Hebrews 9
Milligan-HHebrews 9:1-5
THE , AND
OF THE JEWISH
Hebrews 9:1 —Then verily the first covenant—The Apostle returns here to the line of argument from which he was led off in the sixth verse of the eighth chapter by a comparison of the two covenants. In the fifth verse of the same chapter he speaks of the high priest under the first covenant serving the Tabernacle of Moses, which, he says, was but a shadowy representation of the heavenly things belonging to the second covenant. And now he simply concedes what is really implied in 8: 5, that the first covenant had its “ordinances of Divine service, and a worldly sanctuary.” His object is not in any way to disparage the Old Covenant, but to honor it as far as truth will permit. And hence he readily grants that it, as well as the New Covenant, was of Divine origin; that it had the ordinances of Divine service appointed by God himself, and a worldly sanctuary framed in every respect according to the pattern which God showed to Moses in the Mount.
The word covenant (diatheke) is not expressed in the original; but is manifestly implied, as may be seen from both what precedes and what follows. And it is, therefore, now generally conceded that the word covenant, and not tabernacle (skene), should be supplied in our English text. The word rendered ordinances (di- kaiomata) is a verbal noun, and means (1) a righteous action, an act by which righteousness is fulfilled (Romans 5:18) ; (2) a righteous judgment, indicating that a sinner is made righteous through the righteousness of Christ (Romans 5:16) ; (3) a righteous decree or appointment, an ordinance, law, rule, or regulation relating to the worship of God. In this last sense, the word is manifestly used in our text and also in the tenth verse of this chapter. The word sanctuary (hagion) means here, as in Exodus 25:8, a holy dwelling place, referring to the entire Tabernacle. It is called a worldly (kosmikon) sanctuary in contrast with the heavenly (epouranion) sanctuary of the New Covenant. (8:2; 9:23.) It was a material perishable structure made with hands, and pertained wholly to this perishable world.
But not so with the heavenly sanctuary. It, including both apartments, is “a building of God, a house not made with hands,” and it will endure forever.
Hebrews 9:2 —For there was a tabernacle made;—Our author now proceeds to illustrate and amplify the general statement made in the first verse; viz.: that ‘‘the first covenant had ordinances of Divine service and a worldly sanctuary.” This, he insists, is true; for there was a tabernacle prepared (katcskcusthe) ; that is, framed and furnished according to the pattern which was showed to Moses in the Mount. For particulars see Exodus 26:1-30. The word tabernacle (skene) as used here is but a synonym of sanctuary in the first verse. It includes both the Holy Place and the Most Holy, each of which is also called a tabernacle in what follows.
Hebrews 9:2 —The first, wherein was the candlestick,—That is, the first or east room of the Tabernacle, called the Holy Place. It stood first in position, because the high priest had always to pass through it on his way into the Holy of Holies. On the south side of this apartment stood the candlestick made out of a talent of gold. (Exodus 25:31-40.) It consisted of an upright shaft (which the rabbis say was four cubits high) and six branches, all ornamented with “bowls, knops and flowers.” On the top of the main stem and each branch there was a lamp in which pure olive oil was kept constantly burning. (Exodus 27:20-21; Leviticus 24:1-4.)
This candlestick was a type of the Church of Christ not as a dwellingplace like the Tabernacle, but as God’s appointed means for perpetuating and dispensing the light of the Gospel. (Zechariah 4:1-14; Revelation 1:20.) And hence every Christian congregation should be a light-supporter and a light-dispenser. (1 Timothy 3:15.) But observe, the candlestick served only to support and dispense the light. It was the oil, not the candlestick, that produced it; and throughout the Bible oil is used as the appropriate symbol of the Holy Spirit. See, for example, Isaiah 16:1; Acts 10:38; Hebrews 1:9; 1 John 2:20 1 John 2:27. The seven lamps seem to be symbolical of the perfect light of the Gospel.
Hebrews 9:2 —And the table and the shewbread,—On the north side of the Holy Place, opposite the candlestick, stood the table of shewbread, or bread of the face, so called because it always stood in the presence or before the face of Jehovah. This table was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold. It was two cubits long, one cubit broad, and a cubit and a half high. Around its upper edge was a cornice of gold, and on its sides were fastened four rings through which were placed two staves of acacia wood covered with gold, for the purpose of bearing it conveniently from place to place. Its dishes and cups were all of gold. (Exodus 25:23-30.)
TABLE OF
On this table were placed every Sabbath day by the high priest twelve cakes of fine flour, six in a row, and on each row a cup of frankincense. (Leviticus 24:5-9.) Each cake was made of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour, consisting of about seven quarts. These cakes were eaten by the priests, and were symbolical of the spiritual food of Christians, all of whom are made priests to God through Christ. (1 Peter 2:5 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6 Revelation 5:10.) The frankincense seems to have been emblematical of praise and thanksgiving. (Revelation 5:8.)
In the Holy Place immediately before the vail stood the altar of incense. It, too, was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold, and was two cubits high, and one cubit in length and breadth. Like the table, it had a cornice of gold around its upper edge. It had also four rings of gold through which were placed two staves of acacia wood overlaid with gold, by means of which it was carried by the Kohathites. It had also four horns, or projecting corners, on which the high priest made an atonement once every year. (Exodus 30:1-10.)
ALTAR OF INCENSE
On this altar the priests every morning and evening burned sweet incense made out of equal parts of stacte, onycha, galbanum, and frankincense. (Exodus 30:34-38.) This incense when burned sent forth a delightful perfume, and seems to have been typical of the prayers of the saints. See Psalms 141:2; Luke 1:9-10; Revelation 5:8 Revelation 8:3-4. And hence we see the propriety of placing this altar of prayer directly before the Ark of the Covenant, which in connection with the Mercy Seat was a symbol of God’s throne. (Jer. 3: 16. 17; Hebrews 4:16.) Every priest in offering incense on this altar drew near to the throne of grace.
Hebrews 9:3 —And after the second vail,—The first vail (kalumma) was suspended at the doorway on the east end of the Tabernacle, from golden hooks attached to five pillars overlaid with gold, each of which rested on a socket of brass. (Exodus 26:36-37.) But the second or partition vail (katapetasma) divided the whole Tabernacle into two apartments: that on the east was called the Holy Place; and that on the west, the Most Holy. This vail, like the inner curtain of the Tabernacle, was beautifully variegated with colors of blue, purple, and scarlet; and curiously embroidered all over with figures of cherubim. It was suspended directly under the golden clasps of the inner curtain, from hooks of gold attached to four pillars of acacia wood overlaid with gold and resting on four sockets of silver. (Exodus 26:31-34.) The Rabbis say that this vail was made of thread six double; and that after the erection of the Temple it was renewed regularly year by year.
Hebrews 9:4 —Which had the golden censer,—It is still a question with the critics, whether the word which is here rendered censer (thumi- aterion from thumiao to burn incense) is used by our author to denote the Golden Censer on which, according to the Mishna, the High Priest burned incense once a year in the Holy of holies (Leviticus 16:12), or the Golden Altar on which he burned incense every morning and evening (Exodus 30:7-8). In favor of the former rendering, it is alleged by Luther, Michaelis, Bengel, Bohme, Reland, and many others, (1) that this is more in harmony with Greek usage. The word commonly used in the Septua- gint for the altar of incense is thusiasterion. Indeed the word thu- miaterion occurs but twice in this entire work (2 Chronicles 26:19; Ezekiel 8:11), in both of which cases it evidently means a censer. It is, however, frequently used by later writers, as Joseph and Philo, for the Altar of Incense. (2) It is alleged that the con struction of our text favors the same hypothesis. For, from such passages as Exodus 30:6-8, it is perfectly obvious that the Altar of Incense stood before the Vail in the Holy Place, and that incense was burned on it daily; but the thumiaterion of our text is classified with the Ark of the Covenant, and seems to be located behind the Vail in the Most Holy Place.
In reply to this it is urged by Olshausen, Ebrard, Delitzsch, and others, that the Apostle does not say that the golden thumiaterion was in the Most Holy Place; but only that it belonged to it. He simply affirms that the Holiest of all had a golden thumiaterion and the Ark of the Covenant. But behind the second Vail, he says [was], the tabernacle which is called The Holiest of all, having (echousa) a golden thumiaterion, and the Ark of the Covenant overlaid on all sides with gold; which was the golden vase containing the manna, and the rod of Aaron which had budded, and the tables of the covenant. Now, as a house may be said to have many things which are really not in it, such as a sign, an awning, etc., it is alleged by some that our author means nothing more in the above expression than simply this: that though the Golden Altar was located in the Holy Place before the Vail, it was, nevertheless, in its significance more properly connected with the Most Holy. And this view is thought to be supported by 1 Kings 6:22, which may be literally rendered as follows : And the whole house he overlaid with gold, until he had finished all the house; also the whole altar which [pertains] to the Oracle, he overlaid with gold.
The main reason alleged in support of the second rendering is found in what would otherwise seem to be an unaccountable omission by the author, in speaking of the symbolical furniture of the Tabernacle. It is urged that the Apostle would certainly not have overlooked so important an article as the Altar of Incense, and name one that is not even referred to in the Law of Moses, unless it be in Leviticus 16:12. But here, the vessel used for carrying the coals of fire from the Brazen Altar, is not called in the Septuagint a golden thumiaterion, but simply a pureion, a fire-pan. In the Hebrew it is called a machtah which also means a fire-pan; but the golden censer spoken of in the Mishna is called a kaph; that is a curved vessel, as a dish or a pan.
This objection to the common rendering is certainly not without force. The omission, if indeed it is such, is certainly a very re markable one, and one that is not easily accounted for. It should, however, be remembered (1) that it was not the purpose of our author to enter into minute details in describing the furniture of the Tabernacle (9: 4) ; but only to give a general outline of its divisions, apparatus, etc. (2) In the discussions which follow these introductory remarks, he has reference chiefly to the solemn services of the Day of Atonement; and as on that day, the most solemn and important part of the incense offering was made in the Most Holy Place, and in the Golden Censer, the Apostle may have deemed it unnecessary to speak further in detail of the less imposing services of the same kind that were performed in the Holy Place and on the Golden Altar. (3) It is remarkable that Josephus makes the same omission both in his Jewish War and in his Antiquities. In speaking of the conquest of Judea and Jerusalem by the Romans, he says, “Pompey and those that were about him went into the Temple itself, whither it was not lawful for any to enter but the High Priest, and saw what was deposited therein: viz., the Candlestick with its lamps, and the Table, and the pouring vessels, and the censers, all made entirely of gold; as also a great quantity of spices heaped together, with two thousand talents of sacred money” (J. War. b. 1, 7, 6).
On the whole I agree with Alford, and I might say with the majority of commentators both ancient and modern, that “the balance inclines toward the censer interpretation; though I do not feel by any means that the difficulty is wholly removed; and I would hail with pleasure any new solution which might clear it still further.”
Hebrews 9:4 —And the ark of the covenant—This was a sort of chest, two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half broad, and a cubit and a half high. It was made of acacia wood, overlaid on all sides with pure gold. Around the upper edge, was a cornice of gold; and on each side there were two rings of gold, through which were inserted two staves, for the purpose of bearing the Ark from place to place. (Exodus 25:10-16.)
Hebrews 9:4 —Wherein was the golden pot, etc.—In the Ark were placed a golden vase containing an omer (about seven pints) of manna (Exodus 16:32-34) ; Aaron’s rod that budded and brought forth almonds (Numbers 17:1-11); and the two tables of the covenant (Deuteronomy 10:1-5). It seems from 1 Kings 8:9, that both the vase of manna and Aaron’s rod had been removed from the Ark and most likely lost, before the building of the Temple; but our author speaks here of the original order and disposition of matters in the time of Moses. The Ark itself was in some way lost during the Chaldean catastrophe. It was never restored after the Babylonian captivity; but in its stead, there was placed in the second Temple a stone slab of three fingers in thickness, called by the Rabbis Eben Sh’theyah which means a stone of drinking.
Hebrews 9:5 —And over it, the cherubim of glory—On the Ark was placed a cover (hilasterion) of pure gold; two cubits and a half long, a cubit and a half wide, and of unknown thickness. The original word kapporeth means simply a cover. But as from it, God was wont to give forth his gracious responses (Numbers 7:89), it hence obtained the name Propitiatory or Mercy Seat. On the ends of it were formed out of the same piece of solid gold from which the Propitiatory was made, two cherubim with wings extended, and having each his face turned toward the other, and also toward the Mercy Seat, as if anxious to look into the profound mysteries of the Ark upon which rested the Shekinah. (1 Peter 1:12.) The word cherub means a keeper, a guardian. These figures, as well as the cherubim of the vail and the linen curtain, were most likely symbolical of the angels who are sent to minister to the heirs of salvation. (Hebrews 1:14.)
But of these matters, as our author says, it is not now necessary to speak particularly. I trust that enough has already been said on the general structure and the furniture of the Tabernacle to prepare the reader for the more profound and interesting themes which are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Hebrews 9:6-10
OF THE
THE
OF
THE JEWISH AGE, AND THE
OF ITS CARNAL
RITES AND
Hebrews 9:6 —Now when these things were thus ordained,—The Apostle having described the Tabernacle with sufficient minuteness, proceeds now to show what was done in it. These things, he says, being thus arranged, the Priests enter constantly [every day] into the first tabernacle [the Holy Place] accomplishing [there] the services [of their order]. These services consisted in dressing the lamps and offering the incense every morning and evening; and of the change of the presence-bread on every Sabbath. The present tense (eisiasin) may be used here as the historical present, indicating merely what was customary; or it may denote that these services were still performed in the Temple when this Epistle was written in A.D. 63.
Hebrews 9:7 —But into the second went the high priest alone, once every year,—That is, into the second apartment, the Most Holy Place, of the Tabernacle. Into this, none but the High Priest was allowed to enter; and he only once a year, on the tenth day of the seventh month. But on that day he entered the Most Holy Place at least three times, perhaps four. This will be best explained by indicating briefly the varied services of that most solemn of all the days of the year, as given in the sixteenth chapter of Leviticus. After the usual morning services and the offering of the sacrifices prescribed in Numbers 29:7-11, the High Priest was required (1) tokill the bullock which he has provided for a sin-offering for himself and for his house (Leviticus 16:11) ; (2) to carry a pan of coals from the Brazen Altar and also a portion of sweet-incense into the Most Holy Place, and there to burn the incense before the Lord (verses 12, 13) ; (3) to enter the second time with the blood of the bullock, and to sprinkle it seven times on and before the Mercy Seat (verse 14) ; (4) to slay the goat of the sin-offering for the people (verse 15) ; (5) to go the third time within the Vail, with the blood of this goat, and to do with it as he had done with the blood of the bullock; (6) to make an atonement for the Holy Place, the tabernacle of the congregation, as he had done for the Most Holy, by smearing with the blood of the two victims the horns of the Golden Altar (Exodus 30:10), and also most likely by sprinkling the blood seven times with his finger on and before the Altar, as he had before sprinkled it on and before the Mercy seat (verse 16, compare Josephus Ant. iii. 10, 3) ; (7) to make an atonement for the altar of burnt-offerings, by smearing its horns with the mingled blood of the two victims, and by sprinkling of the mixture seven times on it, as he had on the Altar of Incense (verses 18, 19). The Rabbis say that for this purpose the blood of the two victims was mingled in a basin. (8) After this the High Priest was required to send away the live goat to asasel, which means a state of complete separation (verses 20-22) ; (9) to bathe himself and put on his golden garments, which he had put off before entering the Most Holy Place (verses 23, 24) ; and (10) to offer the burnt-offerings for himself and the people, and the fat of the sin-offerings; and then to cause their flesh to be burned without the camp (verses 24, 25). After this, according to the Mishna (Yoma v. 1; viii. 4), he again put off his golden garments, and entering the Most Holy Place the fourth time, he brought out “the bowl and the censer.”
When, therefore, the Apostle says that the high priest went into the Most Holy Place, “not without blood,” he does not mean that he was required to carry blood with him every time that he entered it; but only that he had to do this on the day on which he went in to make an atonement for himself and for the errors of the people. The word rendered errors (agnoemata) means ignorance, involuntary error, etc. But it here includes all sins, save those only which were committed “with a high hand,” and in open defiance and contempt of God’s law. For such sins, no sacrifice was to be offered. (Numbers 15:30-31; Hebrews 10:28.) See notes on Hebrews 5:2.
Hebrews 9:8 —The Holy Spirit this signifying,—The Holy Spirit is here acknowledged to be the designer, as well as the interpreter of the Old Economy. It not only moved the ancient prophets to speak to the people the words and thoughts of God (see references), but it also breathed into the inanimate types of the Old Covenant a language which shows that they are all of God, and are designed to shadow forth and illustrate the sublime mysteries of redemption. And not only so,—not only were these types made shadows of good things to come, but they were moreover so framed as to indicate also in various ways the comparative darkness of the Jewish age. The fact, for instance, that none but the high priest was allowed to go behind the Vail, and that even he was allowed to do this but once a year, and then not without blood which he was required to offer for his own sins and for the sins of the people,—all this served to demonstrate that the way into Heaven, the antitype of the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle (verses 12, 24), was still a mystery, a matter that was not fully understood by anyone but God himself while the Tabernacle and Temple worship was continued. That God did, in anticipation of the shedding of Christ’s blood, justify and save believers, under both the Patriarchal and the Jewish age, is of course conceded. See Exodus 3:6; 2 Kings 2:1 2 Kings 2:11; Daniel 12:13; Luke 16:22 Luke 23:43; Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 6:15 Hebrews 11:13-16, etc.
But the ground on which they were so justified and made happy, was yet a mystery to men and angels; for none, it seems, but the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit yet understood that Christ must suffer and rise from the dead, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached to all nations through him, as the way, the truth, the resurrection, and the life. See references under.2 But when Christ’s body was broken for our sins according to the Scriptures, then also was the Vail of the Temple “rent in twain from the top to the bottom” (Matthew 27:51) ; and henceforth the way into Heaven, through the torn flesh of Jesus, was made manifest. Then also the Old Tabernacle, with all that pertained to it fell to the ground; and on its ruins was erected the true Tabernacle of which Christ has become the prime Minister. (Hebrews 8:2 Hebrews 9:11.)
Hebrews 9:8 —While as the first tabernacle was standing:—First in what respect? Does the Apostle mean first in time, or first in place? First in place or position say Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, and others. These able critics insist that the word “first” is used here, as in verse sixth, to denote simply the Holy Place, standing as it did in front of the Most Holy. So long as it stood in that position, it served of course to obscure the way leading through the Vail into the Most Holy Place, which in the second verse is called the second tabernacle. All this is of course conceded as a matter of fact.
But is this the meaning of the passage? I think not. It seems to me that the Apostle has reference here to the entire Jewish Tabernacle, which however, he uses symbolically for the whole system of Jewish worship, begun in the Tabernacle and continued in the Temple; and that the second Tabernacle, with which the first is contrasted, is the “greater and more perfect Tabernacle” of the eleventh verse, together perhaps with the heavenly Sanctuary into which Christ has for us entered. Previous to Christ’s entry, the way into the Holiest of all was not made manifest to anyone. Until the vail of Christ’s flesh was rent (Hebrews 10:20), no man, and perhaps no angel (1 Peter 1:12), understood how God could be just in justifying any of Adam’s race, and receiving them into glory. But when Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, then all was made manifest. (Romans 3:25-26.) Henceforth Jesus was everywhere proclaimed as the way into the Holiest of all.
See references.
Hebrews 9:9===Which was a figure for the time then present,—Or rather, Which [tabernacle] was a figure [reaching down] to the present time. The idea of the Apostle seems to be this: that the Jewish Tabernacle with all its rites was made a symbol (parabole) of the good things of the kingdom of heaven; and that as the Law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24), even so the symbolic worship of the Tabernacle was designed to continue until the beginning of the new dispensation under the reign of Christ. But no longer; for since the coming of Christ, we are no longer under the schoolmaster. (Galatians 3:25.)
Hebrews 9:9 —In which were offered—(kathen) according to which [figure] are offered both gifts and sacrifices. The present tense (prospherontai) seems to denote that the Levitical sacrifices were still offered by the Jews, according to the laws and ordinances of the ancient Tabernacle.
Hebrews 9:9 —That could not, etc.—These bloody sacrifices procured for those who offered them a good relative standing with respect to the honors, rights, and privileges of the Old Covenant; but nothing more. They had no power to perfect anyone with respect to his own moral consciousness. They were, in fact, but shadows of the sacrifice of Christ (10: 1), and could therefore procure for neither priest nor people anything more than a mere symbolical pardon of sins.
Hebrews 9:10 —Which stood only in meats, etc.—The construction of this sentence is somewhat obscure; and hence several different renderings have been proposed. The main trouble is to determine the proper antecedent member of the relation expressed by the preposition epi, the usual meaning of which is on, upon, or in addition to. What was on, upon, or in addition to meats, and drinks, and divers washings? “Gifts and sacrifices,” say Delitzsch, Alford, etc.; “The service,” say Luther and some of the more ancient commentators; “Carnal ordinances” representing gifts and sacrifices, say Green and Liinemann; “Perfect,” say Ebrard and some of the Christian fathers: that is, they say, the gifts and sacrifices offered could not perfect anyone with respect to his conscience, but only with respect to meats, and drinks, and divers washings. On the whole, I agree in the main with Alford and Delitzsch. The object of the Apostle seems to be to connect the offering of sacrifices with certain other matters relating to meats, and drinks, and divers washings,—all of which he characterizes as carnal ordinances, imposed on the people till the coming of Christ.
Hebrews 9:10 —And divers washings:—(diaphorois baptisinois) washings which were performed by immersing in water whatever was to be cleansed. These had reference (1) to the washing of the whole body (louo) ; as, for instance, the body of every Priest at the time of his consecration (Exodus 29:4) ; of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:4 Leviticus 16:24) ; of a Priest defiled with any uncleanness (Leviticus 22:6) ; of the Priest who officiated at the services of the red heifer (Numbers 19:7) ; of the man who burned the red heifer (Numbers 19:8) ; of the person cleansed with the water of purification (Numbers 19:19) ; of the healed leper (Leviticus 14:8-9) ; of any one who had eaten the flesh of an animal dead of disease (Leviticus 17:15) ; of the conductor of the scape-goat (Leviticus 16:26) ; of the man who burned the sin-offering without the camp on the day of atonement (Leviticus 16:28) ; of a person unclean from a running issue (Leviticus 15:13) ; of a person rendered unclean by coming in contact with anything defiled by a running issue (Leviticus 15:8) ; of a person defiled by semen virile (Leviticus 15:16 Leviticus 15:18) ; of a person defiled by female uncleanness (Leviticus 15:22 Leviticus 15:27) : (2) to the washing of the hands and feet (nipto) ; as of the Priests (Exodus 30:19-20) ; of the Elders of the congregation (Deuteronomy 21:6): (3) to the washing of garments (pluno) ; as of the Levites at the time of their consecration (Numbers 8:7) ; of the Priest who officiated at the sacrifice of the red heifer (Numbers 19:7) ; of the man who burned the red heifer (Numbers 19:8): (4) to the washing of the inwards and legs of the burnt-offerings (pluno); see, for instance, Exodus 29:7; Leviticus 1:9 Leviticus 1:13 : (5) to the washing of wooden vessels (nipto) ; see Leviticus 15:12 : and (6) to such spoils of war as could not be made to pass through the fire (Numbers 31:21-23). These washings were all but carnal ordinances, and had in themselves no efficacy beyond the purifying of the flesh; but in that age of types and shadows, these were all necessary to indicate and illustrate the moral purity that is required of all who would enjoy the benefits of the New Covenant.
Hebrews 9:10 —Until the time of reformation.—That is, until the coming of Christ and the inauguration of the New Covenant. Then old things were to pass away, and all things become new. And hence the new era is called the period of the regeneration. (Matthew 19:28.)
Hebrews 9:11-14
THE HIGHER, PURER AND MORE
OF CHRIST AS THE HIGH OF THE
NEW ECONOMY
Hebrews 9:11 — But Christ being come—(paragenomenos) having come forward as a historical person. (Matthew 3:1.) The Apostle makes the appearance of Christ (not his incarnation, but his historical manifestation) the grand turning point in the economy of redemp tion. Previous to his coming it was fit and right that all the Levit- ical ordinances should be carefully observed, and particularly that the high priest should go once every year into the most Holy Place to make a symbolical atonement for the people. But when Christ came forward as the high priest of the new institution, types and shadows were no longer necessary; and he, therefore, took them all out of the way, nailing them to his cross. (Col. 2; 14.)
Hebrews 9:11 —Through a greater and more perfect tabernacle,—There is here, as well as in the following verses, a manifest reference to the services of the first Tabernacle. As the high priest passed through the Holy Place of this symbolic edifice on his way into the Most Holy; so also Christ passed through a greater and more perfect Tabernacle than the Holy Place of the ancient Tabernacle on his way into heaven.
But what is this greater and more perfect Tabernacle? The whole earth, says Macknight; the human nature of Christ, says Chrysostom; the holy life of Christ, says Ebrard; the glorified body of Christ, says Hofmann; the aerial and siderial heavens, says Bleek; the heaven of angels and of the just made perfect, says Delitzsch. The Apostle says here but little concerning it; he merely tells us that it is “a greater and more perfect Tabernacle” than was that of Moses; and furthermore that it is “not made with hands; that is, not of this creation” (tautes tes ktiseos). The Old Covenant had a wordly sanctuary (Hebrews 9:1) ; but the Sanctuary of the New Covenant is not of this world (John 18:36) ; it is heavenly. Its most Holy Place is heaven itself (Hebrews 9:23-24) ; and its Holy Place is the house which God has established on earth for his people, and in which he himself condescends to dwell with them through his Spirit (Eph. 2: 20-22). It therefore manifestly includes the Church of Christ.
Indeed the building was never complete until the Church was established as a distinct and independent body on Pentecost A.D. 34, ten days after Christ’s ascension. We know, however, that God has been the dwelling-place of his people in all generations. (Psalms 90:1.) He has always had a place of refuge and shelter for those who trust in him. Under the shadow of his wings the faithful have always reposed with confidence. But as the covenant concerning Christ was, for a time, in but an incipient state (see notes on 8: 8), so also it was with the house of God which is from heaven. For a long time it was but little more than a curtain, designed for the protection and shelter of those who reposed under it. But when our Solomon (peaceable), the Prince of Peace, became king, he converted the tent into a magnificent temple.
See notes on Hebrews 8:2.
Hebrews 9:12 —Neither by the blood of goats, etc.—The Apostle is still keeping up a comparison between the services of the high priest on the Day of Atonement and the services of Christ, when he, as our High Priest, entered for us “into that within the vail.” The former gained admittance into the earthly sanctuary by means of (dia) the blood of a calf or young bullock (Sept, moschos) and that of a goat (Sept, chimaros) ; but Christ entered heaven itself as the high priest of the New Covenant by means of his own blood. It was, so to speak, the key by means of which the heavenly Sanctuary was opened, and Christ was allowed to enter, once for all in our behalf, into the immediate presence of the King eternal, immortal and invisible.
Hebrews 9:12 —Having obtained eternal redemption for us, or rather, obtaining eternal redemption for us. That is, he obtained it by means of the offering which he then and there made. The verb entered (ei- selthen) and the participle obtaining (heurantenos) are both aorists, and express contemporaneous acts; so that it was not merely by means of his death, but by the offering of his blood in connection with his death, that he paid the ransom price of our redemption. The high priest under the Law first slew the victim and then carried its blood into the most Holy Place, where he offered it for the sins of the people, thereby procuring for them a sort of typical and relative pardon. But Christ, by means of his own blood offered in heaven itself, has procured for his people absolute and eternal redemption.
The word redemption (lutrosis or apolutrosis) involves the idea (1) of a ransom price (lutron) paid for the release of a slave or captive; and (2) the deliverance procured by means of the price that is paid for this purpose. In this case the price paid was the precious blood of Christ, in consequence of which God can now be just in justifying every true believer. See Matthew 20:28; Acts 20:28; Ephesians 1:7; 1 Timothy 2:6; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19. But in our text it is the deliverance that is made prominent, and that is said to be eternal; for “their sins and their iniquities,” says God, “I will remember no more.”
Hebrews 9:13 —For if the blood of bulls, etc.—In this verse and the following our author proceeds to develop still further the amazing efficacy of the blood of Christ. For this purpose he again refers to the symbolical effects of the blood of bulls and goats by means of which purification was made for the sins of the people on the Day of Atonement.
Hebrews 9:13 —And the ashes of an heifer—These ashes, as we learn from Numbers 19, were prepared by burning without the camp of Israel a red or earth-colored heifer, together with cedar wood, hyssop, and scarlet. Out of these ashes was prepared the water of purification, by means of which were cleansed all who were symbolically defiled by the touch of a dead body, or by being in the same tent with a dead body. This was a solemn ordinance of Divine appointment, and as such had an efficacy, as well as the sprinkling of the blood of bulls and of goats, in symbolically cleansing the people and securing to them the continued enjoyment of their rights and privileges as members of a typical and carnal institution.
Hebrews 9:14 —How much more, etc.—The form of the argument, used here by the Apostle is what is technically called a minori ad majus, from the less to the greater. He concedes that the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of an heifer did secure for the members of the Old Covenant a certain kind of purification; they sanctified to the purifying of the flesh. But now he says, “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge [purify] your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” The meaning evidently is that the blood of Christ is far more efficacious in cleansing the moral nature of man from all spiritual defilement than were the aforesaid carnal ordinances in cleansing the flesh. For the latter cleansing was only temporary and symbolical. There was no reality in it. It served only to demonstrate the extremely polluting nature of sin, and the great necessity of that real spiritual cleansing which can be effected only through the infinitely precious blood of Christ. (1 John 1:7.) This is a matter, however, which belongs more properly to faith than to philosophy.
Nothing short of infinite knowledge would enable us to fully trace out and explain the influence of the blood of Christ on the government of God, and on the nature, character and destiny of mankind. Without then attempting to be wise above what is written on this profound theme, let us simply and joyfully accept the unequivocal declaration of the Holy Spirit, that the blood of Christ is sufficient to cleanse our consciences from all the works of the flesh leading to death (Hebrews 6:2), and so to fit us for the service of God who is himself infinitely holy.
But what is meant by “the eternal Spirit” through which Christ offered himself without spot to God ?
In reply to this query, we have given the following hypotheses: (1) that the expression denotes the Divine nature of Christ (Beza,Ernesti, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Alford) ; (2) that it means the Holy Spirit (Bleek, Tholuck, Moll) ; (3) that it signifies the endless and immortal life of Christ (Grotius, Limborch, Schleusner) ; (4) that it has reference to the glorified and exalted person of Christ (Doderlein, Storr) ; (5) that it represents the Divine influence by which Christ was moved to offer himself up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world (Kuinoel, Winzer, Stuart). That something may be said in favor of each of these hypotheses, is manifest from the names by which they are supported. But that the first is the true one seems most probable for the following reasons: (1) It is manifestly the design of the Apostle, in using this expression, to heighten and intensify the value of Christ’s offering. And this he could do in no more effectual way than by telling us that the offering was made and rendered perfect by means of his own Divine nature. It was the sacrifice of his perfect humanity, sustained and supported by his own Divinity, that gave to his offering its infinite value. That it was made in some respect through the will and agency of the Father himself, is proved by the fact that “the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:14) ; and that it was made also through the agency of the Holy Spirit, is equally manifest from the fact that it was through the Spirit that the Word became incarnate (Luke 1:35), and that Christ afterward performed his miracles (Matthew 12:28 Matthew 12:31-32).
God bestowed on him the gift of the Spirit without measure (John 3:34), so that it may be truthfully said that under its influence he went to the cross, rose from the dead, ascended to the heavens, and there made an offering for the sins of the world. All this is of course conceded. But it is not to any extraneous influence, but to the personal dignity, glory, and Divinity of Christ himself that the infinite value of his offering is to be ascribed. (2) This seems to be further indicated by the form of the expression. It is not “through the Holy Spirit,” as we have given in a few manuscripts (D, A, B, F, H, etc.) ; nor is it “through the eternal Spirit,” as in our English Version, but it is according to our best authorities (B, D, K, L, etc.), simply, “through eternal Spirit,” that Christ offered himself without spot to God. The eternal Spirit that is here spoken of, as Alford justly observes, “is Spirit absolute; Divine Spirit; and thus it is self-conscious, laying down its own course, purely of itself, unbounded by conditions. The animals which were offered had no will, no spirit (pneuma) of their own which could concur with the act of sacrifice.
Theirs was a transitory life, of no potency or value. They were offered through law (dia notnou) rather than through any consent or agency or counteragency of their own. But Christ offered himself, with his own consent assisting and empowering the sacrifice. And what was that consent? The consent of what? Of the spirit of a man, such as yours or mine, given in and through our finite spirit, whose acts are bounded by its own allotted space and time, and its own responsibilities?
No: but the consenting act of his Divine personality—his eternal Spirit (pneuma aionion), his Godhead, which from before time acquiesced in, and wrought with the purpose of the Father.”
Hebrews 9:15-25
THE ETERNAL
SECURED FOR THE CALLED
AND OF ALL AGES,
THROUGH THE DEATH AND
OF THE LORD JESUS
Hebrews 9:15 —And for this cause—(kai dia tonto) on this account; viz., that the blood of Christ has an inherent power and efficacy, such as the legal sacrifices had not: a power to purify the conscience from dead works, and to fit all who are purified and sanctified by it for the service and enjoyment of the living God for this very reason.
Hebrews 9:15 —he is the mediator of the new testament,—This clause is explained with sufficient fullness in our notes on Hebrews 8:6 Hebrews 8:8, to which the reader is referred. The word rendered testament (diatheke) means here a covenant, and the “new testament” of this verse is the same as the New Covenant of Heb 8:8.
Hebrews 9:15 —that by means of death, etc.—Or more literally, so that [his] death having taken place for the redemption of the transgressions grounded on the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the everlasting inheritance. The Apostle here plainly declares that the death of Christ was necessary in order to the redemption of the transgressions which were committed under the Old Covenant during the Jewish age. But what was then true in this respect of the Jewish age, was also equally true of all previous ages. For as Hofmann says, our author here “regards the history of God’s relations to mankind as one great whole, of which the religious history of Israel forms a typical part, exhibiting in one crucial instance the incapacity of the whole human race to satisfy the requirements of the Divine will. From this point of view, atonement for transgressions under the law will mean the same thing as the atonement of the sins of men in general, regarded as violations of the revealed will of God; and the death of Christ will be an atonement, not merely for sins in the abstract, but especially for sin in its most aggravated form, as conscious transgression of that revealed will. The special reference here made to transgressions under the covenant of Sinai has its ground not only in this, that that covenant had a real significance for mankind in general, but also that the point which the sacred writer has here mainly in view, is the transition from it and its failures to the saving dispensation of the Gospel. That transition could not take place without a death which would annihilate the transgressions of the former covenant.” But the death of bulls and goats was wholly unavailing for the purpose. (Hebrews 10:4.) And hence the necessity that Christ should die for the people, before the “called” of any age could have an absolute right to the free and full enjoyment of the eternal inheritance.
But does it follow from this, as many suppose, that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other faithful men of the Patriarchal and Jewish ages were still “under the dominion of sin and death,” until Christ came, and by his death and alleged descent into Hades procured their deliverance? I think not, for the Scriptures everywhere teach that these holy men of old were justified by faith and obedience as well as we (Romans 4:4; James 2:21-23, etc.), and this of course implies that they were received and treated by God as just persons, and that after their death they were immediately translated, if not directly to heaven, at least to a place and state of high spiritual enjoyment (Exodus 3:6; Daniel 12:13; Luke 16:23-26, etc.). And this is manifestly Paul’s idea in Romans 3:25-26, where he says in substance that God had, as it were, passed by the sins of those faithful men for a time, and that in the end of the ages he had set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice for a demonstration of his administrative justice in doing so. That no sin was ever forgiven absolutely, without the blood of Christ, is of course conceded, and so also no debt was ever paid absolutely by a mere paper currency. But nevertheless we know that thousands of obligations have been practically cancelled by notes, bonds, and other like documents. And just so God seems to have administered the affairs of his government during the Patriarchal and Jewish ages.
He, too, so to speak, issued in the meantime a sort of promissory notes, based on the infinite value of the blood of Christ, which he knew was to be shed in due time. By means of these notes he was enabled (if I may say it with reverence) to meet, for the time being, all the claims of justice, and still to treat as just and righteous all who like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, became loyal subjects of his government. But no one could read his “title clear to mansions in the skies,” until by the blood of Christ his sins were all cancelled absolutely, and the notes and bonds that had been issued in behalf of the sinner were all redeemed by the one great atoning sacrifice. See notes on Hebrews 11:39-40.
Hebrews 9:15 —they who are called—That is, all in every age who by faith and obedience have become the children of God, “and heirs according to the promise.” For all such, God has provided “an inheritance which is incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away.” (1 Peter 1:4.) But before any could rightfully inherit it and claim it as their own, the covenant through which it has been provided had to be sealed and ratified with the blood of Jesus. The necessity of this the Apostle now proceeds to illustrate (1) by the analogous case of a will of testament; and (2) by example of the Old Covenant.
Hebrews 9:16 —For where a testament is, etc.—That is, before a testament can have any legal force, the death of the testator must be known and publicly acknowledged as a fact. The reference which our author makes to “the eternal inheritance” at the close of the preceding verse, suggested to his mind the case of a testament, and this thought he now takes up, not for the purpose of proving, but simply of illustrating the necessity of Christ’s death.
Hebrews 9:17 —For a testament is of force after men are dead:—This is a well known law of all civilized nations. So long as the testator lives, it is his privilege to change his will as he pleases, and nothing but his death can therefore immutably fix and ratify its various stipulations. Previous to this indeed, his intended heirs may be allowed to enjoy to any extent the benefits of his estate. But not until the will is ratified by his death, can they claim a legal right to the inheritance as their own. And so it was with respect to the eternal inheritance. “After Abraham had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.” (Hebrews 6:15.) That is, immediately after his death he was received into the enjoyment of the promised rest, as one of God’s elect, and henceforth he was allowed to partake of the benefits of the inheritance so far as he was capable of enjoying them. (Hebrews 11:10 Hebrews 11:16.) And he also doubtless looked forward to the time when he and his children would be constituted the rightful owners of all things (Romans 4:13; 1 Corinthians 3:21-23), not excepting the redeemed and renovated earth. See notes onHeb 2:5-9. But it was not until the New Covenant was inaugurated by the death of Christ and ratified by his blood, that any one could claim, as we now claim, an absolute right to the eternal inheritance.
I see no reason for the protracted controversy that critics have kept up with respect to the meaning of the word diatheke in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses. It is quite evident that the dia- themenos of these verses is the maker of the diatheke, and that his death must of necessity take place before the diatheke can have any legal force. This is not true in the case of a covenant, but only in the case of a will or testament. And hence, beyond all doubt, the word diatheke in these verses means a will or testament. But on the other hand, it is equally obvious that this word cannot in this sense be literally applied to any of God’s arrangements with men, nor does our author so intend to apply it. He refers to the well- known law of a will as an analogous case, merely for the purpose of illustrating his point, and of so impressing more deeply on the mind of his readers the necessity of Christ’s death, before God could consistently bestow on the heirs of the promise a right in fee-simple to the eternal inheritance.
The word diathemenos means both a covenanter and a testator, and the word diatheke means in like manner both a covenant and a testament. And hence it was perfectly natural and legitimate that our author should, in this instance, pass from the first meaning of diatheke to the second, without however intending to apply the word to any of God’s arrangements in a sense which would be altogether inapposite.
Hebrews 9:18 —Whereupon neither was the first testament dedicated without blood.—Or more literally, Wherefore neither was the first covenant inaugurated without blood. The sixteenth and seventeenth verses are but an illustration of the fundamental principle submitted in the fifteenth, viz., that the death of Christ was necessary in order to redemption from the sins committed under the Old Covenant, and also to the rightful inauguration of the New Covenant, so that all the redeemed might have a legal right to the eternal inheritance. This thought the Apostle now proceeds to illustrate still further by referring to the way in which the Old Covenant was inaugurated. Since therefore it is thus and so in the case of a will, it is also analogically true of all the diathekai of God; they, too, must be inaugurated and ratified by means of death and the sprinkling of blood. And hence even the Old Covenant, which was but a type of the New, was not inaugurated without blood.
Hebrews 9:19 —For when Moses had spoken, etc.—There is reference here to the solemn transactions that are recorded in Exodus 24:1-8. When Moses had received from God the laws and ordinances recorded in Exodus 20-23, he recited them to the people, and they all answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord hath said we will do.” After this; he wrote all the words and commandments of the Lord in a book; and when he had again recited them to the people, and had received their second response, he then proceeded, as our author says, to ratify the covenant, by taking “the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop,” with which he “sprinkled both the book and all the people.” The account of these transactions, as given by both Moses and Paul, is very brief, each of them writing under the influence of plenary inspiration, like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, selected only such particulars as best served to accomplish his purpose. Moses makes no mention of the blood of goats, nor of the water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, which were used on the occasion, nor does he speak of the sprinkling of the book of the covenant. And Paul, on the other hand, says nothing about building the altar and the twelve pillars, nor does he specify the particular kinds of offerings which were offered by the young men at the bidding of Moses. Like the Gospel narratives, however, these accounts are both true so far as they go, for on no fair principle of interpretation can mere omissions be construed as inconsistencies or discrepancies. The hyssop and scarlet wool were used on other occasions for the sprinkling of blood and water.
See Exodus 12:22; Leviticus 14:4-7; Numbers 19:18-19, etc. Usually the bunch of hyssop was fastened to a stick of cedar wood, by means of a scarlet band, and then wrapped round with scarlet wool for the purpose of absorbing the blood and the water that were to be sprinkled.
Hebrews 9:20 —Saying, This is the blood of the testament—That is, This is^the blood by means of which the covenant is ratified, and you yourselves purified and consecrated to God, as his peculiar people. This shows that without the shedding and sprinkling of blood, the people could not be received into covenant relation with God: nay more, that without this blood, the covenant itself could have no validity.
Hebrews 9:20 —Which God hath enjoined unto you.—The use of the word enjoined (eneteilato) shows very clearly that the Sinaitic Covenant was not a mere compact or agreement (suntheke), as made between equals. On the contrary, it was a solemn arrangement (dia- theke) proposed by God himself to the people for their acceptance; and which when accepted unconditionally on their part, had to be ratified with blood.
Hebrews 9:21 —Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, etc.—This cannot have reference to the occasion spoken of in Exodus 24:1-8; for the Tabernacle was not then constructed. But the Apostle must refer here to the consecration of the Tabernacle according to the directions given in Exodus 40:9-11. True indeed there is no explicit mention made in these about the sprinkling of blood. God simply says to Moses, “Thou shalt take the anointing oil, and anoint the Tabernacle and all that is therein, and thou shalt hallow it and all the vessels thereof; and it shall be holy. And thou shalt anoint the altar of burnt-offerings and all its vessels, and sanctify the altar; and it shall be an altar most holy. And thou shalt anoint the laver and its foot, and sanctify it.” In all this, there is nothing said about the sprinkling of blood on either the Tabernacle or its furniture.
But neither is there anything said in the following verses (12-16) of the same chapter, about sprinkling blood on Aaron and his sons: and yet we know from Leviticus 8:30, that blood, as well as oil, was sprinkled on the Priests at the time of their consecration. The mere silence of Moses is therefore no evidence that the Tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry were not purified with blood, as well as anointed with oil.
We all believe on the testimony of Paul (Acts 20:35), that Christ said on one occasion, “It is more blessed to give than to receive”; though this saying is not recorded in any of the Gospel narratives. And just so we reason in the case under consideration. The statement of Paul is quite sufficient on this point, without further evidence; though it is worthy of notice that the testimony of Josephus is to the same effect as that of Paul. Speaking of the consecration of the Priests he says, “And when Moses had sprinkled Aaron’s vestments, himself, and his sons, with the blood of the beasts that were slain, and had purified them with spring water and ointment, they became God’s Priests. After this manner did he consecrate them and their garments for seven days together. The same did he to the Tabernacle and the vessels thereto belonging,—both with oil first incensed, as I said, and with blood of bulls and rams slain day by day, one, according to its kind.” (Ant. iii. 8, 6.) From this statement of Jo, as well as from the narrative of Moses (Ex. 40: 9-16), it seems most likely that the consecration of the Tabernacle and that of the Priest took place at the same time.
Hebrews 9:22 —And almost all things are by the law purged with blood: —That is, the Law required that almost everything defiled in any way, should be purified by means of blood. In some cases, indeed, purification was made by means of water (Leviticus 16:26 Leviticus 16:28; Numbers 31:24) ; and in others, by fire and water (Numbers 31:22-23) ; but the exceptions to the general rule of purification by blood, were but few.
Hebrews 9:22 —And without the shedding of blood is no remission.—To this law, there was no exception. Every sin required an atonement; and no atonement could be made without blood. The only apparent exception given in the Law is in the case of one who was too poor to bring “two turtle-doves or two young pigeons for a sin- offering.” (Leviticus 5:11-13.) In that event, he was required to bring to the Priest the tenth part of a ephah (about seven pints) of fine flour, without oil or frankincense, a handful of which, the Priest was to burn as a memorial upon the altar. But that even in this case, the sin of the poor man was not forgiven without the shedding of blood, seems evident from what follows in the next verse of the same chapter, where it is said, “And the priest shall make an atonement for him for the sin which he hath sinned, and it shall be forgiven him.” This atonement, it seems, could not be made without blood; for God says (Leviticus 17:11), “I have given it [the blood] to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.” This law was regarded by the Jews as universal in its application: for in the Talmud it is said, “There is no atonement except in blood” (Yoma 51). It is most likely therefore that in this case, the Priest was required to make an atonement for the sin of the poor man, at the public expense. The memorial was made with flour; but the atonement with blood.
Hebrews 9:23 —It was therefore necessary, etc.—Without these sacrifices required by the Law, the Tabernacle and all its furniture would have been unclean; and the Priests themselves would have been unclean; so that no acceptable service could have been rendered to God in either the court or the Tabernacle. Nay more, without these sacrifices, the book of the covenant would have been unclean, and the covenant itself would never have been ratified. The very existence of the Theocracy depended, therefore, on the shedding and sprinkling of blood, without which the whole nation of Israel would have been cast off as an unclean thing.
Hebrews 9:23 —But the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these;—This profoundly significant phrase naturally suggests to our minds the following queries: (1) What are the “better sacrifices” with which the heavenly things are cleansed? (2) What are the heavenly things that are cleansed by means of these sacrifices? And (3) what is meant by the sacrificial cleansing of these heavenly things?
(1) By the better sacrifices is evidently meant the sacrifice of Christ himself. The plural is put for the singular by synecdoche, because of the plurality of the Levitical sacrifices which are spoken of in the same verse. See a similar case in Luke 16:9.
(2) “The heavenly things” include all the antitypes of the Jewish Tabernacle, etc. The Holy Place had to be cleansed with the blood of bulls and goats, and so also had the Most Holy Place. (Leviticus 16:11-20; Hebrews 9:21.) But the former was a type of the Church, as God’s dwelling-place on Earth; and the latter was a type of Heaven itself where God ever dwells with the spirits of the just made perfect. See notes on Hebrews 8:2, and also on Hebrews 9:11-12. It is evident therefore that in the “heavenly things” are included both the Church on earth and the Church of the redeemed in Heaven. For as our author says, Christ has not entered into holy places made with hands, counterparts of the true, but into Heaven itself, now to be manifested in the presence of God in our behalf.
(3) The third query is confessedly one of great difficulty: and it may perhaps be entirely above our present very limited attainments in the knowledge of Divine things. That the Church on Earth with all that pertains to it, needs the cleansing influence of the blood of Christ in order to make it a fit temple for the Holy Spirit, and to qualify its members severally for a place in the upper Sanctuary, is obvious enough. On this point, therefore, discussion is wholly unnecessary. But why should Heaven itself, or anything belonging to it, need to be cleansed by the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus? In reply to this question it is alleged (1) that the necessity arises from the sin of those angels who kept not their first estate, but who in consequence of their rebellion were cast down to Tartarus. (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6.) But angels are not embraced in our premises; and must not therefore be forced into our conclusions. See note on 2: 16. (2) It is supposed that “in consequence of the presence of sin in us, the Holy of holies in the heavenly world could not be reopened for our approach, until it was itself anointed with the blood of atonement” (Stier).
In the verb purified (katharisesthai), says Bloomfield, “there is a metonymy, such as we often find when things partly similar and partly dissimilar are compared. For by the legal purifications, an entrance was afforded to the Sanctuary; so, by taking the effect as standing for the cause, Heaven is said to be purified or consecrated by the service of Christ, instead of saying that an entrance by it is given to that Heaven. So Rosenmuller and others. This is plausible ; but to my mind it is not altogether satisfactory. It looks too much like making the substance conform to the shadow, rather than the shadow to the substance.
Nothing short of a real purification of “the heavenly things” will, it seems to me, fairly meet the requirements of the text. And I am therefore inclined to think that for the present, at least, this is for us rather a matter of faith than of philosophy. When we can fully comprehend and explain how much more holy God is than any of the holy angels (Revelation 15:4), and how it is that the very heavens are not clean in his sight (Job 15:15), we may then perhaps understand more clearly than we do now, how it is that “the heavenly things,” embracing even the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, should need to be purified with the atoning blood of the Lord Jesus. The fact itself seems to be clearly revealed in our text; but the reason of it is not so obvious. Can it be owing to the fact, that many of the saints were admitted into Heaven in anticipation of the death of Christ, and that though justified by faith, through the grace and forbearance of God, they nevertheless required the purifying application of the blood of Christ when shed, in order to make them absolutely holy. See notes on Hebrews 9:15.
Hebrews 9:24 —For Christ is not entered, etc.—In this verse the Apostle brings to a close the argument begun in the fifteenth, showing the necessity of Christ’s death in order that the called might have an absolute right to the eternal inheritance. The services of the “wordly sanctuary” required the blood of bulls and of goats, without which the high priest could not enter the Holy of holies to intercede for the people. But now the sphere and object of Christ’s ministry require better sacrifices than these. “For Christ,” as our author says, “did not enter into holy places made with hands, mere counterparts of the true, but into heaven itself, now to be manifested in the presence of God in our behalf.” And hence the necessity that he should have to offer a sacrifice sufficient to meet, to the fullest extent, all that is required by infinite Justice.
By the “holy places” (hagia) of our text are meant such as those into which the Jewish high priest entered in performing the services of the ancient Tabernacle. The word rendered figures (antitupa) means properly copies taken from a given pattern (tupos) ; such as counterfeit bills, etc. According to Scripture usage, the original heavenly realities are properly called archetypes (archetupa) ; the patterns shown to Moses in the Mount, the types (tupos) ; and the counterparts of these constructed by Moses, antitypes (antitupa). But in our modern usage we are wont to call the last of these types; and to apply both the names archetypes and antitypes to the original heavenly realities which the types were made to represent. The verb appear (emphanisthenai) is used in a forensic sense to denote that Christ is now manifested in the presence of God as our Advocate. “The whole comparison,” says Prof. Stuart, “is taken from the custom of the Jewish high priest, who when he entered the most Holy Place was said to appear before God or to draw near to God, because the presence of God was manifested over the Mercy Seat in the Holy of holies; and God was represented, and was conceived of by the Jews as sitting enthroned upon the Mercy Seat. Now as the high priest appeared before God in the Jewish Temple and offered the blood of beasts for expiation on the great Day of Atonement in behalf of the Jewish nation, so Christ in the heavenly Temple enters the most Holy Place with his own blood to procure pardon (aionon lutrosin) for us.”
Hebrews 9:25-28
FURTHER OF THE
GREAT
BETWEEN THE
AND THOSE THAT ARE BY
CHRIST AS THE HIGH PRIEST OF OUR
Hebrews 9:25 —Nor yet that he should offer himself often,—In the preceding paragraph our author has forcibly proved and illustrated the necessity of Christ’s death as the only ground of redemption from sin. In doing this he reasons mainly from the analogies of the Old and New Covenant. Under the Old Covenant there was no remission of sins without blood; and so he argues there can be none under the New Covenant. But between these two institutions there are also many important points of contrast as well as of similarity, one of which the Apostle has already stated in the twenty- fourth verse; viz.: that Christ has not entered into the sanctuary made with hands like that into which Aaron and his successors entered ; on the contrary, he has gone into heaven itself, henceforth to appear in the presence of God for us. In the twenty-fifth verse he goes on to state another point of difference between the work of Christ and that of the Levitical high priests. These had to offer the same sacrifices year by year, but not so with Christ.
Hebrews 9:26 —For then must he often have suffered, etc.—Every offering of himself in heaven would of course imply an antecedent sacrificial death on earth. If, then, an annual offering were necessary, an annual sacrificial death would also be necessary. But in that event he must have often suffered since the foundation of the world (apo kataboles kosmou) ; that is, since the epoch of the Adamic renovation. But this he has not done. He has suffered but one death, and has, therefore, made but one offering.
Hebrews 9:26 —But now once in the end of the world, etc.—Or more literally: But now once in the end of the ages (epi suntcleia ton aio- non), he has been manifested for the putting away of sin by the sacrifice of himself: thus demonstrating that the one offering of himself is sufficient to meet all the requirements of the case; and that it is not, therefore, necessary to repeat the offering as the high priests were required to do under the Old Economy. The one offering of Christ, therefore, reaches back in its meritorious effects to the fall of man and forward to the end of time.
Another point of contrast made here by the Apostle consists in this, that the high priest under the Law went into the Holy of Holies with alien blood (en haimati allotrioi) ; that is, invested, as it were, with the blood of a young bullock and a goat; but Christ went into heaven invested with his own blood, by means of which he has paid the immense debt that was due to Divine Justice, and so obtained eternal redemption for all who love and obey him.
Hebrews 9:27 —And as it is appointed unto men once to die,—The Apostle still keeps up the contrast between Christ and the Jewish high priest. The latter, as we have seen, went once a year with the blood of an innocent victim into the Holy of Holies, and there having made an offering for himself and for the sins of the people, he came out of the sanctuary still defiled by sin; and he had, therefore, to repeat the same offerings year by year continually. But not so with Christ. His case, on the contrary, rather resembles, in some respects, the lot of all men. They are all by the Divine sentence (Genesis 3:19) appointed to die once.
Hebrews 9:27 —But after this the judgment: or, rather, “But after this, judgment” (krisis without the article). The Apostle seems to refer here more particularly to the judgment which is virtually pronounced on every man immediately after death than to the general judgment which will take place at the close of Christ’s mediatorial reign, though both of these may be included in his remark. But as every one goes to his own proper place after death (Daniel 12:13; Luke 16:22-23; Acts 1:25; 2 Corinthians 5:1 2 Corinthians 5:8, etc.), it follows, of course, that the true character of every individual is determined on his exit from this world; and that his destiny is then also virtually determined. And just so it was in the case of Christ, as our author now proceeds to show.
Hebrews 9:28 —So Christ [also] was once offered to bear the sins of many;—That is, he died once under the fearful load of human guilt, for Jehovah laid on him the iniquities of us all. (Isaiah 53:4-6.) But no sooner did he die than he was justified. The unrighteous decision of Pilate and the Jewish Sanhedrin was immediately reversed in the Supreme Court of the universe. God himself then acknowledged him as his Son, raised his body from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly realms, angels, and authorities, and powers being made subject to him. (Ephesians 1:20-22; 1 Peter 3:22, etc.)
Hebrews 9:28 —And unto them that look for him, etc.—This refers to the second personal advent of Christ, when he shall come out of the Holy of Holies, as did the High Priest under the Law, to bless those who are anxiously waiting for his appearing. But he will not then come like the High Priest still laden with sin. Once, indeed, he bore the iniquity of us all; and so very great was the burden of our guilt as we have seen (notes Hebrews 5:7), that it even crushed the blood from his veins, and finally ruptured his heart. But the blood which then flowed from his heart, under the tremendous pressure of human guilt, has washed away from him, as well as from us, all our iniquities, so that when he comes the second time there will not be a trace of sin about his person. But robed in the habiliments of righteousness, he will come in power and glory to redeem his saints, and to take vengeance on them who know not God, and who obey not the Gospel. Then we too will “be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Corinthians 5:21.)