Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Hebrews 9:4 - 9:4
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Heb_9:4. Θυμιατήριον ] is either interpreted as altar of incense or as censer. The latter, and indeed as a golden censer, which was employed by the high priest on the great day of atonement, is thought of by Luther, Grotius, de Dieu, Calov, Reland, Limborch, Wolf, Bengel, Wetstein, Carpzov, Whitby, Schulz, Böhme, M‘Lean, Stuart, Kuinoel, Stein, Bloomfield, Bisping, Alford, M‘Caul, and others, after the precedent of the Peshito, Vulgate (turibulum), and Theophylact. The altar of incense, on the other hand ( îÄæÀáÌÅçÇ äÇ÷ÌÀèÉøÆú or îÄæÀáÌÅçÇ äÇåÌÈäÈá ), of which mention is made as a constituent part in the Mosaic tabernacle, Exo_30:1-10; Exo_37:25-28; Exo_40:5; Exo_40:26, as a constituent part in the temple of Solomon, 1Ki_7:48, 2Ch_4:19, and as a constituent part in the Herodian temple (Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5), is understood in the case of the Latin translation in D E (altare), as well as by Oecumenius (ad Heb_9:7), Calvin, Justinian, Piscator, Estius, Cornelius a Lapide, Schlichting, Jac. Cappellus, Owen, Gerhard, Brochmann, Mynster (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 342 ff.), Bleek, de Wette, Stengel, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Riehm (Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr: p. 489 f., Obs.), Maier, Kluge, Moll, Kurtz, Ewald, Conybeare, Hofmann, Woerner, and others. Instances from the classical writers in favour of either reference, see in Bleek, II. 2, p. 480 f. That a censer is intended may be urged from the language of the LXX., since with them for the indication of the altar of incense the expressions: τὸ θυσιαστήριον θυμιάματος (Exo_30:1; Exo_30:27; Lev_4:7), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τῶν θυμιαμάτων (1 Chronicles (1Chr. 7:49) 1Ch_6:49, 1Ch_28:18; 2Ch_26:16; 2Ch_26:19), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν (Exo_40:5; Exo_40:26, al.), τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ( ὂν ) ἀπέναντι κυρίου (Lev_16:12; Lev_16:18); and, where the altar intended is clear from the context, merely τὸ θυσιαστήριον (Lev_16:20, al.), are regularly employed, and only in unimportant MSS. of the same θυμιατήριον presents itself in some few passages as a variation of reading. To this usage of the LXX., however, is to be opposed the equally important fact of the usage of Philo and Josephus, according to which, at their time, τὸ θυμιατήριον was quite the ordinary appellation of the altar of incense. Comp. Philo, Quis rerum divin. haeres. p. 511 sq. (with Mangey, I. p. 504): τριῶν ὄντων ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις σκευῶν , λυχνίας , τραπέζης , θυμιατηρίου ; De vita Mos. p. 668 (II. p. 149): Ἅμα δὲ τούτῳ ἐδημιουργεῖτο καὶ σκεύη ἱερά , κιβωτός , λυχνία , τράπεζα , θυμιατήριον , βωμός . Ὁ μὲν οὖν βωμὸς ἵδρυτο ἐν ὑπαίθρῳ κ . τ . λ .; Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5 : καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον μέρος … εἶχεν ἐν αὐτῷ τρία θαυμασιώτατα καὶ περιβόητα πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἔργα , λυχνίαν , τράπεζαν , θυμιατήριον Antiq. iii. 6, 8 : μεταξὺ δὲ αὐτῆς ( τῆς λιχνίας ) καὶ τῆς τραπέζης ἔνδον … θυμιατήριον , ξύλινον μὲν κ . τ . λ ., al. Of the altar of incense, accordingly, the expression must be understood in our passage. For the manner in which the χρυσοῦν θυμιατήριον is mentioned, as a parallel member to τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης , shows that the former must be an object of equally great importance as the latter. But, since that is so, something as non-essential as a golden censer cannot be meant, but only the altar of incense, which formed an essential constituent part of the tabernacle. Besides, there is nowhere any mention in the O. T. (not Lev_16:12 either) of a particular censer, which had been set apart for the service on the great day of atonement. About the existence of such a censer at the time of the Mosaic tabernacle, which the author after all has mainly before his mind, nothing is known with certainty. Only from the Mishna, tract. Joma, iv. 4,[89] do we learn something about it. Moreover, according to tract. Joma, v. 1, vii. 4, this censer was first fetched out of the storehouse, carried by the high priest into the Most Holy Place, and upon the completion of the service again carried forth therefrom; even as it would be a priori improbable in the highest degree that such instrument should be kept within the Holy of Holies. For, according to Lev_16:12-13, the high priest was first to enter with incense into the Most Holy Place, in order that through the cloud thereof the glory of God, enthroned above the cover of the ark of the covenant, might become invisible to him, to the end that he died not. And yet ἔχουσα compels us to think of an abiding place of the θυμιατήριον ; to explain ἜΧΟΥΣΑ of the mere appertaining of the θυμιατήριον to the Most Holy Place as an object of use for the latter, as is usually done by the one class of expositors (but also by some advocates of the opposite view, as Jac. Cappellus, Piscator, Owen, Mynster, Ebrard, Delitzsch, Conybeare, Riehm, Lehrbegr. des Hebräerbr. p. 490, Obs.; Maier, Moll, Hofmann, and Woerner, with an appeal to äÇîÌÄæÀáÌÅäÇ àÂùÑÆøÎìÅãÌÀáÄéø , 1Ki_6:22), is—inasmuch as the author sharply separates from each other in his description the two main divisions of the O. T. sanctuary, as well as the objects peculiar to each of these divisions, by means of ΜΕΤᾺ ΔΈ , Heb_9:3, and thus ἜΧΟΥΣΑ , Heb_9:4, unmistakably corresponds to the ἘΝ ᾟ , Heb_9:2—altogether arbitrary. If, then, we understand ΘΥΜΙΑΤΉΡΙΟΝ of the altar of incense, as we are compelled to do, there arises the archaeological difficulty that this altar had its standing-place not in the Most Holy Place, as is here presupposed by the author, but, on the contrary, in the Holy Place (Exo_30:1 ff.). This point of inconsistency with historic truth is to be admitted, and therefrom the conclusion to be drawn, that the author did not himself live in the vicinity of the Jewish sanctuary, but had drawn his knowledge with regard to the same only from the Scriptures of the O. T., whence the possibility of an error is explicable. In favour of this possibility, Bleek rightly urges the following considerations: first, that Exo_26:35 there are mentioned as standing within the Holy Place only the table and the candlestick, but not the altar of incense also. Then, that where the standing place of this altar is actually spoken of, the form of expression chosen certainly, by reason of its indefiniteness, admitted of misconstruction. So Exo_30:6 : ΚΑῚ ΘΉΣΕΙς ΑὐΤῸ ἈΠΈΝΑΝΤΙ ΤΟῦ ΚΑΤΑΠΕΤΆΣΜΑΤΟς , ΤΟῦ ὌΝΤΟς ἘΠῚ Τῆς ΚΙΒΩΤΟῦ ΤῶΝ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΊΩΝ ; ibid. Exo_40:5 : καὶ θήσεις τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ χρυσοῦν εἰς τὸ θυμιᾶν ἐναντίον τῆς κιβωτοῦ ; Heb_9:26 : ἀπέναντι τοῦ καταπετάσματος ; Lev_4:7; Lev_16:12; Lev_16:18 : ἐναντίον or ἀπέναντι κυρίου . Finally, that in the Mosaic law the altar of incense was brought into peculiar significance in connection with the solemnity of the atonement, since on this day it was sprinkled and cleansed by the high priest with the same blood which the high priest had carried into the Most Holy Place (Exo_30:10; Lev_16:18 f.).
χρυσοῦν ] since the emphasis rests on it, is prefixed. The article, however, is wanting, because the sense is: a golden altar, namely, the altar of incense, in distinction from the brazen altar existing in the court, namely, the altar of burnt-offering.
καὶ τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης ] and the ark of the covenant; comp. Exo_25:10 ff; Exo_37:1-9.
ΠΕΡΙΚΕΚΑΛΥΜΜΈΝΗΝ ΠΆΝΤΟΘΕΝ ΧΡΥΣΊῼ ] overlaid on every side (within and without; comp. Exo_25:11) with gold (plating of fine gold). According to 1 Kings 8, the ark of the covenant was also brought into the temple of Solomon. On the destruction of this temple by the Chaldeans it was lost, and the second temple was without an ark. Comp. Josephus, de Bello Jud. v. 5. 5 : Ἔκειτο δὲ οὐδὲν ὅλως ἐν αὐτῷ , ἄβατον δὲ καὶ ἄχραντον καὶ ἀθέατον ἦν πᾶσιν , ἁγίου δὲ ἅγιον ἐκαλεῖτο .
ἐν ᾗ στάμνος χρυσῆ ἔχουσα τὸ μάννα κ . τ . λ .] wherein was a golden pot with the manna, and Aaron’s rod which had budded, and the tables of the covenant. ἘΝ ᾟ does not refer back to ΣΚΗΝΉ , Heb_9:3 (Ribera, Justinian, Pyle, Peirce, and others),—for to the ἘΝ ᾟ , Heb_9:4, the ὙΠΕΡΆΝΩ ΔῈ ΑὐΤῆς , Heb_9:5, forms an opposition,—but it refers to ΚΙΒΩΤΌς . On the pot of manna, comp. Exo_16:32-34; on Aaron’s rod, Num. 17:16–26 (Num_18:1-11); on the tables of the covenant, Exo_25:16; Deu_10:1-2. According to 1Ki_8:9, there was nothing more in the ark of the covenant, at the time of its removal into the temple, than the two tables of the law; and according to Exo_16:33, Num. 17:25 (Num_18:10), the two first-mentioned objects were not to have their place within, but before the ark of the covenant. The same opinion, however, which the author here expresses as to the place of the preservation of the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod, is found likewise with later Rabbins, as with R. Levi Ben Gerson at 1Ki_8:9 and at Num_17:10, and Abarbanel at 1Ki_8:9. See Wetstein on our passage.
[89] Omnibus diebus reliquis suffitum facturus de altari accepit in turibulo argenteo … hoc vero die in aureo.