purification not only of sins but of the conscience, so that we can use this access to God in full liberty and joy, presenting ourselves before Him who has so loved us.
The third result, which seals and characterises the two others, is that Christ, having once entered in abides in heaven. He has gone into the heavenly sanctuary to remain there by virtue of an eternal redemption, of blood that has everlasting validity. The work is completely done, and can never change in value. If our sins are effectually put away, God glorified, and righteousness complete, that which once availed to effect this can never not avail. The blood shed once for all is ever efficacious.
Our High Priest is in the sanctuary, not with the blood of sacrifices, which are but figures of the true. The work has been done which puts sin away. This redemption is neither temporal not transitory. It is the redemption of the soul, and for eternity, according to the moral efficacy of that which has been done.
Here then are the three aspects of the result of the work of Christ: immediate access to God; a purged conscience; and eternal redemption.
Three points remain to be noticed before entering on the subject of the covenants, which is here resumed.
First, Christ is a High Priest of good things to come. In saying things to come,the starting-point is Israel under the law before the advent of our Lord. Nevertheless, if these good things were now acquired, if it could be said, we have them, because Christianity was their fulfillment, it could hardly be still said-when Christianity was established-good things to come. They are yet to come. These good things consist of all that the Messiah will enjoy when He reigns. This also is the reason that the earthly things have their place. But our present relationship with Him is only and altogether heavenly. He acts as Priest in a tabernacle which is not of this creation: it is heavenly, in the presence of God, not made with hands. Our place is in heaven.
In the second place, Christ offered himself, by the eternal Spirit [16], without spot, to God. Here the precious offering up of Christ is viewed as an act that He performed as man, though in the perfection and Value of His Person. He offered Himself to God-but as moved by the power, and according to the perfection of the Eternal Spirit. All the motives that governed this action, and the accomplishment of the fact according to those motives, were purely and perfectly those of the Holy Ghost; that is, absolutely divine in their perfection, but of the Holy Ghost acting in a man (a man without sin who, born and living ever by the power of the Holy Ghost, had never known sin; who, being exempt from it by birth, never allowed it to enter into Him); so that it is the Man Christ who offers Himself. This was requisite.
Thus the offering was in itself perfect and pure, with out defilement; and the act of offering was perfect, whether in love or in obedience, or in the desire to glorify God, or to accomplish the purpose of God. Nothing mingled itself with the perfection of His intent in offering Himself. Moreover, it was not a temporary offering, which applied to one sin with which the conscience was burdened and which went no farther than that one an offering which could not, by its nature, have the perfection spoken of, because it was not the Person offering up Himself, nor was it absolutely for God, because there was in it neither the perfection of will nor of obedience. But the offering of Christ was one which, being perfect in its moral nature, being in itself perfect in the eyes of God, was necessarily eternal in its value. For this value was as enduring as the nature of God who was glorified in it.
It was made, not of necessity, but of free will, and in obedience. It was made by a man for the glory of God, but through the Eternal Spirit, ever the same in its nature and value.
All being, thus perfectly fulfilled for the glory of God, the conscience of every one that comes to Him by this offering is purged; dead works are blotted out and set aside; we stand before God on the ground of that which Christ has done.
And here the third point comes in. Being perfectly cleansed in conscience from all that man in his sinful nature produces, and having to do with God in light and in love, there being no question of conscience with Him, we are in a position to serve the living God. Precious liberty! in which, happy and without question before God according to His nature in light, we can serve Him according to the activity of His nature in love. Judaism knew no more of this than it did of perfection in conscience. Obligation towards God that system indeed maintained; and it offered a certain provision for that which was needed for outward failure. But to have a perfect conscience, and then to serve God in love, according to His will-of this it knew nothing.
This is Christian position: the conscience perfect by Christ, [17] according to the nature of God Himself; the service of God in liberty, according to His nature of love acting towards others.
For the Jewish system, in its utmost advantages, was characterised by the holy place. There were duties and obligations to be fulfilled in order to draw near, sacrifices to cleanse outwardly him who drew near outwardly. Meanwhile God was always concealed. No one entered into the holy place: it is implied that the most holy was inaccessible. No sacrifice had yet been offered which gave free access, and at all times. God was concealed: that He was so characterised the position. They could not stand before Him. Neither did He manifest Himself. They served Him out of His presence without going in.
It is important to notice this truth, that the whole system in its highest and nearest access to God was characterised by the holy place, in order to understand the passage before us.
Now the first tabernacle-Judaism as a system-is identified with the first part of the tabernacle, and that open only to the priestly part of the nation, the second part (that is, the sanctuary) only shewing, by the circumstances connected with it, that there was no access to God. When the author of the epistle goes on to the present position of Christ, he leaves the earthly tabernacle-it is heaven itself he then speaks of, a tabernacle not made with hands, nor of this creation, into which he introduces us.
The first tent or part of the tabernacle gave the character of the relationship of the people with God, and that only by a priesthood. They could not reach God. When we approach God Himself, it is in heaven; and the entire first system disappears. Everything was offered as a figure in the first system, and even as a figure shewed that the conscience was not yet set free, nor the presence of God accessible to man. The remembrance of sins was continual]y renewed (the annual sacrifice was a memorial of sins and God was not manifested, nor the way to Him opened).
Christ comes, accomplishes the sacrifice, makes the conscience perfect, goes into heaven itself; and we draw nigh to God in the light. To mingle the service of the first tabernacle or holy place with Christian service is to deny the latter; for the meaning of the first was that the way to God was not yet open; the meaning of the second, that it is open.
God may have patience with the weakness of man. Till the destruction of Jerusalem He bore with the Jews; but the two systems can never really go on together, namely, a system which said that one cannot draw nigh to God, and another system which gives access to Him.
Christ is come, the High Priest of a new system, of good things, which, under the old system, were yet to come ; but He did not enter into the earthly most holy place, leaving the holy place to subsist without a true meaning. He is come by the (not a) more excellent and more perfect tabernacle. I repeat it, for it is essential here: the holy place, or the first tent, is the figure of the relationship of men with God under the first tabernacle (taken as a whole); so that we may say, the first tabernacle, applying it to the first part of the tabernacle, and pass on to the first tabernacle as a whole, and as a recognised period having the same meaning. This the epistle does here. To come out of this position, we must leave typical things and pass into heaven, the true sanctuary where Christ ever lives, and where no veil bars our entrance.
Now it is not said, that we have the good things to come. Christ has gone into heaven itself, the High Priest of those good things, securing their possession to them that trust in Him. But we have access to [18] God in the light by virtue of Christs presence there. That presence is the proof of righteousness fully established; the blood, an evidence that our sins are put away for ever; and our conscience is made perfect. Christ in heaven is the guarantee for the fulfillment of every promise. He has opened an access for us, even now, to God in the light, having cleansed our consciences once for all-for He dwells on high continuously-that we may enter in, and that we may serve God here below.
All this is already established and secured; but there is more. The new covenant,of which He is Mediator, is founded on His blood.
The way in which the apostle always avoids the direct application of the new covenant is very striking.
The transgressions that were imputed under the first covenant, and which the sacrifices it offered could not expiate, are by the blood of the new covenant entirely blotted out. Thus they which are called -observe the expression (ver. 15)-can receive the promise of the eternal inheritance; that is to say, the foundation is laid for the accomplishment of the blessings of the covenant. He says, the eternal inheritance, because, as we have seen, the reconciliation was complete, our sins borne and canceled, and the work by which sin is finally put away out of Gods sight accomplished, according to the nature and character of God Himself. This is the main point of all this part of the epistle.
It is because of the necessity there was for this sacrifice-the necessity that sins, and finally sin, should be entirely put away, [19] in order to the enjoyment of the eternal promises (for God could not bless, as an eternal principle and definitively, while sin was before His eyes), that Christ, the Son of God, Man on earth, became the Mediator of the new covenant, in order that by death He might make a way for the permanent enjoyment of that which had been promised. The new covenant, in itself, did not speak of a Mediator. God would write His laws on the hearts of His people, and would remember sins no more.
The covenant is not yet made with Israel and Judah. But meanwhile God has established and revealed the Mediator, who has accomplished the work on which the fulfillment of the promises can be founded in a way that is durable in principle, eternal, because connected with the nature of God Himself. This is done by means of death, the wages of sin and by which sin is left behind; and expiation for sins being made according to the righteousness of God, an altogether new position is taken outside and beyond sin. The Mediator has paid the ransom. Sin has no more right over us.
Verses 16, 17 are a parenthesis, in which the idea of a testament (it is the same word as covenant in the Greek, a disposition on the part of one who has the right of disposal) is introduced, to make us understand that death must have taken place before the rights acquired under the testament can enjoyed. [20] This necessity of the covenant being founded on the blood of a victim was not forgotten in the case of the first covenant. Everything was sprinkled with blood. Only in this case it was the solemn sanction of death attached to the obligation of the covenant. The types always spoke of the necessity of death intervening before men could be in relationship with God. Sin had brought in death and judgment. We must either undergo the judgment ourselves or see our sins blotted out through it having been undergone by another for us.
Three applications of the blood are presented here. The covenant is founded on the blood. Defilement is washed away by its means. Guilt is removed by the remission obtained through the blood that has been shed.
These are in fact the three things necessary. First the ways of God in bestowing blessing according to His promise are connected with His righteousness, the sins of those blessed being, atoned for, the requisite foundation of the covenant, Christ having withal glorified God in respect of sin when made sin on the cross.
Second the purification of the sin by which we were defiled (by which all things that could not be guilty were nevertheless defiled) is accomplished. Here there were cases in which water was typically used: this is moral and practical cleansing. It flows from death, the water that purifies proceeded from the side of the holy Victim already dead. It is the application of the word-which
judges all evil and reveals all good-to the conscience and the heart.
Third, as regards remission. In no case can this be obtained without the shedding of blood. Observe that it does not here say application. It is the accomplishment of the work of true propitiation, which is here spoken of. Without shedding of blood there is no remission. All-important truth! For a work of remission, death and blood-shedding must take place.
Two consequences flow from these views of atonement and reconciliation to God.
First, it was necessary that there should be a better sacrifice, a more excellent victim, than those which were offered under the old covenant, because it was the heavenly things themselves, and not their figures, that were to be purified. For it is into the presence of God in heaven itself that Christ has entered.
Secondly, Christ was not to offer Himself often, as the high priest went in every year with the blood of others. For He offered up Himself. Hence, if all that was available in the sacrifice was not brought to perfection by a single offering once made, He must have suffered often since the foundation of the world. [21] This remark leads to the clear and simple declaration of the ways of God on this point- a declaration of priceless value. God allowed ages to pass (the different distinct periods in which man has in divers ways been put to the test, and in which he has had time to shew what he is) without yet accomplishing His work of grace. This trial of man has served to shew that he is bad in nature and in will. The multiplication of means only made it more evident that he was essentially bad at heart, for he availed himself of none of them to draw near to God. On the contrary, his enmity against God was fully manifested.
When God had made this plain, before the law, under the law, by promises, by the coming and presence of His Son, then the work of God takes the place, for our salvation and Gods glory, of mans responsibility-on the ground of which faith knows man is entirely lost. This explains the expression (ver. 26) in the consummation of the ages.
Now this work is perfect, and perfectly accomplished. Sin had dishonoured God, and separated man from Him. All that God had done to give him the means of return only ended in affording him opportunity to fill up the measure of his sin by the rejection of Jesus. But in this the eternal counsels of God were fulfilled, at least the moral basis laid, and that in infinite perfection, for their actual accomplishment in their results. All now in fact, as in purpose always, rested on the second Adam, and on what God had done, not on mans responsibility, while that was fully met for Gods glory. (Compare 2Ti 1:9-10; Tit 1:1 Tit 2:1-2.) The Christ, whom man rejected, had appeared in order to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. Thus it was morally the consummation of the ages.
The result of the work and power of God are not yet manifested. A new creation will develop them. But man, as the child of Adam, has run his whole career in his relationship with God: he is enmity against God. Christ, fulfilling the will of God, has come in the consummation of ages, to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and His work to this end is accomplished. This is the moral power of His act, [22] of His sacrifice before God; in result, sin will be entirely blotted out of the heavens and the earth. To faith this result, namely, the putting away of sin, is already realised in the conscience, [23] because Christ who was made sin for us has died and died to sin, and now is risen and glorified, sin (even as made it for us) left behind.
Moreover, this result is announced to the believer- to those who are looking for the Lords return. Death and judgment are the lot of men as children of Adam. Christ has been opened once to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation, not to judgment.
For them, as to their standing before God, sin is even now put away: as Christ is, so are they; their own sins are all blotted out. Christ appeared the first time in order to be made sin for us, and to bear our sins; they were laid upon Him on the cross. And, with regard to those who wait for Him, those sins are entirely put away. When He returns, Christ has nothing, to do with sin, as far as they are concerned. It was fully dealt with at His first coming. He appears the second time to deliver them from all the results of sin, from all bondage. He will appear, not for judgment, but unto salvation. The putting away of sin on their behalf before God has been so complete, the sins of believers so entirely blotted out, that, when He appears the second time, He has, as to them nothing to do with sin. He appears apart from sin, not only without sin in His blessed Person-this was the case at His first coming-but (as to those who look for Him) outside all question of sin, for their final deliverance.
Without sin is in contrast with to bear the sins of many. [24] But it will be remarked, that the taking up of the assembly is not mentioned here. It is well to notice the language. The character of His second coming is the subject. He has been manifested once. Now He is seen by those who look for Him. The expression may apply to the deliverance of the Jews who wait for Him in the last days. He will appear for their deliverance. But we expect the Lord for this deliverance, and we shall see Him when He accomplishes it even for us. The apostle does not touch the question of the difference between this and our being caught up, and does not use the word which serves to announce His public manifestation. He will appear to those who expect Him. He is not seen by all the world, nor is it consequently the judgment, although that may follow. The Holy Ghost speaks only of them that look for the Lord. To them He will appear. By them He will be seen, and it will be the time of their deliverance; so that it is true for us, and also applicable to the Jewish remnant in the last days.
Thus the Christian position, and the hope of the world to come, founded on the blood and on the Mediator of the new covenant, are both given here. The one is the present portion of the believer, the other is secured as the hope of Israel.
How wonderful is the grace which we are now considering!
There are two things that present themselves to us in Christ-the attraction to our heart of His grace and goodness, and His work which brings our souls into the presence of God. It is with the latter that the Holy Ghost here occupies us. There is not only the piety which grace produces; there is the efficacy of the work itself. What is this efficacy? What is the result for us of His work? Access to God in the light without a veil, ourselves entirely clear of all sin before Him, as white as snow in the light which only shews it. Marvelous position for us! We have not to wait for a day of judgment (assuredly coming as it is), nor to seek for means of approach to God. We are in His presence. Christ appears in the presence of God for us. And not only this: He remains there ever; our position therefore never changes. It is true that we are called to walk according to that position. But this does not touch the fact that such is the position. And how came we into it ? and in what condition ? Our sins entirely put away, perfectly put away, and once for all, and the whole question of sin settled for ever before God, we are there because Christ has finished the work which abolished it, and without it in Gods sight. So that there are the two things- this work accomplished, and this position ours in the presence of God.
We see the force of the contrast between this and Judaism. According to the latter, divine service, as we have seen, was performed outside the veil. The worshipers did not reach the presence of God. Thus they had always to begin again. The propitiatory sacrifice was renewed from year to year-a continually repeated testimony that sin still was there. Individually they obtained a temporary pardon for particular acts. It had constantly to be renewed. The conscience was never made perfect, the soul was not in the presence of God, this great question was never settled. (How many souls are even now in this condition!) The entrance of the high priest once a year did but furnish a proof that the way was still barred that God could not be approached, but that sin was still remembered.
But now the guilt of believers is gone, their sins washed away by a work done once for all; the conscience is made perfect; nor is there any condemnation for them. Sin in the flesh has been condemned in Christ when a sacrifice for sin, and Christ appears ever in the presence of God for us. The High Priest remains there. Thus, instead of having a memorial of sin reiterated from year to year, perfect righteousness subsists ever for us in the presence of God. The position is entirely changed.
The lot of man (for this perfect work takes us out of Judaism) is death and judgment. But now our lot depends on Christ, not on Adam. Christ was offered to bear the sins of many [25] -the work is complete, the sins blotted out, and to those who look for Him He will appear without having anything, to do with sin that question having been entirely settled at His first, coming. In the death of Jesus, God dealt with the sins of those who look for Him; and He will appear, not to judge, but unto salvation-to deliver them finally from the position into which sin had brought them. This will have its application to the Jewish remnant according to the circumstances of their position; but in an absolute way it applies to the Christian, who has heaven for his portion.
The essential point established in the doctrine of the death of Christ is, that He offered Himself once for all. We must bear this in mind, to understand the full import of all that is here said. The tenth chapter is the development and application of this. In it the author recapitulates his doctrine on this point, and applies it to souls, confirming it by scripture and by considerations which are evident to every enlightened conscience.
1. The law, with its sacrifices, did not make the worshipers perfect; for, if they had been brought to perfection, the sacrifices would not have been offered afresh. If they were offered again, it was because the worshipers were not perfect. On the contrary the repetition of the sacrifice was a memorial of sins; it reminded the people that sin was still there, and that it was still before God. In effect the law, although it was the shadow of things to come, was not their true image. There were sacrifices; but they were repeated instead of there being one only sacrifice of eternal efficacy. There was a high priest, but he was mortal, and the priesthood transmissible. He went into the holiest, but only once a year, the veil which concealed God being unrent, and the high priest unable to remain in His presence, the work being not perfect. Thus there were indeed elements which plainly indicated the constituent parts, so to speak, of the priesthood of the good things to come; but the state of the worshipers was in the one case quite the opposite of that which it was in the other. In the first, every act shewed that the work of reconciliation was not done; in the second, the position of the high priest and of the worshiper is a testimony that this work has been accomplished, and that the latter are perfected for ever in the presence of God.
Footnotes for Hebrews Chapter 9
16: The reader will remark how anxiously, so to speak, the Epistle here attaches the epithet eternal to everything. It was not a temporary or earthly ground of relationship with God, but an eternal one; so of redemption; so of inheritance. Corresponding to this, as to the work on earth, it is once for all. It is not unimportant to notice this as to the nature of the work. Hence the epithet attached even to the Spirit.
17: For in Christ we are the righteousness of God. His blood cleanses us on Gods part. Jesus wrought out the purification of sins by Himself, and glorified God in so doing.
18: It is all-important thoroughly to understand, that it is into the presence of God that we enter; and that, at all times, and by virtue of a sacrifice and of blood which never lose their value. The worshiper, under the former tabernacle, did not come into the presence of God; he stayed outside the unrent veil. He sinned-a sacrifice was offered: he sinned again-a sacrifice was offered. Now the veil is rent. We are always in the presence of God without a veil. Happen what may, He always sees us-sees us in His presence-according t the efficacy of Christs perfect sacrifice. We are there now, by virtue of a perfect sacrifice, offered for the putting away of sin, according to the divine glory, and which has perfectly accomplished the purification of sins. I should not be in the presence of God in the sanctuary, if I had not been purified according to the purity of God, and by God. It was this which brought me there. And this sacrifice and this blood can never lose their value. Through them I am therefore perfect for ever in the presence of God; I was brought into it by them.
19: The work in virtue of which all sin is finally put away out of Gods sight-abolished-is accomplished, the question of good and evil is come to a final issue on the cross, and God perfectly glorified when sin was before Him; the result will not be finally accomplished till the new heavens and the new earth. But our sins having been borne by Christ on the cross, He rises, atonement being made, an eternal testimony that they are gone for ever, and that by faith we are now justified and have peace. We must not confound these two things, our sins being put away, and the perfectly glorifying God in respect of sin, when Christ was made sin, the results of which are not yet accomplished. As regards the sinful nature, it is still in us; but Christ having died, its condemnation took place then, but, that being in death, we reckon ourselves dead to it, and no condemnation for us.
20: Some think that these two verses are not a parenthesis speaking of a testament, but a continuation of the argument on the covenant, taking the word diatithemai to mean, not the testator, but the sacrifice, which put a seal, more solemn than an oath, on the obligation of observing the covenant. It is a very delicate Greek question, on which I do not here enter. But I cannot say they have convinced me.
21: And He must have repeatedly suffered, for there must be reality in putting away sin.
22: The more we examine the cross from Gods side of it, the more we shall see this: mans enmity against God, and against God come in goodness, was absolutely displayed; Satans power in evil over man too; mans perfectness in love to the Father and obedience to Him; Gods majesty and righteousness against sin, and love to sinners, all He is; all good and evil perfectly brought to an issue, and that in the place of sin, that is, in Christ made sin for us. When sin was as such before His face in the sinless One where it was needed and God perfectly glorified, and indeed the Son of man too, morally the whole thing was settled, and we know it: the actual results are not yet produced.
23: The judgment, which will fall upon the wicked, is not sin. Much more also is involved in the work and position of Christ, even heavenly glory with God: but it is not our subject here.
24: It is of moment to see the difference between Heb 9:26 and Heb 9:28. Sin had to be put away abstractedly out of Gods sight, and hence He had to be perfectly glorified in respect of it, in that place where sin was before Him. Christ was made sin, appeared to abolish it out of Gods sight, eis athetesis (?) hamartia. Besides this, our sins (guilt) were in question, and Christ bore them in His own body on the tree. The sins are borne, and Christ has them no more. They are gone as guilt before God for ever. The work for the abolition of sin in Gods sight is done, and God owns it as done, having glorified Jesus who has glorified Him as to it when made sin. So that for God the thing is settled, and faith recognises this, but the result is not produced. The work is before God in all its value, but the sin still exists in the believer and in the world. Faith owns both, knows that in Gods sight it is done, and rests as God does in it but the believer knows that sin is still, de facto, there and in him: only he has a title to reckon himself deadto it-that sin in the flesh is condemned, but in the sacrifice for sin, so that there is none for him. The athetesis (?) is not accomplished, but what does It is; so that God recognises it, and so does faith, and stands perfectly clear before God as to sin and sins. He that is dead (and we are, as having died with Christ) is justified from sin. Our sins have all been borne. The difficulty partly arises from sin being, used for a particular act, and also abstractedly. In the word sins there is no such ambiguity. A sacrifice for sin may apply to a particular fault. Sin entered into the world is another idea. This ambiguity has produced the confusion.
25: The word many has a double bearing here, negative and positive. It could not be said all, or all would be saved. On the other hand the word many generalises the work, so that it is not the Jews only who are its object.
Fuente: John Darby’s Synopsis of the New Testament
ARGUMENT 7
THE TWO SANCTUARIES
Apollos had been gloriously converted under the preaching of John the Baptist and powerfully sanctified through the ministry of Priscilla and Aquila. Having been educated at Alexandria, Egypt, the greatest literary emporium in the world, he was thoroughly versed in all Judaic institutions. Hence he takes up every ramification of the Mosaic religion and uses it as a substratum on which to build the triumphant doctrine of Christian perfection, which constitutes the crowning glory of the Gospel dispensation. He here builds a majestic and irrefragable argument on the great, notable and prominent institution of the Jewish tabernacle and temple.
1. The first tabernacle has ordinances of worship and a worldly sanctuary. Before the Jew could enter the sanctuary, he must offer a burnt offering on the brazen altar, which stood without. This emblematized his justification from the guilt of his actual sins. Then he must go to the laver and receive a watery ablution, typifying the regeneration of his heart by the Holy Ghost. Having passed the altar and the laver, he enters the sanctuary of the Lord, which emblematizes the kingdom of grace. This is called a worldly sanctuary, because worldly elements could get into it. The Greek ecclesia, church, means the called out of the world. Hagiazo, sanctify, means to take the world out of you. This is precisely corroborated by the two temples. The outer is called a worldly sanctuary because the regenerated people who enter it still have worldly elements in their hearts. The world could not enter the sanctum sanctorum, into which the high priest alone went once a yea. Hence you see the perfect synonymy of the two temples with the two experiences. The first was called worldly because the elements of the world were in it. The second was called the holy of holies because none but the high priest, who emblematized Christ, and the wholly sanctified could enter it. While regeneration brings us out of the world, we carry much of the world with us in our hearts into the kingdom of grace. Sanctify means to take the world out of you, and thus bring you into the holy of holies.
2. The first sanctuary had to be lighted by human agency, like the churches of the present day. It also contained the shew bread for the past to eat, which must be frequently renewed or it will get stale and mold. How strikingly all this illustrates the unsanctified experience! Though you have the candlestick, i.e., your experience of conversion, yet much of the time you are under a cloud, walking in darkness, hoping some man of God or sanctified woman will come along and light your lamp again. Though you generally have some bread on the table, frequently it is so old and hard that you cant chew it and so moldy as to nauseate you. How you wish for some holiness crank to come along and bring you a fresh loaf!
3-5. While the first temple has the brazen altar, the second has the golden. Justification is an inferior state, represented by brass, which also vividly emblematizes the egotism and pomposity always characterizing carnality. Meanwhile the golden altar of the sanctum sanctorum emblematizes the pure and undefiled religion of the sanctified experience, the most valuable possession this side of heaven, fitly illustrated by the gold in contradistinction to the brass. Not only is the altar gold, but the ark of the covenant is covered with gold and the manna pot is pure gold. Hence we see entire sanctification is significantly and pre-eminently a pure gold experience. The sanctum sanctorum was lined internally with coal black badger skins throughout, having neither doors nor windows. Hence every ray of solar light was excluded, so midday was as dark as midnight. Neither were they permitted ever to introduce an artificial light. Hence the sanctum sanctorum was dependent entirely upon the light of the shekinah, which was the ineffable glory of the divine presence. While the outer temple is dependent on human agency to come and light the candles to drive away the darkness, the inner court is not only independent of all human agency, but independent of the sun, moon and stars. Pursuant to this forcible analogy, the justified Christian is dependent on his pastor to come round and give him light, while the sanctified are independent, not only of all human agency but of all natural resources. He has the glorious Sun of Righteousness shining in his soul night and day. He is no longer dependent on the nightly fall of manna in the wilderness which bred worms in twenty-four hours, so he could not eat it; but he has an ample supply in the golden pot, always sweet, delicious and pre-eminently nutritious, just ready ad libitum to take a mess. Besides, Aarons rod, evergreen, flourishing, budding, blooming and laden with fruits, growing, mature, delicious and fragrant, is constantly before his eyes, inviting him to eat and be filled. Reader, are you in the sanctum sanctorum, illuminated by the glorious heavenly light of the shekinah, giving you perennial noonday in your soul, feasting on the delicious manna in the golden pot, always sweet and fresh, eating the luscious, ripe fruits and beholding the blooming flowers of Aaron budding rod, cheered by the angelic presence of the glorified cherubim and blessed with the perpetual presence of the mercy- seat? If you lived in the former dispensation, encumbered by the Levitical law, you might apologize. But since God, with His own hand, rent the vail from top to bottom when its great Antitype was lacerated by the Roman spear, so you have nothing to do but shove it aside with the hand of faith, walk in, and forever abide amid the unearthly glories of the sanctum sanctorum, you certainly are left without excuse.
6, 7. The Greek says the high priest offered sacrifice for the sins of ignorance, i.e., the infirmities of the people. There are three kinds of sins, i.e. actual, original and sins of ignorance, or in Wesleyan theology infirmities. Justification saves us from actual sins; sanctification, from original sins, and glorification, from infirmities or sins of ignorance. When our Savior was interviewed in reference to the woman who survived her seventh husband, as to whose wife she should be in the resurrection, he responded: In the resurrection there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage, but all are as the angels of God. The Greek is isoi anggeloi, i.e., like the angels, or equal to the angels. Hence we have from this utterance of the Savior the clear revelation that glorification confers angelic perfection. Sanctification imparts Christian perfection, which is the normal status of Gospel salvation. The man who does not enjoy Christian perfection in his own experience is still under the law, living in the dispensation of Moses. Christian perfection, i.e., entire sanctification, prepares us to live a holy life, glorify God in the salvation of others, and enjoy a heavenly prelibation in this world. Glorification which the Holy Ghost confers the moment the soul evacuates the body, sweeps away all the infirmities incident to the soul through the media of the mortal body and fallen mind, conferring on us angelic perfection, with which we leave this world and enter heaven, to live among the angels, like them forever free from the mistakes, blunders, infirmities and failures incident to probation.
8-10. In these verses Apollos certifies the typical character of these Judaic institutions and their consequent incompetency to make the worshiper perfect as to his conscience. We are all ready to bear witness to the testimony of Apollos and the Holy Ghost here given. I preached fifteen years in the typical dispensation, all the time striving and aspiring to perfection of conscience, but never reaching it. I exhausted the types, shadows, ordinances, humanisms and legalisms, finally to give up in utter desperation. When, twenty-eight years ago, I bade adieu to all human, ritualistic and legislative agencies, and turned over the momentous problem of perfection of conscience to the Omnipotent Savior, victory came to stay. Early in this legalistic period of my Christian experience, I came to the conclusion that baby sprinkling was not water enough. Consequently I prevailed on a Methodist preacher, who has long been playing on his golden harp, to immerse me deep in Pitmans Creek. I did not receive it for the remission of sins, for I had been gloriously converted and at that time enjoyed the witness of the Spirit to my acceptance with God. I was in a terrible conflict with inbred sin, on which, in the silence of the pulpit, I was groping in darkness. Hence I ignorantly received immersion as a sanctifier. To my unutterable disappointment I found the change only physical, i.e., from dry to wet. I found the devil amphibious, like his symbol the snake, competent to live in water as well as on the land. So I am a living witness, along with Apollos, to the utter incompetency of all humanism and all legalism to make perfect the worshiper as to his conscience. Millions of people are wearing themselves out in church work of all sorts, vainly aspiring to a perfect conscience, which they will never receive on that line, as Paul well says, Though I give all my goods to feed the poor, and give my body to be burned, without perfect love I am nothing. It is lamentable to contemplate the wholesale delusion this day enslaving the popular churches with the vain aspiration, by good works, noble enterprises, fine church edifices, big organs and eloquent sermons, to make the worshiper perfect as to his conscience. It is nonsense in the extreme. Perfection can not possibly come in that way. It is the work of the Omnipotent Perfector, through faith. Washings, in the tenth verse, is baptisms in the Greek. Amid the multitudinous typical institutions of the Levitical economy, the watery ablutions and bloody sacrifices stood pre-eminent, the former representing the Holy Ghost and the latter the Christ, and both almost infinitesimal in quantity and quality. In ways innumerable the Jews contracted ceremonial defilement incidentally, accidentally and necessarily, which could only be removed by the application of the catharistic ablutions, which were prepared by dropping the blood of the red heifer into water, or more generally as a matter of convenience some of the ashes of the red heifer which had been slaughtered, burned and carefully kept convenient for all demands. Ordinance of the flesh appointed till the time of restitution. These innumerable watery catharisms expurgatory of ceremonial defilement, along with the innumerable bloody sacrifices being fulfilled on the cross of Calvary and in the upper room on Mt. Zion, forever became effete, the simple institution of Christian baptism surviving the one, and the eucharist the other, neither of which is essential to salvation, from the simple fact that they are both carnal ordinances, whereas we are living in the spiritual dispensation.
11, 12. Whereas the high priest under the symbolic dispensation must enter the sanctum sanctorum every year, repeating the atonement over and over, because his work at best was only typical and transitory, Christ, our great and infallible High Priest, having offered His own body on the cross, the great Antitype, adumbrated by all the bleeding birds and beasts slain during the annals of four thousand years, ascended into the heavenly sanctuary, having found eternal redemption. Euramenos is the aorist participle from euriskoo. Hence it means that our Savior instantaneously found this eternal redemption when he expired on the cross. So complete and perfect is that redemption, as forever to preclude the slightest necessity for any human soul to be lost. Hence the wretched millions in hell have gone hither gratuitously, without the most remote legal necessity, the sad reminiscence of which will doubtless prove the blackest ghost to haunt and torment them through all eternity.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Heb 9:2-6. A tabernacle wherein was the candlestick. For a description of this portable temple, which disdains borrowing figures from the Egyptian temples, though they had some figures analogous to the jews, see the sixteen last chapters of the book of Exodus, and the book of Leviticus for its rituals. The candlestick having seven lamps, he names first, for without light the inner court could not be clearly seen; and so of the other mystical glories already explained as above. Concerning the golden pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron, the Hebrew doctors make strong memorials, putting the golden pot in front of their shekel, and the rod of Aaron on the reverse side. See the map of Jerusalem.
Heb 9:7-8. But into the second veil, or holy of holies, went the highpriest alone once every year, on the great day of atonement. He might go oftener, if the special events of the nation so required, which shows that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest. The veil of Moses is now done away in Christ.
Heb 9:11. But Christ being come a highpriest of good things to come, and come in the fulness of the time foretold. Gal 4:4. The rags of Joshua are superseded by robes, as in the vision of Zechariah; the true, the heavenly temple is now laid open, and the church is filled with the glory of the only-begotten of the Father. This is the temple not made with hands, but is the spiritual or mystical body of Christ.
Heb 9:12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves. David in the Spirit foresaw that these would be rejected. Psa 40:6. He entered into the holy place with his own blood, to which our redemption is always ascribed, and by which we obtain eternal inheritance.
Heb 9:13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean. Rabbi Maimonides, in his Novochim, has a good note here. He says that though the Hebrew altar made no atonement for murderers, for idolaters, for adulterers, yet there was an atonement made for them by the red heifer, and other accursed victims laden with their sins, [called here dead works] slain, and burned without the camp, from whose ashes the waters of purification were secreted.
Heb 9:14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, the Lamb without spot, immolated by the good pleasure of the Father, and offered up through the eternal Spirit, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Was ever sacrifice like this? God spared not his own Son, but freely delivered him up for us all. For their sakes, said the Saviour, I sanctify myself, a vicarious victim, to satisfy the demands of justice, that mercy may be extended to the ruined and the lost. His death gave a perfect finish to the ransom; by the one offering of himself he has for ever perfected, as regards atonement and satisfaction, them that are sanctified.
Heb 9:15. For this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament, which is open to the gentiles, and calls the world to turn to God. Aaron therefore, compared with Christ, was restricted in his powers. He could only look on the leper, but could not cleanse; whereas, all the gentile armies washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the lamb. Thus sinners, washed and reconciled, are brought nigh, and joined to the hundred and forty four thousand of the virgin church; they are made heirs of the promises, and all the blessings of eternal life.
Heb 9:21-23. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood, both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. All the church must of course be sprinkled with blood; all our words and works must be touched with the Redeemers merits. Such is the harmony of the divine counsel and love in our redemption.
Heb 9:27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, so Christ in the end of the world died for us. And as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so Christ bare the sins of many, or as above, he died for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant. There is no need then for his sacrifice to be repeated; but he shall come the second time without (coming to die for) sin, and shall judge the world, when those that pierced him shall wail because of him.
REFLECTIONS.
Paul reviews here the tabernacle, that he might show the true glory of that temple which is in heaven. He begins with the candlestick, whose seven lamps showed the interior sanctuary, where all the priests officiated. So God who in the beginning commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined into our dark hearts, to give us the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ. All the insignia of the sanctuary raised the expectation of better things, designated by the glory of all the types. The leviticum therefore could never make its votaries perfect; this was reserved for the introduction of a better hope. Jesus Christ, for whom all things were created, was to officiate in a better tabernacle, and to have somewhat better than beasts to offer. God prepared him a body, joined to a human soul, illustrious, immaculate, and heir of the world by descent. This body was offered upon the high altar of the cross to obtain eternal redemption, or a redemption once for all for us.
The approach of sinful man to an offended God is now opened by a new and living way; whereas under the law it was encumbered with restraint, and death was denounced against man or beast that should approach the mount. In the temple also the holy place was separated from the most holy; and no Israelite, no priest was allowed to enter it except the highpriest, and he only once a year with the blood of atonement. But Christ having entered heaven by his own blood, and made us all priests and kings by the spirit of adoption, allows us all to follow in his steps. Why then should the jew be obstinate, or the christian fall away from so glorious a hope?
The atonement made by Christ not only surpasses the blood of animals in efficacy to expiate guilt, but also in point of privilege. He is the mediator of the new testament, and has received for us the promise of an eternal inheritance: Heb 9:15. Exemption from punishment is but the negative good of our redemption; he prepares the soul by all the adorning of grace for the worship of his perfect tabernacle, and for the inheritance that fadeth not away. And this inheritance is left us by his last will and testament, and which now comes to us, the testator being dead.
Now, as it is appointed unto men to die but once; and he, the second Adam, dying for the family of the first which are many, so we look for him again without coming to die for sin, but to bring us everlasting salvation, and to give us an inheritance among all them that are sanctified.
Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Heb 9:1-14. The two ministries are now contrasted, in order to show that the OT institutions were imperfect, and pointed beyond themselves to that real access to God which we have obtained through Christ.
Heb 9:1-5. The first covenant was associated with a system of worship ordained by God Himself, although its sanctuary was of this worldi.e. composed of visible and material elements. A Tabernacle was set up which consisted of two parts, divided by a curtain. In the fore-tent, or holy place, were the candlestick and table of shewbread (as described in Exo 25:23-39); and then, behind an inner curtain, was the holy of holies, containing a golden censer and the Ark of the covenant, which was surmounted by the mercy-seat and overshadowed by figures of cherubim. It is hinted by the writer that these objects had all a symbolic significance on which he could enlarge; but his present concern is with the arrangements of the Tabernacle generally.
Heb 9:4. That the Ark contained the tables of the Law, and was covered by mercy-seat and cherubim, is stated in Exo 25:16 ff. In his enumeration of the other objects preserved in the Ark the writer relies on Jewish tradition. The word given as censer ought probably to be translated altar of incense. in which case an object is assigned to the holy of holies which really belonged to the holy place.
Heb 9:6-10. Of the two divisions of the Tabernacle only the first was used for the regular service. The High Priest alone was permitted to enter the holy of holies, and that only once a year, on the Day of Atonement, when he bore into the presence of God the sacrificial blood, which covered his own sins as well as the sins of the people (Heb 9:6 f.). The Scripture which lays down these rules was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and was meant to teach, in symbolic fashion, that a way was not yet opened into the immediate presence of God: this is implied in the very existence of a fore-tent, curtained off from the holy of holies (Heb 9:8). Indeed the whole worship of the Tabernacle had a symbolic reference to the period which began with the appearance of Christ. It provided for the offering of sacrifices which could not effect an inward purity in the worshippers, sacrifices which stood on the same level with the regulations about food and washing. They aimed only at an external cleansing, and were imposed provisionally, until a higher order should be established.
Heb 9:9 f. which is a parable, etc.: this very complicated and difficult sentence can be explained in a variety of ways, according to the view that is taken of its grammatical construction. The general meaning, however, is sufficiently clear. The sacrifices offered in the Tabernacle, and subsequently in the Temple were only meant to bring the worshippers into a condition of ceremonial purity. By means of them men were invested, so to speak, with a conventional garment, the want of which would debar them from approaching the Divine King. Another kind of sacrifice was required before they could obtain that inward cleansing which would fit them not merely for approaching God, but for holding true fellowship with Him.
Heb 9:11-14. What the old sacrifices could not effect has been secured through the sacrifice of Christ. Appearing as the High Priest of the new and better covenant which had been promised, He passed through the heavenly tabernacle, made by God Himself, and entered into its inner sanctuary. The blood which gave Him the right of entrance was not that of slaughtered beasts, but His own blood. He entered not for a brief hour that He might consecrate the people for a single year, but once for all, to redeem them for ever (Heb 9:12). According to Levitical law (cf. Lev 16:14 ff., Num 19:2; Num 19:17 f.) those who had defiled themselves by contact with a dead body were made ceremonially pure by being sprinkled with the blood of certain animals. If the blood of animals had this power, what of the blood of Christ, the spotless victim, whose sacrifice was His own free act and was offered by Himself as High Priest? This blood has power to cleanse not from the imaginary stain communicated by a dead body, but from the real and deadly stain of sin, so that we can render a living service to the living God.
Heb 9:14. through the, or rather, through an eternal spirit: this is one of the most difficult phrases of the epistle, and has been variously explained. Most probably it is meant to emphasize the idea that Christ is at once priest and victim. In the case of the OT sacrifices the victim died, and the priest then offered its blood before God in the sanctuary. But in the case of Christs sacrifice, although the Victim died He yet survived death, in virtue of the eternal spirit which constituted His nature. Thus He was able to enter the heavenly sanctuary to present the offering to God.
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Chapters 9 and 10 form a wonderful climax in the orderly presentation of the truth in this epistle: If according to the new covenant, a man must be morally fitted for the presence of God by means of the new birth, as we have seen, yet the way into Gods presence, the holiest of all, must also be clearly made manifest. These chapters admirably and fully deal with this grand subject.
And first, from verse 1 to 10, the service of the tabernacle is summarized for us, for its typical significance is of deepest importance in this matter. A study of the details of these things in Exodus and Leviticus would greatly repay the godly reader. “Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of Divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick, and the table, and the shewbread: which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all: 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; and over it the cherubims of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.”
The details are not to be dwelt upon here, but we are intended to closely observe the distinction between the two holy places, the sanctuary and the holiest of all. Indeed, emphasis is put strikingly upon the holiest of all; for in the outer sanctuary the candlestick was of pure gold, the table of shewbread was overlaid with gold, yet the gold is not mentioned in connection with these, while it is mentioned three times in verse 4, in connection with the holiest. Moreover, the incense altar, which was in the outer sanctuary, is not mentioned at all. It was also overlaid with gold. Perhaps the reason for this is that under law there had been no true, real worship, of which the incense altar would speak. Gold is typical of the glory of God, and though this was involved in Judaism, yet His glory could not in any full measure be revealed under law and its shadows. Thus the Spirit of God would direct our attention to the greater revelation connected with the holiest. This is typical of Heaven itself, while the outer sanctuary is typical of the sphere of Judaism and the earthly priesthood.
This is intimated in the following verses: “Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service. But into the second went the High Priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: the Holy Ghost this signifying that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing.” Judaistic priests had access at all times into the first sanctuary: it was the sphere of their common service as the sons of Aaron. But none of the common priests were allowed at any time in the holiest of all.
The High Priest alone on the great day of atonement each year was allowed in, in order to sprinkle the blood of the sin offering before and on the mercy – seat. The veil remained always between the two sanctuaries, keeping the holiest of all in constant darkness.
What a lesson for Israel! Here was continual testimony to the fact that there was a sphere into which Judaism could give no free access. God Himself remained in the thick darkness. Yet the entrance of the High Priest each year was an indication that God had not precluded the possibility of man’s entrance there; while at the same time the High Priest is a striking type of the Lord Jesus – the Man Christ Jesus, Mediator between God and men. But the way into the holiest could not be made manifest in connection with the first tabernacle, that is, under the legal system: the system itself pointed to something beyond itself. It was “a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.”
Such gifts and sacrifices left the conscience still unpurged. Their actual value lay only in the fact that they typified a better sacrifice than these. Meats and drinks too were but typical of the food and refreshment of the sacrifice of Christ – both for God and for the believer. Divers washings and carnal ordinances were typical of the application of the truth of Christ to the soul, in cleansing and sustaining power. Such things, being typical, were of course temporary, – imposed only until the time of reformation, when God would set things in proper relationship and perspective, introducing a change to end all changes.
“But Christ being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building: neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” Blessed fulfilment of all these types! Christ is come, “an High Priest of good things to come.” These good things have of course not yet been secured by the nation Israel, as they will be; though the church is infinitely blessed in anticipation of that day, by her reception of Christ, with all the blessings His Priesthood brings. The greater and more perfect tabernacle is that which is eternal in contrast to the earthly system of Judaism committed to men’s hands: it would speak of the universe as in the counsels of God, – God’s eternal building.
Verse 12 speaks of the eternal character of His work, in contrast to the repeated sacrifices of the old testament. By the blood of goats and calves the high priest in Israel had title to enter into the holiest on the great day of atonement; but this gave no title to remain in, and the same sacrifice must be repeated each year. But Christ, by His own blood, because of its eternal value, had title to enter into Heaven “once,” having obtained eternal redemption for us.” The work of the priest in Israel was always unfinished: that of Christ was perfect and complete in every respect, and God has received Him in perpetuity in His own holy presence, the holiest of all.
In the type, the high priest brought with him the blood of the sin offering into the holiest, and sprinkled it before the mercy – seat, and upon it. This was necessary, in order to illustrate the fact that it was “by blood” that he had title there. It is of course evident that the actual material blood of Christ was not brought by Him into Heaven. Not “with blood;” but “by His own blood He entered in.” That is, the eternal value of His sacrifice gave title to His entering Heaven as Redeemer and High Priest of His people.
“For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” These formal ordinances accomplished a formal result. “The purifying of the flesh” was merely an outward, public setting apart from the sin for which the sacrifice was offered. The very fact of the sacrifice was a public condemnation of the sin; and the offerer thereby linked himself with the repudiation of the sin, publicly. But there was no vital, eternal value in it.
But a sacrifice of such vital, eternal character as that of the Lord of Glory, must necessarily have vital, eternal results. This is involved strikingly in the expression, “by the eternal Spirit.” His was not a sacrifice by formal appointment, but by the voluntary, Divine energy of the Spirit of God. Nor are we to narrow our thoughts so as to think of “the blood of Christ” as merely the material blood which was shed, but rather to consider its deep, precious significance. For it is the sign of His life given up in sacrifice, – offered to God, whose heart takes unutterable delight in the infinite value of this. Well may Peter speak of “the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot” (1Pe 1:19).
Another matter of consequence is to be observed here. The actual offering of Christ through the eternal Spirit to God is seen in His baptism by John the Baptist, when the Spirit descended upon Him, and the Father’s voice bore witness to His pleasure in Him. His baptism was the very figure of the death to which He pledged Himself. But offering Himself then to God, His utter devotion eventually culminated in His being “offered up” at Calvary, His blood shed for us. How fully and blessedly such a sacrifice purges the conscience from dead works (an effect vital and permanent), to energize the soul to serve the living God!
“And for this cause He is the Mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” Having offered a sacrifice of eternal value, He is therefore necessarily the Mediator of the covenant that displaces the temporary one. Moreover, His death fulfils that which the old covenant demanded: it has satisfied the judgment of God against those sins which the old covenant brought to light. His death therefore is in a very real sense the end of the old covenant. Nothing in the old covenant could possibly provide redemption in regard to the sins it exposed; but it demanded death. Its claims have been met in the death of Christ, and its authority set aside by this great Mediator. He has triumphed in resurrection – a new and eternal condition, which involves a new covenant and introduces the “promise of eternal inheritance.”
How much greater is this than anything that Israel has as yet inherited? Again and again has God demonstrated to them that their possession of the land of Israel is far from permanent. Law could not secure it to them. Nor, now that many of them have returned there, will all their political diplomacy and military prowess be sufficient to hold what they have gained. They will yet be more violently oppressed than ever before, their land torn from their hands. But God has decreed that under the new covenant Israel will dwell in peace, in full possession of their inheritance, given them by God’s sovereign intervention in power and grace. Above this however, the church has her eternal inheritance “in Christ” and “in the heavenlies,” and this perfectly secure now. This is consistent with the New covenant, but not actually a part of it, for we are not in any sense under a covenant, however rightly and greatly we may enjoy the benefits of it.
It is to be remarked also that “covenant” and “testament” are actually the same Greek word, translated in either way. This will give more clear understanding as regards what follows: “For where a testament is, there must be also the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, and water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover, he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood: and without the shedding of blood is no remission.”
How perfectly this illustrates the fact of God’s foreknowledge that blessing for Israel under the law was impossible, that is blessing promised by the testament of law. The blood, shed at that time, and sprinkled so profusely, really only insisted upon the necessity of death; and being a conditional testament, that is, its blessings conditional upon the obedience of the people to law, then blessing under it was hopeless. Indeed, disobedience demanded the shedding of blood, but blood was shed in the very giving of the law and its ordinances, before ever it brought guilt to light. And every service of the sanctuary was a continual reminder that blood must be shed: there could he no remission without it. Even formal remission, applicable to a public, temporary system of things, demanded the blood of an animal. What then must eternal remission require? The old testament required death, and so must the new. And the new is entirely a testament of Divine character, expressing the will of God. How admirable the truth here: in order to come into force, the death of the testator must take place.
But while law could demand death, it could not provide the death of the great Testator: indeed it only affirmed Him to be the living God, and man rightly under the sentence of death. All was hopeless under this testament. But how marvelous therefore is the new testament, full of unconditional blessing for confessed sinners, because it provides in pure grace the amazing incarnation and matchless death of the Testator Himself, on their behalf. This is what gives it eternal force and value. Only by the great mystery of incarnation – God’s being made manifest in flesh – could this wonderful death have taken place, opening the floodgates of Heaven’s blessing to unworthy sinners. The New Testament has fullest force on this grand basis of Divine grace. Sad to say, of course, Israel has today refused such grace, and there can be no application of this to that nation until they bow their hearts to acknowledge this blessed Testator who died for them. Meanwhile others, who have received Him, reap the benefits of this testament which was not actually made for them at all, – and thus grace is magnified.
“It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” Such purification was strictly formal, that is the patterns were purified: all was external. The pattern itself accomplished no actual result, no more than a dress pattern could substitute for the dress itself. But the pattern must illustrate in its measure the form the dress is to take. So the heavenly things must be purified with a sacrifice of vital character, not formal.
“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into Heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” He is not a formal priest of the line of Aaron performing the daily ritual of an earthly tabernacle, but infinitely above this. He has entered into Heaven itself, the true “Holy of holies,” in gracious mediation on behalf of His redeemed people.
“Nor yet that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year, with the blood of others; for then must He often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the age hath He appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” Even a casual reader of Hebrews ought not to fail to observe the apostle’s insistence upon the fact of Christ’s being sufficient and final, in contrast to the repeated offerings of the Old Testament, specifically the sin offering on the great day of atonement. If His sacrifice were comparable to these, then He must offer Himself repeatedly, and with no hope of cessation? But as Hebrew’s has so fully illustrated, since He is in Person infinite, therefore His one sacrifice has infinite value, not limited by the greatness of man’s sin, nor by the element of time, – that is by the question of whether sins were committed before or after the offering of Himself: its value is all-sufficient. It is the perfect basis for the complete putting away of sin from under Heaven, as will be known in the eternal state; and by it the sins of believers are now put away, through faith in this blessed sacrifice: faith in this way anticipates eternity.
Another expression here must be noticed: “once in the end of the age hath He appeared.” The age here is of course the probationary age of Judaism, which made nothing perfect. When all else was proven hopeless, theGreat Creator Himself became Saviour, in one great work of infinite perfection and completeness. Blessed Redeemer indeed! Blessed grace that offered no less than Himself!
“And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment, so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Here is another viewpoint also involved, that since man is appointed to die only once, on account of sin, after which he has an appointment to give an account of his sins, therefore Christ died once, offering Himself for sins, that judgment might be averted for “many,” that is believers, for He Himself has borne this judgment fully for them. If it is true that He died for all, yet to “bear the sins of many” is limited to those who in faith receive Him. “As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His Name” (Joh 1:12). Thus such grace is available to “all,” but applicable only to “many.”
The many are of course “them that look for Him.” Every true child of God looks for the Lord Jesus to eventually take His rightful place of authority and glory in the universe. All may not have clear thoughts as regards the truth of the coming of the Lord, but all “look for Him.” To these He shall appear the second time, apart entirely from any raising of the question of sin. This has been settled long before, and cannot be raised again. Judgment is past, and therefore His coming will be “unto salvation,” that is, complete salvation bodily, the believer delivered entirely from the very presence of sin. Wonderful prospect indeed! This is the first part of the second coming, for here He appears only to believers, while later “every eye shall see Him,” when He must mete out judgment to those who have refused His blessed mercy.
Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 1
A worldly sanctuary; an earthly sanctuary.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
8 The New Sacrifice and the New Sanctuary
(Hebrews 9)
The apostle has brought before us the new priesthood of Christ (Hebrews 7), involving the blessings of the new covenant (Hebrews 8). Now in Hebrews 9 he presents the new sacrifice of Christ in all its infinite value, together with the new sanctuary to which the sacrifice of Christ gives access.
The Earthly Sanctuary with its Carnal Sacrifices
(Vv. 1-7)
(Vv. 1-5). The apostle first refers to the tabernacle of old, not to speak in detail of its furnishings however symbolically instructive, but in order to show by contrast the superiority of the heavenly sanctuary.
We learn that though there were ordinances of divine service connected with the tabernacle, yet it was essentially a worldly sanctuary. By its beauty, its elaborate ritual and impressive ceremonies, it made special appeal to the natural man, and was thus entirely suited to this world. Further, the apostle lays great stress upon the two divisions of the tabernacle separated by the veil, the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies.
(Vv. 6, 7). Having referred to the form of the tabernacle and its contents, the apostle passes on to speak of the priests, the sacrifices connected with the tabernacle, and the people. In connection with this tabernacle it was the priests, not the people, who accomplished the service of God. Moreover, into the second part of the tabernacle the high priest alone had access, and that only once every year, and then not without blood, which he offered for himself and the errors of the people.
Here, then, in these first seven verses we have a description of what the apostle speaks of in the closing chapter as the camp (Heb 13:13). The camp was composed of a host of people surrounding a beautiful tent that appealed to nature, with one portion veiled off as the Holy of Holies, and served by a company of priests, distinct from the people, who accomplished the services of God on behalf of the people.
The Signification of the Tabernacle and its Sacrifices
(Vv. 8-10)
(Vv. 8-10). What then are we to learn from the tabernacle and its services? We are not left to give our own interpretation, but are definitely told that the Holy Spirit has signified their true meaning. Firstly, we are to learn that the services of the tabernacle clearly showed that, under the law, the way into the presence of God was not yet made manifest.
Secondly, if the way into the Holiest was not yet open, it was a clear proof of the insufficiency of the sacrifices. They could not make the offerer perfect as to the conscience.
Thirdly, these things during their existence were a figure of things to come. The figures, however, could never satisfy God nor meet the need of man. Under such a system God was shut in and man was shut out. The Jewish system could neither open heaven to us nor fit us for heaven.
Christendom, alas, ignoring the teaching of the Holy Spirit, instead of seeing in the tabernacle a figure, has used it as a pattern for their religious services. So doing, it has lost the good things of which the figures speak. Thus the mass in Christendom have again set up magnificent buildings, have again railed off one part of their buildings as more holy than the rest, and again have instituted a priestly class distinct from the laity, who perform religious services on behalf of the people. Thus a system has been adopted after the pattern of the Jewish camp that keeps people at a distance from God and can never make the conscience perfect.
It is well to remember that the perfect or purged conscience, of which the apostle speaks in Hebrews 9 and 10, is very different to that which is spoken of elsewhere as a good conscience. The purged conscience is one that, being once purged, has no more conscience of sins (Heb 10:2). It supposes a conscience that has been exercised as to its sins, but has had that exercise met by learning that the believer is cleansed from all sins by the precious blood of Christ and will never come under judgment. A good conscience is a conscience void of offence in the practical ways and walk.
The New Sacrifice
(Vv. 11-23)
(V. 11). With the coming of Christ all is changed. At once we have a new High Priest, a greater and more perfect tabernacle and a new sacrifice. Aaron was high priest in reference to things in this present world; Christ is our High Priest of good things to come. The sacrifice of Christ does indeed secure present blessings for the believer, but the good things in reference to which Christ is High Priest are yet to come. Thus again the Spirit of God keeps in view the end of our wilderness journey. In Heb 2:10 we have learnt that Christ is bringing many sons to glory; in Heb 2:5 we read of the world to come; in Heb 4:9 we are told of the rest that remaineth; in Heb 6:5 we again read of the world to come. Christ is our High Priest to support us through the wilderness in view of bringing us into the good things at the end of the journey in the world to come.
If, then, the Aaronic priesthood is set aside by the priesthood of Christ, so too the earthly tabernacle is set aside by the greater and more perfect tabernacle. The earthly tabernacle was made with hands and was of this creation; the perfect tabernacle is heaven itself (verse 20).
(V. 12). The Levitical sacrifices are set aside by the one great sacrifice of Christ, who by His own blood has entered into heaven itself, prefigured by the Holy of Holies. Moreover, in contrast with the Aaronic priest who entered once every year, Christ has entered into heaven once for all. He enters to take up His priestly service on behalf of those for whom He has already obtained eternal redemption.
(Vv. 13, 14). The blood of Christ, by which eternal redemption has been obtained, sets aside the blood of bulls and of goats. The blood of these animals did indeed have a sanctifying effect, so far as the cleansing of the body is concerned. (See Num 19:7; Num 19:8.) But the blood of Christ purges the conscience. The blood of an animal offered through a priest is entirely set aside by the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God. By the Holy Spirit Christ became incarnate; by the Holy Spirit He lived His life of perfection. So, by the eternal Spirit, as the perfect Man He offered Himself without spot to God. (Compare Luk 1:35 and Act 10:38.) In the ninth verse of the second chapter we read that by the grace of God Jesus tasted death for every man. Here we learn that He has offered Himself without spot to God. Thus we can announce to the sinner that Christ has offered Himself to God, but for you.
For the one that believes, the effect of this great sacrifice is to purge the conscience from dead works. As Christ has offered Himself without spot to God and God has accepted the great sacrifice and is infinitely satisfied with Christ and His shed blood, the conscience of the believer is relieved of all thought of working to secure the blessing. Such works, however good in themselves, would only be dead works. Thus set free in conscience, the believer becomes a worshipper of God.
(V. 15). As the offering of Christ meets the holiness of God and the need of the sinner, Christ becomes the Mediator of the new covenant, the One through whom all blessings of the new covenant are secured for those who are called, that they might enter into the promise of the eternal inheritance.
(Vv. 16, 17). The apostle has shown that by means of death the believer receives the promise of the inheritance. In order to illustrate the necessity of death he refers in these two parenthetical verses to the fact that, amongst men, the inheritance is secured by a will that only comes into force by the death of the one who makes the will.
(Vv. 18-22). The writer proceeds to show the great fact that the blessings of the new covenant and the new sanctuary can only be secured by means of death was set forth in figure in the first covenant and the earthly tabernacle. The first covenant was dedicated by blood, and the tabernacle with all its vessels were sprinkled with blood, the witness that there can be no blessing for man, no drawing nigh to God apart from the blood.
Thus the great conclusion is reached that without shedding of blood is no remission. Here it is not simply the sprinkling of blood, but the shedding of blood – the righteous basis upon which God can proclaim forgiveness to all and proclaim all who believe forgiven.
(V. 23). The tabernacle and its furnishings were only the patterns of things in the heavens. It was possible to enter the earthly tabernacle through the purification of the flesh, afforded by the blood of bulls and goats; but the purification of heavenly things demanded better sacrifices.
The New Sanctuary
(Vv. 24-28)
(V. 24). The writer has spoken of the better sacrifices, introducing the subject with the words, But Christ being come (verse 11). Now he leads our thoughts to the New Sanctuary with the words, For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself. There, in the very presence of God, the Lord Jesus as our great High Priest now appears to represent His people before the face of God. Christ appearing in heaven before the face of God for us is the everlasting witness that heaven is secured and thrown open to the believer.
(Vv. 25-28). Moreover, every hindrance to the believer being in heaven has been righteously met and removed by one eternally efficacious sacrifice. The yearly repetition of the Levitical sacrifices was a proof of their inadequacy to put away sin. In contrast with these sacrifices, Christ has once appeared in the consummation of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, and as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many. Thus, by one sacrifice, of Christ Himself, sin has been put away, sins have been borne, and death and judgment removed for the believer.
The blessed result for the believer is that when Christ appears the second time, He will no more have to do with sin. Sin having been dealt with at His first appearing, His second appearing will be wholly for the salvation of His people from a world of sin and the power of the enemy to bring them into the rest that remaineth.
The passage thus presents the three appearings of the Lord Jesus: His past appearing at the cross to put away sin, bear sins and remove judgment (verse 26); His present appearing in heaven itself as the great High Priest on behalf of His people; the future appearing in glory for the final salvation of His people from this wilderness world with all its temptations and infirmities.
Fuente: Smith’s Writings on 24 Books of the Bible
9:1 Then verily {1} the first [covenant] had also ordinances of divine service, and a {a} worldly sanctuary.
(1) A division of the first tabernacle which he calls worldly, that is to say, transitory, and earthly, into two parts, that is, into the holy places, and the Holiest of all.
(a) An earthy and a fleeting.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The heavenly sanctuary 9:1-10
"In case any of the readers should think that the writer was underestimating the old, he now outlines some of the glories of the old tabernacle. He is impressed by the orderliness of the arrangements within the Levitical cultus, and aims to present this in order to demonstrate the greater glory of the new." [Note: Guthrie, p. 178.]
In this pericope the writer concentrated on the tabernacle and its provisions for cultic worship. "Cultic" refers to the rituals involved in religious service. The word "first" (Gr. prote) links this section with the former one (cf. Heb 8:13). The writer introduced two subjects in the first verse: regulations of divine worship, and the earthly sanctuary. He then proceeded to expound them in reverse order, as he often did in this homily (Heb 9:2-10).
"The writer is most concerned to stress that the disposition of the tabernacle and its cultic regulations expressed symbolically the imperfect and provisional character of the old Sinaitic covenant. His description emphasizes limited access and the inadequacy of the offerings." [Note: William L. Lane, Hebrews 9-13, p. 217.]
"The descriptions are based, not on the author’s personal involvement in worship at Jerusalem . . ., but on scripture." [Note: Ellingworth, p. 420.]
It was natural for the writer to use the tabernacle for his lesson rather than the temple because he proceeded to associate this sanctuary with the giving of the Old Covenant at Sinai (cf. Heb 8:5). Furthermore, he had been using Israel’s experiences in the wilderness to challenge his readers.
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
The "first covenant" was the Mosaic Covenant. The writer compared it first to the New Covenant that replaced it. The outer tabernacle (lit. dwelling place) was the holy place (Heb 9:2), and the inner tabernacle was the holy of holies (Heb 9:3). "The table and the sacred bread" (Heb 9:2) is a hendiadys for "the table of sacred bread." A hendiadys is a figure of speech in which a writer expresses a single complex idea by joining two substantives with "and" rather than by using an adjective and a substantive.
Some readers have understood Heb 9:4 as saying that the altar of incense was in the holy of holies in the tabernacle. [Note: Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 3:6:8, also believed that it was in the holy place.] This seems to contradict the Old Testament, which located this altar in the holy place (Exo 30:6; Exo 40:3-5; Exo 40:21-27). The writer of Hebrews probably meant that the veil, not the holy of holies, had the altar of incense and the ark of the covenant connected with it (Heb 9:3; cf. 1Ki 6:22). These pieces of furniture were on either side of the veil. Describing it this way clarified that the writer meant the veil that hung between the holy place and the holy of holies. "Having" (Gr. echousa) should be understood in the sense of "belonging to" rather than "standing within." [Note: Guthrie, p. 180.]
A second problem is that this writer described the ark as having a golden jar of manna and Aaron’s rod that budded in it. The Old Testament says that these items were beside the ark in the holy of holies (Exo 16:32-34; Num 17:10-11).
"It would at least seem reasonable to suppose that if the urn and the rod were originally placed in front of the ark, yet subsequently, for the sake of convenience (for example, when carrying the ark from one place to another), they were placed inside it." [Note: Philip E. Hughes, A Commentary . . ., p. 315.]
"According to the rabbis, the ark disappeared at the time of the early prophets (Mishnah, Yoma Heb 5:2; Shekalim Heb 6:1 f.); and there was a tradition that Jeremiah hid it (2Ma 2:4 ff.)." [Note: Morris, p. 82.]
The writer declined to speak of the tabernacle furnishings in more detail (Heb 9:5) because his main purpose was to contrast the two rituals and the two covenants.