Hebrews · Chapter 9

V. 1. The first covenant had ordinances of outward worship, and a worldly-a visible, material sanctuary, or tabernacle. Of this sanctuary he treats, Hebrews 9:2-5. Of those ordinances, Hebrews 9:6-10.

Verse 1. The first covenant had also ordinances] Our translators have introduced the word covenant, as if diaqhkh had been, if not originally in the text, yet in the apostle’s mind. Several MSS., but not of good note, as well as printed editions, with the Coptic version, have skhnh tabernacle; but this is omitted by ABDE, several others, both the Syriac, Æthiopic, Armenian, Vulgate, some copies of the Itala, and several of the Greek fathers; it is in all probability a spurious reading, the whole context showing that covenant is that to which the apostle refers, as that was the subject in the preceding chapter, and this is a continuation of the same discourse.

Ordinances] dikaiwmata. Rites and ceremonies.

A worldly sanctuary.] aJgion kosmikon. It is supposed that the term worldly, here, is opposed to the term heavenly, Hebrews 8:5; and that the whole should be referred to the carnality or secular nature of the tabernacle service. But I think there is nothing plainer than that the apostle is speaking here in praise of this sublimely emblematic service, and hence he proceeds to enumerate the various things contained in the first tabernacle, which added vastly to its splendour and importance; such as the table of the show-bread, the golden candlestick, the golden censer, the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, in which was the golden pot that had the manna, Aaron’s rod that budded, and the two tables which God had written with his own finger: hence I am led to believe that kosmikov is here taken in its proper, natural meaning, and signifies adorned, embellished, splendid; and hence kosmov, the world: Tota hujus universi machina, cœlum et terram complectens et quicquid utroque contineter, kosmov dicitur, quod nihil ea est mundius, pulchrius, et ornatius. “The whole machine of this universe, comprehending the heavens and the earth, and whatsoever is contained in both, is called kosmov, because nothing is more beautiful, more fair, and more elegant.” So Pliny, Hist. Nat., l. ii. c. 5: Nam quem kosmon Græci nomine ornamenti appellaverunt, eum nos a perfecta absolutaque elegantia, MUNDUM. “That which the Greeks call kosmov, ornament, we, (the Latins,) from its perfect and absolute elegance call mundum, world.” See on “Genesis 2:1”. The Jews believe that the tabernacle was an epitome of the world; and it is remarkable, when speaking of their city, that they express this sentiment by the same Greek word, in Hebrew letters, which the apostle uses here: so in Bereshith Rabba, s. 19, fol. 19: הוא שם שלו ˆwqymzwq lk col kozmikon (kosmikon) shelo sham hu. “All his world is placed there.” Philo says much to the same purpose.

If my exposition be not admitted, the next most likely is, that God has a worldly tabernacle as well as a heavenly one; that he as truly dwelt in the Jewish tabernacle as he did in the heaven of heavens; the one being his worldly house, the other his heavenly house.

Verse 1. To show that the old covenant was justly laid aside, the apostle judged it necessary to enter into a particular examination of the religious services which it enjoined, and to prove that these were designed not for cleansing the consciences of the worshippers, but to prefigure the services and blessings of the new or gospel covenant: so that the latter being come, there was no longer occasion for continuing the former to prefigure them. This chapter, therefore, is an illustration of chap. 8:5, where the apostle affirms that the priests worshipped God in the tabernacles unto the example or pattern and shadow of heavenly things. And it was proper to explain this matter copiously, because it must have had a great influence in weaning the Hebrews from the Levitical services, and in reconciling them to the abrogation of a form of worship which, though of divine appointment, was now become useless, having accomplished its end.

Then verily the first covenant — Many copies read here prwth skhnh, the first tabernacle; but as that reading does not agree with verse 2, Beza and Mill prefer the reading of the Alexandrian and other MSS. of good authority, which have prwth, leaving the reader to supply diaqhkh, covenant, from the preceding verse. This reading our translators likewise have adopted. Had ceremonial ordinances of outward worship, and a worldly, that is, a visible, material sanctuary, or tabernacle. The meaning of the apostle is, that the Sinai covenant had these things annexed to it when it was first made, as its privileges and glory. For in the whole discourse he has continual respect to the first making of the covenant, and the first institution of its administrations; and this was that part of divine worship about which God had so many controversies with the people of Israel, under the Old Testament. The law of this worship was a hedge that God had set about them to keep them from superstition and idolatry. And, if at any time they brake over it, or neglected it, they failed not to rush into the most abominable idolatries. On the other hand, oftentimes they placed all their trust and confidence for their acceptance with God, and reception of blessings from him, on the external observance of its institutions. And hereby they countenanced themselves, not only in a neglect of moral duties and spiritual obedience, but in a course of flagitious sins, and various wickednesses. To repress these exorbitances, with respect to both extremes, the ministry of the prophets was, in an especial manner, directed.

1. Then verily the first covenant—The word covenant, as the Italics show, is not in the Greek, but is rightly supplied by our translators from the last chapter. Had—As the tabernacle was first constituted by Moses. Ordinances—Literally, (Greek,) justifications; that is, arrangements justified by the divine will. Worldly sanctuary—That is, an earthly, in contrast with the true and heavenly sanctuary of which this was type; namely, the greater and more perfect tabernacle of verse 11, the holy place of verse 12, and the heaven itself into which Christ is entered of verse 24. Indeed, in this last verse both sides of the antithesis are given, namely, the holy places made with hands, and the heaven itself. See note on 8:5.

V. 2. The first-The outward tabernacle.

In which was the candlestick, and the table-The shewbread, shown continually before God and all the people, consisting of twelve loaves, according to the number of the tribes, was placed on this table in two rows, six upon one another in each row. This candlestick and bread seem to have typified the light and life which are more largely dispensed under the gospel by Him who is the Light of the world, and the Bread of life.

Verse 2. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein] The sense is here very obscure, and the construction involved: leaving out all punctuation, which is the case with all the very ancient MSS., the verse stands thus: skhnh gar kateskeuasqh h prwth en h h te lucnia, k. t. l. which I suppose an indifferent person, who understood the language, would without hesitation render, For, there was the first tabernacle constructed, in which were the candlestick, &c. And this tabernacle or dwelling may be called the first dwelling place which God had among men, to distinguish it from the second dwelling place, the temple built by Solomon; for tabernacle here is to be considered in its general sense, as implying a dwelling.

To have a proper understanding of what the apostle relates here, we should endeavour to take a concise view of the tabernacle erected by Moses in the wilderness. This tabernacle was the epitome of the Jewish temple; or rather, according to this as a model was the Jewish temple built. It comprised, 1. The court where the people might enter. 2. In this was contained the altar of burnt-offerings, on which were offered the sacrifices in general, besides offerings of bread, wine, and other things. 3. At the bottom or lower end of this court was the tent of the covenant; the two principal parts of the tabernacle were, the holy place and the holy of holies. In the temple built by Solomon there was a court for the Levites, different from that of the people; and, at the entrance of the holy place, a vestibule. But in the tabernacle built by Moses these parts were not found, nor does the apostle mention them here.

In the holy place, as the apostle observes, there were,

1. The golden candlestick of seven branches, on the south.

2. The golden altar, or altar of incense, on the north.

3. The altar, or table of the show-bread; or where the twelve loaves, representing the twelve tribes, were laid before the Lord.

1. In each branch of the golden candlestick was a lamp; these were lighted every evening, and extinguished every morning. They were intended to give light by night. 2. The altar of incense was of gold; and a priest, chosen by lot each week, offered incense every morning and evening in a golden censer, which he probably left on the altar after the completion of the offering. 3. The table of the show-bread was covered with plates of gold; and on this, every Sabbath, they placed twelve loaves in two piles, six in each, which continued there all the week till the next Sabbath, when they were removed, and fresh loaves put in their place. The whole of this may be seen in all its details in the book of Exodus, from chap. xxxv. to xl. See Calmet also.

Which is called the sanctuary.] hJtiv legetai agia. This is called holy. This clause may apply to any of the nouns in this verse, in the nominative case, which are all of the feminine gender; and the adjective agia, holy, may be considered here as the nominative singular feminine, agreeing with htiv. Several editions accent the words in reference to this construction. The word skhnh, tabernacle, may be the proper antecedent; and then we may read agia, instead of agia: but these niceties belong chiefly to grammarians.

Verse 2. For there was a tabernacle made — Namely, the first part of it of which he speaks, of boards and curtains, pillars and coverings, which constituted a little apartment, as a kind of ante-chamber to the oracle; wherein was the candlestick — Of pure gold, with its seven lamps perpetually burning with pure oil, and so giving light to all holy administrations. This undoubtedly represented the fulness of spiritual light which was to be in the Messiah, and by him to be communicated to his whole church; and the table and show-bread — That is, the bread shown continually before God and his people, consisting of twelve loaves, according to the number of the tribes, and placed on this table in two rows, six upon one another in each row. As the candlestick typified the light, so the bread seems to have been an emblem of the spiritual food provided in Christ, especially in his doctrine, merits, and Spirit for the support of the spiritual life, health, and strength of believers. This is set forth at large, John 6:27-58. There was also in this first tabernacle the golden altar of incense placed at the west end of it, where the veil opened into the most holy place. On this incense was burned every morning and evening, emblematical doubtless of the prayers of God’s people, and especially of the efficacy given to them by the mediation and intercession of Christ.

Verse 2-6. A tabernacle — wherein was the candlestick. For a description of this portable temple, which disdains borrowing figures from the Egyptian temples, though they had some figures analogous to the jews, see the sixteen last chapters of the book of Exodus, and the book of Leviticus for its rituals. The candlestick having seven lamps, he names first, for without light the inner court could not be clearly seen; and so of the other mystical glories already explained as above. Concerning the golden pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron, the Hebrew doctors make strong memorials, putting the golden pot in front of their shekel, and the rod of Aaron on the reverse side. — See the map of Jerusalem.

2. A tabernacle—Or tent, yet a different term in the Hebrew from the ordinary word for tent; as if the word became consecrated to this sacred tent. It was the temporary travelling temple during the wilderness age, subsequently replaced by the temple of Solomon at Jerusalem. Note on Matthew 21:12. The first—There were two apartments to the tabernacle;

the front one, curtained by the veil, (instead of a door,) which was called the sanctuary, or the holy place, or the holy. In this apartment our apostle enumerates three furnishings. The candlestick—The candelabrum, or chandelier, fully described in Exodus 25:31-40. It consisted of a central shaft, erected on a base, with three arms or branches extending on each of its two sides, thus forming the sacred number seven. On the summit of shaft and of each arm was a lamp, thus giving to the holy place a sevenfold light. Into the lamps every evening was poured pure olive oil to the amount of about two wine glasses full each, and the wicks, made of cotton, were lighted by the priests. In Solomon’s temple the number of chandeliers was increased to ten, but in the Herodian temple the number again was one. This last chandelier was carried by Titus to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem; and there is still extant a representation of it in the triumphal “Arch of Titus” in that city. The ordinary reckoning of the three furnishings of the holy place was, the table, the altar of incense, and the candlestick; our apostle postpones the altar to the holy of holies, and reckons the table and bread as two. The table—Made (Exodus 25:23-30) of the durable shittim wood, or acacia, overlaid with pure gold. It was two cubits long, a cubit broad, and a cubit and a half high, with rings for the insertion of bars for carrying: and with its furniture of dishes, bowls, and spoons, was of pure gold. Showbread—Hebrews, the bread of faces; that is, the “presence bread,” or bread before the face of the divine Resident between the cherubim. The Greek phrase in full, here, signifies the setting forth of the bread; meaning, not the act but the position of the bread, as set forth, or presented before the present Jehovah. By Luther it was translated schau brode; whence our English showbread, indicating its exhibition or presentation before God. There were twelve loaves, symbolizing the twelve tribes of Israel. They were placed in double rows of six, and were renewed every week; those of the previous being eaten by the priests in the holy place, from which it was unlawful to remove them. Sanctuary—The Greek agia, sanctuary, or holy place, is the same word as in verse 1, (in a different grammatical number,) and as is rendered holiest in verse 8.

V. 3. The second veil divided the holy place from the most holy, as the first veil did the holy place from the courts.

Verse 3. And after the second veil] The first veil, of which the apostle has not yet spoken, was at the entrance of the holy place, and separated the temple from the court, and prevented the people, and even the Levites, from seeing what was in the holy place.

The second veil, of which the apostle speaks here, separated the holy place from the holy of holies.

The tabernacle, which is called the Holiest of all] That is, that part of the tabernacle which is called the holy of holies.

Verse 3. And after the second veil — That is, with respect to them who entered into the tabernacle; for they were to pass through the whole length of the first part before they came to this: nor was there any other way of entering into it. This veil divided the holy place from the most holy, as the first veil did the holy place from the courts; and they are both here called veils, because by the first, the people were hindered from entering or even looking into the first part of the tabernacle, into which the priests entered daily; and by the second, the priests who performed services in the holy place were prohibited from entering, or even looking into the most holy. The tabernacle which is called the holiest of all — “This represented heaven, not only because in it the glory of the Lord, or visible symbol of his presence, rested between the cherubim, whereby the angelical hosts, surrounding the throne of God in heaven, were typified, but because this tabernacle was hidden from the eyes of all who frequented the outward tabernacle; even as heaven, the habitation of God, is hidden by the veil of their flesh from the eyes of all who live on the earth.”

Verse 2-6. A tabernacle — wherein was the candlestick. For a description of this portable temple, which disdains borrowing figures from the Egyptian temples, though they had some figures analogous to the jews, see the sixteen last chapters of the book of Exodus, and the book of Leviticus for its rituals. The candlestick having seven lamps, he names first, for without light the inner court could not be clearly seen; and so of the other mystical glories already explained as above. Concerning the golden pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron, the Hebrew doctors make strong memorials, putting the golden pot in front of their shekel, and the rod of Aaron on the reverse side. — See the map of Jerusalem.

3. Holiest of all—Or, holy of holies, or most holy. There were thus seven graduated degrees of holiness of the sacred locality: First, the mercy seat between the cherubim; second, the most holy; third, the holy; fourth, the court of the priests; fifth, the court of Israel; sixth, the court of the women; and, seventh, the court of the Gentiles.

V. 4. Having the golden censer-Used by the high priest only, on the great day of atonement.

And the ark, or chest, of the covenant-So called from the tables of the covenant contained therein.

Wherein was the manna-The monument of God's care over Israel. And Aaron's rod-The monument of the regular priesthood. And the tables of the covenant-The two tables of stone, on which the ten commandments were written by the finger of God the most venerable monument of all.

Verse 4. Which had the golden censer] It is evident that the apostle speaks here of the tabernacle built by Moses, and of the state and contents of that tabernacle as they were during the lifetime of Moses. For, as Calmet remarks, in the temple which was afterwards built there were many things added which were not in the tabernacle, and several things left out. The ark of the covenant and the two tables of the law were never found after the return from the Babylonish captivity. We have no proof that, even in the time of Solomon, the golden pot of manna, or the rod of Aaron, was either in or near the ark. In Solomon’s temple the holy place was separated from the holy of holies by a solid wall, instead of a veil, and by strong wooden doors, 1 Kings 6:31-33. In the same temple there was a large vestibule before the holy place; and round about this and the holy of holies there were many chambers in three stories, 1 Kings 6:5, 6. But there was nothing of all this in the Mosaic tabernacle; therefore, says Calmet, we need not trouble ourselves to reconcile the various scriptures which mention this subject; some of which refer to the tabernacle, others to Solomon’s temple, and others to the temple built by Zorobabel; which places were very different from each other.

The apostle says that the golden censer was in the holy of holies; but this is nowhere mentioned by Moses. But he tells us that the high priest went in, once every year, with the golden censer to burn incense; and Calmet thinks this censer was left there all the year, and that its place was supplied by a new one, brought in by the priest the year following. Others think it was left just within the veil, so that the priest, by putting his hand under the curtain, could take it out, and prepare it for his next entrance into the holiest.

The ark of the covenant] This was a sort of chest overlaid with plates of gold, in which the two tables of the law, Aaron’s rod, the pot of manna, &c., were deposited. Its top, or lid, was the propitiatory or mercy-seat.

Verses 4, 5. Which had the golden censer — Used by the high-priest only on the great day of atonement. “The apostle may have learned from the priests that this censer was of gold, and that it was left by him in the inward tabernacle, so near to the veil, that when he was about to officiate next year, by putting his hand under the veil he could draw it out to fill it with burning coals, before he entered into the most holy place to burn the incense, agreeably to the direction,” Leviticus 16:12, 13; where see the note. And the ark of the covenant — This, with the mercy-seat wherewith it was covered, was the most glorious and mysterious utensil of the tabernacle, and afterward of the temple, the most eminent pledge of God’s presence, and the most mysterious representation of the divine attributes in Christ. This being the heart, so to speak, of all divine services, was first formed; all other things in the Jewish worship had a relation to it, Exodus 25:10, 11. Sometimes it is called the ark of the testimony, because God called the tables of the covenant lodged in it by the name of his testimony, or that which testified his will to the people, and which, by the people’s acceptance of the terms of it, was to be a perpetual witness between God and them. On the same account it is called the ark of the covenant, and lastly, it is called the ark of God, because it was the most eminent pledge of the special presence of God among the people. As to its fabric, it was pantoqen, every way, within and without, overlaid with plates of beaten gold. This being the most sacred and glorious instrument of the sanctuary, all neglects about it, and contempt of it, were most severely punished. From the tabernacle it was carried into the temple built by Solomon, wherein it continued until the Babylonish captivity, and what became of it afterward is altogether uncertain. Wherein was the golden pot that had manna — The monument of God’s care over Israel. When the manna first fell, every one was commanded to gather an omer for his own eating, (Exodus 16:16,) and God appointed that an omer of it should be put into a pot, and kept in the tabernacle before the Lord, verse 33: there it was miraculously preserved from putrefaction, whereas otherwise it would have putrefied in less than two days. The pot was to be made of that which was most durable, as being to be kept for a memorial throughout all generations. Because it is said, 1 Kings 8:9, there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, the words en h, here used by the apostle, may be translated, nigh to which. Or the difficulty may be removed by supposing that the pronoun h, which, relates to skhnh, tabernacle, in which tabernacle also was the golden pot: or because it is said, Deuteronomy 31:26, Take this book of the law and put it in the side of the ark, we may conjecture that the book was put into some repository fixed to the side of the ark, and that the pot of manna was laid up before the Lord in the same manner. Aaron’s rod that budded — The monument of a regular priesthood. The apostle affirms only that it budded, but in the sacred story concerning the trial about the priesthood, recorded Numbers 17:2-10, it is added, that it brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds, being originally cut from an almond-tree. This rod Moses took from before the testimony when he was to smite the rock and work a miracle, of which this was consecrated to be the outward sign; and the tables of the covenant — The two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written by the finger of God; the most venerable monument of all. And over it — Over the ark; the cherubim of glory — “Cherubim being the name of an order of angels, (Genesis 3:24,) the figures called cherubim, placed on the sides of the mercy-seat, with the glory of the Lord resting between them, represented the angels who surround the manifestation of the divine presence in heaven. These figures, therefore, were fitly termed the cherubim of glory; and by this glory constantly abiding in the inward tabernacle, and by the figures of the cherubim, that tabernacle was rendered a fit image of heaven.” Shadowing — With outspread wings; the mercy-seat — And represented as looking down upon it; a posture significative of the desire of angels to look into the mysteries of man’s redemption, of which the mercy-seat, or propitiatory, being a plate of gold covering the ark, was an emblem, 1 Peter 1:12. See also notes on Exodus 25:17-22, where the making and frame both of the mercy-seat and the cherubim are described,

Verse 2-6. A tabernacle — wherein was the candlestick. For a description of this portable temple, which disdains borrowing figures from the Egyptian temples, though they had some figures analogous to the jews, see the sixteen last chapters of the book of Exodus, and the book of Leviticus for its rituals. The candlestick having seven lamps, he names first, for without light the inner court could not be clearly seen; and so of the other mystical glories already explained as above. Concerning the golden pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron, the Hebrew doctors make strong memorials, putting the golden pot in front of their shekel, and the rod of Aaron on the reverse side. — See the map of Jerusalem.

4. Golden censer—A censer (a shortened form of incenser) was a vessel for containing the ritual incense. The Greek word here qumiathrion (thumiaterion) may signify any bearer of incense, whether vessel or altar. Delitzsch affirms that the censer proper (though appearing, incorrectly, in our translation) is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, but only the coal pan in which were the embers for burning incense. On the great day of atonement the priest entered the holy of holies, with the coal pan containing coals from the Great Brazen Altar in his left hand, and the censer in the right; and, setting down the former before the ark, he shook the incense over the coals, producing the fragrant vapour. Twice only is the censer in the temple of Solomon called thumiaterion; but in the age of our apostle, by Philo and Josephus the term is applied to the golden altar of incense. There can be no reasonable doubt that such is its meaning here. For it can hardly be supposed that our apostle would specify so incidental a utensil as the censer, and omit so important an object as the golden altar of incense.

The main reason against the altar is, that it seems to be said to stand in the holy of holies, whereas a glance at our diagram shows that it is a central object in the holy place. But it is equally true that the censer was not in the holiest, being usually kept in the utensil room; a silver one for daily use, and a golden for the great day of atonement, when it was taken by the high priest into the holiest, used, brought back, and returned to the utensil room. But it is not really said, or truly meant, that the thumiaterion was in the holiest. The wherein of verse 2 is significantly changed to had in verse

4. Now had is the more generic term, and may mean either that the object was in the holiest, or was appropriated to the use of the holiest; and the latter was the fact with the incense altar. There are points that show that, in the mind of a Hebrew, the altar belonged to the holiest. 1. Its position was directly in front of the position of the ark of the covenant. Hence in 1 Kings 6:22, it is called “the altar which was by the oracle;” or, more literally, the altar belonging to the inner apartment, the very phrase by which a Hebrew would say that the inner apartment had the altar. 2. On the day of atonement the altar, as well as the inner shrine of the holiest, was sprinkled with blood.

The altar of incense was called golden to distinguish it from the great brazen altar of burnt offerings, placed in front of the tabernacle, and afterwards temple, under the open sky. No victim was offered upon the golden altar, but on the great day of atonement the blood of the sin offering was sprinkled upon its four horns. This golden altar was made of the durable acacia, overlaid entire with pure gold, and was one cubit in length and breadth, and two in height. It had a horn projecting upwards from each of its four corners, and a border lining its top to keep things from failing off.

The sacred incense (the English word is from incendio, to burn) was composed of ingredients divinely prescribed in Exodus 30:34. Of this composition all other than the holy use was severely forbidden. Morning and evening, daily, was the incense offered. See note on Luke 1:9. On the great day of atonement the incense was offered, and the blood sprinkled, by the high priest alone.

King Jehovah was at first sole sovereign of Israel, and the tabernacle, as afterwards the temple, was symbolically his house; and his personal abode was, as we shall soon more fully see, in the holiest. To symbolize his presence, in the solemn absence of all idol, image, or visible form, was his bread upon the table, his candlestick, and his fragrant perfumery. And this last, the incense, becomes a beautiful image of devout emotions and prayers, issuing from the censer as from a glowing heart, upward in its movement, and acceptably reaching the divine Receiver. Ark of the covenant—The sacred ark, or chest, in which was deposited the covenant, or decalogue, and other things soon to be mentioned. Exodus 25:10-16. As the decalogue is sometimes called covenant, and sometimes testimony, so we have the epithets, ark of the covenant, ark of the testimony. It was made of acacia, gold-plated without and within, was two and a half cubits long, a cubit and a half broad, and a cubit and a half high. It had borders, rings, and staves, like the table. Its lid, of pure gold, served both as the cover of the ark and the throne of Jehovah, whose glory there attested his presence. As it was here that the high priest approached with his incense and sacrificial blood for mercy, so this lid was called “the mercy-seat.” Gold—The most precious of metals, and so symbolizing that our best is to be consecrated to God. Golden pot—Exodus 16:34. The pot, or urn, containing a memorial specimen of the miraculous manna, was deposited “before the testimony,” that is, by the decalogue in the ark. But by Solomon’s time (1 Kings 8:9) the vessel had disappeared. Our author follows the Septuagint, and applies to the pot the epithet golden, which is not found in our copies of the Hebrew. According to the Gemara tradition, after the ark was taken by the Philistines, (1 Samuel 4:11,) disappeared the pot, the cruse of anointing oil, Aaron’s rod, and the coffer which the Philistines sent as a present to the God of Israel. Rod that blossomed—Blossomed miraculously, to attest Aaron’s right to the priesthood. Numbers 17:10. Tables of the covenant—The two stone tables of the decalogue.

V. 5. And over it were the cherubim of glory-Over which the glory of God used to appear. Some suppose each of these had four faces, and so represented the Three-One God, with the manhood assumed by the Second Person.

With out-spread wings shadowing the mercy-seat-Which was a lid or plate of gold, covering the ark.

Verse 5. And over it the cherubims of glory] Cherubim is the plural of cherub, and it is absurd to add our plural termination (s) to the plural termination of the Hebrew. The glory here signifies the shechinah or symbol of the Divine presence.

Shadowing the mercy-seat] One at each end of the ark, with their faces turned toward each other, but looking down on the cover or propitiatory, ilasthrion, here called the mercy-seat.

Of which we cannot now speak particularly.] The apostle did not judge any farther account of these to be necessary; and I may be excused from considering them particularly here, having said so much on each in the places where they occur in the Pentateuch. What these point out or signify is thus explained by St. Cyril: Christus licet unus sit, multifariam tamen a nobis intelligitur: Ipse est Tabernaculum propter carnis tegumenturn: Ipse est Mensa, quia noster cibus est et vita: Ipse est Arca habens legem Dei reconditam, quia est Verbum Patris: Ipse est Candelabrum, quia est lux spiritualis: Ipse est Altare incensi, quia est odor suavitatis in sanctificationem: Ipse est Altare holocausti, quia est hostia pro totius mundi vita in cruce oblata. “Although Christ be but one, yet he is understood by us under a variety of forms. He is the Tabernacle, on account of the human body in which he dwelt. He is the Table, because he is our Bread of life. He is the Ark which has the law of God enclosed within, because he is the Word of the Father. He is the Candlestick, because he is our spiritual light. He is the Altar of incense, because he is the sweet-smelling odour of sanctification. He is the Altar of burnt-offering, because he is the victim, by death on the cross, for the sins of the whole world.” This father has said, in a few words, what others have employed whole volumes on, by refining, spiritualizing, and allegorizing.

Verses 4, 5. Which had the golden censer — Used by the high-priest only on the great day of atonement. “The apostle may have learned from the priests that this censer was of gold, and that it was left by him in the inward tabernacle, so near to the veil, that when he was about to officiate next year, by putting his hand under the veil he could draw it out to fill it with burning coals, before he entered into the most holy place to burn the incense, agreeably to the direction,” Leviticus 16:12, 13; where see the note. And the ark of the covenant — This, with the mercy-seat wherewith it was covered, was the most glorious and mysterious utensil of the tabernacle, and afterward of the temple, the most eminent pledge of God’s presence, and the most mysterious representation of the divine attributes in Christ. This being the heart, so to speak, of all divine services, was first formed; all other things in the Jewish worship had a relation to it, Exodus 25:10, 11. Sometimes it is called the ark of the testimony, because God called the tables of the covenant lodged in it by the name of his testimony, or that which testified his will to the people, and which, by the people’s acceptance of the terms of it, was to be a perpetual witness between God and them. On the same account it is called the ark of the covenant, and lastly, it is called the ark of God, because it was the most eminent pledge of the special presence of God among the people. As to its fabric, it was pantoqen, every way, within and without, overlaid with plates of beaten gold. This being the most sacred and glorious instrument of the sanctuary, all neglects about it, and contempt of it, were most severely punished. From the tabernacle it was carried into the temple built by Solomon, wherein it continued until the Babylonish captivity, and what became of it afterward is altogether uncertain. Wherein was the golden pot that had manna — The monument of God’s care over Israel. When the manna first fell, every one was commanded to gather an omer for his own eating, (Exodus 16:16,) and God appointed that an omer of it should be put into a pot, and kept in the tabernacle before the Lord, verse 33: there it was miraculously preserved from putrefaction, whereas otherwise it would have putrefied in less than two days. The pot was to be made of that which was most durable, as being to be kept for a memorial throughout all generations. Because it is said, 1 Kings 8:9, there was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, the words en h, here used by the apostle, may be translated, nigh to which. Or the difficulty may be removed by supposing that the pronoun h, which, relates to skhnh, tabernacle, in which tabernacle also was the golden pot: or because it is said, Deuteronomy 31:26, Take this book of the law and put it in the side of the ark, we may conjecture that the book was put into some repository fixed to the side of the ark, and that the pot of manna was laid up before the Lord in the same manner. Aaron’s rod that budded — The monument of a regular priesthood. The apostle affirms only that it budded, but in the sacred story concerning the trial about the priesthood, recorded Numbers 17:2-10, it is added, that it brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds, being originally cut from an almond-tree. This rod Moses took from before the testimony when he was to smite the rock and work a miracle, of which this was consecrated to be the outward sign; and the tables of the covenant — The two tables of stone on which the ten commandments were written by the finger of God; the most venerable monument of all. And over it — Over the ark; the cherubim of glory — “Cherubim being the name of an order of angels, (Genesis 3:24,) the figures called cherubim, placed on the sides of the mercy-seat, with the glory of the Lord resting between them, represented the angels who surround the manifestation of the divine presence in heaven. These figures, therefore, were fitly termed the cherubim of glory; and by this glory constantly abiding in the inward tabernacle, and by the figures of the cherubim, that tabernacle was rendered a fit image of heaven.” Shadowing — With outspread wings; the mercy-seat — And represented as looking down upon it; a posture significative of the desire of angels to look into the mysteries of man’s redemption, of which the mercy-seat, or propitiatory, being a plate of gold covering the ark, was an emblem, 1 Peter 1:12. See also notes on Exodus 25:17-22, where the making and frame both of the mercy-seat and the cherubim are described,

Verse 2-6. A tabernacle — wherein was the candlestick. For a description of this portable temple, which disdains borrowing figures from the Egyptian temples, though they had some figures analogous to the jews, see the sixteen last chapters of the book of Exodus, and the book of Leviticus for its rituals. The candlestick having seven lamps, he names first, for without light the inner court could not be clearly seen; and so of the other mystical glories already explained as above. Concerning the golden pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron, the Hebrew doctors make strong memorials, putting the golden pot in front of their shekel, and the rod of Aaron on the reverse side. — See the map of Jerusalem.

5. Over it the cherubim—The “cherubim” were symbolical winged figures, presented in different Scriptures with some variation of form. In Ezekiel 1:5-10 they have each four faces; in Revelation (Revelation 4:6-8) they are four figures each with a different face. The four faces represent the highest species of the four kingdoms of the animated creation—man, lion, ox, and eagle. This fact, together with the prevalence of the number four, indicates a symbolism of the creation. There are but two at this ark. But, adopting the theory that the ark with its four sides symbolizes the world, we see how the fourness is still preserved. And, further, adopting the interpretation given by Abarnabel and others, that the words (Exodus 25:19) “of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubim,” mean that the mercy seat and cherubim were all of one piece, then we may see how the cherubim arise as personifications of the cosmos out from the cosmos itself, being, in fact, one with it. The bending of cherubim over the mercy seat is the attitude of reverent study (1 Peter 1:12) and worship, exhibiting nature in her aspect of obedience to her Ruler. The divine law (like the deposited decalogue) is a hidden secret in the system of nature; and it is surmounted with the throne of mercy shadowed with the cherubim’s wings, while over all is the glory, the Shekinah, the divine overruling Presence. Cannot… speak—For he had already (especially in verse 4) lingered among interesting but less relevant details, and must hasten to the main typical point, the parallelism between the Jewish high priest entering the earthly most holy and our high priest entering the heavenly holy.

V. 6. Always-Every day.

Accomplishing their services-Lighting the lamps, changing the shewbread, burning incense, and sprinkling the blood of the sin offerings.

Verse 6. When these thing were thus ordained] When the tabernacle was made, and its furniture placed in it, according to the Divine direction. The priests went always into the first Tabernacle] That is, into the first part of the tabernacle, or holy place, into which he went every day twice, accomplishing the services, tav latreiav epitelountev, which included his burning the incense at the morning and evening sacrifice, dressing the lamps, removing the old show-bread and laying on the new, and sprinkling the blood of the sin-offerings before the veil Leviticus 4:6: and for these works he must have constant access to the place.

Verse 6. Now when these things were thus ordained —

Kateskeuasmenwn, prepared. Having given an account of the structure of the tabernacle in the two parts of it, and the furniture of those several parts distinctly, to complete his argument, the apostle adds the consideration of their sacred use; the priests went always — Every day; into the first tabernacle — Termed the holy place; accomplishing the service of God — Performing what was there to be done, namely, burning the incense at the morning and evening sacrifice, dressing the lamps and supplying them with oil, changing the show-bread every sabbath morning. Added to this, as the principal part of the service of this tabernacle, the priests brought into it the blood of the sin-offerings, and sprinkled it before the veil, Leviticus 4:6. At all other times they entered into it without blood, for the blood of the burnt-offerings was sprinkled about the altar, Leviticus 1:11.

Verse 2-6. A tabernacle — wherein was the candlestick. For a description of this portable temple, which disdains borrowing figures from the Egyptian temples, though they had some figures analogous to the jews, see the sixteen last chapters of the book of Exodus, and the book of Leviticus for its rituals. The candlestick having seven lamps, he names first, for without light the inner court could not be clearly seen; and so of the other mystical glories already explained as above. Concerning the golden pot of manna, and the rod of Aaron, the Hebrew doctors make strong memorials, putting the golden pot in front of their shekel, and the rod of Aaron on the reverse side. — See the map of Jerusalem.

6. Went—The present tense in the Greek, the priests go into, etc. From the time of the tabernacle, through the times of the temples, down to our apostle’s own day, the daily entrance was actually or virtually continued. Always—Continuously, daily, and not only yearly. First tabernacle—The front apartment, which was first to one entering. Service—The daily performance of caring for the lamps and burning the incense.

V. 7. Errors-That is, sins of ignorance, to which only those atonements extended.

Verse 7. But into the second] That is, the holy of holies, or second part of the tabernacle, the high priest alone, once every year, that is, on one day in the year only, which was the day on which the general atonement was made. The high priest could enter into this place only on one day in the year; but on that day he might enter several times. See Lev. 16. Not without blood] The day prescribed by the law for this great solemnity was the tenth of the month Tisri, in which the high priest brought in the incense or perfumes, which he placed on the golden censer; he brought also the blood of the bullock; and sprinkled some portion of it seven times before the ark, and the veil which separated the holy place from the holy of holies. See Leviticus 16:14. He then came out, and, taking some of the blood of the goat which had been sacrificed, he sprinkled it between the veil and the ark of the covenant, Leviticus 16:15. Which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people] uJper twn tou laou agnohmatwn. For transgressions of which they were not conscious: there were so many niceties in the ritual worship of the Jews, and so many ways in which they might offend against the law and incur guilt, that it was found necessary to institute sacrifices to atone for these sins of ignorance. And as the high priest was also clothed with infirmity, he required to have an interest in the same sacrifice, on the same account. This was a national sacrifice; and by it the people understood that they were absolved from all the errors of the past year, and that they now had a renewed right of access to the mercy-seat.

Verse 7. But into the second — The holy of holies; went the high-priest alone — And no other person; and he was to be so alone as that none were to attend in order to assist him in any part of the service; yea, no one was allowed to be in the other part of the sanctuary where he might so much as see the veil opened, but all the priests, as well as the people, were kept without the sanctuary, Leviticus 16:2, 17, 32. Hence it was always provided, in case of the sickness or occasional pollutions of the actual high-priest, the next in succession should perform this office, who was therefore called the second priest. From whence, in times of disorder and confusion, they had two high-priests at once. This entrance was a type, both of the entrance of Christ into heaven, and of our entrance by him to the throne of grace, verse 24; Hebrews 10:19, 20. And this was the veil which, in the temple, was rent from top to bottom upon the death of our Lord. For by his death the way was laid open to the most holy place, and the gracious presence of God discovered to all that come to God by him. Once every year — That is, on one day only, namely, the day of expiation, Leviticus 16:2; but on that day he went in several times: not without blood — To signify that there is no entrance into God’s gracious presence but by the blood of Christ. After the high-priest had filled the holy place with a cloud of incense, he returned to the altar of burnt-offerings without the tabernacle, where the sacrifice had been newly slain; and while the blood of the beasts was fresh, and, as it were, living, he took of it in his hand, and entering again into the most holy place, sprinkled it seven times with his finger toward the mercy-seat. Which he offered — Where or when he offered it is not expressed: in the holy place there was no use of blood but for the sprinkling of it, but the sprinkling of blood was always consequential to the offering properly so called. Probably by the word prosferei, here used, he intends only bringing, and not properly offering. For himself and the errors of the people — The apostle refers to the distinct sacrifices that were to be offered on that day, the first of which was of a bullock and a ram, which were offered for the high-priest himself; such being the imperfection of their state, that they could have no priests to offer sacrifices for the sins of the people, but he must first offer for himself. By the errors of the people, are meant their sins of ignorance, to which only, and not to sins presumptuously committed, those atonements extended. They were offered for the whole nation, to make atonement for the sins which they had ignorantly committed during the preceding year, and to open the tabernacle for their acts of worship during the succeeding year. And to show this, the high-priest carried the blood of these sacrifices into the inward tabernacle, and sprinkled it before the symbol of the divine presence.

Ver. 7, 8. But into the second veil, or holy of holies, went the highpriest alone once every year, on the great day of atonement. He might go oftener, if the special events of the nation so required, which shows that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest. The veil of Moses is now done away in Christ.

7. Second—The most holy. Once every year—On the great day of atonement, the tenth day of the month Tisri. On that day he really entered more than literally once; but there was but one service, and the whole was but one proper ritual entrance. Not without blood—The details are given in Leviticus 16:2-19. A bullock was slain for the sins of the high priest, and a goat for the sins of the people. Errors—A softened term for sins. All sins are errors, and all transgressions which are not presumptuous sins are here included.

V. 8. The Holy Ghost evidently showing-By this token. That the way into the holiest-Into heaven. Was not made manifest-Not so clearly revealed. While the first tabernacle, and its service, were still subsisting-And remaining in force.

Verse 8. The Holy Ghost this signifying] These services were divinely appointed, and by each of them the Holy Spirit of God is supposed to speak.

The way into the holiest] That full access to God was not the common privilege of the people, while the Mosaic economy subsisted. That the apostle means that it is only by Christ that any man and every man can approach God, is evident from Hebrews 10:19-22, and it is about this, and not about the tabernacle of this world, that he is here discoursing. I have already observed that the apostle appears to use the word skhnh, or tabernacle, in the general sense of a dwelling place; and therefore applies it to the temple, which was reputed the house or dwelling place of God, as well as the ancient tabernacle. Therefore, what he speaks here concerning the first tabernacle, may be understood as applying with propriety to the then Jewish temple, as well as to the ancient tabernacle, which, even with all their sacrifices and ceremonies, could not make the way of holiness plain, nor the way to God’s favour possible.

Verses 8-10. The Holy Ghost — By whom the Mosaic ritual was prescribed; signifying — By this difficulty of entrance, and the necessity of the incense-cloud and the atoning blood; that the way into the holiest of all — Namely, into heaven, the place of God’s immediate presence, represented by the inward tabernacle; was not yet made manifest — Not so clearly and fully revealed; while the first tabernacle, and its service, was yet standing — Retained its station and use: or, in other words, while the Jewish economy lasted. This lasted, according to the mind of God, until the death of Christ, and no longer: until which time both Christ himself, and all his disciples, continued to observe all its services, for he was made under the law of it. So long it continued by divine appointment. Its abolition, however, was, properly speaking, not declared until the day of pentecost, when, by the extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost, the foundation of the gospel church, with its state, order, and worship, was solemnly laid; and a new way of worship being established, the abrogation of the old was shown. But through the patience of God, the Jewish worship, though no longer acceptable to him, continued until the destruction of the temple, city, and people, some years after. Which tabernacle, with all its furniture and services, was a figure — Parabolh, a parable, that is, a parabolical or emblematical instruction; for the time then present — During the continuance of that service and way of worship. Or, as the original may be interpreted, Which figure (or parabolical instruction) continues till this present time, namely, in the like service performed in the temple; according to which, namely, time, or during which, gifts and sacrifices, prosferontai, are offered, mh dunamenai, which cannot make him who does the service, ton latreuonta, the worshipper, whether the priest, or him who brings the offering, perfect — As to his conscience, so that he should be no longer conscious of being under the guilt or power of sin, or should have a full assurance that his sins are forgiven. Doddridge understands the verse in a rather different sense, thus: “Which, far from being the grand and ultimate scheme, is only a kind of allegorical figure and parable, referring to the glorious displays of the present time: in which, nevertheless, there is hitherto a continuance of the temple-service; so that gifts and sacrifices are still offered, which yet in the nature of things, are not able to make the person who performs the service perfect, with respect to the conscience; as they refer not to the real expiation of guilt, but only to averting some temporal evils which the law denounces on transgressors.” This, he adds, I take to be of the greatest importance for understanding the Mosaic sacrifices, namely, “that they were never intended to expiate offences to such a degree as to deliver the sinner from the final judgment of God in another world; but merely to make his peace with the government under which he then was, and furnish him with a pardon pleadable against any prosecution which might be commenced against him in their courts of justice, or any exclusion from the privilege of drawing near to God, as one eternally at peace with him, in the solemnities of his temple worship.” Which service stood, or consisted, only, or chiefly, in meats and drinks — Or in divers ceremonious observances concerning these things; in the distinction between different kinds of meats, clean or unclean, and drinks, some of which were allowed, and others denied, to priests in some circumstances, and to Nazarites in others; and divers washings — Either of the whole body, or of a part of it, in water, as different occasions demanded; and carnal ordinances — Various injunctions relating to the purification of the flesh, imposed on them as necessary to be observed; until the time of reformation — Namely, of the worship of God by Christ, who was to abolish the Levitical services, and to introduce a worship in spirit and in truth, which might be performed in every place.

Ver. 7, 8. But into the second veil, or holy of holies, went the highpriest alone once every year, on the great day of atonement. He might go oftener, if the special events of the nation so required, which shows that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest. The veil of Moses is now done away in Christ.

8. The Holy Ghost—By whose mind this whole system of symbols was framed. The way—Of access to, through Christ. Into the holiest of all— As all agree, not the earthly but the heavenly holiest is here designated. Not yet made manifest—For, while the first tabernacle maintained its standing as type, the antitype could not coexist with it. Its standing as type ceased when Christ went through the transition from earth to heaven, of which the high priest’s transition from the holy to the holiest was a shadow. For the holy stands for this world; the veil for the visible firmamental heaven; and the holiest for the highest heaven. Thus:— TYPICAL.

1. Jewish high priest.

2. Passing.

3. From the holy to the holiest.

4. Through the veil.

5. After offered victims.

6. Once a year.

7. For our symbolical

justification.

ANTITYPICAL.

Our High Priest.

Ascending.

From earth to the highest

heaven.

Through the firmamental

heaven.

After offering of himself.

Once for all.

For our real justification.

It was thus by the real that the ideal is banished. By Christ’s death and ascension the antitype comes, and the type vanishes. The true high priest passes through the true tabernacle to the true holiest, and the first tabernacle loses its standing. The first tabernacle—Does this mean the first or front apartment of the tabernacle, (as in verses 2 and 6,) or does it mean the entire earthly tabernacle, including both apartments, as being first in relation to the heavenly as its second? The run of English commentators maintains the second view; the later German, as Lunemann and Delitzsch, followed by Alford, the first. We are obliged to coincide with those who maintain the second view. Lunemann’s view involves what seems to us the absurdity, that Christ’s redemptive entrance into heaven would be forestalled by the continued standing of the front apartment, but not by that of the second. You must abolish the holy in order to his heavenly entrance, but not the holiest. Why so? If the coming in of the antitype requires the cessation of the type, surely the holiest is much more a type of the atonement and the heavenly entrance than the holy. But certainly it is the whole tabernacle which must fade away before the antitypical fulfilment. Delitzsch argues “that it is not likely” that, having just called the front apartment the first tabernacle, he would use the same term in a changed sense. But our writer does, according to Delitzsch’s own interpretation, do just that when he calls the earthly holiest and the heavenly holiest by the same name, in the Greek of verses 3 and 8, without any other warning than the context affords. Alford argues that the heavenly would in truth be the first tabernacle. But that would be making the antitype precede the type. Doubtless the heavens are earlier than any earthly structure, but not necessarily as a tabernacle for the redeemed or the Redeemer. “I go to prepare a place for you,” said Christ to the disciples; and it was his earthly death that made the place preparable. Without that death there were no tabernacle for us in heaven. And just now is the time to say, that the terms first tabernacle and second tabernacle, in verses 2, 6, and 7, cannot mean that there were literally two tabernacles. Such a terminology contradicts the entire usus loquendi of Scripture, which wholly unknows more than one tabernacle. The plain meaning of first tabernacle and second in those three verses is, so much of the tabernacle as is first, or front in order, and second, so much as is rear. This is a familiar Latinism, and Lunemann admits that, as suggested by Valckner, it is a perfectly allowable interpretation. We think it undoubtedly the true one. For, very plainly, while the first and second tabernacle of the previous verses are correlative to each other, the first tabernacle of this verse is antithetical and typical to the more perfect tabernacle of verse 11.

V. 9. Which-Tabernacle, with all its furniture and services. Is a figure-Or type, of good things to come.

Which cannot perfect the worshipper-Neither the priest nor him who brought the offering.

As to his conscience-So that he should be no longer conscious of the guilt or power of sin. Observe, the temple was as yet standing.

Verse 9. Which] Tabernacle and its services, was a figure, parabolh, a dark enigmatical representation, for the time then present-for that age and dispensation, and for all those who lived under it.

In which, kaqoJn, during which, time or dispensation were offered both gifts and sacrifices-eucharistic offerings and victims for sin, that could not make him that did the service, whether the priest who made the offering, or the person who brought it in the behalf of his soul, perfect as pertaining to the conscience-could not take away guilt from the mind, nor purify the conscience from dead works. The whole was a figure, or dark representation, of a spiritual and more glorious system: and although a sinner, who made these offerings and sacrifices according to the law, might be considered as having done his duty, and thus he would be exempted from many ecclesiastical and legal disabilities and punishments; yet his conscience would ever tell him that the guilt of sin was still remaining, and that it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take it away. Thus even he that did the service best continued to be imperfect-had a guilty conscience, and an unholy heart.

The words kaqoJn, in which, referred in the above paraphrase to ton kairon, the time, are read kaqhJn by ABD, and several others, one copy of the Slavonic, the Vulgate, and some of the fathers, and thus refer to thn skhnhn, the tabernacle; and this is the reading which our translators appear to have followed. Griesbach places it in his margin, as a very probable reading; but I prefer the other.

Verses 8-10. The Holy Ghost — By whom the Mosaic ritual was prescribed; signifying — By this difficulty of entrance, and the necessity of the incense-cloud and the atoning blood; that the way into the holiest of all — Namely, into heaven, the place of God’s immediate presence, represented by the inward tabernacle; was not yet made manifest — Not so clearly and fully revealed; while the first tabernacle, and its service, was yet standing — Retained its station and use: or, in other words, while the Jewish economy lasted. This lasted, according to the mind of God, until the death of Christ, and no longer: until which time both Christ himself, and all his disciples, continued to observe all its services, for he was made under the law of it. So long it continued by divine appointment. Its abolition, however, was, properly speaking, not declared until the day of pentecost, when, by the extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost, the foundation of the gospel church, with its state, order, and worship, was solemnly laid; and a new way of worship being established, the abrogation of the old was shown. But through the patience of God, the Jewish worship, though no longer acceptable to him, continued until the destruction of the temple, city, and people, some years after. Which tabernacle, with all its furniture and services, was a figure — Parabolh, a parable, that is, a parabolical or emblematical instruction; for the time then present — During the continuance of that service and way of worship. Or, as the original may be interpreted, Which figure (or parabolical instruction) continues till this present time, namely, in the like service performed in the temple; according to which, namely, time, or during which, gifts and sacrifices, prosferontai, are offered, mh dunamenai, which cannot make him who does the service, ton latreuonta, the worshipper, whether the priest, or him who brings the offering, perfect — As to his conscience, so that he should be no longer conscious of being under the guilt or power of sin, or should have a full assurance that his sins are forgiven. Doddridge understands the verse in a rather different sense, thus: “Which, far from being the grand and ultimate scheme, is only a kind of allegorical figure and parable, referring to the glorious displays of the present time: in which, nevertheless, there is hitherto a continuance of the temple-service; so that gifts and sacrifices are still offered, which yet in the nature of things, are not able to make the person who performs the service perfect, with respect to the conscience; as they refer not to the real expiation of guilt, but only to averting some temporal evils which the law denounces on transgressors.” This, he adds, I take to be of the greatest importance for understanding the Mosaic sacrifices, namely, “that they were never intended to expiate offences to such a degree as to deliver the sinner from the final judgment of God in another world; but merely to make his peace with the government under which he then was, and furnish him with a pardon pleadable against any prosecution which might be commenced against him in their courts of justice, or any exclusion from the privilege of drawing near to God, as one eternally at peace with him, in the solemnities of his temple worship.” Which service stood, or consisted, only, or chiefly, in meats and drinks — Or in divers ceremonious observances concerning these things; in the distinction between different kinds of meats, clean or unclean, and drinks, some of which were allowed, and others denied, to priests in some circumstances, and to Nazarites in others; and divers washings — Either of the whole body, or of a part of it, in water, as different occasions demanded; and carnal ordinances — Various injunctions relating to the purification of the flesh, imposed on them as necessary to be observed; until the time of reformation — Namely, of the worship of God by Christ, who was to abolish the Levitical services, and to introduce a worship in spirit and in truth, which might be performed in every place.

9. Which—All agree that this relative refers to first tabernacle, in ver. 8. And that further demonstrates that the whole one tabernacle was meant: for is it not clear that it was the one whole tabernacle which was a figure, a parable, of the inefficacy of the type without the antitype? Were not the incense and blood as inefficacious, intrinsically, in the holiest as in the holy? For the time then present—Rather, for the time now insetting; that is, time that is now begun and is in progress. The same phrase is used at Romans 8:38; 1 Corinthians 3:22; 7:26; Galatians 1:4; also, 2 Thessalonians 2:2, where see note. Were offered—The Greek is in the present tense, are offered. The offerings are still made, for the temple at the apostle’s writing is still standing, and the inefficacy of the ritual still exists. Make… perfect—Render justified and right. Conscience—The moral consciousness of guilt or innocence.

V. 10. They could not so perfect him, with all their train of precepts relating to meats and drinks, and carnal, gross, external ordinances; and were therefore imposed only till the time of reformation-Till Christ came.

Verse 10. In meats and drinks, and divers washings] He had already mentioned eucharistic and sacrificial offerings, and nothing properly remained but the different kinds of clean and unclean animals which were used, or forbidden to be used, as articles of food; together with the different kinds or drinks, washings, baptismoiv, baptisms, immersions, sprinklings and washings of the body and the clothes, and carnal ordinances, or things which had respect merely to the body, and could have no moral influence upon the soul, unless considered in reference to that of which they were the similitudes, or figures.

Carnal ordinances] dikaiwmata sarkov. Rites and ceremonies pertaining merely to the body. The word carnal is not used here, nor scarcely in any part of the New Testament, in that catachrestical or degrading sense in which many preachers and professors of Christianity take the liberty to use it.

Imposed on them until the time of reformation.] These rites and ceremonies were enacted, by Divine authority, as proper representations of the Gospel system, which should reform and rectify all things. The time of reformation, kairov diorqwsewv, the time of rectifying, signifies the Gospel dispensation, under which every thing is set straight; every thing referred to its proper purpose and end; the ceremonial law fulfilled and abrogated; the moral law exhibited and more strictly enjoined; (see our Lord’s sermon upon the mount;) and the spiritual nature of God’s worship taught, and grace promised to purify the heart: so that, through the power of the eternal Spirit, all that was wrong in the soul is rectified; the affections, passions, and appetites purified; the understanding enlightened; the judgment corrected; the will refined; in a word, all things made new.

Verses 8-10. The Holy Ghost — By whom the Mosaic ritual was prescribed; signifying — By this difficulty of entrance, and the necessity of the incense-cloud and the atoning blood; that the way into the holiest of all — Namely, into heaven, the place of God’s immediate presence, represented by the inward tabernacle; was not yet made manifest — Not so clearly and fully revealed; while the first tabernacle, and its service, was yet standing — Retained its station and use: or, in other words, while the Jewish economy lasted. This lasted, according to the mind of God, until the death of Christ, and no longer: until which time both Christ himself, and all his disciples, continued to observe all its services, for he was made under the law of it. So long it continued by divine appointment. Its abolition, however, was, properly speaking, not declared until the day of pentecost, when, by the extraordinary effusion of the Holy Ghost, the foundation of the gospel church, with its state, order, and worship, was solemnly laid; and a new way of worship being established, the abrogation of the old was shown. But through the patience of God, the Jewish worship, though no longer acceptable to him, continued until the destruction of the temple, city, and people, some years after. Which tabernacle, with all its furniture and services, was a figure — Parabolh, a parable, that is, a parabolical or emblematical instruction; for the time then present — During the continuance of that service and way of worship. Or, as the original may be interpreted, Which figure (or parabolical instruction) continues till this present time, namely, in the like service performed in the temple; according to which, namely, time, or during which, gifts and sacrifices, prosferontai, are offered, mh dunamenai, which cannot make him who does the service, ton latreuonta, the worshipper, whether the priest, or him who brings the offering, perfect — As to his conscience, so that he should be no longer conscious of being under the guilt or power of sin, or should have a full assurance that his sins are forgiven. Doddridge understands the verse in a rather different sense, thus: “Which, far from being the grand and ultimate scheme, is only a kind of allegorical figure and parable, referring to the glorious displays of the present time: in which, nevertheless, there is hitherto a continuance of the temple-service; so that gifts and sacrifices are still offered, which yet in the nature of things, are not able to make the person who performs the service perfect, with respect to the conscience; as they refer not to the real expiation of guilt, but only to averting some temporal evils which the law denounces on transgressors.” This, he adds, I take to be of the greatest importance for understanding the Mosaic sacrifices, namely, “that they were never intended to expiate offences to such a degree as to deliver the sinner from the final judgment of God in another world; but merely to make his peace with the government under which he then was, and furnish him with a pardon pleadable against any prosecution which might be commenced against him in their courts of justice, or any exclusion from the privilege of drawing near to God, as one eternally at peace with him, in the solemnities of his temple worship.” Which service stood, or consisted, only, or chiefly, in meats and drinks — Or in divers ceremonious observances concerning these things; in the distinction between different kinds of meats, clean or unclean, and drinks, some of which were allowed, and others denied, to priests in some circumstances, and to Nazarites in others; and divers washings — Either of the whole body, or of a part of it, in water, as different occasions demanded; and carnal ordinances — Various injunctions relating to the purification of the flesh, imposed on them as necessary to be observed; until the time of reformation — Namely, of the worship of God by Christ, who was to abolish the Levitical services, and to introduce a worship in spirit and in truth, which might be performed in every place.

10. In meats and drinks, and divers washings—It is objected that the gifts and offerings did not consist in these. Nevertheless, it is true that all the sacrifices but the whole burnt offering, including the show-bread, were eaten, or at any rate were usual material of food, and so were meats; and there were various libations which were drinks; and lustrations which were divers washings.

b. Of all this tabernacle and high priestly ritual our self-offering High Priest furnishes the antitype, 11-14.

V. 11. An high priest of good things to come-Described, Hebrews 9:15.

Entered through a greater, that is, a more noble, and perfect tabernacle-Namely, his own body.

Not of this creation-Not framed by man, as that tabernacle was.

Verse 11. But Christ being come a high priest of good things] I think this and the succeeding verses not happily translated: indeed, the division of them has led to a wrong translation; therefore they must be taken together, thus: But the Christ, the high priest of those good things (or services) which were to come, through a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is, not of the same workmanship, entered once for all into the sanctuary; having obtained eternal redemption for us, not by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood, Hebrews 9:13. For if the blood of GOATS, and bulls, and calves, and a heifer’s ashes, sprinkled on the unclean, sanctifieth to the cleansing of the flesh, (Hebrews 9:14,) how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, cleanse your consciences from dead works, in order to worship (or that ye may worship) the living God?

In the above translation I have added, in Hebrews 9:13, tragwn, of goats, on the authority of ABDE, three others, the Syriac, the Arabic of Erpen, Coptic, Vulgate, two copies of the Itala, and Theodoret. And I have rendered eiv to latreuein, (Hebrews 9:14,) IN ORDER to worship, or THAT YE MAY worship; for this is the meaning of these particles eiv to in many parts of the New Testament. I shall now make a few observations on some of the principal expressions.

High priest of good things] Or services, to come, twn mellontwn agaqwn. He is the High Priest of Christianity; he officiates in the behalf of all mankind; for by him are all the prayers, praises, and services of mankind offered to God; and he ever appears in the presence of God for us. A greater and more perfect tabernacle] This appears to mean our Lord’s human nature. That, in which dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, was fitly typified by the tabernacle and temple, in both of which the majesty of God dwelt.

Not made with hands] Though our Lord’s body was a perfect human body, yet it did not come in the way of natural generation; his miraculous conception will sufficiently justify the expressions used here by the apostle.

Verses 11, 12. But Christ being come — As if he had said, Though the types and legal ceremonies could not make the worshippers perfect, yet Christ, the antitype and truth, can. Here he comes to interpret and show the end of the typical services he had spoke of; a high-priest of good things to come — Described verse 15; that is, a dispenser of those benefits and advantages which were prefigured by the Mosaic institutions, but could only be obtained for us, and bestowed upon us, by the Messiah. By a greater and more perfect tabernacle — That is, not by the service of the Jewish tabernacle, (verse 23,) but by a service performed in a greater and more perfect tabernacle above; not made with hands, that is, not of this building — Namely, the building of this worldly sanctuary, or not making any part of this lower creation. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, &c., did he procure a right to enter and minister in that tabernacle, but by his own blood — By the merit of his death; he entered in once into the holy place above — That is, once for all: not once, or one day every year, as the Jewish high-priest into the holy place of the emblematical tabernacle: having obtained — By his one perfect sacrifice; eternal redemption and salvation for us — Of which all the remissions, and all the benefits procured by the ministration of the Aaronical priesthood, were but very imperfect figures. Beza, Pierce, and many others, by the greater and more perfect tabernacle, understand our Lord’s human nature. In support of which notion Beza says, that his human nature may as properly be called a tabernacle as his flesh is called a veil, Hebrews 10:24. “But, not to dispute about the propriety of the figure, it appears an absurdity to say that Christ entered into the holy place through his own human nature, as through a tabernacle. He entered into heaven clothed with his human nature, and not through it, as through a place: for, on that supposition, he did not carry his human nature with him into heaven.” — Macknight.

Ver. 11. But Christ being come a highpriest of good things to come, and come in the fulness of the time foretold. Galatians 4:4. The rags of Joshua are superseded by robes, as in the vision of Zechariah; the true, the heavenly temple is now laid open, and the church is filled with the glory of the only-begotten of the Father. This is the temple not made with hands, but is the spiritual or mystical body of Christ.

11. But—The turning point of the momentous contrast between Jewish ritual (1-10) and Christ’s self-offering, 11-14. High priest—Who is divine bestower of good things to come; namely, the good things comprehended in the eternal redemption of verse 12, which are to come, when he shall appear a second time unto salvation. Verse 28. By—More correctly, through, as also the by in next verse. More perfect tabernacle—Than the worldly or earthly sanctuary of verse 1, and the first tabernacle of verse

8. This more perfect tabernacle is the earth, the firmamental heaven, and the highest heaven, the heaven itself of verse 24. So (Hebrews 4:14) Christ has passed into the heavens. So Theodoret, quoted by Lunemann: “The tabernacle had a typical resemblance to the whole cosmos. For it was divided into two apartments by a veil; one of which was called the holy, and the other the holy of holies. And the holy represented the system in the earth; the holy of holies the dwelling-place in the heavens. The veil filled the office of the firmament.” Not made with hands—No human workmanship was its type; but a tent which the Lord pitched, Hebrews 8:2. Not of this building—Rather, not belonging to this lower creation.

V. 12. The holy place-Heaven.

For us-All that believe.

Verse 12. But by his own blood] Here the redemption of man is attributed to the blood of Christ; and this blood is stated to be shed in a sacrificial way, precisely as the blood of bulls, goats and calves was shed under the law.

Once] Once for all, efapax, in opposition to the annual entering of the high priest into the holiest, with the blood of the annual victim. The holy place] Or sanctuary, ta agia, signifies heaven, into which Jesus entered with his own blood, as the high priest entered into the holy of holies with the blood of the victims which he had sacrificed. Eternal redemption] aiwnian lutrwsin. A redemption price which should stand good for ever, when once offered; and an endless redemption from sin, in reference to the pardon of which, and reconciliation to God, there needs no other sacrifice: it is eternal in its merit and efficacy.

Verses 11, 12. But Christ being come — As if he had said, Though the types and legal ceremonies could not make the worshippers perfect, yet Christ, the antitype and truth, can. Here he comes to interpret and show the end of the typical services he had spoke of; a high-priest of good things to come — Described verse 15; that is, a dispenser of those benefits and advantages which were prefigured by the Mosaic institutions, but could only be obtained for us, and bestowed upon us, by the Messiah. By a greater and more perfect tabernacle — That is, not by the service of the Jewish tabernacle, (verse 23,) but by a service performed in a greater and more perfect tabernacle above; not made with hands, that is, not of this building — Namely, the building of this worldly sanctuary, or not making any part of this lower creation. Neither by the blood of goats and calves, &c., did he procure a right to enter and minister in that tabernacle, but by his own blood — By the merit of his death; he entered in once into the holy place above — That is, once for all: not once, or one day every year, as the Jewish high-priest into the holy place of the emblematical tabernacle: having obtained — By his one perfect sacrifice; eternal redemption and salvation for us — Of which all the remissions, and all the benefits procured by the ministration of the Aaronical priesthood, were but very imperfect figures. Beza, Pierce, and many others, by the greater and more perfect tabernacle, understand our Lord’s human nature. In support of which notion Beza says, that his human nature may as properly be called a tabernacle as his flesh is called a veil, Hebrews 10:24. “But, not to dispute about the propriety of the figure, it appears an absurdity to say that Christ entered into the holy place through his own human nature, as through a tabernacle. He entered into heaven clothed with his human nature, and not through it, as through a place: for, on that supposition, he did not carry his human nature with him into heaven.” — Macknight.

Ver. 12. Neither by the blood of goats and calves. David in the Spirit foresaw that these would be rejected. Psalm 40:6. He entered into the holy place with his own blood, to which our redemption is always ascribed, and by which we obtain eternal inheritance.

12. Neither by—Rather, through, as noted on last verse. The former is through a space, this through an instrumentality. These two meanings of through are fundamentally one, for the action is viewed as passing through the instrument to its effect. Goats and calves—The goat and bullock sacrificed on the great day of atonement. But by his own blood—As the blood is the life, so the shedding of blood is the ritual symbol of death. And the blood of Christ is the visual and verbal symbol of his efficaciously offered life. The holy place—The place antitypical to the earthly holy of holies, into which the typical high priest annually entered, that is, the highest heavens. But, as in verse 11 it is said that Christ passed through the more perfect tabernacle, (including, of course, the whole tabernacle, both apartments,) and here it is said he entered the most holy, what could this holy be which is reached after passing through the antitypical tabernacle? And Delitzsch answers that it is something above the highest heavens, that is, the heaven of the angels and glorified saints; namely, it is the placeless innermost essence of the infinite God himself. All of which seems a most useless speculation. To pass through a building does not mean, in any language, to pass straight through its rooms, and then straight through its farthest wall into a space outside and beyond. It would be perfectly natural to say that the Jewish high priest passed through the tabernacle to the mercy seat, which stood against the back wall of the rear apartment. And so our High Priest passed through the heavens into the highest heavens. Having obtained—By the completed offering of his life. But though the work was done, there still was to be its potential presentation in heaven, and its divine acceptance and eternal ratification. Redemption—Lutrosis, a ransom; for which, in its primary and usual sense, a lutron or ransom price is given. What the ransom price is, is declared by Jesus himself in Matthew 20:28, (where see note,) namely, “his life.” And in the present passage the type of the redemption is the sacrificial victim dying in the stead of the sinful offerer. This redemption is eternal, in the endlessness of the deliverance it finally effects; in its non-repetition, being made once for all; and in contrast with the Jewish high priestly atonement which served but for a single year, and so must be persistently repeated.

V. 13. If the ashes of an heifer-Consumed by fire as a sin-offering, being sprinkled on them who were legally unclean.

Purified the flesh-Removed that legal uncleanness, and re-admitted them to the temple and the congregation. Numbers 19:17-19.

Verse 13. Sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh] Answers the end proposed by the law; namely, to remove legal disabilities and punishments, having the body and its interests particularly in view, though adumbrating or typifying the soul and its concerns.

Verses 13, 14. For, &c. — The truth intended to be confirmed in these verses, is that which the apostle had asserted in the two preceding, namely, That Christ by his blood hath obtained for us eternal redemption. And his words contain both an argument and a comparison, to this effect: “If that which is less can do that which is less, then that which is greater can do that which is greater; provided also that less, in what it did, was a type of what was greater in that greater thing which it was to effect. The apostle takes for granted, what he had proved before, namely, 1st, That the Levitical services and ordinances were in themselves carnal, and had only an obscure representation of things spiritual and eternal; and that the office and sacrifice of Christ were spiritual, and had their effects in eternal things. 2d, That those other carnal earthly things were divinely-appointed types and resemblances of those which were spiritual and eternal. From these suppositions the argument is firm: as the ordinances of old, being carnal, had an efficacy to their proper end, to purify the unclean as to the flesh; so the sacrifice of Christ hath a certain efficacy to its proper end, the purging of our consciences, &c. The force of the inference depends on the relation that was between them in the appointment of God. Nay, there was evidently a greater efficacy in the sacrifice of Christ, with respect to its proper end, than there was in those sacrifices, with respect to their proper end: the reason is, because all their efficacy depended on a mere arbitrary institution, having in their own nature neither worth nor efficacy; but in the sacrifice of Christ there is an innate glorious worth and efficacy, which, suitably to the rules of eternal reason and righteousness, will procure and accomplish its effects.” — Owen. Therefore the apostle says, How much more shall the blood of Christ, &c. These things being observed, the explication of the apostle’s words will not be difficult. As if the apostle had said, That Jesus, by his death, should procure an eternal pardon and deliverance from all the consequences of sin for us, is reasonable; for if the blood of bulls and of goats, of which I have just been speaking, when presented to God, with the appointed circumstances, on the day of general expiation by the high-priest, and, in cases of personal pollution, the ashes of a heifer, (namely, the red heifer, of which see Numbers 19:17-19,) consumed by fire, as a sin-offering, being sprinkled on them who were legally unclean, did sanctify to the purifying of the flesh — Had so much efficacy in consequence of the divine institution, as to reconcile God to the whole Jewish people, in the former instance, and in the other to introduce persons legally unclean to the liberty of approaching him in his sanctuary, which would otherwise have been denied them; how much more reasonable is it to think that the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit — Supporting the infirmities of his human nature, and animating him to the exercise of all those graces which shed such a lustre round all the infamy of his cross; offered himself voluntarily, without spot, a most acceptable sacrifice, to God — How much more, I say, shall that blood of his avail to purge our consciences from dead works, (of which see on Hebrews 6:1,) that is, from the pollutions we have contracted by works of sin and death; to serve — That is, that we may freely approach, and acceptably worship and serve the living God? — How surely shall it appease that consciousness of guilt, which might otherwise be very distressing and discouraging to us, and introduce us to present our prayers, praises, and other services in the divine presence, with assurance of acceptance and regard. It is justly observed by Macknight here, that “the ceremonial institutions mentioned, sanctified the bodies of the polluted, not by any natural efficacy, (for they rather defiled them,) but by the appointment of God, who, considering them as acts of obedience, was pleased, on their account, to remit the punishment, which, as their political ruler, he had a right to inflict on the polluted; but the shedding of the blood of Christ, both by the appointment of God, and by its own efficacy, availeth to the procuring an eternal pardon for penitent sinners. The sanctification effected by the legal rites being the sanctification of nothing but the body, it was, in a religious light, of little use, unless it was a representation and pledge of some real expiation. Now, what real expiation of sin is there in the whole universe, if the sacrifice of Christ is excluded? We must therefore acknowledge that the Levitical rites, which sanctified the flesh, derived their whole virtue from their being, as the apostle affirms, figurative representations of the real atonement which Christ [made upon the cross and] was to make in heaven, [by presenting his crucified body there,] for sanctifying the soul of the sinner. Christ is said to have offered himself through the eternal Spirit, because he was raised from the dead by the Spirit, (1 Peter 3:18,) consequently he was enabled by the Spirit to offer himself to God.”

Ver. 13. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean. Rabbi Maimonides, in his Novochim, has a good note here. He says that though the Hebrew altar made no atonement for murderers, for idolaters, for adulterers, yet there was an atonement made for them by the red heifer, and other accursed victims laden with their sins, [called here “dead works”] slain, and burned without the camp, from whose ashes the waters of purification were secreted.

13. For—An argument in these two verses for the divine efficiency of the atonement, drawn from three comparative points; thus—1. The blood of animals—the blood of Christ. 2. The purifying of the flesh—the purifying of the conscience. 3. Through animal life—through eternal Spirit. If—Not implying a doubt, but assuming a fundamental certainty as basis of the momentous inference. Ashes of a heifer—Numbers 19:2-6. Under Jewish law a corpse, as a memento of death and sin, was unclean; and its contact rendered a man unclean, excluding him from the congregation of Israel until purified. A red heifer—red as the ruddy colour of life—was burned, and its ashes, mixed with water, were reserved as a purifier to be sprinkled on every person who was unclean by the death-touch. The solemn awe of sin and death was impressed by several additional points. The heifer was burned without the camp. All the persons performing the rite were unclean until evening, and not only the unclean man, but the tent in which was the corpse, must be purified by the ashes and water. In all this was impressed upon Israel the divine antithesis of God, purity, and life, on one side, and Satan, sin, and death, on the other. Purifying of the flesh—Producing a typical purity, and deriving all the power for that from the antitype it represented. Hence, even though it made the conscience quiet, it received not that benefit from the mere material character of the substances used in the rite.

V. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ.-The merit of all his sufferings.

Who through the eternal Spirit-The work of redemption being the work of the whole Trinity. Neither is the Second Person alone concerned even in the amazing condescension that was needful to complete it. The Father delivers up the kingdom to the Son; and the Holy Ghost becomes the gift of the Messiah, being, as it were, sent according to his good pleasure. Offered himself-Infinitely more precious than any created victim, and that without spot to God.

Purge our conscience-Our inmost soul.

From dead works-From all the inward and outward works of the devil, which spring from spiritual death in the soul, and lead to death everlasting. To serve the living God-In the life of faith, in perfect love and spotless holiness.

Verse 14. Who through the eternal Spirit] This expression is understood two ways: 1. Of the Holy Ghost himself. As Christ’s miraculous conception was by the Holy Spirit, and he wrought all his miracles by the Spirit of God, so his death or final offering was made through or by the eternal Spirit; and by that Spirit he was raised from the dead, 1 Peter 3:18. Indeed, through the whole of his life be was justified by the Spirit; and we find that in this great work of human redemption, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit were continually employed: therefore the words may be understood of the Holy Spirit properly. 2. Of the eternal Logos or Deity which dwelt in the man Christ Jesus, through the energy of which the offering of his humanity became an infinitely meritorious victim; therefore the Deity of Christ is here intended. But we cannot well consider one of these distinct from the other; and hence probably arose the various readings in the MSS. and versions on this article. Instead of dia pneumatov aiwniou, by the ETERNAL Spirit, dia pneumatov aJgiou, by the HOLY Spirit, is the reading of D*, and more than twenty others of good note, besides the Coptic, Slavonic, Vulgate, two copies of the Itala, Cyril, Athanasius sometimes, Damascenus, Chrysostom, and some others. But the common reading is supported by ABD**, and others, besides the Syriac, all the Arabic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Athanasius generally, Theodoret, Theophylact, and Ambrosius. This, therefore, is the reading that should he preferred, as it is probable that the Holy Ghost, not the Logos, is what the apostle had more immediately in view. But still we must say, that the Holy Spirit, with the eternal Logos, and the almighty Father, equally concurred in offering up the sacrifice of the human nature of Christ, in order to make atonement for the sin of the world.

Purge your conscience] kaqariei thn suneidhsin. Purify your conscience. The term purify should be everywhere, both in the translation of the Scriptures, and in preaching the Gospel, preferred to the word purge, which, at present, is scarcely ever used in the sense in which our translators have employed it.

Dead works] Sin in general, or acts to which the penalty of death is annexed by the law. See the phrase explained, “Hebrews 6:1”.

Verses 13, 14. For, &c. — The truth intended to be confirmed in these verses, is that which the apostle had asserted in the two preceding, namely, That Christ by his blood hath obtained for us eternal redemption. And his words contain both an argument and a comparison, to this effect: “If that which is less can do that which is less, then that which is greater can do that which is greater; provided also that less, in what it did, was a type of what was greater in that greater thing which it was to effect. The apostle takes for granted, what he had proved before, namely, 1st, That the Levitical services and ordinances were in themselves carnal, and had only an obscure representation of things spiritual and eternal; and that the office and sacrifice of Christ were spiritual, and had their effects in eternal things. 2d, That those other carnal earthly things were divinely-appointed types and resemblances of those which were spiritual and eternal. From these suppositions the argument is firm: as the ordinances of old, being carnal, had an efficacy to their proper end, to purify the unclean as to the flesh; so the sacrifice of Christ hath a certain efficacy to its proper end, the purging of our consciences, &c. The force of the inference depends on the relation that was between them in the appointment of God. Nay, there was evidently a greater efficacy in the sacrifice of Christ, with respect to its proper end, than there was in those sacrifices, with respect to their proper end: the reason is, because all their efficacy depended on a mere arbitrary institution, having in their own nature neither worth nor efficacy; but in the sacrifice of Christ there is an innate glorious worth and efficacy, which, suitably to the rules of eternal reason and righteousness, will procure and accomplish its effects.” — Owen. Therefore the apostle says, How much more shall the blood of Christ, &c. These things being observed, the explication of the apostle’s words will not be difficult. As if the apostle had said, That Jesus, by his death, should procure an eternal pardon and deliverance from all the consequences of sin for us, is reasonable; for if the blood of bulls and of goats, of which I have just been speaking, when presented to God, with the appointed circumstances, on the day of general expiation by the high-priest, and, in cases of personal pollution, the ashes of a heifer, (namely, the red heifer, of which see Numbers 19:17-19,) consumed by fire, as a sin-offering, being sprinkled on them who were legally unclean, did sanctify to the purifying of the flesh — Had so much efficacy in consequence of the divine institution, as to reconcile God to the whole Jewish people, in the former instance, and in the other to introduce persons legally unclean to the liberty of approaching him in his sanctuary, which would otherwise have been denied them; how much more reasonable is it to think that the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit — Supporting the infirmities of his human nature, and animating him to the exercise of all those graces which shed such a lustre round all the infamy of his cross; offered himself voluntarily, without spot, a most acceptable sacrifice, to God — How much more, I say, shall that blood of his avail to purge our consciences from dead works, (of which see on Hebrews 6:1,) that is, from the pollutions we have contracted by works of sin and death; to serve — That is, that we may freely approach, and acceptably worship and serve the living God? — How surely shall it appease that consciousness of guilt, which might otherwise be very distressing and discouraging to us, and introduce us to present our prayers, praises, and other services in the divine presence, with assurance of acceptance and regard. It is justly observed by Macknight here, that “the ceremonial institutions mentioned, sanctified the bodies of the polluted, not by any natural efficacy, (for they rather defiled them,) but by the appointment of God, who, considering them as acts of obedience, was pleased, on their account, to remit the punishment, which, as their political ruler, he had a right to inflict on the polluted; but the shedding of the blood of Christ, both by the appointment of God, and by its own efficacy, availeth to the procuring an eternal pardon for penitent sinners. The sanctification effected by the legal rites being the sanctification of nothing but the body, it was, in a religious light, of little use, unless it was a representation and pledge of some real expiation. Now, what real expiation of sin is there in the whole universe, if the sacrifice of Christ is excluded? We must therefore acknowledge that the Levitical rites, which sanctified the flesh, derived their whole virtue from their being, as the apostle affirms, figurative representations of the real atonement which Christ [made upon the cross and] was to make in heaven, [by presenting his crucified body there,] for sanctifying the soul of the sinner. Christ is said to have offered himself through the eternal Spirit, because he was raised from the dead by the Spirit, (1 Peter 3:18,) consequently he was enabled by the Spirit to offer himself to God.”

Ver. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ, the Lamb without spot, immolated by the good pleasure of the Father, and offered up through the eternal Spirit, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? Was ever sacrifice like this? God spared not his own Son, but freely delivered him up for us all. For their sakes, said the Saviour, I sanctify myself, a vicarious victim, to satisfy the demands of justice, that mercy may be extended to the ruined and the lost. His death gave a perfect finish to the ransom; by the one offering of himself he has for ever perfected, as regards atonement and satisfaction, them that are sanctified.

14. Through the eternal Spirit—Lunemann enumerates some eight different interpretations of this unusual phrase. A large majority of commentators understand it to mean either the divine second person of the Trinity in Jesus incarnated, or the third person, the Holy Spirit, indwelling and inspiring him. For this last Stuart assigns the following texts: Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 4:1; Matthew 12:28; Luke 4:18; Matthew 3:16, 11; Luke 3:22; John 1:32, 33; 3:34. This makes, certainly, a genuinely biblical meaning. It assumes that Christ went through the scenes of the atonement in full cooperative accordance with, and under actuation by, the blessed Spirit. Nevertheless, our own view will appear from our threefold parallel given above. And our process brings out a result quite coincident with the view of Delitzsch, (which is treated by Lunemann with almost contempt,) namely, that the eternal personal spirit of Christ himself, his divine nature, stands in antithesis to the perishing life of the animal sacrifice. So, rightly, Delitzsch says: “This eternal spirit answers to the animal soul (vpn) in the expiatory victims of the Old Testament.” The animal becomes a sacrifice through an animal soul; Jesus makes himself a sacrifice through an eternal spirit. And the phrase is without the definite article in the Greek. Christ is, though rarely, styled a spirit in Scripture, and by Paul alone. 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17, and onward. Hereby the divine nature of the Son of God is brought in, upbearing and giving divine superiority and merit to his atonement. Without spot—The usual phrase by which the spotlessness of the victim was expressed in the law; prefiguring the sinlessness of Him who atones for the sins of others. To God—And not as a few of the Church fathers taught, to Satan; as if he possessed a conceded authority over all held under penalty of sin. We hold that the sacrifice of himself by Jesus was a divine concession paid to the divine governmental justice. It was offered to God, not as a payment or gift to him, but as a presentation manifesting that the concession was truly made by which sin is forgiven and government verified. Your conscience—Your, carries home the direct appeal to the moral consciousness of those (our Hebrews) addressed. Conscience—Our moral nature, which feels the claim of moral obligation, the sense of guilt at its violation, and the sense of purity upon forgiveness and sanctification. And how great that feeling when assured at such a cost and from such a source! From dead works—Suggested by the image above detailed of the moral taint from the death-touch. Dead works are our corrupting dealings and contact with sin and death, sending a death-taint through our soul. And in contrast with this is the living God, whom sin and death would love to kill, but who ever lives, and sends immortal life through soul and body of all who serve him.

c. By the death of our High Priest, the new covenant is a last will and testament, 15-18.

The Greek word for covenant, diaqhkh, signifies a disposition of things, a dispensation, an arrangement. Hence it includes an arrangement by agreement, that is, a covenant; or an arrangement by bequest or dying will, that is, a testament. Parenthetically, therefore, and very much as a side thought, the analogy of a testament is brought in as illustrating the death of which the ritual bloodshed was the symbol. The idea of testament, or will, was not, indeed, included in the Hebrew word for covenant; nor was a testamentary bequest one of the customs of Israel. Yet our apostle finds in the three facts of an inheritance, namely, a bestower, the death of the bestower, and the condition of the inheritance passing down to the inheritor—all the points necessary to be framed into the conception of a testament. The sense of covenant does, indeed, still remain; but the newly specified elements in the transaction entitle him to figure it a testamentary covenant.

V. 15. And for this end he is the Mediator of a new covenant, that they who are called-To the engagements and benefits thereof. Might receive the eternal inheritance promised to Abraham: not by means of legal sacrifices, but of his meritorious death. For the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant-That is, for the redemption of transgressors from the guilt and punishment of those sins which were committed in the time of the old covenant. The article of his death properly divides the old covenant from the new.

Verse 15. And for this cause] Some translate dia touto, on account of this (blood.) Perhaps it means no more than a mere inference, such as therefore, or wherefore.

He is the Mediator of the new testament] There was no proper reason why our translators should render diaqhkh by testament here, when in almost every other case they render it covenant, which is its proper ecclesiastical meaning, as answering to the Hebrew hyrb berith, which see largely explained, Genesis 15:10, and in other places of the Pentateuch.

Very few persons are satisfied with the translation of the following verses to the 20th, particularly the 16th and 17th; at all events the word covenant must be retained. He-Jesus Christ, is Mediator; the mesithv, or mediator, was the person who witnessed the contract made between the two contracting parties, slew the victim, and sprinkled each with its blood. Of the new testament] The new contract betwixt God and the whole human race, by Christ Jesus the Mediator, distinguished here from the old covenant between God and the Israelites, in which Moses was the mediator.

That by means of death] His own death upon the cross.

For the redemption of the transgressions] To make atonement for the transgressions which were committed under the old covenant, which the blood of bulls and calves could not do; so the death of Jesus had respect to all the time antecedent to it, as well as to all the time afterward till the conclusion of the world.

They which are called] The GENTILES, might receive the promise-might, by being brought into a covenant with God, have an equal right with the Jews, not merely to an inheritance such as the promised land, but to an eternal inheritance, and consequently infinitely superior to that of the Jews, inasmuch as the new covenant is superior in every point of view to the old.

How frequently the Gentiles are termed oi klhtoi and oi keklhmenoi, the called, all St. Paul’s writings show. And they were thus termed because they were called and elected in the place of the Jews, the ancient called and elect, who were now divorced and reprobated because of their disobedience.

Verse 15. And for this cause — Dia touto, on this account, that Christ’s blood is so efficacious; or for this end, that he might die and thereby procure redemption, and an eternal inheritance for us; he is the mediator — Between God and man, making peace between them; of the new testament — Or covenant rather, as the word diaqhkh is generally rendered in the New Testament, answering to the Hebrew word berith, which all the translators of the Jewish Scriptures have understood to signify a covenant. It is, however, such a covenant, as, having been procured for us, and confirmed by his death, is thereby become a testament. For through it we receive the blessings which Christ, by his will, designed for, and declared should be conferred upon believers through faith in his blood. “Thus when he said, for their sakes I sanctify myself, John 17:19; that is, I offer up myself as a piacular victim, that they might be sanctified, or truly purged from their sins; he adds, as his last will and testament, Father, I will that those whom thou hast given me be with me where I am. So here he is become a high-priest of good things to come, purchasing eternal redemption for us by his blood: and the mediator of that new covenant, in which God promises to be merciful to our transgressions, and to remember our sins no more, Hebrews 8:12; procuring the remission of them by the intervention of his death, that they who believe in him might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance — Which he died to entitle them to, and confer upon them; whence it is styled the purchased possession, Ephesians 1:14. This therefore was his will and testament, that they, for whom he died, should live through him. And this testament could not be confirmed but by his death: he, therefore, was at once the mediator in whom the new covenant, promising to us remission of sins, was made, and the testator by whose death the testament, that they who believed in him should have eternal life, was ratified.” So Dr. Whitby, who, however, observes, that the paragraph, to the end of verse 20, will admit of a fair interpretation without supposing that any thing is said in it either of a testament or testator. See on the next verse. That by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions — That is, for the redemption of transgressors from the guilt and punishment of those sins which were committed under the first covenant. In other words, He suffered for this end, that he might procure deliverance, not only from the condemnation due to the sins which have been committed since his death, but from that due to those which were committed during the former dispensation and state of the church, which could not be fully expiated by any of those sacrifices which belonged to the first covenant. They which are called — And obey the call, or are made partakers of the grace of the gospel; might receive the promise of eternal inheritance — The things promised in the new covenant, namely, not a temporary, earthly inheritance, such as the land of Canaan, promised in the first covenant, but that eternal glory which is promised in the new covenant.

Ver. 15. For this cause he is the Mediator of the new testament, which is open to the gentiles, and calls the world to turn to God. Aaron therefore, compared with Christ, was restricted in his powers. He could only look on the leper, but could not cleanse; whereas, all the gentile armies washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the lamb. Thus sinners, washed and reconciled, are brought nigh, and joined to the hundred and forty four thousand of the virgin church; they are made heirs of the promises, and all the blessings of eternal life.

15. Mediator—In this testament-covenant the inherited good comes from God, and Christ is the middleman, receiving from God and transmitting it to the heirs, consequently on the condition of his own death. The new testament… first testament—As bequest, will, or covenant, the results of the death of Christ pervaded both dispensations. Hence there was a first testament and a new testament. By means of death—His death. The condition of the divine bequest not only acts prospectively, to transmit the inheritance to all future heirs, but retrospectively, upon those under the first testament. So our Hebrews must cheerfully understand that the death of our suffering Jesus not only gives its efficacy to Christianity, but even to ancient Hebraism. Receive the fruition of the promise.

V. 16. I say by means of death; for where such a covenant is, there must be the death of him by whom it is confirmed-Seeing it is by his death that the benefits of it are purchased. It seems beneath the dignity of the apostle to play upon the ambiguity of the Greek word, as the common translation supposes him to do.

Verse 16. For where a testament is] A learned and judicious friend furnishes me with the following translation of this and the 17th verse:— “For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of the appointed victim should be exhibited, because a covenant is confirmed over dead victims, since it is not at all valid while the appointed victim is alive.” He observes,

“There is no word signifying testator, or men, in the original. diaqemenov is not a substantive, but a participle, or a participial adjective, derived from the same root as diathkh, and must have a substantive understood. I therefore render it the disposed or appointed victim, alluding to the manner of disposing or setting apart the pieces of the victim, when they were going to ratify a covenant; and you know well the old custom of ratifying a covenant, to which the apostle alludes. I refer to your own notes on Genesis 6:18, and Genesis 15:10.-J. C.” Mr. Wakefield has translated the passage nearly in the same way. “For where a covenant is, there must be necessarily introduced the death of that which establisheth the covenant; because a covenant is confirmed over dead things, and is of no force at all whilst that which establisheth the covenant is alive.” This is undoubtedly the meaning of this passage; and we should endeavour to forget that testament and testator were ever introduced, as they totally change the apostle’s meaning. See the observations at the end of this chapter.

Verses 16, 17. For where a testament is — That is, where there is a covenant, which is also a testament; there must of necessity be the death of the testator — As if he had said, The reason why there was a necessity that Christ should die, is taken from the nature of the covenant whereof he is Mediator, which covenant is also a testament, and therefore could not be of force but by his death. For a testament is of force — Has validity; after men are dead — When, and not before, the legatees may claim their legacies. Otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth — And therefore hath power to alter his will at pleasure. But it is not necessary that the expression tou diaqemenou, at the end of verse 16, should signify a testator, properly so called: it may mean only a promiser, and one that confirms his promise with his own blood. For diatiqhmi, according to Phavorinus, is, I promise, I covenant; and diatiqesqai diaqhkhn is very commonly in profane authors, to enter into covenant; and in the same sense the phrase is used in the Old Testament; and therefore the participle diaqemenov, derived from the same verb, must probably have the same signification here, in which it is continually used by the LXX., and which it always bears in the New Testament. Thus, Acts 3:25, Ye are the children, diaqhkhv hv dieqeto, of the covenant which God made with our fathers; Luke 22:29; kagw diatiqemai umin, and I appoint to you a kingdom, kaqwv dieqeto, as my Father hath appointed to me. So in this epistle, Hebrews 8:10; 10:16, auth h diaqhkh hn diaqhsomai, This is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel. And because covenants were usually made victimas cædendo, by sacrifices, as the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin expressions used in the making of covenants show; accordingly, the new covenant was established in the blood of Jesus. Hence the apostle speaks thus of this covenant, and the appointed disposer or maker of it. This sense of the passage is defended at large by Dr. Macknight, in a note too long to be here quoted. His paraphrase on it is as follows: “And for this reason, that the death of Christ is so efficacious, [namely, as is set forth in verses 13, 14,] of the new covenant he is the Mediator, or High-Priest, by whom its blessings are dispensed; and also the sacrifice by which it is procured and ratified; that his death being accomplished for obtaining the pardon of the transgressions of the first covenant, believers of all ages and nations, as the called seed of Abraham, (Romans 8:28,) may receive the promised eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is made by sacrifice, there is a necessity that the death of the appointed sacrifice be produced. For — According to the practice of God and man; a covenant is made firm over dead sacrifices, seeing it never hath force while the goat, calf, or bullock, appointed as the sacrifice of ratification, liveth. Because from the beginning God ratified his covenant by sacrifice, to preserve among men the expectation of the sacrifice of his Son; hence not even the covenant of Sinai was made without sacrifice.”

16. For—Assuming this beautiful view of the covenant as a testament, or bequest by will, the death of the testator is required, as by Jesus fulfilled.

V. 17. After he is dead-Neither this, nor after men are dead is a literal translation of the words. It is a very perplexed passage.

Verses 16, 17. For where a testament is — That is, where there is a covenant, which is also a testament; there must of necessity be the death of the testator — As if he had said, The reason why there was a necessity that Christ should die, is taken from the nature of the covenant whereof he is Mediator, which covenant is also a testament, and therefore could not be of force but by his death. For a testament is of force — Has validity; after men are dead — When, and not before, the legatees may claim their legacies. Otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth — And therefore hath power to alter his will at pleasure. But it is not necessary that the expression tou diaqemenou, at the end of verse 16, should signify a testator, properly so called: it may mean only a promiser, and one that confirms his promise with his own blood. For diatiqhmi, according to Phavorinus, is, I promise, I covenant; and diatiqesqai diaqhkhn is very commonly in profane authors, to enter into covenant; and in the same sense the phrase is used in the Old Testament; and therefore the participle diaqemenov, derived from the same verb, must probably have the same signification here, in which it is continually used by the LXX., and which it always bears in the New Testament. Thus, Acts 3:25, Ye are the children, diaqhkhv hv dieqeto, of the covenant which God made with our fathers; Luke 22:29; kagw diatiqemai umin, and I appoint to you a kingdom, kaqwv dieqeto, as my Father hath appointed to me. So in this epistle, Hebrews 8:10; 10:16, auth h diaqhkh hn diaqhsomai, This is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel. And because covenants were usually made victimas cædendo, by sacrifices, as the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin expressions used in the making of covenants show; accordingly, the new covenant was established in the blood of Jesus. Hence the apostle speaks thus of this covenant, and the appointed disposer or maker of it. This sense of the passage is defended at large by Dr. Macknight, in a note too long to be here quoted. His paraphrase on it is as follows: “And for this reason, that the death of Christ is so efficacious, [namely, as is set forth in verses 13, 14,] of the new covenant he is the Mediator, or High-Priest, by whom its blessings are dispensed; and also the sacrifice by which it is procured and ratified; that his death being accomplished for obtaining the pardon of the transgressions of the first covenant, believers of all ages and nations, as the called seed of Abraham, (Romans 8:28,) may receive the promised eternal inheritance. For where a covenant is made by sacrifice, there is a necessity that the death of the appointed sacrifice be produced. For — According to the practice of God and man; a covenant is made firm over dead sacrifices, seeing it never hath force while the goat, calf, or bullock, appointed as the sacrifice of ratification, liveth. Because from the beginning God ratified his covenant by sacrifice, to preserve among men the expectation of the sacrifice of his Son; hence not even the covenant of Sinai was made without sacrifice.”

V. 18. Whence neither was the first-The Jewish covenant, originally transacted without the blood of an appointed sacrifice.

Verse 18. Whereupon] oJqen. Wherefore, as a victim was required for the ratification of every covenant, the first covenant made between God and the Hebrews, by the mediation of Moses, was not dedicated, egkekainistai, renewed or solemnized, without blood-without the death of a victim, and the aspersion of its blood.

Verses 18-20. Whereupon — On which principle we may observe; neither was the first — Covenant, of which we have been speaking, I mean that of Moses; dedicated without blood — Namely, that of an appointed sacrifice. “In the original, the word covenant is wanting; and our translators, by supplying the word testament, have made the Sinai covenant or law of Moses, of which the apostle is speaking, a testament, than which,” says Macknight, “nothing can be more incongruous. The word to be supplied is not testament, but covenant. For when Moses had spoken every precept — The precepts of the law which Moses read to the people on this occasion, were chiefly those contained in Exodus 20.-23., as is evident from Exodus 24:5. See the margin. To all the people according to the law — The will, appointment, or express order of God; he took the blood of calves, &c., with water. The blood was mixed with water, to prevent its growing too stiff for sprinkling, perhaps also to typify the blood and water which should issue out of Christ’s side, signifying the expiating and cleansing virtue of his sufferings. And scarlet wool and hyssop — All these circumstances are not particularly mentioned in that chapter of Exodus, but are supposed to be already known from other passages of Moses; and sprinkled both the book — Which contained all he had said; and all the people — Who were near him. The book was sprinkled to show, 1st, That the law itself was not able to reconcile them to God, and give life without the blood of Christ added to it. 2d, That atonement was to be made by blood for sins committed against the law. 3d, That every thing is unclean to us that is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ. Saying, (Exodus 24:8,) This is the blood of the covenant, &c. — This sprinkling of the blood is a ceremony instituted by God to signify the mutual consent of both parties to the terms of the covenant; or, this is the blood whereby the covenant is ratified on both sides; which God hath enjoined unto you — Hath required me to deliver unto you or, hath commanded with respect to you, as hv eneteilato prov umav literally signifies, requiring you to declare your consent to the terms of it.

18. Whereupon—In accordance with this demand of death for a testament, the emblem of death, namely, blood, is freely shed and abundantly used.

d. As by a profuse typical blood the earthly ritual things are purified, so with a better sacrifice are the heavenly things consecrated, 19-28. The profuseness of blood application in the types, 19-22; the correspondences in the antitype, 23-28.

V. 19. He took the blood of calves-Or heifers.

And of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop-All these circumstances are not particularly mentioned in that chapter of Exodus, but are supposed to be already known from other passages of Moses. And the book itself-Which contained all he had said. And sprinkled all the people-Who were near him. The blood was mixed with water to prevent its growing too stiff for sprinkling; perhaps also to typify that blood and water, John 19:34. Exodus 24:7, 8

Verse 19. When Moses had spoken every precept] The place to which the apostle alludes is Exodus 24:4-8, where the reader is requested to consult the notes.

And sprinkled both the book] The sprinkling of the book is not mentioned in the place to which the apostle refers, (see above,) nor did it in fact take place. The words auto te to biblion, and the book itself, should be referred to labwn, having taken, and not to errantise, he sprinkled; the verse should therefore be read thus: For after every commandment of the law had been recited by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of the calves, and of the goats, with water and scarlet wool, and the book itself, and sprinkled all the people. The rite was performed thus: Having received the blood of the calves and goats into basins, and mingled it with water to prevent it from coagulating, he then took a bunch of hyssop, and having bound it together with thread made of scarlet wool, he dipped this in the basin, and sprinkled the blood and water upon the people who were nearest to him, and who might be considered on this occasion the representatives of all the rest; for it is impossible that he should have had blood enough to have sprinkled the whole of the congregation.

Some think that the blood was actually sprinkled upon the book itself, which contained the written covenant, to signify that the covenant itself was ratified by the blood.

Verses 18-20. Whereupon — On which principle we may observe; neither was the first — Covenant, of which we have been speaking, I mean that of Moses; dedicated without blood — Namely, that of an appointed sacrifice. “In the original, the word covenant is wanting; and our translators, by supplying the word testament, have made the Sinai covenant or law of Moses, of which the apostle is speaking, a testament, than which,” says Macknight, “nothing can be more incongruous. The word to be supplied is not testament, but covenant. For when Moses had spoken every precept — The precepts of the law which Moses read to the people on this occasion, were chiefly those contained in Exodus 20.-23., as is evident from Exodus 24:5. See the margin. To all the people according to the law — The will, appointment, or express order of God; he took the blood of calves, &c., with water. The blood was mixed with water, to prevent its growing too stiff for sprinkling, perhaps also to typify the blood and water which should issue out of Christ’s side, signifying the expiating and cleansing virtue of his sufferings. And scarlet wool and hyssop — All these circumstances are not particularly mentioned in that chapter of Exodus, but are supposed to be already known from other passages of Moses; and sprinkled both the book — Which contained all he had said; and all the people — Who were near him. The book was sprinkled to show, 1st, That the law itself was not able to reconcile them to God, and give life without the blood of Christ added to it. 2d, That atonement was to be made by blood for sins committed against the law. 3d, That every thing is unclean to us that is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ. Saying, (Exodus 24:8,) This is the blood of the covenant, &c. — This sprinkling of the blood is a ceremony instituted by God to signify the mutual consent of both parties to the terms of the covenant; or, this is the blood whereby the covenant is ratified on both sides; which God hath enjoined unto you — Hath required me to deliver unto you or, hath commanded with respect to you, as hv eneteilato prov umav literally signifies, requiring you to declare your consent to the terms of it.

19. For—To show with what tokens of death the first covenant testament was dedicated, our apostle goes back to the memorable scene when Jehovah and Israel first formed their covenant under Moses. Exodus 24:3-8. Fresh from Sinai, Moses, having written the law in a book, reads it to the people, who fully assent to the compact between law and obedience. To ratify this compact or covenant, Moses is here described as taking the usual sprinkling-brush—a sprig of hyssop tipped with red wool—dipping it into the blood of slain animals, and sprinkling it over book and people; and, at a later period, (see note verse 21,) over tabernacle and vessels used in the ceremonial ministry. Blood, shed forth or sprinkled, was the emblem of that death which the sinner deserved; of that death which the victim’s death symbolized for him instead of his own death; and which symbolized that death which symbolizes and is made substitute for the death of the world of sinners. As a symbol of the Substitute’s death, the blood represents the offerer’s remission of sin, and so purification, sanctification, and life. And with the sinner’s purification all his ritual surroundings must be purified. As these surroundings are made by sinful man they are tainted with his impurity, and must be purified; and blood is the sole, sovereign, universal, ritual purifier. Blood-besprinkled, they are holy; and so this newly made holy man walks and works amid holy things, a type of the holy beings of a holy heaven. Had spoken—Had read from the book by him written for the purpose. According to the law—The authority for all this use of typical blood. Calves… goats—Calves and goats are not mentioned, but were doubtless used, as appears from other passages of the law. In Exodus 24:5, (the narrative of the dedication,) “it is said that Moses sent young men who offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed sacrifices, which (Hebrews) were peace offerings to Jehovah, even bullocks. Now, although goats are not mentioned here, yet it is quite probable that the burnt offerings on this occasion were goats; for a burnt offering is a holocaust; that is, an offering entirely consumed by fire; while the peace offerings were mostly eaten by the offerers. That goats were used for all kinds of sacrifices, as well as bullocks, is quite evident from a mere inspection of the Levitical law; for example, goats are named as a burnt offering, Leviticus 1:10, 4:24, 28, etc., and elsewhere. It is altogether probable, then, that the holocausts or burnt offerings mentioned in Exodus 24:5, as offered on the occasion of renewing the covenant, were goats; and were, of course, understood by a Jewish reader to be such, inasmuch as the peace offerings only are affirmed to have been bullocks.”—Stuart. Water, scarlet wool, and hyssop—”That water was used as well as blood in order to sprinkle various things is clearly implied in Leviticus 14:4-7, compared with Leviticus 14:49-52; Numbers 19:18; Psalm 51:7; Ezekiel 36:25. The scarlet wool was connected with a branch of hyssop in order to make a convenient instrument for receiving and sprinkling the blood and water. It is not, indeed, expressly mentioned in Exodus xxiv, but it is, doubtless, implied; for this was the common instrument by which the rite of sprinkling was performed. So in Exodus 12:7, direction is simply given to sprinkle the door posts of the Israelites with blood; and afterwards, in verse 22, it is mentioned that this was to be done with a branch of hyssop. So in Leviticus 14:4-7, the scarlet wool and the hyssop are mentioned as employed in the office of sprinkling; and again in Leviticus 14:49-52. The hyssop is also mentioned in Numbers 19:18; Psalm 51:7.”—Stuart. The book of the law—”That Moses did sprinkle the book with blood no intimation is given in Exodus 24:3-8. Yet nothing can be more probable than that such was the fact. Aaron, and his sons, and their garments, were sprinkled with blood when consecrated to the priest’s office. Exodus 29:19-21. The blood of sacrifices was sprinkled upon the altar, Exodus 29:16; Leviticus 1:5, 11; 3:2, 13; also before the veil of the sanctuary, Leviticus 4:6, 17; compare Leviticus 6:27; 7:14; 8:15, 19, 24, 30; 9:12, 18, and others. Philo (de Vita Mosis, page 675, B.) has a passage which speaks of all the various apparatus of the tabernacle as being anointed with holy oil, and the vestments of the priests being sprinkled with blood. So Josephus, also, speaks of sprinkling the garments of Aaron and his sons with the blood of the slain beasts, and with spring water and holy chrism.”—Stuart.

V. 20. Saying, This is the blood of the covenant which God hath enjoined me to deliver unto you-By this it is established. Exodus 24:8.

Verse 20. This is the blood of the testament] (covenant.) Our Lord refers to the conduct of Moses here, and partly quotes his words in the institution of the eucharist: This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins, Matthew 26:28. And by thus using the words and applying them, he shows that his sacrificial blood was intended by the blood shed and sprinkled on this occasion, and that by it alone the remission of sins is obtained.

Verses 18-20. Whereupon — On which principle we may observe; neither was the first — Covenant, of which we have been speaking, I mean that of Moses; dedicated without blood — Namely, that of an appointed sacrifice. “In the original, the word covenant is wanting; and our translators, by supplying the word testament, have made the Sinai covenant or law of Moses, of which the apostle is speaking, a testament, than which,” says Macknight, “nothing can be more incongruous. The word to be supplied is not testament, but covenant. For when Moses had spoken every precept — The precepts of the law which Moses read to the people on this occasion, were chiefly those contained in Exodus 20.-23., as is evident from Exodus 24:5. See the margin. To all the people according to the law — The will, appointment, or express order of God; he took the blood of calves, &c., with water. The blood was mixed with water, to prevent its growing too stiff for sprinkling, perhaps also to typify the blood and water which should issue out of Christ’s side, signifying the expiating and cleansing virtue of his sufferings. And scarlet wool and hyssop — All these circumstances are not particularly mentioned in that chapter of Exodus, but are supposed to be already known from other passages of Moses; and sprinkled both the book — Which contained all he had said; and all the people — Who were near him. The book was sprinkled to show, 1st, That the law itself was not able to reconcile them to God, and give life without the blood of Christ added to it. 2d, That atonement was to be made by blood for sins committed against the law. 3d, That every thing is unclean to us that is not sprinkled with the blood of Christ. Saying, (Exodus 24:8,) This is the blood of the covenant, &c. — This sprinkling of the blood is a ceremony instituted by God to signify the mutual consent of both parties to the terms of the covenant; or, this is the blood whereby the covenant is ratified on both sides; which God hath enjoined unto you — Hath required me to deliver unto you or, hath commanded with respect to you, as hv eneteilato prov umav literally signifies, requiring you to declare your consent to the terms of it.

20. Blood of the testament—Or bequest. The blood indicating the death of the testator, and thereby certifying the validity of the testament and the security of the inheritance. Which—Referring to testament. Unto you— Rather, in regard to you; in your behalf. This blood-bought bequest is enjoined in our behalf by God the Father Almighty. Compare these quoted words with the language of our Saviour. Luke 22:20.

V. 21. And in like manner he ordered the tabernacle-When it was made, and all its vessels, to be sprinkled with blood once a year.

Verse 21. He sprinkled-with blood-all the vessels of the ministry.] To intimate that every thing used by sinful man is polluted, and that nothing can be acceptable in the sight of a holy God that has not in effect the sprinkling of the atoning blood.

Verses 21, 22. Moreover — To prefigure the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ to render our acts of worship acceptable; he sprinkled with blood the tabernacle — The altar, and mercy-seat; and all the vessels of the ministry — All that were used in the tabernacle service. See the margin. And almost all the things — Pertaining to the tabernacle and service of God, (the apostle says almost all things, because some were cleansed with water, and some with fire, Numbers 31:23, and some with the ashes of the red heifer, Numbers 19:2-10,) are by the law purged from any ceremonial defilement with blood — Offered or sprinkled; and without shedding of blood — According to the law; is no remission — Of sins, neither typical nor real. Or he means, no remission was granted on the day of atonement without blood. All this pointed to the blood of Christ, effectually cleansing from all sin, and intimated that there can be no purification from it by any other means. Because some fancy that a real pardon of sin was obtained by the atonements of the Mosaic law, and especially by those made on the tenth of the seventh month, concerning which it is said, (Leviticus 16:30,) on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you that you may be clean from all your sins: it may be proper to observe here, that “this cleansing of the people from all their sins could not possibly have any reference to the punishments of the life to come, because the atonement was made for all the people indiscriminately, whether penitent or not, consequently it could not be a cleansing of their consciences, but of their bodies; redeeming them from those civil penalties which God, in the character of their chief magistrate, would have inflicted on them for breaking the laws of the state, unless these atonements had been made. A remission of that kind all the people of the congregation might receive, and it was the only remission which, in a body, they could receive through the sacrifices mentioned. And from the inefficacy of the annual atonements, made on the day above mentioned, to procure for the people the eternal pardon of their sins, it follows that the daily atonements, made by the ordinary priests, had no greater efficacy in procuring their pardon.” — Macknight. See notes on verses 8-10; chap. 10:4.

Ver. 21-23. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood, both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. All the church must of course be sprinkled with blood; all our words and works must be touched with the Redeemer’s merits. Such is the harmony of the divine counsel and love in our redemption.

21. Moreover—At a later period. Stuart says: “The setting up and consecration of the tabernacle with its vessels is related in Exodus xl; yet nothing is there related of sprinkling them with blood, but only of anointing them with holy oil. Exodus 40:9-11. In the like manner, the anointing only of Aaron and his sons is there spoken of as a rite preparatory to entering upon the duties of their office in the tabernacle, Exodus 40:12-15; while nothing is said at all of their being sprinkled with blood. But if we compare Exodus 29:20, 21, and Leviticus 8:24, 30, we shall see it to be certain that Aaron and his sons were sprinkled with blood, as well as anointed with oil. In like manner it is probable that the tabernacle and its furniture were sprinkled with blood, although Moses has not mentioned it in Exodus 40. Josephus says: ‘Both the tabernacle and the vessels pertaining to it (Moses sprinkled and purified) with oil prepared as I have described, and with the blood of bulls and rams that were slain, one of each alternately, every day.’”

V. 22. And almost all things-For some were purified by water or fire. Are according to the law purified with blood-Offered or sprinkled. And according to the law, there is no forgiveness of sins without shedding of blood-All this pointed to the blood of Christ effectually cleansing from all sin, and intimated, there can be no purification from it by any other means.

Verse 22. And almost all things are-purged with blood] The apostle says almost, because in some cases certain vessels were purified by water, some by fire, Numbers 31:23, and some with the ashes of the red heifer, Numbers 19:2-10, but it was always understood that every thing was at first consecrated by the blood of the victim. And without shedding of blood is no remission.] The apostle shows fully here what is one of his great objects in the whole of this epistle, viz. that there is no salvation but through the sacrificial death of Christ, and to prefigure this the law itself would not grant any remission of sin without the blood of a victim. This is a maxim even among the Jews themselves, בדם אלא כפרה אינ ein capparah ella bedam, “There is no expiation but by blood.” Yoma, fol. 5, 1; Menachoth, fol. 93, 2. Every sinner has forfeited his life by his transgressions, and the law of God requires his death; the blood of the victim, which is its life, is shed as a substitute for the life of the sinner. By these victims the sacrifice of Christ was typified. He gave his life for the life of the world; human life for human life, but a life infinitely dignified by its union with God.

Verses 21, 22. Moreover — To prefigure the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ to render our acts of worship acceptable; he sprinkled with blood the tabernacle — The altar, and mercy-seat; and all the vessels of the ministry — All that were used in the tabernacle service. See the margin. And almost all the things — Pertaining to the tabernacle and service of God, (the apostle says almost all things, because some were cleansed with water, and some with fire, Numbers 31:23, and some with the ashes of the red heifer, Numbers 19:2-10,) are by the law purged from any ceremonial defilement with blood — Offered or sprinkled; and without shedding of blood — According to the law; is no remission — Of sins, neither typical nor real. Or he means, no remission was granted on the day of atonement without blood. All this pointed to the blood of Christ, effectually cleansing from all sin, and intimated that there can be no purification from it by any other means. Because some fancy that a real pardon of sin was obtained by the atonements of the Mosaic law, and especially by those made on the tenth of the seventh month, concerning which it is said, (Leviticus 16:30,) on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you that you may be clean from all your sins: it may be proper to observe here, that “this cleansing of the people from all their sins could not possibly have any reference to the punishments of the life to come, because the atonement was made for all the people indiscriminately, whether penitent or not, consequently it could not be a cleansing of their consciences, but of their bodies; redeeming them from those civil penalties which God, in the character of their chief magistrate, would have inflicted on them for breaking the laws of the state, unless these atonements had been made. A remission of that kind all the people of the congregation might receive, and it was the only remission which, in a body, they could receive through the sacrifices mentioned. And from the inefficacy of the annual atonements, made on the day above mentioned, to procure for the people the eternal pardon of their sins, it follows that the daily atonements, made by the ordinary priests, had no greater efficacy in procuring their pardon.” — Macknight. See notes on verses 8-10; chap. 10:4.

Ver. 21-23. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood, both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. All the church must of course be sprinkled with blood; all our words and works must be touched with the Redeemer’s merits. Such is the harmony of the divine counsel and love in our redemption.

22. Almost—Alford thinks that this word does not qualify all things; but it qualifies the whole assertion. We might almost say that all things were blood-purged. And the almost universal law of the Levitical ritual was, no remission of sin without, that is, apart from, blood shedding; referring, beyond question, to the blood shedding of the victim, held by our writer as typical of the shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God.

As the blood is ritually the life, so the shedding of blood is the ritual symbol of death; of that death, how comprehensive soever it may be, which is the complete penalty of sin.

V. 23. Therefore-That is, it plainly appears from what has been said. It was necessary-According to the appointment of God.

That the tabernacle and all its utensils, which were patterns, shadowy representations, of things in heaven, should be purified by these-Sacrifices and sprinklings.

But the heavenly things themselves-Our heaven-born spirits: what more this may mean we know not yet.

By better sacrifices than these-That is, by a better sacrifice, which is here opposed to all the legal sacrifices, and is expressed plurally, because it includes the signification of them all, and is of so much more eminent virtue.

Verse 23. The patterns of things in the heavens] That is: The tabernacle and all its utensils, services, &c., must be purified by these, viz.: The blood of calves and goats, and the sprinkling of the blood and water with the bunch of hyssop bound about with scarlet wool. These are called patterns, upodeigmata, exemplars, earthly things, which were the representatives of heavenly things. And there is no doubt that every thing in the tabernacle, its parts, divisions, utensils, ministry, &c., as appointed by God, were representations of celestial matters; but how far and in what way we cannot now see.

Purification implies, not only cleansing from defilement, but also dedication or consecration. All the utensils employed in the tabernacle service were thus purified though incapable of any moral pollution. But the heavenly things themselves] Some think this means heaven itself, which, by receiving the sacrificed body of Christ, which appears in the presence of God for us, may be said to be purified, i.e., set apart for the reception of the souls of those who have found redemption in his blood. 2. Others think the body of Christ is intended, which is the tabernacle in which his Divinity dwelt; and that this might be said to be purified by its own sacrifice, as he is said, John 17:19, to sanctify himself; that is, to consecrate himself unto God as a sin-offering for the redemption of man.

3. Others suppose the Church is intended, which he is to present to the Father without spot or wrinkle or any such thing. 4. As the entrance to the holy of holies must be made by the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice, and as that holy of holies represented heaven, the apostle’s meaning seems to be that there was and could be no entrance to the holiest but through his blood; and therefore, when by a more perfect tabernacle, Hebrews 9:11, 12, he passed into the heavens, not with the blood of bulls and goats, but by his own blood, he thus purified or laid open the entrance to the holiest, by a more valuable sacrifice than those required to open the entrance of the holy of holies. It was necessary, therefore, for God had appointed it so, that the tabernacle and its parts, &c., which were patterns of things in the heavens, should be consecrated and entered with such sacrifices as have already been mentioned; but the heaven of heavens into which Jesus entered, and whither he will bring all his faithful followers, must be propitiated, consecrated, and entered, by the infinitely better sacrifice of his own body and blood. That this is the meaning appears from the following verse.

Verse 23. It was, therefore, &c. — That is, it plainly appears from what has been said, it was necessary — According to the appointment of God; that the patterns of things in the heavens — Termed the figures of the true, (verse 24,) namely, the covenant, the book, the tabernacle, with all the vessels of its ministry, which were shadowy representations of heavenly things — That is, of the things of the gospel, whether belonging to the church militant or the church triumphant; should be purified with these — Should be procured for, or opened and sanctified to the enjoyment of the priests and people, by these oblations and sprinklings with blood, and those other things which were appointed by the law to be all used for their purification. He says purified, or cleansed, not because the tabernacle and its utensils, the book of the law, &c., were unclean in themselves, but because through the uncleanness of the people they would have been considered as polluted if not thus purified. But the heavenly things themselves — That is, the things whereof the others were patterns, — the redemption, worship, salvation, and eternal glory of the church; by better sacrifices than these — Namely, by the one sacrifice of Christ, expressed in the plural number, because it included the signification of all other sacrifices, exceeded them indignity, and was of more use and efficacy than they all. For by this alone could spiritual and eternal blessings, the privileges of God’s church on earth and in heaven, be laid open to the enjoyment of guilty and polluted sinners. In other words, and especially as the Jewish tabernacle, including the holy and the most holy place, could not be entered by the priests, and opened to the prayers and other acts of religious worship of them and of the people, nor the utensils and ceremonies of the tabernacle service be sanctified to them, without the sacrifices and atonements appointed in the law; so the heavenly holy places represented by them, could not be opened for the reception of the prayers and praises of God’s people while they are here, nor of their persons hereafter, except through the sacrifice and intercession of Christ. Or, as Mr. Scott paraphrases the passage, “It was then necessary by the appointment of the law for the exemplars or types of heavenly things to be purified by the sacrifice of innocent animals, and by the application of their blood, or they could not be acceptably used in the worship of God; but it was necessary, for more durable and immutable reasons, that the heavenly things themselves should be purified by an atonement of superior excellence, even by the one sacrifice of the death of Christ. In order to his efficaciously interceding for sinners in heaven, and opening for them the way to the mercy-seat, it was necessary that Christ should on earth, in our nature, shed his blood, and die a sacrifice on the cross; that he might have the infinite merit of that sacrifice to plead before the throne, in behalf of all who should come unto God by him; otherwise mercy, shown to sinners, would dishonour the justice and holiness of God, and their admission into heaven would, as it were, defile that holy place.”

Ver. 21-23. Moreover, he sprinkled likewise with blood, both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. All the church must of course be sprinkled with blood; all our words and works must be touched with the Redeemer’s merits. Such is the harmony of the divine counsel and love in our redemption.

23. Therefore—Inference from the testamentary character of the ritual. Patterns—Rather, copies; for the heavenly is the pattern, and the earthly is its copy. These—Blood, sheddings. Heavenly things—Literally, the heavenlies; same word as in Ephesians 1:3, where see note. The phrase here is unequivocally local, signifying things and places in the highest heavens, as is absolutely shown by in the presence of God, verse 24. See notes on 2 Corinthians 12:2; Ephesians 2:2; 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

But it is a question among commentators how the heavenlies could be said to be purified by Christ’s sacrificial death. Alford, following Delitzsch, understands that the highest heavens, though intrinsically perfectly pure, are purified from the divine wrath towards sin, and so rendered approachable by man. But the idea of sanctifying, not from sin but from wrath, seems rather inadmissible.

We may note that Christ says, (John 14:2,) “I go to prepare a place for you.” So that some preparation of “a place,” either in fact or in effect, was to be made subsequently to his ascension. Now, to sanctify a thing, is to set it apart. Note on 1 Thessalonians 5:23. So, ritually, inanimate things and places were sanctified or set apart for special divine uses. And this was, ritually, done by blood. Intrinsically, the place or thing could not be any holier after the rite than before it. It was only relatively, and by a relative setting apart or consecrating, that the thing or place could be holy—holy for a certain occupancy or use. Now space or place, even in the superstellar regions, can have only this relative holiness. A locality can be holy only by holy uses and the holy things it may contain. By the sacrificial death and ascension of Christ he does prepare a place for us, making it relatively holy—relatively a fit place for beings rendered holy by his sacrifice. Conceptually, the heaven of the redeemed, as well as the redeemed themselves, are rendered holy by the efficacy of the atonement. As the high priest was better, and the sanctuary better, so the sacrifices were better.

We have now, in 24-28, three contrastive parallelisms. 1. Between the sanctuary entered by Christ and that of the human high priest, verse 24. 2. Between the singleness of Christ’s sacrifice and the repetition of the Jewish sacrifices, verses 25 and 26. 3. Between Christ’s death and its results, and man’s death and its results. The summary of the whole is this. Christ enters not an earthly sanctuary, but the highest heavens, where is the real presence of God; he does this, not by repetition, but once for all; and as men once die and go to the judgment bar to be judged, so Christ once dies and goes to the judgment throne to judge.

V. 24. For Christ did not enter into the holy place made with hands-He never went into the holy of holies at Jerusalem, the figure of the true tabernacle in heaven, Hebrews 8:2. But into heaven itself, to appear in the presence of God for us-As our glorious high priest and powerful intercessor.

Verse 24. Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands] He is not gone into the holy of holies of the tabernacle or temple, as the Jewish high priest does once in the year with the blood of the victim, to sprinkle it before the mercy-seat there; but into heaven itself, which he has thus opened to all believers, having made the propitiatory offering by which both he and those whom he represents are entitled to enter and enjoy eternal blessedness. And hence we may consider that Christ, appearing in his crucified body before the throne, is a real offering of himself to the Divine justice in behalf of man; and that there he continues in the constant act of being offered, so that every penitent and believer, coming unto God through him, find him their ever ready and available sacrifice, officiating as the High Priest of mankind in the presence of God.

Verses 24-26. For Christ is, or, hath, not entered — With the sacrifice of his crucified body; into the holy places made with hands — He never went into the holy of holies of the temple at Jerusalem; the figures of the true tabernacle in heaven; Greek, antitupa, the antitypes. “In the mount Moses had tupov, the type, or model of the tabernacles, and of the services to be performed in them, showed to him. Hence the tabernacles, with their services, which he formed according to that model, are called antitypes, or images of that model; consequently images of heaven itself, and of the services to be performed by Christ as the High-Priest of the heavenly holy places, of all which the model showed to Moses in the mount was a shadow or dark representation.” But unto heaven itself, now to appear — As our glorious High-Priest and powerful Intercessor; in the presence of God for us — That is, before the manifestation of the divine presence, to officiate on our account. Nor yet — Was it needful that he should offer himself often — The atonement made by Christ being founded on the sovereign pleasure of God, it was to be made according to the appointment of God. Wherefore Christ having made that atonement only once, it follows that no more atonement was required by God in order to his pardoning believers in all nations and ages. As the high-priest entereth into the earthly holy place every year — On the day of atonement; with the blood of others — Of another kind of creatures, that is, of bullocks and goats. For then must he (Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world — “This reasoning,” says Macknight, “merits the reader’s particular attention, because it supposes two facts which are of great importance. The first is, that from the fall of Adam to the end of the world, no man will be pardoned but through Christ’s offering himself to God a sacrifice for sin. The second is, that although Christ offered himself only once, that one offering is in itself so meritorious, and of such efficacy in procuring pardon for the penitent, that its influence reacheth backward to the beginning of the world, and forward to the end of time; on which account Christ is with great propriety termed, (Revelation 13:8,) the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;” or from the time of man’s fall, for the necessity of Christ’s offering himself a sacrifice for sin did not take place immediately at the creation, but at the fall. But now once in the end of the world — At the conclusion of the Mosaic dispensation, and the entrance of gospel times, which are the last season of God’s grace to the church. The apostle’s expression, sunteleia twn aiwnwn, may be properly rendered, the consummation, or conclusion, of the ages, or divine dispensations, termed the dispensation of the fulness of times, Ephesians 1:10. See also Galatians 4:4. The sacrifice of Christ divides the whole age or duration of the world into two parts, and extends its virtue backward and forward. He hath appeared — Pefanerwtai, been manifested; to put away sin — Or, for the abolition of sin, as the original expression signifies; that is, to remove both its guilt and power, (and not merely, or chiefly, to abolish the Levitical sin-offerings, as Macknight strangely interprets the clauses) by the sacrifice of himself — Which at once purchases the pardon of it for us, and grace to subdue it, and effectually teaches us to mortify it, when we see such a ransom paid for our forfeited lives.

24. For—Reason for the better of last verse. Made with hands— Humanly built, as in verse 11, where see note. True—Original and real. Heaven itself—Of which the second apartment, the holiest, was type. The presence of God—Typified by the glory on the mercy-seat of the ark, between the cherubim. For us—Just as the earthly sacrifice or victim was for us, the human offerers.

Verse 25. Nor yet that he should offer himself often] The sacrifice of Christ is not like that of the Jewish high priest; his must be offered every year, Christ has offered himself once for all: and this sacrificial act has ever the same efficacy, his crucified body being still a powerful and infinitely meritorious sacrifice before the throne.

Verses 24-26. For Christ is, or, hath, not entered — With the sacrifice of his crucified body; into the holy places made with hands — He never went into the holy of holies of the temple at Jerusalem; the figures of the true tabernacle in heaven; Greek, antitupa, the antitypes. “In the mount Moses had tupov, the type, or model of the tabernacles, and of the services to be performed in them, showed to him. Hence the tabernacles, with their services, which he formed according to that model, are called antitypes, or images of that model; consequently images of heaven itself, and of the services to be performed by Christ as the High-Priest of the heavenly holy places, of all which the model showed to Moses in the mount was a shadow or dark representation.” But unto heaven itself, now to appear — As our glorious High-Priest and powerful Intercessor; in the presence of God for us — That is, before the manifestation of the divine presence, to officiate on our account. Nor yet — Was it needful that he should offer himself often — The atonement made by Christ being founded on the sovereign pleasure of God, it was to be made according to the appointment of God. Wherefore Christ having made that atonement only once, it follows that no more atonement was required by God in order to his pardoning believers in all nations and ages. As the high-priest entereth into the earthly holy place every year — On the day of atonement; with the blood of others — Of another kind of creatures, that is, of bullocks and goats. For then must he (Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world — “This reasoning,” says Macknight, “merits the reader’s particular attention, because it supposes two facts which are of great importance. The first is, that from the fall of Adam to the end of the world, no man will be pardoned but through Christ’s offering himself to God a sacrifice for sin. The second is, that although Christ offered himself only once, that one offering is in itself so meritorious, and of such efficacy in procuring pardon for the penitent, that its influence reacheth backward to the beginning of the world, and forward to the end of time; on which account Christ is with great propriety termed, (Revelation 13:8,) the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;” or from the time of man’s fall, for the necessity of Christ’s offering himself a sacrifice for sin did not take place immediately at the creation, but at the fall. But now once in the end of the world — At the conclusion of the Mosaic dispensation, and the entrance of gospel times, which are the last season of God’s grace to the church. The apostle’s expression, sunteleia twn aiwnwn, may be properly rendered, the consummation, or conclusion, of the ages, or divine dispensations, termed the dispensation of the fulness of times, Ephesians 1:10. See also Galatians 4:4. The sacrifice of Christ divides the whole age or duration of the world into two parts, and extends its virtue backward and forward. He hath appeared — Pefanerwtai, been manifested; to put away sin — Or, for the abolition of sin, as the original expression signifies; that is, to remove both its guilt and power, (and not merely, or chiefly, to abolish the Levitical sin-offerings, as Macknight strangely interprets the clauses) by the sacrifice of himself — Which at once purchases the pardon of it for us, and grace to subdue it, and effectually teaches us to mortify it, when we see such a ransom paid for our forfeited lives.

25. The true sacrifice was once for all, as the typical were repeated and often. Offer himself—This offer is parallel to the entereth of the high priest; it, therefore, does not here mean to sacrifice himself, but to present himself in heaven, as the high priest presented himself in the holy place. Yet in both cases a previous sacrifice takes place.

V. 26. For then he must often have suffered from the foundation of the world-This supposes,

1. That by suffering once he atoned for all the sins which had been committed from the foundation of the world.

2. That he could not have atoned for them without suffering. At the consummation of the ages-The sacrifice of Christ divides the whole age or duration of the world into two parts, and extends its virtue backward and forward, from this middle point wherein they meet to abolish both the guilt and power of sin.

Verse 26. For then must he often have suffered] In the counsel of God, Christ was considered the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, Revelation 13:8, so that all believers before his advent were equally interested in his sacrificial death with those who have lived since his coming. Humanly speaking, the virtue of the annual atonement could not last long, and must be repeated; Christ’s sacrifice is ever the same; his life’s blood is still considered as in the act of being continually poured out. See Revelation 5:6.

The end of the world] The conclusion of the Jewish dispensation, the Christian dispensation being that which shall continue till the end of time. To put away sin] eiv aqethsin amartiav. To abolish the sin-offerings; i.e. to put an end to the Mosaic economy by his one offering of himself. It is certain that, after Christ had offered himself, the typical sin-offerings of the law ceased; and this was expressly foretold by the Prophet Daniel, Daniel 9:24. Some think that the expression should be applied to the putting away the guilt, power, and being of sin from the souls of believers.

Verses 24-26. For Christ is, or, hath, not entered — With the sacrifice of his crucified body; into the holy places made with hands — He never went into the holy of holies of the temple at Jerusalem; the figures of the true tabernacle in heaven; Greek, antitupa, the antitypes. “In the mount Moses had tupov, the type, or model of the tabernacles, and of the services to be performed in them, showed to him. Hence the tabernacles, with their services, which he formed according to that model, are called antitypes, or images of that model; consequently images of heaven itself, and of the services to be performed by Christ as the High-Priest of the heavenly holy places, of all which the model showed to Moses in the mount was a shadow or dark representation.” But unto heaven itself, now to appear — As our glorious High-Priest and powerful Intercessor; in the presence of God for us — That is, before the manifestation of the divine presence, to officiate on our account. Nor yet — Was it needful that he should offer himself often — The atonement made by Christ being founded on the sovereign pleasure of God, it was to be made according to the appointment of God. Wherefore Christ having made that atonement only once, it follows that no more atonement was required by God in order to his pardoning believers in all nations and ages. As the high-priest entereth into the earthly holy place every year — On the day of atonement; with the blood of others — Of another kind of creatures, that is, of bullocks and goats. For then must he (Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world — “This reasoning,” says Macknight, “merits the reader’s particular attention, because it supposes two facts which are of great importance. The first is, that from the fall of Adam to the end of the world, no man will be pardoned but through Christ’s offering himself to God a sacrifice for sin. The second is, that although Christ offered himself only once, that one offering is in itself so meritorious, and of such efficacy in procuring pardon for the penitent, that its influence reacheth backward to the beginning of the world, and forward to the end of time; on which account Christ is with great propriety termed, (Revelation 13:8,) the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;” or from the time of man’s fall, for the necessity of Christ’s offering himself a sacrifice for sin did not take place immediately at the creation, but at the fall. But now once in the end of the world — At the conclusion of the Mosaic dispensation, and the entrance of gospel times, which are the last season of God’s grace to the church. The apostle’s expression, sunteleia twn aiwnwn, may be properly rendered, the consummation, or conclusion, of the ages, or divine dispensations, termed the dispensation of the fulness of times, Ephesians 1:10. See also Galatians 4:4. The sacrifice of Christ divides the whole age or duration of the world into two parts, and extends its virtue backward and forward. He hath appeared — Pefanerwtai, been manifested; to put away sin — Or, for the abolition of sin, as the original expression signifies; that is, to remove both its guilt and power, (and not merely, or chiefly, to abolish the Levitical sin-offerings, as Macknight strangely interprets the clauses) by the sacrifice of himself — Which at once purchases the pardon of it for us, and grace to subdue it, and effectually teaches us to mortify it, when we see such a ransom paid for our forfeited lives.

26. Often have suffered—The One great sacrifice was often typified by the dying victims as successive human sinners sacrificed them. Had there been but one victim his sacrifice must have ever been repeated; he must have died millions of deaths. Since the foundation of the world—From as early as man began to sin and needed a sacrifice. But now—As the fact really is. In the end of the world—In the together-ending of the ages. The Greek word here (as in Matthew 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20) is sunteleia, compounded of two words signifying together and ending:— an epoch where all the threads of events converge to a common terminus. Such an epoch was the first advent; a still greater epoch will be the second advent. To put away, or abolish, sin—Both by justification from the guilt, and sanctification from the power, of sin. Sacrifice of himself—Rather, by his own sacrifice, not that of a human high priest.

V. 27. After this, the judgment-Of the great day. At the moment of death every man's final state is determined. But there is not a word in scripture of a particular judgment immediately after death.

Verse 27. As it is appointed] apokeitai. It is laid before them by the Divine decree: Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return. Unto men generally, during the course of the present world, not all men as some falsely quote; for Enoch and Elijah have not died, and those that shall be alive at the day of judgment shall not die, but be changed. But after this the judgment] They shall die but once, and be judged but once, therefore there is no metempsychosis, no transmigration from body to body; judgment succeeds to dying; and as they shall be judged but once, they can die but once.

Verses 27, 28. And as it is appointed, &c. — Inasmuch as this is the constitution of God, that sinful men shall die once, and but once; (see the margin;) and after this the judgment — Of the great day, between which and death nothing shall interpose to make any alteration in the state or condition of any one, for at death every man’s final state is determined; but we do not find a word in the Scriptures of any particular judgment taking place immediately after death. So Christ, &c. — In correspondence to that state of things, and for a remedy against it; and the relief (O wonderful effect of infinite wisdom!) is eminently proportionate to the evil, the remedy to the disease. Christ was once offered to bear the sins, Matt 26:28; 1 Peter 2:24; 2 Corinthians 5:21; the guilt and punishment due to them; of many — Even of as many as are born into the world; or the expression, anenegkein amartiav, may be rendered, to carry away sins; in allusion, perhaps, to the scapegoat, which bare all the iniquities of the congregation into a land not inhabited. The meaning, however, if the word be so rendered, will be the same in effect, namely, that Christ was once offered to make atonement for the sins of many. And unto them that look for him — Which all true believers do; see Romans 8:23; 2 Corinthians 5:2; 2 Timothy 4:8; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 3:12. Shall he appear the second time — Ofqhsetai, he shall be seen, by every eye, Revelation 1:7; there shall be a public sight of him in the heavens, when he comes to raise the dead and judge mankind; without sin — Not bearing men’s sins as formerly, or without any thing that wears the marks of humiliation and abasement, or resembles the form in which he came to make an atonement for sin; unto salvation — To bestow complete happiness of soul and body upon us. Thus Archbishop Tillotson; “What is the meaning of this opposition, that at his first coming he bare our sins, but at his second coming he shall appear without sin unto salvation? These words can have no other imaginable sense but this, that at his first coming he sustained the person of a sinner, and suffered instead of us, but his second coming shall be on another account, and he shall appear, not as a Sacrifice, but as a Judge.” Thus the Jewish high-priest, after entering into the holy of holies in the plain dress of an ordinary priest, in linen garments, making atonement for the people, came out thence arrayed in his magnificent robes to bless the people, who waited for him in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. To this transaction, as Limborch and many others have supposed, there evidently seems to be an allusion here. And as the trumpet of jubilee, each fiftieth year, sounded at that time to proclaim the commencement of that happy period, there is not, says Doddridge, perhaps, an image that can enter into the mind of man more suitable to express the grand idea which the apostle intended to convey, than this would be to a Jew, who well knew the grand solemnity to which it referred. “But there will be this difference between the return of Christ to bless his people, and the return of the high-priest to bless the congregation. The latter, after coming out of the most holy place, made a new atonement in his pontifical robes for himself and for the people, Leviticus 16:24; which showed that the former atonement was not real, but only typical. Whereas Jesus, after having made atonement, with his own blood, will not return to the earth for the purpose of making himself a sacrifice a second time; but having procured an eternal redemption for his people by the sacrifice of himself once offered, he will return for the purpose of publicly absolving them, and bestowing on them the great blessing of eternal life, which absolution and reward he, being surrounded with the glory of his Father, Matthew 16:27, will give them in the presence of the assembled universe, both as their king and their priest. And this is the great salvation which Christ himself began to preach, and which was confirmed to the world by them who heard him, Hebrews 2:3.” — Macknight.

Ver. 27. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, so Christ in the end of the world died for us. And as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so Christ bare the sins of many, or as above, he died for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant. There is no need then for his sacrifice to be repeated; but he shall come the second time without (coming to die for) sin, and shall judge the world, when those that pierced him shall wail because of him.

27. With men the law is first death and then judgment; with Christ it is, by parallelism, first sacrifice of himself for sin, and then an advent to a judgment glorious for believers. Appointed—By God as the established order of things. The judgment—Without the Greek article.

V. 28. Christ having once died to bear the sins-The punishment due to them.

Of many-Even as many as are born into the world. Will appear the second time-When he comes to judgment. Without sin-Not as he did before, bearing on himself the sins of many, but to bestow everlasting salvation.

Verse 28. So Christ was once offered] He shall die no more; he has borne away the sins of many, and what he has done once shall stand good for ever. Yet he will appear a second time without sin, cwriv amartiav, without a sin-offering; THAT he has already made.

Unto salvation.] To deliver the bodies of believers from the empire of death, to reunite them to their purified souls, and bring both into his eternal glory. This is salvation, and the very highest of which the human being is capable. Amen! Even so, come Lord Jesus! Hallelujah!

1. IN the preceding notes I have given my reasons for dissenting from our translation of the 15th, 16th, and 17th verses. Many learned men are of the same opinion; but I have not met with one who appears to have treated the whole in a more satisfactory manner than Dr. Macknight, and for the edification of my readers I shall here subjoin the substance of what he has written on this point.

“Verse 15. Mediator of the new covenant. See Hebrews 8:7. The word diaqhkh, here translated covenant, answers to the Hebrew word berith, which all the translators of the Jewish Scriptures have understood to signify a covenant. The same signification our translators have affixed to the word diaqhkh, as often as it occurs in the writings of the evangelists and apostles, except in the history of the institution of the supper, and in 2 Corinthians 3:6: and Hebrews 7:22, and in the passage under consideration; in which places, copying the Vulgate version, they have rendered diaqhkh by the word testament. Beza, following the Syriac Version, translates diaqhkh everywhere by the words fœdas, pactum, except in the 16th, 17th, and 20th verses of this chapter, where likewise following the Syriac version, he has testamentum. Now if kainh diaqhkh, the new testament, in the passages above mentioned, means the Gospel covenant, as all interpreters acknowledge, palaia diaqhkh, the old testament, 2 Corinthians 3:14, and prwth diaqhkh, the first testament, Hebrews 9:15, must certainly be the Sinaitic covenant or law of Moses, as is evident also from Hebrews 9:20. On this supposition it may be asked, 1. In what sense the Sinaitic covenant or law of Moses, which required perfect obedience to all its precepts under penalty of death, and allowed no mercy to any sinner, however penitent, can be called a testament, which is a deed conferring something valuable on a person who may accept or refuse it, as he thinks fit? Besides, the transaction at Sinai, in which God promised to continue the Israelites in Canaan, on condition they refrained from the wicked practices of the Canaanites, and observed his statutes, Lev. xviii., can in no sense be called a testament. 2. If the law of Moses be a testament, and if, to render that testament valid, the death of the testator be necessary, as the English translators have taught us, Hebrews 9:16, I ask who it was that made the testament of the law? Was it God or Moses? And did either of them die to render it valid? 3. I observe that even the Gospel covenant is improperly called a testament, because, notwithstanding all its blessings were procured by the death of Christ, and are most freely bestowed, it lost any validity which, as a testament, it is thought to have received by the death of Christ, when he revived again on the third day. 4. The things affirmed in the common translation of Hebrews 9:15, concerning the new testament, namely, that it has a Mediator; that that Mediator is the Testator himself; that there were transgressions of a former testament, for the redemption of which the Mediator of the new testament died; and, Hebrews 9:19, that the first testament was made by sprinkling the people in whose favour it was made with blood; are all things quite foreign to a testament. For was it ever known in any nation that a testament needed a mediator? Or that the testator was the mediator of his own testament? Or that it was necessary the testator of a new testament should die to redeem the transgressions of a former testament? Or that any testament was ever made by sprinkling the legatees with blood? These things however were usual in covenants. They had mediators who assisted at the making of them, and were sureties for the performance of them. They were commonly ratified by sacrifices, the blood of which was sprinkled on the parties; withal, if any former covenant was infringed by the parties, satisfaction was given at the making of a second covenant. 5. By calling Christ the Mediator of the new testament our thoughts are turned away entirely from the view which the Scriptures give us of his death as a sacrifice for sin; whereas, if he is called the Mediator of the new covenant, which is the true translation of diaqhkhv kainhv mesithv, that appellation directly suggests to us that the new covenant was procured and ratified by his death as a sacrifice for sin. Accordingly Jesus, on account of his being made a priest by the oath of God, is said to be the Priest or Mediator of a better covenant than that of which the Levitical priests were the mediators. I acknowledge that in classical Greek diaqhkh, commonly signifies a testament. Yet, since the Seventy have uniformly translated the Hebrew word berith, which properly signifies a covenant, by the word diaqhkh, in writing Greek the Jews naturally used diaqhkh for sonqhkh as our translators have acknowledged by their version of Hebrews 10:16. To conclude: Seeing in the verses under consideration diaqhkh may be translated a covenant; and seeing, when so translated, these verses make a better sense, and agree better with the scope of the apostle’s reasoning than if it were translated a testament; we can be at no loss to know which translation of diaqhkh in these verses ought to be preferred. Nevertheless, the absurdity of a phraseology to which readers have been long accustomed, without attending distinctly to its meaning, does not soon appear.

“He is the Mediator. Here it is remarkable that Jesus is not called diaqemenov, the Testator, but mesithv, the Mediator, of the new covenant; first, because he procured the new covenant for mankind, in which the pardon of sin is promised; for, as the apostle tells us, his death, as a sacrifice for sin, is the consideration on account of which the pardon of the transgressions of the first covenant is granted. Secondly, because the new covenant having been ratified as well as procured by the death of Christ, he is fitly called the Mediator of that covenant in the same sense that God’s oath is called, Hebrews 6:17, the mediator, or confirmor, of his promise. Thirdly, Jesus, who died to procure the new covenant, being appointed by God the high priest thereof, to dispense his blessings, he is on that account also called, Hebrews 8:6, the mediator of that better covenant.

“Verse 16. For where a covenant [is made by sacrifice,] there is a necessity that the death of the appointed sacrifice be produced. This elliptical expression must be completed, if, as is probable, the apostle had now in his eye the covenant which God made with Noah and Abraham. His covenant is recorded, Genesis 8:20, where we are told, that on coming out of the ark Noah offered a burnt-offering of every clean beast and fowl. And the Lord smelled a sweet savour. And the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground, neither will I again smite any more every living thing as I have done. This promise or declaration God called his covenant with men, and with every living creature. Genesis 9:9, 10. In like manner God made a covenant with Abraham by sacrifice, Genesis 15:9, 18, and with the Israelites at Sinai, Exodus 24:8. See also Psalm 50:5. By making his covenants with men in this manner, God taught them that his intercourses with them were all founded on an expiation afterwards to be made for their sins by the sacrifice of the seed of the woman, the bruising of whose heel, or death, was foretold at the fall. On the authority of these examples, the practice of making covenants by sacrifice prevailed among the Jews; Jeremiah 34:18; Zecariah 9:11; and even among the heathens; for they had the knowledge of these examples by tradition. Stabant et cæsa jungebant fœdera porca; Virgil, Æneid, viii. 611. Hence the phrases, fœdus ferire and percutere, to strike or kill the covenant.

“There is a necessity that the death tou diaqemenou, of the appointed. Here we may supply either the word qumatov, sacrifice, or zwou, animal, which might be either a calf, a goat, a bull, or any other animal which the parties making the covenant chose. diaqemenou is the participle of the second aorist of the middle voice of the verb diatiqhmi, constituo, I appoint. Wherefore its primary and literal signification is, of the appointed. Our translators have given the word this sense, Luke 22:29; kagw diatiqemai umin, kaqwv dietiqeto moi o pathr mou, basileian. And I appoint to you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed to me a kingdom.

“Be brought in; qanaton anagkh feresqai tou diaqemenou, Elsner, vol. ii., p. 381, has shown that the word feresqai is sometimes used in a forensic sense for what is produced, or proved, or made apparent in a court of judicature. Wherefore the apostle’s meaning is, that it is necessary the death of the appointed sacrifice be brought in, or produced, at the making of the covenant. In the margin of our Bibles this clause is rightly translated, be brought in. See Acts 25:7, where ferontev is used in the forensic sense. “Verse 17. A covenant is firm over dead sacrifices; epi nekoiv. nekroiv being an adjective, it must have a substantive agreeing with it, either expressed or understood. The substantive understood in this place, I think, is qumasi, sacrifices; for which reason I have supplied it in the translation. Perhaps the word zwoiv, animals, may be equally proper; especially as, in the following clause, diaqemenov is in the gender of the animals appointed for the sacrifice. Our translators have supplied the word anqrwpoiv, men, and have translated epi nekroiv, after men are dead, contrary to the propriety of the phrase.

“It never hath force whilst the appointed liveth; oJte zh o diaqemenov. Supply moscov, or tragov, or taurov. whilst the calf, or goat, or bull, appointed for the sacrifice of ratification, liveth. The apostle having, in Hebrews 9:15, showed that Christ’s death was necessary as o mesithv, the Mediator, that is, the procurer, and ratifier of the new covenant, he in the 16th and 17th verses observes that, since God’s covenants with men were all ratified by sacrifice to show that his intercourses with men are founded on the sacrifice of his Son, it was necessary that the new covenant itself should be ratified by his Son’s actually dying as a sacrifice.

“The faultiness of the common translation of the 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 20th verses of this chapter having been already shown in the notes, nothing needs be added here, except to call the reader’s attention to the propriety and strength of the apostle’s reasoning, as it appears in the translation of these verses which I have given, compared with his reasoning as represented in the common version.”

2. It is supposed that in Hebrews 9:28, the apostle, in speaking about Christ’s bearing the sins of many, alludes to the ceremony of the scape goat. This mysterious sacrifice was to be presented to God, Leviticus 16:7, and the sins of the people were to be confessed over the head of it, Leviticus 16:21, and after this the goat was dismissed into a land uninhabited, laden, as the institution implied, with the sins of the people; and this the word anenegkein, to bear or carry away, seems to imply. So truly as the goat did metaphorically bear away the sins of the many, so truly did Christ literally bear the punishment due to our sins; and in reference to every believer, has so borne them away that they shall never more rise in judgment against him.

3. In Christ’s coming, or appearing the second time, it is very probable, as Dr. Doddridge and others have conjectured, that there is an allusion to the return of the high priest from the inner tabernacle; for, after appearing there in the presence of God, and making atonement for the people in the plain dress of an ordinary priest, Leviticus 16:23, 24, he came out arrayed in his magnificent robes, to bless the people, who waited for him in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. “But there will be this difference,” says Dr. Macknight, “between the return of Christ to bless his people, and the return of the high priest to bless the congregation. The latter, after coming out of the most holy place, made a new atonement in his pontifical robes for himself and for the people, Leviticus 16:24, which showed that the former atonement was not real but typical. Whereas Jesus, after having made atonement, [and presented himself in heaven, before God,] will not return to the earth for the purpose of making himself a sacrifice the second time; but having procured an eternal redemption for us, by the sacrifice of himself once offered, he will return for the purpose of declaring to them who wait for him that they are accepted, and of bestowing on them the great blessing of eternal life. This reward he, being surrounded with the glory of the Father, Matthew 16:27, will give them in the presence of an assembled universe, both as their King and their Priest. This is the great salvation which Christ came to preach, and which was confirmed to the world by them who heard him: Hebrews 2:3.” Reader, lay this sincerely to heart!

4. The form in which the high priest and the ordinary priests were to bless the people, after burning the incense in the tabernacle, is prescribed, Numbers 6:23-26. Literally translated from the Hebrew it is as follows, and consists of three parts or benedictions:—

1. May Jehovah bless thee, and preserve thee!

2. May Jehovah cause his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee!

3. May Jehovah lift up his faces upon thee, and may he put prosperity unto thee! (See my notes on the place.)

We may therefore say that Christ, our High Priest, came to bless each of us, by turning us away from our iniquity. And let no one ever expect to see him at his second coming with joy, unless he have, in this life, been turned away from his iniquity, and obtained remission of all his sins, and that holiness without which none can see God. Reader, the time of his reappearing is, to thee, at hand! Prepare to meet thy God! On the word conscience, which occurs so often in this chapter, and in other parts of this epistle, see the observations at the end of “Hebrews 13:25”.

HEBREWS

Verses 27, 28. And as it is appointed, &c. — Inasmuch as this is the constitution of God, that sinful men shall die once, and but once; (see the margin;) and after this the judgment — Of the great day, between which and death nothing shall interpose to make any alteration in the state or condition of any one, for at death every man’s final state is determined; but we do not find a word in the Scriptures of any particular judgment taking place immediately after death. So Christ, &c. — In correspondence to that state of things, and for a remedy against it; and the relief (O wonderful effect of infinite wisdom!) is eminently proportionate to the evil, the remedy to the disease. Christ was once offered to bear the sins, Matt 26:28; 1 Peter 2:24; 2 Corinthians 5:21; the guilt and punishment due to them; of many — Even of as many as are born into the world; or the expression, anenegkein amartiav, may be rendered, to carry away sins; in allusion, perhaps, to the scapegoat, which bare all the iniquities of the congregation into a land not inhabited. The meaning, however, if the word be so rendered, will be the same in effect, namely, that Christ was once offered to make atonement for the sins of many. And unto them that look for him — Which all true believers do; see Romans 8:23; 2 Corinthians 5:2; 2 Timothy 4:8; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 3:12. Shall he appear the second time — Ofqhsetai, he shall be seen, by every eye, Revelation 1:7; there shall be a public sight of him in the heavens, when he comes to raise the dead and judge mankind; without sin — Not bearing men’s sins as formerly, or without any thing that wears the marks of humiliation and abasement, or resembles the form in which he came to make an atonement for sin; unto salvation — To bestow complete happiness of soul and body upon us. Thus Archbishop Tillotson; “What is the meaning of this opposition, that at his first coming he bare our sins, but at his second coming he shall appear without sin unto salvation? These words can have no other imaginable sense but this, that at his first coming he sustained the person of a sinner, and suffered instead of us, but his second coming shall be on another account, and he shall appear, not as a Sacrifice, but as a Judge.” Thus the Jewish high-priest, after entering into the holy of holies in the plain dress of an ordinary priest, in linen garments, making atonement for the people, came out thence arrayed in his magnificent robes to bless the people, who waited for him in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation. To this transaction, as Limborch and many others have supposed, there evidently seems to be an allusion here. And as the trumpet of jubilee, each fiftieth year, sounded at that time to proclaim the commencement of that happy period, there is not, says Doddridge, perhaps, an image that can enter into the mind of man more suitable to express the grand idea which the apostle intended to convey, than this would be to a Jew, who well knew the grand solemnity to which it referred. “But there will be this difference between the return of Christ to bless his people, and the return of the high-priest to bless the congregation. The latter, after coming out of the most holy place, made a new atonement in his pontifical robes for himself and for the people, Leviticus 16:24; which showed that the former atonement was not real, but only typical. Whereas Jesus, after having made atonement, with his own blood, will not return to the earth for the purpose of making himself a sacrifice a second time; but having procured an eternal redemption for his people by the sacrifice of himself once offered, he will return for the purpose of publicly absolving them, and bestowing on them the great blessing of eternal life, which absolution and reward he, being surrounded with the glory of his Father, Matthew 16:27, will give them in the presence of the assembled universe, both as their king and their priest. And this is the great salvation which Christ himself began to preach, and which was confirmed to the world by them who heard him, Hebrews 2:3.” — Macknight.

28. Once—The first point of comparison—that Christ died once as men die once, his death being sacrificial. Second point—between judgment and appear. From different quarters the bodies of men and the person of Christ meet at one terminus. He descends from heaven, they ascend from earth; he to judge, they to be judged. Third point of comparison—between bear the sins and without, or irrespective of, sin. Christ died under the weight of human sins; he returns without connexion with sin. Unto salvation—It is judgment for all; it is salvation only to those that look for, or await him, with hopeful expectation. As writing to Christians, our author takes into view only the blessed side of the judgment. On the last two verses we may note:—

1. Of whatever other things men are sceptical, none doubt, however they may try to forget, that they must die. This is appointed by the great Author of nature, who has the right to take the life he gives. And if Edenic man was at first placed above this law, yet by sin he sunk into the level of nature under the appointed penalty of death. See note on Romans 5:12.

2. But as sure as death is appointed unto men, so sure, also, an after judgment. Suffering, discipline, may belong to this life, but the real retributive judgment comes after life has closed. God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained. Acts 17:31.

3. How long the interval after death until the judgment our apostle expresses no opinion. Conceptually it was a momentous event; and, like God himself, however distant it is yet nigh at hand. It should take place when Christ should appear a second time; and that is not to be until the close of this new dispensation or covenant, which is second to the first, as the eighth chapter fully states.

4. The intermediate disembodied state is one of hopeful expectation of that second coming. Saints, both in the body and out of the body, are agreed in this looking-for of that glorious appearing. Death is not the point on which the Christian heart most deeply rests; paradise is not the goal to which we most earnestly look, but the advent, the glorious resurrection, the judgment, and eternal life.