Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadInternational Critical Commentary NT - Hebrews 9:1 - 9:99
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1 The first covenant had indeed its regulations for worship and a material sanctuary. 2 A tent was set up (κτσεάωas in 3:3), the outer tent, containing the lampstand, the table, and the loaves of the Presence; this is called the Holy place. 3 But behind (μτ only here in NT of place) the second veil was the tent called the Holy of Holies, 4 containing the golden altar of incense, and also the ark of the covenant covered all over with gold, which held the golden pot of manna, the rod of Aaron that once blossomed, and the tablets of the covenant; 5 above this were the cherubim of the Glory overshadowing the mercy-seat—matters which (i.e. all in 2-5) it is impossible for me to discuss at present in detail.
The κιὴδαήηof 8:7-13 had been realized by the arrival of Christ (9:11); hence the older δαήηwas superseded, and the writer speaks of it in the past tense, εχ. As for ἡπώη(sc. δαήη of which he has been just speaking (8:13), the antithesis of the entire passage is between ἡπώηδαήη(vv. 1-10) and ἡκιὴδαήη(vv. 11-22), as is explicitly stated in v. 15. The κί(om. B 38 206*. 216*. 489 547 1739 1827 boh pesh Origen) before ἡπώηemphasizes the fact that the old had this in common with the new, viz. worship and a sanctuary. This is, of course, out of keeping with the Jeremianic oracle of the new δαήη which does not contemplate any such provision, but the writer takes a special view of δαήηwhich involves a celestial counterpart to the ritual provisions of the old order.
The former δαήη then, embraced δκιμτ, i.e. regulations, as in Luk_1:6 and 1 Mac 2:21, 22 (ἵεςἡῖ κτλίεννμνκὶδκιμτ τννμντῦβσλω οκἀοσμθ, πρλεντνλτίνἡῶ), rather than rights or privileges (as, e.g., OP. 1119:15 τνἐαρτντςἡεέα πτίο δκιμτν arrangements for the cultus. Λτεα grammatically might be accusative plural (as in v. 6), but is probably the genitive, after δκιμτ, which it defines. Λτεαor (as spelt in W) λτί (cp. Thackeray, 87) is the cultus (Rom_9:4), or any specific part of it (Exo_12:25, Exo_12:27). The close connexion between worship and a sanctuary (already in 8:2, 3) leads to the addition of τ τ (as in 1:3, 6:5) ἅινκσιό. By τ ἅινthe author means the entire sanctuary (so, e.g., Exo_36:3, Num_3:38), not the innermost sacred shrine or ἅι ἅιν This is clear. What is not so clear is the meaning of κσιό, and the meaning of its position after the noun without an article. Primarily κσιό here as in Tit_2:12 (τςκσιὰ ἐιυίς is an equivalent for ἐὶγς(8:3), i.e. mundane or material, as opposed to ἐορνο or ο τύη τςκίες(v. 11). A fair parallel to this occurs in Test. Jos_17:8, δὰτνκσιή μυδξν But did our author use it with a further suggestion? It would have been quite irrelevant to his purpose to suggest the “public” aspect of the sanctuary, although Jews like Philo and Josephus might speak of the temple as κσιό in this sense, i.e. in contrast to synagogues and ποεχί which were of local importance (Philo, ad Caium. 1019), or simply as a place of public worship (e.g. Jos. Bell. iv. 5, 2, τςκσιῆ θηκίςκτροτς ποκνυέοςτ τῖ ἐ τςοκυέη πρβλοσνεςτνπλν Neither would our author have called the sanctuary κσιό as symbolic of the κσο, though Philo (Vit. Mosis, iii. 3-10) and Josephus (Ant. iii. 6, 4, iii. 7, 7, ἕατ γρτύω εςἀοίηι κὶδαύωι τνὅω) also play with this fancy. He views the sanctuary as a dim representation of the divine sanctuary, not of the universe. Yet he might have employed κσιό in a similar sense, if we interpret the obscure phrase μσήινκσιὸ ἐκηίςin Did. 11:11 (see the notes of Dr. C. Taylor and Dr. Rendel Harris in their editions) as a spiritual or heavenly idea, “depicted in the world of sense by emblematic actions or material objects,” “a symbol or action wrought upon the stage of this world to illustrate what was doing or to be done on a higher plane.” Thus, in the context of the Didache, marriage would be a μσήινκσιό (cp. Eph_5:32) of the spiritual relation between Christ and his church. This early Christian usage may have determined the choice of κσιό here, the sanctuary being κσιό because it is the material representation or parabolic outward expression of the true, heavenly sanctuary. But at best it is a secondary suggestion; unless κσιό could be taken as “ornamented,” the controlling idea is that the sanctuary and its ritual were external and material (δκιμτ σρὸ, χιοοήο, χιοοηα The very position of κσιό denotes, as often in Greek, a stress such as might be conveyed in English by “a sanctuary, material indeed.”
The ἅινis now described (v. 2f.), after Ex 25-26. It consisted of two parts, each called a σηή The large outer tent, the first (ἡπώη to be entered, was called Ἅι (neut. plur., not fem. sing.). The phrase, ἥι λγτιἍι1 would have been in a better position immediately after ἡπώη where, indeed, Chrysostom (followed by Blass) reads it, instead of after the list of the furniture. The lampstand stood in front (to the south) of the sacred table on which twelve loaves or cakes of wheaten flour were piled (ἡπόει τνἄτν= ο ἄτιτςποέες the Hebrew counterpart of the well-known lectisternia: ἡτάεα…ἄτνis a hendiadys for “the table with its loaves of the Presence.” Such was the furniture of the outer σηή Then (vv. 3-5) follows a larger catalogue (cp. Joma 2:4) of what lay inside the inner shrine (ἅι ἁίν behind the curtain (Exo_27:16) which screened this from the outer tent, and which is called δύεο κτπτσα δύεο, because the first was a curtain hung at the entrance to the larger tent, and κτπτσα either because that is the term used in Exo_26:31f. (the particular passage the writer has in mind here), the term elsewhere being usually κλμαor ἐίπσρν(Exo_26:36 etc.), or because Philo had expressly distinguished the outer curtain as κλμα the inner as κτπτσα(de vita Mosis, iii. 9). This inner shrine contained (v. 4) χυονθμαήιν i.e. a wooden box, overlaid with gold, on which incense (θμαα was offered twice daily by the priests. The LXX calls this θσατρο τῦθμάαο (Exo_30:1-10), but our writer follows the usage of Philo, which is also, on the whole, that of Josephus, in calling it θμαήιν(so Symm. Theodotion, Exo_30:1, Exo_31:8); θμαήιν in the non-biblical papyri, denotes articles like censers in a sanctuary, but is never used in the LXX of levitical censers, though Josephus occasionally describes them thus, like the author of 4 Mac 7:11. The ordinary view was that this θμαήινstood beside the λχί and the sacred τάεαin the outer sanctuary. Both Philo (e.g. quis rer. div. 46, τινὄτνἐ τῖ ἁίι σεεν λχίς ταέη, θμαηίυ de vita Mos. iii. 9 f., in the outer tent, τ λιὰτί σεή…μσνμντ θμαήιν…τνδ λχίν…ἡδ τάεα and Josephus (Ant, iii. 6. 4 f.; cp. viii. 4, for the reproduction in Solomon’s temple) are quite explicit on this. Indeed no other position was possible for an altar which required daily service from the priests; inside the ἅι τνἁίνit would have been useless. But another tradition, which appears in the contemporary (Syriac) apocalypse of Baruch (6:7), placed the altar of incense1 inside the ἅι ἁίν a view reflected as early as the Samaritan text of the pentateuch, which put Exo_30:1-10 (the description of the altar of incense) after 26:35, where logically it ought to stand, inserting a לנ יו in Exo_40:27 (where the altar of incense is placed “before the veil”). The earliest hint of this tradition seems to be given in the Hebrew text of 1 K 6:22, where Solomon is said to have overlaid with gold “the altar that is by the oracle” (i.e. the ἅι ἁίν But our author could not have been influenced by this, for it is absent from the LXX text. His inaccuracy was rendered possible by the vague language of the pentateuch about the position of the altar of incense, ἀέατ τῦκτπτσαο τῦὄτςἐὶτςκβτῦτνμρυιν(Exo_30:6), where ἀέατ may mean “opposite” or “close in front of” the curtain—but on which side of it? In Exo_37 the τάεα the λχί, and the altar of incense are described successively after the items in the ἅι ἁίν but then the LXX did not contain the section on the altar of incense, so that this passage offered no clue to our writer. In Exo_40:5 it is merely put ἐατο τςκβτῦ This vagueness is due to the fact that in the original source the sketch of the σηήhad no altar of incense at all; the latter is a later accretion, hence the curious position of Exo_30:1-10 in a sort of appendix, and the ambiguity about its site.
After all it is only an antiquarian detail for our author. It has been suggested that he regarded the ἅι τνἁίν irrespective of the veil, as symbolizing the heavenly sanctuary, and that he therefore thought it must include the altar of incense as symbolizing the prayers of the saints. But there is no trace of such a symbolism elsewhere in the epistle; it is confined to the author of the Apocalypse (8:3f.). The suggestion that he meant ἔοσ to express only a close or ideal connexion between the inner shrine and the altar of incense, is popular (e.g. Delitzsch, Zahn, Peake, Seeberg) but quite unacceptable; ἔοσ as applied to the other items could not mean this,1 and what applies to them applies to the θμαήιν Besides, the point of the whole passage is to distinguish between the contents of the two compartments. Still less tenable is the idea that θμαήινreally means “censer” or “incense pan.” This way out of the difficulty was started very early (in the peshiṭ the vulgate), but a censer is far too minor a utensil to be included in this inventory; even the censer afterwards used on atonement-day did not belong to the ἅι τνἁίν neither was it golden. What the σηήhad was merely a brazier (πρῖν Lev_16:12). Since it is not possible that so important an object as the altar of incense could have been left out, we may assume without much hesitation that the writer did mean to describe it by θμαήιν and that the irregularity of placing it on the wrong side of the curtain is simply another of his inaccuracies in describing what he only knew from the text of the LXX. In B the slip is boldly corrected by the transference of (κὶ χυονθμαήινto v. 2, immediately after ἄτν(so Blass).
The second item is τνκβτντςδαήη covered with gold all over (πνοε: Philo’s phrase is ἔδθνκὶἔωε, de Ebriet. 21), a chest or box about 4 feet long and 2½feet broad and high (Exo_25:10f.), which held three sacred treasures, (a) the golden pot (σάνς Attic feminine) of manna (Exo_16:32-34); (b) Aaron’s rod ἡβατσσ (in the story of Num_17:1-11, which attested the sacerdotal monopoly of the clan of Levi); and (c) α πάε τςδαήη (Exo_25:16f. Exo_25:31:18), i.e. the two stone tablets on which the decalogue was written (πάα δαήη, Deu_9:9; ἐέαο τςπάα εςτνκβτν 10:5), the decalogue summarizing the terms of the δαήηfor the People. In adding χυῆto σάνςthe writer follows the later tradition of the LXX and of Philo (de congressu, 18); the pot is not golden in the Hebrew original. He also infers, as later Jewish tradition did, that the ark contained this pot, although, like Aaron’s rod, it simply lay in front of the ark (Exo_16:33, Exo_16:34, Num_17:10). He would gather from 1 K 8:9 that the ark contained the tablets of the covenant. He then (v. 5) mentions the χρυεν(Aramaic form) or χρυεμ(Hebrew form) δξς two small winged figures (Exo_25:18-20), whose pinions extended over a rectangular gold slab, called τ ἱατρο, laid on the top of the ark, which it fitted exactly. They are called cherubim Δξς which is like Μγλσνς(1:3, 8:1) a divine title, applied to Jesus in Jam_2:1, but here used as in Rom_9:4. The cherubim on the ἱατρο represented the divine Presence as accessible in mercy; the mystery of this is suggested by the couplet in Sir 49:8(10):
Ἰζκή, ὃ εδνὅαι Δξς
ἣ ὑέεξνατ ἐὶἅμτςχρυεμ
Philo’s account of τ ἱατρο is given in de vita Mosis, iii. 8, ἡδ κβτς…κχυωέηπλτλςἔδθντ κὶἔωε, ἧ ἐίεαὡαε πμ τ λγμννἐ ἱρῖ ββοςἱατρο …ὅε ἔιε ενισμοο φσκτρνμντςἵε τῦθο δνμω. Lower down, in the same paragraph, he speaks of τ ἐίεατ ποαοεόεο ἱατρο, and τ ἱατρο is similarly used in De Cherub. 8 (on the basis of Exo_25:19). The ἐίεαor covering of the ark was splashed with blood on atonement-day; perhaps, even apart from that, its Hebrew original meant “means of propitiation,” and was not incorrectly named ἱατρο (cp. Deissmann in EBi 3027-3035), but our author simply uses it in its LXX sense of “mercy-seat.” He does not enter into any details about its significance; in his scheme of sacrificial thought such a conception had no place. Philo also allegorizes the overshadowing wings of the cherubim as a symbol of God’s creative and royal powers protecting the cosmos, and explains Exo_25:22 as follows (Quaest. in Exo_25:22): τ μνονπρ τνκβτνκτ μρςερτι δῖδ σλήδνἄωε ἀααότ τῦγωία χρντνντῦάἐτ σμοαδεεθῖ·ἦ δ τῦασμοιά κβτςκὶτ ἐ ατ θσυιόεανμμ κὶἐὶτύη τ ἱατρο κὶτ ἐὶτῦἱατρο Χλαω γώτ λγμν χρυί, ὑὲ δ τύω κτ τ μσνφν κὶλγςκὶὑεάωὁλγνκλ But our author does not enter into any such details. He has no time for further discussion of the furniture, he observes; whether he would have allegorized these items of antiquarian ritual, if or when he had leisure, we cannot tell. The only one he does employ mystically is the κτπτσα(10:20), and his use of it is not particularly happy. He now breaks off, almost as Philo does (quis rer. div. 45, πλνδ ὄτ τνπρ ἑάτυλγνὑεθτο εσῦι) on the same subject. Κτ μρςis the ordinary literary phrase in this connexion (e.g. 2 Mac 2:30; Polybius, i. 67. 11, πρ ὧ οχοό τ δὰτςγαῆ τνκτ μρςἀοονιλγν and Poimandres [ed. Reitzenstein, p. 84] πρ ὧ ὁκτ μρςλγςἐτ πλς Οκἔτνas in 1Co_11:20.
Worship in a sanctuary like this shows that access to God was defective (vv. 6-8), as was inevitable when the sacrifices were external (vv. 8-10). Having first shown this, the writer gets back to the main line of his argument (8:2), viz. the sacrifice of Jesus as pre-eminent and final (v. 11f.).
6 Such were the arrangements for worship. The priests constantly enter the first tent (v. 2) in the discharge of their ritual duties, 7 but the second tent is entered only once a year by the highpriest alone—and it must not be without blood, which he presents on behalf of (cp. 5:3) himself and the errors of the People. 8 By this the holy Spirit means that the way into the Holiest Presence was not yet disclosed so long as the first tent 9 (which foreshadowed the present age) was still standing, with its offerings of gifts and sacrifices which cannot (μ as in 4:2) possibly make the conscience of the worshipper perfect, 10 since they relate (sc. οσι merely to food and drink and a variety of ablutions—outward regulations for the body, that only hold till the period of the New Order.
In v. 6; δὰπνό = continually, as in BM i. 42 6 (ii b.c.) ο ἐ οκ πνε συδαατςμεα πιύεο. Εσαι (which might even be the present with a futuristic sense, the writer placing himself and his readers back at the inauguration of the sanctuary: “Now, this being all ready, the priests will enter,” etc.) ἐιεονε (a regular sacerdotal or ritual term in Philo) λτεα (morning and evening, to trim the lamps and offer incense on the golden altar, Exo_27:21, Exo_30:7f. etc.; weekly, to change the bread of the Presence, Lev_24:8f., Jos. Ant. iii. 6, 6). The ritual of the inner shrine (v. 3) is now described (v. 7, cp. Joma 5:3); the place is entered by the highpriest ἅα τῦἐιυο, on the annual day of atonement (Lev_16:29, Lev_16:34, Exo_30:10): only once, and he must be alone (μνς Lev_16:17), this one individual out of all the priests. Even he dare not enter χρςαμτς(Lev_16:14f.), i.e. without carrying in blood from the sacrifice offered for his own and the nation’s ἀνηάω. In Gen_43:12 ἀνηαis “an oversight,” but in Jdg_5:20, Tob 3:3, 1 Mac 13:39, Sir 23:2 ἀνήααand “sins” are bracketed together (see above on 5:2), and the word occurs alone in Polyb. xxxviii. 1, 5. as an equivalent for “offences” or “errors” in the moral sense. There is no hint that people were not responsible for them, or that they were not serious; on the contrary, they had to be atoned for. Ὑέ κλ for a similarly loose construction cp. 1Jn_2:2 (ο πρ ἡεέω [ἁατῶ] δ μνν ἀλ κὶπρ ὅο τῦκσο).
Rabbi Ismael b. Elischa, the distinguished exegete of i-ii a.d., classified sins as follows (Tos. Joma 5:6): Transgressions of positive enactments were atoned for by repentance, involving a purpose of new obedience, according to Jer_22:23 (“Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backslidings”). The day of atonement, however, was necessary for the full pardon of offences against divine prohibitions: according to Lev_16:30 (“On that day shall the priest make atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins”). An offender whose wrongdoing deserved severe or capital punishment could only be restored by means of sufferings: according to Psa_89:32 (“Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes”). But desecration of the divine Name could not be atoned for by any of these three methods; death alone wiped out this sin (Jer_24:4).
The author now (v. 8) proceeds to find a spiritual significance in this ceremonial. Δλῦτςis used of a divine meaning as in 12:27, here conveyed by outward facts. In 1 P 1:11 the verb is again used of the Spirit, and this is the idea here; Josephus (Ant. iii. 7, 7, δλῖδ κὶτνἥινκὶτνσλνντνσρούω ἑάεο) uses the same verb for the mystic significance of the jewels worn by the highpriest, but our author’s interpretation of the significance of the σηήis naturally very different from that of Josephus, who regards the unapproachable character of the ἄυο or inner shrine as symbolizing heaven itself (Ant. iii. 6, 4 and 7, 7, ὃτῖ ἱρῦι ἦ ἄαο, ὡ ορνςἄετ τ θῷ…δὰτ κὶτνορννἀείαο ενιἀθώος For ὁό with gen. in sense of “way to,” cp. Gen_3:24 (τνὁὸ τῦξλυτςζῆ), Jdg_5:14 (εςὁὸ τῦΣν). Τνἁίνhere (like τ ἁί in vv. 12, 25, cp. 13:11) as in 10:19 means the very Presence of God, an archaic liturgical phrase suggested by the context. The word φνρῦθιwas not found by the writer in his text of the LXX; it only occurs in the LXX in Jer_40 (33):6, and the Latin phrase “iter patefieri” (e.g. Caesar, de Bello Gall. iii. i) is merely a verbal parallel. In τςπώη σηῆ ἐοσςσάι (v. 9), the writer has chosen σάι for the sake of assonance with ἐετκτ, but ἔενσάι is a good Greek phrase for “to be in existence.” The parenthesis ἥι1 πρβλ (here = τπς as Chrysostom saw) εςτνκιὸ τνἐετκτ means that the first σηήwas merely provisional, as it did no more than adumbrate the heavenly reality, and provisional ες(as in Act_4:3 εςτναρο) τνκιὸ τνἐετκτ, i.e. the period in which the writer and his readers lived, the period inaugurated by the advent of Jesus with his new δαήη This had meant the supersession of the older δαήηwith its sanctuary and δκιμτ, which only lasted μχικιο δοθσω. But, so long as they lasted, they were intended by God to foreshadow the permanent order of religion; they were, as the writer says later (v. 23), ὑοεγαατνἐ τῖ ορνῖ, mere copies but still copies. This is why he calls the fore-tent a πρβλ. For now, as he adds triumphantly, in a daring, imaginative expression, our ἀχεεςhas passed through his heavenly fore-tent (v. 11), and his heavenly sanctuary corresponds to a heavenly (i.e. a full and final) sacrifice. In the levitical ritual the high priest on atonement-day took the blood of the victim through the fore-tent into the inner shrine. Little that accomplished! It was but a dim emblem of what our highpriest was to do and has done, in the New Order of things.
When readers failed to see that ἥι …ἐετκτ was a parenthesis, it was natural that κθ ἥ should be changed into κθ ὅ (D c K L P, so Blass).
The failure of animal sacrifices (9b-10) lies κτ σνίηι. As the inner consciousness here is a consciousness of sin, “conscience” fairly represents the Greek term σνίηι. Now, the levitical sacrifices were ineffective as regards the conscience of worshippers; they were merely ἐὶβώαι κὶπμσνκὶδαόοςβπιμῖ, a striking phrase (cp. 13:9) of scorn for the mass of minute regulations about what might or might not be eaten or drunk, and about baths, etc. Food and ablutions are intelligible; a book like Leviticus is full of regulations about them. But πμσν Well, the writer adds this as naturally as the author of Ep. Aristeas does, in describing the levitical code. “I suppose most people feel some curiosity about the enactments of our law πρ τ τνβωῶ κὶπτν (128); it was to safeguard us from pagan defilement that πνόε ἡᾶ πρέρξνἁνίι κὶδὰβωῶ κὶπτν(142), ἐὶτνβωῶ κὶπτνἀαξμνυ εθω ττ σγρσα κλύι(158). It is curious that this defence of the levitical code contains an allusion which is a verbal parallel to our writer’s disparaging remark here; the author asserts that intelligent Egyptian priests call the Jews “men of God,” a title only applicable to one who σβτιτνκτ ἀήεα θό, since all others are ἄθωο βωῶ κὶπτνκὶσέη, ἡγρπσ δάει ατνἐὶτῦακτφύε. τῖ δ πρ ἡῶ ἐ οδν τῦαλλγσα (140, 141). Libations of wine accompanied certain levitical sacrifices (e.g. Num_5:15, Num_5:6:15, Num_5:17, Num_5:28:7f.), but no ritual regulations were laid down for them, and they were never offered independently (cp. EBi 4193, 4209). It is because the whole question of sacrifice is now to be restated that he throws in these disparaging comments upon the δρ τ κὶθσα and their accompaniments in the older σηή Such sacrifices were part and parcel of a system connected with (v. 10) external ritual, and in concluding the discussion he catches up the term with which he had opened it: all such rites are δκιμτ σρό, connected with the sensuous side of life and therefore provisional, μχικιο δοθσω ἐιεμν. Here ἐιεμν is “prescribed,” as in the description of workmen on strike, in TebtP 26:17 (114 b.c.) ἐκτλίοτςτνἐιεμννἀχλα. Δόθσςmeans a “reconstruction” of religion, such as the new δαήη(8:13) involved; the use of the term in Polybius, iii. 118. 12 (πὸ τςτνπλτυάω δοθσι), indicates how our author could seize on it for his own purposes.
The comma might be omitted after βπιμῖ, and δκιμτ taken closely with μνν “gifts and sacrifices, which (μννκλ in apposition) are merely (the subject of) outward regulations for the body,” ἐίbeing taken as cumulative (Luk_3:20) —“besides,” etc. This gets over the difficulty that the levitical offerings had a wider scope than food, drink, and ablutions; but ἐίis not natural in this sense here, and ἐὶ…βπιμῖ is not a parenthetical clause. The insertion of κίbefore δκιμτ (by א B Dc etc. vg hkl Chrys.), = “even” or “in particular” (which is the only natural sense), is pointless. Δκιμσν(Dc K L vg hkl) was an easy conformation to the previous datives, which would logically involve ἐιεμνι (as the vg implies: “et justitiis carnis usque ad tempus correctionis impositis”), otherwise ἐιεμν would be extremely awkward, after δνμνι in apposition to δρ τ κὶθσα.
Now for the better sanctuary and especially the better sacrifice of Christ as our ἀχεες(vv. 11-28)!
11 But when Christ arrived as the highpriest of the bliss that was to be, he passed through the greater and more perfect tent which no hands had made (no part, that is to say, of the present order), 12 not (οδ = nor yet) taking any blood of goats and calves but his own blood, and entered once for all into the Holy place. He secured an eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkled on defiled persons, give them a holiness that bears on bodily purity, 14 how much more shall (κθρε, logical future) the blood of Christ, who in the spirit of the eternal offered himself as an unblemished sacrifice to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve a living God.”
This paragraph consists of two long sentences (vv. 11, 12, 13, 14). The second is an explanation of αωίνλτωι ερμνςat the close of the first. In the first, the sphere, the action, and the object of the sacrifice are noted, as a parallel to vv. 6, 7; but in vv. 13, 14 the sphere is no longer mentioned, the stress falling upon the other two elements. The writer does not return to the question of the sphere till vv. 21f.
χιτςδ πργνμνς(v. 11). But Christ came on the scene,1 and all was changed. He arrived as ἀχεες and the author carries on the thought by an imaginative description of him passing through the upper heavens (no hand-made, mundane fore-court this!) into the innermost Presence. It is a more detailed account of what he had meant by ἔοτςἀχεέ μγνδεηυόατὺ ορνύ (4:14). Χιοοήο, like χιοοηα(v. 24), means “manufactured,” not “fictitious” (as applied to idols or idol-temples by the LXX and Philo). Τυʼἔτνο τύη τςκίεςreads like the gloss of a scribe, but the writer is fond of this phrase τυʼἔτν and, though it adds nothing to ο χιοοήο, it may stand. Κίι, in this sense of creation or created order, was familiar to him (e.g. Wis 5:17, 19:6). Μλότν before ἀαῶ, was soon altered into γνμνν(by B D 1611 1739 2005 vt syr Orig. Chrys.), either owing to a scribe being misled by πργνμνςor owing to a pious feeling that μλότνhere (though not in 10:1) was too eschatological. The ἄααwere μλοτ in a sense even for Christians, but already they had begun to be realized; e.g. in the λτωι. This full range was still to be disclosed (2:5, 13:14), but they were realities of which Christians had here and now some vital experience (see on 6:5).
Some editors (e.g. Rendall, Nairne) take τνγνμννἀαῶ with what follows, as if the writer meant to say that “Christ appeared as highpriest of the good things which came by the greater and more perfect tabernacle (not made with hands—that is, not of this creation).” This involves, (a) the interpretation of οδ as = “not by the blood of goats and calves either,” the term carrying on πργνμνς and (b) δάin a double sense. There is no objection to (b), but (a) is weak; the bliss and benefit are mediated not through the sphere but through what Jesus does in the sphere of the eternal σηή Others (e.g. Westcott, von Soden, Dods, Seeberg) take δὰτςσηή with Χιτς “Christ by means of the …sanctuary.” This sense of δάis better than that of (a) above, and it keeps δάthe same for vv. 11 and 12. But the context (πργνμνς…εσλε) points to the local use of δάin δὰτς…σηῆ, rather than to the instrumental; and it is no objection that the writer immediately uses δάin another sense (δʼαμτς for this is one of his literary methods (cp. δάwith gen. and accus. in 2:1, 2, 2:9, 10, 7:18, 19, 23, 24, 25).
Continuing the description of Christ’s sacrifice, he adds (v. 12) οδ δʼαμτςτάω (for the People) κὶμσω (for himself), which according to the programme in Lev_16 the priest smeared on the east side of the ἱατρο. The later Jewish procedure is described in the Mishna tractate Joma, but our author simply draws upon the LXX text, though (like Aquila and Symmachus) he uses μσω instead of χμρν Δάis graphically used in δὰτῦἰίυαμτς as in δʼαμτςτάω κὶμσω, but the idea is the self-sacrifice, the surrender of his own life, in virtue of which1 he redeemed his People, the αμ or sacrifice being redemptive as it was his. The single sacrifice had eternal value, owing to his personality. The term ἐάα, a stronger form of ἅα, which is unknown to the LXX, is reserved by our author for the sacrifice of Jesus, which he now describes as issuing in a λτωι—an archaic religious term which he never uses elsewhere; it is practically the same as ἀούρσς(v. 15), but he puts into it a much deeper meaning than the LXX or than Luke (1:68, 2:38), the only other NT writer who employs the term. Though he avoids the verb, his meaning is really that of 1 P 1:18 (ἐυρθτ τμῳαμτ ὡ ἀνῦἀώο κὶἀπλυΧιτῦ or of Tit_2:14 (ὃ ἔωε ἑυὸ ὑὲ ἡῶ, ἵαλτωήα ἡᾶ ἀὸπσςἀοίςκὶκθρσ ἑυῷλὸ προσο).
In this compressed phrase, αωίνλτωι ερμνς (a) αωίνoffers the only instance of αώιςbeing modified in this epistle. (b) Ερμνς in the sense of Dion. Hal. Ant. v. 293 (οτ δαλγςερτ τῖ ἀδάνκὶκθδν and Jos. Ant. 1:19. 1 (ππο δξνἀεῆ μγλςερμνυ is a participle (for its form,2 cp. Moulton, 1. p. 51), which, though middle, is not meant to suggest any personal effort like “by himself,” much less “for himself”; the middle in Hellenistic Greek had come to mean what the active meant. what he secured, he secured for us (cp. Aelian, Var. Hist. iii. 17, κὶατῖ στρα ερνο The aorist has not a past sense; it either means “to secure” (like ερμνιin 4 Mal_3:13 and ἐικψμνιin 2 Mac 11:36), after a verb of motion (cp. Act_25:13), or “securing” (by what grammarians call “coincident action”).
The last three words of v. 12 are now (vv. 13, 14) explained by an a fortiori argument. Why was Christ’s redemption eternal? What gave it this absolute character and final force? In v. 13 τάω κὶτύω reverses the order in 10:4, and τύω is now substituted for μσω. The former led to τύω κὶτάω being read (by the K L P group, Athanasius, Cyril, etc.), but “the blood of goats and bulls” was a biblical generalization (Psa_50:13, Isa_1:11), chosen here as a literary variation, perhaps for the sake of the alliteration, though some editors see in τύω a subtle, deliberate antithesis to the feminine δμλς According to the directions of Num_19:9f. a red cow was slaughtered and then burned; the ashes (ἡσόο τςδμλω) were mixed with fresh water and sprinkled upon any worshipper who had touched a dead body and thus incurred ceremonial impurity, contact with the dead being regarded as a disqualification for intercourse with men or God (see above on 6:1). This mixture was called ὕω ῥνιμῦ The rite supplies the metaphors of the argument in vv. 14, 15; it was one of the ablutions (v. 10) which restored the contaminated person (τὺ κκιωέος to the worshipping community of the Lord. The cow is described as ἅωο, the purified person as κθρς but our author goes ouside the LXX for κκιωέος and even ῥνίενis rare in the LXX. “The red colour of the cow and the scarlet cloth burnt on the pyre with the aromatic woods, suggest the colour of blood; the aromatic woods are also probably connected with primitive ideas of the cathartic value of odours such as they produce” (R. A. S. Macalister in ERE xi. 36a). The lustration had no connexion whatever with atonement-day, and it was only in later rabbinic tradition that it was associated with the functions of the highpriest. According to Pesikta 40a, a pagan inquirer once pointed out to Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai the superstitious character of such rites. His disciples considered his reply unsatisfactory, and afterwards pressed him to explain to them the meaning of the ashes and the sprinkling, but all he could say was that it had been appointed by the Holy One, and that men must not inquire into His reasons (cp. Bacher’s Agada d. Pal. Amorä i. 556; Agada der Tannaiten2, i. 37, 38). Our author does not go into details, like the author of Ep. Barnabas (8), who allegorizes the ritual freely in the light of the Jewish tradition; he merely points out that, according to the bible, the rite, like the similar rite of blood on atonement-day, restored the worshipper to outward communion with God. Ἁιζιmeans this and no more.
The removal of the religious tabu upon persons contaminated by contact with the dead was familiar to non-Jews. The writer goes back to the OT for his illustration, but it would be quite intelligible to his Gentile Christian readers (cp. Marett’s The Evolution of Religion, pp. 115f.; ERE iv. 434, x. 456, 483, 485, 501), in a world where physical contact with the dead was a μαμ. Philo’s exposition (de spec. legibus. i. πρ θότν 1 f.) of the rite is that the primary concern is for the purity of the soul; the attention needed for securing that the victim is ἄωο, or, as he says, πνεῶ μύω ἀέοο, is a figurative expression for moral sensitiveness on the part of the worshipper; it is a regulation really intended for rational beings. Ο τνθοέω φοτςἐτν…ἀλ τνθότν ἵαπρ μδνπθςκρίωι The bodily cleansing is only secondary, and even this he ingeniously allegorizes into a demand for self-knowledge, since the water and ashes should remind us how worthless our natures are, and knowledge of this kind is a wholesome purge for conceit! Thus, according to Philo, the rite did purge soul as well as body: ἀακῖντὺ μλοτςφιᾶ εςτ ἱρνἐὶμτυί θσα τ τ σμ φιρνσα κὶτνψχνπὸτῦσμτς Our author does not share this favourable view (cp. Seeberg’s Der Tod Christi, pp. 53 f.; O. Schmitz’s Die Opferanschauung des spä Judentums, pp. 281 f.). He would not have denied that the levitical cultus aimed at spiritual good; what he did deny was that it attained its end. Till a perfect sacrifice was offered, such an end was unattainable. The levitical cultus “provided a ritual cleansing for the community, a cleansing which, for devout minds that could penetrate beneath the letter to the spirit, must have often meant a sense of restoration of God’s community. But at best the machinery was cumbrous: at best the pathway into God’s presence was dimly lighted” (H. A. A. Kennedy, The Theology of the Epistles, p. 213).
Our author does not explain how the blood of goats and bulls could free the worshiper from ceremonial impurity; the cathartic efficacy of blood is assumed. From the comparative study of religion we know now that this belief was due to the notion that “the animal that has been consecrated by contact with the altar becomes charged with a divine potency, and its sacred blood, poured over the impure man, absorbs and disperses his impurity” (Marett, The Evolution of Religion, p. 121). But in Πὸ Ἑρίυ, (a) though the blood of goats and bulls is applied to the people as well as to the altar, and is regarded as atoning (see below), the writer offers no rationale of sacrifice. Χρςαμτκυίςο γντιἄει. He does not argue, he takes for granted, that access to God involves sacrifice, i.e. blood shed. (b) He uses the rite of Num_19 to suggest the cathartic process, the point of this lustration being the use of “water made holy by being mingled with the ashes of the heifer that had been burnt.” “The final point is reached,” no doubt (Marett, op. cit. 123), “when it is realized that the blood of bulls and goats cannot wash away sin, that nothing external can defile the heart or soul, but only evil thoughts and evil will.” Yet our writer insists that even this inward defilement requires a sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ’s blood. This is now (v. 14) urged in the phrase ἑυὸ ποήεκν where we at last see what was intended by ποφρι τ in 8:3. We are not to think of the risen or ascended Christ presenting himself to God, but of his giving himself up to die as a sacrifice. The blood of Christ means his life given up for the sake of men. He did die, but it was a voluntary death—not the slaughter of an unconscious, reluctant victim; and he who died lives. More than that, he lives with the power of that death or sacrifice. This profound thought is further developed by (a) the term ἄωο, which is in apposition to ἑυό; and (b) by δὰπεμτςαωίυ which goes with ποήεκν (a) Paul calls Christians, or calls them to be, ἄωο; but our writer, like the author of 1 P (1:19), calls Christ ἄωο as a victim. It is a poetic synonym for ἀώηο, taken over as the technical term (LXX) for the unblemished (מּ) animals which alone could be employed in sacrifice; here it denotes the stainless personality, the sinless nature which rendered the self-sacrifice of Jesus eternally valid. Then (b) the pregnant phrase δὰπεμτςαωίυ which qualifies ἑυὸ ποήεκν means that this sacrifice was offered in the realm or order of the inward spirit, not of the outward and material; it was no δκίμ σρό, but carried out δὰπεμτς i.e. in, or in virtue of, his spiritual nature. What the author had called ζὴἀαάυο (7:16) he now calls πεμ αώιν The sacrificial blood had a mystical efficacy; it resulted in an eternal λτωι because it operated in an eternal order of spirit, the sacrifice of Jesus purifying the inner personality (τνσνίηι) because it was the action of a personality, and of a sinless personality which belonged by nature to the order of spirit or eternity. Christ was both priest and victim; as Son of God he was eternal and spiritual, unlike mortal highpriests (7:16), and, on the other side, unlike a mortal victim. The implication (which underlies all the epistle) is that even in his earthly life Jesus possessed eternal life. Hence what took place in time upon the cross, the writer means, took place really in the eternal, absolute order. Christ sacrificed himself ἐάα, and the single sacrifice needed no repetition, since it possessed absolute, eternal value as the action of One who belonged to the eternal order. He died—he had to die—but only once (9:15-10:18), for his sacrifice, by its eternal significance, accomplished at a stroke what no amount of animal sacrifices could have secured, viz. the forgiveness of sins. It is as trivial to exhaust the meaning of πεμ αώινin a contrast with the animal sacrifices of the levitical cultus as it is irrelevant to drag in the dogma of the trinity. Αωίυclosely describes πεμτς(hence it has no article). What is in the writer’s mind is the truth that what Jesus did by dying can never be exhausted or transcended. His sacrifice, like his δαήη like the λτωι or στραwhich he secures, is αώιςor lasting, because it is at the heart of things. It was because Jesus was what he was by nature that his sacrifice had such final value; its atoning significance lay in his vital connexion with the realm of absolute realities; it embodied all that his divine personality meant for men in relation to God. In short, his self-sacrifice “was something beyond which nothing could be, or could be conceived to be, as a response to God’s mind and requirement in relation to sin …an intelligent and loving response to the holy and gracious will of God, and to the terrible situation of man” (Denney, The Death of Christ, p. 228).
A later parallel from rabbinic religion occurs in the Midrash Tehillim on Psa_31: “formerly you were redeemed with flesh and blood, which to-day is and to-morrow is buried; wherefore your redemption was temporal (גותשע). But now I will redeem you by myself, who live and remain for ever; wherefore your redemption will be eternal redemption (גוחעל, cp. Isa_45:17).”
One or two minor textual items may be noted in v. 14.
πεμτς J. J. Reiske’s conjecture ἁνύαο (purity) is singularly prosaic. Αωίυ(א A B Dc K L syrvg hkl arm Ath) is altered into the conventional ἁίυby א D* P 35. 88. 206. 326. 547, etc. lat boh Chrys. Cyril. Liturgical usage altered ὑῶ into ἡῶ (A D* P 5. 38. 218. 241. 256. 263. 378. 506. 1319. 1831. 1836*. 1912. 2004. 2127 vt syrvg boh Cyr.), and, to ζνι κὶἀηιῷ(a gloss from 1Th_1:9) is added in A P 104 boh Chrys. etc.
In the closing words of v. 14 κθρε is a form which is rare (Mat_3:12, Jam_4:8?) in the NT, so rare that κθρσιis read here by 206. 221. 1831 Did. Ath It is a Hellenistic verb, used in the inscriptions (with ἀό exactly in the ceremonial sense underlying the metaphor of this passage (Deissmann, Bible Studies, 216 f.). The cleansing of the conscience (cp. v. 9) is ἀὸνκῶ ἔγν from far more serious flaws and stains than ceremonial pollution by contact with a corpse (see above, and in 6:1). As Dods puts it, “a pause might be made before ἔγν from dead—(not bodies but) works.” The object is εςτ λτεενθῷζνι The writer uses the sacerdotal term (8:5) here as in 10:2 and 12:28, probably like Paul in a general sense; if he thought of Christians as priests, i.e. as possessing the right of access to God, he never says so. Religion for him is access to God, and ritual metaphors are freely used to express the thought. When others would say “fellowship,” he says “worship.” It is fundamental for him that forgiveness is e