Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Hebrews 9:1 - 9:10
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Superiority of the New Covenant mediated by Jesus Christ
_________
FIRST SECTION
THE NEW COVENANT PRODUCES FELLOWSHIP WITH GOD, WHICH THE OLD ONLY FIGURATIVELY REPRESENTS AND PROMISES
______
I
The typical and symbolical character of the Mosaic sanctuary points in itself to but an imperfect communion with God
Heb_9:1-10
[ Åἶ÷å ìὲí ïὖí , had indeed, to be sure, now. Ïὖí , as usual, links the coming discussion with, what precedes; the concessive ìÝí intimates that the prerogatives here conceded to the Old Covenant, are to find by and by their limitations, as at Heb_9:6, or at Heb_9:11. The “then verily” of the Eng. ver. has no warrant either in the original or in the context. Alford’s rendering “now accordingly,” is very little better.— ôὸ ἅãéïí êïóìéêüí not, and a worldly sanctuary, but and its sanctuary, as one belonging to the world. It is difficult to take the words as= ôὸ ἅã ôὸ êïó ., the, or its, worldly sanctuary. It is also hard here to take êïóìéêüí as purely predicative, via., its sanctuary a worldly one=the sanctuary which it had belonged to the world. Better, perhaps, to regard it as quasi predicative, as a sort of after thought=and its sanctuary, to wit, one belonging to the world.
Heb_9:2.— ÊáôåóêåõÜóèç , was constructed, reared, established, not exactly, made— ἅãéá , holy place, sanctuary, not, the sanctuary.
Heb_9:3.— èõìéáôÞñéïí , probably not censer, but altar of incense. (See below).
Heb_9:6.— ôïýôùí äå ïὕôùò êáôåó ., and these things having been thus arranged,—the priests enter, etc. This construction is scarcely a solecism, as Alford calls it, but is, I think, perfectly good English, although “being thus arranged,” would here express nearly the same idea, and would give the sense with sufficient exactness.— åἰóßáóéí , not went, but enter, as Heb_9:7.— ðñïóöÝñåé , not offered, but offers, and so of other verbs in this passage. And the explanation is not that the author “conceives of the whole system and arrangement as still subsisting,” but simply employs the historical present, transporting himself back into the past, and indicating that the priestly and high-priestly entrances which he describes, followed upon the previously described arrangements. It seems extraordinary that this simple and obvious, and only natural explanation of the passage, should have been so generally lost sight of, and the author charged with ignorance and mistakes which in such a writer, to say nothing of his inspiration, are utterly inconceivable, and which are in fact purely factitious, being chargeable only on the failure of his critics to recognize a natural and elegant rhetorical usage. The idea that the author fancied that the sacred articles above described were found either in the then existing temple, or even in the temple of Solomon, is countenanced by nothing in the text. There is no good reason for supposing that his mind past beyond the Mosaic tabernacle, the original and proper symbol of the Old Covenant, whose grand leading features indeed were reproduced in the temple, of which, however, the author makes no mention.
Heb_9:7.— ὃ ðñïóöÝñåé , which he offers— ὑðὲñ ἑáõôïῦ , on behalf of himself.
Heb_9:8.— ðåöáíåñῶóèáé , has been (not “was”) made manifest, the Perf. in keeping with the Pres. åἰóßáóé , and ðñïóöÝñåé , and ðñïóöÝñïíôáé (Heb_9:9).— ôῆò ðñþôçò óêçíῆò ,the foremost tabernacle.— ἐ÷ïýóçò óôÜóéí , holding or retaining its standing, place, position.
Heb_9:9.— ἥôéò , as usual characteristic; as one which=quippe quæ.— ðáñáâïëÞ ( Ýóôéí , understood), is a likeness, similitude, figure: supply is, not was ( ἦí ), because the whole construction is in the historical present.— åἰò ôὸí êáéñὸí ôὸí ἐíåóôçêüôá , for the present, or existing season, viz., not that of the time of the writer (as supposed by some), but that of the Old Economy of which and for which the outer tabernacle was a ðáñáâïëÞ ; and the Part, ἐíåóôçêüôá keeps up the figure of the present time, as in the verb åἰóßáóéí , etc. To make this ἐíåóô . êáéñüí refer to the Messianic period, even with Alford’s explanation, that it is not a figure of, but for the present time, is still to deprive it of nearly all its significance, and, when taken in connection with the following êáè ’ ἣí äῶñá ðñïóöÝñïíôáé , is inextricably to confuse the whole passage.— êáè ’ ἥí , according to which, scil. ðáñáâïëÞí , figure, or emblem.— ðñïóöÝñïíôáé , are being offered in this present ante-Christian time into which the author has thrown himself back.
Heb_9:10.— ìüíïí ἐðß , only conditioned upon, or, as Moll, standing in connection with; hardly, with Alf. and Eng. ver., consisting in, or standing in, which could scarcely be affirmed of the gifts and sacrifices. They stood connected with them, or as it were conditioned upon them.— ìÝ÷ñé êáéñïῦ äéïñèþóåùò , until the season of rectification.— ἐðéêåßìåíá , lying upon, as burdens.—K.].
Heb_9:2. For a tabernacle, etc.—The author designates the two parts of the tabernacle, separated by a veil, the holy place, and the Holy of holies, as two tabernacles (Heb_9:2-3); hence ἡ ðñþôç , added to define the preceding general word óêçíÞ , is here not temporal, but local, and the neut. plur. ἅãéá stands contrasted with the ἅãéá ἁãßùí . It is erroneously taken by Erasm., Luth., and others, as fem. sing. ἁãßá . In the temple of Solomon there were ten candlesticks, 1Ki_7:49; 2Ch_4:7; in that of Herod, on the contrary (after Exo_25:31 ff; Exo_37:17 ff.), only one (Joseph. Bell. Jud., Heb_9:5; Heb_9:5; VII. 5, 5) of fine gold with seven branches, standing on the south side. On the north side stood the table of cedar-wood, overlaid with gold plates, two cubits long, one broad, one cubit and a-half high, with golden rings at its feet for two poles by which it was carried. On this table were the censers and the “loaves of the presence” (shew bread), i.e., twelve cakes of finest meal, each six palms long, five broad, and a finger in thickness, which lay supported on golden forks and cross-pieces, and were each week eaten by the priests. Our author appears to name, not the things themselves, but their sacred use, viz., ðñüèåóéò ôῶí ἄñôùí , the setting forth of the loaves. Since the LXX., however, use this expression, 2Ch_13:11, for the translation of îַòַøֶëֶú äַìֶּçֶí , the keeping up of the bread, we need not, with Bl., De W., and Lün., maintain against Thol., that the passive meaning is, perhaps, possible in Heb. and Lat. (strues), but not in Greek. Nor may we, with Grot., Beng., and others, assume a hypallage, nor a hendyadis with Valckenaer.
Heb_9:3. And behind the second veil.—In this verse the author appears to commit an archæological error in transferring to the inner sanctuary the altar of incense. For Joseph. (Bell. Jud., Heb_9:5; Heb_9:5) and Philo (Ed. Mang., I. 504) place the altar of incense (two cubits high, a cubit in length, and a cubit in breadth, and overlaid with gold), consisting of acacia wood (in the temple of Solomon of cedar wood, 1Ki_6:20), in the holy place between the candlestick and the table. The great importance of this springs from the fact that Exo_30:10, this, as well as at Exo_40:10, the altar of burnt offering, is designated by the name ἅãéïí ôῶí ἁãßùí , and that, on the annual great day of atonement, this was purified by the high-priest with the same blood which he bore into the Holiest of all, Lev_16:18. Also it is called, Exo_40:5; Exo_40:24; Num_4:11, ôὸ èõóéáóôÞñéïí ôὸ ÷ñõóïῦí . It is hence inadmissible to suppose that our author has entirely omitted to mention this altar, and that èõìéáôÞñéïí may denote the censer (Pesh., Vulg., Theoph., Luth., Grot., Wets., Beng., Stier, Bisp., etc.). These expositors (including some profoundly versed in Heb. antiquities, as Reland, De Dieu, Braun, Deyling, J. D. Michael.) appeal, indeed, to the fact that the altar of incense is commonly called ôὸ èõóéáóôÞñéïí èõìéÜìáôïò , while the censer on the other hand is called (Eze_8:11; 2Ch_26:19; Joseph. Antt. IHebrews Heb_9:2; Heb_9:4) èõìéáôÞñéïí . From this, however, we can draw no certain inference, as we can point out no constant and uniform mode of designating these utensils. The word èõìéáôÞñéïí appears in Joseph., Philo, Clem. Alex., Orig., as the common term for the altar of incense, and is even found several times as a various reading in the Sept. Besides, the golden censer is only mentioned in the ritual of the second temple, under the name of ëַּó , but not in the Law, to which alone our author refers. There is only a shovel-formed basin mentioned Lev_16:12, with which the high-priest brought the coals from the altar of burnt offering, and this is called îַçְúָּä , ðõñåῖïí , and is not spoken of as gold. Nor need we attach any weight to the fact that Joseph. (Bell. Jud. I. 7, 6; Antt. XIHebrews Heb_9:4; Heb_9:4), in enumerating the objects which Pompey saw in the sanctuary, mentions only the golden table and candlestick, the abundance of incense and the sacred presents, but not the altar; and (Bell. Jud., Heb_9:5; Heb_9:5) speaks only of the carrying away of the candlestick and table. For, however surprising it may be, that even on the triumphal arch of Titus are sculptured only the golden table, the candlesticks, and the vessels of incense, still all this proves nothing for our passage, in which the author is speaking of the divinely instituted arrangements of the tabernacle, not describing the later temple; for in this temple were found no longer, even in the time of Solomon (1Ki_8:6), the here mentioned pot of manna, the budding rod of Aaron, and, after the loss of the ark of the Covenant, its place was indicated in the temple of Herod only by a stone. Bleek, Lün., and others, therefore, assume, in explanation of the error which they charge upon our author regarding the position of the altar of incense, that, a stranger to Jerusalem, he has drawn his knowledge of the sanctuary of Israel only from the writings of the Old Testament, and has been led astray, 1, by Exo_26:35, where only table and candlestick are mentioned as furniture of the sanctuary; 2, by the indefinite and easily misunderstood statement regarding the position of the altar, Exo_30:6; Exo_40:5; Exo_40:26; Lev_4:7; Lev_16:12; Lev_16:18; Leviticus , 3, by the special distinguishing of the altar of incense at the great day of atonement. But it is scarcely conceivable, that in matters so generally known, and in a communication to the Hebrews so carefully elaborated, and so intrinsically important, the author should have allowed himself in so gross an error as that of placing the altar of incense behind the second veil (which was called êáôáðÝôáóìá in distinction from the first, the êáôÜëõììá ). Add to this that the author would then have involved himself in contradiction with another well-known fact, and even with himself. For at Heb_9:7 he notices the fact that the high-priest went but once a year into the holiest of all. Must he, then, not have known that on the altar of incense the incense offering was daily made as symbol of prayer (Rev_8:3), not merely by the priests on whom the lot fell (Luk_1:9), but frequently by the high-priest himself? Most unquestionably, since Heb_9:6 he himself refers to this service of the priests. We are, therefore, justified in assuming that the author does not refer here to local position (for which he uses ἐí ) but that the part. ἔ÷ïõóá , having, may probably denote the idea of belonging to, which in Heb. is denoted by ìְ . This explanation is, in fact, adopted by many of those interpreters, who, referring it, indeed, to the censer, yet suppose that this latter had its permanent place not in the Most Holy place, but in the utensil chamber (Theophyl., Grot., Beng., Menken, Stier, etc.), since, according to Lev_16:13, the precise purpose of the incense was to prevent the high-priest from beholding the Capporeth, and it seemed unnatural to suppose that the high-priest had let the incense-vessel remain over the whole year in the inner sanctuary, and then on the day of atonement should have exchanged it with the one recently brought from the utensil chamber of the temple; or that the high-priest should have brought in incense and coals in a golden vessel, and shaken these upon a special incense-vessel, which had its fixed place in the inner sanctuary (Peirce). Surrendering the local sense of ἔ÷åéí (as we certainly must, Heb_9:1), it is assuredly more natural to refer the term to the far more important altar of incense; and we may point in confirmation to the fact, that not only Isa_6:6 introduces an altar belonging to the heavenly sanctuary, but that at 1Ki_6:22, the connection between the altar of incense and the holy of holies is expressed by the form äַîִּæְáֵּçַ àֲùֶׁø ìַãְּáִéø = the altar belonging to the inner shrine, the adytum (Keil against Thenius: so also Ebr., Del., Riehm); so also according to Exo_30:6; Deut. 40:5, it would seem to have been placed over against the ark of the Covenant, and on the day of atonement to have been, like the Capporeth, sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice (Lev_16:18). The only ground of doubt would lie in the circumstance that the mention of the ark of the Covenant immediately follows (connected by êáß ), and that this most unquestionably had its place (Exo_26:34) in the holiest of all. But we must not forget that though the ark of the Covenant was, indeed, brought (1 Kings 8) into the temple of Solomon, yet it perished in the destruction of that temple by the Chaldeans, so that the second temple had, in its most holy place, absolutely none of these articles, as Joseph. (Bell. Jud. Heb_9:5; Heb_9:5) expressly testifies ( ἔêåéôï äὲ ïὐäὲí ὄëùò ἐí áὐôῷ ). This also confirms our belief that the purpose of the author is not to describe the holy localities and furniture of the second temple, but that these things are mentioned only in order to exhibit that which mirrored forth the peculiar nature and dignity, and especially the symbolical and typical character, of the Mosaic sanctuary. The assumption of Wieseler, that the temple at Leontopolis had precisely the arrangement here mentioned, and possessed sacred objects and utensils, modelled after the pattern of those here enumerated, is a hypothesis quite destitute of any historical proof.
In which was a golden pot, etc.— Ἐí ᾗ refers not to óêçíÞ (Justiniani, Pyle, Peirce), but to êéâùôüò , and stands in contrast with ὑðåñÜíù . The same idea that the pot of manna and the rod of Aaron were kept in the ark of the Covenant itself, is found with later writers, who appeal to the authority of tradition (see Wetst.); and the expressions of Scripture make rather for than against it. The locality is indeed, Exo_16:33, left undetermined by the mere regulation that the pot shall be kept for a memorial “before Jehovah.” But it is said of it, Exo_9:34, and, Numb. 17:25, of the rod of Aaron, that they were placed ìִôְðֵé äָòֵãåּú before the testimony. This term, however, never denotes the ark, but often designates the law. Besides the tables of the law, such objects might perhaps well have their most fitting place in the sacred ark, as being essentially memorials and symbols of the miraculous interpositions of Divine grace (Ebr.), and not mere contrasts to those fruits and products of the earth which were daily or weekly presented in the sanctuary. In the sojourn of the ark among the Philistines, these objects, fraught indeed with religious significance, yet not belonging to the rites of worship, might have disappeared, since we are told, 1Ki_8:9, that on the removal of the ark into the temple of Solomon, it contained nothing but the two tables of the law.
Heb_9:5. The cherubim of glory.—The article before äüîçò , in Griesb. and Schultz, is, according to all the uncial MSS., to be expunged The Gen., however, serves here not to designate the glorious or splendid quality of the two symbolical figures, wrought massively out of fine gold, which occupied the two extremities of the cover of the ark of the Covenant, upon which, with faces turned toward each other, they looked down, and which they covered with their outspread wings. We must rather refer it to the äüîá èåïῡ , which also stands at 1Sa_4:22; Sir_49:8, without an article, because regarded as a proper name, and which was throned above the cherubim, 1Sa_4:4; 2Sa_6:2; 2Ki_19:15; Isa_37:16. But the throne of God is called, Eze_9:3; Eze_10:4; Eze_10:18-19, a throne of glory, ëִíֵּà äַëָּáåֹã . But from this throne of the sacred service God was pleased also to speak to Moses, Exo_25:22; Num_7:89. For the massive golden cover of the ark of the Covenant (which ark itself was overlaid within and without with plates of gold) had essentially the significance of a mediation between the ark of the Covenant and the God who was enthroned above it, 1Ch_28:2; Psa_99:5; Psa_132:7; Isa_66:1; Lam. Jer_2:1. Primarily it was the footstool of the throne, whose bearers or symbols are the cherubim, and which rests upon the covenant of the law. For equity and righteousness, as revealed in the law of God, form the pillars of this throne, Psa_89:15; Psa_97:2; whence also the sanctuary, and particularly the ark of the Covenant itself, is the throne of Jehovah, Exo_15:17; 1Ki_8:13. By the sprinkling of the blood of the sin-offering, however, the Capporeth becomes not so much the cover to that law which worketh the wrath of God (Hofm. after Hengst.), as a ἰëáóôÞñéïí ἐðßèåìá , propitiatory covering, Exo_25:16, and then a ἱëáóôÞñéïí in general, according to Lev_16:15 ff. The idea of covering has transformed itself into that of expiation, i.e., covering of sin, whence also, 1Ch_28:11, the most holy place is called áֵּéú äַëַּôֹּøֶú . While Josephus writes ïἱ and áἱ ÷åñïõâåῖò , and Philo always ôὰ ÷åñïõâßì , the LXX. fluctuate between the ordinary form of the neut. and the rarer one of the masc. The closing syllable also varies between âåßì , âåßí , âßì , and âßí . The neut. springs from the fact of their being regarded as æῶá , Eze_10:15. The ðåñὶ ὦí , concerning which things, refers not (as Ebr.) merely to the cherubim.
Heb_9:6. Once in the year, etc.—Since the high-priest, on the tenth day of the seventh month, Tisri, the day of atonement ( éåֹí äַëִּôֻּøִּéí ), was obliged to go at least twice into the inner sanctuary, Lev_16:12 ff.; according to the Mishna tract., Joma Heb_9:1; vii. 4, four times,— ἄðáî , once, is best understood of what took place once in a year, although consisting of several separate acts,—a sense belonging to the words at 3 Macc. 11:1; Joseph. Bell. Jud. Heb_9:5; Heb_9:7. To this view we are also led by the following verses. For with the blood of the heifer the high-priest made expiation for his own sin; with the blood of the goat expiation for the sins of the congregation; and this distinction is here made, and this rightly so, that the sins are called ἀãíïÞìáôá ; see at Heb_5:2. The accomplishment of this twofold expiation required, however, a twofold entrance into the inner sanctuary, both of which principal acts were preceded by an entrance with a dish of coals and a censer of incense, and followed by a fourth after the evening sacrifice for the bringing out of these utensils. In accordance with his hypothesis, Wieseler connects the words “not without blood,” etc., closely with the leading clause; which produces, however, an entirely false contrast with Heb_9:6. Nor are we necessarily to infer from the Perf. Part. êáôåóêåõáóìÝíùí —to be referred, at all events, to Heb_9:2—that the author regards the two grand divisions of the Mosaic sanctuary, together with their contents, as also still existing in the Jewish temple of his time (Lün.), nor do the present tenses, åἰóßáóéí and ðñïóöåñåé , of themselves lead necessarily to the conclusion that the author wrote before the destruction of the temple. We need only suppose that this form of expression in its connection with the context implies that the legal worship was still in existence, and that on the basis of the old Mosaic arrangements, reaching down into the time of the author, while the preservation or loss of certain vessels or utensils of the service is a matter of as profound indifference as the replacing of the tabernacle by the temple of Solomon, and the differences in this before and after the exile.
Blood which he offers, etc.—The expression, ðñïóöÝñåéí ôὸ áἶìá , Lev_1:5; Lev_7:33; Eze_44:7; Eze_44:15, points to the sprinkling ( äַæָּàָä ), which was made once upwards, and seven times downwards, towards the Capporeth. This was followed by the ðְúִéðָä , besmearing of the horns of the altar of incense with the mingled blood of the heifer and goat, with which the altar itself was seven times sprinkled; then the ( ùְׁôִéëָä , Pouring out on the altar of burnt offering. The slaughter ( ùְׁçִéèָä ) connected with the laying on of the hand ( íְîִéëִä ) merely rendered possible the offering of the blood; but this, in that it was the means of expiation, rendered possible that presentation of the gift upon the altar, or offering ( äַ÷ְּèָøָä ), which was acceptable to God. On the strength of this blood-accomplished expiation, the priests could, throughout the year, present in the sanctuary the daily and weekly offerings. The absence of the article before ἑáõôïῦ proves that this word is not (with the Vulg., Luth., Calv., Grot., and others) to be made dependent on ἀãíïçìÜôùí .
Heb_9:8. The Holy Spirit showing this, etc.—The ôïῦôï refers to the following Acc. with Inf., and äçëïῦí is used here of prophecy by act or symbol, while at Heb_12:27; 1Pe_1:11, it is used of prophetic foreshowing by word (Heb_9:12). The ôῶí ἁãßùí , too, refers not to persons (Peshito, Schultz), but to the true sanctuary (Heb_10:19). The Gen. stands, as Jer_2:18, ôῇ ὁäῷ Áἰãýðôïõ , and Mat_10:5, ὁäὸò ἐèíῶí , of the end or goal of the way. Ðñþôç designates here not the first Jewish sanctuary—first in time (as Grot., Carpz., Beng., Böhme, etc.), but the first or forward tabernacle, in contrast with that behind it (the second, Heb_9:7).
Heb_9:9. Which is an image for the time, etc.—Erasm., Beng., etc., refer ἤôéò in the sense of ὅôé to the entire preceding clause, and explain the fem. by the attraction of ðáñáâïëÞ : the ὁ êáéñὸò ὁ ἐíåóôçêþò thus becomes the time in which the author wrote; and the circumstance that the outer and the inner sanctuary stood separated beside and distinct from each other, is regarded as an image of that time in which the yet undestroyed Theocracy of Israel forms, as it were, the outer space and locality for the Christianity which has sprung up within its bosom. The same view is shared by Boehme and Klee, yet with the difference that they connect ἥôéò with ðáñáâïëÞ , and make it, as such, the subject of the clause=which figure or symbol applies to the present time. De W. adheres to the latter construction, but=with most intpp., explains the ὁ êáéñ . ὁ ἐíåó . of the antechristian period extending down into the present, thus= ὁ áἰὼí ὁ ἐíåóôþò , Gal_1:4. Granting the possibility of this meaning of the phrase (which Del. on insufficient grounds controverts), it is still more natural to refer ἥôéò to óêçíÞ , not to óôÜóéí (Chr. F. Schmid), nor by any means to ὁäüí (Cramer). For if the author has previously designated the Holy of holies as ðáñáâïëÞ , likeness, emblem (Luth., erroneously, type), of the Christian economy, why should not he now designate the “holy place” as an emblem of the Jewish economy, especially as it is his precise purpose to state in how far Judaism, as a merely intermediate system, appeared precisely represented by the sanctuary? (Thol. against De Wette). In still closer correspondence with the mere words, indeed, we might (with Del. and Alf., after John Damasc. and Primas.) refer the êáéñὸò ὁ ἐíåóô . to the present time, as commencing with the inauguration of the New Covenant, and interpret it of the êáéñὸò äéïñèþóåùò , and either with Carpz., Hermann and others, translate “clear down to the present time” [or, with Alf., render for, in reference to, the present time]. But this is forbidden by the context (Riehm, Reiche, Lün.), inasmuch as the êáéñὸò äéïñèþóåùò , Heb_9:10, or the time of restoration and rectification appointed of God, is here evidently the Christian period of the world’s history, and with it stands contrasted the ὁ êáéñὸò ὁ ἐíåóôçêþò , whose emblem is the outer sanctuary, separated from the All-holy by a veil, and in accordance with which figure or ðáñáâïëÞ there exist, of course, only external and merely ceremonial institutions for securing perfection. Lönemann less fittingly refers the êáè ’ ἥí to ðñþôç óêçíÞ . [There can be no doubt that in the first place, ἡ ðñþôç óêçíÞ is here, as at Heb_9:2, the first in place, the foremost, tabernacle, as distinguished from the second one, the Holy of holies. In the second place, ἥôéò , with the author, refers properly to óêçíÞ , and marks the óêçíÞ as a proper symbol and emblem of Judaism, which it precisely was. The foremost tabernacle or sanctuary was cut off from the second by a veil, which none could pass but the high-priest alone, and he only once a year, and for but the briefest stay within. The first tabernacle, therefore, stood there confronting, and indeed formed by, that awful veil, and the dread Holy Presence behind it, as a standing reminder to priests and people of their separation from God; that the way into the most holy place was not yet made manifest, and of course that the Jewish ritual, in connection with which they stood, was utterly unable to secure true forgiveness, and bring in the needed perfection. That foremost tabernacle, then, was the emblem and figure of Judaism. In the third place, the åἰò ôὸí êáéñὸí ôὸí ἐíåóôçêüôá refers decidedly (as against Del. and Alf.) not to the now present time of the writer, the time of fulfilment and completion, but to the antechristian period, the era of Judaism, in reference to which and for which this outer tabernacle stood as an emblem. Nor need we, with many, and apparently Moll, suppose this time to be represented as extending down to the present, and thus explain the ἐíåóôçêþò . Like all the tenses of the passage in this connection, it stands of the past conceived as present, the author throwing himself back in the whole representation into the past, although I would not deny the justice of the view that perhaps the author the more readily adopted this figure because the Jewish sacrifices had even yet a lingering existence: though I see no necessity for this. Thus this outer tabernacle is a ðáñáâïëÞ , an emblem of the imperfect character of Judaism for the existing time, etc.—K.].
To render perfect as to the conscience, etc.—The idea of óõíåßäçóéò (E. V., conscience), is more comprehensive on the one hand than that of conscience, on the other than that of internal consciousness. The word designates the inmost conviction of our moral self-consciousness, so that Heb_10:2, we can have the words óõíåßäçóéò ἁìáñôéῶí , and 1Pe_2:19, óõíåßäçóéò èåïῦ . The words thus refer not merely to the quieting of an accusing conscience (Theodoret, Calov, etc.), and not merely to the moral perfection of the consciousness (Schultz, Bl., De W.), but to the fact that the worshipper could not by the presentation of his offerings, attain his end in a way that met the demands of his moral and religious self-consciousness, could not, that is to say, attain to ἁãéüôçò .
Heb_9:10. Purely in connection with meats, etc.— Ἐðß designates not the objects for the sake of which the offerings are to be brought (Schlicht., Limb., etc.), or in respect of which a Levitical perfection actually takes place, as an outward and provisional means of justification. For ìüíïí ἐðß is to be connected neither with ôåëåéῶóáé (Schlicht., Ebr.), nor with ëáôñåõïíôá (Luth., Este, etc.), but with ἐðéêåßìåíá , which stands parallel with äõíÜìåíáé , and as, along with this participle, it refers to äῶñÜ ôå êáὶ èõóßáé , might on account of the intervening clauses, be easily changed to the neuter. It is by no means to be referred, with the Vulg., to äéêáéþìáóéí , being thus taken= ἐðéêåéìÝíïéò . Nor with the amended text is it either necessary or proper to take ἐðéêåßìåíá as apposition to äéêáéþìáôá , and refer ìüíïí to this latter word (Lün.). Ἐðß can, to be sure, express the adding or accession of something to something else, or outward neighborhood or proximity. But “meats and drinks” are not—as neither are ordinances regarding food—equivalent to forbidden meats. Quite as little does the term refer to sacrificial feasts (Peirce, Storr, Heinr., etc.), or to the Paschal supper (Bl., De W.). For äéêáéþìáôá are not means of justification, but ordinances, and precisely such, and referring to the flesh, are the äéêáéþìáôá ëáôñåßáò of the Old Testament. Ἐðß with the dat. signifies commonly the foundation on which, and at the same time, the circumstances connected with which, any thing is done. The Gen. óáñêüò may also denote that the things bear in themselves the nature of the trap óÜñî . We should here refer the term to the historical superficiality and perishableness of these legal institutions (Heb_7:16), but that the connection indicates the Gen. as referring here not to the quality, but to that which is the object of the ordinances, as 1Sa_8:9; 1Sa_8:11; 1Sa_10:25, ôὸ äéêáßùìá ôïῡ âáóéëÝùò denotes the Divine ordinance regarding the king.
2. With all the glory evinced in the furnishing of the Holy place and the Holy of holies, and with all the sacredness and majesty of the acts of religious service which transpired within them, still the entire arrangement of the vessels of the service, the separation of the outer from the inner sanctuary by the veil which concealed the latter, the distinction of people, priests and high-priests, the nature of the sacred acts which each separate class was characteristically to perform, their ritual and ceremonial character, incontrovertibly show that reconciliation with God and the dwelling of God with His people, here existed only in mere representation, promise, and symbolical expression.
3. This relation of the Old Testament sanctuary and worship as a type and emblem, to the actual communion of redeemed men with the holy God in the time of the real and actual reëstablishment of right relations, is no arbitrary one, but is prophetically announced and made known by the Holy Spirit Himself. In this lies the Scriptural ground and justification of a historical treatment which seeks the typical reference in the symbols of the Old Covenant itself. Still the principle must be judiciously and cautiously applied.
Starke:—No service of God can be without ceremonies; but that is the most excellent which has cast off external parade and has the most of the power of the Spirit.—If the Lord’s house on earth has been glorious, much more is that above in heaven.—If every Christian is under obligation to serve God publicly in His temple, much more must preachers be always at hand when the public worship of God is celebrated.—Heaven stands open; but the place is holy; nothing common and impure will be admitted, Rev_21:27.—Preachers bear their treasure in earthen vessels; they too are sinners, and must, like others, seek the cleansing away of their sins.—The outward worship of God is nothing without the inward; it then becomes only sin to him who renders the service, and ministers condemnation rather than salvation.—Under the New Covenant we may, without violating the conscience, eat and drink that which contributes to our enjoyment; only with moderation and thanksgiving, Col_2:16; 1Ti_4:3.—Outward and bodily washing and cleansing stand in no proper relation to Divine worship. But as neatness and cleanliness are always becoming and attractive, it behooves us also to appear before and serve God in outward purity, 1Ti_2:9.—The outward chastening of the body is but a miserable service of God; but to crucify the flesh with its lusts and desires, is pleasing to God, 1Co_4:8; Gal_5:24.
Rieger:—The higher blessing bestowed on our age is to be sought not in doing away but in fulfilling the commandments.
Heubner:—A survey of the institutions of the Old Testament is not without utility to the Christian; it shows him the prerogatives which he possesses, viz., no longer merely the shadow, but real, essential blessings.—The whole ancient world is crying out after a Reconciler; the modern world will not have Him.—In Christianity lies the germ of the general improvement and perfection of the entire condition of humanity.—The tranquillizing of the conscience is the end of all sacrifices. The more the conscience was awakened, the less could sacrifices appease and satisfy it.
Footnotes:
Heb_9:1.—The word óêçíÞ of the lect. rec. is, according to all authorities, to be stricken out, and is not, with Peirce, Wetst., Seml., to be understood. The capital thought is äéáèÞêç , covenant [and this as, in Eng. ver., is clearly to be supplied in thought with ἡ ðñþôç ].
Heb_9:9.—For the Rec. êáè ’ ὅí , we are, with Sin. A. B. D*., 17, 23*, 27, to read êáè ’ ἥí [referring to ðáñáâïëÞ ].
Heb_9:10.—For the Rec. êáὶ äéêáéþìáóé óáñêüò , the reading äéêáéþìáôá óáñêüò was approved by Grot., Mill and Beng., recommended by Griesb., and by all recent editors is received into the text. The êáß is wanting in Sin. A. D*., 6, 17, 27, 31, and äéêáéþìáôá , is found in Sin. A. B. and ten minusc., the sing. äéêáßùìá in D*.
[So I fill out the apparently imperfect sentence of the original.—K.].
Heb_9:11.—Lachmann’s reading ãåíïìἐíùí instead of ìåëëüíôùí is not sufficiently vouched for by B. D*., although followed by Chrys., cum., Ital. Pesh. Philox.