Hebrews 9

CHAPTER IX

The Two Tabernacles Compared, v. 1–12

Hebrews 9:1

1 As in 7:11, μὲνοὖν is merely transitional, and υέν has no correlative δέ, and needs none. This δέ need not be found in v. 5 or even in v. 11. Nor is this mere transition concessive: nun freilich, nun zwar, “now indeed,” “then verily” (A.V.), “now even” (R.V.). The writer simply passes on from a comparison of the two testaments to a comparison of the two Tabernacles. He first describes the Tabernacle in the wilderness and relates what the common priests did daily in the Holy and the high priest once a year in the Holy of Holies.

He wisely describes only the Tabernacle and not the Temple of Solomon, of Ezra, of Herod, least of all that of Leontopolis in Egypt; for it was the Tabernacle that Moses constructed according to the very pattern shown to him in the Mount (8:5). The Temples that were later built were only copies of this Tabernacle; our writer confines himself to the divine original. His description is in no way a detraction, for this would be a mistake as far as his readers are concerned. He does not merely concede the greatness of the Tabernacle which Moses built. Quite the contrary. The very greatness of that Tabernacle sets into true relief the Holy of Holies in heaven into which Jesus, our High Priest, enters.

Now, then, also the first (testament) had ordinances about (divine) service and (had) the Holy Place in the world.

The following “for” describes the essential details of this ἅγιον with reference to the divine λατρεία or “service” for which God ordered its construction (v. 5). Neither the “service” nor the “Holy Place” in which it took place were without δικαιώματα, divine righteous pronouncements or “ordinances” given by God himself. The verb used is an imperfect: “had,” and takes us into the past, and does no more. There are two objects: the first testament (πρώτη, the same as τὴνπρώτην in 8:13) had such righteous ordinances and together with them had the necessary Holy Place, and the close connection between them is marked by τε. The ordinances dealt with the “service” (objective genitive), which is described for the readers in v. 6, 7. With the singular τὸἅγιον the writer refers to the entire Sanctuary or Tabernacle.

The fact that the adjective κοσμικόν is added predicatively puzzles the grammarians (R. 777); but the predicative idea is exactly what the writer wants, for this Holy Place as well as the service for which it was constructed were κοσμικόν; the word is used in the sense of “belonging to this world.” By adding this adjective in a quiet way the writer does not wish to minimize the Tabernacle and leave the impression that it is less than “the greater and more complete Tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of this creation” (v. 11).

Kosmikon, “in the world,” is used only for the sake of precision: the place where, under the divine ordinances, the divinely appointed priests and the high priest were to officiate as v. 6, 7 describe; they had to have “the Holy Place” in which they could do this. The emphasis is on the divine ordinances regarding service, to which the second object, “the Holy Place in the world,” is only attached with the close connective. These are God’s ordinances, and the readers may think that they are therefore final. The truth that they are not the complete and final thing will appear in due time. The one object of the writer in this connection is to express the greatness of the service and its sanctuary as being divinely ordered by God.

Hebrews 9:2

2 “For” initiates the description: For a Tabernacle was fitted up, the first, in which (were) the candelabrum and the table and the showbread, which is called Holy Place.

The verb (now a historical aorist) applies to both the σκηνή, “tent or tabernacle,” and its ritualistic utensils although these are mentioned in a special relative clause. The apposition ἡπρώτη does not, of course, mean that there were two tents as the readers well know. The tent was double, a great curtain divided the two compartments.

Ἡλυχνία is the golden candelabrum (not “candlestick,” our versions) with its upright shaft and its six branching arms (three on each side) bearing seven lamps, adorned with almond blossoms, pomegranates, and lilies. The Tabernacle and Herod’s Temple had one candelabrum, Solomon’s had ten and also ten tables, 2 Chron. 4:8; compare 4:19 and 1 Chron. 26:16.

“The table” was for the showbread of twelve loaves, one for each of the twelve tribes, which were baked of fine, unleavened flour and were changed every Sabbath; the old loaves were eaten by the priests only. We follow neither B.-P. 1132 who makes ἡπρόθεσις too concrete: das Geraet fuer die Auslegung der Brote, nor Riggenbach who combines the prothesis with “the table.” Tholuck’s strues panum is correct, “the lot of bread”; πρόθεσις merely states that the bread was set forth in order, thus making it what we call “the show-bread.” This bread is named as the third thing in the Holy Place. It was baked of unleavened flour and consisted of twelve thin, flat cakes and not large, round “loaves.” The Greek pluralizes ἄρτος since it has no word for “loaves.”

The front part of the Tabernacle (tent) is called ἅγια, “Holy Place,” in distinction from the rear part which was ἅγιαἁγίων, “Holy of Holies,” a superlative, “Most Holy Place,” (v. 3). No articles are needed although they may be used in other connections. In v. 1 τὸἅγιον = the whole sanctuary; in 8:2 τὰἅγια = the heavenly sanctuary. The neuter plural is idiomatic; such plurals appear also in σάββατα and in the names for some of the festivals.

Hebrews 9:3

3 And after the second veil a Tabernacle called Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the ark of the testament, overlaid entirely with gold, in which (there was) a golden pot containing the manna, and the rod of Aaron that budded, and the tables of the testament, and above it cherubim of glory, overshadowing the mercy seat; concerning which it is not (in order) now to speak.

Some think that this is the only local use of μετά in the New Testament: “behind the second veil”; but if we think of someone entering or looking into the tent from the front veil, “after” is quite sufficient. One would see the things named in v. 2 and “after” that what is now mentioned in v. 3, etc. On καταπέτασμα see 6:19.

This inner veil or curtain was woven of blue, purple, and scarlet wool and fine, twined linen (byssus), was adorned with the figures of cherubim and was hung on four gilded pillars of acacia wood that rested in silver sockets; it shut off the Holy of Holies from the rest of the tent. Behind this curtain only the high priest entered on the Great Day of Atonement. Note that the two designations: “which is called ‘Holy’” and “called ‘Holy of Holies’” are placed chiastically.

Hebrews 9:4

4 There is a crux in ἔχουσαθυμιατήριον. What was this, and where was it placed? Our versions think of “a golden censer.” Riggenbach has the best defense of this opinion, and the word does mean anything that is used for burning incense, an altar or merely a vessel (“censer”). This, too, is true, that on entering the Holy of Holies the high priest carried a censer full of live coals upon which he sprinkled incense, that had been beaten small, so as to make a cloud to hide the mercy seat lest he die; this was his first act on entering, Lev. 16:12, 13.

We do not think that this censer is referred to here. In the first place, it was not kept in the Holy of Holies, nor do we know that it was made of gold although it may have been. It was kept in a sideroom. The article is absent, but it is also absent from “a golden pot.” The article may be absent because there was more than one instrument for burning incense. In the second place, it is inexplicable that the writer should fail to mention the fact that there was also a golden altar of incense which was permanently located in the sanctuary and was in daily use.

If the writer refers to this altar of incense, how can he connect it with the Holy of Holies when this altar stood in the Holy Place? Meyer says that the writer made a mistake and thought that this golden altar was behind the veil. The writer does not, however, say that this golden altar was “in” the Holy of Holies; he uses ἔχουσα. Although he uses the same word in connection with the golden pot, we nevertheless note a difference: a pot “contains” something, a great room “has” certain things pertaining to it. The difficulty is cleared up by 1 Kings 6:22: this golden altar was “by the oracle,” stood near the veil, pertained to the Holy of Holies, and is so considered here. Exod. 30:1–6 (see also 40:5) describes this altar and then connects it with the ark of the testimony: “Put it before the veil that is by the ark of the testimony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony”—“set the altar of gold for the incense before the ark of the testimony.” This is conclusive for us.

The golden altar of incense stood in the Holy Place close to the veil; when he was offering the incense the priest faced the mercy seat behind the veil; the incense was offered to God as being present on the mercy seat. Compare Zahn, Introduction II, 363, etc.

Thus we see how ἔχουσα can include both “an altar of incense” in front of the veil and “the ark of the testament” (see διαθήκη in 7:22) behind the veil. This altar is thus of greater importance than the candelabrum, the table, and the showbread. The ark is described as “having been overlaid all over (πάντοθεν) with gold.” Exod. 25:11 says “within and without,” it also had “a crown of gold round about.” That is why the word which is used here is not χρυσός, gold as material, but χρυσίον, the diminutive, wrought gold, gold work in designs.

Κιβωτόν = box, chest, or ark; this sacred ark is called the ark of the testament because it contained “the tables of the testament” that had been brought down from the Mount by Moses. Exod. 16:32–34 does not say that the vessel which contained the manna was made of gold; the writer has probably obtained this information from reliable Jewish tradition. This golden pot and “the rod of Aaron that had budded” and bloomed and yielded almonds were in the ark besides the stone tables that were inscribed with the law (Exod. 17:6–11). Exod. 25:16 says in so many words that the testimony was to be placed in the ark (Deut. 10:1, 2). Concerning the omer of manna Exod. 16:33 says: “Lay it up before the Lord”; concerning Aaron’s rod Num. 17:10: “Bring it … before the testimony to be kept for a token,” etc. Yet when 1 Kings 8:9 (2 Chron. 5:10) states that in Solomon’s time there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, the implication is that there had originally been more in the ark, namely the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod just as our writer says. No one knows what had become of the manna and the rod.

Hebrews 9:5

5 The mercy seat and the two cherubim are described in Exod. 25:17–22, which see. The former was made of pure gold and served as the lid of the ark. The cherubim stood on this golden lid, facing each other, their wings were stretched forward and thus overshadowed the mercy seat. They are called “cherubim of glory.” The genitive is not an attributive genitive: “glorious cherubim,” but a possessive genitive: “cherubim belonging to God’s glory,” for God was present in his glory between these cherubim (Exod. 25:22; 40:38). The Greek word “cherubim” is neuter and only occasionally masculine.

The Hebrew Kapporeth, from kipper, equals “cover,” and from its use on the sacred ark “a means of propitiation.” Combining this with the idea of covering, one may call it Suehndeckel, “propitiatory cover.” Ed. Koenig, Hebraeisches und aramaeisches Woerterbuch. In his masterly rendering Luther uses the interpretative Gnadenstuhl, which our versions adopt when they translate “mercy seat.” The LXX rendered the Hebrew word used in Exod. 25:17 ἱλαστήριονἐπίθεμα and after that used simply ἱλαστήριον. Both the Hebrew and the Greek words became technical terms and remained so; the R. V.’s margin: “the propitiatory,” both in our passage and in Rom. 3:25, seeks to convert the Greek term into a common noun and thus ought to be canceled. It was the sacrificial blood which was sprinkled on the cover that made it the Suehndeckel or mercy seat. See Rom. 3:25.

The writer only names these most sacred objects. Much might be said about their significance, but this is not the place for such instruction. So he adds: “concerning which it is not (in order) now to speak.”

Hebrews 9:6

6 Now these things having been thus fitted up, into the first Tabernacle the priests go constantly, attending to the services, while into the second only once during the year the high priest alone, not without blood which he offers for himself and the ignorances of the people.

From the description of the Tabernacle and its fittings the writer advances to the functions of the priests. Δέ is transitional and is not to be connected with μὲνοὖν in v. 1. The description is worded in present tenses, which, referring, as they do, to the Tabernacle that is now long lost, are nothing but historical narration and contain no reference to what was done in Herod’s Temple at the writer’s time. The writer confines himself throughout to God’s original Tabernacle as this is described in the Pentateuch. The perfect participle in the genitive absolute harmonizes with the present tenses of the main verbs: these things, so fitted up and in this condition, the priests use.

The priests enter the first Tabernacle daily without interruption and carry out the services by twice daily offering incense on the golden altar before the inner veil, daily attending to the lamps of the candelabrum, weekly changing the showbread. This is said about the common priests only in order to bring out more clearly what the high priest does. Μέν and δέ balance only the phrases into which these particles are inserted.

Hebrews 9:7

7 Into the second Tabernacle there goes only “once during the year the high priest alone,” namely on the Great Day of Atonement. The genitive τοῦἐνιαυτοῦ is not distributive (R. 769), for this thought would require κατά with the accusative; nor is the genitive dependent on the adverb (R. 637). Since it has the article it is the genitive of the time within which: “during the year,” and the adverb states how often: “once.” This is in contrast with the priests who enter the Holy Place daily. “Only the high priest” is in contrast with the priests who take turns in daily officiating in the Holy Place. “Not without blood” is again in contrast with the priests who never use blood in the Holy Place. These points of contrast are brought out here because they are pertinent to what follows in regard to Christ.

From Lev. 16 it appears that the high priest entered the Holy of Holies twice on the Day of Atonement, once with the bullock’s blood for himself and once with the goat’s blood for the people. Late accounts speak of four times: first with the censer; next with the bullock’s blood; then with that of the goat; finally to carry away the coal pan and the censer. “Once during the year” does not concern itself with such details since it excludes “more times during the year,” more than this one day.

The blood “he offers for himself and for the ignorances (sins of ignorance) of the people.” The fact that the blood was taken from two animals, each of which was offered in its own way, need not be introduced here. The offering of blood for the high priest himself has been touched upon already in 5:3. By writing “for himself and the ignorances of the people” instead of “for himself and the people” or “for the ignorance of himself and of the people,” the difference is indicated: the blood that was offered for himself was for himself as high priest in order to enable him to act for the people. Ἀγνοήματα are sins of ignorance such as the people did not know about when they sinned and thus had not removed by sacrifices during the year as they did the sins which they knew about.

Hebrews 9:8

8 The sentence continues with a genitive absolute and now comes to the main feature of the entire description: the Holy Spirit indicating this fact, that not yet has there been made manifest the way to the Holy Place, the first Tabernacle still having its position; which (is) a figure regarding the present period, in accord with which (figure) both gifts and sacrifices are offered, unable to bring to the goal, as far as conscience is concerned, him who renders the worship, (these gifts and sacrifices being) only, in addition to foods and drinks and various baptisms, ordinances about flesh, obligatory up to (the) period of (the) right order.

During the whole period in which the Tabernacle has the Holy Place in front of the Holy of Holies the Holy Spirit himself shows that the way to the Holy Place in heaven, i.e., to “the Holy Place and the true Tabernacle” where Jesus is the High Priest and the ministrant (8:1, 2), has not yet been made evident. That arrangement of τὸἅγιονκοσμικόν, of the sanctuary here in the world (9:1), in two compartments shows that it is only a παραβολή, a parable or figure regarding the present time when Jesus has entered into the Sanctuary of heaven with his blood. In the figure the gifts as well as the sacrifices of blood, both those offered in the Holy Place of the earthly Tabernacle and those offered by the high priests in the Holy of Holies, are unable to accomplish the whole thing, being no more than divine ordinances about the flesh or human body and obligatory until the period when the right and final arrangement is instituted by God in the High-priestly ministration of Jesus.

It would be the greatest mistake for the readers to think that the Tabernacle which God made Moses construct in the wilderness and fit up for the service by the priests and the high priest is the final thing and intended by him to remain for all time and only to be advanced from the Tabernacle to the Temple building in Jerusalem, when the Holy Spirit himself shows so clearly, by both the division of the Tabernacle into a Holy and a Holy of Holies and the nature of the ordinances that were prescribed for the whole Tabernacle services, that all this is only a temporary thing, a figure and parable of the time when God brings the right arrangement. This time is now here. We now have the final High Priest and the ministrant in the heavenly Sanctuary (8:1, 2). Can the readers now think of turning back to what was only a parable? Let them think of the old Tabernacle as highly as they will, what has now come in our High Priest Jesus appears only so much the higher as it also indeed is.

This is the thought of these verses, which should not be confused when one is studying the various details of the wording.

Τοῦτο is emphatic: “this” is what the Holy Spirit indicates by the arrangement of the old Tabernacle and the priestly services for which it was designed, “this,” namely “that not yet (at that time) has there been made manifest the way to the (final) Holy Place” in heaven; we have the infinitive in indirect discourse (R. 1048) in apposition with τοῦτο (R. 1078). God ordered the whole construction, arrangement, and services of the Tabernacle (8:5); since all of this was for the sanctification of Israel, the writer now says that “the Holy Spirit” indicates what this Tabernacle, etc., really signifies regarding the heavenly Sanctuary and the High-priestly ministration of Jesus, the Spirit being the Sanctifier. The perfect tense of the infinitive extends over the whole time during which the Tabernacle arrangement stood as a figure; during all of that time the Spirit said: The way to the heavenly Sanctuary “has not yet been made manifest” by me, the real High Priest has not yet come.

The verb is most exact, for the way to the heavenly Sanctuary had been foreshadowed (v. 5, “sketch and shadow of the heavenly” originals), prefigured but was not yet made manifest as it now is since Jesus has as our High Priest gone into the heavenly Sanctuary. In τὴντῶνἁγίωνὁδόν the genitive is objective: “the way to the Holy Place,” τῶνἁγίων, as in 8:2, indicates the heavenly Sanctuary.

The genitive absolute: “the first Tabernacle still having its position,” points out the significant feature that the way to the heavenly Sanctuary remains unmanifested while the division between the first and the second Tabernacle, i.e., between the Holy and the Holy of Holies, still stands (see v. 1–3). There is no reference to Solomon’s, Ezra’s, and Herod’s Temples. There is no need for such a reference. The readers are acquainted with Matt. 27:51, know that by rending the inner veil the Spirit himself indicated the end of what the Tabernacle in the wilderness prefigured. When the sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary was complete, when he entered the heavenly Sanctuary with his expiating blood, all that the figure foreshadowed had come, the way to the heavenly Sanctuary was manifest at last. In the heavenly Sanctuary there is no longer a Holy Place and a Holy of Holies with a veil between them.

Hebrews 9:9

9 Ἣτις = “the first Tabernacle,” the Holy Place before the Holy of Holies, and παραβολή is the predicate; the copula is omitted as being unnecessary: “which (first Tabernacle) a figure regarding the present period.” In what respect is it such “a figure”? The entire καθʼ ἥν clause explains. The qualitative relative says that this first Tabernacle is only a “parable.” “The true Tabernacle” (8:2), the heavenly one, cannot have a division, a Holy and a Holy of Holies, it can consist only of a unit Sanctuary for the High-priestly act of our “great High Priest” (4:14). This earthly Holy Place has only a parabolic significance, one that is effective only for the time that it is needed. As a parable or figure it points forward to the time when it will be no longer needed, when the one heavenly Sanctuary will be manifested, when all parabolic pointers will be forever superseded.

The writer says that the first Tabernacle is of a kind or quality (ἥτις) that makes it such a parable “regarding (εἰς) the present period” in which Jesus has gone into the heavenly Sanctuary with his blood. The perfect ἐνεστηκότα is always used in the sense of the present; even in 2 Thess. 2:2 ἐνέστηκεν = “is present” (see the discussion of this passage where this meaning is vital). This period should be dated only in the present in which Jesus has entered the heavenly Sanctuary. The parable points to this present time, for its significance is now realized in this act of Jesus’.

The variant καθʼ ὅν alters only the form of the thought: “in accord with this that,” etc. The reading καθʼ ἥν is textually preferable and connects with παραβολή. Some connect it with σκηνῆς, which is only a matter of formal grammar since “the first Tabernacle” is “a parable” so that connecting it with either takes in the other. Yet the writer explains in what way this parable is a parable: “according to it as a parable (i.e., as signifying something regarding the present time) both gifts and sacrifices are offered, unable” to bring anybody to the real goal. The parable thus points to the present time in which this goal is attained in the sacrifice that was presented to God in a better Sanctuary, in one that was without such a Holy Place before the Holy of Holies. As matching (κατά) the “parable” or figurative quality of the Holy Place in the tent in the wilderness, all the gifts (incense, showbread, lights on the candelabrum) and sacrifices (blood sprinkled on the altar of incense, Lev. 1:5; 16:18, 19) are offered, “unable to bring to the goal, as far as conscience is concerned, him who renders the worship,” τὸνλατρεύοντα, “the worshipper” (R. V.) among the people, and not τὸνλειτουργοῦντα, the officiating person, the priest or high priest.

Μή is the regular negative with participles and needs no explanation as though it were “subjective” (the older view). The statement refers to every Israelite including, of course, also the priests, for all the gifts and sacrifices were offered for all of them. Yet of themselves none of these gifts and sacrifices, “as far as conscience is concerned,” brought completeness (10:1–4). All they could do was to point to the one sacrifice of Jesus which would, indeed, bring completeness, actually attain the goal, and thus lead the Israelites to believe in that coming sacrifice in order by such faith to obtain pardon and free the conscience of sin and guilt. Without this coming sacrifice and faith in its efficacy no worshipper could have a conscience that was truly cleansed. Τελειῶσαι repeats the idea of the noun used in 7:11 and of the verb occurring in 7:19; 10:1, 14. See how this word runs through this letter in speaking of both Jesus and us (2:10; 5:9; 6:1; 7:28; 11:40; 12:23); this is quite essential.

Hebrews 9:10

10 Μόνονδικαιώματα (not the dative which a few texts have) is an apposition to δῶράτεκαὶθυσίαι: these gifts and sacrifices “only, in addition to (ἐπί) foods and drinks and various baptisms, ordinances about flesh, obligatory up to (the) period of (the) right order,” up to the time when the Spirit would institute the right and final order in Christ. All of this ritual and worship of the Tabernacle was only preliminary, temporal, transient. It was preparatory and not the right arrangement itself.

The readers should see this when they note that the gifts and sacrifices were “only ordinances about flesh” (objective genitive), regulated the worshipper’s “flesh” or body, “rites” (A. V. margin) that were ordered by the divine Judge for the body—δικαιώματα also in v. 1. They were given only in addition to all the other ceremonial regulations about what foods to eat and to avoid, what drinks were to be used, and the baptisms (lustrations or washings) that were to be performed. It may be noted that these “baptisms” of the Jewish ritual were not immersions. “Carnal ordinances” (our versions) is an unsatisfactory rendering, the more so because the genitive is not adjectival. “Flesh,” the outward body, is the opposite of “conscience.” Ceremonial rites that pertain to the body only certainly cannot put the conscience into the full and complete condition in which it should be.

The εἰς phrase occurring in v. 9: “regarding the present time,” is now followed by a phrase that says much more: these ordinances are “imposed and thus obligatory only up to the period of the right order,” διόρθωσις, rechte, richtige Ordnung (C.-K. 818), when all the old imperfections of the Levitical and preparatory period would be discarded, when Jesus would bring everything to completeness (compare 7:11). “The time of reformation” (our versions) is not a satisfactory English rendering.

The parabolic nature of the Holy Place in the Tabernacle of the wilderness is thus fully shown. All the services for which it was designed were not the completeness which the Spirit intended for the conscience. This very incompleteness pointed forward to the time when all would be complete and right according to the Spirit’s design. This blessed period had now come since Jesus had shed and offered his blood to God in the divine Sanctuary. No one must now forsake Jesus and imagine that he will find rest for his conscience in the old ordinances of the Tabernacle. The old Israelites had their conscience cleansed only by faith in the completeness which the coming High Priest would bring.

It is a bit surprising to note that the writer uses “the Holy Place” and not the Holy of Holies and what the high priest did there when he is bringing out the inadequacy of the Tabernacle and its function. He is wise in this procedure. The very fact that the Tabernacle has this anterior chamber shows that this could not be the final Sanctuary that had been designed by the Spirit for the expiation of our sins. As long as the Holy Place stood before the Holy of Holies, the latter was marked as not being the final Sanctuary. Yet the Spirit had never ordered Israel to have a Tabernacle that had only one room, only a Holy of Holies. The one final Sanctuary is not made with hands (v. 11) or by man (8:2); it is heaven itself, where the eternal God dwells, where Jesus appeared with his blood (9:24).

Hebrews 9:11

11 So much for the earthly Tabernacle; now, in comparison, the heavenly Tabernacle.

Christ, however, arrived as High Priest of the good things about to come by means of the greater and more complete Tabernacle, not handmade, that is, not of this creation, nor by means of blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood went in once for all into the Holy Place, obtaining an eternal ransoming.

Although the writer often uses the name “Jesus,” the name “Christ,” which points to our Savior’s office, is in place here, for his great High-priestly act is to be described. On the relation of the three aorists: participle, main verb, participle, little needs to be said. They present three closely connected historical facts like Caesar’s famous dictum: Veni, vidi, vici, “I came, I saw, I conquered.” Only the relation of the facts is involved in the tenses. The writer has the choice as to which of the three he wishes to make a participle, which the main verb, or whether he wants to use participles at all. The writer’s choice is certainly a good one: arrived, he entered, obtaining. There is no thought of intervals of time in these aorists but only the thought of natural relation, and this is not expressed by the tenses as tenses but by the sequence of the statements.

So we do not ask: “How long before he entered did he arrive, and how long after he entered did he obtain?” We may even leave out the participles and say: “As High Priest he entered for eternal ransoming,” and we have the writer’s meaning. We therefore disregard the dating of the first participle as if this goes back to the incarnation or to the assumption of Christ’s office three years before his death.

Thus it also makes little difference whether we combine the two διά phrases with the first participle or with the main verb although the latter is generally done. Since παραγίνομαι is only a synonym of ἔρχομαι, we find no special significance in the choice of this word save that παραγενόμενος naturally fits εἰσῆλθεν and is used for this reason (see M.-M. 481 on the word). Γενόμενος would bring in an entirely different thought, one that the writer certainly does not want when he speaks of Christ’s entering in, as if he entered in by becoming High Priest. The main point is the predication: “as High Priest of the good things about to come.” As such he arrived, was at hand, and entered in. The writer tells us of the High-priestly act of Christ and at once names him as the High Priest.

It goes without saying that “High Priest of the good things about to come” aims to exalt Christ above all the common Jewish high priests, none of whom could be so designated. All that follows clearly shows this fact. Shall we read μελλόντων or γενομένων: of the good things “about to come” or “having come” (aorist)? We have “the good things about to come” in the undisputed reading of 10:1, which fact cannot be lightly brushed aside when the reading of our passage is to be determined. To say that Christ came as High Priest of the good things that have already come cannot be understood to mean that these things have come since Christ arrived; the aorist could only mean that, when Christ came, these good things were already here. This was the point that vexed the old Greek exegetes when they attempted to interpret this aorist.

The correct reading is τῶνμελλόντων. Our writer uses μέλλω repeatedly: in 2:5, “the world to come”; 6:5, “the powers of the eon to come”; 1:14, “those about to inherit salvation.” In 9:15 this is called the eternal inheritance. The good things referred to belong to the world to come, they constitute our hope. By faith and hope we embrace them already in this life and taste the good Word of God and the powers of the world to come (6:5). As High Priest Christ entered heaven; the good things to come are heavenly. In “High Priest of the good things about to come” the genitive is possessive and connects Christ with these good things.

In a number of commentaries the first διά is regarded as being local: Christ went in through the greater and more complete Tabernacle; the second and third διά are instrumental: “went in, not by means of blood of goats and calves, but by means of his own blood.” Even if we disregard οὐδέ, “nor,” which seems out of place when the διά are taken in different senses, we hesitate to adopt the view of these commentators. They suppose that Christ went into the Holy of Holies in heaven (εἰςτὰἅγια, v. 12) by first going through something that corresponds to the Holy of the earthly Tabernacle of Moses. This anteroom they find in “the greater and more complete σκηνή or Tabernacle, not handmade, that is, not of this creation.”

But what can this anteroom be? The idea that it is the body or the human nature of Christ is now commonly rejected and certainly has no support in 10:20. Since this σκηνή is “not of this creation” as the writer himself says, the created heavens cannot be referred to as they are referred to in 4:14: “having passed through the (created) heavens” in his ascension. So these commentators think that heaven itself, the uncreated place where God dwells, is divided into two parts that correspond to the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle of the wilderness. They think that the writer is exalting this heavenly anteroom “through” which Jesus passed in order to reach the heavenly Holy of Holies that was above the anteroom of Moses’ Tabernacle.

We decline to follow them. In v. 8 the very fact that in the earthly Tabernacle the Holy Place still has its position before the Holy of Holies is pointed out as evidence that the way into the heavenly Holy of Holies has not yet been made manifest. Are we now to believe that such an anteroom still has its position, an eternal position, in front of the Holy of Holies of heaven, and that despite this fact this anteroom is now not the evidence that it is in v. 8 but rather the opposite, evidence that the way into the heavenly Sanctuary has been made manifest? This surely cannot be the case. If there is an anteroom in heaven as there is in Moses’ Tabernacle, the two anterooms cannot have an opposite significance, to say nothing of this division of heaven apart from any significance regarding the way to the heavenly Holy of Holies.

The A. V. is correct. The three διά have the same force: “by,” i.e., “by means of”; the first is not “through” (local), R. V. “Handmade” recalls the whole Mosaic Tabernacle which was made by hand; the heavenly σκηνή is not “handmade,” is not even made by God’s creative hand as the elucidation “not of this creation” adds. Christ needs two means for his High-priestly act just as the Jewish high priests did: one is the proper σκηνή or Tabernacle into which to enter with the blood; the other is the blood which he may offer. Then, it is objected, “the greater and more complete σκηνή” would be the same as τὰἅγια.

Why not? Are the two terms not used in 8:2 to designate the identical place as they are here in 9:11, 12? The one, namely the σκηνή, names it as a tent; the other, τὰἅγια, names it from the viewpoint of its sacredness. “The tent” serves Christ as a means; “the sacred place” (τὰἅγια) he enters. “The tent” does not mean the anteroom, and “the sacred place” the inner room—two. The tent includes the sacred place—one. Both terms are, of course, appropriated from the Tabernacle of Moses just as they are in 8:2 where the writer combines them as they are in heaven.

Yes, this heavenly “tent” is far greater than that which housed the earthly Holy of Holies. Epexegetical καί adds the thought that it is far greater because it is “more complete,” for this tent does bring to the goal. Here we again have this significant term to which we have drawn attention in v. 9; see the references cited there.

Hebrews 9:12

12 As the one means is greater, so is also the other, namely the blood. “neither by means of blood of goats (for the sins of the people, v. 7; Lev. 16:9) and of calves (for the high priest himself, v. 7; Lev. 16:11).” See also 7:27. Christ does not need two kinds of blood as the Jewish high priest did who was himself a sinner: “but by means of his own blood,” this one most holy and precious blood that atoned with eternal completeness for all the sins of all sinners from Adam on to the last one who shall be born. Christ’s own blood is called that of the Lamb of God; all the τράγοι, μόσχοι, and ταῦροι, he-goats, young bulls (bullocks), and bulls are superseded. See Rev. 5:9, 12, 13; 14:8.

We keep the participle, the verb, and the participle in their close relation as together expressing a unit thought: “Christ arrived, did enter, obtaining.” Then the difficulty regarding the means that were used by Christ in this act will disappear. When you separate the verb form, it will sound strange to say that Christ “entered by means” of something even if you make the means only his blood. “Once for all” is repeated from 7:27, in our study of which it has already been shown why no repetition is necessary or even possible. In 7:27 Christ offered up “himself”; here we have “by means of his own blood” instead of “himself,” in John 10:17, 18 it is his “life.”

“The blood of Jesus” is a subject that deserves an entire dissertation, especially since “the old blood theology” is so often attacked, called “gory,” counted unholy and not sanctifying (10:29). The connotation of the term “blood” is that of sacrifice, the expiation of the sacrifice that covers and removes sin; thus “blood” is more precise than “death” since many deaths are bloodless. In a sacrifice the blood is shed or poured out so that the life goes out in death. The expiation is thus connected with substitution. The life of the sacrificial victim goes out in death so that the life of the beneficiary of the sacrifice is spared. This is by far not all; the blood comes to the altar, the sanctuary, the mercy seat, i.e., before God, in the way indicated by him so that he may accept it.

Only this blood expiates and cleanses. Much more may be said. The one fact to be noted is that it is not the blood as a substance, nor the blood that is made to flow by mortal wounds that is involved in substitutionary sacrifice but the blood that is shed for the specific expiatory purpose. “Blood” thus = the completed sacrifice as it is brought to God.

The blood sacrifices of the Old Testament expiatory and cleansing rituals possessed efficacy only because God connected them with the eternally efficacious blood of his own Son (Rev. 13:8). That is the τελείωσις, the completion that reached the goal and came about only when our High Priest, Christ, offered “his own blood” in sacrifice once for all.

We discard the idea that at the time of his death Jesus took his blood into the heavenly Sanctuary before God. One is disturbed to read what Bengel, Stier, Delitzsch, and others say about Christ’s blood; such things as that the blood Christ shed was received back into his body, that it was received into heaven, or that the blood which was left in Christ’s dead body was increased and renewed. These distressing conceptions center particularly on the Lord’s Supper, in connection with which some speak of “the glorified blood” that is now given us to drink in the Sacrament. Where does Scripture speak of Christ’s “glorified blood”? The words that are used in connection with the Sacrament are: “my blood in the act of being shed for you” just as: “my body in the act of being given for you.” When Riggenbach regards “blood” as it is used in our epistle bildlich, “figurative,” signifying “death,” he surely does not fully understand the implication of his words. What Christ shed was “his own blood” and not something that pictures his death. Instead of saying that Christ’s blood = his death, the reverse is true: where the Scriptures speak of his death they refer to his bloody death, his expiatory, sacrificial blood.*

The second aorist middle εὑράμενος has the first aorist α (R. 339). This is not an indirect middle (R. 809); it is the Attic use of the middle when the meaning is erlangen, “obtain” (B.-D. 310, 1; B.-P. 508); the middle of this verb is found only here in the New Testament. What Christ obtained is “eternal ransoming,” λύτρωσις. The simplex is used here, in v. 15 the compound ἀπολύτρωσις with a genitive is found. The blood is the λύτρον or ransom that was paid by Christ in order to effect release from sin and guilt. Expiation and ransoming are the same in substance and closely akin in connotation so that “blood” is said to be the means of ransoming. This word and the one used in v. 15 are treated more fully in connection with our exegesis of Rom. 3:24 to which the reader is referred.

The Two Kinds of Blood Compared, v. 13–28.

Hebrews 9:13

13 In v. 12 the writer introduces the subject of the blood, which is now discussed at length so that we make a division at this point. For if the blood of goats and of bulls and a heifer’s ashes sprinkling those defiled sanctifies as regards the cleanness of the flesh, by how much more shall the blood of Christ, who by the eternal spirit offered himself blemishless to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works for serving the living God?

In v. 12 the contrast is: not by means of animal blood but by means of Christ’s own blood. The blood of sacrifice is evaluated according to the victim that is slain, and the effect of the value is according; Christ’s blood ransoms. “For” restates and thus elucidates the comparative value and the comparative effect, but it does so in a broader way as far as the animal sacrifices are concerned, in a fuller way as far as Christ’s sacrifice is concerned, and in a personal way as far as the worshipper is concerned who receives the effect and the benefit of the sacrificial blood. “For” does not prove anything that is said in v. 11, 12, it unfolds more fully and advances the thought and thereby makes it entirely clear. The writer puts this elucidation in the form of a question and thus in a personal way calls upon the readers to answer from their own experience since they personally felt both the limited effect of the animal sacrifice and the completed effect of Christ’s sacrifice. The readers themselves are asked to tell themselves the tremendous difference, and by this question the writer offers them the pertinent data that should prompt the correct answer.

The protasis is a statement of reality and as such presents the simple fact that animal sacrifices do, indeed, sanctify to a certain extent; the apodosis follows with its self-evident deduction regarding Christ’s sacrifice, a deduction which is true in the case of those who have come into contact with Christ and his sacrifice even as the question is asked regarding these alone. In v. 12 “blood of goats and calves” refers only to the Day of Atonement, to what the Jewish high priest does on that day in the Holy of Holies for himself and for the people. In v. 12 there is a comparison only with what Christ did in the heavenly Sanctuary before God, namely pay the ransom of his blood and obtain the objective ransoming from God. In v. 13 “the blood of goats” still reminds the readers of the Jewish Day of Atonement and of the Jewish high priest’s work, but “bulls” goes beyond this to other sacrifices of blood, and “a heifer’s ashes sprinkling those having been defiled” shows how far beyond the Day of Atonement the writer now proceeds. The blood of all animals that were slain is now referred to, and this is considered not merely as being offered to God but also as affecting the individual persons by removing their defilement and sanctifying them.

The writer chooses the heifer’s ashes because they illustrate best this personal effect on the individual, for the heifer’s blood was used for the Tabernacle and for the whole congregation, and then the ashes of the entire animal, skin, flesh, blood, and even dung, plus cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet (Num. 19:4–6) were used, not only for the Tabernacle, but also for the individual persons who might be ceremonially defiled and unclean in order to cleanse these persons individually (Num. 19:18–22). The point of v. 13 is thus the effect of the blood upon an individual when it is applied to him according to the δικαιώματα or “ordinances” that are laid down in the ceremonial law (v. 1, 10).

This “sanctifies as regards the cleanness of the flesh,” the present tense in a general statement without reference to a particular time. The person is again set apart for God as being clean and undefiled. But this cleanness pertains only to “the flesh,” to the body of the person, even as the ordinances deal only with “flesh” or body (v. 10). The illustration of the heifer’s ashes is exceedingly plain on this point because these ashes were used to remove the defilement that had been incurred by touching a dead bone, one slain, one dead, or a grave. This is bodily touching, bodily defilement, and thus to be cleaned by a bodily cleansing.

Yet we should not view this cleansing in a superficial way as if conscience is not at all involved. Although the cleansing of the conscience by means of Christ’s blood which is referred to in v. 14 constitutes the opposite of all cleansing by animal blood, it still leaves a field for conscience in connection with these bodily, ceremonial cleansings, for a physically defiled Israelite had a bad conscience until he had secured bodily cleansing as this was prescribed for him in God’s ceremonial ordinances. This is plain from Num. 19:20. The point of difference between the two cleansings lies in the fact that the ceremonial cleansing satisfies the Israelite’s conscience only as regards his flesh and body and causes him to rest easy when that is again ceremonially clean; but the expiatory cleansing by means of Christ’s blood frees the conscience “from dead works,” from the deadly guilt of all evil deeds, which is a far more serious thing than any ceremonial defilement.

Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathaea helped to bury the dead body of Jesus, which made them ceremonially unclean; being conscientious Jews, they would have themselves ceremonially cleansed. Peter denied Christ. He wept bitterly. His conscience required a different and a far greater cleansing to put it at rest. The Lord absolved him of this dead work; the Lord died to provide this cleansing absolution for him. So much here regarding conscience. Much more follows in 10:1, etc., on the matter of freeing from sins, which we need not anticipate here.

Hebrews 9:14

14 “By how much more shall the blood of Christ cleanse your conscience,” etc., asks the readers to contemplate the efficacy of this blood. On “the blood of Christ” see the pertinent paragraph under v. 12. The fact that it is Christ’s own blood (v. 12) lifts it infinitely above all animal blood that is demanded by the ordinances of God to Israel. It is

“A sacrifice of nobler name

And richer blood than they.”

The relative clause brings this value of Christ’s blood to full view: “who by the eternal spirit offered himself blemishless to God.” No animal ever offered itself in sacrifice; when it was offered it did not even know what was being done. Christ offered himself, being High Priest and Sacrifice in one. He willed to do this as the High Priest, to have it done to him as the Sacrifice. Those who shed Christ’s blood, they were the ones who knew not what was being done. Christ entered the Sanctuary “by means of his own blood” (v. 12); the high priests used the blood of others (v. 25), namely of animals. As was the value of the blood, so was the value of its power and its efficacy.

The position of the phrase assures its emphasis: “who by the eternal spirit offered himself,” etc. Our versions capitalize “Spirit,” which is immaterial as long as we do not regard this as a reference to “the Holy Spirit” as some texts do which substitute “Holy Spirit” for “eternal Spirit.” To say that the Holy Spirit was a means or a mediate agent in the offering which Christ made of himself to God is to invent and to inject a strange idea which is foreign to Scripture. The absence of the articles in the Greek intends to stress the qualitative idea of “eternal spirit.”

“Christ” showed himself to be Christ indeed, our Great High Priest (4:14), by offering himself “by the eternal spirit,” his own spirit brought himself as the offering to God. The idea that his act was ethical to the highest degree, voluntary, not only on his part as being the sacrificing Priest, but also as being the sacrificed Lamb, is the gist of what is conveyed. We see this at once when we note that the writer emphasizes the eternal nature of Christ’s spirit.

The eternal spirit by which Christ acted as our High Priest when he was offering himself in sacrifice to God is his divine ἐγώ or person. No man could take his life from him; he laid it down of himself in sacrifice even as he then also took it up again (John 10:16). Being deathless because he was “blemishless” and God’s own Son without sin, he yet died for us: his own eternal spirit gave his human body and nature up to death so that his blood might obtain an eternal redemption and salvation for us (2:14, 15). It was for this reason that his eternal spirit assumed flesh and blood which could die.

But we should not confine our thought to what happened on Calvary when Christ’s blood was shed and when he gave up his spirit in death (John 19:30); we should include the entrance into the heavenly Sanctuary “by means of his own blood” (v. 12), where the High-priestly act was completed, and he was thus “offering himself blemishless to God.” The victim which the Jewish high priests offered as a type was not merely slain outside of the Holy of Holies, but the high priest brought the blood of the victim into the Holy of Holies before God. The antitype, Christ, did not carry his poured-out blood up into heaven but used it in an infinitely more exalted way as the means (διά v. 12) of expiation and ransoming. The typical victims had to be “blemishless,” which prefigured the sinlessness of the Lamb of God. In allusion to this the writer adds: himself, “blemishless” to God.

“Eternal spirit” is by no means in contrast with the perishable ψυχή or πνεῦμα of animal sacrifices. Have animals a πνεῦμα or “spirit”? There is a contrast with Christ’s own flesh and blood; and the thought that, because they are like our flesh and blood (2:14), Christ might by means of his blood be able to do no more than we can when our blood is shed should not be entertained. The idea is also advanced by some that at death our spirit passes into a Totenreich and remains there inactive and in a shadowy existence until judgment day; and, we are told, in contrast to our spirits, which are subject to this fate, Christ’s spirit is called “eternal” because it is not doomed to such inactivity. Yet most of these believers in “the realm of the dead” hold that Christ’s spirit did enter this place at death; but they are then interpreting other passages and not our present passage.

How much more, then, “shall the blood of Christ … cleanse your conscience from dead works for serving the living God?” The tense of the verb used is the common logical future; it is the more in place here because the writer now speaks of the subjective, personal effect of Christ’s blood on his readers, which extends into the future. On “dead works” compare 6:1. The expression is still more apt here, for no one can serve “the living God” with “dead works.” Dead works are the fruit of spiritual deadness, they have no spiritual life in them, no life through Christ from the living God. Some think that “dead” means “sinful” works in general. These certainly would be a dead weight on the conscience. Yet here, as well as in 6:1, “dead works” are scarcely crimes and flagrant breaches of law but rather all formal, empty, false legal observances and self-invented works whereby men would seek to stand before God (Matt. 7:16–20, 22; 15:9; other passages).

As far as the relation to conscience is concerned, all sins and these dead works, too, disturb the conscience only when Christ reveals what deadliness lurks in them. The writer perhaps uses “dead works” here in allusion to the defilement which was ceremonially removed by the heifer’s ashes, for this defilement was caused by touching something that was dead. The fact that cleansing the conscience by Christ’s blood includes μετάνοια or repentance, 6:1, has already been stated. The word λατρεύειν refers to the service that is due to God on the part of all of us (so also v. 9) and not merely to the official service of priests (λειτουργεῖν).

Hebrews 9:15

15 To the value of Christ’s blood as being his own, and to its value as this is shown in its complete efficacy, there is added (καί) also its necessity. The readers are to understand that, far from being strange and a reason for turning away from him and back to Judaism, Christ’s death is the very opposite. By it Jesus went into the heavenly Sanctuary and effected what has been stated in the preceding verses. Is this not vastly more than Judaism ever had? So v. 14 ends with a convincing question. Now the very necessity of his death is shown by the fact that we are heirs who are named in a testament, and that what is willed to us in this testament cannot be paid out to us unless the necessary death to put this testament into force has occurred. Instead of being offended by Christ’s death the readers as the heirs, who because of Christ’s death receive what the testament provides in its promissory stipulations, ought to accept their inheritance most gratefully.

And because of this is he Mediator of a new testament in order that, since a death has occurred for ransoming from the transgressions at the time of the first testament, they who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

It is the very death of Christ that enables us to receive our eternal inheritance. Some think that διὰτοῦτο refers to something that has been said and then point to this or to that preceding clause. The phrase faces forward: “Because of this is he Mediator of a new testament,” namely this that the called may now receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. The whole statement is a unit, the whole of it turns on the idea of a testament and takes up and advances what has been presented in 8:6–13. We construe: διὰτοῦτο … ὃπως … λάβωσινκτλ. The preceding verses contain nothing that would lead us to think of a testament; the writer himself presents this new and additional thought and views the bloody death of Christ from this angle, which is so important for his readers because a dead Messiah was beginning to appear like no Messiah to them.

The answer to them is that without his death he would be no Messiah. His death is necessary. No death, no testament in force!

We ask the reader to turn to 8:6 and to all that we have there said on Christ as the “Mediator” of the better testament which is now called “new,” namely the old Abrahamitic testament in the newness which Christ gave it. The abolished testament, which is here called “the first,” is that which was brought down from the Mount by Moses 430 years after Abraham; under this Mosaic testament Israel failed to inherit. This testament promised Canaan, but Israel lost it forever because of transgressions. In what way Christ is the “Mediator” of this renewed Abrahamitic and thus “new” testament, which is so much better than the one Moses brought, is stated in the genitive absolute: “a death having occurred for ransoming from the transgressions at the time of the first testament.” Christ’s death made him “Mediator of a new testament.” The mediation consisted in this, that his death put the testament in force; it was the medium for that. After he had died, the testamentary inheritance could be paid out to the heirs. The genitive absolute has causal force: “since his death occurred” (historical aorist).

This was not an ordinary death as we have seen in connection with v. 12 and elsewhere in this epistle. Christ did not merely die of this or of that, in an ordinary way. This was an expiatory death for the object (εἰς) of ransoming (ἀπολύτρωσις) from the transgressions (objective genitive) at the time (ἐπί, temporal, B.-P. 447, item 2) of the first testament. We have the same objective genitive in καθαρισμὸντῶνἁμαρτιῶν, “cleansing from the sins” (1:3). On ransoming note what is said about λύτρωσις in v. 12.

Christ’s death put the testament in force because his death paid the full and complete ransom. It canceled even all the sins that had been committed by Israel in the past, the very sins which lost Israel the Mosaic testamentary promises and its land of Canaan. These old transgressions, which accumulated throughout the entire period of the Mosaic testament, are mentioned because the two testaments and the two kinds of death and of blood are contrasted. There is no thought of limiting the sins for which Christ died. The writer is addressing former Jews and is indicating to them what the Mosaic testament failed to accomplish for them, and what the new testament and its Mediator did accomplish for them.

Much of the exposition of 8:6–13 applies also here, in particular what we have said on v. 12, as to how during the period of the old testament the true believers were saved from their sins. The Old Testament believers were saved by means of the Abrahamitic testament and by means of all that was typical of Christ in the Mosaic testament; but, of course, only on the strength of this death of Christ, which had to occur in the fulness of time as it did occur. The Mosaic testament and all its law came in “because of transgression” (Gal. 3:19) in order the more to drive Israel to the promise that had been given to Abraham in the testament and had been conserved in all the types of Christ in the ceremonial features of the Mosaic testament.

The entire past, the entire present, the entire future thus rest on the death that occurred on Calvary, on the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Rev. 13:8. The Messiah who died is the absolute necessity no matter in which direction we look. Without him as “Mediator of a new testament” all that God gave to Abraham and then to Moses and Israel would be a hollow mockery. Without him there would be no “eternal inheritance,” no people called to receive it. Absolutely everything hinges on this Mediator and the mediation of his bloody, sacrificial, expiatory death.

“Because of this is he Mediator, etc., that they who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance,” may indeed and in fact receive it (not “might,” A. V.). The aorist denotes actuality and does not refer to a certain time; it applies to all time. The perfect tense οἱκεκλημένοι, “those having been called,” denotes state, an enduring condition and no more. It, too, applies to all time; it should not be dated in the past and referred only to the Israelites who were called during past ages. Nor does the writer intend to say that those who were called in past ages shall now receive the eternal inheritance; that they have been dead for a long time and have been without the inheritance during that entire time. The tenses will not permit this interpretation.

“The promise of the eternal inheritance” is the actual fulfillment, the substance promised. The genitive is appositional: the inheritance is the thing promised, i.e., “the good things” mentioned in v. 11. The writer uses “eternal” three times and in a way that is marked: “eternal ransoming” obtained by Christ (v. 12), “by means of (his) eternal spirit” (v. 14), we are to receive “the promise of the eternal inheritance.” This is intentional on the part of the writer and should not be regarded as an accidental use of the same word “eternal.”

The call is always extended by God’s gospel grace, and throughout the epistles, whether it is expressed by a noun, a verb, a participle, or a verbal adjective, the writers invariably have in mind the successful call. The perfect participle here describes the called as being in an enduring state. They are the heirs named in the testament. Whether they lived in the past, are living now, or shall live in future ages is not indicated by the tense. One by one, as they leave this life, they receive the eternal inheritance of which the call makes them the heirs. In this life they have the earnest or pledge of their inheritance, namely the Holy Spirit of the promise (Eph. 1:13, 14), and thus taste of the powers of the world to come already in this life (Heb. 6:5), and then, if they remain true to their call by faith, at death receive the inheritance in heaven. Note how “testament” and “inheritance” correspond.

16, 17) The writer puts into v. 15 all the terms and modifications that are necessary to express his full thought; yet his main point is the necessity of the Messiah’s death since his readers are objecting to a Messiah who died as Jesus did (1 Cor. 1:18, 23). This necessity the writer proves from the very nature of a testament, which comes into force only upon the testator’s death. Thus already in v. 15 we have: testament—a death having occurred—the inheritance is received.

For where (there is) a testament (there is the) necessity that the testator’s death be brought in (muss notwendigerweise beigebracht werden). For a testament is in force (only) in case of dead persons, since it is not ever in effect when the testator is (still) living.

These propositions are entirely general and are true to this day. This explains the absence of the copula in the two statements, the present tenses φέρεσθαι and ἰσχύει, and the generalizing plural “in case of dead persons.” No testament is in force until the testator is dead, as far as paying out or turning over the inheritance is concerned.

The reading τότε in place of ποτέ is a copyist’s error, who omitted one of the downward strokes of the letter π. R. 1159 thinks μήποτε may indicate a question; B.-D. 428, 5 thinks it does; our R. V. translates so simply because μή and not οὐ is used with an indicative. The fact is that the use of μή is considerably extended in the Koine; see Moulton, Einleitung, 270, especially note 3 which cites all manner of examples, among them a papyrus which has ἐπεὶμή and the indicative, which is not a question. The verb φέρεσθαι is a technical or a legal expression: a death must be brought in to put a testament into effect.

As far as Christ’s being the testator is concerned, there is no difficulty whatever when we remember 1:2, where he is called the Heir of all things, the Heir promised to Abraham, the owner of all the good things (v. 11) of the whole inheritance. We thus inherit only from him. He is thus the testator as far as we are concerned, and the testament is his which names the called as the heirs. It is thus that we are joint heirs with him (Rom. 8:17). His death makes the inheritance accessible to all who are his heirs, and does that irrespective of time.

Some advance the idea that διαθήκη means “covenant” or at least a “disposition” which one makes of his own accord. But neither a “covenant” nor a “disposition” of property calls for the death of the author; but if either is made contingent on the author’s death, then it would eo ipso be a testament. We cannot translate the word διαθήκη “testament” in these two verses when we translate the same word “covenant” elsewhere. For the writer would then be playing with a double meaning and would thereby destroy all real proof and all pertinency of what he is saying. Our inheritance does not rest on a play of words. see 7:22 on διαθήκη.

It becomes still clearer here why Christ is called “Mediator” of a testament. God made him the Heir, and thus through him alone who owns everything, through him and through his death as the testator, do we inherit as heirs. Although all comes from God, none of it reaches us save through Christ who serves as the medium (Mediator), the middle link, the testator for us, whose death gives to us, his heirs, the great eternal inheritance. Nevertheless, testament, testator, inheritance, present only one side of the vast matter, and it is misleading to press these human terms, which convey the divine facts, so that these facts become blurred and distorted. The human testator dies and remains dead, his property is conveyed to heirs who in turn die, successive generations of heirs step into the shoes of their predecessors. Our Mediator-Testator died and thereby made us heirs; yet he lives and makes us joint heirs with him, heirs who never die so that their inheritance might be lost to them. The word “eternal,” which is used in v. 12, 14, 15, is not repeated and emphasized for naught.

Hebrews 9:18

18 A new light is thus cast upon the Mosaic testament itself, transient though it was, and upon so many of its features, a light that is most significant for the readers who are inclined to find fault with the death and the blood of Christ. The Mosaic testament was itself inaugurated with the death and the blood of sacrificial victims.

Hence neither has the first (testament) been inaugurated without blood. For when every commandment was uttered according to the Law by Moses to all the people, having taken the blood of the calves and of the goats together with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, he sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying: This (is) the blood of the testament which God designed for you. Moreover, also the Tabernacle and all the utensils for the official service he likewise sprinkled with blood.

Since there was so much use of blood in connection with the Mosaic testament and all that pertained to that testament, how can any of the readers find fault with Christ’s death and blood in connection with the new testament? They should do the very opposite: appreciate the fact that Christ’s death and blood are infinitely more precious than all the Mosaic sacrifices.

What God gave to Israel by the hand of Moses can also be called a διαθήκη or “testament.” The writer calls it so here in the sense explained in 7:22. But we should not say that the first or Mosaic testament “has been dedicated” (our versions). This Greek verb is used in that sense but also in the sense of bringing in something new, and here it means “has been inaugurated,” and the perfect tense indicates the enduring condition which the blood effected for the testament. By that blood the Mosaic testament was put in force just as Christ’s blood put in force the new testament.

When the writer now uses “blood” whereas in v. 16 he speaks of the testator’s “death” as a necessity for putting a testament in force, this does not mean that “blood” and “death” are only equivalents to the writer, “blood” being a figurative term for “death.” An ordinary testament calls for a death, but not necessarily a bloody death or blood. We should understand that, whereas the writer uses the idea of διαθήκη or “testament” and its connection with death, he and his readers are well aware of the fact that the testaments discussed here go beyond ordinary human testaments with their necessity of human death, that these divine testaments require death indeed, but, being what they are, a sacrificial death, a death that yields sacrificial blood. It is thus that the writer now says “inaugurated with blood.” The fact that all this blood entails the death of slain sacrificial victims is understood. These victims foreshadowed Christ and his blood, and they and he thus reflect in a higher way what even a human testament must have, an eventual death.

Hebrews 9:19

19 Γάρ specifies and states the facts; it refers to Exod. 24:1–8 but goes beyond this. Some think only of a dedicatory ritual such as we use when we dedicate a church; but the writer is describing how God inaugurated that first testament with blood; from its very beginning the whole testament operated with sacrificial blood. “When every commandment was uttered by Moses to all the people” = when the whole testament of law was given to Israel, the sacrifices of blood were added in order to put that testament and all that pertained to its provisions in force. All that the Mosaic testament offered was mediated by blood.

The phrase κατὰτὸννόμον appears again in v. 22. It is commonly connected with the participle: “having according to the Law uttered” every commandment, but the phrase then seems superfluous. Did the Law demand this utterance? We thus ask whether these two phrases do not mean: “according to the Law or Torah,” i.e., “as the record in the Torah shows”? This rendering makes the phrase parenthetical in both verses. What the writer states about blood is, he says, “in accord with the Torah”; it is Moses’ own record and not merely the writer’s idea.

Exodus 24 mentions no goats nor the circumstance that water, scarlet wool, and hyssop were used, nor that “the book of the testament” was itself sprinkled with blood. As far as goats are concerned, these may, perhaps, be included in the “burnt offerings” mentioned in Exod. 24:5, in which goats would likely be included. When sprinkling with blood was performed, the water diluted the blood and made a sufficient quantity; and a hyssop (wild marjoram) stalk, which was wound around with scarlet wool to act as a sponge, would be used as passages like Lev. 14:4, 6, 49, 51, 52, etc., indicate. Κόκκινος, “scarlet,” is derived from κόκκος, the scarlet berry that was used for making dye (coccus ilicis), B.-P. 689. The circumstance that the blood was sprinkled on “the book” is not stated in Exod. 24 but may, nevertheless, well be the fact; since it was a book that had been made and written by human hands it, too, would need the cleansing of blood.

Hebrews 9:20

20 Moses accompanied the sprinkling with blood with the significant words: “This (is) the blood of the testament which God designed for you.” The Torah itself speaks of “the blood of the testament.” Since this is the author’s point in quoting Exod. 24:8, the slight changes in the wording and the abbreviation are perfectly justifiable; it would, therefore, be unfair to charge the writer with a faulty memory.

Hebrews 9:21

21 Δέ = moreover and cites the sprinkling of blood also on the Tabernacle and on all the sacred vessels or utensils that were used for the official priestly service. This happened later than the event that is recorded in v. 19, 20; it is mentioned in Exod. 40, where, however, only “oil” and not blood is referred to. Josephus, Ant. 3, 8, 6, retells Exod. 40 and, like our writer, says: “The same (namely purify) he did to the Tabernacle and the vessels thereto belonging, both with oil first incensed, as I said, and with the blood of bulls and of rams, slain day by day one according to its kind.” The sprinkling of the Tabernacle with blood appears as a correct Jewish tradition, and is thus freely used by our writer.

Hebrews 9:22

22 And almost all things are cleansed in connection with blood according to the Law, i. e., to go by what the Torah says (as in v. 19); and apart from blood-shedding there occurs no remission.

To such a degree, the Torah itself says, blood is used for cleansing that it extends to almost all things that are cleansed. The adverb σχεδόν is to be construed only with πάντα as the A. V. rightly translates. The R. V. has the adverb modify both sentences and translates this simple little word: “I may almost say,” as though it has all the emphasis. What the writer says is that just about all of the Old Testament cleansings are ἐναἵματι, “in connection with blood”; almost always blood is used in one way or in another; and when it comes to remitting of sins, there is no remission “apart from blood-shedding,” χωρὶςαἱματεκχυσίας, there is no exception at all here.

The two statements, the first positive, the second negative, hinge on the phrases “in connection with blood” (ἐν) and “apart from blood-shedding” (χωρίς). Yet the first is broader, for it refers to πάντα, “all things,” even as the writer has referred to certain things like the book of the testament, the Tabernacle, and its various utensils. These things and the people, too, were rendered ceremonially clean, but even that required the use of blood.

The ἄφεσις is even more; it is not intended for things but for persons. Although it is used here in an unmodified form it, nevertheless, means the remission of sins, literally, “the sending away.” The thought is that expressed in 8:12. To send away the sins from a sinner as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103:12), to the bottom of the sea (Micah 7:19), thus blotting out the sins even from memory (Isa. 43:25) as a cloud is blotted out (Isa. 44:22) and vanishes, this absolutely requires “blood-shedding,” a word that is found nowhere else and is apparently the writer’s own coinage.

This “remission” is the greatest cleansing of all. Nothing clings and sticks so frightfully close to the sinner as his sin, guilt, and just punishment. Blood, shed in substitution for him, this alone is able to free him. 1 John 1:7. In fact, only the blood of Christ so shed effects remission, all the blood of the Mosaic testament is only typical of Christ’s blood and thus by divine arrangement draws its power to cleanse away sin from his holy, precious, all-sufficient blood.

Our passage has been extensively used against the supposed “unbloody” sacrifice which the Romish priest offers in the Mass. But no unbloody sacrifice is able to remove sins. The fact that the remission requires the application of the expiatory blood to the individual sinner by contrition and faith need not be developed at this point.

The great point is the truth that a Messiah who died, who shed his blood is the only possible Messiah; his blood, which is infinitely more precious, valuable, expiatory than all the other blood of Moses’ testament, the readers ought to prize and not turn from as an offense. Was that old testament not inaugurated with blood? Does the Torah not tell all about it? Is every testament not put in force by the testator’s death? Well, then, so Christ died, so he shed his blood, so this new testament in his blood (Matt. 26:28) is inaugurated as a testament, indeed, in all its features and especially in its blood, the completion of which was foreshadowed in the Mosaic testament with all its animal blood.

Some commentators find an exception to the requirement of blood for remission in Lev. 5:11–13. This leads some to ignore the difference between cleansing things (πάντα) and cleansing persons and the fact that only the latter require “remission.” So they construe “almost” with the second clause, but this is unwarranted since this second clause is negative. Leviticus 5 presents no exception; it corroborates the fact that blood is needed for remission, for this passage permits only the very poor person, who is unable to provide the blood of even two cheap doves, to substitute a bit of flour and oil. Leviticus 5 allows the substitute only as a substitute for blood and thereby maintains the necessity of blood.

Hebrews 9:23

23 This necessity and this use of blood and sacrificial blood-shedding are found on earth, for Moses’ Tabernacle and everything that was connected with it, including the people of Israel who worshipped at this Tabernacle, are on earth, and (most important of all) there is no remission of sins for any of them without blood. And this necessity of blood extends even to heaven. The readers would, indeed, be blind to see all this blood connected with the Tabernacle which God himself ordered Moses to construct and yet not to see that this Tabernacle and all its blood are the copy of the heavenly Sanctuary, which they could not be if that heavenly Sanctuary required no blood. Nay, they require blood, far better blood, that of Christ himself. To take offense at his bloody death would be fatal indeed.

There is then necessity on the one hand that the copies of the things in the heavens be cleansed by these means, on the other hand the heavenly things themselves with sacrifices better than these.

Μέν and δέ balance the two matters about which the necessity is asserted. We unfortunately have no neat particles like these and thus use the heavy phrases “on the one hand—on the other.” Our writer uses οὖν with a force that is little more than transitional. So he passes on to the new statement, which, although it rests on what precedes, is not a deduction from it. This is not a Pauline οὖν. It simply takes us a step farther.

Since these earthly things are copies of heavenly originals, it lies on the surface that they must reflect the heavenly originals in this most important matter of blood. Being only copies in earthly material and therefore inferior, mere earthly blood may serve for them; but certainly, since blood is so essential for these copies as the Torah itself says, the heavenly originals not only cannot be without blood they must, in fact, have far better blood even as they also actually have, Christ’s “own blood” (v. 12) which needs to be shed but once.

The statement is cast in a general form. Ὑποδείγματα (the singular is used in 8:5) are adumbrations, sketches, we may say “copies.” The necessity of the copies is such only because of the originals. The necessity lies in the fact that sanctification takes place “by these means” (τούτοις), the use of blood as described in v. 19–22. God ordered blood for the copies, his own Torah or Law says so; regarding that there can be no question in the minds of the readers.

We can say what causes the necessity of blood sacrifices: it is sin, the defilement of which must be removed, the means being sacrificial blood, nothing less. This necessity of blood could not exist for “the copies of the things in the heavens” if it does not exist for “the heavenly things themselves.” And this means that the heavenly things must have “better sacrifices than these” (i.e., than these sacrifices) which serve for the inferior earthly copies. “Better sacrifices” is plural only because the statement is general in form; in reality the heavenly Sanctuary, of which the Tabernacle is only a copy, needs only the one sacrifice of Christ.

The entire cleansing power of “sacrifices” lies in the blood so that the writer now uses this word “sacrifices” whereas in v. 19–22 he uses blood; note “his sacrifice” in v. 26. The explanation that the Tabernacle and its furnishings were made by human hands and thus needed cleansing is not satisfactory, for the Sanctuary in heaven is not made by sinful human hands (v. 11, 24) and yet needs even better sacrificial blood than the earthly copy. Because both the copy and the original are to serve sinners they require blood. The cleansing does not remove defilement from the sanctuaries themselves. This is too apparent in the case of the heavenly Sanctuary; the blood-cleansing of these sanctuaries enables them to serve sinners without thereby becoming defiled. Thus blood is necessary for both the earthly and the heavenly.

The very term Hagia (used again in v. 24) indicates this. When the readers see blood and sacrifice in the earthly Tabernacle as a divine necessity they must not find fault when they see Christ on the cross, which is a sacrifice that has far better blood and makes the true expiation for us in the heavenly Hagia.

Hebrews 9:24

24 Since sacrificial blood is a necessity for both earthly and heavenly sanctuaries and a better sacrifice for the latter, γάρ starts to say what this means in regard to Christ. For Christ did not enter into a handmade sanctuary, a (mere) type of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God in our behalf.

Let the readers think as highly as they wish about the sanctuary, the Hagia, which God ordered Moses to build; it is only “handmade,” made by men out of earthly material, “of this creation”; only ἀντίτυπα (plural to match the plural ἅγια), mere type of the true Hagia (“the true Tabernacle,” 8:2). Not into this mere copy did Christ enter but into the very original of which this handmade Hagia was the copy, “into heaven itself,” to do there what could not be done, save only in a typical way, in the earthly Tabernacle, namely “to appear (actually) before the face of God in our behalf.” All appearing in the copy, in the handmade sanctuary, could not be final although it was accompanied by ever so much sacrificial blood that was applied all around in all manner of ways even by God’s own order (v. 19–22). Enough had been done on the part of all the Jewish high priests when they entered this handmade type-sanctuary. Christ did not repeat what the high priests had done sufficiently.

Christ entered into τὰἀληθινά, “the true Hagia,” into “heaven itself.” What was prefigured by the earthly copy had finally to be done in the heavenly original. For this reason God had given the copy, and without this the copy and all that was done in it would have been no copy but mere deception and pretense. The writer calls the genuine, original Sanctuary “heaven itself.” This does not seem to agree with those who assume the existence of two heavens, an inner one for God’s actual presence, which is like the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle, and an outer one for the saints and the angels, which is like the Holy Place in the Tabernacle. The writer does not make such a division as has already been discussed under v. 11.

Into heaven itself Christ entered, “now to appear before the face of God in our behalf.” See v. 11, 12; also 4:14 and 6:20. Only this much is said here, more will follow regarding what Jesus did when he appeared before the very face of God in heaven itself. The passive of the verb is used in the sense of “to appear” and is construed with the dative. The aorist tense denotes actuality and no more. There are no clocks and no calendars in heaven, no time but only timelessness, therefore the adverb “now” refers only to the actuality that is expressed by the aorist. This aorist is not constative. Our minds are tied to ideas of time; and we should respect this our mental limitation and from our ideas of time not draw conclusions regarding heaven and Christ’s heavenly acts.

Hebrews 9:25

25 Οὐ and now οὐδέ: Christ did “not … nor,” etc. Christ did not enter into a mere earthly sanctuary; nor (did he enter heaven) in order to be offering himself often like as the high priest enters into the sanctuary year by year in connection with blood not his own, since (then) it would have been necessary that he suffer often from the foundation of the world on, but now once, at the consummation of the eons, he has appeared for putting away sin by means of his sacrifice.

Not into an earthly sanctuary did Christ enter; nor into the heavenly one for an oft-repeated sacrifice of blood. Despite Christ’s correspondence to the earthly high priests this double difference appears; it must appear, otherwise even the earthly sanctuary and the acts of the Jewish high priests would have no meaning. The readers would be absurd if they demanded in the case of the heavenly act of Jesus the constant repetition they see in the case of the earthly high priests.

No; Jesus entered to offer “himself,” which is a sacrifice that cannot be offered “often.” The Jewish high priest entered “year by year” (distributive κατά), coming, as he did, “in connection with (ἐν) blood not his own,” blood that was taken from other victims and already for this reason needed the constant repetition not to mention still other reasons that have been already indicated.

Hebrews 9:26

26 If any reader has the idea that Christ, too, should keep repeating his sacrifice of himself because the Jewish high priests did this, and that unless Christ made such a repetition he would not be the true High Priest, such an objector receives this answer: then from the foundation of the world onward, through all the past ages of the world, it would have been necessary for Christ to suffer again and again and never get through with such repetition, never get the real expiation completed.

Ἐπεί is a condensed, elliptical protasis like our word “else” or “otherwise.” But it is a condition of reality and may thus be followed in the apodosis by any tense. This means that we do not regard the imperfect ἔδει as expressing unreality with ἄν omitted as R. 965 does or as “practically” such an apodosis (R. 920). This is the imperfect which the Greek uses to express present necessity, obligation, etc., which allows the reader to infer that it has not been met. This construction seems awkward only to the English and the German mind which do not have this idiom and thus use a condition of reality as R. 919, etc., properly explains. Our versions succeed quite well in conserving the Greek idiom in the English translation. See also B.-D. 358, 1, who indicates how the German renders this idiom.

A silent implication is involved in saying that Christ is then under obligation to have repeated his suffering “from the foundation of the world on,” namely the implication that his suffering, now that he has endured it, affects all men who existed since the beginning of the world. The universality of Christ’s expiation underlies all that is said in this epistle about Christ’s death for the Jews. We note, too, how the writer varies his terms: blood—death—sacrifice—and now suffer. They are the same in substance, but by varying the terms the author keeps all the angles of the substance before his readers. So the writer does not here say that Jesus should then have entered heaven often, should have shed his blood, should have died, should have offered his sacrifice often, but should have suffered often (παθεῖν, aorist, effective). If one cares to pursue this thought farther he might add that Jesus would then also have had to have been incarnate often, betrayed often, etc., etc., the whole of which is absurd.

The clear, sane fact is: “but now once, at the consummation (or end) of the eons, he has appeared for putting away sin by means of his sacrifice.” This “once” is the “once for all” stated in v. 12 (7:27; 10:10), which is now even dated: “at (ἐπί, at the time of; cf., v. 15, 17) the consummation of the eons,” i.e., at the time when all the past ages of the world have come to their joint goal, the great goal to which God intended them to come, namely this great new testament time (8:8–12). “Now,” at this time, Christ “has appeared” here on earth (the perfect covers the whole time that he was here) and has suffered to accomplish his great object (εἰς), namely “putting away (the same word is used in 7:18) of sin by means of his sacrifice.” Our versions translate as though αὐτοῦ were αὑτοῦ, the reflexive: “the sacrifice of himself,” but it is merely “his,” the simple pronoun which is emphatic only because of the contrast with v. 25, the high priest’s coming with blood that is not his own. Since this object has been attained by this great and all-sufficient means, the idea of a repetition is impossible.

Hebrews 9:27

27 By the way in which the writer pursues the subject, this “once” that excludes even the thought of repetition, he seems to indicate that the readers made an issue of it and preferred the annual expiation of the Jewish high priests to this one expiation of Christ. So once more (καί) and from another angle the one sacrifice of Christ is illumined. And in accord with the way it is reserved for men to die (but) once and after that judgment, so also Christ, offered once to bear the sins of many, shall be seen a second time apart from sin by those expecting him for salvation.

Καθʼ ὅσον is not causal (R. 963), does not = “inasmuch” (R. V.), which seems to be regarded as causal. The fact that men die once is not the cause of what Christ did. The phrase expresses only correspondence: in harmony with the way in which it happens in the case of men generally, so it happened in the case of Christ. It is laid away or reserved for them to die but once, and after that each receives judgment, κρίσις, the pronouncement of a verdict by the heavenly Judge. After life is done, there is no living it over again a few more times; what awaits each one at death is God’s verdict, either acquittal or condemnation; κρίσις is a vox media.

To say that this pronouncement of judgment comes only at the time of the final judgment at the end of the world contradicts Scripture. No one needs to wait until the last day to know God’s verdict; he receives it at the instant of death. Death also at once places his soul into either heaven or hell; the verdict is executed at once. To think of anything else erases the correspondence with Christ’s death, for he does not wait until the last day to learn God’s judgment regarding his sacrifice. There is no Totenreich where the souls of the dead lie inert, in a shadowy existence until the last day; there is no probation after death although some would insert it here: “to die but once, and (after a probation when necessary) after that judgment.”

Hebrews 9:28

28 Could it be different in the case of Christ? Would he have to die over and over again, repeat his sacrifice ever anew? Yes, endless repetition is in place in the case of the Jewish high priests who never offer themselves, who come only with blood of animals, who are mere types and copies like their sanctuary, etc. “Christ, offered once to bear (aorist to express actuality) the sins of many,” by his death accomplished everything, “obtaining eternal ransoming” (v. 12). The idea of a repetition is impossible just as is the idea that men should die again and again in order to attain judgment from God.

The passive participle προσενεχθείς is only a variation for saying, “having offered himself,” and holds fast to the truth that Christ was himself offered in his death. We have the clear statement that Christ “bore the sins of many,” which runs through so many passages: Matt. 26:28; John 1:29; 1 Pet. 2:24; 1 John 3:5, to mention only these. “The sins of many” is not a limited atonement, not a contradiction of all the passages that speak of a universal atonement such as 2 Cor. 5:14, 15: “If one died for all, then all died. And he died for all.” “Many” is in contrast only with the One who bore the sins. The writer may well be thinking of “many” as a reference to Israel, for he is dealing with former Jews. Christ accomplished this purpose: he bore “sins of many,” i.e., the entire penalty for their guilt; in this way the “putting away of sin” (v. 26) was achieved.

Instead of making the statement about Christ a mechanical parallel to the one about men the writer does far more. Men die once; but Christ did not merely die, he was offered, was made a sacrifice so as to bear the sins of many; that was the manner in which he died. At death men get the judgment that is due them, but Christ did not get merely such a judgment; the writer says vastly more: Christ “shall be seen a second time (ἐκ idiomatic) apart from sin by those earnestly expecting him for salvation,” the same beautiful word that is used in Rom. 8:19, 23, 25: ἀπό plus ἐκ plus δέχομαι, the second preposition making the verb mean “to wait it out” (Thayer), i.e., to keep waiting until the expected actually appears. “A second time” refers to Christ’s Parousia when all those who are expecting him shall be raised from the dead or shall be transformed (1 Cor. 15:51, 52; 1 Thess. 4:17), when “salvation” shall be forever complete.

We retain the passive “shall be seen” with the agent in the dative although we may translate “shall appear to those expecting him.” This, we may say, shows the judgment which Christ received for shedding his blood in death as the saving sacrifice for us all. “Apart from sin” refers to the sin for which Christ was offered, which is put away entirely by his sacrifice. After he is done with this sin of many, has removed it forever, Christ shall be seen by those who are expecting him.

The idea of Christ’s ever repeating his sacrifice is absolutely excluded by the incomparable nature of the blood which he shed for us. Yes, he shall be seen here on earth once more, but only as the glorious Giver of the eternal salvation which the one shedding of his blood obtained for us.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, 4th ed.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. D. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

• One of my students collected and studied all the passages that treat of the blood. It is most illuminating to read all that the Scriptures say in regard to Christ’s blood (and death). Our devotional and our confessional literature is filled with statements regarding Christ’s blood. Many hymns in particular mention the blood; this student also collected all the pertinent hymn lines. The “blood theology” is the faith of the church and will ever be.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.