Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 9:23 - 9:23
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_9:23. The first of the two statements dependent on ἀνάγκη οὖν ( τὰ μὲν … καθαρίζεσθαι ) is deduced as a necessary consequence from Heb_9:18-22, while then the second statement ( αὐτὰ δὲ κ . τ . λ .) is derived as a necessary postulate from the first, and in such manner a return is effected to the necessity for the death of Christ, already shown at Heb_9:16-17, in order to set forth the same on a fresh side. The necessity of the first-mentioned fact of Heb_9:23 is evident from the norm instanced, which is of validity in the domain of the Mosaic law; the necessity of that last mentioned, from the difference between the Christian and the Judaic. The main thought, however, lies in the second half of the clause, to which the first forms logically only the bridge.
οὖν ] sc. because blood is so necessary a means for expiation and consecration.
ἀνάγκη οὖν ] it is then needful. To ἀνάγκη οὖν we have to supplement ἐστίν , not, with Faber Stapulensis, Ebrard, Bloomfield, Delitzsch, Alford, Moll, Kurtz, and others, ἦν . For although the author has only one special fact in mind in connection with both members of the sentence, yet, as is shown by the plural θυσίαις , he expresses himself universally; because he is reasoning from the inner necessity, as this is presupposed by the state of the matter itself.
τὰ μὲν ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς τούτοις καθαρίζεσθαι , αὐτὰ δὲ κ . τ . λ .] that the copy, indeed, of that which is in heaven should be purified with these, but the heavenly place itself with better sacrifices than these, i.e. for the characteristically Judaic the means of expiation and consecration are necessarily determined in accordance with the norm specified in the Mosaic law; but since Judaic and Christian are distinguished from each other as the mere copy of the heavenly place and the heavenly place itself, so of necessity must the means of expiation and consecration in the Christian domain be a more excellent one than in the Judaic.
By τὰ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς and τὰ ἐπουράνια we have to understand neither the heavenly possessions (Seb. Schmidt, Wolf, Rambach, and others), nor yet the Christian Church and its members (Zeger, Estius, Corn. a Lapide, Calov, Böhme, Stengel, al.; comp. also Tholuck). Still less can these expressions denote: “that which, where God is essentially present, brings with it His relation to the Church, i.e. first, His dwelling with it,—namely, in that the glorified human nature of Christ is the dwelling for the whole fulness of the divine nature; secondly, the human nature, in its consecration to God, in which Christ presents and offers it up to the Father; and thirdly, the place where God’s wrath against human sin meets with expiatory satisfaction, by which it is averted,—thus Christ, who, as the propitiation for our sins, stands between the Church and its God “(Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 1, 2 Aufl. p. 436 ff. [comp. also Owen]). Rather is the heavenly sanctuary specially meant thereby, as is evident from Heb_9:24. For in Heb_9:24 the meaning of ἅγια is supposed to be already known from Heb_9:23; inasmuch, namely, as ἅγια is there almost accentless, while all the emphasis is laid upon the adjectives χειροποίητα , etc. In accordance with this, too, is determined the meaning of τὰ ὑποδείγματα τῶν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς as the earthly sanctuary, inasmuch as it was the imperfect imitation or copy of the former, as accordingly already, at Heb_8:5, the Levitical sanctuary had been characterized as ὑπόδειγμα καὶ σκιὰ τῶν ἐπουρανίων . The plural τὰ ὑποδείγματα is placed, just because the author has already before his mind, in Heb_9:23, the plural τὰ ἅγια , Heb_9:24. Thus, then, the first clause of Heb_9:23 has respect to the special fact already brought forward at Heb_9:21, whereas the second clause receives its elucidation by means of the special fact of which mention is made at Heb_9:24.
τούτοις ] by such things as these, i.e. by blood of slain animals, and similar means of purifying, which belong to the earthly sanctuary; to which general rubric, also, the ashes of the red heifer mentioned at Heb_9:13, but not here coming under consideration, belong. With marvellous inversion of the sense, Paulus: “to be declared pure for these, i.e. the Israelites.”
καθαρίζεσθαι ] is passive. Arbitrarily is it taken as a middle by Heinrichs, who will have ἡμᾶς supplemented as object. Against this the tenor of the foregoing verse is in itself decisive. The notion of being purified is not, it is true, applicable to the second clause, αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ ἐπουράνια κ . τ . λ . For the heavenly sanctuary is removed from contact with the sinful world; it has no need, therefore, of an expiation or purification.[94] We are warranted, however, in supplying in thought, without any hesitation, from ΚΑΘΑΡΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ , a kindred verb to the second member of the sentence, by the assuming of a zeugma. But since now, in accordance with that which precedes, the ΚΑΘΑΊΖΕΣΘΑΙ is an idea which entirely subordinates itself to the idea of the ἘΓΚΑΙΝΊΖΕΙΝ , Heb_9:18, the former having only the design of the latter, we shall best extract from the notion of being purified, in the first clause, the notion of being consecrated to the service of God, for the second clause, understanding this consecration of the heavenly sanctuary of the opening up of the access to the same, effected through the blood of Christ (comp. Heb_10:19-20).
κρείττοσιν θυσίαις ] The plural is chosen, although the author is thinking exclusively of the death of Christ, on account of the universal form of discourse, Heb_9:23, as a plural of the category (de Wette). False the interpretation of Grotius and Stengel: in addition to the sacrificial death of Christ, the sufferings of believers, together with their prayers and works of love (Heb_13:15-16), are thought of; and in like manner Paulus: the sacrifices of Jesus and all Christians for the good which pertains to duty; but false, also, the explanation of Beza: the fact is hinted at that the one sacrifice of Christ is instead of many.
On παρά with the comparative, see at Heb_1:4.
[94] Otherwise, indeed, do Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 542 ff.), Alford, Moll, and Kurtz decide. According to Delitzsch, the meaning of the author is: “The supra-terrestrial Holy of Holies, i.e. the uncreated eternal heaven of God, although unsullied light in itself, had need of a καθαρίζεθαι , in so far as the light of love towards mankind had there been, so to speak, out-glowed and eclipsed by the fire of wrath at that which was sinful; and the heavenly tabernacle, i.e. the place of His glorious self-manifestation in love, a self-manifestation for men and angels, had need of a καθαρίζεσθαι , in so far as men had rendered this spot, from the beginning designed for them, too, inaccessible on account of sin, and thus had first to be transformed into the accessible place of manifestation of a God graciously disposed towards men. As well with regard to τὰ ἅγια as with regard to τὴν σκηνήν , thus to τὰ ἐπουράνια . altogether, there was need of a taking away of the action of human sin upon it, and a taking away of the divine reaction against sin, the wrath, or, what is the same thing, a changing of the same into love.” [Similarly also Whitby, M‘Lean, and Stuart.]—Not less far-fetched and forced upon the context is that which Bleek, following the precedent of Akersloot, regards as probable. According to this view, to which Woerner assents, an objective καθαρίζεσθαι of the heavenly sanctuary, after the analogy of the passages Luk_10:18, Joh_12:31, Act_12:7-9, was thought of, “in accordance with which Satan with his angels is, after the death and exaltation of the Saviour, cast forth out of heaven, and thus deprived of all influence which he might exert there as accuser of men in the presence of God, or for the destruction of the blessedness of the inhabitants of heaven.”